Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Conservative Leader John Tory: Evolution Must be Taught in Science Class; Creation only for Rel...
LifeSiteNews.com ^ | September 6, 2007 | John-Henry Westen and Elizabeth O'Brien

Posted on 09/09/2007 8:50:09 PM PDT by monomaniac

Conservative Leader John Tory: Evolution Must be Taught in Science Class; Creation only for Religion Classes

Tory plan seen by some as first step to forcing all private schools to absorb Ontario government's full secular curriculum

By John-Henry Westen and Elizabeth O'Brien

TORONTO, September 6, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Conservative Leader John Tory's election promise to give public funding to faith-based schools began to unravel at the seams yesterday as he spoke about evolution in the classroom. 

Asked by a radio interviewer if creation would be permitted to be taught in the classroom, Tory replied, "The Christian-based school would have to teach the Ontario curriculum, which of course has a different explanation. It's still called the theory of evolution, but they teach evolution in the Ontario curriculum, but they could also mention to children the fact that there are other theories out there that are part of some Christian beliefs."

Just after the interview, the Conservative Party issued a clarification on the remarks noting that any teaching of creation, presumably including scientific evidence for it, is not permitted in science class. 

The John Tory Campaign made the following clarification: "1.) The Ontario curriculum does not allow for creationism (or any other religious theory) to be taught in science classes in Ontario's public schools.  2.) Mr. Tory clearly stated that any school to be included in the proposal must teach the Ontario curriculum.  3.) Mr. Tory's proposal would allow creationism to be discussed only as part of religious studies programming, as is now the practice in Ontario's publicly-funded Catholic schools."

Progressive Conservative leader John Tory and Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty have taken opposing sides on the issue of private school funding. Though opposed, the proposals of both politicians are seen by some seasoned political observers as unsatisfactory and potentially harmful to the religious freedom of religiously-based schools, public and private alike.

At present Ontario is one of the only provinces where parents who wish to educate their children in faith-based schools, other than Catholic, must pay public education taxes and receive no benefit for their children from those mandatory tax payments. The province pays for the costs of education in both the public school system and the Catholic separate system.

Tory intends to change the situation of private faith-based education funding by pumping up to $400 million into all faith-based schools within the province, including those that have hitherto provided their own funding.
Private schools that are not faith-based will receive no benefit, a major difference from the previous simple tax credit plan for families attending all independent schools that was implemented by former Ontario Finance Minister Jim Flaherty.

In order to receive the money, however, privately run schools would have to teach the Ontario curriculum, follow standardized testing and have accredited teachers. While it would be optional at first, Tory's proposed solution could eventually force all schools to comply with the Ontario curriculum sections that mandate such things as acceptance of feminism and homosexuality, graphic sex education, teaching of evolution as complete fact and other problematic topics for those from religions of traditional moral, family and other core principles.

While faith-based private schools in Ontario were supportive of the previous Conservative Party plan to offer tax credits to families that chose private schooling, the current plan is worrisome to some.  Some private school officials see Tory's plan as a first step to forcing all private schools to absorb the full secular curriculum and hire only government certified and indoctrinated teachers, as is the case in Quebec.

In Quebec last year the government threatened to shut down private Christian schools unless they accepted the province's required teaching on evolution and sex-education (See http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/oct/06102404.html ).

Dalton McGuinty, on the other hand, says he wants to leave the situation stand as it is. As he told a conference of municipal delegates, "You don't improve a community's schools, you don't build community when you take half a billion (dollars) out of publicly funded schools to fund private religious schools as the Conservatives are promising to do."

Commenting on the situation, John Pacheco, political activist and former Director of Finance of a private Catholic school told LifeSiteNews.com, "Once the Catholic school system accepted money, it made it easier for secular ideology to creep into the schools. As soon as we allow the government to dictate what curriculum to use, they can withdraw funding if we don't meet the standards."

Pacheco, who is also running in the upcoming provincial election in Ottawa West Nepean, will be highlighting the Family Coalition Party's voucher system proposal as an alternative to John Tory's plan.  Under the FCP plan the parents' education tax dollars would follow their child to the school of their choice, which would include homeschooling.


TOPICS: Canada; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: canada; catholic; coyotemanhasspoken; creationism; evolution; homosexualagenda; religion; science; sexeducation; taxes; taxpayer; tory; voucher
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-53 next last

1 posted on 09/09/2007 8:50:13 PM PDT by monomaniac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: monomaniac
Evolution Must be Taught in Science Class; Creation only for Religion Classes

Well of course. What's the problem with that?

The theory of evolution is a branch of science, while creationism is pure religion. And everybody knows it!

2 posted on 09/09/2007 8:52:40 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Next thing you know, they’ll be calling for math to be taught in math class, and English in English class.


3 posted on 09/09/2007 8:54:14 PM PDT by coloradan (Failing to protect the liberties of your enemies establishes precedents that will reach to yourself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Coyoteman, pulling the night shift for the voice of reason. Good on ya man. I don’t believe the world is 6,500 years old but I don’t have the energy to argue once the literalists get on this thread. You’ll be up all night. Good night!


