Sean the Blogonaut» pz myers

Creationism in the Curriculum – a storm in a tea cup.

Blogonaut — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 07:43:29 +0000

I tweeted yesterday that

i will be posting about creationism in our national curriculum & my disagreement with PZ Myers, tomorrow.

to which I got a lovely reply from PZ Myers

Oh you tease. RT @SeandBlogonaut: i will be posting about creationism in our national curriculum & my disagreement with PZ myers, tomorrow.

But its not just PZ I will disagree with, it’s some fellow skeptics and atheists that I think may have jumped the gun a little on this particular issue. So what follows is my analysis of the situation, and the points of difference I have with PZ and others.

What’s wrong with Queensland?

Well apart from XXXX beer not too much.

First to PZ and his post What is wrong with you Queensland?, please go and read it first. You might also like to read the article that has raised PZ’s concern here.

My first point of contention is the focus on Queensland, it’s misguided and I can forgive PZ here as;

he’s a dern foreigner
a lot of Australian’s view Queensland as an Australian bible belt, an Australian deep north to America’s deep south so it stands to reason that this is where Creationists would try it on.

It might shock you to know that Queenslanders are a lot less religious than we might think -the study conducted by Kylie Sturgess and Dr Martin Bridgestock, referenced here in Skeptic Zone 47 (32:00) found them to be certainly less enamoured of creationism than their American counterparts.

That being said under the tyrant Jo Bjelke-Peterson, creationism was very nearly taught in the science curriculum – a lesson as to why its important to pay attention to politics.

As some commenter’s pointed out on PZ’s post we are talking about the National Curriculum that is currently being worked out by stakeholders around the country. This would mean, if the claim were true, that creationism would be taught Australia wide.

Oh no! Say it ain’t so!

I am not concerned.

Teach the controversy

PZ’s Opening line is

Look at this: they’ve explicitly added creationism to the public school curriculum in Queensland, Australia.

Now I understand what PZ concern’s are here. I know the “teach the controversy” angle that creationists spout. So let’s have a look at the item in the curriculum that’s making all the fuss.

It’s not explicit to me. Indeed I am thinking that it requires a little too much reading into the situation to come up with the conclusion that this is the first barrage of a creationist assault on Australian secular education.

This is not teaching that there are two equally valid points of view in regards to human origins. It’s directing students to a controversial issue, where they have to examine the issue from different perspectives.

Controversy? There is none.

There is a controversy over evolution, a manufactured one. A controversy that is political/religious/cultural/ historical just not scientific. Here I think we might be a tad pedantic focussing on what could be meant by the word controversy. PZ says its bogus to teach it as history. I really can’t think of a better place to, for example; focus on the life of Darwin, what his discoveries meant for him, for his culture, and how its changed the course of history.

Others have claimed it’s more to do with politics than with ancient history. Indeed I am inclined to think that perhaps Darwin slots more into modern history. That being said, the senior curriculum ( this is only years 11-12) does not have room for the specialisation that one might expect from a university, hence we have some issues sitting under history that would be considered politics or sociology.

I think then, that’s it is the appropriate place to be investigating such things – the controversy is not scientific but political/cultural. I’d rather be teaching the history of a scientific discovery and its effects in history, than taking up time in science class where students are studying organic chemistry for entry into a science degree.

Argument from Authority

Now I’ll throw in the point that I am actually a High School teacher, my areas of expertise being English and History. I have experience in a couple of state school systems and the catholic education system. I think this background probably causes me to see this a little differently to skeptics or Atheists who may not be teachers in Australia.

Some points to consider:

First of all the item is in the senior curriculum, years 11-12 meaning that

the students are likely to be 16 at the youngest and 18 at the oldest- young adults, (not in my experience, sponge like absorbers of everything you tell them but more or less engaged learners keen to discuss issues – even a tad cynical).
they are experienced learners focussed on earning a decent tertiary entrance score to enter university.
their work is heavily moderated by other teachers from other schools

Second the unit involves the development of skills through investigation. Look at the meat of the activity highlighted in blue below.

They will not be presented with information to learn by rote. They have to go out and find resources, examine the issues broader context – this is student directed learning.

I can see some room in Independent Christian schools to restrict learning through specifying certain resources, but I don’t see it playing out in the Catholic, Anglican or State systems.

Don’t trust them Creationists

PZ is right here. Organised creationism is crafty, well funded and experienced at insinuating itself into education/politics. I just don’t see the smoking gun here. Sure we have this quote:

Associated Christian Schools executive officer Lynne Doneley welcomed the draft curriculum, saying it cemented the position of a faith-based approach to teaching.

“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.”

But I can’t reconcile Mrs Doneley’s comments with what is being presented in the curriculum document. It in no way cements faith based teaching, sure the schools she represents may see it that way, to the detriment of their students but they are private christian schools of evangelical persuasion anyway.

It strikes me that she is misreading the curriculum, or overstating one very small part of it. I can see no evidence of a major creationist push.

Indeed I am inclined to think that mention of these topics is more to do with updating a curriculum. I can remember doing similar investigation projects in my own senior years on the Irish Republican Army – an divisive issue at the time in my modern history class.

I think this is a unique opportunity for students to develop some critical thinking skills. In addition to this it allows teachers to discuss, critique religion where it has been taboo before.

