Hello, my name's Mrs. Rawbone, and I'd like to welcome you to this RE lesson today.

I'm going to be teaching you about non-religious attitudes to human life.

Our learning outcome for today is I can explain scientific views on the origins and value of human life.

Some key words that we'll be using are evolution, sentientism, and speciesism.

Evolution is a scientific theory describing the development of species from earlier, less complex forms through a process of natural evolution and survival of the fittest.

Sentientism is the belief that moral consideration should be given to all beings that can experience pain or pleasure, that's what sentient beings are, regardless of their species.

And speciesism is the belief that humans are superior to other animals just to find their use for human benefit.

And this is seen by Peter Singer as morally equivalent to racism.

Our lesson today will form two parts.

We'll be looking at scientific views on the origins of life and at non-religious views on animals.

So let's get started on scientific views on the origins of life.

Charles Darwin famously published his book, "The Origin of the Species" in 1859, in which he outlined the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection.

Born in 1809, Darwin was fascinated by nature from a young age.

He initially studied medicine, but later turned to theology at Cambridge where his interest in natural history grew.

In 1831, Darwin joined the HMS Beagle on a five-year voyage to survey the coastlines of South America.

While exploring the Galapagos Highlands, Darwin noticed that the finches on different islands had distinct beak shapes adapted to the types of food available to them.

This led him to consider that species could change over time based on their environment.

Darwin also collected fossils, plants, and animals that showed similarities between current species and their ancient ancestors, suggesting that species were not fixed, but evolved over time.

Back in England, Darwin continued refining his theory and he was influenced by scientists like Jean Baptiste Lamarck and Thomas Malthus.

These ideas helped shape his theory of natural selection, where organisms with traits better suited to the environment are more likely to survive and reproduce, passing those traits on to future generations.

Over time, these small changes could lead to new species.

Darwin hesitated to publish his work, however, because he knew it would challenge traditional views of creation.

However, in 1858, he received a letter from Alfred Russell Wallace, a naturalist who had independently arrived at a similar theory.

This at last prompted Darwin to publish his ideas in 1859 in "On the Origin of Species." The book was revolutionary, providing evidence from his observations, from fossil records and experiments, and directly challenging the creation story in Genesis.

Although Darwin had initially believed in the creation story, over time, his faith in the literal interpretation of Genesis weakened as he accepted the evidence for evolution.

And whilst he did not claim evolution disproved God, he saw the natural world as governed by laws that could be explained scientifically rather than relying on divine intervention.

Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection reshaped our understanding of life's origin and development.

It suggested all species, including humans, share common ancestry.

Darwin's work continues to influence biology today, further developed by thinkers like Richard Dawkins, who expanded on the theory in his book, "The Selfish Gene." Dawkins emphasised how natural selection drives evolution at the level of genes, not individuals, continuing Darwin's legacy of explaining life through natural processes rather than divine creation.

Sofia asked her family friend, Warren, who is a scientist, about the theory of evolution.

What does scientists mean when they say all life is related? Warren replies, "Think of a family tree, but for all living things.

The branches show how different species are related based on evidence like DNA and fossils." Humans are closely related to animals like chimpanzees, meaning we share a common ancestor from millions of years ago.

The tree helps us understand how life evolved over time and that it was a long process of change.

According to scientists, the earth was formed approximately 4.

5 billion years ago.

Life first appeared on earth around 3.

8 billion years ago, and modern humans did not appear until 300,000 years ago.

One way to get your head around these huge numbers is to compress the earth's entire history into 24 hours.

So if we did this, the earth was formed at 12:00 a.

m.

The first life appeared around 4:00 a.

m.

Complex multicellular life emerged around 8:30 p.

m.

Dinosaurs dominated from about 10:00 p.

m.

to 11:00 p.

m.

and modern humans appeared about one second before midnight.

So it gives you a bit of an idea about how long the process of human life developing really was.

Jacob and Sofia have been comparing the Genesis account of the origins of life with the theory of evolution.

Sofia says, "The Bible says humans were created directly by God and are the end point of creation, but evolution says humans are part of the ongoing process of natural selection." Jacob says, "Genesis says everything was created in six days, but Darwin's theory has evidence such as fossils showing that species including humans evolved gradually over millions of years." Let's check your understanding.

What is meant by evolution? So think carefully about how you would define that word.

Pause the video, come back when you're ready to see what you could have written.

You could have said, "A scientific theory describing the development of species from earlier, less complex forms through a process of natural selection and survival of the fittest." So well done if you got something similar and you talked about development from simpler to more complex forms. So a key question that many people ask about evolution is, was evolution designed? There were two answers to this.

Yes, and we have scientists such as John Polkinghorne who's a British physicist, and he's also an Anglican priest, and he supports theistic evolution.

So in his book, "Science and Religion: An Introduction," he argues that evolution is so complex, it cannot be random or purposeless and must have been designed by God.

On the other hand, we have plenty of people who think, "No, evolution was not designed." So a good example of someone who thinks this is Richard Dawkins, who's an evolutionary biologist, also British, and he is an atheist.

In his book, "The Blind Watchmaker," he argues that the apparent design in living things is an illusion explained by genetic mutations and the survival of the fittest.

So let's check your understanding.

What does Richard Dawkins mean by the illusion of design? Does he mean A, living things were designed by a Creator, but changed slightly over time? Does he mean B, living things appear designed, but their complexity comes from evolution? Does he mean C, evolution and design work together to create life's complexity? Or does he mean D, that random mutations do not play a role in the development of life? So take the time to think about what he means by illusion of design.

Pause the video if you need to and then come back when you are ready to check.

So well done if you chose B.

So according to Dawkins, living things appear to be designed because they're complex, but actually that complexity is explained by the process of evolution.

Here we can see a photograph of Alice Roberts.

She's a British anthropologist, anatomist, and she's also known as a TV presenter.

She's the former president of Humanist UK.

She believes that humans are simply animals.

They are not evolution's final goal.

As conscious beings who are part of the vast branching tree of life, we have a responsibility to care for each other and the planet.

Like Richard Dawkins and Alice Roberts, Brandon is a humanist and he's been asked about his views on the origins and value of human life.

He says, "I believe life has significance because it's the only one we have.

The fact that we evolved alongside animal life without any design from God doesn't make me feel insignificant.

I'm amazed by the story about origins because it shows me that we're part of something bigger." So let's have a think about what Brandon's view on the value of human life is.

Where would you put his view on this scale? Zero means no value and 10 means a great amount of value.

Where would he fit? Take some time, turn and talk to someone nearby if you can, or you can pause and talk to me, and then come back when you're ready to rejoin.

For our task on scientific views on the origins of life, Jacob has started to write a paragraph of arguments a humanist might use to disagree with the view that human life has a value because it was created by God.

I'd like you to copy his paragraph, filling in the gaps he has left.

So Jacob says, "A humanist would argue that human life has value.

Richard Dawkins.

The fact that we evolved alongside animals shows.

As Alice Robert says.

." So have a think about how you would develop his answer, looking particularly at the views of those well-known humanists.

Pause the video, take your time, and come back when you're ready to see what you could have written.

You could have said, "A humanist would argue that human life has value, not because it was created by God, but because it's the only life we have." Richard Dawkins highlights that evolution, supported by scientific evidence, explains life's changes through natural selection without the need for a creator.

The fact that we evolved alongside animals shows we are part of something bigger.

As Alice Roberts says, "Humans are not the final goal of evolution, but as conscious beings, have a responsibility to care for each other and the planet." So well done if you pointed out that for humanist, life is not created by God, but life does still have value.

You might also have explained the theory of evolution and the lack of a need for creator, but also shown how that believing in evolution and accepting that means that we're part of something and we do have that responsibility.

So let's move on to the second part of our lesson, non-religious views on animals.

Andeep and Laura are discussing some ethical questions about the status and value of animals.

Andeep says, "Do you think animals have rights?" Laura says, "I think so.

And this is why I'm not sure about whether we should use them for entertainment.

Keeping them in zoos can be cruel.

What do you think about the value of animals?" Andeep replies, "I think animals are valuable, but I value humans more.

This is why I think we can use animals in ways that benefit humans.

For example, by testing medicines on them." So what might have influenced Andeep and Laura's views on this question of the status and value of animals? If you can turn and talk to someone nearby, please do.

Pause the video and come back when you're ready to rejoin.

There are many ways in which humans use animals.

For food, medical research, clothing, work, entertainment, and for companionship.

Now, the UK has laws on the use of animals in many of these areas.

For example, for food and animal experimentation.

The use of animals for food is controlled under the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing Regulations of 2015.

Welfare schemes like Red Tractor and RSPCA Assured certify higher standards.

The Animal Scientific Procedures Act of 1986 requires scientists to follow the three Rs, replace, reduce, and refine.

So medical testing requires two species, one of which has to be non-rodent and drugs must pass animal tests before human trials.

So we can see that both of these uses are regulated by the law.

A 2016 survey asked Americans about their eating habits.

This was organised by age category, so we had 9% overall saying they were vegetarian or vegan.

12% in the 18 to 29 and in the 30 to 49 brackets were vegetarian or vegan, and 5% in the 50 to 64 and the 65 plus.

So what does this data tell us about meat consumption in America? Have a good look at the table, turn and talk to someone nearby if you can, and then come back when you are ready to move on.

So you might have noticed that Americans eat meat and that younger people are more likely to be vegetarian or vegan.

It might be that younger people may have a greater awareness of animal welfare, environmental concerns, and health benefits due to social media and peer influence.

A 2018 survey also asked Americans their views on whether animals should be used in scientific research, and it recorded this in relation to their personal level of scientific knowledge.

So we have two columns here, oppose and favour.

So overall, 52% opposed using animals for medical research and 47% favoured it.

Now, of those with high scientific knowledge, we have 36% opposing and 63% favouring it.

Medium levels, 54% oppose and 44% favour.

And low, we have 62% oppose and 37% favour.

So what does this data tell us about general views on animal experimentation? If you're able to turn and talk to someone nearby about what it tells us about how animals are used in scientific medical research, which is also known as animal experimentation, pause the video, come back when you're ready to move on.

So you might have discussed that most oppose animal experimentation, but it's only by a very small margin.

A small amount.

So why might people with the high levels in scientific knowledge be more likely to accept animal experimentation? So again, turn and talk to somebody nearby if you can or you can pause and talk to me.

Come back when you're ready to move on.

So well done if you noticed that people with high scientific knowledge may support animal experimentation because they understand its benefits and perhaps also the rules behind it.

Sam and Jun are asking some ethical questions about the use of animals.

Sam says, "Is thinking humans are better than animals akin to thinking some humans are better than others? Surely speciesism is a form of prejudice too?" Jen says, "Are sentientists right when they say that any being capable of experiencing pain deserves moral consideration?" So why might people have different views on these questions? Take some time to talk to someone nearby if you can, or you can pause and talk to me.

Come back when you're ready to move on.

Here we can see a photograph of the philosopher, Peter Singer.

So Peter Singer is known for his work on animal rights and for his views on utilitarianism.

That's an ethical theory that judges an action based on his outcome on producing the greatest happiness or good for the greatest number.

In his book, "Animal Liberation, he popularised the term speciesism to describe the unfair treatment of animals based on their species." Singer argues for sentientism, and this is the idea that all beings capable of experiencing pain or pleasure deserve equal moral consideration.

He argues that animals should have the same rights as humans in avoiding suffering because their ability to suffer, not their species, is what matters.

So let's check your understanding.

What is speciesism? Is it A, the belief that all species are equal and should be treated the same; B, the discrimination against species based on their perceived worth or capabilities; C, the scientific study of different species characteristics; or D, the idea that only human beings have rights? So take your time, pause the video if you need to, and then come back when you're ready to check.

So well done if you put B.

Speciesism is the idea that we are discriminating against species because we have an idea about their worth or capabilities.

That they are lesser than us.

Warren, who's an atheist, is explaining his view on the value of human life.

Warren says, "I'm a scientist and I accept animal experimentation and eat ethically-farmed meat.

I think humans can use animals for their benefit as we have the ability to reason.

Animal research has saved countless human lives, and utilitarianism suggests that these benefits justify the harm course to animals.

Similarly, eating ethically-farmed meat ensures animals are treated humanely while meeting human needs more responsibly." So you might have noticed here that Warren, like Peter Singer, is using the theory of utilitarianism, but here, Warren is suggesting that because a greater good is produced for humans, it might be okay to test on animals.

Whereas Peter Singer argues differently using the same theory.

So does Warren think human and other animal life have the same value? Turn and talk to someone nearby if you can or you can pause and talk to me.

Come back when you're ready to move on.

Dan, who's a humanist, is explaining her view on the value of human life.

"As a humanist, I agree with Peter Singer that speciesism is unjust.

I'm a vegan and I don't agree with animal experimentation.

I'm a member of the British Humanist Association, which campaigns for laws which support the ethical treatment of animals.

I'm involved in petitions, demonstration, and online advocacy to reduce animal suffering and encourage ethical practises." So does Diane think human and other animal life have the same value? So like Warren, she doesn't believe in God, but is her view similar to his or not? Turn and talk to someone nearby if you can or you can pause and talk to me.

