DNA wasn't invented then

[Ramirez]

Just when I think creationists cannot possibly utter anything more stupid than they already have, they put another marker down.

http://www.news.com.au/national/cre...-walked-together/story-e6frfkvr-1225899497234

I thought the explanation that "DNA wasn't invented then." was so astoundingly stupid I had to post this article.

PRIMARY school students are being taught that man and dinosaurs walked the Earth together and that there is fossil evidence to prove it.
Fundamentalist Christians are hijacking Religious Instruction (RI) classes in Queensland despite education experts saying Creationism and attempts to convert children to Christianity have no place in state schools.
Students have been told Noah collected dinosaur eggs to bring on the Ark, and Adam and Eve were not eaten by dinosaurs because they were under a protective spell.
Critics are calling for the RI program to be scrapped after claims emerged Christian lay people are feeding children misinformation.
About 80 per cent of children at state primary schools attend one half-hour instruction a week, open to any interested lay person to conduct.
Many of the instructors are from Pentecostal churches.

Education Queensland is aware that Creationism is being taught by some religious instructors, but said parents could opt out.
Australian Secular Lobby president Hugh Wilson said children were ostracised and discriminated against if they were pulled out of the class.
In many cases, the RI lay people were not supervised by teachers.
Kings Christian Church youth worker Dustin Bell said he taught "about creation" in Sunshine Coast schools.
Set Free Christian Church's Tim McKenzie said when students questioned him why dinosaur fossils carbon dated as earlier than man, he replied that the great flood must have skewed the data.
Queensland Teachers Union president Steve Ryan said teachers were sometimes compelled to supervise the instructors "because of all the fire and brimstone stuff".
Mr Ryan said Education Queensland had deemed RI a must-have, though teachers would prefer to spend the time on curriculum.
Buddhist Council of Queensland president Jim Ferguson said he was so disturbed that Creationism was being aired in state school classrooms that he would bring it up at the next meeting of the Religious Education Advisory Committee, part of Education Queensland.
He said RI was supposed to be a forum for multi-faith discussion.
Education Queensland assistant director-general Patrea Walton said Creationism was part of some faiths, and therefore was part of some teaching.
New research shows three in 10 Australians believe dinosaurs and man did exist at the same time. The survey, by the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, shows a "worrying" lack of basic scientific principles.
"The results underscore the need for students to be exposed to science and mathematics through a well resourced education system, rather than learning about science through Jurassic Park," FASTS president Dr Cathy Foley said.
PhD researcher Cathy Byrne found in a NSW-based survey that scripture teachers tended to discourage questioning, emphasised submission to authority and excluded different beliefs. She said 70 per cent of scripture teachers thought children should be taught the Bible as historical fact.
A parent of a Year 5 student on the Sunshine Coast said his daughter was ostracised to the library after arguing with her scripture teacher about DNA.
"The scripture teacher told the class that all people were descended from Adam and Eve," he said.
"My daughter rightly pointed out, as I had been teaching her about DNA and science, that 'wouldn't they all be inbred'?
"But the teacher replied that DNA wasn't invented then."
After the parent complained, the girl spent the rest of the year's classes in the library.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/cre...er/story-e6frfkvr-1225899497234#ixzz0vXYsGLSo

 

[Omar B]

Funny. They never cease to amaze me. But then, they deny carbon dating is accurate because they believe the world is what, 3000 years old? How does that account for things we know predate that? Conspiracy?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

What is taught in public schools in Australia is hardly my business. However, my opinion is that religious instruction does not belong in public schools.

It would appear that Queensland, Australia has a different opinion.

http://education.qld.gov.au/strategic/eppr/schools/scmpr021/

Statement of intent

Queensland state schools embrace a multitude of cultural, religious and non-religious beliefs and encourage students to grow and develop as a whole person, in particular, in beliefs, values and attitudes. It is important to ensure that schools respect the background and beliefs of all students by not promoting, or being perceived as promoting, any particular set of beliefs in preference to another. In the case of Religious Instruction, parents are provided with the option to withdraw their child's participation in the program.
Queensland state schools support religious diversity by allowing for three distinct programs:

• Bible Lessons
• Chaplaincy Services
• Religious Instruction.

It would appear on the surface that what you are objecting to is children being taught nonsense. This I understand. However, if it is religious nonsense, believed by those of that faith, and taught in accordance with the existing law in Queensland regarding such things, I fail to see the problem.

One recurring issue I see with atheists, agnostics, and others not of a religious persuasion, is that they want to restrict teaching based on what they see as the illogic inherent in some (or all) religions. This will never fly. Banning all religious content from public schools seems quite appropriate to me, but objecting to legal content on the basis that it's outrageously idiotic is not acceptable. Legal idiocy is taught all the time.

Personally, I would be desirous of getting RI out of Queensland public schools, were I a citizen of Australia. The content is of far less concern to me.

 

[Omar B]

When I was still living in Jamaica in schools we had a class named "Religious Education" which should really have been called christian education since in no way did it cover any other faith. But it was not taught in place of anything else, or at the expense of something else (like science) so it didn't bother me, I got to sit in the back and do my math homework before I got home.

I would sit there, not say anything, maybe chuckle a bit under my breath while the Priest taught. It's as if he didn't realize that a good 3rd of the room were Hindu or Muslim or atheist.

 

[Ken Morgan]

Funny, that most religious people that I know would view this as nonsense also. Mainstream religion doesn’t preach this stuff.

I always believed in one school system, no religious schools, and no private schools. To me having the kids learning, playing with and sitting beside those of other cultures/beliefs will help their tolerance and expand their knowledge of others as they get older. Then once a week have an ethics or religious class for an hour or two that the kids can go off to as their parents wish. But it’ll all never happen.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Funny, that most religious people that I know would view this as nonsense also. Mainstream religion doesn’t preach this stuff.

Depends on your idea of 'mainstream' I guess. Catholicism doesn't teach this, but I know plenty of fundamentalists who do believe such things. They may not state it as oddly as "DNA wasn't invented then," but they do believe that man coexisted with dinosaurs and come with some remarkable apologetics to explain their beliefs.

I always believed in one school system, no religious schools, and no private schools. To me having the kids learning, playing with and sitting beside those of other cultures/beliefs will help their tolerance and expand their knowledge of others as they get older. Then once a week have an ethics or religious class for an hour or two that the kids can go off to as their parents wish. But it’ll all never happen.

I like the public school system in general, but I do not mind private schooling as an alternative, even if it is based upon religion. With regard to the USA, while the state has no business promulgating a state religion, they also have no business telling parents what beliefs to instill in their children or restricting education based upon religious content.

The state has a vested interest in producing citizens who are capable of assuming their adult responsibilities as law-abiding citizens, workers, producers, consumers, tax payers, and members of an informed electorate. They not have a vested interest in inculcating either religious values or the lack of same; that domain belongs properly to parents and religious institutions, IMHO.

To that extent, I believe in standardized testing for all, private or public or even home-schooled. I believe completion of high school should be mandatory. I would like it if higher education was within the means of everyone who could gain admittance on grounds other than financial, perhaps by a period of national service (military or civil) to pay back the investment made in them.

 

[Carol]

You folks paying attention to what is going on in your own districts?

Or is it easier to point and laugh at others....and skip that whole "getting involved" thing?

How many of you folks have researched the credentials of the folks that are teaching your children math and science? Do they actually have degrees in the field they teach instead of just degrees in education or teaching?

The scuttlebutt here about teachers that will (in the coming school year) be teaching high school Chemistry. None have a degree in Chemistry or a background in Chemistry. The unspoken reason why they want the job is because the science jobs pay more.

