One of our least favorite institutions, Focus on the Family, has been trying to corrupt the educational system of New Zealand by sending creationist garbage to the high schools. It doesn’t seem to be a serious threat — so far, they’re pretty sensible down there — but there is one internet poll asking whether schools should teach ID.
Go express your opinion!
Finally…….first.
Thanks PZ … I was going to ask you post a message on this poll, but see that someone obviously beat me to it! I know that NZ gave the USA Ray Comfort, but did you guys really need to give us FotF in return??? (FFS)
Yes (540 votes, 41.6%)
No (757 votes, 58.4%)
Blah blah blah, standard caveats, yadda yadda, students should be able to study ID in History of Human Stupidity 101, a.k.a. “Religion Studies”, etc. Here’s where it stood when I voted “No”.
Yes: 548 votes, 41.5%
No: 773 votes, 58.5%
It’s ripe for Pharyngulation.
My deepest sympathy to the Kiwi’s. Lets hope common sense swoops in and saves the day by sending these idiots back to wherever they came from.
Thanks PZ. I was about to let you know about this one. When I first voted it was almost a 50/50 split, which is shocking considering NZ is almost 40% non-religious (I think there’s a counter poll flood going on here).
Though we did give you Ray Comfort, we also gave the world Ernest Rutherford. So that’s more than enough payback : )
Update:
Yes: 602 votes, 39.4%
No: 924 votes, 60.6%
Evolution is still going on today. How else can we explain that creationists still speak out of their backsides?
A call to all other Aussies who read this fine blog, Uphold the ANZAC Tradition and vote to save the minds of our friends across the pond.
Besides we need to atone for inflicting Ken Ham on the world, on behalf of all Australians I can never apologise enough for that one.
40% may be non-religious, but the force is strong in New Zealand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_census_phenomenon#New_Zealand
If you’re in the mood for poll skewing, this one is still open: http://christianpresident.blogspot.com/ The site owner seems a little bewildered that his poll is being attacked by Godless Liberals. The name of the site alone should incur the wrath of PZ.
Thanks for the support PZ – looks like Tim Sisarich and his mates at the Destiny Church are trying to pump up support for the god botherers before the election at the end of this year. The evangelicals are trying desperately to get a seat in parliament, all the better to spam us with their religious nonsense.
Well, as long as 40% of NZers refuse to believe in this crap (according to the last census nearly 40% of Kiwi’s did not affiliate themselves with a religion) we should be ok.
Up to 63.5% No
Sixty two point eight humans out of ten say that ID should not be taught.
Ask your doctor if you are healthy enough to engage in rational and heated debate before taking the results of this poll seriously. Remember, this poll only represents the opinions of those who chose to vote.
The present results are, nonetheless, encouraging.
Let’s look at Focus on the Family’s idea of what science is, shall we?
See? Science is just like lawyering. You just take something you want to be true, then try to persuade people that it is. Whatever happens to be the dominate paradigm gets to call itself “science.” The theory that a magic man poofed everything into existence becomes “science” if you can get enough people to agree that it’s true. Yep, just changing the definition of science to mean “metaphysics,” that’s all this is.
Ray Comfort is a Kiwi WTF, even the australians don`t want to claim him?
FUCK!!!!!
I’m a Kiwi. I love that we have one of the higher proportions of self-declared nonbelievers. I hate the thought that they’re parroting this stuff in New Zealand. We’re usually pretty sane down here, if somewhat luddite regarding new technology.
Polls like this are biased anyway – but it’s nice to see this fluctuate in the right direction.
….. Ken Ham is an Aussie? Ray Comfort is a Kiwi? Shit, I thought all these guys were Americans.
Well, not all. I go to Uni here in NZ, and I was surprised when I found creationists here (not many, but even 2 or 3 is ‘many’ compared to Japan, where I was raised).
God damn it, Now I know how it feels when this happens in your country :(
On the subject of ‘bishop’ brian tamaki and destiny church (lower caps all intentional), I’ve always thought it would be an interesting addition to democracy if I could opt out of placing a positive vote for a candidate or party I prefer and instead place a negative voite against a candidate or party I don’t want getting into power.
I know that this probably wouldn’t really work in practice. But crackpots like brian tamaki really make me wish that I could have that option.
As a former resident of New Zealand I am surprised that this subject is even seeing the ‘light of day’. Our son, who will be at Wynkoop to meet you this coming Thursday, is a Kiwi by birth.
Shame, SHAME on the kiwis for giving Dobson the time of day!
As for the poll- the update is 66.4% against, 33.4% for.
Done.
Numbers are now:
I’m personally embarrassed about Ken Ham coming from Australia; I similarly sympathise with my tans-Tasman neighbours for Ray Comfort.
That dimwit asswipe Dobson should focus on his own family, and leave the rest of the world alone.
“Focus on the Family” is a nest of stupidity without peer.
Fuck ’em.
Speaking as a New Zealander, I can say that this really isn’t all that much to worry about. Religion and politics here are almost completely separate – the Prime Minister’s a self-declared agnostic (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3554978), the Destiny political party pushing this nonsense got 0.62% of the vote in the last election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destiny_New_Zealand#2005_general_election), and the main right-wing party, National, is far less religious than the American Democratic party. Things are pretty good over here.
Thanks for the pointer. Looks like some IDers freeped the poll early, but now Pharyngula is taking over.
It would be interesting to see a scientific poll on this issue there.
As my Dark and Tentacular Overlord has decreed, so it has been done.
Status after my two terces:
Yes (797 votes, 31.4%)
No (1745 votes, 68.6%)
Also, Mister “I wanna Xian Prezzy” seems to have a little hissy fit posted now. Apparently the fact that people who don’t agree with him might come on his site and lambast him for being a Poe’s Goose came as a shock.
But hey! If you’re going to try on a shoe and loudly announce that it fits on the Internet…
The MadPanda, FCD
If Focus on the Family would like to mail them to New Zealand first class, I will be happy to donate creationist art in the form of 2 tons of granite inscribed with the words “God did it,” in 1,000 languages.
I posted a comment at the “I want a Christian president” blog. Basically I said that, whatever else might be said about Fred Phelps, the man is honest. He makes no secret that he hate homosexuals. So why can’t the rest of you homophobes be as honest as Rev Fred?
I’ll go back in a while to see if my post was deemed worthy.
Christian Mathematics!
http://www.trnty.edu/faculty/robbert/SRobbertWebFolder/ChristianityMath/Calculus.html
Nice work, Pharyngulites!
Yes = 910 votes, 30.6%
No = 2061 votes, 69.4%
It’s still running lower than it should be. Real polls indicate 75% of NZers support evolution (New Zealand supports evolution). The creationists are organising on that one – we should too.
As a Kiwi, I feel no need to apologize for giving you guys Ray Comfort as I’m convinced he’s an undercover atheist working to make creotards look even stupider (obviously, right?).
My vote has been tossed in.
I doubt it’ll come to much, despite the media dig at it. I can’t see any of this sort of thing making it into science classes, although it might make it into “religious studies” classes in any schools that have them. Put another way, the cirriculum already has a place for this and its not in the science classes.
My high school had a “religious studies” class. I can remember that with very few exceptions my classmates thought the religious studies class was just some stupid thing we had to do. (Of course it was a great opportunity to wind up the teacher, too!)
“No” is now 69.6%
PS:- Not relevant at all, but just stumbled onto this: Evolutionary religious studies apparently applies principles of evolution to study how religions have “evolved”.
I agree with Ubiquitous Che and take it one step further.
What the fucking fuck?!
First the anti-smacking law, and now this? My poor country.
I’m proud to be a Kiwi. Most Kiwis are rational people and will not let this creotard crap into our schools. I don’t honestly think this will go too far, but the fact of the matter is, we have dimwits trying to push this stuff into our schools.
How can we make them see the difference between scientific theory and layperson theory? How can we make them understand that the ‘god did it’ conjecture is not appropriate for a science classroom?
P.S. Ray Comfort came from NZ? Ugh. Sorry about that.
Heraclides, that site is funded by the Templeton Foundation, so beware.
I’m proud to be a Kiwi. Most Kiwis are rational people and will not let this creotard crap into our schools.
Keep a close on on these retards:
http://www.destinychurch.org.nz/
It’s my understanding that they are a growing concern down in NZ.
…and, sadly yes, we in the US are at least partly to blame for the development and funding of the Destiny Church in NZ.
How can we make them understand that the ‘god did it’ conjecture is not appropriate for a science classroom?
easy.
don’t let these suckers take control of your local school boards.
spend at least one day a month attending your local school board meetings, and at the first sign of trouble, prepare some handouts, or point people to good sources on science online, or prepare a lecture or two yourself.
Show your local school board the damage that has resulted from creationist actions in the US (there are MANY examples at this point).
write your local legislators and make sure they are informed of the dangers of this crap.
an ounce of prevention…
I’m coming down there in a few months; you all better not let these idiots get a foothold.
;)
Ichthyic,
Unfortunately I’m no longer resident in NZ. Sigh.
There may be alot of Kiwis who call themselves christian, but very few would be fundies. There is a large separation of church and state, as well as a large separation of school and religion (except catholic schools, obviously).
Kiwis won’t swallow the ‘ID is not creationism’ crap like many in the US have.
That being said, those few fundies are there, and will not turn from their dogma no matter how much evidence to the contrary. Such is the nature of faith. Tough shit for them.
Kiwis won’t swallow the ‘ID is not creationism’ crap like many in the US have.
There’s a quote dangling at the edge of my mind…
something about money making believers out of the staunchest skeptics?
seriously, though, I have seen how spending money on spreading creationism has had an effect, and good ‘ol Eddie has LOTS of money…
http://www.blackvoices.com/black_news/canvas_directory_headlines_features/_a/bishop-eddie-long-biggest-beneficiary-of/20050830143809990001
bottom line:
never say never.
Ugh.
Kiwis don’t have that many numbers or that much money to give to a ‘church’. Kiwis are actually pretty cautious about scam artists like that.
I’m not a school teacher, but if I were, I’d be seriously upset if there was a specific legislation, or a lynch mob, telling me that I could not teach intelligent design. I study evolution, am an atheist, and dislike Dembski et alia as much as the next guy (note to self: funny how I have to emphasize this almost every time I comment here), but kick me if I think that means we can’t allow teachers to teach it! The poll said “Should schools be allowed to teach ‘intelligent design’?”, not “Should schools be forced to teach intelligent design instead of evolution?” When I become a professor ;) I will teach intelligent design, just as I recall PZ himself does.
Sometimes Pharyngulites seem like the lynch mob…….
Bjorn,
It’s an internet poll, and as such is never worded completely correctly.
ID is not an alternative explanation for the universe, or even for biology. ID is religious fundamentalism, biblical literalism, it is creationism. ID has no place in the science classroom and should not be taught as science.
If you want to teach ID, go teach sunday school, or at best, teach comparative religion.
Thanks, PZ, nice to see this poll getting a bit of the ‘right’ attention :-)
@ #33: if this nonsense was going to be taught in religious studies class, I’d agree with you – but it’s not; it’s intended for use in science classes. That’s why it was sent to the HoDs of Science. And I’m damn sure it’ll be used in some classrooms too.
That’s one reason I’m writing to the Minister of Education – it’s just disingenuous for the Ministry’s spokeswoman to say that parents can withdraw their kids from religious instruction, so there are no problems with the FoF material being used in schools. Are we then to believe that a teacher planning on using the FoF/DI materials will first send a note home saying, hey guys, we’ll be teaching a religious viewpoint in science tomorrow, so let me know if you want little Johnny to skip that class? I don’t think so!
