Who was educated?

[Strife767]

All the readers of this forum  wish you had followed your "original intention".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You wish you could speak for "all the readers of this forum."

[WilliamK]

All the readers of this forum  wish you had followed your "original intention".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Speak for yourself.

[Calybos]

All the readers of this forum  wish you had followed your "original intention".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And, Bryan... all your semantical quibbling aside, you're still stuck with Mr. P's statement that evolution is based on faith, and your agreement with it.

And the only way you can try to support that claim is by redefining "faith" in terms of epistomology, where it supposedly applies to any and all knowledge whatsoever. Sorry, but that doesn't work. Because that sort of "faith" is very different from the faith underlying religion, and you know it. You're trying to twist the definition to defend Mr. P when he's clearly in the wrong, and no one's falling for it.

Maybe you're the one who should go to law school.

[Guest Guest]

From "A Teacher's Guide to Religion in the Public Schools," by the First Amendment Center

http://www.freedomforum.org/publications/f...achersguide.pdf

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about....?item=about_fac

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

These do not carry the weight of law.

[Guest Paul]

QUOTE (Paul)

Mr. Paszkiewicz dogmatically contradicted public policy statements by most if not all fifty state legislatures, and established law, in declaring definititely that the purpose of public education is to provide an education for people who cannot afford it, and nothing more.

In fact, Paszkiewicz (in context) was contradicting young LaClair's notion of the purpose of public school, with Pasziewicz himself clarifying what he meant:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Guest posits a false choice. Mr. Paszkiewicz was contradicting Matthew's statement. However, Matthew's statement is correct, and correctly states the law as enunciated by our courts, as well as the public policies of the state legislatures.

[Bryan]

And, Bryan... all your semantical quibbling aside, you're still stuck with Mr. P's statement that evolution is based on faith, and your agreement with it.

I welcome it.

And the only way you can try to support that claim is by redefining "faith" in terms of epistomology, where it supposedly applies to any and all knowledge whatsoever. Sorry, but that doesn't work.

It does work, actually. Note your pathetic argument against, below:

Because that sort of "faith" is very different from the faith underlying religion, and you know it.

Rubbish. Paszkiewicz explained as much during the class session. "Faith" was being used in terms of "reasonable trust."

You're trying to twist the definition to defend Mr. P when he's clearly in the wrong, and no one's falling for it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If nobody's falling for it, then you can rejoice that you side has suckered the audience.

Anybody willing to examine the original context while setting bias aside is likely to agree with me.

[Curious in VA]

Please understand, my calling the remark that Matthew was out of school a week cheap was not directed at you, but at Mr. Paszkiewicz. He made the comment in an accusing tone, as though the student was to be blamed for being out sick. That's what was cheap.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No worries Paul. There is a lot of tension on the board and it seems the personal attacks on you and your family are more frequent in some threads. I just didn't want you to lump me in with the dirt throwers, since that was never my intention.

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

And, Bryan... all your semantical quibbling aside, you're still stuck with Mr. P's statement that evolution is based on faith, and your agreement with it.

And the only way you can try to support that claim is by redefining "faith" in terms of epistomology, where it supposedly applies to any and all knowledge whatsoever. Sorry, but that doesn't work. Because that sort of "faith" is very different from the faith underlying religion, and you know it. You're trying to twist the definition to defend Mr. P when he's clearly in the wrong, and no one's falling for it.

Maybe you're the one who should go to law school.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, if Tony Snow ever resigns as Bush's press secretary, Bryan would be an excellant candidate.

[Guest Guest]

How is it not what it is?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Um... the part of the post you deleted from your response, maybe?

QUOTE (Paul)

Matthew then challenged Mr. Paszkiewicz, asking "what if some students don't believe in the Bible." It was then that Mr. Paszkiewicz brought up evolution, and then the big bang, both of which he dismissed in favor of biblical creationism

Incorrect (you appear to be deliberately lying, Paul--we've been over this).

Paszkiewicz began teaching about epistemology, using science as an example. He showed (quite properly) that what people call science "fact" is inductive and probabilistic. -Bryan

Bryan is an artist, taking the idea of something and tilting it slightly askew, so that it is, yet isn't what it is. His Worholian technique blows my mind.

Transcript:

LaClair: What if some students don't believe in the Bible?

Students: Yeah... yeah...

Teacher: Well that's their perogative; what if the student doesn't believe in evolution? What if the student doesn't believe in some other aspect of the educational curriculum?

(epmhasis added)

Mr. P brings up and discredits the Big Bang about a minute later. Which is exactly what Paul said Mr. P did.

To call that "incorrect" and to delete the quote that clearly supports Paul in your response shows what courage you have. I salute you, Sir!

I pray that you respond to more of my posts. They are color coded for you convenience.

[Guest Guest]

QUOTE (Paul)

That statement is incorrect legally and in terms of public policy.

