…and this is a 
Look at this: they've explicitly added creationism to the public school curriculum in Queensland, Australia. That's just nuts.
They're even doing it in an entirely bogus way — they're teaching it as a controversy in history classes.
In Queensland schools, creationism will be offered for discussion in the subject of ancient history, under the topic of "controversies".
…
Queensland History Teachers' Association head Kay Bishop said the curriculum asked students to develop their historical skills in an "investigation of a controversial issue" such as "human origins (eg, Darwin's theory of evolution and its critics").
This is confusing. It sounds like they're going to be babbling about whether the earth is 6,000 years old or 4.5 billion years old, but that isn't history — that's just lunacy. There is some relevant history that could be taught, such as that from Ron Numbers' book, The Creationists, which explains how ideas about creationism changed over the years, talks about the major figures in the creationist movement, and describes how creationism itself has changed historically…but I doubt that the people who are backing this want the subject addressed seriously as a series of events in the last 100 years.
It's clear that they're just trampling on history as a back door to get pseudoscience into the curriculum. I keep telling people, these creationists are cunning — the science side of the debate has gotten hardened by repeated attacks, and is usually better prepared to resist the foolishness, so they switch targets and catch history or philosophy off guard. Every academic discipline is subject to this corruption.
Give it a few years, and if they're beaten back by the history professionals, just wait until they try to sneak in by claiming creationism is math, or health, or physical education (oh, wait, they've already gotten in there — in lots of schools, it's the Christian athletes who are often the center of creationist activity).
Comments
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
May 29, 2010 10:26 PM
I'd love to see the part where they discuss the tower of babel, and why egypt and china had different languages before that.
seriously, wtf?
Posted by: StevePr
|
May 29, 2010 10:30 PM
Unfortunately Queenlsand is our notorious bible belt state. Full of rednecks who believe the bible is gospel. It is oft said Qld is 25 yrs behind the rest of Australia. Unfortunately some of the other states are starting to be caught up in religious whackery as well but not to the extent of them yet.
I have few problems with our Prime Minister but Kevvy, a Qld'er, being a born again whacker is one of them.
Posted by: dark&twisty
|
May 29, 2010 10:48 PM
That's nothing compared to the private schools, which seem to get away with whatever the hell they want. The Christian school I attended wasn't even subtle about it. The teachers actively denied evolution in Biology class, and the Big Bang didn't escape the occasional cheap shot in Physics either.
Posted by: bassmanpete
|
May 29, 2010 10:51 PM
It would only take one visit and you wouldn't need to ask!
Posted by: Squirel52
|
May 29, 2010 10:56 PM
I hope the teachers make the best of a bad situation to go with the "here's the evidence for a 6000 year old earth *points to a blank whiteboard*, and here's the evidence for a 4.5 billion year old earth *begins a full class on how we know that the world is OLD, that we are evolved beings and that science is really freaking cool*"
We can but hope. I would like to see teachers being *allowed* to discuss religion in the classes, tell it like it is and ride roughshod over their lunacy. If the creationists have opened that door, lets pull it all the way open and make them regret it.
Posted by: Dogmeat
|
May 29, 2010 10:56 PM
For the record, not all of us Queenslanders are whackos, in fact when I explained the whole creationism thing to a few acquaintances they gave me a puzzled look and asked how something so stupid could even be considered. A lot of us are quite left wing, especially around Brisbane which is really starting to become a cultural hub for Australia. But I do understand where the stereotypes come from, especially if you're drawing your views from experiences with regional Queensland. Even as little as half an hour's drive from the urban areas can land you in redneck fundie territory.
Also, I hate to break it to you guys but creationism is already being pushed in Queensland's schools, and has been for decades at least. We already have mandatory religion studies classes at the primary school level where evangelical Christians push their worldview on impressionable students with kid-friendly colouring books and timelines. I remember being called in for assembly in early high school to be witnessed to as well, and have bibles handed to us. And I went to public school. And don't get me started on all the government funding that goes to private religious schools, or I guess I should call them state private schools.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
May 29, 2010 11:01 PM
Ken Ham is from Queensland...
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
May 29, 2010 11:07 PM
was it a coincidence I posted a link in another thread to FoC* telling us of the evils of OZ?
I think not!
*Flight of the Concords
Posted by: AmandaS
|
May 29, 2010 11:12 PM
It's not Queensland. It's included in the draft National Curriculum (ie all of Australia) which is currently being circulated for comment (to teachers etc). The whole thing is odd, because in terms of Young Earth Creationism, many of the topics that will be studied in Ancient History will be for time periods before the Earth was "created".
Comments can be made on the draft curriculum, so concerned Australians should comment away. Interestingly, one of the other topics that they can discuss in that bit of the course is Fakes & Forgeries and the Shroud of Turin is listed :).
A
Posted by: Die Anyway
|
May 29, 2010 11:23 PM
>"...in an entirely bogus way"
Oh noes! PZ, you used the 'bogus' word. Surely you will be sued within an inch of your life. Or some such.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
May 29, 2010 11:33 PM
oy. *facepalm*Posted by: jivlain
|
May 29, 2010 11:34 PM
It's not just Queensland: this is part of a national curriculum (it's just a Queensland newspaper). There is a consultation website where you can register your feedback. The creationist questions are under:
Explore 11-12->History->Ancient History->Unit 2a->Controversies
One thing to note is that creationism has been taught unofficially for some time in Queensland, as there are religious education classes (even in public schools), and at least some of the people who come in to teach those teach the garden of Eden etc as being literally true.
