David Attenborough joins the campaign against creationism in schools.

[Peanutbuttertuesday]

I've posted before about the issue of religion being taught as fact in schools before. I'd be interested to hear what everyone has to say about this.
Discuss!
www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8769353/David-Attenborough-joins-campaign-against-creationism-in-schools.html

cocoflower, making stuff up isn't helping you.

You are the one who has faith in what you believe. I don't 'believe' anything. I know some things and some other things are probable based on evidence, but I have no 'beliefs' in the way you religious people have them.

This is quite off topic. We will have to agree to disagree. I certainly think people are motivated by different interests and learn very differently (at school when we came to A-level choices it was amazing how many went with pure factual subjects and the other half creative choices). I think it more ridiculous to think we all learn the same tbh. Some people learn by doing. Some learn by example- two small differences as a way of explanation.

OK, so I see how the game works:

1. Argue that you think people need to be more broadly educated
2. That means Creationism needs to be taught alongside Evolution of course
3. Not that you believe it, of course, it just needs to be taught to give people a wider perspective
4. Ignore all suggestions that it is taught alongside other reliigions' creation narratives, it must be juxtaposed with Evolution on its own
5. Call all opponents to the idea misguided fools who are trying to close minds
6. Throw random spurious factoids into the mix to delay/confuse
7. Avoid any line of reasoning you don't like by accusing people of rudeness, stupidity, not listening etc
8. Just keep on plugging away until everyone else leaves in exasperation.

I guess its written up in some form of Creationism tactical manual somewhere.

"'The person disproving it is often the person who came up with it"

How is this making stuff up? You said it in black and white.

This thread is bizarre. Reading into things never said, making absolute crap up and denying things that were written and can still be read

I did not make that link up go and educate yourself

TheVermiciousKnid, thank you. I see what coco was getting at now.

Coco, my point was that unlike religious people scientists are not praised or prized on how loyal they are to a theory. It's not a disaster when they are found to be wrong as it would be for a religious person. A good priest is one that will believe no matter how much conflicting evidence there is.

whatme

Im laughing as you are going beyond ridiculous. Are you quite paranoid in rl too?

coco breathe. you are getting hysterical and babbling in your desperation.

But you said 'You thoughtonly people who thought of theories disproved them.' That is clearly not the same as 'The person disproving it is often the person who came up with it.'! Not a very good use of the available evidence...

Coco. It is quite clear you don't really have a clue about this topic.

you are right Cocoflower

Anyway I don't think there is any debate to be had regarding creationism/evolution. Evolution is a fact. An absolute fact.

RE...religious education
Science Science.

Both taught in school.

So, how to play against this tactic - seems to me the best is to:

1. Agree that creationism should be taught - absoluetely
2. And why not teach all the other creation narratives as well, so that education/information is maximised
3. look at creation narratives through history too so you can see hoe they have evolved over time
4. Discuss the narrative of how the theory of evolution arose from early Greek observations on

In fact, why not discuss how all the great religions dealt with all the great philosophical topics, not just the creation one.

All in a course dedicated to this sort of thing, I'd call it Philosophy of Religion or something, do it over 2 years, for GCSE.

And then the only thing that would go in science courses is science.

Sorted :)

Im laughing as you are going beyond ridiculous. Are you quite paranoid in rl too?

Coco, that's Response No & - 7. Avoid any line of reasoning you don't like by accusing people of rudeness, stupidity, not listening etc

See, I'm reading the same book now :o

Right back at you posie. Anything useful to add or do you just want to follow me around and insult me?

whatme Im sorry but you must have forgotten to type your "reasoning" out

Follow you around? Are you usually this paranoid in RL too?

whatme Im sorry but you must have forgotten to type your "reasoning" out

No. 7.....

Can you justify the fucking up of the curriculum where it's okay to put beliefs into science?

A "side note" is not exaclty "fucking up the curruculum"

Shall we also never discuss the history of music in music lesson? Or biology in a PE lesson? Lets not look into Freuds ideas on psychology either, far too unscientific

if we are going to teach creation stories in school this one is is a good 'un.

In fact there are hundreds. Such fun

History of music is part of music history....

Creationism is not part of science.

I genuinely don?t understand why people have such an issue with a "side note" and find it so daunting.

It is called "cross curricular"

If you?re so against it I also assume you are against spelling being corrected in a science workbook as that should only be addressed in English lessons?

I assume you would be furious if the history of Pythagorean theorem is briefly mentioned in a maths lesson?

"Shall we also never discuss the history of music in music lesson? Or biology in a PE lesson? Lets not look into Freuds ideas on psychology either, far too unscientific"

I guess context is everything. it;s the foregrounding of creationism that is problematic - teaching it as an equal alternative to evolution. There is no alternative explanation of how we came to be.

But that said, religion has played a major part in how we think, organise our societies, power inequalities, demonisation of homosexuals and women and within that context it should be studied.

And science is never conducted in some vacuum where morals and assumptions don't come into play; psychology has played its part in the pathologisation of homosexuality and women and that scientific context should also be studied. Even Freud.

"teaching it as an equal alternative to evolution."

But there is a huge difference between equal alternative and a simple side note in cross curricular fashion.

And I agree with the rest of your post which is why it seems ignorant to put totally different subjects into neat boxes with a refusal to even mention anything out of the science box.

In RS/RE science comes into the classroom. Equally children may talk about why creationisim is not accepted due to evolotion.

Also in debates around subjects such as abortion or euthanisia again the science behind this will be discussed which aids children and young adults forming an opinion based on morals and science.

To me how can one form an opinion if they are never taught to cross reference different thoughts from different communites.

Children also don't discuss the ethics of abortion in science lessons.