Genesis Revisited Michael Shermer, FreePrometheus

source: http://richarddawkins.net/article,3880,n,n

HASSNERS.org highlights

HASSNERS.org comments

"To convey the logical absurdity of trying to squeeze the round peg of science into the square hole of religion, I penned the following scientific revision of the Genesis creation story. It is not intended as a sacrilege of the poetic beauty of Genesis; rather, it is a mere extension of what the creationists have already done to Genesis in their insistence that it be read not as mythic saga but as scientific prose. If Genesis were written in the language of modern science, it would read something like this." - Michael Shermer 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h2dj2a5D7M&feature=related


Genesis Revisited
A Scientific Creation Story
By Michael Shermer

In the beginning—specifically on October 23, 4004 B.C., at noon—out of quantum foam fluctuation God created the Big Bang, followed by cosmological inflation and an expanding universe. And darkness was upon the face of the deep, so He commanded hydrogen atoms (which He created from Quarks) to fuse and become helium atoms and in the process release energy in the form of light. And the light maker he called the sun, and the process He called fusion. And He saw the light was good because now He could see what he was doing, so he created Earth. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And God said, Let there be lots of fusion light makers in the sky. Some of these fusion makers He grouped into collections He called galaxies, and these appeared to be millions and even billions of light years from Earth, which would mean that they were created before the first creation in 4004 B.C. This was confusing, so God created tired light, and the creation story was preserved. And created He many wondrous splendors such as Red Giants, White Dwarfs, Quasars, Pulsars, Supernova, Worm Holes, and even Black Holes out of which nothing can escape. But since God cannot be constrained by nothing, He created Hawking radiation through which information can escape from Black Holes. This made God even more tired than tired light, and the evening and the morning were the second day.

And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let the continents drift apart by plate tectonics. He decreed sea floor spreading would create zones of emergence, and He caused subduction zones to build mountains and cause earthquakes. In weak points in the crust God created volcanic islands, where the next day He would place organisms that were similar to but different from their relatives on the continents, so that still later created creatures called humans would mistake them for evolved descendants created by adaptive radiation. And the evening and the morning were the third day.

And God saw that the land was barren, so He created animals bearing their own kind, declaring Thou shalt not evolve into new species, and thy equilibrium shall not be punctuated. And God placed into the rocks, fossils that appeared older than 4004 B.C. that were similar to but different from living creatures. And the sequence resembled descent with modification. And the evening and morning were the fourth day.

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that hath life, the fishes. And God created great whales whose skeletal structure and physiology were homologous with the land mammals he would create later that day. God then brought forth abundantly all creatures, great and small, declaring that microevolution was permitted, but not macroevolution. And God said, “Natura non facit saltum”—Nature shall not make leaps. And the evening and morning were the fifth day.

And God created the pongidids and hominids with 98 percent genetic similarity, naming two of them Adam and Eve. In the book in which God explained how He did all this, in one chapter He said he created Adam and Eve together out of the dust at the same time, but in another chapter He said He created Adam first, then later created Eve out of one of Adam’s ribs. This caused confusion in the valley of the shadow of doubt, so God created theologians to sort it out.

And in the ground placed He in abundance teeth, jaws, skulls, and pelvises of transitional fossils from pre-Adamite creatures. One chosen as his special creation He named Lucy, who could walk upright like a human but had a small brain like an ape. And God realized this too was confusing, so he created paleoanthropologists to figure it out.

Just as He was finishing up the loose ends of the creation God realized that Adam’s immediate descendants would not understand inflationary cosmology, global general relativity, quantum mechanics, astrophysics, biochemistry, paleontology, and evolutionary biology, so he created creation myths. But there were so many creation stories throughout the world God realized this too was confusing, so created He anthropologists and mythologists.

By now the valley of the shadow of doubt was overrunneth with skepticism, so God became angry, so angry that God lost His temper and cursed the first humans, telling them to go forth and multiply themselves (but not in those words). But the humans took God literally and now there are six billion of them. And the evening and morning were the sixth day.

By now God was tired, so He proclaimed, “Thank me its Friday,” and He made the weekend. It was a good idea.

This work by crabsallover is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.

Creationism to be taught in science lessons in Hampshire

source: NSS Newsletter March 29

Creationism threatens to slip into science lessons in Hampshire secondary schools if the local Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education (SACRE) is allowed to have its way.

The SACRE (a multi-religious advisory body, required by statute, that guides local schools' religious education policy) has recommended that evolution and creationism be taught jointly in RE and science lessons.

The aim, says the SACRE, is for pupils to explore the science and theology together, then come to their own conclusions.

The new unit of work was set up after Clive Erricker, county inspector for RE, was asked to examine the suitability of a dual approach. According to the local paper, the Daily Echo, Mr Erricker said: "The tensions between religion and science should not be denied but nor should we paint a black and white picture."

Mr Erricker said the evolution-creationism debate is "complex" but can be simplified and has written a teachers' guide with subjects for pupils to study. When asked how it would work in practice, Mr Erricker said: "There are no models. We will create a new model of learning."

The National Secular Society expressed dismay at the news. "This is an extremely retrograde step," said Terry Sanderson, the NSS president. "Creationism and intelligent design are not sciences and schools have no business introducing them into science lessons. It is bad enough that such nonsense is even considered in schools at all, but if it must be discussed, let it be confined to RE lessons."

Government Guidance on teaching creationism in science lessons states : "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."

Terry Sanderson said: "There is a big difference between answering students' questions about creationism and actually introducing it into the lessons in the first place as part of the curriculum. If the teacher raises the topic, then it takes on an authority that it does not deserve. Hampshire should think again about this proposal. It will add nothing to the education of children, but will create confusion in their minds about what is science and what is religion."

Did Darwin Kill God - BBC

source: http://richarddawkins.net/article,3707,n,n

HASSNERS.org highlights

HASSNERS.org comments

Science highlights errors in logic in the bible. Theologicians say that the statements that incorrect are metaphors which allows for deeper theological philosophising. They say the Book of Genesis should not be read literally. Cunningham says "they are stories that reveal deeper truths about the fundamental aspects of life". Genesis Chapter 1 says that plants were made on the third day and man on the sixth day. Genesis Chapter 2 says that Adam was made before ANY plants appeared. The two accounts in Genesis Chapters 1 and 2 directly contradict each other. Philo of Alexandria says that if there was a contradition then this was a clue to how the bible should be read ie metaphorially not literally. Philo said the allegorical was sometimes more important than the literal readings (ref: 6min 44s) and said that both stories are myths. You need myths & metaphors to convey complex truths says Cunningham (8 min 56s). If you read the bible literally you will have no room for theological reflection says Cunningham (10 min 28s)

My view
My view is that the bible is wholly man made. God (or gods) do not exist. So they have no involvement in writing the bible. Any mistakes or contradictions found in the bible are due to mistakes of the authors. Science illuminates these mistakes and contradications adding further weight to the hypothesis that the bible was written by man alone.

by BBC 2

Update 4/4: As noted by several people this is now available on YouTube so those outside of the UK can also watch the series
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=15EABEE7BCA86CB0

Click on the link to go to the BBC video site if you are viewing from a UK location. The video is not playable outside of the UK but a reader has sent in the subtitle teletext for the deaf.

