More on the education award for the creationist zoo

The other day I wrote about a creationist zoo being awarded for the quality of education provided there, and, in the comments, you can see the letter I wrote to the awarding body. Here is their reply:

Thank you for recent email, please find our official statement below.

The Learning Outside the Classroom (LOtC) Quality Badge is the national accreditation for the provision of educational visits, which recognises good quality educational provision where risk is effectively managed. In order to be awarded the LOtC Quality Badge the provider must demonstrate that they meet 6 quality criteria relevant to these aspects. The formal education programme at Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm has been assessed and was found to have met these criteria.

Further information on the LOtC Quality Badge and the criteria can be found at www.lotcqualitybadge.org.uk

Kind regards,
The CLOtC Team

The criteria mentioned are:

1. The provider has a process in place to assist users to plan the learning  experience effectively;
2. The provider provides accurate information about its offer;
3. The provider provides activities or experiences which meet learner needs;
4. The provider reviews the experience and acts upon feedback;
5. The provider meets the needs of users; and
6. The provider has safety management processes in place to manage risk effectively. 

However, under each of these, there are a number of sub indicators. Now, as far as I can see, of these sub indicators, none seem to actually mention the quality of the information taught - it largely seems geared towards good pedagogy. The closest to the quality of the information appear to be these two sub indicators for criteria 3:

e) educational or instructional staff and volunteers are competent; and
f) there is a process in place for monitoring and evaluating the quality of teaching and instruction.

I would call into question the competence of creationists who attempt to teach science. Likewise, the someone may be very good at teaching, however, if what they're teaching is nonsense, I would call that poor quality education.

These criteria imply that any old rubbish can be taught, so long as it is taught well, and that will count as quality education.

To me, this entirely invalidates the LOtC Quality Badge. The best teachers in the world are of no use if they are teaching known falsehoods as fact. In fact, such teachers leave their students worse off.

For me to have any trust in the LOtC Quality Badge, I would like a change to the criteria to take into account the quality of the material that is taught. Until then, the badge is meaningless, as the criteria are obviously not fit for purpose in assessing quality education.

Creationist Zoo gets education award

Noah's Ark Zoo in Bristol teaches creationism, as if it were a valid scientific viewpoint, to children. Which is terrible. What's worse, is that it's "education" has now been lauded with Learning Outside the Classroom Quality Badge.

The scheme itself sounds like a good thing on paper. Two of the things it sets out to do are:

• The award of the LOtC Quality Badge indicates that the provider understands schools’ needs and can tailor their offer to fit in with both current curriculum requirements and any specific requirements of the school.
• The LOtC Quality Badge helps you to ensure you are making the best possible use of school time and that your young people will access good quality educational experiences – ideal when justifying LOtC to your senior management team or governors.

However, we can see that these two things have been subverted. Teachers can no longer trust that LOtC quality badge does these things. As they say "The LOtC Quality Badge is the only nationally recognised indicator of good quality educational provision AND effective risk management."

Unfortunately, this means that there is no nationally recognised indicator of good quality education provision and effective risk management in the UK. Which is a shame. 

For those that take the LOtC Quality Badge at its word, they may not look too deeply into the zoo. Imagine the horror of a teacher taking their class their only to find a poster titled ""30 reasons why apes are not related to man". 

Noah's Ark does not offer quality education, and so does not deserve the LOtC Quality Badge. To help the Council for Learning Outside the Classroom get its credibility back, please do let them know how you feel:

https://twitter.com/CLOtC

http://www.lotc.org.uk/contact/

(h/t to @DrAliceRoberts)

Creationist schools in the UK - act now to stop them

So, three schools set up by creationist groups have now been given the go ahead.

Should we be worried? Yes.

Sevenoaks Christian School - it states "Christians believe that God made the world and loves what he has made. In RE we plan to teach about this and our responsibility as stewards of this precious earth. We will not teach ‘creationism’ or ‘intelligent design’ as an alternative to the theory of evolution; indeed Free Schools are prohibited by law from teaching this."

Grindon Hall School - this has a Creation Policy, which, has such comments as "We will teach evolution as an established scientific principle, as far as it goes"; "...the so-called "Big Bang"..." and "We will teach creation as a scientific theory and we will always affirm very clearly our position as Christians,". As a private school, Grindon Hall has taught creationism in science lessons.

The third school, Exemplar Academy, doesn't have a website that I could find, but was originally turned down as a church wanted to set up a school that taught creationism. The Independent reports that individuals from the Church, but without the Churches official backing, put in the new bid. The Newark Advertiser says that the school will have a Christian ethos, but not a faith designation.

Imagine a school that had a holocaust denier as a backer/principal. How would you feel about children learn modern history there, even if they promised to teach about the holocaust in history lessons? What about the denial of the germ theory of disease? Would you be happy with the biology lessons?

In America, the Wedge Strategy has been very successful. The point is not to win the debate, but to have it. As can be clearly seen with the Caleb Foundation's response to the National Trust debacle: "...we have worked closely with the National Trust over many months with a view to ensuring that the new Causeway Visitor Centre includes an acknowledgement both of the legitimacy of the creationist position on the origins of the unique Causeway stones and of the ongoing debate around this. " The point was not to have out and out creationism throughout, but by simply having a few paragraphs, creationism is presented as a legitimate alternative to science.

Why is this important? Well, because education is important, especially science literacy.As Neil deGrasse Tyson has said “I see science literacy as kind of a vaccine against charlatans who would try to exploit your ignorance”. It's not just the individual that benefits, investing in science helps the state too.


Unsurprisingly, religious apologists side with the faithful because that's what they do. But this is important, whatever your religious beliefs. Please write to your MP and Michael Gove (there are easy templates available through that link). We need to nip the creationist problem in the bud.

More charity and woo: The National Trust and Creationism

As well as the Multiple Sclerosis Resource Centre promoting pseudoscientific nonsense, we now have the National Trust promoting creationism.

A transcript from an audio exhibit at the Giants Causeway:

"Young Earth Creationists believe that the earth was created some 6000 years ago. This is based on a specific interpretation of the Bible and in particular the account of creation in the book of Genesis. Some people around the world, and specifically here in Northern Ireland, share this perspective. 

Young Earth Creationists continue to debate questions about the age of the earth. As we have seen from the past, and understand today, perhaps the Giant’s Causeway will continue to prompt awe and wonder, and arouse debate and challenging questions for as long as visitors come to see it."

The National Trust have responded to the criticism saying:

“We reflect, in a small part of the exhibition, that the Causeway played a role in the historic debate about the formation of the earth, and that for some people this debate continues today. 

“The National Trust fully supports the scientific explanation for the creation of the stones 60 million years ago. 

“We would encourage people to come along, view the interpretation and judge for themselves.” 

The Caleb Foundation, which promotes "the Fundamentals of the Historic Evangelical Protestant Faith" issued a statement from their chairman, Wallace Thompson, which highlights the problem in the National Trust:

"As an umbrella organisation which represents the interests of mainstream evangelical Christians in Northern Ireland, we have worked closely with the National Trust over many months with a view to ensuring that the new Causeway Visitor Centre includes an acknowledgement both of the legitimacy of the creationist position on the origins of the unique Causeway stones and of the ongoing debate around this. 

"We are pleased that the National Trust worked positively with us and that this has now been included at the new Visitor Centre."

The problem is that the Young Earth Creationist view has been seen to be given legitimacy, when there is none. There is no debate about the age of the Giant's Causeway. The Young Earth Creationists may debate it to this day, but they do so by being woefully ignorant of the evidence, or, by simply rejecting the evidence that there is, in a favour of the Bible. But their view has no merit. All ideas are not of equal worth. As Douglas Adams said:

"Now, the invention of the scientific method is, I'm sure we'll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked. If it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn't withstand the attack then down it goes.

Young Earth Creationist ideas have not withstood their assualt and can be rejected. The Young Earth Creationists may, through ignorance or stupidity, wish to cling to their ideas, but the rest of us can reject them. And that should include the National Trust.

Poor form BBC! Don't spread creationism from America!

An otherwise good article on the BBC was spoilt by this table:

The data comes from the Population Reference Bureau based in the USA. As you see, they have the human population starting with two individuals. This is not the case. Human population size has never been smaller than 1,200 individuals.

Alas, in America, acceptance of evolution is painfully low. A recent poll had it as low as 16%. Rejection of evolution is in America, and elsewhere, is usually because of religion (that same poll has 38% beleiving in God guided evolution, 40% believing humans were created by God in their present form).

