UPDATED – SEE BELOW FOR STATEMENT FROM REISS

As Scientific American put it recently – to the rage of the Discovery Institute – “If it’s September, it’s time for creationism in schools. That’s how some would like it, anyway.”

And so it came to pass after Michael Reiss came out in favour of allowing discussion of creationism in UK science classes. Reiss is director of education at the Royal Society. He is also a minister with the Church of England.

In a speech to the British Association Festival of Science he says:

My central argument of this article is that creationism is best seen by a science teacher not as a misconception but as a worldview.

…

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. However, in certain classes, depending on the comfort of the teacher in dealing with such issues and the make up of the student body, it can be appropriate to deal with the issue.

These arguments from Reiss are actually not hugely surprising. His article ‘Should science educators deal with the science/religion issue?’ in this month’s edition of Studies in Science Education states, “I conclude that there are increasing arguments in favour of science educators teaching about the science/religion issue.”

And his speech is actually not that different to the position he was setting out in 2006 in an interview with the Guardian:

“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.

…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.

Given the number of journalists at the BA festival though (basically all the science correspondents who weren’t at the LHC), Reiss’s comments were always going to be big news.

Most incensed is the Times, which declares in its lead editorial slot:

Were Professor Weiss 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. And unfortunately he is not alone.

…

Children should be taught about faith, and it is to be hoped they will learn respect for it. But in science classes? Please teach science.

The Guardian reports the story thus: “Creationism and intelligent design should be taught in school science lessons, according to a leading expert in science education.”

It quotes biologist Lewis Wolpert as saying, “Creationism is based on faith and has nothing to do with science, and it should not be taught in science classes. There is no evidence for a creator, and creationism explains nothing.”

The Financial Times quotes physicist John Fry: “Science lessons are not the appropriate place to discuss creationism, which is a world view in total denial of any form of scientific evidence.”

I’m going on the transcript rather than the speech but this seems to be a misinterpretation of what Reiss is actually saying. Reiss is not arguing for the teaching of intelligent design in science classes a la Palin. He’s saying that when students raise their views you should be willing to discuss them.

Putting intelligent design on school curriculums would be a disaster. But saying to someone ‘you’re wrong, and here’s the evidence’ doesn’t seem like a bad idea to me.

UPDATE – The Royal Society has issued the following statement:

No change in Society position on creationism

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.