"Ain't that nice? I sure am glad the bitch is gone."
Posted on 05/22/2006 8:14:10 AM PDT by RightWingAtheist
A high school science teacher vowed yesterday to continue telling his Inuit students about Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, despite complaints from parents in the northern Quebec community of Salluit.
Science teacher Alexandre April was given a written reprimand last month by his principal at Ikusik High School for discussing evolution in class.
Parents in the village 1,860 kilometres north of Montreal complained their children had been told they came from apes.
"I am a biologist. ... This is what I'm passionate about," said April, who teaches Grades 7 and 8. "It interests the students. It gets them asking questions.
"They laugh and they call me 'ape,' but I don't mind. If I stopped, they would lose out."
April, who is leaving the town when his contract runs out at the end of the school year, said the principal first told teachers last fall not to talk about evolution.
Debate over the teaching of evolution in Salluit - a village of 1,150 located along the northern coast of Quebec, between Ungava and Hudson bays - is pitting an increasingly religious Inuit population against a Quebec education system that's becoming more and more secular.
Although April, 32, won't be punished, his reprimand has outraged Quebec's scientific community.
"What he's doing is right and it's best for the kids," said Brian Alters, director of the Evolution Education Research Centre at McGill University. "Science should not be de-emphasized for non-science."
Over the years, controversy over the teaching of evolution has erupted in Pennsylvania, along with U.S. states in the so-called Bible Belt. In November, the Kansas State Board of Education approved science standards that cast doubt on evolution.
But with heightened religious fervour among the Inuit and Cree in northern communities, some observers suggest Canada might have its own Bible North.
Molly Tayara, a member of the Salluit school's volunteer education committee, said she'd tell her four school-age children to walk out of a lesson on Darwin.
"The minister (of education) may have come from apes, but we're Inuit and we've always been human," she told The Gazette in a phone interview.
"Most of us rely on God's word. ... God made Adam and Eve and they weren't animals."
Legally, Inuit schools in Quebec's north must teach evolution, as it's part of the provincial curriculum. After April's story came out this week in the magazine Quebec Science, Education Department officials immediately called the school to ensure the curriculum was followed.
Topics like reproduction and diversity of species are part of Science and Technology, a course for Grades 7 and 8. Darwin's work, based on the premise that humans and other animals have evolved over time, is further covered in Grade 11 biology - an elective course.
"We want the curriculum to be applied. We're just saying the theory of evolution could be taught more delicately to students," said Gaston Pelletier, director of educational services for the Kativik School Board, which serves northern Quebec's 14 Inuit communities. "We have to respect their view."
Yuppers!
When and why?
Not sure. I think it was an immigration thread.
<< The giant Inugpasugssuk waded into the ocean to hunt seals. His penis stuck up out of the water so far away that he thought it was a seal putting its head up, and he struck it by mistake >>
Hmmmmm. I had a similar experience. I was... um... oh, well... never mind. Wrong place for THAT story!
Exactement
Pardon my French but this is a Québec thread ;)
<< Should I not be allowed to teach my children the way that I want them to be raised? Not wanting to argue, just looking for an honest way to allow both versions to be taught to all children. >>
Has anyone interfered with your teaching your children about your faith? Last I looked, people of all kinds of religious beliefs are able to teach their children what they believe. I hope you are not talking about doing this in school. If you are -- and using that exact argument you just used -- isn't there a way we can include all those other religious stories along with yours?
And when we do accommodate all of them, when will there be any time for science? You are aware that the story in Genesis is not the only creation story that people believe in -- right?
She's gone to the late night, double feature, picture show, where all trolls go to die.
"Ain't that nice? I sure am glad the bitch is gone."
Yes and next time a Druid approaches me in my commmunity asking for it I'll get right on suggesting we offer a moment for their version of creation. However, I do not believe it is fair, nor right, for the majority of children to be taught one thing at home and then be required to go to school to be taught something else. In effect you are subverting the rights of the parents to instruct their children as they see fit. If you're going to teach one form of faith (evolution) then you should teach the other form of faith (creation). Let the kids figure it out for themselves.
Personal opinion I'm about to the point I say don't teach either
<< A sneak-back troll, and I missed it? Damn! >>
It was enlightening. To prove her biblical claims, she posted a link to a theosophist site preaching Atlantis. Ever since reading it, my eyes have been sorta rolling around in my face like Cynthia McKinney's.
<< In effect you are subverting the rights of the parents to instruct their children as they see fit. If you're going to teach one form of faith (evolution) then you should teach the other form of faith (creation). Let the kids figure it out for themselves. >>
Evolution is not a form of faith. It is an extremely-well supported scientific theory, with huge amounts of evidence behind it, and so far, no evidence to undermine it. Maybe we should let the kids figure out the atomic theory and heliocentrism for themselves, too?
It's your right to keep your kids out of biology class. It is not your right to force teachers to teach lies.
<< It's your right to keep your kids out of biology class. It is not your right to force teachers to teach lies. >>
Problem is -- creationism -- especially YEC -- is not just anti-Darwin. It has to reject significant parts of chemistry, geology, astronomy, paleontology, archeology, and other sciences.
YEC is anti-science. It has to be.
Definition of Theory--Abstract reasoning; speculation
no evidence to undermine it
Well if there's no evidence discovered to undermine it as of yet, it must be true. That is until evidence is uncovered to undermine it. That's the problem with popular theories of the day. There's always something down the road that will change the opinion of the scientist. I imagine doctors in the Middle Ages thought there would be no future research to undermine their practice of bloodletting one day either.
Maybe we should let the kids figure out the atomic theory and heliocentrism for themselves, too?
Except the fact that those have been proved beyond a 'theory'. The earth revolves around the sun, this is a fact. We've all seen it through pictures and video. Atoms can be split and cause a chain reaction release of energy, this is a fact. We've seen the end reaction of said action. That I, or any other human being, came from a monkey is a theory and has not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Else it would be a fact instead of a theory.
As I said, I don't want to get into it. I hate these threads. I was responding to a poster I've known in the past and did not want to raise an issue.
Definition of Theory--Abstract reasoning; speculation
Definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.
Based on these, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
[Last revised 2/23/06]
You can teach your children however you like, and I won't begrudge you the opportunity. But teaching children about faith is for the home and Sunday school, not science class.
And I hope that you can understand that the Evo side doesn't mean to imply that your beliefs are stupid or worthless, they aren't. It's just that I can't in good conscience acquiesce to any sort of program of teaching children ideas that can't be materially proven in a science class.
Not in science, it isn't.
The earth revolves around the sun, this is a fact. We've all seen it through pictures and video.We've all seen it through pictures and video. Atoms can be split and cause a chain reaction release of energy, this is a fact. We've seen the end reaction of said action. That I, or any other human being, came from a monkey is a theory and has not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Else it would be a fact instead of a theory.
Nah, hearing snakes I might believe in, but this does not imply talking. I mean, a snake speaking in fluent Aramaic (or whatever language Adam & Eve used)? Snakes can't even pronounce Hebrew properly.
Seriously I know the earth is billions of years old. I'm even of the opinion that God used evolution in some sense perhaps beyond my understanding. I can accede that on almost every living creature because there is nothing that would necessarily contradict that Biblically.
No argument from me. :-)
However, my faith, my heart, and my head tells me that it's different when it comes to humans.
Why? Isn't the soul the immortal piece? Why would the "human organism" not be evolved like every other organism here on Earth? If you "buy" that there is a soul, could God not have put in the soul thusly making us uniquely human at the right time? (BTW, still not contradicting evolution or Christianity)
Should I not be allowed to teach my children the way that I want them to be raised? Not wanting to argue, just looking for an honest way to allow both versions to be taught to all children.
I have no argument about teaching your faith to your children. In fact I would have an argument if the opposite were true.
However, TOE is not faith based and is grounded in good science. Thusly, I let the churches handle the faith and the schools handle the science. The way it should be IMHO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.