EVANGELICAL PRESBYTERIAN ALLIANCE

SOME ACTUALITIES RE POSSIBLE APPROACH TO OMBUDSMAN

There follows a summary of governmental failure/trespass
in the Religion and Science Field.

BREACH – see in detail http://webwitness.org.au/remodelling.html and sequel.

1)      In attacking all religions by a generalisation, the DECS document, Circular to Principals, January 1988, attacks Biblical Christianity in particular as one of these.

2)      In affirming a set of theological dogmas, as a base for the educational attitude to Creationism/Evolutionism, those responsible and who endorse and require this approach, have asserted and scripted a presuppositional religion of their own, with no trace of support provided; and their continued refusal to face what they have done in any written reply constitutes an avoidance/evasion/negligence on a matter of the highest import, since it involves ultimate perspectives and motives.

3)      In subsuming all religions under their own created religious criteria, they have not only set their authority behind one world view, but done so irresponsibly as an aside or commencement exercise, derogating by implication, through what they require and stipulate to be so.

4)      By so doing, they have violated the federally adopted UN document:  "THE DECLARATION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF INTOLERANCE AND OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RELIGION OR BELIEF," which requires no discrimination of what is available, which is based on religion or belief. In particular, Article 5, 3 indicates that “the child shall be protected from any form of discrimination on the ground of religion or belief.” He is to be brought in an atmosphere of understanding, whereas the current approach precludes and prejudices, predetermines and applies the direct opposite of the same for the schools of this government.

5)      Likewise, they appear to have violated the Commonwealth Constitution which forbids the governmental establishment of a religion, to the extent that the Commonwealth is involved in any of the State educational enterprises in its schools, or affairs.

6)       Moreover, by these means they have violated SCIENTIFIC METHOD by limiting it to the domain of their pre-determined religious and world philosophy, rather than approaching the matter by experimental verification and inter-locking finesse with all scientific theory and laws.

7)      In excluding creation views from relevance for enquiry, research or rational evaluation, and with these, developments from the hundreds of Ph.D. scientists indisputably of the Biblical Creationist approach, not to mention the much larger number who are creationists of a wider domain, which must include all their notable professional results, work, verifications and perspectives: they are in a secondary way violating this same UN Declaration on discrimination.

In particular they fail to meet its Article 2,2 concerning impairments suffered either from a purpose or result of action taken by a State. Not only are students of such a creationist persuasion limited socially, as to their place in the scientific aspect of the curriculum, but in their information on its aspects and materiél for enquiry. This has both a secondary and third element of breach, in that there is a social as well as a directly educational omission, exclusion and abstraction of data.

8)      Further, those responsible for enforcing this approach (the term used by the DECS upon enquiry as to its current application), by these means, exclude from government schools those teachers who insist on honest coverage of science, not pre-determined by indoctrinative media and principles: since this constitutes an abuse of science, schools and students, choosing for students what they should choose for themselves, when being educated, not indoctrinated.

It is germane that this last point that was strenuously affirmed by Dr Dmitri Kouznetsov when he gave a Lecture on this topic at the University of Adelaide. Relevant is the fact that he asserted that he became convinced of creationism years before his conversion to Christianity, while researching in Russia, where he received the Lenin Prize for Science along with three bio-science doctorates.       

This exclusivistic result for such teachers, constitutes the fourth breach of the UN  Declaration.

9)      This governmental approach also violates the equitable availability of resources, teaching skills and practical media not only for students, but to the extent of their due professional address to syllabi, that also for teachers. If these are lost for the student in their reception, they are lost for the teacher in their deployment. It is therefore not only the inequitable atmosphere, set of presuppositions, preliminary understanding, exclusivistic approach, but the discriminatory approach to skill and access of all kinds, which is of concern. What is excluded, does not have support in time.

ADMINISTRATIVE FAILURE

There has also been an administrative failure of large dimensions in that over some 15 months, the issues directly and indirectly concerned in this governmental characterisation of all religions have never once been faced and granted any relevant written acknowledgement. This is despite the fact that the nature of this failure was succinctly pointed out to the Premier, after delays of months from his office, before it was simply repeated.

Further, the Minister for DECS not only did not address this primary issue in the first reply, when the matter was directed to her from the Premier, but after the latter received a letter noting this failure, and redirected it to the Minister, that Minister in reply again omitted in a manner almost identical, the crucial religious point that was made, while at the same time not addressing any of the substantive issues.

As pointed out, what schools may provide ONCE the criteria of religion and science are defined in this way,  or defiled, a priori, is not relevant. It is the definitions in religion relative to science, themselves,  which constitute the error, imposition, authoritarian assault with pervasive results. Provisions made on that basis do nothing to remove it or rectify the authoritarian, derogatory perspective, set up over all religion as basic to Curriculum. It is indeed this, which is not merely gratuitous and ludicrous, in that dealing in this peremptory and unscholarly manner with such issues is almost past scholarly belief, but expressly forms a basis for dealing with the creation/evolution issues.  

This is readily seen on survey of the Circular for Principals itself, which doubly confuses things, first mischaracterising religions, all being made the same in this field, and then mischaracterising creationism, all being made religious. 

Failure even to address this basic consideration and primary concern over 14 months, is one thing; refusal of interview WHILE this failure recurs is the next. Reference unresolved to the DECS, when it is specifically religious in its basic concern, is third; but the finale is the REPETITION of avoidance of this basic issue, by the Minister for Education after this very failure had been noted to the Premier, himself refusing interview.

As there is no minister for religion, he himself appeared most relevant, the more so in that, as noted to him, he had on TV expressed himself in favour of a free-thinking South Australia. The net result is failure to meet the issues, profound loss of time and repetitious error with months passing between the first and second occurrence, and bypassing of issues, even if primary.

It is desirable that
 

	1)     the abuse of religion by means of generalisation should be removed as presumptuous, and the more so in view of its unsupported nature, in the field of Education;
	2)     that the misuse of this misdefinition should cease to be used as a basis for an approach to the teaching of evolution/creation in schools;
	3)     that the free place in science - itself deeply divided even within evolutionary circles, which attack and counter-attack with extreme vigour within that domain - of all forms of qualified research should return to schools as an example; and
	4)     that students and teachers alike should cease to be subjects of a discrimination so intense that it appears not only as miseducation and indoctrination, but a close approach to victimisation.