Teach Evolution & Scientific Method in Primary Schools Campaign

Teaching of evolution should be included at both primary and secondary levels in the National Curriculum and in all schools - Update

2011-09-19T00:41:00.000-07:00

Creationism and ‘intelligent design’ are not scientific theories, but they are portrayed as scientific theories by some religious fundamentalists who attempt to have their views promoted in publicly-funded schools. There should be enforceable statutory guidance that they may not be presented as scientific theories in any publicly-funded school of whatever type.

But this is not enough. An understanding of evolution is central to understanding all aspects of biology. The teaching of evolution should be included at both primary and secondary levels in the National Curriculum and in all schools. source: http://evolutionnotcreationism.org.uk/

Progress | Position Statement | Signatories

Teach evolution, not creationism - Sign Petition

2011-08-22T06:44:00.000-07:00

If 100,000 sign by 12th August 2012, Parliament will debate the issue. Sign the Petition

Teach evolution, not creationism

Responsible department: Department for Education

Creationism and ‘intelligent design’ are not scientific theories, but they are portrayed as scientific theories by some religious fundamentalists who attempt to have their views promoted in publicly-funded schools. At the same time, an understanding of evolution is central to understanding all aspects of biology. Currently, the study of evolution does not feature explicitly in the National Curriculum until year 10 (ages 14-15). Free Schools and Academies are not obliged to teach the National Curriculum and so are under no obligation to teach about evolution at all. We petition the Government to make clear that creationism and ‘intelligent design’ are not scientific theories and to prevent them from being taught as such in publicly-funded schools, including in ‘faith’ schools, religious Academies and religious Free Schools. At the same time, we want the Government to make the teaching of evolution in mandatory in all publicly-funded schools, at both primary and secondary level.

Number of signatures:

4,272

Created by:

Richy Thompson

Closing:

12/08/2012

View other e-petitions for the Department of Education.

email to Desmond Swayne MP about Evolution and the Scientific Method

2011-03-27T00:03:00.000-07:00

email to Desmond Swayne MP 27 March 2011

We met on 10 July 2009 to discuss the introduction of Evolution into the Primary school curriculum. You kindly wrote to Diana Johnson MP (Parliamentary Under Secretary for State for Schools at DCSF) on this subject.

my blog: http://teachevolutionprimaryschool.blogspot.com/2009/12/from-2011-evolution-will-be-compulsory.html

I am writing as your constituent to bring to your attention two Early Day Motions which I am asking you to support.

EDM number 243 reads, “That this House notes the value and importance of science in the schools' curriculum; further notes the importance of the specific inclusion of evolution and natural selection in the schools' curriculum; regrets that evolution has been dropped from reforms to the primary school curriculum, along with other reforms proposed; further regrets the inclusion of creationist and other pseudo-scientific theories in the teaching of science in some schools; and urges the Government to ensure that all schools teach and promote science and the scientific method and to include the theory of evolution in the science curriculum at both primary and secondary levels.”

And EDM 185 reads,

“That this House congratulates the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on the re-opening of the Ulster Museum; regrets that there is pressure to include creationism in the proposed exhibition of evolution and diversity; and believes that the teaching or promotion of religious beliefs should be separate from the teaching or promotion of science.” I am very concerned that government plans to give schools greater freedom over the curriculum may lead to less evolution being taught in schools and a greater risk that some schools, particularly ‘faith schools’ may try to introduce creationism into the science classroom. As evolution is arguably the most important concept underlying the life sciences, it is of paramount importance that it is included in the education of children of all ages. Providing children with an understanding of it an early age will help lay the foundations for a surer scientific understanding later on.

I urge you to add your support to EDMs 243 and 185.

Happy Birthday Charlie!

2011-02-12T23:24:00.000-08:00

Evolution Made Us All from Ben Hillman on Vimeo.

Questioning Origins

2011-02-02T11:54:00.000-08:00

source: http://www.thewonderproject.co.uk/index.php

KS3: Examine 4 worldviews

Lead KS3 pupils through Christian, Hindu, Humanist and Islamic explanations of our Origins.

Help pupils form their own opinions Tackle the creation / evolution debate Explore Darwin’s life and changing views Many options for leading 6 RE lessons, as well as supporting lessons in Art, English, Music and Science. Download free sample (PDF).

Helping pupils consider the issues around creation and evolution is a complex task. Different people hold different views – some based on religious teaching, others on scientific discoveries, and still others combine the two.
Made by http://www.trinity-bris.ac.uk/ -

courses in Bible and theology for Christian mission and ministry

BHA request action after latest attempts to inject creationist ideas into school science learning

2010-01-20T01:18:00.000-08:00

BHA have news of "Truth in Science" book aimed at schoolchildren via school library.

The BHA has asked Education Secretary Ed Balls to act against a new wave of propagandist material dressed up as science that has been sent to secondary schools by the creationist organisation Truth in Science.

The BHA previously wrote to the DCSF about Truth in Science in 2006 after the organisation attempted to infiltrate teaching of creationism and ‘intelligent design’ in school science lessons by posting costly free teaching resources to all secondary school heads of science and by encouraging parents to challenge teaching on the origins of species.

The Government distanced itself from the resources sent to schools and, after campaigning by the BHA and others, finally published its ‘Guidance on the place of creationism and intelligent design in science lessons’ in September 2007. The guidance makes clear that creationism and intelligent design are not scientific theories, and so cannot be taught in science lessons, as they have "no underlying scientific principles, or explanations".

Truth in Science has now sent copies of the book ‘Explore Evolution: The Arguments for and against Neo-Darwinism’ to school librarians around the country. The book seeks to undermine the theory of evolution and seeks to have creationist-inspired ideas, such as ‘intelligent design’, implanted as credible scientific viewpoints. In the letter that accompanies the book they argue that ‘the textbook is ideally suited for use in the classroom and for teachers who wish to increase their understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of modern evolutionary theory’.

