Comments on: Describing creationism as ‘superstitious nonsense’ violates US law

By: DRUMS11

DRUMS11 — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 19:25:16 +0000

I believe the objectionable part of the teacher’s statement was “superstitious”; if he had said “creationism is nonsense” I believe he would have escaped unscathed from what was apparently an otherwise ridiculous lawsuit.

Realistically, the teacher was sued not only because the student is apparently offended by reality, but because he was openly disparaging religion, or at least christianity. Expressing himself without the cultural commentary would probably be a good idea, in any case.

By: 3tolove

3tolove — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 07:20:48 +0000

Regardless of my religious views (which differ from yours), Corbett is considered by the students at CVHS to be the finest teacher on campus. I have a junior & senior at CVHS and was shocked at the alums who lined the streets in support of this excellent teacher. I am disgusted by parents who would support (or dare I say engineer) this type of destructive attack on an educator who truly has passion for his work. I am much more concerned about other teachers who complain to the students (during valuable class time) about their contracts and salaries!

By: barriejohn

barriejohn — Mon, 11 May 2009 10:37:48 +0000

PS I wonder what he thinks of the contributors who have actually referred to him as a TROLL?

By: barriejohn

barriejohn — Mon, 11 May 2009 10:29:33 +0000

For those who may be in the dark, my "email" to Norman went like this: "Perhaps you would care to explain to Professor Stephen Hawking why, in your learned opinion, you consider his theories on the origin of the universe to be `wild speculation`! I`ve never read anything more stupid in my life!!" Apparently that constitutes a "mindless insult" in dear Norman`s eyes! I rest my case!!

By: Norman Lycan

Norman Lycan — Sun, 10 May 2009 23:34:58 +0000

Listen Barriejohn, I've done my homework. I've read theories ranging from superhot subatomic particles that spawned all matter, energy, space , and time. Theories about eruption from nothing and moments after involving theoretical particles called quarks. I know about dark matter that masks astrophysicist's bad math. Dark energy accelerating the galaxies apart (yet they are still colliding). I can talk to you about tacheons and how if they did exist, it disproves Einstein's theory of relitivity.

Keep your shit out of my email and bring a point to the forum, besides the top of your skull.

By: Norman Lycan

Norman Lycan — Sun, 10 May 2009 23:34:20 +0000

Barriejohn,

If you have issues with statements I made, make your counterpoints here in front of the forum, and I will answer them. Please keep you mindless insults, desperate bile, and childish vitriol out of my email.

Then explain how you make something out of nothing, and I will be your convert. The origin of the universe will be solved.

Here's something for you to ridicule. The universe equals zero. Something like the more you love someone, the more you suffer at their inevitable loss. If you could force apart zero, into negative one(electron) and positive one (proton) you'd have a hydrogen atom. The most plentiful element in the universe, which make up stars. The collapse of those stars is known to have formed all the other elements. So the universe starts at zero, and of course ends at zero, all you have to do is explain how zero was split.

Ridiculous right? But the big bang is no different. It's the old question of the chicken and the egg. No matter how far you go back, you are always left with a valid intellectual question of origin.

By: William Harwood

William Harwood — Sun, 10 May 2009 16:19:59 +0000

Three proofs that humans were not intelligently designed : urine, excrement and menstruation. Anyone who thinks ID is something other than unmitigated religion should ask himself why all books defending ID have been written by persons who make no secret that they view "ID" as a synonym for "God," and why no legitimate, peer-reviewed science journal has ever published the desperate doublethink of any ID proponent., including Behe and Dembski. For the definitive debunking of ID, see Unintelligent Design by Mark Perakh; Intelligent Design ed by Robert M. Baird; The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins; God, the Devil and Darwin by Niall Shanks; Why Intelligent Design Fails by Matt Young; Scientific Malpracttice by Ivan Zabilka; and Scientists Confront Creationism ed by Laurie Godrey. In the light of evidence no further away than the nearest university library, anyone who still calls himself an agnostic (the situation was quite different a century ago) is deluding himself that what HE does not know is unknowable.

By: barriejohn

barriejohn — Sun, 10 May 2009 12:06:37 +0000

Perhaps you would care to explain to Professor Stephen Hawking the reasons why, in your learned opinion, you consider his theories on the origin of the universe to be "wild speculation"! I`ve never read anything more stupid in my life!!

By: Stonyground

Stonyground — Sun, 10 May 2009 11:02:41 +0000

Excellent post Mr. Corbett, I think I will have to return to it to mine it for my quote file. I wish that there had been teachers like you at my school, I attended a bog standard comprehensive in the nineteen-seventies and looking back I think it was a pit of mediocracy. I was a pretty unimpressive student but I consider myself to be of above average intelligence and could probably been much better had anyone at that time inspired me to be. My twelve year old daughter now attends the same school and it has changed beyond recognition, much better.

By: barry_duke

barry_duke — Sun, 10 May 2009 09:07:28 +0000

"I hate the software on this site. I won't allow me to select a statement without selecting an entire post."

Norman, I have just selected and copied the first para of your comment without any problem, so there is nowt wrong with the software as far as I can see,