The question is not whether or not creationism is a valid theory, but rather whether or not it should be allowed to be discussed as a theory, something a few of the people who have commented on here have failed to address. Hear it out, then if you disagree, prove it wrong; that is how science works

Thane Johnson, Billings, USA

So, if someone believes that their imaginary friend created the earth in 7 days, it now has to be taught in a science class?

Well, I want equal time because I believe in Santa Claus & the Easter bunny and my imaginary friends deserve a place in the classroom too.

Kevin Backmann, Dallas, TX, US

Let's discuss creationism in science class as an excellent way to show the nature of science: knowledge subject to improvement based on new evidence rather than on dogma. Teachers might highlight all the things which creationism etc cannot explain convincingly, eg fossils.

NIck, Brasilia,

Prof Reiss should return to the pulpit and preach to the few souls who turn up , and let teachers teach science to the many eager students.

iain rae, tunbridge wells, t.w.

The Royal Society is dedicated to "promoting excellence in science". The comments of Professor Reiss blatantly undermine this mission and he should resign from the society. Moreover, given the histoty of the church in denying scientific findings, why is a priest acting as a spokeperson?

Simon, Lewes, UK

shawn ahearn, lewisville nc, US

You do realise that The Theory of Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with astro-physics don't you? Obviously not, and this goes to any other people who think that the big bang is part of evolutionary theory. ToE deals with origins of species, that's all!

Russ, Russ, Reading

See through the smoke folks, trends that start over in the US eventually end up here in some form or other. Creationism / ID arent anything new and are basically an attempt by fundamentalist christians to gain more influence over society.
The earth rotating round the sun is also a theory remember.

Joe, Glasgow,

"There is no more evidence to support evolution..." you must be joking, where have you been hiding? The evidence for evolution collected over the past 200 years is overwhelming. The truth is there is NO evidence that a supernatural being exists. Life is an emergent property of the universe.

Rob Kirk, Boston,

If you are a creationist, it means that you are not smart enough to understand evolutionary theory. End of story. The creationists out there can whine and complain all that they want about this observation. That is all they can do because the evidence is not on their side.

Bill Hicks, Austin, TX, U.S.A

Too bad for those who argue science and religion aren't compatible. What you fail to see is tht science cannot answer some of the most basic questions like purpose and governance. Sure we understand water, but HOW did water achieve its properties? Who wrote the laws of nature? Science is mute.

John, Bradenton, USA

there is no more evidence to support evolution than there is to support creationism.i find it extremely humerous to listen to the evolutionists talk of the mountains of evidence to support their "theory" at a time when the very foundation of astro-physics is being called into question by new science

shawn ahearn, lewisville nc, United States

W. Thorpe, Evolution is totally incompatible with creation as presented via the Bible & Koran.

One day we'll know exactly how life started. We already have a good idea (& notice that "God" isn't one of the options!)

We wont need yet another a 'incredible shrinking god of the gaps'

James C, Newcastle, UK

Creation is about the beginning. Evolution is about developmental processes. Apples and pears. The discussion is about Divine creation vs random chance plus eternal matter plus time. Atheists should not hide behind the myth of religious neutrality. There is no science which answers these questions

Marsh Moyle, Greatham, UK

I am an atheist but I really believe that some things cannot be explained by science as we know it. There exists a dimension invisible to human understanding. Apart from that, we alone are masters of our own future.

Judith Garbutt, Greenwich, GB

Suggesting that anyone should be removed from this post for views on creationism in science flies completely in the face of the society being created by todays multicultural inclusion.

Joe Samford, Keggy, UK

Michael, treating something without evidence as equal is wrong. With a 150 years of research, evidence, DNA sequencing, geological columns, radio metric dating of various forms and all agreeing with evolution. Clearly according to the facts we have, evolution holds up and creationism falls apart

David Dootson, wilmslow, cheshire

Christopher in Austin---Read a science book sometime. Evolution has mountains of evidence to support it, both literally and figuratively. Creation has only highly derivetive iron age superstition. The "Faith" you refer to in evolution is simply reasonable expectation based on past observations.

Paul, Oceanside, CA, US

Science uses reason, evidence and rational thought – quite the opposite of religion.

