The biological community doesn't operate with creationism in mind at all. It's not testable and doesn't provide useful implications. Science is built on theories. Laws in science are clean math equations. To say that we can't trust evolution because it is a theory is ridiculous and shows ignorance.

Brandon, St. Louis, US

Creationism should be taught, it has more evidence than evolution. Evolution is really just a bad theory and the real question is why shouldn't the teachers begin teaching all the refuted evidence for evolution so students will have all the facts and thereby be truly educated.

Tom, Cumming, USA

Evolution isn't science - it can't be reproduced in a controlled environment. The whole area is more like history, except that no human was around at the time to leave records! How can we teach evolution in the lab but say creationism isn't scientific enough? Neither can be scientifically proven.

Katherine, Pardubice, CZ

The IB Curriculum actually has creationism, panspermia (life orginated elsewhere and landed here), intelligent design and evolution as part of Biology and as a biology teacher i have no problem with the students discussing and being taught about it.
Remember science is all only a theory anyway!!

Lee, Tokyo, Japan

Darwinian Evolution is not an alternative to Creationism in the same way as chemistry is not an alternative to alchemy. As such Creationism too should be left as an historical footnote.

Iain Hodgson, Oxford, England

In the same way we are taught that a meteor probably killed the dinosaurs, but there are many other ways, we should learn that although evolutionism is the way the world progressed, there are other ways it also could be. Creationism is just as valid as evolutionism.

Emily Cook, Hull,

How many of those questioned were science teachers? And how many had no science qualifications at all?

Without this piece of information this survey is meaningless

Paul M, Reading, UK

I am surprised how uneducated many teachers are.What exactly is to be taught in the subject of creationism ?How long can you stretch " the earth was made in 7 days" nonsense into a course taking years with examinations.

iain rae, tunbridge wells, u.k.

Why should we take Carl Sagan any more seriously than Dawkins?

Both are effectively layman when talking about matters outside the sphere of their learning and no better qualified to comment on a matter than you or I.

We need to remember science is NOT a theology and only a means to an end.

Nathan, Inverness, UK

I've read that this survey could be accessed by anyone, not just teachers. So it's pretty much meaningless as it is possible that the survey was mentioned to one or more christian groups and they decided to enter their opinion on the matter.

Besides, only science teachers should have been asked.

Robert, Lincoln, UK

To all you religious people out there, just read books written by Carl Sagan, then try and argue. It is down to the burden of proof. If you have seen god or heard him I would like to see the evidence. Got that? Everything in the bible can be challenged either scientifically or with common sense.

Matt T, Northampton, UK

I can't see the point of adopting a triumphalist attitude vis a vis Darwinian evolution if all that it is going to personally offer you is a few years on a planet as some kind of mutated monkey. You can't see the abhorrent connotations? Continue gleefully on.

Richard Warwick, Croydon,

'Evolution is just a belief?' Even if you posit the seven days of creation as in Genesis (if you are a Creationist and your Hebrew is apalling!) then on day eight.....natural selection kicks in.

Eric Skelton, Cardiff, Wales

Evolution is all around us and is the reason why we have to invent new antibiotics.
Bugs mutate and those with immunity (the fittest) survive to be the next generation.

Creationism is a failed theory which explains nothing. Teach it with that in mind.

richard mullens, London, Europe

Stuart Russell of Grantham, you mistake superiority for genetic diversity. If you really are a doctor, I would expect somedody of your position not display so much ignorance and bother to find out.

Modern Genetics has as much in common with Eugenics as Chemistry has with Alchemy.

Matt Mason, Exeter, UK

Ah yes, one of my favorites--the Settersfield's creationist lie about the speed of light. S. "proved" the decline in the SOL by throwing out all astronomical measurements that he didn't like. AIG falsely claims the rate of change in the universe is significant. See the talkorigins.faq webpage

Edward Eck, Boston, MA, USA

To describe Intelligent design as "a more modern version of Creationism" is incorrect. It is a serious scientific assessment of issues relating to the origin of life from a professor of bio-chemistry. Scientific evidence poses many questions for the theory of evolution. Let children think about it!

David , Woking,

Creationism cannot properly have the "same status" as evolutionary theory as it does not meet criteria for possible explanation, lacking explicit detail and being of doubtful coherence.

The uncertaintly of evolution, as a scientific hypothesis, is not simply that of unjustified belief.

Andrew, London,

There was a time that the best scientific brains thought there were 4 elements. They were wrong. In around 1910 Wegener was laughed at for proposing continental drift. How arrogant to think our theories are more than just that. Theories. And then to forbid others their rights to theirs.

Tony, Guildford, UK

It's always interesting that Atheists, who believe that there isn't a God, believe their faith in Spontaneous Generation is superior to Christians who believes in Divine Creation. Atheists reject Creation because it offends their faith in there not being a God. Science just isn’t involved at all,.

james, Exeter, UK

A crank creationist on LBC tonight, defended creationism, by referring to radioactive decay depending on the speed of light, when it's fast slows decay?!?!?? (And hence the dinosaurs all existed only 3-4000 years ago.?!?!)

No dark sarcasm in the class room.
Hey! Preacher! Leave them kids alone!

Charles, London,

What a lot of arrogant tosh is written above.
Just because you have no Faith you arrogantly assert that God doesn't exist. Sadly, whilst you continue is this manner you shall discover in due course how wrong you are.

