• 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

arthwollipot said:
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.
Click to expand...
It's right there in the thread title. How can you possibly be this ignorant about the thread you're posting to?

Has arguing in bad faith ever actually worked for you? Has it ever changed someone's mind in favor of your thesis?
 
The thread title doesn't make clear which of the two ifs of arthwollipot applies.
 
Also, the thread title may not accurately represent what is happening in classrooms. As I believe I have previously demonstrated is the case.

Instead, what is happening is that a whole lot of people, including Richard Dawkins, are going "OMG they're saying that they're teaching religious gobbledygook as science!!!11!!1" without providing a shred of evidence that this is the case.
 
Graham2001 said:
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.





https://newsroom.co.nz/2022/02/14/science-does-not-sit-in-splendid-isolation/
Click to expand...

Let the educators educate. The priests can "teach" spirituality.

This to me looks like it's coming from the same sourcs as the rcc's extreme reluctance to give up control of schools in Ireland. The religious leaders can see their power slipping as fewer and fewer believe so they don't want to give up their avenues of providing religious instruction to the young.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
Let the educators educate. The priests can "teach" spirituality.
Click to expand...
Let the teachers teach and let the preachers preach, and never the twain shall meet.

Gulliver Foyle said:
This to me looks like it's coming from the same sourcs as the rcc's extreme reluctance to give up control of schools in Ireland. The religious leaders can see their power slipping as fewer and fewer believe so they don't want to give up their avenues of providing religious instruction to the young.
Click to expand...
Arth claims to be an ex-theist, but I think he's jumped out of the god frying pan in to the fire of the neo-religion of Woke.
 
What possible motivation could Arth (and his fellow wokesters) have for wanting non-evidence based, non-scientific, paranormal, magical, superstitious, religious myths and legends to be taught in science education? It certainly can’t be a motivation to improve the efficacy, rigour and value of science, let alone to even retain the current efficacy, rigour and value of science.

Truth is, Arth's motivation has nothing to do with science at all, and everything to do with woke virtue signaling - “Look at me, I’m nice, kind, culturally aware, sensitive, inclusive, ally and defender of the oppressed and downtrodden, etc.”.

That including Maori creationism in science education would be deleterious to science is acceptable to the woke as they see it as being mere collateral damage, necessary to achieve the greater good of woke virtue signaling.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
Also, the thread title may not accurately represent what is happening in classrooms.
Click to expand...

Except it does.

Kids at school are being taught that Maori may have "discovered" Antarctica prior to its actual discovery.

That is complete and utter nonsense and does not belong in the classroom. It's claimed to be backed by myth, with a reference to someone seeing a "white land" at some unspecified time in the past. Due to people wanting to appease Maori culture, even the Smithsonian has tentatively bought into the idea: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/maori-reached-antarctica-1000-years-europeans-180977987/

In the real world, the chances of Maori having reached Antarctica and returned, sailing through the roaring forties and screaming fifties in open boats with a seal pelt or two for warmth is patently absurd.

The truth is that there are plenty of islands that are white in winter yet are still thousands of km from Antarctica, not to mention the possibility that someone saw an iceberg, because we know they have been seen in NZ waters: https://niwa.co.nz/news/icebergs-sighted-southern-new-zealand
 
I love the removal of agency that both ynot and GF apply here. ynot thinks that Arthwolipot has no agency in developing his own views and only expresses the views he has because he's fallen prey to a cult. GF feels the same way about ynot.

Maybe both are actually forming their own views. ynot isn't "pulling far right bovine excrement into the conversation", he's expressing his own views. Arthwolipot hasn't "jumped out of the god frying pan in to the fire of the neo-religion of Woke", he's done his own thinking about issues related to social justice.

Of course, in both cases you might wonder how their worldview aligns so tightly with the one that they have supposedly been mind-controlled by (though in ynot's case I don't actually know if his views do align with far-right views at all). But being convinced by compelling arguments can still be a part of the process of making up your own mind about your views.

