Idiocy in ontario election: let's teach creationism!

[Ancalagon]

I am SO amused at how this backfired...

... but honestly, too late buddy. I didn't care about this election too much, but now I certainly do.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070906.wontschools06/BNStory/National/home


John Tory backpedals on creationism

CAROLINE ALPHONSO

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

September 6, 2007 at 4:34 AM EDT

THORNHILL, ONT. — Christian private schools should be allowed to teach creationism if they receive public funding, Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory said yesterday.

But six hours later, he went into damage-control mode, saying creationism should be explored only in religion class and not elsewhere in the curriculum, such as in science class.

"The Christian-based school would have to teach the Ontario curriculum," Mr. Tory told reporters in defending his plan to fund religious schools. "They teach evolution in the Ontario curriculum, but they also could teach the fact to the children that there are other theories that people have out there that are part of some Christian beliefs."

Mr. Tory, a member of the United Church, said that if he is elected premier on Oct. 10, private religious schools could opt in to the public system provided they are subject to provincial inspections. But they would still be allowed to teach their core beliefs.

His remarks quickly drew fire from the Liberal government.

Education Minister Kathleen Wynne, who is running against Mr. Tory in the Toronto riding of Don Valley West, accused him of not thinking through his campaign pledge.

"The reason that private schools exist is that they don't want to be part of the publicly funded system ... We allow that in Ontario. We allow that freedom," Ms. Wynne said in an interview.

"In terms of public dollars, those public dollars should go into a curriculum that has been agreed upon as being the one that is the best for our kids and is rooted in science and is rooted in evidence."

The creation-evolution debate has been a perennial theme in the U.S. education system, where Christian groups want creationism taught in the classroom over evolution. Creationists reject the Darwinian evolution theory, and believe that every word in the Book of Genesis is literally true.

Roman Catholic schools, who come under Ontario's public education umbrella, do explore creationism, but only in religion class. Evolution is taught elsewhere in the curriculum.

In clarifying his remarks yesterday, Mr. Tory said: "The Ontario curriculum teaches evolution and that is the curriculum that would have to be taught in the faith-based and all other schools that receive public funding. There are other theories that can be taught as part of religious instruction ... But the curriculum is the curriculum."

Mr. Tory has released few details of his plan to extend funding to private religious schools. He is leaving that up to a commission that won't meet until after the election.

Still, the issue has dominated the agenda even before the campaign officially kicks off Monday. Mr. Tory wants to extend taxpayer funding to all religious schools, not just Roman Catholic ones - a move Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty said would threaten the stability of the public education system.

On the unofficial campaign trail yesterday, Mr. Tory lashed out at critics, saying this is not the time for fear mongering. He said that he envisions one school bus picking up children on a particular street and dropping them off to different schools.

"I also want to see a day when these kids from the faith-based schools are playing basketball with the kids in the public school," he said at the Kamin Education Centre, a private Jewish school.

"And I ask this question of people, do they think if it's a good thing for kids to play basketball with each other ... it's more likely to happen with these schools included in public education or outside the tent where they are today? I say it will happen if they are included as part of public education."

Annie Kidder, a spokeswoman for People for Education, said yesterday she was frustrated that the focus in this election campaign is on private schools entering the public system, and not on fixing public education.

"We're already now getting into the details about what will be taught in religious schools. We've put the cart very far ahead of the horse," she said.

"It's frustrating and it allows us to avoid much more important ... exploration that I really think we need right now in Ontario."

[Northcott]

Given how the Tories absolutely butchered the public education system during their last term in power -- with a former Tory premier actually going so far as to speak up and lambast them for their short-sighted and destructive policies -- I'm highly reluctant to give them another kick at the can.

I think that Tory himself is a fairly level-headed guy, and might make a decent premier, but too many of Harris' old cronies are still waiting in the wings. The Liberals haven't done an exemplary job, but they haven't fumbled the ball as pathetically as Harris' Tories did, either.

Until the last remains of that clique is out of the Ontario conservative party, I'll be wary of them. Unfortunately, some of the key players are now part of the federal Conservative party...

[Stratego]

Roman Catholic schools, who come under Ontario's public education umbrella

What does this mean? And why just Catholic schools?

[Kwalish Kid]

It's a fucked up part of our constitution. Inn some provinces, Catholic schools or protestant schools were exempted from certain laws because they were in the minority.

