Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Secondary education

Connect with other parents whose children are starting secondary school on this forum.

Original poster

Intelligent design in Free Schools

66 replies

cynicalsceptic · 17/09/2014 01:11

Despite my long held atheist beliefs my child has ended up going to a Christian Free School. The Head assured me that Creationism would not be taught. Unfortunately Intelligent Design seems to be taught in Science (to the exclusion of anything else so far). I am livid and unsure of how to proceed. Should this be allowed?

OP posts:
ErrolTheDragon · 17/09/2014 15:15

Of course it's not your fault - it's the fault (a) of the way our state education has developed and (b) this school ... them telling your child to 'mouth the words' is completely unacceptable, teaching ID in science is plain wrong.

What I'd be worried about is not that your child will say it's all bunk, rather that she's - through no fault of hers or yours - put in a position where she can't be honest about her own religious position or even science.

Original poster
cynicalsceptic · 17/09/2014 16:09

I have done the wrong thing I know but sending our child to this school meant there were 15 other kids from her primary there. Due to the mess of Secondary School catchments (still have them in some schools and not others here) the kids from the primary ended up in 7 different schools. As she had only been at the primary 6 months and was finding the adjustment hard we thought The Free School was an okay choice when combined with the availability of transport and the assurances from the Head.
Just spoken with another parent and told him about the ID. He is very annoyed and wants to take it further too. Glad that I am not alone.

OP posts:
duhgldiuhfdsli · 17/09/2014 16:16

In my limited experience of mocking dealing with ID proponents, they're considered an embarrassment by mainstream Christians too. So the OP should avoid making this an "atheist forced into Christian school" issue; unless the school has been populated by people from your local fringe school hall church, all Toronto blessing and healing, most of the Christian parents will be worried too. They'll not want to send their children to a school dominated by these sort of people either.

TalkinPeace · 17/09/2014 17:01

ID should not be being taught in any science lesson in any state funded school in England or Wales.

Kick off
Kick off to the highest level you can as fast as you can

crazymum53 · 17/09/2014 17:53

Even as a Christian parent this would bother me.
Even in faith schools (free schools can also be faith schools i.e. select a proportion of children using faith criteria) the only subject where Christianity is the main focus is RE.
I am aware that there is an American curriculum which does link the Christian faith across all subjects, but as far as I know this is only taught in some fee paying independent Christian schools. I suspect this alternative curriculum would not be approved in a state school.
I would go for the curriculum option though: what curriculum is the school following, when will they be looking at other scientific theories e.g. evolution, Big Bang theory? How come ID is being taught as Science when it cannot be proved experimentally etc.

Original poster
cynicalsceptic · 17/09/2014 19:51

Thanks again everyone. I was told by the Head that they would be following the National Curriculum. Onbviously with a few deviations...

OP posts:
TalkinPeace · 17/09/2014 19:59

Academies do not have to follow the NC
but
AFAIK they are not allowed to cover ID in science and still receive state funding

crazymum53 · 18/09/2014 16:16

The recent changes are shown in the following links OP.
rt.com/uk/167044-uk-bans-teaching-creationism and www.politics.co.uk/news/2014/06/18/secular-triumph-as-government-bans-creationism-from-free-sch.
Has the school been inspected by OFSTED? Suspect that this type of teaching wouldn't be approved.

ErrolTheDragon · 18/09/2014 16:28

Good - the definition of 'creationism' includes weaselly ID.

duhgldiuhfdsli · 18/09/2014 17:15

I think the "ID as smokescreen for creationism" line was pretty much killed in the US by Kitzmiller v Dover. ID existed an attempt to weasel around US separation of church and state issues; creationism fails immediately in the US for that reason, while ID can try the various "teach the controversy" or "alternative theories" bullshit angles. The finding in Kitzmiller was that ID is, in fact, a disingenuous smokescreen for creationism, so ID is instantly thrown out of US government-funded schools for First Amendment reasons. The judgement only holds in PA, but no-one is seriously going to try to litigate it elsewhere, because they'll lose. As the fundies are finding over same-sex marriage (now legal in 19 states and counting) judges don't want to look like rubes, and they realise that getting on the wrong side of history is going to make them look stupid in history books.

In the UK there's no useful distinction between the two positions, because both are basically the same idea ("something...spooky...did it"). The advocacy of ID in the UK tends to imply they're heavily influenced by American nutters. Under UK law, there's no particular reason why they can't just go for full-fat theistic creationism, because ID ("God something did it") doesn't afford them any additional protection over what they really want to say ("God did it").

icecreamsoup · 18/09/2014 17:22

cynicalsceptic - the others are right to say ID isn't allowed. However, it would be worth collecting evidence of exactly what's being said, in case your DC is misinterpreting it. For info, this paper gives the CoE position on evolution. Look at the definition of "Theistic Evolution" and check with your daughter to make sure it's not that they're teaching rather than ID. (Many would say that shouldn't be allowed in science classes either, but the legal position might be less clear cut).

If you think they're definitely teaching ID, then your best bet would be to get in touch with the BHA, because they would support you in challenging the school.

ArcheryAnnie · 19/09/2014 11:01

Holy shit, my sympathies, OP. You are absolutely right to pursue this. They are doing a disservice to all the kids there, not just yours, and they shouldn't be using state money to do so.

Good luck. Thanks

prh47bridge · 19/09/2014 14:50

the legal position might be less clear cut

The legal position is clear cut. Theistic evolution is, in scientific terms, an unprovable (and hence unscientific) theory. It therefore cannot be taught as fact (or as evidence-based) in science lessons.

icecreamsoup · 19/09/2014 15:01

But what if it was given as opinion rather than being taught as fact prh47bridge? Some would argue that whereas evolution is provable, its not possible to prove whether it is theistic or atheistic. I strongly suspect that just about every faith school in the country would claim to be teaching theistic evolution if they were asked. Even if they leave the issue out of their lesson plans, they have to be prepared to answer questions that will inevitably arise from students, and if they say "Well my opinion is [theistic evolution] .." does that count as teaching?

TalkinPeace · 19/09/2014 15:21

icecream
The point is they may NOT teach it in the course of a science lesson.

In RE where all sorts of 'beliefs' are discussed it can crop up, but not in Science as it isn't

icecreamsoup · 19/09/2014 15:59

They can't teach it as fact in a Science lesson. And if they're going to present/debate it as opinion then they should do it in an RE lesson. However, could the new law prevent them from presenting/debating it as opinion in a Science lesson? What about if it was in response to a direct question from a student?

There's a chapter in The Young Atheists Handbook about the author's experience as a science teacher - he teaches physics and is frequently asked by his students whether or not he believes in God. I don't think any teachers can avoid those sorts of questions, whether they're religious or not. Presumably the safest answer is "save those questions for your RE lessons", but if they do give their opinion they are presumably not in breach of the law.

crazymum53 · 19/09/2014 16:29

I strongly suspect that just about every faith school in the country would claim to be teaching theistic evolution if they were asked.

You are incorrect, faith schools have to teach the national curriculum in all subjects except RE where they can just teach their faith (in practice though many would also have lessons about other faiths). So this wouldn't be allowed in a Science lesson.
Creation could be covered in an RE lesson and this may involve discussion about creation stories in other faiths and the creation / evolution debate could be covered in this subject.

concernedaboutheboy · 19/09/2014 16:45

faith schools that are academies or free schools do not have to teach the national curriculum.

icecreamsoup · 19/09/2014 16:48

crazymum, theistic evolution isn't the same as creationism. It's the official position of the CoE and Catholic churches on evolution - i.e. they accept it, but put it in a religious context. There's a definition here.

icecreamsoup · 19/09/2014 16:51

"faith schools that are academies or free schools do not have to teach the national curriculum"

No, but they do have to teach a broad and balanced curriculum, and they're not allowed to teach pseudo-science in science lessons.

prh47bridge · 19/09/2014 17:40

faith schools that are academies or free schools do not have to teach the national curriculum

Their funding agreement specifically prohibits them from teaching as fact any non-scientific theories. So, although they don't have to teach the national curriculum, they can't teach creationism, intelligent design, theistic evolution or any other non-scientific theory in science lessons.

It is true that theistic evolution is different from creationism and intelligent design. It accepts the science of evolution, which both creationism and ID reject. But it is nonetheless non-scientific in that the theory cannot be tested or proved using scientific methods.

icecreamsoup · 19/09/2014 17:55

I agree with all that prh, but it doesn't answer my question about whether a science teacher giving their own opinion about whether evolution is theistic or atheistic, or encouraging an opinion-based debate (whether planned or unplanned) in a science lesson would be against the new law.

I suspect the answer is that it's not clear, and won't be until someone tests it in court.

TalkinPeace · 19/09/2014 18:00

icecream
it would not have to go to court, just as far as ofsted and an instant inspection.

ID has no place in Science lessons.
End of.

If you think its happening, get hold of the resources in question and send them to Ofsted and the BHA

mummytime · 19/09/2014 18:13

As a Christian I would be complaining if ID was taught in Science, other than as part of a "changing explanations" for the universe kind of way. (I have been in science lessons where the land bridge and drying out plum theories were discussed, and it was perfectly legitimate.)

I like RE being taught because I think it is important to understand other people's beliefs, but this school doesn't sound as if it is teaching according to Government guidelines,NAND would get into trouble with OFSTED.

icecreamsoup · 19/09/2014 18:35

"it would not have to go to court, just as far as ofsted and an instant inspection"

So, you're saying that if a science teacher taught a lesson on evolution, and then a student raised their hand and said "So, does that mean there isn't a God?", and the science teacher said:
a) "No, I don't think it means there isn't a God, because [theistic evolution opinion], but you will have to make your own mind up.", or:
b) "Yes, I think it means there isn't a God, because [atheistic evolution opinion], but you will have to make your own mind up."
.... that would be grounds for an immediate inspection?

If so, then science teachers had better start being a lot more careful. I suspect its not so though, because the CoE and Catholic church would have fought the rule change if it did.

It would particularly complicate arrangements in primary schools where both science and RE are often taught by the same class teacher.

Swipe left for the next trending thread