Navigation
Disclaimer
Authors are solely responsible for the content of their articles on PandasThumb.org. Linked material is the responsibility of the party who created it. Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.
Recent Comments
- ROB JACOBS on April 19, 2007 12:31 PM
- Mark on April 8, 2007 8:31 PM
- Glen Davidson on March 29, 2007 11:42 AM
- Mark Hubbell on March 28, 2007 9:16 PM
- Peter Henderson on March 27, 2007 4:04 PM
- Henry J on March 26, 2007 9:21 PM
- fnxtr on March 26, 2007 3:18 PM
- Henry J on March 26, 2007 2:18 PM
- Stuart Weinstein on March 26, 2007 1:45 PM
- raven on March 24, 2007 7:27 PM
Recent Trackbacks
Site Traffic
Recommend this entry to a friend
Jack Krebs posted Entry 3003 on March 20, 2007 07:39 AM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2993
A news story today from Oregon (story here) is headlined “Oregon teacher fired after veering from evolution textbook.”
The story says, in part:
During his eight days as a part-time biology teacher at Sisters High School, Kris Helphinstine included Biblical references in material he provided to students and gave a PowerPoint presentation that made links between evolution, Nazi Germany and Planned Parenthood.
That was enough for the Sisters School Board, which fired the teacher Monday night for deviating from the curriculum on the theory of evolution….
Helphinstine, 27, said in a phone interview with The Bulletin newspaper of Bend that he included the supplemental material to teach students about bias in sources, and his only agenda was to teach critical thinking.
“Critical thinking is vital to scientific inquiry,” said Helphinstine, who has a master’s degree in science from Oregon State. “My whole purpose was to give accurate information and to get them thinking.”
Well good for him - his plan worked: the students, parents and school Board clearly saw his bias, and they used their critical thinking skills to conclude that his teaching was completely inappropriate.
“I think his performance was not just a little bit over the line,” board member Jeff Smith said. “It was a severe contradiction of what we trust teachers to do in our classrooms.”
This is the kind of critical thinking we need more of: thinking which sees the “critical thinking” ploy of the creationists as the dishonest ruse that it is. Science is based on critical thinking, and it is a travesty that the creationists have co-opted this term to support their radical skepticism about the findings of mainstream science.
Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.
Comment #166003
Posted by David vun Kannon on March 20, 2007 8:01 AM (e)
Someone should call the Kearny, NJ school board and clue them in.
Comment #166015
Posted by Doc Bill on March 20, 2007 8:57 AM (e)
Evolution has been linked to Planned Parenthood?
Ye Gods! Is there no end to the evil?
Comment #166022
Posted by Mr_Christopher on March 20, 2007 9:35 AM (e)
How long until the Thomas Moore Law Center for wayward fundies comes to the rescue? Let’s hope soon, I’d love to see them humiliated in court again.
Comment #166028
Posted by Raging Bee on March 20, 2007 9:51 AM (e)
He was lying about the Holocaust; that alone should have got him fired.
Cue the “persecuted little lambs of God” reaction in five…four…
Comment #166031
Posted by Frank J on March 20, 2007 10:05 AM (e)
Helphinstine said he did not teach the idea that God created the world. “I never taught creationism,” he said. “I know what it is, and I went out of my way not to teach it.”
Translation: He only read the first half of the DI’s “memo”.
Comment #166038
Posted by Ginger Yellow on March 20, 2007 10:47 AM (e)
It’s a bit of a crap article. It doesn’t give any real indication of what the objectionable material was. Presumably we’re talking Genesis and/or some teleological anthropocentric stuff, but it would be nice to know, given that it’s the whole reason for the story in the first place.
Comment #166039
Posted by Christopher Letzelter on March 20, 2007 10:53 AM (e)
Is this a new tactic of the IDationists - getting substitute teachers to do their dirty work?
Comment #166044
Posted by Tukla in Iowa on March 20, 2007 11:09 AM (e)
Frankly, Ginger, I think the PowerPoint presentation they mentioned was sufficient.
I wonder when the ACLJ will get involved to defend Helphinstine’s violation of the First Amendment. That’s the whole point of their organization, after all.
Comment #166048
Posted by Mr_Christopher on March 20, 2007 11:20 AM (e)
“He was lying about the Holocaust; that alone should have got him fired”
Where did you read that?
Chris
Comment #166050
Posted by Raging Bee on March 20, 2007 11:36 AM (e)
I got it from the first paragraph:
…and gave a PowerPoint presentation that made links between evolution, Nazi Germany and Planned Parenthood.
The guy’s a liar and a scapegoater, peddling the standard “blame evolution for everything we think is immoral” line.
Comment #166055
Posted by Chip Poirot on March 20, 2007 11:44 AM (e)
Tukla,
What is the ACLJ? Did you mean ACLU or are you making some other reference?
Comment #166057
Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on March 20, 2007 11:51 AM (e)
Teachers rarely get fired for one instance of misconduct. I suspect that this wasn’t the only time the teacher violated ethics or regulations.
Comment #166059
Posted by harold on March 20, 2007 11:53 AM (e)
It’s true that the article is lacking in details of what he actually taught.
It’s also true that the article is obviously written with a pro-creationist bias. Another little missing detail - he as a master’s degree in “science”. Google reveals that his master’s is probably in “Science Education”. This isn’t the first creationist to literally get himself an education degree for the specific purpose of trying to lie to students about science.
My guess is that the details are probably more offensive than the glossed over summary.
At any rate, anyone who “draws a connection between evolution and Nazi Germany” or who uses Biblical references in a science class has massively crossed the line, unless otherwise indicated.
By the way, firing is hardly a harsh punishment. He spent eight days violating the civil rights of a classroom full of students. He’s lucky not be be sued.
Comment #166061
Posted by dogmeat on March 20, 2007 11:59 AM (e)
For the most part, news agencies have simply been reprinting the article posted here. I found a conservative spin on this one on a blog though:
http://sopebocks.blogspot.com/
The Sope-Bocks: First, I wonder if Mr. Harrison and Mr. Rahm would have had the same reaction if their children were being given references to homosexuality or pagan rituals. Somehow, I seriously doubt it. This story just goes to show the extreme bias against Christian values. It also shows the lengths some people will go to in order NOT to challenge the religion of evolution.
I applaud Mr. Helphinstine for pushing the students to think critically about what they are being indoctrinated with in public schools. His courage to challenge the system with the truth is admirable. Unfortunately, teaching anything other than extreme liberal thought will be a death-nail to your career in Oregon. Sad, but true.
Comment #166062
Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on March 20, 2007 12:01 PM (e)
Nevermind my previous comment, he was a part-time teacher.
Comment #166064
Posted by PvM on March 20, 2007 12:05 PM (e)
he Sope-Bocks: First, I wonder if Mr. Harrison and Mr. Rahm would have had the same reaction if their children were being given references to homosexuality or pagan rituals. Somehow, I seriously doubt it. This story just goes to show the extreme bias against Christian values. It also shows the lengths some people will go to in order NOT to challenge the religion of evolution.
Not very original. Remember that the class was about evolution, not the religion of evolution, not pagan rituals or homosexuality.
It was simply a blatant attempt to teach Christian religion in a science curriculum under the excuse of ‘teach the controversy’ or ‘enable critical thinking’ when in fact it serves exactly the opposite purpose. ID continues to inflict damage to our children’s education. Do they care?
Comment #166065
Posted by Raging Bee on March 20, 2007 12:07 PM (e)
First, I wonder if Mr. Harrison and Mr. Rahm would have had the same reaction if their children were being given references to homosexuality or pagan rituals. Somehow, I seriously doubt it…
Here we see the phony-crybaby-victim mindset laid bare. Do they really believe there would be no adverse reaction to a substitute teacher trying to inject Pagan beliefs into a science class? Those “Christian” crybabies would be leading the charge against such a teacher, and they know it. Which is just one reason why Pagans don’t even try to pull this kind of crap. We’re too honest to pull such a scam, and too smart to think it would work.
