# Evolution classes optional under proposed Alberta law



## rw4th (1 May 2009)

*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.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fusaki (1 May 2009)

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 (1 May 2009)

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 (1 May 2009)

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 (1 May 2009)

> 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 (1 May 2009)

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 (1 May 2009)

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 (1 May 2009)

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 (1 May 2009)

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 (1 May 2009)

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 (2 May 2009)

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 (2 May 2009)

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 (2 May 2009)

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 (2 May 2009)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> 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 (2 May 2009)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> 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 (2 May 2009)

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 (2 May 2009)

Rinker said:
			
		

> 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 (2 May 2009)

Rinker said:
			
		

> 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.




			
				MCG said:
			
		

> ...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 (2 May 2009)

Rinker said:
			
		

> 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 (2 May 2009)

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


----------



## rw4th (2 May 2009)

Rinker said:
			
		

> 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 (2 May 2009)

Rinker said:
			
		

> 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 (2 May 2009)

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 (2 May 2009)

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 (2 May 2009)

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


----------



## a_majoor (4 May 2009)

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 (4 May 2009)

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 (4 May 2009)

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



			
				Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> 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 (4 May 2009)

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 (4 May 2009)

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 (4 May 2009)

rw4th said:
			
		

> 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 (18 May 2009)

*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 (18 May 2009)

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 (18 May 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> 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 (18 May 2009)

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 (19 May 2009)

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 (20 May 2009)

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


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


----------



## ex-Sup (2 Jun 2009)

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


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 (2 Jun 2009)

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 (2 Jun 2009)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## ettibebs (2 Jun 2009)

I know I'm probably stretching it but it kind of remind me of the little girl in Manitoba not too long ago who firmly believe that black people should be killed because her parents where white supremacist and taught her so.   If such a law is pass when will racist group will start pulling there children from class teaching tolerance or from class teaching about the nazi concentration camp.  I think it's setting a dangerous precedent here.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (2 Jun 2009)

ettibebs said:
			
		

> I know I'm probably stretching it but it kind of remind me of the little girl in Manitoba not too long ago who firmly believe that black people should be killed because her parents where white supremacist and taught her so.   If such a law is pass when will racist group will start pulling there children from class teaching tolerance or from class teaching about the nazi concentration camp.  I think it's setting a dangerous precedent here.



I think that you've just invoked Godwin's Law (or at least some form of it). I totally didn't see that coming this early in the thread.

Why shouldn't parents be able to pull their children from classes? I am not saying that it is a good idea to try to keep subject matter away from your kids just because it conflicts with your world view, but I am not comfortable with the government and school boards being in complete control. If some fringe group doesn't want their kids to learn the letter 'J', the number '7', conjugation or the difference between 'their' and 'there' I figure that letting them pull their kids is the cost of living in a free country.

As an aside, I get notes now from teachers on what is going to be taught to my kids. Not because I asked them to or that I am going to pull them from class, but because the teachers here want to keep us involved. It seems to work.


----------



## ex-Sup (2 Jun 2009)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> As an aside, I get notes now from teachers on what is going to be taught to my kids. Not because I asked them to or that I am going to pull them from class, but because the teachers here want to keep us involved. It seems to work.


Most teachers (well, in high school anyway) do give out a course of study to the students. However, from what I'm reading into this, it is a much more formalized process. Having to notify the parents, in writing, exactly when things are happening would be a lot more complex.

Now that I'm thinking of this, and also reading some of the comments on CTV, I had an interesting thought. 





			
				Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> If some fringe group doesn't want their kids to learn the letter 'J', the number '7', conjugation or the difference between 'their' and 'there' I figure that letting them pull their kids is the cost of living in a free country.


So here's the problem. Anyone is well within their rights to pull their kid out of school when these issues are being discussed. However, what happens when it comes to evaluation time? As I mentioned before, some of these things are in the curriculum ie. evolution. What then? Do we give them a different test with that material taken out? Do we make them write it anyway? The way I see it, you can have the right to opt out, but there is going to be a penalty. I know that I wouldn't make another test. If it were here in Ontario, we would have a law contradicting another law ie. the Education Act which requires me to evaluate and report on student achievement based on the curriculum expectations.
I'm curious to see how this all will play out.


