|
Push to Teach Creationism in Australian Schools
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Renegade |
| quote: | Schools should teach the biblical creation story alongside evolutionary theory, Family First chairman Peter Harris said yesterday.
While his fledgling party - arising out of the Assemblies of God church - had no formal policy on school curriculums, Mr Harris said his personal view was that children should be taught both perspectives.
Asked at the National Press Club in Canberra whether he supported both perspectives being taught, he said: "Of course we'd like to see a balanced approach to education, and... all options and all viewpoints, world viewpoints, should be put forward and people should be entitled to make their own decisions," he said.
Mr Harris said his party had raised $1.2 million in donations for the federal election, but had none from the United States, where the religious right has become a political force.
There was diverse support for Mr Harris' views on teaching creationism alongside evolution.
Australian National University anthropologist Alan Thorne said there was nothing wrong with putting both views to students.
"A balanced view is better than an extreme view in education," he said. "From a scientific perspective, it would be very silly indeed to claim God went around poking fossils into rocks, (but) the two can be quite compatible. There's no reasons why they can't address different aspects of our development."
Labor's federal education spokeswoman Jenny Macklin said: "All young people should have an understanding of a range of religious beliefs."
But acting Australian Education Union Victorian president Ann Taylor warned schools should distinguish between established scientific fact and philosophical or religious belief. |
Creation Theory Gets Boost
Family First are essentially an ultra-conservative, Christian party that somehow managed to win a senate seat in Australia's recent election. For a glimpse of the insanity that is Family First policy (or, rather, lack of policy) just take a glimpse at their website:
http://www.familyfirst.org.au/
The sad thing is that up until relatively recently, these sorts of proposals (and parties like Family First) would be laughed out of parliament and parodied mercilessly in the press. The violent rightist shift in societal attitudes over the past 8 years of Howard government, however, now means that this is being discussed as a serious option, with in principle support from the Labor party and anthropologists. This really is quite depressing. :(
Thoughts? Anyone else want to join me in fighting the good fight against ignorance and the marriage of religion and government? |
|
|
| donegalredneck |
| They should tell the children the correct one, instead of filling them with some claptrap. |
|
|
| Dupz |
This family first party is a disgrace to Australia.. i have NO idea how a party wins a senate seat, even though their only policy put forward for the election was to "tear down the strongholds of satan, including liquor stores and mosques"... oh, and lets not forget that lesbians need to be burned..
actually, they even had an economic policy too.. their policy for the economy was to "make it stronger.. and better".. , do they have 13 year olds writing up their stuff.. fukn twits
Their deceptively clever name is the only reason why people voted for them.
Family First, my fukn arse..
These freaks spit on everything that is Christian... preaching intolerance and hatred.. They can all go and get fuct.
(one of the MP's lives around the corner from me, whatya say we all get together and firebomb the joint ;) ) |
|
|
| drizzt81 |
interesting party..
anyways. It is very simple: Religion has very little/ no place within the science classroom. I think that it should always stay that way. MISEDUCATING young children is probably the worst thing that people can do. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
Save creationism for a religion class.
I say this because I think creationism is a valid PoV, but it's not exactly science. |
|
|
| Reverend_Trance |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
Save creationism for a religion class.
I say this because I think creationism is a valid PoV, but it's not exactly science. |
That is true. A professor of mine, a biochemist, took a look at creationism and evolution. He say that scientifically some of crationism COULD be true if their water-canopy theory was proven correct.
The key is that they are both THOERIES not scientific law. The debate will rage until humanity destroys itself or Jesus returns. :happy2:
EDIT: Read a few creationism articles to enlighten yourself. Try reading a book by Jobe Martin called "The Evolution of a Creationist."
It is a pretty good read. It explains their position in simple terms and the argument is well thought out if certain theories hold up. |
|
|
| kaffeemeister |
Meh... first of all... i don't know how in the world this party recieve a seat in the Senate, but meh, their lack of half decent policies will drive this group of religious bible basher outta the Senate been replace by some decent Greens or Democrat candidate.
