Friday, July 4, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

Christians challenge teaching of evolution

by Stuff NZ

Thanks to Cyberguy for the link.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4599856a7694.html

Christians challenge teaching of evolution
By LANE NICHOLS - The Dominion Post

A Christian group promoting intelligent design theory over evolution has sent teaching material to schools that critics say is religious propaganda and sloppy pseudoscience.

The Education Ministry says the unsanctioned material does not breach the Education Act and there are no plans to ban its distribution.

But officials stress the theory of evolution underpins the science curriculum and schools have a responsibility to teach theories that are subject to accepted scientific scrutiny.

Focus on the Family has sent The Privileged Planet CD and booklet to 400 high schools, asking that they be made available to science teachers and school libraries.

Waikato University biological sciences senior lecturer Alison Campbell says the material champions creationism - the belief that God created the world as described in the Book of Genesis - claiming the universe is too perfect to have been produced by chance so must be the work of an intelligent designer.

It represented a religious viewpoint, she said, not a scientific one, and had no place in science classrooms.

"It's an underhand way of getting creationist material into schools."

Similar debate in the United States led the Supreme Court to ban public schools from teaching creationism. In 2005 a court banned the teaching of intelligent design at a Pennsylvanian high school.

Focus on the Family's executive director Tim Sisarich said the material was intended to expose pupils to an alterative theory of cosmology.

"We're a Christian organisation so we believe that God made the planet and God made the cosmos ... Science takes a theory and tries to establish it as the truth, and that's all this is."

Education Ministry senior manager Mary Chamberlain said parents had a right to withdraw children from religious instruction.

Posted: Friday, July 4, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 108 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #204341 by TheGreatBZ on July 4, 2008 at 8:36 pm

Why is the entire article in bold?

Other Comments by TheGreatBZ

2. Comment #204342 by King of NH on July 4, 2008 at 8:41 pm

"We're a Christian organisation so we believe that God made the planet and God made the cosmos ... Science takes a theory and tries to establish it as the truth, and that's all this is."

[fuming, smoke shooting out my ears]

A theory is not a guess! NOT A GUESS! Creationism, ID, are NOT theories; they are uneducated, unsupported, unreasearched, and disproven ideas with no realtion to truth.

Evolution has been established as truth by 150 years of intense research and scrutiny during which it has withstood every attack and predicted discoveries yet to be made even today.

Other Comments by King of NH

3. Comment #204344 by Mbee on July 4, 2008 at 8:46 pm

Here we go again.
OK Science requires some proof of assertions and conjecture relating to facts. Creationism and ID provide neither. They are NOT science. Keep them out of the classroom.
From what I have read on this and other sites most atheists would welcome evidence to support these ideas (not theories) if there was any! but until these goons can come up with something relating to evidence it is just their religious ideas - nothing else.

Evidence matters! Science requires evidence. Leave religion in the area of the supernatural for those who wish to fantasize.

Other Comments by Mbee

4. Comment #204346 by 8teist on July 4, 2008 at 8:50 pm

Creationism isn`t even a guess its pure wishful fantasy.
Can`t see this flying here in NZ ,this is a week old and barely a mention, a feeble attempt to start controversy.
These pathetic fucktards can`t even whine properly,also the memory of the Christian Heritage Party is still fresh,pedophile scandal and all that.

Other Comments by 8teist

5. Comment #204347 by eclampusvitus on July 4, 2008 at 8:53 pm

Focus on the Family is an immoral organization that prefers cervical cancer to immunization.

It appears their "thinking" is that immunization against cervical cancer and other results of Human Papillovirus infection leads to *gasp* premarital sex.

http://scienceblogs.com/purepedantry/2006/06/focus_on_the_family_opposes_hp_1.php

The primitive evil that this group represents is precisely the wickedness against which we have found the spine to resist.

"Death before dishonor" is a fine motto for the Marines. It is not a philosophy to be thrust onto normal young women.

ECV

Other Comments by eclampusvitus

6. Comment #204348 by OverUsedChewToy on July 4, 2008 at 8:53 pm

"The Education Ministry says the unsanctioned material does not breach the Education Act and there are no plans to ban its distribution. "

Then CHANGE THE FREAKING EDUCATION ACT.

And I thought my country was devoid of high-profile creotardism.

Other Comments by OverUsedChewToy

7. Comment #204349 by mordacious1 on July 4, 2008 at 8:55 pm

These guys just don't give up, nothing better to do I guess. Anyone know how to undo the bold, I don't want it to seem like I'm screaming.

Other Comments by mordacious1

8. Comment #204350 by 8teist on July 4, 2008 at 8:58 pm

I`M NOT SCREAMING........................YET

Other Comments by 8teist

9. Comment #204354 by Goldy on July 4, 2008 at 9:03 pm

Hmmmm, what a scary thought. Haven't read this in the Herald yet...but I guess soon...

Other Comments by Goldy

10. Comment #204356 by flibble on July 4, 2008 at 9:05 pm

The comments thread underneath this (in the original linked article), has either been the subject of a concerted attack by a cretinist group, or NZ is chock full of nutjobs.

Other Comments by flibble

11. Comment #204357 by 8teist on July 4, 2008 at 9:07 pm

Ha Goldy, I went cold turkey on the herald then realised I had nothing to start the fire with in the evening,so I had to start buying it again.

Other Comments by 8teist

12. Comment #204358 by mordacious1 on July 4, 2008 at 9:07 pm

You know with all the links from the UK and NZ lately, it seems like you guys have more crazies than we do. But don't worry, ours still outnumber yours. The cretins here are just busy praying at gas stations so they can fill up their SUV's.

I said quietly, with no bolds intended.

Other Comments by mordacious1

13. Comment #204360 by mordacious1 on July 4, 2008 at 9:13 pm

Our local school district received a donation of dictionaries, regular dictionaries, from a local church. They refused the donation because there was a stamp in the front stating: "Donated by the such and such church". That's all it took for them to be sent back. I was very proud of them.

Other Comments by mordacious1

14. Comment #204361 by thewhitepearl on July 4, 2008 at 9:14 pm

"the universe is to perfect.."

NO...NO it's not.

"to an alterative theory of cosmology."

Goddidit.

What possible "curriculum" can they have? What's to explain? goddidit in 6 days. somehow he managed to measure the first four days without light, because hes god.

end of story.

so ridiculous.

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

15. Comment #204368 by mordacious1 on July 4, 2008 at 9:22 pm

It's not so perfect, some people still misspell "too".

Other Comments by mordacious1

16. Comment #204370 by shaunfletcher on July 4, 2008 at 9:32 pm

I plan to start a letter campaign to school heads in the Auckland region, seeking assurance from them that this material will see the inside of a wastepaper bin on arrival, as it must.

Actually I shall enlist a relative (mother of 3) as the nominal letter writer, as being a parent of children in the system she stands much more chance of being responded to.

Hopefully the response will be sufficient to quell my concerns.

Other Comments by shaunfletcher

17. Comment #204371 by moderndaythomas on July 4, 2008 at 9:32 pm

We're a Christian organisation so we believe that God made the planet and God made the cosmos

How exactly? Exactly!

Other Comments by moderndaythomas

18. Comment #204372 by 8teist on July 4, 2008 at 9:35 pm

mdt, dog speaked it into existed ,all the rest got pulled out his arse.

Other Comments by 8teist

19. Comment #204376 by MelM on July 4, 2008 at 9:46 pm

Religion isn't a theory; it's a fantasy. Holy men are not intellectuals; they're crackpots who've corrupted the functioning of their own minds.

Passing out the idea that creationism is a "theory" also promotes the idea that theories are just arbitrary assertions--in itself, a corruption of rationality and science in the minds of the holy men's victims. Promoting creationism to the status of a theory is a serious problem; it will destroy the concepts of science and reason.

Other Comments by MelM

20. Comment #204380 by MelM on July 4, 2008 at 9:56 pm

Maybe a scientific association in NZ could help by sending out a mailer informing the schools that what's coming from Focus On The Family is puke and should be thrown in the trash.

Other Comments by MelM

21. Comment #204382 by hmcook87 on July 4, 2008 at 10:10 pm

I really thought New Zealand was free from all that creationist nonsense, but to see those commenters on stuff.co.nz parroting creationist talking points straight from Answers in Genesis, was really sad. There seemed to be a lot more pro ID comments than pro science comments. I would have expected it to be the other way around. NZ is about 50% religious, but I thought the vast majority of religious people here subscribed to the "God's way of doing things" style of evolution. ID propaganda seems to have the unfortunate effect of pulling moderate christians off the fence, in the wrong direction. The whole "Gods way of doing things" view exists so that christians can reconcile what they know from science with what they believe, but with ID pretending that science actually suports a biblical creation model, christians who don't know much about science will find it quite attractive.

