Secular Inquisition at the Royal Society

Ray

And to think - these are the very people who accuse Christians of being intolerant bigots whose tiny minds are closed to any world view other than their own.

Alistair McKitterick

If the Royal Society is now to act as the British 'thought police' perhaps it is time for the 'Royal' part of their name to be removed. I doubt that the head of the Anglican church would think favourably about what these atheistic propagandists are doing in her name.

Calum

For a very smart woman when it comes to politics you really are a silly girl when it comes to religion. Creationism is superstitious fantasy and the professor wasnt removed from office because of "totalitarian atheism (what a disgusting abuse of the term "totalitarian") but because he clumsily made a statement which might (and indeed has) be seen as endorsing the teaching of anti-factual, anti-rational, religious theory as science. Whatever validity you might think creationism has there is no arguing that it belongs in a science lesson or as part of a science curriculum. It belongs within a Religious Education setting.

raymond joseph douglas

The christian world view is one that has no credence in much of our government or academic circles.No attempt is made to debate christian claims on history,origins or anything else!This just plain bigotry hiding behind a facade of academic integrity..No wonder we are ripe for muslim takeover!

Dominic L-R

I agree that it was wrong to push him out because his statement "might be open to misinterpretation". However, does Melanie Phillips think the following statement is appropriate for a senior scientist to say: "Just because something lacks scientific support doesn’t seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from the science lesson" ? ?
I wonder what Melanie would think about historical theories that "lack support", like Holocaust denial theory. Presumably, in the spirit of a liberal education, she would have no problem with that being taught in a history class? I think not.

Ian G

The Royal Society dshould take a look at the beliefs of some of its founders and luminaries. Will it now repudiate them, and their discoveries, as unacceptable to atheist science? Will it now accept as correct the atheist science of Communist Russia? Lamarckism is one that springs to mind.

David M.

"Totalitarian atheism?"
Utter rubbish. You have the wrong 'ism' there. Try another.

Freedom of religion as well as freedom FROM religion? Mmm, I'd vote for that!

Nick Kaplan

Melanie says “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.’ What is wrong with that? It is merely a statement of impeccably liberal educational beliefs.”

More like a statement of the blindingly obvious!

I would say this whole story is ‘political correctness gone mad’ but it always has been insane. How many more people will have to lose their jobs for having views that are “open to misinterpretation” (often only when deliberately misinterpreted), before we realise that those that are at fault are the people who are so stupid that they cannot correctly interpret what is said, rather than the person saying it.

Oh and how ironic is it that Liberal (ha... good joke!) Democrat MP Phil Willis can possibly believe that Reiss’s “are a step too far and they fly in the face of what science is about.” It’s amusing, I never thought science was about the fascist oppression of debate but about an open minded investigation of the evidence (which is exactly what Reiss is suggesting) ...

I despair.

Nick Kaplan

Dominic L-R; if someone in a history class were to believe the Holocaust never happened would you not think it is better to discuss the issue (thus showing them why they are wrong) rather than ignoring the student and pretending the problem didn’t exist?

Paul

"Totalitarian atheism"

Sigh. Do grow up, Melanie. There should be absolutely no place for creationism anywhere. It's utter nonsense. And it's so frustrating having to argue this - because it really isn't anything that should even be up for debate. And it's bloody depressing that people like you keep making a case for superstitious claptrap like this. Especially when you could be using that fine mind of yours on something else.

Hayward Maberley

Come off it Melanie, for now we know definitely you are, as we say in the Wide Brown Land, just a shit stirrer.
Creationism now rebadged as "Intelligent Design" does not qualify as science. Place it in Religious Studies and discuss it along with all the other Creation Myths from around the world.
While you are at it might as well include the Discworld of Terry Pratchett and H. P. Lovecraft's Cthulhu Mythos!

George

Paul and Calum,

Please explain to all of us exactly why creationism is "superstitious fantasy" and "total nonsense". I personally believe that God created the world in seven days. My only problem with that is why it took so long.

Baileyntx

I find it highly amusing, interesting and quite alarming to watch atheists/secularist become what they claim they detest about religions in the first place.

I also find it interesting that they cannot even recognise it in themselves as evidenced by some of the commenters here.

Bigotry and intolerence is something that the religious do....NOT THEM!

This article is not about creationism...it is about freedom of thought and speech...and its disappearance in British society.

Nick Kaplan

It’s quite amusing that Paul criticises Melanie for mentioning “totalitarian atheism” and then goes on to demonstrate exactly what she means by listening topics that should be banned from debate.

Also, why do you deliberately misrepresent what Melanie has said by saying that she is making a case for “superstitious claptrap?” Nowhere in her piece has Melanie expressed support for creationism. All she is doing is agreeing with a scientist who has said it shouldn’t be a banned topic. Saying something should not be banned is not the same as saying it is correct. In fact how can anyone ever appreciate how incorrect it is if it is never discussed? I’m very confident in the superiority of the theory of evolution and so I see nothing to fear from discussing (which is not the same as advocating) creationism alongside it, it is obvious which one would come off best in this process.

Just to put things in perspective, I am an atheist, not all of us believe in banning free speech and free thought, just the crazy leftists ones who, as always, lack confidence in their beliefs and thus resort to smearing, obfuscation and lies.

O. Kondratieff

First Harvard with Larry Summers, now the Royal Society--What has happened to the Power Elite??

Ian G

The universe either exists of itself or it came from somewhere/one that exists in and of itself. An infinite regression of Big Bangs is essentially the same as the first option. The second option is essentially Creationism. This does not automatically mean Six-literal days. The latter is a particular form of Creationism. There are many forms, some of which are more scientific than others. Dicussing which falls into which category belongs in both Science and RE. Intelligent Design is a more scientific form of Creationism. Bear in mind that the belief that the Universe exists in and of itself exists in Hinduism. It is not necessarily a non-religious viewpoint. Intelligent Design could admit that the Universe is intelligent in some way. Again, similar ideas can be found in Hindu philosophy.

An unintelligent Universe existing in and of itself has immense problems. The Big Bang is one, but the existence of Intelligence and of concepts like Beauty or Morality are others.

'Scientific' atheism is a statement of faith and not science as Professor Anthony Flew has conceded.

The argument from Design is still one of the strongest going, not least because of the evidence for design. Michael Behe and others have not been refuted. The so-called refutations have not been tested or proved. They are simply possible hypotheses.

The war against religion and especially Judeo-Christianity is not about science but about the enslavement of the mind. It was, after all, Jesus Christ Who said,"You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free" and not Karl Marx or Charles Darwin.

Alan O'Reilly

George, amen to that

Bible deniers are dogmatists throughout.

Re: 7 days of creation, I guess God has to slow down so we can keep up with Him. However, life shows up on the 5th day, Genesis 1:20-23 and God rests on the 7th, Genesis 2:2. This is like Jesus Christ's First Advent at the start of the 5th millennium and His return near the start of the 7th, i.e. soon, which will be a millennial sabbath of rest worldwide.

At which time the earth will definitely need it. Of whatever calamities are happening in the world now, we ain't seen nothin' yet.

But it will shake the faith of all atheists, evolutionists and other assorted dogmatists.

Nick Kaplan

George; the reason why creationism is superstitious fantasy is because, if believes it then one must also believe the earth is 6000 years old. This is patently nonsense. Radiocarbon dating proves that there are rocks that are millions of years old. Continental drift, a theory that has been proven with fossil evidence and various other empirical observations such as the fact that oil is found in Alaska proving Alaska used to be somewhere else, is a process that takes many millions of years as can be determined by how slowly continental plates move. Historical records of human life are older than 6,000 years, to believe this is the age of the earth is to believe Humans were around at the same time as dinosaurs and that many ancient human civilisations didn’t exist.

This does not mean that creationism should not be discussed; only discussion of this issue can show quite how ridiculous creationism is.

David Gibson

In the beginning bang....
How about some evidence to support that...

Richard

The problem is that most science teachers don't know enough about evolution and the evidence in its favour. That means that children who quote the misleading literature used as propaganda by the creationists might convince others. The creationists are willing to lie, and unless the teacher is very well-informed that is hard to counter for the science teacher who is probably unwilling to lie.

Paul

"I personally believe that God created the world in seven days."

And yet you still expect people to take you seriously? Debate with you even? Priceless!

Robbit

Calum and all the others, you really do not get it do you?

Reiss was NOT saying that it should be taught - simply that as a "world view" (NOT a branch of science) it should be allowed to be discussed in the context of pukka science lessons!!!! What the hell is wrong with that? The fact that some ignorant and doctrinaire idiots are unable to make such a distinction - but immediately instead jump to the conclusions that Reiss advocated the teaching of creationism as part or the standard science curriculum is their own bloody problem, not Reiss's! And the Royal Society has as good as conceded this and by so doing it has in effect admitted that it is punishing Reiss for the spin that outher people have put on what he said.

This is supposed to be a free and open society. ANYTHING that ANYONE says is ALWAYS CAPABLE OF BEING MISUNDERSTOOD BY SOMEONE - especially by ignorant ideologues whith axes to grind who are therefore incapable of attending to the actual words and logic of what someone actually said - and did not say - but just immediately go into their habitual witch-hunt mode as soon as a single word, like "creationism", triggers their pavlovian conditioned responses. If people are going to be punished if they say anything that that some idiots misconstrue - and there are more and more idiots around with our nose-diving educational standards, and our general mass culture of shallow, media-freindly, sound-bite fripperies that pass for "debate" - then free conversation and open discussion will simply cease, and that will be that. We will become a totalitarian society in the very deepest sense possible.

Yes, Paul, David M, &c - TOTALITARIAN is precisely the right word chosen by Melanie. Are any of you capable of distinguishing between SCIENCE and SCIENTISM? The latter is a world view - just like creationism - NOT a branch of science. And it is increasingly mutating from a mere "world view" into an explicit ideology. And the more militant, dogmatic, intollerant, and exclusivist it becomes the more its is becoming a form of conceptual totalitarianism. The Royal Society seems to be setting itself up as the Star Chamber and High-Priesthood of militant secularist scientISM - and no longer gives a toss about free and open discussion.

TimM

The royal society represent green faith now, not science.

They don't have a scientific or rational approach anymore - they have a religious doctrine. They have invested their collective faith in political man made global warming theory, using dodgy warmist theology, and based upon Al Gore's ludicrous crockumentary. They shout down any scientific dissent as heresy.
The RS are now as faith based as the creationists. It's just that they inflict far more economic damage by providing scientific veneer to the green scam.

Emmet Sweeney

The secularist zealots have been at this type of suppression for up to a century now, and it's astonishing that no-one has seen fit to stand up to them. The "science" of human and natural history which they present to the public is a caricature, which relies on the suppression of volumes of crucial evidence. For example, the fact that the Pleistocene mgafauna died out suddenly and in catastrophic circumstances was proved beyond question more than a century ago (frozen mammoths were found with undigested buttercups in their mouths - in full bloom; whales and seals were found on the Antarctic continent hundreds of metres above sea level and hundreds of miles from the coast, etc etc etc). Yet search, if you like, for even a passing mention of any of this evidence in ANY of the reference books. The secularist inquisitors like Carl Sagan have done their job well, and real investigation of the past has ground to a halt.

Alex Bensky

Oldthink, Melanie. Incorrect ideas should not be expressed and discussed and people who hold them should not be thoughtfully engaged. Instead, people who have wrong ideas should be taught not to express them at all.

If not, the next step might be having to give our own ideas consideration and debate rather than confirmation. Where could that lead?

Dominic L-R

Nick Kaplan - regarding your question. I totally agree with you: it is certainly far better to discuss an issue in class if someone brings it up (which is what people like Richard Dawkins always do, rather than shy away from it - watch his recent programme on Darwin, or indeed his old Horizon lectures). However, the crucial issue here is whether ideas like ID theory (or indeed Holocaust denial) should become part of the curriculum, thus obliging teachers to bring them up and discuss them as legitimate ideas, even if the students haven't. It's one thing to discuss ideas if someone raises them. Quite another to formalise a particular (in this case non-scientific) theory in the curriculum, which is exactly what ID proponents desire. (Do you think they would be happy for their precious theory to be brought up only to be dismissed!) When people casually say it's "ok to discuss ideas" .. or to "teach both theories", we must be crystal clear what that actually entails.

On another point, I agree with David M - Melanie's use of the term 'totalitarian atheism' is disgraceful. For someone who constantly rails (quite rightly) against the use of abusive terms by the left (such as racist, islamophobic or homophobic) in an attempt to shut down debate, here she is doing exactly the same thing! To describe someone as totalitarian is to suggest they are irrational and bigoted, and that we need not discuss their ideas.

Huw Thornton

I agree, Melanie. Every word.

Michael Reiss lost his role not because of what he did, or even what he said, but rather because of his belief.

The people that called for Michael Reiss's head are trying to destroy a secular society. It seems that a test about religious belief now needs to be passed before a person can be a spokesman for the Royal Society.

Howard

Dawin was right - get over it. Should the Royal Society advocate teaching that fairies live at the bottom of the garden? Of course not.

Nick Kaplan

David Gibson; It’s called Doppler Red Shift (whereby light waves are shifted towards the red end of the spectrum as objects move away) which proves that all matter in the universe is constantly moving apart at equal speed in all directions. For this to happen there must have been one central starting point from whence all matter came and this is the Big Bang. The existence of background radiation is also said to be evidence of the Big Bang although I am unsure of the exact details.

Arthur

Agree in principle with the post but in my day we studied Darwin in Biology and Genesis in Scripture.

This debate is stupid and symptomatic of the changed nation we have become where external forces have been allowed to infiltrate and corrupt our national consensus.

Nick Kaplan

One wonders whether Alex Bensky would like to replace what he sneeringly calls “Oldthink” with Newspeak and the thought Police whereby Big Brother can monitor exactly what people are allowed to believe and make sure only the state approved version of reality is taught in schools. I’m not sure I have ever read anything that sounds quite as malevolent as “Instead, people who have wrong ideas should be taught not to express them at all,” and I’ve read sections of Mein Kampf.

Normally Melanie’s comments section is full of intelligent comments from informed and sensible people (not all of whom I agree with). It seems that this topic has brought out a strange combination of crypto-fascists and religious nut-jobs; it’s hard to tell who deserves more contempt. Although there are some still making a lot of sense, well said Robbit!

Conservative Cabbie

Howard - If you're so confident that Darwin was right, please explain for me, the massive gaps in his theory like the lack of failed evolutionary experiments in the fossil record and the Cambrian explosion.
I'm not suggesting the world was created 6000 years ago but to disregard all other theories is just shutting down debate and that is never right.

Robbit

Howard -
Of course our genetic science stemming from Darwin is "right" - or at least very great and the best we have - and creationism is not science at all. No one denied that. But as with so many others your irrelevant sound-bite misses the whole bloody point, doesn't it? Your vaccuous fripperies are utterly irrelevant and precisely the sort of pathetic little sound-bites I was referring to in my previous post - showing that you have utterly no comprehension of the real issues at stake - and have not even understood the literal meaning and point of Melanie's blog. Point proven.

Verity

So. The Royal Society is to the right of Governor Palin.

When she was asked - inexplicably, as the school curriculum is not within the Governor's power to determine - if she would insist on teaching creationism in schools, she said no.

She added, though, that if it came up in class in a discussion, she thought that students should be free to explore it.

The left's falling apart before our eyes. Anything I can do to help, just let me know.

David McAdam

How selectively 'diverse' are those secularists who profess to be tolerant. It was Thomas Paine who wrote that 'tolerance is counterfeit intolerance.' A fitting definition for Professor Weiss's detractors' display of the virtue.
Yup, in the view of his learned secularist peers,
'diversity' is probably a wonderful concept (and here's me thinking it was just a word) as an affirmative action policy where filling vacancies in factories, offices, transport - except pilot cockpits - hospitals - except heart surgeon vacancies in operating theatres - public services, police, teaching and shops etc etc are concerned. But not as a platform for airing differences of opinions and ideas in science class. Certainly not in the Royal Society either, or indeed in any other influential establishment where secularists' views dominate.

David Lindsay

To Richard Dawkins’s “it’s like a Monty Python sketch” remark about the fact that the Royal Society’s Director of Education is a clergyman, I was going to do the “Has he never heard of…?” line. But why bother? Of course he has never heard of any of the people whom I was going to list.

Dawkins’s science, as such, really does not appear to consist of much, if anything, more than a doctorate which must now be about forty years old.

Yes, he is (like many a cleric before him) a Fellow of the Royal Society. But publicity-starved British science sometimes confers these things of anyone to whom it is grateful for flying the flag. The first science graduate to be Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, is an FRS, and not an honorary one.

Last night, Dawkins featured in a BBC programme looking forward to the American Presidential Election. The other contributors included Nobel Laureates. I am surprised that they agreed to appear with Dawkins, the face (and, of course, the gob) of the pre-publicity. Perhaps they didn’t know.

Dawkins denounced not only creationists (to whom I shall return), but also opponents of abortion, as unscientific. He just can’t help himself, can he? The status of the embryo or foetus is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. The science could not be clearer as to when a genetically distinct entity, simply as such, comes into being.

Those of us who oppose abortion may, for the sake of argument, be wrong philosophically. But we are certainly not unscientific. Science has no morality of its own. Like money, sex or power, the morality lies in what we do with it.

Last week, the Guardian won a libel action brought by a medical doctor who had turned to quackery in the pursuit of profit, specifically in relation to AIDS. (He is not the only such profiteering quack – those who promote condomania in Africa and elsewhere are just as bad, as Africans themselves recognise.) There can be no such thing as “alternative medicine”. If it works, then it is medicine.

Quackeries, which can of course be fatal, are grounded in eternalism (the belief that the universe has always existed), animism (that the universe is an animal, a living and organic being), pantheism (that the universe is in itself the ultimate reality, the first cause, God), astrology (that all earthly phenomena are caused, or at least influenced, by the pantheistic movements of the stars) and cyclicism (that every event repeats exactly after a sufficiently long time the precise length of which varies according to culture, and has already so repeated itself, ad infinitum).

But without the authority (the Bible as interpreted definitively by the Church) by and on which those errors were specifically condemned, making possible the emergence of science, how is anyone to see beyond what are always, in the absence of that authority, human beings’ beliefs about such matters?

For that matter, how can a rapidly Islamising West and an increasingly Muslim-owned world retain any expectation to observe rationality and order in the universe when the increasingly prevelant culture sees everything as directly dependent on the will of Allah, a capricious will in several verses of the Qu’ran?

And as for creationism, take out our much more numerous Don’t Knows (of whom I assume that Dawkins does not approve), and the creationist proportion of the British people is comparable to the creationist proportion of the American people.

Why might that be? Surely at least part of the blame cannot attach to the very high profile figure of this country’s only Professor for the Public Understanding of Science?

A J Scott

Have cancelled long-standing subscription to RS forthwith. What a load of self-revealing fraudulent "experts". Send them all to Siberia or Bejing to discuss their scientific methods.

Nick Kaplan

David Lindsay; I agree completely with what you say on the issue of abortion, it has always amazed me how many people think abortion is a scientific rather than an ethical question. I would imagine the reason behind this is because it is far easier to support abortion if one considers it only in scientific terms (and those writing in the media about it primarily want to reinforce the status quo). Once one considers the philosophy of this issue one realise how difficult it is and how reprehensible society’s current stance is. I speak from experience as someone who used to support abortion until someone got me to think about it on a philosophical level.

Dominic L-R

Since Richard Dawkins always seems to get a pretty severe bashing on these pages (militant, fundamentalist, totalitarian.. take your pick), readers may be interested to know what he has said on this subject - he talks of Michael Reiss as an "ordained minister" and then says "To call for his resignation on those grounds, as several Nobel-prizewinning Fellows are now doing, comes a little too close to a witch-hunt for my taste".
Hardly the "totalitarian" image Melanie likes to portray of him.

Dr Robert Beckett

So much for freedom of speech and rational discussion! I wonder why doctrinaire evolutionists are unwilling for the evidence to be evaluated?

Robbit

David Lindsay (& Nick Kaplan) - well said! (& Nick i speak as someone who has far closer experience of abortion that I will discuss) ...
Of course, to start on the “Has he never heard of…?” line would be just to tedious for words...
Richard Dawkins is a disgrace to he Simyoni Chair that he holds. He is no longer interested in explaining SCIENCE to people. He is just using his "position" to set himself up as the self-appointed Pope or High-Priest of the Church of Militant Athiest SCIENTISM. And he is simply one of the shallowest, most facile scientists turned pundit, turned ideologue... that our culture has ever produced. That anyone so much as gives him the time of day shows only how degraded standards of thinking and discussion have become.

John Miller

Sad. Ask a scientist what hapened before the Big Bang.

They will say, err , dunno.

So God is as good an explanation as anything.

Creationism is crap given the current positioning, but backdate it 24 billion years and it may work...

Robbit

Dominic - if so then good for Dawkins - and I stand in some measure corrected - perhaps he is learning a little from the bashings that he has been getting from others far better qualified than us.

Forlornehope

Consider the two slit experiment. Without an observer there is no matter, only a probability function. But we exist in a material universe which must have evolved before we were there to observe it, ergo God QED.

Of course this is nonsense but explain why in no more words than I have used here.

True Bred Pomponian

TimM,you are quite right about climate change being the Royal Society's new religion as I found out to my cost when I rubbished it to a particularly pompous Fellow.

Vision Aforethought (formerly 'Thinkster')

M, you write so well on politics and yet when it comes to science, go all wobbly. Yes, children should be informed that alternative views exist, but the young are easily manipulated and should never be lead to believe for a moment in anything that is unproven. (Technically, with life simulation videogames like Spore arriving, combined with advances in biotechnology and artificial intelligence, there is no reason why we could not end up playing G-d outselves and create a new lifeform in due course, but there is no evidence that an outside force was responsible for OUR existence - yet.) Science is logic, not concept.

Max Kaye

I really admire you, Melanie, and most of you political opinions.

But belief in a god? As St. John Patrick McEnroe says: You can't be serious!

Sigh: I guess all our idols do have clay feet....

Ian Miller

It is entirely reasonable in a science class to discuss what is and what is not science. In this context, it is entirely reasonable, indeed very sensible, to use Creationism as an example of a concept that is not science.

Creationism should not discussed in any other context in a science lesson. Just because some of the pupils want to discuss it not reason for the teacher to allow such a discussion. If you allowed pupils to the final say on what is discussed, many classes would discuss nothing but football.

Professor Reiss suggested that it was reasonable to discuss Creationism as though it were science. That suggestion especially coming from a Royal Society spokesman would have caused science teacher's very real problems. Having made a such a fundamental blunder, he had to go.

YeshuaImsure

Sadly, secular liberal Christophobia is alive and kicking and society is much the poorer for it (the Reiss episode is but an example of it). The question is how should the Church respond? Historically it has turned the other cheek, but surely the time has come to express righteous anger and dare I say it - retaliation. This has started, in the success of The Christian Institute's victory in its suing of Google who had censored its anti-abortion advert.
Next it must proclaim the evidence for Christ and who He really was. By and large, the public are totally ignorant of the evidence as it has been suppressed or ignored by atheists and scientists alike. I do not mean the scientific evidence for Christ (although there is some, eg haematidrosis, the sweating of blood in Gethsemane before the Crucifixion)as science was non existent 2000 years ago. No, let us dwell on the historical and archaeological evidence of which there is an abundance (overlooked or ignored by Dawkins of course). An example of this would be the 5000 original New Testament copies preserved plus extra biblical evidence for the existence of Christ compared with only 2 witnesses and far fewer original copies of the evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great There is further overwhelming evidence for the Crucifixion and the empty Tomb etc, but atheists are too blinded by their faith to even consider it. This is evidence that demands a verdict, not dissmissively, but only after careful study.
What has this to do with creation? Well if we start with Christ and the Cross and establish the facts,then it is easier to work backwards to Creation, which need not have been 6 literal days and then to project forwards and note the miraculous fulfillment of prophecy (81% fulfilled thus far) to this present day and beyond to the end of this earth. To me, science provides the answers to the question how?, but the Bible answer's the question why?. We are fully immersed in what can only be termed 'spiritual warfare' of these 'end days'.
PS Can Dawkins and Co.explain to me how Great White Sharks 'evolved' to prey upon mammals such as seals which allegedly did not 'evolve' until eons later??
I derive anecdotal reassurance in that God Does Not Believe In Atheists!

Straydingo

Calum,

This is all about perspective....you struggle with the concept of creationism and others struggle with the concept that Humans are decedents of Apes, which is taught with freely at school.
I wonder if Michael Reiss would have been forced to resign if had suggested that the education system embrace the teachings of Islam so as to ensure there was a more rounded religious perspective taught.

I feel like having a banana now.

Jerry

For goodness sakes lets get this into perspective. Reiss was and is not a Fellow of the Royal Society. He was merely engaged by the Society in an executive role.

Kiwi Polemicist

This shows that State schooling is not about teaching children to think critically and logically, rather it is about teaching them a certain dogma to the exclusion of all others. The purpose of State schooling is to teach the State religion.

www.kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com

George Steiner

The dilema is this. Creationism weather the six day variety or the intelligent design variety is not science.

This is so because science, over simply put is; the proposal of theory, the validation or negation of the theory by measurement or experiment, the proposal of predictions that are validated or negated. By such definition creationism is not science.

Lots of subjects could be discussed, argued, examined. Creationism also. But not as science.

But if you accord creationism the podium alongside science, its proponents will claim that they are treated egal a egal.
And they don't deserve to be.

I have no objection to discuss creationism as you would astrology for example. And inded it shold have some time given it. But not as science.

John Montgomery

Melanie, much the same thing is happening at the RSA which has been taken over by a leftist cabal. This is pure Gramsci - building a new hegemony of the cultural elites. It is seeking to unpick not only Christianity but also market economies and classical liberalism.

Robbit

John (Montgommery) -
I do not doubt for a moment that you are absolutely right. Same goes for most of our university humanities departments the length and breadth of the country - pure Gramsci filtered through admixtures of Rorty, Foucault, Rawls and whatever flavour of po-mo / deconstructionist claptrap is currently in vogue.

Michael B

Wow. It's as if we've entered a pre-Enlightenment time warp. File this under the dumbing down of an already incurious and stultifying intolerance. File it under saving the appearances. The Royal Society has placed their collective head up their royal ... Fear, insecurity and a certain contemporary strain of anti-intellectualism have won the day. It's one battle only, but such is the case.

Even people like Ken Miller - a contemporary theist and evolutionist, a Catholic - have used the term "creationist" and applied it to themselves - i.e. in the broad, philosophical and cosmological sense of the term, absent narrower connotations. Likewise, historic figures - from Socrates, Plato and Aristotle on through to multiplied others such as Pascal, Leibniz and Newton, including contemporaries of note such as Andrew Flew - are all theists of one type or another and while they semantically did not refer to themselves as "creationists," certainly not in any narrow sense, they most certainly used language that directly and unambiguously correlated to their rationally founded conception of a design and a designer, i.e. a creator. Andrew Flew's reference to the "fine tuning" argument is but one example, a reference he has used not as positive proof, but rather as an argument in support of rationally coherent theistic conceptions.

The witch hunt is on; apologetics in support of the hunt are numerous and include demonizing and castigating others on semantic grounds alone, forwarding other anemic rationalizations as well; applauding and lauding themselves in the process, always, it seems, applauding and lauding themselves.

Methinks some deep-seated insecurity is reflected in all this, other factors as well, no doubt.

Views of an Outsider

The dismissal of Reiss from the Royal Society may have been a step too far. But surely timetabling in schools is so far too squeezed to accommodate a recent cultism idea that would have us belief that God hide dinosaur bones on earth to test our faith.

School is there as a means of aiding the moral and intellectual develop of our young people, and there are far more important factual and reasoning subjects deserving of the school time.

Hayward Maberley

YeshuaImsure,
In your desperate attempt to prove the historical existence of Jesus you have definitely chosen the wrong historical person with which to compare him.
Alexander certainly existed and not just in myth and legend.
Sic
....No, let us dwell on the historical and archaeological evidence of which there is an abundance... (this for Jesus)
sic
compared with only 2 witnesses and far fewer original copies of the evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great.
So Y, you are able to give us examples of the portraits of Jesus when fl. either as sculpture, bas relief, painting, on coins, or in any other form you might care to choose?
There is a statue of Alexander as a young man of 15 or so dated about 340 BCE, probably by Leochares. This is from the time when Alexander was a student of Aristotle. Another statue dates from his establishment of Alexandria in Egypt, this by Lysippus, one of the Macedonian Court artists. Amongst other representations his head also appears on coins minted in SIdon c.325 BCE.1
Then ther are the Elephant Medallions produced after Alexander‘s Battle at the Hydaspes River against Porus. Found after much searching in both Afghanistan and Iraq.2

Y, these are just two among the many papers and books, most of them peer reviewed, that give substantive proof that Alexander the Great both existed and was acknowledged to exist in more than just myth and legend. I could cite many more but do not wish to clog the blog!
Now Y, where is there substantive proof of Jesus as an historic entity, apart from the dubious so called canonical Gospels.

1.The Portraits of Alexander
Margarete Bieber
pp183-188 Vol. 12, No. 2, Oct., 1965
Greece & Rome ISSN: 0017-3835

2.Alexander the Great and the Mystery of the Elephant Medallions
Frank L.Holt.
(University of California Press, 2003). ISBN-10: 0520238818

Mel Cross

This secular scientific establishment is the same as all others, they ban debate on evolution because they know it will fail genuine scientific scrutiny and its the only theory they have that excludes God. The alternative for them is just unacceptable so they will do anything to block reason and "intelligent discussion"!!

Verity

Views of An Outsider: If it's "a recent cultism" it most assuredly should be explored in the classroom. Children have to be taught to think, despite the Politburu in No 10.

Robbit

Outsider...
"Creationism" is not some one thing and it is not some recent cult. Questions of creation and "intelligent design" have puzzled minds far greater that any currently to be found in Royal Society - from well before Aristotle to after Einstein. They are present in the histories of most civilisations and are part of of thousands of years of human intellectual history. They are not just one stupid superstitious cult (like astrology). They are a major part of the ongoing conversation of civilaistion over thousands of years probably dating back to when the the first savages were able to turn their attention fron the raw meet stuck in their teeth and pause for a moment and WONDER at the world around them and the starry heavens above. And so, whatever its current scientific status, such wonder and speculation are part of any civilised and educated persons cultural heritage. No one is saying that they must be a compulsory part of the science curriculum BUT we are most definitely saying that to put about the message that a teachers may not even discuss such matters in a moderately sympathetic if critical manner when young people, starting to wonder about the world around them, raise such questions - is tantamount to an act of cultural vandalism... in its own way not very different to the Taliban dynamiting the Rose Buddahs in Afganistan a few years ago.

If The Royal Society wants to suppress the sort of wonder and speculation that gave rise to science in the first place then that will be the end of science.

Why the bloody hell, you might wonder, are so many young people turning their backs on science at school and university today? Because of the dogmatic, know-all, we-have-all-the-answers attidude of the emergent high-priesthood of SCIENTISM, by any chance?

