Leading scientists and naturalists, including Professor Richard Dawkins and Sir David Attenborough, are claiming a victory over the creationist movement after the government ratified measures that will bar anti-evolution groups from teaching creationism in science classes.
The Department for Education has revised its model funding agreement, allowing the education secretary to withdraw cash from schools that fail to meet strict criteria relating to what they teach. Under the new agreement, funding will be withdrawn for any free school that teaches what it claims are "evidence-based views or theories" that run "contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations".
The British Humanist Association (BHA), which has led a campaign against creationism – the movement that denies Darwinian evolution and claims that the Earth and all its life was created by God – described the move as "highly significant" and predicted that it would have implications for other faith groups looking to run schools.
Dawkins, who was one of the leading lights in the campaign, welcomed confirmation that creationists would not receive funding to run free schools if they sought to portray their views as science. "I welcome all moves to ensure that creationism is not taught as fact in schools," he said. "Government rules on this are extremely welcome, but they need to be properly enforced."
Free schools, which are state-funded and run by local people or organisations, do not need to follow the national curriculum. Scientific groups have expressed concerns that their spread will see a reduction in the teaching of evolution in the classroom.
Several creationist groups have expressed an interest in opening schools in towns and cities across England, including Bedford, Barnsley, Sheffield and Nottingham. Critics say they seek to promote creationism, or the doctrine of "intelligent design", as a scientific theory rather than as a myth or metaphor.
One creationist organisation, Truth in Science, which encourages teachers to incorporate intelligent design into their science teaching, has sent free resources to all secondary schools and sixth-form colleges.
A BHA campaign, called "Teach evolution, not creationism", saw 30 leading scientists and educators call on the government to introduce statutory guidance against the teaching of creationism. The group said if the government would not support the call, an explicit amendment to the wording of the funding agreement could have the same effect. Last week the Department for Education confirmed it had amended the agreement, although a spokesman denied it was the result of pressure from scientists. He said the revision made good on a pledge regarding the teaching of creationism given when the education secretary, Michael Gove, was in opposition. "We will not accept any academy or free school proposal which plans to teach creationism in the science curriculum or as an alternative to accepted scientific theories," the spokesman said, adding that "all free school proposals will be subject to due diligence checks by the department's specialist team".
The revised funding agreement has been seized upon by anti-creationists who are pressing for wider concessions from the government.
"It is clear that some faith schools are ignoring the regulations and are continuing to teach myth as though it were science," Dawkins said. "Evolution is fact, supported by evidence from a host of scientific disciplines, and we do a great disservice to our young people if we fail to teach it properly. "
A spokeswoman for the BHA said: "The government's new wording is quite wide and in practice could prevent those who promote extreme religious or particular spiritual or pseudoscientific approaches from including them as part of the school curriculum as science or as evidence-based."
So how does this come across to you guys? Is it a good or bad thing to have creationism out of science classes (not necessarily out of other classes).
ReplyDeleteI understand the danger in teaching "godidit" in schools, if this were the only thing explanation taught then we may not have scientists digging in to find out how something worked. However there are many a situation where there are not many explanations for a scientific occurrence and to suggest that it may be a signature from God as such could be very much in place, but that should not be a reason to stop exploring. That explanation needs to be sought out to see if it were true... same thing with evolution.
I believe Ray Comfort's ten leaves sitting under a tree in a line is a good example. We were never there to see how they got there, to see how they could form like that. But we can speculate, some would say "chance" or "evolutiondidit" and others that "design" or "godidit". Both are valid explanations but the most reasonable one should be considered and weighed.
Well, some thoughts anyway. Now for some quotes I found comment worthy :)
"It is clear that some faith schools are ignoring the regulations and are continuing to teach myth as though it were science," Dawkins said. "Evolution is fact, supported by evidence from a host of scientific disciplines, and we do a great disservice to our young people if we fail to teach it properly. "
Wow, what a statement. Evolution surely has evidence for it, but definitely not an explanation for ALL science (regarding origins). I hope the sad word "godidit" isn't replaced with "evolutiondidit" (which would be just as bad and damaging) as this article seems to suggest the way that some schools are going. All explanations need to be taught or at least mentioned, not just one. Let the juror decide!
Under the new agreement, funding will be withdrawn for any free school that teaches what it claims are "evidence-based views or theories" that run "contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations".
Teach evidence, not what is popular.
Second to last paragraph is a "quote" :)... the one in italics.
ReplyDeleteI am against deception and any force which dampens the search for true insight. Full-stop. From whatever source. So schools which teach 'goddidit' or 'evolutiondidit' as an excuse for NOT teaching other alternatives, and NOT delving into the details and implications and unknowns of each - they are wrong. So are those which teach these things as a BROAD SET of conclusions, and then seek to attach the validation which SOME of them have (from the evidence, etc) to the others (which actually are entirely unvalidated as yet and deserve to be seen as such) - as Richard Dawkins does: "Evolution is a fact, supported by evidence..."
ReplyDeleteObviously some creationist schools do these things. Which is partly what the government wants to stop. People can do these things in their own personal lives - but they can't be government funded for it.
However I think its obvious that the government does not care about this happening in evolutionary schools. Or even within itself. Basically they will cut funding from anything which truthfully presents both sides. So you can't receive funding if you want your students to pursue truth - only if you're willing to indoctrinate them and stifle this pursuit (from an evolutionary perspective only, of course).
Obviously we can do a great job of teaching and encourage the pursuit of truth, from various personal angles and value systems. And children are susceptible to taking on these personal angles if they are saturated in them. Which is why it is so important that parents have choice regarding which kind of angle the child's teaching will come from. (As long as it is not deceptive and encourages the pursuit of truth). Both evolution and creationism should be taught truthfully, from whichever personal angle the teacher wants, and parents should have the choice of which teacher they use.
I guess we have to ask what the purpose of the state-funded school system is. Is it to encourage the pursuit of truth? Or is it to indoctrinate people and force children to be saturated in the value system the government favors? Sounds like state-religion mix to me.
I guess we have to ask what the purpose of the state-funded school system is. Is it to encourage the pursuit of truth? Or is it to indoctrinate people and force children to be saturated in the value system the government favors? Sounds like state-religion mix to me.
ReplyDeleteVERY well put.