I have no issue with paying a science teacher $70,000 per year to work 9 months out of the year. But that science teacher damn well better have a masters or higher in the field they are teaching for that pay.

But....that won't be a story that makes the internet newswire, eh? The unusual extremists are more newsworthy than the real problems.

 

[teekin]

What is taught in public schools in Australia is hardly my business. However, my opinion is that religious instruction does not belong in public schools.

It would appear that Queensland, Australia has a different opinion.

http://education.qld.gov.au/strategic/eppr/schools/scmpr021/



It would appear on the surface that what you are objecting to is children being taught nonsense. This I understand. However, if it is religious nonsense, believed by those of that faith, and taught in accordance with the existing law in Queensland regarding such things, I fail to see the problem.

One recurring issue I see with atheists, agnostics, and others not of a religious persuasion, is that they want to restrict teaching based on what they see as the illogic inherent in some (or all) religions. This will never fly. Banning all religious content from public schools seems quite appropriate to me, but objecting to legal content on the basis that it's outrageously idiotic is not acceptable. Legal idiocy is taught all the time.

Personally, I would be desirous of getting RI out of Queensland public schools, were I a citizen of Australia. The content is of far less concern to me.

Bill, having religious studies as an elective is I think a very very good idea.
I think there is Amazing worth in studying religion and theology. I don't think it's ever too early or too late to learn critical thinking skills.
I guess I still have faith that most people, given ALL the facts, will make sound rational choices. I think kids will hear the incongruent Gobble-de-Gook and be able to sort it out for themselves quite easily. They have access to too much information to be easily fooled. Exposure to this kind of thinking will make them More critical of just what they are being taught, and encourage them to question ideas. ( how can you not believe in protazoa? :drink2tha I mean, just how much KoolAid do you need to drink?) Mind, this is coming from a champion of the Zombie Survival classes, soooooo . . . . :lookie:


I think my new favorite phrase is " but the Great Flood may have skewed the data ". That is obfusication Gold! I'm going to use it as often as possible. Goes with the new Avatar. :uhyeah:

Lori

 

[Ramirez]

It would appear on the surface that what you are objecting to is children being taught nonsense. This I understand. However, if it is religious nonsense, believed by those of that faith, and taught in accordance with the existing law in Queensland regarding such things, I fail to see the problem.

The problem is exactly that they are teaching kids nonsense. They can teach kids that pi is equal to 3 because the bible says so , but then will prevent 100% of ever becoming physicists, engineers, chemists, mathematicians etc.

Or worse the religious maniacs will manage to convince the academic and licensing organizations that pi equal to 3 is perfectly okay, good look flying a plane or crossing a bridge engineered by anyone using pi equal to 3.

 

[teekin]

You folks paying attention to what is going on in your own districts?

Or is it easier to point and laugh at others....and skip that whole "getting involved" thing?

How many of you folks have researched the credentials of the folks that are teaching your children math and science? Do they actually have degrees in the field they teach instead of just degrees in education or teaching?

The scuttlebutt here about teachers that will (in the coming school year) be teaching high school Chemistry. None have a degree in Chemistry or a background in Chemistry. The unspoken reason why they want the job is because the science jobs pay more.

I have no issue with paying a science teacher $70,000 per year to work 9 months out of the year. But that science teacher damn well better have a masters or higher in the field they are teaching for that pay.

But....that won't be a story that makes the internet newswire, eh? The unusual extremists are more newsworthy than the real problems.

Holy crap. How can they teach what they don't understand? In high school? What happens when these kids walk into a University Chem class and 1st off the hop is getting a handle on particle/wave function math? So you can Do your 1st Lab????? Good God. That's stupid and short sighted for the country as a whole.

