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 work with a creationist Physics teacher, but there isn't really an issue. He teaches what is required in Physics: the evidence for the Big Bang theory for example. The evidence that the Universe is changing. He isn't required to pronounce on it one way or another, and neither am I.

TheFallenMadonna when I hear something like that my first thought is a feeling of respect that someone would have the integrity to do the job properly even though it went against his beliefs. Because we have had teachers on here before saying that they pushed their beliefs on their students when no one was looking.

But my second thought is this: If he believes that creationism is true then he believes he is deceiving the students and teaching them outright lies. How does he reconcile that?

Seriously, that bollocks should only be taught as a belief and not a theory in school, I'd actually cry if my children came home and informed me they had been taught about it in science, I'd weeeeeep big style.

We don't teach the Big Bang theory as fact (that would be inapproriate I think). We teach that there is evidence for it, and what that evidence is. He doesn't find that evidence convincing, but he isn't required to pass comment on that. He is decieving no-one. Were he to teach Biology, there might be more of an issue I suppose. But he doesn't.

Or even deceiving.

I don't remember teachers saying that they pushed their beliefs on to students. Well, one. But she taught in a private school, so a bit different.

I don't think for one minute that creationism should be taught as science, simply because it isn't scientific, but I do worry at this strident, aggressive atheist approach epitomised by Dawkins that shouts down all other theories. Young people deserve to be allowed to form their own opinions from a full range of viewpoints rather than being told what to think by any type of extremist

My DCs were taught science at school and learned creationism from a visiting mad as a box of frogs american preacher who did a talk to the local youth group and have both formed their own opinions.

I can see that it helps that the subject matter is not proven or likely to be any time soon. That theory may turn out to be untrue anyway for all I know. It still sounds like an uncomfortable position to be in.
So as I say good for him for not pushing his belief and maybe more could follow his example.

timidviper, "shouts down all other theories." once again creationism is not a theory - it is someone's belief.

If you teach that 2+2=4 you don't ask for a visitor to teach that 2+2=5 to allow alternative viewpoints.

I think it is a triumph of science really. Making it all about the evidence. I think his students have a pretty good understanding of scientific method, and that can only be a good thing.

Of course Creationism is ridiculous and shouldn't be mentioned in schools as anything other than a nonsenical story that some daft people believe.

timidviper, there's nothing extreme in wanting to make sure that children aren't taught a load of all rubbish in school. That's just normal.

I'm also one to repeat the fact that Creationism isn't a theory, it's a poxy belief. Evolution isn't a theory either - it's fact.

The point of the campaign isn't that teachers are teaching creationism as fact in British schools, or even as anything other than a belief in RE (I hope!) it is that there is a constant war of attrition going on: education departments and teachers are constantly being sent stuff that has a creationist/ID focus and some politicians cannot be counted on to be as sensible as most people on this thread are being.

There needs to be publicity and debate about what goes on in schools, not just concerning this one issue. Otherwise you get people like pigletmania who genuinely believe creationist belief is equal to evolutionary theory and similarly minded teachers will happily go with that at assemblies or whatever (I think most if not all teachers of biology or physics realise they are tied to teaching the science only, not the stories).

Actually Dazzlewards if you follow Karl Popper's teachings on the philosophy of science, then evolution is a theory. But so is gravity. All scientific theories, according to Popper, are nothing more than the best theory we have at the time, in the light of the evidence we have, until such time as evidence falls into our hands which conclusively proves the theory is false*. At which point we must formulate a new theory.

In the case of both evolution and gravity, the two theories are the most plausible in the light of the evidence we have and so must be accepted as most plausible until such time as they are falsified.

For Creationism on the other hand there is no scientific evidence whatsoever. The people who support it seem to have two main arguments:

1. There are gaps in knowledge in the theory of evolution - i,e, the missing link in the development of man - and so the whole theory must tehrefore be wrong. This is manifestly unscientific thinking.

2. It's a leap of faith. That's even more unscientific.

You are right in saying that Creationism is a faith-based position and I agree with the majority of posters here that it should enver be taught as an alternative scientific theory, simply because it is not in any way scientific.

That is not to say that science lessons could not be made much more interesting by having a few jiont science/RE sessions when the topic arises, so that children can learn about the theory of science and the principles of belief, which will enhance their ability to think critically. So I think DA is mostly right, but we could be a lot more creative in our schools about how we deal with this topic.

