Opposable thumb--need I say more?

valerie richman, long beach, usa

I find all of the hoopla surrounding Professor Reiss's statements disturbing. Is an argument against 'Creationism', mean that it is implied that you don't believe in God? Reiss points out a 'fundamental' problem. A closed mind cannot be taught, therefore why should we bother? Not easy questions.

charles, charlotte, usa

There is no science behind creationism - it just happened! It can't be invalidated by reasoned argument because believers answer, " that's the way God made it".
Hence the evolution (!) of the equally loopy 'Intelligent Design' to try and put it into a scientific arena and the classroom.

Graham Cheesman, ashby de la zouch, UK

To Urs Muhlebach, Geneva, Switzerland.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that deities are an valid explanation.

If they were then by definition so would Santa be.

Johan, Stockholm, Sweden

What comes to mind when reading all these comments is that most people seem to be very shortsighted. For all those who think that evolution is a fact, they don’t seem to realize that modern science still knows very little and has been wrong many times before.

Urs Muhlebach, Geneva, Switzerland

It seems to me that we are not sure whether we are talking about minievolution or maxievolution; there is a difference.

Neither Creationism nor Science has the monopoly on proof here.

Marian Sturrock, Southend, England

If you don't believe in evolution, try spraying a resistant mosquito with insecticide, or treat yourself for a superbug infection with a standard antibiotic. Denial of the fact of evolution is wilful ignorance.

Ian, Nairobi, Kenya

Evolution like gravity & electricity is a fact. !??
Jump off a building you experience gravity, stick your fingers into a live socket you experience electricity.
If you lived a million years you may, just may, observe evolution.
Not quite the same order of fact.
Education needed?

Martin, Skye,

So all Creationists are simple-minded, brain-washed, religious hypocrites? And the Second Law of Thermo-Dynamics? Entropy is an observable, scientific FACT, so if we go back far enough there was an original state of Perfect Order in the universe - NOT a Big Bang. Explosions produce order or chaos?

Bob, Stockton on Tees, England

What a shame (upon the Royal Society) that Michael Reiss was not permitted to continue while expressing a personal perspective.
The Society's shame is multiplied by trying to say Reiss had been "misunderstood".
The Society's actions set a precedent that excludes enquiry and and independence.

Terence Cunningham, Penrith NSW, Australia

The only way to treat the rabid creationist is to challenge them to provide peer-reviewed evidence, which is exactly what any self-respecting scientist is required to do. And yet they refuse to do so, because they know there is none. Evolutionists let's take the attack back to them!

John Armour, Newtownards, Northern Ireland

I know of no other area of life where people (in this case those who believe in the theory of evolution) feel it is perfectly justified to completely silence those with an alternative position. Prof. Reiss doesn't even believe in creation and he has to resign for making a reasonable observation!

Rupert Scott, Reading,

In summary then, don't take anything on faith - evolution or creation. Subject every idea about the world to the most rigorous scrutiny, without preconception, and consider the evidence. Test your ideas against reality. Sound familiar?

Dean Hallett, Basingstoke, UK

Oh how I envy England for this triumph of reason over superstition and it's not persecution. he resigned..and firing would have been fine, I would think dedication to science over superstition would be part of the requirements for a director of education.

RuthAlice Anderson, Portland, OR, USA

Please Please people, before your start blathering on on comments pages educate yourself. Reiss, wasn't dismissed, he resigned. He wants to deem creation theory as a world view to be debated in a science class. It's not a world view to be discussed or respected, it's a world view to be dismissed.

Chris, Newcastle, England

Evolution like gravity & electricity is a fact. The Theory of Evolution explains how evolution works, just like General Relativity does for gravity and Maxwell's equations do for electricity. So its very nice to hear the religious saying "evolution is a theory". Go and educate yourselves please!

Mark, Manchester,

Your article stresses that evolution is a scientific fact. Commenting on Origen of Species, Times writer Christopher Booker says A book which has become famous for explaing the the origen of species in fact does nothing of the kind. Dr R Behe says Publish or Perish. Lets see evidence for Evolution

P Timings, Hampton,

this is really interesting:

“Just because something lacks scientific support doesn’t seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from the science lesson "

The same thing could be said of creationism...