David Gibson

Nick...thanks for the ... 'theory'. If you want to believe your a monkey's uncle..fair enough. Regards

Craig Wallace

Hayward,your bigoted assertion about the lack of historical evidence for Jesus is yet more proof of widespread unscientific bias against christianity. I have yet to meet a christian who does not believe that Alexander the Great was a real person.However,even though evidence for the historical Jesus pervades our entire modern culture and historical records of his existence are abundant,there are many who are too eager to dismiss Jesus without even having looked at the facts. The historical Jesus is not disputed by any serious academics.Your post underlines the need for Melanie to warn against a secular inquisition.If the historical Jesus can be so easily dimissed it is not surprising that creation is treated in similar fashion without any debate.

Verity

David Gibson, well, at least he doesn't spell like a monkey.

Verity

Have you noticed how the Marxists are in an absolute panic? So near to grabbing the ultimate power and now - there are strong forces of opposition. And they've waited so long ...

This will get more intense over the next two weeks before the Vice Presidential Debates. The vipers are already hissing and roiling in a fury.

Governor Palin will triumph in the Debate. She's gifted with lucidity of thought and the ability to hang onto a thought no matter how hard the other side tries to deflect her. Joe Biden, already so demoralised that he has said Hillary would have been a better Vice Presidential candidate (what candidate in the history of the world has made such an admission?) doesn't have the stomach for this.

After Palin triumphs and enjoys a swell of approval, the Marxists will get nastier. Power within grasp - as they thought - and now moving away from them ...

Max Kaye

No one seriously disputes the fact that Christ lived and died.

What is in dispute is whether he:
a) is the son of god born of a virgin.
b) was resurrected from the dead.
c) lives for evermore in heaven (wherever that may be).

The scientific proof for a), b) and c) above is about the same as for fairies living at the bottom of my garden.

Hayward Maberley

Mr Wallace,
You state "I have yet to meet a christian who does not believe that Alexander the Great was a real person.” You may have met at least one ,YeshuaImsure, on this blog.
Now if bigoted is the term you wish to use then Y's assertions concerning Alexander the Great might be characterised as such.
Hoever to question the existance of Jesus outside of those canonical Gospels, all written well after the "death and resurrection ", is not found per se in any writings that are historically convincing. That great pamphleteer Paul never met Jesus. Now some will argue for Josephus, but he was writing well after events. For the Jesus that you claim "historical records of his existence are abundant" well historically not so.

Ronnie

Hayward, Alexander the Great's purpose in life was to become Alexander 'the Great'. To conquer vast tracts of land, subugate millions of people and have lots and lots of statues built to celebrate his 'greatness'.

Jesus' purpose was somewhat more important and permanent, proof in itself of his existence. The more traditional historical proof lies not only in the gospels published in the new testament but also in the many other gospels that were not allowed to be published and have subsequently been discovered along with other archealogical evidence.

Some people can be remembered without statues.

Cretinsociety

Totalitarian atheism has taken another scalp! Who cares if the cultural elite devour each other? Evolution was guessed at well before Darwin but if you asked mot scientists today I bet they would not be able to point to the point were Darwins theorum becomes amazingly contrite. Darwin spent a large part of his life as a Creationist and respected his wife views dearly!

oldtora

Oh, how we soon forget. The Piltdown Man was hailed by the brilliant scientists as the Missing Link between man and ape. It had a man's skull, and an ape's jaw bone and teeth. The brilliant scientists claimed it was proof that man evolved from apes. Other scientists who questioned this conclusion were ignored. Then, 41 years later, Piltdown Man was proved to be a Big Hoax. But the brilliant scientists cannot answer how it is that Man and Apes are different, and Apes are still separate living things, not evolving into men at all?

Alex

Melanie says, without irony (apparently);

"how dare an MP seek to dictate what a scientist may or may not say!"

Melanie is a journalist.

Robbit

Whats you beef, Alex? What is your problem? What irony? Are you stupidly trying to insinuate that Melanie is dictating what scientists can and cannot _say_?? His that your
fatuous point? Please explain.

YeshuaImsure

A reply to Hayward.

First, I do not doubt the historical truth of the existence of Alexander the Great, but merely pointing out the paucity of early written DOCUMENTARY evidence in his favour compared to that for Christ. My limited research informs me that the two earliest biographies of Alexander, by Arrian and Plutarch were written 400 years after his death in 323 BC (What does the C stand for Hayward?). Compare this with the earliest date for the Gospel of Mark and Paul's First Corinthians, authenticated and dated prior to 67 BC and more significantly written within the lifespan of Christ witnesses who were then still alive and who would have surely managed to refute these claims if they were not true!

Hayward,I do not wish to count statues of Alexander v Jesus with you, but if I was an idolator (worshipping statues) then I would claim that there must be probably over a million of Jesus world wide most notably in Rio de Janeiro and Madeira.

I wish to return to Alexander for the last time and remind you of his lasting legacy in the field of prophecy.

Lets turn to the prophecy of Ezekiel, Chapter 26, written around 590 BC, foretelling the future of the Phoenician city of Tyre. He prophesied against that city, that it would be reduced to rubble and that it would be dumped into the sea together with the soil scraped from its foundation stones and that all this would be fulfilled by different nations!

Turn forwards and historians like yourself inform us that the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezar laid siege to Tyre and demolished it some time after Ezekiel's prophecy after 586 BC but you will know the date better than I for sure Hayward) but the Phoenicians had fled with their treasures to an island half a mile off shore so that the Babylonians gained little.

Further fast forward to 322 BC whereupon, Alexander enters the stage and intent on neutralizing the Phoenician fleets threat to his forces, he proceeded to dump all of Tyre's rubble and earth into the sea in order to create a causeway to defeat the Phoenicians offshore.

This he duly did, little knowing or caring in his imperialist ways that he had been used by God in the fulfillment of prophecy.
Remarkable, Amazing and allegedly this rubble causeway is vsible today. Why are not these exiting truths taught in schools today? Answer - rampant rebellious atheism in temporary control.

To return to Christ as we always must, Hayward , there are significant extra biblical sources of corroboration and I will only mention a few of the earlier ones:

Josephus the Jewish(non Christian) historian of the first century writes about Christ in his work Testimonium Flavianum, which is an important source text, despite claims against it of interpolation. (Some I concede are probably true) Nevertheless it remains an important non biblical evidence source.

