Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

High School Biology Teacher Fired

March 29, 2007
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Veering From Evolution

Kris Helphinstine

Fired teacher explains his presentation
By Christopher Stollar / The Bulletin
Published: March 25. 2007 5:00AM PST

On Wednesday, March 14, eight days into a new job teaching biology at Sisters High School, Kris Helphinstine showed a class of freshman and sophomore students pictures of naked corpses, a Nazi swastika and Charles Darwin in a PowerPoint presentation.

“What do these pictures have in common?” the 27-year-old part-time teacher asked the 30 students.

They listened as Helphinstine gave a roughly hourlong presentation, explaining how the Third Reich perverted evolution and eugenics to slaughter Jews and Gypsies in death camps to protect the “superior race.”

Read the rest of the article at the link above.

Watch the KTVZ NewsChannel 21 interview of Kris here. Listen to him say he blacked out all biblical references in the supplementary material he handed out.

Read the supplement with “biblical references” Kris handed out and try to find any biblical or religious references! HT to UD member Janice for locating a copy of the supplement.

Read the response from Answers In Genesis here.

See the powerpoint Eugenics slideshow here or view it as a pdf here if you can’t view ppt slides.

Eugenics Deniers are coming out of the woodwork.

Comments
Frankly, given the political climate, referencing answersingenesis is kind of asking for trouble.
Let's say hypothetically he were teaching creationism in a Christian school. Such a presentation would be irresponsible, imho. And I certainly wouldn't want kids going to the AiG website even in such a context. Even though I consider myself friendly to the creationist position, I generally don't think highly of referring kids to AiG's website. AiG is not a good role model for creationist children..... [www.creationscience.com is a better website] The eugenics/genocide argument should be used judiciously. What if, to be fair, I started pointing out the practice of the ancient Israelites who practiced not only eugenics but outright genocide in the land of Caanan? One could argue his presentation was not fair in that he insinuates eugenics/genocide was tied to Darwinism exclusively. I gave a presentation at McLean Bible Church on YEC last week. I didn't use AiG materials, and I didn't use the Darwinism Nazi connection. Even if there is a Darin/Nazi connection (which I believe there is), it's a double-edged sword for the very reason genocide is abudantly promoted in the Old Testament. It may be that Darwinist parents want to have Darwinist untruth fed to their children. They have that right. There is the issue however of the pro-ID parents who want truth given to their children in public schools. There are probably better ways of handling this issue than the he handled it.scordova
March 29, 2007
March
03
Mar
29
29
2007
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
"everywhere you turn it's there...is being pushed to remake our world as the materialist thinks it “ought” to be." --Rude I'm speaking in terms of how philosophers have considered the issue, not necessarily about political pundits have. If people make such arguments--and I'm certain they do--and base them on "nature" as such, then they are subject to the same is/ought criticism. That's not to say it automatically refutes them, but it does mean they must take on all the baggage that that sort of reasoning entails. "Maybe not, but put the other way around, if Darwin was right then we have no basis for ethics." --Rude Then what would you say to a theistic evolutionist? Or a utilitarian? Or a Roman Catholic, for that matter? There are a number of contemporary moral systems and belief systems that are not inherently opposed to Darwinism.great_ape
March 29, 2007
March
03
Mar
29
29
2007
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT
SteveB I wonder if eugenics is a topic on any 10th grade science curriculum anywhere in the nation. I suspect not. You suspect wrong. Lots of them do. Interestingly, knowledge of eugenics was a specific standard to be met in the 2005 and 2006 Kansas Science Education Standards (page 103) but was removed in 2007. Since the 2007 standards were approved just last month I presume the 2006 standard is still being taught. I guess the evilutionists who took over the majority of the Kansas BoE this year want to hide the evils of science. No surprise there. DaveScot
March 29, 2007
March
03
Mar
29
29
2007
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
Personally I don't think that origins determine the validity of morality. Of course that's just my personal opinion, but I suspect its an opinion that a lot of people have. If somebody could prove to me today that the Neo-Darwinian view of life is correct, they couldn't prove to me that eugenics or rape or whatever is morally acceptable. I think ethics and morals transcend the issue, although certainly either side can use the issue as leverage to promote an agenda. I also don't think that showing the worst potential implication of a belief is the way to prove that the belief is wrong. Doing that requires accepting anything good derived from that belief as evidence to support it. People can find good or bad on either side of the issue. From what I've seen, the scientific evidence supporting ID is overwhelming. It's going to eventually win on its merits. Criticizing the implications of the other side (I think) makes us look like we can't back up our claims with facts so we resort to philosophical battles.dl
March 29, 2007
March
03
Mar
29
29
2007
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT
Great Ape: “Since the enlightenment, scarce few thinkers have considered it rational or proper to extract moral imperatives from the empirical state of the world.” I can’t believe you said that! Everywhere you turn it’s there—bioethics, evolutionary psychology, the mandate to celebrate sodomy with special rights—everywhere the supposed “is” of materialism (of rats and bonobos and everything else) is being pushed to remake our world as the materialist thinks it “ought” to be. “…the connection between Darwin and eugenics really has no bearing on the truth of falsehood of evolution [I think you mean Darwinism].” Maybe not, but put the other way around, if Darwin was right then we have no basis for ethics.Rude
March 29, 2007
March
03
Mar
29
29
2007
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
"Therefore if Darwinism is true and if eugenics is a logical consequence of Darwinism (it is) then our idea on the value of life is wrong." --Borne To say that eugenics was/is a logical consequence of Darwinism--in the strong and binding sense that I take Borne to be suggesting that it is--would appear to necessitate deriving an "ought" from an "is." That is, we *ought* to initiate a human breeding program that would somehow recapitulate or enhance natural selection. This would, in Borne's logic, appear to be mandated because such a process *is* what we believe to generate populations of superior specimens in nature. The state of the empirical world, in this case, generates our moral mandates. Since the enlightenment, scarce few thinkers have considered it rational or proper to extract moral imperatives from the empirical state of the world. This was one of the decisive arguments *against* social darwinist policies and eugenics. Thus to say Darwinism logically compels one towards a moral view where eugenics is required would entail one *conceding* the notion that you can move, logically, from an "is" to an "ought." And I would think long and hard before I embraced that particular transformation because it has some far-reaching and rather unpleasant implications. Now there is a weaker sense in which Darwinism "leads" to eugenics. In this sense, the concepts of Darwinism allows one to conceive and *entertain* the notion of eugenics. I believe it is this weaker sense that applies here. And sense we are not *compelled* by darwinism towards eugenics, there is no *necessary* contradiction between accepting darwinism along with the values Borne spoke of. But under this weaker sense of "darwinism leads to eugenics," the connection between Darwin and eugenics really has no bearing on the truth of falsehood of evolution.great_ape
March 29, 2007
March
03
Mar
29
29
2007
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT
Exactly! The loathsome implications of Darwinism would make me want to refute it, and once the falsity of the faith is demonstrated logically and empirically then bringing up its devastating implications is important. We tolerate all kinds of myths—urban legends, chupacabras, astrology—but when they have caused as much murder and mayhem as Darwinism then it’s time to speak up. And why should an elitist myth be forced on us at taxpayer expense? and myth-deniers be so mercilessly opposed? Maybe because it's an elitist myth and it takes a child or one outside the power circle to see that "the emperor has no clothes"?Rude
March 29, 2007
March
03
Mar
29
29
2007
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT
dl, "it seems like the teacher was trying to inject philosophy into science class." That's how I see it as well. Further, he was trying to emply "shock value". I really question whether such tactics are wise when the audience has not reached the age of majority, where the audience is still legally, well, children. dl, "I think trying to undermine a scientific argument by its implications (potential or actual) is not a good idea. If Neo-darwinism is true, its true whether or not eugenics is a consequence. If its false, its false." I wholeheartedly agree!bFast
March 29, 2007
March
03
Mar
29
29
2007
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT
"In the 2003 essay about poodles, Ham argued that poodles are the result of a downward process. They did not just develop from dog genes, but from cursed copies of dog genes." -article I'd like to see the blackened-out copy. If the above is the premise of Ham's article, it is difficult to understand how one could dissociate the scientific ideas from the religious in this case, and have the essay still remain a coherent argument for a scientific conclusion. The extent that it was blackened out is paramount. If one simply strikes all instances of the words "Darwin" or "evolution" out of a Dawkins essay--even remove entire paragraphs--it nevertheless remains evolutionary literature. It's difficult to imagine how much would need to be extracted for it to not be. My guess would be that you'd need to blacken out text until it is rendered unintelligible. I would think the same would apply to creationist literature.great_ape
March 29, 2007
March
03
Mar
29
29
2007
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
Ideas have consequences. Ideas on human origins have tremendous impact on society and titanic consequences on human life when put into practice. Origins theories always come with moral implications with regards to human life. dl says, If "Neo-darwinism is true, its true whether or not eugenics is a consequence." Indeed. However, Any idea that is true does not and cannot contradict any other true idea. One of the basic truths of logic - in every field. But if our innate idea of the value of human life is true, then we have a contradiction between 2 ideas. Eugenics intrinsically contradicts the value of human life. Therefore if Darwinism is true and if eugenics is a logical consequence of Darwinism (it is) then our idea on the value of life is wrong. see also - again : Darwin and the value of life Thus, under this scheme, any idea on human origins that implies eugenics, however brutally applied, is also not wrong. Therefore, if Darwinism is true, human life isn't worth much more than the lives of lab rats. And the standard bio text books imply as much when they say things like, "You are an animal, and share a common heritage with earthworms ..." Biology, Visualizing Life, Johnson, Holt Rinehart Winston, 1994, p. 453. To answer a possible objection: The principle, in logic, that says that one cannot appeal to the consequences of an argument to prove the argument true or false, is only a half-truth. Wherever a proposition comes with moral implications, the principle of not appealing to consequences is not valid. Thus any proposition that makes "raping children" for ex., morally right must be necessarily be wrong. Why? Because there is a true moral law that says "raping children is wrong" - always - no exceptions. Therefore any proposition that implies the opposite contradicts a known, established truth and therefore must be wrong. Apply this logic to neo-Darwinism and you will see that it's moral consequences imply that it contradicts well known, established truths and therefore must be wrong somewhere. The only escape paths are: 1. to say that theistic evolution is true. That somehow God is behind macro-evolution and therefore human life does have real, true value, beyond that of mere primates and beyond biased human assessments. 2. that morality itself is purely subjective and that raping children is only "relatively" wrong depending on what societies legislators have eaten for breakfast or whatever. Those 2 ways have tons of consequential problems themselves - which are out of scope here. So, either the standard "no god needed" Darwinism is wrong or our evaluation on the value of living things, including ourselves, is wrong. Take yer pick. But remember, when an idea entails serious moral consequences, then appeal to consequence becomes, not only valid, but necessary. Therefore materialist Darwinism sucks and carries no validity.Borne
March 29, 2007
March
03
Mar
29
29
2007
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
Jerry The article clearly states:
Helphinstine deleted whole passages of the essay and blacked out all religious references in the copy he gave his students because he wanted to focus on Ham's scientific conclusion.
He didn't distribute "creationist literature" as you accused. His sole action in that regard was leaving the internet address of Answers In Genesis in the redacted essay. It's expected that you give credit to the original source when copying copyrighted content under academic free use so I don't see how he could have avoided citing the source. You're back on moderation so your comments can be reviewed for accuracy before being posted. In the future I suggest you exercise a little more due diligence before accusing someone.DaveScot
March 29, 2007
March
03
Mar
29
29
2007
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
I wonder if eugenics is a topic on any 10th grade science curriculum anywhere in the nation. I suspect not.SteveB
March 29, 2007
March
03
Mar
29
29
2007
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT
Jehu, Have you read anything I have posted? If you do so then see what you think my world view is. But I will give you a hint. I believe in God and I am anti-Darwinism and I am also anti-YEC. At the moment I think Darwinism is the bigger threat but I believe YEC is equally dogmatic if not more so but not a threat to the morality of the country. But I oppose both and view YEC as an impediment to getting rid of Darwinism because its views on science are seen as ludicrous to most scientists and educators and are driven by ideology just as the Darwinists views are. I see little difference in how each group comes to its understanding of the world. Both are driven by pre-determined conclusions. So interpret all that I say in those terms. So when I see a teacher handing out creationist literature in a public school however the material is disguised, I would fire the guy in a nano-second just as I would like to fire teachers who don't indicate the flaws in Darwinism. I never commented on the presentation other than I thought the graphic presentation was a bit much for 10th graders. As dl says Neo-Darwinism should be judged on its merits not how some zealots take it to the extreme. By the way I have written much about Neo-Darwinism here so my views are open on that issue.jerry
March 29, 2007
March
03
Mar
29
29
2007
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
Based on the article, it seems like the teacher was trying to inject philosophy into science class. Frankly, given the political climate, referencing answersingenesis is kind of asking for trouble. On on a somewhat related note, I think trying to undermine a scientific argument by its implications (potential or actual) is not a good idea. If Neo-darwinism is true, its true whether or not eugenics is a consequence. If its false, its false. Personally I'm very much on the pro-ID side, but that's because it makes more sense to me rationally, not because of any philosophical implications.dl
March 29, 2007
March
03
Mar
29
29
2007
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
jerry, I am glad you are aware the presentation was 100% accurate. Nothing in the article says that he distributed religious material. If you are so intimidated by opposing view points that would fire a teacher for raising objections to evolution, I think your word view is pretty obvious. I could be wrong but does it really matter?Jehu
March 29, 2007
March
03
Mar
29
29
2007
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
Some people make statements without knowing anything about what they are saying. What is my "fragile world view?" Let me know what it is so I too can be enlightened. In case you did not read all that this guy did, he distributed creationist literature. I thought the presentation was a little over the top for 10th graders but the literature he distributed would be a cause for immediate firing. Why wouldn't anyone here fire a guy for distributing creationist literature in the classroom? I didn't get the impression this was a religious school. If it is, then, then the school authorities have a right to approve such things.jerry
March 29, 2007
March
03
Mar
29
29
2007
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
jaredl, You said, "It is perhaps an error to infer that eugenics is a necessary implication to Darwinism." Charles Darwin would not agree with you. His son, Leonard Darwin made the following dedication in his book “The Need for Eugenic Reform” “Dedicated to the memory of my father. [Charles Darwin] For if I had not believed that he would have wished me to give such help as I could toward making his life’s work of service to mankind, I should never have been led to write this book. ” Charles Darwin's own writings in Chapter V of Descent of Man and his favorable citations to Francis Galton, founder of the eugenics movement, make it pretty clear where he stood on the issue.Jehu
March 29, 2007
March
03
Mar
29
29
2007
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
What is wrong with the presentation? It is 100% historically accurate. Apparently "jerry" doesn't like it. I guess "jerry" is all in favor of repressing truth in order to protect his fragile world view.Jehu
March 29, 2007
March
03
Mar
29
29
2007
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT
Here's a link to critical reviews of the science text "Biology: The Dynamics of Life". According to the original article, this is the textbook Helphinstine was required to use for his biology classes. http://www.strengthsandweaknesses.org/Archives/reviews.htmruss
March 29, 2007
March
03
Mar
29
29
2007
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT
It is perhaps an error to infer that eugenics is a necessary implication to Darwinism.jaredl
March 29, 2007
March
03
Mar
29
29
2007
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply