ten years ago I threw a pile of scrap in the garage - lo and behold, it hasn't evolved into a car yet?

sue spender, Langport, Somerset

why is society shocked when a young boy assaults an elderly lady to near death, yet daily endorses the murder by excruciating pain ( burned to death by saline, or chopped up with surgical instruments, or injected into the heart) of unborn children? It is because we have moved so far away from God.

sue spender, Langport, Somerset

"Creation science" and Intelligent Design are simply "Evolution Denialism".

Should we teach these in class as well?:
- Holocaust Denialism;
- AIDS Denialism;
- Climate Change Denialism

Is it really the role of our schools to teach children that belief is an acceptable alternative to fact?

Rick, New York,

supposedly scientific theories are more weighty because of supporting experimentation and observable proof to verify hypothesis; however, the evolutionary concept for beginnings has neither been seen to occur nor has it been duplicated. Adaptation is observeable but not evolution.

John Hayman, Salisbury, USA

Fine, but not in a science class. Gravity is just a theory but we don't give the same time to the theory of levitation. And which creation myth do you study? The thing about evolution is scientists around the world generally agree, there is no hindu evolution in conflict with christian evolution.

Rude Jesus, Adelaide, Australia

Why the fear of an alternative explanation? The more physicists learn about the origins of the universe the more it seems that it started instantly from nothing. Science can describe it, but cannot explain it.

Ross, Wyoming, USA

Education is required, given by responses here, about what a scientific 'theory' is versus somone's belief.

Theories predict things which then subsequently prove the theory.

Creationism predicts nothing - other than the scientific ignorance of the individual proposing it.

Paul, toronto, Canada

Since evolution is a theory, it should not be the only position that is taught in schools.
Both evolutionism and creationism both deal with the same facts that have been revealed by scientific experimentation.
True science only deals with facts as we know them, anything beyond that is theory based on presuppositions.

Tom Hardy, Kelowna, Canada

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. If that is true than if you don't believe it than you are in BIG TROUBLE. If you do believe it Good.

James R S, Halifax, NS, canada

For decades, an unwritten agreement has kept religion at arms length in our schools: as long as religion stays passive in education, the education system will tolerate religious beliefs.

Unless the government acts to completely ban creationism from science lessons, we're about to see war break out.

Tim, Edinburgh,

There is no place for creationism in either Education or Science. Science and education should be based upon logical fact and reasoned theory, not populist hearsay.

John Murray, Aberdeen,

Stephanie, Bristow, USA - I thought God created the world in six days and rested on the 7th, because he thought it was good and perfect (and consequently didn't need to change or be changed??!!). Or in your world is the word not 'the word' anymore in order to 'force' evolution to fit your views?

Sam, Aylesbury, United Kingdom

God is said to have created the World in six days. Aren't we entitled to know how he did it?Surely the scientific creationists could help us all out on this - even the theologians who perhaps anticipate disappointment, but they should have faith - shouldn't they?

Rodney Barker, Gainsborough, England UK

Scrap RE fairy tales. RE should be taught by atheists or agnostics. An RE course taught by scientists with a strong background in evolutionary biology would have no problem with the teaching of evolution. They should also be teaching the psychology of religion considering why people need to believe

Jim Milne, Dunfermline,

God created man and beast and science WE are not in charge of the universe GOD is when will we believe His most holy word?

e.davenel, rennes, france

I was very interested in the change of the Royal Society,s position on creationism. It is quite correct the subject should not be supressed but compared to evolution - Francis Collins a Christian evolutinist expounds this wonderfully.

Did Dawkins blow a gasket at this news - hope so

Dr. Anthony Hart, DUDLEY, UK

Out of curiosity, which of the innumerable 'creation' theories will be taught?
Every religion/belief system including Scientology have their hypotheses which are sincerely 'believed' in as an article of faith no matter how absurd they may appear to us; ex religion mythologies also, Greek, Norse etc

Dr Andris Lielmanis, Brampton, Canada

Evolution has not been PROVED
Creation has not been PROVED
Ergo, teach BOTH

Alan, Coulsdon,

So much muddled thinking here, especially the conflation of biological evolution, i.e., origin of Homo sapiens, with cosmological physics, i.e., Big Bang, origin and distribution of matter, dark matter, and energy, superstring theory, etc. Intelligent design is not identical to Creationism.

leishman, Colorado, USA

If you are looking for transitionary fossils try looking up the Cretaceous amber fossil Sphecomyrma freyi, which is widely known as the evolutionary missing link between wasps and ants.

Proof of evolution? Probably.

Now show me 'probable' evidence supporting creationism.

Richard, Jersey,

Its so simple..
nothing + time + chance = man. It happens all the time and is repeatable in the lab.

John, USA,

So all the 'Clever people' say it all 'just happened by 'evolutionary chance' 'Eyes that See' 'Ears to hear' 'Digestive System' and yes 'reproduction to' they cant replicate any of these in their labs but say 'millions of years and chance' perfected it all.'sad !The fool has said There is no God'

Hugh Martin, Belfast, N.Ireland

This proposal makes sense! Evolution is the current status quo and 90% of the kids learning it are blindly following their teachers down an well trodden path. The 10% who challenge evolution may well be the source of the great advances in the future because they dare question received wisdom.

Andrew Pierce, Carrigallen, Co. Leitrim, Ireland

"I have not seen a half monkey half man so far. But, I do see a lot of half monkey science."

Daniel Hsu, Newark CA, U.S.A.

Because, over time, they died out evolving into homo sapiens. It's very simple. If the bible is factually correct, why doesn't it mention dinosaurs or Neanderthals?

Ian, Edinburgh, Scotland

If creationism were to be taught in the science class I would not allow my child to go to the lesson.
I recall some classmates being excused from science lessons when evolution was being taught as they were from religious homes.
Evolution is science and creationism is simply imagination.

Liz, liverpool,

Anyone who believes in Creationism should be asked to prove their faith by infecting a young relative to drug resistant tuberculosis. This is a true mutation, passed down to generations, and evolved in response to the stimulus of killer drugs.
Believe in Creationism, + you don't belive this exists.

lee, Alexandria, VA, US

The UK is a Christian country and therefore Christian values have a place in our schools. To say God created the world and therefore life has a purpose and meaning and there is a judge and justice in this world is perfectly in order. However, I would be inclined to say this in RE lessons.

Joe, London, UK

"Half Monkey Science" have no business interferes with Creationism.

Just like faux Creationism have no clue about correct science.

This argument between them is meaningless. One day you all will realize what I'm saying.

Daniel Hsu, Newark CA, U.S.A.

As a teacher would someone please explain to me why I should 'be sensitive about pupils Creationist views'? Should I be sensitive about their sympathy for the BNP or Al Quaeda? Should I be sensitive about their homophobia or antisemitism? My job is to educate and dispel bunk; Not to pander to it.

Eric Skelton, Cardiff, Wales

There are many "world views" about creation. Is the Reverand suggesting that we randomly pick one? Why not pick the one espoused by the world's largest religion - Chinese Folk Religion - if we wand kids to get the alternative, faith-only, no-science-required "world view?" This is very scary!

Steve McDaniel, J.D., Ph.D., Austin, U.S.A.

Lessons on creationalism have no place in science and should not be taught as part of a science curriculem, Nothing wrong with presenting it as a myth taught when many people did not know any better.

To teach it now as a science based alternative view is nothing short of telling lies to children.

Richard Lenton, Lincoln, UK

Rev Michael Reiss is abusing his position; mixing a desire to mix religion with science. He should resign from his RS position

Simply creationism belongs solely in RE lessons, not science.
The methodology fakes science, but the hypotheses and cconclusion are subjectively biased, indeed myth.

Rob Olivier, London, UK

Having just read the RS document on global warming, I am not surprised that a senior scientist of that organisation supports creationism. Politics will always influence the truth - I call it Galileoism.

M. Cawdery, Craigavon, Co UK, EU (now)

The question of Creationism can't be taught in school is not because it should or should not.

The question is "Can creationism be taught correctly?".

Ever since first century creationism was distorted by the religion. How can you expect biblical illiterates to teach creationism?

Daniel Hsu, Newark CA, U.S.A.

Only about 60 years ago we thought that the atom was the smallest thing, then we went and split it, so isn't it pretty arogant to think that evolution must be right

Peat, Stamford, England

You would not teach history in a maths lesson.
'Just because something lacks scientific support doesn’t seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson'. How about 'just because 1+1=3 lacks mathematical support doesn't seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a maths lesson'?

Damien, Birmingham, UK

I do wish people would stop saying that evolution is only a theory. Aerodynamics, aka 'the theory of flight', is 'only' a theory but it works!

David, Cheshire,

Creationism to be taught in schools ie the versions of Bible or Koran and others versions from major religious groups like Buddhism or Hindusim to be ignored? If creationism is to be taught why not the many tribal societies in Africa,Americas who beleive in their version of creation.

Ramakrishna, Bangalore, India

To Margaret Elward,
Yes evolution is 'just a theory'. Just like how gravity is 'just a theory', and electromegnetism is 'just a theory', or how the heliocentrism is 'just a theory'.

Phil, Brisbane,

Teach it...it'll really get the atheists riled up if nothing else and that's always worth a laugh.

Steve, Bradford, UK

How amusing that anyone would suggest teaching creationism in UK public schools! With the deeply ingrained secular culture such as it is there, what would follow such a departure if creationism was instituted? Actual belief in God? Oh, the horror!!

Carolyn, Clinton, USA

Ceationism is science. Correct science is ceationism.

For evolutionism to be corrected, it have to be continuous process, I have not seen a half monkey half man so far. But, I do see a lot of half monkey science.

The question is "Do we read the creationism correctly?".

Daniel Hsu, Newark CA, U.S.A.

It isn't the school systems role to perpetuate and entertain children's fairytale beliefs. We don't expect schools to teach about Santa and Tooth Fairies when students are old enough to know better.

I learned little enough in school without including blatant lies and deliberate ignorance.

Johnny Mann, Grimsby, UK

"one species does not evolve into another": but one species can evolve into two, when populations get separated, through genetic drift and different selective pressures

"Eskimos adapt to living in the snow, but they do not change into polar": nobody ever said that 'anything goes' in evolution

James Lindbergh, Singapore, Singapore

Evolution is just theory? Something becomes scientific theory only when proven. We PROMOTE things to theories, so the word "just" is misplaced here. Trust me, if you doubt evolution and care about understanding, read Dawkins even if you hate him.

D Mizrachi, London, UK

New species evolve by degrees such that no offspring is identified as a different species (those that are too different can't mate and die out). Species become different due to different lines being selectively adapted in different environments over numerous generations. The idea that a theoretically identifiable landmark male and female pair in some unknown period in our ancient past committed the original sin is a scientifically ludicrous concept. Which makes it theologically absurd as well.

jim, sydney,

Margaret, all you show is your total ignorance of evolution. Read a good book on it, if you can understand it, and you will see how silly your comment is.

bill, towoomba,

Did Professor Reiss really say "Just because something lacks scientific support doesn't seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson"? This must be a misquote! Can you dream up a more non-sensical argument? Can you think of a more perfect reason TO omit a "theory"? What a fool.

Simon Evans, Birmingham, England

I believe that creationism should be taught in science lessons, as long as evolution is taught in Sunday schools

Simon Richardson, Chester, UK

This really makes me furious. Evolution has the all the requirements of a technical 'THEORY' NOT a 'HYPOTHESIS'. Please get a dictionary. Evolution is as established as the fact that water is H2O.

Chris, Leeds, UK

Kids should always be tought FACTS not Fairy Tales.

Nemo

Jon Nemo, Llanelli, UK

I might have some sympathy with Prof. Reiss's views, but most school children are not actually taught evolution properly. I was always quite good at science, but it wasn't until I did biology A level that I really understood the theory. Only a small proportion of pupils go on to do biology A level.

Peter Kelsall, Nottingham, UK

Mrs Margaret Elward, Bridgend, Glam

You are showing your ignorance along with alot of others here.
Theory in scientific terms has a different meaning than the general term - get a dictionary. eg: I have a theory the moon is made of cheese does not hold equal weight with The Theory of Gravity.

Russ, Russ, Reading

Come on, how can a Professor of Biology make the statement that creationism is an alternative to evolution. Eh? The book of Genesis was adapted/plagiarised from an earlier religious text the Enuma Elish, God DID NOT create the Earth, God is a fictional character in a work of fiction.

John Smith, Mansfield, England

And creationism is just a belief. I can have faith that I can fly, but believing it doesn't make it true.

Creationism is based on documents which have been edited numerous times at the whims of rulers and clergymen, lost in its entirety and recreated. How scientific can this POSSIBLY be?

Elizabeth, Dallas, USA

Be clear - Evolution is JUST A THEORY,
Although any species can adapt to its environment, one species does not evolve into another
Eskimos adapt to living in the snow, but they do not change into polar bears.
Neither can a beautiful world come into existence by an explosion.

Mrs Margaret Elward, Bridgend, Glam

The answer to where we came from is based on presumptions as to what we are. If we are merely physical matter–and not something qualitatively more than the chair we sit on–then yes the physical world is all that can explain itself. But if not, it is simplistic and dishonest to pretend this is true.

Simon , Birmingham, Britain

Outrageous! totally outrageous - creationism is NOT or ever will be a science - let them teach this is RE classes, not science!
I cannot believe that there are still parents who actually tell their kids that the Bible is factually true! It is a guidebook at best!

Dave Harris, Hove, UK

Perhaps they have a point? Maybe if children from strong religious backgrounds were involved in a debate on the merits of creationism they would understsand the flaws in their brainwashed views and learn to apply scientific methods themselves. We might hope to erradicate religion altogether.

Stuart, Lymm, UK

There appears a frightening ignorance displayed here that a) fails to recognise the limits of science, which has become more and more uncertain, and b) fails to understand the varieties of understanding that even scientists bring to the term, 'creationist' and c) the evolution theory 'holes'.

Tony Thomas, Rochford, UK

Let us not forget those who sincerely believe in the tooth fairy, they also need to be catered for in education.

M Wilkinson, London , UK

How could we possibly entertain taking a step backward and teach our children a belief based on a fairytale?
The only reason 10% of students believe in such nonsense is because their parents have given them no choice, and brought them up with such views.
We need to move forward, not backwards.

Taz, Portsmouth, UK

"Professor Reiss, a Church of England clergyman, said: 'Just because something lacks scientific support doesn’t seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson.' "

What a ridiculous statement. It's literally self-contradicting.

Robert Paton, Bristol,

I think that evolutionists are not free to avoid using the scientific method if in fact they wish to call themselves scientists. I say this as a creationist.

Chris, Springfeild,

Infinite Regress anyone? Who designed the designer?
But ah, I hear creationists say, God is the great uncaused cause. This of course explains nothing.
To me, Creation is like cross dressing. Fine if done behind closed doors, but it begins to look silly when one brings it out in public!!

