Evan Harris, writing in the Guardian today, shares his blueprint for better RE teaching. He says that the evolution-creationism debate in schools should take place in RE lessons as well as science lessons:
Secularists like me believe that RE is a valid subject for study in the curriculum but should be about what different religions (and other world views like humanism) believe; it should not be about what ought to be believed. So Catholic schools should be allowed to use RE lessons to teach that the Catholic church opposes contraception and believes that homosexuality is a sin, but not that the children ought to believe those things. The lessons should set out contrasting views on that subject.
It is reasonable that a school with a large proportion of children of parents with a particular religion might spend more time learning about the beliefs and practices of that religion, but not to the exclusion of other beliefs.
At the moment, however, all RE falls outside the national curriculum – for no good reason. In schools other than voluntary-aided faith schools the curriculum is set by a local standing advisory committee on RE (SACRE) made up of religious representatives. There is no requirement to have a humanist or atheist on such committees.
Faith schools can decide their own RE curriculum and it is not subject to Ofsted inspection but by an inspector of their own religion. This is hardly a bulwark against instruction and indoctrination.
Read Evan Harris’ full piece in the Guardian, including his 10 suggestions for RE teaching, which as he points out, were all in the Liberal Democrat General Election 2010 manifesto.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Hilaire Belloc's persecution of Charles Masterman
Finding your moral compass
Live in the sky with Liverpool Labour's pie in the sky housing policy
Cheney Payne re-selected for Cambridge
Electoral register update
Unions and campaigners opposing ban on Palestine Action
Craig Levene
Tim Rogers
David Le Grice
Tristan Ward
Jack Meredith
24 Comments
Of course, some of us believe that *all* compulsory state led education is nothing less than indoctrination largely for the benefit of big capital!
Sorry? Evolution and creationism in RE AS WELL as in science?
It has no place in science since it’s only religion, not science!
Surely it has to take place in science regardless, since that is where the proofs are offered/discovered/taught by default?
@SandraF: I think Evan Harris’ idea of a biology lesson on evolution goes something like this:
“Children, today we’re going to learn about how species – including ourselves – evolved over millions of years. Some people say that we were created or that some supernatural being designed us, but there’s no scientific evidence for that.” 🙂
Something that is not well known is that the Education Act of 1944 (the “Butler Act”, which ensured free and universal secondary schooling but also grammar schools) only specified one subject that had to be in all school curricula: religious education! (The National Curriculum was far in the future.)
Evan Harris was possibly the greatest loss to Parliament of all the people who lost their seats in May. I’m glad that he seems to be planning to stand again and I hope he wins. (It would also be interesting if Oxford becomes one seat rather than having the north and west hived off into Oxford West and Abingdon if the reduction in the number of seats goes through. Evan would be a great candidate for an Oxford City seat.)
Oh now we are a militant atheist lot on here today. Jock talks about proof and Niklas says there is no scientific evidence for creationism. I feel I should refer you to Marcus Chown, A confirmed atheist and best selling popular science writer – outsold only by Hawkin’s A brief history of time.
In his book Quantum Theory Cannot Harm You, if I recall correctly, he talks about the nature of the universe and what both General Relativity and Quantum Theory tell us about it. He muses about the many possible solutions to the equations of Quantum Theory and what it might tell us about the cosmos. He points out that this is what scientists do for fun and that is doesn’t prove that something is but only suggests that something might be. One of those things is an idea called the multiverse. Multiverse theory says that there are somewhere between several and an infinite number of universes, all of which will be different. Chown then picks up several themes that he has discussed previously in the book and points out again just how finely balanced they are. If any one of dozens of parameters were out, not buy a percent or two but by tiny fractions of a percent in some cases, there would be no life in the universe. Some cases there are no molecules, some no atoms bigger than iron or Helium, some no atoms at all. Others have only 1 or 2 physical dimensions and others 4 or more. He tells us there are only 2 conceivable options. Either the universe was created by an intelligence that made it exquisitely balanced otherwise we could not exist. The only other option is that there are trillions of universes all made randomly and ours, by chance, happens to be just so. He then states that he is a confirmed atheist and that he believes the latter but he says there is no proof either for or against creationism or a random multiverse. I believe that this is the current state of the art of scientific philosophy.