Lori

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Bill, having religious studies as an elective is I think a very very good idea.
I think there is Amazing worth in studying religion and theology. I don't think it's ever too early or too late to learn critical thinking skills.
I guess I still have faith that most people, given ALL the facts, will make sound rational choices. I think kids will hear the incongruent Gobble-de-Gook and be able to sort it out for themselves quite easily. They have access to too much information to be easily fooled. Exposure to this kind of thinking will make them More critical of just what they are being taught, and encourage them to question ideas. ( how can you not believe in protazoa? :drink2tha I mean, just how much KoolAid do you need to drink?) Mind, this is coming from a champion of the Zombie Survival classes, soooooo . . . . :lookie:


I think my new favorite phrase is " but the Great Flood may have skewed the data ". That is obfusication Gold! I'm going to use it as often as possible. Goes with the new Avatar. :uhyeah:

Lori

Religious Studies is not the same as Religious Instruction.

I have no problem with classes that teach "This is what religion X believes." Fine and good. I do have a problem with taxpayer-funded classes that teach "Here is what you believe."

Learn about Islam? Fine. Learn about Christianity? Fine. Learn about Judaism? Fine. Be inculcated in those beliefs? Not fine. IMHO.

One of the many problems with teaching religion instruction instead of religious studies is as you just demonstrated - deciding which beliefs are OK and which ones are too weird or outlandish. You don't believe man hunted dinosaurs for dinner? Fine, me neither. But that's not outlandish or strange for a person who choose to believe that. I don't think it should be taught in schools; nor do I believe that children should be taught that Jesus died for our sins. Leave it to religious instruction, conducted outside of public school and not on my taxpaying dime.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The problem is exactly that they are teaching kids nonsense. They can teach kids that pi is equal to 3 because the bible says so , but then will prevent 100% of ever becoming physicists, engineers, chemists, mathematicians etc.

Or worse the religious maniacs will manage to convince the academic and licensing organizations that pi equal to 3 is perfectly okay, good look flying a plane or crossing a bridge engineered by anyone using pi equal to 3.

You say it's nonsense. Those who believe in it say it isn't.

When you get into those arguments, you cannot win. There is no objective test that will cut cleanly enough to permit some religious instruction (on the grounds that it is not idiotic) and not others (on the grounds that it is idiotic).

I've been reminded enough times that my belief in the salvation afforded me by a crucified man is rather ludicrous too. Perhaps no more so that a belief that man rode around on brontosauruses.

I object to religious instruction in public schools, period. Allowing some and not others on the basis of personal beliefs in what is insane and what is reasonable belief just isn't logical.

 

[Ramirez]

One of the many problems with teaching religion instruction instead of religious studies is as you just demonstrated - deciding which beliefs are OK and which ones are too weird or outlandish. You don't believe man hunted dinosaurs for dinner? Fine, me neither. But that's not outlandish or strange for a person who choose to believe that. I don't think it should be taught in schools; nor do I believe that children should be taught that Jesus died for our sins. Leave it to religious instruction, conducted outside of public school and not on my taxpaying dime.

Now that we agree on 100%, religious studies (not instruction) are taught at every secular university, not a problem for me for the kid who may take an interest in it and might want to study religion further in higher education.

One can hardly eliminate the study of religion when it has had such a profound effect on all of history.

Teaching creationism, or instruction in a public school system should like you say be banned.

 

[Ramirez]

I've been reminded enough times that my belief in the salvation afforded me by a crucified man is rather ludicrous too. Perhaps no more so that a belief that man rode around on brontosauruses.

Believing in your salvation by a crucified man will not prevent you from becoming a biologist, paleontologist , genetic researcher etc....believing in the Flintstones will.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Believing in your salvation by a crucified man will not prevent you from becoming a biologist, paleontologist , genetic researcher etc....believing in the Flintstones will.

Perhaps so, but that's also none of the government's business. The line is drawn where federal needs end and parental rights begin.

What is 'best' for the child is none of the government's business, to put it bluntly. IMHO.

Anyway, I recall what scientific progress has been brought to us via various members of faiths I consider outlandish and possessing of weird beliefs, such as the Church of Latter Day Saints. My opinion of the oddity of their beliefs does not seem to prevent them from producing geniuses and contributing members of society.

 

[Ramirez]

Perhaps so, but that's also none of the government's business. The line is drawn where federal needs end and parental rights begin.

What is 'best' for the child is none of the government's business, to put it bluntly. IMHO.

Bill it is the government's and by proxy the rest of society's business. The very fact that in every developed nation it is the law that a child needs to get a basic education means we have already given tacit approval to the government being somewhat involved in the raising of children.

It would be both negligent and immoral for the government (and by proxy every one of us) to legislate that children need an education and then not be involved in what that education consists of.

I don't want to get all Dawkins here but there may be an argument for child abuse with that type of indoctrination.

Take for example (okay this is extreme) the case of Omar Khadr, indoctrinated in fundamentalist Islam by his parents and who ended up killing a US soldier in Afghanistan.

That this whole tragedy was the result of child abuse looks to be a valid argument with me.

 

[Empty Hands]

There is no objective test that will cut cleanly enough to permit some religious instruction (on the grounds that it is not idiotic) and not others (on the grounds that it is idiotic).

There is in this case. The teachers in question made claims that go beyond metaphysics and into the testable and known realms of science. It doesn't matter what you believe - DNA was "invented" before the dinosaurs, and we can prove it.

You might as well say that a religious instruction claiming that the Earth was flat could not be shrugged off as nonsense.

 

[Carol]

Holy crap. How can they teach what they don't understand?

In a word: Tenure. In a state that pays teachers very well (and rightfully so).

In high school? What happens when these kids walk into a University Chem class and 1st off the hop is getting a handle on particle/wave function math?

Perhaps they are have already decided that the kids from that part of town -- which is more diverse and more economically challenged -- simply won't be getting that far.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Now that we agree on 100%, religious studies (not instruction) are taught at every secular university, not a problem for me for the kid who may take an interest in it and might want to study religion further in higher education.

One can hardly eliminate the study of religion when it has had such a profound effect on all of history.

Teaching creationism, or instruction in a public school system should like you say be banned.

Back in the 1970's, when people didn't have their panties in such a twist over it, I took a course in High School called "World's Great Religions." We learned some of the core beliefs of several major religions, we visited various religious centers (church, mosque, temple, and etc) and it was fine. No one taught religion; they taught about religion. I see this, as you do, as a valuable and even necessary aspect of being a global citizen.

None of us kids got bent out of shape over it. It was an elective course; no one had to take it to graduate. If a person signed up for it and decided it was not to their liking, they could drop it. It was a very popular course, just the same.

Kids are often not as stupid as their parents. They can tell the difference between learning about a religion and being taught that religion.

So in this sense, we completely agree.

 

[Sukerkin]

Learning about religions is in and of itself a good thing, just as any study provides a benefit of some kind.

When I was at school, we had a non-elective class called Religious Education and in it, over the course of three years, we not only looked into the various flavours of Christianity but also those faiths that are now causing so much trouble in the world. We covered Buddhism too and Judaism.

It (and the teacher) taught me a lot about how to be tolerant of what might appear to be strange or 'brewed for the weak minded' views. The best of this little trip down memory lane is that the class was taught by a man widely travelled in the various 'Holy lands' and deeply knowledgeable about the faiths he taught us about - guess what religion he was? Aye, he was an atheist! :lol:.

It's only when religious people themselves start to exhibit some facet of "my way or the highway" intolerance that I get strongly critical of any faith. Well that and denying scientifically grounded and developed theories by simply uncritically quoting the dogma of their religion.

Of course, I don't always hold to that moral and sometimes I stray into ridicule or dismissiveness. I can't help that, it is an unfortunate facet of my nature that 'deliberate stupidity' gets my goat; but at least I have the decency to be embarrassed at myself afterwards .