Creationism comes to UK science curriculum

From the article:

TheMostEvilManInBritain said:
In England, the Emmanuel Schools Foundation, sponsored by Christian car dealer Sir Peter Vardy, has been criticised for featuring creationist theories in lessons in the three comprehensives it runs.

Sir Peter has said the schools present both Darwin's evolutionary theory and creationism.

In 2003, he said: "One is a theory, the other is a faith position. It is up to the children."
Click to expand...
Don't you just know that he's saying precisely the opposite of the obvious way to interpret that statement?

God damn but I'd like to poke that man in the eye with a fork.

I'd offer odds of 100:1 that the actual theory of evolution is presented rather than the most convenient Creationist strawman: "Evolution says birds and bunnies came around purely by random chance. Have you ever seen a dog give birth to a cat, or a bunny appear in one of your drawers? Evolution has no real evidence behind it and is, in reality, merely a faith position taken by evil atheists who want to bring about the next Holocaust"
 
Kochanski said:
Condolences guys, sorry this bit of lunacy has crossed the pond and invaded your education system :(

Once it shows up, it is very hard to get rid of, like gum stuck to your favorite shoe.
Click to expand...

Uhmmm...... I've always been able to get rid of the gum.
 
Kochanski said:
Condolences guys, sorry this bit of lunacy has crossed the pond and invaded your education system :(

Once it shows up, it is very hard to get rid of, like gum stuck to your favorite shoe.
Click to expand...
OK, so you get Red Dwarf and we get Creationism.

I somehow don't think that's a very fair trade :mad:
 
From the article:

The government insists creationism is not being taught as a subject.
Click to expand...

Really?

The exam board says students need to understand the background to theories.

Its new "Gateway to Science" curriculum asks pupils to examine how organisms become fossilised.

Teachers are asked to "explain that the fossil record has been interpreted differently over time (e.g. creationist interpretation)".
Click to expand...

If creationism isn't being taught as a subject, just what the hell is it doing in the "Gateway to Science" curriculum?
 
What is being proposed is that teachers teach evolution and then use the opportunity to "discuss" the other viewpoints that Darwin was up against.
Taken from the teachers guidelines(?)
Candidates are asked to discuss why the opponents of Darwinism thought the way they did and how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence
Click to expand...
Hmmmm.... Notice it is already being re-enforced how the creationists are using "empirical evidence" and disagreement only comes about through simply looking at the same evidence in different ways. It is another "every view is equally valid" position that is favoured by a society not wishing anyone to be wrong.

On the face of it, there is nothing wrong with what has been suggested, but in reality there is everything wrong with it. Anyone who has spent time in a UK (comprehensive) schools knows that teachers are not allowed to express their own personal opinions on a number of things (politics, religion, ethics etc). In fact it will a disciplinary matter is they did.

What is going to happen is that teachers will teach evolution and then be obliged to talk about a creationism with NO criticism of it what so ever. Children will leave the class having spent 25 mins on the THEORY of evolution and 5 mins on creationism. These children will go away considering the "options" their teachers had just given them.
 
Last edited:
CFLarsen said:
From the article:

If creationism isn't being taught as a subject, just what the hell is it doing in the "Gateway to Science" curriculum?
Click to expand...

Money.

From what I understand, Reg Vardy has paid for (most if not all) the building and running costs of these schools which are mostly in deprived areas. I think this is a case of "You pay for it and we will turn a blind eye to the fact your a creationist loon".

As these are state schools this is an absolute disgrace. Typical for this lot in Westminster mind you...........
 
Shaun from Scotland said:
Money.

From what I understand, Reg Vardy has paid for (most if not all) the building and running costs of these schools which are mostly in deprived areas. I think this is a case of "You pay for it and we will turn a blind eye to the fact your a creationist loon".

As these are state schools this is an absolute disgrace. Typical for this lot in Westminster mind you...........
Click to expand...
It's Peter Vardy - Reg Vardy was his dad who gave his name to the company. I don't think Sir Peter Vardy had to stump up anything like as much as you suggest, I'll try and find more on that.

Agreed that it's a disgrace.

Edited to add "Sir Peter"
 
Last edited:
According to evowiki

... the Vardy Foundation, which pays £2million of the school's costs (new school buildings cost around £20 million, and schools cost £5 million a year to run), has a high level of influence over what the schools teach, and staff they employ.
Click to expand...
I belive the Vardy Foundation is now called the Emmanuel Foundation.

It seems that £2m is the standard contribution if you want to run a school - The Economist.
 
Perhaps I've misread the article, but my interpretation was that the exam board (OCR) aims to give children knowledge of scientific controversy - not to teach creationism as a science.

I think it'a a good thing that kids should learn about science vs anti-science, how such debates arise and are resolved. Although teachers may not express an opinion, it is still clear the Intelligent Design fails the most basic criteria required to be considered as a scientific theory. Examining the basis and reasons for that seems to me to be an excellent use of classroom time.

I hope they also cover the difference between a "theory" in the scientific context and in the general context. Perhaps the next generation would end up better informed.

Most of us can dismiss ID as religion through the back door, but should the fact that it has proponents be ignored? I don't think so.
 
pmckean said:
Most of us can dismiss ID as religion through the back door, but should the fact that it has proponents be ignored?
Click to expand...
It should be in science lessons: the fact that an idea is popular, or has vocal and organised proponents, has no bearing on whether it's good science.
 
Personally I think religion should be left out of schools altogether. That can be taught by the parents and in church.
 
Shaun from Scotland said:
Money.

From what I understand, Reg Vardy has paid for (most if not all) the building and running costs of these schools which are mostly in deprived areas. I think this is a case of "You pay for it and we will turn a blind eye to the fact your a creationist loon".

As these are state schools this is an absolute disgrace. Typical for this lot in Westminster mind you...........
Click to expand...

This lunacy is the heart of Blair's education reforms. He wants to encourage business and religious organisations to sponsor schools in this way. Many MPs have expressed concerns that there will be a 2 tier education system as a result. I suspect there will be, but not in quite the manner that they are expecting.
 
If religion is to be treated as science, then it should be 100%. This means that all topics covered in a Religious Education class should be analysed with full scientific scrutiny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom