Why do so many Canadians apparently want to see creationism in schools?

C C

C C

Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy"
Valued Senior Member
Why do so many Canadians apparently want to see creationism in schools?
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/c...cience/does-creationism-have-place-classrooms

EXCERPTS: A new poll shows that nearly half of all Canadians believe that creationism—the idea that living things on this planet were created by supernatural forces—should be taught in schools. More troubling, it seems, is the observation that the fraction of Canadians who think so has gone up in the last year and a half, from 4 in 10 to nearly 5 in 10 now.

Are Canadians pushing for religion to creep into the biology curriculum? Not necessarily. The value of this survey is debatable; what isn’t, however, is the profusion of evidence we have for what came to replace creationism: the theory of evolution.

Creationism is not science. When it was rebranded as “intelligent design,” it became a pseudoscience: a system of beliefs that is given the appearance of science, much like how a dachshund in a wiener costume will look like a hot dog if you squint. And it’s not just scientists saying so.

[...] A poll’s usefulness lives and dies in the phrasing of its questions. ... I would answer “yes:” I think it should be taught because many people believe it and we should teach why it is wrong. ... People saying “yes” may not mean for creationism to be taught instead of evolution or as a viable scientific alternative to it.

[...] It is something to keep an eye on, because creationism should absolutely not be advocated for in a science classroom... (MORE - missing details)
- - - - - - - -

COMMENT: Well, it might be that. But then again it could be just another effect of postcolonial philosophy -- or more specifically, decolonization of knowledge, on the general population.

Where it is taken into account that even indigenous peoples have their own distinct creation stories (and traditions). Where the West is deemed an historical oppressor not just in a socioeconomic sense, but in an epistemological context of eradicating and suppressing local expertise and beliefs of diverse communities around the globe.

Akin to the postmodern-like, anti-foundationalist refrain of Richard Rorty: "No area of culture, and no period of history, gets Reality more right than any other." That stated, though... Hopefully Canseco is on target about the cause being the other possibility.
_
 
C C said:
Why do so many Canadians apparently want to see creationism in schools?
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/c...cience/does-creationism-have-place-classrooms

EXCERPTS: A new poll shows that nearly half of all Canadians believe that creationism—the idea that living things on this planet were created by supernatural forces—should be taught in schools. More troubling, it seems, is the observation that the fraction of Canadians who think so has gone up in the last year and a half, from 4 in 10 to nearly 5 in 10 now.

Are Canadians pushing for religion to creep into the biology curriculum? Not necessarily. The value of this survey is debatable; what isn’t, however, is the profusion of evidence we have for what came to replace creationism: the theory of evolution.

Creationism is not science. When it was rebranded as “intelligent design,” it became a pseudoscience: a system of beliefs that is given the appearance of science, much like how a dachshund in a wiener costume will look like a hot dog if you squint. And it’s not just scientists saying so.

[...] A poll’s usefulness lives and dies in the phrasing of its questions. ... I would answer “yes:” I think it should be taught because many people believe it and we should teach why it is wrong. ... People saying “yes” may not mean for creationism to be taught instead of evolution or as a viable scientific alternative to it.

[...] It is something to keep an eye on, because creationism should absolutely not be advocated for in a science classroom... (MORE - missing details)
- - - - - - - -

COMMENT: Well, it might be that. But then again it could be just another effect of postcolonial philosophy -- or more specifically, decolonization of knowledge, on the general population.

Where it is taken into account that even indigenous peoples have their own distinct creation stories (and traditions). Where the West is deemed an historical oppressor not just in a socioeconomic sense, but in an epistemological context of eradicating and suppressing local expertise and beliefs of diverse communities around the globe.

Akin to the postmodern-like, anti-foundationalist refrain of Richard Rorty: "No area of culture, and no period of history, gets Reality more right than any other." That stated, though... Hopefully Canseco is on target about the cause being the other possibility.
_
Click to expand...
Surely the huge missing piece here is under what subject do people think the idea of creationism might be taught? It would make perfect sense to discuss it in the context of philosophy, cultural or religious studies. It’s a belief that has had considerable political and social influence over the border in the USA, after all (Scopes monkey trial etc). What would be unacceptable, obviously, would for it to be taught as a theory in the science curriculum.

By not clarifying which it is that respondents meant, the survey renders itself useless.

(Richard Rorty was a wanker, incidentally.)
 
Polls are a jk ask 100 religinutz what to teach and youll get 100% people agree to teach religion LOL
Majority of Canadians especialy young dont care about religion at all.
 
Certainly myths and folklore can be studied for whatever anthropological, psychological, etymological, historical, etc reasons. But that is as objects of research and analysis, rather than being scientific explanations themselves or competitors to the latter.

And in both far-left and progressive contexts there might be justification for being inclusive of non-Western cultural narratives (something besides stories of ancient Greco-Roman, Egyptian, and Norse gods). But again, not treated as real events and agencies.
  • Myths do not belong in science classes: Letter to the Royal Society of New Zealand
    https://richarddawkins.net/2021/12/...s-letter-to-the-royal-society-of-new-zealand/

    Richard Dawkins (excerpts): I have read Jerry Coyne’s long, detailed and fair-minded critique of the ludicrous move to incorporate Maori “ways of knowing” into science curricula in New Zealand, and the frankly appalling failure of the Royal Society of New Zealand to stand up for science - which is, after all, what your Society exists to do.

    [...] Creationism is still bollocks even it is indigenous bollocks. The Royal Society of New Zealand, like the Royal Society of which I have the honour to be a Fellow, is supposed to stand for science. Not “Western” science, not “European” science, not “White” science, not “Colonialist” science. Just science...
 
Last edited:
C C said:
Why do so many Canadians apparently want to see creationism in schools?
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/c...cience/does-creationism-have-place-classrooms

EXCERPTS: A new poll shows that nearly half of all Canadians believe that creationism—the idea that living things on this planet were created by supernatural forces—should be taught in schools. More troubling, it seems, is the observation that the fraction of Canadians who think so has gone up in the last year and a half, from 4 in 10 to nearly 5 in 10 now.
Click to expand...
Creationism comes in several different flavours. So, as quotes from the article suggest, the results of poll might be influenced by the specific wording of the poll question(s).

For example, Young Earth creationism and Old Earth creationism are somewhat different beasts. Beyond those, there's the idea of "guided evolution".

I think that a lot of people are persuaded by some version of the faulty argument that "Something can't come from nothing and the universe is something. Therefore a Creator is needed". This is a weak version of creationism. It's also somewhat similar to the Kalam Cosmological argument, which is equally flawed.

The same people don't tend to take the next step in the process and ask what created the Creator. Some insist that the Creator doesn't need to be caused, without realising that - by saying that - they have essentially conceded the point. After all, why couldn't the universe be the thing that doesn't need a cause, in that case?
 
C C said:
Certainly myths and folklore can be studied for whatever anthropological, psychological, etymological, historical, etc reasons. But that is as objects of research and analysis, rather than being scientific explanations themselves or competitors to the latter.

And in both far-left and progressive contexts there might be justification for being inclusive of non-Western cultural narratives (something besides stories of ancient Greco-Roman, Egyptian, and Norse gods). But again, not treated as real events and agencies.
  • Survey press releases
    (2024) https://researchco.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Release_Evolution_CAN_26Apr2024.pdf
    (2025) https://researchco.ca/2025/11/20/evolution/

    EXCERPT: Majorities of Canadians whose origins are South Asian (73%, +11) or Indigenous (57%, +7) support discussing creationism in the classroom. Fewer Canadians whose heritage is East Asian (45%, -11) or European (35%, +1) concur.
  • Myths do not belong in science classes: Letter to the Royal Society of New Zealand
    https://richarddawkins.net/2021/12/...s-letter-to-the-royal-society-of-new-zealand/

    Richard Dawkins (excerpts): I have read Jerry Coyne’s long, detailed and fair-minded critique of the ludicrous move to incorporate Maori “ways of knowing” into science curricula in New Zealand, and the frankly appalling failure of the Royal Society of New Zealand to stand up for science - which is, after all, what your Society exists to do.

    [...] Creationism is still bollocks even it is indigenous bollocks. The Royal Society of New Zealand, like the Royal Society of which I have the honour to be a Fellow, is supposed to stand for science. Not “Western” science, not “European” science, not “White” science, not “Colonialist” science. Just science...
Click to expand...
I note Dawkins says this stuff does not belong in science classes.

But it may, and fact probably does, belong in senior school level lessons on culture, philosophy and the history of science - or indeed the history of religion.

That's why I say this survey is rather uninformative and potentially misleading, unless people were given the opportunity to clarify where in the curriculum they think it might be included.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: C C
James R said:
Creationism comes in several different flavours. So, as quotes from the article suggest, the results of poll might be influenced by the specific wording of the poll question(s).

For example, Young Earth creationism and Old Earth creationism are somewhat different beasts. Beyond those, there's the idea of "guided evolution".

I think that a lot of people are persuaded by some version of the faulty argument that "Something can't come from nothing and the universe is something. Therefore a Creator is needed". This is a weak version of creationism. It's also somewhat similar to the Kalam Cosmological argument, which is equally flawed.

The same people don't tend to take the next step in the process and ask what created the Creator. Some insist that the Creator doesn't need to be caused, without realising that - by saying that - they have essentially conceded the point. After all, why couldn't the universe be the thing that doesn't need a cause, in that case?
Click to expand...
Another form of creationism can be found in natural evolution up to the actual creation of Adam and Eve, followed by unnatural evolution of the human and its' world.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Even the most backward Canadian doesn't believe in Creationism.

My only theory is that it is a direct consequence of the uptick in Americans fleeing the implosion of their country and looking for asylum here.
Click to expand...
Aren't there little fundie pockets scattered here and there throughout Canada? Obviously nothing remotely approaching the scale of what is termed the Bible Belt in the US, but smaller regions typically a ways outside of the major cities. I'm thinking of places like Abbottsford (I think?), BC, which is a little over an hour outside of Vancouver and bordering the US.

I have no idea as to actual numbers and percentages, and, with respect to the poll, I think that 5 out of 10 has everything to do with the phrasing of the question, in what context ought it be taught, etc., but I've actually encountered anti-abortion protests and things of that nature when traveling throughout the region.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C C
DaveC426913 said:
Even the most backward Canadian doesn't believe in Creationism.

My only theory is that it is a direct consequence of the uptick in Americans fleeing the implosion of their country and looking for asylum here.
Click to expand...
Never pictured you as having only one theory.

Mine is: The fleers are the least likely to be creationists.
 
parmalee said:
Aren't there little fundie pockets scattered here and there throughout Canada? Obviously nothing remotely approaching the scale of what is termed the Bible Belt in the US, but smaller regions typically a ways outside of the major cities. I'm thinking of places like Abbottsford (I think?), BC, which is a little over an hour outside of Vancouver and bordering the US. [...] I've actually encountered anti-abortion protests and things of that nature when traveling throughout the region.
Click to expand...

It may be that humanists in Canada are so bored or envious of education-related combat occurring elsewhere in the world that they have to invent menaces to battle. ;)

Big Valley Creation Science Museum (Alberta, Canada)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Valley_Creation_Science_Museum
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(2013) Creationism in Canada
https://www.bchumanist.ca/creationism_in_canada

EXCERPTS (from part 4): The latter is indeed the crux of many arguments for evolution education advocates who charge that Canadian students are simply not learning about evolution because teachers wish to avoid the controversy. [...] For the most part, Canada’s education system seems to relegate evolution to upper year elective biology courses. This means that the vast numbers of public high school students are graduating without ever learning about Darwin’s evolutionary theories. Quebec is the only province to mandate elementary school teaching of evolutionary concepts. Perhaps then, the critics are right. Canada appears to draw less divisive lines between creationist and evolution instruction as is the case in the United States.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(2006) A Threat to Geoscience Education: Creationist Anti-Evolution Activity in Canada
https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/geocan/2006-v33-n3-geocan_33_3/geocan33_3com01.pdf

SUMMARY: The rejection of biological and geological evolution is a pervasive problem in science education. Recent events in the United States have brought anti-evolution activity to the forefront in media coverage of science education, but Canadians are often unaware that such creationist, anti-evolution activity is present in Canada as well. In this article, various foreign and Canadian-based antievolution efforts that threaten biology and geoscience education are discussed. These creationist organizations and their activities may adversely influence Canadian science curricula and public understanding of evolution and science in general.
_
 
exchemist said:
I note Dawkins says this stuff does not belong in science classes.

But it may, and fact probably does, belong in senior school level lessons on culture, philosophy and the history of science - or indeed the history of religion.

That's why I say this survey is rather uninformative and potentially misleading, unless people were given the opportunity to clarify where in the curriculum they think it might be included.
Click to expand...
I have often said that comparative religion classes are important in this regard. A section on the various creation myths would not only show how different cultures once believed the world came to be - they would even inform Christians how their own creation myths evolved. (For example, Genesis 1 is similar to both the Babylonian and Egyptian creation myths, and Genesis 2 bears a strong resemblance to the Sumerian Atrahasis creation epic.)

But yes, keeping them separate from science classes is critical.
 
billvon said:
I have often said that comparative religion classes are important in this regard. A section on the various creation myths would not only show how different cultures once believed the world came to be - they would even inform Christians how their own creation myths evolved. (For example, Genesis 1 is similar to both the Babylonian and Egyptian creation myths, and Genesis 2 bears a strong resemblance to the Sumerian Atrahasis creation epic.)

But yes, keeping them separate from science classes is critical.
Click to expand...
Quite. As I have mentioned before, in the UK we have some provision in the school curriculum for religious studies. Unlike France (or apparently the US) there is no blanket ban on learning about religion. This is used increasingly to teach children about the different religions they are likely to encounter, so that they can deal with the Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc. they are going to meet without difficulty. That's where creationism belongs in my view, and is where children can also be taught that the major religions have mostly worked out an accommodation with science.

I do feel it is important that children being brought up with religious faith are not left in limbo with cognitive dissonance over this issue. I recall being shocked when even the catechist at our local Catholic school seemed not to have realised that the religious idea of death being brought into the world by the Orginal Sin of Adam could not possibly mean literal physical death, as that would leave no way to explain fossils or evolution! She was stumped when I pointed this out. Luckily there was a priest on hand (with a physics degree, by the way) who was able to explain this meant a kind of spiritual death for mankind, not that no animals ever died. I was a bit cross with the catechist, pointing out the children all learn about dinosaurs and fossils about the age of 7 these days, so it's not fair to be teaching them something in catechism that seems at face value to contradict what they learn about in science lessons. All that will do is make what she is teaching seem less credible.

Silo thinking at work there.
 
I just want to quote a bit more of the article linked in the opening post:

A poll’s usefulness lives and dies in the phrasing of its questions. This latest Canadian survey’s question on teaching creationism in schools was written thus: “Do you think creationism—the belief that the universe and life originated from specific acts of divine creation—should be part of the school curriculum in your province?" [article author's emphasis].​
​
I would answer “yes:” I think it should be taught because many people believe it and we should teach why it is wrong. As Dr. Eugenie Scott herself put it in an email to me, there is a difference between teaching something and advocating for it. The question here is ambiguous. People saying “yes” may not mean for creationism to be taught instead of evolution or as a viable scientific alternative to it. Indeed, there is a gap between respondents’ belief in creationism and their desire to see it taught in school: while nearly half want it taught, only 23% (less than a quarter) on that same survey said that God probably or definitely created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years.​
​
The bold parts here are my emphasis.

From another thread, it seems that at least one member of sciforums has taken a different message from this article than the one the author communicates. Presumably, the member in question didn't read the article.
 
Last edited:
James R said:
This latest Canadian survey’s question on teaching creationism in schools was written thus: “Do you think creationism—the belief that the universe and life originated from specific acts of divine creation—should be part of the school curriculum in your province?"
Click to expand...
Yep. As mentioned before, I would say yes, with the caveat that it would have to be presented along with other popular creation myths.
 
It's also a question of how much of the school curriculum it takes up, and which part of the school curriculum it is discussed in.

For example, it might fit in any of these areas:
* a brief mention in a class on evolution ("Some people believe that all forms of life on earth were specifically and individually created by God, more or less in the forms we see today. However, that is not a scientific idea. In our science class, we will be examining how life evolved, with reference to the ideas of the theory of evolution.")
* in a comparative religion class ("Some Christians believe in the literal truth of the Genesis story. However, most accept the modern theory of evolution. We can also compare the Genesis myth with creation myths from other cultures....")
* in a history class ("There was a time in the past when most Christians believed in the idea of special Creation of life by God...")
* in a class on critical thinking ("How would we go about evaluating which idea is more likely to be true: evolution or special Creation?")
* in a social studies class ("Why is it that so many Christians still believe in the Creation myth, despite all the scientific evidence against it?")
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top