James Williams, Lecturer in Science Education at the University of Sussex says:

"The book cleverly omits any mention of creationism and intelligent design, but merely contains updated and rehashed creationist arguments. The book is subtly loaded against evolution, yet purports to be a ‘balanced argument’. It is cleverly constructed and leads the reader down a path where the answer always seems ‘obvious’ – design – it is if you follow their arguments – but the arguments they have loaded in favour of design cannot be balanced.

"Given the backlash against their last attempt to lever intelligent design into UK they have clearly decided to try a back-door route by pushing these books onto a largely non-scientific audience of school librarians. They could be easily be taken in by the glossy production values and miss the arguments loaded in favour of ‘design’. Many unsuspecting librarians may well have placed this on school shelves.

"If the intelligent design community wishes to be taken seriously it must spend its money on serious scientific research and gain acceptance that way. So far they have produced no credible evidence to date, unlike the mountain of evidence for evolution.”

Notes

James Williams is available for comment upon request. For information or further comment please contact Paul Pettinger on 020 7462 4993.

David Flint, Humanists4Science had 500+ signatures for No 10 petition

2009-12-02T20:24:00.000-08:00

David Flint, Chairman of Humanists4Science had 500+ signatures (incl. Chris Street) for his No 10 petition:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to include the teaching of evolution by natural selection in the new national primary curriculum. More details

More details from petition creator

Scientists are agreed that all today’s living organisms have evolved over millions of years from simpler organisms. This evolution is best explained by Darwin’s theory of natural selection and its subsequent refinement. Natural selection is the most powerful tool for understanding living things.

The current draft curriculum includes living things but omits evolution and natural selection. These ideas are needed to lay a foundation for later studies and to help children see their place in the living world and the universe.

Submitted by Mr David Flint – Deadline to sign up by: 18 August 2009 –Signatures: 536

This petition was mentioned in The Times, 20 November 2009.

Evolution is to become a compulsory subject for study in all state primary schools - The Times

2009-11-20T20:04:00.000-08:00

Evolution is to become a compulsory subject for study in all state primary schools. The Government announced yesterday that Darwin’s theory of how life evolved through natural selection would be a legal requirement in science teaching from September 2011, although it will be left to schools to decide how this is done.

The move, which was welcomed by scientists, comes despite a drive to slim down the national curriculum for primary schools and leave teachers greater discretion over what to teach.

Church and other faith schools within the state system will have to educate their pupils about the theory of evolution, although officials said it could be taught in a context that reflected a school’s ethos, in a similar way to compulsory sex education for children aged under 15.

“You could do that within the ethos of the school. If as a school, in consultation with governors and parents, you have a particular take on that, you would still be able to do that,” said a spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families. The change, included in legislation introduced in the Commons yesterday, follows a review of the curriculum for primary schools published earlier this year by Sir Jim Rose.

A consultation on his proposals to loosen the number of formal topics taught in primary schools prompted calls for the curriculum explicitly to include evolution. More than 500 scientists and supporters signed an e-petition to Downing Street.

The new curriculum is to include a requirement “to investigate and explain how plants and animals are ‘interdependent’ and are diverse and adapted to their environment by natural selection”.

The age at which children must be taught about evolution is not specified; it must be included in science lessons “in the later stage of the primary education”.

The Royal Society applauded the decision and said that it would send booklets to all teacher-training colleges with information and advice.

Professor Sir Martin Taylor, its vice-president, said: “We are delighted to see evolution explicitly included in the primary curriculum. One of the most remarkable achievements of science over the past 200 years has been to show how humans and organisms on the Earth arose through evolution.”

Humanists4Science welcomes new legislation for the teaching of evolution in primary schools

2009-11-19T22:16:00.000-08:00

Humanists4Science welcomes new legislation, introduced today, on primary curriculum reform in England, which introduces compulsory teaching of evolution to ages 5-11 year old children.

Chris Street (pictured) reports that following Humanist4Science July 2009 proposals to the Government, legislation was introduced today (11 November 2009), to make evolution compulsory and explicitly taught to children aged 5-11 years in Primary Schools.

The Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) (19 November 2009) press release states that Evolution will be compulsory in the Primary curriculum from September 2011.

However the Humanists4Science proposal for compulsory teaching of 'The Scientific Method' in Primary Schools, was not taken up.

In July 2009 Chris Street authored the Humanists4Science submission to the Primary Curriculum reform consultation by Jim Rose.

Chris Street of the Humanists4Science group said "this is brilliant news because now children will learn about evolution as early as five years rather than when they are fourteen.

I met Desmond Swayne MP on 10 July to discuss teaching evolution in Primary Schools and he who wrote to Diana Johnson MP (Parliamentary Under Secretary for State for Schools at the DCSF). I think Humanists4Science have had a direct input into successfully changing National Primary School curriculum legislation."

Andrew Copson, BHA Director of Education and Public Affairs, said, ‘It is fantastic to hear final confirmation that, for the first time, evolution will now be included in the national primary curriculum. Evolution is arguably the most important concept underlying the life sciences. That it had not originally been included in the revised primary curriculum was of great concern and we are pleased to see that has now been rectified.’

source: www.DCSF.gov.uk, 19 November 2009, Major reform to curriculum at the heart of a renewed push to drive up standards.

source: Humanists4Science submission to the Jim Rose Primary Curriculum reform consultation.

Department for Children Schools and Families Press Release

The Department for Children Schools and Families dcsf.gov.uk 19 November 2009 Press Release stated that from September 2011 in Primary Schools:-

"Evolution made compulsory and importance of British history confirmed in new areas of learning"

"Schools Minister Vernon Coaker has today confirmed plans to bring in a new curriculum to shake-up primary education – with overwhelming support from pupils, parents, teachers and experts."

"New legislation introduced today on primary curriculum reform in England will drive up education standards across the board. Vernon Coaker confirmed that evolution will become a compulsory part of science education"

"Due to the positive response to Jim Rose’s proposals, few changes were made to the proposed Areas of Learning. However, after consulting with parents, teachers, the science community and other interested parties, pupils will be expected to explicitly cover evolution as part of their learning. Learning about evolution is an important part of science education, and pupils already learn about it at secondary school."

Background

The independent review of the primary curriculum, the first in ten years, was led by educational expert Sir Jim Rose and began in spring 2008. The new legislation is based on his report, which sought the views of teachers, parents, pupils and subject experts and took over a year to complete. The Government accepted Jim Rose’s recommendations in full in April this year. The BHA, Humanists4Science and others commented on his review by 24 July 2009.

Humanists4Science Proposals on Evolution

in the Science, Life and Living sections include:-

Charles Darwins’ theory of Evolution by Natural Selection - the single most important idea underlying the life sciences.
how organisms are adapted to their environments and how variation can lead to evolutionary changes.’
children should understand that, over time, organisms have evolved.

the Key Stage 4 curriculum (pg 224) states: -

Organisms and health - In their study of science, the following should be covered:

a) organisms are interdependent and adapted to their environments
b) variation within species can lead to evolutionary changes and similarities and differences between species can be measured and classified

Humanists4Science recommend that part of the Key Stage 4 curriculum be included in the later stages of the Primary Curriculum viz.

‘to apply knowledge and understanding to describe how organisms are adapted to their environments and how variation can lead to evolutionary changes’

Humanists4Science recommend addition of notes:-

L14. to apply knowledge and understanding to describe and explain the structure and function of key human body systems including reproduction
L15. to investigate the structure, function, life cycle and growth of flowering plants and explain how these are linked
L16. to investigate, identify and explain the benefits of micro-organisms and the harm they can cause

Humanists4Science welcome the example of the study of Evolution and Darwin (page 48) included in the report under Cross-curricular studies:-

‘Schools that chose the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth to launch a study of this famous Victorian and his lasting contribution to science included learning about the journeys of the Beagle, mapping the route to the Galapagos Islands and the climate and conditions revealed through the voyage which furnished Darwin with a wealth of evidence for his theory of evolution.‘

Conclusion:

Humanists4Science consider that Evolution be specifically mentioned in the Primary Curriculum.

Humanists4Science Proposals on Scientific Method.
Humanists4Science proposed (pages 16-17) that the 'scientific method' be included in the Primary curriculum.

We recommended that the scientific and technological curriculum be amended to:-

Pupils develop valuable skills in applying scientific method, that is generating and testing ideas, gathering and making sense of evidence, developing possible solutions, and evaluating processes and outcomes. They learn to distinguish evidence from opinion and communicate their findings in a variety of ways."

"essential knowledge should include "a direct reference to the value of science as a way of finding out true facts.

"addition of "how the scientific method enables us to learn truths about reality". Humanists4Science proposed that key skills, taken together, make up the scientific method. and that scientific method skills are needed by children to make progress:’

"Conclusion: Humanists4Science consider that Scientific Method be specifically mentioned in the Primary Curriculum."

Submission by Humanists4Science

Who are Humanists4Science?

Humanists4Science (H4S) group is for humanists with an active interest in science. We believe that science is a fundamental part of humanism but also that it should be directed to humane and ethical ends. Science is, in our view, more a method than a body of facts. H4S seek to promote, within the humanist community and beyond, the application of the scientific method to issues of concern to broader society.

Scientists win place for evolution in primary schools

2009-11-11T12:50:00.000-08:00

The government is ready to put evolution on the primary curriculum for the first time after years of lobbying by senior scientists.

The schools minister, Diana Johnson, has confirmed the plans will be included in a blueprint for a new curriculum to be published in the next few weeks.

It follows a letter signed by scientists and science educators calling on the government to make the change after draft versions of the new curriculum failed to mention evolution explicitly.

The open letter sent in July to Ed Balls, the children's secretary, was signed by 25 leading figures from science and education, who urged the government to rewrite the curriculum before it was finalised.

Among the signatories were the Oxford University evolutionary biologistRichard Dawkins, three Nobel laureates and Reverend Professor Michael Reiss, the professor of science education at the Institute of Education in London.

The letter expressed alarm that the theory of evolution through natural selection, which it describes as "one of the most important ideas underlying biological science", was ignored in the revamped curriculum.

"We consider its inclusion vital," the letter said.

In a letter to the British Humanist Association (BHA), which has co-ordinated the campaign for evolution on the curriculum, Johnson confirmed it would be in the final draft. Pupils will start with simple concepts of change, adaptation and natural selection illustrated by the evolution of fish to amphibians to mammals, for example.

Andrew Copson, director of education at the BHA, said: "Evolution is arguably the most important concept underlying the life sciences. Providing children with an understanding of it an early age will help lay the foundations for a surer scientific understanding later on. I congratulate the government for taking on board the contributions from so many supporters of science education."

The government asked its primary school adviser, Sir Jim Rose, to overhaul the curriculum for four- to 11-year-olds last year. His report in the spring set out widespread reforms to the curriculum.

It recommended stripping away the 11 subjects primaries must cover by law, and replacing them with six "areas of learning", including history, science and geography. In the next few weeks, the results of the consultation on Rose's plans will be published along with the government's response.

Copson said the teaching of evolution was particularly important in the wake of a recent survey commissioned by the British Council, which found that 54% of Britons agreed with the view that "evolutionary theories should be taught in science lessons in schools together with other possible perspectives, such as intelligent design and creationism".

