Sunday Herald: Rival (sic) To Evolution May Enter Schools
I’ve just received a link, from the Humanist Society of Scotland, to the following very disturbing news article:
Sunday Herald: Rival To Evolution May Enter Schools
INTELLIGENT DESIGN, a controversial alternative theory to evolution, could become part of the science curriculum in Scottish schools.
The Sunday Herald has learned that the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) is considering provision for the theory as part of a review of the science course curriculum.
Intelligent design (ID) is one of a wide range of theories of origin currently taught as part of the Religious, Moral and Philosophy Studies (RMPS) SQA course, but could be moved elsewhere as part of the review. A spokesman for the SQA said: “It happens to sit in RMPS just now. If and when it does becomes part of the curriculum for science, which it may well do as part of this review, then that’s where it could sit.”
This is seriously beyond the pale. I’m afraid I’m going to have to write to my local MSP. I suggest any others living in Scotland do the same and, please, pass this around to any Brits you know.
June 17th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
When you write, you should also quote from the opinion of Judge John E. Jones III, in the infamous Dover, Pennsylvania case decided in 2005. (The case was Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.) I realize, of course, that Scotland’s laws are different from America’s, but Judge Jones beautifully dismissed the argument for ID as science.
If you google “Kitzmiller v. Dover,” you can find what you need. The relevant paragraphs are also included in Intelligent Thought edited by John Brockman.
June 17th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Hi TE, I’ve already got the (very large) PDF of that decision, although your pointers are most helpful. Thanks!
June 17th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Hi
Glad my emails come in useful! I hope this gets lots of publicity. I’ll be writing to the SQA and would urge others to do so as well.
Keep up the good work.
Alan
June 17th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Hi Alan, yes, your mails are invaluable! :-)
I tried to visit the SQA site earlier, but it wasn’t responding, but I have written to the various MSPs to express my dismay and plan to do so with the SQA.
As an aside, I forgot to link the HSS site from the post. I’ll do so now.
Cheers!
June 18th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Unfuckingbelievable. There goes the Scottish Enlightenment.
June 18th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
AV: You’re not wrong… :-(
June 18th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
I would strongly commend Dr. Barbara Forrest’s expert report that she prepared in advance of the Kitzmiller trial, and her exhibits. She did a masterful job of showing the religious provenance of IDC. You can find her materials on the NCSE web site.
June 19th, 2007 at 6:05 am
Thanks John K.
June 19th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Glad to help. Here’s the link:
http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/experts/Forrest_expert_report.pdf
June 19th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Hi John K, that most helpful, and means that others can download it too.
June 21st, 2007 at 9:39 pm
As promised, I emailed the SQA…
Hi
I read with alarm the report in the Sunday Herald of 17 June that you are considering provision for the ‘theory’ of intelligent design as part of a review of the science course curriculum ( http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1477583.0.rival_to_evolution_may_enter_schools.php).
If this is indeed true and under serious consideration within the SQA, then it is very disturbing for several reasons: ‘intelligent design’ (or creationism) is not a theory and any such hypothesis has no place in the science curriculum – certainly no more than hypothesising fairies at the bottom of my garden as a plausible explanation for our existence. The theory of evolution is well founded in evidence and no serious biologist considers intelligent design a viable alternative. Even the mentioning of intelligent design as a possible alternative by a respected teacher (which may give the impression to students that it has more credence that it actually has) would undermine all the work that dedicated science teachers have done to ensure we have a more science-literate society.
I am not convinced that any decision to raise creationism in the classroom should be left to individual teachers – this is far too important an issue to be left to the personal religious beliefs of teachers or schools. To protect our children, we need clear and strong guidance from the SQA and the Scottish Executive that creationism is only suitable alongside other religious explanations for the origins of the universe in RME and even then, only if it is made clear why it cannot be considered part of the science curriculum.
The only situation where it could be part of the science curriculum is where this hypothesis is used to show how science can be twisted by the ill-informed and those with ulterior motives.
The article also said:
A 2006 UK-wide Mori poll suggested 41% believed intelligent design should be taught as part of science education.
If this is indeed correct, then it shows that proper, evidence-based science is needed even more in schools and that the hypothesis of intelligent design should be given no credence whatsoever.
I would be grateful if you could explain your current position on intelligent design/creationism and what your future plans are. I urge you to ensure that clear guidance is given to all state-funded schools that the teaching of intelligent design has no place in any science classroom.
I look forward to receiving your reply.
Yours
I got the following reply this morning:
Thank you for your communication,
Science courses are currently under review, however SQA has absolutely no plans to introduce Intelligent Design into these courses.
Regards
SQA Customer Contact Centre
Fairly clear…
June 21st, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Alan, that’s a fairly short, but brilliant, reaction.
Excellent work. I knew my membership counted for something. :-)