[This article first appeared on the Answers in Genesis website, July 30th 2009]

Interestingly, a report on the BBC’s flagship radio morning new program, Today, failed to mention that the letter had been organised by the BHA.[2] Instead they concentrated on the “quality” of the 26 signatories, which, they said, included three Nobel laureates and Professor Richard Dawkins. This latter point is an attempt to add credibility to the BHA’s letter by use of the argument from authority logic fallacy.[3] Among the signatories that I noted were at least four well-known atheistic evolutionary scientists and a “token Christian,” the Reverend Dr. Michael Reiss. Dr. Reiss was forced out of his job as professor of education with the Royal Society for suggesting that children with creationist views should at least be treated with respect by their teachers. Ironically Dr. Reiss had been publicly rebuked over that by several of these now-fellow signatories.

The BHA letter’s problem on the subject of teaching evolution is as follows:

We find it extraordinary that evolution and natural selection find no place in the section ‘Science–life and living things’ (page 6). The theory of evolution is one of the most important ideas underlying biological science. It is a key concept that children should be introduced to at an early stage so as to ensure a firmer scientific understanding when they study it in more detail later on. The wealth of new resources on evolution available for children of primary school age clearly demonstrates their ability to grasp its central concepts. We consider its inclusion vital.[4]

The BHA’s complaint is disingenuous. There is a clear agenda in mind: to create mischief on the subject of teaching science in order to propagate their evolutionary opinions. The section from the DCSF document that they quote recommends that children should be taught:

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[5]

The fact is that there is no material difference between these ideas and the existing National Curriculum points.[6] The existing National Curriculum does not explicitly use the word evolution in the primary science curriculum. In fact, the word evolution is not introduced explicitly until the current Key Stage 4 (age 14). So, the timing and substance of the BHA letter is a red herring.

For instance, it will also be noticed that the consultation document—which, we must remember, concerns the teaching of science to those age 11 and under—does not explicitly mention atomic theory or Ohm’s Law. In other words, even for those who believe in evolution, it is clear that the level of terminology used should be appropriate to the age of the children. There is nothing in the new proposals, or the existing NC, that prevents a teacher from discussing aspects of evolutionary theory with pupils.

In one of the most disingenuous parts of the Today program interview, the Rev. Dr Reiss said that all he wanted was to argue for children to be taught to think critically. If that were so, then he should have no cause for concern, as the existing regulations allow teachers freely to discuss children’s views on origins, whether creation or evolution. However, those who have signed the BHA’s letter are not really interested in teaching critical thinking.

Andrew Copson, BHA’s Director of Education, 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, rather, seems as if the BHA’s agenda is to make sure that children are indoctrinated with evolutionism at as early an age as possible, precisely to insulate them from the critical thinking that would enable them to understand the paucity of evidence for evolution. If the BHA’s objections are taken seriously by the DCSF, then Christian parents in England will need to think again very seriously about whether state education is the best place for their children to be.

References.
[1]. The consultation paper can be found at the website of the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF, Scientific and Technological Understanding). It should be noted that the DCSF has jurisdiction only over schools in England. Schools in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales are under the jurisdiction of the Scottish Government, Northern Ireland Legislative Assembly, and Welsh Assembly Government respectively. State schools in England (the equivalent of public schools in the U.S.) are generally divided into primary and secondary schools. Primary schools cater for years 0 to 6, i.e. ages 4 to 11.
[2]. I have discussed the report on the Today program, with relevant audio extracts, in the latest episode of Answers UK Radio, the AiG–UK podcast, which can be heard here.
[3]. The best analysis of this and other logical fallacies can be found in Dr Jason Lisle’s new book, The Ultimate Proof of Creation, p. 122.
[4]. British Humanist Association, “BHA Scientists Letter to DCSF” (PDF).
[5]. See document from reference 1, p. 6.
[6]. See Science: The National Curriculum for England (Department for Education and Employment, 1999), p. 23.

It will be of concern to many, therefore, to read of the report on “Elective Home Education,” compiled on behalf of the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) by Graham Badman in the United Kingdom. The areas of specific concern to Christians (and many non-Christians) will be the proposed compulsory annual registration of their children and inspection visits by representatives of the Local Education Authority (LEA).

In many cases, it is precisely because of the poor standard of LEA provision that parents have chosen to educate their children at home. There will also be concern that these proposed inspection visits should involve conversations between LEA representatives and the child alone—without the parents present. This latter point is an abuse of parental responsibility and rights.

Badman states, “This review does not argue against the rights of parents as set out in Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 outlined above, nor their deeply held convictions about education.”¹ This quote underlines the problem with the report—and the basis for why Ed Balls, Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, was wrong to accept the report. Parents do not have rights under English law to educate their children in the way they wish—they have a duty to do so. Even non-Christian critics of the proposals have pointed this out. Gill Kilner, a home-educating blogger, says this:

Elective home education: the deliverance (in elective home education) or delegation (to schools) by parents of any and all compulsory educational provision is a legal duty, not a legal right. It is our legal duty to ensure our children’s education is suitable and efficient. The education acts confer this duty on parents, because parents know their children best and are therefore in a position to ensure the provision is suitable for them. Mr Badman seems not to have grasped this.²

The famous quote from successive education bills—repeated in the Education Act 1996, Section 7—does indeed refer to duty:

Duty of Parents to Secure Education of Children of Compulsory School Age

The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable—

(a) to his age, ability and aptitude, and

(b) to any special educational needs he may have,

either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.³

This is in line with the biblical position:

You shall teach them [God’s laws] diligently to your children. (Deuteronomy 6:7)

Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it. (Proverbs 22:6)

And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord. (Ephesians 6:4)

Whichever form of education you choose, the parents (and specifically as indicated in Scripture, the fathers) are responsible, and we will answer to God. In my book, Truth, Lies and Science Education, I noted:

Education is first and foremost the duty of the parent rather than the state. . . . Parents may delegate this educational responsibility to those whom they trust, but this delegation in no wise removes their responsibility for the education of their children.⁴

In other words, Badman has his priorities reversed. It is not that homeschoolers should submit to education authorities; it is that if parents choose to send their children to a collective school, rather than educate them at home, the school must still educate them according to the wishes and direction of the parents. The teacher is in loco parentis. As an aside, Christian parents should think long and hard about whether the teachers at their children’s school are bringing them up according to the values that the parents want—and if not, then it should be considered a mistake to send our children into such an environment.

Many Christians in the UK have chosen to homeschool their children for precisely this reason—for the positive reason that they understand their biblical duty and for the negative reason that they do not feel able to delegate this responsibility to their local school, knowing that the teachers’ own personal ethics and moralities are not in line with the Bible. In the past, there has been no reason for parents to need to justify this decision. The Bible makes no requirement to justify this position and supports those who take it. In an atmosphere where increasing numbers of Christians feel that they suffer discrimination for their faith, this report could open up one more avenue for such discrimination.

1. G. Badman, “Report to the Secretary of State on the Review of Elective Home Education in England,” HMSO (Her Majesty’s Stationery Office), §3.11, June 2009. Back
2. G. Kilner, “Stress Testing the Badman Report: Looking for Weak Points: Part 3” Back
3. Education Act 1996, Section 7, Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI); emphasis mine Back
4. P. Taylor, Truth, Lies and Science Education (DayOne Publications, 2007), p. 146. Back
5. J. Wynne-Jones, “Christians Risk Rejection and Discrimination for Their Faith, a Study Claims,” Telegraph Online. Back

What should one call it if pupils are taught something which is factually incorrect? Whose fault is it if pupils pick up factually incorrect information? Is the information factually incorrect because of deliberate policy or by accident?

If factually incorrect information is presented to the children, it could be for a number of reasons. It could be because the teacher has made a genuine mistake or because science knowledge has moved on, and the teacher was not aware of new knowledge. It could be because information in a textbook is incorrect or because the instructions in the syllabus are incorrect.