Other Comments by hmcook87

22. Comment #204383 by Goldy on July 4, 2008 at 10:18 pm

Fuck it, I'm sending my daughter to China if this gets any worse!
Seen the ads at the bottom of the article?

Creation or Evolution?
Does it matter what you believe? Be convinced! Instructive information.
www.ucg.org.au

Creation Or Evolution?
Is evolution just a theory? You can prove creation. Order free booklet.
www.gnmagazine.org/evolution/?S=2

Jesus Christ Loves You
Here is a Prayer That Can Change Your Life
www.Jesus2020.com

Other Comments by Goldy

23. Comment #204391 by GoodbyeGodNZ on July 4, 2008 at 10:34 pm

Don't worry too much guys, this Focus on the Family turkey Tim Sisarich got totally carved up by Waikato University biological sciences senior lecturer Alison Campbell on NZ National radio on Tuesday morning. Link below.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/__data/assets/audio_item/0009/1621368/ntn-20080701-1130-Creation_vs_Evolution_in_Schools-wmbr.asx

I sent Alison an email congratulating her on her good work and she replied thanking me for the feedback and assured that she would be keeping the hammer down on challenging these sorts of things.

This Focus on the Family guy is a real turkey and knows nothing about science whatsoever, as is normally the case with these sorts, he is just a pathetic faithhead.

As Doctor Campbell mentions in the discussion, the author of The Privileged Planet material is shadey .....???

Well that seems to be a diplomatic way of putting it. Have a look at Guillermo Gonzalez on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillermo_Gonzalez_(astronomer). He is really shonkey!

Other Comments by GoodbyeGodNZ

24. Comment #204393 by dragonfirematrix on July 4, 2008 at 10:36 pm

The science of the religious is nothing but hocus pocus, and hocus-pocus is fraud.

Conservatives (Christian zealots) support hocus-pocus over truth.

WHY DO FREEDOM LOVING PEOPLE TOLERATE THE RELIGIOUS?

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

25. Comment #204395 by Goldy on July 4, 2008 at 10:42 pm

GoodbyeGodNZ - thanks! That makes up more than enough for that other comment made a while ago - more than made up for that! You're in credit now :-)
Good job too - my punishment was to force you to take me to Galbraiths in Auckland and buy me beer til I fell on the floor. Hate to say it, but I appear to be able to drink a lot more than is healthy...
;-D

Other Comments by Goldy

26. Comment #204401 by LeeC on July 4, 2008 at 11:24 pm

GoodbyeGodNZ wrote:
Well that seems to be a diplomatic way of putting it. Have a look at Guillermo Gonzalez on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillermo_Gonzalez_(astronomer). He is really shonkey!

Guillermo is a joke... you only need to read the introduction to his book to see the holes his ideas. You can find it on google books if you need a laugh.

The 'logic' used is along the lines of "We are here, here is good, therefore God"

Rubbish.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

27. Comment #204402 by Laurie Fraser on July 4, 2008 at 11:24 pm

What's happening to my comrades across the ditch? Goldy, 8teist, GGNZ - get out there and start laying into these lunatics with your heavyweight brains.

BTW, have you had any more trouble with those evil Brethren fucktards?

Just to get you in the mood, can I mention underarm bowling? *Ducks*

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

28. Comment #204403 by LeeC on July 4, 2008 at 11:26 pm

Just to get you in the mood, can I mention underarm bowling? *Ducks*

Now that just wasn't cricket :)

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

29. Comment #204406 by Laurie Fraser on July 4, 2008 at 11:34 pm

Hi Brian,
You bet. But I thought it had been renamed "The World's Biggest T-Shirt Contest"

There are a few good actions planned for it, including an atheist's march from Taylor Square on July 19.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

30. Comment #204413 by Dr Doctor on July 5, 2008 at 12:04 am

Yet more proof that NOMA is a one way street.

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

31. Comment #204414 by DamnDirtyApe on July 5, 2008 at 12:11 am

There's no end in sight... perhaps we need a page on the internet called the 'epic ID refutation page'. Just one huge enormous page that sums up every argument against evolution we've seen so far. And crushes them beneath a logical tidal wave.

It's save wasting time arguing the same damn thing over and over again.

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

32. Comment #204416 by Dr Doctor on July 5, 2008 at 12:14 am

You'd have to package the article in an accessible way. At the level that a half-wit can understand, after all, the half wit ignoramus is the bread and butter of all religion.

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

33. Comment #204419 by Laurie Fraser on July 5, 2008 at 12:23 am

Brian,
I've just read Craig's article. Stupidity piled upon stupidity. I thought we'd buried teleology, ontology etc years ago. These idiots won't take no for an answer. Oh well, just have to have another glass of my delicious Bavarian.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

34. Comment #204420 by 8teist on July 5, 2008 at 12:23 am

The theist does`nt want facts and certainly can`t cope with reality.
The theist wants comfort,someone to tell them that they will never die ,so unless science can discover a cosmic security blanket, I guess we`re fucked .

Other Comments by 8teist

35. Comment #204422 by Laurie Fraser on July 5, 2008 at 12:30 am

Yeah, how about that??!! What rationalisation could you POSSIBLY present as an argument for flying a dead body half way around the world so that it could be part of a procession? And they call US "annoying." Fuck I hope I'm arrested on WYD.

Edit: GGNZ: thanks for the radio link - a beauty.
P.S. 8teist - my granddaughter loves your avatar. Fortunately she can't read yet:)

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

36. Comment #204425 by mr-zero on July 5, 2008 at 12:40 am

"The Privileged Planet" is around on bit torrent so you can download it and see just what crap they are peddling
Z

Other Comments by mr-zero

37. Comment #204426 by Styrer- on July 5, 2008 at 12:41 am

Comment #204413 by Dr Doctor on July 5, 2008 at 12:04 am

Nicely said.

NOMA is a crock of appeasing, intellectually dishonest shite.

No more fucking room and time for it, says I.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

38. Comment #204427 by Laurie Fraser on July 5, 2008 at 12:42 am

Well, it's a death cult after all. I mean, you've already got some geriatric Nazi that will come wheeling through the streets of Sydney as the personification of the divine...you may as well include a corpse to add to the macabre theatre of it all. I wonder what would happen if some well-meaning soul *accidently* bumped into the coffin and sent its contents onto George St.?

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

39. Comment #204428 by aussieatheist_111 on July 5, 2008 at 12:42 am

Hi Brian,
You bet. But I thought it had been renamed "The World's Biggest T-Shirt Contest"

There are a few good actions planned for it, including an atheist's march from Taylor Square on July 19.

I just hope that the Chaser live up to all expectations and pull off the stunt of their careers. Now there is nothing like popular humour to mobilise the masses.

Other Comments by aussieatheist_111

40. Comment #204431 by Laurie Fraser on July 5, 2008 at 12:49 am

Let 'em try, Brian. In fact, I don't mind at all if the F.P. check us out - it's always a good feeling when you know you're perfectly in the right.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

41. Comment #204433 by Barry Pearson on July 5, 2008 at 1:03 am

#204404 by Brian English: Here's my rant:
http://philosophicalneuron.blogspot.com/2008/07/growing-endarkenment.html

I note the word "Endarkenment"! I'm sticking to a scale of enlightenment, with various dimensions measured from unenlightened to enlightened.

Work in progress:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/enlightenment.htm

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

42. Comment #204434 by Laurie Fraser on July 5, 2008 at 1:14 am

Hi Barry,
Really interesting project you've got going, which parallels, in several aspects, my own thinking about what it is to be "enlightened". I'm a little wary of any boxing of attributes; you can end up with a Myers-Briggs-style categorisation that smells a bit like astrology. Having said that, I believe it is a valuable project to determine the "hows" and "whys" of people's cognitive behaviours: attitudes and reasoning in particular. I'll be interested to see how it develops. Keep us informed.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

43. Comment #204435 by Barry Pearson on July 5, 2008 at 1:23 am

Focus on the Family's executive director Tim Sisarich said .... "We're a Christian organisation so we believe that God made the planet and God made the cosmos ...."

