Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

David Attenborough joins the campaign against creationism in schools.

428 replies

Peanutbuttertuesday · 20/09/2011 17:27

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

OP posts:
Cocoflower · 22/09/2011 12:37

Milly quite a contradiction there Im afraid, yet you answer your own point;

"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."

Yet you say:

"so why should a Science teacher be expected to teach creationism?"

See above

TheVermiciousKnid · 22/09/2011 12:39

Because History of Science is not a science subject, but a social science subject!

Cocoflower · 22/09/2011 12:43

In science we teach that knowledge was not always just "known". We didn't simply have inherent knowledge.

We teach children that only through discoveries over time did our knowledge grow and we teach them what the past helped us discover.

Im afraid history of science is not a sepeate subject (where has this misconception arrisen from?)- it is entwined into the very heart of science in helping children understand the very nature of scientific discoveries.

Cocoflower · 22/09/2011 12:43

Or at least should be if your a decent teacher Confused

MillyR · 22/09/2011 12:50

It isn't a contradiction. Creationism, Lamarckism etc will be taught briefly in terms of the situation evolution arose out of in the 19th century. In much the same way that science text books briefly touch on Ancient Greek ideas when they are teaching the development of the periodic table.

But contemporary creationism is something entirely different to the creationism of the 19th century, and is not part of the development of biology at all. Intelligent design is hugely complex, and there is no reason why a Science teacher should be familiar with it.

It would be rather like teaching birth and conception, and having somebody who believes in Astrology saying that they should debate if the real reason why a baby was born in a certain time and in a certain way is because of the position of neptune and a trine between the astrological houses and having the moon in Gemini. A biology teacher probably knows nothing about trines or astrological houses, so could not discuss that topic in any depth. In much the same way, somebody with a biology degree probably knows almost nothing about the details of the theory of intelligent design.

Cocoflower · 22/09/2011 12:56

I must just have had some very good science teachers then.

Willing to talk about anything from human combustion to poltergeists! If it meant a lively debate (with some science to show how it was im/possible) and enganged us then fabulous!

Especially good for enganging children who find science on its own a little dry, if it sparks an interest then this is only positive.

Shame some teachers are so rigid.

MillyR · 22/09/2011 13:02

I would hope that children who find the natural world to be a 'dry' topic are few and far between. They do have the overwhelming majority of the school curriculum devoted to studying things other than the natural world, so I really don't see why their inability to show an interest in the natural world should disrupt the Science lessons of my kids.

Perhaps this is an issue of whether Science should be compulsory at all, if their are really large numbers of kids who really do not care.

FreudianSlipper · 22/09/2011 13:03

Excellent

Religion should not be taught in schools at all, about the beliefs, celebrations and so on yes but as fact no this is to be taught outside of school or religious weekend schools

i would like to see all religious schools (apart from weekend schools) abolished

CurrySpice · 22/09/2011 13:08

Even if it is not taught as fact in science lessons, the idea is reinforced in our kids all the time

Lyrics to All Things Bright and Beautiful anyone?

GrimmaTheNome · 22/09/2011 13:10

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.

No. Science has indeed given us 'the best explanation we have right now' - but it is more than that. It is the method which will continue to give better and better explanations. What 'popular opinion' has to do with anything eludes me - they cannae change the laws of physics.

Cocoflower · 22/09/2011 13:11

Milly you are aware that children have different learning styles aren't you?
That deeply effect their abilty to learn and understand? A good teacher would need to account for all types of learners to help them reach their potential.

How is this some shock to you some people don't enjoy science?! Confused

Cocoflower · 22/09/2011 13:15

GrimmaIm not sure what your disagreeing with exactly? l You agree with and understand "'the best explanation we have right now'"

Ok through the history of science. You will see how what was once "concrete" changes. Popular opinion is a general way of saying was it largely peer accepted in the science community right now.

It is a huge mistake to think we have learnt all there is to learn by the year 2011.

GrimmaTheNome · 22/09/2011 13:19

Lyrics to All Things Bright and Beautiful anyone?

yes - just about every one of DDs class assemblies had some sort of 'creator god' hymn tacked on the end (Who put the colours in the rainbow is another classic)

But funnily enough, they neither give a rational alternative in assemblies or the full extent of what their creator made.

kat2504 · 22/09/2011 13:24

I've never heard that before! That song is class. Nice one.

GrimmaTheNome · 22/09/2011 13:24

It is a huge mistake to think we have learnt all there is to learn by the year 2011.

I don't know a single scientist who thinks we have -- its the ID folk who try to pretend that.

I may have misunderstood what you were trying to say -'popular opinion' can be poles apart from 'largely peer accepted' (without starting another debate, the current example is climate change).

