Help in teaching 11-12 Year olds (RE (Religious Education) in the UK)

or perhaps they would be laughed out of the lab if they proclaimed belief in creation?their goes their credentials!

Yes, since there's nothing scientific about creation.

---

I hunt for the truthI am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

No, it's because of their tiresome dedication to presenting what reality teaches.

This is a valid issue. Children should not only be taught about the difference between Creation and Evolution in an (obviously biased) religious setting.Yet Creationism is not scientific. That's why it has no place in the classroom in the first place.I think the solution is, in fact, to draw the distinction in the classroom. Teach the Theory of Evolution as accurately as possible (which already requires extreme remediation for most American teachers at the High School level and below). Don't teach Creation as an "alternative" because scientifically, it's nothing of the sort. But you can use Creationism as a useful tool to draw into contrast what is and is not a scientific theory.You'd have to be careful - you cannot call a specific religion's teachings outright false for all the same reasons we don't allow religious teaching in public classrooms. But you can show that faith-based topics like Creationism are different from science, and do not use the scientific method.I remember back in my Junior year of High School, we spent a significant amount of time at the beginning of the year learning about what science actually is. About how science is never the search for truth, but rather a never-ending quest for ever-increasing accuracy in understanding and modeling the natural world around us.The Theory of Evolution has been rigorously tested for a very long time, and has been changed over the years such that it is now extremely accurate when compared to observational data and in predicting what we should find when new species (extant or fossilized) are discovered (among other things).This can be contrasted with religious views by simply stating that sacred texts like Genesis could be true, but there is no way to test their accuracy. That science requires being able to test your hypotheses against observed evidence to determine accuracy, while religious stories simply claim to be true, full stop.I think an effective contrast can be made without saying that Creationism (regardless of which creation myth we're talking about) is actually false, and stressing to children that while individually we all are only able to believe what we find to be a convincing argument, science can only accept that which has tested accuracy, and does not concern itself with the truth or falsehood of that which it cannot test in the first place. There is no such theory. It's rather difficult to put a theory that doesn't exist through the peer review process. "Creation scientists" have never even managed to publish such a theory, except in the popular media where they needn't concern themselves with the peer review process. Quite simply, someone has to do the legwork and come up with an actual model for Creationism - how, specifically it occurred, the mechanisms that drove it, what evidence supports such an explanation above others, and how such a hypothesis might be tested through experiment or predictions. "Goddidit" is not an explanation or mechanism, is untestable, and involves no evidence.As soon as a Creation Scientist comes up with an actual, fully-formed hypothesis with evidenciary support and potential falsification, I assure you that other scientists will look at it. How absurd. Peg, you know full well that the overwhelming majority of scientists believe in some deity or another. You've just suggested that scientists who happen to also be Christians refuse to believe that God exists.

ok, so if we look at what evolutionists teach, it should be able to be tested and varified like gravity can. Gravity can be demonstrated, tested, and proved in the lab and elsewhere.so tell me, does the evidence support the evolution of life from inanimate chemicals? Has that be tested in a lab and has it been proved that inanimate chemicals can make the leap from non living to living matter? Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Yes. And for that reason alone it has no business in public schools. No! In science the "choices" are based on scientific evidence. Various non-scientific beliefs, for which there is no empirical evidence, have no place at all in science. See above. It is because there is no empirical evidence for gods and demons, yours or anyone else's.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

One more time: the theory of evolution does not deal with origins. The theory of evolution would work equally well whether the first life was created by some deity, dropped in from outer space, or came about chemically.Why are you unable to separate origins from evolution?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

What do you think exactly is being taught?My memory of being taught this stuff in the UK was quite simple. We spent a tiny amount of time on evolution and adaptation and there was a footnote to the effect of 'Scientists believe the origin of life started in a sort of organic soup...' etc. And yes - there is evidence of this claim, the consensus of scientists do think the origin of life started in what might be simply termed 'organic soup'. Could you explain the difference between 'living' and 'non living' matter? It sounds like you think there might be some 'vital force' or something.

I guess its because evolution implies that life 'evolved' - the definition of which is "To develop or achieve gradually"no intervention needed apparently...no designer, no creatorAnd besides that, when evolution was first presented, it was said to be the answer to where the human race came from. So according to evolution, we were not created by God in our current form.And to prove that we were not created in our current form, you need to be able to show that life can evolve from chemical reactions into living matter. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

thats exactly what i'm talking about. There was no life, then in this soup of 'goup', life evolvedsomething caused the nonliving matter to change into living matter and from there all the species on earth sprangIf that were true, then surely scientists would be able to reproduce it in the lab. We have all the chemicals here, all the building blocks of life are right here, so you would expect that they could reproduce this amazing thing called 'life'have they? Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

No!What we need to show is that life forms can evolve. Origins makes no difference at all! That is an entirely different question.Didn't you see the section in my previous post that I put in yellow, bold, and larger type? Go back and reread that post.I believe what is happening is that you don't like those answers (e.g., origins and evolution are distinct) so you are ignoring them. If this is the case it would be helpful for all of us for you to admit that and then we could move on. Otherwise we're repeating the same explanation time after time, thread after thread, and that's not good for a productive discussion. It just leads to frustration.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden

---

I hunt for the truthI am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden