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

Also if I wanted to I could find a whole load of shit on the internet that isn't true. That doesn't make it a valid argument just because I copy and paste it. Your source is a good explanation of what cross curricular links mean, but I can find no reason within that list of bullet points why creationism should be taught in school science lessons.
I repeat my point that teachers should, as a matter of normal daily teaching, answer questions that children ask them, either as a sidenote, or in greater depth if this is relevant and necessary to enhance their learning.
This does not mean that they should have to plan in advance to "teach" them about Creationism in a science lesson as if it was an equally valid theory.

People google things if an established authour from a respected source can explain something with clarity and give weight to the argument.

So It would be highly unlkey anyone would be aware of idea, the search terms and use it in an argument unless they had an understanding.

I am aware of quantum physics and could google search it but that does not qualify me to argue about it by method of cut and paste. Finding something on the internet does not make you an expert on the subject.

A teacher should encourage cross curricular learning to enhance, deepen and enrichen a childs education.

For example in a primary school if the teacher has planned on teaching number bonds, but it begins to snow, it may be a natural opportunity to learn about snow. Of course in a secondary environment this may not allow for such diversions espesically around examination time.

Howeevr, A lesson should always allow for the lesson heading in various directions, especially in something as complex as the orgins of live.

I would imagine most science teachers realise for bright, motivated children it would only be natural to bring the cultural and historical ideas developed within relgion

Of course a teacher should explain we have no scientific basis for these theories.Firstly technically it is of course incorrect as the explanation is supernatural not based in the natural (science), but not deny children a chance to explore the ideas; as a side note.

It is perfectly common and the internet to use sources from the web, (that the authour was often aware of and had full understanding) of prior to discussion. People often ask for statics and sources to back an argument up. Academically it is good practice and standard on forums.

No one claims expert status for this. They are merely providing solid backing for their argument.

Now we all need to change our lessons according to the weather? The kids would take the piss if this happened in real life. Ooh Miss look it's sunny, let's learn about photosynthesis instead of actually doing reading today. Ooh Miss it's raining again for the tenth day in a row. The water cycle is so much better than times tables.
We do have weather every day by the way. Teachers already have a packed curriculum to get through. And within that they have spent hours of time carefully planning cross curricular links that are well prepared, not off the cuff, and actually do enhance learning.
The odd off the cuff moment can be absolutely fantastic. But I have already said it is ok for a teacher to answer questions on Creationism if asked. I don't see how deliberately planning to spend science time on it (and this topic would be in Secondary not Primary if they are looking in detail at evolution) would enhance their scientific understanding.

Lessons in school are planned with a Learning Objective. In a science lesson the learning objective is not likely to be "understand just one of the many hundreds of creation myths from just one world religion" It would be hard to link this learning objectives with any of the Attainment Targets in the National Curriculum for Science.

My aunt is one of the top marine biology professors in the US.

Her classes are constantly interrupted by creationists who want her to explore other ( i.e. their ) alternate explanations. She has to stop and engage with them. Otherwise they start shouting and crying about the injustice.

It damages the education of everyone else to have to pander to creation stories in serious classes.

One of her colleagues carries a concealed handgun after receiving death threats from creationists.

This is exactly how the flying spagetti monster came about. Creationists demanding their views were heard in relation to evolution. But when asked to explore creation stories other than their own they get rather less keen on other ideas being explored.

A primary teacher, especially in FS and EY may well use snow fall as a natural prompt to learn about snow if that is what is happened. This is very much encourage in modern FS teaching.

A snow may be the first time a reception class has collectively witnessed snow; this is a unique event ,unlike rain which is not unique and a teacher would not cover this 10 days in a row.

I am not referring to secondary teachers.

As you no not teach science you will not be planning for this lesson. However, I certainly remember our science teachers made allowances for naural discussion. Learning it not simply about imparting facts; it is encouraging passions.

MrGin this backs up my point entirely that we do not want things to become like they are in the US. This is why people are quite rightly worried about religious groups with a Creationist agenda being able to run Academies and Free schools. It is great that Gove won't allow it but he won't be in charge of that Dept forever.

Someone teaching in FS and EY or even KS1 would not be planning lessons on the Theory of Evolution. That tends to happen in at least KS2 or Secondary school. By which time the children are familiar with most common and even less common weather events.
Of course things are different in Reception. They do learning through play too but ten year olds don't.
I have mentioned several times that teachers should make allowances for discussions. However if it is presented as a valid scientific alternative viewpoint, this leads Creationist fanatics to behave in the way MrGin describes later on in their academic career and detracts from learning about science.

It is not really valid to compare what you would do in a nursery setting to what a teacher would do in a formal science lesson.

"Now we all need to change our lessons according to the weather? The kids would take the piss if this happened in real life. Ooh Miss look it's sunny, let's learn about photosynthesis instead of actually doing reading today. Ooh Miss it's raining again for the tenth day in a row. The water cycle is so much better than times tables."

