Creationism to be taught in Queensland classrooms.
31May. 10
This article was also posted at bastardsheep.com
The thin edge of the wedge (the name of the strategy being actively used by the anti-reality, anti-science, and pro-creationism thinkignorancetank The Discovery Institute) has left its mark in the Queensland department of education. Creationism has wormed its way in to Queensland classrooms.
On a positive note, the mythology of creationism hasn’t found its way in to science classes as it has in numerous states in America, but the fact it found its way in at all is still bad. In Queensland it will be taught in History class under the subject of “controversial issues”.
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”).
What creationism/evolution has to do with history I honestly don’t know. If the topic was creation mythos vs archaeology I could understand, but evolution? They may as well be teaching it in math class for all the relevance it has. This reads as though it is directly out of The Discovery Institutes strategy guide.
Associated Christian Schools executive officer Lynne Doneley welcomed the draft curriculum, saying it cemented the position of a faith-based approach to teaching.
It’s a shame it does nothing to support a reality-based approach. Teaching fiction/mythology as reality is damaging. It’s that simple. This is abhorrent and needs to be stopped.
“We talk to students from a faith science basis, but we’re not biased in the delivery of curriculum,” Mrs Doneley said. “We say, ‘This is where we’re coming from’ but allow students to make up their own minds.”
“make up their own minds” is a favourite line of the anti-reality conspiracy theorists. It’s used repeatedly by creationists, republican history revisionists, anti-vaxxers, alt-medders. You name it, if it’s a group that doesn’t have facts, evidence and science to back up their claims they’ll come in with “just teach/inform both and let the students/mothers/people make up their own minds”.
I’m sorry, but it doesn’t work that way. The point of schools is to inform kids, not misinform them. Providing someone with information and misinformation with both being given equal footing then letting them make up their own minds doesn’t help anybody.
To steal a line from Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer …
May 31st, 2010 at 8:25 pm
You really don’t know what part creationism has played in history? It was a primary worldview up until not too long ago.
With some reservations, I think it’s entirely appropriate for creationism to be taught as part of history. Read more at my blog: http://fightingskeptic.blogspot.com/2010/05/creationism-to-be-taught-in-queensland.html
May 31st, 2010 at 8:36 pm
I think I’ve already answered your question.
“What creationism/evolution has to do with history I honestly don’t know. If the topic was creation mythos vs archaeology I could understand, but evolution?”
It’s not the “creationism” I’m questioning, but it’s comparison to evolution in history class. If it was the controversy of creationism vs what archaeology shows us then I could understand its place in history class.
May 31st, 2010 at 11:05 pm
I read this on Pharyngula too. Very distressing news. I think the problem is not in teaching school children that there is this thing out there called creationism or of the history of the concept. Without the history, you can’t fully understand how damaging the current creationists could be (or perhaps already are). The problem lies in the continual teaching of it as a controversy of science. This is the misleading part. It is similar in some ways to the teaching of religion as an entity in school. RE is, in principle, not such a bad idea, if taught correctly. Comparative religion is a good thing to teach kids, show them that there are an almost infinite number of religions, equally sure that they are correct and you can open their eyes to the idea that another option is that none are correct. Unfortunately, RE is most often taught as a (insert denomination) education.
May 31st, 2010 at 11:22 pm
I’m torn. I understand the reaction but the draft curriculum offers no guidelines to establish if the subject has value.
Many of us have actually said that if creationism is to be taught, it should be taught as a historical artifact with no grounding in reality. This could happen here but without more information, it could also just as easily be the “foot in the door” that rational people fear.
Who decides if the child successfully “investigated” the subject? Would a child who showed science to be superior get higher marks than one who didn’t — or would that make it science? Is it even possible to seriously investigate it without a thorough understanding of the science?
And it’s in “ancient history” so modern arguments like those used by Intelligent Design proponents would presumably be out of bounds in a rigorous assessment.
I’m sure he wasn’t voted “Mr Popular” but exactly how big was the controversy in Darwin’s day?
June 1st, 2010 at 9:06 am
Dont forget to add this to the curriculum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Rwanda#Origin_myths
and this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pai_Marire
job done
June 1st, 2010 at 10:05 am
I’d just like to clarify a few things in this article that I don’t think came across very clearly going by the feedback so far. I’m not saying creationism should be repressed due to it being creationism. I just don’t see how creationism as it relates to evolution is relevant in history class. Biology and science class yes, but not history. Creationism as it relates to geology and archaology would fit in to history class, and if that is what was being tought I would be in full support of it.
Another thing mentioned in the curriculum that is often seen in Creationism/Intelligent Design circles is talk about carbon and other dating methods. These do relate to history though. I did not mention them as I do support their discussion in this subject.
You could say that it was a controversial topic in the past/history, and I would agree, it was. However, when this is followed up by statements such as those coming from Mrs Doneley, it comes across more and more like DI’s thin edge of the wedge strategy.
This is the reason I am opposed to it. Bring it back to being topics that deservedly should be in History class, stop putting history teachers in situations where biology teachers would be in a better position to handle and then I’ll be ok with it.
June 1st, 2010 at 1:48 pm
@Bastard Sheep:
Mmm, I think the problem is, who do we charge with teaching our children about the historical controversy that was creationism (back in the days of Darwin) — biology teachers, or history teachers?
While biology teachers have a greater grasp of the science, I believe it’s irrelevant to really talk in detail about what came before Darwin and what those early “evolution skeptics” (I use the term loosely) used as arguments against his new theory, as it may confuse children, especially those who are moderately to highly religious.
History teachers, on the other hand, have the (partial) role of talking about the history of human ideas and that may, in some cases, require them to talk about past scientific controversies. And yes, it was a controversy — there wasn’t necessarily science to back up the other side, but it was an issue that had broad impacts on society and the way the public viewed science. Within the context of a history class, teaching about what people believed before the advent of Darwin and all that came after him makes perfect sense. It may not be the best use of high school class time, but it’s not a *bad* idea.
Biology teachers have enough on their plate — teaching history would impact on their job even further. I’d prefer more time be spent teaching kids why evolution is right as opposed to why people thought, historically, that evolution is wrong.
June 2nd, 2010 at 12:13 pm
i don’t know guys, looking to find some evidence that this Kay Bishop, who is head of QLD history teachers is in ANY way linked to any kind of creationists nonsense,
http://www.mysite.com.au/newsletters/communicator.asp?SID=543&EID=622840&NID=5962
she looks like a scholar and a leader in the field … someone we should point to as proof of the high standards in public education … someone find me a link between her and creationism … this all seems very legit, and reflects badly on skepticism to take it at anything other than good scholarship and competent history.
Kay Bishop, an exemplar of education standards in Australia.
I nominate her for “skeptical teacher of the year” award.
February 1st, 2011 at 12:46 pm
here we go again. not worth arguing here the points of creationists. They are and have been absolutly disgraced by science. For those with an open mind refer to Kitzmiller et al versus Dover School Board, the Scopes monkey Trial and read the scathing attack by Judge Jones . Also read Ian Plimer, international recognised geology authority Telling Lies for God. Creationists are unarguably Flat Earth believers. For those attacking science do not take antibiotics, burn your refrigator, throw away your mobile phone and car and buy a horse. For rational people creationism or ID is fundamentalist religion NOT science. It has no part at all in schools.
October 20th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
I would whole heartedly support this subject in school if it were a ‘dead’ belief such as Greek mythology (after all, it is a myth people). The problem is there are too many actual believers out there that are worming their way into our children’s vulneralbe minds. Think about this, my children still believe in Santa. They will stop believing in him later because nobody else (especially adults) do not. Now put god or jesus in their head to believe in at this age and when they grow up they’ll see other people believing and presto…brainwashed and the cycle continues. As Richard Dawkins said, teaching religion to children is child abuse.
“Reality doesn’t give a damn about your beliefs”