I find it quite amusing that humanists are running so scared of creationism. Reading the arguments from creationists and humanists is like reading of two equally scared sub-communities acting in the same way but with differing tenets of faith.
I'd like one of those scientists to teach evolution to a group of Year 1 children. See how far they get with that! Especially when they then try to teach about apes. That could be an interesting unit to observe!
I find it quite amusing that humanists are running so scared of creationism. Reading the arguments from creationists and humanists is like reading of two equally scared sub-communities acting in the same way but with differing tenets of faith.
I'd like one of those scientists to teach evolution to a group of Year 1 children. See how far they get with that! Especially when they then try to teach about apes. That could be an interesting unit to observe!
Advice is what we seek when we already know the answer - but wish we didn't
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full-frontal lobotomy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kirkstaller wrote: "All DNA shows is that we have a common creator."
cod'ead wrote: "I have just snotted weissbier all over my keyboard & screen"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan
As I said earlier, all schools have to discriminate. The last government brought in the lottery system. Do you agree with that as a means of discrimination? It seems idiotic to me.
They did?
Care to point to any credible reference that backs that assertion up?
Also, how the hell can a lottery system be discriminatory? The mere fact that the pupil roll is recruited on an anonymous basis would suggest otherwise.
That approach has been spreading. You can equally see it in the rise of small, evangelical churches in the UK – there’s an African and Caribbean influence there too.
You've got it all back assward if you think that evangelicalism is new! How do you think African and Caribbean churches formed their beliefs in the first place? Did they spirit them out of the air? Or do they exist as a consequence of the British missionaries who went out to African and Caribbean countries in the wake of the empire?
I suggest you need to read up on your history. Evangelical Christianity has been around for a long time. It took hold once the Bible had been translated into English and could be printed at a price that people could afford. They no longer had to rely upon the interpretation of the priest or monk to follow the Christian life but instead could look to 'God's Word' or the Evangel, ie the Gospel (good news). Evangelicalism is simply a word to describe people who follow the teaching of the Bible, although it can be applied to anyone who follows a doctrine (set of beliefs). The scientists referred to in the article cited above could be equally described as evangelicals, just of another doctrine.
Advice is what we seek when we already know the answer - but wish we didn't
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full-frontal lobotomy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kirkstaller wrote: "All DNA shows is that we have a common creator."
cod'ead wrote: "I have just snotted weissbier all over my keyboard & screen"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan
I'd like one of those scientists to teach evolution to a group of Year 1 children. See how far they get with that! Especially when they then try to teach about apes. That could be an interesting unit to observe!
Why should there be a need to teach creationism or evolution to Year 1 students?
Why not let kids learn to read, write and "do sums" and other fun activities? There's plenty of time, once the become more cognisant to introduce the options. But for some unfathomable reason, the religious nutjobs want that indoctrination to begin as soon as possible.
Yes, they did. It was brought in primarily to eliminate extreme practises by parents who wanted their children to attend certain schools.
Also, how the hell can a lottery system be discriminatory? The mere fact that the pupil roll is recruited on an anonymous basis would suggest otherwise.
From dictionary.com for your edification:
dis·crim·i·na·tion [dih-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn] Show IPA noun 1. an act or instance of discriminating. 2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination. 3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination. 4. Archaic . something that serves to differentiate.
Advice is what we seek when we already know the answer - but wish we didn't
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full-frontal lobotomy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kirkstaller wrote: "All DNA shows is that we have a common creator."
cod'ead wrote: "I have just snotted weissbier all over my keyboard & screen"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan
Yes, they did. It was brought in primarily to eliminate extreme practises by parents who wanted their children to attend certain schools.
From dictionary.com for your edification:
dis·crim·i·na·tion [dih-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn] Show IPA noun 1. an act or instance of discriminating. 2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination. 3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination. 4. Archaic . something that serves to differentiate.
How on earth did you get a license to teach anyone, let alone vulnerable children?
I asked you for evidence of the "last government" introducing a lotter system for school allocations. All you managed to do was repeat what you had originally said. OK I'll do the job for you: Brighton & Hove Council briefly introduced a lottery system. Right, have we got that? One council, out of the many in the UK. One council, not a government.
I also asked how a lottery could ever be describes as discriminatory and all you managed to do was provide me with a dictionary definition of discrimination.
I would be seriously worried if any child of mine attended any school you were a part of.
Why should there be a need to teach creationism or evolution to Year 1 students?
Did you read the article?
I did. In it the group of scientists proclaimed the intent to persuade the government to introduce evolution into the National Curriculum throughout the primary school. I was responding to that intention in my post.
For your information, science in Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2 National Curriculum does not cover origins. Here are the subjects taught in Key Stage 2 (which builds on Key Stage 1):
Sc1 - Scientific Enquiry Ideas and evidence in science Investigative Skills
Sc2 - Life processes and living things Life processes (includes processes common to humans and other animals: nutrition, movement, growth and reproduction) Humans and other animals (expands on the above) Green plants Variation and classification Living things in their environment
Sc3 - Materials and their properties Grouping and classifying materials Changing materials Separating mixtures of materials
Sc4 - Physical processes Electricity Forces and motion Light and sound The earth and beyond
Taken directly from my copy of the National Curriculum, as published in 2009, which you may just find at http://www.nc.uk.net if you choose to look.
The scientists want to introduce evolution into that mix. I say I would like to see them try! It would make for an interesting observation.
cod'ead wrote:
Why should there be a need to teach creationism or evolution to Year 1 students?
Did you read the article?
I did. In it the group of scientists proclaimed the intent to persuade the government to introduce evolution into the National Curriculum throughout the primary school. I was responding to that intention in my post.
For your information, science in Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2 National Curriculum does not cover origins. Here are the subjects taught in Key Stage 2 (which builds on Key Stage 1):
Sc1 - Scientific Enquiry Ideas and evidence in science Investigative Skills
Sc2 - Life processes and living things Life processes (includes processes common to humans and other animals: nutrition, movement, growth and reproduction) Humans and other animals (expands on the above) Green plants Variation and classification Living things in their environment
Sc3 - Materials and their properties Grouping and classifying materials Changing materials Separating mixtures of materials
Sc4 - Physical processes Electricity Forces and motion Light and sound The earth and beyond
Taken directly from my copy of the National Curriculum, as published in 2009, which you may just find at http://www.nc.uk.net if you choose to look.
The scientists want to introduce evolution into that mix. I say I would like to see them try! It would make for an interesting observation.
How on earth did you get a license to teach anyone, let alone vulnerable children?
Not only that but they graded me as good. Shocking, isn't it?
I would be seriously worried if any child of mine attended any school you were a part of.
You should be. I might teach them to discriminate between the contexts in which words are used and their various meanings in order that they can apply them appropriately. That would result in them being better educated than you.