Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Monday, September 15, 2008 | Science : In the News | print version Print | Comments |

Document Letter from Sir Richard Roberts asking Reiss to step down

by Sir Richard Roberts

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

Lord Rees
President of the Royal Society
London

September 13th, 2008

Martin:

I am writing on behalf of myself and my colleagues Sir John Sulston and Sir Harold Kroto.

We are greatly concerned by the remarks recently made by Professor Michael Reiss, who is currently Director of Education at the RS. We appreciate that there will be a clarification, but the fact that the comments were made in the first place by an official representative of the premier scientific society in the UK, if not the world, is most disturbing.

We gather Professor Reiss is a clergyman, which in itself is very worrisome. Who on earth thought that he would be an appropriate Director of Education, who could be expected to answer questions about the differences between science and religion in a scientific, reasoned way? Creationism, Intelligent Design etc. have no place in a science classroom discussion and should not be legitimized as acceptable alternative theories to evolution by anyone who claims to be a scientist. Ill-conceived opinions by a representative of the RS will only encourage those teachers, both scientists and otherwise, with a creationist agenda to speak about it to their students in the classroom.

We would urge that Professor Reiss step down, or be asked to step down, as soon as possible.

Rich

Sir Richard Roberts Ph.D. F.R.S.
1993 Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine
Chief Scientific Officer
New England Biolabs



Covered in The Observer:

Creationism call divides Royal Society
by Robin McKie, Science Editor

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.





Thanks to Catalin for the link.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14748-letter-richard-dawkins-on-the-royal-society-row.html

Letter: Richard Dawkins on the Royal Society row

Before Michael Reiss stepped down as director of education for the Royal Society, Dawkins sent New Scientist his thoughts on the creationism row that blew up last week

The Reverend Michael Reiss, the Royal Society's Director of Education, is in trouble because of his views on the teaching of creationism.

Although I disagree with him, 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 probably include the majority of Christians and certainly 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-prize-winning 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 hope, 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, Fellow of the Royal Society

Comments 1 - 50 of 250 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #247973 by lozzer on September 15, 2008 at 11:46 am

 avatarHe publicly expressed his ignorance of his lack of understanding of what is science and what is not.And now he's paying heavily for It.Good.Send out a clear message that creationism and It's proponents will not be tolerated especially when the countries population have a lack of understanding of evolution already.

Other Comments by lozzer

2. Comment #247974 by neale on September 15, 2008 at 11:46 am

This is extremely worrying, just when you think we're making progress someone pops up with a mouthfull of nonsense. It's depressing enough to hear science students from religious backgrounds profess a greater knowledge when it comes to explainations of how life came to be, entirely another thing when the call for ignorance comes from the top.

My ghast has never been so flabbered.

Does anyone know what he actually said?

I suggest the good professor stays out of it if possible, I can imagine the steam shooting from his ears, but a reaction from him will be seen by religious types as an attack by atheism. This is a debate about honesty and reason. It has nothing to do with atheism. I'm confident we can rely on the society (crosses fingers).

Other Comments by neale

3. Comment #247975 by jaytee_555 on September 15, 2008 at 11:47 am

He's got to go.

And moreover, so have any RS links with the Templeton Foundation. Would the BMA give a lecture platform to anyone in the pay of the tobacco industry?

Other Comments by jaytee_555

4. Comment #247977 by Raiko on September 15, 2008 at 11:48 am

 avatarAsides from "what on EARTH?!" this is probably the only proper response to Reiss' performance within the Royal Society.

Reiss makes you want to invent conspiracy theories about doing this on purpose to be asked to leave and then perform and whine in "Expelled 2 - Return of the Steininator".

Other Comments by Raiko

5. Comment #247981 by notsobad on September 15, 2008 at 11:52 am

 avatarThey must be ready for the brigades of religious people whose main occupation is to get professionally offended.
This sentence, "We gather Professor Reiss is a clergyman, which in itself is very worrisome." will make them busy.
And as it usually is, some deists/agnostics/atheists will get worried and offended on their behalf too.

