Creationism Outlawed

Well, after a fashion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8526161/Creationism-banned-from-free-schools.html

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Well, after a fashion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8526161/Creationism-banned-from-free-schools.html

That's not really what's happened. This is copy and pasted from the article:

A DfE spokesman said on Friday that Mr Gove "will not accept any academy or free school proposal which plans to teach creationism in the science curriculum or as an alternative to accepted scientific theories".

The spokesman said such ideas could be legitimately discussed as beliefs in religious education classes, but not taught as science.

So kind of like the division between the science and spirituality forums here.
Frankly, I'm surprised that these microscopic churches have the cash to fund starting up schools. I wonder where they get their funding from...

Originally posted by DeepThought
That's not really what's happened. This is copy and pasted from the article:[quote] A DfE spokesman said on Friday that Mr Gove "will not accept any academy or free school proposal which plans to teach creationism in the science curriculum or as an alternative to accepted scientific theories".

The spokesman said such ideas could be legitimately discu ...[text shortened]... urches have the cash to fund starting up schools. I wonder where they get their funding from...

Their funding would come from the congregation of whatever church it is.

I just wish the same kind of law would be enacted here in the US, and ban them from teaching that crap in a religious school also, would be my wish.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Well, after a fashion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8526161/Creationism-banned-from-free-schools.html

That is not surprising for Britian, that claim Charles Darwin as some kind of hometown hero of the Theory of Evolution. Even the RHP moderator banned the discussion of Creationism in the Science Forum. So that's nothing unusual for the British.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That is not surprising for Britian, that claim Charles Darwin as some kind of hometown hero of the Theory of Evolution. Even the RHP moderator banned the discussion of Creationism in the Science Forum. So that's nothing unusual for the British.

I hope it becomes the NORM for the whole planet.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I hope it becomes the NORM for the whole planet.

You should be more careful what you wish for.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Their funding would come from the congregation of whatever church it is.

I just wish the same kind of law would be enacted here in the US, and ban them from teaching that crap in a religious school also, would be my wish.

Their funding would come from the congregation of whatever church it is.

The denomination they mention in the article as an example is the Everyday Champions Church, I had a look at their website and they have a few hundred members in three towns. They are microscopic. They couldn't afford to pay one teacher's wages out of subscriptions from their congregation, never mind fund an entire school - where you'd be looking at a budget of at least £1,000,000.

Apparently free schools are state-funded - this is an idea introduced by the current government I hadn't paid attention to. So the state is entirely within its rights to restrict their curriculum in that way. If they want to teach them creationism they'd have to fund it themselves - which they can't.

The way my school dealt with Religious Education at least for O'Levels (Exams taken at 16 which were replaced by GCSE's in 1987) was to teach the Gospel According to Mark more or less as an exercise in literary criticism. There wasn't any Old Testament stuff, neatly avoiding the problem.

Originally posted by DeepThought

Their funding would come from the congregation of whatever church it is.

The denomination they mention in the article as an example is the Everyday Champions Church, I had a look at their website and they have a few hundred members in three towns. They are microscopic. They couldn't afford to pay one teacher's wages out of subscriptions f ...[text shortened]... rcise in literary criticism. There wasn't any Old Testament stuff, neatly avoiding the problem.

Then He said, “Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground.”

(Exodus 3:5 NKJV)

Dr. E. J. Young tried to approach the OT as Moses approached the holy ground of the burning bush. He said:

This verse effectively disposes of the so-called “scientific” method, which assumes that man can approach the facts of the universe, including the Bible, with a neutral mind, and pronounce a just judgment upon them. It is time that we cease to call such a method scientific. It is not scientific, for it does not take into consideration all the facts, and the basic fact it overlooks is that of God and His relation to the world which He has created. Unless we first think rightly about God we shall be in basic error about everything else.

E. J. Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament (London: The Tyndale Press, 1953), 10.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Their funding would come from the congregation of whatever church it is.

I just wish the same kind of law would be enacted here in the US, and ban them from teaching that crap in a religious school also, would be my wish.

As Deep Thought said, funding for Free Schools comes from central government. They are controlled by the school governors and are only 'free' from local authority control.

However, to continue to receive state funding, they now have to follow the national curriculum (at least a little more closely), so that loophole has been closed somewhat.

Private schools on the other hand are entirely funded by parents (and possibly sponsors) and they have far more leeway to teach whatever they like, sadly.

--- Penguin

Originally posted by Penguin
As Deep Thought said, funding for Free Schools comes from central government. They are controlled by the school governors and are only 'free' from local authority control.

However, to continue to receive state funding, they now have to follow the national curriculum (at least a little more closely), so that loophole has been closed somewhat.

Private sc ...[text shortened]... sibly sponsors) and they have far more leeway to teach whatever they like, sadly.

--- Penguin

We should all be happy that the government is not putting their heavy hand of control over the private schools yet. At least there is some measure of freedom left in the country. Let's hope the government remains content in controlling the majorities thoughts and actions, so it will ignore a few citizens that wish to retain their's.

Originally posted by RJHinds
We should all be happy that the government is not putting their heavy hand of control over the private schools yet. At least there is some measure of freedom left in the country. Let's hope the government remains content in controlling the majorities thoughts and actions, so it will ignore a few citizens that wish to retain their's.

In the U.K. what you would call a private school is what we would call a public school. Essentially it is open to all members of the public whose parents can afford the fees. A private school in the U.K. on the other hand is not required to admit pupils who do not fulfil whatever other criteria they have for entrance.

Public schools are still subject to schools inspectorates. I'm not certain about the claim that they can teach what they want. Besides, if their curriculum didn't match GCSE's (exams taken at 16) well enough then people wouldn't send their kids there.

Originally posted by DeepThought
In the U.K. what you would call a private school is what we would call a public school. Essentially it is open to all members of the public whose parents can afford the fees. A private school in the U.K. on the other hand is not required to admit pupils who do not fulfil whatever other criteria they have for entrance.

Public schools are still subjec ...[text shortened]... didn't match GCSE's (exams taken at 16) well enough then people wouldn't send their kids there.

I see by wikipedia that the GCSC curriculum includes under Religious Studies such topics as:

Buddhism
Christianity
Hinduism
Islam
Judaism
Philosophy and Ethics
Sikhism

as well as biology etc.

It seems that a typical student will be exposed to evolution theory and creation myths and should be well prepared to choose.

Seems fair.

Originally posted by JS357
I see by wikipedia that the GCSC curriculum includes under Religious Studies such topics as:

Buddhism
Christianity
Hinduism
Islam
Judaism
Philosophy and Ethics
Sikhism

as well as biology etc.

It seems that a typical student will be exposed to evolution theory and creation myths and should be well prepared to choose.

Seems fair.

I'm not sure if those are topics within the course or separate GCSEs. What the exact course is depends on the Exam Board. I was the last year of O'Level and the exam I did was basically the Gospel according to Mark. Also the GCSE course is a three year course, up until thirteen the system is different. In my school all the comparative religion stuff was done then, but wasn't part of the O'Level.

Originally posted by JS357
I see by wikipedia that the GCSC curriculum includes under Religious Studies such topics as:

Buddhism
Christianity
Hinduism
Islam
Judaism
Philosophy and Ethics
Sikhism

as well as biology etc.

It seems that a typical student will be exposed to evolution theory and creation myths and should be well prepared to choose.

Seems fair.

I think the problem comes about when the evolution theory is taught as fact, while the creation theory is taught as a religious myth. The choice has already been made for the students by this propaganda in the education system.

Cool: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bNZEfafbjSE&feature=kp