Feeling Free To Comment
EMALman asks several questions of me regarding the Helphinstine case, the first of which is why I posted this over here rather than as a comment to their blog. My answer to that you can find over there. So let’s get right to the rest of their questions. I should warn you at the start that this is going to take some time.
In the item they reference, I urged them to read the truth of the matter so that they might notice that while they were quite right that “[a] lot of misinformation has been passed around concerning the firing of biology teacher Kris Helphinstine”, that misinformation was coming not from his critics, but from his supporters.
“Perhaps you can explain the truth of the matter,” EMALman writes. “I read you[r] blog, but didn’t find it there. I found someone angry that a teacher acquired accurate (agreed?) information from a source you do not like. Does that make it invalid?”
I have no idea whether or not the scientific assertions in Ken Ham’s article on poodles are accurate or not. That isn’t the issue.
Rather, the issues is that if the science indeed was valid, then it’s available from any number of scientific sources. The only reason to utilize a source that’s creationist is to back door into the classroom the groundwork for teaching creationism more explicitly.
“Have you found where the rest of his scandalous slides came from?” EMALman asks. In fact, a number of things have come out about this, yes.
For one thing, one of his sources was a website about an infamous Holocaust denier with a prediliction for Zionist and Freemasonic conspiracy theories. What’s more, several other slides were drawn from Answers in Genesis (from which he got the poodle article), although Helphinstine somehow managed to claim it came from American Scientist.
Again, the point is the same as above. Even if the science were sound, the only reason to utilize a source that’s creationist rather than an accepted scientific source is to back door into the classroom the groundwork for teaching creationism more explicitly.
“Do you realize that Helphinstine did a final paper for a 500-level history of science class on Nazi science, which emphasized eugenics?” asks EMALman.
What’s the relevance here? People write papers all the time. In fact, there are several term papers available for purchase online which in fact appear to be the contents of the aforementioned article from Answers in Genesis which Helphinstine pretends is an article from American Scientist. That someone wrote a paper isn’t support for anything other than for the fact that he wrote a paper. It isn’t evidence that the paper was any more valid than the presentations to his science class.
“Have you read the Nugget editorial letter from five students that was posted this last Wednesday?” EMALman asks.
Since they didn’t come up in my Google alerts for this story, I hadn’t read these until now. In fact I’ve now read letters from 28 March as well as the letters from 04 April (which includes the one you reference).
So let’s spend some time on these, beginning with the former.
“I wasn’t in that biology class and do not know for certain whether Mr. Helphinstine stepped out of bounds or not,” writes Sam Fullhart. “However, I firmly believe that students deserve to be given information about the origin of life from all points of view and after critically examining the evidence decide for themselves what is true.”
This letter, of course, is irrelevant to the teaching of science. Science isn’t merely about competing “points of view” — it’s about the best current theories, arrived at scientifically, to explain the world around us. Science isn’t akin to a debate over whether musical comedy or Shakespearean tragedy is the better theatrical genre.
“As a senior at Sisters High School,” writes Justin Dean, “I find it unfortunate that Mr. Helphinstine has taught Intelligent Design (ID).”
I guess that’s not one of the letters to which EMALman is referring.
“In 1987,” writes John Miller, “the Supreme Court, in Edward versus Aguillard, stated that ‘teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.’”
Indeed, the Supreme Court did state that. Of course, they did so while striking down a law requiring the teaching of creationism in the public schools. Further, the key there is “a variety of scientific theories”. Creationism isn’t a scientific theory, it’s a religious proposition, in that it depends utterly upon a belief in the existence of God. That inherently makes creationism an advancement of religion, and in no way meets the so-called “Lemon test” requiring that a school’s action must have “legitimate secular purpose”.
“I certainly have nothing against encouraging critical thinking, a rare ability that is perhaps the best possible outcome of a good education,” writes John Rahm, parent of one of Kris’ students. “The problem I have is that a sincere effort was never made to teach the theory of evolution in the first place.”
I guess that’s not one of the letters to which EMALman is referring.
“If the current curriculum (evolution only) can not be questioned, then what is it afraid of or hiding?” writes Lance Piatt. “Because it certainly can’t stand on its own feet.”
Of course, no one has said that evolution cannot be questioned. What’s been said is that a science teacher in the public schools cannot question the scientific theory of evolution using the religious proposition of creationism.
“Unless you’ve been living in a cave,” writes Karly Drake-Lusby, “you must be aware of the highly public nature of this debate, the contentiousness of this issue and that it has been clearly established that this discussion MAY occur in classes OUTSIDE the science department.”
I guess that’s not one of the letters to which EMALman is referring.
“So much for open minds and good science,” writes Frank Fraga. “Instead, let’s just cram down the minds of our students a theory that flies in the face of many who believe there is a God and that He created us.”
This particular letter really gets to the crux of the matter. A particular population of religious people can’t stand the idea that their children might be learning anything which contradicts their religious beliefs. But it isn’t the job of the public schools to avoid the teaching of science so that they might avoid offending religious sensibilities.
“What I would like to know is: where was Mr. Helphinstine’s critical thinking when he chose the topic of evolution/intelligent design/creationism to teach it?” writes Allyn Hardman. “Could he possibly have chosen a hotter subject?”
I guess that’s not one of the letters to which EMALman is referring.
“The state seems to have an agenda to indoctrinate and force the theory of evolution as a fact down our kids’ intellect without equal time on intelligent design or creationism,” writes Chet Davis. “What are they in fear of?”
This letter, of course, is irrelevant to the teaching of science. To repeat what I said above: Science isn’t merely about competing “points of view” — it’s about the best current theories, arrived at scientifically, to explain the world around us. Science isn’t akin to a debate over whether musical comedy or Shakespearean tragedy is the better theatrical genre.
So much for the letters from 28 March. Let’s move on to those from 04 April, which presumably include those to which EMALman is referring.
“A number of Kris Helphinstine’s supporters who wrote The Nugget last week asked what opponents of teaching Intelligent Design in our public schools were afraid of,” writes Michael Cooper. “The answer to that question is simple: we’re afraid of converting our democracy into a theocracy.”
I guess that’s not one of the letters to which EMALman is referring.
“Does this bias expose an anti-Christian hidden agenda or were they just complying with the law?” writes John Shepherd. “As a licensed teacher, I know Kris Helphinstine was well within his legal rights. A teacher has broad legal freedoms to instruct as long as he doesn’t present certain views as absolute fact.”
But what a teacher doesn’t have the right to do is teach creationism as a valid scientific counterpoint to the theory of evolution.
“I believe that God created the universe and set the laws of physics that allowed humans to develop and that a God who can do that can intervene in the universe to micro-manage the development of humans,” writes Darrell Brownawell. “[B]ut that is a belief, not a scientific theory and should not be taught in a science course.”
I guess that’s not one of the letters to which EMALman is referring.
“Where plenty students sit through a biology class and see a problem with a teacher leaning toward the concept of creation,” writes Tara Hermens, a student at Sisters, “there are also students who sit through the same class and see a problem with the teaching of evolution.”
That’s all well and good, but again I repeat: Science isn’t merely about competing “points of view” — it’s about the best current theories, arrived at scientifically, to explain the world around us. Science isn’t akin to a debate over whether musical comedy or Shakespearean tragedy is the better theatrical genre.
“We have now come full circle,” writes Bill Carmichael after comparing Helphinstine’s situation with that of John Scopes. “God (if you happen to believe there is one) help us!”
Again, the science classroom is for science. Not for religion. As said above, a teacher doesn’t have the right to do is teach creationism as a valid scientific counterpoint to the theory of evolution.
“Recently a part-time teacher at Sisters High School was fired for daring to suggest that some people may have other ideas about evolution and the origin of man other than the party line,” writes Carol Lovegren Miller.
No. Recently a part-time teacher at Sisters High School was fired for introducing into his science classroom the religious proposition of creationism.
“Why would anyone use the term ‘Critical Thinking’ when discussing the teaching of Intelligent Design in a high school science curriculum?” writes Dean Billing. “As I understand it ID is taken on faith … so where is thinking involved, let alone critical thinking?”
I guess that’s not one of the letters to which EMALman is referring.
“What’s interesting about this is that the theory Intelligent Design is not permitted to be taught in schools on the basis that it is compatible with Christianity and as such violates the constitution,” writes Pete Chadwell. “[A]nd yet even prominent Darwinists such as Ken Miller at Brown University insist that Darwinism is ALSO compatible with Christianity. If that’s true, why doesn’t teaching Darwinism in public schools violate the constitution?”
