to think it is rude to persistently refer to God/Allah/etc. as an "imaginary friend"

[AtheneNoctua]

even after asked not to by several posters who have stated they found it offensive.

Iorek let me ask you the same question. What specifically do you see happening in the classroom if many of the kids have creationist backgrounds?
The teacher will need to explain they are wrong, but that would be a normal classroom thing anyway just as if someone thought that 2 + 2 =3

Well, I'm not going to say "no, that's just wrong to a child who believes in creationism. So I suppose in that sense I acknowledge it as a world view - their view at least.

But I don't spend any time discussing it. Not in the lesson. There's no point to it. I stick to the science.

They are often keen to discuss things after the lesson though. It's a tough one really. I think if children want to explore these issues they should be able to, don't you? And with someone who understands the science too. And they deserve a hearing IMO.

If you have one child in the class who believes in creationism I would imagine that it would not make sense to give it any discussion time. But if half the kids are saying it, I would have thought that this is something that would need to be addressed quite carefully in order to make them sufficiently receptive to the lesson. I don't see that this man is saying anything very different to this.

AMIS: so are you saying that what you believe in is something to do with quark and higgs bosuns and things like that? I find that sort of stuff mildly interesting but there is still no evidence pointing in the direction of any It that has any kind of awareness or intelligence, much less superiority. But if you think that there may be some sort of 'personality' there why label it according to the Abrahamic mythology? Why not call it Great Cowabunga, or Thor, or Ra, or even just Dark Matter?. Cathpot made a very good point about people who identify with one brand of mytholgoy having to put up with the fact that they are percieved as buying into all the horrible toxic crap that goes along with the nice fluffy bits. Which is why I continually poke and prod the superstitious when they start demanding 'respect' for their delusions. Letting people hold whatever dumbfuck beliefs they want, whether it's that singing to imaginary friends will cure their warts, or the necessity of leaving the bog door open to promote better feng shui, or that the Cheeky Girls are underrated feminist icons, I don't particularly care. But demanding other people not laugh, yawn or disagree ever, in public spaces and debating forums, is a step too far.

Yes FM. In the case of the one Creationist in the class scenario I would think that an after lesson discussion would be particularly valuable.

But I'm not a teacher, so will stop opining on this now. I've no particular interest in defending this man - was just dismayed by the thoroughly misleading headline.

If you get a child discussing anything without prompting that's great. I have this depressing image of a class full of kids flicking bits of paper at each other and thinking "I can't wait til I'm 17 so I can go on the dole"

But where do you stop? Do you explain religions/philosophies that regard the earth as a living organism or a host for a spiritual one?. How about the world view that this reality is in fact an illusion?
Unless we mean just christian world views count then there is enough to fill every lesson in every class until they are 17.

What's wrong with employing a widely educated teacher for RE and leaving it in there. Isn't that what RE is for?

In fact let's rename RE as 'World View Class'

Onager, I would imagine a good teacher responds to the children they happen to have in the class. So obviously you wouldn't start discussing obscure world views that the children have never heard of in a science lesson. What would be the point? But if there is a particular barrier in the minds of the children against what you are trying to teach them, then surely you have to address it.

Iorek, I almost agree with you and I think good teachers probably already do deal with this, but can you imagine how you would write up a guideline on how to do this without making it a rule that every religion must be discussed in every class.

Imagine the teacher has just told the class that "these fossils are 10 million years old" and someone sticks up their hand "Miss! Daddy says the world is 7,000 years old"
What can the teacher say without derailing the whole lesson?

You can explain how the date of 10 000 years has been obtained.

You can't just say "no, you're wrong". It is the quickest way to shut down critical thinking IMO.

Oops - missed off a number of 0s!

Hmm well you were probably going to anyway, but that doesn't seem to be addressing their world view at all. I'm not sure that would satisfy those who want it acknowledged.

What fm said.

I can't imagine how you would even get from this to "every religion must be discussed in every class".

Well, the idea of "not just saying they're wrong" would suit me - an explanation of how scientific method works, and how science reaches a consensus would be a good plan. I was into university (studying science) before I actually understood the fundamentals of scientific method - how come that isn't in secondary school science right up front? (Disclaimer - maybe it is now, I date back a long way).

But as to how science teachers deal with the religious element, I always think to the (I think excellent) example of my school biology teacher. He was in fact a creationist, and didn't believe in evolution at all. But he simply stated at the start of that lesson that he had another view of it, and that anyone who wished to know about that could bring it up in Scripture Union. Then proceeded to teach us the theory of evolution absolutely according to the requirements of the syllabus, and his views did not affect his teaching in he slightest.

I respected him far more as a teacher and a person because of it.

The place for discussion of creationism is an RE classroom, not a science classroom. A short "some people believe otherwise" is enough.

What I was getting at is that while I'm sure teachers deal with this already if you write a rule that each such opinion must be acknowledged then you may get a situation where the teacher can not use his/her judgement, but must discuss any religious opinion expressed in any class.

I also don't believe for a moment that we're talking about responding to "but god made it 7000 years ago" with a mention of carbon dating. If that were the case we wouldn't be discussing this at all since that would be a standard teaching practice.

It seems to me that what some people want is for the response to go like this:

"Well yes many christians do believe that god created the world xx years ago. They have a theory just like scientists have a theory"

"Which is right miss?"

"Well we'll just have to wait and see"

What AMIS said!

I know I said tell them they are wrong earlier, but I wouldn't embarrass a child anyway like that. I just mean don't tell them they are right to be polite.

Onager, when you say:

'It seems to me that what some people want is for the response to go like this...
"Well we'll just have to wait and see" '

Who are these people? Who has suggested this?

I keep getting the feeling that you are arguing against an idea in your head, rather than anyone on this thread or anyone referred to on this thread.

But for the sake of peace, harmony and not spending the rest of this discussion in a rather dull cul de sac: yes, onager, I agree with you. That would not be a good response. And writing a rule that every opinion held by every child in a class must be acknowledged would not be a good thing either. Just in case anyone should suggest either of those things.

Well, the RS spokesman explicitly said that the idea was not to say "They have a theory just like scientists have a theory". In fact it was to explain why is was not a theory like scientific theory.

So I'm not sure what you mean by that, or indeed who the "some people" are, because they are not the people who are quoted in this article.

AMIS - you make a good point re scientific theory. I blame coursework

I can't even blame that - coursework hadn't been invented back when I was at school...

I thinkt he problem is that, while what this guy said was reasonable enough, the headlines and the comments, and the discussion hich it's likely to cause will not be. You very quickly go from "teachers should understand that puils views will vary, and should respond appropriately" to "we have to avoid insulting their views, and therefore have to discuss all possible views eually to be fair". That leads you to the nonsense which gets spouted every now and then that creationism should be taught on n equal basis in science classes.

What on earth is up with my fingers this evening?

I see what you are saying AMIS, but it is thoroughly depressing that nobody can express any kind of view in public without first having to guess what kind of idiocy it will be translated into by a hysterical sensationalist media.

Yes, it must be really depressing to come out with a carefully thought out statement and then see it twisted in the headlines, and people making something completely different out of it.