Should creationism be taught in schools?

At a meeting of the British Association Festival of Science, Rev. Prof. Michael Reiss of the Royal Society has said that creationism should be taught in schools alongside evolution (full story here). Whilst Prof. Reiss fully supports evolution, he appears to believe that children who hold creationist beliefs - presumably learned at home - may simply switch off if no respect is shown for their views.

One difficulty that this view raises, however, is that there are very many non-scientific accounts of the origins of life on earth. According to the website Religious Tolerance, there are estimated to be over 500 different accounts of origins among the world's religions. Many of these are plainly contradictory. So, if one does want to discuss creationism alongside evolution then which non-scientific account(s) should be covered?

I would suggest that the most sensible way of dealing with this is to teach Darwin's own story. Darwin studied theology at Cambridge University before setting sail on the Beagle. He believed in the Christian God and accepted that God had put the many different creatures upon the earth. However, as he travelled around the word on the Beagle he gathered many observations which did not appear consistent with the biblical account of creation. Back in England he spent some 20 years working on his theory of evolution, possibly because he was aware of the controversy it would create, and eventually was forced into publication when Alfred Russell Wallace wrote to him with the same idea (they agreed to a joint presentation of their ideas at the Linnean Society, though they did not attend in person).

But what is important to remember is that even before the Darwin-Wallace theory had been revealed, the actual data collected by Darwin showed that the biblical account of creation was wrong. That is why evolution is regarded as a fact; the observations are incontrovertible. What Darwin's theory provides is a mechanism by which evolution occurs; that is, variation and natural selection. Darwin, of course, did not know about genes. We now know that genes are the unit of selection, which is why we now talk of neo-Darwinism.

As for Darwin himself, his own religious belief fell away. This was probably not just because of his observations and the development of his theory. Darwin was greatly affected by the death of his and Emma's first child, Annie, at the age of 10. Why would a loving God allow such a thing to occur? Darwin was also disturbed by the great cruelty he observed in nature. One such observation, discussed in Richard Dawkin's recent television programme, was of the Digger wasp. This wasp paralyses katydids and lays its eggs in them; then it buries the katydids, and when the eggs hatch the wasp's offspring are able to feed on fresh meat. To Darwin, this seemed unimaginably cruel and not the creation of a loving God.

Darwin's early beliefs and how they changed seem to me to be about as much creationism as one should teach students. It's a good and instructive story. But after that, then the focus should be on the development of evolutionary theory subsequent to Darwin. Of course, questions from students should be addressed, and some of these may come from a creationist perspective, but that simply gives an opportunity to show how creationist views are not supported by evidence.