…and this is a 
Berkeley notices a creationist
Category: Creationism
Posted on: October 5, 2008 8:22 AM, by PZ Myers
Parents in the Berkeley Unified School District are horrified to discover that one of their elementary school teachers is a creationist. Berkeley is like another weird world: this is so common everywhere else, and Berzerkeleyites are so shocked when it happens among their own. I was actually amused at what the creationist teacher did, though.
Parents said that Martin had listed Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and Harry Potter under fiction on the blackboard, which promptly reduced some of the 8-year-olds to tears, after which she made the comment about God. ["the only thing they should believe in was God"]
They said that Martin then said that she didn't believe in evolution or the Big Bang theory either.
Usually it's us atheists portrayed as the disillusioning bastards who shatter small children's happy consoling beliefs (and it's true: nothing warms the shriveled valves and atrophied muscles of my tiny dark heart than to visit department stores at Christmas time and announce to the waiting lines of tots that Santa is dead).
But seriously, it's about time the sheltered elite enclaves woke up to the fact that the creationist movement is working its tendrils in everywhere.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: LordJiro | October 5, 2008 8:33 AM
Wow, a creationist admitting that *SAINT* Nicholas isn't real?
Posted by: szqc | October 5, 2008 8:36 AM
Berkeley is indeed a bit more insulated than I suspected. I wonder which upset some of them more though - teacher publically denies Santa et al or science? (not that I condone any of it - my 6 year old is suspicious of the Santa myth but is not quite ready to abandon it; she does however know about genetic variation from our walks in local natural areas)
Oh, if you're going to do the evil santa-is-dead trope, you need to change the beard into a mustache you can twirl.
Personally, I imagined you instead wandering into a local church and telling congregants that Jeebus was dead (which might cause them greater confusion than usual considering it was literally true so they can't really contradict you).
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | October 5, 2008 8:42 AM
They're not, you know. They're really not.
Did the story say what they plan to do with the savaged remains of the creationist?
Posted by: Irene Delse | October 5, 2008 8:50 AM
And she's a fumbling creationist, at that. Telling children that "the only thing they should believe in was God" in class at a non confessionnal school, it's difficult to make it more glaringly a violation of the separation of church and state...
Posted by: Abbie | October 5, 2008 8:57 AM
And she's a fumbling creationist, at that. Telling children that "the only thing they should believe in was God" in class at a non confessionnal school, it's difficult to make it more glaringly a violation of the separation of church and state...
What next, will we mention God on our currency, or set aside a national day of prayer???
Posted by: Doubting Foo | October 5, 2008 9:01 AM
My dad told me she shot the easter bunny...no joke!
Posted by: Kel | October 5, 2008 9:01 AM
Some of us like to hold on to the delusion that there are places where rationality reigns supreme.Posted by: Doubting Foo | October 5, 2008 9:02 AM
Haha...I called my dad a she...woops!
Posted by: Claudia | October 5, 2008 9:15 AM
"But seriously, it's about time the sheltered elite enclaves woke up to the fact that the creationist movement is working its tendrils in everywhere."
That sentence really gave me the heebee jeebees... Seriously, I caught a chill at the thought of creeping tendrils working their way into people's brains...euugh...*shiver*
Posted by: Benjamin Frankin | October 5, 2008 9:16 AM
Doubting Foo-
Do you know what the famous Austrian psychiatrist called his sailboat?
The Freudian Sloop.
Ba rump bump - Please tip your waitresses and bartenders.
Posted by: Richard Harris | October 5, 2008 9:20 AM
I've been ruminating over the question of how it is that these religious idiots can so fervently believe that they're right, when there's no evidence for their beliefs, & be so sure about it that they have the hubris to impose their nonsense on innocent children, other people's children, even.
For instance, there's a thermodynamics prof in the UK, (U of Leeds), who's a young Earth creationist, who's a lay preacher & provides internet sermons.
I can't recall ever having seen a psychology study on how religious believers justify the nonsense to themselves. Surely someone must've carried out this research? If not, why not? Do we have anyone here who can organize such a study?
If we knew what's influencing the idiocy, & I guess there'd be quite a few different factors, then maybe we could do something constructive about it.
Until then, all we can do is mock the idiocy of the Bronze Age superstitions, & the nutjobs who believe the magic. And prosecute those who overstep the law.
Posted by: Michelle | October 5, 2008 9:30 AM
Damn it! 8 years old is the time to believe into retarded things innocently and being forgiven for it! Why was she so evil to destroy them like that then wash her religious BS over them?
When you're a child, religious is OUT and fairy tales are IN. It's a fun time to believe into anything innocent, like the big jolly man! It's not the time to scare them shitless with dumb religious shit, bitch!
A boot to the ass!
Posted by: Christophe Thill | October 5, 2008 9:31 AM
"For instance, there's a thermodynamics prof in the UK, (U of Leeds), who's a young Earth creationist"
I guess he wasn't asked about the 2nd Law when they interviewed him for the job.
Posted by: Kel | October 5, 2008 9:32 AM
Michael Shermer summed it up well in Why People Believe Weird Things: "Smart people are very good at rationalizing things they came to believe for non-smart reasons."Posted by: Gingerbaker | October 5, 2008 9:38 AM
Richard harris said:
"For instance, there's a thermodynamics prof in the UK, (U of Leeds), who's a young Earth creationist, who's a lay preacher & provides internet sermons.
I can't recall ever having seen a psychology study on how religious believers justify the nonsense to themselves."
Richard, my guess is that the answer is compartmentalization. Thermodynamics involves mathematics that can't really be understood.
Calculus requires a sort of Kierkegaardian leap of faith - in order to actually DO it, you have to put your inability to actually understand how it works aside, and just learn the process of its mechanics.
Very much like how religious faith works - suppress your rational instincts and just believe that a rote process will work out well for you.
Its that initial conversation that the religious have with themselves that fascinates me. The moment when they contemplate whether they will commit to having "faith", which is the moment that they dedicate their lives to unreason.
It must be a moment just like the one experienced by a potential heroin user as he hesitates, needle hovering over his skin, weighing the balance.
Posted by: Pteryxx | October 5, 2008 9:40 AM
To Richard Harris @11:
"I've been ruminating over the question of how it is that these religious idiots can so fervently believe that they're right, when there's no evidence for their beliefs, & be so sure about it that they have the hubris to impose their nonsense on innocent children, other people's children, even."
I personally think that it's simple human denial, nothing more. Religion isn't any different than deluding oneself that stocks and housing prices have to go up, that one's political party has all the answers, that other people may have drinking problems but *I* don't, that the weekend is plenty of time to finish that term paper, or that a husband may beat his wife into submission but it's okay because she loves him. People will believe almost anything if it's easier than facing the truth. The only thing special about religion is that it makes denial an absolute virtue, then demands, reinforces, and praises it.
Posted by: gg | October 5, 2008 9:43 AM
"Martin had listed Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and Harry Potter under fiction on the blackboard, which promptly reduced some of the 8-year-olds to tears, after which she made the comment about God. ["the only thing they should believe in was God"]"
Wow. In the horror novel The M.D. (1991), by Thomas Disch, the main character is traumatized at the start of the novel as a child by a teacher making almost exactly the same argument.
That main character then proceeds, as an adult, to murder millions of people.
Posted by: Bing McGhandi | October 5, 2008 9:46 AM
Someone needs to kick that nut in the teeth until they shit enamel.
HJ
Posted by: speedwell | October 5, 2008 9:47 AM
Calculus requires a sort of Kierkegaardian leap of faith - in order to actually DO it, you have to put your inability to actually understand how it works aside, and just learn the process of its mechanics.
Oh. Thank you, I think I'll go learn calculus now that I know there really is no way to make it seem reasonable... seriously, I've been trying to roll that mental block uphill for almost 25 years. Wish someone had told me that when I was in high school. Appreciate it. :)
Posted by: Pteryxx | October 5, 2008 9:49 AM
To Gingerbaker #15:
"Its that initial conversation that the religious have with themselves that fascinates me. The moment when they contemplate whether they will commit to having "faith", which is the moment that they dedicate their lives to unreason.
It must be a moment just like the one experienced by a potential heroin user as he hesitates, needle hovering over his skin, weighing the balance."
Aren't most religious people raised unquestioningly to be so by their parents and community? They probably never have a chance to contemplate the decision, as they don't realize there's a choice. And in both cases, peer pressure goes a long way towards wiping out any individual, rational hesitation.
I know I was baptized as a kid solely because my parents told me to do so, or rather ordered me, even though I objected.
Posted by: Dahan | October 5, 2008 9:55 AM
Gingerbaker @ 15,
I think you've hit the nail on the head with the whole "compartmentalizing" bit. My cousin's father is a world-class biologist (I'm not naming names) who is also a steadfast Christian. He manages to get along by just not thinking about both at the same time. Weird, but true.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | October 5, 2008 10:17 AM
Pteryxx said:
"Aren't most religious people raised unquestioningly to be so by their parents and community? They probably never have a chance to contemplate the decision, as they don't realize there's a choice."
I think you are absolutely correct, Ptryxx that most people get raised in the religious mileau of their parents, and don't realize that there is a choice.
But, I think most people don't really believe in their religions all that strongly. They go to church, do the ablutions more as a cultural/tribal experience, and frankly don't think about it all that much. Their faith is more of a comfortable habit.
On the other hand, there are The Believers. And these, I think, are the ones who took that conversation with themselves seriously, chose the little red pill, and there is no easy going back for them. Their faith is not a mere comfortable habit, but is their red badge of courage.
Then again - what do I know? I wasn't raised Christian, and never took religion seriously. It was just another non optional extracurricular activity for me.
I just find the psychological dynamic of religion morbidly fascinating. How the cult manages the cognitive dissonance is a study that must have its roots in the earliest, most primitive human culture and has something to do with pecking orders, I think. Dominance and subservience. Conditioning.
Posted by: llewelly | October 5, 2008 10:24 AM
Don't be ridiculous. Integration is just multiplication with a faster floatier rubber ducky. Derivatives are just a better kind of division. I admit Laplace transforms and Eigen vectors are hard to understand, but even they become clear after you've done a few hundred. Now, on the other hand, if you'd have accused those damned wave functions in quantum mechanics of being impossible to understand ...Posted by: Gibbon | October 5, 2008 10:25 AM
Santa Claus is not a real person? But Saint Nicholas was a real person who lived in what is now Turkey, some 1700 years ago.
