In September 2008 Reiss suggested that, rather than dismissing creationism as a “misconception”, teachers should take the time to explain why creationism had no scientific basis.
Following misleading reports that Rev Professor Michael Reiss had advocated that creationism should be taught in science class, he left his post as director of education at the Royal Society, the UK’s national academy of science.
Last week at the British Association’s science festival Rev Professor Michael Reiss said that creation should not be ignored if it comes up in class. Professor Reiss, who was director of education at the Royal Society, said that since a substantial number of pupils have concerns about the issue, they are likely to “detach from” science if their concerns and world view are not addressed. Creation should not be taught, he said, but if it comes up, teachers should be encouraged to explain the science of evolution. He also said that students should be taught the nature of a scientific theory – that it does not simply mean a hypothesis about the way things might work, but a rigorously supported system of ideas that fit with the available evidence.
The Times of London reported him as saying that Creationism should be taught in science classes as a legitimate point of view. This provoked a storm of protest from a group that included two Nobel Laureates and other scientists who strongly oppose the teaching, or even the discussion of creation in science class.
Yesterday the Royal Society said in a statement that some of Professor Reiss’ comments had been “open to misinterpretation”, and that this had damaged 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”
They went on to say:
“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 chief executive of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Roland Jackson, said that the Royal Society should have supported Professor Reiss and used this opportunity to further a reasoned debate.
“I was at the actual discussion, and what I heard him say, however it has been reported, was essentially the position advocated by the Royal Society.”
Michael Reiss Backgrounder
Michael Reiss (born 1960) is a British bioethicist, educator, Anglican priest and journalist.
Reiss is Professor of Science Education at the Institute of Education, London; and from 2006 to 2008 was Director of Education at the Royal Society, a position he resigned on 16 September 2008 following protests from some Fellows of the society about his views on tackling creationism when teaching evolution.
Reiss’ work in the fields of science education, bioethics and sex education; and he has particular interest in the ethical implications of genetic engineering.
In science education, he currently directs projects funded by the Department for Education and Skills . He conducts a longitudinal, ethnographic study of pupils’ learning, currently in its eleventh year.
Reiss is a frequent consultant to the Royal Society, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, the Training and Development Agency for Schools (formerly known as the Teacher Training Agency or the TTA) and other organizations. He serves on the editorial board of the International Journal of Science Education.
Controversy
In September 2008 Reiss suggested that, rather than dismissing creationism as a “misconception”, teachers should take the time to explain why creationism had no scientific basis. His views were presented in some media reports as lending support to teaching creationism as a legitimate point of view; however the Royal Society later stated that this was a misrepresentation. Reiss stressed that the topic should not be taught as science, but rather that it should be construed as a cultural “worldview”. Reiss argued that it was more effective to engage with pupils’ ideas about creationism, rather than to obstruct discussion with those who do not accept the scientific version of the evolution of species. Speaking at the 2008 British Association Festival of Science at the University of Liverpool, Reiss is reported to have said:
“An increasing percentage of children in the UK come from families that do not accept the scientific version of the history of the universe and the evolution of species. What are we to do with those children? My experience after having tried to teach biology for 20 years is if one simply gives the impression that such children are wrong, then they are not likely to learn much about the science that one really wants them to learn. I think a better way forward is to say to them, “Look, I simply want to present you with the scientific understanding of the history of the universe and how animals and plants and other organisms evolved.â€ÂÂ
Responding to criticism of these statements, Reiss later said:
“ 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.â€ÂÂ
Three Nobel laureate fellows of the Royal Society, Harry Kroto and Richard Roberts and John E. Sulston, asking that Reiss step down following his remarks. Kroto and others are concerned that the society, the world’s oldest scientific organization, is failing to take a sufficiently robust stance against those religious fundamentalist forces which oppose scientific teachings about the origins of the Earth and humanity. Kroto tried to identify the roots of this controversy when he explained:
“ 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.â€ÂÂ
Royal Society fellow Richard Dawkins also described a clergyman being in Reiss’s seat as “a Monty Python sketch”, though he later referred to those words as ‘a little uncharitable’, and was concerned that those calling on Reiss to resign because of him being 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.”