If there is factually incorrect science being taught to pupils, should we start to discuss the issue of blame? For example, if the teacher is not aware that science has moved on since their lessons were planned, whose fault is that? The Local Education Authority, the school’s Senior Management Team or Board of Governors—should it be their responsibility to account for their staff’s knowledge? Should it be mandatory for teachers to keep up-to-date with the latest scientific research? How should they go about doing this? And who is going to assess what they have achieved in this area?

The proportions of light and dark moths found in Britain today

The A-Level biology textbook includes a map of the UK, showing the distribution of peppered moths of light and dark varieties. The textbook does not comment on the observation that there is a high concentration of dark-variety moths in rural East Anglia—a result which flies in the face of the usual interpretation of the observed data. Conversely, dark moths are rare in South Wales, even though this was an area of high pollution when the research was carried out.

Truth and Lies in the Classroom

If it is true that not all science teachers can keep up-to-date with the latest scientific research, how much less likely is it that ordinary parents know what errors their children are being taught? It may be an eye-opener to many parents to see which popular “icons” of scientific theories are known to be incorrect and yet are still taught as fact.

In a short article such as this, it is impossible to list all the various errors taught in the classroom; so as a case study, we will examine just one such educational error—the case of the peppered moths.

Peppered Moths

Peppered moths are usually taught as an example of natural selection. Sometimes, this is expanded to identify the moths as an example of evolution in practice. The UK’s most famous television network, the BBC takes the latter view, using peppered moths on their “GCSE Bitesize” website.1 This website provides revision assistance for children sitting General Certificate of Secondary Education exams.

The alleged support for natural selection given by peppered moths is aptly described in one current GCSE biology textbook.

“The common form is speckled but there is also a variety which is black. The black variety was rare in 1850, but by 1895 in the Manchester area its numbers had risen to 98% of the population of peppered moths. Observation showed that the light variety was concealed better than the dark variety when they rested on tree-trunks covered with lichens. In the Manchester area, pollution had caused the death of the lichens and the darkening of the tree-trunks with soot. In this industrial area the dark variety was the better camouflaged (hidden) of the two and was not picked off so often by birds.”[2]

It should be noticed that Mackean describes this as an example of natural selection, whereas the BBC claims it is an example of evolution. Mackean is correct.

If these experiments were genuine, they would imply a reduction in genetic information, not an increase, which is required by evolution.

Using the language of evolution, a recent A-Level biology textbook says, “Clearly the darker moth has a selective advantage over the light moth in industrial areas, whereas in non-polluted areas this advantage is with the light moth.”[3] The same A-Level textbook includes a map of the UK, showing the distribution of peppered moths of light and dark varieties.

In his textbook, Williams does not comment on the observation that there is a high concentration of dark-variety moths in rural East Anglia—a result which flies in the face of the usual interpretation of the observed data. Conversely, dark moths are rare in South Wales, even though this was an area of high pollution when the research was carried out.

The alleged principles shown by peppered moths are considered educationally very important. They are included as examples in many GCSE science and biology syllabi. One current GCSE biology syllabus states: “Candidates should be able to … describe how the process of natural selection may result in … changes within a species, as illustrated by the peppered moth [emphasis added].”[4]

The observations about peppered moths were carried out initially in the 1950s by Bernard Kettlewell. Unfortunately, his observations should carry a “healthwarning!” Peppered moths do not, as a rule, rest on the trunks of trees; so the main premise of the experiment is flawed.

The famous photographs, used in so many textbooks, are fraudulent. Some photos were taken using dead moths glued or pinned to the trunks while others used live specimens which were placed by hand on the trunks. In daylight moths are drowsy and tend to stay where they are put. The moths actually tend to rest hidden under the leaf canopy, rather than on the trunk in the open.

It also turns out that the famous photographs, used in so many textbooks, are fraudulent. Some photos were taken using dead moths glued or pinned to the trunks while others used live specimens which were placed by hand on the trunks. In daylight moths are drowsy and tend to stay where they are put. The moths actually tend to rest hidden under the leaf canopy, rather than on the trunk in the open.

Criticisms of Kettlewell’s experiments first emerged in the 1980s—some twenty years ago. In 1998 Professor Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago said that finding out the moth story was wrong was like when he found out at age six that it was actually his father who was bringing the Christmas presents.5 Coyne has not been pleased that his remarks have been quoted by creationists, such as this author, but the genie is out.

Kettlewell said that if Darwin had seen his experiments “he would have witnessed the consummation and confirmation of his life’s work.”6 What we now find is that science textbooks and syllabi in the UK (and, judging from my correspondence, America, too) are basing their evidence for evolution on something that has been a known fraud for twenty years.

So, what word can we use to describe the situation, if our children are knowingly being taught untruths?

Summary

It is clear from this brief analysis that children in state (government) schools, or other schools following the National Curriculum, are being taught things in their science lessons which are demonstrably untrue. These are not simply presuppositional errors—things that children might be taught because of the non-Christian or evolutionary worldview of the teacher.

In further publications, it will be instructive to analyse areas where statements in the National Curriculum or examination syllabi are influenced by such an evolutionary worldview.

Footnotes

[1]. < www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/biology/variationandinheritance/3evolutionrev5.shtml >
[2]. Mackean, D.G., GCSE Biology 3rd edition, John Murray (Publishers) Ltd, London, p. 204, 2002.
[3]. Williams, G., Advanced Biology for You, Nelson Thornes, Cheltenham, p. 377, 2000.
[4]. OCR GCSE in Biology, p. 38, 2000.
[5]. Coyne, J.A., Nature 396(6706):35–36. Back
[6]. Kettlewell, H., (1959), Darwin’s missing evidence, in Evolution and the fossil record, readings from Scientific American, W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, p. 23, 1978. Back

Darwin and Darwinism is available for sale from the Answers in Genesis website. Switch the country label on the Answers in Genesis site to say “United Kingdom”.

This is what people are saying about the book.

“Paul Taylor, in this book, argues cogently for it being essential to keep a moral dimension to our teaching of secondary school science. Here he develops a thesis that to divorce the two ultimately is to lose the definition of knowledge itself. In our postmodern culture we have tried to separate ‘values’ from the ‘facts’. We have wrongly set up a duality such that the spiritual is not mandatory and can be reckoned to be a matter of opinion, and just facts on their own (all the physical world around us) can be studied without any reference to values, and certainly no absolutes from non-material thinking. How wrong we are is the thrust of this book based on the Master’s thesis of Paul Taylor with the University of Wales (Cardiff) in 2000. Paul is a keen thinker and has thought widely not only on the issues of creation versus evolution, but of the far wider social deconstruction which has removed the whole basis of the Western sense of truth and even rationality. Only the Christian gospel founded in Genesis can rebuild the next generation.” Professor Andy McIntosh, DSc, FIMA, C.Math, FEI, C.Eng, FInstP, MIGEM, FRAes, University of Leeds

“Sending a child to a state school may be the only option, but the child will often be exposed to an atheistic worldview which can have a damaging effect on his or her spiritual development. Christian parents who send their children to state schools must understand how atheistic values have crept into many areas of the school curriculum. This book by Paul Taylor will greatly help parents identify and deal with the problems that their children face in state schools.” Professor Stuart Burgess, BSc (Eng), PhD, CEng, FIMechE, FRAes, University of Bristol

“Students spend more time with their teachers/professors than they do with their parents in learning to understand what life is all about. As a result, their formalized education has a great impact on their worldview. Truth, Lies and Science Education is a valient attempt to tackle this issue head on to engage the education system and parents in understanding the realities of what is being taught to children and how they are being conformed to a secular way of thinking about every aspect of reality.” Ken Ham, President of Answers in Genesis, USA

“The findings and conclusions of this book are disturbing. Every parent should be aware that the teaching of science is not neutral, but it is biased–biased toward the teaching that there is no God; that there is no creator; that there are no (God-given) rules by which we have to live our lives; and that there is no God to whom we have to give an account. In this book, Paul Taylor ensures that every parent knows that his or her children are being taught science in a manner that has its roots more in the faith system of the educators than they would care to acknowledge. I can warmly commend this book to everyone that has an interest in the education of our young people.” Dr A J Monty White, former CEO of Answers in Genesis (UK/Europe)