Johnson said: "Learning about evolution is an important part of science education, and pupils already learn about it at secondary school.

"The draft primary curriculum was designed to cover evolution as an implicit part of the new programme of learning for science and technology. After a public consultation on the plans – which took in the views of parents, teachers, the public, subject experts and other interested parties – it is expected that evolution will be covered explicitly in the new primary curriculum. The responses from the consultation will be published shortly."

Inclusion of evolution in primary school science - NOW CONFIRMED!!

2009-11-10T16:55:00.000-08:00

source: http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/386
The BHA has today 8 November 2009 welcomed a statement from the Department of Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) that the theory of evolution is to now be included in primary school science lessons in England.

In April this year the government began consultation on a new primary school curriculum, which like its predecessor, failed to make any mention of the theory of evolution or process of natural selection.

During the summer the BHA organised a public letter from a group of distinguished scientists and science educators, calling on government to include evolution in the primary curriculum. The BHA made its own submission to the consultation and encouraged members and supporters to do the same, as well as petitioning MPs and ministers on the issue.

In a letter to the BHA from the DCSF, minister Diana Johnson MP has now stated that ‘We have considered the consultation reports...and the views expressed on this issue by the BHA and members of the science community. As a result of the consultation you will be pleased to know that evolution is now included in the programme of learning for scientific and technological understanding.’

Drop GCSEs. We should be teaching our children to think

2009-08-16T08:13:00.000-07:00

Peter HymanAug 15, 2009 23:05:00 GMT

This is related to teaching primary kids scientific method.

Politicians should stop worrying about whether tests are being 'dumbed down' and provide pupils with the right tools for life

"If I put a bunch of flowers in the back of a computer, does the computer become a vase? Everyone spend a minute thinking please. Let me stress there is no right answer." This was the start of my assembly for 240 11-year-olds at a west London comprehensive a few weeks ago. Pointing at a boy in the second row I ask: "What do you think?"

"It can't be a vase, the computer wouldn't hold water."

"I don't agree," another says. "You could put water in the back and push in the flowers and then it would be a vase."

"No, the water wouldn't stay," a student answers. "A vase has to be curved, so it can hold water."

"A vase has to be pretty, that's the point of it," says a nervous girl at the back.

"So what is the definition of a vase?" I ask. "Could this be a vase?" I say, holding up a dustbin. The students look thoughtful.

"If I put this bunch of flowers in my mouth," I say, clutching four wilting daffodils, "and put water in my mouth, am I a vase?" I start to put the flower stems in my mouth. There are rumblings of "yuk" from the hall.

"No, whatever you do you're not going to be a vase," one girl says emphatically.

"So where have we got to?" I ask.

A serious-looking boy answers: "The computer is not a vase; it is only acting as a vase for that moment. It is changing its identity, sir."

This question, about flowers and computers, is one of hundreds of "thunks" – "questions that make your brain go ouch" – compiled by educationalist Ian Gilbert to get students to think. Yet surprisingly, children spend very little of their time in school thinking. There is almost an unspoken deal: we'll spoonfeed you the required nuggets of information to pass your exams if you behave and do your homework on time. Our education system is not designed to get children to think. Why?

Because even now, after some streamlining of subjects, teachers have huge amounts of content to plough through. Because teachers often do not have the techniques or confidence to engage in open-ended, probing questioning. Because in some schools there are crowd-control issues that get in the way. There is perhaps one further reason. We don't prize thinking in this country. We are suspicious of the intellectual; it's almost as if we believe too much thinking is not a good thing.

Using a power-point slide, I give my students some of the theory of educationalist Benjamin Bloom. There are six levels of thinking, starting with the most basic, knowledge, and progressing to understanding, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Lessons where students have to evaluate and justify their answers, synthesise many sources of information or create, for example, a new experiment in science using the principles they have learnt in previous lessons, all involve higher-order thinking.

Yet too many lessons do not get beyond information-giving and that's often because exams test knowledge and some understanding but not a lot else. That means much of a child's education is spent on low-level thinking. The result is, sadly, that the imagination and potential of too many children are dulled.

The traditionalists would say that the main problem is ignorance of basic information. The conclusion of these critics is that schools don't teach this stuff any more. They do, of course, with bells on. A thousand years of British history has been compulsory since 1988. The question is why aren't students retaining the information? The answer: probably that there is too much focus on imparting knowledge and not techniques for understanding, explaining and then using that knowledge.

While passionate subject specialists are essential to bring a subject alive (my students were almost salivating when they got their hands on some original correspondence between Churchill and Hitler held at the magnificent national archives at Kew), freely available information on the internet means that the role of the teacher must now be changed (many are already doing this). They need to focus on students acquiring a way of thinking, a series of transferable techniques, that can be used in a range of situations.

This week I, like many teachers, will share the anxiety of my students awaiting exam results, worrying about my GCSE history students in particular.

The truth is that the annual debate about whether exams are too easy or too hard misses the point – which is whether the exams test the right sorts of things. In my view, they don't. GCSE exam results are not a true reflection of the talent of my students or anyone else's. GCSEs are based on the assumption that students leave school at 16, which most don't. Yet politicians of all parties are too scared to get rid of them. It's time to scrap them and have a series of pathways from 14 to 19, with students able to take relevant exams and do extended projects at the times that suit them. The best schools are starting to offer this already.

Much has been achieved in education since Labour came to power in 1997. There is more funding, better teaching and improved literacy, though there is a huge amount still to be done to ensure that every child enters secondary school reading and writing properly. What has not been cracked is a policy for secondary schools.

With the government preoccupied with an education policy focused, it seems, more on "community cohesion" than learning and teaching, and the Tories believing, strangely, that another bout of structural reform is going to raise standards, what is being neglected yet again is what matters most – what goes on in the classroom.

