evolution now to be taught in primary schools

[SWP's back]

i am a biologist and the only objection i have is that its quite a difficult concept and will be hard to teach well to primary school kids

slightly less difficult to understand than immaculate conception though

Boom

 

[No6]

My 8 year old daughters class spent a term last year learning about Charles Darwin, however, I'm not so sure this would happen in a faith school.

they have to now, well from sept 2015

My son, against my wishes initially, went to a faith school. He's a keen reader and was reading the Harry Potter books at the time but was told not to bring them into school again. Instead, he took Dawkins' "The Magic of Reality" in next time, which he'd had as an xmas present. Good lad :)

 

[Skashion]

My 8 year old daughters class spent a term last year learning about Charles Darwin, however, I'm not so sure this would happen in a faith school.

they have to now, well from sept 2015

My son, against my wishes initially, went to a faith school. He's a keen reader and was reading the Harry Potter books at the time but was told not to bring them into school again. Instead, he took Dawkins' "The Magic of Reality" in next time, which he'd had as an xmas present. Good lad :)

I wish Avada Kedavra on those fuckwits. Harry Potter books teach better morality than any religious nonsense. Probably why they don't like them. As you say though, good lad. A Harry Potter fan who likes to defy authority, you're doing sterling parental work there my friend.

 

[BlueHammer85]

i am a biologist and the only objection i have is that its quite a difficult concept and will be hard to teach well to primary school kids

Don't see how it's hard ...

Look kids. Get the telescope out 'You used to be little bacteria'... Then the earth got some water ... So the bacteria turned into fish ... Then some of the fish wanted to play on the land so over time there legs and arms developed ... Then some lived in the trees .. Then some monkey humans travelled up north to Manchester area and never really developed.

It's always lovely when a smart-arse tries something like this but fucks up so comprehensively that nothing needs to be added other than the use of the 'bold' function.

You can still see bacteria using a telescope. Just got to stand further back ;)

 

[Juan King]

Now if only they would stop this bullshit next.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.change.org/p/end-compulsory-worship-in-schools" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.change.org/p/end-compulsory- ... in-schools</a>

Went to a school assemby at my kids school & this element of it really pissed me off. I don't like kids being taught religious views as fact either. I made sure I spoke to my kids after & said this isn't fact it's just what some people believe.

 

[No6]

Don't see how it's hard ...

Look kids. Get the telescope out 'You used to be little bacteria'... Then the earth got some water ... So the bacteria turned into fish ... Then some of the fish wanted to play on the land so over time there legs and arms developed ... Then some lived in the trees .. Then some monkey humans travelled up north to Manchester area and never really developed.

It's always lovely when a smart-arse tries something like this but fucks up so comprehensively that nothing needs to be added other than the use of the 'bold' function.

You can still see bacteria using a telescope. Just got to stand further back ;)

PMSL

Gotta hand it to you Mark, that's a sterling reply. Touche sir.

Still a fookin southern ponce though.

 

[Cellarite]

Don't see how it's hard ...

Look kids. Get the telescope out 'You used to be little bacteria'... Then the earth got some water ... So the bacteria turned into fish ... Then some of the fish wanted to play on the land so over time there legs and arms developed ... Then some lived in the trees .. Then some monkey humans travelled up north to Manchester area and never really developed.

It's always lovely when a smart-arse tries something like this but fucks up so comprehensively that nothing needs to be added other than the use of the 'bold' function.

You can still see bacteria using a telescope. Just got to stand further back ;)

Stop trying to back-track. Let's just settle on North 1 South 0.

 

[No6]

Now if only they would stop this bullshit next.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.change.org/p/end-compulsory-worship-in-schools" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.change.org/p/end-compulsory- ... in-schools</a>

Went to a school assemby at my kids school & this element of it really pissed me off. I don't like kids being taught religious views as fact either. I made sure I spoke to my kids after & said this isn't fact it's just what some people believe.

Yes. Grinds my gears too. I've got no issue with people believing in and practicing religion, I just think that it should be an informed choice that is made by the individual rather than something prescribed to young, impressionable minds. The thing is though, if this was the case, organised religion would be dead within 2 generations. In fact, thats not a "problem" at all is it? Imagine the religion inspired bullshit around the world that could be stopped.