The aspect of agency in opinion-forming is simply the process of actually taking time to think through the arguments you're exposed to, perhaps try to consider your own explanation of events, try to objectively update your priors based on new evidence (including theoretical evidence), etc. The opposite is not determined by whether or not you have views aligned with other groups, but by the process that you used in choosing those views: was it simply based on the groups they align to rather than one's own considered judgement?

Is it possible that both or either have done that? Sure. But that case is far from being made. I disagree with Arthwolipot about a lot of issues, but he still seems like a human being who forms his opinions based on a process of thought and consideration of evidence and arguments.

Treating people you're in conversation with as though they were robots programmed by the other side doesn't seem very useful to me.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
Also, the thread title may not accurately represent what is happening in classrooms. As I believe I have previously demonstrated is the case.
Click to expand...

As long as we agree that it shouldn't happen, I'm happy. If it turns out it's not happening yet, I'm doubly happy. If it turns out it's at no risk of happening, I'm triply happy.
 
The Atheist said:
Kids at school are being taught that Maori may have "discovered" Antarctica prior to its actual discovery.

That is complete and utter nonsense and does not belong in the classroom. It's claimed to be backed by myth, with a reference to someone seeing a "white land" at some unspecified time in the past. Due to people wanting to appease Maori culture, even the Smithsonian has tentatively bought into the idea:
Click to expand...
I'm impressed. Maori even have the World's greatest superpower cowering at their feet.

Appeasement
Appeasement, in an international context, is a diplomatic policy of making political, material, or territorial concessions to an aggressive power to avoid conflict. The term is most often applied to the foreign policy of the British governments of Prime Ministers Ramsay MacDonald (in office 1929–1935), Stanley Baldwin (in office 1935–1937) and (most notably) Neville Chamberlain (in office 1937–1940) towards Nazi Germany...
Click to expand...
But hey, we would never a use a word that implies Maori are in any way like Nazis, right?
 
I don't think that teaching people what cultures believe is the same thing as teaching people that beliefs are science.

We learn in science lessons the history of scientific beliefs, such as in astronomy, germ theory, evolution, and so on. Why should countries not learn about local traditional beliefs?
 
Orphia Nay said:
I don't think that teaching people what cultures believe is the same thing as teaching people that beliefs are science.

We learn in science lessons the history of scientific beliefs, such as in astronomy, germ theory, evolution, and so on. Why should countries not learn about local traditional beliefs?
Click to expand...
Because the local traditional beliefs superstitions contributed nothing to the development of scientific thought and the scientific method.

If the Maori had iterated on mythology until they arrived at science, it would be a different story. But they didn't, and now they're butthurt that their lack of contribution to the global body of knowledge isn't being privileged in the education of their children. Too bad, so sad. Maybe figure out something more advanced than hunting and gathering next time.
 
theprestige said:
Please hold me in lower esteem, and spell it out for me like I'm an ignorant child. What parts of Maori creationism do you believe have a place in science lessons?
Click to expand...
Let me take you back to the beginning of the thread then, and repeat that I doubt that anybody is being taught "Maori creationism" in science lessons. Now, in the past, or in the future.

Is that clear enough for you? I would also like to remind you of this:

arthwollipot said:
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.
Click to expand...

And this:

arthwollipot said:
Also, the thread title may not accurately represent what is happening in classrooms. As I believe I have previously demonstrated is the case.

Instead, what is happening is that a whole lot of people, including Richard Dawkins, are going "OMG they're saying that they're teaching religious gobbledygook as science!!!11!!1" without providing a shred of evidence that this is the case.
Click to expand...

The closest to "evidence" we've seen has been provided by The Atheist, which still doesn't demonstrate that "Maori creationism" is being taught in science classes, as the thread title claims.
 
theprestige said:
Because the local traditional beliefs superstitions contributed nothing to the development of scientific thought and the scientific method.