| quote: | | Thoughts? Anyone else want to join me in fighting the good fight against ignorance and the marriage of religion and government? |
All i can say is religion and politics as well as economics don't mix well together :whip:. So is Renegade gonna stage a protest down there in Melbourne? ;) |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Creation Theory Gets Boost
Family First are essentially an ultra-conservative, Christian party that somehow managed to win a senate seat in Australia's recent election. For a glimpse of the insanity that is Family First policy (or, rather, lack of policy) just take a glimpse at their website:
http://www.familyfirst.org.au/
The sad thing is that up until relatively recently, these sorts of proposals (and parties like Family First) would be laughed out of parliament and parodied mercilessly in the press. The violent rightist shift in societal attitudes over the past 8 years of Howard government, however, now means that this is being discussed as a serious option, with in principle support from the Labor party and anthropologists. This really is quite depressing. :(
Thoughts? Anyone else want to join me in fighting the good fight against ignorance and the marriage of religion and government? |
Bah, I share your sentiments. Don't know if you've been keepin' up with the US news any, but there's been a slow attempt to spread the newer Creationist flavor - Intelligent Design, throughout the state BOE and schools. Georgia is the current problem:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...fe_evolution_dc
Along with Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Maryland all are on the chopping block:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...ght_in_schools/
Then of course we have Bush and the Grand Canyon:
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...ht=grand+canyon
And in my homestate of Kansas, with the changing of our State BOE towards a more conservative base, it's likely that the issue will once again be brought up and passed in favor of downplaying evolution and giving ID equal time:
http://www.ljworld.com/section/citynews/story/185274
The folks behind this whole ordeal are primarily from the Discovery Institute, created by a Philip Johnson (a lawyer, not even a scientist!), Access Research Network, and ISCID:
www.discovery.org
www.arn.org
www.iscid.org
The primary culprits behind ID are Michael Behe (a biochemist - one of the few actual scientists advocating ID), William Dembski, Michael Denton, Johnson, and a small handful of others. Strangely (okay, maybe not that strange), these folks spend so little money on the actual "science" behind ID, and decide to spend their money on chosen seminars at churches, religious groups, and their fights on the state school board level. Go figure.
With Bush in the office and his minions of chosen "yes"-men in high positions on the various science boards, this debate will likely rage even higher over the next 4 years here in the states. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Reverend_Trance
That is true. A professor of mine, a biochemist, took a look at creationism and evolution. He say that scientifically some of crationism COULD be true if their water-canopy theory was proven correct. |
What is your professor's name? Does he have any publications? I would very much like to see them, as well as possibly converse with him in regards to his thoughts on creationism.
| quote: | | The key is that they are both THOERIES not scientific law. The debate will rage until humanity destroys itself or Jesus returns. :happy2: |
Do you understand the difference between evolutionary theory and evolutionary fact? I outlined that difference in relation to Gould's essay here:
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...m&pagenumber=13
The concept of evolution being a theory should in no way take away from it's merits or strengths as the best explanation of historical changes in organisms - it is just simply that, the best explanation that we have today. Until another one comes around that explains events with supporting evidence, it will remain as such.
The fact of evolution, the change of allele frequencies in a population over time due to mutation and natural selection is not debatable. If for some reason you think it is, I'll be happy to supply a slew of research if necessary.
| quote: | EDIT: Read a few creationism articles to enlighten yourself. Try reading a book by Jobe Martin called "The Evolution of a Creationist."
It is a pretty good read. It explains their position in simple terms and the argument is well thought out if certain theories hold up. |
I've read a number of creationist books, and all have a great deal left to be desired. I examined the introduction of the book you mentioned here:
http://www.present-truth.org/Evolut...hapter%2000.htm
And I have to say that a few things jumped out at me:
| quote: | | It is my conviction that the Old and New Testaments of the Bible are God's inspired, infallible, inerrant Word. The Bible is to be interpreted in the normal, historical, grammatical, literal fashion. Yes, the Bible uses figures of speech, but they are evident when used. |
I love it when religious folks use that word "inerrant" - that can of worms are just achin' to jump out.
| quote: | | When I use the term “evolution” I am referring to the idea that after the earth was formed it took millions of years to produce organic molecules and then many more millions of years of evolutionary processes and “survival of the fittest” to produce people (the molecules-to-man theory). |
This is quite the self-created definition of evolution, and it either means 1 of 2 things:
1. He hasn't a ing clue what evolution is, and is unwittingly confusing abiogenesis and evolution together
2. He has a ing clue, but deems it unimportant despite the fact that scientists themselves never obfuscate the two.
I'm not inclined to believe one or the other without reading the book myself yet.
| quote: | | The first book that I read on this subject (in 1971) impacted me greatly. It was The Genesis Flood by Dr. Henry Morris and Dr. John Whitcomb. |
Both Morris and Whitcomb are well-known to have been deliberate in misquoting scientists, as well as failing to understand the concept of evolution very well at all. Feel free to browse through this thread and read a number of misquotes that were thrown out by Morris:
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...sm&pagenumber=1
| quote: | | Evolution simply cannot explain the origin of the unique animals discussed in this book. |
Fallacy: argument from ignorance
| quote: | | There is no way their existence could have happened apart from special creation. |
Fallacies: argument from ignorance
argument from false dichotomy
| quote: | | Brilliant men have spent lifetimes attempting to prove creatures evolved. That job has yet to be accomplished! |
Fallacy: just being an ignorant bloke with his fingers in his ears. I wonder if he's actually read any literature pertaining to evolution?
Well, since I don't have the remaining chapters in front of me, perhaps you can give a summary on some points and we can discuss them from there. |
|
|
| occrider |
| Nice to know we don't have a monopoly on the dumbasses. |
|
|
|
|
