Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Quebec community cool to Darwin
Montreal Gazette via Canada.com ^ | May 20 2006 | Alison Lampert

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."


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: bewarefrevolutionist; canada; creatards; creation; creationism; creationist; creationists; creationuts; crevo; crevodebates; crevolist; doublestandard; evolution; evolutionist; frevolutionist; id; intelligentdesign; inuit; pavlovian; protectedfreep; quebec; scienceeducation; wardchurchill; whocares
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 881-900901-920921-940 ... 981-985 next last
To: donh
"Yea, well, God says not to eat pork"

The kosher laws were given only to Israel for the express purpose of separating her from other countries. And it has worked well. Jews have maintained their identity despite having been exiled and scattered for almost 2000 years.

901 posted on 07/23/2006 9:17:01 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 898 | View Replies]

To: donh
You learn that it's sort of wrong, unless you happen to want to marry your decades younger niece, and happen to be righteous (ie. rich) --which Leviticus permits.

What are you referring to? Do you have a more specific reference?

902 posted on 07/23/2006 9:36:12 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 829 | View Replies]

To: donh
"As a christian religeous argument about morality, this seems pretty much out on the ragged edge of bizarre."

Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

903 posted on 07/23/2006 10:29:49 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 899 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
I didn't realize you had such outstanding powers of mind reading across time.

Oh, I think I probably do, to the extent that this issue requires it.

To do real significant damage to the world takes zealotry, not cynical corruption. The cynically corrupt find much safer, easier and more obscure paths thru life. You can't create the fire in the belly to sustain a mission like a Hitler's, with the conviction that you are sneaking around doing wrong, and getting away with it.

904 posted on 07/24/2006 7:40:59 AM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 900 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
"Yea, well, God says not to eat pork"

The kosher laws were given only to Israel for the express...

Really? Where in the law does it say this? Does this mean the rest of the laws laid down by God in Exodus don't apply to others? Like the 10 commandments? Maybe you have a checklist we can consult?

905 posted on 07/24/2006 7:44:36 AM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 901 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
What are you referring to? Do you have a more specific reference?

Jewish orthodox uncles are permitted to marry their nieces--although, amusingly enough, their aunts can't marry their nephews--that would be incest. All in accordance with biblical laws. This is common knowledge, and widely discussed. You can find this out with google in a matter of seconds. The history of the Rothchilds is repleat with it.

906 posted on 07/24/2006 7:50:45 AM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 902 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Those that never did anything against their conscience will not be condemned

"As a christian religeous argument about morality, this seems pretty much out on the ragged edge of bizarre."

Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves

So...let me get this straight. If you are not a christian, but you behave consistently with whatever morality you choose to have you are saved? Righteous? Handstamped? Good Housekeeping approved? So long as a socio-path does whatever he pleases, he's saved/righteous because he's internally consistent?

907 posted on 07/24/2006 8:00:00 AM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 903 | View Replies]

To: donh
So...let me get this straight. If you are not a christian, but you behave consistently with whatever morality you choose to have you are saved? Righteous? Handstamped? Good Housekeeping approved?

Not quite. You don't choose what your conscience tells you. It's preprogrammed. If you obeyed your conscience your entire life, you would not sin, and you would have no need for Jesus to have paid for your sins.

But we know that nobody has or will do this.

Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

So long as a socio-path does whatever he pleases, he's saved/righteous because he's internally consistent?

First, lets define socio-path. Dictionary.com describes a socio-path as a person having an anti-social personality disorder, but I thought a socio-path is one where the person had zero ability to distinquish right from wrong. In short, he either has no conscience or was born without a conscience.

Personally, I don't think anyone is born without a conscience. If true, then to either develop either an anti-social disorder, or to completely eliminate one's own conscience, then the person would probably have to violate his own conscience. And if so, he has sinned and is condemned.

But what if it is a physical mental health phenomenon, where the person is born with an impaired or non-existent conscience. Then the Lord is just going to have to judge that. Only the Lord knows the full circumstances and the full ability of the person to recognize right from wrong. I can't see judgement occuring where their was no conscious awareness of sin. Scripture doesn't really cover this scenario that I'm aware of, so I doubt it exists. If it does, I have no doubt that the Lord will deal with it appropriately.

On the otherhand, we are all His creation, and I don't think that He necessarily owes us eternal life, simply by virtue of having created us.

908 posted on 07/24/2006 12:23:53 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 907 | View Replies]

To: donh
"Jewish orthodox uncles are permitted to marry their nieces--although, amusingly enough, their aunts can't marry their nephews--that would be incest."

The Bible ruled out marrying your father's brother, your father's sister, and your mother's sister. It fails to mention your mother's brother. So it's not that it gives permission or approval, it just fails to mention it.

You know the Good Lord gave you some brains for a purpose. I don't know what certain orthodox Jews do, but I wouldn't advise marrying your uncle, no matter how hung up on him you are.

Lev 18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness. ... 12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman. 13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman. 14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.

909 posted on 07/24/2006 1:06:01 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 906 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
The Bible ruled out marrying your father's brother, your father's sister, and your mother's sister. It fails to mention your mother's brother. So it's not that it gives permission or approval, it just fails to mention it.

Now there's a bang-up defense. May I take it you've forgotten what this argument is about?

910 posted on 07/25/2006 10:56:31 AM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 909 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
On the otherhand, we are all His creation, and I don't think that He necessarily owes us eternal life, simply by virtue of having created us.

