Children should be taught about creationism in science lessons to avoid alienating those of strong faith, according to new research, reports The Times.
A study by academics at the University of York claims creationism should be tackled by science teachers in order to engage their religious pupils.
The study, reported in the Times Educational Supplement, said students with a strong faith were likely to be turned off science because it does not correspond with their own outlook on life. The findings contradict the views of the educational and political elite, which says any discusion of creation has no place in biology lessons.
“To avoid alienating students, understanding evolution should be emphasised instead of accepting it,” the study said. “If the topic is presented insensitively, students may feel compelled to choose between science and deep-rooted religious beliefs. Rather than asking whether religious views should be covered in science lessons, the question is can we afford not to talk about them?”
Researchers questioned more than 200 14-16 year olds who attended four secondary schools — one Christian faith-based, one non-faith with majority Muslim catchment zones and two non-faiths with mixed catchment zones.
The study found that most Muslim students believed that humans were “created by God pretty much in their current form”. More than half those at the Christian school also thought there had been some divine involvement.
“I wouldn’t for a moment say you should teach creationism in science, but you could certainly talk about evolution in the context of when Darwin first published his ideas, when it was challenging the religious orthodoxy,” said Pam Hanley, research fellow at the University of York’s Institute for Effective Education.
Michael Reiss, Professor of Science Education at the University of London’s Institute of Education, said the study revealed that the number of students who did not accept the theory of evolution was greater than thought. However, he told the TES: “What I would not recommend would be to enter into a discussion about the scriptures, be it the Bible, the Koran or whatever.
“Teachers should simply be respectful of their pupils’ beliefs, and say it is fine to have religious views, but add that science is about looking at the empirical evidence either for or against scientific theories.”
Funnily enough, our main complaint against the teaching of evolution in schools is that it fails to look at any evidence at all opposing the evolution dogma. Children are taught total fabrications such as the ‘evolution of the horse’ as fact.
The Government has insisted that all state-funded schools must teach evolution, and not present creationism as a scientifically valid theory.
See Darwin Day sees evolution in Primary Schools
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
The Genesis creation narrative is just that, a narrative presented without *scientific* evidence. But there again, so is the narrative that unexplained biogenesis a long time ago, followed by millions of years of evolution by natural selection, inefficiently, and non-teleologically led to man having descended from a common ancestor with the great apes, as typically taught to pre-school children in little books with many pictures, few words, and almost no numerate, empirical science; or the same narrative as taught in schools up to A-level and beyond for that matter.
Neither narrative should be asserted as fact in science lessons. Science lessons should instead concentrate upon teaching children proven scientific facts, backed by at least one reproducible experiment per proven fact.
Human biology lessons have syllabus enough in teaching children the little learning we have as to how we nowadays believe our bodies to work, and what experiments and measurements scientists once performed to enable all of us to trust these conclusions. There isn’t any need for controversy, ideology and propaganda, for the sake of it, or to please zealots, in school science lessons.
What we are and how we came to be here are important questions that the school curriculum should acknowledge, including teaching the history of our thoughts on these questions, including the content of scriptures sacred to substantial subcultures. However, science is nowhere close to being able to answer such questions with certainty, by repeatedly applying its own method of formulating hypotheses, making predictions as to measurements one might expect to make in particular experiments if the hypotheses were true, conducting the said experiments and making the said measurements, and thus gaining confidence in our hypotheses.
It is conceivable that science will never be able to answer those questions of our nature and origins.
As an example of the problem science faces in matters of faith and impossible-to-prove narrative, consider this: That another non-human mammal (or a vegetable, for that matter) has mighty similar DNA to a human is to be expected, whatever we are, and however we got here. An organism with biochemistry completely unlike that of any other species would not be edible to any other species, and would not be able to find anything to eat itself. What is observed in the global, bio-diverse ecosystem, is what biblical creation (followed by the Edenic curse) and evolutionism equally predict – namely an ecosystem which does actually *work*.
Can they be trusted to teach ‘about’ the Bible if they cannot be trusted to teach about evolution?
“If the topic is presented insensitively, students may feel compelled to choose between science and deep-rooted religious beliefs.”
This has long been my point. There should not be a choice between Science and Religion (or Evolution and Religion) as though they were two mutually incompatible and opposing creeds.
Science and religion do different jobs, that is true. But evolution is not science, it is a quasi-religious belief system.
On the scientific front, much more evidence supports creation than evolution, and the more science advances, into fields like Information Theory, Genetics, Bioenergetics, the more holes are being found in evolution. See for example our article: Bacteria Cannot Have Evolved
But you are almost presenting this now as a purely scientific quibble which does not come into the realm of religion at all, as two competing scientific theories one of which is false. At a school level, children have to be taught quite simple science, indeed basically 19th century physics and chemistry unless they specialise in the higher classes, and even then it mostly doesn’t go much beyond that. They don’t have time to embark on stuff which is uncertain and controversial . Animals and plants do seem to occupy places higher and higher up a “tree”, which is built into their classification, and this was observed long before Darwin tried to explain how it might have happened. It would be difficult for the teacher to suppress the widely held belief that it was evolution wot dun it.
On the other hand, since you phrase it “it is a quasi-religious belief system”, perhaps you would want Evolution taught in Religious Education alongside Islam and Hinduism, but somehow I don’t think that is going to happen and you probably wouldn’t like it if it did.
Teaching evolutionism would effectively be teaching atheism and many people would fail to see that as fitting too easily into religious education. It might be possible to find atheists who would like atheism to be taught in RE, mind.
I simply want teachers to teach simple science, teach what we know and stop telling children lies. It is possible to study biology without dragging evolution into it. Biological life cycles, anatomy, symbiosis, interdependence and the ‘circle of life’ (don’t ya love them fungi?), throw in some weird aninals and crazy fish, study how a polar bear keeps warm and how a penguin recognises its chick and so on and so on, without banging on about them having ‘arisen’ and being ‘adapted’ and having ‘developed’ this and that.
Evolutionary biology journals are full of ifs and buts, of ‘might be’, ‘thought to have’, ‘possibly’ and so on. But when evolution reaches the classroom, all the conjecture is left out and mere supposition is presented as certainty. Evolution is presented as fact, not theory, no problems with it are ever mentioned and the children are fed frauds like the ‘evolution of the horse’. For all I know Haeckel’s Embryos might still be there in some guise or other.
In short, let the children study biology without being indoctrinated with evolution. It’s do-able.
” indeed basically 19th century” “They don’t have time to embark on stuff which is uncertain and controversial “.
Stephen and I are coming suspiciously close on this, especially if he admits that polar bears are “higher” than fungi.
But what if children ask difficult and forbidden questions ? Where do babies come from ? How did there come to be so many different species ? I suppose the teacher says “I’m afraid I’m not allowed to tell you that” .
The teacher answers honestly, after first asking the question, ‘Why do you want to know that?’ or ‘What gives rise to your question?’ if he/she is smart. The answer to why there are so many different species is that they all fit into the eco-system somewhere. They all have a specific job to do.
Yes, Arthur Mee, even the house-fly.
Arthur Mee became extinct in 1943, and I suppose this is because following the Education Act of 1944 there was no place for him left in the eco-system, especially as John Betjeman and the Shell Guides were occupying his other niche.
It’s interesting that, just like Enid Blyton, he didn’t really like children. Could be much worse !
Yes, he died in 1943, but the Children’s Encyclopedia was published until 1964 and Mee’s extraordinary diatribe against the house-fly lives on.
“Teaching evolutionism would effectively be teaching atheism”
So how do you explain the number of people who agree with the theory of evolution, whilst holding strong religious beliefs and find the two compatible ? It’s not as black and white as either one or the other.
may i suggest all those posting here obtain and read a copy of ” true science agrees with the bible ” by malcolm e bowden
it will strengthen your faith [ should you possess it ] and will give you the confidence to declare that GOD’s written word is true for HE cannot lie
there are some wonderful scientific discoveries mentioned in the book such as the overlooked phenomena of the decay of light speed [ faster at the time of creation hence greater longevity of life ]
If it is of God it will not fade away, thank the Lord for wisdom at last , please pray for these academics at York .
God will find a way where there is no way.
I bought my grandsons a christian D.V.D. book and beautiful map showing the Christian explanation of creation by Christian scientists. In the hope of giving them another point of view to evolution at school.
THANK YOU STEPHEN WE MUST PRAY FOR MORE MEN OF GOD TO STAND IN THE GAP.
MAY THE LORD BLESS AND MULTIPLY EVERYTHING YOU SAY AND DO IN HIS NAME.
SHEILA
Dr Vij Sodera’s book ‘One Small Speck to Man:The Evolution Myth’ comprehensively rebuts the supposed evidence for molecules to man evolution. Sadly, many Christian leaders wishing for an easier life and to avoid criticism and go for the ‘ I believe that God could have used evolution’ cop out which makes Richard Dawkins smile.
I agree that creation should not be taught as fact in science class but the evidence against evolution should be discussed. Currently this is actually prohibited in British schools. This ban on questioning would be extraordinary if evolution was a genuine scientific hypothesis but it is not. It is the foundational philosophical axiom of materialism.
Above all, Christian leaders need to wake up to the reality and see what effect drinking the Darwin poison has had on the church. Ask themselves what the first chapter of the bible and John 1:3 mean if we are descended from worms and jellyfish. And ask if God used evolution how come it promotes atheism?
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
There is a growing body of literature written by Christian scientists as opposed to atheistic scientists that explains the incompatibility of belief in evolutionary theory and biblically based truth. A very good source is
the Creation Science Movement. Better still a visit to the excellent Genesis Expo in Portsmouth will provide copious information for those genuinely enquiring.
[…] and the pro-sodomy teaching which is now mandated by the Equality Act 2010, not to mention the pro-evolution slant of biology, affect Christian children as well, but that Christian parents have in the main shown not the […]
addendum
there is a [ personally felt ] slightly high brow video on Youtube that explains how DNA reveals GOD’s existence and HIS authorship on creation
Will all the evolution promoters be open minded enough to take a look ?
Sorry to say i doubt it for believing in GOD brings responsibility into one’s life