Alan Smithers: Respect faith, beware the fundamentalists

'The reason for the renewed interest in creationism is the bleak picture of human existence provided by science'

Remarkably, creationism seems to be enjoying a resurgence. The head of science at Emmanuel College, Gateshead, has urged science teachers to point out the fallibility of evolutionary theory and give "the (always better) biblical explanation". In the universities, there is a bid to win acceptance by inviting institutions to host debates on alternatives to "dogmatic Darwinism".

Ironically, Darwin himself was a creationist. Recalling his years as a theology student at Cambridge he wrote, "I did not then in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible." But that was before his epic voyage on the Beagle and the painstaking accumulation of evidence that led him to propose his theory of how life on Earth developed.

In the face of the massive evidence collected by Darwin, Wallace and their successors, it is puzzling that there should still be a wish to argue for the literal truth of the Book of Genesis. Why claim that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago when there is ample evidence that it is about four billion years old? In part, this absolutism must stem from a perceived threat to Christianity. But Genesis can be understood as an elegant metaphor enabling there to be some grasp of what could not otherwise have been expressed.

There is also scepticism that the environmental selection of small differences thrown up by chance does not, of itself, seem sufficient to account for the intricate design of living things. OK, we can see how divergence may have occurred among the finches of the Galapagos, but how did the information get into the DNA in the first place? What about the big leaps between genera, and how did the elaborate interdependence of many plants and animals come about? There could be more to it than we presently think.

But the main reason for the renewed interest in creationism is likely to be the bleak picture of human existence that science provides. What it amounts to is threescore and 10 on an insignificant planet, from nowhere to nowhere. It is a truth that is very hard to bear, and it leaves every one of us searching for meaning and purpose.

Anything that humanises the world tends to be seized on. The major religions offer answers, but their conflicting claims in a multi-faith society can lead to doubts. Fundamentalism promises certainty. Beyond religion, astrology appeals, because it appears to link us to the heavens, and the paranormal seems to show we can transcend the body. Many of us contrive to avoid existential issues by throwing ourselves into the immediate preoccupations of work, family or sport.

Providing a sound basis for achieving meaning and purpose is one of the main justifications for compulsory schooling. Society owes it to young people to give them the opportunity to engage with the main ways of making sense of the world. But the subjects, including the checkable truth of science and the main narratives like Christianity, must be experienced as they are, not as propaganda.

There is concern that the Government's policy of encouraging more private sponsors and faith schools will open the door to fundamentalism. There is no doubt that "anything goes" is an absurd basis on which to attempt to organise secondary education. But Emmanuel College is not a faith school, rather a technology college established under Mrs Thatcher. Local circumstances seem to have taken it down the creationist route.

Something similar has been happening in the United States, where taxpayer-funded education is supposed to be religion-free, with no denominational schools or collective worship. As recently as 1999, the board of education in Kansas voted Darwin off the curriculum, and it was only several seats changing hands in a subsequent election that stopped it happening. In Alabama, biology textbooks carry the warning sticker, "This book may discuss evolution, a controversial theory some scientists give as an explanation of the origin of living things."

What goes on in a school will be influenced by its designation and the personal beliefs of the funders, governors and teachers. There is, however, the prospect of control through the curriculum, exam syllabuses and inspections. It is unlikely, for example, that many schools will devote much time to creationism if there are no exam marks in it. But we must not be complacent. Fashionable relativism has led us to be too accepting of false beliefs. Creationism must be resisted, because it is a distortion of both scientific truth and Christian truth.

The writer is the Sydney Jones professor of education and director of the Centre for Education and Employment Research at the University of Liverpool

education@independent.co.uk