Creationism in the classroom

The shocking story of Michael Reiss (Leaders, September 18), who dared to suggest that teachers should know how to deal with creationism, is a reminder that we aren't very confident about how to deal with controversial issues in the classroom. Of course, science teachers should know how to deal with those who believe in creationism, just as many religious education teachers now talk about evolution as a matter of course. There are still some tricky areas though.

A GCSE religious education syllabus dealing with humanism has recently been rejected and in RE many will fight shy of what we might call (in shorthand) "bad religion" (the beliefs of suicide bombers etc). We've moved away from RE being about trying to turn children into believers, and we now need to stop the vicious atheist-fundamentalists trying to equate all religion with beliefs in the tooth fairy. School subjects are necessarily fragmented, but there is a need for the whole curriculum to deal with ideas, as well as facts to be mugged up for a series of A* passes. I am not suggesting equal time for every crazy idea that people have ever come up with, and I only want our physicists, chemists and biologists to teach "good science". But, that said, our children do need to learn to think critically about the uncertainties of life and the different responses to them.
Don Manley

The forced resignation of Michael Reiss as director of education for the Royal Society is very disturbing. Not for the Christian cause, but for what it says about the state of paranoia and defensiveness into which the scientific establishment has declined. What he was saying about how people learn, or don't learn, was common sense. It is unlikely that people who hold creationist views will be prepared to listen to my case for evolution if I refuse to engage with what they say and treat them respectfully. Scientists must be seriously lacking in self-confidence if they not only outlaw the very mention of alternative points of view, but also effectively ostracise one of their number who is sufficiently assured of his own position that he is prepared to give the views of others a hearing.
John Saxbee
Bishop of Lincoln

Michael Reiss appears to want to have his cake and eat it. Creationism, like astrology, is clearly bunkum. Would he countenance a softly-softly approach to a teenager who believed his or her future depended on horoscopes? Would he countenance a softly-softly approach to anyone who supported ethnic cleansing because of their religious beliefs? Why then take a softly-softly approach to creationism? Even more seriously, what attitude does he take to the teaching of science by creationists? A chemistry teacher in a grammar school interviewed by Richard Dawkins in his recent Channel 4 series on Darwin was adamant that the earth was less than 10,000 years old.
Bryan Chapman
Ilkley, West Yorkshire

There seems to be a confusion of issues here. Scientists openly admit that their methods do not, or do not as yet, enable them to get anywhere close to an answer to the primary question: "How come there is something rather than nothing?" Nor to the secondary question: "Given that there is something, how come it is, against all odds, so incredibly fine-tuned as to produce intelligent life?" They restrict themselves to the third-level question: "By what stages did intelligent life emerge?"
Dr Christopher Shell
Hounslow, Middlesex

As a teacher of A-level biology for over 30 years, I have to express my disappointment at the Royal Society. It appears to me that the society has made a kneejerk response rather than a considered and reasoned judgment. In teaching biology I have always tried to adopt the approach advocated by Michael Reiss, and this, I believe, is a common approach in schools. One cannot ignore creationism, because many students believe in it and it would be both disrespectful as well as unscientific to condemn it with no discussion of the evidence.
Dennis Taylor
Bookham, Surrey