The Emmanuel Foundation is Lying to us!
And Tony Blair's Government doesn't care

Following is an abridged account from BBC Breakfast with Frost interview with Nigel McQuoid, now Principal at King’s Academy in Middlesbrough. It was originally broadcast 17th March 2002 and the complete, unexpurgated transcript may be found here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/breakfast_with_frost/1877651.stm since this account has been edited, the reader is encouraged to read it in conjunction with the original interview to get Mr Frost's questions and Mr McQuoid's answers in complete context.

David Frost: You've taught creationism but now you'd like to put it into the syllabus, into the curriculum - that seems to be what the papers are saying, is that right?

Nigel McQuoid: Obviously schools are teaching creation in every assembly and every RE lesson because so many people actually believe that God did make the world. I don't quite know what creationism means but if it means that God made the world, yes of course that's got a place in assemblies and in RE.

The shared belief that God created the world certainly has a place in RE along with any other major belief in the way the world came into being - but in Assembly? I don’t ever remember being taught Creationism in assembly.

Nigel McQuoid: Well the national curriculum in science actually asks us to look at the whole controversy around the theory of evolution and that whole question begs the idea that people look at this evidence in different ways and for many years, as you've said, people have looked at the evidence and said well we can't actually age the earth and some scientific papers, recently, have begun to question those things.

Scientific papers? These would be the ones that refute radiometric dating, I assume. I was not aware than any proper scientist took these as anything more than lunatic ramblings of the Creationism “scientists” like Dr. Grady S. McMurtry who is clearly unhinged and is quoted on the Christians for Truth website as saying, "The solution to evolution is education!"

McMurtry is a dangerous nutcase and his PhD in real science makes him even more so because it lends credence to his misinformation. McMurtry is a potential embarrassment to decent educated Christians, because he attempts to use his own brand of science to justify some of the Bible’s tallest tales – such as Noah’s Ark and Adam’s 900-odd year life.

However, this is what also makes McQuoid and Sir Peter Vardy so incredibly dangerous. By simply buying schools, they are in a position to sell bad science to vulnerable young adults and children. In this exchange, David Frost appears to attempt to nail down McQuoid on the Young Earth theory put forward by Creationists:

David Frost: And in terms - where do you stand on this issue yourself?

Nigel McQuoid: I believe that God made the world. I don't know how he did it.

David Frost: When?

Nigel McQuoid: I don't know how long it took him, I believe that we can look at science and see if that can help us and for years Darwin propagated a theory which he accepted had gaps and now people are beginning to find out more and more about all sorts of things in science and ask new questions.

Yes, Darwin admitted gaps, but those gaps are constantly shrinking. In fact, layman that I am, I'm not aware of any specific gaps as such, only debate about how things happened – the issue of evolution is no longer in doubt. Darwin, like Einstein, was years ahead of his time and since his death, we have uncovered evidence that proves Darwin’s theories beyond any doubt; except of course, in the minds of the “faithful”. Veteran broadcaster, David Frost isn't about to give up so easily though!

David Frost: But let me just come in for a minute. I mean the point about creationism is that you think if you believe creationism that it wasn't made, the world wasn't made billions of years ago, as the fossils show or whatever, but within, within the last ten thousand years or something, yes?

Nigel McQuoid: Well the national curriculum in science actually asks us to look at the whole controversy around the theory of evolution and that whole question begs the idea that people look at this evidence in different ways and for many years, as you've said, people have looked at the evidence and said well we can't actually age the earth and some scientific papers, recently, have begun to question those things. And in college we have decided that we must look at the scientific papers before we present them to children and to see whether or not they have any scientific validity.

Controversy, Nigel! What controversy? The only controversy I am aware of is rooted in the minds of the faithful who believe absolutely in outmoded and long-debunked ideas and who are driven by terror of losing the vicelike grip they have held on power for hundreds of years. From what I understand, even the Pope accepts Genesis is allegorical.

Nigel McQuoid: “…And I can assure you of this, that as a college, state funded, we will teach evolution as we're asked to and the controversy surrounding it and it will be for children to view the science and, as it will be for adults, to see what they then wish to believe. I believe in openness, I believe in debate, I believe that children, with respect, have a great sense of ability to see when they're being brainwashed and when they're being given a choice. Let the science speak for itself.”

I’d take issue with you on that, Mr McQuoid. Not only are children ill-equipped to debate anything of significance with an adult, particularly a teacher, they are also open to the simplest of any conflicting ideas presented to them. If you’re an educator, Sir, you are (or should be) already well aware of that and any suggestion otherwise is as disingenuous as it is dishonest. Aren’t you the guy who is quoted in the Guardian newspaper, Saturday 9th March 2002 as saying:

"A group of folk have contacted the press saying it's not legitimate to have a school consider the scientific case for creation. I think that's fascist. The evolution/creation debate is all about to what extent the scientific evidence is there to support or undermine the other view... I don't think [evolution] is as proven as the world being round."

Of course, you're entitled to that opinion, but you are hardly qualified to make that determination and present it as fact.

Principal McQuoid is also quoted with this nugget from 2002:

“Attempts to reconcile evolutionary theory with the Biblical account of creation strain and distort scripture.”

But the very book that states, quite clearly, the world is flat and the only mainstream publication in the world that recognises this “fact” in no less than four places is the same book that claims God created the world in six days. If that doesn’t paint a glaring question mark over the whole issue, I wonder what does.

6