UK bans teaching creationism as science in "free" schools (1 Viewer)

[joffer]

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2014/06/18/secular-triumph-as-government-bans-creationism-from-free-sch

Creationism cannot be taught as a valid scientific theory in any free school or academy, the government has said.

The move, which came in a little noticed document last week, marks a significant victory for secular campaigners, who have long fought to ensure the freedom granted to free schools and academies does not allow religious ideas to be taught in science classes.

New clauses for church academies published on June 9th clarify the meaning of creationism and state that it is a minority view within the Church of England and Catholic church.

It then adds: "The requirement on 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."



Because every free school and academy is required to provide a broad and balanced curriculum in its funding agreement, the explicit statement that creationism is incompatible with it bars the teaching of it as a scientific theory.
The move is the culmination of a long campaign by secularists, who first succeeded in getting creationism banned from all future free schools, then future stand-alone academies and then finally all future multi-academy trusts.

It is the first time the rule has applied to current free schools and academies, however.

Questions were asked about why it took the government so long to impose the bar on creationism, given concerns about it being taught were raised as soon as the academies programme was introduced.

"Coupled with the fact that maintained schools must follow the national curriculum, which from September will include a module on evolution at the primary level, we believe that this means that the objectives of the campaign are largely met," British Humanist Association head of public affairs Pavan Dhaliwal commented.

The decision follows an explosive row last week about a so-called 'Trojan Horse' attempt to bring extremely conservative Muslim practices into schools in Birmingham.

The new church academies clauses state:

A spokesperson for the Department for Education insisted the new rules merely clarified what was already the government position - although that view is disputed by campaigners.

"Clauses 2.43 and 2.44 of the funding agreement... explicitly require that pupils are taught about the theory of evolution, and prevent academy trusts from teaching 'creationism' as scientific fact.

"'Creationism', for the purposes of clauses 2.43 and 2.44 of the funding agreement and clause 23E above, is any 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 of established scientific evidence; nor does it accurately and consistently employ the scientific method, and as such it should not be presented to pupils at the Academy as a scientific theory.

"The parties recognise that the teaching of creationism is not part of prevailing practice in the English education system, but acknowledge that it is however important that all schools are clear about what is expected in terms of the curriculum which they need to provide. The parties further recognise that the requirement on 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.

"The secretary of state acknowledges that clauses 2.43 and 2.44 of the Funding Agreement, and clauses 23E and 23G above do 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."

"It is already the case that all state schools, including academies, are prohibited from teaching creationism as scientific fact. That has not changed," a spokesperson said.

"The funding agreements for academies and free schools have been restructured into one document and drafted in plain English, as part of an ongoing process of simplification."

Larryboy bat signal has been activated

 

[matuski]

 

[Tom Servo]

You Darwinists seem awfully afraid of a theory. Typical leftist tactic; if you can't beat 'em, silence them.

 

[butcher boy]

A victory for common sense.

 

[matuski]

You Darwinists seem awfully afraid of a theory. Typical leftist tactic; if you can't beat 'em, silence them.

Do creationists consider creationism a theory? Would be welcome news to me.

 

[quickhands]

I never get teaching anything but science in a science class.

I wouldnt teach science in a religious education class.

 

[joffer]

I never get teaching anything but science in a science class.

I wouldnt teach science in a religious education class.

you should try it.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

You Darwinists seem awfully afraid of a theory.

Theories are awesome.

Creationism doesn't belong in a science class specifically because it's not a theory. It's not testable.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't follow creationism but the UK and a lot of other places has a pretty screwed up idea of free speech.

However I'm sure they're letting muslim madrasas teach what they want in the interest of freedom of religion, that's totally different.

 

[matuski]

I don't follow creationism but the UK and a lot of other places has a pretty screwed up idea of free speech.

However I'm sure they're letting muslim madrasas teach what they want in the interest of freedom of religion, that's totally different.

The crazy aside.... Could you help us tie this in to anything to do with anything regarding the OP?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't follow creationism but the UK and a lot of other places has a pretty screwed up idea of free speech.

However I'm sure they're letting muslim madrasas teach what they want in the interest of freedom of religion, that's totally different.

The crazy aside.... Could you help us tie this in to anything to do with anything regarding the OP?

Well admitting there's almost no good way for these threads to go...

Creationism cannot be taught as a valid scientific theory in any free school or academy, the government has said.

Ok let me say first of all when I commented I thought a "free school" was a private school. It's not, it sounds like a charter school, which is public. I totally agree the state can do what they want in public schools and I don't think creationism should be taught as science. So they're not limiting free speech at private schools, which was the premise for my point, so sorry for that.

However, though I don't agree with creationism, I just think people have a right to teach their children what they want at their own schools - as much as I might disagree with what they might teach.

And the thing about the madrasas, I realize how that sounds, but the point just being that what some would say falls outside free speech should still fall inside freedom of religion. But as a madrasa would be a private school, it doesn't matter anyway.

 

[Koya]

You Darwinists seem awfully afraid of a theory. Typical leftist tactic; if you can't beat 'em, silence them.

Do creationists consider creationism a theory? Would be welcome news to me.

Yes, but theory, they have no idea what Theory apparently means. Too lazy and or stupid or willfully ignorant to understand I guess.

 

[matuski]

You Darwinists seem awfully afraid of a theory. Typical leftist tactic; if you can't beat 'em, silence them.

Do creationists consider creationism a theory? Would be welcome news to me.

Yes, but theory, they have no idea what Theory apparently means. Too lazy and or stupid or willfully ignorant to understand I guess.

I thought it was their god's Truth.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Ok let me say first of all when I commented I thought a "free school" was a private school. It's not, it sounds like a charter school, which is public. I totally agree the state can do what they want in public schools and I don't think creationism should be taught as science. So they're not limiting free speech at private schools, which was the premise for my point, so sorry for that.

Even if this were about private schools, I wouldn't see it as a free speech issue. Nobody is saying that they can't talk about creationism; they're just saying that talking about creationism doesn't count as a science credit.

There's a legitimate question, I suppose, about whether children should be forced to attend school at all. But if we (or the UK) answer that question in the affirmative, we have to come up with a determination about what counts as school and what doesn't. If we pass a law saying that children of a certain age must attend school, and then some parent brings his kid to a grocery store for five minutes per month and says, "Hey, check out them noodles" -- as if that satisfies the schooling requirement -- the law is rendered meaningless.

So we have to decide what counts as school and what doesn't, and that brings us into deciding what subjects must be taught, and so on. Deciding that creationism doesn't count is no different in principle -- and little different in practice -- from deciding that checking out them noodles doesn't count. Not really a free speech issue in either case.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ok let me say first of all when I commented I thought a "free school" was a private school. It's not, it sounds like a charter school, which is public. I totally agree the state can do what they want in public schools and I don't think creationism should be taught as science. So they're not limiting free speech at private schools, which was the premise for my point, so sorry for that.

Even if this were about private schools, I wouldn't see it as a free speech issue. Nobody is saying that they can't talk about creationism; they're just saying that talking about creationism doesn't count as a science credit.

There's a legitimate question, I suppose, about whether children should be forced to attend school at all. But if we (or the UK) answer that question in the affirmative, we have to come up with a determination about what counts as school and what doesn't. If we pass a law saying that children of a certain age must attend school, and then some parent brings his kid to a grocery store for five minutes per month and says, "Hey, check out them noodles" -- as if that satisfies the schooling requirement -- the law is rendered meaningless.

So we have to decide what counts as school and what doesn't, and that brings us into deciding what subjects must be taught, and so on. Deciding that creationism doesn't count is no different in principle -- and little different in practice -- from deciding that checking out them noodles doesn't count. Not really a free speech issue in either case.

Well naturally I disagree. There are some really obvious examples of what we all think should not be taught in any school, but once you establish that the state can limit expression on a private basis... well then it can limit expression on a private basis, which is contra the 1st Amendment.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Those Brits need to get with the times.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Creationist can still teach their kids about creation. Churches can still preach it to the mountain tops. Nobody is saying it has no value, or even that it is not true.

What this is saying, is that it is not science.

 

[matuski]

However I'm sure they're letting muslim madrasas teach what they want in the interest of freedom of religion, that's totally different.

Actually not different at all, as they would teach creationism as well.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

However I'm sure they're letting muslim madrasas teach what they want in the interest of freedom of religion, that's totally different.

Actually not different at all, as they would teach creationism as well.

Well that was my point. Considering my then premise (had it wrong) was that private schools were being regulated my guess then was that they would not attempt to regulate the madrasas on the basis that the Brits are fairly intimidated with that sphere these days and they chalk it up to cultural diversity and respect. - However, IMO, yes, it is all religious speech, I think they have a total right to say whatever they like about the effect that allah has had in creating the world.