Eating the cake you already have - September 18, 2008
Since Michael Reiss, an ordained minister, ‘stepped down’ from his job as director of education at the Royal Society a lot of hand wringing has been going on.
Reiss was forced from his job after widespread misinterpretation of his comments about the treatment of creationism in science classes (full story on Nature News).
As we noted on this blog last week and on Nature News yesterday a lot of the reporting seemed to take his comments slightly out of context, and now some newspapers are trying to redress the balance...
Last week the Times stated “Creationism should be taught in science classes as a legitimate point of view, according to the Royal Society” and ran an editorial saying:
Were Professor Reiss to have argued merely that schools should show respect for religious belief, his remarks would be correct and unexceptionable. And were he alone, his views might be counted an idiosyncracy. It is in arguing that creationism has a place in science lessons that the professor has made his error.”
Today Time’s columnist Tom Whipple writes:
... he resigned not because he was wrong, nor even because he was particularly controversial. He resigned because others ascribed to him beliefs that were not his own.In an odd pact between journalists who want to write sensation, and readers who want to buy it, we choose cartoonish half-truths over complex reality. Professor Reiss is the victim of a culture where all arguments must be expressible in a sentence, and all sentences able to stand on their own.
The Guardian – which said similar things to the Times last week – devotes the daily ‘in praise of’ slot in its leaders to Reiss. This includes the slightly mealy mouthed apology:
He did not say that creationism was scientific. He did not advocate including it in the science curriculum. And he categorically denied that creationism and evolution deserved equal time. The subtlety of Prof Reiss's position was lost in some media reports, while the headlines in many newspapers- including this one - did not convey the nuance of his message.
Having cake is good. Having it and eating it? So much better...
More Reiss coverage
The view from across the pond: Chicago Tribune says ‘Creationism in class? Brits say, heavens, no’
Image: Punchstock
Comments
Had God supported Reiss' pieces he would be already reinstated. To reinstate Reiss now, in defiance of divine will, would invite the return of bell bottomed purple velvet trousers for 1000 years of penance. Choose wisely.
Posted by: Uncle Al | September 18, 2008 11:13 PM
Ah yes, the media are clearly culpable here. But what about those Fellows of the Royal Society who were happy to judge Reiss on media misrepresentations, rather than going back to check the primary source of his speech?
"Taking someone else's word for it" contradicts the spirit of the Royal Society's motto ("Nullius in Verba"). And not checking primary sources is the kind of error one usually tries to stop undergraduates from making. Rather embarassing to see Nobel Prize winners making it here, either through laziness or belief in their own infallibility...
Posted by: Alex | September 19, 2008 01:40 PM
Sad that a scientific society should sack someone because what he says is capable of being misinterpreted. "Choose wisely", indeed!
Posted by: Tim Roberts | September 23, 2008 05:33 PM