Intelligent design to be taught in Queensland schools under national curriculum

Intelligent design to be taught in Queensland schools under national curriculum

www.couriermail.com.au

CREATIONISM and intelligent design will be taught in Queensland state schools for the first time as part of the new national curriculum.
Creationists dismiss the science of evolution, instead believing that living things are best explained by an intelligent being or God, rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.

The issue of creationism being taught in schools has caused huge controversy in the US, where some fundamentalist religious schools teach it as a science subject instead of Darwin's theory of evolution.

In Queensland schools, creationism will be offered for

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.christiantoday.com
www.noanswersingenesis.org.au

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
www.idnet.com.au...

Australia is one of the most egalitarian nations on earth...
...one of the most tolerant and ethnically diverse...
...it is also one of the least religious.

I think it is significant that Australian educators have decided to introduce discussion of Intelligent Design into the Queensland State curriculum under controvercies in Ancient History.

What do others think?



www.couriermail.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by troubleshooter


I believe Australia will gain much from teaching this in schools, this will expand the minds of those who are thought, and will allow them to lurk in to places where current scientist, inventors.. etc won't look.

Great find.

I wonder who was the drive behind this, I bet a few religious nutcases in charge ruined it for everyone there. Well if Australia chooses to devolve instead of evolving then be it. I am sure they will see the error of their ways in the future but the damage won't be undone.

Originally posted by Phlegmi
I wonder who was the drive behind this, I bet a few religious nutcases in charge ruined it for everyone there. Well if Australia chooses to devolve instead of evolving then be it. I am sure they will see the error of their ways in the future but the damage won't be undone.

Don't you think a current controversy should be discussed in an education setting?

Originally posted by Phlegmi
I wonder who was the drive behind this, I bet a few religious nutcases in charge ruined it for everyone there. Well if Australia chooses to devolve instead of evolving then be it. I am sure they will see the error of their ways in the future but the damage won't be undone.

^^

Australia is doing fine, economically and education wise..

It is their smart thinking which has brought them to this conclusion that different ideas should be put forward so that diverse thinking may emerge, not narrow Atheistic thinking.

reply to post by troubleshooter


I think that it is a mistake that could have ramifications for the future but at the same time I see it as a threat that will affect mainly those that tend to spend time together, sitting down and watching some lobotomy by TV instead of talking and reading science, talking physics and theology, so on and so forth. I may be godless but that does not disqualify me from talking about religions if I am asked.

Sadly too many live like that and because of that, we all risk having to take a bite of the mud pie like it or not.

However at the same time I really would have little problem with a curriculum that included intelligent design because I happen to talk a lot to my children and I started doing so the moment they started moving around in the womb. It is sad that many others tend to just leave it to others to do the talking but life is for living I guess and we all live it how we wish.

The questions my 14 year asks today are questions like,‘Hey dad if our muscles are powered by a form of electrolyte electricity then what happens to that energy when we die, does it dissipate or does it go somewhere we have not figured out yet?’ (scratchhead).

‘Dad if there are 7 billions souls on the earth today and there were perhaps 300 million souls a few hundred years ago then where have all the extra souls come from? Could it be that there are no souls then just electricity?’ (scratchhead).

Yes I am a very proud dad but my point rather is to take a full on approach to offspring and great things happen and never need to worry about some new fangled theory on intelligent design that may filter down from faceless suits.

Anyway I think that the only people that need feel threatened by this turn of events in the schools that may start to teach intelligent design are the parents who are always far too busy or too lazy to take the time to talk to their offspring. Sadly these oblivious or overly trusting parents seem to be placing too much reliance on their governments and at the same time they are expecting their governments to have no social agendas towards their children... Wrong!

What is tragic to my eye is that such parents are missing out on a vital gardening and weeding out process and by missing out they are forcing their children to grow up with a hand tied behind their back.

A mum or dad cannot expect a gorgeous rose bush to grow to fruition if they do not take the time to actually tend to it themselves and if they disagree with what is being said in schools, they as a parent have much more say, much more right than some stranger who speaks from some government sanctioned curriculum hymn sheet so to speak.

It seems to be the new rules of engagement, standard operating procedures, whatever, these days is to leave even the most rudimentary forms of education to the educational institutions.

