Schools Req'd to notify parents before teaching evolution

[valo403]

Wait, does this mean no more plate tectonics? I fataing LOVED plate tectonics, the crazy kid in my class who used to stick paper clips in power outlets and lick batteries sang songs about that stuff.

If they're taking away plate tectonics they're taking away childhood.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You havn't demonstrated one other group who has come foreward with any concerns about whats being taught. I think if this was an ethnic group rather than Christians you wouldn't have any problem with the school notifying them. Fortunately the government of Alberta doesn't have your bias.

You're one to talk about what I haven't done, let he who hasn't ignored questions cast the first accusation.

Why would I need to bring forward another group? Does a law have to actually discriminate against someone for it to be evaluated if it is discriminitory or not? That's silly.

Why would I change my mind for ethnicity? That's yet another baseless accusation that you've thrown at me, care to back this one up? Or just going to ignore that too and carry on like before?

I can't even think of a case where what's taught would make parents pull their kids out based on ethnicity, not even in theory.

[transplant99]

I think this whole thing is being blown out of proportion...simply because parents have ALWAYS had the right to stop their children from attending classes where a subject matter was one they didnt want their children involved in at the school level.

This is just a way of notifying said parents when it is coming up. Serously...no big deal even if it seems completely ludicrous.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Haha, that cracked me up and gave me a hilarious mental image.

A guy in a dark trench in the alley behind a 7-11, hissing at kids as they walk out with their slurpees...

"Psst. Pssst! Hey you. You wanna learn some... evolution...? It'll make you feel great. Come on, try some.'

Actually, I don't think that's all that far-fetched (although obviously they'll just get it from their peers).

Basically all the parent is doing is setting their kid up for ostracization. Little Johnny has to stand out in the hall when things interesting to a teenager (namely stuff that drives Mom and Dad bananas) are discussed. Little Johnny is going to be pretty motivated to find out what's what and all. End result: Little Johnny finds out anyways and thinks the old man is full of crap.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

You're one to talk about what I haven't done, let he who hasn't ignored questions cast the first accusation.

Why would I need to bring forward another group? Does a law have to actually discriminate against someone for it to be evaluated if it is discriminitory or not? That's silly.

Why would I change my mind for ethnicity? That's yet another baseless accusation that you've thrown at me, care to back this one up? Or just going to ignore that too and carry on like before?

I can't even think of a case where what's taught would make parents pull their kids out based on ethnicity, not even in theory.

The law isn't discriminatory. It doesn't say only Christians can opt out of evolution and sex ed classes: Anybody can.

You are grasping at straws here.

[photon]

It's discrimitory because it's only Christian's pet peeve of evolution that gets special treatment. You either let every group allow their kids to opt out of any subject they choose, or you let none. Letting only a few groups opt out of evolution gives special treatment to those groups and discriminates against other groups that might have different beliefs.

Why shouldn't those who believe the universe is on the back of a turtle get let out of astronomy class?

Chiropractors' kids shouldn't have to learn germ theory.

Will Mormon kids get out of history class because of their belief about north american Indians being descended from Israel? There's lots of Mormons.

If these don't get a free pass, then the law discriminates against Hindus, Mormons, and Chiropractors.

How will the quizes and exams work?

You never gave any support for your baseless accusations either.

Disappointing that you won't engage in a conversation in good faith and respond to questions.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The law isn't discriminatory. It doesn't say only Christians can opt out of evolution and sex ed classes: Anybody can.

You are grasping at straws here.

Honestly, I have no idea why you are so deliberately perverse on these issues, but for you to say that photon is "grasping at straws" is utterly laughable. Photon has showed remarkable restraint; but he's also utterly clobbering you.

Photon has, once again, attempted to very patiently explain the basis on which this debate must take place, which is very simple: a correct understanding of what evolution is. I know for a fact that you're smart. I have no idea why you're incapable of understanding this. I can only conclude that you don't want to.

