Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

David Attenborough joins the campaign against creationism in schools.

428 replies

Peanutbuttertuesday · 20/09/2011 17:27

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

OP posts:
Cocoflower · 22/09/2011 18:50

HOPE THAT HELPS

onagar · 22/09/2011 18:50

Do we include storks bringing babies in biology these days?

GrimmaTheNome · 22/09/2011 18:50

It could only appear for a second to be laughed at and pointed out how utterly ridiculous it is

Well, it would be possible to do Normans thing:

If teaching evolution you touch upon epistemological basis - empirical knowledge arrived at through testing a hypothesis, through evidence build a theory etc etc
Then point out difference between belief and empirical truths - there is no empirical evidence for creation

But in either case, you run the risk of being hauled up for intolerance. I suspect many teachers would be quite worried if they had to teach this lesson which inevitably makes fundamentalism look stupid and invalid. Class discussion could become very mired as pupils may not be able to understand that their opinions or beliefs don't really matter in the face of objective truth.

In any case, I don't think this sort of thing is at all what DA, RD et al were worried about - its quite clear that the line they want drawing is any attempt to insert either creationism or ID into science lesson as valid alternatives to proper science.

TheFallenMadonna · 22/09/2011 18:51

Teaching evolution in some schools is quite unlike teaching any other topic. Some children have been brought up to have very strong views indeed against it, and if you fail to appreciate that, you are going to be met with a brick wall. They simply will not engage with what you are trying to say. I don't think that completely blanking any mention of creationism on their part ad you suggest onagar is going to encourage them to think scientifically. You will lose them. Better I think to talk to them about the nature of science and why we are looking at evolution in the way we do on a science lesson. These are teenagers. They are questioning everything, and for some that is a very big deal. I want to encourage it.

onagar · 22/09/2011 18:53

ah, but you see we have your posts as evidence that you desperately want science lessons to contain creationism.

Cocoflower · 22/09/2011 18:53

*FallenMadonna"

YY! "These are teenagers. They are questioning everything, and for some that is a very big deal. I want to encourage it."

YES!

Cocoflower · 22/09/2011 18:54

Because it encourages critical thinking you dimwit!

GrimmaTheNome · 22/09/2011 18:55

Coco - ok, you're not a creationist. But - forgive me if I've misunderstood - you appear to be a proponent of 'teach the controversy'. The point is that there is no scientific controversy.

onagar · 22/09/2011 18:55

TheFallenMadonna if it were really about gently saying "some of you have been taught that god made the world, but here is what really happened" that might be ok, but really this is just a ruse to get creationism back in the class.

onagar · 22/09/2011 18:56

Cocoflower, then how about we teach them that brahma made the world. That would be ok yes? it doesn't have to be YOUR church we teach them about.

kat2504 · 22/09/2011 18:57

Most teenagers are not questioning Creationism in fact.

onagar · 22/09/2011 18:58

Anyway to teach them critical thinking don't we need a plausible alternative for them to examine? Creationism doesn't qualify.

GrimmaTheNome · 22/09/2011 19:01

looking back at the link in the OP, the main thrust seems to be 'make sure evolution is properly taught in all schools' and 'make sure creationism and ID aren't taught as if they were valid alternatives'

Are we all agreed on that?

TheVermiciousKnid · 22/09/2011 19:02

Yep, certainly agreement from me! :)

kat2504 · 22/09/2011 19:03

And me!

Cocoflower · 22/09/2011 19:04

"valid alternatives'"

Yes, in a scientfic sense it is technically impossible as an alternative as creationsim is the "supernatural".Whilst being sensitive to those who happen to think differently and not fearing any debate on the subject.

NormanTebbit · 22/09/2011 19:06

"Anyway to teach them critical thinking don't we need a plausible alternative for them to examine? Creationism doesn't qualify."

Well it does because the point is that we are dealing with empirical knowledge and that is the fundamental baisi of science. You could test the hairy spaghetti theory, the stork etc - what is the evidence foir this? Now what is the evidence for evolution?

Cocoflower · 22/09/2011 19:08

Norman its over their heads Im afraid

NormanTebbit · 22/09/2011 19:09

"I suspect many teachers would be quite worried if they had to teach this lesson which inevitably makes fundamentalism look stupid and invalid. "

Grin we wouldn't want to do that would we...
TheFallenMadonna · 22/09/2011 19:12

My posts onagar? Would you like to share some examples?

onagar · 22/09/2011 19:16

TheFallenMadonna oops! not your posts. That was to coco. I usually put the name first to avoid misunderstandings, but I didn't that time.

pointythings · 22/09/2011 19:19

My biology teacher in school took a simple approach to a very religious classmate of mine when we were covering evolution. He just said 'Pointythings' friend, you don't have to believe what you are being taught. You just have to demonstrate that you have taken it in and understood it when the exam comes along'.

I think if we start including too many asides - as in including the full range of creation myths alongside evolution - there wouldn't be enough time for the important stuff.

As I have said upthread, it would be nice if we could have more teaching on the history and philosophy of science, and where those things intersect with RE, it would be interesting to have teachers from all three disciplines involved. It could be done in the form of a forum, with debate encouraged and the emphasis on demonstrating critical argument and sound reasoning. That would be fun.

However, I maintain along with most of the posters on here that creationism and ID do not in any way hold equal weight with evolution as scientific theories, and so they should only be taught as an aside - any more substantive teaching should be restricted to RE classes.

TheFallenMadonna · 22/09/2011 19:19

I would be very careful in my phrasing onagar, because your line would make them switch off completely. I wonder how much experience some people have of teaching teenagers. The quickest way to disengage them is to belittle their beliefs, whatever they are. And we want them engaged and thinking, don't we? Utterly counterproductive otherwise. What I do is remind them what science is all about, that we are in a science lesson, and therefore we are taking a scientific approach to explaining the natural world.

And in some classrooms, a very large number of the pupils will have significant issues with evolution. All children do not belong to enlightened rationalist MNetters...

TheFallenMadonna · 22/09/2011 19:20

That's all right then Grin

I was bristling there...

Cocoflower · 22/09/2011 19:21

Another post for me?

Why dont you post for someone else this time?

Im not even sure what your question is.