 

[No6]

they have to now, well from sept 2015

My son, against my wishes initially, went to a faith school. He's a keen reader and was reading the Harry Potter books at the time but was told not to bring them into school again. Instead, he took Dawkins' "The Magic of Reality" in next time, which he'd had as an xmas present. Good lad :)

I wish Avada Kedavra on those fuckwits. Harry Potter books teach better morality than any religious nonsense. Probably why they don't like them. As you say though, good lad. A Harry Potter fan who likes to defy authority, you're doing sterling parental work there my friend.

Lol, cheers Skash. He's a good lad. makes me tremendously proud every single day. If I was 'Arry, I'd describe him as a top, top kid.

On the whole religion side of things, one of his favourite comedy sketches is the old Bill Hicks dinosaur routine. Loves it, as do I.

 

[tonea2003]

Now if only they would stop this bullshit next.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.change.org/p/end-compulsory-worship-in-schools" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.change.org/p/end-compulsory- ... in-schools</a>

Went to a school assemby at my kids school & this element of it really pissed me off. I don't like kids being taught religious views as fact either. I made sure I spoke to my kids after & said this isn't fact it's just what some people believe.

Yes. Grinds my gears too. I've got no issue with people believing in and practicing religion, I just think that it should be an informed choice that is made by the individual rather than something prescribed to young, impressionable minds. The thing is though, if this was the case, organised religion would be dead within 2 generations. In fact, thats not a "problem" at all is it? Imagine the religion inspired bullshit around the world that could be stopped.

that's why its a priority of those at the heads of faith, get them early and indoctrinate

the trojan horse affair is a good recent example

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

i am a biologist and the only objection i have is that its quite a difficult concept and will be hard to teach well to primary school kids

Then some monkey humans called Oasis travelled up north to Manchester area and never really developed their own sound.

Your family tree must be a fucking stump, Mark, although in fairness you are possibly the best argument mankind has against intelligent design.

 

[chestervegasblue]

I appreciate that faith is experiential, and should be conveyed as such (i.e. framing things in "I believe', 'in my experience', or 'the Bible says'). This needs to be true on the other side too, however. Being dead set on convincing someone of the 'fact' something doesn't exist is indoctrination as well.

The things that have been mentioned by previous posters (the theory of evolution, Harry Potter) are by and large opposed by Fundamentalist Christians.

These two words seem to be inseparable in the eyes of this forum, but the fundamentalist viewpoint (or the viewpoint that causes this controversy, the inerrancy of scripture) is not one held by the majority of Christians I've encountered in the UK.

This viewpoint would say that the earth was created in six literal 24 hour days not very long ago, which science tells us is clearly not the case, and I agree. Evolution is currently the theory that best fits the understanding we have of where we came from, and so that is rightly taught - though I get the impression that is perceived as fact by many teachers, which kind of undermines the whole principle of science (to find truth by observation). At the present time, people who believe in evolution as fact are doing so by faith.

As a Christian, recently moved from Stalybridge via Buckinghamshire to Texas (where there are a few more fundamentalists!), I find meaning in the poetry of the creation story (in that I believe we are created, but that doesn't have to mean in 6 days), but not at the expense of science.

I believe that scripture is inspired, not inerrant, which requires it being read through the lens of the culture at the time of writing and appreciation of scribe's bias.

And Harry Potter is brilliant!

I just thought I'd give an alternative viewpoint so that other people don't have to continue to speculate about one.

 

[No6]

I appreciate that faith is experiential, and should be conveyed as such (i.e. framing things in "I believe', 'in my experience', or 'the Bible says'). This needs to be true on the other side too, however. Being dead set on convincing someone of the 'fact' something doesn't exist is indoctrination as well.

The things that have been mentioned by previous posters (the theory of evolution, Harry Potter) are by and large opposed by Fundamentalist Christians.

These two words seem to be inseparable in the eyes of this forum, but the fundamentalist viewpoint (or the viewpoint that causes this controversy, the inerrancy of scripture) is not one held by the majority of Christians I've encountered in the UK.

