News: Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Howard

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 2:18:55 PM9/24/07
to
Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

The community college instructor says
the school sided with students offended
by his explanation of Adam and Eve.


REGISTER STAFF WRITER

September 22, 2007


A community college instructor in Red Oak
claims he was fired after he told his students that
the biblical story of Adam and Eve should not be
literally interpreted.

Steve Bitterman, 60, said officials at
Southwestern Community College sided with a
handful of students who threatened legal action
over his remarks in a western civilization class
Tuesday. He said he was fired Thursday.

Read more at...

<http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007709220333>


Howard
--
hedmundoatmacmaildotcom

snex

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 2:33:28 PM9/24/07
to

if you wouldnt like a professor saying it *should* be taken literally,
then you shouldnt like a professor saying it *shouldnt* be. i can only
imagine the howling going on if a professor said the opposite.

professors shouldnt be expressing their opinions as facts in either
case.

Ouroboros_Rex

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 2:45:57 PM9/24/07
to

"snex" <sn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1190658808.9...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

Sorry, the undeniable fact is that, in a history class, it shouldn't be
taken seriously.


Ouroboros_Rex

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 2:48:16 PM9/24/07
to

"Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote in message
news:fd90la$7f2$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...

er, literally.


snex

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 2:51:03 PM9/24/07
to
On Sep 24, 1:45 pm, "Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote:
> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message

then why do historians take it seriously?

Harold Saxon

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 2:52:55 PM9/24/07
to
On 24 Sep, 19:45, "Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote:
> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message

Ah but what is history, to someone like myself, it is the yesterday
that you haven't experienced yet.

> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


bob

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 2:53:03 PM9/24/07
to

Absolutely, if a professor says that christian mythology should be taken
literally, he has no business being a professor.


> professors shouldnt be expressing their opinions as facts in either
> case.

Why not? In this case it is fact.

--


“When facism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a
cross.”
- Sinclair Lewis.

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 2:58:00 PM9/24/07
to
snex wrote:

They don't, of course. Find a historian who considers the Adam & Eve
story to have any historical content (other than as a record of what
stories people were telling several thousand years ago, that is).

Ralph

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 2:56:56 PM9/24/07
to

"Howard" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:46F7FF8F...@privacy.net...

> Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal
>

So HE says.

The College itself is not making the reason for his dismissal public. We
should perhaps gather all the facts before chartering buses for a trip to
Red Oak.

-ralph


snex

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 2:59:18 PM9/24/07
to

what i "should" or "shouldnt" do is never a fact. it is a matter of
subjective opinion.

Arkalen

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 3:00:46 PM9/24/07
to

Are you implying historians take the story of Adam and Eve seriously ?
Well, I guess they could at that, given the origins of humanity aren't
strictly covered by the field of history. But I'm still baffled by
your comment that seems to imply some correlation between being a
historian and taking the Adam and Eve story seriously.

snex

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 3:04:14 PM9/24/07
to
On Sep 24, 1:58 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
wrote:

find a historian who doesnt take the babylonian exile seriously.

Arkalen

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 3:08:49 PM9/24/07
to
Sure, be nihilistic about it. By the way there's this baby crying in
the other room, should I smother it ?
Just because "should" and "shouldn't" is a matter of subjective
opinion doesn't mean acting like it is is conducive to a society
that's nice to live in. Just like the fact that there's no such thing
as "free will" doesn't mean our legal system should be thrown down the
drain.

So do you believe teachers should have the right to tell their
students *anything they please* ?


snex

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 3:16:27 PM9/24/07
to

teachers do not have the right to violate the first amendment rights
of their students by making religious assertions.

Will in New Haven

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 3:23:15 PM9/24/07
to


But his opinion is the fact. Only a howling moron would take Genesis
literally.

Will in New Haven

--

I believe in a higher power; squared is a higher power.

