I believe in both (creationism and evolution), the two to *me* are not mutually exclusive (which tends to put me at odds with both atheists and religious folk) - but I wont go into my reasoning here. It's not the point. I'm not relgious, but I do believe in a Creator and value science in that quite a bit. Childlike, perhaps, but it works for me.

Creationism should have no place in the public school system, period, even if it is used in the sole context of discrediting it. (Just by virtue of fairness, there can be no equal rebuttal to his arguments if the subject he is discrediting is taboo – I just don’t like the disparity there). As one may say, it wasnt a "fair fight".

He doesn’t need to discredit Creationism to teach evolution or science, so why do it?

I do think, a teacher has a responsibility as an educator to find some other way around the "Creationism is superstitious nonsense" to prove his point – which should be easy with Creationism out of the way as a subject of discussion. The fact he couldn't find a more tactful approach to his argument than to belittle those who do not share his same beliefs shows that he is lacking in several skills one would find necessary in a person of his profession.

I still think it was a stupid ruling by the Judge. But don't feel too compelled to stand up for this guy. He is in a position of authority; his judgments and arguments leveled at students who have a *right* to believe the "non-sense" on their own time is a great example of how NOT to teach.

My two cents.

Amy:

I do agree with 90% of your stuff, but this I am taking a stand. Even my Biology textbooks doubt evolution and practically say it is impossible that life could not have started through evolution alone.

I do believe in adaptation, which is a form of micro evolution. However, no one can show me a modern example of any form of life changing from one form of creature into another, (no, sorry, catepillars and butterflys dont count) there are no intermediate species, none, never has been and never will be. Why? because all and I mean all forms of mutation go from order to chaos, from normal to abnormal not the other way around. As far as examples of lucy and other neanderthal examples, many of these finds have been proven false, a tooth here and a jawbone from a pig two miles down the road does not a man create. So, show me one species that is currently evolving into another and the problem is solved. No one has done it so far...

I have an answer to that...

Humans.

We used to all come with wisdom teeth.

Fewer and fewer of us do with each successive generation. Plus we're getting taller.

> Plus we're getting taller.

Nutrition- & hygiene-adjusted?

It's not teachers jobs to teach their own beliefs about politics or religion.

The left thinks it's a teachers job to promote their political and non-religious agendas. I'm glad the student filed the suit. This teacher needs to teach what he is supposed to teach and what he is paid for.

If he wants he can use his off duty hours to teach his own beliefs.

At school he works for the tax payer and needs to do his job.

"This teacher needs to teach what he is supposed to teach and what he is paid for.
At school he works for the tax payer and needs to do his job."

And in our Enlightenment-oriented modern era, where we base our democratic system of rights and freedoms on rational inquiry designed to discover facts, not superstitious nonsense, that job should be imparting to students the best set of summarized facts culled by our current use of the scientific method. The more important lesson for students is how these facts were culled, and that the facts are subject to revision as the scientific method continues to refine our imperfect, incomplete knowledge.

The best you can say about Creationism is it does not have enough facts to support its hypotheses. People who call Creationism an absurb pile of nonsense are not being unreasonable--the Creationism adherents simply cannot present facts to beat back the charge. So the teacher was not wrong to call Creationism a faith wrapped in a faux scientific form.

This teacher's real offense was being a rude jerk to a kid who is struggling with issues of faith in the face of scientific facts that seem to assault that faith. You do not denigrate a teenager's faith like that in from of a class. You acknowledge the conflict in a non-personal way, note that science must have some modesty since our knowledge is incomplete, and move on.

But that lawsuit was bullshit. Talk about mountains from molehills.

When I was teaching high school, I would often tell my students that "some people believe..." This allows students to CONSIDER other views. People should be allowed to work through their own thoughts without being battered with someone else's. And anyone who wants a career in public education better learn subtlty when it comes to thoughts that upset the sheeple.

I think where the teacher got in trouble was in the use of the term "superstitious nonsense", which is his opinion rather than provable fact. He should have stuck to fact and referred to creationism as "religious belief not objectively based on scientific findings",or something similar, and he should have been OK. At trial, his defense could then have been to invite the other side to present its objective science proving creationism, and would have won his case due to their failure to be able to do so.

Bottom line: teacher opinions should be left out of instruction, as they rarely add to the quality of the instruction. Deal with facts that can be proven positively or negatively.

"This teacher's real offense was being a rude jerk to a kid who is struggling with issues of faith in the face of scientific facts that seem to assault that faith. You do not denigrate a teenager's faith like that in from of a class. You acknowledge the conflict in a non-personal way, note that science must have some modesty since our knowledge is incomplete, and move on."

"But that lawsuit was bullshit. Talk about mountains from molehills."
_______________
"a conflict the judge said should remind teachers of their legal "boundaries" as public school employees."

"repeatedly promoting hostility toward Christians in class and advocating "irreligion over religion" in violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause."

The guy kept repeatedly violating the legal boundaries of his job. In other words he wouldn't stop.

He needed to be sued and this was not mountains out of molehills.

This was someone fragrantly and repeatedly doing something they were not supposed to do.

Even my Biology textbooks doubt evolution and practically say it is impossible that life could not have started through evolution alone.

Which books and what school? There is a great deal of crap put into textbooks for political reasons, from both sides.

As far as the the teacher as much as it goes against the grain I'd have to side with the student. There is a big difference between there is no evidence in god (fact) and "your a fucking moron for believing in one" (personal opinion). There is no evidence in god one way or the other. That's about the only thing the teacher can or should say otherwise it is an opinion and an openly hostile one at that.

Also we don't know the full context that provoked the teacher to say that. Did the student continually bring up creationism until the teacher said something rash.

I can't find Amy's blog entry form about the Stuart Mantel -- the teacher who dumped a kid for not standing for the Pledge. But it could be something along the same lines of

• Corbett: The fossil records show...


• Student: Creationism says....


• Corbett: We're teaching evolution not creationism....This species evolved...


• Student: Creationism says....


• Corbett: Creationism has no basis...


• Student: Creationism says....


• Corbett: We're studying evolution...earthquakes caused these fossils to end up here.


• Student: Creationism says....


• Corbett: We're studying evolution...Creationism is "religious, superstitious nonsense"

Especially considering the Farnan was an Advanced Placement European history student. In other words, he isn't on the lower end of the intelligence scale. Maybe lower end on thinking, but not intelligence.

How does a person become a 20 year old high school teacher? I thought you needed a college degree..

Eric, the article says "20-YEAR teacher, not "20-year-old" teacher...

o.O

Sorry- just woke up!

Dragonslayer666 - "... it is impossible that life could not have started through evolution alone." I think you have an extra "not" in there, but I get the point.

When you mix up evolution and the origin of life, it shows that you don't have much idea what you're talking about. Evolution is about how life develops into different forms, not about how it started in the first place.

"I do believe in adaptation, which is a form of micro evolution." The thing is, there are no barriers showing where "micro" becomes "macro." This cartoon puts it well:

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/02/17/side/

"... there are no intermediate species, none, never has been and never will be. Why? because all and I mean all forms of mutation go from order to chaos, from normal to abnormal not the other way around."

Most people were that certain 200 years ago. Since then we've loosened up a bit. Just because we are certain, doesn't necessarily make it so. The universe is damned weird.

"As far as examples of lucy and other neanderthal examples, many of these finds have been proven false, a tooth here and a jawbone from a pig two miles down the road does not a man create."

OK! You've caught us all out, fair and square. Biologists like Leakey and Attenborough have spent years hoodwinking the public, but they can't trick you! I think you deserve a Nobel prize, at least. I'll arrange it for you. Just send me your bank details and a cheque for $5000 to cover administrative costs...

Dragonslayer666 - now that I've had some fun at your expense, may I suggest you do yourself a favour and learn a bit about this topic? I recommend "The Blind Watchmaker" by Dawkins. You may be worried about reading something by him - he's an atheist, after all. Well, that's your choice. You can stick to reading whatever you read just now, because it is familiar and you agree with it. But if you step outside of your normal choice of books, several things may happen. You may be unable to understand the book. But whatever else he is, Dawkins is a good writer. You may learn more about evolution, without agreeing with it. You may even spot a genuine flaw that no-one else has noticed. You will at least be better able to present your opinions without looking like an ignoramus. You may even find yourself changing your mind. It's a risk that goes with having a mind.

"Even my Biology textbooks doubt evolution"

No you're pulling that outta your ass

"and practically say it is impossible that life could not have started through evolution alone."

Evolution does not have anything to do with the origin of life. Evolution has to do with what happened after life began.

"However, no one can show me a modern example of any form of life changing from one form of creature into another, (no, sorry, catepillars and butterflys dont count)"

Nobody can show me a modern example of your God doing any of the miracles he used to back in roman times.

