Evolutionists at it again ...

[Jorge]

Evolutionists are at it again.
Why do they keep at it?
Simple - they CANNOT and WILL NOT allow competition!

The only competition, of course, trashes their Holy Mother - Evolutionism.
This is what they relentlessly combat at every turn - 24/7/365.

Here's the latest ...................... highlights and the link below:

Evolutionists kill academic freedom bills in four state legislatures

" Public school science teachers want to teach without fear of discipline, demotion, or termination when the curriculum touches topics that are controversial outside the classroom. Lawmakers in four states tried this year to introduce academic freedom bills to protect teachers for questioning theories like Darwinism, shielding them from retaliation. But opponents killed the bills before they could get a fair hearing, raising concerns among educators who might not fully embrace the theory of evolution.

“There are a number of incidents around the country where teachers have been threatened or fired,” .... “They simply cited some of the problems with Darwinism.” "

Recall that, as per the Ignoramuses in Denial here at TWeb, "EXPELLED never happens".

"Still, opponents continue their attempts to overturn existing academic freedom laws and block the passage of new legislation, claiming science shouldn’t be questioned. But science is never settled. Discoveries beget questions that research and more discoveries answer in a continuing quest for knowledge ... that cycle can only survive where scientists are free to pursue it and teachers are free to debate and teach it."


You, a student, want to debate and present a critical analysis of Darwinism? How DARE you! We will "teach" what to think and what to believe - period! Otherwise, you will be EXPELLED!!!

Article here: https://www.worldmag.com/mobile/article.php?id=33329

As I've often stated, this is an endless soap opera ... the above is just the latest episode.

Jorge

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Also, Mathematics teachers should be allowed to teach that , as per 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2; and that , as per Ezra 1:7-11!

Religious Freedom! Teach the controversy!

[oxmixmudd]

Also, Mathematics teachers should be allowed to teach that , as per 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2; and that , as per Ezra 1:7-11!

Religious Freedom! Teach the controversy!

It is not that simple. While it is not acceptable to allow teachers to teach 'any old thing they want', and academic freedom can't be allowed to the same degree in the lower level classrooms it is (or should be) allowed at higher institutions, a backlash of censorship of any idea that is 'different' from what is commonly accepted is NOT a solution. While I disagree with Jorge on a lot of things, I do not think it makes a lot of sense to try to control thought. If a teacher happens to disagree with an idea, they should be free to state it - within reason. I had a biology teacher that was YE in a public high school. She opened the class stating she did not agree with everything she was about to teach, but nevertheless she would teach it. And she did. While teaching the world is <10,000 years old is nuts and can't be tolerated in a science class, thinking that life shows evidence of design is NOT anywhere near as clear cut, and such and opinion is help by a LARGE number of people. Mentioning that in the classroom would make for GREAT and mind expanding discussion, as long as the conclusion were left OPEN - and as long as falsehoods where not used to sway opinion, and as long as it was not a direct attempt at evangelism in the classroom.

If a person disagrees with EVERYTHING they are asked to teach, honesty it would seem to me requires they resign, not try to undermine the curricula. But some of what I see is backlash against ANY difference of opinion - and that is nuts. In this Jorge is right, but not to the degree he takes it. I enjoyed my teachers in High School that challenged me to think outside the box. That put out ideas not considered mainstream or 'correct'. We need people that can and will think outside the box. That does not come by legislating every correct idea and banning every incorrect idea from mention.

And I fear that is where this is headed.

And the plain truth is, IF you go this direction, you WILL stifle SCIENTIFIC discovery. There is very little difference between legislated RELIGIOUS opinion a la the RCC in Galileo's time, and legislated SCIENTIFIC opinion a la the 21st century. You don't discover where you are wrong my demanding strict adherence without question to what is believed to be right.


