Evolution in Canadian Schools

[D'rok]

Pffft! You and your cartons and jugs of milk!

Milk jugs? Is that a euphemism for something naughty? Never can tell with you Ontarians.

 

[stilicho]

85 to 88 for me in the St. Albert protestant system. I've been in Ontario for 7 years now and I constantly encounter people who can't shake the conviction that life in Alberta is like a scene from Deliverance. Oh Ontario...you so crazy.

Born & raised on the prairies and lived in Alberta for most of my life, two friends career school teachers, and have never heard of evolution or natural selection being eschewed in favour of "creationism". Not even in Three Hills or Bentley.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Evolution can't explain how life began.

Yes, it can.

This business of separating abiogenesis from evolution theory is no more than an excuse to postpone certain arguments against evolution theory. It's unnecessary.

Evolution occurs on a continuum from the first life forms to the current ones. Even now it is difficult to define lifeforms when one looks at viruses and prions. It's just as arbitrary to say evolution doesn't start until the offspring of a replicating cell can be acted upon by natural selection pressures. Natural selection pressures acted upon the precursor molecules that formed those first cells.

Where you draw the line on most continuums often comes down to arbitrary decisions. It's fine to say there is a line somewhere between life and not-life. But to think evolution theory only applies to life and not to the transition is rather silly. That is unless you are claiming selection pressures did not act on the precursor molecules, or that somehow the precursor molecules did not replicate until a complete life form formed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... A few days ago I got into a slightly heated discussion with my sister. We were talking about what is, is not, can and can not be taught in schools here in Canada. For background, she will soon graduate with an education degree (English major) to complement her phys. ed. degree. She mentioned that even evolution can not be taught in schools in Canada (excepting Quebec). Not only can't it be taught, it can't even be mentioned.

I've done some background checking (ongoing), and this appear to be the case throughout most of Canada. Especially the prairies, where we live.

When she mentioned that it can't be taught, I was amazed, and proclaimed that to be ridiculous, and an excuse for ignorance. It was at that point that things got odd.

My sister proclaimed that:

1) Evolution was just a theory, and so is creationism, so they are both valid science. She got this information from one of her profs, but was unable to actually articulate the "theory" of creationism, other than to insist it was a valid scientific theory. Apparently, that's the party line teachers are taught.

2) They still haven't found "the" missing link between ape and man. She said they have a very complete hominid line, but they still hadn't found the one missing link (they know what geologic layer is must lie at, but can't find it) that would connect the chain to man.

3) Evolution is only a theory (again), and has not been proven.

4) That I would never be able to teach in a classroom, because I am incapable of being unbiased about the issue (granted, but my objection to it is that creationism doesn't warrant an unbiased approach).

5) Evolution isn't that important. Certainly not important enough to teach in high school or earlier. If students want to learn about it, they can go to university and take biology.

6) It might be offensive to some kid's religious beliefs, and therefore shouldn't be taught.

7) Even mentioning it would get a teacher fired probably before the end of the class.

8) Evolution can't explain how life began.

9) Evolution is just my "opinion". Some people "believe evolution", other "believe creation", and both are valid science.

... her arguments were rife with arguments from authority, arguments from ignorance, and ad hominem attacks.

She's also repeating the propaganda that is passed around Evangelical circles. http://www.answersingenesis.org/ has all these dishonest arguments and http://www.talkorigins.org/ has an answer to each of them.

... This is an issue I would like to become involved in. Teaching science and critical thinking are important to me. Seeing the school system bow before religious sensitivities by removing valid science from the classroom and encouraging the belief that it's all opinion and unproven, bothers me.

But if I do, and my name becomes known, what are the chances of that affecting my sister's ability to find work as a teacher after she graduates?

I should point out that Canada does not have an official separation of church and state.

I don't think you should worry about that your actions will affect your sister's career. I can't imagine she won't be judged on her own merits. I suppose if you are talking only about small town stuff where everyone knows your business and hers there could be an issue. But in general, I just don't see it.

 

[Minoosh]

Why do they need to be taught that? Is it necessary to understanding the science? If not, why include it in a science class?

I'm not saying they need to be taught ID. I'm suggesting how it could be presented in a neutral way. I'm not an ID supporter. However the history of science is somewhat integrated with the curriculum - at least when I went to HS. We didn't need to know the Catholic Church punished Galileo, but we learned it anyway. As I recall there was a whole sequence, something like Ptolemy, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton.

