MP Correspondence Update (Lies in Science, Part 2)
Further to my update the other day, I’ve just received a full reply from my MP regarding my letter about the unscientific codswallop being peddled to kids in UK state school science lessons.
Dear Mr Ryan,
I have received a reply from Andrew Adonis MP who is the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Schools which I have enclosed for you to see.
The letter does support your concerns about the ‘Truth in Science’ information packs as not being appropriate resources to be used for the teaching of science in schools within the national curriculum. It goes on to say that it might be a matter for SACRE to consider as part of the syllabus looking at other beliefs.
I do hope this has been helpful and that you will write to me again when the need arises.
Yours sincerely,
Kali Mountford MP
And here is Mr Adonis’s response to Ms Mountford’s letter (I have used high-tech distortion technology on my address details to protect the innocent, and have bolded the important bit where he talks about what’s right and wrong, and what he’s going to do about it):
Dear Kali,
Thank you for your letter of 8 December, addressed to Alan Johnson, enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Tom Ryan of Hrmml Mmbls, Mmbl Rmbl, Hrmlszzzzzt about the distribution of the ‘Truth in Science’ information pack to schools. I am replying as Minister with responsibility for the national curriculum.
I should explain that the ‘Truth in Science’ information pack and website have generated a number of enquiries to the Department. In the vast majority of cases, the correspondent shares your constituents concern that the ‘Truth in Science’ organisation is encouraging schools to teach about intelligent design as a scientific theory, at the expense of evolution as the accepted theory.
Schools are under a duty to follow the science programme of study which sets out the legal requirements of the national curriculum. The programme of study for key stage 4 pupils includes a focus on the nature of science as a subject discipline including what constitutes scientific evidence and how this is established by experimentation. Pupils also learn that terminology used in science, such as theory, often have different meanings from their everyday usage. They learn that accepted scientific theories have extensive supporting evidence from established bodies of scientific knowledge. They also learn that evidence can form the basis for further experimentation. The role of the scientific community in evaluating and validating new work is also included, as is the nature of and evidence for evolution.
To meet the requirements of the national curriculum for science, teachers must teach about scientific theories. Intelligent design is not a recognised scientific theory and is therefore not included in the science curriculum. The ‘Truth in Science’ information pack is not therefore an appropriate resource to support the science curriculum. My Department is working with the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to ensure that this message is communicated to schools.
Your constituent is correct in his comment that intelligent design can be explored in religious education as part of developing an understanding of different beliefs. It is up to the local Standing Advisory Councils on Religious Education (SACREs) to set the syllabus for how this should be done.I hope that my reply will help to alleviate some of Mr Ryan’s concerns.
Andrew Adonis
Well, ideally, I’d have liked to have seen all those involved dismissed on the spot, and forbidden from teaching in any state school ever again, but with science teachers being a bit scarce I suppose that isn’t really an option. I can’t help thinking that if a few of these idiots were made examples of, any other similarly delusional lunatics that might have managed to worm their way into UK science classrooms might think twice before taking liberties with the national curriculum. This is better than nothing, though, and if it helps prevent future instances of similar nonsense, as surely it must, then it counts as a small victory.
(Incidentally, I won’t be wearing myself out with any attempts to get Intelligent Design taught in R.E. lessons, although when I consider the attitude of my contemporaries towards that subject at school, it strikes me that it might be a good way to neutralise ‘Truth in Science’ altogether.)