People scream all too often that their governments are having far too much say in their lives and in their children’s lives but from my opinion I would say that these people are not grabbing the bull by the horns, spanking that misshapen so called fact into a semblance of perspective and correcting nonsense when they disagree with it. When it comes in the forms of intelligent design, creationism and so on it is as if they have no say in the matter.

It is all back to front and the governments know this but they stay silent because being back to front suits their purpose. In my reality it is always going to be a government that has very little say when it comes to teachings in all subjects and it is the government that is the weaker force here when you stand them and the parent side by side.

The child will tend listen to the mother and father with a bias born from love but only if that mother and father have taken the time to talk from early on with correct information and a delivery system that has patience at its base.

Now to my believer friends I am not slating your religion and I actually do admire that you have faith but I admire it when faith matters do not infringe on my life so when it does I will always be standing right beside my daughter and giving her both sides of the argument so that she can make up her own mind.

If she wishes to follow the word of god later in her life that is entirely up to her but in the time that I am helping her grow to fruition I will always give her both side of the argument and with a bias towards science rather than theology because I do not put my faith in that which I have never seen or felt but I do put my faith in doing the right thing by my daughters with no agendas regarding turning them into productive little citizens that can later be taxed and manipulated via the media.

Summary based on my opinion: Intelligent design is not a threat unless one makes it a threat by being absent minded, and distant from the educational process.





[edit on 1-6-2010 by SmokeJaguar67]

I see no problem with it as long as it's part of a comprehensive package of possible explanations.

Mankind is not long out of the ape stage. Our 'science' can't explain the origin of the big bang, can't come up with a unified field theory, can't tell how many other dimensions the universe holds, can't cure countless diseases, hasn't mastered space flight yet, haven't figured out how to stop destroying our planet but......


...we sure as hell know there is no god! Our science is that good!

Let me tell you something. The man who says there is no god is just as stupid as the man who says there is. Neither has proof of anything.

In Queensland schools, creationism will be offered for discussion in the subject of ancient history, under the topic of "controversies

So its not being taught in science classes, and its not being taught as fact it will be under the topic of "contraversies". Even from a fundamentalist athiests point of view this should be ok, but some of the comments on the courier mail site are of horror and claims education is returning to the dark ages, I mean come on intelligent design is such a big issue a student should at least be able to learn what the term actually means at some point in their education so they understand why the contraversy exists, so long as it stays out of science classes I dont see why so many people have such a problem with it.

Originally posted by Darkrunner
I see no problem with it as long as it's part of a comprehensive package of possible explanations.

Mankind is not long out of the ape stage. Our 'science' can't explain the origin of the big bang, can't come up with a unified field theory, can't tell how many other dimensions the universe holds, can't cure countless diseases, hasn't mastered space flight yet, haven't figured out how to stop destroying our planet but......


...we sure as hell know there is no god! Our science is that good!

Let me tell you something. The man who says there is no god is just as stupid as the man who says there is. Neither has proof of anything.

I tend to agree.

If evolution could be scientifically 'proven' there would be no controversy...
...and it is the controversy that is to be discussed.

Originally posted by Darkrunner
I see no problem with it as long as it's part of a comprehensive package of possible explanations.

Mankind is not long out of the ape stage. Our 'science' can't explain the origin of the big bang, can't come up with a unified field theory, can't tell how many other dimensions the universe holds, can't cure countless diseases, hasn't mastered space flight yet, haven't figured out how to stop destroying our planet but......


...we sure as hell know there is no god! Our science is that good!

Let me tell you something. The man who says there is no god is just as stupid as the man who says there is. Neither has proof of anything.

For the hundred billionth time, evolution has nothing to do with either christianity, god, or the creation of life. You're thinking of Atheism. That is not taught in schools.

Evolution is based on the life works of tens of thousands of dedicated scientists who have all pitched in with research for over a hundred years, slowly accumulating a vast body of research that fits PERFECTLY with the theory of evolution. There is no controversy with evolution. It is a proven fact.

I see that this course is being offered under Controversies in Ancient History. I can understand it being discussed if it's supposed to be a counter to Abiogenesis, which is not proven yet. But Abiogenesis (the theory that life arose from simple chemical processes) has NOTHING to do with evolution. So if this distinction is clearly made, I don't see a huge problem.

However, I can easily see some teacher misinterpreting the basic science involved, as several posters have already done, and think that the class is supposed to be some kind of antithesis to ToE.

[edit on 1-6-2010 by Son of Will]

Dear lord!!! why not also teach kids about garden pixies that dry the washing and flying mushrooms that seed rainfall as well. They're about as accurate as intelligent design.

Starting with the answer is not science. Science is about teaching kids what we've learnt based on evidence, not by guesswork and wishful thinking.

I'm sick of weak minded people who cannot accept we just don't know if there's life after death. It does no good to anyone to delude themselves into thinking it has to be. And why does there have to be a god for an afterlife to exist??? Why does any afterlife have to be the narrow-minded version that religions portray it to be of good in heaven and bad in hell???

[edit on 1-6-2010 by john124]

reply to post by troubleshooter


So it will be taught as a controversy in history class? I dont see any problem with that, it will help students see how scientific method allowed us to find our true origins instead of myths.

If evolution could be scientifically 'proven' there would be no controversy... ...and it is the controversy that is to be discussed.

Well, there is no controversy currently among actual scientists-biologists, so there is nothing to discuss in biology classes. But it would not be bad to teach a little about creationism in history or sociology classes.

reply to post by troubleshooter


I fear this will be the thin end of the wedge. At least it will be discussed under the topic of 'controversies' but how long will it be before it is taught as science? Of course the people that implemented this did not succumb to lobbying from the well funded and well organised Christian pressure groups, they just thought it would be a good idea.

What other 'controversial' superstitions will work their way in to the education system?

[edit on 1/6/2010 by LightFantastic]

This "intelligent design" that some people belive in is actually stupid design. This VIDEO explains it pretty well.

Intelligent Design, as I've mentioned in other threads, is absolutely fascinating. However, I wish it would stop being referred to as "proof God exists".

Frankly, I think there can be intelligent design, and still no God. Intelligent design by itself simply means that it had to have been created, hence indicating a creator.

However, I do not think the exploration into whether or not there is a creator = God. I think there are multiple layers of possible explanations prior to reaching the conclusion that intelligent design = God.

For all we know, we are merely an advanced board game of sorts that other intelligent life has created. That other intelligent life not necessarily equating to what most would view as a God.

I would love for the idea of intelligent design to be able to be thoroughly researched, studied, and examined from all aspects without the fear of justifying and/or legitimizing religion / God.

reply to post by Phlegmi


You want to then explain to me how a bacterial flagellum could have evolved into existence considering the fact that it can not function nor operate without all of its parts, most of which are not found in other cellular structures?

That's the trick. You have complex machine comprised of many parts that is completely ineffective without all of those parts.

Another question: DNA coding. Are you aware that the precise nature of DNA coding, had it been done randomly until it "clicked" or therefore functioned, is akin to dropping thousands of Scrabble tiles on a floor and having them perfectly align into 30 pages of text?

I'd like to see you try to accomplish that.

"To be quite honest the outrages me" - is what i wrote before i read the article....which contained this

"In Queensland schools, creationism will be offered for discussion in the subject of ancient history, under the topic of "controversies"."

Now I think that it is a brilliant idea to look at the controversial issues, in ancient history, about creationism and intelligent design. As long as they are looking also (which of course they will be) at evolution, then that is fine by me.

I think it adds intelligence and questions to lok at both sides of the story and will get people researching and investigating both sides. I have and it's made me a believer in BOTH theories actually. It has made me both more spiritual and more scientific at the same time.

Both topics have incredible scope that can only create more learned and intelligent students.

Bravo.

reply to post by lpowell0627


If you drop the scrabble tiles enough times it will happen. Most people can't comrehend the immense amount of time that passed before first life appeared, and this is akin to your scrabble analogy. As far as DNA goes you might want to take a look at THIS

Prsonally I can see no problem with it and it should be encouraged.
Not because I agree with the idea behind I.D. but simply because it encouragesdiscussion and debate and for a student to formulate theri own opinion, something that isbeing drummed out of students here in the UK.

Whatever department etc it is taught in it should be included as an alternative viewpoint from the current accepted scientific theory of evolution.

Personally, I think creationism is nonsense, I.D. is unliklely and evolution is the best explanation we have by far at present, however, there is that but....?

It is good that Australia are encouraging open and honest debate on such topics.
We should follow their lead.