INSIDE: - City Light News

Guest Column
CLN is committed to running a monthly “guest column” open to anyone who wants to articulate their views on a religious, political or other
relevant issue. Articles may be written in the fi rst person and are published at the discretion of the editor. Writing should refl ect standard
journalistic style and is subject to editing. Statements, beliefs and opinions expressed are not necessarily those of CLN or its advertisers.
Indoctrination in schools
by Ron Voss, PhD.
Last year, I carefully examined the Alberta 20-30
Biology textbook used in Cochrane’s high schools.
I understand that one of Rocky View Schools’ core
values is creating 21st Century Learners who are “critical
thinkers.” The fostering and developing of “critical
thinking” skills in today’s complex society sounds like a
laudable objective for a high school. However, I would like
to draw attention to one aspect of the biology textbook
where I am concerned that is not what is being fostered.
With respect to the ‘teaching’ found in the portion
of the textbook dealing with the topic of evolution
(Chapter 5), unfortunately the only fitting word that I
can come up with
is “indoctrination.”
According
to the New
Oxford American
Dictionary,
“indoctrination”
applies to “teaching
(a person or group)
to accept a set of
beliefs (doctrines)
uncritically.” A
characteristic of
indoctrination is
that it is a biased
process that does
not allow for the
provision of any
information available which would argue against the
desired, one-sided perspective. As well, in the zeal
to support only one point of view, even fraudulent
information and disputable claims may be put forward.
It is often distinguished from education by the fact that
the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or
critically examine what they have learned, especially if
no information is allowed which would challenge what
is being taught.
As a concerned citizen who shares the value of
creating critical, discerning thinkers, a letter was sent
to the various Cochrane high school principals with
copies to associated trustees for the Rocky View School
Division and the Calgary Catholic School District. In a
13-page Appendix to my letter, I provided numerous
examples to support my case of there being bias in
Chapter 5 (Evolution) of the Alberta 20-30 Biology
textbook. I would like to highlight one component of
the textbook that is particularly egregious. A common
argument popularly employed in defense of the theory
of evolution – especially more so in years past – was
the embryonic recapitulation principle – the idea that
the human embryo goes through (or recapitulates)
various evolutionary stages, such as having gills like a
fish, during the first few months that it develops in the
womb. This notion was put forward in the 19th century
by Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919), a professor of zoology
and Darwin’s fervent advocate in Germany, known
as ‘Darwin’s Bulldog on the Continent.’ To bolster
the erroneous idea that the embryo’s development
recapitulated (re-traced) its alleged evolutionary ancestry,
Haeckel released a set of embryo drawings purportedly
showing that embryos look very similar during their
embryological development. These drawings have
subsequently been shown to be exaggerated, faked
drawings, one of many frauds that Haeckel perpetrated
in order to fervently promote the theory of evolution.
You would think that in the 139 years since Haeckel was
even convicted of fraud at his own university in 1874
www.calgarychristian.com
for his faked embryo drawings that his fraudulent ideas
in one form or another would have been completely
uprooted from the textbooks. In this light, it was
shocking to discover that the authors of this biology
textbook resorted to dragging up this discredited idea
into the textbook in Figure 2 on page 144. With their
reference to Figure 2 as providing evidence for “An
evolutionary relationship among species…in embryonic
development,” Ernst Haeckel could not have said it
better himself in describing his debunked embryonic
recapitulation principle!
As well, to make matters worse, the authors
make reference to human embryos possessing “gill
slits,” supposedly
as part of the socalled
“compelling
evidence” for
evolution. This idea
of human embryos
possessing “gill
slits” is based
upon Haeckel’s
fraudulent embryo
diagrams in concert
with evolutionary
thinking that
mammals are
thought to have
evolved from sea
creatures. No “gill
slits” ever form in
mammalian embryos. Skin folds in the neck region
of the human embryo (the so-called fanciful notion
of “gill slits,” merely called that because they happen
to superficially resemble simple gills) develop into a
variety of different organs that have nothing to do
with respiration, facts that are widely acknowledged
in embryology and anatomy textbooks and scholarly
reference sources.
