Evolution classes optional under proposed Alberta law

[L Gilbert]

It may appear we are making progress, but considering there are probably an infinite number of rocks in the universe, we may never flip them all over.

Atheism is as much a leap of faith as religion. Its why I'm agnostic.

I don't have faith there are no such things as gods and pixies. I have seen exactly 0 evidence supporting their existence. It is the same reason I am sure there isn't a 4 armed, blind, 3-legged, purple and green, twitchy critter on my shoulder. I don't have to have faith there ism't such a thing there as there is no evidence supporting it.

 

[L Gilbert]

It's a pity everyone seems so intent on making it a religion vs. science discussion.

I'd really be interested to hear more views on the right of a government to force a curriculum upon individuals, regardless of what popular concept it is that is being taught.

Perhaps it's the conspiracy theorists of this site rubbing off on me, but, I see no reason why a parent should have to breach their own good conscience to program their children in what the government teaches as 'truth'.

I was kind of hoping that the topic wouldn't get sidetracked, too.
We could talk about exactly what it is that gov't requires schools to do, though. Is it to cram as much propaganda into their sweet heads as possible? Is it to teach them how to think and prioritize what to think about? Is it to advance an agenda?
We home schooled a lot because we didn't like that it seemed like the first situation I mentioned that was what was happening (as well as a couple other reasons such as the school system was using out of date texts and a couple of the teachers seemed to be there simply to collect salary and had no interest in the students).

 

[karrie]

I was kind of hoping that the topic wouldn't get sidetracked, too.
We could talk about exactly what it is that gov't requires schools to do, though. Is it to cram as much propaganda into their sweet heads as possible? Is it to teach them how to think and prioritize what to think about? Is it to advance an agenda?
We home schooled a lot because we didn't like that it seemed like the first situation I mentioned that was what was happening (as well as a couple other reasons such as the school system was using out of date texts and a couple of the teachers seemed to be there simply to collect salary and had no interest in the students).

So, had you not had the financial flexibility to homeschool, would you have appreciated the ability to pull your kids from programming/curriculum that you objected to?

 

[L Gilbert]

BTW, our kids were taught that there are several faiths available and if the wanted to follow one or more, it was fine. After a while we told them our position on those faiths. We did not introduce them to these faiths until after we felt they could grasp the basics of what faiths taught (love, tolerance, etc.), however. The dogma that faiths teach about worshiping this that and the other thing we felt was a bit much and sound an awful lot like, well, dogma and propaganda. lol

 

[L Gilbert]

So, had you not had the financial flexibility to homeschool, would you have appreciated the ability to pull your kids from programming/curriculum that you objected to?

I think so. We didn't completely home school. Stuff like math and history, for instance, they were taught in school. It's just that we felt we could keep them more up-to-date in sciences, more adept at the language, etc. than the school system. It wasn't easy because both of us worked, and it helped with family time together.

 

[Outta here]

There isn't. Zan made the comment that the reason for the governments change was PC. In my mind, the PC change came when the government mandated that ONLY evolution and scientific study was to be taught in schools. This was the PC answer to the "non religious" zealots whine.

I don't agree with this gerry... PC started as a nugget of a good idea somewhere in it's infancy ... but it has quickly blossomed into nothing more than a tool for zealots of all stripes to use to push their own agendas to a ridiculous level. If religion happens to be the flavour of the day, then hang on - tomorrow it'll be race, or gender or age or.....

If we wanted to actually give our kids a complete education with the ability for them to decide and use cognitive reasoning to decide for themselves, we would teach all options and not just the PC one.

This I do agree with. Teach it all - I'd be fantastic with that. What I'm not ok with is eliminating any aspect of what is considered to be fact at the present time in our society. As our knowledge grows, much of what we 'know' now will change. Teach that too... it's important for our children to know how we got from there to here. As for religion, it can't be taught as fact, but the theory of it should be taught, because it's a rich and significant aspect of our humanity, and there isn't a single one of us who hasn't been affected by the presence of religion in our individual and collective histories. By all means teach it all.

No reason why we can't discuss everything.

The government has a right to define education standards and then expect parents and schools to meet those standards or face consequences.

I agree, however on another side tangent, I don't believe our current system of establishing a 'standard' is doing any of our kids much of a favour. Working in a college setting allows me to see what level of literacy our youth are graduating with... and here's a good example of that - for gawd's sakes, my 14 year old daughter had to explain to her student math teacher that there's no 'e' at the end of pi. (yanno, the one which r squared loll)

I just think that allowing parents to decide which aspect of education they think should not be taught is a slippery slope - and is a set up for kids rights to a full and thorough education to be violated...

Religion has no place in the classroom outside of theology.

There is room to debate this imo. I think it should be an all or nothing endeavor. If religion is to be taught, then all religions should be taught. Equally. Or... none.

Children have a right to be exposed to modern scientific thought. Eventually they will be our doctors and engineers.

ermmm... it's likely that the ones who've been declined certain elements of their education may not be our doctors and engineers...

... hate to post and run, but there's a soccer game to get to...

 

[L Gilbert]

.........for gawd's sakes, my 14 year old daughter had to explain to her student math teacher that there's no 'e' at the end of pi. (yanno, the one which r squared loll)

<--- one of the reasons we home-schooled as much as we could.

I just think that allowing parents to decide which aspect of education they think should not be taught is a slippery slope - and is a set up for kids rights to a full and thorough education to be violated...

Very slippery. It's a bit extreme but I would not be surprised that someone would keep their kid from a class that taught about the bad aspects of fat simply because the parent was fat. Or keep a kid from a class in art because they were playing with a color the parent doesn't like. People are weird that way.

There is room to debate this imo. I think it should be an all or nothing endeavor. If religion is to be taught, then all religions should be taught. Equally. Or... none.

I agree. If you are going to teach biology, teach as much as you can of it.

ermmm... it's likely that the ones who've been declined certain elements of their education may not be our doctors and engineers...

... hate to post and run, but there's a soccer game to get to...

hehe The wife and kids like the game, too. I think it's ok but rugby is more fun for me. Have fun.

 

[darkbeaver]

I don't agree with this gerry... PC started as a nugget of a good idea somewhere in it's infancy ... but it has quickly blossomed into nothing more than a tool for zealots of all stripes to use to push their own agendas to a ridiculous level. If religion happens to be the flavour of the day, then hang on - tomorrow it'll be race, or gender or age or.....



This I do agree with. Teach it all - I'd be fantastic with that. What I'm not ok with is eliminating any aspect of what is considered to be fact at the present time in our society. As our knowledge grows, much of what we 'know' now will change. Teach that too... it's important for our children to know how we got from there to here. As for religion, it can't be taught as fact, but the theory of it should be taught, because it's a rich and significant aspect of our humanity, and there isn't a single one of us who hasn't been affected by the presence of religion in our individual and collective histories. By all means teach it all.



I agree, however on another side tangent, I don't believe our current system of establishing a 'standard' is doing any of our kids much of a favour. Working in a college setting allows me to see what level of literacy our youth are graduating with... and here's a good example of that - for gawd's sakes, my 14 year old daughter had to explain to her student math teacher that there's no 'e' at the end of pi. (yanno, the one which r squared loll)

I just think that allowing parents to decide which aspect of education they think should not be taught is a slippery slope - and is a set up for kids rights to a full and thorough education to be violated...



There is room to debate this imo. I think it should be an all or nothing endeavor. If religion is to be taught, then all religions should be taught. Equally. Or... none.




ermmm... it's likely that the ones who've been declined certain elements of their education may not be our doctors and engineers...

... hate to post and run, but there's a soccer game to get to...

The term (politically correct) was coined in the sixties by a Canadian univercity prof, it was a joke among faculty. I can't remember his name right now but I think that's how the story goes. Next week when the name rolls up in my thingy I'll post it.

 

[darkbeaver]

The Quality of Lies

Propaganda and Prejudice in the Public Representation of Science

A report presented to the Royal Society Committee investigating "Best practice in communicating the results of new scientific research to the public."

September 2003

by
John A. Hewitt MA PhD

This report contains seven sections:-
Introduction
A summary of the purposes and motives behind this submission.
Science and the Press
Concerning the ways in which science and scientists interact with the press, both the scientific press, and the circumstances in which they approach, or are approached by, the wider media.
Scientific Quality Control
A discussion of peer review and citation analysis.
The way these systems operate in practice.
Their impact on the work of ordinary members of the scientific community is discussed.
The Author and his Work
A discussion of the author's own work and history and his experience of scientific deception.
The term "lie" is defined.
Senior scientists, major institutes and major journals are named and discussed.
Scientific Deception as a Problem in Epistemology
How that problem leads to a generalized form of evolutionary theory - bioepistemic evolution.
Bioepistemic Evolution and Humans
The implications of bioepistemic evolution for -
Human sexual traits including homosexuality, sado-masochism and paedophilia.
The origins and nature of humour.
Conclusions and Recommendations
A summary of the problems the structure of science creates for relations between science and the press and recommendations for alleviating those problems.
References
Epilogue
​

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I have been very busy the last few days. We are supposed to be in an economic downturn, I wish some of that downturn would come my way (I am busier than ever). I did go back a bit in the thread and read it, but probably I didn’t go to the point where I left the thread.

That's not completely correct. It's true that the Catholic Church has never accepted a literal interpretation of Bible as the the sole authority of faith as has fundamentalist Protestanism. It considers Genesis, at least the Creation story as allegorical, primarily moral and metaphorical.

But it is a theistic religion.. and completely rejects the central tenet of A-theistic Evolution.. that the universe is a product of random, accidental mutation. Its eschatology, the theology of final outcomes, of human destiny, is inextricably antithetical to Evolution's prime proposal.. survival of the fittest.

Evolution's final outcomes are always purely material, of genetic superiority and adaption and ultimately end in a fiery collapse of the universe. Its point is that all life about temporal sustenance of the species. It is here that its philosophical character is most evident.. and nothing could be farther from life's purpose and meaning as taught by the Catholic Church.

Evolution is not a religious theory, it is a scientific theory. Evolution does not say that God does not exist, it merely attempts to explain how life appeared on earth.

So there is no question of Catholic Church not accepting ‘A-theistic evolution’. Evolution by its nature says nothing abut God. So Catholic Church does accept evolution as it is stated. Then it superimposes its theology on top of it. There is no conflict here.

Evolution's final outcomes are always purely material, of genetic superiority and adaption and ultimately end in a fiery collapse of the universe.

You are confusing evolution with Cosmology. Evolution simply attempts to explain how life evolved on earth, it is the Cosmology which tries to explain how the universe began and how it will end (the fiery collapse of the universe).

It is here that its philosophical character is most evident.. and nothing could be farther from life's purpose and meaning as taught by the Catholic Church.

Evolution isn’t a philosophical theory, it is a scientific theory. Evolution says nothing about life’s purpose and its meaning. That is the purview of philosophy and religion. So again, there is no conflict between Catholicism and evolution.

Catholic religion and evolution cover entirely different ground, there is no conflict between them. Now, I have plenty of problems with Catholic religion, but one thing I like about it is the way it has managed to coexist with evolution.

 

[L Gilbert]

I wish people would quit using the term "theory" so loosely: it has a definition -

Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I also say one side has a burden of proof: whatever a claim, it is incumbent upon the claimant to prove their position. If you claim someone else's hypothesis,theory, or belief is erroneous, the burden of proof lays with you, to point out the error in their methodology or conclusion.

Back to your "example of the swimming pool of maple syrup on the moon" (I do love the way you use the most ridiculous examples possible). Your saying there is no such pool does not make it so. You add in evidence to support your argument such as the compounds used to fabricate the syrup or the pool are not indigenous/naturally occuring on the moon (not really proof but leads to speculation on the actually probability of the claim being borne out); that the temperature is so low that it would freeze any syrup solid (again not really proof); the vacuum wouldn't allow the syrup to maintain its cohesion but disperse it to try and equalize across the vacuum (OK now we're getting into a scientific reason why it couldn't happen); or that in the satellite surveillance photos of the area in question show no such construction (legitimate evidence). Now we have a reasonable evidence to support the hypothesis that there is no such pool (which can't be proven until we do an entire survey of the moon's surface). THAT is more on the road of scientific method: using physical evidence/experimental to support a hypothesis/theory. Just saying its nonsense without demonstrating any reasoning or rational thought behind the statement is not scientific, its proof of closed mind.

In some ways this is semantics but it is an important distinction to make. Its also why the Aetheism vs Deism argument may never be won, because there is no proof one way or the other, only speculation, intuition or "faith" (unless perhaps a God appears in front of every human being and makes itself known as such).

Wulfie, I have already told you that you cannot prove a negative. Let us consider some of the arguments put forward by you to prove that there cannot be a pool filled with maple syrup on the dark side of the moon.

You add in evidence to support your argument such as the compounds used to fabricate the syrup or the pool are not indigenous/naturally occurring on the moon (not really proof but leads to speculation on the actually probability of the claim being borne out);

I am glad you realize that it is not a proof against the supposition. I can counter it by saying that the pool was dug by an intelligent alien civilization, and filled with maple syrup by an intelligent alien civilization, they brought all the construction materials and the maple syrup there from earth. Try to disprove that!

that the temperature is so low that it would freeze any syrup solid (again not really proof);

Again, I am glad you realize it is not a proof against the supposition. I would answer by saying that the aliens who built the swimming pool also built an enclosure and built a mechanism to keep it at 20° C perpetually. That is why it does not freeze and why it stays liquid. Try to disprove that!

the vacuum wouldn't allow the syrup to maintain its cohesion but disperse it to try and equalize across the vacuum (OK now we're getting into a scientific reason why it couldn't happen);

Just as the aliens built a mechanism to keep the pool enclosure at 20°C, they also built another mechanism to keep the pressure at a steady 1 earth atmosphere. Try to disprove that!

or that in the satellite surveillance photos of the area in question show no such construction (legitimate evidence).

Have the satellites covered every square meter of the moon surface? They haven’t, they have photographed only a minute fraction of moon’s dark side (they haven’t even photographed all of earth, let alone all of moon). When each and every square meter is photographed, the maple syrup pool will be evident.

Now we have a reasonable evidence to support the hypothesis that there is no such pool (which can't be proven until we do an entire survey of the moon's surface).

We have nothing of the sort, I have given a convincing scenario which could meet all your objections.

THAT is more on the road of scientific method: using physical evidence/experimental to support a hypothesis/theory. Just saying its nonsense without demonstrating any reasoning or rational thought behind the statement is not scientific, its proof of closed mind.

I disagree, what you have done here is an exercise in futility, you have dug a deeper hole for yourself. I can just go on making stuff up as you make one objection after another. As a result of your trying to prove a negative, now you have a much bigger job. You have to prove that no alien civilization has ever visited the moon, that no alien civilization transported construction material, maple syrup from earth to moon etc.

This is a never ending exercise, as soon as you formulate one argument, I can make up additional hypothesis to counter yours.

Its also why the Atheism vs Deism argument may never be won, because there is no proof one way or the other, only speculation, intuition or "faith" (unless perhaps a God appears in front of every human being and makes itself known as such).

Here I agree with you. But I still stick to my contention that those who say that God exists, burden of proof is upon them to prove it, not upon those who say that God doesn’t exist. Scientifically, logically you cannot prove negative (as I have illustrated with my argument, try to prove one hypothesis, you dig yourself deeper, you end up with perhaps ten more negatives that you have to prove).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I wish people would quit using the term "theory" so loosely: it has a definition -

Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions

That is the problem Gilbert, the word ‘theory’ mean totally different in science and in everyday usage. In everyday usage, it means wild eyed, navel gazing speculation, something that has no evidence to support it. It can be dismissed by saying ‘oh, it is just a theory’.

In science, it refers to a set of scientific postulates which make predictions which can be tested experimentally, thereby giving evidence in support of the theory or disproving the theory.

But if a theory is disproved (and a theory can only be disproved, never proved beyond any doubt), it won’t be part of science any more, it will be part of science history.

Indeed, the fact that any theory is standing today means that nobody has found any evidence contrary to its predictions, one negative result and the theory is disproved.

Thus the fact that Theory of Relativity, Theory if Evolution, Theory of gravitation etc. are still standing today means that in the more than 100 years that they have been around, nobody has found any evidence to disprove these theories.

In general the longer the theory is standing, the greater the chance that it is realistic. Theory of evolution has been around more than 150 years, and it is one of the most solid scientific theories around.

But religious right cleverly confuses the two definitions of ‘theory’, and claims that evolution does not have any evidence to support it, it is just a ‘theory’.

 

[Outta here]

It's a bit extreme but I would not be surprised that someone would keep their kid from a class that taught about the bad aspects of fat simply because the parent was fat. Or keep a kid from a class in art because they were playing with a color the parent doesn't like. People are weird that way.

This is the crux of the problem Les - people will take things to the extreme. I've yet to figure out why.

hehe The wife and kids like the game, too. I think it's ok but rugby is more fun for me. Have fun.

Rugby - yikes loll...it's amazing anyone comes out of a game of Rugby intact! It's not for sissies like me, that's for sure!

Our boys won their first outdoor game of the season. It's gonna be a rough season though, by the looks of it so far.

The term (politically correct) was coined in the sixties by a Canadian univercity prof, it was a joke among faculty. I can't remember his name right now but I think that's how the story goes. Next week when the name rolls up in my thingy I'll post it.

well, whatever it's origins, it sure is sad to see what's become of it, imo.

 

[captain morgan]

That is the problem Gilbert, the word ‘theory’ mean totally different in science and in everyday usage. In everyday usage, it means wild eyed, navel gazing speculation, something that has no evidence to support it. It can be dismissed by saying ‘oh, it is just a theory’.

.. But, they are just theories....

In science, it refers to a set of scientific postulates which make predictions which can be tested experimentally, thereby giving evidence in support of the theory or disproving the theory.

Replicate macro-evolution.

Thus the fact that Theory of Relativity, Theory if Evolution, Theory of gravitation etc. are still standing today means that in the more than 100 years that they have been around, nobody has found any evidence to disprove these theories.

The medieval practice of healing ailments included bleeding or drilling holes in the heads of the mentally ill in order to allow the bad humours to escape... Those practices went on for almost as long as gravity, evolution or relativity have been around.

The endurability of a theory has more to do with a lack of new options/theories as opposed to the strength of said theories.

In general the longer the theory is standing, the greater the chance that it is realistic. Theory of evolution has been around more than 150 years, and it is one of the most solid scientific theories around.

Except for the wide gaps in the evolutionary chain regarding humans.
This is one of those areas where the proponents begin to back-track and augment the original theories with additional assumptions in order to make the results fit the theory.

But religious right cleverly confuses the two definitions of ‘theory’, and claims that evolution does not have any evidence to support it, it is just a ‘theory’.

Employing your logic, the 'Theory of Creationism' has not be entirely disproven and has stood up to 'peer review' (peers being theologians)for thousands of years, can we assume that it is (essentially) fact?

The acceptance of evolutionary theory as fact (as it essentially is) should be able to provide the mechanism to fill all the blanks completely. 'Til then, the theory of evolution a work-in-progress.

 

[captain morgan]

Quoting gerryh
You haven't "proven" sweet piss all....Scientists can't even agree on the existence of any of these things....Black matter and black energy, at this point in time, can not be proven...it is ponly postulated by "some" scientists based on THIER interpratation of their observations. Guess f*cking work.......

At least "I" don't take everything any of the churches tell me at face value.....at least "I" can decide to discard that which to me doesn't make sense or seem right.... you f*cking "brainiacs" seem to take EVERYTHING science tells you at face value......unless down the road science finally admits they f*cked up and tells you something different.[/quote]

You don't understand the problem at all. The problem isn't that we don't know it is there, the problem is that we don't know what it is. Take my suggestion, look up the evidence, it is unequivocable that there is something there which we do not understand.

