OMFG! Creationism greenlit for Hampshire (UK) schools!

[Oolon Colluphid]

I don't quite know what to say.

My daughter is about to start secondary school in September. In other words, she'll be starting 'Key Stage 3'.

And guess what the Hampshire Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education (SACRE) has just suggested as "a joint RE/Science unit" for KS3 Hampshire schools...?

Creation and Evolution: incompatible explanations?

Sounds reasonable?

SACRE report: Teaching About Creationism and Evolution in Schools (http://www.hants.gov.uk/decisions/decisions-docs/090224-standi-R0212114725.html)
The relationship between religion and science is a contested one and often fraught with emotional tension. My own experience includes going to an interdisciplinary research training seminar in education and sitting in a group in which we had to introduce ourselves, our discipline, and one observation about a problem we encountered in our work. My `problem' was that in religious education we often encountered student views that were negative about religion. A scientist in the group responded by saying that we deserved that and now science was getting its own back (on religion). I was taken aback because I hadn't expected such a hostile response, but it is evidence that animosity still exists between religion and science and that that is a legacy of ways in which religion treated some scientists as heretics previously when it had greater influence and power, the case of Galileo is perhaps the most famous example. The tensions between religion and science should not be denied but nor should we paint a black and white picture in this respect, it is more complex than that and, in the way we teach RE in Hampshire we are always looking for our students to explore complexity.

What has made things particularly high profile, in terms of tension, is the debate that is now prevalent and newsworthy regarding the teaching of creationism (or `intelligent design') and the arguments against religion made by Richard Dawkins, and others, firmly based on an evolutionary perspective. To ignore this debate would be wrong but it needs to be put in perspective. That is our job as teachers. We already have the pedagogical instrument to do this with our conceptual enquiry methodology which encourages students to enquire into issues and makes it possible to readily bring different arguments and perspectives into focus and analyse their claims and then ask students to make their own informed judgements, which they then have to defend. The creation-evolution debate then becomes a very worthwhile one to focus upon. Below I offer an example of how you could do that.
2. Creation-Evolution Debate

[...]

Summary of Points


Evolution is a theory propounded by Charles Darwin based on empirical scientific method


Natural selection is the key idea that Darwin uses


Natural selection is in tension with any design hypothesis


There is a scientific hypothesis based on `intelligent design'


Creationism, as a literal reading of the account in Genesis, is at odds with Darwin's theory


Metaphorical readings of Genesis can be aligned with evolution as a scientific theory


The idea of a creator God or intelligent design does not accord with the principle of natural selection


Sometimes creationism (the literal reading of Genesis) and intelligent design are conflated as religious understandings that oppose evolutionary theory

After a pretty fair summary of Darwin and evolution by natural selection, people (and by extension, the kids) are directed to Charles Darwin, then:
Activity 2: students can work in pairs or groups and:


highlight what they think are the most important statements this text makes


discuss and note any implications for our understanding of ourselves as a human species that this raises


register any disagreements in discussion in the group and feed those back to the class


compose a statement that they think explains what `natural selection' means


In using this text students need to:


be acquainted with the meaning of some of the technical terms used


consider the difference between evidence and inference (evidence is empirically based but inference consists of other conclusions that may be drawn from the evidence)


scrutinize the text to identify when it is summarising theory, when it might be hypothesising (making a statement that still needs evidential support), when it is making statements of a persuasive nature that are based on opinion.

To answer the key question students need to consider:


what the key aspects of evolution as a theory are; for example what does `evolving' mean?



what other opinions and claims this theory might be in tension with and why

All well and good, though I get whiffs of 'teach the controversy'. Would be better if they just taught critical thinking skills. But then we get onto the creation / ID stuff... and my jaw hits the floor:
1. Creationism and intelligent design

Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Instead, intelligent design theory is an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature observed by biologists is genuine design (the product of an organizing intelligence) or is simply the product of chance and mechanical natural laws. This effort to detect design in nature is being adopted by a growing number of biologists, biochemists, physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science at American colleges and universities. Scholars who adopt a design approach include biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, and mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University. (3)

http://www.discovery.org/a/1329
Communicate

Key Question: What is your response to the idea of `evolution'?

Stimulus: Google earth images can be evocative for stimulating debate. Try the accompanying question: Can the universe be both majestic and meaningless?

Here students are being asked to make and justify a personal response. This is different to the Evaluate part of the cycle but continuous with it. They need to decide what they can bring to the argument between evolution and the issue it raises for belief in God. Where do they stand?
And 11-14 year olds are supposed to be able to disentangle this lot?

I'm fuming. I'll have to see what's being done about this.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Daily Torygraph item: Creationism 'should be taught in science lessons' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/4961698/Creationism-should-be-taught-in-science-lessons.html)

[Ray Moscow]

Yeah, I'd raise a sewerful of stink about the "ID" part.

[Oolon Colluphid]

I missed this little line ending the report:
For further reading on this I would particularly recommend Mary Midgley (2002) Evolution as a Religion, London and New York: Routledge.

[Uthgar the Brazen]

ID is an hypothesis, but I have yet to see anything from it which can be classified as scientific. At least not by honest individuals. Calling it what it is not only muddies the waters. And while I'm more prone to accept the judgment of pre-teens than that of most religious leaders, it's not saying much.

[Oolon Colluphid]

The other thing I want to know is how I missed this. Even PZ has blogged it!
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/how_creationism_should_be_taug.php


ETA:
A lesson plan that includes creationism should plainly show that experiment and observation have irrefutably demonstrated that it is now a splintered pile of cack-minded gobshite, wrecked by a century and a half of discovery, and that its supporters now are reduced to pathetically feeble rationalizations that rely almost entirely on people's emotional dependence on the legitimacy of their religious beliefs.
:notworthy:

[SteveF]

I'm not sure that teaching creationism in some form (e.g. as suggested by Michael Reiss) is such a bad idea. However, this document is certainly a mixed bag. There's some ok stuff in it - the section on ID isn't too bad:

Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer.[3] The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science.[4][5][6] Intelligent design's leading proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank,[7][8] believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.[9][10] Advocates of intelligent design argue that it is a scientific theory,[11] and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.[12]

also:

Creationism, creation science, and intelligent design theory are three religious theories of creation offered to explain the origins of the universe.

Plus some of the definitions come from the Skeptics Dictionary. On the other hand, this is utter shite:

Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Instead, intelligent design theory is an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature observed by biologists is genuine design (the product of an organizing intelligence) or is simply the product of chance and mechanical natural laws. This effort to detect design in nature is being adopted by a growing number of biologists, biochemists, physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science at American colleges and universities. Scholars who adopt a design approach include biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, and mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University. (3)

and also:

There is a scientific hypothesis based on `intelligent design'

The document has the feel of having been written by different people. Or it could be that the author, Clive Erricker is rather confused. Or that he has produced a document trying to offer the view of each side, but not made this clear. Perhaps this is what he's doing in the final section (Evaluate, 1-8). It isn't clear and appears totally contradictory in places - e.g ID as religious vs ID as agnostic. It certainly doesn't "clear up any misunderstandings in the creation-evolution debate". Very poor.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Yeah, it was written by different people, because he's simply cut and pasted from a range of websites -- Wikipedia mainly, I think. Seems that's the level of his 'research'.

