PPTA outs a group that hasn’t even applied

May 21st, 2013 at 4:07 pm by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

A list of organisations that have expressed interest in running has been outed, revealing a high proportion of religious groups, including a Manawatu church arguing it has the right to teach creationism using taxpayer money because state schools teach evolution.

The Post Primary Teachers’ Association () has defended its decision to print the list in this month’s edition of its members’ magazine, which names 21 organisations that registered interest – almost half of them religious groups – with president Angela Roberts arguing that the process had been shrouded in secrecy.

The secrecy is probably to prevent nonsense stories like this one.

That school referred to – has not even applied.

However, the PPTA yesterday named organisations including The Sabbath Rest Adventist Church. The church had been interested in the options presented by partnership schools but had decided not to make an application this year while charter schools legislation remained before Parliament, trustee Jill Friar said.

So this shock horror example is of a church that has decided NOT to apply. Of course many readers won’t get that far.

Asked if she thought taxpayer money should be allocated to schools teaching creationism, Mrs Friar responded it was tantamount to funding secular schools to teach evolution.

“Look at the state school system – they teach evolution as if it’s a fact and it’s not a fact. Even scientists say it’s a theory, so what’s the difference at the end of the day? Why should we teach evolution as if it were a fact when there is a theory that is an alternative?” Mrs Friar said.

“It’s education and caring for children that is important – to me that’s what the argument should be all about.”

PPTA president Angela Roberts said taxpayer cash should not go to schools teaching creationism.

I agree that no charter school should get funding if they wish to teach creationism. But again this church has not even applied to be a charter school, and I’m 99% confident that they would never get approved if they do wish to teach creationism as science.

Labour education spokesman Chris Hipkins said it was an example of why critics feared the charter school model.

“Those are their beliefs – but the state should not be paying for it. Those parents and kids can choose to believe and to receive a religious education. But not to the exclusion of other sciences, and I think in this case that is really inappropriate,” Mr Hipkins said.

It’s an example of nothing. Their big worry is that all the applicants will be so good, they won’t be able to demonise them.

The Makahika Outdoor Pursuits Centre (MOPC) in Levin, which offers alternative education for young male offenders, also registered interest. The organisation’s work is currently sub-contracted by the Ministry of Justice. Co-director Sally Duxfield said she and her husband paid up to $60,000 a year out of their own pockets to finance the programme.

MOPC was considering becoming a charter school because the funding style could allow them to extend to a full-year residential programme, Mrs Duxfield said.

The centre would use the New Zealand curriculum and employ registered teachers.

“The mainstream system doesn’t work for these boys. Some of these boys haven’t sat at a school desk since they were 10 or 12 because they’ve beaten people or stabbed people . . . they come here because they are unable to be educated safely [elsewhere].”

Wow, how awful if they applied, Some of the most at risk youth might get a better education. What terrible stuff.

Tags: ,

66 Responses to “PPTA outs a group that hasn’t even applied”

  1. gravedodger (1,426 comments) says:

    Expect a certain vertically challenged tangata whenua chick to promise to legislate any charter schools out of existence,—-3 2 1 ?????.
    That will be more than sufficient to gain a good position on the 1800 hrs Green propaganda transmission

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Nookin (2,887 comments) says:

    Should we vociferously clamour for the abolition of taxpayer funding of political parties on the basis that the Greens might fill its list with members of the Flat Earth Society?

    Or have they done that already?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. anonymouse (651 comments) says:

    Err,

    The current integrated Catholic schools that no doubt some of Angela Roberts’ members currently work in already promote and teach religious beliefs and values with taxpayer money , sure creationism is the current liberal touchstone, but religious schools are an existing part of the NZ education system, and have been for yonks

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. rouppe (852 comments) says:

    I agree that no charter school should get funding if they wish to teach creationism.

    But… They already do! I went to a State Integrated catholic boys school. They obviously got state funding and most definitely had catholic religious teaching as part of the curriculum. We even had to go to confession at least once a month in the chapel on the school grounds.

    It wasn’t called creationism back then, it was just religious studies…

    What’s the problem?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. SHG (320 comments) says:

    “Why should we teach evolution as if it were a fact when there is a theory that is an alternative?” Mrs Friar said.

    Not one – there are THOUSANDS of alternatives. At least one for every ethnic group on earth. But let me guess – it’s only the Sabbath Rest Adventist Church’s version that she wants taught…?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Even scientists say it’s a theory

    Spot the person who shouldn’t be involved in discussions about educating kids.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. burt (7,085 comments) says:

    DPF

    Wow, how awful if they applied, Some of the most at risk youth might get a better education. What terrible stuff.

    You don’t get it do you. If one school starts teaching these people all schools will need to teach that way. ONE SIZE FITS ALL – how could you forget the sole purpose of the PPTA is to increase its own membership numbers – no more no less.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Longknives (4,039 comments) says:

    Strange that nobody complains about our kids being brainwashed with Maori spiritual beliefs…

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. peteknn (1 comment) says:

    “I agree that no charter school should get funding if they wish to teach creationism.”

    Why do people get so wound up about teaching creationism? Why is it so bad? You seem very intolerant! Please be a little more open minded. We home school our 2 children and they have a rigorous science curriculum that teaches the scientific method, that is science that is observable, testable and repeatable but we also teach a Biblical creation worldview and compare and contrast it with the current teaching of the prevailing evolutionary worldview. Please note that the scientific method developed by Francis Bacon, and he along with many noted scientists was a young-earth creationist and devout Christian. There is nothing wrong with having a Biblical Creation worldview and teaching true science. We all look at the same evidence but we do not all have the same world view. If you are open minded enough to find out what Biblical Creation is all about a good place to start is the the answers in Genesis web site http://www.answersingenesis.org

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. radvad (620 comments) says:

    Evolution v Creationism yada yada yada.

    I can’t help wondering though, if evolution was true, why men still cannot get pregnant despite, as we are told, being receptacles for sperm since time began.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. berend (1,599 comments) says:

    DPF: I agree that no charter school should get funding if they wish to teach creationism.

    But I suppose the parents of such children still have to pay tax?

    That’s what state education is all about: extreme state control: taxing people so much few can afford to send their kids outside the state system, and making sure they don’t get any money back if they don’t send their kids to state schools.

    It’s about control. Nice to see the National Socialists are still firmly in favour of that. The shock horror that someone actually teaches that evolution cannot be repeated in the laboratory!

    PS: evolution = the increase of information, it’s not evolution if a bear loses the ability to have coloured hair and gains some competitive advantages on a snow covered part of the planet, that’s devolution.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Harriet (4,002 comments) says:

    “….Spot the person who shouldn’t be involved in discussions about educating kids….”

    Ah… the one who doesn’t think before they ask questions?

    Probably the very same type of person who isn’t very well read about achievement rates between state schools and religious schools.

    A boy I knew as a family friend when I was a kid Ryan went to catholic schools – and is now a world reknowned planetary scientist.

    And …MY…. father is his God Father too Ryan! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Harriet (4,002 comments) says:

    Good stuff there berend.

    “….DPF: I agree that no charter school should get funding if they wish to teach creationism

    But I suppose the parents of such children still have to pay tax?…..”

    And I’d also like to add that some kids at state secoundary schools don’t even take science as a subject – the very type who couldn’t remember the differance between creationism and evolution that they’ve most probably already been taught about in either science, social studies or history.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Murrell (2 comments) says:

    The clutching of pearls here amuses me. Meanwhile homeschooled kids can be taught literally anything that the parents want. Including creationism without any additional science.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. David Farrar (1,808 comments) says:

    Just because some parents want creationism is no reason to do so. Some parents also want it taught that cellphone towers are evil and cause cancer.