Sadly and tragically by creating such an impression
in the minds of the students that the child developing
in a mother’s womb was just an animal reflecting
its evolutionary ancestry, the authors (wittingly or
unwittingly) are helping to propagate a pseudo-scientific
rationale to persuasively justify abortion (essentially ‘the
fetus is still in its fish stage, so you are just cutting up
a fish’), an argument that has been used many times in
the past, even supported by Dr. Benjamin Spock in his
well-known book, Baby and Child Care (1992), based upon
Haeckel’s bogus embryonic recapitulation principle.
As in this textbook, many modern authors persist in
uncritically citing this idea in order to influence people
to accept Darwinism. It is time we began teaching the
next generation the truth. All embryos are not the same,
and embryonic humans are not the equivalent of fish.
In the conclusion to my letter, I had asked to
what degree teachers are permitted to help students
understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective
manner the strengths and weaknesses of what is being
taught regarding the theory of biological evolution.
One principal wrote back acknowledging that there is
some such allowance for teachers “to explore alternative
viewpoints” or “perspectives.” While on the surface,
that response was somewhat comforting, unfortunately,
one is left with the nagging question: What if the teachers
don’t?
If items like Haeckel’s discredited diagrams are
allowed to be taught as ‘science’ and not identified as a
hoax, then one can only conclude indoctrination of the
students is being tolerated by the educators.
Defining
moments
by Brian Rushfeldt,
Executive Director
Canada Family Action Coalition
As a husband, father, grandfather and former pastor,
dean of a Bible college, social worker and air traffic
controller, life has provided me with experiences to learn
about myself, others and leadership. My brother-in-law
says I can’t keep a job – I say I like change and the challenge.
John Maxwell talks about “defining moments.” I want
to share three that have shaped my character and beliefs:
the way I live.
First was my first job as an air traffic controller at
age 19. I wanted to be the best controller in Canada. I
learned that dedication and continual learning were essential.
I also learned that responsible decision-making
was key. I was responsible for every decision I made
and 300-400 people’s lives depended on my decisions.
So, at an early age, I learned that continual learning and
responsible decision making were important parts of
one’s character. Those character developments serve me
well to this very day.
The second defining moment was more personal and
more painful. I was separated and divorced from my wife
of nine years and my three little children. That experience
brought about an inner character search like nothing else
could. I realized I was in need of a major “make-over.” I
was like a bad suit that does not fit – I needed a tailor. I
found one. At age 30 I came to a place of faith in Jesus
and my new journey began. But as a slow learner, it took
me 10 years to learn to love, serve, share and give – main
ingredients for a healthy marriage. I now have 24 years of
marriage and life has been full of peace and joy.
The last defining moment happened 17 years ago. I
was a popular successful dean of a Bible college but had
a divine discontent in my soul. I knew there was a change,
a new path in front of me – yet again.
I had major concerns about the social and moral
erosion occurring in our nation. I felt led to pioneer a
national citizen action organization. It was a Star Trek
adventure – to go where no man in Canada had gone
before.
How could I give up my salaried position and start
an organization that had no money, no office, and no
blueprint? Would I follow my fear or lead from my faith?
Lead was the word my spirit heard. Seven years after we
started, we had 40,000 supporters, had gained a national
media presence and developed relationships with many
federal politicians.
Our main focus at Canada Family Action is to call
for better child protection, promotion of marriage and
family, family-helpful tax policy and freedoms of religion
and speech.
We have had success – criminal code laws on sexual
consent changed, child pornography laws were strengthened
and family-friendly tax policy is at least being
debated. Recently a dangerous human rights section
(13) was repealed. We continue to defend man-woman
marriage regardless of what the law claims. Man-woman
marriage is still an ideal worth promoting and modeling.
Deep concerns have arisen among our supporters
about what education curriculum is doing to our children.
Age inappropriate sex/health materials are foisted on
children. Even false gender information is being “taught.”
That needs to stop.
And as in any success – it is not a lone ranger effort.
As many as 850,000 Canadians have joined our various
efforts and signed petitions, phoned MPs and written
letters.
Your efforts have influenced culture.
Don’t think backwards, think ahead – even dream what
culture can be and promote that.
CITY LIGHT NEWS, OCTOBER 2013 — 5