Creationism was the real reason the school decided not to show Al Gores movie.

[sarcasmo]

I forget the name of the School or School District that decided it needed another view point before they could show Al Gores movie. Here is the response I received from the school board.

Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns. I write this
intending to express my own views and not the views of other board
members.
I will set forth the salient points below on what we did and why we did
it. I will not be replying to your replies.
1. We did not ban or censor the movie and have no intent to do so.
Teachers can use it as they see fit if they follow policy on movies and
controversial issues. All we requested is that the policies be followed.
2. We are not banning the teaching of global warming.
3. The debate on global warming is beneficial to society and limiting the
debate to only one side’s view of the established facts would not be good
for anyone even if they believe the debate is over.
4. Our policies are designed to make sure that the door is open for more
debate on issues, not less.
5. The decision was made on existing policy. It was not based on
anyone’s direct belief regarding politics, science, religion, or when the
earth was formed.
6. Policy 2331 and 2331P (see below) is intended to prevent one-sided
views of controversial issues.
7. The action was based upon the fact that a teacher intended to show the
movie without presenting an opposing view, which was in violation of
existing policy. There was also an offer last week by the proponents of
the movie to give 50,000 copies to teachers across the country to use as
curriculum, which would have increased the chance that the movie would be
used. There was more than one complaint/concern expressed about this
issue based upon that alone.
8. The policy should be equally enforced regardless of what side of the
spectrum any controversial issue falls upon. This protects the integrity
of the education process. I would have made the same decision if the
movie was about the Iraq war or some other issue and was narrated by
George W. Bush or other partisan, and even if the proponents felt the
debate was over on the topic they were presenting.
9. The partisan aspect of any issue makes it controversial per se in my
opinion. Our schools will not be used as a farm team for any political
party and we will protect against even the appearance of political
indoctrination.
10. Science and politics are merged on this issue. The political aspect
of this is what makes it the most controversial, especially when a
political partisan makes the presentation. With that in mind, there are
many other ways to teach global warming instead of using a feature film by
a political partisan (see links below from NOAA and NASA that have have
references to skeptics), but despite that belief on my part, I still did
not vote to "ban" the movie even though I had the power to do so. I also
had the power to compel other sources be used instead of the movie and did
not do that either.
11. On the issue of how final the debate is, I wonder if Galileo or other
out of the box thinkers would have ever made their discoveries had they
not questioned what was perceived to be the determined "facts" of the day
by those in power. I understand there was a religious component to
quashing debate during their times, but does it matter what the source is
that quashes debate when some think the debate is over? Those who believe
science is infallible need a history lesson. Research what was thought to
be scientific fact 50 or 100 years ago and you will truly understand why I
believe in debate, even about science and even when some think the debate
is over.
12. Some of you have made strained analogies to creationism and other
ridiculous examples of opposing views. First, creationism raises
constitutional issues that global warming does not. As to ridiculous
examples, I am confident that the marketplace of ideas will quickly
dismiss those examples.
In sum, simply asking for duly adopted policy to be followed by making
sure opposing views are presented when a political partisan presents a
contested political/scientific issue to impressionable youth is not too
much to ask for in a free society. You are entitled to disagree and that
is what makes this country great.

Thank you.

Dave Larson


"Creationism raises constitutional issues that global warming does not"
That statement in itself raises a red flag and IMHO makes this a Global Warming VS Creationism issue.

[SCDem]

1. Science vs. Denial

The Republican Party has been successful at pitting science vs religion. They can co-exist peacefully. There are so many individuals in the faith community (Catholic, Methodist etc) that are very concerned about the environment and are taking Mr Gore's message and movie seriously. A lot of what the media focuses on may not be the main stream. It is unfortunate to see but don't think it is the norm for the state or the region.

The Republican Congress has brought us to a point where it is
science based environmental policy vs faith-based let's ignore it anti-environmental policy

[PDJane]

2. Federal Way Schools.

And it was one (1) parent who initiated this whole thing.

From the Seattle Post Intelligencer :

"Condoms don't belong in school, and neither does Al Gore. He's not a schoolteacher," said Frosty Hardison, a parent of seven who also said that he believes the Earth is 14,000 years old. "The information that's being presented is a very cockeyed view of what the truth is.... The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn't in the DVD."

It must be something in the water.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. Well, how can that guy claim the earth is 14,000 years old, when

the bible clears shows that it is 6000 years old! What is he, some kind of heretic?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Yes.

There are a lot of similarities between Creationism and Global Warming denial.

[gatorboy]

4. Here's a link to my thread on the matter:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3098722&mesg_id=3098722

[bananas]

6. That seems a reasonable response

The fact that Al Gore was a Dem politician makes it an extremely partisan issue. I don't think item #12 implies what this is Global Warming vs Creationism, he's saying that some people have been trying to make invalid comparisons between showing this movie without rebuttal and teaching Creationism in science class.

[Pab Sungenis]

7. So do we need to offer an "opposing viewpoint"

If we show "Shoah?" Or "Schindler's List?" Or "The Diary Of Anne Frank?"

[Sapere aude]

8. The problem for me is that creationism is based on faith and evolution is based on science.

They are not opposing views of the same thing. An opposing view of evolution would be another view founded on science also. Creationists have made up their own science and that does not follow the scientific method. They have made up their minds and then discover pseudo scientific facts to support it.

Many conservative views come from conservative dogma and ideology and society has given them equal weight with rational thought. Bill Clinton talked about this last month.

Imagine the howl if when discussing creationism and evolution the teacher said that one is based on faith and the bible and one is based on scientific studies.

[Bill McBlueState]

9. that's messed up

He makes the claim that controversial and non-controversial subjects need to be treated differently. But who gets to decide what's controversial?

If a bunch of angry halfwits come to a school board meeting yelling about how their god says that a=b does not imply that b=a, does that mean that students will then have to spend two weeks hearing opposing viewpoints about the reflexive property of algebra?