Darwin's theory not allowed in North Quebec schools

[Cheese]

So its reached Canada now.....I guess the real question would be, what have they been doing up to this point?
Inuits have their own spirits, is that what was taught? Is it morally wrong to teach Darwins theory?

Teachers in some northern Quebec communities are being told not to talk about the evolution of humans because Darwin's theory offends some Inuit people.

"We are able to talk about evolution of animals, but nothing about the origin of man," April said Thursday, adding the school threatened him with disciplinary action.

Darwin in Northern Quebec

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

That's nutty.

I think it may be time that those of us who think that science teachers should be required to teach SCIENCE should band together and become an interest group. Between this and the boneheaded "intelligent design" debate in the US, there's an alarming trend of backwards movement on this issue.

I mean--what if students were offended by learning about the Industrial Revolution? Would we take it off the curriculum?

[Maritime Q-Scout]

hold on... hold on... hold on... can someone please explain to me, that if we all came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

Were they just not able to make the hump? George Bush made it, how card can it be?

[Bobblehead]

Well, since monkeys like porn too, we may not be as evolved as we think.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I mean--what if students were offended by learning about the Industrial Revolution? Would we take it off the curriculum?

They didn't take it off the curriculum. If the snippet is accurate, they are still teaching the science of evolution, but they are just not teaching it as it relates to the origin of humans.

It might not be a perfect situation, but at least they are not banning it like in some places.

[Circa89]

What do Calgary Catholic High Schools teach in Science class? Just Curious. Is it a watered down version or is it evolution theory according to Darwin or better yet Stephen J. Goulds accepted improvements of decimation and diversification?

[Circa89]

Just for those out there that don't know about Gould. His theory states that Darwin had the idea of evolution down for the most part, but he was wrong about phylogentic tree of increasing diversity. This is a bigger leap than combining Mendelian genetics to form modern evolution theory. Gould's theory was based on work he was doing here in Canada in Yoho National Park at the Burgess Shale. The Burgess Shale holds millions of fossils from the precambrian explosion that has very bizzarre body types. These all died except for a few types of designs (decimation) and the planet was populated on these few designs(diversification) .


Here is a picture of one of the more odd creatures the Hallucingenia.
http://prelectur.stanford.edu/lectur...ary/index.html

If anyone out there needs to correct me please do so. I am not a biologist by any stretch just a guy who stumbled across his theory while living in Yoho National Park. (Emerald Lake Lodge)

[FireEgo]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Teachers in some northern Quebec communities are being told not to talk about the evolution of humans because Darwin's theory offends some Inuit people.

Huh? This sounds more like Teachers not really being aware of the Theory and how it relates to us humans - and more like their existing prejudice or belief that somehow the Inuit peoples are 'closer' to being Apes than the remainder of the population according to that theory (which is not the case!)

I think that everyone who is concerned or who mistakenly thinks that evolution means that one group of human beings are better or more 'evolved' than others ought to read Jared Diamonds "Guns, Germs and Steel." This book goes through the history of different groups of people living in different parts of the world, and why Europeans were able to come to North America and dominate, and why they had superior weapons etc. (and the answer btw is nothing to do with actually being a superior, more evolved or more 'civilised' - and has everything to do with environmental factors) -

It is an interesting and captivating read - very personal and very little like the history textbooks we studied in schools growing up.

[FireEgo]

Originally Posted by Circa89

What do Calgary Catholic High Schools teach in Science class? Just Curious. Is it a watered down version or is it evolution theory according to Darwin or better yet Stephen J. Goulds accepted improvements of decimation and diversification?

Calgary Catholics schools do teach the Theory of Evolution. I know, I learnt it in one. I personally don't see any contradiction between the theory of evolution and a belief in god, I only see that the theory of evolution gets in the way of many religions desire to control the populace and protect the beliefs created over the last millenia, before science came to answer many of the questions people seek out.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by FireEgo

Huh? This sounds more like Teachers not really being aware of the Theory and how it relates to us humans - and more like their existing prejudice or belief that somehow the Inuit peoples are 'closer' to being Apes than the remainder of the population according to that theory (which is not the case!)

Boy you must read between the lines because I dont see that anywhere at all. Why dont you copy the text you are referring to so we can try to see what you read.

[Circa89]

I started reading that book at Christmas, It was at the house I was staying at. I forgot all about it. I think I'll check the Library to see if they have it. Looked like a great read. My 4 year old son asked me a question that I couldn't answer and I think that book would help.

His question was if Knights were older (chronologically) 1000-1500 BCish than the North American Indians (generally the late 1700's) when the euros came over, why is it that knights had Armour and Cannons and Castles and the Natives had Bows and Spears and Tipis.

I don't know? I told it was out of neccessity and N.American Natives could quite easily live off hunting the buffalo and didn't need cannons, but I know that is a very simple version.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by FireEgo

I personally don't see any contradiction between the theory of evolution and a belief in god, I only see that the theory of evolution gets in the way of many religions desire to control the populace and protect the beliefs created over the last millenia, before science came to answer many of the questions people seek out.

I agree. When you think about it, science and religion refer to completely different kinds of truth--they're not even in the same category. Plenty of scientists are religious--and plenty of religious people believe in evolution, big bang theory, believe that the earth is round, that it goes around the sun and not vice versa, etc. etc.

The so-called contradiction between them is an invention of the culture wars--and part of the divisive politics of the American right. It's a bit disheartening to see that making its way into the Canadian school boards. Here's hoping we don't see Of Pandas and People in Canadian science classrooms anytime soon. That's a scary, scary book, and there's a huge lobby group down here that wants to see it adopted as a core science textbook.

The right will even trot out nut-job "scientists" who support this nonsense, and use that to pretend that there's a real debate over the question of whether evolution occurred--when in fact, as we saw in the Gould example above, the only real debate among scientists is as to HOW it occurred.

[FireEgo]

Originally Posted by Circa89

His question was if Knights were older (chronologically) 1000-1500 BCish than the North American Indians (generally the late 1700's) when the euros came over, why is it that knights had Armour and Cannons and Castles and the Natives had Bows and Spears and Tipis.

The simple answer is food and resources. Europeans had wheat and other viable crops. They had horses. That led to farmers who could feed people other than just themselves. That led to politicians, armies, scientists etc. People who could spend thier time learning, playing etc. and not worry about time spend gathering or growing food. Therefore they had time and the population to develop steel and had horses for Knights to ride.

The native populations of North America however did not have high calorie, high protein crops such as wheat (corn had not each travelled from central America to the North) and they did not have horses or any other animal that could be domesticated for labour in farmers fields or as weapons in an army like the Europeans did. Therefore, the Americans were forced to spend thier time gathering and hunting food, and they didn't have time to experiment with metals to develop steel etc., or develop the written word (which allowed different generations pass on this information outside of their immediate peer group)...

So, it was not that the Knights of Europe were better or smarter - it was just the availability of resources. This has been proven out by the fact that as resources were available (horses, guns etc.) the Native populations in North America adapted them quickly and with great skill within a generation... and nowadays we rarely think of those Natives from that era without evoking images of them on horseback.

[89revival]

Hey,

This isn't another thread where Cheese Face bashes religious people again is it? Oh wait...yea it is....good for you man, good for you.

Change the world baby! I love you.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by 89revival

Hey,

This isn't another thread where Cheese Face bashes religious people again is it? Oh wait...yea it is....good for you man, good for you.

Change the world baby! I love you.

It isn't Cheese's fault that some religious people want to promote their agenda ahead of what is actually the truth. And then teach it to kids under the guise of it being science. Which is what this thread is about. Not random religious person bashing.

[FireFly]

But they haven't inserted creationism in its place....? so its lying by omission to protect the delicate sensibilities of Inuits... I don't really see this as a religious person's agenda, although I didn't read the article, I'm just going on what's been said in the thread.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Circa89

I started reading that book at Christmas, It was at the house I was staying at. I forgot all about it. I think I'll check the Library to see if they have it. Looked like a great read. My 4 year old son asked me a question that I couldn't answer and I think that book would help.

His question was if Knights were older (chronologically) 1000-1500 BCish than the North American Indians (generally the late 1700's) when the euros came over, why is it that knights had Armour and Cannons and Castles and the Natives had Bows and Spears and Tipis.

I don't know? I told it was out of neccessity and N.American Natives could quite easily live off hunting the buffalo and didn't need cannons, but I know that is a very simple version.

More so along the lines that the fragmentation of the Roman Empire into literally dozens of competing states created an environment in which states had to develop military technology and strategy in order not to be destroyed by their neighbours.

The Chinese had gunpowder 1500 years before the Europeans and the most they did with it was make firecrackers. Europeans were experimenting with cannons as soon as gunpowder was introduced.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by FireFly

But they haven't inserted creationism in its place....? so its lying by omission to protect the delicate sensibilities of Inuits... I don't really see this as a religious person's agenda, although I didn't read the article, I'm just going on what's been said in the thread.

Pretty much. But what I don't get is why is it okay to not protect the delicate sensibilities of the Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. I didn't read the article either but it does sound like a mild form of discrimination, though I'm not sure who it's against.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Pretty much. But what I don't get is why is it okay to not protect the delicate sensibilities of the Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. I didn't read the article either but it does sound like a mild form of discrimination, though I'm not sure who it's against.

Scientists.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Scientists.

LOL. I was going to go with the Inuits but that works.