"here are no intermediate species, none, never has been and never will be."

Why do expect to see life changing from one form to another during your lifetime? This is a process that takes you know a shit load of time

"Why? because all and I mean all forms of mutation go from order to chaos"

Wrong! Most mutations are harmeless. I’ve heard creationists use this argument all the time and it shows how little they know about science. See mutations happen all the time and you know most are absolutely harmless.

"from far as examples of lucy and other neanderthal examples many of these finds have been proven false"

So I show you a big ass piece of evidence and your conclusion is:

"many of these finds have been proven false, a tooth here and a jawbone from a pig two miles down the road does not a man create"

Cuz you know your basic forensic scientist can tell the difference between a pig jawbone and a human one but all those Darwinists are trying to fool us!

"So, show me one species that is currently evolving into another and the problem is solved."

Show me the process by which your God created life. Please explain to me exactly how he did it.

Anyways your basic argument comes down to if I cant see it, it cant happen!

Creationism is religious based. Either we don't allow it in a secular school OR we allow for the study of all secular views on the history and development of life on earth.

Teachers should not impose personal opinion in the classroom, though it may be hard. That's for upper level high school classes and college when you can dig into things and debate them. First you gotta learn about everything, all possibility, and to mull it over. You have to make your own choice before someone else tells you how to think. (I'll grant: this kid's view on creationism is probably his PARENTS' view, which he just regurgitates. Give him a few years.)

That said, if the student asked a teacher point-blank his or her opinion on creationism there is a more diplomatic way to express you disagree with such a view. The teach sounds like he lashed out a little bit.

This is amusing, especially if one considers that the Biblical story of Genesis fits quite nicely as an allegory of the history of the universe and earth, and the development of life. A simplified version of the incredible truth for simple people who lived in muck most of the time.

BTW, the Old Testament recounts that creation took seven days. But wait .... In the New Testment (2 Peter) it says that to God, "a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day."

Wrap your mind around that for awhile, and tell me how long "seven days" is to The Creator ... .

This is biology class. Studying biological science and how it works.

Creationism posits NOT ONE biological explanation. *POOF* we existed. That's it. Nothing more. That has nothing to do with biology. It has nothing to do with biological science or the underlying mechanism.

So why add creationism in the class? One could simply say that "evolution is not accepted by all peoples" and leave it at that. Evolution DOES explain bio mechanics and the science and understanding behind it. Thus, it SHOULD be taught. Although few people believe that evolution is wrong (just WRONG i tell ya), doesn't mean that Creationism need be taught or explained in schoool.

Creationism, being purely religious in nature, should not be taught in school on the basis that, borrowing from Hugo Black's interpretive philosophy, the government shall establish "NO RELIGION". Teaching creationism would thus, establish religion, regardless of what sect or religious belief it comes from.

That said, people who bitch about evolution and how creationism isn't taught are absolute dicks. At most they can hope to accomplish a Pyrric victory (much as they would if they somehow managed to criminalize abortions, or require school prayer).

Hitchens may have come up with a decent alternative though; if we teach creationism in school, churches and religious instituions must spend some time teach the works of Jefferson, Hume, Kierkegard, Paine, and so on. I'm not a big proponent of compromise (simply because compromise sacrifices a higher value for a lesser one), but it's something to consider.

ok, kids perhaps reading between the lines is of interest...

The class was "Advanced Placement European history" which the kid was a student of, and the history teacher taught. [as reported anyway "denigrating his former Advanced Placement European history student".] Prior to the Great War, most european wars were over, yup, religion. Do you think maybe teacher was talking about how those wars would never have happened if there was no religion? Conjecture on my part, but it's a guess. Most of European history is based on divine right of kings and my religion is more correct than yours. Those wars were bloody, and if you think creationsism is a flawed premise to start, unjust and genocidal.

Conjecture on my part, to be sure, but it doesn't seem that this question was a scientific thing, but rather an ethical/historical fallout of a scientific question.

I have had my beatdowns with history profs. before over how religions bring evil genocides, completely discounting the numbers that Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot pulled down, in their ostensible atheism. You can't peg that most on religion when it is the evil that men do. Sometimes in their own name, sometimes in their gods.

This ISN'T a question in the context of a science class. That's what makes it all the more confounding, and prolly led to this judgement. You talk about history in terms of contexts. It is only in this modern era that certain movements have become non-religious. For all of our history before that, everything had a religious flavor to it. The Chinese, Greeks, Roman, Egyptions. All states religiously based, and NOT on Christianity. Also all warrior states. So you explain the contaxt of the time, as seen from all this time later. All peoples have a cration myth. It is the context of their histoty. As time goes on, we get away from that based on science they didn't have. Science is now the context. But what historian would go back and say, "Man those Romans were stupid, they should have known that existance just happens."

Hopefully there are SOME adults out there that can show this kid some context and different points of view on what this crazy old world is about. All this teacher and the lawyers have done is polaraize the question and make it my side/your side.

"Nutrition- & hygiene-adjusted..."
Crid, may we assume that you can be counted as a Creationist then?

"Even my Biology textbooks doubt evolution and practically say it is impossible that life could not have started through evolution alone"

Huh? I think you're confusing "evolution" with the initial "start" of life. Evolution only explains how existing life develops once the first simple life forms are there. It does *not* however explain (nor even attempt to explain) how we got from "dirt" to "the very first simple life forms" e.g. single-celled creatures and their predecessors. This doesn't mean your textbooks "doubt" evolution, lol.

Huh?

My point is that evolution moves too slowly for us to perceive the changes in such grand patterns. I hadn't heard of the wisdom tooth thing, but I can imagine about 500 other environmental factors that would explain it. Same with height.

Frankly, I think teachers should "call" stupid when they see it; I say bring back the value judgment on stupid behavior and stupid ways of thinking, let's stop "tolerating" dumb, non-valuable, incorrect, inferior, lazy modes of thought --- because they really are just worse. If it makes you feel "bad", maybe you *should* feel bad, so that next time you think "maybe I should do a better job of using my brain more rationally and precisely, because that is a worthy endeavour". I constantly see lazy kids who are just being lazy defend their laziness with feel-good relativist or PC rationalizations. Nonsense. Thinking *correctly* (i.e. with reason and logic) is valuable, and it's difficult, and it's worth trying your hardest to do, and it is objectively correct to flame somebody for refusing to want to do it - that is what a good teacher should do. Let's stop defending inanity, it is rubbish and does nothing but hurt humanity.

> never will be. Why? because all

Now, I am appalled by the willfully stupid and cowardly intentions of your comment... But that kind of stupidity doesn't bug me much from day-to-day.

Because when thinking about the kind of culture that nourishes an argument like yours, I imagine a setting of enormous sexual constriction: Freaky uptight men who live in fear that some boundary might get crossed... Heterosexually, homosexually, whatever... And erotically oblivious women who piss away their decades of fertility with fool men and ninny-chatter girlfriends, leaving them socially inept in the middle years, when they ought to be harvesting the warmest rewards from their ability to connect. Your life is all about terrified respect for imaginary but impenetrable barriers.

In such a culture, any child with a clear enough head to prefer the challenging truth about things is going to bolt after high school, anyway. Those who stay to marinate in your frogwash through adult life were never going to be people we could count on to respect the scientific method. Such adults aren't worth rescuing except as a courtesy... And given the bull-headedness with which your arguments are pursued, you'll not be surprised when the rescue isn't forthcoming.

So there's that. But what's worse....

I hate, hate, hate it when people ask themselves questions and then answer them. ("Why? Because....")

It's a rude kind of psychotic behavior, like you're conducting your own full-service talk show. You're the Johnny Carson of your own mind, and you're Johnny's guest too, and you're Ed McMahon and Doc the trumpeter as well. When you communicate with the rest of us, you think we're patiently watching you through a big color TV, or as a studio audience.

Besides—

> show me one species that
> is currently evolving

Pickle, they're all evolving.

> the two to *me* are not
> mutually exclusive

Don't be grandiose, as if you maintain your own private truths. You're right or you're wrong.

You're wrong.

Turns out this is a pretty fun thread!

> note that science must have some
> modesty since our knowledge is
> incomplete

Science is not a cuddle.

> People should be allowed to work
> through their own thoughts without
> being battered with someone else's

I strongly disagree. The best intellectual moments you'll ever have will be vicious batterings. But if a teacher's in the business of servicing "sheeple", it doesn't much matter.

> teacher opinions should be left
> out of instruction, as they
> rarely add to the quality of
> the instruction.

It amuses me when people think humanity can be left out of all these profoundly interpersonal ventures... Law, education, medicine....

> No you're pulling that outta
> your ass

I loves me some Ppen.

uncle crid, who is Johnny Carson? :falls over laughing: good stuff, dude...

Evolution "debate" aside, I'm afraid I don't understand how he can be said to have "violated the First Amendment"? I thought the First Amendment was specifically supposed to protect speech (even if unpleasant), and the teacher doesn't seem to have censored anyone. I don't see how any "right" has been "violated". The mere expression of an opinion does not mean someone is "doing something to you". I mean, check this site, the guy has a website where he cries 'Christian persecution': http://www.chadfarnan.com/

I'm looking at an OCRegister article on this and it says: "The establishment clause prohibits the government from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion" and has been interpreted by U.S. courts to also prohibit government employees from displaying religious hostility." ... I don't see the leap.

Also:

""We are thrilled with the judge's ruling and feel it sets great precedent," said Farnan's attorney, Jennifer Monk, who works for the Christian legal group Advocates for Faith &Freedom in Murrieta. "Hopefully, teachers in the future, including Dr. Corbett, will think about what they're saying and attempt to ensure they're not violating the establishment clause as Dr. Corbett has done.""

It's interesting to look at who is behind this and who is funding this. It appears to be a pro-active campaign funded by a Christian group of lawyers called "Faith & Freedom" to, as far as I can tell, basically abuse the First Amendment to crush any hope of teachers teaching reason all across America ... it has the hallmarks of a deliberate attempt to create a "public example" to instill fear of even trying to teach the science in all teachers.

I mean, from an LA Times article: "During the next two months, Chad Farnan said, he taped Corbett's lectures with the recorder in plain sight on his backpack." ... what kid just does that? This was clearly a systematic, carefully and slowly planned, funded, deliberate attempt to publicly attack a teacher in federal court and make an example of him.

This seems like a major victory for superstition.

Hie-yooooooooooo

there are no intermediate species, none, never has been and never will be. Why? because all and I mean all forms of mutation go from order to chaos, from normal to abnormal not the other way around.

Evolution is not about being less or more chaotic, its about an organism adapting to the environment in the best form to survive.

A quick example is the "H1N1 -- Swine Flu pandemic". Granted it is a virus, but the concept remains the same. The few hundred cases that died of it were caused by a strain that was so-fast moving and virulent that it killed the hosts. The version that got carried out of Mexico was a less deadly strain and only kills with underlying factors. In 2-5 generations it will fade into the background like the rest of the viruses that are out there.

"taped Corbett's lectures with the recorder in plain sight on his backpack." ... what kid just does that?" DavidJ

Um, ever been in an AP class? I recorded everything, because we coevered so much material and that was 25 years ago...

What you are saying may be true, nonetheless...

Sorry Amy you've missed the boat on this one. This is not about Creationism vs Evolution. No, this is more about the rights of students in a classroom and the actions of the teacher.
There is a long list of Supreme Court rulings that have established the precedents that I'm sure the judge used as references. One of the more famous cases is Tinker v Des Moines (1969). In this case, students wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War were suspended. The Supreme Court ruled that the suspensions were in violation of the students' First Amendment rights. To paraphrase what one of the justices wrote: "students' rights do not end at the school door."
In Cantwell v Connecticut (1940), the Supreme Court ruled "freedom of conscience and of religous belief is absolute." There are at least 60 cases that deal with matters of students' rights. Again, I'm sure that the judge used them as the basis for his ruling.
As a former principal I will read between the lines and guess that this teacher displayed (and continues probably) a pattern of behavior that is intolerant and disrepectful towards students that have beliefs that are not in line with his.
I will further guess that the lawsuit was not filed as a result of one statement by the teacher. I am fairly confident that this is an established pattern of behavior and finally one student had his fill.
I am on the side of the student. No teacher is allowed to abuse their authority in front of their classroom to denigrate or ridicule the beliefs of any student. Nor are teachers to use their authority as teachers to espouse their personal religious, secular, or political beliefs.
By the way, this lawsuit cost the taxpayer thousands of dollars. I'm fairly certain that the school district picked up the student's cost as well. All because an employee of yours (the taxpayer) acted in a manner unbecoming a professional teacher.
Are you sure you don't want to rethink your position, Amy?

Gsarcs, you're a smug little fucker.

Look up "nylonase", a mutation that comes from a precursor enzyme which modified to allow bacteria to digest nylon. Never existed before and is quite beneficial to the organism.

The transitional forms or micro v macro arguments have been refuted so many times by biologists that it becomes tiresome to constantly see them come up. You know, to defeat "evolution" all you have to do is find a modern elephant fossilized in the same strata as a therapsid, start digging boys.

I suggest that one should actually read the published opinion before forming judgments. http://www.ocregister.com/newsimages/2009/05/01/Student%20lawsuit%20-%20final%20ruling.pdf

Take a look and you'll see that its actually a very thoughtful decision. After examining the full history of the teacher's in-class statements, the Court held that only the "superstitious nonsense" phrase did not pass constitutional muster. More specifically, the Court takes great care in noting that the teacher "could have criticized Peloza for teaching religious views in class without disparaging those views." In fact, the case history reveals a significant history of thoughtful debate between teacher and student.

Also would like to note that neither the District or the Union was found liable for the teacher's statements. So this is not a case of some vexatious litigant reaping a windfall for a perceived slight. Damages remain undetermined, but I think its highly unlikely that the teacher will face a stiff penalty based on one fleeting comment.

Nor was this a great victory for creationists. This was a very narrow decision that state agents should not actively denigrate the religion of others. The vast majority of the decision endorses the teacher's freedom (and in fact, duty) to study humanity's history of religion and policy. You'll note that the story itself does not report any efforts to discipline the teacher.

How dare you sully this with the facts, Snake. We were having a moment in here!

@snakeman99
What are you doing injecting calm reason and thoughtful discourse into this cacophonous mess!? :-)

Seriously, there ARE some really strict Sunday School teachers running around with a flanel graph talking about a 6,000 year-old Earth. But most modern, science-minded Christians (and there are actually a butt-ton of us) have refined ourselves for the better.

You see... if one is to believe the Bible, you also have to believe that God made the universe. SO, if God made the universe and supernaturally "gave" us the Bible then there should be NO disagreement between scripture and scientific discovery except by man's misinterpretation or misunderstanding.

Yes, the universe is 14 billion years old. Yes, the chances of a planet like Earth that can sustain life are one in near-inifinity. No, there is no fossil evidence for gradualism (of which Darwin himself lamented). No, there is no biological mechanism for punctuated equilibrium.

If your reaction to prude wives of up-tight preachers burning your school's science textbooks is alarm... good, it's mine too. That was 1950. It's 2009... and the "creationists" are all about the Big Bang (really, we are) while the atheists are pulling their balls off trying to figure out a way to avoid the universe having a beginning.

Advice goddess, I'm sorry you're pissed off because church-goers say you're slutty. Don't take it out on science you nothing about. Evolve a little, will ya?

Snakeman is exactly right. If you read the opinion itself you will find:

1) This decision had NOTHING to do with the validity of creationism and everything to do with the establishment clause. It was about whether the the teacher's comments created a hostile condemnation of religion.
2) The decision pointed out that in an AP class, it is expected to have disagreements and strong opinions voiced. Many statements are reviewed and found to be rude but making a point that was primarily not condemning religion thus considered acceptable speech. Only one statement was considered not acceptable.
3) The law was carefully applied using the standard threshold for cases involving the establishment clause. Those standards are decribed in detail and shown how they apply or not in each instance of speech reviewed.

Here is a key quote from the decision:

````````````

Intellectual development
requires discussion and critique of a wide range of views. The Court’s ruling today
reflects the constitutionally-permissible need for expansive discussion even if a
given topic may be offensive to a particular religion or if a particular religion takes
one side of a historical debate.
The decision also reflects that there are boundaries. In this case, the Court
has found that a single statement transgresses Farnan’s First Amendment rights.
To entertain an exception for conduct that might be characterized as isolated or de
minimis undermines the basic right in issue: to be free of a government that
directly expresses disapproval of religion. The Supreme Court’s comments with
regard to governmental promotion of religion apply with equal force where the
government disapproves of religion:
[I]t is no defense to urge that the religious practices here may be
relatively minor encroachments on the First Amendment. The breach
of neutrality that is today a trickling stream may all too soon become a
raging torrent and, in the words of Madison, ‘it is proper to take alarm
at the first experiment on our liberties.’

`````````
This decision is not about speaking truth and being punished for it but about a finding that one statement could not be defended, the teacher crossed a line, and the decision states (quite properly) that there are boundaries that must be respected by a teacher during these types of discussions.

I challenge you Amy to read the entire decision and defend your statement "An high school history teacher speaks the truth and gets in trouble for "denigrating" a student, to borrow the word used by OC Register reporter Scott Martindale."

Per the ruling it was not truth spoken. It was a put down of religion. If aomeone's sexual preference or race was put down in a similar way in a public school, would you consider that as "truth"???

