Comments on: What do science teachers need to say or not say about religion?

By: Pi Guy

Pi Guy — Thu, 07 May 2009 21:01:16 +0000

By the way, Corbett is a history teacher not a science teacher.

Yes, that's true. But the teacher whose comments that he was addressing, John Peloza, is a science teacher. Essentially, a science teacher voided the whole scientific enterprise and violated the Establishment Clause and a history teacher called him on it (read: knows more about the subject than the science teacher) - albeit somewhat harshly - and the only one in violation of the Establishment Clause is the guy telling the truth? Nope, sorry. If Peloza isn't in trouble for teaching creationism in science then the Establishment Clause is useless.

By: Virgil Samms

Virgil Samms — Mon, 04 May 2009 08:50:42 +0000

I have heard some clips with some of Corbetts other comments. The one comment could be taken with a grain of salt, he did happen to have several other inflammatory anti-religous comments not related to creationism.

I saw some of the other comments in the article. The judge seems to have zeroed in on the most innocuous comment, and the one that, with good legal assistance, may have a decent chance of being overturned in appeals.

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 03 May 2009 22:11:01 +0000

By the way, Corbett is a history teacher not a science teacher. The title of this article might lead one to believe he is a science teacher. Not that this may really make much difference.

I have heard some clips with some of Corbetts other comments. The one comment could be taken with a grain of salt, he did happen to have several other inflammatory anti-religous comments not related to creationism.

By: Phil

Phil — Sun, 03 May 2009 17:50:59 +0000

Creationism is nonsense. It is literally non science. So what’s the problem when a teacher states the truth which may hurt little Timmy’s world view?

By: John Pieret

John Pieret — Sun, 03 May 2009 17:04:43 +0000

That the ruling does not take into account the incorrectness of creationism is precisely the problem and why it is a bad ruling ...

No, the court specifically found that Corbett's statement about creationism that:

"It's not science. Scientifically, it's nonsense."

... was not a violation of the establishment clause. The problem was that calling it "religious, superstitious nonsense" is disapproval of its status specifically as a religious belief. A government employee cannot do that under the First amendment.

By: NewEnglandBob

NewEnglandBob — Sun, 03 May 2009 16:34:07 +0000

Religion IS superstitious nonsense. There is no evidence that it has any basis in reality. Sailor: Superstition IS nonsense, from Wikipedia:

Superstition (Latin superstitio, literally "standing over"; derived perhaps from standing in awe; used in Latin as an unreasonable or excessive belief in fear or magic, especially foreign or fantastical ideas, and thus came to mean a "cult" in the Roman empire) is a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Sun, 03 May 2009 14:55:40 +0000

Virgil: I think you arecorrect regarding E v A. What i was thinking specifically was the Dover element that id’ed ID as creationism (and then went on to rely on E v A to link ID to religion and thus the disclaimer as violating the First Amendment).

By: sailor

sailor — Sun, 03 May 2009 12:51:28 +0000

“superstitious nonsense”
I think the problem here is with the nonsense. Superstitions make a lot of sense to the people who believe in them, so the phrase was not even correct. If the teacher had said:
“superstitious notions for which there no shred of scientific evidence” I think he may have been in the clear.

By: Jared

Jared — Sun, 03 May 2009 11:37:42 +0000

It strikes me as odd that religious objections can be brought up in the classroom by students, but to address them is illegal. If the facts are on the side of an individual, I see no problem with speaking the truth under ANY circumstances so long as it is not selective facts which give false impressions or cause misunderstandings.

By: Virgil Samms

Virgil Samms — Sun, 03 May 2009 10:56:14 +0000

There clearly is a weakness in the ruling here, and I think we can refer to Dover for this.

I think the appropriate legal precedent would be Edwards v. Aguillard. The only new thing about Dover was the "Intelligent Design" repackaging, and Dover is not a binding precedent outside of central Pennsylvania. Edwards v. Aguillard, which determined that Creation Science is religion, and is not science, is a binding national precedent since 1987 by virtue of having made it to the Supreme Court.