Though Newton may have been in calculus. We did get as far as deriving velocities in elliptical orbit, which sounds more like calculus.

We also learned about the Scopes trial, that may have been in social sciences or something.

 

[Minoosh]

Also, we learned Aristotle was wrong about free fall.

The physics teacher jumped off his desk while we took pictures under a strobe light. He was so cool. Mr. Hart.

 

[BTMO]

85 to 88 for me in the St. Albert protestant system. I've been in Ontario for 7 years now and I constantly encounter people who can't shake the conviction that life in Alberta is like a scene from Deliverance. Oh Ontario...you so crazy.

I spent 4 weeks in Calgary a couple of months ago. I quite liked it. It looked a LOT like a huge, outdoor gaybar during the Roundup (lots of very sparkly cowboy outfits...), but I genuinely like the place. I'd go back tomorrow.



Oh, and keeping this on topic, most of the people I met there seemed to have a very good understanding of evolution, consistent with getting taught it at a high school / university level.

 

[gumboot]

This is a bit off topic (NZ, not Canada), but this thread has got me thinking, and I honestly can't remember whether I learned about evolution in school or not. Obviously I learned about it at some point, but I have no idea how, where, or when.

 

[Minoosh]

Things get touchy when you are dealing with minors and public funds, as in public U.S. high schools. But I think that intelligent teenagers would like to talk about science vs. religion. Say you present Darwinism in some context - probably in science class - and as part of the curriculum compare Darwin's theories and intelligent design. It would be fun to lead a discussion and see where students took it. Ultimately they might realize that "God made it that way" is an irreducible statement - that once you invoke the supernatural you have closed off other lines of inquiry. That would be a great lesson, and one that needn't offend anybody's religious beliefs.

I don't know where that would fit in with current (Canadian or U.S.) HS curricula, but I imagine quite a few teachers wouldn't want to go there.

One school in my area has a terrific forensic debate program ... can people tell me about schools elsewhere?

 

[bikerdruid]

Things get touchy when you are dealing with minors and public funds, as in public U.S. high schools. But I think that intelligent teenagers would like to talk about science vs. religion. Say you present Darwinism in some context - probably in science class - and as part of the curriculum compare Darwin's theories and intelligent design.

intelligent design does not belong in a science class. period.
it is not science.

.

 

[BTMO]

This is a bit off topic (NZ, not Canada), but this thread has got me thinking, and I honestly can't remember whether I learned about evolution in school or not. Obviously I learned about it at some point, but I have no idea how, where, or when.

It was a non-issue in the 1970's in Australia. We learned evolution. We learned it in primary school, we had it reinforced in high school and (many years later) when I did biology at university, I can assure you we learned it.

In primary school it was simple stuff - dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, we have fossils that show this.

In high school it was basic evolutionary series like the horse and apes, culminating in man (not the horse line, obviously...). We learned of the controversy around creationism vs evolution, but apart from one teacher who we humoured - and even then he admitted his personal opinion was not founded on science - it was straight evolution.

In university (here in NZ), we got straight evolution, both barrels...

We had one lecturer who said something like "Some of you may believe in creation, that's fine. I am going to teach you evolution. You can believe what you like and I respect your beliefs. But if you want to pass this course, you'll deal only with the science".

I had a number of creation-leaning friends in that class. They all passed...

It'd be fair to say I was quite surprised when I learned that the debate still rages in the US and elsewhere. It'd also be fair to say that this fact is viewed with some mocking derision around here....

 

[bikerdruid]

intelligent design does not belong in a science class. period.
it is not science.

.

i would also like to add...
a teacher has a limited time to complete the program of studies for any class.
in alberta, a teacher is very restricted by time and must teach a complete curriculum in a fixed time. there are days lost to bad weather, classes lost to special events in the school, so there is simply not enough time to teach materials that are not in curriculum. a teacher is encouraged to teach an enriched program, and whatever time there might be surplus, there is real science to be done.
there is no time in a high school term for wasting time on fairytales.

 

[stilicho]

This is a bit off topic (NZ, not Canada), but this thread has got me thinking, and I honestly can't remember whether I learned about evolution in school or not. Obviously I learned about it at some point, but I have no idea how, where, or when.

The Origin of Species was a required reading in a second-year intellectual history course in my undergrad curriculum. I am certain it was never even recommended reading in high school science. There's a good reason for that. To understand natural selection you don't need to read the original documentation (just as Euclid is hardly required reading in Grade 10 geometry).

