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

Why have you gone back to abortion and euthanasia? These are not scientific questions, they are ethical questions. They are not scientific questions because the science of how to terminate a pregnancy or how to perform euthanasia is well known. If we think these thinks are ok or not, well that is a moral question. RE in secondary schools specifically teaches people to approach ethical questions from the point of view of different communities. School has already got this one covered.

What exactly is it you want teachers to do? Give a lesson on evolution and then, unprompted, say "I'm going to spend 15 minutes telling you a story which is a different viewpoint"? The kids have already learnt about Creationism in RE. If they want to ask a question, they can.

Sorry....how can 'an aside' be taught as an equal alternative?

You didn't point out it being banned. But the way you are going on about sidenotes is enough to make people think science teachers have some sort of gagging order forbidding them to mention it.
A science teacher has been on to say she talks about it when required. An RE teacher has told you she teaches children about it. It is not like children are being denied knowledge of the Creation story. It is being covered in schools.

"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?"

I have already discussed this on a number of psts. Cross curricular links should be in every subject- history in music, Biology in PE and so on.

If like Norman says she references science in RS then this also does work vice versa.

Cocoflower. You have said an equal alternative, then side note then,as Kat says, you've implied that a teacher would close down any further discussion about creationism during a science lesson, which no teacher would.,

Cross curricular.....

Are you proposing lesson plans that include creationism in Science?

"But the way you are going on about sidenotes is enough to make people think science teachers have some sort of gagging order forbidding them to mention it."

This is a grave misunderstanding. Im advocating the exact opposite of "gagging". Side note is an implication of a nod to another viewpoint; not a cry for it to be taught on an equal basis.

I really think all this has been discussed and this is going around in circles

Norman?!

I am happy for religion to be taught in RE lessons. Creationism is included in that. I am happy for links to be made between relevant subjects. Creationism is not relevant to Science. An RE teacher has told you this. Science references many other subjects too - Maths, Music (soundwaves), DT(nutrition), PSHE (sex), Geography (geology) All these things have real and relevant links to what is taught in science. There are lots of other examples. They involve actual science not stories.
All subjects in school make cross curricular links but that doesn't mean everything is relevant to everything else. Nobody wants to weasel out of children being taught about creationism in RE (especially if it is not presented as a fact). But it is no more relevant to science than Astrophysics is to PE, and it does not enhance scientific knowledge in any way, shape or form.

"You have said an equal alternative"

Please kindly point out where I said this

"you've implied that a teacher would close down any further discussion about creationism during a science lesson, which no teacher would"

No, I have made it clear that this should never happen. I was simply addressinf concerns from 1 or 2 posters who thought we should "put it in the bin" which of course is not suitable

I am now wondering if you have English as a first language.....

I said that the way YOU were going on sounded like YOU thought that teachers were not allowed to speak about Creationism. I was never advocating any sort of gagging order. I said quite clearly that teachers can, and frequently do, address the issue as a side point. If they are science teachers they will be respectful of the childs religious beliefs but will also point out that creationism is not scientific.
This sort of side note that you want is ALREADY happening. I'm not against it. I haven't heard anyone else who is against it either. You are trying to make it sound like we are against the topic ever being mentioned but we are not.

"I am now wondering if you have English as a first language....."

What a shame for such comments.

What a shame that you have twice quoted me to say the opposite of what I was actually saying. I could perhaps understand it if there was a linguistic barrier or something but I can think of no other reason for me telling you that teachers are allowed to mention Creationism as a side note, and you quoting me saying that they are not.
It is either unwillingness to realise that nobody is arguing with your side note thing, inability to understand English, a wish to think that people are disagreeing with you when they aren't, or an actual wish to argue that Creationism is equally valid to Evolution and science teachers should plan lessons about it.

Which is it?

Sorry you quoted your own post, very confusing.

BTW noone ever believed the world was flat.

Is English your first language Coco?

As even 'What a shame for such comments' has a distinct English as a second language feel.

I really think all this has been discussed and this is going around in circles
Yes!

(Sometimes a bit elliptically beacause of misunderstandings and misplaced inferences. )

Kat I actually think, as said upthread I believed, minus one or two everyone was in agreement with each other which is why I am baffaled thatb this is still being dragged on.

I think there is no argumuments anymore to be made so best call it a day.

Anyway Im in a lot of pain now so I cant concentate anymore

So now according to Posie, Coco isn't posting in her first language. FFS

I'm an atheist and I seem to have some fucking manners. By all means debate but a bit of courtesy wouldn't go amiss

Ooookay... about 15 pages of arguing amongst yourselves, but thanks for the input, some really great points raised :)

NormanTebbit. I'm sure you are right and that language is not the reason coco talks like that to people. I don't know why we should find excuses for her anyway.

For example:

Cocoflower Thu 22-Sep-11 16:10:47

posie you a bit thick

TBH, I'm a bit concerned that this should even be such a controversial issue! If it weren't for a massive creationist propaganda effort we'd not even be discussing this.

IIRC, the Quran says that god plopped mountains down on the land. Is anyone advocating we teach this as an alternative to plate tectonics? Thought not!

Shocking!

Norman, I was just asking....as her phrasing is quite odd. I think it's a fair question and I was repeating the question, someone else upthread asked first.

And Norman I didn't start this with Coco....she has insulted me on a few threads calling me Vile and a nasty piece of work.

I actually went through the whole thread again earlier and I've got to say Coco is pretty liberal with her insults.

Usually calling people stupid if they disagree with her.

I can't face reading the whole thread - just out of interest is there anyone on here who actually a) believes in creationism or b) thinks it should be taught as fact to children?

Also - is it actually being taught anywhere as "science" or "fact" or is it just a bit of media hysteria

Sorry - I am being very lazy........