Jim

PS: and not for a minute do I think Jorge would be equally demanding of tolerance for 'different' ideas concerning morality, or history, or culture. He lives by a double standard, but that does not mean he can't be (at least partially) right every now and then

[Carrikature]

There's another solution, Jim: teach how we arrive at these conclusions. Setup the framework, and the conclusions will follow. Setup the framework, and one can investigate on one's own with a reasonable chance of getting to the same point we are.

Or, better yet (and not exclusive from the above), recognize that the place for discussing dissent isn't in high school. Discuss it in a college classroom where it can be addressed outside the need to impart a set amount of knowledge in a limited amount of time.

[rwatts]

Evolutionists are at it again.
Why do they keep at it?
Simple - they CANNOT and WILL NOT allow competition!

The only competition, of course, trashes their Holy Mother - Evolutionism.
This is what they relentlessly combat at every turn - 24/7/365.

Here's the latest ...................... highlights and the link below:

Evolutionists kill academic freedom bills in four state legislatures

" Public school science teachers want to teach without fear of discipline, demotion, or termination when the curriculum touches topics that are controversial outside the classroom. Lawmakers in four states tried this year to introduce academic freedom bills to protect teachers for questioning theories like Darwinism, shielding them from retaliation. But opponents killed the bills before they could get a fair hearing, raising concerns among educators who might not fully embrace the theory of evolution.

“There are a number of incidents around the country where teachers have been threatened or fired,” .... “They simply cited some of the problems with Darwinism.” "

Recall that, as per the Ignoramuses in Denial here at TWeb, "EXPELLED never happens".

"Still, opponents continue their attempts to overturn existing academic freedom laws and block the passage of new legislation, claiming science shouldn’t be questioned. But science is never settled. Discoveries beget questions that research and more discoveries answer in a continuing quest for knowledge ... that cycle can only survive where scientists are free to pursue it and teachers are free to debate and teach it."


You, a student, want to debate and present a critical analysis of Darwinism? How DARE you! We will "teach" what to think and what to believe - period! Otherwise, you will be EXPELLED!!!

Article here: https://www.worldmag.com/mobile/article.php?id=33329

As I've often stated, this is an endless soap opera ... the above is just the latest episode.

Jorge

I killed a kitten today Jorge.

[rwatts]

It is not that simple. While it is not acceptable to allow teachers to teach 'any old thing they want', and academic freedom can't be allowed to the same degree in the lower level classrooms it is (or should be) allowed at higher institutions, a backlash of censorship of any idea that is 'different' from what is commonly accepted is NOT a solution. While I disagree with Jorge on a lot of things, I do not think it makes a lot of sense to try to control thought. If a teacher happens to disagree with an idea, they should be free to state it - within reason. I had a biology teacher that was YE in a public high school. She opened the class stating she did not agree with everything she was about to teach, but nevertheless she would teach it. And she did. While teaching the world is <10,000 years old is nuts and can't be tolerated in a science class, thinking that life shows evidence of design is NOT anywhere near as clear cut, and such and opinion is help by a LARGE number of people. Mentioning that in the classroom would make for GREAT and mind expanding discussion, as long as the conclusion were left OPEN - and as long as falsehoods where not used to sway opinion, and as long as it was not a direct attempt at evangelism in the classroom.

If a person disagrees with EVERYTHING they are asked to teach, honesty it would seem to me requires they resign, not try to undermine the curricula. But some of what I see is backlash against ANY difference of opinion - and that is nuts. In this Jorge is right, but not to the degree he takes it. I enjoyed my teachers in High School that challenged me to think outside the box. That put out ideas not considered mainstream or 'correct'. We need people that can and will think outside the box. That does not come by legislating every correct idea and banning every incorrect idea from mention.

And I fear that is where this is headed.

And the plain truth is, IF you go this direction, you WILL stifle SCIENTIFIC discovery. There is very little difference between legislated RELIGIOUS opinion a la the RCC in Galileo's time, and legislated SCIENTIFIC opinion a la the 21st century. You don't discover where you are wrong my demanding strict adherence without question to what is believed to be right.


Jim

PS: and not for a minute do I think Jorge would be equally demanding of tolerance for 'different' ideas concerning morality, or history, or culture. He lives by a double standard, but that does not mean he can't be (at least partially) right every now and then

I kind of sympathise. Science an approach to knowledge that is used by fallible humans. Naturally and reasonably, it has its orthodoxy and dogmas. Yet these can easily be pressed to the point that really good ideas can be excluded, and unreasonably so.

Hence there is a real problem as to how far one goes. It's a judgement call and a hard one to make.

An awful lot of really good, sensible criticisms can be made of science, its practice and its various theories.

However, YECs don't do this. 99.99% of their criticisms are pure baloney, and so really good opportunities for sane, wise criticisms are passed up.

[Roy]

It is not that simple. While it is not acceptable to allow teachers to teach 'any old thing they want', and academic freedom can't be allowed to the same degree in the lower level classrooms it is (or should be) allowed at higher institutions, a backlash of censorship of any idea that is 'different' from what is commonly accepted is NOT a solution. While I disagree with Jorge on a lot of things, I do not think it makes a lot of sense to try to control thought. If a teacher happens to disagree with an idea, they should be free to state it - within reason. I had a biology teacher that was YE in a public high school. She opened the class stating she did not agree with everything she was about to teach, but nevertheless she would teach it. And she did. While teaching the world is <10,000 years old is nuts and can't be tolerated in a science class, thinking that life shows evidence of design is NOT anywhere near as clear cut, and such and opinion is help by a LARGE number of people. Mentioning that in the classroom would make for GREAT and mind expanding discussion, as long as the conclusion were left OPEN - and as long as falsehoods where not used to sway opinion, and as long as it was not a direct attempt at evangelism in the classroom.

But that's the problem. Falsehoods would be used to sway opinion, and it is an attempt at evangelism in the classroom. You only have to look at the records of those such as Roger DeHart to see that. The people promoting this so-called "academic freedom" are the same people who promoted objectivity, sudden emergence, intelligent design, creation science, scientific creationism and biblical creationism. The people are the same, the arguments are the same, the motives are the same, the goals are the same. It's the same stuff all over again, just repackaged to avoid previous legal rulings.

Can't teach creationism? Call it creation science. Can't teach that? Take out the explicit references to God and call it intelligent design. Can't teach that? Take out the reference to a designer and call it academic freedom. It's nothing more than a subset of the insubstantial and unsubstainable arguments that have been put forward for decades, with never any attempt to persuade the experts who are aware of the evidence, only to deceive children who don't have the knowledge or reasoning skills to spot the misleading claims and blatant lies.

Mentioning non-mainstream ideas is fine. Undermining mainstream ideas by propagating ignorance and dishonesty is not.

Roy

[rogue06]

But that's the problem. Falsehoods would be used to sway opinion, and it is an attempt at evangelism in the classroom. You only have to look at the records of those such as Roger DeHart to see that. The people promoting this so-called "academic freedom" are the same people who promoted objectivity, sudden emergence, intelligent design, creation science, scientific creationism and biblical creationism. The people are the same, the arguments are the same, the motives are the same, the goals are the same. It's the same stuff all over again, just repackaged to avoid previous legal rulings.

Can't teach creationism? Call it creation science. Can't teach that? Take out the explicit references to God and call it intelligent design. Can't teach that? Take out the reference to a designer and call it academic freedom. It's nothing more than a subset of the insubstantial and unsubstainable arguments that have been put forward for decades, with never any attempt to persuade the experts who are aware of the evidence, only to deceive children who don't have the knowledge or reasoning skills to spot the misleading claims and blatant lies.

Mentioning non-mainstream ideas is fine. Undermining mainstream ideas by propagating ignorance and dishonesty is not.

Roy

DeHart is a classic example. At first forbidden from teaching creationism in his science class the principal at his school stepped up and stuck his/her neck out for him. The principal convinced the school board to let him do what YECs have claimed for years that they wanted -- to just teach both sides.

Offered the deal to teach both the anti-evolution view and the scientific view DeHart readily agreed. Unfortunately he was being disingenuous. He never planned on teaching both sides and returned to giving only diatribes against evolution. He stabbed his principal in the back with this betrayal. Given a chance to teach both sides like YECs insist is all they want, DeHart flushed the opportunity down the figurative toilet at the first opportunity.

I posted on this back on the pre-crash Tweb providing copies of the agreement, the results of the independent investigator... The school board had meticulously documented the entire thing from start to finish.

Jorge of course dismissed it all because he claimed that DeHart had personally told him that it wasn't true. I guess all the records were false.

[rogue06]

DeHart is a classic example. At first forbidden from teaching creationism in his science class the principal at his school stepped up and stuck his/her neck out for him. The principal convinced the school board to let him do what YECs have claimed for years that they wanted -- to just teach both sides.

Offered the deal to teach both the anti-evolution view and the scientific view DeHart readily agreed. Unfortunately he was being disingenuous. He never planned on teaching both sides and returned to giving only diatribes against evolution. He stabbed his principal in the back with this betrayal. Given a chance to teach both sides like YECs insist is all they want, DeHart flushed the opportunity down the figurative toilet at the first opportunity.

I posted on this back on the pre-crash Tweb providing copies of the agreement, the results of the independent investigator... The school board had meticulously documented the entire thing from start to finish.

Jorge of course dismissed it all because he claimed that DeHart had personally told him that it wasn't true. I guess all the records were false.

And I should note that whenever and wherever that YECs gain control they are quite quick to start purges of those who aren't YECs. They even go after other creationists (including fellow YECs) who they have judged aren't doctrinally pure enough.

Let's start with the case of Dr. Steven DeGeorge and Dr. Stephen Barnett at Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee^[1], who had conformed to their guidelines (i.e., they are indeed creationists) but last May a new declaration of faith was issued. As a result the two tenured professors were terminated, nearly a full quarter of the faculty quit instead of signing and a letter of protest was signed by 700 of the nearly 1250 students (including the student body president) there.

There has been an outbreak of similar cases in recent years. In 2012 Cedarville University near Dayton Ohio^[2] dismissed Michael Pahl, widely viewed as an outstanding scholar, who wrote a book ("The Beginning and The End: Rereading Genesis’s Stories and Revelation’s Visions") that administrators viewed as contrary to creationist views in spite of the fact that he fully agrees with the literal six-day creation view and a historical Adam and Eve (and two of Dr. Pahl's colleagues in the Bible department used the book in question as a required text in their own classes). The school even stated that "Dr. Pahl’s orthodoxy and commitment to the gospel are not in question, nor is his commitment to Scripture’s inspiration, authority and infallibility."

Yet he was still relieved of his teaching duties -- Expelled -- and CU refuses to disclose exactly what Pahl wrote that got him fired. Some YECs have stated it was because his statement that "the biblical creation stories in Genesis 1-2 is not to answer modern questions about exactly when or precisely how all things came about" are the cause. So it appears that YECs are beginning to eat their own if they suspect they aren't pure enough.

In 2011 Calvin College experienced similar debate when its board of trustees investigated tenured professors of religion Daniel Harlow and John Schneider after they published controversial articles that questioned the existence of a historical Adam despite the fact that their deans and provost had approved plans to publish their work.

And we can go further. Like what happened to Bruce Waltke, a preeminent Old Testament scholar, who in 2010 was pressured into resigning his professorship at the Reformed Theological Seminary because he had the temerity to say that he thought that evolution and Christianity were compatible.

Or to Richard Colling at Olivet Nazarene University in Illinois, who wrote a Theistic Evolutionist (TE) book after which he was summarily prohibited from teaching the general biology class, a version of which he had taught for 16 years^[3]

Or to Nancey Murphy, an ordained minister in the Church of the Brethren and a Professor of Christian Philosophy at the Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California, where the "Father of Intelligent Design" Phillip Johnson is a trustee and appears to be trying to get her fired for daring to criticize his book "Darwin on Trial"^[4].