So were screwed with them now. Some politicians are looking to remove that funding, however. I hope they win and that they find a way to do it. Actually, I think this issue might boost the popularity of the Green party in Ontario, because they are dead set against these special schools.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Hold on a sec, I thought Catholicism accepted evolution? There was an encyclical or something on this - around the same time they finally apologised for Galileo and told Stephen Hawking he was fine as long he didn't start doing work on what happened "before" the big bang (ironically said to him as he was working on his "bounded but infinite" idea, that removed room for any idea of a creation or "start" of time).

[Kwalish Kid]

The Nazi youth that's now in charge has made some hand waving gestures towards stepping back from that position.

You'll find lots of anti-science, and even anti-rational thought, Catholics out there.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

The Nazi youth that's now in charge has made some hand waving gestures towards stepping back from that position.

You'll find lots of anti-science, and even anti-rational thought, Catholics out there.

Except I thought Raztzinger had been a big part of the rapprochement with evolution and Galileo (better late than never, I suppose)

[Northcott]

What does this mean? And why just Catholic schools?

It was part of the concessions to the French, allowing a seperate Catholic system to exist alongside the public. In Ontario the remainder of the "Seperate School Board" was brought under the public umbrella in (iirc) the early 80's. Creationism, as in the tale of God moulding the earth, is taught in religion -- appropriately enough. World Religion was part of the standard curriculum, and may still be, and the theory of evolution is taught in science classes. The two do not mix. In the schools I attended, the religion teachers made it very clear that the tale of creation was viewed as a metaphor, and there was no use of dismissive language regarding the science of the world's development.

Of course, my school may not have been typical. My grade 9 religion teacher, and the head of the department, was Mr. Green -- who was about as free-thinking a theologian as I'd ever met. He started out our high school religious education by shocking the Hell out of all of us, fucked with our heads for awhile, and then opened our minds. Well, some of us. There's always exceptions to the rule.

The sole exception to this was our nutty art teacher, who was psychotically old-school Catholic. I don't think I ever saw a sincere smile on that man's face. He always looked repressively angry... mind you, we gave him plenty of reason. :)

[Ancalagon]

The Nazi youth that's now in charge has made some hand waving gestures towards stepping back from that position.

You'll find lots of anti-science, and even anti-rational thought, Catholics out there.

If my memory serves me correctly, Pope Palpatine first issued a somewhat anti-evolution statement with convoluted wording, then later released another one where he basically went "woah there, that's not what I meant, evolution is cool".

so as far as I know, the Catholic church believes that evolution is a valid scientific theory.

[Freedom Canadian]

It was part of the concessions to the French, allowing a seperate Catholic system to exist alongside the public.

Yeah, just like they allowed a separate Protestant system to exist in Quebec. :)



Of course, my school may not have been typical.

Your experience is very similar to mine.

[Northcott]

Yeah, just like they allowed a separate Protestant system to exist in Quebec. :)


Fucking Prods! Gramma was right about 'em all!

[Freedom Canadian]

Fucking Prods! Gramma was right about 'em all!

Yes she was. :)

Seriously, though, we used to have catholic and protestant school boards and now we have french and english school boards. Same diff.

[Northcott]

A clearer explanation of what's being proposed:
http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/239077

On further reflection: I like it. Accountability to the public curriculum will make fostering fundamentalist/extremist thought much more difficult. Once religion is reduced to a subject rather than the core of the school's education value, teachers of different backgrounds begin to appear, and diversity begins to breed tolerance.

Plus Bill Davis will be heading the commission. Davis didn't have a perfect record when he sat as Premiere -- but he wasn't too freaking far from. The guy ran this province for 14 years, and did a damned fine job of it. He also oversaw the implementation of what was, at the time, an education system that was among the best in the world. When Harris' neo-cons were steadily fucking everything up, Davis had the nads to stand up and call him on the massive screw-ups in the education portfolio.

My wife'll divorce me if I were to vote Tory, but I've got to say: if he can continue to move closer to the image of his mentor, Davis, and drag the provincial conservatives away from Harris' bullshit, I'll be a happy, happy man.

[The Winslow]

"The Christian-based school would have to teach the Ontario curriculum," Mr. Tory told reporters in defending his plan to fund religious schools. "They teach evolution in the Ontario curriculum, but they also could teach the fact to the children that there are other theories that people have out there that are part of some Christian beliefs."

North-American Christian Obscurantists: Putting the "theo" back into "theory" since 1925.

[Northcott]

North-American Christian Obscurantists: Putting the "theo" back into "theory" since 1925.

