Creationism to be in GCSE papers (England)

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Creationist theories about how the world was made are to be debated in GCSE science lessons in mainstream secondary schools in England.

The subject has been included in a new syllabus for biology produced by the OCR exam board, due out in September.

Critics say the matter should only be discussed in R.E. because there is a danger of elevating religious theories to the status of scientific ones.

The government insists creationism is not being taught as a subject.

The exam board says students need to understand the background to theories.

Its new "Gateway to Science" curriculum asks pupils to examine how organisms become fossilised.

Teachers are asked to "explain that the fossil record has been interpreted differently over time (e.g. creationist interpretation)".

Contentious

OCR, one of the three main exam boards in England, said that the syllabus was intended to make students aware of scientific controversy.

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 area is contentious, with critics claiming that inclusion of creationist or intelligent design theories in science syllabuses unduly elevates them.

James Williams, science course leader at Sussex University's school of education, told the Times Educational Supplement: "This opens a legitimate gate for the inclusion of creationism or intelligent design in science classes as if they were legitimate theories on a par with evolution fact and theory.

"I'm happy for religious theories to be considered in religious education, but not in science where consideration could lead to a false verification of their status as being equal to scientific theories."

The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, which oversees the development of the national curriculum, in effect guiding exam boards, said discussions of "intelligent design" or "creationism" could take place in science classes.

The National Curriculum Online website says for science at Key Stage 4 (GCSE level): "Students should be taught how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence (for example Darwin's theory of evolution)."

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."

A spokesperson for the Department for Education and Skills said: "Neither creationism nor intelligent design are taught as a subject in schools and are not specified in the science curriculum".

In the United States, there have been court cases over what schools should teach.

Last month scientists there protested against a movement to teach intelligent design - the theory that life is so complex that it must be the work of a supernatural designer.

In December, a judge in Pennsylvania said it was unconstitutional to make teachers feature the concept of intelligent design in science lessons.

In England, the Emmanuel Schools Foundation, sponsored by Christian car dealer Sir Peter Vardy, has been criticised for featuring creationist theories in lessons in the three comprehensives it runs.

Sir Peter has said the schools present both Darwin's evolutionary theory and creationism.

In 2003, he said: "One is a theory, the other is a faith position. It is up to the children."

How do you feel about creationism being taught in science classes and not being restricted to RE ?

I went to Catholic school, so you can bet that catholic schools here in Scotland will do this too in future.

It's sad. This stuff should not be taught as scientific fact.

Last Of The Famous International Pfunkboys (Kerr), Friday, 10 March 2006 19:10 (twenty years ago)

That was taken from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4793198.stm

Last Of The Famous International Pfunkboys (Kerr), Friday, 10 March 2006 19:10 (twenty years ago)

FFS, this is the sort of thing I thought only Americans were stupid enough to try. :-(

Fish is Biodegradable! (That Means It Rots) (kate), Friday, 10 March 2006 19:15 (twenty years ago)

Wait, it's not April Fools yet, is it?

Fish is Biodegradable! (That Means It Rots) (kate), Friday, 10 March 2006 19:15 (twenty years ago)

Nope.

Last Of The Famous International Pfunkboys (Kerr), Friday, 10 March 2006 19:16 (twenty years ago)

You're the same as me. I always check the date when I read about something stupid. Even when its the middle of summer.

Last Of The Famous International Pfunkboys (Kerr), Friday, 10 March 2006 19:16 (twenty years ago)

Well, it's is actually Spring. (supposedly.)

I'm just kind of speechless about this. Who let this slip through? I though the UK was sensible enough to file Creationism pretty much next to Flat Earth.

Fish is Biodegradable! (That Means It Rots) (kate), Friday, 10 March 2006 19:18 (twenty years ago)

The problem with this kind of thing is that the creatonist's arguments are secretly quite sensible -- it's just that they can't be trusted to be sensible in their application. Asking to teach the argument itself, and to look at competing theories and their histories, is fairly reasonably: for instance, schools do teach a "flat Earth" theory, insofar as they point out that most everyone once figured the Earth was flat. But of course they just don't leave that option here -- they want the two presented as competing theories on equal footing, which on scientific terms they are just not.

It'd be totally fair for a science class to spend a few minutes acknowledging that creationist theories were accepted up to a certain point, if just as a way of setting up the context from which the science emerges. Actually, I really fair-minded approach -- and I would really like to see educators try this on -- might be to do a five-minute overview of the multiplicity of creationist notions from around the world and from various religious histories, and then spend the next two hours actually explaining the science.

nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 10 March 2006 19:31 (twenty years ago)

But yeah, basically their arguments are good arguments for acknowledging creationism in the same point-of-fact way you point out that yeah, people used to think the Earth was flat. Which is a kind of approach I imagine creationists would actually be less happy about than not having the issue mentioned at all!

nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 10 March 2006 19:33 (twenty years ago)

I wouldn't worry too much about this - most teachers will simply mention it in passing as background material. The only problem might be in schools run by this mob.

Si.C@rter (SiC@rter), Friday, 10 March 2006 19:41 (twenty years ago)

Yeah thats mentioned in the article. But thankfully theres only 3 of them.

Last Of The Famous International Pfunkboys (Kerr), Friday, 10 March 2006 19:46 (twenty years ago)

"it'd be totally fair for a science class to spend a few minutes acknowledging that creationist theories were accepted up to a certain point,"

But they don't waste time teaching that some people think Tony Blair is actually an alien lizard, even though the majority agree that he's probably human.

And if you're looking at the historical angle, teach it in history.

Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Friday, 10 March 2006 19:47 (twenty years ago)

It partly sounds like this is what's happening. I mean, obviously kids should be taught about Flat Earth theory, and similarly about Creationism (haha "Would you want your kids learning about it on the street?). And sentences like "Creationism and 'intelligent design' are not regarded by OCR as scientific theories. They are beliefs that do not lie within scientific understanding." seem to support that. But then other bits of the article seem to go the other way.

(xposted by nabisco, so largely useless :)

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Friday, 10 March 2006 19:48 (twenty years ago)

In fairness, a lot of science is told as science history. And it's flatly untrue to say that belief in creationism is restricted to history, that its time has passed.

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Friday, 10 March 2006 19:50 (twenty years ago)

As long as the debate is along the lines of "How stupid is this, on a scale from 9 to 10?" I'm okay with it.

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Friday, 10 March 2006 20:23 (twenty years ago)

I think we could negate this whole thing by not teaching a specific doctrine about the origins of the world at all in schools (like we don't teach a specific doctrine on a God's existince). If people really care about science and teaching it we could spend more time on the facts of evolution and how it actually works (based on what we know for sure) and not on the theories for the origins of something nobody witnessed (big bang, Garden of Eden, etc). Teaching solid facts on it would help everyone from being misguided when they do get to the origins of the world on their own.

Cunga (Cunga), Friday, 10 March 2006 20:36 (twenty years ago)

G.C.S.E. : God Created Some Evolution

StanM (StanM), Friday, 10 March 2006 20:38 (twenty years ago)

God Could Somehow Exist

StanM (StanM), Friday, 10 March 2006 20:39 (twenty years ago)

hurrah, now we Americans won't have to hang our heads in shame at sentences like this anymore: FFS, this is the sort of thing I thought only Americans were stupid enough to try. :-(

Curt1s St3ph3ns, Friday, 10 March 2006 20:42 (twenty years ago)

t/s: "Hypothesis" vs "Theory"

kingfish da notorious teletabby (kingfish 2.0), Friday, 10 March 2006 21:39 (twenty years ago)

Teaching the application of scientific method in GCSE Science is okay, tho I'd rather see Philosophy on the core curriculum.

Turns out not many people ever thought the world was flat. I wonder if the same applies to Creationism, i.e. it only came about as a response to palaeontology & evolutionary theory.

Raw, Uncompromising, and Noodly (noodle vague), Friday, 10 March 2006 22:43 (twenty years ago)

I'm sure theres plenty who probably believe in it.

Last Of The Famous International Pfunkboys (Kerr), Saturday, 11 March 2006 00:05 (twenty years ago)

nv: depends what epoch yr. talking about! lots of ppl thought that the sun went around it tho, and that's actually a classic example of a hist-of-sci case study, prob in no small part because it features so primarily in the enlightenment/protestant narrative of TRUTH overruning ANTIQUATED TRADITION and the clergy.

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Saturday, 11 March 2006 00:12 (twenty years ago)

Wittgenstein: Why do you suppose people used to believe that the Sun moves around the Earth?

Student: Because that's how it looks?

Wittgenstein: And how would it look if the opposite were the case?

Raw, Uncompromising, and Noodly (noodle vague), Saturday, 11 March 2006 02:49 (twenty years ago)

Also, some arguments against flat-earthism.

Raw, Uncompromising, and Noodly (noodle vague), Saturday, 11 March 2006 02:56 (twenty years ago)

What are todays papers saying about it? I bet the Daily Mail loves it.

Last Of The Famous International Pfunkboys (Kerr), Saturday, 11 March 2006 10:58 (twenty years ago)

I don't really think of the Daily Mail as creatonists. Is that what you mean?

Alba (Alba), Saturday, 11 March 2006 13:44 (twenty years ago)

Alongside - or more accurately, as a facet of - its vigorously Right Wing politics, the Mail has always had a healthy contempt for logic, science and mere facts.

Raw, Uncompromising, and Noodly (noodle vague), Saturday, 11 March 2006 15:04 (twenty years ago)

Shocking. And then they complain about exams being too easy.

PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Saturday, 11 March 2006 19:08 (twenty years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.