The National Curriculum Online website says for science at Key Stage 4 (GCSE level): "Students should be taught how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence (for example Darwin's theory of evolution)."

Creationism doesn't interpret empirical evidence in a different way. It dismisses/denies empirical evidence. Afraid that while GB is less religious than US, its educators are no less ignorant about scientific theory.  

by Psyche on Fri Mar 10, 2006 at 05:17:55 PM EST

If that is the case, then it does reflect a real scientific controversy that Darwin helped precipitate and I suspect the OCR selected it since it is one of the more famous controversies of the past 300 years.

As long as they don't start getting into today's debate over ID (which is a political controversy not a scientific one) then I'd be willing to live with it.

by tacitus on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 06:49:20 PM EST

It is also useful if schools teach scientific method, but there must be better examples than evolution v non-evolution, a controversy that remains a political minefield because politics does not focus exclusively on scientific evidence. For example, one could cover the very well-documented but politically uncontroversial (I think!) establishment of the double-helix structure of DNA.

I agree that it would be good to identify the individuals responsible for the OCR's decision, and for them to state their personal scientific and religious positions. It would also be good to have all of the internal memos leading up to that decision published. I must find out whether the OCR is subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

by Richard Baron on Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 06:26:56 AM EST