What a concept — let the kids decide on their own what is real and what isn’t via intellectual discourse and study. Imagine what that might lead to?
Intelligent design to feature in school RE lessons
Teenagers will be asked to debate intelligent design (ID) in their religious education classes and read texts by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins under new government guidelines.
In a move that is likely to spark controversy, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has for the first time recommended that pupils be taught about atheism and creationism in RE classes.
[…]
They argue that it should be made clear to pupils that science backs the theory of evolution.
[…]
The teaching of ID and creationism should prove less contentious in this part of the curriculum (although the scientists who argue that ID is a science may be disconcerted), as pupils will investigate and role-play disputes between religion and science, such as Galileo, Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins.
What it will lead to are fist fights in the classroom.
This is a great idea, but relies upon having excellent teachers. Just imagine what a biased instructor could do in such a class.
I think part of the problem is that ID means different things to different people. It seems that most of the big proponents in this country are meaning it to be Creationism + some level of microevolution; whereas others consider ID to be more along the lines of some outside force or being creating the universe, establishing the rules it operates under, and setting it all in motion with minimal to no interference afterward.
Maybe a few teachers will learn something from the kids. Most kids are smart enough to know that this wonderful world we live in was created.
#4
LOL! Knee slapper.
#3 re: your second point. We could be some cosmic being’s lab experiment!
If so, is said cosmic being a PhD or high school student?
#6, possibly. At least, that is what has always seemed most reasonable, even if not provable, to me. Although it would seem that evolution is obvious and nearly indisputable, even I am skeptical that heat, random chemical reactions and a few hundred million years resulted in a planet full of life where there once was none… without some outside prodding.
I’m British and can say with complete honesty that i have never met anyone who believes in this intelligent design nonsense. Its a non issue in this country and most of the rest of western Europe. Even the priests, vicars and ministers i have encountered would never argue that the bible is literal truth.
What these guidelines are really trying to do as far as i can see is finally kill off the farce that is school RE lessons. Its pretty much a joke that in a country where far fewer than 20% of the population practice any religion our kids are still forced to endure two hours a week of religious indoctrination.
Now i have no problems with these two hours being used to compare the various world religions and other superstitious belief systems along with morals and ethical issues. There is lots of potential for looking at the history of science and scientific ethics which are not really touched upon in school science lessons.
What i would also like to see is some philosophy taught as part of the curriculum as is done in France where all pupils must study philosophy to gain their high school baccalaureate.
Of course this being Britain we will continue to call it Religious Education long after the last vicar has gone and the last church has been converted into a nightclub.
#8
Science bless you!
Decades ago, I was part of a regular salon that entertained literally hundreds over a weekend. We reserved the kitchen for discussion and debate on philosophy. A friend who happened to be a priest at a local Jesuit college required seniors to spend the last weekend before graduation surviving that kitchen. They usually left in tears.
His point? They had to learn they had nothing more than “faith” to go on. Better get used to it.
Does any American High School have a philosophy class? When I was in High School, I had to read books at the library to learn about philosophy.
Studying the ways humans think is a worthwhile endeavor.
#10 – Interesting they had to do that the last weekend before graduation, when reindoctrination is no longer possible. My shallow understanding of Jesuits is that their mission is to intellectualize faith-based arguments – be debaters, in a sense. Throwing graduating students into the lion’s den you described looks to me more like a test than a lesson in humility. Trial by fire, so to speak.
I think it is entirely appropriate that Humanism be taught in a Religious Education class. It has a Highest object of devotion and a moral code based upon that devotion, just like Buddhism.
I just wish it weren’t being compared against the lamest, most retarded example of “Christianity” the Humanists could come up with. In a race between a donkey and a lame horse, the donkey will win every time.
“What it will lead to are fist fights in the classroom.” No; it won’t — you’d be surprised how many kids really don’t give a damn about religion; and those in religious families usually put it on just for the parents/family members.
OP – (although the scientists who argue that ID is a science may be disconcerted),
I would argue that there are no scientists (or at least credible scientists) who would argue that ID is a science…
Though there are some statements to the contrary, the truth is the ID begins and ends as the Christin Right’s attempt to make an end run around the Constitution to get religion into the classroom. Period. It isn’t science. It doesn’t resemble science. It should be taught as exactly those things…
#10 – His point? They had to learn they had nothing more than “faith” to go on. Better get used to it.
Great story… That’s why I like Catholics. Of the various Xian denominations, they have the best handle on reality.
I’d personally comment, however, if faith is all you have to go on, you have nothing and need to be seeking a different path to elightenment.
#15….that may be because Catholics have seen and done it all over the last 2000 years. All of the others are still in training pants in comparison.
Actually there is a very strong evangelical movement in Britain, but it doesn’t seem to try to use government to push it’s agenda as they do here. But then the UK has a state religion and the Church of England is very strong in government. Remember, your dealing with a country that forbids it’s monarchs to be anything but COE….no Catholics or Jews or Muslims need apply.
Whats amazing is that all church attendance in the UK is at 8%, while 92% claim to be christian, and 82% claim to attend church on a regular basis…..slight gap here I think.
Right now, this past week, the government announced that a bill that is due to go into effect in April, banning all discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation and all the usual suspects……has brought an outright attack by the Catholic church in the UK because they say the new law will make it impossible for Catholic adoption services to operate since they will be required to place children with gay parents, and this is against their religious conscious. In a letter sent to all members of Parliament the ArchBishop of Westminister (the head of UK Catholics) he stated they must have an exemption or they would have to close down. They provide 8% of all adoption services in the UK, but 33% of adoption for hard to adopt children. Yesterday the Archbishop of Canturbury and the Archbishop of York, the number 1 and 2 of the Church of England backed the Catholic Archbishop. Watch and see who wins. Tony Blair wants to give the exemption as well as the minister of the department that covers this…..but most of the Labour Party and of course the gay groups say no way.
This will show who has the power in the UK when it comes to religion.