Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
And once again, those lies are being told by the attorneys who were forced to settle the case. Jonathan Saens is the director of Legislative Affairs for the Free Market Foundation, whose legal wing, Liberty Legal Institute, was defending the Odessa school board. And he has an op-ed in the Austin paper spreading brazen lies about that suit and the ACLU's position on Bible classes.
Not to worry, the U.S. Supreme Court has said emphatically for the past 40+ years, regarding the Bible in schools, that "the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities."
A fact acknowledged by all sides in the Odessa case, including the ACLU. What Saenz leaves out is that while the Supreme Court has said that it's constitutional to teach a course in the Bible as history and literature, it must be done in an objective and scholarly manner not intended to proselytize. Here is the very first substantive statement in the Odessa complaint:
Public schools may constitutionally offer courses about the Bible "when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education."
The quotation is from the Supreme Court's 1963 ruling in Abington Township v Schempp. The ACLU did not argue in this case, and does not argue in any case, that all public school courses about the Bible are unconstitutional. Their argument in this case was that the NCBCPS curriculum specifically was not constitutional because it is neither objective nor scholarly and it was clearly written to convince students that the Bible is true.
We hope you were not misled by AAS citing the "legal opinions" of an SMU biblical studies professor who is not an attorney.What the AAS editorial did not tell you is that this Professor's survey of Texas Bible courses, although paraded as constitutional law, was in fact a subjective test funded by a liberal Austin group dedicated to religious censorship.
Notice something missing from this statement? Like anything even remotely substantive in response to a very long and detailed report? If Saenz is so convinced that the NCBCPS curriculum is constitutional, why did his group settle the Odessa case by signing an agreement to stop using that curriculum? That's all the ACLU was demanding and it is precisely what they got.
And if, as Saenz' group has repeatedly claimed, the ACLU filed the suit against Bible curricula in general, why did the ACLU agree to a settlement that allows Odessa to continue having a Bible course as long as they stop using the NCBCPS curriculum and write a new curriculum that is constitutional? Sounds like they're getting caught in a web of their own lies.
And when they're not lying they're engaging in pure ad hominem arguments:
The AAS did not tell you that it was the ACLU who sued Ector County and wanted to prevent kids in a public school from choosing to read out of the Bible. Remember this is the same out-of touch group that protects pornography online in public school libraries.
This is a genuine ad hominem (as opposed to an insult, which is what the badly educated usually call an ad hominem). The ACLU's position on pornography has precisely nothing to do with the validity of their argument in this case. This is pure demagoguery - "don't listen to them on this case because they take a position we don't like on another case."
Saenz offers not a single substantive argument in this op-ed, only lies and irrelevant insinuations. I'm sure you're all as shocked as I am by that.
Comments
"an insult, which is what the badly educated usually call an ad hominem"
FWIW, dictionary.com seems to disagree with you on this. See the Usage note.
- Charles
Posted by: ctw | April 11, 2008 10:53 AM
On a similar note, this commentary appeared in WingNutDaily today.
Posted by: Jason Spaceman | April 11, 2008 11:10 AM
Ah...argumentum ad lexicon to defend the misuse of argumentum ad hominem.
Posted by: Ferrous Patella | April 11, 2008 11:29 AM
In order to address the confusion (and occasional equivocation) caused by that broadening meaning of the term, I've seen some authors start to distinguish between fallacious and non-fallacious uses of ad hominem. So a statement like "Saenz' argument is obviously wrong for reason X, so Saenz is an idiot" would be considered ad hominem, but not fallacious.
Posted by: Davis | April 11, 2008 11:30 AM
What saddens me most is that a free market foundation is supporting government sponsored indoctrination. Apparently they don't really trust the free market to satisfactorily handle religious education.
Posted by: James Hanley | April 11, 2008 12:21 PM
Still waiting for the ACLU to take action against the Muslim charter school in Minnesota. But, that's different isn't it? The fact that until yesterday the American flag had never been flown at that school was apparently because "no one knew how the flag pole worked".
Sure.
This "school" has assemblies every Friday (Muslim holy day) according to substitute teacher who taught at the school, ALL kids were forced to attend. All kids are given time for ritural washing before daily prayers.
Kids are allowed to attend after-school Koran studies which are "totally" voluntary; except the school day ends at 3:00, "voluntary" prayers start shortly thereafter, the bus does not pick up the kids until 4:15.
