Dr. Red Eye

Rev. Michael Reiss, a biologist and Church of England minister, was asked to resign from his post as education director at Britain’s premier and oldest scientific organization, the Royal Society. He did so Tuesday night, September 16th.

What was Reiss’ crime?

If you guessed ‘teaching creationism’, you’d be wrong. If you guessed ‘discussing creationism’, you’d still be wrong.

His crime was the mere suggestion in a speech that discussing creationism in science classes might be a way to engage the approximately 10% of students whose religious faith rejects the theory of evolution.

That’s right. Reiss was asked to resign not for discussing creationism but just for daring to bring up the idea.

As they say in Ginsu infomercials, but wait, there’s more. If you thought Reiss was some Christian fundamentalist, you’d be wrong once again.

Reiss believes creationism has no scientific basis.

Oh, the irony.

Here’s an evolutionist who is expelled from the scientific elite by other evolutionists just for mentioning that dreaded c-word in a speech. If evolutionists thought creationists and intelligent design (ID) proponents were making up the idea of the scientific establishment destroying the careers and reputations of anyone who would dissent from Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, here’s an evolutionist who got a first-hand experience of what Ben Stein and others were talking about.

So what exactly did Reiss say in his speech? Here it is:

“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.”

Listen to the audio:

Thus, Reiss argued that though creationism has no scientific basis, science teachers should allow creationist theories to be raised in class, where teachers could inform students that such theories are merely an alternative worldview which can be taught in religious classes but not in science class. Reiss argues that “teaching ‘x’ is quite different from teaching about ‘x’” and that creationism still should not get equal time in class.

Details of his presentation included comments like creationism/iD having “no underpinning scientific principles, or explanations, and are not accepted by the science community as a whole” and that evolution is “supported by a mass of evidence and fully accepted by the scientific community.”

In addition, Reiss said he once was an “evangelist” for pushing evolutionary teachings over the objections of some students but had backed off because he found the approach to be ineffective.

So clearly, he is an evolutionist.

Furthermore, Reiss added that the ideas behind his speech were accepted in the discussions in the RichardDawkins.net forums and by The Freethinker, the self-proclaimed “voice of atheism since 1881.”

But to Royal Society members, Reiss was much too radical. They demanded his resignation, calling him “dangerous” and accused Reiss’ comments as leading to “damage to he society’s reputation.”

John Fry, a University of Liverpool physicist, said, “My worry is as soon as you authorize the debate in science classes, you hijack them.”

Oh the horror of having debates in science class!

Ben Stein was right: evolutionists want no intelligence allowed in their classrooms…just lemmings who will blindly believe whatever theories the teacher wants to impose.