Evolution classes optional under proposed Alberta law

[rw4th]

Evolution classes optional under proposed Alberta law

Last Updated: Thursday, April 30, 2009
CBC News

Article Link

A controversial Alberta bill will enshrine into law the rights of parents to pull their children out of classes discussing the topics of evolution and homosexuality.

The new rules, which would require schools to notify parents in advance of "subject-matter that deals explicitly with religion, sexuality or sexual orientation," is buried in a bill that extends human rights to homosexuals. Parents can ask for their child to be excluded from the discussion.

"This government supports a very, very fundamental right and that is parental rights with respect to education," said Premier Ed Stelmach.

Although Stelmach has confirmed the bill will give parents the authority to exclude their kids from classes if the topic of evolution comes up, Education Minister Dave Hancock said it won't change anything.

"With respect to values, religion and sex education have always been areas of concern for parents, and they've always been areas parents have had the right to be notified about and to exempt their students from," Hancock said.
Debate over Alberta's international image

Frank Bruseker, the head of the Alberta Teachers' Association, is meeting with Hancock on Monday to raise his concerns.

"If parents don't want that kind of education for their children they have a couple of options," Bruseker said. "One would be home schooling or private school. So for a public school to start excluding based on religious preference, I think is a mistake."

Bruseker said it would be difficult for teachers to avoid the topic of evolution in science or geography classes.

The proposed legislation has touched off a debate about just what kind of image Alberta's government is trying to create around the world.

NDP Leader Brian Mason likened the bill to Alberta recently using a photo of a British beach in an ad to promote the province.

"This government just spent $25 million of taxpayers money to give Alberta a new image. All they've done is make Alberta look like Northumberland and sound like Arkansas," Mason said.

The new legislation could be passed within a few weeks.

 

[Fusaki]

Public schooling is responsible to ensure that students are taught based on scientific analysis and rational discourse.  There is no more reason to make classes on evolution optional then there is to make classes on multiplication tables optional.

Maybe the creationists should start their own special schools where the earth is flat, the stars are celestial beings, and AIDs is curse brought on humanity by our lack of morals.

 

[Teflon]

Wonderbread, you sound like freedom to decide what is best for your child is a bad thing since that is what this is about.

It's not a law that prevents teaching subject-matter that deals explicitly with religion, sexuality or sexual orientation but gives parents the option of not having subject matter that is in conflict with their families religion or moral beliefs presented to their children. Just my 2 cents is all.

As to the multiplication tables, I can't really think of many main-stream religions that are at odds with our present system of multiplication but I'm no expert

 

[PMedMoe]

So what about in a History class, when they are teaching about something someone doesn't believe happened?  Can they pull their kid out of that class, too?

If these classes are optional (for example, at the high school level, some classes are elective), there shouldn't be a problem.  As the article states, it would be pretty hard to avoid mentioning evolution in a science class.

Here's an idea, if the parents don't like a school's curriculum, change schools or home school your child.

 

[Fusaki]

It's not a law that prevents teaching subject-matter that deals explicitly with religion, sexuality or sexual orientation but gives parents the option of not having subject matter that is in conflict with their families religion or moral beliefs presented to their children. Just my 2 cents is all.

I believe that parents should have the right to home school their children, or put them in private religious schools should they desire.  That said, the public school system needs to be kept secular.

 

[rw4th]

I haven't read the actual bill, but from the article the wording seems to imply that parents can pull their children from class when ANY subject matter being taught conflicts with their religion. Evolution itself is touched on in history in biology, and general science classes. Now what happens when someone decides that parts of other subjects - like chemistry and math - conflict with their religion? What happens when the student misses out on subject mater which is required to graduate?

If you want your children indoctrinated into your religion and shielded from any dissenting information then you have the option to home school or send them to private school. It's then your fault if the child misses out on important aspects of his eduction and is then unable to pursue a higher education (as has already happened in California).

 

[ModlrMike]

I'm confused (which isn't a new sensation for me). The bill enshrines gay rights into law in Alberta. At the same time, it gives parents the freedom to withdraw their children from subjects they deem inconsistent with their beliefs. Seems like a pretty liberal approach to things. I have a hard time linking the headline of the article with the content of the bill. If you read the article carefully, nowhere do they quote a part of the law that explicitly mentions evolution. I'm getting the sense that this is another CBC hatchet job on a Conservative government... time time at the provincial level.

 

[Teflon]

Wonderbread

Yes all parents do have the right to home school their kids, Not all of them have have the means / ability to do so or the money to enrole them in in private religious schools. They also have to the requirement to ensure that their children recieve an education and the parental obligation of of being the primary influence in the development of their children's ethical and moral values as well as the right of freedom of religion. I don't see the right of the parent to keep his/her child free of exposure to subject matter that is in conflict with their recognized religion as infringement on anyone else's rights or freedoms.  As to the wording of the the acctual bill I wouldn't begin to pass judgement as I am no expert but would agree that it would have to very carefully worded so as to prevent abuses but in the end it's not preventing the subject matter from being taught to anyone except the parents children.

At the momment I have little stake in this as I as of yet have no children and I am not what anyone would consider particularly religist but should I at some point have some I don't want any individual or organization to take over my parental obligation of of being the primary influence in the development of my children's ethical and moral values. I am not even against the teaching of evolution or sexual orientation in schools but I am against the infringement of one's freedom to attempt to live their lives and raise their family in accordence with their recognized religion.

 

[Fusaki]

In my mind, it's about establishing a standard of education.

I'm not a scientist, but I'm under the impression that evolution -or at least the rational discussion of it- is pretty critical to the understanding of biology. So how do you give a kid a B in science class when he believes that the world was created in 7 days?  If the information isn't that important, then why include it in the curriculum anyways.

In school, you can't just skip things you don't like.

(Well, I did... and now I'm in the army... go figure... ;D)

 

[Fusaki]

Further to my last...

By allowing kids to skip out on evolution class you encourage them to live in a world where they can just tune out any stimulus that will push them out of their intellectual and emotional comfort zones.

It will make kids dumber.

 

[gcclarke]

Indeed, it is stuff like this that makes me glad I'm not living in Alberta anymore. There's few things that raise my ire quite so effectively as people trying to warp reality (Or the teaching of what should reflect reality) to suit their beliefs, as opposed to altering your beliefs when the evidence doesn't agree with you.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Of course, the assumption here is that 'kids these days' can't think for themselves and decide which stuff the public school system throws at them is BS, and what is not. Ironically, the museum at Drumheller, Alberta teaches us all that dinosaurs are 10s of millions of years old, which is severely at odds with the 'Loonie Right's' interpretation.

I wouldn't worry too much about this one. But it's still important ammunition in my continuing campaign to wind up my Alberta-based in-laws... thank you and shot out  >

 

[old balls]

Oh, if only the science & technology they use in that province to discover and extract oil could somehow be used to answer the question of evolution vs. creationism, and the true age of the earth.

The fact that people still believe in creationism at all is proof that public education has failed Canadians for the last 30 years or so.

 

[McG]

I have a hard time linking the headline of the article with the content of the bill. If you read the article carefully, nowhere do they quote a part of the law that explicitly mentions evolution. I'm getting the sense that this is another CBC hatchet job on a Conservative government...

There is no quote from the bill, but the Premier is cited for having confirmed that the bill would have the effect of making evolution a parent's option.  The headline does seem to fit even if it does add a certain bias to the whole story. 

There is an obvious good intention in allowing universal parental discretion related to educational topics which are controversial or in conflict with a parents religious beliefs.  However, as others have pointed out, there may be problems related access to higher education where Universities & Colleges demand certain threshold knowledge for admission into different programs.  There is also the cost and feasibility issues related to what will effectively be a public school system mandated to deliver individually tailored curriculum for every family.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Of course, the assumption here is that 'kids these days' can't think for themselves and decide which stuff the public school system throws at them is BS, and what is not. Ironically, the museum at Drumheller, Alberta teaches us all that dinosaurs are 10s of millions of years old, which is severely at odds with the 'Loonie Right's' interpretation.