But Paul LaClair, lawyer that he is, cannot be bothered to explain how. He'd have to charge everyone for his time if he were to do that, I suppose. -Bryan

Nor can you explain how a public teacher can rightfully say to a captive audience of minors, "[God] did everything in his power to make sure that you could go to Heaven, so much so, that he put your sin on his own body, suffered your pains for you, and he's saying "Please, accept me, believe!" You reject that, you belong in Hell."

A draw?

A change of subject, at least.

I can explain how, but first you have to figure out how to keep statements in context.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I absolutely addressed the statements in the immediate previous post. This was just a follow up.

Here's the link, in case you can't figure out the up arrow button.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=47637

I take it you support Mr. P saying "[God] did everything in his power to make sure that you could go to Heaven, so much so, that he put your sin on his own body, suffered your pains for you, and he's saying "Please, accept me, believe!" You reject that, you belong in Hell."

I apologize if a "yes" or "no" answer is too radical a change in subject for you.

[Guest Guest]

QUOTE(Guest @ Mar 2 2007, 09:52 PM)

QUOTE(Paul @ Feb 23 2007, 07:25 AM)

It was humorous to say the least listening to Mr. Paszkiewicz's right-wing attorney trying to defend his client's behavior at the Board meeting on Tuesday evening.

It's also humorous to see a presumably busy Paul LaClair spending his time spinning propaganda at KOTW. - Bryan

...Says the guy with more posts than Paul. - Guest

Total Cumulative Posts          440

( 4.7 posts per day / 1.05% of total forum posts )

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php?showuser=343

Total Cumulative Posts  364

( 5.1 posts per day / 0.87% of total forum posts )

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php?showuser=434

You're truly amazing.  Maybe Paul posted like 80 times since you posted?

See here (look near the end of the post):

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...002entry47002

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

At the time, I believe it was true. I may be wrong. I owe you a beer.

[Guest Guest]

Total Cumulative Posts          440

( 4.7 posts per day / 1.05% of total forum posts )

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php?showuser=343

Total Cumulative Posts  364

( 5.1 posts per day / 0.87% of total forum posts )

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php?showuser=434

You're truly amazing.  Maybe Paul posted like 80 times since you posted?

See here (look near the end of the post):

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...002entry47002

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So how about the second part of the post you deleted in this response?

You're losing it, man. I suggest more Fox News and Ann Coulter.

[WilliamK]

We're not talking about grammar, we're talking about misrepresentation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you contend that you were not talking about grammar when you said "Paraphrases do not belong within quotation marks.

Unless, of course, you're directly quoting somebody else's paraphrase."?

Yes, it was an effort to show misrepresentation. But your argument was clearly based on grammar. It is obvious from Calybos statement that the quote marks were there to set apart the phrase being talked about from the sentence talking about it, not to show it as a direct quote. The misrepresentation is your own.

I'm not substituting anything. Paszkiewicz described what he meant by "faith" in the context. If either of us changes that meaning for purposes of handling Paszkiewicz's argument, then we're headed for a fallacy of equivocation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Headed for? You crossed that bridge quite some time ago. Equivocation is the very foundation of your defense of Paszkiewicz statement about evolution. Equivocation is a lot like ignoring context in that it's something you accuse others of even as you engage in it yourself.

I'm using the term as Paszkiewicz used it.

Somehow I doubt that this:

Every belief is ultimately based on faith.  Each system of though starts with unproven axioms.  Reason allows inductive support of a worldview framework, but it is basic to epistemology that absolute certainty is illusory.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

is what Paszkiewicz had in mind. As it applies to everything, it makes a pretty poor criticism of any one particular idea (evolution, in this case).

You've misconstrued what Paszkiewicz was saying.

It isn't that the type of faith applied in each case is a different type of faith, it is that evolutionists (those weak in philosophy of science) tend to deny any role at all for faith in evolutionary belief. "Faith" as used by philosophical naturalists tends to be "blind" faith, not the reasoned faith to which Paszkiewicz refers, here.

Ok. I'm not convinced that was his point, but I can see how it could have been. But, if correct, wouldn't that mean only that he's arguing essentially the same point (that evolution and creation are on similar footing in regard to faith) from a different angle? Arguing that "faith" in religion is of the reasoned, evidence based sort instead of arguing that the "faith" in science is of the "blind faith" sort?

1) You excused an inaccurate paraphrase, apparently on the basis of the fact that it could have been worse.

2) You quoted Paszkiewicz at length and still succeeded in taking his comments out of context (via poor interpretation).

3) You falsely accused me of taking something out of context.

My accusation was not false. I stand by it.

Way to go, William.

Same to you, Bryan.

