Re: Prevent The Church Hijacking Our Schools : Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:51 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Sc1 - Scientific Enquiry
Ideas and evidence in science
Investigative Skills

How would the teaching of creationism measure up to the "Scientific Enquiry" criteria of the curriculum when the whole principle is based on an unquestioning belief system requiring no proof other than one text book?

[Kosh]

Re: Prevent The Church Hijacking Our Schools : Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:54 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

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.

You really have quite a low opinion of children considering your profession. Or maybe you have a low opinion of yourself and your fellow teachers?

Both my kids knew about evolution when they were that age. It wasn't even difficult to explain. You only need the general principle and then fill in the details later - rather like the way the rest of the Science curriculum works in fact.

Re: Prevent The Church Hijacking Our Schools : Tue Jan 10, 2012 10:03 pm  

SaintsFan wrote: 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. But you are entirely happy continuing telling them a fairy story and teaching them to sing "The lord god made them all"?

SaintsFan wrote: 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. But you are entirely happy continuing telling them a fairy story and teaching them to sing "The lord god made them all"?

Re: Prevent The Church Hijacking Our Schools : Tue Jan 10, 2012 10:17 pm  

McLaren_Field wrote:

How would the teaching of creationism measure up to the "Scientific Enquiry" criteria of the curriculum when the whole principle is based on an unquestioning belief system requiring no proof other than one text book?

It wouldn't.

I have no idea where the assumption has come from that I want creationism taught in schools? I don't. But being a teacher and knowing how science is built layer upon layer throughout the Key Stages (and step by step within those layers), I would find it interesting to see just how the scientists in the article propose to teach evolution given the myriad subjects that IMO are more important to reinforce at that stage in a child's learning.

Re: Prevent The Church Hijacking Our Schools : Tue Jan 10, 2012 10:33 pm  

Kosh wrote:

You really have quite a low opinion of children considering your profession. Or maybe you have a low opinion of yourself and your fellow teachers?

No. I think you have taken yourself off on your own little trip down ignorance lane. You need to reset the SatNav in order to find your way back to what I actually said.

Both my kids knew about evolution when they were that age. It wasn't even difficult to explain. You only need the general principle and then fill in the details later - rather like the way the rest of the Science curriculum works in fact.

Oh yes, now why didn't I think of that!

In one RE class I introduced Year 1 children to Judaism. It was all very informative, interactive and enjoyable. It didn't touch on creation at all. The next morning I heard an argument taking place in the line of my children as they waited to come into class. I brought everybody into class early and asked each protagonist to tell me what the argument was about. Three children were upsetting each other: one said his Dad said everybody came from apes (so easy to explain!), one girl was crying because her Dad said everybody was made by God and a third child, another boy, was arguing that nobody knew where we came from and so why does it matter? I instigated a citizenship moment and put the first lesson on hold until we had discussed the fallout from a lesson that didn't actually mention creation at all but had obviously had an impact and initiated questions at home, as good lessons often do.

So yes, enabling children of primary school age to learn about evolution is a doddle, not only because it is an entirely neutral subject (obviously) but also because structurally it is dead easy to slip yet another scientific subject into an already packed curriculum, one which really doesn't need to be explored until later in a child's education when they have far more imminent basics secured.

Re: Prevent The Church Hijacking Our Schools : Tue Jan 10, 2012 10:46 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Religion has no influence in the running of this country. Purlease! Any such influence died decades ago.

You are wrong again. 26 bishops and a rabbi sit in the House of Lords. Then there's the fact that religious groups are always consulted on things like gay marriage, abortion etc. Then there's the education issue we're discussing here. Quite an influence for such a small minority.

SaintsFan wrote:

As for secularists (and I assume from your agreement with their position you are one yourself), defensive behaviour is usually displayed as a consequence of feeling threatened. Why do secularists feel threatened by religious belief?

Comprehension not your strong point, is it? Secularists are not 'threatened' by religious belief, they merely feel (quite strongly) that the church and the state should be entirely separate. How hard is that to understand?

SaintsFan wrote:

This paragraph is very confused. On the one hand you are against selection on a faith basis (while ignoring the fact that not all faith schools select on a faith basis) and yet you state a belief that selection on a faith basis does not improve academic achievement. So what is your problem then?

