Creationism is not quite as pervasive a problem in the UK as it is in the US, but it’s still rising…so it’s good to see that British scientists are being aggressive in confronting bad educational policies. A number of prominent scientists, including Richard Dawkins and David Attenborough, have stepped forward to demand that evolution, not creationism, be taught in the classroom. Here is their position statement, with the signatories and organizations backing it:
Creationism and ‘intelligent design’
Creationism and ‘intelligent design’ are not scientific theories, but they are portrayed as scientific theories by some religious fundamentalists who attempt to have their views promoted in publicly-funded schools. There should be enforceable statutory guidance that they may not be presented as scientific theories in any publicly-funded school of whatever type.
Organisations like ‘Truth in Science’ are encouraging teachers to incorporate ‘intelligent design’ into their science teaching. ‘Truth in Science’ has sent free resources to all Secondary Heads of Science and to school librarians around the country that seek to undermine the theory of evolution and have ‘intelligent design’ ideas portrayed as credible scientific viewpoints. Speakers from Creation Ministries International are touring the UK, presenting themselves as scientists and their creationist views as science at a number of schools.
The current government guidance that creationism and ‘intelligent design’ should not be taught in school science should be made statutory and enforceable. It also needs to be made comprehensive so that it is clear that any portrayal of creationism and ‘intelligent design’ as science (whether it takes place in science lessons or not) is unacceptable.
Evolution
An understanding of evolution is central to understanding all aspects of biology. The teaching of evolution should be included at both primary and secondary levels in the National Curriculum and in all schools.
Currently, the study of evolution does not feature explicitly in the National Curriculum until year 10 (ages 14-15), but the government is overseeing a review of the whole curriculum with the revised National Curriculum for science being introduced in September 2012 to be made compulsory from 2013. Free Schools and Academies are not obliged to teach the National Curriculum and so are under no obligation to teach about evolution at all.
Excellent! When creationists underhandedly try to smuggle lies and nonsense into the classroom, it calls for a firm and uncompromising response.
Can we steal this and get a similar initiative going here in the US?
(Also on Sb)
I can imagine educators writing up something similar, but where would it go from there? I can’t see the corporate media promulgating it.
First Amendment? I think it has been ratified. OK, I know it doesn’t cause anyone to teach evolution, while one hopes that this might.
I sort of wish they’d mentioned how creationism is BS, especially that it has no actual evidence for it (“looks designed” isn’t even true, let alone real evidence), simply taking itself to be the default.
Anyway, it’s a good position statement, and I hope that it gets positive results.
Glen Davidson
No reason you can’t, but there are fifty battles to fight instead of one.
Truth in Science are a sneaky bunch, I’m pretty sure they sent out those free teaching materials under the guise that they were part of the curriculum. You see the odd British creationist on TV in the UK (debate/politics shows), they are usually have doctorates in fields other than biology but it doesn’t stop them from using the argument from authority fallacy like it’s going out of style.
I not that one of the signatories, as well as being a scientist is also an ordained Anglican priest. Yet Richard Dawkins is also a signatory, and as well are always being told by the accomodatioists, having people like Dawkins on your side means no one religious will support you.
I would be interested to see what is being done in Washington State to push a creationist / ID point of view in public schools, and what is being done to combat the push. I would be interested in getting a similar initiative going here.
I’m sure Oprah Winfrey will be delighted to sign up!
Ok huh?
The “debate” is certainly not as mainstream (you hear very little about it in the media or from politicians for example), but from the Guardian article PZ linked to…
…and…
Those are two very disturbing pieces of data.
@8,
Oprah narrated a the Discovery Channel version of an Attenborough documentary series.
Dawkins’ new book, if read by the younger audience it is aimed at, will definitely help the situation. (impressions here are good: http://coffeelovingskeptic.com/?p=880 )
I wouldn’t be surprised if some people call for it to be banned in America!
I’m going to see one of Dawkins talks here in the UK next month, so hope it gets the exposure it deserves.
Famous last words. It can’t happen here (UK).
I said the same thing once about the USA. It (Xian Theocracy) can’t happen here. Not only can it happen, it might very well happen if the Tea Party wins the next election. With our sick economy, they have a good chance.