Will in New Haven

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 3:28:52 PM9/24/07
to

He was making an historical assertion.The events in the early part of
Genesis are a-historical and should not be taken seriously _as
history_ Later events in the Bible, such sa the Babylonian exile that
you mentioned elsethread, are historical events and can be taken
seriously and examined in context. Discussing the _religious_ meaning
of Genesis in a history class would be out of place, as would
discussing the importance of Bal or Marduk in modern life.

I think it would be a violation of the rights of the students who
complained to shoot them down in the street. I would DO it, you
understand, but I should not be allowed to do it.

Will in New Haven

--

- Hide quoted text -

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 3:29:14 PM9/24/07
to
snex wrote:

We could discuss that question, but I would rather ignore it, because
it's irrelevant. The thread subject is the Adam & Eve story, not the
bible in general. Parts of the bible are factual, but it's highly
doubtful that any part of Genesis is.

snex

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 3:35:21 PM9/24/07
to
On Sep 24, 2:29 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>

what does being factual have to do with how i should interpret it?
doesnt the first amendment address this issue already?

snex

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 3:36:27 PM9/24/07
to
On Sep 24, 2:23 pm, Will in New Haven

being a howling moron is a right guaranteed by the first amendment.

Arkalen

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 3:51:05 PM9/24/07
to

If the subject is relevant to what they're teaching they should
certainly teach what is known on the subject. I agree the story of
Adam and Eve doesn't seem directly relevant to history in a strict
sense so you might have a case, but the story is relevant in a widened
definition of history (as in "history of the human species" instead of
the usual "history of the human species since they invented writing")
and it's also relevant in the context of a science class, and history
is a science. Kind of.

Basically what I'm saying is, it depends to some extent on the context
he said that in.

Arkalen

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 3:47:10 PM9/24/07
to

Oh, you were talking of the bible in general, not the Adam & Eve
story ! Well, it turns out a lot of the Bible is *not* historical. And
any historian who has researched his stuff knows what bits have been
confirmed and what bits haven't. Unless they're fundies, as usual.

And if the first amendment covers the right of teachers to lie to
their students or generally to tell them things that are widely
accepted to be false, then it definitely shouldn't. Would you support
the right of a biology teacher to tell students babies come with the
stork ? A math teacher to teach that pi=3 ?

raven1

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 3:58:23 PM9/24/07
to

That isn't a part of the book of Genesis.

---

"Faith may not move mountains, but you should see what it does to skyscrapers..."

snex

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 4:00:36 PM9/24/07
to

that sure sounds like a priori reasoning to me.

>
> And if the first amendment covers the right of teachers to lie to
> their students or generally to tell them things that are widely
> accepted to be false, then it definitely shouldn't. Would you support
> the right of a biology teacher to tell students babies come with the
> stork ? A math teacher to teach that pi=3 ?

im pretty sure the issues you bring up are addressed by the
schoolboard. what is also addressed is the first amendment right of
students. teachers are not being paid to give religious conclusions to
students.

Vend

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 4:18:33 PM9/24/07
to

Did he prevent anyone from being an howling moron?
It doesn't seem so.

It seems that he claimed that the story of Adam and Eve is incorrect
in its litteral interpetation.

If a math teacher says: "to divide both sides of an equation by a
common term you MUST first check that this term is not zero" is he
violating the students right to divide an equation by zero?

Ouroboros_Rex

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 4:16:01 PM9/24/07
to

"snex" <sn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1190664036.7...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

How is a statement about historical relevance a religious conclusion?


Greg G.

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 4:46:02 PM9/24/07
to

How is a teacher at a college violating young adults' rights to
practice their religions by telling them their doctrine is wrong? He's
not forbidding them to believe it. Why have a college at all if the
teachers can't say anything without offending some obscure religion?

--
Greg G.

I am Dickens of Borg.
It was the best of assimilations,
it was the worst of assimilations.

Will in New Haven

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 4:52:00 PM9/24/07
to

The First Amendment also guarantees people the right to comment on
what other people say. It does not, in fact, protect said howling
moron from derision, from commercial repurcussions or even from my
sticking my middle finger up in front of my like <this>

Civility is an entirely different issue and I'm against it.

Will in New Haven

--


>
>
>
>
>
> > Will in New Haven
>
> > --
>
> > I believe in a higher power; squared is a higher power.
>
> > - Hide quoted text -
>

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

snex

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 4:55:40 PM9/24/07
to
On Sep 24, 2:58 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:

i said "the bible." do try to pay attention.

snex

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 4:55:05 PM9/24/07
to

a statement about how students *should* or *should not* interpret
their religious book is a religious conclusion.

Walter Bushell

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 4:56:29 PM9/24/07
to
In article <eeUJi.35520$RX.1...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>,
John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:

Actually even the parts of the Bible are the most factual are best read
as religious fiction.

snex

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 4:59:36 PM9/24/07
to

if the teacher had said that the story of adam and eve should be
interpreted literally, youd be making the same complaints i am making.
why the double standard?

Walter Bushell

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 4:59:07 PM9/24/07
to
In article <1190664036.7...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
snex <sn...@comcast.net> wrote:

> im pretty sure the issues you bring up are addressed by the
> schoolboard. what is also addressed is the first amendment right of
> students. teachers are not being paid to give religious conclusions to
> students.

Unfortunately matters of fact are not protected by religious exemption.
You can have a complete religious objection to paying taxes, but that
will not hold against the Infernal Revenue Service.

snex

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 4:58:49 PM9/24/07
to
On Sep 24, 3:52 pm, Will in New Haven

it does when a teacher is doing it. or do you disagree with the judge
jones decision?

Arkalen

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 5:10:08 PM9/24/07
to
Yes it is, kind of like supposing a woman has an uterus is a priori
reasoning.
I've read often enough from apparently unbiased sources that
historians in the Middle East find some things that confirm the Bible,
and some things that contradict it. Therefore a historian who knows
his stuff should know this too. And a historian who knows his stuff
but still believes the Bible is a literal source on history, or a
historian who only looks at the evidence that confirms his a priori
beliefs (therefore he doesn't know his stuff), is exhibiting behavior
characteristic of a fundie.

> > And if the first amendment covers the right of teachers to lie to
> > their students or generally to tell them things that are widely
> > accepted to be false, then it definitely shouldn't. Would you support
> > the right of a biology teacher to tell students babies come with the
> > stork ? A math teacher to teach that pi=3 ?
>
> im pretty sure the issues you bring up are addressed by the
> schoolboard. what is also addressed is the first amendment right of
> students. teachers are not being paid to give religious conclusions to
> students.

This is not religious conclusions we're talking about, but scientific
ones. Do you believe the Adam and Eve story taken literally is
compatible with what we know of the world through science ?

loua...@yahoo.com

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 5:09:19 PM9/24/07
to
On Sep 24, 1:56 pm, "Ralph" <nt_consultin...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> So HE says.
>
> The College itself is not making the reason for his dismissal public. We
> should perhaps gather all the facts

Oh, you're no fun any more. Kids today, with their logical
positivism....

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 5:08:33 PM9/24/07
to
snex wrote:

You are being too elliptical here, and also playing too fast and loose
with antecedents, and wandering off in random directions. All that
results in my having trouble following your argument, whatever it is.

snex

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 5:14:09 PM9/24/07
to
On Sep 24, 4:08 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>

my argument is that we must be consistent when it comes to the first
amendment. if teachers arent allowed to say that the bible should be
taken literally, then they also must not be allowed to say that it
shouldnt be.

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 5:13:08 PM9/24/07
to
snex wrote:

What does?

>>And if the first amendment covers the right of teachers to lie to
>>their students or generally to tell them things that are widely
>>accepted to be false, then it definitely shouldn't. Would you support
>>the right of a biology teacher to tell students babies come with the
>>stork ? A math teacher to teach that pi=3 ?
>
> im pretty sure the issues you bring up are addressed by the
> schoolboard. what is also addressed is the first amendment right of
> students. teachers are not being paid to give religious conclusions to
> students.

I'm sorry, but I didn't find anything in the first amendment about the
right not to be exposed to statements you disagree with. Could you
refresh my memory? What first amendment rights of students are being
addressed, and how? As far as I know, all the students have done is
complain about being told things they don't like and demand the firing
of a teacher. Nor has anyone questioned their right to complain, only
the validity of their case.

snex

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 5:16:19 PM9/24/07
to

what i believe is that tax-funded schools are not the place to be
discussing the legitimacy of the beliefs of its students.

Arkalen

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 5:19:03 PM9/24/07
to

If an interpretation of the religious book goes against the scientific
evidence, *scientific evidence that the teacher is supposed to be
teaching about*, then they most certainly should be told about it.
Or should teachers talk about facts and science but only as long as it
contradicts no religious interpretation whatsoever ? I'm not sure
there would be much left to teach if they did that.

snex

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 5:19:45 PM9/24/07
to
On Sep 24, 4:13 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>

"we know that the bible is not historical because competent historians
say it isnt. you can tell whether or not an historian is competent by
whether or not they think the bible is historical."

>
> >>And if the first amendment covers the right of teachers to lie to
> >>their students or generally to tell them things that are widely
> >>accepted to be false, then it definitely shouldn't. Would you support
> >>the right of a biology teacher to tell students babies come with the
> >>stork ? A math teacher to teach that pi=3 ?
>
> > im pretty sure the issues you bring up are addressed by the
> > schoolboard. what is also addressed is the first amendment right of
> > students. teachers are not being paid to give religious conclusions to
> > students.
>
> I'm sorry, but I didn't find anything in the first amendment about the
> right not to be exposed to statements you disagree with. Could you
> refresh my memory? What first amendment rights of students are being
> addressed, and how? As far as I know, all the students have done is
> complain about being told things they don't like and demand the firing
> of a teacher. Nor has anyone questioned their right to complain, only
> the validity of their case.

then judge jones made the wrong decision?

snex

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 5:27:38 PM9/24/07
to

if you were a biology teacher and your students asked how evolution
could be squared with their christian beliefs, would you think it is
appropriate to tell them how they should interpret christianity? or
would you tell them that christianity is all a bunch of crap anyway so
theres no need to square it with biology? or would you say that they
can believe whatever they want, as long as they learn what they are
expected to learn? what would you do in the situation?

Arkalen

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 5:28:21 PM9/24/07
to

So if a student believes pi=3, or that the Earth is a flat circle, or
that it's carried on the back of a turtle and four elephants, or that
the holocaust didn't happen... Should the teacher not talk about the
subject ?

Arkalen

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 5:32:47 PM9/24/07
to
That's circular reasoning, not a priori reasoning. And we don't know
the Bible is not historical on the word of competent historians but
because of the evidence.
Well, I know it on the word of tv documentaries to tell the truth, or
stuff I read, but please prove me wrong with the suitable internet
link. I'm a bit lazy to do independent research tonight.

>
> > >>And if the first amendment covers the right of teachers to lie to
> > >>their students or generally to tell them things that are widely
> > >>accepted to be false, then it definitely shouldn't. Would you support
> > >>the right of a biology teacher to tell students babies come with the
> > >>stork ? A math teacher to teach that pi=3 ?
>
> > > im pretty sure the issues you bring up are addressed by the
> > > schoolboard. what is also addressed is the first amendment right of
> > > students. teachers are not being paid to give religious conclusions to
> > > students.
>
> > I'm sorry, but I didn't find anything in the first amendment about the
> > right not to be exposed to statements you disagree with. Could you
> > refresh my memory? What first amendment rights of students are being
> > addressed, and how? As far as I know, all the students have done is
> > complain about being told things they don't like and demand the firing
> > of a teacher. Nor has anyone questioned their right to complain, only
> > the validity of their case.
>
> then judge jones made the wrong decision?