Robert, Aylesbury,

I don't see why you can't have both. Scientific thought should be taught -just that science is subject to evidence and discovery. Belief is absolute. Get that straight. If believers have a problem with evidence, that should be shown.

H Brewer, Abingdon, UK

I cannot reconcile the concept of education and religion. They are diametrically opposed in their objectives in that one is about expanding and developing a mind whereas the other is about manipulating and restraining understanding. Keep religion out of our schools!

Paul, Glasgow, Scotland

Creationism is to truth as darkness is to light. Even in the Bible it states: 'Know the TRUTH'. As for those who agree teaching falsehoods is right, remember this: 'sell all you have and follow me' is also a literal expression. But none of you are doing that here, as you all own computers etc.

J, Camborne, UK

So many people on here, have said that Evolution is unprovable. What rubbish, Darwins observations of finches on the Galapogos were indisputable proof that animals evolve to meet the challenges of their environment. That was only the first study.

Tony Greenfield, Plymouth,

If creationism is to be put into the scientific sphere, then it must be treated scientifically, i.e. questions must be asked. Who? How Many? Where? What mechanism? Why imperfections? Why redundancies? The scientific result will at the very least demonstrate that the designer is not perfect.

Steve, Altrincham,

What an unbelievably stupid thing for Michael Reiss to say. If you've got evidence for creationism, lets hear it. If not, keep the teaching in the classroom to fact-based theories.

Owen, London, UK

Creationism isn't Science.
But I guess 'because it is a 'world view' (and what percentage of the world is that) it should be at the centre of the world teaching.
Such a call sound like the call of the inclusiveness and equality of the poltically correct globalist

Tony Campbell, MANCHESTER, UK

This is a fantastic idea.

Also, isn't it about time that children were taught about Neverland in geography classes?

Ade, Brighton, UK

Science as we know it did not start in Victorian Britain but in Renaissance Rome. Science is not an exclusive pastime for heathens. Saying that belief in God is incompatible with the scientific method is utter nonsense.

Klaus Becher, London,

If Creationism is to be taught, perhaps we should also consider non-Christian versions? For example:

http://www.venganza.org/

Matthew Armishaw, Hungerford, Berkshire

Brilliant idea. We should also include discussions on how Father Christmas manages to get around the whole world in one night in Physics lessons.

David, Braintree, UK

Yes, let's ban all thinking and discussion from schools shall we? Then the science teachers can get back to spoon feeding facts to their classes of quietly dozing kids. Or shall we let the kids think through for themselves what intelligent design means?

Martin, Birmingham,

One of the biggest problems in British education is that we teach children to answer specific questions - not to ask them. This concept would introduce debate in classrooms and perhaps get kids to think for themselves a bit, and hopefully it would make our children more well rounded individuals.

James Holloway, London,

As if turning up to work on a drizzly morning isn't depressing enough, now people are suggesting this is being taught in schools. I give up.

Ian, Norwich,

Let's assume (which I don't) that evolution is not the best explanation of our origins. That wouldn't for a second mean
that the God hypothosis was. It isn't an either/or
question. This is a common fallacy.

Robert, Aylesbury,

Technically, creationism *is* a point of view, one that many people hold.

But it is not - in any way - science.

Peter, London, UK

To Barry, Tyneside, ENGLAND (essay question)
Random is a mathematical term, with a very precise mathematical definition. The theory or probabilities and statistics is quite mature. Does saying that the numbers of heads in 100 coin tosses is a binomial distribution sound like faith to you?

Carine, Cambridge, MA,

Rightly so!! Health and Safety is a Cult Practice in every environment. Taking H&S literary has hindered any right mind from being innovative. Progress can only be made if these 'Ring Leaders' are educated properly!! Many places unfortunately, '1984' novel by George Orwell is a reality.

Leah, Cardiff, Wales

My science teachers laughed at me when I discussed theistic origins and then gruffly attempted to silence me when they could not answer my questions. It is far better to embrace in meaningful discourse those who (like myself) are utterly unconvinced by evolution, that risking alienation.

Simon, Birmingham,

Some religions believe we all arrived in big space ship, will that be included in our childrens science lessons? I would be appalled if i found my children being taught this in science, all things religion should be kept in the RE class.

Kelly, london, uk

Is the creationist rot now about to set in in the British education system too?

It is wrongheaded to pander to those who think that if they happen to believe what is demonstrably wrong, it is actually true simply because they want it to be true.

Reiss - an educator - should be ashamed of himself!

Erik Kowal, KS,, USA

I really don't think any religion should get free advertising space in the education system. I think the religious topic should only be approached from a sociologic point of view. One can make up their mind and practice their religion in their own time. But leave it out of the education system.

Stephanie, Dublin, Ireland

of course creation myths should be discussed in school, as they have been for many years. Just not in a science class.

Ben Rosenthal, Manchester,

Give us a break, we haven't got round to burning our poetry, buying china plates and re-introducing cookery yet! Let alone rewriting our national curriculum for Years 7, 8 and 9; rewriting our life's work for GCSE courses that have all changes and again, rewriting all of our A' levels. Next week OK?

Paul Beckinsale, Altrincham,

Furthermore, the stork theory of reproduction must also be given time in science lessons.

Pete Moss, Reading , UK

We are regressing rather than advancing. What the heck is wrong with this times ?
Anyway: creationism is so ridiculous that even children would prove it wrong. Of course someone is dumber than others....

Stefano, Egham, UK

Evolutionary theory has not been proved at all and it is ironically advances in science that have revealed unimagined complexity in all levels of organisms that so far cannot be explained by the blind chance of evolution theory. Intelligent Design is a more plausible approach than evolution.

Richard Courtenay, Geneva, Swizterland

Would anyone like to comment on this essay question for me? That evolution proceeds in a "random" way is statistically unprovable, therefore evolution by random chance is a faith statement in itself. DISCUSS

Barry, Tyneside, ENGLAND

This is not about whether but where. Creationism has no place in a science lesson because it is not 'scientific'. What's wrong with leaving it where it belongs, in RE? Otherwise, as the state religion I would expect CofE services to include coverage of alternative scientific views.

Clive, Chichester, UK

"Creationism" is a Christian creation myth - what of the other myriad creation fables from other faiths? It belongs in religious studies and nowhere near a science classroom.

Like much science, Evolution is a testable, falsifiable, working hypothesis. Creationism is purely a matter of faith.

Rab, London,

Which version of creationism is to be taught?

If they are going to teach it then I demand that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may he touch you with his noodly appendage) creation fact be taught aswell. To do otherwise is to discriminate against Pastafarians.

Russ, Reading, UK

Reading through these comments is depressing how uneducated some people are. Here are some facts:

- A law is a mathematical idea.
- A scientific Theory is something that is backed up by enough evience to make it the most probable expanation.
- A scientific Hypothesis is just an idea

Laz, Portsmouth, UK

I am horrified at the number of commenters here claiming that "science is faith" because they don't understand science themselves, and using that as an excuse to claim "faith is science".

It is really the 21st century?

Jason Judge, Whitley Bay, UK

Frank in Sydney says: "Classes on creationism should include open discussion of the mythical nature of the OT, its numerous illogical tales and inconsistencies..." etc. I agree, as long as we do the same for evolution, which has no scientific evidence, only presupposition and bigotry.

