Here is an interesting one. The Associated Press has an article out of California wherein a federal judge has held that a teacher violated the First Amendment Rights of a student by referring to Creationism as “superstitious nonsense.”
U.S. District Judge James Selna issued the ruling Friday after a 16-month legal battle between student Chad Farnan and his former teacher, James Corbett.
Farnan’s lawsuit alleged that Corbett made more than 20 statements that were disparaging to Christians and their beliefs.
The judge found that Corbett’s reference to creationism as “religious, superstitious nonsense†violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause. Courts have interpreted the clause as prohibiting government employees from displaying religious hostility.
I wonder where the line is — whether mainstream religions have special protections. Would Heaven’s Gate cultist be protected from having their religions beliefs disparaged?
The opinion is here (pdf) . Ed Brayton and his commenters have a pretty good discussion of the ruling here.
The crux of the matter is that religion gets special protection not given to other sorts of ideas by the U.S. Constitution. Parents are, to one degree or another, compelled to put their kids in public schools and/or support the public schools with their tax collars. Consequently, the courts have found that teachers, as government employees, are not permitted to be openly hostile to religion absent some legitimate government purpose. If the challenged action of the teacher serves some legitimate purpose, the challenged action furthermore cannot have the principal or primary effect of promoting or inhibiting religion. Lastly, the challenged action cannot foster an excessive entanglement with religion.
Ultimately, the court sided with the school and teacher on a large number of challenged statements and with the student on the one statement where the teacher referred to creationism as superstitious nonsense. Truth, in this context, is apparently not an absolute defense.
The legitimate government purpose (the quashing of unscientific beliefs) seems pretty clear to me. I am betting that the 9th circuit is not going to go along with this guy’s reasoning.
As a former teacher I would simply fault the teacher for very poor choice of terminology–there are many ways for expressing things without “crossing” certain lines. Any issue can likely be handled without violating either rules or values—example: sex education: used to teach rather comprehensive units on animal biology involving reproduction and where clarification was needed related to difference between various animals including humans. The idea is give the information and let the learner have the ability to make a decision.
I agree with Jack. When you’re a teacher it’s not so much what you say,but how you say it.On an intellectual level,superstitious is a non-approving synonym for belief or religion ,and there should be no need to start a religious war with a parent and a student over semantics.Hardly anyone is on an intellectual level when religion is concerned,especially when a ‘secular public school teacher’ is involved. Religion always wins that kind of battle seen as ‘attack.’
I am a practicing catholic and I was asked once by a curious, well-meaning student : ‘How come catholics always stand up and sit down and kneel and say all that stuff to yourself?’.
I tried to answered that question, and every question without malice,but it always depends on whom you’re talking to..
The time to fight would be when the school board took action to teach creationism..
Jeff, why do you assert that it is a purpose of government to quash unscientific belief? That seems troubling constitutionally, practically, and perhaps ethically.
Lou and Jack, agreed: the defendant wasn’t exactly exhibiting the heart of a teacher. One caveat: it sounds like the nasty things were said in the context of an ongoing relationship, so that mitigates their weight. It would have been funny if the judge’s last line had been: “Defendant, I’ve weighed the evidence and decided that you’re not a teacher.”
Doug, an interesting issue indeed. It would be interesting to see how this would be extended to astrology or beliefs about the supernatural powers of the number 13. (And it would be ironic if the teacher held either view.)
One last consideration not addressed by the two news articles: what sort of “creationism” was under consideration? The term is used, carelessly, by advocates and opponents to mean different things. As things stand these days, if the student meant “old earth creationism”, then it’s the teacher who is far shakier ground in terms of reason and even in terms of science.
In my opinion, “old earth creationism” would still qualify as religious nonsense. Maybe it could lose the “superstitious” description–but then again, why? OEC still doesn’t acknowledge evolution, and still relies on a supernatural creator, right?
The evolutionary process in general is so simple and elegant as to be astoundingly beautiful to me. All you need, really, is duplication, variation, and selection, and, bang, you’re off to the races.
Duplication and variation are the harder tricks. Selection is amply provided by environmental conditions, predators, and the like.
I suppose I shouldn’t mention that scientists still argue about Evolution, and that all scientific theory is an incomplete snapshot of a likely larger whole?
The scientific method is a way of learning about the world around us. For the sorts of things it works on, it has proven to be more reliable than other ways of learning.
If a phenomenon is non-observable or non-repeatable, then the scientific method isn’t a lot of use. One of its primary strengths is its flexibility. If you make observations that are inconsistent with existing theory, it isn’t a sin to come up with alternate theories that explain the available data.