Other Comments by notsobad

6. Comment #247982 by geehigh on September 15, 2008 at 11:55 am

 avatarYep. Professor Reiss of course can cherish his own personal ideas, but when he goes public with the added cache of his Royal Society job, it looks like his words carry the full approval of the RS.

The prof has made a big boo-boo here and I can't see how his position is tenable.

Other Comments by geehigh

7. Comment #247984 by larhule on September 15, 2008 at 11:57 am

 avatarsomeone call Ben Stein!

...then when he walks in the room, drop the 16 ton weight on his head!!!

Other Comments by larhule

8. Comment #247985 by geehigh on September 15, 2008 at 11:58 am

 avatarYeah, be a nice change for him to report on something that actually happened ;)

Other Comments by geehigh

9. Comment #247986 by flying goose on September 15, 2008 at 11:59 am

 avatarYURY:
'One of my sins is a belief in intuition. And see how ridiculous - they all shout that I'm a marvellous diagnostician - and as a matter of fact it's true that I don't often make mistakes in diagnosing a disease - well, what is this immediate grasp of a situation as a whole supposed to be if not the intuition they find so detestable?'
'Another thing is that I am obsessed by the problem of mimicry, of mimesis-the outward adaptation of an organism to the colour of its environment. I think it throws an astonishing light on the relationship between the inward and the outward world.
"Well, I dared to mention this in my lectures. Immediately there was a chorus: 'Idealism, mysticism, Goethe's nature philosophy, neo-Schellingism.'
"It's time I got out. I'll stay on at the hospital until they throw me out, but I'll resign from the Institute and the Health Department. I don't want to worry you, but from time to time I have the feeling that they might come and arrest me any day."

LARA
"God forbid. It hasn't come to that yet, fortunately. But you are right. It would do no harm to be more careful. As I've noticed it, whenever this regime comes to power it goes through certain regular stages. In the first stage it's the triumph of reason, of the spirit of criticism, the fight against prejudice and so on.
"Then comes the second stage. The accent is all on the dark forces, the false sympathisers, the hangers-on. There is more and more suspicion-informers, intrigues, hatreds. You are perfectly right that we are entering on the second stage."

Perhaps the above passage from Dr Zhivago is a darker analogy for that letter.

Other Comments by flying goose

10. Comment #247989 by thewhitepearl on September 15, 2008 at 12:06 pm

 avatarPBUM,

Wrong thread! :)

On to the article:

Perfect. They are sending out the exact message they need to. Hopefull this will be the last thing that is spoken about this wanker in regards to science.

Other then an article about his removal of course.

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

11. Comment #247990 by Verylee on September 15, 2008 at 12:06 pm

 avatarI wonder how much he was paid to sully both his integrity and reputation and that of the Royal Society's as well.
The Creationists are not short of bucks so I believe.

Other Comments by Verylee

12. Comment #247991 by flying goose on September 15, 2008 at 12:07 pm

 avatar"We gather Professor Reiss is a clergyman, which in itself is very worrisome." will make them busy.

Rising to the bait.

How very Stalinist

Other Comments by flying goose

13. Comment #247992 by beanson on September 15, 2008 at 12:10 pm

 avatarWith the world currently seeing a huge resurgence of irrationality and anti-science superstition in the form of fuckwitted religious zealots the Royal Society really needs to appear whiter than white in it's Rational credentials.

Why on earth they suffered a religious fuckwit to hold such an exalted position within their ranks in the first place is baffling enough but really it's beyond the pale that they should stand by while he pontificates on the 'respect' that fuckwitted religious views 'should' command in the scientific arena.

He (and every other cheering superstitious fuckwit) needs to be shown that the 21st century will not tolerate childish innanities. He must be sacked- or the RS will have a major stain against it's reputation and we inheritors must hang our collective heads in shame.

