Creationism in schools? Big questions BBC1

[marcsurtees]

It was a member of the panel who pointed out that IF the children were bullied for spouting rubbish, it would NOT be the fault of the school but the fault of the parents that fed them such nonsense.

It is always the fault of the school if a child is bullied in school. It should not matter what people believe, the school should never allow bullying and if it happens it is the fault of the school.

[Peter Henderson]

It was a member of the panel who pointed out that IF the children were bullied for spouting rubbish, it would NOT be the fault of the school but the fault of the parents that fed them such nonsense.

It is always the fault of the school if a child is bullied in school. It should not matter what people believe, the school should never allow bullying and if it happens it is the fault of the school.

I would have to agree with you on this one Marc. Don't think the panelist's comments were warrented, even though I think Sylvia baker is wrong.

It's a bit like saying rape is justified when a woman dresses provocatively.

[cathy]

While I think Sylvia Baker is grossly wrong Cathy, no child should be bullied either by teachers, or fellow pupils because of their religious views, rubbish or otherwise. Bullying is never justified under any circumstances.

Nor should YECism should be used as an excuse for teachers with Atheist views to have a go at Christians.

I would agree with you 100% on both counts and schools do not. All schools have to have anti bulllying protocols in place and all teachers should show reasonable respect for religious and other beliefs. But the fact a child is being bullied for something is not a reason for a school to start teaching that childs beliefs as fact in science. That was the point Syl was making!!!! The school should deal with and stop the bullying but to then give any credence to YEC beliefs would be a gross dereliction of duty to that child and the others in that class-the children of creationists have as much right to an education as the rest and probably more of a need for it. What if a child was being bullied because they were racist, because their parents had deeply held racist beliefs-would you suggest the school panders to that belief. Or sexism, rife in some religions, should we say for the sake of peace lets agree women are second class citizens just in case you're bullied for that view. I have no time for bullies and I'm not quite sure where the implication that I condone it has come from but I'm not particularly happy to with it!!!

Do you agree with Sylv that we teach creationism just in case somebody bullies them about it. The way to stop bullying is to deal with the issues as they occur not to change the whole curriculum to pander to scientifically incorrect notions of a bunch of religious extremists, who, if they got power would have no compunction whatsoever from bullying anyone that didn't agree with them. After all this whole site is devoted to stopping them bullying schools into teaching their particular view of the world rather than the logical conclusions of scientific concensus. The rare creationists we come across are referred to take it to the RE dept. We don't let the others bully them but neither do we expect them to suddenly have to agree with them. As for the panelist it didn't look like he was condoning bullying to me, it looked like he was pointing out that if a child is being bullied for holding ridiculous ideas the fault for that child being ridiculous lay firmly with the parent. He was suggesting that perhaps parents actually take some responsibility for the reasons their children struggle rather than always leaving it to the schools to pick up after them!

And if kids bring it up where I work we refer them to RE. We don't bully them, we don't allow others to bully them but we do not kow tow to Sylvia baker either and say oh ok the earth is 6000 years old and we all used to play with dinosaurs. So where this notion that we allow creationists to be bullied has come from I really don't know.

marcsurtees wrote: It should not matter what people believe, the school should never allow bullying and if it happens it is the fault of the school.

A rare moment of agreement marc and schools do try their best. However that is not a reason to change school policy in favour of that childs beliefs which is the point Sylv was making!!!!!!! Bullying is wrong but so it lying to child and strangling their sense of wonder before it has a chance to begin and so is getting them to disrupt the education and rights of others. Marc your free to believe what you believe because schools don't forcibly impose anyones religious or atheistic beliefs on anyone. Not even faith schools. And the biggest bully in our school? Not going to tell you but he has more in common with you when it comes to religion tban anyone else here. A fact commented on quite a lot by my colleagues.

[a_haworthroberts]

I agree with much of Cathy's paras 1, 3 and 4 (though also with Peter) - if by doing so I'm not somehow 'facing both ways'. PS - SORRY I MEANT AT 9.46 and 11.10 - I'M STILL A PAGE 'BEHIND'. PPS Also agree with much of the 1.03 pm comments.

I thought Sylvia Baker might have been trying to hog as much time in the debate on Sunday as possible - by saying that she had a 'story' to tell and then just waffling and also speaking rather slowly and actually saying not very much at all. A ploy - merely to allow 'evolutionists' LESS air time, perhaps? Fortunately, Nicky Campbell eventually lost patience with her.

[a_haworthroberts]

As former Civil Servant at the DfE, whose job involved school discipline from 1998-2004, sometimes the poor old school gets ALL the blame for bullying incidents there. I think one shouldn't totally lose sight of the culpability of the bully - and possibly their parent too.

[Peter Henderson]

These would even be good oppurtunities to discuss the history of creationism Ashley, along with the various claims and why they're wrong. The teacher would need to be pretty savy with both YECism and ID though.

[cathy]

Ashley wrote: sometimes the poor old school gets ALL the blame for bullying incidents there. I think one shouldn't totally lose sight of the culpability of the bully - and possibly their parent too.

Thanks Ashley, you're a voice of reason. As for the panelist, there is no way on this earth any reasonable person could claim he was condoning bullying. He was countering Sylvs claim that in NOT teaching HER creationist viewpoints there was a remote possibility that SCHOOLS would be responsible for bullying by pointing out the role parents play.

marcsurtees wrote: It is always the fault of the school if a child is bullied in school.

Schools don't actually make the bullies, nor do WE make the bullies targets for them. We try and correct it and deal with it and point out it is always unacceptable. But to be honest marc parents do need to take more responisibility, they're the ones sending the bullies in. And you have twisted all thats been said to imply that I condone bullying which I'm not particularly happy about. I'm on the verge of saying exactly what I think of your methods and scruples but suspect I'd be banned from the forum for life.

Ashley wrote: thought Sylvia Baker might have been trying to hog as much time in the debate on Sunday as possible - by saying that she had a 'story' to tell and then just waffling and also speaking rather slowly and actually saying not very much at all. A ploy - merely to allow 'evolutionists' LESS air time, perhaps? Fortunately, Nicky Campbell eventually lost patience with her.

I thought that at the time as well. I also thought she was trying to derail the debate by bringing up the spurious issue of bullying and aiming for the sympathy vote. Having seen the way creationists operate, including sylvia baker, I'm not sure how much I believe her claim that she was bullied any mnre. Marc has already said on the other thread that anyone that accepts evolution bullies those that disagree with them. Having seen one of my own kids bullied I'd like to point out to Marc that theres a world of difference between disagreeing with somebody and bullying them. Sylvia Baker is a creationist and all creationists do seem to have, as Roger has said, a martyrdom complex and an inability to tell the truth.

Peter wrote: The teacher would need to be pretty savy with both YECism and ID though.

I think we're far too naive to be that savvy. It's taken me till now to fully understand how truly warped and twisted the creationist mindset is. I think it's far better to just up the amount and status of evolution in the curriculum and give teachers some training on how to deal with it in kids when it arises. They could do with some training in how the creationists operate as well. Most are already sympathetic to the fact it isn't the childs fault.

[marcsurtees]

Marc has already said on the other thread that anyone that accepts evolution bullies those that disagree with them. Having seen one of my own kids bullied I'd like to point out to Marc that theres a world of difference between disagreeing with somebody and bullying them. Sylvia Baker is a creationist and all creationists do seem to have, as Roger has said, a martyrdom complex and an inability to tell the truth.

Whoa hold on there. Did I really say that "anyone that accepts evolution bullies those that disagree with them" If I did I apologise and unconditionally withdraw that statement.
Having been bullied in school I may be a little sensitive about any suggestion that bully is to be expected. As for the martydom complex please get real.

[Peter Henderson]

I think we're far too naive to be that savvy. It's taken me till now to fully understand how truly warped and twisted the creationist mindset is. I think it's far better to just up the amount and status of evolution in the curriculum and give teachers some training on how to deal with it in kids when it arises. They could do with some training in how the creationists operate as well. Most are already sympathetic to the fact it isn't the childs fault.

Well, now might be a good time for all of us to become that savvy Cathy.

People such as Barbarra Forrest, Ronald Numbers, Ken Miller, Philip Kitcher, and Lauri Lebo have spent a considerable amount of time dealing with the subject. Books such as "the creationists", "Only a theory, the battle for America's soul", "abusing science, the case against creationism", and "the Devil in Dover", really should be required reading on any science curriculum (especially for teachers) somewhere along the line. Lest they become unstuck like Richard Dawkins or Peter Bowler. Not their fault.....but had they read any of these books before hand they might have been a bit more savvy about what the YECs were up to.

Even Michael's book on the history of geology would be extremely useful.

[cathy]

Well, now might be a good time for all of us to become that savvy Cathy.

i couldn't agree more. The prevailing view of many people is that creationists are harmless halfwits. Difficult to know how to raise awareness though. I'm always worried about upsetting non creationist christians who, generally also are fairly naive about them.

[cathy]

Did I really say that "anyone that accepts evolution bullies those that disagree with them" If I did I apologise and unconditionally withdraw that stateme

Yes you did marc and I suspect you've deleted it now. You said it on this occassion as something along the lines of 'what is it about the evolutionary paradigm that makes them bully anyone that doesn't agree with them,' it's a creationist thing to do. As for the martyrdom complex-see that statement, read your own comments about the evolutionary paradigm, go watch sylvia baker on the big question, go read expelled or any of the other creationist paranoia garbage. I ignore my kids when they do the burning martyr act, should really adopt the same principle here.

As for schools and what happened to you. I'm really sorry for you, no child should suffer that at all and it does explain your attitude to humanity (ie bunch of worthless sinners). My child was bullied briefly-briefly because the school got onto it so quickly and I saw and hated bullying going on when I was at school, and got the odd bruise for trying to stop it. But I guess from the age of your children it's a hell of a long time since you went to a school, and you didn't send your kids to one so you know very little about them. And you cannot blame teachers for bullying only for not doing their upmost to stamp on it when it occurs-which all schools are required to do by law.

[Michael]

I think we're far too naive to be that savvy. It's taken me till now to fully understand how truly warped and twisted the creationist mindset is. I think it's far better to just up the amount and status of evolution in the curriculum and give teachers some training on how to deal with it in kids when it arises. They could do with some training in how the creationists operate as well. Most are already sympathetic to the fact it isn't the childs fault.

Well, now might be a good time for all of us to become that savvy Cathy.

People such as Barbarra Forrest, Ronald Numbers, Ken Miller, Philip Kitcher, and Lauri Lebo have spent a considerable amount of time dealing with the subject. Books such as "the creationists", "Only a theory, the battle for America's soul", "abusing science, the case against creationism", and "the Devil in Dover", really should be required reading on any science curriculum (especially for teachers) somewhere along the line. Lest they become unstuck like Richard Dawkins or Peter Bowler. Not their fault.....but had they read any of these books before hand they might have been a bit more savvy about what the YECs were up to.

Even Michael's book on the history of geology would be extremely useful.

Actually my book is Evangelicals and Science and deals with the whole range of issues with a strong historical perspective.

[Peter Henderson]

I think we're far too naive to be that savvy. It's taken me till now to fully understand how truly warped and twisted the creationist mindset is. I think it's far better to just up the amount and status of evolution in the curriculum and give teachers some training on how to deal with it in kids when it arises. They could do with some training in how the creationists operate as well. Most are already sympathetic to the fact it isn't the childs fault.

Well, now might be a good time for all of us to become that savvy Cathy.

People such as Barbarra Forrest, Ronald Numbers, Ken Miller, Philip Kitcher, and Lauri Lebo have spent a considerable amount of time dealing with the subject. Books such as "the creationists", "Only a theory, the battle for America's soul", "abusing science, the case against creationism", and "the Devil in Dover", really should be required reading on any science curriculum (especially for teachers) somewhere along the line. Lest they become unstuck like Richard Dawkins or Peter Bowler. Not their fault.....but had they read any of these books before hand they might have been a bit more savvy about what the YECs were up to.

Even Michael's book on the history of geology would be extremely useful.

Actually my book is Evangelicals and Science and deals with the whole range of issues with a strong historical perspective.

From what I've read of it Michael (i.e. the samples you've sent me and from what you've posted on Premier) it would be an excellent book for science classes, RE classses, and even certain activities within the church (i.e. youth clubs when the subject of creation is raised). Ministers and pastors, YEC or otherwise, would also find it useful, especially if they've been conned into using AiG and CMI materials.

Christians need to know the truth about the history of science, and why no scientists today accept a 6,000 year old Earth/universe etc. from a scientific perspective. I'm appalled at what AiG and CMI put on their websites about this. Pretty much a distortion of history and tantamount to telling lies, in my opinion.

[a_haworthroberts]

Yes - AiG and CMI typically attempt smokescreens by banging on about naturalistic 'presuppositions' and about the perils of 'uniformitarianism' and by suggesting that 'millions/billions of years' is an invention or wild assumption designed to accommodate evolutionary theory.

[Michael]

Yes - AiG and CMI typically attempt smokescreens by banging on about naturalistic 'presuppositions' and about the perils of 'uniformitarianism' and by suggesting that 'millions/billions of years' is an invention or wild assumption designed to accommodate evolutionary theory.

And in doing so they come out with falsehood after falsehood. It stretches one's credulity not to think it is deliberate. Same with all creationists. That is why they should not be allowed in education (or the churches)