To my mind some skeptics seem to be worried about a horde of creationist history teachers who will suddenly overwhelm our state system, the reality is that they just don’t exist in sufficient numbers.

Trust our teachers

Teaching seniors is almost a specialised field in itself with a level of scrutiny not found in younger year levels(see moderation). Most teachers are now four year trained at secular universities with Bachelors in Education or like myself graduates of other disciplines with post-graduate teaching qualifications (FYI most teachers at the Catholic school I taught at were liberal Catholics or secular teachers).

These teachers do not teach in isolation, they have coordinators who examine what they teach, that help determine resources. Then we have the process of moderation linked to above.

So for the inclusion of the two topics mentioned in the herald sun article to be considered the teaching of creation I think we would have to see wholesale revolution in a) history instruction at university level and b) the training of history teachers c) the way curriculums are delivered in state schools.

And while I think of it, some of the claims by commenter’s on PZ post in regards to the capability of teachers to impart knowledge of say, dating methods or the concept of evolution had me severely disappointed. Neither of them is rocket science

A media beat up

I think this was a media beat-up, taking advantage of anti-religious sentiment. I would be more inclined to keep a lookout for creationist resources, than being concerned that we will suddenly start teaching our seniors creation science. I also think that such a topic provides an opportunity for skeptical organisations to write and promote some skeptical resources for teachers.

There is debate and discussion to be held on these issues, indeed I think it’s vital that students know of the battle for the teaching of evolution, it might actually inspire them to become defenders of science education, to be a guard against future incursions.

In summary I am inclined to be wary. I think there is just as much leeway here for a keen skeptically minded teacher to help develop critical thinking skills in areas that make history, exciting and current.

Crackergate Down Under and Day 1 of The Global Atheist Convention

Blogonaut — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:20:57 +0000

I was having breakfast with PZ Myers (me and 13 others) this morning (and for all you doubting Thomas’ there’s video evidence) at the bloggers and podcasters breakfast. It was a little surreal for about 15 minutes and then PZ’s warmth and good nature put us all at ease, he really is a genuinely cool, easy going bloke. I then suggested that he might try some vegemite. He had been forewarned, and after smelling it I pretty sure he may have thought that I was part of a theist conspiracy to give him food poisoning prior to his speech.

PZ then decided to spread it on his communion wafers(the kind that everyone happens to carry). The video is below. I apologise for the quality, but I was trying to to film it sitting directly beside him..

Many thanks to Drunkenmadman for uploading it on the spot.

The rest of the day was one rather long pub crawl and meeting of various twitter and blogging friends. Although I did meet “Amy, who’s not on the internet”

The convention opened with a good speech from David Nichols and some comedy from Sue Ann Post and Catherine Deveney. It was a harsh roasting for which they have already being criticised for. But hey if you’re offended, really offended, bugger off it’s our convention.

Seriously, I am finding the “you should respect my beliefs, my ideas and not make fun of me” line a little worn. I will respect you, and your right to believe and say what you want, I might even be polite in telling you I think you are wrong and a bit foolish.

But kindly, politely even, take a long walk off a short pier if you want to shut down criticism or discussion if you expect that we will treat your individual, personal view of religion as a special case.

If you have crackpot ideas like the body of christ existing in a cracker then prepare to be laughed at and ridiculed. If you have defined god out of reach of criticism be prepared to be called on it.

Atheist Nexus nears 10,000 members and its 1st Birthday

Blogonaut — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 08:07:55 +0000

Its hard to believe its almost a year since Atheist Nexus began. A social networking initiative for Atheists and Agnostics it was not without a rocky start. But a year on its bigger than many of its detractors thought possible. Atheist Nexus membership stands at 9,178 and the folks at Atheist Nexus would like to make that a nice round figure by the time it hits its 1st birthday.

What do they offer?

Atheist Nexus includes:

numerous forums,
blogs,
a chat room

Primarily, Nexus aims to provide social support for atheists and agnostics. It is not in competition with other atheist organizations. In fact, one of its aims is to support them.

There are currently 485 groups on Nexus covering subjects as wide-ranging as:

parenting to Shakespeare
evolution to photography
There are groups for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex atheists.

Prominent atheists who are members of AN include:

PZ Myers (Pharyngula),
Tanya Levin (author of People in Glass Houses: An Insider’s Story of a Life In and Out of Hillsong), and
Russell Blackford (Metamagician and the Hellfire Club blog; author of 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists to be published later this year).

AN has also attracted many academics:

Oxford educated Dr Terence Meaden runs a highly successful group called "Origins: Universe, Life, Humankind and Darwin".
Professor Tom Arcaro drew on AN members for his recent sociological study of over 8,000 atheists. A
Atheist Nexus Member, Emeritus Professor Robert A M Gregson of the Australian National University provided invaluable support and advice in drafting the recent Atheist Nexus submission to the Australian Human Rights Commission on "Freedom of Religion and Belief".

In order for atheists to have a ‘voice’ we need to unite. Encouraging your friends, contacts and readers to boost our membership to the 10,000 and beyond mark is a positive step in that direction.

What does it cost?

Nadda, zip, nothing

Want to join?

Click here