Christianity and Creationism - some clarification

Well, I read a letter from the office of Michael Gove only a few weeks ago, where he clearly stated that the teaching of creationism in a science classroom is not something that will be allowed in a 'publicly funded school'.

Precisely.

My example(s) were not 'publicly funded schools'.

I already know that Creationism cannot be taught as science in publicly funded schools. However independent and free schools are allowed to teach whatever curriculum they want, as clearly shown in the video I posted.

Why dont you discuss this issue instead of simply brushing it under the ignorance of political correctness?
 
On 12 May 2011 an open letter was sent to the Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, signed by key figures from both the scientific and religious communities. It calls for a change to the national Department for Education (DfE) guidelines to prevent creationism being taught, presented, or otherwise promoted as a valid scientific position to children in publicly-funded schools.

The full letter, with signatories, reads as follows:

The Minister
Department for Education
Castle View House
East Lane
Runcorn
Cheshire
WA7 2GJ

cc: Nick Gibb (Minister for Schools)
Lord Hill of Oareford CBE (Undersecretary)

Dear Mr Gove,

Despite existing Department of Education guidance on the teaching of creationism, some recent events at St Peter’s, a state secondary school in Exeter, Devon, show additional protection is necessary.

In March 2011, Philip Bell, a full time Evangelical preacher and Chief Executive of Creation Ministries International (who presents creationist views that the world is about 6000 years old as scientific fact and denies the validity of the theory of evolution) was invited by the school to lecture to Year 11 students as part of an RE revision day.

It should be noted that his organization states on its website that their preferred method of evangelizing is infiltrating at a grassroots level via a sympathetic teacher, introductions and magazines, as they feel this is a more successful method of achieving conversions. His website showed that he considered the event “Ministry to school students”. Mr Bell and his colleagues have already made appearances at other schools and according to his website more are planned.

The school is adamant it has done nothing wrong within the current guidelines despite presenting creationism on equal terms with modern science to sixteen year olds and in a letter to a parent describing Mr Bell as a “scientist” who “presented arguments based on scientific theory for his case” and describing modern biology as “evolutionism “. This echoes Christian Schools Trust policy on evolution which is to teach biblical creationism as historical and scientific fact, present evolution and creationism as competing scientific standpoints, and present evolution in such a way that it will not be believed. [See references below]

Recently, the Department of Education has stated that you are ‘crystal clear’ that creationism has no scientific validity and should not be taught as science. Yet here we have a school presenting Creationism as a valid scientific position, and justifying this by reference to Religious Education. These events show that creationists are now openly using the RE syllabus to advance their claim to be offering a valid scientific alternative to established knowledge, from within the State-funded school system.

Therefore, we believe that the guidelines need clarifying to prevent Creationism being presented as a valid scientific theory both in lesson time and outside of it in state funded schools, as we are aware that this is also happening in clubs in and out of school time. Given the nature of the internet, we also believe that the Guidance should state that websites which promote creationism as a valid scientific theory, like other unsuitable resources, should not be used. We believe this is necessary to protect the plain intent of the current Guidelines.

In addition, you will shortly have to deal with applications for Free School status from Everyday Champions Church (ECC), the Christian Schools Trust and for Academy status for St Peter’s among many others. Recent public statements from ECC and its associates suggest, if anything, an even more anti-scientific approach in its preferred teaching. This would suggest that the current Guidelines will need modification to reflect emerging practice.

The parent involved in the Exeter school incident (Laura Horner) and the British Centre for Science Education, together with the groups and individuals listed at the end of this letter, have therefore come together to launch CrISIS (Creationism In Schools Isn’t Science), whose views are summarised in our petition:

Creationism is known, and officially acknowledged, to be contrary to scientific fact. We therefore demand that creationism should not be presented as a valid scientific position, nor creationist websites and resources be promoted, in publicly funded schools or in any youth activities run on publicly funded school premises.

Since this is in accord with Government policy as we understand it, we look forward to your support in this matter and a clarification of the Guidelines to reflect these demands.

