Evolution classes optional under proposed Alberta law

[ModlrMike]

What really ticks off liberal types is that the Alberta government gave enforcement to the kangaroo court human rights commission  Guilty untill proven innocent.

No, what Alberta did was take absolute power away from the liberals by vesting some of it in parents.

The "we know better, we will tell you what to think" crowd can't stand loosing any measure of control.

The government actually weakened the power of the HRC by noting that there would be no automatic HRC cases, and any cases that did arise from the legislation could be dealt with by other agencies.

 

[Brad Sallows]

From what is reported in the news - always a weak source - the central bugbear was human sexuality, not evolution.  At least one report confirmed that proper scientific education (ie. including theory of natural selection) is not optional or controversial, and is a red herring in the discussion.  All that seems to have been done is to partially codify the UDHR provision in provincial human rights legislation.

 

[Fusaki]

How did Galileo and Copernicus do on peer review?

Galileo and Copernicus were not reviewed by peers.

 

[ModlrMike]

Galileo and Copernicus were not reviewed by peers.

True enough, however todays inquisitors are part of the secular, elitist population. If you are a devout anything, particularly Christian, you're suspect. Rather than believe that there are three truths to every issue (your truth, my truth, and the real truth), they believe that theirs is the only truth, and they will put you to the sword if you believe otherwise.

 

[Fusaki]

True enough, however todays inquisitors are part of the secular, elitist population.

That's irrelevant.

Even if the modern scientific body is secular and elitist, that doesn't take away from the fact that they peer review based on logical analysis.

Your "three truths" argument is flawed. What if one person's truth has no rational argument supporting it?  Does that make the truth based on scientific theory less legitimate? Of course not! But by your logic, the real truth would lie somewhere between the two.  Talking about "your truth, my truth, and the real truth" is just a cliche that people use to cop out of situations where they might have to think critically.

 

[ModlrMike]

That's irrelevant.

Even if the modern scientific body is secular and elitist, that doesn't take away from the fact that they peer review based on logical analysis.

Perhaps, but they're no less inquisitorial.

Your "three truths" argument is flawed. What if one person's truth has no rational argument supporting it?

You discount faith, which was part of my point. Who is anyone to say that faith has to be based on rational argument, or that faith is wrong, just because it's not peer reviewed?

Does that make the truth based on scientific theory less legitimate? Of course not! But by your logic, the real truth would lie somewhere between the two.

Neither does it make it necessarily more legitimate. What I really meant by my statement was to comment on the penchant that the secular elite has for jamming their version of the truth down people's throats.

Talking about "your truth, my truth, and the real truth" is just a cliche that people use to cop out of situations where they might have to think critically.

Personally, I think that accepting that the real truth might lie somewhere in between contributes greatly to critical thought. Accepting that I might be wrong compels me to think more critically of my version of the truth.

 

[Fusaki]

Who is anyone to say that faith has to be based on rational argument, or that faith is wrong, just because it's not peer reviewed?... Personally, I think that accepting that the real truth might lie somewhere in between contributes greatly to critical thought. Accepting that I might be wrong compels me to think more critically of my version of the truth.

How do you reconcile the ideas that on one hand faith does not require rational argument, but on the other hand it compels people to think critically? By definition critical thinking requires honest, logical, analysis.

 

[ModlrMike]

I don't try to, I'm not that pious. What I'm saying is that the secular elite want to deny people the opportunity to be wrong by forcing them to accept the "official truth" over all others. For people to be truly free, they have to be free to make the wrong choice from time to time.

 

[40below]

I don't try to, I'm not that pious. What I'm saying is that the secular elite want to deny people the opportunity to be wrong by forcing them to accept the "official truth" over all others. For people to be truly free, they have to be free to make the wrong choice from time to time.

People do have the freedom to be idiots. Other people, even those in the "secular elite" whatever the hell that is, are free to tell them that that it is exactly what they are personifying. 

Democracy - ain't she grand?

 

[ModlrMike]

Secular elite as opposed to Church elite.

Yes, they are free to tell people they're wrong, but they're not free to prevent them from being wrong. That's what these folks want.

 

[Fusaki]

I see no difference between the "official truth" that's being instructed in evolution, or the official truth being instructed in math, english, history, or chemistry.  We have standards of education and those standards can't change based on flimsy theories and religious mythology.

I've said earlier in this thread that I'm all for parents having the right to pull kids out of any class they don't want them to be in - whether that be math, history, science, or basket weaving 101. What I don't agree with is classes on evolution being treated any differently then any other class.

I don't see whats so unfair about that.

 

[vonGarvin]

I see no difference between the "official truth" that's being instructed in evolution, or the official truth being instructed in math, english, history, or chemistry.  We have standards of education and those standards can't change based on flimsy theories and religious mythology.

There is no "official truth" in the theory of evolution.  It is a theory, which means it is unproven.  Now, of course, with many theories, you cannot prove them right, you can only disprove them.  As for mathematics, there is no "official" truth, because unlike theories, you can prove certain things, such as 1+1=2. 
Your bias shows through when you describe contrary theories as "flimsy" and religion as "mythology".  It almost resorts to an ad hominem attack on the arguer, vice on the argument.
As for asserting that faith does not imply any critical or logical thinking is rather astounding.  Some of history's greatest critical thinkers were religious folks.  Yes, they used their critical thinking abilities to reinforce their faith, but they also used it in the sciences, in ethics, and so forth.

But this thread is devolving.  (Pun intended!)  Any theories that pass a common-sense test ought to be given their due.  The theory of evolution is one, and there are many, many more.  The danger is not in teaching these theories, but it is in attacking those who do not believe these theories.  Take for example the whole "Global Warming" bugaboo.  My children have been taught in class that the world will end in about 50 years.  I think I was told the same thing: 30 years ago. Back then it was due to CFCs.  Today, CFCs are the saviour of the planet, as they will replace those evil incandescent light bulbs.  I'm certain that my grandchildren will be taught that CO2 will be the saviour to rescue the planet from an ice age.  So, instead of labelling people who discount the theories you believe to be true, perhaps energies should be focussed instead on highlighting the merits of your own argument, and maybe even consider the fact that you just might be wrong.

In my opinion, that's what this is all about. I find it rather disturbing that opponents to this legislation were using "Human Rights" as the basis of their argument to effectively force people to be "enlightened", but only according to their standards.

 

[Fusaki]

Any theories that pass a common-sense test ought to be given their due. 

Does the Creation theory pass the common sense test?

 

[vonGarvin]

Does the Creation theory pass the common sense test?

This is exactly what I mean when I say that instead of attacking a theory, you should be reinforcing your own.  So, instead of me calling Darwin an idiot, I should instead be attempting to convince you that the Earth is supported on the back of a giant tortoise, which is on another, slightly larger tortoise, which goes on ad infinitum.  You may not accept this; however, for many people (and not just Christians, either), the Creation Theory in Genesis is accepted as fact.  In other words, they have as much faith in that creation theory as I do in the existance of my left foot.  To simply wish them all away as "idiots" is in itself idiocy, narrow-minded and judgemental.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Does the Creation theory pass the common sense test?

Not the point, that's not what this topic is about.


[Of course, maybe some advanced race brought a "Genisis" device, ala Star Trek 2..........does that make them "Gods"?]

 

[gcclarke]

But this thread is devolving.  (Pun intended!)  Any theories that pass a common-sense test ought to be given their due.  The theory of evolution is one, and there are many, many more.  The danger is not in teaching these theories, but it is in attacking those who do not believe these theories.  Take for example the whole "Global Warming" bugaboo.  My children have been taught in class that the world will end in about 50 years.  I think I was told the same thing: 30 years ago. Back then it was due to CFCs.  Today, CFCs are the saviour of the planet, as they will replace those evil incandescent light bulbs.  I'm certain that my grandchildren will be taught that CO2 will be the saviour to rescue the planet from an ice age. 

... What?!  CFCs, or Chlorofluorocarbons have absolutely nothing to do with light bulbs. Their primary use was as a  refrigerants, as well as a propellant for aerosol containers.

Fluorescent lighting, including the compact kind used to replace traditional light bulbs use mercury vapour and phosphor to emit light.

 

[vonGarvin]

Whoops!  I knew I messed up my acronyms!  Thanks for that. 

I guess I was thinking of the mercury within them (vice the chloroflourocarbons).

cheers

 

[Fusaki]

This is exactly what I mean when I say that instead of attacking a theory, you should be reinforcing your own.  So, instead of me calling Darwin an idiot, I should instead be attempting to convince you that the Earth is supported on the back of a giant tortoise, which is on another, slightly larger tortoise, which goes on ad infinitum.  You may not accept this; however, for many people (and not just Christians, either), the Creation Theory in Genesis is accepted as fact.  In other words, they have as much faith in that creation theory as I do in the existance of my left foot.  To simply wish them all away as "idiots" is in itself idiocy, narrow-minded and judgemental.

Why can't I attack a theory?

If someone is going to make a claim, then the burden of proof is on them to provide evidence to support it.  No one in the Creation camp is willing to do that.  There's nothing wrong with pointing out this logical fallacy.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

That's enough folks.

Lets pay attention to the title of this area of the forum, "Canadian Politics".

If anyone wishes to discuss the religious/ non-religious aspect of life, then take it to some other website that deals with those issues.

Now, back to the school topic.

 

[McG]

Why can't I attack a theory?  If someone is going to make a claim, then the burden of proof is on them to provide evidence to support it.  …  There's nothing wrong with pointing out this logical fallacy.

We have two logical fallacies at play here:

- you have not proven X, therefore X is not true
- you have not disprove X, therefore X is true

As was pointed out, a theory cannot be proven but it could be disproven.  Everything that happened before the time of recorded history (and much that has happened since) cannot be more than theory (because we lack the ability to go back in time and observe).  It is possible to stumble on evidence which that is incompatible with a theory.  Sometimes this disproves a theory, and other times it requires a theory to be amended. 

The ability to think critically is one of the skills our schools should be teaching.  The ability to look at conflicting theories and the available evidence in order to decide what one (themselves) believes to be true, is a skill that I do not think is being adequately developed in most young Canadians.  The best way for schools to develop this is to expose youth to conflicting theories and the arguments supporting each.

This does not even require contrasting of secular to religious theories.  There are plenty of opposing secular theories on all sorts of topics (from sciences to arts) that could be discussed.