IN 1922, US President Woodrow Wilson responded to a query: "Dear Professor Curtiss: May it suffice for me to say in reply to your letter of August 25th, that, of course, like every other man of intelligence and education, I do believe in organic evolution. It surprises me that at this late date such questions should still be raised. Sincerely yours,

Woodrow Wilson."

But it seems President Wilson spoke too soon. Eighty-odd years later, and the President of the United States is not so sure that God didn't actually create the world in six days just over 7,000 years ago -- fossils and all.

"I'd make it a goal to make sure that local folks got to make the decision as to whether or not they said creationism has been a part of our history," says George W Bush.

Which just goes to show how wonderfully democratic the US really is: you even get to choose the history you prefer, regardless of whether it actually happened or not.

Consequently, a whopping 47 per cent of Americans have plumped for the six-day story in Genesis.

And the lovely Sarah Palin, US Vice-Presidential candidate, also says enthusiastically of the creationism/evolution debate: "Teach both." Because, where religion and science are concerned, Palin is a bit of a relativist.

"Not in our back yard," say the Brits.

Earlier last week, the UK media pounced on comments made by Professor Michael Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society -- one of the world's oldest existing scientific organisations -- and forced his resignation.

Seemingly, the poor misguided man -- a biologist and a Church of England minister -- said that teachers should take the time in science class to explain why creationism had no scientific basis.

So what's wrong with that?

Plenty, screamed his colleagues. Why not spend time explaining why Bertrand Russell's teacup isn't actually orbiting Venus? Or why the flying spaghetti monster isn't living on Mars?

A journalist from the Observer pointed out: "The prospect of such ignorance spreading to Britain quite rightly appalls scientists."

Poor Professor Reiss, his timing wasn't great: it occurred in a week in which his church decided to issue an apology for having the temerity to diss Charles Darwin's theories back in the day when Englishmen most certainly were not descended from apes!

The statement (to be released tomorrow), written by Reverend Malcolm Brown, says that Christians, in their response to Darwin's theory of natural selection, repeated the mistakes they made in doubting Galileo's astronomy in the 17th Century.

"Charles Darwin -- 200 years from your birth (1809) the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you."

Bless them. Better late than never, I suppose.

And last July, Pope Benedict XVI called the debate between creationism and evolution an "absurdity", saying that there was much scientific proof to support evolution.

(He did go on to say that the theory cannot exclude a role by God -- but then it would be odd if he hadn't, seeing as he's the Pope).

So if both the Roman and Anglican Christian churches support evolution, why the knee-jerk reaction to Reiss's comments about creationism?

The sheer terror resulting from the fact that a scientist uttered the "C" word in a sentence with "science class" seems a tad incomprehensible. But British scientists have their eyes set firmly on the US where, in many schools, creationism is now being taught as an acceptable alternative to evolution. Open the door just a chink to this heresy and who knows how quickly the rot will spread.

A 2006 survey for the BBC found that more than a fifth of those polled were convinced by the creationist argument. Less than half -- 48 per cent -- chose evolution.

Both believers and critics of creationism say that it is enjoying a resurgence of support in the UK. In Portsmouth, the Genesis Expo museum challenges Darwin by claiming that ancient animals, including man, did not evolve from lower creatures but instead were divinely created "after their kind" (Genesis 1.21).

What's going on? Why do so many people prefer to believe unsubstantiated myth rather than scientific theories that have been recognised by the major churches?

Because it's not just creationism versus evolution. If creationism is correct, then it follows that everything we know about science and biology is wrong. And nobody can seriously believe that, can they?

Well, yes.

There has never been a better time to promote nonsensical and dangerous claptrap and get away with it, because we are all so afraid of "offending" other people's religious and cultural sensibilities. Moral, cultural and scientific relativism is in, and validated; empirical "truth" is out.

Today everyone is allowed to be an expert, as long as they "believe" in what they are saying. Gut feeling is everything, and to hell with the experts. So what if the scientists tell us that creationism -- or its well-dressed first cousin, Intelligent Design -- is not supported by any evidence whatsoever and therefore as likely to be as real as the Tooth Fairy?

And, with today's instant communication, it takes minutes to find other like-minded souls who also believe incredible things before breakfast.

Get enough people believing in Thetans or aliens or spaghetti monsters or whatever, and soon you can tout for cash -- or votes.

And if anyone asks for evidence, you can just dismiss them with the words that your belief is "faith-based". You have a democratic right to believe whatever you damn well like. Who cares what the experts say? Your own opinion is just as valid. End of argument.

Academic rigour in any subject is seem as elitism and therefore undemocratic. Or, as Richard Hofstadter (author of Anti-Intellectualism in American Life) said: "Intellect is pitted against feeling on the ground that it is somehow inconsistent with warm emotion. It is pitted against character, because it is widely believed that intellect stands for mere cleverness, which transmutes into the sly or the diabolical."

In the consumer-driven 21st Century, anything that sells can be believed. And if it's said on TV then it's doubly believable.

As another American author, Charles P Pierce, puts it: "Any theory is true if it sells books, soaks up ratings or otherwise moves units. Fact is that which enough people believe. Truth is determined by how fervently they believe it."

On one level, it shouldn't matter a damn whether a person believes that God made the world in six days, whether he wound it up like a watch and let it go, or had nothing to do with it at all since he doesn't exist.

What I believe privately in my own home is my own business. Equally, it shouldn't matter if I think that the Pope is the anti-Christ (as Ian Paisley did), or if there are fairies at the bottom of the garden -- as long as I don't shoot, or otherwise inconvenience, people who decline to agree with me.

But it does matter if I "believe" that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and go to war without producing any concrete evidence to support that belief.

The American administration which has a "gut feeling" that creationism is true is the one which also had a "gut feeling" about those mythical weapons of mass destruction, later described by Colin Powell as "a farrago of stovepiped intelligence, wishful thinking and utter bullsh*t".

The great issues facing mankind today -- global warming, stem cell research, Aids prevention, and suchlike -- are no longer decided by erudite debate or academic investigation. They are decided by phone-ins to TV shows, or internet bloggers -- with Joe Bloggs' opinion that stem cell research is just "not what Jesus would have wanted" treated with the same respect as that of a medical professor who has spent years saving lives.

And in many cases, Joe's opinion is treated with greater respect as he is "one of the people", not a lofty academic making pronouncements from on high.

This is insane.

All beliefs are not equal. Creationism and Intelligent Design are not "science" on a par with evolution. They are beliefs based on faith, not evidence. This is not just my opinion, this is fact. Believe them if you will, but teach them in religion rather than science class.

Science deserves a privileged place as a way to determine "truths", as it is proven to be a very effective method of enquiry. It may not be perfect but, like democracy, it's the best we've come up with so far.

And, like President Wilson, I am surprised that at this late date such questions should be raised.