    Creationism can be taught as part of religious studies in any school that wants to. But it should not be taught as part of science as it is based purely on faith, not science. In fact it is massively contradicted by science (unless you think God created fake evidence to confuse us).

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. fishe (142 comments) says:

    DPF, what are your reasons behind thinking that “…I’m 99% confident that they would never get approved if they do wish to teach creationism as science.” ?

    Do we know much about the formal process to decide if charter schools get approved or not? Would they even look this far into the curriculum – it wouldn’t be difficult to hide…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. UglyTruth (3,000 comments) says:

    But it should not be taught as part of science as it is based purely on faith, not science.

    Strictly speaking creationism is outside of the domain of science since creators don’t avail themselves of controlled repeatable experiments.

    Creationism isn’t purely based on faith, it is supported by the evidence of ancient cultures which had advanced technical knowledge. Also, creationism isn’t limited to the standard young earth theory.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. SHG (320 comments) says:

    Creationism isn’t purely based on faith, it is supported by the evidence of ancient cultures which had advanced technical knowledge

    Please, do go on.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Scott (1,614 comments) says:

    Creationism is true. The earth was created by God.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. UglyTruth (3,000 comments) says:

    @SHG

    In the Vedic literature of India, there are many descriptions of flying machines that are generally called vimanas. These fall into two cate- gories: (l) manmade craft that resemble airplanes and fly with the aid of birdlike wings, and (2) unstreamlined structures that fly in a mysterious manner and are generally not made by human beings. The machines in category (l) are described mainly in medieval, secular Sanskrit works dealing with architecture, automata, military siege engines, and other mechanical contrivances. Those in category (2) are described in ancient works such as the Rg Veda, the Maha-bha-rata, the Rama-yana, and the Pura-nas, and they have many features reminis- cent of UFOs.
    http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/vimanas.htm

    The Piri Reis map shows the western coast of Africa, the eastern coast of South America, and the northern coast of Antarctica. The northern coastline of Antarctica is perfectly detailed. The most puzzling however is not so much how Piri Reis managed to draw such an accurate map of the Antarctic region 300 years before it was discovered, but that the map shows the coastline under the ice.
    http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_1.htm

    Located at Baalbek in Lebanon are the largest megalithic stones ever carved from the “living” rock of a quarry. Often referred to as Cyclopean, they range in size and mass but the most sizeable is estimated to weigh nearly 1,300 tons and lies unused. It seems that thousands of years ago they were shaped into gigantic rectangles and moved over a kilometre to be used in the early construction of the Baalbek Archeological Complex which was expanded during the Roman period when the town was known as Heliopolis (City of the Sun). They are not merely foundation stones as it is quite clear that they rest on a deeper layer of smaller, but still very large, blocks. These massive units each weighing approximately 750 tons were built into the western retaining wall of the plaza and known as the Trilithon.
    http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/ancientman/1057.html

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    The whole “the creationists are coming” bit is one of the most ridiculous criticism of charter schools. The government already pays for schools that teach creationism as science. Nothing is changing there, end of discussion.

    I’m frankly amazed that our host has fallen for the bait.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    “I can’t help wondering though, if evolution was true, why men still cannot get pregnant despite, as we are told, being receptacles for sperm since time began.”

    Errr, what the fuck?

    “it is supported by the evidence of ancient cultures which had advanced technical knowledge”

    The Ancient Aliens theory/Technological advancement ideas have been roundly debunked many, many times over.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    @Scrubone

    “The government already pays for schools that teach creationism as science”

    Which one(s)?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    TheContrarian: integrated religious schools.

    In fact, I was told by one principal that if they didn’t, they’d lose funding as their being a christian school was the entire point of the government funding them.

    Like I say, it’s manufactured outrage.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    Which ones though? Can you show me any school that teaches creationism in opposition to evolution?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. UglyTruth (3,000 comments) says:

    The Ancient Aliens theory/Technological advancement ideas have been roundly debunked many, many times over.

    Human conceit.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    “Human conceit.”

    Or, more likely, not. For example the Baalbek stones are well known to be part of a retaining wall. Not a platform. You shouldn’t watch History Channel.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. UglyTruth (3,000 comments) says:

    For example the Baalbek stones are well known to be part of a retaining wall. Not a platform.

    So what? The point is that shifting things of that size implies advanced knowledge of some kind.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    “The point is that shifting things of that size implies advanced knowledge of some kind.”

    Yeah, like ‘pulleys’. Not to mention the quarry they came from is uphill from the site

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. UglyTruth (3,000 comments) says:

    Yeah, like ‘pulleys’.

    Yeah, I bet you shift 750 ton blocks with pulleys all they time.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    ” Not to mention the quarry they came from is uphill from the site”

    Withdraw that, BTW, some say it was some say otherwise so, like asserting “aliens did it!”, it is conjecture.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    So therefore aliens. Case closed.

    But here:
    http://ancientaliensdebunked.com/references-and-transcripts/baalbek/

    Read it and watch it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. UglyTruth (3,000 comments) says:

    So therefore aliens. Case closed.

    Typical debunker logic.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    Watch/read the link.

    “Typical debunker logic.”

    yeah because debunking stupid claims with zero scietific rigour is lame and dumb. You should just believe whatever Giorgio Tsoukalos tells you

    http://happyfamousartists.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Giorgio-Tsoukalos-not-saying-its-aliens.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Harriet (4,002 comments) says:

    Science is about having an hypthesis and gathering evidence to support it.

    Religion is about having a belief system to help guide you.

    And that is why we teach children to pray instead of getting them to gather evidence to support God’s existence.

    Most science teachers understand that – and so too do most religious teachers.

    Following the theory of ‘Zooism’ where man evolved from nature and should therefor not hold any ‘beliefs’, is counter productive to understanding the sciences of the mind and human thought!

    Imagine a scientist not holding the ‘belief’ that an hypthesis should be questioned! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    “And that is why we teach children to pray instead of getting them to gather evidence to support God’s existence.”

    Do we?

    What’s ‘zooism’?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. UglyTruth (3,000 comments) says:

    You should just believe whatever Giorgio Tsoukalos tells you

    Sigh. It’s so hard to find a debunker with a functional brain these days.

    Let’s see. Your argument against evidence of ancient flying machines and ancient megalithic structures is:

    … wait for it …

    pulleys!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Jimmy Smits (246 comments) says:

    Scott (1,373) Says:
    May 21st, 2013 at 7:19 pm
    Creationism is true. The earth was created by God.

    Yes, it is very true that Allah, the one true Muslim God, created the earth. I am in complete agreement with you on this.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    “Your argument against evidence of ancient flying machines and ancient megalithic structures is”

    No, the argument against Baalbek being constructed by aliens is detailed in the below link

    http://ancientaliensdebunked.com/references-and-transcripts/baalbek/

    The argument against ancient aliens is the complete lack of evidence for said hypothesis which cannot be explained by other, more earthly, arguments

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. alloytoo (337 comments) says:

    Hard to believe which satire and which is scary creationist nutters….satirists tend to make more sense though.

    Besides we all know the world was created by the touch of FSM’s noodly appendage.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Ross Nixon (599 comments) says:

    I see a lot of scientism in here. One should be skeptical of much so-called science. Especially historical, non-repeatable science. Often it is well-funded pseudoscience. The careers and egos must be protected. Do not question the great scientific consensus – you don’t want people to fervently ridicule you!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Johnboy (13,335 comments) says:

    “satirists tend to make more sense though.”

    Shit I thought there was another “a” and an “n” instead of an “i” and an “r” in the first word for a sec.

    Now that would have made more sense! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Johnboy (13,335 comments) says:

    Catholics should be here.

    They could take the new funding system in lieu of integration and start burning Heretics again! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    “Especially historical, non-repeatable science”

    Creationism – non-repeatable

    Evolution – repeatable

    “so-called science”
    Yeah, what has it ever done for you! *Shuts down computer*

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. UglyTruth (3,000 comments) says:

    No, the argument against Baalbek being constructed by aliens is detailed in the below link

    Like I said, it’s so hard to find a debunker with a functional brain these days.
    I never suggested that Baalbek was constructed by aliens.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    So it was constructed by…?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. hamnidaV2 (247 comments) says:

    It seems that you can read the PPTA magazine on-line:

    http://www.ppta.org.nz/index.php/resources/pptanews/2671-pptanews-may2013

    Some of the organisations may be well-meaning, but I don’t think you want them running schools, do you?

    Check out the last one on the list – “Schoolims” What the hell do they teach?

    And the one DPF says they “outed”, isn’t even named by them.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. UglyTruth (3,000 comments) says:

    So it was constructed by…?

    A group who had more knowledge than a bunch of hunter-gatherers or cave dwellers.
    A common theme in the early texts is that divine beings of some kind were around.
    It isn’t much of a leap to think that they were the source of the knowledge.
    If divine beings were around, then that supports the creationists theory.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    “A group who had more knowledge than a bunch of hunter-gatherers or cave dwellers.”

    Errr, you mean the Romans? Who were neither hunter-gatherers nor cave-dwellers. Come on buddy, at least try

    “It isn’t much of a leap to think that they were the source of the knowledge.”

    yeah, it’s a big leap.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    Even it wasn’t the Romans people moved on from being cave dwellers and hunter gathers long before the Romans came along.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. UglyTruth (3,000 comments) says:

    Errr, you mean the Romans?

    Way too early for them. Even though the Romans had some success in moving heavy blocks, 750 tons was beyond them. The point is that if there was no early assistance, then carrying capacity should have increased with time as cultures acquired technical knowledge, not decreased as is evidenced by Baalbek.

    http://www.atlantisquest.com/Baalbek.html

    When Augustus conquered Egypt in 27 BC, he ordered that a massive obelisk, towering above others at the Karnak temple in Egypt, be brought to Rome. Easier said than done! The effort was eventually aborted when the trophy simply proved to be too heavy. (The Karnak obelisk was abandoned for 300 years, until the emperor Constantine decided to have the heaviest portion removed before transporting it.)

    Instead, Augustus took two other obelisks from the Sun Temple in Heliopolis. It was the first transport of obelisks to Rome. The obelisks are now in the Piazza del Popolo (235 tons), and the Piazza di Montecitorio (230 tons). These are clear indicators of Roman capacity in moving heavy stones.

    As far as the Karnak obelisk, sources give varying estimates of its weight, from 323 tons to 455 tons. The discrepancy could stem from the fact that the original obelisk was 36 meters long when it weighed 455 tons. Now it is 4 meters shorter at the base, and correspondingly lighter; and because obelisks are always considerably thicker at the base than higher up, the loss of a hundred tons is not out of reason.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    Which ones though? Can you show me any school that teaches creationism in opposition to evolution?

    I’d be very surprised to find any evangelical christian school that teaches evolution as fact.

    If you want a specific example, try Middleton Grange.
    http://www.middleton.school.nz/index.cfm/3,211,370/fpc.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    Here you go Ugly. You will see an old retired chap moving huge stones, by himself, using some bits of wood.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. nark (13 comments) says:

    Yes god put the dinosaur bones there on purpose just to throw us off the scent

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. UglyTruth (3,000 comments) says:

    @Kea

    Huge, as in around 1/300th the mass of the Baalbek stones.

    As for the idiot in the orange t-shirt, a stupid rant doesn’t get any smarter just because you’re yelling.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. UglyTruth (3,000 comments) says:

    @Nark,

    The gap theory, also known as the ruin-reconstruction theory or gap creationism, suggests that a time gap equaling millions (or perhaps even billions) of years occurred between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. This theory is one of several Old Earth Creationism views.
    http://christianity.about.com/od/topicalbiblestudies/a/Gap-Theory.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Jimmy Smits (246 comments) says:

    “Young earth creationism is essential the position that all of modern science, 90% of living scientists and 98% of living biologists, all major university biology departments, every major science journal, the American Academy of Sciences, and every major science organization in the world, are all wrong regarding the origins and development of life… But one particular tribe of uneducated, bronze aged, goat herders got it exactly right.” – Chuck Easttom.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Rightandleft (574 comments) says:

    Given how skeptical DPF usually is about media reports I’m surprised he didn’t research the claims in the Stuff article more closely. I’m looking at my copy of the PPTA News magazine right now and the Sabbath Rest Adventist Church is not on the list of those interested in charter schools. Where Stuff got that one from I have no idea. Secondly, the PPTA list bears the disclaimer “Because applicant names are still being withheld we cannot confirm whether they have officially put in an application for the first round of expressions of interest.” The list is only of groups PPTA researchers have learned are interested in charter schools. It’s the media which has made the errors here, not PPTA.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. expat (4,048 comments) says:

    The ppta are clearly muckracking.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. BlairM (2,265 comments) says:

    I think everybody here is missing the point. Firstly, NZ schools currently teach a bunch of socialist, leftist crap, so when another group comes along that wants to teach their brand of crap, why are we so bothered by them and not the multitudes of crap schools already in existence?

    Secondly, the quality of Charter Schools is not at issue. Even if they were all universally terrible, it would still be a good idea to have them. Why? Because it gives people a choice and competition, and both are good things which will cause State Schools to lift their game. Remember back in the ’80s when Ansett came along, and suddenly Air NZ started being a decent airline? Well Ansett is no longer with us, while Air NZ is still there, but who could imagine Air NZ being of the same quality without that happening?

    Thirdly, it doesn’t matter what Charter Schools teach. They can teach that the moon is made of green cheese if they like. We could have the David Icke School for Fighting Lizard People for all I care. But at the end of the day, these schools will want to educate people properly, or nobody will hire the output. Schools will want a good reputation.

    You could make an argument that such schools will produce a society of idiots, but… oh, wait, that’s what we have now! I guess the only way is up from here, huh? :-D

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    Leaving aside your comment, Ugly, that you for some reason think Baalbek was built by “Hunter gatherers and cave-dwellers” (humans haven’t been cave dwellers for some 10,000 years) your logic that “I can’t explain it, therefore creationism” is so flawed as to be completely hopeless.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    “Young earth creationism is essential the position that all of modern science, 90% of living scientists and 98% of living biologists, all major university biology departments, every major science journal, the American Academy of Sciences, and every major science organization in the world, are all wrong regarding the origins and development of life… But one particular tribe of uneducated, bronze aged, goat herders got it exactly right.” – Chuck Easttom.

    And mischaracterizing the position of YEC is the perfect way to demonstrate to those who believe it is good science that your side has a commitment to the unvarnished truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    But at the end of the day, these schools will want to educate people properly, or nobody will hire the output. Schools will want a good reputation.

    Exactly.

    And it’s missed by those making the criticisms above that it’s the ones that they are complaining about that have the very ones that have succeeded in running quality education programs already.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. TheContrarian (1,043 comments) says:

    Creationism and ‘good science’ should not belong in the same sentence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Jinky (152 comments) says:

    As Rightand left said. The Church that DPF is claiming the PPTA “outed” is not named in the PPTA magazine as DPF is claiming. Will you apologise/retract your statement Mr Farrar? Hopw you’ve learnt not to cut and paste from Stuff site.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. hamnidaV2 (247 comments) says:

    Jinky, well said.

    A Farrar lie:

    http://www.ppta.org.nz/index.php/resources/pptanews/2671-pptanews-may2013

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.