Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Wandel, the Minister for Education in Québec stated today that all teachers in Québec would follow the government program, presumably meaning that evolution will be taught over the objections of the Pentacostals. I'll see if i can find a link to the story.

setanta wrote-



Who used to be someone who had disgraced himself in any one of a multitude of ways. A bit like Malenkov when he was placed in charge of a power station in Siberia.

Is it a more important post these days?

I've looked a couple of times for the story about the Québec Minister of Education's statement, and still haven't found anything, but i just stumbled over this, which is a statement from the school board at the center of the issue:

Not censorship but respect at the crux of the Salluit incident

MONTREAL, May 23 /CNW Telbec/ - The Kativik School Board does not censor its teachers, nor do religious groups dictate to the School Board what can or cannot be taught in our schools. The crux of the matter is expecting our teachers to adhere to program objectives, and to respect the culture of the people they are privileged to live with, and to teach.

It is not part of the objective of our Secondary 1 through 5 Social
Science or Science Programs, in either English or French, to teach Darwin's 'Theory of Evolution'. There happens to be one paragraph in the Secondary 3 biology book that mentions the theory in a discussion about bones. That's it. If a teacher adds to the program, it is not with the sanction of our pedagogical counsellors, or that of the School Board. Starting in school year 2006-2007, the curriculum will be officially standardized in all Nunavik schools to ensure that all our kids have the same chance to learn the same thing, and to graduate with the same knowledge.

The teacher at the centre of the controversy decided to incorporate the 'Theory of Evolution' in several instances during his teaching, at his own initiative, despite being told many times by the school administrators about the sensitive nature of this issue. His rationale was that Nunavik students "should have the same right to the same education as other students". We agree, but the Inuit of Nunavik should also have the right to have their views and way-of-life respected by our teachers.

Under the constitutionally-protected 'James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement', specifically Chapter 17, and also in accordance with the 'Education Act for Cree, Inuit and Naskapi Native Persons', the Kativik School Board has the right and the responsibility to develop programs and teaching materials in Inuktitut, English and French, as long as we meet the objectives prescribed by the Quebec Ministry of Education, Leisure and Sports. Our students have the same right to information as any other students in Canada or North America. There are books on the 'Evolutionary Theory' in our school libraries which students are free to read, and all of our students have access to the worldwide web.

We encourage our students to have an open mind and to think for
themselves. We expect our students to develop a respect for other cultures, and to recognize the cultural diversity and the values of other people. Surely we have the right to expect the same of our teachers.

For further information: Debbie Astroff, Public Relations Officer,
Kativik School Board

*****************************************

I find this interesting, as the argument seems to be "cultural heritage" endangered, when, in fact, the objections to the curriculum arise from vigorous Pentacostal proselytizing in northern Québec, and among the Inuit--so, in fact, the claim that the teaching of a theory of evolution to Inuit is culturally offensive is likely specious.

Setanta,

Is the school saying that evolutionary theory is not part of their curriculum?

"likely" notice.

What the hell does the Kativik School Board's idealization of a given culture have to do with teaching science fact. What if the culture in question did not believe in combustion as they thought fire was a gift from the gods?

It does seem that way, Wandel, and note the reference to the materials being available in the school libraries. That's why i'd like to find a transcript of the Ministers statement today, for comparison sake. In the radio program i heard last week, one of the Inuit parents was outraged, saying that she was not descended from monkeys. Well, a theory of evolution does not teach that humans are descended from monkeys, and to me the inferential evidence is that the charismatics in the Pentacostal movement are stirring up trouble.

I'll post the Minister's comments as soon as i can get a copy online.

setanta wrote-



So what are we descended from then? Worms.

As we are descended from monkeys,which is a well known scientific fact, not teaching that we are seems a bit wimpy and hardly gives confidence in those scientifics who doubt their own logic for the sake of not being unpopular with matrons and other classes of respectable ladies.

Nothing daunted, Spendi never wants us to forget just precisely how ignorant he is.

Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either.

Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html

Here ya go, Spendi--i'll bet even you can understand this:



Note that monkey's branch from the same common ancestor as hominids and all of the great apes.

Some will still admit they are descended from monkeys and just recently.

And some think Adam was created as a grown man - sorta like what came first?

Since there was no human language when Adam was created, how did he communicate with Eve?

Interesting question. What are the popular theologies as per the various languages / various creation myths? And surely languages have had to evolve (at least in some sense).

Monkeys-sponkeys-clonkeys-gonkeys-honkeys.

What's the difference? Half a hair?

setanta wrote-



"this" being a pic out of a kid's comic. (see above)

Nah- What is there to understand? If it sheds light for some that's their affair. It's a free country ain't it? It must be nice to be able to think with such clarity though. Saves a lotta work I'm sure.

AS YOUSEEM TO SHOW US EVERY DAY, SPENDI.

Could you explain that fm.

I'm a willing learner at all times. But one can learn very little, if anything, from generalised assertions and particularly when they are meaningless.

The irony of such a statement from such a source is nearly lethal . . .

"..and who gets it?'

"Yes , every penny of it, why not , hes earned it"

Who does?"


"yes"

"who?"
"yes"