Tim, Sydney, Australia

Jonathan, if they are so easily refuted, how do you explain unfossilized "100 million year old" TRex bones? Actual scientific answers only please.

Luke, Byron, MN, USA

Can anyone 'out there'- believer or non-believer, deny the fact that the dismissal of Professor Reiss is an act of religious persecution by the Royal Society?

Peter Mulcaster, Worksop, England

Sad state of affairs. Proves the fact that even The Royal Society is guilty of cultivating omniscience. Which is alien to the advance of modern science. So, it's back to the Middle Ages.

Bill Monkau
Midelburg
Netherlands

Bill Monkau, Middelburg, Netherlands

Science rests on assumptions that lie outside the realm of science: uniformity of nature, the reality of the world, the inductive principle, the assumption that we are properly equipped to discover truth. These are justified in a Theist world, but not in an atheistic one. Science has theistic roots!

chris rowan, hazlemere, england

Les, a scientist would not say that Evolution has been 'proven'. It is a theory that appears the best on available evidence. Karl Popper identified a scientific theory as one that is falsifiable - one that can be tested and proven false. Creationism can't be tested - it is based on faith.

Russell, Melbourne, Australia

If you have not seen the movie "Expelled" in theater, or DVD, you have now seen it in real life. This is what happens to all who dare say that there may be credibility in the arguments for creation.

Travis, Mountain Home, ID, USA

Luke - those young-earth arguments are as old as the hills, and have been refuted time and again, yet creationists continue to spout the same nonsense. When will they ever learn? The great age of the earth and evolutionary theory are two separate issues. The former is proven beyond doubt.

Jonathan Castro, Guildford, UK

I am sick and tired of issues being made over things not proven. Evolution and the Big Bang theory have not been and never will be proved, yet they are accepted by scientists as being true and woe betide anyone who says otherwise. What price the hypocritical hallowed halls of scientific accuracy??

Les Westley, St Laurent de Cuves, France

Let me state that evolution is still only a scientific THEORY as mentioned in the article. I think there is literature out there which support a very conceivable young earth., and hence creation (Take Ken Ham's (PhD) The Answers Book or The New Answers Book available on Amazon, for instance!

Ian Dougall, Roehampton, London

Have I missed something? I always understood that Evolution was a theory. I did not know it has now been proved. However I do know that the evidence for creation and ipso facto the Creator is obvious and all around me. Did my mobile phone evolve or was it created? I know which makes more sense!

Lindsey Wallington, Northwood, England

until evolutionist can explain: polystrate fossils, continental erosion, moon creep, sun diminishing, Earth's magnetic field diminishing, Earth's rotation slow down, the existence of comets, unfossilized dino bones, and many more evolution will be something that requires faith and is a religion.

Luke, Byron, MN, USA

why should the religion of evolution be allowed in our schools and not ID or creationism? They both require faith. Either billions of years of miraclulous events or six days of the same. Natural selection doesn't have the ability to create new species, there are no records to indicate that is does.

Luke, Byron, MN, USA

Atheism, Evolutionism and Big Bang are Religious hypotheses that require Faith to ignore the scientific evidence that clearly show that macro-evolution never took place and never does take place. If you are honest, you will really check out the "evidence" & the lack thereof. You'll be surprised.

Philip P., Arlington, Texas, USA

I think your scientists have simply shown how petty and simple minded they are. It always amazes me how people turn in fear on anything they don't understand or agree with, including these supposedly intelligent scientists.

Dan, Fairhope, USA

The whole thing is ridiculous. Just another example of the British persecuting religious people within their society. The guy never even claimed he believed in a strict creationism. Biologists are way overly sensitive to this issue and should step back and take a deep calming breath.

James, Lexington, United States

All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All thing wise and wonderful,
The Lord God made them all,
But probably not all at the same time,
In a few days a few thousand years ago.

Bill Peter, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

As a christian I must believe the words of John; In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Creation is a religious mandate. When you are bound by a mandate you seek to see its truth. All of us creationists can easily find scientific truth,

Concha, Minneapolis,

Laws of nature are inviolate and do not permit miracles claimed by the approximately 5000 religions in the world. We know quantum mechanics rules the observable universe because light from distant galaxies carries quantized information we can decode about conditions existing there.

