http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/quee ... 5899437968

Finally, the insidious practice of religious nuts infiltrating our schools and subverting science with their mythological wankery has been brought to public attention in my home state of Queensland. Today's Sunday Mail newspaper had a Front Page headline entitled "Jurassic Class" and a 2 page spread on pages 4 and 5 about it.

The link above is to the on-line version. The dumb-ass reporter, at least in the print version, makes the mistake of saying that Dinosaurs lived 6.5 million years before humans rather than 65 million years. I guess they weren't paying attention when they were listening to their scientific source.

I hope that this front page article generates discussion and gets religion out of our schools and confined to churches, mosques and temples where it belongs.

Durro

Oh God.

"DNA wasn't invented then."

Blitzkrebs wrote:Oh God.

"DNA wasn't invented then."

Clearly its not difficult to become a teacher in some places. Then again given the some of conversations I've had with teachers in the UK being an ignorant fuckwit when it comes to science doesn't seem to be a barrier. This ignorance is particually dangerous in teachers as they can often be arrogant bastards and assume that anyone who disagrees with them must be wrong.

Especially those humanities teachers *Shakes fist*

This is happening in Aus?!

Ubjon wrote:

Blitzkrebs wrote:Oh God.

"DNA wasn't invented then."

Clearly its not difficult to become a teacher in some places. Then again given the some of conversations I've had with teachers in the UK being an ignorant fuckwit when it comes to science doesn't seem to be a barrier. This ignorance is particually dangerous in teachers as they can often be arrogant bastards and assume that anyone who disagrees with them must be wrong.

Especially those humanities teachers *Shakes fist*

These aren't teachers. These are volunteers who come into the classroom to tea........... indoctrinate students to their religious beliefs.

We all know from the Flintstones that dinosaurs and humans were contemporaneous.

Durro wrote:http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/queensland-students-taught-humans-coexisted-with-dinosaurs/story-e6freoof-1225899437968

Finally, the insidious practice of religious nuts infiltrating our schools and subverting science with their mythological wankery has been brought to public attention in my home state of Queensland. Today's Sunday Mail newspaper had a Front Page headline entitled "Jurassic Class" and a 2 page spread on pages 4 and 5 about it.

The link above is to the on-line version. The dumb-ass reporter, at least in the print version, makes the mistake of saying that Dinosaurs lived 6.5 million years before humans rather than 65 million years. I guess they weren't paying attention when they were listening to their scientific source.

I hope that this front page article generates discussion and gets religion out of our schools and confined to churches, mosques and temples where it belongs.

Durro

Oh, Durro, I'm so sorry - and angry on your behalf. This sucks bigtime. I agree: the best thing would be for it to generate lots of discussion.

Rome Existed wrote:

Ubjon wrote:

Blitzkrebs wrote:Oh God.

"DNA wasn't invented then."

Clearly its not difficult to become a teacher in some places. Then again given the some of conversations I've had with teachers in the UK being an ignorant fuckwit when it comes to science doesn't seem to be a barrier. This ignorance is particually dangerous in teachers as they can often be arrogant bastards and assume that anyone who disagrees with them must be wrong.

Especially those humanities teachers *Shakes fist*

These aren't teachers. These are volunteers who come into the classroom to tea........... indoctrinate students to their religious beliefs.

A small mercy then and easier to deal with. Just tell the fuckers to piss off

Ubjon wrote:

Rome Existed wrote:

Ubjon wrote:

Blitzkrebs wrote:Oh God.

"DNA wasn't invented then."

Clearly its not difficult to become a teacher in some places. Then again given the some of conversations I've had with teachers in the UK being an ignorant fuckwit when it comes to science doesn't seem to be a barrier. This ignorance is particually dangerous in teachers as they can often be arrogant bastards and assume that anyone who disagrees with them must be wrong.

Especially those humanities teachers *Shakes fist*

These aren't teachers. These are volunteers who come into the classroom to tea........... indoctrinate students to their religious beliefs.

A small mercy then and easier to deal with. Just tell the fuckers to piss off

Humanities teachers? 'Humanities' at school included History, Geography and Religious Education, all separate lessons with different teachers and in 5 years I only had one religious RE teacher for one year. 'Humanities' at college (to bulk out my timetable) was taught by a well-traveled atheist and included many topics from native Amazonian tribes, their culture, effects of deforestation, and damage and benefits caused by contact with the modern world, to studies and comparisons of developing/developed countries, their GDPs, politics, mortality rates etc.

I take it there is another definition?

Millefleur wrote:

Ubjon wrote:

Rome Existed wrote:

Ubjon wrote:

Blitzkrebs wrote:Oh God.

"DNA wasn't invented then."

Clearly its not difficult to become a teacher in some places. Then again given the some of conversations I've had with teachers in the UK being an ignorant fuckwit when it comes to science doesn't seem to be a barrier. This ignorance is particually dangerous in teachers as they can often be arrogant bastards and assume that anyone who disagrees with them must be wrong.

Especially those humanities teachers *Shakes fist*

These aren't teachers. These are volunteers who come into the classroom to tea........... indoctrinate students to their religious beliefs.

A small mercy then and easier to deal with. Just tell the fuckers to piss off

Humanities teachers? 'Humanities' at school included History, Geography and Religious Education, all separate lessons with different teachers and in 5 years I only had one religious RE teacher for one year. 'Humanities' at college (to bulk out my timetable) was taught by a well-traveled atheist and included many topics from native Amazonian tribes, their culture, effects of deforestation, and damage and benefits caused by contact with the modern world, to studies and comparisons of developing/developed countries, their GDPs, politics, mortality rates etc.

I take it there is another definition?

I've just had bad personal experience with humanities teachers. Just a generalisation, nothing more.

I hope it does generate a lot of discussion and especially that some of our many qualified scientists weigh in to the discussion.

Unfortunately I think most people who see the article will just shake their heads and move on, dismissing it is a trivial non-issue.

The only ways these radical views can be countered and relegated to the minority that they are is for the scientific side to also be prominent in the public view. Many members of the public may not have received an in depth coverage of evolution during their school years or may have forgotten much of what they learnt, so their main way of learning and making decisions on these issues comes from what they see in the media, so I think it would be helpful for those knowledgeable in the subject to speak up where they can.

I also hope the paper prints a correction for the 6.5 million years figure. That would also go a long way I think for the public to see that mistakes are corrected publicly. It is difficult for the public to be well informed if incorrect information is reported or if correct information is not written in a clear and unambiguous way to a casual reader.

I also find it illuminating the comments from parents, teachers and others and think that reporting these prominently also has a role to play in this debate.

Anyway, I know of schools that have banned the teaching of RE.

sam_j wrote:I hope it does generate a lot of discussion and especially that some of our many qualified scientists weigh in to the discussion.

Unfortunately I think most people who see the article will just shake their heads and move on, dismissing it is a trivial non-issue.

The only ways these radical views can be countered and relegated to the minority that they are is for the scientific side to also be prominent in the public view. Many members of the public may not have received an in depth coverage of evolution during their school years or may have forgotten much of what they learnt, so their main way of learning and making decisions on these issues comes from what they see in the media, so I think it would be helpful for those knowledgeable in the subject to speak up where they can.

I also hope the paper prints a correction for the 6.5 million years figure. That would also go a long way I think for the public to see that mistakes are corrected publicly. It is difficult for the public to be well informed if incorrect information is reported or if correct information is not written in a clear and unambiguous way to a casual reader.

I also find it illuminating the comments from parents, teachers and others and think that reporting these prominently also has a role to play in this debate.

Rome Existed wrote:Anyway, I know of schools that have banned the teaching of RE.

I disagree with banning RE as long as its simply about increasing students awareness of religion and isn't trying to indoctrinate students. Banning RE just because it informs students about religion is like banning the teaching of politics and history because it includes facism and suchlike.

I imagine the study of religion is quite a facinating subject.

