Who should be running state schools?

From an Article in The Independent

There's room for explaining both evolution and creationism (12 July 2004)

Sir: As a Christian who believes the theory of evolution to be fundamentally true, I was somewhat dismayed to read in your front page article concerning state education (8 July) that Sir Peter Vardy, an evangelical Christian, has been "accused of allowing the teaching of creationism in science" at Emmanuel City College in Gateshead.

What does this "accusation" amount to, and why is it, by implication, dangerous? Does it mean that pupils are somehow indoctrinated with creationism and denied access to the evolutionary hypothesis? The answer is no, as the national curriculum and examination system does not allow this. Does it then produce pupils who are academically weak or bad citizens? This is empirically not the case.

Good scientific method rests a serious consideration of empirical observations, and the competition of various hypotheses, free of prior metaphysical considerations. However, educational science, unlike other "non-scientific'' subjects (such as disciplined theology), rarely demonstrates how historically one might choose between competing hypotheses. In the case of the development of living organisms this could well be demonstrated by explaining the competing hypotheses of creationism and evolution, explaining that sincere people believe both, offering the empirical evidence for both, and allowing the pupils to come to their own conclusions. If the case (as I believe) for evolution is good, then most will believe it.

Any educational system has implicit as well as explicit ideological commitments. Where these are explicit (as in a church school), there is a hope that they can be intelligently and critically examined as part of the pupils' education. Where they are implicit, as in the crude rationalism, atheism, and scientism propagated in most schools, they generally are not, and it is academic and civic standards that suffer.

Fr DAVID MUNCHIN
Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire

This has provoked the following responses:

Evolution and belief: The Independent: (13 July 04)

Sir: Although he says he "believes the theory of evolution", Fr Munchin (letter, 12 July) appears, perversely, to defend the practice of teaching creationism as part of science on the basis that it could be used to illustrate how differing hypotheses compete, allowing the pupils eventually to come to their own conclusions on which to "believe".

The unstated assumption in this nonsense is that creationism now has something like the same intellectual status as the theory of evolution. It doesn't. If pupils are presented with the two, as if they were both currently competing credible theories within science, they could wrongly assume that creationism had at least sufficient scientific merit to be considered. If we followed this principle in other areas, our children might also find themselves having to decide between the competing "theories" of the alchemic transmutation of metals and our current understanding of nuclear physics; or perhaps between whether the earth is flat or globular.

Stephen Hawking has said that a scientific theory "is just a mathematical model we make to describe our observations: it exists only in our minds". Creationism, as an unfounded belief, certainly exists in some deluded minds, but where is the mathematical model and where are the observations? Without these, creationism cannot be considered a respectable scientific theory and therefore has no place in science teaching.

IAN QUAYLE
Burwell, Cambridgeshire

Creation myths: The Independent (15 July 04)

Sir: The argument adduced by Fr David Munchin (letter, 12 July) that school pupils should be encouraged to reach their own conclusions over the competing claims between evolution and creationism is flawed. Theories of evolution may need to be refined, but they are based on scientific research capable of replication and subject to peer review.

Creationism is based on sections of the Hebrew scriptures which have been removed from their literary and historical context and cobbled together to buttress a fundamentalist Christian worldview which most educated people decisively reject. To teach such nonsense in the school classroom, and then to invite comments about it in examinations, is the height of folly and irresponsibility.

Rev Dr DAVID L GOSLING
Clare Hall, University of Cambridge

From The Independent (14 July 04)

Sir: Whilst I broadly agree with Fr David Munchin on evolution and creationism and welcome his stance of being a Christian believer in evolution, I feel that even he misses the main point here. I have no objection to the biblical version of creation being taught in schools, but not under the name of science. There are many creation myths from around the world, the bible version being just one, and it should be taught within the context of religion, that is comparative mythology. This would put the creation account into perspective, as it is just a historical accident that the biblical account is so well known in the west.

It should also be pointed out in science lessons that the actual origins of life are still a mystery, even to scientists. However, Darwinian evolution, despite its flaws, is still a good working hypothesis, even if the totality is still not understood.

ERIC FITCH
Burnham, Buckinghamshire

From Mike Brass (The Antiquity of Man): Forwarded to Independent (15 July 2004)

I have read the 8th July article dealing with state education, as well as the responses by Fr Munchin and Mr Quayle. It is worrying that Gateshead, and similar schools, are being taught the pseudoscientific, theological heresy of creationism in their science classrooms. It is equally worrying that the school's headmaster has openly come out in support of "equal time" between evolution and creationism, thus denying his students valuable teaching time which would be better spent researching real scientific issues.

The issue between creationism and evolution was settled firmly around 150 years ago with the publication of Darwin's "On the Origin of Species". The disciplines of biology, archaeology, physical anthropology, chemistry, computer science and medicine, amongst many others, are rooted firmly in the principles of evolutionary science. There has not been one major scientific breakthrough in at least the
last 50 years which is rooted in "creation science". Indeed, when "creationist" proponents fall ill, they go to their materialistic doctor to be prescribed materialistic medicine to cure their materialistic illness.

Evolutionary science is the basis of modern society. Let us not dilute and weaken the knowledge and skills base of this great country with disproved quackery.

Michael Brass
MA in Archaeology student

From Alan B. (Aug 04)

< David Munchin > Sir: As a Christian who believes the theory of evolution to be fundamentally true, I was somewhat dismayed to read in your front page article concerning state education (8 July) that Sir Peter Vardy, an evangelical Christian, has been "accused of allowing the teaching of creationism in science" at Emmanuel City College in Gateshead.

< Alan B > The Vardy Foundation has already said themselves that this is what they intend to do. The issue also goes further than just the science lessons & every aspect of the child’s education is affected by this. It should also be noted that teaching creationism is not confined to making claims about biblical creationism. A major component of so-called “scientific creation” deals with the sinister issue of attempting to undermine a child’s faith & understanding of science using the “teach the controversy” & “critical thinking” techniques, which have been developed by fundamentalist Christian organisations in America. These definitely are being taught in science lessons.

< David Munchin > What does this "accusation" amount to, and why is it, by implication, dangerous? Does it mean that pupils are somehow indoctrinated with creationism and denied access to the evolutionary hypothesis? The answer is no,

<Alan B> (1) As the whole of this debate revolves around the fact that children will be exposed to the teaching of creationism in schools (something that not even the Vardy Foundation are disputing) then it is wrong to say categorically that they will not be indoctrinated by creationism. They will be exposed to anything of up to a decade or more of daily literalist biblical teachings, which will begin from the assemblies when they first enter school & will continue throughout the day affecting the entire curriculum, not just the science one. This IS indoctrination. (2) No one has ever said that evolutionary theory will not be taught (straw man argument) although it will be undermined as explained above. They must teach it as demanded by the National Curriculum (although the question naturally arises as to what would happen if this were not the case).

< D M > as the national curriculum and examination system does not allow this. Does it then produce pupils who are academically weak or bad citizens? This is empirically not the case.

< A B > It depends on what you mean by academically weak. As long as you define academic to be the ability of a pupil to pass an exam, then this is true. However, it empirically IS the case that people indoctrinated with creationism have trouble understanding many modern scientific theories & such people ARE academically weak in these areas. The claim that teaching creationism produces bad citizens has never been made by its opponents. (Another straw man).

< A B > To see how stupid these types of statements are, just consider a situation where some idiot wanted to start teaching children that the moon was made of cheese. Would anyone find this less reprehensible just because the children could still pass exams & become good doctors, engineers, teachers etc? We do not accept such crazy logic normally – so why should we accept it from creationists.

< D M > Good scientific method rests a serious consideration of empirical observations, and the competition of various hypotheses, free of prior metaphysical considerations.

< A B > This is precisely why it is a good idea to keep creationism out of the science room.

< D M > However, educational science, unlike other "non-scientific'' subjects (such as disciplined theology), rarely demonstrates how historically one might choose between competing hypotheses. In the case of the development of living organisms this could well be demonstrated by explaining the competing hypotheses of creationism

< A B > What competing hypotheses of creationism? There isn’t one!

< D M > and evolution, explaining that sincere people believe both,

<A B > Total rubbish, the population is split between those who believe creationism for religious reasons & those who believe evolution for scientific reasons, it is no more possible to believe both then it is to be standing & sitting at the same time.

< D M > offering the empirical evidence for both,

<A B > there is NO empirical evidence for creationism

< D M > and allowing the pupils to come to their own conclusions.

< D M > In the past people have believed a whole load of things that are now generally to be totally stupid or whacky, such as alchemy & astrology. Creationism can be placed alongside both these examples in its ridiculousness & rejection by the modern scientific community. What sort of educational system would deliberately go out of its way to teach these things to their pupils knowing that the end result is liable to be that some of the pupils will end up confused & worse still, some will even end up believing them. What is the point in wasting time teaching children something that is most certainly wrong & then expecting them to eliminate it by “coming to their own conclusions”. Surely, it is obvious that we should be teaching our children the very best theories, not the very worst!

< A B > If the case (as I believe) for evolution is good, then most will believe it.

< D M > And the rest will end up believing a myth from the Middle Ages, in the process rejecting whole chunks of modern scientific knowledge.

< D M > Any educational system has implicit as well as explicit ideological commitments. Where these are explicit (as in a church school), there is a hope that they can be intelligently and critically examined as part of the pupils' education. Where they are implicit, as in the crude rationalism, atheism, and scientism propagated in most schools, they generally are not, and it is academic and civic standards that suffer.

< A B > It is very difficult to believer that religion is critically & intellectually examined as part of its indoctrination to children in church schools. Are we seriously expected to believe that even a vestige of the subject would survive this scrutiny? Children do not go to church schools to learn about the faults of their particular religion. On the contrary, they go to be marinated in its doctrines for what works out to be the best part of their childhood. On the other hand, we are asked to believe that science is not subjected to this scrutiny, this is in spite of the fact that all scientific theories are subject to constant examination & revision. It should also be pointed out that it is very naïve to expect children to have critical opinions without first absorbing something off the subject matter to start with. In addition, this statement is just a rewording of the “teach the controversy” & “critical thinking” issues that have been dealt with in some depth elsewhere on this site.

< A B > Finally, is David Munchin’s claim to accept evolution as fact, really credible? Some of the favourite words used by hardcore creationists are; rationalism, atheism & scientism. Just the mention of one of them would set alarm bells start ringing, yet here, all three are mentioned. Incidentally, since when was atheism taught in schools? Answer, it is not.