Evolution to be compulsory subject in UK primary schools

[AvalonXQ]

I would be very upset if a teacher tried to start teaching common ancestry to my kid at that age.

 

[dasmiller]

I certainly applaud it as a step in the right direction, though I'm a little troubled by the wording. "Darwin’s theory of how life evolved through natural selection" does make it sound a bit like it started & ended with Darwin, when in fact there has been an overwhelming volume of corroborating evidence since then, and Darwin's theories have been refined and elaborated (e.g. the role of DNA).

It would bother me a lot if someone could simply teach it as "Here's a theory about species that Darwin propounded in the 1800s," but that sounds consistent with "officials said the theory of evolution could be taught in a context that reflected a school’s ethos."

 

[doethcaru]

Brilliant work. I wish there were more teachers like you. And welcome to the forum.

Dave

Thanks for the kind welcome.

 

[doethcaru]

I would be very upset if a teacher tried to start teaching common ancestry to my kid at that age.

Hello Avalon. I am intrigued about what exactly would upset you and why. I wonder if you wouldn't mind elaborating.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Hello Avalon. I am intrigued about what exactly would upset you and why. I wonder if you wouldn't mind elaborating.

I'm a creationist. I don't believe in common ancestry. I don't want the school teaching it until the kids are older.
ETA: Further explanation. The more controversial a topic, the more I think teachers should leave it to parents when the kids are still in the "memorize-and-regurgitate" stage of schooling. The school should wait and address controversial topics when the kids are old enough to tackle those topics critically.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

I'm a creationist. I don't believe in common ancestry. I don't want the school teaching it until the kids are older.
ETA: Further explanation. The more controversial a topic, the more I think teachers should leave it to parents when the kids are still in the "memorize-and-regurgitate" stage of schooling. The school should wait and address controversial topics when the kids are old enough to tackle those topics critically.

At what age are you teaching creationism?

 

[AvalonXQ]

At what age are you teaching creationism?

Creation as an aspect of history from the Bible -- from a very young age.
Special creation as a scientific theory -- probably the same age or a little older than the earliest I would want the school to tackle origins science.
ETA: But, to address the point I think you're leading toward: I firmly believe that parents get a crack at teaching contraversial issues far before the school system should.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

Creation as an aspect of history from the Bible -- from a very young age.
Special creation as a scientific theory -- probably the same age or a little older than the earliest I would want the school to tackle origins science.
ETA: But, to address the point I think you're leading toward: I firmly believe that parents get a crack at teaching contraversial issues far before the school system should.

Yeah , get your teaching indoctrination in first,
Before your kids can " tackle the subject critically".

How predictable.


-

 

[athon]

Some basic principles underlying evolution would be useful in primary school, such as diversity, adaptation, some basics of reproduction etc. But 'evolution' is a pretty big topic, and heavy going for most kids under 14.

A more serious concern for me is the limited science literacy of the average British primary school teacher. I'm not confident most teachers could do the topic justice, to be blunt. It would allow a lot of room for mistakes...which doesn't bode well preparing kids to deal with the misinformation anti-evolutionists like to spread.

Athon

 

[quadraginta]

Thanks for inviting me to make a contribution Ethan. I'm the teacher who put on a Darwin week earlier this year for 9 to 11 year olds. There were many activities, including watching short videos by David Attenborough and Richard Dawkins, investigating a "tree of life" and creating a timeline of life on Earth. But we also included the biggy - evolution through natural selection. I taught this by devising a number of predator and prey games such as the following.

The class were divided into prey and predators. Each animal was "grown" by following a set of instructions (analogous to DNA). The instructions included how they could or could not move, how they could use their limbs, whether they could see etc... The prey had velcro tags attached to belts and the predators had to "eat" them by tearing off the tags.

Some predators were successful and "survived" others did not catch a tag and "died." Similarly some prey "survived" and some did not.
Those who survived after the first round had offspring - except not all offspring were the same - there were mutations (new instructions). Some mutations would be adaptive (remove the blindfold) Others were detrimental to survival (limbs with a more limited movement). We would then play another round and so on. By the end of the game, we had a range of different predators and prey. Evolution before their very eyes!

Incidentally, I am delighted that evolution is to be taught in all schools. It is easily one of the most important ideas in biology, and the one with probably the greatest explanatory force. It is the idea that brings sense to the rest of biology.

Welcome, doethcaru. Thank you for joining in.

That lesson sounds ... absolutely brilliant. I hope that it is shared widely with other teachers.

There are many discussions here where your contributions would be very helpful. I hope to see more of your comments in the future.

 

[doethcaru]

I'm a creationist. I don't believe in common ancestry. I don't want the school teaching it until the kids are older.
ETA: Further explanation. The more controversial a topic, the more I think teachers should leave it to parents when the kids are still in the "memorize-and-regurgitate" stage of schooling. The school should wait and address controversial topics when the kids are old enough to tackle those topics critically.

Thank you for taking the trouble to explain Avalon. I agree with you that schools should teach only what is known to be true. Where there are controversies over what is and is not true, schools must be very careful. This is why schools must not come down on the side of any particular religion. They must teach about religion, and not that specific religious claims are true. Schools must teach that Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God, and that Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet and so on... They must NOT teach that Jesus IS the son of God, NOR that he WAS just a prophet.

However, it is also important that we do not fail to teach what has been established by science and is known to be true by any reasonable person, and has a mountain of evidence to back it up, simply because there are groups of people who still refuse to accept it. This is to take the notion of a controversy too far. We cannot simply rule out matters of fact as 'controversial' merely because some crackpot somewhere, continues to persist in a deluded, ignorant or bloody-minded rejection of them.

Evolution by natural selection and common ancestry are now so well established by the evidence that we are obliged to accord them factual status, and obliged to teach them as such.

 

[gtc]

I attended an independent but Roman Catholic school and we learnt about evolution before the age of 12.

Mostly it was about dinosaurs and our ape like ancestors. I seem to remember Achaeopteryx was shown as an example of a dinosaur evolving into a bird.

Our local museum had some excellent dinosaur exhibits.

 

[Vic Vega]

I'm a creationist. I don't believe in common ancestry.

Your irrational beliefs are your business and you are entitled to pass them on to your children. You should not, however, be able to negatively affect my children's education.

If you don't want your children to be properly educated in science you should send them to a Christian school.

 

[Lothian]

I'm a creationist. I don't believe in common ancestry. I don't want the school teaching it until the kids are older.
ETA: Further explanation. The more controversial a topic, the more I think teachers should leave it to parents when the kids are still in the "memorize-and-regurgitate" stage of schooling. The school should wait and address controversial topics when the kids are old enough to tackle those topics critically.

I know exactly how you feel. I am a wife beater. The government has just announced that every school pupil in England is to be taught that domestic violence is unacceptable. I think they should leave that to the parents and schools shouldn’t teach the controversy.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Creation as an aspect of history from the Bible -- from a very young age.
Special creation as a scientific theory -- probably the same age or a little older than the earliest I would want the school to tackle origins science.

I can only see one flaw in your otherwise brilliant scheme ---

Edited by Locknar: 

Breach of Rule 12 removed.

Remember, it is attack the argument and not the arguer.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[AvalonXQ]

Yeah , get your teaching indoctrination in first,
Before your kids can " tackle the subject critically".

Yes. Religious indoctrination comes with other core indoctrinations like socialization, language, ethics, discipline, etc.
Science is equally important but has to come after they have the more basic skills down.

doethcaru: Your natural selection game sounds absolutely amazing. I wonder if you would be willing to share the exact details here. I for one would be interested in sharing this teaching tool with teachers I know, and being able to replicate the game.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Thank you for taking the trouble to explain Avalon. I agree with you that schools should teach only what is known to be true. Where there are controversies over what is and is not true, schools must be very careful. This is why schools must not come down on the side of any particular religion. They must teach about religion, and not that specific religious claims are true. Schools must teach that Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God, and that Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet and so on... They must NOT teach that Jesus IS the son of God, NOR that he WAS just a prophet.

However, it is also important that we do not fail to teach what has been established by science and is known to be true by any reasonable person, and has a mountain of evidence to back it up, simply because there are groups of people who still refuse to accept it. This is to take the notion of a controversy too far. We cannot simply rule out matters of fact as 'controversial' merely because some crackpot somewhere, continues to persist in a deluded, ignorant or bloody-minded rejection of them.

Evolution by natural selection and common ancestry are now so well established by the evidence that we are obliged to accord them factual status, and obliged to teach them as such.

I consider this to be an entirely reasonable position. Although I disagree with its application in this particular case, I believe the principle to be totally sound.
This may, honestly, be a situation where the proposed pedagogy is appropriate and the correct recourse for parents who believe as I do is homeschool.

ETA: Since the OP is about a UK policy, is homeschool even an option there?

 

[Darat]

I consider this to be an entirely reasonable position. Although I disagree with its application in this particular case, I believe the principle to be totally sound.
This may, honestly, be a situation where the proposed pedagogy is appropriate and the correct recourse for parents who believe as I do is homeschool.

As long as the people who are home-schooling have the appropriate educational training and follow the national curriculum etc. then I don't think there is anything wrong in principle with home-schooling.

Obviously using anyone trying to use home schooling to prevent a child gaining an appropriate education should be prevented from doing so.

 

[AvalonXQ]

As long as the people who are home-schooling have the appropriate educational training and follow the national curriculum etc. then I don't think there is anything wrong in principle with home-schooling.

Obviously using anyone trying to use home schooling to prevent a child gaining an appropriate education should be prevented from doing so.

You can understand, and pass tests in, material with which you entirely disagree.
Most of us took classic myths, did we not?

 

[ZirconBlue]

Your irrational beliefs are your business and you are entitled to pass them on to your children. You should not, however, be able to negatively affect my children's education.

If you don't want your children to be properly educated in science you should send them to a Christian school.

Or home school them. That's a good way to "protect" your children from "dangerous" ideas.



ETA: I should have refreshed the page before replying. D'oh!