Professor Richard Dawkins and 25 other leading British scientists have written to Ed Balls, the schools secretary, to protest that evolution has been omitted from plans for a new primary school curriculum. The scientists, including three Nobel laureates, have asked Mr Balls to ensure that the new science curriculum for English primary schools includes teaching on natural selection.
A draft of the curriculum, which was drawn up by an independent review under Sir Jim Rose and put out to a public consultation that closed last week, did not mention the principle. In the letter, which was organised by the British Humanist Association, the scientists wrote: “We find it extraordinary that evolution and natural selection find no place in the section ‘Science – life and living things’.
“The theory of evolution is one of the most important ideas underlying biological science. It is a key concept that children should be introduced to at an early stage.”
Telegraph (thanks Berber)
"
I am not altogether sure whether Ed Balls’ simeon visage is strong evidence in favour of the theory of evolution, or conclusive proof that the human race has developed no further than Neanderthal man. Thoughts on this welcomed.
‘missed off the new curriculum’? It was never on ours either! I went to a pretty Christian-based Grammar school, which had a 45-minute hymn and prayer-fuelled assembly every morning. We were not taught anything about Darwin and / or evolution theories. It’s only now that I am in my forties that I feel that I finally feel comfortable being a non-believer as I have a wider choice of reading and research material.
Alice: We never developed from Neanderthal man, though — we may have caused their extinction (though every study into that subject seems to claim something else), but h. neanderthalensis was another branch of hominids.
but it’s kind of a hot-button topic for me… people tend to use Neanderthal as a sort of insult, but Neanderthals were probably as intelligent as h. sapiens, and show evidence of a similar sort of culture (grave gifts and such).
Don’t mean to lecture you or anything
I hardly remember that we had anything on evolution back then, but I think we did, not sure though. No, I’m sure not at primary school, maybe later on.
Dont know where else I should have picked up on it (back then discovery and such were not here yet, although it may have been a documentary on tv as well, on Dutch TV channels (3 we had back then …), it was not really in my parents’ focus towards us either, to educate us in this area (although biology itself was not lacking (dad gave biology lessons among other things).
They at least should devote one lesson to it, at least. Different type of religions quite often pop up as well in other areas of lessons (here that is). Just to let childeren know what is going on in the world, so that they can make a good choice theirselves, what they will focus on, sort of. Although .. they are quite young … and not all that serious quite often, way too many things that are far more important in their lifes. But just to make school more interesting .. Yes, I’d be in favor of lots of lessons which we did not have back then. But is there enough time for it … there are a few things the kids will have to learn above all (writing, calculating, reading) … Hm, seems to be more than enough time. Although … At times I wonder what the hell we have been doing all day long there .. if I hear what childeren nowadays get in class at primary school .. But reading, writing and calculating got in quite well, that’s for sure. i do remember one class in sexual education .. ehehehe …. no clue why we got that .. was def. not my interest … found it far more ineresting to study the teacher … still remember wondering whether he got aroused by it .. (he sort of drewled a bit …).
Anybody else think that Ed looks like some actor playing a ‘government type’ on an episode of [spooks]?
Come on, Ed Balls, that’s a fake name right?
When I first saw this I thought it said: ‘Scientists complain to Ed Balls about his lack of evolution.’
In a funny way, it still kind of made sense.
I suspect most of the signatories to that letter didn’t read the proposed science curriculum. It doesn’t mention atomic theory, gravitational theory, or all sorts of other scientific theories which are just as true and important as evolutionary theory. That’s because it isn’t that sort of document, and primary level science isn’t first and foremost about teaching theory. There’s plenty of room in there for teachers to discuss evolution as part of the themes about the natural world. This protest has less to do with inadequacies in the curriculum than it does with Richard Dawkins’s odd belief that the whole of the natural sciences are somehow reducible to Darwinian evolution, and that somehow forcing everyone to learn about evolution at an early age will kill religion, as if there were no Christians who accept that evolution happened (most of them do, in my experience).