If this "charter school" were Christian or Jewish the ACLU would have closed it long ago.
This "school" is totally tax-payer supported.
I honestly think the ACLU is afraid of being bombed.
Saw Christopher Hitches in a public engagement last fall. He said that ACLU/major tv nets/national bookstores are all afraid of being bombed; hence the lack of coverage of Muslim cartoons, etc.
Posted by: Increase Mather | April 11, 2008 12:45 PM
Posted by: Taz | April 11, 2008 1:31 PM
I thought that the ad hominem argument form would have "Saenz is an idiot" as a premise, not the conclusion.
Posted by: Alex, FCD | April 11, 2008 1:32 PM
Increase -
The ACLU is an organization of lawyers. Lawyers act on behalf of clients. They can't just ride in and sue whoever they want on their own behalf - they'd have no standing. For the ACLU to "take action" against this Muslim charter school that upsets you so, one of the students would have to A)Sue and B)engage the ACLU's legal services.
Posted by: Seraph | April 11, 2008 1:56 PM
Increase Mather (come on Ken, use your real name) wrote:
Is there a plaintiff? Without a plaintiff, the ACLU can't do a thing about it. And since the Supreme Court has pretty much eliminated taxpayer standing, it's difficult to imagine who a plaintiff might be in such a case. Since no one is forced to go the school and the student population is likely exclusively Muslim, it's highly unlikely that one of them would complain. Don't blame the ACLU, blame the conservatives on the Supreme Court who have continually made it more difficult to gain standing in establishment clause cases.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | April 11, 2008 2:03 PM
Increase Mather wrote:
Seems they're on it:
http://www.aclu-mn.org/home/news/aclumnopensinvestigationof.htm
http://www.aclu-mn.org/downloads/LettertoTarekAcademy.pdf
Posted by: Sastra | April 11, 2008 2:12 PM
Considering how clear the law is in many of these cases, I think it's likely that the people involved are less interested in whether a Bible class occurs or whether their kids can pray, and much more interested in making political points.
If they really wanted to have a Bible class, they could quite quickly get there with a better curriculum, though I suspect they'll have trouble with qualified teachers who will stick with such a curriculum. If they want their kids to pray, the kids can do so, voluntarily and without coercion.
But those easily available options aren't acceptable to them, which suggests other motivations. (More here.)
Posted by: Henry Neufeld | April 11, 2008 2:31 PM
If this people are so sure about what they believe why do they feel so threatened when people want to look at the Bible with no commentary from the religious folk. The biggest problem with all of this is that people want to push their interpretation of it off on others. Why not just let is speak for itself as a peace of literature. I think all the holy books or whatever you want to call them should be read at least in part by everyone. It makes up part of who we are as a world.
I go back to a post that Ed did on Jefferson and his opinion that religion in general should be taught in college so that the rougher edges are taken off and people learn to reason togehter. I am butchering the quote but I think I have the essensce of his view. How can people make an informed opinion about something if they do not read it for themselves without someone's propaganda added to it? I am really tired I hope I am being clear.
Posted by: King of Ireland | April 11, 2008 3:52 PM
You committed several errors here:
#1 If you take the comparative religion class in any state university and most public secondary school you will most likely be presented with the assumption that the Bible is necessarily false. The position of being necessarily false is hardly "scholarly" but makes certain assumptions. Is it any less "scholarly" to present the material as True? No. it is a matter of presupposition. Do you think that the ACLU would join a lawsuit on the basis of a university's non-scholarly presuppositions? The probability seems inscrutable.
#2 Following from #1, is the ACLU, as you state, directly opposing specific curricula because of the assumptions of that material? If so, are YOU willing to acknowledge that teh ACLU's position is not one concerned with particular issues of scholarship but rather that *certain* assumptions are not, in their minds, allowable in an "academic" setting?
#3 I've been in the university setting where the profs on day 1 come out and say "no recording" and then the next day state specifically "there is no god." Such a statement is not science. The intentional proselytization of students away from any faith by the employment of tax dollars is equally a violation of the First Amendment by any standard. Will the ACLU join such a suit? I tried. Again, inscrutable.
