Skip to comments.[Canada] Evangelical schools ordered to teach Darwin (Or be shut down)
Posted on 10/24/2006 11:19:52 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
OTTAWA - The Quebec Ministry of Education has told unlicensed Christian evangelical schools that they must teach Darwin's theory of evolution and sex education or close their doors after a school board in the Outaouais region complained the provincial curriculum was not being followed.
"Quebec children are legally required to follow the provincial curriculum ... but these evangelical schools teach their own courses on creationism and sexuality that don't follow the Quebec curriculum," said Pierre Daoust, director-general of the Commission Scolaire au Coeur-des-Vallees in Thurso, Que.
Mr. Daoust's complaint sparked the province-wide investigation.
Quebec law requires school boards to assure the Ministry of Education that every child between the ages six of and 16, with the exception of home-schooled children, receives an adequate education, he said.
But the 20 elementary and high school students who attend a school operated by Eglise Evangelique near Saint-Andre-Avellin, Que., are being educated according to a Bible-based curriculum and their high school diplomas will not be recognized anywhere in Canada, he said.
Supporters of Eglise Evangelique, part of the l'Association des eglises evangeliques du Quebec, counter that the school teaches a "world view" that is essential for their students.
"We offer a curriculum based on a Christian world view rather than humanistic world view," said Alan Buchanan, chairman of a committee that reorganized the school's administration this past summer, as well as a former Quebec public school teacher.
Mr. Buchanan said Eglise Evangelique teaches evolution as well as intelligent design.
"We want the children to understand what they're going to meet in the outside world, and also what's wrong with the theory," he said. "We also teach that a better theory -- that God created the universe and so on."
While the school doesn't teach sex education, it does teach biology, he said.
"You have the Christian world view that says sex should only be in the marriage and a public school system that teaches kids about sexuality," Mr. Buchanan said. "We believe students should be taught abstinence."
He said the school met provincial guidelines during two reviews conducted in the 1990s, although they were asked to add a Canadian history course.
Ministry spokeswoman Marie-France Boulay said yesterday the province will negotiate for several weeks with an unspecified number of evangelical schools to determine whether they can meet provincial standards that include the teaching of Darwin's theory of evolution.
Ms. Boulay said two or three unlicensed evangelical schools in the Outaouais are affected.
In addition to the 20 students at Eglise Evangelique, another 40 students attend an unlicensed evangelical school in Gatineau, Que., which falls under the jurisdiction of the Commission Scolaire des Draveurs. There is a third in Hull, Que., Mr. Daoust said. The other school boards haven't complained.
The Quebec government knows of about 30 unlicensed religious schools in the province, including Hasidic schools and several evangelical Christian schools in Montreal, said Dermod Travis, who served on Quebec's Comite sur la langue d'enseignement, a tribunal that hears special cases from the province's educational system.
Other religious denominations may operate faith-based schools as well, but no one really knows where they are.
The Quebec government has known about unaccredited religion-based schools for years, but has tolerated them for fear of offending the denominations sponsoring them.
Members of the Pentecostal Eglise Nouvelle Alliance in Gatineau, which operates a school for about 40 students, refused to discuss the Ministry of Education investigation because their minister, Charles Boucher, is out of Canada until Nov. 1.
Ontario schools are not required to teach either evolution or sex education, said Elaine Hopkins, executive director of the 900-member Ontario Federation of Independent Schools, which has 120,000 children attending schools with a few as 10 students and as many as 1,000.
Many parents send their children to independent schools because they object to the teaching of certain subjects in the public schools, she said. "These are issues that should be decided by the parents, not the province."
At the elementary level in Ontario, there are no curriculum requirements for independent schools at all, although Ms. Hopkins points out that the industry is market-driven.
"It's called direct accountability to the parents," she said. "If you're not going to teach reading, writing and arithmetic, the parents aren't going to pay for it."
At the high school level in Ontario, independent schools are inspected by Ministry of Education officials to ensure that they meet curriculum and hours-of-instruction guidelines for credits to be accepted by the ministry.
Happened somewhat in Germany. Parents were arrested by the state for homeschooling their children.
What you teach and how you teach it are of course two different things.
The "tolerance" of the left strikes again.
What does Canada require of the Muslim schools? Do they have to follow the secular humanist curriculum? How about "fair and balanced," Cannucks?
Apparently they are prevented by law from receiving a superior education. Fortunately, the home-schooled children are exempt from this limitation. :^)
Unfortunately, this is the Quebec provincial government.
Maybe the Catholic bishops could weigh in, in support of the rights of their Evangelical brothers, although Quebec is pretty far gone down the route of secularization and modernization within the Church.
Oh Canada! (Eeek, I don't know French for the word Oh) Oh well, I don't live in Canada, sorry.
There's a long tradition of forced conversions in La Belle Province doncha know, and some people there would like to bring it back.
In short, all is not as it seems when you have to deal with these guys.
Yet, Q-bec doesn't make the same demands of the many Islamic schools in that backwards province. The rest of Canada should cut that province loose. It costs them too much. That would end the liberal stronghold in Canada as well after redistribution of seats.
Shame, shame Q-bec. Stomping on Christianity again. St. Boniface would not be happy with this.
If the testing process of "No Child Left Behind" would allow for this, it would cause a revolution in education, and the NEA and Dems will not allow it. After all, the NEA wants to protect its monopoly, and the Dems want to continue to get their NEA contributions. Forget about the fact that this would greatly aid our children.
"A first grade student would take 1st grade math, 1st grade science, spelling etc. A sixth grader would do the same for their level of education."
And since it's state mandated, the first grader would really be tested on multicultural sensitivity and contributions of the gay/transgender community. And the 6th grader would be tested on the greatness of communism, how evil the USA is, why families are bad, and exotic sex positions.
Then while our children have no concept of math, literature, or moral boundaries, we would wonder why our schools are falling so far behind, and the politicians and teachers unions would demand more money.
As if this changes anything for them.
Mark and BTTT
Canada seems to understand the concept of "Science in Science Class."
Christian children should know about evolution. They won't be getting a proper education without it. But they don't have to be taught it is TRUTH. And that's the difference. My dau went to a Christian college and her 8th grade science teacher made a point of telling all the parents that. And she informed us that there is some evidence that points toward it. She wanted to teach her students science, evidence and thought. But this teacher did not believe in evolution per se. She was a great teacher, too.
Yes. Creationism in science class is worse than no science class at all. Give a kid no science class at all and he will at least know he doesn't know anything.
Creationism in science class is worse than no science class at all.
Too funny! Aristotle, Galen, Copernicus, Sir Isaac Newton and dozens of other pre-Darwinian scientists/natural philosophers did quite well without the theory of evolution.
They did quite well without Einstein, too. Too funny indeed! Is no fallacy too risible for the purposes of attacking that Devil Evolution?
The cool thing about science is that it does make progress. The last 150 years have made the most progress of any such period in our history. That's the very period some people would like to undo.
Aristotle and Galen from your list were not, nor should it matter what a real scientist's religious education might be, given that science is a systematic investigation of nature.
You persist in blatant fallacy. You have ignored the content of my last post. The last 150 years of science, the ones you don't like, have brought us the most progress of any such period. It's just too late to claim that science is about what church you attend.
What pushed the envelope in Aristotle's day won't do it today. What was good enough for Newton wasn't good enough by the 1880s. It isn't the Middle Ages anymore, never mind what Proverbs says about witches.
If I believe science should be taught in science class, what does a pig-ignorant witch doctor care?
Please send me a FReepmail to get on or off this Canada ping list.
The Eugenics Agenda will be on the cards next.
I've never understood the rabid hostility of radical secularists.
Last line - plain ol Pleasure is their goal and religion and getting as many to join in as possible.
Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
I ignored your post that scientific progress has been made these past 150 years? Well of course. Duh.
From your lack of response to the elements of my posts we can agree that:
1. Ignorance of Darwinism does not preclude scientific brilliance.
2. Creationism never hurt anyone.
3. Another theory called Marxism murdered hundreds of millions.
4. Only radical lefties get lathered about what does not concern them.
Speaking of progress, the US did quite well for almost 200 years before the banning of prayer in public schools. Are we better off?
Ignorance of Darwinism does not preclude scientific brilliance.
Knowledge is not to be confused with intelligence. Still, people with lots of one tend to have lots of the other.
Creationism never hurt anyone.
This is like saying a little white lie never hurt anyone. Creationist literature is almost entirely a body of discredited screeches against evolution, geology, cosmology, nuclear chemistry, astronomy, paleontology, etc. It isn't just wrong--it's a lie. There isn't a good penny in the whole canon of creo talking points, but every creationist just shows up with the same talking points day after day, feigning amnesia for what happened the last 23 times.
Another theory called Marxism murdered hundreds of millions.
Now there's tight logic! Ignorance is safer than Marxism! And I guess it's colder in Alaska than it is in the winter.
Only radical lefties get lathered about what does not concern them.
Funny, you look mightily concerned about the content of science class, but I don't get the idea you give a rat's butt about science. Does that make you a commie?
I might also say that it's hard to push the envelope of human knowledge if you don't have the last several hundred years worth of work in your field under your own belt as a starting point.
So you don't believe that people are free to believe what they want to believe? You want to force your horse crap down their throats instead huh?
Is this the best you can understand about what is happening? Is Canada forbidding religious schools to do religious instruction?
I do not believe you are dealing with what you understand. Is it easier to slay strawmen?
Canada is saying that a student educated in Canada should be able to meet some minimal standard of being educated. That means you have to provide, in science class, some instruction in science as opposed to in "How Science is Wrong." Nothing in this says you can't provide religious instruction in other classes.
Now that I've explained that, I would think further confusion would be impossible ... except that I know that such logic is naive. Creationists aren't just ignorant, they're people who embrace ignorance and think it's a weapon of some sort. Militantly ignorant.
Can you say, "projection," boys and girls? I know you could.
At issue is science class: does science go in it? Canada is saying it has the right to close educational institutions that refuse to educate.
Do you think that you or the government or anyone else have the constitutional authority to ban religious teaching in a religious school?
Ughh, I doubt if anyone on FR would advocate that. What kind of question is that? Did you mean 'public' school instead of 'religious' school?
We all understand that you think evangelicals are knuckle draggers. Forget Canada. My question cuts to the nub.
I say again:
Do you think that you or the government or anyone else have the constitutional authority to ban religious teaching in a religious school?
Yes nor no?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.