Remember, without eternal vigilance, there are always dark forces lurking under their rocks, just waiting to tear any society apart. Ours just happen to be….fundie xians.
The Ipsos Mori poll data needs to be treated with some caution.
There is not the amount of public debate about the teaching of evolution and creationism in the UK as there is in the US, so public understanding of the issues is not well developed. Given the poll data is not consistant with the public attitude towards religious belief, it is likely that people agreed that creationism/ID should be taught becuase they were not aware of the lack of scientific credibilityfor, or the religious origins of, either.
Why ?
looks like science, rational thought, critical thought and philosophical thought are doomed. most people will take the easy way out and go with the creationism.
sorry folks, that is the sad reality. But, this doesn’t mean we must give up the struggle nor does it mean we can allow ourselves to become nonrational all the time.
the bad guys won folks and there is no going back.
Ok thanks. Makes a little more sense now.
Matt @13,
I think you’re right that people only agreed creationsism/ID should be taught because they don’t really understand, or care about, the issue, but that in itself is worrying. Particularly when groups like Truth in Science are making every effort to ensure that future generations are more ill-informed than uninformed.
Why does nobody make the incentive argument? Economists tell us that incentives are important, but the pro-science side always shies away from the incentives argument:
Evolution should be taught starting in the First Grade at age six. Parents should start teaching it even sooner. Even the youngest children have the right to know they are just apes descended from ancient apes.
Unfortunately, as far as I know, most Americans students don’t learn anything about evolution until high school, and that’s only if they are fortunate enough to have a competent biology teacher who refuses to be intimidated by Christian assholes. At the high school level it’s too late because the students’ minds have already been permanently destroyed by religious indoctrination.
This quote from Richard Dawkins is appropriate here:
“I should love to have everybody taught about evolution from a fairly early age, because it is so important, so exciting. It answers so many questions and mysteries; it solves so many problems. Until you know about it, you’re wandering around on this Earth looking at trees and birds and flowers, not knowing why any of them is there. Evolution is the answer to that riddle, so you’re not really a whole person if you don’t know where you come from and why you exist. And it’s not difficult. It’s not like relativity, it’s not like quantum theory – it’s something teachable to fairly young children.”
Unfortunately for my country this is true. The Americans of Idiot America are idiots.
Only 15 percent of Americans agree magical creationism is definitely false.
I agree it is a problem, but it is one that is more easily fixible than the problem in the US.
joed @ 15;
Don’t write the obituary of the Enlightenment just yet. There are more of us rationalists out there than you realise. Unfortunately, complacency rules in the UK, with many atheists holding to the inexplicable belief that religious extremism only happens in far away Muslim countries and the American deep South, and so there is no need to take a stand in old Blighty against things like Creationism, which are mostly viewed as slightly odd beliefs that it isn’t really cricket to be all nasty about. Hopefully people here will wake up to the problem before it gets too serious.
and;
If you honestly think it is a lost cause with no hope of improvement, then why bother making the effort at all? I for one believe that it is most certainly possible to stop the rise of moronic woo and extremism. It will take effort, dedication and decent education, but this struggle is for the continued existence of reason – without which our species is on the fast track to extinction. I don’t believe that we have the luxury of conceding defeat. The stakes are way to high.
Religion is like the Emperor with the New Clothes – There are already people courageous enough to point out that the silly old codger is buck naked, and it is only a matter of time before more and more of the crowd starts cottoning on.
It is good to see that prominent figures from the scientific community in the UK are taking a strong stand against creationist woo. Now all we need is a government with backbone enough to make their suggestions law even when the creationists and IDiots (along with their supporters like Archbishop Rowan Williams who, unsurprisingly, always seems to come down on the side of unearned and unjustifiable religious privilege) start squealing and votes may be on the line…
…and that might be the problem. Principled politicians who are prepared to risk coming under political fire in order to act in the country’s (rather than their own) best interests are something of an endangered species in the UK. The only way the current occupants of the Palace of Westminster will do the right thing is if they believe they will lose more political capital by not doing so.
Fortunately, religion is not much of a vote winner in the UK, so all is not lost.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoneyDearBoy
(Sorry, I can’t work out the format for nice-looking href tags, even with the reference at the top…)
And, honestly, I suspect it was fame rather than a paycheck in this case. Might have even been a vauge feeling that it was a good cause. Never know…
They do.
1. Science flies people to the moon. Religion flies jet planes into skyscrapers.
2. Science is responsible for our 21st century Hi Tech civilization and US preeminence in the world. All xianity has done is get in the way and be dragged along behind for the ride.
or
And never will. Saying goddidit explains nothing, proves nothing.
As an Anglo-Irish kid I was raised in Convent schools here in North London. Seeing as they were run by nuns I was never bum-raped by a priest and I have to say all the nuns were all completely lovely (though my mother had a ‘Magdalene Sisters’ horror story of an upbringing back in Galway courtesy of nuns…)
Creationism was never taught, just good science was. Unfortunately atheist neo-con education minister Michael Gove (whose excellent book on Islamism ‘Celsius 7/7’ is worth a read) has kowtowed to all religious demands with his free schools and things are only going to get worse…
Anri #23
I don’t think that’s the question being asked. I suspect they wanted to know why the voice of Attenborough, a fine narrator, needed to be replaced. And the answer to that question is that USA media execs are convinced that anything “foreign” is considered suspect by the TeeVee audience.
Similarly, there was a series called “Planet Earth” a while back in which Attenborough was replaced by Sigourney Weaver.
Now that I think about it, the answer still is Money Dear Boy, but coming from the other end of the industry.
Evolution just means “change over time.”
Thus, there is the physical evolution of the solar system and the universe, the chemical evolution of the planets in our solar system, and the biochemical / biological evolution of life on planet Earth (and possibly also on Mars & Europa).
This should all be taught from an early age, using real examples from Earth history – as seen from the physical, the chemical and the biological perspective. Too often, biologists neglect the physical and chemical influences when discussing the evolution of life on earth – with the exception of environmental microbiologists, who can’t ignore the central role that physical and chemical factors play in their systems, from deep sea vents to desert hot springs to river estuaries and forest soils.
Student should also be taught that biological evolutionary processes are NOT completely understood, neither the generation of variation nor the selection of variants, and that this is an active and ongoing area of research.
Creationism was never taught, just good science was.
I had much the same experience. I went to a private high school school that was religiously inclined (Episcopalian in my case), with attendance at weekly chapel mandatory and a graduation requirement of a course in religious study.
But no one ever even hinted that the science classes should include any kind of religious content. Or anything other than actual science.
Totally disagree with PZ and all the above. I think creationists *should* be invited to present their ideas to kids in schools.
As a test of how good the schools’ science education is.
If the IDiots don’t flee with their tails between their legs with pupils’ howls of derisive laughter ringing in their ears then the students’ education in What Science Is And What It Is Not has been defective.
Yah, sure… but that’s constitutional law; what we’re talking about here are implementing statutes.
The problem I see with this approach is that we have no national curriculum, nor any chance of instituting one, because for the federal government to “arrogate” that kind of power over the sainted states would bring our neolibertarian right to the barricades.
Well, if it were a sane national curriculum, that is: If the fed wanted to deemphasize Jefferson, reinstitute girls-only Home Ec, and mandate the teaching of ID and abstinence-only sex ed, they’d probably be all about that.
@ikesolem #27 – Evolution just means “change over time.”
Not quite: evolution means change over time of inheritable traits within a population. Individuals can change, either through learned behavior or by random mutation, but it is not evolution until the change is passed on to the next generation.
Teach that controversy, beat that straw.
Raven:
Yeah, yeah, and the whole “When you develop throat cancer, religion prays over you. If you die, they will say it’s God’s will. Science grows you a new throat.”
But those are insulting. If we’re going to convince people, we shouldn’t frame it (sorry, PZ) in terms of denigrating their beliefs. Instead, we have to put their beliefs into context: is it more important that their favorite flavor of Christianity be taught, or that their country be a successful and competitive industrial powerhouse in the 21st century?
Frame it in the context of
This isn’t insulting or attacking their beliefs. Instead, it sets up a powerful conflict between faith and patriotism. You can use that as a wedge to break the hold “intelligent design” has on people.
That’s true… but it’s also true that anything that sounds British reads as intelligent to U.S. audience, so I still don’t think the switch made sense. Maybe they thought that only Oprah had the power to make ‘Murricans sit through hours of nature documentaries.
I sometimes think I’m lucky I live in Oz.
For the record, I am a Catholic. I spent 13years at a Catholic School, and 4 years at a Catholic Uni (another 3 at a secular one – do kinda wish I’d done it the other way round, but hey)
I remember in year 1 learning about dinosaurs, and how they were around millions of years before humans.
I remember learning evolution, and only evolution, in Science.
I remember covering Genesis in Religious Ed and being told it was an understanding of how people at the time perceived the power of God. (though as a history geek, I may have added that understanding myself.)
I especially remember at uni, in my first lecture, as a first year student, in ‘Old Testament Studies’ our lecturer (a Josephite Nun) telling us a) this course was actually named Hebrew Scriptures, calling it old was an insult to our Jewish cousins, and b) anyone who took Genesis literally could leave now. Our Jewish and Muslim cousins have been laughing at as for 2000yrs for taking the analogy literally. Made perfect sense to me.
We sometimes say that, here and in other forums. But it isn’t very convincing to them. They can always say that what works is “microevolution,” that they don’t have anything against that, and that “macroevolution” (it’s a highly variable concept to them, hence the scare quotes) doesn’t actually yield results. And in some narrowly perverse way, one that ignores the importance of evolutionary relationships for animal testing and drug effects, they’re almost right. Almost right, because the relatedness of animals is directly important to understanding drug effects, plus all of biology benefits from an evolutionary understanding in a manner that is hard to describe to layfolk, let alone to layfolk who are decidedly opposed to such an understanding.
So I’m certainly not opposed to pointing out the importance of evolutionary theory, either as “microevolution” or “macroevolution,” but the anti-evolutionists quickly turn such points into the meaningless squabbles that they utilize to avoid dealing with the facts.
Generally we just do better to point out that evolution has the evidence for it. Then they can’t BS about “microevolution” and suppose that evolution plays no role in understanding drug effects in the various taxa (notably, one has to deal empirically with the differences anyhow, which is why they can pretend that actual relatedness isn’t important to such understandings as well).
Usually one finds that it just isn’t worth opening that can of worms in many cases. It is worth doing so at some points, especially when they’re saying “Who cares what students believe anyway? It’s not going to make any difference.” It makes a huge amount of difference for some of them, of course. Yet it’s probably even more important to teach evolution to all students simply in order to teach honest science, and not because a few will use evolutionary theory for research.
The important factor in teaching honest science is so that students will understand how science works, and possibly to improve their own thinking, so that evidence is properly understood. You can’t point to results of evolutionary science without them retreating into artificial distinctions and denials of its very real assistance in understanding life, but you can point to the importance of dealing honestly and truthfully with the evidence and make a good point. Most will deny this as well, of course, however they actually do tend to understand what you’re saying, at least. They really don’t understand why evidence for “microevolution” should be understood in the same way as the similar evidence for “macroevolution,” because they have learned the lies too well.
Glen Davidson
It seems to me that one of the best ways to deal with the lying maggot creationists, is a full-out campaign to expose their lies and underhanded tactics head on, reaching as many people as possible.
How to do this…hmmm. It would seem that over the last couple of decades, the increasing prevalence of gays in television has significantly improved their acceptance/image. That started somewhere.
Is there any way of developing one or more sitcoms/dramas that deals with this very topic: lying/underhanded spewers of creationist nonsense, vs truth-seeking, evidence-based science? Americans love their T.V. (well, us Canadians do too…) What might such a drama look like? Gotta be life and death or funny as hell to catch attention. Things like “CSI”, “Big-Bang Theory”, “House” etc. approach things like this indirectly. What about head on? What about a drama that is full-on science vs religion, no holds barred? It would sure get attention…but would any network pick it up? What about a drama that shows the conflict in a high-school in the deep south, with an honest portrayal of the characters and issues involved in both sides? Could educate and entertain at the same time.
It is disturbing that liars, just because they have money and political friends can have so much influence. Change requires a full-out campaign.
I love this site because it keeps me from becoming a very special faith healer from my wheelchair.
OK, I’m going to have another go at this because I think all this discussion about whether we should try to sell evolution as a competitive advantage for the U S of A (which I personally don’t give a toss about, being on t’other side of the pond :-)) or whatever is missing an important point.
We can teach people (children or adults) how beautifully evolution fulfills the criteria for a successful scientific theory, but unless they understand *what* a scientific theory *is* we’re pretty much pissing into the wind. Much of what passes for science teaching in my son’s secondary school here in the UK (and I don’t suppose it’s radically different at other schools) would more honestly be described as Handout Studies.
How many kids really get taught – or challenged to ask – what is science and how does it differ from making stuff up out of whole cloth? Observation, hypothesis, prediction, testing, replicability (sp?), falsifiability, and the axiom that an hypothesis or theory can be proved false but not true. This is all stuff that can be taught with easily understood everyday examples at quite early ages.
And with evolution specifically, nowadays all the evidence fits so well it’s hard to imagine that it could have been otherwise, and there could have been other scientific theories. I just came across this from Dawkins: “Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun.” Hey, let’s teach the controversy! :-). Seriously: not *that* long ago we thought the sun went round the earth, and even that the earth was flat. (Actually I remember in school learning how we tested that hypothesis e.g. observe a ship disappearing over the horizon.) Leaving aside the church’s notorious meddling insistence on the earth-centric model I think there were quite complex scientific models of how that system might work to explain the apparent movements of celestial bodies, so it was a genuine scientific test of one hypothesis against another.
What is the equivalent in evolution? Was there ever a competing scientific theory? Lamarckism? What were the crucial tests that eliminated one theory rather than the other?
And if evolution is still a scientific theory, it must be falsifiable, right? What evidence would do that?
I suggest that if we teach our children these aspects of science in general and evolutionary theory in particular we inoculate them against pseudoscience in general and IDiocy in particular.
(Aside; I’m sorry, this is probably a bit of a ramble: I don’t have the fluency of expression of PZ and some other commentators here. But I hope folks get the point I’m trying to make.)
John Stumbles #39
I think fossil rabbits in the Precambrian are the official prerequisite ;-D
(according to JBS Haldane)
(which is why I picked my avatar :-) )
Oops. Just noticed that the hover-over thing with people’s avatars doesn’t seem to be working (for me anyway) at the moment, so the above reference ceases to make sense (my hover-over info gives the title and source of the image, and lets you see it big enough to make out what it is). Oh well.
No. It means descent with heritable modification.
Yes, I know astrophysicists talk about “stellar evolution”. That’s about the same as what biologists call development or ontogeny: the changes within one individual over its (literal or metaphoric) lifetime.
What do you mean by “completely”?
Don’t you see that this is insulting, too? You are explicitly putting “their favorite flavor of Christianity” and “that their country be successful” as opposites. You’re telling them straight to their faces that “their favorite flavor of Christianity” is detrimental.
Yep, in the early 20th century.
One experiment involved cutting off the tails of many successive generations of mice right after birth. Lamarckism says that unused body parts should be reduced over generations, so eventually mice with shorter or no tails should be born, and these phenotypes should become more and more common. Didn’t happen.
As S. J. Gould remarked much later, they needn’t have bothered – at least 100 generations of male Jews have grown up without foreskins, and they’re still not born without them.
Just a minor point. I don’t think Richard Attenborough has ever claimed to be a scientist. He is a naturalist and TV presenter.
Hi John J. May (author: The Origin of Specious Nonsense) I would like to challenge you on one of the points you made on one of your YouTube videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a149XsphL6Y), namely, that mutations cannot make a man.
You stated that you believe that mankind as a species is not more than 6,000 years old.
Here’s my question: When did the first man Adam receive his immune system? Was it while he was in the Garden of Eden or after the Fall?
Think about it, this is not a trick question.
I have one condition I wish you to supply to your answer. Try not to resort to the “divine mystery” argument.
I’ll look forward to your answer.