The only reason creationism should ever be mentioned in a science classroom is for the teacher to explain to that child why they are wrong.

What next in the science class? Tooth fairy? Babies delivered by stork?

Luke, London, UK

To creos who whine that science doesn't take them seriously. The answer is very simple. Come up with some observable, repeatable EVIDENCE and science will evaluate your idea. Science has mountains of evidence for evolution, and precisely none for God. If you don't understand evolution, read a book!

Tom McCann, Wokingham, UK

I have no religious axe to grind but this sounds like a witch hunt with HERETIC as the rallying call. The Royal Society fellows should listen to themselves......if they are not drowned out by their disproportionate reaction. Dogma is dogma no matter how you dress it up.

Paul, Ware, Herts

In My view Creationist beliefs have no place in teaching Science, and belong in RE
If a pupil has such beliefs it would appear to be correct to explain the scientific method, and to state what we do not know, and what we know. We can only explain Vertebrate anatomy by evolution.

William Foster, Andover, England (UK)

Both evolution and creationism are based on faith and both are religions. Either alllow them both or remove them both from the classroom. Science needs to be science, which includes observation. No one has observed evolution or creation.

Christopher, Austin, TX, USA

'Occam's razor' is a too simplistic and limiting concept to rely on. Scientific views are a 'belief' system, just like religious ideas. Treating scientific views as somehow beyond criticism is no different than a religion.

Michael, Birmingham, England

Evolution occurs in software in the form of evolutionary computing. Does that mean there is no Programmer? Evolution occurs in technology by way of evolution of forms and techniques. Does that mean there is no Engineer? Occam's razor is a blunt tool.

Michael, Penarth,

I can HOLD a fossil, I can SEE sediments being laid down, I can MEASURE things in my lab. If any person, ever in the whole of history, had been able to hold, see or measure a god, ghost, spirit, or fairy, then I might just believe that there was a point of contact between real science and religion.

Chris Lloyd-Staples, Hemel Hempstead, UK

Whether it's a valid discussion is not the point. Whether it should be discussed ins chools is what matters. And it shouldn't. Definitely not in science class.

And what of children who do not believe in creationism? Who are in a great majority? I would not want my children to sit through that .

Danny, London, UK

Surely open discussion and debate is the way of a civilised society especially where there is only theory or belief and no conclusive proof either way. To deny or decry the other man's view is the path to resentment and conflict.

William Epps, Broadstairs, England

All of science is based on unproven assumptions, as with mathematics. Creationism, though a seemingly unlikely candidate to a pure materialist, is an assumption of origin, rather like the unproven Big Bang theory. It may not be science, but neither is the question "Where did the Big Bang come from?"

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Yvonne: "Whatever way it happened God is the Creator"

Who's denying the debate now? The 'theory' of evolution is not some idea that a wonky scientist came up with when doing the dishes!

Religious discrimination, don't make me vomit. Enough tolerance is shown to those with 'faith'.

Spike, High Wycombe, Bucks

All that Professor Michael Reiss seems to be saying to me is "allow the debate to take place". The scientific consensus over evolution seems robust, and this should be borne out in schools. Why not allow discussion and debate among our fertile minds?

phil_style, London, United Kingdom

I'm an atheist, but I agreed with Reiss. Kids should be inquisitive, and let them explore the answer themselves. Believing in evolution (while I have no doubt is true) hasn't impacted my life that much. religious people are just as happy. Finding the truth is the fun part,so let the kids be.

Louis, London,

Creationism may or may not be true, it's simply speculation. Science is about what can be proven via experimentation and observation. Therefore creationism has no place in a science class - it's basis is religous belief so it belongs in RE.

Graham, Birmingham, UK

The religious zeal and fervour displayed by 'Evolutionists' is staggering! Prohibition of open and informed discussion is anti-science and will benefit noone.

John McClean, Belfast, UK

Of course you need a God to kick start evolution - how can something evolve from nothing? No one has ever done this in a lab and there is no evidence of anything creating itself what so ever. Evolution is a theory not fact anyway. Science is about explaining how things happen not WHY.

Jake, Worthing, England

I forgot to add that I believe God created the world, but not in 6000 years, I am not that stupid. Muslim belief rejects 'christian' creationism anyway. The big bang is in accordance with the Quoran and I believe in that.

Jake, Worthing, England

people 'of faith' have faith' in the 'theory' that 'we' were created by god.. - there is NO scientific evidence whatsoever of this view. as a lawyer Yvonne it would be more fitting to say that your opinion is that."Whatever way it happened God is the Creator" - we are allowed to 'judge for ourselves

andrew, leeds,

Some of these comments are fabulously naive! I particularly like James from Devon's primary school playground retort & Nabil from Bradford's literal interpretation of the world he lives in. Please, please, read a few books that aren't religious metaphors before you throw your ten pence worth!

Jon, Leicestershire,

Surely evolution is a theory in the science of God's creation and creationism is a theory in the study of theology.

James Henry, Amsterdam, Netherlands

A scientific theory become so through years of experimentation that builds up evidence to support it.

Where is the evidence to support creationism? To point to an animal and say that is "too complex to have evolved" is not evidence but opinion. "Because the bible says so" is not evidence.

Olaf, Dundee,

J emerson

please display just ONE of these so called pieces of scientific evidence you mention, that point towards there actually being a 'god' or an 'ark' or even a 'noah'! -- i'll be amazed if you do, because you will be the first person ever to have done so...

andrew, leeds,

I am a lawyer of 30 years experience and am used to examining evidence. Evolution is a theory and should be taught as such. Whatever way it happened God is the Creator. Denial of the debate is religious discrimination. What are they afraid of?

Yvonne Hossack, Kettering, England

the world is older than 6000 years, if you believe anything else, sadly you seriously need to re-think your early educational teachings!?- it would be interesting to know exactly how many people 'grow up' and switch from religion to science, and how many the opposite.

andrew, leeds,

Evolution is not a science, it is a religion. Simple as. Discussion complete

James, Devon,

We first need to be clear about which evolution we are talking about. Both views must agree about the evolution of species, Noah took KINDS into the ark not species. There is plenty of scientific evidence for this. As for the origins of the earth and its evolution... sorry - more evidence for God.

J Emerson, Warwickshire, UK

In response to Warwick, the idea that a god is responsible for evolution is superfluous at best and highly parsimonious at worst. Evolution doesn't require a god to kick-start it; it is already an elegant enough explanation as it is. Life changes over time without the need for intervention.

Phil, Blackpool, England

Creationism is not science, it is religion. Simple as. Discussion complete.

Edward, London,

When finally somebody will admit that the earth is flat? We have had enough of being misled by the evolution theory. Go back to the Middle Age and start everythin again. At the end, this is where our politicians are driving us anyway, so...

Giuseppe, Purley, UK

Why not look to see if there can be found some sort of will behind the formation of matter? some formula for creation? it does not imply that there is any intent within that will. Has history been forgotten? the church was largely responsible for education in the past, schools are its evolution.

Peter, Peterborough, Britain

All early scientists believe in god including Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton. Newton is famous for saying "God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done". To back up the early comment, science and creation are not mutually exclusive.

Nabil, Bradford,

""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.", Professor Reiss was quoted as saying.

Did this MP not read that?

Luke Wallin, Guildford, Surrey

With this world view we have today, isn't it obvious that each society created God in its own image? Creationist imply an intelligence is required to create: who begate that intelligence? Since no one can prove there is or is not a god just apply Occam's razor and dismiss the least likely.

Richard, Bromley, UK

What puzzles me is why was a reverend given a position of authority in such a scientific organisation as the Royal Society in the first place?

colin, london, england

Having a science degree myself and having listened to the debates, the thing that always amazes me is this. Everyone assumes the two views are exclusive. What if God created it and gave it rules about how it evolves? After all science can AT BEST speculate on origins, answer both correct?

warwick thorpe, wellington, nz

You know why the Royal Society is allowing Professor Reiss to air his view? They took the common sense view that shutting down a debate is not the same as winning it. Politicians should be slower to rubbish and denigrate students who have not yet finished their education.

John Ferguson, Ballymena, United Kingdom