This same spokeswoman has previously said that students should be learning about all theories about the origins of life’s diversity, and that evolution can’t be shown in the lab so obviously isn’t the only answer (that’s a paraphrase because I don’t have her original e-mail in front of me at the moment, but that’s the general gist of it).
Sure, most teachers won’t use this stuff, but in some schools they will, because they’re of that persuasion anyway or because they don’t recognise it for what it is. And that really really bothers me.
AH! The IDers have a counter poll bombing going on. It’s gone from 30/70 to 34/66 in just 30 minutes. Stupid internet polls.
Bjorn @ #42: if PZ ‘teaches’ intelligent design to his university students it’ll be for the same reason that I do: to show them why it’s not science. And I don’t ‘teach’ ID as a viable alternative (yech, gotta wash my mouth out)to evolution , I teach about it as part of discussion of the nature of science – not the same thing at all. And for that reason I will strenuously resist any attempt to get intelligent design taught in NZ science classrooms.
As a kiwi I’d like to add my apologies to those above for inflicting Ray Comfort on you guys in the USA – although we also gave you William Pickering (the late director of JPL at Pasadena) so maybe that goes some way to redressing the balance.
As for Fof, Destiny et al, I really think they are just fringe here, and not growing in size or influence. Even so, I’m briefing my high school age kids on this to let me know if they here anything of it – the school has already had probs in the past couple of years with a conspiracy theory teacher teaching that the moon landings didn’t happen in history class, so there is a chance this crap will make it into the class room if it falls into the wrong hands.
@ Bjørn Østman : Don’t be a tool. The poll was created not long after the sudden interest in the article generated by blog postings on PZ’s site and others. Fairfax web admins are just cashing in on the increase in traffic by putting loaded polls to incense people browsing the site.
Of course New Zealand is not about to endorse this crapola in the classroom any time soon, but we must always be wary of snakes-in-the-grass like Tim Sisarich and his shiny white teeth. I agree with Ichthyic – take an active part in your local schools and make sure this never even makes it into discussion. “An ounce of prevention…” – absorootrey twoo.
me at #43: I don’t care if it’s an internet poll. It’s a question, and we should all answer it honestly, to the word.
Why don’t you tell PZ to stop teaching ID? (Well, one reason that Pharyngulites don’t object to anything PZ says is that he, unfortunately, has risen to this deity-like position that he is so much opposed to himself.)
Intelligent Design is the perfect thing to teach in a science class, because it highlights so well what science is and isn’t. Preventing a science teacher from teaching it (after all, it takes no more than a couple of minutes to explain the “theory” in every detail), is just as fundie-crazy. It doesn’t mean that the same teachers can avoid teaching real science, which is what we’re afraid of. Not that crazy theories are mentioned too. Lamarckian evolution is often taught in biology, as is the geocentric world view in astronomy. Science can deal with this.
Alison @ #46: So we agree. It should be allowed to be taught, right? That is ALL I am saying, because that is all the poll asked (the article – which I could really not bother to read – may have worded the question differently, but as with political propositions, we must vote according to how the question is worded).
Wankermatic @ 48: “I’m not a tool.” You think I am being a tool for honestly answering a question on a poll in Pew Zealand? How the heck so?
Bjorn (#49) – if Lamarckian evolution is ‘often taught in biology’, it’s because the teacher doesn’t have a good handle on the nature of evolution & how it works. Or it’s if the teacher is using it as an example of how things change – which I suspect is rare, even though our new curriculum document has an understanding of the history of science as part of its ‘nature of science’ strand.
And if teachers can teach a Lamarckian view of evolution because they don’t have a good understanding of evolution, what’s to stop them using the FoF stuff in the classroom as well? And treating it as legitimate science?
@ Bjorn : Wankermatic? How original. I think you are a tool for getting all heated up over answering a poorly worded poll. Do I think people should not teach ID? I dont give a flying crap what people teach in a Religious Ed class, but I do think that you cannot teach ID in a science classroom. The poll asks “Should schools be allowed to teach ‘intelligent design’?” but does not specify which class, which type of school (private or public) or even which year. Its pointless, as PZ’s title says.
So by answering it “honestly” you believe ID should be taught alongside evolution as a theory for how life has changed since the beginning of time? You are a bigger tool than I first thought, because you are a “teach the controversy” tool. Yes they do sometimes mention other theories in passing in science classes, but more in a sense of “heres what they used to think”, not in “heres an alternate idea that is equally as valid”. IDCreationisim is a current religious – not a previous hypothesis proven to be incorrect.
And Bjorn (#50) – no, we don’t agree! There’s a big difference between teaching about ID and teaching ID as if it’s serious science; it’s not just a matter of semantics. If we taught our teachers, in training college, about ID & why it’s not science, & how to incorporate that knowledge into lessons that dealt with the nature of science, then I’d be more confident that they could do a good job of it if the subject came up in the classroom. But we don’t, & I’m not, & so I don’t support the idea that ID has a place in our science classrooms.
Sorry – that last sentence should have read…
IDCreationisim is a current religious idea – not a previous hypothesis proven to be incorrect.
@ Bjorn : Oh and the lovely statement you make about “the article – which I could really not bother to read” says it all really. Yes it was all about putting ID in the science class. heres a quote for you from the article :
“Focus on the Family has sent The Privileged Planet CD and booklet to 400 high schools, asking that they be made available to science teachers and school libraries.”
Science, my Bjorn again friend, is not the area for religion.
Bjorn, dude, if you’re going to comment on a thread about an article and its poll, RTFA.
“Intelligent Design is the perfect thing to teach in a science class, because it highlights so well what science is and isn’t.” – Bjorn.
What a load of piffle. The scientific process is what separates science from what it is and isn’t, not a religious conjecture.
PZ a deity? WTF?
Pew Zealand? Fuck you.
I smell troll-like behaviour.
@35: I wasn’t promoting it, just pointing it out. (BTW, Dennett is listed as one of the “Faculty and independent scholars.”)