Cheers,

LoneStarJeffe

LSJ, let's not pretend a court decision is some product of superhuman rightousness.

"Don't be grandiose, as if you maintain your own private truths. You're right or you're wrong.

You're wrong."

Right or Wrong (Black or White, Heaven or Hell)...thanks for re-traumatizing the Catholic dogma of my childhood. I owe you one, Crid. (Why do I feel like I just got a drive by insulting by the cool-smart kid out on the schoolyard?)...yarp yarp yarp. lol

I have faith in something bigger than me, because I choose to –and not because I have any proof of its existence. I choose to, since science can’t explain everything. That's it. No evidence. No proof. Just my faith.

I believe there is something greater at work. Not terribly sophisticated, admittedly, but there you have it! I believe in a Being behind the scenes while accepting other scientific theories in part, (or in whole). So what if you think I am wrong? And how does this make my “private truth” grandiose?

AND, this wasn’t the point of my post (which, I did mention).

Awww shit, Crid! You know what, you are correct on the gradiose deal. (Shit). I just re-read what I originally wrote...and there it was. It was not my intention to have it come off that way, so I didnt see where you were going... (shit)

I'm calling it a night! lol

"I have faith in something bigger than me, because I choose to –and not because I have any proof of its existence. I choose to, since science can’t explain everything. That's it. No evidence. No proof. Just my faith."

How many times have you all witnessed my tubes tying themselves? Well this time they just did it, no seriously, for real.

@DavidJ

I thought the First Amendment was specifically supposed to protect speech (even if unpleasant), and the teacher doesn't seem to have censored anyone.

David, let me suggest that you actually read the First Amendment before spouting off about what you "think" it contains.

There are a number of clauses in the First Amendment. The right to free speech is one, as is the right to a free press and the right to assemble and the right to petition the government for redress of wrongs. There are two clauses though, that deal with religion.

One clause is the "free exercise" clause, which states that the government cannot restrict someone from practicing their religion. The other one is the "establishment" clause, which states that the government cannot pick one religion to advocate over another. Those two together form the "wall of separation between church and state" as Thomas Jefferson described it.

In the case here, the judge has said (wrongly, I think) that there has been a violation of the Establishment Clause. That by disparaging the student's religious belief, the teacher, acting on behalf of the state, took a position on a particular religion.

Since I'm not a representative of the government at any level, I can say this without fear of a First Amendment suit: Creationism is a crock of superstitious nonsense. Intelligent Design is Creationism wearing a lab coat that is far too big for it.

Well done Artk, you managed to miss the point entirely by drenching everything in stupd little nitpicky semantics and technicalities while ignoring the glaringly obvious - basically what these lawyers are doing, funnily enough - I presume you're doing it deliberately.

"How many times have you all witnessed my tubes tying themselves? Well this time they just did it, no seriously, for real."

Wow, you are a real class act. Mommy issues?

@DavidJ

Huh? You said that the First Amendment was about free speech and I explained that it was about a whole lot more than just free speech. How is that nitpicking? The case wasn't a free speech case, it was an establishment clause cause. That's the whole effing point, not a "nit."

If your point was that the teacher should have been able to say what he wanted because he had the right to free speech, then you really don't understand the First Amendment free speech clause, either.

The First Amendment doesn't protect you in a lot of cases. For instance, try this experiment: Go online and accuse your employer of a heinous crime. When they fire you, try to defend yourself using the First Amendment. It won't work. Why? Because the First Amendment only limits what the government can do. The operating phrase is "Congress shall make no law..."

If you speak on behalf of your employer (the government), then your speech has the same restrictions that the government has. Had he gone out on a street corner and said this, speaking on his on behalf, there would have been no case. He has the right of free speech, just not (according to this judge) when acting as a representative of the government.

And, by the way, you missed my point -- the one where I said that I thought that the case was decided wrongly. Not because of the teacher's right to free speech, but because I don't think that he violated the Establishment clause. I actually agree with you, that the student and his backers are abusing the First Amendment, but the Free Speech clause isn't the way to counter this. This kind of reasoning is the heart and soul of First Amendment law -- if you're going to make statements about it, you should take the time to understand it.

Few things chap me more than someone invoking the Free Speech clause where it doesn't apply. It makes it that much harder for legitimate free speech issues to be heard and understood.

(And no, I'm not a lawyer, counter to your insinuation. Just someone with a very strong interest in the Constitution and the First Amendment in particular.)

Instead of resorting to calling me names, denigrating my intelligence, why don't we stay on the topic and cease the personal attacks....

However, I do have a few remarks:

Crid, what the hell is this?
> never will be. Why? because all

Now, I am appalled by the willfully stupid and cowardly intentions of your comment... But that kind of stupidity doesn't bug me much from day-to-day.

Crid: Instead of calling me stupid and cowardly, please address the question....Where are any intermediate creatures or a species currently evolving into another species? Just one will do.
If evolution is true, we would currently be seeing right now, today, at this very moment intermediate and changing species that began to evolve millions of years ago....

Because when thinking about the kind of culture that nourishes an argument like yours, I imagine a setting of enormous sexual constriction: Freaky uptight men who live in fear that some boundary might get crossed... Heterosexually, homosexually, whatever... And erotically oblivious women who piss away their decades of fertility with fool men and ninny-chatter girlfriends, leaving them socially inept in the middle years, when they ought to be harvesting the warmest rewards from their ability to connect. Your life is all about terrified respect for imaginary but impenetrable barriers.

I will just say that you have a very bizzarre imagination...

In such a culture, any child with a clear enough head to prefer the challenging truth about things is going to bolt after high school, anyway. Those who stay to marinate in your frogwash through adult life were never going to be people we could count on to respect the scientific method. Such adults aren't worth rescuing except as a courtesy... And given the bull-headedness with which your arguments are pursued, you'll not be surprised when the rescue isn't forthcoming.

So there's that. But what's worse....

I hate, hate, hate it when people ask themselves questions and then answer them. ("Why? Because....")

OK, it was easier to ask why than to say for example....I really don't see a difference between the two but I will play along with your game....

It's a rude kind of psychotic behavior, like you're conducting your own full-service talk show. You're the Johnny Carson of your own mind, and you're Johnny's guest too, and you're Ed McMahon and Doc the trumpeter as well. When you communicate with the rest of us, you think we're patiently watching you through a big color TV, or as a studio audience.

No Crid, I dont believe that I am on my own talk show and I am certainly not psychotic...but you may want to see some one regarding your bizzarre imagination...

The point is evolution is a theory and is just as faith based as creationism...it hasn't been proven as fact just like creationism has not been proven as fact.

In addition, teachers should not be pushing their personal views in the class room. Denigrating a student as an agent of the state whether it is an atheist teacher talking about evolution or a christian teacher telling his students his views against homosexuality, both examples are in violation of the 1st amendment as the teacher is a government employee.

What would have happened if the teacher made fun of a flat-earth believer? Would the judge have ruled against the teacher for making fun of anyone who still believed the Earth to be flat?

I do not make fun of people who believe in God as long as they do not try to impose their beliefs on me. Trying to bring Creationism into a classroom or asking a teacher about Creationism warrants the truth. And the truth is that Creationism is exactly what the teacher said it was.

However, if no one brought the subject up and the teacher offered the opinion on his own then the teacher deserves some criticism. For example, I do not go up to people who believe in God and make fun of them; however, if someone asked me if I believe in God, I would tell them the truth, that God is nonsense.

But this is not a matter for the courts; it should have been dismissed.

"The point is evolution is a theory and is just as faith based as creationism"

If by faith based you mean supported by evidence-then yes. Oh wait doesnt faith mean believing in something without scientific backing? Do you have the same feelings about the "germ theory"? When you wash your hands have you actually seen the bactering reacting to the soap? I mean with your very own eyes. No of course not because there are many truths that can never be seen.

Let me ask you a teeny tiny question. Birds are considered the only living descendants of dinosaurs. You knew that right? Please tell me a creationists that was able to predict that before we were able to do that genetic testing on the soft tissue of the T-Rex. Explain to me why T-Rex is more closely related to birds (as predicted by scientists) than alligators. Why does God create one species more related to another or not closely related at all?

Why for example are New World Vutures not related to Old World Vultures? Why are we more related to chimps than gorillas?

"Denigrating a student as an agent of the state whether it is an atheist teacher talking about evolution "

How dare a teacher talk about a theory that is supported by the majority of the international community and by a majority of scientists. Fuck that! Dont you see it hurts my feelings!

And isnt that what it's all about? Evolution hurt peoples (including this students) feelings. God created everything because I feel that's what should have happened. Hey I feel that I should look like Angelina Jolie but wouldnt it be ridiculous if everytime somebody pointed out that I didnt look like her I make a big deal out of it?

"a christian teacher telling his students his views against homosexuality"

An atheist teacher pointing out that evolution is a scientific fact that has been accepted by some of our greatest minds is the same as a christian teacher pointing out that homosexuality is against a book that was written by a group of people as David Cross once put it "who were dumber than we are today."

Oh and as far as evolution not being observed:

"On June 9, 2008, the New Scientist website published an article describing preliminary results of a long-running experiment started by Lenski.[1] Lenski and his team had taken a single strain of the bacterium E. coli, separated its descendants into twelve populations,[2] and proceeded to observe their mutations over the course of twenty years (a process discussed on Lenski's website). At one point, one of the populations demonstrated a dramatic change, and evolved to become capable of utilizing citrate, a carbon source in their flasks that E. coli cannot normally use. Thus, evolution had been visibly observed, with an exquisite amount of evidence establishing the timeline along the way. The paper also highlighted the role of historical contingency in evolution and the role of potentiating mutations"

You can further read about the Lenski affair and the ensuing letters here:

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Lenski_affair

> Right or Wrong (Black or White,
> Heaven or Hell)...thanks for re-
> traumatizing the Catholic dogma

No dogma here! The great thing about being wrong is that you can stop, just by being right. But once you're in a Catholic Hell....

> I choose to, since science
> can’t explain everything

That sentiment would be more respectable if we knew that those who offer it had given science a chance to explain things... That they'd given it a few years of adult reading, until their own capacity for learning simply failed them... Or if they'd studied it until they themselves came up against a mystery for which their professors (or fellow students) could offer neither explanation nor fruitful avenues for investigation. When someone like the Feebster says "science can't explain everything," he's trusting those who know a whole lot more about it than he does when they say there's more to learn. (As well he should. But it would be more helpful [and convincing] if he did some more heavy lifting first: Science can answer a lot more questions than Feebie ever got around to asking.)

> accepting other scientific
> theories in part, (or
> in whole)

A truly faithful man wouldn't quibble: Do you or do you not believe this world is the product of a supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent being who takes a personal interest in the conduct of your life?

---

> why don't we stay on the topic
> and cease the personal
> attacks.

Because you make them too easy and too pleasant. Let me explain how.

> please address the question....

We've already covered this point, you must have dozed off. I know 7th graders (Hispanics — ESL types, get the picture?) who could answer it:

Every living organism is tested for fitness in every moment without exception. This includes the birds and the bees and the plants and the flowers and faithful Rover, the pet sleeping by the doggie door. It includes the microbes on your eyelid, in your gut and (indisputably) up your ass. In some distant time, many of them will evolve into forms which would go unrecognized by the present-day neighbors which they could hope to mate with or devour.

The important thing to understand about this is that it's an elementary point for someone who's done the reading. You haven't done the reading.

I think there are two possible reasons for not doing the reading. First would be that you're too stupid. But you seem like a typical American cur, competent at capitalization, spelling, computer operations etc.

The second possible reason is that you're too scared. Now, why would a person be too scared to accept evolution?

Because it's complicated. It's too complicated for anyone to understand in all the details. And you have to get used to the idea that some people are going to understand it better than you do, which is humbling.

But you desperately want to believe this planet was made for you, and that no force creating you would ever want you to suffer the humiliation of not understanding how things work. You want the Creator to be an endlessly patient teacher, where all you have to do at the end of a tough lesson is say "Didn't quite grasp that one, teach!", and then everyone moves on to the next lesson anyway.

But that's not the planet we're on. There are people who know more biology (and physics and chemistry and everything else) than you'll ever know. Sometimes they'll know more because they have more natural talent for learning than you have. (As if Jesus loved them more, and left them better equipped.) Sometimes they'll know more because they studied harder, and they think you're a foolish pussy for closing your book so soon. Humiliating either way, ain't it? Maybe you're right to be scared!

What's particularly revolting about this, as the health crisis seems to peter out this week, is that you were ready to bet you life on the talent of epidemiologists and other medical professionals... Scientists who've integrated the meaning of evolution into their thinking with a ferocity and creativity and daring that mocks your lonely, rote and fearful "faith". Like the 9/11 attackers, you want to live in 21st century comfort as you consign others to medieval thinking. Cowardice.

Again: A man who could ask the questions you've asked about evolution isn't worth answering. You're not interested in growth. Instead, you'll simply move the goalposts again, until you get an answer that's all about you at your present level of stupidity.

But science isn't about making people comfortable. I think your cowardice ought not be rewarded with sincere and patient-mommy answers. The Dawkins- and Hitchens-type people who engage you seem a little less serious each time they bother.

Sight unseen, I'm glad Ppen doesn't look like Angelina Jolie.

Good discussion around creationism v. evolution. However, that was not what the court case was about.

For the record, I fully support teaching the theory of evolution ONLY in classrooms. The scientific method requires proof. Since certain aspects of the theory of evolution, namely how did life begin, have not been proven, it remains a theory and is never taught as fact. What is taught is that there is no better competing theory out there which can one day be potentially proven using scientific methodology. That was what science is all about. You create theories to describe something and then test your theories using scientific methodology so others can duplicate your results. By definition, since creationism has a faith based element, it can never be proven by scientific methodology. Therefore, it is not a valid alternate to the theory of evolution in the classroom. For anyone who states that the theory of evolution also requires "faith", I remind them that it does not. The lack of final reproducible evidence as to how life began is why it is taught as a theory and not fact, however, it describe a process for that to happen without requiring faith that God exists. There are no other competing theories that even come close to the theory of evolution in terms of scientific reliability that also explain how life began without requiring faith in God. That is why it is taught and should continue to be taught without creationism taught beside it.

If we allow creationism to be taught in the classroom alongside the theory of evolution, we allow introduction of faith in God as a valid step in any scientific explanation. There is an old cartoon showing a complicated equation on a board with an arrow pointing to where the student writes in "Then a miracle happens" and then another arrow to the final expected result. That might be good faith but it is not science and should not be taught in the classroom.

Having said that, I will also state I am a Christian. I believe in God and that God is the source and creator of life. I am confident the theory of evolution will always remain a theory and that creation of life will always remain impossible to scientifically reproduce as an experiment. I believe people will never be able to take lifeless elements and give them life. But faith has no basis in classrooms. We should stick to teaching science in schools and that means teaching the theory of evolution. Keep science in the classroom and let others learn their faith outside the classroom. I did.

The real danger of all this is the acceptance by some that it is OK to bash Christianity. The theory of evolution was taught to me when I grew up without the anti Christian commentary that seems to be increasingly considered as acceptable. I think the court decision around defining boundaries is a correct one. People should be able to learn science without comments about race, religion, or sexual preference. For anyone who thinks it is ok to make Christians a special category that somehow is ok to bash when the same put downs of sexual preference or race would never be allowed – well shame on you. Christians do not deserve better or worse treatment in the classroom. They should be treated the same as anyone else. Just teach the science and leave the Christian bashing outside the classroom door. Again, if you read the opinion, many times there was strong discussion in classroom that included comments some would consider rude but since the primary point was not to bash Christians, the court found it was acceptable speech. However, there was also one clear time when it was not acceptable. The court found in that instance, the primary point being made was just to bash Christians.

Finally, I think going to court over this is insane. We are all way too thin skinned when it comes to sensitivity about “rights”. This should never have gone to court even though today’s PC climate makes it allowable. My faith does not require court validation. Thank you everyone for your great input and feedback on this topic.

Well said, LoneStarJeffe, but you are confused about "proof", "theory" and "fact". It's not the case that a "theory" goes through a "proof" to become a "fact." I'm sure you can clear this up by yourself. Here's a starting point:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/proof.html

LoneStarJeffe, kudos also. You do, as Norman pointed out, need to brush up on hypothesis to theory. Also, the origins of life really isn't part of the theory of evolution, though some are trying to make it so. It is a mistake in my opinion.

The "then a miracle happens" is also known as "the god of the gaps" and has no place in science. It is however a cornerstone of ID.

Public school teaches children to conform, not to think independently or exercise rational judgement.

Challenging that poor child's simplistic beliefs could throw him off-track to becoming a mindless tax-paying drone.

Not good.

I'm curious as to why this even came up in AP European History. I took the class not that long ago when I was in high school and we never discussed evolution. A myriad of plagues, battles, kings, and religious persecution but nothing on evolution. I don't believe in Creationism and do not think it should be taught in public schools (I like my science classes to teach science), but maybe the point was that the teacher wasn't a biology teacher and wasn't teaching a biology class? Either way people need to learn to be outraged and offended by other people and just deal with it without getting the courts involved.

Hi Crid -

I actually really enjoy your posts, and appreciate the time you took to write that out...honestly.

Only one correction though...I’m a female. ;)

I will concede to the fact science is not something I have studied closely (law studies major).

It is nothing more than a personal experience I had during a moment of much pain and grief in my life about a year ago. And at the next moment, I felt grace (although, words really fail trying to explain these types of things). If it sounds silly to some, I can certainly understand. But without that moment, I may not be here today, and I don't need to explain why I see that as a miracle. It just was.

Since then, I've just been loving life and living it at its best. What can I say? To me, this is God, and best of all, I didn’t need some religion telling me what to do, or how to act (something I never did like very much).

As far as your comment about "whole lot more to learn"...any books you would be so kind as to recommend, I would more than welcome (i've been on a bit of a History stint lately). I am voracious for information.

Take care.

"I'm curious as to why this even came up in AP European History. I took the class not that long ago when I was in high school and we never discussed evolution."

Good point to mention. The Court noted this as well and gave the teacher a wide berth to compare the contemporary debate over creationism to other historical science/religion conflicts.

The point is evolution is a theory and is just as faith based as creationism...it hasn't been proven as fact just like creationism has not been proven as fact.

This is a category mistake. There is a specific aspect about the naturalistic theory of evolution that is completely absent from creationism / intelligent design: deductive consequences.

Scientific theories are hypothetico-deductive constructs. For a hypothesis to qualify as a scientific theory, (using the word properly here), it must have deductive consequences.

Naturalistic evolution has many deductive consequences; here are a few examples (last time I counted, there are around 30):

-- The earth must be very old

-- Inheritance must be particular, not blended

-- All reproductively isolated populations must diverge over time

If any of those are found to be false, then the theory of evolution fails completely. (Obviously, the converse is not true; it would be possible for all of evolution's deductive consequences to hold, and the theory still be wrong.)

In contrast, C / ID has absolutely no deductive consequences. Therefore, it says nothing whatsoever about natural history. It is vacuous, utterly bereft of meaning, completely incapable of making any statement whatsoever about the very subject it purports to explain.

That makes C / ID nonsense, and any adherence to it purely superstitious. Absent even one deductive consequence, it simply does not belong in the same category as a scientific theory.

It insults people's intelligence (and plays into the hands of those who wish to ban freedom of speech with respect to religion) to say their beliefs, no matter how ill founded, are beyond criticism simply because the label "religious" has been attached to them.

Dragonslayer666:

Where are any intermediate creatures or a species currently evolving into another species?

Dung beetles. The males have rather prodigious horns they use to fight other males over mating opportunities As it happens (and evolutionary thinking predicted), there are physical tradeoffs involved with the size of the horns. In the dung beetle, that tradeoff happens in the size of the male genitalia.

Now, as it happens in dung beetles, the female and male genitalia are very specifically keyed. As evolutionary pressures cause variations in the horn length of males, their genitalia correspondingly vary, then, in turn, female genitalia does the same.

With sufficient variation, the new population becomes very much a species: they are completely incapable of reproducing with other populations of dung beetles.

There are species of dung beetles that did not exist 50 years ago.

As for species currently evolving into another genus (I think that is what you really mean): otters.

"here are no intermediate species, none, never has been and never will be." -dumbass

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

My point is that evolution moves too slowly for us to perceive the changes in such grand patterns. I hadn't heard of the wisdom tooth thing, but I can imagine about 500 other environmental factors that would explain it. Same with height.

Posted by: Crid

Give us ten then please, thats only 2% of 500

Why? because all and I mean all forms of mutation go from order to chaos, from normal to abnormal not the other way around - dumbass aka dragonslayer 666

Ever hear of pygmie mammoths?

They were regular mammoths that were trapped on the channel islands when the larger island was submerged and cut off from the mainland by the sea rising nearly 400 feet.

Over time the evoled to be an average 6 feet tall and 2,000 lbs as opposed to 14 feet tall and 20,000 lbs, the decrease in size and mass alowed them to survive on the lowered food supply and enabled them to move up the slopes far eaiser

> Good discussion around creationism
> v. evolution. However, that was
> not what the court case was about.

Amy lets us talk about whatever we want. She's not a control freak. It's a good reason to hang out here. You can stretch a metaphor 'til it bleeds all over her berber carpet... She don't care. Anecdotes, whatever.

> I fully support teaching the
> theory of evolution ONLY
> in classrooms

I "fully support teaching" anything real anywhere anyone wants to learn. What are you, some kinda commie fascist mind-controller? (Gotta admit though, if you put the idea to me after a couple of drinks, and promised in return that your God-talk would be entirely confined to the interior of your churches, I'd have to think about it for sec. This would, of course, include blog comments.)

> it remains a theory and is
> never taught as fact.

Like Dragonslayer, you take infantile pleasure in stressing the world "theory" for it's most simplistic meaning. Evolution isn't just a "theory", it's what went down, and it's demonstrable to a degree of certainty that you count on every fucking day of your darling Christian life. There are vegetables in your belly; the vendors and agencies who certified those vegetables as clean and safe did so by thoughtful application of evolutionary theory. They sure didn't make any promises based on prayer. If you were some short-lived, tooth-aching Amish guy, your thoughts about "theory" would be more interesting. But every day, you're trusting evolution for life-and-death practical results which mock your "faith" as a half-practiced hobby.

> The real danger of all this
> is the acceptance by some
> that it is OK to bash
> Christianity.

Well, it is OK to bash Christianity. I grew up amongst the best Christians the planet has to offer, the heartland Americans. They're not pussies. Tell a proper Boston Catholic that God is dead and he'll just smile at you. The Indiana Baptists won't even hear the jibe.

> Christians do not deserve better
> or worse treatment in the
> classroom. They should be
> treated the same as anyone else.

They usually are. Everyone who's been to college remembers that time in a huge lecture hall when some hungover sophomore asked something stupid about peptide bonds, and the professor cut his balls off without thinking about it too much. (Those guys don't really have their minds on their instruction anyway, they're too worried about publishing and getting tenure. Having to actually interact with undergrads is offensive to them.)

--

> I’m a female.

Aha! Phoebe / Feebie. Gotcha. Listen, if you've had a profound personal experience of some sort, it's you're own beeswax and the rest of us would be fools to deny its power. But so far as I can tell, that makes you much like us. Rather than swallowing all the dogma of the church, you carved off a little sliver of this and a tiny branch of that and constructed your world view. Again, that's fine by me... That's what atheist people do all the time. When we do it, nobody cares. When believers do it, churches get angry: Soon enough you'll casually mumble something about how the virgin birth didn't reeley happen, and all Hell will break loose. People who claim to know more about that stuff than you do will tell you your promise of redemption is compromised.

The great thing about law people is that you're not afraid of reading... As a student, all you have to do is find the time. If you understand the basics of evolution at either a high school or nonmajor-collegiate level (like me), there's no better writer for you than Stephen Jay Gould. His pre-word processor writing style bugs some people, but I'm often charmed. Amy Alkon and her sociobiology buddies disliked him for being impatient with their silly stunts... But those people are savages, and their opinion of Gould should be ignored.

He wrote monthly (bimonthly?) essays for Natural History magazine for twenty+ years, and these were published as compilations in turn. They're wonderful books. Send me your USPS address and I'll forward some to you gratis. (During a grieving hour of my own life, their clarity was a tremendous blessing.) Reviewers warn that his last, huge book ("The Structure of Evolutionary Theory") can be safely avoided.

--

> Scientific theories are hypothetico-
> deductive constructs.

I bet you're fun at parties.

> Dung beetles. The males
> have rather...

Nice effort, but don't kid yourself into thinking Dragon could ever take the point. He's like a little kid who sits with grownups at dinner and talks about poopy and Caspar cartoons. He's lonely, and he wants to think he's part of the process. But he has zero interest in the topic at the table.

> Give us ten

OK.

1. Diet
2. Clothing
3. Shelter
4. Hygiene
5. Medicine
6. Fuckit...

Those are broad categories. Once you get down to the particulars in each of those five, that's probably more than 500.

I can't imagine how you'd identify contemporary- and primitively-grown men to compare for height. But if we're getting taller as a function of some grand evolutionary shift, I'm certain you wouldn't be able to see the signal through the noise of our improved civilization. We're taller because we behave better.

--

PS-

> -dumbass

Chillout, dude.

I'll bite on diet, but the rest I'll need to see some mental gymnastics first.

But as far as diet goes, mankind has changed our enviorment to make food more palatable and easier to eat, wouldnt that be eveolution in action? The species adapting to new circumstances?

Any studies done wisdom teeth prevalace across various nations with correlations to the prevalance and durration of processing foods for easier consumption?

"I can't imagine how you'd identify contemporary- and primitively-grown men to compare for height."

I (at 5'10") have to stoop to get through doors in Scottish castles. There's paintings, but they often exaggerated people's size and other properties. There's lots of skeletons, coffins, furniture ...

it remains a theory and is never taught as fact.

According to the United States National Academy of Sciences:

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

I (at 5'10") have to stoop to get through doors in Scottish castles.

They must have been built before the Norman Conquest.

> I'll need to see some mental
> gymnastics first.

..And I'll need to see you twist your own dick off, Looj.

Actually I was thinking about height more than teeth, but the same concern applies... I doubt there's enough statistical science available to prove that any reduced number of wisdom teeth in recent (living-memory) generations is a golden, gleaming example of "Evolution!" more than a momentary blip that comes from our civilization.

Not that civilization doesn't count, just that it doesn't count for much at this point. The creatures which will thoughtfully judge our fitness (beyond the worms which will eat us) won't come to life for a very long time yet.

> wouldnt that be eveolution in
> action? The species adapting
> to new circumstances?

Let me put it this way: The fact that you've recently upgraded from a Motorla Razr to an Apple Iphone probably doesn't appreciably gladden the hearts of our best Darwinian thinkers. Last year I traded in a Mitsubishi Eclipse for a Scion TC... The UCLA biology lab didn't even send a card.

> Any studies done wisdom teeth
> prevalace across various

Well for shit's sake, you could look it up.

This "studies" thing is completely out control. People in blog comments will say "Well, I haven't seen the studies on that..." as if they spent their lives reading the most advanced science journals and doctoral theses instead of playing video games and watching Dancing with the Stars. It's horseshit. It's a pathetic, transparent pretense, and there's no limit to the kind of contexts in which we see it applied. There are literally people reading this blog who won't agree that children need loving parents because they 'haven't seen the studies'.

Puh-leeeez.

> According to the United States
> National Academy of Sciences:

Props to Conan for making the point clearly and dispassionately, but—

> They must have been built
> before the...

That shit's just stanky.

In medicine, agenesis refers to the failure of an organ to develop during embryonic growth and development.

Agenesis of wisdom teeth ranges from 0.2% in Bantu speakers to nearly 100% in Mexican Indians.[14] The difference is related to the PAX9 gene (and perhaps other genes).[

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1458632

This "studies" thing is completely out control. People in blog comments will say "Well, I haven't seen the studies on that..." as if they spent their lives reading the most advanced science journals and doctoral theses instead of playing video games and watching Dancing with the Stars. It's horseshit. - crid

lol

Oddly enough I spent spme time the otherday organizing my links and created a "Blog Research" folder

> In medicine, agenesis refers to

Guess I don't see your point.

> created a "Blog Research" folder

Not exactly a masters in blood chemistry, but it's a start...

I was providing the definition of agenesis so people wouldnt have to look it up to translate the findings of the study on the prevalence of wisdom teeth

CRID YOU ARE A PRETENTIOUS ASSHOLE. TAKE SOME EXLAX.

---

> why don't we stay on the topic
> and cease the personal
> attacks.

Because you make them too easy and too pleasant. Let me explain how.

LETS GET TO THE FACTS TIGHTY WHITEY, IT IS BECAUSE YOU CANT FUCKING ANSWER THE QUESTION. CUT THE PRETENTIOUS SNOBBISH BULLSHIT THAT YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO CHARACTER ASSASINATION

> please address the question....

We've already covered this point, you must have dozed off. I know 7th graders (Hispanics — ESL types, get the picture?) who could answer it:

Every living organism is tested for fitness in every moment without exception. This includes the birds and the bees and the plants and the flowers and faithful Rover, the pet sleeping by the doggie door. It includes the microbes on your eyelid, in your gut and (indisputably) up your ass. In some distant time, many of them will evolve into forms which would go unrecognized by the present-day neighbors which they could hope to mate with or devour.

YOU EVADE THE ANSWER BY WRITING THIS BULLSHIT? WOW...OK, AND THESE SAME ORGANISMS NO MATTER HOW FUCKING LONG YOU WAIT WILL BE THE SAME, A DOG WILL BE A DOG, A FLOWER WILL STILL BE A FLOWER, AND YOUR ASSHOLE THE SAME PUCKERED ASS...

The important thing to understand about this is that it's an elementary point for someone who's done the reading. You haven't done the reading.

OK, FUCKWAD, I HAVE PROBABLY READ MORE BOOKS THAN YOU HAVE IN A MONTH THAN YOU HAVE READ IN YOUR ENTIRE PRETENTIOUS LIFE, AND YES, ASSWIPE, I HAVE DONE THE READING.

I think there are two possible reasons for not doing the reading. First would be that you're too stupid. But you seem like a typical American cur, competent at capitalization, spelling, computer operations etc.

The second possible reason is that you're too scared. Now, why would a person be too scared to accept evolution?

IF I WAS SO SCARED OF ACCEPTING EVOLUTION DUMB ASS, WHY WOULD I BE READING A BLOG BY AN ATHEIST CHICK WHO PROMOTES EVOLUTION? CRID, CRUD WHATEVER THE FUCK YOUR NAME IS...WHO IS THE DUMB ASS?

Because it's complicated. It's too complicated for anyone to understand in all the details. And you have to get used to the idea that some people are going to understand it better than you do, which is humbling.

I THINK I UNDERSTAND IT ALOT MORE THAN YOU DO..

But you desperately want to believe this planet was made for you, and that no force creating you would ever want you to suffer the humiliation of not understanding how things work. You want the Creator to be an endlessly patient teacher, where all you have to do at the end of a tough lesson is say "Didn't quite grasp that one, teach!", and then everyone moves on to the next lesson anyway.

GOD GAVE ME A BRAIN CRUD, I UNDERSTAND HOW THINGS WORK THANK YOU VERY MUCH

But that's not the planet we're on. There are people who know more biology (and physics and chemistry and everything else) than you'll ever know. Sometimes they'll know more because they have more natural talent for learning than you have. (As if Jesus loved them more, and left them better equipped.) Sometimes they'll know more because they studied harder, and they think you're a foolish pussy for closing your book so soon. Humiliating either way, ain't it? Maybe you're right to be scared!

THATS FUNNY, CRUD, I HAVE MY BIOLOGY TEXTBOOK RIGHT HERE...I THINK YOU ARE THE PUSSY FOR NOT ANSWERING A LEGIT QUESTION.

What's particularly revolting about this, as the health crisis seems to peter out this week, is that you were ready to bet you life on the talent of epidemiologists and other medical professionals... Scientists who've integrated the meaning of evolution into their thinking with a ferocity and creativity and daring that mocks your lonely, rote and fearful "faith". Like the 9/11 attackers, you want to live in 21st century comfort as you consign others to medieval thinking. Cowardice.

I AM NOT AFRAID OF ANYTHING CRUD..

Again: A man who could ask the questions you've asked about evolution isn't worth answering. You're not interested in growth. Instead, you'll simply move the goalposts again, until you get an answer that's all about you at your present level of stupidity.

THE GOAL POSTS ARE PLANTED IN CONCRETE CRUD...ONE MODERN EXAMPLE OF A SPECIES THAT IS CURRENTLY EVOLVING INTO A NEW SPECIES NOT A MODIFCATION OF ONE THROUGH ADAPTATION OR MUTATION.

But science isn't about making people comfortable. I think your cowardice ought not be rewarded with sincere and patient-mommy answers. The Dawkins- and Hitchens-type people who engage you seem a little less serious each time they bother.

THE PROBLEM IS YOU ARE NOT INTELLIGENT ENOUGH YOURSELF TO GIVE AN INTELLIGENT ANSWER, SO, YOU RESORT TO PUT DOWNS...

I loves the blogs

Jesus Christ you're dense dragonsucker69

Modification by adaptation and mutation IS evolution

FYI given the 14+ billion year age of the universe, the nearly 5 billion year age of the earth the nearly 300,000 yr age of mankind, and the almost 12,000 yrs of civilzation, what time frame would you consider "modern"?

Is the last 30yrs good enough?

Birds named for Darwin are evolving: Since 1980s, finches' beaks getting smaller
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1630798.html

Crid, on this particular subject you are a kick. But please remind me to not to get on your bad side.

Well, why do we have to pretend that obstructionists (and other God-botherers) mean well? They don't. They're condescending, snooty, and... Y'know, obstructionist.

No foolin', if people really decided to start watching their boundaries, we could have this planet cleaned up by Christmastime.

(Or have a nuclear winter by Labor Day. One or the other.)

First Dragonslayer666 says that

"because all and I mean all forms of mutation go from order to chaos"

And the he retracts to:

"THE GOAL POSTS ARE PLANTED IN CONCRETE CRUD...ONE MODERN EXAMPLE OF A SPECIES THAT IS CURRENTLY EVOLVING INTO A NEW SPECIES NOT A MODIFCATION OF ONE THROUGH ADAPTATION OR MUTATION."

So now species can be modified through adaptaiton and MUTATION

Typical Creationist backtrack. Which is it? All mutations are bad or animals can actually mutate enviromental adaptations?

Dragonslayer666,

You've been given examples of both new species (Dung Beetles) and beneficial mutations (Nylonase) as well as incipient genus change (otters). The body of data makes evolution a dead issue, its a fact, the arguments now are about mechanisms, the how. You'd have to refute current knowledge in genetics to physics to destroy the theory of evolution. It won't happen. Face it. It doesn't destroy your religion, it should give you more awe and wonder at the majesty of what your God set in motion. Well, at least that is what my Christian spouse says. Hey, if your God is omniscient and omnipotent, then He knew where his Natural Laws would lead. Forgive him for only giving you the short, and contradictory, course in Genesis. I'd blame the contradictions on the guys who had to write it down myself, but that's your call.

If you're reading Creationist literature, you're being lied to over and over again. Every deceitful practice, from quote-mining to knowingly misrepresenting words and laws (the word "theory" and the 2nd Law of thermodynamics come to mind), to representing old refuted ideas as new (Behe's irreducible complexity aka "then a miracle happens")is common in their literature. You're movement uses deceit to prove itself. I'm sorry, but they don't represent the integrity of Christianity, more the perfidy of the Whore of Babylon.

I am an atheist but I firmly believe that Western Liberalism arose from Christianity, not despite it. Your religion separates the political from the religious (your Kingdom is not here), your religion strives to be rational through every Christian thinker and apologist I've read or read of(perhaps the rational syllogism suffers only from a bad premise?), and your religion adapts to and incorporates scientific discovery. It also did not spread by sword for at least 300 years, unlike another that started with the sword and has yet to stop. It is more mystical than the other two Abrahamic religions, but that is simply the beauty of lyrical myth (OK, I'm a strange atheist, I read King James, even if it is a poor translation, with the same enjoyment as reading Shakespeare and tend to be romantic, capitalized or not). The one battle you should give up is evolution, and understand that scientists must explain it naturalistically, they can't ever say "then a miracle happens", it isn't science. Atheist scientists will be adamant that your God didn't do it, but so what? You can't take it and have to reject what science has uncovered? I have to ask you: do any of the Laws of Motion, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, or special relativity bother you? None of them incorporate God, they make no mention of God, do you reject them too? If you take an anti-naturalistic stance on evolution, then you must without hesitation reject all of science if only to maintain your integrity.

God speed on your journey.
(To my fellow atheists, if you wonder why I used that phrase, I'll leave you with this: I asked my Jewish High School Sweetheart, so very long ago, why she sent out Christmas presents to the people she knew, friends and not so friendly, her reply was "because they are Christians". If you can't see the sublime humanity in that, I pity you. Shalom.)

repeatedly promoting hostility toward Christians in class and advocating "irreligion over religion"

Does that sound like speaking facts to children?

Does that sound minimally like respectful behavior?

You missed it by a mile on this one.

You may not like Creationism but that does not give a teacher the legal right to shove his opinions repeatedly into the faces of his students.

Does it?

> Scientific theories are hypothetico-
> deductive constructs.

I bet you're fun at parties.

Ummm, well, in all honesty that would probably be a bad bet.

Anyway, I apologize for my pedantry, but if you want to cut straight to the chase as to why Creationism / ID are, in fact, superstitious nonsense, then simply ask any proponent to list one, just one, deductive consequence.

They will not, because, starting with DS666, they cannot.

Paul:

Creationism belongs to the same class of superstitious nonsense as Lysenkoism. Why is it out of bounds to call the latter a spade, but not the former?

Darn. Got my latters and formers bassackwards.

You may not like Creationism but that does not give a teacher the legal right to shove his opinions repeatedly into the faces of his students.

Posted by: Paul A'Barge

Oh happy day, finally some one with proof that creationalism is real. Please, share it with us.

> if you want to cut straight to
> the chase as to why Creationism
> / ID are, in fact, superstitious
> nonsense

That's a good thing to do, but I'm starting to think the fight with these people can –and should– start earlier in the conversation.

One problem with the success of the United States is that we don't recognize the things we do that make us successful. Our success patterns are so ingrained that they're invisible to us, so we don't think to ask why less-successful nations aren't doing them too.

One of those patterns is to keep the religious craziness under control. We did that by having all the different sects at each other's throats along the way, so that none could become too dominant. (The Catholics are a big-ass outfit, but Baptists aren't scared of them.) To be a Christian in America is to know how to contain your enthusiasm.

We've fallen out of the habit of challenging these people just as they've fallen out of the habit of challenging each other. They begin their conversations with lots of preposterous ground rules and suppositions, and sensible people are supposed to not roll their eyes. This is probably from the days when, during their encounters, competitive religious people were keeping their powder dry for later in the argument... Maybe they knew the other guy was cool with the virgin birth and transubstantiation, but in two minutes there were going to be fisticuffs over keeping the sabbeth holy or something, and they wanted to conserve their energy.

Well, the rest of us shouldn't bother with that. We should speak up the first moment something stupid gets said, and take it too the matte and pin them.

It would be like a friend in Los Angeles who talks about an imaginary pass through the Santa Monica Mountains. No matter how silly and obvious that he was deluded –as he'd be no faster at getting out of the Valley than anyone else– we shouldn't let people talk that way. Visitors to our fair city might get confused.

"Anyways your basic argument comes down to if I cant see it, it cant happen!"

As does yours.

The difference is that the person you are doing your best to denigrate does nothing to insult you, while gaining some comfort from here beliefs, and all you seem to get from yours is an obviously unjustified feeling of superiority.

Sid, believers insult us all the time. (At least three did on this page, and probably more if you wanted to go back and count.) Very, very few people revere a God who promises no opportunity to look down on others.

If the faithful could keep this urge to condescend under control, we'd find plenty of other targets for mockery... Country music fans, clumsy investors, ludicrous politicians... There are many targets.

More for Sid

>> "Anyways your basic argument comes
>> down to if I cant see it, it cant
>> happen!"

> As does yours.

There are some pissy people here on both sides... I've actually spent most of the last few years trying to convince Amy to be sensibly gentle in her view of religious Americans.

But atheists don't say that "it we can't see it, it can't happen." We only say that if we can't see evidence of it, there's no reason to believe it happens. And then we ask for evidence. And then we wait.

And wait....

. . . and wait

This is just like the opening voiceover in Casablanca.

I'm Rick, OK? Loojy's Ugarte.

The establishment clause prohibits the government from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion" and has been interpreted by U.S. courts to also prohibit government employees from displaying religious hostility.

I didn't pass any bar exams to become The Advice Goddess, but that seems to go way too far.

Hey, many "pro-religion" people feel that the establishment clause has been taken way too far, and they make a very good case. What's different in this case is that it is being used to restrict the rights of a "secular" cause. Goose, gander.

I agree with some others here that the context is the crux of this particular debate. European History naturally deals with the evolution of science, but it is not necessary to do any more than convey what actually happened in order to put creationism in its place. No commentary is needed from the teacher. Again, the weight of history is enough to display creationism's folly.

"I didn't pass any bar exams to become The Advice Goddess, but that seems to go way too far."

Well, it's gone too far the other way too.

If you read the First Amendment, there's freedom of speech, but it was compromised with the separation of church and state doctrine that isn't in the Constitution (anywhere!!!). Freedom of Speech should be applied equality with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

The whole text of 1st Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

You know this text was compromised literally by the courts.

Teaching of creationism should not be considered government endorsement of religion. Everything should be taught in equal weight with full freedom of expression.

"Hey, many "pro-religion" people feel that the establishment clause has been taken way too far, and they make a very good case. What's different in this case is that it is being used to restrict the rights of a "secular" cause. Goose, gander"

EXACTLY!!!

This is amusing, especially if one considers that the Biblical story of Genesis fits quite nicely as an allegory of the history of the universe and earth, and the development of life. A simplified version of the incredible truth for simple people who lived in muck most of the time.

BTW, the Old Testament recounts that creation took seven days. But wait .... In the New Testment (2 Peter) it says that to God, "a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day."

It is because of this that I am a creative evolutionist. It is entirely possible to have faith based beliefs and understand and believe in science as well. Why is it that most 'religions' want people to completely forgo science and logic? It makes them easier to control. Sorry...back to the topic at hand.

Assuming that there is a God (and I know many of you don't, but bear with me for a few moments), why wouldn't God's creation of the universe and design of creatures to change and evolve with their surroundings fall within the laws of Physics? If you believe that God created the universe, then God created the physical laws that keep it running! So, evolution (which can be confirmed. If you don't believe me, compare the skin color of an Irishman and a native African) is most certainly real, because we can prove it. The fact that it is real doesn't negate a God, because belief in God is based upon faith. A good God would utilize logic and science and the laws of the physical world (That (S)He created) to create a self-sustaining system.

-Julie