Evolution classes optional under proposed Alberta law

[L Gilbert]

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?

Why not? They are equally as valid; no proofs exist supporting their existance either. Fine, I should have said "might as well believe in leprachauns, minotaurs..." rather than "should believe..."

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

es they do. And it is up to those parents. And when their kids grow up a little more and discover all the knowledge has been kept from them, COURTESY of their parents, perhaps they'll feel that their parents let them down. That's hardly healthy for a family.

 

[gerryh]

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.

In Alberta....senior high..grade 10-12..... what is required is science 10(general) science20 (grade 11 general science) with chem 20, bio 20, or physics 20 as options instead of science 20...no science required in Grade 12.

 

[gerryh]

Why not? They are equally as valid; no proofs exist supporting their existance either. Fine, I should have said "might as well believe inleprachauns, minotaurs..." rather than "should believe..."

been through this before....I have MY proof of God, I don't have proof of the other "creatures" you mention. MY proof is good enough for me, even though it's not good enough for you. Doesn't really matter, as what you think is a valid proof does not concern me in the least.

es they do. And it is up to those parents. And when their kids grow up a little more and discover all the knowledge has been kept from them, COURTESY of their parents, perhaps they'll feel that their parents let them down. That's hardly healthy for a family.

Perhaps, and perhaps not. That's not something that you or I can know for sure.... unless you are claiming to be clairvoyant..... or are you? Can you for see the future?

 

[L Gilbert]

So kids wanting to lay the basis for careers in biology and other courses that may have issues contradicting creation are put at a disadvantage to other kids whose parents are more sensible. Peachy
Kid gets to college and learns in his archaeology class that we can date things older than 5 or 6000 years ago demnands an explanation from his/her parents as to why they kept info like that from him/her. Or perhaps lowers his opinion of parenbts' intelligence. lmao

 

[wulfie68]

OK so its changed a bit since I graduated but not a lot: we only needed 3 science credits (i.e. science 10, bio 10, chem 10 or physics 10... which I thought was weak but I was a science nerd ) for a general diploma or more (the 20 and 30 level courses) if the student was interested in pursuing most post secondary education.

 

[wulfie68]

So kids wanting to lay the basis for careers in biology and other courses that may have issues contradicting creation are put at a disadvantage to other kids whose parents are more sensible. Peachy

Only if their parents don't want them to take them... which leads into a discussion that is family business not public.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

It is allowing parents the RIGHT to exclude their kids from subject matter that would go against their own religeous teachings.

You're certainly right about that much, at least. Parents are, it seems, entitled to make sure their children stay as ignorant as they are themselves. Denying one's children knowledge of the theory of evolution, or human sexuality, or contraception, or any other subject this bill might impinge on, for religious reasons is stupid and short-sighted, but parents do have that right. Religious claims are highly privileged in both law and custom: they usually don't have to be justified, they just have to be labeled religious and they get a free ride.

Then religious people come into a place like this and encounter, perhaps for the first time in their lives, demands that they justify their claims. And we all know what happens then...

 

[L Gilbert]

been through this before....I have MY proof of God, I don't have proof of the other "creatures" you mention. MY proof is good enough for me, even though it's not good enough for you. Doesn't really matter, as what you think is a valid proof does not concern me in the least.

If it didn't concern you, you wouldn't feel the need to explain to me that it doesn't. lmao

Perhaps, and perhaps not. That's not something that you or I can know for sure.... unless you are claiming to be clairvoyant..... or are you? Can you for see the future?

Nope, but I can imagine our kids would be upset that we did what we could to withhold education from them. Fortunately we wanted our kids to have as much education as they could get in their wonderful heads and let them choose for themselves what to believe..

 

[Cannuck]

It's amazing how completely out of touch some people are with the world outside of their immediate surroundings.

The Mennonite community in Alberta will pull kids out of school at 16 so that they can go to work to support the family. They have a completely different world view and without the provincial government giving concessions, many of these kids would not even see a public school. The provincial government in Alberta should be commended for doing what they can in order to get these kids into school and trying to keep them there. Public school is important in that it begins the process of giving these kids an expanded view of the world and anything that can be done to get these kids into a classroom is a bonus. People that criticize this bill have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

 

[L Gilbert]

Only if their parents don't want them to take them... which leads into a discussion that is family business not public.

But becomes public when kids sue parents for limiting their chances in working life by limiting their education. tsk tsk

 

[gerryh]

It's amazing how completely out of touch some people are with the world outside of their immediate surroundings.

No...it's not amazing at all.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Public school is important in that it begins the process of giving these kids an expanded view of the world...

Larger than their parents want them to have, apparently. According to the census there are less than 25,000 Mennonites in Alberta. They've always been insular, resisting the secular influence of things like the public school system, and they've often set up their own schools. I don't see the logic of your argument at all. They have, as you said, a completely different world view, why should the Alberta public school system, which serves around a million children, have to adjust itself to please such a tiny minority that isn't much interested in secular education anyway? Broadening the kids' world view is likely to damage the community's cohesion and they know it.

 

[Tonington]

I don't think some here are getting it. The wording of the legislation is quite specific. Parents have the right to be informed of any subject matter that is explicitly related to religion, sexuality and sexual orientation. They already mail out permission forms for sex education. Parents can have their children excused when Gideons visit to hand out the NT.

What is stupid, is the fact that you have the Premier, and the education minister saying publicly that evolution is such a topic. It is not. They are setting up trouble for school boards by suggesting such a thing. That is what is stupid. If Stelmach and Blackett are trying to define evolutionary biology as religion, then they perhaps need some education themselves...

 

[Cannuck]

Larger than their parents want them to have, apparently. According to the census there are less than 25,000 Mennonites in Alberta. They've always been insular, resisting the secular influence of things like the public school system, and they've often set up their own schools.

Yes they have, in the past. Things are changing and this is what has driven this. The towns of Burdett and Grassy Lake (to name but two) were in danger of losing their schools because of declining enrollment. Deals were struck with the local school boards (I'm more familiar with Burdett and the Prairie Rose School Division) to encourage the Mennonite population to support the local public school. There were changes to classes offered (including German) as well as the bending of some policies. It has been a win/win situation. Burdett school went from less than 40 kids and a possible closure to 180 plus students. There is now a dynamic athletic program where before there weren't enough kids, in some instances, to have a doubles badminton team. The Mennonite kids are no longer isolated.

Burdett School - Prairie Rose School Division

I don't see the logic of your argument at all. They have, as you said, a completely different world view, why should the Alberta public school system, which serves around a million children, have to adjust itself to please such a tiny minority that isn't much interested in secular education anyway?

Because it keeps rural schools open. While urban folks like yourself may not see any value in promoting or encouraging a rural lifestyle, there are some that feel otherwise and the Alberta government is listening to those people. A school is the cornerstone of most small rural communities. This strategy has helped Burdett, Grassy Lake and many other communities, particularly in Southern Alberta. Hopefully, in the future, it will also heap benefits on the Mennonite population.

Broadening the kids' world view is likely to damage the community's cohesion and they know it.

...and yet they still participate...how odd!

This bill simply legitimizes what boards like Prairie Rose have done. Another option would have been to make attendance in public school mandatory. I favor this approach but the drawback would be that the Mennonite community probably wouldn't settle in Alberta and that would have a serious negative effect on the agricultural sector.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

What is stupid, is the fact that you have the Premier, and the education minister saying publicly that evolution is such a topic. It is not.

You're right of course, but the Premier and the Minister aren't the only people who think it is. And who was that silly federal science minister who recently refused to answer a question about his views on evolution on the grounds that it was an inquiry into his religious beliefs? Realistically, I think we do have to concede that a good understanding of evolution might be pretty corrosive to religious belief, especially for those on the more fundamentalist side. As an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life, it doesn't leave much for the deity to do. For those who believe a deity is running everything on a moment by moment basis, it might be pretty threatening.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

In other words, SirJoseph you don't know the rules in Ontario, and you don't know them in Alberta, so you're just indulging in your ignorant disdain of a province you know next to nothing about.