#4 The final remark that you quote seems more like a genetic fallacy. But as we discussed earlier, you might want to review your undergrad logic. ;-)
When world views conflict it is a regular component of the arguments that one proponent will call the other side's assumptions and conclusions a "lie" because it differs with the *assumptions* and related *conclusions* of the held view. That's just how argumentation works. All you've done here is to show that you either (a) do not comprehend the nature and character of the arguments presented or (b) are unwilling to represent the other side's arguments with equal integrity.
Collin
Posted by: CRB | April 11, 2008 4:04 PM
CRB -
If you take the comparative religion class in any state university and most public secondary school you will most likely be presented with the assumption that the Bible is necessarily false.
Not if they are following a reasonable curriculum. The comparative religion texts that I have read, make no statements of fact about the validity of the religions being discussed. Neither affirming nor denying any validity. Indeed, the biggest complaint that I have seen, is the fact that comparative religion classes put all religions on the same footing, showing no preferential treatment for any of them.
I have also read a couple of texts about the bible as literature. Again, there is no underlying assumption as to the validity of the bible. All such texts do is look into the history and evolution of the bible. Now it's true that such a text might mention that portions of the bible were definitely written far after such portions might claim to have been, but even that's not really open to much debate. Tommy Nelson, biblical scholar and Christian publisher has written about this as well.
Basically the claim is that monks in the dark ages who were tasked with making copies of the bible, occasionally added their own ideas here and there. There really isn't much controversy about it, even the vast majority of Christian biblical scholars admit that this was the case.
I've been in the university setting where the profs on day 1 come out and say "no recording" and then the next day state specifically "there is no god." Such a statement is not science. The intentional proselytization of students away from any faith by the employment of tax dollars is equally a violation of the First Amendment by any standard. Will the ACLU join such a suit?
No. Because in a university setting, this is not illegal. And the "no recording" statement has nothing to do with what they are going to say about god. There are many people who record lectures to avoid having to take reasonable notes and/or to sell the recordings.
All you've done here is to show that you either (a) do not comprehend the nature and character of the arguments presented or (b) are unwilling to represent the other side's arguments with equal integrity.
Hey there pot, meet my buddy kettle...
Posted by: DuWayne | April 11, 2008 4:35 PM
DuWayne,
To your first point: Perhaps you simply lack exposure to the broader material. Some do as you say. Others do not. And then there is the material from the prof ...
To your second point: Whoa! Are you going to maintain that it is acceptable for the government to maintain and even fund *certain* religious positions? Some secularists think a unitarian system is acceptable because of Jefferson's position (as though Jefferson was the sole source, or at least the primary authoritative source, for Constitutional material).
Remember: This is the Same Aclu that thinks the "the people" and "the militia" can be substituted when convenient. The same ACLU with its Marxist (though not necessarily Communist) world view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Nash_Baldwin
To your third point: That was silly. Ed would brand that an "insult".
Posted by: CRB | April 11, 2008 4:48 PM
If a teacher in any religion class taught from the assumption that the Bible is necessarily false, then that would indeed not be a scholarly approach. In my experience, however, believers report that any assumption that any statement in the Bible may be false is equivalent to an assumption that the Bible is false.
The overwhelming majority of material I have read and professors I have heard do not make any assumption that any statement in the Bible is false. The general scholarly approach is to allow that any statement might be true, might be false, or it might be impossible to determine. In other words, they treat the Bible as an historical document and read it accordingly.
Yes, and those assumptions can be examined. The problem with the "worldview" style of analysis (loosely so called) is that it assumes that one's assumptions, newly refurbished and retitled presuppositions cannot be examined. All beliefs that a person refuses to examine are promoted to the same level whether they are necessary assumptions or not.
It wouldn't be less scholarly than the straw-man description you provide of Biblical scholarship. But since practically nobody in Biblical scholarship operates in the way you suggest, that's irrelevant.
It is quite unscholarly to assume that the Bible is true. It's a collection of documents written, edited, and transmitted by various people at various times. You examine it and get a wide variety of results. For example, Samuel-Kings is more historically reliable, in general, than Chronicles.
In one way, yes, it is a matter of presupposition: Some people presuppose too much. Presupposing that the Bible is true, for example, privileges it above all other historical documents. When a new document is discovered in Babylonian literature, for example, scholars do not start by assuming its inerrancy. Instead, they start by asking what it is. It might be a receipt. It might be a religious text. It might be the report of a battle. It might be true, it might be false, or it might contain a mixture.
Second, while most universities do have some sort of campus culture, universities don't make assumptions, people do. Most suits about church and state do not involve universities, but rather high schools. The standards are different.
I am having difficulty relating "inscrutable" to "probability" in this context. You appear to be suggesting it is very unlikely the ACLU would do that. Your words suggest one would be incapable of knowing, i.e. the ACLU might or might not, but nobody would know.
Perhaps you should resort to a dictionary or stick with vocabulary you comprehend.
Posted by: Henry Neufeld | April 11, 2008 4:50 PM
I will say in partial defense of what CBR is saying that in general cirriculum means nothing. It is all how that particular teacher handles things. I went to school today to get my new cirriculum for World History. It has a lot about different religions in the textbook and cirriculum. It is all how I handle it. I will try to give the most balanced and accurate presentation I can but the bottom line is that I think as we begin to discuss what compartative advantages that Europe had that helped during the Exploration period religion played a role in that.
These were not even my words. They were the words of my colleague that is a Jewish atheist I believe. Nor is religion the only or leading factor. But I have to really look at myself and try not to frame the discussions we will have with King of Ireland propaganda. I need to be balanced and let the kids learn on their own. It is hard. I know other teachers struggle too with other world views. So CBR may have somewhat of a point here. I think it just depends where you are. It is worse in college. Those dudes try to indoctrinate all the time. It is on all sides of this debate. It is bad teaching at best and illegal in Public School at worst. The problem is that it is so subjective you would never be able to prove anything on either side. Tough issue.
Posted by: King of Ireland | April 11, 2008 4:54 PM
More on this brewing little urban legend about the ACLU here...
Posted by: Coin | April 11, 2008 5:09 PM
CRB -
To your first point: Perhaps you simply lack exposure to the broader material. Some do as you say. Others do not. And then there is the material from the prof ...
If you are talking primary education level, class materials that make the claim that hte bible is false, would be illegal. A teacher making the same claim would also be breaking the law. I would (and have) advocate such teachers losing their jobs. I would also advocate lawsuits against districts that would include such materials in their curriculum.
Whoa! Are you going to maintain that it is acceptable for the government to maintain and even fund *certain* religious positions?
Not at all. But that is not what we're talking about.
To your third point: That was silly. Ed would brand that an "insult".
First, even if it were an insult, so what? You're being ridiculous and really, I don't feel the need not to insult you.
Second, the only way that could be construed as an insult is if you intended the words to which I referred to insult Ed.
Third, it would only really have been silly, had I said; "Ed's rubber your glue" etc.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 11, 2008 5:12 PM
These idiots always try to spin defeat into victory. The AFA did the same thing in the Courthouse Jesus case in Louisiana this past September.
The only ones listening are the Godbots, who naturally believe everything that's fed to them.
Posted by: bullet | April 11, 2008 5:33 PM
My first thought was, "This is someone who's read some version of Plantinga's EAAN and associated 'low' and 'inscrutable' as a result of not fully understanding what Plantinga meant."
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | April 11, 2008 5:48 PM
Cynic,
I understood Plantinga completely.
Collin
Posted by: C-R-B | April 11, 2008 6:05 PM
CRB is Collin Brendemuehl, who was told he was no longer welcome to post at this blog a couple months ago for his utterly dishonest and idiotic blathering equating punctuated equilibrium and the "hopeful monster." Now he's back with a changed nickname blathering equally idiotically about the "Marxist ideology" of the ACLU. Reminds me why I banned the stupid fuck in the first place. Go away, Collin. Every comment will be deleted.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | April 11, 2008 6:12 PM
There is an enormous constitutional difference between a course in a university and a course in a public high school, the most obvious being that high school attendance is mandatory while college attendance is not. Professors at public universities can take explicitly pro- or anti-religious statements without violating the first amendment and they can do so because there is no mandatory attendance and because the goal of the university is a diversity of viewpoints with professors following their scholarship wherever it may lead.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | April 11, 2008 6:18 PM
So Mr. Brandemuehl joins Larry Fafarman on the shit list. Actually, I don't agree with Mr. Brayton that Mr. Brandemuehl is stupid. I think fucking asshole is a better description. Unfortunately, not all fucking assholes are stupid.
