UK bans teaching of creationism in all public schools.

[G4JC]

In what's being heralded as a secular triumph, the UK government has banned the teaching of creationism as science in all existing and future academies and free schools.

The new clauses, which arrived with very little fanfare last week, state that the...

...requirement for every academy and free school to provide a broad and balanced curriculum in any case prevents the teaching of creationism as evidence based theory in any academy or free school.

​

So, if an academy or free school teaches creationism as scientifically valid, it's breaking the funding agreement to provide a "broad and balanced curriculum."
In the UK, state-funded academies are basically equivalent to charter schools in the United States, and are primarily comprised of high schools. Free schools, which were introduced in 2010, are non-profit making, independent, state-funded schools which are not controlled by a local authority, but are subject to the School Admissions Code. Free schools make it possible for parents, teachers, charities, and business to set up their own schools.
In addition to the new clauses, the UK government clarified the meaning of creationism, reminding everyone that it's a minority view even within the Church of England and the Catholic Church.

Does the new Pope believe in evolution?The answer is actually yes. And in fact, the Roman Catholic Church has recognized Darwinian… Read more



Back in 2012, the UK government banned all future free schools from teaching creationism as science, requiring them to teach natural selection. At the time, however, it didn't extend those requirement to academies, nor did the changes apply to existing free schools. The new verbiage changes this, precluding all public-funded schools — present or future — from teaching creationism as evidence-based theory.
The new church academies clauses require that "pupils are taught about the theory of evolution, and prevent academy trusts from teaching 'creationism' as scientific fact." And by "creationism" they mean:

[A]ny doctrine or theory which holds that natural biological processes cannot account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth and therefore rejects the scientific theory of evolution. The parties acknowledge that creationism, in this sense, is rejected by most mainstream churches and religious traditions, including the major providers of state funded schools such as the [Anglican] [Catholic] Churches, as well as the scientific community. It does not accord with the scientific consensus or the very large body of established scientific evidence; nor does it accurately and consistently employ the scientific method, and as such it should not be presented to pupils at the Academy as a scientific theory.
​

And in regards to protecting religious beliefs, the clauses acknowledge that the funding agreement does...

...not prevent discussion of beliefs about the origins of the Earth and living things, such as creationism, in Religious Education, as long as it is not presented as a valid alternative to established scientific theory.
​

Seems fair and reasonable to me.
The British Humanist Association, which has been advocating for the change since 2011 via its "Teach Evolution, Not Creationism" campaign, is celebrating the move.
"[We] believe that... the objectives of the campaign are largely met," noted BHA Head of Public Affairs Pavan Dhaliwal in a statement. "We congratulate the Government on its robust stance on this issue." He added: "However, there are other ongoing areas of concern, for example the large number of state financed creationist nurseries, or the inadequate inspection of private creationist schools, and continued vigilance is needed in the state-funded sector. We will continue to work for reform in the remaining areas, but are pleased that the vast majority of issues are now dealt with."
This move by the UK government stands in stark contrast to what's happening in the United States. In Missouri, for example, a proposed bill would require schools to "alert" parents when evolution is taught.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Teaching Creationism As Science Now Banned In All UK Public Schools

Sad for the UK. Let's make sure and keep fighting for good news here in the USA.

 

[crossnote]

I had a hard time deciphering.
So if their goal is 'balance' are they also banning evolution?

 

[Angela53510]

I hope we do not follow Britain in this in Canada. The reason they want to ban teaching creation, is because if you have creation, you need a creator. That starts children to looking for Christ.

Very sad for this formerly Christian nation!

 

[Tintin]

I find this greatly disturbing but not surprising. You won't even find biblical creation taught in most Christian schools in Australia. Very disappointing.

 

[JoyfulFleur]

Oh the irony of banning Creationism because it isn't science. If it wasn't for God, you wouldn't have science in the first place.

 

[crossnote]

Then you wonder why kids pick up on Dylan singing ''dogs run free, why don't we?''

 

[Esanta]

In what's being heralded as a secular triumph, the UK government has banned the teaching of creationism as science in all existing and future academies and free schools.

The new clauses, which arrived with very little fanfare last week, state that the...

...requirement for every academy and free school to provide a broad and balanced curriculum in any case prevents the teaching of creationism as evidence based theory in any academy or free school.

​

So, if an academy or free school teaches creationism as scientifically valid, it's breaking the funding agreement to provide a "broad and balanced curriculum."
In the UK, state-funded academies are basically equivalent to charter schools in the United States, and are primarily comprised of high schools. Free schools, which were introduced in 2010, are non-profit making, independent, state-funded schools which are not controlled by a local authority, but are subject to the School Admissions Code. Free schools make it possible for parents, teachers, charities, and business to set up their own schools.
In addition to the new clauses, the UK government clarified the meaning of creationism, reminding everyone that it's a minority view even within the Church of England and the Catholic Church.

Does the new Pope believe in evolution?The answer is actually yes. And in fact, the Roman Catholic Church has recognized Darwinian… Read more



Back in 2012, the UK government banned all future free schools from teaching creationism as science, requiring them to teach natural selection. At the time, however, it didn't extend those requirement to academies, nor did the changes apply to existing free schools. The new verbiage changes this, precluding all public-funded schools — present or future — from teaching creationism as evidence-based theory.
The new church academies clauses require that "pupils are taught about the theory of evolution, and prevent academy trusts from teaching 'creationism' as scientific fact." And by "creationism" they mean:

[A]ny doctrine or theory which holds that natural biological processes cannot account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth and therefore rejects the scientific theory of evolution. The parties acknowledge that creationism, in this sense, is rejected by most mainstream churches and religious traditions, including the major providers of state funded schools such as the [Anglican] [Catholic] Churches, as well as the scientific community. It does not accord with the scientific consensus or the very large body of established scientific evidence; nor does it accurately and consistently employ the scientific method, and as such it should not be presented to pupils at the Academy as a scientific theory.
​

And in regards to protecting religious beliefs, the clauses acknowledge that the funding agreement does...

...not prevent discussion of beliefs about the origins of the Earth and living things, such as creationism, in Religious Education, as long as it is not presented as a valid alternative to established scientific theory.
​

Seems fair and reasonable to me.
The British Humanist Association, which has been advocating for the change since 2011 via its "Teach Evolution, Not Creationism" campaign, is celebrating the move.
"[We] believe that... the objectives of the campaign are largely met," noted BHA Head of Public Affairs Pavan Dhaliwal in a statement. "We congratulate the Government on its robust stance on this issue." He added: "However, there are other ongoing areas of concern, for example the large number of state financed creationist nurseries, or the inadequate inspection of private creationist schools, and continued vigilance is needed in the state-funded sector. We will continue to work for reform in the remaining areas, but are pleased that the vast majority of issues are now dealt with."
This move by the UK government stands in stark contrast to what's happening in the United States. In Missouri, for example, a proposed bill would require schools to "alert" parents when evolution is taught.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Teaching Creationism As Science Now Banned In All UK Public Schools

Sad for the UK. Let's make sure and keep fighting for good news here in the USA.

The point of this isn't to ban creationism, just to ban creationism being taught as evidence based.

Creationism can still be taught in religious education classes.

 

[dcontroversal]

Well now, we cannot have the Brits believing in the bible.....oh no....we came from monkeys or some electrified protein filled sludge pool.....or some one celled ameba like worm or something like that....

Truth is...If creation is true (it is) then there actually is the creator GOD and there is such a thing as accountability......!

 

[crossnote]

The point of this isn't to ban creationism, just to ban creationism being taught as evidence based.

Creationism can still be taught in religious education classes.

So if they can't teach it as 'evidence based theory', what is the alternative? 'non evidence' based theory? 'evidence' based fact?
Because of the restriction the school teaching creationism will have to state the basis.

"The new clauses, which arrived with very little fanfare last week, state that the... ...requirement for every academy and free school to provide a broad and balanced curriculum in any case prevents the teaching of creationism as evidence based theory in any academy or free school."

 

[Fiza200]

Why Govt banned it from schools?

 

[Esanta]

So if they can't teach it as 'evidence based theory', what is the alternative? 'non evidence' based theory? 'evidence' based fact?
Because of the restriction the school teaching creationism will have to state the basis.

"The new clauses, which arrived with very little fanfare last week, state that the... ...requirement for every academy and free school to provide a broad and balanced curriculum in any case prevents the teaching of creationism as evidence based theory in any academy or free school."

Crossnote do you actually listen to yourself? 'It can't be taught as evidenced based theory' means it's not a scientifically valid theory - scientific theories are based on observable evidence, not one book. In the UK there are dedicated religious education classes in public schools which mean that the theory of creationism will be taught, just not in science classes where it doesn't belong.

If the kids want to reconcile big bang and creationism for themselves then they can obviously do so. It's not the end of the world.

 

[Esanta]

So if they can't teach it as 'evidence based theory', what is the alternative? 'non evidence' based theory? 'evidence' based fact?
Because of the restriction the school teaching creationism will have to state the basis.

"The new clauses, which arrived with very little fanfare last week, state that the... ...requirement for every academy and free school to provide a broad and balanced curriculum in any case prevents the teaching of creationism as evidence based theory in any academy or free school."

