• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Split Thread Maori Creationism in Science lessons

To understand the depravity and destruction, it is worth seeing this post from kiwiblog that describes how the prime Minister and his mother are the engineers. Remember Chris Hipkins was minister of education til Ardern deserted:

It is starting to make sense..

You may recall that Chris Hipkins’ mother works for the New Zealand Council of Educational Research. She was one of the architects of the new science curriculum, now being ridiculed.

This document explains the priorities of the Council.

https://www.nzcer.org.nz/about-nzcer/corporate-documents

There is nothing about lifting education achievement.

The first priority is to “decolonise education”.

The second priority is to “uphold Mana Maori”….


Eta
I read the "English" version and they could not help themselves using a host of te reo words I don't understand.
 
Last edited:
To understand the depravity and destruction, it is worth seeing this post from kiwiblog that describes how the prime Minister and his mother are the engineers. Remember Chris Hipkins was minister of education til Ardern deserted:

It is starting to make sense..

You may recall that Chris Hipkins’ mother works for the New Zealand Council of Educational Research. She was one of the architects of the new science curriculum, now being ridiculed.

This document explains the priorities of the Council.

https://www.nzcer.org.nz/about-nzcer/corporate-documents

There is nothing about lifting education achievement.

The first priority is to “decolonise education”.

The second priority is to “uphold Mana Maori”….


Eta
I read the "English" version and they could not help themselves using a host of te reo words I don't understand.
We can hopefully fire Chris Hipkins in October, but how are we going to get his mother and her ilk out of powerful academic positions? That's going to be an enduring malignant problem.
 
Last edited:
Same. Every channel, saturation advertising, and I couldn't begin to tell you why that was.

TV ads are about $10k/minute on average and there must have been at least 2000 ads, so there's 2 mio without even trying.
I'd rather have that than ads for humongous ICE SUVs. You know, the kind of advertising that is actively destroying the planet. Ads for gas cars should be banned.
 
I'd rather have that than ads for humongous ICE SUVs. You know, the kind of advertising that is actively destroying the planet. Ads for gas cars should be banned.

________________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Very appropriate signature.
 
Last edited:
I've already had a laugh about that this morning.

I don't think it's racist, but it's definitely absurd.
 
I've already had a laugh about that this morning.

I don't think it's racist, but it's definitely absurd.
Institutional infestation of stone age idiocy, not too different to Terf bashing by the Telecom PR child chicks in control.
 
There's a slideshow that's gone up on the NZ 'Science Learning Hub' with the title 'What is a knowledge system'.


One of the contributors is the wife of the current PM of New Zealand.


It's well worth looking at as it explains the difference between 'mātauranga Māori' and 'Northern Beliefs' (aka science)


In this recorded webinar Pauline Waiti and Rosemary Hipkins explore the idea of knowledge systems with examples from science and mātauranga Māori.

The report Enduring Competencies for Designing Science Learning Pathways introduced the idea of exploring both science and mātauranga Māori as knowledge systems. Thinking about knowledge as a system is likely to be an unfamiliar idea for many teachers. In this webinar we unpack the metaphor, using familiar science concepts to show which of them might be appropriately explored through both knowledge lenses (i.e. science and mātauranga Māori) and when this might not be helpful.


https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/3272-what-is-a-knowledge-system
 
There's a slideshow that's gone up on the NZ 'Science Learning Hub' with the title 'What is a knowledge system'.

One of the contributors is the wife of the current PM of New Zealand.

It's well worth looking at as it explains the difference between 'mātauranga Māori' and 'Northern Beliefs' (aka science)

https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/3272-what-is-a-knowledge-system
Small matter but I'm sure one of the contributors is the Mother of the current PM of New Zealand.

I tried hard to watch it all but just couldn't :eye-poppi :eek: :eye-poppi :eek: :eye-poppi :eek: :eye-poppi :eek: :eye-poppi :jaw-dropp :confused: :jaw-dropp :boxedin:
 
There's a slideshow that's gone up on the NZ 'Science Learning Hub' with the title 'What is a knowledge system'.


One of the contributors is the wife of the current PM of New Zealand.


It's well worth looking at as it explains the difference between 'mātauranga Māori' and 'Northern Beliefs' (aka science)





https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/3272-what-is-a-knowledge-system

Did you mean for the quoted passage to explain the difference 'mātauranga Māori' and science? Because it doesn't. I'll understand if you mistakenly quoted the wrong passage to support your claim.
 
