Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Failed Brit Darwinist Michael Reiss – Sinner in the Hands of an Angry God


(A synopsis of a play in three acts)

If we go by the recent Michael Reiss drama, Brit Darwin fans seem to be going round the bend on hockey skates …

Act One: Well-meaning Brit clergyman wants kids to know “Darwin loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life … “

On September 11, 2008 Michael Reiss, a biologist, ordained minister in the Church of England, professor of science education at the Institute for Education, and director of science education employed by the Royal Society, wass quoted in an article in the Guardian by James Randerson as telling attendees at the British Association Festival of Science that, 

Creationism and intelligent design should be taught in school science lessons, …

The Rev Prof Michael Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society, said that excluding alternatives to scientific explanations for the origin of life and the universe from science lessons was counterproductive and would alienate some children from science altogether.

[ … ]

Reiss said he used to be an “evangelist” for evolution in the classroom, but that the approach had backfired. “I realised that simply banging on about evolution and natural selection didn’t lead some pupils to change their minds at all. Now I would be more content simply for them to understand it as one way of understanding the universe,” he said.

(Here’s the audio.)

So Reiss was definitely thumping the tub for Darwin. Let no one doubt this. In fact, he made tiresomely clear that he is totally sold on “evolution”, and anyone who doubts has “worldview” problems:

Just because something lacks scientific support doesn’t seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson. When I was taught physics at school, and taught it extremely well in my view, what I remember finding so exciting was that we could discuss almost anything providing we were prepared to defend our thinking in a way that admitted objective evidence and logical argument.

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.

[ … ]

Creationism can profitably be seen not as a simple misconception that careful science teaching can correct. Rather, a student who believes in creationism has a non-scientific way of seeing the world, and one very rarely changes one’s world view as a result of a 50-minute lesson, however well taught.

So Reiss had apparently decided, from experience, that it is better to listen first, and encourage people to talk before offering a solution. That, of course, is standard modern practice in any kind of evangelism, whether for Darwin, drugs, Christianity, jihadism, or animal rights terrorism. For whatever reason, most people, offered a choice of

1. Think my way,


2. Go to hell,

provided that no firearms are pointed directly at them – tend to respond, “Excuse me while I go check the weather news on the temperature down in hell. Back soon, … uh, honest!”

So, as Reiss made clear, he was earnest about looking for a way to convert the non-materialist sinners to random, purposeless Darwinian evolution.

Ah, but in the most faithful hearts, a seed of doubt may be nourished …

Act Two: The clergyman is himself accused of … sin!

“Creationism call divides Royal Society,” advised Robin McKie, science editor for the Guardian (Sunday September 14 2008). Indeed, Richard Roberts (British, Nobel 1993) and Harry Kroto (British, Nobel, 1996) were enraged ,and Roberts demanded that the Royal Society fire Reiss.

Roberts, winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize for Medicine for his work on gene-splicing, was equally angry. ‘I think it is outrageous that this man is suggesting that creationism should be discussed in a science classroom. It is an incredible idea and I am drafting a letter to other Nobel laureates – which would be sent to the Royal Society – to ask that Reiss be made to stand down.’

‘I warned the president of the Royal Society that his [Reiss] was a dangerous appointment a year ago. I did not realise just how dangerous it would turn out to be,’ said Kroto, a Royal Society fellow, and winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize for Chemistry

Robin McKie reminds us that

The row over Reiss’s remarks is the second recent controversy over the society’s stance on religion. Fellows, including cancer expert and Nobel Prize winner Sir Paul Nurse, complained about the financial links that had been established between the society and the Templeton Foundation, a conservative US organisation that seeks to establish links between science and religion. The latter funded a lecture course at the society.

Anyone who thought that the Templeton people were about to tolerate any sort of intelligent design (let alone creationism) obviously doesn’t know them – but that would include about 100 percent of McKie’s readers, so it probably doesn’t matter.

On September 15, sinner Reiss claimed, haplessly, in a letter to the Guardian, to have been misquoted.

He once again raised his cult’s war yell, that creationism has “no scientific validity.”

Indeed, it is a yell he has practised to perfection. As The Great Beyond blog advises, he had said much the same thing in a 2006 Guardian interview with Zoe Corbyn (“Michael Reiss: How to convert a generation: The collective voice of scientists on the best way to teach their subjects is also a priest”):

But in the spring of 2007, he will launch a book with an American academic, Sandy Jones, on teaching science to students who come from creationist homes. “I am really interested in how you teach in a way that is true to science, but doesn’t put many capable, sensitive young people off science for life, nor denigrate them,” says Reiss. His answer is not to be overly defensive, but to encourage an analysis of the evidence. “I am not expecting every young person to change their mind just because of five or 10 hours of science teaching … I love having intelligent 15-year-olds who will cheerfully argue their corner,” he says.

But, following the Royal Society’s line, Reiss stresses his opposition to the teaching of creationism in science classes (though teachers should be able to deal with it if it comes up in discussion). “There is a role for science teachers. Religious education teachers can’t be expected to know about the evidence for and against evolution,” he explains.

Yes, first and last, Rev. Reiss had been determined that the Good News of random and purposeless Darwinian evolution should be made available to children from creationist homes – and one of the ways to do that was to allow them to talk about what they in fact believed about the nature of life first.

But would that defense avail? Shooting the wounded is a religious duty, after all.

Act Three: The sinner meets Darwin’s God!

No, that defense did not avail. Proper religious justice was promptly meted out to the wayward Reiss. As the BBC inimitably put it, “Creationism” biologist steps down.

He was criticised by other scientists – though misquoted as saying creationism should be “taught” in science classes.

The society said some of his comments had been “open to misinterpretation”.

This had damaged its reputation.

But some offered to bury the ashes of Reiss’s career decently:

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.

Richard Dawkins offered the moral of the play:

The official line of the US National Academy, the American equivalent of the Royal Society, is shamelessly accommodationist. They repeatedly plug the mantra that there is ‘no conflict’ between evolution and religion. Michael Reiss could argue that he is simply following the standard accommodationist line, and therefore doesn’t deserve the censure now being heaped upon him.

Unfortunately for him as a would-be spokesman for the Royal Society, Michael Reiss is also an ordained minister. To call for his resignation on those grounds, as several Nobel-prize-winning Fellows are now doing, comes a little too close to a witch-hunt for my squeamish taste.

Nevertheless – it’s regrettable but true – the fact that he is a priest undermines him as an effective spokesman for accommodationism: “Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he!”

Epilogue: And so now?

So the community sinner and scapegoat has been properly punished.

Meanwhile, brief thoughts:

1. Richard Dawkins has every right to be unhappy about this incident. For one thing, as he must realize, the clear winners are intelligent design and creationism. Kroto, Roberts, and their fans (with an earlier assist from Dawkins himself, incidentally) have now created a situation where students cannot learn about any weaknesses associated with intelligent design (or creationism). It is hard to see how that will help materialist atheists like him.

2. On the whole, I doubt that Reiss’s suggestion was a good idea. Given the current commitment of the system to defending just about every swirl of hogwash advanced in Darwin’s name, the big problem is that large numbers of intelligent students will respectfully dissent – and get away with it.

So the tribal elders had to act at once, of course.

(Heck, where can I find a reliable anthropologist to document these priceless dramas from primitive human groups before they ultimately disappear?)

Also at The Post-Darwinist:

 Intelligent design and high culture: Philosopher says teaching students about intelligent design should be okay – with qualifications

Intelligent design and popular culture: Spore game site dupes fervid atheists

Darwinism and popular culture: The Anglican Church’s non-apology to Darwin

See also:

– At Index on Censorship Warwick U sociologist calls the case “a source of grave concern to those interested in the future of academic freedom.” Here’s a podcast of his views.

– David Tyler, “Another call to counter the Forces of Ignorance”:

It seems that every organisation connected with science has leaders who feel the need to make statements opposing intelligent design and creationism. Whilst most of these get no further than the press release, one has made it to the pages of Genome Biology. The author is Gregory Petsko, President of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB ). The first paragraph sets the tone: “the Discovery Institute, that bastion of ignorance, right-wing political ideology, and pseudo-scientific claptrap, the creationist movement has mounted yet another assault on science.” The “assault on science” is considered to be partly propaganda and partly legislative. Leaders like Petsko appear to be afflicted with a form of schizophrenia: when writing as scientists, they are rational and moderate; but when confronted by ID or creationism, they erupt in a frenzy of wild assertions.

