I find it funny and sad that in 21st century we still have to explicitly prohibit such thing. Up next -- "Tooth faery theory banned from dental schools".
There's nothing in the article to suggest they actually did have to (quite the contrary -- the government had been replying for ages that there wasn't a need for a ban).
Perhaps I'm cynical, but it seems to have gone like this...
"Minister, when will the Government ban bandersnatches from school cupboards?"
"Um, I'm pretty sure there aren't any bandersnatches in the school cupboards..."
"Minister refuses to ban bandersnatches from school cupboards! Everyone, sign our petition to insist that school cupboards are no place for a bandersnatch, and join our team!"
"I really don't think we have any..."
"The government is still refusing to institute a proper ban on keeping them in school cupboards, and putting our children's education at risk! Like us on Facebook! Tweet our campaign link! With your help we can make them move on this!"
"But we really... oh, forget it, fine, we hereby ban bandersnatches from school cupboards, will you go away now please?"
"Hooray! Thanks to our campaign, the government has finally banned bandersnatches from school broom cupboards. This is why you should donate to us -- remember, we're the organisation that finally made the government ban bandersnatches from school cupboards, and you can make your donation to us at this address..."
It was not banned. It was never permitted in the first place, or more accurately, the issue was never even raised before this. A special interest group asked the government to ban it, the government answered that of course it's not allowed in science class as it's not science, there's nothong that has to be done, the group decided to interpret the matter-of-factly reply as "banning". There was no administrative action involved.
If you're comparing creationism to the tooth fairy, it's fair to point out that the alternate scientific theory is that we magically appeared out of nothing, like Dr. Who's telephone box. I'm not arguing for either theory, and certainly not arguing for the teaching of creationism in schools.
It's fine to teach creationism... just not in a science class.
What the majority of the creation supporters don't get is that creationism isn't a science, it's a philosophy. There's nothing constructive or tangible about the theory. You can't test it in a lab, you can't observe it in nature--unless you think irreducible complexity (aka "we don't understand how this could come about, therefore it must be divinely created") is a sound scientific theory. (BTW most of Behe's original examples of "irreducibly complex" biological phenomena have since been reduced.)
I went to a very Christian liberal arts college and creationism was only taught in particular classes like Theories of Origins or theology courses. Biology classes only taught evolution. There might be one day that included a broader survey of creation theories, but that was it.
That being said, both the biology and theology departments were majority evolutionist. Go figure.
In my experience (of which I unfortunately have far too much), creationists fundamentally don't understand what science is, which is why they think their ideas qualify. They simply don't grasp the depth or the quantitative nature that underlies statements like "the universe is 13 billion years old" or "humans evolved from single-celled organisms."
It's basically cargo-culting popular science articles. They see something like "continental drift is demonstrated by how the coastlines of Africa and the Americas fit so neatly together." They then come up with something that sounds similar, like, "the Grand Canyon could have been carved by a huge and sudden deluge, demonstrating Noah's Flood." The fact that the Africa/Americas thing is just a brief summary of mountains (sometimes literally so) of data is completely lost.
Creationism isn't even a philosophy. Its a cynical attempt to inject religion into the classroom by masquerading as another subject. Its not 'fine to teach'; its deliberate quackery that should be rejected.
I'm currently teaching computing at a independent fundamentalist Christian 'young Earth' creationist school - in London, UK.
It's surreal at times. The kids (~20 altogether!) are wonderful: well mannered, eager to learn. So my frustration is extreme when I see the material they're being force-fed. The school follows the ACE ('Accelerated Christian Education') curriculum. It's imported from the USA, and teaches that the Earth is 6000 years old, that there was a Great Flood, and that evolution is evil. The textbooks are seething with pseudoscience - from illustrations of humans coexisting with dinosaurs, to articles connecting snakes to the serpent from the Garden of Eden, and so much more...
The real problem is that Ofsted - the UK government's regulator for standards in education - has consistently given the school a 'good' rating. (WTF???) Worse yet, the accreditation offered by the school - the ICCE (International Certificate of Christian Education) - is actually considered by UK NARIC (the 'designated National Agency responsible for providing information, advice and expert opinion on qualifications worldwide') to be "comparable to the overall Cambridge International O and A Level standard respectively." (Again, WTF???)
Since the government has utterly failed these student victims, I figured that perhaps an appeal to rationality might get somewhere. So, a few weeks back I had a 9 hour(!) meeting with the school principal and her husband. It failed, and perhaps I came close to being asked to leave. But I'm diplomatic (and valuable), so I'm still there.
Since then I've devoted many hours to Bible study, and research into the arguments of Creationists. (Remember: one can't engage with these people using reason or rationality. Know your opponent.) I strongly feel it's possible to convey to them the vitality of Science - that it's one of the holiest of human endeavors, to be blessed rather than reviled. And it's backed by solid religious arguments, supported completely by Scripture, and by Christian luminaries from Augustine of Hippo to John Calvin. I'm preparing a presentation to the school management (and, hopefully, parents)...
Incidentally, the article is wrong on one important point: "The teaching of creationism as a scientific fact and evidence-based theory is prohibited in schools in England and Wales."
This only applies to government-funded schools. Independent schools can get away with anything.
There was a case last year in England where a religious school removed questions on evolution from exam papers: "The examinations body, OCR, says it was satisfied that the girls did not have an unfair advantage. It now plans to allow the practice" [0].
Most of the UK and Ireland are arguably secular (but not technically) with most people holding reasonable scientifically literate beliefs.
Northern Ireland however is the last bastion of open religious bigotry and nonsense in the UK. Classic example. Republic of Ireland passed a Gay Marriage referendum last week while at the same time in NI a confectionary baker "Ashers" in Northern Ireland refused to serve a gay man who requested a cake that had support for gay marriage iced on the cake. The controversy showed that many in NI are at worst openly hostile or at best completely indifferent to gay people. This kind of attitude is carried in to classrooms in NI as well.
I support this move by Scotland but Northern Ireland has some crazy creationists nonsense still happening and these kind of measures are need much more in NI than the rest of the UK.
The real irony is, the Creationist are so sure science can't be the right explanation. Why? The clear implication is, God was not smart enough to create a Universe that would evolve us. No, he had to cheat and Bang! here we are. Their God is as dumb as they are.
Although I'm an atheist, I find this to be somewhat disturbing.
Creationism, regardless of its mythological background, still is part of Humanity and any conclusions about it should be drawn by the individual, not the State or teachers.
They'd be better off spending more time with Critical Thinking, Scientific Method and Logic, powerful tools to genuinely understand Religion and not just take "facts" for granted.
Would you say this about other subjects, or just the origins of life and the universe?
Would you say that schools should not exclusively teach that 2+2=4, but give the students tools and allow them to draw their own conclusions? Should schools allow students to reach their own conclusions as to whether the Earth is flat, or whether the Sun is pulled across the sky by chariots?
Schools should absolutely teach creationism, in the same classes where they teach Greek mythology, Hindu gods, Native American creation stories, etc. And that is exactly what happens here. To quote the article, "...creationism can be taught in religious and moral education...."
Kids in Scotland can study Religious, Moral and Philosophical Studies if they want - which is, I believe, a far more appropriate context for religious beliefs than a science class.
I'm divided on these sorts of things (I didn't used to be). Sure science classes shouldn't be teaching religion, but having governments decide what's an approved view for its population is bothersome. People should be allowed to make mistakes and when the parents realise that their kids are at a disadvantage then the parents should learn to gather together and fix it themselves. Encourage people to be active in their community rather than sitting back and expecting someone from the top to take the initiative.
This is not that, though; it's a question of what's taught in schools. There has to be a curriculum. By necessity of the limits of time and effort, this can only include a finite number of things. For administrative efficiency, this is centralised in Scotland (and separately in England&Wales). Teaching creationism as science is simply a category error. Teaching it as fact is a factual error.
You're still free to take your children to Sunday school and teach them whatever you want there.(+)
(+) well, apart from the banned sectarian football songs
>having governments decide what's an approved view for its population
I don't think it's about governments deciding on an approved view, so much as government removing the teaching of obvious nonsense from schools.
Religious schools - which still exist, unfortunately - have no problem with forcing their approved views on kids, even after those views have proven to be harmful: as in - say - abstinence education instead of useful sex ed.
Kids do get taught about religion in Scottish schools in Religious, Moral and Philosophical Studies - where they can learn about lots of different religions and their different beliefs. My son has just done this course at National 5 and found it very interesting and he's not in the slightest bit religious:
Why is it bothersome that the goverment decides that it is illegal for schools to teach a lie?
