This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Free to teach creationism?

Free to teach creationism? - Comments

Roger J. Stanyard's Avatar Comment 1 by Roger J. Stanyard

There are two people to look out for in this report: John Harris and Sylvia Baker.

This is what Harris has to say about teaching evolution in the proposed "Free" school:

"Harris says that the ECC free school will teach evolution, but only alongside the Biblical creation account. “We have no intention of not teaching evolution in the school,” he explains, “but my recommendation would be to not teach it as fact or science. Evolution should not be taught in science lessons – it’s a theory and as religious as any other theory. "

As far as I can make out, Harris has no scientific qualifications and isn't a teacher. He seems to lift his "creation science" arguments from the convicted criminal Kent Hovind (who has a bogus first degree and a bogus PhD) and Ray Comfort who has no qualifications in either science or theology (or anything else). Harris is basically another Howard Conder (a real gift to the anti-creationist movement). He was recently blogging on the TES site and his arguments are mindnumbingly arrogant and stupid.

See our blog at http://bcseweb.blogspot.com/ for further insight. We've raised the matter of his "science" with the Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove.

Sylvia Baker is a long standing part of the creationist mafia pushing to get creationism into state schools. she was signatory to the notorious 2002 Estelle Morris letter and employed Arthur Jones (currently involved in truth in Science). She's been involved in Genesis Agendum (connected to the Centre for Intelligent Design) and the Biblical Creation Society. She currently is involved in the Christian Schools Trust which represents some 40 independent fundamentalist schools (Jones was an advisor to it at one stage).

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:27:34 UTC | #605373

The Plc's Avatar Comment 2 by The Plc

I can't help but feel cynical at the way the government is behaving so tacitly at the attempt to make people passively stupid and uncritical through fundamentalist indoctrination. The only thing that seems to be holding them back is the outrage they'll cause amongst scientists and the skeptical public. I mean, when has the government ever unecqovically and publically put it's foot down on this nonsense?

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:42:56 UTC | #605448

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 3 by Alan4discussion

Unfortuately it looks very like another half-baked politician visiting over-seas systems looking for an alternative system to one he does not understand or care about, in order to be seen doing something as a diversionary distraction from his budget cuts. In other words a politi-muppet rent a gimmick!

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:53:54 UTC | #605454

Randy Ping's Avatar Comment 4 by Randy Ping

Is anyone shocked or surprisd by this? It's war people. Act like it.

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:04:23 UTC | #605457

stuhillman's Avatar Comment 5 by stuhillman

Harris says that the ECC free school will teach evolution, but only alongside the Biblical creation account. “We have no intention of not teaching evolution in the school,” he explains, “but my recommendation would be to not teach it as fact or science. Evolution should not be taught in science lessons – it’s a theory and as religious as any other theory. If you’re going into a classroom and saying, ‘We come from monkeys’ but without any evidence, don’t call it science.”

This kind of thing is just so staggeringly ignorant that readers of this website can only cringe and groan. It reminds me of an interview that RD did with an American fundamentalist (female, blond, and a bit brassy - you know the one) who kept shouting at him, "show me the evidence, show me the evidence," without, of course any intention of looking at it. How RD holds his cool during these interviews is also beyond me. To coin a modern phrase a good "bitch slap" would be my response. Maybe that's why I don't have my own TV show!

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:15:39 UTC | #605463

Neodarwinian's Avatar Comment 6 by Neodarwinian

Even if religious schools are forced to teach to a national curriculum that banned creationism and put the proper science in play they would still sneak in the woo. Time to ban all religious schools everywhere. Limit them to teaching their delusions in Sunday school and the rest of the week is given over to secular education.

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:16:30 UTC | #605465

Roger J. Stanyard's Avatar Comment 7 by Roger J. Stanyard

Comment 2 by The Plc :

I can't help but feel cynical at the way the government is behaving so tacitly at the attempt to make people passively stupid and uncritical through fundamentalist indoctrination. The only thing that seems to be holding them back is the outrage they'll cause amongst scientists and the skeptical public. I mean, when has the government ever unecqovically and publically put it's foot down on this nonsense?

Actually it has. What worries us is that there are apparent loopholes.

As a generalisation, creationism tends to wax and wane with political opportunity and tight now it's waxing because of the "free school" opportunity.

Trust me - if you lobby it does have an effect; I've been doing it on and off for years. I think everyone in the UK posting to or reading this thread should put an effort in such as writing to Michael Gove. We can provide help so email me if you need it - roger@bcseweb.org.uk

The one that really worries me at present is the Christian Schools Trust; both Baker and Jones have a track record in political lobbying on behalf of creationism. The creationists went underground a few years ago because of what we did to show how they are organised and operate so we don't actually know what they are up to this time. However, Baker and Jones are a lot smarter than John Harris who appears predisposed to make a fool of himself and Everyday Champions Church.

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:23:20 UTC | #605473

biorays's Avatar Comment 8 by biorays

The "Passport of 'free for all' fictional moralities, fears and eutopias" is mental illness sewn upon the hypothesis of creationism being taken as fact. This is why it is dangerous to permit this assumption and more especially so when interwoven with education, which poses upon an expectation, particularly to its students, that it must be taken seriously and form a superior benevolent authority, delivering rationality and intellectual rigour worth the individuals undivided attention. In order for it to fulfill this role I suggest it essential that education is bound over to teaching morality as free of 'unknowable speculations' and as such making it clear that historical guesstimates at 'unknowable speculations' are exactly that - made by humans and from nowhere else!

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:23:30 UTC | #605474

Randy Ping's Avatar Comment 9 by Randy Ping

Comment 6 by Neodarwinian :

Even if religious schools are forced to teach to a national curriculum that banned creationism and put the proper science in play they would still sneak in the woo. Time to ban all religious schools everywhere. Limit them to teaching their delusions in Sunday school and the rest of the week is given over to secular education.

Now that is a god idea.

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:26:42 UTC | #605476

Roger J. Stanyard's Avatar Comment 10 by Roger J. Stanyard

Comment 5 by stuhillman :

Harris says that the ECC free school will teach evolution, but only alongside the Biblical creation account. “We have no intention of not teaching evolution in the school,” he explains, “but my recommendation would be to not teach it as fact or science. Evolution should not be taught in science lessons – it’s a theory and as religious as any other theory. If you’re going into a classroom and saying, ‘We come from monkeys’ but without any evidence, don’t call it science.”

This kind of thing is just so staggeringly ignorant that readers of this website can only cringe and groan.

John Harris is a gift to us all. He's basically a cross between Kent Hovind and Ray "Bananaman" Comfort without the snake oil salesman skills. The more he opens his mouth the better for us all. We nearly fell over backwards when we fund out what he is saying. Amongst the best help we've ever had! It' s not often we can quote creationist stupidity and duplicity in a letter to a cabinet minister.

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:30:56 UTC | #605479

Philoctetes                                        's Avatar Comment 11 by Philoctetes

The first question that should be asked in response to a proposal submitted by a faith body is:

"Why do you want to run a school?"

Their answer will provide evidence of whether their aims are educational or evangelical. Education is the only acceptable agenda for schools.

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:10:15 UTC | #605497

Philoctetes                                        's Avatar Comment 12 by Philoctetes

What is the point of a national curriculum (and I do have serious reservations) if any school can opt out of it?

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:13:37 UTC | #605499

Philoctetes                                        's Avatar Comment 13 by Philoctetes

By all means, let's have creationism in schools, but let it be in the right place. Literature: with all the other works of fiction

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:16:07 UTC | #605501

Roger J. Stanyard's Avatar Comment 14 by Roger J. Stanyard

From today's Guardian:

Free schools will not teach creationism, says Department for Education

Government spokesman says the education secretary is 'crystal clear' that teaching creationism is at odds with scientific fact

Education reforms An anti-creationist group has written to education secretary Michael Gove expressing concern about applications from Christian groups to run free schools. Photograph: PA

The Department for Education has said Michael Gove is "crystal clear that teaching creationism is at odds with scientific fact" after a warning that the government's new free schools could be exploited by fundamentalist churches looking to promote a literal interpretation of the Bible.

The remarks follow a letter to the education secretary from the British Centre for Science Education (BCSE) suggesting that creationists planned to use government legislation on free schools to mount a "concerted attack" on science education.

Free schools can be set up by charities, universities, businesses, educational groups, teachers and groups of parents. They will have more freedom over the contents of their curriculum, leading to fears that science teaching in the schools may not be as rigorous. Teachers working at free schools will also not need to have formal teaching qualifications.

The BCSE, which describes itself as the leading anti-creationist organisation in Europe, wrote to Gove to express its "extreme concern" at applications from groups such as the Everyday Champions Church and the Christian Schools Trust to run free schools.

The trust has already had one proposal accepted. A primary school in Hampstead "with a distinctive Christian ethos that permeates every aspect of school life" will open in September. The BCSE says the trust has four applications outstanding.

The Everyday Champions Church, in Newark, Nottinghamshire, submitted its proposal for a 652-place school in January, shortly before the DfE held its first free school conference where Gove said he would consider applications from creationist groups on a case-by-case basis.

On its website the church says it has "660 children 'definitely' signed up to the school and 185 considering". It spent January and February carrying out public presentations and found parental response "overwhelmingly positive".

"Creationism will be embodied as a belief at Everyday Champions Academy, but will not be taught in the sciences," said its leader Gareth Morgan. "Similarly, evolution will be taught as a theory. We believe children should have a broad knowledge of all theories in order that they can make informed choice."

The DfE spokesman said groups setting up new free schools in the UK will be vetted to ensure that they have "strong education aims" and "high curriculum standards". He said: "The education secretary is crystal clear that teaching creationism is at odds with scientific fact. Ministers have said they will not accept any proposal where there are concerns about the people behind the project."

In the letter from the BCSE, Professor Paul Braterman wrote that the embodiment of creationism "as a belief" could only mean that science was "subordinate to religious considerations, and that the central concepts of the natural sciences, as developed over the past 350 years, must be rejected as doctrinally unsound."

In an accompanying report, the BCSE recommended the DfE "carefully vet" free school applications and "be very wary" of approving applications from creationist groups.

Last July, Gove acknowledged there were concerns about "inappropriate faith groups using this legislation to push their own agenda." The education secretary, who was addressing MPs on the cross-party Commons education committee, said his department was working on the regulations to ensure there were no "extremist groups taking over schools".

Braterman claimed that teaching in schools run by such groups in Sweden forced a revision of the original "friskolor" legislation there, making free schools subject to the same regulations that ensure teaching is objective as traditional schools.

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:19:12 UTC | #605503

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 15 by Alan4discussion

They will have more freedom over the contents of their curriculum, leading to fears that science teaching in the schools may not be as rigorous. Teachers working at free schools will also not need to have formal teaching qualifications.

..

The DfE spokesman said groups setting up new free schools in the UK will be vetted to ensure that they have "strong education aims" and "high curriculum standards"

Hands up all those who can spot the double-talk! The lessons from Sweden have been side-stepped and ignored! Anyone who chips in a few pounds or a few gimmicks, can have education handed to them by this anti-public-service, duck and dodge government.

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:12:37 UTC | #605536

wcapehart's Avatar Comment 16 by wcapehart

Well hypothetically (and funding matters aside), a school can teach Adam and Eve as human origins, or that man was made from space aliens, or we're just a game of second life or whatever the kids are playing these days.

A university is likewise free to set admissions standards. Foe example, those seeking entry would need to have evolution as a core component of their biology background following that the Theory of Evolution was arrived at via scientific method (in comparison to its competitors). If deficient, applicants would not be eligible for admission until they had remedial education. To tighten the screws, the school should have no obligation to provide such remedial ed (honestly, they have better things to do with their FTEs). Colleges currently are not required to teach long division so the precedent is set.

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:14:32 UTC | #605538

Roger J. Stanyard's Avatar Comment 17 by Roger J. Stanyard

Comment 16 by wcapehart :

A university is likewise free to set admissions standards. Foe example, those seeking entry would need to have evolution as a core component of their biology background following that the Theory of Evolution was arrived at via scientific method (in comparison to its competitors). If deficient, applicants would not be eligible for admission until they had remedial education. To tighten the screws, the school should have no obligation to provide such remedial ed (honestly, they have better things to do with their FTEs). Colleges currently are not required to teach long division so the precedent is set.

I hope that's the case but the fundamentalists, if they get a grip on secondary education, won't stop there/ DUP politicians in Northern Ireland have been pushing for both secondary and university level education to give the same weight to creationist answers in science exams as proper science. The American fundamentalists of course, have their own system - they own fundamentalist universities.

A scenario that I personally fear is of the creationists getting hold of a pile of state funded schools and them setting up or taking over one or more universities (there are 4 Christian universities in the UK) with American evangelical funding. I#m not exert on university funding but suspect that some universities are going to run into financial difficulties in the next decade; they would be open targets.

Before anyone says this scenario is pie in the sky, Wycliffe Hall, basically part of the University of Oxford, got into the hands of fundamentalists a few years ago. Fortunately the university blew a fuse and basically told Wycliffe to get its act together or it would be kicked out.

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:41:24 UTC | #605579

jbyrd's Avatar Comment 18 by jbyrd

Idk im starting to warm up to this idea...

Darwin is great and all, but I cant think of a better way to persuade the youngsters to drop their faith than teach them the bible.

Now dont threaten to ban me before you read this part. When I say "teach the bible" I mean an actual theology course, not creationism in biology, that teaches the REAL Bible. And when I say "REAL bible" I mean the whole thing, horrifying atrocities and all; not just the cherry picked fairy tell lessons picked out by the ministers in Sunday school.

Tue, 22 Mar 2011 00:18:42 UTC | #605640

ghost of numf-el's Avatar Comment 19 by ghost of numf-el

jbyrd -

I hear what you're saying , and to a lot of intelligent people who come to this site that very action might lead them away from religion. However, to a much larger number of people who do not have the same rational thinking ability e.g. most children, it offers them the chance to see that god not only perpetrates evil himself , but orders his subjects to.

And if it's okay for them, it must be okay for us to follow gods word ....... Let us not be afraid, for we are only following gods word. Armageddon - bring it on! etc ad nauseum.

Therefore creating our own right wing fundies.

Not sure there aren't enough nutters in the world already thanks.

GoNE

Tue, 22 Mar 2011 07:12:43 UTC | #605737

jonno's Avatar Comment 20 by jonno

"Free schools will receive their funding directly from central government, rather than the local authority. They will be exempt from the national curriculum, although they will have a duty to provide “broad and balanced” teaching. Teachers in free schools will not be required to hold teaching qualifications and local authorities will play no statutory role in providing support."

Please forgive my ignorance on this but if teachers are not required to hold teaching qualifications then what is the requirement to be a teacher at one of these schools? University degree in a related area (physics, chemistry, literature etc) or someone who just appears to have some knowledge in the area (teaching by google and wikipedia?). Who ensures that the teachers can actually do their job correctly?

Also if local authorities have no statutory role in providing support who authorises the school zoning, access to public transport, speed limits (I assume that other countries have reduced speed limits during school hours), increased traffic congestion etc.

Tue, 22 Mar 2011 07:34:38 UTC | #605739

Roger J. Stanyard's Avatar Comment 21 by Roger J. Stanyard

From the Daily Telegraph:

Michael Gove 'crystal clear' creationism is not science Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, has confirmed that creationism will not be taught in free schools because it is "at odds with scientific fact".

The Department of Education responded to a letter of concern from the British Centre for Science Education (BCSE), which is worried by applications from Christian groups to run free schools.

It fears that schools might be exploited by groups seeking to promote a literal interpretation of the Bible at the expense of science classes.

However, the Department of Education confirmed that Mr Gove is "crystal clear that teaching creationism is at odds with scientific fact".

Free schools can be set up by charities, universities, businesses, educational groups, teachers and groups of parents. With an increased freedom of curriculum there have been concerns that scientific subjects might be neglected.

As with independent schools free school teachers will not need formal teaching qualifications. Related Articles

Mr Gove said at a free school conference in January that he would consider applications from creationist groups on a case-by-case basis.

The BCSE expressed in writing its "extreme concern" about groups such as Christian School Trust who have made up to five applications to run free schools.

It has had a proposal to run one primary school in Hampstead accepted which it describes as having a "distinctive Christian ethos that permeates every aspect of school life".

The Everyday Champions Church, in Newark, Nottinghamshire, submitted its proposal for a 652-place school in January. It claims that the parents of more than 660 children have signed up to attend the school.

The Church's leader Gareth Morgan told the BBC: "Creationism will be embodied as a belief at Everyday Champions Academy, but will not be taught in the sciences. Similarly, evolution will be taught as a theory. We believe children should have a broad knowledge of all theories in order that they can make informed choice."

