Sisters High School Teacher Lasts For Eight Days
Central Oregon High School Teacher Fired For Teaching Creationism
By Joseph Friedrichs, 3-20-07
It took a little more than a week and the promotion of the Bible for part-time teacher Kris Helphinstine to get fired from Sisters High School.
During his eight days as a part-time high school biology teacher at the nearby Central Oregon high school, Kris Helphinstine, 27, included Biblical references in material he provided to students and gave a PowerPoint presentation that made links between evolution, Nazi Germany and Planned Parenthood.
That was enough for the Sisters School Board, which fired the teacher Monday night for deviating from the curriculum on the theory of evolution, the Associated Press reported today.
“I think his performance was not just a little bit over the line,” board member Jeff Smith said, as reported by the AP. “It was a severe contradiction of what we trust teachers to do in our classrooms.”
Helphinstine said in a recent phone interview with The Bend Bulletin that he included the supplemental material to teach students about bias in sources, and his only agenda was to teach critical thinking.
Critical thinking is vital to scientific inquiry,” said Helphinstine, who has a master’s degree in science from Oregon State. “My whole purpose was to give accurate information and to get them thinking.”
Helphinstine said he did not teach the idea that God created the world.
Parent John Rahm told the Bulletin that he became concerned when his freshman daughter said she was confused by the supplemental material provided by Helphinstine.
“He took passages that had all kinds of Biblical references,” Rahm said. “It prevented her from learning what she needed to learn.”
Board members met with Helphinstine privately for about 90 minutes before the meeting. The teacher did not stay for the public portion.
“How many minds did he pollute?” Dan Harrison, the father of a student in Helphinstine’s class, said at the meeting. “It’s a thinly veiled attempt to hide his own agenda.”
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
He's teaching a Biology class - I understand that his job is to teach Evolution - and it appears to me that he WAS teaching evolution - but not as fact, as a theory.
Of course the kids were confused by supplemental material - we have done our children a major disservice in teaching them that there is only one way to think, only one way to do things and that they should never be required to "THINK" - they should be able to pass school with flying colors simply by memorizing what the text book says. Good grief!
As far as your attempt to dismiss evolution as just "a theory," you don't seem to realise what it means to be a scientific theory. To you it means a hypothesis, a guess. That is not what scientists mean when they use that word. They understand theory to be a framework of laws that best explains and approximates the physical reality. There is no way to prove one, just to show that everything that the theory claims to explain hews to the consequences of the assumptions of the theory. For example, the inverse square law of gravity seems to be really good at computing the force of gravity between objects.
Theories are not proven. As soon as some other framework is found that is better at explaining the goings on in the world, the old ones are discarded. The same thing happens when a contradiction between the real world and the predictions of a current theory are found. For example, Einstein discovered contradictions in Newton's theory by constructing paradoxes that have to do with concepts of simultaneity, and immediately started looking for a theory that would not have that contradiction, as well as would incorporate other discoveries made after Newton that did not fit his theory (such as constancy of the speed of light).
Mr. Helphinstine has allowed his personal beliefs to influence his teaching, and allowed himself to do some preaching. As a representative of the state, he is not allowed to force his faith onto students in the class. That is what the parent in the story meant. I think it is up to parents to give religious direction to their children. Would you have been just as upset about Mr. Helphinstine's firing, had he distributed quotes out of Koran, or tried to link religion and Nazism (say, by presenting Martin Luther's "Jews and Their Lies" as inspiration for Holocaust)? I suspect you would be the first one to call for his termination.
What's next: burning books that don't agree with established scientific theory?
Remember, just a couple of months ago, after years of scientific consensus, the Pluto has been changed from "Planet" status.
There was also a time when the consensus of educated men held that the world was flat.
However, having once been a teacher, it seems to me that an attempt to teach "critical thinking" ought to be explicitly framed as that. Likewise, an attempt to teach biology ought to be framed as that. If you tell freshmen you are teaching them biology and then give them handouts that include Biblical references, it's logical for the students to assume you consider the Bible to be an appropriate source of biological knowledge. Ditto if he'd quoted the Koran, or Buddha, Homer Simpson, or whatever.
This may be a case of deliberate evangelizing in the public schools, or it may be a case of a teacher with poor judgment and sloppy skills.
