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

Ignorance is overcome by introducing religious belief in Science?

[ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ]

You so funny, me laugh a lot]

So if you believe no child should be left ignorant, where do you draw the line? How many religions, views, creation myths are you going to teach about? If you want to argue that creationism should be given prominence because of the (historical) importance of christianity in this country, then fair enough: teach about it in RE. But not in science! Unless it is, as already mentioned, as a brief side note.

Fine

Don't teach your children about anything non-scientific

At least my children will not be ignorant to anything

Not really my problem though is it

And btw, in my experience children certainly are not left in ignorance about creation as told in the bible. My 5 year old has been telling me all about it recently as they 'covered' it in RE in primary school - no mention of any alternative viewpoints, by the way!

Teach children in RE....it's in the curriculum.

Should be teach newton's law in RE too?

I already said as a sidenote TheVermiciousKnid

Quite a few posts back....

Nobody has said that children shouldn't learn about religions or 'non-scientific' stuff! Just that it shouldn't be presented as an alternative to scientific theories.

^I already said as a sidenote TheVermiciousKnid

Quite a few posts back....^

So what are you actually arguing for now?

We already teach children about lots of non-scientific things.
I am a French teacher in fact. French is hardly science.
Children learn about literature in school, also not science.
They have RE lessons too.
I have NO objection to learning about things which are not science and even things which are not factual. But mixing Creation or other similar "viewpoints" in with science lessons unfairly elevates those "viewpoints" to a status that is not deserved.
Children should learn about lots of non scientific things. But they don't need to do it in science lessons.

Children aren't left ignorant. They cover creation myths in RE.

Oh and for those who don't understand how scienctific theories get disproven

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

Because I beleive no child should be left ignorant - I believe in arming children with all the viewpoints and letting them have a debate or at least being aware

Sure, but if you then include Creationism you have to include all the other creation myths from Hindu to Shinto.

Im arguing for nothing. Im just being pointlessly attacked with people either reading into things I never said or making absolute bullshit up about what I said

I'm not wrong.

There is no evidence. All human beings learn in the same way. I recently read an article in The Psychologist about it. Neuropsychological researchers can find no evidence for it. It is not based in scientific fact.

This is exactly the reason why teaching children to look at the evidence for a theory and the critically evaluate it. How do we know what we know? The only way is through testable empirical truths - otherwise we uncritically embrace ideas about 'learning styles' or about 'creation' without asking - how do we know this? What evidence is there for this?

....and none of them should be put in a science course.

One article hardly disproves much. Honestly there are hundreds of books on this subject alone

VAK is a theory you can easily see in action and Im sure apply to yourself and your own dc's;

visual

auditory

kinesthetic/physical/tactile

www.businessballs.com/howardgardnermultipleintelligences.htm

Is a good starting point

Cocoflower, No one here is surprised that theories get disproven - I think we explained it to you. Was there a point you wanted to make about it?

Isn't it curious that when many people talk about teaching creationism as "the other side of the argument" to evolution they tend to be talking only about the Abrahamic story.

Surely if we're going to do that we should also teach other creation stories such as those from the Hindu religion and Paganism, native american and australian aboriginal, Ancient Greek and Scientology. Isn't it odd that no-one seems to be calling for that?

Of course, after all that there'll be precious little time left for teaching, y'know, science. So maybe all the religious stuff could be confined to particular lessons that concentrate on educating our children about religions. We could even call it "Religious Education".

Snorbs

Onagar who is "we"? You have a very, very worrying habit of this with this "we" thing. You thought only people who thought of theories disproved them. You think just because a theory is correct in your lifetime it will never change.

Im sorry but you have very, very little understanding Hopefully the link helps you

There are hundreds of books and it is an ever expanding field - it is now feeding into business etc.. there is alot invested in 'learning styles.' It offers an easy approach to complex problems.

But there is no evidence for it. And frankly the idea you can fix someone into a category and say 'this is the way they learn' is ridiculous. This is research into the application of 'learning style' tools, I couldn't find the neuropsychological critique.

www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archive/archive_home.cfm/volumeID_18-editionID_124-ArticleID_887.

.And this is precisely why children should be taught to challenge what they are told (and teachers too)

Cocoflower. Creationism is not a theory.

There's an idea Snorbs.
Though it would be good if RE could be broadened so that it became better at discussing alternative viewpoints. My DD struggles with it at the moment because she feels constrained from expressing her true views on religion for fear of appearing intolerant - you seeem to have to be nice about it; when writing about 'creation' she got some frankly dismissive and shallow comments for her rationalist views. .

You thought only people who thought of theories disproved them. You think just because a theory is correct in your lifetime it will never change.

Cocoflower, Onagar did not say that only people who thought of theories disprove them. She said, and I quote, 'The person disproving it is often the person who came up with it.' often, not only (In any case, people don't just 'think' of a theory, they build up evidence to support it etc.)

She also did not say that a theory is correct just because it doesn't change in our lifetime.