The Ghost of Snapped Shot

Or, welcome to my low-maintenance heck.

<<
 >
>>
So much

... for public education being about education:

ATLANTA — A suburban school board that put stickers in high school science books saying evolution is "a theory, not a fact" [Ed.: something which is FACTUALLY TRUE] abandoned its legal battle to keep them Tuesday after four years.

The Cobb County board agreed in federal court never to use a similar sticker or to undermine the teaching of evolution in science classes.

The fascists at the ACLU consider something that "undermines the teaching of evolution" to be "state endorsement of religion?"

It seems to me that any action barring the "undermining" of something is in and of itself a religious sentiment.

Once again, the Federal courts have endorsed the Federal Religion of Atheism. Chaulk that up as one more reason to keep your children the heck out of "gub'mint" schools!

 


Comments:

#1 Bruce 19-Dec-2006
Just passing through and this post caught my eye. One comment on this quote:

"The school board placed the stickers inside the front cover of biology books in 2002 after a group of parents complained that evolution was being taught to the exclusion of other theories, including a literal reading of the biblical story of creation."

Science classes should be teaching science. Evolution _should_ be taught to the exclusion of other theories, and, yes, it should be taught as a theory. Intelligent Design/Creation cannot be tested or posited using the scientific method and thus is not science. Also, teaching ID as science would cripple students' efforts to learn critical thinking skills which they'll need for later pursuits in life since there is no critical thinking needed to comprehend ID. Teach ID in a religion or philosophy class, where it belongs.

Bruce
#2 Hapkido 20-Dec-2006
I don't think the battle in pubic schools has so much to do with evolution vs creationism as it does traditionalists vs progessives.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say "separation of church and state". What it *does* say is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or _prohibiting the free exercise thereof_".

Yet this "church & state" argument is the primary mantra of the left & the legal means by which they argue against every traditional value of this great nation.
#3 Brian 20-Dec-2006
Bruce,

Thank you very much for taking the time to stop by and share your thoughts on this story! I appreciate the time you took to contribute to this dialog *very* much!

Laying aside all arguments to the veracity of evolution versus the "falsibility" of ID theories, I think it's still painfully obvious that the ACLU's position on this (as evidenced by the statement, "The Cobb County board agreed in federal court never to use a similar sticker *or to undermine the teaching of evolution* in science classes," is *clearly* a _religious_ sentiment, ipso facto the ACLU, via our courts, is promoting the "Federal Religion of Atheism," to the exclusion of Christianity.

In my opinion, the school board was acting *entirely* within their rights to put a simple disclaimer sticker on textbooks indicating that much of the science behind evolution *is* a theory (which is *factually* true, in every sense of the term), and that "some people have *other* theories about how the earth came to be."

Don't you think that informing students that there *are* other possible explanations *enhances* their critical thinking, more than the *draconian* barring of "the undermining of" the teaching of what is _admittedly_ a theory? It seems to me that this is what the _classical_ definition of "critical thinking" is, in any case.

Again, thank you VERY much for sharing your thoughts with us! I look forward to hearing more of your input!

Warmest Regards,
Brian
#4 Brian 20-Dec-2006
Oh, as an addendum, I forgot to note that the school board was *not* in any case promoting that the schools in their district *teach* "intelligent design"--If you recall, the original case revolved *solely* around the placement of *disclaimer* stickers stating a historically-proven fact. So it's not like Cobb County was *actively* teaching ID theory in class time, which negates the argument that somehow Cobb County was curbing students' critical thinking skill.

And as another side note, I remember going to public school 10 years ago, and "critical thinking" wasn't even *remotely* practiced by my school, which was in one of the top educational districts in the *nation.* To the school, students were expected to believe the *official* State education curriculum, without question.

The same observation has, so far, applied to my time at the public University which I'm currently attending. Critical thinking is considered a *detriment* by most teachers, who tend to be on the left-hand side of most issues.

Hope this helps clarify my statements, sir,

Respectfully,
Brian
#5 Brian 20-Dec-2006
Hapkido,

I couldn't agree more. This is clearly a case where "secular progressives" (or as I prefer to call them, _cultural marxists_) are very obviously attempting to wipe any semblance of Christian culture from our nation, and replace it with a Soviet ideal of atheism.

And don't be silly -- of _course_ "separation of church and state" exists in the Constitution.

[url=http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/77cons02.html]The [i]Soviet[/i] constitution,[/url] 1977 edition, Part I, Article 52!

[quote][i]Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited.

[b]In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.[/b][/i][/quote]

There you have it: The ACLU follows the SOVIET Constitution, rather than the American one.
#6 Bruce 20-Dec-2006
Brian,
I'm happy to respond. The other posts here had 0 comments as of last night so, when I saw this morning that this post has 5, I was impressed. Anyway, to your comments.

I mention Intelligent Design out of habit. I've had these discussions before and often the conversation degenerates into arguments of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design. Sorry to inject something irrelevant here.

Re the ACLU's role in the decision, the ACLU's support of teaching Evolution in schools is the only action of the ACLU that I support. Otherwise the organization is communist to its core and devoid of any practical value to society (IMO). I saw the issue of your post as being one of what should be taught in science class, not what the ACLU thinks should be taught in science class. My apology for that misunderstanding.

Re your question, I'm all for teaching students about competing theories to Evolution but there aren't any competing theories (that I know of) that stand up to scientific scrutiny (i.e. applying the Scientific Method to phenomena that prove/disprove the applicable theory). When teaching a theory in a science class, it has to meet that standard, otherwise it should be taught in a different class (ex a philosophy class). Sorry if I offend anybody here.

I attended public schools and graduated in 1989. I didn't learn ID in school and, back then, Creation was the term used for that theory. My critical thinking skills seem to be pretty good and I give public schools some credit for that. I also had good parents who engaged me in conversations about current events and encouraged my development in this regard. I never personally encountered the sad left-wing bias I read about in universities but my two degrees are in Math and Computer Science, which have much less subjective material than English, Economics, etc.

Bruce
#7 Brian 20-Dec-2006
Bruce,

Thanks again for taking the time to comment! The comments sections around here are usually fairly quiet. I'm not exactly "in the major leagues" over here, so it's to be expected. :)

I am very familiar with that kind of conversation. I used to get wrapped up in whole afternoons of that type of debate over at certain other forums, and other than spending a few hours of practicing at rhetoric and debate, it accomplished next to nothing.

It really _is_ a religious argument, if you get down to it and strip aside all of the pretext of "Constitutionalism" and legalism (see my comment 2.1 below). When you boil it down, it can generally be represented as a core argument over the *existence* of a Diety, and two distnictly different *core sets* of ideals accepted at face value by both groups, which are generally incompatible.

Add to that the standard fighting which occurs whenever there's *any* form of "communal" property (my biggest objection to the entire _concept_ of "Government" schooling, is that one size does _not_ fit all -- a foreign concept to "governmental" entities! -- and the general observation that "communal" property is not protected and invested in *nearly* as much as something which is privately owned. To me, it would be better for us to save the dozen-or-so billion dollars we spend on Public Education nationwide at the government level, and invest it in *private* schooling, where each and every one of us, *as invidivuals,* can send our children to get what *we, as individuals, think* is a valuable education. Of course, this won't be the first time I'm a throwback to a far-bygone era...)

Also, reflecting on the content of many of my previous lengthy debates (and believe me, I'm more "interested observer" here than anything), one thing I've always noticed is that "faith" in the Scientific Method, no matter what name or language it is couched in, is still at its core: "faith."

And so, I roll back to the religiocity of the argument.

(And that's all I'm going to contribute into the actual argument - I *genuinely* do not wish to get into it with you, as I *do* genuinely appreciate your input on the discussion, even if we don't necessarily agree!)

I graduated six years after you, and suspect that the difference in educational tone might be related to our localities. Fairfax County, Virginia has some of the best science and math curriculum in the nation, at the cost of being typically far-left in all of the other topics. The public University I attend is not *extremely* bad (and I'm a Computer Science major too, so I only really encounter blatant leftism when I'm working on non-major requirements), so I'm not really "complaining" that much... I wouldn't go so far as to bash your critical thinking skills in particular, but I can comfortably say that the "Social Sciences" and "Liberal Arts" students I constantly overhear in the schools common areas are *completely* brainwashed, and are incapable of thinking for themselves.

(My favorite example of this was overhearing two students calmly discuss how it is "okay" to steal from Wal-Mart, because, "like, you know, they don't give their employees HEALTH CARE, maaaaan." Nevermind the fact that they are one of the few retail companies to actually *offer* their employees *full benefits!* You see where I'm going with this?)

Again, many thanks for taking the time to dialogue with me. It's definitely far more enlightening than my typical monologue!

Most Respectfully,
Brian
#8 Bruce 20-Dec-2006
Brian,

Funny, I graduated from Fairfax County schools too (South Lakes HS in Reston). I went to college at Johns Hopkins and then the Univ of Maryland and I am well aware of the leftist mentality. It was one of the reasons I studied math and later computer science.

I don't wish to beat a dead horse but you made one statement that I wish to comment on. You said, "one thing I've always noticed is that 'faith' in the Scientific Method, no matter what name or language it is couched in, is still at its core: 'faith.'" That statement confuses me. I have no "faith" in the Scientific Method. The appeal of the Scientific Method, probably since its genesis as a tool of science, has been the complete absence of faith. For example, we regard a water molecule as having one Oxygen atom and two Hydrogen atoms not because of faith but because that molecule's composition been proven over and over by experiment. Unless you mean "faith" as in "faith that objects fall downward," I don't know what you mean by "faith in the Scientific Method."

I don't comment on blogs often. This is only the second time, and the other time was also on a post about this issue. Again, I apologize if I offend, but if ID is to be treated as science then it must be explained in scientific terms and proven/disproven using the Scientific Method just like every other theory in science. The day I hear a proponent of ID prove the ID theory using the Scientific Method is the day I will have heard my first true argument in favor of treating ID as science. If you know of such an argument, please point me to it and I just might change my mind on teaching it in science classes.

Bruce
#9 Diehard_TH 23-Dec-2006
I'm quite disappointed to see this post here, as your blog is otherwise excellent.

Cobb, along with Dover is nothing short of an attempt to introduce creationism into the classroom.

Whatever your thoughts on the ACLU, the courts decision is the correct one.

This isn't the place to go into this in depth, for more detail i would go to www.pandasthumb.org or www.talkorigins.org
Powered by Snarf · Contact Us