Anyone that believes and claims science can be represented by "'northern beliefs", or beliefs of any kind, simply doesn't understand how science works.

According to https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/2545-matauranga-maori-and-science . . .

“In a traditional sense, mātauranga Māori refers to the knowledge, comprehension or understanding of everything visible or invisible that exists within the universe.”

The antithesis of how science works.

Pre "Whitey" Māori had no knowledge, comprehension or understanding that The Universe even existed, let alone what existed within it. It's all blatant "Māori Wonderfulness" BS.
 
Last edited:
Anyone that believes and claims science can be represented by "'northern beliefs", or beliefs of any kind, simply doesn't understand how science works.
Whitey's getting so upset about its smug superiority being threatened that it lets slip its actual beliefs by using the pronoun for inanimate objects instead of people.

Science 'works' through people. And those people are steeped in cultural bias, which colors how they do science and what they use it for. Nobody is immune to this bias. However there is a prevailing attitude in 'the West' (or 'the North') that their culture - including their particular biased brand of 'science' - is superior to all other knowledge systems, which are therefore invalid and not worth discussing.

A defining feature of bias is that people are usually not conscious of it, or not aware of how much influence it has on their thoughts. The science practiced in 'the West' today has a strong bias aligning with Western culture. But science advocates don't recognize this bias because they are steeped in that same culture. So despite the inherent intertwining of science and culture, they attempt to separate out the 'science' part and elevate it to a status that must not be questioned. They then ironically complain that people treat 'science' as something separate from their daily lives that can be dismissed when inconvenient.

Western science is currently in crisis. Despite its confident assertion that it alone is the only valid knowledge system, most of the population only pays it lip service at best. Even in America - the richest most powerful country in the World which owes a lot of its status to science - 40% of the population does not trust science on such vitally important topics as deadly viruses and climate change. YouTube is awash with BS masquerading as science, TV 'documentaries' and 'popular science' magazines misrepresent it, and even science advocates promote BS such as 'you wouldn't have smartphones and GPS today if it wasn't for Science'. With so much BS saturating the media it's no wonder people are confused.

New Zealand is about to elect a government which will roll back our efforts to combat climate change, reverse the progress made towards getting more people interested in science, and treat it as the servant of capitalism. In short, bad news for science. Yet in this thread all we hear about is how terrible it is that 'Maori creationism' is being taught in schools. You know that's what all the people voting National think too, right?
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
New Zealand is about to elect a government which will roll back our efforts to combat climate change, reverse the nonprogress made towards getting more people interested in nonscience
FTFY - I couldn't resist . . .

ETA - I hope you're not equally confused and deluded about the election result tho.
 
Last edited:
Whitey's getting so upset about its smug superiority being threatened that it lets slip its actual beliefs by using the pronoun for inanimate objects instead of people.

Science 'works' through people. And those people are steeped in cultural bias, which colors how they do science and what they use it for. Nobody is immune to this bias. However there is a prevailing attitude in 'the West' (or 'the North') that their culture - including their particular biased brand of 'science' - is superior to all other knowledge systems, which are therefore invalid and not worth discussing.

A defining feature of bias is that people are usually not conscious of it, or not aware of how much influence it has on their thoughts. The science practiced in 'the West' today has a strong bias aligning with Western culture. But science advocates don't recognize this bias because they are steeped in that same culture. So despite the inherent intertwining of science and culture, they attempt to separate out the 'science' part and elevate it to a status that must not be questioned. They then ironically complain that people treat 'science' as something separate from their daily lives that can be dismissed when inconvenient.

Western science is currently in crisis. Despite its confident assertion that it alone is the only valid knowledge system, most of the population only pays it lip service at best. Even in America - the richest most powerful country in the World which owes a lot of its status to science - 40% of the population does not trust science on such vitally important topics as deadly viruses and climate change. YouTube is awash with BS masquerading as science, TV 'documentaries' and 'popular science' magazines misrepresent it, and even science advocates promote BS such as 'you wouldn't have smartphones and GPS today if it wasn't for Science'. With so much BS saturating the media it's no wonder people are confused.

New Zealand is about to elect a government which will roll back our efforts to combat climate change, reverse the progress made towards getting more people interested in science, and treat it as the servant of capitalism. In short, bad news for science. Yet in this thread all we hear about is how terrible it is that 'Maori creationism' is being taught in schools. You know that's what all the people voting National think too, right?

You do understand that when developing a system to describe how and why everything is, the level of belief in said system is irrelevant, don't you? All that matters is how close it is to getting things right, and nothing has even remotely approached the level of success the scientific method has displayed in this area.

Oh and of the myriads of people who don't believe in science, it's amazing that virually all of them use the fruits of science constantly and would flat out refuse to give them up to be consistent in their beliefs.
 
Science 'works' through people. And those people are steeped in cultural bias, which colors how they do science and what they use it for. Nobody is immune to this bias. However there is a prevailing attitude in 'the West' (or 'the North') that their culture - including their particular biased brand of 'science' - is superior to all other knowledge systems, which are therefore invalid and not worth discussing.

Science is superior to other knowledge systems, if your goal is to understand how the world works. Can you name another knowledge system that has the same success as science in describing the Universe?
A defining feature of bias is that people are usually not conscious of it, or not aware of how much influence it has on their thoughts. The science practiced in 'the West' today has a strong bias aligning with Western culture. But science advocates don't recognize this bias because they are steeped in that same culture. So despite the inherent intertwining of science and culture, they attempt to separate out the 'science' part and elevate it to a status that must not be questioned. They then ironically complain that people treat 'science' as something separate from their daily lives that can be dismissed when inconvenient.
Can you give some examples of how science is biased by Western culture?

Western science is currently in crisis. Despite its confident assertion that it alone is the only valid knowledge system, most of the population only pays it lip service at best. Even in America - the richest most powerful country in the World which owes a lot of its status to science - 40% of the population does not trust science on such vitally important topics as deadly viruses and climate change. YouTube is awash with BS masquerading as science, TV 'documentaries' and 'popular science' magazines misrepresent it, and even science advocates promote BS such as 'you wouldn't have smartphones and GPS today if it wasn't for Science'. With so much BS saturating the media it's no wonder people are confused.

And guess what? Some of the reason why science is in crisis comes from people who think their traditional belief systems are its equal. We fight against initiatives to introduce Christian creationism into science lessons. What's so special about Maori creationism that it gets a pass where Christian creationism doesn't.
New Zealand is about to elect a government which will roll back our efforts to combat climate change, reverse the progress made towards getting more people interested in science, and treat it as the servant of capitalism. In short, bad news for science. Yet in this thread all we hear about is how terrible it is that 'Maori creationism' is being taught in schools. You know that's what all the people voting National think too, right?

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. This thread is specifically about Maori creationism, it's right there in the title. Why shouldn't we talk about Maori creationism on here? There are other threads for climate change.
 
Science is superior to other knowledge systems, if your goal is to understand how the world works. Can you name another knowledge system that has the same success as science in describing the Universe?

Can you give some examples of how science is biased by Western culture? . . . .
The single example I can understand is that there can be a bias in *what* is studied; that is, which questions get asked. One common example is the relative lack of science concerning the special medical risks that females might face (beyond the obvious ones like pregnancy; this imbalance is beginning to get addressed, IIRC, as in understanding that heart attacks in female can present very differently from the commonly understood symptoms in males). IIRC.

But not asking some questions because of bias or blind spots, etc., does nothing to invalidate the results of studies from questions that do get asked. But cultural critics of science seemingly act like it is invalidate, or is not universally applicable in the standard scientific sense.
 
All that matters is how close it is to getting things right,
No, that's not all that matters.

In 1972 science 'got things right' in the prediction of anthropogenic global warming. This was followed by 50 years of scientists finding ways to extract and burn fossil fuels faster. Very few tried to do anything to stop the climate disaster we are headed for.

I work with a bunch of scientists - government funded - whose primary goal was to develop apples more attractive for export. The government has shifted its focus to sustainability and global warming mitigation, and the scientists are grumbling. My boss complained that billions of dollars of export earnings could be lost - because that's what's important, not whether the planet fries or not.

Western science has a bias towards furthering the culture it is a part of. Its 'knowledge system' is used to exploit nature and increase wealth at the expense of the environment. The knowledge it gains is skewed towards those objectives, and stuff that counters it is downplayed, ignored, or not even studied at all.

Here's a breakdown of US Federal research funding for 2021. The largest proportion (39%) is for 'defense' - from the country which gave us that wonderful fruit of the tree of science knowledge - the atomic bomb.

picture.php
 
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. This thread is specifically about Maori creationism, it's right there in the title. Why shouldn't we talk about Maori creationism on here? There are other threads for climate change.
If that's what it's really about then this thread should have been closed immediately - since Maori creationism is not 'in' science lessons.

