The evolution of creationism in Australia

x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
The evolution of creationism in Australia

I had a quick look for the ascience forum, but this'll have to do.

Politics was another tempting category.

 

The idea is to document the development of this story, so that one can look back and examine the mechanism of corrosion and attempts to combat it.

 

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/creationism-to-be-taught-in-queensland-classrooms/story-e6frf7l6-1225873019548

and

http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2010/06/creationism-in-the-national-curriculum/

offer a quick summary.

 

 

If I find time, I'll add more information.

Maybe others have found something?

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I found this, x...

Holier Than Thou

pobjie-christians  

Winning the Christian vote isn't easy, but since God's rule is the only way to save the country from Satan, both Rudd and Abbott are going hard to woo moralistic voters

In every election, the one issue on which I base my entire voting decision is this: How good are the various party leaders at discussing social issues in a way that pleases church groups with which I have no affiliation?

I’m in the majority here. This issue, I think, goes to the heart of any serious voter’s calculations, involving as it does so many of the important considerations we have to deal with as informed citizens of a democracy. Considerations like, how do I want my children to grow up? Do I want them to grow up at all? Are there gays outside my window? Why do I get funny feelings when I browse the magazine aisle at Woolworths? How can my elected leaders make me feel like a better person without my having to actually do anything worthwhile? These are the things that determine how comfortably our lives proceed, and we need to know that our politicians are making some sort of convincing pretence at caring about them.

This is not, of course, to deny the secular nature of our society. There is a solid, non-negotiable wall of separation between church and state in this country, and that is something that can never be violated until we have all of our people in position; so I’m not for a second advocating theocracy.

No, what I am saying is that events like the recent national webcast wherein Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott answered questions from, and reached out to, Australian Christians, are important as a gauge of candidates’ moral compass. Of course it’s possible to be a moral person without Christianity, it’s just incredibly hard: as the Bible says, it’s easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of an ass, than it is for the fool to say in his heart, "Get up and walk." Truer words were never mistranslated.

After all, you don’t have to be a Christian to ask yourself, "What would Jesus do?" You just have to be obnoxious. And that’s as ecumenical as buggery.

And Tony Abbott’s performance in this event is such a clear demonstration of the direct causal connection between devotion to Christ and innate moral decency. See how he so skilfully, yet tactfully, noted that our media classification system "had failed to address rising concerns that children were growing up too fast".

Now isn’t that refreshing? To hear a political leader actually acknowledge the terrifying truth that our children are growing up too fast? And to promise action on it? After all, it’s exactly this kind of unsettling temporal anomaly we need elected officials to act on for us. It’s a matter of urgency that we discover just why our children are growing up too fast, and whether there are any pharmaceutical or surgical means of retarding such hyper-growth. This country will never advance if this sinister trend continues and bit by bit we move toward a future of six-foot-tall three-year-olds and frail, senile teenagers.

On the other hand, Kevin Rudd disappointingly failed to "detail the Government’s response to a recent review of child sexualisation", which does make one wonder just what the Government has to hide? Was its response something to be ashamed of? In response to child sexualisation, did the Government blurt out "Phwoar!" and then shamefacedly try to cover it up? Surely the people have a right to know! And by "the people" of course I mean "Seventh Day Adventist Church general secretary Pastor Ken Vogel", who was exemplary in his disappointment at Rudd’s performance.

It’s a bit of a letdown, Mr Rudd. What happened to your election promise to govern for ALL church general secretaries? What about your commitment that under your government, no Seventh Day Adventist would be worse off, or mildly aggravated? Just another broken promise I guess, to throw on the pile alongside your pledge not to electrocute people for your own personal pleasure, and your vow to end the relentless persecution of mining billionaires. Pastor Ken Vogel is entitled to feel disappointed and betrayed.

However, at least Kevin Rudd IS a Christian, and all Christians know they’re not supposed to be perfect. I mean, they don’t like it to get around, but in private, among themselves, they have a quiet giggle about how imperfect they are.