Wulfie, no I did not Google for what the position is in Ontario. However, to me it makes only common sense that government require all the schools, public and private, to teach the core curriculum in math, physics, chemistry, languages etc. Then on top of that the private or the charter school may teach material that would be specific to that school.

And yes, I do know them in Alberta, from the news item on CBC I quoted in this thread.

The fact of the matter is that SirJoseph and his ilk don't like to admit that Albertans are less extreme and closer to the center in their political views than most Liberals of his ilk and use propaganda pieces like this to bolster their view and justify looking down their noses.

Do you really deny with a straight face that Alberta is more conservative than Ontario or Quebec? Alberta is the home of Reform party and Alliance, which were very much parties of the right. Even during Mulroney era, the MPs and cabinet members form Alberta used to be blue Tories, those from Quebec red Tories, and those from Ontario a mix of the two.

When courts legalized gay marriage, where was the maximum resistance? In Alberta, of course. Both Klein and Harper had to resort to incendiary rhetoric (talking about building a firewall around Alberta) to placate the religious right. No other province found it necessary to placate the religious right that way.

Stockwell Day, a self proclaimed Fundamentalist (and by his own admission, a Creationist) originally hails from Alberta. A leader with his views and his prominence usually does not arise in vacuum, usually there are a substantial number of people who agree with his views.

I don’t know how many examples you need to support my contention that Alberta indeed is much more conservative than Ontario or Quebec.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

...and yet they still participate...how odd!

I think what's odd is that they're willing to participate but only if they can keep their children ignorant of certain well-tested ideas, and school boards are, if I've understood your story correctly, in effect willing to let them delete certain items from the standard curriculum when it comes to their children. I think that's a serious disservice to the kids. Keeping rural schools open--certainly a laudable goal I think--by keeping certain children ignorant of a major element in humanity's common intellectual heritage doesn't sound like a good trade off to me. This is a public, and publicly funded, school system, surely one of its primary duties is to pass on as much as possible of that heritage to the children who go through it. I don't believe the ends justify the means.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

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.

Wulfie, you are only partly right. You are right that burden of proof rests on anyone who makes a claim. However, claiming that something does not exist is not a claim. Claiming that something exists is a claim.

And burden of proof does rest on somebody who makes a claim. Let me give you an example. I make a claim that on the dark side of moon, the one we cannot see, there rests a detached house, with the floor made from Swiss cheese and a swimming pool filled with maple syrup. That is a claim and burden of proof is upon me to prove it.

Suppose you say that I am wrong and that no such house exist. Are you making a claim? Do you have to prove your claim? You don’t, because you are not making a claim, you are simply denying somebody else’s claim.

It is the same with saying that God doesn’t exist, or Santa Claus doesn’t exist. I am not making a claim, I am denying somebody else’s claim. The burden of proof is not upon me to disprove somebody else’s claim that God exists, or that Santa Claus exists. Burden of proof is upon the other fellow to prove his claim.

In science, only one side has the burden of proof, and that burden is with somebody who makes a positive claim. Thus, those who say String Theory is true, have the burden of proof to show that it is true, those to claim it is not true don’t have to prove anything.

So yes, if you are denying somebody else’s claim then you do get a free pass. So I don’t have to prove that God doesn’t exist (mathematically, logically, it is impossible to prove a negative anyway).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

At any rate, AB's school system and particularly its government will be much ridiculed if it passes any inane bill implying that evolution isn't a fact. They might as well start burning witches.

Quite right, Gilbert. I think that is why they buried it deep inside another bill, so that it will be passed quietly and nobody will notice it.

 

[Tonington]

Realistically, I think we do have to concede that a good understanding of evolution might be pretty corrosive to religious belief, especially for those on the more fundamentalist side.

For the fundamental believers I think that's pretty safe to say, and those are the types of parents who will make noise when they don't get a notice for a subject they feel infringes on their right to religion in their family.

I wonder what the costs will be for school boards now because of this. I don't see how it's needed, as parents can already have their children excused from classes.