Evolution classes optional under proposed Alberta law

[Fusaki]

Lets pay attention to the title of this area of the forum, "Canadian Politics".

If anyone wishes to discuss the religious/ non-religious aspect of life, then take it to some other website that deals with those issues.

Now, back to the school topic.

This debate is critical to the discussion of "Evolution vs/in addition to Creationism in Schools"

The standards of education in our country need to be based on rational analysis and scientific theory.  Competing theories should be taught and discussed, provided that these theories also have evidence to support them.

Creationism however, does not have any evidence to support it and therefore the idea of it should not be humored as a competing theory in the history of the world.

 

[vonGarvin]

Creationism however, does not have any evidence to support it and therefore the idea of it should not be humored as a competing theory in the history of the world.

Creationism is (rightly) not being taught at secular schools as fact.  That is not the issue.  The issue is whether or not parents have the right to excuse their children from lessons that conflict with their religious (or other) beliefs.  In short, who has the upper hand in raising children: the state or the parents.  I think you and I agree that parents are ultimately responsible.  If the state is responsible, then the state can pay for my kids clothes, education, etc.

 

[Fusaki]

-  you have not proven X, therefore X is not true
-  you have not disprove X, therefore X is true

You're right. I can not say beyond a shadow of a doubt that the world was not created the way Genesis describes.  I can not say beyond a shadow of a doubt that <a href=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHclQIWAbx0>dinosaurs didn't speak english</a> either.  I accept the possibility that both suppositions might be true.

What I do not accept is pretending that either of these ideas have any sort of evidence supporting them and that it is practical to present them as theories worthy of discussion.

Maybe one day paleontologists will dig up some dinosaur rap videos and we'll have to start taking that theory seriously, but untill then I think those ideas are best left for 3 year olds.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

This debate is critical to the discussion of "Evolution vs/in addition to Creationism in Schools"

No it isn't.

This could be sex ed,or the HPV vaccination,  I repeat this thread is not for religious/ atheist "he said, she said".

TO ALL WHO WISH TO POST HERE, THIS IS THE LAST WARNING

 

[Fusaki]

Creationism is (rightly) not being taught at secular schools as fact.  That is not the issue.  The issue is whether or not parents have the right to excuse their children from lessons that conflict with their religious (or other) beliefs.  In short, who has the upper hand in raising children: the state or the parents.  I think you and I agree that parents are ultimately responsible.  If the state is responsible, then the state can pay for my kids clothes, education, etc.

I do agree with you there, and further to that I'll dig up a post from a few days ago:

While parents should have the right to pull their kids out of class, they should not have the right to change the standard of education for everyone. Therefore, the tests should reflect the entire curriculum - not just those areas all the parents agree on.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I think those ideas are best left for 3 year olds.

Verbal

 

[Fusaki]

Didn't know you liked "The Land Before Time" that much...

 

[gcclarke]

Ultimately, fostering critical thinking and logic skills in students will, in my humble opinion, improve society. This bill allows parents to avoid their children being exposed to viewpoints outside of their own, which I believe is doing a disservice to both society, and to the children themselves.

Pulling them out of sex education classes, for example, could lead to them having children before they are ready, because they were never taught more than one method of preventing pregnancy, not to mention the increased risk of sexually transmitted diseases due to not knowing either to use a condom, or how to properly wear one.

Eventually, the vast majority of children are going to leave their parents care, and have to make it in the real world, and have their own opinions. And while it may very well be that they would form the same opinions as their parents, it would be a disservice to all involved if they only did so because they never encountered differing points of view, or evidence that might come in conflict with their worldview.

 

[vonGarvin]

Ultimately, fostering critical thinking and logic skills in students will, in my humble opinion, improve society. This bill allows parents to avoid their children being exposed to viewpoints outside of their own, which I believe is doing a disservice to both society, and to the children themselves.

Pulling them out of sex education classes, for example, could lead to them having children before they are ready, because they were never taught more than one method of preventing pregnancy, not to mention the increased risk of sexually transmitted diseases due to not knowing either to use a condom, or how to properly wear one.

