1. Comment #72584 by Cartomancer on September 21, 2007 at 7:29 pm

Mr Givan said: "I have never believed in the theory of birth by sexual reproduction and, like many people, believe in teaching that the stork is responsible. I believe science points to stork theory but our schools are teaching a very narrow remit and many exclude alternative theories to sexual reproduction. I have asked the Council to write to local schools encouraging them to give equality of treatment to other theories of the origins of life and how babies come into existence."

Other Comments by Cartomancer

2. Comment #72586 by EastCoastAtheist on September 21, 2007 at 7:39 pm

Very nice post, Cartomancer. It clearly puts the whole creationism/ID theory in perspective.

Other Comments by EastCoastAtheist

3. Comment #72590 by mandrellian on September 21, 2007 at 8:00 pm

Storks are a legitimate scientific hypothesis but no properly wide-ranging class on baby-sources would be complete without also mentioning the Cabbage Patch theory...

Other Comments by mandrellian

4. Comment #72591 by zenmite on September 21, 2007 at 8:00 pm

Shouldn't they also teach the demon-possession theory of disease alongside the narrow, limited theories of modern medicine? Maybe the flat-earth theory of geography should be included alongside traditional spherical-earth theory too.

Other Comments by zenmite

5. Comment #72592 by Theocrapcy on September 21, 2007 at 8:01 pm

Holy crap, don't these people ever take the hint?

Other Comments by Theocrapcy

6. Comment #72595 by JamesDB on September 21, 2007 at 8:08 pm

I really don't understand why these people don't pay attention to what happens in the world. Dont' they realize that this has been tried over and over and always ends up the same. Creationism isn't science so where are they getting the idea that it is. Maybe we need to make some kind of creation island where all these people can live cut off from the normal rational world, there they can believe whatever they want and teach eachother whatever they make up, which seems to be what they do anyway.

Other Comments by JamesDB

7. Comment #72596 by Russell Blackford on September 21, 2007 at 8:14 pm

The scariest part of this is the statement by the spokesperson for the Department of Education. What is the point of having government regulation of education if it is going to allow schools to teach pseudoscience or just plain bad science? Surely there should be standards on this. It's the last thing anybody should want to deregulate.

Hey, maybe some schools should explore alternative ideas about chemistry such as phlogiston theory, with all its charms, or alternatives to modern accounts of reproduction such as the delightful preformationist theory (in which tiny people already exist inside women with tinier people inside of them, or at least the female ones, and so on, like Russian dolls back to infinity), or alternatives to modern astronomy such as the ingenious conjectures of Ptolemy and Tycho Brahe.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

8. Comment #72597 by liberalartist on September 21, 2007 at 8:19 pm

The irony in denying evolution is that most people don't realize they are dependent on that knowledge daily for the medicines that have been developed, vaccines, cures, etc. They want to wrap themselves up in ignorance like a security blanket. The modern world struggles forward but religious people are trying to pull us all back.

Other Comments by liberalartist

9. Comment #72598 by Cartomancer on September 21, 2007 at 8:22 pm

Hey, why do we even have to teach historically grounded nonsense in schools? Why can't I have equal time for my own invisible goblins on roller-skates theory of dynamics?

Other Comments by Cartomancer

10. Comment #72600 by dannywalk on September 21, 2007 at 8:47 pm

I was educated in Northern Ireland, and am actually from the council area mentioned. It sounds bad, but the vast majority of head teachers will treat this with the contempt it deserves.

Remember, half the schools are Catholic maintained, so will probably avoid anything suggested by the DUP (Northern Ireland Politics being what they are) and the few head teachers I know from the state school side are in the most part too smart to give this any attention at all. The council have little or no power of school curriculum,. and good job too. This is an example of the system working FOR sense and reason.

Other Comments by dannywalk

11. Comment #72601 by Quine on September 21, 2007 at 8:47 pm

I wish I could send each of these people a copy of Edward Humes' excellent book Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America's Soul
http://www.amazon.com/Monkey-Girl-Evolution-Education-Religion/dp/0060885483
which documents the whole Dover fiasco, complete with profiles of the idiots who started it. I would love for them to consider what their profiles will look like in the next book if they go ahead with this nonsense.

Other Comments by Quine

12. Comment #72604 by kurzweilfreak on September 21, 2007 at 10:10 pm

Just once for a change, I'd like to see some creationist retard back up their demands on their own. If they want various "alternatives" to evolution taught.... name them! But wait, don't just stop there! Not only must you name them, but also present a completed course curriculum available for public review. And since your "alternative" theories should be able to stand on their own scientific merits since they'll be, ya know, in a science class, a whole curriculum just on "arguments" against evolution isn't gonna cut it.

Please, have one of them, or hell, a whole committee, please type up a publicly viewable course curriculum of what you plan to teach. Be specific. Fill in details. I await this action. For bonus points, I would love for them to submit their definitions of "education", "science", and to submit a short paper explaining exactly how they understand that the theory of evolution (a biological field) I'm assuming they have the most problem with relates to the origin of the planet (geology and astronomy). Extra bonus points: explain the difference between astronomy and astrology, just for shits and giggles. That should be fun.