My experience with Catholic schooling was the opposite: becoming part of the public education system removed the ability of certain teachers to try and impart more fundamentalist thought.

The more I think about this issue, the more I think that Tory's got the right of it.

[The Winslow]

It just annoys me when they use the word "theory" for things that aren't theories.

[Northcott]

They are. They may not be theories you or I agree with, but they're theories.

[The Winslow]

They are. They may not be theories you or I agree with, but they're theories.

Theory has a number of meanings. "Theory" in "theory of evolution" has a specific meaning, which means among other things that it is supported by experimental evidences. "Theory" in "creationism theory" has a completely different meaning, as it's not a scientific theory we're speaking about.

It's like that famous sophistry: "A cheap horse is rare, what's rare is expensive, therefore a cheap horse is expensive." It appears to be totally logical, yes is paradoxical, the reason behind the sophistry being that the word "rare" has different meanings and scopes in both propositions.

Saying "Evolution is a theory, creationism is a theory" results in the same kind of sophistry, as it leads to assume we use the same definition of "theory" in both cases.

[Northcott]

Saying "Evolution is a theory, creationism is a theory" results in the same kind of sophistry, as it leads to assume we use the same definition of "theory" in both cases.

Mileage varies, apparently. I think you're being way too uptight about this. The word is applied appropriately. The word does not, in itself, grant validity. Those who are inclined to misconstrue application of the word in favour of creationism would do so regardless of the language chosen.

[The Winslow]

"teach the fact to the children that there are other theories".

It's a textbook case of putting creationism as an equal of evolution.

[PWD]

It's a textbook case of putting creationism as an equal of evolution.

That's very much their goal. They're not looking for a footnote acknowledgement. You don't see them demanding that the Flying Spaghetti Monster's creation myths be included, or anyone else's. you're seeing them fight for their own belief, stop, end of discussion. The reasoning is clear: They're hoping to get placed on an equal footing with a legitimate scientific theory with arseloads of evidence supporting it, and get young people putting more credence into their handwavey mumbo-jumbo than it deserves.

It's deceitful, it's dishonest, and it's an overt attempt to manipulate young people inside of a context which is supposed to be reserved for secular education free from religious bias of any type.

[Northcott]

To be blunt: I'm afraid you're both talking out your asses here. You're not only failing to pay attention to the history behind this, but you're also obviously utterly unaware of the curriculum requirements of the Ontario government.

I'd be amazed if the same concerns weren't raised by people in the 80's, when the Catholic school system was integrated into the public. Mind you, I'm still hoping they'll scrap that entirely and amalgamate the two, as the excess of bureaucractic spending to support multiple school boards is fucking idiocy.

But the end result of a religious school adhering to a curriculum set out by a secular government is that a clear division of the subject matter appears. It also enforces standards among the education professionals so that, for example, a Muslim school couldn't hire someone who wasn't an accredited teacher. They also end up including people from outside their own culture as teachers.

This isn't speculation or theory. This is something that has been done and the effects have been observed for over two decades now. I opposed the idea when it was suggested as potential blanket funding. If, however, Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu schools are brought in under the same method used for the Catholics, I see great benefit in it.

[PWD]

It's got nothing to do with *teaching* creationism at this point, so the curriculum has nothing to do with it.

It's a campaign to get creationism into secular schools, presented as an equal or at least equivalent theory. It's not, by any rational measure.

Present in context of a religion class, be my guest. Heck, comparative philosophy, mythology, those'd be good spots too. But it doesn't belong anywhere near a science text. It doesn't need to be attributed any additional legitimacy by association.

[Northcott]

It's got nothing to do with *teaching* creationism at this point, so the curriculum has nothing to do with it.

It's a campaign to get creationism into secular schools, presented as an equal or at least equivalent theory. It's not, by any rational measure.

Present in context of a religion class, be my guest. Heck, comparative philosophy, mythology, those'd be good spots too. But it doesn't belong anywhere near a science text. It doesn't need to be attributed any additional legitimacy by association.

Uh-huh. Where do you see the quote from the article that states that creationism is going to be added to Ontario's science curriculum? The curriculum is the only thing taught in secular schools. Unless it's specifically added to the mandate, it's not going anywhere.

As it is, the seperate school board barely has time to teach things such as religion, art, gym, and music is pretty much gone. The prior Tory-driven curriculum is so overloaded on the basics (and was originally a piss poor version) that non-essential subjects got driven out by default.

From the article:
To get public funding the schools would have to meet "clear, reasonable conditions" including: teaching the Ontario curriculum, standardized testing and appropriate teacher accreditation.

[PWD]

His very own clarification explains it:

In clarifying his remarks yesterday, Mr. Tory said: "The Ontario curriculum teaches evolution and that is the curriculum that would have to be taught in the faith-based and all other schools that receive public funding. There are other theories that can be taught as part of religious instruction ... But the curriculum is the curriculum."

He stated it exactly the way he meant it initially, and then backtracked with his clarification when it was clear he was getting reamed for it outside of the select audience he was hoping to woo. The very same audience that wants it in the science classes, in the ontario curriculum, and not relegated to religion classes.

It's that push I'm railing against, not the very reasonable expectation that separate schools could teach whatever they bloody well pleased in context of their religion classes, while leaving the ontario curriculum untouched.

[Northcott]

...

... You have no idea about John Tory's track record, do you? There's a reason why he's labelled as a "Red" Tory, and why Davis was asked to head this look into school funding.

Edited to add: I strongly suggest you Google both Davis and John Tory, and check out the Wikipedia links to them.

[PWD]

...

... You have no idea about John Tory's track record, do you? There's a reason why he's labelled as a "Red" Tory, and why Davis was asked to head this look into school funding.

Edited to add: I strongly suggest you Google both Davis and John Tory, and check out the Wikipedia links to them.

I don't care one bit about his record. I care about what he said while trying to sell himself to the crowd that cheers on assinine things like teaching creationism in science class.

That group is dangerous, and looking for any inroads they can possibly make, and politicians whoring themselves out to them to prove they're "one of the good guys" is also dangerous.

Whether he had any intention or not of following through is irrelevant.

[Ancalagon]

I don't care one bit about his record. I care about what he said while trying to sell himself to the crowd that cheers on assinine things like teaching creationism in science class.

That group is dangerous, and looking for any inroads they can possibly make, and politicians whoring themselves out to them to prove they're "one of the good guys" is also dangerous.

Whether he had any intention or not of following through is irrelevant.

Bingo.

The sloppy usage of the word "theory" is for me a sore point.

[Northcott]

Bingo.

The sloppy usage of the word "theory" is for me a sore point.

It's not sloppy use, Anc, it's proper use. The rest of the English-speaking world does not operate by the same standards as the scientific community. Most people simply regard a theory as an unproven idea; the word in itself holds no merit for the vast majority of people.


PWD: First you say that he obviously meant one thing rather than the other, and then backtrack to say that his history means nothing. Make up your mind, man. Unless you've got elite mind-reading powers, the best way to determine what somebody's intent truly is, is to look back at their past behaviour.

To flail about and say that this is cow-towing to the Creationists is an irrational reactionary response without foundation in fact, and failing to even touch upon common sense. Those of you who are pissing down your legs about the creationists are missing two key points:

1) This would give a secular government body in a province with a strong multicultural mandate direct control over what is taught in religious schools, along with how it is taught. If you think hardcore creationists want that, then put down the crackpipe and step back from your keyboards. Get sober before you post again.

2) The school systems this is focusing on are Hindu, Muslim, and Jewish. Of those three, there are two where there have been issues with extremist factions using school systems to get at the minds of youth. Once again, a development where a secular government with a strong multi-cultural mandate has direct control over both the content and quality of education in such schools is going to do nothing but reduce the fundamentalist elements. This is a good thing.


The real problem with this plan is that it will generate surplus bureaucracy. The biggest cash hole in running school systems comes not in the schools themselves, but in the bureaucracy behind them: board trustees, receptionists, accountants, tech support, supplies, computers, heating, etc. The province would save an obscene amount of money if it would simply do away with the Seperate School system, folding the Catholic system into the public. Probably save a couple million dollars a year in this region alone. Multiple school board systems would be a financial albatross.

My beef with this development has become one of fiscal conservatism, plus the fact that expanding inclusion of religious schools will now prolong the lifespan of the Catholic system. I was hoping we'd see them folded into each other within the coming decade.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

It's not sloppy use, Anc, it's proper use. The rest of the English-speaking world does not operate by the same standards as the scientific community. Most people simply regard a theory as an unproven idea; the word in itself holds no merit for the vast majority of people.

Then we take back the fucking word

It's taken years, the people at my church now know better to use the t-word within earshot of me unless they want another five-minute lecture on the difference between a theory and a badly formed hypothesis

That reminds me, the new curate is due a schoolin'

[The Winslow]

It's not sloppy use, Anc, it's proper use. The rest of the English-speaking world does not operate by the same standards as the scientific community. Most people simply regard a theory as an unproven idea; the word in itself holds no merit for the vast majority of people.

Okay. Then I accept people speak about the "theory of creationism" in the same sentence as evolution, as long as evolution itself is no longer "theory of evolution" but "indisputably verified and proven fact of evolution". :tongue:

[Kwalish Kid]

It's not sloppy use, Anc, it's proper use. The rest of the English-speaking world does not operate by the same standards as the scientific community. Most people simply regard a theory as an unproven idea; the word in itself holds no merit for the vast majority of people.
It's true. As far as I can tell, most people in the English speaking world are sadly ignorant. I'd like it to be different, but the amount of people who simply reject evolution is staggering.

[Freedom Canadian]

Meanwhile, in the province next door...

Free choice urged on religious schooling
Group plans Oct. 20 Quebec City march
JAN RAVENSBERGEN, The Gazette
Published: Thursday, September 13

A largely Roman Catholic coalition of Quebec parents yesterday injected freedom of choice for religious education into the brewing public debate over reasonable accommodation.

The province has gone one step too far by removing any element of parental choice from moral and religious instruction in elementary and high schools, the freshly formed Coalition for Freedom in Education declared.

This is the last school year for which Quebec parents can choose a confessional curriculum - oriented to a particular set of religious beliefs - for their child. A uniformly non-confessional approach takes effect next fall.

At simultaneous news conferences in Quebec City, Montreal, Gatineau and Lennoxville, the coalition unveiled plans for an Oct. 20 protest march on the National Assembly.

Spokesperson Marie Bourque said the province-wide goal is to attract "well over" 2,000 people to the march. She wouldn't provide coalition membership figures.

The change will apply to public as well as private schools and was "imposed with almost no public debate," she complained.

"We're hoping this is the beginning of a grass-roots revolt," said Gary Caldwell, who spoke for the coalition in Lennoxville.

Both he and Bourque issued a blanket invitation for members of the Protestant, Jewish, Islamic and other faiths to join the coalition and the march.

"The state has usurped the moral right of Quebec parents to educate their children in the religion of their choice," Bourque said, echoed by Jean Morse-Chevrier, president of the Association des parents catholiques du Québec.

Source (http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=408b62b6-d0d6-46c4-8f59-949e53835014)

Yeah, because if the state refuses to pay for you to indoctrinate your children in your own religion on school time, that's removing your parental choice from you.

And also, choosing between "catholic, protestant or agnostic education" is freedom of choice.

And yeah, teaching children about all the religions of the world and in a neutral way is bad.

:grey:

[Snatch]

Why does it feel like we're slipping into a dark age or something?

[Northcott]

It's true. As far as I can tell, most people in the English speaking world are sadly ignorant. I'd like it to be different, but the amount of people who simply reject evolution is staggering.

Damn, man, are you surprised? Evolutionary theory has little to no impact on the everday life of Joe Average. When we can't get people to do something as basic as eat decently and stay active in the face of growing obesity, diabetes, and mortality numbers, how can we expect them to spare thought for evolution? I wouldn't confine it to the English-speaking world, either. I've come to think that it's just human nature, and only a minority will ever attempt to make use of their cognitive abilities.

Why does it feel like we're slipping into a dark age or something?

It just feels that way. The availability of information makes the contentment with ignorance among the majority stand out in sharp relief. If anything I'd say we're slowly moving away from such an age.

But that's in terms of information and learning. I suppose it's entirely possible that other circumstances in the world could lead to a dark age of sorts -- though I'm keeping my fingers crossed on that score. Really, I'd rather avoid living a 1980's post-apocalyptic film. Even Patrick Swayze doesn't live to the frickin' end credits in those. ;)

[Hastur T. Fannon]

I suppose it's entirely possible that other circumstances in the world could lead to a dark age of sorts -- though I'm keeping my fingers crossed on that score. Really, I'd rather avoid living a 1980's post-apocalyptic film.

I think it was an Evelyn Waugh character who summed up life in the trenches of WWI using the phrase "My dear - the hair! The people!"

I just thought was also an appropriate description for an 80s post-apocalyptic movie

[Kwalish Kid]

I wouldn't confine it to the English-speaking world, either. I've come to think that it's just human nature, and only a minority will ever attempt to make use of their cognitive abilities.
Oh, I don't confine it to the English speaking world. It's just not sad when a non-English speaker is ignorant. ;)