Saturday, September 13, 2008 | Science : Teaching Science | print version

Print | Comments |

Creationism call divides Royal Society

by Robin McKie, The Observer

9-16-08: UPDATES from Richard here and here

Reposted from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/sep/14/religion

Two Nobel prize winners - Sir Harry Kroto and Sir Richard Roberts - have demanded that the Royal Society sack its education director, Professor Michael Reiss. The call, backed by other senior Royal Society fellows, follows Reiss's controversial claim last week that creationism be taught in schools' science classes.

Reiss, an ordained Church of England minister, has since alleged he was misquoted. Nevertheless, several Royal Society fellows say his religious views make him an inappropriate choice for the post.

'I warned the president of the Royal Society that his [Reiss] was a dangerous appointment a year ago. I did not realise just how dangerous it would turn out to be,' said Kroto, a Royal Society fellow, and winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize for Chemistry.

Roberts, winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize for Medicine for his work on gene-splicing, was equally angry. 'I think it is outrageous that this man is suggesting that creationism should be discussed in a science classroom. It is an incredible idea and I am drafting a letter to other Nobel laureates - which would be sent to the Royal Society - to ask that Reiss be made to stand down.'

Zoologist Richard Dawkins, a Royal Society fellow, said: 'A clergyman in charge of education for the country's leading scientific organisation - it's a Monty Python sketch.'

A spokesman for the Royal Society rejected the principle that it was inappropriate for a clergyman to hold a senior post at the organisation. 'Michael Reiss's views are completely in keeping with those of the Royal Society,' he said.

The row over Reiss's remarks is the second recent controversy over the society's stance on religion. Fellows, including cancer expert and Nobel Prize winner Sir Paul Nurse, complained about the financial links that had been established between the society and the Templeton Foundation, a conservative US organisation that seeks to establish links between science and religion. The latter funded a lecture course at the society.

Many fellows fear the society, the world's oldest scientific organisation, is failing to take a sufficiently robust stance against the spread of fundamental religions which oppose scientific teachings about the origins of the Earth and humanity. 'The thing the Royal Society does not appreciate is the true nature of the forces arrayed against it and the Enlightenment for which the Royal Society should be the last champion,' Kroto said.

Posted: Saturday, September 13, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 73 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #247043 by Wosret on September 13, 2008 at 9:31 pm

I agree, that guy should be replaced.

Other Comments by Wosret

2. Comment #247044 by equivocal20 on September 13, 2008 at 9:34 pm

It's good to see the Nobel laureates are taking a stand against this. I just wish they would have listened to Sir Harry Kroto a year ago. Good quote by Dawkins.

Other Comments by equivocal20

3. Comment #247049 by The Truth, the light on September 13, 2008 at 9:55 pm

The only way you can make religion and science mix is to park your religion at the door and don't let it enter.

It is pure fantasy that you can apply religion and science equally to scientific endeavour.

Other Comments by The Truth, the light

4. Comment #247050 by SnowyDoc on September 13, 2008 at 9:59 pm

Perhaps we can make a case for some reciprocity and have some freethinking scientific atheists appointed as directors of church "Sunday schools"?

Other Comments by SnowyDoc

5. Comment #247053 by Layla Nasreddin on September 13, 2008 at 10:09 pm

Fellows, including cancer expert and Nobel Prize winner Sir Paul Nurse, complained about the financial links that had been established between the society and the Templeton Foundation, a conservative US organisation that seeks to establish links between science and religion. The latter funded a lecture course at the society.

Wait...what?!? How low the mighty have fallen!

http://www.templeton.org/funding_areas/show_profiles.asp?p=11239&b=6|5

Templeton Royal Society Lectures on the Nature of Human Knowledge and Understanding

Suite of 2 separate grants, totaling $281,885
Start date: June 2004
End date: June 2007
Grant ID# 11239 #11822
These grants support a lecture series curated and organized by the Royal Society on the nature of human knowledge and understanding.

People Affiliated with this Grant (i.e., the guilty)
George F. R. Ellis, Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Department of Mathematics, University of Cape Town (Cape Town South Africa)

Professor Martin Nowak, Director, Program for Evolutionary Dynamics, Harvard University (Cambridge MA)

Rev Dr. John Polkinghorne KBE FRS, Fellow and Former President, Queen's College (Cambridge UK), Canon Theologian of Liverpool Cathedral (Liverpool UK)

Ziauddin Sardar, columnist (London UK)

Were the people at the Royal Society asleep at the switch, or was this done without their knowledge, or what? I mean, the Royal Society can't be that hard up for money, can they?

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

6. Comment #247055 by beanson on September 13, 2008 at 10:18 pm

Reiss, an ordained Church of England minister, has since alleged he was misquoted.

He's kacking it

Other Comments by beanson

7. Comment #247056 by EvidenceOnly on September 13, 2008 at 10:18 pm

All religions DOGMATICALLY start with a conclusion (their god exists and every other god is wrong and they know exactly what their god wants us to do) and then invent theology to spin a spiderweb of fake reasoning to glue part of the population in their net.

Science collects evidence, postulates a hypothesis, continuously verifies all evidence against the theory and rejoices when new evidence comes in that requires refinement of the existing theory or replacement with a new one. Study of especially the reality of biology leads to the logical conclusion that the existence of any god is so improbably that we CONCLUDE that there is god. The universe would be very different from what we observe with a supernatural being that cares what we do and punishes us when we don't do what it/her/he wants.

Religions DOGMATICALLY start with the existence of a god or gods and science CONCLUDES there is no god.

This for me makes science and religion incompatible.

Other Comments by EvidenceOnly

8. Comment #247067 by aheggie on September 13, 2008 at 10:54 pm

This is a deeply worrying example of just how far the intrusion of superstition has penetrated in this day and age. To have a clergyman in such a position in this prestigious Society is a preposterous choice.

Other Comments by aheggie

9. Comment #247082 by King of NH on September 13, 2008 at 11:52 pm

A spokesman for the Royal Society rejected the principle that it was inappropriate for a clergyman to hold a senior post at the organisation. 'Michael Reiss's views are completely in keeping with those of the Royal Society,' he said.

I wonder if they would hire a zoologist to be a bishop, cardinal, rabbi, or cleric if his/her "views are completely in keeping with those of [insert religion]" even if they had no religious education. Why not hire a scientist to lead a scientific organization? Not that we in the US are any better, putting scientific theories to popular vote.

I feel bad, because it does seem as though they are trying to compromise, but it's a bad compromise. They just don't get it. If a robber shows up at my house, and I tell him to go away, it is not a fair deal when he asks, "What if I just take half the stuff I was going to? That's fair. It's a compromise."

Other Comments by King of NH

10. Comment #247090 by Rawhard Dickins on September 14, 2008 at 12:31 am

Zoologist Richard Dawkins, a Royal Society fellow, said:

'A clergyman in charge of education for the country's leading scientific organisation - it's a Monty Python sketch.'

Lets have a Spanish inquisition !!! yeaahh!

Other Comments by Rawhard Dickins

11. Comment #247092 by Rawhard Dickins on September 14, 2008 at 12:40 am

Reiss would think twice if he had to face.....

(Fanfare) Da da daaaa...

THE COMFY CHAIR !!!

Other Comments by Rawhard Dickins

12. Comment #247094 by neander on September 14, 2008 at 12:47 am

The royal society is in danger of making itself irrelevant. Its credibility has surely been damaged by this piece of stupidity. Religion and science have no common ground.

Other Comments by neander

13. Comment #247106 by jeepyjay on September 14, 2008 at 1:18 am

Concerning the Comment #247053 by Layla Nasreddin. One of the recipients of the Templeton funding, G.F.R.Ellis, is the author of a chapter "The Theology of the Anthropic Principle" in a book that I have on "Quantum Cosmology and the Laws of Nature: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action". J.C.Polkinghorne is also author and co-author of two articles in the same book.

Other Comments by jeepyjay

14. Comment #247114 by D'Arcy on September 14, 2008 at 1:43 am

Teaching kids with creationist ideas must be as difficult as climbing the north face of the Ealing Road.

Other Comments by D'Arcy

15. Comment #247118 by Homo economicus on September 14, 2008 at 1:56 am

Reiss' clarification from the Royal Society Website:

"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."

http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=8004

Other Comments by Homo economicus

16. Comment #247129 by alexmzk on September 14, 2008 at 2:34 am

it scares me to think that the Templeton Foundation might have some influence in the Royal Society.

Other Comments by alexmzk

17. Comment #247135 by nalfeshnee on September 14, 2008 at 2:46 am

Thanks for the quote, homo economicus!

And yet:

I have referred to science teachers discussing creationism as a worldview'; this is not the same as lending it any scientific credibility.

This is being disingenuous. The word "worldview" is often used to suggest that a collection of misguided and outdated beliefs about the universe and mankind somehow constitute a rational and viable alternative understanding of reality. It is very frequently used in a religious context to shore up such claims. And, concomitantly, it is usually suggested that science - or the application and/or reliance/"belief in" the scientific method - is somehow also a "worldview".

A good example of this is Keith Ward in "Is Religion Dangerous" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_Religion_Dangerous?).

So, in suggesting creationism is itself a worldview, Reiss IS putting it on equal footing with science, since science is often "demoted" to being just such a worldview in the writing of apologists - and especially those who combine science and religion like Ward, Reiss, Polkinghorne (see e.g. http://www.origins.org/articles/peters_faithofaphysicist.html), etc.

Other Comments by nalfeshnee

18. Comment #247136 by notsobad on September 14, 2008 at 2:46 am

A clergyman in a top position of a scientific organization, how could that possibly backfire...

Other Comments by notsobad

19. Comment #247140 by lol mahmood on September 14, 2008 at 2:51 am

Hmmm... In light of Reiss' clarification above, i do wonder whether rd and others aren't in danger of being sucked into an unnecessary witch hunt. I thought the original statements were a bit unclear anyway. Is this just a storm in an interstellar teapot?

Other Comments by lol mahmood

20. Comment #247150 by Yorker on September 14, 2008 at 3:28 am

As Feynman did with the NAS, so too perhaps, should all statured scientsts do regarding the Royal Society; i.e. resign from it. Discredit the organisation, make them see the kind of namby-pamby outfit they seem to have become.

Whether Reiss was misquoted or not, no believer in fairy tales should hold responsible office in any scientific body.

Other Comments by Yorker

21. Comment #247154 by critica on September 14, 2008 at 3:44 am

I nearly fainted in my cereal. Now, it is useful to understand what views people hold before starting a discussion, but there remains one golden thread running through civilized discourse - while I may keep respect for a person, NOTHING obliges me to respect their opinion unless they can argue for it. Do NOT confuse respect for people with respect for their views; this is the cognitive equivalent of 'peace in our time' and leads only to muddied conflict.

Other Comments by critica

22. Comment #247157 by Vaal on September 14, 2008 at 3:54 am

Yorker

While I agree with you about believers in fairy tales should not hold "responsible" office in scientific organisations, we need to be careful that we don't alienate all people of religious belief, as many of them do believe in evolution and cosmology (for the life of me, I can't understand why). We don't want to make people jump into an anti-science camp because it is a "them or us" situation. In fact, I would argue that most people who understand science more are going to find their religious dogmas eroded away, until you end up with a "namby pamby" God like the Archbishops of Canterbury's.

Nice to see you post again by the way, say hello to Veronique.

Other Comments by Vaal

23. Comment #247159 by Apathy personified on September 14, 2008 at 3:59 am

Oh? Maybe you should ask the other members of the society what they think about this.

about the financial links that had been established between the society and the Templeton Foundation

*sigh* Me thinks there be something rotten at the ol' royal society.

Yorker,
Well Feynmann was a maverick of epic proportions, who had issues with ceremony and authority (it's why we love him :)). I think members resignation at this point may be slightly premature - but it's certainly an option for the future if the vicar doesn't get the boot.

Other Comments by Apathy personified

24. Comment #247161 by Dhamma on September 14, 2008 at 4:01 am

I wonder if the staunch resistance towards his appointment can have any effect on creationists? Nobel laureates have pretty strong voices, after all.

It's nothing more than a shame, of course, but I think it will be corrected. I just wonder how he can have been appointed in the first place?

Other Comments by Dhamma

25. Comment #247163 by Henri Bergson on September 14, 2008 at 4:17 am

He was not misquoted. Reiss has written to me personally responding to his own quotations.

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

26. Comment #247166 by my lord of misrule on September 14, 2008 at 4:23 am

'several Royal Society fellows say his religious views make him an inappropriate choice for the post.'