The Judge Jones decision wasn't about teaching children religion, but
about teaching them science.

Inez

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 5:40:21 PM9/24/07
to
On Sep 24, 1:52 pm, Will in New Haven
I'm afraid I think Snex does have a bit of a point. I agree with you
in general that people should be able to tell people things they don't
like to hear, but the government (in this case in the form of a
teacher sponsored by the state) isn't supposed to be taking religious
positions.

Now, I think the issue gets sticky if people's religion makes such
extravegant claims that you can't properly teach a subject without
contradicting them, and this may be a case of that, I don't know. If
a student says "but I thought there wasn't an earth before six
thousand years ago" the teacher pretty much has to speak out there.
But it's not hard to teach a history class without evern mentioning
the bible.

I say it depends on the details.

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 6:00:24 PM9/24/07
to
snex wrote:

No, that's circular reasoning. Of course nobody reasons that way, so you
have set up a nice circular strawman.

>>>>And if the first amendment covers the right of teachers to lie to
>>>>their students or generally to tell them things that are widely
>>>>accepted to be false, then it definitely shouldn't. Would you support
>>>>the right of a biology teacher to tell students babies come with the
>>>>stork ? A math teacher to teach that pi=3 ?
>>
>>>im pretty sure the issues you bring up are addressed by the
>>>schoolboard. what is also addressed is the first amendment right of
>>>students. teachers are not being paid to give religious conclusions to
>>>students.
>>
>>I'm sorry, but I didn't find anything in the first amendment about the
>>right not to be exposed to statements you disagree with. Could you
>>refresh my memory? What first amendment rights of students are being
>>addressed, and how? As far as I know, all the students have done is
>>complain about being told things they don't like and demand the firing
>>of a teacher. Nor has anyone questioned their right to complain, only
>>the validity of their case.
>
> then judge jones made the wrong decision?

Your thought processes, if so they can be dignified, are opaque to me.

Jones' decision turned upon establishment of religion, which is not
allowed. Teaching ID/creationism is establishment of religion. Saying
the bible is wrong when it's in conflict with the evidence (or, being
tactful as the teacher was, saying that some students' interpretion of
the bible was in conflict with the evidence) is not establishment of
religion. And in fact if he gave any credence to the Adam & Eve story,
*that* would be establishment of religion.

Rusty Sites

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 6:02:12 PM9/24/07
to

Do you actually know what was being discussed? I rather imagine not.
As somebody pointed out, context is important here. What if Adam and
Eve came up because a student objected to something the teacher said on
the grounds that it contradicted the Adam and Eve story? If that
happened, what should the response of the teacher be?

Rodjk #613

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 6:05:19 PM9/24/07
to

Because if he said the story of Adam and Eve was to be taken
literally, he would be wrong.
Saying it is not literally true is accurate.
That is why the situation is different.

Rod

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 6:08:34 PM9/24/07
to
Arkalen wrote:

> On Sep 24, 11:19 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sep 24, 4:13 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>>wrote:

[snip]


>>>>im pretty sure the issues you bring up are addressed by the
>>>>schoolboard. what is also addressed is the first amendment right of
>>>>students. teachers are not being paid to give religious conclusions to
>>>>students.
>>
>>>I'm sorry, but I didn't find anything in the first amendment about the
>>>right not to be exposed to statements you disagree with. Could you
>>>refresh my memory? What first amendment rights of students are being
>>>addressed, and how? As far as I know, all the students have done is
>>>complain about being told things they don't like and demand the firing
>>>of a teacher. Nor has anyone questioned their right to complain, only
>>>the validity of their case.
>>
>>then judge jones made the wrong decision?
>
>
> The Judge Jones decision wasn't about teaching children religion, but
> about teaching them science.

Well, it was about both, actually. More precisely it was about which
thing the Dover school board was mandating. Jones decided they were
teaching religion, not science. And the first amendment doesn't allow
public schools to do that.

