No creationism means censorship?

I saw the headline today in the paper "School censorship danger" and my first thought was "What? Really?" Four words later and my thought was "my arse."

I haven't found an online copy of the article, but its in the today's Advertiser (3/5/10) on page 21 if you happen to be in a place with it. I'll try to find the (an?) online version.

Incidentally it's in "articles of faith". Technically it is the right place to put it, but the view put forward is wrong. Terribly terribly wrong.

Apparently the Association of Independent Schools who represent various types of schools, both secular and religious, are not happy about this ban.

This has been an issue that arose around last year when the Non-Government Schools Registration Board decided to ban the teaching of creationism and intelligent design in science class. The the pdf on their website is here and the relevant section is on page 4, under "Curriculum - Policy, guidelines and procedures (continued)" section B4:

The teaching of Science in relation to creationism 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

It's really quite clear, you can't teach a religious view and call it "science". If you don't follow this guideline you may lose your registration.

Back in March (I seemed to miss this story though) it was reported by Lauren Zwaans (the same women who wrote this article) that independent schools are seeking legal advice because the government, who regulate all schools including independent schools, decided to actually regulate independent schools.

When the March article was published the Australian Christian Lobby SA/Vic chairman Rob Ward stated that such regulation would turn religious schools into "government schools with RE classes". Oh dear, how horrible. Can you imagine it, faith based schools being forced to teach the same things the government schools teach? Oh the humanity.

Today's article isn't any better, the executive director of AIS SA, Gary Le Duff stated that,

The overarching issue is where does regulation stop, it's not just about this debate.

Right. Clearly the problem is the Government telling independent schools, and remember this include non-religious schools as well, that they can't teach their kids shit and call it science.

He was also quoted as saying:

We have come to some arrangement where the schools communities can manage and govern their schools without excessive intrusion into the right of parents to have their children educated in a particular set of beliefs.

Which is irrelevant to the issue at hand. He also went on about "tolerance", which is also irrelevant. I'm starting to wonder whether the people who try and teach creationism in science classes here in Australia can actually grasp that. It's not about regulation or tolerance, it's about the science.

The Sydney Morning Herald picked up this story as well, with Stephen O'Doherty, the chief executive of Christian Schools Australia, telling us that they are banning the right to teach "biblical perspectives" in science classes.

Good. Seriously, it's a good thing that this is banned. Just like teaching from the perspective of the Koran, or the Vedas or the poetic edda, or even Dianetics. These are "perspectives" that aren't used in science, simply because they are simply rubbish. It doesn't help children understand evolution, in the same way as using these books to teach chemical principles or basic astronomy. Teaching it as true just confuses children, especially if you teach that your specific holy text is infallible.

The Advertiser's article also has a quote from Family First MP Dennis Hood, who said that it restricts parents wishes and that it's "dangerous ground" when you tell schools what they can and can't teach.

Well on parents wishes I think that they can go jump. One of the strengths of our school system is that the average parent doesn't determine the curriculum. The government employs competent individuals who determine what schools can and can't teach children. This ensures that we don't get situations here that we see in the US with creationists getting themselves elected to school boards and trying to force creationism into the curriculum.

And it's not "dangerous ground" at all. Year 12 topics are like that, there are a set number of choices in certain subjects that a school may choose to teach, but what they teach must come from those topics.

Yet we are supposed to see this as a bad thing? I guess it must be, since schools have to teach kids all of that dangerous actual science without being taught "Goddidit".

However, they are still allowed to teach creationism where it belongs, in RE.

It's too hot to study

I know I really should but it's just too hot.

We're currently having the hottest November since 1894.

It's going to be 36°C on Saturday according to the quick Google check, which will be fun. Especially since it's Pageant Day, but I'm sure we're still going to get a lot of people, but I don't think that we'll get any Guinness World Records for anything this year (I'll tell you later.)

Anyway, I should be studying I've got exams coming up.

What Kind of Stupidity is This?

Some news from my home state.

Some idiot in the northern suburbs (for those that don't know, the northern suburbs are well known for housing the underclass or the lumpenproletariat for the Marxists among you) decided that it would be a good idea to teach his ex to lock her doors at night by breaking in and raping her.

You heard me (or would know if you read the article), he raped her.

He didn't just enter and wake her up while she was sleeping, he went in, bound her and used a sex toy to rape her.

Well, she'll probably lock her doors now, but it's not because of his "good intentions". She'll probably be scared that people will break in and rape her.

Brilliant mate. What better way to teach someone to do something then by scarring them for life.

And get this, the guy pleaded not guilty. He apparently apologised for raping her, and pleaded not guilty.

As you can see, I don't like this guy. I don't think that rape should be used by anyone for any purpose, let alone "teaching". Based on what I know about rape, I'm guessing that this guy was probably pissed that they broke up and really did this for power reasons.

Either way I'm going to say that it would be laughable if he tries to use a "I was teaching her an important lesson" as a defence.

The article does say this though:

"Defence lawyers told the jury they would be asked to consider whether the man believed the acts were consensual."

So let me get this straight. They're trying to argue that the man believe consent based on what? Leaving her doors unlocked? Doing that means that she consents to whatever he wants?

Idiocy.

The Orang-utans Are Revolting

There was an enclosure break at the zoo today. An Orang-utan managed to escape from his (or her) enclosure at the Adelaide Zoo. Regardless of the sex we're going to have to prevent it from breeding. Because you know who else was a smart Orang-utan?

Dr. Zaius.


If we don't prevent this intelligent creature from breeding then he'll be the result. It's a slippery slope people.

Either we let all the Orang-utans breed and watch as they rise up and overthrow us, or we selectively breed them and ensure that we remain top ape.


Ok, actually I think good on it. It figured out what the electric fence was and a way to get across it without being shocked. I know they offered a refund, but I would have paid money to see that, because it just shows that our Orang-utan cousins aren't as stupid as some people think them to be.

Update: This is what I get for not checking my local paper, or at least the umbrella site for it. The Orang-utan is female, and she was enticed into her night enclosure. And her name is Karta. By the way, why not see what PZ said on the issue.

About Bloody Time

They've finally announced the winner of the bid to build a desalination plant in SA.

(see title)

This is something that should have been done ages ago, I understand some of the issues involved included things like what will happen to the salt and other stuff they remove from the water which I'm assuming will be just dumped back into the gulf instead of using it for something, but we really need to lower our dependence on Murray water.

I'm assuming that our friends further upstream will probably use whatever we won't be using later on to grow rice or whatever water intensive crops that people in places like Deniliquin grow now.

But if I remember correctly when the government started taking tenders there was a big uproar of some sort (it's Adelaide, what do you expect we've become far more conservative now then we were in earlier times) over the standard "environmental issues" beyond "what happens if we dump the concentrated salt in the gulf" cries of "white elephant" (again, everything here is a white elephant. New hospital? White elephant. Stadium that would allow us to, if Australia gets is, host World Cup games? White elephant. I'd assume an elephant enclosure in the zoo would probably be a white elephant as well) and a bunch of people who thought that Mobil, who owned the area that they will be building this plant, would want to come back and would need a refinery again.

The latter is an absolute joke because I'm sure that the oil refineries prefer to ship our oil in from Singapore.

But we need this thing. The countries along the Persian Gulf have desalination plants and I haven't seen their societies crumble or whatever calamity was supposed to befall us, and they are doing quite fine.

But at least we are now one step closer to lowering our dependence on Murray water.

Wild Dolphins Tail Walking

I know it's not a very creative title, but I'm just nicking the title from the BBC.

You would expect that something interesting in the realm of science would appear in, I don't know, The Advertiser but it hasn't.

From what I can gather, Billie picked up the trick when she was taken to a dolphinarium when she was injured and she taught the other dolphins in the Port to do this trick.

I had better explain that sentence a little better.

Port Adelaide is home to the Port River Dolphins. This pod lives in the Port River and along the Barker inlet. These dolphins are the only wild dolphins that live within a city.

Naturally they are also something of a tourist attraction. I guess people can sort of ignore the rather ugly Port when they are looking at dolphins.

Anyway, the scientists don't seem to have a clue as yet as to why they are tail walking. I know that they wouldn't be getting food out of it from the tourists because you can't feed them. I suspect that the boats might have a little to do with it though, maybe helping to stir up fish or something so maybe they are trying to get more people out there so they can eat more.

I personally have no idea.

Billie, the dolphin mentioned in the story is a wild one, as all of the dolphins in the Port are. She is also one of the first dolphins to have been found there.

Either way, if you are ever in Adelaide, you should make the attempt to see the Port River Dolphins. There are also quite a few museums in the area that you can look at as well.

Something I Missed

According to Anon SA, Jane Lomax-Smith (the Education Minister) doesn't like Scientology.

Just read the post linked above, it cites all the sources that mentioned it.

Now to find the copy of The Advertiser with them on it.

Quackery for Perverts.

A woman died on 2003 after taking an "alternative" treatment for cancer.

For some reason it only came out now.

The "doctor" mentioned in the article, a Lubo Bitelco, gave her "ozone treatment".