Posted by: skeptifem
|
May 29, 2010 11:37 PM
This approach will be brought to the us in a snap, for sure.
I hope it gets taught honestly here. Having the entire text of the scopes trial read, for instance, would not be so bad.
Posted by: robertdw
|
May 29, 2010 11:39 PM
i for one have no problem teaching creation myths in a history class. And the history of the creation movement is an excellent example of a controversial topic, on par with the civil rights movement for nuance and drama (though nowhere near as valid)
As long as it sticks to the history section, and taught as history, and (for the creation myth part) supplemented with other non-Biblical creation myths, I think it will work out great.
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
May 29, 2010 11:46 PM
If that's the case, why not dicuss the differences and similarities between Biblical creationism and other creation myths and how the story evolved over time? Oh wait, fundies wouldn't like that...
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
May 29, 2010 11:57 PM
"In Queensland schools, creationism will be offered for discussion in the subject of ancient history, under the topic of "controversies". "
A controversy in ancient history, that sounds about right. I suppose it will really be all about the manufactroversy though.
Posted by: luke.kirkwood
|
May 29, 2010 11:59 PM
This is about the National Draft Curriculum for all states. While I applaud any discussion in the classroom of the background of scientific debate, I really don't think that Ancient History is the appropriate venue for a discussion on the merits of Creationism as many History teachers would be ill equipped to answer some of the very complicated pseudoscientific questions that may arise from such discussions : Ozone Vapour Canopies, Irreducible Complexity in Bacterial Flagellum etc.
-------------------
Unit 2A of the Draft National Curriculum
In this unit, students critically analyse representations and interpretations of the ancient past through film, literature, art, virtual reality and websites.
Students investigate controversial historical and archaeological issues. Representations will be chosen from a range of ancient and modern sources.
....[snip]
Controversies
Students develop their historical skills in an investigation of TWO of the following controversial issues:
• a) human origins (e.g. Darwin’s theory of evolution and its critics)
• b) dating the past (e.g. radio-carbon dating, tracing human migrations using DNA)
• c) fakes and forgeries (e.g. Piltdown Man, the Treasure of Priam, Noah’s Ark, the Turin Shroud)
• d) the use and display of human remains (e.g. repatriation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander human remains, The Iceman, Egyptian mummies, Lady Dai)
• e) imperialistic attitudes towards archaeological property (e.g. Indigenous cultural artefacts from around the world)
• f) the ownership of cultural property (e.g. the return of Parthenon sculptures)
• g) the impact of war and terrorism on antiquities (e.g. the Buddhas of Bamyan, the looting of Iraqi museums)
• h) political and ideological uses of archaeology (e.g. archaeology under the Nazis and Fascists)
• i) a school-developed study of a controversial issue.
Students examine the nature and context of the controversy, including:
• the historical background
• the extent of the controversy (media coverage, nationalistic feeling, government involvement) and significant developments relating to the
controversy
• different perspectives and their bases
• an assessment of the different perspectives.
Posted by: AmandaS
|
May 30, 2010 12:01 AM
Which is interesting, because the majority of faith-based schools in Australia are Catholic schools. And official Catholic dogma is NOT Young Earth.
Young Earth creationism always give me terrible shudders in Australia, considering it gives peoples YET ANOTHER excuse to disenfranchise the Aboriginal population, who have a very long physical and spiritual history in this country, and enough crap spouted about that history. And much, much nicer creation myths. And no deities. Spirits, yes, but not deities. I would much prefer the Rainbow Serpent to a cranky misogynistic bloke in a white frock.
A
Posted by: tezzasaurus
|
May 30, 2010 12:09 AM
Looks like comment on the curriculum may be through here: http://www.acara.edu.au/consultation.html, but at the moment it appears aimed at "teachers and stakeholders".
Here for actual documents (Senior Years -> History -> Ancient History)...
Posted by: KKBundy
|
May 30, 2010 12:12 AM
I hate to admit this but it's kind of nice to know we don't have a complete monopoly on idiocy, merely a majority stake.
Then again it's kind of shitty to realize that when we fall apart from our lack of science, there will be few places remaining that still celebrate reality.
Are we doomed? I have to wonder.
Blessed Atheist Bible Study @ http://blessedatheist.com/
Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com
|
May 30, 2010 12:26 AM
Creationist fuckwits are everywhere not just here in the US! I hope there are smart students who asks questions like this:
Posted by: magnavox-23
|
May 30, 2010 12:26 AM
I am an ex student of this exact course and this is absolutely disgusting.
The Ancient History authority course deals primarily with ancient cultures - and while their beliefs are touched upon, those beliefs have never been presented as fact in the course. The beliefs of early Judeo-Christian cultures should be no different.
I was actually marked down in the final exam for this because there was a question pertaining to early Christian beliefs - the answer to which "you should be able to locate in the Bible".
Well of course being brought up Atheist, I never read the Bible in any proper sense, so I was unable to answer the question as a Bible was not provided or listed as 'required reading' during the course.
Posted by: mistermuz
|
May 30, 2010 12:30 AM
That sounds like a good topic for a history class to me. Potentially anyway.
If you're fifteen or whatever it'd be easy to come across these things from a position of ignorance and see them as of equal weight (and creationism certainly presents itself as such). Now do an investigation and see if they really are equal.
Queensland is a pretty weird place but I wouldn't assume immediately that this is some fundamentalism by stealth. I'd be all for kids doing that sort of critical review on all sorts of things. Holocaust denial would be another interesting one.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
May 30, 2010 12:40 AM
I hate to admit this but it's kind of nice to know we don't have a complete monopoly on idiocy, merely a majority stake.
yeah, it just pays better in the States.
...that's why Ham and Comfort went there.
Posted by: the bill
|
May 30, 2010 12:45 AM
First, any Aussie is going to say straight off 'Well, it's Queensland!' Think Alabama with better beaches! They've had Australia's worst education system for years.
Now I see above it's the new National Curriculum! Christ on a bike! I'll have to make a comment on that one.
Well, the Prime Minister is a Queenslander!...
Posted by: FossilFishy
|
May 30, 2010 1:02 AM
Ah shit. I moved from the Canadian province of Alberta, also know as the Texas of Canada, to Australia. In doing so I thought I'd left this kind of nonsense behind.
Very well said, and a good reason that this should be opposed. That said, looking at the list in #17 I'm not convinced that this is a deliberate fundie strategy.Posted by: the bill
|
May 30, 2010 1:15 AM
..and having looked at the actual curriculum on the website, as cited by Luke above, I find myself not greatly worried!
I'd be more than happy for my kids to study anything on that list in that context (except that they're in Uni now!) and applaud the inclusion of topics like the looting of Iraqi Museums under the US occupation, the blowing-up of the Buddhas of Bamyan (which was dreadful cultural loss for all, not just Buddhists or the religious), the political uses of Archaeology by the Nazis, and imperialistic attitudes to archaeological property.
And Noah's Ark and the Turin Shroud are specifically listed to be discussed as fakes! How cool is that?
Sure, we need to be alert - to ensure any PoMo cultural relativism doesn't undermine the important point that one thing's fact, while the other is fancy - but alarmed? Probably not. It's all a bit 'nothing to see here; move along', really
Posted by: TheCalmOne
|
May 30, 2010 1:35 AM
Oh Good God...
Well I'm currently doing my teacher training in Oz (Master of Teaching, after a 20 year career as an engineer in the doomed Australian automotive industry) and this has just shocked me. We all know about Queensland... but the National Curriculum??
This (the Nat. Curriculum) is a major change to Australian learning and teaching - relevant to me as a maths and physics teacher - and if these bastards get their foot in the door it will be an absolute bloody scandal.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
May 30, 2010 1:41 AM
Is it a coincidence that it's being pushed by a goddamned Bishop? (Even if it's not necessarily the sort that protects the god-given right of priests to rape children.)
I have a novel idea: teach history in history class, not superstitious fantasy.
Posted by: Great Waves
|
May 30, 2010 1:49 AM
For what it's worth, in NSW evolutionary biology was a major component of the science curriculum through every year of high school, taught as scientific fact (which isn't my impression of how things are often done over there). Moreover a secular ethics class is being trialled to provide an alternative to scripture courses in primary schools.
Also, I've only ever met a single young-earth creationist, who also believed the snake and whale stories, but was a pretty nice guy anyway.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
May 30, 2010 1:49 AM
Oh I wouldn't characterize creationists as cunning - they're dumb as all hell, but they're shameless and will try anything on. Perseverance is certainly not a sign of cunning or intelligence - as the Romans would say "stultus est in errore perseverant".
Posted by: Travis
|
May 30, 2010 1:55 AM
MadScientist, I seem to follow you around scienceblogs commenting on your posts.
Yeah, I agree. I would not say they are that cunning (they are cunning like Baldrick's plans I suppose). The plans I have seen have been pretty blunt, mindless plans characterized by being shameless and by their being rather arrogant thinking somehow no one will notice it or challenge them. When I look back at Dover I am amazed by the hubris displayed.
Posted by: F
|
May 30, 2010 2:38 AM
Is
%hellip;
some newfangled HTML5 entity that is supposed to display a current IPv4 address from one of the netblocks generally assigned to hell…
Posted by: Stephen_P
|
May 30, 2010 2:46 AM
If they wanted to teach a historical controversy, one which would get the students thinking, a good one would be the question of whether Jesus of Nazareth really existed. With a few footnotes on the question of whether the prophet Mohammed really existed.
One can dream ...
Posted by: Rorschach
|
May 30, 2010 2:56 AM
Surprised I didnt hear anything about this in the media at all.
It seems particularly curious to have creationism turning up in a history curriculum.Someone was desparate to get a foot in the door, methinks.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/3VqOIn82ssU6EW2X8VBX0nOP5UdUAh6wUSHD#42108
|
May 30, 2010 3:27 AM
This part of the article does give some hope, though: ... Griffith University humanities lecturer Paul Williams said it was important to be cautious about such content. "It's important that education authorities are vigilant that this is not a blank cheque to push theological barrows," Mr Williams said. "I would be loath to see it taught as theory. It's up there with the world being occupied by aliens since Roswell."
But if they are going to teach that the Earth is only 6k+ years old, how will they explain the carbon-dating of human habitation sites in Australia to 40k - 60k years ago?
Posted by: dezinerau
|
May 30, 2010 3:31 AM
We didn't hear about it in the media because it was an initiative created by our born-again fundie Prime Minister, who the media tend to love. They also have other things they think is more sensationalist, like asylum seekers (a.k.a. illegal immigrants) and "Great Big New Taxes". It will also be passed through senate by his opposition, an ex-seminary fundie, so either way, we're stuck with it.
Yup, we have a great choice of political parties here in Oz. Time for me to vote for the Greens, and I hope a lot of other people have the same idea.
Posted by: The Other Ian
|
May 30, 2010 3:44 AM
they switch targets and catch history or philosophy off guard.
Philosophy? God is already on the curriculum. We love to teach the controversy!
Oh please, mr scary creationist, please don't force me to teach Hume's fantastically sarcastic reply to the teleological argument.
Posted by: atheistlove
|
May 30, 2010 3:51 AM
it seems to me there are a lot of overly paranoid suscribers here... if its a "controversy" issue in a history class... ISN'T THAT WHERE ITS MEANT TO BE?? if you dont teach people the falsitys in this world while their young and open to new theorys.. they will only know the god that their parents teach them, NOW THAT IS DANGEROUS..
i can see religious and non-religious children getting into discussions,arguements and fights over this.. AND I SEE IT AS GOOD New-age truth-saying.. if you disagree with me, mabee you have the same tunnel-vision and uppity "im right" attitude that is prevailent in the virus of religion. RIGHT???? :-) live alive and love.
Posted by: V. infernalis
|
May 30, 2010 4:06 AM
One quote from that article really confuses me:
What the hell is a "faith science basis"?
Posted by: atheistlove
|
May 30, 2010 4:09 AM
p.s intelligence is not knowing 10 languages or the elemental table by heart,(OR ALL PSALMS)(LOL), thats knowlage, like a hard drive. intelligence is being able to take said knowlage and work it, dig into it, and come out with the UNSAID truth.
evoloution will only favour the intelligent.
Posted by: AmandaS
|
May 30, 2010 4:10 AM
Great Waves #30 - I'm with you. I did science, modern history, maths etc in the NSW public education system. Aside from the once a term religious classes, I was never taught anything other than evolution was a fact and the Earth was around 4.3 billion years old. There was never the slightest hint of anything approaching old or new earth creationism. Except for occasionally fighting with a couple of the Baptist girls in my class but that was inter-student level only :).
I have to say I looked up the National Curriculum and shrugged; it will depend on the teacher but I know my history teacher would have taught it as a controversy (and any sensible teacher would assign The Blind Watchmaker to read, and that book turned me into a confirmed atheist by the end of Chapter 1 :).
A
Posted by: Andrew Finden
|
May 30, 2010 4:27 AM
Seems to me that the heading of that article is just a case of running away with a soundbite, and the response here is just a knee-jerk reaction to a probably false perception. And let's not even get into all the anti-Qld bigotry going on!!
Oh, and #34 @Stephen_P: you may perhaps be confused by hanging around e-sceptic and anti-theist websites too much, but unlike on those sites, the Jesus-Myth theory has virtually no traction in serious, mainstream historical scholarship. It is a fringe position rejected by the vast majority of historians. It is to history what YEC is to science - indeed, there is virtually no substantial controversy there at all.
Posted by: Wormman
|
May 30, 2010 4:31 AM
Well I'm glad some other folks beat me to the punch on pointing this out as the great new national curriculum. In its defense, Qld actually has a curriculum at the moment which is superior to the national one - creationism is specifically kept out of science and history - however, because we're constantly told that ours is the bad one, we'll just have to knuckle down and accept "teach the controversey". It's interesting to note that while the controversy around Darwin is set down as an example, they don't offer the Holocaust or the 911 Truth movement as possible examples of other historical controversies.
It has to be said that for a few dark years in the 1980s (which matched up with my secondary schooling years), Qld did have young earth cretinism in the biology syllabus. The Qld Education Minister Lin Powell actually got a letter published in Nature defending the stance. However it was thrown out with the corrupt hillbilly Bjelke-Petersen government.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
May 30, 2010 4:45 AM
Pray tell how and what's the false perception here.
It's not bigotry when the things people criticise about Queensland are a matter of fact and public record, like the conservatism and anti-immigration attitudes, backwardness of the school and public hospital system and religiosity of residents.
Obviously QLD is not to blame for this creationism business since it's a national thing.
Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french
|
May 30, 2010 4:48 AM
What's wrong with them? Two words: Prison Colony.
trollface.jpg
Posted by: black-wolf72
|
May 30, 2010 5:39 AM
I find it darkly amusing that shortly after Dawkins labels them history denialists, they proceed to shove their ideology into history classes. I don't know, are they going out of their way to confirm every single allegation made against them on purpose?
Posted by: atheistlove
|
May 30, 2010 5:40 AM
YES, im the decendant of a first fleet prisoner.. MOST of them, MR shplane #46 ,where anarchists who fought for truth, and got lynched for it.
WHY BE SO INSULTIVE FOR? narrow minds create narrow thoughts, im tempted to say F U.. but im to polite for that.. hagd.
Posted by: Donald Oats
|
May 30, 2010 5:49 AM
This is exactly why one has to be on guard. It would be best for all if religion was kept out of schools entirely but that has never happened in Australia, since colonisation/settlement/invasion.
Queensland, unfortunately has is both the seat of Creationism in the Australasian and Pacific region; and, the seat of one side of the History Wars fought a few years ago in "The Australian" newspaper and in "The Quadrant" magazine. Both print foul-smelling favorable rants about the Christian religion as it relates to the Conservatives in Oz and the USA, and love to put a conservative's veneer upon our nation's (white) history. Needless to say, these two seats of stupidity inevitably mind-melded and made their way onto the national curriculum history board. Disappointing, to say the least, but this fight isn't over yet...
Posted by: neon-elf.myopenid.com
|
May 30, 2010 5:55 AM
I'm starting to get very embarrassed by my country. First Dr Woo and now this.
But I can't say I'n surprised that this is happening in Queensland.
For the non-Aussies out there, our northern states/territories are sort of our version of the American South and just as full of rednecks and fundamental Christianity. Of course, there are lots of excellent people there as well, but historically Queensland, in particular, has been seen as a hotbed of nutcases and bigots by those of us from the southern states.
Posted by: mistermuz
|
May 30, 2010 6:04 AM
Come on. Most need to relax about this. It's as good a topic as any for lessons on critical thinking, how research is done and how we arrive at truth, evidence v ideology etc.
Unless we prescribe to the idea that creationism is such an effective mind virus it can't even be mentioned to kids lest it overtake their reason, there's nothing to worry about on the face of it.
And no, you can't say 'that's exactly how it wormed its way in..." in some US situation. The systems and the cultures involved aren't nearly as comparable as they might seem on the surface.
Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french
|
May 30, 2010 6:58 AM
#48
trollface.jpg
Fuckin' jokes, how do they work?
Posted by: echidna
|
May 30, 2010 7:16 AM
Mistermuz,
If you want to teach about how difficult it is to give up bogus religious ideas, then a better topic is geocentricism.
One of the things that our education system strives for is to avoid exam questions that have a cultural bias. Putting in creationism questions does exactly that.
Posted by: atheistlove
|
May 30, 2010 7:27 AM
people can hate demographics all they want, just know the difference between someone blinded by the want of life after death and someone open to the truth of death is only genetic, some minds are built to be narrow-minded,and some are open, to be accepting of what you are told is to be blind, religious or non, to find your own way is a long path, to believe the songs of your fore fathers is a short path.... but as the oak grows slower than the pine, the pine is weak but the oak is strong. love.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
May 30, 2010 7:32 AM
I want what he's smoking.
Posted by: atheistlove
|
May 30, 2010 7:33 AM
australia is more open to the truth than the world believes... LOL.. get to REALY know us before you insult us. i will do the like for you...
Posted by: MadScientist
|
May 30, 2010 7:37 AM
I wrote to complain about their useless employment of the word "controversy". You can have scientific controversy or historical controversy and they basically arise for similar reasons, such as (1) conflicting claims without enough facts to back either claim (and of course both claims can be wrong or both can have some substance to them) and (2) professionals act dishonestly and do not appraise a claim according to the evidence presented - such a thing has happened numerous times in various scientific fields, for example with Nicolas Copernicus and his heliocentric model of planetary motion. There is no scientific (or historical) controversy regarding evolution or the age of the earth (even though there may be some fine disagreements on a very technical level). The other type of controversy which they talk about is socio-political controversy and such controversies arise from disagreements in values and in general cannot be resolved by facts. Confusing controversies over values with controversies over facts is pretty goddamned stupid.
I also poo-pooed the folks over including the Trojan War and the Jewish Exodus in history - goddamn, that shit is clearly mythology, not history. Maybe I should hit them with an enormous cluebat that reads "if gods direct the war, it's myth", but that might confuse them since Dubbyah claims that god told him to invade Iraq. However, when you look at contemporary history I don't believe any books make the claim that we invaded Iraq at god's request. Nor is god sending any fleetfooted heroes or parting seas or turning rivers to blood or turning sand into locusts ... all that god shit from the bible or the Iliad.
Posted by: atheistlove
|
May 30, 2010 7:40 AM
rorschach, i smoke truth and love baby, not hate , i hope you do baby, if you dont understand me ,you will :-)
Posted by: Not Guilty
|
May 30, 2010 7:45 AM
I lived in Queensland on the Gold Coast for 16 months and this just about fits in with their school system. It is notoriously terrible and it is a wonder the students can do anything. May as well maintain the reputation I suppose...
Posted by: mick.long
|
May 30, 2010 7:47 AM
There isn't a "controversy", just pushy preachers trying to push their idiotic non - science into the science curriculum.
Posted by: emanix
|
May 30, 2010 8:21 AM
Aw, come on, why not teach creationism - give the kids something to laugh at!
(Perhaps slotting it into history classes is wishful thinking, after all creationists are fossils from the dark ages, right?)
Posted by: emanix
|
May 30, 2010 8:23 AM
(On a marginally more serious note, knowing that there are kooks out there who believe this crap, and arming them with the critical thinking skills to defeat them has the potential to be a good thing, it really depends how it's done.)
Posted by: Roger Stanyard
|
May 30, 2010 8:38 AM
Are people from Queensland still known as banana benders? (No connection, apparently, with Ray Comfort).
It's not just that ken Ham started his career as a professional conman in Queensland. His then partner, John "Necrophilia" Mackay, also a banana bender, still operates his Creation research operation from Queensland. Worse still, Ken Ham's old outfit, Creation Ministries International, also is headquartered in Queensland.
Ham and "Necrophilia" Mackay started up as full time professional con artists by selling creationist "science" textbooks to Queensland schools. Quuensland went on to drop the requirement to teach cretinism in science lessons which put ken Scam and Necrophilia out of a job until they dreamed up the forerunner to Answers in Genesis. However Scam and "Necrophilia" Mackay quickly fell out - it appears that "Necrophilia" kept hearing voices in his head and was barmy even by cretinist standards.
Of course, the stupidest creationist on the Internet, Laurie Appleton, lives in rural Queensland.
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
May 30, 2010 8:41 AM
That "truth and love" you're smoking is probably illegal in many countries. :-)
Posted by: Harbo
|
May 30, 2010 9:52 AM
They didn't specify which creation story so;
Start with Pratchett's turtle and work Backwards.
Posted by: Rosita
|
May 30, 2010 10:26 AM
The problem would be solved if the Queensland or National Australian curriculum set mandatory textbooks as part of the system. In that case, Ron Number's book would be just the thing to include. Another possibility is to be specific about what should be included in the topic - including a secular history of the idea (such as outlined by Numbers).
Unfortunately, this would be difficult to police unless the examinations are nationally based and graded.
Posted by: Stephen_P
|
May 30, 2010 11:24 AM
@Andrew Finden: I have on numerous occasions read statements to the effect that the Jesus-Myth theory is "rejected by the vast majority of historians". What I have never yet seen is any concrete reasoning behind this. On what basis do they reject the considerable quantity of evidence presented by people such as Earl Doherty?
I have on a couple of occasions been pointed to articles which proved to be utterly vacuous - can you do any better?
Posted by: CherryBombSim
|
May 30, 2010 11:44 AM
" h) political and ideological uses of archaeology (e.g. archaeology under the Nazis and Fascists)"
This one could be a real hoot. The students could investigate their own curriculum.
Posted by: Icaria
|
May 30, 2010 1:32 PM
For a minute there, I though PZ was simply assuming the worst and over-reacting. On the surface, it seems like a reasonable idea: teach students about historical controversies - that is, matters which were controversies.
Until you get into the actual wording of the curriculum consultation sheet, which clearly implies that:
"a) human origin (eg. Darwin's theory of evolution...
b) dating the past (eg. radio carbon dating...
c) fakes and forgeries (eg. Piltdown Man...
d) the use and display of human remains..."
(All direct quotation from the PDF)
Are all current controversies.
Even more transparent than 3 of the 4 topics (and their first-mentioned examples) being the staples of every creationist's diet, is the requirement for students to study 2 of the 4 topics. There's really no escape.
Makes all this idle chatter about Julia Gillard stepping up to the role of PM, however implausible, quite worrying. As Education Minister, education already represented the weakest part of Labor's policy portfolio, both in terms of vision and progress after 3-odd years time, to actually do something. If this is what they have to offer, it was better when they were just promising laptops to students and not delivering.
Posted by: AndrewTheEternal
|
May 30, 2010 1:54 PM
@58:
OldFartRants?
That you?
Posted by: Wormman
|
May 30, 2010 6:02 PM
Not sure anyone is still following this thread, but could all of you smug southerners (I'm looking at you Rorshach) actually read the article - this isn't just Queensland, this is national. As I said earlier, the current Queensland curricula in history and the sciences which will be replaced by this crud either don't mention cretinism or actively say that evolution is the way to go. Your superior schools south of the border will have to teach this as well.
I'm not sure on what you base the idea that the Queensland curriculum is inferior to yours (short-lived dabblings with equal time in the 1980s aside), however, but give a system where I can have a little flexibility in my teaching to suit the kids anytime. I've taught in remote places (Qld actually has places which are more than 3 hours away you know) and I'd much prefer to be able to teach ecological principles in Mt Isa using spinifex grasslands rather than have to teach the kids about mangrove wetlands because that's what's in the centralised exam.
BTW, while this whole things has been blown out of proportion and misrepresented by the Murdoch press (no, really ?) I do see a pattern here with the Rudd government trying to appease the happy clapping faithful. Preference deals to get a young earth creationist into the senate where he holds the balance of power ? A national net filter to rival China and N Korea ? A guarantee to continue the shameful government funding of private and religious schools ? Now a backdoor for cretinism to be taught in the classroom. The happy clapeprs must be laughing - someone need to tell Mr Rudd that despite all of these favours he's doing them they still won't vote for him though.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
May 30, 2010 7:26 PM
I have on numerous occasions read statements to the effect that the Jesus-Myth theory is "rejected by the vast majority of historians". What I have never yet seen is any concrete reasoning behind this. On what basis do they reject the considerable quantity of evidence presented by people such as Earl Doherty?
while it's not like you couldn't find this information out for yourself, you could try starting here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2569440864215926514#
Hector Avalos
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
May 30, 2010 7:28 PM
I have on a couple of occasions been pointed to articles which proved to be utterly vacuous
I suspect, though, you really don't WANT an answer to your question.
yeah, you are indeed pretty transparent.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
May 30, 2010 7:31 PM
...crap, my apologies, I took the argument Andrew presented and somehow reversed it onto yours, Stephen.
so, direct all of what I said at Andrew.
