tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4477385342066275897.post7472539251584076002..comments2024-01-11T10:42:04.473+00:00Comments on Hawk/Handsaw: Creationism in schools: a manufactured controversyPaul Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18101626906004768474noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4477385342066275897.post-21958301108878275812008-09-17T13:29:00.000+01:002008-09-17T13:29:00.000+01:00Here's what the Royal Society had to say about Pro...<A HREF="http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=8008" REL="nofollow">Here</A>'s what the Royal Society had to say about Prof. Reiss's resignation:<BR/><BR/><I>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.</I><BR/><BR/>My worry is that the Royal Society will seem as if it cannot tolerate religious people in senior positions. The comment by Sir Richard Roberts seems particularly telling:<BR/><BR/><I>I think it is outrageous that this man is suggesting that creationism should be discussed in a science classroom. It is an incredible idea...</I><BR/><BR/>So if a student asks a question about creationism or intelligent design, you should just say sorry, we don't talk about that in science? It seems to be Sir Richard, rather than Prof. Reiss, who is in conflict with the Royal Society's position.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps the worst thing about this is that the resignation of Reiss suggests that it is now impossible to have a sensible discussion on these issues.Paul Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18101626906004768474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4477385342066275897.post-34075284390593544822008-09-17T11:01:00.000+01:002008-09-17T11:01:00.000+01:00Reiss has resigned.Unfortunate, I think, but his f...Reiss has <A HREF="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4768820.ece" REL="nofollow">resigned</A>.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunate, I think, but his form of wording was perhaps asking for trouble.Paul Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18101626906004768474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4477385342066275897.post-61708600708228494362008-09-16T10:30:00.000+01:002008-09-16T10:30:00.000+01:00Thanks for the kind words (and thanks dr aust for ...Thanks for the kind words (and thanks dr aust for posting those links). I would agree that Reiss chose his words badly, but his letter to the Guardian was pretty clear. By then, of course, the damage was done...Paul Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18101626906004768474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4477385342066275897.post-63499423174752066392008-09-16T09:22:00.000+01:002008-09-16T09:22:00.000+01:00Great post; sensible, reasonable and empathic. For...Great post; sensible, reasonable and empathic. For once I don't agree with Dawkins; it's entirely possible to be a theist and a good scientist (although it's impossible to be a biblical literalist).Poseidonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03957241219932253801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4477385342066275897.post-53298918206325300992008-09-15T20:46:00.000+01:002008-09-15T20:46:00.000+01:00More discussion of this both over on the Bad Scien...More discussion of this both over on the <A HREF="http://www.badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6130&sid=3147db03e6d54c1fa7ef90e3c01fb4b2" REL="nofollow">Bad Science forums</A> and over at Prof David Colquhoun's (an FRS, remember) <A HREF="http://dcscience.net/?p=255" REL="nofollow"><I>Improbable Science</I> blog</A>.<BR/><BR/>I am broadly with your view on this, but it is clear that Reiss chose his words rather badly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com