How often have we heard politicians who are opposed to same-sex marriage whine, “What about the children? We have to think about the children!”
It makes you wonder how many children raised by same-sex parents they’ve actually met. It makes you wonder whether they have read any of the many studies which show that children raised by same-sex parents do every bit as well as those raised by heterosexual couples.
The majority of Australians support equal marriage and politicians who still harbour doubts about the wisdom of voting in favour of it have a responsibility to inform themselves fully on this issue – not just vote based on their own, preconceived prejudices.
Recently, Shelley Argent of PFLAG Queensland (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) issued invitations to our federal MPs and Senators to meet with her and some young people, raised in same-sex families. The response has been nothing short of underwhelming.
It seems our political representatives need a bit of a kick up the proverbial arse – and that’s where you come in, dear readers.
Could you take a little time over the next couple of days to write to your political representatives and ask them to do what they’re paid for – represent you and spend some time actually talking to the people they’re making decisions for.
I’ve written to my political representatives today. You may wish to copy or amend my letter as you see fit:
Dear …..
I was disappointed to hear that, despite sending invitations to Senators and MPs to meet with her in Canberra on 28 or 29 May, Shelley Argent of PFLAG Queensland is having difficulty getting our political representatives to respond.
Ms Argent has sent letters of request to MPs and Senators to meet with her and with Maya, Nick and Tallay, three young adults who want to tell their stories to those who worry about the children in same sex families.
As a Queenslander and one of the majority of Australians who supports equal marriage, I would like to ask you to meet with Ms Argent during her stay in Canberra and to encourage your fellow party members and senators to do likewise. Shelley Argent can be contacted at: pflagbris@bigpond.com
Chrys Stevenson (Ms.)
(Address and phone number supplied)
If you’re unsure of who represents you, you can click this link and type your postcode into the box provided.
Generally, senators email addresses follow the format: senator.lastname@aph.gov.au – It may be slightly different for those with common names e.g. senator.ian.mcdonald@aph.gov.au
It would be great if my readers could help with this. Let’s try to persuade our political representatives to inform themselves fully on this incredibly important issue of justice and equality for all Australian citizens.
I’ve just been chatting on Facebook about my state of ‘self-propelled penury’. Money is scarce for almost everyone, I guess, yet, in this affluent society, the idea of poverty is rather subjective. Not too many of us who are crying poor are scratching out a living on a rubbish tip.
Just so, while complaining about my financial status, I simultaneously managed to spend $70 on nail polish today. So often it seems that we can manage to afford the things we really want, but not afford those things we think we can do without. I can put off having the car serviced for months while still being able to afford a gorgeous pair of boots.
Similarly, I’m as guilty as anyone when it comes to turning away people asking for donations with a heartfelt, “I’m sorry. It’s a good cause, but I just can’t afford it.” But, deep down, I know that if a stunning ‘must-have’ jacket came up on eBay or if I stumbled upon a spectacular pair of earrings at Myer, I’d manage to afford those. It’s not a criticism of me or anyone else. I expect it’s human nature and I rather enjoy the quirkiness of human nature.
Nevertheless, while talking about my first-world penury today, and anticipating the arrival of my blingy nail polish, I received an email from Rodney Croome at Australian Marriage Equality. In a message that could have been tailored specifically to insert Rodney’s hand into my pocket, it began:
Well, hell yeah! I was reaching for my purse before I’d even read the rest of the email!
Rodney continued:
Around the world we are seeing more and more countries enacting marriage equality. This week alone, both France and Uruguay took the final steps to allow same-sex couples to marry. Next week it will be New Zealand.
We need your help to make marriage equality a reality in Australia. We are currently surveying all election candidates. The results show more Labor and Coalition MPs are going to the election supporting reform than ever before.
At the same time the Australian Christian Lobby, which believes smoking is healthier than being gay is planning a well-funded campaign to ensure candidates like Corey Bernardi and Bob Katter get re-elected.
To combat its campaign we need your support to fund letter box drops, radio and newspaper adverts, web campaigns & lobbying activities.
Unlike the ACL, who receive large corporate donations, we are 100% voluntary grass roots organisation.
If marriage equality is important to you, take one minute to keep us going. We need your support more than ever before to achieve marriage equality.