If the Maori had iterated on mythology until they arrived at science, it would be a different story. But they didn't, and now they're butthurt that their lack of contribution to the global body of knowledge isn't being privileged in the education of their children. Too bad, so sad. Maybe figure out something more advanced than hunting and gathering next time.
Click to expand...

You seem very sure of yourself. Are you certain that Maori traditions haven't contributed to the knowledge of say, biology and environmentalism, etc in NZ?
 
theprestige said:
If the Maori had iterated on mythology until they arrived at science, it would be a different story.
Click to expand...
History of physics
in the 4th century BCE, Aristotle founded the system known as Aristotelian physics. He attempted to explain ideas such as motion (and gravity) with the theory of four elements. Aristotle believed that all matter was made up of aether, or some combination of four elements: earth, water, air, and fire. According to Aristotle, these four terrestrial elements are capable of inter-transformation and move toward their natural place, so a stone falls downward toward the center of the cosmos, but flames rise upward toward the circumference. Eventually, Aristotelian physics became enormously popular for many centuries in Europe, informing the scientific and scholastic developments of the Middle Ages. It remained the mainstream scientific paradigm in Europe until the time of Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton
Click to expand...
Some great iteration there, over 2000 years of 'scientists' believing a load of BS dreamed up by an ancient Greek philosopher who had no clue.

Maori only had ~500 years to 'iterate' their science before whitey arrived and indoctrinated them with Western 'science'. You know, stuff like God created the Heavens and the Earth in 6 days, made woman from one of Adam's ribs, and cursed the snake to crawl on its belly (which is why they don't have legs you know).
 
Orphia Nay said:
I don't think that teaching people what cultures believe is the same thing as teaching people that beliefs are science.

We learn in science lessons the history of scientific beliefs, such as in astronomy, germ theory, evolution, and so on. Why should countries not learn about local traditional beliefs?
Click to expand...


What the hell are "scientific believes? That's hell of contradiction.

Roger Ramjets said:
History of physics
Some great iteration there, over 2000 years of 'scientists' believing a load of BS dreamed up by an ancient Greek philosopher who had no clue.

Maori only had ~500 years to 'iterate' their science before whitey arrived and indoctrinated them with Western 'science'. You know, stuff like God created the Heavens and the Earth in 6 days, made woman from one of Adam's ribs, and cursed the snake to crawl on its belly (which is why they don't have legs you know).
Click to expand...

In an attempt to defend indefensible (Maori religious crap* in science classes) you are outright spewing nonsense. You assert that Bible crap is part of science which is NOT EVEN WRONG. It is complete falsehood. (And some cherry picking. Like you used only bits from small part from Old Testament.)

Also with your hilariously misguided attempt reaching far into ancient history you proved that science and scientific method is far superior to other approaches. Thanks for proving your own side and Maori wrong.

BTW: Having headstart is not enough. Ask Chinese and other nations...

*-it is no more valid than random crap in Bible, Quran or other religious stuff. You will find some useful concepts in there too.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
History of physics
Some great iteration there, over 2000 years of 'scientists' believing a load of BS dreamed up by an ancient Greek philosopher who had no clue.

Maori only had ~500 years to 'iterate' their science before whitey arrived and indoctrinated them with Western 'science'. You know, stuff like God created the Heavens and the Earth in 6 days, made woman from one of Adam's ribs, and cursed the snake to crawl on its belly (which is why they don't have legs you know).
Click to expand...
I am super down with not including Maori non-iteration on scientific epistemology in science lessons. I am totally okay with including it in history lessons.
 
Orphia Nay said:
You seem very sure of yourself. Are you certain that Maori traditions haven't contributed to the knowledge of say, biology and environmentalism, etc in NZ?
Click to expand...
And you seem to indicate a personal surety that they have. Please give a definite and unambiguous example where they have (I'm not holding my breath).

Three quick examples of the Maori "way of thinking" regarding biology and environmentalism - Hunting and killing native species like Moa and Huia to extinction. Destroying large areas of native forest with fire. Killing, torturing, enslaving, raping and eating other "rival" Maori.

Given Maori were Neolithic (stone age) they couldn't do too much damage with tools made from sticks, stones, shells and bones. However, look how quickly they killed around 20,000 of their own kind when provided with muskets (they should've been introduced to weapons tech with bows and arrows).

If Maori "contributed" to the knowledge of biology and environmentalism, I can't think of an example of it being scientifically beneficial.

Waits for the cry of "RACIST!".
 
Last edited:
Orphia Nay said:
I don't think that teaching people what cultures believe is the same thing as teaching people that beliefs are science.

We learn in science lessons the history of scientific beliefs, such as in astronomy, germ theory, evolution, and so on. Why should countries not learn about local traditional beliefs?
Click to expand...
I don't think those that want Maori creationism beliefs included in science education want it to be taught as being historic non-scientific crap that has been superseded by current scientific knowledge. Do you?
 
Last edited:
Orphia Nay said:
You seem very sure of yourself. Are you certain that Maori traditions haven't contributed to the knowledge of say, biology and environmentalism, etc in NZ?
Click to expand...

Biology? Absolutely. Environmentalism? Depends what we're talking about, exactly. I wouldn't be surprised if some Maori have some specialist experience with their local ecosystem that colonists and foreign researchers aren't yet familiar with.
 
ynot said:
I don't think those that want Maori creationism beliefs included in science education want it to be taught as being historic non-scientific crap that has been superseded by current scientific knowledge. Do you?
Click to expand...

Exactly. There's a huge difference between "here's how we got from our early conjectures about germs to our current understanding of them" and "here's a primitive conjecture about germs that went nowhere and was eventually superseded by more advanced science brought by outsiders".
 
Last edited:
ynot said:
I don't think those that want Maori creationism beliefs included in science education want it to be taught as being historic non-scientific crap that has been superseded by current scientific knowledge. Do you?
Click to expand...
Who wants Maori creationism belief included in science education? Can you name them?
 
theprestige said:
I am agnostic on that point.
Click to expand...
Then what the hell are you arguing about then?

This thread is about Māori creationism in science lessons. Unless someone can actually demonstrate that Māori creationism is actually being taught in science lessons, this thread is pointless.
 
arthwollipot said:
Then what the hell are you arguing about then?

This thread is about Māori creationism in science lessons. Unless someone can actually demonstrate that Māori creationism is actually being taught in science lessons, this thread is pointless.
Click to expand...

This thread is not pointless.

The idea of teaching Maori superstition as co-equal with science is already gaining traction in New Zealand. The best time to examine an idea and judge whether it is good or bad is before it gains popularity or becomes part of public policy.

Waiting until it actually gets into science curricula, rather than stopping that trend cold before it comes to fruition, is stupid. Knowing ahead of time where you stand regarding a potential risk is probably the opposite of pointless.
 
Once again I repeat - so far I haven't seen any good evidence that anybody is even suggesting teaching Māori creationism in science lessons.

So far I haven't seen an actual definition of "Māori creationism". No, it is not the same as Mātauranga Māori, as has been defined way back at the beginning of the thread.

The issue is not about Māori creationism. The issue is not even about science. The issue is whether Mātauranga Māori should be taught in schools. And I think that if it is done with appropriate care and attention to detail, it can and should. With science, history, culture and mathematics, but not instead of them.
 
The Atheist said:
Smithsonian isn't a country. I'm surprised you didn't know that.
Click to expand...
Smithsonian Institution
The Smithsonian Institution (/smɪθˈsoʊniən/ smith-SOH-nee-ən), or simply the Smithsonian, is a group of museums, education and research centers, the largest such complex in the world, created by the U.S. government "for the increase and diffusion of knowledge."... It was originally organized as the United States National Museum, but that name ceased to exist administratively in 1967.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom