Many more teachers he met at scientific meetings were telling him they encountered more pupils with creationist views, he said.

"The days have long gone when science teachers could ignore creationism when teaching about origins."

Instead, teachers should tackle the issue head-on, whilst trying not to alienate students, he argues in a new book.

His book; Teaching about Scientific Origins: Taking Account of Creationism, gives science teachers advice on how to deal with the "dilemma".

The scientist, who is also a Church of England priest, adds that any teaching should not give the impression that creationism and the theory of evolution are equally valid scientifically.

I agree with the Professor views in that Creationism must be faced head on.
His views on Christian students however are only relevant to the UK, the U.S. is faced with a monumental battle on this issue.

I really dislike this new wave of religious fervour sweeping the planet in many bastard forms. It must

Schools can lay out the curriculum they follow and the parents decide whether or not to accept it. (I know from experience that it is not that easy without government approval.)

Alarming!

School is not "a la carte", either you take the whole thing or you leave it. Who are those kids gonna blame in 10 or 20 years when they realize they are completely ignorant of the scientific theories that led us and keep leading us to a better understanding of the universe and ourselves (at least biology-wise)?

Ok...somebody should retake those science classes. Plate tectonic, simple, when continents collide they change shape, mountain ridges are formed, when they separate (as they are no doing in Africa, look up the Great African Rift) they form rifts, valleys, inland seas and finally oceans. What is so hard to understand about that?

Also check the Himalayas....

Thanks for laugh jstates1. That was the funniest thing I've read all day.

Sigh. I'm glad one of us is laughing.

Back on the subject at hand, school teachers should not be afraid to teach their subjects properly. If its science class, then teach science. 'Nuff said.

If, by "head on" he recommends confronting prior taught religious or spiritual beliefs, I hope they are mightily sued.
Teach the science and refer them back to their parents.

plate tectonic theory alternative = BTW not creationist.

The best science comes from the competition of ideas. That happened in
the middle of the last century when geologists were won over to plate
tectonics, and it's happening today as competition is heating up
between two theories about hotspots.

http://geology.about.com/library/weekly/aa011401a.htm

That is not an alternative to plate tectonics, it in facts fills the niche about a subject that plate tectonics does not cover well. Not the same thing.

I was neither saying that plate tectonics was a Creationist theory or that is was not. I was simply saying that it doesn't make sense, and that perhaps the thinking human being ought to direct as much healthy skepticism at science as he does at religion.

Well it seems that your understanding f plate tectonics is flawed. And science and religion do not live in the same place. One is about faith, the other about theories and facts. Apples and oranges.

Religion is primarily about faith, yes. But science is about theories which try to explain facts. Science tries to explain facts, and fails, more often than not. After all, what is science about besides overturning outdated theories when we find that outdated theories don't fit reality as well as we thought they did?

You see failure where I see growth. Science incorporates the questions. Two different realms.