Dr. Michael Reiss
SEVERE Case: Loss of job
Note by Kevin Wirth: Without evaluating the content of his coursework, we agree with Reiss that preparing educators for addressing design related topics with their students is an important service, and he should not have been dismissed for doing so, nor should he have been removed because in addition to being a biologist he is also trained as a minister. Many of the early advancements in science were made by people with this same dual training, but we don't hear anyone protesting about removing their scientific contributions from science textbooks. To suggest that helping educators wrestle with this topic or being a clergyman is grounds for removing someone from their role with the Royal Society is not only a blatant example of discrimination, but is also clearly a strong indicator of scientific fascism. We believe the Royal Society showed great weakness by caving in to pressure from influential members rather than standing firm with Reiss. But then again, what happened to Reiss simply illustrates the point we make repeatedly - that much of science isn't based on a concern about the evidence, but is more often about slapping down or excising those who are viewed as a threat to established scientific orthodoxy. I highly recommend listening to Michael's video post noted below from September 11, 2008 where he makes a very important key distinction about this debate.
October 17 , 2008 - (Blog) World Socialist Web Site report by Paul Mitchell: Behind the creationism controversy at Britain's Royal Society (lengthy analysis)
"Last month, the Royal Society's education director, Professor Michael Reiss, was forced to resign for advocating, at the very least, the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in school science classes.
The controversy arose after Reiss, a well-known educationalist and practicing priest, gave a lecture at the British Association for the Advancement of Science's summer Festival of Science entitled, "Should creationism be a part of the science curriculum?" He told the audience, "Creationism is best seen by science teachers not as a misconception but as a world view."
Nobel Prize winners Richard Roberts, John Sulston and Harry Kroto wrote to the society's president, Martin Rees, demanding "that Professor Reiss step down, or be asked to step down, as soon as possible.
"There is no way that an ordained minister—for whom unverified dogma must represent a major, if not the major, pillar in their lives—can present free-thinking, doubt-based scientific philosophy honestly or disinterestedly," Kroto explained. [emphasis added]
Reiss claims that he is opposed to the teaching of creationism in science classes and is simply advising teachers how to deal with the subject if it comes up in discussion. If so, then many will rightly question why he has spent such an inordinate amount of time on the "science-religion debate" since he was appointed. Reiss has produced a number of articles, interviews and lectures in the two years he has been at the organisation. He has also managed to squeeze in the publication of, "Teaching about Scientific Origins: Taking Account of Creationism" in 2007, draft "Should science educators deal with the science/religion issue?" and "Imagining the world: the significance of religious worldviews for science education." [emphasis added]
No Date, 2008 - (Blog) APOLOGETICS PRESS report by Eric Lyons: Creation Comment Leads to Another Casualty
"The greater scientific establishment was none too happy with Reiss for his comments about creationism. Reiss “provoked the anger” of many of the members of the Royal Society (Mitchell, 2008). According to the World Socialist, “Reiss was forced to resign” (Mitchell, 2008, emphasis added)."
September 17, 2008 - (News) Times Online (UK) report by Lewis Smith and Mark Henderson: Royal Society's Michael Reiss Resigns over creationism row (original breaking news report)
"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.
The society said in a statement: “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. (emphasis added)
The Royal Society said 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."
September 11, 2008 - (Blog) Guardian Online (UK) post from Michael Reiss: Science lessons should tackle creationism and intelligent design (original blog with video) This is the post that got Michael Reiss into trouble, including a sixminute video.
Ed. Note by Kevin Wirth. I heartily recommend readers go and view Michael's video because he understands better than most that this controversy isn't about religion v. science, but is instead about worldview1 v. worldview2. It's too bad he had to step down because we need to hear more from folks like him - he gets it.