He once again raised his cult’s war yell, that creationism has “no scientific validity.”

Ted comments. In one of the clip you cite, Denyse (http://www.guardian.co.uk/scie.....=education), Reiss defines creationism at the start as the YEC view. Indeed the YEC does have no scientific validity; if the enormous evidence for an “old” earth and universe does not constitute good science, than what does?

I see no reason to disagree with Reiss’ statement, as follows: “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.”

Denyse, a bit later you also seem to attribute to Reiss a view that he does not hold. You state, “So, as Reiss made clear, he was earnest about looking for a way to convert the non-materialist sinners to random, purposeless Darwinian evolution.”

I would not doubt for a minute, Denyse, that the RS scientists who wanted him sacked believe just what you stated here. But Reiss does not believe that the acceptance of evolution as good science also means the acceptance of an atheistic worldview. I know him well enough to be quite sure about this. His own worldview is intermediate between that of a creationist and that of Richard Dawkins. Whether or not one agrees with Reiss that evolution is good science, then, it would not be accurate to imply that he wants to convert anyone atheism.

(If my inference about your meaning here is incorrect, Denyse, I would appreciate a correction.)

“Nor was Nature privy to the Royal Society’s internal deliberations about Reiss, so we will leave it to the officers and fellows of that body to reflect on who has done the most to damage its reputation.”

Also, what is the point of having scientific or pseudoscientific criticisms of evolution taught by people who have no expertise in biology, e.g., parents, pastors, and social studies teachers?

There’s no concept of that in a medieval setting. If we were to build a time machine and travel back to the 15th century and explain that believers in God also believed that all was created by a process that didn’t have him in mind or the mind is an illusion created by chemicals, they’d probably stare rather blankly…before hacking us to death with a double edge…witches that we are.

“The Heretic Reiss Meets His Deserved Doom!”

However, strictly speaking, Reiss’s fall can also be seen as more like a modern “liberal fascist” (or Stalinist) fall than a mediaeval one.

Like the Soviet Doctors’ Trials rather than Giordano Bruno.

Remember, Reiss was wholeheartedly of the Party. He honestly BELIEVED it all. He wanted to impart the Good News of Darwinism to children!

Mediaeval scholars thought that it matters what a person ultimately supposes to be true. In short, they thought that the mind was real.

The modern Darwinist is past all that. He knows that the mind is merely the buzz of neurons in the brain, accidentally produced by natural selection.

So it does not matter if Reiss is really heart and soul with the Cult/Party if there is something in his background or CV or genes that should give one pause for thought about his loyalty.

Still, the trappings you describe might work well on a mediaeval circus wagon, so let’s keep it in mind.

Meanwhile, the true believers worship the idol of Darwin on top of the mount of the Holy Mutation whilst communing together over a copy of the Origin of Species and enjoying bread and wine which is said to trans substantiate into a finch beak and Galapogas juice.

What do you think?