The Da Vinci Code in an RE lesson?

[Martorana]

I only have 13 year old ds's word for this, but he tells me that they have been talking about the Holy Grail in RE and yesterday they watched a bit of the Da Vinci Code and discussed the Blood line of Jesus, the stuff about there being women in the picture and all the rest of it. Apparantly it was discussed in a "some people think" way, rather than in a "this is a load of bollocks" way. Would you be happy with this? I can see how it would make for some interesting discussion, and the "of course it is claptrap" line might come in the next lesson............

I think it is more because Darwin uncovered and revealed life and nature for what it was, rather than of religion. He was a man who revealed the billion pieces of evidence, thus not diminishing it.

Rather like any new plant that has been 'discovered' is given the name of it's finder.

It's getting late and I'm too tired for this really .... I'm going to bed. Sorry. Maybe I'll try again tomorrow.
Goodnight

Like I said, we don't call gravity Newtonism. Darwinism makes it sound like you're a follower of Darwin if you believe his 'theory'. Like Buddhism or something, it makes evolution sound like a lifestyle choice.

Going back to something said some time ago...

every Sunday you consume his flesh and blood

Non-conformist churches (Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc.) generally don't take communion every Sunday. Most Christians do not believe that they are physically consuming Christ's flesh and blood. In the UK it is generally only Catholics and some Anglicans that believe this.

On the more recent direction of the thread, I agree with those who say that Darwinism is a creationist label. It is evolution and it is science. As such it shouldn't be taught in RE in my view. I would, however, expect it to form part of any discussion about creationism (which is a pseudo science) and the creation stories of various religions.

noble - I think people have modified Darwin's theories quite a lot!!

That's no disrespect to him. It'd be quite worrying if we'd made no progress since he was working.

No, I think that is as unacademic as can be.

Like I said, we don't call gravity Newtonism. Darwinism makes it sound like you're a follower of Darwin if you believe his 'theory'. Like Buddhism or something, it makes evolution sound like a lifestyle choice.

I understand the point you're trying to make, but 'Darwinism' appears in the dictionary (look under Darwinian) and is often an accepted term for the 'Theory of Evolution'. 'Newtonism' does not appear in the dictionary and is not an accepted term for 'gravity'.

I suppose, much like 'Hoover' is often used as a description for any vacuum cleaner, and many people call washing-up liquid 'Fairy'.

Charles Darwin (and someone else, actually, whose name escapes me) set the ball rolling in getting people to rethink how the world and nature came to be, and not some "Adam & Eve" (or similar, according to which Faith you belong) -type scenario where flora and fauna just magically appeared.

And I think yes, Evolution probably is a lifestyle choice for some. More believable, anyway (to me).

With regard to the OP, then I personally think that anything introduced to a lesson that gets young minds thinking and debating can only be a good thing.