Creative Differences
Michael Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society, suggested that creationism be taught along side evolution in schools. His reasoning being that if creationism is just ignored then it alienates those that follow it further from science.
He said that around one in 10 children comes from a family with creationist beliefs. “My experience after having tried to teach biology for 20 years is if one simply gives the impression that such children are wrong, then they are not likely to learn much about the science,” he said.
“I think a better way forward is to say to them ‘look, I simply want to present you with the scientific understanding of the history of the universe and how animals and plants and other organisms evolved’.”
Reiss, who is an ordained Church of England minister, told the British Association Festival of Science in Liverpool that science teachers should not see creationism as a “misconception” but as an alternative “world view”. He added that he was not advocating devoting the same time to teaching creationism or intelligent design as to evolution.
I can understand Prof Reiss’ point of view – telling a child that everything they have learnt from their parents/religion is bullshit is unlikely to help their education in the long run. When presented with two conflicting arguments from authority they are likely to side with the one that fits in with their current world view. I, however, do not agree with the teaching of creationism to school children.
Time for science education is already limited and the degredation of standards has been covered several times by Education Watch. Although I don’t know the current syllabus I would hazard a guess that only a matter of hours of childs education is concerned with the science behind the origins of life. Evolutionary theory is currently the only scientific way in which the origin of life has been explained and should be taught with explanation of both the theory and the evidence supporting it. To introduce creationism into the science classroom promotes it above its standing in science. Creationism, including intelligent design, has no basis in science and is simply an answer of “God did it” to anything we cannot currently explain with science.
It is inevitable that, during the teaching of evolution, there will be occasions where pupils will challenge the teacher arguing that evolution is wrong and creationism is the correct explanation. Here, I agree, these childrens beliefs should not just be dismissed as being wrong. Instead this is an opportunity to explain the comparative evidence for both theories (I use the term loosely for creationism). The landslide of evidence for evolution over creationism should convert all but the most strident doubters and for these it is unlikely that any evidence will do.
Reiss’ regarding of creationism not as a misconception but as an alternative world view is a worrying one. Although I think that anyone has the right to believe anything they wish that does not mean we have to give equal credence to those views. If creationism is allowed into the science classroom as an alternative world view why not allow an alternative view of maths where 
. Or that incorrect spelling in an English Language class is an alternative view of how words are spelt.
