Via Tim Dunlop comes news that the Education Minister Julie Bishop has stated the bleeding obvious. Intelligent Design is not science and should not be part of the science curriculum.
Not sure what has gotten into the Liberals the past few days but long may this run of reason continue.
It seems incredible that Nelson did not reject ID out of hand. In addition, his handling of the Kovco affair has also been less than impressive.
Sometimes it is good politics to leave out the spin completely.
Jeffrey Dahmer, serial killer, necrophile and cannibal, kept corpses in his fridge to keep him company.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer
John Howard, who bears a strong physical likeness to Jeffrey Dahmer, kept the Libs in his fridge for years.
But recently, Little Johnny has left the fridge door open and some of his little friends have crawled away.
Little Johnny is getting old, tired and forgetful. Soon he’ll have no friends at all.
This is excellent news – ID is simply unfalsifiable and therefore does not conform to the scientific method, so to teach it under “science” makes as much logical sense as teaching Shakespeare in biology class.
Save the ontological stuff (creation, being, etc) for philosophy, if indeed they teach philosophy at school. Better still, don’t infringe on freedom of association by forcing teachers and parents to fill their kids’ minds with government propaganda (more tactfully called, “the state curriculum”).
What is happening? Now the PM has backed down, and is allowing a conscience vote on stem-cell research.
Julie Bishop’s announcement still leaves the door open for ID, as well as other garbage, to be taught as part of Religious Education. The problem will always remain as long as we allow RE to be taught in schools, especially primary schools, where children do not have the intellectual development to make rational judgments about theological matters.
RE is just a front for religious indoctrination and has no place in the school system. It should be left for Sunday School.
True silkworm, but at least if it is part of religious education sensible people will treat ID as fiction rather than fact.
For those of you who may be interested in a point to put to an ID enthusiast: next time they are sick, suggest that they are treated with straight penicillin, even against the toughtest bugs.
If they want something stronger you might ask how those bugs managed to become resistant to penicillin as their ancestors probably weren’t.
I’m afraid primary school children are in general not capable of distinguishing fiction from fact, and that is why the churches target primary school children for RE.
Answer. Because God works in mysterious ways.
That is, if they have the ‘faith’, science hasn’t got a chance. That’s why ID still has ‘scientific’ legs.
Who is to blame for the failure to understand what ‘science’ is?
I interviewed a Christian scientist (oops, I mean a scientist who also happens to be Christian) recently and he said his faith has little to do with his work as a scientist. He is scathing of ID. He also says his faith is entirely seperate from his work (experimental microbiology). One, he said, is based on evidence, the other on spiritual belief. Simple as that.
(Hope I’m not opening a can of worms, here: I know LP has had this argument countless times. Margaret Wertheim, in my mind, is the best commentator on this.)
Silkworm, I went to a Catholic primary school and was taught science in Science and religion in RE. I asked one of my teachers (istr in grade four) what accounted for the difference between the biblical creation story and the real story, and was informed that parts of the Old Testament were just stories/parables/primitive explanations, and should not be interpreted literally (on the other hand, the New Testament was to be treated as a historical document that accurately described the events that happened).
I was certainly not the only person who asked questions like those in a diversity of different contexts. Children are capable of a lot more than is generally attributed to them, I think, especially if the information is presented appropriately.
(Actually, I suspect this event, and the others that I’ve witnessed, significantly contributes to why I’m not an avowed atheist, unlike my older sister and many others who went to Catholic schools.)
Some children are capable of resisting RE – that is why I qualified my comment with “in general”. My 12-y-o nephew, for instance, goes to a Catholic primary school, and has openly rejected everything he is taught in RE. He was taught that the story of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden was a literal historical event, and he has told the teacher he doesn’t believe any of it. He was punished by the teacher and has been sent to the headmaster for being a non-believer. The teacher has told him he will go to hell for being a “Protestant”. I wish I could go to his school and punch that teacher in the nose.
He has been an atheist since he started going to school. I suspect his atheism comes down to the influence of having watched so many episodes of The Simpsons. However, he is the only one in his RE class to have “outed” himself.
I have another nephew who is 16 and who has also gotten into trouble at his Catholic high school for being a non-believer. I think his atheism comes down to being overly rebellious, and this is associated with coming from a broken home.
RE should be abolished. It is simply wrong to be teaching children superstition and lies under the guise of values training. Some kids will be perceptive enough to reject them, but why should they be subjected to these lies in the first place? And why should they be punished for their reaction to being told lies?
I have other nephews and nieces who go to Catholic primary schools. If and when the time is right, I will clue them in to the facts. I know, however, that it might be futile, as seven years of Catholic “education” is enough to permanently immunize a child’s mind against reality.
