In January 2007 the Wellcome Trust distributed a 16-page booklet on evolution to all secondary school Heads of Science in the UK. It mentions intelligent design several times, without a full explanation, and dismisses it as unscientific. The booklet is supplemented by web articles, a lesson plan and an essay competition with financial prize for schools. The webpage for the materials, including a PDF of the booklet, can be found here.

Ambitious claims for neo-Darwinism occur throughout the materials, such as:

Evolution by natural selection can explain how, starting from simple self-replicating entities, complex life forms came about. Not all the details are in place, but plenty is known and there are good theories to explain most of the gaps.   [see here].

How has the theory of evolution stood up to scrutiny? Pretty well. It is theoretically possible that some new discovery will contradict it, but it hasn't happened yet…    [see here].

Almost no practising life scientist questions the general validity of evolutionary theory.  [see here].

The weaknesses of neo-Darwinism, when mentioned, are made to sound very slight. For example, although no-one knows how consciousness could have evolved, this problem is dismissed in the section on human evolution:

The most contentious area is consciousness. Is this what distinguishes us from other animals? Perhaps. But consciousness is difficult to define and study (see Big Picture on Thinking), and the difference may be one of degree rather than presence/absence. Scientifically speaking then, purely biologically forces seem perfectly able to explain the creation of human beings.

The final statement in this paragraph is not justified by the preceding sentences.

Wellcome’s materials refer to intelligent design arguments from biology and physics. But in both contexts they give an instant rejection of the idea without persuasive explanation. The materials rely heavily on the ruling of American Judge John Jones III, in a court case in Dover, Pennsylvania, USA:

The case was notable for featuring an independent 'referee' - Judge John Jones - commenting on ID's scientific credentials, having heard from both sides. Judge Jones demolished the arguments of ID campaigners, arguing that "ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents". His judgment made it clear that ID could not be considered a valid scientific theory.           [see here].

In what other contexts would the Wellcome Trust teach children that non-scientist American Judges play a primary role as arbiters of global scientific knowledge? 

The Wellcome online lesson plan begins by the teacher reading out a clumsy pro-ID statement, once mandated by the school board of Dover, Pennsylvania (which Judge Jones ruled against), then reassuring the pupils that “this does not actually apply to them”.

The “Rationale” given to teachers is:

Debate rages in sections of US and UK society about the teaching of evolution and intelligent design. At the same time, exciting finds and increasingly sophisticated biological and palaeontological techniques provide ever-stronger evidence for neo-Darwinism.

The view, held by many physicists, that the fine-tuning of physical constants could be evidence for design, is dismissed as unscientific:

How do we deal with the extraordinary good fortune that makes the universe suitable for human life? One answer is that it also implies the existence of a designer. As with intelligent design and biology, this is not a scientific approach. [See here.]

Instead, the materials give a great deal of coverage to the multiverse idea and end by claiming:

One interesting consequence of some multiverse models is that there are parallel universes almost exactly like ours, containing other versions of ourselves. It might be a relief to know that the nearest other 'you' is 10 to the power of 10²⁹ metres away.

Though the last sentence makes it sound as the mulitverse is a fact, there is actually no hard evidence for it.

Interestingly, Lord Adonis, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills, stated in the House of Lords on 18 January 2007

Multiverse theory—the theory that there are other universes besides our own—is not part of the national curriculum for science. The advanced science behind this theory is normally taught at university.

Having dismissed intelligent design without properly explaining its scientific arguments, the Wellcome Trust claims that the reason why some people reject evolution is not scientific, but religious:

Why do so many people find the idea of evolution so hard to stomach?...The key factor is religious belief. Evolutionary explanations conflict with accounts given in sacred texts. Some people can accommodate scientific explanations within their framework of belief; others cannot.   [Found here].

The materials, distributed to science teachers, contains substantial articles on religion. A section “In the beginning” allows pupils to consider Inuit, Ancient Egypt, Maori and Buddhist creation stories. An online article explores the affect of evolutionary thinking on Christian theology.

Another article attempts to give evolutionary explanation for why “religious belief seems to be thriving even in this 'age of reason'.”

Other articles explore other features of human society, such as human sexual preferences (“Can evolution explain the mating game?”) and altruism (“Cooperation and altruism have been central to the success of human beings. They remain essential to coherent, stable societies today. Scientifically, why we started acting together remains only partly clear”). Teenagers are not told explicitly what conclusions they might draw from this teaching for their own behaviour towards others.

The Wellcome Trust is an independent charity funding research to improve human and animal health.