Because while Darwinism might be compatible with Christianity (or, let’s say, a religious belief in God), creationism outright requires a religious belief in God. It’s a built-in and inherent part of the proposition — and therefore disallowed in the science classroom.
“As I understand it,” writes Lisa Woodworth. “Mr. Helphinstine presented another ‘theory.’ What is the fear in bringing forth information for the students to debate and critically think through?”
Let’s allow a previous letter writer to answer this one: “In common usage ‘theory’ can mean speculation or belief; in science, theory means that the proposed concept is supported by verifiable data and that there is no verifiable data that is known to contradict the scientific theory.”
“Are we going to go back to book banning?” writes Laurie Francis.
No. We’re reaffirming the proper role of the public school science classroom as the realm of science and not the realm of religious propositions. Religion can be discussed, in a secular manner, in the public schools — but it can’t be presented as science.
“Ah yes,” writes Pat Farr, “we have freedom of speech as long as we agree with the ‘educational elite.’”
No. You can discuss religion, in a secular manner, in the public schools — but you can’t present it as science.
“Us Christians and other kids have to put up with learning something we don’t believe in every year, and we don’t complain,” write Brook Rosauer, Brittany Tosello, Thomas Bennett, Spencer Gardner and Marc Peck. “[B]ut one thing is said about Christianity during class and our favorite teacher gets fired. He never taught anything about creationism.”
This would be the letter to which EMALman refers, since Rosauer et al were students of Helphinstine. Setting aside that it should begin with “we Christians”, the above suffers from the same misapprehension as many of the letters from adults.
Helphinstine didn’t merely say “one thing” about Christianity during class. He deliberately chose to use material lifted from creationist sources in his teaching. I and others have laboriously documented this fact. Like it or not, Christians don’t get to impose their religious propositions into the science classroom.
“The reason he only taught two days of evolution” they write, “was because he was fired before he could go on.”
Beg pardon, but if his first act was to make sure that creationist criticisms of evolution were introduced into his classroom before even bothering to get to evolution itself, that says something about his motives. This, in fact, only further supports his removal.
“I would venture to guess that a majority of the people of Sisters don’t mind if teachers present both theories about creation to their high schoolers,” writes Allan Lemke, director of Exousia Christian Theater Ministries. “Furthermore, a majority of people in Sisters probably believe that either God or some other intelligent entity is obviously ordering creation.”
Irrelevant. Let’s try this one more time: Science isn’t merely about competing “points of view” — it’s about the best current theories, arrived at scientifically, to explain the world around us. Science isn’t akin to a debate over whether musical comedy or Shakespearean tragedy is the better theatrical genre. And creationism isn’t science, it’s a religious proposition.
Which brings us back around again to EMALman themselves: “Do you realize that he edited out religious and biblical references from his articles to avoid teaching creationism?”
So he claimed. And in fact Answers in Genesis at one point claimed the same, and made available what supposedly was the redacted version of the poodles article. I’ve linked to them, in fact — except AiG appears to have removed both items from their website since I did so.
But let’s take a look what that redacted version still contained. In addition to referring to dog genes as “cursed”, the abridged article also refers to “the supposed evidence for [the General Theory of Evolution]“. What’s more, the abridged article ends thusly:
[It is important to gain a correct understanding of science and history so that students will be able to see past any form of indoctrination that may be fed to them.]
The word “indoctrination” indeed is provided to the students in bold, in order to equate the teaching of the theory of evolution with indoctrination.
“Again, is information automatically invalid because it is on a creationist website?” asks EMALman.
And, again, that isn’t the issue. The point — in addition to the clearly religious angle, and the clear usage of creationist slams on evolution — is that if the science is valid, the only reason for choosing creationist references to the science is to introduce creationist sources into the science classroom.
No thinking person could really believe that when Helphinstine provided to his students the redacted version of the poodles article, it was merely an accident which led to the identification of “Answers in Genesis” as the source remaining on the material.
What’s next?
Addendum: It’s unclear why Answers in Genesis has removed the article — “Don’t teach creation, just mention AiG, and … get fired!” — from its website. This is the article, mentioned above, in which they a provided alink to what they said was the redacted version of the Answers in Genesis article on poodles (which they’ve also removed from their server).
But, for the sake of reference, here is the Google cache of the article in question, which AiG apparently no longer wants you to be able to read.