Truth In Science: Revealed - Exposing Creationists in the UK

New Blog on the Block

2008-09-18T06:38:00.003Z

I have helped out at this new Blog and I recommend it to the readers of this blog.

TiS are attempting to keep their activities in schools out of the spot light - Andy McIntosh said so himself to me last year - and the BCSE is our best chance of spotting them in action and sending them scurrying for the shadows again.

Creationism Hits Scotland

2008-08-20T16:00:00.000Z

Rival to evolution may enter schools
Intelligent design considered for science curriculum

INTELLIGENT DESIGN, a controversial alternative theory to evolution, could become part of the science curriculum in Scottish schools.

The Sunday Herald has learned that the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) is considering provision for the theory as part of a review of the science course curriculum.

Intelligent design (ID) is one of a wide range of theories of origin currently taught as part of the Religious, Moral and Philosophy Studies (RMPS) SQA course, but could be moved elsewhere as part of the review. A spokesman for the SQA said: "It happens to sit in RMPS just now. If and when it does becomes part of the curriculum for science, which it may well do as part of this review, then that's where it could sit."

Here we go again. From here.

Truth In Science finally come clean - Intelligent Design IS Creationism

2008-06-19T18:17:00.005Z

This recent news blog posting seems to have finally let the deity out of the bag with TiS now happily equating Intelligent Design with Creationism.

This follows years of tripping over themselves to avoid the G word.

Own goal?

Well anyone observing their activities with half an objective eye knew what they were doing anyway, and their main objective was always to attract religious converts, so perhaps we might have predicted this move all along.

Of course the actual phrase "Intelligent Design" is quite new and was adopted by creationists as an attempt to remove any religious inference from creationism (that is not a joke) so as to avoid the US constitution which prevents the teaching of religion in US state schools.

Independent observers and scientists pointed out all along that ID was just Creationism in a cheap tuxedo and the US courts agreed.

Now it appears that TiS have finally given up trying to pass off this transparent and flimsy argument and are getting down to the brass tacks of proselytising for religious converts.

Do we want this in science classrooms in the UK?

Society for Neuroscience statement on Evoltuion and Intelligent Design

2008-06-19T18:15:00.001Z

SfN statement on Evolution versus Intelligent Design

Recognizing that the principles of evolution are fundamental to understanding and studying the origins and diversity of living things, the Society for Neuroscience opposes the assertion that teaching intelligent design theory is a valid scientific alternative to teaching evolution in science classrooms.

The theory of evolution is accepted with remarkable consensus throughout the scientific community. The evidence in its support has accumulated over the past 160 years-from fields as disparate as paleontology and genomics-and is overwhelming. Scientific advances in the field of evolution, as in every other field of science, are obtained on the basis of respectful debate, the continuous search for truth, and meticulous investigation to accept or reject ideas supported by evidence. In this regard, education on evolution and on science in general provides tools for a better understanding of ourselves and the world and also provides individuals with a language for universal understanding, mutual respect, and tolerance.

Intelligent design is the most recent attempt by creationists to undermine the theory of evolution in the science classroom. Thwarted by past legal decisions upholding the separation of church and state, proponents of intelligent design have resorted to masking their religious beliefs with the pseudo-scientific language of this theory. By invoking "intelligent forces" to account for biological diversity, however, intelligent design presents a theory that is as supernatural and unscientific as the traditional creationist one. In fact, intelligent design theory runs counter to the established principles of science in that it is not based on evidence or testable through the scientific method. Intelligent design is not science, and has no place in the science classroom.

The process underpinning evolution - natural selection - has been widely and thoroughly documented. As in all areas of active research, scientists continue to debate the details. Yet these disagreements should not be misconstrued, as they have been by creationists, as evidence of fundamental problems with the theory. There is consensus within the scientific community about the overall validity of Darwin's theory. In fact, evolution is still evident today; with bacterial resistance to antibiotics and potential mutations in influenza that could impact avian flu transmission as examples that profoundly affect world health. Evolution is an essential component of modern science education. K-12 science education based on anything other than tested and accepted scientific theory is detrimental to the education of America's youth.

Creationists often argue that religious and scientific worldviews are incompatible, asserting that it is impossible to be both actively religious and accept the theory of evolution. However, many people, including prominent scientists, embrace both evolution and a belief in God. SfN strongly disputes the claims made by advocates of intelligent design that subscribing to a scientific view of the world is incompatible with religious experience.

The Society for Neuroscience supports the teaching of evolution, and opposes the teaching of intelligent design in science classrooms. Education about evolution is essential to our future competitiveness as a nation, so it is imperative that an understanding of this fundamental scientific theory be shared with the school children of America. The mixing of faith or religious belief with the scientific method is not a sound lesson for our children's education.

SfN publishes the Journal of Neuroscience.

Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'

2008-06-10T19:21:00.002Z

From here.

To mark a double anniversary celebrating Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, his supporters are taking the fight to their opponents

The rise of creationism in Britain to the point where four out of 10 Britons believe it to be the literal truth – as well as the idea being taught in state-approved schools – has spread alarm throughout the scientific community.

But this week sees the start of a concerted fightback, as an 18-month celebration of evolution and its greatest proponent, Charles Darwin, gets under way, marking the 150th anniversary of the unveiling of his theory and the 200th anniversary of his birth.

People all over Europe will take part in a mass experiment to discover evolutionary changes to a species of snail; a major series of programmes is to be shown by the BBC; several books are to be published; and the Open University plans a new course on the subject.

Entries for a competition to design "Darwin's Canopy" – a piece of art to cover a ceiling in the Natural History Museum – will be unveiled this week, and the museum will hold a major exhibition on Darwin beginning in November.

Dr Bob Bloomfield, head of special projects at the museum and a key figure in the "Darwin200" project, said he was concerned by the prevalence of creationist ideas.

"The statistics in this country are quite frightening. If you add up the percentages that either believe in creationism or intelligent design, it is approaching 40 per cent," he said.

"I don't think society can be complacent when ideas which are unsound are perpetrated. We are trying not to compromise people's faith views, other than where they are absolutely inconsistent with science."

He said the teaching of creationism in schools was "very problematic".

Professor Jonathan Silvertown of the Open University, who is writing a book entitled 99% Ape: How Evolution Adds Up, said the OU would be running a course called Darwin and Evolution. "The idea is to give people a feel for the modern evidence," he said.

He and the geneticist Professor Steve Jones, of University College London, are involved in a mass science project to study changes in banded snails, by recruiting tens of thousands of people across Europe.

Professor Jones said religious students – even those studying medicine – were becoming increasingly vocal in their opposition to evolution, saying he was "telling lies and insulting people's religion" by teaching the subject.

"They want permission not to come to those lectures and sit those exam questions," he said. "I have been teaching genetics and evolutionary biology for 30 years and for the first 20 I think the issue arose once. That's changed."

International Society for Science & Religion condemns ID

2008-03-08T14:27:00.004Z

From here;

The intelligent-design (ID) movement began in the late 1980s as a challenge to the perceived secularization of the scientific community, which leaders of the movement maintained had been coloured with the philosophy of atheistic naturalism. ID theorists have focused their critique primarily on biological evolution and the neo-Darwinian paradigm. They claim that because certain biological features appear to be "irreducibly complex" and thus incapable of evolving incrementally by natural selection, they must have been created by the intervention of an intelligent designer. Despite this focus on evolution, intelligent design should not be confused with biblical or "scientific" creationism, which relies on a particular interpretation of the Genesis account of creation.

We believe that intelligent design is neither sound science nor good theology. Although the boundaries of science are open to change, allowing supernatural explanations to count as science undercuts the very purpose of science, which is to explain the workings of nature without recourse to religious language. Attributing complexity to the interruption of natural law by a divine designer is, as some critics have claimed, a science stopper. Besides, ID has not yet opened up a new research program. In the opinion of the overwhelming majority of research biologists, it has not provided examples of "irreducible complexity" in biological evolution that could not be explained as well by normal scientifically understood processes. Students of nature once considered the vertebrate eye to be too complex to explain naturally, but subsequent research has led to the conclusion that this remarkable structure can be readily understood as a product of natural selection. This shows that what may appear to be "irreducibly complex" today may be explained naturalistically tomorrow.

New book on Evolution and Creationism by the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine

2008-01-12T15:11:00.000Z

From the NAS website;

How did life evolve on Earth? The answer to this question can help us understand our past and prepare for our future. Although evolution provides credible and reliable answers, polls show that many people turn away from science, seeking other explanations with which they are more comfortable.
In the book Science, Evolution, and Creationism, a group of experts assembled by the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine explain the fundamental methods of science, document the overwhelming evidence in support of biological evolution, and evaluate the alternative perspectives offered by advocates of various kinds of creationism, including "intelligent design." The book explores the many fascinating inquiries being pursued that put the science of evolution to work in preventing and treating human disease, developing new agricultural products, and fostering industrial innovations. The book also presents the scientific and legal reasons for not teaching creationist ideas in public school science classes.
Mindful of school board battles and recent court decisions, Science, Evolution, and Creationism shows that science and religion should be viewed as different ways of understanding the world rather than as frameworks that are in conflict with each other and that the evidence for evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith. For educators, students, teachers, community leaders, legislators, policy makers, and parents who seek to understand the basis of evolutionary science, this publication will be an essential resource.

This book is free in PDF form and available for download here.

Association for Science Education issues statement

2007-11-09T22:09:00.000Z

A brief extract from here;

When set against this rationale it is clear to us that Intelligent Design has no grounds for sharing a platform as a scientific ‘theory’. It has no underpinning scientific principles or explanations to support it. Furthermore it is not accepted as a competing scientific theory by the international science community nor is it part of the science curriculum. It is not science at all. Intelligent Design belongs to a different domain and should not be presented to learners as a competing or alternative scientific idea. As such, Intelligent Design has no place in the science education of young people in school.

This is the full statement.

Meeting Prof. McIntosh, free speech and the nature of "truth" in science as opposed to "Truth in Science".

2007-10-22T15:29:00.000Z

Intro

Today I used up a precious half day from my meagre annual holiday allowance to go and see Andrew C. McIntosh DSc FIMA CMath FEI CEng DInstP MIGEM FRAeS professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory from Leeds University who was giving a talk called "God is Real. Hasn't science disproved him?" sorry "Him?", at York University Christian Union.

This was the first chance I have ever had to see someone locally espouse creationist views and perhaps even making some scientific claims I could look into.

I would like to be absolutely clear in this piece from the outset and confirm that I don't believe in god. Having said that I do believe that kids in the UK school system should be taught about a range of religions, they play a huge role in the world today after all. I also believe in freedom of speech and so I would defend Prof. McIntosh's rights to hold and espouse his views. Yes I mean it.

If the UK government was ousted by a junta which outlawed all religion and curtailed free speech then I would be a member of the underground resistance, struggling alongside Prof. McIntosh and Prof. Dawkins - yes I have read Dawkins' views on freedom of speech so I am confident this would be the case. If this surprises you then perhaps you have listened to people telling you what Dawkins thinks rather than reading Dawkins for yourself.

However in my dangerous, romantic and entirely theoretical armed struggle, I would perhaps go further than many religious folk in the fight for freedom. After all I include in my definiton of free speech the right to tell jokes and be disrespetful. "Motoons and Islam" and "Jerry Springer Opera and Christianity" are two examples of situations where my stand for free speech would put me in direct opposition to some people of faith.

Anyway, why do have I such an interest in McIntosh as to give up part of my annual leave to go and listen to him?

Well the thing is, I care about my kids education.

Prof. McIntosh is the chap who signed the letter from "Truth In Science" sent to all UK schools and colleges with some extremely professionally produced creationist DVD's. If this material was used in science classes then at best the kids would be confused and waste some time in class working out the logical fallacies and distortions it contained or at worst these would not have been picked up and crucial exam marks would have been lost, perhaps the difference between one grade and the next. His letter did in fact claimed the materials were part of the curriculum and suitable for use in science classes when actually they are neither. The letter also included other distortions of fact. McIntosh is a Director of "Truth in Science".

So, I care about my kid's education and Prof. McIntosh effectively tried to sabotage my sons Biology studies, and this is what got me interested in the whole creationism issue.

I have blogged about this issue often both here and in my personal blog Cogita Tute.

I subscribe to many science based organisations on the web, I am a forum member at Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (although more of a lurker than a poster) and a member of the British Centre for Science Education which is a single issue, voluntary, membership based organisation which has built up quite a comprehensive database of information on this issue and the main creationist proponents and activities here in the UK.

The BCSE site is here.

I was recently asked to join the committee at the BCSE and was very pleased to accept and to do my bit. I try to spread the word about the threat to science teaching as this is quite literally, in the creationists own words, the thin end of the wedge. The infamous "wedge document" was discussed here.

Their ultimate intention is to replace science with religion. This threatens scientific research and ultimately jeopardises the many ways in which the UK benefits from a strong science education system. Benefits ranging from industrial and economic advantage in the world and the rewards that each of us reap in terms of medical care and technological development.

So now the scene is set, you know my motives, and the reasons why I decided to go and see him for myself.

His talk was to a Christian Union group at the University of York, so in my view he can talk about whatever he wants. Of course, this means I can also talk about it here and I can point out for you where he was making statements which were untrue, there were several, so you can see for yourself.

I will try to draw some personal conclusions about why he says what he says and if he actually believes these claims or not, and I will try to comment on the nature of "truth" in science as well as the nature of "Truth in Science".

In this post I will cover both his talk ( I took detailed notes ), and the chat I had with him afterwards which was very nearly, very informative.

Here are my notes on his talk.

- - -

The Talk

There were 41 people in the audience including myself, most were student aged with a couple of older blokes near the front not far from me and one other "slightly more mature than a student" looking chap in the middle of the audience. It turned out at the end that the questions would come from these older folks with just one question from a student.

The lecture hall holds up to about two hundred, but despite this and the small size of the turnout, the student who introduced McIntosh started by saying how good it was to see so many people here today. I wonder how many they usually get?

The talk was then introduced as "About the question of whether or not Christianity and Science can coexist." Strangely enough this wasn't covered.

McIntosh started with a joke about the blackboard being full of polar co-ordinates calculations and that being his home territory in his day job i.e. a Professor of Thermodynamics.

Next he laid out the structure for the talk;

• Science & God
• Science Today
• Interpreting the Evidence
• 4 questions.

Just a quick note about my notes. I made them as he spoke and so they are not always word for word quotes. He would often chat around a sentence and say it again a few different ways, and so in cases like these I will just give you the essence of what he said. If I am quoting him directly I will say so. If I am quoting from one of his slides I will preface the sentence with, you guessed it, "slide";

Science must be testable. I am not a biologist, but so must be evolutionary theory[testable].
Science can only operate in the physical word but God is essentially non-physical. God is also all powerful and able to interact with the physical world.
I believe in the bible, that is the pre-supposition I bring to the evidence. We all have some kind of presupposition and that is mine.
It is reasonable to be a scientist and believe in god.

I agree with the first and last points. With regard to the second part of the third point it is worth bearing in mind that science spends an awful lot of time making sure that results are free of bias.

Scientific Theory - because it has to be testable and because it only relates to the physical world science has boundaries beyond which no definitive claim can be made.

OK - but that's rather turning things around a little. Science is a way of testing claims. Put it this way - can science prove god does not exist? No. It doesn't claim to either - even Dawkins does not make this claim.

Slide; "In the study of origins, it is not the realm of science to discount the possibility of the Outsider revealing himself"
I don't see enough humility in science today.

Well actually, science can include or exclude anything it likes that makes claims on the physical word, it can do this because it just follows the evidence wherever it may lead. Lets hope we see some today.

He will return to this theme later on. I think this may give us some clues about a possible future tactic for the creationists, i.e. "our explanation also explains the evidence therefore it should be taught in science classes". I will return to this later.

We then had some Venn diagrams with the "whole of creation" equalling the "physical world" in science today and then his suggestion that the physical world should just be a subset of the "whole of creation".

Slide; "Science today is built on atheistic humanism - it is this underlying philosophy which will attempt to evade God"
Today I strongly contest the claim that science makes which is there is no design in the universe at the very beginning.

He should try claiming that to the many scientists who are people of faith and see what reaction he gets. There are several in the BCSE for instance, or alternatively he should try telling that to the many moderate people of faith out there who support science as a way of exploring god's universe.

He needs to create this false idea that "science is atheist" because that is how he explains the fact that science rejects his claims. The only alternative for him would be to admit that science rejects his claims because they are nonsense.

Next he turned to the "evidence" bit of his talk.

Really this is all about the Theory of Evolution. I contend that all living organisms descend from basic kinds which were created a few thousand years ago with all the genetic information for all the variations seen in the past and today.

The "kinds" bit is straight out of genesis.

Next he surprised me by plugging a selection of creationist books including Genesis of Today, Hallmarks of Design and Darwins Black Box rather than talking about any evidence.

I want to clarify that when I talk about the evidence against evolution I mean macro evolution and not variations within a kind.
This is Young Earth Creationism. I lean towards it and I am open about that.
Slide; "Creationism is open to the Outsider" but "Evolution means that man decides the rules"

So he wants the "rules" to be set by his interpretation of the bible instead of by society. Very clear, but not a lot to do with evolution which he just said this was all about.

Slide; "Creationism = In the beginning . . ." but "Evolution means that everything happened by chance"
I want to be fair and explain that that is not strictly what evolutionist claim. Natural selection on random mutations is well understood and accepted.

OK he cedes part of evolution theory and fits it into his "kinds" idea from Genesis. He accepts natural selection but implies it can only work within these "kinds". He gives no reasons or evidence why we might see this is true, other than the fact it is in the bible.

Slide; "Molecules to Men"
I don't accept this.

No logical reasons or evidence to back this up were given.

Ancient quotes about god from Faraday from the nineteenth century.
Quote; Chandrawickramasinghe from 1982 on the argument from improbability.
Quote; Watson in Nature in 1929.
Quote; Phillip Johnson in Darwin on trial in 1991.

Note to self - where is the evidence? Science doesn't work by authority it works by evidence. Some of Einstein's ideas are rejected by science because they don't fit the evidence. He is just listing authority figures, and they are not even all scientist authority figures, Phillip Johnson is a Lawyer.

He next claims that the ID proponents were not claiming that just because something looks design it was.

Excuse me - that is exactly what they were arguing. Later on in this very lecture he will do precisely this himself.

But it is wrong to dismiss that things could have been designed.

Well that depends - science can quite easily dismiss that if you have no evidence, in fact that is what science does - dismiss things that have no evidence to support them. Where is the evidence. Science dismissed Astrology as an alternative explanation of psychology, flat earth geology and feng shui. These all claim to be alternative explanations that explain the phenomenon we see around us but they are rejected because they have no supporting evidence. Exactly the same rules apply to his claims of design - show us your evidence. Another point that rather undermines this whole question anyway is the fact that the Theory of Evolution produces design, so he needs to show a difference between "god design" and "the Theory of Evolution design" as well as the evidence to support this claim.

He next got slightly confused ( and I was able to clarify this for him later ) and claimed that it was the EU who had passed a resolution "to not allow it [creationism] to be discussed". ( actually it was the Council of Europe )

This is not true. Government guidelines tell teachers not to teach it and give them guidelines on how to discuss it if it crops up. It is part of the national Curriculum for RE. I challenged him about this after the talk.

Slide; Picture of Mount Rushmore - and the argument from design i.e. it looks designed so it is.
Codes and order come from intelligence.

This is his key claim and he gave no evidence to back it up other than a picture of Mount Rushmore. Just assertions. Nothing else. Despite the fact he claimed not five minutes before that ID proponents don't do this.

Next comes one of the more extreme claims from his whole speech;

It is people on the creationist side of the debate who want to look at the whole evidence, it is others who do not.

Still no evidence yet.

I am not afraid of natural selection - you can change a breed by artificial selection as well but you will never get a Great Dane from a Pekinese.

No reasons were given for this limit on evolution. Just more assertions.

We won't have time to cover this in detail but I would just say from my own discipline; "Thermodynamically you can't make new machines that are not there already. It is impossible."

No reasons given. No supporting evidence. He did refer to his clash with Dawkins on NI radio several months ago where Dawkins called him to account for this.

Next we will turn to the evidence. Now there are evolutionary explanations for this but I want you to be exposed to the evidence.
Birds have a different muscle system for operating their wings. They have a pulley system which allows two muscles to be used to lift their humerus bones.

No other comment or claim that it could not have evolved. How exactly is this evidence?

Birds Breathing; we have a end flow mass exchange system whereas the birds have a contra-flow mass exchange system where the air never stops.

Now here he did specifically claim that birds lungs are not evolvable. He said this was because any system part way between the two would stop the bird from breathing. At last a clear evidential claim in support of his case. This is also a new claim to me, I look forward to delving into this to see what I can learn.

But only a few minutes on the net reveal several published papers about this and even a layman's explanation of how this could happen. Can McIntosh really not know about any of this? Is he truly ignorant of such simple answers to his claims to "impossible"? Or does he know? He offered me his card afterwards and so I will write and ask him about this.

My brief research turned up this answer to his claims that birds lungs can't possibly evolve; it is a possible evolutionary pathway:

Initially birds evolve to breathe by expanding/contracting the air sacs rather than the lungs: this is beneficial because it frees the cycle of breathing from the beat pattern of the winds.
Valves evolve at the front of the lung allowing air out but not in, meaning that air now follows a more circular path with less mixing with used air. This is directly beneficial in terms of oxygen requirements.
More valves evolve at the back of the lung to keep the air more efficently in the lungs during their contraction phase.
This system resembles the modern one, we have respiration drawing air into the posterior air sacs and then pushing them through the lungs. However the air is not yet being cleared from the lungs so some efficency is lost in mixing.
The development of anterior air sacs helps by pulling the used air out as the fresh air comes in, their placement naturally allows the used air to be blown out through the forward valve as the sacs contract but mixing will still occur as some will go back the way it came albeit at a reduced level
We're now almost there; the final stage is to add more valves to the system to prevent the re-entry of used air into the posterior sacs from the lung and the re-entry of used air from the anterior sacs to the lung. Both these adaptations have immediate benefits in terms of reducing mixing. And the system now naturally switches to the two-stage, unidirectional breathing pattern of modern birds.

This is of course pure speculation, but so is his claim that bird lungs can't evolve. I can't believe he is not even aware of the explanations and he does not mention that the Theory of Evolution has an explanation, he just states that it is impossible.

Next up trilobite fossils. Supposedly 4-500 million years old. Eyes are made of calcite.
In the Cambrian these creatures suddenly evolved.
The eyes produce double images unless they are curved at a particular angle to correct this.
Can you believe that they have exactly that shape?

Well yes that's what the Theory of Evolution would predict as well. No mention of this.

Therefore this is totally consistent with design. I know this is not proof it was designed, but it is consistent with the proposal.

Yes I agree, but as covered elsewhere the problem with this claim is that anything and everything is consistent with an omnipotent God. It can explain everything. It is not testable, and so it is not science.

Slide; The Geological column and the claim that complex compound eyes appeared from nowhere.

About 40 minutes had gone by now and his talk was supposed to last 45 mins with 15mins for questions so I only got a brief glimpse of a slide entitled; The Cell - A Miniature City.

Old earth or young earth is not the key point here and we don't have time to cover it, the key point is that the oldest fossils are very complicated.
Overall I find that evolution is not the most satisfying argument.
People often talk of God of the Gaps arguments but creation is exactly the opposite. The Theory of Evolution is trying to fit into the gaps in our knowledge.
The reason that the arguments are raging about evolution is because the science says that evolution is wrong.

Breathtaking unsupported assertion. This ignores huge swathes of evidence which support evolution. Huge swathes of independent evidence all of which support evolution and any one of which might not and would therefore show it to be false. Here are some to start you off if you are interested.

DNA - a code in every creature
Slide; Purpose . . .action . . .code . . .signal
DNA has a million times more information density than a computer
If I put a frog or a hippo in a blender could I rebuild it? No!

I think that this is funny. Here he makes a claim that has nothing to do with evolution in the first place. But this isn't the funniest thing. The funniest thing is that most of the audience loved this bit. It's not even wrong enough to count as a proper logical fallacy! It's nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution at all. It's simply a non-sequitur

As the faithful chuckled I took the opportunity to look around the room. I could see the two chaps in front of me shaking their heads and the mature-ish chap in the middle of the crowd was looking a bit red in the face. When the gentle chuckling had subsided McIntosh turned to more philosophical subjects;

There are three fundamental quantities in the universe;
Matter
Energy - the materialist reductionist is at fault for limiting us to just these two
Information is the third one.
The definition of information eludes their definitions.

My ears perked up here - scientists and mathematicians have been challenging creationists to define information in some sensible way for several years now - perhaps I would get a scoop.

Here you go;

Information does not equal matter or energy

No it isn't a definition is it - sorry.

- - -

Next he pulls out the bible.

OK now for the Christian Creationist position.
John 1.1 "In the beginning . . ."

- - -

Q&A

At the end of the talk he was asked several questions which I will quickly cover off;

11,000 Christian ministers in the US have signed a letter supporting evolution and basically saying that your position is one of "embracing ignorance and passing it on to out kids"?

He often hears that people of all kinds of philosophies of life, but the point is that they all exclude design as a possible explanation. Oh and by the way the ID folks do good science.

Next was a query asking for clarification about his previous claims about the second Law of Thermodynamics.

Information is always linked to machinery and no new information is ever created by evolution. No experiment has ever shown this at all.

This is just nonsense.

Next was a comment that Dembski had admitted an ulterior motive for wanting to push his arguments. In this religious context how do you distinguish one god from another or even from an alien designer?

That's another debate altogether - waves bible about.
It all comes from this - waves bible about.
I believe that people have an innate tendency to do wrong. Only Jesus can save.

Next was Dawkins own ultimate 747 argument - how much more unlikely is a god to arise from nothing.

Different rules apply to god. No scientific explanation is required for Him.

No explanation was given as to why this might be so.

- - -

Chat

After the talk I approached him and said hello. I asked him what the future plans were for Truth in Science. He said they had plenty of plans but after the furore with the DVD's he couldn't say anything, even to a supporter like me.

I hastily explained that I was not a supporter of his ideas or the actions of TiS.

I pointed out to him that it was the Council of Europe and not the European union he had presumably meant to refer to earlier. He didn't say "oh yes", or "thanks". He just claimed that he had meant them and had in fact actually said them anyway.

I pointed out that no one has banned free speech as he had suggested but that the subject had been ruled out of the science curriculum and guidance notes to discuss creationism, if it should crop up, had been issued. He denied saying that.

I quoted from my notes and even showed them to him. No that isn't what he said. By this time about 6 of his "followers" had gathered around and where all watching the exchange so I turned to them and asked if anyone was doing biology, genetics or any of the life sciences? No.

I asked if they had heard of endogenous retroviruses. Blank looks - no.

I asked him why all the trilobites where low down in the geological column. He said he didn't know.

He claimed that science has no idea how a fish fossilises becasue a dead fish floats you see.

This just took my breath away. We were now joined by about six student supporters of his who were hanging on his every word and laughed at my stupidity at not knowing that dead fish float. You see the only way a fish could possibly have fossilised was if it was killed during Noah's flood, he explained.

Of the dozens of possible holes in this assertion I could of course only reply with one so I went with this;

"Why can't they be fossilised from non-noah floods then?" I asked.

He never answered but said that this question showed that I now accepted that it must take a cataclysm to form fossils.

His audience sniggered.

I tried a couple more times to explain that even if we accept his premise that only floods fossilise fish (which I don't) that even then this doesn't support his conclusion i.e. that it was Noah's flood that created all the fish fossils.

Eventually I just gave up.

Again a few minutes on the web can suggest the following papers which demonstrate how fish are fossilised and why this is not "catastrophe dependent".

Briggs, D. E. G. (1995): Experimental Taphonomy. Palaios. vol. 10, pp. 539-550.
Briggs, D. E. K. and Crowther, P. R. (1993): Paleobiology: A Synthesis. Oxford Blackwell Scientific Publications, New York.
Briggs D. E. G. and Kear, A. J. (1993): Fossilization of Soft Tissue in the Laboratory. Science vol. 259, pp. 1439-1442
Briggs D. E .G., Keara, J. A., Martill, D. M., and Wilby, P. R. (1993): Phosphatization of soft-tissue in experiments and fossils. Journal of Geological Society vol. 150, pp. 1035-1038.
Dunn, K. A., et al. (1997): Enhancement of Leaf Fossilization Potential by Bacterial Biofilms. Geology, vol. 25, no. 12, pp. 119-1222.
Holiday, V. T. (1997) Paleoindian Geoarchaeology of the Southern High Plains. University of Texas Press, Austin. Texas.
Maisey, John G. (1991) Fossil forensics. In J. G. Maisey, ed., Santana fossils; an illustrated atlas. T.F.H. Publ.. Neptune City, New Jersey.
Seilacher, A., W.-E. Reif, F. Westphal (1985) Sedimentological, ecological and temporal patterns of fossil Lagerstatten. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, vol. B311, pp. 5-24.
Trewin, N. H., and Davidson, R. G. (1995) An Early Devonian lake and its associated biota in the Midland Valley of Scotland. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh: Earth Sciences. vol. 86, Part 4, pp. 233-246.
Weeks, L. G. (1953) Environment and Mode of Origin and Facies Relationships of Carbonate Concretions in Shales. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 162-173.
Weigelt J. (1989) Recent Vertebrate Carcasses and Their Paleobiological Implications. University of Chicago Press. Chicago, Illinois.
Wilby, P. R., et al. (1996) "Role of Microbial Mats in the Fossilization of Soft Tissues." Geology, vol. 24, pp. 787-790.

Anyway, by this time he had given me a card and asked me for my email address - so I gave it to him.

Round about now a young chap chimed in with the claim that carbon dating is all wrong and that a tree fossilised through layers millions of years apart proved this. McIntosh himself corrected the chap that Carbon dating is only good for much shorter time periods anyway, before I could do this myself.

I asked where and when this tree was found - he didn't know.

McIntosh asked what I did for a living. I replied that I worked in a Bank and confirmed that I was just a curious member of the public when it came to science.

I asked if anyone wanted to continue this debate over the net and to swap email addresses?

Before anyone could answer he asked me who I was representing - I said myself.

He asked if I was a member of any group or organisation so I said yes the BCSE - a mirror of the NCSE in the US.

He went quiet for a moment so I again asked if anyone wanted to swap email addresses again.

He interrupted me to say that my attendance at his talk was unfair and dishonest and I should have declared myself at the outset. I pointed out it was a public talk and he had made no such request for declarations.

He said it was not right to demand people's email addresses and to write to him instead. He asked me to commit to reading John and I agreed.

I left.

- - -

Summary

McIntosh mapped out his position quite clearly;

Everything in the bible is true.

The earth is only a few thousand years old with everything created in the seven days of genesis. Noah's flood etc. all happened.

He gave no evidence which either was not explained by the Theory of Evolution or which could not be explained by it.

ID seems to be dead - not a bacterial flagellum in sight.

His case seems to be that because the god did it argument can explain everything it therefore has equal right to be in science classes.

This is despite his own inclusion of testability in the definition of science. Of course this is something which the "god did it" idea fails miserably at.

- - -

Personal conclusions

His presentation was far too long for the time he gave himself and he ended up skipping about and only asked us one of the four questions he said he would leave us with at the end.

He tells a lot of fibs. He seems used to doing this to audiences who know no better. He is not daft and can twist and turn an argument - an awful lot - look at his claims about fossil fish and how he turned a question from me into a point for him.

His claims about Noah's Flood being the only thing which could possibly create fish fossils and the fact that birds lungs could not possibly have evolved are two examples of his fibs. The thing is that I find it hard to believe he does not know the answers are actually out there.

I found answers to both these points with very little effort.

Whilst only he really knows his own motives, on balance I think he is lying, and not simply ignorant of the truth. I think that he thinks he is doing it in the service of god.

Make your own mind up but I wouldn't trust him as far as I can throw him.

His faithful are not interested in learning or debate - they just know they are right - and are happy in their ignorance as evidenced by big cheesy smiles all round.

His arguments about dead fish floating, and frogs in a blender are laughable until you realise they are swallowed hook, line and sinker by believers.

I think I gathered some clues which might show where creationism is going next in its quest to infiltrate our science classes. A few times during his talk he repeated his comment that the creationist explanation i.e. "god did it" explains all the evidence just like the Theory of Evolution does and so deserves to be taught along side it in science classes.

Council of Europe firmly opposes creationism in school

2007-10-05T06:45:00.000Z

Council of Europe firmly opposes creationism in school

By Gilbert Reilhac

STRASBOURG, France (Reuters) - Europe's main human rights body voted on Thursday to urge schools across the continent to firmly oppose the teaching of creationist and "intelligent design" views in their science classes.
The Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly approved a resolution saying attacks on the theory of evolution were rooted "in forms of religious extremism" and amounted to a dangerous assault on science and human rights.
The text said European schools should "resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion." It said the "intelligent design" view defended by some United States conservatives was an updated version of creationism.
Creationism says God made the world in six days as depicted in the Bible. Intelligent design argues some life forms are too complex to have evolved according to Charles Darwin's theory and needed an unnamed higher intelligence to develop as they have.
Anne Brasseur, an Assembly member from Luxembourg who updated an earlier draft resolution, said the report showed how creationists -- most recently a shadowy Turkish Muslim writer Harun Yahya -- were trying to infiltrate European schools.
"The purpose of this report is to warn against the attempt to pass off a belief -- creationism -- as a science and to teach the theses of this belief in science classes," she said. "Its purpose is not to fight any belief."
The vote was due in June but was postponed because some members felt the original text amounted to an attack on religious belief. A few changes were made to spell out that it was not directed against religion.
The Council, based in the eastern French city of Strasbourg, oversees human rights standards in member states and enforces decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.
The resolution, which passed 48 votes to 25 with 3 abstentions, is not binding on the Council's 47 member states but reflects widespread opposition among politicians to teaching creationism in science class.
Some conservatives in the United States, both religious and secular, have long opposed the teaching of evolution in public schools but U.S. courts have regularly barred them from teaching what they describe as religious views of creation.
Pressure to teach creationism is weaker in Europe, but has been mounting. An Assembly committee took up the issue because Harun Yahya has been sending his lavish Islamic creationist book "Atlas of Creation" to schools in several countries.
Supporters of intelligent design want it taught in science class alongside evolution. A U.S. court ruled this out in a landmark decision in 2005, dismissing it as "neo-creationism."

From the NCSE

Council of Europe approves resolution against creationism
On October 4, 2007, the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly approved a resolution urging its member governments to oppose the teaching of creationism as science. The resolution, entitled "The dangers of creationism in education," states, "Today creationist ideas are tending to find their way into Europe and their spread is affecting quite a few Council of Europe member states," observing, "The prime target of present-day creationists, most of whom are Christian or Muslim, is education. Creationists are bent on ensuring that their ideas are included in the school science syllabus. Creationism cannot, however, lay claim to being a scientific discipline." Included is "intelligent design," which is described as "the latest, more refined version of creationism" and "presented in a more subtle way."
The resolution recognizes the importance of evolutionary theory in the modern world -- "Denying it could have serious consequences for the development of our societies. Advances in medical research with the aim of effectively combating infectious diseases such as AIDS are impossible if every principle of evolution is denied. One cannot be fully aware of the risks involved in the significant decline in biodiversity and climate change if the mechanisms of evolution are not understood" -- and accordingly concludes, "The teaching of all phenomena concerning evolution as a fundamental scientific thttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifheory is therefore crucial to the future of our societies and our democracies. For that reason it must occupy a central position in the curriculum, and especially in the science syllabus, as long as, like any other theory, it is able to stand up to thorough scientific scrutiny."

More from the NCSE.

Press Conference Video

Voting result

Transcripts of proceedings

Adopted Resolution

More reaction to new teacher guidelines

2007-10-01T18:22:00.000Z

From the Telegraph;

Creationism can be a topic in class

By Graeme Paton, Education Editor

Teachers have been given permission to discuss the controversial theory of creationism in science lessons.

Have your say: Is it right to teach creationism in schools?

Teachers will be expected to contrast creationism with Darwin's theory of evolution
Pupils should be able to ask questions about the theory provided teachers emphasise it has "no underpinning scientific principles", new Government guidance says.

If the subject is raised teachers will be expected to contrast the strict Biblical belief that the Earth was created by God in six days between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago with Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

Teachers are told to respond "positively and educationally" to such questions and be "respectful of students' views, religious or otherwise".

But the document – drawn up to clarify the rules after Christian academics challenged the teaching of Darwinism in GCSE biology – makes it clear that such beliefs are not "scientifically testable" and are not valid scientific theories.

It is hoped the guidance will help avoid the situation in the United States where some schools – under pressure from the religious Right – have compelled science teachers to introduce lessons in intelligent design, a creationist off-shoot.

The guidance says schools must teach the broad outlines of evolutionary theory to pupils aged five to 14, and focus clearly on the "nature of, and evidence for, evolution" at GCSE and A-level.

Questions about creationism should provide an "opportunity to explain or explore why they are not considered to be scientific theories".

From the Mail;

Christian campaigners force new guidelines over creationism
By DANIEL BATES -

Ministers have been forced to issue guidelines on how to teach Creationism in science classes after pressure from Christian campaigners.

Teachers are allowed to answer questions on the subject but must make clear it has 'no underpinning scientific principles', new government advice states.

The move is in response to a campaign by Christian group 'Truth in Science' which last summer sent every school DVDs promoting intelligent design (ID), a Creationism offshoot, in a bid to get it taught.

It is also intended to avoid the situation in the United States where teachers under pressure from the religious Right have forced science teachers to begin lessons in ID.

Creationism, the Biblical theory that The Earth was created by God in six days, has been controversial in recent years.

Three City Academies run by Christian car dealer Sir Peter Vardy have been criticised for featuring Creationist theories in lessons.

Pupils taking Biology GCSE with exam board OCR this year became the first students in mainstream education to answer questions on the theory in a science exam.

This prompted The Royal Society to issue an open letter stating Creationism had no place in schools and that pupils should be clear science backs the theory of evolution.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has in the past said he is not comfortable with it being taught to pupils.

The new guidance says teachers should respond 'positively and educationally' to questions about Creationism and be 'respectful of students' views, religious or otherwise'.

But it also makes clear makes clear such beliefs are not valid scientific theories and not 'scientifically testable'.

Teachers should instill in pupils aged five to 14 the outlines of evolutionary theory and focus on the 'nature and evidence for evolution' at GCSE and A-level.

A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families, said: "The guidelines were issued in response to materials distributed last year on teaching Creationism in schools by religious groups.

"It is the first time there has been guidance on this matter."

More reaction to new teacher guidelines

2007-09-28T17:00:00.000Z

From James Randerson at The Guardian;

The UK government has issued new guidelines to teachers on what to teach about creationism and intelligent design in science classes. They are pretty explicit that creationism and ID do not belong.

The move seems to be a response to efforts by the ironically named campaign group "Truth in Science". Last year it sent DVDs promoting ID to every school in the land in the hope that they would be used to teach the creationist idea alongisde evolution in science lessons.

The new guidelines could not be clearer:

Creationism and intelligent design are not part of the science National Curriculum programmes of study and should not be taught as science.

That doesn't mean it cannot be mentioned of course, but the guidelines state that it should only feature as part of discussions about what does and does not make a scientific theory.

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...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.

There are even specific guidelines about using materials from groups like TIS:

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.

For more on TIS check out the British Centre for Science Education.

Reactions to new teachers guidelines

2007-09-26T18:11:00.000Z

From the NCSE.
From Ekklesia and again.

European Creationism Vote back on the Agenda

2007-09-25T21:12:00.000Z

From here my emphasis in bold;

Council of Europe to vote on creationism in schools

By Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor

PARIS (Reuters) - Europe's main human rights body will vote next week on a resolution opposing the teaching of creationist and intelligent design views in school science classes.

The Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly will debate a resolution saying attacks on the theory of evolution were rooted "in forms of religious extremism" and amounted to a dangerous assault on science and human rights.

The resolution, on the agenda for October 4, says European schools should "resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion." It describes the "intelligent design" argument as an updated version of creationism.

Anne Brasseur, an Assembly member from Luxembourg who updated an earlier draft resolution, said the vote was due in June but was postponed because some members felt the original text amounted to an attack on religious belief.

Only minor changes have been made to the initial draft.

"There are different views of the creation of the world and we respect that," she told Reuters. "The message we wanted to send was to avoid creationism passing itself off as science and being taught as science. That's where the danger lies."

The Council, based in the eastern French city of Strasbourg, oversees human rights standards in member states and enforces decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.

If passed, the resolution would not be binding on its 47 member states but would reflect widespread opposition among politicians to teaching creationism in science class.

NATURAL SELECTION DROPPED

Creationism says God made the world in six days as depicted in the Bible. Intelligent design argues some life forms are too complex to have evolved according to Charles Darwin's theory and needed an unnamed higher intelligence to develop as they have.

Some conservatives in the United States, both religious and secular, have long opposed the teaching of evolution in public schools but U.S. courts have regularly barred them from teaching what they describe as religious views of creation.

Pressure to teach creationism is weaker in Europe, but has been mounting. An Assembly committee took up the issue because a shadowy Turkish Muslim publishing group has been sending an Islamic creationist book to schools in several countries.

Supporters of intelligent design want it taught in science class alongside evolution. A U.S. court ruled this out in a landmark decision in 2005, dismissing it as "neo-creationism."

"The aim of this report is not to question or to fight a belief," Brasseur wrote in a memorandum added to the new resolution. "It is not a matter of opposing belief and science, but it is necessary to prevent belief from opposing science."

She said the resolution also shortened references in the resolution to "evolution by natural selection" to "evolution" because some members had misunderstood the reference to natural selection to be an attack on their religious beliefs.

New government guidelines for teachers confirm that the TIS material should not be used in science classes

2007-09-21T21:27:00.000Z

New government guidelines confirm that TiS claims about the curriculum are false (again).

There has been much debate recently about the teaching of creationism and intelligent design in the science curriculum. The 'Truth in Science' pack, which had been sent to all secondary schools, also generated media interest.

Intelligent Design is a creationist belief that suggests that the biological complexity of human beings is evidence for presence of a God or an 'intelligent designer'. It is sometimes erroneously advanced as scientific theory but has no underpinning scientific principles or explanations supporting it and it is not accepted by the international scientific community.

Creationism and intelligent design are not part of the National Curriculum for science, but there is scope for schools to discuss creationism as part of Religious Education - a component of the basic school curriculum - in developing pupils' knowledge and understanding of Christianity and other religions. This guidance is designed to clarify the place of these concepts within the National Curriculum.

- - -

GUIDANCE ON THE PLACE OF CREATIONISM AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN SCIENCE LESSONS

The National Curriculum

The National Curriculum secures for all pupils, irrespective of background and ability, an entitlement to a range of areas of learning. Its aim is to develop knowledge, understanding, skills and attitudes necessary for each pupil's self-fulfilment and development as an active and responsible citizen. It makes expectations for learning and attainment explicit to pupils, parents, teachers, governors, employers and the public, and establishes national standards for the performance of all pupils.

The National Curriculum provides the framework of what should be taught in a particular subject. It does not state how subjects should be taught and schools are free to add additional material to it when developing their school curriculum (for example some schools choose to teach Astronomy at GCSE in addition to other science GCSEs).

Science in the curriculum

Science is a core subject of the National Curriculum throughout every key stage.

The science programmes of study set out the legal requirements of the science National Curriculum. They focus on the nature of science as a subject discipline, including what constitutes scientific evidence and how this is established. Students learn about scientific theories as established bodies of scientific knowledge with extensive supporting evidence. Hypotheses are developed on the basis of the body of knowledge and are tested experimentally to generate further evidence that may be supportive or contradictory. Experimental work can then be used to generate further evidence in order to test new hypotheses based on these bodies of scientific knowledge. The role of the scientific community in evaluating and validating new work is also included as is the nature of, and evidence for, evolution.

Religious Education in the curriculum

Religious Education (RE) is a component of the basic curriculum, to be taught alongside the National Curriculum in all maintained schools.

There is scope for young people to discuss beliefs about the origins of the Earth and living things in RE. The DfES and QCA have published a non-statutory national framework for RE and supporting teaching units which include the unit ‘How can we answer questions about creation and origins?’ The unit focuses on creation and the origins of the universe and human life, as well as the relationships between religion and science. Students have opportunities within RE lessons to discuss, explore, question and evaluate these relationships. The unit can be downloaded from HYPERLINK "http://www.qca.org.uk" http://www.qca.org.uk.

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.

What is appropriate to teach in science lessons?

The nature of, and evidence for, evolution must be taught at key stage 4 as these are part of the programme of study for science. Key stages 1, 2 and 3 include topics such as variation, classification and inheritance which lay the foundations for developing an understanding of evolution at key stage 4 and post-16.

The nature of science as a subject discipline must also be taught, as described in Sc1 Scientific enquiry at key stages 1 and 2 and how science works at key stages 3 and 4.

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.
GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Creation: theologically, God’s purposeful act of bringing and holding the universe in being. This traditional belief in divine, designed action is shared by Jews, Christians, Muslims and others.

Creationism: a term commonly used as shorthand for its most common variant, ‘young-Earth creationism’. As well as a belief in creation, it includes the additional belief that creation occurred by specific, non-natural divine events in six ‘days’ some 6000-10,000 years ago, rather than by God’s creative actions through the natural processes of stellar, chemical and biological evolution.

Design: purposeful planning behind an object or action.
God-of-the-gaps: the name given to the practice of substituting an explanation of agency [in this case God] into current gaps in our scientific understanding, where what is needed is an explanation of the mechanisms [i.e. a scientific explanation]. It is not part of science teaching - and cannot be philosophically justified - to 'plug God in' to gaps awaiting a scientific explanation. Although the two types of explanation are logically compatible, they are not interchangeable.
Intelligent Design: the belief (held by members of a movement starting in the early 1990s) that certain biological features are too complex to be explained by the theory of evolution and therefore point to ‘intelligence’.
Irreducible complexity: a structure is claimed to be irreducibly complex if it could not have originated by natural processes; this claim is made for any biological system consisting of many interacting parts in which the absence of any one part means that the whole system does not function. Two examples which have been frequently quoted are the mammalian eye and the bacterial flagellum. Plausible mechanisms by which both could have evolved have now been described.

Origins: a word commonly used for the processes by which the universe, life and humankind originated. Such processes as stellar, chemical and biological evolution are the province of science, and need to be distinguished from the theological concept of an act of creation.

Science: the systematic study of the origins, structure and behaviour of the physical/natural world through observation, theorising and experiment.
Scientific theory: a consistent, comprehensive, coherent and extensively evidenced explanation of an aspect of the natural world which can, at least in principle, be tested by observations and/or experiments. Examples are the kinetic theory of gases, continental drift and plate tectonics, biological evolution and quantum theory.
RESOURCES
There is a wide range of resources and background material on these topics and those in the list below are good starting points.
Website articles
A page on the website of Christians in Science devoted to sources of information about origins, creation, creationism and intelligent design. It includes a number of links to web pages that are relevant to creationism and ID: HYPERLINK "http://www.cis.org.uk/for_members/education/origins.shtml"http://www.cis.org.uk/for_members/education/origins.shtml
The Interacademy Panel’s statement on the teaching of evolution:
HYPERLINK http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf
Further articles may be found on the pages of the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion:
http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Papers.php
Non-academic books
Ayala, Francisco J (2006) Darwin and Intelligent Design, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, ISBN 978-0-8006-3802-3.
Poole, M. W. (2007) User’s Guide to Science and Belief, Ch 8-10, Oxford: Lion Hudson, ISBN 978-0-7459-5274-1
Academic books
Jones, L. & Reiss, M. J. (eds) (2007) Teaching about Scientific Origins: Taking account of creationism, New York: Peter Lang. Examines the implications of the rise in creationism for school science teaching and presents suggestions for ways forward.
Manson, Neil A (ed) (2003) God and Design: The teleological argument and modern science, London: Routledge. Considers the design argument from historical, philosophical, theological, biological and physical perspectives.

Howard J van Till, ‘Are bacterial flagella intelligently designed?’ Science and Christian Belief (2003) 15(2) 117-140. Dawkins, R. (1996) Climbing Mount Improbable, pp126ff, London: Viking.

From here and here.

Creationism in Norwich?

2007-09-09T12:33:00.000Z

From here;

The Norwich City Council Scrutiny Committee met on July 31st and came out in opposition to the plans.

Millionaire second hand car dealer turned Pentecostalist preacher Graham Dacre wanted to turn Heartsease School into an Academy. Dacre was formerly involved with Proclaimers International but split away to form his own church, he then linked up with Mount Zion Family Life Centre to establish Norwich Family Life Church.

Pentecostalists are infamous for their ‘prosperity preaching’, the notion that it is harder for a rich man to get to heaven than it is for a camel to get through the eye of a needle somehow doesn’t apply here. Most Pentecostalist preachers openly flaunt their mansions, limousines and expensive life styles – God has chosen to reward them.

The standard Pentecostalist beliefs are that God created the world 6,000 years ago, abortion is ‘evil’ and homosexuality can be ‘cured’. Despite challenging Graham Dacre on the Network Norwich message boards he never did reply…

The bid to turn Heartsease School into an Academy also involved the Church of England Norwich Diocese, but let’s just say there was a certain imbalance in the funding arrangements. Graham Dacre’s Lind Trust was going to invest £1.95 million and the Norwich Diocese just £50,000.

At a well-attended consultation meeting at the school the only speakers in favour of the Academy were… Graham Dacre and the Bishop of Norwich. Parents were particularly concerned that Graham Dacre would have a majority on the new governing body with only one elected parent and local authority representative.

With the Liberals and Green Party opposing the scheme pressure was mounting on the Labour Party. One MP Ian Gibson campaigned against the Academy whereas former Education Secretary Charles Clarke was in favour of handing the school over to the creationists.

The resolution from the Norwich Scrutiny Committee is a fairly good summary of reasons to oppose Academies because

• of the lack of democratic accountability

• the inordinate amount of control that would be given to sponsors in relation to the level of investment.

• although the stated intention is to maintain existing policies and procedures in respect of admissions, curriculum, inclusiveness etc., there can be no guarantee that these will continue in the future.

• of the possible adverse impact on the neighbouring schools [the new Academy would have had 1,000 pupils instead of 400].

• it was not appropriate to consider one school in isolation in the context of education provision for the whole city, particularly in view of its future as a Unitary Authority.

• Heartsease High School is an improving school and there is no reason why, with investment not necessarily at the level in the academy proposal, the school can’t continue that improvement journey.

The vote by the Scrutiny Committee is a significant blow, however, the proposals will now go to the new Children, Schools and Families minister Ed Balls. Central government riding roughshod over local opinion? Don’t worry we’ve seen it all before.

As for wacky religious groups trying to run state schools – there’s more! The Exclusive Brethren who refuse to use any electronic devices (the work of the devil) are preparing an academy bid. I’ll try to keep everyone posted.

Creationism: bad science, bad religion, bad education

2007-08-12T19:37:00.000Z

From here (by kind permission of the author) a fascinating in depth analysis of the recent history of Creationism and in particular developments in the UK education system up until 2002;

The only people who have a problem with evolution are those fundamentalist Christians who wish to believe that the Bible is, in every detail, the literal and inerrant word of God. 'Darwin's name has become a byword for atheism in fundamentalist circles, yet the Origin was not intended as an attack upon religion, but was a sober, careful exposition of a scientific theory.' Indeed, Darwin himself was 'always respectful of religious faith.' (Armstrong 2000)

And now 'the fundamentalist doctrines that have polluted US education' (Robin McKie and Martin Bright The Observer 17 March 2002) are spreading to Britain. In March 2002 The Guardian reported that Emmanuel City Technology College in Gateshead had hosted a 'creationist' conference and that senior staff have urged teachers to promote biblical fundamentalism.

The current furore is the result of revelations in The Guardian that Emmanuel is teaching its students creationism alongside evolution. Head Teacher Nigel McQuoid (left) has claimed that he wants his pupils to learn to make up their own minds but several members of his staff have urged teachers to 'show the superiority' of creationist theories. Vice-principal Gary Wiecek has said 'As Christian teachers it is essential that we are able to counter the anti-creationist position.' Maths teacher Paul Yeulett has declared that 'a Christian teacher of biology will not (or should not) regard the theory of evolution as axiomatic, but will oppose it.'

In a lecture at Emmanuel College on 21 September 2000 Head of Science Steven Layfield told teachers 'Those of us engaged in the struggle to show the superiority of a creationist world-view against the prevailing orthodoxy of atheistic materialism and evolutionism in science have been viciously attacked.' Teachers, he said, 'must be prepared to express without compromise the integrity and infallibility of the biblical historical narrative.' In particular, science teachers should 'note every occasion when an evolutionary/old-earth paradigm is explicitly mentioned or implied by a textbook, examination question or visitor and courteously point out the fallibility of the statement. Wherever possible, we must give the alternative - always better - biblical explanation. (The Guardian 9 March 2002)

But Emmanuel College is not the only problem. As the National Secular Society's Keith Porteous Wood pointed out in a letter to The Guardian (11 March), Emmanuel is not the first state school to teach creationism. 'A Seventh Day Adventist School in Tottenham is already part of the maintained sector and taxpayers have been stumping up the cash for it since 1998.' And it probably won't be the last. Creationists are hoping to develop another Christian school at Torfaen in South Wales and have already sought advice from staff at Emmanuel. Baptist minister Revd Richard Harrison, a leading supporter of the project, has said of evolution 'OK, it's a plausible theory, but it's a hoax'. The establishment of the new school is currently in doubt. The Welsh Assembly's Education Minister, Jane Davidson, fears that children might be brainwashed and David Rosser, the Director of CBI Wales, which had agreed to sponsor the school, said 'The CBI wouldn't be involved in anything like that.' (Tania Branigan The Guardian 9 April 2002)

And it's not just schools. A determined campaign is being waged to infiltrate UK universities and colleges. The Australian 'Creation Research' organisation already has a British office and has sent its international director, John Mackay, to take part in debates with academics at meetings held by Christian Unions at several universities. Now, one of its members, fundamentalist Christian John Forbes, is carrying out a survey of staff at British universities to ascertain their views on the origins of life.

'Creation Research' complains that the media and schools have indoctrinated people with evolutionary humanism 'which denies creation, the Bible and Christ.' Its UK website even suggests that belief in evolution is to blame for the attack on the World Trade Centre. 'Believers should not be surprised when things like this happen ... The root cause of this increasing violence is sin - sin which is rooted in the refusal to glorify The Lord as the God who created the universe.' (Tania Branigan The Guardian 25 March 2002) A bizarre interpretation, to say the least, of an attack perpetrated by Paradise-crazed individuals on a country where forty-five per cent of the population believe in the Genesis account of creation.

Bishop of Oxford Dr Richard Harries (right) speaking on BBC Radio 4's Thought for the Day (15 March 2002) said he was saddened that Christians should oppose evolution, which 'far from undermining faith, deepens it.' He went on 'Historians of science note how quickly the late Victorian Christian public accepted evolution. It is therefore quite extraordinary that 140 years later, after so much evidence has accumulated, that a school in Gateshead is opposing evolutionary theory on alleged biblical grounds. This attempt to see the Book of Genesis as a rival to scientific truth stops people taking the Bible seriously. Biblical literalism brings not only the Bible but Christianity itself into disrepute.'

Episcopal Bishop of Newark John Spong agrees. 'Those who insist on biblical literalism become unwitting accomplices in bringing about the death of the Christianity they so deeply love ... The Bible relates to us the way our ancient forebears understood and interpreted their world, made sense out of life, and thought about God. Our task is the same as theirs. We must interpret our world in the light of our knowledge and suppositions.' (Spong 1991)

Giving creationists the oxygen of publicity

2007-08-07T12:37:00.000Z

Guardian 6/8/2006 - from here;

"In a world where any uninformed lunatic - not just journalists - can cast their inexpert ramblings into the blogosphere for anyone to read, scientists increasingly have a problem. Bogus scientific notions that fit with a favoured political credo spread like wildfire and scientists can do little to stem the tide. Climate change, MMR and intelligent design, to take just three examples, are all topics where the sea of falsehood can seem overwhelming.

The stakes are perhaps even higher with Kentucky's new-ish creation museum. In less than 2 months, the place had pulled in over 100,000 visitors, at $19.95 a throw or $1000 for life membership.
I haven't been, but its visitors are paying for a pretty flimsy grasp on reality. The hi-tech anamatronic exhibits, for example, show humans hanging out with dinosaurs.
The US Society of Vertebrate Palaeontology has denounced it as presenting, "visitors with a view of earth history that has been scientifically disproven for over a century." And the National Centre for Science Education (with the backing of over 800 scientists in surrounding states) has warned that, "students who accept this material as scientifically valid are unlikely to succeed in science courses at the college level".
. . .

The LA Times was more blunt. Its editorial said:
"With the opening of the Creation Museum, young people will be getting another side of the story. Too bad it starts with 'Yabba-dabba-doo!'"
But here's the dilemma.
Statements of derision may serve little purpose other than to drive more visitors to the attraction and swell the coffers of Answers in Genesis, the loopy organisation that set it up. By trying to set the record straight are we simply playing into their hands? "

A brief history of Creationism in British Schools

2007-08-04T15:47:00.000Z

From here;

April 2003: Richard Dawkins attacks plans announced by the Vardy Foundation (on Radio 4’s Today programme on 28/4/03) to open a further six schools teaching a creationist version of the origin of life, in addition to Emmanuel College, Gateshead. Education Guardian

September 2003: King's Academy in Middlesbrough opens its doors. Formed from a partnership between the Department for Education and the Wearside-based Vardy Foundation it is a sister facility to Gateshead's Emmanuel College, which follows a "creationism" curriculum. BBC.

December 2003: The Guardian organises a conference on ‘Creationism: Science versus faith in schools’.

2004

June 2004: British Humanist Association circulate briefing document to MPs and peers on creationist academies

August 2004: President George Bush tells reporters that "both sides ought to be properly taught ... so people can understand what the debate is about." Time.

October 2004: Local campaigners in Conisbrough, near Doncaster, persuade their LEA to reject a proposed takeover of Northcliffe School by the Vardy Foundation (to be later known as the Emmanuel Schools Foundation) – a considerable triumph for local campaigning and democracy. BBC

2005

January 2005: Lord Taverne asks in the House of Lords "whether the national curriculum will exclude the teaching of creationism in schools." Hansard.

February 2005: UK - Newcastle City Council urged to replace West Gate Community College with an Emmanuel School Foundation academy, and that Sunderland City Council was being lobbied to set up a Christian academy. BBC

US - Dover School board, Pennsylvania proposes teaching an alternative to Darwin’s theory of evolution in class, called Intelligent Design.

August 2005: Guardian/ICM Poll suggests that two thirds of UK oppose state aided faith schools. The Guardian

September 2005: US - Parents of Dover School mount first US legal against the school board’s decision to incorporate Intelligent Design into school science.

UK- Trinity Academy opens in Doncaster replacing Thorne Grammar School. A part funded city academy it is the third school to be operated by the Christian fundamentalist Vardy Foundation (now the Emmanuel School Foundation).

December 20, 2005: Kitzmiller -v- Dover. In one of the biggest courtroom clashes between faith and evolution since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, a federal judge barred a Pennsylvania public school district Tuesday from teaching “intelligent design” in biology class, saying the concept is creationism in disguise. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones delivered a stinging attack on the Dover Area School Board, saying its first-in-the-nation decision in October 2004 to insert intelligent design into the science curriculum violates the constitutional separation of church and state. The ruling was a major setback to the US intelligent design movement. Trial Transcripts

Judge bans intelligent design from US science lessons. Education Guardian

2006

February 2006: US scientists enlist teachers in battle against creationists Education Guardian

March 2006: Archbishop of Canterbury criticised teaching of creationism saying that the theory ‘is a kind of category mistake’. The Guardian

Consternation as the OCR Examination Board announces the inclusion of creationist theory in their ‘Gateway Science’ specification for biology GCSE due out in September.
BBC.

April 2006: Leading scientists of the UK’s Royal Society issue statement saying that creationism 'no place in schools.' Royal Society Statement

National Union of Teachers, warn that religious fundamentalists are gaining control of state schools - predominantly through the government's city academy programme. Education Guardian

Australian creationist John Mackay begins UK lecture tour. Observer Guardian

May 2006: Vatican astronomer, Guy J. Consolmagno, denounces creationism as a “kind of paganism.” The Scotsman

August 2006: Fears grow as there are signs that the Pope is considering aligning his church more closely with the theory of "intelligent design" taught in some US schools. The Guardian

September 2006: UK anti-evolutionists, ‘Truth in Science’ seek to lure parents with new website and teachers by sending out creationist material to school science staff. Design Attack on School Science

October 2006: UK publication of hugely influential book ‘The God Delusion’ by Richard Dawkins and the inauguration of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science.

November 2006: Tony Blair accused of complacency on classroom creationism as he dismissed concerns about creationism in schools, saying they were often "hugely exaggerated". Ekklesia

Richard Dawkins Foundation for Science and Reason will subsidise books, pamphlets and DVDs for teachers to fight what the professor describes as the "educational scandal" that has seen the rise of "irrational ideas". Education Guardian

US - Museum of Creationism opens in Kentucky. The Telegraph

Department for Education and Skills (DfES) rejects creationist infiltration of science teaching by creationist group ‘Truth in Science’. British Humanist Association

Creationism hits Middlesbrough

2007-07-29T07:22:00.000Z

This is an edited extract from Francis Beckett’s latest book, The Great City Academy Fraud, published by Continuum with my emphasis in bold, the original extract is published here.

"City Academies are the government’s Big Idea for education. Private sponsors – among them wealthy evangelicals and religious organisations – are being courted to fund and run a new generation of superschools.
But while the sponsor might contribute up to £2 million, their money buys them control over schools whose actual cost is more like £35 million. Sponsors contribute nothing to running costs, yet they manage the school’s resources, choose its teachers, and, crucially, decide its curriculum, in perpetuity. Paying for it, in perpetuity, is the responsibility of the taxpayer.
. . .
Of the 46 academies opened by October 2006, 14 – just under a third of the total – will be entirely in the control of Christian organisations or evangelical Christians. Three others have Christian organisations as one half of the sponsorship team. These organisations will have the power to decide what is taught and how it is taught.
. . .
The two most disturbing school sponsors are the evangelical Christians Sir Peter Vardy and Robert Edmiston.
Sir Peter Vardy, whose wealth comes from Reg Vardy PLC, the second-hand car business he inherited from his father, put up £2 million for each of his three academies, which have cost the taxpayer many times that amount. It is you and I who pay the bills.
These bills include £14,039 to the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association as reimbursement for time on academy business spent by Sir Peter’s brother David, as well as larger sums to Sir Peter’s own company. None of this work was put out to tender, which is a legal requirement in state schools.
As Gwen Evans, then deputy general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, put it: “Academies were supposed to lever private finance into public education, not lever public money into private pockets.”
Academies are also supposed to replace failing schools, and Sir Peter’s staff have put a lot of effort into proving that the two schools his first academy in Middlesborough replaced were failing. In fact, at least one of them – Coulby Newham School – was flourishing. Its last Ofsted report before it was closed down praised every aspect of the school, including its broad–minded inclusiveness – a quality not in evidence in Vardy schools. His academy did not produce better results with the same pupils, despite expelling 10 times as many pupils as the schools which were closed to make way for it.
There’s no room for objection. Vardy’s foundation controls the schools totally, with an inbuilt majority on the governing bodies.
Sir Peter is a creationist. He believes that the Bible is telling the literal truth when it says that the universe was created by God in six days. “Schools should teach the creation theory as literally depicted in Genesis,” said Nigel McQuoid, who runs Vardy’s Emmanuel Schools Trust.
Mr McQuoid also said: “The Bible says clearly that homosexual activity is against God’s design. I would indicate that to young folk.” Many of us would not wish our children to be taught that, but this does not concern Mr McQuoid, who told a local newspaper: “I don’t have to respect everyone’s opinion. I don’t respect the opinion of people who believe it’s fine to live with a partner. Head teachers are responsible to God and the standards of the bible. Nothing in the school should contradict the teachings of the bible.”
“If academies are to succeed,” says his colleague John Burn, “they need to be led and staffed by people who are obedient to God’s truth as revealed in the scriptures.” So, no teachers who do not hold the approved theological opinions. Burn and Sir Peter form a small committee of two to choose heads for their schools whenever it is necessary. None of that nonsense about letting parents or teachers have a say.
Mr Burn is one of the founders of the Newcastle-based Christian Institute, set up in 1991 to promote fundamentalist Christian beliefs, and is an outspoken opponent of the ordination of women. In September 2000, Stephen Layfield, head of science at one of Vardy’s schools, Emmanuel College, Gateshead, delivered a lecture called “The teaching of science – a biblical perspective”. It reads rather like a revivalist sermon and lays down a duty upon teachers to “do all they can to ensure that pupils, parents and fellow colleagues are reminded frequently that all is not what it seems when popular so-called scientific dogma presents itself before them.” When you find mention of evolution in a textbook, “point out the fallibility of the statement.” There are separate notes for the teachers of each of the sciences. Apparently, if you are a physics teacher, you are supposed to tell children that the speed of the rotation of the moon proves that God made the earth.
“May it please God,” he ended, “to raise up a new generation of scientists who are duly respectful of their Maker and who, recognising the limitations of human scientific enquiry, give full weight of respect to the statements of propositional truth of Holy Scripture – being the authoritative word of God.”
The Foundation website, with wonderful doublespeak, calls all this “an academic and inquisitive approach to spiritual matters including, amongst others, creation and the origin of life on earth”.
But there is also a sinister national agenda here. As long ago as 1995, it was spelled out in a booklet from Burn and McQuoid which gives us a chilling insight into the long term agenda of men whom Tony Blair has placed in a powerful position in British education.
It says: “In Britain the Christian churches were active in the field of schooling long before the state took over… In retrospect it is a matter of regret that the churches so readily relinquished control of education to the state.”
And there you have it. Education should be handed back to the churches. Our function as taxpayers should be confined to providing the money with which people like McQuoid and Burn can make sure we bring up a generation in their own image. And right now, the law, they think, is on their side: “It is only by God’s sovereignty that current legislation is couched in such advantageous terms in a country where genuine committed Biblical Christian faith is undermined in so many areas.” The very favourable atmosphere for religious indoctrination in schools is, of course, not the work of God but of Tony Blair, though perhaps that is the same thing.
Lest there is any doubt that religious indoctrination in schools is what they have in mind, consider this sentence: “Please do not mistakenly believe that a classroom or school can be neutral: even the absence of a statement can say that no statement is worth the making. As Christ’s commission clearly exhorts us, we are to go into all the world, preaching the gospel and making disciples.”
After detailing the way in which Christianity should be inculcated in every subject, from literature to geography to pottery, the authors say: “Christian Truth must play a vital part in all these matters because left to themselves they will be distorted and drained of meaning. Christianity and the Biblical Truth must find a place across the whole curriculum and not just be confined to the act of worship and Religious Education.”
. . .

Evolution in the Vatican?

2007-07-29T07:19:00.000Z

From here;

POPE Benedict has said there is substantial scientific proof of the theory of evolution.

The Pope, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said the human race must listen to "the voice of the Earth" or risk destroying its very existence.

In a talk with 400 priests, the Pope spoke of the current debate raging in some countries, particularly the US and his native Germany, between creationism and evolution.

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the Pope said.

“This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favour of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

But he said evolution did not answer all the questions and could not exclude a role by God.

“Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question 'where does everything come from?'“

His comments appear to be an endorsement of the doctrine of intelligent design.

A Call to Combat Creationism

2007-07-17T19:17:00.000Z

From this press release;

The Christian think-tank Ekklesia and the British Humanist Association have written to the new UK Schools, Children and Families minister, Ed Balls MP, urging him to make progress on combating creationism in British schools.

The two organisations are working together on the issue to make it clear, contrary to assertions from some creationists, that the question of what it is appropriate to teach in science classrooms is not one which needs to divide people of religious and non-religious opinion.

It has been almost a year since the stepped-up attempts of creationist organisations such as ‘Truth in Science’ to have ‘intelligent design’ taught in schools. At that time the two organisations brought the issue to the attention of the DfES and shortly afterwards the government announced that they would be issuing guidance to schools to make it clear that creationism and intelligent design should not be taught as examples of scientific theories.

Many members of the public added their own voices to this call by writing to their own MPs and to the DfES.

In spite of this fact, the guidance has still not been issued, and the two organisations today called on Mr Balls to ‘ensure that this guidance is published as soon as possible, that it gives no loopholes in its wording that well-funded creationist organisations might exploit, and that it is as widely disseminated as possible and certainly to all schools and academies.’

Ekklesia stresses that creationism and ID are not just devoid of any scientific content that would make them valid theories of origins, but their proponents also trade upon poor theology and confused ideas about how to read religious texts.

The letter to Ed Balls MP runs as follows:

Dear Mr Balls,

We wrote to your predecessor on 29 September 2006 expressing our concerns about the sending of free ‘teaching resources’ to all schools by the inaptly named ‘Truth in Science’, a creationist organisation. We were reassured by the Government response at that time, that intelligent design and creationism should not be taught as science or as examples of scientific theories and that officials were ‘currently working with the QCA to find a suitable way of communicating to schools it is not part of the Science National Curriculum.’

More recently, we were pleased last week to see the Government response to a petition against creationism on the Number 10 website saying, ‘We will be publishing guidance for schools, on the way creationism and intelligent design relate to science teaching.’

We are writing now in the hope that you will take action to ensure that this guidance is published as soon as possible, that it gives no loopholes in its wording that well-funded creationist organisations might exploit, and that it is as widely disseminated as possible and certainly to all schools and academies.

Best wishes in your new responsibilities,

Simon Barrow
Co-director
Ekklesia
www.ekklesia.co.uk

Andrew Copson
Education officer
British Humanist Association
www.humanism.org.uk

The new theories of evolution

2007-07-17T19:12:00.000Z

From The Daily Telegraph 17/7/2007;

"Darwin's ideas are being used by scientists to develop new drugs and plan phone networks, says Steve Jones."

"A whole group of intriguing conference titles turns on the Biblical injunction to Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise.

Much wisdom has emerged from studying those busy beings."

"Evolution in the computer may soon overcome evolution in the real world, as bacteria and their digital equivalents use mutation and natural selection to defeat the challenges that human ingenuity throws at them.

That should prove the power of Darwin's theory to even the most hardened sceptic."

The Origins of Truth In Science

2007-06-27T18:17:00.000Z

Truth in Science claim some very upright sounding aims for themselves;

Good science education? What has that got to do with this advert from the Evangelical Times? (my emphasis in bold)

TRUTH IN SCIENCE

It is a concern to many when science is wrongly taught in our schools, colleges and universities. In particular, macroevolution is taught as though it were a proven and unchallengeable fact. For our children and grandchildren, God is thus robbed of His glory. Young people are encouraged into a way of thinking that leads to atheism, hedonism, despair and moral bankruptcy. Belief in a Creator is often ridiculed and anyone advocating such a view is portrayed as either foolish or naïve.
In reality evolutionary claims often constitute speculative beliefs about the past and use explanations that are contrary to the spirit of empirical science. For example, human origins are typically presented with simplistic diagrams supposedly showing the progression from ape-like ancestors to modern man. We believe this amounts to deception. Problems with evolutionary theory are well documented but many scientists seldom acknowledge this, choosing rather to gloss over them. This matters because a false view robs us of our sense of value and purpose before a Sovereign Creator God.
“If the foundations be destroyed what can the righteous do?” Psalm 11:3
To respond to this, a group of professional and business people are meeting under the heading TRUTH IN SCIENCE [TIS]. As citizens with a concern for the family we seek to encourage Christians to be confident that God’s spoken command in space-time history resulted in supra-natural creation. Non-believers must be challenged in such a way that they can no longer hide behind the delusion that science has disproved the existence of God. TIS seeks to encourage scientists to present the truth fairly and to expose as charlatans those who deliberately mislead. Our aim is to compliment the work of existing Creation groups by targeting education in particular.
Do you share this vision? We believe that as children of the Lord Jesus Christ, bought at the price of His own shed blood, we cannot sit back and allow this situation to continue unchallenged. Do you wish to see our children being taught the truth rather than having their moral and spiritual lives undermined? Although TIS have ways and means in mind, at this early stage we are flexible about the best approach. If finance is made available have you the time and ability and commitment to be the driving force, co-operating with us, in this venture to effect the education of young people in our land. If so, we wish to hear from you.
Steve Layfield, Professor Andy McIntosh,
Willis B Metcalfe, John Perfect, Rev Maurice Roberts.
Our Council of Reference includes the following
Dr John Blanchard; Dr Stuart Burgess; Gerard A Crispin;
Prof. Derek Linkens; Prof. Richard Porter; Dr Stephen Taylor;
Please reply to TIS by email at – applications@TruthinScience.org.uk
This email address was given for those wishing to apply but can be used by those wishing to consider supporting Truth In Science. If you need a postal address to write to I can supply that upon request.

Here is a version of this same advert which is taken from the "Take Heeds Ministries" web/email which, although the original document was amended to remove the give away advert had been preserved on the web for all to see here.

Contrast this with these extracts from their own FAQ page which can be seen here;

Is Intelligent Design based on the Bible?
No. Plato, Aristotle and Cicero articulated early versions of design theory, as did virtually all of the founders of modern science. Indeed, most scientists until the latter part of the nineteenth century accepted some form of intelligent design. The scientific community largely rejected design in the early twentieth century after neo-Darwinism claimed to be able to explain the emergence of biological complexity through the unintelligent process of natural selection acting on random mutations. During the past decade, however, new research and discoveries in such fields as physics, cosmology, biochemistry, genetics, and palaeontology have caused a growing number of scientists and science theorists to question neo-Darwinism and propose design as the best explanation for the existence of specified complexity in the natural world.

Why does the TiS Board of Directors and Council of Reference include Ministers of Religion?
The scientific controversy over origins has many spiritual and religious implications. This is acknowledged both by Darwinists and Darwin-doubters. Many prominent advocates of Darwinism are 'distinguished supporters of humanism' (according to the British Humanist Association) and Evolutionary Biologist Richard Dawkins' latest book is entitled: The God Delusion.

These issues should be discussed in Science classes. All GCSE and A-Level Biology Specifications mention "spiritual, moral, ethical, social and cultural issues" as something which should be considered by candidates. Ministers of Religion have much to contribute to these discussions.

For the full story from BCSE click here.

- - -

As a personal aside from someone who is enjoying the latest series of Dr Who with his 10 year old daughter I can paraphrase the Doctor by asking TiS;

What about the whole truthy wuthy sort of thing?

PS thanks to Roger for the correction.

European Creationist Vote Ditched

2007-06-26T21:16:00.000Z

Reuters - 25/6/2007;

Europe's main human rights body on Monday cancelled a scheduled vote on banning creationist and intelligent design views from school science classes, saying the proposed resolution was one-sided.

The resolution, which the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly was due to vote on Tuesday, said attacks on the theory of evolution were rooted "in forms of religious extremism" and amounted to a dangerous attack on scientific knowledge.

Believers in creationism or intelligent design argue that some life forms are too complex to have evolved in accordance with Charles Darwin's theory.

Some conservative groups in the United States, both religious and secular, have long opposed the teaching of Darwinian evolution in public schools but U.S. courts have regularly barred them from teaching religious views of creation.

Pressure to teach creationism is weaker in Europe, but an Assembly committee got active because a Muslim creationist book has appeared in several countries.

Guy Lengagne, the French Socialist member of the Assembly who drew up the report, protested after the Parliamentary Assembly voted to call off the debate and vote, and to send the report back to committee for further study.

"I have enough experience of parliamentary procedure to know that this is a first-class burial (for the report)," he said.

Deputies said the motion by the Christian Democratic group of parliamentarians also won support from east European deputies, who recalled that Darwinian evolution was a favorite theory of their former communist rulers.

Reaction from the science committee;

The Committee on Culture, Science and Education of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE), meeting in Strasbourg on 26 June 2007 with Mr Legendre in the chair, protests against the procedure by which the Parliamentary Assembly decided on 25 June 2007, under confused and probably irregular conditions, to relegate to Friday 29 June the joint debate on inter-cultural and interreligious dialogue planned for Tuesday and to refer back to committee the report of Mr Lengagne on the dangers of creationism in education.

The committee expresses its support for the Rapporteur Mr Lengagne and its determination to see its report on the agenda for the next plenary session in October.

As Mr Lengagne is leaving the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the committee will appoint a new rapporteur on the same subject in the near future.

The committee wishes to affirm that the problem of creationism in teaching is a politically topical question which concerns the Council of Europe, and in particular its Committee on Culture, Science and Education, and which must therefore be discussed.

Freedom of thought and discussion is a fundamental value of the Council of Europe. The Committee on Culture, Science and Education believes that it is the duty of the Assembly to show itself exemplary in this requirement.

Let's hope this get back on the agenda in October.

Government Announcement

2007-06-21T16:24:00.000Z

In response to a petition to the Government regarding pseudo-science, creationism and intelligent design, we have the following announcement from number 10;

The Government remains committed ensuring that young people have an understanding of the importance of science and the world around them.

Science is a core subject of the National Curriculum throughout every Key Stage. The National Curriculum secures for all pupils, irrespective of background and ability, an entitlement to a range of areas of learning. Its aim is to develop the knowledge, understanding, skills and attitudes necessary for each pupil's self-fulfilment and development as an active and responsible citizen. It makes expectations for learning and attainment explicit to pupils, parents, teachers, governors, employers and the public, and establishes national standards for the performance of all pupils. All materials that support the teaching, learning and assessment of primary and secondary education, can be found on the National Curriculum website (new window).

The Government is aware that a number of concerns have been raised in the media and elsewhere as to whether creationism and intelligent design have a place in science lessons. The Government is clear that creationism and intelligent design are not part of the science National Curriculum programmes of study and should not be taught as science. The science programmes of study set out the legal requirements of the science National Curriculum. They focus on the nature of science as a subject discipline, including what constitutes scientific evidence and how this is established. Students learn about scientific theories as established bodies of scientific knowledge with extensive supporting evidence, and how evidence can form the basis for experimentation to test hypotheses. In this context, the Government would expect teachers to answer pupils' questions about creationism, intelligent design, and other religious beliefs within this scientific framework.

We will be publishing guidance for schools, on the way creationism and intelligent design relate to science teaching. It will be possible to ensure that the weight of scientific opinion is properly presented. The guidance will be available on the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority website in due course.

Scottish ID

2007-06-21T14:50:00.000Z

From here with my ( emphasis );

Rival to evolution may enter schools
Intelligent design considered for science curriculum

INTELLIGENT DESIGN, a controversial alternative theory to evolution, could become part of the science curriculum in Scottish schools.

The Sunday Herald has learned that the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) is considering provision for the theory as part of a review of the science course curriculum.

Intelligent design (ID) is one of a wide range of theories of origin currently taught as part of the Religious, Moral and Philosophy Studies (RMPS) SQA course, but could be moved elsewhere as part of the review. A spokesman for the SQA said: "It happens to sit in RMPS just now. If and when it does becomes part of the curriculum for science, which it may well do as part of this review, then that's where it could sit."

Scientists have already expressed fears that ID theory is entering science classrooms. An organisation called Truth in Science (TiS) sent teaching resource packs to every head of science in Scottish schools in September 2006. The material critiques the Darwinian theory of natural selection and promotes the idea that biological mechanisms are best explained by the idea of an intelligent designer.

Professor Andrew McIntosh, a director of Truth in Science, said: "We've had a lot of positive feedback about the DVDs, which included Scottish schools. There are quite a number of people who are indicating they are happy to use the resources."

Dr Simon Gage, director of the Edinburgh Science Festival, believes the influence of Truth in Science and ID theory is "worrying and dangerous". He said: "This is creationism with a wrapper on it, dressed up as pseudo-science. These people prey on ignorance and should be forbidden at the school door."

Alastair Noble is an educational consultant who has been invited by both denominational and non- denominational secondary schools to present ID on a scientific basis. He said: "I gauge a growing level of interest from pupils and teachers. My guess is that the (TiS) DVDs are being used by a small but significant number of teachers."

"It deserves formal consideration. It presents a scientific challenge to the construct that the world is the result of blind and purposeless forces."

How on earth can he do that when it isn't remotely scientific? A quick google shows he works for a Christian Charity organisation.

Ian Fraser, director of education for Inverclyde, is not in favour of prohibiting Truth in Science material and accepts teachers are free to present ID informally. He said: "I have no objection to intelligent design being advanced as one theory, but most teachers don't have time. I trust head teachers to make their own decisions about what is appropriate."

Simon Barrow, director of the faith think-tank Ekklesia, urged Scottish education authorities to prevent private organisations gaining undue influence. He said: "The UK education secretary and the English curriculum authority say clearly that ID is not to be taught in science. Scotland should follow suit."

Without clear guidelines, many scientists fear the ID controversy will create the appearance of significant debate among scientists over the validity of Darwinian evolution. Roger Downie, professor of zoological education at Glasgow University, said: "It's certainly worrying. ID hasn't got any testable hypotheses so it cannot be considered science. It is purely an acceptance, in a literal way, of a particular set of religious texts. Teachers may be being misled into regarding Truth in Science material, which sounds respectable, as bona fide. They should be sent some kind of guidance that this is not science."

An education spokeswoman for the Scottish Executive said: "We're not prescriptive as to books or materials. We provide guidelines, and within those guidelines it's up to schools to decide."

Michael McGrath, director of the Scottish Catholic Education Service, made it clear intelligent design was not part of science teaching in Catholic schools. He said: "There is a distinction between what is appropriate for religious education and what is appropriate for science. We wouldn't confuse one with the other."

A 2006 UK-wide Mori poll suggested 41% believed intelligent design should be taught as part of science education.

European Creation Vote

2007-06-20T17:53:00.000Z

A quote from here about this;

Evolution versus creation

Europe's main human rights body, the Council of Europe, will vote on a proposal next week to defend the teaching of evolution and keep creationist and intelligent design views out of science classes in state schools in its 47 member countries.

The unusual move shows that a United States trend for religiously-based attacks on the theory of evolution is also worrying European politicians.

They are suspicious of such arguments being put forward in their countries by Christian and Islamic groups.

Creationism Hits Bolton

2007-06-16T12:46:00.000Z

From here.

God should have a place in science teaching - head

A LEADING Bolton teacher says Creationism has a place in science and should be taught alongside evolution.

Philip Williamson, head of Canon Slade Church of England school, believes the theory, which suggests humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created by God, would be a useful topic for discussion in science lessons.

He said the theory of evolution as put forward by Charles Darwin was not fact and was instead a model which best explained the current scientific evidence.

Have a look at the full article and the comments - they are both worth a read.

My own thoughts are as follows;

In science facts are established by measurement, observation and independent verification, not by written authority (e.g. genesis).

When a scientist has an explanation or model which they think explains a range of facts and also predicts the results from some future experiments, measurements or observations, then this explanation is called a hypothesis.

If this hypothesis is shown to be true by many other scientists agreeing with the explanations it gives for the current facts and also when new facts come in which the hypothesis had predicted, then and only then will the hypothesis be "promoted" to the status of "theory".

This is very different from the everyday use of the word which can suggest that a theory is a bit of a guess.

Philip Williamson's comment about evolution not being a fact is therefore stretching the truth by a couple of dictionary definitions. This is not the kind of behaviour you expect from a head master.

What do his science teachers think of his comments? What about the parents of his pupils?

There is a comment underneath the article from someone claiming to be an ex-pupil which, regardless of whether or not this particular claim is true, does voice an opinion which reflects my own view and the official national curriculum position;

As an old Canon Slade pupil, I feel I can add some context to this.

Creationism (or intelligent design) was taught at Canon Slade as far back as 1993 when I was there. However, it was taught in Religious Studies (which was compulsory at the school to GCSE) and was taught exceptionally well, with pupils encouraged to debate the arguments for and against. It should be noted that these lessons also taught about Judaism, Islam and Atheism.

What should never happen is that Science lessons are devalued with religious debate. Wile you can argue for intelligent design, you can not argue against scientific evidence with regard to the age on the planet and the age of fossils. What started it all (the big bang) can be happily debated, but facts can not be ignored.

Any modern school (C of E or not), should see the value in debating religious beliefs and faiths, but the teachings of such should also be debated in the wider context of social and scientific development at the time. I consider myself a Christian, as a guide to living a life balanced with those around me. However, in this modern age, we need to all accept that while the Bible is an important historic document, written when peoples' understanding was much more simple, as a way of conveying a message, the literal belief in it (or any other historic religious writings) word for word is dangerous and can only further divide society and feed intolerance of other beliefs.

Well said.

- - -

Anyone local to this story who can shed any more light or who requires assistance, please get in touch.

An Example of Truth In Science's lack of interest in the Truth or Science

2007-06-07T20:49:00.000Z

A few days ago I was contacted by Chris Preedy who had exchanged some letters in The Times with Dr Richard Buggs regarding errors on the TiS web pages.

Chris is keen to put the record straight regarding this exchange, and I am very happy to oblige him by providing the full details of events here. This is a very clear example of the deceptive way in which TiS behave.

Chris sums his whole experience up very succinctly to me as follows ( my emphasis in bold );

Thanks for expressing an interest in the conclusion - such as it was - of my debate in The Times with Dr Buggs. During our exchange of letters, he seemed courteous and I genuinely believed that he genuinely believed what he was saying. However, in a less public forum he seems to have had no interest in responding to these points, or in correcting his website where he has conceded it to be in error. Even if I were totally mistaken on all of the following, he might have taken it as feedback showing that his website could be clearer in its explanations. Instead he has chosen to simply ignore my points, not even taking the time to send a one-line email saying he's too busy or uninterested in a dialogue. I have therefore been forced - reluctantly - to revise my opinion. I no longer believe that anyone at Truth in Science has any interest in promoting either truth or science. It seems that the only way to get any corrections made to their website is to shame them into doing so by pointing out the errors in public. This is not what I consider truthful, scientific or appropriate for teaching to children.

This is indeed strong stuff and Chris backs up his opinion in detail with the full texts and details of the exchange.

For clarity, the sequence of events was as follows:

Oct 7: Three apparently separate (but actually all written by members of TiS) letters appear in The Times supporting TiS sending materials to schools. In one, Dr Buggs issues an open challenge to find any errors in the materials.
Oct 11: Chris Preedy's letter appears in The Times.
Oct 18: Dr Bugg's response appears in The Times, and a separate response is posted on their website.

Chris writes; "The texts of all letters are on TiS website (for once it is useful as a reference source!)"

Here's TiS's response to Chris' letter, which gives the dates:

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/200/63/.

Here is a quick extract from the TiS article which shows the gloss which they placed upon the exchange so far;

I am grateful to Chris Preedy for this critique. Many who have accused us of scientific error have not thought it necessary to spend time substantiating their claims, and Chris Preedy is a welcome exception. I would be very grateful if he could inform TiS of the other errors he has found, and any errors which I may have inadvertently included in this response.

Sounds very reasonable doesn't it? What they don't tell you is that this was not the end of the matter. Chris has written to them since on more than one occasion. He did not get the gratitude mentioned above, instead he has had no response at all.

Next we will see Chris' final letter to TiS and Dr Buggs. He has sent this on two separate occasions in late 2006, and has yet to receive any response.

Chris introduces his letter as follows;

I have made slight alterations to the text below. Comments in [square brackets] are later additions, mostly pointing out places where TiS have altered their website since I originally wrote.

Here is the letter itself ( my emphasis in bold );

Dear Richard,

Following on from our dialogue in the Times (and the further response on your blog, which I have just discovered), I am happy to send you a more detailed list of my concerns regarding your website. I understand your difficulty in following exactly where on your website some of these claims appear; I trust you will understand that the letters page of the Times requires brevity, and is not necessarily the best place to debate in depth.

Points from my letter:
1 [Archaeopteryx is the only member of the dinosaur-bird transitional sequence] You have accepted that at least one of my points regarding archaeopteryx was correct, but your article stands unchanged. (I am not totally clear on which of these points you agree with from your letter as published.) Your second paragraph treats archaeopteryx as a single fossil, ignoring the array of dino-bird transitionals discovered during the 1990s. A more accurate representation of the current position would involve pointing out how remarkable this confirmation of Darwin's theory is. Darwin was able to predict not just the existence of transitional forms (never previously discovered), but the order they would appear in the fossil record. This stunning prediction is immediate strong evidence that his reasoning was correct (see my comment below on Popper.) [A new section, 'Did Birds Evolve from Dinosaurs?' has been added to the website since I last saw it. It does now make extensive reference to the Chinese fossil finds. In fact, it doesn't seem to have any problem with bird / therapod common ancestry at all, though they do attempt a case for an earlier common ancestor than most palaeontologists suggest. Sadly, no mention of the predictive power of evolution though. Can we take it that TiS now accepts that birds share common ancestry with dinosaurs?]

2 [Archaeopteryx lived after its theropod ancestors] You then continue to claim that archaeopteryx appeared after its theropod ancestors. Theropods first appeared in the late triassic or early jurassic. Archae did not arrive until the cretaceous. It is certainly true that several of the Chinese 'feathered dinosaurs' are later than archae but show more primitive features. This is no more a problem for evolution than the classic creationist 'if humans evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?' argument. Speciation allows branches to develop separately, and it is entirely possible for one branch to evolve more rapidly than another. [Despite the update to the archae pages, and despite Dr Buggs conceding in The Times that TiS was in error here, this still appears on their website. They persist in ignoring all evidence of early theropods, despite giving much credence to 'prtoavis'.]

3 [Misquotes] Your quote from Prof. Steve Jones is also highly misleading. Someone reading it is likely to come to the conclusion that Jones does not think there are any fossil transitionals, and therefore to the conclusion that there are no transitionals. Neither of these points is true, as Jones makes abundantly clear on the very next page of his book. Your letter to the Times reads as though you are defending educating students by misrepresenting the views of scientists, which puzzled me somewhat. The generally accepted standard of using quotes is not 'that they should concern only the matter at hand' - it is that they should accurately represent the views of the quotee on the matter at hand. This is doubly important since your entire point is based on Jones' views. [Although several misquotes seem to have been removed from the site, this one remains.]

4 [The fact that asexual bacteria do not form species shows that they do not evolve] Your claim that observed bacterial changes 'have not resulted in the production of a new species' appears in the section on 'Comparative Genetics and Biochemistry'. You specifically equate bacterial 'species' with human species, yet you do not acknowledge that a fundamental alteration to cell chemistry constitutes a species change. I acknowledge your response that you are claiming that this shows a limit to evolution, not that evolution does not occur; however, my point stands. How would you define a bacterial species? If you don't or can't, you have no point to make and this section of your article should be erased.

5 [There is no geological reason to expect Pre-Cambrian transitionals to be rare] Your section on the 'Cambrian explosion' is where you make the claim, cited in my Times letter, that there is no good geological reason to expect precambrian fossils to be rare: "Why such a gap should occur is not clear ... There does not seem to be a good reason why such a massive gap should exist." Since you deny making this claim in your response to me, can I take it that you will alter the offending paragraph? Aside from the extreme age of these rocks - older fossils being rarer than new, for obvious reasons - the Cambrian marks the arrival of hard body parts. The formation of fossils is a rare enough event in itself, but even by these standards the preservation of soft body parts is highly unusual. You correctly point out that such fossils have been found, but neglect to mention how rare they are. You also make no mention of precambrian transitionals here, instead incorrectly stating that none exist. [Despite Dr Buggs apparently denying that TiS makes this claim, it remains unaltered on their website. Do they claim this or not?]

6 [Isomers and abiogenesis] I have already pointed out that your claim that there is no natural method of distinguishing between optical isomers is incorrect. I acknowledge your response, but it seems misguided; there is no reason to assume that the early replicators were as efficient at this as later molecules. Although your response in the Times stated that I was mistaken on this point, your response on your web-site conceeds that I am correct, and disputes only the efficiency of this reaction. Your article still maintains the former, and I suggest it be corrected. [If I could pick one point for a reply, this would be it. TiS seem to be adopting the "Nah nah nah, I can't hear you" school of debate. There is research to show that l forms (those found in living creatures) form preferentially, and that a slight preference for one form of amino acid leads to deracemisation in water (i.e. one form comes to dominate exclusively). Since creationists have predicted so confidently that this cannot happen, and 'evolutionists' have predicted equally confidently that, since it clearly has happened, it must happen now, we have a testable difference. Creationism has been tested. It failed. Why would any website devoted to 'truth' seek to knowingly hide that fact?]

7 [Bacterial flagellum] 'Book Review - Darwin's Black Box'
You neglect to mention that good evolutionary pathways exist for each of the examples Behe cites. You also neglect to mention that Behe conceeded shortly after the publication of this book that evolution can produce systems that meet his definition of 'intelligent design'. His position for the last decade has been that IC 'needs more work' before it can be seen as an objection to evolution. Such work has not been forthcoming, and at the recent Dover trial, Behe was forced to conceed that ID was no more scientific than astrology. None of this would be apparent to readers of your review. You also fail to make clear that Behe accepts that there is overwhelming evidence for universal common descent, including that humans are descended from other apes.

You have responded to this point by criticising Prof. Richard Dawkins latest book [The Ancestors Tale - he has released another book since I wrote]. I am nonplussed. The fact that Dawkins does not present a complete model of flagellar evolution does not remotely mean that no such model exists. In fact, there are several. The difficulty is distinguishing between them; your claim that they do not exist is in error.

Ten more points:
1 'Comparative Genetics and Biochemistry'
Entire page. Creationists would presumably expect different 'created kinds' - sometimes referred to as 'baramins' - to have different biochemistry. Evolution could not explain with this, and predicted (correctly) that all creatures must have similar biochemistries. Creationists have since modified their theory to come up with 'common design'. However, common design by necessity means that a designer uses the same design wherever applicable.

Much work has been done on many biochemicals. Cytochrome C is the classic example, since it is almost universal and was one of the earliest studied. Cyt. c is functionally identical in all known animals (it fulfils the same function, and experimental evidence shows that bacteria that have their cyt. c replaced by that from other organisms suffer no impairment to their function), but its formula varies from animal to animal. Furthermore, that difference corresponds closely to the relatedness already deduced from the fossil record and morphology - so, for example, chimp cyt. c is identical to human cyt. c, but both are markedly different from sea anemone cyt. c and nearly identical to gorilla cyt. c. This is exactly as predicted by evolution, and has never been adequately explained by creationists to my knowledge.

Combined with the similar data from dozens of other such biomolecules, this prediction is perhaps the most resounding confirmation of universal common descent. It allows us to calculate 'family trees' of relatedness among multiple species, and those trees match our previous deductions in almost every detail. While you correctly point out that there are differences, I am concerned that your non-quantative emphasis on this point may leave readers with the impression that this is something other than minor differences - 'twigs' on the 'tree of life', to steal a metaphor. Your claim that similarity and difference at the molecular level cannot both be used as evidence for evolution entirely misses the point that it is the pattern of similarities that shows relatedness.
Your analogies to Foster and van Gogh simply highlight that the same does not apply to human design. I am also concerned that your comments on the non-universality of the genetic code might lead some to think that radically different genetic codes that could not have evolved naturally have been discovered. In particular, you have used the phrase 'many scientists', when it seems that 'few scientists' would be more accurate (considerably less than 1% of biochemists).

2 'Darwin's Finches'

I am unsure how you have come to the conclusion that because beak sizes varied only temporarily during the Galapagos drought, they cannot change permanantly (which is certainly how your article reads). Surely, unless someone can manage to breed Galapagos finches back to their mainland population morphology, they are and remain evidence that evolution by natural selection can produce permanant change in a population, and your article should make that clear.

If your only objection is that the changes are small scale, perhaps you should point your readers to evidence for large-scale change, rather than conclude that if this example doesn't show it, it does not happen.
3 'Development of Biological Resistance'
You declare that antibiotic resistance is temporary, and lasts only so long as the bacteria are exposed to that antibiotic. This may sometimes be true, but if there is no disadvantage to resistance, it is not the case.

Furthermore, since experimenters usually go to some lengths to ensure that all bacteria in a sample are from a single strain, your description of DNA transfer mechanisms between bacteria is irrelevant to this discussion - mutation is the only known mechanism by which new genes can arise.
Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion that 'most types of antibiotic resistance were in existence before antibiotics were developed'?

4 'Hominid Fossils'
You must be aware that neither of the sources you quote disputes the fact that humans have evolved. One is a non-scientist. Is this really the level that you think schoolchildren should be educated to? If you have no dispute with the mountain of fossil evidence that demonstrates a fine-grained evolutionary sequence leading to modern humans, why not make this clear?

5 'Embryology'
If your intention is to get textbooks to use photos of embryos - or at least better diagrams - then I fully support you. However, you go further and repeatedly claim or imply that the similarities Haeckel saw were almost totally fictitious. When you move from directly from criticising Haeckel's drawings to the Kent quotation which - correctly and without reference to Haeckel - points out the similarities between echinoderms and chordates, and then back to errors in Haeckel, the reader can hardly help but conclude that Kent's opinion is based on Haeckel's errors. Unless you are claiming this is the case, you should make clear that embryology supports evolution, irrespective of problems with Haeckel's work.

You also complain about the use of the term 'structures resembling gills'. Your point that embryos do not have gills is incorrect, but assuming you meant human or general mammalian embryos, that is why your source specifically describes them as 'structures resembling gills'. If you want to give your readers a clear idea of whether or not this is evidence for evolution you should, in my opinion, include the following points:

1) All vertebrate embryos have structures known as pharyngeal arches
2) In fish, these remain almost unchanged and become gill pouches
3) In mammals, these alter dramatically as the foetus develops and become part of the jaw and ear
4) In reptiles, these embryonic structures become the jaw
5) This ties in remarkably with the fossil record, which shows how reptilian jaw bones altered to form mammalian jaw and ear bones
6) (Optionally) No theory other than universal common descent has so far been proposed to explain this.

As a minimum, you should note that many textbooks have now replaced these drawings with photos, and that the accompanying text has had little if any change, since Haeckel's errors were not primarily to do with the embryological structures under question. Indeed, if you insist on discussing Haeckel's errors (rather than the genuine evidence), you might at least make clear what these errors were - largely concerned with scale, the presence / absence of a yolk sac, and sloppy labelling (by higher taxon rather than species and the outrageous labelling of a pig embryo as human).

6 'The Fossil Record'
Throughout this page, you repeat that there are no fossil transitionals and that fossils are a problem for evolution. Neither of these points is correct at any of the places you make them.

7 Your claim that a platypus has a bill 'like a duck' is also incorrect. A platypus' nose, although shaped like a bill, is fleshy, flexible and highly sensitive. It is not considered to be homologous to a duck's bill for the simple reason that it has nothing whatsoever in common with a duck's bill other than streamlining. [This claim has been removed during a complete rewrite of the 'Homology in Vertebrate Limbs' page, for which I thank TiS. Sadly, it has been replaced by an almost identical claim about a different taxon, gnetum. It's almost as if too many people recognise the platypus argument for the bunk it is, so TiS have replaced it with a more obscure example. It is also unfortunate for TiS that its new 'Homology in Vertebrate Limbs' page makes virtually no reference to vertebrate limbs, and seems unaware of the concept of 'statistical significance'.]

8 'The Miller-Urey Experiment'
Your section on 'Irrelevant atmosphere' erroneously gives the impression that most geologists do not think that the prebiotic atmosphere was reducing. You neglect to mention either the presence of minerals that cannot form under oxidising conditions prior to 3Mya (e.g. uraninite, 'red beds', banded iron formations, pyrite and unoxidised cerium), or the absence of minerals that require oxidising conditions to form. Exactly how oxidising [should read 'reducing', obviously] the atmosphere was is still debated, and this has a knock-on effect on the rate of production of simple biomolecules. However, your claim that evidence for a reducing atmosphere is 'tenuous' and that there is mounting evidence for an oxidising atmosphere are both in error.

9 You state that 'imformation is required' for certain chemical reactions to take place. This is untrue. What definition of 'information' are you using? How does chlorophyl (the example you use) contain information that non-biological molecules do not? Unless you can form this into a coherent argument (rather than an unsupported assertion), I suggest you remove this section.

10 Your section on the presence of gasses such as ammonia in the atmosphere gives the impression that they cannot be replaced (or that they can only be replaced by biological sources). This is not the case; volcanic sources can produce such gasses. Your figure of 30,000 years for methane is thus out of date and based on a false assumption. You also fail to mention that biological precursors are found in extraterrestrial sources as well, clearly demonstrating that they can be formed naturally.

Chris has been checking his records and informs me that the first version of his letter to TIS did not have these last three points in it, although he did add hem when he sent his letter in again, having been ignored the first time.

Some points for you to consider:
1 Although our discussion has been limited to errors appearing on your website, errors of ommission on your site can be just as serious. No discussion of 'truth in science' should lack a reference to what defines good science, such as the work of Karl Popper.

2 To my mind, however, the two greatest errors on your website appear in the first two sentences of your home page. I cannot demonstrate the falsity of these, so I will simply have to ask you to reply honestly. [Much good that did me, obviously] Is your intent really 'to promote good science education', or is it in fact primarily religious? And is biological evolution really to be your 'initial focus' or your only target? If the former, could you let me know when you anticipate attacking the theory of electromagnetism, the germ theory of disease, or Newton's theory of gravity? Or, for that matter, the Bohr atom which forms your logo? I would look forward to looking through your material on these subjects.

3 I would strongly encourage you to rethink your response to my letter on the ethics of quoting. There are themes throughout my concerns expressed above; you regularly present only part of the information in such a way as to give your readers an inaccurate impression.

[There are many, many more errors and misleading statements on the TiS website. It was my original intention to deal with the small number above and move on to the rest at a later date. Obviously, the 'discussion' never got that far.]

Yours sincerely,

Chris Preedy

Lets try to sum up. What have we learned about TiS from this?

Well for a start various members of TiS write to the Times supporting their own materials and not admitting or mentioning the fact they are their own materials, thereby accidentally giving the impression of some kind of wide-spread level of support for their actions.
Richard Buggs says one thing in public and does another in private.
Richard Buggs was not being truthful when he said he would correct errors on their pages.
Wow TiS do like to spin.

I would like to sincerely thank Chris Preedy for his contribution, particularly because it shines a light on the deceptive nature of this group. I, for one, am very pleased to know that people like Chris are prepared to stand up to TiS and try to protect our kids from the influence of such a group.

If anyone else has further information please get in touch.

I have sent an email to TiS today drawing their attention to this posting and asking for them to respond in detail to Chris' letter. I also suggested that they have a word with their ISP to find out why so much of their mail seems to be going missing ;-)

TiS News Blog - ID and the C of E

2007-06-04T16:53:00.000Z

This from the TiS "News Blog";

The Church of England’s new head of education has made comments supportive of teaching intelligent design (ID) in schools.

They don't mention that she does not advocate it being taught as science as does TiS. This really is breathtakingly selective quoting even for TiS - surely they must come clean about this at some point?

In an interview in the Times Educational Supplement last week, Mrs Jan Ainsworth said of ID: "While it is not something I would subscribe to, it is a recognition that there are different ways of looking at the evidence…you could do it in history of science."The only problem of course is that ID has only been around since the late 1980's. It is the lastest evolution of creationism whihc first mutated into Creation Science and then ID in an attempt by the creationists to circumvent US law preventiing religion being taught in state schools.

On Friday a spokesman told the Daily Mail that Mrs Ainsworth was "simply representing the fact that some schools currently discuss intelligent design" and that "she does not propose to prevent them from doing so".

Yesterday, on the BBC Radio 4 'Sunday' programme Mrs Ainsworth was asked if she was “lending credibility” to Truth in Science. She replied:

I think it depends on what you think education’s for. I do think some people have a view in their minds that if children are told something they will automatically believe it. It depends very much how the material is used in the classroom. And if it is to explore and allow children to develop the capacities to explore different ways of finding out things, different ways of deciding which view is right then I don’t see any problem because you’re helping them develop critical methods, rational methods, which is after all the point of education.

A full transcript of the interview can be found here.

The Church of England is responsible for 4690 schools. Mrs Ainsworth told the Times Educational Supplement that she did not know how many of these were currently teaching ID.

It should be noted that Mrs Ainsworth’s views differ from the position of Truth in Science, as she sees the place of ID to be primarily in the religious education. In the science classroom, she considers its place to be in the history of science, because it is “pre-scientific”.

At last TiS mention this key fact - that she doesn't want it taught as science. I wonder how many people stop reading before they get this far? Mrs Ainsworth comments seem to have the underlying assumption that ID and creationism are the same thing. TiS also deny this vehemently.

In contrast, TiS holds that the place of ID is in the science classroom, as a logical inference from scientific data. Mrs Ainsworth is mistaken in seeing ID as “pre-scientific” as it was widely held by the leading thinkers of the scientific revolution, and is the view of many scientists today.So no agreement there then.

Well not a completely logical position for TiS to take either when you think about it for a moment. On the one had ID is based upon modern research and books published in the last decade or so and has nothing to do with creationism. On the other hand the view of an intelligent designer held by some leading thinkers in the scientific revolution was in fact creationism and not ID. TiS could well end up in a right TiSsy, they are spinning around so quickly ;-)

Mrs Ainsworth’s views on the place of ID in schools are not dissimilar to those of the well-known science populariser Richard Dawkins. On 14 December 2006 in an interview shown on 'Dragon’s Eye', a BBC television programme on Welsh politics, Professor Dawkins said: “confine intelligent design to either the RE class or history of science.”

Despite this, Jan Ainsworth’s views have been criticised by the liberal think-tank Ekklesia (speaking to the TES), and the National Secular Society (speaking to the Guardian).

I wish the interviewer had asked her about her views on teaching Astrology in schools.

News

2007-06-02T06:47:00.000Z

1/6/2007 - Education Guardian - Intelligent design has place in science lessons, says CofE

The row over teaching the theory of intelligent design in science lessons was reignited today by the Church of England's new head of education.
The Rev Jan Ainsworth, who is responsible for more than 4,600 CofE schools, said intelligent design could form part of discussions in science lessons under the heading of history of science.

Intelligent design - the argument that living species are too complex to have evolved through Darwinian natural selection and must have a "designer" - is dismissed by the vast majority of scientists.

Ms Ainsworth told the Times Educational Supplement: "While it is not something I would subscribe to, it is a recognition that there are different ways of looking at the evidence.

"You would get howls of protest from the scientific community, which would say there is absolutely no place for it in the curriculum. But you could do it in history of science," she added, pointing out that religious education lessons in CofE schools include discussions of different beliefs.

The church today hastened to play down the significance of her comments.

The long-running battle between creationists and Darwinists over teaching evolution in schools in the US - dating to the 1925 "Monkey Trial" in Tennessee - has spilled over into the UK in recent years.

Earlier this year the government instructed schools in England not to use teaching materials promoting creationism and intelligent design circulated by the privately-funded group Truth in Science.

News & Views on ID

2007-05-13T12:48:00.000Z

Here is a selection of news and views on ID.

22/5/2007 - Guardian - The Wrecking of British Science

If the world's future lies in scientists' hands, the answers are unlikely to come from the UK unless we reverse decades of political neglect, argues Nobel laureate Harry Kroto.

Divisive dogma

Do I think there is any hope for UK? I am really not sure. It is beyond belief that in the 21st century, our prime minister and the Department for Education and Skills are diverting taxpayers' money to faith-based groups intent on propagating culturally divisive dogma that is antagonistic to the secular, enlightened philosophy that created the modern world.

It is a scandal that the present system is enabling a car salesman to divert significant government funds to propagate dogma such as "intelligent design" in our schools. State funds are also being used to support some schools that abuse impressionable young people by brainwashing them into believing that non-believers will burn for all eternity in the fires of hell. This policy is a perfect recipe for the creation of the next generation of homegrown and state-educated suicide bombers.

I think there is every likelihood that the lack of scientifically educated and aware young people in the UK will result in ever poorer performance on a global scale, and a takeover by the next generation of young Chinese and Indians, ravenous for the scientific knowledge that will free them from the shackles of present poverty levels. They are being actively encouraged by their governments, who understand that the future lies in a scientific education based on doubt and questioning, rather than on belief.

It is truly disturbing that a well-funded cohort of religious groups - aided, abetted and condoned by the Labour government - is undermining our science education. If they achieve any more success in their subversion of the intrinsic secular safeguards embodied in our democratic institutions and our educational system, there can be no doubt there is major trouble ahead. So my final message is: "Do Panic!"

12/4/2007 - Daily Telegraph - The Flaws in Intelligent Design

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is supported by the Pope

Thank God. If he had backed "Intelligent Design" I would have become a Scientologist. Because, frankly, there is about as much evidence for Intelligent Design as there is for the intergalactic emperor Xenu or whoever it is that L Ron Hubbard's disciples believe in.

Intelligent Design is Creationism. It argues that life forms are "irreducibly complex" and cannot have evolved because, erm... Darwin was wrong. OK, so maybe I'm simplifying the arguments of the ID lobby just a tad, but if you're looking for something to collect as a hobby, don't pick peer-reviewed scientific articles demonstrating the workings of Intelligent Design. There aren't any.

What did Benedict say? In essence, that you can't "prove" Darwin's theory, because you can't replicate mutations over millions of millennia in a laboratory. Also, the Pope doesn't believe that evolution can account for the creation of the universe.

He is a "theistic evolutionist", in other words, who thinks that God set evolution in motion (and that Richard Dawkins talks rot). He acknowledges that there are gaps in the theory - which is true, but they are gaps, not flaws - and that the science of evolution raises philosophical questions that it cannot answer. All very sensible.

But what a disappointment for the Discovery Institute, the ID organisation that persuaded Benedict's friend Cardinal Christoph Schönborn to endorse its ideas a couple of years ago (though he subsequently backtracked). Supporters of ID are now desperately spinning to suggest that the Pope implicitly supports the idea of an interventionist designer, but the truth is that if he had decided to back Intelligent Design he would have said so. And he didn't.

7/12/2006 - Guardian - Ministers to ban creationist teaching aids in science lessons

The government is to write to schools telling them that controversial teaching materials promoting creationism should not be used in science lessons.

The government has already stated that the Truth in Science materials should not be used in science lessons. On November 1, the education minister, Jim Knight, wrote: "Neither intelligent design nor creationism are recognised scientific theories and they are not included in the science curriculum. The Truth in Science information pack is therefore not an appropriate resource to support the science curriculum." The Department for Education said it was working with the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, the public body that oversees the national curriculum, to communicate this message directly to schools.
But Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrats' science spokesman, said: "I'm amazed that they have found it so difficult and it has taken so long." He feared that some teachers would use the packs to promote intelligent design as a belief or that it would be presented as a valid scientific theory.

"[Pupils] are somehow being told these agendas are alternative ways of looking at things. They are not at all," the Nobel prizewinner and prime mover in the Human Genome Project, John Sulston, said at a lecture last week at the British Museum. "One is science - a rational thought process which will carry us forward into the indefinite future. The other is a cop-out and they should not be juxtaposed in science lessons."

27/11/2006 - BBC - Dozens of British schools are using creationist materials in science classes, a move that has been condemned by government ministers.

. . .a Government minister has said that says that Intelligent Design is not included in the national curriculum and should not be taught in schools. The majority of scientists in Britain also support this view.

27/11/2006 - Guardian - Who are Truth in Science?

Truth in Science (TiS) is a UK-based private organisation funded by donations from individuals. The group would not say how many individuals have contributed funds or what its total budget is, however Andy McIntosh, a professor of thermodynamics at the University of Leeds, who is on the TiS board, said the organisation was in the process of applying for charitable status.
The pro-evolution group the British Centre for Science Education estimates that TiS has spent around £116,000 to date including employing a full-time administrator for 18 months. The group has four board members including a scientist, a businessman, a teacher and a minister in the Free Church of Scotland. They also have a three-member scientific panel and a seven-member council of reference.

The material sent out on September 18 to school science teachers included two DVDs called Unlocking the Mystery of Life, and Where Does the Evidence Lead? that are each around an hour long. The second has sections entitled What Darwin Didn't Know and The Design Inference: the scientific evidence for intelligent design.

The videos were produced in America and feature many key figures linked to the Discovery Institute in Seattle, a thinktank that has made concerted efforts to promote intelligent design and insert it into high school science lessons over there. Its stated aim is: "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

23/8/2006 - Daily Mail - Pope sacks astronomer over evolution debate

Pope Benedict XVI has sacked his chief astronomer after a series of public clashes over the theory of evolution.

He has removed Father George Coyne from his position as director of the Vatican Observatory after the American Jesuit priest repeatedly contradicted the Holy See's endorsement of "intelligent design" theory, which essentially backs the "Adam and Eve" theory of creation.

Benedict favours intelligent design, which says God directs the process of evolution, over Charles Darwin’s original theory which holds that species evolve through the random, unplanned processes of genetic mutation and the survival of the fittest.

But Father Coyne, the director of the Vatican Observatory for 28 years, is an outspoken supporter of Darwin’s theory, arguing that it is compatible with Christianity.

Although the Vatican did not give reasons for Father Coyne’s replacement, sources close to the Holy See say that Benedict would have been unhappy with the priest’s public opposition to intelligent design theory.

Father Coyne’s most notable intervention came after Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna, a former student of the Pope, put the case for intelligent design in an article in the New York Times in July last year.

Benedict, one of the most respected theologians in the Catholic Church, is understood to be deeply interested in the evolution debate, and has referred to the cosmos as an "intelligent project".

The removal of Father Coyne also comes just weeks before the Vatican hosts a weekend seminar to examine the impact Darwin's theory on the Church's teaching of Creation.

22/6/2006 - The Register - Scientists call for teaching of facts of evolution

Scientists across the world are calling for the "evidence-based facts" of evolution to be taught to all children.
The InterAcademy Panel, a grouping of more than 60 international science academies, warned in a statement that information about evolution was being withheld from many children.

"[We] have learned that [in some cases] scientific evidence, data, and testable theories about the origins and evolution of life on Earth are being concealed, denied, or confused with theories not testable by science," it said.
The scientists go on to outline the basic evidence-based facts they want to see at the core of a science education. The writers argue that although there is uncertainty over the finer details of evolution, there are some basic principles of the theory that scientific evidence has never contradicted.
These points include:
the planet is approximately 4.5bn years old
the emergence of life on Earth occurred around 2.5bn years ago
the trick of photosynthesis, which is described as the "ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life ... depends"
that since its emergence, life has taken various forms, all of which continue to evolve
commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin
The statement continues: "We urge decision makers, teachers, and parents to educate all children about the methods and discoveries of science and to foster an understanding of the science of nature.
"Knowledge of the natural world in which they live empowers people to meet human needs and protect the planet."
The statement is the latest installment of the long running creationist/intelligent designers vs. science and evolution battle.
Intelligent design is the thinly veiled creationist theory that some things are too complex to have evolved, and must have been designed by an intelligent higher power.

11/4/2006 - Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design

A statement opposing the misrepresentation of evolution in schools to promote particular religious beliefs was published today (11 April 2006) by the Royal Society, the UK national academy of science.

The statement points out that evolution is "recognised as the best explanation for the development of life on Earth from its beginnings and for the diversity of species" and that it is "rightly taught as an essential part of biology and science courses in schools, colleges and universities across the world".

It concludes: "Science has proved enormously successful in advancing our understanding of the world, and young people are entitled to learn about scientific knowledge, including evolution. They also have a right to learn how science advances, and that there are, of course, many things that science cannot yet explain. Some may wish to explore the compatibility, or otherwise, of science with various beliefs, and they should be encouraged to do so. However, young people are poorly served by deliberate attempts to withhold, distort or misrepresent scientific knowledge and understanding in order to promote particular religious beliefs."

Professor David Read, Vice-President of the Royal Society, said: "We felt that it would be timely to publish a clear statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design as there continues to be controversy about them in the UK and other countries. The Royal Society fully supports questioning and debate in science lessons, as long as it is not designed to undermine young people's confidence in the value of scientific evidence. But there have been a number of media reports, particularly relating to an academy in north-east England, which have highlighted some confusion among young people, parents, teachers and scientists about how our education system allows the promotion of creationist beliefs in relation to scientific knowledge. Our Government is pursuing a flexible education system, but it should also be able to ensure and demonstrate that young people in maintained schools or academies are not taught that the scientific evidence supports creationism and intelligent design in the way that it supports evolution."

. . .The statement also criticises attempts to present intelligent design as being based on scientific evidence: "Its supporters make only selective reference to the overwhelming scientific evidence that supports evolution, and treats gaps in current knowledge which, as in all areas of science, certainly exist as if they were evidence for a designer'. In this respect, intelligent design has far more in common with a religious belief in creationism than it has with science, which is based on evidence acquired through experiment and observation. The theory of evolution is supported by the weight of scientific evidence; the theory of intelligent design is not."

30/1/2006 Catholic Online - Intelligent Design belittles God, Vatican director says

VATICAN OBSERVATORY DIRECTOR SPEAKS ON EVOLUTION – Jesuit Father George V. Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory, is pictured in a 1996 file photo in Washington. In a Jan. 31 West Palm Beach, Fla., talk, Father Coyne says that Christianity is “radically creationist,” though the theory of Intelligent Design reduces and belittles God.

In his remarks, he also criticizes the cardinal archbishop of Vienna’s support for Intelligent Design and notes that Pope John Paul’s declaration that “evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis” is “a fundamental church teaching” which advances the evolutionary debate.

He calls “mistaken” the belief that the Bible should be used “as a source of scientific knowledge,” which then serves to “unduly complicate the debate over evolution.”

He points to the “marvelous intuition” of Roman Catholic Cardinal John Henry Newman who said in 1868, “the theory of Darwin, true or not, is not necessarily atheistic; on the contrary, it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of divine providence and skill.”

Pope John Paul Paul II, he adds, told the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996 that “new scientific knowledge has led us to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis.”

. . . the scientific theory of evolution, as all scientific theories, is completely neutral with respect to religious thinking. . .

. . . neo-Darwinian evolution is not in the words of the cardinal, ‘an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection. . .

. . . the apparent directionality seen by science in the evolutionary process does not require a designer. . .

. . . Intelligent Design is not science . . .

It is unfortunate that, especially here in America, creationism has come to mean some fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis. . .

22/12/2005 - Ekklesia - Theologians and scientists welcome Intelligent Design ban - news from ekklesia

Senior scientists and theologians are among those who have welcomed Tuesday's landmark decision by a Pennsylvania federal judge that so-called Intelligent Design (ID) has no legitimate place in the science classroom.

The ruling is a major setback for the Christian right, who have been trying to use ID to promote creationism as a legitimate educational alternative to rigorous scientific theory.

Although Intelligent Design proponents last night rushed to condemn the Kitzmiller -v- Dover decision as ëa political ruling', their cause was immediately undermined by the fact that the presiding judge is a Bush appointee, and by the thoroughness of the 139-page ruling.

Not only does it say that Intelligent Design has no scientific basis (a part of the judgement which will be a benchmark in other cases related to ID), it also accuses its advocates of falsification and dishonesty in presenting themselves and their views.

Indeed several ID supporters repeatedly lied to cover their motives even while professing religious beliefs, said the judge.
The Dover verdict was especially damaging for leading Intelligent Design advocate Michael Behe of Lehigh University. The ruling observed: '[O]n cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough.''
Among those who testified against ID in Dover was the noted Catholic scholar John F. Haught, Professor of Theology at Georgetown University, and author of "God After Darwin? A Theology of Evolution".

Simon Barrow, co-director of the UK religious think-tank Ekklesia, says he is also pleased by the verdict.

'Intelligent Design is basically a variant of creationism in pseudo-scientific clothing,' he comments. 'As such it is an embarrassment to thoughtful Christianity and a threat to good theology as well as scientific integrity.'

Barrow says that the creationist and ID movements have grown in strength in the UK in recent years, and may seek to use the government's new education bill - which encourages private bodies to run state schools - as a way of gaining a further educational foothold.

Back in 2002 Anglican bishops and major scientists wrote to PM Tony Blair to raise concerns about science teaching at Emmanuel City Technology College in Gateshead, run by a conservative Christian group.

Similarly, the Grace Academy, due to open in Solihull this year, with another to come in Coventry, says it will teach creationism, according to press reports.

'It is extremely important, in the interests of truth, to ensure that we do not go down this route in Britain', says Barrow. 'Creationism and ID should no more be taught in science classrooms than astrology and numerology.'

1/9/2005 - Guardian - One side can be wrong

Accepting 'intelligent design' in science classrooms would have disastrous consequences, warn Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne

As teachers, both of us have found that asking our students to analyse controversies is of enormous value to their education. What is wrong, then, with teaching both sides of the alleged controversy between evolution and creationism or "intelligent design" (ID)? And, by the way, don't be fooled by the disingenuous euphemism. There is nothing new about ID. It is simply creationism camouflaged with a new name to slip (with some success, thanks to loads of tax-free money and slick public-relations professionals) under the radar of the US Constitution's mandate for separation between church and state.

Why, then, would two lifelong educators and passionate advocates of the "both sides" style of teaching join with essentially all biologists in making an exception of the alleged controversy between creation and evolution? What is wrong with the apparently sweet reasonableness of "it is only fair to teach both sides"? The answer is simple. This is not a scientific controversy at all. And it is a time-wasting distraction because evolutionary science, perhaps more than any other major science, is bountifully endowed with genuine controversy.

. . . It is not a scientific argument at all, but a religious one. It might be worth discussing in a class on the history of ideas, in a philosophy class on popular logical fallacies, or in a comparative religion class on origin myths from around the world. But it no more belongs in a biology class than alchemy belongs in a chemistry class, phlogiston in a physics class or the stork theory in a sex education class. In those cases, the demand for equal time for "both theories" would be ludicrous. Similarly, in a class on 20th-century European history, who would demand equal time for the theory that the Holocaust never happened?

. . .There is no evidence in favour of intelligent design: only alleged gaps in the completeness of the evolutionary account, coupled with the "default" fallacy we have identified. And, while it is inevitably true that there are incompletenesses in evolutionary science, the positive evidence for the fact of evolution is truly massive, made up of hundreds of thousands of mutually corroborating observations. These come from areas such as geology, paleontology, comparative anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, ethology, biogeography, embryology and - increasingly nowadays - molecular genetics.

The weight of the evidence has become so heavy that opposition to the fact of evolution is laughable to all who are acquainted with even a fraction of the published data. Evolution is a fact: as much a fact as plate tectonics or the heliocentric solar system.

9/3/2002 - Guardian - Matter of faith - Creationism at the taxpayers' expense

Emmanuel College in Gateshead is over-subscribed, with three children applying for every place. Parents are impressed by its excellent Ofsted reports and good results. The achievements of this city technology college have rightly been acknowledged by the Labour government and it has won beacon status. A sister school is set to open in Middlesbrough in 2003 and there could be another five, thanks to the munificence of Emmanuel College's main backer, Sir Peter Vardy, who has put the profits of his 80 car dealerships into charities devoted to education and children.
Admirable you might say, and so it is in many respects, but Sir Peter Vardy is an evangelical Christian, as are many of the staff of Emmanuel College, and it is the latter's strong religious beliefs which are clearly influencing the children's scientific education. The headteacher argues that evolution and creationism are both "faith positions". Several senior staff have published material on teaching creationism. A conference at the school this weekend stars the head of Answers in Genesis, a leading proponent of American creationist Christianity, which has, until now, failed to gain ground on this side of the Atlantic.

Understandably, Professor Richard Dawkins is incensed at the idea of creationism being taught to children at the taxpayers' expense. However, many parents in Gateshead are unperturbed, and understandably more interested in good results than in details of the biology syllabus. Meanwhile, the motives of the Vardy Foundation are quite clear: a seamless combination of educating while exposing a new generation of souls to Christian evangelicalism. The case graphically shows up all the paradoxes of the government's current enthusiasm for faith schools. The Department of Education is fast finding itself in a quagmire of controversial judgments about what forms of religious education are acceptable and what are not.

How can I find out if my school is using this material?

2007-05-12T10:08:00.000Z

Quite simply, ask them.

The material itself comes in two DVD cases entitled;" Unlocking the mystery of Life" and "Where does the evidence lead?". This is what the pack looks like;

I wrote to the head of science of my son's school with this letter;

Dear Dr XXXX,
I am the father of XXXXXX XXXXXX who is currently in year XX and who is studying for his GCSE XXXXXXphysics, chemistry and biology exams, amongst others.
I am a great fan of science and I try to keep up with developments as much as I can. I have been very disturbed by the recent news articles regarding the activities of the pressure group “Truth In Science” who as far as I can tell have little to do with either. If you are not aware they are a group of fundamentalist Christians who are attempting to push their faith in science classes.
In September 2006 they issued a TiS Resource pack. The purported scientific evidence included in this pack has been refuted by the scientific authorities in this field. A key local supporter, and regular preacher of, creationism in local churches is Prof. Andy McIntosh of Leeds university.
A recent DfES spokesperson said on the BBC this week; “Neither creationism nor intelligent design are taught as a subject in schools, and are not specified in the science curriculum.”, and from the same BBC article; "The National Curriculum for science clearly sets down that pupils should be taught that the fossil record is evidence for evolution, and how variation and selection may lead to evolution or extinction." The chairman of the parliamentary science and technology committee, Phil Willis, said using the packs in science classes "elevated creationism" to the same level of debate as Darwinism and that there was no justification for that. He added: "There's little enough time with the school curriculum to deal with real science like climate change, energy and the weather. "This is quite frankly a distraction that science teachers can well do without." Dr Evan Harris, honorary associate of the National Secular Society and Liberal Democrat science spokesman, said it was worrying that some schools were giving "this nonsense" any credence. Many leading scientists argue that ideas about intelligent design should not be allowed in school because they are simply not scientific. Back in April, the Royal Society warned against allowing creationism in school saying that pupils must understand that science backs Darwin's theory of evolution. The society's statement said: "Young people are poorly served by deliberate attempts to withhold, distort or misrepresent scientific knowledge and understanding in order to promote particular religious beliefs."

I personally have no objection to religion being taught in RE classes.
Please can you advise me if you have received the pack and if you intend to use it.
If you do have it and don’t want it I would be grateful to borrow it or take a copy at your own convenience.
Thank you for your help, I look forward to your reply,
Yours faithfully,

Clearly you will need to adapt the text to suit your own circumstances, feel free to use as little or as much of this letter as suits you.

In my case the head of science rang me in response to the letter and explained that he would not dream of using the material and had already passed it on to the RE department.

He did in fact recover the pack from them and handed it over to me saying;

"It is difficult enough to teach evolution to the children, without this nonsense material, which appears to be designed to confuse them."

Google Update

2007-05-11T18:11:00.000Z

This blog now appears on the first page of a google search for "truth in science", at the very bottom of the page but at least we have made it to the first page.

This was one of the objectives I started out with - thanks to all who have visited - it's several hundred so far.

As always comments, feedback and suggestions are welcome.

Learning the Lessons part 1

2007-04-27T22:20:00.000Z

Truth In Science have a section of their web page reserved for lesson plans which are described as follows;

Activities are designed for GCSE Biology and are grouped according to subject.

Lets have a look and see how this compares with some non creationist/ID material on the same subject. We will simply list errors and confusions within the material offered.

The first lesson is on Irreducible Complexity itself.

* This topic is not covered in the curriculum and our children will not be tested on it. So I can't compare this with teaching materials on this specific subject because no-body else covers it. Sigh - oerhaps because it is not in the curriculum.
* A false dichotomy is created with the question "How did life get here - by design or by chance?" scientists don't think life happened totally randomly.
* The origin of life is not covered by the theory of evolution at all.
* The use of an interview from a newspaper means that the following concept is not explained properly; What a "theory" is in science, as opposed to everyday conversation. This is handy for TiS because ID is not a scientific theory but evolution is.
* All the problems associated with IC are covered in this earlier post of mine.
* A confusing and incomplete introduction of the bacterial flagellum which is no more than a flimsy attempt to put doubt in the students mind about how evolution explains this.

Now you could even ignore everything listed above apart from the first point. If this subject never has and never will be tested, why send out material on it to confuse our kids? Seems irrational to me.

Can anyone out there send me even one example of an exam question where the ID argument was even just a part of the answer? This is a genuine question. I don't think there has been such an exam question. Please tell me if I am wrong.

Toying with the Truth in Science - part 8

2007-04-26T14:16:00.000Z

At last we are on to the final learning outcome in the teachers manual which accompanied the DVDs sent to every UK High School and College by the Creationist group Truth In Science in September 2006.

This part is called "The Design Inference".

I will resist the temptation to analyse the very real religious and philosophical debates which cover this topic and instead stick to the main point here i.e. are the TiS claims true?, does the material fit with the curriculum?, and will this material help our kids to pass their exams?

The first learning point is;

Know that all scientists agree that there is an appearance of design in the world, but many attribute this to evolution.

There are two problems with this rather bald statement;

First of all it is a master of understatement to use the word "many" in this context. I have previously covered this subject in my post regarding the homepage of TiS where they make the claim that Intelligent Design is a genuine scientific controversy and not just some fringe claim which is unsupported by evidence. You can re-read these details here.

Secondly we see the phrase "attribute this to evolution". This gives no indication of how the Theory of Evolution can and does explain the appearance of design in the world. This is part of an overall pattern to deliberately leave students ignorant of the details of evolution so that TiS can argue against it. This is a logical fallacy/debating tactic called "strawman" which I covered in more detail in my last post. The last thing this tactic can ever achieve, of course, is to assist students in passing their exams. Then again we have seen that this is not high on the TiS agenda.

Evolution through natrual selection explains a process of UNintelligent design, which operates with no forethought, planning or even general direction of "progress". The process of evolution is supported by many lines of evidence which have been and still are being independently verified around the world. It is a fairly simple process with many hidden subtleties which is counterintuitive and requires carfeul thought and reflection to understand fully.

The head of science of my own son's High School, who kindly supplied me with my copy of the TiS materials, said;

"It is difficult enough to teach evolution to the children, without this nonsense material, which appears to be designed to confuse them."

The next learning outcomes are as follows;

Consider how we all regularly make inferences to intelligent design in detecting man-made objects.

Understand that we recognise design in objects if they are complex and fit a recognisable (specified) pattern.

None of this stuff is in the syllabus and our kids will not be tested on it.

Besides that major point lets list the logical fallacies and errors here;

Non-sequitur - The fact that people do something doesn't make it true.
Argument from popularity - we all do this often - still doesn't make it true.

What about many other examples of spontaneous or emergent complexity?
Snowflakes, ice crystals on a window, the Giants Causeway, the patterns of light on Oil on water, rainbows, the Rings of Saturn, fractals etc.

Know that Dr William Dembski provided a mathematical framework for detecting design,

Wikipedia's biography of Dembski is interesting. We can see that he is a mathematician after all but that he hasn't published very many papers on his subject. The subject mentioned above was not one of his papers. In fact he put it out in a book. There has been some controversy regarding the book at a recent ID trial in the USA when claims where made that the book was "peer reviewed" a process of error checking and proof reading involved in scientific papers of all kinds and designed to make sure work is accurate, original and significant before it is published. The trial judge ruled that,

"the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal"

If you want to see more about this trial you can see the full ruling and selected extracts on another blog of mine here.

Dembski himself has said,

"I'm not and never have been in the business of offering a strict mathematical proof for the inability of material mechanisms to generate specified complexity."

The next learning outcome is;

Understand that information is both complex and specified.

No I don't understand this either - I have been back and watched the film again and it is still goobledegook. This material is aimed at kids remember - clear as mud - but sounds impressive doesn't it?

Know that DNA stores more information and transmits it more efficiently than anything else in the known universe.

Again we are being led by the nose into the argument from personal incredulity. Wow - it must be god then.

Understand that there is no known process to explain the origin of information.

Yet more pseudoscientific claptrap. They never actually say how you can measure information do they, or precisely what they mean by information? They have been challenged on this quite a bit since this claim was first made but we still don't know what it is they are claiming here.

Oh, and by the way - none of this stuff about information theory would earn you a single mark in a GCSE biology exam - because it is not in the syllabus and is not tested.

OK are you ready for the big finish - this is what TiS have been leading up to all this time. Brace yourself;

Recognise that the inference of design makes sense of the word as a rational and comprehensible product of an intelligent mind.

Whisper from stage left;

Don't mention the G*D word!

We have come a long way and seen an awful lot of vacuous statements from TiS to get this far.

Just think to yourself and tell me what the scientific theory of Intelligent Design says actually happened.

As far as I can make out it is this;

"Sometime, somewhere, somebody, designed something intelligently in someway for some reason." A perfectly valid philosophy for life i.e. a religion.

But not something which will help any students to pass their biology exams.

Truth In Science want every school and college in the UK to teach Intelligent Design in science classes, now.

They want this now despite the fact that ID is not included in the syllabus and exams.

If ID were to be taught in science classes this would of course mean that our kids would get fewer marks, lower grades and maybe even fail in their exams as a direct result of learning material and answers which don't match those set by the exam boards.

Why on earth wouldn't TiS lobby for the inclusion of it in the syllabus and exam papers before teaching it? That way the kids don't suffer.

Why send the material out now and run the risk that kids grades will suffer? At the very least this shows a completely irresponsible attitude to the children themselves.

TiS claim that 50 odd schools and colleges are using this material already.

I will next move on to looking some of he material TiS have on their web site and recommended for use in classes.

Corrections and comment welcomed.

Toying with the Truth in Science - part 7

2007-04-25T15:28:00.000Z

We have made good progress and are now up to learning outcomes part 5 of 6 in the Teachers Manual and DVDs sent to every UK High School and College by the creationist group Truth In Science in September 2006.

We are now seeing more and more logical fallacies in these "learning outcomes", if you are interested in the subject of logical reasoning and trying to think clearly in general then I have a couple of pages on the web which may interest you;

The Guide to Thinking Straight gives you an introduction to basic logical arguments and also covers the most common fallacies you are likely to encounter.
Think Critical gives you general rules for how to evaluate evidence critically.

If you don't want to dig into critical thinking skills then don't worry because I will lay everything out for you anyway.

This section of the learning outcomes is entitled "The Language of Life"

Truth In Science start with;

Know that when mainstream scientists rejected the idea that chance alone caused the formation of the first protein, it was suggested that the properties of amino acids might make the process inevitable.

This particular logical fallacy is known as "strawman". To do this you give a simplified, incomplete or false description of whatever you are arguing against. This enables you to make a perfectly consistent and logical sounding case that it is wrong by arguing against the strawman and not arguing against the genuine article.

In this case TiS tell a straight lie - that scientists thought that life started by complete random chance. They then follow it up by describing vague hand waving by scientists claiming to explain things with the phrase "its inevitable", which of course explains nothing. The clever(ish) bit here is that they have made the strawman so very weak indeed, that they don't even need to give the counter argument. They simply leave students thinking that the phrase "it's inevitable" doesn't really explain anything. More seeds of doubt and confusion sown!

Also, let me just point out yet again, that the subject of the origin of life from lifeless materials (abiogenesis) is not in the curriculum anyway - so this is wasting the students time on a subject which they will not get tested on.

Know that Dr Dean Kenyon is a scientist who suggested this in a book "Biochemical Predestination".

Know that after 5 years he began to doubt the theory.

Understand that Kenyon could not explain how proteins could replicate without DNA, not the origins of DNA.

Here we have a rich mix of logical fallacies including the following;

Argument from Authority - if Kenyon says this then it must be true - isn't evidence more important - who is Kenyon anyway?
Argument from Ignorance - if science can't explain something then it can never be explained by science, ever. Why on earth not?
Non-sequitur - "it doesn't follow" - Remember that the Theory of Evolution does not cover the origin of life. So taking one argument about the origin of life (which is riddled with fallacies anyway) can't lead you to a conclusion about a different subject - it just doesn't follow. Also the fact that one scientist (Kenyon) can't explain something doesn't mean that no one else ever will this doesn't follow either.

Abiogenesis isn't on the curriculum and has nothing to do with evolution but if you are interested in learning a little more about it there is a basic summary here.

Understand the basic structure of the DNA molecule.

Understand how proteins are produced from DNA by a process of transcription, translation and folding.

Wow - we are back in the GCSE Biology curriculum at last. But not for long I fear.

Understand how over the course of many years Kenyon realised that the only way to explain the origin of life and the cell is by involving design from an intelligent source.

All together now . . .

Argument from Authority - what evidence backs this claim up?
Argument from Ignorance - the fact that we don't know something doesn't prove anything
Non-sequitur - it has nothing to do with evolution anyway.

Finally Kenyon himself is committing the argument from personal incredulity fallacy. This is when you state that because you can't explain something it must therefore be unexplainable. I could show you a card trick you can't explain but that doesn't mean I have supernatural powers does it.

He follows this up with the conclusion it must be god (sorry - an intelligent designer - snigger).

Once again our kids are no nearer passing their exams, probably even further away from a pass than when they started thanks to the seeds of doubt and confusion we have seen sown and finally perhaps slightly closer to the clutches of a religious group who want them to believe that every single word in the Bible is literally true.

Feedback and corrections appreciated.

Toying with the Truth in Science - part 6

2007-04-22T14:17:00.000Z

I recently spotted a group called "Science Just Science" (SjS) - now listed in the links on the left of the page.

SjS have done an analysis of much of the Truth In Science materials. I recommend you pop over and have a look at their site.

I will be continuing to work through the TiS materials myself but I will be drawing on the SjS material for inspiration and will provide direct links to the relevant articles there for you as well. They have kindly agreed to allow me to do this and even allowed the use some of their work if appropriate - thank you Science Just Science.

The SjS analysis of the teachers manual can be found here.

SjS have an approach which gives you many more links to background materials and suggestions for further reading, whereas I try to keep things fairly self contained in each posting although I do of course link to other materials as well. So whichever style you prefer you do at least now have a choice.

Anyway back to the Teachers manual sent with DVDs to all UK Schools and Colleges in Sept 2006 by the creationist group Truth In Science (TiS). I have covered the letter which accompanied this material in a previous post. The letter claims that the materials is not just OK for use in schools but will help children pass their exams. This claim gets even harder to accept when we see the title for section 4 of the "learning outcomes" which is entitled "How did life begin?" and we realise that this whole topic is not part of the curriculum.

Looking through my son's GCSE revision guide I did manage to find an "exam style" question and answer as follows;

1) How long ago do we believe that life began on Earth? (1 mark)
2) What are two different theories about how life first began on earth? (4 marks)

Let's look at the actual textbook answers and then compare them to the TiS material and you can judge for yourself how many marks your kids would get if your school was using the TiS DVDs.

AQA Science GCSE Biology give the following answers;

1) 3500 million years ago.
2) It arrived from another planet, possibly by meteorites, or there was a particular mix of chemicals on Earth; lightning provided the energy to create life from this mix.

Whereas TiS say the following;

Understand that Darwin concentrated on how new forms and structures arise in living organisms, and only briefly described how life might have originated in the first place.

Recognise Oparin's theory of chemical evolution.

Understand that proteins are a major component of all cells and carry out many essential processes.

Understand that proteins are made up of precise sequences of amino acids , and this determines a complex 3D structure which is essential to their function.

Recognise that a protein sequence is analogous to a sentence.

Understand that the chance of a simple protein of 100 amino acids forming in a chemical soup is vanishingly small.

Know that the simplest cells contain 600 different proteins of over 100 amino acids in length.

Recognise that mainstream scientists no longer believe that chance alone could have caused the formation of the first functional protein.

There is a very rich vein of rubbish in this but nothing which actually gives you any answers which might help you to pass the exam. Passing the exam is supposed to be the point.

Lets dive into their list of points and see how many mistakes, irrelevancies and misconceptions it contains - hold your nose.

The first point about Darwin is very true, the origin of life is a whole field in itself called abiogenesis and is not part of evolutionary theory at all. However, he way in which TiS present this fact appears to use it to attempt to cast doubt on Darwin's work. The fact that Darwin did not propose a detailed theory on the origin of life has no bearing on the accuracy of his theory.

The second point is rather odd - I can't find any reference to this at all in the revision guide for GCSE Biology - so whilst he did exist and did some ground breaking work in abiogenesis, I can't see how knowledge and understanding of Oparin would help anyone pass their exam - see here for more details.

The next two comments would seem to be harmless. This is unusual - perhaps they are merely prepare the ground for something more tasty?

The odds of a 100 amino acid protein forming from random combinations of amino acids is vanishingly small.

Ah! Now we see it. "Wow, how can the silly scientists pretend this isn't true?"

Well, scientists do not claim that this is how the first proteins were formed. This is a good example of the dishonest creationist tactic of producing very large numbers to impress people, when these numbers have no real bearing on the arguments. In addition to this always remember that this entire topic is not even in the curriculum.

. . . contains 600 different proteins . . .

"And you need how many? - Well - No chance at all then - Silly scientists!"

First of all you need to understand that scientists do not claim that the first living beings resembled even the simplest of modern cells. They use the idea of a protocell as an example of a system that preceeded modern cells. As remember that abiogenesis is a different subject from evolution and is not even in the curriculum.

And this next learning point rivals the classic "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question;

Scientists no longer believe that the first proteins were formed by chance.

In addition to the fact that no one has ever said that it was chance alone, this comment also harps back to the incomplete and vague descriptions of evolution theory we have already seen from TiS talking about "blind chance" and "random processes" etc. High school kids who have been taught the basic facts about evolution can explain that random variation plus natural selection is the key here. Missing out a major part of the theory and then making statements to prove it couldn't work is a favourite tactic of TiS.

As always, suggestions and corrections always gratefully accepted.

Toying with the Truth in Science - part 5

2007-04-15T21:32:00.000Z

This post continues my look at the teachers manual sent with DVDs to every UK school and college by the Creationist group Truth In Science.

Part 3 of the Learning outcomes is called; "Molecules and Mousetraps"

Understand the concept of "irreducible complexity" - that some machines are made up of many parts, all of which are necessary for function

Recognise the bacterial flagellum as an example of an irreducibly complex system

Understand that irreducibly complex structure cannot evolve by slight, successive, advantageous variations, because at certain points in their evolution they will lose function altogether

At the risk of repeating my earlier posts a little lets just pause for a moment to recognise that the entire set of "learning points" I will cover in this post share one thing in common. What they share is that neither your kids nor my kids will get asked any questions on them at all in their GCSE exams. Which does rather beg the question of why they are here at all. But we already know the answer to that don't we, so lets stick to showing you why this is a pile of bunk.

Well the first learning does itself give the full description of the concept of Irreducible Complexity itself. Irreducible complexity is an attempt to come up with an argument to prove that certain things could not possibly have evolved. Irreducible Complexity is not an accepted scientific term or concept which TiS just happen to be using in this particular case to argue a particular point. Irreducible Complexity (IC) is in fact a concoction of the Intelligent Deisgn/Creationism movement in the US.

Unfortunately IC can be a little tricky to get your head around. I have had IC used by creationists against me in discussions in a way that the developers of IC themselves did not intend. This is a fairly simple error to make for anyone unfamiliar with the ToE. In fact I have had to point this error out to several creationists. The error is illustrated by example as follows; Can an eye operate without the lens? Obviously not, er hang on there a moment, there are plenty of examples of eyes out there in the natural word which don't have lenses.

OK but alright we do kind of know what they mean don't we? Why am I being so picky with this. Let's carry on and see where we get to.

Can I operate without my heart? - No. What about my heart without one of the valves? - No. Ah now we have got the hang of it. Take an organism and slice a bit off and see it still works/lives - easy peasy - we can prove Darwin wrong in our sleep;-)

So its starting to sound a bit odd now isn't it. The reason for this and the reason why this is an error is because this is not how evolution suggests things actually do evolve - i.e. one whole part at a time - that would be a bit daft wouldn't it. There goes a creature with no eyes and wow looks it's kids have got eyes! No, that's not what evolution is at all.

The people who came up with IC in the first place did at least understand this and they did in fact intend IC to be used in just a few specific cases and not with this broad brush approach. Unfortunately most creationists know very little about evolution (many equate it with evil and so want nothing to do with it) and so readily fall into the error I have described and start asking where the first eye came from or how did a monkey give birth to a human etc. In fact I have had to point out this basic error to otherwise highly educated creationists with degree level qualifications.

So now that we have clarified the actual nature of the argument itself lets have a look at the logic and evidence and see how it stacks up.

The ToE states that nature always works with whatever is at hand but not always in the way described in the learning point i.e. with very gradual changes. Evolution can also work though the following evolutionary mechanisms; deletion of parts, addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of a system, change of function, and the addition of a second function to a part.

(BTW if you are interested, there are some very interesting examples of organisms which appear to have evolved in this way - this is possible because certain genes appear to act to control whole suites of other genes and this means that a single mutation in a gene in a centipede which controlled all the other genes which in turn controlled the development of a body segment and pair of legs, could make an extra segment and pair of legs in one fell swoop of variation - anyway back to the point)

Given enough time this can be shown to lead to some pretty amazing changes in both the form and structure of part of an organism and the use or function of the form or structure. For one such example consider the swim bladder in fish, and lungs in animals. (BTW its interesting to note that we now think that this happened the opposite way around to that suggested by Darwin himself - there are after all, no sacred cows in science) There are many more amazing such examples.

Next we see that TiS pick out just one of these aspects of evolution. They mentioned it but do not explain it very well;

Understand that Darwinian scientists dispute this, and that the theory of co-option (Borrowing parts from other machines) is a possible solution to the problem of irreducible complexity.

So, they even grant that this could explain away their own proof, but hang on - doesn't that mean it isnt a proof after all? I mean if that is a way to explain it away then what exactly does their proof prove?

Well once again I think that TiS are being subtle and clever here. The onus is placed upon the reader/student to think for themselves whether or not co-option does explain IC away. Of course the don't give the poor thinker anywhere near a clear picture of either concepts so it is very likely that the vast majority will be left doubting very much if co-option (whatever it is exactly) can explain away IC - after all IC seemed so sensible and easy to grasp didn't it? Well before I asked you to think about it a little bit anyway.

Next they try to finish the student off with more confirmation that Co-option (whatever it is) can't explain IC;

Recognise that the needle-nose cellular pump has some similarities to the bacterial flagellum, but that it only contains 10 of the 40 protein components of the flagellum.

Wow - only 10 out of 40 - no chance.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the evolution of the flagellum is now mapped out pretty thoroughly and yes it seems to work just fine without any miracles as far we can tell.

The full details are here.

The Creationists are presumably now looking around for the next thing to claim as Irreducibly Complex, they have after all been doing this quite a while and there are a long list of similar claims of IC subsequently shown to be false.

This page shows a bit more on this subject if you are interested.

Lets also remember the more general point that you can't use ignorance to prove something. i.e. if we can't currently explain the evolution of a particular structure this does not prove that we never will or that it was therefore designed. This simple bit of common sense actually leaves the whole IC issue dead in the water before they come up with the next IC claim anyway, if you stop to think about it for a moment.

The final learning outcomes for our kids from this section according to TiS is;

Recognise that the process by which cells assemble the flagellum is precise and complex, and has not been explained in Darwinian terms.

Well we just did didn't we.

Once again, none of this is in the syllabus and so it won't help the students pass their exams. But then we have seen by now that getting the kids through the exams is not what TiS are aiming for.

Further input on this topic from Tony Jackson in a comment on the Learning Lessons 1 entry;

Why should ‘irreducible complexity’ be taught at GCSE? Surely a science syllabus – especially at this elementary level – should reflect established (ie well-supported by the evidence) scientific theories and basic facts. Irreducible complexity fails in both of these criteria.

1)Many of the specific examples of ‘irreducible complexity’ that Michael Behe uses in his book are just plain wrong.

2)Even if there are examples in biology where some structure fits Behe’s definition, there are several well-known evolutionary mechanisms that can in principle account for their origin.

Behe wrote his book over ten years ago. That’s a very long time ago in today’s fast-paced science. It’s instructive to check up and see how the scientific community has reacted to the concept of ‘irreducible complexity’. To do this, there are a number of publicly accessible databases of the published scientific literature. Such literature searches are essential and routine tools that active scientists use all the time to follow what’s hot and to keep up with the latest discoveries. PubMed is one I use a lot. If you go there and type “irreducible complexity” you will get a grand total of er...seven papers that mention the phrase. But it’s worse than that because on closer inspection three of these papers are clearly irrelevant to Behe’s meaning and the remaining four papers are all critical of Behe.

Think about that. Even after more than ten years, it seems that there are simply no papers in the primary scientific literature that use the concept of ‘irreducible complexity’ to make predictions, to discover new insights into nature and to test hypotheses.

Contrast this state of affairs with a phenomenon called “RNA interference” (or RNAi), which was discovered at about the same time Behe wrote his book. Now on PubMed, I got 9371 hits for “RNA interference” and 8666 hits for “RNAi”.

That’s the difference between a genuine scientific discovery and an utterly bogus claim.

The next section in the TiS teachers manual is "How did life begin?" which has nothing to do with the theory of Evolution at all.

Any questions or corrections please let me know.

Toying with the Truth in Science - part 4

2007-04-01T13:33:00.000Z

Continuing from my last post here is part two of the teachers manual section entitled learning outcomes;

"What Darwin Didn't Know" is a bit of an odd title, don't you think? I can find no reference to any such thing in my sons Revision Guide or the National Curriculum.

Of course we have already spotted the Truth In Science agenda here, they set things up in part 1 to give a watered down and incomplete version of Darwin's Theory and now it looks like they are going to put more doubts in our kids minds about that.

The first learning outcome is;

Understand that in Darwin's lifetime scientists did not appreciate the complexity of living cells.

Well this is of course true, but also completely irrelevant to the KS4 science curriculum, or passing the exams.

Know that since the 1950s our knowledge of cells has exploded, and that they contain a huge variety of miniature machine.

Perhaps they think this is a "history of science" exam? Again this is off topic, interesting but irrelevant, and at best it could possibly distract kids from passing their exam.

Recognise that the bacterial flagellum is driven by a highly efficient miniature motor, with a complex structure.

We seem to be wandering further and further away from any kind of question which may possibly appear in a GCSE science exam. "Flagellum" is not even mentioned in my son's revision guide. Why introduce such an esoteric topic?

Understand that Darwin's theory relies on accumulating complexity by slight, successive, advantageous variations.

At last a summary of part of evolution. This should be the main topic of study. We finally get a quick mention. Not exactly laid out bit by bit with examples to help the students though. No explanation of how this happens step by step. "accumulating complexity" is not language which is really aimed at kids of 15 I think, almost as if they were trying to make it sound more complicated than it really is.

Know that Dr Michael Behe is an example of a scientist who questions whether Darwin's theory can account for the complexity of the cell.

Understand the process which Behe went through as a scientist in changing his ideas.

So this is the reason for the careful build up and the introduction of a topic which does not even appear in the state curriculum or the exams the kids will take.

Dr Behe published a book on "irreducible complexity" in 1996 called "Darwin's Black Box".

A very good resource regarding Behe can be found here.

Alternatively here is the introduction of his page on Wikipedia;

Michael Behe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Michael J. Behe (born January 18, 1952, in Altoona, Pennsylvania) is an American biochemist and intelligent design advocate. Behe is professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. He is married and has nine children. He advocates the idea that some structures are too complex at the biochemical level to be adequately explained as a result of evolutionary mechanisms. He has termed this concept "irreducible complexity".
Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of key cellular structures are strongly contested by the scientific community, including his own department, the Department of Biological Sciences, at Lehigh University. Likewise, his claims about intelligent design have been characterized as pseudoscience.
Behe's testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District is extensively cited by the judge in his ruling that intelligent design is not science but essentially religious in nature.

The argument he presents is actually a rehash of William Paley's argument from design which Darwin himself showed to be fallacious over 100 years ago.

An explanation of irreducible complexity and the arguments for and against it will be summarised in my next post which will cover part 3 of the learning outcomes which is called; "Molecules and Mousetraps".

Unfortunately this will contain precisely nothing which would help a chid pass their GCSE exam, but then TiS don't appear to be motivated by this anyway.

- - -

This small blog has been moving steadily up the Google pages in recent weeks. My objective is to be listed as the second entry behind TiS themselves when you Google "truth in science". The idea is to give people the other side of the argument bearing in mind the amount of money they have behind them and the very slick web site TiS are able to fund.

If you feel you could take a page from their web site or one of their download-able resources and analyse it, pointing out the faults and errors please let me know.

I am just one chap trying to do his bit and any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Toying with the Truth in Science - part 3

2007-03-29T13:04:00.000Z

Having dealt in my last few posts, with the DVDs and letter sent out to all UK Schools and colleges by the creationist group "Truth In Science" in September 2006, I can now turn my attention to the Teachers Manual which accompanied them.

This manual is called "Where does the evidence lead?". I shall aim to show you that the teachers' manual makes no effort to answer this question and that it's use in schools would in fact steer teachers and students in the opposite direction.

The booklet has an introduction which I will not cover simply because it repeats the various lies and distortions I have already discussed in parts 1 and 2 of the Toying with the Truth in Science posts.

The rest of the book is then split into 6 parts which are headed up as "learning outcomes". TiS themselves have tried to tell us that this material is relevant to the KS4 curriculum so lets compare the learning point they make with that.

To help me do this I have pinched my sons GCSE revision guide which is bang up to date and includes a section headed " What are you expected to know?"

Lets look at part 1 of the "teachers manual" titled "Life:The Big Questions";

Understand Darwin's theory of natural selection, and its historical background in the voyage of the Beagle and the publication of The Origin of Species

Well the problem with this is very subtle and in fact the actual sentence itself is fine. The problem is that nowhere in the films or the booklets does TiS actually explain what the theory of natural selection actually is. They only mentions bits and pieces, and never a complete whole. Never do we see the elements of the theory laid out piece by piece so as to be easy to understand and digest. Never presented in a way to help students learn, which is supposed to be what all this is about. Anyone would think TiS wanted the Theory of Evolution to look incomplete and badly thought out! Perish the thought.

Anyone who did not already know and understand the theory would see the gaps immediately, but remember the target audience here is our kids, who don't know the theory yet. So perhaps this DVD and manual has been carefully judged to give just enough information to make students think it has been explained, but nevertheless, to leave them so lacking in understanding that they are unable to defend the ideas it concerns against the simplest and most empty of counter arguments.

Turning to my son's text book we can see the following points; organisms compete for resources and mates, adaptations can help with these struggles, genetic information, variation, ToE is widely accepted (but not by all), ToE states that natural selection acts upon variation, evidence for evolution include fossils.

This is pretty brief and to the point as you might expect. Let's see how much of this is actually in the TiS material.

Understand that variation in beak shape and size of Galapagos finches provides evidence for evolution.

Yes it is, but the students will be left wondering why. The film does not explain why this is so. In my opinion this is deliberately done to further weaken the case for the Theory of Evolution in the minds of the students.

Know that domestic breeding is similar to natural selection.

Again, OK, but we still do not know what natural selection is? That is actually point number one in my son's text book.

Understand that Darwin provided the first plausible theory to explain the appearance of design in the natural world without an intelligent designer.

Well my son's book talks about Lamarck's theory which was the best guess before Darwin came along. In fact the bit of the curriculum which specifically talks about scientific controversies is actually referring to Lamarck's theory. Not, as the letter, teacher's guide and the home page of TiS would all lead you to believe, i.e. Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design has actually been specifically ruled out as unsuitable for coverage in science lessons. My previous posts in this series contain the full details of this.

OK this next one is a real killer.

Recognise that Darwinism is assumed to be true by most scientists.

To assume something means "suppose to be the case, without proof" or "adopt falsely".

This learning outcome is rather well designed to be slipped in under the radar of the unsuspecting. We however, are suspecting TiS quite a bit by now, and we are in a position to ask further questions that the students may not be able to come up with.

If students did think of these questions the teachers' manual leave the teacher in the dark as to what the answers actually are. I will ask;

What evidence is there that most scientists suppose the theory of evolution is true, without proof?

The final learning outcome listed in part 1 is;

Recognise that a growing number of scientists question the true extent of the creative power of natural selection.

I covered the slowly growing list of scientists who have signed a very tepid statement doubting if evolution can account for everything we see alone, which is a sensible scientific position to take, versus a very strong statement signed by PhDs called Steve. This demonstrates just how tiny a minority the "growing number" is in the real world.

So to summarise;

Don't explain evolution properly, make it good and ropey
Ignore the curriculum advice regarding previous theories and controversy and pretend they actually mean your own pet faith
Slip in straight forward lies about the views of most scientists and
Cap it all off with a misleading summary of the scientific controversy, or lack of one.

Look out for an analysis of "Learning Outcomes Part 2 - What Darwin Didn't Know" in my next post.

Toying with the Truth in Science - part 2

2007-03-20T19:03:00.000Z

In my last post I started to cover the letter sent to all UK schools and colleges in September 2006 along with the DVD materials. In this post we will finish off the detailed analysis of the letter.

The third paragraph starts like this;

Intelligent Design is frequently menioned in news and scientific media, but most current school textbooks do not equip pupils to be informed participants in the discussion.

Well now, is ID frequently mentioned in the press? Yes it is mentioned from time to time there is some discussion, most of it by extremely well respected scientists saying that ID is basically rubbish. Is it mentioned frequently? How long is a piece of string? In any case there is far far less coverage in the UK than in the US. In fact you get far more press space taken up with Astrology, stories about UFO's, psychics and the like but no one seriously suggests that they should be covered by school science text books.

I analyse the odd ID article myself on my own blog from time to time. You really don't need letters after your name to pull the arguments apart and expose the emptiness of the ID claims.

Anyway we are discussing the issue, "Is ID mentioned in the press?", we are discussing it because the TiS letter seems to be implying that something which is being discussed in the press should be covered in school textbooks. They don't say why this should be so.

When you stop to think about it - there is no actual reason why this should be so. The contents of our textbooks depends upon the contents of the curriculum, it does not and should not depend upon the daily press.

What about the scientific media? Well I can only find reference to 9 peer reviewed papers on ID. There are tens of thousands on evolution. Of these 9 ID papers, 8 don't even publish any original research. This should not be a surprise from a "theory of ID" which simply states that sometime, somewhere, somebody intelligent designed something for no apparent reason. The ID papers all have very weak, if any, peer review and the one which does include some research does not actually address design at all.

More details on these papers can be found here.

So is ID a suitable subject for school science text books because it is in the news and scientific media?

No.

By the way, while we are on the subject of scientific controversies, just think for a moment about the many fields where various hypothesis or theories are nowhere near as widely accepted as evolution theory is. Do various groups of scientists who favour minority views in their fields send DVD packs to high schools as part of the scientific debate? No, they do research and publish papers and try to win the debate by providing evidence. That is how science works and the fact that ID proponents don't follow this at all is another reason why this is not science.

Anyway, the letter goes on to say;

In February 2005, Lord Filkin, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the DfES, named Intelligent Design as a theory that could be discussed in schools (Hansard, House of Lords Written Answer 21 Feb 2005). We consider this to be one of the most important scientific issues that students can consider, and we are sending this letter and resource pack to every secondary school and college in the United Kingdom.

Well if that is what the government wants they who am I to argue? Hang on though. They say Lord Filkin said it "could be discussed", what does this mean? I believe in free speech, I think schools and students should be able to discuss anything they like. What exactly would a minister say could not be discussed in UK schools? Let's look carefully at what TiS have done here; they have jumped straight from "could be discussed" to claiming justification for sending out packs of materials for science classes.

If you have read the rest of this blog then you probably know what I am going to discuss next. If you haven't read it then you might anyway be thinking that February 2005 to September 2006 is a long time for nothing else to be said by the government on this subject, and you would be right.

In fact the government has actually said quite a bit more since then, the only thing is, what was said doesn't support the mangled version of reality that TiS are pushing. So guess what? They conveniently chose to ignore these further comments from the Minister for Schools.

Here they are;

Thank you for your letter of 21 March addressed to Ruth Kelly enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Cambridge about the teaching of creationism in the GCSE curriculum. I am replying as the Minister responsible for this area of education.
The science programme of study is statutory and indicates what must be taught, it does not list what should not be taught as such a list would inevitably become prohibitively long. Creationism and intelligent design are not included in either the present science programme of study or the revised science programme of study, to be implemented in September 2006.
The purpose of the science programme of study for key stage 4 is to enable young people to develop their understanding of science as a subject discipline ("how science works"), together with the skills and knowledge to make appropriate decisions about science as it affects their lives now and in the future.
The present science programme of study indicates that pupils should be taught:
that the fossil record is evidence for evolution, (Sc2.3h)
how variation and selection may lead to evolution or to extinction, (Sc2.3j)
how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence [for example Darwin's theory of evolution]. (Sc1.1b)
The scientific controversy referred to in the programme of study is that arising from Darwin's rejection of existing scientific theories based on the evidence he had collected. An example of such a theory is inheritance of acquired characteristics supported, among others, by the French scientist Lamark and based on the available scientific evidence at the time.
Creationism cannot be used as an example of a scientific controversy as it has no empirical evidence to support it and no underpinning scientific principles or explanations. It belongs in a different realm of knowledge, that of religion.
In Religious Education (RE) lessons pupils could work from unit 9B in the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority/Department for Education and Skills scheme of work for RE, which explores where the universe came from. 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 use of the word "theory" can mislead those not familiar with science as a domain of knowledge because it is different from the everyday meaning. In science the meaning is much less tentative and indicates a substantial amount of supporting evidence, underpinned by principles and explanations, and accepted by the international scientific community. However, it also signals that all scientific knowledge is considered to be tentative as it can be principle be disproved by new evidence.
Intelligent design is sometimes erroneously advanced as a scientific theory but it has no underpinning scientific principles or explanations supporting it and it is not accepted by the international scientific community.
Jacqui Smith, MP (Minister of State for Schools and 14-19 Learners)

After the issue of the packs came to the government's attention, this written answer was given;

Graham Stringer: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what advice he plans to give to schools on the information pack circulated to all schools by Truth in Science.

Jim Knight : It is up to schools to decide what teaching resources they need to help them deliver the national curriculum for science effectively. Neither intelligent design nor creationism are recognised scientific theories and they are not included in the science curriculum, the Truth in Science information pack is therefore not an appropriate resource to support the science curriculum.

The national curriculum for science clearly sets down that pupils should be taught: how uncertainties in scientific knowledge and scientific ideas change over time; the role of the scientific community in validating these changes; variation within species can lead to evolutionary changes; and, similarities and differences between species can be measured and classified.

From this page in Hansard.

The letter goes on to say;

We consider this to be one of the most important scientific issues that students can consider, and are sending this letter and resource pack to every school and college in the United Kingdom.

Well they don't say why they think it is so important. This is because they struggle to do this without using the G-- word. They genuinely, honestly and completely without reason, equate evolution with some kind of lack of moral fibre and spirituality. Yes I know that sounds odd but I will cover more of this in a later Blog and show you what I mean.

The rest of the letter explains that the second DVD is made of of short extracts of the first one and then asks for feedback.

Ok lets quickly summarise;

In September 2006 a letter with two DVDs was sent to every UK High School by Truth in Science.

We have seen that it has a misleading set up. That it contains downright fibs about the scientific context and finally culminates in a quote from a Government minister taken out of context and used to justify sending to schools something which the Government has explicitly rejected as unsuitable for use in schools.

Now I don't agree with everything the government does from time to time. But I do try to conduct myself openly and honestly. Truth in Science do know about the Government statements which say that their packs are not suitable for school use. They deliberately choose not to mention this on their web site, even now, months later, what else can this be but a deliberate attempt to mislead. Talk about a lack of moral fibre.

These relevant and straightforward facts reveal "Truth in Science" as an organisation which conveniently ignores such facts when they don't suit them. Not a lot of Truth in Truth in Science so far.

If you think that this kind of behaviour is both annoying and duplicitous just wait until we start to look at their "scientific claims".

Toying with the Truth in Science - part 1

2007-03-17T13:35:00.000Z

In my last post I reviewed the contents of the DVDs sent by TiS, at great expense, to every UK high school and college. This post will cover the letter sent with the DVDs.

The letter is addressed to the Head of Science and is signed by Andy McIntosh.

It starts benignly enough with the following;

New GCSE Specifications emphasise that students must understand how science works, to help them engage with and challenge the science they meet in everyday life. Students need to adopt a critical, questioning frame of mind, understanding how science impacts society and their lives.

Minor quibble - that last bit sounds a bit American to my ears - shouldn't that be ". . .impacts ON society. . .".

The next bit starts to stretch the truth a little;

To help staff at your school teach these topics . . .

Which topics? Ah - critical thinking and questioning - but wait for it . . .

. . . I have pleasure in enclosing free copies of the DVDs Unlocking the Mystery of Life and Where Does the Evidence Lead? These are classroom resources that outline a current scientific controversy over the origin of life and its diversity. They describe evidence for and against Darwin's theory of evolution, and a current alternative theory of Intelligent Design."

Here we go again. This is a variation on the cleverly implied claim on the TiS home page that evolution is a controversial science. Here we also have the conflation of Evolution theory with theories on the Origin of Life. Evolution theory makes no comment on the origin of life at all.

With regard to the diversity of life and evolution I covered this topic in an earlier post and demonstrated why evolution is not controversial at all by any reasonable person's measure of "controversy".

The issue of the origin of life is not scientifically controversial either, but rather interestingly, for almost exactly the opposite reason. Evolution has a ton of evidence from many different fields backing it up and is not controversial in that very, very few scientists don't accept it as fact (all of whom - surprise surprise - think the bible is absolutely and literally true).

Work on the origin of life has so far provided little evidence to back up any of half a dozen semi popular current hypothesis. No one seems to be claiming that they have any evidence that they know how life did actually start. Science so far has gotten no further than establishing when it happened, sometime between 3.9 and 3.5 billion years ago, and the fact that various "building blocks of life" can be easily generated by replicating conditions we think existed on the early earth. So this isn't controversial in the sense that no one has proposed anything at all as proven so there is not anything to disagree with and have a controversy about.

Half an hours web surfing has also failed to turn up any reference to the origin of life in any UK Science National Curricula so this appears to be a complete non-sequitur. (Please let me know if this is wrong - Mark)

Having watched the DVDs I strongly dispute the claim that they make that they show evidence for evolution - they have very little content at all. We do get some pretty shots of the wonderful wildlife of the Galapagos with comments such as; "variations in beak shape and size of the Galapagos finches provides evidence for evolution". We get no overview of the theory itself and the claims it actually makes to help us understand why different beak shape and sizes are good evidence and we get none of the other evidence for evolution which the National Curriculum covers.

In my view the filmmakers are deliberately setting up a particularly weak strawman version of the actual Theory of Evolution (ToE), to better enable them to cast doubt on it later on.

Finally in this paragraph of the letter they mention a "current alternative theory". The evidence we covered in an earlier post shows this be a simple lie - it is not accepted as an alternative in any sense of the word.

They also label Intelligent Design a "theory". In the scientific usage of the word, theory means an explanatory framework or idea which is backed up by lots of facts. In scientific talk, quite contrary to everyday usage, a theory is higher up the hierarchy of truth than a fact because it is in fact based on lots of facts.

In addition for a theory to be accepted as scientific it must be falsifiable; i.e. be capable of being proved false in some way. In other words it must be possible to make some observation or do some kind of experiment where the result proves that the theory is false. Evolution passes this test very easily and could be shown to be false in thousands of ways. E.g. a static fossil record, later forms of life fossilised out of developmental order men with dinosaurs, true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together; a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating; observations of organisms being created.

Intelligent Design fails this measure of science because you can always claim that your intelligent designer did it that way for reasons of their own which we don't or can't understand. In other words the idea that "god did it" can not be disproved at all by anything at all.

There was a famous court case in the US where the teaching of Intelligent Design in science classes was challenged. In the US it is against the constitution to teach religion. To defend themselves the ID side simply had to show that their claim that life was intelligently designed was science. After weeks of evidence they were dismissed as liars and pedlars of creationist propaganda.

I did an extensive blog entry on the judgement here if you want to read more about it.

To recap, we have seen misleading statements, outright lies and clever distortions of the truth and I have only covered the first two paragraphs in the letter - there are three more yet to come.

Comments welcome.

DVD materials sent to British schools and colleges: a review

2007-03-14T16:27:00.000Z

In September 2006 the group calling itself Truth in Science sent a pack of two DVD’s and a booklet to every high school and college in the UK.

I have now obtained the pack form my local school and have looked at it for myself.

This is my review on Amazon.co.uk( I have updated it a little and added a link to the evidence regarding the flagellum );

This is one of two videos sent to all UK high schools in September 2006 with a letter saying that it will help staff teach students "to adopt a critical questioning frame of mind".

Someone with half a mind will see through this as the science content is so incredibly thin.

I sat down with pen and paper and at the end of the hour could list the main claims made in this programme as follows;

1) No one can explain exactly how a bacterial flagellum evolved.
2) No one knows exactly how life started.
3) Life looks like it was designed because its really, really complicated and it looks like it was designed.

The video then leaves a rather large door open ready for someone to start talking religion - but stops at that point.

A rebuttal can be simply made as follows;
1) There is no evolutionary explanation for the existence of bacterial flagellum - yet. Who is setting the deadline? Or are they film makers claiming it is impossible to explain this? If so, why would it be impossible? Much good scientific work has been done to show this is bunk - have a quick look in the literature and you will find it. Here is a good up to date summary.
2) We don't know how life started. Well science is working on this question as well - again the video seems to claim we never will know but gives no evidence for why this should be so. None of this proves evolution theory wrong. The theory of evolution does not claim to have solved this scientific puzzle, in fact it does not comment on the origin of life at all.
3) Life looks like it was designed because its really, really complicated. Well, in fact, evolution theory claims it was designed, blindly and unintelligently, by the various processes described in the theory, and without any intelligent designer.

They do not address any of the huge mass of other evidence in favour of evolution.

What exactly is the theory of intelligent design? Sometime, someplace, somehow, someone/thing designed something intelligently. Feel the detail!

Just to let the other shoe drop - yes - this is a bunch of devout Christians trying to scrape any kind of case together to preserve their belief that a literal interpretation of the bible is true. 6,000 year old earth, dinosaurs on the Ark etc.

You may wonder why a group with such disparate qualifications got together. There are lawyers and philosophers here as well as a few scientists. Well they all have this same religious belief in common which mean's that they "know" evolution is wrong because it says so in the Bible - not exactly an unbiased assessment of the evidence.

PS. they use an analogy of a mousetrap. Whilst this has some merits at the molecular level I have seen this completely confuse people as it absolutely does not work as an analogy for anything more complicated like the eye etc. This is pretty obvious to anyone who has tried to explain evolution with these kinds of stories and so not to clarify it's use in this case is tantamount to deliberate disingenuousness.
Several of the people on the video were embarrassed if not completely humiliated by the court judgement in the US at the beginning of 2006 which completely dismissed any claims that these ideas and theories are scientific and not religious.”

The second DVD contains the same material but split up into 10 minute segments. This is rather ridiculously called ;"Where Does The Evidence Lead?".

At the risk of pointing out the obvious it is funny because the people at Truth in Science don't follow the evidence to the truth because they already know what that truth is - it says what it is in the Bible.

Future posts will cover the short workbook which accompanies the DVD's exposing the fallacious and misleading content for what it is.

False claims on the home page of Truth In Science

2007-03-13T16:06:00.001Z

This is an extract of the home page of the ironically named, "truth in science" web site;

The theory of Darwinian evolution has been presented as scientifically uncontroversial and the only credible explanation of origins. This is despite the National Curriculum which states:

Pupils should be taught…
“how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence (for example, Darwin's theory of evolution)”
The National Curriculum for Key Stage 4 Science (Sc1: Scientific enquiry)

Few schools have taught this controversy. This is partly because many popular textbooks present Darwinism as the only scientific theory of origins and give little coverage to alternative theories, sometimes misrepresenting them.

New GCSE Science Specifications in September 2006 give a fresh opportunity to reconsider what is taught about origins in science lessons. These specifications place an emphasis on students understanding 'How Science Works'. This concept is explained as follows by the Edexcel Examination Board:
“How Science Works is primarily about helping students to engage with and challenge the science they meet in everyday life. Students need to adopt a critical, questioning frame of mind, going ‘behind the scenes’ to understand the workings of science and how it impacts on society and their lives.”

We consider that it is time for students to be permitted to adopt a critical approach to Darwinism in science lessons. They should be given fair and accurate presentations of alternative views.”

Ok lets just take the key points here in order. They categorically state that the theory of evolution has been presented as scientifically uncontroversial.

This is true. It has been presented as such because it is uncontroversial. Let me try to prove it to you.

Look here at the Steve project which has the names of PhD’s who have signed up to a very strongly worded statement that says this;

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

You can only sign up to this if you have a PhD and your name is Steve i.e. about 1% of the population of Phd”s. They currently have 775 or lets say 775 x 100 = 77,500 scientists signing up to this.

Creationists/ID ers have also generated various lists - with much weaker statements - with few signatures and without making sure they are all PhD’s.

The most optimistic lists I can find have only about 600 sigs. A quick calculation based on these numbers shows 99% of scientists very strongly backing evolution and stating ID is rubbish. So no evolution is not scientifically controversial.

Truth in Science then quote a part of the curriculum which talks of scientific controversies being taught. They then say few schools have taught this controversy.

Now bearing mind what I have just said about how un-controversial this subject is then why would the government as part of the National Curriculum imply that it is? Something’s not right here.

The fact of the matter is that this is NOT, in truth, what the Government are actually talking about - why would you think they were? Oh yes Truth In Science “accidentally” gave you that impression didn’t they.

Have a look at this;

Truth in Science is currently pushing Intelligent Design. This is what Jacqui Smith, Minister of State for Schools, had to say about it in April 2006:

Intelligent design is sometimes erroneously advanced as a scientific theory but it has no underpinning scientific principles or explanations supporting it and it is not accepted by the international scientific community. - Jacqui Smith MP, Minister of State for Schools and 14-19 Learners

And this, again from the Minister for Schools;

The scientific controversy referred to in the programme of study is that arising from Darwin's rejection of existing scientific theories based on the evidence he had collected. An example of such a theory is inheritance of acquired characteristics supported, among others, by the French scientist Lamark and based on the available scientific evidence at the time.
Creationism cannot be used as an example of a scientific controversy as it has no empirical evidence to support it and no underpinning scientific principles or explanations. It belongs in a different realm of knowledge, that of religion.

The full letter can be seen here

So there we are. Truth In Science have deliberately set up the main page of their web site to mislead people and also to misrepresent the governments position.

- - -

Quote for the day;

“The zeal which begins with hypocrisy must conclude in treachery; at first it deceives, at last it betrays”
Francis Bacon, Sr. quotes (English Lawyer and Philosopher. 1561-1626)

Introduction

2007-03-13T14:59:00.001Z

The purpose of this occasional blog is to reveal the truth that lies beneath the group calling themselves "Truth In Science".

They actively campaign to get their own narrow religious views taught in British schools - as science. Yes read that again.

They are not short of funds having sent out thousands of DVD packs to British schools and colleges last year. I do not know where these funds have come from. I will try to find out.

I am a father of three, with no formal science qualification and a full time job. So this will be an occasional series which will be limited by the time I have available. I am motivated in part by my love for science, also my love for the truth and also by a wish not to see religion taught in science classes. I am an atheist myself and firmly believe in the freedom of religion and the freedom from religion which exists in Britain today. I firmly support the teaching of a wide range of religious beliefs in schools in the UK in Religious Education classes.

If I point out scientific errors I will back this up with appropriate references - I will not be making any arguments based upon my own authority - I claim none.

I will start by going through the truth in science web site and give you a running commentary which points out the distortions , lies, hidden context and the underlying agenda behind this group.

I also run my own personal occaisional blog called Cogita Tute - Think For Yourself ;

Cogita Tute - A Sceptical Blog

Some of the early material will come from this blog.

Comments are welcomed.