She should know the law (and history) of teaching any form of creationism in public schools. I used the term “we” as a member of the country’s premier church/state separation legal group - FFRF.org
Sure, when speaking as a government employee. I don’t think you have a case.
4 Likes
Where do you see here teaching creationism in a public school?
One may hope that those in charge of FFRF are more rational in their work than you are being here.
4 Likes
It certainly is. She is speaking as the Curriculum Coordinator for Science for Sonoma County. Biologos highlights this in the column. Plus read the very last paragraph where she is talking about what the church should do? Why is a government official talking about church issues?
No, that’s just what her job is. Where does she teach, or advocate teaching, creationism in public schools?
3 Likes
I am not sure I would agree with this. Can you define both and show how they are equivalent?
Sorry, Bill. But I have no particular interest in what you are sure about.
She doesn’t teach. She is not in the classroom at all. She has a county staff job working on science curriculum. She is required to make sure that the science curriculum follows State guidelines and adhere to approved textbooks and that teachers adhere to them.
So she is not in the classroom at all. What is the evidence that she is causing or encouraging anyone to teach religion in the classroom in her county staff job working on science curriculum? (Even if the curriculum acknowledges that many in our society have religious beliefs which can potentially interfere with evolutionary biology education, that is not teaching religion in the classroom.)
What am I missing?
Are you claiming that she hasn’t done that? If so, on what basis? If not, what’s your point?
2 Likes
The two Biologos columns she wrote and published on the Biologos website under her name and title as the Cirriculum Coordinator for Science for Sonoma County.
She is probably doing a fine job at work in this regard. The problem I have is that she shouldn’t be publishing anything on Biologos. It gives the impression of a church/state entanglement.
Creationism, by definition in most any English lexicon, describes the world as created by divine action. You might want to start a new thread on this topic if you wish to explore the definitions of creationism and religion.
1 Like
Ah, so you didn’t actually have a point in that last post. It gives the impression to you and, I suspect, to nobody else. Is the FFRF officially involved in this crusade of yours?
3 Likes
Yes. It is the primary mission of FFRF. Keeping religion out of government. We do mean things like getting Live Nativity scenes out of school Christmas plays.
We’ll see what impression it gives to the Director of the California Department of Education - a political appointee by the Governor of California.
Do you then consider all Christians, Jews, and Muslims creationists? What if one believes in creation strictly based on evidence and not tied to any religious belief?
I meant this specific case.
It just popped up like all the rest. They are really easy to find.
Not just me. The classic definition of “creationist” (until just a few decades ago when it began to be understood as a synonym for Young Earth Creationist by many Americans) has always included Christians, Jews, and Muslims.
There are so few of such people that there is no standard term that I’ve ever heard about for referring to them.