Perhaps you are right, Tenpenny. But we do keep coming back to the topic from time to time.
And anyway, here Captain was changing the subject (from how powerful religious right is in Alberta to talking about American religious right).
Evolution classes optional under proposed Alberta law
- Thread starter SirJosephPorter
- Start date
Perhaps you are right, Tenpenny. But we do keep coming back to the topic from time to time.
And anyway, here Captain was changing the subject (from how powerful religious right is in Alberta to talking about American religious right).
Indeed, that is my point, Tenpenny. However, a related question arises, why is the government doing that? And that is where the influence of religious right in Alberta comes in. In my opinion, that is a related subject. Captain talking about American religious right, now that is a stretch.
Straw man argument and equivocation. You seem to be insisting that every scientist include all of the pages of principia mathematica in the introductions to their papers in order to be considered rigorous, which is absurd. Are you stating that there is some problem with the scientific method? No, which is my point and why your response is a red herring.
Do you need me to explain to you that I am using english for you to understand my words? Your argument is equivalent to insisting this; sure these words have different (or no) meaning in a language outside of english, but that is not the point.
A definition has no correctness in mathematics. There is no hope to be correct involved. There are useful definitions and useless definitions. This is the same in all science and evolution is no exception. We have a scientific method and we have applied it successfully to the origins of species. You have said nothing to attack the method, or the validity of the science in natural selection.
In fact, no person has. This is my point.
By definition a creationist believes that some being created intelligent life (humans). That is all there is too it. Intelligent design tries to play a trick with the language so that instead of creating life the being intervenes in the process of evolution so as to ensure that intelligent life was the end result. It is really the same thing. You cannot remove the intent from some being from all of this, and that is religion.
There is little point is speculating why, I think the question to ask is, is it the right thing to do?
If it creates more inclusion, yes. If it allows those that do NOT attend school right now to be included in the system and learn MORE than they would ouside the system, then yes.
It's obvious, from the objections, that there are those that would prefer to see persons like the menonites and the hudderites to be kept outside rather than finding ways to be inclusive.
Okay, so since few want to discuss it from the issue of 'how much control should a parent be allowed to have', a scenario came to mind that I'd like SJP to discuss with me.
What happens if and when the 'religious right' runs the curriculum? Time has proven that curriculum is as prone to fads and flaws as any other governmental propoganda, and I'd be curious how much control you'd expect to have over your child's education if the government were to teach things like creation, which you disagree with?
The ability to exercise your own good conscience when it comes to your child's education, is that not something of value? Or is it only valuable if you disagree with the 'why'?
What happens if and when the 'religious right' runs the curriculum? Time has proven that curriculum is as prone to fads and flaws as any other governmental propoganda, and I'd be curious how much control you'd expect to have over your child's education if the government were to teach things like creation, which you disagree with?
The ability to exercise your own good conscience when it comes to your child's education, is that not something of value? Or is it only valuable if you disagree with the 'why'?
You need to open your mind a little Niflmir... My solitary point about the base tenets of 'science' is that there is no way that anyone can state that those elements are constants throughout all time and space.
You want so desperately to believe that it is, that you can no longer see the forest through the trees... Indeed, you have closed your mind and perspective and therefore any opportunity to expand 'scinece'... With that mentality, 'science' will be stuck in neutral due to the restrictions that are placed on the direction that 'scientists' will ever allow... It will never evolve with that mentality.
A very poor example to illustrate your point. In fact, it works to add support for my position that perspective is the most important element.
To start, if you wish that I challenge the methodology, then please point me to the experiments that have repeated and tested macro-evolution.
You mention natural selection, in terms of survival of the fittest (and capacity/opportunity to reproduce), it is a key element and (again) makes perfect sense to me. Arguing one specific element of the overall theory however, is only a partial argument that will offer limited support.
To my knowledge, Creationism relies on a supreme being (intelligent form) but not identified as human. In addition, there is no 'trick' that is employed in the creationist ideal. No where does it state that God delivered the finished/final product. For all we know (and I do not know), evolution is an element within creationism.
Actually, I did.
I do not think a parent should be allowed to bring up their child in ignorance. Which is why parents must enrol their children in school in the first place. Our society in this day and age is highly scientific and having a knowledge about this is very useful to society as well as the individual and so should be taught in elementary school up to high school with varying degrees of information, such as Atlantic Canada's curriculum. I do not think parents should have much say in what the basic education of Canadians is, I think we want as high a standard as possible, not the lowest common denominator.
In Atlantic Canada, if you don't want your children to learn about evolution, don't let them choose Biology as their elective in high school. Simple as that, sure they won't be able to take biology in University, but that is their (your) call. Until then they are learning the things that even creationists don't have a problem with: DNA, meiosis, anatomy, ecology, etc.
What happens if and when the 'religious right' runs the curriculum?
Well, I have news for you, karrie. Religious right does run the curriculum in many places. Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Kentucky and so on. In most of Bible Belt the religious right governments are in power.
However, their curriculum is not all that much different from that of places like California and New York. The reason is that religious right is not permitted to teach religion in public schools. If they try to teach Creationism in science class the courts will come down hard on them.
I do remember a few years ago some hamlet in California mandated teaching of creationism in social sciences class. They are permitted to do that. But then there was so much citizen outcry that they abandoned the idea.
So religious right running the curriculum does not bother me, they are still subject to the constitution, the Charter etc. Religious right cannot bring back mandatory (or voluntary) school prayers, Creationism, evangelization etc. Courts will forbid it.
But religious right can do harm in ways which are constitutional. They can drop evolution from the curriculum (of course). They can also drop physics, chemistry and other subjects where older than 5000 years universe is implied.
If it is constitutional, then that is the right of religious right. If people don’t like it, let them vote them out at the next election. If I had a kid in the school system when religious right decides to implement such insane agenda (no physics, no chemistry, no astronomy, geology, anthropology etc.); I would pull the kid out of public school and put him in private school.
Well, I have news for you, karrie. Religious right does run the curriculum in many places. Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Kentucky and so on. In most of Bible Belt the religious right governments are in power.
However, their curriculum is not all that much different from that of places like California and New York. The reason is that religious right is not permitted to teach religion in public schools. If they try to teach Creationism in science class the courts will come down hard on them.
I do remember a few years ago some hamlet in California mandated teaching of creationism in social sciences class. They are permitted to do that. But then there was so much citizen outcry that they abandoned the idea.
So religious right running the curriculum does not bother me, they are still subject to the constitution, the Charter etc. Religious right cannot bring back mandatory (or voluntary) school prayers, Creationism, evangelization etc. Courts will forbid it.
But religious right can do harm in ways which are constitutional. They can drop evolution from the curriculum (of course). They can also drop physics, chemistry and other subjects where older than 5000 years universe is implied.
If it is constitutional, then that is the right of religious right. If people don’t like it, let them vote them out at the next election. If I had a kid in the school system when religious right decides to implement such insane agenda (no physics, no chemistry, no astronomy, geology, anthropology etc.); I would pull the kid out of public school and put him in private school.
Okay, you're confusing me, because at one point you're saying that they shouldn't be allowed to opt out, but then in another, you're suggesting that they instead opt out of the entire COURSE. How does missing all of biology, instead of just the 'nasty bit about evolution', help them?
It is clear that you are unable to address my point re: your fundamentalism... You have unwittingly implicated yourself (Obama and the USA as well). You realize your error and the only face-saving action that remain at your disposal is to ignore your mistake.
In the end, any of your arguments now fall flat, again, based on your own empirical evidence as the definition that you elect to employ condemns the foundations of your position.
.... But don't worry though. I will remind you every so often.
You shouldn't be able to opt out of the basic education. (No right to have ignorant children.)
You can opt out of the class that contains objectionable material since it is already deemed elective. (You can choose what to specialize your education in.)
It doesn't help them, it hurts them if they want to understand modern biology (either way), which is why if they take the class they should have to sit through that block. A person who has a high school education in biology should have been exposed to the biology behind the origins of species since they will need it in their university classes.
Not really. That is all there is to it if you want to oversimplify it...and of course, one must accept your definition.
Intelligent design doesn't try to do anything. It has no motives. Humans may give it, or rather assume it has, motives.
No, that is only one possible view of intelligent design. Using your argument, the "intent" of evolution and just about every law of nature is the survival of the species so this would fall into your definition of a religion. Thinking men everywhere disagree.
Why don't you guys just say you don't like religion (well, except for your own) and we can move along with the real issue which is whether education is a family or state controlled exercise. It gets so boring when the fundies and the atheists hijack every thread to spew their propaganda. I'm pretty sure I can speak for most here when I say, "we get it". Let the atheists and the fundies go start a thread where they can bash each other and the rest of us can stay here and raise the maturity level of this thread.
So, to get back to the topic at hand (and as I've said repeatedly), the driving force behind this was a desire to get religious minorities into the school system in an attempt get them to "opt into society". It has been a wonderful success. The Alberta government has done a commendable job.
No, I don't think you do get it. The point is that you can't properly teach biology at all without evolution. The kids might be pulled out of the classes where it's explicitly in the lesson plan, but none of the rest of the material's going to make much sense if they don't get that lesson. You can't sensibly talk about how living creatures are classified, for instance, without talking about evolution, it's the source of the differences that result in the classification. You can't talk about DNA and how all creatures use the same 4-letter genetic alphabet without evolution coming up, because that's a result of common ancestry. Suppose the teacher or a student remarks that chimpanzees and humans share 98%, or whatever it is, of their DNA and somebody wants to know why that's so. Can't answer that question without talking about evolution.
Alberta may have done a great job of getting certain religious minorities into the classroom, but at what cost? Part of the cost is allowing parents to make sure their children remain ignorant of one of the most powerful ideas anyone's ever had, and that's not good public education.
Let's burn books, too. That's always, fun. We can all put on our white pointy hats and roast hotdogs & marshmallows. Especially cookbooks, they all mention heat and you know where heat comes from .... the fellow with the pointy tail and horns. 
No, I do get it. I understand you can't properly teach biology without evolution but you can't teach biology at all if the student isn't in the classroom. This bill helps ensure the kids get into the classroom...and that is the point that you don't get. The first step in solving a problem is to understand the problem. You are too busy arguing your own point of view that you haven't bothered to understand the problem. Thank goodness the Alberta government listened to educators that know the issues instead of the atheists and squeaky wheels. Kids are being helped. It's a good thing.
Now go and start a "I hate religion thread"
Again, not understanding the problem...
The "cost" is not allowing parents to make sure their children remain ignorant. That was already happening. In fact, reality shows exactly the opposite. Far from remaining ignorant, the local Mennonite population is moving towards mainstream society. As I said before, there is a Mennonite girl on the honour role in Burdett that wants to become a vet. This would never have happened without this program. All the arguments I've seen on this thread opposing this idea have been proven wrong where the rubber meets the road. The simple fact is that you are arguing against it because you don't like religion, not because of any negative consequences. You are just making up negative consequences to support your argument. Sounds like a religion to me.
I have implicated nothing, Captain. As I have said before, I will be happy to discuss fundamentalism with you, just start a separate thread.
One of the reasons that the fundie/altar-of-science debate (relative to the topic at hand) must rage is that it represents the will of one group dictating to the other. Any chance of developing an academic arrangement that allows for coexistence requires that intolerant belief system of the hard-core scientific community be altered. Just read the shallow excuses and theatrical rebuttals that are necessary by the 'science' community in order to justify their opinion.
Without question, the legislation proposed in Alberta simply offers the opportunity for a family to excuse their children from certain classes... Only their children, not their nieghbour's kids or anyone else in the school. You'd think that all of the science geeks out there would be busy playing God in the labs by genetically manipulating whatever life-form that is available, instead, they are meddling in the lives of others and attempting to dictate what they should believe and how they should live their lives... Ironic in that these folks want to play God while demanding that others not believe that one exists.
In the end, science, in its own right is a form of religion. Consider the blind unquestioned faith that is placed on idiots like Suzuki... The science-wannabees swallow his proclamations as fact despite all of the evidence around them that proves otherwise.
The biggest problem that exists today is that religion went through its reformation centuries ago and 'science' has yet to undergo this part of its evolution.