You are completely ignorant on these issues so I suggest you drop them.

Only a fool bumps into something in the dark and says "It does not exist," simply because they cannot see it. You are that fool.

What do you call one that bumps into that same 'something', replicates the experiment every night, later peers into the dark and then declares that the 'something' is the bogeyman?

It's stood up to the tests and has been replicated... Does that make the 'theory' factual until proven otherwise?

 

[Johnnny]

i saw the creationist episode for the show BULL**** yesterday, and dam sounds like those pesky creationists are gaining foothold in alberta?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

i saw the creationist episode for the show BULL**** yesterday, and dam sounds like those pesky creationists are gaining foothold in alberta?

That is what the thread is all about, Johnnny, not a foothold, but Creationists have a stranglehold on the Alberta government. This legislation is clear pandering to a noisy and extremist minority, the religious right.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Quoting SirJosephPorter
In science, it refers to a set of scientific postulates which make predictions which can be tested experimentally, thereby giving evidence in support of the theory or disproving the theory.

Replicate macro-evolution. - Captain Morgan


Captain, you know macroevolution is very slow and cannot be observed in a lifetime. Macroevolution is a concept accepted by most biologists, it is only Creationists that have a problem with it (and not out of any scientific reasons, but because it goes against their interpretation of the Bible).

The medieval practice of healing ailments included bleeding or drilling holes in the heads of the mentally ill in order to allow the bad humours to escape... Those practices went on for almost as long as gravity, evolution or relativity have been around.

The endurability of a theory has more to do with a lack of new options/theories as opposed to the strength of said theories.

It is both. Lack of a viable theory certainly contributes. However, the main reason theory endures is that scientists keep finding results in support of the theory. As to your comment about medieval practices, I did say that any theory can be proved wrong. Same with evolution.

If somebody tomorrow shows a dog instantly turning into a wolf or a cat, that will disprove evolution. I am not saying that theory of evolution has been proved. As I said before, no theory can be proved, only disproved. So it is not inconceivable that theory of evolution maybe proved wrong some day. However, that is no reason to reject the theory today. By this logic, each and every theory (relativity, gravitation, electromagnetic wave theory etc.) must be rejected for the slim possibility that it may be proved wrong some day.

Sorry, but that is not how science works.

Except for the wide gaps in the evolutionary chain regarding humans.
This is one of those areas where the proponents begin to back-track and augment the original theories with additional assumptions in order to make the results fit the theory.

That is permissible in science. If there is an observation which is in conflict with the theory, scientist do try and see if theory can be modified to account for the observation. There is nothing wrong with that.

Employing your logic, the 'Theory of Creationism' has not be entirely disproven and has stood up to 'peer review' (peers being theologians)for thousands of years, can we assume that it is (essentially) fact?

Indeed we can captain. Creationism (it cannot be called a theory, it is a fact) is fact as far as religious right is concerned. It however, can never be a scientific theory. So I wouldn’t’ dignify it by calling it a theory, it is superstition (or a religious fact, if you will), rather than a theory.

'Til then, the theory of evolution a work-in-progress.

Indeed it is. Every theory is a work in progress. Every theory is continuously tested against experimental results, modified when it can, rejected when it must be. All of science is work in progress.

 

[Cannuck]

CTV.ca | Alberta teachers slam planned human rights changes

"The Alberta Teachers Association argues that the "parents' rights clause" runs contrary to one of the goals of public education: teaching students how to live together in a society where different people hold different beliefs. "Even if one can opt out of a classroom, opting out of society is not really an option and certainly not a right," the group says in a statement on their website."


The Grassy Lake, Burdett and Redcliff Schools pilot project has proven the teachers are wrong. The pilot projects have helped both students and parents of students to learn how to live together. They either don't know what they are talking about or they have a hiiden agenda.


Besides, who says one can't opt out of society? Gerry did it.












Just kidding Gerry!