Comments on: Is science teaching undermined by religious instruction in faith schools?

By: Simon E

Simon E — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 03:13:47 +0000

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).

By: davidh

davidh — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 23:52:54 +0000

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.

By: alan

alan — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 15:38:22 +0000

“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.

By: Svlad Cjelli

Svlad Cjelli — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 08:46:35 +0000

“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.

By: AMC

AMC — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 01:16:11 +0000

“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).

By: Coocumb3r

Coocumb3r — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 23:16:34 +0000

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.

By: Kate

Kate — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 19:19:47 +0000

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.

By: Mrsme

Mrsme — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 18:36:53 +0000

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?

By: Sciteach

Sciteach — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 18:36:40 +0000

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.

By: Georgy

Georgy — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 17:36:55 +0000

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.