Respectfully,

• Laura Horner B.Sc., PGCE (CrISIS founder and parent)
• Jim Al-Khalili, Professor of Physics, Professor of Public Engagement in Science, University of Surrey
• Simon Barrow, Co-Director, Ekklesia (religion and society thinktank)
• Dr Susan Jane Blackmore, BA (Hons), MSc, PhD
• Professor Paul S. Braterman M.A. D.Phil , D.Sc (Oxon), British Centre for Science
• Education (BCSE)
• Andrew M. Colman, BA (Hons), MA, PhD, Professor of Psychology
• D. Colquhoun FRS, Professor of Pharmacology, University College London
• Richard Dawkins, DSc, FRS, Emeritus Professor, University of Oxford
• Prof Christopher C French, Professor of Psychology, BA PhD
• Adam Hart-Davis, MA (Oxon), D Phil (York)
• Julian Huppert, Member of Parliament for Cambridge
• The Rev Canon David Jennings, M.Phil., B.D., A.K.C., Rector of Burbage,Canon
• Theologian of Leicester Cathedral
• Professor J Steve Jones, professor of genetics, and formerly Head of the Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment at University College London
• Dr Stephen Law, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at Heythrop College, University of London
• Clifford Longley, Consultant Editor to the Tablet, BBC Radio 4 ‘Moral Maze’ panellist
• Terry Sanderson, President, National Secular Society
• Rev Michael Roberts, M.A. (Oxon - geology) B.A. (Dunelm- theology) F.R.Hist.S, Vicar of Cockerham, Winmarleigh and Glasson, Honorary Research Fellow in History, Lancaster University.
• Simon Singh MBE, author, journalist and TV producer specialising in science and mathematics
• Canon Professor J. S. K. Ward D.D. (Oxon) D.D. (Cantab), F.B.A., Emeritus Regius Professor of Theology, Oxford University
• James D. Williams BSc MEd FSB CSciTeach, Lead Science Tutor and Lecturer in Science Education, University of Sussex.

And an article in which Michael Gove and the DfE give their reply:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8526161/Creationism-banned-from-free-schools.html

Critics have warned that evangelical groups will be able to teach such ideas without interference, as free schools will not have to follow the national curriculum.
But now the Department for Children, Education and Schools has issued guidance explicitly stating that teaching such theories as science will not be allowed.
The "minimum requirements" guidance, published earlier this week, reads: "Creationism, intelligent design and similar ideas must not be taught as valid scientific theories."
The guidance is to help those assessing applications for free schools.


I would support added regulation to ensure the teaching of Science is not undermibed by Creationists or the teaching of Intelligent Design in the curriculum, be it national or independent. It is only a handful of schools that have been found to be contravening this guidance and even then it is generally down to the individual bias of the teacher rather than the express intention of the School itself, and a stricter policy woukd go some way to combat even this minority occurance.

However to suggest that this behaviour is commonplace, either in independent Free schools or Faith Schools is simply untrue and disingenuous at best.
 
Last edited:
Thats still not going to stop faith schools from sneaking in US curriculum into their schools though, as long as they dont get caught they can do it.

Its bad enough that Creationism and Intelligent design are even allowed to be taught in RE.
 
Last edited:
Thats still not going to stop faith schools from sneaking in US curriculum into their schools though, as long as they dont get caught they can do it.

Its bad enough that Creationism and Intelligent design are even allowed to be taught in RE.

Creationism isn't even taught in RE as a rule, at least not in CofE or Catholic Faith Schools. Genesis is taught as Biblical allegory (in schools that even teach that much) as per the official stance of both the CofE and the Catholic Church.

As I said, I would support (as do the CofE and the Catholic Church in England) stricter regulation regarding the teaching of Creationism in Schools, either as Science in the form of Intelligent Design or as a Theory of Earths Creation in RE.

This is the default position of the vast majority of mainstream Christians in the UK.
 
Last edited:
Its beyond simple to prove this.

- Two groups of sick people.
- Group A treated with medicine
- Group B treated with prayer.

Which group heals, and which one doesnt?

I don't know - I asked for scientific proof you have not given any yet just the basis of an idea for an experiment that would in no way prove your original assertion.
 
Creationism isn't even taught in RE as a rule.

So RE doesnt teach that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being?

I don't know - I asked for scientific proof you have not given any yet just the basis of an idea for an experiment that would in no way prove your original assertion.

My hypothesis would prove it, go ahead and carry it out, I do not have the funding, nor the desire to test it. Prayer has never done anything to help anyone, Science on the other hand has done plenty.

Your original statement was that 'Science is most likely wrong', and if you cant see how much Science has helped humanity, and think that there isnt any scientific proof of this, then I really have no desire to waste my time discussing anything with you.
 
Last edited:
My hypothesis would prove it, go ahead and carry it out, I do not have the funding, nor the desire to test it.

Oh how very scientific of you assuming the conclusion before you have even tested. And you wonder why creationism gets credence with "scientists" (and I use this term very loosely in your case) around.
 
Its already been tested enough times, my hypothesis is not an original study that needs to be carried out to understand the conclusion of 'Medicine cures (a lot of) diseases, prayer does nothing' I dont need further proof that Antibiotics cure most bacterial infections, and that prayer cannot :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Your original statement was that 'Science is most likely wrong', and if you cant see how much Science has helped humanity, and think that there isnt any scientific proof of this, then I really have no desire to waste my time discussing anything with you.

