Evolution to be compulsory subject in UK primary schools

[Rrose Selavy]

Good, but still some "wiggle room" for "faith" schools:


Evolution will become a compulsory subject for study in all state primary schools, the Government announced today.
Darwin’s theory of how life evolved through natural selection will be a legal requirement in science teaching from September 2011, although it will be left to schools to decide how this is done.
The move, which was welcomed by scientists, comes despite a drive to slim down the national curriculum for primary schools and leave teachers greater discretion over what to teach.
Church and other faith schools within the state system will have to comply although officials said the theory of evolution could be taught in a context that reflected a school’s ethos, in a similar way to compulsory sex education for children aged under 15


More here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article6923157.ece

[metzomagic]

Heh. I was just over reading that Times article you linked to, and the ensuing comments. Of course, the god botherers are all over it. Sad how they deny all evidence of evolution because it disagrees with their Bronze Age book of myths.

On a related note, I just got my copy of Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True. Even reading the first 2 chapters of it would be enough to convince a rational person... oh, wait!

[Darat]

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.

[metzomagic]

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.

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.

[Darat]

That's secondary school over here. Primary school is upto 11. Well it was back in my days - you know when the dinosaurs were still roaming around and lions were vegetarians, they may have changed things since then, my nephew was telling me just the other day that he can talk to his friends "wirelessly" when playing a game with them as if that was some great new thing - we called it shouting when I was a kid.

[Dave Rogers]

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.

In the biological sciences, I can't imagine anything more basic than evolution. There's no need to get into the fine details of molecular biology, but the basic ideas of natural selection and common ancestry of different species are very simple to teach; indeed, that's one reason they're such powerful ideas. And what red-blooded seven-year-old kid wouldn't enjoy a lesson about dinosaurs?

Dave

[Darat]

I don't think it is that easy to teach, sure you could go down the "by rote" route but I don't think that is educating the kids - I would much rather they learn about simple but accurate basic science. Educate them about how to approach something in a "scientific way" - that builds a solid foundation that can then be used to introduce more complex concepts and ideas as they get older. I think kids learning that science works at a young age will stand them in much better stead.

[Last of the Fraggles]

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.

[metzomagic]

My bad. Being originally from the U.S., I forgot that secondary school starts at age 11 over here. In that case, it would definitely be a better idea to make it compulsory in secondary school, when it would be more easily assimilated... but not in a Borg-like way ;-)

[Ocelot]

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.

We covered evolution in my last year of primary school. not in any great depth but I rememebr drawing a learning about amoebas and then into fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, (lots of fun with dinosaurs) mammals and birds, then primates and finally man.

[shadron]

We covered evolution in my last year of primary school. not in any great depth but I rememebr drawing a learning about amoebas and then into fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, (lots of fun with dinosaurs) mammals and birds, then primates and finally man.

I went through the same stream of animals in high school biology, but it was less about evolution and more about climbing Linnaeus' system. If I remember correctly there was a chapter about evolution at the end, but it certainly wasn't emphasized while learning about worms and fishes. Of course, that was 40 years ago, and clades weren't even a gleam them.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

In response to those who think it would be hard to teach evolution to primary school kids, a teacher at one of my local primary schools did it during Darwin week and it was apparently very successful. My friend is a teaching assistant at the school and said the kids loved it and grasped the natural selection concepts straight away. I think he made a game of it that involved lots of lining up, shuffling around groups, joining and leaving etc based on certain criteria before ending up with a winning 'design'.

I'll try and get a message through to him to post on this thread the details of what he did. I only know him 'third-hand' though so it may take a while.

[Steve]

In the biological sciences, I can't imagine anything more basic than evolution. There's no need to get into the fine details of molecular biology, but the basic ideas of natural selection and common ancestry of different species are very simple to teach; indeed, that's one reason they're such powerful ideas. And what red-blooded seven-year-old kid wouldn't enjoy a lesson about dinosaurs?

Dave

I would agree with this. I am basing my thoughts on a study example of one - my soon to be 8yo old daughter who has been a dinosaur fanatic for a couple of years. She has a basic understanding of the concept that, over the full history of dinosaurs the earlier species either died off or evolved into new species. She thinks it is pretty cool that modern birds are the ancestors of dinosaurs. She has picked this understanding up by herself (they do not teach "dinosaurs" at school) so I think that it would not be difficult for a trained teacher to teach the basic concepts of evolution to children of this age.

[justcharlie09]

In the biological sciences, I can't imagine anything more basic than evolution. There's no need to get into the fine details of molecular biology, but the basic ideas of natural selection and common ancestry of different species are very simple to teach; indeed, that's one reason they're such powerful ideas. And what red-blooded seven-year-old kid wouldn't enjoy a lesson about dinosaurs?

