FURIOUSnads...Good points. Would you mind checking this out?

Furiousnads said:
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.

Interesting, your understanding of science. You say that you don't know whether or not the information that was presented was accurate, yet you do make a claim about what science is. Ideally, science would just be about the best current theories. However, there are many theories that are a matter of "point of view." For example, did birds evolve from the trees down, or the ground up? Truly, they work with the same evidence. What about the origin of man, as far as location? Is there no disagreement about where, exactly, man originated? Or the hominid predecessors of man? Are all scientists in agreement as to which order to place the various specimens? Yet, all of those are considered scientific theories. Indeed, many scientific theories DO have to do with a person's presuppositions, pride, or "point of view."

Also, science is founded on scientific inquiry: observations/gather data, hypothesis, test hypothesis, record data, draw conclusions. Where is it stated that science must only come from a naturalistic worldview? If I understand what you are suggesting, that science done by creationists may be valid, but it should not be taught in public schools because of the presuppositions of creationists...why does it seem you invalidate the introducing of science done by creationists simply because of their worldview? If their worldview is not taught (which, if you examine Helphinstine's material, you will see that creationism was NOT taught...or perhaps there is a misunderstanding as to what creationism is on your part???) why is their science not valid to teach? I agree that it may be available from other sources, but that is beside the point. If Helphinstine had referenced material by Richard Dawkins, the students may have looked him up and discovered that he is an agnostic, at most. They might have been influenced to explore agnosticism. Or John Dewey (Dewey decimal system, used in our school libraries). He helped pen on of the Humanist Manifestos. Secular Humanism is categorized as a religion by the Supreme Court. To what extent should we go to sterilize our school from anything but atheism, because that seems what you are suggesting? Should we remove teaching from our schools by minds such as Pascal, Pasteur, Newton, Boyle...and other scientists who had a creationist/Christian worldview?

Also, I asked if you had read the letter from the students at Sisters...not all the rest. But in their letter, they emphasized what Helphinstine had also said...creationism was not taught. That was the point. Your other points were interesting, though!

The point about Helphinstine's history paper was that it could be possible, just maybe, that he actually had done some hard research and knew what he was talking about. Has it occurred to the cyber-sleuths that did the PowerPoint research (which I tip my hat to their passion!) that Helphinstine might have actually gone to a library and cited an actual book? Do you think that may be why only a few slides can be "traced" back to creationist websites? But again, that wasn't your point, was it? The fact that he may have acquired information from....CREATIONISTS...just proves he was trying to proselytize. Or, maybe, he is open minded enough to utilize a variety of sources without prejudice, as people of many different worldviews can present accurate information. Anyhow, I am not trying to be a punk, so if I come off punk-ish, that is not my intention. I just think there are a lot of questions to ask, and the bottom line is, unless you know Helphinstine, his character, and were actively involved in the issue, you can speculate all we want and believe what you want about the issue. As for me, I have the first two (I know him and his character), and because of my close relationship with him, I actually saw all the information he presented, as well as his lesson plans. Sooo...
Thanks for reading. I'm enjoying our (different blog) dialogue!
Emalman

FURIOUSnads! Feel free to comment...

FURIOUSnads! You wrote the following:

(26 Mar 2007) -- Just a friendly piece of advice to Christianity and Science. You're quite right that "[a] lot of misinformation has been passed around concerning the firing of biology teacher Kris Helphinstine". But do yourself a favor and read the truth of the matter before accusing other people of passing around misinformation. Otherwise, you just look like an idiot.

Why didn't you post it on my blog? Anyone can post on mine. I am confused, because if you took issue with my statements, why didn't you tell me straight away? I did not post on yours b/c I have no desire to give any of my information out to more places. You don't have to on mine.

Perhaps you can explain the truth of the matter. I read you 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? Evidence is evidence...would you agree? Have you found where the rest of his scandalous slides came from? Do you realize that Helphinstine did a final paper for a 500-level history of science class on Nazi science, which emphasized eugenics? Have you read the Nugget editorial letter from five students that was posted this last Wednesday? Do you realize that he edited out religious and biblical references from his articles to avoid teaching creationism? Again, is information automatically invalid because it is on a creationist website? If that is the case, then all the science they discuss would be invalid--mutations, natural selection, artifical selection, carbon-dating limitations and capabilities, and on and on...all those scientifically observable phenomena are therefore invalid because they are discussed and evaluated on a creationist website whose authors interpret data from a different worldview than yours?

Feel free to comment on my bog site.

Thanks,
Emalman