The Da Vinci Code in an RE lesson?

With regard to the OP, then I personally think that anything introduced to a lesson that gets young minds thinking and debating can only be a good thing.

Like I said, we don't call gravity Newtonism. Darwinism makes it sound like you're a follower of Darwin if you believe his 'theory'. Like Buddhism or something, it makes evolution sound like a lifestyle choice.

I understand the point you're trying to make, but 'Darwinism' appears in the dictionary (look under Darwinian) and is often an accepted term for the 'Theory of Evolution'. 'Newtonism' does not appear in the dictionary and is not an accepted term for 'gravity'.

I suppose, much like 'Hoover' is often used as a description for any vacuum cleaner, and many people call washing-up liquid 'Fairy'.

Charles Darwin (and someone else, actually, whose name escapes me) set the ball rolling in getting people to rethink how the world and nature came to be, and not some "Adam & Eve" (or similar, according to which Faith you belong) -type scenario where flora and fauna just magically appeared.

And I think yes, Evolution probably is a lifestyle choice for some. More believable, anyway (to me).

No, I think that is as unacademic as can be.

noble - I think people have modified Darwin's theories quite a lot!!

That's no disrespect to him. It'd be quite worrying if we'd made no progress since he was working.

Going back to something said some time ago...

every Sunday you consume his flesh and blood

Non-conformist churches (Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc.) generally don't take communion every Sunday. Most Christians do not believe that they are physically consuming Christ's flesh and blood. In the UK it is generally only Catholics and some Anglicans that believe this.

On the more recent direction of the thread, I agree with those who say that Darwinism is a creationist label. It is evolution and it is science. As such it shouldn't be taught in RE in my view. I would, however, expect it to form part of any discussion about creationism (which is a pseudo science) and the creation stories of various religions.

Like I said, we don't call gravity Newtonism. Darwinism makes it sound like you're a follower of Darwin if you believe his 'theory'. Like Buddhism or something, it makes evolution sound like a lifestyle choice.

I think it is more because Darwin uncovered and revealed life and nature for what it was, rather than of religion. He was a man who revealed the billion pieces of evidence, thus not diminishing it.

Rather like any new plant that has been 'discovered' is given the name of it's finder.

It's getting late and I'm too tired for this really .... I'm going to bed. Sorry. Maybe I'll try again tomorrow.
Goodnight

But the theory of evolution (via natural selection) shortens naturally to evolution.

Darwinism is just a creationist label to try to make it about a man rather than a billion pieces of evidence and thus diminish it.

You can't just say "Evolution", because it is a theory. Therefore, to my tiny mind, it is easier to say "Darwinism" because, well, just because.

(Why do my Underscores never work)

The Theory of

to be included in the keystrokes, as described above

'The Theory of Evolution' Not if you include the full title

Darwinism and Evolution have the same number of letters!!

What historical theory of Darwinism? Evolution by natural selection? As far as I'm aware that's still the current theory?

Fewer keystrokes than 'The Theory of Evolution' maybe - that's my excuse.

I'm not sure that's what people were saying?

My reading of the thread was people were suggesting the historical theory of Darwinism should be taught, not that they thought it was current theory. It did have a huge impact on the church in England (and elsewhere) after all.

What's with calling evolution 'Darwinism'? Usually it's only creationists that do that. Do we call gravity 'Newtonism'?

Both my dc have to take RE as a GCSE at their schools, one of the heads said that as they have to teach it they may as well get a GCSE out of it.

I think it's quite good, the curriculum seems quite interesting to me. They do a lot of debating about different moral issues, and although I'm not religious, I think it makes up quite an important part of their education. The skills they learn while debating points of view that they don't necessarily hold themselves is good for them, I think it helps broaden young minds. Especially for those who are from religious families and have only ever been presented with one point of view as if it's fact.

It's a novel based on ideas some people have held for centuries, though. It's not like he made it all up (being, amongst other things, a massive plagiarist).

'so much more interesting than the boring truth' - so you believe what I wrote in my post of 18.38 is the truth then?

Its probably covered in the pse curriculum to enough of a standard to pass ofsted but it will be there somewhere. We teach the science / creation debate in y7, y10 and y12. A basic understanding of the principles of darwinism is necessary, as is an understanding of the big bang. As far as the da vinci code goes, it falls into the same category as the illuminati and so on. Teenagers find conspiracy theories so much more interesting than the boring truth and like to discuss tge idea that they have seen through the cover up and have figured out what everyone else has missed for centuries. They are a useful jumping off point for discussions about the nature of proof, faith, belief vs fact etc.

no no I meant that in many schools in Wales have compulsory GCSE RE

Nope. Deepest Berkshire !!! Lots of kids choose to take it at kids school as they like the ethics part. But mine are ardent atheists after years at a church primary !!

Wales

Well of my 5 kids not one has to take it to GCSE. They do citizenship and PHSE but not RE after year 9. Only school I know that does exam is the local CofE school - no one else here does it !

well, we only have OP's ds's view of the lesson and maybe he wasn't paying attention at some crucial part. I suppose it could be part of an interesting lesson, eg on how powerful ideas and images from christianity are in our culture (massive best seller despite being crap), perhaps on how some elements of a tradition become orthodox and others heretical (but a bit deep for 13 yo?)
BUT I hope it was also pointed out that it's a NOVEL and not intended to be taken as truth.