A Monty Python sketch

Michael Reiss foi o professor de Educação de Ciência do Instituto de Educação da Universidade de Londres escolhido há um ano pela Royal Society para dirigir o seu departamento de Educação. Mas o reverendo Reiss é igualmente um ministro da Igreja Anglicana e os seus dois papeis parecem ter entrado em conflito a semana passada quando se pronunciou sobre o papel dos criacionismos nas salas de aulas no Festival de Ciência da British Association na Universidade de Liverpool. Embora não advogando o ensino do criacionismo a par da evolução, as declarações de Reiss, que considera que o «criacionismo é melhor visto pelos professores de ciência como uma mundivisão e não como uma concepçao errada», eram no mínimo passíveis de muitas confusões que seriam certamente aproveitadas por criacionistas de todos os flavours.

Alguns excertos ajudam a perceber porquê:

«For example, the excellent book Science, Evolution, and Creationism published by the US National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine, asserts: "The ideas offered by intelligent design creationists are not the products of scientific reasoning. Discussing these ideas in science classes would not be appropriate given their lack of scientific support."

I agree with the first sentence but disagree with the second. Just because something lacks scientific support doesn't seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson.»

As reacções de membros da Royal Society às declarações de Reiss não se fizeram esperar, nomeadamente por parte de dois prémios Nobel, Sir Harry Kroto and Sir Richard Roberts e culminaram hoje no anúncio de que Reiss se demitira da sua posição. Embora concorde com quem considera que foi ingénuo da parte de Reiss fazer aquelas declarações controversas enquanto representante da Royal Society, a minha posição sobre o tema é bem descrita pela carta de Richard Dawkins à New Scientist, escrita numa altura em que a demissão de Reiss ainda não fora anunciada:

Scientists divide into two camps over this issue: the accommodationists, who 'respect' creationists while disagreeing with them; and the rest of us, who see no reason to respect ignorance or stupidity.

The accommodationists include such godless luminaries as Eugenie Scott, whose National Center for Science Education is doing splendid work in fighting the creationist wingnuts in America. She and her fellow accommodationists bend over backwards to woo the relatively sensible minority among Christians, who accept evolution.

Get the bishops and theologians on the side of science – so the argument runs – and they'll be valuable allies against the naive creationists (who probably include the majority of Christians and certainly almost all Muslims, by the way).

No politician could deny at least the superficial plausibility of this expedient, although it is disappointing how ineffective as allies the 'sensible' minority of Christians turn out to be.

(...)

If the Royal Society wanted to attack creationism with all fists flying, as I would hope, an ordained priest might make a politically effective spokesman, however much we might deplore his inconsistency.

This is the role that Kenneth Miller, not a priest but a devout Christian, plays in America, where he is arguably creationism's most formidable critic. But if the Society really wants to promote the accommodationist line, a clergyman is the very last advocate they should choose.

Perhaps I was a little uncharitable to liken the appointment of a vicar as the Royal Society's Education Director to a Monty Python sketch. Nevertheless, thoughts of Trojan Horses are now disturbing many Fellows, already concerned as they are by the signals the Society recently sent out through its flirtation with the infamous Templeton Foundation.

Accommodationism is playing politics, while teetering on the brink of scientific dishonesty. I'd rather not play that kind of politics at all but, if the Royal Society is going to go down that devious road, they should at least be shrewd about it. Perhaps, rather than resign his job with the Royal Society, Professor Reiss might consider resigning his Orders?