Creation debate out of bounds

10th March 2006 at 00:00
As if the science curriculum wasn't overcrowded enough, exam boards wish to add creationism to the syllabus. What do they suggest teachers drop? Darwin? Newton? The laws of motion?

Creationism has no place in science. It is neither objective nor testable.

It has only a tenuous hold on myth, beyond the extremes of fundamentalist Christianity. For examiners to give credence to its place in science is irresponsible. To use creationism to interpret scientific evidence is just bad science.

Jacqui Smith, schools minister, did teachers and pupils no favours last week by suggesting creationism had a place in debating how "scientific controversies" can arise. Creationism is not a science, it is a belief from before the Age of Enlightenment and the rise of science.

There are plenty of controversies around science to provoke debate in schools - for instance how Galileo proved the earth was not flat. This goes somewhere, whereas creationism is a cul-de-sac. Worse, it is a U-turn on the sort of reasoned scientific enquiry that all schools should nurture in young minds.

The big problem for creationists is that theories of evolution have been around long enough for scientists to witness evolution in action. The evidence is finding a place in school science teaching. Disarmed by the relentless rise of reason, creationists invented the facile and intellectually dishonest notion of intelligent design. This argues that living organisms are so complex they must have been created by a higher force rather than evolving from more primitive forms.

This concept is nothing but guesswork - again, neither objective nor testable. There are far more important subjects to pursue in valuable school time.

The latter may have a place alongside Zoroastrianism in comparative religious education - if more crucial debates around the relationship between Islam, Judaism and Christianity in the modern multi-faith world leave time.

Examiners hope the controversy around creationism will halt the exodus from science by making it more interesting. In which case, a module on Star Trek would be better and more scientifically sound. That would really have pupils saying: "I don't Adam and Eve it!"

Log-in as an existing print or digital subscriber

Forgotten your subscriber ID?


To access this content and the full TES archive, subscribe now.

View subscriber offers


Get TES online and delivered to your door – for less than the price of a coffee

Save 33% off the cover price with this great subscription offer. Every copy delivered to your door by first-class post, plus full access to TES online and the TES app for just £1.90 per week.
Subscribers also enjoy a range of fantastic offers and benefits worth over £270:

  • Discounts off TES Institute courses
  • Access over 200,000 articles in the TES online archive
  • Free Tastecard membership worth £79.99
  • Discounts with Zipcar,, Virgin Wines and other partners
Order your low-cost subscription today