@36: Destiny are very well-known in NZ, owing to their antics in public, which have been the national media.
@42: You might be missing a key point (?)–its not that you couldn’t teach it as one of many different religious beliefs in a religious studies class (and compare with other religious beliefs), but there is no way the ID concept should be taught as science: it simply isn’t a science-based thing. Besides, f you started down that track, you’d have to teach what all other religious and cultures use to explain the world around them, too, and it’d no longer be a science class but a combined religious studies, social studies, geography and history class!
There is no sense in exploring religious beliefs in a science class–that belongs in religious studies, if anywhere.
@44: Sorry if I wasn’t being clear. I know it was targeted to the science HoDs, I wasn’t meaning to imply otherwise with my andecdotes. One question: does the system block teachers from teaching material that’s not on the cirriculum? (“Officially”, anyway.)
I had to vote ‘yes.’ If it had asked if ID should be taught in science class in school, I would have voted ‘no,’ but that was not the question posed.
I will teach intelligent design
will you teach holocaust denial too?
moron.
Paul, meet Bjorn. Bjorn, this is Paul.
Go read the article or start your own perfectly worded poll.
Intelligent Design is the perfect thing to teach in a science class, because it highlights so well what science is and isn’t. Preventing a science teacher from teaching it (after all, it takes no more than a couple of minutes to explain the “theory” in every detail), is just as fundie-crazy.
look, moron, there’s a big difference between teaching ABOUT something, and teaching that thing as a legitimate entity.
frankly, I disagree that ID has anything to teach us (other than being an example of american advertising spin). As such, with all the much better things to teach kids, it’s an utter waste of time.
If you want to play Mr. Rebel, why don’t you bring a bible to class and try teaching that as science for comparison?
see how far it gets you.
As a NZer, I can reassure you that it won’t become government policy for some time to come. As someone who spent a lot of time in religious schools (they run the best schools, and -usually- keep their religion from interfering with the education, plus it was great training for a pharyngulite), I can tell you that in some schools, they’re already saying “We have to teach you evolution, but you know it’s not true, right?” – and this was a former research biologist, someone with a doctorate in biology. It’s going to be out there no matter whether it’s the rule or not.
Oh, and for those wondering where I’ve been (I know you missed me…) I’ve been over at Rationalwiki under the same name. I wrote an article about Ray Comfort espousing the same theory as Btb… which goes to show that great minds think alike.
@ Heraclides (#57)
erm, well, the new curriculum is rather short on specifics in that area. When it was being developed, those of us on the science panel commented that there would have to be some reasonably serious money spent on writing supporting materials similar to those that exist for the previous version (suggesting learning activities & modes of assessment). This has yet to happen, although various teacher groups do a good job of developing materials. In other words, as things stand at the moment it’s very general & certainly doesn’t mandate what can & can’t be taught. Most teachers will probably continue to use the ‘old’ curriculum document for guidance there.
And, as I said earlier, the ambiguous nature of what’s coming from the Ministry over this FoF stuff really bugs me.
Oops – & I should also have said that the ‘old’ curriculum document for science had a couple of holes that you could drive a creationist bus through. It’s very very loosely worded in the area of theories explaining the diversity of life on earth…
Alison,
Sounds like you’re in a position to make a difference. Don’t let ID into the science curriculum!
Yeah Alison!
I spent most of last year studying to be a maths and science teacher in New Zealand (before realising what a serious mistake I was making). The biology teachers that I met in schools all mentioned ID in the same classes that they went over Lemarkism. It was seriously trashed in the opening few minutes of a single lesson where they explained what the terms hypothesis and theory meant. ID was used as an example of the difference between the two meanings of theory. It was great.
Having said that, it is still worrying that this has come up at all here in NZ.
#33 Heraclides:
“PS:- Not relevant at all, but just stumbled onto this: Evolutionary religious studies apparently applies principles of evolution to study how religions have “evolved”.”
Here is a (Europe-based) science project to examine religion:
http://www.icea.ox.ac.uk/research/cam/projects/exrel/
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Explaining+Religion%22+EXREL
#33 Heraclides:
“PS:- Not relevant at all, but just stumbled onto this: Evolutionary religious studies apparently applies principles of evolution to study how religions have “evolved”.”
I notice that David Sloan Wilson is involved. I expect he will pursue his “group selection” view of the advantages of religion.
File the booklet and cd in the mythology section, like my high school did with the j/w creation book.
Noooo! ID in NZ!
Grrrrrrr angry.
Article:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4599856a10.html
This will never go ahead anyway, no chance of it. Nearly half of NZ is non-religious and I think most of the rest aren’t IDiots.
My fathers new partner happens to be a creationist though.. *sigh*
“One of our least favorite institutions, Focus on the Family, has been trying to corrupt the educational system of New Zealand by sending creationist garbage to the high schools.”
Now we can really call them the Christian Harun Yahyas. Not much of a compliment.
This isn’t the first time creationist propaganda has been distributed to New Zealand schools. Religious groups have tried to pull this bullshit before. The USA groups are running them, and they operate from the same playbook.
I’ve been to Destiny Church services (full report somewhere in the Pharyngula comments archive) and questioned a couple of Baptist ministers, and they parrot exactly the same phrases as Ken Ham.
On the bright side, the Destiny Church plan for world domination through the 2008 NZ general election is toast. There were arguments over leadership almost immediately, and the Destiny political party imploded.
@63,64 Uh-huh. I guess that’s what you get from bureaucrats!
@67,68 If you haven’t figured it out yet, I’m not promoting religious points of view. I just thought it a curious mix, evolutionary approaches turned on religion.
It should be allowed to be taught, right?
Sure, just as soon as you allow math teachers to teach 2+2=7 and allow social studies teachers to teach that there was no Holocaust (Godwin!) As others have pointed out, the miswording isn’t in “allow”, it’s in “teach” instead of “teach about”.