Crossnote do you actually listen to yourself? I get the idea you just follow me around CC replying to things I've said lol. 'It can't be taught as evidenced based theory' means it's not a scientifically valid theory - scientific theories are based on observable evidence, not one book. In the UK there are dedicated religious education classes in public schools which mean that the theory of creationism will be taught, just not in science classes where it doesn't belong.

If the kids want to reconcile big bang and creationism for themselves then they can obviously do so. It's not the end of the world.

 

[Elin]

Crossnote do you actually listen to yourself? 'It can't be taught as evidenced based theory' means it's not a scientifically valid theory - scientific theories are based on observable evidence,

No. . .scientific theories are based on the interpretation of the evidence.

And that's where the disagreement lies.

The origin of matter/energy,
the construction of the eye, etc., etc., etc.
are interpreted by many as evidence of an intelligent designer,
not random selection, which is contrary to the second law of thermodynamics.

And then there is the return of science to instantaneous creation.
Same evidence as always, now they're just interpreting it differently.

Science is not as conclusive as you represent it to be.

 

[crossnote]

Crossnote do you actually listen to yourself? 'It can't be taught as evidenced based theory' means it's not a scientifically valid theory - scientific theories are based on observable evidence, not one book. In the UK there are dedicated religious education classes in public schools which mean that the theory of creationism will be taught, just not in science classes where it doesn't belong.

If the kids want to reconcile big bang and creationism for themselves then they can obviously do so. It's not the end of the world.

Are you hearing yourself? At least we have eyewitnesses to the resurrection of the One who attests to Creation. Who has witnessed evolution over billions of years?

 

[Esanta]

Are you hearing yourself? At least we have eyewitnesses to the resurrection of the One who attests to Creation. Who has witnessed evolution over billions of years?

If you walk into your house and your fridge is open and empty, yet when you left that morning for work it was full, you can deduce that some process led to your fridge being emptied and left open during the time you were gone. Most likely that process was a person coming into your house and taking things from your fridge.

The same way, if we observe a yearly layering of ice in the longest frozen regions of the two poles, we can deduce that each year ice is layered there. If we dig that ice out in cylinders we can examine how many layers of ice there are. A logical conclusion to make is that one layer of ice equates to one year, since we have observed yearly layering. Thus if there are hundreds of thousands of layers of ice, we can safely conclude that the Earth is at least hundreds of thousands of years old, since this ice is hundreds of thousands of years old.

If we study trees and see that every year, a ridge is created inside the tree due to the shrinking and expanding caused by the change of season, we can conclude that a ridge is equal to one year. Thus if there are seven, eight, nine, ten thousand rings we can safely assume this tree is how ever many thousand years old.

If we study our whole world this way, finding out how the world works then projecting backwards, we can come to understand how the Earth's existence progressed in a physical sense. All the evidenced suggests that the world formed just as other planets form, that the Earth is billions of years old. Evidence also suggests that life evolved gradually over long periods of time.

The study of physics and mathematics lead us to establishing unbreakable laws of the universe. For instance, no energy can be created nor destroyed, but all energy can only be changed in form. That in itself is an immutable universal law. We have many laws like this.

Using these laws and studying our Earth leads us to our conclusions.

Now, the issue with the creation story is not that the universe was 'created' - in fact there is no scientific consensus that says the energy of the universe was or was not created by some unknown mechanic - however the issue is that the creation story asserts all of this Earth's progression, right up until the birth of human life, happened in seven days, which is a statement contrary to scientific evidence.

Of course, if a day is like an age to God, then there is technically not a contradiction between current science and the bible's creation timeframe.

There is in fact room for a person to say; 'if a day is as an age, then the creation of everything took many ages. If animals were made first, then it is possible that man evolved from animal. It is also possible to say that this slow process of growth, evolution and change was God's design. It is also possible to say that since the laws of physics are as they are, that God deliberately created them to be that way'.

You are the one who creates a disparity between science and faith when the reality is there need not be one.

If we teach science classes and tell kids about theories formulated from evidence, there is no need for those theories to be opposed to the bible's account. The issue comes when people like you want us to teach a literal biblical account of a seven day creation in science classes. Doing so would not be in any way scientific.

The government recognize this. And so 7-day creationism is left to be taught in religious education classes. If like I was, a child takes a genuine interest in properly examining these things they can, and sometimes do, come to the conclusion that the scientific account need not be set against faith.

But it seems to me you deny evolution, deny the Earth's old age and deny that the scientific method should be taught in science classes and so all of this is just going to fall on deaf ears.

 

[Esanta]

No. . .scientific theories are based on the interpretation of the evidence.

And that's where the disagreement lies.

The origin of matter/energy,
the construction of the eye, etc., etc., etc.
are interpreted by many as evidence of an intelligent designer,
not random selection, which is contrary to the second law of thermodynamics.

And then there is the return of science to instantaneous creation.
Same evidence as always, now they're just interpreting it differently.

Science is not as conclusive as you represent it to be.

If you would explain to me in your own words why the decreasing entropy of some facets within a closed system while the overall entropy increases is against the 2nd law of thermodynamics that would be great.

 

[Nautilus]

Isn't teaching things like creationism the job of parents and the church anyways? why do you need a public school to tell your children about God?

 

[Billyd]

Don't you teach your children both Creationism and all of the other creation theories, and then how to discern the truth among them? I hope you do. They are going to be exposed to both when they leave your home. I am a scientist, and I can give your children a very compelling argument for each of them. God included the five books of Moses in the Bible, not to tell us how he created the Earth and man, but to explain how and why sin is such an integral part of man's life, and how difficult it is to deal with it. When we understand the how and why of sin, it is easy to understand it is easy to understand Creation. Prepare your children for the world that they will enter when they leave your home. Teach them the truth, but more importantly teach them how to discern it from the tares.

 

[crossnote]

If you walk into your house and your fridge is open and empty, yet when you left that morning for work it was full, you can deduce that some process led to your fridge being emptied and left open during the time you were gone. Most likely that process was a person coming into your house and taking things from your fridge.

The same way, if we observe a yearly layering of ice in the longest frozen regions of the two poles, we can deduce that each year ice is layered there. If we dig that ice out in cylinders we can examine how many layers of ice there are. A logical conclusion to make is that one layer of ice equates to one year, since we have observed yearly layering. Thus if there are hundreds of thousands of layers of ice, we can safely conclude that the Earth is at least hundreds of thousands of years old, since this ice is hundreds of thousands of years old.

If we study trees and see that every year, a ridge is created inside the tree due to the shrinking and expanding caused by the change of season, we can conclude that a ridge is equal to one year. Thus if there are seven, eight, nine, ten thousand rings we can safely assume this tree is how ever many thousand years old.

If we study our whole world this way, finding out how the world works then projecting backwards, we can come to understand how the Earth's existence progressed in a physical sense. All the evidenced suggests that the world formed just as other planets form, that the Earth is billions of years old. Evidence also suggests that life evolved gradually over long periods of time.

The study of physics and mathematics lead us to establishing unbreakable laws of the universe. For instance, no energy can be created nor destroyed, but all energy can only be changed in form. That in itself is an immutable universal law. We have many laws like this.

Using these laws and studying our Earth leads us to our conclusions.

Now, the issue with the creation story is not that the universe was 'created' - in fact there is no scientific consensus that says the energy of the universe was or was not created by some unknown mechanic - however the issue is that the creation story asserts all of this Earth's progression, right up until the birth of human life, happened in seven days, which is a statement contrary to scientific evidence.

Of course, if a day is like an age to God, then there is technically not a contradiction between current science and the bible's creation timeframe.

There is in fact room for a person to say; 'if a day is as an age, then the creation of everything took many ages. If animals were made first, then it is possible that man evolved from animal. It is also possible to say that this slow process of growth, evolution and change was God's design. It is also possible to say that since the laws of physics are as they are, that God deliberately created them to be that way'.

You are the one who creates a disparity between science and faith when the reality is there need not be one.

If we teach science classes and tell kids about theories formulated from evidence, there is no need for those theories to be opposed to the bible's account. The issue comes when people like you want us to teach a literal biblical account of a seven day creation in science classes. Doing so would not be in any way scientific.

The government recognize this. And so 7-day creationism is left to be taught in religious education classes. If like I was, a child takes a genuine interest in properly examining these things they can, and sometimes do, come to the conclusion that the scientific account need not be set against faith.

But it seems to me you deny evolution, deny the Earth's old age and deny that the scientific method should be taught in science classes and so all of this is just going to fall on deaf ears.

Unbreakable laws? From where, random acts of mindless matter? Or a Lawgiver?
Mathematics and physics only measure what physical properties there are not the non material like beauty and thought nor do they explain origins as in ;creation'.

If I walked into my house and the fridge was opened and empty and over 500 people witnessed it being raided, won't I believe their eyewitness testimony? Or should I discount their testimony and try to deduce what happened?
We have eye,ear, and touch witnesses of the One who spoke creation into being. Evolution has shaky deductions.

 

[crossnote]

Isn't teaching things like creationism the job of parents and the church anyways? why do you need a public school to tell your children about God?

Isn't teaching things like the theory of evolution the job of (deceived) parents and liberal churches anyways? why do you need a public school to tell your children about evolution?

Remember creation was taught in schools long before evolution.