Posted by: SLC | April 11, 2008 6:27 PM
I love the accusation of hypocrisy. I am opposed to government censorship. But this is my blog and is the legal equivalent of my house. If you come to my house and act like a fool, I'm going to throw you out on your ass. If you come to my blog and do so, I'm banning you. My house, my rules. Don't like it? Feel free to kiss my ass.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | April 11, 2008 6:55 PM
I'm not sure he can do that if he's not allowed on your blog....
Posted by: Skemono | April 11, 2008 7:45 PM
CRB: "To your second point: Whoa! Are you going to maintain that it is acceptable for the government to maintain and even fund *certain* religious positions? Some secularists think a unitarian system is acceptable because of Jefferson's position (as though Jefferson was the sole source, or at least the primary authoritative source, for Constitutional material)."
This is just silliness. Jefferson was the polar opposite of a unitarian, he favored a Republican system. James Madison was the main force behind drafting the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton was the biggest advocate of a stronger national government.
The rest is silly, too, I especially liked the part where you committed the genetic fallacy/ad-hom by listing off various points about the ACLU, despite trying to claim that very fallacy against others!
Posted by: Shirakawasuna | April 11, 2008 8:15 PM
Ah, and if you've actually read Gould's Structures and seriously thought PE was the same as a hopeful monster or saltationist, you very much wasted your time and all that pain (it's always painful to read that book). Of course, that's *if* you read it and looked up all the words you didn't understand.
Posted by: Shirakawasuna | April 11, 2008 8:27 PM
Ha, I see you ignored my point about Jefferson and the hypocrisy if your point about the ACLU. It's tough being wrong and dishonest, isn't it? It just leads to further embarassment.
Posted by: Shirakawasuna | April 11, 2008 8:29 PM
Ha, notice that he ignored my point about Jefferson and the hypocrisy if his ACLU statements. It's hard being wrong *and* dishonest, isn't it? You just get embarrassed over and over again, with no recourse but further humiliation...
Posted by: Shirakawasuna | April 11, 2008 8:31 PM
Sorry for the double post, Sb is being weird again. Please delete one (and this message)!
Posted by: Shirakawasuna | April 11, 2008 8:33 PM
Some people seem to have a difficult time understanding basic English. I didn't think the phrase "every comment will be deleted" was that difficult to understand. Perhaps Collin is Larry Fafarman's bastard child.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | April 11, 2008 8:34 PM
Or... delete the whole lot, I missed the part where he was banned and getting comments deleted. Oops!
Posted by: Shirakawasuna | April 11, 2008 8:35 PM
Yet you still managed to validate my point entirely. I'm actually sort of pleased with myself simply because inscrutable's not exactly a word that gets thrown around all over the place, and Plantinga's EAAN is one common place where it's used. The fact that you chimed in proves both myself and Henry Neufeld correct: I in assuming that Plantinga was the source and he in assuming that you were using the word incorrectly. (After all, Plantinga's focus on the 'low or inscrutable' probability has to do with the reliability of our noetic devices, and an inscrutable probability will do just as well as a low probability to cast doubt on that reliability given E & N according to his argument. Their equal usefulness in this context, however, does not make the two equivalent.)
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | April 11, 2008 8:37 PM
And yet you let people (including, occasionally, myself) act like fools here all the time. That must be the, umm, "hypocrisy."
Posted by: DuWayne | April 12, 2008 12:46 AM
Let me understand this .. when a teacher even a HS teacher encounters something in a course (either in text or from students):
* that that teacher knows to be tested and proven false by all measures,
* or if not "false" at least falsified in some scholarly fashion for all practical purposes,
* or just some construct (like a myth) impossible to falsify that is not worthy of a true or false and only has value as a subject for things that can be tested AND JUDGED within it like its philosophy, history, and dictums.
Am I reading you right that a teacher cannot say "literally this is false"[e.g., YEC], or "this is a myth [e.g., the resurrection of Jesus] and thus a matter of faith (and what that means)? That a teacher cannot say that "some people think it is true while others have other competing myths and think it is not true (examples and why), while still others do not hold any myths of this type as true (and why)" - can teachers speak like this?
Is this forbidden only for religious studies -- oops I mean secular bible studies - or in any subject or course?
Seems to me secular scholarship means nothing is sacred and all aspects subject to scholarly challenges. Else call it religious indoctrination - that even in its mild form is clearly a violation in public schools.
