All of my comments must be preceded by "If this report is accurate..."
Posted by Allan Roy:
In September 2000, JHS chemistry teacher, Dan Clark, invited AiG speaker
Geoff Stevens to address his class on 'The Nature of Science Regarding
Origins,' an appropriate topic for a chemistry class, as evolutionary
chemists claim to have proof that life evolved from chemicals.
The AIG speaker was either misinformed or telling a lie.
Without mentioning 'religion,' ... Geoff demonstrated 'operational'
science to the students by conducting an experiment on making hydrogen. He
also discussed the current findings of 'information science,' which show
that coded information (such as is contained in our DNA) cannot arise from
matter by itself. Geoff also explained that natural selection, by
definition, cannot generate new information, but only gets rid of existing
information. He concluded that, when it comes to origins, since no one can
know for sure what happened in the past, one must accept either a purely
naturalistic explanation, which is not substantiated by true science, or a
supernatural explanation.
Without demonstrating the moral integrity that should be displayed by a
person representing a view of the Bible, this AIG speaker introduced a
religious point of view (sloppy logic and all) in the name of "true"
science. I object when a preacher of naturalism does that. I am embarrassed
when a representative of Christianity does it. The word hypocrisy quickly
comes to mind.
Later that month, the school superintendent, Ed Eiler, issued a formal
letter of reprimand to the teacher of the class, Dan Clark, accusing him of
introducing 'religion' to his classes. In the letter, Eiler stated, 'you
invited a guest speaker into your classroom who addressed subjects not
within the guidelines of the adopted curriculum'[1] and instructed him to
'refrain from any and all attempts to promote your personal religious
beliefs to students during the instructional day,' as any distribution of
materials pertaining to religion, creationism, or special creation is
'clearly disruptive to the educational function of the school and as such
constitutes just cause for serious disciplinary measures.'[2]
Superintendent Eiler did exactly the right thing. He should be commended.
Because the remarks he made were 'scientific rather than
religious,'[3] Mr Clark requested that Dr Eiler remove the official
reprimand from his personnel file-a request that the Lafayette School
Corporation board denied on August 13, 2001.
More shameful hypocrisy. One does not avoid religious points of view simply
by avoiding certain bits of vocabulary, like the word "religion."
Due to the denial, Mr Clark recently resigned from LSC and accepted a job at
Frontier School Corporation. He said that Frontier was 'seeking a quality,
experienced teacher, and though they knew all about the issues between me
and LSC, they wanted me. It has become clear that LSC didn't want me-not
the real me anyway.'[4] Dan is happy about taking the new job as it is a
'relief to go from an atmosphere of hostility [at Jefferson] to one of
friendliness.'[5] We wish Dan the best as he teaches his new students the
nature of true science.
I fear for what those students will be told about "the nature of true
science." Given the pattern of misinformation noted above, the prospects for
a truthful presentation are slim.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 22 2001 - 09:04:52 EDT