I explaining how this was relevant in EY/FS (not secondary) as an example in response to your above comments. However the notion that discussions are allowed is carried on through a persons entire academic life

Nobody is arguing that discussion is not part of academic life. But part of the responsibility of a teacher or lecturer is to make sure that the topics that are discussed are appropriate and useful to the group.

Yes. That is a given.

Well then in the case cited by MrGin, it is not appropriate to be discussing Creationism in a serious university lecture on Biology. It is a waste of time for those students who have actually chosen to spend their money on learning real science and do not wish to have their time and money wasted on stories. So the teacher needs to ensure that time is not wasted in this manner.

Only a small time ago you said;

"We are happy for the origins and cultural/religious issues to be discussed appropriately in schools"

Quite a dramtic change now.Why assume the biology students aren't intrested in different viewpoints on every university level biology course too? A percentage will be faithful who perhaps ascribe to the idea of ID or deisim.

Again I draw your attention to what a science teacher said;

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"

Yes, I used the word "appropriately" so I have not had a dramatic change as sometimes it is not appropriate.

For people who have chosen to study biology at a Higher Education level, it cannot be appropriate to waste their time or insult their intelligence with these so called "viewpoints". People who want to study that will enrol in a degree in Religious Studies, or perhaps Philosophy, or History of Religion or whatever. Being in a University level Biology course usually means that you actually know what a valid Scientific theory is.

If they have those beliefs and are not going to engage with anyone else and waste time challenging eminent professors over something that the scientific community are totally agreed on, then they don't need to study Biology as they have already decided that it is a big load of bollocks.

In school it is different, and it is understandable that children with these beliefs will mention them and ask questions when they are taught something that contradicts this. But unless they bring it up, why bother even mentioning it in a lesson to deliberately start a pointless debate?

Also being "faithful" does not prevent you from accepting the theory of evolution. As I have said, the major denominations do not contest it. I know plenty of Christian people who are involved in either science or science teaching and they do not see any conflict between their faith and teaching children scientific facts instead of stories.

"Being in a University level Biology course usually means that you actually know what a valid Scientific theory is. "

Yes Im sure all Christians/Muslime etc are aware of what this is, especially the biologists, vets, dentists, doctors and so on

"If they have those beliefs and are not going to engage with anyone else and waste time challenging eminent professors over something that the scientific community are totally agreed on, then they don't need to study Biology as they have already decided that it is a big load of bollocks."

With respec, there is a difference between challenging and simply discussing.

Not everyone who studies the sciences is an atheist. They don't find it "big load of bollocks". They find it fascinating and challeging, yet many see the knowledge as simply understanding more of Gods work perhaps.

It is a false assumption to think there is a divide of science vs faith. There are many examples of Christians I know working in science.

I think in my example Coco the phase ' give an inch and they take a mile' is apt.

Creationists are notoriously militant and extremely closed minded in the face of facts.

thin edge of the wedge and all that.

I doubt a deist would dispute evolution.

ID though - that was specifically designed as a means of trying to infiltrate religious ideas into the secular US education system. Its a repugnant piece of intellectual deception.

Indeed Grimma, I assume you know all about the Dover ( US ) School Board court case.

"I doubt a deist would dispute evolution"

Agreed seeing as that forms the basis of such a belief, yet employs God into this thinking which is a varient on pure evolutuion.

MrGin - yes, some. One of the main demolishers of the ID notion of 'irreducible complexity' was a scientist who is also a devout Catholic. I don't think anyone in this discussion has made the assumption that the faithful can't be good scientists (kat said so explicitly just now). This is not about general religion bashing. Its about rejection of non-science.

Can I repeat again that most Christians and Muslims are not creationists, especially if they are working in a scientific field? Or will you not listen to that?
You do not have to be an atheist to understand the difference between science, faith and mythology. I once had a relationship with a vicar who managed to grasp this perfectly well. Not believing that Genesis was a literal account of how the world came to be did not stop him working as a priest.

It is not acceptable to go into a serious university science setting and demand that your professors listen to you spouting on about religion instead of learning science. People who have PAID to attend that course are interested in training for a career in science, not debating world religions.

Can I summarise what happens in my Y8 classroom (top year of Middle School). I teach RE.

We are looking at science & religion through the ages. This has a primarily Christian focus although we explore the Buddhist ideas behind the multiverse as well.

We explore how the Church's attitude towards scientists has changed from the Middle Ages through to the modern day. We mainly focus on the reactions to Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, Hawkings, CERN and Richard Dawkins.

I teach about creationism from a historical viewpoint and my pupils explore how in the modern world most Christians view the Genesis story in a non literal way (Hebrew word for day being the same as age so as to incorporate evolution into their beliefs).

We use resources such as Dawkins' Christmas Lectures to see how scientific knowledge counteracts historical belief

At no point in my RE classroom do I teach creationism as anything more than a belief held by a minority of people but use it to show how things have changed across the centuries including the Church's response.

I personally believe creationism has no place in a science lesson as it is belief rather than theory.