World - Evolution?What's that ?Teach them creationism

The British Royal Society’s proposal that Creationism be taught in science classes in school has alarmed the scientific community.







Charles Darwin must be turning in his grave: the 300-year-old British Royal Society, one of the world’s most respected scientific institutions which counts Darwin as among his former Fellows and boasts of more than 20 Nobel Laureates, wants Creationism which denies Darwin’s theory of Evolution, to be taught in science classes in schools.

The idea, first mooted by Professor Michael Reiss, a biologist and Director of Education at the Royal Society, has re-ignited the simmering science-religion debate at a time when religious Right is becoming increasingly assertive with secularists being cast as the new fundamentalists.

Although Prof. Reiss has been forced to resign after a number of Royal Society Fellows, including two Nobel Laureates, called for him to be sacked the Society continues to back his views.

Currently, teaching of creationism is restricted to religious education classes and there are strict guidelines in the national school curriculum on how to handle the subject if it is raised by students in science lessons. Teachers are advised to tell them the difference between creationism and evolution and to make clear that it is not a scientific theory. They should discourage further discussion leaving it for religious classes.

Creationists are Bible-thumping evangelists who believe that the universe was created by God and the scientific theory of evolution, first propounded by Darwin, is a load of nonsense. Even those creationists who don’t reject the theory of evolution altogether insist that the Biblical view of the origin of the universe is the true one.

No wonder, the Royal Society’s proposal has alarmed the scientific community and all rational Britons who see it as a dangerous precedent which could lead to demands for all kinds of “crackpot” theories to be recognised.

“What next, biology classes discussing the theory of Adam’s Rib?” asked one critic.

Interestingly, even the Church of England has come out against the move saying there is no place for creationism in science classes. The Church is opposed to attempts by right-wing evangelical groups to impose a literal interpretation of Biblical teachings and believes that such attempts are tending to create a “false impression” of the Church as a whole. In fact, it plans to set up a website publicising Darwin’s evolutionary theory.

“Creationism should not be taught as a scientifically-based theory but could be included in discussion of the development of scientific ideas down the ages or in religious education classes,” the Church said.

The Royal Society claims that all it is suggesting that creationism should be recognised as a “legitimate” worldview while continuing to stress the supremacy of the theory of evolution. Instead of sweeping creationism under the carpet and shutting down all discussion teachers should explain the difference between the two and make them understand that the theory of evolution alone has a scientific basis.

When Prof. Reiss touted the idea at the British Association’s Festival of Science in Liverpool recently, it was thought that it was his personal view. But, to the surprise of scientists, the Royal Society went out of its way to endorse it saying that it represented its own views.

``Teachers need to be in a position to be able to discuss science theories and explain why evolution is a sound scientific theory and why creationism isn’t,” a spokesman said.

Observers are intrigued by what The Times described as the Royal Society’s “turnaround” on the issue recalling that only last year it issued an “open letter” declaring that creationism had “no place” in science classes. Some attribute this to its growing business links with a conservative American think-tank which seeks to promote a dialogue between science and religion.

Prof. Reiss’s own views on the subject have undergone a change. He has said he himself used to be an “evangelist” for evolution but realised that “banging on about evolution” did not help and children from religious backgrounds continued to believe in creationism. He believes that just because something lacks scientific basis is not a good enough reason to exclude it from science classes.

“Creationism has not scientific validity but this does not stop some people from believing that it does. If a young person raises the issue of creationism in a science class, a teacher should be in a position to examine why it does not stand up scientific investigation,” he says.

There is a view that instead of telling students from religious backgrounds to “shut up” when they raise the subject teachers should use the “opportunity” to demonstrate the scientific validity of evolution. But critics say that for a body whose aim is to promote scientific temper wanting to recognise a faith-based theory, which doesn’t simply challenge science but aggressively denies, is like Turkeys wishing for Christmas.

* * *

Living on a pound a day


It hasn’t come to that yet, but with the British economy in free fall, what if one day (in not-too-distant a future) we’re forced to live on a pound-a-day? What will it be like?

A school teacher, who tried to find out, has written a whole book on her experiences, How I Lived a year on Just a Pound a day.

Now that her self-imposed penny-pinching days are behind it, Kath Kelly says they weren’t so bad, after all. All it required was a spot of shamelessness (learning not to refuse a free-lunch, developing a knack for gate-crashing into parties) and a determination not to give in to temptation.

Forty-seven-year-old Ms Kelly decided to embark on this self-denying venture to save money to buy a wedding gift for her brother. Those who have only a £1 a day to spend, however, will not be able to find out how she managed: her book costs £6.99.