Politically Correcting The Fundamentals

This was first published in august 2011.   I have re-published here so I can consolidate my blogs and delete the ones not to be updated.

Both Wright and Orr wrote an essay for The Fundamentals. In those essays they outlined their theistic evolutionary views. Read what happens in these enlighten days ...

The few articles that dealt with the question of the relationship between religion and science show at this point within the emerging Fundamentalist movement, there was an allowance for a position that argued for the compatibility of certain forms of evolutionary theory and the biblical record. George Frederick Wright, a geologist from Oberlin College, Ohio, argued that evolution need not exclude God’s Creative work: “If anything is to be evolved in an orderly manner from the resident forces of primordial matter it must first have been involved through the creative act of the Divine Being”(Marsden, 1980: 122). Similarly, James Orr, a professor of theology at the United Free Church College in Glasgow, argued that “‘Evolution,’ in short, is coming to be recognized as but a new name for ‘creation,’ only that the creative power works from within, instead of, as in the old conception, in an external, plastic fashion. It is, however, creation none the less” (The Fundamentals, Vol 4: 103). These views were edited out of the Orr and Wright articles in the 1958 and 1990 editions of The Fundamentals, making their articles more in line with the complete rejection of any form of evolution teaching that came to characterize Fundamentalism after the Scopes “Monkey Trial” in 1925.

I suggest you look for an old copy of The Fundamentals. One printed prior to 1958.

Richard W Foley, “The Fundamentals” in Brenda E. Brasher (ed), Encyclopedia of Fundamentalism (New York: Routledge, 2001), p. 187. (article pp.186-188)

Note
• Marsden , 1980 is George M Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980).
• The Fundamentals, Vol4 - The Fundamentals: A Testimony of Truth, 12 Vols. (Chicago: Testimony Publishing, 1910-1925).

Will Victorian Students Lose?.

This was first published in December 2010. I have re-published here so I can consolidate my blogs and delete the ones not to be updated.


On 27th of November 2010 Victorian went to the polls and good science education took a battering. The wining Liberal and National Parties told the Dominionist Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) prior to the election that they would allow so called “faith based” schools to continue to teach unscientific creationism within science classes.


Australian Christian Lobby’s Push Survey

The ACL has been surveying individual political parties at every state and federal election since its foundation in 1992. ACL’s use push polling techniques is shown by question 16 of the recent Victorian state election poll. It was entitled “Education – Freedom to Teach”.

The South Australian Non-Government Schools Registration Board recently caused avoidable controversy by drafting guidelines to explicitly prevent the teaching of creationism in school science classes. The guidelines were later withdrawn. Will your Party ensure that the Victorian Regulations and Qualifications Authority respects the independence of faith-based schools to teach from a Christian perspective across all subject areas?

The Political Response

That South Australian debacle was the subject of this blogs first post, South Australia School Students Loose! This is the first state or federal election since that failure. The ACL surveyed six parties standing in the Victorian election. The two parties possible governing parties, the Labor Party and the ‘Coalition’ (consisting or the Liberal and National parties) were surveyed. Three so called ‘Christian’ conservative political parties were surveyed. The Democratic Labor Party (DLP), Christian Democrats and Family First did not win any parliamentary representation with the DLP losing its only upper house seat. The other party surveyed was the Greens. They retained two of their three upper house members.

Sadly, only the Greens rejected the ACL. The Greens “would not support faith based schools teaching creationism in science classes or instead of science”.

The winning Liberal National Coalition response was typical of all the other parties surveyed. They “will respect the independence of faith based schools to teach from a religious perspective in all subject areas”.

The Education Social Contract

ACL education agenda breaches the social contract we impose on our children. Schools of all persuasions are extensions of society’s demands to ensure we have an educated population. As a result the state forces all children between the ages of five and fifteen to attend an approved school. The state pays for this imposition by supplying low cost government schools and providing substantial subsidies to non-government schools, including the so called ‘faith based’ schools. Therefore, state guarantees the students will be taught according to the best most commonly accepted knowledge in every subject with imposition of a set curriculum or syllabus on all schools. regretably, this does not extend to science. Few scientists accept creationism or, its bastard, intelligent design creationism. The Australian Museum, Australian Academy of Science, and the Geology Society of Australia are examples of peak scientific organisations which have issued statements that rejecting both.

Further, the best that could be said for creationism within Christian belief is that it is contested. The vast majority of Christians reject the creationist interpretation Genesis. To Christians, Genesis One has nothing to do with the physical origins of the Universe.

What Can We Do?

It is too late for this Victoria election. During an election it is too late. The hot house atmosphere of winning voters gives ACL's requests life. Any solution will require an organised body dedicated to defending science. Individuals have provided this in the past. I admire the work done by both Ian Plimer and the late David Price. The current work of the Australian Atheists through the Canberra Reptile Sanctuary is commendable. My Christian based work cannot be anything but sporadic because of other issues in my life. This organisation needs to bring together different belief perspectives so it can represent so called ‘Christian vote’ as well as everyone else’s vote. It needs to lobby in the reasonable space between elections and yell during vote grabbing elections. It needs to do this on the too numerous fronts to list. One example is that I am not aware of any anti-creationist work on the development of the national curriculum.

That body needs to educate the public about science. One of the greatest science educators of all time was Stephan Jay Gould (1941-2002). We must get opinion makers who are bigoted atheists to read his Non-overlapping Magisteria while bigoted Christians to read his Non-Moral Nature. We must allow science educators to teach how the heavens go and prevent them from teach whether we can go to heaven!

South Australian School Students Lose!

This was first published in July 2010.  I have republished it here so I can consolidate my blogs and delete others

Fundamentalist school associations, the Christian right and creationists have combine to deprived South Australian school students a good science education. They have managed to remove the exclusion of creationism from South Australia’s non-government school science standards.
On the 9 December 2009, South Australia’s ‘Non-Government School’s Registration Board’ issued its new Policies. Non-government schools in South Australia are required to conform to those polices. Section B.4 read

B.4 The teaching of Science in relation to creation and intelligent design
The Board requires the teaching of Science as an empirical discipline, focusing on inquiry, hypothesis, investigation, experimentation, observation and evidential analysis.The Board does not accept as satisfactory a science curriculum in a non-government school which is based upon, espouses or reflects the literal interpretation of a religious text in its treatment of either creationism or intelligent design.

During the heated atmosphere of a state election, the forced removal of a Creationist poster from a school brought the policy to press attention. Because of the Board specific exclusion of creationism from science classes, the Christian School Association accused the Board of going beyond its authority under SA Education Act (s.72G(3)). A joint letter by four fundamentalist school associations insisted that section B.4 be amended by removing “in relation to creation and intelligent design” from the title and delete the entire second paragraph. On the 7 May 2009, Dr Dale Wasley, the Board’s chair, replied informing them that the policy was under review and would not be enforced. On 22 June 2010, the Board reissued its Polices which now read

B.4 The teaching of Science
The Board requires the teaching of Science as an empirical discipline, focusing on inquiry, hypothesis, investigation, experimentation, observation and evidential analysis.

This is as a cave in to creationism!
As a Christian, I was disturbed by The Sydney Morning Herald report’s concluding paragraph.

A spokesman for the South Australian Non-Government Schools Registration Board said it was not banning teaching of creationism full-stop. ''It can be taught in religious studies”.

Even before winning the right to distort science, the Board granted South Australian fundamentalist schools the right to distort Christianity. Creationism is a minority reading of Genesis one. It should be noted that ever since the publication of The Origins of Species in 1859, the majority of Christians have accepted the science of evolution. Most of those Christians who opposed evolutionary theory in the late 1800s and the early 1900s did so because of Herbert Spencer’s social Darwinism and not Charles Darwin’s science. If taught, let us teach our children the breath of Christian thought and not some selected bigotry!

Notes

• 
  SA Non-Government School's Registration Board have removed the 9 December 2009

Polices. Hence, I cannot provide an internet reference to it. The hard copy reference is Non-Government School’s Registration Board,
Polices Adelaide: South Australian Government, 2009), p.4

The Christian Schools Association page

SA Policy on “hold” contains links to the CSA letter and the four fundamentalist school associations protesting Policy B.4 and the Board’s reply to those letters.

All Australians Deserve Safe Roads

On the 9th of October, Queensland has delivered two blows to the safe roads last week. One blow was delivered by the Cairns local government and the other by the Liberal National Party’s Transport and Roads Minister Scott Emerson. Both decisions did not involve public consultation nor provided a public cost benefit analysis. Both involved the sacrifice of the safety of cyclists and pedestrians for the short term convenience of the car drivers.

Cairns council have voted 10 to 2 to remove 200 metres of dedicated bicycle lane so that they could provide street car parking. There was no public consultation. Indeed the motion was brought to the council without notice. Local residents, Cairn’s cyclists and the Councillor representing the area affected were all horrified. According to one proponent, Cr James, it makes no sense having a re-badge footpath (now called ‘a shared path’) and a dedicated bicycle lane next to each other. Cr James also complained that cyclists are riding too fast along the lane as a justification of forcing them on a re-badge footpath. This closure disregards the increase numbers of people who now feel safe to ride their bikes along Cairns award winning cycle way. It also ignores the safety of pedestrians. The RACQ is not considered one of the most bicycle friendly organisations. However, Michael Roth, RACQ’s manager of public policy questioned the decision: “Cyclist not only have conflicts with car drivers but also with pedestrians, so it is not necessarily a good decision to increase those conflicts”.

The Liberal National Party’s Transport and Roads Minister Scott Emerson announced he was removing urban bicycle infrastructure to provide four more lanes on Brisbane’s Centenary Highway. “As part of our review of all spending, we were able to remove Labor’s gold plating to deliver greater benefits to the community for the same money”, Emerson said. However, replacing “Labor’s gold plating” will cost another $90 million. Besides scrapping the bike ways, some of extra expenditure is being financed by depriving disadvantaged suburbs of a railway station. Some of the bike ways were designed to feed the new rail stations. However, no costing has been provided for the expanded car parks made necessary by forcing rail passengers back into their cars. Again, the Queensland government failed to consult the communities affected or provide any cost benefit analysis. Nor have they provided one example of widening roads that has successfully eased road congestion. History shows that it brings more cars onto the roads creating more congestion. Failure to provide separate road facilities for cars, cyclists and pedestrians simply makes the cyclists and pedestrians feel unsafe. What the Michael Roth, RACQ manager of public policy, said about conflicts applies here too. While commenting of the newspaper article, a Queensland voter said that in spite of the largest parliamentary majority in Australian history, “This Government is shaping up as a one term wonder”.

The problem is not just in Queensland. The problem is all over Australia. Government transport planners consider cars and trucks and have ignored public transport and bicycles. They have forgotten the long history of freight and passenger transport by trains, buses and bicycles. They have failed to plan for the integration of bicycles and public transport. Above all, Australian transport planners have not considered the safety and convenience of all road uses when planning and improving Australia’s transport systems.

TransWA promotes Cars

This is re-published from one of my deleted blogs ....

One of my aims is to stay independent of cars. In Western Australia, this is very impracticable. My desire to attend “The Yarloop Field Day and BBQ” with the Greens South West Candidate, Giz Watson MLC, is a case in point. The field day was at 11 am, Sunday, 7 October 2012. Wanting to attend, a plan entered my mind: ride from Ravenswood - where I live - to Pinjarra Rail - a distance of 8.8 kilometres and it would take 29 minutes according to Google maps, board the train, get off at Yarloop Rail and ride to the field day - which is 3 km in 11 minutes. I think this is a reasonable plan. However, TransWA scheduling and regulations makes it impractical.

The first was the schedule. One train,called the Australind, travels between Perth and Western Australian’s second city, Bunbury, twice daily. This includes Sundays and most public holidays. The Australind services both Pinjarra and Yarloop. This is probably the most frequent TransWA service. To get to Yarloop and return in the same day, I would have catch the 10:42 am train from Pinjarra and arrive at Yarloop at 11:11 am. This would make me about half an hour late. Catching the return 3:29 pm train would require me to leave the venue about 3:15 pm. This would give me about three and three quarter hours at the venue. The train fare is $7.60 each way. TransWA charges a flat $10 surcharge to carry bicycles, each way. The thought cross my mind that this was a tad excessive but I would have no choice but to wear it. Therefore the cost is two times the $7.60 fare and two times $10 bicycle carriage surcharge for a grand total of $35.20. Simply pay the money and go!

Well, no! This is where TransWA’s regulations get in the way. Underneath the line that informs me about the bicycle surcharge is, “On the Australind service, bicycles and surfboards can only be loaded/unloaded at Perth City and Bunbury stations, due to safety regulations”. Yet the same safety regulations do not preclude the loading and unloading of ‘stowed luggage’. A contradiction? Given this, walking from Yarloop Station to the field day would make me about three quarter hours late and I might miss lunch. I have a figure to maintain! I would have about three hours at the venue.

Yarloop's 'low level platform'

An aside, ‘The Australind’s’ website says that Yarloop is one of the “low level platform” stations. "Low level platform" is a euphemism for no platform! You, your luggage and everything else has to climb down a ladder to get off the train. The exceptions are bicycles and surfboards because they can only get on or off at Bunbury or Perth for occupational health reasons. Unloading luggage down a ladder causes no occupational health issues!?!? They might need a better excuse.

These regulations lead to me consider riding the 47.3 km from my Ravenswood home to Yarloop. According to Google, it would take two hours and 38 minutes. Given my current state of fitness, add a few more hours. This would mean riding down the South West Highway, a road designed cars, trucks and, mainly, tanks. The WA Main Roads Department’s consideration for cyclists on country roads is purely figurative. I might elect to stay a night or two at the Yarloop Hotel for $55 per night. This included breakfast. Politics, food and a new town to explore is a rather nice combination for a holiday.

There are many combinations and permutations of these options. But the long and short of it is this: I cannot get to the field day without a car being involved. TransWA schedule and regulations makes it impossible to rely on them for transport along Australind line. I cannot take my bike with me but there are no restrictions on luggage. Even if I could take it, the pricing structure makes it expensive for short tips. I have not raised issues about electric bicycles, cargo bikes or bike trailers. The latter two would make it possible to transport luggage to a hotel without a taxi service. Presumably, they all would fall outside TransWA’s definition of a ‘bicycle’. This is how TransWA promotes the use of cars. It makes living without a car impractical.

Thankfully, Giz organised a lift for me. Thank you, Giz. And thank you Irma, the one Giz organised.