Print
Ministers to ban creationist teaching aids in science lessons
by James Randerson, The Guardian
Thanks to Keith Wood for the link.
Reposted from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1965986,00.html
Schools will be told not to use special pack; Intelligent design group asks for meeting
The government is to write to schools telling them that controversial teaching materials promoting creationism should not be used in science lessons.
The packs include DVDs and written materials promoting intelligent design, a creationist alternative to Darwinism, that were sent to every school in the country by the privately-funded group Truth in Science. Advocates of the theory argue that some features of the universe and nature are so complex that they must have been designed by a higher intelligence. Last week, the Guardian revealed that 59 schools had told Truth in Science the materials were a "useful classroom resource".
The government has already stated that the Truth in Science materials should not be used in science lessons. On November 1, the education minister, Jim Knight, wrote: "Neither intelligent design nor creationism are recognised scientific theories and they are not included in the science curriculum. The Truth in Science information pack is therefore not an appropriate resource to support the science curriculum." The Department for Education said it was working with the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, the public body that oversees the national curriculum, to communicate this message directly to schools.
But Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrats' science spokesman, said: "I'm amazed that they have found it so difficult and it has taken so long." He feared that some teachers would use the packs to promote intelligent design as a belief or that it would be presented as a valid scientific theory.
"[Pupils] are somehow being told these agendas are alternative ways of looking at things. They are not at all," the Nobel prizewinner and prime mover in the Human Genome Project, John Sulston, said at a lecture last week at the British Museum. "One is science - a rational thought process which will carry us forward into the indefinite future. The other is a cop-out and they should not be juxtaposed in science lessons."
The teachers' manual accompanying the DVDs says that the curriculum states that pupils should be taught about different ways of interpreting empirical evidence. "An essential part of this is for pupils to understand the nature and causes of scientific controversy. A good example of this, specified by the national curriculum, is Darwin's theory of evolution."
Andy McIntosh, a professor of thermodynamics at the University of Leeds and a member of the Truth in Science board, has written to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the advice the department is planning to send out to schools.
Liberal Democrat MP Phil Willis, who chairs the parliamentary science and technology committee, said it was a good opportunity for the department to "send out a very clear directive to say that these materials should not be used within any national science curriculum lesson".
Reposted from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1965986,00.html
Schools will be told not to use special pack; Intelligent design group asks for meeting
The government is to write to schools telling them that controversial teaching materials promoting creationism should not be used in science lessons.
The packs include DVDs and written materials promoting intelligent design, a creationist alternative to Darwinism, that were sent to every school in the country by the privately-funded group Truth in Science. Advocates of the theory argue that some features of the universe and nature are so complex that they must have been designed by a higher intelligence. Last week, the Guardian revealed that 59 schools had told Truth in Science the materials were a "useful classroom resource".
The government has already stated that the Truth in Science materials should not be used in science lessons. On November 1, the education minister, Jim Knight, wrote: "Neither intelligent design nor creationism are recognised scientific theories and they are not included in the science curriculum. The Truth in Science information pack is therefore not an appropriate resource to support the science curriculum." The Department for Education said it was working with the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, the public body that oversees the national curriculum, to communicate this message directly to schools.
But Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrats' science spokesman, said: "I'm amazed that they have found it so difficult and it has taken so long." He feared that some teachers would use the packs to promote intelligent design as a belief or that it would be presented as a valid scientific theory.
"[Pupils] are somehow being told these agendas are alternative ways of looking at things. They are not at all," the Nobel prizewinner and prime mover in the Human Genome Project, John Sulston, said at a lecture last week at the British Museum. "One is science - a rational thought process which will carry us forward into the indefinite future. The other is a cop-out and they should not be juxtaposed in science lessons."
The teachers' manual accompanying the DVDs says that the curriculum states that pupils should be taught about different ways of interpreting empirical evidence. "An essential part of this is for pupils to understand the nature and causes of scientific controversy. A good example of this, specified by the national curriculum, is Darwin's theory of evolution."
Andy McIntosh, a professor of thermodynamics at the University of Leeds and a member of the Truth in Science board, has written to request a meeting with ministers to discuss the advice the department is planning to send out to schools.
Liberal Democrat MP Phil Willis, who chairs the parliamentary science and technology committee, said it was a good opportunity for the department to "send out a very clear directive to say that these materials should not be used within any national science curriculum lesson".
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Thursday, December 7, 2006 | PermalinkComments 1 - 20 of 20 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #11788 by aoratos philos on December 7, 2006 at 11:08 am
I wonder what the governments position would be if this country was full of Christian Fundie's?Other Comments by aoratos philos
3. Comment #11789 by Skeptic Jim on December 7, 2006 at 11:13 am
*does a little dance*woohooo! score 1 for the good guys.
Other Comments by Skeptic Jim
4. Comment #11792 by Thrall on December 7, 2006 at 11:39 am
Soon, you'll hear Bill O' talking about this soon enough, saying how it's "british secular-progressives" that are "censoring" science. You watch. I'll be right. It's a good thing nobody listens to him anymore, and everyone is starting to listen to keith olbermann.Other Comments by Thrall
5. Comment #11794 by Graham9 on December 7, 2006 at 11:47 am
The "Truth" in Science lot sent out a second dispatch of the DVD to schools - this time addressed to the Chair of Governors! (At least, my school was sent another - but it had the publicised reputation of rejecting the first one). They just will not give up. Despite the Govt's stance - I don't believe we've heard the last of these ID magic-peddlars.Other Comments by Graham9
6. Comment #11796 by macronencer on December 7, 2006 at 12:08 pm
Diplo and Graham9 are right: they will never give up. If we want to avoid slipping into a default acceptance of this nonsense being taught to our children, we have to remain active in our efforts to prevent it. Keep writing letters to editors, keep signing petitions, keep voicing opinions whenever it can make a difference. DON'T let them win by virtue of apathy.It's very sad that such vigilance is necessary. It would be nice to live in a society free of all these myths, and free of the people who use them to hold back progress because of their own delusions. One day, perhaps...
Other Comments by macronencer
7. Comment #11798 by JaffaCake on December 7, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Thank God for that!Urm, sorry!
Other Comments by JaffaCake
8. Comment #11815 by thegashman on December 7, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Wow that was fast work! I'm still waiting to hear back from my local MP about his views on Truth in Science, but as my local MP is Evan Harris I guess I've got my answer now :0)Other Comments by thegashman
9. Comment #11821 by Roy_H on December 7, 2006 at 1:18 pm
Wow! common sense has prevailed, there is hope after all.Other Comments by Roy_H
10. Comment #11823 by Jared on December 7, 2006 at 1:19 pm
Funny how it's the Lib Dems who seem to be talking about this most. Now, I'm not British and so have not had very much experience with British politics in the short time that I've lived here, so I apologize if I'm making any obviously poor statements. But I guess, based on what I've read about them, for ANY party to be coming to the defense of rationalism, the Lib Dems seem the most logical choice. Though I don't know enough about them to say how often I agree or disagree with their policies, they do have at least an air of "enlightenment" values ingrained in their party platform.
It makes me wish for representation of a similar viewpoint in congress back home in the States. But we've got just our two parties, sadly, and not much wiggle room in the middle.
Well, politics aside, good news here! Let's hope we can keep it up.
Other Comments by Jared
11. Comment #11836 by Aussie on December 7, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Should Lysenkoism be taught alongside mainstream genetics in biology classes as an alternative theory of comparable standing to allow students to make up their own minds?Should the basis of atheism and the irrationality of faith be required to be taught alongside religion in all classes providing religious instruction so students can decide for themselves?
Should teachers of religious instruction in all schools be required to present the basics of the other major competing religions in a fair and equal manner so that students can make up their own minds.
Other Comments by Aussie
12. Comment #11840 by RascoHeldall on December 7, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Sometimes, just sometimes, New Labour do get it right. Praise where praise is due.Other Comments by RascoHeldall
13. Comment #11887 by CreatedAnAthiestByGod on December 8, 2006 at 3:24 am
Truth in Science and any other crackpot organisation have the freedom and money to send anything they like to any school or educational center anywhere they like. The Government or education authorities then have to spend time and money to try and undo the damage.I believe in free speech, so I can not justify a law that stops them from sending text or multi-media stuff to schools and teachers, but I do think its time to start fining groups the cost of the clean-up. They can have the right to appeal, but thereafter they should pay up.
