In today’s OC Reg, Scott Martindale interviews embattled Capistrano Valley High School history instructor James Corbett—he of “Jesus glasses” infamy. ('I'm never negative toward religion')
Know about his case? Martindale explains:
Corbett, 62…routinely brings up divisive topics in class and often makes inflammatory statements about religion. It's all part of his effort to "provoke" students to think critically about "changes in religious thought and institutions," he says.
The class in question, after all, is a college-level Advanced Placement European history course that has religion as one of its key themes.
"I'm never negative toward religion," Corbett said. "I'm negative toward the actions of some churches toward religion. It's not disparaging religion to point out that the Renaissance popes were a bunch of whacks."
About six months ago, Corbett offended Chad Farnan, a Christian student. That ultimately provoked a lawsuit. The matter recently reached the courtroom, where Corbett was “found to have violated the First Amendment for referring to Creationism as ‘religious, superstitious nonsense’”:
District Judge James Selna…found that by making the "nonsense" remark about Creationism, Corbett violated the First Amendment's establishment clause. ... Selna, however, dismissed more than 20 other statements attributed to Corbett … in the lawsuit as not being violations….
Corbett hasn’t decided yet whether he’ll appeal.
I hope the district is paying his legal bills. If not, he could take a terrible hit.
Q. How does your teaching style differ from your colleagues'?
A. … I try to relate what we read in history to what's going on now. ...[T]he majority of the kids find history to be the most boring class. The reason they hate it is because it's dry and irrelevant.
Q. You were found to have violated the First Amendment's establishment clause when you discussed a 1993 court case involving your former colleague, science teacher John Peloza, who sued for the right not to have to teach evolution. You told your class, "I will not leave John Peloza alone to propagandize kids with this religious, superstitious nonsense." The court said you were referring to Creationism. Do you agree?
A. I was referring to the way John Peloza was teaching in his biology classroom, not Creationism. He was leading kids to the understanding that there were major scientific flaws in evolution. As a matter of science, there really aren't….
…
…When people say, let's teach both sides of the evolution debate, well, there is no both sides. There is science and there is religion.
Q. What is your approach to addressing religion with your students?
A. So many people think that sitting around in a school or mosque of church or synagogue or temple and memorizing large amounts of information is knowledge. It's not knowledge; it's indoctrination. The fact that I force people to think about other ways doesn't mean I'm anti-Christian. I regularly say, "Look, there's belief and I don't care what you believe. But there's also history and science.”….
Q. People have accused you of being anti-Christian. What are your personal religious convictions?
A. The most important words ever spoken are: "Love your neighbors as yourself," "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and "Judge not, lest you be judged." We hear those words from a lot of religions. That's what I believe – that's the core of it. I'm eclectic with religion. I was baptized Catholic and have worn a Celtic cross around my neck for the past 50 years. Right now, I'd call myself a smorgasbord Catholic. Occasionally, I go to a church on holidays. And I often stand behind the curtains at Crossline Church (a nondenominational Christian church that meets at Capistrano Valley High on Sundays) and listen to the sermon. They are intellectually stimulating, and they can often provide you with a perspective on major issues of the day. I like to hear what anybody has to say….
If we can take all of his comments seriously, they portray a Corbett that is, oh, complex. He doesn't strike me as a very consistent thinker. That's not necessarily a terrible thing.
For what it's worth, anyone familiar with science and its methods will agree that the notion that there are scientific "flaws" in "evolution" (i.e., the body of theory concerning natural selection, genetics, etc.) is nonsense. That body of theory is one of science's great success stories. Within the sciences, there are no "two sides" about evolution. (As one of my students suggested recently, this business about "evolution being just a theory" commits the fallacy of equivocation. The enemies of evolution are often word cheaters.)
Corbett uses provocation as a teaching method, and this means that some of his classroom remarks should not be taken at face value. Even so, I find his assertion that he is never "negative" toward religion implausible.
Clearly, he is negative toward religion—even in the classroom. He should just say so. He is hostile to it, at least in some of his moods. The question is, should he be allowed to be hostile toward (or dismissive of, etc.) religion in the classroom?
If his classroom were in a college, I think the answer is clearly "yes." Not sure about public K-12.
You can be honestly atheistic or agnostic without being hostile to religion, I find. Science is not about certainties, but probabilities. Its methods discourage dogmatism even about what is well-established. And it is plain that there is much about the nature of the universe that scientists don't have a clue about. They will have a clue, I think, but, for now, they're frustrated with their cluelessness.
I dunno. Seems to me that a certain humility about "what we know" is appropriate in the sciences. One who approaches religion and faith from that perspective seems less of a threat, I think.
Corbett compares his students to puppies. He should go easier on his pups, I say. Don't be kickin' 'em.
But I don't think we should kick Corbett either.
18 comments:
The guilty are always remorse after the fact.
Wait, so let me just get this clear...It's nonsense to say that there are scientific flaws in evolution. But, as you say, "science is not about certainties, but probabilities," and that science's (whatever "science" even is) methods "discourage dogmatism" about the well-established.