Phil, London, England

Wolfgang Smith is not a brilliant scientist at all. His papers have been published in journals that have no scientific merit. As is usual with the creationist crowd, anyone with a PhD is hailed as being brilliant if they happen to agree with their point of view.

Adam Wilkins, Glos, UK

Ridiculous, giving credence to Creationism by teaching it in schools is the thin end of the wedge. Creationism is not fit for study due to it not being falsifiable. A member of the Royal Society is breaching the first tenet of science by recommending this path.

Ben Robinson, Brighton, UK

Schools have a duty to teach fact not fiction

James, Reading,

Its amazing that people say there is no evidence of evolution in action - have they not heard of (or eaten the results of) the selective breeding of crops and animals - have they not smelt the hybrid plants? These demostrate the power of selection (natural or otherwise) to develop new species.

Huw Sayer, London, England

Not only NO - HELL NO! It's bad enough that we have the nonsense of religion in schools at all let alone that we now wish to mix it with science!

Adrian Ryan, Donegal, Ireland

Teaching people evolution or creationism without discussing the other is a poor method of teaching. Perhaps this sort of thinking will make children ask "why?" rather than simply spending their time at school regurgitating other peoples opinions. Why not present an alternative?

Steve, Southampton, UK

Evolution is a backed by the following evidence:

Millions of fossil records that not once have thrown up an 'impossible' fossil type, location or date.

Genetic analysis PROOVING species ancenstry

Witnessing forced evolution of species: dogs/wolves/foxes, resistant bacteria (MRSA)

...

Laz, Portsmouth, UK

As an Indian, Hindu rather, I am amazed that The Royal Society of all wants to equate evolution and creationism. If what is taught by one religion is considered a scientific truth, why not other religious beliefs? We Hindus are taught that the entire universe was created by God in an instant.

P. K. Phadnis, Mumbai, India

borachon - There is much hype about transitions in the media, but you will not find any that have stood up to scientific investigation and peer review. e.g. dinosaur/birds scales/feathers - absolutely exploded and not publicised.

Les, Ramsgate, UK

Let me guess! The Muslim version of creationism is going to be taight?

Martin, London, UK

Darwin considered the fossil record to be the chief objection to his theory. 150 years later - despite millions of fossil finds, this remains true - ask any expert.

Les, Ramsgate, UK

The word "created" has been used by scientists and journalists many times over in the last week, reporting on the LHC in Cern and the so called Big-Bang Day last Wednesday. The Big Bang theory assumes a point of creation. The idea of Creation is already a hypothesis being tested by scientists !

Steve, Exeter,

Critical appraisal of creationism compared to evolution should be encouraged in science classes to teach children the importance of evidence-based reasoning. Ignoring creationism or making it taboo will not make it go away. We should let children compare evidence with biblical stories.

Steve B, Woking, UK

Parents and teachers who teach children such nonsense about 6 day creation and the Earth being 6,000 years old should be absolutely ashamed of themselves for passing their ignorance and credulity on to the next generation.

stuart, Birmingham,

EVERY SINGLE view posted by an American in this topic is pro-creationism...God help that nation come November if the Republican's get in!

ALSO, I would like to challenge his fact that he believes 1 in 10 children here believe in creationism....that's about as believable as...erm..well..creationism!

Larry, Corby, UK

The Royal Society has issued a clarification.
Prof Reiss says "Some of my comments about the teaching of creationism have been misinterpreted as suggesting that creationism should be taught in science classes. Creationism has no scientific basis."
Check the Royal Society website.

Dr Paul Millington, Reading, UK

Strangely , some of the best evidence for doubting evolution is the existance of creationists .

Benzo, Nr Chelmsford,

They'll be bringing the Spanish Inquisition back next.

CA, Manchester, UK

Creationism is not science and does not belong in the Classroom. If people want their children to learn this they should send them to Sunday school. We are in the 21st century and should not be pandering to such old fashioned beliefs now.

Frankie, Shetland,

Creationism does have a place - in RE/Ethics with astrology, phrenology and general quackery along side valid abstract philosophical concepts. To teach as science is an insult to intelligence

billy, Cardiff, Wales

If Michael Reiss can't see why Creationism shouldn't be taught as an 'alternative' to the theory of evolution in schools, I'd suggest he's not best placed to be the Royal Society's Director of Education.

showmetheevidence, Bristol, UK

Anyone who believes that evolution is a theory with little or no verification should look up Richard Lenski's experiments with E-Coli bacteria.

To paraphrase Douglas Adams "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to teach that there are fairies at the bottom of it too."

Terry, Maidstone, England

One doesn't teach Maths in English lessons nor Geography in PE, why teach religion in science. Myth and fairy tales have their place in a childs upbringing as long as it is clear that is what they are.

mike gee, bournemouth, uk

Absolutely disgusting. If Creationism is to be given science lesson time, then I demand that Intelligent Falling* be taught as an alternative viewpoint to Newton's theory of gravity.

* Source: "The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" (ragu be upon him)

Brian, Cirencester, UK

IrReverend Brendan, I and all rationalists salute you. Fantastic comment!

David, Manchester, UK

Stephen Baron, if you are going to make a comment on a serious subject based on sarcasm, it should at least be informed by truth. There have been many examples of transitions discovered. A simple google search could have prevented you from making yourself look silly.

borachon, Glasgow,

Evolution and Creationism are both theories. Until one is proved beyond reasonable doubt, it's absurd to deny the other equal discussion.

Sylvester, Amaigbo, Nigeria

Of course creation myths should be taught in schools. Inuit, Incan, Cherokee, Mongol, Australian, Jewish, Greek, Egyptian... It should make for an interesting term in History, and properly immunize students against any people who try to convince them that any myths are literally true.

Bob, London, UK

There is plenty of scientific evidence for creationism. But there are none so blind as those who will not see. There is also plenty of scientific evidence that the evolution religion (based on belief that we came from rain on rock!!) is fundamentally flawed. Not even Darwin believed it.

J Emerson, Warwickshire, UK

If Creationism why not the Norse or any of the other "mythical" accounts. They must surely be as valid a point of view as any other.

John, London,

Why do people continue to confuse a Scientific Theory with the layperson's use of the word? They are not the same.

A Scientific Theory is a framework of laws, hypotheses, observations etc. which explain and allow predictions to be made with such accuracy that the Theory is considered to be fact.

Scott, Durham, NC, USA

Do people need to be 'taught' creationism at school? It seems to me that as people are already aware of it then there's no need to further force it upon them.

Could we have evolution taught as an alternative to creationism in the churches, synagogues and mosques of the UK?

Dave, Matlock,

The main quality between the Theory of Evolution and the rest is not stated and should be. Evolution seeks to explain not only how life started and changed on this planet but also how it is in a constant state of flux. Creationism in any form, explains nothing, and encourages you not to think.

Philip, London,

Many seem to be of (or choose) the view that evolutionary theory lacks evidence. In fact, overwhelming, abundant & compelling evidence comes from palaeontolgy, anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, genetics, embryology, ecology, observation and prospective experiments. Creationsim, on the other hand...

Murray Edmunds, Witney, UK

There is a level of confusion here. Evolution is the theory of biological change, not origin of life. It says nothing about how life started, but does rule out the intervention of a divine entity in the change of species. That is the bone of contention and something that the bible does not detail.

John, Knutsford, UK

I would like the physics of Santa's sleigh to be taught in school. Don't step on my faith.

Johan, Stockholm, Sweden

Especially in the classroom, could we please stop this fawning to belief without evidence (or faith if you will) ... and have a moments science please.

