This came in my rss feed this afternoon:
Title: ‘Creationism’ biologist quits job
Head of education at the Royal Society quits after saying creationism should be discussed in science lessons.
The first thing i thought was “good riddance” then i read the article…
As it turns out Professor Michael Reiss (director of education at the Royal Society) was arguing that creationism should be discussed alongside big bang, evolution and darwinian concepts to show how basically creationism is a flawed concept:
he said:
..his experience had led him to believe it was more effective to include discussion about creationism alongside scientific theories such as the Big Bang and evolution – rather than simply giving the impression that such children were wrong.
of course the royal society added 2 + 2 and came up with 5 and sacked him
Lord Robert Winston, professor of science and society at Imperial College London, said: “I fear that in this action the Royal Society may have only diminished itself.
“This is not a good day for the reputation of science or scientists.
“This individual was arguing that we should engage with and address public misconceptions about science – something that the Royal Society should applaud.”
The Royal Society said:
“He is to return, full time, to his position as professor of science education at the Institute of Education.”
Where he can still teach and debunk creationism without getting up their noses. All the comments from the royal society are contradictory:
Last week Prof Reiss – a Church of England minister – said creationism should be discussed in science lessons if pupils raised the issue.
The society said some of his comments had been “open to misinterpretation”. This had damaged its 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
The Royal Society then went on further 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.”
which excuse my french is exactly the same fuckin thing Reiss said ????
Mr L K's Ibiza Blog 
sorry, but i don’t think Mr Reiss is quite the harmless do-gooder he appears to be. did you read what else he said in his initial statement?
“Just because something lacks scientific support doesn’t seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from the science lesson”
that’s EXACTLY why things should be omitted from science lessons. he also said, “I do believe in taking seriously and respectfully the concerns of students who do not accept the theory of evolution” — which is utter rubbish. would he also take ‘seriously and respectfully’ students who think the earth is flat?
i think getting rid of him was exactly the right thing to do.
i think Reiss was trouble. he actually said: “Just because something lacks scientific support doesn’t seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from the science lesson” — which is frankly rediculous. that’s like letting french students speak german and saying “we’ll, just because it’s not french is no reason to omit from french class.”
ooops! sorry, didn’t mean to spam… my computer’s being funny x
i hate to disagree with you but i think the point he’s trying to make, albeitly badly, is that you cant just ignore peoples views – however badly conceived they are, and by discussing them you can educate
2 words: 1st amendment 😉