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

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 up CandiceC

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

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

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

"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

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=H9SmPNQrQHE bornagain77