Home » Intelligent Design » Sacrificial Reiss offered on the altar of ‘Science’

Sacrificial Reiss offered on the altar of ‘Science’

The Michael Reiss saga should not be quickly forgotten. His enforced resignation as the Royal Society’s Director of Education in September 2008 was a blot on the history of the Royal Society (see here and here). Yet, after two years, few changes are apparent: Reiss continues to publish his “worldview” perspective on handling creationism in science education (see here) and Royal Society Fellows have continued to talk about irresolvable conflicts at the science/religion interface. It is encouraging, therefore, to find Sylvia Baker formulating a coherent analysis of the conflict and proposing a research agenda to inform future discussion of the issues.

“The controversy, resulting as it did in such serious consequences, raises many issues and concerns. This article will seek to address three of them. First will be considered the subject of the controversy, the teaching of creationism in science classes, second, the status and influence of such bodies as the Royal Society within the science community of the United Kingdom, and third, the question of to what extent the end result was obtained, not by impartial considerations, but rather by an atheistic agenda.”

For more, go here.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

4 Responses to Sacrificial Reiss offered on the altar of ‘Science’

  1. From the linked article:

    a survey of members of the US National Academy of Sciences shows that 85% are atheists

    I wonder why ?

  2. David,

    That was truly an excellent article. I want more.

  3. David,

    Is the Baker essay available on-line?

  4. Graham @ 1:
    The statistic is significant but there is more than one explanation of the data. I favour cultural factors linked to the secularisation of our society.

    Upright BiPed @ 2 & 3:
    Thanks.
    Unfortunately, the paper is not open access. I would have posted the URL of the abstract, but there is a mistake and the abstract is about truancy! Very confusing to those who are not aware of the problem.

Leave a Reply