When these idiot volunteers came to our primary school classes we just asked them endless questions. Does God have a beard? Is God white? Does God enjoy icecream? Does God hate mondays? Why do you claim to know so much about someone you clearly know nothing about?

Crocodile Gandhi wrote:When these idiot volunteers came to our primary school classes we just asked them endless questions. Does God have a beard? Is God white? Does God enjoy icecream? Does God hate mondays? Why do you claim to know so much about someone you clearly know nothing about?

I think we should teach creationism and evolutionism alike and see what the children think of them.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Crocodile Gandhi wrote:When these idiot volunteers came to our primary school classes we just asked them endless questions. Does God have a beard? Is God white? Does God enjoy icecream? Does God hate mondays? Why do you claim to know so much about someone you clearly know nothing about?

I think we should teach creationism and evolutionism alike and see what the children think of them.

I personally think that we should also teach alchemy and chemistry simultaneously, and astrology should be a part of every physics class. Not to forget the stork hypothesis, that has not been featured in biology classes for quite some time. Nowadays, you apparently have to have sex if you want to reproduce, not just wait for the bird. Dark times we live in...

Atheistoclast wrote:

Crocodile Gandhi wrote:When these idiot volunteers came to our primary school classes we just asked them endless questions. Does God have a beard? Is God white? Does God enjoy icecream? Does God hate mondays? Why do you claim to know so much about someone you clearly know nothing about?

I think we should teach creationism and evolutionism alike and see what the children think of them.

Right.

We shouldn't rely on qualified and experienced scientists/educators in biology and other fields of science linked to evolution decide what is best to children to be taught but rather let children decide. Children who lack the expertise, experience, knowledge and skills to sift through the available published work and come to a informed choice and instead are likely to be swayed by rhetoric, missinformation and peer pressures.

This is a direct attack against children and as such I consider it absolutely disguisting. This is exactly the same approach taken by religions who begin their indoctrination from birth rather than waiting until they have grown intellectually to the point where they can make an informed decision as to whether or not they wish to subscribe to a particular religion.

Pathetic

Lizard_King wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:

Crocodile Gandhi wrote:When these idiot volunteers came to our primary school classes we just asked them endless questions. Does God have a beard? Is God white? Does God enjoy icecream? Does God hate mondays? Why do you claim to know so much about someone you clearly know nothing about?

I think we should teach creationism and evolutionism alike and see what the children think of them.

I personally think that we should also teach alchemy and chemistry simultaneously, and astrology should be a part of every physics class. Not to forget the stork hypothesis, that has not been featured in biology classes for quite some time. Nowadays, you apparently have to have sex if you want to reproduce, not just wait for the bird. Dark times we live in...

It would actually be interesting to do so - to teach alternate ideas side-by-side. Give opportunities to teach both as convincingly as possible. Bright kids would undoubtedly see right through the lies of creationism. It would be pretty easy, as the "evidence" for creationism would at most take up one or two class periods, and its weaknesses would be in the spotlight for all to see and poke holes in.

Personally, I think we shouldn't fill the science classrooms with such garbage, but doing so might be the worst move creationists could make.

Ubjon wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:

Crocodile Gandhi wrote:When these idiot volunteers came to our primary school classes we just asked them endless questions. Does God have a beard? Is God white? Does God enjoy icecream? Does God hate mondays? Why do you claim to know so much about someone you clearly know nothing about?

I think we should teach creationism and evolutionism alike and see what the children think of them.

Right.

We shouldn't rely on qualified and experienced scientists/educators in biology and other fields of science linked to evolution decide what is best to children to be taught but rather let children decide. Children who lack the expertise, experience, knowledge and skills to sift through the available published work and come to a informed choice and instead are likely to be swayed by rhetoric, missinformation and peer pressures.

This is a direct attack against children and as such I consider it absolutely disguisting. This is exactly the same approach taken by religions who begin their indoctrination from birth rather than waiting until they have grown intellectually to the point where they can make an informed decision as to whether or not they wish to subscribe to a particular religion.

Pathetic

The only indoctrination that children are receiving now is molecules-to-man evolutionism which has nothing to do with learning the principles of biology.