That stuff is already bullshit, but the things that caught me were the statements:

He promised her a "50 per cent cure" after giving her a treatment known as "vaginal blowing" during which she had to move up and down on the bed saying "Oh, Boy", Mrs O'Donnell said.

And:

"Shannon . . . told me he had an album of women patients whom he photographed nude, and she had advised Lubo she would not be photographed nude while being treated," Mrs O'Donnell said.

Thus the title of the thread.

I personally think, and this is my own opinion and only my opinion, that this guy used the guise of "alternative medicine" to make women do sexual acts under the guise of getting "healed", not to mention getting a few nude photos of these women.

So I might not agree with Ms. O'Donnell with regards to her health choices, which saw her die a month after taking the "treatment", but I do agree with her standing up to this guy.

Even wise though they don't actually know if it was the ozone or the cancer that killed her, which is annoying because as far as I know the laws here regarding so called "alternative medicine" are somewhat similar to the US, but I think I will close with this statement, that I agree with completely:

Meanwhile, the Australian Traditional Medicine Society told the committee it would like to see all bogus doctors "named and shamed".

Fun With The Government

Had to go to the Transport Department today to get my provisional drivers license renewed.

I knew that in October 2005 that they had changed the way the system worked but I didn't really know if I was affected. The reason why will be explained.

So I go into the branch and wait in a long queue, surprisingly for a government office all the tellers were open.

All five of them.

Anyway, get to the teller and I am told:

"You are aware that this is a renewal for a P1 drivers license?"

And she explains the thing to me she then asks:

"Do you know about the hazard perception test?"

My reply:

"I've heard about a hazard perception test, but I don't really know what it is about."

(To speed it up I will use B for Bureaucrat and W for Wildy)

B: Well you go and pay $25 and take a test to get your P2 license. You should have been told this when you got your license.
W: No?
B: I know it was a long time ago (It was about 2 years) so you probably might not remember.
W: Nah
B: Well you should have been given a book when you got your license.
W: Nah
B: I'll go get you one

She gets me a book

W: I would have thought that they (The Government) would have inundated me in mail
B: (Paraphrased) No you see they didn't really make that clear to the people who were affected.
W: Oh

And the relevant conversation ends.

So now after paying $40 to get my license renewed I'll now have to part with $25 more to pay for this perception test.

At least the book was free.

Today in Adelaide

There was an Anonymous protest.

I was in the area at the time.

For the record I'm not saying that I wasn't not there on Waymouth St. not protesting Scientology.

But CoS did film the proceedings, not very subtly either. I'm sure that if they just stood outside doing it they would have had something much funnier to watch. Anonymous, although faceless, is very photogenic.

Even though I was in the area I didn't make the photo gallery on the Advertiser Website.

But I will be on Scieno-cam.

All that I will say about that is:

Obvious Camera is Obvious

And

Smile
You're on Scieno Camera

I wonder how the protests in other parts of the world are going/have been or will be?

The Seahorse Farm

Sunday saw me tagging along with my family as we went to the Seahorse Farm in Port Adelaide.

I have to say that it was fun.

I mean what isn't to love about seahorses?

On a more serious note the Seahorse Farm is designed to stem the trade of wild harvests of seahorses for aquariums. They say at this present time farming isn't viable for the silly people with their pretend medicine stuff because it is cheaper to get them from the sea.

There also is the rather important fact that farming seahorses means that you will get more of them. Very few baby seahorses actually live to adulthood in the wild but far more will live if they are farmed.

But back to the seahorses.

It was fun watching them. If you know anything about seahorses then you would know that they are somewhat lazy, and they will use their tails to grab onto anything, even other seahorses. So you would at times see a seahorse that was being used as an unwilling anchor for another seahorse.

They had a couple of tanks with baby seahorses. It was amazing to look at them, they were like fully grown seahorses except in miniature. And they had taken a colour as well.

They had some other things there as well. There were a few clownfish, some other animals that you can find off the coast and under the jetties, and we also had the opportunity of patting a dog shark. If you have ever patted a shark then you would know that it is rather similar to patting wet sandpaper.

Finally there were two other animals that you could look at.

The first were some Weedy Sea Dragons, which are okay to look at but there was also an amazing looking Leafy Sea Dragon, which is the state emblem.

If you ever find yourself in Adelaide I say with all certainty that you should go to the Seahorse Farm. Honestly, do it. Go now if you have to.

Sex and Christians

And people say 'Only in America'.

Too bad this happened in South Australia

It seems that the education department has been censoring sex education sections because of the religious people.

What annoys me even more is that I was very likely one of the first people to be taught under the 'new' curriculum, however I did find it rather boring, probably because I found really nothing new.

The first thing to note is that they removed many examples pertaining to gay couples. I would hazard a guess that it has something to do with Leviticus 18:22:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination

However it probably also alienates all the gay people because they might find it harder to relate to a heterosexual couple.

Also removed were the words 'harm minimisation". I guess these people would prefer people to either a) not have sex, or b) have sex and run the risk of many problems.

It reminds me of what one murderer was told (whose name eludes me, I will post the name when I can remember it), that 'All sex is dirty, if you have sex you will get a disease".

And we see that Family First had something to do with this. For those that don't know, Family First are a somewhat popular political party which are more religious then most political parties.

From the article:

Family First MLC Andrew Evans said he met Education Department officials because of concerns about inaccurate portrayals of Christianity and representations of intimacy that included masturbation.

He said the party was "grateful" for changes made but they "didn't go far enough". "We pushed abstinence," he said.

As we all know masturbation causes you to go blind, get acne and causes a whole host of other problems.

And we all know how well abstinence-only programmes work.

Especially when you see what the US Congress had to say about their abstinence only education.

See the problem with promoting abstinence is that, yes it is a good way of avoiding unwanted pregnancies and STD's but the effectiveness is being debated. If you want to pass on stupid facts to people then you can reap the rewards.

The only plus is that the Education Department was not that stupid when the started to censor their programme.

The Ghost of the Ghost of the Beumont Children

I noticed this at work yesterday.

The article in question is about the appearance of one Bevan Spencer von Einem in some archival footage of the search for the Beaumont Children.

Firstly the only real link that I can see between the two is that they both have something to do with the criminal history of the city of Adelaide.

For those that don't know, Bevan Spencer von Einem is a convicted sex offender and former Good Samaritan. I know that sounds weird but he did save the life of Roger James, a man who had been beaten and thrown into the River Torrens for being a homosexual. However von Einem was later convicted of the rape and murder of Richard Kelvin. He was convicted in 1984, and the series of murders that he was suspected of at the same amount of time are known as the Family Murders, since the media believed that there was some form of secret society covering his tracks.

The Beaumont Children disappearance (1966) has a few dubious honours. Firstly after the Wanda Beach murders of the previous year it is considered a major turning point in the Australian lifestyle. Secondly it is remembered for having the largest police investigation in Australian history. Now so I don't spend too much time prattling on about this and not getting to what I want to say, I will give a background that is probably shorter then it should really be.

On Australia Day (January 26^th) 1966 the three children of the Beaumont family, Jane (9), Arnna (7) and Grant (4) went to Glenelg for a day at the beach. They lived in Somerton Park which is not that far away from Glenelg or a beach. They left in the morning and never returned home. Despite police searching, false letters, help from the media, 'psychics', and a rather substantial reward no trace of them was found. To this day the case remains unsolved and also changed the Australian way of life. Unlike the Wanda Beach murders where the two girls, Christine Sharrck and Marianne Schmidt were murdered in a somewhat remote part of the Sydney foreshore the Beaumont's disappeared from a packed Glenelg beach. This fear was reinforced after the disappearance of Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirsty Gorden (11 and 4 respectively) from the packed Adelaide Oval in 1973 and parents became more vigilant (this case was never solved as well).

And now to the whole point of this post.

There are two 'ghosts' of this case. The first is the actual case the ghosts of the children who most likely never grew up at all. The second is one of the media's creation.

Every few years the media will dig up this case and bring it to the limelight. I would say that the first instance of this would have to be with the trial of Bevan Spencer von Einem. There a witness, known as 'B', stated that von Einem was the culprit in the Beumont and Adelaide Oval cases with no actual evidence to support it.

From it's start in 1994 the current affairs show (read: phoney made up rubbish designed to provide people with a different kind of soap opera) Today Tonight has been bringing this back into the limelight with it's latest "The Beaumont children are located in [insert location here]" (i.e. New Zealand, a cult somewhere, Queensland) or "We have 'evidence' as to who did it" story which is stupid enough because the show has no real credibility to begin with.

However it has spread. On the Crime and Investigation Channel they ran a programme about the Beaumont Children and the Wanda Beach murders. The end of the programme they some interviews with some people who 'claimed' that their father had done it.

And now we have this, what you could really call a return to the earlier "von Einem did it" sort of thing.

The problem is that after all the TT 'stories' things that are probably legitimate seem completely pointless, the grasp of stupid television is starting to create an apathetic view on the case. People don't really care any more because the stupid stories have drowned out anything relevant.

Would people care about more important issues like in politics if a show like Today Tonight or A Current Affair produced stories that dealt with an important issue such as the budget to death?

I think so.