In order for students to grow up as well-rounded, understanding and knowledgeable individuals, it is of vital importance that they learn about each others' religions, alongside their own. Coupled with this, students learn to respect each other. The world can be a very divided, prejudiced place, therefore it is essential that students learn from a young age about the history of the religion of their fellow students. Science lessons are the perfect way to do this, where creationism can be explained and taught about in the same manner as evolution. Those who believe in evolution can learn about what Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in alongside their own.

Creationism is a religious belief, and should best be taught in a religious education class rather than a science class. The same goes for multiculturalism, which is not a topic which should be taught in science, rather PSHE type classes. Creationism does not rest upon the principles of science- empiricism and rationality, instead it rests upon revelation. Related is Intelligent Design, which is effectively an attempt to show that an "Intelligent Designer" had some effect upon nature.

Yes, students should learn about 'different BELIEFS from each religion'. However, science classes are not the place for this. religious education classes are.

Despite what some peoples' opinions might be, those who follow the Christianity, Judaism and Islam religions, might want their religion to be presented as fact in a science lesson and no prejudices of others should stand in the way of this. When dealing with sensitive issues such as religion, does anyone really have a right to say how it should be taught to children and in what subject? Science teachers should respect this and treat creationism the same way as they would any other aspect of science.

Science teachers can be sympathetic about the religion and beliefs of their students' even if they do not believe creationism themselves. However, they may not have been professionally trained themselves to teach children about creationism and this poses a problem for the training of all science teachers.

What is more, the sensitivity of people's views should not be an issue in science, unless it is a view rejected by science, such as parents wishing for racial segregation to be taught in science classes or magical gnomes being taught in place of atoms. At the most, creationism should be taught as a theory which has been rejected by science.

People who subscribe to certain beleifs, be they religious or political are not being goaded by the teaching of science which does not address religious issues. Each person needs to develop resilience and understanding of what is able to be proved and what is able to be believed.

It will not assist the development of faith of young people if they become accustomed to the world of adults refraining from showing them the broader world. Faith is about choice. Science is about what can be proven. The story of creationism as taught in the bible was written to assist the understanding of the development of the world 2000 years ago. Our minds are capable of greater understanding of the scientific advances constantly being discovered.

This is like saying a history teacher should not correct a child that believes the 2nd world war occurred in the 1600s or that a geography class can be led to believe the Earth is flat. The point of lessons is to teach students what is currently accepted in a given field. It is not to make sure they do not feel hurt or offended. What do you do with a Holocaust-denying child in a history class? Should we mark the answer' God did it' correctly in an exam asking 'describe the theory of natural selection'?. And would you be happy to teach PE in a maths class? (I.e. of course we have to decide which class things should be taught in!)

Also, creationism is not an aspect of science. It is religious teaching.

The mainstream of argument against largely depends on the opinion that science lessons present fact and religious education presents belief. However, with the world of science constantly improving and ever changing, science lessons are not always comprised of undisputed fact. Aristotle taught us that there are five bodily senses: touch, taste, smell, sight and sound. But, according to NewScientist Magazine(1), the count is at odds with science. Their count is actually an enormous 21! But surely, it is much more convenient for the curriculum to outline the usual five. Simply because the majority of scientists and the population believe something, does not make it fact. (1)http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg18524841.600.html

Science doesn't proclaim to produce 'facts', so much as it claims to produce verifiable, empirical ways to measure and disprove hypotheses. This is known as the scientific method. Things that can be measured, and disproved have a place in science.

Apart from the existence of holy books, and people's insistence, there is no evidence to the existence of a divine being or God. One of the main arguments creationists use is that it is implasuable that such advanced creatures as human beings evolved through evolution. However, they offer no demonstrable theory of how a divine being would be able to manipulate matter, to create us out of thin air either.

An example of evolution of a virus was demonstrated scientifically recently, when the swine flu virus became able to infect humans. Rational theories of evolution are constantly demonstrated throughout the world, and so far Darwin's theory has never been disproven. the great thing about science is, so long as someone shows effective research and scientific method, anyone can disprove his theory once and for all. If this happens, then science can continue in another direction. Religious people should read his theory in full before they reject it out of hand though - there is a great deal of misunderstanding about Darwinism amongst religious people. Indeed, he himself was a religious man, and it took a great deal to convince him of the likelihood of evolution.

It is never possible to 'prove' something beyond all doubt in science, there is always doubt, and that doubt is celebrated. This is what gives us new hypotheses, which become new theories when they cannot be disproven. This is what moves us forward instead of backward. Another example is the belief that the world was flat. Many, many people believed this, just because of their own experiences. Science could disprove this theory by using rational analysis of geography and star positioning. In fact, standing on a tall mountain or getting in a plane can show you the curvature of the earth, but it is amazing how angry people were when that theory first came about.