So the witch hunt begins, more men in long white robes, telling us how to think, bring on the thought police.

Still, at least they don't burn heretics, these days.

Other Comments by my lord of misrule

27. Comment #247169 by Jonathan Dore on September 14, 2008 at 4:35 am

Like some others here I worry that calls for a sacking are only likely to produce a martyr, especially as it's clear that some interpretations of what Michael Reiss said -- e.g. that he had advocated the teaching of creationism -- seem to suggest a case of not reading past the headline.

However, I do think Mr Reiss is an inappropriate person for the job, and he should realize that, do the decent thing, and resign. His elevation of creationism to the status of a "world view" gives it, as nalfeshnee notes, a dignity it does not deserve, as if it were a legitimate alternative to an evidence-based approach. Why Mr Reiss should resign is because he must, surely, realize that his own religion is a contributing factor in leading him to give creationism this misplaced status, and thereby calling for actions that would damage science education, the very thing he is employed to uphold.

As for the Royal Society generally, clearly the executive has been making some decisions that would not find favour if put to the vote among its members. No doubt the Templeton Foundation offered them huge amounts of money to attach the RS name to this lecture series, and were cock-a-hoop when they agreed. Assuming it's not a conspiracy by a Polkinghornian entryist group, then it's probably naivety on the RS's part -- but naivety scarcely seems a strong enough word for the criminal lack of awareness these decisions display.

Other Comments by Jonathan Dore

28. Comment #247206 by thatgingerscouser on September 14, 2008 at 5:41 am

What a bleeding FUCKNUT. And SHAME on the Royal Society for appointing a religious lunatic as director of education.

Do you think the Church of England is ever going to appoint a Nobel science laureate as Archbishop of Canterbury?

Then again, the Royal Society has a history of supporting half-crazed cult leaders (Newton) above true scientific genius (Hooke).

Nice to see nothing has changed in 300 years.

Other Comments by thatgingerscouser

29. Comment #247216 by ingodwerust on September 14, 2008 at 6:22 am

I am with [Comment #247169 by Jonathan Dore] on this one, i think the more rational argument is well expressed here. We need to avoid witch-hunts and i would agree that Mr Reiss has his intellectual integrity nailed to a cross. He expressly did not however, call for creationism to be taught as science in the classroom. His promotion of creationism to a viable worldview is naive and dangerous in today religion-soaked world, as a result i think he should resign.

Other Comments by ingodwerust

30. Comment #247224 by Opisthokont on September 14, 2008 at 6:40 am

Let us be civilised about this. To assert that a religious background renders one unfit for a prominent role in a scientific society is to start a witch-hunt. Reiss is in fact a Professor of Scientific Education at the Institute of Education, London: his scientific credentials are not lacking. He may hold some views that atheists find incredible, but so long as that does not affect his scientific views, he is not unfit for his position. If he is to be removed from his post, let it be because he seems unaware of the nature and strength of the forces that he is against: his public stance on creationism must be solid and unambiguous, and must avoid any possibility of worldview-based equivocation, if he is to do his job properly. Failing that, rather than his religious standing, is what should render him unfit to be the education director of a major scientific society.

(Of course, for his spokesman to claim that his views are representative of the Royal Society, when several prominent members speak out against them, is indication that his spokesman is not fit for *his* job.)

Other Comments by Opisthokont

31. Comment #247251 by Layla Nasreddin on September 14, 2008 at 7:36 am

Jonathan Dore wrote:

As for the Royal Society generally, clearly the executive has been making some decisions that would not find favour if put to the vote among its members. No doubt the Templeton Foundation offered them huge amounts of money to attach the RS name to this lecture series, and were cock-a-hoop when they agreed. Assuming it's not a conspiracy by a Polkinghornian entryist group, then it's probably naivety on the RS's part -- but naivety scarcely seems a strong enough word for the criminal lack of awareness these decisions display.

Well, OF COURSE the Rev. Dr. John Polkinghorne was involved (see comment #5). (By the way, is $281,885, the amount of the grant, considered a "huge amount of money" in terms of the Royal Society?)