Paul G, London, UK

I would take my children out of any school that participated in this nonsense, if a child/parents want thier children to take religious education as a subject then fine, but in a science class? What an utter waste of time, the kids can read fictional stories in the library.

Sean, London,

"That should last all of ten minutes, and our children would be free from this idiotic nonsense once and for all." Sadly not true. This would open the floodgates and other areas would also get polluted. In the US they now ban using books and films that "promote gay values" as being gay is a sin etc.

John, Oslo, Norway

Professor Reiss, a Church of England clergyman, said: “Just because something lacks scientific support doesn’t seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson.”

Surely that's exactly how it should be determined whether or not to teach something in a science class!!!

Tom Holvey, York,

Anyone, who considers evolution to be 'a fact' does not understand that it is called the 'theory' of evolution for a reason. Besides, search on the web what the problem of the 'missing link' is in evolution and you will see, why evolution is still only a theory.

Gregory, London, England

Evolution is the theory of biological change. No sensible creationist can refute that biological change occurs. To claim that this is the result of divine intervention, I would redirect them to St Augustine and his inability to resolve the dilemma of a timeless entity interacting within time.

John, Knutsford, UK

Science and religion cannot coexist, in science you are required to question everything, in religion you are required to accept without question.

Though if creationism comes up, it would be a good discussion, so pupils can learn the difference between a good theory like evolution and a myth.

Wayne, Worcester,

Creationism - surely we've reached a point in our understanding of evolution and the universe that we no longer need to invent a God to explain life. Our children should be taught a decent code by which to live their lives but please don't teach them religious nonsense.

Gilbert Wood, Haywards Heath, UK

I am amazed that so many people of supposedly scientific background so quickly and erroneously pontificate on what the Bible says about creation. Talk about straw man argumentation. Let's tell the creationists what they believe and then demolish it. Why don't you guys read it first.

Chris Hunt, Worcester, UK

so its o.k to teach an unproven theory as "fact" but not anything that is in opposition to that theory. me, i'm still waiting for all those transitionary fossils that most, after all these millions of years, be quite aboundant in the world. p.s. please let me know when they find one.

stephen baron, leith, tasmania

I find it interesting that so many people believe creationism and science to be complete opposites. As if creationism was intellectual suicide.For example why does the Big Bang theory disprove God?.Could that not be a very effective way to create the universe. Simply put " Let there be light"= Bang.

Sam, Launceston , England

For those whom claim you cannot observe evolution, and therefore it is a faith issue; go lick the floor of your local hospital. You'll be safe in the knowledge that the bacteria have not evolved, and the drugs still work. I suggest a youtube search for "why people laugh at creationists"

IrReverend Brendan, London,

My 11 year son has just started school and the Royal Society wants him to be taught that creationism has validity? Are they insane? This policy should not only be recinded but the man in question should be fired. He has just put science education back 201 years, exactly.

Warwick, Penzance, UK

Many scientists believe in God and embrace evolution. Evolution has the humbling effect of showing us that we are mortal through and through. To God alone belongs immortality.

Heather Adams, Stockport,

Creationism is a world view. So is the belief that the earth is flat. If a student raises either view, explain the evidence that proves it to be wrong as politely as possible. It's not rocket science.

Rowan, Hereford,

If we start teaching creationism it won't take long before we hear calls for the teaching of intelligent falling in schools instead of the mere 'theory' of gravity. Indeed doesn't the bible teach us that we fall from god and are therefore not attracted to earth...

God help us.

Chris Arthur, Bristol, UK

I think that evolution should be taught as fact and creationism be taught as an alternative, if you like, fantasy.

Not that I don't believe in creationism, just that it is hard to believe in it when there is no fact and is based on fairy stories by misogynistic men with archaic views.

kim, london,

Scientific theories are often presented in the popular press as scientific fact. This causes confusion and can influence popular debate on the subject.

Similarly, almost all religions seek to suppress detailed critique of their own world view.

Both should be subject to rigorous debate.

Paul, Manchester,

Robert Binning. Absolutly! We don't know how the universe started. But religion pretends to know and it gets it directly from God. Except that it is constantly reinterpreting the texts to fit our understanding of the universe. God may have created the universe. Religion is not connection with God.

Matt, Antibes, france

And let's talk about fairies at the back of the garden, and the malicious gnomes lurking in the forest who attack travellers who get lost...

Bob, Edinburgh,

Why can't God have created the Universe and then let it evolve, evolution continues all arounbd us today, hard to deny it really.

Robert Binning, Edinburgh, Scotland

But Robert - who created God? If he has always been there, why couldn't the universe always have been there?

Mark Littlewood, Cambridge, UK

Everyone is entitled to their personal view, including any superstitious or supernatural belief on the nature of the world and its origins. But it is, in my view, unacceptable for such unenlightened and regressive views to be voiced on behalf of a prestigious public body such as the Royal Society.

Steve Smedley, Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK

Creationism in class? Bring it on.... provided it is subjected to the usual tests and scientific proof. That should last all of ten minutes, and our children would be free fromf this idiotic nonsense once and for all.

Neal Drummond, East Calder, Scotland

How is it possible for someone who represents such an august scientific body as the Royal Society to come out with this rubbish? Rev Michael Reiss should resign with immediate effect.

S Smedley, Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK

Taking Dan of Hove's point, the children are in four additional dimensions. That leaves three for our Universe and three for the Antimatter Universe, plus a shared timeline for those two.

Eleven dimensions in total, as predicted by the Unified Field Theory.

Ian Tinn, Slough, England

Reiss is not currently a scientist as most Times readers understand the term. He comes out of science teacher training at the University of London Institute of Education, where social justice in education is priority, respect for pupil delusions encouraged, and the dismal new science GCSE the result

JAS, London, UK

Typical New Labour nonsense. The reason children lack interest in science is because of the quality of teaching (oops there I said it ....I might be arrested!). In 99% of cases it is the teacher who draws the interest of the child not the subject. But "god" forbid us criticising the teachers.....

simon, London,

The biggest problem here is surely those people who take the bible at face value and insist on the earth only being 6000 years old. Why can't God have created the Universe and then let it evolve, evolution continues all arounbd us today, hard to deny it really.

Robert Binning, Edinburgh, Scotland

Why are we being so polite about this to avoid offending the religious myth? Creationism is utter nonsense that only a fool would believe. Evolution is evidence based fact.

Michael Reiss should be fired. He's a disgrace.

Rhos, Berkshire,

What he actually said was it is legitimate to talk about it if a pupils raises the issue. This has nothing to do with teaching creationism. If you're going to write a story like thie, at least get it right.

Rob, london,

I heard that we are just simulations in a computer game created by children in another dimension...i'm outraged this is not being taught in science classes. You scientists and your factual evidence, you really get me mad.

Dan, Hove, England

It seems strange that people are prepared to have medical treatment that is based on the ongoing mountain of evidence that supports evolution, but then refuse to believe in it, quite hypocritical.

Russ, Bridport, Dorset

The 2 are compatible, provided that children aren't taught some of the more questionable creationist tenets - ie that the Earth is only 4,000 when there is overwhelming evidence that it's not the case.

There's no reason you can't be scientific and believe in God though. I manage it every day.

John Curry, Crawcrook, Tyne and Wear

Great. Yet another example of how this country is going backwards.

Science is based on logic. Religion is based on fairy stories.

The two should not be mixed.

Roger, Sheffield, UK

Right - and let's also teach Scientology, the existence of fairies, voodoo and spiritualism. The fact that this has even been raised as a serious suggestion makes me very scared of the world we are now living in.

