Of course nobody can make much of a case that Michael Reiss supports creationism, but it's generally thought that truth doesn't make impressive hype.
Timesonline reports Michael Reiss, a biologist and ordained Church of England clergyman, agreed to step down from his position with the national academy of science after its officers decided that his comments had damaged its reputation.
His resignation comes after a campaign by senior Royal Society Fellows who were angered by Professor Reiss’s suggestion that science teachers should treat creationist beliefs “not as a misconception but as a world view”.
In reading the different accounts, it is suggested sometimes that his resignation is simply the result of irresponsible reporters misquoting him in the press. Of course
there was some bad reporting. Creationism and intelligent design should be taught in school science lessons, according to a leading expert in science education.
The Rev Prof Michael Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society, said that excluding alternatives to scientific explanations for the origin of life and the universe from science lessons was counterproductive and would alienate some children from science altogether.
And the U.K.'s
[i]Telegraph[/i] went with this headline: Creationism should be taught in science classes, says expert
written big & bold, of course.
The press did twist his words, but that's not the whole story. We expect the press to do as they've always done. But the story isn't complete without mention of the cutlery in Reiss' back which he received from his fellow evolutionist scientists.
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.
Now if
this report is accurate, the Royal Society's semiofficial position on the issue is exactly the same as Reiss'
The Royal Society reiterated that its position was that creationism had 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."
Rather odd, what? Oi say! That's not bloomin' cricket!
Perhaps the funniest doubletalk comes from
Richard Dawkins. He likens Michael Reiss to Eugenie Scott, of all people, and says Reiss needs to go (in many more words).
Of course he never gets around to being consistent, and saying Scott should go. Nevertheless, one wonders how much she should trust him. Methinks weasels aren't found sometimes in unexpected places.
What has become clear is that the British evomongers are intolerant of evolutionists, even their fellow evomongers, who are not sufficiently intolerant to suit them.