What the devil, I thought “Focus on the Family” was a US organisation, what the hell are they doing sending there crap across the pacific?
What made them think they’d have any more luck this side of the International Date Line than back in Jesusland, much less in progressive, godless New Zealand?
I’ve got a new theory about the fact that water exists in another phase, a fourth phase, beyond, liquid, solid, and gazeous. I call it the Neg phase.
I haven’t found anything, I mean it’s just a pure hypothesis but it has as much validity as this one “Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the “messages,” and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation”, so if ID gets tought in NZ schools, I’d like to insist that my theory also gets tought in NZ schools.
So I’ll just keep insisting, it’s not fair if there is some favoritism for some crackpots and not others, is it ?
PZ: Thanks for this. It is nice to see you standing to protect the whole world from retards, not just local parts of it. I feel poorly because we had William Lane Craig debating at Auckland University a week or two ago and I missed it because of my anatomy exam.
Buffybot: That’ll put marzipan in your pie plate, bingo, right?
I perhaps need to clear up a couple of things. Seems like I have come off as some kind of ID supporter, or supporter of teaching invalidated theories in science class, as if they are taken seriously by the scientific community. I do not. Again, I am a flaming anti-ID, anti-creationist, anti-religion evolutionary biologist.
I also do NOT support regulating against what science teacher are ALLOWED to teach. I realize that the whole issue in New Zealand is about giving creationism equal time in science class, and all that. However, knowing that I seriously cannot answer that teacher should not be allowed to teach it.
It didn’t say, as several of you have suggested, that it should be taught as a theory of equal worth to evolution. Of course not! But teaching it in evolution as what science isn’t (and again, it will only take a couple of minutes to explain it in utmost detail), is extremely beneficial. And I repeat, PZ even does this. I would teach it something like this:
“ID is the theory that some things in evolution could not have evolved by natural means (because of this and this and this), and that a supernatural agent, which is taken to mean God, must have intervened to make certain events happen, such as (e.g. flagellum, eye, etc.). However, every structure that IDers have claimed is irreducibly complex have been shown to have homologous structures elsewhere. ID means “god did it”, and that generates no hypotheses that we can test, and while ID is strictly speaking a theory, it is therefore not a scientific theory.” Or something to that effect.
I also think it is ok to teach holocaust denial in history class – the right way. Here I am no expert, but something like “HD is the theory/idea that there was no holocaust, which is based on this and this interpretation of this and this evidence. However, this and this and this evidence rather shows that 6 million jews and others were indeed killed in concentration camps etc. etc.”
I didn’t read the article but went straight to the poll and asnwered that question. That is what PZ’s post suggested as well. Sure, you can think I am a moron for that.
Why? I made a quick joke NZ -> PZ (should have been Pnew Zealand), so “fuck me”?
As for trolling (Making comments intended only to disrupt a thread and incite flames and confusion), I of course am interested in no such thing. I mean what I have said, and couldn’t care less if a couple of Pharyngulites are inflamed or confused. But I dare you to suggest that I should be thrown into the dungeon for trolling. PZ knows who I am (though he may need a reminder), so I doubt that will be taken seriously.
Alison said
Again, I agree with you. Nowhere did I say that I would teach ID as serious science. I would teach it (briefly) in science class as an example of how NOT to do evolution, leading neatly into showing some good examples of how we think some structures have evolved (which IDers say couldn’t have).
Ichthyic, I don’t know who you are, but I have seen your comments here many times before. I must admit that you calling me a moron for what I have said makes me quite upset (SIWOTI syndrome, I suppose). I don’t understand why I would be Mr. Rebel for saying what I have here. I repeat, PZ himself has explained that he teaches ID (I teach Intelligent Design, too). To rip it apart. Just as I suggest. And that’s why I could not vote ‘no’ on that poll (teaching ID or about ID is the same thing, except perhaps for saying “and that obviously does not concur with the evidence”).
@Bjorn : Ok, thanks for explaining things a little more, but if you want to be taken seriously in blogs I would suggest not using the full caps, shouting method of getting your point accross. A majority of the time the only people seen using that technique are nutjobs and trolls.
The poll was linked to the article which starts with :
“A Christian group promoting intelligent design theory over evolution has sent teaching material to schools that critics say is religious propaganda and sloppy pseudoscience.”
So one could make the connection that the poll was inferring that “should ID be taught instead of evolution” even though it was not specifically worded that way. Yes, if you want to look at the sentence on its own, out of context with the linked article, it means “should people be allowed to teach ID at all?”, but thats not the issue the poll is related to.
I agree theres nothing to stop teachers mentioning it in class as in “heres what science is not” but for the majority of teachers out there, why bother at all? Its just religion, a minority beleif and why waste time on that? And its not the main issue – religion sees science as a threat, and is trying to insinuate itself into the clasroom. Having a big waaugh about forcing teachers to never teach ID was not really focusing on the issue at hand.
I think your jokes need a bit of polish too – Pew Zealand = PZ? Bit of a stretch really wasn’t it?
At 5:40a Pacific
49%–yes
51%–no
We seem to be losing ground. C’mon, guys…chug down some Alka-Seltzer, and get with it.
Or a chili omelet.
The results are now: Yes (5025 votes, 43.3%), No (6588 votes, 56.7%)
This is plain weird. These polls on Stuff.co.nz and NZHerald.co.nz are always disgustingly more conservative than the general view on the ground, but this is alarming. Where in hell did ‘Yes’ find 5025 people to vote for it? I’ve been looking over NZ Fundamentalist blogs to see if they’re rallying, but this surge in insanity must be coming from overseas.
“stuff.co.nz”? That’s just the most awesome address EVER!!!