In July last year Mr Gove acknowledged there were concerns about "inappropriate faith groups using this legislation to push their own agenda." He told MPs on the cross-party Commons education committee that his department was working to ensure there were no "extremist groups taking over schools".

Tue, 22 Mar 2011 09:09:23 UTC | #605749

Slugsie's Avatar Comment 22 by Slugsie

Why are we gambling with other kids futures? It seems obvious that children taught under such school schemes will not receive an equivalent education to other children, and will likely be thus at a disadvantage. Whilst it's possible that they will receive an outstanding education that is the envy of normally controlled schools we all know that this won't happen. Such religious free (I can't help reading that as schools that are free of religion - just my wishful thinking I guess) schools will push their single religion oriented agenda, likely without even the benefit of any for of comparative religious teaching.

Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:21:46 UTC | #605769

wahee's Avatar Comment 23 by wahee

The Conservative gimmick mongers never know when to stop. Gove is indeed being naive as creationists will use every crack, and there are some huge ones in this policy, to push their tosh and moronic ideas. The education system seems to be treated with contempt by government. As others have said, it’s the future of the country.

Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:17:56 UTC | #605880

Vorlund's Avatar Comment 24 by Vorlund

"When Mr Gove appeared in front of the education select committee last year, he acknowledged concerns about “inappropriate faith groups using this legislation to push their own agenda” but assured MPs that his department had been “working on the regulations to ensure that we don’t have any extremist groups taking over schools.”

Children are susceptible to arguments posited by any authority and particularly susceptible to ideas of supernaturalism and unseen agency.

When will the gerrymandering, fuckwits who make claims of competence to run this country get it into their tiny brain pans. KEEP RELIGION OUT OF EDUCATION!

We are an endangered species! If we are to advance we must be able to think clearly and pass that onto our children.

Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:11:18 UTC | #605894

KenChimp's Avatar Comment 25 by KenChimp

Unfortunately, I must agree with wahee on this. I do believe that government, not just in Great Britain, but at least in the United States as well has little but contempt for "education". Oh, government does indeed hold the "institution" of compulsory education in the States with some measure of positive regard. This isn't the same as respect for education. What government in my nation seems to want is indoctrination of future generations of the People in the accepted and obligatory mythologies of a great power literally choking to death on its own bile.

Over the past thirty years I have watched as "education", the enlightening of the human mind to the facts and suppositions of our species' knowledge base and epistomology, has been supplanted by socio-political and religious camps of preposterous, authoritarian humanist socialism on the left, and preposterous, authoritarian theocratic fascism on the right. Our schools, educators and children are caught in the middle and suffering terribly for it.

A State Senator in my own state of Florida has proposed (for the second time in his Senatorial career), a bill requiring that the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection be subject to critical analysis, by which he means comparative analysis to the myths of his religious beliefs. This ignorant man has attempted (very poorly) to conceal the true intention of the bill, which is nothing short of mandating by law that the mythology of a specific religious belief system be given equal merit with scientific theory in the classrooms of Florida's compulsory educational institutions.

This sort of nonsense is occurring all over America at an alarming rate. And at the same time, those in the "leftist" camp propose legislation straight-jacketing our youth with mandates on clothing, writings, speech and other forms of self-expression deemed "dangerous". Young children are suspended from school or even expelled for simulating firearms with their fingers in free-play on school play grounds. Although I am no paragon on rational humanity, I do insist that games of "cops and robbers" played in my youth on school grounds did not turn me into a homocidal sociopath shooter. Quite the contrary, a child learns much by emulating in their fantasy play people in real world scenarios the children have gleaned from books, television, movies and other media. Such expression allows children to come to grips with the often frightening, confusing (if not down-right insane) world we adults are responsible for creating and maintaining by our own endeavors.

On the one hand, science is under attack by fundamentalist religion. On the other hand, free expression is under attack by fundamentalist socialism. This, my friends, is a recipe for disaster. I will only point out the scientific facts showing the degradation of the level of knowledge and critical thinking capability in my own nation. You may find a host of literature on the decline of American education all over the internet and in published scientific studies.