Or even to prominent ID proponent William Dembski at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary when he wrote that a Christian can reconcile an old Earth creationist view with a literal reading of Adam and Eve and that Noah's Flood was likely a local event rather than global in nature^[5]

Actually none of this is anything new, whenever they get into power YECs have been purging or "Expelling" those who don't agree with them for years (they've just increased the pace).

Back in 1973 John C. Whitcomb (co-author with Henry Morris of "The Genesis Flood") had Dan E. Wonderly, a conservative OEC removed from his position as a teacher at Grace College (where Whitcomb exercised a great deal of influence) for having the temerity to disagree with the YEC position concerning Noah's Flood specifically regarding "Flood Geology."

And how the Geoscience Research Institute (a Seventh-Day Adventist creationist think tank) fired the geologists on staff when they concluded that flood geology was a farce (“desperately weak and improbable,” according to one with actual geological training).

And let's be clear about this it hasn't just been teachers/professors.

A few years ago the Director of Science in the curriculum division of the Texas Education Agency (TEA) for nine years, Christine Comer, was "Expelled" by YECs when they gained control.

Lizzette Reynolds demanded that Comer be fired because she had forwarded an email announcing a lecture being given by Barbara Forrest (who served as an expert witness in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial and is an author of an unflattering book on the Intelligent Design movement) adding "FYI" to it. Reynolds called the email "highly inappropriate" and "an offense that calls for termination or, at the very least, reassignment of responsibilities." Shortly after sending the email, Comer was placed on administrative leave. Monica Martinez, another YEC official cited the email in a memo recommending her termination.

Many believe her firing is actually in retaliation for the role Comer played in 2003 in blocking an effort to purchase biology textbooks that supported intelligent design and that creationists wanted her removed prior to the next vote on the textbooks.










1. Named after anti-evolution crusader William Jennings Bryan, the prosecutor of the Scopes Trial of 1925 and long a hot bed for creationist thought

2. Note that this is the same "institute of higher learning" that cut the staff of their philosophy department and eliminated philosophy and physics majors after a philosophy faculty member wrote an op-ed for the campus newspaper on “Why I am Not Voting for Romney.”

3. The university’s president John Bowling also banned professors from assigning his book claiming that he banned it in order to "get the bull's-eye off Colling and let the storm die down." Yeah, he did it for his own good.

4. Johnson readily admits that he called another trustee to discuss her but denies any responsibility for actions taken against her (purely coincidental I'm sure). Murphy isn't buying it. In an article in the “Washington Post” she said, "His tactic has always been to fight dirty when anyone attacks his ideas. For a long time afterward, I would tell reporters I don't want to comment, and I don't want you to say I don't want to comment. I'm tired of being careful."

5. Dembski was forced to recant after Southwestern Seminary president Paige Patterson (a YEC) informed him that he was facing dismissal.

[Jorge]

Also, Mathematics teachers should be allowed to teach that , as per 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2; and that , as per Ezra 1:7-11!

Religious Freedom! Teach the controversy!

STRAW MAN ALERT !!!

Jorge

[Jorge]

DeHart is a classic example. At first forbidden from teaching creationism in his science class the principal at his school stepped up and stuck his/her neck out for him. The principal convinced the school board to let him do what YECs have claimed for years that they wanted -- to just teach both sides.

Offered the deal to teach both the anti-evolution view and the scientific view DeHart readily agreed. Unfortunately he was being disingenuous. He never planned on teaching both sides and returned to giving only diatribes against evolution. He stabbed his principal in the back with this betrayal. Given a chance to teach both sides like YECs insist is all they want, DeHart flushed the opportunity down the figurative toilet at the first opportunity.

I posted on this back on the pre-crash Tweb providing copies of the agreement, the results of the independent investigator... The school board had meticulously documented the entire thing from start to finish.

Jorge of course dismissed it all because he claimed that DeHart had personally told him that it wasn't true. I guess all the records were false.

Lessee ... believe DeHart OR believe Evolutionists like you.