Comment #166067
Posted by harold on March 20, 2007 12:20 PM (e)
“First, I wonder if Mr. Harrison and Mr. Rahm would have had the same reaction if their children were being given references to homosexuality or pagan rituals. Somehow, I seriously doubt it.”
What a load of bull. Some people will say anything. Teaching lies about science to promote “paganism” (relax, Wiccans, I know you would never do it, I’m talking hypothetically) would certainly get a teacher fired even faster than teaching lies about science to promote “Christianity”.
Overwhelmingly the most likely person to teach lies about science as a commentary on homosexuality would be, of course, a right wing ideologue posing as a “Christian” and promoting homophobia. However, if a well-meaning person distorted or lied about science in a misguided effort to argue against homophobia (which wouldn’t really make sense, since there’s no need to lie to do that…), that, too, would be a firing offense.
Any pro-science poster here would support the firing of any teacher who deliberately distorted science and tried to use the science class as a pulpit to violate the rights of captive students by pushing political or “religious” propaganda. No matter what the underlying nature of their beliefs.
It’s no coincidence that authoritarian right wing ideologues are the ones who, in practice, are most likely to behave this way, but if a misguided person from some other movement did the same thing, they’d be equally wrong.
Comment #166074
Posted by Tukla in Iowa on March 20, 2007 12:46 PM (e)
Chip, the ACLJ is the American Center for Justice and Liberty, a group founded on the bizarre notion that Christians are a persecuted majority in the US. The ACLU is their mortal enemy.
Comment #166075
Posted by Arden Chatfield on March 20, 2007 12:49 PM (e)
“Kris Helphinstine: he has a Master’s Degree – in Science!
(http://www.drscience.com/)
Comment #166076
Posted by Arden Chatfield on March 20, 2007 12:51 PM (e)
“Kris Helphinstine: he has a Master’s Degree – in Science!
(http://www.drscience.com/)
Comment #166078
Posted by Ben on March 20, 2007 1:03 PM (e)
Here’s an article from the local newspaper out there… basically to sum up he lifted text directly from AiG. And that most of the test on the material was apparently on ID and AiG materials.
Comment #166086
Posted by Dizzy on March 20, 2007 1:13 PM (e)
Very interesting, Ben, thanks for the link.
Comment #166093
Posted by Craig T on March 20, 2007 1:31 PM (e)
From the Nugget News (linked above):
Helphinstine defended his usage of source material from the “Answers in Genesis” Web site telling The Nugget that some of the information presented is “good scientific fact.”
Comment #166139
Posted by Jedidiah Palosaari on March 20, 2007 5:51 PM (e)
I’m just so proud to be from the Northwest now. I think I’m tearing up. I’m feeling veclempt. I’ll give you a topic. Discuss: Literal Creationist critical thinking: Neither critical nor…
Comment #166144
Posted by Bing on March 20, 2007 6:22 PM (e)
A quick google confirms that his Master of Science is in Science Education.
Oregon State commencement; June 2005, pg 24, Florence.
Comment #166147
Posted by PoxyHowzes on March 20, 2007 7:08 PM (e)
Me daughter was the victim of Helphinstine’s “light”
On mermaids and unicorns it shines real bright.
On science’s truth it shines not at all,
Casting instead its darkly pall.
Yo ho ho, he taught ID,
Leaving me daughter all at sea!
He said: “Genesis has it thus —
Parrot these verses to get A+.
And, class, you’ll grasp that what comes next
Ain’t a part of the sec’lar text!”
Yo ho ho, he taught ID
Leaving me daughter all at sea.
Board to Helphinstine — “Not so fast,
ID’s vacuity’s wide and vast!”
If ye can’t teach science, teach not at all
And save young minds from y’er darkly pall.
Yo ho ho, he’s off to sea!
And me daughter’s no longer taught ID!
Me song has a lesson fer all to see —
“Beware the pious and scienc-y!”
Therein are lies and impiety,
Believe them not if yer mind be free.
Comment #166149
Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on March 20, 2007 7:34 PM (e)
A quick google confirms that his Master of Science is in Science Education.
Oregon State commencement; June 2005, pg 24, Florence.
How did someone as obviously unqualified as Helphinstine manage to recently get a Masters of Science Education? Oregon State has some explaining to do.
Comment #166154
Posted by MelM on March 20, 2007 8:37 PM (e)
Thanks again Ben; the Nugget has the better of the stories.
8 days! This guy really went for it. I wonder if he’s ever had a science teaching job before this. Hopefully, this will be his last.
Anyway, this was so gross that I don’t see how any lawyer could save his butt. I certainly hope this little district (1300 students) doesn’t get stuck with expensive legal bills.
This “critical thinking” scam isn’t new but I don’t remember who started it. Does anyone recall? I was hoping someone on PT would have the answer.
I dropped off a comment at the Nugget and also sent a congratulatory e-mail to Superintendent Thonstad (thonstat@outlawnet.com). The little town of Sisters (1500) jumped on the problem and solved it the right way. They deserve some credit!
Comment #166159
Posted by Sir_Toejam on March 20, 2007 10:37 PM (e)
It’s also true that the article is obviously written with a pro-creationist bias. Another little missing detail - he as a master’s degree in “science”. Google reveals that his master’s is probably in “Science Education”. This isn’t the first creationist to literally get himself an education degree for the specific purpose of trying to lie to students about science.
several people picked up on the oddity of listing a Master’s degree in “science”. I know for a fact that OSU does not offer a master’s degree in “science”.
heck, I can’t even think of any serious colleges that offer an undergraduate degree in “science” for that matter.
However, it would be bad enough if he managed a masters in science education from OSU.
if so, my guess would be he entered the PhD program in science education, and they booted him as soon as it was clear what his “mission” really was, and thus he ended up with a masters (makes the university look better than simply booting him with nothing).
Comment #166165
Posted by Mike Elzinga on March 20, 2007 11:53 PM (e)
PoxyHowzes adaptation (comment 166147) of the Keeper of the Eddystone Light is hilarious. I’ll bet he does folk music.
Some more satirical songs of this genre might work better than a good outing of these ID creeps.
Comment #166172
Posted by Anton Mates on March 21, 2007 1:09 AM (e)
However, it would be bad enough if he managed a masters in science education from OSU.
if so, my guess would be he entered the PhD program in science education, and they booted him as soon as it was clear what his “mission” really was, and thus he ended up with a masters (makes the university look better than simply booting him with nothing).
There’s a non-thesis option for the Oregon State sci-ed masters degree, too, so he may have been able to get out without much oversight. But don’t underestimate the likelihood of the university either not knowing or not caring about his intentions. Remember how far Bryan Leonard got at a different OSU before someone blew the whistle?
Comment #166176
Posted by Sir_Toejam on March 21, 2007 1:51 AM (e)
Remember how far Bryan Leonard got at a different OSU before someone blew the whistle?
true.
I just hate to think of such poor oversight at OSU; I have quite a few friends that did their grad work there.
*sigh*
Comment #166198
Posted by brightmoon on March 21, 2007 6:26 AM (e)
good im glad this incompetant liar got fired
Comment #166200
Posted by Peter Henderson on March 21, 2007 6:49 AM (e)
Here’s an article from the local newspaper out there… basically to sum up he lifted text directly from AiG. And that most of the test on the material was apparently on ID and AiG materials.
In the UK this TV station is putting out AiG material almost daily:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,2024907,00.html
One of the programmes I witnessed last week was Mike Riddle seemingly speaking to several hundred teenage kids in a school in the US. Now I’m not sure if it was a school assembly (although I would be surprised if Riddle would have been allowed to spout his nonsense there either !) or maybe even a school trip to Liberty University but at the end of the talk he summed up:
“OK kids, since we in a school lets go over everything and see if you’ve remembered what you have been taught. Did dinosaurs become extinct 65 million years ago or did they live alongside humans on Noah’s ark. Of course they lived alongside humans etc. etc.”
Sadly, most of the teenage kids were putting their hands up agreeing with Riddle. I’m sure this talk is somewhere in the AiG video on demand series. The thing is, in light of the story about the teacher being sacked, I always thought it was against the law in the US to teach YECism in any school. I do seem to recall that Riddle managed to gain access to a school biology lesson a couple of years ago.
