By Wendy Barnaby
Students who write in science exams that they do not believe in the theory of evolution by natural selection should not be penalised, the Reverend Professor Michael Reiss told the BA Festival of Science today.
Professor Reiss is the Director of Education at the Royal Society. He is an ordained minister in the Church of England, and has a PhD from Cambridge University in evolutionary biology and population genetics.
"As far as I'm aware, examinations in science don't penalise students for giving their personal opinions," he said.
Professor Reiss, who taught biology at secondary school and undergraduate level for 20 years, explained how he thought science teachers should respond to pupils who believe that creationism or intelligent design account for the history of the universe.
"If one simply gives the impression that such children are wrong, then they are not likely to learn much about the science that one really wants them to learn," he said. "A better way forward is to say to them: I simply want to present you with the scientific understanding of the history of the universe and how animals and plants evolved.
"There is no controversy from a scientific point of view here. I'm very comfortable with the idea that the theory of evolution by natural selection is as well established as any scientific theory could be, and it should be taught in science school lessons as a piece of science we are very, very confident about.
"However, an increasing percentage of children in the UK come from families that do not accept the scientific version of the history of the universe and the evolution of species. The question is therefore what are we to do with those children."
Professor Reiss said he was trying to be respectful to the children's identity by not challenging them outright about non-rational beliefs about the origin of the universe.
"The depth of sincerity with which people believe the creation narrative from the scriptures, whether from Christianity or Islam or other scriptures, tends to be much greater than the beliefs people have in horoscopes for example," he said.
"My opinions changed during the time I was a biology teacher, when I realised that simply banging on about evolution and natural selection didn't lead some pupils to change their views at all. I had been previously rather evangelical about teaching evolution, trying to change pupils' minds, whereas now I'd be more content simply for them to understand it as one way of understanding the universe.
"Science is intended to be a very close map of reality, whereas religious understanding tends to be about the way peoples have understood themselves over many hundreds and sometimes thousands of years.
"I'm trying to ensure that they better understand the theory of evolution and some bits of cosmology about the age of the universe. I'm trying to make it less likely that they will ignore science - that they will detach from it and feel they couldn't continue with science after 16 because it conflicts with their belief.
"I'm not advocating teaching creationism," he said.
Commenting on Professor Reiss's views, Dr John Fry, Reader in Physics at University of Liverpool, said: "Creationism is only a possible worldview for an atheist. Any theist must accept that science is attempting to discover the wonder of God's universe.
"It surely is blasphemy for a believer to deny God's power by denying the evidence for his creation.
"Science lessons are not the appropriate place to discuss Creationism, which is a world view in total denial of any form of scientific evidence."