You don't really think that there's a contest here, do you?

I mean, you people misrepresent the DeHart's of the world so often
that it no longer makes the news. I can testify to that first-hand.

So, no, there is no contest.

Jorge

[Jorge]

And I should note that whenever and wherever that YECs gain control they are quite quick to start purges of those who aren't YECs. They even go after other creationists (including fellow YECs) who they have judged aren't doctrinally pure enough.

Let's start with the case of Dr. Steven DeGeorge and Dr. Stephen Barnett at Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee^[1], who had conformed to their guidelines (i.e., they are indeed creationists) but last May a new declaration of faith was issued. As a result the two tenured professors were terminated, nearly a full quarter of the faculty quit instead of signing and a letter of protest was signed by 700 of the nearly 1250 students (including the student body president) there.

There has been an outbreak of similar cases in recent years. In 2012 Cedarville University near Dayton Ohio^[2] dismissed Michael Pahl, widely viewed as an outstanding scholar, who wrote a book ("The Beginning and The End: Rereading Genesis’s Stories and Revelation’s Visions") that administrators viewed as contrary to creationist views in spite of the fact that he fully agrees with the literal six-day creation view and a historical Adam and Eve (and two of Dr. Pahl's colleagues in the Bible department used the book in question as a required text in their own classes). The school even stated that "Dr. Pahl’s orthodoxy and commitment to the gospel are not in question, nor is his commitment to Scripture’s inspiration, authority and infallibility."

Yet he was still relieved of his teaching duties -- Expelled -- and CU refuses to disclose exactly what Pahl wrote that got him fired. Some YECs have stated it was because his statement that "the biblical creation stories in Genesis 1-2 is not to answer modern questions about exactly when or precisely how all things came about" are the cause. So it appears that YECs are beginning to eat their own if they suspect they aren't pure enough.

In 2011 Calvin College experienced similar debate when its board of trustees investigated tenured professors of religion Daniel Harlow and John Schneider after they published controversial articles that questioned the existence of a historical Adam despite the fact that their deans and provost had approved plans to publish their work.

And we can go further. Like what happened to Bruce Waltke, a preeminent Old Testament scholar, who in 2010 was pressured into resigning his professorship at the Reformed Theological Seminary because he had the temerity to say that he thought that evolution and Christianity were compatible.

Or to Richard Colling at Olivet Nazarene University in Illinois, who wrote a Theistic Evolutionist (TE) book after which he was summarily prohibited from teaching the general biology class, a version of which he had taught for 16 years^[3]

Or to Nancey Murphy, an ordained minister in the Church of the Brethren and a Professor of Christian Philosophy at the Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California, where the "Father of Intelligent Design" Phillip Johnson is a trustee and appears to be trying to get her fired for daring to criticize his book "Darwin on Trial"^[4].

Or even to prominent ID proponent William Dembski at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary when he wrote that a Christian can reconcile an old Earth creationist view with a literal reading of Adam and Eve and that Noah's Flood was likely a local event rather than global in nature^[5]

Actually none of this is anything new, whenever they get into power YECs have been purging or "Expelling" those who don't agree with them for years (they've just increased the pace).

Back in 1973 John C. Whitcomb (co-author with Henry Morris of "The Genesis Flood") had Dan E. Wonderly, a conservative OEC removed from his position as a teacher at Grace College (where Whitcomb exercised a great deal of influence) for having the temerity to disagree with the YEC position concerning Noah's Flood specifically regarding "Flood Geology."

And how the Geoscience Research Institute (a Seventh-Day Adventist creationist think tank) fired the geologists on staff when they concluded that flood geology was a farce (“desperately weak and improbable,” according to one with actual geological training).

And let's be clear about this it hasn't just been teachers/professors.

A few years ago the Director of Science in the curriculum division of the Texas Education Agency (TEA) for nine years, Christine Comer, was "Expelled" by YECs when they gained control.