I await with baited breath.

Other Comments by kurzweilfreak

13. Comment #72609 by devolved on September 21, 2007 at 10:57 pm

Comment #72595 by JamesDB

Creationism isn't science so where are they getting the idea that it is.

No it isn't, but creation scientists do science just as well as evolutionary scientists (and that can be proven). Neither belief system (in evolution or in special creation) is science; they're both beliefs about what happened in the past and scientists of both persuasions look at exactly the same evidence and same facts and draw different conclusions.
Science as such supports neither an atheistic or religious view of the world. It's no more rational to believe that life started as a result of luck than that it was the result of a supernatural act of God.

Comment #72597 by liberalartist

The irony in denying evolution is that most people don't realize they are dependent on that knowledge daily for the medicines that have been developed, vaccines, cures, etc.

So if that is true provide some proof. Louis Pasteur was both a Christian and an opponent of evolution yet his scientific work has been of immense benefit to mankind and many lives have been saved. What basis do you have for claiming that vaccines and cures are in any way dependent on a belief in evolution.

Other Comments by devolved

14. Comment #72611 by irate_atheist on September 21, 2007 at 11:12 pm

So who created your God, Devolved.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

15. Comment #72613 by irate_atheist on September 21, 2007 at 11:22 pm

Oh, and Newton was a firm believer in Alchemy. Are you saying we should take that seriously too?

People say there's a fine line between genius and madness, and not without reason.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

16. Comment #72621 by aitchkay on September 22, 2007 at 1:02 am

Roughly translated, devolved (again) wrote

Blah blah blah nonsense and bollocks, not to mention the hotly debated question of blather gibberish twaddle

Isn't it about time you found a dictionary and looked up the word 'evidence'? Once you understand what it is and why it is important, feel free to search for some to support your supernatural beliefs. If you find any, please share it with us. Until then, kindly fuck off.

Other Comments by aitchkay

17. Comment #72623 by epeeist on September 22, 2007 at 1:12 am

Comment #72609 by devolved

Welcome back devolved. Are you intending to ask for Floodology to be taught in science classes as well?

We might support this if you got around to answering all the questions that that have been raised with you on this topic, as well as a number of others.

Other Comments by epeeist

18. Comment #72629 by photopedia on September 22, 2007 at 1:54 am

Comment #72596 by Russell Blackford.

What is the point of having government regulation of education if it is going to allow schools to teach pseudoscience or just plain bad science? Surely there should be standards on this. It's the last thing anybody should want to deregulate.

Russell. I don't think it is quite as bad as you infer from the Dept of Education statement.
As a resident of Lisburn City I would agree entirely with dannywalk's comment #72600. There are so many checks and balances in the State Education sector here in the UK that a crackpot like Paul Givan is unlikely to get past the starting post with his proposal.
I'm not so sure about the so-called Faith Schools which Tony Blair and others have encouraged lately. I AM concerned that these schools are already able to teach their children all sorts of dangerous nonsense.

Other Comments by photopedia

19. Comment #72630 by Northern Bright on September 22, 2007 at 2:28 am

Neither belief system (in evolution or in special creation) is science; they're both beliefs about what happened in the past and scientists of both persuasions look at exactly the same evidence and same facts and draw different conclusions.

If you're going to call evolution a belief system rather than science, you may as well subscribe to the view that EVERYTHING is a belief system, ALL truth is simply what you'd like it to be, and that there is no such thing as true science at all.

Not only is there a HUGE volume of evidence - and I use the word in its scientific sense - that points to the truth of evolution, but there is simply none that points to its being fundamentally wrong.

As for your final sentence, you are mistaken. There are indeed a small number of scientists who reject evolution and argue in favour of creationism instead. But they don't do this as a result of objectively assessing the evidence and simply reaching a different conclusion. They do it because, in their religiously blinkered minds, Bible teaching is the ultimate trump card. The evidence may point to evolution, but the Bible says God created everything and so that must be right. This is religion in action, not science.

Other Comments by Northern Bright

20. Comment #72633 by Acleron on September 22, 2007 at 3:15 am

Devolved
No it isn't, but creation scientists do science just as well as evolutionary scientists (and that can be proven).

Creationists do not do science at all. If a scientist sees evidence that contradicts a theory that theory is discarded or amended. Creationists just discard the data. All the evidence supports the theory of evolution, no evidence contradicts it.

Other Comments by Acleron

21. Comment #72635 by BillySands on September 22, 2007 at 3:26 am

I saw Epeeist's response to Devolved's post first, and unfortunately, I predicted what devolved had written. Evolution is not science eh?, tell that to molecular biologists, ethologists, anatomists, zoologists, paleontologists, botanists etc....
Creationists who do "science" are being highly selective and dishonest. I saw Ken Ham recently, and his pitch was all about upholding biblical authority - not objective science.
Any way, devolved, you ran away last time before telling me if you found the dinosaur fossils that would kill off that nasty secular relgion of evolution that is responsible for atheism, homosexuality and unpatriotic Americans. So, have you?
I dont know why, but I've somehow got it into my head that you are Irish. If so, that is a good enough reason not to teach creationism, if all it does is close off your mind and defend a position that is refuted by the evidence. A position that you yourself say that you are not qualified to look at impartially. A position that you have previously said is supported only by your own prejudices.

Other Comments by BillySands

22. Comment #72637 by BillySands on September 22, 2007 at 3:52 am

Great tea pot,

I'm not obsessed with it. The views of the religious on homosexuality are a serious challenge to their position of "moral superiority" It shows how following a book poisons minds. This was a big issue when I went to see Ken Ham talk too. According to him, believing in Darwinism leads to the acceptance of homosexual practices - which he considers evil.
As long as idiots keep comming on this site saying christianity is right, I'm going to keep challenging them on their religion induced bigotry - seems fair

EDIT I see you removed your question, but I'll keep my answer for future reference

Other Comments by BillySands

23. Comment #72638 by NJS on September 22, 2007 at 3:58 am

This us a good story for me as it shows that the argument "NI is about politics not religion" is bollocks. Every facet of their lives comes from the bigotry and ignorance inherent in cult separation.

Also the poster who mentioned that the catholic schools wouldn't take any notice because its proposed by the DUP - what's wrong with not taking notice because the bloke is an idiot?

I honestly think the catholic church's stance on teaching evolution and ID is extremely reluctant - see recent comments on evolution from the head paedophile.

Other Comments by NJS

24. Comment #72640 by Yorker on September 22, 2007 at 4:07 am

10. Comment #72600 by dannywalk

Nice touch of reality there Danny. Whilst I agree with everyone on the stupidity of the proposal, I know from experience that most people in NI are not a bunch of religion-crazed loonies.

Other Comments by Yorker

25. Comment #72642 by BillySands on September 22, 2007 at 4:15 am

What basis do you have for claiming that vaccines and cures are in any way dependent on a belief in evolution.

Erm, Anigenic variabiliy! how about evolution of drug resistance too. Selective chemotherapy also has it's basis in phylogenetic differences too.

Other Comments by BillySands

26. Comment #72644 by alexmzk on September 22, 2007 at 4:18 am

this is a bit worryingly close to home. while it seems that faith schools are starting to fall out of favour in the US, over here in the UK, people seem to be on the brink of accepting them as a good idea.
very worrying indeed.

Other Comments by alexmzk

27. Comment #72645 by Roger Stanyard on September 22, 2007 at 4:20 am

"No it isn't, but creation scientists do science just as well as evolutionary scientists (and that can be proven). Neither belief system (in evolution or in special creation) is science; they're both beliefs about what happened in the past and scientists of both persuasions look at exactly the same evidence and same facts and draw different conclusions."

Really? I'll call your bluff on this. Where is the evidence that demonstrates your point about creationist scientists?

Let's ask you the simplest possible route to answer this. What is the contribution of creationist science to mainstream science?

Um, over the last 50 years, precisely zero - not a zilch, nothing, damn all....

Lets have a look at the universiotes where creationist scientists are working and see what their creationist research has turned out. Um, the 20 or so Seventh Day Adventist universities, the Nazarene universities, Biolo, Regent, Bryan. Liberty, Oral Robert...

Zlirch? Why has not one of the academics from these universties every turned out a peer-reviewed paper or research that supports the creationist position? Nothing. Silence.

I put it to you that far from being the equal of mainstream scientists, creationist scientists are staggering piss-poor, at best associated with fourth tier American universtoes that are little more than Bible studies schools and largely absent from mainstream research.

I can count on the fingures on my hands the number of creationist scientists in full time employment in Britian today and not one of them is anywhere near the top of their profession.

Moreover, the creationist scientists can't produce good science because of their a priori acceptance of a 19th century and extreme version of sola scriptura. It is not even sound theology.

It is also totaly idiotic to claim that the theory of evolution by natural selection is not science but just a belief. It is nothing but science, 100%. It uses the scientific method and can be tested by the scientific method. Creation science can't.

I'll call your bluff on this as well. If creation science is on a par with evolutionary theory, please tell us all here what is the scietific theory of creationism and how can it be tested by the scientific method.

The creationists have had 50 years to come up with this and control university after university inthe USA. You have the resources. Now where the hell is it?

Or have you been lying all along by claiming that creation science IS science?

Why is it that fundamentalists, as soon as they open their mouths, turn out to be unutterably stupid?

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

28. Comment #72648 by shaunfletcher on September 22, 2007 at 4:31 am

What creationists don't understand (or those that do go to huge lengths to hide it) is that science is about finding something out through observation or theory, studying it, checking exhaustively for any evidence that it is not true, getting others to do the same, and then and only then concluding it is true, and then a rolling process of studying it more to see if any new evidence comes along that proves it is not true.

This order of events is so alien to their mindset that they literally cannot conceive that that might be what scientists are doing. They really believe that scientists spend 20 years in the lab or field looking for evidence that supports their preexisting position, and discarding evidence that does not.

The reason they think that is because that is what they would do.

Other Comments by shaunfletcher

29. Comment #72649 by konquererz on September 22, 2007 at 4:32 am

Christ, AIDS is a prime example of current evolution in the world. Come now, is someone seriously going to argue that evolution did happen and isn't happening now? Nonsense, no person who has given reasonable study to this can say that. Idiots! I want to not be so harsh, but its idiot to form you opinions based on one or two religious books written by someone who already hadn't studied the scientific basis for evolution and the other written some 2500 years ago when they thought the earth was flat! Call it what it is, stupidity!

Other Comments by konquererz

30. Comment #72650 by BillySands on September 22, 2007 at 4:38 am

Why is it that fundamentalists, as soon as they open their mouths, turn out to be unutterably stupid?

Not only that, they lie. see here for example: I checked the flagellum page at "truthinscience" http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/240/63/
they cite this paper as evidence that the flagellum gave rise to the ttss and not the otherway around http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/17/7116
they say

The authors disagree with the idea that the flagellum has evolved from the TTSS, and write that TTSS genes are "derived from" (p. 7120) flagellar genes. There is some evidence that the simpler structure of the TTSS could have evolved from the more complex structure of the flagellum, not vice versa.

However, the paper actually says

The structural features of the flagellum, along with the evidence of homology between FliI and ATP synthase subunits and between MotA/B and the secretion proteins TolQ-TolR, suggests that it originated as a primitive secretion system (16), first involving ATPase and then adding the rod, hook, and filament components by gene duplication and diversification. Its original role as a secretion apparatus is also supported by the clear links between the flagellum and the TTSS, a protein delivery system whose genetic architecture is similar to and derived from a flagellar gene complex (17, 20).

The paper also points out that some proteins are not necessary for flagellar function, further reducing its complexity.
Typical lying fundies!

Other Comments by BillySands

31. Comment #72651 by Roger Stanyard on September 22, 2007 at 4:40 am

"Louis Pasteur was both a Christian and an opponent of evolution yet his scientific work has been of immense benefit to mankind and many lives have been saved. What basis do you have for claiming that vaccines and cures are in any way dependent on a belief in evolution."

Oh no, not this idiotic game again. "sientist XYZ in the 16th/17th/18/18th century was a Christian and therefore evolutionary theory is wrong. So what if he didn't believe in evolutionary theory? He was working at a time when it was very little understood. James Watt didn't understand (or know about) the second law of thermodynamics but that didn't stop him being a fabulously talented engineer. I wouldn't, though, trust the professional capability of a mechanical engineer today who didn't have a thorough grounding in 2LOT.

I wouldn't, likewise, trust a scientist working on vacines today who believes that there is no threat from viruses or bacteria evolving. Getting that wrong really is a matter of life or death to millions.

Or, is it, as I suspect, you are trying to pull a fast one on everyone in here and what you really accept is micro-evolution (which is what most creationists accept). In that case, so what if Pasteur didn't believe in micro-evolution. You look to be pulling a fast one on us.

Perhaps you ought to read The Literal Interpretation of Genesis. It shows why Christians who take a literal interpretation of the bible make themselves idiotic in the eyes of the rest of the world.

It was written by St Augustine in AD 408. Plus ca change.

Roger Stanyard

British Centre for Science Education.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

32. Comment #72655 by BillySands on September 22, 2007 at 4:55 am

It was actually the phylogenetic similarities between small pox and cow pox that let Jenners approach be sucessfull. He may not have known that, but this relatedness is what underpinned his success in generating a small poxvaccine. Using this knowledge today, we should be able to make vaccines that are effective against several closely related species.
Does devolved claim that his "loving" god made these nasty diseases too?

The problem concerning HIV vaccines are discussed here http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1857809

Other Comments by BillySands

33. Comment #72662 by icanus on September 22, 2007 at 6:15 am

Up to the individual school?

Maybe it should also be up to the individual school if they want to teach that 2+2=384, or that all matter is composed of varying proportions of earth, air, water and fire?

Other Comments by icanus

34. Comment #72668 by Northern Bright on September 22, 2007 at 6:54 am

There are some wonderfully sane posts in here. Roger Stanyard and shaunfletcher, thank you for your robust defences of science and scientific method. If ever there was good cause to be passionate and forthright and to refuse to take prisoners, it is over this nonsensical and outrageous claim that creationism is scientific.

And icanus - I agree wholeheartedly with the implication of your post too: I don't think schools - even privately funded ones - should have the right to make individual judgements on whether to teach lies as truth or not.

By all means teach creationism alongside other mythological beliefs in RE lessons (though not with the suggestion that they may be true), but it has no place whatsoever in science lessons - or in any other lesson where it might be taught as fact, come to that.

Of course, my view on that will change the moment devolved comes up with that scientific evidence you've asked for, Roger. Anyone here expecting me to have to retract any time soon?

Other Comments by Northern Bright

35. Comment #72677 by SilentMike on September 22, 2007 at 8:44 am

I feel physically ill. It never ends.

Will these people never grow out of this nonesense?

Other Comments by SilentMike

36. Comment #72679 by TheCelestialTeapot on September 22, 2007 at 8:48 am

My favorite part of reality is that it exists despite whatever opinions or beliefs I may hold about it. Mr Givan said: "I have never believed in the theory of evolution and, like many people believe in the teaching of creation... Well that's great! Believe whatever you want Mr. Givan, but it doesn't mean it's TRUE! Mr. Givan, the tenacity with which you hold your beliefs and the strength of your conviction does not increase or match the verity of your claim. Creationism deals with supernatural processes and therefore is not amenable to science.......... Ah hell........I can't repeat myself anymore.

Other Comments by TheCelestialTeapot

37. Comment #72680 by captain underpants on September 22, 2007 at 8:51 am

Oh dear. The Return Of The Son Of Devolved Strikes Again Part 27. And we know the plot in advance.

The same cerebral flatulence. The same wilfully mendacious distortions of other people's arguments. The same cut-and-run tactic, not answering questions and then running away only to resurface later in some other thread and repeat the same nauseating process.

There is not the slightest point in trying to engage him in dialogue. I merely wish to repeat my request that he fuck off and take his disgusting ideology with him. He will of course fuck off after a sufficient number of people have asked him to substantiate his claims, as he always does, but I would prefer him to fuck off on a permanent basis, i.e. not come back.

Other Comments by captain underpants

38. Comment #72682 by TheCelestialTeapot on September 22, 2007 at 8:56 am

DEVOLVED:

I am not sure whether or not you are deliberately blurring the lines between those scientists who are creationists and those who are evolutionists or not. It all comes down to testing really. Evolution can be tested. Countless examples. Microbial mutation in regards to antibiotics testing. Bones in the geological time line. On and on and on. Creationism cannot be tested, so the conclusions that Creation scientists are drawing off of the same evidence cannot be supported by that evidence.

Other Comments by TheCelestialTeapot

39. Comment #72687 by epeeist on September 22, 2007 at 9:23 am

Comment #72680 by captain underpants

There is not the slightest point in trying to engage him in dialogue. I merely wish to repeat my request that he fuck off and take his disgusting ideology with him. He will of course fuck off after a sufficient number of people have asked him to substantiate his claims, as he always does, but I would prefer him to fuck off on a permanent basis, i.e. not come back.

Well, Billy and I are trying to ensure that he is forced to either answer questions that have been put to him before or run for it.

Just keep asking him about "The Flood", it will soon spook him.

Other Comments by epeeist

40. Comment #72692 by Roger Stanyard on September 22, 2007 at 9:58 am

Message to Dannywalk

I think that the development in Lisburn needs to be taken very seriously indeed. Whilst on the face of it, it looks be a half-baked proposal put forward by obscure town councillors, I suggest that it is a typical development by an organised fundamentalist and creationist movement. My guess is that it is not a one-off aberration but reflects the growing infiltration of Northern Ireland by the creationist movement.

The Democratic Unionist Party is lead by a young earth creationist, Ian Paisley who is also a King James Onlyist (another manifestation of the same underlying stupidity). Creationism is basically a Calvinistic product and Calvinism is deeply entrenched in Northern Ireland. The second largest denomination, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland is Calvinistic and is utterly ambivalent on creationism. Some of its pastors (many, maybe) accept it and are pushing it hard. Quite a lot of the smaller Protestant denominations are either openly creationist or are also pushing it. I'm told that most, if not the vast majority of churches in Northern Ireland that describe themselves as evangelical are now young earth creationist.

That would not perhaps be a great problem on the mainland of Britain where regular church going involves about 7% of the population. In NI, though, it is around 35% and the powerful Orange Order is still tied extremely closely to region.

The creationist movement in the USA and on the mainland of the UK know just how open to creationism NI is. The province is one of their primary targets for getting converts and attracts numerous "speakers" such as Ken Ham (Answers in Genesis) or produces them (Robin Greer, Answers in Genesis). Some of these speakers attract audiences in NI numbering in the thousands. The Vardy schools in the North East of England has openly targeted Northern Ireland to recruit fundamentalist school teachers for its schools.

The evidence appears to suggest that the creationist movement has been specifically targeting the province's education system for some years.

I would hazard at a guess that the affair in Lisburn may be a test bed for the creationists and they will try and try again with variations to get creationism to replace science in state sector schools in Northern Ireland – just as they have been doing for years in the USA. One of the key issues to watch like hawks is their presence on the board of governors of schools. (I'm expecting that to happen in the town where I live, Winchester). It is a coup for the fundamentalists to get local DUP politicians behind creationism but it is now a done deed and they will try it time and time again.

Once they are involved in education, they have trick after trick up their sleeves to undermine the teaching of science, ranging from recruitment and promotion of teachers, placement of fundamentalist propaganda in school libraries (and removal of sound science books), forcing teachers to say that creationism is a valid scientific alternative, opening up the schools to "visits" from creationists (it's been done in NI, Stuart Burgess was involved), infiltrating Christian Unions, using RE lessons to undermine science….

The latest scam in the USA is to take legal action against universities who do not accept students whose understanding of science is based on fundamentalist creationism. How long is it before that is imported? Another scam in NI has been for a creationist diploma mill to hand out PhDs for £500 a piece and pass them off as accepted by employers – Robin Greer has a couple of them. How long do you think it is before Robin Greer gets his foot in the door in NI's education system?

And if the creationists cannot get their way in state schools, they will pull their kids out and go for home schooling which will produce half-educated, near-unemployable misfits. The province's nationalists will be delighted because they will fill the good jobs.

It also looks clear that the creationists are targeting Queen's University, Belfast; they are exceedingly active close to its main campus. Professor Norman Nevin, probably the province's best known scientist, is now, it appears, actively endorsing if not promoting creationism. The former head of the Armagh astronomical observatory is now pushing creationism in Ireland.

Northern Ireland has by far the most serious problem in Western Europe when it comes to the spread of young earth creationism and needs to wake up very quickly. If it doesn't, it's going to get the reputation of another Kansas or Tennessee, full of bigoted and ignorant religious hayseeds.

It need to be moving on from its past, not recreating it in another guise.

The one thing the Roman Catholic Church is now spot on with is opposing young earth creationism and ID. That is going to make the Republic of Ireland a much more attractive place for science and biotechnology firms to invest than a province riddled with creationism and creationist pastors and politicians. Unfortunately NI is now so riddled with creationism that it may be too late.

At worst, your heading for a province that will become increasingly isolated, inward looking and resentful, shunned by the rest of Europe and stuck well and truly in the 17th century. Creationism and fundamentalism are not compatible with modern democracy. They are essentially theocratic movements.

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

41. Comment #72702 by captain underpants on September 22, 2007 at 11:11 am

39. Comment #72687 by epeeist

Well, Billy and I are trying to ensure that he is forced to either answer questions that have been put to him before or run for it

He'll run for it and then come back again, and again and again .....

One can't help wondering what Devolved and his Merry Men hope to achieve by posting here. Surely they don't seriously entertain the notion they can convince anyone here with their non-arguments. Maybe they think they're training their debating skills. Maybe they think cut and run is a legitimate debating tactic. Maybe they think their "cause" - bringing back witch-hunts and the Holy Inquisition - is so noble that any means are justified. I recall the Templeton toad who gave a talk at last year's Beyond Belief conference. He insulted virtually everybody present and then had to leave to catch a flight and was thus conveniently unavailable to answer questions (I hope they don't invite any religionists to this year's conference). Yea verily, religion does indeed provide a sound basis for good moral behaviour.

Other Comments by captain underpants

42. Comment #72705 by Northern Bright on September 22, 2007 at 11:47 am

One can't help wondering what Devolved and his Merry Men hope to achieve by posting here

It's called Witnessing, Captain Underpants, AKA Winning Brownie Points in Heaven. The idea is that, if they repeat their nonsense often enough and loudly enough, eventually the Holy Spirit will open our hearts and we'll see that what they're proffering is actually radiant, beautiful Truth and not a rotting heap of maggot-infested potato peelings after all.

Although in theory they'd like us to have our hearts opened as soon as possible, in practice they're not averse to the Holy Spirit taking his time over it. This is because having to face our arguments - or, even better, our howls of derision - is called "Being Persecuted for Your Faith."

This is A Good Thing because it is a sign that you've got the Devil really rattled now. It is also A Good Thing because Being Persecuted for Your Faith is looked on with particular favour in heaven. Just watch those brownie points mount up! It's a bit like getting double points on your Tesco clubcard.

This is possibly the only good reason I can think of to regret the lack of Tele-Evangelists in the UK. If only we had some Ted Haggard equivalents, people like devolved could buy their places in heaven by sending all their money to them. As it is they have little option but to come and plague us.

I'm pretty certain that the best course of action is to ignore them completely. Easier said than done, of course, as anyone who has ever had an itch will know.

Other Comments by Northern Bright

43. Comment #72709 by Corylus on September 22, 2007 at 12:03 pm

Captain Underpants (loved your anagrams!)

One can't help wondering what Devolved and his Merry Men hope to achieve by posting here. Surely they don't seriously entertain the notion they can convince anyone here with their non-arguments.

Personally, I don't think that it is that rational. I have a theory that it is about self-justification and the protection of cherished notions.

E.g. They see evidence of other people doing fine with a perfectly consistent and widely held worldview (in this case evolution). Trouble is, this view is at variance with many of their assumptions. This makes them feel bad and (I hesitate to use the word inferior) outcast. How to reconcile this and still retain self-esteem? The answer, of course, is to presume that the vast majority are wrong and they themselves have access to a 'truth' that others don't.

This is, obviously, a truth that they themselves have gleaned via their own intellect and data-gathering skills. No tedious formal studying for them. No turning up at college after being the smartest in your small town only to discover that you are actually relatively thick. Such dents to the ego are not to be born. It is impossible to be wrong, one is merely misunderstood. In fact after a time they start to glorify in having a minority view. "How much smarter am I to understand the truth". (Conspiracy nut thinking). "In fact maybe I dropped out because I'm so smart no-one understood me. Cool!"

However, when they see a glaring and in-your-face threat to their cherished view: like maybe a respected academic's website with some smart people posting on it (maybe with the odd thicko dormouse thrown in ;-) That's when the problems start. Hear the inner dialogue..."These people are so wrong... I should ignore it and instead enjoy feeling superior... But, they're wrong... (then a tiny small voice in the back of the head starts with the dreaded words "What if I'm wrong) No, No, NO! I must show them, I MUST".

They just can't help themselves. Bit like picking a scab really. Part of you knows that it is going to end badly and you really shouldn't, but dammit it itches. So you scratch it and for a while it feels good. However, at a certain point comes the blood and the pus. You leave it alone and let it heal: try not to think about it. Trouble is when it is heals you find yourself with an even bigger scab and dammit that itches too...

EDIT: Wow Capt - looks like you have two answers for the price of one! Northern Bright you type fast :-)

Other Comments by Corylus

44. Comment #72713 by Northern Bright on September 22, 2007 at 12:14 pm

It is impossible to be wrong, one is merely misunderstood.

Beautifully put, Corylus! That really is at the heart of all the flea books and the reviews of them to date.

I had to laugh to see that you and I had put the question of motivation in the same terms, but on opposite sides of the divide! It's the irresistibility of that scab that forces us to respond, just as it forces them to post in the first place.

Other Comments by Northern Bright

45. Comment #72716 by BillySands on September 22, 2007 at 12:22 pm

nothern bright and corylus,

Let's not forget they delude themselves into thinking we dont want to believe in god - or answer to him so that we can carry on being nasty smelly sinners . It's the only way to account for our insanity, and the bible even tells them so:
2 peter 3:5 "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: "
Then they can go away and feel specially chosen by god to have the "truth" revealed to them by the holy spirit - sad really.

Other Comments by BillySands

46. Comment #72722 by Northern Bright on September 22, 2007 at 12:56 pm

Let's not forget they delude themselves into thinking we dont want to believe in god

I do agree that this is what they believe - but, this being the case, do you really think they believe that their posts on a site like this will make any difference to us?

I suspect not. Which suggests to me that the purpose of their posts here is not our "benefit", but their own.

[EDIT: .. which, having re-read your post, Billy, is pretty much what you were saying yourself!]

Other Comments by Northern Bright

47. Comment #72729 by captain underpants on September 22, 2007 at 2:08 pm

Northern Bright,

I've never been anything other than an atheist and neither has anyone else in my family as far as I'm aware, and I find it very hard to comprehend the religionist mindset. You're saying that these people think they're collecting points for the Day of Judgement - do they really think like that? That would mean that they don't think they have enough points yet and by implication that they're not entirely confident that they won't go to hell.

For fuck's sake (whoops I swore again), this is the 21st century. We can decode genomes, we can put robots on Mars, we can take photos of the surface of Titan, and at the same time there are people who are absolutely intent on partying like it's 1399.


I'm pretty certain that the best course of action is to ignore them completely.

I'm familiar with this line of argument, but I'm not sure. I'm not saying this to challenge you, I'm genuinely uncertain as to what the best approach is. To my mind the problem with saying "They'll go away eventually if you ignore them" is twofold: (1) they don't go away, and (2) it makes it sound as if we were dealing with a harmless pimple, and that is manifestly not the case. I've said in another thread that the Enlightenment is under threat, and the article that we're actually supposed to be discussing in this thread is a scary example.


Corylus,


Wow Capt - looks like you have two answers for the price of one!
My cup floweth over ;-)



The answer, of course, is to presume that the vast majority are wrong and they themselves have access to a 'truth' that others don't.


This is precisely what I don't get - and I'm replying to both you and Billy here. How can these people believe that they are privy to some kind of "Truth" for which not a shred of evidence exists? I cannot for the life of me understand what goes on in their heads. To me, the need to support an assertion with evidence if one wants it to be taken seriously seems so obvious that it shouldn't need to be explicitly stated. I've always tended to assume that my thought processes don't differ radically from those of anybody else, but I find the Bible basher mentality utterly incomprehensible.

Other Comments by captain underpants

48. Comment #72734 by Northern Bright on September 22, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Capt Underpants -

You're saying that these people think they're collecting points for the Day of Judgement - do they really think like that?

I don't think it's quite as blatant as that in most cases, to be fair. The argument I've heard used is to ask you to imagine that you really loved someone. Wouldn't you want to please them and do what they liked you doing? Not because you're afraid of the negative consequences of NOT doing these things, but simply because you wanted to show them how much you loved them, and you wanted to make them happy?

The analogy doesn't quite work, in my view, firstly because the New Testament spells out that "witnessing" is a requirement for believers, and of course we all know that the Bible as a whole is true and has to be taken seriously. So, in other words, believers are commanded by God to make these supposedly spontaneous gestures of affection. And secondly, because the Bible also makes it very clear that God reserves the right to cast people into lakes of everlasting fire if they don't make the grade.

Maybe it's just me, but I can't help feeling that I'd feel more pleased to be on the receiving end of a bunch of my favourite flowers if I hadn't ordered you to get them for me, and if I hadn't threatened you with unspeakable tortures if you didn't live up to my expectations. But hey, I'm old-fashioned like that.

... there are people who are absolutely intent on partying like it's 1399.

Wonderful! Have I ever mentioned how much I like this website?! :-)

I'm pretty certain that the best course of action is to ignore them completely.

I'm familiar with this line of argument, but I'm not sure.

Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting that we should leave religious beliefs in general unchallenged. I'm all for trying to change attitudes at large. It's the Dianeloses and Devolveds and Revcorts and others who I'm tempted to just ignore. What's the point of doing otherwise? They are absolutely fixed in their views and nothing but nothing we write will make the slightest difference to them. They hijack complete threads and get everyone dancing around answering them. Every time we respond to them, we just encourage them.

As I write that, though, I catch myself wondering whether I'm wrong. Nothing we write will make any difference to the evangelists, but on reflection the threads will be read by lots of people who don't actively join in but who maybe haven't made their minds up on these issues and may genuinely find it helpful to see that the arguments of the evangelists can be rebutted.

Hmmm - will have to think about that one!

Other Comments by Northern Bright

49. Comment #72743 by Corylus on September 22, 2007 at 3:15 pm

Captain Underpants

I've always tended to assume that my thought processes don't differ radically from those of anybody else, but I find the Bible basher mentality utterly incomprehensible.

It is important to realise that there are many different types of religious believer. There are some moderate intelligent believers on here that I will happily chat to. I don't think that they are daft or reason in a manner much different from my own. They are perfectly rational in many areas. However, I don't think they are rational in one specific area. They cling to religion for all manner of reasons. E.g. comfort, habit, a love of ritual etc..

N.B. I am willing to be convinced by any of them. Each time I talk to a believer I put myself on the line - if they can give me a consistent, evidence based argument for believing I will change my view. People like WeeFlea are not prepared to countenance the notion that atheists might think like this, which is why he often comes on here to call us all fundamentalists :-(

Devolved however, is in a class of his own. (Which is why I am talking past him here - I think this is generally rude and I don't often do it)

I find myself wondering whether is he argues in such an blinkered fashion not because he is believer, or because he has been indoctrinated into creationism, like poor Bizarro. (He appears more British than American) I wonder instead whether he is a loon who has latched onto an extreme creationist version of belief because it bolsters his own idea of who he is. Evolution puts the average human in their place (insecurity shown - ouch) creation elevates the individual (arrogance reinforced). E.g. "I'm no monkey - dammit".

I suspect he has lots of theories on all manner of subjects (the truth about which he has priviledged access). Lets test that.

Devolved

Do you believe:-

1) That the moon landings were real?
2) That islamic terrorists were responsible for 9/11?
3) That Diana's death was ordered by the Royal family?

Simple questions - no nasty biology involved :-)

Other Comments by Corylus

50. Comment #72764 by captain underpants on September 22, 2007 at 8:08 pm

Corylus,

There are some moderate intelligent believers on here that I will happily chat to. I don't think that they are daft or reason in a manner much different from my own. They are perfectly rational in many areas. However, I don't think they are rational in one specific area. They cling to religion for all manner of reasons. E.g. comfort, habit, a love of ritual etc..

Actually I can understand that to a degree. It's only relatively recently that I've been able to accept the idea there is nothing special about homo sapiens, that humans are "just" another animal. It took me a long time to realise that my objection was wishful thinking, i.e. without a rational basis, although I generally consider myself to be a fairly sensible sort of lad. And fear of death is an understandable human frailty. I don't like the idea of there being nothing after death, and sometimes it scares me, but I have to accept that there is no reason to believe that anything else is the case.

I don't really have much of an issue with ordinary everyday believers, who don't make it their life's mission to convert others. What baffles (and angers) me is the bible literalists, the Devolveds of this world. They baffle me because their way of thinking is completely alien to me. Look at Revcort on the leprachology thread (599 posts the last time I looked). People point out that what he says is illogical and not supported by evidence and he responds by throwing bible quotes at them, obviously in the firm belief that this constitutes a proper and persuasive argument. I am utterly at a loss as to what makes such people tick.

And they anger me because they lie and distort. And run away when faced with difficult questions. Spineless wankers. But what angers me more is their contempt for science and reason. Think of all the cack-brained young-earth twaddle and what it implies: Not only evolutionists but also geologists, chemists and particle physicists are consigned to burn forever in hell. Actually if the Devolveds of this world had their way they wouldn't be patient enough to wait for their loving God to send scientists to hell, they'd simply burn them.



Devolved however, is in a class of his own.

No, I don't think he's in a class of his own. Nor do I think he's a conspiracy theorist. He's just a common or garden power maniac who hankers for the good old Middle Ages.

Other Comments by captain underpants