What has been missing is a fundamental debate about the sort of students we want leaving school at 18. What skills do we want them to have? What toolkit should they have to thrive in the world they will enter? If we want Britain to succeed, we need students leaving school with the qualities – teamwork, creativity, perseverance – that will prepare them for their working lives. When employers are asked what skills they want from students, they regularly put good oral communication at the top of the list. Yet too few students leave school having the confidence to perform in front of an audience or present an articulate case without notes.

Many schools are now rebelling against the old way of doing things and devising lessons that explicitly teach students the best ways of improving their learning. I have spent several months working with some excellent teachers at my school to devise a new thinking skills curriculum for the 11-year-olds starting secondary school in September. The aim is to provide them with the tools – critical thinking, analysis, public speaking, reflection, leadership, independence, love of reading – that will encourage good learning habits and prepare them for a life enjoying learning.

Yet unless politicians get behind it, every school that does something similar will worry that Ofsted or the government will expose them for not drilling their students enough in the antiquated exams they sit.

My assembly ends with a final thunk: "What colour is a zebra when you remove the stripes? Find me in the playground later today and give me an answer. But when you leave this hall, remember one thing: school is for thinking."

Peter Hyman is deputy headteacher of a London comprehensive. He was political strategist to Tony Blair from 1994-2003 and is the author of 1 Out of 10.

Peter Hyman

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009

Top scientists and science educators in primary curriculum call to Ed Balls

2009-08-14T20:33:00.000-07:00

JUL272009 byBHA: http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/327

Twenty-six of the UK’s top scientists and science educators including among them three Nobel laureates; Richard Dawkins, former professor for the public understanding of science at the University of Oxford; TV presenter Adam Hart Davis; and science education experts James Williams and Revd Professor Michael Reiss, have called on the Government to make vital changes to the new science curriculum proposed for primary schools in England.

The new curriculum, which has been proposed by a government commissioned review, was put out to a public consultation which closed last week. The government will now consider the responses made and make final decisions about the content of the curriculum in the autumn.

A joint letter has been written to Ed Balls, Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families which seeks a number of changes, including that the curriculum should cover evolution and natural selection and that it should make reference to the sense of fulfillment that the scientific endeavour can inspire and the use of science in equipping pupils to engage in important public discussions about scientific issues.

The letter was organised by the British Humanist Association, which promotes a rounded curriculum including good science education as part of its educational mission.

Andrew Copson, BHA Director of Education, said, ‘Science is not only key to understanding the world around us, but it is also vital for democratic citizenship. Without an understanding of key concepts people can not properly engage with public debates around the scientific and technological topics which will directly affect their lives. The primary curriculum needs to prepare children for this reality.’

Commented specifically on the question of evolution, Mr Copson said, ‘The wealth of colourful and engaging resources that explain evolution and natural selection to under 11 year olds demonstrates how easily children of this age can be introduced to these important scientific concepts. It is in no way too early an age at which to do that, especially when so much of popular culture conditions young children into a way of thinking that is not scientific. In fact, it is vital that children build understanding of these concepts early so that they can form a sure foundation for greater scientific understanding later in the curriculum.’

‘The curriculum currently being drafted will apply for years to come so it is vital that this long-standing omission of evolution is corrected now.’

NOTES

You can read the letter sent to Ed Balls here

For more information contact Paul Pettinger at the British Humanist Association on 020 7462 4993.

Professor Sir Tom Blundell FRS FMedSci is Sir William Dunn Professor of Biochemistry and head of the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Cambridge.

Paul Braterman is Professor Emeritus, University of North Texas and Honorary Senior Research Fellow in Chemistry, University of Glasgow.

Professor Richard Dawkins FRS is the former Professor for Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University and a prominent broadcaster on science.

Professor Sir Anthony Epstein, CBE, FRS, hon FRSE, FRCP is former Professor of Pathology, and Head of Department at the University of Bristol.

Professor Robin Dunbar FBA is Professor of Evolutionary Anthropology at the University of Oxford.

Professor R. John Ellis FRS is professor at the department of Biological Sciences, University of Warwick, Gairdner International Award Winner 2006, Cell Stress Society International Medal winner 2008.

Dr Dylan Evans is Lecturer in Behavioural Science in the School of Medicine at University College Cork.

Sir James Gowans CBE FRCP FRS was Henry Dale Research Professor of the Royal Society at the University of Oxford

Adam Hart-Davis is a prominent broadcaster on science and technology.

Professor Robert A Hinde CBE FRS FBE is Emeritus Royal Society Research Professor of Zoology at the University of Cambridge and former master of St. John's College, Cambridge.

Sir Tim Hunt FRS is a Nobel laureate in Physiology or Medicine.

Professor Hugh Huxley FRS MBE won the Royal Medal in 1977 and the Copley Medal in 1997. He was Professor of biology at Brandeis University.

Professor Steve Jones is professor of genetics and head of the biology department at University College London.

Professor Sir Hans Kornberg FRS is professor of Biology at Boston University and former Master of Christ's College, Cambridge.

Professor Sir Harold Kroto FRS was joint 1996 Nobel laureates in Chemistry.

Professor John Lee is consultant histopathologist at Rotherham General Hospital and clinical professor of pathology at Hull York Medical School. He has also broadcast and science and medicine.

Sir Paul Nurse FRS is a Nobel laureate in Physiology or Medicine and President of Rockefeller University.

Revd Professor Michael Reiss FIBiol, FRSA is Assistant Director and Professor of Science Education at the Institute of Education, University of London.

Sir David Smith FRS FRSE is former Principal of Edinburgh University (1987-1994), former President of Wolfson College, Oxford (1994-2000) and was awarded the Gold Medal for Botany of the Linnean Society in 1989.