Lizzette Reynolds demanded that Comer be fired because she had forwarded an email announcing a lecture being given by Barbara Forrest (who served as an expert witness in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial and is an author of an unflattering book on the Intelligent Design movement) adding "FYI" to it. Reynolds called the email "highly inappropriate" and "an offense that calls for termination or, at the very least, reassignment of responsibilities." Shortly after sending the email, Comer was placed on administrative leave. Monica Martinez, another YEC official cited the email in a memo recommending her termination.

Many believe her firing is actually in retaliation for the role Comer played in 2003 in blocking an effort to purchase biology textbooks that supported intelligent design and that creationists wanted her removed prior to the next vote on the textbooks.










1. Named after anti-evolution crusader William Jennings Bryan, the prosecutor of the Scopes Trial of 1925 and long a hot bed for creationist thought

2. Note that this is the same "institute of higher learning" that cut the staff of their philosophy department and eliminated philosophy and physics majors after a philosophy faculty member wrote an op-ed for the campus newspaper on “Why I am Not Voting for Romney.”

3. The university’s president John Bowling also banned professors from assigning his book claiming that he banned it in order to "get the bull's-eye off Colling and let the storm die down." Yeah, he did it for his own good.

4. Johnson readily admits that he called another trustee to discuss her but denies any responsibility for actions taken against her (purely coincidental I'm sure). Murphy isn't buying it. In an article in the “Washington Post” she said, "His tactic has always been to fight dirty when anyone attacks his ideas. For a long time afterward, I would tell reporters I don't want to comment, and I don't want you to say I don't want to comment. I'm tired of being careful."

5. Dembski was forced to recant after Southwestern Seminary president Paige Patterson (a YEC) informed him that he was facing dismissal.

I won't waste my time rebutting the falsehood that you post above, R06. No, I am not calling you a liar. I believe that you are merely regurgitating the "official Evolutionist version" of what actually happened. I recall reading the version from the college itself and it sounded nothing like your version. Of course, you're going to accept and parrot the REV - Revised Evolutionist Version - without question. Nuff' said.

Jorge

[Roy]

Jorge of course dismissed it all because he claimed that DeHart had personally told him that it wasn't true. I guess all the records were false.

Jorge also claimed that DeHart had "used secular supplementary materials - period!". Despite Jorge knowing not only that DeHart had used 'Of Pandas and People' but had testified to that effect under oath.

Roy

[birdan]

It is not that simple. While it is not acceptable to allow teachers to teach 'any old thing they want', and academic freedom can't be allowed to the same degree in the lower level classrooms it is (or should be) allowed at higher institutions, a backlash of censorship of any idea that is 'different' from what is commonly accepted is NOT a solution. While I disagree with Jorge on a lot of things, I do not think it makes a lot of sense to try to control thought. If a teacher happens to disagree with an idea, they should be free to state it - within reason. I had a biology teacher that was YE in a public high school. She opened the class stating she did not agree with everything she was about to teach, but nevertheless she would teach it. And she did. While teaching the world is <10,000 years old is nuts and can't be tolerated in a science class, thinking that life shows evidence of design is NOT anywhere near as clear cut, and such and opinion is help by a LARGE number of people. Mentioning that in the classroom would make for GREAT and mind expanding discussion, as long as the conclusion were left OPEN - and as long as falsehoods where not used to sway opinion, and as long as it was not a direct attempt at evangelism in the classroom.

If a person disagrees with EVERYTHING they are asked to teach, honesty it would seem to me requires they resign, not try to undermine the curricula. But some of what I see is backlash against ANY difference of opinion - and that is nuts. In this Jorge is right, but not to the degree he takes it. I enjoyed my teachers in High School that challenged me to think outside the box. That put out ideas not considered mainstream or 'correct'. We need people that can and will think outside the box. That does not come by legislating every correct idea and banning every incorrect idea from mention.

And I fear that is where this is headed.

And the plain truth is, IF you go this direction, you WILL stifle SCIENTIFIC discovery. There is very little difference between legislated RELIGIOUS opinion a la the RCC in Galileo's time, and legislated SCIENTIFIC opinion a la the 21st century. You don't discover where you are wrong my demanding strict adherence without question to what is believed to be right.


Jim

PS: and not for a minute do I think Jorge would be equally demanding of tolerance for 'different' ideas concerning morality, or history, or culture. He lives by a double standard, but that does not mean he can't be (at least partially) right every now and then

"Academic freedom" would gain a great deal of credence if it didn't come from religion-based organizations or people.

Teaching "non-mainstream" ideas in science really doesn't have a place in elementary schools. Science classes are already challenged to give justice to "mainstream" ideas in the allotted time. I have no problem with other ideas being introduced at the high school level, but within a proper framework:

- there should be a class on critical thinking
- there should be a clear understanding of what science is, what its scope is, and how it operates

If high school students had a much better grounding in the above, then I'd be all in favor of introducing "out of the box" ideas. Heck, I'd love for an AIG article to be a class assignment as long as it is critiqued from a purely scientific viewpoint. I've not read one single "creation science" article (and I've read many dozens) addressing naturalistic phenomena that ended up being naturalistically possible.

This could be a great learning experience for high schoolers. What do you think about this type of "academic freedom", Jorge?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

It is not that simple. While it is not acceptable to allow teachers to teach 'any old thing they want', and academic freedom can't be allowed to the same degree in the lower level classrooms it is (or should be) allowed at higher institutions, a backlash of censorship of any idea that is 'different' from what is commonly accepted is NOT a solution.

While I disagree with Jorge on a lot of things, I do not think it makes a lot of sense to try to control thought. If a teacher happens to disagree with an idea, they should be free to state it - within reason. I had a biology teacher that was YE in a public high school. She opened the class stating she did not agree with everything she was about to teach, but nevertheless she would teach it. And she did.

I have no problem with a teacher holding personal views which are contrary to the views she has been hired to teach. However, the "within reason" caveat of your statement is a rather vague and subjective gray area. Personally, I do not think that it is reasonable for a teacher to tell students-- many of whom are likely already questioning why they need to learn this material-- that even she doesn't believe the material to be of true value. I find nothing reasonable about a teacher undermining her own lessons.

While teaching the world is <10,000 years old is nuts and can't be tolerated in a science class, thinking that life shows evidence of design is NOT anywhere near as clear cut, and such and opinion is help by a LARGE number of people. Mentioning that in the classroom would make for GREAT and mind expanding discussion, as long as the conclusion were left OPEN - and as long as falsehoods where not used to sway opinion, and as long as it was not a direct attempt at evangelism in the classroom.

Mentioning this in a philosophy or a religion classroom, I could understand. Even an English classroom, particularly during lessons on persuasive writing, I could understand. However, "thinking that life shows evidence of design" has no place in a science classroom until such time as there is some actual science behind it. Which, incidentally, is not now.

I enjoyed my teachers in High School that challenged me to think outside the box. That put out ideas not considered mainstream or 'correct'. We need people that can and will think outside the box. That does not come by legislating every correct idea and banning every incorrect idea from mention.

I'm all for having classes which encourage thinking outside the box. However, there's a difference between appropriate outside-the-box thinking and thinking which has no basis in the subject which is ostensibly being taught. My chemistry, physics, geometry, and calculus teachers, in High School, all encouraged me to think outside the box and to be creative. That didn't require them to cease teaching chemistry, physics, geometry, or calculus, even for a moment.

And the plain truth is, IF you go this direction, you WILL stifle SCIENTIFIC discovery. There is very little difference between legislated RELIGIOUS opinion a la the RCC in Galileo's time, and legislated SCIENTIFIC opinion a la the 21st century. You don't discover where you are wrong my demanding strict adherence without question to what is believed to be right.

Who is legislating scientific opinion?

STRAW MAN ALERT !!!

That was satire, Jorge; not a Straw Man. I'm fairly sure no one thought I was seriously suggesting that you wanted to teach that .