However, I find it difficult to believe he thought he would escape notice.
http://atheism.about.com/od/isatheismdangerous/a/HitlerAtheist.htm?nl=1
In a high school class - I think it's important to show students that the we are always learning and gaining new information. Furthermore that there are different views of how things happened. There are not enough teachers out there who are willing and/or interested in challenging kids. Who knows, by having a logical debate in class and allowing them the opportunity to discuss the issue -perhaps they would have learned to support or disect a theory.
He stated that he was not teaching creationism. He gave creationism as an example. He used Bible verses - the Bible is a historic book. I would have no problem with statements from the Koran or any other book being used in a class as long as they were not presented as "fact".
I agree that it is up to the parents to teach religious beliefs. However, society seems to have no problem with teaching my child about sex, drugs, profanity and war when he's in the 3rd grade. I find it ironic and offensive that a teacher in this country can swear in a class and not have parents nearly as angry as if they mention God's name.
He was teaching a biology class, not a class called "Faith versus Science". If, in his handouts, he gave Biblical explanations of creation as much prominence as scientific explanations of the creation of life, then I'd expect freshmen to assume their teacher wanted them to give the Biblical explanation as much weight as the scientific explanation. And that amounts to evangelizing and has no place in the public schools.
I can also accept, at face value, his assertion that he was trying to teach citical thinking. But, if true, I'd also call him very naive for not understanding that students in a biology class might think he was really teaching biology.
If you're gonna use "God's name" in a public school, then the burden falls on you to avoid even creating the impression that you are espousing a religious point of view.
In a way, Helphinstine did teach "critical thinking" as those students and their parents did apply such thinking, saw through this teacher's dishonesty and attempts at proselytizing, and spoke out. I think that this teacher taught a valuable lesson on the importance of keeping Church and State separate and the fraud that is rampant in the religious right.
The theory of evolution is currently the foundational paradigm of the biological and natural sciences and provides a sound explanation for a great deal of how the natural world works. Although it explains much, scientists admit that the theory does not explain everything. Some of these omissions are because research is always ongoing and there is much yet to be discovered, while some are simply due to the fact that some things are beyond our ability to currently understand based upon our current collective knowledge or level of technology. However, research is continually ongoing and new pieces of information are discovered daily. No scientific theory is perfect; but it is unjustifiable to condemn the theory of evolution, despite its impressive strengths, simply because it has not achieved an absolute level of perfection.
What is particularly hypocritical is that creationists and biblical literalists demand that unachievable levels of absolute proof be provided, yet they themselves are unwilling to subject their scriptural doctrine to such scrutiny. But the creationists and biblical literalists are not interested in science; they seek to create a wedge issue by falsely labeling this debate as God versus science. They don't want to try and scientifically prove an alternate theory using the established scientific method; they want to discredit evolution and substitute it with an untestable alternative hypothesis that misrepresent well-established scientific propositions and cannot be either proven or disproved, that follows religious doctrine, and ultimately stifles academic freedom.
Someday, some other scientific theory may replace evolution. If this new theory is the result of reputable research, peer review, and is fully vetted by the scientific community as a theory that provides a better explanation of the facts, it will be accepted. However, such a "hypothetical" theory would still have to satisfactorily explain why (for over 150 years) the current theory of evolution was so well supported by the available observations, evidences, and tests, and why this new theory provides a better explanation. However, just as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity did not completely obliterate Newton’s Theories, such a new hypothetical theory of the natural sciences would not completely obliterate the Theory of Evolution.
When they protest too much, I can't help be believe their real agenda is to control what other people's kids are taught.
Or, do you define the U.S. by genetic inheritance and religious belief?
America is America because of our collective allegiance to the Constitution, not because we attend the same church. If you don't understand why faith and government don't mix, then you do not understand why this country exists.
The methods of science and the meaning of what science is and isn't should be presented. That way we will have fewer people going "but it just a theory."
On the other hand, I think that precious classroom time should not be wasted on conspiracy theories. It definitely should not be used to proselytize. And teaching creationism/ID is just that.
Wikipedia states:
"The scientific method is the method of acquiring knowledge dependent on measurement, prediction, and verification which distinguishes the field of science from other fields of knowledge.
The scientific method is often described today as comprising these main actions:
1. Observe: Collect evidence and make measurements relating to the phenomenon you intend to study.
2. Hypothesize: Invent a hypothesis explaining the phenomenon.
3. Predict: Use the hypothesis to predict the results of new observations or measurements.
4. Verify: Perform experiments to test those predictions. Testing, or attempting to experimentally falsify is thought by many to be a better choice of term here.
5. Evaluate: If the experiments contradict your hypothesis, reject it and form another. If they confirm it, make more predictions and test it further."
It has a built in system of checks and balances, relying on critical thinking to achieve pretty much anything. Its not selective reasoning to justify an end.
This form of critical thinking has brought about many unarguable advances that all you wacko's either right or left can agree upon. Such as your automobile, your cell phone and correct me if I'm wrong, we wouldn't be having this discussion with out computers.
If Mr. Helphinstine had applied a little critical thinking to his actions, he may just have evolved as a teacher.
B. Taylor
The Bible is great literature and as any other piece of writing it acquires meaning through the interplay between the reader and to what is written.
and if God did what He said He did, as an example:
Isaiah 45:12
"It is I who made the earth and created mankind upon it. My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts",
... then teaching evolution is teaching science fiction and lying to our children.
Guess where your child goes if he sustains a serious injury, heaven forbid (no pun intended), while at a public school?
He goes to a hospital run by Catholics. Can you name a large hospital, aside from OHSU, that isn't Catholic based? Not too many are there.
Now, since the Catholic church believes the Bible is more than just a fairy tale, are you sure you want your child to enter such an establishment of mental darkness? Should they even be allowed to treat your child? After all, these hospitals have the cross of Christ on every floor, and in many rooms.
Full disclosure: I am NOT catholic.
It is time to stand up.
The names of two parents are listed that appear instrumental in a man losing his job for doing little more than making students think about consensus science by comparing it to a competing thought.
Join me in letting the people they do business with know that you will boycott their business if they continue doing business with these two gentlemen.
There aren't too many Dan Harrisons in the Sisters area. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he is a Horse doctor. Horse owners, a more conservative than liberal bunch as a general rule, ought to consider using a different doctor or clinic than Mr. Harrison is associated with.
There are several reasons why the Framers were wise enough to mandate separation of church and state. One of those was to prevent the religious indoctrination of school children under the guise of education. I don't know if that was this teacher's intent, or if he was just naive. But the fact is that one of the core principles of this country is that you do not use the power of government to advocate, support or denounce any particular faith. We've come to accept things like the phrase "In God We Trust" or prayers opening the Congression day as nosectarian and as posing no threat to freedom of religion. But any attempt to use the power of government, e.g., a public school, to espouse a sectarian belief suc as creationism cannot be tolerated. It is a threat to my religious freedom, and yours.
The analogy with a Catholic hospital is inappropriate. It would be appropriate, however, if you would imagine a Catholic hospital where the surgeon refused to work unless the patient went to Mass first.
Let's take those little Jesus fish and Darwin fish-with-feet as an example. The faithful put the Jesus/Christian fish on their cars as an expression faith. Faith is a markedly different way of knowing or understanding from empiricism -- when we take something on faith, we are accepting it without requiring evidence.
So, why would an intelligent person put a Darwin fish-with-feet on their car? Are they saying that they have "faith" in Darwin in the same way the Jesus fish people have faith in Jesus? That seems absurd. Darwin made some observations, wrote it up as "The Origin of Species," and set the framework for (so far) a century-and-a-half worth of scientific endeavor.
Why would you have "faith" in that? Would you, on a day like 9/11, clutch a picture of Darwin to your chest? Give a word of thanks for the transmutation of species? Take comfort in knowing that finches have specialized beaks? You might as well worship toasters.
Perhaps Darwin is inspiring, perhaps the "pageant of evolution" is pretty cool, but it seems to the antithesis of science and rationality to act like you "worship" Darwin. I doubt he himself would approve.
If you're scientific, you're skeptical and you recognize the bounds of certainty. You know that you don't know. And you find out for yourself. You certainly don't act like Darwin is somehow equivalent to Jesus.
Maybe you're not saying you worship Darwin when you put the footed fish on your car. What ARE you saying, then? That you're a pretentious, confrontational jerk? Why not have a footed fish that says "Wallace" in the middle of it too, then, if you're such a brainiac?
Point being, intelligent people of faith and science should recognize that Creationism and Evolution are apples and oranges. Or better yet, they're baseballs and oranges: maybe they have some gross characteristics in common, but they have radically different purposes and there's not real point in comparing them.
