Fwd: [asa] Cobb County settles lawsuit

From: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
Date: Wed Dec 20 2006 - 20:22:08 EST

 I think you're missing my point. If schoolteachers in Ohio were
*required*to teach the fatuous stuff you mention below as part of an
official
curriculum, a court might properly invalidate that policy. But that is
different than prohibiting, a priori, any individual schoolteacher from ever
expressing such a view *voluntarily, *as an expression of that teacher's
personal views in relation to the official curriculum. There is a delicate
line between promoting effective education and dangerous, even tyrranical
prior restraints on free speech. People generally have to be free to
express their views, however wrong or stupid they may be.

I'm not adovocating an official "teach the controversy" policy here. I'm
saying courts generally should not issue prior restraints on individual
teachers who may want to introduce controversial views.

 On 12/20/06, Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
> How about this then , dealing with the ideas put forward by
> anti-evolutionists in Ohio in 2002?
> Italics are their comments the rest is me.
>
>
> Thus deep time or the short timescale of YEC are equally valid and both
> ultimately *faith-positions*, based on naturalism and theism respectively.
> This was used by opponents of evolution during the campaigns of 2002/3 in
> Ohio, when SEAO published the following statement.
>
> *Historical science. Most sciences, including chemistry and physics, are
> empirical (or experimental) in nature; theories can be tested by experiments
> in the laboratory and/or by observations of the world. Some disciplines,
> like origins science, are historical in nature; that is, they attempt to
> explain events and processes that have already taken place in the distant
> past. Theories in historical sciences cannot be verified experimentally, so
> the explanations are always tentative. Biological evolution (like creation
> and design) cannot be proven to be either true or false. The historical
> nature of evolution/design theory should be explained in the standards. *
>
> Had that passed into the statutes in Ohio it would have been impossible
> for conventional scientists to teach either geology or biology without
> breaking the law. At present, this distinction of *operational* and *
> origin* science is widely used in both ID and YEC circles, including on
> the teaching of science. Many find it plausible and so, if "creation" and
> "evolution" are equally valid "faith" positions, why not teach both?
>
>
>
> I know this was thrown out but we do have this continual sceptism of
> historical and geological science as we did in Kansas last year when Angus
> Menuge simply admitted he didnt know how old the earth was.
>
>
>
> There is a difference between criticising theories and coming out with
> nonsense.
>
>
>
> I am afraid that this appeal for critical thinking and teach the
> controversy is a charade
>
>
>
> Michael
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> *To:* Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 20, 2006 8:49 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Cobb County settles lawsuit
>
>
> Michael, I don't think those are fair examples. There's a huge difference
> between mandating that something false be taught and forbidding a priori any
> criticism of existing theories, whether true or false.
>
> I might agree that a court could strike down a democratically enacted law
> that required schools to teach that AIDS isn't caused by a virus or some
> such thing. Most states have "adequate education' clauses in their
> constitutions, and a federal court hearing a first amendment free speech
> claim could perhaps legitimately rule that the state has a compelling enough
> interest with regard to such a plainly false and dangerous curriculum that
> the curriculum, though democratically enacted, is unconstitutional.
>
> It's entirely different matter to say that the government could impose an
> absolute "prior restraint" gag order on any teacher who questions the view
> that AIDS is caused by a virus. The general principle under the first
> amendment is that "the remedy for bad speech is more speech." The preferred
> approach is not to impose a judicial restraint on speech, but to let the
> marketplace of ideas weed out bad ideas.
>
> There are, of course, other considerations with respect to teachers, who
> as employees must follow an approved curriculum and who have some special
> authority and responsibility towards their students. Certainly, a teacher
> who expressed her belief that AIDS is not caused by a virus could be
> enjoined from that conduct or have her contract terminated if she was not
> also fullfilling her duties to teach the official curriculum. But that sort
> of thing has to be decided on a case-by-case basis, not by a broad prior
> judicial order banning any mention of competing theories about AIDS or
> anything else (even false or wacky ones).
>
>
> On 12/20/06, Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk > wrote:
> >
> > If the majority of the community said that AIDS was not caused by a
> > virus,
> > and that the earth is flat and only 10,000 years, should this be
> > taught -
> > it would be democratic.
> >
> > Be consistent
> >
> > Michael
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "James Mahaffy" < mahaffy@dordt.edu>
> > To: < asa@calvin.edu>
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 2:50 PM
> > Subject: Re: [asa] Cobb County settles lawsuit
> >
> >
> > > James Mahaffy (mahaffy@dordt.edu) Phone: 712 722-6279
> > > 498 4th Ave NE
> > > Biology Department FAX : 712
> > > 722-1198
> > > Dordt College, Sioux Center IA 51250-1697
> > >>>> PvM < pvm.pandas@gmail.com > 12/20/06 1:01 AM >>>
> > > It's Kitzmaz all over again :-)
> > >
> > >> It's not a very good year for ID proponents.
> > >
> > > About the only statement I can agree with.
> > >
> > >
> > >> First Kitzmiller and the incessant whining about how
> > >> irrelevant the ruling really was, and then
> > >> the elections and now Cobb County settling the lawsuit.
> > >> One may wonder how (ir)relevant the ruling really was.
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't care what you wonder. I do care about the broader issue of
> > > whether or not public education should claim that it is
> > > neutral and the beliefs of the teachers and the community CAN NOT be
> > > part of the education. I would content to make the strong separation
> > > and put some academic areas in the neutral camp is to teach a
> > > secularism.
> > >
> > > Now that is an issue I would like see us discuss on its merits.
> > >
> > >
> > >> The noise from ID suggests that they realize it is far more relevant
> > >> than they want to openly admit.
> > >
> > > This is a non sequitor if I ever saw one.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> > >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> David W. Opderbeck
> Web: http://www.davidopderbeck.com
> Blog: http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
> MySpace (Music): http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke
>
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Web:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com
Blog:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
MySpace (Music):  http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke
-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Web:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com
Blog:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
MySpace (Music):  http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Dec 20 20:22:44 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 20 2006 - 20:22:44 EST