Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

OMG

That was great wasn't it? This guy is a complete loon.

Yes, and who's always accusing who of emotional flying off the handle? That's a prime example, so you have to call a spade a spade and admit the overbearing irrationality of the anti-evolution, anti-Darwin zealots.

Troll is the word ros wants. Loon is yesterday's insult.

It's a bit of a liberty to attack our 2,000 year old religion on the strength of what one guy says even if he is a dentist.

One might think you lot would encourage him. After all, sitting him on the coffee table to be potted is a bit like taking the easy way out. It's a lazy version of running on the spot.

Well, his discussions of stasis in the fossil record are sort of sound. Hes just failing to discuss it to its completion.

The "explosion" at the base of the Cambrian , while it does denote the first appearance of "hard shells" has a pre "Cambrian Explosion " strat system called the "Cryogenian" System. It is within this system of rocks that the first notochord animals appeared ., andywhere from 50 to almost 100 million years before the "Explosion".
When you look at what the explosion represents(hard shellism), its no more remarkeable than the first appearance of seeded plants (v gymnosperms) or the appearances of fossils like Tiiktalik or Archeopteryx. Its been made more of by the CReationists. However , the "Cambrian Explosion" breaks one of the major falsifiability claims of the Creationists, in that , in order to display a "Cambrian Explosion" that successfully argues against evolution, they have to accept that many more of the phyla DID actually make their first appearances in a span of time from the cryogenian to the Cretaceous, or a span of time over 750 MILLION years long. Its during this span of time that all the phyla begin their "first appearances", and their systematic appearances are dependent upon several sequential substructures on the bodies of the aniimals. Substructures like mouths, necks that allow swivelling, sensory sytructures, hair, feathers, scales , etc etc. ALL these components occured in a measurable timeline.
So Mr Mcelroy, once again, has missed the point of what we learn from the fossil record.
A fossil doesnt record or show evolution. Its just a snapshot in time. It records the morphology of the "losers"

Oh, they don't want to be bothered by the details. They continue to flaunt the law of attrition with foggy generalities.

SANTA ANA, Calif. " A federal judge ruled that a public high school history teacher violated the First Amendment when he called creationism "superstitious nonsense" during a classroom lecture.

U.S. District Judge James Selna ruled Friday in a lawsuit student Chad Farnan filed in 2007, alleging that teacher James Corbett violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment by making repeated comments in class that were hostile to Christian beliefs.

The lawsuit cited more than 20 statements made by Corbett during one day of class, which Farnan recorded, to support allegations of a broader teaching method that "favors irreligion over religion" and made Christian students feel uncomfortable.

During the course of the litigation, the judge found that most of the statements cited in the court papers did not violate the First Amendment because they did not refer directly to religion or were appropriate in the context of the classroom lecture.

But Selna ruled Friday that one comment, where Corbett referred to creationism as "religious, superstitious nonsense," did violate Farnan's constitutional rights.

Selna wrote in his ruling that he tried to balance Farnan's and Corbett's rights.

"The court's ruling today reflects the constitutionally permissible need for expansive discussion even if a given topic may be offensive to a particular religion," the judge wrote.

"The decision also reflects that there are boundaries. ... The ruling today protects Farnan, but also protects teachers like Corbett in carrying out their teaching duties."

Corbett, a 20-year teaching veteran, remains at Capistrano Valley High School.

Farnan is now a junior at the school, but quit Corbett's Advanced Placement European history class after his teacher made the comments.

Farnan is not interested in monetary damages, said his attorney, Jennifer Monk of the Murrieta-based Christian legal group Advocates for Faith & Freedom.

Instead, he plans to ask the court to prohibit Corbett from making similar comments in the future. Farnan's family would also like to see the school district offer teacher training and monitor Corbett's classroom for future violations, Monk said.

There are no plans to appeal the judge's rulings on the other statements listed in the litigation, she said.

"They lost, he violated the establishment clause," she told The Associated Press in a phone interview. "From our perspective, whether he violated it with one statement or with 19 statements is irrelevant."

The establishment clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from making any law establishing religion. The clause has been interpreted by U.S. courts to also prohibit government employees from displaying religious hostility.

Selna said that although Corbett was only found to have violated the establishment clause in a single instance, he could not excuse or overlook the behavior.

In a ruling last month, the judge dismissed all but two of the statements Farnan complained about, including Corbett's comment that "when you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth."

On Friday, Selna also dismissed one of the two remaining statements, saying that Corbett may have been attempting to quote Mark Twain when he said religion was "invented when the first con man met the first fool."

Corbett has declined to comment throughout the litigation. His attorney, Dan Spradlin, did not immediately return a message left Monday by The Associated Press.

Spradlin has said, however, that Corbett made the remark about creationism during a classroom discussion about a 1993 case in which a former Capistrano Valley High science teacher sued the school district because it required instruction in evolution.

Spradlin has said Corbett was simply expressing his own opinion that the former teacher shouldn't have presented his religious views to students.

Farnan's family released a statement Friday calling the judge's ruling a vindication of the teen's constitutional rights.

The Capistrano Unified School District, which paid for Corbett's attorney, was found not liable for Corbett's classroom conduct.

edgar, I came to some early opinions about this issue, but I'd like to hear yours first.

I am still digesting the story. Was not aware of it previously.

Well, CI, the man is a high school history teacher. I think he should have confined himself to the facts without editorializing. I think I would hold him liable for some of what he said and perhaps his attitude, if that were applicable.

Make someone liable for "attitude?" I don't think so.

Although the judge tried to be fair, he didn't protect the teacher from the "free speech" clause. That's because if he was allowed to pursue his line of debate, he could have taught his students to think outside of their religious' teachings and begin to think for themselves. After all, people of religion are attempting to teach creationism (ID) in our science courses. They want to eat their cake and have it too! The judge failed to let the students pursue this issue; something our schools are failing to do by their standardized tests.

The why's of religion is a good history lesson IMHO.

If they cannot teach religion in schools, they should not be able to teach anti religion, in my view.

I agree and this was posted on one of the evolution threads in the past week, I believe. I went through sixteen years of teachers in subjects that religion would naturally be brought up, either in the lesson plan or questions from the class. Not one of them went into any diatribe about their opinion of religion. That's what Mark Twain, Bill Maher and Christopher Hitchens are for and they have been able to lighten it up by mixing it with curmudgeonly humor. Those who fantasize about the secular segment of society turning everyone into atheists with their "what if" scenerios are just blowing BS.

To me it is counter productive to rail that way in that setting. I believe it could close as many minds as it could open.

Precisely! That's why their trying to teach creationism (nothing but religion) in public school is a weak argument that teachers cannot talk about religion.

I am as opposed to Creationism being taught as what the history teacher said. More so, in a personal way. It's a very thin line between free expression and unfairly propagandizing our kids.

There are whole communities pushing creationism in our schools, and one teacher who spoke the "truth" about religion. There will never be any "balance" about this issue.

Here, I have to agree with you. We who play by the rules have to bear the daily onslaught of fanatics who will stop at nothing.

Bill Maher this week on HBO has a final New Rules with the subject of the Texas evolution in classrooms controversy. It's quite funny but, of course, he takes some serious jabs at those who won't buy evolution but will buy the talking snake. I'm sure it's available on his site or there will be posts on You Tube.

Thanks. I will search Maher on youtube and see what's there.