Prof Michael Reiss caused a stir last week when he spoke about creationism in science classes. Prof Reiss is professor of science education at the Institute of Education, London and director of education at the Royal Society. One thing noticeably absent from a number of biogs is that he is also an Anglican priest.

The Royal Society had to quickly distance itself from any suggestion that creationism should be taught in science classes. The Guardian reports on Reiss recent comments and also gives perhaps the best biography I've found.

So what's the fuss about? Well, Reiss's argument is that although he agrees creationism should not be taught as an alternative to evolution, he does think it should be given debating time. In reference to the US National Academy of Sciences stating,"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." Reiss replies,"Just because something lacks scientific support doesn't seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson." A staggering admission from an educator.

Another thing strikes me as odd; why on earth did the Royal Society give him a job in the first place? Could they not see this coming? This shows how clever people can be dumb.

To give him his dues, the good professor is trying to make the point that science teachers should be equipped to deal with the arguments, but as he also says they are unlikely to change the minds of creation believers this still seems a drain on limited science lessons. There are many other examples of science overturning religious dogma, such as that the Earth is the centre of the universe.

One solution to this, and other, debates is to bring back Philosophy into the curriculum. Even in the UK this has largely lapsed and is a minority subject. Although the UK does now have Civic Studies, so could be tagged onto that, but I think Philosophy is more important.