Come back when you're ready to rejoin.

Zoe, who is also an atheist, is explaining her view on the value of animal life.

She says, "I'm an atheist and like Peter Singer, would describe myself as a sentient.

I try to minimise the harm I cause to any being that's capable of suffering.

In my view, we should seek alternatives to actions like eating meat and animal experimentation because they cause harm to other sentient beings.

This is why I'm a vegan and I support the campaigns of PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, against animal experimentation." So does Zoe think human and other animal life have the same value.

Pause the video, turn and talk to someone nearby if you can, think about Zoe's view and how maybe it's similar or different to or from Diane's or Warren's.

So does Zoe think human and other animal life have the same value? Have a think about Zoe's view, and you might also want to compare it with what Diane had to say and Warren also.

Pause the video and come back when you're ready to rejoin.

So let's check your understanding.

Is this statement true or false? Atheists usually believe that humans and other animals have equal rights.

So pause if you need to.

Also have a think about why you've come to that conclusion and then come back when you are ready to check your answer.

So well done if you put false.

But why is this false? Because we actually had two atheists there who was suggesting that we should treat animals better and with more compassion.

And maybe even that we shouldn't eat them or use them for experimentation.

Well, it's false because as atheists, they're likely to believe that humans and animals are both part of the tree of life and therefore, they're likely to support animal welfare.

However, their views on the rights of humans and other animals will really depend on how much they value human development.

So if you remember, Warren, who is an atheist, actually supports using animals for animal experimentation.

For our task on non-religious views on animals part one, consider the statement, humans and other animals have equal rights.

Look at the arguments in the table and note whether each one supports the statement, so it's an argument for; or opposes it, it's an argument against.

We have animals lack the capacity to make moral choices and so are inferior to humans.

All beings with the ability to suffer deserve moral consideration.

All living things have evolved together and so have an equal status.

Humans have a unique status due to our ability to reason.

Take your time to think about which statements are arguing for or against the idea that humans and animals have equal rights.

Pause the video and come back when you're ready to check your work.

So you should have noticed that animals lacking the capacity to make moral choices and so are inferior to humans is against.

That all beings with the ability to serve deserve moral consideration is for.

That all living beings have evolved together and so have an equal status is also for.

And that humans have a unique status due to our ability to reason is against.

For part two of our task, Jun has written a paragraph of non-religious arguments against the statement that humans and other animals have equal rights.

Some argue that humans and animals don't have equal rights because humans are different in important ways.

Humans can think critically, make ethical decisions, and understand complex ideas which animals cannot do.

Since animals can't make moral choices or take on moral responsibilities, they shouldn't have the same rights as humans.

While it's important to treat animals well, the differences between humans and animals mean they don't deserve the same rights.

So your task is to develop the non-religious arguments in support of equal rights for humans and animals into a paragraph.

And this is a different view that agrees with the statement.

suggest view is against the statement >> and you are gonna develop a different view agreeing with the statement, but also using non-religious arguments.

So take your time to think really carefully about this and about the points that you might use that you've learned today.

Pause the video, come back when you are ready to check what you might have written.

Let's have a look at what you could have said.

Many people argue that humans and animals should have equal rights because all sentient beings, regardless of species, have the capacity to suffer.

Philosophers like Peter Singer argue that we should extend the principle of equality to all sentient beings.

He accuses human beings of speciesism and believes that species membership alone should not determine how we treat others.

The suffering of animals is morally significant just as the suffering of humans is.

By granting equal rights, we can ensure that animals are treated with respect and dignity just as humans are.

Supporters of this view believe that animals like humans deserve protection from harm, exploitation, and unnecessary suffering.

So well done in particular if you managed to use the idea of sentientism and speciesism in your answer.

Even better if you talked about Peter Singer.

In our lesson today on non-religious attitudes to human life, we've learned that life first appeared on Earth around 3.

8 billion years ago, and modern humans emerged around 300,000 years ago.

The evolution describes the development of a species via natural selection.

The scientist John Polkinghorne argues evolution's complexity suggests it was designed by God.

Richard Dawkins proposes that the apparent design is an illusion, resulting from genetic mutations and survival of the fittest.

The use of animals, such as for food and experimentation, is regulated by laws.

The philosopher, Peter Singer, popularised the term speciesism, which is discrimination based on the perceived worth of a species.

He describes himself as a sentientist and argues for moral consideration for all sentient beings as all can suffer.

We've learned a lot today.

Thank you for your hard work on this, and I look forward to seeing you again.