Evolution to be compulsory subject in UK primary schools

[AvalonXQ]

You say that like it's a good thing.

The purpose of the instruction is to keep the kids in the religion.
The result is that more of them stay in the religion.
The instruction does what it is supposed to do.

 

[AvalonXQ]

How indeed. Try thinking a bit harder.

I'll let others deal with your contempt. I'll stick to reasoned discourse, thanks.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

I'll let others deal with your contempt. I'll stick to reasoned discourse, thanks.

It's a bit rich for those who believe in creationism and insist on indocrinating it into their young children to boast about "reasoned " discourse.

 

[AvalonXQ]

It's a bit rich for those who believe in creationism and insist on indocrinating it into their young children to boast about "reasoned " discourse.

Again, the extent of your comments to me seem to be "You believe in creationism, which makes you stupid and ignorant, and you want to teach it to your kids, which is appalling".
Since you're not saying anything of value, and continue to post sarcastic comments subtly attacking my reasoning and intelligence, I conclude that you're not actually interested in saying anything meaningful but just enjoy attacking creationists.
Several others have had meaningful comments to make on the subject. You don't. I'm choosing to Ignore you now.

 

[Lothian]

Since you're not saying anything of value, and continue to post sarcastic comments subtly attacking my reasoning and intelligence, I conclude that you're not actually interested in saying anything meaningful but just enjoy attacking creationists.

I am interested in your intelligent reasoning to support the theory that a magic sky fairy made humans.

 

[Mason]

Again, the extent of your comments to me seem to be "You believe in creationism, which makes you stupid and ignorant, and you want to teach it to your kids, which is appalling".
Since you're not saying anything of value, and continue to post sarcastic comments subtly attacking my reasoning and intelligence, I conclude that you're not actually interested in saying anything meaningful but just enjoy attacking creationists.
Several others have had meaningful comments to make on the subject. You don't. I'm choosing to Ignore you now.

I came to the same conclusion a few posts back, yet kept reading in the hopes that the tone would change and the conversation would return to civil tones.

When one acts like an *******, people end up ingnoring the *******'s message, whether it is a good message or not. Then later, when someone else attempts to deliver the same message that the ******* delivered, people tend to ignore the new messenger as well; not because the new messenger is an *******, but because the last time they heard this message it was coming from some ******* and it soured them to the message entirely.

The purpose of the instruction is to keep the kids in the religion.
The result is that more of them stay in the religion.
The instruction does what it is supposed to do.

The purpose is to keep more of them in the religion, but why is that a good thing? If they believe in a religion not because they have reasoned their way into their position, but because they have been conditioned to remain in the religion, you've essentially handicapped their ability to reason their way out of that position.

As you have said, early instruction and indoctrination will, in part, determine their later abilities to reason and think critically. Later on they can be taught more concrete concepts and determine for themselves whether they believe the consepts valid or not, using the reasoning abilities they have been honing since their toddler years. However, you've chosen religion as the thing you hamper their ability to think reasonably about by indoctrinating them at a very young age.

Obviously, evaluating this position as being good or bad has a degree of subjectivity to it, so why to you feel that indoctrinating them into religion early (with the goal of keeping more of them in the religion through later years) is a good thing, and what benefit does it bring which can only be gained through religion?

 

[lightfire22000]

Have to agree with Darat here. I suppose it depends how evolution is taught and in what sense. For some kids I guess it could be quite fascinating if taught in the right way but seems a bit heavy going for someone of 10.

Seems like a move more towards making primary school education more of a primer for secondary school rather than trying to get interested and exploring things.

It's an issue of relevance, and relevance alone. I think mathematics, reading, writing, and basic scientific instruction is far more valuable than explaining theories until middle school age. In general, if the evidence behind a theory isn't taught, the theory is worthless and kids would be spoon fed Darwinian evolution just like kids in Sunday Schools are spoon fed tales about the morality of beating slaves with rods. They need to understand the evidence behind scientific theories before they're taught the theories.

Even then, an introductory biology class is mostly about learning cell organelles, taxonomy of species, some basic metabolic pathways, some anatomy and physiology, with a couple of chapters on DNA and genetics. Evolution ties into all of them, but really only critically contributes to the course content of DNA/genetics. In a middle school class, I would just teach some rudimentary principles.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Again, the extent of your comments to me seem to be "You believe in creationism, which makes you stupid and ignorant, and you want to teach it to your kids, which is appalling".

My concern is not so much that you believe in creationism, but that you seem (a) to want it taught to children that creationism is a predictive and scientifically useful theory, and (b) to want it not to be taught to children that natural selection is a predictive and scientifically useful theory until they have been indoctrinated into the belief that natural selection is factually incorrect. The former is simply teaching a known untruth; special creation has never produced a useful prediction, and by its very nature has no predictive power. And the latter is a deliberate attempt to undermine the teaching of a theory which is one of the most powerful predictive tools available to science. Other than forcing children to accept your religion and sabotaging the growth of their understanding of the scientific method and the benefits it brings to human knowledge, what would you hope to achieve?

Dave

 

[scarlettinlondon]

Unfortunately in the UK there is no requirement for a parent to have an appropriate qualification (or indeed any qualifications at all) before home schooling. People do it for religious reasons (as they do in the US I believe). More often they do it because they are sulking about not getting into the school of their choice, or have had a row with the head teacher or an argument with parents in the playground. It seems to be done a lot out of spite. Generally the most innocuous reason is religion, the alternative reasons are much more vile.

 

[ZirconBlue]

The purpose of the instruction is to keep the kids in the religion.
The result is that more of them stay in the religion.
The instruction does what it is supposed to do.

You say "instruction", I say "brainwashing". Poh-TAY-to, Puh-TAH-to.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

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.

The OP refers to the UK and there is nothing 'controversial' about evolution in the UK.

There are a few creationist whackjobs teaching some bizarre nonsense in their own bizarre nonsense schools but the rest of the country is managing more or less fine with just the factual stuff.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Neither do you.
Can you identify a piece of information that you want taught as fact in an elementary school classroom that you believe to be false? Quite frankly, I can't imagine any good parent would.

You seem to be starting from the assumption that schools should only teach what parents want to be taught.

The schooling is provided by the state to benefit the country/society as a whole, not to pander to the daycare requirements of parents.

Parents are simply not the best people to be deciding what should and shouldn't be taught in schools or how it is best taught. A parent who doesn't believe in evolution doesn't have the right to remove it from the curriculum anymore than someone who doesn't approve of nuclear energy has the right to alter the physics curriculum to exclude it.

If there are genuine controversies then these can be included in lessons - for example there would be nothing wrong with a physics teacher discussing the pros and cons of nuclear energy - but there is no genuine controversy about the facts of evolution.

Just because a parent doesn't believe something is no reason for their kids not to be taught it, any more than a parent not being able to do long division is a reason not to teach them maths.

 

[Marduk]

I'd assume it would be taught in the latter grades, around age 12 - 13? Agree that it would be a bit of a tough concept for 7-year olds to grapple with, but you're putting up a straw man there.

Most 7 year olds would get it quite easily, I have a nine year old who's currently trying to reverse engineer the anti gravity drives of Alien space ships and he keeps getting stuck on "its impossible without a gravity field of equal mass"
7 year olds already have how things change already figured out, theyre just looking for the why.....

 

[Marduk]

Again, the extent of your comments to me seem to be "You believe in creationism, which makes you stupid and ignorant, and you want to teach it to your kids, which is appalling".
Since you're not saying anything of value, and continue to post sarcastic comments subtly attacking my reasoning and intelligence, I conclude that you're not actually interested in saying anything meaningful but just enjoy attacking creationists.
Several others have had meaningful comments to make on the subject. You don't. I'm choosing to Ignore you now.

wait, youre a creationist who correctly uses the term "meaningful"
can you see how that in itself, proves evolution ?

 

[athon]

Most 7 year olds would get it quite easily

I respectfully disagree. Most 7 year olds would indeed grapple with the concept as a whole. Many could repeat certain facts, for sure, but the abstract nature would exclude a fair percentage from having an indepth appreciation of it.

There are a few fundamental concepts that could (and should) be taught at a young age. For example, diversity within a population is an important basic that kids do well with and helps understand evolution later.

I have a nine year old who's currently trying to reverse engineer the anti gravity drives of Alien space ships and he keeps getting stuck on "its impossible without a gravity field of equal mass"
7 year olds already have how things change already figured out, theyre just looking for the why.....

You might have a precocious nine year old. In my years of teaching experience, however, this doesn't reflect the norm.

Athon

 

[Rrose Selavy]

Again, the extent of your comments to me seem to be "You believe in creationism, which makes you stupid and ignorant, and you want to teach it to your kids, which is appalling".
Since you're not saying anything of value, and continue to post sarcastic comments subtly attacking my reasoning and intelligence, I conclude that you're not actually interested in saying anything meaningful but just enjoy attacking creationists.
.

Enjoy isn't a word I'd use to describe the experience.
You got the first bit right, though it's "not anything of value"

which says it all really.

 

[Tatyana]

Evolution to be taught to primary school kids? Why? Sure some basic science - I remember mucking about with water and objects to experiment with why and what things float, mixing colours together, using levers to lift stuff, but evolution seems a tad heavy going for a little kid.

It fits, children love dinosaurs, teaching evolution makes it easier to explain where they came from and what happened to them.

 

[Tatyana]

It depends how evolution is taught for the age group but you can be sure as Hell that any "religious education" or creationism won't wait to start at 11 -

I know that the kids typically hate Religious Education, but don't you think the national curriculum for the UK is quite good?


This is just key stage three, which age that is ??.

I think key stage four covers basically all of the world religions.

This section outlines the breadth of the subject on which teachers should draw when teaching the key concepts and key processes.

The study of RE should include:

Christianity

at least two other principal religions

a religious community of local significance, where appropriate

a secular world view, where appropriate.

All of the above can be taught through the following themes:

beliefs and concepts: the key ideas and questions of meaning in religions and beliefs, including issues related to God, truth, the world, human life, and life after death

authority: different sources of authority and how they inform believers’ lives

religion and science: issues of truth, explanation, meaning and purpose

expressing spirituality: how and why understanding of the self and human experiences is expressed in a variety of forms

ethics and relationships: questions and influences that inform ethical and moral choices, including forgiveness and issues of good and evil

rights and responsibilities: what religions and beliefs say about human rights and responsibilities, social justice and citizenship

global issues – what religions and beliefs say about health, wealth, war, animal rights and the environment

interfaith dialogue – a study of relationships, conflicts and collaboration within and between religions and beliefs.

 

[athon]

This is just key stage three, which age that is ??.

Years 7 to 9. Ages 11 to 14, basically.

I'd happily cover some of the more in depth aspects of evolution in that latter parts of KS3.

Athon

 

[Sledge]

I sometimes worry about living in a world where the idea of teaching science to children is somehow a cause for outrage.