In a decision that is being trumpeted as a victory for secularism, the government of the United Kingdom has banned the teaching of creationism as science in all current and future academies and free schools.
The new regulations declare that a “requirement for every academy and free school to provide a broad and balanced curriculum in any case prevents the teaching of creationism as evidence based theory in any academy or free school.”
In other words, only very closed-minded people believe in the Bible’s description of the creation of man and the earth and that as free schools and academies in the U.K. are obligated to inculcate students with a broad scientific knowledge, there is no room for that Bible hokum.
Furthermore, if a free school or academy dares teach creationism as science or on par with Darwinism, then that school is in violation of the relevant funding statutes and could forcibly forfeit its charter.
Regarding the status of free schools and academies in the U.K., the blog i09 reports:
In the UK, state-funded academies are basically equivalent to charter schools in the United States, and are primarily comprised of high schools. Free schools, which were introduced in 2010, are non-profit making, independent, state-funded schools which are not controlled by a local authority, but are subject to the School Admissions Code. Free schools make it possible for parents, teachers, charities, and business to set up their own schools.
On the government website where the new regulations were published, the U.K. Department for Education provides several documents defining creationism and demonstrating how such a notion is antiquated and is refuted by even the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church.
A little history from i09:
Back in 2012, the UK government banned all future free schools from teaching creationism as science, requiring them to teach natural selection. At the time, however, it didn't extend those requirements to academies, nor did the changes apply to existing free schools. The new verbiage changes this, precluding all public-funded schools — present or future — from teaching creationism as evidence-based theory.
The newly enacted clauses prohibit covered schools from teaching creationism as scientific fact and they define creationism and speak for the U.K.’s two largest religions, declaring:
Any doctrine or theory which holds that natural biological processes cannot account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth and therefore rejects the scientific theory of evolution. The parties acknowledge that creationism, in this sense, is rejected by most mainstream churches and religious traditions, including the major providers of state funded schools such as the [Anglican or Catholic] Churches, as well as the scientific community. It does not accord with the scientific consensus or the very large body of established scientific evidence; nor does it accurately and consistently employ the scientific method, and as such it should not be presented to pupils at the Academy as a scientific theory.
In fairness, the new regulations permit teachers to discuss biblical creationism in a religious studies class, “as long as it is not presented as a valid alternative to established scientific theory.”
No one could be happier about this decision to drive God from the classroom than the British Humanist Association (BHA). Since 2011 the group has worked tirelessly to implement the changes as part of its “Teach Evolution, Not Creationism” campaign. On its website, the organization published the following statement, which curiously contains passing praise of the U.K.’s version of Common Core:
BHA Head of Public Affairs Pavan Dhaliwal commented, "In 2011 our 'Teach evolution, not creationism' campaign called for enforceable rules saying that creationism cannot be presented as a valid scientific theory in any publicly-funded school. Coupled with the fact that maintained schools must follow the national curriculum, which from September will include a module on evolution at the primary level — the other thing we called for — we believe that this means that the objectives of the campaign are largely met. We congratulate the Government on its robust stance on this issue."
What about this so-called “valid scientific theory” the government of the U.K. and the island’s humanists hold so dear and are willing to protect at the cost of the free exercise of religion? There are a myriad of uncomfortable and unanswered questions about its validity and provenance, questions substantial enough to maybe warrant a new set of regulations ruling out that bundle of bogus pseudo-science.
There are discomforting (for humanists) controversies surrounding the foibles, fibs, and outright fabrications that undergird Darwinism and the quasi-religion established around it.
Most disinterested scientists will admit the existence of gaping holes in the tapestry of Darwinism, the most famous of which is the story of the origin of the long necks on giraffes. Darwin asserted that the necks of the giraffes were elongated over time so as to aid the animal in eating the leaves from tall trees. Truly, as stated by former U.S. Information Agency Assistant Science Adviser Eugene Windchy, “most American adults living today have had this hoary nonsense foisted upon them,” despite overwhelming contrary scientific and observational evidence regarding the feeding habits of giraffes that makes this “proof ” absurd and illustrative of other fatal cancers in the body of Darwinian “science.”
The sine qua non of Darwinian doctrine is the theory of natural selection. Darwin claimed that 90 percent of the evolutionary change we see is the result of natural selection. Yet the former president of the Paleontological Society and recipient of the National Science Medal, David M. Raup, has called into question the importance of natural selection and, as Windchy rightly reasons in his book The End of Darwinism, “that criticism goes to the very heart of Darwinian theory.” As fossils are found and the tools for studying them improve, there is much in them that reveals contradictions to Darwinian natural selection and shines the light of doubt onto many of the central assumptions of this well-established key principle of evolution.
Although it only took three powerful and prominent men to invent “Darwin as the father evolution,” it took many more to foist this theory on the public as sound scientific fact. It took support by moneyed interests, ambitious investors, and scientists servile to an “ism” in opposition to Christianity and its doctrines (including the creation of all things by God).
One of the conspirators on the ground floor was Thomas Huxley. Windchy quotes Darwin as explaining to Huxley, “If we can once make a compact set of believers, we shall in time conquer.” Huxley stepped to the sound of his master’s voice and immediately wrote a favorable review of On the Origin of the Species. Darwin demonstrated his gratitude by making a timely deposit of £2,100 into Huxley’s perpetually empty bank account, thus enabling the penniless Huxley to pay off his mountainous and immobilizing debts.
Huxley found and formed a cadre of influential and well-placed scientists and socialites (Darwin’s “compact set of believers”). Huxley and his band would capitalize on the seminars, books, and speeches to be given, not to mention trading on the allure of the power to be had by placing converts in positions of power whereby they could make gain from peddling influence.
In fact, many of these wealthy investors and silk-stockinged hucksters were able through the pulling of school ties and purse strings to place Darwinists on the science faculties of Oxford and Cambridge Universities, thus ensuring that the theories would be disseminated in the minds of generations of students, who in turn would broadcast them throughout the world.
And, as evinced by the newly updated U.K. free school and academy regulations, that influence continues to be felt well into the 21st century.
Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels nationwide speaking on nullification, the Second Amendment, the surveillance state, and other constitutional issues. Follow him on Twitter @TNAJoeWolverton and he can be reached at