Now in a situation where there are two possibilities and the facts support both but neither prove nor disprove either, can you really say that what you believe is definitely right and the other view is definitely wrong?
Perhaps the origins of the universe can be both scientific and religious after all.
There is no rule to prevent any SACRE (Schools Advisory Committee on RE) from inviting any Humanist to attend and contribute to their framing discussions and programme and some do.
The best practice of a SACRE is to engage by representation, membership from all religious belief groups, across the widest schools curriculum community.This approach will surely then enrich and stimulate and pull together all strands of faiths and none, in dialogue,understanding and often consensus?
I agree that Evan Harris is a salient absentee from Parliament.He possesses great oratory skills appeal on behalf of constituents across the divide on this topic but many L/D supporters hold strong religious beliefs to the contrary and seek that their children attend divinity schools.I believe they should be free to do so.
Many believe that there should be a plurality of schools and since the Education Act 1944 RE has been a compulsory subject on the National Curriculum (since 1988).
But rather like the lamentable drop in GCSE Modern Languages candidates ,this year, RE ,in any format,is only an option in many schools, in final exams.
“Perhaps the origins of the universe can be both scientific and religious after all.”
There is a difference between creationism (creation of the universe) and creationism (creation of life on earth) though. The former is, at least to some degree, consistent with scientific thought in that time and all the other laws of physics begin at the big bang. Before that “anything” goes.
Creationism of life on earth is a bit of a harder proposition to stand up! And does run into the theological problem that if God created a Universe this huge and magnificent to show his divine power then why was he so keen to disguise the creation of his master work. (and in any case I’d be far more impressed if he’d created things that evolved :-))
That analysis is similar to Hawkings in ABHOT – at least as far as the fact that a universe in fewer or more dimensions doesn’t really work. However that might just mean that this was the first time all the pieces fell out (at least in this bit) in 3+1 dimensions.
Whenever the discussion turns to the intersection of science and religion I’m reminded of the quote in an Arthur C Clarke novel by a scientist character after first contact with an alien intelligence has destroyed most religions. “Now that the concept of religion has been destroyed, it is perhaps time to pay serious attention to the concept of God”.
As my old teacher used to say “If God made the universe, who made God?” All religions are based on historical revelation and are figments of human imagination, whereas science approaches everything with an open mind. That is the difference.
All more than reasonable ideas, but perhaps a name change is in order to cover the expanded range of topics. Philosophy, perhaps?
“As my old teacher used to say “If God made the universe, who made God?” All religions are based on historical revelation and are figments of human imagination, whereas science approaches everything with an open mind. That is the difference.”
Yeah, you’re right. That ridiculously simple question easily overturns millenia of theological and philosophical thought and religious practice and experience. All those people have been foolishly wasting their time because they were too unfortunate to have access to your asinine fortune cookie wisdom.
Your teacher was an idiot. That question has a very simple theological and philosophical answer. Try looking it up and actually displaying an open mind rather than just smugly assuming your own superiority over 80% of humanity. And I can only assume that you are an experienced expert on comparative religion to have come to that firm conclusion about every religion ever, which huge numbers of other people have struggled to reach. As surely you are approaching this subject with an open mind and are not just an ignorant fool with an inflated sense of your own wisdom jumping to conclusions that make you feel better about yourself. Because that would make you just as bad as the people you so readily condemn.
@Stephen W
While I think your argument is valid, couldn’t you be a little more charitable in your language? David Pollard made his point without personal attacks.
@Colin Green
Thanks for your post. I’d been considering saying something similar, but you put it far better than I would have.
I think science and “having an open mind” is bringing the end. Just need to stay tuned in to the word of God. To each his own but why not invest fully in whatever is promising you eternal life? Believing in anything else doesn’t really make sense.
The day I hear a single compelling religious argument will be the day I’m open-minded about religion. Until that time I feel no more need to be open minded about it than I am about the tooth fairy, or any other obviously made-up horse-shit.
I agree with Evan on all points except 8) and 10). State-funded schools have no place providing this garbage even on a voluntary, opt-in basis.
“The day I hear a single compelling religious argument will be the day I’m open-minded about religion. Until that time I feel no more need to be open minded about it than I am about the tooth fairy, or any other obviously made-up horse-shit.”
@George Kendall
Yes, I possibly could be. But the sight of people displaying blatent contempt and stunning closed mindedness about 80% of humanity while accusing others of not being open minded is so hypocritical that it just annoys me. I’m sorry for being overly personal.
Anyone who claims questions of religion are blatently obvious is a smug hack. They are obviously not blatently obvious due to the fact that intelligent, decent, open-minded people manage to not come to agreement across the entire world and throughout human history. I also suspect that the people who makes statements, like that I quote from the smug idiot above, are in fact those who are actually most ignorant about the actual subject in question. They just happen to be the people who are most self-rightous.
Just to make sure I’m not misunderstood. This dislike extends to those who are on the religious side as well who are smug and rude about others. It is alright to think you are right and others are wrong, but when this reaches the point of express contempt for billions of other human beings then it irritates me, regardless of affiliation.
It would be nice for once to be able to discuss an issue of policy like this without people spraying their contempt for vast swathes of humanity across the discussion.
Yes, so why are you doing it? It’s pretty obvious who the nutter is on this thread.
I’m not. Expressing irritation at two idiots hardly counts as spraying contempt for swathes of humanity.
Steven,
Millions of people were (and still are) communists. Many of them were extremely smart, lovely, open-minded people, but that doesn’t make that ideology any more worthy of respect.
There’s got to be some sort of Godwin’s Law offshoot for people who compare every single person in human history apart from atheist naturalists to communists.
There seems to be a symbiotic relationship between anti-religious people, and those who have a simplistic literal text based form of religion, in which the former promote the latter and both seem to want to squeeze out anything else. One might have supposed from what appears here that opposition to the idea of evolution was universal amongst the major religions in this country and formed a major part of teachng of religion here. Whereas the reality is that it’s a position held by a small fringe – the vast majority of “faith” schools here are Anglican or Roman Cathoklic, and neither of these holds to “creationism”.
I agree with Stephen W. I would like to have said something here, but my past experience of the ignorance, prejudice and sheer nastiness of the anti-religious people who tend to jump in whenever these issues are discussed puts me off. Mostly the points I try to make are just factual ones, not even my own opinion – for example I can see several factual mistakes in what Evan Harris has written. However,I know that to question St Evan and the secular tradition here would be considered blasphemy, and to start it would be to open myself up to having to deal with a mountain of people misrepresenting what I have written and then attacking me on the basis of their own misrepresentation.
Sadly, I can see these attacks are driving moderate religious people to the extremes. Having said that “creationism” is held only by a fringe, I have been alarmed in recent years to see a growth in those pushing this stupid interpretation of religion in mainstream circles where once it would never have been seen. This seems to be a response to people like St Richard Dawkins aggressively pushing the case that this is the only true way one can hold to one’s religious traditions.
I actually agree with you, Matthew, to an extent. Not the bit about people believing even crazier nonsense just to spite the nasty athiests- that’s clearly silly- but the extent to which the teaching of creationism is a problem in British schools. It’s a bit of a red herring, that one.
@Colin Green
1. I’m not sure what your core point is, but I would like to submit to you that the beauty of secularism is that we all can be secularists. From the most militant, ten-thousand-year-old-earth, evolution-is-a-lie, Christian/Jew/Muslim, to the most militant, materialist, anti-theistic-naturalist: we can all be secularists, surely?
2. Apart from Evan’s last sentence, what is wrong with Evan’s suggestion? I think he states a reasonable position when he says: “It is reasonable that a school with a large proportion of children of parents with a particular religion might spend more time learning about the beliefs and practices of that religion, but not to the exclusion of other beliefs.”
@Patrick Smith
While I agree, that Lib Dem policy cannot be guided by Evan Harris’ personal philosophy, I don’t see how people wanting their children to attend state-subsidised divinity schools is a social justice issue? I mean, if communists wanted to their children to attend a communist school, should the state have to provide that? I think we would both say no, since the mere act of wanting your child schooled in a certain metaphysical/political philosophy is not enough to compel state provision. I think a religious education, along the lines described by Harris, is quite reasonable. Though I am open to persuasion.
iainm
I actually agree with you, Matthew, to an extent. Not the bit about people believing even crazier nonsense just to spite the nasty athiests- that’s clearly silly-
No, I’m not saying it works directly like that, I think the cause and effect is more subtle.