Show me the court costs America, another wing-nut wants to challange the American legal system with an yet another brand of frivolous transcendental lunacy.

Despite differences in opinion in regards to abortion and birth control, planned parenthood is a helping organization. What a stupid remark to lose your job over.

How wacky. The distant common roots of the Eugenics movement - via Margaret Sanger's ABCL (American Birth Control League) to Planned Parenthood - and the evils of National Socialism belong in a history class, not a biology class.

What was this teacher thinking?

Doesn't sound like a "teacher" to me. More like a plant - now the nutjobs will sue the Sisters Schools over a perceived slight. Shiny Aluminum Helmets aside, there is a movement out there worming its way into the system so as to turn the system against the will of the majority population, and The Founders. When they don't get their way, they sue the academic institution at hand.

The Oregonian had a fair bit more detail about this story today. The teacher claims he was trying to encourage critical thinking, something we obviously need a lot more of, but I'm extremely skeptical. Social history is something we should all study, but he was supposed to be teaching biology. Darwinian evolution is an empirically based and tested scientific framework. Is it really necessary to point out that quoting religious scriptures is not a method open to empirical scientific testing?

How do these people become teachers in the first place?

Eugenics is the discredited science of removing human genetic matierial by force from a population to produce desired results. What Planned Parenthood does is NOT eugenics. It is informational for people attempting to decide what to do about reproduction. We assume that human being have conscious choices, which is the critical difference between animals and humans.

The confusion about what constitutes teaching in America deepens. Much of the blame lies with "degree mills" like Phoenix University, small religious schools funded by small cult-like endowments, and Online credits from major Universities. Much of the rest of the blame lies with the public, who are addicted to "conflict" media whether reality based, video games or "niche" politics with attacking heads on TV. Our technology advances have splintered the consensus we had about teaching and learning from 1800 to 1990. The Medium, as it turns out, is the Message.

Teachers must compete with all these channels, they are told, and so, inevitably, an underqualified, partly educated person can go the easy route and "teach the controversy!" for popularity points in class. Of course, these trumped up controversies are interesting to teenagers! Bigfoot: A Missing Evolutionary Link? Planned Parenthood: The Dark Side of Eugenics!... Pragmatism: John Dewey and the AntiChrist from Nostradamus' Own Words! might be good topic examples from degree mills which try to squeeze the "boredom" out of a stringent classical education.

I think, to qualify to teach, each prospective teacher needs a year of World Philosophy combined with World Service in their final year, and a 50 page written product. Anyone who cannot accomplish this cannot be a teacher anyway: its what we do daily, and anyone as apparently disconnected from reality as this young man cannot make sense of it.

Teacher Education needs to be upgraded, and teacher salaries along with it.

A public thank you to Rick T for his thought-provoking observations.

Rick T,

Your post got me to wondering. First, what is this consensus from 1800-1990 that you are talking about? Furthermore, granted there was a lack of schools in the South compared to the North in the Antebellum period, if there was a consensus from 1800-1990, which we then assume that Northern boys were learning the same "message" that Southern boys were, then why was there a Civil War? I would tell you that it was the Second Great Awakening. Remember that nutbag John Brown and Harper's Ferry?

Second, what do you mean by World Philosophy and how would you construct such a class? Is it possible considering all the myriad of religions and cultures present in the world?

Third, what do you mean by World Service? Do you mean a year in the Peace Corps? What about the U.S. military for World Service?

Fourth, any pseudo intellectual who gets his wisdom from reading a combination of Kant, Nietzsche, Plato, Rand, existentialism, nihilism and other philosophy can write 50 pages. Does that and living 30 years qualify a 50 page paper written by a pseudo intellectual as teacher quality? Or will we have some mandatory peer review from a panel of professors from private and public colleges who look at things such as degrees, grades and work experience for authority?