*goes to find coffee*
Posted by: Cobolt
|
May 30, 2010 7:36 PM
I can't see where the problem is here. Even if these topics are presented as controversial, as opposed to verified facts, it will get every student thinking critically about the subject matter as they research why they are deemed to be controversial. If the premise is based on solid evidence, which I think we all know it is, then the controversy will be shown to come from the creationist argument.
This, surely, has to be a good thing.
Posted by: Dnic
|
May 30, 2010 7:58 PM
Fantastic news today about the exciting discovery of Aboriginal art depicting extinct avian megafauna:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/31/2913350.htm
If they want to teach the controversy, let's get Ken Ham back here to tell local Aboriginal communities they are liars at having misrepresented how long they've been living in Australia.
Will make for entertaining viewing.
Posted by: iamjustme
|
May 30, 2010 8:43 PM
Icaria @69
Ok mate, there are four or five other topics there which you've quietly not quoted that have nothing to do with the fundy agenda. .
But... the topic as listed could really go either way. Given how many kids are being raised as evolution deniers, I'd actually welcome the teaching of the historical ridiculousness of YEC in schools. If I were an ancient history teacher I'd very pointedly pick that topic for my class.
The problem with teaching controversies, though, is that you will inevitably leave kids exposed to teacher bias.
In other news, though, I'm not sure what half of those controversy topics have to do with ancient history, beyond that they involve the modern use of ancient artifacts. They are all about relatively modern events and/or issues that are better placed in a social studies course.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
May 30, 2010 9:52 PM
@Rosita #66: The problem with mandated texts is that the publishers will howl about unfair trade practices. We need an authoritative electronic repository structured to generate the material needed for classes - that should bring the cost down because all you need to do then is put up bids for the printers rather than publishers. It will just cost a small fortune to build up that electronic repository to begin with. For the physical sciences there are no variations in the content, unlike history in which any 2 groups will have their own versions of events and everyone will want to say something different. But for, say, Australia it should be possible to have a coherent electronic text even for history.
Posted by: blah
|
May 30, 2010 11:42 PM
Can anyone explain what is so bad about presenting two sides to an argument?
Maybe, yeah, maybe Evolution is the better side.
But where there is one claim, the other side has another.
In my experience, ID is not a completely bunk theory. it raises its own questions which I, as an evolutionist, have been kind of creeped by.
Anyone who denies ID it's basis in science is, i think, Ignoring a great deal.
So what is wrong with presenting an alternate "hypothesis"?
Posted by: Usagichan
|
May 30, 2010 11:51 PM
blah 'evolutionist' @79
This post will no doubt cross many others, but please provide links to the peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that present the basis that ID has in science. Once it is clear that there is really 'another side' to the argument, it can be addressed. Otherwise, all you have done is made an unsupported assertion (not even an argument).
Posted by: mistermuz
|
May 31, 2010 1:48 AM
For contrast, here's a guy who thinks there's not nearly enough christianity in the new sylab...er..i and the whole thing is a white guilt PC brownwash.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2913756.htm
Posted by: chaseacross
|
May 31, 2010 2:51 AM
I'd love to see the contortions necessary to put ID into math....
Posted by: JulesAus
|
May 31, 2010 3:02 AM
The evidence is heavily weighted towards evolution if people actually look at the issue - advances in medicine, biology and computer science against the opinions of a church that has, historically, been wrong every time.
Why, exactly, are people so angry about teaching this in schools as historical controversy?
I'm a bit surprised by the "ancient", but this seems like both legitimate history, and an atheist win to me.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
May 31, 2010 3:08 AM
Interesting term you use there, "evolutionist". DI lingo much ?
Posted by: John Scanlon FCD
|
May 31, 2010 3:08 AM
blah, you seem to be too easily 'creeped'. Did you know that: There are more peer-reviewed research papers on the subject of traumatic anal intercourse with a pig than on intelligent design.
They've had plenty of time to present either hypotheses or evidence. It's time to put that 'controversy' to rest.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
May 31, 2010 3:13 AM
Pics or it didn't happen !
Posted by: blah
|
May 31, 2010 10:29 PM
Answers research journal has sported several "peer reviewed articles" about ID.
Also, there is major bias against all proponents of ID, or anything similar, so getting a peer reviewed article outside of some few the more accepting circles is extremely difficult.
I am confident that if, ID was allowed more room to breathe, we could have quite an interesting debate on our hands.
Posted by: blah
|
May 31, 2010 10:32 PM
@ comment 80...
"evolutionist"...
I believe in evolution as long as I can be convinced as its truth...
however, I'm am an opened minded person..which means, if I hear a convincing argument for the other side, i am willing to question my belief.
that is something every logical person should do.
Posted by: Usagichan
|
June 1, 2010 1:25 AM
blah,
Firstly you should perhaps consider that the term 'evolutionist' is very rarely used outside certain religious circles - it makes you sound like the opposite of what you claim.
Secondly, evolution is not something that requires 'belief' any more than gravity is. There is evidence for it, which can be found in scientific literature. The evidence can be examined (should you have the time and inclination) and challenged. Belief is a requirement only of that which cannot be tested and verified.
Thirdly, ID is hardly short of proponents or finances - there is a massive vested interest in achieving some sort of acceptance for it. Still it cannot make any progress - new scientific theories aren't given 'time to breathe' - they are challenged mercilessly, and if they are sufficiently robust get absorbed into the current understanding of their disciplines - even then they can be challenged. Why should ID be made a special case?
Finally, I repeat, if there is any real evidence for ID, for heavens sake present it or point us to it. Most of the ID stuff I have read (and I have read quite a bit) amounted to argument from ignorance (we don't know how this happened therefore external agency must be involved), argument from incredulity (it is unbelievable that this can have happened by chance, therefore external agency must have been involved) or presuppositional arguments (I know external agency was involved, so if I selectively interpret the evidence it can support my existing certainties). As an optimist I don't believe that ignorance is an inevitable state of humanity, and that all things can be understood given time and effort - ID strikes me as an attempt to smuggle intrinsic ignorance into scientific knowledge.
Posted by: YamaZaru
|
June 1, 2010 5:04 AM
I always like Hitchens' idea about increasing historical examination of religions in school curricula, showing them to be cultural objects which change all the time despite their "eternal truths". Of course this can only be done in a school system which has mechanisms in place to ensure that the curriculum isn't "captured" by proselytizers trying to use it as a trojan horse. I definitely wouldn't trust a development like this in most schools districts in the US, and from what's been said about Queensland's tendencies it looks similar.
But hey, the creationists attack evolution mainly to get to their real targets: history and social studies. Looks like they got some advice from Don McLeroy and decided to cut right to the chase.
Posted by: Icaria
|
June 2, 2010 10:15 AM
@ iamjustme #77
I wouldn't consider ellipsizing my omissions and disclaiming that these were the first examples given, "quietly not quoting". I also count two additional examples, which wouldn't likely interest the fundies. I remain uncertain about the Shroud of Turin and Noah's Ark examples.I agree with you that most of this doesn't fit the brief of Ancient history, though.
Posted by: breadfan
|
June 11, 2010 5:51 AM
So obviously it has been made clear by now that this is a NATIONAL curriculum, not just a Queensland thing. It started in Canberra and Queensland (much to the dismay of some of the previous commenters, I'm sure) is actually where there is MOST resistance by the education department as far as I am aware.
Just to clear things up for international readers who are being told Queensland is the bible-belt of Asutralia by people who've probably never actually been to the state...
Australia is a big place. The state borders aren't strict political or religious borders like, say, the US. It's impossible to say which is a red state and which is a blue state, which is a christian state and which is a not-so-christian state - you would have to scale it down. However, the way it can be compared to the US is that the further inland you go, the smaller the population centres get, and the more Christians you get.
QLD has most country towns after NSW. This may be why there is this generalisation (Brisbane has only recently developed into a 'major' city, and I would propose that it takes the presence of such a 'major' city to offset the "hick" perception caused by low population yet numerous country towns).
In Brisbane today, there is minimal religiosity. You get occasional fundies in the street like anywhere else, and people ignore them, or make fun of them (more on that to come). Churches remain largely empty on Sundays. I would even suggest that in Brisbane there is in fact a greater anti-religious sentiment than anywhere else in the country.
If you want a real bible belt state, try South Australia or Western Australia - I visited Perth at the end of last year, where they are actually selling Jesus as a brand and advertising christianity on TV. Coincidentally if you want to talk about a place being stuck in the past, when I arrived I literally thought it was 1975, the people (especially airport security guards) were dressed like extras from Saturday Night Fever and everything, save for the highways, just had that disco-era 'colour' to it (lots of funky carpets and coloured glass everywhere).
Now, the problem with Queensland is that it is the only state in Australia not to have the word secular included in its education act since 1910, when once influential churches successfully threw their weight into a campaign to remove it.
However, thanks to the 2006 National Schools Chaplaincy Program, every school in the country gets their own Christian chaplain, usually from an evangelical church (evangelicals comprise roughly 5% - at most - of the Australian population whereas non-religious folk constitute over 20% of the population). Coincidentally, Queensland's population constitutes about 20% of the national population, so even if we had every evangelical in the country living here, they'd only make up a quarter of the state's population.
As a Queensland native I have to say, there is plenty wrong with this state. There are a lot of what we call 'bogans', much more in Brisbane than say Melbourne. However, they are generally all found in certain areas and I think you'll find there are just as many shitty areas in the Southern east-cost states (e.g. Frankston in Victoria). A result of the bogan culture, however, seems to be that in Brisbane people aren't ultra-sensitive to political correctness. I've strolled the streets of Melbourne dressed in a cheap Batman suit and nobody said a word (to my chagrin). In Brisbane I would be heckled every few seconds. I love Melbourne and often go there, and am yet seen a preacher on the street. However, I'm sure that if there were one, people would be polite, take the pamphlet and throw it away when they turned a corner. In Brisbane, that street preacher would be subjected to regular ridicule.
So while Queensland might not be the classiest state (and I'm not so proud of this fact), as far as being THE bible state, there are at least 3 states and a territory that are without question more deserving of the title.
My comment is long enough so I shaln't go into my opinion on the actual curriculum (which is a shame because I actually have an opinion on it).