Cocoflower · 22/09/2011 13:32

The ID folk? How do you have this idea?

ID and creationism and quite different.

There are so many different viewpoints on the world . How about the desists- another unique viewpoint.

To me this is just all interesting as I hugely enjoy the "big questions" and if I was only taught one viewpoint it would not be nearly as fascinating. I believe children who are quite philosophical would seek out alternative viewpoints anyway IMO, even if they were protected from this "threat".

Forbidden fruit as they say....

MillyR · 22/09/2011 13:34

It isn't a question of learning styles; it is a question of subjects being taught in sufficient depth by a teacher with appropriate subject knowledge. If it was a question of learning styles, I could insist that French was taught through the medium of carrying out Chemistry experiments because practical investigations suited my son more than reciting verb endings to the pink panther theme tune.

Either the subject of poltergeists is important or it isn't. It simply isn't an adequate response to the subject to say that science demonstrates it is impossible. Science can demonstrate no such thing anyway. Even if it could, it would not change the fact that many people believe in poltergeists and as such they and the supernatural in general is an important aspect of society.

As such, I would argue that RE should be subsumed into Anthropology, so that students have sufficient time and quality of teaching to study all of these psychological and social responses to the world. I don't believe in some aspects of the supernatural, but I think it is such a widespread idea that its significance to human psychology and social interaction that it is worthy of greater study than defining it in terms of plausibility within Science lessons.

I also think Science, and children actually carrying out experiments so that they can observe and investigate for themselves is far too important to have any more lesson time taken over by discussion of the supernatural within the lesson. Obviously discussion and explanation of Science has to take up much of the teaching of Science as it is essential, but I don't think any more time should be taken away from the student's own investigations. Students can have debates anywhere, at any point outside of the lesson, but access to Scientific equipment and the necessary supervision is limited.

CurrySpice · 22/09/2011 13:36

Grimma while I like your version, it doesn't offer the opportunity for sniggering which the words "purple headed" do :o

And now I have the fucking thing on my mind Angry

Cocoflower · 22/09/2011 13:42

No Milly that is not what a learning style is- at all.

A classical model would be Howard Gardner's model (1983)

intelligence type

capability and perception

Linguistic

words and language

Logical-Mathematical

logic and numbers

Musical

music, sound, rhythm

Bodily-Kinesthetic

body movement control

Spatial-Visual

images and space

Interpersonal

other people's feelings

Intrapersonal

self-awareness

intelligence type

capability and perception

Naturalist

natural environment

Spiritual/Existential

religion and 'ultimate issues'

Moral

ethics, humanity, value of life

learning style

description

Visual

seeing and reading

Auditory

listening and speaking

Kinesthetic

touching and doing

This is one of many models. A teacher would need to be aware not every child learns the same way and it is duty to plan lessons aptly.

kat2504 · 22/09/2011 13:44

Yes but that duty involves planning for different learning styles to access the content of the science curriculum.
The science curriculum does not cover mythology. This can be explored in other subject areas, also using a variety of learning styles.

Cocoflower · 22/09/2011 13:47

Good grief so if a child asks "how about what the bible says?" in the lesspm you would deny a chance for discussion. How very sad and shameful

DepartmentForEducation · 22/09/2011 13:48

Enjoying this discussion but thought I'd put our line in.

No school, free or otherwise, will ever be allowed to teach creationism instead of valid and thoroughly evidenced scientific theories. The Education Secretary has been crystal clear that teaching creationism as scientific fact is wrong. He will not accept any academy or free school proposal which plans to teach creationism in the science curriculum.

Academies and free schools must have a broad and balanced curriculum ? Ofsted takes a strict line with inspecting this. All free school proposals are subject to due diligence checks by the new specialist unit within the Department for Education to ensure that people that are setting up the school are suitable.

Cocoflower · 22/09/2011 13:50

No is discussing "teaching creationism as scientific fact ".

kat2504 · 22/09/2011 13:54

No I wouldn't deny any chance for discussion but if I were a science teacher I would discuss it and say that it was an early myth that people used to explain the origins of the world before they had made the scientific discoveries that have been made today. I would also say that in future, new discoveries may be made that explain even further what we know today. I would possibly also say that even most Christians do not believe that it is a fact either, but of course there are some who still believe in it. I don't see what is so shameful about that.
The story of Genesis is also only one of thousands of similar myths.

onagar · 22/09/2011 13:56

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

They try this every time and every time I or someone explains that we want to teach about religion "this is what some people believe" but we will teach them that gravity is the reason things fall and not that god's hand guides them down.

I figure all the posters we know well have read this before so claiming we want to keep them ignorant of the existence of religion is a dishonest tactic to try and further their cause.

Swipe left for the next trending thread