“From time to time there are concerns raised that some state-funded religious schools teach creationism, or intelligent design, in their science lessons.
The last Labour government and the Conservatives in opposition have always denied this is a problem and have always said that they will not stand for the teaching of creationism in science lessons. Ministers always say that creationism can’t be taught in science lessons
Whenever this issue cropped up in parliament I was always concerned that the debate was missing the point. It is no good teaching about evolution (which is a scientific fact) in a science lesson at 9am then at 10am, in a religious education lesson, instructing pupils not to believe it.
The whole problem with RE lessons is not that they exist but that they amount to religious instruction in some schools. There is no basis for allowing state-funded schools to indoctrinate their pupils, even if that is what their parents want. They can provide this in optional after-school (or lunchtime) classes or clubs. They could even have something on a Sunday where children are taught to be believers. They could call it Sunday School!
The recognition that RE lessons can be proselytising is reflected in the right that parents have to withdraw their children from these lessons. In contrast, they can’t withdraw their children from biology lessons even if they have profound religious objections to their being taught about sexual reproduction or evolution – these subjects are recognised as non-proselytising.
Secularists like me believe that RE is a valid subject for study in the curriculum but should be about what different religions (and other world views like humanism) believe; it should not be about what ought to be believed. So Catholic schools should be allowed to use RE lessons to teach that the Catholic church opposes contraception and believes that homosexuality is a sin, but not that the children ought to believe those things. The lessons should set out contrasting views on that subject.”
Read more at The Guardian (Thanks @XxLadyClaireXx)
"
It’s all about choice really. I respect peoples rights to want to send their kids to faith based secondary schools, or not. If you don’t like the concept then don’t send your children there, there are many other options. But why feel the need remove the option for those who DO want to attend such schools. It seems that the only people with a gripe are those who don’t attend faith schools anyway?! A bit mean spirited therefore. And if it’s about resources, well, that’s a whole other issue. Try campaigning for separation of church and state as your starting point-it may get you further.
CB, it’s the parents who want their kids to go to those schools. The kids themselves often have no say in the matter, and are given no choice or religion if they’re only offered one option. That irks me, because I believe everyone should have an informed choice in what they believe or don’t believe.
As for seperation of Church and State, we have that over here (except if you’re the monarch). I wasn’t aware Britain didn’t. That would be another issue to campaign for (but not to the exclusion of other issues).
Religion is like a penis. it’s fine to have one. it’s fine to be proud of it. but please don’t whip it out in public and start waving it around, and PLEASE don’t try to shove it down children’s throats.
I went to a Catholic state school for both primary and secondary education. It is True for my school that we had little in the way of sex ed except a video on frog reproduction, compared with the comp next door! However in terms of creationism vs evolution it was very much focused on evolution in science class. My brother does A-Level Biology and chemistry and the school has the best results in the area. RE however, by it’s nature took the bible pretty seriously but I can honestly say that it never seemed to contradict other studies or decry evolution(I think genesis is given over as myth even in the most devoutly religious). We focused on figures and premises, and even now the school actively encourages questioning especially at a-level with projects that can focus on the contradiction of science vs. Religion. I think that religious schools can be positive as they have strong moral codes, and although obviously raising pupils in a catholic ethos can be seen as “brainwashing” it doesn’t neccessarily have that effect. Through experience I can say that it polarises people, with many including myself brought up catholic but becoming atheist, and others become devoutly catholic.
CB,
Check out this short documentary by Richard Dawkins on the issue of faith schools in the UK: http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/08/27/richard-dawkins-on-faith-schools/
Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to always be as simple as parental choice. What if all the schools nearby are faith schools? What about the consequences of communities self-segregating and children never getting to hear alternative perspectives?
Of course Catholic schools teach children to believe in God. They’re CATHOLIC SCHOOLS!
