Evolution to be compulsory subject in UK primary schools

[Steve]

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.

Athon

There does not appear to be any clear indication of what would be taught to each of the various age groups. I have assumed that the introduction of evolution to the younger kids would be similar to what you described in your second paragraph. I don't think anyone in this thread has seriously suggested that 7 year-olds receive instruction in the "abstract nature" of evolution, or are capable of "having an in-depth appreciation of it".

As I said up-thread my 7yo daughter seems capable of grasping some basic facts about evolution in relation to her interest in dinosaurs, but I think I will wait a few more years before I suggest to her that she read Darwin.

 

[dafydd]

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

So you admit that creationism is a myth?

 

[AvalonXQ]

So you admit that creationism is a myth?

My comparison was between a test on classic myths and a test on Evolution.
But I think you realized that.

 

[AvalonXQ]

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.

I have said neither of the above. Please re-read my actual positions, which indicate that a) I do not intend to teach my kids about creationism as science during their early education and b) my beef is very specifically with the fact of common ancestry and not with the mechanism of natural selection.

 

[Damien Evans]

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.

Oh, that's ok, we can teach evolution early then, since it's about the least controversial fact in the universe. You'd have to have pretty severe brain damage to deny evolution.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Oh, that's ok, we can teach evolution early then, since it's about the least controversial fact in the universe. You'd have to have pretty severe brain damage to deny evolution.

Nope. Sorry. Brain's in perfect health.
But your prejudice is noted.

 

[Nonpareil]

b) my beef is very specifically with the fact of common ancestry and not with the mechanism of natural selection.

Just curious: why do you reject it?

 

[Tatyana]

There has been quite a few David Attenborough documentaries on British telly this year as it is something like 50 years of BBC documentaries.

Watching "Life on Earth" A Natural History by David Attenborough from the 1970s covers the basics of all evolution, and it is phenomenal when you can see all of the visual evidence.

I think that Sir David has made the acceptance of evolution quite easy for most people in the UK, most people grew up with his programs.

If you haven't seen it, I would highly recommend you get a copy of it.

Children LOVE nature documentaries, they want to know how the natural world works, all you have to do is watch a tadpole grow into a frog for children to really grasp some of the concepts of change in evolution.

 

[blobru]

b) my beef is very specifically with the fact of common ancestry and not with the mechanism of natural selection.

Just curious: why do you reject it?

And further to that: at what age(s) were you taught creationism, and evolution?

 

[Roboramma]

b) my beef is very specifically with the fact of common ancestry and not with the mechanism of natural selection.

Did you ever get around to reading any of those links that Dr Kitten and others gave you in that thread about evolution from a month or two ago?

 

[dafydd]

Just curious: why do you reject it?

Because he prefers the myths in an old book to scientific facts.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Just curious: why do you reject it?

As of today? Because the evidence I have for accepting common ancestry is that many scientists believe it, and the evidence I have for rejecting common ancestry is that sources I trust more than those scientists reject it.
Hence, my desire to seek out more direct evidence.

 

[Lothian]

As of today? Because the evidence I have for accepting common ancestry is that many scientists believe it, and the evidence I have for rejecting common ancestry is that sources I trust more than those scientists reject it.
Hence, my desire to seek out more direct evidence.

and what sources do you have that provide evidence that common ancestry is false. I am interested in you intellectual reasoning that has led to being a creationist.

 

[Roboramma]

As of today? Because the evidence I have for accepting common ancestry is that many scientists believe it, and the evidence I have for rejecting common ancestry is that sources I trust more than those scientists reject it.
Hence, my desire to seek out more direct evidence.

Considering that you were specifically given more direct evidence in the thread I mentioned, this is disingenuous.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

As of today? Because the evidence I have for accepting common ancestry is that many scientists believe it, and the evidence I have for rejecting common ancestry is that sources I trust more than those scientists reject it.
Hence, my desire to seek out more direct evidence.

Where have you looked?

 

[Ocelot]

As far as how early it is acceptable to introduce a child to evolution my son has had this poster on his wall since he was one year old.

http://www.open2.net/darwin/poster.html It's right there along side wall friezes showing number sand the alphabet and his Peppa pig height chart

Now he's two we've discussed it in very general terms.

I'd also like to get a kid friendly periodic table poster.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I'd also like to get a kid friendly periodic table poster.

Something like this?

 

[Foster Zygote]

As of today? Because the evidence I have for accepting common ancestry is that many scientists believe it, and the evidence I have for rejecting common ancestry is that sources I trust more than those scientists reject it.
Hence, my desire to seek out more direct evidence.

You've been presented with such direct evidence and you've brushed it aside. I've seen you employ critical thinking and empirical evidence in rejecting the magical beliefs of astrologers, but when your own magical beliefs are at stake you resist turning the same process on them.

 

[AvalonXQ]

You've been presented with such direct evidence and you've brushed it aside.

To my knowledge, I have not brushed any direct evidence aside. I do, however, remove from my subscription lists and stop posting in threads that turn from legitimate discussions into conclusory bash-fests.

I've seen you employ critical thinking and empirical evidence in rejecting the magical beliefs of astrologers, but when your own magical beliefs are at stake you resist turning the same process on them.

Are "magical beliefs" related to "magical thinking"? If so, we've determined elsewhere that this means chronic conflation of correlation with causation, which is not a fit description of my own beliefs. If not, does the term have a substantive meaning or is it just a pejorative?

 

[Nonpareil]

Something like this?