Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Blinn · 01-07-2002, 04:00 PM

<a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/683420.asp?0dm=C229N" target="_blank">Court passes on evolution debate</a>

Make sure you vote in the poll!

hezekiah jones · 01-07-2002, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Affirmed:

1. A school board's decision to assign a public school teacher to teach a different class because the teacher refused to teach his former assigned class according to the curriculum established by the school board did not violate the teacher's right to free exercise of religion.

2. A public school teacher's right to free speech as a citizen does not permit the teacher to teach a class in a manner that circumvents the prescribed course curriculum established by the school board when performing as a teacher.

3. A public school teacher's due process rights are not violated when a school board's established curriculum and a course syllabus provided the teacher with sufficient notice that his method of teaching a high school biology course was inconsistent with the curriculum requirements.

Facts

In 1984, appellant Rodney LeVake was hired by respondent Independent School District # 656 as a high school science and math teacher. According to LeVake's contract, he could be assigned to teach any topic for which he has licensure. During the summer of 1997, LeVake was offered a position to teach tenth-grade biology for the 1997-98 academic year. Before accepting the position, LeVake met with Ken Hubert, co-chairman of the high school science department, and Dave Johnson, the high school principal, to discuss the course and its curriculum requirements. As part of the tenth-grade biology course, LeVake was required to teach evolution. The curriculum for the course is governed by the "Biology Program Curriculum Proposal" (the proposal) and the "Course Syllabus" (the syllabus). The proposal states that upon completion of the class, students will be able to understand that evolution involves natural selection and mutations, which constantly cause changes in living things. In the required course book for the biology class, three chapters dealt with evolution but only one was required as part of the curriculum. None of the chapters addressed alternative theories to or criticisms of evolution. The syllabus provided examples of topics that should be covered in class, which included evolution. Minnesota's high school graduation standards do not specifically refer to evolution; rather, the standards provide that a student must demonstrate an understanding of biological change over time.

LeVake accepted the position and began teaching the class with full knowledge of the curriculum requirements. In spring 1998, when LeVake arrived at the evolution component of the course, he spent only one day covering the topic, which included a correlating lab. The school year was cut short that year, so none of the other biology teachers spent a significant amount of time teaching the evolution chapters either. Hubert expressed concern to Johnson that LeVake did not adequately cover evolution and also discussed the situation with LeVake. LeVake essentially told Hubert that he could not teach evolution according to the prescribed curriculum. On April 1, 1998, LeVake met with Hubert, Johnson, and Cheryl Freund, the curriculum director, to discuss the issue. LeVake indicated that he did not regard evolution as a viable scientific concept. At that time, Freund asked if LeVake mentioned God or the Bible in class because she wanted to be sure that LeVake was not discussing religion in a manner that would give the impression that the school was not religiously neutral.

On April 7, 1998, LeVake, Hubert, Johnson, Freund, and the rest of the high school's science department met to discuss LeVake's teaching methods. At that meeting Johnson asked LeVake to write a position paper on how he proposed to teach evolution in his biology class. LeVake completed this paper on April 15. In his paper, LeVake articulated that he believes evolution is impossible from a "biological, anatomical, and physiological standpoint" and that there is "no evidence to show that it actually occurred." LeVake's paper also contends that the "complexity of life that we see around us is a testimony that evolution, as it is currently being handled in our text, is impossible." LeVake concludes by writing:

"I don't believe an unquestioning faith in the theory of evolution is foundational to the goals I have stated in teaching my students about themselves, their responsibilities, and gaining a sense of awe for what they see around them. I will teach, should the department decide that it is appropriate, the theory of evolution. I will also accompany that treatment of evolution with an honest look at the difficulties and inconsistencies of the theory without turning my class into a religious one."

(Emphasis added.)

On April 28, 1998, after meeting with the school district's lawyers and consulting with Freund and others, Johnson decided that LeVake should be reassigned to teach ninth-grade natural science for the following academic year. LeVake was informed of this decision the following day. As the basis for the school's decision, Johnson expressed concern that a basic concept of biology, meaning the theory of evolution, would be diluted and that students would "lose the gist" of the theory.

LeVake appealed his reassignment to Superintendent Keith Dixon. On May 14, 1998, Dixon wrote LeVake a letter, affirming his reassignment. Dixon believed that LeVake differed fundamentally with the "commonly held principles of the curriculum as outlined." Dixon further articulated that LeVake's insistence on teaching the inconsistencies of evolution was not an appropriate method for teaching the approved curriculum.

