Creationism in UK science classes?
I'm not at home right now, and don't know whether I'm blowing this out of all proportion, but a story just appeared on BBC News saying that the UK science education is going to contain creationist teachings. Specifically, the OCR syllabus says:
Teachers are asked to "explain that the fossil record has been interpreted differently over time (e.g. creationist interpretation)".
Um, why?
A spokesperson for the exam board said candidates needed to understand the social and historical context to scientific ideas both pre and post Darwin's theory of evolution.
"Candidates are asked to discuss why the opponents of Darwinism thought the way they did and how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence," he said.
"Creationism and 'intelligent design' are not regarded by OCR as scientific theories. They are beliefs that do not lie within scientific understanding."
The National Curriculum, meanwhile, says the following:
Classes should also cover "ways in which scientific work may be affected by the context in which it takes place (for example, social, historical, moral, spiritual), and how these contexts may affect whether or not ideas are accepted."
I can see their point, but the language seems a little lax. If this is just a matter of mentioning that before Darwin the favoured explanation was from design, but that the theory of evolution has rendered this null and void, then fair enough. But "the fossil record has been interpreted differently over time" leaves the door open for post-Darwin arguments, which have no evidence and should most definitely have no place in the science classroom.
"[H]ow scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence" is more sinister. If this is a direct reference to creationism "vs" evolution, then I don't like it at all. That particular debate is not a scientific controversy if you define this as meaning a disagreement within the scientific community. Science says evolution - full stop. It's other people saying that creationism has any basis, and they do this entirely outside of the scientific method. Graduated evolution vs. punctuated equilibrium would be what I think of as a scientific controversy. Saying that fundamentalist religious claims contribute to 'scientific controversy' is dangerously close to the "teach the controversy" argument used in the US to try to force intelligent design into the classroom. By that argument I could claim that gravity is caused by invisible monkeys holding us on the ground, argue with a scientist about it, then demand it be discussed in the classroom.
I don't think I like this very much. I haven't read OCR's syllabus properly yet, but the BBC article suggests the language is weak. If so, it's a foot in the door for anti-science campaigners.
Creationists turn their sights to Physics
Not content with attacking evolution, creationists are now turning their attention to astronomy. Bad Astronomy has an excellent write-up, but I'll paraphrase here.
The New York Times reports that a NASA public affairs official, appointed directly by the Bush administration, wrote the following:
In October, for example, George Deutsch, a presidential appointee in NASA headquarters, told a Web designer working for the agency to add the word "theory" after every mention of the Big Bang, according to an e-mail message from Mr. Deutsch that another NASA employee forwarded to The Times.
...
In October 2005, Mr. Deutsch sent an e-mail message to Flint Wild, a NASA contractor working on a set of Web presentations about Einstein for middle-school students. The message said the word “theory” needed to be added after every mention of the Big Bang.
The Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion," Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, "It is not NASA’s place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator."
It's the same old nonsense about the definition of 'theory'. And this is likely to cause uproar, because this is a religious agenda directly interfering with a scientific body. And, again, the main aim is to alter education.
The Big Bang1 is also most definitely not "opinion". There's a very large body of evidence supporting it, and no other reasonable explanation. The only other contender, steady-state theory, has fallen by the wayside because predictions from BBT have been shown to be accurate.2
I suspect that creationists will have more of a struggle attacking astronomy, and that's why it's remained unmolested for so long. 1% of the static on an untuned television is directly caused by the afterglow of the Big Bang - the microwave background radiation originally attributed to pigeon droppings. The presence of this radiation was predicted thirty years before its discovery, and it's the kind of accessible fact that newspapers love to print. Creationists may have a hard time getting around that with 'god did it'. But then I continually underestimate their skill at manipulating language, so what do I know 
- or, as the more enlightened know it, the Horrendous Space Kablooie [↩]
- sentence edited as it didn't make sense
![](http://wongablog.co.uk/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif" alt=)
[↩]
Faith in Education
I read about this a few days ago, but J-walk blog reminded me. The Kansas Board of Education, famously lobbied by Pastafarians, just voted to allow intelligent design to be taught in school science lessons. Crazy quote number one:
The new standards say high school students must understand major evolutionary concepts. But they also declare that the basic Darwinian theory that all life had a common origin and that natural chemical processes created the building blocks of life have been challenged in recent years by fossil evidence and molecular biology.
That's total and utter bollocks1, but when you're a republican Christian you don't let little things like the truth get in the way of spreading the doctrine. Then, though, comes this:
In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.
Oh, ok. I can't seem to find the new definition, sadly. What could it now possibly mean? The search for explanation in any form? Should intelligent falling be in the curriculum? Why the hell not?
I like it when people play with words and think they're winning the argument. A common creationist strategy is to attack the definition of scientific terms. Aside from being entirely spurious, it's not even a proper logical technique. If you claim that the word 'cat' in fact derives from the Latin for 'giant space monkey', it doesn't stop the fact that cats exist. The concept of a cat is not negated by manipulating the language that refers to it.
I know I'm extremely anti-religion, but this is an entirely separate issue and mustn't be confused with atheism. It's the subversion of education, and it affects everybody. It's simply unacceptable for anything other than the truth to be taught in schools. The ridiculous thing is that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. It is entirely reasonable for you to decide that an all-powerful being created the universe, given that nobody has any clue. It's as likely we're all grains in an elf's teapot, but that's beside the point. The proviso is that you revise your opinions as evidence comes in. It was through this process that the world wrenched itself into the modern era, and millions of people were saved by medical advances, and standards of life improved immeasurably for billions. Education should be about provable reality2, not the world as some people would like it to be.
If cigarette companies lobbied education boards to stop teaching children that smoking was bad for them, on the basis that there are alternative viewpoints, would that be reasonable? How can people be expected to survive in a logical world if their education has failed them? If evolution doesn't happen, why should we bother worrying about bird flu? The virus doesn't evolve through mutation, so how can it pass to humans? How can it be ok to teach information that is entirely untrue? This isn't a a matter of interpretation - "Darwinian theory...[has] been challened...by fossil evidence and molecular biology" is simply not the case, unless by 'challenge' you mean 'somebody said it wasn't true'. How can the world continue to improve if knowledge is stifled? It's dangerous and ridiculous, and needs to be fixed.
People will say that this is Kansas, an incredibly conservative ultra-religious state in the heart of the US, so of course this kind of thing is going to happen. Most parents there teach their children creationism anyway, surely? And those who disagree can just tell their children the truth, right? No, for three reasons. First of all, parents don't necessarily understand the issues. If one person is sent to school under the impression that they're learning the truth, and nobody tells them different because they simply don't know, that person has been failed. Secondly, education is there to teach the truth, and it's morally wrong for that not to happen. Thirdly, this is a victory for creationists, and they can use it as a launching post. Mentioning that what you're lobbying for is now the education policy for an entire state will get the attention of many people, and if they're not aware of the issues at stake they will take it seriously.
If churches are allowed to fund UK schools and said schools are allowed to have more say over their curriculum, as is suggested in the new education reforms, this could easily spread to individual schools over here. Religious belief is an incredibly powerful motivator, and those who would subvert education will not stop at one victory, or one country. I think that we as reasonable people have to fight this, and should not wait for the battle to come to us.
How can we do this? Explain the scientific method to those who don't understand science, and think it's a closed-minded group of nay-sayers out of touch with the real world. Promote the flying spaghetti monster. Write letters to newspapers who, in a desperate need to 'give both sides of the story', present intelligent design as the underdog against the big mean world of science. We can fight our corner in small chunks, and that should, eventually, have an effect.
This turned out to be longer than I'd anticipated, and thanks for reading. As you may have guessed, it's something I feel very strongly about! For more information, Pharyngula and The Panda's Thumb are excellent places to start.
The Daily Show does Evolution
Via Pharyngula:
It is an age-old battle whose time has come. "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" will gather together all the experts (or at least those who will talk to them), travel to the places that matter in the debate (basic cable budget permitting) and ultimately settle the controversy once and for all. "Evolution Schmevolution: A Daily Show Special Report" will premiere on Monday, September 12 and air nightly at 11:00 p.m. through September 15.
For one full week, "The Daily Show" goes in-depth, around, through and quite possibly under, one of the hottest hot-button issues facing our nation: evolution. It's the accepted theory on the origin of life by an overwhelming majority of the world's biologists, but maybe they're all wrong. What's so great about the scientific method anyway?
I watch Daily Show clips as soon as I can get my hands on them, and as well as being very funny indeed the political commentary is among the sharpest around. Jon Stewart has always seemed on the ball, and I hope he gives the creationists the roasting they deserve. I'm looking forward to seeing it!
Incidentally, The Daily Show will soon be available in the UK on C4's new channel, More4. Fantastic!
Hello!
Hey, thanks for coming! I'm Andrew, and this is where my headthinks come to breed. They often meander around humanism and photography, but they're flighty and you can't trust them, so anything is possible.
Do feel free to email me - I get lonely:
Your hair looks swish, by the way - have you done something new?
Recent Comments
- vicky: going up this weekend having done all the welsh peaks except 4 snowdon, cant wait
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: what, how can u live in the 21 c and say that, probably a sexist thing
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: da iawn laura, cant believe what im hearing, all this fuss, anyway love the site, and i agree, normal people who swear and curse clomb mountains cos we live in the...
on Climbing Snowdon. - Andrew: Did a few quick test shots to check the light levels, then balanced the camera on the arm of a bench, set it for a 20s exposure and hoped for the best
on ISS. - lynsey: Wow, how did you take that photograph?
on ISS.
