The Un-founded Attack on the American Classroom

Happy Teacher Day Michael. It's too bad you had to spend a moment of it defending your profession.

I'm not sure how much I need to comment since this seems aimed mostly towards Sam and one of his blogs. However, I was curious about what happened to your 5th Amendment blog from earlier. I didn't see it when I opened up the link to your blog topics.

this may be a little off the topic, but don't you find it interesting how many people fuss about "taking prayer out of school"?

Millions of people are on a campaign to make prayer possible in public schools. Well, that would be like me to campaign for black people and women getting the right to vote. Both are already legal.

It is a huge misconception that students cannot pray in school. Even many educators are misinformed here.

According to Federal law TEACHERS cannot lead a school prayer. No where does it say anything about little johnny or suzie saying a prayer if they wish. Just thought I'd add.

"If Darwin was so right how come humans haven't evolved more? We Homo sapiens have basically been the same for over 4000 years... WITH NO EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS that would relate back to Darwinism."

Olympic times would disagree. As would the size of the average human male over the last few hundred years.

Also, there have been more American males being born with fewer than four wisdom teeth over the last 50 years.

Females are starting menstration earlier than ever.

And more importantly life expectansy has been increasing since the beginning of time.

To say that we have not evolved is quite ambiguous.

By the way I absolutely love that proud and sam both think that people disagreeing with them is an attack.

Mike,

"A theory is... a hypothesis that has not yet been proven"

My understanding is that is the non-scientific definition of a theory. For instance, when detectives have a 'theory' about who killed the butler.

Scientifically we have hypotheses, theories, and laws:

Hypothesis are best guesses, that are not yet tested or proven.

Laws are simple immutable facts that are simply accepted as truth (e.g. 2+2=4)

Theories are frameworks of understanding that are created by testing hypotheses to confirm their validity, and combining many theories together along with laws to express an understanding of how a system/phenomena works.

They exist as separate things. A hypothesis does not BECOME a theory once it is proven to be valid. It may be included in a theory to further our understanding.

And a theory (which is essentially proven, though that is not the best way to describe it) does not ever BECOME a law. However laws are drawn upon to create theories.

This fundamental difference between the colloquial definition of 'theory' and the scientific definition of 'theory' is what creates alot of the drama in the creationist world.

(of course, that is my understanding of the terminology. I could always be wrong.)

I understand that there may be a feeling that I jumped all over Sam about education and seemed to focus my ire. I can say this it was an attack I will not shy away from that admission.

But, we are about five days since I issued the original challenge and one day since I reissued the challenge to debate Sam on the lies that he feels are being perpetrated in the American school system and he has still not even replied.

I will keep up this challenge until he either agrees to the debate or declines. HOWEVER, simply saying he won't debate because he thinks I will say that what he feels are lies aren't, won't work (and besides that's the whole point of a debate, two differing sides).

And if he prefers he can write a blog pointing to all the lies he sees going on in the American school system and then I will in-turn respond.

You talk of voting records, but unless you somehow have access of voting records (which is a federal crime) you can't sit here and talk about cold hard facts.

I will say it ONE more time. My concern is not at the college level. I don't teach that level. I am talking about the K-12 system which has been blindly attacked my first Sam and now MrsSmith, though while claiming that liberals are so blind that we don't see the spin/slant we are giving our students doesn't offer one factual instance.

Here is my opinion on the issue as a current college student of traditional college age:

Many conservatives speak of colleges and universities as if 24 hours a day 7 days a week we are being brainwashed by liberalism.

Not at all the case. I took 10 total classes this year, not one of those teachers made known their party affiliation. Only one teacher told us who he voted for, which was Obama. And that was our government teacher, and he only did so because we were learning of voting patterns and statistics.

My math teacher, science teacher, and pyschology teacher never even mentioned politics. Logically speaking, why would they? What does voting liberal have to do with regression coefficients, standard deviations, genomes, or the id and the super ego???

Absolutely nothing. Will some professors share their political affiliations unjustly? Of course. But I am almost affended at how weak-minded my generation is thought to be. Sure there are rebels and dumbasses but people have been complaining about the "kids" in their generation from the beginning of time. It will never change.

Let's say little johnny really hates going to political science class because it is very demanding. If one day his professor were to say, "The Democrats are traditionally more logical than the racist, imbreeding republicans" do you really believe that will hit some kind of switch in Johnny's head to become a super liberal? More than likely johnny tells his parents and the professor gets repremanded.

