I don't know about Roger Ramjets, but
I hadn't forgotten. However, the last time I saw it, I could only read the headlines, which didn't seem to support the idea that it was
"pure, unadulterated creationism": Te Ao Māori - The Māori Worldview.
This time, I was at home and got hold of a magnifying glass:
As the headline says, this is a presentation of the
Māori worldview. In the last two sentences, it goes on to say that living creatures
"are all descendants" instead of saying 'are all
seen as descendants', and
"humans are linked and related to" instead of saying 'humans are
seen as linked and related to'.
However, after having established that this is about
the Māori worldview, this is also how an article about, for instance, Greek mythology would go. At one point, after saying that we are talking about Greek mythology, about how the ancient Greeks
viewed the world, it is implied that when you say that
"Zeus is the child of Cronus and Rhea" (
Wikipedia), it still means that Zeus as well as his parents are
mythological creatures. It isn't necessary to point out in every new sentence that this is how the Greeks
saw it.
So no, the two pages are not
"pure unadulterated creationism." In fact, they are as little
"pure unadulterated creationism" as the Wikipedia page about Zeus is
pure unadulterated ... I don't know ... heathenism?!
There are 36 pages in the chapter
Life and the Taiao. I haven't read all the other 34 pages, but most of them appear to be pure unadulterated science, for instance page 148:
Another question (p. 149) is:
There would be reason to worry if the question was, 'Identify three ways the sky and earth parents made this animal so good at purring and catching mice,' but it isn't. The question is pure unadulterated
science of evolution!
Get real!