Much as you don't owe us a rationally related response to any given argument, just because you are posting on freerepublic; as is herewith demonstrated.

No question that has been recently asked can be answered with "I don't think he owes us eternal life".

911 posted on 07/25/2006 11:05:09 AM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 908 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Personally, I don't think anyone is born without a conscience. If true, then to either develop either an anti-social disorder, or to completely eliminate one's own conscience, then the person would probably have to violate his own conscience. And if so, he has sinned and is condemned.j

Ok, I get it. Anyone whose conscience differs substantially from that of your church, is mentally deranged and incompetent to detect his own true conscience. I'm sure Torquemada had a similar theory about those he tortured for their own good.

912 posted on 07/25/2006 11:08:48 AM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 908 | View Replies]

To: thomaswest
The Theory of Evolution is based on observable facts.

Like these?

<1> Endosymbiosis happened, despite the fact that it's never happened since and we have no proof that it did.

<2> The genetic code was advanced by random mutation, despite the fact that the mutations we see are harmful and destroy information in that genetic code.

<3> The earth is old because we assume a uniformitarian geologic history...except when we need to introduce a catastrophic event to help facilitate evolution.

<4> All life on earth, given enough time, evolved from bacteria across a continuum...despite the fact that the fossil record is a collection of unrelated groupings of animals with no record of how they got to be unrelated.
913 posted on 07/25/2006 11:33:43 AM PDT by Old_Mil (http://www.constitutionparty.org - Forging a Rebirth of Freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: donh
"Ok, I get it. Anyone whose conscience differs substantially from that of your church, is mentally deranged and incompetent to detect his own true conscience."

Why are you trying so hard to justify sociopaths? Are you one?

914 posted on 07/25/2006 1:22:08 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 912 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Why are you trying so hard to justify sociopaths? Are you one?

I'm not. You are--using the bible as ammo. You say the bible sez as long as anyone is true to their own conscience, they are moral (righteous) (saved?). Then you turned around and said if their conscience isn't in tune with your religion's conscience, they must be removed by disease from the dictates of their own conscience, which I'll bet you a snicker's bar is nowhere to be found in the bible, and which is a load of hooey. Socio-paths are not diseased, they are perfectly healthy, per se. As isthe case for fundamentalist muslim suicide bombers--they are at one with their religious affiliation, and not in any obvious way diseased.

915 posted on 07/25/2006 3:56:05 PM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 914 | View Replies]

To: donh
"Then you turned around and said if their conscience isn't in tune with your religion's conscience, they must be removed by disease from the dictates of their own conscience, which I'll bet you a snicker's bar is nowhere to be found in the bible, and which is a load of hooey.

I never said their conscience had to be perfectly in tune with my religion. God designed the conscience. He wrote His laws on everyone's heart.

Socio-paths are not diseased, they are perfectly healthy, per se.

There you go with your super ability to read people's conscience again. You just got to tell the NAS about that. Tell the psychiatric associations too while your at it, since I'm sure they still list that as a mental illness.

I've already told you that I think everyone starts out with a conscience, but that if someone doesn't, he is still a creation of God and it is still up to God to judge him for his behavior. But you prefer to twist my words.

As isthe case for fundamentalist muslim suicide bombers--they are at one with their religious affiliation, and not in any obvious way diseased.

Their religious affiliation is not the same as their conscience. A person can easily decide to reject their conscience in order to fit into their culture.

916 posted on 07/25/2006 4:27:59 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 915 | View Replies]

To: donh
"You are--using the bible as ammo."

I'm not using the Bible to attack you. I'm using the Bible to show that my positions are scripturally based. That's especially important when you say things like "As a christian religeous argument about morality, this seems pretty much out on the ragged edge of bizarre."

917 posted on 07/25/2006 4:32:16 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 915 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
I've already told you that I think everyone starts out with a conscience, but that if someone doesn't, he is still a creation of God and it is still up to God to judge him for his behavior. But you prefer to twist my words.

asking you to explain yourself is not "twisting your words". This does not in any way address the questions: "Are orthodox jews saved?" or "Is the bible the unimpeachable source of moral instruction?" or "is it a fundamental christian precept that you can only be saved thru accepting christ as savior?". It is just weaseling.

918 posted on 07/26/2006 1:50:04 AM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 916 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Socio-paths are not diseased, they are perfectly healthy, per se.

There you go with your super ability to read people's conscience again.

Ok, you tell me what deteriorating physical or social effects being a socio-path has on the socio-path. As far as I've been able to tell, most of the people who run the world are highly successful socio-paths who have no trouble keeping mistresses and legally robbing the world.

919 posted on 07/26/2006 1:59:42 AM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 916 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
I'm not using the Bible to attack you. I'm using the Bible to show that my positions are scripturally based. That's especially important when you say things like "As a christian religeous argument about morality, this seems pretty much out on the ragged edge of bizarre."

OK...let's just summarize your thesis: It's a christian precept that you are saved, not by accepting jesus as savior, but rather, by obeying whatever arbitrary dictates of your conscience you manage to manifest. Have I got that right? Maybe if you look hard enough in every obscure corner of the bible, you can demonstrate that black is white.

920 posted on 07/26/2006 2:07:58 AM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 917 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 881-900901-920921-940 ... 981-985 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson