No More UK Govt. Money For Creationists

Here: Hey, creationists ... ... whose is the image and the superscription?

*wipes a tear from misty eyes*Makes me proud to be British./Pub landlord.

To be fair, creationists can still open faith schools which are free to undermine science education with no inspections as long as they do it in RE. This ruling is just about 'Free Schools' (different than 'free schools', as the RD article seems to imply) which are the significant minority (just a few dozen in total), although they were the biggest 'at risk' group for creationist abuse if memory serves.

I have to say, this sounds a little too vague for comfort. Under such a standard, it seems like a school might even be barred from teaching valid alternate explanations just because they might not be the currently accepted one within the majority of the scientific community.It appears like this could have some pretty unintended, unscientific, consequences.Jon

Hi Jon,I don't see it that way. For a start, we are talking about schools, not colleges or universities. We're talking about kids up to the age of sixteen. In this kind of science lesson, there is little room for anything beyond the basics, and little enough room even for that. Most kids can count on getting three years of dedicated biology lessons (two more if they take the subject to exam level). That doesn't leave much room for extras.Also, a reading of the language used would seem to rule out only those theories that are contrary to established evidence, not just those that are contrary to established explanations. That rules out only fringe theories. I think that school-level kids can do without that sort of thing. At the very least it seems a reasonable trade off in order to rule out propaganda and apologetics finding their way into the classroom. The lack of a few non-curricula topics is not much to be concerned about in comparison to the idea of the state funding creationist lie machines.Mutate and Survive

Valid alternate explanations are not contrary to established scientific/historical evidence and explanations, it's the invalid alternate explanations that are ruled out:

quote:

---

The Academy Trust shall not make provision in the context of any subject for the teaching, as an evidence-based view or theory, of any view or theory that is contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations

---

I very much doubt funding will stop if 'non-evidenced based views' are presented, if those views are clearly labelled as such (or at least, it will only be a problem if claims that a non-evidenced based view are actually evidenced based are made, such as 'scientific creationism' or holocaust denial or something). Further, the different arguments for the causes of WWI would all be within the context of established historical evidence.So what kind of 'valid alternates' do you think might result in a government funding issue? And do you think there is any real chance of the government enforcing such an issue, should it arise?Americans might find the full document eye opening. Imagine the outcry that would follow if something like the following were to be included in the funding agreement of an American school:

quote:

---

the Academy Trust shall ensure that provision is made for Religious Education to be given to all pupils at the Academy in accordance with the tenets of the specifiedreligionor religious denomination of the Academy;

---

quote:

---

subject to clause27, the Academy Trust shall comply with the requirements of section 70(1)of, and Schedule 20 to, the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 as if the Academy were afoundation school witha religious character or avoluntary school, and as if references to'the required collective worship' were references to collectiveworship in accordance with the tenets and practices of the specifiedreligion or religious denomination of the Academy;

---

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I doubt that.New scientific ideas typically enter the curriculum by being part of a special topic class taught at the graduate level. If the science proves to be useful and effective, it might become a regular graduate class. Later, with growing support, it might become an undergraduate class. It only gets to the high school level when it is found to be both important and tractable to the high school student.I don't these new guidelines or regulations (or whatever they are) affect that at all. What they mainly stop is the attempt to force particular topic into the curriculum by political maneuver. It might be a problem for such bad ideas as Lysenkoism. I don't see it interfering with good science.

As I mentioned earlier, this wording only applies to so called 'Free Schools'. It does not apply to other schools. For instance, the UK Government had the opportunity to make changes in the 'Academy' funding - but declined to do so. As reported by BHA

quote:

---

BHA Faith Schools Campaigner Richy Thompson commented, ‘This is a terrible missed opportunity — the government really had an open goal. At a guess I would say that the DfE didn’t make this change because the threat of creationist Free Schools was much higher than the threat of creationist Academies — many proposed Free Schools have had creationism right at their core.

​

‘But really it is inexplicable as to why the government would decline to make this change. Individual Academies may sometimes choose to also teach creationism as scientifically valid, and inserting this requirement would have decisively put a stop to that. There is no clear reason for them to have not done this.’

---