Reposted from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00jhfwt (available till 8 April 2009)

There are some who believe that Darwin's theory of evolution has weakened religion, fuelled in part by Richard Dawkins' publishing phenomenon The God Delusion. Conor Cunningham argues that nothing could be further from the truth.

Cunningham is a firm believer in the theory of evolution, but he is also a Christian. He believes that the clash between Darwin and God has been hijacked by extremists - fundamentalist believers who reject evolution on one side, and fundamentalist atheists on the other. Cunningham attempts to overturn what he believes are widely held but mistaken assumptions in the debate between religion and evolution.

He travels to the Middle East where he shows that from the very outset, Christianity warned against literal readings of the biblical story of creation. In Britain, he reveals that, at the time, Darwin's theory of evolution was welcomed by the Anglican and Catholic Churches. Instead, he argues that the conflict between Darwin and God was manufactured by American creationists in the 20th century for reasons that had very little to do with science and religion and a great deal to do with politics and morality.

Finally, he comes face to face with some of the most eminent evolutionary biologists, geneticists and philosophers of our time to examine whether the very latest advances in evolutionary theory do in fact kill God.

Note from Exec Producer, Jean Claude Bragard:

This programme, part of the BBC’s Darwin Season, came from the realisation that it would touch on issues raised by Richard Dawkins in his book 'The God Delusion'. The publishing phenomenon has fuelled a widespread perception that the theory of evolution makes belief in God redundant, even perhaps perverse. But how compelling was that argument? It was clear that many Christians have easily been able to reconcile their belief in God with the theory of evolution. How was this possible? This was the question we wanted to explore and so we invited Dr Conor Cunningham, a Christian but also an eminent philosopher and theologian from the Centre of Theology and Philosophy at the University of Nottingham, to show how it was possible to believe in Darwin and God. Cunningham has just completed a book 'Evolution: Darwin's Pious Idea' to be published in the autumn, so he was ideally placed to explore this question. His argument is that we have been witnessing an unnecessary cultural war between religion and evolution that is damaging to both religion and science. Cunningham reveals that since the early days, mainstream Christianity’s view of God and Creation has not been literal. The idea of reading the Book of Genesis literally is essentially a 20th century American phenomenon that had very little to do with science and religion and a great deal to do with the morality and politics of the time.

Jean Claude Bragard
Executive Producer

The explanatory Power of Darwin by Richard Dawkins

source: http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=dawkins_29_2

Richard Dawkins on the explanatory power of Natural Selection v ID
source: Free Enquiry Feb/March vol 29, No 2 published by Council for Secular Humanism

RD (Richard Dawkins) says Charles Darwin had a big idea, arguably the most powerful idea ever. A powerful idea assumes little to explain much.
Power of a Theory = That which it explains / that which it needs to assume in order to do the explaining

in Neo-Darwinist terms

Power of Darwins Theory = The diverse complexity of life / Non-random survival of genes in a gene pool
or in Charles Darwins terms

Power of Darwins Theory = The diverse complexity of life / Natural Selection

Darwin didn't define the fittest as those that survive. His 'fittest' were those endowed with the best equipment to survive, and that makes all the differnence!

The Power of Darwin

RICHARD DAWKINS

Charles Darwin had a big idea, arguably the most powerful idea ever. A powerful idea assumes little to explain much. It does a lot of explanatory “heavy lifting” while expending little in the way of assumption or postulation. It gives you plenty of bang for your explanatory buck. Its Explanation Ratio—what it explains divided by what it needs to assume in order to do the explaining—is large.

Power of a theory	=
		That which it explains
		That which it needs to assume in order to do the explaining

If any reader knows of an idea that has a larger explanation ratio than Darwin’s, let’s hear it. Darwin’s big idea explains all of life and its consequences, and that means everything that possesses more than minimal complexity. That’s the numerator of the Explanation Ratio, and it is huge. Yet the denominator is spectacularly small and simple: natural selection, the non-random survival of genes in gene pools (to put it in neo-Darwinian terms rather than Darwin’s own).

Power of Darwin’s theory	=
		The diverse complexity of life
		Non-random survival

Natural selection is an improbability pump—a process that generates statistical improbability. It systematically seizes the minority of random changes that have what it takes to survive and accumulates them, step by tiny step over unimaginable timescales, until evolution eventually scales mountains of improbability and diversity whose height and range seem to know no limit.

Yet it is so magnificently simple that you can pare Darwin’s big idea down to a single sentence (again, this is a neo-Darwinian way of putting it, not quite Darwin’s): Given sufficient time, the non-random survival of hereditary entities (which occasionally miscopy) will generate complexity, diversity, beauty, and an illusion of design so persuasive that it is almost impossible to distinguish from deliberate intelligent design.

I have put “which occasionally miscopy” in parentheses because mistakes are inevitable in any copying process. We don’t need to add mutation to our assumptions. Mutational “bucks” are provided free. “Given sufficient time” is not a problem either—except for the problem of comprehension by human minds struggling to take on board the terrifying magnitude of geological time.

It is mainly its power to simulate the illusion of design that makes Darwin’s theory seem threatening to a certain kind of mind. The same power constitutes the most formidable barrier to understanding it. People are naturally incredulous that anything so simple could explain so much. To a naïve observer of the wondrous complexity of life, it seems self-evident that it must be intelligently designed.

But intelligent design (ID) is the polar opposite of a powerful theory: its explanation ratio is pathetic. The numerator is the same: everything we know about life and its prodigious complexity. But the denominator, far from Darwin’s pristine and minimalistic simplicity, is at least as big as the numerator itself: an unexplained intelligence big enough to be capable of designing all the complexity we are trying to explain in the first place!

Power of ID theory	=
		Everything
		An unexplained intelligence big enough to design everything

Darwin understood the immense power of his theory. So did Alfred Russel Wallace, the magnanimous hero whose independent discovery galvanized Darwin into shelving his magnum opus on natural selection in favor of what he called its “abstract”: On the Origin of Species. Claims to priority were made on behalf of others, including Patrick Matthew in the appendix to a work on raising trees for shipbuilding, as Darwin punctiliously acknowledged in later editions of Origin. How­ever, though Matthew understood the principle of natural selection, it is not clear that he understood its power to explain the whole of life. Unlike Darwin and Wallace, he seems to have seen selection as a purely negative, weeding-out force, not the universal driving force. Indeed, he thought natural selection so obvious as to need no positive discovery at all.

---

Here may lie the answer to a nagging puzzle in the history of ideas. After Newton’s brilliant synthesis of physics, why did it take nearly two hundred years for Darwin to arrive on the scene? Newton’s achievement seems so much harder! Maybe the answer is that Darwin’s eventual solution to the riddle of life is so staggeringly simple, nobody thought to look for it.

It is so simple that in the guise of “survival of the fittest” (the renaming that Darwin adopted from Herbert Spencer at the urging of Wallace), it has even been described as a tautology: the fittest are defined as those that survive, so the catchphrase amounts to “those that survive survive.” But if it were really a tautology, the same mud should stick to artificial selection, the non-random breeding of domestic animals and plants (to which Darwin devoted so much attention). Imagine the dusty reception a certain kind of bad philosopher might get after saying this to a cattle breeder: “You are wasting your time. No improvement in milk yield can come from a tautology!”

But Darwin didn’t define the fittest as those that survive. His “fittest” were those endowed with the best equipment to survive, and that makes all the difference.

By the way, Darwin had plenty of other good ideas (for example his ingenious and largely correct theory of how coral reefs form),

but it is his big idea of natural selection that I am talking about here. I think it is even more powerful than I have so far suggested. Not only is it the explanation for life on this planet, it is the only theory so far suggested that could, even in principle, explain life on any planet. If life exists elsewhere in the universe (and my tentative bet is that it does), however strange and alien and weird its nature may be (and my tentative bet is that it will be weird beyond imagining), some version of evolution by Darwinian natural selection will almost certainly turn out to underlie its existence. That is at least how I would bet: on the principle that I have called “Universal Darwinism.”

There is a different sense of Universal Darwinism that I want to counsel against. This is the uncritical dragging of some garbled version of natural selection into every available field of human discourse, whether it is appropriate or not. Maybe the “fittest” firms survive in the marketplace, or the fittest theories survive in the scientific marketplace, but we should at the very least be cautious before we get carried away.

And of course there was Social Darwinism, culminating in the obscenity of Hitlerism.

Less obnoxious but still intellectually unhelpful is the loose and uncritical way in which amateur biologists apply selection at inappropriate levels in the hierarchy of life. “Survival of the fittest species, extinction of poorly adapted species” sounds superficially like true natural selection, but the apparent resemblance is positively misleading. As Darwin himself was at pains to point out, natural selection is all about differential survival within species, not between them.

Darwin’s great idea has moved on. Twenty-first century evolutionary science, if Darwin could return to see it, would enthrall, excite, and amaze him. But he would recognize it as his own. We are just coloring in the details. For my money, the most important thinker the human species has ever produced was Charles Darwin.

I’ll end on a subtler legacy of Darwin’s big idea. Darwin raises our consciousness to the sinewy power of science to explain the large and complex in terms of the small and simple. In biology we were fooled for centuries into thinking that extravagant complexity in nature needs an extravagantly complex explanation. Darwin triumphantly dispelled that illusion. There remain big questions, in physics and cosmology, that await their own Darwins. Why are the laws of physics the way they are? Why are there laws at all? Why is there a universe at all? Once again, the lure of “design” is tempting, but we have the cautionary tale of Darwin before us. We’ve been through all that before. Darwin raised our consciousness, and we are emboldened to seek true explanations of genuine power.

Richard Dawkins, F.R.S., is emeritus professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford. His latest book is The God Delusion (First Mariner Books Edition, 2008).

Beware - creationism's march will go on

Comments (57)

• 
• • Nick Cohen
  • The Observer,
  • Sunday November 2 2008
  • Article history

The idea of intelligent fundamentalists, like the theory of intelligent design, does not stand up to 30 seconds' scrutiny.

I must, nevertheless, give credit to American evangelicals for showing belated glimmerings of sense. After decades of blindly endorsing evangelical politicians from the born-again Carter to the born-again Bush, they at last appear ready to look for more than religious dogma in a candidate.

Richard Cizik, the Washington representative of the National Association of Evangelicals, has all but backed Obama. 'I'm a conservative, but it doesn't mean I'm going to vote that way,' he announced. 'I could disagree with Obama, and do, on same-sex marriage and abortion, but that doesn't mean I'll vote against him.'

Cizik has been criticised by the American conservative press, but his abandonment of faith in the Republican party may be a sign of a wider disillusionment. Foreigners, who bought Michael Moore's cartoon version of America as a land dominated by quasi-fascist bigots, may not understand why, but Christian conservatives have good reason to feel cheated.

The Republicans not only took their votes and left them with jobs that may vanish and homes the banks may repossess, but failed to deliver the conservative counter-revolution they promised. After eight years of Bush, abortion is still legal and the gay marriage movement is marching on. The congregations of Cizik's and other churches have every right to shrug their shoulders and vote Obama or give up on politics and stay at home. Evelyn Waugh complained in 1951 that the British Conservative party had 'never put the clock back by a single second'. We will have to wait until the votes are in, but American evangelicals could say the same about today's Republicans.

The fate of the creationists shows why.

Bush whipped up the futile passions of his supporters by encouraging schools to balance the teaching of the theory of evolution with the theory of 'intelligent design', which is nothing more than creationism dressed up in the language of pseudo-science to avoid America's prohibition on religion in the classroom.

Creationists in Dover, Pennsylvania, took him at his word. With the shameful, but I suppose inevitable, support of an English academic postmodernist, one Steve Fuller of Warwick University,

they argued that truth was relative. Teachers should not discriminate between evidence and superstition, but tell children that it was as reasonable to believe that a god-like intelligence designed life as to think that species evolved through undirected natural selection.

A Republican in the White House did them no good. In September 2005, Judge John E Jones ruled that they were trying to slip the Book of Genesis into science classes and came down against them.

Three years on from their defeat, and with the Democrats certain to dominate Washington, the hopes of the intelligent design movement appear dead.

But ideas do not die, they spread and mutate. Creationism might be on the back foot in America, but it is blossoming elsewhere

as Richard Dawkins discovered when Turkish readers told him they could no longer access his website. Dawkins's offence was to satirise Harun Yahya, the pen name of Adnan Oktar, the front man for a wealthy Islamic publishing house. Its lavishly illustrated Atlas of Creation spends 500 pages comparing fossils with present-day species to argue that evolution never took place.

Dawkins looked at a picture of an ancient fossilised eel and a picture of what Yahya claimed was a modern eel and pointed out that it was in fact a sea snake.

Yahya went on to represent the immutability of God's creation by claiming that a fossilised insect had survived unchanged for millions of years. Unfortunately, the modern version of the caddis fly Yahya chose to illustrate his point was not a fly at all, but a steel fish-hook with a fake insect on top to lure fish on to the line.

Yahya is a joke, but few Turks are laughing.