Well done if you made it to the end of this post .

Has anyone tried to read A Brief History of Time by Stevie Wheels? I managed to get halfway through then I'm afraid it all got too much for me.

A scientific theory can be replaced by another theory not just because it is false, but also because it is partial and a more complete one is developed - many scientific theories become incorporated into new, better theories.

The confusion seems to arise because people confuse 'theory' in everyday language, which generally means a speculative idea, with the use of 'theory' in science, which refers to a set of concepts and scientific laws which explain part of the natural world. The idea that the earth revolves around the sun is a theory.

So evolution is a theory, but it is also a fact - many people have observed evolution happening. Any new theory that comes along to replace or incorporate evolutionary theory will have to include an explanation for the observations already made.

olddog the poster who said that the Catholic school was the only one in the village was posting from Ireland, where 92% of the (primary) schools are Catholic and in many places (especially outside dublin) there is no choice except a Catholic school

Trippler - yes, its the ID propaganda which is in some ways more concerning than creationism. ID is the wolf of supernaturalism masquerading in the sheeps clothing of rational scientific language. But its not scientific. Its an anti-science, pro-religion agenda designed to fool people.

No, science doesn't have all the answers - but it has the questions and methodology to obtain meaningful answers. It doesn't give up and say 'ooh, dunno about that, God must have dunnit'

The "threat" of creationism

Some people take things a little too seriously me thinks... our poor children threatened by an alternative view point!

Heaven forbid it raises a lively discussion.

Creationism is a myth and has no business being taught in science lessons. It is a story and it is not scientific so there is no point even debating it as an alternative viewpoint in science.
The fact that even the Catholic and Anglican churches do not teach it as anything more than an ancient myth is quite telling really.

Gravity is a "theory" but we can also observe that all day everyday.

Just because somebody writes a story does not give it equal weight as a scientific theory. Anyone could make up "theories" in that case, should they all be considered scientifically?

I think perhaps the 'threat' of dealing with religious 'alternatives' to proper science in a science classroom is that for those kids brought up in religious households, indoctrinated to believe 'god made it', is that they would all too easily accept what they were comfortable with and fail to engage with the alternative to their status quo.

Cocoflower, schools could have a lively discussion about anything - that isn't in itself a reason for including a topic in the Science curriculum

I'm sure many Science teachers would be quite capable of running a lively discussion on the X Factor.

Vice versa- a child "protected" from any religous thought will simply be ignorant to any other world view.

Why allow a child to be ignorant of something that made a large part of our history?I imagine only a small percent of people believe in creationsim now; but why is it a threat to teach our children another view?

Do you not see how important it is for children to also realise the history of science? Do you want them to assume that we always had access to this knowledge or do you want them to undersrand that throughout the ages human understanding changed due to advances made in science and technology.

It is important as a good scientist to let children understand that our scientific knowledge and information was gained over time. Why pretend any different? Seems insecure and hysterical to me.

Children need to understand science is simply "the best explanation we have right now" and be aware, just like the past, there is room for popular opinion to also change one day.

Would it be a threat to tell children we used to believe the world was flat? No of course not, as it gives an insight as to how futher discoveries allowed us to see the facts and that the facts were not always available.It is important lesson as part of being human that what might seem "obvious" can be disproven, even thrown on its head by science.

Lastly what a dreadful shame to not have a discussion; It is very natural to ask "where did we come from?" and having a debate and being forced to think is deeply fasinating for most. I enjoyed it; why should our future generation be deprived of such a chance.

By all means teach about creationism - as part of RE or maybe even a history of science class, but not as an alternative viewpoint to evolution!

Cocoflower, the history of Science is taught and examined as part of the curriculum. That would include the religious background and the theories of evolution that were incorrect.

But beliefs about creationism in contemporary society are not part of the natural sciences or the history of the social sciences. The rise of intelligent design and so on are very interesting topics to discuss within the social sciences, media studies and so on because creationism is a social issue.

Why should a science teacher have the ability to host a debate on contemporary creationism? Why should they have any great knowledge of it? They may be entirely unfamiliar with religious texts, the sociology of religion etc.

I'm not sure where your perspective is coming from - it seems to me to be more of a criticism of social science topics and a belief that anybody can teach them. We wouldn't expect a French teacher to teach algebra (other than in an emergency), or an Art teacher to teach Geology, so why should a Science teacher be expected to teach creationism?