Other Comments by CreatedAnAthiestByGod
14. Comment #11892 by Yorker on December 8, 2006 at 3:59 am
10. Comment #11823 by Jared Jared, we are a mirror image, you're an American living in the UK, I'm British and lived in the USA!
What we have here is a political situation similar to the USA, basically a non-democratic, one-party system where the GOP and Dems, like Labour and Cons, are just two factions of the same big-business driven outfit. Indeed, New Labour could be more appropriately called, Old Conservatives!
You experience here may be short, but you have a good handle on things. The Lib Dems still have a long way to go unfortunately.
Other Comments by Yorker
15. Comment #11895 by Yorker on December 8, 2006 at 4:14 am
2. Comment #11788 by aoratos philos >>I wonder what the governments position would be if this country was full of Christian Fundie's?<<
They would pander to them, as politicians always do.
That's why getting god-deluded young people registered to vote, is uppermost in the minds of American fundie leaders like Roberston and Falwell.
Other Comments by Yorker
16. Comment #11937 by Sailnsouth on December 8, 2006 at 10:11 am
Yes that is my biggest fear that the world fundamentalist movement is relentless and so highly funded to the point that they will never stop.I have read most of the Dover Pennsylvania decision from a year ago. It seems that the judge of that trial went to great pains to be fair, exhaustive, and to try to do a comprehensive evaluation of the ID problem. It would be nice if that information could be more widely disseminated. I doubt if mainstream Americans or Brits know anything about that decision.
On another note but related I was fascinated while watching the RD lecture in Virginia when the Liberty University student claims that there are 3-4 thousand year old dinosaur fossils on display at that university. Has that been verified (meaning are the fossils actually on display as the student mentioned)? That means that those students believe there were dinosaurs roaming around when the pyramids were being built in Egypt. To paraphrase a line from I believe Sam Harris "there are those who believe The Flintstones is actually a documentary"
This is incredible stuff!
Other Comments by Sailnsouth
17. Comment #12220 by MouthAlmighty on December 11, 2006 at 10:00 am
This is good news, but let's not get too excited – remember it wasn't so long ago that Blair was saying, of the teaching of creationism in schools..."This can be hugely exaggerated. I've visited one of the schools in question and as far as I'm aware they are teaching the curriculum in a normal way. If I notice creationism becoming the mainstream of the education system in this country then that's the time to start worrying. As I've said, it's really important for science to fight the battles it needs to fight. When something like MMR arises, or stem cells, that's the time to have a real debate."
But in the meantime we don't give a toss what kids are taught?
More than a little hypocritical since in the same New Scientist interview he talks of the next steps for the development of policy with regard to 'climate change'. As he sees it...
"...the next step is to get a framework agreed with the major countries... The agreements will incentivise private business and industry to go after the scientific and technological solutions. They're out there, they just need to be developed and brought to market. Getting the right carbon price is absolutely vital for doing this. We should be world leaders in this area, so let's do that."
Quite how he expects the UK's future generation of scientists to lead the world whilst championing such a slack, and delinquent attitude to standards in science education is beyond me.
Other Comments by MouthAlmighty
18. Comment #12550 by alanmackenzie on December 12, 2006 at 2:32 pm
The seven danger signals of a fertile environment for pseudoscience:* Disrespect of authority: Since everyone knows a little about everything, some can pretend to know more than the experts. The tendency for the uniformed public to question authority is no more prevalent than in the field of medicine, so it is unsurprising that superficial people should 'critique' other subjects they know so little about. Notice how those who question figures of authority rarely spend the time and money garnering expertise of their own: the issue here is pride, superficiality, and that hackneyed phrase which all charlatans use when cornered by an expert - "I have a right to my opinion". You have no right to an uninformed opinion about evolution, if you do not at least endeavour to read the latest papers and books on the subject.
* Extreme relativism: and the willingness of educators to lend 'equal validity' to ideas representative of a wide range of cultural symbionts.
* Vernacular understanding of the term 'theory': scientific theories are not 'guesses' or 'assumptions', they are a precise and quantifiable interpretation of data. Facts do not go away when scientists debate them, and so evolution is a fact, whether Darwin's theory adequately describes that same data, or whether some future theory [none is foreseen in mainstream science] describes evolution more precisely.
* Conspirational thinking: anti-evolution is a Man-made Pseudo-Christian Cult, which lacks central doctrinal authority. Man-made, because the conflict over evolution is entirely bogus and a matter of personal choice; Pseudo-Christian, because the advocates of ID and creationism ignore the fact that other Christian denominations fully endorse good science, respect secular values, and demonstrate a commitment to living alongside non-believers; Cult, because ID and creationism promote conspirational thinking against good science and mainstream society; lacks central doctrinal authority, because Protestant anti-evolution denominations lack guidance from competent leaders, which in turn leads to competing sophomoric apologists vying for internal and external power.
* Low quality entry requirements in higher education: modern higher educational establishments will lower their standards to permit the entry of shallow thinkers, the illiterate, and those vulnerable to propositional logic, which in turn affords a fertile environment for indoctrination by Intelligent Design theorists.
* Laziness: sorting out valid ideas looks like far too much hard work: when one says it was designed, this gives the false impression that design represents the Occam's razor, and evolution clogs science with complicated, unnecessary explanations. For example, the difficulty people experience in understanding the evolution of the eye is a perfect example of how Intelligent Design theorists will encourage people to give up, and say God did it. Furthermore, 'irreducible complexity' is just a rehashed version of the old creationist slogan 'what use is half an eye?' and so indicates that ID theorists assume that macro evolution operates as a linear process in which structures appear suddenly.
* Arrogance: Intelligent Design theorists have the temerity to 'put Darwin on trial', 'corner those neo-Darwinists, and rigorously cross-examine them', or repeatedly state discredited ideas as if they were still useful to science. Who do these people think they are? Well, check out the crackpot index, and tally up the scores, starting with The Discovery Institute.
It is therefore of utmost importance, that United Kingdom educators and scientists have answers for everything these creationist chameleons produce: for every instance of a school science class bought off by 'teach the controversy', a generation of future scientists ceases to exist, and so Britain may lose it's scientific heritage for an indefinite period.
Alan,
http://rankatheism.blogspot.com/
Other Comments by alanmackenzie
19. Comment #13063 by Luthien on December 15, 2006 at 8:30 am
I certainly hope that "Truth in Science" have not been awarded 'charitable' status, or given any kind of tax exemption.We need to go check this out ASAP!
Other Comments by Luthien
20. Comment #20561 by Homo economicus on February 4, 2007 at 7:04 am
I have e mailed my local MP about this asking for him to support the science curriculum. Let your representatives know how you feel about the issue.The last thing we need is science going from dumming down to putting faith on a par with scientific inquiry.
Other Comments by Homo economicus
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"What are all of us but self-reproducing robots? We have been put together by our genes and what we do is roam the world looking for a way to sustain ourselves and ultimately produce another robot child."
Richard Dawkins
"The position I have always adopted is that much of animal nature is indeed altruistic, cooperative and even attended by benevolent subjective emotions, but that this follows from, rather than contradicts, selfishness at the genetic level."
Richard Dawkins
"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart"
H.L. Mencken
"...when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong."
Richard Dawkins
"...it is a telling fact that, the world over, the vast majority of children follow the religion of their parents rather than any of the other available religions."
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
Conciousness Explained
Daniel C. Dennett
Darwin's Dangerous Idea
Daniel C. Dennett
On The Origin of Species
Charles Darwin
Genome
Matt Ridley
The Demon-Haunted World
Carl Sagan
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #11785 by Diplo on December 7, 2006 at 10:49 am
Now, if they could only see that City Academies and Faith Schools are also another means by which proponents of 'Intelligent Design' can try to slip in Creationism via the back-door. This battle may have been won but the war is only beginning. The ID fundies are well organised and well funded and won't stop trying.
We shall defend our Reason, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight in the classrooms, we shall fight in the parliament, we shall fight in the pulpits and in the streets, we shall fight in the media; we shall never surrender.... (with apologies to Churchill!)
Other Comments by Diplo