Evolution classes optional under proposed Alberta law

[rw4th]

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.

The bar for science is called "peer review". Any paper or opinion published is just ink on paper until it goes through the peer review process regardless of the letters after the author's name. Please find and post peer reviewed science that supports a young earth model.

 

[chris_log]

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.

:rofl:

There is absolutally no evidence to support creationism. None. Zip. Nadda. Zilch. Therefore, it has no place in any institution of learning. Neither do religious teachings of any kind.

I do like it out here in Wild Rose Country, but sometimes the hillbilly politics of a select group of ignorant voters makes me laugh.

 

[Trooper Hale]

I had this discussion once with my girlfriend. She's a Christian, I'm not and the best evidence she could give me for creationism and young earth is that "things dont add up". I find it ridiculous. I went to a government school and had never heard of people seriously believing that the earth is only a couple of thousand years old till last year. We were taught evolution and i found it fascinating. My mum, a very strong Catholic, believes in Dinosaures and human evolution.
In the year 2009, it pains me to think that people are still trying to peddle the line that God made everything in 7 days, the dinosaures dont make sense and Adam and Eve started the human race.
To stop children, at government schools, from learning this, on the discretion of their parents, is retch worthy.
Edit to add, if someone, like my girlfriend, does believe in Creationism, then thats fine. I dont in any way mean to offend anyone at all. Everyone has personal beliefs. I just dont think that religion has a place in public schools.

 

[ex-Sup]

Yikes! Holy minefield! Kinda glad I teach where I do, especially since we're okay with the whole evolution thing.
From a teaching perspective, I don't think it's the subject that's the issue, it's the precedent it sets. Allowing parents to decide what their kids are exposed to is like opening Pandora's box. I can understand the parental concern, but hiding or skirting around it isn't the solution either. Let’s face it, most kids are not overly keen on religion. If they are going to turn away from religion, it isn’t going to be one or a few things they heard about in school. They’ve probably made that decision long before hand. Trust me, I see it every day.
Now in terms of the repercussions, the fallout could be potentially huge. As was mentioned in many other posts, where does the line get drawn? Right now I’m in the middle of WWII with my Gr.10’s (just did D-Day on Friday); what happens if pacifists don’t want their kids to learn about the war? I’m doing the Holocaust on Wednesday, how about that? I certainly wouldn’t want to be an administrator in that climate.
Once again as a parent, and someone who is religious, I can understand the concern. However, as I mentioned before, avoiding an issue isn’t always the answer. If students don’t encounter these issues in the classroom, they are going to have to deal with it in other places ie. media. What then? Do you keep them in a bubble?
Curious to see what unfolds.

 

[Rinker]

Wow Ex-sup couldn't have put it any better

 

[a_majoor]

While I mostly agree with Ex-Sup, the flip side of the coin is by mandating things that "must" be taught, we enter the arena of using schools to indoctrinate students into particular ideologies.

In case you havn't made a habit of talking to your children after they come home from school, then  do so and see how things like climate change alarmism and other forms of political correctness get pushed on them (and no countervailing ideas to teach them about critical thinking).

Parental choice is very important to ensure true diversity in society, and while we might find certain choices unfortunate, it is not our decision to make or our job to force our views on others.

 

[vonGarvin]

