quote:

Originally posted by Browndrake:
I understand your point but how can one scientifically prove that those layers were laid annually?

One of the problems with these discussions is what different people demand as “proof.” Scientists very often draw conclusions based on what is reasonable to believe. No, no one was present for 800,000 years to confirm that each layer that’s counted was deposited on an annual basis. There are, however, more reasonable reasons to believe that, such as what happens in current times, than there are reasonable reasons to believe otherwise. As a very minimum, laying down 800,000 layers in 6000 years would require a process that produced a distinctive, measurable layer some 133 times each year, or once less than every three days. Believing such a thing is simply not reasonable, and therefore reasonable people simply don’t believe it.

And part of believing what’s reasonable is how we believe different things that relate to the same questions. Everyone who pays attention to such things will understand and readily admit that there can be discrepancies in the results of different types of measurements of the Earth and the universe. The carbon 14 example gets cited by skeptics of the old universe theory because it was originally assumed that its supply and takeup by living organisms was constant. Later it was found (by scientists) that that wasn’t true, and therefore the results had to be reevaluated. That didn’t, however, change the basic fact that it could be used as a way of estimating the ages of formerly living materials. If a scientist could demonstrate that the rate of radioactive decay ever changes for a particular isotope, it would be hailed as one of the greatest discoveries ever. Plus, of course, none of the discrepancies that scientists have noted have been sufficient to change the reasonable belief that the Earth and universe are far, far older than suggested by biblical myth.

quote:

Originally posted by Icabod:
“ There are two schools of thought:
"Creation . . . and

"Evolution . . .
"You, as students, should understand what the supporters of each theory have to say."

Point of order. Which theory of creation are you promoting? There’s are numerous competing ones.

There’s young earth where creation 23 October 4004 BCE (Archbishop Usher)
Old earth where things are several thousand years old.
Punctuated earth where creation occur thousands of years apart. That’s much the same as “gap earth.
“Day earth” where the semantic “Day of the dinosaurs” covers the days of creation.
“Theistic”: “ God created the materials of our universe and then guided and superintended the process by which all life has evolved from the very simplest one-celled form on up to the sophisticated forms which we know today. Evolution was Gods method of bringing about the present development though originally the materials were created by God“
Then there is literal which “ The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.”
Last are the hundreds of creation narratives found in the world’s cultures. There’s no reason they can’t be accurate.

Better choose wisely, or you're not a real Christian.

I'm not going to go into a science vs religion debate. He's a new, non- tenured, teacher. He's an at-will employee. You don't need a reason.

quote:

Why are you saying that I am discarding that dating method based on my faith alone? I'm saying that the science doesn't support that dating method. You can prove that the rate of decay in those isotopes is constant? Are you intentionally dodging this?

I’m not at all dodging this. Are on dating is but one method, and not perfectly accurate. In fact, it’s usefulness doesn’t go beyond about 30,000 years. I don’t understand why you’re fixating up n are on dating alone; maybe because it’s not perfectly accurate, but other methods including historical records of humans themselves are applicable to date. A perfect example would be the afore mentioned sedimentary studies. Or fossils. Or paleo-peoples tools and byproducts. The processes of plate tectonics. Dinosaur fossils. Overwhelming evidence to the contrary of a 6000 year old planet.

quote:

Originally posted by houndawg:
I'm not going to go into a science vs religion debate. He's a new, non- tenured, teacher. He's an at-will employee. You don't need a reason.

this 100%. he's not meeting your standard.

(and I'm a Christian)

----------------------------------

Science doesn't draw conclusions, scientists do.

With regard to the OP. There will always be disagreement on the age of the Earth but I have to wonder why you would say that someone who has faith in God is mentally ill.
Why would teaching that CHLCA exists (with no fossil evidence) be ok?

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:. . . One of the problems with these discussions is what different people demand as “proof.” Scientists very often draw conclusions based on what is reasonable to believe. . . .

That is correct. And as I pointed out earlier, it is not uncommon in science for new scientific data to contradict current scientific belief.

quote:

Originally posted by newmexican:
Hello,...

I've never had to let a guy go for mental illness before, just trying to make sure I do it the right way.

Make sure your professional liability insurance is paid up. If this is the rabbit hole you decided to go down, you'll likely need it, badly. Hope whoever it is never sees your post.

I was taught to believe the earth was a jelly donut.



Gooey red stuff in the middle, surrounded by flaky crust.

The guy is a nut. Letting his evangelical fervor get in the way of both religion and science....which are both perfectly compatible and complimentary by the way.

Still....I’d go before the board even if he is not following the curriculum.

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:

That is correct. And as I pointed out earlier, it is not uncommon in science for new scientific data to contradict current scientific belief.

That's one of the many great things about science. It provides a framework to constantly seek new information and update our understanding with it.

sigfreund,

Thank you for responding to my question. These types of discussions can be difficult. I think the mistake many have made is trying to use what we currently know (or think we know in modern science) to draw absolute conclusions. I appreciate your point. It would seem that what is reasonable though, has changed drastically throughout the generations, which weakens for me the thought that I should believe what is true based upon what is reasonable to mankind at this point in time.

We all got here one way. I personally believe that we are told how that happened in the Bible. I consider myself to be a reasonable man and when I look at the incredible complexity, diversity, and balance of the world we live in, it seems very reasonable to me that an intelligent designer built it. To me, it actually defies reason that it all got here by cosmic chance. Of course, that involves some faith, but any theory as to how this all happened involves some faith in something, as I think most of us agree that it is impossible to prove anything. Maybe that faith is faith in ones own ability to reason, but it is still faith.

Among some of the things mentioned here that are hard to swallow, is someone referring to me and fellow Christians who do think it is reasonable that the earth is relatively young, as mentally ill or ignorant. One can see that I've been here for a while, but have a relatively low post count, although I come here multiple times a day. I just couldn't let that comment go without some sort of a response. Hopefully I've articulated my response well and haven't inadvertently insulted anyone.

Does your district have legal counsel? You should consult your school's lawyer, not your internet friends.

This is worth spending some legal fees on - make sure you are doing it right.

(He is wrong, and you can't reconcile evidence with a young earth, although many claim you can.)

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
Does your district have legal counsel? You should consult your school's lawyer, not your internet friends.

Amen. Seeking advice for something like this on a public forum can, and does, come back to bite one in the ass, especially given some of the OP's comments. If your evangelical Christian teacher decides to sue you and your district, there will be discovery, and you'll be deposed, and you comments will be portrayed as hostile, either against the teacher's religious beliefs, or his/her mental state. You do not want to be a defendant in a rights, or slander/libel lawsuit.

quote:

Originally posted by houndawg:
I'm not going to go into a science vs religion debate. He's a new, non- tenured, teacher. He's an at-will employee. You don't need a reason.

I take it you have detailed knowledge of the hiring and firing at his place of employment? Not just that, you encourage a guy who is professionally unqualified to label someone mentally ill to just go ahead a fire him?

Not sure the OP has the authority to hire or fire unless his school district’s info hasn’t been updated. Unprofessional to ask questions like this on a forum even if you are the Principal. You are clearly not qualified to determine someone’s mental health.

This whole thread is hilarious. Everyone know the Flying Spaghetti Monster invented the earth in his laboratory 9 weeks ago.

Despite my sympathies for the OP’s position and views, I absolutely agree with the comments about mental illness and the proper way to fire the man who isn’t performing his job properly.

I will, however, point something out that I’ve mentioned in other discussions about religious unbelief. I fully understand the concept of religious faith as “belief without evidence,” and very often its being belief in spite of contrary evidence. For many years I tried to reach that level of my own religious belief, and although I’m not sure I ever really did, it wasn’t for lack of wanting to.

Belief without evidence is of course not necessarily limited to religious issues. We might have faith that our spouse is not having a sexual relationship with another person despite the fact that we have no way of being certain. But that’s not exactly the same level of faith as belief in many religious tenets. Being able to watch and track all of our spouse’s activities isn’t the only evidence we may have about his/her fidelity. The same is true, but to a greater degree, about belief in science. We may not know and understand all the facts that support scientific beliefs, but they are not by definition unknowable. But what if they were? What if certain scientific “facts” can be challenged on the basis that they are nothing more than the unfounded beliefs of a few fallible human beings?

This where the problem comes in, and by problems, I mean problems for people who believe religious questions solely on the basis of faith. If you claim that my belief that the Earth and universe are billions of years old is equivalent to belief that God exists, what does that do to the whole discussion?

Glad you asked.

What it means is that I’m not required to have any more evidence for my beliefs than you are for your beliefs. You cannot attack my lack of evidence or any inconsistencies in the evidence any more than you believe your faith can be undermined for the same reasons. I don’t have to cite layers in ice cores, tree growth ring sequences, or the rate of the expansion of the universe; “I believe it, that settles it,” would be sufficient.

Faith is faith. There is no way to rank one faith above another—except by faith, and if you have faith that yours is true and mine is not, I may believe the same of mine versus yours, and we are on completely equal ground. You must therefore accept that I am every bit as justified in believing my beliefs as you are in believing yours. If you reject faith without evidence as a valid basis for any belief, then you have undermined and destroyed the basis for your own faith-based belief system.

In fact, of course, I and others who have scientific beliefs about such things as the age of the universe and biological evolution have vast quantities of factual evidence to support those beliefs. We therefore reject the accusation that our beliefs are baseless faith. But the next time someone accuses someone’s beliefs of being unjustified “faith,” consider what they are saying about their own beliefs.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sigfreund,

I know we have a few different conversations going, but here’s my reason why I think the broad acceptance of the “lies to children” idea is so damaging to science.

It conditions kids to believe a falsehood, and repeat it as truth, because it’s what a government approved authority told them to believe.

More importantly, it teaches them to accept a lie from an authority figure, over just being told “we don’t know, or it’s too complicated to explain in this setting.”

It spreads the myth of authority’s omniscience, and universal competence.

If they were taught the basics of polymerization, pH, classical physics, they could be taught truth, though limited in scope.

Maybe that can be done with plate tectonics - I have enough exposure to know it’s incredibly complicated, and that’s it.

Where I do know that “scientism” is a problem, is in areas where I have some experience.

TMK, there is not a current model for speciation. I think part of the problem is that, outside of very limited circles, geneticists and biochemists are very wary of discussing the failings of their models.

The other is in the carbon mess. The math for fossil fuels as a source of increased CO2 doesn’t work. Increase CO2 coming from a loss of organic matter in agricultural fields, and the resultant loss of permeability, productivity, and water retention, does explain a great deal.

TMK, every serious researcher/larger producer, etc is working on it. No one really disputes it, and there seem to be near term solutions.

But, as there’s no one to demonize, at least not in a simple fashion/extort money from, politicians don’t mention it.

Fishing for a lawsuit?

Get with the board of education and
write up a new contract of employment.
Include expectations, teaching criteria ect.
Also include failure to comply lingo, that could lead to termination. All teachers would need same contract so no discrimination.

If said teacher doesn't sign, problem solved. If said teacher does sign then you have a means to terminate employee at later date.

Still think said teacher is playing lawsuit chess.

Good Luck.