Creationism: bad science, bad religion, bad education

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)

Government Announcement

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.

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

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."

Learning the Lessons part 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.