Angry and left with a dilemma

[gpa]

I wondered if you could help.

A quick summary; my year two son (6 1/2 )and I were talking about his day at school as he has recently moved up to year 2. He mentioned that he had a science lesson and started telling me about god and Jesus and how god made the earth and universe and Jesus was his helper. He also explained the difference between Christian and Jewish.

Now I am horrified that my sons first introduction in a science class of how we and all around us came into being is being introduced on the basis of religion and not grounded science (science by definition is a well grounded area, with correct method, experimental procedure and the all important maths to help bind it all together and presented in a replication way. At what point do they stop teching this aproach or do they carry onto the point that as many creationst belive the earth to be only 8-10,000 years old which is completly against scientific proof.


or a Wikipedia puts it "
Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" or "knowing") is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works. Through controlled methods, scientists use observable physical evidence of natural phenomena to collect data, and analyze this information to explain what and how things work. Such methods include experimentation that tries to simulate natural phenomena under controlled conditions and thought experiments. Knowledge in science is gained through research.



My feelings are as follows:

Creationism has absolutely no place being taught within a Science based lesson, it is faith based and not based on scientific fact and certainly should not IMHO be the basis of a child's first introduction into how we all got here. If you are going to teach about religion then you offer a broad range of explanations of religions and an explanation of how they differ, not just Christians and Jews and should be done so in the appropriate class.

Finally I do not like being put into a position of one either telling my son that the teacher was incorrect or misguided in giving this information, thus in my sons eyes questioning his teacher ability/honesty, especially as we work hard to support him in his leaning or try to explain that Christians and Jews are not the only religious groups that exist generally by follow up conversations with my son who is very inquisitive.



In simple terms the dilemma I face is how to teach him to have an open mind without undermining the teachers and secondly how do i approach the school to find what the policy is and at what point real science is brought into the equations. Do we teach are kids one thing and then later in school life teach them another.



I know this sounds like the rants of an anti-religious person, I assure you I'm not. My issue as far as I understand it is, we in the UK do not teach creationism within a science based class and yes there have been many debates regarding this. It is my understanding the two should not be mixed, however clearly this is not the case at my child's mainstream infant school.



I welcome you comments as I need to think about this before I decide what i do next



Cheers



Grant

 

[Dextur]

I'm surprised, at 7, he was in science and they taught creationism ?

Interesting, and at the same time rather scary, you might like to speak to Pecker, he's an RE teacher and he will know the score on this, ie, should they be doing this or not.

My first step personally, (unless you are at a relegiously driven school) is to speak to the headmaster and make your position clear.

It's unacceptable at 7 years old to be filling them with that junk, I would also find it to be a big issue.

Now in RE , if they want to teach creationism as a great story along with other great stories, then I personally have no issue with that, but NOT in science and not as fact.

 

[Steven]

I went to a CoE primary school and a R.C. secondary school. As time went by I learned of Darwin on my own and was able to form my own opinion, not that anyone could say whether this early lesson will form a lasting impression in your son

I think you should take your concern to the school in person, either the teacher or headteacher and find out what the year 2 science teaching will contain throughout the whole year. Personally if they intend to teach both sides of the coin then I would be inclined to leave it as that would then allow you to discuss both topics with your son at home
... which allows me to say that dinosaurs are somewhat omitted from the whole 7 day thing

 

[Geege]

Surely they should learn that in RE and not science. I think at that age for science I would expect them to learn about molecules, physical properties, the environment, living things, stuff like that not Christianity.

 

[gpa]

I'm surprised, at 7, he was in science and they taught creationism ?

Interesting, and at the same time rather scary, you might like to speak to Pecker, he's an RE teacher and he will know the score on this, ie, should they be doing this or not.

My first step personally, (unless you are at a relegiously driven school) is to speak to the headmaster and make your position clear.

It's unacceptable at 7 years old to be filling them with that junk, I would also find it to be a big issue.

Now in RE , if they want to teach creationism as a great story along with other great stories, then I personally have no issue with that, but NOT in science and not as fact.

His learing structure has changed now he has moved into year two, the gradual focus of learning through play is being replaced with structured topic specific lessons. I questioned his claim this was in a science lessons and he took great delight in telling me I should know that; Numeracy was for numbers, literacy was for reading/writing and science was for discovery.

This is what prompted me to write this. If he had come home and said he had had a lesson on culture/religion and how it takes all sorts to make up the world it would not have caught my attention in the way it has.

I also qualified what he knew about other religions and sadly nothing had been said regarding anything but Christians and Jews, which again IMHO is not a broad enough base if you intend to tackle this issue.

And yes this is a mainstream school

 

[gpa]

I went to a CoE primary school and a R.C. secondary school. As time went by I learned of Darwin on my own and was able to form my own opinion, not that anyone could say whether this early lesson will form a lasting impression in your son

I think you should take your concern to the school in person, either the teacher or headteacher and find out what the year 2 science teaching will contain throughout the whole year. Personally if they intend to teach both sides of the coin then I would be inclined to leave it as that would then allow you to discuss both topics with your son at home
... which allows me to say that dinosaurs are somewhat omitted from the whole 7 day thing

I think that is fair advice, again my main issue seems to be that in a science lesson the first exposure (in school( to how we got here is not based on science but faith, I would have hoped the two were separated and his initial introduction was science based.

He now is slightly confused, especially as he loves to watch the science based programs say National Geographic/discovery( he is banned from watching the crap American trash cartoons etc), has posters of the world and planets plastered all over his bedroom.

Religion and culture are an area I believe should be separated from Science, but I agree absolutely that open discussions should be encouraged.

 

[gpa]

Surely they should learn that in RE and not science. I think at that age for science I would expect them to learn about molecules, physical properties, the environment, living things, stuff like that not Christianity.

Emmmmm yes, espeially as I am very active and encourage discovery as he calls it.

 

[inkinoo]

If my son were taught about creationism in a science lesson I would be straight down the school to demand what the hell is going on. Creationism has absolutely no place being taught as part of science.

 

[Desmo]

Agree with you totally. There's nothing wrong with being taught what he is, just don't do it in a science lesson. I'd be having a chat with the school

 

[Steven]

I also qualified what he knew about other religions and sadly nothing had been said regarding anything but Christians and Jews, which again IMHO is not a broad enough base if you intend to tackle this issue.

And yes this is a mainstream school

He is still learning more than I ever did - forget other religions, my old RE teacher at my secondary school did not even give the time of day to other denominations of Christianity and only forced herself to devote half a lesson one time due to the Government requirements

He now is slightly confused, especially as he loves to watch the science based programs say National Geographic/discovery( he is banned from watching the crap American trash cartoons etc), has posters of the world and planets plastered all over his bedroom.

Religion and culture are an area I believe should be separated from Science, but I agree absolutely that open discussions should be encouraged.

Following clarification from the school on what is going on with the curriculum and whether the lesson is indeed labelled 'science' (I suppose the semantics are important as we are talking about 7 year olds),... this does give you an opportunity to explain both sides to your son. No need to patronise - he will find it all out himself eventually
My dinosaur comment above was for the intention of if your son ever asked you which was right

 

[Deleted member 27989]

I'm surprised to hear that on a mainstream school, I assume you mean by that one where there is no religious link to the school.

Then again that was my first reaction, with a more balanced and dare I say scientific look at the situation I can't see a problem with it at all. Isn't science about not assuming anything? Isn't science about being open to alternative explanations and investigating and testing those theories? Isn't science about having an open mind? And should one not teach about all the possible theories, rather then have them memorise what the majority has settled for in agreements....

I think it is good that they provide a balanced view and get to see all angles of what could have happened. It enlarges the horizon and encourages thinking, and ultimately that is what they are there for. Us adults seem to forget that...

 

[jendo]

Whilst science lessons seem as good as place as any to discuss the difference of opinions between creationist and evolutionists. the op does not mention anything about debate just creationism being taught as fact.
This reminds me of the recent story of Professor Michael Reiss having to quit the royal society because he was miss quoted on this very issue
BBC NEWS | Education | Call for creationism in science
BBC NEWS | Education | 'Creationism' biologist quits job

 

[Switch625]

Was the lesson all creationism based or was it presented along with the scientific origin of life?

I understand that religion has no place in science, but if they mentioned it in a way like "some people believe this, science teaches that" then I don't see the harm.

 

[PoochJD]

Matr69,

That God created the world is probably a better story than the , Pyschiatric inspired materialistic nonsense "Science" comes up with, they are all opinions! Don't they think we come from a sea of ammonia, man from mud type theory. Rather be made by a pleaseant fellow with a nice white beard than be ejaculated from some quagmire somewhere.

You said it right - religion is a story! Whether it be a better story than science, isn't even a worthy statement!