It's not "the kids these days" and their capacity (or lack thereof) to think for themselves that the dinosaurs (the ones in the legislature, not in the Drumheller museum) are considering, but the parents (voters); specifically the very socially conservative constituency (mostly outside the two major cities) that are the base of the current leadership of the Alberta PC party.  If seats in the provincial legislature were distributed solely on the basis of population, the number of rural MLAs would be significantly less and there would be a decidedly different mind set in Alberta government.  It would most probably still be a conservative majority but the focus would be on fiscal conservatism and there probably would not be such determination to keep "evolutionists" and "sodomites" from the schools.

 

[Rinker]

I honestly have no problem with it. There is so much evidence that proves the earth isn't that old, as well as so much that proves it is. And maybe a little bit of both should be taught, doesn't have to be religious just the evidence. Then they will be able to make that decision for themselves rather than the parents. As for previous remarks about religion changing what they believe to make the "evidence" fit, well evolution theories that support the main theory always change to support the main theory as well. So it goes both ways, I was taught both. Both have a substantial amount of "evidence" and was able to make an informed decision of my own without my parents. By the way Charles Darwin ended up becoming christian as he couldn't disprove god.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I honestly have no problem with it. There is so much evidence that proves the earth isn't that old, as well as so much that proves it is. And maybe a little bit of both should be taught, doesn't have to be religious just the evidence. Then they will be able to make that decision for themselves rather than the parents. As for previous remarks about religion changing what they believe to make the "evidence" fit, well evolution theories that support the main theory always change to support the main theory as well. So it goes both ways, I was taught both. Both have a substantial amount of "evidence" and was able to make an informed decision of my own without my parents. By the way Charles Darwin ended up becoming christian as he couldn't disprove god.

Oh no... I just watched the movie 'Religulous' with Bill Mahr and now must.... not.... lose.... it...  :rofl:

Rats, too late.

 

[Journeyman]

There is so much evidence that proves the earth isn't that old, as well as so much that proves it is.

Only if one believes that "if it's printed, it must be true, otherwise they couldn't publish it." Such people, logically, should be predisposed to believe in aliens producing crop circles, the Pentagon was an inside job on 9/11, and the Masons and/or the Federal Reserve are running the world. The more extreme amongst them also have a tendency to get mocked with tinfoil hat jokes.
Personally, I've never seen any credible evidence of global age that supports a creationist view.

By the way Charles Darwin ended up becoming christian as he couldn't disprove god.

Wrong.
Even amongst sources predisposed to push the creationist line, and who would therefore love to be able to say "see, Darwin admits he was wrong" (eg - Christian Answers):

The alleged recantation/conversion is embellishment that others have either read into the story or made up for themselves. Moore [Darwin's biographer, Dr James Moore] calls such doings “holy fabrication!”

It should be noted that for most of her married life Emma [Darwin's wife] was deeply pained by the irreligious nature of Charles's views, and would have been strongly motivated to have corroborated any story of a genuine conversion, if such had occurred. She never did.

It therefore appears that Darwin did not recant, and it is a pity that to this day the Lady Hope story [Elizabeth Reid Hope, a "tent evangelist," visiting the elderly and sick in Kent in the 1880s] occasionally appears in tracts published and given out by well-meaning people.

However, even if Darwin's embracing Christianity was true (again, it's not), he merely produced a theory of evolution for others to examine and consider, he didn't invent evolution. His scientific beliefs are to be considered; his personal beliefs are pretty much irrelevant to my personal beliefs.

...the bill would have the effect of making evolution a parent's option.

They can choose to mate beyond the trailer park, and not with a direct relative, thus allowing their children to evolve?  ;D

 

[Fusaki]

By the way Charles Darwin ended up becoming christian as he couldn't disprove god.

I can't disprove the existence of unicorns. Is that a good reason to believe in them?

 

[observor 69]

I can't think of anything funny to say ref this discussion just sadness that it even has to take place.