There are plenty of creationists in New Zealand (I was one of them back when I was a child – I had a remarkably tolerant science teacher who tried to send me in the right direction, but my beliefs lagged behind his positive influence by a couple of years). Dobson himself has always been a major figure on the Christian radio station, Radio Rhema, which has been around since the 1980s – I remember hearing his talks a lot when I was little. Along with Ray Comfort, of course. Ken Ham was big too in evangelical circles, although I’m way out of touch with that scene nowadays.
The proximity of creationist groups in Australia mean that there will be periodic university visits by creepy Australian creationists – the last time I went along to one (primarily to ask difficult questions) the guy who spoke made some borderline racist remarks, and abused a Pacific-Island audience member who asked quite a good question about timing and literal interpretations of the Bible by saying, effectively, that everything serious that has ever been written means what it says. And that if you don’t agree you must be stupid.
So while New Zealand is in no danger of being overrun by fundamentalism politically, as others have pointed out, there is still a vocal subset of the culture who insist on the creationist viewpoint. Political secularism does not immunize a country from sectarianism.
I suspect someone is somehow manipulating the system and managing to register hundreds of votes in a matter of minutes. I did notice that over a period of about 10 minutes that yes increased by about 2%. So I suspect some unscrupulous person is trying to rig the poll.
As of this moment:
Yes (5766 votes, 46.1%)
No (6742 votes, 53.9%)
I know I’m being completely stupid, but this poll is becoming a fight. I guess the IDiots coming here are on to us! They seem to be winning. (Why do I care?)…
@ No 78,Bjorn Ostman :
The tentacled overlord may strike me down if im wrong here,but the reason why PZ mentions creationism in his introductory biology classes is not to teach both sides,its because of his reputation as an atheist and scienceblogger,and to counter or more accurately to anticipate any creationist/fundamentalist bullshit,so he gives them the chance to state their views,and then discusses stuff with them.
//However, knowing that I seriously cannot answer that teacher should not be allowed to teach it.//
Maybe its me,but Im not getting your point,do you want to teach creationism in science classes,and would be upset if you werent allowed to,but you only want to teach it to show how silly it is? WTF,I dont get it…..
I think I might vote for that photo of Samantha Howell.
Fellow Mac users:
Automator.
Just saying…
I have not changed my opinion that if I ever had to leave the United States for various reasons, I would emigrate to New Zealand. And now this bit of disheartening news. I hope it’s never more serious than this. Please Kiwis, don’t let your beautiful country sink into a festering shit hole with this and other disparaging reports.
No. 85. More unscrupulous than us? :) How dare they poll crash our poll crash!
Clinteas, I really think I said it already. I said very precisely what I will teach about ID. And yes, I would be upset if I were not allowed to. As I tried to explain, there is a very fine line between “teaching something”, and “teaching about something”, and we wouldn’t want the authorities to investigate you every time you explain what ID is in class, right? I don’t want to “teach both sides.” I would, and have, put clear emphasis on why ID is not a scientific theory.
One sufficient reason to mention ID in class, is that evolution-class is the proper forum for debunking it. And I am sure you all agree that is worthwhile, no? As a matter of fact, I was recently invited, and gave a lecture debunking creationist straw man arguments, in which I of course taught/explained what ID is. Thank Jebus there was no regulation that forbade me.
As for bad jokes and all caps: I hope next time around it is not enough to incite such anger and name-calling. Oh, and it wasn’t all caps – it was something much more sophisticated than that.
Bjorn,
maybe I can help you understand why you have been experiencing some hostile reactions here….
Its a noble idea to try and debunk creationist arguments,but I think im not wrong if i say that the consensus amongst the regulars here would be that ID has no place whatsoever in a science class,you can debunk and discuss to your hearts content in religious studies or similar,but in science class we should be teaching science.And semantic shenanigans with teaching vs teaching about doesnt make any difference really.
PZ has his reasons to mention ID,hes a well-known atheist,as I said,and he pre-empts adverse events by bringing things out into the open from the start,not sure if that applies to you to the same degree.
The secret to staying afloat in here is to not take things too personal mate,all good people here,some just more hotblooded than others !
“One sufficient reason to mention ID in class, is that evolution-class is the proper forum for debunking it. And I am sure you all agree that is worthwhile, no? As a matter of fact, I was recently invited, and gave a lecture debunking creationist straw man arguments, in which I of course taught/explained what ID is. Thank Jebus there was no regulation that forbade me.”
ID is not a scientific issue though, it is a theological/sociological one. Those advocating ID are not doing so becuase of the science, but becuase of their religious beliefs. If one wants to learn what ID is, and what motivates its proponents, a science class is not the appropriate venue. It could be discussed in a class on sociology, as the antics of the creationists in trying to get their religious views on life, and the origins of life and and universe treated as legitimate science are fascinating from a sociological viewpoint.
ID/Creationism could have a place in a science class, when discussing how science works. However there are probably better, less emotive,choices such as helio-centrisms that can be used.
Clinteas, I see you point. But i regards to the stupid poll, suppose PZ was a bio teacher in NZ, would we all not want him to be allowed to teach ID in class? We want him to be allowed here, so…!
I think far to many people read a whole lot more into what I said, than what I said initially.
Same to you, Matt Penfold. You may think that ID does not belong in science class, but does that mean you would not allow it to be taught there, at the discretion of the science teacher?
And, I beg to differ. While ID is religiously motivated, the claim that some structures are irreducibly complex can of course be scientifically addressed, and that is what PZ does in class. Saying that only PZ should do it because he is a famous atheist is ridiculous.
Bjørn Østman,
An important difference is that PZ teaches at university level, not school level. There is a difference between the level of discrimination a 14 year old can bring to a class and that an 18 year old can bring to a class. I agree there can be arguement for using bad scientific arguments in a science class to demonstrate how science works. However in the US at least there is a lot of baggage that attaches to ID/Creationism. It is therefore prehaps not the best example to use of bad science as rather than concentrating on what makes science good or bad the teacher will be having to deal with the creationists in the class who insist it is science. Heliocentrism is probably a better example to use when teaching how science works, and discriminates between the good and the bad. Not many people these days claim the Earth is the centre of the solar system.