The paragraph isn't confused, you are. I stated a belief that faith-based education (not selection) doesn't improve academic achievement. The ability to select which pupils attend your school can quite easily have an effect on academic achievement.

SaintsFan wrote:

However, the fact still remains that faith based schools (and again, I can only speak of the Christian faith) generally enable their children to achieve to a higher standard than non-faith based schools (although obviously there are outstanding non-faith based schools also and plenty of them).

No, that 'fact' does not remain. Faith based schools do, in some (many, even) instances achieve better results than non faith based ones. This is not because of the religious flavour of their education, but because they can choose which pupils attend.

SaintsFan wrote:

All schools have a great deal of freedom in the curricula they teach. Far more freedom than many would have you believe. The National Curriculum was never intended as a proscriptive document. It was a guide and a guide only. That schools often teach it to the letter is a reflection of many things. However, all a school needs to do is convince OFSTED that the curriculum they choose to use meets the standard and legal requirements set down for the National Curriculum and they are free to teach to that curriculum. As for academies, it was my understanding that they will operate to the same policy but it is their ethos and source of control (ie outside of the Local Authority) which are the essential differences. However, I will check on that.

My understanding is that academies are allowed far more latitude than other schools - see Mintball's example where a Jewish academy devotes half of its time to religious studies. And, indeed, the example I linked to earlier.

SaintsFan wrote:

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.

That has been covered by other posters.

SaintsFan wrote:

They don't require a reference from a clergyman to show that they can teach children effectively. A clergy reference has nothing to do with their teaching ability but only as confirmation of the faith disclosures in their application statement, just as a reference from a previous employer is - in part at least - confirmation that you actually worked there in the capacity you claim. Not all faith schools request references from clergy, not by a long chalk, as I said earlier. The ones I applied to didn't. They just requested sympathy with the ethos of the school which, as I also said earlier, is a prerequisite of any school, faith-based or not.

But why should it be the case that teachers applying for a job have to have sympathy with a cult based on mumbo jumbo and fairytales? If the church becomes as big a provider as it hopes to, opportunities will become much more limited for those who don't have sympathy with such nonsense.

SaintsFan wrote:

Incidentally, did you know that it is a parent's legal entitlement to withdraw their child from any religious education at school and that it is a legal right for a teacher to withdraw from teaching religious education? I exercised that right once when on teaching practice in a Catholic school. They had a half hour instruction session each morning and because I am not a Catholic of any description I did not consider myself fit to teach their version of the Christian faith and so I invoked my legal right to withdraw.

People shouldn't have to 'opt out'. The state - including its educational institutions - should be entirely separate from any religion.

SaintsFan wrote:

Interesting. I need to find a reference to it but at the last poll taken of people's faith orientation, I think about five years ago, approximately 70% claimed to be Christian. Polls are polls but they give an indication if not a definitive description.

As I mentioned in another post, a lot of people simply tick 'Christian' because that's what they think they should put.

SaintsFan wrote:

:lol: Oh yes, you definitely feel threatened!

No, I don't.

SaintsFan wrote:

You have not got a clue what you are talking about. Science is taught as science; religious education as religious education. The two never meet except in broad discussions, usually within citizenship sessions.

Perhaps not in your school, but that is not the case in all schools. The lines are quite deliberately blurred in a lot of cases. Did you bother to read the link I posted earlier? The one written by a head of 'science' at one of the faith academies?

SaintsFan wrote:

So long as their standard of education was high, they learned about other faiths and (in the case of your Scientology example) children weren't put at risk, I wouldn't care.

Why should children be any more at risk from learning about Scientology than Christianity? Both are equally ridiculous.

SaintsFan wrote:

Children are fascinated by learning and they will discuss all sorts of things and think about all sorts of things. Lots of those things they will reject as they grow older but some they will retain. That applies to all areas of learning, and not just faith.

But why should they be taught faith at all? At school the most they should be learning is the cultural and historical backgrounds to a broad range of religions. They shouldn't be being taught anything from the Bible as though it is anything other than a story.

SaintsFan wrote:

How many attend once a week, twice a month, three times a month? How many are C & E Christians? How many are agnostic? How many would want to marry in a church or be buried with a vicar at the helm? You'll be surprised just how many people profess a faith of some kind but do not necessarily go on missionary duty. I would suggest that actually secularists are a smaller minority than faith based people because anecdotally anyway most people simply don't know.

3.6% say they go at least once a month. And religious people are not in the majority. Not even close. Only a religious person would suggest such a thing.

SaintsFan wrote:

I could ask you the same question. Should your secularism influence the majority? Should any perceived minority influence the majority?

I'm not seeking to influence anybody - I seek to remove the influence of religion in matters of the state.

SaintsFan wrote:

It happens in all sorts of ways and sometimes yes, it is funded by the tax payer. I could make a list of the things I resent my taxes funding, as could everybody on here. That argument doesn't wash. At the end of the day, if faith based schools are more successful academically then they should be encouraged, not hounded out by threatened minorities. Most parents want their children to be well educated and they will sort out all the rest at home. That's the job of the parent.

You really don't get it. As has already been made abundantly clear, those who are religious are in the minority and shouldn't be funding faith based schools. The reasons for faith schools' success has already been covered at some length, and it's not their religious education.

Re: Prevent The Church Hijacking Our Schools : Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:20 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

You are wrong again. 26 bishops and a rabbi sit in the House of Lords. Then there's the fact that religious groups are always consulted on things like gay marriage, abortion etc. Then there's the education issue we're discussing here. Quite an influence for such a small minority.

I can't be bothered to define the word 'influence'. If you want to continue believing it means the same as 'being present' then so be it! Clearly, on the point about gay marriage, abortion etc, they had a huge amount of influence! Or don't we have civil partnerships and the highest abortion rate in Europe?

No, that 'fact' does not remain. Faith based schools do, in some (many, even) instances achieve better results than non faith based ones.

So does the fact that I cited actually remain or not?

But why should it be the case that teachers applying for a job have to have sympathy with a cult based on mumbo jumbo and fairytales?

Tomato, tomayto. To you it's a cult or a fairytale, to a massive number of people worldwide it is a valid belief system. In the education sector, diversity is a key word and schools are big on teaching children to respect people of all beliefs and none. It is impossible to do that without introducing them to that which they are being taught to respect.

If the church becomes as big a provider as it hopes to, opportunities will become much more limited for those who don't have sympathy with such nonsense.

You think? You don't know what will happen. You are speaking from fear of the unknown.

People shouldn't have to 'opt out'. The state - including its educational institutions - should be entirely separate from any religion.

There is a case for and against separation. It is interesting that the country used as an example in this thread of separation is also the country used as an example of extremist movements. Maybe keeping a link between religious institutions and educational institutions enables greater tolerance and a lower tendency towards extremism?

As I mentioned in another post, a lot of people simply tick 'Christian' because that's what they think they should put.

And a lot of people tick Christian because that is what they consider themselves to be, regardless of whether they go to church on even an irregular basis if at all.

Why should children be any more at risk from learning about Scientology than Christianity? Both are equally ridiculous.

Read up about Scientology and then have a think.

But why should they be taught faith at all?

Why not? If the parents are happy for them to be so taught then what is the problem?

At school the most they should be learning is the cultural and historical backgrounds to a broad range of religions. They shouldn't be being taught anything from the Bible as though it is anything other than a story.

And in most non-faith schools that is pretty much what happens, although religious practices are also taught as they are part and parcel of learning about any religion. All religions have their doctrine and their practices.

3.6% say they go at least once a month. And religious people are not in the majority. Not even close. Only a religious person would suggest such a thing.

When did I say religious people were in the majority? I haven't said such a thing. I have spoken about people self-identifying but that does not equate to them being religious. 70% may indeed have some kind of belief in a higher being or a general purpose and, perhaps because they live in this country, they identify that with the Christian God and so self-identify with Christianity. Or they may believe they believe. There will be many versions on the theme.

You really don't get it. As has already been made abundantly clear, those who are religious are in the minority and shouldn't be funding faith based schools.

So you are saying that the religious shouldn't fund their own schools? I thought you were advocating that? Rather than the general taxpayer?

You take a risk, though, in saying the general taxpayer shouldn't fund minorities. After all, pregnant unworking teenagers are in the minority but my taxes help fund their houses and clothes for their children. Young people wanting to obtain a degree are in the minority but my taxes help to fund their courses. And so on and so on.

Re: Prevent The Church Hijacking Our Schools : Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:28 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

I can't be bothered to define the word 'influence'. If you want to continue believing it means the same as 'being present' then so be it! Clearly, on the point about gay marriage, abortion etc, they had a huge amount of influence! Or don't we have civil partnerships and the highest abortion rate in Europe?

Each of one those bishops (and the rabbi) gets to vote on any laws that are passing through the House of Lords. That is far more than just 'being present'. They are having a direct influence on laws enacted in our parliament. That we have allowed civil partnerships doesn't mean that the church weren't consulted - in fact, the reason they are 'civil partnerships' and not 'marriages' is probably entirely due to the church's influence. The point is, however, that they shouldn't even be consulted.

SaintsFan wrote:

So does the fact that I cited actually remain or not?

No, it does not. Taking part of a quote to try and make yourself look clever achieves the opposite.

SaintsFan wrote:

Tomato, tomayto. To you it's a cult or a fairytale, to a massive number of people worldwide it is a valid belief system.

No, it's not. There is not one shred of evidence to support the existence of God, and the Bible, even if every word of it was true, is littered with atrocities - most of which were perpetrated or sanctioned by God. For example, the Bible tells us:

If a woman is raped, they must marry their rapist and never be divorced.

It is ok to slaughter all the men and children in a particular town, then rape all the women - as long as God told you to do it.

Offering up your virgin daughters to a mob in order to prevent them engaging in homosexual acts is a righteous thing to do.

Looking over your shoulder after being told not to by God is a crime punishable by death.

Valid beliefs, indeed. And that's just a few off the top of my head.

In any other area, we don't teach anything that isn't backed up by some sort of evidence. Religion should be no different.

SaintsFan wrote:

In the education sector, diversity is a key word and schools are big on teaching children to respect people of all beliefs and none. It is impossible to do that without introducing them to that which they are being taught to respect.

As I said, I've no objection to a cultural/historical RE lesson. It's when the whole ethos of a school is build on a specific religion, or when the lines between religion and science are blurred that I have a problem.

SaintsFan wrote:

You think? You don't know what will happen. You are speaking from fear of the unknown.

No. The Archbishop of Canterbury himself has stated that he would like the CoE to become the biggest provider of education in this country and, if the proposed changes are adopted, this could easily become a reality. You'd then have the situation where the majority of schools are church controlled and teachers with the intelligence not to believe in fairy stories would be in quite a difficult position.

SaintsFan wrote:

There is a case for and against separation.

I'd love to hear a good case against separation.

SaintsFan wrote:

It is interesting that the country used as an example in this thread of separation is also the country used as an example of extremist movements. Maybe keeping a link between religious institutions and educational institutions enables greater tolerance and a lower tendency towards extremism?

And maybe not. I don't know which country you're talking about here, but indoctrinating children in schools is hardly likely to foster tolerance of other religions.

SaintsFan wrote:

And a lot of people tick Christian because that is what they consider themselves to be, regardless of whether they go to church on even an irregular basis if at all.

Not many, I'd suggest. There's been an example in this thread, where a poster said they were CofE 'on paper'. This is the prevailing attitude.

SaintsFan wrote:

Read up about Scientology and then have a think.

I've read up on Scientology, and it's no more dangerous to children than any other cult, including Christianity. This is the problem with the religious: every religion other than theirs is ridiculous. It doesn't occur to them that they might all be.

SaintsFan wrote:

Why not? If the parents are happy for them to be so taught then what is the problem?

And who has decided that 'parents' are happy for their child to be taught in this way. I'm not, and I know a lot of other parents who feel similarly. If they are being taught about a variety of religious beliefs later in life when they have the grounding in science to know, for example, that virgins don't really give birth, then fine. But teaching young children about religion - particularly in schools where their own faith is given unequal weight - is indoctrination.

SaintsFan wrote:

And in most non-faith schools that is pretty much what happens, although religious practices are also taught as they are part and parcel of learning about any religion. All religions have their doctrine and their practices.

