Public Address | System (Home)

Posted at 9:44AM on 19 Feb 09. Permalink.

No.

Wait, you mean it wasn't a question?

Okay, I'll listen to this thing. But just because it's you.

Posted at 6:52PM on 28 Feb 09. Permalink.

A nice vibe from these guys, pretty well covered the topic.

Posted at 3:27PM on 4 Mar 09. Permalink.

This would be the one Steven Price though was probably in breach of broadcasting standards.

Posted at 10:31PM on 4 Mar 09. Permalink.

Ta for the link Lyndon.

So identifying a topic as controversial and discussing the philosophical causes of the controversy breaches broadcasting standards regarding balance because there wasn't a creationist present.

Despite 2 out of 3 guests taking a stance supporting 2 world-views, Mr Price wrote on his blog

So, how many of Laidlaw’s three guests argued for creationism to be taught in schools? Not one.

As Bill Martin points out during the discussion, which flavour of creationist would you include and/or which would you exclude the views of?

Could it be a lawyer takes a simplistic stance to stir the pot and give himself something to blog about?

Posted at 3:22PM on 7 Apr 09. Permalink.

A survey we conducted last year asked what should be taught in New Zealand state schools about the origin and development of life on earth. The results were:

Evolution & intelligent design 35%
Evolution only 26%
Intelligent design only 4%
Nothing 7%
Don't know 28%

We didn't ask about teaching creationism, but 20% of those surveyed said they believed that humans were created in their present form directly by God.

Posted at 1:07AM on 2 Jun 09. Permalink.

Why would any sane person fight for what other people must teach their kids?

Why not just teach your children yourself?

Posted at 3:44PM on 13 Aug 09. Permalink.

Speaking as a student one year out of high school i think its pretty pointless to put creationism in the curriculum.

I mean if you were taking biology does that mean half your course will be on creationism? Or would you have to take a creationism class? Pretty simple exam: just say "God did it."

Posted at 3:50PM on 13 Aug 09. Permalink.

Could depend what is meant by 'taught'. If taught means the teacher maintains that Creationism is true, then I'd say absolutely not. If it means the teacher makes students aware of a number of hypotheses, the reasoning behind them, and indicates who generally believes each one, then sure. I'd rather my kids know of Creationism. I'd insist they know of the mainstream scientific alternatives. History of science is a very important part of scientific understanding - it makes much more poignant the lessons of the more famous experiments and discoveries. It also teaches one of the most important scientific precepts, that science is about competing hypotheses, not known facts, and deciding between them has never been simple. It has always involved a huge amount of work.

Should it be taught in science classes, or something else, like, say, social studies? Again, it depends what is meant by taught. My memory of science classes as a child was that they would actually be very poor places to teach it, since they were never places of discussion of 'general' theory. 4 years of high school science seemed entirely geared to teaching us the current scientific orthodoxy. Perhaps that makes sense, in the same way that training for art usually involves mastering realism before trying other forms. There really is an awful lot of science to learn, without getting too bogged down in the history of it at the start. But then I never got to try it the other way to see whether it might actually have made a lot more sense to me.

I wouldn't expect a lot of time to be spent on any particular creation myth. Just enough to say what it is, where it started, how old it is, what scientific evidence there is for and against it. Could be as short as one class.

Posted at 11:52AM on 22 Aug 09. Permalink.

The problem is, of course, that if you teach kids that taking something on faith alone is as good as rational understanding then you open them up to all the crazy whacko shit, Koolaid anyone?
Organised religion is social engineering. It amazes me that those same nutjobs who rile against "the nanny state" will take the rantings of a guy in a dress as gospel, literally.

Posted at 9:03PM on 19 Nov 09. Permalink.

This is 2009. Creationism is all part of the phony Adam & Eve & the world was created in 7 days stuff.Which has been completely debunked by science.
What i would like to see taught in schools is some kind of common values to aid the world & society to be a better place.
I saw an interesting article in our local suburban newspaper where a primary school was teaching kids "human rights" , they'd drawn up a little chart , and alongside that was another chart entitled "human responsibilities" . I liked that.Society needs a balance between rights & responsibilities. Everything is out of kilter present day.

Posted at 7:26PM on 7 Jan 10. Permalink.

William makes an excellent point. It's one of those times when you have to answer a question with another question.

"Should creationism be taught in schools?"

"Well, how do you plan on marking it?"

Posted at 5:02PM on 16 Feb 10. Permalink.

Richard Dawkins is coming to the NZ Int Atrs Festival.

But where is the proof it is Art?