Teaching Creationism As Science Now Banned In All UK Public Schools

The new church academies clauses require that "pupils are taught about the theory of evolution, and prevent academy trusts from teaching 'creationism' as scientific fact." And by "creationism" they mean:


[A]ny doctrine or theory which holds that natural biological processes cannot account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth and therefore rejects the scientific theory of evolution. The parties acknowledge that creationism, in this sense, is rejected by most mainstream churches and religious traditions, including the major providers of state funded schools such as the [Anglican] [Catholic] Churches, as well as the scientific community. It does not accord with the scientific consensus or the very large body .....

Teaching Creationism As Science Now Banned In All UK Public Schools

Hooray for the Poms - for all those who are going to complain that this is some repression of religion or freedom of speech please note:

And in regards to protecting religious beliefs, the clauses acknowledge that the funding agreement does...


...not prevent discussion of beliefs about the origins of the Earth and living things, such as creationism, in Religious Education, as long as it is not presented as a valid alternative to established scientific theory.

so you can teach your creationism - but you are not allowed to lie about it being science!

the comments are delightful too

Hallelujah!

Great!

2nd line!

Oh thank god (pardon the pun )! Religion has no place in schools at all, outside an RE class that is and even then, I personally view RE as a waste of precious school time.

Religion should be taught in private and at home - not at school.

EDIT: removed the bit about Academies as I see it does actually include them as well!

Even happier now!

a reply to: stumason
I'm not completely familiar with the UK education system, but the article does seem to include Academies:

In what's being heralded as a secular triumph, the UK government has banned the teaching of creationism as science in all existing and future academies and free schools.

The new clauses, which arrived with very little fanfare last week, state that the...


...requirement for every academy and free school to provide a broad and balanced curriculum in any case prevents the teaching of creationism as evidence based theory in any academy or free school.

Although they were apparently supposed to have been banned in 2011 but with the recent Trojan Horse scandal, they have probably tightened the rules even more now - this article would seem to confirm the rules have been strengthened.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Indeed, I edited my post to reflect that

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

so you can teach your creationism - but you are not allowed to lie about it being science!

Ahhh ... the age old question ... where did we come from?

No, we can't have religion dictating the 'facts.' But, soft science lends no positive conclusion to the question either. Therein lies the problem. If you 'believe' science has the answer ... challenge that community to provide definitive proof. Otherwise you're simply buying in to a separate belief system.

I've looked ... and for the life of me, I've never been able to see definitive evolutionary change "from one species to another."

ETA: The only solution for answering the question *during school* is the truth, "No one employed by the education system knows, so go home and ask your parents what they think."

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Hmm, big government defining that religious beliefs cannot be taught as being valid, and at the same time is incorporating Sharia Law?

No-one see that there are issues there?

And also legally defining non-biological factors of Biodiversity (such as Dynamical Systems - Chaos Theory & Mathematical Probability) as 'Creationism'.

Geenyus!

originally posted by: Snarl
I've looked ... and for the life of me, I've never been able to see definitive evolutionary change "from one species to another."

Probably because of a fundamental misunderstanding about how evolution works.

It isn't the case of a dinosaur giving birth to a chicken one day - the process is gradual and for every fossil we find and place in the evolutionary tree, there are many more animals between them we will never find showing the gradual changes, although you can often find fossils of animals that are clearly closely related.

The simplest way to describe evolution to anyone is this:

Imagine you have a cactus. It's in the desert, minding it's own business living off the seasonal rains. One day, through whatever means it is Cacti reproduce, it disperses it's seeds.

Now, owing to errors in copying DNA, some of those seeds will be genetically different from their parent. Some will hold water better, some will hold it less.

Then the climate changes - the rains become less frequent. Now, those Cacti that don't hold enough water perish, those that hold more water thrive. This is natural selection.

Over the course of generations, more and more genetic mutations are introduced - some may affect the spines, some may affect the colouring, others may affect the size of the flowers. Owing to the prevailing conditions (rain, insects, herbivores etc) those with the right mutations will survive, while those who are poorly adapted will perish.

Eventually, after many generations, you will have a Cactus that is quite different from it's ancestor at the beginning of the story and is actually an entirely different species adapted to it's environment.

The same works for animals.

I thought it had been banned for quite a while now. Indeed a quick Google search suggests that the teaching of creationism as a science was banned in 2012, to which some people took the education authority to court to get it taught as a valid scientific theory, and lost quite badly.

Maybe that was just on the LEA level, dunno. But this is good news, an official ban on teaching a religion as a science. Yay for us.