If you can not see how religions have helped people throughout history like science has then you are a blinkered fool. As to my assertion that science is wrong then go back 500 years and see how many scientific theories have stood the test of time then I think we could safely say that 99.9% of all scientific theories end up disproven and that is a pretty good confidence interval to make that assertion don't you think.
 
go back 500 years and see how many scientific theories have stood the test of time

The Scientific method isnt even 500 years old :rolleyes:

And Evolution for starters clearly has stood the test of time, as has Newton's Theory of mavity, and Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

Science has helped humanity immeasurably more within 100 years that Religion would possibly be capable of over 10000.
 
If you can not see how religions have helped people throughout history like science has then you are a blinkered fool. As to my assertion that science is wrong then go back 500 years and see how many scientific theories have stood the test of time then I think we could safely say that 99.9% of all scientific theories end up disproven and that is a pretty good confidence interval to make that assertion don't you think.

What.
 
Its beyond simple to prove this.

- Two groups of sick people.
- Group A treated with medicine
- Group B treated with prayer.

Which group heals, and which one doesnt?

Which proves precisely nothing, not least because it assumes that Prayer is like medicine and works on command... It also suggests you don't know that much about medical testing protocols given how flaky many of the results actually are.
 
So RE doesnt teach that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being.

Not in the context that it is in direct opposition to Evolution or Scientific principles as proven by geology, biology and the other branches that deal directly with Scientific Creation models.

Given that neither the CofE or Catholic Church hold a literal interpretation of Genesis, it woukd be foolish to suggest that it is held or taught to be anything other than the allegorical and symbolic interpretation that both Churches officially hold as doctrine. Many Christian (CofE generally) faith schools do not even teach Genesis in any real depth, prefering to give a broad and inclusive understanding of all religions, Christianity and the other world religions alike, in an effort to promote social cohesion rather than than any attempt at indoctrination in any specific faith, Catholic faith schools are similar although they teach Catholic Catechism as a matter of course.
 
Last edited:
Xordium = the majority of Christians in the UK, thats what :rolleyes:

Which proves precisely nothing, not least because it assumes that Prayer is like medicine and works on command... It also suggests you don't know that much about medical testing protocols given how flaky many of the results actually are.

I've done plenty of study on drug trials too thanks, my hypothesis had nothing to do about testing drugs, but to try and see whether prayer was effective (which it isnt, as I already stated, the entire world united in prayer wouldnt be capable of healing a single sick person).

Not in the context that it is in direct opposition to Evolution or Scientific principles as proven by geology, biology and the other branches that deal directly with Scientific Creation models.

It doesnt need to be in this context to be labelled as Creationism -
Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being, most often referring to the Abrahamic god.

Again - are you telling me that this is not a part of the RE curriculum?
 
Last edited:
The Scientific method isnt even 500 years old :rolleyes:

And Evolution for starters clearly has stood the test of time, as has Newton's Theory of mavity, and Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

Science has helped humanity immeasurably more within 100 years that Religion would possibly be capable of over 10000.

Scientific methodology is over a 1000 years old so you are wrong again.

We'll chuck those 3 in the 0.1% - well for now ...

The last part is pure conjecture.
 
The Scientific method isnt even 500 years old :rolleyes:

And Evolution for starters clearly has stood the test of time, as has Newton's Theory of mavity, and Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

Science has helped humanity more within 100 years that Religion would possibly be capable of over 10000.

I have to wonder if you're deliberately misleading or just really badly educated.

the scientific method (iterative, experimental, inductive approach) is over 1000 years old, and first documented by clearly by Ibn al-Haytham, a muslim physicist in 1021, however there evidence supporting earlier use of experimental protocol and empericism going back far earlier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method

Indeed, we owe pretty much all modern scientific principles to the work of the muslim scholars of the dark ages...
 
Xordium = the majority of Christians in the UK, thats what :rolleyes:



I've done plenty of study on drug trials too thanks, my hypothesis had nothing to do about testing drugs, but to try and see whether prayer was effective (which it isnt, as I already stated, the entire world united in prayer wouldnt be capable of healing a single sick person).

Which proves nothing apart from that Prayer doesn't work on command in a way consistent with the people involved being able to invoke and enforce the request.

To hold any other position requires a leap of faith equal to that of a religious person in the scientific method which can only be the result of either irrational faith or ignorance.
 
It doesnt need to be in this context to be labelled as Creationism -

Again - are you telling me that this is not a part of the RE curriculum?

Not in the context that it is in direct opposition to Evolution or Scientific principles as proven by geology, biology and the other branches that deal directly with Scientific Creation models.

Given that neither the CofE or Catholic Church hold a literal interpretation of Genesis, it woukd be foolish to suggest that it is held or taught to be anything other than the allegorical and symbolic interpretation that both Churches officially hold as doctrine. Many Christian (CofE generally) faith schools do not even teach Genesis in any real depth, prefering to give a broad and inclusive understanding of all religions, Christianity and the other world religions alike, in an effort to promote social cohesion rather than than any attempt at indoctrination in any specific faith, Catholic faith schools are similar although they teach Catholic Catechism as a matter of course.
 
Back
Top Bottom