Eventually, the vast majority of children are going to leave their parents care, and have to make it in the real world, and have their own opinions. And while it may very well be that they would form the same opinions as their parents, it would be a disservice to all involved if they only did so because they never encountered differing points of view, or evidence that might come in conflict with their worldview.

Your arguments may sound valid; however, there are some irregularities in it.  You suppose that parents will not talk to their kids about sexuality.  Though I agree that a diverse viewpoint of the world is good for all, that is just me. 

I won't even touch about teaching children how to use condoms. 

Children will leave their parents' care. All will one day find themselves in a world full of differing views, all of which were formed on their own.  That isn't the issue here.  The issue here is the State deciding what will be taught to them beyond the so-called three Rs.  Once there is a mandated code of ethical behaviour involved, then we're all treading on thin ice.  My parents decided to send me to Separate School in Ontario.  I never learned about how to wear a condom, but we did learn about pregnancy, how it "happened" and some of the ramifications of sex, especially for teens.  Yes, we also learned the Party Line on it, but we also learned about a bunch of other stuff.  Mathematics included.  The point is this: my parents had the RIGHT to decide where I was educated, and they had a say in what was taught.  If they opposed the Party Line, then they were free to pull me out of Our Lady of Fatima school and enroll me in Prince Charles Public School.  They had the choice.

 

[gcclarke]

Your arguments may sound valid; however, there are some irregularities in it.  You suppose that parents will not talk to their kids about sexuality.  Though I agree that a diverse viewpoint of the world is good for all, that is just me. 

I won't even touch about teaching children how to use condoms.

I am making the assumption that the majority of parents who would pull their children out of a sex-education class would be the same type of parents who would only give their children "abstinence-only" style education, which numerous studies have proven to be ineffectual.

And yes, teaching children how to properly put on a condom is useful. There's little point telling them that condoms can be an effective form of birth control as well as helping to prevent the spread of various diseases if you do not show them how to properly use them. Like any tool, to be effective, they must be used properly, and condoms can certainly be used wrong. From what I've seen, typically a cucumber is used en lieu of a penis, but I suppose a life-like dildo could be used for greater accuracy. Here's a link to one such demonstration:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2HZkMjWyp8

Children will leave their parents' care. All will one day find themselves in a world full of differing views, all of which were formed on their own.  That isn't the issue here.  The issue here is the State deciding what will be taught to them beyond the so-called three Rs.  Once there is a mandated code of ethical behaviour involved, then we're all treading on thin ice.  My parents decided to send me to Separate School in Ontario.  I never learned about how to wear a condom, but we did learn about pregnancy, how it "happened" and some of the ramifications of sex, especially for teens.  Yes, we also learned the Party Line on it, but we also learned about a bunch of other stuff.  Mathematics included.  The point is this: my parents had the RIGHT to decide where I was educated, and they had a say in what was taught.  If they opposed the Party Line, then they were free to pull me out of Our Lady of Fatima school and enroll me in Prince Charles Public School.  They had the choice.

I suppose my main issue with this topic is that it in many ways children are treated as the property of their parents, to do with what they will, when in many cases this may not be to the children benefit. I also went to a Catholic school in Alberta, and also was not shown how to put on a condom. And the first time I ever had sex, the dang thing broke. Personally, I think I would have been better off if my parents had not made that choice for me. Or if they had taken the time themselves to bridge the gap between what I should have known and what I was being taught in school.

I guess to me, it's an issue of where to draw the line. Sure, we may not have a problem with teens being pulled out of their sex-education classes, but where else? There's the story about that nice little girl in Manitoba who had been taught that black people deserve to die. I'm sure her parents would want her to be pulled out of a fair number of history classes, those dealing with slavery and the holocaust. Should this be allowed?  There are a lot of bad parents out there. Part of our role, as members of society, should be to help give children a chance to become more than simply clones of their parents.

And honestly, I don't have a problem with there being a mandated code of ethical behaviour. We live in society, and in society you're expected to follow certain ethical guidelines: No killing, no stealing, tip well, no raping, say thank you when someone does something for you, don't have unprotected sex unless you're ready to deal with the natural consequences, pay your taxes, and try to avoid the crack rocks.

Naturally, the consequences of not following some of these guidelines are more serious than others.

And education isn't primarily there to teach those guidelines. However, it can be there to teach you how to stay within those guidelines.

 

[DBA]

States are just as guilty of at times treating children like property and indoctrinating them. While the law allows parents to act poorly at times depending on your viewpoint on specific topics it also helps prevent the state from doing so on a much larger scale.

 

[Yrys]

In another country :

Welcome to the biggest creationist museum in the US

Just some of the 49 acres in which the Creation Museum is set

While celebrations are on-going this year to mark Charles Darwin's bicentenary, there's at least
one place that won't be toasting his memory - a creationist museum in Kentucky, US. There are
tail-wagging animatronic dinosaurs, a special effects cinema, a planetarium and a petting zoo.
As museums go, the Creation Museum in Petersburg is not short on attractions.

And it doesn't want for space either. Set in 49 acres of well-groomed grounds - that's 35 more than
London's Natural History Museum - this is the biggest creationist museum in the United States.
Behind it all is a Christian ministry, Answers in Genesis, committed to spreading its belief that the
universe was created by direct acts of God over six days, less than 10,000 years ago. The museum,
which cost $27m (£17m) to build, opened two years ago.

And while millions of people the world over will spend 2009 celebrating Charles Darwin's memory -
it's 200 years since he was born and 150 years since his seminal work, the Origin of Species, which
set out his theory of evolution, was published - many others will side with this museum's theme:
"life doesn't evolve around Darwin".

The Creation Museum is the uncompromising vision of Australian-born evangelical Ken Ham, who
aims to "expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas" and "enable Christians to defend their faith".
The ministry he founded also distances itself from "intelligent design", the theory that creatures
exist of such complexity they could not have evolved as a result of natural selection. To Mr Ham,
that theory provides "good scientific arguments to challenge the idea life could evolve by chance"
but ultimately does not question evolution or promote creation "as the bible teaches".

Answers In Genesis is not alone in rejecting evolution - creationism has its supporters in the UK. A
2006 survey for the BBC's Horizon programme, found a fifth of people polled were convinced by the
creationist argument and just less than half accepted evolution as the best description for the
development of life.

'Creationist in training'

And Britain has its own creationist museum, in Portsmouth, Hampshire. But its size and popularity is
dwarfed by that of its Kentucky counterpart. The former claims 50,000 visitors in nine years, compared
with the latter's 700,000 in less than two. So who goes to America's biggest and best attended creationist
museum and why?

Scott Rubin, 42, says he turned to God late in life. The father-of-three, from Chicago, was a business
consultant when he "had an encounter with Jesus" and became a youth pastor. "Evolution is a good theory,
I don't believe in it, but parts of it are sensible and parts of creationism are sensible," he says. "When it
comes down to it, how can you know for sure? What I do know is God's changed my life. I believe God
created the world in six days, I do believe that." Mr Rubin, who is visiting the museum ahead of a baseball
game in his home town of Cincinnati, says he grew up in the church but did not pay much attention to it.
"I never intended to be the church guy. It makes sense why people believe in evolution, especially if they've
not had the encounter with Jesus I've had."

( 3 others peoples are described at the link)

Mr Rubin's sign-off sentiments could be taken as a conciliatory gesture to those who would beg to differ with
his views. But what do creationists make of the scientific evidence that claims to undermine their theories?

The most recent such finding, a "47-million-year-old fossil" of a primate, called Ida, may have given
scientists a "fresh insight" into evolution - but followers of Answers In Genesis are having none of it.
President and founder Ken Ham stayed resolutely silent about the fossil, called Darwinius masillae, which
scientists believe was linked to an early human ancestor.

Meanwhile, the ministry's website stated: "Because the fossil is similar to a modern lemur, it's unlikely
creationists need any interpretation of the 'missing link' other than it was a small, tailed, probably
tree-climbing, and now extinct primate from a kind created on Day Six of Creation Week."