Evolution classes optional under proposed Alberta law

[Outta here]

my gawd. I need the mother ship to come and beam me outta this province. The only recourse left for the discerning and aware parent is to get started reallllly young teaching their kids how to think critically, and to question everything.

It's scary to see us even think about taking such giant leaps backwards. The crazier life gets, the crazier it gets.

I'll be shaking my head over this for a long time.

 

[darkbeaver]

my gawd. I need the mother ship to come and beam me outta this province. The only recourse left for the discerning and aware parent is to get started reallllly young teaching their kids how to think critically, and to question everything.

It's scary to see us even think about taking such giant leaps backwards. The crazier life gets, the crazier it gets.

I'll be shaking my head over this for a long time.

Question everything except the need to question everything. I taught my kids that, guess who was thier first victim. Why daddy why, was all I heard from morning till night and still they question.

 

[Cannuck]

Three pages and people are still missing the point. It looks like schools all over the country have failed to teach critical thinking skills.

 

[L Gilbert]

Sometimes it's unnecessary to question everything. One can, for instance, feel that water is wet and see that oranges are orange and hear that dogs make noise. As one gets older, presumably one better learns whixh questions to ask.
Apparently, AB prefers to steer kids away from prudent questioning. Or rather giving the parents easier ways of limiting kids' ability to do some prudent questioning.

 

[Cannuck]

Apparently, AB prefers to steer kids away from prudent questioning.

Apparently, AB prefers to keep public schools open.

 

[Nuggler]

Here's an idea Einstein.... Take a look at the original post.. Read it (or have someone read it too you) and consider exactly who wrote the post and why they wrote (maybe leave the 'why' part to your care-giver) and then tell us all about trolls...

RE: your final request - What's the matter? Is your Ma on strike til you settle-up your existing bill?

Or have someone read it "too" me, as in read it as well as me, or also me, or read it too much me...............For fukks sake, get back into grade three and learn the difference between to and two and too.

Not everyone treats their maw like you, numbnuts; you seem to know the drill. Does she do it on her knees or you lying on the bed?? That is, when you can drag her in off the corner trying to score a few bucks for some crack.

You probably let her do it, then stiff the bill.

Like I said; blow me.

 

[Cannuck]

Interesting.

CTV.ca | Partial court victory for Muslim woman over niqab

I wonder if those that see this as a religious issue feel the same in this case.

 

[L Gilbert]

The topic isn't how stupid each of you are, it's how stupid the idiot who wrote the article is and how stupid the bill in the AB legislature probably is.

 

[Cannuck]

The topic isn't how stupid each of you are, it's how stupid the idiot who wrote the article is and how stupid the bill in the AB legislature probably is.

The topic is about how stupid people are when they comment about a bill without understanding what the bill is trying to do. The first step in problem solving is to identify the problem.

 

[earth_as_one]

No. The burden of proof rests with anyone making a claim. If you claim God doesn't exist, you share an equal burden as those who claim he does exist: you don't get a free pass just because you take an opposing view.

It's impossible to prove something doesn't exist. Its a logical impossibility. Try proving Bigfoot doesn't exist. Not finding Bigfoot either means he doesn't exist or you haven't looked hard enough.

Its why I'm agnostic rather than an atheist. I refuse to take a leap of faith either way. Right now, proof doesn't exist to say whether God exists or not.

Religion belongs in places of worship. Science belongs in the public school system. Sure science and religion contradict, but that doesn't mean either is fundamentally wrong. I see no reason why someone can't be religious and a scientist at the same time.

The problems occur when you try to impose religion on science, or science on religion. Its far easier just to accept we have an imperfect understanding of the nature of the universe and as a result, we have to live with contradictions.

 

[L Gilbert]

Right, we have to go by what we know if we are rational beings. Evolution is something we know a bit about; gods and gremlins are guesswork.

 

[gerryh]

Right, we have to go by what we know if we are rational beings. Evolution is something we know a bit about; gods and gremlins are guesswork.

Speak for yourself....God is not guesswork where I am concerned.


As for this non issue. The Province of Alberta is NOT dropping evolution from the curriculum, nor is it adding creationism to the curriculum. It is allowing parents the RIGHT to exclude their kids from subject matter that would go against their own religeous teachings.This is no different than what is allowed right now when it comes to parents having the option of opting their kids out of sex ed classes.

 

[earth_as_one]

Interesting.

CTV.ca | Partial court victory for Muslim woman over niqab

I wonder if those that see this as a religious issue feel the same in this case.

This is a different issue. This is clothing which worn out of modesty. Should women havelet the court see their breast? Maybe... depending on if its relevant to the case.

Michael Jackson had to allow the court to photograph his penis when he was charged with pedophilia, because that information was relevant to the case.
MICHAEL JACKSON - JACKSON DEMANDS PENIS PICTURES

The niqab should be handled with the same level of sensitivity.

Back on subject.

 

[L Gilbert]

Speak for yourself....God is not guesswork where I am concerned.

Then neither should be the Grinch, minotaurs, and leprachauns.

As for this non issue. The Province of Alberta is NOT dropping evolution from the curriculum, nor is it adding creationism to the curriculum. It is allowing parents the RIGHT to exclude their kids from subject matter that would go against their own religeous teachings.This is no different than what is allowed right now when it comes to parents having the option of opting their kids out of sex ed classes.

Might as well make geology, anthropology, history, etc. optional, too. They each have information that contradicts creation "theory".

 

[Cannuck]

This is a different issue.

No it's not. The government is giving leeway or not giving leeway based on somebody's religious views. People are treated differently because of their religious views. I just find it hilarious that it's usually the ones that are critical of the evangelical movement that support the rights of other religious people. I could not testify against my neighbor with a bag over my head unless there was extenuating circumstances that would give cause to the judge to allow that.

It's very simple, either religion and religious practice is allowed in public or it isn't. Of course, this really has nothing to do with this bill.

 

[L Gilbert]

This is a different issue. This is clothing which worn out of modesty. Should women havelet the court see their breast? Maybe... depending on if its relevant to the case.

Michael Jackson had to allow the court to photograph his penis when he was charged with pedophilia, because that information was relevant to the case.
MICHAEL JACKSON - JACKSON DEMANDS PENIS PICTURES

The niqab should be handled with the same level of sensitivity.

Back on subject.

Judges are weird people sometimes.

 

[gerryh]

Then neither should be the Grinch, minotaurs, and leprachauns.

Really...since I believe in God then I should also believe in the above? You're real good at telling people what they should and shouldn't believe I see. Evangelical?

Might as well make geology, anthropology, history, etc. optional, too. They each have information that contradicts creation "theory".

DO they now...well then, I guess that will be up to those parents that this bill effects.

 

[earth_as_one]

Speak for yourself....God is not guesswork where I am concerned.


As for this non issue. The Province of Alberta is NOT dropping evolution from the curriculum, nor is it adding creationism to the curriculum. It is allowing parents the RIGHT to exclude their kids from subject matter that would go against their own religeous teachings.This is no different than what is allowed right now when it comes to parents having the option of opting their kids out of sex ed classes.

You have faith or a belief in God's existence. Its not the same as guessing, but like guessing you have no proof. God's existence remains unproven. If you had proof, that would be bigger than discovering extraterrestrial intelligence.

If you find your belief inspires, strengthens or makes you a better person, then its a good thing. If it makes you hateful, dependent and incapable of critical thought, then its a bad thing.

Just like science, religion is neither good nor bad. It depends on how its used.

As far as pulling your children out of school so they can be ignorant of fundamental science is concerned, well that proves that idiocy is part nature, part nurture.

 

[wulfie68]

Might as well make geology, anthropology, history, etc. optional, too. They each have information that contradicts creation "theory".

Well except in the most basic of contexts, anthropology and geology aren't covered in depth at the elementary and junior high school levels. You could argue the same about history too in some cases. This whole issue, as raised by the CBC seems like a red herring to me: the first time I remember studying evolutionary theory was in my high school biology classes (and irony of ironies, my biology teacher was a very religious man who some would probably categorize as a borderline fundamentalist in his beliefs). I can't speak to other provinces but in Alberta at that time, and I believe it to still be the case, a student's high school course load is entirely up to them as long as they meet certain minimums in science, language arts, math and social studies... meaning that if a student/parent object to evolution vs creation strongly enough to want to be excused from it, they wouldn't have to be in the course to begin with: they could meet their scientific minimums in physics or chemistry without having to bother with biology. Now that was 20+ years ago but I don't believe the basic system has changed, though undoubtedly the curriculum has been updated.

The point, as I see it, is more that by allowing parents this right to have their children excused from some courses, it will discourage some of their objections to the public school system and thus reduce the impetus of some to engage in home schooling. Personally I'm not fond of it but I'm less fond of the idea of home schooling by religious zealots (and yes SirJoseph they exist in Utopontario too) with limited outside interaction for the kids to be exposed to new ideas.

 

[earth_as_one]

Judges are weird people sometimes.

The child claimed Jackson has a unique mark on his penis. He drew a picture of it. The judge ordered the court to photograph Jackson's penis. Shortly afterward, Jackson settled out of court for millions.

For women who wear the niqab out of modesty, showing their face would cause the same reaction as most men having to show their penis. Since I'm grew up with nudist parents, I doubt I'd have the same reaction as most men. Hey I'm in favor of getting on a plane naked for security reasons. But I wouldn't expect other people to share that viewpoint because I understand not everyone has the same level of modesty.