Index on Censorship reported last week that the

Turkish courts and the Islamist government were banning Turks from accessing YouTube and the hosting sites Blogger and WordPress for various moral and political reasons as well as richarddawkins.net.

When Bianet, a Turkish human rights group, published a critical piece, Yahya told its journalists: 'This is an insulting article, take it off the internet or we will have you banned like Richard Dawkins.'

'On the one hand, fundamentalists say all they want is a debate,' said Padraig Reidy of Index. 'But as soon as they get power, they close debate down.'

Westerners say that Yahya reminds them of American creationists. The link is more solid than they know. In Atlas of Creation, Yahya acknowledges his debt to Duane Gish from the Institute for Creation Research in Texas.

Gish has spent years arguing that the fossil record contains no evidence of species evolving and blustering whenever a palaeontologist contradicted him.

As a Muslim, Yahya did not need to accept the institute's Protestant fundamentalist 'young-Earth' doctrine - the notion that God made the world in 4004BC or thereabouts. But he happily borrowed Gish's equally idiotic delusion that today's species cannot have evolved and must therefore be identical to their ancestors of tens or hundreds of millions of years ago.

Vast sums of probably Saudi money are fuelling the move of creationism across the Atlantic. In Turkey and the Middle East, poor schools are grateful for Yahya's free books and scientists are becoming frightened of speaking out.

Last year, the Council of Europe warned that Yahya was also targeting schools in France, Belgium, Spain and Switzerland.

In Britain, academics talk of expelling mainly Muslim science students. They do not make a fuss about it in case post-modern relativists in the mould of Steve Fuller accuse them of religious discrimination, but say, very quietly, that if religion stops their students accepting evolution, there is no point in them staying at university.

Maybe in a generation's time, Americans will patronise Europeans as quasi-fascist bigots. If we are to avoid their condescension, we must accept that creationism will not go down with the American conservative movement.

It is evolving and its opponents must evolve, too, if they want to defeat it.

Creationism Debunked by Potholer54debunks

Losing Sight of Progress by Christopher Hitchens - Slate

I call Hitchens final point 'regressive evolution' (their is probably a better term already in use).

via RDF, Thanks to SPS for the link.

http://www.slate.com/id/2195683/

Losing Sight of Progress - How blind salamanders make nonsense of creationists' claims.
By Christopher Hitchens

Illustration by Mark Alan Stamaty. Click image to expand

It is extremely seldom that one has the opportunity to think a new thought about a familiar subject, let alone an original thought on a contested subject, so when I had a moment of eureka a few nights ago, my very first instinct was to distrust my very first instinct.

To phrase it briefly, I was watching the astonishing TV series Planet Earth (which, by the way, contains photography of the natural world of a sort that redefines the art) and had come to the segment that deals with life underground. The subterranean caverns and rivers of our world are one of the last unexplored frontiers, and the sheer extent of the discoveries, in Mexico and Indonesia particularly, is quite enough to stagger the mind. Various creatures were found doing their thing far away from the light, and as they were caught by the camera, I noticed—in particular of the salamanders—that they had typical faces. In other words, they had mouths and muzzles and eyes arranged in the same way as most animals. Except that the eyes were denoted only by little concavities or indentations. Even as I was grasping the implications of this, the fine voice of Sir David Attenborough was telling me how many millions of years it had taken for these denizens of the underworld to lose the eyes they had once possessed.

If you follow the continuing argument between the advocates of Darwin's natural selection theory and the partisans of creationism or "intelligent design," you will instantly see what I am driving at.

The creationists (to give them their proper name and to deny them their annoying annexation of the word intelligent) invariably speak of the eye in hushed tones.

How, they demand to know, can such a sophisticated organ have gone through clumsy evolutionary stages in order to reach its current magnificence and versatility? The problem was best phrased by Darwin himself, in his essay "Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication":

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.

His defenders, such as Michael Shermer in his excellent book Why Darwin Matters, draw upon post-Darwinian scientific advances. They do not rely on what might be loosely called "blind chance":

Evolution also posits that modern organisms should show a variety of structures from simple to complex, reflecting an evolutionary history rather than an instantaneous creation. The human eye, for example, is the result of a long and complex pathway that goes back hundreds of millions of years. Initially a simple eyespot with a handful of light-sensitive cells that provided information to the organism about an important source of the light …

Hold it right there, says Ann Coulter in her ridiculous book Godless: The Church of Liberalism. "The interesting question is not: How did a primitive eye become a complex eye? The interesting question is: How did the 'light-sensitive cells' come to exist in the first place?"

The salamanders of Planet Earth appear to this layman to furnish a possibly devastating answer to that question. Humans are almost programmed to think in terms of progress and of gradual yet upward curves, even when confronted with evidence that the past includes as many great dyings out of species as it does examples of the burgeoning of them. Thus even Shermer subconsciously talks of a "pathway" that implicitly stretches ahead. But what of the creatures who turned around and headed back in the opposite direction, from complex to primitive in point of eyesight, and ended up losing even the eyes they did have?

Whoever benefits from this inquiry, it cannot possibly be Coulter or her patrons at the creationist Discovery Institute. The most they can do is to intone that "the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away." Whereas the likelihood that the post-ocular blindness of underground salamanders is another aspect of evolution by natural selection seems, when you think about it at all, so overwhelmingly probable as to constitute a near certainty. I wrote to professor Richard Dawkins to ask if I had stumbled on the outlines of a point, and he replied as follows:

Vestigial eyes, for example, are clear evidence that these cave salamanders must have had ancestors who were different from them—had eyes, in this case. That is evolution. Why on earth would God create a salamander with vestiges of eyes? If he wanted to create blind salamanders, why not just create blind salamanders? Why give them dummy eyes that don't work and that look as though they were inherited from sighted ancestors? Maybe your point is a little different from this, in which case I don't think I have seen it written down before.

I recommend for further reading the chapter on eyes and the many different ways in which they are formed that is contained in Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable; also "The Blind Cave Fish's Tale" in his Chaucerian collection The Ancestor's Tale. I am not myself able to add anything about the formation of light cells, eyespots, and lenses, but I do think that there is a dialectical usefulness to considering the conventional arguments in reverse, as it were.

For example, to the old theistic question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" we can now counterpose the findings of professor Lawrence Krauss and others, about the foreseeable heat death of the universe, the Hubble "red shift" that shows the universe's rate of explosive expansion actually increasing, and the not-so-far-off collision of our own galaxy with Andromeda, already loomingly visible in the night sky.

So, the question can and must be rephrased: "Why will our brief 'something' so soon be replaced with nothing?"

It's only once we shake our own innate belief in linear progression and consider the many recessions we have undergone and will undergo that we can grasp the gross stupidity of those who repose their faith in divine providence and godly design.

Correspondence with a Creationist

---

HASSERS highlights in bold

By Margaret Nelson - Posted on 08 July 2008

It’s usually a waste of time responding to Creationist nonsense privately, as nothing penetrates their stubborness, but is worth doing so in public, if it makes people think.

Accordingly, here is an exchange of correspondence between me and Mr George Gardner, who wrote to the local Evening Star about a feature article (see attachment) on Humanism with the usual anti-atheist, pro-Creationist drivel.

The Star published my letter in response to his:

George Gardner responded to Lynne Mortimer's feature about Humanism by writing that it's "founded" on atheism. I'm an atheist, but I'm also a-fairyist, a-ghostist, a-lots-of-other-things. The prefix "a" simply means "without".

Humanism is a positive approach to life, not just a lack of something. True, I don't have faith; faith means believing in something without evidence; I reject the notion that this is commendable.

Humanists have values, though they may not be "spiritual" (whatever that means); we use reason and experience to form those values. Mr Gardner writes, "if there is no God we can do what we like." We can do what we like anyway, but Humanists like to be responsible for their actions. Relying on some external authority to tell us what we can or can't do is infantile. Grown-up people can make up their own minds about right and wrong, and altruism is a natural human tendency because it benefits everyone. You don't have to believe in God to be good, while many cruel and destructive acts are committed in the name of God.

Mr Gardner asks, "Is Margaret Nelson content with a purposeless and meaningless life?" Does he imagine that everyone who lives without religion is living without purpose and meaning? That's about a third of the population; people who help to keep Mr Gardner warm and fed, housed, clothed, healthy, and supplied with all his needs. Having interviewed thousands of people while preparing funerals for the religion-free, I can assure Mr Gardner that the majority of them were honest, decent, and moral. Most are more tolerant and less judgemental than the religious fundamentalists I've come across. So yes, I'm quite content with my life, thank you, despite its challenges.

Mr Gardner writes that the alternative to "creation" (presumably the mythical "creation" of Genesis) is that "everything came about accidentally". Well, since the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and life began in a primordial soup about 3.85 billion years ago, it's inaccurate to describe evolution as "accidental", as though it "just happened". Each stage depended on a precise set of circumstances that allowed living things to develop, including Mr Gardner. The story is far more awe-inspiring than the creation myth, and there's plenty of evidence for it, while there's no evidence for "creation".

One friend got very indignant about the “purposeless and meaningless life” bit. “He doesn’t know you!” she said, “stupid man!”

Next, I had a typewritten letter from Mr Gardner:

Dear Margaret [such familiararity!],

Yes, I am the person who replied to your dissertation on humanism. I replied to your reply, but one cannot expect the Evening Star to continue correspondence; that is why I am replying direct.

I am in my 80s and throughout life have had numerous correspondents with whom I have had controversy. I always, even in my 80s, ‘come alive’ when there is a debate. One of my sayings is that life is a jigsaw puzzle many parts of which are missing. They are missing for the Christian who cannot explain why God created him; they are missing for the atheistic scientist because he does not know how the universe came about, and, if he believes in the Big Bang, how order came out of sheer chaos.

I shall now get down to the business of a reply to your reply.

(1) One must accept - everyone accepts - that either the universe was created or it happened accidentally. You speak of 'each stage depended on a precise set of circumstances that allowed living things to develop'. Thus, you dodge the issue. I repeat my point that if everything came about by chance, how is it that you are able to reason about it?

(2) You speak of humanists being honest, decent and moral, which is fine, and relevant to this you state 'we can do what we like anyway'. That is precisely my point, and why I quoted H.G.Wells in my original comment. If there is no God we can choose to do what we like: there is no moral imperative.

(3) You also state that there is no evidence for creation. The entire order of the universe, you allege, came about accidentally. This is nonsense. Order is crying out to be recognized. May I tell you the story of initially four stones. If they were randomly placed no one would think that they were placed there. ~they were positioned in an exact square, one might think that someone had so placed them. If one put two more stones equidistant from the others to form two squares, one would certainly begin to consider that they were so positioned. Add a few more stones and there would be no doubt in one's mind that they had been deliberately so placed. The universe is a little more complicated than my array of stones: there is no doubt that it was created.

(4) In your original symposium you decried faith. Faith pre-eminently, but not exclusively, is a religious phenomenon. You have faith only in the rational world, as do atheistic scientists. You must have faith, with them, that you are right. They hope, and you hope, if you think about it, that they will find a formula called The Theory of Everything to explain how everything arose. Christians believe that there is a person behind the universe who created it.

C.S. Lewis was originally an atheist. A chap called Alister McGrath, once an atheist, wrote a book called The Dawkins delusion about Richard Dawkins. As you know, Richard Dawkins is the epitome of atheists. There is hope for you yet.

Yours sincerely,

G. L. Gardner

My reply (and I won’t be writing again):

Dear Mr Gardner,

Thank you for your letter. I’m glad to learn that the prospect of a debate still excites you as an octogenarian. However, your letter is full of erroneous assumptions.

“Many parts are missing”

This is true, in terms of human knowledge, but I prefer to leave a question mark where there are gaps in our knowledge, rather than fill them with God-based explanations. I’m happy to admit my ignorance and to look for more answers, which inevitably lead to more questions. This is different from taking a pride in being ignorant and doing nothing about it.

“Either the universe was created or it happened accidentally”

There’s a third alternative. Using the terms “accident” or “chance” to describe the theory of evolution by natural selection is inaccurate. These words describe an incident, rather than a process. In his book,

“Climbing Mount Improbable”, Richard Dawkins explains the process

as follows:

“One side of the mountain is a sheer cliff, impossible to climb, but the other side is a gentle slope to the summit. On the summit sits a complex device such as an eye or a bacterial flagellar motor. The absurd notion that such complexity could spontaneously self-assemble is symbolised by leaping from the foot of the cliff to the top in one bound. Evolution, by contrast, goes around the back of the mountain and creeps up the gentle slope to the summit: easy!”

Unfortunately, few people understand evolution, which has, so far, taken millions of years. Many people have had only a limited science education. I recommend Prof. Dawkins’ book, mentioned above, if your mind isn’t closed to challenging ideas. We do not say that the alternative to “creation” is chance, and Prof. Dawkins explains this in terms that any intelligent person ought to be able to understand.

As for the ability to reason; as the dictionary says, reason is the power of the mind to think, understand and form judgements logically. There is evidence that other species, including our first cousins, the apes, share this ability, but human beings have developed their cognitive abilities as our brains have developed over millennia. It’s been said that most people use less than 10% of these abilities most of the time, allowing the organ between their ears to atrophy for lack of use, which is a huge waste. The more I’ve learned about what religious people choose to believe, the more I despair of their lazy illogicality.

“If there is no God, we can choose to do as we like”

We always could, and we always will, by which I mean humanity, and not just the religious. Some say that they do what they do because their god tells them to, and some of these religiously-inspired acts are appalling, cruel, and destructive. Neither believers nor non-believers have a monopoly of either morality or immorality. Moralisers of all types seek to impose their views about how we ought to behave on everyone else, and the worst of them are prejudiced, illiberal tyrants. We ought to know by now that exhortations to behave responsibly towards each other are a waste of time if there is no appreciation or understanding of the reasons why we should. Small children may not need to know why they shouldn’t do some things – for their own safety, for example – but any responsible adult is capable of working out his or her values, and most do. Religious fundamentalists may not like some of those values – about sexuality, for example – but that’s just too bad.

“The entire order of the universe … came about accidentally. This is nonsense.”

Yes, it is, but that’s not what we say. I refer to what I wrote earlier. You may have no doubt that the universe was created, but your story about four stones doesn’t change the fact that “creation” is a myth, and there is no evidence for it, and never will be. As my son wrote in an online essay, “I find the idea that millions of years of struggle, survival, mutation and development by life on Earth, and that we have become Earth’s most successful species, awe-inspiring – and the idea that it was all the work of a divine creator abhorrent and laughable.”

Every religion has its own version of how life on earth began.

The Jains don’t believe in creation; they say that there was always life, and always will be. The Zulus’ creator, the “Ancient One” called Unkulunkulu, taught them how to hunt, they say. According to the Qur’an, the skies and the earth were joined together at first, then “cloved asunder”, and God made man out of earth, clay, sand and water, and then breathed life into him. The biblical Genesis myth is just one of many creation myths, all reflecting the circumstances of the people who first spoke about them. When humankind had no other explanations for how life began, or our existence, they told stories about supernatural beings or events. These were passed down, elaborated on, and are now largely forgotten. Some, however, were written into the teachings of the dominant patriarchal monotheistic religions because it was expedient to do so;

as long as the devout accepted nonsense like creation, they’d accept a lot of things without questioning them. Religion thrives on ignorance.

“You have faith only in the rational world.”

No, I don’t, because I don’t have faith at all. “Faith” means accepting something without proof, and in the case of religion, it makes a virtue of this. The sub-editor at the newspaper wrote “We put faith in humans,” but I didn’t say that, and never would. I have trust in people, if I have good reason to, but I don’t have faith.

“… you hope … they will find a formula called The Theory of Everything to explain how everything arose…”

No, I don’t.

“There is hope for you yet.”

This is patronising. Atheism simply means “without god”, from the Greek “a-” (without) and “theos” (god). Calling oneself an atheist only tells others that you don’t believe in God. It doesn’t tell them anything about one’s values and principles. Richard Dawkins is indeed an atheist, but that’s not all he is, and it’s not all I am. By the way, we’re also a-ghostist, a-fairyist, and a-Father-Christmas-ist.

I’m a Humanist and a Rationalist. I think that we human beings are responsible for making the most of the life we have, and the planet we have, because no one else, neither God, nor Superman, will come and clear up any mess we might make and bequeath to our descendants. There’s no such thing as an “act of God”; we can’t influence natural phenomena, but how we respond is up to us. Altruism is a natural human tendency. “God” has no power to change anything; we do.

With best wishes,

Margaret Nelson

File Attachment: Ipswich Evening Star.pdf (1131 KB)

Ken Miller - the colapse of Intelligent Design

Ignor the prayer at the start. I've not seen the whole video yet but RichardDawkins.net has raved about it. What do you think?

Nobel winner battles plan to let teachers challenge Darwin's theory

Evolution fray attracts top scientist

by Herald Tribune

Reposted from:
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080415/NEWS/804150543

Nobel winner battles plan to let teachers challenge Darwin's theory

By Anna Scott
Published Tuesday, April 15, 2008 at 4:30 a.m.

TALLAHASSEE — His mess of white hair rising with the wind, Nobel laureate Harold Kroto delivered what has become his standard speech on evolution:

Humans and fruit flies share the same genes.

"You may not like that but it's not my fault," Kroto, 68, said in front of the state Capitol on Monday.

"It's the way it actually is."

Florida lawmakers are frustrating the winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize for chemistry. They want to change the way evolution is taught so that teachers are allowed to challenge Darwin's theory.

It is the most absurd thing Kroto has heard since moving to Florida in 2004 to teach at Florida State University. His friends back home in England, where he was a professor in Sussex, have been sending him e-mails asking why he stays, he said.

"We're the laughingstock of the enlightened world," Kroto said.

For months, he has been writing newspaper articles explaining the basic tenets of Darwin's theory, hoping to change minds.

He sits on round-table discussions and hands out booklets on evolution from the National Academy of Sciences.

He races to the Capitol between lectures to give the fruit fly talk.

To Kroto, and mainstream scientists like him, the idea that humans evolved from the world's earliest life forms is as obvious as the laws of gravity.

"The bedrock of all biology," Kroto calls it. "It's beautiful."

But Florida lawmakers and a national movement of mostly religious-based groups believe evolution is less absolute.

State proposals this year would undo a recent decision by the state Board of Education and allow teachers to "present scientific information relevant to the full range of views on biological and chemical evolution."

Kroto and other scientists surmise such legislation would allow teachers to present as credible theories of creationism and intelligent design, basically beliefs that God or a higher being created humans.

Proponents say it allows teachers "academic freedom" to explore a theory, and that laws clearly ban the teaching of religious theories.

The proposals would also protect from punishment students who refuse to accept Darwin's evolution.

The bill's Senate sponsor, Ronda Storms, R-Valrico, says teachers and students feel too frightened to even discuss intelligent design.

Senate Majority Leader Dan Webster, R-Winter Garden, said the theory of evolution "had flaws."

Republicans have voted for the plan to the point where it will be considered by the full Senate, and has only one more committee to pass in the House.

Kroto, whose father was Jewish and fled the Nazis in Germany, said the belief in God has never made sense to him.

"I just think science is the way the universe is and that's how we figure things out," Kroto said.

He won the Nobel Prize for discovering buckminsterfullerene, a carbon molecule with a soccer ball shape that students now call "buckyballs" for short.

He fears the recent debate over evolution is a sign science is becoming irrelevant.

"As far as I'm concerned, it's an abuse of position not to teach science correctly to children," Kroto said. "Today they don't need to know how anything works. The technology is so good if something breaks they get it fixed. There's a large number of kids probably prepared to accept something without being too careful."

Giving credance to creationists etc

Anti-evolutionists target Europe

reposted from: http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/DN-evolution_10int.ART.State.Edition1.4534cef.html

American-style anti-evolutionist battle waged chiefly in schools

12:00 AM CST on Sunday, February 10, 2008

LONDON – After a Sunday service at which worshippers were urged to wage a "culture war" in the World War II spirit of Sir Winston Churchill, cabbie James McLean opined on Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

"Evolution is a lie, and it's being taught in schools as fact, and it's leading our kids in the wrong direction," he said, chatting outside the chapel. "But now people like Ken Ham are tearing evolution to pieces."

Ken Ham is the founder of Answers in Genesis, a Kentucky-based organization that is part of an ambitious effort to bring creationist theory to Britain and the rest of Europe. Mr. McLean is one of a growing number of European evangelicals embracing that message – that the true history of the Earth is told in the Bible, not Darwin's The Origin of Species.

Europeans have long viewed the conflict between evolutionists and creationists as primarily an American phenomenon. But it has recently jumped the Atlantic Ocean with skirmishes in Italy, Germany, Poland and, notably, Britain, where Darwin was born and published his 1859 classic.

Schools are increasingly a focal point in this battle for hearts and minds. A British branch of Answers in Genesis, which shares a Web site with its American counterpart, has introduced its creationist point of view into science classes at some state-supported schools in Britain, said Monty White, the group's chief executive.

Other British organizations have joined the crusade. A group called Truth in Science has sent thousands of unsolicited DVDs to every high school in Britain arguing that mankind is the result of "intelligent design."

Creationism is still a marginal issue here compared with its impact on cultural and political debate in the U.S. But the budding fervor is part of a growing embrace of evangelical worship in Europe.

Terry Sanderson, president of Britain's National Secular Society, fears that groups advocating a literal interpretation of the Bible are making headway.

The trend goes beyond evangelical Christianity. Mr. Sanderson said the British government is taking over funding of about 100 Islamic schools that teach the Quranic version of creationism.

The Associated Press

Truth In Science: Revealed - Exposing Creationists in the UK

"The truth behind "Truth In Science" - or lack of it. Perhaps the most ironic name for a group I have ever come across, they appear to know little science and certainly don't believe in telling the truth."

Truth in Science Revealed is a private website owned by Mark Edon, a BCSE committee member.

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.

When is Truth False?

“Welcome to Truth in Science, an organisation promoting good science education in the UK. Our initial focus is on the origin of life and its diversity.”

Good stuff? Read on:-

“For many years, much of what has been taught in school science lessons about the origin of the living world has been dogmatic and imbalanced. The theory of Darwinian evolution has been presented as scientifically uncontroversial and the only credible explanation of origins.”

Now read the truth:-

"The organisation Truth in Science is the central issue facing the anti-creationist movement in the UK. The organisation Truth in Science is the central issue facing the anti-creationist movement in the UK. Truth in Science is trying to push for the teaching of creationism in state schools. However, it does not have the honesty to admit this; it is actually trying to pass off its “science” as Intelligent Design.

Nearly all of the people who are involved in Truth in Science are prominent young earth creationists.

Truth in Science appears to have raised a considerable sum of money and has sent creationist material to every head of science departments in UK state schools and colleges. The material is well organised and presented and shows how teachers can sneak creationism and/or Intelligent Design into the science classroom.

Truth in Science has adapted the US technique of “teach the controversy” to get its fundamentalist religion into the science classroom. It hasn’t the honesty to tell the public what its real intentions are. It has withheld from the public that it is backed entirely by young earth creationists and religious fundamentalists.

Truth in Science is trying to push for the teaching of creationism in state schools. However, it does not have the honesty to admit this; it is actually trying to pass off its “science” as Intelligent Design.

Nearly all of the people who are involved in Truth in Science are prominent young earth creationists.

Truth in Science appears to have raised a considerable sum of money and has sent creationist material to every head of science departments in UK state schools and colleges. The material is well organised and presented and shows how teachers can sneak creationism and/or Intelligent Design into the science classroom.

Truth in Science has adapted the US technique of “teach the controversy” to get its fundamentalist religion into the science classroom. It hasn’t the honesty to tell the public what its real intentions are. It has withheld from the public that it is backed entirely by young earth creationists and religious fundamentalists."

For more on this disgraceful site, go to British Centre for Science Education - an excellent organisation with an excellent website.

Creationism - Analogies and Metaphors

reposted from: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UK-Brights-DDH
my comments are in bright green;

highlights in yellow blockquotes.

From: "Emo Holes"
Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 7:53 am
Subject: Analogies and Metaphors

I've always been a stickler for puns and the like The Creationists use some famous Analogies and Metaphors in their persistant misrepresentation of science and I have been developing some way of countering these. It would be good if we do do a survey and form a picture of how well known these analogies are and what the general public takes them to mean. I would like to start this off by asking the people here about two of them: Without doing a Google search, please answer the following questions about: ANALOGY 1) Monkeys, Typewriters and the works of Shakespeare. ANALOGY 2) A Whirlwind/Tornado in a junk yard assembling a Boeing 747 jet. Q1) Have you heard anything about these analogies? Q2) If so what have you heard? Q3) Are the analogies helpful or misleading? Emo.

How to argue with a Creationist Presenter by Emo Holes

reposted from: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UK-Brights-DDH

my comments are in bright green;

highlights in yellow blockquotes.

From: "Emo Holes"
Date: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:36 am
Subject: Creationist Tactics e_moses_of_t...
Offline
Send Email

The UK is currently under attack from Creationists and Edinburgh University seems to be one of their targets. The blatant misrepresentation of science by the creationists is really quite disgraceful and immoral. I call on all reasonable people to oppose it. I was at the University last night and I had a run-in with John MacKay: http://www.amen.org.uk/cr/who/index.htm John is a very entertaining speaker - not right - but very entertaining. He mounted a concerted attack on Darwin ( The ad hominem fallacy) and his theory (misrepresentation of science). Part of his presentation was concerned with the high level of correlation between Human DNA and Chimp DNA. He was ridiculing the way in which the alledged level of commonality reported by scientists has come down from 98% to 90%. He then went on to show (at some length) that small changes in coded information can result in large changes in the meaning of the information. He showed numerous examples of English sentences in which small changes in letter order or single character substitutions can completely change the message. Sometimes hilariously. This seemed to be a concerted attempt to "muddy the water" regarding our genetic relationship with our nearest relative and imply that evolutionists were trying to argue that that small numerical differences in DNA comparisons didn't really matter. The point is that the 90% commonality is powerful evidence of common ancestry. John didn't mention that so I pointed it out. I also said that development biologists now understand in considerable detail how genetic information is used as organisms develop and they would agree that very small changes can have a dramatic effect. I then added an example of my own that didn't involve any re-ordering or substutions. It involves only the addition of a space. I said: "Genesis isn't the answer - Genes is." At that the audidence laughed and John's body language signalled a level of discomfort. It was great fun and very rewarding to be able to stop a very acomplished nonsense spouting Creationist in his tracks by beating him at his own silly word game. This incident illustrates the power of well crafted "Sound Bites". John was using his considerable presentation skills and what I call the "Robin Hood" tactic. Here's how it works. Take some powerful evidence for evolution (e.g. the Chimp/Human DNA correlation) and find where science is uncertain about some aspect. (e.g. 98%?, 95%?, 90%? why can't scientists make up their minds?) Put some pretty slides together and clown around on stage having a good time ridiculing a false supposition. Namely that evolutionary scientists are claiming that small differences in DNA result in small differences in the developed organisms ( they don't do that). The objective here is to give the impression that the issue is well understood by the speaker and that it doesn't cause him a problem. If it comes up at question time he can just shrug and say "Well I dealt with that in my presentation". In other words "Rob complex scientific ideas and findings from the incredible riches of the cofers of science, re-package them, misrepresent them and present them as "no problem areas" to the poor sods who don't have the knowledge or insight to be able to see through the deception. That was "Robin Hood's" maxim "Steal from the rich and give to the poor". In the encounter described above, I was able to capatilise on those parts of John's presentation that I knew to be correct. Namely that small DNA differences can be very significant. By adding an example of my own, I was playing the Robin Hood card as well. All the fun and humour that John had generated in ridiculing his false assumption was directed back at him via my "Genes is" example of the same principle and the explanation that the significance of small difference was a fundamental principle of development biology. In the run-up to Darwin Day 2009 we can expect the Creationists to re- double their already considerable efforts to discredit our Hero in any way they can. We can oppose them, put the record straight and have a lot of fun on the way. After all, we have science on our side, all they have is God and the obvious talents of rather more effective clowns like John MacKay. :-) Emo.

Anti-evolution beliefs among students a worrying trend

reposted from: http://www.sundayherald.com/oped/opinion/display.var.1379952.0.antievolution_beliefs_among_students_a_worrying_trend.php
thanks to Emo Holes (Brights UK) - who has talked to Prof. Roger Downie - for this link
Chris Street comments are in bright green;

highlights in yellow blockquotes.

Anti-evolution beliefs among students a worrying trend

Guest Vocals: Roger Downie

Comment | Read Comments (12)

EVOLUTION IS a cornerstone of modern biology. Nearly 150 years after Darwin and Wallace's original papers, evolutionary biology is a thriving research area, generating hundreds of papers each year. Like any healthy branch of science, it is full of controversy, with competing ideas tested by experiment and observation. Like all science, our current knowledge is provisional, moving on as we gain better understanding through further research.

At the same time, evolution has a curious, an almost unique status among the general public. Large numbers refuse to accept some or all of evolutionary biology's central pillars, such as the ancient origin of the Earth and its life forms and that living species are related by descent largely through the process of natural selection.

Few people campaign for the return of the flat Earth concept, or the phlogiston theory of combustion, so who are these evolution-deniers and why do they do it?

An international survey in 2006 of 34 countries has shown that evolution-denial is low in Europe and Japan but high in the USA (around 40%) and Turkey (around 50%).

In the USA, evolution-denial is associated with a strong Protestant Bible-literalist tradition. In Turkey, the only mainly Muslim country surveyed, evolution-denial is linked to the political struggle between secularists and Muslim fundamentalists.

At Glasgow University, our surveys have shown evolution-denial at about 8% among first-year science students and 10% amongst medical students. When asked why they rejected evolution, such students predominantly responded that it was because they accepted the literal truth of a religious account that excludes evolution.

We find it alarming that intelligent young people setting out to study evidence-based subjects should be perfectly willing to admit to not accepting a major theory in science, not on the basis of a consideration of the evidence, but because of an inculcated belief.

The persistence of evolution-denial in modern society is worrying and creates a challenge for science educators.

Roger Downie is professor of zoological education at the University of Glasgow.

++++++++++ Comments +++++++++

Posted by: Dr Peter Bowen-Walker, Manchester on 10:27am Sun 6 May 07

As an educator – it has been a recurrent experience that when I have set out to convince students of something, they very often appear to reject it (irrespective of the evidence in its favour) particularly if the matter is contentious and challenges other sources of information/authority in their lives. (After all – I only see them a few hours a week – how can I hope to compete with their friends, family, religious community?) Consequently – I have adopted an approach in which I explicitly do not intend to “convert” them to the theory of evolution or anything else. I always tell my classes that the information I am sharing with them is what they need to remember to pass an examination. We can then approach the material in a neutral “emotional” state of mind! I then work to [italic]understate[/italic] what evolution is – [a change in the frequency of genes in a population] – and use rather non-contentious examples such as anti-biotic resistance in bacteria (there is a lot of modern evidence to support this and the students are exposed to it on TV on an almost weekly basis) or colour changes in moths! These examples are easily understood and the mechanisms are also straightforward and almost intuitive. It is only when the underlying mechanism and broad definition of evolution is non-problematic (and they almost without exception can accept micro-evolutionary theory) do I go on to explore the more contentious “macro-evolution” as a logical extension of accumulated micro-evolutionary change. Since I am a scientist and not a religious leader – I don’t loose sleep over whether I can “convert” someone to become a “believer” in evolutionary theory. None of my children will go to hell if they refuse to "tow the party line" on evolutionary theory (which is quite a relief – I am happy not to be a priest). By taking this non-confrontational and non-hegemonic approach do dealing with real biological phenomena – I find that approaching the matter in a cognitive rather than an affective way make a significant difference to how palatable the material is to the youngsters and the extent to which they will (not can) re-align their thinking.

As an educator – it has been a recurrent experience that when I have set out to convince students of something, they very often appear to reject it (irrespective of the evidence in its favour) particularly if the matter is contentious and challenges other sources of information/authority in their lives. (After all – I only see them a few hours a week – how can I hope to compete with their friends, family, religious community?)

Consequently – I have adopted an approach in which I explicitly do not intend to “convert” them to the theory of evolution or anything else. I always tell my classes that the information I am sharing with them is what they need to remember to pass an examination. We can then approach the material in a neutral “emotional” state of mind!

I then work to understate what evolution is – – and use rather non-contentious examples such as anti-biotic resistance in bacteria (there is a lot of modern evidence to support this and the students are exposed to it on TV on an almost weekly basis) or colour changes in moths! These examples are easily understood and the mechanisms are also straightforward and almost intuitive.

It is only when the underlying mechanism and broad definition of evolution is non-problematic (and they almost without exception can accept micro-evolutionary theory) do I go on to explore the more contentious “macro-evolution” as a logical extension of accumulated micro-evolutionary change.

Since I am a scientist and not a religious leader – I don’t loose sleep over whether I can “convert” someone to become a “believer” in evolutionary theory. None of my children will go to hell if they refuse to "tow the party line" on evolutionary theory (which is quite a relief – I am happy not to be a priest). By taking this non-confrontational and non-hegemonic approach do dealing with real biological phenomena – I find that approaching the matter in a cognitive rather than an affective way make a significant difference to how palatable the material is to the youngsters and the extent to which they will (not can) re-align their thinking.