You are in:
The C-Word
Whatever you say, say nothing
The creationism debate continues. Except that for The Royal Society, there is no debate. The 350 year old science institute forced its director of education, Rev Professor Michael Reiss, to resign. His crime? He argued that creationism should be discussed in schools, if there are children in class who believe it.
His paper is here. As Tom Whipple argues in the Times, there is little controversial about it:
"Professor Reiss, while strongly defending evolution, says that teachers should be respectful to creationist students and not ridicule their views - because it is counter-productive, and puts them off science. He concludes: “A student who believes in creationism has a non-scientific way of seeing the world, and one very rarely changes one's world view as a result of a 50-minute lesson.”"
However, as Whipple notes, "take one sentence out of context, “creationism is best seen by science teachers not as a misconception but as a world view”, prefix it by explaining that Professor Reiss is a clergyman, and suddenly he is a creationist."
The Professor is not a creationist. He says the theory has no scientific validity. He merely argues that sneering at the beliefs of those children who come from religious backgrounds which espouse creationism is no way to win over those students - indeed, it makes science, and scientists themselves, appear an intolerant lot.
And how did they prove they weren't intolerant? They sacked him.
"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."
Cranmer reports that the Professor's remarks - or a strangely distorted version of them - were circulated on the blogs of "high profile militant atheists."
The media obligingly placed Prof Reiss in the centre of a storm over whether creationism should be "taught in schools" - a deliberate distortion of what he actually wrote, which casts both scientists and journalists, ostensibly evidence-based professions, in an unflattering light.
"He resigned not because he was wrong, nor even because he was particularly controversial. He resigned because others ascribed to him beliefs that were not his own," Whipple concludes.