Bjorn: Actually, in England and Wales you couldn’t teach ID in a science class whether as a claimed science theory or simply even about it. The Idiots funded similar attempts to this one to sneak IDiot material into every secondary school science classroom in the form of DVDs and other teaching material. But because England and Wales have a national curriculum for every subject which must be followed by all publicly funded schools it was quite easy to get the science curriculum strengthened against the inclusion of IDiotism after this attempt. This was done on the factual basis that IDiotism wasn’t science but rehashed creationism, i.e. religion not science. If any publicly funded school wants to teach it in comparative religion classes, Philosophy class or similar, that is fine, but not in science classes.
BTW, PZ teaches in an university and not a secondary school, where one assumes that the avergae student already has a basic understanding of evolution. However, in secondary schools, the teachers have little enough time to teach relevant subject matter as it is without wasting time on something that isn’t science. In all these cases we are not talking about bringing up the subject with university students who have the time and capacity to handle it but in secondary schools were there is usually not the time or often even the expertise on the part of the science teacher to handle this properly.
There’s something very screwy with this poll. The numbers are now going backwards (Yes 1485, No 1031). Looks like someone at the DomPost is fudging the figures. Also, I sent in an anti-ID comment (phrased in a very civilised manner) to their site last night and it still hasn’t been posted (neither has yours, Alison!)
I wouldnt bother posting more comments on the Stuff article. It allows only a specific amount per article, so first in first serve.
@Bjorn : “it wasn’t all caps – it was something much more sophisticated than that.” Sophisticated? HTML in blog posts or caps – whatever.
@ Katkinkate – My thoughts exactly – how dare the ID-ers crash the poll when we are trying to crash the poll. :)
But they haven’t posted ANY comments!
@ Number8Dave : Theres 64 comments that I can see. I managed to get a couple in yesterday before they closed it off.
Gosh you guys talk a lot while we’re asleep down here in the Antipodes.
@ me (#65): :-) We tend to review our curriculum documents about once every 20 years (!), so ID’s not going to make it into the official document any time soon. Or in the next iteration, if I and my colleagues are still involved. (Although I’m no spring chicken any more, so it’s not a given.) Since we have a single national curriculum, you’d think that was settled. For state schools, sort of – bearing in mind the lack of any guidance from the new document on what constitutes useful ways to teach things. So things like FoF’s crap will be used in state classrooms where teachers don’t recognise it for what it is, or are that way inclined anyway. Non-integrated private schools can & do teach what they like. (Quite what that means for their students when/if they come to sit state exams, FSM only knows. “It’s OK to pretend you believe that evolution nonsense, Susie, if it gets you through”, maybe?)
Bjorn @ #78: others have pretty much said much as I’m going to, but anyway… You’re advising teachers to talk to students about ID as a theory, before then telling kids it isn’t one. Please! It’s NOT a scientific theory & implying that it is one, is only likely to confuse or to reinforce students’ existing ideas – which are very resistant to change at the best of times, so let’s not make things worse.
Plus, as others have said before me, there’s damn-all time in our science teachers’ day to get through everything that’s supposed to be there; expecting them to add more is not really reasonable. Because it’s not a matter of spending a couple of minutes telling kids why ID is nonsense. If you’re going to have any impact at all on those existing conceptions, you’re going to have to spend at least a couple of classes on them & probably more. Anything less is a total waste of time & likely to be counter-productive.
Spankermatic (101): how come you can see the comments on the Dom’s poll? Am I holding my mouth wrong when I look, or something?
Gosh you guys talk a lot while we’re asleep down here in the Antipodes.
@ me (#65): :-) We tend to review our curriculum documents about once every 20 years (!), so ID’s not going to make it into the official document any time soon. Or in the next iteration, if I and my colleagues are still involved. (Although I’m no spring chicken any more, so it’s not a given.) Since we have a single national curriculum, you’d think that was settled. For state schools, sort of – bearing in mind the lack of any guidance from the new document on what constitutes useful ways to teach things. So things like FoF’s crap will be used in state classrooms where teachers don’t recognise it for what it is, or are that way inclined anyway. Non-integrated private schools can & do teach what they like. (Quite what that means for their students when/if they come to sit state exams, FSM only knows. “It’s OK to pretend you believe that evolution nonsense, Susie, if it gets you through”, maybe?)
Bjorn @ #78: others have pretty much said much as I’m going to, but anyway… You’re advising teachers to talk to students about ID as a theory, before then telling kids it isn’t one. Please! It’s NOT a scientific theory & implying that it is one, is only likely to confuse or to reinforce students’ existing ideas – which are very resistant to change at the best of times, so let’s not make things worse.
Plus, as others have said before me, there’s damn-all time in our science teachers’ day to get through everything that’s supposed to be there; expecting them to add more is not really reasonable. Because it’s not a matter of spending a couple of minutes telling kids why ID is nonsense. If you’re going to have any impact at all on those existing conceptions, you’re going to have to spend at least a couple of classes on them & probably more. Anything less is a total waste of time & likely to be counter-productive.
Spankermatic (101): how come you can see the comments on the Dom’s poll? Am I holding my mouth wrong when I look, or something?
Bjørn, there is simply no time to talk about cdesign propontentsism or any other nonscientific idea in science lessons at school.
(Note to Americans: When I say “school”, I don’t mean “university”, I mean “school”. But if university students need to learn why IDology is not science, their schools have failed, so, ideally, and in reality outside the south-central USA, there’s no reason to talk about it in university courses either.)
David Marjanović,
Your presence has been requested on the “A good message” thread.
Thanks – I meant to link to this when I first saw it on there. Gah. Glad to see you picked it up regardless.
@ Alison : yeah, you have to stand on one foot, wear your hat backwards and to the “flight of the bumblebee” refresh the page continuously.
