Resignations and Religion
The media has worked itself into a frenzy over the director of education at the Royal Society in a row over creationism.
On iPM we're interested in that - but we're also interested in a row that has lead to another who worked for 9 months as an attendant at the Abington Park Museum.
At the end of after it emerged that a paragraph in some text accompanying a display about Charles Darwin had been covered over. The allegation from secularist groups was that this had happened . The protests attracted significant attention on line - not just the writer of Watchmen and V for Vendetta. You can hear Alan Moore talk about why he felt it important to participate, and his views on evolution and religion in the player below:
But some felt the story and that this perhaps wasn't the right battle for those opposing creationism to pick. The council maintain that the sign was covered up simply because of factual errors in the text. Here's what they told me.
In 2003, a member of the public complained about [...] the conflation of Genesis and the theory of evolution. The officer responsible agreed that the phrase was inaccurate and confusing but on strictly factual (as opposed to religious) grounds (i.e. Genesis, as presented in the bible, does NOT include a 'view on evolution'.) The complainant's personal beliefs had no bearing on the way the complaint was approached.
Solely on the basis that it was factualy incorrect, we agreed to correct the text.
The panel remained covered over for the next five years in the hope that additional funds would be made available that would enable it to be replaced.
But museum attendant Gary Arthur who first sparked the row wasn't happy with the council's version of events. While he accepts that the sign was inaccurate and he thinks that reflects badly on the museum, he believes the religious beliefs of the complainant were a factor in the decision to cover up the sign.
Well it was Louis Houston, a local resident who made the complaint back in 2003. He feels he's been subjected to criticism, and that his complaint was entirely legitimate. He does hold creationist views, which he is quite open about, you can hear those in the interview below.
The sign is no longer covered up as it has now been amended. You can see the original paragraph and the amended version below the fold. The last word on this case, goes to the leader of the council. Tony Woods: "Evolution is science, creation is faith. It is disappointing that various groups jumped on a minor factual error in a relatively old museum display to promote their own views."
There's no denying that, as in the Reiss resignation, this has been an issue where passions ran high. So we decided to bring together Reverend Professor Alister McGrath, a theologian and scientist at King's College London, and Professor Christopher Higgins, a molecular biologist and geneticist who strongly agrees with the Royal Society decision over Prof Reiss's resignation. Can there be meaningful dialogue between scientists and creationists over the subject of evolution?
Changes tp the sign.
Original panel text (incorrect phrase in bold):
He used the same layers of fossils that had supported the Genesis view of evolution to show the slow changes that are taking place over the millennia of earth history, each small change enabling a species to the rigours of it's environment - the struggle for survival, through the natural selection, leading to the survival of the fittest.
Revised text now on display:
He used the same layers of fossils to show the slow changes that are taking place over the millennia of earth history, each small change enabling a species to the rigours of its environment - the struggle for survival, through the natural selection, leading to the survival of the fittest.
Email us
Listen to iPM