A professor at London's Institute of Education, Michael Reiss, wants science teachers to handle questions about Creationism sensitively. This seems harmless. But may not be. It depends how this is interpreted. If a pupil from a religious background who believes in Creationism questions Darwinism when it is taught, then of course that pupil needs answers. Science teachers need to answer the student's questions - and no doubt would answer without having read Reiss's book. But there is surely not an obligation to give much time to discussing the ideas or treat them as scientifically respectable in any way. These are science lessons. If we go down this route, then we may end up needing to include some alchemy in Chemistry lessons as a serious alternative to empirical science. The real danger here is that this will be seen as an admission that Creationism (or alchemy) is a theory that merits discussion in a scientific context...something that has proved disastrous in the US educational context.
This is a bit like the issue of including papers by Holocaust deniers in an academic History conference. Only some false ideas are sufficiently coherent and evidence-based to justify their entry into the debate. Just by discussing some of the wilder ideas alongside evidence-based ones they are inadvertently given far greater respectability than they deserve. Creationism as an idea-virus is a good subject for sociological study; but given the US experience, educationalists should be wary about lending it as a 'theory' a seriousness that it does not in the least deserve...we might end up taking seriously the idea that thunder is caused by Zeus's anger too. Something like ten percent of students in the UK seem to believe in Creationism in some form according to Professor Reiss; but probably more than that believe in astrological predictions too...but that doesn't mean science lessons should get sidetracked into discussions of the evidence base for astrology (I'm an Airies by the way so of course I would be aggressive about this).
I like Dr Hilary Leevers's response that science teachers would be teaching evolution not creationism and so should not need a book to tell them how to "delicately handle controversy between a scientific theory and a belief". This raises interesting questions about what the role of a science teacher is. Surely it is at the most basic level to teach students about science, its methods and value. It is also to model good scientific practice which is certainly not to take all beliefs equally seriously.
If a Holocaust denier asks a question in a History lesson we wouldn't expect a History teacher to treat the student's position as just another belief: the point would be to show why this is not a position that a historian could hold without denying overwhelming evidence, and then move on swiftly. Presumably we wouldn't want a History teacher to engage in an extended debate about the actual evidence at this point as that would give deniers a credibility as part of the evidence-based debate that they don't merit (I support Deborah Lipstadt's action here - she declines to appear on the same platform as deniers such as David Irving, despite having refuted Holocaust denial in great detail in an English court following a libel action from Irving. For more on that, see her excellent book History on Trial).