Darwin's theory not allowed in North Quebec schools

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

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.

There is such a thing as left wing organized religion you know. Its not a pure purvue of the right.

Scientists let the facts lead them to the answers, regardless of where it goes . . . . . organized religion has a problem with free thought going too far astray from doctrine.

A definite conflict.

Cowperson

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

There is such a thing as left wing organized religion you know. Its not a pure purvue of the right.

I agree--I was merely commenting that in the US, it's the right that is pushing for "intelligent design" to be taught in schools.

Didn't mean to imply that there's a natural affinity between Christianity and the right. Far from it, in fact.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by 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?

We didn't come from monkeys. Humans and "monkeys" have a common ancestor.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by peter12

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.

North America was very fragmented too. Indians battled each other very fiercely and often. They were not an agricultural based civilization though so they didn't 'specialize' so that they could have one person be a blacksmith, another to be a Dr etc. Also, with thousands of years of agriculture in the background, the white Europeans developed immunities and resistance to agricultural based diseases. These diseases did much more damage to the natives in all of the America's than any gun powder.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I agree--I was merely commenting that in the US, it's the right that is pushing for "intelligent design" to be taught in schools.

Didn't mean to imply that there's a natural affinity between Christianity and the right. Far from it, in fact.

I know many right-wing people that will argue you to death because they believe intelligent design "shouldn't" be taught in schools.

[White Doors]

I know many left wing people who object to the word 'god' being in the anthem. So what?

balance people, that's what it's all about.

[troutman]

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.

Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies
by Jared Diamond

Most of this work deals with non-Europeans, but Diamond's thesis sheds light on why Western civilization became hegemonic: "History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among peoples' environments, not because of biological differences among peoples themselves." Those who domesticated plants and animals early got a head start on developing writing, government, technology, weapons of war, and immunity to deadly germs. Library Journal

The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution
by Richard Dawkins

The diversity of the earth's plant and animal life is amazing—especially when one considers the near certainty that all living things can trace their lineage back to a single ancestor—a bacterium—that lived more than three billion years ago. Taking his cue from Chaucer, noted Oxford biologist Dawkins (The Selfish Gene, etc.) works his way narratively backward through time. As the path reaches points where humanity's ancestors converge with those of other species—primates, mammals, amphibians and so on—various creatures have tales that carry an evolutionary lesson. Publishers Weekly

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

I know many right-wing people that will argue you to death because they believe intelligent design "shouldn't" be taught in schools.

Great. And if that's so, then those people and I agree on that issue.

That doesn't change the fact that in the U.S., intelligent design is being pushed by people on the right. That doesn't mean that all people who are right wing are the same. Nor does it mean that all religious zealots are right wing, or that all right wingers are religious zealots.

But you have to remember, politics is already way more secular in Canada. It's very different down here--one of the first things I had to get used to. It's arguably the case that secular conservatism has been on the decline in the U.S., and both the left and the right are the sorrier for it.

I have no doubt that there are people on the right who would agree with me on this issue. I doubt, however, that they would "argue me to death" on it. We'd simply say "we agree" and move on to other things.

[FlamesAddiction]

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?

Catholics are not typically the ones who try to ban evolution.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Great. And if that's so, then those people and I agree on that issue.

That doesn't change the fact that in the U.S., intelligent design is being pushed by people on the right. That doesn't mean that all people who are right wing are the same. Nor does it mean that all religious zealots are right wing, or that all right wingers are religious zealots.

But you have to remember, politics is already way more secular in Canada. It's very different down here--one of the first things I had to get used to. It's arguably the case that secular conservatism has been on the decline in the U.S., and both the left and the right are the sorrier for it.

I have no doubt that there are people on the right who would agree with me on this issue. I doubt, however, that they would "argue me to death" on it. We'd simply say "we agree" and move on to other things.

Fair enough. I realize its being pushed by people on the right, which to me is ridiculous.

But I also think that its ridiculous to try and use Darwin to explain the origin of man. IMO, Darwin and Intelligent design are in the same boat.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

But I also think that its ridiculous to try and use Darwin to explain the origin of man. IMO, Darwin and Intelligent design are in the same boat.

Meaning what, exactly? That Darwinian evolutionary theory is pretty old news, and that it's been supplanted by other theories of evolution that better explain the fossil record?

Or do you mean that you don't think humans are actually apes?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Meaning what, exactly? That Darwinian evolutionary theory is pretty old news, and that it's been supplanted by other theories of evolution that better explain the fossil record?

Or do you mean that you don't think humans are actually apes?

Probably the evolutionary theory. I'm not an expert on this either(seems like I've been saying that too much) but I do believe that some of Darwin's teaching haven't been credited as science.

And no I don't like to think of myself as an ape. I perfectly fine with being classified as a human.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Probably the evolutionary theory. I'm not an expert on this either(seems like I've been saying that too much) but I do believe that some of Darwin's teaching haven't been credited as science.

And no I don't like to think of myself as an ape. I perfectly fine with being classified as a human.

It may be important to clarify Darwin's role in all of this. Darwin actually didn't invent the idea of evolution--he merely suggested a mechanism through which it might have occurred, IIRC. He has become the main figure known for popularizing it (rather than say Lamarck, or Huxley) just because his ideas were current for so long.

I've never heard anyone say that Darwin's theories weren't scientific enough. He was a meticulous scientist. However, he didn't have access to a lot of scientific knowledge that we now have--such as genetics--and newer evolutionary theories seek to explain all of the kinds of evidence that there are for evolution--morphological, genetic, fossil evidence, etc. Darwin couldn't have done that.

And like it or not, we really are apes. We look like them, eat like them--and yes, though we don't like to admit it, we often act like them. Chimps and Humans share an enormous amount of identical DNA--something like 98%. This is one of the things that seems to really bother the authors of Of Pandas and People--who devote an entire chapter to, of all things, the human tailbone, trying to come up with reasons why that can't be a vestigial tail that early primate ancestors had--never mentioning that it's a skeletal structure shared by other apes.

Needless to say, their explanations are pretty weak.

[Azure]

I was actually being a bit sarcastic when I mentioned the "ape" idea. You can call me an agnostic on that subject.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

And like it or not, we really are apes. We look like them, eat like them--and yes, though we don't like to admit it, we often act like them. Chimps and Humans share an enormous amount of identical DNA--something like 98%. This is one of the things that seems to really bother the authors of Of Pandas and People--who devote an entire chapter to, of all things, the human tailbone, trying to come up with reasons why that can't be a vestigial tail that early primate ancestors had--never mentioning that it's a skeletal structure shared by other apes.

Needless to say, their explanations are pretty weak.

We also share 90% of our genetic code with a lobster, and about 40% with a cucumber.

Which sort of makes 98% a little less impressive.

Just a cool fact.

Carry on.

[Cowperson]

FYI, timely article on the resurgence of the religious left wing in the USA.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051901813.html

Cowperson

[Circa89]

Originally Posted by FireEgo

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) .

Does Mr. Diamonds mention anything about Central America in his book? Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Florence (50,000) was the biggest city in Europe when Piazzaro was in Mexico (circa 1550's) and Mexico City was close to 1 million people. Thats what I've read in pop journalism anyway. Man Those guys knew a thing or two about city life to have a city the size of Calgary back in the day. Crazy!