[Guest Paul]

QUOTE (Paul)

The irony is that Mr. Paszkiewicz was the one who raised every one of the subjects that led to his infamous "you belong in hell" remark. The discussion began with Matthew pointing out (in response to Mr. Paszkiewicz's complaint that he cannot read from the Bible in class) that the purpose of public education is to teach objective truths, not the personal opinions of individual teachers. Matthew is entirely correct.

The spin starts early.

Here's what Matthew actually said (according to the Dranger transcipt):

"Isn't the whole point of public school so that you can

separate personal beliefs from teachers and administrators from

non-religious teachings during school, like school prayer and all

that?"

. . . Clearly it was Matthew that brought up the line of discussion of who belongs in Hell, just as Bryan noted. 

Here is the transcript.

LaClair: Isn't the whole point of public school so that you can separate personal beliefs from teachers and administrators from non-religious teachings during school, like school prayer and all that?

?Mr. P: No. The purpose of public school is to provide free education to people that couldn't afford education. Period. That's the purpose of public school. What it's become is social engineering.

It's supposed to reflect the values and belief systems of the parents;?that's why we have school boards elected from the population. Now I?gotta believe that most of the people on the school board have faith?maybe similar to mine, but yet the state comes up with some weird?perception of what education oughta be, and there's nothing (...?)?LaClair: What would decide what should be - what religion should be?taught in schools, what would decide that??Teacher: No, it's not about teaching - my point is it's not about?teaching religion - and you know, these issues will come up when we?get to the 1920s, and things begin to get legislated, and we'll talk?about it in class. But the public schools shouldn't teach a religion -?but the scriptures aren't religion. ?LaClair: They're not...??Teacher: The scriptures are at the foundation of the world's?religions. The world's main religions, anyway. Religion is a set way?of doing things. For example if you take Christian faiths, right, you?have many varieties; there's Roman Catholicism, the Methodists, the?(...?), the Baptists, who differ on church government, things like?that but (..LaClair moving about...?) book - the Bible. We should be?able to bring that into the classroom, read it, and shouldn't be?threatened by anybody.?LaClair: What if some students don't believe in the Bible??Students: Yeah... yeah...?Teacher: Well that's their perogative; what if the student doesn't?believe in evolution? What if the student doesn't believe in some?other aspect of the educational curriculum??LaClair: Well evolution is scientific; evolution -?(Student G1, at same time: you can bring a bible in the school and?read it)?Teacher: Is it??LaClair: Yes. I can get you a whole bunch of information on it.?Teacher: Yeah, I'm 38 years old, I've seen the information. Give me?the scientific method. What does the scientific method -?(chaos)?Teacher: Is that how it starts, though, with a hypothesis??LaChace: You have to find out what the problem is, first, I think.?Teacher: I think it begins with observation first, doesn't it??LaClair: No, you have to determine what the problem is.?Student H1: Let me get my Earth Science book...?Teacher: We don't even have to do it in order, let's just list the?steps. Some teachers list 7, some list 5, right, whatever, give me?your list. Hypothesis.... what's next... DAta... what else? Observe??(chaos) We've already said we're not going to be concerned with...?(under the chaos we hear "Really?" "I think it is.")?Teacher: Hey, you guys look back, you're like the two little men on?the Puppet Show - the Muppet Show? Life is going on and you're in the?balcony doing your own thing, okay? Come on, be part of this?discussion. What else? How about experimentation??Students: ....analyzing....?Teacher: I think you guys are coming up with new steps..?Students: ...I think it's an "X".?Teacher: Collecting Data, observation, experiment, involves?repetition? The order's not necessarily important for history, but?from a science standpoint... But the statement was that evolution is?scientific. Now you assume that because you've been indoctrinated for?at least 11 years now, right, at least, because you have the?pre-kinder...if you went to the state babysitting agency, it might be?longer. But, this roughly accepted scientific fact, right? When you?get to up to this old creation/evolution debate, the argument goes?something like this: "You're a believer. Your argument is based on?faith. But I, I believe in evolution. My ideas are based on -"?LaClair: Facts??Teacher: Science, or facts, right. Now, I can see a (...? gracian?based update?) but the idea of faith is much different that what?you're taught faith is in school. Now, I would also say that evolution?is based on faith, too. Because - what's the hypothesis, what's the?assumption of evolution? You look at the world - or let's take?biological life - you look at biological life. There's small life, and?there's big life. Or there's simple life, and intelligent life and?somehow we all evolved from simple life forms into complex life forms,?ok, that's the assumption, that may be your hypothesis. Uh, anyone?ever observe it? No? You can collect some data, right, like a fossil?record? Anybody ever produce it? No? They say that life can?spontaneously generate, but as often as scientists have tried, they've?never done it. Ok, so can the experiment be reported or repeated? So?can it be a scientific fact? No. Cause this is how it works: like, if?I were to say water were to boil at 212 degrees Farenheit - ?Students: 100 degrees Celsius!?Teacher: That we know. Ok, 100 degrees Celsius - that can be tested, I?could say, or LaQuera? could say, that's my hypothesis - and then I'll?let you raise your question; don't let me forget, though - let's say?that's our assumption: water will boil at 100 degrees Celsius. We can?very easily test that. We take a pot of water and put it on a coffee?(....noise noise noise) ...at each second, each minute, what's?occuring with the water, we can record temperatures; at 100 degrees,?what do we see happen? The bubbles. But that's not enough; that's not?scientific fact. I have to repeat it, many times myself. Then I take?those notes and give them to the scientific community. If other?scientists who are unbiased come to the same conclusion, it becomes a?scientific fact, right? How can you say that evolution is a scientific?fact, you just can't; it's a theory - ok, LaClaire first.?LaClaire: OK. How do you prove something like Noah's Ark happened, or?that Adam and Eve existed; was there any observation that Adam and Eve?were people, or...?Teacher: I never said that my assumption isn't based on faith.?Remember I confessed that at the beginning. My point is it takes more?faith that something came from nothing, than God created something out?of nothing. You understand? ?LaClaire: ...no...?Teacher: Cause this is what we're being told by - well, take the big?bang theory. You would have never gotten me to believe this as a?little boy cause common sense would tell me that this doesn't make?sense. But as we get older, I began listening to people in white?labcoats who have advanced degrees, the impossible all of a sudden?becomes possible. The Big Bang Theory is there was nothing out there,?there was no matter. But yet nothing exploded and created something.?Let me give you a clue, guys, if there's nothing - it can't explode!!?And that created order. It created all of the order in the universe.?How many of you have ever looked at something explode? If you can't?raise a hand, did you ever see a firecracker blow up, did you ever see?a fireworks show? Ever see a gun fire? Did you see the Twin Towers?collapse on TV? Did any of these explosions that you've seen in all of?your young life ever create order? You know what, none has ever?created order in all of human history. That's observation; nobody ever?recorded an explosion making order, but yet we can make this?assumption about an event that occured a billion years ago that?created all the order that you see. That's not scientific. There's?nothing scientific about it. It sounds cool on paper. But it defies?human reason.?LaClaire: Um, but you say that because you have faith, that the Bible,?the things written in the Bible did occur. Does that mean that if I?wanted to, I could say, I have faith, that the being or the force that?created this universe - ?Teacher: It has to be a being.?LaClaire: A being.?Teacher: Cause it would require intelligence; it can't be a force.?LaClaire: So gravity has - gravity is a being.?Teacher: No, it's a force. ?LaClaire: So it can be a force.?Teacher: But that's not the creator, is it? You understand, gravity,?because it doesn't have intelligence, can't be responsible for?everything that you see.?LaClaire: Ok, well let's say that I had faith that um...sigh... a...?Teacher: Let's think about this for a second. This isn't populism,?guys, I think you put that together. Is it bothering anybody that?we're taking this direction??Students: (unenergetic moans of "no")?Teacher: Ok... ?Student J1: I kinda like this direction.?LaClaire: Alright -?Teacher: Do you like it or you don't like it? I don't want to step on?your toes. We aim to please here.?LaClaire: If I have faith, if I truly -?Teacher: Follow his argument, guys.?LaClaire: - truly believe that a man of, let's say, 2776 years old?with a blue face and a pink shirt, and he always wears the same thing.?If I have true faith that that man created the universe, and I say?that this happened in this amount of time and this is what followed,?does that mean that it really happened??Teacher: No. No, it's a good argument. Ok, you guys are following and?understand, right? Because what we've established - and some of you?probably disagree with what I've put on the board; that's okay, you?won't be tested on it, you understand, you'll be tested on populism,?not (inaudible due to a cough). But um, my assertion to you is that?evolution is based faith and creation is based on faith. And here's?the difference, and it may answer your question. What the?evolutionists call faith is different from what say, Christian, what?Christians call faith. Christian faith - Judeo-Christian faith is a?reasoned faith. Take the scriptures - I'm not just saying that there?was a God - who willed the universe into existence - actually, spoke?it into existence, right? I'm not just saying that at the (start of?the text??). The text is full of biblical prophecy that comes to pass.?Moses writes about events that take place before his time, he writes?about the (Thelassians?). But think about the order of the events. So?we have God, he speaks. He creates light, and by the 6th day creates?man, all by speaking. And he has the order correct, and this is 1440?BC; he has the order correct, he