There Should be no Need to Legislate Against Creationism

There is currently a bit of noise going on in the UKabout a move to stop the teaching of creationism in science classes. Currently the guidance from government is that creationism should not be taught, this latest move is an attempt to firm up that guidance and make it enforceable. See for some information.

While I wholeheartedly agree that creationism should not be taught at all, anywhere, not even in religious classes, let alone science classes. Yes it can be referenced as an idea that is proven to be false and an example of the progress of science, it should not be taught anywhere as a fact.

My problem is legislation making the teaching of it mandatory. I have a problem with the micromanagement of every little detail of our lives and education. The science in the classroom should stand on its own, and the science of evolution does indeed stand on its own. It should not, and indeed does not, need specific legislation to put it there.

Where is Creationism Taught in theUK?

This report from 2008 ( says that there are 40 schools in theUK that teach creationism. I have no idea how accurate that is today. What I am more confident about is that the guilty school will be towards the extreme or fringe end of the religions represented.

I am not certain on the best answer to the problem of stopping extreme religious teachers putting forth creationism as fact and on the face of it, banning them might be the single most effective way. What concerns me is the follow on affects of this. The affected teachers will have further cause to fly the religious persecution flag and the teaching of evolution by them will be disgruntled.

My opinion is that this call is short sighted at best and it targets to specific an issue. Any legislation on the science that is taught is schools should be more general and specify that the science should be supported, this will cover creationism, and anything else that might creep in.

The cynic in me also wonders if there is also a motive to try and flush out staunch creationists. Get them to stick their heads up so that they can be specifically targeted. That is not that way science should be defended, its nefarious and low and not at all necessary.

Science can and should stand on its own evidence, the use of legislation or underhand tactics to prop it up or defend it only serves to distract people away from the message of the evidence.

6 thoughts on “There Should be no Need to Legislate Against Creationism

  1. It’s right that the Creation story is not science and Evolution is not a religion, and yet many treat creationism as science and evolution as religion. They are separate. So as soon as evolutionists get out of the religion business, creationists can get out of the science class room.

  2. I agree that legislating against a religious faith is not necessarily the best approach to tackling this particular problem, however, the issue remains that there is a problem in the form that there are people who do not agree with you and are actively pushing for young earth creationism to be taught in science class under the guise of a tailored ID concept.

    For example: The ‘teach the controversy’ campaign.

    What are we supposed to do when grown adults are actively seeking to push their beliefs onto children who can’t yet discern for themselves where the line between blind faith and evidence supported faith is?

    Surely you should be trying to limit as much blind faith as possible until a person is old enough to decide for themselves if they believe in such things as Gods and afterlives? Cultivate open minds but encourage an expectation of proof of claims.

    No scientific theory is flawless, and they’re all beliefs, but they are beliefs based on physical evidence and helping young people understand the evidence, as well as what is truly demonstrated through that evidence, is essential for the growth of scientific pursuit. Without understanding we cannot proceed towards the truth of any matter.

    This is the crux of the problem.

    Websites such as AiG and, and movements such as the one mentioned before are very often guilty of propagating misunderstandings and poor teachings of concepts as can be seen in their arguments regarding changing decay rates, etc.
    The flaws in some of these arguments are glaringly obvious to those who study in the relative field but to a child or a layman…

    While it would be wrong to outright young earth creationists them from being allowed to air their beliefs and opinions regarding some scientific studies, is it wrong to try and limit the harm the flawed opinions do?

    In the presence of adults who are unwilling to accept their beliefs, that they cannot prove, as merely beliefs that they hold to and who possess a willingness to attempt to vilify, without understanding, anything that they think contradicts those beliefs, we really need to protect the capacity to discern in the people who may not yet be able decide for themselves.

    Sure, in an ideal world everyone would understand the nature, method and purpose of the scientific method, but that’s not this world.

    So is banning this argument from occurring in the school class necessarily bad?

    In my opinion, not really, but legally enforcing this ban?

    Is it the only way?

    Sorry. I know I kind of just agreed with you there.

  3. grammar mistake

    //While it would be wrong to outright young earth creationists them from being allowed to air their beliefs and opinions regarding some scientific studies, is it wrong to try and limit the harm the flawed opinions do?//

    should have said

    While it would be wrong to outright ban young earth creationists from being allowed to air their beliefs and opinions regarding some scientific studies, is it wrong to try and limit the harm the flawed opinions do?

  4. I grew up as what most people would call a fundamentalist Baptist. Science, college, Evolution, and a spiritual depression pulled me away from that into agnosticism.

    I became a staunch “Evolutionist”. When I came back to Faith, I remained an OEC, and not too far removed from what a Theistic Evolutionist would believe.

    My problem was the Science. Everything was taught as fact. But, we have had a cohesive “Theory” for less than 30 years. And even over the last decade parts have been “modified” to fit new “findings.”

    CERN pushing past the speed of light will probably alter some more of our Grand Theory – even though our Grand Theory has been in conflict with the speed of light for 20 to 40 years now.

    Basically, we keep saying, “We must not use the Bible as a ToE, because it appeals to a higher power.” But, our ToE is nowhere near complete (ToE is Theory of Everything). “But, if we spend billions on a new super collider and landings on Mars, we might just find the answer …. ”

    Most of what I was taught that convinced me “God may not exist” has been falsified. I am getting older, but our Science is proving itself incorrect rapidly.

    It is much easier for me to believe that the Cosmology that Moses taught, which has NOT been disproven, is still a viable Theory of Everything.

    • Hi Wayne,

      Commiserations on the pain and I hope you get it sorted soon. Fear not, it hasn’t tainted your reply with strong words.

      Its your final paragraphs I shall respond to. I don’t think there is enough detail in the Moses teachings to be able say with certainty when science it backs up and what it doesn’t. The writings are vague enough that interpretation enable you to fit it to whatever you wish to fit it to.

      Scientific answers require observation, detail and predictable results from repeatable tests.

      This is also where I have a problem fitting God into it all. If you add God to a scientific test, how on earth can you say for certain what is God and what isn’t? Its just not possible.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s