Science divided over Royal Society “creationism” resignation

Director of education steps down after suggesting creationism should be discussed in science lessons

can fossils be discussed in the same lesson as creationism?

Following his suggestion that creationism should be discussed in science lessons, Professor Michael Reiss has stepped down as director of education at the Royal Society.

The resignation of Professor Reiss – a biologist and ordained Church of England Clergyman – came after his suggestion that science teachers should treat creationist beliefs “not as misconception, but as a world view” was deemed to have caused damage to the Society’s reputation.

After initially backing Reiss, the Royal Society appears to have bowed to an appeal from several senior Royal Society Fellows who were angered that comments were made whilst Reiss was speaking in his Royal Society role.

In a statement, the Society said: “Some of Professor Michael Reiss’s recent comments, on the issue of creationism in schools were open to misinterpretation. While it was not his intention, this has led to damage to the Society's reputation. As a result, Professor Reiss and the Royal Society have agreed that, in the best interests of the Society, he will step down immediately as director of education a part time post he held on secondment.” 

The resignation has divided many in the science and teaching community. While some welcomed the move, others felt that Professor Reiss raised an important point. This divide was echoed in the statement issued by the Royal Society announcing his departure. It went on to say: “The Royal Society's position is that creationism has no scientific basis and should not be part of the science curriculum. However, if a young person raises creationism in a science class, teachers should be in a position to explain why evolution is a sound scientific theory and why creationism is not, in any way, scientific.” This appeared to many as the same point Professor Reiss had made.

Dr Roland Jackson, chief executive of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, said: “I was at the actual discussion and what I heard him say, however it has been reported, was essentially the position advocated by the Royal Society,” he said.

He went on to say the organisation “should have supported him and used this opportunity to further a reasoned debate”.

Reacting to his stepping down, Lord Robert Winston, professor of science and society at Imperial College London, said: “I fear that in this action the Royal Society may have only diminished itself. This is not a good day for the reputation of science or scientists. This individual was arguing that we should engage with and address public misconceptions about science - something that the Royal Society should applaud.”

Despite the insistence by Reiss that his words have been misinterpreted – others have suggested he was naïve to make statements that could be seen as backing the teaching of creationism in science lessons.

Professor Chris Higgins, vice-chancellor of the University of Durham, said: “There should be no room for doubt - creationism is completely unsupportable as a theory, and the only reason to mention creationism in schools is to enable teachers to demonstrate why the idea is scientific nonsense and has no basis in evidence or rational thought.”

Reiss maintains that it is more effective to engage with pupils’ ideas about creationism rather than to dismiss them. “My experience after having tried to teach biology for 20 years is if one simply gives the impression that such children are wrong, then they are not likely to learn much about the science that one really wants them to learn,” he said.