----------



## Bane (2 Jun 2009)

Reference info in this thread http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/76543/post-845882;topicseen#new


----------



## X-mo-1979 (2 Jun 2009)

I can't speak for the Alberta school system, however in Newfoundland Jehovah witness children left the room for O Canada in the morning (due to belief of not being under a flag/country) religion class, and health class.

I don't think this is something so weird really,it's been happening for many years.

Parents should retain the right to teach their children what they want.My children were not baptized,and go to a public school.That was me and my wife's decision.However some parents which to teach their children in different ways.It's ok by me.


----------



## McG (2 Jun 2009)

“Controversial” is probably in the eye of the beholder … but in the end, I would rather see a few kids leave the class room here & there before I see major curriculum changes to appease a noisy few.


----------



## ex-Sup (2 Jun 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> I don't think this is something so weird really,it's been happening for many years.


I've seen it happen.



			
				X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Parents should retain the right to teach their children what they want.My children were not baptized,and go to a public school.That was me and my wife's decision.However some parents which to teach their children in different ways.It's ok by me.


Agreed. My wife and I are both Catholic teachers, our kids are baptized and are/will be going to a Catholic school. We plan on being very active in their education. However, every decision that we make will have consequences. Like I mentioned before, pulling your kids out is well within one's right, but those rights come with consequences...potentially academic ones in this case.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (2 Jun 2009)

ex-Sup said:
			
		

> I've seen it happen.
> Agreed. My wife and I are both Catholic teachers, our kids are baptized and are/will be going to a Catholic school. We plan on being very active in their education. However, every decision that we make will have consequences. Like I mentioned before, pulling your kids out is well within one's right, but those rights come with consequences...potentially academic ones in this case.



Yep.
Here is two examples of children being raised and taught different.None being wrong in my view,and both with the goal of producing healthy well versed young adults.
There are some extreme's I would disagree with such as home schooling a child with hate literature,terrorist etc.
I believe I can send my child to public school and he can ask the questions to us about what he was taught.That offers a input from us the parents into our moral guidelines while they are being taught a hopefully unbias general view of the world.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (2 Jun 2009)

ex-Sup said:
			
		

> Anyone is well within their rights to pull their kid out of school when these issues are being discussed. However, what happens when it comes to evaluation time? As I mentioned before, some of these things are in the curriculum ie. evolution. What then? Do we give them a different test with that material taken out? Do we make them write it anyway? The way I see it, you can have the right to opt out, but there is going to be a penalty.



As I see it, people have to live with the consequences of their choices. The children of these parents should not get the marks for the material that they opt out of.


----------



## ex-Sup (2 Jun 2009)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> As I see it, people have to live with the consequences of their choices. The children of these parents should not get the marks for the material that they opt out of.


Sounds good to me...less marking  ;D


----------



## X-mo-1979 (2 Jun 2009)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> As I see it, people have to live with the consequences of their choices. The children of these parents should not get the marks for the material that they opt out of.


Although I am not one of these parents I have to disagree.The bill that was passed was dealing with sex, sexual orientation, religion.If a parent wish's to explain that to them that's fine in my books.They are not disagreeing with physics or math.

I don't think a 40 minute period on sex or Allah should determine if a child pass's a grade IMHO.

Please keep in mind my children will attend religion and health.I just think parents should have the choice as passed in bill 44.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/06/02/alberta-human-rights-school-gay-education-law.html

Children at my school growing up did just this and graduated with us.And most of them are normal human beings.Most realized there was a different view and changed to reflect that when they grew older.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (2 Jun 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Although I am not one of these parents I have to disagree.The bill that was passed was dealing with sex, sexual orientation, religion.If a parent wish's to explain that to them that's fine in my books.They are not disagreeing with physics or math.
> 
> I don't think a 40 minute period on sex or Allah should determine if a child pass's a grade IMHO.
> 
> ...



I am not an expert on current curriculum and the weighting of marks. That being said I doubt very much that a 40 minute period on sex education or Allah is going to make a huge difference on overall grades. It has been twenty years (OMG!!) since high school, but I seem to recall that evolution was only in my Biology classes and someone could pass High School back then without necessarily passing an exam on evolution.

Leaving the exact topics aside, since they can change, my argument is that parents should have the right to pull their kids from class but that they need to be prepared to live with the consequences of that action. Those consequences could include lower marks due to missed subject matter. How much lower will depend on how much the parents shield their children from curriculum. I am not taking about the punitive removal of marks, but rather the missed opportunity to get them. If content that the kids miss does not have marks assigned to it then I suppose there will be no marks missed.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Jun 2009)

Opponents of the bill complain that it should have been a matter for the applicable school act, not a human rights act.  Here is 26(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

"Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children."

While I don't have much respect for the wishful content of the UDHR, the usual suspects who have tied their flag to the UN, the UDHR, and the whole transnational ball of wax are pretty much out of arguments.

It has been clarified that the legislation does not cover matters which simply come up in discussion.  The teachers who are going to run afoul of the legislation are those who use the classroom to push an agenda.  If the issue of homosexuality comes up during a Western Civ unit on ancient Greece, so be it.  If the teacher decides to make homosexuality the focus of a unit on Greek history, there might be a problem.


----------



## Fusaki (2 Jun 2009)

> Leaving the exact topics aside, since they can change, my argument is that parents should have the right to pull their kids from class but that they need to be prepared to live with the consequences of that action. Those consequences could include lower marks due to missed subject matter. How much lower will depend on how much the parents shield their children from curriculum. I am not taking about the punitive removal of marks, but rather the missed opportunity to get them. If content that the kids miss does not have marks assigned to it then I suppose there will be no marks missed.



If I follow what you're saying, then I agree.

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.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (2 Jun 2009)

I am neither a teacher nor do I have any children attending school, so my view of this new legislation is that of an interested observer - I will probably never avail myself of the "additional protection" (my sarcasm is showing) that this amendment to the Alberta Human Rights legislation provides nor be subjected to possible legal (. . . Human Rights Commission investigation/tribuanal) action because of a complaint from a parent about the way their child is taught.  And that last thought is probably the essence of this debate, particularly if one is a teacher.  It is the stick to hold over teachers and other school officials if 'Johnny is told about something that he should have learned at home or on the street corner (behind the barn?) like the rest of us.

Much of the impetus for the more contentious part of this legislation probably came from the very socially conservative part of Alberta's electorate that the current (leadership of the) Alberta PC Party leans toward.  However, regardless of the origin of this legislation it seems poorly thought out, when it has to be immediately amended in order to clarify (or at least protray in a better light) the actual intent.

http://culture.alberta.ca/humanrights/bill44.aspx


> Amendments to Bill 44 clarify intent of parental rights section
> Government has heard the questions raised about the parental rights section of Bill 44, and are making amendments to ensure its intent is very clear.
> 
> Bill 44 is being amended to clarify that:
> ...



With this piece of legislation now passed it will be interesting to see how it will be implemented.  What will be the nuts and bolts of "explicitly deals with" (could be a very vague or very encompassing or very narrow meaning depending on the individual), the how, what and when of parental notification and the affect it will have on teachers' style (what is spontaneous and what is not?).

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/06/02/alberta-human-rights-school-gay-education-law.html


> Attention must now shift to making sure the legislation is implemented in the best possible way for teachers and schools, said Alberta School Boards Association President Heather Welwood.
> 
> "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," Welwood said.
> 
> ...



I do not expect a sudden and massive rush by parents wanting to exclude their children from certain classes, but this legislation does generate the possibility that it could be used as a weapon against educators.  Not all learning is rote, in fact most of the best lessons are learned when one is challenged to think for themselves.  Though it's rapidly approaching four decades since I left high school, I can still remember the best teachers that I had.  They weren't usually the ones who assiduously followed lesson plans or required answers only from assigned textbooks.  They were the ones who challenged me to think for myself,  encouraged me to question authority when it needed to be questioned and  taught me, of the 5Ws (&H), it was the answer to ‘why’ that was the most important. 

_I keep six honest serving-men
(They taught me all I knew);
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who.

Rudyard Kipling 1902_

Though the explanation from the government indicates that spontaneous discussions of the verboten subjects would not be precluded, the legislation could have the effect of stifling the initiation of discussion by certain teachers (those who are hesitant to face legal/employment action) who may stray into content that would require prior notification.