I am asking these because your post t has no sources to back the claim of a "consensus in teaching from 1800-1990." If you flame me and write circles around my questions, then I will understand. At least give me the exact source on this consensus on teaching from 1800-1990. This is all that I want.

[Ranting deleted. -editor.]

Young Oregon Voter: Your point is well taken. In brevity, I assumed too much consensus.

There is, however, an unbroken string of both religious and secular figures in America from 1620 to 1800 striving for Universal Literacy, a core currucula of common citizenship and a shared method for delivering it: the classroom. William Bradford, northerner, religious, spoke of it as did Thomas Jefferson, southerner, secular, and many many other influential early Americans. It was tough to get it going. Twain complained about "schoolin" , even as late as 1890, secular, southerner, and citations are too numerous to begin to list here. The consensus centers around the idea that citizenship in American Republic is crucial. Credibility in public depends upon one's ability to master written material and analyze, and debate.

Many have noticed that the Second Great Awakening produced a fervor on both sides of the slavery question, from violent abolitionists such as John Brown and violent slavery men, such as John Calhoun. The debate became a proxy for religious fervor, and prefigured violence. Until that time, slavery had been slated for slow extinction, not expansion, by the founders. Lincon's conscious use of non-religious language brought rationality and pragmatism to the issue, which some pro-slavery men knew was the death knell of the "peculiar institution."

As to a World Philosophy/World Service course, I am thinking of a Masters Level requirement where secualar, religious and professional people devise a course for all prospective teachers go to class AND serve at the same time, for a year. The resulting product, written, should demonstrate an awareness of the philosophical and cultural assumptions of the place where Service is being done. It would be perfect for people on Mission, in the Military, in the Peace Corps, or interning in places around the world, or within the US. We have a lot to learn about the world, especially if we insist on invading this and that country from time to time. It could only increase our chances of success in the future. I would think that interventionists and Nation Builders would agree with me.

Forgive me for assuming too much consensus, or for seeking it.

Rick T,

No problem at all. Your posts indicate that you are very well read in U.S. history. Whilst discussing the factors that led to Civil War let us not forget the economic aspect factors such as the tariffs imposed from the North onto the South dealing with cotton and the whole free or slave territory issue evident with the Mason Dixie Line and consequent lines, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, etc.

Anyways, thanks for posting and answering my question.

Was anybody else stunned to learn that Oregon State offers "a master's degree in science"?

Offering a Masters Degree in Science is like Hitler.

For me, the struggle in America, and in education, has always been to create a non-religious basis for decision making. As a Revolutionary general said, the Constitution was written by 55 founders and one ghost.. the ghost of Oliver Cromwell, religious zealot who killed and maimed and declared witches with each advance, leading to utter chaos against a corrupt king, himself a petulant and childish ruler who met the Roundheads bloody massacre for massacre. The founders were attempting to get beyond centuries of religious genocide in Europe, with the relatively new tools of reason.

If America has a religion, it is the Civic Religion Lincoln championed, based on reason, that flawed tool, because it is less flawed than waving the bloody shirt of one sect or another.

And the religious zealots still squeal, because they cant see the simple genius of that idea. Maybe the idea is not so simple after all; like common sense, it aint common.

From the O:

"Helphinstine won't elaborate about his own beliefs, saying only that the goal of teachers is to present the facts while concealing their own biases."

"But when asked, the student said, Helphinstine 'said he believed in parts of evolution, but that on the whole it was just ridiculous. There wasn't enough proof, he said.'"

How could this person have gotten a degree in science teaching and believe "that on the whole [evolution is] just ridiculous?" And that there isn't "enough proof?"

Isn't this a failure of university education?

You can teach them to read, and show them the books, and some of them will just chew on the pages.

Master's Degree in Science??

That sounds like the gag line from the old "Ask Dr. Science" radio show.

[Rant deleted. Greg Tompkins, you are no longer authorized to access this blog. Violations of the Oregon Computer Crime Law ORS 164.377 will be reported to the authorities. We're not kidding. -editor.]