Or perhaps we should use it as an example of how inciteful words are used to evoke a knee-jerk reaction - in this case to getting the 'wrong' people more interested in science - by racists. Because racism is actually what it's all about.
 
If that's what it's really about then this thread should have been closed immediately - since Maori creationism is not 'in' science lessons.
Have you not been reading any of the articles posted on this thread and elsewhere? Maori creationism may not yet be in science lessons but that is they direction in which New Zealand seems to be headed.

Or perhaps we should use it as an example of how inciteful words are used to evoke a knee-jerk reaction - in this case to getting the 'wrong' people more interested in science - by racists. Because racism is actually what it's all about.
You mean like accusing people who disagree with you of being racists?
 
Another high ranking NZ Educator, in this case the deputy dean of the Faculty of Science at the University of Auckland as well as a geologist and the Director of the Ngā Ara Whetū | Centre for Climate, Biodiversity & Society, tries to explain why Maori spirituality, needs to be integrated into the science curriculum.


Science is a rational pursuit of knowledge, but it does not exist in splendid isolation. If this is painted as the ‘ideal’ science, then it is incomplete. People do science, and people and their culture/s are inseparable.


In Aotearoa/New Zealand our nation’s origins lie with the Treaty of Waitangi. The Treaty is a formal agreement with the third article guaranteeing Māori equal rights and privileges. That means access to education within a system that seeks to fulfil the potential of every individual.


I suspect the heart of the issue is the notion that education should be secular and devoid of any form of spirituality. Proponents of this view would say a karakia (sometimes interpreted as a prayer) to open or close an event, or before guests eat afternoon tea, has no place in education. But in the context of Māori practices and values, and bringing Treaty articles to life, this makes perfect sense. And is absolutely integral.


https://newsroom.co.nz/2022/02/14/science-does-not-sit-in-splendid-isolation/
 
We should point out to that high ranking NZ Educator that religion is no more than what somebody says it is. It isnt data. How do you decide what to include? Who decides it?
 
Someone should also point out to him that the scientific method is designed to eliminate personal, cultural, spiritual and religious bias. There should not be a Christian, a Muslim, a Jewish, a Buddhist, a Shinto science, nor a British, a Chinese or a Barbadian science, or a white or black science. There should not be a Māori science. Just science. Of course people are influenced by their religion, culture and personality, but the ideal is that we acknowledge that and do our best to rise above it, not encourage it.
 
Personally I have no problem with opening a science class with a prayer, as a sop to the Maori in the room. As long they then go on to explain how the Maori epistemology has been discredited in favor of the scientific method.
 
Again, I'm observing that people are saying that what they're doing in science classrooms is bad, without any evidence of what they're actually doing in science classrooms.
 
Another high ranking NZ Educator, in this case the deputy dean of the Faculty of Science at the University of Auckland as well as a geologist and the Director of the Ngā Ara Whetū | Centre for Climate, Biodiversity & Society, tries to explain why Maori spirituality, needs to be integrated into the science curriculum.

Like the geologists who deny climate change, Julie should stick to her knitting and leave religion and spirituality to the grown ups.

This is arrant nonsense:

People do science, and people and their culture/s are inseparable.

Culture is precisely what needs to be kept out of science.
 
Again, I'm observing that people are saying that what they're doing in science classrooms is bad, without any evidence of what they're actually doing in science classrooms.

As long as we agree that it shouldn't be done, that anyone who wants to start doing it should be prevented from starting it, and that if anyone does do it they should be stopped, I'm happy.
 
Is there any evidence that "it" is being done?

This seems like a pretty good reply to that question:

"As long as we agree that it shouldn't be done, that anyone who wants to start doing it should be prevented from starting it, and that if anyone does do it they should be stopped, I'm happy."

I'm happy to agree that we don't know if "it" is being done or not. Do you agree with the above?
 
This seems like a pretty good reply to that question:

"As long as we agree that it shouldn't be done, that anyone who wants to start doing it should be prevented from starting it, and that if anyone does do it they should be stopped, I'm happy."

I'm happy to agree that we don't know if "it" is being done or not. Do you agree with the above?
It depends on what "it" is. In fact, I think that determining what "it" is is actually critical.

If "it" is "teaching Maori creationism in science lessons, as though it were scientific, and on equal footing with evidence based science" then sure, I agree with that.

If "it" is "including cultural context and sensitivity in education, including science", then no, I do not.
 
Back
Top Bottom