Friday, September 07, 2007

Damned if you do, damned if you don't: Creationism edition.


Perhaps the most amusing aspect of the John Tory foot-firmly-in-mouth creationism announcement is how so many citizens of Wankerville are desperately trying to re-interpret what he said to make it somehow acceptable, not realizing that, sadly, there is no re-interpretation that makes Tory not look like a total buffoon. And it's really pretty easy to prove that, so that's what we're going to do 'cuz, here at CC HQ, we are all about the proof.

Recall the actual suicidal phrasing:

"They teach evolution in the Ontario curriculum, but they also could teach the fact to the children that there are other theories that people have out there that are part of some Christian beliefs."

OK, then, let's see just how many ways you can spin that, and see that each of them leads to a very bad place.

First, if Tory was actually suggesting that creationism should be taught as a viable scientific alternative to biological evolution in the public school system, then I don't think we're going to have any argument that he is simply not qualified to be the premier of Ontario. Full stop. End of discussion. For anyone to sincerely believe that creationism, as it is generally presented, has any scientific basis is to admit that they are a scientific illiterate, and even members of the Blogging Tories have admitted to that. So I don't think we're going to have any debate that, if that's what Tory meant, he's toast.

Moving on, what if he meant that creationism should be in the public school system, but only in some kind of comparative religion class? Well, in the first place, I'd argue that that's clearly not what he was suggesting, so I'm being ridiculously charitable in letting him get away with that bit of revisionism. However, even that causes problems since he refers to the alternatives as being "part of some Christian beliefs."

Excuse me? Why only "Christian beliefs?" For simple fairness, if we're talking about a comparative religions class, it can't just stop there. So Tory still has a problem in that he's being unacceptably exclusionary. (And, again, one has to be monumentally generous to allow him this re-interpretation, which I would be tempted not to do.) But wait. There's more.

Some of the more desperate wankers have proposed that Tory was talking only about creationism in private religious schools. Again, you have to be seriously deluded to think that that's what he was proposing but, hey, for the sake of argument, let's go there. Does this make much more sense?

Actually, no, not really. All it suggests is that there are religious schools that are so screamingly scientifically illiterate (or, alternatively, dishonest) that they are presenting creationism as if it had any scientific value (which it most certainly does not, and that's not something we're going to debate here). But while private schools are entirely welcome to teach whatever crap they want, they certainly have no right to expect to get accredited somehow for it, or be able to participate in the public school system and get public dollars to do so. In short, while this scenario is entirely possible, it has nothing to do with the public school system and Tory should never have even brought it up. It's simply a non-issue.

And, finally, one might argue (if one was certifiably brain-dead) that Tory was only saying that private religious institutions have the right to present creationism as a particular Christian (that is, religious) belief. Um, yeah. The thing about that is that there are already private institutions that are more than happy to validate your particular religious beliefs. They're called "churches," and one is encouraged to make use of them if one wants their religious indoctrination on a regular basis.

See how all that works? Spin it as hard as you want but, regardless of what you do, Tory's gaffe is simply indefensible. He screwed the pooch and, if life is fair, he should have to pay for it. And, if life is fair, the aforementioned wankers will finally stop clogging up my comments section with inane missives that begin with, "Yeah, well what if he meant ..."

Sadly, life is rarely fair. Have you noticed that?

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

What is the big deal with John Tory stating that publicly funded faith-based schools should be able to teach the creation stories of their respective faiths? He even explicitly clarified that he did not intend that creationism could be taught in science classes. All he is suggesting is that the 53,000 kids in non-Catholic faith-based schools be given the same opportunity to learn about their faith, along with the full Ontario curriculum, together with the 650,000 kids currently attending fully funded Catholic schools. At least Tory has the gumption to propose a solution for the discrimination. It is disturbing to hear the Liberals sweeping Ontario ’s official religious discrimination under the rug, and using Tory’s fairness initiative as a diversion to deflect attention from their own sorry record.

CC said...

Harold:

I have already addressed that very comment of yours in the comments section back here.

Leaving the identical comment on a different post is not going to get you a different answer.

Adam C said...

Nice one, Harold. Paste it a couple more times, see if anyone agrees with you...

Unknown said...

