Britain’s National Academy of Science reprimands teachers for bringing religion into the classroom

Transcript of today's show:

Schools have come under attack by Britain’s National Academy of Science for misrepresenting evolution in order to promote Christian dogma. The Academy has singled out educators who teach intelligent design. These teachers, the Academy asserts, are partial and selective in the facts they present and treat gaps in scientific knowledge as proof of their own theory. According to the Academy, this amounts to a blatant neglect of scientific method, which is a fundamental standard in all sciences. [source: BBC]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
Isn’t it interesting that in the UK, where polls show an overwhelming bias against atheistic science, that the Academy has the good sense to chastise those teachers with a religious, creationist agenda? This is an example of checks and balances that we here in America would do well to emulate.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
This reprimand expresses an outright arrogance of the scientific community. What will it take for Intelligent Design theory to be given respect and thoughtful consideration? Any scientist would want this: to be heard with unbiased, objective open-mindedness. The scientific community has been playing unfairly, seeking to control the flow of knowledge in the belief that their accepted ideas and theories are supreme and paramount. The arrogance of science, I believe, is rooted in a fear of the spiritual and all things unseen. And this arrogance, when expressed through public and private education, deprives young, open minds from exploring greater vistas of possibility, understanding, and meaning.

Teachers in Britain are suddenly caught in the evolution debate

Transcript of today's show:

The number of British students who believe in creationism is rising sharply. This is partly due to an increased number of Muslim students. Many teachers are uncomfortable with addressing creationism in their science classrooms. Education officials have proposed guidelines that will help teachers understand how to teach the difference between a scientific theory and a religious belief.
[source: BBC]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

from London's Institute of Education Professor Michael Reiss:

The number of Muslim students has grown considerably in the last 10 to 20 years and a higher proportion of Muslim families do not accept evolutionary theory compared with Christian families. The days have long gone when science teachers could ignore creationism when teaching about origins. By not dismissing their beliefs, we can ensure that these students learn what evolutionary theory really says - and give everyone the understanding to respect the views of others.

from Dr Hilary Leevers, of the Campaign for Science and Engineering:

Further discussion of creationism should occur in religious education as it is a belief system, not one based on science. Professor Reiss suggests that science teachers cannot ignore creationism when teaching origins, but the opposite is true

from The Department for Children, Schools and Families:

Creationism and intelligent design are not scientific theories nor testable as scientific fact - and have no place in the science curriculum. "But we advise science teachers that when questions about creationism come up in lessons, it provides an opportunity to explain or explore what makes a scientific theory.

Europe poised to ban creationism in schools

Transcript of today's show:

The British government has issued a new set of guidelines that prohibit the teaching of creationism and intelligent design in science classes. In a related development, Europe's main human rights body is voting on a similar resolution. The resolution says that attacks on Darwin's theory of evolution are rooted in forms of religious extremism and pose a threat to science and human rights. [source: Reuters/Tom Heneghan]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

from a comment posted at South Korea News Online:

All the fossils in the world stacked up in order is not enough to get through to the fundamentalists' mind. All the scientific studies or data means nothing!

But when questioned about relative 'happenings' these same individuals fold up their tents with narry a word and are not heard from with an answer ever again!

Ask about when something occurred in the bible or the old testament a ready date is available 1200 1000 bc an important time, and 2300 2000 bc another important period. Both containing particular Religious Factual time periods. These were rudimentary time for the civilization of the Jews, in that they were not technologically developed.

Much of the society were cave dwellers and nomads. The gradually became strong enough to fight and conquer the Philistines(the land of Palestine), who had by comparison highly developed cities and technologies. And they had had these for numerous years.

In South America the Native Peoples also had had for thousands of years prior to the earliest biblical accounts of the Jews a highly developed society and a more 'just' Religious Beliefs!

The same is even more true of the Chinese. The Chinese were drilling deep wells and mining salt. And the Biblical accounts have no Knowledge of such things! When asked to explain the creationist fold up their tent and leave!
.... [more]

from Twmshanti at the Guardian UK Blog:

I think the teaching of religion has a valuable place in education but this should be confined to 'religious studies' where ideas such as creationism can be taught in proper context.

Steve Fuller's introduction to the Holloway debate perhaps unwittingly acknowledges this when he says: "...the first point that needs to be conceded, at least to be conceded for the purposes of argument, is that at a sociological level, it's quite clear that evolution is superior to Intelligent Design; in terms of which the way evidence is mobilized in the scientific literature, it is certainly more often mobilized in support of evolution that Intelligent Design."

This is because the scientific method is used.

Steve Fuller (continued from above): "That leaves open the question, of course, about whether the same evidence could be equally used to support Intelligent Design. And this, it seems to me, says something about the actual conceptual states of the two theories that we are talking about here. OK"

No, to the best of my knowledge and after rational analysis of the literature, the same evidence cannot be used to support ID. If anyone can demonstrate that the same evidence for evolution can be used to support ID then I am willing to examine it.

This leads me to the conclusion that, as in my day, religion and science are best taught seperately. It is good that this is recognised by those providing guidelines for educators....[more]

from the Truth in Science web site:

For many years, much of what has been taught in school science lessons about the origin of the living world has been dogmatic and imbalanced. The theory of Darwinian evolution has been presented as scientifically uncontroversial and the only credible explanation of origins….

Pupils should be taught how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence (for example, Darwin's theory of evolution).

Few schools have taught this controversy. This is partly because many popular textbooks present Darwinism as the only scientific theory of origins and give little coverage to alternative theories, sometimes misrepresenting them.

We consider that it is time for students to be permitted to adopt a critical approach to Darwinism in science lessons. They should be given fair and accurate presentations of alternative views.

There is a modern controversy over Darwin's theory of evolution and the neo-Darwinian synthesis, and this has considerable social, spiritual, moral and ethical implications. Truth in Science promotes the critical examination of Darwinism in schools, as an important component of science education.
... [more]

Brits protest eccentric millionaire for pushing Creationism in his privately funded schools

Transcript of today's story:
Protests were held recently outside the office of Sir Peter Vardy, a British multimillionaire who has funded several state schools and colleges accused of promoting creationism in their curriculum. The protests are a reaction to a new Vardy school, the All Age Academy, where students as young as four years old would be taught creation theory. British parents are outraged. Sir Vardy shows no sign of changing his plans. [source: The Guardian]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
Which is it Mr. Vardy? Are you funding creationism or not? Plenty of reports reveal that he is denying altogether that his schools include creationism in their cirricula. Politaholic dishes up some news on this on his blog, summing it up thusly:

Peter Vardy was on Radio 4 this morning. He denied that creationism was being taught in any of the schools he has funded. They are not, he said, teaching anything "wild and wacky". He said that he believes in "a creator God" but denied that he is a creationist in the commonly understood sense of the word. But in the past the Guardian has reported that Emmanuel College at Gateshead has hosted a creationist conference and that "senior staff have given a series of lectures at the college urging teachers to promote biblical fundamentalism and giving tips and techniques making pupils doubt the theory of evolution."

Read the full blog post here, and a story by the British Humanist Association here.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
Why are british parents outraged? Sir Peter is funding a private, parochial school. Attendance at such schools is optional. The appropriate protest on parents' parts is to put their children into a school whose cirriculum is more compatible with the family's values. Sir Peter is doing nothing out of the ordinary in having a hand in what is taught in his schools and what is not. When a college endowment is received, it's always accepted that the funding entity has a great deal of influence upon what is being funded.

The Archbishop of Canterbury says to leave creationism out of the schools

Transcript of today's show:

In a recent interview, the Archbishop of Canterbury took Christians by surprise when he emphatically rejected the practice of teaching creationism in science classes. His reason? The creation story is too valid a category of knowledge to be presented alongside science. The Archbishop says that placing creation theory next to Darwinian theory will cause a belittling of Christian doctrine. [source: BBC]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
A novel, yet interesting, stand on the separation of church and state. This understanding allows the faithful to be as passionate and enthusiastic about their faith without interfering with or stepping on the toes of science. However, as with many pronouncements on both sides of this debate, there is an underlying pre-supposition that religion and science are on the kind of equal epistemological footing that allows them to be compared in an either/or fashion. I argue that they are not to be compared nor made equal, but given their own unique and separate realms of existence. The one should not be threatening to the other.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
The Archbishop has voiced a brilliant argument which we need to hear more of. The notion of our descending from apes is outrageous and belittling to the human soul. It is harmful to our society and to the individual's self-respect to teach such a theory, which is merely the speculation of secular scientists who can never prove their idea with absolute certainty. What arrogance to indoctrinate the young with this absurd lie. What a pity that those who teach this lie have the power to monopolize the education of our youth.

Britain pulls the evolution controversy out of science classes

Transcript of today's show:

British students may soon be debating creationism and intelligent design alongside Darwinism and atheism in their high school religion classes. New government guidelines will pull this topic out of science classes, hoping to avoid the contentious debates that have pitted religion against science in the US. The British school officials endorse neither side of the debate, but they do believe that creationism and intelligent design should be understood and openly discussed by students. [source: Paul Majendie/Reuters]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
What a disastrous state of affairs when scientists have to band togther to defend the validity and legitimacy of science itself. Scientific method and understanding have produced most everything we enjoy and take advantage of in the living of our daily lives. I dearly hope this protest sends a signal to school board administrators that Biblical allegory is not equivalent to science and does not belong in our science classrooms.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
Half or more Americans -- spanning every religious denomination -- say they do not believe we have descended from apes. Our children want to know where they came from, where the world they live in came from. They ask these questions. Are our children in fact silently crying out for an alternative explanation to their own origin? Do they not deserve to hear other viewpoints and possibilities? Sadly, the scientists who make this protest, and others certainly, are satisfied to offer only one account of the origin of life on earth, and it is neither a compelling nor inspiring one.