I understand the far right is very upset because they fear that they will soon become obsolete, but not using logic and common sense is no way to help the cause.

I didn't mean anyone to infer that I feel there is any more indoctrination at college than there is in high school, at home, or at the mall. I was just pointing out that once student's feel they are free is when they are more likely to seek out new experiences and ideas.

If one agrees that most college professors are Liberal (I'm undecided and don't really care) what would it matter? Do people think so little of other's that they are unwilling for people to think for themselves? Are we so worried that people are being brainwashed? What does that say about one's opinion of others if you are concerned that people are unable to think for themselves. If professors or teachers are Liberal or Conservative good for them as long as they do their jobs well.

As for your unchanged views, good for you if that's how you want to be. Personally I consider myself more of a liberal (note the lower case l). I am always happy to hear and discuss other viewpoints and I find that my views change regularly, but I guess that is why I am liberal not Liberal. I understand that is not a popular stance in this era of "waffling" and "flip-flopping." It bothers me that many people are so set and conviced of their righteousness that actually having an open mind and being able to change your opinion to new experiences is a bad thing.

Guillermo,

It seems to me that you feel you must insult other people to make your point. I try to never insult people or tell them they are wrong, I will share my opinion but if people don't agree that's fine with me. But then again I am a complete jerk and arse who likes to feel superior to others.

Mike,

I think you took me a little more literally than I intended. When I said I regularly change my opinion I didn't mean that I change willy-nilly as the wind blows. Rather I mean that in the years since I graduated high school there has been much that has happened in my life and in the world which causes me to re-evaluate my beliefs and that in the course of that re-evaluation there have been many times when I have changed my opinion. If you have such a bedrock of belief that you are never swayed, again good for you. As I've said before and will most likely say again that puts you on the same page as Sam in my book.

Guillermo,

The only comment directed at you was about you insulting people, I apologize if my message was unclear and you thought I was calling you a jerk etc., I thought I had made that clear, but it is often hard to with typed messages. However, I will not argue with you if you feel you are a bigger jerk than me. It was merely as small attempt at self-deprecating humor to point out the irony of a person who tries to avoid insulting and publicly judging people while at the same time feeling superior for it. I still see no hypocrisy in my comment but if you could explain how I am a hypocrite (aside from my stated comment above) I would appreciate it.

As always I think we need to lighten up and try to get along.

Oh yeah

I also clearly said I try not to insult people. I would never claim that I never do. After all to misquote an axiom:

To forgive is godly, to err is all mine

I feel I was indoctrinated in high school. No one taught me about the dang tortoise. Now I realize it was those idealogical teachers withholding valuable information and not allowing me to form my own opinion. Although, we did learn about mythology... maybe it was mentioned in there somewhere. In any case, now I know the truth. Turtle Power!

I think perhaps the woman with the turtle story forgot about the four elephants upon whose back the earth actually resides. Those elephants in turn are supported by Great A'Tuin who is in fact the giant turtle. Although perhaps she is a member of some heretical sect which chooses to deny the existence of the elephants.

Guillermo,

The insult comment, at least in this instance, was directed at the implication in your response to MrsSmith, I believe although I could be wrong, that people with intelligence are Liberal. If I was wrong in my inference I must apologize. However, you later prove my point by calling me a hypocrite. As I said, sarcasm and jocularity doesn't always come across right in typed messages.

"Why so serious?"

Nice Batman quote.

But I will agree with you Transplant that sarcasm and jocularity don't always show in the written word unless you point out that you are using one of the two but that is just so tiring to do (sarcasm). See?

Guillermo

Thank you again for proving my point, I didn't want to have to search back through your rants to point out how often you act childishly. But whatever makes you feel better, good for you. Just out of curiosity, what is your connection to the McCook area? You don't need to share if you don't wish, I'm just interested in what would bring an obviously intelligent and worldly chap like yourself to feel the need to be rude and insulting to hicks like ourselves. I don't mean to imply that one needs any connection to an area to join in the conversation and you are naturally welcome here, just curious.

I agree Reader, there are more than enough idiots to go around.

Sorry that should have been posters but Sam at the end not BY Sam

Guys do you think we could get refocused now?

I found the story by going to Google and typing in "teacher James Corbett". Not a hard story to find.

