John Humphrys - Steve Jones definition of evil is crazy

In a Guardian article (May 2007) Steve Jones was in a discussion with Martin Rees and Richard Dawkins. Prof Jones discussed the problems he comes across when teaching students with Islamic backgrounds.

"To a man and to a woman, there are parts of science they will not accept.

"That means that, in their early lives, they have been told deliberate lies by people who, I'm sure, know they are deliberate lies. I don't care how charming they are, I don't care how pleasant they are, these people are evil.

"What's true for imams is, more or less, true for bishops."

Letters, May 30
Prof Steve Jones describes imams and bishops as "evil". Could he give us the scientific definition of evil?
Lizzi Collinge
Lancaster
http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,2090785,00.html

Steve Jones (Letters, May 31)
Lizzi Collinge (Letters, May 30) asks for my definition of "evil". How about "telling lies to children"; the universal habit of all religions through the ages?
Steve Jones
London
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2007/may/31/leadersandreply.mainsection

June 2, 2007 Letters
Lying to children is evil, says Steve Jones (Letters, May 31). So no more "you'll get well soon, darling", or "you'll love your spinach" or "once upon a time there was a little girl called Little Red Riding Hood". What a cold, dull, flat and colourless world of the imagination poor Steve and his buddies must inhabit. Give me the gods, the spirits, the myths and Father Christmas any time. They make science so much more interesting and valuable.
Ian Flintoff
Oxford
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2007/jun/02/leadersandreply.mainsection

Ian Flintoff misrepresents Steve Jones who was talking about the lies that relgions tell to children.

John Humphrys in this book "In God We Doubt" takes issue with Steve Jones (chapter 20) who says "evil by definition is teaching children things you know to be wrong" But Steve Jones (see May 31 Letters) actually said my definition of "evil". How about "telling lies to children"; the universal habit of all religions through the ages? Steve Jones was not talking about 'Little Red Riding' or other fairy tales; he was talking about the lies that religions teach children. Steve Jones was agreeing with Richard Dawkins that children should be taught ideas based on evidence not ideas based on faith.

John Humphrys asks is it really, honestly evil to teach children that "there was a good man called Jesus who was killed by some bad men but came alive again and then went to heaven because he was really the son of God and loved us all.

Is it really crazy to think that it might be evil to say to children that "Jesus went to heaven because he was the son of God". That is a matter of faith and not based on any credible evidence. If you know that something as fundamental as this is (in all likelyhood) wrong then you should not be teaching it to children. Instead we should be teaching children ideas that are based on evidence.

Stephen Law's speech on religious schools - 7 May 2008 - 6

Stephen Law's speech on religious schools - 7 May 2008 - 5

Dare to ask a question in an Authoritarian class. Reverentual tone, atmosophere - feel the pressure, implicit, surreptious pressure not to question. Sounds like the School of Economic Science (SES) to me!!. Philosophy for Children. Learn about other religions - but not from a priest or atheist! Moral abuse of children.

Unit 9B: Where did the Universe come from? Year 9 students

This is the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) 2000 guidance on RE.

Unit 9B: Where did the Universe come from? Year 9 students - document provided by UK Government.

This unit investigates the ways in which science and religion are often perceived to be in conflict. It asks whether they can aid each other, and so facilitate learning about and from religion. The unit encourages pupils to examine and reflect upon information on meaning and purpose in life in the light of their study of elements of religious traditions, and so facilitates learning from religion and science about concepts of truth. This unit investigates the ways in which science and religion are often perceived to be in conflict. It asks whether they can aid each other, and so facilitate learning about and from religion. The unit encourages pupils to examine and reflect upon information on meaning and purpose in life in the light of their study of elements of religious traditions, and so facilitates learning from religion and science about concepts of truth.

At the end of this unit most pupils will: know that a person’s world-view shapes and is shaped by their scientific and religious beliefs; describe important features of a creation story, and compare and contrast it with scientific accounts of why human life exists; explain how personal beliefs affect and are affected by people’s understanding of truth; select and combine information from written sources evaluating other people’s views and opinions in order to answer questions on whether science and religion are in conflict; make informed responses to questions about existence, truth and purpose of human life; evaluate other people’s values and commitments in the light of their learning, reflecting on their own understanding of the uniqueness of human life

Guidance on the place of Creationism and Intelligent Design in Science Lessons - by the UK Government DCSF

Richard blogged "Is Truth False?" today: http://hassers.blogspot.com/2008/02/when-is-truth-false.html

I blogged this subject in September 2007:
http://hassers.blogspot.com/2007/09/government-warns-schools-against.html

after the Governement issued guidelines to all Secondary schools on teaching Creationism / ID in Science classes: http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/docbank/index.cfm?id=11890

I will try obtain a copy of the letter (sent to my childrens school) by the Department for Children, Schools and Families

Ed Balls is currently Minster for DCSF.

Creationism and intelligent design in the science curriculum (guidance)
by Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/
About DCSF: http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/contactus/

Creationism and intelligent design are not part of the National Curriculum for science, but there is scope for pupils to discuss creationism as part of RE in developing their knowledge and understanding of Christianity, and other religions. This guidance is therefore designed to clarify for teachers the place of creationism and intelligent design within the National Curriculum.

I reproduce some of the UK Government document (referred to in the link above) here:-

Scientific theories

The use of the word 'theory' can mislead those not familiar with science as a subject discipline because it is different from the everyday meaning of being little more than a 'hunch'. In science the meaning is much less tentative and indicates that there is a substantial amount of supporting evidence, underpinned by principles and explanations accepted by the international scientific community. However, it also signals that all scientific knowledge is considered to be provisional as it can be overturned by new evidence if this is validated and accepted by the scientific community.

Creationism and intelligent design are sometimes claimed to be scientific theories. This is not the case as they have no underpinning scientific principles, or explanations, and are not accepted by the science community as a whole. Creationism and intelligent design therefore do not form part of the science National Curriculum programmes of study.

Creationism and intelligent design are not part of the science National Curriculum programmes of study and should not be taught as science. However, there is a real difference between teaching 'x' and teaching about 'x'. Any questions about creationism and intelligent design which arise in science lessons, for example as a result of media coverage, could provide the opportunity to explain or explore why they are not considered to be scientific theories and, in the right context, why evolution is considered to be a scientific theory.

Addressing students' questions about creationism or intelligent design

Science teachers can respond positively and educationally to questions and comments about creationism or intelligent design by questioning, using prompts such as 'What makes a theory scientific?', and by promoting knowledge and understanding of the scientific consensus around the theories of evolution and the Big Bang.

Choosing appropriate resources

The DCSF does not specify teaching resources. There is a wide variety of resources available for use in schools and teachers are free to use their professional judgement to select appropriate materials for their science lessons.

Any resource should be checked carefully before it is used in the classroom. If resources which mention creationism or intelligent design are used, it must be made clear that neither constitutes a scientific theory.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Is creationism a valid scientific theory?

'Creationism', a term commonly used as a shorthand for 'young-Earth creationism', is the belief that the Earth and its many species did not gradually come into being over billions of years but were created suddenly and within the last 10,000 years. This proposed timescale can be investigated scientifically with the scientific evidence indicating a much older Earth (between 4,000 and 5,000 million years). The existence of a 'creator' is not scientifically testable.

Is a belief in creation the same thing as 'creationism'?

Belief that God created everything that exists is shared by Christians, Jews, Muslims and many others all over the world. Many of the founders of modern science, as well as contemporary scientists, have held and do hold this belief, one 'that science cannot address' since it is religious/metaphysical. In view of this, in the interest of good science education, it is important that science teachers do not assert or imply that science contradicts traditional beliefs in creation and design. To the belief in creation, creationists have added the belief that the Earth is geologically young, although this is not supported by mainstream science.

Is intelligent design a valid scientific theory?

The intelligent design movement claims there are aspects of the natural world that are so intricate and fit for purpose that they cannot have evolved but must have been created by an 'intelligent designer'. Furthermore they assert that this claim is scientifically testable and should therefore be taught in science lessons. Intelligent design lies wholly outside of science. Sometimes examples are quoted that are said to require an 'intelligent designer'. However, many of these have subsequently been shown to have a scientific explanation, for example, the immune system and blood clotting mechanisms.

Attempts to establish an idea of the 'specified complexity' needed for intelligent design are surrounded by complex mathematics. Despite this, the idea seems to be essentially a modern version of the old idea of the "God-of-the-gaps". Lack of a satisfactory scientific explanation of some phenomena (a 'gap' in scientific knowledge) is claimed to be evidence of an intelligent designer.

Should time be given to creationism and intelligent design in science lessons?

The theory of evolution lies at the heart of biology and should be taught at key stage 4 and in GCE advanced level biology. Creationism and intelligent design are not scientific theories and do not form part of the science National Curriculum or the GCSE and GCE A level subject criteria. There may be situations in which it is appropriate for science teachers to respond to student comments or enquiries about the claims of creationism or intelligent design. This would be to establish why they are not considered as scientific theories as described above in 'What is appropriate to teach in science lessons'. One way to do this would be to consider the mechanisms by which new scientific knowledge becomes established and why creationism and intelligent design do not meet these requirements.

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. Such aspects include: 'how interpretation of data, using creative thought, provides evidence to test ideas and develop theories'; 'that there are some questions that science cannot currently answer, and some that science cannot address'; 'how uncertainties in scientific knowledge and scientific ideas change over time and about the role of the scientific community in validating these changes'.

Which subject should deal with creationism and intelligent design?

Teachers of subjects such as RE, history or citizenship may deal with creationism and intelligent design in their lessons. If such issues were to arise there might be value in science colleagues working with these teachers in addressing them.

Should I use resources about creationism and intelligent design that are sent to my school?

Decisions about which resources to use rest with schools and teachers. Organisations promoting creationism and intelligent design quite often provide resources for schools; these may include paper-based activities, leaflets, DVDs, CDs, music, workshops, other activities and web resources. While these resources may be used, it must be remembered that they do not support the science National Curriculum and they present a particular minority viewpoint that is not underpinned by scientific principles and evidence.

What about students who hold creationist beliefs or believe in the arguments of intelligent design?

Some students do hold creationist beliefs or believe in the arguments of the intelligent design movement and/or have parents/carers who accept such views. If either is brought up in a science lesson it should be handled in a way that is respectful of students' views, religious and otherwise, whilst clearly giving the message that the theory of evolution and the notion of an old Earth / universe are supported by a mass of evidence and fully accepted by the scientific community.

Stepen Law - talks about "The War for Children's Minds"

reposted from: http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2007/09/interview-sbs-sydney.html

Stephen Law talks to an Australian journalist about his book "The War for Children's Minds"

http://www20.sbs.com.au/podcasting/media/audio/worldview_2007-09-17_1773.mp3

Law argues for a 'liberal' rather than an "authoritarian" approach to religious education.

Science Not to Blame for Non-Religious Scientists

reposted from LiveScience



By Dave Mosher, LiveScience Staff Writer

posted: 29 June 2007 03:51 pm ET
Share this story
Add to delicious
Digg It!
Save to Newsvine
Add to reddit
Add to Netscape
Email to Friend Email

Scientists are less religious than the general population, a new study shows, but the reason has little to do with their study of science or academic pressures.

The findings challenge notions that science is responsible for a lack of faith among researchers, indicating that household upbringing carries the biggest weight in determining religiousness.

"Our study data do not strongly support the idea that scientists simply drop their religious identities upon professional training, due to an inherent conflict between science and faith, or to institutional pressure to conform," said Elaine Howard Ecklund, a sociologist at the University at Buffalo and co-author of the study.

"It is important to understand this, because we face religious-scientific controversies over stem-cell research and evolution,” Ecklund said today.

Detailed in the latest issue of the journal Social Problems, the study is based on a survey of 1,646 scientists at 21 elite research universities and in-depth interviews with 271 of the scientists. Specifically, the survey contacted researchers specializing in physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, economics, political science, psychology and other fields.

Ecklund said nearly 75 percent of the subjects responded, which she said is extremely high for a faculty survey.

So why are scientists less religious? The data indicate that being raised in a religious home is the best predictor of how religious someone will be—scientist or member of the general population.

For general population information, Ecklund used data from the 1998 and 2004 General Social Survey (GSS), which is a national survey conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. Ecklund then compared the data to the scientists’ set, which was modeled after the GSS.

Among the study’s findings:

* 52 percent of scientists surveyed said they had no religious affiliation, compared with only 14 percent of the general population.
* Of the religious scientists, however, 15 percent identified themselves as Jewish compared to 2 percent of the religious general population.
* 14 percent of the general population described themselves as "evangelical" or "fundamentalist.” Less than 2 percent of scientists, however, identified themselves as either of these.

Curiously, younger scientists were more likely to believe in God and attend religious services than older scientists.

If these young and religious scientists continue to stay religious, Ecklund said, "it could indicate an overall shift in attitudes toward religion among those in the academy."

Camp Quest

Camp Quest was mentioned by Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion chapter 2 pg 53

Camp Quest is the first residential summer camp in the history of the United States for the children of Atheists, Freethinkers, Humanists, Brights, or whatever other terms might be applied to those who hold to a naturalistic, not supernatural world view.

Camp Quest is a not-for-profit educational organization created in 1996. Its purpose is to provide children of freethinking parents a residential summer camp dedicated to improving the human condition through rational inquiry, critical and creative thinking, scientific method, self-respect, ethics, competency, democracy, free speech, and the separation of religion and government guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

Camp Quest was started by the Free Inquiry Group, Inc. (FIG) of Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky. It is now operated by Camp Quest, Inc. a non-profit Kentucky Corporation with a board of directors drawn internationally from leaders of various organizations which share the goals of Camp Quest. Camp Quest is its own organization, and while endorsed by several organizations and groups, it is neither owned nor controlled by any group other than Camp Quest, Inc.

Purpose http://www.campquestwest.org/

• Promote among the youth participants a sense of belonging to a large freethought community.
• Encourage critical thinking to enable the young people to draw their own conclusions based on good evidence.
• Promote respect for others even though they may have different viewpoints, values, and beliefs.
• Provide a safe and fun environment for personal and social development