Aside from that, I found some very interesting things about belief in Santa Claus. The first is that 8 years is the average age that children give up Santa, according to an AP-AOL News poll at least.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/23/AR2006122300225_pf.html
The other thing is that according to some experts, belief in Santa might help nurture the growing mind of a child.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/23/opinion/23woolley.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Posted by: Scott | October 5, 2008 10:48 AM
PZ - you almost sound bitter that Berkeley has reached a level of rationalism (at least on the topics of evolution/church state laws) that you are working to promote EVERYWHERE. You almost sound like a republican with this "elitism" rhetoric.
Having lived all over the US, I assert that Berkeley isn't the "weird" place. Anyway, since when is normal good?
Posted by: Richard Harris | October 5, 2008 11:33 AM
Calculus requires a sort of Kierkegaardian leap of faith - in order to actually DO it, you have to put your inability to actually understand how it works aside, and just learn the process of its mechanics.
I remember reading about how, in a class learning calculus, you can 'hear' half the class drop out. It was nearly fifty years ago, but I think that I remember noticing that.
Posted by: uncle frogy | October 5, 2008 12:08 PM
I would like to read the results of such a study that would look at what is religious faith is or the belief in anything that can't be proved and maybe demonstrably false.
My thinking is that ability to make that kind of "leap of faith" or error in perception is related to our ability to think itself.
We all do it to some degree or another in some area or other, it is involved in our love of stories and the theatrical experience, we can suspend our disbelief and enjoy doing it.
I think it is also connected to our ability to conceptualize to understand things and processes that are not easily seen or experienced in direct simple ways.
I also suspect that in the statement "I believe" it is the "I" that is most important it is self supporting, reinforcing our own personal concept about who and what we are.
Like many things that separate our intelligence from the "lower" animals it have positive and negative aspects that have survival benefits. The whale can live in the sea but can no longer get out of the water and we can think and tell stories and make societies and cultures but some times get lost in our heads and have trouble living in the natural real world. We seem to have trouble the difference between the concept we come up with and the real world we live in.
All of that is mixed up with our emotions as a social animals. Look to fear to understand what makes the fundamentalist so aggressive. Nothing so dangerous as an animal in a corner.
just some unfinished thoughts
Posted by: co | October 5, 2008 12:12 PM
Gingerbaker,
At what point does one say they understand something? I don't understand how people can play console video games so adeptly, or can so masterfully perform on ice skates, but one would say that those people have internalized and really *know* their stuff. In the same vein, many (including myself, which is why I'm writing this in the first place) understand calculus, even the more hairy bits of it (Lebesgue integration, anyone?). As llewelly stated, it's just a matter of getting comfortable with it, and all becomes clear, even the Bourbaki-style proofs and the logic ultimately underlying it.
Thermodynamics is a slightly better example, because although it's used and affirmed every day, it's ultimately a postulational study. Once you allow statistical mechanics to inform thermodynamics, though (sort of an artificial, historical divide, but one perpetuated 'til now, mainly because of the need to divide things neatly for semester school systems), you've once again put it on solid, physical ground. The math describing thermodynamics is *well* understood.
Posted by: Jim | October 5, 2008 12:13 PM
So, what did you expect from a moron who thinks the "Flintstones" is a documentary?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | October 5, 2008 12:19 PM
"All right, kids, stop that crying right now! - or I'll give you all personal demonstrations of how a Tesla coil works! ... Okay, Dylan, Emma, Huey - roll up your sleeves..."
Posted by: Paper Hand | October 5, 2008 12:44 PM
Michelle @ 12:
Damn it! 8 years old is the time to believe into retarded things innocently and being forgiven for it!
I disagree, actually. I have never liked the whole Santa myth. I wish I'd never been taught to believe in Santa. It was a foreshadowing of my later struggles with theism, struggling with doubt and fear. I remember worrying that if Santa *did* exist, he would know that I doubted and wouldn't bring me anything, and then everyone would see that I didn't get anything from Santa, and think I must've done something really really bad. It wasn't nearly as traumatic as the whole God thing, but it wasn't pleasant.
Posted by: Bart Mitchell | October 5, 2008 12:51 PM
Our close friends think im some sort of cruel boorish thug of a parent. I refuse to lie to my child about anything. So Santa, tooth fairy, leprechauns, and the alternative minimum tax have always been treated as the fiction that they are.
So what kind of horrible child have I created? One that writes her own fiction, reads at a 2nd grade level, understands fairly complex concepts (like a round earth, life is made of cells, oh and she knows Pi to 8 digits) and she just turned 6 last weekend.
Im sorry, but if your kid is 8 years old, and breaks down crying when they find out Santa is a myth, then your failing as a parent, in my humble opinion.
This kind of skepticism is infectious too. All of her friends at daycare seem to cast a skeptical look on this stuff. I've told my daughter to respect others if they want to believe in fantasies, but somehow it seems to be effecting the other kids around her.
Thats our job as parents. Raise your kids so that they raise the consciousness of the world around them.
Posted by: co | October 5, 2008 12:57 PM
Wonderful.
Posted by: CanadianChick | October 5, 2008 1:01 PM
um...I'm kinda with Bart here.
