"Excuse me, but why should teachers not ridicule the views of creationist students? Ridiculous ideas ought to be ridiculed."
It depends if you went to change their mind or simply alienate them and convince them even further that you position is false. I would opt for the former.

John Spears, Woodford Green,

I would also add that I doubt what people cover breifly in Science classes at 13-14 shapes their mind that much. I can't believe there is so much fuss over teaching/not teaching it. I learnt all about it in school and strongly disbelieved in it until 3 years ago when I first started reading about it

John Spears, Woodford Green,

Religion has no place in Science, one is based on evidence the other on myth, the two things are entirely unrelated. I am personally of the belief that religion should not be taught in schools, but should be a personal choice unrelated to the education system.

SP Shepherd, Hampshire, United Kingdom

Nicholas of Cape Town, you end your post with "Second Law of Thermodynamics, anyone?"

Just what point are you making? Are you misinformed about the relationship between the 2nd law and evolution? A system can increase in complexity providing there is an input of energy. Sunshine anyone?

Tom, Wokingham, England

No one expected the Atheist inquisition. Pope Dawkins is making atheists look like idiots hunting down and sacking anyone displaying a glimmer of thought which strays from their holy texts. The irony is magnificent. The only proven fact we have is we (humans) are infinitely stupid.

Geoff Jarvis, Weymouth,

Trial by media. Personally, I view creationism as moronic; however, I agree with the point Reiss makes. If a child believes in creationism let he/she debate it, when they inevitably lose they may begin to question this belief. There is nothing as convincing as a discovery one makes oneself.

Tony, Sale, UK

Scientists have convinced themselves that there was a Big Bang about 13.7 billion years ago which started everything off, but will not explain what was there before,because the whole business of the creation of the Universe is a lucrative unproveable confidence trick.
He wins who shouts loudest.

Harry Kennard, Peasmarsh , England

Surely it is only the kind thing to do to give comforting stories like the 'tooth fairy', god, life after death etc, etc to the simple minded. I'm sure your 3-year old child would prefer to hear about angels and miracles than about DNA and natural selection, so please try to be more understanding.

Anthony Back, Wellington, Telford, England

Creationism has no scientific evidence to support it. Only the faith of significant numbers of people who don't understand science, or evidence, but want to use science as a way of pushing a religious teaching into school.
All such teaching should be kept for Sunday school.

Mike Tyler, London, UK

Seems a category error.

If you looked at the Houses of Parliament and asked "Why is it there?" you could answer physically - "because Joe Bloggs built it" - or politically - "because it was authorised by the day's government ". Both true.

Science & religion - same q's, different angles.

Peter, Beds,

John Sutherland,

You say atheists threaten our "open, democratic society"? Why can churches get away with open discrimination? Why do churches get tax breaks? Why are there still Lords Spiritual?

It is thus clear, the religious are fundamentalists who threaten our open democratic society.

Charlie, munich,

There is no room for discussion between athiests and creationists - neither side has anything to offer the other. Actually, I don't see myself as atheist, no more than I see myself as an Apixieist or an Aghostsist or Aastrologist. I'm just a normal person who believes what he sees.
John C, Ireland

john C, Cork, Ireland ex Liverpool

...the problem with most scientists is that they are hopeless at dealing with people both in arguments and usually socially. i've worked with too many to know this. they don't get that science is only a part of being human and the world. the rest is how we see it, and how we see it is not fact

Dr Smith , London, UK

...many of the comments here reinforce the arrogance of those who promote science. as a result it alienates people who aren't so "clever" as yourselves. however, what it does show, is the inability of scientists and science to engage with people's lives, feelings and emotions.

James , London, UK

"People are not moved by facts but by perceptions". A university marketing director said this to me when i was trying to tell him the facts of a certain issue. It seems now even the scientific RS have adopted the ethos of spin in place of evidence.

steve, Preston, uk

Of course creationism should be debated in schools - but in the proper place. And the proper place isn't the History class, or geography, or home economics or the science class - the proper place is the comparative religion class where it can be discussed with all the other creation myths.

Andrea Jones, Cardiff, Wales

Quite right he was forced to resign.

Keith Sloan, Nr Winchester, UK

Let's encourage geography teachers to discuss the alternative view that the Earth is flat. In biology,that babies are left behind gooseberry bushes in doctor's bags delivered by storks.
Why is the ludicrous idea of creationism given such attention? Oh, because it is a 'faith' matter. Grow up humans

Rocky, willenhall, uk

The science class is also not the place to discuss ethics, just science and it's methods.

I'd prefer it if parents and family took care of ethics really, school is not the only place a child should be learning about the world they live in.

Ben R, Manchester,

In it's never ending quest for controversy, the media makes game of misquoting people and then writes articles about the inevitable fallout. Talk about a self sufficient industry. It would be nice, once in a while, for the media industry to criticise themselves. Pigs need to fly first though........

Dylan, London,

While we are teaching kids fairy tales other emerging countries are teaching science and literature and politics to 4 year olds. Evolutionary success is all about slight advantage. Education is truly important and cant be left in the hands of those who rely on an imaginary being to guide them

Michael, London, UK

If culture does indeed require all arguments to be expressible in one sentence, it's a phenominally stupid man who tries to use two.

William, Ilkley,

Having read Professor Reiss' speech, I am disturbed that the Royal Society felt so strongly as to drive him from his post. What were they fearing? He certainly stuck to their motto 'On the authority of no-one'. It seems they fear creationists rather too much.

Bart Barnes, Portsmouth, UK

Science has to persuade. If discussion of other world views is rejected, science is weakened as it becomes intolerant. People abhor intolerance, people will then abhor science. People will reject it for an unscientific reason (irrational, unreasoned, etc) - a self-induced paradox

John, Knutsford, UK

When I was at theological college, we always had vigorous debates on the subject, pro- and anti-. It was the only place where I have ever found freedom of thought and speech.

But back to 'Authority, it contends, is nothing: evidence everything'. Second Law of Thermodynamics, anyone?

Nicholas, Cape Town, South Africa

To appoint someone who believes in an imaginary being in the sky to a senior scietific post shows a singular lack on the part of the powers that be in the Society.

Peter Nunn, Lyminge, England

If the reports are true (and with this subject you can never be sure that they are) the Royal Society is guilty of the sort of intellectual fascism that would disgrace Henry VIII. Will all scientists now have to take an oath of allegiance to Darwin or risk decapitation?

Professor Terry Hamblin, Bournemouth, UK

I couldn't agree more with Rob from Singapore: "Sciencs is all about discusion and an exchange of views and this is what he suggested. "
And in my opinion scientists who start to treat others badly bring disgrace to the scientific community. Poor judgement by the Royal Society.

Peter, Liverpool, UK

So Michael Faraday and Isaac Newton had a non-scientific way of seeing the world?

Andrew Chapman, Newcastle upon Tyne, England

It's clear Reiss is neither a creationist nor supports the teaching of creationism.

However, he let his world view interfere with his agenda -it's fine to have private sympathy for creationist pupils but there are 101 other things an RS Director of Education should be researching and talking about

TimHood, Hanoi, Vietnam

Does Prof. Reiss gives equal legitimacy to pupils who hold a strongly empirical and atheist word view vigourously questioning teachers of religious studies- and taking up a lot of class time by doing so? This would seem to be the proper place to discuss world views, after all.

TimHood, Hanoi, Vietnam

Creationism should not be ridiculed in teh classroom as you can never convince someone they are wrong by calling them an idiot. Sciencs is all about discusion and an exchange of views and this is what he suggested. He was entirely correct to do so and was attempting to involve more in science.

Rob, Singapore,

Andy, when were morals taught in a science class?

Nick, Melbourne, Australia

I'm tired of the religious lot claiming they've been badly treated.

Religion, it's views it's teachings and it's morals have no place in schools for start, not to mention in a place that only teaches subjects put through the scientific method.

Out of room, unfortunately.

Dave Burrows, Accrington,

Ethics is perhaps the term i should have used rather than morals. A good scientist does not become fixed on a single idea or theory but keeps an open mind in searching for the truth, and is prepared to openly discuss all dimensions and perspectives to reach an understanding.

Andy, Cornwall,

Excuse me, but why should teachers not ridicule the views of creationist students? Ridiculous ideas ought to be ridiculed.

Robert Firth, Singapore,

What kind of scientific concept is reputation? How does reacting to misreadings by yielding to them instead of correcting them contribute to Science (as opposed to the politics of the scientific establishment)? How does one think about scientific ethics without going outside science.

Rhys Lewis, matamata , new zealand

its a numbers (specifically demographic) game: the growing hordes of the less able will drag the strongest of thinkers into the dark ages that await.

my hope lies in china, japan, korea.

dave, london, uk

Morals are not science, but they teach them!

Andy, Cornwall,

I'd like to know what place a clergyman has in the Royal Society full stop, let alone having a senior post in education within it.

Science is all about proving things by building up a catalogue of verifiable evidence. By believing in God he is betraying the scientific method. Good riddance to him,

Paul, Bristol,

"When I was taught physics at school...what I remember finding so exciting was that we could discuss almost anything providing we were prepared to defend our thinking..."
Your words Michael. Your speech betrays the delusion of academics and governement that they matter. Teachers have more sense.

Nicholas Colin Swift, Huddersfield, England

“On the word of no one”.

Including God, presumably.

S Smedley, Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK

Atheists are the new fundamentalists who threaten our open democratic society.

John Sutherland, Skelmorlie, United Kingdom

Whipple, creationism isn't science. It has no place in the science classroom. It only has a place in the comparative religion or cultural history class. Reiss betrayed his position. It's good he has gone.

Bob, London,