Religion has spoilt things again - a discussion on the population bottleneck would be interesting but possibly longer than that article allows. But at least getting the table right might lead people to find out more about our origins.


UPDATE: Over at Reddit a good point was made:

LordBritish wrote:

"Alas, in America, acceptance of evolution is painfully low. A recent poll had it as low as 16%. Rejection of evolution is in America, and elsewhere, is usually because of religion (that same poll has 38% beleiving in God guided evolution, 40% believing humans were created by God in their present form)."So really acceptance of evolution in America is at 54%.

This isn't the case. Believing that God has directed evolution means that you've not quite understood evolution. Evolution is entirely unguided - it's a process that carries on, but their is no destination in sight.

Creationism in the UK

Creationism is, thankfully, not as big an issue in the UK as it is in the States.

But we shouldn't get complacent. As the BHA have recently posted:

Creationist groups are continuing to push for Free Schools


Free Schools don't have to teach the National Curriculum, and there are groups that are trying to set up schools, such that they can teach their anti-science dogma in science lessons.

Please sign this e-petition "Teach evolution, not creationism"

This has always been an important issue for me, but more so as I embark on a career in science education.

Gratuitous swimwear shot!

It strikes me as a shame that it is worth pointing (see Pharyngula, Why Evolution Is True and Blag Hag) out that the winner of Miss USA is pro-evolution. I'm glad that she is, and hope that the position increases opportunities for those unaware of, or fearful of, evolution, to find out more about it; but that it has to be pointed out, whereas beliefs such as the world being round; heliocentricism and that the Moon isn't made of cheese. It's basic stuff, but, alas, religious ideology is keeping it down. Apparently only 2 of the Miss USA contestants supported evolution, and one of those won. Hopefully a sign of progress. Plenty left to do though:

Jon D. Miller, Eugenie C. Scott, and Shinji Okamoto (2006) "Public Acceptance of Evolution" Science Aug 11 2006: 765-766.

Any way, can't exactly talk about Miss USA with out a swimwear shot:

I decided to spare you my nipples.

Why does it matter?

Yesterday for Father's Day we went on a National Trust organised walk around Stonehenge landscape, which was awesome.

This is a real neolithic stone knife/scraper, andI am holding it:

It's about 6,000 years old. In the car park there are some markers in the car park which show the location of holes for posts, whose wood chippings were dated to 10,000 years old.

Recently, Original Cindy asked:
Without discussing my own views does anyone care to tell me why anyone is caring if someone is a creationist or not?

There are lots of reasons why I care if someone is a creationist or not, and this is one of them.

Young Earth Creationists aren't able to appreciate how awesome that place is - I held in my hand something that's about as old as they believe the entire universe is. It was a tool that helped someone stay alive back then. It may look like just a stone, but that's the beginning of technology, that stone, forgive the pun, was cutting edge.

Look how far we've come!

There are whole avenues of awesome that are forever closed to someone who can't change their Young Earth Creationist world view. And that's a great shame.

On creationism, with me and @DarkBlondAngel

Deborah Hanscombe tweeted this today:
DarkBlondAngel
What a surprise @DrEvanHarris whining about religion again, if a God exists, can he smite this man down?. lol. Please RT lol.

In reply to these:

DrEvanHarris
Proposed Free School plans to teach creationism. http://bit.ly/dECVrj More here: http://bit.ly/gKxCuO via @BHAnews

DrEvanHarris
Pastor in comments at http://bit.ly/dECVrj "Creationism will be embodied as a belief" at the schl but won't be taught in the sciences" but..

DrEvanHarris
Also "Similarly, evolution will be taught as a theory". Doesn't understand what a scientific theory actually is (Show him Gravity someone!)

We then had a wee conversation on the merits of creationism in school. There was a little misunderstanding, and I had to sign off of twitter before the conversation was concluded, so, in answer to the tweets using more than 140 characters, here's where I was coming from, and this also serves as my tweeted promise "Gotta go now, will reply to anything else later".


I was talking about Creationism as I see it - something to replace the teaching of evolution in schools, even if, as Deborah points out, evolution and the origins of life are different things. However, in the context of the tweets from Dr Evan Harris, it was originally in the context of the old creationism vs evolution battle, so I think my misconception was fair. For example, in Dr Harris' links:

According to the church, the Everyday Champions Academy will possess a "Christian ethos that permeates everything that happens throughout the school".
The church states that it believes the Bible is an "accurate" depiction of God's word, and that God is the "creator of all things".
Pastor Gareth Morgan, the church leader and the driving force behind the free school bid, confirmed that creationism would be taught across the curriculum, should the school be given the green light.
"Creationism will be taught as the belief of the leadership of the school," Pastor Morgan said. "It will not be taught exclusively in the sciences, for example. At the same time, evolution will be taught as a theory."

The word "theory" is abused by creationists as the word is misunderstood. Evolution is "just a theory", but a theory in science means our best understanding of how something works, given the available data, not, as is often used colloquially, "just a hunch". Likewise, the idea that disease is caused by germs is "just a theory" (indeed, there are still people who dispute that viruses, bacteria and fungi etc cause disease. Never get health advice from these people!).

I am all for children having religious education (this is true everywhere, but this is in the context of the UK) - it is important to understand the Bible, as it has had a massive impact on our culture, and is needed to understand many common phrases eg "Doubting Thomas" (Richard Dawkins lists many in The God Delusion, but a friend is borrowing my copy, so can't reference I'm afraid). It is also important to have knowledge of other's beliefs. Funnily enough, some of the best religious knowledge comes from atheists. However, religion should be taught in a secular fashion - "This is what so and so believe, however this and that believe something else". They are, after all, all myths (if you are religious and reading this, how would you define the beliefs of other religions?). Even if you're not happy with your religion being taught as such, you must remember that the others will feel the same about their religion.

Creationism, and indeed other religious ideas should stay out of the science class room. Time is limited. Showing the huge wealth of evidence for evoulution should suffice - for example, radio metric dating can be taught to show the age of the Earth. It's not then needed to have a comparison with the Young Age Creationists, and their method of added up the ages of the various genealogies.

All ideas are not equally valid. How does this idea for car repair compare to a qualified mechanic?


When an idea has been tested for over 150 years,  with lots of people trying to disprove it; when it has made predictions that have all been shown to be true; and when every single item of evidence ever found fits the idea beautifully, then you can give it more weight as an idea from some nomadic goat herders thousands of years ago who thought bats were birds (Leviticus 11:13, 19)


Here's the full conversation, with a few notes:


EnglishAtheist
.@DarkBlondAngel Goodness me! Think you'll find @DrEvanHarris is campaigning for good education, something you evidently missed out on
 (I regret starting off insulting Deborah's education. No way to have a discussion. Sorry Deborah)


DarkBlondAngel
.@EnglishAtheist @DrEvanHarris You're for cleansing the education system of religious content. Creation is part of Religion, get over it.

EnglishAtheist
.@DarkBlondAngel No, I'm *for* religious education, just not in science lessons. Also, creationism should be taught as myth, not fact

DarkBlondAngel
.@EnglishAtheist None of the theories on creation; Scientific or otherwise, are factual. We don't know how life arose. Idiot.

EnglishAtheist
.@DarkBlondAngel Easy there hot head. I said creationism should be taught as a myth. I'm well aware evolution is a theory...
(See, I started off with an insult, and it carried on. I should know better)

EnglishAtheist
.@DarkBlondAngel ...a theory as well supported as the theory that germs cause disease

DarkBlondAngel
.@EnglishAtheist We know how life evolved.

EnglishAtheist
.@DarkBlondAngel And our theories of abiogeneisis are coming along just dandy too youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDd…

DarkBlondAngel
The only Atheists to engage with me, are brainless. Only one Atheist I know, has actually agreed with what I was saying. Others can't read.

DarkBlondAngel
@EnglishAtheist And what @DrEvanHarris knows about Science, can be written on a postcard (a small one).

EnglishAtheist
.@DarkBlondAngel Probably using techniques that Feynman talked about. You can read them in "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out"
Great book, highly recommend it. Th passage I refered to was Feynman talking about putting all the books of the world in space three square yards in size.


DarkBlondAngel
. @EnglishAtheist Creationism, in the sense of "The Universe" should be taught as a religious theory, not excluded altogether.

EnglishAtheist
.@DarkBlondAngel I've not said exclude all together, I've said keep out of science lessons, and teach as a myth, like other religions

EnglishAtheist

@DarkBlondAngel This conversation might be better via email where we have more than 140 characters englishatheist@gmail.com

Deborah chose not to engage in a conversation with more than 140 characters, but did retweet this. UPDATE: I have either made a mistake and thought I saw it retweeted' or the retweet has been undone, as it is no longer there.


DarkBlondAngel
Its a theory, not a myth. Creation is as likely as "The Big Bang". Both are theorys. Granted one is less likely. That is the point though.
Which is it? The tweet starts "Creation is as likely as "The Big Bang", but finishes "Granted one is less likely". Both statements can't be true.


DarkBlondAngel
@EnglishAtheist Wait, a God creating a Universe, is a religious theory, should be compared alongside others. Not different lesson.

DarkBlondAngel
. @EnglishAtheist That is a matter of opinion, there is no evidence to give one; a higher validity than the next. #Fact
No, it is a matter of fact. Evoultion has a wealth of evidence. Creationism, none.


EnglishAtheist
.@DarkBlondAngel Erm, yes there is. Start with On The Origin of Species by Darwin, then read Why Evolution Is True by Coyne

DarkBlondAngel
@EnglishAtheist That is evolution, I am talking about creation.

EnglishAtheist
.@DarkBlondAngel Yes, but it is almost certain that evolutionary principles will be needed in our understanding of abiogenesis



DarkBlondAngel
. @EnglishAtheist There is no reason why a lesson couldn't compare and discuss the various theories. Religious ones included.

EnglishAtheist
.@DarkBlondAngel Also, you know full well creationism is trying to be taught instead of evolution (well, I assume you do)

DarkBlondAngel
I'm not even religious. It is however wrong to ignore the tiny possibility of a "higher being" having created everything that we percieve.


DarkBlondAngel
.@EnglishAtheist Surely that is the lesson, Evolution has proven elements of creation to be wrong. Yet there are elements yet to dissprove.
I assume that the "elements yet to disprove" referred to creationism. Hence my reply later.

EnglishAtheist
.@DarkBlondAngel But time is limited, best not waste it on nonsense

EnglishAtheist
.@DarkBlondAngel What about pots of gold at the end of rainbows? Should that be taught in physics, along with light defraction?

DarkBlondAngel
.@EnglishAtheist Not the same, we can prove Rainbows have no end as such, are atmospheric phenomena. 

EnglishAtheist 

.@DarkBlondAngel What elements are there to disprove? (Excluding the fact you can't prove a negative)

EnglishAtheist
.@DarkBlondAngel Creationist type logic: But you've never been to the end of a rainbow to find out

DarkBlondAngel
.@EnglishAtheist Creation of the Universe? Errrm whats Matter? Errrm how does life start? Etc. We know how it works, I grant you.

EnglishAtheist 

@DarkBlondAngel Gotta go now, will reply to anything else later

DarkBlondAngel
Oh sure, Run Away! Atheists, attention seekers! Talk about Science, an then know nothing about it. lol.


DarkBlondAngel
. @EnglishAtheist I think you're brain is at an end of a Rainbow. I think you should have paid closer attention in Science class yourself.

Care to comment Deborah?

Poor form BBC

The BBC news magazine has a piece on science and religion.

It firstly makes the claim that religion and science are compatible, because there are religious scientists. But this is like claiming that peadophilia and religion are compatible because there are child raping priests.

It further takes about the flagella:

"Today, supporters of the Intelligent Design movement find evidence of the power and goodness of God in the rotating tail or "flagellum" of the E. coli bacterium.

For some it is a surprise, perhaps, to learn that the clearest sign of God's intelligence is to be found in a nasty vomiting bug."

If this is the clearest sign, then, well case closed on God.

The BBC should know better than push a creationist canard like this.

"Science and religion have had the kind of close and troubled relationship you would expect between siblings or even spouses. They share not only wonder at the majesty of the world we can see, but also a desire to find out what's behind it that we can't." Really? I always thought religion had the answer for everything - "God did it". Science always asked questions, religion stops them, precisely because, if it doesn't understand something, it will claim that God did it. Rather neatly summed up here.

It finishes:

That emotional and intellectual hunger will endure longer than Professor Hawking's M-theory, and those wishing to take a truly scientific attitude may be better advised to follow the lead of the great Victorian agnostic Thomas Huxley who, in one of the last things that he wrote before he died asked "Is it not better to keep silence about matters which speech is incompetent to express; to be content with revolving in the deeps of the mind the infinite possibilities of the unknown?"


I think instead, we can go with Christopher Hitchens: