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

and, when I was using the phrase "big load of bollocks" I was saying that is what the Creationists had decided about Evolution.
If you are going to quote me at least do it properly!

Thank you, this should help Coco as it is a nice example of "appropriate" use of cross curricular links between RE and science.

Norfolk - that sounds excellent! Can I ask if this is part of the NC, or your area's SACRE (is that the right term) or what?

It is part if our areas SACRE and adapted by me!

Some people do get a bit shocked by it as I work in a faith school but Religious Education is a separate entity to the faith of the school (in my eyes) so I present it as I would in any school regardless of faith.

"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?"

Kat I believe we have,just moments ago already covered these grounds;

"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"

and

"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."

We have a locally agreed syllabus which is inputted by SACRE and is broadly the same as the recommended NC course of study.

You are not listening!
Being a Christian does not mean you have to believe in Intelligent Design or Creationism.

Being a serious scientist does however mean that you will reject those stories in favour of scientific theories. Because that is how science works.

Excellent Norfolk,you sound a great teacher and what I would advocate and have been.

"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)."

Which of courses echo's my orginal points about how creationism etc is important to the history of human understanding.As posted yesterday

Norfolk, that sounds brilliant. Well done that woman ! I'd be very happy for my dd to attend classes like that.

Agreed, Cocoflower, but this is done as part of RE, not science lessons!

Would that all our kids could have Norfolk for RE and FM for science!

If only all areas had good SACREs and all schools - faith, free or normal - had to teach to them so that all kids got exposed to a balanced set of world views.

Yes but NOT IN SCIENCE LESSONS
That is what we have been saying ALL ALONG
We have ALL been saying that it is absolutely fine to explore these concepts in the context of Religious Education. Not one person has disagreed with that.

You have consistently said that Creationism should be explored as part of the Science Curriculum, including in Higher Education courses.

norfolk has made it quite clear, that although she teaches all the cross curricular themes you have been going on about, she also doesn't think they have anything to do with science.

Coco before you get carried away appropriating Norfolks post. She's saying that creationism should not be part of science lessons.

You've been arguing the oppersite.

"Being a Christian does not mean you have to believe in Intelligent Design or Creationism."

Kat; no it doesn't. But some do some don't. Many marry their faith and scienctific knowledge with ID; or perhaps not.

How can I best explain?

Lets imagine you figure out the ingrediants for a secret receipe from a word famous chef; not everyone assumes because they understand how things are they way they are that a creator stops exsisting.
Yet some faithful think God simply "let things be". This is called "Deisim"

We have covered this now

All I have ever said as it should be permitted as as "side note"

I have said this upteen times now

< hands Coco a new shovel to continue digging with >

It's ridiculous that's it's taught in science

Boys attended a Churchs chool purely becuase it was only loal school and were taught creationism in reception; ds1 came home and we had along chat about dinosaurs and evolution and he went back to school and told his teacher who said ' I think your Mummy must be a little confused'. I was well !

Said teacher now long gone but ds4 starts there next eyar so will be keeping ears and eyes open: we're loosely Christian but I won't have the boys told I am confused for disagreeing with their line, and I would prefer it if creationist theory was taught at most as a theory. Not fact.

Stop it you guys you're making me

I do the best I can in my lessons and thankfully my pupils seem to enjoy them.

No teacher would make a mockery of religion and would field creationist nonsense questions. But that is not the same as putting in the curriculum., Science has too little time in the syllabus as it is....without having to deal with myths and legend.

Well it has never been banned for a teacher to answer a child's questions as a side note as far as I am aware. Teachers do this anyway, whilst also steering their lesson back to the actual learning objectives when necessary.
You were going on about creating cross curricular links and defending nutters who threaten their university professors.
Not quite the same as what most of us have said all along - Teachers can address questions from children but should not be told to present Creationism as an equally valid alternative from a scientific point of view.

It has never been illegal to mention creationism in the manner that you mention. It has always been permitted. It will continue to be permissible. So don't worry yourself so much about it being banned please.

Coco:

Many marry their faith and scienctific knowledge with ID

I'm not sure from this post you understand the distinction between most deists/theists who accept evolution by natural selection, and proponents of ID. The former is a perfectly respectable marriage of faith and science. The latter isn't. It a subversion of proper science.

Also if you believe God "let things be" then that doesn't stop you believing in evolution. Christian scientists would just believe that God "let things evolve".

Add message | Report | Message poster Cocoflower Thu 22-Sep-11 13:58:17

Nothing wrong with adding as a side note what the other viewpoints are. Knowledge is power is it not?

Add message | Report | Message poster Cocoflower Thu 22-Sep-11 17:20:49
"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 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.

All I have ever said as it should be permitted as as "side note"

...in the Science Curricula.

Which is not the same as it being in the RE curricula.

Or are you now saying you are happy with it being in the RE curricula? Or will you again weasel out of it by wanting a "cross curricular" approach that is not placed in RE and agsin tries to wangle a Creation vs Evolution debate?

btw Coco do you realise you constitute fully 1/4 of all the posts on this thead, that is incredible dedication to the Cause :o

"You were going on about creating cross curricular links and defending nutters who threaten their university professors."

Could you please kindly point out where I defended people threating professors? Thank you

"It has never been illegal to mention creationism in the manner that you mention. It has always been permitted. It will continue to be permissible. So don't worry yourself so much about it being banned please."

Is this to me? If so please kindly point our where I mentioned anything being banned. Thank you