By the way, does anyone know if the teacher involved in this one was a YEC or not ? Has he (the teacher) admitted to being a YEC ?
Still’ I’ll expect something to appear on the AiG website over the next few days along these lines:
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2007/03/19/uk-christians-suffer-for-faith/
Comment #166203
Posted by Christophe Thill on March 21, 2007 7:19 AM (e)
Teaching critical thinking by distorting science??? That’s not the most efficient way, I’d be tempted to say. Why not choose religion as a subject? It would be far better!
Comment #166207
Posted by mplavcan on March 21, 2007 8:05 AM (e)
Tukla:
Minor correction: the initials ACLJ stand for the American Center for Law and Justice. My wife calls it the American Center for Legislating Jesus. If you go to their web site, it is designed to look just like the ACLU’s. Around here, local radio and TV regularly broadcast their shows. Scary stuff.
Comment #166210
Posted by Tony on March 21, 2007 8:39 AM (e)
8 days! This guy really went for it. I wonder if he’s ever had a science teaching job before this. Hopefully, this will be his last.
Too bad there is not a way to blacklist this alleged “science” teacher in such a manner that would ensure that he would never be allowed to step foot into another public school anywhere else in this country and teach his garbage.
This school board acted quickly and decisively, and protected the best interests of those children. Another school board may not act as decisively, or worst, endorse his teaching methods.
Comment #166219
Posted by Dizzy on March 21, 2007 9:27 AM (e)
A quick google confirms that his Master of Science is in Science Education.
Oregon State commencement; June 2005, pg 24, Florence.
Google also turns up a “Kris Helphinstine” who went to Pacific Lutheran University. Same guy, maybe?
Comment #166221
Posted by Flint on March 21, 2007 9:56 AM (e)
But don’t underestimate the likelihood of the university either not knowing or not caring about his intentions. Remember how far Bryan Leonard got at a different OSU before someone blew the whistle?
“The University” is not a single intelligent organism, it’s more of a process of creating, adjudicating, and following rules. These rules don’t require everyone to look over everyone else’s shoulder, so a few creationists in the right positions can produce all the fake PhDs and other degrees they wish, so long as they follow the rules in doing so, OR so long as nobody looks carefully enough to see that rules are being broken.
Leonard’s mistake wasn’t in conspiring with two professors to push through a creationist thesis, and wasn’t even constituting an illegal committee to pull this off. Instead, Leonard made the Lenny Mistake - he simply could not help going to Kansas and preaching at the Kangaroo Kourt, in the process making himself conspicuous enough to inspire someone to examine his situation at OSU.
Even then, there’s nothing anyone could have done if Leonard’s committee had been composed of creationists within the right disciplines, correctly following the rules. Again, the Lenny Principle saved the day - the professors, being creationists, simply couldn’t help shooting themselves in the foot either.
Comment #166232
Posted by ofro on March 21, 2007 11:06 AM (e)
Google also turns up a “Kris Helphinstine” who went to Pacific Lutheran University. Same guy, maybe?
On top of that, you can find a Kris Helphistine listed as science teacher at Rogers HS in the Puyallup school district in 2004.
Comment #166248
Posted by Peter Henderson on March 21, 2007 1:55 PM (e)
Minor correction: the initials ACLJ stand for the American Center for Law and Justice. My wife calls it the American Center for Legislating Jesus. If you go to their web site, it is designed to look just like the ACLU’s. Around here, local radio and TV regularly broadcast their shows. Scary stuff.
D. James Kennedy also features the activities of the ACLJ, frequently, on his Coral Ridge hour show.
Comment #166249
Posted by dogmeat on March 21, 2007 2:00 PM (e)
>>>OK kids, since we in a school lets go over everything and see if you’ve remembered what you have been taught. Did dinosaurs become extinct 65 million years ago or did they live alongside humans on Noah’s ark. Of course they lived alongside humans etc. etc.”
Sadly, most of the teenage kids were putting their hands up agreeing with Riddle. I’m sure this talk is somewhere in the AiG video on demand series. The thing is, in light of the story about the teacher being sacked, I always thought it was against the law in the US to teach YECism in any school. I do seem to recall that Riddle managed to gain access to a school biology lesson a couple of years ago
I believe you saw part of the documentary “walking with Jesus” or “Friends of Jesus,” something like that. It was created by Nancy Pelosi’s daughter and showed a number of seminars similar to that one, in fact the language was identical in the show I saw but the kids were 4-8 ish)
Comment #166253
Posted by Tyrannosaurus on March 21, 2007 2:32 PM (e)
Sir_Toejam mussed, “if so, my guess would be he entered the PhD program in science education, and they booted him as soon as it was clear what his “mission” really was, and thus he ended up with a masters (makes the university look better than simply booting him with nothing).”
Indeed. I know first hand. I once entered a PhD program at a university (remain unnamed) in California and it was not a fit for either of us (the U and myself) and we parted ways with me holding a consolation prize, a MS in science.
But not despair I soon entered another program at another U and obtained my PhD (this time it was a match made in heaven).
Comment #166275
Posted by Heather Robirts on March 21, 2007 5:33 PM (e)
Not so fast! Not all of the community members are siding with the parents or school board on their decision. Don’t assume that this is an open and shut case. MANY of us in this small community completely back the teacher. .
Comment #166283
Posted by David B. Benson on March 21, 2007 6:38 PM (e)
Heather Robirts — That is most unfortunate.
Comment #166286
Posted by MelM on March 21, 2007 6:40 PM (e)
From the link to AiG above:
THE CREATION MUSEUM Another monument to irrationalism.
Opening in June 2007
“Throughout this family-friendly experience, guests will learn how to answer the attacks on the Bible’s authority in geology, biology, anthropology, cosmology, etc., and they will discover how science actually confirms biblical history.”
Note the “etc”. Actually, all thought is to be put under the “authority of the Bible.” These people are fanatic, angry, and malignant. They want to take us back to the world of thought that existed before Greek natural science: explaining things by holy tales. Religion is toxic to the human mind.
Comment #166288
Posted by Ron Okimoto on March 21, 2007 6:58 PM (e)
melm wrote:
This “critical thinking” scam isn’t new but I don’t remember who started it. Does anyone recall? I was hoping someone on PT would have the answer.
The reason that the AIG scam material could be used is that the last generation of creationist scam artists that called themselves scientific creationists used to use the same “controversy” scam as part of their lame shtick over 20 years ago. It should be noted that the current generation of ID/creationist scam artists spent most of their time denying that they were scientific creationists, but they find themselves stuck with the same lame schtick.
It was dusted off by Intelligent design creationists like Wells and Meyer when the ID creationist scam artists came to the realization that ID was a failure and would never make it off first base. The Discovery Institute was working up the “Controversy” scam back in 1999. We found out in Ohio in 2002 that the Discovery Institute’s “controversy” scam didn’t even mention that ID or creationism had ever existed, so you know that the scam artists at the Discovery Institute had a burning desire to teach ID (not!), and explains their Keystone Cops routine during the Dover fiasco.
Just go here, you will have to pay for it, but the article goes over the legal ramifications of the “Teach the Controversy” creationist scam. It should tell anyone with half a brain that even the ID creationist scam artists knew that ID was cooked as far back as 1999 if they were working up a new scam that didn’t even mention that ID had ever existed.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=58
I will also note that Discovery Institute scam ploys like ARN and ISCID were started after the ID scam artists had given up on ID ever amounting to anything. Their efforts after 1999 were only to make the “controversy” scam look legit. We found out in Ohio that ID wasn’t part of the controversy that they wanted to teach. They were only using ID as smoke to make it sound like there was some controversy that the creationist rubes would want to teach. They never put up a lesson plan to demonstrate that they had anything that even the creationist rubes would want to teach. That is the sad state of the current scam. It is being perpetrated by the same dishonest scam artists that perpetrated the ID scam for years.
Just look up the “controversies” that they want to teach and compare them to the junk that the scientific creationists were stumbling over 20 years ago. It has got to be discouraging to even the densist ID/creationists to have to resort to arguments that never amounted to anything decades ago. You have to wonder if any of them have a clue why nothing about intelligent design is offered as part of the controversy except the same old creationist denial arguments.
Comment #166290
Posted by Alan Bird on March 21, 2007 7:22 PM (e)
I note the newspaper you link to (why a Texas one rather than a local btw?) has a link at the bottom of the page offering readers a chance to have free d’ls of - wait for it - Ann Coulter’s weekly column. Gad. Second prize is no doubt her daily column.
And while we’re talking about the tactics of proselytizing Xtians, here’s an article in a recent Times (of London) about missionaries descending on a Cambodian village full of elderly Pol Pot villains.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article1533661.ece
Murky waters to fish in, but that’s their métier. However, what I found revealing was this quote: ‘Pastor Phannith said that many chose Christianity because they did not find forgiveness in Buddhism, which teaches that a soul must pay for its sins during lives to come.’
Sef-serving or what? Selfishness disguised as hope romps home, with faith and charity having fallen at the first fence. So much for the whole body of christian ethics.
Comment #166292
Posted by MelM on March 21, 2007 7:29 PM (e)
There are now about 20 comments on the Nugget story.
Ginger Smith wrote a truly outstanding comment that’s well worth reading–she put some real effort into explaining the situation and gets loads done in a short space. Great! I quote some pieces of it below:
“Genetic science has filled in the supposed gaps which evolution deniers are still using as arguments against evolution. Those arguments are 20 or more years out of date. We have the genetic history of life on this planet now and evolution is it.”
“Since the ID promoters cannot support their claims with actual evidence, they go about trying to change the argument to one of including alternative theories rather than arguing their case on the evidence.”
“There is a concerted effort to convince people there are alternatives, and it fools a lot of people who are not well versed in biology. It doesn’t fool the scientists and that’s why ID is not included in public school science classrooms. And as a side note, modern medical research is blooming because of the advances in genetic science which is again, entirely based on the theory of evolution. “
Perhaps the strangest comment:
“What is really unfortunate is this man made a mistake according to the values of Sisters. He exercised poor judgment and then when caught, rather than being mentored, corrected, and educated, he was terminated. It’s a knee jerk reaction because the issue was “political” to Sisters. How pathetic that a person can’t seriously screw up. Just about every where else you can make a big fat mistake and not be fired for it, especially if you’re brand new and not educated on the political environment of a particular area. He was terminated for political reasons. People are acting like he’s some kind of criminal. The true issue isn’t evolution vs. creationism, the true issue is whether people are allowed to be mentored and afforded the opportunity to learn form their mistakes. Terminating him is ridiculous.”
We differ; he didn’t wander over a line because of ignorance and I don’t think he should be teaching anywhere.
Anyway, give Ginger’s comment a read; she gave it a good shot.
Comment #166296
Posted by MelM on March 21, 2007 7:57 PM (e)
Thanks Ron Okimoto,
I think though that “critical thinking” is a bit different gambit than “teach the controversy.” At least it sounds different (maybe it’s just TTC under a new name?)
It occurred to me that, like Barbara Forrest’s ID “Trojan Horse”, “critical thinking” and “teach the controversy” can look sane, benign, scientific, even educationally valuable, and deserving to be brought into a school. But, these are all “Trojan Horses”: drag them into a school and what pops out is raw sewage–very toxic stuff. These folks have gone to great efforts to make the “barking mad” (from Dawkins) look healthy and rational.
Comment #166302
Posted by Ron Okimoto on March 21, 2007 8:49 PM (e)
Critical analysis is just the new name for “teach the controversy.” They started using critical analysis after the first draft of the “teach the controversy” Ohio model lesson plan came out and had links to creationist web sites and dishonest junk straight out of Wells’ Icons of Evolution propaganda book. The Ohio rubes blew that scam by linking it to creationism and intelligent design. The later drafts dropped out those “mistakes” and they changed the name to critical analysis lesson plan. The slogan used to be primarily “teach the controversy.”
Dembski knew it back in 2001 when he claimed that the clarion call was to “teach the controversy” in an essay that was supposed to be about what the ID scam artists wanted to teach about intelligent design.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=604
The creationist junk and intent hasn’t changed just the name of the scam.
Comment #166305
Posted by Stevaroni on March 21, 2007 9:27 PM (e)
Today’s (3/21) Oregonian, the major news daily for the Portland metro area had an interestin front-page article about Helphinstine.
( http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1174447541172320.xml&coll=7 )
It contains some first-person quotes from the individuals involved, including a few from Helphinstine himself, who says….
“I thought, ‘Hey, this is a great chance to get kids thinking’ “.
Um yeah, maybe not all that much thinking about science, but, um thinking nonetheless.
On the other hand, in retrospect, he seems to admit that maybe “slides of Nazi death camps weren’t appropriate for (his) freshman and sophomore students”.
Me, personally, I’ve never quite made the connection between, say, rabid genocidal Nazis and and their death camps and, say, oh, Watson, Crick and an electron microscope but maybe that’s because I didn’t do enough “thinking” as a kid.
Comment #166308
Posted by MelM on March 21, 2007 10:18 PM (e)
Re: Stevaroni #166305
From the Oregonian article:
“It is my belief that Mr. Helphinstine challenged the students to look at all sides of the issue, and understand the source of each material that is presented and the underlying and inherent bias of all sources of information,” Rudinsky said in an e-mail. “That is a good definition of thinking critically.”
A Trojan Horse rider speaks! Slick! He forgets to mention the “sides” here. On one side we have scientists who study reality; on the other, we have a few faith/bible based wingnuts. A bunch of infantile myths is not a substitute for reality–nothing is. Shame on them all. Faith doesn’t achieve knowledge; it achieves dogma. It’s subjective and relative.
Comment #166335
Posted by 2 Hulls on March 22, 2007 6:12 AM (e)
“Reality has a demonstrated liberal bias. Stephen Colbert
Dave
Comment #166336
Posted by chip poirot on March 22, 2007 6:36 AM (e)
What is sad about this incident is that it gives critical thinking a bad name. This is a link to one of the largest (and best IMO) organizations promoting **real** critical thinking. Unfortunately, you have to cut and past into your browser since I can never get my html tags to work here.
http://www.criticalthinking.org/
I don’t know any proponents of real critical thinking who would embrace the “teach the controversy” approach. If you are going to teach critical thinking about ID then you have start with relevant criteria for evaluation. ID and YEC fail any test of good critical thinking.
There is some thought that you can teach concepts through critical thinking (Paul and Elder advocate this). But if you were to design a lesson plan around that for evolution it would be along the lines of understanding concepts of gradualism, populations, etc. by comparing and contrasting punctuated equilibrium vs. phyletic gradualism. In doing so you would want to help students understand what the argument is (and is not) about. In the process of studying this argument and comparing different points of view students learn about scientific method, how to appraise different theories, how to apply concepts, etc.
Critical thinking does not start out by putting junk science on a par with good science.
Comment #166338
Posted by Jack Krebs on March 22, 2007 7:03 AM (e)
Chip has a very useful point. It would be good for someone [Chip? NCSE? Nick in his spare time? :-)] to do some research and write up a summary of good high-school appropriate guidelines for teaching critical thinking. What does this really mean, what are various components of it, and what are some good exercises and lessons that could be used in high schools from a cross-curriculum perspective (that is, not just in respect to science but to all subjects, especially social studies and English.)
Comment #166339
Posted by Bob Vaiden on March 22, 2007 7:08 AM (e)
I notice that most comments in the local newspaper (the link that “Ben” gave) support the TEACHER, not the school board. Sounds like more science-oriented local people need to respond!
Comment #166348
Posted by Alan Bird on March 22, 2007 8:38 AM (e)
Re Stevaroni’s post (#166305), shouldn’t Watson & Crick be Watson, Crick, Wilkins & Franklin? (Admittedly it’s more of a mouthful for what was essentially a throwaway line, but fair’s fair…. I liked Stevaroni’s comment though.)
Comment #166373
Posted by doctorgoo on March 22, 2007 10:58 AM (e)
Fortunately, this doesn’t look like it’s about to become another Kitzmiller. But there are always others out there. Here’s one from Rogers School District in Arkansas:
http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2007/03/22/news/032207rzevofolo.txt
Comment #166388
Posted by Pumpkinhead on March 22, 2007 11:59 AM (e)
[From Jack - acting as thread admin: I’ve deleted this comment. I will move it to the bathroom wall as soon as I can.
This comment was deliberately provocative spam, and there is no need to follow down the path that it leads.]
Comment #166389
Posted by Raging Bee on March 22, 2007 12:10 PM (e)
Pumpkinhead: thanx for an excellent parody of hillbilly creationism!
…our street corner evangelizing efforts still yield far more converts…
Especially among unemployed losers who have nothing better to do than loaf about on street-corners and listen to raving street-loonies.
…adults in universities who must subject themselves to further immersion in the Darwinian Styx in order to get a job above and beyond hamburger flipping.
As opposed to the creationists, who are, I presume, perfectly content to flip burgers and seethe with resentment at their more-educated customers who buy their burgers while taking breaks from their more challenging jobs?
Comment #166395
Posted by Pumpkinhead on March 22, 2007 12:46 PM (e)
FYI–
Jack the censor is lying. My thoughtful, coherent essay contained no spam. I advertised nothing nor did I post any links. (Hey Raging Bee, back me up on this!)
The above paragraph assumes Jack-the-Giant-Killer-in-his-mind actually knows what spam means as opposed to a word he uses for anything he doesn’t like. Of course, Jack is probably a product of the Darwinian school system and hence is probably not the sharpest tack.
Comment #166405
Posted by Raging Bee on March 22, 2007 1:10 PM (e)
No backup from me, Punkie – serious or not, your post was completely off-topic; and I shouldn’t have wasted my time responding to it.
Comment #166423
Posted by Sounder on March 22, 2007 3:28 PM (e)
It wasn’t “spam” so much as a “troll”. In any case it added no substance to the comment thread.
Anyway, I’m personally of the opinion that an Introduction to Logic course would be more valuable to a high school than any specific science class: it would lay the foundation for scientific learning better than any class on sheer memorization of established facts.
Comment #166430
Posted by Pumpkinhead on March 22, 2007 4:04 PM (e)
[Comment deleted - I expect civil discussion on the threads that I start and moderate.]
Comment #166463
Posted by MelM on March 22, 2007 7:14 PM (e)
Re: chip poirot #166336
Thanks for the critical thinking URL. I have a number of such URLs but not this one.
Looks like Helphinstine was going to teach “critical thinking” using bible references and material from AiG. Note: according to the article, “Answers in Genesis emphasizes a presuppositional rather than an evidentialist approach to apologetics.” These people simply don’t accept the “authority” of reality over any book–including holy books. Yet, all rational thought can accept only the authority of reality. All these people can achieve with their “critical thinking” is to attack any and all rational thought.
From the AiG article Don’t answer—do answer!
“Time and time again, we have insisted that it is essential to understand that all evidence is interpreted on the basis of ‘pre-suppositions.’ As Christians, we must recognize that all of our thinking—in every area—should be built upon the history revealed in God’s Word. By doing this, you then have the correct ‘big picture’ way of understanding the universe so that the evidence of the present can be interpreted correctly.
Sadly, many Christians often succumb to the non-Christian’s challenge to provide evidence for the existence of God, creation and the Christian faith, etc., without using the Bible. When you agree to these terms of the debate, however, then you are answering a person ‘according to [i.e. within the terms of] his folly.’
In other words, the Christian has accepted the non-Christian’s presuppositions (that thinking is not to be built on the Bible), and thus, by default, he has only the non-Christian’s way of thinking to interpret the evidence. Such a person cannot ‘win’ the argument because he has no true foundation (God’s Word) on which to correctly (and differently) interpret the evidence. The Christian might try to use a different interpretation of the evidence (consistent with a Biblical foundation), but without acknowledging the foundation, the argument will likely fail.”
AiG(USA) is a creation of Ken Ham.
Ham encourages children to “always trust God” over the current mainstream explanation(s) for the origin of the universe when confronted with teachings that contradict a literal reading of the Bible. [2]
“Boys and girls,” Ham said. If a teacher so much as mentions evolution, or the Big Bang, or an era when dinosaurs ruled the Earth, “you put your hand up and you say, ‘Excuse me, were you there?’ Can you remember that?” The children roared their assent. “Sometimes people will answer, ‘No, but you weren’t there either,’ “ Ham told them. “Then you say, ‘No, I wasn’t, but I know someone who was, and I have his book about the history of the world.’ “ He waved his Bible in the air. “Who’s the only one who’s always been there?” Ham asked. “God!” the boys and girls shouted. “Who’s the only one who knows everything?” “God!” “So who should you always trust, God or the scientists?” The children answered with a thundering: “God!”
I’ve never seen intellectual raw sewage being pumped into people’s minds on such a massive scale. This stuff is very toxic; our country is ill!
Comment #166472
Posted by Erin G on March 22, 2007 9:15 PM (e)
My son’s grade 7 teacher is using J. Well’s iconsofevolution webpage as a source for his class’s evolution “debate”. I actually like the teacher, and don’t want him fired, but I HAVE to do something. Suggestions would be welcome…
Comment #166485
Posted by MelM on March 22, 2007 11:23 PM (e)
Erin G,
Consciously decide what your priority is: your son’s education–i.e. your son–or the teacher’s job–the teacher. I know which one I’d pick and I’d never ever regret it; you shouldn’t either. It’s his fault if he loses his job–it’s not your fault.
Comment #166486
Posted by drscience on March 22, 2007 11:24 PM (e)
Darwin (read god) forbid that we should ever question his “science”. To actually allow multiple sides of an issue to be presented is tantamount to heresy in such an informed community of descendants of the primeval slime. We must never allow the dark side to see the light of discussion. And I do have an M.S. degree in mathematics, a true science discipline.
Comment #166487
Posted by Cedric Katesby on March 23, 2007 12:20 AM (e)
drscience,
(Or should I just call you Doctor?)
Since you’ve got a ‘true science’ education and all, how about you share your knowledge with us about the scientific alternatives to Evilution?
Just open a thread at After the Bar Closes.
Or are you just a troll who’s all mouth and no action.
Thanks in advance for running from an argument.
(grin)
Comment #166488
Posted by stevaroni on March 23, 2007 12:26 AM (e)
drscience writes…
God forbid that we should ever question his “science”
To actually allow multiple sides of an issue to be presented is tantamount to heresy in such an informed community of descendants of the primeval slime.
Fine.
Question the science.
Science likes when you question the science.
You have my undivided attention.
Go ahead and present the evidence for “multiple sides”.
Start by telling me what the “Theory of ID” that we’re supposed to be teaching is.
Tell me who the designer was (at least in general terms, I don’t expect great detail). Tell me (again just in general terms) what he designed.
Tell me where I look to see some of these details.
Any of these details.
I’ll start with some simple questions, OK?
There are places on earth where you can find dead dinosaurs in 65 million year old rocks. This is an established fact. You and actually go see them yourself. Please tell me what part of the ID theory explains all those dead dinosaurs.
OK, maybe ID theory doesn’t cover that. Fair enough, evolution doesn’t cover everything either.
There are places on earth where hominid fossils are found. This is also an established fact. Again, you can go see them yourself. The ages of these fossils stretch back 5 million years and oddly age closely correlates with a slow change from an ape to modern man.
Does ID offer any explanation for what certainly looks like a gradual change? No?
All vertebrates have similar skeletal structures despite their varied sizes, shapes and habitats. Please tell me what part of the ID theory explains how that might occur.
Hmmm, that’s a biggie, ID theory doesn’t cover that.
All multicellular animals share similar chemistry, genetics, and even chromosomes. Please tell me what part of the ID theory explains why that might be.
