Evolution classes optional under proposed Alberta law

[Hydraboss]

Or they don't get to complain if SCIENCE faculties at university don't accept their kids. They don't get to complain if their lids don't qualify as teachers.

Thank God. Neither of my kids are lazy enough or stupid enough to qualify as teachers.

No doubt they'll get jobs where they actually earn a living.

[Hydraboss]

"Values, religion, and sex education" don't have anything to do with evolution.

Do any of these have a place in school? Don't know, don't care. Reading, writing, arithmetic, science, social studies. The rest should be optional...like art class.

Or french.

[Machjo]

The thead has moved from evolution to values education. If by values is meant morals, then I beleive moral education should be included, not as a separate course, but as a part of all courses.

One possible way to do so is to promote more critical discussions of moral issues in society while allowing teachers and pupils to bring up sources, both religious and secular, for discussion.

Examples could include:

Biology class: studying moral arguments for and aginst the the argument that human life begins at conception, or euthenasia, hman cloning, etc.

Maths class: I don't know, but maybe in accounting classes, the moral dimentions of cooking the books.

English class: Discussing moral uses of language, lying, using manipulative lanuage, etc.

PE: Discuss good sportsanship

Nutrition class: the vegetarian debate, animal rights, compassion for animals, moral responsibility to remain hearlthy, etc.

Foreign languge class: Discuss the issue of languge imperialism in the world.

Etc.

But I do believe that these critical isssues wought to be discussed; we should not teach our children to be nothing more than economic machines.

[Machjo]

I'd also be open to compulsory world religions classes, as these coudl also help show the fundamenal unity of the world's great religions, and so break down religious prejudices that can often be a source of conflict.

[Smallc]

Do any of these have a place in school? Don't know, don't care. Reading, writing, arithmetic, science, social studies. The rest should be optional...like art class.

Or french.

Evolution is science..and French is writing and reading....the others can be classified under social studies.

[WIP]

First, parents should retain the right to raise their kids. The NDP doesn't run the country yet. Being aware of homosexuality is one thing. Being taught that it's okay is another.

First of all, parents' rights over children are not absolute, and should be considered a guardianship, not ownership! In ancient times, a father could kill any of his children without facing any form of state intervention. Today, many governments already give parents too much jurisdiction over their children, when they allow religious lunatics to refuse vaccinations and blood transfusions to their children for religious reasons. Parental authority should not give them the right to harm their children physically, mentally or emotionally; and much of what fundamentalists teach their children could qualify as psychological abuse. Even the more moderate religious zealots want to indoctrinate their children, rather than teach them how to evaluate evidence and make their own decisions.

And those of us who are old enough, can remember a time when it was okay in some U.S. states to teach that race mixing, integration and especially intermarriage, were also bad things. Is that okay to teach also? Conservatives never came to terms with their racist past; they just brush it off as a mistake and proclaim that they are colour-blind today.

And whether the fundies like it or not, gays are the new civil rights issue, since twin studies and other research, have long identified genetic and/or hormonal factors in gender identity and sexual preference. This means it is not "choosing a life of sin" as religious demagogues have hammered away at since the first stone tablets were carved in the deserts of the MiddleEast. So, it's time for conservatives to give it up and admit that they are wrong, just like they were wrong to discriminate based on race and gender. Let the ever-present minority of the population who are attracted to members of their own sex, live life as they choose, and let those who want to teach that homosexuals are depraved, keep it in church along with teachings that blacks are the cursed descendents of Noah's youngest son - Ham.

The religious whackos who proclaim that the world was created 6000 years ago have decided to live in total ignorance of modern science. In the U.S., the takeover of schoolboards, even in non-fundamentalist jurisdictions, has led to students graduating from high school biology classes not knowing anything about evolution. If they want to study biology in university, they require remedial education to learn what they should have been taught in high school. If they are considering careers in bioinformatics, epidemiology and the new field of evolutionary developmental biology -- areas where evolution is a real and active part of their research. Is it any wonder that foreign students are taking over the science classes in the universities!

Denying evolution comes with a price, and the price tag is a society that is increasingly ignorant about basic science and unable to provide the incentive for their children to take any interest in science. And all of the fancy new gadgets that science-based technology has provided, cannot keep coming our way if basic scientific research in physics, biology and chemistry is also being outsourced to India and the Far East.

In the future, the West will become as nostalgic about our "Golden Age" as the Muslim World is today for their past, when they were they were the world leaders. In both cases, progress and modernization were shut down by religious idiocy from people who were afraid their children would learn things that would cause them to question the myths they were teaching them.

[lictor616]

Do any of these have a place in school? Don't know, don't care. Reading, writing, arithmetic, science, social studies. The rest should be optional...like art class.

Or french.

scrap social science, add art and WESTERN CULTURE...

[madmax]

In your opinion.

We should teach that the earth is flat.

[Hydraboss]

First of all, parents' rights over children are not absolute, and should be considered a guardianship, not ownership! In ancient times, a father could kill any of his children without facing any form of state intervention. Today, many governments already give parents too much jurisdiction...

(snip)

And whether the fundies like it or not, gays are the new civil rights issue, since twin studies and other research, have long identified genetic and/or hormonal factors defects in gender identity and sexual preference. This means it is not "choosing a life of sin" as religious demagogues have hammered away at since the first stone tablets were carved in the deserts of the MiddleEast. So, it's time for conservatives to give it up and admit that they are wrong, just like they were wrong to discriminate based on race and gender. Let the ever-present minority of the population who are attracted to members of their own sex, live life as they choose, and let those who want to teach that homosexuals are depraved, keep it in church along with teachings that blacks are the cursed descendents of Noah's youngest son - Ham.

(snip)

In the future, the West will become as nostalgic about our "Golden Age" as the Muslim World is today for their past, when they were they were the world leaders. In both cases, progress and modernization were shut down by religious idiocy from people who were afraid their children would learn things that would cause them to question the myths they were teaching them.

There. I fixed that for you.

Quite a rant you were on there (considering I never said I believe in creationism cause I don't). Read the proposed bill. It says parents have the choice; it doesn't say they're taking the teaching out of the curriculum. Now who's forcing who to do what?

[Hydraboss]

We should teach that the earth is flat.

'bought time too.

My beer kept rolling off the end table.

[CANADIEN]

Got news for you, sport...parents already have that choice. As for your "sign", try reading a school charter once in a while. Pretty much everything you want to expouse is already written.

Another genius.

Compared to someone who believes one has to be stupid and lazy to be a teacher, I'm Einstein. :lol: :lol:

[CANADIEN]

Thank God. Neither of my kids are lazy enough or stupid enough to qualify as teachers.

If your kids grow up to be like you, I hope they will not become teachers.. for the sake of the students.

[Smallc]

If your kids grow up to be like you, I hope they will not become teachers.. for the sake of the students.

Amen to that. It's quite clear that he, and unfortunately many, do not understand the amount of work that teachers have to do.

[g_bambino]

Since twin studies and other research, have long identified genetic and/or hormonal factors in gender identity and sexual preference. This means it is not "choosing a life of sin" as religious demagogues have hammered away at since the first stone tablets were carved in the deserts of the MiddleEast.

While I'm certainly not one to stand up for creationists, and I loathe the idea of such bunk being taught anywhere other than squarely in its religious context, I am, at the same time, wary of these assertions about sexual orientation that are delivered with identical, unquestionable finality. Creationists can only believe the mantra they repeat by ignoring other concrete evidence all around them. At the same time, the gay activists and the far leftists who coddle them firmly believe their own preaching to be true only by ignoring other concrete evidence all around them. The studies of twins and homosexuality, for example, have been shown to have suffered from weaknesses in their conduct, and thus their conclusions are cast in doubt. Yet, these studies, and a few other similar and semi-well-known experiments, are still trotted forward as indubitable proof that gay is some unavoidable, biological, quasi-race of human being (conveniently and safely devoid of personal choice, of course). In such cases, progress and exploration are shut down by sexual identity political idiocy from people who are afraid children would learn things that would cause them to question the myths they were teaching them.

I suppose my point is that we shouldn't be blinded into hypocritically putting down one myth factory only to allow another to operate freely.

_[copyed.]