Why is it wrong to teach your children to believe one fiction (God) but OK to teach your children to believe in another (Santa)?
And are there really 8 year olds who believe in Santa? Wow.
Mind you, I apparently was a strangely skeptical kid - my mom says that I would just give her a weird look that said "yeah, you keep believing that stuff..." when she talked about Santa and then go back to creating my "Santa list", which included sizes, colour preferences, prices and stock/page numbers from the Sears "Wish Book"...
Posted by: FlameDuck | October 5, 2008 1:15 PM
Wait what? You should believe in God, but Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and Harry Potter are simply figments of your imagination? At least the Harry Potter books are internally consistent. J.K.Rowling 1 - God 0.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | October 5, 2008 1:38 PM
Gingerbaker, I strongly disagree with the claim about calculus. As someone who has tutored a lot of people in calc and is currently TAing a calc class, one is far more likely to understand how to apply things if one understands why they work. Moreover, understanding helps one catch when one has misapplied something or when some subtle thing might be making your results horribly wrong.
FlameDuck, the Harry Potter books consistency level is not great. For example, the stunning spell that is introduced in book 4 would have made the outcome of book 3 very different. There are many similar examples. The books are more consistent than say Genesis but the consistency level isn't that great.
Posted by: Steven Dunlap | October 5, 2008 1:43 PM
In Berkeley?!?!. Have you ever been there?! I, too, would like to hold on to the delusion that somewhere in the world there exists a place where rationality reigns. Berkeley would not be my first choice. It's right across the bay from me - I've been there. Not even close.
Posted by: Lau | October 5, 2008 2:00 PM
On the Santa question, it's clearly wrong to disabuse children of the notion in a cruel or malicious way, but I also don't see the point in lying to them. Surely by eight, most children recognize that Harry Potter and his ilk are make believe, even if they are more able to engage fully in that make believe than we adults are. Oddly, one person whom I respect very, very much, and yet is devoutly religious (I know, I question whether this is a case of my own cognitive dissonance on a regular basis) won't lie to his children about Santa precisely so he won't give them cause to doubt whether he will tell them the truth about important matters. My own mother refused to lie about the Easter Bunny, tooth fairy, etc, because basically she respected us too much to try to trick us.
That aside, if the story parents reported is true, that teacher sounds like a crazy jerk who ought to be fired.
Posted by: Shreeram | October 5, 2008 2:10 PM
Im not really surprised. If you've been to Berkeley you'll find that it is populated by all kinds of the weirdest loons believing the most ridiculous nonsense.
Creationists would fit right in.
Posted by: woozy | October 5, 2008 2:14 PM
In Berkeley?!?!.
I live there. Not even close. I was one of the folks who sent this link to PZ.
I think what probably happened was the teacher had planned a lesson on telling fiction from non-fiction. When listing fictional characters one of the kids suggested listing God. Then the teacher (this was her first week of ever teaching) probably did one of three very wrong things.
a) figured it was okay to say "well, I think God is non-fiction" and expect the kiddies to distinguish a personal opinion from advocacy. (a1. She flustered and said God might be fiction but it's the only fiction a person should believe)
b) decided it was more important to be true to her God than the law.
c) never occured to her that God might not be non-fiction.
...Or maybe she was a nut job and did intend a lesson about the reality of God.
I'm intending to believe a) in which case she needs a good chewing out and a hard lesson in reality. If any of the others ... well, should be out on her ear.
====
Oh, Berkeley isn't where rationality reigns but it isn't a place we'd expect Christian creationism to have a foothold. As others have stated, it's a place so irrational in the other way, we wouldn't be surprised if it declared believing in Santa Claus, Harry Potter, and Godzilla were protected rights. ... which I guess they *are* but ....
Posted by: penguinv | October 5, 2008 2:19 PM
Dear Gingerbaker,
Hope you play drums better than you can think about HOW you know something? And how to decide if something is true.
Just because you can't understand a thing is no basis to claim it is false, or "just a matter of belief". There are proofs to the calculus. Calculus informs your mind, err my mind and the mind of many others, to understand and work with the changes that happen in this world. (This world - you can experience it; you can test things in it; it contains the reality of life and death, of love and consequences.) This world is not an imaginary world controlled by a church/ churches/ 'better than us' deciders.
Posters above have told you that there are proofs for the calculus. Did you know that the subject of Algebra can actually be proven from clearly known and revealed premises? And not revealed by got but revealed and open to anyone who wants to check them out.
Posters above have suggested that calculus is to multiplication as multiplication is to algebra. Close enough to show you how -if you only were to jump level- that you could indeed actually understand math and not "believe it".
Sage advice: Don't believe anything. That's necessary in The Scientific Method. Belief is totally outside of science. Don't despair, so is "Beauty." And I see a beautiful world, not believe in it.
P.S. I took calculus twice. It was much more fun the second time around. So good I went to take Calculus 2. Never can tell where a good idea leads.
P.P.S. A good idea: not to over-populate the earth. Another good idea: if you find out that you are wrong, give up. Use the band-aid method, SZZzrriip!
Posted by: akshelby | October 5, 2008 2:24 PM
This past week I was listening to NPR. (Disclaimer, I am not a scientist) They were discussing a study in which the researcher had subjected one group to random, almost continual failure on tests. (even if something was the correct answer, it was still "wrong." The other group was was not. The first group began seeing patterns where there were no patterns at all, like in television static. They put this in the context of how people believe in conspiracy theories and superstitions. I kept waiting for them to mention belief in god, but they never did, of course.
I found the story. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95345337
Posted by: woozy | October 5, 2008 2:26 PM
If you've been to Berkeley you'll find that it is populated by all kinds of the weirdest loons believing the most ridiculous nonsense. Creationists would fit right in.
Yes, but on whole we/they are rabidly intolerant of conservative and traditional ridiculous nonsense. It's only liberal and non-traditional non-western ridiculous nonsense that we are rabidly tolerant of. ("rabidly tolerant"-- new phrase)
Still though. I don't think it's quite fair to find the humor in the idea that we were smugly shccked, *shocked* and all a twitter over an occurance that occurs on a regular basis in weird backward places like Kansas but never here. I think shocked is a proper response for both smugly self-enlightened utopias *and* hellish backwards backwater throwbacks.
Posted by: co | October 5, 2008 2:31 PM
akshelby, thanks for that NPR link. That piece (the underlying phenomenon has been known for a long time, but mainly in context of finding images of human faces in noisy patterns) strikes me as saying that people are inherently and instinctively scientists. The problem is that, given more information about situations, some people just don't have the willingness to adapt their old rules of the game to be more accurate.
Posted by: woozy | October 5, 2008 2:45 PM
#15
Gingerbaker, welcome to the world of the concern troll. You have my sympathy, I've been there.
If it's any consulation, I understand what you were trying to say.
===
As to "Aren't most religious people raised unquestioningly to be so by their parents and community? They probably never have a chance to contemplate the decision, as they don't realize there's a choice." I must confess that idea never occured to me until I read the "God Delusion" and I still find it hard to believe. I'd like think that even the most benighted hovel of backwater hell, there is still a public library where the word "atheist" is mentioned.
Then again, I've never met a creationist or a young earther. Honestly, I never have. Or at least never one who told me he/she was one.
====
By the way, I was never raised to believe in Santa Claus either. Some folks find that weird. I never did.
Also by the way, the grade isn't mentioned but aren't 8-year olds in the third-grade. A bit old for "a time for fairy tales" don't you think? Still not sure it's "nice" to abuse the somewhat slower ones but I can't really blame a teacher for assuming that eight year olds already knew there was no Santa Claus.
Posted by: akshelby | October 5, 2008 2:46 PM
co
Yes, I remember reading about that phenomena about faces in Dawkins book. But, it was interesting reading about how people in stressful situations seem more prone to seeing patterns. That's probably why there tends to be an upsurge in in religious fundamentalism during times of stress.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | October 5, 2008 3:07 PM
woozy said:
"Gingerbaker, welcome to the world of the concern troll. You have my sympathy, I've been there.
If it's any consulation, I understand what you were trying to say."
Thanks, woozy!
Posted by: Mike | October 5, 2008 3:19 PM
It's hard for this to be a shock given that one of the leading promoters of creationism, Philip Johnson, was a law professor at UC Berkeley (now emeritus).
Posted by: co | October 5, 2008 3:25 PM
Gingerbaker, to be fair, I noticed no trolling (concern or otherwise) in your post. It's tough to give a good science/math analogy in a place where many of the readers are conversant with those things (and they're not afraid to pick nits).
Posted by: woozy | October 5, 2008 3:27 PM
It's hard for this to be a shock given that one of the leading promoters of creationism, Philip Johnson, was a law professor at UC Berkeley (now emeritus).
Town and gown, mike. Town and gown. This is the Berkeley Public Schools.
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | October 5, 2008 3:56 PM
And to top that, she won't wear birkenstocks.
Posted by: woozy | October 5, 2008 4:42 PM
Why is it wrong to teach your children to believe one fiction (God) but OK to teach your children to believe in another (Santa)?
Um, because we expect Santa to be a game to grow out of but God is real and truly and supposed to last forever. Seems a bit cruel to teach a kid the earth is flat, Thomas Edison built the grand canyon, you had a pet dinosaur as a kid, toilets eat your poop, and then trun around around and "Gee, kid. I was only kidding. Now its your turn to figure it out on your own".
As to why Santa is okay? Um, not sure but it really does seem to be harmless and some smart folks say believing was a good experience. I don't think there is anything wrong with a "time for fairy tales" but I'd hazard a theory that it's best if they complement the real world rather than add to it. e.g. "Ooh, there's a magical world just over the hills where fairies have their little adventures on this world the share with us" rather than "Ooh, the fairies made this world 6000 years ago and its flat and the *real* world isn't real". (Um, does that make sense). Another theory that I just thought of this minute, is that the act of believing in Santa Claus but then analyzing that it just doesn't make sense and isn't true, is maybe *good* for a child's development.
I gotta admit though, it never occured to me to consider to let kids believe in God as a fairy tale just like Santa. Seems *wrong* to me somehow. Maybe because they'll discover people really do go to adulthood and keep believing and thus thing there's another logic that believers believe and it's okay. And no son of mine is gonna be an a-damned theist!!!!
And are there really 8 year olds who believe in Santa? Wow.