I have to weigh in here.  As a bit of a backgrounder, I am a practicising Roman Catholic, and was schooled from kindergarten to Grade 12 in the separate (read: Catholic) system in Ontario.  (With the exception of grade 11, which I completed in Germany as part of a student exchange).
First, re: creationism vs. evolution.  I know that the Catholic Church has not always been "tolerant" of some science in the past.  The notion of the Earth revolving around the sun was once considered heresy!  Anyway, we were taught the theory of evolution in school.  It is not at odds with faith.  As I was taught (and as Catholic doctrine goes, anyway), the Old Testament is mostly written in the forms of parables and the like.  As an example, it is not faith to say that God created the universe in 7 days, rather, the faith is that God created the universe.  That's it.  The seven days statement is just "poetic license" to illustrate God's powers, hyperbole, if you will.  So, faith and science can indeed co-exist.  Having said all that, however, I do understand that some Christian sects have it as an article of faith to take the old testament at face value.  That is their faith, and I don't share it.
Second, as for saying that religion should not be taught in school is akin to saying that any social science should not be taught at school!  Not taught as a matter of faith, but as a matter of societal effects, etc.  In my schooling, we learned of many of the world's major religions: Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Shintoism, etc and so forth.  Whether you believe in any deity or not is irrelevant: it's important to understanding humanity.
Third, as for the state deciding what your kids will learn for you "because they know best" is dangerous.  My kids are all for a carbon tax.  Why?  Because they learned it in school.  So I challenge them: what will paying higher taxes do?  No answers other than "It will save the world", etc.  I don't want the "what", I tell them, I want the "how".  I've spurred them on to independant research, which in itself is rather heartening!
So, next time you talk of a religious person as being "closed minded" because they believe in creationism, ask yourself who is being closed minded and judgemental?
EDIT: If you read the story of creation in Genesis, please note the sequence in which things were created, and ignore the timeline.  You may be somewhat surprised.
(For those too lazy to look, here is the sequence)
1: Heavens and Earth (which was covered in water)
2: Light and Darkness
3: Space between Earth and Heaven (called "sky", perhaps also known as "atmosphere?")
4: Land
5: Vegetation
6: Sea Creatures and Birds
7: Land Animals
8: Humans

So, a fresh look at an old book, ignoring the timelines within, shows a similar path to the present as offered by science. (Big bang to formations of stars and planets to formation of atmospheres to simple lifeforms to more complex lifeforms that dwell in water to those that dwell on land and sky to finally we find humans beginning to roam about).

Anyway, have a great day

 

[rw4th]

Catholics are not for the most part Bible literalists, but there are a significant number of Evangelicals out there who take it quite literally.

So, next time you talk of a religious person as being "closed minded" because they believe in creationism, ask yourself who is being closed minded and judgemental?

Here's a great video that discusses "open-mindedness" and explains it better then me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

 

[ModlrMike]

I still maintain that this is another example of "gotcha journalism". I agree that there are serious discussion to be had about exempting students from various parts of the curriculum and the long term effect it might have on their futures. However, evolution is but one issue and was brought up by the press, not the government. They could have just as easily asked about the crusades, sex ed, or any number of potentially contentious issues. By highlighting the evolution angle, they get to paint the Stelmach government as redneck hicks... which sells more news.

 

[observor 69]

Capt.Midnight quite a reasonable post. Sensible, informed and thoughtful on your part.

Whereas in the part of Southern Ontario that I live in I have seen a dramatic growth in evangelistic churches and congregations. Unfortunately these people don't appear to share your more reasonable outlook toward the Bible and religions and are quit dogmatic about their beliefs.

 

[vonGarvin]

Catholics are not for the most part Bible literalists, but there are a significant number of Evangelicals out there who take it quite literally.

Christian sects are either fundamentalist or contextualists.  Catholics are contextualists (by doctrine: it may not have always been like that, but hey, the church is progressing, no?  I mean, it's been YEARS since we've had an Italian pope!)  ;D.  Here is an example (secular though it may be  ;D)
Imagine 1000 years from now some future-dude unearths a newspaper from 1977 or so.  He reads the Sports page and sees the following headline:
"Thurman Munson guns down Pete Rose as he tries to steal Second".  A fundamentalist would think that baseball was a violent game in which people shot each other.  A contextualist would examine further to see if any metaphors were being used.

A rather simple-minded example, but I found it effective (probably back in 1977 or so!)

 

[PMedMoe]

Bill under attack for catering to right-wing parents
Activist, teachers upset by legislation that allows children to be yanked from classes teaching sensitive subjects
Article Link

NATHAN VANDERKLIPPE
From Monday's Globe and Mail
May 18, 2009 at 8:32 AM EDT

CALGARY — A bill that has raised the spectre of Alberta parents hauling teachers before human rights tribunals is an offensive attempt to placate ultra right-wing conservatives, says the man whose legal crusade forced the province to rewrite its human rights legislation.

This weekend, Alberta's teachers slammed proposed new rules that would give parents sweeping rights to pull kids from classes on touchy subjects, and be notified in advance when lessons focus on religion, sexuality or sexual orientation.

The new measures were included as part of Bill 44, which enshrines gay rights in the province 11 years after they were imposed by the Supreme Court of Canada in a case that caused an ugly backlash in Alberta. In an interview yesterday, Alberta Culture and Community Spirit Minister Lindsay Blackett admitted that the provincial caucus wrote the school provisions into the bill as an olive branch to religious groups and conservative voters who might be offended by the province's move to codify gay rights.

"It doesn't hurt to have some balance on what you're bringing forward, so you can get some support from both ends of the political spectrum," he said.

More on link

Be wary of reading the comments, it is The Globe and Mail, after all.  :

 

[Michael OLeary]

Half the population is dumber than average, and, judging from the first few pages of comments, spread evenly across the political spectrum.

Intelligence may have a genetic component, but ignorance is certainly hereditary when parents refuse to even allow children the opportunity to gain enough knowledge to make their own decisions in future.

 

[vonGarvin]

Intelligence may have a genetic component, but ignorance is certainly hereditary when parents refuse to even allow children the opportunity to gain enough knowledge to make their own decisions in future.

That may be true; however, is it up to "us enlightened folk" to decide what their kids will learn, even if it conflicts with their value system or beliefs?
If we are to hold parents responsible for their children, then those parents should have the right to raise them as they see fit, within the limits of the law of course.  Beliefs, no matter how odd or strange they sound to others are just that: beliefs or opinions, and we have that freedom.  Of course, once the children turn 18, they are adults, and that's when they can decide for themselves if they will follow in mommy and daddy's footsteps, or if they will venture off on their own. 

 

[observor 69]

Wow a chance to use my profile comment:

"Socrates taught his students that the pursuit of truth can only begin once they start to question and analyze every belief that they ever held dear."

 

[a_majoor]

Indeed, unless the intent is to indoctrinate the children into specific modes of thought and behavior (either positive such as the program of "Civic Nationalism" that business, church and civic groups provided in post civil war America [until overtaken by "progressive" public education in the late 1920's] or negative like the Palestinian death cults promoted by all factions of Palestinian "leadership") the parents should have the right to choose any form of education for their children, and the State should have no say whatsoever.

While we might publicly or privately decry the decisions of some parents, ultimately poor decisions become canceled out in a generation or two (children will see their horizons constrained and may wish better for their children). Of course, we should not be smug, many people would look at our lifestyle and career choices as being poor or dysfunctional as well......

 

[McG]

Drop parental opt-out on evolution, other issues, teachers urge Alberta
CBC Online
Wednesday, May 20, 2009 | 1:19 PM MT

Alberta's teachers have officially asked the province to drop amendments to its human rights legislation that would give parents the right to pull their children out of classes discussing religion, evolution, sexuality or sexual orientation.

On the weekend, delegates to the annual general meeting of the Alberta Teachers' Association (ATA) passed a resolution asking the province to delete the section of the bill that contains the amendments. On Tuesday, ATA President Frank Bruseker sent a letter to Premier Ed Stelmach notifying him about the resolution and the teachers' concerns.

"Representatives of the teaching profession in attendance at the meeting are concerned about the negative effect the legislation will have on their lives as teachers," Bruseker writes.

"Our members continue to believe that existing legislation, the Guide to Education and the provisions established in the Code of Professional Conduct are sufficient mechanisms to ensure that teachers are respectful of their students and parents."

The proposed changes were part of amendments to Alberta's human rights legislation that granted protections to homosexuals, known as Bill 44.

But the changes also contain a provision requiring schools to notify parents in advance of "subject matter that deals explicitly with religion, sexuality or sexual orientation," allowing them to have their children excluded from such discussions.

In late April, Stelmach told reporters parents could use the provision to pull their children out of discussions about evolution. But the minister responsible for human rights, Lindsay Blackett, said the opt-out option only applies for classes in religious instruction. Parents can't simply pull students out of classes that deal with issues they feel conflict with their religious beliefs, Blackett said in an interview with CBC News in early May.

Teachers worry the amendments will have a "chilling effect" on the classroom and could put teachers and school boards at risk of being prosecuted under the provincial Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, according to an ATA submission on the Act sent to the premier earlier this month

Bruseker has urged Blackett to ask House Leader and Education Minister Dave Hancock to simply stop the bill from going forward.

"Let's just leave it alone," Bruseker said. "Let's consult with all the education groups whom are all equally upset. This is not just teachers who are upset but, indeed, others in the education sector as well."

Bruseker has asked teachers to also call or email their MLAs.

But people who support the parental rights amendment are urging the government to follow through with the bill. Rev. Tim Seim, president of the Alberta Church Executive Fellowship, said parents will lose their faith in public education if the government backs down.

"If you eliminate the role of parents in the education of their children, I think you are taking a big step in the wrong direction," he said.

The legislature is on a break this week. MLAs are expected to continue the debate of Bill 44 next week.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2009/05/20/edmonton-teachers-letter-premier.html?ref=rss

 

[ex-Sup]

Alta. passes law allowing kids to be pulled from class
Updated Tue. Jun. 2 2009 7:35 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

After a lengthy debate, members of the Alberta legislature passed human rights legislation allowing parents to pull their children out of classes dealing with sex, religion or sexual orientation.

Bill 44 was adopted at about 1:30 a.m. MT Tuesday.

Prior to its adoption, members of the legislature heard objections from teachers, school boards and human rights groups.

The groups in opposition said the issue should be addressed as part of the Schools Act instead of as a human right.

They also claim the law is too vague, which could create problems for teachers who are trying to do their job.

With the legislation in place, school boards are now required to notify parents in writing any time the controversial topics will be "explicitly" covered in class.

"We want to nail down exactly what's required for notification -- when it's required, exactly on what topics it's required, how often, and we'll be seeking our own legal advice ... on that," Alberta School Boards Association president Heather Welwood said Monday.

Frank Bruseker, president of the Alberta Teachers' Association, said the legislation makes it difficult for teachers.

"We'll need to review curricula right across all subjects and all grades to see where there might be a minefield, if you will, that a teacher might step in and suddenly find themselves in deep trouble."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090602/alta_law_090602/20090602?hub=TopStories

Good god (pardon the pun), what a bureaucratic and logistical nightmare! I can't imagine the coordination that would require in the average school (we have 1250 students and 90+ teachers). I wouldn't want to be the admin at any of those schools!

 

[Brad Sallows]

The union only wishes to make it difficult.  I can count on one hand the number of classes I attended as a student in which any of the proposed "controversial" topics was the explicit subject of discussion, and - conveniently enough for those lacking common sense - the whole point of the classes was sex ed.

It is a curious coincidence that the people who need things exactly spelled out are often the same people who immediately run right up against the fences and push.

 

[ex-Sup]

The union only wishes to make it difficult.  I can count on one hand the number of classes I attended as a student in which any of the proposed "controversial" topics was the explicit subject of discussion, and - conveniently enough for those lacking common sense - the whole point of the classes was sex ed.

It is a curious coincidence that the people who need things exactly spelled out are often the same people who immediately run right up against the fences and push.

Maybe that might seem straightforward from your "student" perspective, but what if it was your ass or more correctly, your job on the line? I teach history, and some of these topics have been part of my lessons (some of them are part of the curriculum). Things are sometimes a bit more complicated than they would appear one the surface.