The Great DBH Rant

Last Thursday (11 Sep 2008), news of the comments made by Professor Michael Reiss, the then Director of Education at the Royal Society, shocked the scientific community when he was quoted to suggest that creationism should be taught in science classes. News headlines such as “Teach creationism in schools, says top scientist”, and other similarly worded eye-catchers popped up everywhere in mainstream news. The shockwaves spread far and wide and the science blogs (and even non-science blogs) were suddenly overflowing with views and comments and everyone’s two cents worth about whether science and religion should be taught in the same class.

The answer is simple – It shouldn’t be taught in a science class.

No self respecting scientist (and by self respecting I am effectively excluding all quacks and woos) would suggest the inclusion of an evidence-less phenomena amongst a curriculum which has always been and should be solely based on scientific evidence. Such a suggestion would be the self-destruct button of any scientist, and never in a million years would such a comment be well received in the scientific community. So why would Professor Reiss put forth such a controversial and career ending notion? The answer is he probably didn’t and the fact-bending media machine is working overtime again. Professor Reiss wrote to the Guardian to clarify his original comments thus,

Your headline (Teach creationism, says top scientist, September 12) misrepresents the views of myself and the Royal Society. The society believes that if a young person raises the issue of creationism in a science class, a teacher should be in a position to examine why it does not stand up to scientific investigation. This does not put it on a par with evolution, which is recognised as the best explanation for the history of life on Earth from its beginnings and for the diversity of species.

Evolution is rightly taught as an essential part of biology and science courses in schools, colleges and universities across the world. Creationism, which has no scientific validity, can be discussed in a science class if it is raised by a pupil, but should in no way be seen as comparable to evolution or any other scientific theory which is backed up with evidence.
Professor Michael Reiss
Director of education, Royal Society

So there, it was apparently a mis-representation. Unfortunately by now the damage has already been done, both to Professor Reiss and the Royal Society. So I am not at all surprised to see this headline two days (17 Sep 2008) later:

“Professor steps down over creationism row“

Professor Reiss is an ordained Church of England minister. His appointment to the Director of Education post has probably already put himself on a collision course with many senior scientists no doubt. He will be under the spotlight from day one and everything he says and does will be scrutinised. It was probably ill advised for him to even touch on the sensitive subject of creationism, but it makes no sense whatsoever that he would believe that creationism should be taught in science classes. It just doesn’t make any sense at all. This would be a very brave move even for a quack. So I believe it was a mis-interpretation and it has cost Professor Reiss his job, as well as damaged the reputation of the Royal Society.

The moral of the story is – if you ever have to speak to the media about anything whatsoever, think, then think again, then say it. It is amazing how a seemingly harmless comment can be blown out of proportion by the media these days.

The treatment of Professor Reiss and the comments from several high profile scientists is a cause for concern in science. This whole hunting down of Professor Reiss appeared to be spearheaded by two nobel prize winners, Sir Harry Kroto and Sir Richard Roberts. Sir Harry had this to say,

I warned the president of the Royal Society that his [Reiss] was a dangerous appointment a year ago. I did not realise just how dangerous it would turn out to be.

Whereas Sir Richard had this to say,

I think it is outrageous that this man is suggesting that creationism should be discussed in a science classroom. It is an incredible idea and I am drafting a letter to other Nobel laureates – which would be sent to the Royal Society – to ask that Reiss be made to stand down.

Please, the man was speaking in an interview. Had he said in the exact words that creationism should be “taught” in classrooms, then yes, he had to go. But he didn’t really did he? I wonder what Sir Harry or Sir Robert would say to a 13 year old kid asking them, “Did God create everything?”

“Go away?”

Instead of chalking it down to one of those things that the media does once in a while, they were adamant that someone’s head should go with this fiasco, probably as a damage control to the reputation of the Royal Society. Either that or some scientists are still a tad bit too antsy about having a Church of England Minister in a high profile position and it wouldn’t take too much of a “step out of the line” for them to go up in arms and mount a “witch hunt”. There was a comment by John Saxbee, Bishop of Lincoln who said it was “disturbing” as to

the state of paranoia and defensiveness into which the scientific establishment has declined… Scientists must be seriously lacking in self-confidence if they not only outlaw the very mention of alternative points of view, but also effectively ostracise one of their number who is sufficiently assured of his own position that he is prepared to give the views of others a hearing.

I can’t help but think he is kinda right, but I am having my hands firmly over my ears going La la la la la la…