Where there is a choice in the matter, this strikes me as a more reliable way to learn about the world than, say, uncritically believing the recorded version of the oral histories of bronze age shepherds.
Or, when tired of defending the literal word of the bible, backward-engineering an alternate story that tries to incorporate the obvious fact that the earth is billions of years old.
Besides the fact that your point is immaterial to mine, are you trying to say that Erich von Daniken was wrong? Gasp, choke, need paper bag.
Seriously, you missed my point (which was cloudier than it had to be, I guess), which is that what we “know” as scientific “fact” is actually mutable and subject to constatnt revision as more evidence is found/produced and theories developed. It may appear beautiful today, but that doesn’t make it final (or right, for that matter – ask Einstein).
We’re probably talking past each other here, but I’m just pointing out that systems will evolve where there is replication, variation, and selection. Presuming a Creator, he almost couldn’t create a universe in which that was not true. (Much like, I don’t believe, he could create a universe where a line was not the shortest distance between two points.)
Re: backward-engineering an alternate story — If you’re not already familiar with the term, see “retconning.” It’s a technique, short for retroactive continuity, most commonly associated with comic books where rewriting the history becomes necessary in light of more modern developments.
T, OEC allows for evolution. (Why would you think otherwise?)
OEC allows that evolution *could* *explain* 99.9% of the development of life– even though it is nowhere that now.
When I was in HS back in the 1950s,the theory of moving tectonic plates was still being discredited by many scientists.In the 1960s deep sea surveying led to proof that the Earth crust has been shifting over millions of years,and it was a matter of measuring varying ages of the undersea crust to determine where the crust had been..That’s when we learned that at one time, present day Chicago terrain lay somewhere South of the Equator.
How would creationism ever have led us to discovery that the Earth crusts shifts?
Science has no gaps that creationism can fill in. To do so, is to destroy science and discredit religion generally.
Also since God is a belief,science has no power over God.
What helps me when thinking about these issues is the notion that “science” is really a method of learning and is not precisely the same as the body of knowledge acquired through that method.
Oooo. I’m mean.
What about the “science” of Global warming. When some scientist claims “self-evidence” or “clearly”, it usually means he (or she) is blowing smoke out of a lower orifice.
When it comes to extremely long-term climate change, we are still crawling babies – knowledge-wise. Anybody who claims different is head blind.
“Everybody knows” that the western Antarctic ice shelf is collapsing (ever since 1999 – every year), but how many “know” that the eastern continent ice pack is actually growing deeper than it has in recent years? And, according to the NOAA, “as of April 2009, sea surface temperatures surrounding
Antarctica are mostly colder than average”.
Let the alarmists chew on that for awhile.
Bringing to mind Thomas Jefferson’s declaration that it was “self-evident” that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Looking around at the time, one would have been forced to conclude that those truths were anything but “self-evident.” In fact, the assertion must have been reasonably startling.
So, are you simply pointing out an excellent exception, or disagreeing that certain “science” couldn’t just possibly be a boatload of bat guano?
I posit that scholars like Jefferson are extremely rare today. It’s a whole different system. Scholars like the founding Fathers are discouraged and marginalized more often than not.
Someday, over a beer or three, we can discuss the state of higher education in America.
Doug, perhaps the assertion was not startling IF you remember some of the “truths” of the day where only white men were the “ones” referred to since women were not equal (a known point at that time) and colored people were often treated for illness by veteranians and not regular doctors. Goes along with some of the points already presented in that “facts” are those things currently “known to be true”. Try the point of “facts, believed facts, and myths”—whereby things can change catagories as new “truth” is revealed. Point of course is that the “cost” of being wrong is not always the same–example: you believe there is a God and live accordingly but if there is no God then the penalty is simply you may have lived simpler than needed, but what if there is a God and you do not believe then what could be the “cost” of being wrong. Are we in a global warming—likely–is it natural or “man caused/enhanced” –this is a question with different “costs” for different actions taken (or not taken.) The point on global climate change is that major changes have occurred over and over so difficult to know what is really happening and why. So, have trouble accepting that the self described experts are absolutely right.
I don’t think “science” can be bat guano because it is the method of observation and testing hypotheses. The method is sound. The question is whether the observations were made and the hypotheses were tested scientifically.
ARRGH! No wonder you’re a lawyer. You aren’t listening. I’m not talking about “science” versus “superstition”.
What if the hypothesis is wrong? Nothing. The observations and data are just skewed statistically to “fit” the hypothesis. Have you ever read academic journals? Nobody ever says, “Well, I thought it was ‘X’ and here is my research…, but turns out I was full of crap. Back to the old drawing board.”? Academics/scientists can’t be wrong. People who are “wrong” don’t get grants, fellowships or tenure. So, they don’t stray far from orthodoxy.
The real people on the frontiers of science (or math) too often do so from the fringes. Too many mainstream scientists spend more time trying to protect their coveted positions/butts or just can’t see beyond the tip of their nose, rather than attempting expand our knowledge base. And if they do, it on some micro-level so as not to rock the boat too much.
Science is good or bad. But, some of the people who “do” science are better or worse than others. There are just too many academics/researchers today. More than ever before. But, what is the relationship to the amount that science is advanced over what it was 50-100 years ago? I don’t think it’s enough, which makes me conclude that “somebody” is falling down on their job.
Science isn’t good or bad.
I need a Preview button.
Occasionally data is fudged. Therefore, what? If doesn’t mean we haven’t observed convergence, divergence, evolution of antibiotic resistance, animal husbandry, Darwin’s finches, or Mendel’s pea plants. We are still talking about evolution, right?
I though Old Earth Creationism didn’t believe in evolution because all the online sources I found were discussing what a fraud evolution is. That, and offering to sell me “the most important video ever produced”, about human and fossil bones comingling, and other such nonsense. The explanations offered by the ministries that were presenting the theory, was that Old Earth Creationism believes that God created the individual species, but over a long period of time. It then contrasts that with Theistic Evolution, which apparently moves more in the direction of evolution (but still directed by God).
Doug–thanks for directing me to retconning.
Some Bush admin. retconning came to mind. The “We never said Iraq was an imminent danger” stuff.
“Occasionally data is fudged. Therefore, what?”
Therefore your conclusion has to be considered “fudged” as well. Therefore, it is more likely that your conclusion is diminished because you have essentially cheated. “Well, the data doesn’t back me up here, so I put it through the old statisitical obfuscation hoops, so it’ll appear that I’m right after all”.
I’ve gone beyond evolution. I critiquing laziness and lying in more “hard” science (and social sciences as well) than used to be allowed.
Too often, too much Pharma research would come under this as well.
It becomes deterministic. One is no longer looking for a truth, but for a particular outcome.
OCE’s believe God used evolution to take care of everything from little to much of what we see today in terms of life– in other words, somewhere between what science currently provides and might someday provide as an *explanation* for the development of life.
I don’t know of a fine line between OCE’s and TE’s– although there may be a tendency for “low-evolution” believers to describe themselves as OCE and “high-evolution” believers to describe themselves as TE. As I said before, the terms are not clearly defined– or at least clearly used– on either side of the debate.
I don’t think OCE’s claim much if anything that would be classified as “unique” science– aside from the debate over ID. YCE’s see science in a very different manner than OCE’s (or of course, Evolution believers).
varangianguard–
I agree with your critiques of some science. I don’t think profit-driven pharma fudging has anything to do with evolutionary theory, however. That was the point I was trying to make.
eric–
Thanks for the explanation. There was probably a brief period where I thought God created DNA. Nothing that happened after DNA needed any supernatural explanation. But really, the origin of DNA–for me, anyway–took a lot less of a leap of faith than belief in a fully-formed, omniscient entity that never needed to be created because he just always was.
That comment may end up representing the tearing of the last tattered threads of my agnosticism.
As for me, theologically, I can believe that evolution did a whole lot. But scientifically, Evolution (capital-E– as a comprehensive *explanation* for the origins and development of life) is not nearly there yet. I can see some of the logic of Evolution as a *story* (i.e., a lot of hand-waving around the mechanism of evolution). But its narrative doesn’t seem at all compelling through vital and reproductive organs, the origins of life, and the origins of it all.
In a word, it takes a lot of (explicit, implicit or blind) faith for *anyone* to believe in capital-E Evolution. I understand that it may require less faith to believe in that than a Creator God– and thus, people don’t believe in God. (Are you less bothered by the hand-waving of Evolution or Creation?) But for me, it would take infinitely more faith to believe the story of Evolution than the story of Creation with some/much evolution along the way.
It takes no faith at all to accept Evolution as a valid process unless one assumes it’s supposed to give the same complete picture that belief gives. Scentists are always aware of what they don’t know.
What is unknown is never the emphasis of believers when they set out to formulate public policy for us all..