No? ID theory doesn’t address that either?
So please, enlighten me, teach me the controversy by offering up your evidence.
I realize that Darwin had a 100 year start, so I don’t expect you to match evolution’s “pathetic level of detail”, but a little evidence is nice.
You, um, have some evidence, don’t you?
You’re not just going to complain about Haeckles embryo’s or the peppered moth or Piltdown man, are you? Because those arguments were shot down long ago – by scientists doublechecking themselves.
You’re not just going to talk about the second law of thermodynamics or how half an eye is impossible are you? Because those argument has been so discredited that even Answers in Genesis now advises creationists not to use it, lest they appear uninformed.
No, you’re not just going to kvetch about evolutions rough edges, you’re ready to offer up some actual positive evidence for ID, right?
Go ahead.
Apparently there’s evidence for an alternate explanation out there. Teach me!
I await.
Comment #166503
Posted by Vyoma on March 23, 2007 3:53 AM (e)
Darwin (read god) forbid that we should ever question his “science”.
In which of his books did he do this? I seem to recall from actually reading some of his work (which clearly you haven’t done yourself) that he states several times over that it is not only encouraged but necessary to question his ideas, because he himself admitted in his time that he couldn’t reach firm conclusions about all of his data. I defy you to point out a statement by Darwin indicating that his work wasn’t to be questioned.
To actually allow multiple sides of an issue to be presented is tantamount to heresy in such an informed community of descendants of the primeval slime. We must never allow the dark side to see the light of discussion.
You don’t have a side, you have unfounded and dishonest assertions.
And I do have an M.S. degree in mathematics, a true science discipline.
I don’t believe you. I think you’re a liar.
Comment #166508
Posted by nunyer on March 23, 2007 5:07 AM (e)
Erin G,
Yes, Erin, you’re in a difficult position. But consider … for how many years has the teacher been pulling this crap? Unless you (and preferably some other parents) speak up NOW, this teacher will coast merrily along on his mission and continue to pollute more minds.
You might go to http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/ to find more resources on “Icons of Evolution.”
You could ask the teacher why he feels his own scientific training and insights are more valid than those of the mainstream scientific community.
If his response is that he’s trying to teach critical thinking, ask him, why pick evolution? Does he teach all of the other science concepts in the same manner? If not, why not? If he answers in the affirmative, get evidence that he does so - lesson plans, assessments, etc.
If you don’t see an immediate change in lesson plans from that teacher, go to the principal. Don’t let the principal put you off with an “I’ll get back to you later.” Give him/her a deadline - say by the end of the working day. Next, to the superintendent. Then to the newspapers.
Record the conversations, too. Who knows what else this teacher is getting away with. Or maybe he’s been duped by local creationists … either way, you owe it to your kids to fight back, and you’ll give them a lesson in honesty and courage along the way.
Comment #166513
Posted by Darth Robo on March 23, 2007 6:36 AM (e)
“And I do have an M.S. degree in mathematics,”
Boy, that’s convincing. I’m quite surprised - the creo’s seem to be a little slow on the uptake here. I thought they’d show up much sooner.
Comment #166518
Posted by J. Biggs on March 23, 2007 7:35 AM (e)
drscience asserts
And I do have an M.S. degree in mathematics, a true science discipline.
Is mathematics truly natural science like say, Biology? It seems some mathematicians would disagree with you there. from http://euclid.trentu.ca/math/sb/misc/mathsci.html
Mathematics is certainly a science in the broad sense of “systematic and formulated knowledge”, but most people use “science” to refer only to the natural sciences. Since mathematics provides the language in which the natural sciences aspire to describe and analyse the universe, there is a natural link between mathematics and the natural sciences. emphasis mine
I am in no way trying to insult mathematicians, but even I do not consider mathematics itself to be science. Mathematics, IMO, is more or less the language of science.
Comment #166544
Posted by drscience on March 23, 2007 10:36 AM (e)
I find it amusing that I could get such vitriolic hatred from such an unlighted group. Several of you and you know who you are should consider changing your meds.
Cedric as any serious listener to NPR will tell you, “Dr Science knows more than you do.”
Stevaroni said, “Science likes when you question the science.” Science may like it but evolutionists such as you don’t seem to be fond of the idea. Perhaps you could focus more on the idea of theory of evolution and less on the doctrine that evolution is unquestionably true.
Vyoma, as it turns out I do have the M.S. in math. You sound like a true thinker so drop the hate speech and think.
Hey Darth, for you to have had a thought is a true breakthrough. Keep up the good work. You should soon be potty trained.
And finally to J. Biggs who wrote, “Mathematics is certainly a science in the broad sense of ‘systematic and formulated knowledge’, but most people use ‘science’ to refer only to the natural sciences.” There you have modern science at its best. How could science be anything but what MOST people think it is? You illustrate the contemporary high jacking of language by liberal secular thinking. To paraphrase Joseph Goebbels, “If you repeat something loud enough and long enough it will become the truth”. I know that you have heard that before but hang on for a cerebral insight. My real quarrel is not with the theory of evolution it is with the high jacking of the term Science. Stick with the debate of theories; try your best to be honest with what science is and what is philosophy or religion. Why do you fear the debate?
You are now free to roam about the ever expanding universe that began from nothing and exploded by itself into something. A hypothesis verified by unquestionable scientific principle that can be repeated in the lab.
Comment #166547
Posted by Cedric Katesby on March 23, 2007 10:57 AM (e)
drscience said “I find it amusing blah, blah, blah…”
Then you are easily amused.
Are you going to open a thread and argue or is the good “Doctor” just going to keep on being predictably boring?
(insert even bigger grin here)
Comment #166553
Posted by Michael on March 23, 2007 11:25 AM (e)
Wow, drscience, you went for the “poor picked-on me” act in a hurry. I read most of the responses to your tired, old, creationist drivel and didn’t see much that qualified as “vitriolic hatred”, but I guess if you want to claim victimhood, that’s your business.
ANyway, I just wanted to respond to your last comment about recreating the big-bang in the lab…you do realize that it’s not a requirement to re-create something in a lab environment to understand its scientific validity, right? We know a lot about the Sun, and can come up with a great number of ways to test our theories about how the Sun works without actually creating a Sun in the lab. That does not make our understanding of the Sun any less scientific. We can still envision experiments that test our understanding of the Sun…we can measure its effects on the universe around us. We have tested our understanding of the “Big Bang” event in a similar manner by observing matter’s behavior in ever more powerful colliders and found that matter behaves as we expected it to as we reached energies close to those expected to have existed at the time of the event, we have measured energy signatures in the universe’s background radiation that were predicted by the Big Bang Hypothesis. We don’t have to create a universe in a laboratory to know that the theory best explains the universe as we observe it to be!
You question and discard all we have learned about the universe we live in, but you’re ready to accept a creation story that has no more evidence than TWO conflicting stories in an old book and the word of some guys in funny collars asking for weekly hand-outs?
Nobody is coming into your church insisting that everything you know is wrong, yet you and your ilk see no problem with busting into every aspect of public and private lives to impose your beliefs on others…who’s being persecuted again?
Comment #166557
Posted by Peter Henderson on March 23, 2007 11:39 AM (e)
An intitial response from Ken Ham, CEO of AiG:
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2007/03/23/aigs-role-re-oregon-public-school-teacher-being-fired/
Many of you may have seen the news item about a science teacher in Oregon who was fired for supposedly teaching creation in a public school science classroom. I spoke to the teacher, Kris Helphinstine, on Thursday via telephone. Despite what some in the media have claimed, the facts are very different. Kris handed out two articles that were published by Answers in Genesis. In one (an article I wrote about Poodles and natural selection), Kris had removed all references to God and the Bible—but left my name on as author—that was a “mistake”! Once certain parents realized who Ken Ham was (CEO of AiG), that created a problem. Also, in the other article, he blacked out a sentence where God was mentioned—but left the name “Answers in Genesis” on the bottom—another “mistake”!
Kris was really just teaching the students about natural selection—trying to teach them to think. He also taught them about the connection between evolution and eugenics (which, by the way, is documented fact).