I am confused - are some of you agreeing that "class materials that make the claim that the bible is false, would be illegal"? It may be me but how could any honest moral scholar crack open the bible without uttering counterpoints and BS a large part of the time -- how and still feel like a secular teacher?
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | April 12, 2008 6:57 AM
ConcernedJoe, as much as I can appreciate saying things in a direct and straightforward manner, it is far more prudent for teachers to avoid value judgments about a large number of contentious subjects. The best route is to appeal to the consensus of scholarship on these topics, e.g. "The modern scientific consensus is that the age of earth is far greater than the 6000-10,000 years that some people suppose it to be" or "Practically all historical scholars agree that the Holocaust actually occurred based on the vast preponderance of evidence." Of course, students are still free to reject consensus, but teachers can reinforce the importance of such scholarship by emphasizing good models of learning and especially by demonstrating how we accept uses of these epistemologies in other areas. It's not impossible, and it's far more prudent to go this route instead of just challenging ideas that many students might hold; such a challenge will only make a teacher's job more difficult in the long run.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | April 12, 2008 11:20 AM
Concerned Joe -
Am I reading you right that a teacher cannot say "literally this is false"[e.g., YEC], ...
Teacher cannot legally say this in a public school.
...or "this is a myth [e.g., the resurrection of Jesus] and thus a matter of faith (and what that means)?
Teacher can say this however.
That a teacher cannot say that "some people think it is true while others have other competing myths and think it is not true (examples and why), while still others do not hold any myths of this type as true (and why)" - can teachers speak like this?
This is exactly the sort of thing that is appropriate for a comparative religions course in a public school.
Else call it religious indoctrination - that even in its mild form is clearly a violation in public schools.
And a public school teacher who claims that religion is false, is also endorsing a religious position, which is actually a violation of the constitution.
If OTOH, the teacher is neutral on the question of whether any faith is true or false, they are doing their job. They are not allowed to endorse any specific religious position, even a negative.
They can however, and indeed in comparative religions class must, put all religious myths on equal footing. If the discussion comes up in a different context, the same rules apply.
I am confused - are some of you agreeing that "class materials that make the claim that the bible is false, would be illegal"?
Whether one agrees agrees with the law or not, in the U.S. this is exactly the case, when it comes to public schools. Of course, the reverse is also true, the teacher simply cannot say that the bible or any religious text is true either.
It may be me but how could any honest moral scholar crack open the bible without uttering counterpoints and BS a large part of the time -- how and still feel like a secular teacher?
There is nothing to keep them from explaining what other people believe, including those who reject religion. This includes the beliefs of those who reject all religion and why, and those who reject specific religions and why. What they are not allowed to do is make a values judgment.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 12, 2008 1:55 PM
Christian Cynic - appreciate your response. I just basically respectfully disagree.
Science is not based on consensus - although that may be the result after a lot of experiments, scrutiny, and consideration of facts. Nor are things like the Holocaust or heliocentric round earth models in doubt by any history or science scholar that is practicing scholarship (you cannot ignore the facts or insanely and/or dishonestly twist situations and call yourself a modern secular scholar). This framing and inability to confront obvious BS head-on is BS itself.
I like your thoughts on "reinforce the importance of such scholarship by emphasizing good models of learning and especially by demonstrating how we accept uses of these epistemologies in other areas" and I think you have as a current not to demean as you guide student to reality and methods of finding reality. So again I appreciate the drift somewhat. But I disagree with not calling a spade a spade.. and I think that teachers have a moral responsibility to impart good scholarship, the facts and reality based methods, without a hint of hedging, and unless they are in private systems I thimk being fired is almost impossible if you properly present where real scholarship leads.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | April 12, 2008 2:02 PM
DuWayne - ok in a general sense -- but for example YEC is not by any measure a reality and it steps on the toes of science - why would the teacher be in trouble for saying "no John sorry but the workld is not just 6000 years old; and we have no evidence at all that things poofed into existence, etc. this are not religious claims .. when a YEC speaks - he speaks to science and must be soundly answered by science. Religion best stick to things not falsifiable - else they are in the secular camp amd get the scrutiny and distain all secular endevours do.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | April 12, 2008 2:10 PM
Ever heard the saying "You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar"? That's my general philosophy on teaching. (I'm a teaching candidate currently and am very opinionated about the subject.) I don't think teachers should shy away from saying what scholars conclude, but I think teachers need to state such objectively. Saying "It simply is not true that the earth is only 6000-10,000 years old" is different from saying "The vast majority of scientists have concluded based on the standard methodology of the field that the earth is far older than 10,000 years." You can call it "framing" (that dreaded F-word!) all you want, but it's a way to keep the peace in the classroom so that learning can really happen. If you as a teacher were to assume your job was merely to stamp out ignorance and impart knowledge, then I think you'd have a very difficult time. (I also think that teachers should be enthusiastic about learning anything, not just their content area, so that students have a model for how they should feel about learning of any kind, but I think I'm getting way too far into my personal philosophy of teaching and learning at this point.)
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | April 12, 2008 2:32 PM
Cocerned Joe -
...why would the teacher be in trouble for saying "no John sorry but the workld is not just 6000 years old; and we have no evidence at all that things poofed into existence, etc....
This is a sticky one. My high school physical science teacher handled it in a reasonable fashion, that was values neutral. He presented the material that explains the earth is billions of years old and why we know that. A student chimed in with questions about YEC. The teacher then explained that it is entirely possible that the earth was spontaneously created, six thousand years ago. Following it up with the supposition that it is just as likely that the earth was spontaneously created just a few moments ago.
He didn't say that the YEC student was wrong, but he did manage to express that it was quite likely the student was wrong.
The key is remaining values neutral. A public school teacher cannot just say that this religion or that is wrong. They can and indeed are required to teach facts that go against the religious beliefs of some, even many people. Evolution is right there at the top of the list. But as defacto government employees, paid in tax payer dollars, they are not allowed to endorse one religious view over that of another. Including the view that religion is flat wrong.
Comparative religion classes can actually have a lot more leeway, in many regards, than a science teacher being challenged by a religionist. Because of the nature of the class, different views are necessarily discussed.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 12, 2008 2:46 PM
TCC and DuWayne -- I cannot argue what approach is right for you all - what you feel comfortable with and what proves effective for you. We I think have same objectives. Thanks for the conversation. Whatever floats your boat and all that stuff.
I cannot leave however without stating I am not thrilled about the teacher who "... then explained that it is entirely possible that the earth was spontaneously created, six thousand years ago. Following it up with the supposition that it is just as likely that the earth was spontaneously created just a few moments ago."
Put aside that I think it is in actually a very condescending approach especially given the "punchline." I want to emphasize simply that it is bad overall science object lesson teaching.
It is probably my fault for being quick and dirty in my posts but to clarify a bit: my approach is not so much to emphatically say it is BS but rather to say we have no evidence for it and true science (or scholarship) must follow the evidence. So to the YEC I would not say it is "entirely possible" -- that emphasizes the wrong scientific concept for that group and in their heads justifies their myth. BUT I would also not say it is FALSE. I would say - we have no evidence that suggests YEC that has withstood scrutiny and we have tons of evidence that says otherwise. However, if you have scientific evidence for your YEC view I would be happy to explore it scientifically with you as long as you follow the method of science and accept results from that method with me.
To the point on "it is possible" I think that is dangerous (though I understand his intention). Every thing is possible I guess but in science not everything remains believable or useful. In science we can only believe possible what has not been rigorously falsified else we'd have a zillion useless things to consider and reconsider and reconsider, and get no where. And that BTW is where the Discovery Institute etc. wants us to get - NO where. Their objective is not to prove what they know is false scientifically themselves but to stop good science further taking over their hold on mankind.
But to close - really I get your points - we all have to develop a style that works for ourselves and the situation we find ourselves in. Peace out.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | April 13, 2008 6:40 AM
CRB says:
I've been in the university setting where the profs on day 1 come out and say "no recording" and then the next day state specifically "there is no god." Such a statement is not science.
First, I do not believe that for one second, any more than I believe the clams of Helen Fryman-Setterfield who reported to have heard form a 'student' in Texas that she was taught just a few years ago that Piltdown Man was 'definitley a human ancestor.'
Second, why on earth would a science professor make such an announcement in a science class in the first place? It stinks of fabrication or at least hyperbolic embellishment.
Posted by: slpage | April 30, 2008 12:57 PM