Lou,
On your first sentence: As I tried to lay out clearly, that’s the distinction between evolution and Evolution. The former requires no faith; the latter requires much.
On your 2nd: Scientists as scientists? Yes. Scientists as human beings? No, they have blind spots like the rest of us.
On your 3rd: I don’t know how that relates to what we’re talking about, but I love it and wish I had come up with that line!
Eric Shansberg,
I may misunderstand the implied difference between Evolution/evolution,but the difference seems to lie with agenda and politics. If so,then we could also distinguish similarly between Christian/christian and Believer / believer.
I agree that in a broad sense everyone is a believer in certain things,but not everyone is a crusading Believer.Also Im a christian but I wouldn’t call myself a Christian,but I’m probably a ‘Constitutionalist’.
Everyone should take the capitalization test on his own behalf.
I’m referring to evolution as the natural process that results in modest changes in species, observed all the time through scientific means.
I’m referring to Evolution as a largely-assumed natural process that provides a story/narrative about how we got from the beginning of life to what we see today. (Beyond that, the problem extends to how did life begin and how did everything begin.)
All of us are evolutionists; those who believe the Evolution narrative are Evolutionists.
So, to get the capital “E” do you have to believe that humans came all the way from goop, or is it enough to believe that humans were not created in this form by God but rather evolved into homo sapiens from another species?
That’s an interesting combo. Why would you believe the latter but not the former?
I suppose just because it’s a smaller step to get from a chimp or homo erectus or something to homo sapiens (with fully functioning eyes, organs, and mammalian components generally) than it is to get from an amoeba to a chimp.
How about we make questions regarding someone’s religious views as off limits as questions about their sexual orientation?
Seriously, judge the lawmaker by the laws they make, not by who they worship.
Yes, many “Christians” put a litmus test to the people they elect, but just the same as many atheists do.
“With God all things are possible.”
From a scientific viewpoint, the apparent fact that there is insufficient evidence discovered thus far concerning interspecies evolution, seems relevant. But the idea of drawing some kind of immutable distinction between one level of complexity development and another seems rather pointless. To the believer (and I take well Eric’s point that everyone is a believer in something), God would have no problem in letting an infinity of random processes ultimately form homo sapiens from the amoeba. Whether or not She chose that route is another matter entirely.
Doug gets to the crux of the issue: we *know* about a variety of infinitesimally small evolutionary matters. So, extrapolating to “smaller steps” is relatively easy to *believe*– and extrapolating to larger steps or the whole ball of proverbial wax is a (proportionately or exponentially?) bigger leap of faith.
But that begs the question: if you’re going to believe “smaller step” A, why not smaller step Z, or all of the smaller steps that take you from A to Z?
Doug, I agree with you that evolution through vital (and reproductive) organs seems fantastic as a story. (To me, that alone is more fantastic than the idea of a Creator God.) But if evolution can’t often take us across species– or through keys part of biological advancement– then something/Someone else had to do it.
To Don (and probably Doug): One still has massive jumps to “explain” (or for now, to believe) in the supposed evolution from homo-this to homo-that. Theologically, the most challenging aspect would be what is typically called the soul. Scientifically, it would be anything that separates us significantly from the apes.
Lately, I have been taken with, what I guess is formally called the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics. I barely understand it, so obviously I don’t pretend anything remotely approaching expertise. But, it’s fun for the brain to chew on.
Basically, every possible outcome to every event has happened and defines or exists in its own “history” or “world.” So, for every fork in the decision tree, a new, parallel “universe” is spawned in which the particular outcome has happened. Under such a system, improbability –of evolution, among other things — is no challenge because every possible outcome has occurred in some sense.
The vastness of existence this implies is obviously daunting. It reminds me of the Total Perspective Vortex in the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.
Is MWI physics, abstract math, philosophy, or even science at all?
Is using the existing academic framework helping or hurting research into questions like MWI?
Stuff like this makes me think of that old fable about the blind men and the elephant.
MWI is philosophy trying to handle the mind-orgy of quantum mechanics.
QM is analogous to a bunch of sports fans talking about who will win the championship. Sure, they have theories and evidence, and can go on for days explaining why they’re right. However, in the end, they really are just talking crap.
Don’t get me wrong, I love quantum mechanics, at least what I’m able to wrap my mind around. It is just a hair beyond what we can really measure and understand right now.
If you think about it, QM is religion for many scientists. Since you can’t measure it, can it really be called science? I thought science was the study of fact that can be measured.
Two words, Jason. Hadron Collider.