McCook Reader, I see you said that we on the right are upset that we will soon be obsolete. My friend, you had better pray that you are wrong. I see in you, how well the propaganda of the left has worked. You seem to hate those on the right, or the good ole boys, as you have called them, and just what specifically did we do on the right to hurt you?

When the left has free reign, and the control over every aspect of your life, you'll be one of the first people they will do away with. Unless, you have suddenly changed, and now favor the murder of the unborn.

You seem to have swallowed the Lefts talking points, and yet, I have a feeling that you are working harder to convince yourself.

Do you have so much invested into Obama that it is hard to take a real look at the guy? Be careful. When you look at Obama, do you see what you wish for, or what is?

I will not concede that you are a leftist. I don't buy it. You must have some anger issues, against some specific Republican or conservative, that you are having trouble dealing with.

If you see the value that was lost of these millions of murdered babies, then you still have the flame of Liberty burning within you.

The left will sweet-talk you, then enslave you, then rob you, and eventually kill you. You had better look at who your real friends are.

I pray that you are wrong about the good ole boys being dead. There may come a time when a good ole boy will be the only person who will care if you live or die.

Sam,

I have no disdain for Columbus. But let's let the facts present themselves. He claimed to have went around the world and landed in India. He didn't even make it a third of the way around the globe. We celebrate Columbus Day for discovering America. He never once set foot on any land that is now the United States. That's not disdain, that's just fact.

Once again you have told us all what you believe to be the lies that are being taught in the education system but you offer no facts to that point other than saying "I have seen the kids that come out of school". That proves nothing.

We don't teach that "America is a bad country" anywhere in anyone's classroom. I have yet to witness a teacher teach the values of homosexuality.

So give me some cold hard facts instead of your opinion of what you think is going on.

Just to finish up this little rant. Simply stating your beliefs over and over again is not presenting fact. I have beliefs but I usually try to back them up with facts. If I can't I let the reader or listener know that these are just my beliefs.

When I say give us facts, give us real world from the classroom facts. What you have given us is one example from one teacher who was out of line. Interesting note though that you didn't mention that over 300 current and former students held protests defending Dr.James Corbett.

Also, I would love for you to point out where I have ever said I want more money at your expense. All I have ever said is that the teaching profession is underpaid.

Chunky Peanut Butter,

Evolution HAS been observed. Populations acquiring minor changes to adapt to their environment IS evolution. Pesticide-resistant insects, antibiotic resistant bacteria, Darwin's finches growing larger beaks, etc. These are all examples of evolution occurring. It is these tiny changes over the period of hundreds of thousands of years that actually differentiate the population enough to be a separate species.

I assume what you are asking is why haven't we seen any large-scale evolution. Like a new species of super-bear emerging, or dogs walking on two legs. And the answer is that large-scale evolution takes a looooooooong time. Certainly longer than humans have been recording history. If we were to see changes like that in a species in such a short time, it would actually INVALIDATE parts of the theory of evolution.

The age of our world is difficult for us to comprehend. Think of it this way. Stretch out your arms opposite of each other parallel to the floor (like the famous Da Vinci sketch). The length between your fingertips represents the timeline of our world's history. Now, clip the tip of the fingernail on your middle finger. You have just erased all of human history.

And as for missing links...

There will ALWAYS be missing links because:

1) we will never be able to find ALL existing fossils.

2) Fossilization is RARE. It's not as if all dead creatures in the earth's history were fossilized. Quite the opposite. Fossilization occurs under very specific circumstances. We cannot expect to have a fully complete fossil record of every species to have ever lived.

And DESPITE the fact that it's such a rare occurrence, we have a very rich fossil record showing MANY 'transitional species' (that is not an optimal term to use, for reasons that I won't go into).

CPB,

Your response belies a misunderstanding about the process of natural selection. Natural selection is driven by both adaptation and genetic mutation. And you are partly correct in saying that mutation typically causes and/or sterility. But occasionally, genetic mutation provides a slightly beneficial trait that is expounded on by adaptation. 'genetic diversity to adapt to natural surroundings' is what LEADS to evolution, over a period of hundreds of thousands of years. We see evidence of this long adaptation in the fossil record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tra...

Transitional fossils is an unfortunate term to use. Because to many people, it indicates that there were species that were only partly functional. That there is a set starting point A and ending point B, and that the creatures in between were some barely functioning hybrids. That is most certainly not the case. EVERY species is a transitional species. They are all constantly adapting to their environment.

"If during, say the transition between invertebrates and vertebrates, something failed, and the new species died, how would that lead to evolution."

That certainly could have happened, I would guess that it might have many times. If you are speaking of an inherent flaw in the 'design' of the species, it's likely that they DID die off, and that we inherit our backbones from an ancestor that was 'luckier'. And if you are speaking of a simple mutation causing the failure, then natural selection would go to work, eliminating members of that species with the unfortunate malformed DNA.

New genetic material IS added to the genome through mutation, specifically (duplication and polyploidy being two prime examples). Penicillin resistant bacteria is gaining it's resistance through natural selection (genetic mutation + adaptation to environment). We have sequenced DNA from these bacteria and SEEN the changes to the genetic code.

And yes, a quick flood IS one possible cause of fossilization (among many others). And there are almost certainly many fossils that were created because a flash flood drowned the creature and covered it with sediment. I've never seen an experiment that has created fossilization in a week by replicating natural conditions. Perhaps you would care to share that information?

As for lies told by the bible, of course you don't think the bible lies because you accept what it's saying on faith. So where you see no lies, I objectively see many.

The 6-day creation story is, logically speaking, a lie. MULTIPLE radio-dating methods have put the age of the earth at MUCH older than you'd claim it is. And geological study has indicated a MUCH more lengthy process of the earth's formation.

And, little known fact, there is almost no evidence outside the bible that the jewish race was enslaved in Egypt. There exist some circumstantial accounts, but not enough evidence to actually support the proposition as truth. This fact combined with a lack of any archaeological evidence makes it very unlikely that the jews were enslaved as a race in Egypt at the time the bible states.

If you are looking for simpler contradictions in the scriptures, I would urge you to read all 4 gospels again, paying close attention (specifically the resurrection story). There are many contradictory accounts of events that clearly cannot all be true.

I know I won't convince you with facts or evidence. If you accept the bible as truth on faith, there is nothing that can convince you it's wrong.

But the difference between science and "christian-science" is that science starts by saying "I don't know how X happened, lets figure it out" and christian-science starts with "We know how X happened because the bible tells us so, lets find evidence to support that proposition".

And yes, sometimes science DOES get it wrong. And when it does, scientists freely admit the mistake, and amend their theory/positions. Religious-science cannot make the same claim.

I suppose we can agree to disagree.

And you're certainly entitled to believe whatever you like. It is of no concern to me whether you believe in what we've learned from science, or if you believe the bible to be literal truth, or even if you believe the world was created by a flying spaghetti monster.

It only becomes my concern when people want unfounded, unscientific, religious-based views taught in the public schooling system. A schooling system that is supposed to be non-partial to any religion, one that is supposed to teach science, not religion.

This thread is petering down, so I doubt anyone will read this.

My opinion of Jim Corbett's actions has changed. I still think he was probably on the wrong side of the first amendment, to a point. But after reading an article written by him on open.salon.com today, I see the situation is a little more complicated.

Chad Farnan, the boy who sued him, never complained to either Mr. Corbett or the school administration. Neither did his parents. In fact, neither did ANYONE's parents (he had a record clear of complaints). There was no notice at ALL except a lawsuit dropped on the principal's desk.

Additionally, Mr. Corbett was a history teacher, but the summer before classes began, he sent a letter home to parents and students stating that he would bring up provocative subjects and provoke controversy in the class. And that he would take a little bit of time everyday to do this, the intent was to make students question their beliefs (not just about religion) and spark discussion at home with their parents. The student and parents TESTIFIED that they had received and read this letter.

In light of this information, I feel much more sorry for Mr. Corbett. It is unfortunate that families feel that they cannot complain to their child's own school, and feel that they must take legal action instead. Especially after the teacher specifically TOLD them he would be doing things like that.

McCook1,

Yeah, you noticed where I said "I still think he was probably on the wrong side of the first amendment". I never said he DIDN'T violate the first amendment.

I just thought putting the actions in context would be more appropriate. The way the original cited article made it sound was that a history teacher went off on a wild rant about Christianity that was not in the context of his class. I'm just saying that I'm a little more empathetic to him now that I know that he warned parents about provocative content and that the parents didn't even TRY to work it out with the teacher. The circumstances surrounding it make it seem alot more like the "Advocates for Faith and Freedom" took it as an opportunity to crucify a guy for publicity. (pun intended)

Again, I'm not saying that he was on the right side of the law. It's a double edged sword that goes both ways. If there was a teacher preaching biblical creationism in school, I'd want him rebuked so fast his head would spin. (of course, I would only want a lawsuit AFTER he was rebuked and didn't change his actions).

From what I've read about the lawsuit, all the teacher has to do is stop violating the first amendment. No firing, no monetary award, not even an apology. All that was sought was education for teachers on this matter, preventing further violations by this teacher and making sure that he complies with the court's ruling. Teachers have been fired over a lot less than that upon news of the first complaint. Not to mention a lawsuit.

I don't empathize with someone who knows what they are doing is offensive and hostile to their students and their beliefs. Especially, when he knew how close he was to crossing the line. Not even if he told them about it beforehand. With that said, I'm sure there was a vendetta by the student and this MAY have been avoided if the student lodged his concerns with the teacher and the principal. However, the student was within his rights and the teacher wasn't.

"If there was a teacher preaching biblical creationism in school, I'd want him rebuked so fast his head would spin."

I don't think there's been much of a problem with teachers getting in trouble for teaching creationism. Teachers can't even challenge evolution from a scientific standpoint without taking heat for it.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,760,-B...

http://ncseweb.org/news/2008/06/creation...

http://www.discovery.org/a/2715

"It almost seems that because the student and his parents presented 20 different comments, they were just trying to make one stick."

I think the court showed extreme leniency with this teacher based on some of the comments that I have read. However, I would not fault the teacher if he were attempting to quote somebody. That doesn't change the fact that it's not the job of a history teacher to challenge his students' religious beliefs anymore than it is his job to challenge his students' lack of religious belief.

"It is unfortunate that an excellent teacher, with a good track record, who was loved by his students has been vilified by those trying to prove that the American Education System is indoctrinating for one bad choice of words."

The lawsuit alleged and the court ruled on a violation of the first amendment not indoctrination.

But we are missing the greater point. This student and his parents knew that the teacher was going to try to elicit controversy in an attempt to get students debating. I'm sorry, but even though the judge ruled that he had violated the First Amendment (which he had) this should have been handled between parent, student, teacher, and principal not immediately to a lawsuit.

And yet again MrsSmith you use a college example to state your belief that the same thing is going on in the public school sector.

So, as the article goes MrsSmith, let me ask you, Do you have any experience teaching in the public schools? Have you done extensive research into what actually goes on in the public schools?

Before you answer that, I already know the answer as you have admitted as much on here in the past.

"So let us review. You have no personal experience or knowledge of the military. You have not studied the military. You cannot explain why you disagree with me. And you think you are entitled to your opinion. Well, I agree with you on one point. You do have a right to an opinion, and I have a right to point out that yours is an ignorant opinion--ignorant because by your own admission it is not based on any facts, education, research, or experience. Your opinion is apparently based on nothing more than simple ignorant prejudice."

By the way the professor is absolutely correct. As a guest speaker, that person has no right to degrade a student in the way that career military officer did. The professor should have stopped the exchange from the begining. And calling someone ignorant is not "rational thinking". He was as caught up in the exchange as she was.

I have the feeling, though, had that person been an atheist and declared there was no God and that young woman had gone off him and he had called her ignorant, you probably wouldn't have posted that article.

Please don't push your ignorant prejudice on the American Education System on me. But I'm just engaging in rational discussions.

Naturally I don't even think the article is true, it's just a little to fantastical and pulling just too many of today's hot button issues into the story.

Teaching children and forcing someone to think they are dying because of drowning are not even comparable.

So because you have talked to a couple of people (who probably shared your scewed beliefs) and your kids went through it and you went through the public school system you have more expertise than someone who actually works in the system.

By the way you went through public schools, so is your life ruined because of this so-called bias teaching? Your children went through the public school system. Are they permanently messed up because of this "bias" in the school system?

I would love to see this book that you refer to the pilgrims.

I think your absolute hatred for anything that happens in the public schools has so clouded your mind you are willing to trash the entire system because of some bad apples.

What is it you do for a living? I'm sure I can find things to absolutely trash you job as well.

Hmm that's exactly what I was going to say about you MrsSmith, about torture. Bushco says it wasn't torture, so you are more than willing to push your religious beliefs to the curb to believe them.