So, I take it from the first statement I quoted from you means that evolution is "well-established." Yet, science, as you say, is not about certainties. You can't have it both ways, it seems to me. Maybe I'm wrong here.
If we can only accept evolution to a particular degree of probability, then I wonder if the reason that the degree of probability is not 1, is because there are in fact "flaws." Now, flaws need not be errors that prove the theory false. They're just flaws. There is no one theory of evolution, and many evolutionary theorists think there are problems with others. I think that evolution (as a whole) does have (serious) flaws but could still remain reasonable to believe, much like most of what we find reasonable to believe. If evolution is not a certainty, and indeed a matter of probability, then I respectfully think that you are mistaken about claiming that there are flaws in evolution being nonsense. But, perhaps I am misunderstanding you.
10:07, there's no contradiction here. To say that scientific knowledge is probabilistic is not to say that it is flawed, but that it is not certain. Our knowledge that the sun will rise tomorrow is probabilistic—that it should fail to rise is in some sense possible and is certainly conceivable—and yet that belief is not "flawed." It is very likely true. Tomorrow, we'll be able to say that, sure enough, it was true.
You say that there are many theories of evolution, but I'm not sure what you mean by that. That species change over time is a belief that is beyond question, given the overwhelming evidence. Several theories (Lamark, et al.) have been offered to account for this, but biologists do not now deny that Darwinian natural selection is a central mechanism accounting for evolutionary change.
I think that people sometimes confuse the fact that scientists do not yet have an explanation for some phenomena with the notion that their thinking is "flawed." Scientists are perfectly aware that theories (or bodies of related theory), even when likely correct, do not explain everything, but that future data and theory (possibly compatible with existing theory) will eventually provide answers. Incompleteness is not erroneousness.
I find it absurd that the judge found Corbett to have violated the "establishment" clause by making remarks in class. What??? One teacher, known to be an iconoclast and provocateur, makes comments that denigrate some religious beliefs in some class sessions: how does this come anywhere close to the State promulgating any particular religion (or even promulgating atheism)? Perhaps the judge regards students as far more fragile and impressionable (and attentive!) than they are. Really a disturbing finding.
I don't think Corbett is consistent or wise, that's for sure; but I agree that we shouldn't kick him--and neither should the legal system.
Mad as Hell: I think I agree with you; on the other hand, the Martindale article included this remark (which I ommitted): "The Santa Ana judge found that by making the 'nonsense' remark about Creationism, Corbett violated the First Amendment's establishment clause. The clause has been interpreted over the years to prohibit government employees from displaying hostility toward religion." I guess the idea is that "atheism" is a view about religion, even if it is not itself a religious view (or religion), and "teaching" it (if that can be said in this case, which I doubt) is contrary to the spirit of the Constitutional protection. Maybe.
Like you, I hope that Corbett survives unscathed. I also hope that he sees the wisdom of dialing back his "provocations"--or at least make more clear to his students that they are a method used to inspire thought, not to erase religious belief. -R
Interesting--and this remark, with your explanation, helps to make the ruling seem far more plausible. It helps, too, if I imagine a public school teacher displaying hostility toward atheism (which surely happens far more often than its counterpart): I can see interpreting *that* as a violation of the establishment clause. So in consistency, I have to see the court's interpretation as (after all) reasonable.
Still, like you, I don't know if making hostile remarks occasionally can be interpreted as "teaching" a given view. Again echoing you: maybe.
Thanks for the helpful elaboration.
--MAH
I'm always intrigued when people say, as you do, that future data and evidence will provide answers. I want to go based on the evidence I have now.
I agree with you that incompleteness is not erroneousness, but I think also that disagreeing with the "overwhelming evidence" is not nonsense, unless you're claiming that there is a contradiction resulting here. Is overwhelming evidence "conclusive" evidence? My whole point was that if there is a chance (however small) of a theory being incorrect, then to disagree with it is not nonsense. If however, there is a 100% degree of likelihood that a theory is true, then you are absolutely right that disagreement would be nonsense.
I would humbly submit, though, that nonsense may be a matter of degree, just as is the preponderance of the evidence. The stronger the evidence, the closer one approaches (in disagreeing) to nonsense. Seems accurate, then, to me, to declare disagreeing with natural selection, at this point, to be nonsense.
Since I am such a fool for science, I have to submit my childish, and a little belated, thoughts on this topic:
Science is about challenging the accepted ideas and then replacing them with better ones. It's humble because no scientist puts forth an idea and goes "There, I've answered all the questions the world had to ask." Instead, it is quite the opposite: a scientist comes up with a solution, then submits it to his peers for review knowing full well that all he has probably succeeded in doing is explaining the current set of problems and creating even more questions in place of these old problems. This is how science advances. A scientist who thinks he 'solved the universe' is probably a sad scientist.
It might be nonsense to challenge an idea because the really good theories answer a lot of questions and make predictions that are eventually demonstrated within some bounds of error. The predicted results are repeatable, again and again, so much that they are absorbed in to our intuition and we rephrase them as though there was never a doubt in our minds. However, I say, challenging major ideas is perfectly acceptable, so long as you have damned good scientific explanations. Using Chunk's sun-rising example: The theory that the sun will rise tomorrow has overwhelming amounts of evidence. For billions of years the sun has risen, then set again, rinse, repeat, etc. We can predict it! Consult your local news channel and they will tell you right when it will rise. To challenge this is nonsense; unless you have a good explanation (e.g. the Earth stopped spinning, etc.).
Re Corbett: It's a complicated thing for me, my gut reaction is that he did no wrong and I hope he comes out unscathed. After thoughts, I would consider it unnecessary for him to behave in such a manner, and I agree with Chunk that he clearly has issues with religion. Note, I have been consulting the Russell Kirk principles whenever this matter comes up in an attempt to understand Chunk's point of view. It's hard to contend with.
BS, you just get better and better. I'm impressed. One thing, though. I drew attention to Kirk's principles not because I embrace them (although I do find merit in most of them) but because I felt that contemporary conservatives need to understand the roots of conservatism, something about which Kirk had lots to say. If one studies conservatism, one can find an interesting doctrine with something (sometimes wise things) to say. The "conservatives" of the moment, with rare exceptions, seem to have no grasp of these ideas.
Yes, BS, you *do* get better and better. Though it sounds as though you are leaving IVC, please don't ever leave this blog. Your contributions are always more than worthwhile.
MAH
Don't be so quick to defend evolution just because the wingnuts hate it. Darwin led to the worst colonial, militarist, attrocity and stock market abuses in history. Lamarkian inhertiance and mitochondrial DNA show that Darwin was not all he is crackered up to be. So don't defend him! These angry white talk radio males need universal health care so they can finally see a psychistrist. We also need to psychiatrically regulate the preachers and teachers who influenced such creatures. That is what homeland security is really about.
Aw, you guys... *bashfully kicks the dirt*
Chunk: Thank you for the kind words Chunkerton, and the clarification. I didn't take myself to seriously on considering that you "followed" the principles. Didn't seem a Chunk-ish thing to do.
MAH: Same to you MAH, you guys are fantastic for my self-esteem. I haven't been in Chunk's class in over two years now. My thoughts regarding the blog have gone from "How weird, my druid teacher has a blog," to "What a wonderful little community of minds we have here." Trust me, my transition to UCI won't even be noticed (but I was thinking about phasing my alias out). Though, rumor has it some friends and I might come back and haunt the math tutoring center. Nevermind that though.
Vernon: Don't be so quick to jump on bandwagons. Darwin's atrocities have no bearing on the truthiness of his theory, so your attacks are absurd. Note also there are significant differences between the theory known as Darwinism and the more modern Theory of Evolution. And when you say psychiatrically regulate what the hell do you mean?
That's exactly what we have here, BS: a "wonderful little community of minds." I've been mightily appreciating that lately. Thank you for making it possible, Chunk. (*affectionately punches Chunk in the arm*)
Anyway, do stick around, BS.
--MAH
Now, Vernon, hasn't anyone ever explained to you the difference between Darwin's *biological* theory and the warped, self-serving misunderstanding of it called "social Darwinism"? The two have nothing to do with one another, and only the latter, a product of selfish, confused, or disingenuous minds, purported to defend colonialism and many other ills. Darwin actually held quite a compassionate perspective--strikingly so when one considers his era. And again, ethical claims have nothing to do with his explanation of how life evolves.
Vernon: However, what you say about the angry, white talk radio males is hilarious--and oh, so true.
MAH
From what I understand about science:
Law = absolute certainty, i.e. Newton’s Laws & Kepler’s Laws.
Theory = high probability of certainty with a margin of uncertainty or error, i.e. Darwin’s THEORY of Evolution.
I wouldn't be surprised if the kid's dad is an attorney, and in fact the one who brought the lawsuit. Did the kid ever get the teacher’s permission to record his lectures? That’s another case in itself. Attorneys are opportunistic beings always looking for that pie-in-the-sky precedent-setting case for which they can take credit. Like procreating, a precedent-setting case fulfils their need to live on after death.
5:26, your understanding is erroneous. A law is an alleged universal regularity in nature. For instance, Kepler's laws of planetary motion (e.g., that planetary orbits are elliptical) are descriptions of such alleged universal regularities. BUT THINK ABOUT IT. If a law describes how something behaves throughout the universe and throughout time, then the only being who can determine with certainty whether or that something is a law is an omniscient being. Scientists, you'll observe, fail to have this characteristic. Perhaps you have it. In that case, I wouldn't bother with this blog. In any case, when scientists speak of laws, they are aware that the law-like status of these laws is not proved. The most that can be said is that these laws are "probably" so, not certainly so. Again, for God, it would be different. If, that is, there were such a fellow, which I doubt. But I can't be certain. Ha ha ha!
Post a Comment