That "so" is wrong, at least in the context of evolution. The implication is that Christian organisations logically/inevitably deny evolution, and they don't.

There is no inevitability of getting from "We're a Christian organisation" to "promoting intelligent design theory". Creationsists/ID-proponents are a lunatic fringe of religion (although in the US, at least, a big fringe).

There are both scientific reasons to reject intelligent design and theological reasons. I would like to see more use made of this "double whammy". I would like such people have to defend their beliefs against arguments from other religious people as well as arguments from scientists.

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

44. Comment #204437 by Laurie Fraser on July 5, 2008 at 1:30 am

Yeah, great comment, Barry. At the risk of offending Irate and Styrer, I'd say that it is imperative that thinking theologians (*oxymoron alert*)do their bit to counter the bullshit. Problem is, they're afraid of the backlash from an increasingly conservative religious population. (With a few exceptions.)

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

45. Comment #204438 by irate_atheist on July 5, 2008 at 1:32 am

Oblig: Fucktards.

Please feel free to quote me on that.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

46. Comment #204441 by Laurie Fraser on July 5, 2008 at 1:38 am

Thanks, irate - ever consistent! :)

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

47. Comment #204448 by Barry Pearson on July 5, 2008 at 1:57 am

#204434 by Laurie Fraser: Hi Barry,
Really interesting project you've got going, which parallels, in several aspects, my own thinking about what it is to be "enlightened". I'm a little wary of any boxing of attributes; you can end up with a Myers-Briggs-style categorisation that smells a bit like astrology. Having said that, I believe it is a valuable project to determine the "hows" and "whys" of people's cognitive behaviours: attitudes and reasoning in particular. I'll be interested to see how it develops. Keep us informed.

Thanks, I need all the help I can get on this! If you have any references, please tell me.

I have no ambitions to turn this into something with the formality of Myers-Briggs. I typically use structured methods as an aid to group-working rather than for individual evaluation. Here are a couple of earlier examples of my methods:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/aeiou/
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/papers/value_chain/

What I want is some way of being able to say "XYZ is an unenlightened thing, and here is my justification". For example, Islamic human rights are unenlightened compared with universal human rights. But what are the specifics? What fundamental differences between them can I point to? So I will be trying to evaluate in descriptive rather than numerical terms the measures of Sharia Law, which is the basis of Islamic human rights, and do what I can for universal human rights too.

Atheists get "Stalin was an atheist and look what the result of that was" thrown at us. Stalinism was extremely unenlightened, by a number of my measures, and that was the problem, not atheism. The Inquisition was also unenlightened; but it would too simplistic to say this was because it was religious. There is an extra step possible - "what are the factors that typically make religions unenlightened, hence led to the Inquisition being unenlightened?"

There is even less chance that my measures will be generally accepted than there was for Myers and Briggs! After all, I couldn't prove to a religious person that relying on texts written 1000s of years ago is unenlightened compared to using modern evidence! They would argue that their texts are the ultimate in enlightenment. But it would identify the fundamental points of dispute. It isn't some vague "anti-God thing", but specific arguments about the reliability of different types of knowledge. And it is consistent from one topic to another.

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

48. Comment #204449 by Laurie Fraser on July 5, 2008 at 2:18 am

Interesting points, Barry. I would want to look, too, at the relationship of POWER (political, religious, economic, etc) to the relative "enlightenment" of both individuals and groups. There is some correlation, obviously, between the power needs of a social group and the cognitive structures that are associated with its dictums. It's not good enough to simply approach the task at an individual level, although that project is, in itself, worthwhile.

More enlightening (sorry) is the answer to the question of why social power so often is associated with an authoritarian, or conservative, or downright totalitarian "cognition field", where critical thought is antithetical to group policy.

Of course, humanist cognitive organisation tends to be sketchy by its very nature, As a humanist, I have no desire to control others, etc. And so, even though the "enlightened" have the profoundly better rational skills, the "totalitarian" (for want of a better word) more easily organise their forces, both physical AND cognitive (just look at any religious cult).

Anyway, must take my wife out. It's Saturday night here, and a good humanist must do his duty. :)

P.S. I know that didn't answer any of your concerns, but will think about it and get back.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

49. Comment #204458 by decius on July 5, 2008 at 3:09 am