Teaching of evolution in school science under new threat

February 4, 2011 | Filed under: Secular Press Releases | Posted by:

Despite past assurances to the contrary, the Education Secretary Rt Hon Michael Gove MP has said that applications to set up state-funded ‘free schools’ from creationist groups ‘would be considered’. The BHA’s chief executive Andrew Copson has condemned any teaching of creationism and intelligent design in science lessons, and has said that changes such as these to the school system creates a new threat to the teaching of evolution in schools.

The British Humanist Association has been at the forefront of challenging and bringing to public attention the growing threat to education from creationism, and promoting the teaching of evolution in schools.

After five years of campaigning by the BHA and others, in September 2007, the Labour Government published its ‘Guidance on the place of creationism and intelligent design in science lessons’, in which it is made clear that creationism and intelligent design are not scientific theories, and so cannot be taught in science lessons, as they have ‘no underlying scientific principles, or explanations, and are not accepted by the scientific community as a whole’. However attempts to discredit a wide variety of established scientific facts, and promote creationist and creationist inspired ideas in their place, continues.

In June 2010, the BHA coordinated a letter from top scientists and educators to the Conservative Education Secretary, urging him to protect and promote science in the school curriculum, with the specific inclusion of the teaching of evolution in the primary curriculum. The Department for Education’s reply stated that creationism and intelligent design do not form part of the national curriculum for science and therefore should not be taught. However, the response lacks assurances that schools would be required to teach about evolution in science. Moreover, new ‘free schools’ and academies do not have to teach the national curriculum, so the scant assurances from the government that religious myths have no place in the science curriculum will not even apply to potentially thousands of schools.

Mr Copson commented, ‘Successive governments have failed to enshrine and protect the teaching of evolution in primary school science, and moves to lift potentially thousands of existing and new schools out of the national curriculum altogether means that pupils of all ages may not be taught what is probably the most important idea underlying biological science. This, combined with the threat of groups running schools who willingly purport anti-scientific theories which are not supported by evidence as fact, creates a new threat to the teaching of evolution and school science more generally.’

Related articles:

  1. In Brief: Richard Dawkins among academics calling for compulsory evolution teaching at primary school
  2. High School Bans “Evolution” T-Shirts
  3. Science can’t prove that! How rejecting evolution leads to rejecting science
  4. School district hopes to teach creationism
  5. Connecticut Parents Elect Creationist to School Board

11 Responses to Teaching of evolution in school science under new threat

  1. avatar Matt Horns May 18, 2011 - 4:40 am

    Creationism should be taught in history classes, not science classes.

    Reply
  2. avatar Guy H October 11, 2011 - 6:03 am

    Creationism should be taught at Sunday School. It has no place in Public Schools. What, are we going to teach Mother Goose in Science class too?

    Reply
    • avatar Mike Daniels October 11, 2011 - 10:08 am

      Teach the controversy!!

      Reply
      • avatar Blake Udell September 9, 2012 - 10:02 am

        There is no controversy. The only ‘controversy’ that exists is among those who A)Don’t understand the theory of evolution B)Take a literal approach to the Bible That’s it. Nobody else denies it.

        Reply
        • avatar JamesK September 9, 2012 - 2:16 pm

          I think Mike was making a joke and saying that the schools should teach the controversy as in teach Mother Goose.

          Reply
          • avatar Mike Daniels September 9, 2012 - 6:53 pm

            Exactly . . . Thanks, James! We should also teach the controversy about Intelligent Falling vs. Gravity, and Biblical Mathematics (where pi = 3).

          • avatar JamesK September 10, 2012 - 9:32 pm

            And don’t forget, Mike, that churches should be required to “teach the controversy” and teach Islam, Judaism, Hindusim, the various pagan religions, the Native American beliefs, etc….. Oh and churches should also be required to teach about the theory of evolution. After all if right wing christians think their religious beliefs belong in science classrooms then i think science belongs in their churches….

          • avatar Mike Daniels September 11, 2012 - 8:58 am

            Hmm . . . It could be a condition of tax exemption! But then, we know what they would teach. Each religion would teach that all the others are created by the Evil One (Karl Rove) and lead to Hell, or their equivalent.

          • avatar JamesK September 11, 2012 - 12:02 pm

            Well I figure there should be a requirement of each religion would have to be taught by a member of said religion.

  3. avatar Mike de Fleuriot October 11, 2011 - 4:18 pm

    I think there needs to be a no holds barred debate on National Television, between all the leader theists who want creationism taught in schools and the leading lights in evolutionary biology. Get the Biologists to show everyone on equal time, that creationism does not have any answers and therefore does not have any place in science. And allow the creationists to shoot themselves in the foot, trying to show that it does. Keep showing that whatever they claim about creationism is false, and people will eventually get the message.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>