Should Creationism be taught in schools?

[Strawberry Bivi]

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1957858,00.html

[Damsella]

No it bl**dy shouldn't.

They might as well teach creation myths from the Koran and the Talmud as well :angry:

[Pancake01]

Only as an interesting cultural thing, not as part of any science curriculum. Because it ain't science :no:

[cheeky_biscuit]

Now, I do believe in the theory of evolution, but I would be interested to see exactly what was in the pack - because tere ARE flaws in the darwin theory. However, this shouldn't be taught as a science, maybe in a theology lesson, but no, creationism ISN't science.

[Chocolate Lips]

Now, I do believe in the theory of evolution, but I would be interested to see exactly what was in the pack - because tere ARE flaws in the darwin theory. However, this shouldn't be taught as a science, maybe in a theology lesson, but no, creationism ISN't science.

Agree with C_B.

[One Sock]

As part of RE, yes it should. As part of science, no way and it worried me slightly that it is something that is even being considered or called for.

I also agree that Darwinism should be taught as theory rather than absolute fact, as should a lot of science.

[redhed]

Is that legal? Teaching a religiously-motivated theory with no scientific basis, & passing it off as "science" to kids who know no better? Has Ofstead nothing to say about this? If I found this happening in my child's school there'd be red hot letters to the governors within minutes.

Though, tbh, it's a real struggle for teachers to keep up with current scientific thinking and teach it in school - I know my mum when she was teaching science had subscriptions to Scientific American and New Scientist and (for specific stuff) Nature because textbooks are out of date the moment they are printed and the schools can't afford to replace them very often. So it would be: "ignore what it says on page 154 and copy this down from the blackboard".

None of which is an excuse for teaching the argument from design (my italics, intentionally) as science, but just to say that "the facts" are a moving target and what is generally taught is often a fair bit off target.

[bernardeena]

I don't think evolution should be taught as fact either tbh. That used to irritate me when I was at school. I think it should be scientist believe this, some christians believe this, muslims believe this, it's up to you what you want to believe.

Personally I believe in God, not entirely sure about creation but not happy with lots of aspects of evolution either, so my theory is that however it was done it was flipping impressive and not something I could do

[Chocolate Lips]

Good point Bernadeena. How does the theory of evolution fit in the Christian beliefs? :scratchchin:

[chuckle_monster]

Personally I believe in God, not entirely sure about creation but not happy with lots of aspects of evolution either, so my theory is that however it was done it was flipping impressive and not something I could do

:agree: Sometimes I find being a Christian very confusing :scratchchin: :lol:

[Angie]

No I don't hink it should.

I have no problem with schools discussing alternatives to Darwinism. Science is not infallible and there are constantly new discoveries which contradict or discredit previous scientific beliefs.

But creationism - teaching that the world was created in 7 days by a Christian god, etc - has no place in the class room unless it's Religious Studies.

As far as I'm aware, some schools in america already teach creationism in place of Darwinism, and I'd be pretty peed off they started teaching Bible stories as scientific fact in this country too.

[Sweet7]

I think the whole 'created the world in 7 days' is meant to be taken as symbolic rather than fact, as something written thousands of years ago by someone without the scientific language we have today. But then if God exists, I'm sure it could have created the world in an instant if it wanted to.

Evolution is also still just a theory and should be quite clearly taught as such rather than as fact which is how it is presented these days. We'll never really know quite how the world and everything in it came about and I'm sure the only reason we pursue such knowledge is to prove whether or not God actually exists. I don't have a problem with the theory of creationism and couldn't God have created life using evolution? I accept, along with questions such as where does the universe end, that I will never know the answer, well not in this life anyway. :wink:

[frog]

As far as I remember when teaching this we were supposed to quickly mention creationism but more to avoid upsetting any Christians in the class. It was just a 'some people believe..., but the most widely accepted scientific explanation is Evolution which is...' and then waffle about Evolution for an hour :wink: I did always used to tell them the difference between a theory and theorem though and get a bit of a debate going about the good and bad points of Darwin's work.

I think teaching a religious belief as fact is a very dangerous game to play, and plain wrong.

[Seagull&Snoopy]

Can I answer this as a Head of Science?without the buns

Yes, it should. I am intelligent person and intelligent enough to be able to want to teach my students to challenge, think and debate.

Religion is not taught within science and neither are certain aspects of sex education. We teach facts.

For example at physics GCSE we teach the theory of the big bang, religion does not come into the theory. Students ask questions relating to God and normally I open up to a discussion of what some of the different theories are.... the more you stiffle students and their thoughts and not give them facts -the more we are back in the era of Galileo where you are put to death for saying the Earth goes around the Sun.

Some scientists are christians, some are jewish, some are muslims. All science is theory, experiments can not prove a theory.

So yes I think all theories should be taught, I debate them in class but normally religious education covers these or PSHCE. The more adults rubbish something the more we create a dictactorship and not a democracy.

Buns please............

DUCK!
no it is a seagull
Seagull
x

[chuckle_monster]

Buns please............

DUCK!
no it is a seagull
Seagull
x

Arf Arf :teehee: Incidentally, I totally agree with you :thumb:

[perceval]

Hmmm ... for me, creationism, at least in its more obvious guises, is not even a theory. It's not falsifiable, because if something doesn't quite work out, you can just pull the "God" card. Intelligent Design is the same. Why is it the way it is? Because God says so. For a scientist, that is just deeply unsatisfactory. Science doesn't work like that.

However, from a religious point of view, the Bible stories make some very important points about the relationship between human beings, God and creation. So my answer would be that creationism has a place in the curriculum, but not as an explanation of how the world came to be.

The thing with evolution is that we have a lot of independent evidence from a wide variety of related disciplines. The main theories have been tested and refined time and time again. They make claims that can b e confirmed or falsified by new discoveries, and so far, no discovery has managed to shake the basic tenets. Evolution itself isn't monolithic - there are lots of debates and arguments within the community.

[Damsella]

I think so-called Intelligent Design would be viewed very differently if it was called what it really is - God's Design.

Would you teach "God's Design" in a science class?

[Seagull&Snoopy]

I have to say that as someone who has taught physics for over 10 years - the big bang theory is the only thing in the syllabus for physics that related to this topic (and the prospect for life on other planets), although genetics and evolution are covered in biology.

I have to say, stiffling discussion in class is NOT what I aspire to do. Children need to be able to discuss things in a safe environment with respect.

Interestingly enough for all those wanting to know:
One lad once said to me -" the bible has no science in it, Miss, does it?"

A wonderful discussion followed, in terms of the bible and science, looking at the order of the creation in the bible.

Land, then Light and Water needed for plants, to photosynthesise, plants needs for animals to eat....
If your interested look up the order. It provoked one of the best discussions in my teaching career.

Surely as human beings, we should give our children the opportunity to discuss things that even look "stupid" to us and our own beliefs.

I always try to incorporate as much as possible of the history of science.
The best questions stem from the simple ones. How or why should you just get a child to accept the earth is round? as a fact! Teaching them about how and why ideas have changed is one of the main reason I love my job. As well as discussing evidence for or against ideas.

Science will be totally different in another 100 years and ideas scoffed at today (such as dinosaurs became birds) maybe we will be laughed at in the future by people for us not believing 100% in them,now..........

For me I think the phrase "teach them" ID is actually false. You explain what it is and invite discussiom. Creating childs who are not spoon fed but independent thinkers is one of things I long to do..........

Off my soap box now.........

Seagull
xxxxxx

[cheeky_biscuit]

Surely as human beings, we should give our children the opportunity to discuss things that even look "stupid" to us and our own beliefs.


Science will be totally different in another 100 years and ideas scoffed at today (such as dinosaurs became birds) maybe we will be laughed at in the future by people for us not believing 100% in them,now..........




I think that's a really important point :nod: .
I think it would be wrong to sit down a group of 12yr olds and tell them "God created the world in 7 days,......." but my understanding of the current creationism teachings (?! if that's what it is?!) are that the 7 days has been dismissed, and the symbolism has been widely accepted throughout the church, so I would be very surprised to hear that this is what the pack is teaching. (as in the traditional view of the creation).
I did RE A-level, v. interesting when balanced against my science subjects :yeahright: but the stuff around science and religion was v. interesting.
There is evidence for darwins theory, and tbh I find it difficult to understand how anyone doesn't believe BUT i do find that point of view incredibly interesting - a collegue (a microbiologist for 40+ yrs!) once argued that its just all a little too convinient! i think he was playing devils advocate, but it makes you think doesn't it.

[Honey Dew]

Good point Bernadeena. How does the theory of evolution fit in the Christian beliefs? :scratchchin:

It doesn't. There are a lot of creation science resources around, I'm a Christian, so I beleive in creation. I'm not about to start hurling buns & I'm hoping none will be hurled at me :smile: .

This is a good site, if anyone is the remotest bit interested.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/

[Damsella]

I have to say, stiffling discussion in class is NOT what I aspire to do. Children need to be able to discuss things in a safe environment with respect.

Fine. But then you shouldn't just be discussing the Christian view of creation with them, should you? You should cover all the different religions, if there is to be any decent "discussion" at all. Otherwise you are implying that only the Christian view is important enough to cover.

[chuckle_monster]

I'm guessing that they discussed the Christian view because the child asked about science in the Bible. I'm sure if they asked about science in the Qu'ran then they'd discuss that too.

[Chocolate Lips]

What if it is a Catholic or Church school? Surely the view to be discussed should be the Christian view.

[Seagull&Snoopy]

It was a state school, not religious.
Sadly, we have things called "learning objectives" and a topic of lesson so as much as I love discussion and encourage discussion you need to do it within boundaries and also timetable!
We had a 10 minutes discussion, had we had more time perhaps we could have discussed everything under the sun for every religion, but it wasn't going to happen within one 40 minute lesson :no:. National Curriculum and all that...........

[Damsella]

I understand that not everything can be discused. But did you mention that there are other, equally valid, religious viewpoints of "creation" and that the Christian version is only one of many?

That is the only context in which I would be happy for ID to be discussed - as one of many beliefs/theories. Not the only alternative to Darwinism.

Logically, that is the only stance to take, whatever the faith of the school.

[Seagull&Snoopy]

We did not discuss "Creation" as such, nor religion. The physics NC,as I previously, stated talks about the "creation", only as in teaching the big bang theory, ie. "the theory states that all matter was concentrated into a single point which exploded sending matter outwards" and the scientific evidence for the big bang. i.e. background microwave radiation that you see everytime you turn an untuned tv on.
We focussed on the science, as this was the objective. If a child asks "what caused the big bang?" -the only honest answer is no one knows, but I would emphasise the big bang itself is a theory. To me this is in no way in conflict with science. There are many theories.
In 1858 (the year Charles Darwin published the Evolution of the Species) the Thomas Bell commmitee reported "this year has been a total waste in terms of scientific theory". My point being sometimes we do not recognise the significance of things until afterwards. To accept all is to stagnate.

The NC states that life on other planets needs:
"Suitable atmosphere, suitable pressure, oxygen, water and light" - this was also part of the lesson. As well as discussing SETI. I try to open discussion, i.e. there is a recent discoveries suggest that life forms have been found in vents near underwater volcanoes, that do not need oxygen. It is all about challenging - and igniting debate, science changes and evolves, the theory that all life needs oxygen :yeahright: but this may change.

So the discussion started by the students question about the bible : merely went along the lines of light/water/land and so on ,needed for photosynthesis, etc...we focussed on the science.

The religious aspects are taught in PSHCE or RE, but that is not to say that I would not answer a child's question. I would try to answer it in the best way possible.

Albert Einstein once said "The greatest thing for any person is to ask question, debate and be free to think. If you ask impertinent questions you are on the way to a pertinent answesr. Science is all about imagination - if you have no imgainaton -what is the point in living?"

There ends my point. I am not perfect but I think the two can be separated in terms of religion and science.