Dave

Agreed. How do you talk about the animal kingdom without discussing the relatedness of all life? Or ecosystems without talking about the ways living things adapt to survive?

I wouldn't make it, necessarily, a 2nd grade (7 year old) topic--at least not an in-depth look. Still, you need it for 9,10 &11 year olds at least. Otherwise you can't really talk about biology in any sensible way.

My kids have covered it through the texts I've purchased for home use. No problem so far. They actually think it's pretty "cool" as a matter of fact.

[Rrose Selavy]

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 -

[kuroyume0161]

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 -

Yeah, because we all know that concepts of eternity, extra-universality, souls, and afterlife are much easier to comprehend when you're 11 or younger. ;)

On the other hand, when I was very young we had the 'religious bus' come around and the people would show us pictures and tell stories from that infernal book. At that age they get you with stories and fantasy. When you grow up, they get you with ... stories and fantasy and the promise of eternal life.

[rjh01]

I agree with Rrose. We teach children evolution before their minds are closed by religion. Also teach them a bit of other science.

[doethcaru]

In response to those who think it would be hard to teach evolution to primary school kids, a teacher at one of my local primary schools did it during Darwin week and it was apparently very successful.


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.

[Dave Rogers]

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.

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

Dave

[Last of the Fraggles]

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.

That sounds great. I might just be being cynical but I doubt the lessons in most cases will be anywhere near as interactive and involving as that. I can picture loads of kids being turned off science by having a boring text taught to them by a teacher who doesn't understand or care the slightest about biology. That's my only worry.

[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 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8376943.stm) 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 --- Breach of Rule 12 removed.

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

[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!

[Darat]

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

Not sure what your point is?

[AvalonXQ]

Not sure what your point is?

I know many people who gained the curricular understanding of the Theory of Evolution without believing it, so they could pass tests on the material. Heck, I know people who have done that in a lot of areas -- such as when you have a really liberal professor in a history or political science class. You can understand the material well enough to regurgitate it without ever actually embracing it.

Less than a month ago I had a conversation with a teen in church who said she was in advanced biology and they were getting into Evolution. She made some noise about refusing to take the test on it. I told her, no; she needs to learn the material and perform beautifully on that test. Only when she genuinely understands the concepts behind Evolution can she make an intelligent decision to agree with or reject it. And disagreeing with a concept is no excuse not to learn about it.
I hope she follows my advice.

[Rrose Selavy]

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.

I notice you don't have the confidence in the robustness of your beliefs to introduce Adam & Eve etc as "Bible history" later when critical skills have developed.

How surprising (not)

[AvalonXQ]

I notice you don't have the confidence in the robustness of your beliefs to introduce Adam & Eve etc as "Bible history" later when critical skills have developed.

In other words, you don't believe that religion belongs in the indoctrination stage of a child's education. And you're entitled to; but I do. I also believe that whether or not religion is part of the indoctrination stage of a child's education is entirely up to the parents, and that the State should try to stay far away from controversial topics in contributing to this stage.

[Filippo Lippi]

I know exactly how you feel. I am a wife beater. The government has just announced (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8376943.stm) 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.

I think I nominated this for something.

[Filippo Lippi]

Only the indoctrinated think that evolution is contrversial.

[AvalonXQ]

Only the indoctrinated think that evolution is contrversial.

I'll assume what you mean is that only those indoctrinated against evolution think that evolution is controversial.
Indoctrination is simply a part of child development. The question is which doctrines are included.

[Filippo Lippi]

I'd have thought the only indoctrination that is essential is the "don't run in the road, don't stick a srewdriver in a socket," type of deal.

[Rrose Selavy]

In other words, you don't believe that religion belongs in the indoctrination stage of a child's education. And you're entitled to; but I do. I also believe that whether or not religion is part of the indoctrination stage of a child's education is entirely up to the parents, and that the State should try to stay far away from controversial topics in contributing to this stage.

No. I don't believe their should be any indocrination stage of a child's life let alone education. The fact that you feel it is perfectly ok to do so speaks volumes.

[AvalonXQ]

I'd have thought the only indoctrination that is essential is the "don't run in the road, don't stick a srewdriver in a socket," type of deal.

Definitely not enough. You really need what I call the "interaction" stuff -- the set of beliefs that allow you to interact with others. Fairness, sympathy, compassion, obedience, respect, manners, etc for good social reflexes. Communication, cultural mores, "common sense", etc for logistical capabilities.

[Filippo Lippi]

You don't need to indoctrinate those things, there are other ways.

[AvalonXQ]

No. I don't believe their should be any indocrination stage of a child's life let alone education. The fact that you feel it is perfectly ok to do so speaks volumes.

