As a footnote to this thread, members may have noticed that Michael Reiss was, in effect, made to resign from his Royal Society post. This happened despite his having said only what the RS has itself argued.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/apr/12/religion.topstories3(I am compelled to use a reference to a newspaper as the statement referred to is no longer accessible on the Society's website:
royalsociety.org/news.asp?year=&id=4298
.)
Reiss's statement was apparently 'open to misunderstanding'. One might have added 'or misrepresentation by self-seeking journalists'. This was in effect a display of brute force, and arguably an
ad hominem decision, by powerful members of the RS.
It is perhaps worth remembering that what is 'brought into science lessons', whether or not it is voiced, is brought mainly not by politicians, or teachers or even Fellows of the RS, be they never so august, but by students themselves. It is a teacher's duty to respond. I also suggest that in a properly-conducted classroom there is an ethical duty on the part of teachers not to ridicule or browbeat students who state an opinion of this kind, but to present the evidence as critically and rationally as may be. This was what Michael Reiss was arguing for.
The Society has left itself open to the charge that it is afraid of rational and critical debate in classrooms. It has also given a weapon to the enemies of science, or this aspect of science, exemplified by the 'creationist' front organization 'Truth in Science'. Such groups will not be slow to use the weapon, in this country and elsewhere.
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/285/63/http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/283/63/