[Garnet]

The whole lot smells to me of "teach the controversy." I'd be up in arms over it.

[SteveF]

Yeah, it was written by different people, because he's simply cut and pasted from a range of websites -- Wikipedia mainly, I think. Seems that's the level of his 'research'.

Yeah, I just figured that out. Apparently you're supposed to use those bits to "consolidate and extend students' understanding and provide different perspectives on whether evolution and theological positions can be reconciled. You can select and amend as appropriate and use in a similar way to the activities provided in Contextualise. The main thing is to draw out the way in which the issues in the debate over creation-evolution have been responded to."

Which isn't immediately obvious given that somet of that stuff is improperly cited (or not cited at all).

[DMB]

Oolon, get onto the NSS and the BHA pronto and ask if they can help you. Would you like me to email Dawkins about this?

ETA. How can their be a "joint RE/Science unit"? Surely at secondary level they ought to be teaching proper science. Find out about how the courses are supposed to be organised.

ETA2. I don't really know how the National Curriculum works. My experience with UK schools predates it and our younger children were educated in very good international schools. If this module is being taught in RE, you have the option of withdrawing your daughter from RE. Since that option exists, I don't see how they can justify mixing up Science and RE.

[SteveF]

Oolon, get onto the NSS and the BHA pronto and ask if they can help you. Would you like me to email Dawkins about this?

Personally as someone who would like to divorce the "controversy" surrounding evolution from atheism as much as possible, I don't think Dawkins getting involved is a good idea. This kind of matter is best dealt with by organisations representing the scientific community, such as the Royal Society.

[DMB]

I wasn't thinking about asking Dawkins to step in himself, but to recommend some scientific big guns who would. But I agree that the Royal Society is a good idea.

[SteveF]

Well, that sounds excellent. He presumably has contacts at the Royal Society. He might even have contacts in the relevant Government departments.

[crazyfingers]

I don't quite know what to say.

*Snip*

I'm fuming. I'll have to see what's being done about this.

Honestly, that it fell into your lap is the best hope I have that it will be smacked down. I know of few individuals more capable of giving this the smack down than you.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Right, a bit of catch-up from overnight GMT. In no particular order, here's what I've just posted in the parallel thread to this at TR (needed wider input, and they're bigger ATM):
Most of that SACRE report reads like a C&P job with some added commentary and formatting.

Does this pass for establishing school cirriculum nowadays?
Apparently, yes it does -- at least as far as RE is concerned. We have a National Curriculum for everything except RE, with the RE curriculum set locally by SACREs.

It may be time to push for a National Curriculum for RE.

[DMB]

Have you managed to sort out the mystery of the "joint RE/Science unit"? Since parents have the absolute right to withdraw children from RE, I really don't see how they can combine it with Science.

ETA The NSS will definitely help you fight this if you ask them. They may be able to put you in touch with Hampshire members. The BHA has an input in a lot of SACREs, so it is worth checking with them to see if they have a representative in the Hampshire one. If they do, you could get in touch with him/her and see if it's possible to do anything within.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Thanks DMB. Big post coming to this thread soon.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Oolon, get onto the NSS and the BHA pronto and ask if they can help you.
The NSS is already aware (sooner than I was :():
www.secularism.org.uk/creationism-to-be-taught-in-scie.html
There is a big difference between answering students’ questions about creationism and actually introducing it into the lessons in the first place as part of the curriculum. If the teacher raises the topic, then it takes on an authority that it does not deserve. Hampshire should think again about this proposal. It will add nothing to the education of children, but will create confusion in their minds about what is science and what is religion.
Can't find anything from the BHA. And I'm not sure what they are actually doing, nor what we can do for each other.
Would you like me to email Dawkins about this?
As he's a vice-pres of the BHA, yes please, if you think he may have some weight.

Meanwhile, I'm in the process of pulling Erricker's item apart line by line. I'll run it past you chaps before I send it to him (but I already have a 'blown out of the water' feeling about it :evil:)
ETA. How can their be a "joint RE/Science unit"? Surely at secondary level they ought to be teaching proper science.
Surely at every level? ;) Well, I'm off to look through the NC for science again in a moment, but Erricker's paper says "a joint RE/Science unit in line with the approach recommended for the Key Stage 3 curriculum".

And I know from what my daughter does at the top of KS2 that the general approach is to integrate subjects, or at least find connections between them. Her half term homework, for instance, was to pick two animals to show how they are adapted to their environments (science), draw nice illustrations of them in those habitats (art), annotate the pictures to highlight the adaptations (science), and "present it creatively using your DT [design & technology] skills".

(Guess who helped her a lot with this homework :D Between us we picked a bat and an orangutan; she now knows how echolocation works (by walking round the living room only able to blink your eyes open every so often, and including how a bat doesn't deafen itself with its own squeaks), how a bat's wings are its arms, the advantages of binocular vision for a life in trees (we played catch with one eye closed), what brachiation is (though not that term for it), and why apes lack tails. 'Twas fun for all concerned.)
ETA2. I don't really know how the National Curriculum works. My experience with UK schools predates it and our younger children were educated in very good international schools. If this module is being taught in RE, you have the option of withdrawing your daughter from RE. Since that option exists, I don't see how they can justify mixing up Science and RE.
I've now checked the KS 3&4 NC. There is indeed a bunch of stuff on Cross-curriculum dimensions (http://curriculum.qca.org.uk/key-stages-3-and-4/cross-curriculum-dimensions/index.aspx), and it looks as if this comes under the dimensions Identity and cultural diversity (http://curriculum.qca.org.uk/key-stages-3-and-4/cross-curriculum-dimensions/culturaldiversityidentity/index.aspx) and Creativity and critical thinking (http://curriculum.qca.org.uk/key-stages-3-and-4/cross-curriculum-dimensions/creativitycriticalthinking/index.aspx).

What concerns me more is that this is specifically mentioned as being appropriate for KS3, 11-14 year olds. Because, all the kids will have officially encountered in the science curriculum by that point is:


3.3

d all living things show variation, can be classified and are interdependent, interacting with each other and their environment
It's not till KS4 that we get:
5

a organisms are interdependent and adapted to their environments

b variation within species can lead to evolutionary changes and similarities and differences between species can be measured and classified
So they are proposing that the first the kids may hear about evolution, about the most fundamental fact and theory in all of biology... is in an RE lesson. As an idea to be debated. I find that extremely disturbing. To be sure, parents like me will have introduced a lot of it already. But you can be equally sure that a lot will have not, and that some children will have heard something... rather different.

Ah. I knew I'd had that key stage discrepency thought before. Here's something I posted at IIDB:

Any one else here this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/)? I'm in two minds - both the people they had on fully supported evolution. One, who had a science doctorate but is also a priest was advocating that if the subject happened to come up in the science curriculum, then the teachers should not ridicule the belief, but take it on and discuss the evidence.
That way relies on science teachers being up to the task. And I'm not convinced a lot of them would be.

For one thing, knowing enough biology to teach it is an almost entirely different skill set from what's needed to counter creationist claims. For that, you need to be up on logical fallacies and spotting rhetoric. The arguments can indeed sound persuasive, if you've not come across them before.

For another, I doubt that many science teachers have the breadth of knowledge needed either. Suppose your degree was biology; would that prepare you for answering the Second Law of Thermodynamics question, or gaps in the fossil record, or some random quote-mine?

Aside: While there are doubtless many very knowledgeable science teachers out there, I had to correct my own on several occasions. The occasions that stick in my mind were about there being hot springs in Florida ('Silver' ones, perhaps, but not geothermal ones!), and about saliva being alkaline -- she insisted it was acidic (iirc, because amylase is found and acts okay in the stomache), and didn't believe it till I marched into the store cupboard, grabbed some litmus paper and spat on it. And that was Biology at A Level.
In short, being a good teacher means being good at explaining and communicating a syllabus. Not at dealing with sneaky questions.

And allied to this is the fact that these topics may get prompted at Key Stage 3: definitely in Year 9 RE (http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/schemes2/secondary_RE/rel9b/?view=get), but maybe even as early as RE in Year 7 (http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/schemes2/secondary_RE/rel7a/?view=get). That's 13-14 year-olds, or even 11-12 year-olds. Meanwhile, evolution is not actually taught until KS4.

And that means the teachers are likely not specialists, or even to know much about evolution at all beyond their own schooling and the occasional David Attenborough programme (unless they just happen to be interested in it.) A secondary school science teacher's degree might be in (http://www.tda.gov.uk/Recruit/becomingateacher/whatwouldyouliketoteach/teachingsecondary.aspx) biology... or sports science, environmental science, chemistry, physics or chemical engineering. And that's when they're not standing in for a colleague, or have an A Level in physics and so get drafted in doing it as their second subject --
Secondary teachers work with children between the ages of eleven and eighteen. They specialise in teaching one or two subjects from the national curriculum.
-- and so on.

Now, if the Government wants to start funding INSET (training) days for teachers on Dealing with Creationists When Your Degree Was In Sports Science or Geography, that's one thing. But it ain't going to happen. All their flummery (http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/_doc/11890/SJA%20Creationism%20Guidance%20180907%20final.doc) (Word doc) about:
Which subject should deal with creationism and intelligent design?

Teachers of subjects such as RE, history or citizenship may deal with creationism and intelligent design in their lessons. If such issues were to arise there might be value in science colleagues working with these teachers in addressing them.
... is nonsense, because it may well be that your "science colleagues" are no better equipped than you are.

All of which is before even mentioning that teachers can be... 'people of faith'... and so either open to these ideas, or already 'gotten to': see eg this (http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1695232,00.html) and this (http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1714171,00.html).

ETA: and also
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1844478,00.html
Opinionpanel Research's survey of more than 1,000 students found a third of those who said they were Muslims and more than a quarter of those who said they were Christians supported creationism. Nearly a third of Christians and 10% of those with no particular religion favoured intelligent design. Women were more likely to choose spiritual explanations: less than half chose evolution, with 14% preferring creationism and 22% intelligent design.

While three years of learning how to weigh evidence appears to make students slightly more inclined towards evolution, with 57% of third-years choosing it compared with 54% of first-years, it does not appear to put them off belief in God. As many third-years as first-years believed in creationism, although slightly fewer supported intelligent design.

The findings come as little surprise to Roger Downie, professor of zoological education at Glasgow University. Two years ago he surveyed the views on evolution of biology and medical students there. "What was extremely worrying for students embarking on evidence- and science-based disciplines was that they were perfectly prepared to say they had rejected it not on the basis of evidence but on the basis of their religious beliefs," he says.

Let me be clear that there doubtless are many good, well-informed science teachers who are up to the task of intelligently discussing creationism. Wanna take a bet on the percentage though?
The key thing here is that they intend to cover at KS3 something that they won't cover in science until KS4 (14-16, the GCSE (old O Level) build-up years).
Find out about how the courses are supposed to be organised.
I'll mention it to the good Mr Erricker ;)

I might ask some old contacts just who this Erricker chap is. I knew the previous county RE inspector, Alan Brine, reasonably well (I proofread an earlier version of the county's RE Agreed Syllabus), but this guy arrived after I changed departments.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Or in short, it seems I predicted that just this sort of thing would be proposed.

Sometimes I just hate being right.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Honestly, that it fell into your lap is the best hope I have that it will be smacked down. I know of few individuals more capable of giving this the smack down than you.
Thanks cf :o

[Oolon Colluphid]

Clive Erricker

Clive is County Inspector/Adviser for Religious Education, based in the south
east area. He joined the Hampshire inspectorate in January 2003. He has
taught in primary, secondary and tertiary education. At university level he
has been involved in initial teacher training, and Bachelor of Arts and
postgraduate teaching in religious studies and religious education. He has
also worked with governors, headteachers and school staff on the
development of RE and of spiritual, moral, social and cultural (SMSC)
education. He has authored and edited a number of publications in these
areas. He is also co-director of the Children and Worldviews Project and
joint editor of the International journal of children’s spirituality. His
experience of working with children and teachers in schools and faith
communities provides him with the opportunity to engage with current
challenges in the development of the subject.

In addition to his RE role, Clive is also the History Strategy Manager for the
County, co-ordinating history advice through a team of ASTs and leading
teachers.
Source (http://www3.hants.gov.uk/hiasstaffguide0809.pdf)

[Cath B]

A bit of an aside here, a few years ago my children's school (in Scotland, not England: there are differences) received some criticism from the Inspectors for allocating too low a proportion of teaching time to Religious Education. The school did not wish to take take away from other subjects to have more class time with RME so proposed to keep the Inspectors off their backs by incorporating some RME issues into other classes like Social Education and English.

But including these issues in a Science class is very weird!

[Lisa0315]

Interesting, all of it. Every word of it. ;)

[Uthgar the Brazen]

International journal of children’s spirituality

I find this concept rather disturbing.

[Oolon Colluphid]

I find this concept rather disturbing.
It's not that bad. I've just had a look at some editions, specifically for Erricker's stuff, and it's so full of navel-gazing, hand-waving allusion and obscurantism that I doubt anyone of any import actually reads it, or can make head nor tail of it if they try.

[Uthgar the Brazen]

If it's forever doomed to obscurity and a distribution of fewer than 100 copies per month, I suppose that's okay. It just sounds so...manipulative and evil.

Of course, having endured some pretty horrific psychological abuse in the past by religious leaders, I'm jaded about the whole enterprise of religion.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Here's what I've got so far; please critique. I decided to refer to just 'the author', so I could go in harder than if I were speaking directly to Erricker. The main bit I need to work on is the stuff about how ID is not science, with reference to Dover, Behe's admission that to call ID a theory would mean bending the term such that it'd also include astrology, and so on, and a bit about Dembski.

*****

1.1. This report provides a discussion paper about the current debate
What “current debate”? There is no debate amongst informed persons on the matter.
[...] that can be used in secondary schools to support their enquiry into creationism and evolution.
What enquiry?
[...]
3.2. [...] The recommendation is that the work could be developed by teachers as a joint RE/Science unit in line with the approach recommended for the Key Stage 3 curriculum.
KS3? But all that is required under the Science KS3 curriculum is:
3.3
d all living things show variation, can be classified and are interdependent, interacting with each other and their environment
It’s not till KS4 that we get:
5
a organisms are interdependent and adapted to their environments
b variation within species can lead to evolutionary changes and similarities and differences between species can be measured and classified
So the author is proposing that the first pupils may hear about the most fundamental fact and theory in all of biology... is in an RE lesson?! As an idea to be debated. I find that extremely disturbing. To be sure, parents like me will have introduced some evolutionary biology already. But you can be equally sure that a lot will have not, and that some children will have heard something... rather different.

Why is this not more appropriate for KS4, combined, if one must, once the pupils have learned some proper science?
What has made things particularly high profile, in terms of tension, is the debate that is now prevalent and newsworthy regarding the teaching of creationism (or `intelligent design') and the arguments against religion made by Richard Dawkins, and others, firmly based on an evolutionary perspective.
This is more than a little disingenuous, bordering on an outright lie. Knowledge of evolution may inform Dawkins (biologist) and Daniel Dennett (philosopher), but has little import for the likes of Sam Harris (author), Christopher Hitchens (author and journalist), Victor Stenger (physicist), A C Grayling (philosopher), Michel Onfray (philosopher), John Allen Paulos (mathematician), Andre Comte-Sponville (philosopher)... None of these other ‘New Atheists’ even mention evolution except where (or if) they refer to Argument from Design. [links to each's main book omitted cos I can't be bothered to look them up again]

Indeed, Dawkins himself quotes with approval (The God Delusion, p.67) geneticist Jerry Coyne:

It's not just about evolution versus creationism. To scientists like Dawkins and Wilson [E. O. Wilson, the celebrated Harvard biologist], the real war is between rationalism and superstition. Science is but one form of rationalism, while religion is the most common form of superstition. Creationism is just a symptom of what they see as the greater enemy: religion. While religion can exist without creationism, creationism cannot exist without religion.

What all these ‘New Atheists’ have in common is a viewpoint firmly based on scientific rationalism and scepticism. To characterise it as evolution vs religion is to grossly misrepresent the position, as ardent Catholic and equally ardent intelligent design dismantler Keneth Miller would tell you.

In fact, that characterisation is one that the creationists revel in: if you accept evolution you have to reject God. It looks, from the presence of “firmly based”, as if the author’s own creationist biases are showing.
To ignore this debate would be wrong but it needs to be put in perspective. That is our job as teachers.
And part of that job is to be crystal clear what is and what is not science.
We already have the pedagogical instrument to do this with our conceptual enquiry methodology which encourages students to enquire into issues and makes it possible to readily bring different arguments and perspectives into focus and analyse their claims and then ask students to make their own informed judgements, which they then have to defend. The creation-evolution debate then becomes a very worthwhile one to focus upon.
For sure, creation / ID makes a nice soft target, a prime example of what science is not. But does the author not recognise that teachers raising the matter gives creation / ID a false legitimacy as science?
Below I offer an example of how you could do that.
[...]
[...] The main point of this guidance is to clear up any misunderstandings in the creation-evolution debate
Let us hope there are no misunderstandings here then.
and for you to add anything I have presented to your present way of doing an enquiry into this issue.
Thank you. I will.
Summary of Points
• Evolution is a theory propounded by Charles Darwin based on empirical scientific method
Technically only half right, and in practice, in terms of perceptions, far more wrong than right. Because, as it is posed here, the author is in danger of equivocating scientific theory with theories of the “I’ve got a theory about that” kind. That is, definitions 5 or 6 from the Oxfor English Dictionary below, rather than definition 4.

4. a. A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.

b. That department of an art or technical subject which consists in the knowledge or statement of the facts on which it depends, or of its principles or methods, as distinguished from the practice of it.

c. A systematic statement of the general principles or laws of some branch of mathematics; a set of theorems forming a connected system: as the theory of equations, of functions, of numbers, of probabilities.

5. In the abstract (without article): Systematic conception or statement of the principles of something; abstract knowledge, or the formulation of it: often used as implying more or less unsupported hypothesis (cf. 6): distinguished from or opposed to practice (cf. 4b). in theory (formerly in the theory): according to theory, theoretically (opp. to in practice or in fact).

6. In loose or general sense: A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion. Cf. 4.

As the late Stephen Jay Gould put it:

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Or in short: Evolution is a fact and a theory (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html). All life on Earth shares a common ancestor and is related by descent with modification. That is the fact of evolution. Natural selection, genetic drift etc are the theories that, taken together, seek to explain the fact.

So in the context of "clear[ing] up any misunderstandings in the creation-evolution debate", this looks downright disingenuous, though I expect it's just a misunderstanding.
• Natural selection is the key idea that Darwin uses [sic]Check.
• Natural selection is in tension with any design hypothesisWhile this may be acceptable in a lies-to-children way, plenty of theists believe that natural selection was the creator’s chosen mechanism for doing the designing, that god worked through evolution, which is not, therefore, something to be overlooked -- at a stroke it knackers this "tension".
• There is a scientific hypothesis based on `intelligent design'
Unmitigated drivel. See below for details.
• Creationism, as a literal reading of the account in Genesis, is at odds with Darwin's theory
Check.
• Metaphorical readings of Genesis can be aligned with evolution as a scientific theory
Check.
• The idea of a creator God or intelligent design does not accord with the principle of natural selection
See above. God moves in mysterious ways, after all.
• Sometimes creationism (the literal reading of Genesis) and intelligent design are conflated as religious understandings that oppose evolutionary theory
That is because that is precisely what they are. But first...

After some pretty good stuff about Darwin and natural selection, we get:
These observations have been amply demonstrated in biology, and even fossils demonstrate the veracity of these observations.
The first clause is an understatement, the second is false. The author is conflating evolution-fact with evolution-theory. Fossils say nothing about the mechanisms; they are evidence for the fact of evolution, not the causes. (And I’m surprised by the use of "even", since the fossils show exactly the sorts of things descent with modification predicts.)
To summarise Darwin's Theory of Evolution: [etc]
Yup, very good. But one wonders why all that was necessary, who the target audience was meant to be. Surely the science departments will already be familiar with all this (even if the RE ones are not), and this material is available in countless forms already, both concise and extensive. And if the RE staff are unaware of it, they have no business teaching it (and certainly shouldn’t be using a précis of this sort to acquaint themselves with it).

Next up...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin

Activity 2: students can work in pairs or groups and:

• highlight what they think are the most important statements this text makes
[...]
• compose a statement that they think explains what `natural selection' means
In using this text students need to:
[...]
• scrutinize the text to identify when it is summarising theory, when it might be hypothesising (making a statement that still needs evidential support), when it is making statements of a persuasive nature that are based on opinion.
If we assume, as we have to, that “this text” refers to the Wikipedia article on Darwin, a bunch of oddities emerge.

Why study a biographical article about Darwin, rather than an article about evolution? There are plenty of child-friendly descriptions online -- why not point them to selected pages from here, say?
Why look for summarisings of theory, hypothesising, and opinion in a biographical article? Is this about Darwin, or evolution?
Why is Darwin being treated as the fount of all knowledge about evolution, as if he were its quasi-religious prophet?
Why is this repeatedly referred to as a “text”, as if it were from a holy book?
And why is using this as a source not ignoring the 200 years of scientific investigation since Darwin’s time?

[...]
Evaluate.

Key evaluative question: Is it possible to believe in both evolution and a creator God?

The texts below consolidate and extend students' understanding and provide different perspectives on whether evolution and theological positions can be reconciled.
So there won’t be any factual inaccuracies or distortions here, right?

You can select and amend as appropriate and use in a similar way to the activities provided in Contextualise. The main thing is to draw out the way in which the issues in the debate over creation-evolution have been responded to.

1. Creationism and intelligent design

Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago.
In general, check.
Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design
There is no such thing...
...
...
...

[dancer_rnb]

This should be included in any discussion of creationism/id

MDT

http://pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000509.html

[DMB]

This should be included in any discussion of creationism/id

MDT

http://pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000509.html

Good point!

[ck1]

Surely at every level? ;) Well, I'm off to look through the NC for science again in a moment, but Erricker's paper says "a joint RE/Science unit in line with the approach recommended for the Key Stage 3 curriculum".

And I know from what my daughter does at the top of KS2 that the general approach is to integrate subjects, or at least find connections between them. Her half term homework, for instance, was to pick two animals to show how they are adapted to their environments (science), draw nice illustrations of them in those habitats (art), annotate the pictures to highlight the adaptations (science), and "present it creatively using your DT [design & technology] skills".

(Guess who helped her a lot with this homework :D Between us we picked a bat and an orangutan; she now knows how echolocation works (by walking round the living room only able to blink your eyes open every so often, and including how a bat doesn't deafen itself with its own squeaks), how a bat's wings are its arms, the advantages of binocular vision for a life in trees (we played catch with one eye closed), what brachiation is (though not that term for it), and why apes lack tails. 'Twas fun for all concerned.)


Sounds like a certain little girl hit the Daddy Jackpot!

[Uthgar the Brazen]

Sounds like a certain little girl hit the Daddy Jackpot!

If ever I've heard a great line from a porno, that's it.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Good point!
And we have its estimable author as an Admin here too!

[David B]

You could threaten to withdraw her from RE, including any integrated bits.

http://www2.westsussex.gov.uk/ds/cttee/sacre/sacre090309i9c.pdf


Parents have a right to withdraw their children from religious education (RE) and collective worship.

If a parent asks for their child to be wholly or partly excused from attending any RE or collective worship at the school the school must comply unless the request is withdrawn.
Note: If the request is for partial withdrawal then the school should comply if possible but if it is not practical then they could refuse the request and treat it as a request for full withdrawal.

If it were clear that such a request would mean not giving a child a science education, it might set a cat or so among the pigeons.

David

[DMB]

Yes. I suspect that if this is a genuine attempt to combine RE with science education it could be illegal.

[beamishboy]

As a Christian and a CoE altar boy, I find the teaching of Creationism and ID (which is nothing more than Creationism disguised as pseudo-science) totally repugnant. At least RE does not pretend to be science.

The hawkish attitude of Creationists (which include ID proponents) and their desire to spread falsehood make me utterly ashamed to share the same religion with them. The State should rule that every human being must read Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True" which I'm reading now - it's really fascinating.

Dawkins used to say that those who don't accept evolution are either insane, stupd or ignorant. Apparently, he has added "or they have not read Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True." Frankly, I don't believe Creationists are stupid or insane. I think they're just terribly ignorant. They have also decided before even giving science a chance, to believe every word of the Bible. After so many years of considering the effect of the Bible on mankind, I can now see why some Bishops in my church are always warning us against believing too much in the Bible. It's open to so much abuse.

[Albion]

Personally as someone who would like to divorce the "controversy" surrounding evolution from atheism as much as possible, I don't think Dawkins getting involved is a good idea. This kind of matter is best dealt with by organisations representing the scientific community, such as the Royal Society.

The Royal Society has come out really strongly against creationism and other pseudoscience. I have a contact there if you'd like me to find out who is the best person to approach.

[Albion]

As to the OP, as I said at TR, this


There is a scientific hypothesis based on `intelligent design'
does not belong in the summary of points. On account of there is no such damn thing. Maybe "Cdesign proponentsists claim that there is...." but not "There is..." Because there isn't.

[SteveF]

The Royal Society has come out really strongly against creationism and other pseudoscience. I have a contact there if you'd like me to find out who is the best person to approach.

Cool. Let them know about this.

[Albion]

E-mail sent.

[Criada]

There is a general policy in KS3 education at the moment to teach cross-curricular 'project' type topics as opposed to discrete subjects. It is a nightmare for school staff, who are divided into departments according to subject and often have little knowledge outside their own speciality.
There are a lot of hare-brained schemes around at the moment as people try to comply with the DoE's latest idea.
It works in primary education... I hope they will soon realise that it doesn't fit with the way the majority of secondary schools operate.
Though, as a secondary teacher with responsibility for science, maths, MFL and RE, I can see the appeal of this. If I could just get their curriculum materials translated into French and German I could cover all my bases!

[DMB]

Don't you tend to find that doing this at secondary level tends to trivialise at least one of the subjects involved in a project? I speak with some feeling as a former maths teacher.

I could imagine a situation where, say, the impetus for a project was local history and I would want to be teaching simultaneous equations and the only sums to be done would be working out people's ages at death from their recorded birth and death dates. To be fair, in this example you could probably do some useful statistical analysis, but sooner or later you want to teach the bloody simultaneous equations!

[Febble]

Yeah, "projects" seem to be back. And "relevance".

*growl*

[Criada]

Don't you tend to find that doing this at secondary level tends to trivialise at least one of the subjects involved in a project? I speak with some feeling as a former maths teacher.

I could imagine a situation where, say, the impetus for a project was local history and I would want to be teaching simultaneous equations and the only sums to be done would be working out people's ages at death from their recorded birth and death dates. To be fair, in this example you could probably do some useful statistical analysis, but sooner or later you want to teach the bloody simultaneous equations!

Yup, it's a ridiculous idea.
Unfortunately in our target driven education system we are far more worried about what the ofsted inspector will say than about whether the kids are actually lerning anything!:bang:

[Oolon Colluphid]

Yeah, "projects" seem to be back. And "relevance".

*growl*
Yup. Many a trip home has had Miss Colluphid replying to the question "So what did you do today?" with the answer "Project".

I was unaware that it was a subject, but it appears to be a mash-up of History, Geography, Mathematics, D&T, Art and Fuckinaboutwitheggboxes.

[Febble]

Yup. Many a trip home has had Miss Colluphid replying to the question "So what did you do today?" with the answer "Project".

I was unaware that it was a subject, but it appears to be a mash-up of History, Geography, Mathematics, D&T, Art and Fuckinaboutwitheggboxes.

:rolling:

(actually narrowly averted wine-on-keyboard, having just got a new laptop after a recent tragic accident with tea ....)

[pSimon]

Wot,

No sticky-backed-plastic?

[Febble]

Actually there's this amazing thing you can do with a Pringle's tube and a burst balloon.

[Garnet]

No fair, Lizzie! No fair! Now ya gotta tell what it is. :D

[Uthgar the Brazen]

No fair, Lizzie! No fair! Now ya gotta tell what it is. :D

Not just yet! I need to let my kinky imagination run wild for a bit longer, please.

[Danhalen]

Having defeated ID in my state I really cannot think there will be real problems in the UK defeating this asshats.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Yeah, but they're English. Talk any fucker into the ground given half a chance.

That is our advantage. And our curse.

[DMB]

Having defeated ID in my state I really cannot think there will be real problems in the UK defeating this asshats.

I don't think you fully understand the situation in England and Wales.


England has an established state church. The Head of State, HM the Queen, is also Supreme Governor of the church.
By Act of Parliament, schools have to teach the subject Religious Education. When I was at school, this was straight Christian indoctrination. It's supposedly better now, but still not good.
By the same Act, each publically funded school is supposed to conduct a daily act of worship.
Early schools were often run by the churches, so when state schools came into being, the Government gave financial assistance to "faith schools" as a cheap way of increasing provision.
As a matter of policy, the present Government, which came into power in 1997, has massively increased the number of publically funded "faith schools".
Parents have a statutory right to withdraw children from RE lessons and acts of worship, but few are aware of this right.
Even though a large proportion of the population are irreligious, this is not fully reflected in Parliament, nor in other institutions such as the BBC.


Changing this sort of set-up is like trying to turn the proverbial supertanker. there is so much inertia in the system.

One bright spot is that we have this energetic campaigning organisation (http://www.secularism.org.uk/). But they run on a shoestring against the billions available to the opposition.

[Febble]

Not just yet! I need to let my kinky imagination run wild for a bit longer, please.

LOL. Let me know when you are done....

[Mung Dynasty]

I would also like the details, preferably in video form. :D

Anyway having read that lot it seems like this Erricker clown is an ID'er, if not an outright creationist. This hardly qualifies him to be writing suggestions about how to run science classes.

Oolon's demolition job is good but for added impact why not include part of the judges' summary from the Dover trial? What better way to make clear the dishonesty of the ID wallies? Erricker is trying to present ID as more scientific and respectable than YEC'ism so blow the fuckwit out of the water.

[Albion]

Response to my e-mail:

Thanks for sending this over to me. I hadn’t heard about this in Hampshire and will pass onto my colleagues in our Education Department to take forward.

The Society is preparing some material now about evolution and so called ‘intelligent design’ in a similar manner to our climate change controversies booklet. http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229 We have a google adword on this document so when any one types in ‘climate change controversies they get sent right to it. This has been incredibly effective, and free!

[Mung Dynasty]

How does this Google adword thing work? It sounds interesting.

[Febble]

I would also like the details, preferably in video form. :D

Anyway having read that lot it seems like this Erricker clown is an ID'er, if not an outright creationist. This hardly qualifies him to be writing suggestions about how to run science classes.

Oolon's demolition job is good but for added impact why not include part of the judges' summary from the Dover trial? What better way to make clear the dishonesty of the ID wallies? Erricker is trying to present ID as more scientific and respectable than YEC'ism so blow the fuckwit out of the water.

OK, then, time's up.

It's a tornado thrower, or vortex gun.

You cut a small circle (about an inch diameter) out of the bottom of the Pringle's tube (or any tube that's a couple of inches in diameter) and you take the burst balloon and stretch it over the other end, securing it with duct tape (of course).

Then you aim it at someone (hole first) and tweak the balloon. A puff of air shoots out of the hole, turns itself inside out into a donut-shaped vortex, and hits your target a short time later.

It's an extraordinary sensation.

I googled details - here (http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/amateur/vortgen.html)is one,with a cool gif:

http://amasci.com/wing/smrg4.gif

[Garnet]

Very cool!

[Mung Dynasty]

*goes to get some Pringles*

Any excuse is a good one when it comes to Pringles.:D

[Oeditor]

The Hampshire SACRE will be debating - and, probably, accepting - the "Advice" on mixing science and religion (with as much or less creationism and ID than originally) at their next meeting, which will be open to the public. Thursday July 9th, 2pm, Western Primary School Winchester.
Anyone local fancy an afternoon out?

[DMB]

I had another go at Grayling about this recently. So far without any response.

[JamesBannon]

Just another attempt by creationist sad sacks to muddy the waters. I would pull her out of RE if I were you, Oolon.

[Oolon Colluphid]

The Hampshire SACRE will be debating - and, probably, accepting - the "Advice" on mixing science and religion (with as much or less creationism and ID than originally) at their next meeting, which will be open to the public. Thursday July 9th, 2pm, Western Primary School Winchester.
Anyone local fancy an afternoon out?
Too fucking right I do. Don't know if I can get that afternoon off though. Will try.

Where did you get your info from? I might be better sending the SACRE members copies of Barbara Forrest's Still creationism after all these years (http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/icn032v1) article, as I don't know what input (rather than observation) the 'public' might have.

[Oeditor]

Where did you get your info from? I might be better sending the SACRE members copies of Barbara Forrest's Still creationism after all these years (http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/icn032v1) article, as I don't know what input (rather than observation) the 'public' might have.My friend thought laterally and emailed the council to ask! She should be getting the url of the agenda and minutes by Thursday, when they should be appearing in the council information centre (if that's the right name) as well. Although the SACRE meetings are open to the public, I doubt there's any chance for the public to speak. But unless it attracts the attention of the press, observing will be the only way of finding out what happens until the next minutes come out around November - long after the new school year starts.

[Oeditor]

The link is http://www.hants.gov.uk/decisions/decisions-index/index-docs-7073.html It is very coy - there are, unusually, no minutes and there is a cryptic reference to "clarification" of "minute 129". Which is available on request - but no mention of a link. A cynic might wonder whether they're trying to brush the creationism/Erricker business under the carpet. I'd rather not ask my friend to demand a copy - d'you fancy asking them for an electronic copy, Oolon?

[Oeditor]

In the end, I bit the bullet and asked them for the missing documents - they came early this morning. The minutes show that the Sacre thought Erricker's report was lovely. The minute 129 does indeed refer to it and the "clarification" is a revised version, much as sent to The Science Forums after their intervention - plus a rather fine photograph of a statue of the young Darwin. There's no discussion of the "clarification" though - perhaps that will be explained at the meeting. Otherwise, they'll be just pretending that nothing has happened.

They didn't send me urls for them - has the forum a PM facility for people to ask me to email them? I can't see one. Or is that the little speech bubble "comment to Oeditor"?

[Oolon Colluphid]

Just sent a request email. I can't seem to track down what Mminute 129" actually was, so (unless you know differently) it could be something entirely irrelevant.

Meanwhile, I'm going to find out who the SACRE members are and send them the Forrest article (hard copy, so they can't ignore it -- if the council want to fund this sort of bollocks, they can fund my printing of a few copies <grr> ), maybe with a bit of the Dover ruling and anything from the Royal Society thrown in for good measure. And maybe ask them -- all, individually (intending to set a whole pride of lions loose in Trafalgar Square :evil:) -- how the proposal sits with the Right to Withdraw.

ETA: Ah, you replied while I had this window open but was sending the email in another.

[Oolon Colluphid]

They didn't send me urls for them - has the forum a PM facility for people to ask me to email them? I can't see one. Or is that the little speech bubble "comment to Oeditor"?
Click on someone's name, and one of the options is 'send private message to'. Or, top right, where it shows your name as logged in, click on private messages. Or, top left, User CP (control panel), scroll down and look for the PMs bit on the left.

[Oolon Colluphid]

From the minutes of the 24 February SACRE meeting:
129 TEACHING ABOUT THE CREATIONISM AND EVOLUTION DEBATE IN SCHOOLS

The Council considered the report of the Director of Children’s Services (Item 7 in the Minute Book) on a unit produced by the County RE Inspector, to provide a structure to support enquiry into creationism and evolution in Secondary schools. The unit would use the conceptual enquiry based model of Living Difference and would introduce ‘inter-disciplinarity’ into schools as recommended by the QCA.

Members praised the unit and felt it was a good example of Living Difference as it would help children ask questions, particularly how faiths respond to evolution stand points.

Members felt it important that the unit recognised a number of faiths and the positions taken by them, as the paper largely focused on Christian ideas of creationism. Members were keen for the paper to provide further areas of reading, but acknowledged its value in enabling children to understand that there are different responses made by faiths to evolution standpoints.

RESOLVED:

That the unit, which exemplifies the conceptual enquiry approach of Living Difference, be disseminated to secondary schools through the IT learning platform, secondary mailing and development groups, subject to additional reading references being added to the paper, and that feedback be invited.

[Oeditor]

From the minutes of the 24 February SACRE meeting:How did you find that? Have you a url please? Did you manage to find a link to the "clarification" by any chance?

[Oeditor]

I've looked at the "clarification" and it's essentially the same as one released earlier to The Science Forums, plus a potted biography of Darwin with a fine photo of a statue of the young man. With a question about his delay in publishing. I can't see how to post a file, so here's the extra bit and a link to the version sent to The Science Forums.
Enquire.
Key question: What did Charles Darwin [1809-1882] mean by evolution and what issues does it raise?
The image below is of the young Darwin. It is a sculpture erected to commemorate him in Christ’s College Cambridge where Darwin was a student from 1827 to 1831. He did not study science there, but prepared for a career in the church. His consuming interest however, since childhood, was the natural world of plants and all living creatures. He therefore seized upon a chance offered to him in 1831 to sail on H.M.S. Beagle a research ship to collect information about the plants and animals found where in the places visited on the voyage. He returned in 1836 with a mass of notes and specimens and continued such studies for the rest of his life. His health was not good so he worked at home, living quietly with his wife Emma, a very devout Christian and his ever growing family. He was not of course the only scientist working in this field, many others were considering the possibilities of evolution but Darwin was perhaps the first to explain how it might work. In 1859, 22 years after the voyage he published ‘ The Origin of the Species’ setting down his findings and theory.

After reading the above text ask students to suggest any reasons why Darwin took so long to publish his ideas?

http://www.sciencefile.org/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1236691390/200
See reply 216 for the attachment.

[Oolon Colluphid]

From the minutes of the 24 February SACRE meeting:How did you find that? Have you a url please? Did you manage to find a link to the "clarification" by any chance?
I asked for a list of who the SACRE members are, and got sent those last minutes which listed them at the start. Haven't found any clarifications though.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Many thanks for the revised guidance stuff, Oeditor. Fascinating. Seems they've accepted:

(1) that ID is a religious viewpoint:
Creationism, creation science, and intelligent design theory are three religious theories of creation offered to explain the origins of the universe. (italics in original)
and (2) that their stuff shouldn't be used at Key Stage 3 (11-14):
• It is not recommended that evolution be taught in science at Key Stage 3. Therefore this approach would most usefully be included at Key Stage 4 [14-16, GCSE level] and above, unless used specifically for gifted and talented students
This eliminates some of my main objections. The summary now reads:
Summary of Points
• Evolution is a theory propounded by Charles Darwin based on empirical scientific method
• Natural selection is the key idea that Darwin uses
• Natural selection is in tension with any idea of design
• Creationism, as a literal reading of the account in Genesis, is at odds with Darwin’s theory
• Metaphorical readings of Genesis have been aligned with evolution as a scientific theory by some theological responses
• The idea of a creator God or intelligent design does not accord with the principle of natural selection
• Sometimes creationism (the literal reading of Genesis) and intelligent design are conflated as religious understandings that oppose evolutionary theory
Note that the line that went:
· There is a scientific hypothesis based on `intelligent design'
... has now gone. However, as with 'Cdesign proponentists', there's still the "Sometimes creationism (the literal reading of Genesis) and intelligent design are conflated as religious understandings that oppose evolutionary theory". Now as I say, that may be a simple hangover from the previous version...

... or it could be that Erricker still believes it, and is sneaking it in under the radar.

[Oeditor]

Many thanks for the revised guidance stuff, Oeditor. Fascinating. If anyone else would like a copy, please pm me with your email address.

[Zygote]

Do I understand correctly that in the UK the concept of evolution isn't introduced to children until they are 14 year old? Say it ain't so!

[Oeditor]

I can't say what happens in general, but in the formal (much dumbed-down in recent years) curriculum that's the case. Enough, anyway, for an academic to worry that children might think the Flintstones correctly represent humans and dinosaurs coexisting and so should be taught evolution much earlier.
http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6016349&navcode=94

[TheBear]

OMFG! Creationism greenlit for Hampshire (UK) schools!
Both that, and the fact of the Archbishop of Canterbury (along with a host of UK politicians), bending over backwards in an effort for the appeasement of, and giving special status for, Islam, (all under the banner of 'community relations'), makes me worry about the UK, and Europe in general.

Come on, guys. Get it together. The UK is a lot more secular than the US. It gave me some hope for mankind until recent years. Overturn this superstitious trend.

I'm pulling for you! :thumbup:

[DMB]

OMFG! Creationism greenlit for Hampshire (UK) schools!
Both that, and the fact of the Archbishop of Canterbury (along with a host of UK politicians), bending over backwards in an effort for the appeasement of, and giving special status for, Islam, (all under the banner of 'community relations'), makes me worry about the UK, and Europe in general.

Come on, guys. Get it together. The UK is a lot more secular than the US. It gave me some hope for mankind until recent years. Overturn this superstitious trend.

I'm pulling for you! :thumbup:

The people are a lot more secular, but the set-up isn't. And for the past 12 years the UK has had a Government hell-bent on promoting and privileging religion. And unfortunately if the next one is provided by the official opposition, it doesn't look as though there will be any improvement.

Ideally, we ought to see the following things happening:


Disestablishment of the CofE. This would remove the unelected bishops from Parliament.
Annulment of the requirement for state schools to hold a daily religious assembly.
Phased withdrawal of public funding of faith schools.
End to Government support for inter-faith councils.
End of public funding of hospital and military chaplains.


It isn't an exhaustive list, but all those things would be a great help. However, none of them are likely to happen in the near future.

[TheBear]

OMFG! Creationism greenlit for Hampshire (UK) schools!
Both that, and the fact of the Archbishop of Canterbury (along with a host of UK politicians), bending over backwards in an effort for the appeasement of, and giving special status for, Islam, (all under the banner of 'community relations'), makes me worry about the UK, and Europe in general.

Come on, guys. Get it together. The UK is a lot more secular than the US. It gave me some hope for mankind until recent years. Overturn this superstitious trend.

I'm pulling for you! :thumbup:

The people are a lot more secular, but the set-up isn't. And for the past 12 years the UK has had a Government hell-bent on promoting and privileging religion. And unfortunately if the next one is provided by the official opposition, it doesn't look as though there will be any improvement.

Ideally, we ought to see the following things happening:


Disestablishment of the CofE. This would remove the unelected bishops from Parliament.
Annulment of the requirement for state schools to hold a daily religious assembly.
Phased withdrawal of public funding of faith schools.
End to Government support for inter-faith councils.
End of public funding of hospital and military chaplains.


It isn't an exhaustive list, but all those things would be a great help. However, none of them are likely to happen in the near future.
Those are great ideas! :thumbup:

Are you listening, UK? :wave:

It might be doable! Start off with a fund raiser as part of the introduction. Use all available media - internet, TV, radio and print. Get the grassroots people expanding the exposure and growing the ranks. After that, you'll have enough support to vote the bums out of office, and replace them with more rational people.


Then again, I could be wrong. The fact of a state church has me wondering if the above strategy is even an option. Is it?

[Oeditor]

Then again, I could be wrong. The fact of a state church has me wondering if the above strategy is even an option. Is it?Actually, there are those who argue that the Church of England has saved us from a lot of religion until recently. You know, rural vicars with old ladies at a garden party and nobody else taking any notice of the bunkum. Only when that alien creed hit our shores did the Christians wake up from their torpor and start getting stroppy.

[TheBear]

Then again, I could be wrong. The fact of a state church has me wondering if the above strategy is even an option. Is it?Actually, there are those who argue that the Church of England has saved us from a lot of religion until recently. You know, rural vicars with old ladies at a garden party and nobody else taking any notice of the bunkum. Only when that alien creed hit our shores did the Christians wake up from their torpor and start getting stroppy.
Nice to meet you, Oeditor. Welcome to the Cafe. :)

To me, all creeds from all religions are alien to rational thought and sound reasoning. The problem is religion, any and all religions, not any specific religion.

[Oeditor]

To me, all creeds from all religions are alien to rational thought and sound reasoning. The problem is religion, any and all religions, not any specific religion.Oh, I quite agree but I just regret that the corpse of the CofE has been revived.

[Cath B]

Do I understand correctly that in the UK the concept of evolution isn't introduced to children until they are 14 year old? Say it ain't so!

In Scotland I don't think evolution is covered as a requirement until the Standard Grade Biology Course, starting at at age 13/14.

But Standard Grade Biology is not compulsory, so some pupils may never study evolution.

[Oeditor]

A BCSE* member who attended the July 2009 meeting of Hampshire SACRE tells me that Alderman Juniper, who started the whole thing, has retired and that Clive Erricker, who did the work, is about to do so also. It appeared that Erricker’s main interest in the matter had been the whole idea of interdisciplinary teaching, rather than the RE/Science combination in particular.

Erricker had had quite a lot of external responses including from two retired science inspectors, humanist groups and the “Hampshire Science Forum”. That latter would actually be “The Science Forums” from the web – he’s confused the name before – with whom he said that he’d had a long and useful debate.

The Chair of the meeting emphasised that SACRE was not suggesting that science teachers teach theology, nor that RE teachers pretend they are teaching anything other than faith based systems of belief. Also that the whole issue would only be raised from Key Stage 4 onwards. The title of the paper had been changed to include “Creation” instead of “Creationism”. It was agreed that the guidance as currently revised would first be trialled by two secondary schools, probably Costelloe (Basingstoke) and Horndean Technology College, a main impetus being to find the most appropriate level for the work.

Following their feedback, SACRE would review the amendments or changes required or suggested and also consider how to expand the approach to accommodate multi-faith exploration of the issues. It was pointed out by a member of the public that if it were to be truly interdisciplinary it should also be expanded to involve other areas of science besides evolution.


They’ve clearly come under a lot of pressure and with the driving forces gone perhaps we can hope that it’ll be left on the back burner and go cold. (Though parents at the two schools might be less than pleased.) On the other hand, it still sets a precedent for other SACRES and we need to keep our eyes open – the “Scientific Christians” aren’t going to go away any time soon, any more than the “Islamic Scientists”.

*British Centre for Science Education www.bcseweb.org.uk