It speaks volumes to the fact that I understand that newborn children don't have reasoning skills. At the beginning, they learn what they are taught, and accept what they are told. The very ability to discern, which makes critical thinking possible, must itself be taught as a doctrine. It's not a question of whether a child learns foundational knowledge uncritically. It's only a question of which knowledge is included.

[AvalonXQ]

You don't need to indoctrinate those things, there are other ways.

Until the child has the reasoning skills to discern (which must themselves be learned as part of this early process), anything they learn, whether from experience or intentional teaching, is learned as doctrine.
Again, what I'm saying is not controversial -- kids will believe things from people they trust, until they learn not to. They will pick up and emulate the beliefs and attitudes of the people around them. We can affirmatively choose what they learn (including critical thinking), but we cannot stop them from learning uncritically when they are young.

[Lothian]

Indoctrination is simply a part of child development. The question is which doctrines are included.True, and I admire your bravery in putting your church before your relationship with your child.

Teaching false doctrines has a habit of coming back to bite when the student learns the truth. I understand that a lot of American university students lose religion when learning the scientific 'facts' taught by the church are so demonstratively untrue.

[AvalonXQ]

True, and I admire your bravery in putting your church before your relationship with your child.

It's not an either-or proposition. Every child learns that things they learned growing up were untrue. But generally, if the child realizes that their parents were honest with them (i.e., the parent was teaching the child what they themselves believe to be true), this does not negatively impact the parent child relationship.
There are a lot of parenting mistakes that will strain the relationship. Teaching a belief that a child ceases to agree with is not one of them; it's simply part of growing up.
Incidentally, children from homes where both parents regularly attend church and are consistently taught are far more likely to remain in the church than to leave it, and more likely to remain than children whose parents do not consistently teach and practice the religion.

[Rrose Selavy]

It speaks volumes to the fact that I understand that newborn children don't have reasoning skills. At the beginning, they learn what they are taught, and accept what they are told. The very ability to discern, which makes critical thinking possible, must itself be taught as a doctrine. It's not a question of whether a child learns foundational knowledge uncritically. It's only a question of which knowledge is included.

Self justifying sophistry.

And you don't want to include knowledge that happens to contradict your fantasy view of the universe.
There is also a vast difference between "teaching" and "learning".
I look forward to your children learning about "foundational knowledge" such as the experience of gravity uncritically so they can later later reject it as "controversial".

[AvalonXQ]

And you don't want to include knowledge that happens to contradict your fantasy view of the universe.

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.

[AvalonXQ]

I look forward to your children learning about "foundational knowledge" such as the experience of gravity uncritically so they can later later reject it as "controversial".

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. You're saying that if we teach our children special creation they somehow will reject the Theory of Gravity when they learn how to reason? How do you even get there?

[Rrose Selavy]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. You're saying that if we teach our children special creation they somehow will reject the Theory of Gravity when they learn how to reason? How do you even get there?

How indeed. Try thinking a bit harder.

[ZirconBlue]

Incidentally, children from homes where both parents regularly attend church and are consistently taught are far more likely to remain in the church than to leave it, and more likely to remain than children whose parents do not consistently teach and practice the religion.

You say that like it's a good thing.

[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 ?
:D

[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.

[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.

[Pure Argent]

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 (http://elements.wlonk.com/Elements_Pics_11x8.5.pdf)?

[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?

[Pure Argent]

Something like this (http://elements.wlonk.com/Elements_Pics_11x8.5.pdf)?

http://thepmi.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/do-want.jpg

[rjh01]

Something like this (http://elements.wlonk.com/Elements_Pics_11x8.5.pdf)?

Bit out of date. The table does not include element 114 (and 112). See this video
fX-gqFChAyk

[Ocelot]

Something like this (http://elements.wlonk.com/Elements_Pics_11x8.5.pdf)?
Yes yes yes.

Thank you.

[Roboramma]

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.

If you haven't brushed any evidence aside, why then did you say:

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.

After you were given evidence other than the fact that many scientists believe it? Note, by the way, that you were given that evidence before you stopped participating in that thread, and you specifically said you would examine that evidence.

I don't have a problem with you not accepting evolution, but you are certainly suggesting that you don't have access to evidence that you were specifically given.

[popscythe]

Avalon:

When I read that you were a creationist, I thought you were joking.

You are, aren't you?

[AvalonXQ]

Avalon:

When I read that you were a creationist, I thought you were joking.

You are, aren't you?

As of today, yes I am.
We'll see what I learn tomorrow.

[popscythe]

now I can't read your signature without hearing party all the time...

[Gawdzilla]

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.

I taught a genetics module to an eight-grade class one time, all of whom were my classmates. You can be sure I kept at a level they could understand. (This was in 1964, and I suggested it to my science teacher who approved. He didn't ask to go over my material first..)

[popscythe]

Anyone here ever used The Blind Watchmaker?

I remember it being boring when I was young, and now I want to try it again.

[Rrose Selavy]

Anyone here ever used The Blind Watchmaker?

I remember it being boring when I was young, and now I want to try it again.

Used?
What as a doorstop or a paperweight?

-

[Gawdzilla]

Used?
What as a doorstop or a paperweight?

-

It's useful for calming god-botherers down. Apply to the back of the head with maximum available force.

[AvalonXQ]

Anyone here ever used The Blind Watchmaker?

Twice now. He takes longer than the sighted watchmaker down the street but he doesn't charge as much.

[Pure Argent]

It's useful for calming god-botherers down. Apply to the back of the head with maximum available force.

Okay, made me laugh. Mainly from the mental pictures that came up when I pictured a guy being hit over the head with a blind watchmaker.

[ZirconBlue]

How does one make blind watches, anyway?

[AvalonXQ]

How does one make blind watches, anyway?

Braille numbers, no faceplate.

[KingMerv00]

Braille numbers, no faceplate.

Don't forget tinted glass.

[Gawdzilla]

Braille numbers, no faceplate.

Actually, you use an analog watch with a flip-open face so the user can feel the location of the hands. My grandfather had one.

These days, of course, you can get one that talks.

[Gawdzilla]

Should this read "basic science to be taught in UK schools"?

[Roboramma]

Should this read "basic science to be taught in UK schools"?

Yeah, but then it wouldn't have made three pages.

[Sideroxylon]

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.

There is no controversy about the truth of evolution among experts. Its a fact and thats what we should be teaching kids in school. Its probably even a good way of driving a stake through a controversy fuled by ignorance.

My ten-year-old has heard nothing of evolution from his school but he seems more than ready to start dealing with it.

[Alferd_Packer]

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.

My son, who was a dinosaur fan at age 5 knew more about evolution when he was in 3rd grade than most people do now. In 5th grade he could cite the entire Earth's major geologic periods in order and what the major fauna of that peirod was.

I think kids are well up to the subject matter.

[Checkmite]

I have to admit, I wasn't aware that it was determined that some type of deficiency was found in modern students' understanding of evolution that would be corrected by teaching kids evolution alongside the alphabet.

There's a reason why Christians send their kids to bible school at that age. It's basically the same reason that makes me ever so slightly uncomfortable about teaching evolution at that age. I get that a lot of you are all horny, as it were, over the notion of evolution being amongst the very first thing a child encounters in his formal education, but I just don't see anything wrong with learning it in middle school or high school; that's where I learned it and I'm not struggling with the concepts in any way. I think there's more important things to get taught in grammar school.

[Sideroxylon]

I have to admit, I wasn't aware that it was determined that some type of deficiency was found in modern students' understanding of evolution that would be corrected by teaching kids evolution alongside the alphabet.

There's a reason why Christians send their kids to bible school at that age. It's basically the same reason that makes me ever so slightly uncomfortable about teaching evolution at that age. I get that a lot of you are all horny, as it were, over the notion of evolution being amongst the very first thing a child encounters in his formal education, but I just don't see anything wrong with learning it in middle school or high school; that's where I learned it and I'm not struggling with the concepts in any way. I think there's more important things to get taught in grammar school.

Its an important fact about ourselves and the world we live in and so deserves a mention along with other basic facts like say continental drift, which is another complex idea yet accepted by most youngsters. I imagine that previously evolution was not even mentioned in UK schools for fear of offending some parents. Treating evolution differently from any other basic idea only serves to perpetuate the needless public controversy.

[dafydd]

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

Why be angry at the truth?

[dafydd]

In other words, you don't believe that religion belongs in the indoctrination stage of a child's education. And you're entitled to; but I do. I also believe that whether or not religion is part of the indoctrination stage of a child's education is entirely up to the parents, and that the State should try to stay far away from controversial topics in contributing to this stage.

What is controversial about it?

[dafydd]

Just curious: why do you reject it?

Indoctrination at an early age?

[Damien Evans]

Used?
What as a doorstop or a paperweight?

-

I think there was a computer program called the Blind Watchmaker as well.

Closest I can find is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_program

[jimbob]

AvalonXQ,

Is there any evidence that would change your mind about the origin of Man?

If so, what?

it is a logical possibility that fossil evidence could come up that could change my mind about the origin of mankind, (say a plesiosaur holding a banner saying "End Nuclear Testing Now") or fossil rabbits in the precambrian.

What would you need to see to stop believing in Creationism?

Do you believe that the Earth is a few thousand Years old, or far older?

There are many Anglicans, and Roman Catholics who don't have a problem with evolution; I think the reasoning is that the power to work out the evidence came from abilities that a creator must have given. As had any evidence.