Debating Darwin

Debating Darwin

Should evolution be taught as the only truth?

Sunday 10.00am until 10.45am Lecture Theatre 1 Breakfast Banter

The debate over creationism has sprung up as the latest flashpoint in the battle between secularism and religion. While the US has seen extended conflict over the theory of evolution – from the 1925 ‘Scopes Monkey Trial’ to the recent Dover, PA court case – new challenges to Darwinism under the guise of intelligent design (ID) have arisen in the UK. Concerns centre on school science education, from Sir Peter Vardy’s Emmanuel Schools Foundation to the controversial teaching packs distributed by the anti-evolution group Truth in Science. The rise of ‘Islamic creationism’, modelling itself on ID, adds to concerns that Islam poses a special threat to secularism in Britain. Although the Royal Society and much of the scientific establishment have denounced the teaching of creationism, a recent MORI poll revealed that over 40% of the public believe that creationism or ID should be taught alongside evolution in school science classes.

While few seriously endorse the literal biblical story of creation, ID on the other hand claims to highlight Darwinism’s shortcomings on scientific grounds. Evolution is ‘just a theory’ after all - surely in the spirit of encouraging critical thinking we should ‘teach the controversy’? Science is about questioning received truths rather than establishing certainties for all time. Does this not permit a more flexible approach to science education, where debate is encouraged? Further, the sheer complexity of evolutionary theory leads ID advocates to claim it is best to cultivate a critical eye in pupils, rather than have them take as truth a misunderstood Darwinian theory.

Is science, or ‘scientism’, just as fundamentalist as religion, arrogantly claiming to know everything, or are doubts such as these a reflection of scientists’ failure to make the case properly for what science does have to offer? Is this merely another case of the ‘balance fallacy’ – the mistaken belief that even falsehoods should be given air time?

Speakers

	Professor Steve Fuller professor of sociology, University of Warwick; author, Science vs Religion? Intelligent Design and the Problem of Evolution
	Professor Simon Conway Morris professor of evolutionary paleobiology, University of Cambridge; author, Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe
	David Perks head of physics, Graveney School; lead author, What Is Science Education For?
Chair:
	Alex Hochuli web editor, Institute of Ideas; producer, Bishopsgate Institute secularism season

Produced by

	Alex Hochuli web editor, Institute of Ideas; producer, Bishopsgate Institute secularism season

Recommended readings

recommended by spiked

Intelligent design and educational stupidity
David Perks, 13 March 2006

Creationism, pluralism and the compromising of science
Joe Kaplinsky, 28 February 2005

Friendship or networking?

Friendship or networking?

Sunday 10.00am until 10.45am Cafe Breakfast Banter

The proliferation of ‘social networking’ websites such as MySpace, Facebook and Bebo was initially greeted with widespread enthusiasm. After all, friendships are now able to transcend limitations of geography and social particularity. But excitement surrounding the web and social networking appears to have given way to fears that technology is actually damaging children’s ability to socialise, often leaving them lonely, disruptive and prone to bullying. And concerns about the state of modern friendship aren’t limited to children. A recent study found that the average American’s ‘core discussion network’ had diminished significantly in the last 20 years, with the use of the internet cited as one of the contributing factors. Surveys in the UK have pointed to a similar downward trend.

With ever-growing contact lists on Facebook contrasting with dwindling numbers of confidants cited in surveys, some have suggested that it is time to get back to basics. Many argue for a reappraisal of friendship as a relationship worthy of study and serious thought, often looking back to antiquity for inspiration. It is argued that real, quality friendships not only benefit individuals, but also act as a strong but relatively untapped social glue. Government is increasingly interested in the wider social benefits of friendship, and seeks to foster it through education and other means.

Whilst there is clearly widespread concern about social relationships, particularly in relation to children, others argue the authorities already intervene too much, undermining the freedom young people need to make their own choices about who they like and why. Can friendship really be taught or learned? Does a deliberate focus on friendship, whether through the prism of technology or more explicitly as tool of social cohesion and well-being, threaten to do more harm than good?

Speakers

	Mark Vernon journalist; author, The Philosophy of Friendship
	Dr Stuart Waiton lecturer in sociology and criminology, University of Abertay, Dundee; director, Generation Youth Issues
	MT Rainey founder/chairwoman, Horsesmouth
Chair:
	Helen Birtwistle press officer, Institute of Ideas and Pfizer Debating Matters Competition

Produced by

	Helen Birtwistle press officer, Institute of Ideas and Pfizer Debating Matters Competition

Recommended readings

recommended by spiked

Get a First Life
Robin Walsh, 18 January 2007

Shaddup your facebook
Amol Rajan, 19 March 2007

Digital commons - Does new technology add up to a new public sphere?

Digital commons

Does new technology add up to a new public sphere?

Saturday 1.30pm until 3.00pm Lecture Theatre 1 Battle for New Technologies

New technology has become so closely associated with public engagement, both culturally and politically, that it has been heralded as a new democracy in and of itself. Undoubtedly we are in an era in which people have the freedom to access and create public information like never before, challenging traditional expertise and deference to authority: citizen journalists break stories, bands shoot to No 1 without A&R men from major labels, and presidential candidates connect with their electorate via YouTube.

But how revolutionary is new technology really? Often it is respected off-line institutions that seem to dominate the digital commons, even setting-up shop in Second Life. Add to that 10 Downing Street e-petitions, MPs’ blogs and the mainstream media flocking online, and is the internet not just coming to reflect the existing power structures of real life? Are multinational corporations and political parties simply using new technology for their own traditional ends?

Or are we truly witnessing the birth of the coffee shop of the 21st century – a new space for trading ideas and participating in public life? New technology has certainly opened the door for the majority, rather than the minority, to create and have their say and engage in political activism. Witness the instant mobilisation generated by Live8’s use of text-messaging, or Chinese activists’ ability to communicate beneath the radar of the authorities. But do the masses-on-the-mouse match up to the hyperbole about a UGC-led transformation of politics and culture? Are cultural theorists and political e-warriors correct in arguing that the web is indeed bringing about a new renaissance – even revolution? Or is the parallel universe of the web just that: a space which – despite all the ‘passionate users’ creating and communicating – has little impact on democracy, creativity or participation?

Speakers

	Brendan O'Neill editor, spiked
	Mike Carr chief science officer, BT
	Chris Meade co-director, Institute for the Future of the Book
Chair:
	Patrick Hayes promotions manager, Battle of Ideas; TSL Education

Produced by

	Dr Shirley Dent communications director, Institute of Ideas; Guardian books blogger
	Alex Hochuli web editor, Institute of Ideas; producer, Bishopsgate Institute secularism season
	Patrick Hayes promotions manager, Battle of Ideas; TSL Education
	Sarah Snider

Recommended readings

Wide Open: Open source methods and their future potential
Open source methodology has the potential to give people forms of power that they have either lost or never had
Geoff Mulgan, Omar Salem and Tom Steinberg, Demos, 19 April 2005

Going to the blogs?
The idea that blogging might be the salvation of politics seems not just to overstate the impact of the Internet, but to understate the problem of public disenchantment with politics
Kenan Malik, BBC, 30 March 2005

The Social SoftWar
Conflicts on the net, as elsewhere, need not have recourse to a labour theory of rights to be political struggles
Angela Mitropoulos, Mute Magazine, 31 December 2006

Big Question: Does the internet liberate or undermine democracy?
For real democracy to function, somebody has to make, and enforce the rules. The internet is no exception
Andy McSmith, Independent, 22 February 2007

The blogosphere risks putting off everyone but point-scoring males
The internet is too often like a stuffy meeting room on a bad night
Jonathan Freedland, Guardian, 10 April 2007

The political power of the network
We have to hope that new technologies will lead to changes in the distribution of power and not merely superficial changes to political practice
Bill Thompson, BBC, 22 February 2007

Particle physics is sexy

Particle physics is sexy

Sunday 5.45pm until 6.30pm Lecture Theatre 1 Provocation Lecture

Particle physics is the quest to understand the most fundamental constituents of matter. But the deeper we probe into the secrets of subatomic particles, the bigger the machine required. The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is the next generation of atom smasher. Having a circumference of 27km and sitting 100m beneath the Swiss/French border, the LHC is the largest machine ever made. When operating it will be the coldest place in the universe, and create conditions not witnessed since just after the dawn of the universe. The construction of the LHC is a big step forward for science. Once the LHC switches on in 2008, it will make us think about the universe differently.

But is this the end for big physics? At a cost of some 2 billion euros, the LHC did not come cheap. Famously, in trying to explain the need to fund the LHC in the 1980s, scientists were reduced to appealing to Margaret Thatcher’s ego. But has the justification for pure scientific research run out of steam? Even scientists at CERN now take great pains to explain their work’s spin-offs for medical physics. At a time when science seems to be re-orientating itself around the battle to stop climate change, is there a place for particle physics? With the closure of so many university physics departments over recent years it would seem the writing is already on the wall. And yet the questions big physics addresses colour everyone’s view of the universe we live in. Our fascination with the seeming implausibility of the Big Bang and the quantum theory of matter mean bookshops continue to be filled with biographies of Einstein and lay guides to physics.

At a time when theoretical physics seems trapped in speculation about the validity or otherwise of string theory, the LHC experiment gives us the chance to rejuvenate our understanding of the universe from particle physics to cosmology. Will this finally convince the world that particle physics is sexy?

Speakers

	Joe Kaplinsky science writer and researcher
	Dr Brian Cox Royal Society university research fellow, University of Manchester; particle physicist working at CERN
Chair:
	David Perks head of physics, Graveney School; lead author, What Is Science Education For?

Produced by

	Joe Kaplinsky science writer and researcher
	David Perks head of physics, Graveney School; lead author, What Is Science Education For?

Recommended readings

recommended by spiked

Hard Science
David Perks, 29 November 2005