Creationism included in GCSE Syllabus

[Muse]

Creationist theory about the origin of the Earth is to be included in a GCSE biology syllabus in mainstream secondary schools throughout England and Wales. The OCR exam board will publish the syllabus in September this year.

The BBC have covered the development here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4793198.stm).

Critics have condemned the move as in danger of raising religious theories to the status of scientific. The government insists that creationism isn’t being taught as a subject, although the exam board says that the students need to understand the background to theories. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority who oversees the development of the national curriculum have agreed the move.

Surely this will not only open the door to the widespread inclusion of creationist and ID belief systems but will unduly elevate these ideas to a level on par with science? The Dover School board, Pennsylvania recently hit the headlines when parents successfully objected to the teaching of creationist theories within science class.

This development comes on top of creationist theory already being taught in science lessons within the three Emmanual Foundation Schools sponsored by Sir Peter Vardy.

Its a real concern that the boundaries between science and region may become blurred if this is not handled with extreme care. Its so important that the distinction between belief systems and the scientific method, requirement for evidence etc is maintained intact and crystal clear. Science will suffer it is isn't and the creationists will get their message across. Critical thinking and science will suffer if the British public continues its indifference.

[Admin]

I think that all schools should be free of religion. Yes, teach religions in a religion class but a school should not be affiliated with any particular religion. The purpose of a school is to educate not indoctrinate.

This looks to me like one of those moves that seems quite small but nonetheless shifts the goalposts slightly (a bit like magnet therapy on the NHS). The next incremental step may be slightly larger but harder to resist as it's been done before.

Those who support the idea of Intelligent Design want to achieve scientific status for their theories yet without the scientific rigour required of true science.

We really need to keep the distinction in place between empirical science and faith.

Even in the religiose USA they stopped ID being taught in a science class: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/

Although the government gave the reason that debating the ID issue in biology classes teaches them to assess controvesies, what we need is two competing scientific theories: not science versus faith. There is no controvesy regarding ID, it simply is not a scientific theory.

[Admin]

There's a good website here: http://www.creationism.co.uk/

Some good info and links. O0

[Mojo]

I think that all schools should be free of religion. That would require a change in the law. At the moment "all maintained schools must provide daily collective worship for all registered pupils (http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/management/atoz/c/collectiveworship/) (apart from those who have been withdrawn from this by their parents)". This must be "wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character", although in exceptional cases where the head teacher and governors of the school decide that this is unsuitable "in view of the family background of some or all pupils", they can apply to have the "Christian" requirement dropped. I assume this merely means replacing Christianity with a religion deemed more suitable.

[Nucular]

Anyone catch the Dispatches doc on C4 a week or two ago? It was looking at the state-funded evangelical Christian colleges run by Vardy. Nothing there I hadn't read before, but some eye-opening interviews, well-conducted by a genuinely incredulous Ron Liddle.

It's amazing, shocking stuff. The crap they'll funnel into the heads of the very children who'll one day be running the country. One of the most interesting things was the stealth-selection process they use whilst shouting that their results speak for themselves: one fo the colleges expelled 16 times as many of the low achievers for petty offences than the other schools in the same area!

Despicable. I have a VCD of the doc, so PM me if you want one - it's a bit out of sync though unfortunately.

[Muse]

Good to see that the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has stepped into the fray between religious fundamentalists and scientists today by stating that he doesn’t believe that creationism or Bible cased accounts of world creation should be taught in schools such as evangelist Sir Peter Vardy’s Emmanual Foundation Schools and others.

He’s quoted as saying in an interview reported in the Guardian today here (http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1735731,00.html) that,
“My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it."

Rather encouragingly it indicates that Dr Williams does not see creationism and evolution as two sides of the same coin “creationism is ... a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories ... if creationism is presented as a stark alternative theory alongside other theories I think there's just been a jarring of categories ...”

This intervention along with those of both Pope John Paul II and more recently Pope Benedict XVI has put the heads of the Anglican and Catholic church squarely at odds with Creationists and ID proponents. The latest Pontiff has commented that an understanding of science should help believers understand “the mysteries of life on Earth”, while helping them to see "the logic of faith in God" saying also that the “The Church joyfully accepts the real conquests of human knowledge.” Source (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/13/pope_darwin_love_in/)


.......Another interesting development.

[Mojo]

Good to see that the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has stepped into the fray between religious fundamentalists and scientists today by stating that he doesn’t believe that creationism or Bible cased accounts of world creation should be taught in schools such as evangelist Sir Peter Vardy’s Emmanual Foundation Schools and others.

He’s quoted as saying in an interview reported in the Guardian today here (http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1735731,00.html) that,
“My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it."

Rather encouragingly it indicates that Dr Williams does not see creationism and evolution as two sides of the same coin “creationism is ... a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories ... if creationism is presented as a stark alternative theory alongside other theories I think there's just been a jarring of categories ...” Or could it be that he can see the problems inherent in holding up the Bible to proper scrutiny as if it were a scientific text?

[Skepticus Rex]

The purpose of a school is to educate not indoctrinate.

well, technically all schools indoctrinate. what you are really saying is that they should only indoctrinate children with what is considered true by a scientifically assessing, peer-reviewed establishment.

even when schools are teaching current scientific beliefs (anecdotal here, but it is a common anecdote that all sorts of people have experienced) they are taught as the absolute truth, anyone disagreeing or being sceptical about something is told they are wrong, and grades suffer. (this is at secondary school level)

edit: sorry about the bump, didn't realise how old this was.

[wollery]

well, technically all schools indoctrinate. what you are really saying is that they should only indoctrinate children with what is considered true by a scientifically assessing, peer-reviewed establishment.Depends on your definition of indoctrinate, but essentially, yes. The difference is that science relies on objective evidence.


even when schools are teaching current scientific beliefs (anecdotal here, but it is a common anecdote that all sorts of people have experienced) they are taught as the absolute truth, anyone disagreeing or being sceptical about something is told they are wrong, and grades suffer. (this is at secondary school level)I agree that this is a problem, and something that also annoys me. I used to be a secondary school teacher, and I've seen this appalling attitude first hand. The problem is that many science teachers have a science degree but aren't really scientists, and don't fully appreciate the scientific method. Anyone who truly understands the scientific method knows that there is no such thing as absolute truth in science. As far as I am concerned that's one of its strengths.


edit: sorry about the bump, didn't realise how old this was.No thread is too old to be revived if you have something relevant to say.

[Jocky]

Yeah, good bump, Skepticus.



even when schools are teaching current scientific beliefs (anecdotal here, but it is a common anecdote that all sorts of people have experienced) they are taught as the absolute truth, anyone disagreeing or being sceptical about something is told they are wrong, and grades suffer. (this is at secondary school level)
I agree that this is a problem, and something that also annoys me. I used to be a secondary school teacher, and I've seen this appalling attitude first hand. The problem is that many science teachers have a science degree but aren't really scientists, and don't fully appreciate the scientific method. Anyone who truly understands the scientific method knows that there is no such thing as absolute truth in science.

This business is something which gives woos a very big stick with which to beat science - I for one have been repeatedly beaten with it >:( .

They can point to "indoctrination" by the "scientific establishment" which browbeats hapless pupils to accept orthodoxy at the expense of "the Truth" (for Truth read whatever brand of woo is being promoted, of course).

I would have thought it's a matter of how the disagreement is handled. I would expect a good teacher to react not by saying "You're wrong - shut up", but rather by saying "Here is the evidence which supports my answer - evaluate it for yourself".

Of course this is an ideal scenario - it must be very difficult in practical terms, when you're dealing with a class of recalcitrant teenagers who may be a bit hazy on the spelling of the word 'evidence', let alone posessing the skills required to understand it.

Can you share more of your experiences of skepticism in the classroom, wollery?