Planetary Motion, Gravity, The Cell, Germs, Atoms, Big Bang, Plate tectonics, Radioactivity, Electromagnetism, Thermodynamics, Conservation of Mass and Energy, Molecular Bonds. This is just a short list of accepted scientific principals that do not have definitive proof. These are not "beliefs" in the way religion uses the word, but instead the logical answer based off of information available. These logical conclusions have lead to the scientific and technologically advanced society we live in today and will continue to propel our civilization forward well in to the future.

Does this mean schools should no teach any of these theories? Heck no! Teaching and schooling is a process of getting the learners caught up to speed with the work that has been done already. Nobody is saying that what we know now is the end all be all of answers and there will never be anything new. It is simply the most likely answer based off of the information to date. If new information appears that shows something widely accepted to be wrong, that answer will change and the old answer will no longer be accepted. The old answer may still be taught, but as a historical reference only, the new direction based off of the new information is what will be taught in schools.

Science grows, adapts and changes based on new information. Religion never changes and is steadfast in it's views on the world no matter what new information comes in to play.

I think this is a huge step forward for students and for humanity in general. If only the US would wake up and do the same.

DC

[A]ny doctrine or theory which holds that natural biological processes cannot account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth and therefore rejects the scientific theory of evolution. The parties acknowledge that creationism, in this sense, is rejected by most mainstream churches and religious traditions, including the major providers of state funded schools such as the [Anglican] [Catholic] Churches, as well as the scientific community.

It says right there that this type of creationism isn't even considered valid by most CHURCHES AND RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS. Who the hell is pushing this to be taught in schools then? Whack jobs.....that's who.

Another note....
Creationism has never, IMO, rejected the scientific theory of evolution. Creationism deals with ORIGINS....evolution does not...they are 2 entirely separate things from my understanding....but then again, I may be a [snip]tard just like the rest of them...who knows...

But...I will give applause for keeping nutcases from teaching in public schools. (That doesn't mean that creationists are nutcases...I would have to hear your definition of creationism first to tell you if you're crazy or not)

A2D

The amount of back and forth bickering this subject brings makes me really laugh at our species. Creationists assume their belief system is right because that's what their religion tells them when we live on a planet with many different religions with many different beliefs. I believe in a creator of the universe but that creator is also responsible for setting things like evolution in motion and we can clearly see that species evolve and adapt to their surrounding's to better their chances for long term survival. The evidence as far as I am concerned shows us that evolution and adaptation are 100% real and creationists who belong to religions that can't even form a unified theology make all kinds of crazy claims that have absolutely no merit being taught in a public school. Evolution might not have all the answers but its real science trying to figure things out where creationists just seem to spew unproven and improbable nonsense.

I would never limit the abilities of God or our creator as I assume that intelligence is beyond our comprehension and I assume he is pro-evolution as well seeing as he created a dynamic universe where things are constantly changing.

I think options instead of restrictions on teachings is the best.
Give the kids an option to chose.

originally posted by: Slickinfinity
I would never limit the abilities of God or our creator as I assume that intelligence is beyond our comprehension and I assume he is pro-evolution as well seeing as he created a dynamic universe where things are constantly changing.

Nicely said.

By the way I was raised in one of the most catholic areas on this planet, and catholic RE was naturally part of school, so was the crucifix on the wall. I try to remember (a long time back, lol)...but I think up until 5th grade or possibly longer we even PRAYED each time at the beginning of the school day in class.

HOWEVER, and this is the point: Despite all those things and being raised as catholic as it even gets, there was never ever a disconnect between science and religion. Fundamentalist ideas etc. were not really taught in RE...or maybe they were taught but the general consensus was that it's more allegorical/symbolical..no one in their RIGHT MIND would have really thought that the earth etc. was created 10.000 or so years ago and said this was "fact" and the other teachings not.

By the way I was going to a "elite school" sort of thing in Europe, a "nature & sciences school", so part of our curriculum was also Biology, Chemistry etc. together with RE class. The disconnect and the silliness "science vs. religion" seems MAINLY to exist in the United States, and there not even with Catholics, but mostly with radical/extremist (yes, I am choosing THOSE words) split-groups/hate groups which call themselves "Christian" but have not much to do with, say Catholics or religion really, especially those groups who also engage in anti-gay etc. campaigns.

BESIDES...and you're entirely correct, belief in god and acceptance of science/evolution can go together. I am pretty sure that my biology/chemistry whatever teachers were ALSO catholics/christian, if they were NOT catholics then they were protestants, so ALSO christians. And no-one had a problem with it.

Creationism is NOT science. I'm very against overbearing government, but religion has it's place, and it's not in science education. Would you demand that chinese be taught in English class? Or how about scientology in history class? Or how about numerology in a computer class?

Seriously folks.