Teaching Creationism as a Scientific Alternative to Evolution – Banned

A long-standing campaign is finally over. The British Humanist Association (BHA), which has spearheaded the Teach Evolutionism, Not Creationism campaign since 2011, found its triumph in the UK Government’s latest ban.

“Teaching creationism as scientifically valid now banned in all UK public schools,” read the latest headline in the United Press International. Apparently, the movement against teaching creationism isn’t restrained in UK.

The United States’ take on creationism was also stirred, thanks to the commencing public debates surrounding the same subject, creationism – pioneered by Bill Nye, the Science Guy.

Not a scientific fact

Creationism is a movement known to deny the arguments propelled by the “scientific theory of evolution.” One such argument is the use of the theory to act as base for the “history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth.”

The ban for teaching creationism under the premise of scientific validity was embedded in the Government’s newly released funding agreements. The teaching of creationism fell into clauses that made explicit prohibitions against pseudoscience.

The parties acknowledge that clauses 2.43 and 2.44 of the Funding Agreement [which preclude the teaching of pseudoscience and require the teaching of evolution] apply to all academies. They explicitly require that pupils are taught about the theory of evolution, and prevent academy trusts from teaching ‘creationism’ as scientific fact, one clause reads.

Furthermore, teaching the subject as ‘scientifically valid’ works against the objective of the academy and free schools: “to provide a broad and balanced curriculum.”

Expanding the coverage

The recent changes had virtually expanded the ban’s actual scope. The initial agreements begun with the “future Free schools.” It hadn’t made explicit clauses that required Academies to prohibit “teaching pseudoscience as science.”

By April, this was tweaked: the Government launched for the extension of these agreements to include “future stand-alone Academies.” These revisions or additions came with the introduction of “new rules to stop religious discrimination.”

Finally, the more recent changes encompassed all Academies – including those parts of multi-Academy trusts. Additional clauses were also introduced to bring clarification regarding the “meaning of creationism.”

The Epilogue

Is there any hope for pupils to actually encounter creationism at school? Here’s a hint:

The funding agreement notes that the discussion of beliefs about the origin of the Earth including creationism are permitted in religious education…

BHA, on the other hand, will be basking in the light of this triumph. Mr Pavan Dhaliwal, BHA Head of Public Affairs, considered the government’s stance as a means to finally meet the association’s primary objectives.

Now that this particular campaign has been won, BHA will be able to harness its focus to address other pressing matters:

…the large number of state financed creationist nurseries, or the inadequate inspection of private creationist schools…

While this ban stamps the BHA campaign, the voices of instructors carrying over creationist teaching under the wing of science are yet to be heard.

Furthermore, could it be that the move against teaching creationism only revealed pupils’ confusion between the two popular theories: one of evolution and that of creationism?

Will the ban in teaching creationism make a difference in the pupils’ understanding of the living things’ history and development?

Could it also result in an increased appreciation for the sciences and help draw pupils to take more STEM subjects?