On May 24, 1999, LeVake filed a lawsuit against respondents Independent School District # 656, Keith Dixon, Dave Johnson, and Cheryl Freund (respondents). Based on 42 U.S.C. � 1983, LeVake alleged that respondents violated his right to free exercise of religion, free speech, due process, freedom of conscience, and academic freedom. Respondents moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted. The district court dismissed all of LeVake's claims with prejudice on the merits. LeVake now appeals from the district court's grant of summary judgment.

Which he lost, on all three counts. The above is from the Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 625 N.W.2d 502; 2001 Minn. App. LEXIS 482.

The Supreme Court of Minnesota had previously also denied LeVake's appeal.

theyeti · 01-07-2002, 06:23 PM

I didn't care much for the wording of the poll, even though the evolution side is winning. The questions were such that a reasonable person would likely be more comfortable with #3.

The evidence is so strong that the theory is beyond doubt.
The evidence is not sufficient to support the theory.
Neither of the above.

I would not say about evolution, or any other scientific theory, that it's "beyond doubt". Rather I would say that the doubt is sufficiently miniscule that it can be safely disregarded.

theyeti

gallo · 01-07-2002, 08:08 PM

I've watched so much evolutionary theory go by the wayside in my time that I'm inclined to agree with theyeti. I think the question was written by a journalist rather than a scientist. Given the tentative nature of science, it's never beyond doubt. But in trying to come up with alternate wording I thought about, "The evidence is so strong that the theory is beyond question." But that is even worse. The theory is always and ever subject to question. So what should it say? "The evidence is so strong that there is little doubt that the theory is essentially correct."

Orpheous99 · 01-08-2002, 03:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hezekiahjones:


Which he lost, on all three counts. The above is from the Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 625 N.W.2d 502; 2001 Minn. App. LEXIS 482.

The Supreme Court of Minnesota had previously also denied LeVake's appeal.

I'm surprised that this "teacher" isn't making the TV evangelist talk rounds claiming that he was being persecuted for being a Christian as well. I would have pulled this person's licence to teach as well since he has shown himself to be incompetant as well.

butswana · 01-08-2002, 04:43 AM

I am REALLY interested in what he finds wrong with evolution. Same old worn-out creationist shit, perhaps?
Here is the Fox version.

<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,42404,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,42404,00.html</a>

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: butswana ]

Quetzal · 01-08-2002, 05:15 AM

butswana: According to the Fox article, the teacher is a dyed-in-the-wool YEC. I'd like to know how the hell he got a masters in biology education as a YEC? ICR now granting master's degrees?

[sacrifice to the goddess typo]

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: Morpho ]

butswana · 01-08-2002, 05:22 AM

I would say that he suffered through all of the blasphemous lies, in order to get his degree, so that he could set those 10th graders straight. Oh, the sacrifices one must make in order to spread The Turd of The Lord. What a fuck.

gravitybow · 01-08-2002, 06:08 AM

"...I will also accompany that treatment of evolution with an honest look at the difficulties and inconsistencies of the theory without turning my class into a religious one."

and

...LeVake alleged that respondents violated his right to free exercise of religion...

Does anyone else find this inconsistent or disingenuous?

hezekiah jones · 01-08-2002, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by butswana:
I am REALLY interested in what he finds wrong with evolution. Same old worn-out creationist shit, perhaps?

Here are a few hints, and a nice analysis too. This is from a law review article, "Monkey Business and Unnatural Selection: Opening the Schoolhouse Door to Religion by Discrediting the Tenets of Darwinism," by Diana M. Rosenberg, from the Journal of Law and Policy. (Sorry I can't link to the entire article - it's at Lexis-Nexis.)

Quote:

The goal of enhancing critical thinking through scientific analysis is unquestionably secular, as is a teacher's concern that presenting the theory of evolution as infallible will leave students with inaccurate information. A teacher can validly challenge Darwin, even if that teacher himself happens to be a creationist. n327 He must be careful, however, that he challenges the scientific theory of evolution with evidence that is also scientific - challenges based on the Word of God will not suffice as a secular purpose. n328 While not terribly obvious at first glance, Levake's program falls into this category - his evidence against evolution is not scientific.

Critics call Levake's program a repackaged version of creationism. n329 The books that Levake cites have been rejected by the national academy of sciences, as well as by most prominent scientific publications. n330 Furthermore, the arguments that Levake plans to teach originate from books and pamphlets circulated by the creationist group Answers in Genesis. n331

Although creationists do not raise any arguments against evolution that the Darwinists have not already discovered, n332 use of material provided by Answers in Genesis is, in this case, the difference between secular and non-secular. While evolutionists criticize their own theory, the flaws exposed are not the sort that require abandonment of the entire theory. n333 In fact, some literature offered against evolution was written to correct an aspect of the theory, rather than argue against it. n334 Such criticism is healthy for science, recognizing that while the ground work is laid, more research is needed. n335 Answers in Genesis, on the other hand, distorts the same evidence, arguing that the entire theory of evolution must be wrong, and consequently, the Bible must be right. n336 Furthermore, creationists do not test their own theory as do the evolutionists; they unquestionably accept the word of the Bible as truth. n337 This is not scientific, but rather, blatantly religious. Thus, by selecting material that discusses the flaws in evolution theory from a religious standpoint, rather than a scientific one, and by choosing books that have been rejected by the scientific community, Levake demonstrates a purpose that looks less than secular. n338

Furthermore, Levake's educational approach is so similar to the Kansas curriculum that his program cannot be deemed secular where Kansas's would prove religious. While the Kansas board went a step farther than Levake by openly permitting the teaching of creationism, n339 Levake's program would ultimately reach the same result. By teaching from materials prepared solely by creationist groups, Levake, like Kansas, effectively laces his science lesson with the religious perspective. This does not amount to a secular purpose.

Unlike Levake and the Kansas Board, DeHart* has chosen to challenge evolution by using materials that come from scientific journals. n340 By refuting science with science, instead of with religion, DeHart's lesson plan would achieve the secular goal of enhancing science education. If facts stated in a textbook are no longer true, a good science teacher would supplement that book with updated information. This in itself constitutes a secular purpose. n341 That secular purpose is not blunted by its execution. The selection of articles from scientific journals ensures that the supplemental information will not be fused with a religious message. n342 Thus, DeHart's proposed lesson would effectively enhance science education by demonstrating criticisms of evolution, yet still comport with the Establishment Clause.

*DeHart is Roger DeHart, a Washington high school teacher that uses information from the peer-reviewed literature to clarify outdated or inconsistent material in the textbooks. Much of this law review article is devoted to comparing LeVake's and DeHart's methods, and showing why DeHart's survive Establishment Clause scrutiny.

Quote:

n327. Before the school board stopped him, DeHart taught the theory of intelligent design to his science students. Anti-Creationists Threaten Another Teacher's Liberty, Answers Online, at <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4350news7-26-2000.asp" target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4350news7-26-2000.asp</a> (last visited Jan. 22, 2001). This does not conclusively prove that DeHart himself is a creationist, but it does suggest so. This does not really matter though, because even if he were a creationist, such views would not be implicated in the lesson plan that he proposes. See infra notes 340-42 and accompanying text (explaining why DeHart's lessons on evolution's problem areas are not religious).

n328. Root-Bernstein, supra note 310, at 64. The debate between creationism and evolution is not a scientific one. "It is due to the promulgation of a religious belief as a scientific idea." Root-Bernstein, supra note 310, at 64.

n329. Tevlin, supra note 315.

n330. Tevlin, supra note 315.

n331. Tevlin, supra note 315.

n332. Root-Bernstein, supra note 310, at 70.

n333. Root-Bernstein, supra note 310, at 70.

n334. Root-Bernstein, supra note 310, at 87 n.16.

n335. Root-Bernstein, supra note 310, at 60-71. Root-Bernstein divides the possible problems of a particular theory into categories, arguing that not all categories of problems require abandonment of the entire theory. For example, if the problem is one of technique, then scientists can solve that problem by developing a better technique. Root-Bernstein, supra note 310, at 60-71. Only what Root-Bernstein calls "theory problems" call for forfeiture of the entire theory. These include anomalies, paradoxes, and contradictions. Root-Bernstein, supra note 310, at 60-71. The problems with evolution are not theory problems. Root-Bernstein, supra note 310, at 60-71. Root-Bernstein argues that even if one accepts all of the problems raised by creationists as valid, the existence of such does not invalidate evolution as a scientific theory. Rather, it "demonstrates just how vibrant the tradition of research in the evolutionary sciences is." Root-Bernstein, supra note 310, at 60-71.

n336. See, e.g., Russell Humphreys, Evidence For a Young World, Answers Online, at <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp" target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp</a> (last visited Jan. 22, 2001) (arguing that because the sediment at the bottom of the ocean indicates that the Earth can't be older than twelve million years, the Bible must be correct at estimating the age of the Earth at six thousand years). Creationists make this argument, even when the flaws in evolution theory do not naturally conclude that the Bible's version is the correct one. For example, creationist Russell Humphreys points to evidence suggesting that the galaxy is only a few hundred million years old, rather than 4.3 billion. Although the age suggested in the Bible is only between six and ten thousand years, Humphreys suggests that such evidence voids evolution and proves creation. Id. at <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp." target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp.</a>

n337. Root-Bernstein, supra note 310, at 73. H. M. Morris, the director of the Institute for Creation Research says that advocates of creationism "do not need experimental verification; God has recorded it in His Word, and that should be sufficient." Root-Bernstein, supra note 310, at 73 (quoting H.M. Morris).

n338. Tevlin, supra note 315 and accompanying text (discussing criticisms of the material that Levake would like to teach).

n339. See supra note 199 and accompanying text (reporting that the Board was aware that its standards would allow schools to teach creationism if they so desired).

n340. Anti-Creationists Threaten Another Teacher's Liberty, Answers Online, at <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4350news7-26-2000.asp" target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4350news7-26-2000.asp</a> (last visited Jan. 22, 2001).

n341. See, e.g., Bd. of Educ. v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236 (1968) (holding that provision of textbooks for secular subjects to parochial schools amounted to a secular purpose under Lemon's predecessor, the two-pronged Schempp test). As evolution is a secular subject, it would follow from Allen that articles updating textbooks on the same subject would also be secular.

n342. Anti-Creationists Threaten Another Teacher's Liberty, Answers Online, at <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4350news7-26-2000.asp" target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4350news7-26-2000.asp</a> (last visited Jan. 22, 2001) These journals include The Scientist and Scientific American. Id.

Root-Bernstein is Robert Root-Bernstein, "On Defining a Scientific Theory: Creationism Considered," in Science and Creationism Ashley Montagu ed., 1984. (Excellent book, btw.)

Tevlin is Jon Tevlin, "Evolution vs. Creationism; Christian Teacher Unlikely Soldier in Ongoing Battle," Houston Chronicle, Aug. 20, 2000.

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiahjones ]

01-07-2002, 04:00 PM	#1
Blinn Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Ohio, USA Posts: 1,162	Court passes on evolution debate <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/683420.asp?0dm=C229N" target="_blank">Court passes on evolution debate</a> Make sure you vote in the poll!

01-08-2002, 04:43 AM	#6
butswana Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Indianapolis, IN Posts: 1,804	I am REALLY interested in what he finds wrong with evolution. Same old worn-out creationist shit, perhaps? Here is the Fox version. <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,42404,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,42404,00.html</a> [ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: butswana ]</p>

01-08-2002, 05:15 AM	#7
Quetzal Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ecuador Posts: 738	butswana: According to the Fox article, the teacher is a dyed-in-the-wool YEC. I'd like to know how the hell he got a masters in biology education as a YEC? ICR now granting master's degrees? [sacrifice to the goddess typo] [ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: Morpho ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-07-2002, 06:23 PM	#3
theyeti Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Denver, CO, USA Posts: 9,747	I didn't care much for the wording of the poll, even though the evolution side is winning. The questions were such that a reasonable person would likely be more comfortable with #3. The evidence is so strong that the theory is beyond doubt. The evidence is not sufficient to support the theory. Neither of the above. I would not say about evolution, or any other scientific theory, that it's "beyond doubt". Rather I would say that the doubt is sufficiently miniscule that it can be safely disregarded. theyeti

01-07-2002, 08:08 PM	#4
gallo Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Houston, TX, US Posts: 244	I've watched so much evolutionary theory go by the wayside in my time that I'm inclined to agree with theyeti. I think the question was written by a journalist rather than a scientist. Given the tentative nature of science, it's never beyond doubt. But in trying to come up with alternate wording I thought about, "The evidence is so strong that the theory is beyond question." But that is even worse. The theory is always and ever subject to question. So what should it say? "The evidence is so strong that there is little doubt that the theory is essentially correct."

01-08-2002, 05:22 AM	#8
butswana Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Indianapolis, IN Posts: 1,804	I would say that he suffered through all of the blasphemous lies, in order to get his degree, so that he could set those 10th graders straight. Oh, the sacrifices one must make in order to spread The Turd of The Lord. What a fuck.

01-08-2002, 06:08 AM	#9
gravitybow Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Washington, NC Posts: 1,696	"...I will also accompany that treatment of evolution with an honest look at the difficulties and inconsistencies of the theory without turning my class into a religious one." and ...LeVake alleged that respondents violated his right to free exercise of religion... Does anyone else find this inconsistent or disingenuous?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.