Let's keep in mind that the case was brought against by parents who heard it from their kids who weren't in the class but heard it from others. This kiddies crying over Santa Claus is probably just a bit of "telephone tag" hyperbole. As I said, I do doubt the intent of the teacher was to promote God. I think, like the Teddy Bear Mohamed, that a child probably brought up the "I know a fictional character. God!" and the Theist teacher then utterly blew it.
As a supposed concern troll, I like to twist stories to best and worst possible light so as not to lose my objectivity. At best: maybe the teacher acknowledged God *might* or *might* not be fiction and then figured that because it's okay (in her opinion) for people to believe religion, flubbed and meant "God is the only one of these maybe fictions you should believe" (i.e. you shouldn't believe in Harry Potter, and Sherlock Holmes but it's okay to believe in God even if he *is* a fiction. {I don't mean to suggest this is a valid opinion; just maybe her deer in the headlight flubbed solution to the dilema she found herself in; Aug. 29th was her very first week of teaching, after all. Oh, and I *don't* mean to sound sympathetic to her for flubbing, if she did. I'm not.})
That's the *BEST* case scenario. The worst case is, of course, she's a rabid creationist who thinks she should ignore all church and state separation.
Posted by: margish | October 5, 2008 4:48 PM
I thought Calculus was meaningless-until I took Physics. Delaying application of disciplines you thought meaningless are a good example of where educational systems are failing our students. Unfortunately this is where many just quit learning. A creationist does the same, which is criminal and should be punished.
Posted by: woozy | October 5, 2008 4:53 PM
You know, the sad thing about living Berkeley is we can't simply have any *news*.
Whenever something happens it *has* to be "well, now in out-there Bezerkeley happened which because it happened in Berkeley is either somehow ironic or amusing or whacky or both".
Several years ago we had a serious problem of cars not yielding for pedestrians at cross-walks. So what does whacky ol' Bezerkeley do? They distribute bright orange visability flags for pedestrians. So, needless to say, here come the wacky stories about middle-aged adults carrying silly bright orange flags to cross the street as thought they were little kids. What's next? Crossing guards for middle-aged investment brokers? Gee, that whacky Berkeley! So, one week later a pedestrian using one of these flags is hit by a car and killed. "Gee, that whacky Berkeley!" came the stories "Orange flags are target sights in Bezerkeley!" went the headlines. Um, hello! Pedestrian *killed* in normal traffic! Maybe a "Berkeley has a severe traffic problem" story is due without looking for the ironic "Only in Berkeley" angle.
Posted by: woozy | October 5, 2008 5:04 PM
I thought Calculus was meaningless-until I took Physics.
No offense, but even that statement belies the idea that mathematics is "meaningless" unless it applies to something "real". That it is real and meaningful and *real* in and of itself (after all, English Literature is "meaningless" when it comes to physics too) is still an idea most non-mathematicians never consider.
To invent the differential as a "quicker division for when things are wiggling about like crazy" is a quick fix and, gosh-darn golly! it *actually* works in the real world because we can break it down as small as we need for mechanical error, just won't cut it in the world of the true mathematical monks. *We* do have to analys to validity and "reality" of the infintismal (the mathematical equivalent to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin question) and the acceptance of "limits" as a representation of real numbers.
I think is is what gingercracker meant by "leap of faith". I think that is a *good* analogy but not exactly a true description. I'll have to ruminate for about a week (and I'm tenacious enough that I probably will) about why it isn't a true description but it's a good analogy.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 5, 2008 5:06 PM
By the way, I was never raised to believe in Santa Claus either. Some folks find that weird. I never did.
I was - but I've been told (I don't remember) that I found the idea of an old man coming down the chimney alarming, and refused to sleep on my own on Christmas Eve! We never told my son Father Christmas [Brit for Santa Claus] was real - we just couldn't see the point of the lie. He's now a happy, well-adjusted 13-year-old atheist.
Posted by: gg | October 5, 2008 5:44 PM
Nick Gotts wrote: "I've been told (I don't remember) that I found the idea of an old man coming down the chimney alarming, and refused to sleep on my own on Christmas Eve!"
There's actually a very good, classic story by British horror author Ramsey Campbell, called The Chimney, that is based exactly on that notion!
Posted by: scooter | October 5, 2008 5:46 PM
Scott @ 25 Having lived all over the US, I assert that Berkeley isn't the "weird" place. Anyway, since when is normal good?
I lived there for 2 years, as a construction worker, not student. It was nice place to live, certainly a bit left of center, but to quote Hunter Thompson, "It was certainly "Not weird enough for me."
Posted by: woozy | October 5, 2008 5:50 PM
I think is is what gingercracker meant
Oops. Gingerbaker. A mistake; not a cheap crack.
This "calculus" discussion is getting *way* off base but what the heck. I/was-one-of sent the article to PZ so this time I'll pretend it's okay:
Sometimes being an athiest mathematician, I feel like a minority among minorities. Just as the atheist is constantly being told by the theist majority "Well, you have to acknowledge religion makes people be better people", we mathematicians are constantly being told by the "hard" scientists "It's all very well you like to play your little puzzle games, but you do know you are really working to make our real life applications work, don't you".
Actually, in a weird way, we mathematicians are a *lot* like the mythical image of the monk. We both are *passionate* about cutting away from the "appearances of the world" to cut down to what the real, true, essence, of what things are. The difference between us (didn't take a full week after all) is that mathematicians always knew from the beginning we were searching an abstract. A very "real" abstract, self-existing, true and as expansively "real" as a landscape but an abstract. We don't expect tetrahedrons to rain on our heads, or Cauchy sequences to derail and crash into your living rooms. (Gad, what a mess! Cleaning up tracked kitty litter is bad enough but those infinite but converging fractions...) If theology had taken the same approach, it would have arrived at ... psychology.
Actually I've met some atheist theologians. They're pretty cool. But weird! Not sure how they can stand the company they keep.
Posted by: scooter | October 5, 2008 6:05 PM
Woozy @ 43
Hi Woozy, I lived right off Shattuck and Ashby, drank at the starry plough and sat in on the organ on Blues Night at the 2 AM club. I found Berkeley to be a very down-to-Earth place to live.
It's fun to hang out with your fellow beer drinkin bikers who can have a decent debate over the pros and cons of Marx or Amal Carburetors , and have the Grateful Dead as a local band.
Most of the ridiculous crystal people and all that silly New Age woo comes out of Marin County, Berkeley was the place where they came down for the weekend and got fleeced by the local merchants buying that silly crap.
At least that's how it was in the 80's and 90's when I was hanging in the East Bay. I loved Berkeley, but my girlfriend kicked me out so I had to move back to Oakland where the good weather is.
Posted by: scooter | October 5, 2008 6:15 PM
Woozy!!
Did you ever meet Steve Smale, the topologist from UCB ? I did some remodeling on his house and used to hang out with his daughter for awhile (platonic). He used to let us take his triple mast 65 foot yaught out. great guy.
The back story on that guy is wild. He's exactly the geeky math professor stereotype, but in his spare time, he's the Indiana Jones of Minerology, no SHIT. The guy has a museum in his house.
Posted by: jt512 | October 5, 2008 6:35 PM
That's a task I'm happy to contribute to. Show this video to your 8-year-olds: Rare Exports, Inc.
Posted by: woozy (aka ********* ******) | October 5, 2008 6:36 PM
Most of the ridiculous crystal people and all that silly New Age woo comes out of Marin County, Berkeley was the place where they came down for the weekend and got fleeced by the local merchants buying that silly crap.
Heh, heh! It originated in Berkeley as a form of open-mindedness gone loony. Then as the originaters got older and wealthier they moved to Marin County were everything was mellower.
Heh, heh. My recently deceased step-father (after my mother *finally* grew enough cajones to kick him out on his chemically addled schizophrenic ear) moved in with the owner of Llewyn's bookstore on Ashby where he became a regular fixture and became *obsessed* with the utter woo of the Mayan calander which he neither understood nor expressed in any form of coherence. (Actually the owner of Llewyn's aquired it from her nutty ex-husband and though neither went through a woo epiphany neither seemed to be impeded by rationality to question whether the believed in the woo they found themselves advocating). Oh, and people *loved* my psychotic schizophrenic abusive self-server insanely arational step-father. They utterly and completely *adored* him. And I'm talking rational logical sane people. Oh, god. The lip biting I went through for the sake of my beloved half-sister's sake at his eulogies was unbareable. I felt like Fred Grimes on The Simpsons ("Homer Simpsons an idiot! Why can't you *see* that!") Still my mother and I got our private bitch session the next day. (So much for any anonymity I may have wished with "woozy")
Berkeley's cool but the "let's illegalize non-organic coffee" and "police shouldn't use schnauzers because that's the breed of dog the Selma police used in the race riots" get a bit annoying. Still, I figure I should take it all in stride. Except when I can't.
Posted by: woozy | October 5, 2008 6:50 PM
Did you ever meet Steve Smale, the topologist from UCB ? I did some remodeling on his house and used to hang out with his daughter for awhile (platonic). He used to let us take his triple mast 65 foot yaught out. great guy.
Actually, Despite growing up in Berkeley and living there now, I never went to UC Berkeley. So no, never met him. Triple mast yacht? Man, I'm jealous.
Actually, I'm pretty much a lapsed mathematician. Not Ph.D. material apparently. But like Rincewind, the very poor wizard, I'm a mathematician (Masters-- the consulation prize from a Cracker Jack Box), nonetheless.
Um, Hey. You a building contracter? I might be in need of one soon.
Posted by: scooter | October 5, 2008 7:12 PM
#64 Woozy
Triple mast yacht? Man, I'm jealous.
Smale is a pretty famous guy, sort of ground floor Chaos Theory dude, I think he's chapter 1 in Gleik's bestseller. I believe his yacht money came from international museum mineral crystal trading. If you've ever seen the crystal collection at the little Livermore museum up Grizzly Peak, that's all his stuff.
You a building contracter? I might be in need of one soon.
Hell of a commute from Houston, that trade is for younger folks, I do the steady job thing these days, burbs, wife , kids.
I used to work for an Architect named David Ludwig, who had a contracting firm, 'Dovetail' real honest guy, he might be able to refer you, tell him 'Curt' said hi, he might remember me.
Posted by: scooter | October 5, 2008 7:25 PM
#63 Woozy I figure I should take it all in stride. Except when I can't.
Wavy Gravy for Mayor!!!
Don't eat the brown Republicans
later, gotta rejoin the human race and get to work.
Posted by: QrazyQat | October 5, 2008 8:29 PM
One thing about California (and a lot of the west coast actually in my eexperience) is that it has lots of both leftwing and rightwing extremists, and lots of various religious beliefs -- new age, super conservative Christian, etc. -- as well as rational atheists. It's a real entertaining place.
The John Birch Society was founded in California. Wally George lived and worked in California. (At least Wally helped produce Rebecca De Mornay, but that's his only redeeming feature.) Henry Morris started the ICR (Institute for Creation Research) in California. They're hardly the only ones on the list.
Posted by: LC | October 5, 2008 9:24 PM
Woozy,
Berkeley has better weather than Oakland, but not as good as The Sunset. (I like it cool & foggy in case you haven't guessed.)
PZ:
It seems to me that in a city as famed for tolerance and liberalism as Berkeley, it may be a positive sign that one can find a few Republicans and Creationists. Although I don't want Creationism taught in the schools and I don't think teachers should be able to promote religious beliefs of any kind, or atheism, for that matter, it seems to me to be rather illiberal to assert that any town, city or burg should be a relgion-free zone.
As for rationality, well, just about the whole Cal campus believes Obama is The One, The Messiah, the new kind of politician who will change everything the day he walks into the Oval office. I'm not sure that's much more rational than believing in God.
Posted by: chgo_liz | October 5, 2008 11:46 PM
I feel compelled to make a case for Santa Claus. It is a way to *help* children see that there is a childlike world of fantasy and a real world that they will grow up into. Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, etc. have all been cherished traditions in our home. But it's within a context of studying fairy/folk tales from around the world, and enjoying the fun of experiencing some of the fantasies in real time. As my children have gotten older, they've gone through a process of questioning, looking at the evidence, trying to determine what the real answer is. And then, the all-knowing tilt of the head behind the younger sibling's back to say "I'm growing up now and am proud to be putting away childish things."
Maybe I should also mention that at each of the main religious holidays throughout the year, I talk about how religions have tried to explain the cycles of nature and stolen bits and bobs from the previous religions to bolster their claims. My kids view the various holidays as quaint markers that show how far humans have come in our understanding of how the universe works.
Well, anyway, it has worked well for us.
Posted by: bfish | October 6, 2008 12:11 AM
I have a kid in Berkeley Unified, though not at Jefferson. I missed this article locally, so fancy reading about it here! Will be interesting to find out what actually happened, if it is made public. The incident occurred on the third day of school, by the way, so if the teacher had planned to do this kind of thing, she didn't waste any time.
Posted by: Ron Sullivan | October 6, 2008 12:22 AM
Woozy's pretty much on-target about Berkeley, though most of the juicy woo went to Santa Cruz and Arcata about the time the wealth went to Marin County.
(Some of the good stuff too; Arcata's like a Berkeley that works, and the sewage plant is to die for. No shit. So to speak. It's a tourist attraction.)
We've got a handful of Holy Roller churches in our general neighborhood, good to hang out next to on a Sunday morning if you need a fix of Gospel music. The current church controversy, though, is about Wat Mongkolratnaram, and I hope I've remembered the spelling, where the Sunday morning brunches have apparently got out of hand. (We used to be titular members, but I got pissed off at what they did to the fenceline trees when they took over the former community garden next to the city Tool Library, so fuck 'em if they can't get a permit.)
One of the most entertaining things about living in Berkeley is the consistent performance of people who don't have a clue, including people who've never set foot here, but will nevertheless tell you all about Berkeley at the drop of a hat.
I'm gratified to see that someone else reads the Daily Planet. How do you like the Wild Neighbors column?
Posted by: AlanWCan | October 6, 2008 1:00 AM
Isn't there at least a certain irony in what the list this idiot drew up? Harry Potter, Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, and god? Indicating that at least at some level she acknowledges equvalence. I was waiting for the Chasing Amy bit:
Banky Edwards: Alright, now see this? This is a four-way road, okay? And dead in the center is a crisp, new, hundred dollar bill. Now, at the end of each of these streets are four people, okay? You following?
Holden: Yeah.
Banky Edwards: Good. Over here, we have a male-affectionate, easy to get along with, non-political agenda lesbian. Down here, we have a man-hating, angry as fuck, agenda of rage, bitter dyke. Over here, we got Santa Claus, and up here the Easter Bunny. Which one is going to get to the hundred dollar bill first?
Holden: What is this supposed to prove?
Banky Edwards: No, I'm serious. This is a serious exercise. It's like an SAT question. Which one is going to get to the hundred dollar bill first? The male-friendly lesbian, the man-hating dyke, Santa Claus, or the Easter bunny?
Holden: The man-hating dyke.
Banky Edwards: Good. Why?
Holden: I don't know.
Banky Edwards: [shouting] Because the other three are figments of your fucking imagination!
Posted by: Anton Mates | October 6, 2008 2:06 AM
By and large, though, they're not teaching. Ethnic Studies aside, the Berkeley public school system is pretty awesome. As you'd expect, since there's a ton of academic-affiliated parents invested in the system.
UC Berkeley--particularly in its administration