That's in non-faith schools. But if the church becomes the biggest provider, the majority of schools will adopt a different practice.

SaintsFan wrote:

When did I say religious people were in the majority? I haven't said such a thing. I have spoken about people self-identifying but that does not equate to them being religious. 70% may indeed have some kind of belief in a higher being or a general purpose and, perhaps because they live in this country, they identify that with the Christian God and so self-identify with Christianity. Or they may believe they believe. There will be many versions on the theme.

The actual figure is 50% who identify themselves as belonging to a particular religion. Of this 50%, around 56% don't ever attend church. 3.6% overall say they go at least once a month, but the church's own attendance figures show that this may actually be a lot lower.

SaintsFan wrote:

So you are saying that the religious shouldn't fund their own schools? I thought you were advocating that? Rather than the general taxpayer?

Yes, that was a typo. I'm not a fan of any religious indoctrination, and, in an ideal world, there would be no faith schools whatsoever as far as I'm concerned. That's never likely to happen, however, but I do think that there should be no state funding at all for religious education. If they want to indoctrinate - let them pay for it.

SaintsFan wrote:

You take a risk, though, in saying the general taxpayer shouldn't fund minorities. After all, pregnant unworking teenagers are in the minority but my taxes help fund their houses and clothes for their children. Young people wanting to obtain a degree are in the minority but my taxes help to fund their courses. And so on and so on.

I'm not saying that the taxpyer 'shouldn't fund minorities'. What I'm saying is that the taxpayer shouldn't be funding educational establishments that promote a minority view. It's really quite simple.

Re: Prevent The Church Hijacking Our Schools : Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:22 am  

SaintsFan wrote: Religion has no influence in the running of this country. Purlease! Any such influence died decades ago... You should have explained that to Tony Blair. The cross-faith committee that he set up to discuss greater involvement in society (particularly in terms of service provision) of religious groups, and which was chaired by Fiona Mactaggart, was presumably discussing contingency plans in the event of invasion by UFO. And obviously he and Dubya didn't pray when they were meetings about going to war. Then we could mention the fragrant Ruth Kelly whose personal religious beliefs never, ever got in the way of what she'd been elected to do. We could cite the reports of doctors and even pharmacists refusing certain treatments and medication on the basis of their personal faith – but these are obviously fantasies. And this is without mentioning the House of Lords and the continued presence of religious leaders in there, for no reason other than their being religious leaders. We could mention such things as the Emmanuel Schools, owned by Sir Peter Vardy, where they have been accused of teaching creationism in biology lessons. But you've already shown that you refuse to acknowledge such things, simply metaphorically sticking your fingers in your ears and continuing with your mantra of what the curriculum states, which has never been in dispute. Teachers plan to use creationist materials, including a head of chemistry – who presumably was only intending to use the materials in the non-science lessons he taught. More. SaintsFan wrote: ... Why do secularists feel threatened by religious belief? I suggest that you either do some research to find out what secularism actually means – or stop being downright disingenuous. SaintsFan wrote: However, the fact still remains that faith based schools (and again, I can only speak of the Christian faith) generally enable their children to achieve to a higher standard than non-faith based schools (although obviously there are outstanding non-faith based schools also and plenty of them)... This has been explained. Quite clearly. SaintsFan wrote: You've got it all back assward if you think that evangelicalism is new! I don't – and have not said it was. SaintsFan wrote: 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? Bleedin' hell. Go back and read what I wrote – not what you want to think I wrote. You will see that I in no way suggested that evangelism was new. What I did was to describe – very briefly – the rising influence of US-style evangelism in the UK since the 1950s. Did you really not manage to understand that? Did you really not understand that that is not the same as suggesting that evangelism per se is something new? SaintsFan wrote: 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. Actually, taking things at face value, since Paul told the early Christians to go out and spread the word, evangelism has been around for a very great deal lot longer than since "the Bible had been translated into English". If it hadn't been for evangelism in the first place there'd have been no Christian church at all. So your own understanding of history – after telling me to read some – is really rather poor. SaintsFan wrote: ... But being a teacher ... Being a teacher, one might expect that you'd at least be able to read and understand simple arguments, You obviously can't, as indicated above and by other posters elsewhere.

SaintsFan wrote: Religion has no influence in the running of this country. Purlease! Any such influence died decades ago... You should have explained that to Tony Blair. The cross-faith committee that he set up to discuss greater involvement in society (particularly in terms of service provision) of religious groups, and which was chaired by Fiona Mactaggart, was presumably discussing contingency plans in the event of invasion by UFO. And obviously he and Dubya didn't pray when they were meetings about going to war. Then we could mention the fragrant Ruth Kelly whose personal religious beliefs never, ever got in the way of what she'd been elected to do. We could cite the reports of doctors and even pharmacists refusing certain treatments and medication on the basis of their personal faith – but these are obviously fantasies. And this is without mentioning the House of Lords and the continued presence of religious leaders in there, for no reason other than their being religious leaders. We could mention such things as the Emmanuel Schools, owned by Sir Peter Vardy, where they have been accused of teaching creationism in biology lessons. But you've already shown that you refuse to acknowledge such things, simply metaphorically sticking your fingers in your ears and continuing with your mantra of what the curriculum states, which has never been in dispute. Teachers plan to use creationist materials, including a head of chemistry – who presumably was only intending to use the materials in the non-science lessons he taught. More. SaintsFan wrote: ... Why do secularists feel threatened by religious belief? I suggest that you either do some research to find out what secularism actually means – or stop being downright disingenuous. SaintsFan wrote: However, the fact still remains that faith based schools (and again, I can only speak of the Christian faith) generally enable their children to achieve to a higher standard than non-faith based schools (although obviously there are outstanding non-faith based schools also and plenty of them)... This has been explained. Quite clearly. SaintsFan wrote: You've got it all back assward if you think that evangelicalism is new! I don't – and have not said it was. SaintsFan wrote: 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? Bleedin' hell. Go back and read what I wrote – not what you want to think I wrote. You will see that I in no way suggested that evangelism was new. What I did was to describe – very briefly – the rising influence of US-style evangelism in the UK since the 1950s. Did you really not manage to understand that? Did you really not understand that that is not the same as suggesting that evangelism per se is something new? SaintsFan wrote: 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. Actually, taking things at face value, since Paul told the early Christians to go out and spread the word, evangelism has been around for a very great deal lot longer than since "the Bible had been translated into English". If it hadn't been for evangelism in the first place there'd have been no Christian church at all. So your own understanding of history – after telling me to read some – is really rather poor. SaintsFan wrote: ... But being a teacher ... Being a teacher, one might expect that you'd at least be able to read and understand simple arguments, You obviously can't, as indicated above and by other posters elsewhere.

[Kosh]

Re: Prevent The Church Hijacking Our Schools : Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:27 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

No. I think you have taken yourself off on your own little trip down ignorance lane. You need to reset the SatNav in order to find your way back to what I actually said.

Or maybe you need to express yourself more clearly. Another worrying trait in an educator.

SaintsFan wrote:

In one RE class I introduced Year 1 children to Judaism. It was all very informative, interactive and enjoyable. It didn't touch on creation at all. The next morning I heard an argument taking place in the line of my children as they waited to come into class. I brought everybody into class early and asked each protagonist to tell me what the argument was about. Three children were upsetting each other: one said his Dad said everybody came from apes (so easy to explain!), one girl was crying because her Dad said everybody was made by God and a third child, another boy, was arguing that nobody knew where we came from and so why does it matter? I instigated a citizenship moment and put the first lesson on hold until we had discussed the fallout from a lesson that didn't actually mention creation at all but had obviously had an impact and initiated questions at home, as good lessons often do.

So yes, enabling children of primary school age to learn about evolution is a doddle, not only because it is an entirely neutral subject (obviously) but also because structurally it is dead easy to slip yet another scientific subject into an already packed curriculum, one which really doesn't need to be explored until later in a child's education when they have far more imminent basics secured.

A lovely story, but entirely irrelevant. Evolution isn't 'another subject' and neither is there a requirement to jam in another large chunk of material into the allegedly crammed Science curriculum. We'll agree to disagree about the latter point BTW as I doubt that your definition of a crammed curriculum and mine coincide to any appreciable degree.

Evolution is a an entirely neutral subject. The fact that a small minority of people may not have a neutral reaction to it is no basis for policy making.