Hmmm. Maybe I read a different article?
But tbh, I read this as "in science classes, we need to be able to show how Creationism is not a valid scientific theory if asked."
How is that a bad thing? If, in Science, a kid says "but teacher, my mommy and daddy and Pastor say that the earth was created in 6 days by a great big beard in the sky who then nipped off to the pub with a stern warning about leaving the apples alone!!" - should the teacher not be able to demonstrate why such is not the case in scientific terms?
I don't see anywhere that the Royal Society is saying "let's abandon Dawrinian evolution in class, and let the kids decide which they like best between Abrahamic Creation, Norse or Egyptian mythology (as Paul Buxton pointed out, the Egyptian one would be particularly entertaining!) and 'we just kinda turned up. who cares how?'."
Accepting something as a worldview just means that they have to say "some people believe that...." rather than saying it is true in any way.
For example, I can state that nazism and communism are both world views. Doesn't mean that I'm supporting either of these, nor does it mean that I am saying either is valid - I'm just accepting that there are people out there who believe these viewpoints. I *HAVE* to accept this position (that they are worldviews) in order to destroy the philosophical standpoint on which they rest through reasoned (and supported) argument.
All from the article:
“teachers need to be in a position to be able to discuss science theories and explain why evolution is a sound scientific theory and why creationism isn’t”.
"The Royal Society is opposed to creationism being taught as science."
"The statement quotes Reiss saying, "Creationism has no scientific basis."
"I have referred to science teachers discussing creationism as a worldview'," he goes on to say, "this is not the same as lending it any scientific credibility."
Or maybe this is actually an article about Paris. In which case, my sincere apologies.