Intelligent Design

Coffee!! Alberta: Parents can withdraw students from classes where evolution is discussed?

Spread the love

Apparently, under a new Alberta (a Canadian province) law, evolution classes will be optional. (Evolution classes optional under proposed Alberta law, CBC, April 30, 2009).

Frank Bruseker, the head of the Alberta Teachers’ Association, is meeting with Hancock on Monday to raise his concerns.

“If parents don’t want that kind of education for their children they have a couple of options,” Bruseker said. “One would be home schooling or private school. So for a public school to start excluding based on religious preference, I think is a mistake.”

Bruseker said it would be difficult for teachers to avoid the topic of evolution in science or geography classes.

Okay, let’s set the record straight here. This is self-exclusion, not exclusion by the system itself.

Apart from the fact that the policy is wrong, it also sounds unworkable. Won’t some students just use “evolution” or “sex” (that’s another hitch in the craw, according to the article) as an excuse to get out of the school day early and avoid homework?

Well, shiver me timbers and blow me down. Who would ever have thunk that?

No, seriously, if a parent insists on a student being excluded from a class due to concerns about these topics (and there  is plenty to be concerned about), my suggestion is that the student be assigned hard math problems instead.

Look, it can’t fail. The students who just want an excuse to lark will be sorry – and won’t try it again.

The ones who can’t stand the nonsense (current Darwinian evolution theory) or vice (much sex education) will be learning something useful.

Also, More tales from the Altenberg: Suzan Mazur’s interview with David Koch

3 Replies to “Coffee!! Alberta: Parents can withdraw students from classes where evolution is discussed?

  1. 1
    DATCG says:

    Denyse,

    About More tales from Altenberg.

    I like Mazur’s interviews you posted at Post Darwinist.

    I followed the rabbit. She ask several interesting questions happening in science today.

    Suzan Mazur: You’ve stated that we’ve never, in fact, had a theory of evolution and that Charles Darwin’s idea of natural selection was not a theory. Is there any point then in making an “Extended Evolutionary Synthesis”?

    A. Lima-de-Faria: There is no place for compromise. That is what most people have done before and continue to do. The long procession of criticisms of Darwinism and “new theories;” that were supposed to substitute it were easily silenced. The main reason is that most of them, if not all were compromises, in which selection was still given some role in an undefined form.

    The other main reason was that no physico-chemical alternative was produced. There was no sufficient evidence on the self-assembly of molecules and cells and on the molecular mechanisms that established the coherence of chromosome organization. The result was that they were easily dispensed with.

    Since you are from New York, may I take the liberty to mention that in 1964 when I was a visiting professor at Duke University (Anatomy Department), I was invited to occupy the Chair of Genetics at Columbia University, a position which I declined.

    A previous colleague at this university was Thomas Morgan who developed Drosophila genetics (Nobel laureate 1933). He stated that science was 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration. I must confess that I have not even pretended to have that 1%.

    Most of us are aware of the limitations of our knowledge and are only compelled to draw the logical conclusions of the results that we have accumulated(consolidated and conserved information). This is why I never called my novel concept of autoevolution a “new theory”.

    Theories, in advanced sciences, such as chemistry and physics, are based on a coherent body of knowledge that allows predictions.

    No prediction seems to be possible at present concerning biological transformation.

    Darwin could not tell, and no one can tell today what species will come after humans, sparrows or lilies. Since I always abhorred abstract models and “arm-chair theories”, which abound in the literature, I looked for a physico-chemical mechanism that may not “explain” evolution but may elucidate its origin and dynamics.

    ()parens mine.

    Very bold statements. I wonder if this ignites a war of words and emails his way?

    And another question by Mazur:

    Suzan Mazur: You describe biological evolution as a “prisoner of the rules and principles guiding the construction of matter and energy”. You also say biological evolution is terminal. What happens next?

    Lima-de-Faria: Obviously, no one knows what will happen next. Instead we need to concentrate on what is well established at present, that may give us a key to the order evident in biological transformation.

    The origin of form and function must be sought in the process of self-assembly. This is not an abstraction but a permanent event which has been demonstrated to take place at the level of elementary particles (by physicists), atoms (chemists), macromolecules (biochemists) and cells (biologists).

    The experimental results have been available for the last 35 years but have been ignored or silenced to avoid creating cracks in an edifice based on randomness and selection.

    Self-assembly is a term coined by biochemists to describe the spontaneous aggregation of multimeric biological structures involving formation of weak chemical bonds between surfaces with complementary shapes. Isolated subunits can spontaneously assemble in a test tube into the final structure, a process that is inevitable and automatic.

    So, he is arguing self-assembly is a construct evolved from the beginning of Big Bang.

    I’m curious how this squares with David Abel’s papers on Ordered information vs Organized Function.

    Also, Dean Kenyan a PhD in biophysics, author of Biochemical Predestination. Known to UD and ID proponents who argued for self-assembly thru chemical processes later abandoned the idea. I’m curious what he thinks of Faria’s “three evolutions” and the last evolution as a predestined event.

    One of the interesting statements I bolded is quite controversial or not?

    “The experimental results have been available for the last 35 years but have been ignored or silenced to avoid creating cracks in an edifice based on randomness and selection.”

    So, is he stating there is a doctrine forced on the public at-large not true being taught at most levels of education except possibly grad level work I assume?

    Kudos to Susan Mazur. I think the statements by Faria deserve a separate post. And I’m curious what other scienstist like Dean Kenyon think or Behe.

    I hope this reposted comment is correctly transferred.

  2. 2
    DATCG says:

    Wow, so much rich information from Mazur’s interview with Faria:

    “Suzan Mazur: The irony is scientists are the best funded intellectuals and in exchange for government grants agree to ensure the public welfare — yet funds are being squandered on the outdated Darwinian and neo-Darwinian approach to evolution. To what do you attribute this?”

    “A. Lima-de-Faria: Grants are awarded by your colleagues who sit in Research Councils and Foundations. Most of us, in any establishment, tend to be conservative and to follow what is called the paradigm. This creates a cycle of submission. All courage that you may have in life is never enough. One prerequisite in the scientific endeavor is that you are so stupid that you never understand what your colleagues say.

    LOL, this guy is a riot.

  3. 3
    Robert Byers says:

    Alberta is at least trying to bring some justice.
    If the bible and so christianity for many is being attacked on its origin doctrines then either there should be equal time or nothing or at least let kids escape.

Leave a Reply