Evolution does NOT disprove the existence of God. That's not even its proper purview, and no responsible scientist would claim that it does or even could.
The account of Creation in the Bible does NOT rule out evolution. If you believe in Her, you also must admit that you don't know HOW God does things. Maybe evolution IS how She created the world. She's mysterious.
Likewise, you don't know for certain that everything that someone wrote down and then chose to put in the Bible is an accurate account -- remember, that's the work of man (and if you want to argue this point, explain why we have different versions of the Bible and why whole Gospels have been excluded from the major competing editions).
It's fine with me -- and it should be fine with everyone who finds science worthwhile -- to teach that we don't know everything. A little humility about what we don't know would be a good thing nowadays.
We can say that a huge body of evidence indicates that what we see around us today is the result of geologic and atmospheric changes over eons, and that the biota around us have evolved by adapting to (or failing to adapt to) those changes. That set of observations and propositions does not disprove the existence of a "Cosmic Male Parent" (thanks alan watts!), nor is it intended to.
We can also say that our understanding of where the Earth and Universe came from is limited (but ever growing), that we're fairly limited creatures, and that we need some kind of plan to live by in the face of uncertainty, tribulations, and the specter of meaninglessness. Rather than trudge through life feeling alone and doomed, we take it on FAITH that this whole thing has a point. Little wonder that cultures the world over have complex spiritual traditions.
Again, faith and science are radically different ways of knowing and making sense. Are they mutually exclusive and incompatible? Only if YOU Creationists, and YOU Evolutionists, make it that way.
It is the issue and the Catholic hospital comparison is appropriate.
Abortion is legal, yet abortions very rarely happen in Catholic hospitals as the hospital has a policy (based on faith) not to perform them. Those procedures are done at outside clinics.
By the way, some teacher talking about passages from the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Koran, or quoting proverbs of Chinese wisdom in no way threatens my religious freedom. Yours maybe, but not mine.
I can't tell, from the news story, what the teacher in question really did. The thing with evolution and Nazis is pretty troubling. There have to be some sideboards on what they do in the classroom. But we don't know the full story, do we?
You ought to be ashamed of yourself. The webmaster should remove your comment post haste.
nice post. More liberal sensorship!
Sort of supports my first post on "book burning" and the lack of free speech unless it is the free speech the supports the liberal view.
Liberals sure had no problem with candidates boycotting Fox News.
The shoe doesn't feel as comfortable when applied to your own foot, now does it?
You posted a call to boycott someone's business. You yourself admit that you're not sure that the vet you want to boycott is the same person mentioned in the article. That's irresponsible and immoral.
And you misspelled "censorship." Doesn't your browser have spellcheck?
And, no, a teacher "talking about", i.e., quoting, religious texts does not necessarily threaten anyone's religious freedom. But, if a teacher, teaching a biology class, presents a sectarian tenet such as creationism in such a way that children might assume that he wants them to view that tenet as being as valid as mainstream biology, then he has crossed the line. If he simply told the children that many religions have a creation myth, I'd accept that, but I'd also consider it inappropriate content for a biology class.
It's a very slippery slope from giving a pass on incidents like this to full-blown discrimination and arrrests of anyone who dissents from the "established" faith. I have no doubt that many of the people who, today, decry attempts to prevent the teaching of creationism in public schools would, tomorrow, be quite happy to mandate it if they acquired political power.
Before the Revolution, we had an established church in this country. People, including a Baptist preacher I count as an ancestor, spent time in jail for having the temerity to preach. That's the reason the separation of church and state needs to be absolute.
If you want to call me post immorral, then so be it.
You've just made yourself the morality police by your own statement of judgement. Congrats!
As far as him tying in the Nazi party and Planned Parenthood, I agree that he is off base. Should he be fired for this? NO!
In almost any work setting, he would be warned, have his file doumented, and be given a path that leads to his dissmissal if things progress.
Meanwhile, teachers are free to discuss that the homosexual lifestyle if a valid one to build a family around. Even evolution contradicts the logic of anal sex (not capable of reproducing the species) vs. male/female mating.
Shouldn't the schools teach that according to evolution theory, homosexuality is a failed choice by the fact that offspring can't be produced?
Please writeyour congressman to urge him to enter into law a bill that will preclude any further Medicare re-imbursements from the US Gov't to a hospital owned and operated by the Catholic Church.
As posted above, that church run hospital does in fact REFUSE to perform certain procedures which are legal, and covered.
Also, make sure to sue all universities that allow a team prayer in the middle of the field/court after the game. Those players are wearing team uniforms at a sanctioned event. This give the impression that the university implicitly supports players being involved with religion.
Looks like you've your work cut out for you so get to it!
As for what "Dan" said about homosexuality contradicting evolution... My theory is that if homosexuality had been accepted from the beginning (whenever that was) and homosexuality is a genetic trait, then without recent technologies of crigenics and alterative pregnancies, homosexuality would have mostly been evolved out of the human race. So, really, it's all the people who have oppressed homosexuality for all these year who have kept the trait alive in people.
I don't think you need the help. You seem intelligent and quite capable.
I'm working hard on making sure that my children, and yours if you have them, live in a world that isn't a politically correct echo chamber.
I prefer offensive free speech to intimidating PC speech.
Like I said above, while I think the teacher was off base in bringing in some of these topics, he should not have been fired for it.
Remember, history is written by those who have hung heroes.
Mark
The bottom line is that with all the problems facing our public schools, one guy making Biblical references makes national news? My goodness, look at the discipline problems, including criminal behavior. The dropout rates. The teen (and preteen) pregnancy rates. The declining performance by any indicator. The financial abuses, and the illegal/unethical behavior by teachers and administrators. The education system in this country is a mess, and in many urban areas it is totally dysfunctional, is a national scandal, and yet with all of the things going on a guy supplementing his biology lesson plans with Bible verses gets everyone all riled up? This teacher in Tennessee cheats on her husband with one of her 18 year old students who had been given up for adoption and had alcohol and drug problems, and her husband finds out and blows the poor kid's head off, AND THE DISTRICT STILL HASN'T FIRED HER YET! She has been placed on "indefinite leave." You have teachers administrators caught in similar issues with sex scandals, selling and using drugs, and even committing violent crimes and it takes them months, even years to get these people out of the classrooms and off the public payrolls, and it often doesn't even make the local news, let alone the national news. Yet a guy with a master's degree from science (good luck getting into the Ph.D. program now buddy!) gets fired IN EIGHT DAYS for using the Bible? What kind of message is that? Embezzle money, use and sell drugs, molest your students, go decades failing to maintain even basic discipline over your classroom and campus (let alone actually teaching kids how to read and write), all of that is fine so long as you don't bring a - gasp! - BIBLE into the classroom? I am sorry, but the school board's actions in this case, the comments from the parents, the actions of the media (i.e. this headline FALSELY CLAIMING THAT THE FELLOW WAS TEACHING CREATIONISM) and the comments on this discussion are playing right into the stereotypes that religious people have about "the secularists." If your goal is to convince us that there really is nothing that you hate and fear more than a Bible, then you are doing a really good job. But if your goal is to convince us that it is all about education (or even about the Bill of Rights), then your own actions based on what gets the media, the secularists, and the school boards outraged and swinging into action versus what you are willing to put up with and ignore makes your pretense impossible to maintain. Sorry, but you folks just aren't fooling anyone anymore.
The rest of your legnth argument seems to consist of a plea to ignore one abuser because others go unpunished. That doesn't wash.
In particular it doesn't wash because you want to include everyone who disagrees with you in one imaginary and unitary body of "secularists" who somehow, are responsible for crime, malfeasance, and an errant teacher in Tennessee.
Bottom line: Pray, worship and learn as you wish. It's none of my business. But don't use my tax money to make me or anyone else pray, worship and learn as you see fit.
In other words, there's nothing at all to be feared in the Bible. Quite the contrary. But, there is very much to be feared from people who want to use the power of the government to compel people to pay attention to it.
