Strike Two for California

A California high school history teacher has been found guilty of violating the First Amendment by calling a student's comments about creationism "religious, superstitious nonsense". Ouch! It gets worse.

In a December 2007 lawsuit, [Advanced Placement European history student, Chad] Farnan, then a sophomore, accused Corbett of repeatedly promoting hostility toward Christians in class and advocating "irreligion over religion" in violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause.

The establishment clause prohibits the government from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion" and has been interpreted by U.S. courts to also prohibit government employees from displaying religious hostility. --Scott Martindale, The Orange County Register

So government employees are not allowed to talk about non-religious alternatives.

It gets worse.

Corbett made his "superstitious nonsense" remark during a class discussion about a 1993 court case in which former Capistrano Valley High science teacher John Peloza sued the Capistrano Unified School District, challenging its requirement that Peloza teach evolution. --Scott Martindale, The Orange County Register

So yes, this comment really was in the context of a conversation about evolution and creationism. I will admit that how the teacher said it is quite disrespectful, but to call it the "establishment of (ir)religion?!" Are teachers not allowed to express personal opinion? The court found the school district not liable for the teacher's comments, so clearly this was the teacher's opinion, so if it was just his opinion how does it constitute the government establishing, because that's what the first amendment is about, the government And if it's the government doing the establishing, why is it the teacher is the defendant, and not the government?

And the part that I fear the most: does this mean my telling my science students that creationism is "not a scientific statement" is also violating the freedom of speech and separation of Church and State? Should I wipe my lecture on the origins of life on Earth in the context of astrobiology in the fear that a student will charge me with something?

This is just ridiculous.

To any Texan readers:

I know there's a couple of you who read me. The Gov of Texas has just appointed a 6-person committee to revamp the state's K-12 science curriculum. One of these six individuals is a creationist. A second person on the committee is not just any ol' creationist, but the director of the US's biggest creationist organization: Stephen C. Meyer, director of the Discovery Institute. And the chair of the committee is Donald McLeroy, who has gone on record as saying that biology textbooks containing evolution are anti-Christian and anti-American.

If you give a shit about this, there's more info on astronomer Phil Plat's blog along w/ more links. Unfortunately the only one who can change this situation is the governor, and he's in power until 2010, but perhaps you guys can make his life a little more difficult.

The tricky question of "what is science?"

Linking here to a third-hand blog post about how scientists often can't define terms like "theory" and "law." No wonder the media gets them mixed up! Part of the problem though is that scientists don't study how they do science, they just do it. Studying how science is done would be part of epistemology (the study of how we know things), which is part of philosophy. It's also in the realm of science education - but unfortunately science educators also don't know how science works... *grumble* No wonder things like ID and the Moon Hoax have managed to make such inroads into our culture!

More on UC vs Christian schools

Whee, CNN Video now allows embedding!



(If the video has problems, try this link.)

The girl's statement that her school teaches the "theories" of both ID and evolution and therefore is less "narrow" is exactly the problem - ID is not a theory, it's a baseless conjecture without any evidence. A theory needs to be well-tested, with an overwhelming amount of physical evidence to support it, such that it is well-accepted by the scientific community. These students are clearly NOT being taught that crucial distinction, and therefore do NOT understand how science works.

Ohio: Not quite doomed

The Bad Astronomer is fond of the phrase "State: Doomed" in the context of State approving creationism in the classroom. He'd probably be happy to hear that Ohio is not doomed, or at least only a little doomed.

An Ohio school is firing a middle school science teacher for the joint sins of teaching creationism in the science class (including keeping a Bible on his desk), and burning a cross into a student's arm. Shame it took the student abuse for the other part to surface.

The Eye's Evolution

Latest from the National Center for Science Education is a video about the evolution of eye. This video is a very simple explanation of why the irreducible complexity argument for the eye is flawed. The answer: it isn't irreducibly complex!

ID and religion

I know there's a few readers of this blog who believe differently from how I do on "hot topic" issues such as global warming, Intelligent Design, and conspiracy theories. For those of you who believe in Intelligent Design, I'm curious, do you feel that ID is creationism and is a religious belief, or do you think it is a scientific theory with tangible proof to support it?

One small step for Texans

Today a subcommittee of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board has decided unanimously that the non-accredited Institute for Creation Research, which espouses Young Earth Creationism, may not offer an online Master's of Science degree, saying that while "Science and religious belief are surely reconcilable, ... they are not the same thing."

Boo-yah!

It's worth noting though that this is not the final word. Next the full TX HECB must meet and agree with the committee decision. Presuming they agree with the subcommittee, the ICR can still fight it many ways. But for now reason appears to be winning.

Follow-up to this post

Science *union* Creationism

This NY Times article gives an interesting perspective of a scientist who is also a young Earth creationist - Dr. Marcus R. Ross (PhD from URI Geoscience dept) says the two are different paradigms, different ways to view the universe and one's place in it. The article also brings up an ethical quagmire, about whether it's legitimate for people to study something they don't believe, using their degrees to undermine science, and so on...

Go read.