And your main problem in this debate stems from this one blind spot that you clearly possess. As a result you have refused to respond in kind to a single one of photon's posts, refused to answer any of his questions and refused to even work within the very narrow definitions of what science does and what evolutionary theory is in the real world. These aren't imaginary terms that can mean whatever you want. Until you understand evolution correctly, there's no point whatsoever in debating its scientific merits with you.

But in any case, this isn't even about the scientific merits of evolution, as you've made very clear by making this an argument about parental rights. What this means, of course is that you are demanding "special rights" for certain groups of parents by having their right to pull their child from the classroom in certain circumstances enshrined in law.

Your response to the inevitable question "why not other groups" is to insist that those other groups don't exist. Which is nonsense anyway, but even if it weren't that isn't the point. What photon's examples illustrate is that subjects are interrelated, and all of them are important. Another way to say that is this: you can't teach by subtraction of knowledge. You might object to something children learn in school--but children's lives are never enriched by not learning something.

The fact is, parents aren't the stakeholder here anyway: our children are. The fact that you feel differently seriously frightens me. As does your feeling that somehow a child's life could be enriched by ignorance. Leave science to the people who are qualified to teach it.

I'm done ranting, but I'll add this thought: as a parent, I find the notion that only parents know what is best for children in school appalling. I very much hope that my daughter will learn a million things in school that I never would have thought to teach her. If I didn't think that would happen, I'd never send her there in the first place.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The law isn't discriminatory. It doesn't say only Christians can opt out of evolution and sex ed classes: Anybody can.

You are grasping at straws here.

Well when there's a blatant refusal on your part to actually answer the numerous questions posed to you throughout the earlier pages of this thread I can't imagine there'd be much but straws left.

I'd bet if you actually answered those questions as opposed to sticking your head in the sand you'd find a different situation.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Actually, I don't think that's all that far-fetched (although obviously they'll just get it from their peers).

Basically all the parent is doing is setting their kid up for ostracization. Little Johnny has to stand out in the hall when things interesting to a teenager (namely stuff that drives Mom and Dad bananas) are discussed. Little Johnny is going to be pretty motivated to find out what's what and all. End result: Little Johnny finds out anyways and thinks the old man is full of crap.

While I could see that happening in some cases, I fear it's more just going to pit more parents against teachers in a world where a lot of parents already think their kid is more special than everyone elses.

And little Johnny will just think he, or he and his parents are way smarter than the teacher who believes in all this unproven evolution crap.

I do get what your saying though, and I could see that happening to some kids. (For the record, when I mentioned it cracked me up it was because it was one of those 'funny but true' scenarios, of course presented in a exaggerated manner to prove a point, not because I thought the situation was laughable, but I think you got that.)

The problem is though, once your already indoctrinated enough to go against junior high and high school science, and think you're actually that much more smart or wise at such a young age, you're not going to worry about being ostracized, you're just going to think the whole world is out to get you and your beliefs.

Thereby strengthening the already fanatical beliefs you have. (Perhaps like Calgaryborn vs. the board here?)

Something I don't understand on a practical level though. Does that mean they are exempt from those portions of the tests too? I mean, I would have to imagine some of the material learned about is important to passing certain things. Does that mean they actually have an easier course to learn? Furthermore, what happens when they get to the high school age and have to take diploma exams? Those are pretty standard. I guess one would argue if you choose not to learn that stuff you might not be in the higher level sciences, but still, something doesn't seem right.

It's almost like the province is failing these kids (in a life situation) just because their parents prefer to be ignorant.

[SebC]

One of my friends had a pretty simple solution to the exam problem:

If you want to opt out your kid from evolution, you have to opt them out from biology. Then we wouldn't have doctors who can't do their jobs because of their beliefs!

[Bob]

Originally Posted by SebC

One of my friends had a pretty simple solution to the exam problem:

If you want to opt out your kid from evolution, you have to opt them out from biology. Then we wouldn't have doctors who can't do their jobs because of their beliefs!

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Bob

I can't wait for CalgaryBorn's response.

[valo403]

I have one question, does the Alberta government not have a legal consultant with basic knowledge of Charter jurisprudence? If they did they'd realize that this policy opens the door for anyone to opt out of anything they deem to be against their religious beliefs, and that door is pretty damn massive.

The Supreme Court of Canada has said that freedom of religion consists of "the freedom to undertake practices and harbor beliefs, having a nexus with religion, in which an individual demonstrates he or she sincerely believes or is sincerely undertaking in order to connect with the divine or as a function of his or her spiritual faith, irrespective of whether a particular practice or belief is required by official religious dogma or is in conformity with the position of religious officials." Under this standard all one needs to establish is that their belief is sincere, has a nexus with religion, and that they believe that their actions are required to comply with their religion. It doesn't matter if they are the only person in that particular religion who believes the compliance is necessary, if they believe it is it is protected.

So, in this situation if a person can demonstrate that they have a sincere religious belief that prevents them from studying long division they are protected. This policy opens the door to that argument by giving that treatment to certain religions for certain subject matters.

Outside of the legal context is the fact that school is full of learning about things that you don't agree with. The process of learning about them will either cause you to ask questions about your beliefs or it will confirm your beliefs. I always thought Shakespeare was horribly boring and an absolute waste of time, high school english confirmed that for me, but it could very well have opened my eyes to something I was blocking out without having any understanding of what it was all about.

Seems to me that the only people that would be pressing for a policy such as this are those who are not confident enough in their belief system, or rather their ability to indoctrinate their children, to believe that it can withstand a confrontation a competing ideology.

[photon]

The charter also guarantees freedom of conscience as well as freedom of religion, so this opt-out has to apply to parents who object to any course content on the basis of conscience.

So that opens the door to stuff like being able to opt-out their kids from anything to do with war because they think war is evil or anything to do with capitalism because they're socialists.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by photon

The charter also guarantees freedom of conscience as well as freedom of religion, so this opt-out has to apply to parents who object to any course content on the basis of conscience.

So that opens the door to stuff like being able to opt-out their kids from anything to do with war because they think war is evil or anything to do with capitalism because they're socialists.

I does have that language, but I'm not aware of any case law that would support that. It might be there, but I don't know of it.

The breadth of things the court has found to be protected under religious freedom leaves the door wide open for people to bring challenges under this legislation if they are denied the right to avoid certain subjects.

[photon]

Or even denied the right to be notified when certain subjects are coming up.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by photon

Or even denied the right to be notified when certain subjects are coming up.

Good point, if you grant that right to one religious group/one subject you better be prepared to do it for all of them.

[GGG]

Well i am late to the thread but in todays SUN Micheal Platt had an excellent article on the topic.

The gist of was this law is not really a concern because the parents who are opting out are going to be indoctornating there kids from birth and that indocternation is way more powerful then anything the school system can throw at them. Although I think this law is ridiculus I don't think it will have any substantial effect on the educational outcomes of kids

Secondly I would like to point out that both the Catholic Church and Anglican churches (representing the largest Christian gourps in the workld) both believe in evolution or more specifically for the catholic church that the theory of evolution and the concept that god is the creator are not mutally exclusive options. And all catholic schools (for sure in Saskatchewan and Alberta) teach evolution as part of the science classes and teach that Genisis is not to be considered literally. So in the above arguements where the word "Christian" is being used to refer to those who don't believe in evolution is great over generalization and is paiting christianity with a very large brush in a simialr way that athiests object to be being considered one identical group.

[ikaris]

This is the kind of legislation that could make me ashamed to be Albertan.

Hicks should not have a say in educational matters.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Then what's the point? Why are the people who are behind it, behind it?

I know we aren't talking about particularly clever people here, so you may be right, but they must at least believe they get something out of it.

They got the wonderful feeling having won something. Like a toddler that wails when they don't get their lollie but is instantly happy when they see their tricycle has a ribbon tied to it.

It is similar to people campaigning hard for a city to build a elementary school in their suburbs so they don't have to bus their kid to school everyday. 6 years later that school is built. Guess what they are doing?

Basically, your question really doesn't have a good answer.