BF2S Forums Student Wins Suit After Teacher Says Creationism 'Nonsense'

Kmarion wrote:

Right, so I never said they were anti christian... although he did mention "when you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth".

It's Jesus Christ right?

I take it you read the article, guess you just didn't understand it?

In an April 3 tentative ruling, however, Selna dismissed all but two of the statements as either not directly referring to religion or as being appropriate in the context of a class lecture, including the headline-grabbing "When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth."

That line was dismissed by the court. Maybe you'd like another article?

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/j … -found-gu/

Of the dozens of transcribed comments submitted in the lawsuit from hours of secret recordings made by Farnan in Corbett's classes when he was a sophomore, (including the now-famous "Jesus Glasses" statement), only one was found to have violated the Establishment Clause for expressing a "disapproval" of religion. And it wasn't the comment about the Jesus glasses.

That comment was tossed out: "One cannot say that Corbett's primary purpose here was to criticize Christianity or religion," Judge James Selna says in today's ruling. "The court finds that, given the context, Corbett's primary purpose was to illustrate the specific historical point regarding the peasants in the discussion and to make the general point that religion can cause people to make political choices which are not in their best interest... the Court notes that these views are not necessarily hostile to religion and are relevant concepts for discussion in an AP European history course.

DesertFox- wrote:

God damn these people! The kid probably got spoonfed that bollocks from his idiot parents who have yet to get with the times.

If there is no God, how can he damn people?

Besides which, if he were a Muslim, I'm afraid there wouldn't be as much of an uproar. People would bend over backwards to respect their beliefs no matter how ridiculous.

But to be honest, religion has no place in the public school classroom unless it's directly related to course material.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2009-05-05 23:06:12)

So let me get this straight...

It's OK to take a school to court if it violates the separation intent by teaching a topic that is founded in religious theory, but it's not OK to take a school to court if it violates the separation intent by mocking a religious theory as part of teaching a topic.

How shocking. Double-standards on BF2S.

For everyone saying he bashed religion in the face with a rock, you might have missed this part:

During the course of the litigation, the judge found that most of the statements cited in the court papers did not violate the First Amendment because they did not refer directly to religion or were appropriate in the context of the classroom lecture.

PureFodder wrote:

This is the bit I don't get:

Farnan is now a junior at the school, but quit Corbett's Advanced Placement European history class after his teacher made the comments.

It sounds like this wasn't even in the context of a biology or other science class.

I could see how that would happen. Talking about religious nutjobs/events/people/acts in the name of a religion etc could easily get into that. Especially in EU history.

Last edited by xBlackPantherx (2009-05-06 06:08:52)

[sarcasm]We need a new Hitler.[/sarcasm]

Nah, I actually just think that stupid people should not have the freedom of speech and should not be allowed to reproduce. The case above just confirms it.

nickb64 wrote:

There is no real evidence to support macro-evolution, yet it is still taught. I fully believe micro-evolution, but macro-evolution really doesn't have supporting evidence.

Soooo....changes that take millions of years don't have evidence because our species doesn't have millions of years of recorded, verified history to refer to so we can say it officially happened?


Please...

Just looking at fossil records provides EXTREMELY significant evidence that drastic changes occurred to species over time (development of feathers, and the gradual appearance of bird-like creatures), and by knowing how evolution occurs on a micro-scale we can better understand how it works on a macro-scale.

What sort of "proof" would someone have to have to prove that a change occurred over a million years, considering that a million years ago homo sapiens (i.e. - mankind as we know it) was still roughly 800,000 years from appearing on Earth?

xBlackPantherx wrote:

-CARNIFEX-[LOC] wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

There is no real evidence to support macro-evolution, yet it is still taught. I fully believe micro-evolution, but macro-evolution really doesn't have supporting evidence.

Soooo....changes that take millions of years don't have evidence because our species doesn't have millions of years of recorded, verified history to refer to so we can say it officially happened?


Please...

Just looking at fossil records provides EXTREMELY significant evidence that drastic changes occurred to species over time (development of feathers, and the gradual appearance of bird-like creatures), and by knowing how evolution occurs on a micro-scale we can better understand how it works on a macro-scale.

What sort of "proof" would someone have to have to prove that a change occurred over a million years, considering that a million years ago homo sapiens (i.e. - mankind as we know it) was still roughly 800,000 years from appearing on Earth?

I simply don't get how Christians believe the world is only (what was it?) 4000 years old? When the rocks in their garden are older than that. It simply confounds me that people can believe something when there is 100% solid proof otherwise.

Science is evil. It's the work of the devil. God is testing my faith. You're trying to get me to go to hell with you. GTFO heathen. /Christian

-CARNIFEX-[LOC] wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

There is no real evidence to support macro-evolution, yet it is still taught. I fully believe micro-evolution, but macro-evolution really doesn't have supporting evidence.

Soooo....changes that take millions of years don't have evidence because our species doesn't have millions of years of recorded, verified history to refer to so we can say it officially happened?


Please...

Just looking at fossil records provides EXTREMELY significant evidence that drastic changes occurred to species over time (development of feathers, and the gradual appearance of bird-like creatures), and by knowing how evolution occurs on a micro-scale we can better understand how it works on a macro-scale.

What sort of "proof" would someone have to have to prove that a change occurred over a million years, considering that a million years ago homo sapiens (i.e. - mankind as we know it) was still roughly 800,000 years from appearing on Earth?

There is no conclusive evidence for macro-evolution in the fossil record, unless you assume that drastic changes occurred species wide all at one time with no intermediate period of change.

Teach both, let the students decide what they want to believe, tbh.

xBlackPantherx wrote:

-CARNIFEX-[LOC] wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

There is no real evidence to support macro-evolution, yet it is still taught. I fully believe micro-evolution, but macro-evolution really doesn't have supporting evidence.

Soooo....changes that take millions of years don't have evidence because our species doesn't have millions of years of recorded, verified history to refer to so we can say it officially happened?


Please...

Just looking at fossil records provides EXTREMELY significant evidence that drastic changes occurred to species over time (development of feathers, and the gradual appearance of bird-like creatures), and by knowing how evolution occurs on a micro-scale we can better understand how it works on a macro-scale.

What sort of "proof" would someone have to have to prove that a change occurred over a million years, considering that a million years ago homo sapiens (i.e. - mankind as we know it) was still roughly 800,000 years from appearing on Earth?

I simply don't get how Christians believe the world is only (what was it?) 4000 years old? When the rocks in their garden are older than that. It simply confounds me that people can believe something when there is 100% solid proof otherwise.

Complete 100% proof from what??? Science, how can we be sure it is correct, scientific knowledge changes and is modified frequently.

(I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think it is a valid point worth discussing)

nickb64 wrote:

There is no conclusive evidence for macro-evolution in the fossil record, unless you assume that drastic changes occurred species wide all at one time with no intermediate period of change.

If you actually studied the fossil record you will see exactly how conclusive it is; how relatively complete (even though it isn't complete). For example, a dinosaur doesn't turn into a chicken over night. It goes through a series of small changes over millions of years though, as they've discovered, the genes for all the different traits stay with the animal's organism tree. For instance, with chickens they were able to 'turn on/off' genes in its DNA that were exactly correspondent to what the fossil record indicated was it's fossil ancestor. That's one real life example. I could never run out of examples how the fossil record can be proven over and over again. Not to mention my previous statement that the rocks in your garden are much much older than Christianity dictates how old the world is.