This viewpoint would say that the earth was created in six literal 24 hour days not very long ago, which science tells us is clearly not the case, and I agree. Evolution is currently the theory that best fits the understanding we have of where we came from, and so that is rightly taught - though I get the impression that is perceived as fact by many teachers, which kind of undermines the whole principle of science (to find truth by observation). At the present time, people who believe in evolution as fact are doing so by faith.

As a Christian, recently moved from Stalybridge via Buckinghamshire to Texas (where there are a few more fundamentalists!), I find meaning in the poetry of the creation story (in that I believe we are created, but that doesn't have to mean in 6 days), but not at the expense of science.

I believe that scripture is inspired, not inerrant, which requires it being read through the lens of the culture at the time of writing and appreciation of scribe's bias.

And Harry Potter is brilliant!

I just thought I'd give an alternative viewpoint so that other people don't have to continue to speculate about one.

This has always interested me. If you know the creation story as told in the bible is a fallacy, how do you put faith in the rest of the book? Surely you can't pick and choose which chapters and verses to believe in, because this would mean an entire lack of faith.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

The bible, along with the scriptures of all the other major religions, has always been a bit of an ecumenical pick 'n' mix - believers tend to run with the nice bits, and disregard the nasty Old Testament fire-and-brimstone stuff.
Yet it's all supposed to be the word of God, so cut-and-pasting at will it to justify some point or other seems rather churlish to me.
It's all about as valid as putting your faith in a Jeffrey Archer novel, only the bible is much better written.
Both should be either in the fiction section of your local library or, ideally, in the waste paper recycling bin.

 

[SWP's back]

I appreciate that faith is experiential, and should be conveyed as such (i.e. framing things in "I believe', 'in my experience', or 'the Bible says'). This needs to be true on the other side too, however. Being dead set on convincing someone of the 'fact' something doesn't exist is indoctrination as well.

The things that have been mentioned by previous posters (the theory of evolution, Harry Potter) are by and large opposed by Fundamentalist Christians.

These two words seem to be inseparable in the eyes of this forum, but the fundamentalist viewpoint (or the viewpoint that causes this controversy, the inerrancy of scripture) is not one held by the majority of Christians I've encountered in the UK.

This viewpoint would say that the earth was created in six literal 24 hour days not very long ago, which science tells us is clearly not the case, and I agree. Evolution is currently the theory that best fits the understanding we have of where we came from, and so that is rightly taught - though I get the impression that is perceived as fact by many teachers, which kind of undermines the whole principle of science (to find truth by observation). At the present time, people who believe in evolution as fact are doing so by faith.

As a Christian, recently moved from Stalybridge via Buckinghamshire to Texas (where there are a few more fundamentalists!), I find meaning in the poetry of the creation story (in that I believe we are created, but that doesn't have to mean in 6 days), but not at the expense of science.

I believe that scripture is inspired, not inerrant, which requires it being read through the lens of the culture at the time of writing and appreciation of scribe's bias.

And Harry Potter is brilliant!

I just thought I'd give an alternative viewpoint so that other people don't have to continue to speculate about one.

It. Is. A. Fucking. Fact. You. Lunatic.

 

[chestervegasblue]

I appreciate that faith is experiential, and should be conveyed as such (i.e. framing things in "I believe', 'in my experience', or 'the Bible says'). This needs to be true on the other side too, however. Being dead set on convincing someone of the 'fact' something doesn't exist is indoctrination as well.

The things that have been mentioned by previous posters (the theory of evolution, Harry Potter) are by and large opposed by Fundamentalist Christians.

These two words seem to be inseparable in the eyes of this forum, but the fundamentalist viewpoint (or the viewpoint that causes this controversy, the inerrancy of scripture) is not one held by the majority of Christians I've encountered in the UK.

This viewpoint would say that the earth was created in six literal 24 hour days not very long ago, which science tells us is clearly not the case, and I agree. Evolution is currently the theory that best fits the understanding we have of where we came from, and so that is rightly taught - though I get the impression that is perceived as fact by many teachers, which kind of undermines the whole principle of science (to find truth by observation). At the present time, people who believe in evolution as fact are doing so by faith.

As a Christian, recently moved from Stalybridge via Buckinghamshire to Texas (where there are a few more fundamentalists!), I find meaning in the poetry of the creation story (in that I believe we are created, but that doesn't have to mean in 6 days), but not at the expense of science.

I believe that scripture is inspired, not inerrant, which requires it being read through the lens of the culture at the time of writing and appreciation of scribe's bias.

And Harry Potter is brilliant!

I just thought I'd give an alternative viewpoint so that other people don't have to continue to speculate about one.

This has always interested me. If you know the creation story as told in the bible is a fallacy, how do you put faith in the rest of the book? Surely you can't pick and choose which chapters and verses to believe in, because this would mean an entire lack of faith.

Good question. I guess I would say that I believe the meaning for us in the creation story isn't found in how we were created, but that - regardless of how and when - we were created, and there is a reason for our being here.

It's not so much a case of dismissing certain parts of the Bible while valuing others; it's more about seeing and testing the parts in the context of the wider narrative and who God says He is, which is most explicitly detailed in the person of Jesus (which is why I believe the gospels are the exception to valuing parts of the Bible over others).

In addition to this, there is experience that I have had of encountering God through the Holy Spirit, the legitimacy of which I appreciate I cannot convince you of.

 

[SWP's back]

The bible, along with the scriptures of all the other major religions, has always been a bit of an ecumenical pick 'n' mix - believers tend to run with the nice bits, and disregard the nasty Old Testament fire-and-brimstone stuff.
Yet it's all supposed to be the word of God, so cut-and-pasting at will it to justify some point or other seems rather churlish to me.
It's all about as valid as putting your faith in a Jeffrey Archer novel, only the bible is much better written.
Both should be either in the fiction section of your local library or, ideally, in the waste paper recycling bin.

Ignoring that for a minute Fetters, we have come across someone still not believing evolution a real fact nor does he understand the scientific definition of theory.

 

[chestervegasblue]

I appreciate that faith is experiential, and should be conveyed as such (i.e. framing things in "I believe', 'in my experience', or 'the Bible says'). This needs to be true on the other side too, however. Being dead set on convincing someone of the 'fact' something doesn't exist is indoctrination as well.

The things that have been mentioned by previous posters (the theory of evolution, Harry Potter) are by and large opposed by Fundamentalist Christians.

These two words seem to be inseparable in the eyes of this forum, but the fundamentalist viewpoint (or the viewpoint that causes this controversy, the inerrancy of scripture) is not one held by the majority of Christians I've encountered in the UK.

This viewpoint would say that the earth was created in six literal 24 hour days not very long ago, which science tells us is clearly not the case, and I agree. Evolution is currently the theory that best fits the understanding we have of where we came from, and so that is rightly taught - though I get the impression that is perceived as fact by many teachers, which kind of undermines the whole principle of science (to find truth by observation). At the present time, people who believe in evolution as fact are doing so by faith.

As a Christian, recently moved from Stalybridge via Buckinghamshire to Texas (where there are a few more fundamentalists!), I find meaning in the poetry of the creation story (in that I believe we are created, but that doesn't have to mean in 6 days), but not at the expense of science.

I believe that scripture is inspired, not inerrant, which requires it being read through the lens of the culture at the time of writing and appreciation of scribe's bias.

And Harry Potter is brilliant!

I just thought I'd give an alternative viewpoint so that other people don't have to continue to speculate about one.

It. Is. A. Fucking. Fact. You. Lunatic.

There are parts of the theory that have been verified as fact, but the theory in it's entirety cannot be scientifically verified without observation. I don't particularly appreciate the accusation of 'lunatic', given that I clearly state that it's correct that it's taught in schools.

 

[No6]

I appreciate that faith is experiential, and should be conveyed as such (i.e. framing things in "I believe', 'in my experience', or 'the Bible says'). This needs to be true on the other side too, however. Being dead set on convincing someone of the 'fact' something doesn't exist is indoctrination as well.

The things that have been mentioned by previous posters (the theory of evolution, Harry Potter) are by and large opposed by Fundamentalist Christians.

These two words seem to be inseparable in the eyes of this forum, but the fundamentalist viewpoint (or the viewpoint that causes this controversy, the inerrancy of scripture) is not one held by the majority of Christians I've encountered in the UK.

This viewpoint would say that the earth was created in six literal 24 hour days not very long ago, which science tells us is clearly not the case, and I agree. Evolution is currently the theory that best fits the understanding we have of where we came from, and so that is rightly taught - though I get the impression that is perceived as fact by many teachers, which kind of undermines the whole principle of science (to find truth by observation). At the present time, people who believe in evolution as fact are doing so by faith.

As a Christian, recently moved from Stalybridge via Buckinghamshire to Texas (where there are a few more fundamentalists!), I find meaning in the poetry of the creation story (in that I believe we are created, but that doesn't have to mean in 6 days), but not at the expense of science.

I believe that scripture is inspired, not inerrant, which requires it being read through the lens of the culture at the time of writing and appreciation of scribe's bias.

And Harry Potter is brilliant!

I just thought I'd give an alternative viewpoint so that other people don't have to continue to speculate about one.

This has always interested me. If you know the creation story as told in the bible is a fallacy, how do you put faith in the rest of the book? Surely you can't pick and choose which chapters and verses to believe in, because this would mean an entire lack of faith.

Good question. I guess I would say that I believe the meaning for us in the creation story isn't found in how we were created, but that - regardless of how and when - we were created, and there is a reason for our being here.

It's not so much a case of dismissing certain parts of the Bible while valuing others; it's more about seeing and testing the parts in the context of the wider narrative and who God says He is, which is most explicitly detailed in the person of Jesus (which is why I believe the gospels are the exception to valuing parts of the Bible over others).

In addition to this, there is experience that I have had of encountering God through the Holy Spirit, the legitimacy of which I appreciate I cannot convince you of.

You see, I see that argument as a cop out. 200 years ago, the word of the bible was preached as being the word of god and thus infallible. As society has evolved and science has advanced, a lot of the assertions in the bible were shown to be pure fallacy. The reframing of the bible into the context you put forward was just a way of christianity trying to redefine itself in the face of such empirical evidence. It went from being the word of god to be part of a "wider narrative" as you put it. It's either the word of god or it is a fallible piece of work written by man. Religion can't keep moving the goalposts to suit the prevailing social attitudes and scientific advancements.

 

[SWP's back]

I appreciate that faith is experiential, and should be conveyed as such (i.e. framing things in "I believe', 'in my experience', or 'the Bible says'). This needs to be true on the other side too, however. Being dead set on convincing someone of the 'fact' something doesn't exist is indoctrination as well.

The things that have been mentioned by previous posters (the theory of evolution, Harry Potter) are by and large opposed by Fundamentalist Christians.

These two words seem to be inseparable in the eyes of this forum, but the fundamentalist viewpoint (or the viewpoint that causes this controversy, the inerrancy of scripture) is not one held by the majority of Christians I've encountered in the UK.

This viewpoint would say that the earth was created in six literal 24 hour days not very long ago, which science tells us is clearly not the case, and I agree. Evolution is currently the theory that best fits the understanding we have of where we came from, and so that is rightly taught - though I get the impression that is perceived as fact by many teachers, which kind of undermines the whole principle of science (to find truth by observation). At the present time, people who believe in evolution as fact are doing so by faith.

As a Christian, recently moved from Stalybridge via Buckinghamshire to Texas (where there are a few more fundamentalists!), I find meaning in the poetry of the creation story (in that I believe we are created, but that doesn't have to mean in 6 days), but not at the expense of science.

I believe that scripture is inspired, not inerrant, which requires it being read through the lens of the culture at the time of writing and appreciation of scribe's bias.

And Harry Potter is brilliant!

I just thought I'd give an alternative viewpoint so that other people don't have to continue to speculate about one.

It. Is. A. Fucking. Fact. You. Lunatic.

There are parts of the theory that have been verified as fact, but the theory in it's entirety cannot be scientifically verified without observation. I don't particularly appreciate the accusation of 'lunatic', given that I clearly state that it's correct that it's taught in schools.

I suggest you do some further research. It is a fact. It is right that teachers teach it as fact and think it as fact as it is a fucking fact.