Have scientists not frequently been proved wrong Is it possible you are wrong

Ben, Glasgow, Scotland

It's not just teachers - there are practising scientists who suscribe to the extremes of religion, including creationism. In the absence of a Scientific Inquisition there's not much to do except laugh. Asking them if they are descended from salt water or fresh water fish is usually a good wind-up.

Keith Henderson, Preston, UK

Why wouldn't/couldn't a clever divine creator design the initiating Big Bang conditions such that all cosmic and subatomic, inanimate and animate processes that followed from that instant onwards occurred naturally following scientific principles, without the need for any further intervention?

frank, sydney,

Using phrases such as "closed minds" and "superstition" are not helpful and are mostly the words of ill-informed people. I am a Catholic and do not accept either Creationism or Intelligent Design as theories. Enlightened theology does not exclude scientific findings as a source of information.

P Brown, retford, UK

Its the 21st century. Its about time we stopped worshiping the memory of a 2000 year old carpenter.

Evolution is fact. Don't teach our children fairytales about an old man in a nighshirt creating a planet in less that a week. It's ridiculous.

Len, oban, UK

Which Coleges or Universities will be prepared to offer places to undergraduates with closed minds. Colleges of divinity are a likelyhood, otherwise pupils from such superstitious schools should not bbe acceptable for modern education. People with closed minds have little to offer a modern country.

John Eadie MacGregor, Doncaster, South Yorks

And here we have one of the reasons why our standard of education is slipping and slipping. Teaching creationism, a non-falsifiable fairy tale, alongside the single greatest and most illuminating evidenced based scientific theory would send us back to the dark ages.

Ben Robinson, Brighton, UK

Creationism should be taught in history classes alongside Egyptian, Greek, Roman and other Christian myths.

Mark, Rugby, UK

We know more today than we ever have, as each day passes all creation myths (and there are hundreds, all claiming to be correct) become less and less probable.
There is a chance Creation may be correct... but it is NOT SCIENCE and should not be taught in science class.
It is simply not an answer

Ryan McAliskey, Lurgan, Ireland

While they are at it, don't forget to include the unicorns, fairys, trolls and other mystical creatures...

hmm what about the acient roman/greek gods, don't they get equal footing in modern RE

hopefully the bogeyman will get the creationalists when they go to bed and we can all sleep soundly.

simon, norwich, uk

What the survey says is that one third of teachers are not fit to teach.

Teaching religion is a form of child abuse.

Stephen, glasgow,

How about teaching scientology in science lessons as well? Any creationists agree?

chris, brighton,

Science does not have 'proofs', mathematics does. But science has an overwhelming supporting body of evidence in its favour, which is the case for evolution but not for religious writings on 'creation', nor the concept of intelligent design. Do the teachers surveyed know what they are there for?

Mike, Woodbridge,

I was taught the Phlogiston theory at school during one or perhaps two chemistry lessons

The modern theory of Chemistry provides a much better explanation of natural phenomena than does Earth Wind Fire Water and the Caloric theory

Likewise in Biology, Evolution is more satisfying than Creationism.

richard mullens, London, Europe

Why not use creationism as an example when teaching the scientific method. Show how an idea is tested against evidence and facts!

joe misra, Bristol,

Evolution is also a belief. The theory of evolution is just that. A theory. It has never been proved. Few scientists agree on how it works. The process has never been repeated in any lab. The fact is we don't know how life began on this planet. So why should any unproven theory be taught as a fact?

Jared, Chester le street, Durham

If this really does reflect the state of opinion in the teaching profession then it is very concerning. Creationism and ID are religious beliefs and should not be taught in science classes. Are we going to abandon the gains of the enlightenment so easily???

Bunc, Ayrshireblog, Scotland

Science = provable facts
Creationsim = "beliefs" e.g. "the world is flat" or "the Earth is the center of the universe"
People should be able to make up their own mind with regard to the evidence and not be brainwashed as children into beliving anything involving a rather simplistic "faith"

Colin, Cebu, Philippines

creationism is just one of hundreds of superstitions. There simply isnt time on the science curriculum to teach them all. Science in science lessons, English in english lessons and superstitions in RE.

Paul, London, uk

Of course creationsim and intelligent design should be treated on a par with Darwinism... given that all are unproven. What is shameful is that so many people have been misled into believing Darwinism to be a fact. Perhaps it should be compulsory to teach the short comings of Darwinism?

Andrew brown, derby, UK

Look its not science its a belif , where all these teachers yanks who actaully belive this crap in the first place, there is no god stop trying to bring the dark ages back.

MR W Jones, Liverpool, England

Creationism is already taught in Religious Education classes. Does it need to be taught in science classes too? Why teach a subject in two different classes?

Intelligent Design, being non-science based, should not be taught in science classes. The best place for it is in R.E. class also.

Stephen J. Brown, Cambridge, UK

The plan is really to avoid the un pc fact that Darwin's theory of Evolution predicts racial inequality. It explains why different population groups which have evolved in isolation (ie "races") have average differences from each other - in physiology, biology, intelligence etc, based on genetics.

Dr Stuart H Russell, Grantham, uk

Am I the only person who wishes that articles like this had to contain a link to precisely what was asked in the surveys? The 'agreed with' in the last paragraph might suggest they were presented with arguments for one position. Plus it's unclear if these were science teachers

But still. Worrying

David, Colchester,

Professor Reiss, who should have been clearer in his remarks, meant only that creationist fallacies should be addressed in science class in recognition of the fact that many students come to class with the erroneous belief that creationism=science - or so I understood his later clarification to say.

Chris, Dublin, CA, USA