Religion is not proof or evidence of anything, nor is it hard factual information! It's nothing but a story passed from one person to the next, over numerous generations.

Science - in my opinion - is about evidence and concrete facts that have been proved, or can be proven. Science is everything that religion is not!

Prove to me there's a "pleasant fellow with a nice white beard", and that's where all human life came from, and I'll happily eat the contents of my cat's litter tray! And, no, I'm not being facetious (sp?)! However, I don't think my cat will have to worry about that happening anytime soon!


Pooch

 

[Deleted member 27989]

Matr69,



You said it right - religion is a story! Whether it be a better story than science, isn't even a worthy statement!

Religion is not proof or evidence of anything, nor is it hard factual information! It's nothing but a story passed from one person to the next, over numerous generations.

Science - in my opinion - is about evidence and concrete facts that have been proved, or can be proven. Science is everything that religion is not!

Prove to me there's a "pleasant fellow with a nice white beard", and that's where all human life came from, and I'll happily eat the contents of my cat's litter tray! And, no, I'm not being facetious (sp?)! However, I don't think my cat will have to worry about that happening anytime soon!


Pooch

The proof or facts you are talking about are too often based upon being able to repeat the experiment and achieving the same result. So basically an agreement is being reached that fellow scientist agree upon since it is repeatable. That does not mean it is true, nor that there is no other explanation. The moment you think that progress will no longer be made. The simplest example of this concept is that scientists agreed the earth was flat, until they were proven wrong. So does that make it a fact or the real truth!?

I'll be the one alone in the corner keeping my mind open in the understanding that there is no such thing as the single truth or fact. Swing either side to far and narrow your vision and you will no longer learn and develop...

 

[wellladida]

Is he in a C of E school, as I did work experience in one and the teacher briefly mentioned creationism while she was talking about the big bang theory.

 

[timothyw]

The proof or facts you are talking about are too often based upon being able to repeat the experiment and achieving the same result. So basically an agreement is being reached that fellow scientist agree upon since it is repeatable. That does not mean it is true, nor that there is no other explanation. The moment you think that progress will no longer be made. The simplest example of this concept is that scientists agreed the earth was flat, until they were proven wrong. So does that make it a fact or the real truth!?

Total cobblers. As long ago as the 4th century BC it was widely known that the earth was spherical- even the idea that the church thought the earth was flat is also a total myth.
Your example is patently ridiculous. What experiment do you suppose they conducted to prove that the earth was flat? Holding a ruler against the floor?
The simplest test (and one that I'm sure was carried out to demonstrate the idea) is watch a ship sailing out to sea with a telescope. The last thing you see will be the top of the ship- not a ship that gets ever smaller as it gets further away.

I'll be the one alone in the corner keeping my mind open in the understanding that there is no such thing as the single truth or fact. Swing either side to far and narrow your vision and you will no longer learn and develop...

Believing in a load of myths and hokey does not constitute having an open mind. Scientists would be happy to be proved wrong on evolution- it would mean that we knew and understood more about the world (ie the aim of science!!!) It is the creationists that have a closed mind- refusing to accept the multitudinous evidence for evolution that we see, both in fossils, genetics, and the observable transformations in species that we have seen in humanities time (eg the domestic animals, evolved by selective breeding by humans, as opposed to natural conditions)

As far as the original poster, I'd certainly suggest you have a word with the headteacher and find out exactly what was being taught in this lesson- not only was it unscientific for a science lesson, but also clearly promoted Christianity as 'the truth', which may well be the teacher's opinion, but they have a duty to give equal weight to other religions also- even in an RE lesson the teacher will not directly claim that Jesus helped god make the universe as truth, merely teach that as the Christian belief.

 

[Deleted member 27989]

Your example is patently ridiculous. What experiment do you suppose they conducted to prove that the earth was flat? Holding a ruler against the floor?

I'll give you that my example was not the strongest, it's been a long day, but if you are perhaps a bit less dismissive you get the point...Or do we need to drill in your forehead...Oh not that is patently ridiculous as well in the name of science... Hindsight is a great gift in the eyes of some...

 

[timothyw]

I'll give you that my example was not the strongest, it's been a long day, but if you are perhaps a bit less dismissive you get the point...Or do we need to drill in your forehead...Oh not that is patently ridiculous as well in the name of science... Hindsight is a great gift in the eyes of some...

Not quite sure what you're referring to there...

 

[Deleted member 27989]

Not quite sure what you're referring to there...

