Rebecca Duffett reports on the campaign

Rebecca Duffett

The issue of how Creationism is taught in schools is worrying many people, and has been in the news increasingly over the past few months. Christian think-tank Ekklesia has recently come alongside not only clergy and theologians, but also the Secular Society and the British Centre for Science Education, to call on Secretary for Education, Michael Gove to bring some clarity on how this subject is taught in schools.

Before asking how Creationism could or should be taught in schools though, it's important to look at the definition of the word and the contrasting views that surround the idea.

It might be assumed that Creationism refers to a biblical belief held by the majority of Christians; but Simon Barrow is from Christian Think Tank Ekklesia, 'Creationism is quite a modern doctrine, which reads into Genesis a particular understanding; that rather than the natural world being the product of God including, for example, evolutionary processes, that somehow the text of Genesis contradicts that idea and God supersedes the natural processes, which in fact Christians think are part of Creation. It is a strange idea but it is what people refer to as the literal reading of Genesis'.

Ekklesia have added their voice to the Creationism in Schools isn't Science or CrISIS campaign and have asked the Secretary for Education Michael Gove to clarify Creationist teaching on the national curriculum; but Terry Moretonson from Answers in Genesis argues that there is only one correct way for Genesis to be read. 'It teaches that God created everything at the beginning in six literal days about six thousand years ago and that he destroyed the world at the time of Noah's flood with a global flood. You can't really read it any other way if you're going to be faithful to the text.'

Simon Barrow also said that he believes that there are two different creation stories in Genesis, a position that Terry once again disputes, 'Genesis 1 is what I like to call the wide-angle lens view of the whole six days of creation. Genesis 2 is the telephoto zoom lens view and some of the events of day six. Genesis 2 doesn't say anything about the creation of the heavens, the sun, moon and stars, the sea. It doesn't say anything about the creation of sea creatures or creeping things on the earth so there are not two contradictory creation accounts.'

Then there's the question of what the purpose of Genesis actually is. Simon believes that, 'The purpose of Genesis isn't actually to tell us how creation happens but rather that the world is God's creation, all of it, and that it's good.' However Terry says that, 'Hebrew poetry in the Old Testament has certain well-recognised literary characteristics and Hebrew historical narrative in the Old Testament has certain characteristics and it's just an extremely well grounded conclusion that Genesis 1-11 is historical narrative and it is not poetry.'

Simon wants to make sure that there is clarification on the definition of Creationism, 'I'm very concerned that many people will get the idea that these are somehow mainstream Christian beliefs, which require us to reject whole chunks of science and I think that's very bad news for Christian witness and presence.'

For those who follow the Genesis story word for word, they want to see their beliefs taught in schools alongside other subjects; Terry comments, 'We would teach that Jesus lived and died and rose again and that those are all facts. Napoleon was a ruler in France, that's a fact and it is a fact that God created and we believe that the Bible is giving us a true history and so what it says about Creation and Noah's flood, those are historical facts.'

Some scientists claim that the Intelligent Design theory explains creation. Alistair Noble is from the UK Centre for Intelligent Design, 'Intelligent Design is an interpretation of the scientific data. It's essentially the study of patterns of design in nature. It's not a religious position. It is an interpretation of scientific or empirical data. The standard interpretation from science of the information we have from biology is that these are unguided, purposeless processes. Intelligent Design says, no actually the information we've got suggests that these are designed. The existence of natural laws that make our world predictable and intelligible are highly suggestive of design. The fact that these natural laws and constants that govern the universe are just right for the existence of life suggests something other than an accident. When you look within living systems, for example, within the living cell, whereas Darwin a century or so ago thought it was just a simple blob of protoplasm, we actually now know that it is as complex as a galaxy. When you look at the sophistication of biological systems, it is a very peculiar conclusion to come to that that can't be designed. Actually everybody agrees that it looks designed. The question is, is it really designed? I think the most convincing argument of all comes from the genetic information carried in the living cell. We're now used to the genetic information carried by DNA. We know that DNA carries the information that makes us the individuals that we are. You have to say, what is the origin of that information? Now in all our experience, information only comes from an intelligent mind. There's no example of functional information assembling itself by random and by accident. I think there's a very strong case for Intelligent Design from the nature of the universe, from fine-tuning, from biological sophistication and from the information carried in DNA. Actually I think it's inescapable.'

The British Society for Science Education wants to see Intelligent Design eradicated from the classroom and deems it a strand of the Creationists Movement. However Dr. Moretonson has more than Biblical scripture to back up his view, 'The fossil records do not support the idea that one kind of creature changes into another, such as a reptile changing into a bird, or a fish changing into an amphibian. What we see in the fossil record fits beautifully with the Bible statements that God created separate kinds to reproduce after their kind. The Bible talks about a global flood that was to destroy all the land, animals and birds and people not in the ark and by implication would destroy lots of sea creatures. The sediments are being eroded off the continent and all over the world thousands of metres of sedimentary rock containing billions of dead things; it fits beautifully with the account of the flood.'

When looking at whether Creationism has a place in the classroom and what classroom it belongs in, it is worth considering that it is viewed in different ways, from those who follow the Bible word for word, to those who interpret it differently in light of the theory of evolution, to those who see design in nature believing it points to a creator. In part two we will examine the question of where and how it should be taught in schools.