Together we can do this, Rodney Croome National Director for the Australian Marriage Equality
I write a lot about marriage equality. I write a lot about the vile bigotry of the Australian Christian Lobby. It would be easy to argue that the time I put into this is a ‘donation in kind’ to the cause. And, in a way, that’s true. But, y’know, sometimes words are just not enough. There are arch-bigots out there funding the Australian Christian Lobby and, if we’re going to get our message of love and inclusion and equality and justice across to the wider Australian public and put pressure on pollies, it’s going to take cold, hard cash.
So, I’m throwing in the price of a few bottles of glittery nail varnish by donating $50 to the cause. I wonder if there’s some little luxury you can do without – or offset the cost of – with a similar donation?
You can donate at the links above, or DONATE HERE. And please, share this donation request with your own networks.
Last year, my friend Professor Tom Arcaro launched a worldwide survey of atheists. The response was overwhelming with over 8,000 people worldwide completing the survey, including nearly 800 from Australia and New Zealand.
The beauty of the survey is that it allowed plenty of room for comments which means we now have the ability to publish material which allows atheists to speak with their own voices. Early results suggest that the survey comments will powerfully challenge the stereotype of the Christian-hating, militant, fundamentalist atheist!
We are planning a series of articles over the next 12 months or so and are also hoping to find a publisher so that we can publish the results in a book.
I’ve been looking at some of the results from the Australasian cohort and very interesting they are! So far, I’ve written two essays covering the first two survey questions on the Elon University (North Carolina) blog – Serving Atheists.
While acknowledging that religion is not ‘all bad’, some respondents insist that the ‘good’ done by religion is not (or need not be) dependent upon religious belief.
The consensus is aptly summarised by an IT programmer from Australia:
“All good forces which stem from religious belief don’t need religious belief to come about, but many bad forces which stem from religious belief could not come about without it.”
“Religion has produced good,” concedes a female lawyer from Australia, explaining that:
“Many charities, et cetera are established and continued through religion, and possibly would not continue to exist in a non-religious world. However equally, religion has often created the problems which the charities need to meet in the first place (e.g. poverty caused by having too many children because of the ban on contraception). However, there is a great deal of evil perpetuated in the world because of religion. And none of the good things in the world rely on religion to exist, they could exist just as much without religion.”
This view is expanded upon by a 30 year old, unemployed Australian respondent:
“Human creativity in the form of say architecture or music does not require religion as a source, the people that create such art are talented regardless of their religion and could therefore have achieved their masterpieces anyway; the only thing religion provided that might otherwise have been difficult to obtain was funding. Other things such as community, charity, et cetera, are demonstrably provided by other organisations or pursuits independent of religion. Thus the positive aspects unique to religion are minimal, while I think the negatives such as war and ‘ethnic cleansing’ outweigh these by far.”
“While religion does give a lot of people hope, there are plenty of secular reasons for people to have hope for the future, and the air of intolerance that many religions create far outweighs any good they have done,” argues a 20 year old tertiary student from Australia.
The point is neatly summarised by another Australian student, “The good caused by religion would occur without it. The bad, in many instances, would not.”
Indeed, the consensus seems to be that:
“Actions which are actually beneficial to society are good whether or not done from religious motivation. But there are many harmful actions which are only done from religious motivation, and have no secular basis; so the net effect of religion on behaviour is significantly harmful.”
PS: Do you like the ‘new look’ Gladly, the Cross-Eyed Bear blog? One of my readers, Glenn Watson, inspired me by designing a new ‘Gladly’ Bear’ for me (see top right side bar). There are, however, some things I’d like to change to make the blog easier for you guys to read but, I regret, it’s beyond my limited technological capability. If any of my readers have a working knowledge of CSS and are willing to help me modify the blog theme, please contact me at gladlybear@yahoo.com.au – I’d be very, very grateful.
I’m delighted to announce that, over the next 12-18 months I’ll be working with Professors Tom Arcaro and Duane McClearn of Elon University, North Carolina on analyzing and writing about the results of Tom’s international atheist survey, “Better understanding the world of atheists”.
The survey, undertaken earlier this year, elicited over 8000 responses – nearly 10 per cent of those from Australia and New Zealand.
Tom has set up the Serving Atheists blog so that we can, progressively, communicate the results of the survey to respondents and the public and we invite your feedback. Ultimately, it’s envisaged that the survey will form the basis for a series of articles and, perhaps, a book.
I’ve just published my first blog post on the Australasian responses to the first question on atheist vs Christian morality. I hope you’ll find the results as interesting as I did!
OK, I get it. Things are tough for small businesses and when you’ve got a little bit of the market cornered, it must be irksome when a nearby business starts to target the same customers. But, that’s the chance any business takes and it’s not incumbent upon any business to protect the profits of its neighbours.
The owners of Hattonvale Nursery on the Warrego Highway, Queensland, seem to have a different view, however. They’ve got their knickers in a knot because the guys at Wet Dreams Aquatics at nearby Plainlands have, apparently, started selling plants as well as aquarium products. Shock! Horror!
Now, a little argy-bargy between businesses in difficult economic times is to be expected but Hattonvale Nursery went way beyond the pale when they aired their grievances against Wet Dreams Aquatics on their Facebook page (since taken down and then reinstated).
This wasn’t a quiet bitch about local businesses sticking to their own defined markets. No. This was a full-scale homophobic rant against the owners of Wet Dreams Aquatics.
Now, I don’t know anything about the owners of Wet Dreams Aquatics – except that they obviously have a cute sense of humour! Are they gay, straight or otherwise? I don’t know and don’t care – and nor should anyone else. It certainly has absolutely nothing to do with how they run their business.
I also know nothing about the owners of Hattonvale Nursery. I assume from the tenor of their Facebook message that they attend one of the local fundamentalist Christian churches, or at least, consider themselves ‘good Christians’. And yet, their message drips with hate and intolerance. Can anyone – Christian or atheist – imagine the Jesus of the New Testament writing (or approving of) such a disgustingly small-minded, sickeningly prejudiced message against the pariahs of his day – lepers? tax collectors? prostitutes?
All I can say is, Hattonvale Nursery, you should be ashamed. You give Queenslanders a bad name. You give your local area a bad name. You give Christianity a bad name. And, you certainly red flag your business as one that as many decent people as possible should stay away from.
As for the blokes at Wet Dreams Aquatics, I’m assuming this isn’t doing their business any harm at all. I note that people are liking their Facebook page in droves. Whatever ‘Wet Dreams’ they may have for the expansion of their business, let’s hope this nasty little incident ironically turns it into a ‘Wet Reality’!
I understand that a peaceful protest outside Hattonvale Nursery is being planned for 10am, Sunday, 10 March (please note, the statue shop just outside the nursery is not affiliated with the homophobes who own the nursery).
The owner has not reacted well, posting on Facebook:
Hmmmm.
Red necked ignorance is a fact of life, I guess, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore it or give those who express such views a free pass. I’m not calling for people to congregate outside of Hattonvale Nursery with pitchforks and flaming torches, but I would encourage Queenslanders, in particular, to spread the word about this business and, perhaps, decide to buy your plants elsewhere.
Funnily enough, for someone who is so preoccupied with the ‘ethics’ of his competitors, the owner of Hattonvale Nursery doesn’t seem to have spent much time reading the very book he cites as the source of his own ethical code.
Luke 6:42
New International Version (NIV)
42 How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
Luke 6:29
New International Version (NIV)
29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them.
Matthew 7:1
New International Version (NIV)
Judging Others
7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.
Matthew 19:24
New International Version (NIV)
24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
But then, I guess for someone who runs a nursery, cherry-picking comes naturally, eh?
Chrys Stevenson
NB: Hatton Vale, Queensland is actually two words, but, in referring to the nursery, I have preserved the one-word spelling of its own Facebook page.
Atheists can be proud that, through the internet, we have been able to form a strong, international community.
Events like the Global Atheist Convention, along with local humanist, rationalist, atheist and skeptical organisations allow us to meet and become real friends in the real world.
But atheist charity is a concept which is still developing. Foundation Beyond Belief, formed several years ago by Dale McGowan (author of Parenting Beyond Belief), is now strongly supported and expanding internationally. An FBB chapter will soon be operating here in Australia. To date, FBB has given away close to a million dollars to selected, secular charities.
On a smaller scale, we still lag behind churches – mainly because we lack the organisation of religious denominations. Our face to face gatherings tend to be small and we have no pastor at the pulpit to say, “Dave’s been having some health problems lately and had to take a lot of time of work. Let’s dig deep and help out the family and, ladies, how about organising some baking to deliver to Dave’s family.”
Of course we can, and have, done this online. When atheist comedian, Sam Singleton’s wife, Cari, had a terrible accident, atheists from around the world contributed to her recovery – but, of course, Singleton is well known.
Last year, the organisers of the Global Atheist Convention generously donated a ticket to Robert Tobin who has been undergoing treatment for oesophageal cancer but we still had to get him there from Queensland and accommodate him. I was so touched that, within 48 hours of asking for donations on my Facebook page, we had raised enough money to fly Robert to Melbourne, put him up in a budget hotel, and give him a little extra towards transfers and meals.
So, we can do the charity ‘thing’, but ‘online’ it’s somewhat harder because people are naturally skeptical about giving money to people they don’t actually know and who may well be spinning a ‘line’. I’ve been caught this way myself.
Perhaps as our community grows stronger, and our networks expand, we’ll find more instances of atheists supporting atheists-in-need as ‘people we know’ can verify that individuals ‘we don’t know’ are ‘real people’ in ‘genuine need’.
Jenny Sutherland – funds raised to date (7 March 2013).
I have one such example. A delightful member of the atheist community, Jenny Sutherland, suffers a raft of health problems, including lupus, type 1 diabetes, endometriosis and ADHD. She really hit the jackpot, poor kid! Because of her lupus, getting around is difficult for Jenny. Jenny’s tried struggling on a pair of crutches which are unwieldy, ungainly and take a considerable amount of energy. Currently, she’s using an old cast-off wheelchair which requires someone to push her, so she has no independence. She really needs a better wheelchair, but the cost of one that will serve her needs is $4,500. That’s a lot of money when you’re disabled! Jenny managed to save up $500 and, with the help of a number of Facebookers, we’ve been able to boost that up to $2,280 but there’s still a way to go.
I met Jenny’s mother, Denise Sutherland, at The Amazing Meeting in Sydney in 2010. Denise is a well-known puzzle writer and author of a number of “….. for Dummies” books. Denise and I met again in 2011 when I was in Canberra for Ron Williams’ High Court Challenge against Federal funding for the National School Chaplaincy Program – another brilliant example of atheistic/secular crowd-funding. Denise and her daughter, Jenny, have since visited my cousin, the brilliant ‘Letter to the Editor’ writer, Doug Steley at his home in country Victoria. So, we know that Denise and Jenny are ‘real’ and that Jenny’s health problems are genuine.
So, if you’d like to participate in a little ‘atheist charity’ and, if you can spare even a small amount, I’d take it as a personal favour if you can make a contribution towards Jenny’s ‘wheels’.
If you’re in Australia you can donate via BPay: Biller Code: xxxx ; Reference No: xxxx
Or, via Direct Deposit to: UBank; Account name: Wheelchair; BSB: xxxx; Account number: xxxx
If you prefer to go really ‘old school’ and write a cheque, you can make it out to: Jenny Sutherland and post it to: xxxx
If you’re from overseas, you can make a donation to Denise’s PayPal account, using her email: xxxxx. Add a note saying it’s for the wheelchair, so Denise will know to transfer those funds into Jen’s account.
There is just over $2,000 to raise to get Jenny into a wheelchair – it’s not a huge ask and I think we can do it. Come on, let’s show a little atheist charity.
Chrys Stevenson
Update: Absolutely fantastic news from Denise Sutherland. The generosity of their friends and the atheist community means that her daughter, Jenny, now has enough money to order a wheelchair. Many, many thanks to all of you who so generously donated.
Jacqui Tomlins has done some great research into Special Religious Education in Victorian public schools. As a teacher, and a ‘rainbow family’ parent, Jacqui adds a very important perspective to the issue of religion in public schools. I highly recommend her blog post.
A couple of weeks ago my kids came home from school (a local state primary) with a letter asking whether I would like them to undertake Special Religious Instruction (SRI). No, I wouldn’t, I told the school – three times in heavily circled biro. It’s not the first time I’ve been asked this question and every time it really, really annoys me.
So this year I thought I would undertake a little research of my own about SRI; about what goes on in other schools and about how other parents have dealt with this issue. To start with I looked at the legislation that governs this area, the Education and Training Reform Act (2006); section 2.2.10 Education in Government schools to be secular states that:
(1) Except as provided in section 2.2.11, education in Government schools must be secular and not promote any particular religious practice, denomination or sect.
Sometimes, albeit rarely, a piece of writing just reaches off the page, grabs you by the throat and says, “I’m important!”
