Surely children should be exposed to a plethora of ideas and allowed to choose from the wealth of knowledge which is being imparted on them daily and make their own choice. The occupation of Darwinian evolution in the class room is pretty one sided and it's indoctrinating children to having a very narrow outlook on life.
Research has shown that the most intelligent students and academically well to-do choose their careers around the early age of 10 where children show a strong interest and passion for one area or more over others. Yet children are not being stimulated enough in primary school. We need to make certain elements of the curriculum more stream-lined across the whole country for example more advanced arithmetic than is being currently taught in addition to stressing the need to read books for leisure. And why not also educate children on philosophy and creationism.
Surely children should be set-up to have a well-rounded school experience not what is currently happening right now.
-
- Follow
- 1
- 10-07-2016 23:24
-
- Follow
- 2
- 10-07-2016 23:35
um i had RE lessons like 5 times a fortnight telling us what christianity/buddhism think of the world
-
- Follow
- 3
- 10-07-2016 23:35
young earth creationism? Not really - can't see why your hobby horse should be privileged over all the other wrong ideas ever conceived during human history.
I don't think there's enough time to teach school children every wrong idea ever conceived as well as the right ones - and probably teaching them that everything's equally valid so they can just choose what they want to believe isn't really serving them well. -
- Follow
- 4
- 10-07-2016 23:37
R.E is a joke. The subject should be scrapped.(Original post by ihatePE)
um i had RE lessons like 5 times a fortnight telling us what christianity/buddhism think of the world -
- Follow
- 5
- 10-07-2016 23:39
Err no it should not be presented as a viable alternative to mainstream Christian beliefs.(Original post by Galadrielll)
Surely children should be exposed to a plethora of ideas and allowed to choose from the wealth of knowledge which is being imparted on them daily and make their own choice. The occupation of Darwinian evolution in the class room is pretty one sided and it's indoctrinating children to having a very narrow outlook on life.
Creationism is beyond a joke. It is not something I'd want in schools. It's like asking Flat Earth theory to be taught in Science. No. Stop it. -
- Follow
- 6
- 10-07-2016 23:39
and creationism should not be introduced, but that's just my opinion(Original post by Galadrielll)
R.E is a joke. The subject should be scrapped.
-
- Follow
- 7
- 10-07-2016 23:40
(Original post by Joinedup)
young earth creationism? Not really - can't see why your hobby horse should be privileged over all the other wrong ideas ever conceived during human history.
I don't think there's enough time to teach school children every wrong idea ever conceived as well as the right ones - and probably teaching them that everything's equally valid so they can just choose what they want to believe isn't really serving them well.
Many scientists support creationism and in fact lots of the evidence for evolution supports creationism in some cases more so than evolution itself. Take the lack of transitional fossils for example. If all life forms have evolved from simpler life forms there should be millions of transitional fossils available for study. These transitional fossils would be of the type showing the process of one species evolving into another. However, no transitional fossils have ever been found. As such the fossil record actually lines up better with supernatural creation than with macroevolution.Last edited by Galadrielll; 10-07-2016 at 23:44. -
- Follow
- 8
- 10-07-2016 23:42
No reputable scientist that has multiple, peer-reviewed (by the academic community) papers on the topic exist.The only thing you'd be able to do is link me to CMI or some other biased website with so called 'published papers'(Original post by Galadrielll)
Many scientists support creationism and in fact lots of the evidence for evolution supports creationism in some cases more so than evolution itself. Take the lack of transitional fossils for example. If all life forms have evolved from simpler life forms there should be millions of transitional fossils available for study. These transitional fossils would be of the type showing the process of one species evolving into another. However, no transitional fossils have ever been found. As such the fossil record actually lines up better with supernatural creation than with macroevolution.
It is literally beyond me how you came to that conclusion.(Original post by Galadrielll)
As such the fossil record actually lines up better with supernatural creation than with macroevolution.
I haven't studied Geology to a massively high level, especially fossils. Plagioclase would know better.Last edited by hezzlington; 10-07-2016 at 23:48. -
- Follow
- 9
- 10-07-2016 23:51
No, there is zero evidence for Creationism, it is a load of baloney and it should not be taught in schools.
-
- Follow
- 10
- 10-07-2016 23:51
Creationism has more evidence than Flat Earth but nice try at demonstrating the Pooh-pooh fallacy.(Original post by hezzlington)
Err no it should not be presented as a viable alternative to mainstream Christian beliefs.
Creationism is beyond a joke. It is not something I'd want in schools. It's like asking Flat Earth theory to be taught in Science. No. Stop it.
The fossil records I mentioned which you failed to comment for obvious reasons has massive holes in it and I'm not even talking about the missing links which at this point are a massive, gaping missing chain but I digress.
Evolution relies on the idea that things can improve and eventually become more complex. However, what we observe in the real world is that everything runs down or becomes less complex - entropy. Are you familiar with the laws of thermodynamics. For evolution to work organisms would improve always and become more complex. We do not see this in observable science. -
- Follow
- 11
- 10-07-2016 23:53
Yeah sure and let's teach Astrology as well, considering we're just gonna be shoving ******** down kid's throats either way.
-
Plagioclase- Follow
- 107 followers
- 20 badges
- TSR Support Team
- Clearing and Applications Advisor
Offline20ReputationRep:- Follow
- 12
- 10-07-2016 23:55
Not as a scientific theory they don't.(Original post by Galadrielll)
Many scientists support creationism
This is absolutely, completely untrue. There's even a wikipedia article on this listing some of the key transitional fossils that have been uncovered. The fossil record is extremely patchy, sure, but to claim that there are no examples of transitional fossils is just a lie. And to go on to claim that the fossil record supports supernatural creation is even more absurd! A good scientific hypothesis has to (1) propose a mechanism and (2) make testable predictions that stand up to evidence. Creationism does neither of these. Natural selection does both.(Original post by Galadrielll)
However, no transitional fossils have ever been found. As such the fossil record actually lines up better with supernatural creation than with macroevolution.
This is one of the most irritating counter-evolutionary arguments in existence. In order to claim that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics you have to completely misunderstand what the second law of thermodynamics says. There's nothing about evolution that means organisms have to always become more complex, that's just absolutely not true. The second law of thermodynamics also does not say that all systems have to become more complex over time. It says that the entropy of an isolated system increases over time. Entropy is not complexity and genetic lineages are not isolated systems.(Original post by Galadrielll)
Are you familiar with the laws of thermodynamics. For evolution to work organisms would improve always and become more complex. We do not see this in observable science.Last edited by Plagioclase; 11-07-2016 at 00:00. -
- Follow
- 13
- 10-07-2016 23:58
I dont see the point as there are sunday schools anyway.
Also i think the GCSE RE i was taught was okay we basically learnt about what others think, nothing was shoved down and it was stuff like (life,death, reasons for and against god, family stuff like divorce, homosexuality views,then stuff like recycling,genetic engineering etc.)
Cant remember primary school year 1 and 2 -
- Follow
- 14
- 10-07-2016 23:59
Well, I guess you can call it a Pooh-pooh fallacy. But to be fair, they don't really deserve attention. It demonstrates an utter failure of our education system where we have people believing in Young-Earth Creationism and Flat Earth 'Theory'.(Original post by Galadrielll)
Creationism has more evidence than Flat Earth but nice try at demonstrating the Pooh-pooh fallacy.
The fossil records I mentioned which you failed to comment for obvious reasons has massive holes in it and I'm not even talking about the missing links which at this point are a massive, gaping missing chain but I digress.
Such as what?(Original post by Galadrielll)
Evolution relies on the idea that things can improve and eventually become more complex. However, what we observe in the real world is that everything runs down or becomes less complex - entropy.
Yes, are you?(Original post by Galadrielll)
Are you familiar with the laws of thermodynamics.
You're aware of the timescales involved, right?(Original post by Galadrielll)
For evolution to work organisms would improve always and become more complex. We do not see this in observable science. -
- Follow
- 15
- 11-07-2016 00:00
Its an easy A and an easy A* if you dont leave everything till the last min like i did(Original post by Galadrielll)
R.E is a joke. The subject should be scrapped.
-
- Follow
- 16
- 11-07-2016 00:03
I went to a catholic school. We were taught about the Big Bang Theory and Steady State for Science. In RS we weren't taught very much about the Big Bang Theory or Steady state. In the RS textbook it just said the theory states that about 13.7 billion years ago all the matter in the Universe was concentrated into a single incredibly tiny point. This began to enlarge rapidly in a hot explosion, and it is still expanding today. That's all that that was in the textbook.
-
- Follow
- 17
- 11-07-2016 00:05
(Original post by Galadrielll)
x(Original post by Plagioclase)
x
I eagerly await your response to Plag. I wonder if you'll address any of the points he makes... -
- Follow
- 18
- 11-07-2016 00:14
Creationism should be taught in schools as an example of one of the beliefs of a minority of Christians. It is important that young people are aware of fringe viewpoints. The place for this aspect of it is in RE lessons.
It should also be used as an example in Science lessons to help better understand modern scientific methods, and the various meanings if the word 'thoery'.
If young people want to believe in Creationism or vampires or Judgement Day then so be it. But there are enough plausible things in this world for them to explore without us oushing them towards fairytales without even a decent moral to the story. -
- Follow
- 19
- 11-07-2016 00:19
Yet creationists like science when they think they can get away with misrepresenting it to gain some backup.(Original post by Galadrielll)
Creationism has more evidence than Flat Earth but nice try at demonstrating the Pooh-pooh fallacy.
The fossil records I mentioned which you failed to comment for obvious reasons has massive holes in it and I'm not even talking about the missing links which at this point are a massive, gaping missing chain but I digress.
Evolution relies on the idea that things can improve and eventually become more complex. However, what we observe in the real world is that everything runs down or becomes less complex - entropy. Are you familiar with the laws of thermodynamics. For evolution to work organisms would improve always and become more complex. We do not see this in observable science.
I would suggest that you are not familiar with the laws of thermodynamics... if you're doing it properly at all you've got to be careful about defining your closed system. you can't just cherry pick something evolving as if it occurred in isolation and say it's violating thermodynamics.
see #9 here http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...o-creationist/ -
- Follow
- 20
- 11-07-2016 00:19
No. Use something like Quakers or Rastafarianism for that.(Original post by offhegoes)
Creationism should be taught in schools as an example of one of the beliefs of a minority of Christians. It is important that young people are aware of fringe viewpoints. The place for this aspect of it is in RE lessons.
No. Use the theory of gravity or BBT to help understand what theory means.(Original post by offhegoes)
It should also be used as an example in Science lessons to help better understand modern scientific methods, and the various meanings if the word 'thoery'.
No. These same young people can eventually vote. It's in our best interest as a society to keep everybody well educated and to be able to think rationally. If you want to demonstrate that stupid people exist in society...then maybe..sure.(Original post by offhegoes)
If young people want to believe in Creationism or vampires or Judgement Day then so be it. But there are enough plausible things in this world for them to explore without us oushing them towards fairytales without even a decent moral to the story.
Reply
Submit reply
Related discussions:
- Do you agree with religion in education?
- Parliament vote AGAINST sex education being compulsory in ...
- UK faith schools teaching women must obey men
- Should faith schools be banned?
- Yes, we need better religious education at school
- Tories commence assault against atheism in schools
- Have Islamic values made the UK a better place
- Libertarianism - Good or Bad? Have your say
- I was homeschooled....ask me anything
- Should it be illegal to force a child to believe in a religion or ...
TSR Support Team
We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.
This forum is supported by:
Updated: October 16, 2016
Share this discussion:
Tweet
