Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Behe on new “naturalism only” guidelines for Brit academy schools

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Further to “New Brit rules enshrining naturalism in schools: But why take the money?”, Michael Behe, ID theorist and author of Edge of Evolution, offers,

Who could object to this policy? In science class you can’t mention alternatives to materialism. But in religion class, you are allowed to explain why they are wrong….

From O’Leary for News: There is a long, sad history on these subjects in Canada (whose constitution allows for funding for faith-based schools). If they take the money, the government owns them, and they will not be able to teach anything but what the government says, or not seriously anyway. They cannot teach it as if anyone believes it. Sly efforts to insert non-materialist approaches will be seen for what they are, efforts to undermine the only approved system.

Prediction: They’ll take the money and find out the hard way.

Further prediction: Islamic schools will get a pass because they are assumed to actually believe their religion whereas Christians are assumed not to. Or not really, anyway.

Comments
To be honest, there is so much about our education system that I do not understand and I wish I could change. There is also a lot of weird stuff like you said that some things that can’t be mentioned in science class can be discussed religion class. By the way, buy dissertation proposal on natural sciences online at EssayOnlineStore. I wish I was in charge to change to many things, but I am not. Thank you for bringing all this upCandiceC
July 7, 2014
July
07
Jul
7
07
2014
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PST
In fact it wouldn’t surprise me if these new guidelines were primarily intended to target state-funded Islamic schools, though I certainly don’t know if that’s the case.
No, I see the language turned up in documents drawn up specifically for church academies so that's a lot less likely.anonym
June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PST
Further prediction: Islamic schools will get a pass because they are assumed to actually believe their religion whereas Christians are assumed not to. Or not really, anyway.
Not in the near future, at least. British governments may have been inclined to tiptoe around Islamic education in the past, but the present one is waist-deep in a campaign against an alleged "Islamic takeover" of state-funded schools, with a former counter-terrorism supremo appointed to investigate the allegations, threats of school inspections at thirty minutes' notice and so on. It's unclear to what extent some of the allegations are accurate, but regardless, the government's actions do make clear that it is well up for a bit of Kulturkampf against conservative Islam (not simply militant/terrorism-supporting Islam). In fact it wouldn't surprise me if these new guidelines were primarily intended to target state-funded Islamic schools, though I certainly don't know if that's the case.anonym
June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PST
I think the engine driving all this in the UK is a lobby who resent Christianity's rejection of a broad sexual licence in its credo, never mind that it condemns more conventional sexual licence, drunkenness, etc., as well.Axel
June 25, 2014
June
06
Jun
25
25
2014
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PST
"But in religion class, you are allowed to explain why they are wrong. . ." Unfortunately, the secularist elite have thought of this. They are willing to allow discussion, but only "as long as it is not presented as a valid alternative to established scientific theory". (The textbooks and the specifications all major on neodarwinism being the established scientific theory). These people are worried about "fundamentalism" but seem unable to recognise that they are secularist fundamentalists who will not tolerate dissent and will not allow any discussion outside the boundaries they determine. Quote: 23H) The Secretary of State acknowledges that clauses 2.43 and 2.44 of the Funding Agreement, and clauses 23E and 23G above do not prevent discussion of beliefs about the origins of the Earth and living things, such as creationism, in Religious Education, as long as it is not presented as a valid alternative to established scientific theory.David Tyler
June 25, 2014
June
06
Jun
25
25
2014
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PST
Here is an excellent interview of Behe by a British interviewer who had taken the time to read Behe's material and become familiar with it. I was quite impressed at how well informed the interviewer was on the subject. He would rival any commenter on UD on Behe's work: Michael Behe: Intelligent Design - Dec. 2013 - podcast/video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9SmPNQrQHEbornagain77
June 25, 2014
June
06
Jun
25
25
2014
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PST

Leave a Reply