Brian McCarthy, Brighton, UK

There is a clear distinction between 'fact' and 'belief' but beliefs are invariably treated by the converted as 'fact'. Unfortunately, scientists are little better in declaring 'theories' and equating them with 'facts'. The arrogance of both parties is a fundamental weakness of 'civilisation'.

Manfred, Cardiff, Wales

It's a shame to see leading influential figures succuming to the pressures from American Christian Fundamentalists. The bottom line is that the evidence to support Evolution is extensive and well documented and nothing in the past 150 years has come about to prove Evolution false.

Jonathan, Manchester,

I have no problem with creationism in the science classroom, so long as it is there together with and alongside the Pastafarian theory.

Owen, Banbury, UK

If you want to include Creationism in the school syllabus then it should be done in the RE lessons, not the Science ones.

Simon Gould, Brighton,

I sincerely hope that as a society we in the UK do not end up teaching such nonsense (I use the term advisedly) in our schools.

Creationism has absolutely no place in a science class. Creationism and its variants should remain as they are the misguided beliefs of the uneducated and superstitious.

Michael C Fortune-Wood, Porth,

And the moon is made of cheese. No scientist can say they have all the answers, they're actively looking for 'hypothetical' particals 300m under the Alps now. What formed the gas that formed the Big Bang? I have no issues with a God (if you want to give it/Him a title) but not a science class.

Mark, Manchester, UK

Evolution is a scientific hypothesis that can be proved wrong. (It cannot be proved right.) Nobody 'believes' in evolution. Creationism cannot be proved wrong or right. It is a belief. You can believe in creationism and practice evolutionary science. A tomato is both a fruit and a vegetable.

peter, Surabaya, Indonesia

IF you would be kind enough to ask me science is a mear myth invented by man like clutching at a straw. it seems like the newest form of religion as far as i am concerned. i refrain to use obsenities in my comments but they still do not wish to publish me and why is this i am 18 and studying media!?

GILLY, derby, eastenglnad

The brilliant scientist Wolfgang Smith said it best:
[Darwinism] is not...a scientific hypothesis corroborated by empirical facts, but a philosophic tenet masquerading in scientific garb. Darwinism is ultimately no more and no less than the great cosmogenetic myth of the twentieth century. Seek God

Richard Hawkins, Lake Havasu City, USA

One of the main problems with the evolution theory is that some of the findings used to support it, like how the appendix is not a functional have been proved to be false. Yet they are still taught as true and appear in text books. It appears that the theory also has major faults. Then teach all.

Man Ndesh, Sydney, Australia

Dr John Fry states 'Creationism doesn't challenge Science - it denies it'. On the other hand, Evolution doesn't challenge a Creator, it denies him. Creationism is its own worst enemy; it is too literal in its interpretation of scripture and diverts credibility from a Creator: to our detriment.

Lesley Brown, Wells, UK

I wonder if tests might also be carried out in physics class on the efficacy of ritual animal sacrifice on improving crops, changing weather, pleasing the gods, etc.

J Briggs, Huddersfield, UK

There are classes taught in schools in this country about religion and belief already. Leave the science class for science and leave mumbo-jumbo out of it, unless the flying spaghetti monster gets equal time with jehovah that is.

Tom, Oxford,

It seems the Royal Society has taken leave of its senses. Creationism is so laughable it shouldn’t be taught at all. We want to educated our children, not brainwash them.

Tim, Spalding, UK

An excellent idea. If pupils are encouraged to think for themselves then they can discover that evolution is a good scientific theory and creationism isn't. Otherwise it's a case of "my parent's say" vs. "the teacher says", and who they trust the most. Critical thinking is a key scientific skill.

Rachel, UK,

Classes on creationism should include open discussion of the mythical nature of the OT, its numerous illogical tales and inconsistencies, its non-historical account which is pseudo-history, and its various lessons of dubious morality. If you are going to teach it, then be prepared to dissect it.

frank, sydney,

"“Just because something lacks scientific support doesn’t seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson.” That's open slather - UFOs, flat-earth, Big Foot, Scientology, everything is now admissible, "science" lessons would cease to exist, any baseless ratbaggery could be included.

Faustino, Brisbane, Australia

Darwin said that if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him
If the Book of Genesis represents a time-shortened apocryphal, beautiful and , to the ancient mind, acceptable version of the real process of evolution, then creationism remains compatible with Darwinism.

namorf, herzlia pituach, israel

Science discards theories that don't fit experimental facts. Creationism, with demonstrably false elements such as ' Earth is 6000 years old' and 'God put fossils in rocks' falls at the first fence and should be put out of its misery. Reiss needs to be moved tp where his skills will be appreciated

Paolo Bagarino, Rome, Italy

Here's a simple observation that should help even the most closed-minded creationists understand why evolution is not the same kind of theory as creationism. Most evolutionary biologists can describe experiments that would persuade them that evolution was wrong. No creationist can do that.

Nick Beard, Rotherham, UK

Science should be taught along side all other religious points of view and should not be relegated to classes dealing with the origin of the universe. Scientific principles, scientific dogma, scientific methodology has at their heart a set of unprovable assumptions. Science is faith -based.

Mike Butcher, Denver, USA

There is absolutely nothing that proves evolution true. It is horrible science and a fairy tale. In order to be good, it MUST be proved over and over again in a lab, NOT someones opinion, especially without legitamate experimentation. It takes faith to believe in evolution.
<br/>

bob, east chicago, USA

To imagine that we got here by random processes is to lose all common sense and reality. Think about it, and also have a look at Michael Behe's book Darwin's Black Box. Consider the bombardier beetle and all the other examples he gives which point to a designer. Give up your fantasy of Darwinism.

Andrew Chapman, Newcastle upon Tyne, England

I find it interesting that a singular topic can incite such caustic and demeaning remarks with little compassion for those who choose to believe in God. I applaud all that science has done for us,yet I still have faith. I believe science and faith -not religion-compliment each other.

shanais, soo, MI

Matt, London you show a lack of understanding of scientific method. String theory is only one of several competing theories all of which are awaiting falsification - i.e. disproof. Creationism is different in that it can never be falsified - i.e. proved or disproved. As a result it is not science.

Billy Barnett, HK,

If we do this, how about equality, i.e. we insist that evolution should also be taught in churches as a legitimate point of view?

Philip, Perth, Australia

I don’t much like the Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church says that evolution is not contrary to the Bible.

Teaching the Bible as a scientific theory at Science classes is the closest thing to Middle Ages intolerance I’ve heard of recently.

Beb, Milan, Italy

I do find the "science is everything" fanatics laughable. You claim creationism should not be taught as it is only a leap of faith. If so tell me why modern physicists rely on "string theory" to tie einsteins 'theories' together when it has never been seen or proven, it is a similar leap of faith!

Matt, London, UK

Re: B. evans

...exposure to creationism; but academics should welcome it"

In a social studies or R.E. class debates perhaps . But creationism along with other jiggery pokery, such as spoon bending and tarot reading has no place in the science class, where opinion without evidence is invalid.

david t, christchruch, new zealand

Toby, Sidney, Australia:

I’m completely on your side. If our kids are to be taught the Bible’s point of view during Science lessons, it’s fair that they get also all the details about Apollo. And let’s not underrate Zeus and his father Cronos, who was son of Uranus, who was born out of Chaos.

