Anti-religious teacher gets his way thanks to sympathetic judge

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

U.S. District Judge James Selna ruled last week that Capistrano Valley High School history teacher James Corbett, a 36-year educator, violated the First Amendment's establishment clause by referring to Creationism as "religious, superstitious nonsense."

I'm not sure he drew the line in the right place," said Douglas Laycock, a University of Michigan law professor who is a nationally renowned expert on the law of religious liberty. "The line can be fine sometimes. But here we have a teacher who wasn't interested in finding the line, and the judge manages to explain away all but one of the teacher's comments."

Corbett made the "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. Peloza lost in both a trial court and an appeals court.

Referring to his former colleague, Corbett told his class, "I will not leave John Peloza alone to propagandize kids with this religious, superstitious nonsense."

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/corbett-law-court-2394203-teacher-selna

[residenceevil]

Evolution/Creationism are both just theories about how the World started. Either could be right, both could be wrong.

[domenick2x]

Evolution/Creationism are both just theories about how the World started. Either could be right, both could be wrong.
Theoretically, both could be right, sort of.

One has a scientifically verifiable basis. Not saying that it's correct, but that there is evidence that proves it.

Creationism being taught in public schools is verboten, at least as far as a science class goes.

Corbett, on the other hand, is a Social Studies teacher. Interesting issue.

[LSU]

Evolution/Creationism are both just theories about how the World started. Either could be right, both could be wrong.


No, not really.

[LSU]

No, not really.


I'll explain this before someone gets their panties in a bunch.

Evolution does not explain beginning of the world. That's the Big Bang Theory.

They are associated with each other in some ways, but if one were proven incorrect, the other would not become disproven as well.

And if we really wanted to get technical, the insinuation of "just a theory" and that the two are equivalent (creationism and evolution) is also incorrect. There's a difference between a "theory" that is an idea about something and a scientific theory, which requires some scientific evidence to back it up.

But it seems a lot of people have a hard time seeing the line on that one, so it's usually a waste of time trying to explain it.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

I think the bigger issue here as it relates directly to the article is that one teacher purposely took a run at another who was sued and brought personal feelings into a classroom setting. Rather than debate that teacher face-to-face, he's using these kids as his little message-carriers.

[MTVike]

I'll explain this before someone gets their panties in a bunch.

Evolution does not explain beginning of the world. That's the Big Bang Theory.

They are associated with each other in some ways, but if one were proven incorrect, the other would not become disproven as well.

And if we really wanted to get technical, the insinuation of "just a theory" and that the two are equivalent (creationism and evolution) is also incorrect. There's a difference between a "theory" that is an idea about something and a scientific theory, which requires some scientific evidence to back it up.

But it seems a lot of people have a hard time seeing the line on that one, so it's usually a waste of time trying to explain it.

When's the test, professor?

[domenick2x]

I think the bigger issue here as it relates directly to the article is that one teacher purposely took a run at another who was sued and brought personal feelings into a classroom setting. Rather than debate that teacher face-to-face, he's using these kids as his little message-carriers.
I don't even know that a face-to-face debate should be made between two such teachers, but I certainly do agree that a classroom isn't the proper place for such commentary.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

I don't even know that a face-to-face debate should be made between two such teachers, but I certainly do agree that a classroom isn't the proper place for such commentary. Since this is HS, i wouldn't be opposed to two teachers holding a debate at an assembly for upperclassmen to view.

Capo Unified school district is wacky in any event.

They had the loooooongest threads of any on a board dealing with various recalls and recalls of those recalling board members that i've ever seen. Parents were at other parents' throats partly over how to teach science/biology class and partly over the district's spending. It's not too surprising that this teacher decided to go this route and push the envelope a bit.

[residenceevil]

I'll explain this before someone gets their panties in a bunch.

Evolution does not explain beginning of the world. That's the Big Bang Theory.

They are associated with each other in some ways, but if one were proven incorrect, the other would not become disproven as well.

And if we really wanted to get technical, the insinuation of "just a theory" and that the two are equivalent (creationism and evolution) is also incorrect. There's a difference between a "theory" that is an idea about something and a scientific theory, which requires some scientific evidence to back it up.

But it seems a lot of people have a hard time seeing the line on that one, so it's usually a waste of time trying to explain it.

I get what your saying. You make a good point. I forgot about the "Big Bang" part of it.

I think you may be interpreting my term of "theory" a little too finely though. I simply meant that they are both theories (whether one is scientific or one is faith based, it's all still a theory). Or maybe I have the definition of theory all wrong.

[LSU]

I get what your saying. You make a good point. I forgot about the "Big Bang" part of it.

I think you may be interpreting my term of "theory" a little too finely though. I simply meant that they are both theories (whether one is scientific or one is faith based, it's all still a theory). Or maybe I have the definition of theory all wrong.


This is the first explanation I found. It's a good general explanation. I think some of the specifics are debatable, and some will like to get hung up in the minutiae and miss the overall message. But like I said, a good general explanation of the difference.

Evolution is a scientific theory, Creationism is not. That's a not a judgment on which is right, wrong, or goofy, it's simply the way it is.


http://wilstar.com/theories.htm