That was another reference to scientific facts that were agreed to be disagreed upon at a later stage....or to be more specific a lobotomy....

 

[Ethics Gradient]

That was another reference to scientific facts that were agreed to be disagreed upon at a later stage....or to be more specific a lobotomy....

Neither of which are examples of scientific methodology.
Or do you think that modern scientifc methodology that powers your life, feeds you, provides you with all your electrical enterainment is all based on sand ?

If you remotely believe there is ever going to be a gestalt shift in the scientific or rational view of evolutionary theory, then you are sadly mistaken and tragically missinformed.

Schools should stick to scientifc facts in science lessons - and if they want to discuss creationism at school, do so in an RE lesson with exactly the same level of information and discussion time as Brahman creation myths, Aborignal Dream time, the buddhist individual universes and every other possible interpretation to give a fair and unbiased approach.

If they can't do that, they aren't teaching, they're preaching.

 

[gpa]

OK lets not start the creationism verses Darwinian debate please as this was not my intention.

I have further questioned my son, very diplomatically as i am acutely aware of making it an issue. The class was Science, he went to great lengths to tell me about god and how he made the universe and all that is around us. He then went on to tell me the differences between Christians and Jews. In his words, Christians believe in God and Jesus was his helper and Jews believe in god only.

No 1 my sons introduction into how we got here is based on Religion and not science all taught in a science class.

No 2 why only discuss Christian and Jews, this should be done in a culture and faith based discussion separately from Science and should encompass all religions to offer a broad understanding.

No 3 I'm am now left in the awkward position of having to explain peoples differences and beliefs, however after spending much time and encouraging him to watch science programs( he loves the universe documentaries) he is now saying but the teacher told me this !!!!!!!!!!

On a personal note I would have wanted my sons first introduction to how we all got here to be based on science, yes we can all say Darwin's theories and the subsequent further discoveries are still a theory, however that is a huge amount of scientific fact that bolsters much of it, with much much more to learn.

At what point do the school/teacher move away from creationism, do they then tell me son that the earth is only 8-10,000 years old ? do they tell my son that all variations and different types of animals were put here in one go and have not changed. Do they tell me son those that sinners are going to the depths of hell. The list goes on.

Jendo was right, this was not a balanced discussions He was able to regurgitate points about god, Christians and Jews yet looked blankly when i asked him about other topics. Darwin did not come into the discussion, nor did he know anything about other religious beliefs,Muslims, Buddhist etc etc.

So as far as I can tell the lesson consisted of " this is how it is" not good teaching IMHO

These are my concerns, especially as we are talking about a child that is not even 7 yet and very easily lead.

It was my understanding that creationism was not to be taught in science based classes in the UK via mainstream school, yet it appears that in this case this is being ignored.

Sorry for the rant but I find myself getting more and more wound up about this. I need to think long and hard about how I approach this with the school so as not to upset or affect my sons learning.

 

[Deleted member 27989]

Neither of which are examples of scientific methodology.
Or do you think that modern scientifc methodology that powers your life, feeds you, provides you with all your electrical enterainment is all based on sand ?

Modern is the key term here, so what people agreed as scientific facts in History, doesn't count nor hasn't been shifted in Modern days....

And say I do think that all my electrical entertainment is all based on sand. And in fact you know it is true as well

If you remotely believe there is ever going to be a gestalt shift in the scientific or rational view of evolutionary theory, then you are sadly mistaken and tragically missinformed.

Isn't theory the key word here...

 

[timothyw]

Dejongj, if you really want to have the creationism debate again, why not reopen this thread here:
http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=804554
It is quite clear that the OP has absolutely no interest in your 'Open Minded' view of science.

 

[Deleted member 27989]

OK lets not start the creationism verses Darwinian debate please as this was not my intention.

Apologies...

I have further questioned my son, very diplomatically as i am acutely aware of making it an issue. The class was Science, he went to great lengths to tell me about god and how he made the universe and all that is around us. He then went on to tell me the differences between Christians and Jews. In his words, Christians believe in God and Jesus was his helper and Jews believe in god only.

That would be totally out of order in a science class, are you sure it was a science class? My six year old sometimes comes back with such rubbish and white lies which is part of their behaviour. For piece of mind I would just discretely discuss with the teacher for peace of mind...Or alternatively speak to the board of Governors to bring this up as a concern.

But, not that you seem to do it, don't put your foot in it as children of that age don't always tell the truth either...