The existence of a divine creator can never be disproved, because it is based purely on belief, not on empirical, observable evidence. If a Harry Potter book was dug up in two thousand years, just because lots of people liked Harry Potter stories, doesn't mean that he ever really existed as a real person. In contrast, we can demonstrate how less evolved species developed through the finding of fossils, through genetics, and through the understanding of the process of gene propagation.

It's nice to believe in something, and have faith in higher purpose or meaning, but faith is contrary to scientific method. An example is some parent's faith in the massively discredited theories to do with the MMR jab's link with autism. No serious scientists agreed with this inherently flawed research, yet it influenced thousands of people, and is now having the net effect of increasing the spread of measles (a potentially fatal disease). This an example of hearsay, and faith in a particular source (in this case, Newspapers and TV) outweighing all evidence to the contrary. Almost all religous arguments are based on faith - not on evidence.

If creationism is to be taught in science lessons, it can only be fairly taught with the demonstration of the absence of scientific method, sound research, solid theories and empirical evidence. It is a good example to students of how not to partake in scientific argument and observation. Just because you want to believe something with all your heart, doesn't make it a scientific theory.

Science is seen as a discussion of fact. The common disclaimer against creationism is that it is not a discussion of fact, rather a discussion of belief. Discussion on belief, arguably, has no place in the science lab. What gives anyone the right to deny a person their religion, and claim that what they lead their life on cannot be true or fact, because it has not been scientifically proven? Surely a belief, something someone believes wholeheartedly, for which they are willing to die, overrules any scientific experiment. Why can it not be fact? The Bible was written over a span of 1,200 years and is comprised of 66 separate books. What if these were written by renowned and respected scientists? Would creationism then be treated respectfully and taught undisputedly in science lessons? Therefore, the issue is that creationism is seen as an implausible hypothesis because it is based on belief. This is not enough to exclude it from a scientific discussion.

In today's modern society, it is the norm that something only becomes fact with scientific support. Scientific support is integral to the teachings of a science lesson. A discussion of whether or not a belief is fact is irrelevant in a science lesson. Science is about teaching about what science considers to be fact.

The reality that matters of faith are not included in science curriculum does not equate to a denial of religious beliefs. In fact to include creationalism would equally deny others their rights to not be educated in a Judeo, Christian, Islam belief. There are many more religions in the world - science could become a very intensive subject!

A fact is something that can be proved and demonstrated - until then it is a theory. There is nothing small or demeaning about having a particular faith - however it is not something that can be proved. They are distinct areas - it is the person who enables the overlapping not the subject matter.

In actuality, the scientific method does not deal with 'facts'. Scientists come up with hypotheses which they test. If they cannot disprove these hypotheses (as there is never any 'proof' either), they develop theories from them. Established theories (such as Evolution by Natural Selection, Gravity or the Heliocentric model of our solar system) are treated as 'proven' or 'fact' only in that they are almost definitely such - not that they are certainly such. This always leaves room to question, re-test and change. This is why science is progressive and this is also why religion is not science.

One of the principles in educating children is that they interact: communicating and informing others of their knowledge. What better place to do this than in a science classroom? Here, in a controlled environment, students can challenge ideas of evolution and creationism together in the same subject.

But why a science class? Why not geography or economics? Creationism has nothing whatsoever to do with science, and should preferably be excluded from science syllabuses. Instead, PSHE lessons, which are designed to allow pupils to learn about contemporary issues and debate them, should be the only place where creationism should be mentioned, let alone taught.

The Big Bang is also discussed in Religious education, even though that's a scientific theory - just because creationism has its roots in religion doesnt mean that it can't be scientifically prven some time in the future, I mean no one has worked out what the trigger for the bang was for all we know it could be a deity of some sort.

Since the big bang is discussed in both Religious Education AND Science then so should creationism because they are both after all just theories and just because Creationism happens to involve a God doesn't mean that it should be ommitted from Scientific studies because that's just degrading for all those who believe in a God...it should at least be mentioned even if it's not in detail.

The purpose of a religious education lesson is too study beliefs, doctrines, rituals, customs, rites and personal roles of each religion in turn. During a religious education lesson, the teaching is not presented as fact, but discussed and mulled over as beliefs shared by millions of individuals. Creationism is already taught in religious education lessons and has not, up till now, created a problem. It seems unnecessary and inconvenient for teachers and students alike. What would be the need of removing it from the curriculum of religious education and transferring it too science?

It will be for the government to decide when children will have a sufficient degree of mental maturity to handle such sensitive information. Presumably this will be at the age of 14 when lessons begin to revolve around GCSE’s. By this time, a child should have the intellectual maturity to process conflicting ideas and evaluate their own response.

Depending on the age of the student, it may be confusing to them to hear about evolution, when they have been raised to believe in creationism. To hear a science teacher discuss creationism could possibly be damaging to others, during a lesson they cannot get out of, in an environment where they learn about photosynthesis; the periodic table and the human body. So why should they be subjected to learn about creationism in a compulsory lesson, when it may not be in their best interests to do so?

If parents feel uncomfortable with the chosen curriculum, then they do not have to send their children to that particular school.

Some parents may feel uncomfortable with creationism being taught in a science lesson. A science lesson indicates fact and students from a non-religious background, or who have been raised to believe the theory of evolution, may become confused by the beliefs of a creationist.

Indeed, the science room is for experimentation, and creationism is a subject matter for such experiments. Creationism has yet to be disproved. Ergo, creationism belongs in the science room.

The bottom line is that science lessons deal with fact and not opinion. Creationism simply is not fact. Creationism was written by a individual whom no one can name. There is no evidence that it actually happened: only a shared belief by millions of people can possibly give creationism any credibility. The fact that it cannot be disproved is not basis enough for it to be taught any more than the unproved proposition that invisible unicorns live on mars should be discussed in the science class. Science is about physical evidence alone, it may not be the only path to truth but it is a very specific discipline and creationism simply cannot live up to its standards and so, although it may in fact be correct, creationism should not therefore be taught alongside evidence based theory. Science lessons are the laboratory of fact, experiments and precision. Religious education classes are home to discussion - sharing opinions and thoughts about something which is uncertain. Professor Lewis Wolpert, of University College London, said(1): "Creationism is based on faith and has nothing to do with science, and it should not be taught in science classes. "There is no evidence for a creator, and creationism explains nothing. It is based on religious beliefs and any discussion should be in religious studies."

(1)http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/sep/11/creationism.education

Who made it so that the curriculum for a science lesson has to be backed up by scientific knowledge? Maybe it is now time that science lessons are comprised of debateable issues that can be argued and reasoned amongst students.

The Big Bang Theory is just that, a theory, as is creationism. If creationism does not belong in a science lesson because it has not been proved then The Big Bang Theory should be taken off of our science curriculum (and off of our television program listings for that matter!)

Scientists go to great lengths to prove their theories. Thousands and thousands of experiments are carried out in order to make scientific breakthrough discoveries. The Big Bang Theory is just one of many theories that scientists throughout the centuries have strived to prove. The idea that the solar system emerged from a swirl of matter began with Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) and has been mulled over since then, particularly by the British physicist, Stephen Hawking. Creationism does not have any scientific support: despite it being believed by millions and believed for thousands of years. Surely, by now, someone would have been able to scientifically prove this. It is not worthy of being taught in a science lesson. Creationism is a theory, true, but no more valid scientifically than that of the film The Matrix- it could be true but it does not seem likely to be proven, at least not scientifically. It is certainly worth discussing for those so interested, but it is not of true scientific value in the way that the Big Bang theory, for example, is.

Everything taught in science lessons has come from scientific reasoning. This is one reason why they are called science lessons. Scinece is reasoning based on current facts and evidence and showing that it fits with the rest of the system. The proof for creationism does not fit with established facts.

This does not mean that we should totally stop teaching creationsim in schools althogether after all in order for us to become a tolerant society we need to understand and appreciate values of others. I therefore beleieve that creationsim is a subject best taught in Religious Education/Studies. This is a subject about other peoples views.

Ideas such as evolution are taught as it fits with the system. It was reasoned through scientific evidence. not only does it fit throught the idea of the age of the earth but also about how animals have become so diverse and how some have become extinct.

Even ideas which have been sugessted and have been proven wrong are taught because is shows reasoning and logic with the availale evidence and it is the best explanation and it raises the last questions or it answers questions from before.

In conclusion science is simply an explation and an alternative supposing a "gods" lack of existence.

This debate is rather less about the whether or not Creationism is able to be included in a science lesson and rather more about parents who have certain beliefs wanting the rest of society to support them by their choice.

If this was extended to all persons of a country it may be covered by a philosophical study of religions - all of them. This however does not meet was is being demanded by those who support creationism. Not all Christians subscribe to such a narrow belief, many understand that it was a metaphor for many events which were unable to be explained in the days that the old testament was written.

This call for inclusion of religion in science studies appears to be based on fear that people will be ridiculed for their belief and that their faith will not be able to withstand the conversations of ordinary people. Perhaps the inclusion of curriculum about respect and dignity would protect all from being "taught" religion and affiliations.

It is not anti religious to suggest that matters of faith are not appropriate to include in other subjects, rather it respects that religion and faith are matters which are to be respected by all.

1) Creationism cannot be proven, and teaching this could devalue due scientific process in a scientific learning environment 2) Impending a religion on all of the students in a classroom is unconstitutional 3) Our founding fathers created a very clear line seperating the state from the church, and if we are talking about PUBLIC schooling here, that is a government run AND funded program. 4) Not all of the students in the classroom will be christian/catholic. How will you teach creation to hindus, buddhist, and jews? 5) There are laws stating that teachers are forbidden to teach religion and politics in the classroom.