How would the teaching of creationism measure up to the "Scientific Enquiry" criteria of the curriculum when the whole principle is based on an unquestioning belief system requiring no proof other than one text book?

You really have quite a low opinion of children considering your profession. Or maybe you have a low opinion of yourself and your fellow teachers?

Both my kids knew about evolution when they were that age. It wasn't even difficult to explain. You only need the general principle and then fill in the details later - rather like the way the rest of the Science curriculum works in fact.

It wouldn't.

I have no idea where the assumption has come from that I want creationism taught in schools? I don't. But being a teacher and knowing how science is built layer upon layer throughout the Key Stages (and step by step within those layers), I would find it interesting to see just how the scientists in the article propose to teach evolution given the myriad subjects that IMO are more important to reinforce at that stage in a child's learning.

No. I think you have taken yourself off on your own little trip down ignorance lane. You need to reset the SatNav in order to find your way back to what I actually said.


Oh yes, now why didn't I think of that!

In one RE class I introduced Year 1 children to Judaism. It was all very informative, interactive and enjoyable. It didn't touch on creation at all. The next morning I heard an argument taking place in the line of my children as they waited to come into class. I brought everybody into class early and asked each protagonist to tell me what the argument was about. Three children were upsetting each other: one said his Dad said everybody came from apes (so easy to explain!), one girl was crying because her Dad said everybody was made by God and a third child, another boy, was arguing that nobody knew where we came from and so why does it matter? I instigated a citizenship moment and put the first lesson on hold until we had discussed the fallout from a lesson that didn't actually mention creation at all but had obviously had an impact and initiated questions at home, as good lessons often do.

So yes, enabling children of primary school age to learn about evolution is a doddle, not only because it is an entirely neutral subject (obviously) but also because structurally it is dead easy to slip yet another scientific subject into an already packed curriculum, one which really doesn't need to be explored until later in a child's education when they have far more imminent basics secured.

You are wrong again. 26 bishops and a rabbi sit in the House of Lords. Then there's the fact that religious groups are always consulted on things like gay marriage, abortion etc. Then there's the education issue we're discussing here. Quite an influence for such a small minority.



Comprehension not your strong point, is it? Secularists are not 'threatened' by religious belief, they merely feel (quite strongly) that the church and the state should be entirely separate. How hard is that to understand?



The paragraph isn't confused, you are. I stated a belief that faith-based education (not selection) doesn't improve academic achievement. The ability to select which pupils attend your school can quite easily have an effect on academic achievement.



No, that 'fact' does not remain. Faith based schools do, in some (many, even) instances achieve better results than non faith based ones. This is not because of the religious flavour of their education, but because they can choose which pupils attend.



My understanding is that academies are allowed far more latitude than other schools - see Mintball's example where a Jewish academy devotes half of its time to religious studies. And, indeed, the example I linked to earlier.



That has been covered by other posters.



But why should it be the case that teachers applying for a job have to have sympathy with a cult based on mumbo jumbo and fairytales? If the church becomes as big a provider as it hopes to, opportunities will become much more limited for those who don't have sympathy with such nonsense.



People shouldn't have to 'opt out'. The state - including its educational institutions - should be entirely separate from any religion.



As I mentioned in another post, a lot of people simply tick 'Christian' because that's what they think they should put.

I can't be bothered to define the word 'influence'. If you want to continue believing it means the same as 'being present' then so be it! Clearly, on the point about gay marriage, abortion etc, they had a huge amount of influence! Or don't we have civil partnerships and the highest abortion rate in Europe?


So does the fact that I cited actually remain or not?


Tomato, tomayto. To you it's a cult or a fairytale, to a massive number of people worldwide it is a valid belief system. In the education sector, diversity is a key word and schools are big on teaching children to respect people of all beliefs and none. It is impossible to do that without introducing them to that which they are being taught to respect.


You think? You don't know what will happen. You are speaking from fear of the unknown.


There is a case for and against separation. It is interesting that the country used as an example in this thread of separation is also the country used as an example of extremist movements. Maybe keeping a link between religious institutions and educational institutions enables greater tolerance and a lower tendency towards extremism?


And a lot of people tick Christian because that is what they consider themselves to be, regardless of whether they go to church on even an irregular basis if at all.


Read up about Scientology and then have a think.


Why not? If the parents are happy for them to be so taught then what is the problem?


And in most non-faith schools that is pretty much what happens, although religious practices are also taught as they are part and parcel of learning about any religion. All religions have their doctrine and their practices.


When did I say religious people were in the majority? I haven't said such a thing. I have spoken about people self-identifying but that does not equate to them being religious. 70% may indeed have some kind of belief in a higher being or a general purpose and, perhaps because they live in this country, they identify that with the Christian God and so self-identify with Christianity. Or they may believe they believe. There will be many versions on the theme.


So you are saying that the religious shouldn't fund their own schools? I thought you were advocating that? Rather than the general taxpayer?

You take a risk, though, in saying the general taxpayer shouldn't fund minorities. After all, pregnant unworking teenagers are in the minority but my taxes help fund their houses and clothes for their children. Young people wanting to obtain a degree are in the minority but my taxes help to fund their courses. And so on and so on.

Each of one those bishops (and the rabbi) gets to vote on any laws that are passing through the House of Lords. That is far more than just 'being present'. They are having a direct influence on laws enacted in our parliament. That we have allowed civil partnerships doesn't mean that the church weren't consulted - in fact, the reason they are 'civil partnerships' and not 'marriages' is probably entirely due to the church's influence. The point is, however, that they shouldn't even be consulted.



No, it does not. Taking part of a quote to try and make yourself look clever achieves the opposite.



No, it's not. There is not one shred of evidence to support the existence of God, and the Bible, even if every word of it was true, is littered with atrocities - most of which were perpetrated or sanctioned by God. For example, the Bible tells usIf a woman is raped, they must marry their rapist and never be divorced.

It is ok to slaughter all the men and children in a particular town, then rape all the women - as long as God told you to do it.

Offering up your virgin daughters to a mob in order to prevent them engaging in homosexual acts is a righteous thing to do.

Looking over your shoulder after being told not to by God is a crime punishable by death.[/i

Valid beliefs, indeed. And that's just a few off the top of my head.

In any other area, we don't teach anything that isn't backed up by some sort of evidence. Religion should be no different.



As I said, I've no objection to a cultural/historical RE lesson. It's when the whole ethos of a school is build on a specific religion, or when the lines between religion and science are blurred that I have a problem.



No. The Archbishop of Canterbury himself has stated that he would like the CoE to become the biggest provider of education in this country and, if the proposed changes are adopted, this could easily become a reality. You'd then have the situation where the majority of schools are church controlled and teachers with the intelligence not to believe in fairy stories would be in quite a difficult position.



I'd love to hear a good case against separation.



And maybe not. I don't know which country you're talking about here, but indoctrinating children in schools is hardly likely to foster tolerance of other religions.



Not many, I'd suggest. There's been an example in this thread, where a poster said they were CofE 'on paper'. This is the prevailing attitude.



I've read up on Scientology, and it's no more dangerous to children than any other cult, including Christianity. This is the problem with the religious

And who has decided that 'parents' are happy for their child to be taught in this way. I'm not, and I know a lot of other parents who feel similarly. If they are being taught about a variety of religious beliefs later in life when they have the grounding in science to know, for example, that virgins don't really give birth, then fine. But teaching young children about religion - particularly in schools where their own faith is given unequal weight - is indoctrination.



That's in non-faith schools. But if the church becomes the biggest provider, the majority of schools will adopt a different practice.



The actual figure is 50% who identify themselves as belonging to a particular religion. Of this 50%, around 56% don't ever attend church. 3.6% overall say they go at least once a month, but the church's own attendance figures show that this may actually be a lot lower.



Yes, that was a typo. I'm not a fan of any religious indoctrination, and, in an ideal world, there would be no faith schools whatsoever as far as I'm concerned. That's never likely to happen, however, but I do think that there should be no state funding at all for religious education. If they want to indoctrinate - let them pay for it.



I'm not saying that the taxpyer 'shouldn't fund minorities'. What I'm saying is that the taxpayer shouldn't be funding educational establishments that promote a minority view. It's really quite simple.

You should have explained that to Tony Blair. The cross-faith committee that he set up to discuss greater involvement in society (particularly in terms of service provision) of religious groups, and which was chaired by Fiona Mactaggart, was presumably discussing contingency plans in the event of invasion by UFO.

And obviously he and Dubya didn't pray when they were meetings about going to war.

Then we could mention the fragrant Ruth Kelly whose personal religious beliefs never, ever got in the way of what she'd been elected to do.

We could cite the reports of doctors and even pharmacists refusing certain treatments and medication on the basis of their personal faith – but these are obviously fantasies.

And this is without mentioning the House of Lords and the continued presence of religious leaders in there, for no reason other than their being religious leaders.

We could mention such things as the Emmanuel Schools, owned by Sir Peter Vardy, where they have been accused of teaching creationism in biology lessons. But you've already shown that you refuse to acknowledge such things, simply metaphorically sticking your fingers in your ears and continuing with your mantra of what the curriculum states, which has never been in dispute.

rlTeachers plan to use creationist materialsrl, including a head of chemistry – who presumably was only intending to use the materials in the non-science lessons he taught. rlMorerl.



I suggest that you either do some research to find out what secularism actually means – or stop being downright disingenuous.



This has been explained. Quite clearly.



I don't – and have not said it was.



Bleedin' hell. Go back and read what I wrote – not what you want to think I wrote. You will see that I in no way suggested that evangelism was new. What I did was to describe – very briefly – the rising influence of US-style evangelism in the UK since the 1950s.

Did you really not manage to understand that? Did you really not understand that that is not the same as suggesting that evangelism per se is something new?



Actually, taking things at face value, since Paul told the early Christians to go out and spread the word, evangelism has been around for a very great deal lot longer than since "the [iBible[/i had been translated into English". If it hadn't been for evangelism in the first place there'd have been no Christian church at all. So your own understanding of history – after telling me to read some – is really rather poor.



Being a teacher, one might expect that you'd at least be able to read and understand simple arguments, You obviously can't, as indicated above and by other posters elsewhere.

Or maybe you need to express yourself more clearly. Another worrying trait in an educator.

I'm sure that teaching young, impressionable children that, by incantation of a few spells, their 'priests' can literally turn bread and wine into the actual flesh and the actual blood of a man who was executed thousands of years ago; and that once they are old enough to deserve it, they too can literally get to eat the body of and drink the blood of their saviour, every day if they like but compulsorily once a week, can only make them rounded citizens. It is not nutty at all, because it is a central tenet of "faith". Thus demonstrationg that the bigger the lie, the more will believe it.

Considering that you think that a lottery is discriminatory, I hope that you don't teach English or anything that involves logic.

Oh, hang on, you have a faith, right?
Forget the logic bit, you wouldn't understand.

Which, of course, raises the question of why faith itself seems to be considered so highly in our society.

Particularly when you consider how selective that faith usually is.

"The Bible is the word of God and God is infallible."

[i"So you believe there are circumstances when genocide is acceptable, or that a rape victim should have to marry her attacker?"[/i

"Well, no, it shouldn't be interpreted [iliterally[/i - it's merely a [imessage[/i."

[i"Ok, leaving aside the question of quite what message your infallible God was trying to convey in Deuteronomy 22

"Well, of course we believe [ithat[/i."

[i"So, although the Bible is the word of God - who is in fallible - you only believe the parts of it that you have decided are word believing? You know better than your infallible God?"[/i

"Er..."

Just out of interest, how is it decided which faiths can run a school?
For example, I seem to remember that Scientology (another word for science fiction) was designated as a cult rather than a recognised religion ... I think that was for some charity status application but could be mis-remembering.
Who decides? ... and how?