Letters to the Editor 03/28/2007

To the Editor:

I was disappointed to read that Kris Helphinstine was fired for allegedly deviating from the school's evolution curriculum. I wasn't in that biology class and do not know for certain whether Mr. Helphinstine stepped out of bounds or not. However, I firmly believe that students deserve to be given information about the origin of life from all points of view and after critically examining the evidence decide for themselves what is true.

Students should know that macro-evolution is not concrete fact and that there are enormous holes in this "theory."

There are many well-educated, well-informed scientists who believe in intelligent design. Anthony Flew, formerly one of the strongest defenders of atheism, has, in recent years, changed his mind. He believes that the amazing amount of fine tuning and complexity in our universe plainly shows that an intelligent designer must be responsible.

Biochemist and spiritual skeptic Francis Crick, who shared the Nobel Prize for discovering the molecular structure of DNA, had this to say: "An honest man armed with the knowledge available to us now could only state that in some sense the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."

Some parents complained that their students were confused by Mr. Helphinstine's information. It can be confusing to discover evidence that challenges long held beliefs. Students are so used to learning about evolution from one-sided textbooks that they are surprised and confused when they finally see the intelligent design side of this issue.

In my previous science classes, most of the class felt disappointed and cheated that evolution was taught exclusively and as if it were fact. We would love to have a curriculum that critically examines both possibilities and lets the student choose. That would be an equitable solution.

Sam Fullhart

•••

To the Editor:

As a senior at Sisters High School, I find it unfortunate that Mr. Helphinstine has taught Intelligent Design (ID). Even though I disapprove of his methods, I can appreciate Mr. Helphinstine's desire to present alternative theories and to instill critical thinking in his former students, both of which are key aspects to the scientific method.

But a scientific theory is supported by experimental evidence and is also logical and testable. ID is not. His actions are a clear violation of the First Amendment and the separation of church and state. ID has no place in a publicly funded federal school, ours or any other.

I am also disappointed that the information presented to the students wasn't from a nonbiased Web site and that they didn't have the opportunity to hear arguments against ID presented along side it.

As for his personal beliefs I don't think it matters. I cannot say for sure what went on in his classroom, but I don't believe any student's mind has been warped for spirituality converted. Mr. Helphinstine was there to teach, and he made an unfortunate error in judgment, one which I highly doubt he will be able to repeat.

If Mr. Helphinstine had presented his information outside of school hours to all those interested in learning about it, the entire community would still have respect for him.

Justin Dean

s s s

To the Editor:

The Supreme Court has settled the issue of teachers in public schools discussing the theory of creationism along with evolution. In 1987, the Supreme Court, in Edward versus Aguillard, stated that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."

Furthermore, the court indicated that including creation science in the classroom would not create a constitutional crisis as long as it is done with the "intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."

Studying creationism merely acknowledges the fact that evolution is not the only theory when it comes to the origins of life. Georgia school officials approved a sticker for textbooks that said evolution is a theory, not fact, and stated that evolution should be "approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." That's reasonable.

The firing of this teacher did not follow the normal process for removal of a teacher and we apparently know why.

A former board member threatened a lawsuit. We don't need policy established by intimidation.

What's wrong with teaching our students that other theories exist concerning the origins of life and giving them the chance to explore all theories? Why do the defenders of evolution feel so threatened by other theories like creationism and intelligent design, which teach that an intelligent force created life? Are they afraid the theory of evolution will not stand up to critical examination?

People should examine all sides of an issue - and that includes differing views on the origins of life.

John Miller

•••

To the Editor:

The documents Sisters High science teacher Kris Helphinstine gave his students had all explicit religious and biblical references scrupulously blacked out and he has defended his actions by asserting that he was simply encouraging critical thinking.

I certainly have nothing against encouraging critical thinking, a rare ability that is perhaps the best possible outcome of a good education. The problem I have is that a sincere effort was never made to teach the theory of evolution in the first place.

Mr. Helphinstine instead chose to spend all but one day of class primarily on a collection of pseudo-science propaganda pieces taken from a creationist Web site specifically intended to undermine the credibility of the theory of evolution, or for that matter any science that contradicts the Bible.

Bits of true science were presented with a contradictory bit of pseudo-science. This was offered to young untrained minds with little ability to penetrate the sophisticated dissembling of the Intelligent Design arguments. In short, in my opinion this was more of a brainwashing than an exercise in critical thinking.

I have been thinking of Mr. Helphinstine as a human Trojan horse. He is highly educated, by all accounts very likeable and both on paper and in person a prize candidate to teach science. He is surely not the last of his kind and perhaps not even the first. His brief tenure at Sisters High was spent guiding naive young minds away from science and into his own biased and anti-scientific perspective.

The Answers in Genesis Web site from which his teaching materials derived has as its first mission statement, "We proclaim the absolute truth and authority of the Bible with boldness." Kris Helphinstine was nothing if not bold, and I am sure more than a few here in Sisters and elsewhere regard him as a hero.

This is a free country, and I would defend anyone's right to think and say what they like. But in the public schools, fortunately, when you offer a class in science, that's what it has to be.

John Rahm, parent of one of Kris' students

•••

To the Editor:

I attended the recent school board meeting where Mr. Kris Helphinstine (a brand new science teacher at Sisters High School) was on "trial" for teaching critical thinking.

Superintendent Thornstad admitted that Mr. Helphinstine had not done anything illegal or against Oregon law. Mr. Lasken couldn't even admit to what Mr. Helphinstine did or didn't do. What was he guilty of then? Not asking permission to teach critical thinking.

One particular parent mentioned being deeply shaken because of what the "children" heard. Children? They are adults in the making. If the current curriculum (evolution only) can not be questioned, then what is it afraid of or hiding? Because it certainly can't stand on its own feet (it isn't even mathematically possible or able to support itself in facts or logic and must stand on the unlawful issue of "separation of church and state" which is referring to a "state church").

Oddly enough, Mr. Lasken didn't even know if God was mentioned by Mr. Helphinstine... Mr. Lasken, each board meeting starts with the Pledge of Allegiance (one Nation under God), so what difference does it make?

I applaud the board members (all of them) for taking the gut wrenching task of deliberating this for as many days as they did. Although it saddens me to think that a school district (and community) who prides itself in education is afraid of challenges and critical thinking in this area.

Critical thinking is an unstated yet foundational component of any educational system (or should be), and the board members all agree with this. So why the vote for termination of a teacher because it doesn't fit the curriculum or its definition of critical thinking? Maybe the problem is the curriculum and not the teacher. So if Mr. Helphinstine didn't break any laws (state or federal), then what is the school district afraid of?

Lance Piatt

•••

To the Editor:

To any potential candidates for Supervisor, teacher or other positions in our district: Sisters' parents pay attention; they care deeply and they are vocal!

While I was delighted with the outcome of last week's school board meeting and the appropriate firing of Mr. Helphinstine, I was equally distressed to hear that neither the school's principal nor its veteran biology teacher, Glenn Herron were "available" for input to the school board.

YIKES! A huge issue that is causing concern among students, parents, the whole community, and they aren't available? Where's the school's leadership in all this? If it weren't for confused kids that (luckily) talk to their parents and the parents and m community members that rose to the occasion this issue of following curriculum might well have gone unresolved.

While perhaps unrelated, I find it unsettling that Principal Macauley was a founding member of the local private Christian school. As to Mr. Helphinstine's claims that he is merely teaching the students to think: Mary Castillo, Oregon's Superintendant of Schools, made it very clear at the beginning of this school year what Oregon's policy on the matter is and was.

Unless you've been living in a cave, you must be aware of the highly public nature of this debate, the contentiousness of this issue and that it has been clearly established that this discussion MAY occur in classes OUTSIDE the science department.

Kudos to our community and school board and a big finger-wag to our administrators.

We're not in Kansas anymore! Hurray!

Karly Drake-Lusby

s s s

To the Editor:

Even though literally hundreds of scientists are abandoning the "theory of evolution" our schools continue to teach it as fact. Recent finds including the complexity of DNA structure are shaking the very foundations of scientific thought and have caused many to believe in God, if not, at least "intelligent design." One wrote that DNA was the "fingerprint of God."

"Good science" includes an open mind and continual research, but many of our textbooks continue to publish as fact things that have been disproved for years in the scientific field. When a teacher tries to get his students to "think" he is fired by our school board and vilified by some parents as "contaminating their minds."

So much for open minds and good science. Instead, let's just cram down the minds of our students a theory that flies in the face of many who believe there is a God and that He created us.

John Dewey is recognized as "the father of progressive education" and was elected honorary president of the National Education Association. In 1933 he wrote in tenet No. 1 of "The Humanist Manifesto" that "Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created."

The supreme court classified "Humanism" as a religion many years ago and now it is the only religion allowed in our school system.

How many other good teachers will resign, be asked to resign or be fired before something is done about the attitude of our current leadership in education?

I for one am tired of a system that last year alone took $1,743.85 (nearly 60 percent) of my taxes and continues to force my grandchildren to study things that are hostile to our entire belief system. No wonder the home school movement is growing leaps and bounds each year all across America.

Frank Fraga

•••

To the Editor:

Kris Helphinstine claims he was only trying to teach his biology class critical thinking. I agree that critical thinking does need to be taught; "common sense" has become ever so uncommon. However, that's where Helphinstine and I part.

What I would like to know is: where was Mr. Helphinstine's critical thinking when he chose the topic of evolution/intelligent design/creationism to teach it? Could he possibly have chosen a hotter subject?

There are literally thousands of controversial subjects out there that would have worked and that a teacher could use with absolutely no fear of repercussion. Regardless of which side of the issue you're on, you have to agree that if his motive was purely to teach critical thinking, it was his lack of judgment in choosing his topic that got him fired, not what he taught.

Any other conclusion will quickly bring you to the deduction that there is another agenda lurking here.

Allyn Hardman

•••

To the Editor:

After watching the firing of Kris Helphinstine and hearing and seeing all the remarks, I have come to some conclusions.

One is that the board and school district reacted too quickly to fire Kris because of the $1.2 million lost in the controversy with Sisters Christian Academy.

Evolution and intelligent design or creationism both have science to back them up, but both can be considered theories as to how life began. Which one brings purpose and meaning to our lives?

Each person has to decide that.

The state seems to have an agenda to indoctrinate and force the theory of evolution as a fact down our kids' intellect without equal time on intelligent design or creationism. What are they in fear of?

Kris Helphinstine encouraged the students to explore other theories of how life began.

The district seems to thinks the kids can't think for themselves, but it looks like Kris believes we are free to analyze, think critically and positively about all of this.

I believe he is a sharp motivator and teacher and contrary to the district's accusations didn't deviate from the state guidelines and curriculum.

Many of the teachers in the district use resources other than the textbook to teach. Are they deviating from the state curriculum and guidelines? Does the board feel they should be fired also, or is it pick and choose because of the personal beliefs and fears of the board?

Chet Davis

•••

To the editor:

Panoramic Estate residents: Our community is being decimated by a few people that have little or no concern for our neighborhood.

They are knocking over our street signs, throwing trash to the side of the roads. Dirt bikes and ATVs are destroying our roads by spinning tires and cutting grooves in the road bed.

I think it's time for us to join forces and do something about this injustice.

All of this is against the law.

If you observe someone performing one of these offenses, please call the local Sheriff office at 549-2302. A description of the person and/or vehicle would be helpful.

Let's clean up our neighborhood!

Jerry Hakes

•••

To the Editor:

In reference to Terry Burke's letter regarding Al Gore, I see this as just another attempt to attack the messenger. Burke writes about "Saint Al" with his "God complex," "addicted to power" and Burke doesn't trust Gore's "newfound altruism."

But Gore wrote "Earth in the Balance" in 1992, 15 years ago! From Wikipedia: "Gore was one of the first politicians to grasp the seriousness of climate change and to call for a reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouses gases. He held the first congressional hearings on the subject in the late 1970s. During his tenure in Congress, Gore co-sponsored hearings on toxic waste in 1978-79 and hearings on global warming in the 1980s."

Newfound altruism?

I agree it's valid to question Gore's use of energy but saying that he uses "20 times the energy of the average person" doesn't mean much if that energy is solar, non-polluting, renewable and is used in three homes, including his office and his wife's.

Al Gore, having spent 30 years researching the environment and global warming, thinks we have a problem and wants to do something about it. Why is that so hard to believe?

Terry Weygandt