This really shows the state of things in American public schools when a teacher is fired, basically because he used materials that come from a creationist organization.
Comment #166561
Posted by Just Bob on March 23, 2007 11:53 AM (e)
If you don’t see an immediate change in lesson plans from that teacher, go to the principal. Don’t let the principal put you off with an “I’ll get back to you later.” Give him/her a deadline - say by the end of the working day. Next, to the superintendent. Then to the newspapers.
A better plan, I think: go to all of them at once–at least to the school chain of command. That way those on the lower rungs know that the higher-ups have been informed, and are likely watching to see how the underlings handle it. Amazing how fast a principal can act when she knows that the curriculum supervisor, superintendent, and maybe even state Dept. of Education have been made aware of the situation.
PS: It wouldn’t hurt to casually drop the initials ACLU, either.
Comment #166562
Posted by minimalist on March 23, 2007 11:55 AM (e)
Cedric as any serious listener to NPR will tell you, “Dr Science knows more than you do.”
Yes, yes, I recognized the reference. In fact I see a lot of parallels between you and the real Dr. Science:
Dr. Science makes a big deal out of his “master’s degree… in SCIENCE!”, making his misplaced self-confidence and arrogance all the more comedic. Dr. Science also spews a lot of sciencey-sounding nonsense, for the entertainment of those who know better.
Were it not for the sudden influx of other creationists who seem deadly serious (though no less ignorant) I’d have thought you a troll.
Comment #166563
Posted by J. Biggs on March 23, 2007 12:02 PM (e)
drsciency pounds fists:
I find it amusing that I could get such vitriolic hatred from such an unlighted group. Several of you and you know who you are should consider changing your meds.
Nice ad hom. attack, perhaps you should follow your own advice. As for your accusations, they have no bearing on the debate.
There you have modern science at its best. How could science be anything but what MOST people think it is? You illustrate the contemporary high jacking of language by liberal secular thinking. To paraphrase Joseph Goebbels, “If you repeat something loud enough and long enough it will become the truth”. I know that you have heard that before but hang on for a cerebral insight. My real quarrel is not with the theory of evolution it is with the high jacking of the term Science. Stick with the debate of theories; try your best to be honest with what science is and what is philosophy or religion. Why do you fear the debate?
The case I illustrated was the opinion of a mathematician who opined also that mathematics can be considered science in a broad sense. However when people in general(and this includes political conservatives) picture a scientist they certainly don’t picture a mathematician do they. How does that fact have anything to do with “liberal secular thinking” high jacking language. The fact that you bring up a famous Nazi henchman shows that you wish to associate those who disagree with you with fascists; not very nice. As for those trying to high jack science using politics, I think the Disco institute serves as a fine example. After all using their definition even astrology would have to be considered science. Would you care to prove me wrong on that by siting any peer reviewed scientific publications they have produced? Or perhaps you could show me any research they have done? Better yet you could tell me what the theory of ID is. If you want to redefine science, you do it with research and exposing it to peer review, not with PR and opinion polls. As for the debate, it is purely political, not scientific, because there is no other theory in biology that is competing with evolution within the scientific community. And again you should follow your own advice and try to be honest about what constitutes science, philosophy and religion.
Comment #166565
Posted by Vyoma on March 23, 2007 12:15 PM (e)
Vyoma, as it turns out I do have the M.S. in math. You sound like a true thinker so drop the hate speech and think.
I still don’t believe you. So much for your argument from authority. Unless you can find some way of proving to me that you have an MS degree in anything, I will continue to disbelieve you.
In other words, I will evaluate your arguments on the basis of the arguments, not on the basis of a claimed authority. That is thinking. What you are suggesting is not.
Hence my continued doubt that you have an MS in anything. You’ve yet to show enough intellectual prowess to have earned one, particularly in the statement which I’ve quoted above. In any case, you have absolutely no idea how science works, nor what peer review is like. Thus, even if by some twist of fate you had managed to earn an MS, you are still not a “dr” and know nothing at all about “science,” making even your chosen user ID fundamentally dishonest.
But this forum isn’t about you, as much as you appear desirous of making it so. I’ve yet to see anything other than you flaunting some little-deserved ego here; so far, all you’ve given anyone to think about is your demeanor, and I’ve come to my conclusion based on the evidence you’ve so far provided.
Comment #166573
Posted by Chip Poirot on March 23, 2007 1:49 PM (e)
Somebody suggested I compile a list or guidelines on critical thinking in K-12 science education (I think it was Jack Krebs).
It’s a good idea but I won’t take it on because 1) I have more than enough of my own work to do; 2) I am not a K-12 teacher and 3) I’m not even technically speaking a “scientist” (I am an economist with an interest in the application of evolutionary models to economic systems as well as epistemological debates).
But the best reason I can think of not to do it is because other people are already doing it.
Erin G. complained about a teacher’s link to Wells’ icons of evolution. My response to that would be “it depends on the whole context”.
Was a counterlink to the web site that critiques Wells’ book provided as well? How was this done? How much class time was devoted to this? What is the district policy on introducing additional material into the curriculum?
Comment #166574
Posted by Raging Bee on March 23, 2007 2:21 PM (e)
I find it amusing that I could get such vitriolic hatred from such an unlighted group…
How old are you, drscience? From your dirt-poor writing and spelling, I’m guessing junior high, although I wrote at a higher skill-level when I was in junior-high.
Does your mom know you’re here? Would she approve of your antics, or would she be embarrassed?
Comment #166586
Posted by Richard Simons on March 23, 2007 3:28 PM (e)
“drscience” says
Stick with the debate of theories; … Why do you fear the debate?
Well then, what are you waiting for? Bring it on. I’d love to see someone actually propose an alternative hypothesis to the theory of evolution, together with some supporting evidence. The arguments we hear from creationists/ID supporters have become distinctly stale.
If you could do this, you would make a lot more headway than by telling people they are hijacking science and are almost potty trained. Although I suspect that the usual long-refuted criticisms of evolution are the best you can come up with.
BTW If you have a MS in mathematics why do you misleadingly call yourself drscience? Wishful thinking? To impress the rubes?
Comment #166588
Posted by Ben (but not the first one) on March 23, 2007 3:37 PM (e)
Hey, I was just thumbing through. I’ve been following the story in the news and the blogosphere. I should have checked pandasthumb.org as soon as the story broke. I posted on that Sope-Bocks blog, and I confirmed what I suspected. The blogger was unreasonable.
I wonder how many more years before the American populus (because this is primarily an American problem) wises up and stops sending their money to evangelist yahoos so we can spend time and energy on educating students in math and science. No wonder America is so far behind the rest of the world in math, science, and engineering.
I kind of want to go to that Creationist museum in Kentucky just to cause a scene. Who’s with me?
Comment #166590
Posted by MarkP on March 23, 2007 3:50 PM (e)
Drscience said: And I do have an M.S. degree in mathematics, a true science discipline.
For what it’s worth, I have a BS in Mathematics and a professional designation that is the equivalent of a masters in statistics. I also don’t consider mathematics a science. Science is driven by verifiable experimentation. Mathematics is driven by logical proofs. Thus, I consider it a branch of philosophy, and obviously a very important one.
Comment #166598
Posted by millipj on March 23, 2007 4:29 PM (e)
And I do have an M.S. degree in mathematics, a true science discipline.
Congratulations! And in your course did they teach the alternative theories that pi=2.5 or exactly 3?
Interestingly mathematics is full of unproven conjectures that are used on a daily basis. No doubt drscience is as vocal in decrying the evil Riemann hypothesis and demanding that they teach the alternatives in prime number theory.
Comment #166612
Posted by Anton Mates on March 23, 2007 7:44 PM (e)
For what it’s worth, I have a BS in Mathematics and a professional designation that is the equivalent of a masters in statistics. I also don’t consider mathematics a science. Science is driven by verifiable experimentation. Mathematics is driven by logical proofs.
Well, I would say numerical analysis is dependent on experiment.
Comment #166670
Posted by Ed Darrell on March 24, 2007 11:54 AM (e)
Did he go to Pacific Lutheran?
Pacific Lutheran teaches evolution to its biology and science education students: http://www.nsci.plu.edu/biol/
Yes, some twigs of Lutherans tend toward creationism, but the church itself is not officially behind creationism. Generally, creationists screw up their faith as much as they screw up their science.
If Helphinstine is a PLU grad, it only makes it more clear that he should have known better.
Comment #166684
Posted by stevaroni on March 24, 2007 1:18 PM (e)
drscience said…
(you evolutionists) must never allow the dark side to see the light of discussion.
evolutionists such as you don’t seem to be fond of the idea
I could get such vitriolic hatred from such an unlighted group.
Au Contraire, Doc.
I said nothing of the kind.
You posted comments to the effect that we should “teach the controversy”.
I offered (and rather politely, I think) to give you your chance by going first.
You could start by teaching the controversy, right here, right now, to me. I promised to read your response, carefully and uncritically, and even if most readers didn’t at least you would have taken the high road.
Did you respond? No.
But maybe you just missed my proposal, so I’ll try again.
I want to see this controversy of which you speak. If there’s a true alternate theory out there I want to understand it. If Darwin was wrong, I don’t want to go through life with blinders on. No true scientist does.
I’ll even do everything I can to make this easy on you.
Evolution is the entrenched leader, so most of these discussions about ID eventually degenerate into wasted energy spent trying to refute evolution, and that just leads to arguments about pictures of moths or drawings of embryos, and that gets us nowhere.
So I’ll make it easy. I’ll give you the ball, clear the field, and you can run, unimpeded.
Assume, for the sake of this discussion that Darwin never lived. Assume that nobody else ever put forth evolution as a natural law, and that mankind was still totally ignorant of how the current flora and fauna of the earth came to be the way they are.
You don’t have to refute Darwin, you don’t have to refute conventional scientific wisdom. You have the blackboard all to yourself, nobody is in your way. Starting with a totally blank slate, explain to me the alternate theory of ID.
Tell me how ID explains how all those fossils of creatures so different from those today got into those ancient rocks.
Tell me how ID explains how all those fossils of humans so different from us got into prehistoric Africa.
Tell me how ID explains the global similarities and adaptive differences of the skeletons in every vertebrate, be they human, mouse, bird, fish, or tyrannosaurus.
Tell me how ID explains the universal genetic similarities of every living organism.
Tell me how ID proposes I go verify these explanations.
Tell me what ID offers in the way of proof.
Tell me where I go to find the proof, how I test the proof, and what experiments the ID camp has done to date that demonstrate their evidence.
But give me real evidence. Don’t tell me about Behe. He had his chance, in a court of law where he was able to answer in as much detail as he cared to give, and he was still unable to coherently explain why flagella were significant.
Give me real evidence. Don’t tell me about Dembski and his filters, at least until Dembski manages to explain his math with enough coherence to have some other mathematician, somewhere, publicly confirm that his equations add up.
And please, if you’re going to make arguments based on “complex information” in the genome, be advised that information theory is a well established science, and it’s universally acknowledged that genetic information follows the same rules as any other transmission medium. So for the sake of the several of us out here who actually work in these fields, please state your arguments using standard terms and math. Google “Shannon information theory” to get a basic understanding of the standard arguments and terminology.
But don’t just insult me next time.
I asked you a polite question, again, I await the answers, which, sadly, I suspect I will never get.
Comment #166707
Posted by Jack Krebs on March 24, 2007 4:02 PM (e)
I’m with Stevaroni. Those that are sure that evolution is wrong need to dig in and offer their hypotheses and its support. Stevaroni has a good set of questions.
Comment #166722
Posted by Darth Robo on March 24, 2007 5:32 PM (e)
“Hey Darth, for you to have had a thought is a true breakthrough. Keep up the good work. You should soon be potty trained.”
Ouch, now I’m hurt.
Okay, I’m over it. I consider myself agnostic, so I don’t particularly care what people believe themselves. So just curious “dr science” (heh heh), while stevaroni’s questions are valid, I’m just curious - is there any reason that you can’t believe God AND evolution?
Comment #166732
Posted by raven on March 24, 2007 7:12 PM (e)
What’s wrong with Planned Parenthood?
How is Planned Parenthood related to evolution?
How is either related to Nazi Germany?
My critical thinking skills indicate that this “teacher” was rather confused and disoriented.
Comment #166734
Posted by raven on March 24, 2007 7:27 PM (e)
“This story just goes to show the extreme bias against Christian values.”
by dogmeat
What Christian values? The majority of Christian churches don’t have a problem with evolution. Oh, you must mean your little sect of fundamentalists. OK.
So why should your sect be allowed to propagandize A BIOLOGY CLASS?
BTW, my Christian values don’t look too kindly on lies either. Such as the assertion that Germany was taken over by a few biologists in the 1930s and who subsequently wreaked havoc on the world. Hitler was a painter!
Comment #167066
Posted by Stuart Weinstein on March 26, 2007 1:45 PM (e)
MarkP wrote:
“For what it’s worth, I have a BS in Mathematics and a professional designation that is the equivalent of a masters in statistics. I also don’t consider mathematics a science. Science is driven by verifiable experimentation. Mathematics is driven by logical proofs.”
Science is driven by observation, construction of theoretical frameworks and testing.
Experimentation is not a sine qua non aspect of sceince.
Comment #167071
Posted by Henry J on March 26, 2007 2:18 PM (e)
Re “construction of theoretical frameworks and testing.”
Isn’t that what “experimentation” means?
Comment #167078
Posted by fnxtr on March 26, 2007 3:18 PM (e)
This really shows the state of things in American public schools when a teacher is fired, basically because he used materials that come from a creationist organization.
hmm… could it be because the bulk of the ‘educational’ materials from creationist organizations are dated materials, quote mines, and what one famous publication describes as ‘false witness’?
Nahh…it’s just an atheist conspiracy.
Comment #167152
Posted by Henry J on March 26, 2007 9:21 PM (e)
MarkP,
Re “Mathematics is driven by logical proofs.”
A minor point, but when somebody is developing a new axiom system, some trial and error (i.e., experimentation) is involved in that. (Granted, it’s not dependent on physical properties of matter like scientific experiments are.)
Henry
Comment #167291
Posted by Peter Henderson on March 27, 2007 4:04 PM (e)
More from AiG:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0327or-teacher.asp
Comment #167477
Posted by Mark Hubbell on March 28, 2007 9:16 PM (e)
This teacher had a valid point. Evolution is used as a justification for Naturalism, which is exactly what Nazi Germany embraced. Social Darwinism allowed for the extermination of an “inferior people,” and the Final Solution was carried out, killing six million Jews.
What is disappointing is that any challenge to the theory of evolution is attacked with such vigor. The School Board erred. Evolution is far from fact, and rather than discussing the merits of evolution versus Intelligent Design they chose to silence the teacher. That is cowardly and intellectually dishonest.
Comment #167548
Posted by Glen Davidson on March 29, 2007 11:42 AM (e)
Here’s Helphinstine’s presentation:
http://www.bendweekly.com/ppt/Eugenics-WEBPAGE_files/frame.htm
As you can see, it’s strong on critical thinking, with no sensationalism or questionable associations;) See if you can understand why he was fired.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o
Comment #168760
Posted by Mark on April 8, 2007 8:31 PM (e)
If that is his outline, there is no reason for him to have been fired. He reasoning was sound and his points are verifiable. I’m proud of him for doing such a great job.
On the other hand, I am ashamed that a school board would act so hastily and with such cowardice.
Those who fired him, and who have made sladerous remarks on this blog, need to examine his outline and exercise some critical thinking of their own. Maybe they will learn something!
Comment #170926
Posted by ROB JACOBS on April 19, 2007 12:31 PM (e)
Odd how there are no comments following the posting of what was actually taught, isn’t it?
With an unbiased mind, reading the comments and reactions of “evolutionists” and “creationists” it is striking the level of emotionalism an danger that comes from……guess which side?
Post a Comment