Martin Westwell

The Case for Creationism...

The recent rush to denounce the Emmanuel City Technology College in Gateshead by scientists, humanists, philosophers and church liberals has been overwhelming. What is wrong with a state funded school teaching Creationism in science lessons?

As a scientist, my overriding objection is that Creationism has

no part to play in science lessons. The lack of a scientific approach

and any physical evidence for a Creator makes the teaching of Creationism

in science lessons a complete nonsense. Faced with the overwhelming

evidence for planetary formation and biological evolution, I find

it hard to understand how rational people can believe in a divine

being that created everything - but they do.

If Creationism has any place in our schools surely it must be

within the myths and allegories of Religious Education.

Having stated my discomfort with Creationism, there is some amazing

science that can more reasonably be used as evidence for a Creator.

Let us accept that biology developed according to the rules of

chemistry, and chemistry developed in the early Universe according

to the laws of physics. So where did the laws of physics come from?

In his book "Just Six Numbers", the Astronomer Royal Martin

Rees, points out that a viable Universe that can support life can

only form when six physical constants have certain values. Of course,

we are all here living in this universe so the physical constants

must be about right.

So how did the physical constants get to have the right values?

A cosmologist might argue that there are a number of universes out

there using many different values for the crucial physical constants.

Some of these universes fizzle away, some persist but are unable

to support life, and there may be some where life is teeming. The

cosmologist would not be able to show me any experimental evidence

for the existence of numerous universes but it is just as valid

an assertion as that of a divine creator who consciously set up

the "right" physical constants for a universe that would

support life.

Where science cannot provide evidence for a phenomenon, the space

left behind will always be filled with conjecture of one sort or

another, either scientific or religious. Science will probably never

definitively answer questions about Martin Rees's six numbers and

it does not need to. Religious proponents will always use similar

gaps in our knowledge to position their beliefs. That is fine, but

let's not confuse science and religion - Creationism has no place

in science lessons and the theory of evolution has no place in religious

education.

- June 2004