[Closed] Primary school children to be taught controversial theory about origins of life

I suspect those Free Schools that have already indicated they will be teaching creationism will be magically excempt from this aspect of the curriculum.

I have no useful contribution to make

I'm happy that children are taught creationism in the context of "some people think that this is how it all happened", because they do, but evolution should be taught in science lessons.

But, yes, lock the in before

Can only see this thread going one way, but like yesterdays Catholic / Rapist / Abortion thread.
FWIW Evolution should be taught in schools and biology is the place to do it.

I suspect those Free Schools that have already indicated they will be teaching creationism will be magically excempt from this aspect of the curriculum.

Yep, looks that way.

More and more schools - especially secondaries - have become academies. These are free to set their own curriculum

From the article:

"For the first time, primary school children will have to taught about evolution."

I think a focus on written English may be more useful... 😉

Oh goody, another creation/evolution bun-fight 😀

I'd be more concerned that children aren't taught a blend of history which conveniently glosses over the negative aspects of Britain's colonial past, than some theory on how Life began on Earth.

I used to work as an evangelist with young people in my twenties for a born again church. I think evolution should be compulsory in every school. Anything else is just make believe as I realised later in life. Secular schooling is the way forward with RE as the place for all faiths to be discussed on an equal footing.

My view remain that there is no place for any RE education in schools as education is about facts and not stating opinions

We may have debate about the causes of WW1 but we dont have debate about whether it is real.

Anything else is just make believe

Yes, of course it is 🙄

😀

evolution should be compulsory in every school

"Right kids, we're going to spend the next hour evolving!"

Secular schooling is the way forward with RE as the place for all faiths to be discussed on an equal footing.

Totally agree. 'Faith' schools shouldn't even be legal; they are retrogressive and socially divisive.

My view remain that there is no place for any RE education in schools as education is about facts and not stating opinions

Totally disagree. This way Totalitarianism lies.

just had a flick through this week's freshly doormatted Speccie over a coffee. First article has this comforting paragraph in it:

By some measures, Britain is the least religious country in the developed world. Some 64 per cent of us do not set foot in any place of worship in a year, according to the British Social Attitudes survey, a higher proportion than anywhere else in the world. Only half of us say that religion is important in our lives, compared with 85 per cent of Americans, 89 per cent of Indians, 97 per cent of Brazilians and 99 per cent of Indonesians.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-week/leading-article/8840321/the-defender-of-faith/

Vive l'athéisme! 🙂

My view remain that there is no place for any RE education in schools as education is about facts and not stating opinions

I agree with the sentiment, but if you stuck to only teaching facts then we'd get a lot of people who weren't able to articulate an opinion and surely we want them to be able to do that.

After all, it wouldn't much of a forum if no one ever had an opinion.

I wouldnt ban RE, but it should be a wider Theology course. Combing philosophy and morality with history of all religions. Teach the subject, not "faith"

"Right kids, we're going to spend the next hour evolving!"

I think the reason so many get involved in the "bunfight" is the paradoxical stance that religion adopts: demanding incontrovertible, infallible proof for science's "theories" whilst accepting its own dogma on the basis of faith alone, in many cases despite empirical evidence to the contrary.

Kettles on and Jaffa Cakes to hand.

I have no useful contribution to make

> "Right kids, we're going to spend the next hour evolving!"

And what part of that sentence is incorrect?

Probably the part that requires impregnating the schoolchildren 😀

I'd be more concerned that children aren't taught a blend of history which conveniently glosses over the negative aspects of Britain's colonial past, than some theory on how Life began on Earth.

Dunno, my (upto) GCSE histroy included:

the usual assortment of battles and dates where one english/scottish/welsh bloke butchered a few other english/scottish/welsh blokes and became king.
Whitch Trials
Slavery
Colonial India
World Wars

It also spent a lot of time dealing with Russia and China's revoutions And the American history from the civil war onwards.

Hardly glossing over the nasty bits? And colonial Britain is by and large no worse than domestic Britain.

Either you don't understand the word "evolving" or you don't understand the word "impregnating"....

