Creationism should be taught in science classrooms, according to some. (British ones, that is!)

[Shaun]

Creationism should be taught in science classes as a legitimate point of view, according to the Royal Society, putting the august science body on a collision course with the Government.

The Rev Michael Reiss, a biologist and its director of education, said it was self-defeating to dismiss as wrong or misguided the 10 per cent of pupils who believed in the literal account of God creating the Universe and all living things as related in the Bible or Koran. It would be better, he said, to treat creationism as a world view.

His comments put him at odds with fellow scientists as well as the Government. Former Fellows of the Royal Society include Charles Darwin, who first proposed the theory of evolution.

National curriculum guidelines state that creationism has no place in science lessons. The Government says that if it is raised by students, teachers should discuss how creationism differs from evolution, say that it is not scientific theory and that further discussion should be saved for religious classes.

Professor Reiss, a biologist, was speaking at the British Association’s Festival of Science in Liverpool. Other scientists were vociferous in their response, saying that creationism should remain entirely within the sphere of religious education.

Read whole article.

We seem to want to copy the Americans in everything it seems. From rock 'n roll to creationism being taught in science class rooms as a legitimate theory.

[LoZz]

creationism should be taught so that students understand the whole debate of creationism vs natural selection. its also important they understand what people belived before darwin. BUT it should be taught in R.E (religious education), not in science as its based on religion not science.

[King Edward III]

Does this affect Scotland?

[Shaun]

Does this affect Scotland?

I don't know. Probably not as we're totally different up here.

[King Edward III]

I don't know. Probably not as we're totally different up here.

Does it affect Wales, even?

[LoZz]

Does it affect Wales, even?

maybe not. wales has alot of control over its own education system, a bit like scotland, its why we no longer have sats for 11 year olds.

[Mithie]

Creationism should be taught in science as a litmus test to see which kid has the propensity to succeed in the scientific and engineering field... you know - like a resource for career councelling.

"So Billy, I see here that you think Creationism is a perfectly scientifically valid theory with just as much rational credence as evolution. I also see here that um... you want to major in Engineering and pursue a career in biomedical instrumentation. I... sigh... I don't know how to say this Billy, but that's just not a good idea. Have you considered a more... liberal oriented field, like philosophy or women studies? How about literature? Impressionist art? What's that? You think political science is a pretty cool field to go into because you think you'd like to be a politician? No, Billy, I can't say I'd recommend you doing that. "

[Shaun]

We don't do that here, though. If the kid wants to believe in creationism he can and can also be an engineer or scientist. But if he says in his exams that creationism is a credible scientific alternative to evolution, he'll be marked wrong.

[Mithie]

We don't do that here, though. If the kid wants to believe in creationism he can and can also be an engineer or scientist.

For his good, and if I were his career councellor, I'd be honest with him and recommend against it.

[ajm317]

For his good, and if I were his career councellor, I'd be honest with him and recommend against it.

I realize you're making a joke, but 15 year olds are not scientists, and should not be expected to BE scientists. They do not have the experience or reasoning capacity to effectively defend themselves from the kind of dishonest shenanigans that creationists engage in. I know plenty of intelligent people who believed in "creation science" as teenagers who ridicule it now.

[Mithie]

I realize you're making a joke, but 15 year olds are not scientists, and should not be expected to BE scientists. They do not have the experience or reasoning capacity to effectively defend themselves from the kind of dishonest shenanigans that creationists engage in. I know plenty of intelligent people who believed in "creation science" as teenagers who ridicule it now.

Here's the joke, somewhere in the viscinity of New York City.

Here's where you've taken it, somewhere in Vladivostok, and now four posts later, the joke is somewhere on Lake Armstrong - that giant pit on the surface OF THE MOON.

[Shaun]

For his good, and if I were his career councellor, I'd be honest with him and recommend against it.

Hardly. Whether the kid believes in creationism or evolution has nothing to do with the engineering or many scientific fields. I'm going into the engineering field myself, having absolutely no education in the field of biology.

[Mithie]

Hardly. Whether the kid believes in creationism or evolution has nothing to do with the engineering or many scientific fields. I'm going into the engineering field myself, having absolutely no education in the field of biology.

That's probably because you've never had the wonderful, scientifically supported and rationalized theory intelligent design taught to you in high school.

[Ciabhán]

If I were still of an age that I needed to worry about this kind of stupidity I would just walk out of the bloody class.

[Shaun]

That's probably because you've never had the wonderful, scientifically supported and rationalized theory intelligent design taught to you in high school.

True. Evolution versus creationism is as much an issue here as the right to bear arms. In other words, no one cares. Only a few Muslims and even fewer fundamentalist Christians don't believe in evolution here.

[Sphere]

Even if creationism/intelligent design is 100% true, it shouldn't be taught as part of the natural sciences. The natural sciences rely upon observable, physical evidence/data. The Supernatural, then by very definition, cannot be proven/disproven by scientific evidence.

(on a side note, engineering is seperate for science. Scientists generally are only content with the truth, as accurately as they can derive it. Engineers are completely happy to operate under fallacies and lies, as long as the end result is desirable.)

[Caerid]

Maybe if its taught as theory and not fact.

[Big War Bird]

Creationism should certainly not be taught in science classes, as it certainly is not science. If one really feels it should be in ciriculum it could be included in a variety of ways such as comparative religion, literature or history.

[Romano-Dacis]

I would agree with teaching it but not as "another equally valid theory." Teach it the same way we're taught Dalton's model of the atom: "here's what we used to believe in and here's why it was wrong (as proven scientifically)." Problem solved.

[Cluny the Scourge]

The British "scientist" recommending this is a priest. What do you expect - rationality? He's a priest.