Quebec community cool to Darwin

Montreal Gazette via Canada.com ^ | May 20 2006 | Alison Lampert

[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."

[microgood]

But the idea that parents should have complete control over their kids' upbringing and education is not a realistic position, given the number of cults and aberrant parents.

And the idea that society should have complete control over their kids' upbringing and education is not a realistic position, given the number of evil governments that have existed. Germany, Japan, Russia, and China are perfect examples of that.

I remember growing up, in school they told us in the Soviet Union children were encouraged to tell on their parents if they did anything disloyal to the Motherland. Our parents of course were smart enough to tell us never talk to any non-family member about the family for this very reason. And yet more and more of this intrusion by government is happening in this country.

The only universal law about government is that it can never be trusted. Never. Thus our Constitution.

[VadeRetro]

Out of place fossils can't happen. You only get the plates for your fossil press that you should have, based on where you live. If you move, you have to turn in your oldies and get the authorized issue for your new area.

[VadeRetro]

Drink only rain water & grain alcohol cocktails!

RAIN water!!?? Talk about not knowing where something has been ...

[VadeRetro]

Hey, have you thought that with the right number of angels and pixies you could create a new species?

That's why I have to get rid of the dirt. It should be an elephant by now and it's still dirt! It's either hide the evidence or admit everything I've been saying is a lie.

[Senator Bedfellow]

It is rare--even from creationists--to see so much nonsense in two paragraphs. You win some sort of a prize.

You may want to go back and re-read that post, and see if that piercing sensation you feel is F4P's hook embedding itself in your jaw ;)

[thomaswest]

Re 177: Drink only rain water & grain alcohol cocktails! And withhold your essence from women. Don't avoid women, longie, they sense your power; but you must deny them your essence.

There are so many televanelists and faith churches that preach against alcohol. And yet, Jesus turned water into wine (I hope He was partial to pino grigio; zinfandels don't usually agree with me--remind me of infidels).

Darwin did not foresee that his idea would contribute to equal political status for women, but the idea that we all evolved from previous animals made it difficult for men in power to argue that there was a special creation for Eve. Especially, an Eve that was inferior by reason of being secondary in creation. A species with male and female components evolving via natural processes undermined claims that females were 'by nature' somehow different, separate, and morally weaker. Indeed, Darwin forced onto churches the radical notion that if some humans have souls, then all humans must have them, even women, Africans, Asians, American Indians, and "pagans".

This was an expansion from our Constitution. Nobody in Biblical times had the slightest clue as to how human reproduction worked. Science worked this out in the years 1600-1970. First discovery of the sperm in 1603; first discovery of the human ovum in 1823; first understanding that it was not via a "blood-line" but via genetics--nothing to do with blood--Mendel; first understanding that bacterial organisms (not demons or "unclean thoughts") cause many diseases Pasteur, 1870. Watson and Crick gave us a whole new understanding in 1959--and nothing in the Bible ever imagined this new understanding about DNA.

[furball4paws]

Oh, Thomas, Thomas, you doubt too much. Send my prize through the Conspiracy That Cares and make sure it's legal tender in the ol' USA :)

1. Check out the Earth's elemental composition (the elements Fe, O, Si, Mg, Ni and S account for 95% of the Earth's composition) - you'll find out that C is not high on the list.

2. Check out the energy it would take to strip off O from Si, Fe, Mg and C to make 26,000 ft of water. The ionization enthalpies for C and Si respectively are about 14500 and 10000 kJ/mol for all 4. Heat of vaporization - phooey, I tell ya, Phooey!

Oh, Thomas, Thomas, you doubt too much. There is enough H and O in the elemental composition of the Earth to make 26,000 ft of water, but to do it would mean making one Hell of a monster chemical bomb.

(Oh, all right /sarcasm)

[furball4paws]

Now you've gone and ruined a perfectly good lizard in a jar.

[Senator Bedfellow]

The trouble with that sort of thing is that if you do it really well, they come and take you away too :)

[billbears]

Please do not ping me to posts I am not involved in. I made a statement and I've come to a clear understanding with those on this thread that have been amicable. While we may disagree on certain issues, we do it in a friendly manner and understand each other's POV. You however have not been amicable and this post in particular is ridiculing something I strongly believe. I cannot explain every event in the Bible to fit into what you think should be the correct view nor will I try.

I am not trying, nor will I, to fit every one of my beliefs into the world's view of ice age, dinosaurs, etc. I am not a 'young-earth' creationist. You believe what you choose, I'll believe what I choose. Leave it at that

[furball4paws]

As long as I get to keep my pet lizards, that's fine with me.

[thomaswest]

Re 179: In 99% of all cases, the child is much better off with the parents than with the state: governaments [sic] do not care about the child, just whatever is easiest for them in the execution of their duties. This is also the same for the Court system, they do what is easiest for them, not the child.

In 99% of all cases quoting statistics these are made up on the spur of the moment.

You have zero evidence to support your view. Question 1: Do you agree that neighbors, friends, teachers (employed by our local government), and family members should use the police to stop spousal abuse and child abuse?

If you do not agree, what do your propose to prevent injury to a child? You must realize that church institutions cannot be trusted, and often are part of the abuse.

Question 2: Do you agree that there are unfit parents?

If you do not agree, then how do you expect prayer to be rescuing?

[PatrickHenry]

Nobody in Biblical times had the slightest clue as to how human reproduction worked.

Well ... I suspect they had the essentials down pat.

[furball4paws]

It has been my experience that the farm boys and girls of any culture have a pretty good idea what's going on. Gummy mentioned to me problems with Arabs of the city variety and sex. But I bet the Bedouins don't have those problems.

Surely the people of the bible didn't know modern biology, but as PH says, the basics were probably well understood. And I think they realized that if you had a nose like a macaw, you'd likely visit that affliction on at least some of your children.

[VadeRetro]

Why do you think they called them Bedouins?

[microgood]

You have zero evidence to support your view.

You have got to be kidding.

Here are somelinks. There are a million more or so just like these:

http://www.liftingtheveil.org/foster03.htm

http://www.liftingtheveil.org/reform/tn_reform_1.htm

And a real eye opener:

http://www.nccpr.org/newissues/1.html

The bottom line is that even if the governments are trying to do the right thing, government fails at virtually everything it does. The only part of the Federal Government that works is DOD and it does not work very well. Children suffer greatly in foster homes and group homes and to change things takes decades and usually one good thing is fixed and ten more bad things happen.

Question 1: Do you agree that neighbors, friends, teachers (employed by our local government), and family members should use the police to stop spousal abuse and child abuse?

Yes. But if they are going to take the child away from the parents, their alternative should be better, which in many cases is not. If the alternative is not, often keeping the child with the parent is a better alternative than turning them over to imcompetent bureacracies.

Question 2: Do you agree that there are unfit parents?

Yes. But even unfit parents at least have feelings for the child, which a child needs even if he/she is abused. I know many people who were abused as children many times and these abuses were never reported. They survived and they themselves believe they were better off staying with their parents than being turned over to incompetent state bureacracies.

You must realize that church institutions cannot be trusted, and often are part of the abuse.

This is true in many cases, especially in the Catholic Church, but they do not even put a candle to the what the children go through in state agencies. And one of the main reasons state agencies are so bad because they refuse to investigate themselves when problems do arise and there are not separate agencies to keep them in line when they are doing a bad job.

[thomaswest]

Re 181: And the idea that society should have complete control over their kids' upbringing and education is not a realistic position, given the number of evil governments that have existed. Germany, Japan, Russia, and China are perfect examples of that. I remember growing up, in school they told us in the Soviet Union children were encouraged to tell on their parents if they did anything disloyal to the Motherland. Our parents of course were smart enough to tell us never talk to any non-family member about the family for this very reason. And yet more and more of this intrusion by government is happening in this country. The only universal law about government is that it can never be trusted. Never. Thus our Constitution.

An excellent post. Every one of your points is on target.

My point is that throughout time, shamans, churches, priests, and pastors have tried to gain control of government to promote their agendas, claiming a god-given "morality". They have gained huge tax-exempt benefits. They have self-promotion and self-interest as non-productives.

Obviously many parents are wonderful, they provide support and encouragement for the growth and social and intellectual development of their children, as best they know from their own upbringing. Equally obvious, many parents are poor in these ways--they bring baggage from their own lives, and impose this on their kids.

It would be nice if we could decide on which parents are worthy and which are unfit. I do not see how Gary Bauer or Jerry Falwell or the pope should be given the authority to decide.

[furball4paws]

They have beds?

[ahayes]

(Psst--he's a mole. Don't tell!)

Fresh off the 24 live thread, conspiracy theories abound. . .

[microgood]

It would be nice if we could decide on which parents are worthy and which are unfit. I do not see how Gary Bauer or Jerry Falwell or the pope should be given the authority to decide.

I agree. At the same time, since by far most parents have the child in their best interests, even if problems do occur, the state should do its best to keep the family together. You can see from that 3rd link of post 196 that newer initiatives keeping the families together have proven to be quite successful.

Clinton passed a law that provided funding for each foster parent they could put a child with. In Washington state, they started taking children away from perfectly good parents just to get the money. It took several large lawsuits to turn it around.