Stephen Layfield
Much of the information in this section has drawn up the web site of Amen.org.uk, run by the fundamentalist Randall Hardy who also acts as the UK arm of Creation Research. The site can be found at http://www.amen.org.uk.
We focus here on Stephen Layfield, a fundamentalist science teacher most recently Head of Science at the Vardy-backed Emmanuel College. The article that we explore below was written by him before he joined the school. Astonishingly, he appears to have been teaching at a Catholic school, St Bedes, in Bradford (he was head of science there as well) before he joined Emmanuel College.
This page http://www.amen.org.uk/cl-north/99_feb.htm suggests his and his pals were looking for the government to introduce a GCSE in creation science.
I also quote this from the same page: "A head of Science at a Comprehensive School had recently updated Peter about responses from other staff at the former's school. The head of History was now reading her Bible through for the first time, the head of Geography was reading Creation Science literature, as is one of the schools examiners. The head of Chemistry is currently devouring Behe's book challenging the evolution theory from a micro-biological perspective and the Maths master is now rethinking his previous evolutionary position. By contrast the head of Religious Education is said to be bewildered by the schools Science department. This activist, who was initially afraid of being labelled a 'flat earther' began introducing his school and staff to Creation matters and literature two years ago, and has recently now been voted a top teacher by its students."
One wonders which school is involved.
This page brings up information on Stephen Layfield: http://www.amen.org.uk/cl-north/98_sept.htm. Also mentioned is Nancy Darrall, one of the signatories to the 2002 letter to Estelle Morris.
This page brings up more information on the activism of Andy McIntosh and Stephen Layfield: http://www.amen.org.uk/actconf/
And this page is a paper by Stephen Layfield on how the get creationism into schools http://www.amen.org.uk/actconf/schoolms.htm.
It looks to be a handbook on how creationists have gotten into Bluecoat and other schools. Bluecoat, in Liverpool, is one of the top state schools in Britain. It's head of science, Nick Cowan, has recently being arguing in public that biology and physics are not proper scientific subjects. Cowan is a fundamentalist.
This is the paper of Stephen Layfield from the 2nd National Conference of Creation Activists held in 1998 (see http://www.amen.org.uk/actconf/ ). The web site gives the game away as to how they organise. Stephen Layfield was, of course, head of science at Emmanuel College, the fundamentalist school established by Peter Vardy largely with public money.
Have a look at the very last sentence where Layfield makes it clear that all education (not just science) must be in accordance with the literal interpretation of the bible.
Creation Science - Getting the Message into Schools
Steve Layfield
Supernatural creationism (ex nihilo) is not presently respected as a credible paradigm of origins within mainstream education. It is typical for the RE staff to teach that Genesis Ch 1 is poetry and therefore needn't be interpreted literally. It is likewise typical for Science teachers in general to present big-bang cosmology, biological evolution and old earth geology as substantially established facts. In such a context the Christian who 'sticks his neck out' and ventures to suggest that the Genesis account may be actually historical and true stands to meet with a barrage of criticism & scorn. If he/she is an 'average teacher' his respect and status among the pupils may already be minimal. Among the staff his 'fundamentalist' views can be expected to arouse rather more vocal or undercurrent antagonism causing his self-esteem to take yet a further dive. It is therefore somewhat understandable that for the most part, Christians who believe the Biblical account of Genesis tend to keep their views private. Is this the right (& therefore the spiritual) response? Can God be pleased with such a situation?
It is this author's sorry testimony that this situation persisted in his own teaching experience as long as it did. However, over recent years and with support and encouragement from sympathetic Christians some turn around and measurable progress and development has occurred.
Just What Can Be Done?
Firstly, be seen & known to be a conscientious & hardworking teacher who takes his/her responsibilities seriously. Good evangelism (communication of a message) is like a song: the message is in the words) the musical accompaniment is analogous to the quality of our actual lifestyle and the general tenor of our conversation! Personal holiness is the lever which God uses to open the hearts of unbelievers. (Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me. Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me. Restore to me the joy of your salvation and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me. Then I will teach transgressors your ways, and sinners will turn hack to you [Ps 51:10-13]).
Utilise wall space in your laboratory for creation-type posters. These can be easily manufactured and illustrated using CD-ROM micropaedia and/or Internet pictures, etc. (Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the door-frames of your houses and on your gates [Deut 6:7-9]).
Bite the bullet! Let one or two of your colleagues know about your aversion to the myth of evolution. There will be a plethora of opportunities for you to do so. The topic & its multiple offspring/related cousins crop up all the time. I now find I have to bite my tongue in general social conversation in case I am making passing comment abound the subject or its social implications too frequently!! (The wicked man flees though no-one pursues, but the righteous are as bold as a lion. [Proverbs 28:1]) For God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love and of self-discipline. [2 Timothy 1:7]
Have literature available to hand to lend/give to interested pupils &/or staff. The factual data coupled with illustrations and pertinent quotations will serve well to disarm those who are genuinely open minded whilst being doubtful of the integrity of your assertions. There is a wealth of excellent material available! (Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect. [1 Peter 3:15])
Organise an occasional Creation/Evolution lecture & invite a well qualified Creationist to speak. Such an event may prove popular with some or all of the Sixth Form who may be able to appreciate the drift & sense of some of the lines of argument. This will be especially the case if you the teacher have already primed them and taken the opportunity to rehearse some of the lines of reasoning with them. This is really an invaluable exercise given the relative open-mindedness of young people at that age & stage in life. Free literature should be available afterwards along with a transcript of the lecture. (You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine [Titus 2:1])
Organise a Creation/Evolution debate in the sixth form. Such an event, when properly and fairly planned, represents a good opportunity for interested third parties (together with those who may have been previously disinterested and/or unconcerned) to gauge how well the available data fits the respective world views of the Creationist/Evolutionist. It is the conviction (and happy experience) of this writer that much prejudice and ignorance can be undermined by conducting oneself with both charity and rigour and by making full use of such an opportunity. (We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. [2 Corinthians 10:5])
End of article.
BCSE member Timothy Chase has commented on this last paragraph:
The last paragraph kind of put all the cards out face-up, doesn't it? I have noticed that the creationists are always talking about opposing worldviews, and here it is again. Science, of course, isn't about worldviews. There is the framework for the scientific method, essentially the hypothetico-deductive method, and there are a few other norms to scientific discourse, but it in no way dictates the results of empirical science: it simply provides you with a methodology which may be used by anyone of any faith or philosophy.
When applied, it results in a scientific enterprise which worlds essentially from the bottom up - but leaves metaphysics to the metaphysicians. Nevertheless, Fundamentalists regard modern science as a "worldview" opposed to their own.
But what do they mean by "worldview"? When Layfield says, "... we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ," it becomes pretty clear. Layfield is speaking of a Weltanschauung – an all-encompassing worldview - which people "should" live every moment of their lives, and within the context of education, he is speaking of involuntary indoctrination.
In essence, this religious zealot is speaking of a totalitarian ideology which in his view should achieve total control over the individual's every thought and every aspect of aspect of their psychology - in the name of Christ. I suspect that anyone with modern sensibilities, religious or otherwise, will find this deeply disturbing - if they give it more than a moment's thought."
Layfield is advocating the standard fundamentalist practice of infiltration onto schools without telling parents, school governors or, indeed, the central team managing the school, or local education authorities.
These have been completely written out of Layfield’s approach and, indeed, as result so has any democratic process of responsibility or accountability.
What Layfield is calling for is for his fellow fundamentalists in education to unilaterally change the very basis of all education so that it fits his religious opinions and literal interpretation of the bible.
Unable (or at least unwilling) to do this by the democratic process, Layfield has clearly stated that it should be achieved surreptitiously by a clique of fundamentalists.
However, such fundamentalist teachers are neither empowered to nor have the standing nor have been given the responsibility to make such drastic changes. It is ultimately not the responsibility of teachers to determine what is taught in state schools. It is the public through the democratic process, no matter how flawed.
Layfield has clearly demonstrated that he has no regard whatsoever for the democratic process. Nor is Layfield either a distinguished scientist or educator. He appears to be a self-appointed guardian of public morality and religion.
Not once in his presentation did he express any interest in the opinions of the parents of the children at state schools (or, indeed, private schools – he doesn't distinguish between the two).
In that sense he clearly believes that it is his self-appointed duty to over-ride parents, many of whom are both better educated than him (and in many cases know a lot more about science than he does) and know as much or more about religion than he does.
This is a classic example of the subversive middle manager who is trying to use the organisations that pay him and his associates for their own ends. By definition they will this do a vast amount of damage.
The very final sentence of his paper (a biblical quote) speaks volumes about Layfield's ambitions – "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."
In other words, the only objective of education in the UK, he says, is to make everyone who passes through it subservient to Layfield's religious opinions.
He is reminiscent of the old-fashioned hard-line Marxist in industry whose sole ambition was to wreck the company he worked for in pursuit of an undemocratic totalitarian state – i.e. his self-righteous cause.
And precisely why does Stephen Layfield believe his opinions are better than everybody elses?
And precisely who is paying Stephen Layfield's salary this month (again)?
You.
And he doesn't give a stuff about you. In his world, your opinions don't count.
-
Footnote: Since I wrote the above article, I have found another paper by Stephen Layfield which sets out his position. It is at http://www.darwinwars.com/lunatic/liars/layfield.html
Yet again Layfield demonstrates his authoritarian view of education. No mention is made about the duty of a public servant to act in the interests of the public, as determined by the public and the democratic process, rather than by Stephen Layfield.
The paper was originally on the web site of the Christian Institute but appears to have been deleted because of substantial adverse criticism.
