Ugh. This is really doing my head in. New Scientist has a Short Sharp Science blog post by online news editor Rowan Hooper that is a perfect example of the irrational, knee-jerk response to the comments of Professor Michael Reiss.

What on earth is the effective difference in content between the following two statements?

1. ‘[I agree with the statement,] “The ideas offered by intelligent design creationists are not the products of scientific reasoning.” … However, in certain classes, depending on the comfort of the teacher in dealing with such issues and the make-up of the student body, it can be appropriate to deal with the issue. If questions or issues about creationism and intelligent design arise during science lessons they can be used to illustrate a number of aspects of how science works.’
2. ‘When young people ask questions about creationism in science classes, teachers need to be able to explain to them why evolution and the Big Bang are scientific theories but they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis.’

According to the post, the first is inexcusable but the second is inarguable. Huh? Apparently Hooper thinks it helps his case that all he quotes of the first statement is, “in certain classes, it can be appropriate to deal with the issue”.

That’s some seriously short, shoddy science blogging from NS.