Denise wrote: He once again raised his cult’s war yell, that creationism has “no scientific validity.” Ted comments. In one of the clip you cite, Denyse (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/sep/11/michael.reiss.creationism?gusrc=rss&feed=education), Reiss defines creationism at the start as the YEC view. Indeed the YEC does have no scientific validity; if the enormous evidence for an "old" earth and universe does not constitute good science, than what does? I see no reason to disagree with Reiss' statement, as follows: "Creationism, which has no scientific validity, can be discussed in a science class if it is raised by a pupil, but should in no way be seen as comparable to evolution or any other scientific theory which is backed up with evidence." Denyse, a bit later you also seem to attribute to Reiss a view that he does not hold. You state, "So, as Reiss made clear, he was earnest about looking for a way to convert the non-materialist sinners to random, purposeless Darwinian evolution." I would not doubt for a minute, Denyse, that the RS scientists who wanted him sacked believe just what you stated here. But Reiss does not believe that the acceptance of evolution as good science also means the acceptance of an atheistic worldview. I know him well enough to be quite sure about this. His own worldview is intermediate between that of a creationist and that of Richard Dawkins. Whether or not one agrees with Reiss that evolution is good science, then, it would not be accurate to imply that he wants to convert anyone atheism. (If my inference about your meaning here is incorrect, Denyse, I would appreciate a correction.) Ted Davis
Today's Nature slams the Royal Society for canning Reiss. "Nor was Nature privy to the Royal Society's internal deliberations about Reiss, so we will leave it to the officers and fellows of that body to reflect on who has done the most to damage its reputation." YEC
A recent survey of public-school science teachers in the US showed that about 25% of the respondents are teaching creationism or intelligent design, though many are doing so just for the purpose of disparaging them. See the table in -- http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2008/08/state-of-evolution-education-in-usa-and.html Also, what is the point of having scientific or pseudoscientific criticisms of evolution taught by people who have no expertise in biology, e.g., parents, pastors, and social studies teachers? Larry Fafarman
Ah yes, the issue is so more complicated since, in a Medieval sense, Reiss was actually a believing unbeliever. There's no concept of that in a medieval setting. If we were to build a time machine and travel back to the 15th century and explain that believers in God also believed that all was created by a process that didn't have him in mind or the mind is an illusion created by chemicals, they'd probably stare rather blankly...before hacking us to death with a double edge...witches that we are. reluctantfundie
You know, that sounds like a great idea! "The Heretic Reiss Meets His Deserved Doom!" However, strictly speaking, Reiss's fall can also be seen as more like a modern "liberal fascist" (or Stalinist) fall than a mediaeval one. Like the Soviet Doctors' Trials rather than Giordano Bruno. Remember, Reiss was wholeheartedly of the Party. He honestly BELIEVED it all. He wanted to impart the Good News of Darwinism to children! Mediaeval scholars thought that it matters what a person ultimately supposes to be true. In short, they thought that the mind was real. The modern Darwinist is past all that. He knows that the mind is merely the buzz of neurons in the brain, accidentally produced by natural selection. So it does not matter if Reiss is really heart and soul with the Cult/Party if there is something in his background or CV or genes that should give one pause for thought about his loyalty. Still, the trappings you describe might work well on a mediaeval circus wagon, so let's keep it in mind. O'Leary
Do atheists underline passages in the Origin of Species? reluctantfundie
I wonder whether we could think about converting this into a Medieval Mystery Play where Reiss goes to the grave and all the evolutionists dance on atop his memorial. We could have a scene of the Darwinists whipping his image and thinking for his death, that he may find solace in the dust of the earth in penitence for his great sin in this, his only life. Meanwhile, the true believers worship the idol of Darwin on top of the mount of the Holy Mutation whilst communing together over a copy of the Origin of Species and enjoying bread and wine which is said to trans substantiate into a finch beak and Galapogas juice. What do you think? reluctantfundie

Leave a Reply