Other Comments by beanson

14. Comment #247997 by my lord of misrule on September 15, 2008 at 12:18 pm

So the powerful elite of the RS are ganging up on their hapless employee. Who made a mistake, haven't they. Bunch of monotheists, thats what they are. Their diety is no less jealous then the desert god the christians believe in.

adherence to the cause, or you're out.

you shall have no other gods but me.

A is for anarchy, not atheism, Atheism is just another bloody regime.

Other Comments by my lord of misrule

15. Comment #247998 by Peacebeuponme on September 15, 2008 at 12:18 pm

TWP - cheers!

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

16. Comment #248009 by carbonman on September 15, 2008 at 12:37 pm

 avatar
adherence to the cause, or you're out.

Er, yes, when the 'cause' is fair and accurate exposition of matters scientific, and one belongs to the country's foremost authority thereon. It's as though the chief constable had gone public and advocated his hobby of burglary.

Other Comments by carbonman

17. Comment #248010 by SoManyStars on September 15, 2008 at 12:39 pm

 avatarI've yet to see a bunsen burner in R.E. so off with you Reiss.

Other Comments by SoManyStars

18. Comment #248022 by Raphael Vassallo on September 15, 2008 at 12:52 pm

 avatarIs there a Youtube or other link to what Reiss actually said?

Other Comments by Raphael Vassallo

19. Comment #248026 by my lord of misrule on September 15, 2008 at 12:55 pm

carbonman,

If he said what he is accused of maybe, but the evidence even from posters on this site seems to suggest otherwise.

"We gather Professor Reiss is a clergyman, which in itself is very worrisome."

says it all, insidious,

They are just bully boys and they are no better then their theistic bully boy forebears.

Here's one who wont be tugging my forelock to those knightly bullies.

Other Comments by my lord of misrule

20. Comment #248027 by atp on September 15, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Personally I find it totally irrelevant that Reiss is a clergyman. It is what he's saying in the position that he is that is the problem.

I strongly believe in freedom of thought, and not attacking a person for what he are. if Reiss could put away his religious bagage and do his job proper, that would be fully acceptable.

Obviously he couldn't, and that is why he should consider leaving his position.

Other Comments by atp

21. Comment #248035 by my lord of misrule on September 15, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Obviously he couldn't, and that is why he should consider leaving his position.

It that something that is proven.

'NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right' Magna Carta

We believe in natural justice in this realm of England.

Other Comments by my lord of misrule

22. Comment #248036 by anxiousmofo on September 15, 2008 at 1:05 pm

You can find Reiss' comments here:

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

It's muddled, and I don't agree with him (why, for example, should the concerns of students who don't accept evolution be treated with respect or as if they are serious? why is it a good idea to allow students to raise doubts about evolution in the classroom?) - however, he is not advocating teaching that intelligent design or other kinds of creationism are true, or on an equal footing with evolution.

Other Comments by anxiousmofo

23. Comment #248039 by Homo economicus on September 15, 2008 at 1:09 pm

 avatarIn case you missed it, 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

Also it may help to read the articles that have led to the Laureates calling for Reiss to step down, which I have covered and linked to in my blog.

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

The point is that Reiss said that creationism should be challenged when brought up in class by students (not teachers) with science.

I would not want him sacked for that suggestion. If anything that is what I wish was happening now!

Other Comments by Homo economicus

24. Comment #248040 by DamnDirtyApe on September 15, 2008 at 1:09 pm

That was fast!

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

25. Comment #248042 by my lord of misrule on September 15, 2008 at 1:11 pm

treat everyone with respect whatever their views, especially if there are children in your care.

Other Comments by my lord of misrule

26. Comment #248047 by Raphael Vassallo on September 15, 2008 at 1:15 pm

 avatarI haven't understood one thing. The article states that: "Reiss, an ordained Church of England minister, has since alleged he was misquoted."

But he wrote the article himself. Is he claiming it was distorted through editing? Is there an unedited copy floating around?

Other Comments by Raphael Vassallo

27. Comment #248051 by Matt H. on September 15, 2008 at 1:16 pm

 avatarIt is so sad that the Royal Society has come to this. The UK's most respected science organisation has been seen to advocate the teaching of creationism in the science classroom. I know the RS as a whole do not subscribe to such a view, but the Director of Education is supposed to represent the organisation, as well as that spokesperson who happened to agree with him. This can not be tolerated, and the right thing to do would be to dismiss him from his post.

Other Comments by Matt H.

28. Comment #248052 by Raphael Vassallo on September 15, 2008 at 1:19 pm

 avatarThanks Homo economicus

Other Comments by Raphael Vassallo

29. Comment #248053 by Verylee on September 15, 2008 at 1:20 pm

 avatarComment by anxiousmofo

he is not advocating teaching that intelligent design or other kinds of creationism are true, or on an equal footing with evolution


I agree with you, however as with Archibishop Rowan Williams and his "advocating" sharia law, for intelligent men in such high profile positions, they must have known that their comments would be misinterpreted, spun, or they were both deliberately courting controversy.

Other Comments by Verylee

30. Comment #248060 by Donald on September 15, 2008 at 1:31 pm

Is there a Youtube or other link to what Reiss actually said?
The following RD.net article reports Reiss's own words:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,3099,Talk-at-todays-meeting-of-the-British-Association-for-the-Advancement-of-Science,Reverend-Michael-Reiss-BA-Festival-of-Science
Here is a link to the words Reiss provided to the British Association for the Advancement of Science in advance of his talk:
http://www1.the-ba.net/bafos/press/showtalk2.asp?TalkID=301

Reiss's words include, for example:
Just because something lacks scientific support doesn't seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson.
Most scientists and science educators believe science teachers should not discuss creationism in school science lessons. I disagree.


Reiss, as an ordained Chrich of England Minister, has his own agenda of tryng to support religious belief. He has written essentially the same thing in numerous newspapers articles as well as the BAFoS talk.

His writing is a masterpiece of equivocation. He carefully crafts his words to leave encouragement for religious believers to insert religious discussions into science lessons.
I made an earlier comment about his ambiguity/equivocation and the reasons for it:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,3099,Talk-at-todays-meeting-of-the-British-Association-for-the-Advancement-of-Science,Reverend-Michael-Reiss-BA-Festival-of-Science#245959

Other Comments by Donald

31. Comment #248061 by Chris Davis on September 15, 2008 at 1:32 pm

 avatar'I am writing on behalf of myself' - shudder.

Other Comments by Chris Davis

32. Comment #248067 by MsbertaZ on September 15, 2008 at 1:47 pm

The BBC has an article on the subject:

Who are the British creationists?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7613403.stm

Other Comments by MsbertaZ

33. Comment #248070 by Neuro on September 15, 2008 at 1:49 pm

 avatarBen Stein and his crew are going to have a good ol' laugh about this! This is a basic recapitulation of the 'No Intelligence Allowed' movie by Stein. "Big Science" does not allow for competition in science class (despite it not being science). Consequently, professors get rejected for tenure (or dismissed from the Royal Society). Ha. This is funny.

Other Comments by Neuro

34. Comment #248084 by mmurray on September 15, 2008 at 2:39 pm

 avatar

So the powerful elite of the RS are ganging up on their hapless employee.


Rubbish. Three members of a club are complaining to the head of the club about about the actions of one of the other members. All of them I am sure are quite capable of looking after themselves.

Since when did the members of the RS become a powerful elite. The ones I know will be pleased but a little surprised. Elite yes but powerful ???

Michael

EDIT: Sorry it turns out he is not a Fellow but as an academic of professorial rank I wouldn't really see him as a `hapless employee'.