4 posted on 09/09/2007 9:13:46 PM PDT by spyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

I think everybody whose read anything on the topic “knows” evolution is a theory, not a fact. I want my children to hear all theories, not just the secular progressive’s theory.


5 posted on 09/09/2007 9:16:17 PM PDT by TraditionalistMommy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: monomaniac

Duuuh!


6 posted on 09/09/2007 9:16:33 PM PDT by pierstroll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: monomaniac
If you don’t post some happy news real soon , I want you to round up the last non-gay mounties and move to Idaho . We are getting rid of Larry Craig , I think you will be ok here.
7 posted on 09/09/2007 9:18:25 PM PDT by kbennkc (For those who have fought for it , freedom has a flavor the protected will never know. F Troop)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TraditionalistMommy
I think everybody whose read anything on the topic “knows” evolution is a theory, not a fact. I want my children to hear all theories, not just the secular progressive’s theory.

You are correct that the theory of evolution is a theory.

But you are incorrect if you think that there are other competing theories within science.

Creationism and ID are not scientific theories, as much as their proponents may claim that they are. They are just the latest attempts to try to get their religion taught in public schools. So far, these attempts have been rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court (creation "science") and by a U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania (intelligent design).

8 posted on 09/09/2007 9:22:59 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: monomaniac

KOOLAID-DRINKING INTREP


9 posted on 09/09/2007 9:29:44 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger; metmom

PING!


10 posted on 09/09/2007 10:44:48 PM PDT by Pinkbell (Duncan Hunter 2008 - Protecting and Restoring America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

I like your tag line.


11 posted on 09/09/2007 11:14:32 PM PDT by Timbo64
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TraditionalistMommy
I think everybody whose read anything on the topic “knows” evolution is a theory, not a fact. I want my children to hear all theories, not just the secular progressive’s theory.

All theories? Are you serious? Do you understand what that means?

You also understand that gravity is a theory, not a fact, right? Do you also suggest teaching Aristotelian physics because you want your children to hear all theories?

12 posted on 09/10/2007 3:30:05 AM PDT by burzum (None shall see me, though my battlecry may give me away -Minsc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: monomaniac
It's good to see that Canadian conservatives aren't dominated by fundamentalist lunatics.
13 posted on 09/10/2007 1:51:22 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: monomaniac

I hope the private schools don’t take government money and don’t adopt government dictated curriculum. Look at what public money has done to European churches. Schools need to keep their freedom so they can fight the false doctrine of evolution.


14 posted on 09/10/2007 6:48:13 PM PDT by TenthAmendmentChampion (Global warming is to Revelations as the theory of evolution is to Genesis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TenthAmendmentChampion
Schools need to keep their freedom so they can fight the false doctrine of evolution.

I take it you mean religiously false, rather than scientifically false?

15 posted on 09/10/2007 7:36:58 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: monomaniac; gobucks; mikeus_maximus; JudyB1938; isaiah55version11_0; Elsie; LiteKeeper; AndrewC; ...

Across-the-pond news ping.


16 posted on 09/11/2007 8:01:01 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger ("Being normal is not necessarily a virtue. It rather denotes a lack of courage.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

"The Christian-based school would have to teach the Ontario curriculum"

17 posted on 09/11/2007 8:05:04 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Profile updated Wednesday, August 29, 2007. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TraditionalistMommy
I want my children to hear all theories, not just the secular progressive’s theory.

So would this include the Hindu creation theories as well?

18 posted on 09/11/2007 8:47:50 AM PDT by GunRunner (Thompson 2008 - Security, Unity, Prosperity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; monomaniac; coloradan; TraditionalistMommy; TenthAmendmentChampion; spyone
"The theory of evolution is a branch of science, while creationism is pure religion. And everybody knows it!"

Everyone also knows that the theory of evolution and science are based on the philosophy of naturalism with the following assumption that naturalism is then the ultimate arbiter of truth.

Or maybe not...

But no naturalist wants 'everyone' to know that or they wouldn't constantly pretend that the philosophical foundation of naturalism followed by the assumption that naturalism is then the ultimate arbiter of truth isn't an exercise in circular reasoning for 'science'.

19 posted on 09/11/2007 8:49:13 AM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

They are scientific theories (whether you may want to argue on the merits is another topic; your personal preference, I would argue only on the merits, but then again it difficult to do rather than spew out adhominim fallacies..).

I would respect you more, if you were honest and just admit that you don’t believe that creation science holds up under the weight of emirical evidence (though I would argue othewise..), rather than relying on the trite and frankly old darwinist idea that creation “science” isn’t really scientificly based..

(Some of the origins of this theory are religious-supernatural in nature- yet we aren’t testing religion (God): we are testing empirical (or rather forensic) scientifically empirical evidence for/against both macro-evolution and creation theory and intelligent design theory)..So will you argue your point rather than trite adhominim attacks..! ????


20 posted on 09/11/2007 9:18:41 AM PDT by JSDude1 (When a liberal represents the Presidential Nominee for the Republicans; THEY'RE TOAST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-53 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson