Creationism Hits Scotland

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

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

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'

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

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

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

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".

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

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

Giving creationists the oxygen of publicity

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

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

The Origins of Truth In Science

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.

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.

Scottish ID

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.

Creationism Hits Bolton

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.

TiS News Blog - ID and the C of E

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 & Views on ID

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.