• You may find search is unavailable for a little while. Trying to fix a problem.

[Split Thread] Maori Creationism in Science lessons

Jerry Coyne as mentioned earlier has started watching this movement in New Zealand and this is his latest posting.


Suddenly I am inundated with emails from disaffected Kiwis who take issue with the New Zealand government’s and academia’s new push to teach mātauranga Māori , or Māori “ways of knowing” as coequal with real science in high-school and university science classes. Many of these people are worried that the country is being swept with an ideology that “all things Māori are good” (tell that to the moas!), and that such an attitude is going to affect not just science, but many parts of life. It’s one thing to recognize and make reparations to a people who were genuinely oppressed for so long, but that doesn’t mean that that that group should be valorized in every way, nor that their “ways of knowing”, which include creation myths and false legends, can be taken as coequal to science and taught in the science classroom.


https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021...e-big-science-vs-indigenous-knowledge-ruckus/
 
I think I'd like to see how it's being done in the classroom before jumping to conclusions about how it will be done in the classroom. Let's see an actual curriculum.
 
If only you had a clue. Maori are being gifted control over fresh water, to go along with their control of the foreshore, fishing industry, vast tracts of land, and right now, who gets to go to certain parts of the country.
And most (if not all) of those that self-identify as Maori are genetically more Pakeha (non-Maori). Pointing that out is labelled "Racist!" by the wokesters.
 
Last edited:
There are links to sources on Jerry Coyne's site.

Fair enough, and thanks for digging. I generally don't have a lot of motivation to send clicks to some intermediary. If Graham wants to provide the information in question, fine. If he wants to promote Coyne's blog or whatever, also fine, but I tend to stop following the breadcrumbs at that point.
 
The pro-evolution blog, 'The Panda's Thumb' has also picked up the story.



For readers who have not been following this controversy, I thought I would point out Jerry Coyne’s article on New Zealand’s intention to teach Maori “ways of knowing” alongside science in schools and universities. Dr. Coyne has been following the situation for some time now, but the article I cite, his latest as of now, provides a good summary.


https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2021/12/indigenous-ways-of-knowing.html
 

I presume this is the relevant section:

The Kaiwhakaako Mātauranga Koiora will work in partnership with other SBS academic staff to support teaching and learning practices that facilitate appropriate integration of indigenous knowledge, te reo, tikanga, mātauranga Māori, and kaupapa Māori into the curriculum. To achieve this, the successful candidate will work collaboratively with academic staff to understand the opportunities and challenges for incorporating Te Ao Māori into the biological curriculum and will identify potential pathways for curriculum redevelopment and redesign that will support both Māori and non- Māori staff and students, and the wider community in Aotearoa New Zealand.
This does not tell me how it is going to be taught in the classroom. What this tells me is that no-one knows how it's going to be taught in the classroom, and UoA is recruiting academics to try and determine how it's going to be taught in classrooms.

I also note that this is talking very specifically about biology - a subject that indigenous people may indeed know quite a lot about.
 
I presume this is the relevant section:

This does not tell me how it is going to be taught in the classroom. What this tells me is that no-one knows how it's going to be taught in the classroom, and UoA is recruiting academics to try and determine how it's going to be taught in classrooms.

I also note that this is talking very specifically about biology - a subject that indigenous people may indeed know quite a lot about.

I think that biology classes should focus on teaching biology, not mythology.

I felt that way when creationists tried to bring their myths into biology classrooms, and I feel the same way here. I don't see any material differences between the two cases.

And no, I don't think that being indigenous gives them special knowledge about biology. I suspect that studying biology is the way to go about getting that knowledge.
 
I think I'd like to see how it's being done in the classroom before jumping to conclusions about how it will be done in the classroom. Let's see an actual curriculum.

Right here: https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/topics/mātauranga-māori

And most (if not all) of those that self-identify as Maori are genetically more Pakeha (non-Maori). Pointing that out is labelled "Racist!" by the wokesters.

I'm am so over this ****, along with all the other crap going on right now.

The biggest bunch of racists are Maori like Hone Harawira. Can you imagine the uproar if a Pakeha Member of Parliament stated that he wouldn't allow his daughter to date a Maori? How much uproar was there when Hone said he wouldn't allow his daughter to date a white fella? (The issue of a father allowing his child to date or not doesn't is just glossed over as well)

And no, I don't think that being indigenous gives them special knowledge about biology.

