"We are not one-dimensional creationists" claims Nigel McQuoid in today’s Guardian. He’s the director of schools at the Emmanuel Schools Foundation – a faith-based organisation.
He’s aggrieved because he thinks his organisation is being tarred with the creationist brush, and he believes the label is unfair. He writes:
The individual beliefs of our teachers and students may vary, as in any school, between the atheist and the believer, but the commitment to rigorous, critical thinking is prized, as is the sanctity of personal, free and informed choice.
All very praiseworthy stuff (although that word "choice" tends to make my hackles rise when used in the free market sense – but that’s a rant for another day). But, warming to his theme, Nigel then writes:
So exactly what do we say about how the world began? Put simply, we teach that there are many views of how we came into being, and from which we might derive meaning and purpose for our lives. Many would applaud such openness in philosophy or RE, but something very strange seems to happen when anyone suggests that debate should ever creep into the science classroom.
Er, excuse me? Who ever suggested that debate has no place in science? The whole point about science is that it is based on evidence that has been carefully tested through the scientific method – and that includes debate about the truthfulness of the evidence. Steady on, Nigel, I think you’re getting carried away a bit here.
Even though the national curriculum for science encourages students to recognise controversy (behold, citing Darwinism as their single example!), Darwin’s own modern high priests fight tooth and nail to leave him untouched and unquestioned.
Sorry, Nigel, you’ve just blown it. There is plenty of controversy in evolutionary theory, but it’s controversy that rages around scientific evidence, not faith-based positions. You’ve just given yourself away. So, you think you’re not a one-dimensional creationist? Y’are, Blanche, y’are…
Geoff Coupe's Blog 
Leave a comment