More on Michael Reiss comments

Reiss overall point in the article is his argument that creationism should be taught in science lessons across the UK. He said science teachers should acknowledge that they form a view of the world held by about 10% of students – and the comment that became controversial was when he said “Just because something lacks scientific support doesn’t seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson.”

Personally, I don’t think that creationist ideas should be discussed in school science classes, as I think the subject itself should focus only around issues that have been empirically proven. The whole idea of science is to test and prove varying issues in our environment, and therefore as religion can’t be tested due to the fact that there is no physical evidence (being only based on ‘faith’), it should not be included in scientific settings. However, I do think that the issue should be something that can be discussed in religious classes in schools and I don’t think that the topic should be ignored completely. I agree that any teacher should openly talk about the issue if it were to come up in a science class, although I don’t think it should be a specific issue on the agenda. Overall I think that creationism should be taught as something that certain individuals in society believe, and I think the best way of teaching children all over the world is to give them an open and well-rounded view of the world.


However, this also brings up the issue of when children are able to fully understand the religion/science debate, and at what age should they be taught about the ideologies and meaning surrounding the subject of religion?