Misrepresentation of the Key stage 4 Science Curriculum

Creationists in the UK have repeatedly distorted the meaning of a single sentence within the Key stage 4 Science Curriculum to try to justify their claim that evolution is controversial, (when in fact it isn’t) & should be taught as such in schools.

Here are Some examples of KS4 misrepresentation

See also: Is the theory of evolution controversial?

The sentence states, Pupils should be taught:

b. how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence [for example, Darwin's theory of evolution]

This simply does not make sense; scientific evidence can be interpreted in different & conflicting ways, however, it is surely obvious that for the highlighting example to qualify this statement in a grammatically satisfactory manner, it must provide three pieces of information.

1. An example of scientific evidence; in this case the fossil record.
2. An example of one interpretation; say Darwinian evolution.
3. An example of a conflicting interpretation: say Lamarckian evolution.

Which could be stitched together to read:

b. how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence [for example, Darwinian & Lamarckian interpretations of the fossil record]

See, that wasn’t so hard, was it? Actually, the revised example is the correct interpretation as taught in every other school in the country (apart from those run by The Vardy Foundation & other creationists) & refers to the controversy that arose in the 19th century between Darwinian & Lamarckian evolution.

How the original sentence came to be so badly worded is unknown, but it is clearly suspicious & could be the result of deliberate manipulation by someone with creationist sympathies. In its uncorrected form it has allowed creationists to deliberately misinterpret the curriculum & to consequently claim that:

1. The theory of evolution is considered to be a controversial theory when this is manifestly not the case.
2. That the controversy is with creationism which should as a result be taught in science (typically stated as, “both sides of the creation/ evolution debate) even though creationism is a religious viewpoint with no scientific merit whatsoever.

Furthermore, it should be noted that although the Vardy Foundation have repeated this untruth on many occasions, sometimes in official communications to the government, no one in government has ever once attempted to directly correct them.

It is also worrying that despite the fact that there has been concern about the wording of this one sentence stretching back years, no one has made any attempt to correct it. For example the following letter by a group of prominent scientists was sent to the government in March of 2002:

http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?article=1352

Yet was completely ignored.

It would be worth investigating who wrote the offending wording of the NC KS4 & why the error was not corrected immediately when pointed out by the scientific community.

Moreover, as the misused phraseology is of such distinctive character, it would also be worth investigating why many of the statements made by government at this time seemed to share it, because it seems to suggest that they have been getting much of their advice from creationists or their websites (Like the one run by the Emmanuel Schools Foundation that pretends to be a school website).

So widespread was this, “creatio” dialect of the English language becoming that the BHA intervened after one such incident & asked the speaker to clarify exactly what she did mean. See:
Jacqui Smith Forced To Back Down See Also: Is government taking advice from creationists?

An example of the problems being caused by the confusion over the wording of the KS4 Science Curriculum & the confusing messages coming from the government (which suggest sympathy with the creationists, “teach the controversy”) can be found here:

Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked Her Majesty's Government:

Further to the Answer by the Lord Filkin on 31 January (Official Report, cols. 3–5), whether the scientific theory of intelligent design could be taught in United Kingdom schools. [HL1165]

Lord Filkin: In all aspects of the science curriculum, we encourage pupils to consider different ideas and beliefs, and how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting evidence. Intelligent design theory is not part of the National Curriculum. The National Curriculum for Science states that students must learn that the fossil record is evidence for evolution and how variation and selection may lead to evolution or extinction. Intelligent design theory could be discussed in schools, but only in the context of being one of a range of views on evolution that students might consider and evaluate against the evidence.
Schools: Teaching of Intelligent Design

Where the above statement by Lord Filkin is the used by Truth in Science to foster their creationist agenda in UK schools. After making a direct reference to the KS4 Science Curriculum, they state that:

On 21st February 2005, Lord Filkin, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Education and Skills, confirmed that Intelligent Design can be covered under this part of the National Curriculum. He was responding to a question from Lord Pearson of Rannoch:
See; Does the National Curriculum allow teaching of alternatives to Darwinian Evolution?

Shortly in September 2006, a new NC syllabus is coming into force that makes no mention of the offending sentence used by the creationists attempting to further their demented ambitions. Then, not only will the Vardy Foundations Website be seriously misrepresenting the KS4 curriculum, it will also be doing so on the basis of out of date information.

More discussion on this issue can be found at http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/NigelMcQuoid#nm

Here is a typical example of the Dept of Bull-Shitters at work. In this article (9 March 07), a teacher applying for the post of head of philosophy, theology and ethics (PTE) at the ESF’s King’s Academy expresses his concern at some of the comments made (during interviews for the position) by members of the King’s Academy management.

Amongst the comments was this little gem:

Notice that absolutely nowhere in the article is there any mention whatsoever of evolution or anything remotely connected with the subject, yet bizarrely a spokeswoman for the department of education and skills trots out the same old blanket statement in response:

Quite obviously as long as long as the ESF teach the NC, then they could be practicing human sacrifice in their spare time for all the DfES care.

This blatant disregard for the many justifiable concerns raised by parents, teachers & critics of the ESF raises many questions about the personal honesty of the people who are producing these statements from the DfES. Someday, someone is going to have to sort this mess out. And when they do let’s just hope they go back & expose the people who helped cover it up. And who by doing so, allowed the problems to continue

Note: As of June 2007 the DfES are now called Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF).

The following is a section of a long discussion on a student’s forum where the student wrongly references (1) & (2) above. The damage being done is plain to see.

---

Originally Posted by yawn "The National Curriculum requires the teaching of both sides of the creation v evolution debate" Ian Brew - Principal of Trinity Academy, Thorne

"Scientific enquiry does, at Key stage 4 include reference to the controversial character of the Darwinian Theory of Evolution and the limitations of scientific knowledge of certain inaccessible contexts." Steven Layfield - 21/9/00

The National Curriculum requires that children are expected to examine conflicting theories.

Pulled from Google Cache

---