Oregon teacher fired after veering from evolution textbook

[tw]

PowerPoint presentation that made links between evolution, Nazi Germany and Planned Parenthood.

Now tell me what this means. To me: Zero. There is not one detail sufficient to draw anything but a classic emotional conclusion. For that matter, I want to see those links - that presentation. Either it is as others have only speculated, or it is a rather interesting analysis of perspective.

This is the same exact complain I had with so many here who believed George Jr's lies about WMDs. Those lies were justified by the exact same superficial assumptions being made here about this guy's presentation.

Well maybe those who decided to fire him first learned those details. Or maybe they used the same rational being used here. I don't know. What I do know is that people here have opinions without learning any of the necessary and sufficient details. That article tells us not one sufficient fact for anyone to have an opinion. The only thing we do know is that school administrators did meet with the teacher for 90 minutes before firing him. When is that sufficient for anyone here to have an opinion?

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by grant

What is a Masters degree in "Science"?

Shirley, you jest!

http://www.drscience.com/
How does Dr. Science know the secrets of the universe? He has a Masters Degree ... in Science!

[Skunks]

Originally Posted by Flint

Evolution can "legitimately stand on its own" according to an indisputable concensus, based on an overwhelming preponderance of evidence. It is under no threat from creationist claptrap, in the minds of educated adults. But we're talking about schoolchildren here, who are in a Science class. A transparent agenda to promote religious dogma is in no possible way "an alternative point of view" in a Science class.

I don't mean to say that what he did was right; simply that highschool students should be beyond the "impressionable" stage. To the point, at least, that a few bogus ideas will not 'pollute' them.

Originally Posted by tw

Now tell me what this means. To me: Zero. There is not one detail sufficient to draw anything but a classic emotional conclusion. For that matter, I want to see those links - that presentation. Either it is as others have only speculated, or it is a rather interesting analysis of perspective.

This is the same exact complain I had with so many here who believed George Jr's lies about WMDs. Those lies were justified by the exact same superficial assumptions being made here about this guy's presentation.

Well maybe those who decided to fire him first learned those details. Or maybe they used the same rational being used here. I don't know. What I do know is that people here have opinions without learning any of the necessary and sufficient details. That article tells us not one sufficient fact for anyone to have an opinion. The only thing we do know is that school administrators did meet with the teacher for 90 minutes before firing him. When is that sufficient for anyone here to have an opinion?

So, you think we should discuss a conspiracy involving the school administration and possibly the reporters lying about the Power Point presentation and what was said to the students?

[TheMercenary]

They should have warned him not to show it again and then fired him if he did or made references to his religious views in school if this was a public school.

[skysidhe]

well at least he only lasted eight days. Afterall, It took god himself to make the whole world in seven so.....no harm done and kudos to the school district for severing that ugly head.

[Griff]

Someone could put a nice little bow on those items (evolution,nazis, and PP) if he was talking about eugenics but I daresay he was probably way outside of the curriculum.

[tw]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

So, you think we should discuss a conspiracy involving the school administration and possibly the reporters lying about the Power Point presentation and what was said to the students?

Had I been giving the presentation, I would have also added propaganda from Listerine. But then I am now proposing a teacher's presentation that was completely different ... and still in complete agreement with the news report.

rkzenrage - you have implied one interpretation of the facts. That is also why I could saw through myths called 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'. I did not draw conclusions based in spin or implicataions. I used only facts and discovered many other 'realities'.

Well the school administration apparently sees things differently. Were they right? Not a single lurker here can say. Facts as posted here could say he was demonstrating example of spin and propaganda. Can you point to a fact that says otherwise? Only one. The school administration apparently concluded - and we can only speculate on this - concluded that he was not doing as the teacher claimed.

Nothing in those power point descriptions says anything definitive; only that a parent viewed the power point slides and drew a conclusion. We don't even know what the school administration concluded. Was the teacher promoting god? We only know what school board actions were.

Yeah.. I can see how this confuses some.. LOL! It's so vague.

included Biblical references in material he provided to students and gave a PowerPoint presentation that made links between evolution, Nazi Germany and Planned Parenthood.

[tw]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Yeah.. I can see how this confuses some.. LOL! It's so vague.

How do we discuss the Spanish Inquisition without discussiing biblical references that justified it? Oh. We just say the Spanish Inquisition is evil - completely ignore reasons why? Any discussion without underlying reasons is nothing more than propaganda. How would we discuss this logically without details - those Biblical references?

How do you discuss religious propaganda verse Nazi propaganda verses science of evolution when not including biblical references that are used as propaganda?

Nothing here says what the teacher did was for a logical discussion. School board actions imply otherwise. But we don't make decisions based in summary judgements. We make decisions based upon 'reasons why'. We have from that news article 'no reasons'. We have only enough to speculate two completely different conclusions. From those facts in a classic 'Daily News' type report, both incompatible conclusions are correct. That just cannot be. Newspaper facts are woefully insufficient for anything but wild speculation.

Only facts provided: 1) school board decision, 2) parent viewed power point slides, and 3) references were made to Bible quotes. We don't even know what those quotes were. IOW we have near zero information to make a decision about the teacher's intents.

[Perry Winkle]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

Shirley, you jest!

I'm serious...and don't call me Shirley!