"Forget your need to eliminate religion from the masses. Many people need it and it gives them comfort. One would have to be quite selfish to steal that from them."

Yeah, we wouldn't want to take from people their theological teat, would we? Better to fill their minds with silly superstitions and fanciful hopes for immortality. Better to allow the wars that religion fuels to go on and on forever.

Are humans intelligent? No way!

Here we go, again.

ID-Creationism is a sham, but we need to teach students about it? Do we really?

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/intelligent-design-to-be-taught-in-queensland-schools-under-national-curriculum/story-e6freoof-1225872896736

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/05/what_is_wrong_with_you_queensl.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+scienceblogs%2Fpharyngula+%28Pharyngula%29

http://www.acl.org.au/national/browse.stw?article_id=31425

http://www.cai..org/bible-studies/creation-schools

Why does Kevin Rudd keep dropping his trousers in favour of religious fruitcakes?

Hi TBC - if the Courier Mail story is true, it implies that Creationism/ID will be moved from the Science curriculum to the Ancient History curriculum under the topic of "controversies", which has to be an improvement from the status quo.

I agree with TRTL that some of form of religion will probably always be with us, although I think its encroachment into the public education system under such shams as "Intelligent Design" should be resisted. If I understand the mooted National Curriculum correctly, it is to be examined as an ancient belief system in comparison with others.

I have no problem with that.

CJ... I must be honest, and fair to Ed Qld.

ID-Creationism is not in the QSA written curriculum, anywhere.

ED Qld does not 'endorse' the teaching of ID-Creationism in Science.

The problem is that ID-Creationism is taught by individual teachers, and they are allowed to do that, so long as the QSA stuff is taught.

Frankly, this is such rubbish that there is no need to mention it in a school setting at all.

No one devotes time to 'critically analyse' the work of Lobsang Rampa, in literature, in history, in SOSE or Science, because the work is rubbish, not even 'Faction', so why bother to legitimise ID-Creationism?

ID-Creationism is not an 'ancient belief' at all.

It is a modern, and devious, device to circumvent those American states that prohibit the 'faith' teachings in Science.

In 1985, Lyn Powell insisted this rubbish got 'equal time' in Science teaching.

It was rubbish then, and it remains that now.

Sadly, Ed Qld is rampant with fundie QTU members who answer to the call from Scripture Union before Ed Qld.

Our universities are also full of these people, filling our national curriculum with topics that would never get an airing in the USA, who, daft as they seem to be, have a clearer understanding of the 'wall of separation' than we do here.

There are NO DIFFERENCES.They are complementary views of the one Being. Ultimate reality is spiritual.Ask any quantam scientist and others in other fields who think at the top level of the human BEING.
Sciences mainly deal with empirical issues which are only part of our story.

socratease

Socratease...'no difference', what, between Lobsang Rampa's teachings and Ken Ham's ID-Creationism, or Science and Lobsang Rampa? Or Science and Ken Ham?

Spit it out man... tell us what you are really thinking.