For this circumstance, I enjoyed the parallel of a scientist to a politician enormously. The issue of Reiss’s firing certainly seems to lean more towards reasons of politics than science. Following a line of logical reasoning, NSM’s entry proves a valid assessment of the position of the scientific community toward Creationism.

NSM: Surely this is the view advocated by Michael Reiss? It’s as though creationism has become the “ism” that communism once was. Anyone even mentioning it should be treated as if they have a contagious disease.
and
“The view of the Royal Academy is that if creationism is raised by a student, the teacher should explain why evolution is a sound scientific theory and why creationism is not, in any way, scientific.”

Starting from this statement, we must logically conclude that Reiss’s beliefs are in line with the Royal Academy. As quoted in this article, Reiss states that he believes Creationism and Intelligent Design are not the products of scientific reasoning. But he goes on to clarify that, “Just because something lacks scientific support doesn’t seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson.” He describes the debates from his own education that forced students to defend their thoughts on a subject in a way that allowed for logic and evidence. He then makes this statement: “So when teaching evolution, there is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have (hardly a revolutionary idea in science teaching) and doing one’s best to have a genuine discussion. The word ‘genuine’ doesn’t mean that creationism or intelligent design deserve equal time.” Clearly, not supporting ID views.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/scie.....reationism

Richard Dawkins offers statements implying that Michael Reiss’s values as a priest were influencing his teaching or that he wanted to foist his Creationist viewpoint onto his students.
http://richarddawkins.net/arti.....ver#248447

The only priestly value I find Reiss pushing is a desire to freely discuss. It’s clear from his statements that he desired his students be able to discuss his explanations of why Creationism does not offer sound scientific merit. So far, I have detected nothing from Reiss’s comments to indicate that he desired his students to side with Creationism. Quite the opposite actually; he seems to greatly desire they realize and understand the lack of scientific merit this theory presents.

The Royal Academy offers a polite and tidy explanation of Reiss’s firing that offers absolutely no reasoning beyond his apparent disagreement with the Society’s credo and his “misinterpreted statements”. Hmm. A perfect diplomatic statement without reasoning to support the conclusion. Personally, I’ll be voting for Reiss.

(It is interesting to explore how some scientists will ostracize any member of their clan, even when they only SEEM to disagree. Got to keep up appearances.

I was responding to your statement:

Why distinguished scientists would not want that [creationism discussion] to happen in science classes is beyond me: shame on them.

Unlike you, it’s not beyond me. Almost any good businessman, ambassador, or politician does everything he can to avoid being asked a question for which he has no answer. Distinguished scientists don’t want creationism to come up because it raises too many questions they cannot answer. Whether this is instinctive, conscious, or unconscious avoidance I don’t know but there’s little mystery in why it’s being avoided.

Perhaps the reason they don’t want to talk about creationism is they can’t make a convincing argument that it fails to qualify as science.

Creationism can easily be framed in terms of science. The difficult part is making it convincing in terms of science. Darwinian macroevolution seems to suffer under the same difficulty given the percentage of people who fail to be convinced.

Michael is a highly competent expert in medical ethics and science education. To be frank, he probably knows a great deal more about science education than most Fellows of the RS (several of whom I also know), including those who protested his statements to Martin Rees. They should have been instructed by him, not Rees by them.

Reiss’ comments about responding seriously to creationists in science classes are IMO absolutely on target; and I can pretty much guarantee that I’ve taught about, read about, and written about creationism a great deal more than any Nobel laureate in the RS. In other words: I know what I’m talking about, and they don’t (on this issue). Ditto for Reiss. The comments from some leading scientists in the RS who oppose what he said, it seems to me, reflect both ignorance of the origins controversy (with which we here in the US have much more experience than our friends across the pond) and arrogance about science education itself (on that score we can match the Brits).

What Reiss was calling for, apparently, was some serious talk about how science works and what science is, and why creationism fails to qualify as science. Why distinguished scientists would not want that to happen in science classes is beyond me: shame on them.

I am thinking of writing a pointed letter to the RS about this.

Sorry :/ I have only known about this site since May-ish. I did not think my words were novel. It is just the next logical step, given the way evidence is appearing.

Re: Post Topic.

How can it be acceptable for a man to be fired/forced to resign over a comment? Why can it not be discussed, or at least be told “no, we aren’t going to do that” and tell him to stay away from the ‘dangerous’ idea? Is he able to pursue legal action over this (I am asking, not suggesting)?

Dawkins’ “Monty Python” comment is silly (as are many of his comments on religion) but it certainly doesn’t amount to anything like a call for resignation. And given that he expressed his disapproval of these calls before the resignation was publicly announced, you can’t accuse him of changing his position due to public pressure. If you do think he changed his mind about Reiss resigning, to what do you attribute this? Why would he go from supporting Kroto and Roberts to calling their campaign a “witch hunt”?

Dawkins:
Zoologist Richard Dawkins, a Royal Society fellow, said: ‘A clergyman in charge of education for the country’s leading scientific organisation – it’s a Monty Python sketch.’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/scie.....4/religion

Then right before we learn of Reiss’ leaving the RS, Dawkins quickly posts this:

“I’m working on getting a version of this published somewhere in the British press.
Richard
…
Perhaps, rather than resign his job with the Royal Society, Professor Reiss might consider resigning his Orders?”

Then, minutes later, Dawkins says that it has just been made PUBLIC that Reiss resigned.

“The Royal Society has just publicly announced that Michael Reiss has resigned from his position of Director of Education. I have refused to comment to the press, other than to refer to my comment, posted above, BEFORE the news of his resignation was announced.
Richard”

http://richarddawkins.net/arti.....ver#248463

He stresses that his previous post was made BEFORE the public annoucement of the resignation. Seems clear he knew before it was announced that Reiss had resigned and he knew they had engaged in a witch hunt and he was wanting to distance himself from it even though he helped pile the sticks for the witch-burning.

What’s heartening is that they’re having trouble hiding their animus. What if the public—busy with other things—catches on? Their reactive hubris just could do them in!