Creationism isn’t science, but nor should it be taboo
Creationism should be discussed in school science lessons, rather than excluded, says the director of education at the Royal Society.BBC News
I have no objection to people being ‘Creationists’ or proponents of ‘Intelligent Design’. It may indeed be that an almighty being has chosen — via whatever mechanism — to create man as he is today, but that we are unable to perceive that omnipotent force. We certainly can’t disprove it.
But that’s the point. If it’s not testable, if it isn’t capable of being disproved, it’s not science. And everything which at the end must boil down to belief falls into this category. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Atheism… are all beliefs. In each case, their proponents think — and quite often loudly claim — that their beliefs are right, and that people who believe different are wrong-headed or stupid.
But they can’t prove it.
And if you can’t prove it (or disprove it) then it cannot be tested, and therefore does not — can not — conform to the scientific method, and doesn’t deserve to be taught in a science classroom.
You can, by all means, discuss Intelligent Design/Creationism in a philosophical or religious setting, and you can equally discuss atheism there, but they are all non-testable beliefs, and therefore should not be taught in the science classroom.
Having said that, if a pupil raises the concept of Intelligent Design in a classroom, it might be perfectly appropriate to discuss it then — to explain that a hypothesis which by its very nature cannot be disproved does not fall under the realm of ’science’; that doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t true (we can’t prove it!) but that is precisely why it ain’t science.
And that’s why I feel a little sorry for Professor Michael Reiss. I think that’s what he’s trying to say here — and that actually sounds reasonable to me (and there’s certainly no sense in alienating people by saying that their beliefs are wrong when you can’t prove it either). Unfortunately, I expect most people are going to read this as “Creationism should be taught in classrooms”, which is something entirely different.
Hello. I am 
I agree completely, Jack. Well said.
“Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Atheism… are all beliefs”
Atheism is not a belief, it is the opposite. It is the absence of belief in deities.
Please do not put them in the same category.
No, atheism is a belief. It is a belief that there is no deity(ies). It is not possible to know that atheism is correct. It is therefore a belief and should be treated as such (respectfully; many people hold this belief, but many people hold others and are equally entitled to do so)
Cannot there be 2 types of Atheism I for instance have an active belief that there is no God (by any name(s)) I believe this is caled Agnostic atheism, but I am sure there are many who have never really considered the question and as such would also be consided an Athiest but could fall under the lack of belief tag.
I would describe “I don’t actively believe there is a God, but nor do I actively believe there isn’t a God” as agnosticism. Which is my position. But all I was really saying was that any faith — including a belief that there isn’t a God — lies outside the realms of the science classroom…
Note to the google ad above:
No, you can’t*, and nor can you disprove it. That’s why it’s not science. If evolution were wrong, it would be able to be disproved. That’s why evolution is a scientific theory, and creationism isn’t.
*alternatively, if you can, then please do so to the scientific community…
Oh, and if evolution is ‘just a theory’, then please bear in mind gravity is equally so. Good luck ignoring that one…