More like this
Royal Society or Rotten Society?
The resignation of Michael Reiss shows the zealots are taking over science, says Robert Matthews
The hard-line zealots of the Royal Society, Britain's most prestigious scientific institution, finally did for Michael Reiss yesterday.
Reiss was the Society's director of education. He is an evolutionary biologist - and a minister in the Church of England. Last week he went public with his belief that science teachers shouldn't simply dismiss questions from pupils about creationism, but explain why it's not compatible with science.
Reiss made clear that he did not believe in creationism himself, nor believed it should be given equal billing with evolution. It made no difference: within hours, the Royal Society zealots mounted a full-scale character assassination and last night Reiss agreed to step down.
The zealots' point-man was Richard 'Mad Mullah' Dawkins, who compared having "a clergyman" directing education at the Royal Society to "a Monty Python sketch". But the real heavies are known only to seasoned observers of scientific fundamentalism: Sir Richard Roberts, Sir Harry Kroto and Sir John Sulston, Nobel Prize winners all.
Roberts plunged the knife, firing off a letter to the President of the Royal Society, Lord Rees, demanding to know "who on earth thought that [Reiss] would be an appropriate director of education?" and describing Reiss's religious occupation as "worrisome".
What many will find worrisome is the intolerance of eminent scientists to the suggestion of engagement with the questions of children. Yet they are far from alone. Fundamentalism is spreading across science, with zealots ready to attack anyone who dares question the accepted teaching - be it the unquestionable importance of animal experiments or the unimpeachable evidence for dramatic global warming.
The motto of Royal Society is 'Nullius in verba' - roughly speaking, take no-one's word for it. Its treatment of Reiss suggests that when it comes to words of dissent, the attitude of the Royal Society is closer to that of a madrassa than a learned body. ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
The Reiss Affair a Matter of Intellectual Integrity
Various letters, such as that from the Bishop of Lincoln (Guardian) etc, contain a significant amount of self-righteous criticism of the Royal Society with regard to the Rev Michael Reiss's position as Director of Science Education. It is clear that there is almost total ignorance about the fundamental issues involved and an abysmal understanding of Science and the culture that created the modern world from anaesthetics and penicillin to jet engines, mobile phones and the Internet. Of course The Origin of the Universe and Living Organisms is a perfectly respectable question for the Science lesson (perhaps the most exciting and fundamental one) - as long as someone with Intellectual Integrity is there to answer it! There is a major problem however for the religious person, scientist or otherwise, in answering this question and it involves, first and foremost, Intellectual Integrity.
Let me clarify the fundamental philosophical issue - The Scientific Mindset: Science is based solely on doubt-based, disinterested, examination of the natural and physical world. It is entirely independent of personal belief. There is a very important, fundamental concomitant - that is to accept absolutely NOTHING whatsoever, for which there is no evidence, as having any FUNDAMENTAL validity. A dilemma: one can of course have an infinite number of questions but only those questions that can be formulated in such a way that they can be subjected to detailed disinterested examination, and when so subjected reveal unequivocally and ubiquitously accepted data, may be significant.
The plethora of more-or-less incompatible religious concepts that mankind has invented from Creationism and Intelligent Design to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Mormonism, Scientology, Hinduism, Shinto, Shamanism etc., etc., etc., are all basically indistinguishable, from the Freethinker's perspective. It really does not matter whether someone believes a mystical entity created the Universe five thousand or ten thousand million years ago - both are equally irrational unsubstantiated claims of no fundamental validity. Unfortunately Michael Reiss who is, according to reports, a nice guy, was just in the wrong job. He, together with all religious people, whether they like it or not, whether they accept it or not - fall at the first hurdle of the main requirement for honest philosophical scientific discussion because they accept unfound dogma as having fundamental significance. Note that I did not say value (positive or negative!). In the Jeffersonian sense Church and State (including education especially on Sundays) must be separated - otherwise our democratic freedoms are undermined. A secular socio-political framework is an absolutely necessary (though unfortunately not always sufficient) condition to guarantee freedom of religion - as well as freedom of non-religion.
I do not have a particularly big problem with scientists who may have some personal mystical beliefs - for all I know the President of the Royal Society may be religious. However I, and many Royal Society colleagues, do have a problem with an ordained minister as Director of Science Education as this is a totally different issue. An ordained minister must have accepted that there is a creator (presumably more intelligent than he is?) and thus many of us (maybe 90% of FRSs) cannot see how such a person can pontificate on how to tackle this fundamentally unresolvable conflict at the science/religion interface. An ordained minister cannot have his religious cake in church on Sunday and eat a scientific one with intellectually vulnerable kids in the classroom on weekdays. This is where the Intellectual Integrity issue arises and it is the crucial aspect in the Reiss Affair.
I suggest that the Rev Reiss, the Bishop of Lincoln and any others who presume the authority to dictate how religious issues should be handled in the science classroom read from Sam Harris's book "Letter to a Christian Nation" at their Sunday sermons. Then perhaps some of their flock may understand what Intellectual Integrity and true humanity actually involve. Furthermore I suggest that this wonderful little book be a set text for young people at Sunday School, so they recognise that the really dangerous people can include the religious who are hell-bent on dragging us back into the Dark Ages, rather than the Freethinking Humanists who are struggling to save the democratic freedoms of The Enlightenment for our grandchildren. The Pope is the 21st Century disciple of Cardinal Bellarmine.
Posted by Sir Harold Kroto
Typical nonsense from the creationist front from Mr Matthews.
(1) When you don't have an valid argument, resort to insults such as "Mad Mullah".
(2) The creationists are the fundamentalists by pushing a dogma, with no evidence or scientific validity as a "valid, scientific worldview".
(3) It is not the action of zealots to prevent an august scientific body being used to prevent precious science teaching time, being wasted on non-evidence based theories. What next, discuss the "world is flat" in Geography or 2+2=5 in GCSE Maths?
There is definately no room in any classroom for the discussion of creationism.People are free to believe the fairy stories contained in the so-called holy books of their various religions, however they should not be free to pervert the evidence of geology,astronomy and many other sciences with their completely discredited version of the formation of the Earth, over thousands of years, rather than the billions it has actually taken.It is a futile attempt to fit their fairy stories into a timeline which begins when these stories were written by unknown jewish tribesmen, somewhere in the current middle east, some 6000 years ago.It has no place in education and must be totally opposed everywhere.Furthermore those teachers that are asked questions by students on the creation subject should do all they can to destroy these falsehoods with both derision and the facts.There is no room to respect the views of those that hold such beliefs.Keep up the good work Messrs Dawkins and Hitchens.
Also,Mr Matthews any scientist that claims to be a fundamentalist does not deserve the title scientist.As Mr Dawkins has pointed out, on many occassions, he readily accepts that if new evidence and facts emerge in any branch of the sciences, as long as it has been through rigorous examination, it is legitimate and may replace previous findings.That is science as opposed to doctrine.
Professor Dawkins is an evolutionist. Creationism, together with those who adhere to this view, must therefore be anathema to him. He is also an atheist so all religions, and those who live by them, are likewise anathema. Or so some of his public statement would lead me to suspect. They would also suggest that he considers that only those who share his views have a right to be heard or tolerated.
Great efforts are being made today all over the world to understand, accept and live with differences between people in matters of colour, sex, culture and religious beliefs, and discourage the spread of the intolerance born of ignorance that breeds social disharmony. But Dawkins et al evidently have no tolerance for any such a spirit to be entertained within the Royal Society.
Anyone trying to exhibit tolerance of difference to his views becomes subject to his "polite, reasonable and considerate" intolerance. Why do the words 'fascist', 'arrogance' spring so easily to mind whenever he hits the headlines? Professor dawkins may be an extremely intellibgent man but on this evidence I can't rate him very highly as a tolerants, fair minded human being. Reminds me a little of GWB when he said something along the lines of "If you are not with us you are against us" in the War on Terrorism.
More strength to Professor Lord Winston say I.
Sorry Mr Matthews, but when you resort to 'mad mullah' type insults, it's you who comes over as the intolerant one.
Having read and listened to Profesor Dawkins I always think he comes over as polite, reasonable and considerate.
Mr Matthews is wrong. Reiss, as an ordained vicar as well as a biologist, should have been more aware of the nature of the religious fundamentalism at work in the Creationist and ID lobby.
The creationists are people who approach scientific enquiry claiming they already have the answer to the mysteries of the universe, and who are not open to having their minds changed. They are the cuckoo in the science nest, but Reiss is naive in seeing them as people who can be welcomed in, reasoned with and dissuaded from their dogmatic religious certainty. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The real issue Reiss identified is that some children are being so heavily indoctrinated at home with fundamentalist religious dogma that when they turn up at school to learn about the wider world in which they live, they are so convinced they are right, and so dismissive and intolerant of alternative views, that considering any other point of view is a turn-off. The way to deal with this is NOT to soften and bend facts or evidence just to accommodate dogmatic religious certainty. This merely gives creationist views a cloak of respectability they don't merit.