Often these are the pieces which are written out of anger and frustration as, burning white hot with rage, the author pours their indignation onto the page in a ‘stream of consciousness’; steam, literally pouring out of their ears as they write.
When such emotion and purpose is filtered through a writer who is already supremely skilled, the results of a late night ‘rant’ can be devastating.
Last night, I read just such a rant about the ALP by Rod Swift on a private news group. I immediately emailed and insisted that he publish it somewhere. It was just too good to remain private.
Doug Pollard has wisely accommodated it on The Stirrer today and I highly recommend that you click the link and read it.
I am not aligned to any particular political party. I have never, and will never, be a member of any particular political party. But in this piece I can confidently say that Rod Swift speaks for me. Labor’s desertion of the left and its traditional progressive values is a disgrace and a tragedy.
Please, as Molly Meldrum would say, ‘do yourself a favour’ and read “The Labor Party’s lost my respect . . and my vote” by Rod Swift. Whether or not you agree with the sentiment, I’m sure you’ll agree it’s a devastatingly good piece of writing.
On last night’s Q&A, two viewers, Dr Karey Harrison from Harristown (via Toowoomba) and Dr Cathy Byrne from NSW raised the question of students being taught creationism ‘as fact’ in schools. How strange that we keep bringing up this subject but politicians keep sticking their heads in the sand and denying it’s happening!
Addressing the panel by video, Dr Harrison said:
I expected my children to be taught science in science classes at the local state school. So I was a bit angry when my son was taught a creation story about the origin of the universe in his Year 11 physics class at the local high school. My son didn’t want me to do anything because he was concerned about possible repercussions for his grades which in Queensland, count towards university entrance. So I want to know from the panel what is your attitude towards teaching religion in science classes and to Tanya [Plibersek, ALP] and Greg [Hunt, LNP], in particular, what you and your parties will do to stop religion being taught in our science classes?
Labor Minister, Tanya Plibersek’s response was to fob off the question, noting:
“… but it’s one state school. You might have run into one teacher with particular views in one school. I don’t know that we can say that that is a characterisation of what’s being taught in science in all of our state schools. I’d be very surprised and very disturbed if that was the case.”
Soon after, a video question from education researcher, Dr Cathy Byrne, confirmed that the problem was far more widespread than ‘just one school’.
“My question is for Laurence Krauss,” said Dr Byrne.
“You may know that some evangelical religious groups have direct access to children in state schools in Australia. My research has shown that some of these organisations teach that man and dinosaurs lived together, that the earth is only 6000 years old and that children will burn in hell if they don’t read the Bible every day. How might teaching children such things in our state system effect Australia’s future?”
It is clear that Dr Byrne has found sufficient evidence of creationism in enough schools to feel it is an issue worth raising. Her concern clearly suggests that the problem transcends ‘just one school’.
And Drs Harrison and Byrne are not the only ones concerned about the infiltration of creationism into Australian schools. On February 13, Dr Paul Willis, director of the prestigious Royal Institution of Australia – a national organisation for the promotion of science – wrote an article revealing his growing concern about creationism in the classroom. Is it likely that Willis would raise the issue if he believed the problem was confined to a rogue teacher or two?
“My concern is not simply for the specifics of demonstrating through science that evolution has occurred, that the palaeontologists are right and that the creationists are laughably wrong on each and every count”, wrote Willis.
“The burden on a science education of having to deal with this rubbish effects the fundamentals of understanding what science is and how it’s conducted. It challenges and erodes an education in logic and reason.”
In the Australian Book of Atheism (Warren Bonett, ed, 2010), Professor Graham Oppy, Head of the School of Philosophical, Historical and International Studies at Monash University, affirms that:
“Groups like CSF (Christian Science Foundation), Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries, and Creation Research … work hard to get their materials into schools …”
And they’re succeeding. According to Professor Oppy, since 2000, the teaching of creationism in science classes has become “more prevalent”.
How is it, one might ask, that creationism in the classroom is widely acknowledged by teachers and academics, but, when politicians are asked about it, their inevitable reaction is to feign surprise!
