"The Royal Society is opposed to creationism being taught as science.  Some media reports have misrepresented the views of Professor Michael Reiss, Director of Education at the Society expressed in a speech yesterday. Professor Reiss has issued the following clarification. "Some of my comments about the teaching of creationism have been misinterpreted as suggesting that creationism should be taught in science classes. Creationism has no scientific basis. However, when young people ask questions about creationism in science classes, teachers need to be able to explain to them why evolution and the Big Bang are scientific theories but they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis.  I have referred to science teachers discussing creationism as a worldview'; this is not the same as lending it any scientific credibility." The society remains committed to the teaching of evolution as the best explanation for the history of life on earth.  This position was highlighted in the Interacademy Panel statement on the teaching of evolution issued in June 2006."

"The Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) has totally distanced itself from the older Royal Society over its comments on the teaching of creationism in science lessons in UK schools. "If this really is the view of the Royal Society, where is science leadership in this country?" said Dr Richard Pike, chief executive of the Royal Society of Chemistry. He said that the debate must be brought into historical perspective and swiftly concluded, by considering the single example of Copernicus, which every schoolchild can relate to. Dr Pike emphasised: "Until the fifteenth century in Europe the scientific view, heavily influenced by theological doctrine, was that the sun revolved around the Earth. "Crucially, once Copernicus had demonstrated that it was the Earth that went round the sun, mainstream science was to accept this, and the discredited view abandoned - it was not taught as an equally valid alternative. "Creationism represents man's attempts thousands of years ago to explain a complex world within the religious, social and limited scientific framework of that time. "Science has had many 'Copernicus moments' since, and must move on. To teach creationism as a current alternative theory, rather than an ancient philosophy, is to dismiss the entire body of quantitative, evidence-based science. There can be no 'cherry-picking' to select what is now socially acceptable to teach in science lessons. He added, "It is incongruous that the Royal Society conveys the message it does, at a time when many of its Fellows are engrossed in replicating the birth of the universe within the Large Hadron Collider"."

Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008

Dr Dr Pike

As a member of the RSC for over two decades (GRSC, MRSC, now FRSC) I was disappointed to see the press release on the Society's website implying that the Royal Society was supporting the teaching of creationism in school science. This is clearly an important issue, and there has been something of a broad consensus between scientific bodies and government in this country that creationism is not a scientific theory and should not be presented as a scientific alternative in science lessons. You may not have been aware of this situation, but the RSC has staff who could have quickly briefed you on the matter.

As I understand Prof. Reiss' position, he is (as a biologist) totally opposed to the teaching of creationsim as an alternative to natural selection in school science. However, he took a view that rather than ignore the beliefs of a significant minority of students in this country who have committed views incompatible with the science curriculum, teachers should be prepared to engage with and respond to those views when raised in science lessons. This is a nuanced issue as clearly it is difficult to know how to broach such matters with students who have strong faith commitments that deny one of the best established and most important scientific models/theories we have. Many teachers do not feel confident in exploring such issues when some students will have been told by respected authorities (parents, religious ministers) that creationism is supported by strong evidence and that the scientific model is a misreading of evidence. Whilst the scientific case is very strong, the complexity of the concepts and evidence base make this a very difficult topic to tackle in any depth at school level. Moreover, a vast research base in science education shows that pupils' existing ideas can interact with teaching in very different ways, so that it is not always clear what the outcome of such 'challenges' to student thinking are likely to be. Some pupils may change their minds, but others may simply decide that if they are told they have to choose between science and faith-based beliefs, they must put aside science as anything more than something they study to pass school exams. As, by definition, those pupils who have a faith that does not admit evolution tend to have fundamentalist beliefs, it is likely they will often hold to their creationism strongly.

