UPDATE 2: Nobel winners call for sacking of creationist education supporter from Royal Society

I don't understand how teaching religion as science would "reduce confusion".  If schools want to teach creationism, there are better curricula in which to fit that topic than science.

“Just because something lacks scientific support doesn't seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson.”

This from the land of Newton . . . sigh.

Let me clarify that I don't believe in creationism at all, or that it should be "taught" per se - what I do believe in is being open and honest about the political and cultural landscape and teaching children at an early age how to process this information. 

Creationism is a hot topic right now, so to exclude it from the classroom entirely does a disservice to the kids.  They should be able to make sense of these conflicting points of view with the help of an educator through an open dialogue.  Otherwise, you're leaving it up to the parents/whoever to influence the opinion and beliefs of that child without question, and that's extremely problematic.

Royal Society Press Release:

The Royal Society is opposed to creationism being taught as science.  Some media reports have misrepresented the views of Professor Michael Reiss, Director of Education at the Society expressed in a speech yesterday.

Professor Reiss has issued the following clarification. "Some of my comments about the teaching of creationism have been misinterpreted as suggesting that creationism should be taught in science classes. Creationism has no scientific basis. However, when young people ask questions about creationism in science classes, teachers need to be able to explain to them why evolution and the Big Bang are scientific theories but they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis.  I have referred to science teachers discussing creationism as a worldview'; this is not the same as lending it any scientific credibility."

The society remains committed to the teaching of evolution as the best explanation for the history of life on earth.  This position was highlighted in the Interacademy Panel statement on the teaching of evolution issued in June 2006.

Thanks Science Dave!  I'm glad this has been somewhat clarified by the Royal Society.

I believe that it would help many children more if the schools would be a little more even-handed in the issue. instead of creationism it could be also refered to as "intelligent design" for which there is extensive evidence in the living world. even scientists admit it is highly improbable for the complexity that exists in the universe, better yet the planet earth to have come from obscure random forces. we could all learn from the writting of the father of evolution(Charles Darwin), whose work was quite even-handed.

LotusFlower, a very good and hotly debated subject. And that is the point as dunkelberg so brought up, is that there are thousands if not millions of creation beliefs. Which one is correct, your guess is as good as anyone's. Myself I'll stick with Darwin and his thoughts on the subject. But it is a viable working theory, creationism, intelligent design or what ever that vein of thought is not a viable let alone working theory. If want it taught in schools then do so as philosophy, but be prepared to teach them all even if you don't agree with them. Teaching creationism as any thing more than that, IMO, seriously handicaps those children when they start going out into the real world to start their lives. As for my thoughts on religion, any time you pull religion into anything you just make that situation exponentially more difficult. Look at the world today, need I say more.
This is a subject that one can write reams of pages about, but in the end it does not matter what people say as it is up to the individual and what they choose to believe that matters.

The only reason the C of E wants to promote evolution is not to determin its past but its proposed future. The gay vicars hope to evolve the art of making bottom babies and clinch huge Labour funding, however, after much deliberation they seem stuck between a big bang and yet more monkey business.