And as a Christian, Rudd can be depended upon to act in a vaguely Christian manner. Not like Bob "Let’s ban electricity and give koalas the vote" Brown, leader of the Greens, a party so detached from Christian values it might as well be Hezbollah. Can you see Bob Brown asking "What would Jesus do?" What would Marx do, sure. What would Baader-Meinhof do, maybe. But never Jesus. Jesus would be a bit too un-hip for Brown and his cohorts, Sarah "Legs Eleven" Hanson-Young and Christine "Death to Farmers" Milne. Can’t see them ever ruling out the legalisation of gay marriage. They’re more likely to make it compulsory. Can’t see them paying tribute to the contribution of churches to Australian society. Put a Green in a church and he’ll most likely spit on the crucifix, feel up the choirgirls, and bore everyone to death by acknowledging the traditional owners — who, I might add, he will not consider to be God.

Whereas Rudd and Abbott are solid God-fearing citizens who recognise the value of moral guidance in today’s confusing, troubled, Wi-Fi-capable world. They support the school chaplains programme, for instance, no doubt recognising that if children ARE growing up too fast, it’s probably because they have no spiritual education. I know when I was a lad, bewildered by the emotions and frustrations surging through me, I would have loved nothing more than for a kindly middle-aged person to sit me down and read me a few bible verses. We all would have. Over 80 per cent of current drug addicts nominate "lack of access to a chaplain" as the primary reason for their current lifestyle, as do 76 per cent of Picture magazine centrefolds.

And Christians care about these things. They don’t want to see kids end up on the scrapheap. They don’t want to see a nation lose its way. They don’t want to see our wide brown land overrun with godless moral vacuums. They don’t want to see Jesus neglected and forgotten, they way we have Weary Dunlop, Albert Jacka, and Jason Donovan.

That’s why in the upcoming election, we really can’t lose. No matter who we vote for, we get a Christian politician (oh yes, Abbott says he’s a "Christian in politics" not a Christian politician, but that’s splitting hairs, like when Malcolm Fraser said he was a "bore in politics, not a boring politician", or when Mark Latham said he was a "left-winger in politics, not a homicidal maniac&quotEye-wink. No matter which way we jump, we end up in a big fat puddle of niceness. Labor, Liberal, it makes no real difference; either way we’ll be putting Jesus in the Lodge.

So what would Jesus do? He’d relax, folks. Because he knows this country’s in safe hands.

 

http://newmatilda.com/2010/06/23/holier-thou

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Giving koalas the vote

 Fine stuff.

 

I can only add something mildly amusing:

 

http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/christian-schools-angry-over-ban-on-teaching-creationism-20100302-pgjb.html

 

The board said it ''does not accept as satisfactory a science curriculum in a non-government school which is based on, espouses or reflects the literal interpretation of a religious text in its treatment of either creationism or intelligent design''.

The chief executive of Christian Schools Australia, Stephen O'Doherty, said the board statement was too strident, removing the right to teach ''biblical perspectives'' as part of science.

 

There's that word strident again.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5850
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
x wrote: Fine stuff. I can

x wrote:

 Fine stuff.

 

I can only add something mildly amusing:

 

http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/christian-schools-angry-over-ban-on-teaching-creationism-20100302-pgjb.html

 

The board said it ''does not accept as satisfactory a science curriculum in a non-government school which is based on, espouses or reflects the literal interpretation of a religious text in its treatment of either creationism or intelligent design''.

The chief executive of Christian Schools Australia, Stephen O'Doherty, said the board statement was too strident, removing the right to teach ''biblical perspectives'' as part of science.

 

There's that word strident again.

It is interesting how believers perceive criticism of their position, no matter how civilly or politely expressed, as 'strident'. Dawkins is frequently accused of that, merely for being unapologetic and/or not deferential, AFAICS.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
As I've said (or hinted at?)

As I've said (or hinted at?) before, radical Xtianity= never ending martyrdom complex.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13660
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
In Australia the Joeys pop

In Australia the Joeys pop out of dirt instead of pouches. In creationism they call them dirtsupials.

What, we all know ducks come from crocks, so what is wrong with Australia spreading its crock?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37