That's an interesting perspective
With the aforementioned Royal Society furor:
New Scientist: Royal Society fellows turn on director over creationism
I find this bit particularly interesting:
When New Scientist asked Kroto about the issue, he said that he informed the Royal Society a year ago that appointing Reiss director of education was "extremely disturbing".
"There is no way that an ordained minister - for whom unverified dogma must represent a major, if not the major, pillar in their lives can present free-thinking, doubt-based scientific philosophy honestly or disinterestedly," he says.
That's a fairly strong thing to say - that the strongly religious should not hold such a position in the Royal Society. How defendable would that position be legally I wonder?
edit: He's resigned, but "He is to return, full time, to his position as professor of science education at the Institute of Education", which would seem to be landing the University of London in the position the Royal Society was in.
edit 2: Dawkins weighs in. Richard Dawkins comes under no small amount of criticism. Including from some readers of this. However, he says:
Unfortunately for him as a would-be spokesman for the Royal Society, Michael Reiss is also an ordained minister. To call for his resignation on those grounds, as several Nobel-prize-winning Fellows are now doing, comes a little too close to a witch-hunt for my squeamish taste.
(It strays offtopic, but I think this letter shows how uncharitably Dawkins has been treated by some aspects of the media)
edit 3: And more on the matter from PZ Myers.
edit 4: From Nick Matzke. This broadly fits with my view that the chap was heavily misrepresented. I think he was a bit of a lemon for putting himself in this position, but I'd not demand he lose his job over it, merely make a clear and unambiguous statement about his true position. Which to be fair he probably has, but noone's willing to listen when faced with the possibility of a good story.
New Scientist: Royal Society fellows turn on director over creationism
I find this bit particularly interesting:
When New Scientist asked Kroto about the issue, he said that he informed the Royal Society a year ago that appointing Reiss director of education was "extremely disturbing".
"There is no way that an ordained minister - for whom unverified dogma must represent a major, if not the major, pillar in their lives can present free-thinking, doubt-based scientific philosophy honestly or disinterestedly," he says.
That's a fairly strong thing to say - that the strongly religious should not hold such a position in the Royal Society. How defendable would that position be legally I wonder?
edit: He's resigned, but "He is to return, full time, to his position as professor of science education at the Institute of Education", which would seem to be landing the University of London in the position the Royal Society was in.
edit 2: Dawkins weighs in. Richard Dawkins comes under no small amount of criticism. Including from some readers of this. However, he says:
Unfortunately for him as a would-be spokesman for the Royal Society, Michael Reiss is also an ordained minister. To call for his resignation on those grounds, as several Nobel-prize-winning Fellows are now doing, comes a little too close to a witch-hunt for my squeamish taste.
(It strays offtopic, but I think this letter shows how uncharitably Dawkins has been treated by some aspects of the media)
edit 3: And more on the matter from PZ Myers.
edit 4: From Nick Matzke. This broadly fits with my view that the chap was heavily misrepresented. I think he was a bit of a lemon for putting himself in this position, but I'd not demand he lose his job over it, merely make a clear and unambiguous statement about his true position. Which to be fair he probably has, but noone's willing to listen when faced with the possibility of a good story.