Prof. Reiss was therefore making a serious point as part of an ongoing and subtle debate about how to respond in science lessons to a complex and sensitive issue. That his position has been misinterpreted in some media is unfortunate. That the RSC as learned society should chose to ignore the real issue, and respond to the media fuss as though the RS was taking a position opposed to its well know actual stance, seems to me to be ill-judged. It would have been much more constructive if the Society could have issued a statement offering support for the actual RS position against the teaching of creationism in science, rather than take the opportunity to criticise the RS's leadership of science in the UK. I do not know if this was just an attempt to gain publicity for the RSC, or was a genuine failure to check facts before releasing a press statement, but this kind of internecine sniping surely undermines the scientific consensus, and in my view is very unhelpful to those of us working in science education.

Yours

Dr Keith Taber
Former Chair, RSC Chemical Education Research Group
Editorial Board, Education in Chemistry (RSC Magazine)
International Advisory Board, Chemistry Education Research and Practice (RSC Journal)
Former RSC Teacher Fellow

"Some of Professor Michael Reiss's recent comments, on the issue of creationism in schools, while speaking as the Royal Society's Director of Education, 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. He is to return, full time, to his position as Professor of Science Education at the Institute of Education. 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. The Royal Society greatly appreciates Professor Reiss's efforts in furthering the Society's work in the important field of science education over the past two years. The Society wishes him well for the future."

I was saddened to learn of the Royal Society's decision (announced today at http://royalsociety.org/) to ask Prof. Michael Reiss to stand down form his post as Director of Education following widespread coverage of remarks he made about teaching evolution to students with creationist world-views. The gist of Prof. Reiss' argument was that the appropriate response to students who raise their beliefs in class when they are taught the scientific theory of natural selection should not be to ignore, dismiss or ridicule the students' views, but rather to respect their ideas as a starting pint for discussion, and to challenge them through the scientific arguments that have led to evolution by natural selection becoming some a strongly supported and widely accepted model for how life on earth has developed.

Prof. Reiss' comments are said to have damaged the reputation of the Royal Society. As it seems accepted that, as Prof. Reiss has made it absolutely clear, he was not suggesting teaching creationist ideas (as some misleading media reports implied or suggested); and that his views about the status of evolution (as a successful scientific theory) and creationism (as something that is not scientifically supported and so not a scientific theory or model) seem totally in keeping with the broad scientific consensus, it is hard to see how his comments are objectionable. If the mis-reporting was seen as potentially damaging to the Royal Society, then it should have taken the opportunity to use the widespread media interest to reiterate and explain its own position.

I can only conclude that what was found objectionable about Prof. Reiss's position was that he was using his vast experience as a science teacher and researcher of science classrooms to suggest that certain approaches naively offered by some academic scientists with no experience of teaching in the school system, are likely to be ineffective. Rather, he draws upon the widely accepted, evidence-based position adopted by most science educators, that the best way to develop children's thinking is to give them the chance to talk about their ideas, and to explore and understand why scientists have come to understand things differently. This general principle is central to science education, and is strongly supported by research evidence: just as natural selection is in biology. It reflects the scientific values of maintaining an open mind, and of considering and evaluating evidence, that we hope to instill in students. Of course, children with strong creationist views may not be prepared to question their existing ideas if these are central to their cultural and family identities: but Reiss' recommendations make more sense than simply dismissing their ideas as irrelevant and telling them to instead learn something that contradicts their own strong convictions. Childrens' creationist views may be irrelevant to science, but they are highly significant to both their learning of the science, and their developing attitudes to science as a source of reliable knowledge. Those FRS who decided to ignore this and call for Reiss dismissal, seem to be forgetting that their own expertise is in science, not schooling, which is presumably why they appointed a science teacher and educational researcher to high office in the Society.

In summary, the decision to dismiss Reiss seems to suggests that some academic scientists feel they know best in education, and are not prepared to listen to experts informed by a different field of research than their own. I fear that it will be this decision to sack rather than explain which could bring the Royal Society in disrepute, not the inaccurate reporting of a talk in the media. In my view, the Royal Society has today done a disservice to science education in the UK, and so indirectly to the future of science.
 
Dr. Keith S. Taber