The irony is best when we have school teachers like Erika Muna Lee telling her kids they don't need a Covid vaccine because traditional Maori medicine will solve it.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/he...l-teacher-promoting-natural-remedies-in-class
 
At school I had an inspiring physics teacher, and one thing she emphasised about science is that it is about what we do not know, not about what we do know.

The great mistake that seems to be made is emphasising indigenous knowledge. Science is about challenging accepted knowledge, if you have to accept indigenous knowledge that is the antithesis of science.

The origin of science in Europe was putting aside indigenous knowledge that the sun orbited the earth, that the world was created in 4004BC, that species were created. Science continually challenges accepted scientific knowledge, there can not be protected knowledge that can only be questioned by those with a vested interest.
 
There are links to sources on Jerry Coyne's site.
Example:

'Physics earth and space science learning matrix'.
Thanks again for this. Looking at it, I think it actually is just about as stupid as I thought.

It's apparently mapping Maori terms for energy flow and whatnot onto scientific terms. Which is redundant. Or it's mapping Maori superstitions about the system of the world onto scientific principles, which is stupid and wrong.

And it brings us right back to the thing I brought up earlier: How many present-day Maori schoolkids have been so indoctrinated in Maori "knowledge" that they can't grasp or engage with basic science curricula that all other kids their age are able to do, without it being rephrased in familiar Maori "science" terms?
 
Not familiar with your country. Why would indigenous people know a lot about biology?
Well, because they've lived with it for longer than anyone else.

From The Atheist's link, on the very first subsection I clicked on, I found this:

Mātauranga Māori and science?

There has been debate as to whether mātauranga Maori can be referred to as Māori science. Some suggest that mātauranga Māori is not science. Science and mātauranga Māori do not seek to do the same thing. Mātauranga Maori is knowledge – knowing about things (such as preparing poisonous karaka berries for eating). Science is about finding out why and how things happen (such as why and how karaka berries are poisonous and how preparation removes the poison).
That's the kind of thing that I'm talking about. Ideally, mātauranga Maori is complementary to science and can be taught alongside it. But like I said, we'll see how it hits the ground in actual science classes.
 
Well, because they've lived with it for longer than anyone else.

From The Atheist's link, on the very first subsection I clicked on, I found this:

That's the kind of thing that I'm talking about. Ideally, mātauranga Maori is complementary to science and can be taught alongside it. But like I said, we'll see how it hits the ground in actual science classes.
Utter Rubbish! Modern science already knows much more about the karaka berry than Maori ever knew or could know. Scientific methods don’t include consulting the history of people who were ignorant of scientific methods.

The Atheist posted earlier an example of a part-Maori teacher doin matauranga Maori - https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/he...l-teacher-promoting-natural-remedies-in-class
 
Last edited:
People like me?

Please, continue to tell me what I'm like.
I've removed my inappropriate personal comments as they represent an uncharacteristic emotional reaction I have to this particular issue (with cause).
 
Last edited:
Well, because they've lived with it for longer than anyone else.
Could you explain what you mean by this because this can't be true and I'm pretty sure you know that so I don't know what you're trying to say here.

The poison thing sounds like it could make for color in some presentation in chemistry though. But I'm not seeing how that by itself demonstrates "a lot" of knowledge. Or is there something exceptional about that particular bit of knowledge such as their culture explicitly treating it as science?

When you said "a lot" did you mean exceptional?
 
Could you explain what you mean by this because this can't be true and I'm pretty sure you know that so I don't know what you're trying to say here.

The poison thing sounds like it could make for color in some presentation in chemistry though. But I'm not seeing how that by itself demonstrates "a lot" of knowledge. Or is there something exceptional about that particular bit of knowledge such as their culture explicitly treating it as science?

When you said "a lot" did you mean exceptional?
No, I mean there are many examples, of which the karaka berry is only one.
 
Science learns what it wants to know about berries and everything else by using proven scientific methods, not by asking part descendants of indigenous people such as Maori.
 
Last edited:
No, I mean there are many examples, of which the karaka berry is only one.

But what is it supposed to be an example of? Just some random thing their traditional knowledge got right? I'm not seeing the relevance.

And you didn't address the more touchy point that they've experienced biology longer than "anyone else". How is that possible?
 
But what is it supposed to be an example of? Just some random thing their traditional knowledge got right? I'm not seeing the relevance.
Something that is part of the Maori cultural knowledge.

And you didn't address the more touchy point that they've experienced biology longer than "anyone else". How is that possible?
When you've been living off the land for hundreds of generations, you learn where the food is (biology), local short-term and long-term weather patterns (meteorology and climatology), how to manage resources (environmental science), what plants can be used in medicine (pharmacology), etc.

All this knowledge has not only been dismissed by white colonialists, it has been trampled on.

As long as nobody is saying that the world was literally created when Tāne broke the embrace between his parents Ranginui and Papatūānuku, and that there is scientific evidence to support that narrative, which according to The Atheist's link does not appear to be the case, then I don't have a problem with it.

Incidentally, are you aware that Australian forestry services are only now starting to use indigenous fire management techniques? Only now, after the devastating 2019-20 fire season which saw significant parts of the country burn? If this indigenous knowledge had been recognised and respected earlier, what might have been different?
 
I've removed my inappropriate personal comments as they represent an uncharacteristic emotional reaction I have to this particular issue (with cause).
I understand. I promise that I won't take anything I might have seen prior to your edit personally. :thumbsup:
 
Something that is part of the Maori cultural knowledge.

When you've been living off the land for hundreds of generations, you learn where the food is (biology), local short-term and long-term weather patterns (meteorology and climatology), how to manage resources (environmental science), what plants can be used in medicine (pharmacology), etc.

All this knowledge has not only been dismissed by white colonialists, it has been trampled on.
More "I'm being nice to indigenous people" rubbish! Not dismissed and trampled on by white colonialists at all. Superseded and replaced by far superior modern scientific knowledge. Why do you hate science?
 
Last edited:
Does anyone have a count of the Maori children who are being taught creation myths that they believe to the point where they can't grasp basic elementary school instruction without being reassured of their superstition?
No. In fact the opposite is true. It's harder for Maori children to grasp basic elementary school instruction because it is steeped in a foreign culture. Having missed out at this critical early stage, they also tend to do poorly in more advanced studies and so contribute less to Science.

But talk to white New Zealanders and they will tell you that they are all - both Maori and Pakeha - Kiwis sharing the same culture, except for a few backwards savages who are too lazy or refuse to integrate. Problem is this 'shared' culture is biased almost totally white, perpetuating the racial divide.


Dismissing mātauranga Māori: Racism and arrogance in academia
Corballis, Rata and Nola would be far better served by instead addressing seriously US science philosopher Thomas Kuhn’s famous critique of European science, which highlights how it has never proceeded solely by logical/rational and impersonal/objective inquiry. Rather, it has, more often than not, been driven by false beliefs (like scientific racism), fashion and emotion, and the socio-historical and socio-political contexts in which they are formed and situated (like colonialism).

But why, you might ask, does this kind of esoteric debate over mātauranga Māori really matter? Well, precisely because you can never separate scientific method from purposes or effects. And, in sharp contrast to Corballis and his fellow authors’ blithe belief in the “relentless progress of science”, those effects can be devastating, deleterious, injurious.

We see this in the thousands of First Nation children in Canada, forced to attend residential schools over 150 years in order specifically to eradicate their cultures and languages...

consider the consequences for Māori students in Aotearoa New Zealand throughout our colonial history and up to the present day. Their academic trajectories have often been truncated by institutional practices over time that have been based on racialised notions of intellectual ability, alongside the systemic devaluing and/or exclusion of Māori language and culture, and ways of knowing (MM).
That’s why mātauranga Māori is so important and why it is, and should remain, a complementary counterweight to the arrogance and insularity of so much European thought.

Western scientists can stay in their ivory towers pontificating about how their 'pure' science has no cultural bias, but they are dead wrong. The disciplines they engage in, how they go about it, and their goals are are all heavily influenced by culture. That's given us a lot of useful knowledge, but also a lot of bad stuff. As Stephen May points out, while the 'scientific method' might be considered an absolute truth with no equal, you can't separate the practice of science from its purposes and effects.

Right now we are suffering a global environmental crisis that threatens our very existence, as a result of the application of science. Perhaps if our 'progress' had been tempered with an indigenous culture that emphasized living with the land rather than exploiting it, we might not be in this mess. Perhaps if New Zealand and other countries embraced such cultures rather than dismissing them, we might find it a lot easier (and more palatable) to fix - and fix some of our racial problems at the same time!
 
Last edited:
More "I'm being nice to indigenous people" rubbish! Not dismissed and trampled on by white colonialists at all. Superseded and replaced by far superior modern scientific knowledge. Why do you hate science?
White colonial revisionism. Why do you hate dark people?
 
No. In fact the opposite is true. It's harder for Maori children to grasp basic elementary school instruction because it is steeped in a foreign culture. Having missed out at this critical early stage, they also tend to do poorly in more advanced studies and so contribute less to Science.

But talk to white New Zealanders and they will tell you that they are all - both Maori and Pakeha - Kiwis sharing the same culture, except for a few backwards savages who are too lazy or refuse to integrate. Problem is this 'shared' culture is biased almost totally white, perpetuating the racial divide.
I'm sure I'm correct in saying there are no longer any 100% Maori. Maybe there aren't many or any that are even 50%.


Dismissing mātauranga Māori: Racism and arrogance in academia


Western scientists can stay in their ivory towers pontificating about how their 'pure' science has no cultural bias, but they are dead wrong. The disciplines they engage in, how they go about it, and their goals are are all heavily influenced by culture. That's given us a lot of useful knowledge, but also a lot of bad stuff. As Stephen May points out, while the 'scientific method' might be considered an absolute truth with no equal, you can't separate the practice of science from its purposes and effects.

Right now we are suffering a global environmental crisis that threatens our very existence, as a result of the application of science. Perhaps if our 'progress' had been tempered with an indigenous culture that emphasized living with the land rather than exploiting it, we might not be in this mess. Perhaps if New Zealand and other countries embraced such cultures rather than dismissing them, we might find it a lot easier (and more palatable) to fix - and fix some of our racial problems at the same time!
Great! Let's embrace the past indigenous Maori eating humans culture.
 
You're not making much of a case here.
Something that is part of the Maori cultural knowledge.
So just some random fact that isn't particularly helpful to teaching biology or science.

When you've been living off the land for hundreds of generations, you learn where the food is (biology), local short-term and long-term weather patterns (meteorology and climatology), how to manage resources (environmental science), what plants can be used in medicine (pharmacology), etc.
Oh, for crying out loud. This is complete ********. Every culture did this and none of it counts as science.

Do you have anything to indicate this particular stuff is science?

All cultures produced a mixed bag of "knowledge" that including some correct stuff, some middle of the road stuff, and some really wrong stuff. Is Maori stuff any different?

All this knowledge has not only been dismissed by white colonialists, it has been trampled on.
WTF does this even mean? Was it science before it was trampled on? Was it trampled on any differently than the phlogiston theory of heat that came out of Europe?

As long as nobody is saying that the world was literally created when Tāne broke the embrace between his parents Ranginui and Papatūānuku, and that there is scientific evidence to support that narrative, which according to The Atheist's link does not appear to be the case, then I don't have a problem with it.
But what good is it? Go back to your poison example. I can certainly see using that as an example in chemistry if the cultural reference helps engage some students. But does any actual science or chemistry understanding come out of the Maori traditional knowledge?

Incidentally, are you aware that Australian forestry services are only now starting to use indigenous fire management techniques? Only now, after the devastating 2019-20 fire season which saw significant parts of the country burn? If this indigenous knowledge had been recognised and respected earlier, what might have been different?
I don't know. Would using that knowledge have made things 10 times worse? 100 times worse?

Oh, you mean you expect things will get better. Assuming they do get better was there some way we could have known that the Maori had the right approach? Did the white colonialists ignore all the copious peer reviewed data the Maori delivered to them? Do you think that all Maori traditional knowledge is correct? If so, present the evidence.

What makes the Maori traditional knowledge so obviously correct to you? Do you think all primitive/indigenous cultures produced correct knowledge? You don't know of any instances of primitive cultures living unsustainably?
 