Paul, Rome, Italy

Of course classes on creationism should include open discussion of the mythical nature of the Old Testament stories, its numerous illogical tales and inconsistencies, its non-historical account which is pseudo-history, and its various lessons of dubious morality. If you are going to teach it, then be prepared to dissect it.

frank, sydney,

How can anyone with the title Reverend claim to be a scientist? Science is the analysis of facts. Religion is the belief in a fable from the past as translated hrough many versions, cultures and languages to suit what the current day reverends want to present to the gullible as facts.

John, Parafield,

Christians believe that the road to heaven is a long hard struggle and that the road to hell is an easy downhill stroll. By analogy if science is the supposed more difficult path for people to choose then the road to hell is the path chosen by blind religion. If we shun rationality then what! WAR

d_skands, Manchester, UK

The very essence of intellectual freedom & academic inquiry is exposure to ALL points of view, including those shibboleths currently out of favor, in order that they be examined, tested, & better understood. Narrow minded zealots may oppose exposure to creationism; but academics should welcome it

Bob Evans, Anaheim, California

Evolution say nothing about the existence or non-existence of God, and those here who seem to think that should go back to the books. It is good science, and doesn't mention theology. The evidence for it is incredibly strong. Leave the theology to religious studies.

frank, sydney,

What about the other beliefs of how the universe was created?
The Haida of British Columbia believe a raven found a giant clam shell full of little humans and coaxed them out. Should that be taught too? Or just Creation?

Tim, Toronto,

Adam, God is a leap of faith but evolution requires merely observation. God was posited as a solution only because, call him 'early man (and woman)' did not have the intellectual wherewithall to posit anything else. And the point is that evolution is provable.

Mark, Brisbane, Australia

Isnt there only one theory for Creationism? That God created it all. That shouldn't take to long to be taught, maybe 2 minutes? Would make the exams easier if it covers 50%.

james, Gt.Yarmouth, United Kingdom

What rubbish is this? Creationism is merely based on a literal reading of a 3000 year old book/books and has nothing whatsoever to do with science - you know, atoms, astronomy, gravity, evolution....it has no place in science lessons, except possibly as a failed hypothesis, based entirely on faith

Anthony, Dursley,

If children are not taught to weigh the evidence for both sides of any argument how will they learn to think for themselves? Science is a methodology, a way of thinking. Children are drifting away from it because so-called scientists are using it to brain-wash them into politically correct ideas.

Ian Crawford, mississauga, canada

Creationism requires a leap of faith: that there is a God who, by definition, is beyond the scope of science.
Evolution requires a similar leap: that there is no God, that humans are the pinnacle of the universe and are the final authority on what is true.
Neither leap is provable or disprovable

Adam, whitinsville,

If he weren't still very much alive, Richard Dawkins would be turning over in his grave.

Leslie H, Zhangzhou, China

Science is also based on faith. How often has science come up with the definitive answer only for that state of knowledge to be corrected later? Science is our best guess and should be taught as that. The only certainty is death. At that point we will find out who was right!

David Tordoff, Dunedin, New Zealand

Who would be a schoolkid today?

Martyn Taylor, Swindon, England

There is no way any sane society should pander to the ridiculous, unsubstantiated, and frankly blatantly wrong views of various religions.

Science should only be taught when backed up with evidence and facts. Until religion does so, they have no place in science.

Craig, Edinburgh,

10,000 year Creationism is of course, ridiculous. Intelligent design does NOT say this nor refutes science in any way. It has no testable theory as yet but there are eminent scientists working on it. Darwinism remains a theory.The original Hebrew of the Bible translates as a "great age" not 6 days.

D Hunt, Cambridge, England

I think many children are taught about Evolution as though it is fact. It is only a theory and, as such, the strengths and weaknesses of that theory should be discussed. Children should be taught that the truth is still waiting to be discovered, maybe by one of them.

Jonny, Queenland, Australia

We obviously all differ in our views and that is the point. Creationism & Evolution are 2 different theories. Which one is right ? I cannot say. Too many people (on both sides) seek to make this decision on behalf of our children. Kids are pretty smart and will work through this if allowed to.

David, Aylesbury, UK

The best way to solve this conundrum is to move discussion of Darwinism to religious education lessons, where it belongs, and to free up more time in science lessons for teaching actual science. Until Darwin's hypothesis gets some evidence behind it and becomes a proper theory, it really has no place in science classes anyway.

Eos Pengwern, Shrewsbury, UK

Surely we should also teach kids about The God Apollo riding his chariot from horizon to horizon each day as well, and Artemis chasing him in her moon mobile...

How dare we denigrate the world view of Greek polytheists by pooh-poohing points of view that are factually wrong in a science classroom

Toby, Sydney, Australia

Christianity gives people hope and something to aspire to, it says there is something bigger and better than the dying planet we occupy.
Evolution puts man at the top of the food chain, man who is fast destroying the planet he lives on, who cant help fighting, killing, mutilating and destroying...

Andy, Aviemore, uk

Faith in religions is a security blanket to ultimately help cope with man's most basic fear..death. Anything that might threaten that position, direclty or otherwise (eg Evolution/science) will be (and has been) vehermantly challenged. Education will not counter their position. Yes, its just a story

fulvio, Sydney, Australia

It is OK to ridicule the ridiculous. Some children also believe in father Christmas, the tooth fairy and that Thomas the Tank engine is a talking Train. They hold world views which include the possibility of all these things, it doesn't mean they exist or should not be challenged.

David Reid, London, England

Personally I believe there is an invisible teapot that orbits the Earth. Maybe that should be taught in a science class as well.

Just because someone "believes" in something doesn't make it a fact - there needs to be supported evidence to back it up.

Ray Williams, Aylesbury, UK

The truth regarding the creation of the universe will never be known and at least this should be part of a debate.
No matter what qualifications are held by these eminent scientists, there is no way to prove there was a Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago or what material was detonated and by whom God?

Harry Kennard, Peasmarsh, England

An good compromise would be to discuss the viewpoint of Aristotle, the "father of science" whose system was based upon a presumption of "intelligent design". There is no person, scientific or otherwise, who would suffer from an association with Aristotle. And it is definitely "real" science.

Peter J, London, UK

Let’s all believe in tooth fairies , and that beach volleyball is a serious sport, that the credit crunch is an illness without blame. welcome to fluffy bunny rabbit land.

stephen, leicestershire, UK

I cannot see much difference between the story in the bible of Gods creation of the universe and the Big Bang Theory

Linnea Whitaker, Calgary, Canada

OK. According to the Bible, we're made out of mud. And then there's the bit about the walking talking snake. Science begs to differ on these points.

Mike, Leatherhead,

This is another reason to dump faith schools and all Reverends should be in churches and not in schools. The only believable religious story I have ever heard is "the Life of Brian".

m wilson, bidache, france

Professor Reiss, a Church of England clergyman, said: “Just because something lacks scientific support doesn’t seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson.” Amazing. Doesn't this person listen to the words that proceed from his own mouth? Self-contradictory, at the very least.

William R. Bauer, New York, USA

Coming up: which particular god's creation will be favored?

David Masu, Zürich, Switzerland

Evolution too has little evidence scientifically, meaning one cannot directly observe evolution under scientific conditions in a laboratory, it is a plausible theory about how life has come about on earth, but not the only one. If we are to be tolerant and accepting why not talk about creationism.

John Dominic, Melbourne, Australia

Evolution is not a scientific explanation of origins, it is a theory which is largely unproven and requires even more faith to believe than does the explanation given in the book of Genesis.
It has no more right to be taught as science than has intelligent design by a creator.

