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

DfE - good; when you say 'creationism', are you including the different but equally unscientific agenda of ID?

On the other side of the curriculum, will free schools be required to offer broad and balanced RE syllabus (I may be wrong but I thought faith schools already can opt out of the SACRE, which is not good)

So kat you would only say what I am advocating (though I think I would be far more respectful in how I said it)

To simply be hush-hush about any alternative "threat" (viewpoint) is ridiculous.

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

"I figure all the posters we know well have read this before ". Im sorry- but what on earth are you on about?

I don't see where I was being disrespectful. What I said was fact.

Should the science lessons then involve debating creation myths from all other cultures too in the interests of equality? Or perhaps they could have a quick discussion when and if a child asks and then get back on with learning some actual science instead of debating ancient literature?

what the other viewpoints are

The phrase "other viewpoints" makes no sense because science as taught in schools is not a viewpoint.

You can't have a personal opinion on whether it's gravity that makes things fall or baby jesus's hand.

Some of us like to fully informed, well educated to all viewpoints, open-minded, debate science, philosophy, reilgion and are fascinated by our world .

I guess the other half live in fear of anything not approved by the scientists.

Cocoflower, Just what I said. What part didn't you understand?

No, I don't actually and am also interested in philosophy and history of knowledge etc. But I know the difference between a viewpoint and a scientific theory. it is important that children understand the difference between scientific theories and religious viewpoints. Of course, with an open mind, they may choose to believe in Creationism, but they should do so knowing it is a leap of faith and not based on scientific knowledge.
There are of course all sorts of interesting links between different subjects. I'm not saying teachers should ignore them. But I don't think Creationism has any more place in science lessons than Aboriginal dream time stories.

What is "just what you said"?

Cocoflower, What should driving schools teach customers to do to stop at junctions? should it be up to the individual's viewpoint to teach them to use brakes or prayer?.

Btw I am fascinated by our world and it's rather bigger than that of the creationists. Their world is only a few thousand years old and revolves round them. We get to have a whole (probably infinite) universe.

I was referring to Onagar Kat (I think we are sort of meeting in the middle, abliet from different directions but both agreeing that no child should be left ignorant) who seems to live in some deep fear of anything religious

Sorry coco I am more leaning towards the side of Onagar. If I had my way religion would not be taught in schools at all. My point of view is that teachers can explain that Creationism is in fact not a scientific theory. They can do so with sensitivity and respect to people who are religious and explain that it is a myth which is part of that culture. But not ever ever put a story on an equal pedestal as an actual scientific theory based on evidence.
Creationism does not deserve any actual scientific consideration. As it is a story, not science.

Did you not get taught religion at school then Kat?

Cocflower, I have to admit I don't understand your argument either.

Are you arguing that creationism is such a trivial idea that you don't think it is worthy of being taught by people who have studied it in detail and have opted to teach that subject area, and instead should be discussed in a Science class, despite it having nothing to do with Science?

Or are you arguing that it is so important that it should be part of all areas of the curriculum - Maths, Music, German and so on?

I also don't see what your list of learning styles has got to do with teaching one discipline within another one. We don't suddenly start teaching idioms in Animal Farm in a Maths lesson.

To get back to the topic of the OP, I'm not convinced that DA is right. I think the amount of time spent on evolution in the primary school curriculum is adequate. I don't think there is a need to increase the time spent on it.

Milly everything you have said is so far from what I have written and mean I don't know what else I can get through now. And no that is NOT a learning style example... at all... the Garder Model is so easy to understand as well

As RE is compulsory, yes I did get taught about different religions at school. We learnt the general gist of what people of different religions believe and what their customs and festivals are and considered various ethical/social issues from different viewpoints to have some understanding about how people of different religions approach various decisions in life. All about tolerance and general knowledge and comparing different religions. Not a hint of encouraging us to follow any specific religion, or promoting the beliefs of one religion as superior to any other.

Cocoflower, you have argued that creationism should be discussed in Science lessons because teachers need to incorporate different learning styles. I am using teaching idioms in Animal Farm in a Maths lesson as an analogy.

If am misunderstanding you, can you please explain what learning styles have got to do with teaching contemporary creationism in Science lessons.

Ok I will have one last go;
"Are you arguing that creationism is such a trivial idea that you don't think it is worthy of being taught by people who have studied it in detail and have opted to teach that subject area, and instead should be discussed in a Science class, despite it having nothing to do with Science?"

No its not trivial its part of our history and it is part of science as it formed our first basic understanding of the world on the basis the assumption is the world was not always just so but started and evolved (of course a creationist would say "God did it 7 days" etc). Yes it should be part of science lesson as a simple sidenote. It is not a hugely complex thing to understand either. It is simply giving a nod to our first understandings. Why deny children the knowledge we have? Why decrease their knowledge? Why feel threatened by this?

If one was in a Maths lesson and maybe a child wanted to raise the subject of say how rap music was "born" what would be so wrong in looking into the histroy of music to explain this? Or should we say "history has no place in this music lesson" and crush this childs enquiring mind?

If coco understood a bit more about learning styles she would perhaps understand that a science teacher can incorporate lots of different approaches to what they are supposed to be teaching in their lessons without having to go off onto a different topic altogether.

DD (5) told us yesterday that her classroom teacher had explained that god had made the earth and people. This is not a church school. We are quite upset about it actually it seems to us that she is essentially being taught creationism. Really don't want to antagonise the teacher or be unsupportive to the school but we will be going in to try to understand what is going on with this. Was surprised how upset i felt.

cocoflower I missed this one before.

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

If the science teacher was just explaining how gravity works I hope that child would be told to pay attention and stop trying to disrupt the class.

Even more so if it was in French class or math.

Fair enough if it is just a simple sidenote, e.g. 'there are lots of different creation myths, for example ...', and then going on to scientific evidence etc.

But it should never be taught as an alternative viewpoint (or theory) to evolution in a science lesson.

I am not religious (in the sense of following a particular religion), but find learning about different religions fascinating. I like the suggestion somebody made on this thread of including religion in lessons in anthropology.

I think we are all in agreement about creationism then. It should be taught as a side note in the history of Science, as it currently is, which means that contemporary creationism would not be taught in Science

I do think the history of rap music has no place in a Maths lesson. If you meant to type Music lesson, then of course the history of music is taught as a matter of course in music lessons.

How rude Kat- very uncalled for and nasty. Well says more about you than me

I understand very well about learning styles so rubbish

For a start it is not a different topic at all- is this not obvious?

No, it isn't obvious.
One is science based on evidence.
The other is mythology. Not based on evidence.

Science is all about analysing evidence. Religion is about taking a leap of faith regardless of evidence.