The Roman historian Tacitus testifies in 115 AD to Nero's cruelty (in 64 AD) to the 'immense multitude' convicted of following Christus (these followed the truth to their deaths).

Pliny the Younger(Roman) attests in 111 AD to the rapid growth of Christianity and their worship of Jesus as God. These Christians were not easily swayed from their faith, but instead chose death!

Finally I mention Tertullian and the Greek Phlegon (circ. 137 AD) who report the greatest eclipse of the sun in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (ie. 33 AD)that "it became night in the sixth hour of the day (ie. noon). There was a great earthquake in Bithynia and many things were overturned in Nicea"
Hayward, this was Crucifixion time, of Jesus' death on the cross, evidenced in the canonical gospels! Wow, such wonder, such awe, such love.

I pray Hayward that "you will know the truth and the truth will set you free. God Bless you.

Alex

Robbit said "Whats you beef, Alex? What is your problem? What irony? Are you stupidly trying to insinuate that Melanie is dictating what scientists can and cannot _say_?? His that your
fatuous point? Please explain."

Hello Robbit? You seem very angry. Are really Melanie? Or are you a random, injured, journalist?

I was merely making the point, in short, that I open my newspaper every day and I see journalists pontificating on the issues of that day. Most of these journalists will have had an education in one discipline at most, but they are always telling us what to think on any issue that randomly holds a headline. They are professional pontificators and masters of no trade. They write opinions for money,and the have influence to the extent that the public gives them credence. How dare a journalist criticise anyone, let alone an MP, for expressing an opinion, or trying to influence an institution.

My opinion of Melanie, if you're interested, having read her since she was a lefty on the Guardian, is that she is one of those people, like Enoch Powell, with a huge brain and no common sense.

Creationism is the stupidest manifestation of the supidest fundamentalism and fundamentalists. Even hinting that it has a place in normal conversation never mind science classes is an act of foolishness. And that's the real charge against Sarah Palin: she's a fool.

Anfd defending fools in their foolishness is a fool's errand.

Nick Kaplan

David Gibson says “If you want to believe your (I think you mean you’re) a monkey's uncle..fair enough”

Just on a technical point a belief in evolution would not be that I am a Monkey’s Uncle but that a monkey is mine. The fact that you cannot understand this simple point may hold the key as to why you do not understand/ believe the theory of evolution.

Nick Kaplan

Verity says; Joe Biden, already so demoralised that he has said Hillary would have been a better Vice Presidential candidate (what candidate in the history of the world has made such an admission?) doesn't have the stomach for this.

I have heard so little about this I had almost forgotten it had happen. Interesting how the MSM thinks the fact that Palin doesn’t believe in thought fascism should disqualify her from VP whilst the fact that Biden doesn’t think himself a capable candidate is not worthy of mention... what a world we live in....

Nick Kaplan

Alex says; “Even hinting that it has a place in normal conversation never mind science classes is an act of foolishness.”

Is that the same Alex as Alex Bensky who previously said “Incorrect ideas should not be expressed and discussed and people who hold them should not be thoughtfully engaged. Instead, people who have wrong ideas should be taught not to express them at all,” or does there just happen to be a strange correlation between people having the name Alex and their propensity to believe in thought fascism?
What do people not understand about what Palin and Reiss have said? Palin suggested that there should not “be a prohibition against debate if it [creationism] comes up in class.” She went out of her way to say “It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum.” Similarly Reiss has said that all he wants is for classes “to have a genuine discussion.” There is nothing unreasonable about this position whether one believes in creationism or evolution, it is called liberalism (or common sense) its opposite is called fascism/ indoctrination.

Robbit

Alex,

Thanks for the response. I think you are a littel out of your depth here, lad. It proves beyound any shadow of doubt that my inital judgemet of you was absolute correct.

I am not going to demolish the what you have written right now. I am just going to invite you to spend a few hours reading what you have written and thinking about its meaning implications. Both its implications about you and its political and social implications. I then expect you
give some appropriate corrections to what you have said and appropriate apologies. Alternatively you could just tell me to cut the courtesies and get on with it. In which case I will shread what you have written line by line and deliver you a verbal thrashing the scars of which will last the rest of your life. It is up to you.

Alexandrovich

Robbit: perhaps, like me, you are writing in your second language. Nevertheless, you should consider brushing up your spelling before administering any 'verbal thrashing', it's appalling.

I realise that, like Verity, you have an ego the size of a small country. However, this appears to hinder any reflection before you post. Perhaps your last paragraph was whistling whilst passing the churchyard. More likely a duck farting.

There you are - another 'Alex' for you to generalise about.

Fabio P.Barbieri

Alex - you are ignorant of the facts and your conclusions are indefensible.

Alexandrovich - when you ever come up with an argument, do let us know, will you? Or even with some decent bit of invective - "duck farting" is really rather poor. I suggest you study some rhetoric, to find out how an opponent may effectively be insulted.

Peter Tompsett

Would those who ejected Michael Reiss have taken the same action if he were a Muslim rather than a Christian ? The answer is self evident >

Rob de Villiers

Alexandrovich... if you would like to take issue with any substantive point I have made please do so. I not going to waste my time double checking my typos for the likes of either you or Alex.

Do you know what "generalise" means? To tell somone that what he has said is a load of bulshit is not to generalise about him. What generalisation - i.e. general statement - did I make about Alex? That my initial judgement of him has been proved correct by his response? That also is not a generalsiation about Alex.

Anglica

Yeshualmsure, a special thank you for that great theological/historical post!

Arthur - I too believe that the school curriculm should include Darwin in Biology, and Genesis in Scripture. That way [given teachers who are themselves educated as specialists] young people may learn to love learning and to seek for truth. They may, eventually, read your namesake's translations of Cura Pastoralis, or even the Psalms!

They could also learn about ontongeny and phylogeny; and if, like me, they found an old copy of "Origin..." in the bookcase, they might read it. Because, if they took the trouble to learn Biology and Zoology, at least they would not expect apes to turn into men before their eyes - in the name of Darwinism.

Rather, they would begin to think for themselves and to know how much they do not know. They would learn to value and use freedom of speech; and perhaps even to fight for freedom and truth. I'm grateful to Melanie and those contributors to this blog who have the patience to do that - I nearly didn't.

As to Reiss and the Royal Society, I don't enough to know what to think! Both sides seem shot through with claptrap euro ideology. Perhaps there is more to it than meets the eye; but a major problem remains: how do we take back our culture and our educational system - before it's too late?

Ronnie

Anglica, I just wanted to say how much I liked and agree with your post. Your point is absolutely central in every way.

Thank you.

Ann

"Melanie says, without irony (apparently);
"how dare an MP seek to dictate what a scientist may or may not say!"
Melanie is a journalist."

Does this nonsense have a point?

Ann

Nick Kaplan:
thanks for saying it for me!

Ann

"I personally believe that God created the world in seven days"

We are not particularly interested in what you 'personally believe in'. Belief in god is not science, and should not be taught in science lesson. Having said that, it is disgusting that these jerks sacked a man for saying that beliefs should be discussed.

Ann

"Dawkins’s science, as such, really does not appear to consist of much, if anything, more than a doctorate which must now be about forty years old"

Oh, dear ... you couldn't make it up. Look up 'pretension' and 'pomposity'.

ahad ha'amoratsim

Yes, we must purge science classes of the influence of anyone who believes there is a G-d or that G-d plays any role in the universe. In particular, we must purge the works of anyone who believes that the laws of nature work because G-d wills them to work. Let's see -- we can start by removing the works of that anti-scientific superstitious fundamentalist Isaac Newton, who wrote "it may be also allowed that God is able to create particles of matter of several sizes and figures, and in several proportions to space, and perhaps of different densities and forces, and thereby to vary the laws of nature . . . ."

Not Even Likely

This is a tough one. I agree with the US courts, that creationism constitutes the teaching of religion, which is not allowed. Of course it is allowed in the UK, but creationism should be "discussed" as a religious doctrine, not as an alternative scientific theory. Although it doesn't seem like he should have been driven from his job just for bringing it up.

Rebel Saint

The problem isn't only that you can't hold a creationist viewpoint. Far more worrying is that you can't even be a critic of Darwinian evolution. There are plenty of flaws in evolutionary theory, but you simply dare not draw attention to them because in their eyes that must make you a de facto creationist.

Ewan

How dare anyone attempt to touch the holy grail of evolution. To do so even in the inoffensive and reasonable way that Reiss suggested would be to risk exposing the whole charade. Acting like the religious bigots that they are, the Royal Society has kept the faith and excommunicated the heretic.

Sir Harold Kroto

The Reiss Affair – a Matter of Intellectual Integrity
Various letters, such as that from the Bishop of Lincoln (Guardian) etc, contain a significant amount of self-righteous criticism of the Royal Society with regard to the Rev Michael Reiss’s position as Director of Science Education. It is clear that there is almost total ignorance about the real issues involved and a truly pathetic understanding of Science – the culture that created the modern world – from anaesthetics and penicillin to jet engines and the Internet. Of course “The Origin of the Universe and Living Organisms” is a perfectly respectable question for the Science lesson (perhaps the most exciting and fundamental one) - as long as someone with Intellectual Integrity is there to answer it! There is a major problem however for the religious person, scientist or otherwise, in answering this question and it involves, first and foremost, Intellectual Integrity.

Let me clarify the fundamental philosophical issue - The Scientific Mindset: Science is based solely on doubt-based, disinterested, examination of the natural and physical world. It is entirely independent of personal belief. There is a very important, fundamental concomitant - that is to accept absolutely NOTHING whatsoever, for which there is no evidence, as having any FUNDAMENTAL validity. A lemma: One can of course have an infinite number of questions but only those questions that can be formulated in such a way that they can be subjected to detailed disinterested examination, and when so subjected reveal unequivocally and ubiquitously accepted data, may be significant.

The plethora of more-or-less incompatible religious concepts that mankind has invented from Creationism and Intelligent Design to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Mormonism, Scientology, Hinduism, Shinto, Shamanism etc., etc., etc., are all basically indistinguishable, from the Freethinker’s perspective. It really does not matter whether someone believes a mystical entity created the Universe five thousand or ten thousand million years ago - both are equally irrational unsubstantiated claims of no fundamental validity. Unfortunately Michael Reiss who is, according to reports, a nice guy, was just in the wrong job. He, together with all religious people – whether they like it or not, whether they accept it or not - fall at the first hurdle of the main requirement for honest philosophical scientific discussion because they accept unfound dogma as having fundamental significance. Note that I did not say value (positive or negative!). In the Jeffersonian sense Church and State (including education especially on Sundays) must be separated - otherwise our democratic freedoms are undermined. A secular socio-political framework is an absolutely necessary (though unfortunately not always sufficient) condition to guarantee freedom of religion - as well as freedom of non-religion.

I do not have a particularly big problem with scientists who may have some personal mystical beliefs - for all I know the President of the Royal Society may be religious. However I, and many Royal Society colleagues, do have a problem with an ordained minister as Director of Science Education – this is a totally different issue. An ordained minister must have accepted that there is a creator (presumably more intelligent than he is?) and thus many of us (maybe 90% of FRSs) cannot see how such a person can pontificate on how to tackle this fundamentally unresolvable conflict at the science/religion interface. Reiss cannot have his religious cake in church on Sunday and eat the scientific one in the classroom on weekdays. This is where the Intellectual Integrity issue arises – and it is the crucial issue in the Reiss Affair.

I suggest that the Rev Reiss, the Bishop of Lincoln and any others who presume the authority to dictate how religious issues should be handled in the science classroom read from Sam Harris's book "Letter to a Christian Nation" at their Sunday sermons. Then perhaps some of their flock may understand what Intellectual Integrity and true humanity actually involve. Furthermore I suggest that this wonderful little book be a set text for young people at Sunday School, so they recognise that the really dangerous people can include the religious who are hell-bent on dragging us back into the Dark Ages, rather than the Freethinking Humanists who are struggling to save the democratic freedoms of “The Enlightenment” for our grandchildren.

Sir Harold Kroto FRS NL
Florida State University

Michael Pierce

Does Ms Phillips, then, support the teachng of the Hindu, Norse, Buddhist, Sikh, Native Australian, Native American, Flying Spaghetti Monster, versions of creation, or just the Judeo-Christian one?

By opening up a class of SCIENCE to myths and all their permutations allows timewasting.

Does Ms Phillips also suggest allowing discussion of geocentricity and fall-earth belief in science classes?

State schools (unfortunately) are still expected to give time to religious teachins: thia, if anywhere, is where these things should be taught.