How Genesis crept back into the classroom
Pastor Dale Morgan
How Genesis crept back into the classroom*
By Graeme Paton, Education Correspondent
Last Updated: 1:44am GMT 28/11/2006
Hundreds of state schools may be teaching the Biblical story of creation
in science lessons, a leading academic said last night.
James Williams, head of science teacher training at Sussex University,
said confusion over GCSE and A-level science syllabuses had "opened the
door" to groups trying to widen understanding of creationism and its
more recent off-shoot, intelligent design.
The Creation fresco by Michelangelo
The religious concept of creationism may be being ‘smuggled’ into
schools via science
In September, a coalition of academics and clergymen sent teaching
materials to every secondary school science department in the UK,
suggesting that pupils should be allowed to debate Charles Darwin's
theory of evolution.
The group – Truth in Science – mailed a booklet and two DVDs to 5,700
private and state schools as part of a £20,000 project personally funded
by its backers, who include senior professors in engineering from the
universities of Leeds, Bristol, Sheffield and Cardiff.
Yesterday, Richard Buggs, the group's spokesman, said 59 schools had
written back so far saying that the materials "were suitable for
classroom use". However, critics said the number was likely to be much
higher.
Mr Williams said last night that continuing ambiguity surrounding
official Government guidance in biology meant hundreds more schools
might be employing creationism as a tool to debate Darwin's theory that
man evolved from apes.
advertisement
"The problem we have got is that no one has carried out any proper
research to find out how widespread the teaching of creationism and
aspects of creationism are in science.
"There may be hundreds out there, but the Department for Education and
Skills and Ofsted cannot give us straight answers."
The DfES says that creationism and intelligent design should not be
"taught as subjects in schools, and are not specified in the science
curriculum".
However, critics claim that the fine detail of syllabuses still leaves
the door open for religious interpretations of life on Earth, such as
the Bible story of God creating the world in six days, 6,000 years ago.
A new "21st century" science curriculum, launched this September,
attempts to make the subject more appealing by promoting debate of
"controversial" issues. Mr Williams said in some schools this
legitimised the use of creationism to debate evolution.
It was fuelled by a new GCSE biology syllabus sent out this year by OCR,
one of three exam boards in England, which said that pupils should be
able to "explain that the fossil record has been interpreted differently
over time (eg creationist interpretation)".
In England, debate over creationism in science has consistently focused
on three independent state schools in the North-East run by Sir Peter
Vardy, the evangelical Christian car dealer.
Last week, he denied in an interview that it was used in science
lessons. "Creationism is not taught in my schools. That is stark raving
crazy," he told the Times Educational Supplement. However, one Vardy
school has been linked to the Truth in Science project.
Steve Layfield, head of science at Emmanuel College, Gateshead, was
named as a member of the group's board of directors, before standing
down from Truth in Science last month, apparently under pressure from
Sir Peter himself.
But not everybody disagrees with the project. Nick Cowan, head of
chemistry at the Bluecoat Secondary School, Liverpool, told The
Guardian: "Just because it takes a negative look at Darwinism it doesn't
mean it is not science. I think to critique Darwinism is quite appropriate."
Opposition to creationism has been led by Richard Dawkins, professor of
Public Understanding of Science, Oxford University, and the Royal
Society has said that creationism represents a move to "distort or
misrepresent scientific knowledge and understanding to promote
particular religious beliefs".
Last night, a spokesman for the DfES said that new guidance would
clarify its position that creationism cannot be debated in science.