Creationist Wisdom #1,028: Canadian Darwinism

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Vernon Morning Star of Vernon, British Columbia. Wikipedia says a resident of Vernon is called a “Vernonite.” That’s good to know. The letter’s title is Test leak no surprise in public school system. The newspaper has a comments feature, but there aren’t any yet.

Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. His first name is Brian. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, some bold font for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]. Here we go!

In regards to the article Vernon teachers suspended for test leak [We can’t find it, but we assume it’s a reference to an exam, not a plumbing fixture.], are people surprised that someone working in the public school system would lie? What is the religion of the public school system? Darwinian evolution. [Oh no!] What is the purpose of Darwinian evolution? To try and give an answer for the existence of the universe without acknowledging the Creator. [Gasp!] What is the moral code of this religion? Survival of the fittest, win at all costs; truth and morals are subjective.

Nothing could be more horrible! Brian says:

What is the moral code of the public school system? The B.C. School Act states all schools and provincial schools must be conducted on strictly secular and non-sectarian principles. The highest morality must be inculcated, but no religious dogma or creed is to be taught in a school or provincial school. The Act states “the highest morality must be inculcated.” What is this based on?

Quite a puzzle! Brian tells us:

The foundation is “strictly secular and non-sectarian principles.” [What’s that?] It is the idea that what is wrong for you might not be wrong for me. [That’s crazy!] The suspensions seem a little hypocritical in light of the moral standard that the school system holds too.

Brian is making some good points. He continues:

A good example is Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s handling of the SNC Lavalin scandal. [Wikipedia has an article — see SNC-Lavalin affair.] First he denied, denied, denied. Then, when it became obvious that he was lying, he changed his story to “he was doing it to save jobs.” The teachers who were suspended may use the same excuse — “I was doing it for the students.” Does truth matter? What is the culture of the public school system that teachers can feel it is OK to lie and cheat?

We give up. What’s their culture? Brian explains it:

This is Darwinism in action. [Now we understand!] Wouldn’t it be better to teach children honesty and then actually enable them to learn the subject, to gain a skill rather than getting them a better grade by deception?

Yes, honesty is better than Darwinism. Let’s read on:

What is God the Creator’s moral code? Thou shalt not murder, commit adultery, steal, lie or covet. The preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of the law.” If we want to live in a civil, law abiding society, we need to recognize God for who He is and follow the laws of the land.

It’s the only way! Another excerpt:

The B.C. Ministry of Education should focus the education plan on teaching morality and Godly living, then reading, writing and arithmetic.

Right – gotta have your priorities straight! And now we come to the end:

These teachers may not have violated the “conduct” of the B.C. School Act, but they are certainly in breach of the Bible’s code and Canada’s Constitution.

What else can be expected? They’re Darwinists! Canada must purge its school system and remove all traces of this evil. Otherwise, they’re doomed!

Copyright © 2020. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

21 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #1,028: Canadian Darwinism

  1. I thought BC was pretty enlightened, in contrast to Alberta. By the way, does anyone know the current situation in Alberta regarding climate change denial, and are there are also links to creationism? I find it very instructive that these two so often go hand-in-hand.

  2. @ Paul Braterman: I’ve always assumed (quite possibly wrongly) that the happy marriage between Creationism and Climate Change Denial was from KJV of Genesis 1:26-28:

    26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

    27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

    I’ve no idea if “dominion” and “subdue” are good equivalents in English for the original, but they don’t on the face of it connote prudent husbandry and the conservation rather than exploitation of resources.

  3. British Columbia has some very highly regarded universities. Vancouver has a reputation as a cosmopolitan city. But I wonder about when one goes away from the Pacific coast whether it is like the interior of the US states of Washington and Oregon.

  4. More likely, Megalonyx, climate change denialism – the fundy iteration of it, anyway – is based on Genesis 8:22: “As long as the Earth shall last, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, they will never cease.”

  5. @DaveL, @Megalonyx, Christian anti-environmentalists, such as the Cornwall foundation, use the Genesis 1 quote, whereas IIRC AiG and CMI rely more on God’s promise to Noah, and on an overall belief that major matters, such as the temperature of the planet, are in God’s hands, not man’s.

    @DaveL, are there links between creationism and your government’s ostrich-like (phoenix-like?) attitude to global warming?

  6. @ Dave Luckett: Thanks for that steer, it makes the point better.

    [But I think the Great Hand of Correction may need to amend that to Genesis 8:22]

    [Voice from above] I stretched forth my mighty hand and behold! It is done!

  7. As far as climate change denial, I am
    reminded of the denial of extinction. At least there was denial of anthropogenic extinction.
    Is Mark 10:9 “what god has put together” ever cited?

  8. Michael Fugate

    Genesis is extremely vague – what is a “kind” exactly? In Genesis 1, the gods are making populations of everything including humans – they are filling the skies, the seas, and the land with organisms. Why make Gen 2 more important than Gen 1? For the Ark, we have first two of everything living thing which is later repeated as two of every kind. Is each species a kind? Isn’t that how most people would understand it?

    In Genesis 6:12 all living things are declared sinful. God saw the earth, and indeed it was ruined, for all living creatures on the earth were sinful. Why is salvation only for humans in Christianity when it was clearly for all living things during the flood?