Kettles on and Jaffa Cakes to hand

Kettles on - biscuits anyone?

edit: oops biscuits already catered for, Ill bring cake..

http://wtfevolution.tumblr.com/

[i]I'd be more concerned that children aren't taught a blend of history which conveniently glosses over the negative aspects of Britain's colonial past, than some theory on how Life began on Earth. [/i]

Agree, maybe then they'd realise how powerful Britain was at one time - and why we still 'punch above our weight'. Might also be useful to teach how ALL the European powers followed the same strategy, just we were willing to spend more on the Navy than others - and that gave us the edge.

but if you stuck to only teaching facts then we'd get a lot of people who weren't able to articulate an opinion and surely we want them to be able to do that.

Despite all the evidence to the contrary and despite the fact the only evidence I have is a book and the only people who believe it have faith I will teach this as truth is a silly approach to education.
we may as well teach homoeopathy after all folk believe that despite the lack of evidence.

I dont disagree with your general sentiment or what Stoner suggested re teaching "thinking"

Yes we need folk who can think but indoctrinating them to believe creationism is not , in any sense i can see, education.

Either you don't understand the word "evolving" or you don't understand the word "impregnating"....

Feel free to enlighten me - I'm fairly sure that "evolving" in humans involves reproduction.

I think the reason so many get involved in the "bunfight" is the paradoxical stance that religion adopts

we were willing to spend more on the Navy than others

we probably had little choice, being an island 😀

it was either ships, or swimming

Agree, maybe then they'd realise how powerful Britain was at one time - and why we still 'punch above our weight'.

I was thinking more of focussing on the terrible legacy of colonialisation; slavery, the environmental, economic and social damage caused, rather than glorifying jingoistic sabre-rattling, actually.

Just make everyone's life better - close the thread now. Same old, same old. To pick one small sentence out of a larger article can only have had one intention. Is there any point in yet another bash religion thread??

Junkyard - Member
My view remain that there is no place for any RE education in schools as education is about facts and not stating opinions

Lets also drop art, english literature, music on the same argument. Like it or nor, religion plays an important part in global affairs. Failing to teach about (critically, in the true sense of the word) is simple folly and not education.

Ad CaptJ said yesterday, education needs to move beyond facts and include specifically the ability to analyse critically and form opinions.

edit:

Junkyard - Member
you cannot articulate views on things that are simply opinion

...isn't this exactly what source questions in history are designed to do. Understand the who, why, what, where, how etc aspects of others opinions on historical events?>

Oh, no, what have I done. Leave religion threads alone.

YUM!

[img] [/img]

Here we go again *sigh* 🙄

I took a monkey into my nearby primary school the other morning, and when I went to collect it at 3:15 it had become a 6 year old boy fluent in two languages, an aptitude for maths and not too bad at football.

So, evolution in primary schools does work.

He didn't care too much about history though.

Here we go again *sigh*

doh, pub! laters.

Here's an example of why 'Faith' schools should be banned:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/dec/16/jewish-free-school-dsicrmination-ruling

Lets also drop art, english literature, music on the same argument

Even i would teach economics first 😉

Re history the event happened so you can have an opinion on it howver daft that opinion may be

I can claim WW1 started due to an international shortage of wellies and infighting between the back gammon players in the royal houses

Its easily unprovable unlike anything with "faith" and we know there was a WW1 its no the same as you cannot prove a negative and if we adpopt that rule for education we would ,pretty much, teach anything

[i]I was thinking more of focussing on the terrible legacy of colonialisation; slavery, the environmental, economic and social damage caused, rather than glorifying jingoistic sabre-rattling, actually. [/i]

Who said anything about 'glorifying' history?

[i]"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." [/i]

OK - last point before a swim. Completely disagree on points 2 and 3. 😉 One of the best subjects to take at A Level is theology, philosophy and ethics. A lot of reading (Kant for 17 year olds?), analysis and critical thinking. Excellent combination of all three subjects and how they may/may not be related in terms of tackling fundamental questions of life - why are we here? what is good? what happens when we die? medical ethics, the immorality of taxation (little joke there- no Nozick in A levels).

RE is wrapped up in culture - in a global environment kids need to understand the factors that shape different cultures whether we/they agree with them. That's education.

Now where are the trunks....!

I think we all agree art, english literature and music exist and you can have an opinion on it
religion is just the opinion without proof like teaching homeopathy as medicine it makes no sense to do this unless you have faith

Whether you like it or not, faith/religion has played a major part inh shaping world and national history, and still is.

I don't see how you can teach history without including the massive Christian/Muslim/Buddhist/other influences. They're not mutually exclusive from a lot of historical events.

Feel free to enlighten me - I'm fairly sure that "evolving" in humans involves reproduction.

[img] [/img]

I meant evolving spiritually, obviously.

I think we all agree art, english literature and music exist and you can have an opinion on it

So does religion.

Who said anything about 'glorifying' history?

Too often, the focus is on the 'Glorious British Empire', and ignores the real reasons why Brtiain became wealthy. Highlighting things like the introduction of railways to the colonies, and ignoring the effects of colonialisation. How many British schoolchildren are taught about the Bengal Famine, for example?

Why don't we turn this into a little more positive thread;

Religious people you fancy and don't know why.

I'll start off with Aishwarya Rai (Hindu)

[img] http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQFV6k0XQBqOLl1zXJr8bT9cXeOahSNF6JEUxSH1M7GnX5q29T [/img]

Yum.

I would scrap RE altogether and replace it with philosophy. You could cover the teachings of the major religions without the subject being bound by them.

RE is wrapped up in culture - in a global environment kids need to understand the factors that shape different cultures whether we/they agree with them. That's education

you don't need faith to study the method

So does religion.

Nothing in education is comparable to teaching religion as its is just not true - by whihc I mean there is no objective evidence t support it

Can you name another subject we do this with?

Why don't we turn this into a [s]little more positive[/s]yeat another pervvy thread;

Why not just get your own banned thread 😉

I would scrap RE altogether and replace it with philosophy. You could cover the teachings of the major religions without the subject being bound by them.

Religious people you fancy and don't know why.

[img] [/img]

Why would i need to study the method if i have no faith?

Religious people you fancy and don't know why.

Jesus gots good abs eh?
Hanging on that cross must be good for the core! To be seen at your local crossfit gym soon.

wrecker and grahamS are naughty, naughty boys

I thought this thread would get closed, but I was wong on the reason 🙂

it exists in the sense that folk believe in it but many dont

No; it exists in the sense that entire civilisations have been built up around it, and that it has played a part in the political, social and economic organisation of just about everywhere on Earth. Simply ignoring it or refusing to discuss it, is denial of fact.

This exists:

[img] [/img]

So does this:

[img] [/img]

And so does this:

[img] [/img]

Venus, hubba hubba:

[img] [/img]

In my opinion an education system has to provide pupils with a wide range of knowledge and experiences. Of course this is augmented and enhanced by parents, but 30-40 hours a week gives you scope to cover a lot of ground. As religion is important to many people, it seems rather obvious to cover central aspects. In this example, why would you want to be ignorant of one side of the debate? Knowledge is power...

wrecker - Member
Jesus gots good abs eh?
Hanging on that cross must be good for the core! To be seen at your local crossfit gym soon.

[img] [/img]

venus.jpg

[i]beardy on the left appears to be sporting a semi. [/i]

Wouldn't you?

Wouldn't you?

Yeah I'm staying out of this other than to say Jaffa Cakes are not biscuits.

Isn't that the lass from the t-shirt adverts?

I have as big a thing for naked redheads as anyone, but dudes blowing into conches? Loads and loads of naked boys? Dolphins?
Total bonerkill.

Perhaps you're not the target audience?

Why not just get your own banned thread

Like this one was going any other way.......

[i]I have as big a thing for naked redheads as anyone, but dudes blowing into conches? Loads and loads of naked boys? Dolphins?

Total bonerkill. [/i]

Seriously, don't knock it until you've tried it (not the naked boys bit, obviously, I'm not a pervert)

IBTB!

I don't give a monkeys what my daughter will be taught. Rational, calm discussion around the dinner table will counteract the hysterical warblings of any nut jobs. Especially textiles teachers; they're a whole different kettle of fish....

😉

Totally agree. 'Faith' schools shouldn't even be legal; they are retrogressive and socially divisive.

For once I have to say that STW is being a bit highbrow about all this,governments of whatever political persausion are far more pragmatic.
They keep faith schools because they get good results.

to broaden your mind...

No; it exists in the sense that entire civilisations have been built up around it, and that it has played a part in the political, social and economic organisation of just about everywhere on Earth.

Ah so you are arguing we study it in history lessons then or politics - ok no issue with this.

Simply ignoring it or refusing to discuss it, is denial of fact.

I refer you to the fallacy of equivocation here

They keep faith schools because they get good results.

Do they get good results because they are religious, or because they employ good teachers? Many faith schools are independent, and pay higher salaries than state schools, so can attract better teachers. The religion has nothing to do with the quality of education.

Again it is a fact it exists it is not a fact it is a fact[ ie true]
I refer you to the fallacy of equivocation here

I'm going to go away for a while, to try and understand this.

Never said it did.

muppetWrangler nailed it.

I would scrap RE altogether and replace it with philosophy. You could cover the teachings of the major religions without the subject being bound by them.

We've done this to death before but,

There is a difference between teaching Religious Education as a subjective / theory subject and as fact. Teaching [i]about[/i] religion, what different belief systems have thought over the years, maybe a look at what some of the various texts have to say, is no different from other arty subjects. There's arguably a value in discussing what some people think about the Bible in the same way that there's a value in teaching what some people think about Tennyson. At this level, I think RE should be taught in schools, though I fail to see why it should be mandatory come Options time.

Where it becomes a problem for me is when a given religion is presented as fact, and it starts bleeding into other subjects like History and the Sciences. It's not fact, not even if you really really believe it a lot.

There is a difference between teaching Religious Education as a subjective / theory subject and as fact. Teaching about religion, what different belief systems have thought over the years, maybe a look at what some of the various texts have to say, is no different from other arty subjects.

That's how I was taught RE 20 years ago. Has anything changed?

There's arguably a value in discussing what some people think about the Bible in the same way that there's a value in teaching what some people think about Tennyson.

Tennyson having a rather more minimal impact upon the world, I don't see much value in that comparison.

Tennyson having a rather more minimal impact upon the world, I don't see much value in that comparison.

Poor example perhaps. Shakespeare?

Things like "art" and "poetry" have shaped lives, inspired people, provoked thought, brought comfort. They've been influential on our development just has religion has.

"Religious people you fancy and don't know why."

Ok so I resisted earlier I just can't now...

The Fallen Madonna with zee Big Boobies

[img] [/img]

*clutches chest in a dramatic fashion*
*gasps*
Ma dickee ticker!

[i]The Fallen Madonna with zee Big Boobies[/i]

For a full education you'd have to ensure that you also covered the pill in the till, the drug in the jug and the gateaux in the chateau.

[i]Ah waz jost pissing[/i]

[img] http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR4cByVtUlt87nGsUAfyxuwP5-mTQZR4h4JWpFkGu2S9ZT0KZ6N [/img]

art, english literature and music exist

I think schools are broadly supportive of explaining to kids that while they may have to study one book, style of music, method or period of painting, in depth, to get a solid rational understanding, by and large they don't say that this is the best or only way to write / play / create.

The big problem with RE in schools is it starts too early, Jesus is there from you very first primary school assembly, way before kids are ready for evolutionary theory.

I'd automatically pass any kid who wrote "it's all rubbish" on an RE paper - so long as they got good grades in science, and in the interests of fairness - vice versa.

I don't think I learned anything at all in RE, but it provided a useful gap in the school week where you could just forget about learning and do whatever the hell you wanted. I spent it mostly somewhere else.

Venus, hubba hubba:

Nekkid kids = child porn

I'm telling!

😉

back from the pub. We did RE at our CoE school, "our" stuff was taught as fact, "jesus did this, god did that". We also covered a little bit about other religions, "these gullible idiots believed their prophet did this and laughably reckon their deity did that"

ok ok, maybe not quite that derisory but there was a definite thing of ours is the right religion and 100% true.

D0NK: very much my experience too and my school was (supposed to be) secular.