That wasn't my point and you know it. You know my point, but instead choose to deny it. Of all the nonsense (not to mention actual crimes) that is going on in our public schools and gets encouraged, tolerated, ignored, and swept under the rug, only introducing the Bible gets you unconditionally, quickly fired. It shows that "certain people" view religion as the greatest threat and the biggest evil on the planet. Claiming that kids were "harmed" and "prevented from learning from what they are supposed to learn." Where was this outrage over "new math", "outcome based education", "whole language", "social promotion", kids now being allowed to use calculators in math class because they can no longer add and subtract, etc., and all of these other "teaching reforms" that were massive failures but took DECADES to get out of public schools (and a great many of them still aren't completely out)? Whole generations of children were miseducated during the "reinventing education" phase that we went through when the hot trend was to combine education with Freudianism, Kinseyism, and a bunch of other "isms" that have (surprise surprise) since been discredited, but no one talks about that. It is hilarious that wacky educational theories, ineffective teaching methods, the threat of lawsuits, and (oh yes) unqualified, corrupt unmoviated teachers, administrators, and politicians are NEVER blamed for hindering learning, but bringing a Bible into the classroom automatically turns everyone's minds to mush, right?
And people use "the power of the government to compel people to pay attention to" lots of things, ESPECIALLY our public schools. It is just that the ONLY THING THAT WILL GET YOU FIRED AFTER BEING ON THE JOB FOR EIGHT DAYS is the Bible. "The rest of your legnthy argument seems to consist of a plea to ignore one abuser because others go unpunished. That doesn't wash." No, it was trying to get someone, anyone to to explain why the Bible "abusers" are the only ones who ever are punished! And not only did you totally fail to provide an explanation, you actually DEFENDED THE INDEFENSIBLE, thereby proving my point. I am going to make an analogy. Suppose ten people are caught stealing. 9 of them are white, 1 of them is black. Now nothing is done to the white guys, but the 1 black guy is arrested, prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and receives the maximum sentence. And get this: the amount that the black guy stole was actually LESS than the amounts that the white guys stole! So, are you honestly going to tell me that the people who threw the black guy under the jail while letting the white guys go free should not be held accountable for their disparate treatment merely because the black guy did in fact steal? They should not have to be examined as to whether they have a special fear of and disdain for black men and have a strong favoritism for or tolerance for white men, and that was why they A) did not let the black guy go too or B) why they did not arrest and prosecute the white men, or even do anything to prevent them from stealing?
There are a lot of worse things that this guy could have done - actual crimes - and he'd still have a job, even it required his being "suspended", attending a "counseling seminar", and "make a super serious cross - your - heart promise never to do it again." Everyone knows it, and the fact that people even try to defend it says more about the people who are deadly afraid of the Bible than the guy who got fired over bringing it into the classroom.
And by the way: you do know that THE SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT THE BIBLE CAN BE USED IN THE CLASSROOM, RIGHT? Thousands of public schools are using Bibles in the classroom across the country, and the state of Georgia is about to adopt it in their curriculum to be studied in literature, social studies, and other areas where it would not constitute studying or advancing religion. So, not only are you clearly applying a double standard, but you are also actually factually wrong here. Indeed, this fellow may have grounds for a lawsuit not only against the school, but every media outlet (including this one) that falsely claimed that he was teaching religion or creationism. See, the media and similar don't want it to become commonly known that the Supreme Court DID give people the right to use the Bible in public schools so long as it did not constitute religious instruction. Now in California and other places, public schools used that ruling to bring the Koran into the schools but still will not allow Bibles, and there are lawsuits pending over that issue as well.
>>"...only introducing the Bible gets you unconditionally, quickly fired."
No. It doesn't. You're engaging in, umm, fabrication.
Besides, there's nothing wrong with "introducing" the Bible. But there's everything wrong with using a position as a teacher in a public school to advocate sectarian religious beliefs. Bible, Koran, whatever, it's wrong. Not wrong because it's unconstitutional. Unconstitutional because it's wrong.
When are you folks who want to see public school teachers free to indoctrinate little kids going to realize that means your kids might be indoctrinated by someone you don't like. Or, is it really the case that you'd ban anyone who didn't toe the ideological line? Isn't what you really want is to turn all, the public schools into fundamentalist training grounds? Isn't it true that, faced with the choice of standing by the Consititution or you own version of religion, you will gladly abandoned the Constitution?
You can't mix freedom of religion with use of the public schools to advocate any kind of religion.It's anti-democratic and anti-religion to argue otherwise.
And, I'm not applying any double standard. I only speak for myself. As for Geogia: If I lived there, I'd move.
I am an educator and I am a Christian. I feel that you have made an important evaluation of our educational program within the United States. I see the discipline problems, lack of respect, and violence in our school systems everyday. It stems from the lack of moral guidance in our society today. It is our responsibility to ensure the best education possible for our youth, and to be positive, educated role models, while accepting responsibility for our actions. We need to teach our children to be responsible. There is a connection between the removal of prayer and the violence in our schools. What is important to us? Our children and their ability to accept others........Thank you for adhering to the real problem.
That said, it is a given that schools reflect society. What else would they reflect? But, forced prayer in schools is not going to change the lives of children, any more than conversion at gunpoint would change their lives. It would teach them that prayer is something that the state tries to make them do, rather like obeying the speed limit. Do we want to devalue prayer in that way, by making it an unwelcome bureaucratic intrusion in their lives?
Do we want to teach children that the state has the right to intervene in this most private part of their lives and compel them to begin talking to God in a state-prescribed way? If we teach them that the state his that kind of authority, how can we expect them to defend our democracy against other threats from power-seeking politicians?
Do we really want to teach children that religion is an appendage of the state and that their relationship with God is the business of the state?
If a 16-year-old is forced to pray on Monday, is that really going to stop him from bringing a gun to school on Tuesday?
I teach that if you give respect, you will receive it. My students know that each day I try my best to help them achieve in every aspect of their life. What they see is what they get....I cannot change who I am for eight hours of the day.....and I do not believe that anyone else can either. The students are more intelligent than that. They will do as we do, not as we say. God teaches love; if hatred and violence are present, where is the love? The monkey has intelligence, but it is still barbaric.
There is nothing wrong with having faith and love.
First, I'm not as pessimistic as you. Of course, problems exist. But, problems have always existed, and one generation has always seen doom and chaos in the generation behind it.
The way to improve the schools is to understand that the role of a school is limited to education. It does not encompass the complete socialization of children. For that, we look to the family. If we find problems there, we should address them directly. We cannot fix them by positioning the public schools as surrogate parenting tools.
Overshadowing all that, we cannot compel people to do those things we have no right to make them do. If what value is reducing criminal behavior if we, ourselves, become criminals to make that happen?
I understand that some people reject evolution. But, I fail to see the connection that is often made between social ills and evolution. Or the threat that some seem to see in it. If people are certain about their faith, what do they have to fear?
Are we to believe that teaching the theory of evolution -- to classrooms full of intensely bored teenagers -- is directly responsible for turning them into violent thugs? If so, wouldn't that suggest that all things were peace and light before Darwin sailed on the Beagle? I suspect that they were not. Likewise, are we to believe that teaching creationism -- again, to classrooms full of intensely bored teenagers -- will change society?
As for the "theory" bit: Much of our understanding of ourselves and the universe is theory and remains unproven. But, a theory is not a guess. In science, a theory is a scenario that explains observed behavior. As research uncovers new evidence, tents of the theory are tested and reexamined to determine of they continue to explain the behavior. If they do not, the theory is revised or rejected. That's the method of science. An argument that evolution ought not to be taught because it is only a theory is tantmount to invalidating the scientific method.
Finally, of course, there is nothing wrong with having faith and love. We give them to our children by example, by showing them how we live, and why. It's a trust given to each succeeding generation.
I believe that compelling others to do things we have no right to make them do violates that trust. Using agents of the state, like the public schools, to compel children to engage in sectarian religious behavior violates that trust. Consider: we interact with agencies of the state on a daily basis. If government can mandate that school children must engage in prayer against their will, why, then, can't the government, for example, introduce religious requirements for voting, for jury duty, or for tax refund eligibilty? If the state can compel us to pray against our will, what can prevent it from saying, for example, that Baptists cannot vote? That Catholics cannot sit on juries? What would stop politicians from giving tax breaks to constituencies based on declared faith? What's to stop government from criminalizing certain forms of the eucharist, or mandating use of its own version of the Bible?
The Constitution says what it says about religion and government because the rights of Americans and their English forebearers -- of all faiths and of no faith -- had been routinely violated by the state for centuries. They knew that there is no freedom if we are not free to practice our faith as we see fit, and they knew that allowing government any role in the practice of religion would destroy those freedoms. They knew that because they had lived it. We are the same as they were; no less selfish and no more enlightened. Remove or compromise the barrier imposed by the Constitution and those of us who seek power will be as adept at using religion to their own ends as their ancestors were.
I agree, government should not play a role in religion.....
Johnny Hands, Are you familiar with "Lucy"? This theory has be discredited. Haeckel's theory, which has made it into some school books, says that we come from fish. Stephen Hawking, a well known physicist, created the black hole paradox thirty years ago. He has retracted his findings. I believe that I will leave the research to the specialists. I am more interested in helping our youth to become emotionally and socially well. If you do not think that a teacher has to help in those areas to achieve optimal learning, you have not worked with children in our school systems.
On evolution: Evolution doesn't suggest we "came from" fish or anything else.That's a superficial understanding of evolution.
On Hawkings: I don't believe Hawkings has denied the existence of black holes. If he's altered his theory, he's done that in response to new evidence, which is exactly what scientists and other rational people are supposed to do.
I have to say, again, that I simply do not understand why science produces so much fear and anxiety in so many people. To speak in religious terms, God gave us this universe and the mind to study it. Why be afraid?
Now, to speak directly to the topic of science pedagogy. It is true that evolution is a theory. But theory is a very powerful thing, and the theory of evolution is very powerful indeed. Without evolution theory, much of modern biology would not exist. The field of genetics wouldn't be worth studying without the concept of evolution--if God is tinkering with the genome of every individual, without real order, than what could we learn from studying it? We might understand how an individual works, but we would never be able to make predictions. Science is nothing if we cannot use the knowledge gained to make predictions.
This is a big reason why creationism and intelligent design are not appropriate to teach in science classes. You cannot make testable predictions based off of these ideas (they can't even be called hypotheses, really, because of this). They aren't useful for learning about the natural world.
Currently, I go to a school in the district right next to the one where this school is. We're in the same county. Athletes who go to school here go to play against the teams there (and they're really good, might I add. Unbeatable, last I played them). So...yeah. We're tight. What up?
Anyway, at my school we have a well-liked teacher that, according to what the article claims, shares some traits with Helphinstine. He believes that, while evolution is a good theory, it is not the one and only answer. He'll even tell you this, if you get into a discussion with him about it. However, as you can see, the key difference is that YOU HAVE TO ASK. This man doesn't force-feed his students information about religion while trying to teach evolution. He precursors it with a little, "This isn't the only possibility for the creation of the world and the human race," for those that might get offended, and then gets right along teaching us about evolution. And you know what? He's still employed! He's one of the school's favorite science teachers, for God's sake! The only complaint I've ever heard my peers make about him was that he was hardcore and gave too much homework. This is not a man that is going to get fired after eight days of teaching, because he doesn't try to work his own religious views into the lesson plan (and he sure as heck doesn't try to link evolution, Nazi Germany and Planned Parenthood. Honestly, how can anyone think that this is okay? If I'd been his student, I would have walked out of the class and asked to be transferred that day. I don't blame those kids one iota for calling him on his BS).
Also, for the commenter above that pointed out that worse things happen and aren't punished, you need to understand something. Sisters, Oregon is a very small town. VERY small. It's population just reached the thousand mark sometime in the last two years. There is only one high school in this town, and because of that, they've had the opportunity to make it into a very good school. Their athletes, as I mentioned before, are some of the best in the county. Meanwhile, even though my town is hardly an hour from theirs, the school district I'm currently in teaches Biology to sophomore students, rather than freshman. So, yeah, it's a good school, and as a result, it is very difficult to get a position there. These guys aren't screwing around. If they see a teacher messing up, like this one did, they aren't going to deal with it.
Now, answer me this: should this school, which has a lot going for it both academically and athletically, put up with gross infractions such as this, just because somewhere halfway across the country, some other teacher isn't being punished by THEIR school district for a worse infraction? Is that what you're saying? "Oh, well, THAT GIRL had sex with one of her students. Well, then, I guess you're free to keep teaching." BS, and automatic fail.
Thank you for reading,
A Frustrated, Oregon-Dwelling, High School Student
This is how ignorance is feeding ignorance. And this is happening in America. This is the kind of regression that is happening only in america: if the teaching to poeple is decided by the nation, how do you want the whole nation to progress? This is the US' trick to stop the evolution ;-) So, my advice: please accept that you children are tought something you do not completely understand, otherwise you will be stuck in a kind of perpetual sillyness... Well I do not say you are silly, I say you are not keen on critical thinking.. maybe... Am I wrong?
http://www.bendweekly.com/Local-News/3900.html
Make up our own mind if this man was trying to teach mainstream biology, or if he was trying to discredit evolution. In my opinion, he is a creationist, and not a terribly clever one.