Other Comments by mmurray

35. Comment #248108 by Spinoza on September 15, 2008 at 3:19 pm

 avatarTo play devil's advocate... I think that if what Reiss *meant* (as opposed to 'what was said'), was that there is a significant population of students who will simply shut off their minds to science if certain topics are not breached, and that THIS is serious enough to lend itself to moderated discussion of "controversial" (to those students, anyway) topics, in order that we do not engender massive disinterest in the sciences (and thus, perpetuate ignorance).... Then there's nothing particularly horrible about that. It's still a bit vague, confusing, and probably somewhat wrong... since science classes are difficult and work-laden enough without adding superfluous pandering into the mix... But I think Reiss should in all fairness be given a chance to explain himself clearly... and if he is unable to do so in a satisfactory manner... by all means, sack away.

Other Comments by Spinoza

36. Comment #248119 by Quine on September 15, 2008 at 4:19 pm

 avatarComment #248108 by Spinoza:
But I think Reiss should in all fairness be given a chance to explain himself clearly...


Yes, that fairness should be common courtesy. I bet that if he does answer, he will dig himself in deeper.

Other Comments by Quine

37. Comment #248123 by DamnDirtyApe on September 15, 2008 at 4:29 pm

Hmm... Neuro has a point. As a political move this could work against Secularism.

Tread carefully folks. Science needs to maintain its integrity if its to survive things like this.

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

38. Comment #248124 by Ian H Spedding FCD on September 15, 2008 at 4:43 pm

I wrote in an earlier post that I was disappointed with the response of some scientists, who should know better, to Professor Reiss's comments but this is threatening to become the sort of witchhunt that is not worthy of those who claim to uphold the ideals of science - open, honest, rational enquiry conducted without fear or favour.

Has Professor Reiss advocated that intelligent design and/or creationism be taught in science classes as theories of equivalent standing to that of evolution? Has he urged that evolution should no longer be mentioned at all for fear of offending the religious sensibilities of some students? Has he recommended that what is good science be decided by how closely it conforms to the teachings of the Bible or Torah or Koran?

For those here who still believe in reason and the scientific method, the answers to those questions will be found by studying what Professor Reiss has actually said and written on the subject, not what journalists have twisted into a headline-grabbing 'story'.

What has he done? He has suggested that if students raise questions about the theory of evolution, even if they are based on religious objections, they should be answered respectfully rather than dismissively. In other words, student should be treated with common courtesy. Is that so difficult?

As for the crowded science syllabus, he did not say that teachers should spend many lessons discussing students religious views. Obviously, there is a lot of information students must learn if they are to be able to actually do science. But it is also true that one of the quickest ways to put them off science is make it nothing more than the rote memorization of facts, where questioning is discouraged.

The fact is that science is about inquiry, about asking questions - any questions - and trying to find answers to those questions. The only questions that are off-limits to science are those where there isn't even the remotest possibility of gathering any information about them.

Science is based on principles of openness, honesty, integrity, freedom of thought and expression. There is no doubt that some of its practitioners, being only human, fail to live up to these ideals but, as an enterprise, it would be cripppled if they were constantly biting their tongues for fear of some donnish inquisition.

In reality, the only sanction that need be applied to researchers who betray the ideals of science is to be shunned by the very community of which they aspire to be members. If the Royal Society really believes that Professor Reiss has behaved that badly then it should fire him but I have to say that, having read what he has said and written recently, it doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Other Comments by Ian H Spedding FCD

39. Comment #248126 by severalspeciesof on September 15, 2008 at 4:46 pm

 avatarNo No No No No. This isn't good. Freedom of speech is paramount here. First he should be able to defend his words, which he has. Then let it be shown that his defence is wrong, which hasn't happened, THEN one might go ahead and can him, but only then, and with due process.

Other Comments by severalspeciesof

40. Comment #248131 by SeaLife on September 15, 2008 at 5:06 pm

Ben Stein just had his first non-procreative orgasm in 32 years.

Other Comments by SeaLife

41. Comment #248135 by Julius Morche on September 15, 2008 at 5:52 pm

Ian H Spedding FCD writes:

If the Royal Society really believes that Professor Reiss has behaved that badly then it should fire him but I have to say that, having read what he has said and written recently, it doesn't have a leg to stand on.