I dunno – am using Firefox and browsing this link : http://www.stuff.co.nz/4599856a7694.html
all the comments are at the bottom of the page – just click on the Show All at the top of the comments section to see everything.
I moved to New Zealand 5 years ago (from holland) and I am surprised how religious New Zealand is. So this poll does not surprise me unfortunatly
Thanks Spankermatic. Following your link the comments are there, but when I come at it from the Stuff site (on two different computers and two different browsers) there’s no sign of them.
The poll currently stands at 2333 Yes to 1164 No.
That’s suspiciously close to a 2:1 ratio. My daughter puts items (including polls) up on the Stuff website for one of the DomPost’s sister papers (one day a week; she’s just started and doesn’t know too many technical details, but there are people I can ask), so I will follow this up. Either there’s a glitch in their software causing the numbers to run backwards, or someone has deliberately hacked the results.
Alison: They actually do say that! At integrated schools, too!
I went to Bethlehem College, and the biology teacher told us she had to teach it, but we all know it’s not true, right?
silentsanta: There is a William Lane Craig debate with some lecturer from Manukau Institute of Technology up on YouTube. The might have put it up as Craig Lane, but should show up pretty easily.
Wazza: that’s disgusting.
wazza – I thought as much.
& having followed Spankermatic’s link to the comments page for that original article – sad to see it confirmed that our local creationists can be just as virulent as the US variety! Thank goodness for the many commenters who tried to put them right – & who also seemed to outnumber them substantially. Which is quite different from the quite possibly rigged results of the poll itself…
I can see things heating up as we start to build up to Darwin’s 200th. Number8Dave – we need to organise something local, yes? Who else lives in Hamilton, NZ, & wants to get involved?
Thank you all for your good wishes and votes to help keep ID out down here! While I can’t see ID making headway in the curriculum, I am a little disappointed with science curricula as my kids go through primary school. We leave it way too late (secondary school) to even mention the E word and there could be a lot of groundwork done both on scientific method, basic natural biology, and natural selection. We are also fortunate to have a feaking evolutionary tome writ large in our natural biodiversity and geologically active environment (kiwi, tuatara, moa, lancewoods, the beech gap…). We should use it more and be more upfront about the science underpinning it.
http://stuff.co.nz/view-poll-results.html?section_id=6000&poll_id=16922
How the heck? When I checked last night the poll had over 10,000 votes for each category, and science was winning. I am disgusted.
I’m sure to most readers here this incident is minor, but it has shaken my perception of NZ media to the core (and I was very cynical to start with). I have sent a letter to the editor of the Dominion Post, I doubt it will be published or get a reply:
To whom it may concern
Over the weekend, something very curious happened to your Stuff.co.nz online poll about teaching so-called ‘Intelligent Design’ in schools. An outspoken biologist in the United States, PZ Myers, linked to the poll and implored science-minded folk to make the international scientific community’s professional opinion on ID known. This poll crash resulted in votes from both sides reaching five digits, it was quite monumental for a supposedly insignicant internet poll. One can only assume that international fundamentalists were also crashing the poll, given that ‘Yes – both theories should be taught’ had so many votes as well. Strangely enough, the number of voters in the poll has dropped substantially today, back to four digits, and is now weighted heavily in favour of teaching ID in New Zealand schools (as if science teachers had enough time in their day to teach good science well, let alone debunk junk science). This raises the question: Are stuff.co.nz staff rigging these polls, or is there an innocent explanation?
Today I heard that there was going to be an interview on Radio New Zealand’s “Nine to Noon” program. Consequently I have just heard Kathryn Ryan interview Tim Sisarich of “Focus on the Family” ( http://www.focus.org.nz/124_574.htm ) and Dr Alison Campbell of the Department of Biological Sciences, University of Waikato ( http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/staff/biol/acampbel ).
It was a good interview where the energy was used for plenty of “illumination” rather than “heat”, which contrasts markedly with some other radio interviews I have heard. I would say that the illumination placed on Tim Sisarich was not quite what he was looking for.
You can hear the interview at http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/ntn/creation_vs_evolution_in_schools
Unfortunately I am at work at the moment which blocks audio downloads, so I cannot double-check that the audio link works. If not, try http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon and follow the links.
I am also pleased to report that Dr Campbell has her own blog ( http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/bioblog/ ) – so please give her feedback. I am sure it will all be positive.
I have also posted this information on RichardDawkins.net. Please help us keep ID out of NZ schools.
Following up #109, and in response to Matty @ #115, I asked the DomPost for an explanation of the backwards-running poll, and got this response:
“Dear Sir,
I understand you have identified a discrepancy with the reporting of Stuff.co.nz poll results.
The answer, fortunately, is simple and not at all as suspicious at it seems:
Both stuff.co.nz and dompost.co.nz ran the same polls that day. Although the two sites are within the same group and published off the same platform, they are editorially independent and managed entirely separately. The foreign blog which was linking to the results started linking to one site’s results, and then the other, causing not only a change in the result but a dramatic shift in the number of votes.
The outcome reflects the significant difference in traffic between the two sites, not only in quantity but also in their readers’ views.
Please contact me if I can be of any further assistance.
Best regards,
Mark Stevens
Editor
So I guess that clears that up. It also explains why some of us couldn’t see any comments on the article – there were TWO versions of it, one on the Stuff site and one on the DomPost site (which is nested within the Stuff site). Both versions are now showing comments, albeit different sets.
For the record, the Stuff site’s version of the poll is currently at Yes (15480 votes, 46.5%) vs No (17821 votes, 53.5%). A surprisingly high number of Yes votes, I have to wonder if some of the people directed from Pharyngula might have thought “Well, why shouldn’t schools be allowed to teach Intelligent Design? New Zealand’s supposed to be a free country.” Maybe ID could be taught in a comparative religions class, just not in science, which the phrasing of the question wasn’t explicit about.
Hey, thanks for the feedback (& the blog-push), cyberguy!
:-)