Personally, I don’t agree with religious schools. Fair enough if you want to raise your child to be religious (I don’t think children should be forced in to any religion, but if a parent thinks their child will go to hell for not believing in God, then you can’t blame them,) but you can do it by taking them to mosque, or sending them to Bible reading classes. Sending them to a religious school as well really restricts their view. However, so does not letting them take RE lessons. Whenever you hear about parents taking their kids out of RE, it’s always because they want them to make a ‘free decision’ about religion. How can they make a free decision about something if they know nothing about it? >
> I was having RE lessons not long ago, and they’re not at all proselytising (although it would be good if they covered more religions. It’s mainly just Islam and Christianity.)
Funny story about Catholic school…My old history teacher was a Catholic (although not a particularly religious one,) and his son was excluded from Catholic school for writing in an essay that he didn’t believe in God. He thought it was hilarious
I was taught at a faith school by those wicked Jesuit Fathers.. Do you know; they actually told me that evolution and the description of creation in Genesis were quite compatible, if the latter was understood in terms of the literary forms used.
Oh, by the way, this was back in 1944, and I was 10 years old.
I feel that the opinions expressed on Science teaching are a little archaic. It is my duty as a Science teacher to allow students to explore contrasting theories on creation. We supply them with the evidence base used to back up each theory, and then allow them to determine their own conclusion. Hopefully the lack of creditable evidence for creationism would point them in the direction of Evolution, but our duty is to get them to ask the questions rather than just tell them the answer.
As the Head of RE in a Catholic school I would like the chance to defend my subject! As part of the Catholic curriculum we teach the Big Bang and evolution, Fundamental Creationalism and Liberal christain thought. These are taught equally so that a student can make their own decisions. Our job is to inform our students and encourage healthy debate. Why is that so wrong?
I completley agree that children should not be taught what to believe but should be taught the information and are given a chance to decide whether they believe it or not.
However, I find at my school it is the other way round. I am taught in biology about how evolution is correct and in physics about how the bing bang was a real event. We don’t have RE lessons so we are given little else to believe in without out of school research.
I went to a C of E primary school and I think because they tried to cram so much religion down my throat it turned me into an athiest, it was very confusing at times, especially when you’re ten.
“There is no basis for allowing state-funded schools to indoctrinate their pupils”: the problem with this sort of statement is that although it has superficial appeal, proponents are also advocating indoctrination of a different kind. Suppose God exists, has revealed Himself and is properly the object of worship and education. If that picture is true, then a regime whereby God’s significance and demands are ignored is essentially an anti-God regime. A regime that pushes God out as far away as possible for hours per day is instruction that God does not matter, that one can properly lead one’s life without reference to God. So the truth is that both positions are ‘indoctrinating’ (if that is what you want to call it).
“Secularists like me believe that RE is a valid subject for study in the curriculum but should be about what different religions (and other world views like humanism) believe”
Like in Sweden.
“It is no good teaching about evolution (which is a scientific fact)”.
If we taught our children how to devise queries, rather than simply believe what they are told, maybe we wouldn’t have a problem. Many things including the above, are claimed as “fact”. Right up until the moment when the claimant finds there are too many questions and not enough answers. All we have is a fluid working hypothesis. Not a complete and infallible understanding. If the writer does not appreciate that, she is no more informed than those she disparages.
I agree with Alan. Since when has evolution been a scientific fact? It’s news to me. I’m not religious, but I think it’s an unhealthy route to preach science as gospel. A scientific fact is a theory that has been proven by repeatable experiment. There is currently absolutely no proof of evolution; it is a theory (and a relatively new one) and has no more validity than intelligent design. Let’s stimulate the minds of children, by encouraging thought and debate, and not by preaching unproven ‘facts’. That applies to scientific theories as well as religious views. Both have their place in the world, but using logic to argue against faith is pointless and flawed, especially when the logic is based on a faith of an unproven theory.
DavidH & for any other doubters about evolution, suggest you read Richard Dawkins “The Greatest Show on Earth”. After that mountain of concrete, demonstable, current evidence from dozens of sources I cannot see how anyone would have even the tinyest shred of doubt. It even starts with a very clear definition of what he (and the dictionaries) considers “fact” as opposed to “theory” for those who seem not to understand the differences.
“Absolutely no proof”? Sounds like someone hasn’t done their research (or more likely doesn’t want to).