VoiceOfReason

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 6:15:22 PM9/24/07
to
On Sep 24, 2:18 pm, Howard <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal
>
> The community college instructor says
> the school sided with students offended
> by his explanation of Adam and Eve.
>
> REGISTER STAFF WRITER
>
> September 22, 2007
>
> A community college instructor in Red Oak
> claims he was fired after he told his students that
> the biblical story of Adam and Eve should not be
> literally interpreted.
>
> Steve Bitterman, 60, said officials at
> Southwestern Community College sided with a
> handful of students who threatened legal action
> over his remarks in a western civilization class
> Tuesday. He said he was fired Thursday.
>
> Read more at...
>
> <http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007709220333>
>
> Howard
> --
> hedmundoatmacmaildotcom


Weird -- I've had teachers say much stranger things and not lose their
job over it. Looks like the school folded under pressure. I can only
imagine how much local Christian groups would be screaming if he'd
been fired for saying the story *should* be interpreted literally.
Hypocrisy at its finest.


John Harshman

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 6:20:39 PM9/24/07
to
snex wrote:

You are mistaken. Teachers are allowed to present matters of fact. They
can even be wrong. All the first amendment requires is that they not
have a religious justification for determining fact. That's why the
Dover school board was claiming that ID was science, not religion.

Now, in the current case, the teacher is allowed (or perhaps required)
to come to conclusions about history contrary to the literal
interpretation of Genesis, but they must be for reasons of historical
analysis, not religion. If he said "Genesis is not literally true
because I'm an atheist", you might have a point. But I suspect his
rejection of the story was more likely to have been based on objective data.

No, lightning is not the spear of Zeus. Rama's monkey army did not build
a bridge to Sri Lanka. And the human species is not 6000 years old.

raven1

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 6:39:10 PM9/24/07
to

The OP was referring to the Genesis creation account. Nowhere do you
change the subject to refer to the entire Bible. Nice try.

Greg G.

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 6:55:43 PM9/24/07
to

A statement that contradicts a religious belief need not be a
religious statement. A religious person who takes a non-religious
statement to be a religious statement is incorrect.

For example, there is an Old Testament verse that implies that pi
equals 3. Some religious person may take that as their religious truth
because it reflects the Holy Trinity. Another group may say that the
three should be taken as a metaphor and any integer may be used. It
could be a religious statement that pi is not exactly three but, it
was not a religious statement when an ancient Greek determined that pi
was around 3.14 because those religious groups and their
interpretations were not around. It is not a religious statement today
when a computer determines pi to the billionth decimal place.

If one found an old Hindu text a thousand years ago that said that all
matter exhibits a particle and a wave nature, it would have to be a
religious statement. The two slit experiment, however, would mean that
it is no longer simp;ly a religious statement.

There is no indication that the Genesis story is literally true and
all the evidence contradicts it. Therefore, it is not necessarily a
religious statement to say that Genesis is not a literal tale.

If there were evidence that made a literal interpretation of Genesis a
plausible explanation, then it would not necessarily be a religious
statement to say that is should be read literally. Lacking any
evidence, however, means that claim can only be made on a religious
basis.

So, why have a college if one can't discuss geology, biology,
paleontology, astronomy, religion, etc. without offending a fundie?

--
Greg G.

Of course, 'Romeo and Gertrude' is just a working title. I might be
persuaded to change it for you, M'Lady.
--Shakespeare

.

loua...@yahoo.com

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 7:22:34 PM9/24/07
to
On Sep 24, 1:52 pm, Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Ah but what is history, to someone like myself, it is the yesterday
> that you haven't experienced yet.

As much as I like your taste in music, may I mention that you are A
LOONEY? Also, I didn't vote for you.

BTW -- what is all this collapsing-in-another-guy's-arms business. You
haven't gone all Harkness on us, have you?


loua...@yahoo.com

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 7:28:24 PM9/24/07
to
On Sep 24, 4:40 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Now, I think the issue gets sticky if people's religion makes such
> extravegant claims that you can't properly teach a subject without
> contradicting them, and this may be a case of that, I don't know. If
> a student says "but I thought there wasn't an earth before six
> thousand years ago" the teacher pretty much has to speak out there.