 

[stilicho]

She's also repeating the propaganda that is passed around Evangelical circles. http://www.answersingenesis.org/ has all these dishonest arguments and http://www.talkorigins.org/ has an answer to each of them.

I don't think you should worry about that your actions will affect your sister's career. I can't imagine she won't be judged on her own merits. I suppose if you are talking only about small town stuff where everyone knows your business and hers there could be an issue. But in general, I just don't see it.

It's quite rare for someone from a small prairie town to go to university and then return to the same small town to teach. You go to where you're needed.

With a few exceptions (q.v. Keegstra/Eckville) there is never an issue with someone introducting extra-curricular nonsense into the teaching day. When it is, it's exposed as it is in any major US city and the nut teacher loses his/her job.

My guess is the OP's sister is either pulling his leg or relying on rumours instead of facts or any particular experience.

 

[stilicho]

....

We learned of the controversy around creationism vs evolution, but apart from one teacher who we humoured - and even then he admitted his personal opinion was not founded on science - it was straight evolution.

....

I've never heard of such a "controversy" introduced in any Canadian grade school curriculum. This is clearly extracurricular and has no business being taught in a science class. I could see it introduced in a philosophy class or some other class in which crazy ideas are discussed but never in a science class. Period.

The issue that appears to have driven the OP is something called (by the media) the Alberta Evolution Bill:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2009/05/04/cgy-evolution-alberta-human-rights.html

Here's the actual implementation guidelines:

http://www.cbe.ab.ca/parents/bill44.asp

Here's the FAQ for parents:

http://www.cbe.ab.ca/parents/Forms/bill44/Frequently Asked Questions for Parents.pdf

Note that this has no impact whatsoever on the curriculum but allows parents recourse to exclude their children on moral grounds. In reality, this is little different than excluding your kids from a field trip because you either can't afford it or you don't want them leaving town with a group of strangers.

The curriculum courses are specified in the FAQ and none of them are science classes.

You're all welcome.

 

[BTMO]

Exclude their children on moral grounds??!!!???

I wonder how popular I'd have been amongst the other parents if I'd excluded my kids from (say) trigonometry or geometry on moral grounds.

"Around here, we believe pi = 3. And we won't have any dealings with anyone who says otherwise. Heretics."

 

[stilicho]

Exclude their children on moral grounds??!!!???

I wonder how popular I'd have been amongst the other parents if I'd excluded my kids from (say) trigonometry or geometry on moral grounds.

"Around here, we believe pi = 3. And we won't have any dealings with anyone who says otherwise. Heretics."

Nope, nope. You have to read the links. There are specific courses included in the notices and none of them are what you're thinking. They are strictly classes such as "World Religions". Those kinds of classes are optional to begin with.

Did your instructor seriously introduce "creationism" in a science class? Did you report him? I sure would have.

 

[BTMO]

Nope, nope. You have to read the links. There are specific courses included in the notices and none of them are what you're thinking. They are strictly classes such as "World Religions". Those kinds of classes are optional to begin with.

Not yet. I've been moving a kitchen and a bathroom-worth of fittings into our other house all day. The builders start up there tomorrow, and we've been getting stuff moved in. I am sitting on the couch vegetating at the moment. Small steps....

Did your instructor seriously introduce "creationism" in a science class? Did you report him? I sure would have.

Like I said, it was the 1970s, it was the first time I'd really been exposed to the ideas and it was amusing rather than worrying. We were pretty cynical kids. The teacher involved was primarily the agricultural science teacher at the high school I was attending at the time. And it was one of the elective / enrichment type of topics rather than core science.

We'd never have considered complaining about it back then and to be fair (to him) he really didn't push it down our throats. It was more a case of "consider this". We did.

And then we decided he was wrong.

Had it had happened in biology or replaced real science, there'd have been an uproar, I suppose. Again, late 70s. Who knows...

 

[Minoosh]

intelligent design does not belong in a science class. period.
it is not science.

.

Yeah but I'm sayin' ... it might be fun (useful, whatever) to let students figure that out themselves.

I know about limited time!

 

[gph]

Yeah but I'm sayin' ... it might be fun (useful, whatever) to let students figure that out themselves.

I know about limited time!

Should we trot out primitive nonsense regarding cosmology as well? For the sake of letting the kids figure it out themselves?

At some point there won't be any time to teach anything but "the controversy". How much is too much introduction to woo? Where do you draw the line?