I couldn't agree more. Given that this is a forum on a website advocating „reason", I strongly recommend to all those previous commentators who have demanded Prof. Reiss's sacking (and in some cases added some rather unreasonable and unjustified insults) to actually go and READ his Guardian article (blog-post) and listen to the interview. Here is the link one more time:

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

Judging by his letter, it seems that Prof. Roberts is among those who clearly haven't done so.

We gather Professor Reiss is a clergyman, which in itself is very worrisome. Who on earth thought that he would be an appropriate Director of Education, who could be expected to answer questions about the differences between science and religion in a scientific, reasoned way?


Since it is unlikely that Richard Roberts participates in this forum, maybe somebody else here can explain to me why we should be worried about a clergyman doing the job of Director of Education at the RS. As far as I know, Michael Reiss is the first holder of this position and has been appointed in recognition of his outstanding academic merits as a science educator. Why should a clergyman, if qualified, not hold such a position and/ or not be able to "answer questions about the differences between science and religion in a scientific, reasoned way?"

Other Comments by Julius Morche

42. Comment #248138 by mordacious1 on September 15, 2008 at 6:17 pm

 avatar1. Prof Reiss was not qualified, IMHO, to hold this position to begin with.
2. Anyone in the Royal Society wishing to ask for him to resign or be removed, has the right to do so.
3. Has "Expelled" made us afraid to question unqualified religious persons that are in positions to affect science and/or science education? We must not pander to these people because we are afraid of the backlash.
4. At least one poster has suggested that Prof. Dawkins "stay out of it" because he is an atheist. This is bullSHIT! I'm an atheist, therefore I cannot make public statements about issues of this magnitude?
5. The guy should not have been in this position to begin with and the sooner they remove him, the better. If the religious complain, too bad.

Other Comments by mordacious1

43. Comment #248140 by Supreme Boeing on September 15, 2008 at 6:19 pm

 avatarBefore jumping the gun, you all should indeed visit that link that's being posted here multiple times. I'm listening to the interview right now, and Reiss is saying that telling these Creationist-raised kids bluntly that everything they've been told is a lie, will only put them into the defensive and will only hinder their understanding of what evolution actually means. And I think he is right.

If I were to walk up to someone using a laptop with Microsoft Windows on it, and tell him that Windows sucks, and try to give him the Ubuntu CD that I always carry with me for such situations, I'd just get an angry look and a "bugger off" comment. It's the exact same thing. You threaten their (semi-)comfortable world view, and push them in the defensive, a state of mind where they will resist your arguments no matter how persuasive they are.

Or to use a more well-known metaphor: you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar. OTOH, you can get more of what you want with a kind word and a gun, than with just a kind word. But that's what they have metal detectors in schools for these days, I suppose...

Still, putting a cleric in charge of the education division of the premier scientific organisation in the world, is indeed a Monty Python sketch. But in this case, I think his opinion is correct.

Other Comments by Supreme Boeing

44. Comment #248142 by DanDare on September 15, 2008 at 6:26 pm

 avatarHas Professor Reiss been misquoted? Yes. Plenty of the comments above are jumping about saying he advocated creationism in science class, the exact opposite of what he said.

What is wrong with dismissing religious views from science students? It turns them off from learning. They must be engaged in order to learn and other students observing a respectful interaction will also be engaged. Professor Dawkins demonstrated this in his new Darwin DVD.

Professor Reiss also being ordained certainly raises questions but he has not demonstrated any misunderstanding of science or of evolution through natural selection or of how to teach science. He may be a bit naive about how he will be treated by the media.

Other Comments by DanDare

45. Comment #248143 by Styrer- on September 15, 2008 at 6:26 pm

How the fuck was this NOMA-sodden, appeasing, intellectually dishonest and dangerous superstitious supernaturalist ever elected to a fellow of the Royal Society?

There is no need to go round the houses on this one. Read the fucker's words:

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


Let's usher into science classes, in that case, every non-scientific notion which has ever been granted a page's attention so that it may be put to scientific analysis. Astrology, alchemy and homeopathy are of course first in line, but let's make space for UFOlogy, re-incarnation, occult followers' testimony (encourage class interest with a few naked shots where possible, for the sake of completeness) and cartomancy.

When I was taught physics at school, and taught it extremely well in my view, what I remember finding so exciting was that we could discuss almost anything providing we were prepared to defend our thinking in a way that admitted objective evidence and logical argument.


Almost anything? Anything along the lines, say...of my above suggestions? If so, this might begin to explain the provenance of this utterly horrendously intellectually dishonest nutter's obsession with the supernatural.

If not, then he's being as imprecise a writer as he is a thinker.

Notwithstanding that a full inquiry should be held to see how a superstitious git like this could first be elected to RS esteem, and to make some obvious attempt at re-instating the prestige to the RS lost through this charade, the cunt should be sacked forthwith.

Let RD.net present this theistic bastard, on his departure, with one of the many 'fleas' we have accumulated for due placement within his fucking ear as he goes.

Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

46. Comment #248145 by Layla Nasreddin on September 15, 2008 at 6:29 pm

 avatar#45 Styrer wrote:
How the fuck was this NOMA-sodden, appeasing, intellectually dishonest and dangerous superstitious supernaturalist ever elected to a fellow of the Royal Society?


Oh, he's NOT a Fellow! If you go to the Royal Society website and look at their listing of current Fellows (careful, huge PDF file), he's NOT on the list. No, he just seems to be an "employee" (or something).

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

47. Comment #248148 by Saerain on September 15, 2008 at 6:34 pm

 avatar
41. Comment #248135 by Julius Morche on September 15, 2008 at 5:52 pm

Since it is unlikely that Richard Roberts participates in this forum, maybe somebody else here can explain to me why we should be worried about a clergyman doing the job of Director of Education at the RS. As far as I know, Michael Reiss is the first holder of this position and has been appointed in recognition of his outstanding academic merits as a science educator. Why should a clergyman, if qualified, not hold such a position and/ or not be able to "answer questions about the differences between science and religion in a scientific, reasoned way?"
For much the same reason I would be worried if the chairman of Microsoft were a Luddite. There's a certain ideological difference, isn't there?

I don't currently support sacking him from the position (not that my opinion matters much, as an American), but I would definitely be wary of people who very clearly rely on such compartmentalisation to perform as well as they do. They certainly must be under greater stress than those who don't.

Other Comments by Saerain

48. Comment #248149 by Styrer- on September 15, 2008 at 6:35 pm

Comment #248145 by Layla Nasreddin on September 15, 2008 at 6:29 pm

Thanks for the correction.

But we should note that the true designation of this twat's position makes for even worse reading: Director of Education.

Cunt.

Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

49. Comment #248152 by mordacious1 on September 15, 2008 at 6:45 pm

 avatarNo one is saying that the creation/science debate can't be discussed in schools. NOT, I repeat NOT, in science classrooms. I think this is an edge of the wedge issue and if creationists have to be "reached", then screw 'em. I never got to set the curriculum in my classes.

Other Comments by mordacious1

50. Comment #248158 by Styrer- on September 15, 2008 at 7:01 pm

Comment #248152 by mordacious1 on September 15, 2008 at 6:45 pm

It was not until I reached A level that a class was opened - in furtherance of the General English A level that I don't know still exists - to allow 'debate'. Religion and politics were strictly kept out.

So, Mordy, I'm not too sure to which lesson, in fact, you would add the 'creation/science debate', either up to or including A levels.

You might as well insist on a Tolskien understanding of history to be granted a separate (expensive) class and time.

Surely better, don't you think, to make schools the places where we teach what we KNOW rather than what society at large HOPES might be true?

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-
Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 3 4 5 | Next | Last

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: