The Daily Telegraph reports today that one in three teachers recommend teaching creationism alongside evolution. Bonkers? I don’t think so. Nor did I think the resignation of Rev Professor Michael Reiss was to be applauded. In fact, it was a travesty: the Rev Professor merely suggested was that creationism ought to be discussed - nothing more. Yet Reiss was forced to step down from his position as director of education at the Royal Society, after the Society foolishly branded his views “dangerous” and “outrageous” - without, I suspect, taking the time to examine what they really were.
There cannot and there must not be a moratorium on discussing creationism in schools. Only by even-handedly and critically examining the alternatives to evolution can we show (rather than simply tell) young people why evolution is the best explanation we have for the way the world is. One need only read a few pages of John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty to understand why: we run the very real risk of fostering doubt in questioning young minds about the “dead dogma” of evolution. It is normal, it is healthy, and it is necessary for us to challenge even our most fundamental beliefs about the world around us. If we have true faith in evolution, we have nothing to fear from creationist arguments, even in their strongest forms. Furthermore, only frank, open and critical discussion has a chance of influencing young minds already poisoned by creationist dogma.
It may be true that teaching creationism as an acceptable alternative explanation should not be permitted. Indeed, any sane-minded science teacher no doubt goes to great lengths to demonstrate why creationism fails where evolution, broadly speaking, succeeds. But the vicious backlash against Reiss’ suggestion, that science teachers should treat creationist beliefs “not as a misconception but as a world view”, is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what goes on in a science lesson.
Adnan Oktar
If there are sinister characters in this drama, they are the likes of Adnan Oktar, who, Damian Thompson reports on his Holy Smoke blog today, has ramped up his efforts to have his Atlas of Creation on every coffee table in the land by sending copies to newspapers and other influential organisations. I don’t entirely share Damian’s view that Muslim fundamentalists are responsible for the increasingly widespread acceptance of creationism. But players like Adnan Oktar are, without doubt, seriously contributing to it - perhaps more so than the “bible belt” evangelists the liberal media love to bash. Religious fundamentalists in the US are an easy target for good reason: they’re too ridiculous to be taken seriously. But Islamic creationists operate more subtly and insidiously - and, as Damian notes, it is increasingly difficult to combat their efforts without being branded as an Islamophobe.
“There should be no room for doubt,” says the Royal Society, “That creationism is completely unsupportable as a theory.” They are right. But only by demonstrating scientifically why that is so - especially to the young - can we hope to combat it.
If you enjoyed this post, why not subscribe to our RSS feed or follow us on Twitter? You might also consider making a donation to the Counterknowledge.com fighting fund.
Click here to sign up for free RSS updates.
Download the free 
Join 
9 responses
I’m not sure about this :
“It is normal, it is healthy, and it is necessary for us to challenge even our most fundamental beliefs about the world around us. If we have true faith in evolution, we have nothing to fear from creationist arguments, even in their strongest forms. Furthermore, only frank, open and critical discussion has a chance of influencing young minds already poisoned by creationist dogma.”
My problem is that explaining why creationism is wrong, is quite hard. There’s an awful lot of evidence to cover, and there are creationist objections to most of it, so then you have to explain why the objections are wrong…and so on.
Of course the creationists are wrong. But I think it’s optimistic to expect children to be able to understand *why* they’re wrong. Sure, you can teach them some of the evidence for evolution. Fossils are pretty easy to understand. But then they’ll meet some creationist who disputes the evidence - and the kids won’t know what to think.
My personal view is that we should keep creationism out of schools as far as possible. Creationism is a craze, largely exported by Americans, which only started 30 years ago and will die fairly soon. We just need to hold the line until it does, I reckon, and the best way to do that is to ignore it.
I may be being too cynical about this, but I think it’s a bit optimistic to expect that reasoned discussion will solve everything…
“The Daily Telegraph reports today that one in three teachers recommend teaching creationism alongside evolution.”
This was based upon a ’survey’ by the website Teachers.tv. They sent out 10 000 questionnaires and received circa 1200 replies (spot the error there). Moreover the question was reported to be ambiguous - apparently it didn’t specify whether creationism should be taught in science lessons or in other parts of the curriculum (such as RE lessons).
So that ‘one in three’ finding is as about as unscientific as it gets.
This is grist to the mill of your average hack journalist. But I really expect more from a sceptic blog run by the author of an excellent book defending science from counterknowledge.
At the very least, lets stop reporting the ‘findings’ of such ridiculous ’surveys’ as fact.
@ woodchopper
The story in the Telegraph was intended merely as a point of discussion.
My main point was that we ought not to silence creationists, but rather show how examining creationism side-by-side with evolution demonstrates the virtues of a scientific theory over a non-scientific theory.
@ Neuroskeptic
You’re right, it’s a hard slog. But by God, we must try: just glance at the widespread and terrifying censorship going on in Turkey at the behest of the repulsive Adnan Oktar, and you’ll see it’s a very necessary fight.
I tend to swing between saying that creationism should be taught in science classes as a perfect example of how NOT to do science and saying it should have no place at all. The latter simply panders to the proponents by allowing them to say that their right to free speech has been taken from them…
However, I agree with Neuroskeptic about it being time consuming to counter all the claims and counter claims of creationists, bearing in mind that children are unlikely to have sufficient time in class for just this.
Creationism is not science therefore it should not be taught in science lessons. To do otherwise is to give it more credence than it is due. By all means discuss it within the abomination known as religous education but it shouldn’t be given more air time than that.
Now if we were to replace RE in the UK education system with Philosophy perhaps a discussion on creationism would have more merit. Food for thought perhaps.
Creationist I’ve talked too wouldn’t have a problem with evolution being taught to their children if it were taught properly.
No one disputes micro-evolution. It is obvious and proven scientifically. The problem is macro-evolution being taught as fact. It is not fact, just a theory that can’t be proven anymore than creationism can. They are both a matter of faith, therefore if one can’t be taught, neither should the other.
Also, not all creationist believe in the so-called “young earth theory”.
Daisy, macro-evolution has been observed many times over and over again, and is supported by massive amount of evidence. Before you missrepresent the facts please open a scientific journal and enlighten your self. Actually, now days it is even easier since most of the scientific journals are avaible online.
As for faith, it takes as much faith to belive in evolution as to believe that the sky is blue.
creationist intellegent design is rooted within the doctrine of religion, this is not for the unbelievers of religion