Schools are a social(ist) institution put in place by the goverment to ensure people have an equal access to knowledge - a foundation.
Schools also have to follow a certain curriculum which would give this foundation. A school cannot simply choose to not teach reading or writing, or teach that the earth is flat because they beleive this is the right thing to do.
This has come up previously with different topics over the years. In many countries it is explicitly illegal for schools to teach that the Holocaust ever happened, or use text books that alledge this.
What do you suppose a government is, if not people "gather[ing] together [to] fix it themselves"?
I'll also note that if parents feel strongly about their children learning creationism, nothing prevents them from teaching it themselves, or buying books that teach it, or even inviting "learned" lecturers to present the topic. This is just about taxpayers not paying for the teaching of nonsense.
This move, more likely, is aimed to protect children against idiot parents. Much like vaccination is being enforced. People do have right to be ignorant and believe whatever bullshit they want, but forcing stupid/harmful believes on children should not be allowed as it may damage them for the rest of their lives. If I were in charge, I would ban all religion related matters on children under 18.
> People should be allowed to make mistakes and when the parents realise that their kids are at a disadvantage then the parents should learn to gather together and fix it themselves.
Fix it themselves, perhaps by electing government officials who represent their views on what should be taught in schools and can outlaw obvious lies from curriculum? I really don't see the problem here.
Only two states in the US that explicitly bans creationism have above average NAEP scores. Nearly every state with above average NAEP scores allows some form of creationism in the science room. Sure kids should learn evolution, and creationism belongs in the religion class, but there are many other things to fix in education before this.
Creationism has obviously no foundation in science but neither has evolutionism. Where are the repeatable experiments required in order to be able to look for counterexamples for evolutionism? Has anybody ever "evolved" a species from another? If yes, how can we repeat that experiment? It is clear that evolutionism has no scientific status either.
You don't understand what evolution is. It really a name, and needs no proof.
Basically, there are a few known facts: (1) organisms die, (2) organisms reproduce, (3) the offspring are different from each other and from the parents, (4) the differences are more or less random, (5) dying is not random but a consequence of external forces, and (6) external forces are relatively constant. From these facts, it logically follows that over generations (or ofganisms reproducing ans dying), the living organisms will become more and more adapted to the environment. To avoid this long and detailed explanation, we just call this process evolution.
It's completely the same as e.g. the word "evaporate" - instead of saying that kinetic energy causes H2O molecules to become more and more excited, and slowly breaks the H bonds between molecules, so that they can move freely inspace (gas), we just say "water evaporates".
"Evolutionism was a common 19th century belief that organisms inherently improve themselves through progressive inherited change over time, and increase in complexity through evolution. The belief went on to include cultural evolution and social evolution."
And more to the point:
"In modern times, the term evolution is widely used, but the terms evolutionism and evolutionist are seldom used in the scientific community to refer to the biological discipline as the term is considered both redundant and anachronistic, though it has been used by creationists in discussing the creation-evolution controversy. Apart from the use of the word by creationists, it is also often used by theists to imply a worldview that is essentially naturalistic."
You are not correct. Evolution have been observed in nature and artificially reproduced many many times. Just look at dogs. Separate species of fruit flies have been evolved in a laboratory setting.
[+] [-] kbart|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wbillingsley|10 years ago|reply
Perhaps I'm cynical, but it seems to have gone like this...
"Minister, when will the Government ban bandersnatches from school cupboards?"
"Um, I'm pretty sure there aren't any bandersnatches in the school cupboards..."
"Minister refuses to ban bandersnatches from school cupboards! Everyone, sign our petition to insist that school cupboards are no place for a bandersnatch, and join our team!"
"I really don't think we have any..."
"The government is still refusing to institute a proper ban on keeping them in school cupboards, and putting our children's education at risk! Like us on Facebook! Tweet our campaign link! With your help we can make them move on this!"
"But we really... oh, forget it, fine, we hereby ban bandersnatches from school cupboards, will you go away now please?"
"Hooray! Thanks to our campaign, the government has finally banned bandersnatches from school broom cupboards. This is why you should donate to us -- remember, we're the organisation that finally made the government ban bandersnatches from school cupboards, and you can make your donation to us at this address..."
[+] [-] Sharlin|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] itsybitsy|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kendallpark|10 years ago|reply
What the majority of the creation supporters don't get is that creationism isn't a science, it's a philosophy. There's nothing constructive or tangible about the theory. You can't test it in a lab, you can't observe it in nature--unless you think irreducible complexity (aka "we don't understand how this could come about, therefore it must be divinely created") is a sound scientific theory. (BTW most of Behe's original examples of "irreducibly complex" biological phenomena have since been reduced.)
I went to a very Christian liberal arts college and creationism was only taught in particular classes like Theories of Origins or theology courses. Biology classes only taught evolution. There might be one day that included a broader survey of creation theories, but that was it.
That being said, both the biology and theology departments were majority evolutionist. Go figure.
[+] [-] mikeash|10 years ago|reply
It's basically cargo-culting popular science articles. They see something like "continental drift is demonstrated by how the coastlines of Africa and the Americas fit so neatly together." They then come up with something that sounds similar, like, "the Grand Canyon could have been carved by a huge and sudden deluge, demonstrating Noah's Flood." The fact that the Africa/Americas thing is just a brief summary of mountains (sometimes literally so) of data is completely lost.
[+] [-] JoeAltmaier|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kazinator|10 years ago|reply
If by "teach" you mean anything resembling "present a subject as if it were factual, and rooted in evidence", then no.
It's okay to inform students about creationism.
[+] [-] fractallyte|10 years ago|reply
It's surreal at times. The kids (~20 altogether!) are wonderful: well mannered, eager to learn. So my frustration is extreme when I see the material they're being force-fed. The school follows the ACE ('Accelerated Christian Education') curriculum. It's imported from the USA, and teaches that the Earth is 6000 years old, that there was a Great Flood, and that evolution is evil. The textbooks are seething with pseudoscience - from illustrations of humans coexisting with dinosaurs, to articles connecting snakes to the serpent from the Garden of Eden, and so much more...
The real problem is that Ofsted - the UK government's regulator for standards in education - has consistently given the school a 'good' rating. (WTF???) Worse yet, the accreditation offered by the school - the ICCE (International Certificate of Christian Education) - is actually considered by UK NARIC (the 'designated National Agency responsible for providing information, advice and expert opinion on qualifications worldwide') to be "comparable to the overall Cambridge International O and A Level standard respectively." (Again, WTF???)
Since the government has utterly failed these student victims, I figured that perhaps an appeal to rationality might get somewhere. So, a few weeks back I had a 9 hour(!) meeting with the school principal and her husband. It failed, and perhaps I came close to being asked to leave. But I'm diplomatic (and valuable), so I'm still there.
Since then I've devoted many hours to Bible study, and research into the arguments of Creationists. (Remember: one can't engage with these people using reason or rationality. Know your opponent.) I strongly feel it's possible to convey to them the vitality of Science - that it's one of the holiest of human endeavors, to be blessed rather than reviled. And it's backed by solid religious arguments, supported completely by Scripture, and by Christian luminaries from Augustine of Hippo to John Calvin. I'm preparing a presentation to the school management (and, hopefully, parents)...
[+] [-] fractallyte|10 years ago|reply
This only applies to government-funded schools. Independent schools can get away with anything.
[+] [-] m-i-l|10 years ago|reply
[0] "Jewish school redacts exam to remove evolution questions" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-26437882
[+] [-] s_dev|10 years ago|reply
Northern Ireland however is the last bastion of open religious bigotry and nonsense in the UK. Classic example. Republic of Ireland passed a Gay Marriage referendum last week while at the same time in NI a confectionary baker "Ashers" in Northern Ireland refused to serve a gay man who requested a cake that had support for gay marriage iced on the cake. The controversy showed that many in NI are at worst openly hostile or at best completely indifferent to gay people. This kind of attitude is carried in to classrooms in NI as well.
I support this move by Scotland but Northern Ireland has some crazy creationists nonsense still happening and these kind of measures are need much more in NI than the rest of the UK.
[+] [-] mattmanser|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JoeAltmaier|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dataker|10 years ago|reply
Creationism, regardless of its mythological background, still is part of Humanity and any conclusions about it should be drawn by the individual, not the State or teachers.
They'd be better off spending more time with Critical Thinking, Scientific Method and Logic, powerful tools to genuinely understand Religion and not just take "facts" for granted.
[+] [-] mikeash|10 years ago|reply
Would you say that schools should not exclusively teach that 2+2=4, but give the students tools and allow them to draw their own conclusions? Should schools allow students to reach their own conclusions as to whether the Earth is flat, or whether the Sun is pulled across the sky by chariots?
Schools should absolutely teach creationism, in the same classes where they teach Greek mythology, Hindu gods, Native American creation stories, etc. And that is exactly what happens here. To quote the article, "...creationism can be taught in religious and moral education...."
[+] [-] arethuza|10 years ago|reply
Kids in Scotland can study Religious, Moral and Philosophical Studies if they want - which is, I believe, a far more appropriate context for religious beliefs than a science class.
[+] [-] rndz|10 years ago|reply
What's disturbing in this? It's not like they are going to hang everyone who mentions anything about creationism....
[+] [-] kazinator|10 years ago|reply
It's not part of that sphere of humanity that we call science.
[+] [-] CyberDildonics|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noir-york|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] goodJobWalrus|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ticksoft|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pjc50|10 years ago|reply
This is not that, though; it's a question of what's taught in schools. There has to be a curriculum. By necessity of the limits of time and effort, this can only include a finite number of things. For administrative efficiency, this is centralised in Scotland (and separately in England&Wales). Teaching creationism as science is simply a category error. Teaching it as fact is a factual error.
You're still free to take your children to Sunday school and teach them whatever you want there.(+)
(+) well, apart from the banned sectarian football songs
[+] [-] TheOtherHobbes|10 years ago|reply
I don't think it's about governments deciding on an approved view, so much as government removing the teaching of obvious nonsense from schools.
Religious schools - which still exist, unfortunately - have no problem with forcing their approved views on kids, even after those views have proven to be harmful: as in - say - abstinence education instead of useful sex ed.
[+] [-] arethuza|10 years ago|reply
http://www.sqa.org.uk/sqa/47421.html
[Edit: I got Standard Grades and National 5s mixed up!]
[+] [-] janvidar|10 years ago|reply
Schools are a social(ist) institution put in place by the goverment to ensure people have an equal access to knowledge - a foundation. Schools also have to follow a certain curriculum which would give this foundation. A school cannot simply choose to not teach reading or writing, or teach that the earth is flat because they beleive this is the right thing to do.
This has come up previously with different topics over the years. In many countries it is explicitly illegal for schools to teach that the Holocaust ever happened, or use text books that alledge this.
And, this is probably a good thing.
[+] [-] mikeash|10 years ago|reply
I'll also note that if parents feel strongly about their children learning creationism, nothing prevents them from teaching it themselves, or buying books that teach it, or even inviting "learned" lecturers to present the topic. This is just about taxpayers not paying for the teaching of nonsense.
[+] [-] kbart|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] copsarebastards|10 years ago|reply
Fix it themselves, perhaps by electing government officials who represent their views on what should be taught in schools and can outlaw obvious lies from curriculum? I really don't see the problem here.
[+] [-] brational|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] morpheous|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jcmoscon|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Oletros|10 years ago|reply
It would be a good thing to argument why creationism is an scientific material and should be allowed in an Science class after voting
[+] [-] merpnderp|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gizi|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomp|10 years ago|reply
Basically, there are a few known facts: (1) organisms die, (2) organisms reproduce, (3) the offspring are different from each other and from the parents, (4) the differences are more or less random, (5) dying is not random but a consequence of external forces, and (6) external forces are relatively constant. From these facts, it logically follows that over generations (or ofganisms reproducing ans dying), the living organisms will become more and more adapted to the environment. To avoid this long and detailed explanation, we just call this process evolution.
It's completely the same as e.g. the word "evaporate" - instead of saying that kinetic energy causes H2O molecules to become more and more excited, and slowly breaks the H bonds between molecules, so that they can move freely inspace (gas), we just say "water evaporates".
[+] [-] jobigoud|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dghf|10 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_exp...
[+] [-] knodi123|10 years ago|reply
"Evolutionism was a common 19th century belief that organisms inherently improve themselves through progressive inherited change over time, and increase in complexity through evolution. The belief went on to include cultural evolution and social evolution."
And more to the point:
"In modern times, the term evolution is widely used, but the terms evolutionism and evolutionist are seldom used in the scientific community to refer to the biological discipline as the term is considered both redundant and anachronistic, though it has been used by creationists in discussing the creation-evolution controversy. Apart from the use of the word by creationists, it is also often used by theists to imply a worldview that is essentially naturalistic."
[+] [-] olavk|10 years ago|reply