Creationism in the Classroom

Once again it has been a long time since writing anything – with a hectic work schedule, and seemingly never-ending higher education, I just can’t find the time anymore to express outrage and get all angry at stuff.   Add to that PlayStation 3, watching Breaking Bad and kowtowing to my wife and my life suddenly gets filled up – and my outlet becomes yelling at the television instead of expressing myself via the written word.

But I must take a second to address a story which appeared on Stuff regarding creationism in schools.

Not US schools, mind you, but New Zealand schools.  Creationism … taught by untrained and unqualified teachers.

How unqualified teacher is allowed to teach anything at all is beyond me, but an unqualified teacher teaching scientific principles – such as the origins of the Earth, humans and the universe – with a bent towards special creation is an appalling affront to New Zealand society and to our education system.

Creationism – the peculiar evangelical version as espousedby Charter School front man and cabbage boat fancier John Banks – has long been disproven and flies directly in the face of every scientific discipline.  Physics, geology, biology, genetics and archaeology (to name just a few fields) all confirm that the Earth is significantly older than the 6,000 or so years old that special creation demands based upon the biblical chronology of James Ussher.

To teach anything else is either to knowingly teach a lie or unknowingly teach a falsehood – in which case the person shouldn’t be teaching in the first place.

Creationism (as distinct from religious studies) as a factual alternative to the scientific consensus on the formation of the Earth and the life it houses has no place in the classroom and should only ever be taught as a historical curiosity.  It should never be taught as a scientific or logical precept and only leads to scientific illiteracy.

For a more thorough breakdown on why the Earth must be significantly older than creationism teaches, this website has a good list of arguments … Hell, they aren’t even ‘arguments’ – it’s established fact.

The Rise of Colin Craig...maybe

There has been a lot of talk recently about the possibility of the Conservative Party in partnership with National if John Banks is finally tarred, feathered and tossed out of Epsom.  Of course, Conservative Party Leader Colin Craig would have to run in the Epsom by-election – his Party garnering less than two percent of the vote (ed note: Conservatives got a little over 2%) in the 2011 election – and defeat Paul Goldsmith, but National could still endorse the Conservative Party candidate.

The question is, would the people of Epsom listen?  And would National find an ally in a social conservative?

New Zealand has a long history of social liberalism and never – at least, in my 30-plus years – have we ever been threatened with a socially conservative government.  Social conservatism exists somewhat outside the mainstream in these shaky isles – supported almost exclusively by religious organisations such as Family First and Destiny Church – and religion and politics do not mix here.

While the New Zealand Parliament begins each sitting with a prayer, the religious nature of our politicians is rarely – if ever – a consideration.  Helen Clark was openly agnostic and, while he attends church, so too is John Key – who believes that religion is “doing the right thing”, as opposed to submission to a heavenly being.  Contrast this with the US where, not only would it be near impossible for an agnostic or atheist to be elected to higher office but, atheists are the least trusted segment of the population. 

Coming from New Zealand – where the 2006 Census showed that nearly a third of the population self-identify as ’non-religious‘ – I find rather bizarre that atheists are so reviled.

So where does this leave poor old Colin Craig and his Conservative Party?  Although there is no doubt that Colin Craig is a Christian he doesn’t, in fact, attend church and his Party policy page doesn’t provide much insight into his proposed method of governance – aside from being tough on crime while oddly libertarian in some aspects but a freaking hard line conservative in others.

Will the New Zealand populace accept a religious social conservative comparable to Rick Santorum on sexual issues, Newt Gingrich when it comes to personal wealth and Rick Perry on his bizarre bloodlust when it comes to crime? 

History doesn't seem to be on Craig’s side and the closest New Zealand has been previously to any type of socially conservative and/or religiously motivated political power was the Christian Heritage Party….and we all remember what happened then…