Late last year, I wrote about a Queensland state school where creationism is being taught ‘as science’ in the science classroom. The information came directly from a science teacher who was so appalled at what was going on at her school, she risked her job to speak out. She later told her story on Radio National’s Life Matters program. That teacher has said, plainly, this is not the only school where this is happening. Science teachers speak to each other and while many know creationism is a problem, particularly in Queensland schools , many fear for their jobs if they speak out – especially under the current conservative regime of happy clappers. I’m reliably informed that Education Queensland’s reaction to the news that creationism is being taught ‘as science’ in a state high school science class has been to ‘deny, deny, deny’.
So, perhaps we should not be surprised that when creationism in schools was raised last night, Ms Plibersek’s reacted as if she had never heard of such a thing; as if the problem of creationism in Australian classrooms was a completely new issue. It’s not. We’ve been carping about it for years and politicians from both sides of the political fence have been sticking their fingers in their ears for approximately the same amount of time.
In August 2011, for example, there was a public uproar after a chaplain from a state school in Gympie arranged for creationist, John Mackay, to deliver a ‘scientific’ lecture to students. Yet, chaplains still infest our schools and creationists are still being invited to speak to students.
Recently, one of the Young Australian Skeptics confirmed that, at his ‘semi-private’ Christian school, students were told by an invited guest that the evolutionary theory they were being taught in science class was ‘not true’. As the student says:
“I don’t mind having people come and speak to us in chapel if they are talking about how God wants to help you, loves you, etc; but I cannot stand it when someone comes into the school and tells us the curriculum set for us is wrong. “You learn about evolution in the classroom, but this is the real truth. All of that stuff isn’t based on anything provable.” Arguments ranging from irreducible complexity to the point that Noah’s flood is the reason for the Grand Canyon being around. He even managed to mess up natural selection by almost reversing how it works. What a spectacular man!”
“What actually happened in the past?” is the rhetorical question posed by creationist, Dr Mark Harwood, the above-mentioned speaker, in his set speech to school students. Here is what Harwood and his mates from Creation Ministries International are telling Australian school students:
While still wildly inaccurate, Harwood’s approach is slightly more sophisticated than the misguided religious instruction teachers who have told students that “Noah collected dinosaur eggs to bring on the Ark” and that “Adam and Eve were not eaten by dinosaurs because they were under a protective spell.”
On the Atheist Foundation of Australian forum, I found a post from the chief scientist at a reptile sanctuary in Canberra. With considerable frustration, he reports that when he attempted to answer questions about the reptiles from a visiting school group, a teacher interrupted his explanation and asked him to answer the questions without mentioning evolution.
“Yeah mate, look we don’t buy into that evolution stuff, there are too many holes in it, its just a theory”
With a stunned gaze I managed to get out some words “what do you mean”
“Well we teach creation at our school, evolution is just one world view, that’s your world view, and our world view is as it is stated in the Bible”
In 2010, the Australian reported that school students in NSW had been presented with ‘creationist showbags” by a group of scripture volunteers. These “Creation For Kids” give-aways contained “colouring books, calendars and DVDs deriding evolution and claiming that the universe was only 6000 years old.”
And, if the practice of bringing creationism into the classroom is not widespread as so many teachers, researchers and academics claim, why did the chief executive of Christian Schools Australia, Stephen O’Doherty, howl (in early 2010) that the SA government was withdrawing “the right to teach ”biblical perspectives” as part of science”?
We know that creationism is entering Australian state schools’ science classrooms by stealth. We know that it is still taught, quite openly, in Christian schools. In schools where the science classroom has been successfully ‘roped off’ from creationist myths, the fundamentalists find other ways to undermine the science curriculum. This will continue as long as government ministers, like Plibersek, adopt denial as the most convenient way to deal with the rising problem of religion in schools.
We know that, throughout Australia, in both public and private schools, inside and outside of science classes, evolution is being undermined while a fundamentalist, literalist view of creation is being touted to students by whatever means and in whatever pedagogical venue the creationists can manage to infiltrate.
“Kings Christian Church youth worker Dustin Bell said he taught ‘about creation’ in Sunshine Coast schools.”
“Set Free Christian Church’s Tim McKenzie said when students questioned him why dinosaur fossils carbon dated as earlier than man, he replied that the great flood must have skewed the data.”
And, in a shocking but amusing anecdote (which I can confirm, because I know the parent involved):
“A parent of a Year 5 student on the Sunshine Coast said his daughter was ostracised to the library after arguing with her scripture teacher about DNA.
“The scripture teacher told the class that all people were descended from Adam and Eve,” he said.
“My daughter rightly pointed out, as I had been teaching her about DNA and science, that ‘wouldn’t they all be inbred’?
“But the teacher replied that DNA wasn’t invented then.”
Another parent, Graeme, from the Sunshine Coast complained to Queensland Labor Premier, Anna Bligh, that, after his daughter’s science teacher explained the theory of evolution by natural selection to the class, he screened a video on intelligent design. In reply, Premier Bligh assured Graeme that it was perfectly acceptable for science teachers to ask their students to ‘look at a range of opinions – a range of views’.
So, when teaching geography, do we also show students DVDs from flat earth theorists?
When teaching astronomy, do we bring in an astrologer to explain how the stars guide our lives and personalities?
When teaching kids how the brain works, do we ask teachers to screen a video of John Edwards so they will understand ‘there is a view’ that a living, functioning brain is not a necessary prerequisite to communication. (A necessary clarification – I’m speaking here of the spirits with whom Edwards allegedly communes, not Edwards himself!) After all, we wouldn’t want the children of parents who believe in TV psychics to feel their parents’ views are not being respected in the science class, would we?
Teaching creationism alongside evolution cannot be justified as ‘teaching the controversy’. As Professor Lawrence Krauss confirmed on Q & A last night, there is no ‘controversy’ about evolutionary theory. It’s supported by over 200 years of irrefutable evidence from a wide range of scientific and medical disciplines. While a huge collection of fossil evidence (complete with ‘missing’ links) has helped to establish evolution by natural selection ‘as fact’, evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins assures us the evidence from other fields is so voluminous that evolution can now be proven even without reference to fossils:
“Fossils are not necessary to prove evolution nowadays, as we can do that with comparative evidence, especially via chemical molecular evidence. But fossils are very nice for showing the direct course evolution took – fossils are the only evidence we have which show what animals were like in the distant past.
We are very lucky to have fossils, [but] if we didn’t have fossils at all, we’d still know evolution was true. There are some gaps in the fossil record too, of course, which those sceptical about evolution think is important, but of course it’s not. The whole fossil record could be one big gap and we would still know evolution was true. But although there are gaps there are still substantial parts of evolution where we have a pretty good record of what exactly happened.”
It is simply unacceptable that the laxity of our state and federal governments has allowed an ideological belief to infiltrate schools and undermine the teaching of a vitally important scientific theory which undergirds so many of this nation’s scientific, agricultural and medical endeavours. We need our children to be well informed about science because they are the scientists, researchers, inventors and innovators of the future.
Dr John Dickson from the Centre for Public Christianity confirmed on Q&A last night, that a literal interpretation of Genesis is neither scientifically nor theologically sound. Further, he noted that not even early Christians would have read Genesis literally – this is a far later affectation.
Even the Catholic Church, which can’t seem to get its head around the fact that condoms reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS, has been forced to acknowledge the truth of evolutionary theory. There is simply no reason for our government to cave in to extremist fundamentalist fringe views at the expense of our children’s education.
Indeed, it is unfair to allow children to be confused by well-meaning, but misinformed religious evangelists – whether these be teachers, principals, guest speakers, or volunteers invited into the school for the purpose of teaching religion.
Let me try an analogy. Would anyone find it acceptable for children to be told by an RI teacher or guest speaker that their maths teacher is lying when they say 1+1=2 and that, in fact, 1+1 actually equals 3? How would we feel if some maths teachers who, despite all evidence to the contrary, subscribed to the belief that 1+1=3 were allowed to teach that in the maths classroom while the government looked the other way, denied it was happening and responded to evidence by downplaying it as an ‘isolated incident’? Teaching that there is some scientific controversy about the fact of evolution by natural selection, or suggesting to students that creationism is somehow supported by science is every bit as unsound as telling them that 1+1=3.
Ms Plibersek and her party (state and federal) have to stop ignoring the problem of religion in government funded schools – both state and private – and implement policies which promote science, reason and critical thinking and which confine religious mythology to the home and the church.
If you know of an incident or incidents of creationism being taught or touted within Australian schools, please contact Ms Plibersek’s office at: Minister.Plibersek@health.gov.au. Perhaps we can convince her that it’s not happening in ‘just one school’.
How often have we heard politicians who are opposed to same-sex marriage whine, “What about the children? We have to think about the children!”
Gladly, the Cross-Eyed Bear 