I suggest "Have you thought about DeVry? Or, McDonald's is hiring."

The really unusual bit about this one is that instead of being a
primary or secondary school (all together now, "won't SOMEone THINK of
the CHILdren?") this is reported as taking place in a college. A
community college, granted. But you'd still think that the students
would have passed the point where they should be able to hear non-
mommy-approved statements without flipping out. Getting your opinions
challenged is part of the college experience.


Baron Bodissey

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 8:00:27 PM9/24/07
to

You're probably right about that. I suspect it went like this:

Teacher: "Such and such happened in 5280 BC."

Fundy Student: "No, you're wrong; the world wasn't even created until
4004 BC."

So what's your response to that? Snex? Anybody? There can only be one
response if you've got any integrity.

Baron Bodissey
When science is on the march, nothing stands in its way.
- Amazon Women on the Moon

Tom McDonald

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 8:02:26 PM9/24/07
to
Inez wrote:

<snip>

> I'm afraid I think Snex does have a bit of a point. I agree with you
> in general that people should be able to tell people things they don't
> like to hear, but the government (in this case in the form of a
> teacher sponsored by the state) isn't supposed to be taking religious
> positions.

I agree. But I am not sure from the story that he was doing so.
The closest the story came to saying so was wrt an after-class
discussion with a student who got huffy and mentioned throwing
down with loaded lawyers.

> Now, I think the issue gets sticky if people's religion makes such
> extravegant claims that you can't properly teach a subject without
> contradicting them, and this may be a case of that, I don't know. If
> a student says "but I thought there wasn't an earth before six
> thousand years ago" the teacher pretty much has to speak out there.
> But it's not hard to teach a history class without evern mentioning
> the bible.

He appears to have been teaching a Western Civ. class. It is just
about impossible, and if possible, irresponsible, to try to teach
Western Civ. without mentioning the Bible.

> I say it depends on the details.

Yup. That's always where you find the devil.

Erm....

Ken Shackleton

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 10:31:03 PM9/24/07
to
On Sep 24, 3:14 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:

So...if the instructor, on hearing the students' protests, replied by
telling them that they are free to interpret the story of Adam and Eve
in any manner that they see fit outside of this class.....BUT.....for
the purposes of this course [and their grade], it will be treated as a
mythological story, with no more validity than any other non-Christian
mythology.


Inez

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 10:51:59 PM9/24/07
to
On Sep 24, 4:28 pm, "louan...@yahoo.com" <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 4:40 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Now, I think the issue gets sticky if people's religion makes such
> > extravegant claims that you can't properly teach a subject without
> > contradicting them, and this may be a case of that, I don't know. If
> > a student says "but I thought there wasn't an earth before six
> > thousand years ago" the teacher pretty much has to speak out there.
>
> I suggest "Have you thought about DeVry? Or, McDonald's is hiring."
>
Yes, that would work without making a religious statement. I defend
the teacher's right to be rude. But you are officially supposed to
tip-toe around religion if you are being paid by the government for
the words coming out of your mouth.

Chris Thompson

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 11:18:56 PM9/24/07
to
snex <sn...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:1190669258.2...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

Well, I am a biology teacher, and when someone asks me that, I tell them
it isn't my job. My job is to teach biology, and if their religion has
some sort of issue with the world as we know it, they need to ask their
priest or pastor to reconcile it. I don't manipulate biology to
accomodate religion; if they want to change their religion to suit the
world as it is, more power to them. Anything else, and they're in denial.

Chris

Chris Thompson

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 11:29:44 PM9/24/07
to
John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in
news:_KWJi.407$P21...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net:

Hey! Back off on the monkey army!

Chris

Cory Albrecht

unread,
Sep 24, 2007, 11:35:37 PM9/24/07