Caught a bit of the Nicky Campbell phone-in today on the report by Linda Woodhead and Charles Clarke on religion and schools. In case you don't know, Linda Woodhead is a very intelligent person who knows lots about religion and sociology. And Charles Clark is a politician.
As ever there were questions about why humanists' taxes should pay for faith schools. To which the answer is (and I apologise for being a pragmatist here): "because, on the whole, they're better. And when you are in your childless, friendless old age and depending on the State pension to know where your next anorak is coming from, you'll be glad some people are educated well enough to pay taxes, you smug, secularist prig."
And then there was the tweet to Radio 5 that said school was for teaching "facts". So there go drama, music and English Lit.
But it was the equating of creationism with Christianity by some that got me down. How many times do we have to explain? Christians can be scientists. We accept different insights into truth. We actually have more tools for understanding this world than atheists do, because we use all the ones available to atheists, and then faith and theology as well. We are able, or most of us are, to distinguish genre in writing, to tell philosophical and theological approaches from scientific ones, and use them all.
So, in short:
Creationism ≢ Christianity.
And, though it may be a subset of Christianity, it's also a subset of Science. And it's bad at both.