Professor Sir Kenneth Stuart FRCP is a former adviser to Commonwealth Secretariat, London; Professor and Head of Department of Medicine, University of the West Indies, Jamaica; consultant, University Hospital, Jamaica; and consultant advisor to the Wellcome Trust.

Sir Fraser Stoddart FRS, FRSE is professor of Chemistry, Northwestern University

Sir John Sulston FRS is Chair, Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation (iSEI) at the University of Manchester

Professor Sir David Weatherall FRS is Chancellor of Keele University, former Professor of Haematology, former Nuffield Professor of Clinical Medicine at the University of Oxford and former Regius Professor of Medicine.

James Williams FIBio CSciTeach is Lecturer in Science Education at the University of Sussex.

Professor Raymond Tallis FMedSci is Emeritus Professor of Geriatric Medicine at the University of Manchester.

Professor Lewis Wolpert CBE FRS is Emeritus Professor of Biology as applied to Medicine, University College London.

TAKE ACTION by 24 July 2009! Consultation on the new Primary Curriculum in England: Science and evolution!

2009-07-24T12:31:00.000-07:00

source: British Humanist Association e-bulletin, 22 June 2009 & BHA site.

What is the issue?

In January 2008 the Government commissioned a review looking at both the organisation and content of the National Curriculum taught in primary schools in England. The review was lead by Sir Jim Rose. His final report was published on 30 April 2009.

The changes that have been proposed by the Rose Review have now been put out to public consultation. The consultation is being conducted by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). The public consultation will run until 24 July 2009, after which point the Government will consider how to proceed.

BHA position

The BHA broadly welcomes the proposed new curriculum. However, we have particular concerns regarding the new ‘scientific and technological understanding’ area of learning, which is one of six new ‘areas of learning’ that have been put forward as the new structure of the curriculum.

Our main concern is that the ‘scientific and technological understanding’ area of learning makes no requirement for pupils to learn about and investigate the concepts of natural selection and evolution. We believe that the theory of evolution – arguably the single most important idea underlying the life sciences today – must be included in the primary curriculum.

The wealth of new educational resources on evolution available for children of primary school age demonstrates their ability to grasp the simpler concepts associated with it, and a basic understanding of evolution will help lay the foundation for a surer scientific understanding later on in children’s school life.

With 2009 being the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species, the omission of evolution from the curriculum of primary schools is scandalous.

What can be done?

Please write to your MP, urging them to support the inclusion of natural selection and evolution in the primary curriculum. You can use our online facility to email your MP directly athttp://tinyurl.com/evolutioninprimaryschool.

Please also make a submission to the QCA’s public consultation, which you can do by downloading the consultation questionnaire online at http://www.qca.org.uk/qca_22265.aspx.

You can read the BHA's own response to the consultation at http://tinyurl.com/bhaprimaryreviewsubmission.

Here the BHA not only make more detailed comments about other weakness in ‘scientific and technological understanding’, but also in some of the other areas of learning. If you agree with the BHA's comments in these other areas then please do consider responding to these sections of the consultation as well.

If you are a teacher, please explore the possibility of your school making a response to the consultation to urge for the changes we are looking for.

If you are a member of a political party, you can write to the education contact or spokesperson of your party to urge them to support the changes we are seeking. For Labour, this is Rt Hon. Ed Balls MP on ed@edballs.com, for Conservatives this is Michael Gove MP ongovem@parliament.uk, for Liberal Democrats this is David Laws on lawsd@parliament.uk.

Please do all the above insofar as you are in a position to do so.

Please copy any submissions you make or correspondence you enter into on this subject to Paul Pettinger at the BHA (paul@humanism.org.uk or by post to British Humanist Association, 1 Gower Street, London WC1E 6HD).

Curriculum reform consultation to 24 July 2009: Teach 'Evolution' & 'Scientific Method' in Primary Schools

2009-07-23T04:02:00.000-07:00

Dear Simon Watmough, QCA, on behalf of the Department for Children, Schools and Families

Date: 23 July 2009

Cfi Paul Pettinger, British Humanist Association

Cfi David Flint, Humanists4Science, Chairman

Cfi Desmond Swayne MP, New Forest West

Cfi Diana Johnson MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Schools

Please find attached our Primary Curriculum reform consultation questionnaire: H4S_Primary_school_Evolution_FINAL3.pdf

Please note our comments on pages 16-17 about teaching ‘Evolution’ and ‘Scientific Method’ in Primary Schools.

Regards,

Chris Street BSc MBA

Humanists4Science committee member

www.Humanists4Science.org.uk

British Humanist Association member

www.humanism.org.uk

Humanists4Science Curriculum reform consultation (21 page pdf)

Letters from Desmond Swayne MP & Diana Johnson MP

2009-07-19T09:41:00.000-07:00

Diana Johnson MP is Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools.

What are the Key Stages?

2009-07-19T01:52:00.000-07:00

The National Curriculum applies to pupils of compulsory school age in community and foundation schools, including community special schools and foundation special schools, and voluntary aided and voluntary controlled schools. It is organised on the basis of four key stages.

Key stage 1: Ages 5-7 (Years 1-2)

Key stage 2: Ages 7-11 (Years 3-6)

Key stage 3: Ages 11-14 (Years 7-9)

Key stage 4: Ages 14-16 (Years 10-11).

At key stages 1 and 2 the statutory subjects that all pupils must study are art and design, design and technology, English, geography, history, information and communication technology, mathematics, music, physical education and science. Religious education must also be provided at key stages 1 and 2.

This content relates to the 1999 programmes of study and attainment targets.