Arno Arrak, Dix Hills, New York, USA

Proof of a Creator is all around you open your eyes. Evolution doesn’t answer all questions and the church doctrine isn’t necessarily right. The ‘big bang’ could have been part of the design. Decide for yourselves don’t be brainwashed by either side. My respect for the Royal Society is no more!

Joy Gibbs, Hampshire, UK

It is comforting to know that Texas is not alone in the world for having representatives of the Flat Earth Society challenge science education in favor of creationism. At least our star pupil of Texas elementary education (and Yale and Harvard) on the way out.

Bonnie Boorman, Georgetown, Texas, USA

Creationists and evolutionists use the same evidence (what is seen, measured etc) but start with different assumptions about origins.Each interprets the evidence in the light of their assumption. Neither origin can be scientifically proven. Each relies on belief in the preceding assumption.

Martin, Skye,

To those who have a poor understanding of a "theory" A Theory is a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. It is an idea that has not been DISproved. What many of you call theory is actually an IDEA.

Shi, Cottage Grove MN, USA

Tom - you ask those who believe in creationism or "ID" to provide some evidence... "preferably sources from a peer-reviewed science journal." Get real! In view of what happened to Michael Reiss, there's no chance that any popular science journal would publish evidence critical of evolution.

Geoff Chapman, Yeovil, UK

Creation Myths are stories saying something important about God and the origin of the universe. They full not into science. Indeed Science can gain from them but they not a scientific theory! They were never meant to be taken literally and it only in recent history that some Christians have!

Steven, Buckhurst Hill,

Creationism is the belief in a certain creation myth. Intelligent design is a philosophical theory for the origin of the status quo. They both make for interesting discussion but have nothing to do with science. Have these discussions in philosophy or religion class. Leave science to science class.

Rick, Richmond, UK

Religion is religion, science is science. Creationism is a religious doctrine based on the ancient Jews' account of creation. It isn't science. Should we teach Mary Baker Eddy's Christian Science healing in medical school? How about snake handling in physical ed? Talking in tongues in Speech?

Marci, Los Angeles, USA

Einstien: "As the circle of our understanding expands, so does the circumference of the darkness surrounding it." There is nothing so blind as those who profess no religion but invent their own and then act in characture as those they despise. Insult and abuse is not rational debate.

Alan, Luton,

Josh: "creationism is a science theory just as the big bang and evolution are theories of science."

Er no, creationism is hokum based on a 2,000 year old book of stories; the Big Bang and evolution are scientific theories based on observation, biology, physics, chemistry..y'know, science?

Ruth , Glasgow, Scotland

The Royal Society seems to have dealt with this just fine i.e. ask questions on creationism, and they will be answered using science and more importantly showing the methodology of science, but creationism is not scientific and won't form part of the curriculum. Perfect.

Warren Blore, Sydney, Australia

Oh come on ... do people still seriously believe in gods? Maybe the middle ages never ended. Maybe we atheists should take our ball (or scientific advances) and leave these misguided godspawn to rot in their own intellectual mudhuts and caves.

Darran, Retford, UK

Great example of no academic freedom to follow an inquiry where it logically leads. Naturalism *is* a world view -- indistinguishable from a religion. The evolutionary hypothesis has too much credibility; it's poor quality is seen when layers of interdisciplinary circular reasoning are peeled away.

Tim, Anaheim, CA, USA

Here's a news flash for you, Jack...believe it or not, we have science here in America, too! I'm a degreed electrical engineer, and after I thought about it, I determined that all science is, is an analytical tool...it creates nothing; it's not a god! I am a man of science, but a man of God first!

Jeff Coignard, Warner Robins, Georgia, USA

People, please stop making it out like this is a science vs religion "us and them" thing. One of Reiss's detractors was a Christian scientist, there are many others out there like him who disagree with this decision., myself included. Belief in Creation science is not needed for salvation.

Martin, St Andrews, Scotland

It takes more faith and less science to believe in evolution and the "Big Bang". Where DID it all come from? As always, when you start at a place that can not be proven and work out from there BUT do not acknowledge this, it is easier to point to someone else’s point of “faith” as a stumbling block

Jeff, cumberland,

Darwinism requires as much faith as believing that the world was created by a giant tortoise. There is interesting evidence that supports the theory, but it is just that, theory, not fact. Science is based on free debate,on confronting theory to evidence. Why shouldn't kids be encouraged to debate?

Emily, Reigate, England

Reiss wasn't fired because the RS is scared of people thinking critically about evolution. Anyone who seriously thinks that needs to go to a library and open a scientific journal. Scholars do so every single day. He was fired for linking the RS with a pro-creationism agenda, which is much different.

Corey , Chapel Hill, U.S.

The reason for "struggling science curriculum" is the dogmatic approach of evolutionists that push evolutionary "proofs" in todays science textbooks even though scientists in the field no long support those "truths". Present day science is responsible for educational malpractice.

Hammer Smith, Klamath Falls, USA

Creationism and Evolution are vastly differant hypothesis: Evolution is a theory supported heavily by imperical evidence and taught as the probable means as to how humans have come to be; creationism relies upon the existence of a supernatural being, reliant upon ancient fables and wild assumptions.

Nicky Dubya, Melbourne, Australia

To all the people who believe in creationism or "ID" could you please provide some evidence for your claims which, in your opinion, science cannot. Preferably sources from a peer-reviewed science journal?

Im willing to bet that you cannot!

Tom, London, England

Evolution is only a theory, a teaching, I would say. It has very little scientific basis and no evidences whatsoever. So, why evolution is science and creationism is not? The overreaction of the evolutionists proves that they feel very unsafe on there grounds.

Ivan Kavalenka, Minsk, Belarus

So some children ( and many American adults) believe in Creationism, have they arrived at this viewpoint as a result of intellectual study or have they been indoctrinated by their parents in which case I would call it a case of child abuse.
Religion should only be taught as a theory

M Wilkinson, London , UK

A friendly advisory: Be careful Whom you mock, i.e., God. He hold your eternity in His hands.

Jeff Coignard, Warner Robins, Georgia, USA

To Ernest van Tuyll of Groningen, Netherlands:

It appears that you not only accept evolution, you fervently believe in it. OK, so, let's not worry about evolution right now...explain to me where life originated. How did all of this, i.e., life in this universe, start? Who or what created life?

Jeff Coignard, Warner Robins, Georgia, USA

All of you unbelievers out there, explain to me where and how life originated. How did all of this, i.e., life in this universe, start? Who or what created life? Where does anything come from? What caused the "Big Bang?" Until you can answer that, there's no basis for any of your arguements.

Jeff Coignard, Warner Robins, Georgia, USA

Why is it the only uk new's stories you see any american coment on is one's involving god, look he may well be alive in the USA but no one here has belived in god since the 60's!

We dont do god any more we do science!

MR W Jones, Liverpool, England

More obscurantism from the Royal Society. Wasn't this the institution that recently gagged a Nobel prize winner for daring to challenge their world view with some uncomfortable facts ? The Inquisition seems to have moved headquarters in the modern era.

Anth, Walsall, UK

The exam for ID would be incredibly easy though:
Every answer would be god did it.

Drew, London,

All creationists have to do is to publish their research (if any) in a scientific journal and allow it to be assessed by the scientific community and then tested. No chance of course.

All scientific theories will be proved wrong eventually. That's where the scientific method overwhelms dogma.

Derek Smith, Brighton, UK

As he should. He made a mistake and resigned. Pay attnetion Labour.

Dean, Southampton, England

Even if everybody is coerced or brainwashed into a religious point of view, it doesn´t make it true. Fanatics aren´t cured by enlightment but rather by deprogramming or medical treatment as with other delusions. Children are susceptible to indoctrination regardless of it is fascism, god or Santa.

Johan, Stockholm, Sweden

Why do so many reactions speak of chance as driver of natural selection? It shows that these people have not yet fully grasped the theory of evolution. Chance has nothing to do with evolution. Its variation, selection and retention. Those abilities that allow a species to survive and expand, develop

Ernest van Tuyll, Groningen, Netherlands

The comments below show the dangers of introducing the debate in schools. The claims of science in creationism are wrong, but they have a veneer of acceptability. The problems are that 1) the distinctions are subtle, and 2) creationists are happy to lie to children.

Steve, Altrincham,

To Dan, Pensacola.

Atheism is not a belief and it isn't something you try. Science and religion isn't equal or even opposite of one another by a long shot. Religion is a fantasy based on indoctrination and should be treated as such. Where your parents by any chance religious?

Johan, Stockholm, Sweden

Scientists do not believe. They think.

Creationists do not think. They believe.

I choose to think.

qed, Hurst, UK

Such ignorance on display here. Creationism is a rejection of all Geology, Biology, Paleontology, Archaeology, Nuclear Physics, Astronomy, and Cosmology all in favour of a 'folk' understanding of the universe to which some people appear to have a emotional attachment.

Chris, Dorking,

There is more evidence that I created and designed the World than God did. Nobody worships me.

tim Millea, Antalya, Turkey

To ask ultimate questions why there is anything rather than nothing is a proper one for theologians and philosophers, rather than for science. "Creationism" is a disservice not to science, but to intelligent Christian faith.

bob wilkinson, milnthorpe, United Kingdom

EITHER we evolved slowly through evolution OR : God created the dust/blood-clot man & his rib-wife,had their kids fornicate to populate the world...only later to destroy most of 'evil' mankind (men,women,children,babies and the un-born) in the Flood !
Not the kind of god decent folk should worship !

J. Barry, Berlin, Germany

Hee hee. Blasphemy! Excommunicate the heretic from the Church of Science.

Oh how hypocritical people really are. He expresses his own opinion that contradicts the canon and so must be thrown out.
Humans really are the same the world over.

andrew purser, York,

If he was American they'd probably nominate him for president/vice president.

Jim, Liverpool,

There is nothing to "debate" about creationism. No amount of debate will convert the faithful. Like belief in god or Father Christmas or fairies at the bottom of the garden, you can't disprove it. This, alone, is enough to ban it from the realm of serious science. And so from science classes.

alan, germany,

Wow. When I read the title, I assumed Prof. Reiss had endorsed a silly Adam-and-Eve type creationism. So I was surprised to read further. Cards on table ... I do believe in intelligent design ... and I abhor fundamentalist religion. But I am unsettled by this severe punishment for a small heresy.

Gary, London, UK

If you need an alternative to science, why choose creationism, and not, say, racist antisemitism? The latter is also a world view, and also fallacious - and you can learn something by considering why people choose to believe in it. But you don't present it to kids as one of 2 equal alternatives..

alex, liverpool,

Jim, Derby, these highly complex and sophisticated entities didn't just appear, by chance or otherwise, they evolved. That is science.

David Leslie, Perth, Scotland

Josh, Harlingen. Even watch making has evolved. Early watches were very basic in comparison with todays watches. The watchmaker is using his own experience and the xperiences of others to make his watch.

David Leslie, Perth, Scotland

Ironically there will be celebrations among creationists today. Such bigotry by the Royal Society will reinforce excellently the perception that evolution is driven by anti-Christian ideology in the British scientific establishment. Bosh, of course; but that's the message. A bad day for science.

Roger Pearse, Ipswich,

It is clearly something that should be debated. But whether science classes are the place is questionable. I was under the impression that "General Studies/News of the day" classes were now in place. If they are surely it is here that they should be debated. RE classes are not the place; too few.

M. Cawdery, Craigavon, Co. UK, EU

If Creationism is taught in science class as an alternative world view, then what's to stop Holocaust Denial being taught the same way in History lessons? Besides, most kids are actually savvy enough to recognise mumbo-jumbo from proven facts, and those who don't should be left to their own beliefs.

Andrew, London,

There's no conflict between belief in God & evolution.Probably most people who believe in God,Creator of the universe, accept evolutionary theory.Yet isn't it just that - still a theory,a hypothesis which cannot be empirically proven?(Whereas,eg, Einstein's Relativity Theory was empirically proven).

Joan Moira Peters, Whangarei UK Citizen , temp o/seas in New Zealand

This has been a witchhunt akin to McCarthyism! Prof Reiss simply said that to teach evolution you need to engage with the erroneous Creationist ideas that are out there. Now it looks as if the Royal Society are actually afraid of Creationism! This does the cause or rational enquiry no good at all!

andrew holden, oxford, uk

Dan, of Pensecola finds it hard to believe that there was a sliver of a fraction of a second in which lifeless matter awoke.
But he is willing to believe that an incredibly complex, omniscient being awoke from somewhere, much easier to believe. You've convinced me!

Stuart, Glasgow,

Well done Michael. It is right to let the light of God into this situation. Whilst I can see the argument that they are different world views, both requiring faith I am convicted that only one of them has Gods' power to bring eternal life. When you know that you cannot hide it under any bushel.

Chris Buttrick, Hull, England

Creationism and evolution are not equal theories. One is based on an incredibly HUGE amount of evidence. One is based on a story. To bring the two together is pointless and nonsense. Again this shows that even the most moderately religious people just can't be trusted with reason and science.

Warwick, Penzance, UK

Brilliant!
And another attack on science by the human defect called religion has been successfully averted and our children are safe.

Johnny, London, UK

Sarah Palin next?

Mike Mitchell, Spalding, England

The Royal Society's motto used to be "On the Word of No-one". This was a clear, scientific prohibition against relying a faith or authority. Now, unfortunately, it is "Respect the Facts". This is nonsense, because there are no facts in science, only observations and their interpretations.

Frank Upton, Solihull,

From this we can see the brain tends towards a worldview beyond what is comprehensible to the intellect.

It is the intellect which is wrong to insist it has all the answers; this attitude will always be rejected by a mind whose source is as yet unknown and of which the intellect is only one part.

iain, bedford, uk

Scientists will change their orthodoxy based on repeatable evidence. Creationists will still 'believe' in their theory irrespective of fact. I believe in a God-created universe but not in a personal God which is man's invention and given us death, destruction and misery. Evolution is God's work.

Anthony, Dubai, UAE

Good news, this has no place in a Science classroom, if people want to learn about the cults of Jesus or Mohammed they can go to one of the plentiful induction/brainwashing centres.

All hail the one true FSM!

Ben R, Manchester,

I think it's the phrase "not as a misconception, but as a world-view" that did for him. If all he'd said was that if kids bring up creationism, teachers should help them critically evaluate it without jumping down their throats, I don't think there would have been much of a case to answer.

Phil, London,

Thanks goodness the RS has taken this decisive step against the gradual creep of non-evidence based nonsense. Creationism is completely contrived and with no evidence whatsoever - the very antithesis of science. By all means discuss it is RE or Social studies, but no more.

Vaseem, London, UK

People can believe whatever they like but if it is not science then it doesn't belong into the science class and science should not be making concessions to unscientific "world views".

The Royal Society are right to be unambiguous about this. I feel sorry for Reiss, but he should have known better.

Pete, London, UK

Creationsim should be taught in a class on 'world's different cultural believes". Science class is the last place for it.

ken, leiden, holland

This is a seriuos blow to the scientific community. The whole issue isn't a matter of evidence, it's how you interpret it. Evolution and Creationism both require some amount of faith and both come from different world views. The leaders of the RS are afraid of having their power challenged.

Mitchell Anderson, Rogers, Arkansas, United States

Dan: What makes you think I don't believe God created the universe? I just dislike unscientific US religious nonsense wasting science class time, and starving a generation of potential scientists. What makes you think God is so demonstrably provable while still requiring faith? Can't have both.

Martin, St Andrews, Scotland

Teachers should not be required to teach alternative views in their science classes unless these views are considerably more widely accepted as worthy by scientists than is creationsim. What next? Will someone with a pulpit at his or her disposal insist on the teaching that the earth is flat?

Robert DAre, Carmel Highlands, California, USA

Martin, it's delusional to believe that you can separate science and religion. Either God created the universe or He didn't. You've picked your side. I tried Atheism, but it was too hard to believe that there was a sliver of a fraction of a second in which lifeless matter awoke.

Dan, Pensacola, United States of America

No doubt therefore the Royal Society can explain to us why the large hadron collider cannot recreate the exact conditons at the Big Bang, but only a billionth of a second later.

Anthony, Berkhamsted,

Science running scared, fearing creationisn promoted by fundalmentalists, so they refuse all discussion on the matter, beleiving in the WE ARE RIGHT, so we won't discuss, who are the fundalmentalists and is Science the new religion to be followed without questioning, you tell me

Shugs, comber, Northern Ireland

It wasn't so long ago people were hounded the same way because they tried to argue that the earth was round. All of the above are classed as 'theories'. Last time I checked it meant that there was still a missing link (pardon the pun!)

Donald, Glasgow , Scotland

A theory, be it biology or politics, which can only survive with strong arm tactics, power plays and ostracism, only betrays how weak and indefensible it is. The former USSR justified its one party monoply with the argument, that it's system was superior to everything else -- but we know better now.

Rocco Panepinto, Jena, Germany

Excellent news. Rational science has no place for a man with such irrational views. That is not to say that one cannot be a Christian scientist, but that you know the different between that which we can know by empirical methods, (i.e. evolution) and everything else.

Richard Holloway, London, England

As a biologist I ACCEPT the abundant evidence for evolution, but I would never be forced to BELIEVE in it as if it were "ID/Creationism" dogma. What has now happened to the valued freedom of choice in science ?. Methinks the decision is an "In memoriam: Sic transit gloria scientiae".

Andrew, Maracay, Venezuela

The Royal Society has scored an own goal on this occasion. The reason is because at the moment the evolutionists are running scared. People like Richard Dawkin have initiated a full frontal attack because alot people are now aware of the arguments that render evolution theory a scientific dogma.

jack , london, uk

When one's reputation or the reputation of a society is more important than the truth, then one's ability to determine what is true is greatly diminished.

Rev. Geoffrey Gannon, Leavenworth, USA

Sophia from Turo,

If you examine the eyes of a newborn baby you can evaluate the gradual steps of evolution that led to human sight, examine the sight of other animals and you will see other evolutionary routes.

Personal incredulity based on ignorance of biology is no evidence for a God.

David, London, UK

Creationism is a faith position and therefore cannot be taught as science.Creationist scientists will point to scientific evidence that is consistent with their beliefs. Evolution is presented as a scientific theory and so must be open to rigorous scientific criticism, or back to the dark ages!

David, Bournemouth, UK

Steve from Southampton, it's "church of the flying spaghetti monster".

Alex, Bristol, United Kingdom

So called "intelligent design" is not a theory, as there is absolutely no evidence to support it, and as such has no place in a science curriculum. The alternative to intelligent design" is certainly not "chance", it is natural selection, a theory backed up by vast amounts of evidence.

Deborah, London,

how can you say that intelligent design cannot be tested by observation, go and see a watch maker make a watch, and that is intelligent design, creationism is a science theory just as the big bang and evolution are theories of science.

Josh, Harlingen, United States

Outrageous, Richard Roberts and Lord Winston should be the ones resigning for not entertaining anything but their own dogma. Where is the scientific evidence to prove the formation of the first living cell? Where is the evidence for transitory forms? Scientists should be open to alternative ideas.

Tim, Reading, UK

absolutely good riddance to the man. Creationism, like the tooth-fairy and witches, has no place being taught to children. If parents insist on passing on fanciful nonsense by preaching rubbish to their children; then let them do it on their own time.

Justin Lindsay, Napier, NZ

Professor Reiss is out. Fortunately for him, a firing squad of Nobel Laureates (or, in the alternative, tenured full professors) was not assembled to summarily dispatch him.

An example of the process of natural selection at work.

Terry L. Walker, Ladson, SC / USA

I'm a science teacher and I completely support Michael Reiss. In class we encourage students to say what they think - and then use this as a basis for explaining what is and what isn't science. The research scientists need to get out of their ivory towers and talk to real people, as Prof Reiss said.

Simon Hepburn, St Albans,

Tony-Gardner-Medwin:

Respect for a point of view is one thing. Giving carte blanche to extra disruption in an already struggling science curriculum is another, especially when RE classes exist. The problem is made obvious in Reiss' own words - you can't convince these people given a lifetime.

Martin, St Andrews, Scotland

Watch and learn, America. Watch and learn. Science is in bad enough shape in both our countries without wasting time debating religion. Keep religion in church.

Martin, St Andrews, Scotland

Jim. That's the whole point: they did occur by chance over millions of years. Not in one leap!

Ian, Bucks, UK

Keep looking smaller, smaller, smaller... good, it is then understanding... but look too far and then you can only find the answer within.

Mark, London,

I'm appalled! The RS has lent credence to the false idea that Reiss promoted creationism. OK, he introduced a tricky concept: "respect" for an alternative "world view" – redolent perhaps of debate with a nursery child. But science cannot be seen to oppose the careful refutation of wrong ideas.

Tony Gardner-Medwin, London, UK

Well obviously they can't allow debate because then the outrageous idea that we got here by chance falls to pieces. It's just a bit of mad Victorian hubris that got fossilised and embedded in a self-interested power structure called the scientific establishment. Thomas Huxley had a lot to do with it

Andrew Chapman, Newcastle upon Tyne, England

Oh these tired old creationist arguments, it is this approach that makes the topic not worthy of consideration in science classes.
We need world superstitions in the core curriculum.

Peter, Newcastle, UK

Intelligent design is not a theory - it offers no predictions, it has no explanation (except "it's all magic guys") and it cannot be tested by observation. Can it be reasonably debated within a science class after defining what a theory is? Might as well debate the church of the spaghetti monster.

steve, southampton,

20 years ago these 2 'theories' where to take or to leave.
When did they level up one like a Midle Age church dogma?
Speaking about indoctrination!
Science is being made ridiculous by its own people.
You cant question things anymore or they put the Inquisition at your door.
End of the Enlightment?

gert schoepen, Antwerp, Belgium

Your kids already have the right to interrupt a science class and waste time on another subject, as well as a class for the purposes of discussing religion. Don't push your luck.

Martin, St Andrews, Scotland

I agree with Lord Winston that in this episode has made the Royal Society appear to be running scared of discussion, and undermining the position of evolutionary science as needing defence which appears fundamentalist in the extreme.

Tim Norman, Paris, France

Lord Winston is right. In this episode, The Royal Society appears now to view evolution as needful of defence which is tantamount to fundamentalist dogmatism, and not open to discussion

Tim Norman, Paris, France

Are any teachers/professors who teach science familiar with a thing caled 'the scientific method'? It was developed almost 1000 years ago and uses observation, measurement and reason to predict outcomes and test hypothoses. It is also something that right-wing evangelicals can ignore at will.

Andrew , Godalming, UK

Good... Religion has no place in schools and no place within science.

Martyn, Bournemouth, UK

Just goes to show that you can be well educated but not necessary clever with original thought.

Dave Madley, Alicante, Spain

As fully integrated ultra complex and highly sophisticated entities cannot occur by chance, it would appear that Professor Reiss's position is vastly more scientific than that of his opponents.

Jim, Derby, UK

this is a travesty... the science community is no different then the catholic church in the middle ages forcing men to aquiesce to their beliefs. evolution is anything but sound... it has major holes in it... ID should be taught along side evolution...evidence is mounting that favors it

shawn ahearn, lewisville nc, United States

As fully integrated ultra complex and highly sophisticated entities cannot occur by chance, it would appear that Professor Reiss's position is vastly more scientific than that of his opponents.

Jim, DERBY, United Kingdom

Why are the views so outrageous to Reiss? Is it because he doesn't hold the same views himself? How arrogant. Perhaps he should take a leaf out of Fred Hoyle's book before his reputation, too, is damaged.

Abdul Majeed, Bradford, West Yorkshire, UK

They are totally right to get him to resign.If there is no chance changing pupils minds about their creationist beliefs, then so be it. Lack of scientific knowledge is their loss. They are obviously already too indoctrinated, so why give creationism the time of day
and pander to them.

Keith Sloan, Nr Winchester, U

True science allows for debate of theories. I think the Royal Society made a fool of itself by not supporting Michael Reiss. When you look into the eyes of a newborn baby it makes complete sense to believe that we were are wonderfully made, created by an intelligent designer.

Sophia, Truro, UK

Let's ask these extremely learned members of the Society to meet in 75 years to discuss what evolution has done for them in the afterlife. There should be some interesting discussion about their reputations.

Lance Johnson, Oklahoma City, OK, USA