Edited May 2, 2009 by g_bambino

[Hydraboss]

Amen to that. It's quite clear that he, and unfortunately many, do not understand the amount of work that teachers have to do.

You may want to reconsider this statement. I have a just a "teensy" bit more knowledge on the subject of teachers than you may ever want to admit. I know you've been to this thread (but you didn't read the whole thing), but that was before we all knew that you are a young student and not a taxpaying citizen.

Read and learn

[Smallc]

I have been a teacher (though i don't have formal training) and I know that the teachers work starts before their pay and ends long after every day. I also know what it's like to deal with a classroom full of children. Two teachers in my school have passed away from heart attacks...one on the job, one just at end of day. This is in a school with only six to seven teachers at any given time. There is huge stress involved in the job. You don't know nearly as much as you think.

I don't know why I would be surprised by your attitude. The way you talk, you make it sound like only your job is hard.

Edited May 2, 2009 by Smallc

[Hydraboss]

Not just my job. Lots of jobs are hard. (And I instructed at an Alberta college while attending, so don't preach to me)

It's just that teachers DON"T have a hard job. They barely HAVE a job. It's less than what is normally considered part-time, and yet they make substantially more than a good portion of hard working folks. My wife's entire family is teachers (except one lawyer) and her father was a principal for over thirty years.

So I have first hand and second hand knowledge going back over three decades. How long did you say you "were kind of a teacher"?

[Smallc]

How long did you say you "were kind of a teacher"?

A year. Look, I know a large number of teachers and I know what the job entails. The mental stresses are extreme. They have a much harder job than you think. Teaching teenagers and pre teens is not an easy task.

[CANADIEN]

Not just my job. Lots of jobs are hard. (And I instructed at an Alberta college while attending, so don't preach to me)

It's just that teachers DON"T have a hard job. They barely HAVE a job. It's less than what is normally considered part-time, and yet they make substantially more than a good portion of hard working folks. My wife's entire family is teachers (except one lawyer) and her father was a principal for over thirty years.

So I have first hand and second hand knowledge going back over three decades. How long did you say you "were kind of a teacher"?

My job includes for the most part expaining to adults from various educational background how to find information using sometimes fairly complex tools. It also involves the occasional class-type instruction to adults

People (co-workers and clients) have told me they think I would be a great teacher. My response is: "I tried it, and never EVER again".

If you think after being around teachers for years that their job is easy and that they barely have to work, you clearly see only what you want to see.

News to you: preparing lesson plans and lesson activities, grading papers, meeting with parents and students outside of the classroom is part of the job of the teacher. Teachers are expected to be educators, social workers and cops all in one.

When I was younger and naive, I tried teaching, even going through teacher's college, because I thought it was an easy job. I lasted 3 months. You wouldn''t last one.

[WIP]

There. I fixed that for you.

You fixed nothing! Just demonstrated your preference for wallowing in ignorance rather than learning. Ask yourself: if homosexuality is a "defect," why has it been in the human population since prehistoric times, and still represents the same significant minority whether they are accepted or persecuted. Since people who are strongly attracted to members of their own sex will also reduce the likelihood that they will produce offspring, homosexual orientation would have been removed by natural selection if they really did provide no benefit to society as a whole. Now, it is time for you conservatives to put on your thinking caps and ponder the question of how has "gayness" benefited the human race and remained a significant segment of human society even though they do not produce many, if any offspring themselves?

You make no bones about calling people "defects" because they are different; the only difference between you and religious conservative leaders who still promote this viewpoint, is that they feel the need to pretend to show concern for these aberrant, defective people, whereas you and the rank and file conservatives do not!

The real defects are the people who ignore evidence and demand the teaching of the same old lies and misinformation. Like they say 'never let the facts get in the way of a good argument.' In actual fact, if the percentage of homosexuals in the general population is 5% or as high as 10% according to some; the results from studies of identical twins over the years, that show the odds are roughly 50% that a twin will also be gay, is clear evidence that homosexuality cannot be a totally environmental phenomena, as the religious right and believers in psychoanalytic theory still contend.

http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/global...ient/twins.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/17/science/...html?sec=health

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus4.htm

The religious right gets stupider by the day! One of James Dobson's flunkies writing for his Focus on the Family magazine, makes the inane point that the correlation would have to be 100% to demonstrate a physical connection to sexual orientation. A totally assinine comment considering that other twin studies of diseases show even diseases with strong genetic links, like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, do not show 100% correlations between twins! Neither do studies of left and right handedness that similarly show a genetic link. No genetic correlation can be 100% because even among identical twins there are differences in gene expression that will cause the two people who share the same genetic blueprint, to develop differently as they grow older.

The fact that the twin studies demonstrate the likelihood of being gay as ten times the frequency as the general population is a clear enough indication of how much our sexual orientation is determined by physical factors that we do not have control over. Trying to pretend that this is all personal behaviour has caused untold hardship and anguish for people who believe this and tried to hide their nature from others, living in sham marriages, filled with self-loathing etc. Now that we know better, it should be high time to allow people to live lives that will be meaningful for them without being subjected to loathing and condemnation.

Quite a rant you were on there (considering I never said I believe in creationism cause I don't). Read the proposed bill. It says parents have the choice; it doesn't say they're taking the teaching out of the curriculum. Now who's forcing who to do what?

So! It doesn't matter what your beliefs on evolution are; you still believe that a parent's right to brainwash their children should take precedence over the state's obligation to educate and teach children the most accurate information available!

So, should those parents also have the right to teach their children that the white race is the most highly developed, and that blacks and indians are the stock of inferior races? Are you denying them that right? Shouldn't they also have the right to refuse blood transfusions and/or vaccinations for religious reasons? Many countries allow any exemption to just about any law if it violates someone's stupid religious dogma!

Edited May 2, 2009 by WIP

[WIP]

The studies of twins and homosexuality, for example, have been shown to have suffered from weaknesses in their conduct, and thus their conclusions are cast in doubt. Yet, these studies, and a few other similar and semi-well-known experiments, are still trotted forward as indubitable proof that gay is some unavoidable, biological, quasi-race of human being (conveniently and safely devoid of personal choice, of course).

Take another look at those studies! The proposition is not that behaviour and likelihood of disease is 100% physically caused, but the criticism of twin studies focuses on factors that cannot be avoided, such as limited sampling size. Face it, there just are not a lot of identical twins for us to study. And some twin studies that were done years ago would never be able to pass an ethics panel to get approved today, such as a series of studies of children put up for adoption in the 1960's, where identical twins were deliberately separated at birth and given to different families, so that the researchers could determine what factors in their lives were genetic and which were environmentally determined. That kind of research is only a stone's throw from the Nazi medical experiments of Dr. Mengele!

But these limitations only reduce the odds of accuracy of the findings, so that a study of a limited sample of identical twins showing a 50% correlation on sexual orientation, should be understood as placing the physical factors at somewhere between 30 and 70%; whichever end of the scale we accept, it still will demonstrate a physical causal link to sexual orientation, and the objections to twin studies cannot be used to categorically dismiss them entirely.

In such cases, progress and exploration are shut down by sexual identity political idiocy from people who are afraid children would learn things that would cause them to question the myths they were teaching them.

I don't know what you're trying to say here! What sort of progress and exploration is being shut down? Most researchers who do an honest study of sexual orientation have come to the conclusion that it is not an on/off switch:

some homosexuals are exclusively gay and cannot get aroused or perform sexually with someone of the opposite sex;

a lot of people are somewhere in a bisexual middleground, showing varying degrees of preference for men or women;

some people cannot relate to being sexually attracted to members of their own sex at all, and I can't recall ever having such feelings myself. I think that's why I felt free to bash homosexuals when I was younger. It was not only a behaviour that was condemned by my religion, it was something I couldn't relate to on a personal level.

But I could relate to the more minor problems I encountered by being left-handed in a right-handed world. Hand preference, which is really side preference, is also determined early in life, mainly from physical factors. The fact that I could not easily write with my right hand or throw a ball, or even kick a soccer ball with my right foot, gave me a little perspective of what it feels like to be more comfortable wanting to do things differently than 90% of the people. If my left hand was cut off in an accident, I would have had to learn, but being left-handed would always be my first choice. BTW there was a time when being left-handed was a sign of being under the influence of the devil and greatly increased one's likelihood of being burned at the stake for being a witch!

So, no one who is taking an honest approach to this subject is going to say genes = destiny, but those on the other side are still causing unnecessary suffering by teaching gays in their religious communities that they have to go through reversion therapies to take the queer out of them.

Edited May 2, 2009 by WIP

[myata]

As long as there's provision to not pull kids out against their will, I'm OK. Can't legislate people to be smart and educated no more than to not be stupid. To everybody, their due.

I hope only very few zealots would actually follow, but if not, so be it. Alberta's work force would be less educated and competitive in the modern economy (creative biotechnology, anyone?), so guess we'll have to pick up the slack here in Ontario and Quebec. Ironically, also kind of "natural selection"...

[g_bambino]

...[T]he objections to twin studies cannot be used to categorically dismiss them entirely.

What sort of progress and exploration is being shut down? Most researchers who do an honest study of sexual orientation have come to the conclusion that it is not an on/off switch.

And that's why I didn't say they'd been dismissed entirely. I said that enough weaknesses were found to cast their conclusions in doubt; you yourself outlined well how this is so. However, there is a faction out there - a generally loud, media courting, activist faction - that will silence any questioning of these studies' findings by hurling accusations of homophoba and bigotry. By doing so, they are hardly different to the Creationists in shutting down exploration and progress, entrenching instead this hitherto still unproven theory that sexual orientation is determined somewhere back around the zygote stage. Though it's rarely announced publicly, there's even animosity towards the diversity in orientation you accurately speak of, with most of the populace - gay and straight identifying alike - believing that there are only two camps to choose from, theirs or the other, and anyone who refuses to choose is met with suspicion and accusations of denial.

Why? I imagine that, like the Creationists, believing a myth probably feels safer and more secure than digging out truths that may cause one hurt or undermine one's built up belief structures. Thus, you're right in that a person approaching this topic - any topic, including Creationism and evolution - with honesty will not blindly adhere to one mantra just because it's been said. But, unfortunately, people with open minds and an honest approach are in the minority and are frequently drowned out by a larger mass of people driven by emotion to react defensively against a perceived threat to their personal canonical comfort. Regard, for instance, the raucous demonstrations and virulent commentary that met the Ryerson professor who merely expressed her opinion that same-sex households are not the ideal environment to raise a child; not unnatural, or wrong, just not ideal. These mobs, their placards, chants, and actions rivalled even the best of the evangelical nut jobs that gathered outside theatres playing Dogma. One of the main differences is, however, that the former have the protection of political correctness that the latter no longer do.

Thus, while we easily scoff at the idea of Creationism being taught at schools as a legitimate science, and at any proposal to teach children that heterosexuality is the one true orientation, at the same time, gay activists with an obvious personal interest in the matter are making concentrated attempts to influence how students are to be educated on human sexuality. The most obvious case is that in BC, where the gay male couple was given by the courts the task of writing their son's school's curriculum on gender and sexuality education.

Really, what's the use of ensuring a child is not led to believe he's descended from Adam and Eve and will face the wrath of God if he doesn't have sex with only a woman, after marriage, no matter what, all while simultaneously leading that child to think the innate forces of biology, and nothing else, will lead him to only one of two ends - gay or straight - meaning that anything in-between is naturally deviant? Sure, it's not forcing the kid to any conversion camps, but is it all that much better?

[WIP]

And that's why I didn't say they'd been dismissed entirely. I said that enough weaknesses were found to cast their conclusions in doubt; you yourself outlined well how this is so.

NO, the only thing in doubt is too what degree physical factors like genetics and hormones, determine sexual orientation; your side is making the claim there are NO physical factors involved in someone being a homosexual, so you have to prove that there are no physical causes of same-sex attractions to justify a position of discrimination against gays, and psychotherapies like reversion therapy, that is supposed to turn gays straight.....in theory, that is.

However, there is a faction out there - a generally loud, media courting, activist faction - that will silence any questioning of these studies' findings by hurling accusations of homophoba and bigotry. By doing so, they are hardly different to the Creationists in shutting down exploration and progress, entrenching instead this hitherto still unproven theory that sexual orientation is determined somewhere back around the zygote stage.

I'm not up to speed with everything that gay rights activists are saying, but people who are rejected by their families, communities, and face verbal abuse and possible physical attacks, are not always the happiest people to be around...so some of the bad attitude you are perceiving may have come from unpleasant life experiences.

And you are trying to limit the evidence for physical causation with that zygote claim since no one claims that sexual orientation is determined at the fertilization stage. There seem to be many factors involved in sexual orientation; for example, one non-genetic physical determinant may have been identified a couple of years ago in a major study that links birth order to the odds of male homosexuality. In brief, the more older brothers a man has, the higher the odds are that he will be gay. The exact reason is still unknown, but the leading theory is that during pregnancy a mother's immune system identifies male fetuses as foreign tissue and creates "maternal anti-male antibodies". The effect is cumulative with the birth of each male child, so the odds are much greater that these antibodies will affect the area of the brain which determines sexual orientation in the latter male children. http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/200.../27/1672798.htm

Though it's rarely announced publicly, there's even animosity towards the diversity in orientation you accurately speak of, with most of the populace - gay and straight identifying alike - believing that there are only two camps to choose from, theirs or the other, and anyone who refuses to choose is met with suspicion and accusations of denial.

I can see a parallel with the discrimination that blacks faced in the South, when even "an ounce of negro blood" made the person a negro regardless of their appearance.

Regard, for instance, the raucous demonstrations and virulent commentary that met the Ryerson professor who merely expressed her opinion that same-sex households are not the ideal environment to raise a child; not unnatural, or wrong, just not ideal. These mobs, their placards, chants, and actions rivalled even the best of the evangelical nut jobs that gathered outside theatres playing Dogma. One of the main differences is, however, that the former have the protection of political correctness that the latter no longer do.

I'm not familiar with the story, but "not ideal" means something less than good, so what harms does she identify that are caused by gay people raising children. I know of two lesbian couples that are raising children, and a gay co-worker who had been married before coming out of the closet, and gets to see his children on alternate weekends. I'm not aware of anything harmful or abnormal going on in the few examples I am aware of.

Thus, while we easily scoff at the idea of Creationism being taught at schools as a legitimate science, and at any proposal to teach children that heterosexuality is the one true orientation, at the same time, gay activists with an obvious personal interest in the matter are making concentrated attempts to influence how students are to be educated on human sexuality. The most obvious case is that in BC, where the gay male couple was given by the courts the task of writing their son's school's curriculum on gender and sexuality education.

If that's true, I'm surprised that a school curriculum would choose such a narrow option of allowing two gay guys to create the plan without any review or oversight to remove errors or add pertinent information that was left out.

Really, what's the use of ensuring a child is not led to believe he's descended from Adam and Eve and will face the wrath of God if he doesn't have sex with only a woman, after marriage, no matter what, all while simultaneously leading that child to think the innate forces of biology, and nothing else, will lead him to only one of two ends - gay or straight - meaning that anything in-between is naturally deviant? Sure, it's not forcing the kid to any conversion camps, but is it all that much better?

It must be false analogy day! Remember those identical twin studies? approx. 50% of sexual orientation may have biological causes....well what does that infer other than the fact that the other 50% of our sexual orientation is open to environmental factors. The child who learns that sexual orientation is just another one of those complicated things in life that have many contributing factors, is not going to be harmed or cause harm to others. It's the ones who are brainwashed that homosexuals have chosen a life of sin, and god help the ones who turn out gay and have had to grow up inside a system that fills their heads with the thought that every sexual desire they have is a sign of their depraved nature.

[Molly]

My greater concern is for the harm done by the removal of others to the kids who do remain in the classroom.

As long as public education is a group activity, progress is limited by the least advanced of the group, whether by classroom time/resources being spent doing 'remedial' or by curricular efforts to work around the biggest, most common gaps...

Just as a math class will not progress well on algebra when some portion of the group don't 'get' basic addition, when a portion of the class is kept ignorant of basic science concepts, the rest are stuck working within the confines of a greatly reduced collective science background, and are thus prevented from progressing as quickly as they can/should.