----------



## ex-Sup (2 Jun 2009)

As an educator for 11 years, the impact of this legislation is not the fact that parents should have a say I what their children are taught, but the impacts that it has on the school and on educators. If people want to pull their kids from school because they do not agree with the material being taught, fine by me. I tell the kids all the time, “I get paid to teach 30 or 1, doesn’t make a difference.”

I hope everyone here can understand the nightmare it can cause for schools and boards who now have to notify parents in WRITING when these topics are going to be taught. So a synervoice to home won’t cut it here. The question becomes is how is that to be done? Email…what about those who don’t have access? Regular mail…at $.54 a letter for who knows how many times a year? Who pays for that…the school? Also, one has to consider that teaching isn’t a precise science all the time. For example I’ve been teaching Gr.10 Canadian History for 8 years; I have the course down pretty pat. However I couldn’t tell you exactly what I would be teaching in November or December at the start of the year. I have a rough idea within a week or so, but I couldn’t nail it down to a particular date. Would that suffice, or does it have to be exact? So how much notice is enough notice? A week, a month? You might have a new teacher who has absolutely no clue precisely when they will get to a topic because they’ve never taught the class before. I know that this seems over dramatized, but these are all potential issues here. If you’re not in the business, you don’t understand all the implications here.

As I and other posters have already mentioned, the other big problem arises is when it isn’t just discussion, but curriculum. How are the students treated? As far as I’m concerned, and certainly the Education Act here in Ontario is concerned, I am responsible to follow the directions outlined by my principal, which is to teach, evaluate and report according to the established curriculum. So if a student has been withdrawn from my class and fails to meet a curriculum expectation on an evaluation (ie. a test) then there is going to be an academic penalty. I’m no constitutional law expert, but I think you can argue that the Charter gives you the right to opt out, but it’s reasonable to assume that there is going to be a consequence. I would think that the SCC is not going to rule that rights have been violated because Johnny got a D on his science test. Is a student going to fail because they missed some content on evolution, most likely not. Is their evaluation going to suffer, of course; to what extent that really depends.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> If the issue of homosexuality comes up during a Western Civ unit on ancient Greece, so be it.  If the teacher decides to make homosexuality the focus of a unit on Greek history, there might be a problem.


Well, there is a problem because that is not in the curriculum. However, the first several days of Gr.11 World History specifically deal with the origins of humanity ie evolution. When then? Opt out I guess (and in my class, flunk those questions on the test). 


			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The teachers who are going to run afoul of the legislation are those who use the classroom to push an agenda.


Brad,
Despite your stated OPINION, most teachers do not have an agenda. Yes, you will find those who do, but they are few and far between. I (and my colleagues around me) teach, coach, etc. because we love the job and we want to make a difference in kids lives. I could care less about politics and agendas. Do I have an opinion? Yes I do, just like everyone else in the world (including you). Do I share my opinion with my students? Sometimes, if it has some significant bearing on what we are talking about, and with the caveat that it is MY opinion. As I've already stated, this legislation has the potential to cause a whole pile of issues for teachers, administrators and schools, not just ones with an "agenda."

Okay, I've said enough today. Thankfully this teacher works in Ontario, and he also has a pile of essays that need to be marked!


----------



## a_majoor (3 Jun 2009)

And another view:

http://searchingforliberty.blogspot.com/2009/06/bill-44-done-deal-one-small-step.html



> *Bill 44 a done deal.. One Small Step Against the Thought Police.*
> 
> Everyone has heard of George Orwell's "1984". If you haven't read it, or haven't read it recently, I recommend reading it or reading it again.
> It is difficult to read "1984" without raising the hairs on the back of your neck when you see the fat hand of the state on your shoulder.
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Jun 2009)

>Despite your stated OPINION, most teachers do not have an agenda. 

I didn't claim that "most" have an agenda, so there isn't any "despite" (contradiction).  The legislation basically places the rights of parents over those of any budding social activists.  There's no consequence-free preaching platform.  That's what sticks in some craws.


----------



## ex-Sup (3 Jun 2009)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The legislation basically places the rights of parents over those of any budding social activists.  There's no consequence-free preaching platform.


Brad,
This isn't an issue over what teachers "decide" to teach in the classroom. As I've mentioned in several of my posts, most of this material is in the curriculum, so we're required to teach it by law ie. evolution. And as for my interpretation of your remarks, comments such as the one above can lead one to misconstrue your intentions. It comes off sounding like this is a common occurrence in the classroom, which it is not.

I certainly don't disagree with you about a parent's right to choose. I am a parent as well and I have, and will continue to make choices that are in the best interest of my children. I am also conscious of the fact that every decision I make for them has consequences, both positive and negative. For example, if I send my kids to swimming lessons and they learn to swim, that would be a positive thing. However, if I decide that I don't feel comfortable with aspects of the school curriculum and decide to withdraw my kid and they miss material they will be evaluated on, that's a negative thing. As a teacher I have no problem if parents want to withdraw their kids (it happens all the time, not usually for religious reasons ie. vacations). If they are also willing to accept the fact that their kids are going to suffer some academic consequences, we're all good. Where I have a problem is if they decide to bellyache about the lost grades or want some sort of exemption. Once again this is not casual conversation material, but perscribed as part of the curriculum, then they need to be prepared to pay the piper. An as I mentioned in my previous post, I am pretty certain this would not survive a charter or human rights challenge as it goes beyond what is "reasonable."

Alright, back to the essays!


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (8 Jun 2009)

rw4th said:
			
		

> 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.



How did Galileo and Copernicus do on peer review?

My take is to wonder how an extension of human rights can be criticized by those normally clamoring for such things.  Evolution is normally taught as a theory rather than a fact so anyone ignores it at their own peril, if their is such a thing as peril in high school.

Human rights don't just allow judges to set foreign policy as it relates to murderers and suspected terrorists.  What really ticks off liberal types is that the Alberta government gave enforcement to the kangaroo court human rights commission  Guilty untill proven innocent.


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Jun 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> What really ticks off liberal types is that the Alberta government gave enforcement to the kangaroo court human rights commission  Guilty untill proven innocent.



No, what Alberta did was take absolute power away from the liberals by vesting some of it in parents.

The "we know better, we will tell you what to think" crowd can't stand loosing any measure of control.

The government actually weakened the power of the HRC by noting that there would be no automatic HRC cases, and any cases that did arise from the legislation could be dealt with by other agencies.


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Jun 2009)

From what is reported in the news - always a weak source - the central bugbear was human sexuality, not evolution.  At least one report confirmed that proper scientific education (ie. including theory of natural selection) is not optional or controversial, and is a red herring in the discussion.  All that seems to have been done is to partially codify the UDHR provision in provincial human rights legislation.


----------



## Fusaki (9 Jun 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> How did Galileo and Copernicus do on peer review?



Galileo and Copernicus were not reviewed by _peers_.


----------



## ModlrMike (10 Jun 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Galileo and Copernicus were not reviewed by _peers_.



True enough, however todays inquisitors are part of the secular, elitist population. If you are a devout anything, particularly Christian, you're suspect. Rather than believe that there are three truths to every issue (your truth, my truth, and the real truth), they believe that theirs is the only truth, and they will put you to the sword if you believe otherwise.


----------



## Fusaki (10 Jun 2009)

> True enough, however todays inquisitors are part of the secular, elitist population.



That's irrelevant.

Even if the modern scientific body is secular and elitist, that doesn't take away from the fact that they peer review based on logical analysis.

Your "three truths" argument is flawed. What if one person's truth has no rational argument supporting it?  Does that make the truth based on scientific theory less legitimate? Of course not! But by your logic, the real truth would lie somewhere between the two.  Talking about "your truth, my truth, and the real truth" is just a cliche that people use to cop out of situations where they might have to think critically.


----------



## ModlrMike (10 Jun 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> That's irrelevant.
> 
> Even if the modern scientific body is secular and elitist, that doesn't take away from the fact that they peer review based on logical analysis.



Perhaps, but they're no less inquisitorial.



			
				Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Your "three truths" argument is flawed. What if one person's truth has no rational argument supporting it?



You discount faith, which was part of my point. Who is anyone to say that faith has to be based on rational argument, or that faith is wrong, just because it's not peer reviewed?



			
				Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Does that make the truth based on scientific theory less legitimate? Of course not! But by your logic, the real truth would lie somewhere between the two.


Neither does it make it necessarily more legitimate. What I really meant by my statement was to comment on the penchant that the secular elite has for jamming their version of the truth down people's throats.