Last edited:
(edited to focus on the point)

What makes the Maori traditional knowledge so obviously correct to you? Do you think all primitive/indigenous cultures produced correct knowledge? You don't know of any instances of primitive cultures living unsustainably?
Indigenous practices, on the whole, survive in the culture when they work, because when they don't work, they stop doing it. There are of course obvious exceptions, but as I observed, they're not teaching religious mythology as scientific fact. And religion is really the only reason you continue doing something when it's clear that it doesn't work.

And I think this is the biggest issue here that I think you and others are not getting. You are assuming that Maori religious and spiritual beliefs are going to be roped in as hard science, and I can see no evidence of that. Going back to The Atheist's link, I see headings like "Observing clouds and weather" (meterology), Fungal Life Cycles - Spores and More (mycology), Protecting Estuaries (ecology). I'm also seeing Understanding kaitiakitanga, which, not being a native te reo speaker I had to (shock!) actually click on to find out what it means. I found this, which is perhaps the closest I've seen so far to a spiritual belief being taught as part of science, and as far as I can tell, the spiritual belief is being used as context for a discussion of actual issues:

A Māori world view

Traditional concepts of kaitiakitanga include a deep relationship between the spiritual realm, humans and the natural world. The spiritual powers (the children of Ranginui and Papatūānuku) are the kaitiaki of their respective realms. For example, Tangaroa is the kaitiaki of the water, seas and lakes, birds, trees and plants. A kaitiaki is also described as a tribal guardian who could have been of a spiritual nature, such as those left behind by deceased ancestors to watch over descendants and to protect sacred places (wahi tapu). There are many representations of kaitiaki, but the most common ones are animals, birds, insects and fish – including freshwater fish. In many cases, taniwha are the guardians of waterways or specific areas, and their role is one of protection.

To understand the world, humans must understand relationships between themselves and the environment in which they live. People are part of the environment – not superior to it. The condition or health of the people and the environment are intricately related. The saying ‘Ko ahau te awa, ko te awa ko ahau’ (I am the river, the river is me) depicts the relationship between people and the environment. Therefore, if a river is polluted, there is something not right with the people (and vice versa).

The role of the assistants or kaitiaki is called kaitiakitanga. Kaitiakitanga involves the protection or guardianship of Papatūānuku and the organisms on her. Māori believe that whoever holds the mana whenua is responsible for it. These are the tangata whenua (people of the land). Tangata whenua have authority in a particular place because of their ancestors’ relationship to it.

Preserving the mauri of the land

A kaitiaki would ensure that the mauri (life force) of a taonga is healthy and strong. Since arriving in New Zealand, Māori acquired a wealth of detailed knowledge as they sought to maintain the mauri of the land. This knowledge of the land, its resources and its inhabitants – mātauranga Māori – was passed on from generation to generation. It includes a complex analysis of the mauri of the land over time. It enables future generations to draw on traditional knowledge when confronted with actual or proposed changes in the environment.

One example concerned the construction of a shellfish cannery at Ninety Mile Beach. Although they were not consulted, local kaumātua (Māori elders) discussed the canning and selling of the shellfish. They predicted that the mauri of the shellfish would depart and the shellfish would be gone from Ninety Mile Beach within 15–20 years. They were proved correct.

Dr Kepa Morgan established a mauri model as part of his work at the Engineering School at Auckland University. In order to include Māori thinking, a model needed to be developed where mauri was the driver. Mauri as a driver allows for a more holistic approach that incorporates economic considerations – but not at the exclusion of Māori world views.

Another example of restoring mauri can be seen in the work of Aorere College students, Makaurau Marae, Wai Care, NIWA and Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga. Together, they worked to restore mauri to the Oruarangi Stream.
This looks to me a lot like ecology with a Maori context and background, not teaching mythology as fact.

Sure, I think it's problematic if they are saying that the claim that the shellfish disappeared because the mauri departed is a scientifically demonstrable claim, but acknowledging that the local kaumātua were correct when they predicted the shellfish's disappearance forms a context and a basis for examination of the actual scientific reasons why they disappeared. They knew it was going to happen. It didn't happen for the reason they believed, but they knew it was going to happen. How did they know? That is something that we can look into scientifically. Furthermore, listening to the kaumātua rather than dismissing them as peddling unscientific nonsense may prevent such things from happening in the future.

See, this is why I wanted to see an actual curriculum. It's almost as if this is a deep and complex subject which requires actual research to understand, rather than kneejerk reactions. Who'da thunk?
 
Back
Top Bottom