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."
Look for a close physical resemblance.
Ahhh, very good. You and I are both right. Yes, he denied the existence of a personal God. I said, and it's true that he had to concede to a "Superior Reasoning Power". I never said anything about a personal God. You are one of the few that knows that. The idea of a personal God really through him. He even changed the K constant to fit this belief. One of the proofs that the personal life of a scientist effects his perception of the true principles that govern the universe. So, we both are right.....he denied the personal God but concluded the existence of a "Superior Reasoning Power" in the Universe. Oh yes.....
You must be looking in the mirror. So, I'm once again on the right track. Once the simple minded insults start then, I know the person is simple minded, and very simplistic in his or her view of the world around them. Also, it means that your world is shaken to the very roots and is challenged to your basic beliefs that makes you safe in your ........world......:) wink.
You seem to think you were insulted. Perhaps you are just a little over-sensitive.
let me guess, you are one of those that takes money from believers and sells miracle water on TV...or do you have solid gold facets.....Is your hair a white silver and do you lay the hands on the peoples heads and command them "Healed for a day...:))))
My mistake. I should have noticed you were unhinged.
Never mind.
Very well said metmom.
One begins to understand why the Isrealites complained even of manna, although I don't think simply adding quail would have been much improvement. That would have to get pretty dull after a while, too.
<< Creationist believe in the 6 exact days. >>
Not all of them do. The most vociferous of them are the "young-earth" creationists who accept that. And almost most of that bunch insists on six literal 24-hour days.
There are also "old-earth" creationists who have figured out that it makes no sense to argue against cosmology, astronomy, geology, and physics. They accept all of that, and many of them accept evolution of all other living things besides humans.
<< but certainly not evolution. A lizard turning into a bird....?? naw.... >>
As we have said a hundred times -- something like that would actually go AGAINST what evolution posits. Please -- learn what it is you are talking about.
<< but, equal time in the classroom. Can a teacher keep their personal opinion to themselves and teach all in a neutral manner. >>
Equal time for what? Just your specific creation belief? That's not equal. Once you include one, you have to include all -- then when would we have time for science?
<< Personally I do believe strongly in a supernatural force that can formed all we see now. >>
There are many people who accept the scientific evidence for evolution who agree with you there.
<< If someone believes a fish turned bird >>
If someone believed that, he would be an idiot -- not an evolutionist.
<< and that Lightning created the first sparks of life by accident by striking amino acids or whatever. >>
That has nothing to do with evolution -- something else we have repeated endlessly. Evolution deals with what goes on after life arose -- no matter how life arose.
<< ..the earth being flat was well established back before 1492..... >>
So -- along with understanding nothing about evolution, you know nothing about this topic, too? This statement is completely false. Please do a little reading before continuing to stick your foot in your mouth like this.
Scanning this quickly I read "strong supernatural force" and for a second thought physics was onto something entirely new.
"Good point -- although I would have put quotation marks around the words 'creation science.'"
"WHY?"
Because there is no such thing. "Creation science" consists primarily of preaching Genesis, distorting science to make it seem to fit Genesis, and lying about evolution and those who study it.
It's not science -- it's politics. That's why it has lost in court every single time. That's why many of those pushing it have put their hopes on ID.
<< Even Einstein who was a non-believer came to the conclusion that a "Superior Reasoning Power" existed....this bothered him, but he accepted this. True story...... >>
Even if this is true, that has nothing to do with evolution. Many people believe both.
Have you ever been so curious as to compare the original New Testament to the version you currently possess?
So what's the weakness of science? And what's the strength of creationism? Or of the Bible?
While the insults and posts devoid of meaningful content fly ("I'm a better man than you, because I know that 500 years ago there were no computer chips, and you stupid creationist don't!"), the weakness (ours this time) is seeking wisdom in science and mathematical proof in the Bible. To me this is a philosophical debate. Whether creationism is science is a silly question, since we have long stopped questioning whether political science, ethnic studies, wymyns studies, Margared Mead's "discoveries", the Kinsey Report are science. Why, they give away Ph.Ds in Business Administration and Government Studies. Who's kidding who?!
<< So what's the weakness of science? And what's the strength of creationism? Or of the Bible? >>
The weakness of science -- that's a good question for discussion. Human error, perhaps.
The strength of creationism? None that I can think of.
The Bible? In terms of this discussion -- none. I do believe the Bible has strengths -- but they do not apply to this issue.
The rest of your post sort of lost me. I got a headache trying to make sense of what looks like gibberish. Maybe it was just a rant, but I ain't smart enough to decipher it.
Pea soup, YES! Evolution, NO! :P
Why protest creationists' claim that ID is science when we don't ever protest that ethnic studies (and those other "discplines" are science?!
<< Our weakness is seeking wisdom in science and mathematical proof in the Bible. >>
Science is not the search for wisdom. It is the search for knowledge about the natural world. Wisdom is the domain of religion and philosophy.
And I still have no idea what you mean by "seeking...mathematical proof in the Bible."
<< Why protest creationists' claim that ID is science >>
Because that claim is a lie. I protest against lies.
<< when we don't ever protest that ethnic studies (and those other "discplines" are science?! >>
You just did! I do, too. So do many others.
But even if we didn't -- that is a total non sequitur. It is no argument in favor or ID or creationism to point out that someone protesting them does not protest something else. By that logic, I could say: Why argue against evolution when you don't argue against peanut butter sandwiches?
<< Pea soup, YES! Evolution, NO! :P >>
"Bush lied; thousands died."
Same mentality. Same power to persuade.
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.