What I don't understand is why public tax dollars are funding any religious schools whatsoever. From what I've heard (and admittedly my knowledge of this is limited) the issue is that Ontario fund Catholic schools but not Jewish or Muslim. It seems the obvious solution would be to stop funding the Catholic schools as well. Why are public, secular tax dollars funding religious institutes, be they schools or churches? It's also extremely distressing to find that creationism is alive and well in Canada, I liked my delusions that it was a problem isolated in the bible belt of America.

The Seer said...

A Canadian having a name like "John Tory" is like an American having a name like "Joe Gop." Not even Dear Leader is such a schlep.

¢rÄbG®äŠŠ said...

Cornucrapia, I agree. It's amazing how comfortable people have become separating their God stuff from all of their other stuff. It might be fun to know how many people surveyed would say they believe in creationism, and then how many surveyed (separately of course) believe in evolution. How much greater than 100% would the sum be?

Anonymous said...

"They teach evolution in the Ontario curriculum, but they also could teach the fact to the children that there are other theories that people have out there that are part of some Christian beliefs."....John Tory

"... what if he meant that creationism should be in the public school system, but only in some kind of comparative religion class? Well, in the first place, I'd argue that that's clearly not what he was suggesting,...".....CanCy

Clearly? As in "obviously"? As in "undeniably"? As in "incontestably" or "beyond doubt"? Perhaps your special moonbat glasses endow you with the ability to read things into other people's words that are invisible to those who do not wear them. Unfortunately for your argument, no logical person would ever make such an absolute judgement based upon the words, spoken by Tory, that you quote in your post. You are simply projecting upon his words.
I hope this tendency of yours does not extend to things scientific: you show a shocking disregard for the actual objects before you. That would be the words, in this instance (just in case you were tempted to read things into what I just said).

"Excuse me? Why only "Christian beliefs?" For simple fairness, if we're talking about a comparative religions class, it can't just stop there. So Tory still has a problem in that he's being unacceptably exclusionary."

Again, did Tory say it had to "stop there"? No, he did not. And since he did not, he isn't being "unacceptably exclusionary". Politicians are long-winded enough without having to read off a complete list of special interest groups every time they mention any group at all. You are just being picayune here, looking for something to pad your argument.

E in MD said...

Excuse me? Why only "Christian beliefs?"

- - - - -

Should also be noted that not all Christians have the same belief structures anyway. The Amish are Christian. Should we put them in charge of educating all of the children in their particular version of the Christian faith? Mormons believe in Christ. Why not their world view? Why don't we put the Fred Phelps sect up as an example of what to teach kids - that God HATES you and wants you to all die and go straight to hell because you allow gays to exist.

It's ridiculous and it's one group asking for special privileges over everyone else. The only reason why these assholes suggest this sort of thing is because they think they can get away with it. If it was any other group forcing their religious beliefs on children they would flip the hell out.

Unknown said...

Cornucopia, I agree -- public money should stop funding any religion-based school, period. (And, frankly, I think my tax money should stop giving religious institutions a tax-free ride, period. Whenever a "separate school" person starts whining about their tax money going to a public school, I want to whack 'im over the head with the fact that my tax money has been supporting his church for decades. Grrrr.)

Anyway. This Catholic thing was a reasonable idea when it began, aeons ago, because society was much more religious, and Protestant/Catholic were the big divisions in society, and each side wanted to educate its own with its own values. So this was a compromise. (We had that in Calgary too.)

Now, there are so many religious groups in society, all supposedly having equal citizenship rights, that the division just doesn't make sense any more. Tory is right, in one sense, that if you're going to fund the Catholic system, you'd better fund 'em all, so everyone is treated equally.

But the vastly better solution is to keep the schools entirely secular -- so no one religion is preferred over another and every child learns on an equal footing to every other -- and if parents want their kids taught religion on top of that, they can find someone who will do that, and pay for it themselves. (Good capitalist approach, yes?0

I said in a previous comment that as to the teaching of creationism -- whether it's in science class (which was clearly implied by Tory's very first comment) or in a religion class -- MUST be accompanied by the teaching of the four Yugas of Hinduism (we do have Hindus in our schools, after all), the Muslim creation myths, the Mormon creation story (which would be extremely entertaining), any Buddhist creation myths out there, the Jain, oh, all of them. So that one religion isn't privileged over another, discriminating against citizens who don't believe in it. Every single last creation myth of every religion in our culture had better be taught in school, in this scenario.

But that, oh believe me, THAT is not what Tory is advocating.