Take Action - Sign the No10 Petition

2009-07-14T03:42:00.000-07:00

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to include the teaching of evolution by natural selection in the new national primary curriculum. More details

Submitted by Mr David Flint – Deadline to sign up by: 18 August 2009 –Signatures: 330

British Council surveys Evolutionary Theory

2009-07-08T22:55:00.000-07:00

source: http://www.britishcouncil.org/darwinnow-survey-uk.pdf

A survey has been made available by the British Council, for completion by the general public in each of these countries. This can be found by visiting: www.zoomerang.com/Survey/survey.zgi?p=WEB229CD3MTHT5.

Over the coming months, this survey will create the largest data set ever gathered on the public’s understanding of evolutionary theory.

Survey shows broad acceptance of evolution, with some worries

2009-07-08T16:20:00.001-07:00

TUESDAY, 7 JULY 2009

Survey shows broad acceptance of evolution, with some worries

Last week, the British Council released the results of a survey it had commissioned, showing broad international acceptance for the theory of evolution.

Press Release.

The survey, conducted by Ipsos MORI and part of the Council’sDarwin Now project, questioned over ten thousand adults from ten countries about their knowledge and opinions on Darwin and his theory.

The results showed that 70 per cent of participants had heard of Darwin and most knew at least a little about the theory of evolution.

The highest level of knowledge was in Great Britain and the US (71 per cent in both), followed by Mexico (68 per cent), Argentina (65 per cent), China (54 per cent) and Russia (53 per cent).

However, in Egypt, 62 per cent of adults said they had never heard of Darwin or evolution – a statistic that reached a staggering 73 per cent in South Africa.

Other results:

Most people (56 per cent, all countries) who had heard of Charles Darwin and evolution agreed that “enough scientific evidence exists to support Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution”.
However, less than half of those surveyed in Russia (48 per cent), South Africa (42 per cent), the US (41 per cent), and Egypt (25 per cent) agreed with the statement.
Asked if “it is possible to believe in a God and still hold the view that life on Earth, including human life, evolved over time as a result of natural selection”, people in India agreed most (85 per cent). This was followed by Mexico (65 per cent), Argentina (62 per cent), South Africa (54 per cent), Great Britain (54 per cent), Russia (54 per cent), US (53 per cent), Spain (46 per cent), Egypt (45 per cent) and China (39 per cent).

More specific results for Great Britain:

54 per cent of British participants believe it is possible to believe in a God and evolution.
Almost a quarter (23 per cent) of those surveyed in London believe in creationism. Twenty per cent of London participants said they had never heard of Charles Darwin or evolution (though thankfully 48 per cent agreed that there was enough scientific evidence to support evolutionary theory).
Up North, 23 per cent said they have no understanding of evolutionary theory.
However, in each region of Great Britain, the vast majority of people (74-87 per cent) were aware of evolution and Darwin, even though, generally, only half of the participants in each region thought they had a “good” or “fairly good” understanding of how evolution works.

I don’t have the complete data in front of me, so I can’t tell how many people were surveyed in each region (which could skew the stats). However, I do find the results generally encouraging (even if the London results are a little bit worrying).

I am wondering though, whether the ‘understanding of evolutionary theory’ result is a worrying statistic or not. Is ~50 per cent good or bad? Because really, if only half the people feel they have a "fairly good" understand the concept, it’s no wonder there are still many who dismiss it out of hand. Indeed, the press release from the British Council points out that "one-in-five British adults surveyed had not spent any time thinking about the origins of species and life on earth" (again though, I don’t have the data to work out how they came to that statistic).

The British Council is running another, larger survey, for the general public to volunteer their opinions, which they hope will create the largest data set ever gathered on the public’s understanding of evolution. To take part visit the website.

Evolution of confusion

2009-07-07T06:10:00.000-07:00

News | Published in The TES on 3 July, 2009 | By: Adi Bloom

Comment:
Section:
News

Pupils take dinosaur fiction for fact

Academic says failure to teach young children scientific truth plays into creationists’ hands

All pupils should be taught evolution from primary school onwards so they do not mistake Barney the dinosaur for scientific fact, a leading science education academic has said.

James Williams, lecturer in education at the University of Sussex, believes TV programmes such as The Flintstones and Barney & Friends, as well as films such as One Million Years BC (pictured), starring Raquel Welch as a bikini-clad cavewoman, have created a pop-culture cliche of interaction between humans and dinosaurs which is exploited by creationists.

Addressing the British Humanist Association this month, Mr Williams said creationists deliberately feed children scientific misconceptions. Children then build on these, adapting all new knowledge so that it fits into their mistaken understanding of the world.

He said: “It is intellectual abuse when a person in a position of power and authority, claiming expertise in science, deliberately provides a non- scientific explanation for the development and diversity of life on earth.”

The earlier and more established the misconceptions, the more difficult it can be to correct them in later life, he said.

Because most children love dinosaurs, creationists tempt them with books, toys and museums featuring assorted prehistoric wildlife. Their literature targets primary pupils, presenting pseudoscientific explanations alongside images of dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden or descriptions of dinosaurs dying out during the great flood. Popular culture unwittingly reinforces this, with images of Fred Flintstone riding a dinosaur to work or Raquel Welch fending off a giant tortoise.

“We’re often on the back foot, responding to creationist attacks, rather than getting on with the job of preventing bankrupt pseudoscience from making an impression on young minds,” Mr Williams said.

He called for education about evolution to start early. At the moment, far too much is left until key stage 4, he said. “Misconceptions set in primary will be very difficult, if not impossible, to correct over 10 years later.”

Teachers should be practised in combating creationist arguments, he said. “Science is about the acceptance of evidence, and is not a belief system. We should resist talking about a belief in evolution.”

And scientists should watch their language, he said. Many mistakenly confuse the words “theory” and “hypothesis”: in scientific terms, a theory is a clearly proven fact.

“As a community of scientists and science educators, we can prevent the ideas being taken on as factual, and we can prevent the misconceptions taking hold,” Mr Williams said. “We can only do this, however, if we are proactive in teaching evolution at an earlier stage in schooling, and we can only prevent it with robust examples from the vast weight of scientific evidence for evolution that currently exists.”

james.williams@sussex.ac.uk

Appliance of science

Begin evolution education at primary

Provide more up-to-date examples of evolution in teaching resources.
Give teachers tools to combat creationist arguments in class.
Remember, evolution is scientifically proven, not a belief system; a hypothesis is not yet proven, but a theory is scientifically watertight.

Source: James Williams.

Just a brief comment to make a minor correction to the story.

Quote:"And scientists should watch their language, he said. Many mistakenly confuse the words “theory” and “hypothesis”, in scientific terms, a theory is a clearly proven fact."

This is an indirect quotation from me not my actual words (hence no quote marks). A scientific theory is a well evidenced explanation of a natural phenomenon a theory is not a fact and facts are not theories. Scientific theories explain the observations and data that we gather.This minor error just goes to show how difficult it is when reporting science in the media and how precise we must be when using the language of science. James Williams.

14:38pm
3 July, 2009

James Williams

Darwin, Humanism and Science - James Williams

2009-07-07T05:57:00.001-07:00

James Williams talks to the Darwin, Humanism and Science day conference (6 Jun 2009) on "Insidious Creationism" and why we should teach children early in their education about geological time and the theory of evolution. More in his published BioEssays September 2009. Belief versus acceptance: Why do people not believe in evolution?

Friday’s Times Educational Supplement featured an article on James Williams and his talk at our recent Darwin, Humanism and Science day conference. We've now posted James Williams' talk to our YouTube channel www.youtube.com/britishhumanists as the second in a series of videos from the day. Williams suggests that “insidious Creationism” is a genuine threat in the UK and explains why children need to encounter geological time and natural selection early in their education. To take action along exactly the lines Williams lays out, see http://www.humanism.org.uk/primaryscience.

Email to MP

2009-06-26T05:13:00.000-07:00

I will meet Swayne on 10 July 2009.

Desmond Swayne TD MP

HOUSE OF COMMONS

LONDON SW1A 0AA

desmondswaynemp.com

Thanks. Actually, I disagree with you. I just don't see why evolution can't wait till secondary school. That worked perfectly well for me. I am happy to discuss it face to face and listen to argument if you wish. I will , of course, however forward your letter to the minister. DS

> From:
> To:
> Subject: Science & Evolution in the proposed new primary curriculum
> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 06:20:52 +0100
>
>
>
> Dear Desmond Swayne
>
> I am writing as your constituent to let you have my views on the current government consultation on science in the new primary curriculum and to ask you to take action on this issue.
>
> Part of the proposed new primary curriculum, which is currently the subject of consultation, is an area called 'Scientific and technological understanding' , which is generally very welcome but which is lacking in one very important respect, in that it includes no requirement for pupils to learn about and investigate the concepts of natural selection and evolution.
>
> I believe that the theory of evolution is arguably the single most important idea underlying the life sciences today and must be included in the primary curriculum. Many new educational resources on evolution available for children of primary school age show their ability to grasp the simpler concepts associated with it, and a basic understanding of evolution will help lay the foundation for a surer scientific understanding in secondary school.
>
> In 2009, as we celebrate the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species, the omission of evolution from the primary curriculum is very concerning. I believe that this must be put right and evolution included at the later stages of the proposed 'Scientific and technological understanding' area of learning.
>
> I hope that you will make my views, as those of one of your constituents, known to the DCSF ministers responsible for these proposals. If you agree with me that the science curriculum should include evolution, then please do also raise this matter on your own behalf with the minister concerned, and with the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (on chaterm@qca.org.uk), which is conducting the consultation on behalf of the government.
>
> Best Regards,
>

Teach Evolution & Scientific Method in Primary Schools Campaign

Teaching of evolution should be included at both primary and secondary levels in the National Curriculum and in all schools - Update

Teach evolution, not creationism - Sign Petition

If 100,000 sign by 12th August 2012, Parliament will debate the issue. Sign the Petition

Teach evolution, not creationism

email to Desmond Swayne MP about Evolution and the Scientific Method

Happy Birthday Charlie!

Questioning Origins

courses in Bible and theology for Christian mission and ministry

BHA request action after latest attempts to inject creationist ideas into school science learning

David Flint, Humanists4Science had 500+ signatures for No 10 petition

More details from petition creator

Evolution is to become a compulsory subject for study in all state primary schools - The Times

Humanists4Science welcomes new legislation for the teaching of evolution in primary schools

Scientists win place for evolution in primary schools

Inclusion of evolution in primary school science - NOW CONFIRMED!!

Drop GCSEs. We should be teaching our children to think

Top scientists and science educators in primary curriculum call to Ed Balls

NOTES

TAKE ACTION by 24 July 2009! Consultation on the new Primary Curriculum in England: Science and evolution!

What is the issue?

BHA position

What can be done?

Curriculum reform consultation to 24 July 2009: Teach 'Evolution' & 'Scientific Method' in Primary Schools

Letters from Desmond Swayne MP & Diana Johnson MP

What are the Key Stages?

Take Action - Sign the No10 Petition

British Council surveys Evolutionary Theory

Survey shows broad acceptance of evolution, with some worries

TUESDAY, 7 JULY 2009

Survey shows broad acceptance of evolution, with some worries

Evolution of confusion

News | Published in The TES on 3 July, 2009 | By: Adi Bloom

Comment:

Section:

Appliance of science

Darwin, Humanism and Science - James Williams

Email to MP