starts with light and end with higher?lifeforms. Moses wrote in 1440 BC, not that the Earth was created?then. You know where I'm going with this. ?Student K1: Were there dinosaurs on Noah's Ark? Sorry, I -?Teacher: One at a time, okay. I will answer that question. Short?answer, yes, and it was a problem; I'll explain that.?Student K1: Okay.?Teacher: But uh, Moses writes in 1440 BC. Most of you have probably?read that first chapter of Genesis: In the beginning God created the?Heavens and the Earth, and (....?) Moses had the best education money?could buy in his day - where was he educated??Student L1: Pharoh's palace.?Teacher: In Pharoh's place, he was raised to be a pharoh. He might not?have been next in line, but he was part of the line of succession. He?was trained in mathematics, he was trained in creation, the literature?of Egypt, languages, as a millitary commander, all of these things.?Public administration, because he'd be running the kingdom one day,?and if he wasn't running the kingdom, he would be a general in the?army. But do you know what he was taught in schools? Do you know what?the Egyptian conception of the universe was? "The Earth was the back?of a giant tortoise shell supported by four elephants." This is?culture that gave us pyramids and a calendar and advanced mathematics,?etc. You take the other big empires of the day, the Mesopotamians, the?Babylonians, who were also extremely advanced in mathematics, etc.,?and architecture, and public administration and law. And what was?their concept? Well, there were these two gods, Tiamat and Margel(?)?Margel got very jealous of the goddess Tiamat, pulled her body into?pieces and flung it apart into the universe. And those are the stars?that you see. This is all in the ancient record. Think this through,?and then you can ask questions. But that's what was out there. Where?did Moses' conception of the universe come from? Cause it was unlike?anything he'd been taught in school. And he had the order?scientifically correct. You start with light, and then you go to -?because you can't live without light generated from the sun. The?energy that we get from the food that we eat, ultimately finds its way?back to the source, the sun. Plants and photosynthesis, the beef that?we enjoy eats the plants, and we get that energy from the beef. It?transfers, and Moses had the order correct. Now, this whole idea of?faith, my faith is reasoned. It's not like, "I really hope it's true,?so I'm just going to believe a lot and hope I go to Heaven when I?die." No, it's not like that. It's not like I could stand on the edge?of a building and say "I believe I can fly, if I really try hard now,"?no. That's foolishness. You can believe all you want. It's all gonna?end the same. With your face splattered on the sidewalk. Why is my?faith rooted and grounded in the scriptures? Because of biblical?prophecy. That has come true within the letter and verifies the text. ?Student M1: What were the prophecies??Teacher: What were they? There were actually hundereds of 'em...?Student M1: ...that came true...?Teacher: New Testament, Old Testament??LaClaire: The ones that came true. ?Student M2: Go with easier.?Teacher: I'll give you a major Old Testament prophecy, I'll give you?two. One, the children of Israel themselves. Moses in Genesis talks?about one day they're going to be in slavery for 400 years. Long?before the event, but God would deliver them. And then in Exodus,?they're in slavery, and He delivers 'em 430 years later. Things like?that. You have many prophecies, like, um, I'll give you an interesting?one, this is the Old Testament, this is in the book of Ezekiel. And?Ezekiel gives us prophecies concerning the nations. He talks about the?city of T- which would be off the coast of Lebanon in the ancient?world. T- still exists in Lebanon today. This is the Mediterranean?coast, where Israel would be here, Lebanon would be here, and he had?the city of T- right here. Ezekiel rants in his prophecy against this?king of T- and how evil he is and about how God is going to judge him.?And in the ancient world, the people of this city was really?impregnable, because what would happen was, there was a tiny island a?quarter mile off the coast. Whenever they were going to be invaded,?the people of the city would get on boats and go to what they called?"Little T-", a walled rock (...?) out off the coast, and it had a?water supply, and it had food stores and stuff, there. Ezekiel said?that they would come, that they would be conquered, that T- would be?raized - that every stone would be overturned, and cast into the sea,?and the men of the sea would be slaughtered, and it would be known as?a place were fishermen mend their nets (??). You can look it up in the?older Encyclopedia Brittanica, look up T-, and it will say that it's a?place where fishermen mend their nets. Not the newest one, but the?older one, the ones they had the old (???). Alexander the Great comes?down the scene of history. He's not a military guy, he's a soldier. He?gets to T-, he wants to conquer the city, and he is so frustrated that?the city has escaped. And he's (??) that, he has his men take every?stone of the city and throw it into the sea to build a causeline from?the mainland to Little T- and slaughters the men of the city. (...??)?That's just one, there are many. And - ?Student N1: Did Alexander the Great read the Bible??Teacher: No, this occured before his time. It was predicted as a?prophecy then - but it was that specific. Now the coastline of Lebanon?looks like this. Because there's a causeway there. It's no longer an?island. And you have Little T- out here and T- on the mainland, and?that's how it was formed. And history records that Alexander the Great?came and raized the city and threw it into the sea. Where were we?goin, anyway??LaClaire: A few things that I was really concerned about. One, you?said about the evolution. That, it wasn't observed and that,?therefore, it's not true, or that it's a theory and can't be proven.?In the Bible, for example, one of the first things you said was about?how light was created first by the Lord, and then, after that, the 7th?day - what came into creation? The 6th day was - ?Teacher: man and the land -?LaClaire: Man and the land. Who proved that this God did this in this?amount of time if God was the only one that would know about this? In?other words, if he created light, and it took him until the 6th day to?create man, then between those, between that time period, who knew?besides him that this stuff happened? Only him.?Teacher: Nah, he just told Moses. You get it??LaClaire: And we know - wait, wait, and we know - ?Teacher: Yeah, for 6 days, there was only him and man.?LaClaire: Him and man. Ok - ?Teacher: As far as life on Earth, I mean you do have angelic teams,?and things like that...?LaClaire: Now um, between that period of time, and you're saying that?he told Moses, it was Moses that wrote the Bible -?Teacher: Moses writes the first 5 books.?LaClaire: Ok, he wrote the first 5 books. How do we prove that it is?these people who did these different things? Did the Lord talk to him,?did he come down and say, "Moses, I want you to write this for me." ?Teacher: The Bible explains inspiration, and it occurs in a number of?different ways. Inspiration from the biblical writers, according to?the Bible, not according to what some professor said, it works like?this: God speaks through prophets and inspires their writing. The text?itself could reflect the personality of the writing. Your style of?writing permeates the text. But the accuracy is ensured of what you're?writing. And Moses was a prophet. And he got these revelations from?God. I'm sure the primary sources that he used - for example, if I was?Noah, and I knew the flood was coming, I wouldn't just take those two?animals on the ark of every breed, I would also take every map I could?find, every math book, whatever, whatever he had in his day, the?technology of the day, I would have taken on the Ark. I'm sure Moses?had ancient accounts that were written by men on the Ark, because Noah?was on there with his 3 sons. Well, read the text of Genesis, at least?one of his sons was still alive even when Abraham was around. Now?let's say Noah's son Shem, since he lived a significantly long time?after the flood, and let's say I was a little boy Abraham, and I was?his descendent. I'd be visiting Grandpa, he'd be telling me these?stories on his knee. And I'd probably write them down. Or somebody in?my family would, and they would pass them on. But these guys may have?operated from primary sources, but the biblical convention is that the?accuracy is ensured by God. ?LaClaire: But for example, wouldn't something like Noah's Ark be an?example of a mistake by God? Because, at least from what I know of the?Bible, because he had to destroy, start over. In my understanding of?God in the Bible is that he's all (something falls) - oh that doesn't?sound good - oops! - he uh, he doesn't make any mistakes, right? He?doesn't make any mistakes. God. Doesn't make any mistakes. Why would?he have to start over??Student O1: That was called free will by humans.?LaClaire: Free will.?Teacher: Free will works this way, guys. And uh, we've probably got?the bell ringing sometime. Suppose you were God. A God of your own?choice. Or let's relate it to a marriage. Let's suppose that the?person that marries you one day, was programmed to marry you. Not?programmed to marry you, but programmed to love you. And it?automatically always said yes, and it automatically met your needs,?and it was an automaton.?Student P1: Boring!?Teacher: It would be boring. And the love would not be real. It would?not be real. It has to be a choice, initiated by you. When God created?man, he gave him free will. He could have very easily wound us up like?robots and said "serve me" like the angels. But he's a good God, he's?a holy God, and the choice is up to you. You can reciprocate properly?to the very one that gave you life, or you don't have to, I love you?that much, the choice is yours. ?LaClaire: Let's say that you disagree (with God). Let's say that?maybe, in God's eyes, you have done something wrong. If you go to?Hell, that would mean that you would burn and suffer forever. Now,?hang on, let me think about this for a second. You have an all-loving?God. Why would God give up on a human being after just one lifetime??As a parent, if your child did something wrong, if your child did?something terrible, would you throw them in an oven and leave them?there forever??Teacher: I also didn't die for them. (going to another student) What's?your response??Student 2: Isn't there, like, the whole thing about going to heaven?and hell, isn't there - I forget what the name of the place is...?LaClaire: Purgatory.?Student 2: Where there's a place where you go beforehand to like,?Student 3: ...a second chance...?Student 2: Yeah, like that would be your second chance.?Teacher: See, I don't mean to step on anybody's toes; I know a lot of?you believe in purgatory; I don't.?Student 4: Neither do I.

Mr. P: I believe that it's one or the other, Heaven or Hell, but this is the answer to your question - and I believe that because there's no mention in Genesis through Revalations of a place called

Purgatory - but this is the issue: God is not only all loving in the way he describes himself in the scriptures, he is also completely just. He did everything in his power to make sure that you could go to Heaven, so much so, that he put your sin on his own body, suffered your pains for you, and he's saying "Please, accept me, believe!" You reject that, you belong in Hell.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There’s no convincing people who already have their minds made up, but here are the facts on the section quoted above, which is from the September 14 class.

This discussion begins with the student correctly stating the law and public policy, and the teacher (incorrectly) telling him he is wrong. Then the teacher makes the ridiculous argument that “the scriptures” aren’t religion, which of course they are: religious teachings undeniably associated with specific religions. Here the teacher is making a distinction that has no basis or meaning in law. The student correctly points out (with a question) that not everyone believes in the Bible, which is exactly the reason the law forbids teachers from promoting the Bible in public schools.

It is at that point that the teacher brings up and denigrates two scientific theories: evolution and the big bang. (Search “evolution” and “big bang.”) In so doing, he is doing at least three things wrong legally and pedagogically: (1) he is pitting these sciences against biblical creationism, which is forbidden by law, (2) he is denigrating sciences that are part of the KHS curriculum, and are on the upcoming federally-mandated test the junior class is about to take, (3) he is speaking from nearly absolute ignorance on these subjects --- he clearly knows virtually nothing about science. And if that isn’t bad enough, when the student tries to offer him evidence supporting evolution, he dismisses it with one arrogant wave of the hand, claiming he has read all that. You couldn’t imagine anything worse from an educational standpoint than this. There he stands, absolutely ignorant and illiterate in science, claiming to be the world’s expert on everything.

Who brings up the subject of faith? Mr. Paszkiewicz uses the word seven times before Matthew uses it once in response. (Search “faith.”) Clearly, this is a subject raised by the teacher, and why: to promote his particular religious beliefs.

It is at this point, having trampled all over the US Constitution and the KHS science curriculum, that Mr. P asks whether the discussion is bothering anyone. It doesn’t matter what answer the students give, or whether anyone objects. Under Engel v. Vitale, he may not discuss the subject in this fashion.

Then, to support his argument further --- still evangelizing and proselytizing --- he launches into a lengthy argument why the supposed fulfillment of biblical prophecies proves the Bible to be true. Paszkiewicz raises this argument completely on his own. (Search: “Take the scriptures.”) There are several things wrong with it: (1) it constitutes impermissible advocacy of a particular religious belief, (2) it is not accepted historically and (3) it is not true: most of the so-called biblical prophecies are nowhere near specific enough to be related to anything in particular, and most of them cannot be verified at all. Meanwhile, the only history he discusses pertains to the Egyptian concept of the universe: he makes fun of it, and he gets the history wrong --- this wasn’t an Egyptian myth.

Matthew then asks how the creation story(ies) in Genesis can be verified, since no one was present to observe it. The question responds to the teacher's argument. It’s not in the transcript, but a female student says “That’s where faith comes in.” What does good-old Mr. P do? He contradicts this girl’s concept of faith, and dogmatically asserts “God told Moses,” and as if that isn’t bad enough he makes fun of anyone to whom that isn’t obvious with a disparaging “You get it?” So not only is he pushing his religion, he’s being snotty and dismissive about it, disparaging not only the views of non-Christians, but also the views of fellow Christians who don’t see things as he does. At this point, Paszkiewicz’s remarks are laced with “I’m sure,” so he is not merely asserting his religious views as opinion, but stating them as fact.

By this time the discussion is completely enmeshed in Christian theology, turning next to a discussion of Purgatory, wherein he dismisses Catholic theology in favor of his own. Well, at least he has the decency this time to acknowledge that some people may believe in Purgatory, but in the process he makes it abundantly clear that in his view anyone who does not believe in Jesus as his savior “belong(s) in hell.”

This is completely indefensible conduct by a public school teacher, and although it doesn’t matter who started the discussion or asked the questions, it is obvious that this teacher was lovin’ the opportunity to spread the Word. He may do that on his own time, but not in his role as a teacher at KHS. Furthermore, the suggestion that Matthew initiated this discussion is contrary to the facts.

[Bryan]

Do you contend that you were not talking about grammar when you said "Paraphrases do not belong within quotation marks.

Unless, of course, you're directly quoting somebody else's paraphrase."?

Yes.

Yes, it was an effort to show misrepresentation. But your argument was clearly based on grammar.

I'm not aware of any hard-and-fast grammatical rules on what can be placed within quotation marks and what cannot. When a person is misquoted, it is typically an issue of accuracy, not an issue of bad grammar.

It is obvious from Calybos statement that the quote marks were there to set apart the phrase being talked about from the sentence talking about it, not to show it as a direct quote. The misrepresentation is your own.

Baloney.

Headed for? You crossed that bridge quite some time ago.

I doubt it. You're welcome to try to make a case that I've equivocated.

Your side has been taking those types of opportunities to show how poorly they understand logic.

Equivocation is the very foundation of your defense of Paszkiewicz statement about evolution. Equivocation is a lot like ignoring context in that it's something you accuse others of even as you engage in it yourself.

For example?

Somehow I doubt that this:

is what Paszkiewicz had in mind.

You're correct to doubt. Paszkiewicz, in context, was placing evolution below physical law in terms of certitude, and he was correct in that (science involving past events involves additional inductive steps, resulting in decreased probabilities).

My point, on the other hand, was that Paszkiewicz was unquestionably correct to point out a faith-basis for evolution.

Yet (some) people on your side deny it.

As it applies to everything, it makes a pretty poor criticism of any one particular idea (evolution, in this case).

True, but it should give pause to those on your side who so vehemently deny that evolution has a basis in faith.

Ok. I'm not convinced that was his point, but I can see how it could have been.

Hey, at least you thought about.

But, if correct, wouldn't that mean only that he's arguing essentially the same point (that evolution and creation are on similar footing in regard to faith) from a different angle? Arguing that "faith" in religion is of the reasoned, evidence based sort instead of arguing that the "faith" in science is of the "blind faith" sort?

Yes, except that it's really more a different angle than the same point.

My accusation was not false. I stand by it.

Same to you, Bryan.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your accusation was false. You should not stand by it.

[Calybos]

As soon as anyone can prove that Mr. P meant something other than the conventional definition of "faith"--i.e., belief without physical evidence--I'll be prepared to apologize. In fact, I'd be amazed if he had any understanding of epistomology... or even knew what it was. OR how to spell it.

Clearly, Mr. P was trying to say that science and religion are equivalent because both are based on nothing more than faith. Just as clearly, that statement is false. Religion is based on faith from authority alone; science involves evidence.

Even if you accept the notion that scientific knowledge requires some "faith" (which is dubious depending on how you define it), the point is that science ALSO requires MORE than faith. It requires evidence. Religion does not.

The attempt to downgrade scientific knowledge to the level of blind faith is pretty clear--and pretty obviously stupid on Mr. P's part, since he was in a position to know he was both preaching AND lying to the students.

But apparently any amount of dishonesty and law-breaking is okay if you do it for Jesus.

[Bryan]

As soon as anyone can prove that Mr. P meant something other than the conventional definition of "faith"--i.e., belief without physical evidence

The understanding of faith as "trust" minus the notion of lacking physical evidence is the usual understanding of "faith."

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

--I'll be prepared to apologize.

We'll see. The fact that you settle on the less typical definition as your default hints that you may not follow through.

In fact, I'd be amazed if he had any understanding of epist[e]mology... or even knew what it was. OR how to spell it.

Epistemology is one of those things people can know about without knowing the word for it. Paszkiewicz showed that the science of physical law is different than the science used to reconstruct historical events (and evolution as the origin of species is exactly that). That's epistemology whether or not you know the word for it.

Clearly, Mr. P was trying to say that science and religion are equivalent ...

Clearly Calybos employs the very lowest standards of reason in making such claims.

Even if you accept the notion that scientific knowledge requires some "faith" (which is dubious depending on how you define it),

Paszkiewicz defined faith in the immediate context, and that definition of faith accords perfectly with his claims about evolution.

the point is that science ALSO requires MORE than faith. It requires evidence. Religion does not.

It is perfectly possible to believe the claims of science without having any understanding of the evidences involved.

In that respect, religion and science are parallel.

[Calybos]

It is perfectly possible to believe the claims of science without having any understanding of the evidences involved.

In that respect, religion and science are parallel.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And yet, Mr. P was claiming that evolution is BASED on faith. Which is, obviously, untrue.

More hair-splitting, Bryan. I must wonder why you're working so hard to defend someone as blatantly ignorant of both science and the Constitution as a good teacher for the next generation.

[Guest Guest]

It is perfectly possible to believe the claims of science without having any understanding of the evidences involved.

In that respect, religion and science are parallel.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In this sense everything can be faith-based as long as you believe without understanding or evidence.

This line of thinking also put believing in [your religion here] on par with believing in winged unicorns. Is this really your intent?

[Bryan]

It is perfectly possible to believe the claims of science without having any understanding of the evidences involved.

In that respect, religion and science are parallel.

And yet, Mr. P was claiming that evolution is BASED on faith. Which is, obviously, untrue.

So "obviously" that evolutionist philosopher of science Michael Ruse disagrees with you:

But those of us who are academics, or for other reasons pulling back and trying to think about these things, I think that we should recognize, both historically and perhaps philosophically, certainly that the science side has certain metaphysical assumptions built into doing science, which -- it may not be a good thing to admit in a court of law -- but I think that in honesty that we should recognize, and that we should be thinking about some of these sorts of things.

http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or151/mr93tran.htm

(emphasis via large type added)

http://www.fsu.edu/~philo/new%20site/staff/ruse.htm

More hair-splitting, Bryan. I must wonder why you're working so hard to defend someone as blatantly ignorant of both science and the Constitution as a good teacher for the next generation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He could have taught you a thing or two, if we take Michael Ruse at his word.

The real question is: How did you come to believe that evolution had no basis in faith in the first place? Who were your teachers?