  9. The Biblical Hebrew word “min” is vague. I suggest that it has no referent.

  10. “What is the purpose of Darwinian evolution? To try and give an answer for the existence of the universe without acknowledging the Creator.”
    Lovely how this creacrapper gives way more credit to evolution theory than it demands. Normal people already are satisfied that it nicely explains phenomena like speciation, mutations, the fossil record and the variety of species in general. Biologists doing evolutionary research tend to leave the question of the existence of our Universe to physicists.
    But yeah, none of them – not even the christian ones – include supernatural creators in their theoretical models.

  11. @TomS, I think it depends on context. When discussing clean and unclean birds in Leviticus, it seems me (I am no ornithologist) to correspond to the genus or species level. I think “kind” or perhaps even better “type” has similar flexibility in English

  12. @PaulB: pardon me if I already mentioned it on this nice blog – my memory seems to get worse every day.
    Dutch YEC blog Logos.nl is rather smug on it. It has copied a pretty good article from the orthodox-protestant (with a solid creationist background) newspaper Reformatorisch Dagblad on the current Dutch ammonia crisis. However this article from the same newspaper

    https://logos.nl/ook-in-1540-leed-europa-onder-droogte-en-hitte/

    is crappy. It doesn’t fully deny climate change; rather it tries to downplay the problem by eg comparing it with the summer of 1540 CE. The first three sentences say it all:

    “Het klimaat kunnen we niet naar onze hand zetten en er bestaat geen thermostaatknop om de temperatuur op onze planeet te regelen. Gelukkig onderhoudt en regeert de Heere Zijn schepping. Klimaatangst mag plaatsmaken voor Godsvertrouwen.”

    “We cannot manipulate climate and there is no thermostat switch to manage the temperature on our planet. Fortunately the Lord maintains and rules His creation. Climate fear can make way for faith in God.”

  13. @PaulBratermann
    IMHO when speaking of clean/unclean it is not exactly a matter of taxonomy. An animal can become unclean when something happens to it. And clean/unclean does not apply to plants.
    In Genesis 1 it is striking that the pattern of using the word “kind” is broken when it comes to humans.

  14. Michael Fugate

    Does the letter writer believe there was no crime before 1859? Logic is not the strong suit of creationists.

  15. Karl Goldsmith

    This was English exams, so what the hell is that to do with evolution. https://www.vernonmorningstar.com/news/vernon-teacher-served-suspension-for-test-leak/

  16. RationalWiki.org article Baraminology has a discussion about the meaning of “min” in Biblical Hebrew. I realize that RationalWiki is not scholarly, but it does make some points.

  17. Ancient people certainly will have considered horses and dogs of different colours and sizes as one “kind”. However, they wouldn’t have lumped lions, tigers, cheetahs and ocelots into the same box. Ham, on the other hand, needs to widen the “kind” definition to account for the turbocharged evolution happening after the Flood.

  18. Concerning climate change, from what I gather from the local creationist population – they accept that global temperatures are rising. However, they deny that it’s manmade. Puny humans cannot influence the climate, only God can turn the thermostat up. And that’s what is happening. Most link it to end of the world.

  19. Dave Luckett

    Karl Goldsmith, it has the following to do with evolution, if you’re a Biblical creationist:

    Evolutionary theory implies that morality consists, exactly and entirely, of taking whatever actions improve the chances of reproduction of the organism (and inter alia, avoiding actions that detract from those chances). In humans, actions improving material success also improve sexual attractiveness, and hence, mating prospects. It would follow that a teacher whose employment and promotion prospects, and hence, material success, are improved by their students’ success in examinations, would be morally justified in cheating on examinations. “Darwinism” therefore not merely condones cheating, it actively promotes it. “Darwinism” is therefore morally deleterious. QED.

    I shall leave it to others to unpick this argument. For argument it actually is, strangely enough, although Brian doesn’t actually make it. I would suggest that the premise be carefully examined.

  20. Dave Luckett

    Paul Bratermann, I don’t doubt that the Government is polite to the Christian conservative lobby. We do actually have one. But ScoMo and confederates are aware – few are more so – that it delivers around 2% of the vote, with preferences for the “Liberals and Nationals” after most of their primary votes go to religious whackjob parties like Family First. It might be enough to get one or two Libs and Nats across the line in extremely marginal seats, but would never, never, never drift to the Greens or (shudder!) Labor, so polite is all they’ve got to be.

    If you are interested in current Australian policy on climate change, I would be happy to send you a copy of a reply I received from my local member of Federal Parliament, a member of the ruling coalition, to a letter I sent him expressing concern about it and urging further action. The bushfires have concentrated the national mind greatly, and the iron is now hot, I think. Well, the weather is, anyway. At least the local representative is prepared to be polite and reasonably forthcoming about what I take to be useful, if not fully adequate, policies, about which I was not aware. I would not trespass so far on the hospitality of Our Host as to include the correspondence here.

  21. @DaveL, it was very specifically the creationism-climate change denial linkage that I was asking about. I’m glad that it is not a major factor in Australia the way it is in the US and, presumably, Brazil