Tuesday, February 01, 2005
New Labour: dodging the question on Creationism
Still in bed with the theocrats
Graphology (see previous post) is not really much of a problem. The story is an insight into how dumb tabloids are, and the crazy world of media 'experts'. ("Professor Giles, little Johnny has been trapped down the well under a dead cow for 3 days now. What will he be feeling?")
Creationism, however, is much more serious, and not just because it is the banner of Christian fundamentalism and its attendant evils. Rather, it is the reason for its prominence in the movement that is the deeper concern:
'Creationism' refers an array of more or less mutually contradictory grandiose lies. What they share is an incompatibility with any number of scientific disciples. (If the earth is 5,000 years old, then everything we think we know about stars is wrong. The light shouldn't have reached us yet. Genetics is all wrong too.) This is not an incidental problem with creationist theory, it is the raison d'etre. The result is a paranoid constituency whose instinct is to believe that everyone, except the demagogue, is lying to them.
Lord Taverne asked Her Majesty's Government:
Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park): Is the Prime Minister happy—[Hon. Members: "Yes."] Is the Prime Minister happy to allow the teaching of creationism alongside Darwin's theory of evolution in state schools?
Graphology (see previous post) is not really much of a problem. The story is an insight into how dumb tabloids are, and the crazy world of media 'experts'. ("Professor Giles, little Johnny has been trapped down the well under a dead cow for 3 days now. What will he be feeling?")
Creationism, however, is much more serious, and not just because it is the banner of Christian fundamentalism and its attendant evils. Rather, it is the reason for its prominence in the movement that is the deeper concern:
'Creationism' refers an array of more or less mutually contradictory grandiose lies. What they share is an incompatibility with any number of scientific disciples. (If the earth is 5,000 years old, then everything we think we know about stars is wrong. The light shouldn't have reached us yet. Genetics is all wrong too.) This is not an incidental problem with creationist theory, it is the raison d'etre. The result is a paranoid constituency whose instinct is to believe that everyone, except the demagogue, is lying to them.
So onto New Labour, and an exchange in the Lords yesterday:
Lord Taverne asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the national curriculum will exclude the teaching of creationism in schools.
.
.
.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Lord Filkin): My Lords, creationism is not part of the national curriculum for science. In the programme of study for 14 to 16 year-olds, pupils learn about evolution and how variation and selection may lead to evolution and extinction. They also consider different theories on the origin of the universe. In all aspects of the national curriculum, we encourage pupils to consider different ideas and beliefs and how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting evidence.
.
.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, as the Government are in favour of allowing choice between sense and nonsense, will they also allow children to be taught that the earth is flat, and that the sun goes round the earth? Since there is a crisis in maths teaching in schools, and some university chemistry departments are closing down, will the Government offer as an alternative the teaching of astrology and alchemy? It is extraordinary that a Government and a Prime Minister who say that they are in favour of science have allowed the introduction into our schools of the worst features of American fundamentalist, anti-science, pseudo-science nonsense. Is this not disgraceful?
.
.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I apologise to the House for not having spoken clearly enough, because the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, could not have heard my response, in which it was explicitly clear that creationism is not part of the national curriculum..
.
.
.
He said: "it was explicitly clear that creationism is not part of the national curriculum for science": This does not answer the question, which was whether the National Curriculum would exclude creationism. He has not answered the question, or addressed the issue. Nor did he respond to the second question: "Is this not disgraceful?"
.
Is the accusation in the second question true (ie, that the Government have allowed creationism into our schools)?
.
Tony Blair was asked about creationism in schools in 2002:
Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park): Is the Prime Minister happy—[Hon. Members: "Yes."] Is the Prime Minister happy to allow the teaching of creationism alongside Darwin's theory of evolution in state schools?
.
.
The Prime Minister: First, I am very happy. Secondly, I know that the hon. Lady is referring to a school in the north-east, and I think that certain reports about what it has been teaching are somewhat exaggerated. It would be very unfortunate if concerns about that issue were seen to remove the very strong incentive to ensure that we get as diverse a school system as we properly can. In the end, a more diverse school system will deliver better results for our children. If she looks at the school's results, I think she will find that they are very good.
.
Two points about this exchange:
.
Firstly, I have seen it reported that the PM said he was 'very happy' about creationism being taught alongside evolution. He didn't say that.
.
Secondly, 'certain reports' are definitely exaggerated. We hate them.
.
However, those two largely state-funded schools in the North East of England (there are soon to be three), to which the Prime Minister referred are run the Vardy Foundation. The head of this christian fundamentalist organisation is Peter Vardy. In a Today interview in 2003 he said:
.
"We do teach creationism alongside evolution.." and "..We are presenting evolution and creation alongside each other."
.
Was he exaggerating?