Silkworm, I must say the experience of you nephews and nieces sounds quite at odds with anything I’ve experienced (or that friends who went to different Catholic schools have experienced), and more in line with American stereotypical presentation of christian education. I have no idea how much autonomy individual teachers, schools, dioceses or state catholic education offices have in deciding these issues tho. (I went to primary school with a few Muslims, and the school definitely accomodated their fasting during Ramadan; and there were many Buddhists at my (first, Catholic) secondary school. Having already received my first Communion at a different parish, I was lumped in with non-Catholics during preparation for it, and there was a few of them (which is just as well: I hated the song they had to learn to sing during the ceremony!). It would be difficult for the anyone to have cracked down on anyone just because of their religion.)
Nevertheless, I think this is not entirely the issue.
Also, I don’t quite understand why people object so much to a parent teaching their child their religion. If someone firmly believes in the teachings of a particular religion, and in particular if that religion teachers non-believers will go to hell, then I would think that parent has an obligation to teach their child their religion, regardless of whether I believe it too. Is it not a parent’s responsibility to look out for their child?
Sorry! I didnât mean to post that post then. I pressed âtab-spaceâ?, expecting to check the ânotify me of followup commentsâ? checkbox, but it surprisingly submitted.
Replace the middle paragraph âNevertheless, I think this is not entirely the issue.â? with the following:â
Nevertheless, I think my main pointâand this is perhaps in agreement with what you present, perhaps notâis that it really comes down to the presentation. If a child is presented with information in such a way that itâs possible to accept or reject it, or with knowledge that theyâre coming from two incompatible but not necessarily wrong/contradictory sources, theyâre at least as capable of rational analysis as most adults are. Children respond to how you treat them. Either that, or Iâve only known smart kids, which is possible. Perhaps I was just lucky in working that adults respond to how you treat them, too, at a young enough age I could take adavantage of it
Also append something like: âBut that doesnât mean that non-science should be taught during Science, or that RE should be a feature of state schoolsâ? to the last paragraph (which was intended to be read after that paragraph Iâve just written…).
(I was also going to do some edits here-and-there, perhaps make the first para shorter because the tone of it might be a bit off at the momentâif it is I apologiseâbut too late for that now
Some children are capable of resisting RE – that is why I qualified my comment with âin generalâ?. My 12-y-o nephew, for instance, goes to a Catholic primary school, and has openly rejected everything he is taught in RE. He was taught that the story of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden was a literal historical event, and he has told the teacher he doesnât believe any of it. He was punished by the teacher and has been sent to the headmaster for being a non-believer. The teacher has told him he will go to hell for being a âProtestantâ?. I wish I could go to his school and punch that teacher in the nose.
I was told by my Year 11 RE teacher that an “accident” would befall me and I would then accept the existence of God. That was a particularly anomalous experience in my 12 years of Catholic education, however, and did not serve to convince me. My (weak) atheism stems not from losing my religion, but from never having successfully acquired it in the first place.
But that doesnât mean that non-science should be taught during Science, or that RE should be a feature of state schools
With the latter part of that statement (certainly not the former) I must disagree. Comparative RE (as opposed to religious indoctrination) should be a feature of state school curricula, as should philosophy, ethics and critical thinking. That’s only a wishlist, though: it would never happen.
It seems incredible that Nelson did not reject ID out of hand.
Not really. Only 10 months or so earlier his party was eagerly chasing the Hillsong vote in the 2004 Federal Election.
Not sure as to the difference ‘tween Qld & NSW primary curriculum, but imagine my surprise when 9yo informed me that in their scripture class at school – note its called Scripture, not RE – they all prayed together. For most of the lesson. The young woman who takes them “comes down from Sydney especially to see us” said he. Why do i have this terrible suspicion……….
& as for what’s happening in the Libs? Perhaps they’ve all been drinking some of that nice CC Amatil spring water
Ahh yes, but RE can provide the best comedy around. I was told by my primary school RE teacher that “when things are true they are remembered, but when they are lies they are quickly forgotten. Christianity has been around for 1977 years (she wrote the number of the blackboard and thumped it a few times) and no one has forgotten about it, so it must be true.”
I looked at the Hebrew calender at home and drew my own conclusions.
Arthur, I was thinking more along the lines of what you call “religious indoctrination” not being appropriate for schools; it’s what I think of when you say “RE”. As for “Comparative RE”, I think it probably would be limited to senior high school (Year 11/12 level) or better still tertiary education if you want justice to be done by it. Otherwise I betcha it’ll just be “‘religious indoctrination’ by stealth that even the atheists wanted”. I certainly don’t see the value in comparative RE for younger students who haven’t themselves asked for it anyway.
Bernice, if you’re sending your nine-year-old to a Catholic school, I don’t think it should be terribly surprising that the pray together. In fact, I think at primary school we had a prayer at the start and end of most days; some teachers also insisted on saying grace before lunch. Occaisionally we also had liturgies which could be described as “praying for most of a class”; but if these happened frequently I very much doubt there’s any time for a “proper” religious education anyway… (If this was happening at a state or non-religious private school, you really ought to be asking questions tho.)