			
				Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Talking about "your truth, my truth, and the real truth" is just a cliche that people use to cop out of situations where they might have to think critically.



Personally, I think that accepting that the real truth might lie somewhere in between contributes greatly to critical thought. Accepting that I might be wrong compels me to think more critically of my version of the truth.


----------



## Fusaki (10 Jun 2009)

> Who is anyone to say that faith has to be based on rational argument, or that faith is wrong, just because it's not peer reviewed?... Personally, I think that accepting that the real truth might lie somewhere in between contributes greatly to critical thought. Accepting that I might be wrong compels me to think more critically of my version of the truth.



How do you reconcile the ideas that on one hand faith does not require rational argument, but on the other hand it compels people to think critically? By definition critical thinking requires honest, logical, analysis.


----------



## ModlrMike (10 Jun 2009)

I don't try to, I'm not that pious. What I'm saying is that the secular elite want to deny people the opportunity to be wrong by forcing them to accept the "official truth" over all others. For people to be truly free, they have to be free to make the wrong choice from time to time.


----------



## 40below (10 Jun 2009)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I don't try to, I'm not that pious. What I'm saying is that the secular elite want to deny people the opportunity to be wrong by forcing them to accept the "official truth" over all others. For people to be truly free, they have to be free to make the wrong choice from time to time.



People do have the freedom to be idiots. Other people, even those in the "secular elite" whatever the hell that is, are free to tell them that that it is exactly what they are personifying.  

Democracy - ain't she grand?


----------



## ModlrMike (10 Jun 2009)

Secular elite as opposed to Church elite. 

Yes, they are free to tell people they're wrong, but they're not free to prevent them from being wrong. That's what these folks want.


----------



## Fusaki (10 Jun 2009)

I see no difference between the "official truth" that's being instructed in evolution, or the official truth being instructed in math, english, history, or chemistry.  We have standards of education and those standards can't change based on flimsy theories and religious mythology.

I've said earlier in this thread that I'm all for parents having the right to pull kids out of any class they don't want them to be in - whether that be math, history, science, or basket weaving 101. What I don't agree with is classes on evolution being treated any differently then any other class.

I don't see whats so unfair about that.


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Jun 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> I see no difference between the "official truth" that's being instructed in evolution, or the official truth being instructed in math, english, history, or chemistry.  We have standards of education and those standards can't change based on flimsy theories and religious mythology.


There is no "official truth" in the theory of evolution.  It is a theory, which means it is unproven.  Now, of course, with many theories, you cannot prove them right, you can only disprove them.  As for mathematics, there is no "official" truth, because unlike theories, you can prove certain things, such as 1+1=2.  
Your bias shows through when you describe contrary theories as "flimsy" and religion as "mythology".  It almost resorts to an ad hominem attack on the arguer, vice on the argument.
As for asserting that faith does not imply any critical or logical thinking is rather astounding.  Some of history's greatest critical thinkers were religious folks.  Yes, they used their critical thinking abilities to reinforce their faith, but they also used it in the sciences, in ethics, and so forth.

But this thread is devolving.  (Pun intended!)  Any theories that pass a common-sense test ought to be given their due.  The theory of evolution is one, and there are many, many more.  The danger is not in teaching these theories, but it is in attacking those who do not believe these theories.  Take for example the whole "Global Warming" bugaboo.  My children have been taught in class that the world will end in about 50 years.  I think I was told the same thing: 30 years ago. Back then it was due to CFCs.  Today, CFCs are the saviour of the planet, as they will replace those evil incandescent light bulbs.  I'm certain that my grandchildren will be taught that CO2 will be the saviour to rescue the planet from an ice age.  So, instead of labelling people who discount the theories you believe to be true, perhaps energies should be focussed instead on highlighting the merits of your own argument, and maybe even consider the fact that you just might be wrong.

In my opinion, that's what this is all about. I find it rather disturbing that opponents to this legislation were using "Human Rights" as the basis of their argument to effectively force people to be "enlightened", but only according to their standards.


----------



## Fusaki (11 Jun 2009)

> Any theories that pass a common-sense test ought to be given their due.



Does the Creation theory pass the common sense test?


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Jun 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Does the Creation theory pass the common sense test?


*This* is exactly what I mean when I say that instead of attacking a theory, you should be reinforcing your own.  So, instead of me calling Darwin an idiot, I should instead be attempting to convince you that the Earth is supported on the back of a giant tortoise, which is on another, slightly larger tortoise, which goes on _ad infinitum_.  You may not accept this; however, for many people (and not just Christians, either), the Creation Theory in Genesis is accepted as fact.  In other words, they have as much faith in that creation theory as I do in the existance of my left foot.  To simply wish them all away as "idiots" is in itself idiocy, narrow-minded and judgemental.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Jun 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Does the Creation theory pass the common sense test?



Not the point, that's not what this topic is about. 


[Of course, maybe some advanced race brought a "Genisis" device, ala Star Trek 2..........does that make them "Gods"?]


----------



## gcclarke (11 Jun 2009)

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> But this thread is devolving.  (Pun intended!)  Any theories that pass a common-sense test ought to be given their due.  The theory of evolution is one, and there are many, many more.  The danger is not in teaching these theories, but it is in attacking those who do not believe these theories.  Take for example the whole "Global Warming" bugaboo.  My children have been taught in class that the world will end in about 50 years.  I think I was told the same thing: 30 years ago. Back then it was due to CFCs.  Today, CFCs are the saviour of the planet, as they will replace those evil incandescent light bulbs.  I'm certain that my grandchildren will be taught that CO2 will be the saviour to rescue the planet from an ice age.



... What?!  CFCs, or Chlorofluorocarbons have absolutely nothing to do with light bulbs. Their primary use was as a  refrigerants, as well as a propellant for aerosol containers. 

Fluorescent lighting, including the compact kind used to replace traditional light bulbs use mercury vapour and phosphor to emit light.


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Jun 2009)

Whoops!  I knew I messed up my acronyms!  Thanks for that.  

I guess I was thinking of the mercury within them (vice the chloroflourocarbons).

cheers


----------



## Fusaki (11 Jun 2009)

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> *This* is exactly what I mean when I say that instead of attacking a theory, you should be reinforcing your own.  So, instead of me calling Darwin an idiot, I should instead be attempting to convince you that the Earth is supported on the back of a giant tortoise, which is on another, slightly larger tortoise, which goes on _ad infinitum_.  You may not accept this; however, for many people (and not just Christians, either), the Creation Theory in Genesis is accepted as fact.  In other words, they have as much faith in that creation theory as I do in the existance of my left foot.  To simply wish them all away as "idiots" is in itself idiocy, narrow-minded and judgemental.



Why can't I attack a theory? 

If someone is going to make a claim, then the burden of proof is on them to provide evidence to support it.  No one in the Creation camp is willing to do that.  There's nothing wrong with pointing out this logical fallacy.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Jun 2009)

That's enough folks.

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.


----------



## McG (11 Jun 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Why can't I attack a theory?  If someone is going to make a claim, then the burden of proof is on them to provide evidence to support it.  …  There's nothing wrong with pointing out this logical fallacy.


We have two logical fallacies at play here:

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

As was pointed out, a theory cannot be proven but it could be disproven.  Everything that happened before the time of recorded history (and much that has happened since) cannot be more than theory (because we lack the ability to go back in time and observe).  It is possible to stumble on evidence which that is incompatible with a theory.  Sometimes this disproves a theory, and other times it requires a theory to be amended.  

The ability to think critically is one of the skills our schools should be teaching.  The ability to look at conflicting theories and the available evidence in order to decide what one (themselves) believes to be true, is a skill that I do not think is being adequately developed in most young Canadians.  The best way for schools to develop this is to expose youth to conflicting theories and the arguments supporting each.

This does not even require contrasting of secular to religious theories.  There are plenty of opposing secular theories on all sorts of topics (from sciences to arts) that could be discussed.


----------



## Fusaki (11 Jun 2009)

> 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 (11 Jun 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> 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 (11 Jun 2009)

> -   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 (11 Jun 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> 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 (11 Jun 2009)

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> 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 (11 Jun 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

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



Verbal


----------



## Fusaki (11 Jun 2009)

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


----------



## gcclarke (11 Jun 2009)

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 (11 Jun 2009)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> 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 (12 Jun 2009)

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> 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



			
				Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> 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 (13 Jun 2009)

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 (14 Jun 2009)

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."


----------