There are wars and conflicts going on the world over which need our rational attention. But we must recognize and respond intelligently to the most destructive of these wars: the war on reason itself.

Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:13:28 UTC | #605896

Stafford Gordon's Avatar Comment 26 by Stafford Gordon

Hopefully, creationist opportunism will undermine this crackpot idea.

John Harris: "...If you're going into a classroom and saying 'we come from monkeys, BUT WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE, don't call it science."

Clearly, this man cannot be permitted to teach!

Tue, 22 Mar 2011 18:18:46 UTC | #605926

Vorlund's Avatar Comment 27 by Vorlund

Comment 25 by KenChimp :

I do believe that government, not just in Great Britain, but at least in the United States as well has little but contempt for "education". Oh, government does indeed hold the "institution" of compulsory education in the States with some measure of positive regard. This isn't the same as respect for education. What government in my nation seems to want is indoctrination of future generations of the People in the accepted and obligatory mythologies of a great power literally choking to death on its own bile. >

Education the UK is a spring board for ministers who want to get on. It brings them into the public spotlight, they tamper with it ineffectually (other than to make matters worse) as if to look intelligent and concerned for the welfare of future genrations. They apply metrics (performance criteria) which only make sense in a political arena but are meaningless to any one with a even the most feeble grasp of statististics. And then say "Look here's the evidence look how bloody marvellous we are!" The whole point of having a national curriculum was to have a standard so that teachers didn't each 'off the wall piffle'. So what is the point of a 'free school'?

Wed, 23 Mar 2011 07:04:09 UTC | #606108

Roger J. Stanyard's Avatar Comment 28 by Roger J. Stanyard

Comment 27 by Vorlund :

Education the UK is a spring board for ministers who want to get on. It brings them into the public spotlight, they tamper with it ineffectually (other than to make matters worse) as if to look intelligent and concerned for the welfare of future genrations. They apply metrics (performance criteria) which only make sense in a political arena but are meaningless to any one with a even the most feeble grasp of statististics. And then say "Look here's the evidence look how bloody marvellous we are!" The whole point of having a national curriculum was to have a standard so that teachers didn't each 'off the wall piffle'. So what is the point of a 'free school'?

Nah, it's the job of politicians to "muddle" in education because it's state funded. Otherwise those running education would be unaccountable.

If you really mean what you see, rather than just talking, try lobbying.

You can't have it boths ways, whinge about education and then moan about it changing. Especially when you've been given the chance to express your views to the policy makers and politicians. Or do you think it should be left to others like the BCSE to do something?

Wed, 23 Mar 2011 15:55:26 UTC | #606246

inquisador's Avatar Comment 29 by inquisador

We believe children should have a broad knowledge of all theories in order that they can make informed choice."

This business about evolution being 'only a theory', or equivalent to some twaddle on account of a shared categorization, does seem to be a worryingly common talking point helping to enable liars to fool people with the creationist/ID crackpottery.

I wonder, is there a reason why the theory of evolution could not, like the theory of gravity, become known as a law? Surely the facts are sufficiently beyond doubt. Yes, I know that a 'theory' may well be proven and still be known as a theory, but there is a need to be more convincingly assertive of the facts of evolution for the sake of those who don't know how well-proven it really is. Perhaps 'law' would not be the right word. Does anyone have another suggestion?

Wed, 23 Mar 2011 16:34:08 UTC | #606266

jbyrd's Avatar Comment 30 by jbyrd

Comment 29 by inquisador :

We believe children should have a broad knowledge of all theories in order that they can make informed choice."

This business about evolution being 'only a theory', or equivalent to some twaddle on account of a shared categorization, does seem to be a worryingly common talking point helping to enable liars to fool people with the creationist/ID crackpottery.

I wonder, is there a reason why the theory of evolution could not, like the theory of gravity, become known as a law? Surely the facts are sufficiently beyond doubt. Yes, I know that a 'theory' may well be proven and still be known as a theory, but there is a need to be more convincingly assertive of the facts of evolution for the sake of those who don't know how well-proven it really is. Perhaps 'law' would not be the right word. Does anyone have another suggestion?

Its a good idea, but how exactly do you get it accepted by everyone? Who determines whether something has elevated to the level of a law, and do they have any PR to sell it.

Thu, 24 Mar 2011 01:21:26 UTC | #606442