See, if they'd pocketed the money and then had a lecture series about "Why Religion Is Incompatible With Science," or even just "Why Religion Has Nothing In Common With Science," that would be all right, and even amusing and "subversive." But nooo...

Something DOES seem to be going on at the executive level (or whoever makes these decisions) at the Royal Society; I guess the Fellows get to learn about these actions taken by the society they belong to the same way as everybody else -- in the papers.

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

32. Comment #247302 by Homo economicus on September 14, 2008 at 9:34 am

Having mentioned his initial clarification (15. Comment #247118), you may want to read his original article that caused the Nobel Laureates to react:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/sep/11/michael.reiss.creationism

@ 17. Comment #247135 by nalfeshnee

I think he uses world view not in the sense to mean that it has a validity like the scientific viewpoint. He was suggesting that in the science classroom students talking about creationism should be challenged using science.

As I mention in my blog that would have benefited me at school instead of tip toeing around religion.

http://homoeconomicusnet.wordpress.com/2008/09/14/the-royal-society-a-clergyman-and-education/

Schools should be teaching science - but when students question the validity of science with their faith, then science teachers should tackle it head on with science - which Reiss suggested, without disrespecting the person.

@ 25. Comment #247163 by Henri Bergson

Without accepting this personal revelation at face value, could you share Reiss comments with you, especially if that contradicts his public statements? As there is a public interest if what he says privately is different from public.

Bottom line is that if he advocates creationism being taught as part of the science curriculum then yes - he should go. The book he has written "Teaching about Scientific Origins: Taking Account of Creationism" would help.

We may however want someone that is not looking for reconciliation with faith and science but rather someone who will defend science tooth and claw. Yet that may require the Royal Society to change their approach, rather than just sack Reiss over something not as clear cut as it is made out.

Other Comments by Homo economicus

33. Comment #247310 by notsobad on September 14, 2008 at 9:55 am

Please post:
Revealed: UK's first official sharia courts
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

Other Comments by notsobad

34. Comment #247315 by Homo economicus on September 14, 2008 at 10:00 am

@ 33. Comment #247310 by notsobad

Not relevant to this thread is it ;)

Other Comments by Homo economicus

35. Comment #247346 by cnewell on September 14, 2008 at 10:29 am

I cannot understand why the Royal Society would appoint Michael Weiss, an ordained Anglican priest, as their Director of Education. It makes as much sense as the CoE appointing Richard Dawkins as theirs.

Other Comments by cnewell

36. Comment #247485 by SoManyStars on September 14, 2008 at 1:33 pm

Reverend scientist. Today's new oxymoron.

Other Comments by SoManyStars

37. Comment #247643 by TalkyMeat on September 14, 2008 at 5:32 pm

So, If they do ditch Reiss, can we get that robot thing from "Beware the Believers" to do the job?

Other Comments by TalkyMeat

38. Comment #247681 by Beachbum on September 14, 2008 at 7:18 pm

Oxymoron indeed - Thanx SoManyStars

I worry that we may have a sheep in wolf's garb...

From: 32. Comment #247302 by Homo economicus

Commented on Homo economicus' Blog and checked the Book and comments about it from October of 2007 and can only assert my feeling that Michael Reiss is attempting to hide in a very fine "shadow line" until his position can be of some importance to his true "Beliefs".

Honestly, I am uncomfortable with a scientist who can throw that word around as he does.

Other Comments by Beachbum

39. Comment #247718 by Homo economicus on September 15, 2008 at 12:59 am

Thanks Brian for your comment.

He could equally be a godsend like Ken Miller for science education.

The point is whether he is the best person for advocating science education, in the face of religious attempts to have intelligent design taught in the classroom. That is what the Nobel Laureates mentioned are concerned about.

As always it comes down to which approach to take - the feather or the hammer - with creationists. Means matter as much as ends, but I fear we are being spined on this story to sound like we are witch hunting religious people in science.

I especially do not like it when I think most of us agree with creationist students in the classroom being challenged with science. As Dawkins' latest programme showed teachers do not want to go there.