Any discussion of science and religion has become subject to the ‘fair and balanced’ approach,patented by Fox news. ‘Conservative Creationism’ therefore must be presented as an equal to ‘liberal Science’ specifically when public policy is at stake.
There will be a day when we do DNA tests on discovered religious relics so that scientifically , Jesus’ existence can be ‘ugraded’ to a scientific theory.His divinity would still remain in question scientifically,because there is no test for divine origin,but that is also not an issue for science.
Religious belief would not be enhanced by any science that doesnt validate what is,and many would be outraged that religion would have to submit to the same routine tests science routinely peforms on itself, which makes science, science.Proving equality doesn’t work from both perspectives and this seems a valid test for uncovering self-serving thinking.
The greater point is that here is no overlap of any kind between creationism and science because science is based on a process of discovery and analysis.Creationism must adjust itself to scientific discovery,but the reverse doesn’t seem true.
But anyway faith is not based on rote learning,although I’ll admit to learning all my catholic prayers by rote in catechism..We’re all free to focus or not to focus,and having memorized prayers for example does mean reciting them is mindless.This is a major misconception by many.
Religion in western civilization has always become ultimately compatable with science and religious rhetoric invariably readjusts itself to the new findings,but all ideas become beliefs and do meld together in varying degrees to form cultures.It’s very important to define what is religious and what is secular,otherwise tyrany will reign.Only secular government can guarantee the freedom of religion.Every representative government has pockets of so called ‘extremist views’,and they should be tolerated for the sake of all.
These are my own personal religious views,and I view myself as a practicing Christian.
does NOT mean reciting them is mindless.
Varianguard: how can you say that there are just too many scientific researchers today? On what basis do you make assertion? Do you know what the total number of researchers is and what they are researching? Do you know whether what they are researching is frivolous? Are you a scientist, or are you a fairly smart regular joe (like most of us here) who is skeptical about some topics of scientific research (such as climate change)? You’re making some pretty broad statements without any facts to back them up. Unlike some on here, whose comments I usually ignore, you seem to be a fairly reasonable guy most of the time, so why all the hostility toward scientists?
Sure, scientists still argue about evolution, but I am under the impression that legitimate scientists don’t argue about whether evolution is the underpinning of the life sciences. There may be arguments about exactly how evolution works in certain situations, there has certainly been a greater understanding since Darwin, but a counter theory has not been proposed by anyone other than IDers and creationists, from what I know, anyway.
As for this: “But, what is the relationship to the amount that science is advanced over what it was 50-100 years ago? I don’t think it’s enough, which makes me conclude that “somebody†is falling down on their job.” Huh? *You* don’t think science has advanced enough lately, therefore, someone is falling down on the job? There were a lot of advances in science during the twentieth century, advances that changed medicine and the way we live our lives. The fact of those huge leaps in medicine and in technology during the last century does not mean that someone is falling down on the job today. Frankly, I think that is a rather simplistic conclusion, based upon an unrealistic view that we should understand everything because we understand so many things. If I’ve learned anything in life, and I haven’t learned much, it’s that the more you know, the more you realize that so much is unknowable, or at least is much more complex than you ever imagined. In what areas have researchers fallen down on the job? No cure for cancer? No way to stop tornadoes and hurricanes? Cancer is not one single disease. Tornadoes are more than a funnels of water vapor and wind that drop down from the sky. No matter what waste may go on in scientific research, most of us, even those of us with multiple college degrees, know very little about science, and all it encompasses. We may think we know because we subscribe to certain magazines, or because we’ve read certain popular books, or because we are skeptical and have found a few scientists who reinforce our own skepticism.
Doug: I have to add, your wife must be a saint! :) I always get a chuckle over the connections you make between the topic at hand and some “classic” geek book, tv show, or movie. I’m not making fun, as we women have “our” obsessions, too.
I think mainly she’s just good at tuning me out.
And, she’d be the first to tell you, she has strong geek tendencies herself.
Pila,
100 years ago there were “x” number of reseachers/scientists. Today, there must be a minimum of 20-40x the number of researchers there were 100 years ago.
Has science advanced 20-40 times as fast are or as broadly? It is my opinion that the answer is a resounding no.
I’m not saying science hasn’t advanced, it has – a lot. But, not in the same proportion as to the number of “scientists” getting paid to be scientists today.
Science bureaucracies too often encourage “safe” research. Don’t rock the boat. Don’t criticize your contemporaries. In other words, be average and work small, and too often they do.
Thank goodness for those who can buck that kind of system from within, or who choose to research from outside of the traditional funding paths.