Creationists' 'certainty' adds to absurdity

10th June 2011 at 01:00

Surely I'm not the only reader disturbed by the content of recent letters on creationism? Two weeks ago the writer favoured the "certainty" of creationism, which apparently looks at the evidence and declares its explanation confidently, over the "uncertainty" of science, which looks at the evidence and develops a best theory or, horrors, competing theories that are subject to change as new evidence comes to light.

Last week, Graham Browne wrote that it was "no more absurd to believe in creation(ism) than it is in a chance mix of chemicals ..." (Letters, 3 June).

Let's accept for a moment the "chance mix of chemicals" theory of the origin of life on earth. If it could be shown then that the mix originally came to earth on a meteorite, would the scientists stop there? No, they would attempt to investigate the source of the meteorite, and so on.

But how does a creationist explain their creator? They don't, and that is why creationism, together with intelligent design, is not science and why science is not faith.

Graham Jump, Starting a PGCE in September, Guildford, Surrey.

Subscribe to get access to the content on this page.

If you are already a Tes/ Tes Scotland subscriber please log in with your username or email address to get full access to our back issues, CPD library and membership plus page.

Not a subscriber? Find out more about our subscription offers.
Subscribe now
Existing subscriber?
Enter subscription number


The guide by your side – ensuring you are always up to date with the latest in education.

Get Tes magazine online and delivered to your door. Stay up to date with the latest research, teacher innovation and insight, plus classroom tips and techniques with a Tes magazine subscription.
With a Tes magazine subscription you get exclusive access to our CPD library. Including our New Teachers’ special for NQTS, Ed Tech, How to Get a Job, Trip Planner, Ed Biz Special and all Tes back issues.

Subscribe now