Other Comments by Homo economicus

40. Comment #248417 by Professor Paradox on September 16, 2008 at 7:30 am

Why on earth would, Reiss, a professor of science education and head of the school of mathematics, science and technology at the Institute of Education, claim such a "heretical" thing. It seems a little drastic eventhough he would have known the implication of his idea.
An interesing example of the relation between scientists and religion is Martin Rees.
The present Astronomer Royal and President of the Royal Society, Martin Rees goes to church as an 'unbelieving Anglican ... out of loyalty to the tribe'. He has no theistic beliefs, but shares the poetic naturalism that the cosmos provokes in the other scientists.

Other Comments by Professor Paradox

41. Comment #248447 by Richard Dawkins on September 16, 2008 at 8:55 am

I'm working on getting a version of this published somewhere in the British press.
Richard

Although I disagree with Michael Reiss, what he actually said at the British Association is not obviously silly like creationism itself, nor is it a self-evidently inappropriate stance for the Royal Society to take. Scientists divide into two camps over this issue: the accommodationists, who 'respect' creationists while disagreeing with them; and the rest of us, who see no reason to respect ignorance or stupidity. The accommodationists include such godless luminaries as Eugenie Scott, whose National Center for Science Education is doing splendid work in fighting the creationist wingnuts in America. She and her fellow accommodationists bend over backwards to woo the relatively sensible minority among Christians, who accept evolution. Get the bishops and theologians on the side of science -- so the argument runs -- and they'll be valuable allies against the naive creationists (who include a worryingly high proportion of Christians and almost all Muslims, by the way). No politician could deny at least the superficial plausibility of this expedient, although it is disappointing how ineffective as allies the 'sensible' minority of Christians turn out to be. The official line of the US National Academy, the American equivalent of the Royal Society, is shamelessly accommodationist. They repeatedly plug the mantra that there is 'no conflict' between evolution and religion. Michael Reiss could argue that he is simply following the standard accommodationist line, and therefore doesn't deserve the censure now being heaped upon him.

Unfortunately for him as a would-be spokesman for the Royal Society, Michael Reiss is also an ordained minister. To call for his resignation on those grounds, as several Nobel-prizewinning Fellows are now doing, comes a little too close to a witch-hunt for my squeamish taste. Nevertheless -- it's regrettable but true -- the fact that he is a priest undermines him as an effective spokesman for accommodationism: "Well, he would say that, wouldn't he!" If the Royal Society wanted to attack creationism with all fists flying, as I would wish, an ordained priest might make a politically effective spokesman, however much we might deplore his inconsistency. This is the role that Kenneth Miller, not a priest but a devout Christian, plays in America, where he is arguably creationism's most formidable critic. But if the Society really wants to promote the accommodationist line, a clergyman is the very last advocate they should choose. Perhaps I was a little uncharitable to liken the appointment of a vicar as the Royal Society's Education Director to a Monty Python sketch. Nevertheless, thoughts of Trojan Horses are now disturbing many Fellows, already concerned as they are by the signals the Society recently sent out through its flirtation with the infamous Templeton Foundation.

Accommodationism is playing politics, while teetering on the brink of scientific dishonesty. I'd rather not play that kind of politics at all but, if the Royal Society is going to go down that devious road, they should at least be shrewd about it. Perhaps, rather than resign his job with the Royal Society, Professor Reiss might consider resigning his Orders?

Richard Dawkins FRS
Oxford

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

42. Comment #248451 by Mark Jones on September 16, 2008 at 9:02 am

Comment #248447 by Richard Dawkins

A balanced assessment of the situation, I think. I tend to agree on the witchhunt issue, but you may be in danger of losing your 'strident' tag!

Even if your final suggestion is tongue-in-cheek (?), Professor Reiss' response would be telling; which would he choose given the option?

Other Comments by Mark Jones

43. Comment #248456 by geehigh on September 16, 2008 at 9:15 am

Thank you Professor Dawkins for your input on this.

I agree with your observations on the perception of Doctor Reiss as 'a would-be spokesman for the Royal Society'. I also think that a witch-hunt (or anything that could be interpreted as one) is distasteful, but as I posted earlier on in another thread I really can't see how his position is tenable.

The back-lash Doctor Reiss is currently experiencing is going to happen again almost every time he says anything at all because of his duel position, and the inherent incompatibility of one with the other.

Perhaps there is an elegant way out of this, but I'm damned if I can see it.

Best wishes

Graham :)

Other Comments by geehigh

44. Comment #248463 by Richard Dawkins on September 16, 2008 at 9:22 am

The Royal Society has just publicly announced that Michael Reiss has resigned from his position of Director of Education. I have refused to comment to the press, other than to refer to my comment, posted above, BEFORE the news of his resignation was announced.
Richard

Royal Society statement on Professor Michael Reiss

Some of Professor Michael Reiss's recent comments, on the issue of creationism in schools, while speaking as the Royal Society's Director of Education, were open to misinterpretation. While it was not his intention, this has led to damage to the Society's reputation. As a result, Professor Reiss and the Royal Society have agreed that, in the best interests of the Society, he will step down immediately as Director of Education �" a part time post he held on secondment. He is to return, full time, to his position as Professor of Science Education at the Institute of Education.

The Royal Society's position is that creationism has no scientific basis and should not be part of the science curriculum. However, if a young person raises creationism in a science class, teachers should be in a position to explain why evolution is a sound scientific theory and why creationism is not, in any way, scientific.

The Royal Society greatly appreciates Professor Reiss's efforts in furthering the Society's work in the important field of science education over the past two years. The Society wishes him well for the future.

Bill Hartnett
Head of Media Relations

tel 44 (0)20 7451 2516
web royalsociety.org

The Royal Society
6-9 Carlton House Terrace
London SW1Y 5AG

Registered Charity No 207043

45. Comment #248466 by Vaal on September 16, 2008 at 9:24 am

Goodness me.

The Royal Society's position is that creationism has no scientific basis and should not be part of the science curriculum.

Good, I am very happy that this policy is very clear, and there is no longer any ambiguity in the minds of our science teachers.

Other Comments by Vaal

46. Comment #248470 by DamnDirtyApe on September 16, 2008 at 9:37 am

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

47. Comment #248504 by geehigh on September 16, 2008 at 10:45 am

Credit where it is due, Professor Reiss has made a correct and honourable decision.

Other Comments by geehigh

48. Comment #248529 by SpeakerToAnimals2 on September 16, 2008 at 11:44 am

Well, glad to see that he took the honourable course.

It should have been obvious to anyone that this was a contentious topic, that he was liable to be misunderstood (or just plain mis-quoted) unless he phrased what he said very carefully. He obviously did not do this.

And because of what he said, the Royal Society got embroiled in something that looked a bit embarrassing. No surprise that he should then be asked to resign. It's not an issue of free-speech, he was speaking as director of education at the RS, not as a private individual.

One comment -- at least the furore shows that a reasonable number of people do still care about the issue!

As regards Polkinghorne and the Templeton foundation -- all I recall of him is that he spoke at a particle physics summer school when I was a post-grad, where he managed to get right up my nose by referring to particle theory as a young mans game (note, I'm female). The other women in the audience looked a tad uncomfortable at that as well.

Other Comments by SpeakerToAnimals2

49. Comment #248555 by beelzebub on September 16, 2008 at 12:49 pm

Any school science teachers here care to comment (GCSE level)?

The Royal Society says...
"...if a young person raises creationism in a science class, teachers should be in a position to explain why evolution is a sound scientific theory and why creationism is not, in any way, scientific."

Are Science teachers generally aware of the arguments involved? or is this to open teachers to orchestrated attacks from the fundie students, running rings around the teachers and wasting entire lessons? (A victory, as evolution would have been kicked into the long grass)
Any views from these particular trenches?

Other Comments by beelzebub

50. Comment #248566 by Quine on September 16, 2008 at 1:23 pm

Comment #248555 by beelzebub:

Are Science teachers generally aware of the arguments involved? or is this to open teachers to orchestrated attacks from the fundie students, running rings around the teachers and wasting entire lessons?

Yes, this also bothers me. I would have preferred that the RS had said "the statements about the world in Creationism" instead of "Creationism" because then the discussion goes to specific questions, such as is the Earth over 10,000 years old. The teachers are in a good position to discuss the specific questions based on the scientific evidence we have.

If you go away from the specific questions, into something like, "religion has no place in science," then teachers would be expected to know what is and is not religion, which can vary based on who's religion you think you know. What someone thinks is or is not religion is not what should be considered. The important point is looking to see if a given specific question is answerable by the scientific method. That frees teachers from whatever positions are taken by any number of people going on their own religious ideas.

Other Comments by Quine

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last