Maurice Stewart, Armagh, UK

“Just because something lacks scientific support doesn’t seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson.”

Professors are clever chaps; surely Professor Reiss did not mean what these words of his would imply!

Arthur Ellis-Davies, Aberdesach, Gwynedd

Creationism adheres to none of the key principles in establishing a scientific theory. It lacks any empirical evidence and as such is as equally valid as someone stating that small pixies are the reason that the weather changes.

Teach creationism in science, preach evolution to the religious?

Roger Smissen, Rickmansworth, england

The way I see it, the existence of science does not disprove religion but rather supports it. God's creation of the world is in fact no different than the Big Bang theory; & obviously an omnipotent God would enable living things to change & adapt since he knew the world would be changing as well.

Stephanie, Bristow, OK, USA

My parents are [devout] Roman catholic- and yet I'm an athiest? Some of what you people are saying is completely untrue. Anyone with intelligence can make up their own minds- and personally I think its wrong to bully believers- which a lot of science teachers do! You can't get away from influence..

Becky, London, England

The scientific evidence shows faith based schools do better than
science based schools (non faith based), so no good scientist would ban the teaching of creationism.

Thomas, Kent, UK

Creationism should be taught in schools but NOT in the science curriculum. In my day we studied RI, Religious Instruction. Nowadays it would seem more appropriate for children to study Comparative Religion. Creationism would fit in there.

Richard, Upper Hutt, New Zealand

If the Big Bang theory is acceptable, why should Intelligent Design be rejected? At the end of the day, MODERN science accepts that the universe was CREATED 13.7 bn years ago by s.o./s.th. through the introduction of a singularity. Life on Earth may have been "introduced" in a similar way.

Peter, Vaughan ON, Canada

Since I don't expect a lesson about the "Birth of Jesus" to include (much) discussion of sex and fertilisation without Joseph's sperm, I don't expect discussing the belief system of creationism in a science lesson.

Teach it as a belief in religious education. But certainly NOT in a science lesson.

Laura Roberts, London, UK

Plenty of PhD and research scientists hold belief in creation to be perfectly valid AFTER consideration of the science involved in their particular field. Why not present this in class? What are evolutionists afraid of ? Children should be encouraged to think for themselves.

elaine, herne,

I saw a documentary on tv on this subject in america and it was quite depressing, it was nothing short of brainwashing impressionable children by sinister religous zealots who have considerable power in local government who ram their opinion down your throat wether you want it or not.

Paul, Durham, England

THe question is whose creation story do you teach? I like the Pueblo tribes of New Mexico's creation story....though the Pacific Northwest tribes also have a decent creation story. Then there is the Hindu story...the Mayan..the Aztec.... THe question is whose creation story do you teach?

Linda Miller, Santa Fe, Usa

And which version of creationism are we to teach? You see, the thing about religion is that there are, and have been, an awful lot of them. There's only one theory of evolution. If you think it's divisive denying people's beliefs, wait till you try teaching all of them as legitimate!

Andy, London,

One more reason to educate your child in a private school if you can possibly afford it. The constant assumption by God/Allah botherers that because they belive in something that has no evidence to support it, they have the right to inflict their beliefs on others is getting seriously out of hand.

Donna Walker, Effingham, England

I'm at school +I think the guy has a great idea! I'm not religous but I love science and religion and find it awful when someone in class who does believe in a creation theory has to sit through some science teacher going on in their face about how it's all rubbish. Clever religous people do exist!

Lydia, Berkshire, England

Maybe God's timescale is different from ours.

Thomas Denne, Limanton, France

Evolution belongs in science classes [it is based in FACT], creationism belongs in religious classes [it is based on FAITH]. Why not just agree we teach both and let the pupils (who are probably brighter than us 'grown-ups') decide what they believe. Neither is more legitimate than the other!

Richard, Reading, UK

Dr. Jimmy: "The REVEREND Professor Michael Reiss ?" Why not "The Reverend PROFESSOR Michael Reiss?" Sounds pretty unbiased to me.

Alex, London,

Martin Ipswich- how can you say that?! I'm at school, and the subjects cross over intimately. To criticise peoples beliefs is to insult and segregate them from other class members- it's not exactly humanity moving forwards is it? If you want divides within class at that young an age?!

Lydia, Berkshire, England

Creationism is religion NOT science. Science should be tought in Science class. If you want to teach religious rubbish thats what RE is for. Childrens minds at that sort of age are vulnerable enough as it is without confusing brainwashing like this.

Martin, Ipswich, UK

We should all be concerned that this country is headed towards a new a ultra depressing dark ages. Time to revolt - or time to leave? That is the question.

Vision Aforethought, Oxford, England

The reason creationism must not be taught in science class ,is because it is not science.Children should not be insulted and the man is a fool for suggesting this.

iain rae, tunbridge wells, t.w.

Hullo, hullo...... The REVEREND Professor Michael Reiss ? Another technically objective, unbiased opinion on Creationism from him, then ?
Maybe he should pray to The Almighty that He should stop the flat earth so that he can get off.
How do these people get into their positions of authority ?

Dr. Jimmy, Nottingham, England

Excellent! Teach Creationism by all means. It is only by this way that this belief can be brought into the open, discussed, and argued. But only as long as teachers are prepared to answer the students questions, and provide clear answers to difficult questions avoiding the 'faith' word.

Jonathan Mills, Brighton,

Even Darwin had some doubts about evolution - although in most respects it clearly represents the most likely process whereby humans arrived on the scene. Allowing creationists their say presents science as open minded. Pretending there are no flaws to evolution is dishonest and self defeating.

david, Ligneyrac, France

I really don't see why Creationism should not be taught in science class.
I cannot see much difference between the story in the bible of God's creation of the universe and the Big Bang Theory.
Is it not the purpose of education to open the mind to possibilties and all types of thought?

Linnea Whitaker, Calgary, Canada

Creationism is one of many examples of ludicrous religious beliefs.
Religion, in terms of spirituality, is beneficial for our morals and ethics but leaders of the great faiths should realise and admit that the mythical role of a God is a creation of the founders' of those religions millenia ago.

Richard, Aldbury, GB

"One in 10 pupils have Creationist beliefs and it would be self-defeating to dismiss them all as wrong and misguided. "
I thought the point of school was to stop children to be misguided? Now if students get their history dates wrong, we'll teach those too to protect their feelings? Ridiculous.

Juliette, Utrecht, Netherlands

Is there a coherent creationism theory which would be acceptable to Christians, Muslims and Hindus? If not, then which group's theory is taught?

Charles, Charlottesville,

Creationism expressly rejects most of the science I can just about remember from school. All biology, all earth sciences, an awful lot of physics - how can you possibly accommodate Creationism and call yourself a decent science teacher?

Sophie, London,

“Just because something lacks scientific support doesn’t seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson.”

What planet is this man living on? Because it sure isn't Earth.

Keep fairy tales out of science lessons.

David, Hull, United Kingdom

Creationism is not a valid world view, any more than is the belief in Father Christmas. The Science class is the ideal place to teach the difference between evidence based "world views" and those based on magic and fantasy: use the science class to show how geology disproves creationism.

victor, London,

It's not too far away from that chap saying recently that pupils shouldn't be marked down for incorrect spelling as it showed 'diversity of expression'... It shouldn't be taught in science classes as it's not science. RE classes, different matter.

JD, Bristol, UK

Creationism should be stamped on. We should not pander to muslims and fundamentalists.

Chris, Karlovy Vary, Czech Republic