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

^I AM NOT A CREATIONIST
I AM NOT A CREATIONIST
I AM NOT A CREATIONIST
I AM NOT A CREATIONIST^

Course you're not....its just you want to see it in alone up against Evolution, and not in RS or something up against 50 othe comparative creation beliefs - all in the interest of getting a greater educational perspective of course.

Why don't you read what Pointydog said as this my thoughts too

"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 "

and I agree with TheFallenMadonna

"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"

and NormanTebbit

"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?"

They have said what I have been saying all along, perhaps more clearly. So worry rather than soley pick me out for some odd reason why don't you also raise your suspicions with these posters too as they are only echoing my sentiments?

So pose the accustation to all pleae.

FM - If anti-evolutionary stances are entrenched by teenage, all the more reason why evolution needs to be properly taught in primary schools. (And IMO more reason why the default 'creator god' assumption isn't allowed to pervade so many of them)

Grimma were you never taught creationsim is schools out of interest?

"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"

True - but I find it hard to see how in the context of a science lesson, its really possible to discuss creationism with fundamentalist kids (be they christian, muslim or other) without them feeling either quashed or rebellious. Well, maybe FM can do it, but I'm not sure that all science teachers have the empathy and patience.

Evolution by natural selection is not a topic for primary schools. Understanding it relies on some pretty high level biology. Lots of adults understand it very badly.

I discuss science, rather than creationism, as I have said. What I don't do is just say "I'm right, you're wrong, now be quiet and listen" OWTTE. Not vast amounts of empathy required. Patience? Possibly, but teachers surely love to talk about their subject, which is what I do.

I hope my children get a teacher like you Fallen

I agree though that children shouldn't be taught religious beliefs as fact in primary schools.

Thank you.

Fallen

What do you think are the greates misconceptions adults have about evolution?

(I think it's that people literally think the 'fittest' survive, the misconception that is....ie the strongest specimen of the species)

FM - the basic ideas of evolution by natural selection can be easily understood by a child though.

Grimma were you never taught creationsim is schools out of interest?

No - I don't remember being taught about evolution in school either, but I'm ancient. But I was raised in the sort of christian family that was clear that Genesis was a myth, and saw evolution as the method God had used to create living things. (well before the sophistry of ID had been dreamed up - just the more honest 'first cause' type thing)

But home and school were pervaded by the assumption that there was a creator god - I don't think I came across an alternative to that until I got to uni.

Perhaps the era we are bought up it makes a difference to how angry or how laid back we feel about relgion?

I don't think this issue is anything to do with being angry or laid back about religion. Its about rejecting anti-scientific positions being given airtime in science lessons. We could have a similar debate about non-religious anti-science, if anyone was trying to promote such things through schools.

I think at heart it is.

I am very relaxed about relgion so I dont see what the huge fuss it about to be truly honest

I had an excellent Physics teacher who was very passionate about his subject who also ran the school Scripture Union club (it was very small in my school!) and never once did he ever bring religion into his classroom teaching.

I used to wonder how he reconciled his faith and his subject, wish I had asked him.

We also had a boy in our Higher Biology class (Scottish equivalent of first year of Alevel) whose father was an American Christian preacher who banned his son from the section of the course that dealt with evolution - he had to spend a fortnight in the class next door! But he would have still potentially had to answer questions on it in the exam, without having covered it in class...

I still think now what I thought then - if you were so convinced that evolution was a work of fiction and creationism is fact, then why would you be so scared of your child (young adult actually) finding out about the former?

I am very relaxed about relgion so I dont see what the huge fuss it about to be truly honest

Cool - so can we chuck creationism in the bin and get on with teaching Real science to kids then please?

I had an absolutely brilliant biology teacher as a teen - and a hardline evangelical classmate.

Our wonderful teacher handled the situation beautifully, IMHO, by giving my classmate the opportunity to defend his beliefs in class after he became disruptive - and then completely obliterating each of his arguments by producing a ton of evidence against it.

It was a brilliant learning experience and a lesson in critical thinking - but not something I believe can be reproduced by "teaching the controversy" as American evangelicals like to call it.

The entire reason why this is even being advocated is not because anybody really believes that teaching creationism helps young people become more effective at critical thinking but in order to allow it to gain a foothold in our classrooms.

If this were not the real motivation, the very same people who advocate it would also be screaming for stork theory being taught as an alternative to mainstream embryology, flat earth theory alongside plate tectonics, txt spk as a viable alternative to standard English grammar, ...

Watching CocoFlowers arguments in think this is a reasonable summarynof the methods used.

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, keep to the main aim that it must be juxtaposed with Evolution on its own
5. Call all opponents to the idea misguided and accuse them of trying to close minds by not allowing all points of view to be taught
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. Say that you don't believe in it yourself, you just feel that all views need to be expressed - to do anything else is unreasonable
9. If under pressure, concede that bit shouldn't be taught in science, but agitate for schools having multi-disciplinary studies....but resistvall attempts to include other creation myths in the multidisciplinary study vs evolution.

10. Just keep on plugging away until everyone else gives up in exasperation.

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

What about All Things Bright and Beautiful? Will this be banned in schools?

What about All Things Bright and Beautiful? Will this be banned in schools

Ah...a No 6 argument.....

Err, since when are we teaching hymns in science class anyway?

Are you deliberately trying to create confusion? Or are you also claiming that cigarettes can't be harmful because "Ills have no weight" (from) the lyrics of "Abide By Me"?

You clearly are unable to follow arguments properly whatme. I think the argument is just too complex perhaps for you

I suggest you also make the same childish claims to Pointy,Fallen and Madonna who have only echoed what I said