A couple of comments on the resignation of Prof Michael Reiss from the Royal Society (he was forced to step down after saying in a speech that creationism needs to be discussed in schools rather than being simply dismissed).
Paul Helm notes on the the response of one professor – ‘Creationism is based on faith and has nothing to do with science, and it should not be taught in science classes’:
“No doubt he would have wished to add ‘and the denial of creationism is also based on faith and has nothing to do with science, and it should not be taught in science classes.’ If matters of faith cannot be a matter for science but for something else, religion classes perhaps, then matters of unfaith should also remove to the religion part of the curriculum. But who has ever heard a member of the Royal Society say that atheism ought never to be taught in science classes?”
He continues: “Two things are dispiriting about exchanges such as this. One is (what seems) the wilful ignorance of many scientists about religion, and particularly about the Christian religion. ‘Creation’, ‘creationism’, ‘7 days creation’, ’literal’, ‘4004 BC’, are used in a way that reveals disinterest and contempt; extreme discourtesy, in fact. If one dissents form a view one should, morally should, take the trouble to understand it in a sympathetic way. That seems to be a basic element of disinterested enquiry. The second concerns the ethical standards expressed in dismissing creation. …”
I’m not endorsing every point he makes, but the full article is here and worth reading.
Same for Cranmer:
“If the theory of evolution is so self-evident, it ought to have no problem standing up to a classroom discussion. Science is about enquring, the prerequisite of which is an open mind. The Royal Society has manifest the antithesis; indeed, it has displayed intolerance and the enforcement of personal prejudice.
No wonder science is dying in Britain.”