Creationism                       article published in Direction Magazine, Jun 2002


Much discussion is under way in both the UK and America about whether schools should teach 'Creationism'. There is a feeling of indignation that this subject should be offered as an alternative hypothesis to Evolution, and furthermore that it should be discussed as a science, and not a religious subject. The argument is complicated by the fact that schools which include teaching on Creationism, namely the 'faith' schools, rate conspicuously higher in academic excellence, as measured by examination results.

We have to ask ourselves the question: what is education for? Is it for indoctrination?
I would say that the primary object of schooling should be to supply the raw materials with which students can shape their own understanding, their own beliefs.

To exclude a subject like Creationism is patently wrong. To include it only in a theological context, not as a science subject, is absurd - It is as specious as saying Darwinism is not a theology. The one gives rise to the other as night follows day. Creationism can be discussed as a science because it has facts which can be presented to support it:

There is vast evidence for Intelligent Design - or Creationism - in the universe. It is all around us, right under our noses: If you are reading this, you just know that Windows 95 did not evolve into Windows XP without a process of purposeful, intelligent intervention. It is patently unable to do it all by itself, no matter how many millions of years are set aside for development, without a creative input, supplied in this case by the Microsoft Corporation.

We accept that an inanimate structure like a computer program cannot become more complex, more purposeful, by itself, by chance. Equally we are certain that on the other hand, it can easily lose information - become degraded or mutated - because we know that the universe is predisposed towards things becoming less organised, less structured, less complex. Of course a living being created the computer program, but how did the living being come about? Where did the life force come from, the spark that separates the dead from the living? 
The fact that Life - immensely complex, purposeful, structured, self-replicating machines - has arisen in a universe predisposed to chaos, disorder and abstract decay, is one of the most compelling arguments for including the Creationist model alongside evolution.

Our children need to be given the raw materials - They need to be able to weigh the facts for Intelligent purposeful design against the all-pervading indoctrination of our culture - the ruling paradigm which overwhelms us with the notion that everything is the product of purposeless, chaotic, random forces. A mindset so powerful that it now suggests no competing theory should even be on the table. 
Why? If the evidence for Intelligent Design is really so slim then the Creationist model will be discarded. 
What does evolution have to fear?


David Scott-Morgan 20 March 2002