Print
Revealed: rise of creationism in UK schools
by James Randerson, science correspondent
Reposted from:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1957858,00.html
PR packs spread controversial theory
James Randerson, science correspondent
Monday November 27, 2006
The Guardian
Dozens of schools are using creationist teaching materials condemned by the government as "not appropriate to support the science curriculum", the Guardian has learned.
The packs promote the creationist alternative to Darwinian evolution called intelligent design and the group behind them said 59 schools are using the information as "a useful classroom resource".
A teacher at one of the schools said it intended to use the DVDs to present intelligent design as an alternative to Darwinism. Nick Cowan, head of chemistry at Bluecoat school, in Liverpool, said: "Just because it takes a negative look at Darwinism doesn't mean it is not science. I think to critique Darwinism is quite appropriate."
But the government has made it clear that "neither intelligent design nor creationism are recognised scientific theories". The chairman of the parliamentary science and technology select committee, the Lib Dem MP Phil Willis, said he was horrified that the packs were being used in schools.
"I am flabbergasted that any head of science would give credence to this creationist theory and be prepared to put it alongside Darwinism," he said. "Treating it as an alternative centralist theory alongside Darwinism in science lessons is deeply worrying."
The teaching pack, which includes two DVDs and a manual, was sent to the head of science at all secondary schools in the country on September 18 by the group Truth in Science. The enclosed feedback postcard was returned by 89 schools. As well as 59 positive responses, 15 were negative or dismissive and 15 said the material was "not suitable".
"We are not attacking the teaching of Darwinian theory," said Richard Buggs, a member of Truth in Science. "We are just saying that criticisms of Darwin's theory should also be taught."
"Intelligent design looks at empirical evidence in the natural world and says, 'this is evidence for a designer'. If you go any further the argument does become religious and intelligent design does have religious implications," added Dr Buggs.
But leading scientists argue that ID is not science because it invokes supernatural causes. "There is just no evidence for intelligent design, it is pure religion and has nothing to do with science. It should be banned from science classes," said Lewis Wolpert, a developmental biologist at the University of London and vice-president of the British Humanist Association.
The DVDs were produced in America and feature figures linked to the Discovery Institute in Seattle, a thinktank that has made concerted efforts to promote ID and insert it into high school science lessons in the US. Last year a judge in Dover, Pennsylvania, ruled that ID could not be taught in science lessons. "Intelligent design is a religious view, a mere relabelling of creationism, and not a scientific theory," he wrote in his judgment.
It is not clear exactly how many schools are using the Truth in Science material, or how it is being used.
The government has made it clear the Truth in Science materials should not be used in science lessons. In a response to the Labour MP Graham Stringer on November 1, Jim Knight, a minister in the Department for Education and Skills, wrote: "Neither intelligent design nor creationism are recognised scientific theories and they are not included in the science curriculum."
Andy McIntosh, a professor of thermodynamics at the University of Leeds who is on the board of Truth in Science, said: "We are just simply a group of people who have put together ... a different case."
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1957858,00.html
PR packs spread controversial theory
James Randerson, science correspondent
Monday November 27, 2006
The Guardian
Dozens of schools are using creationist teaching materials condemned by the government as "not appropriate to support the science curriculum", the Guardian has learned.
The packs promote the creationist alternative to Darwinian evolution called intelligent design and the group behind them said 59 schools are using the information as "a useful classroom resource".
A teacher at one of the schools said it intended to use the DVDs to present intelligent design as an alternative to Darwinism. Nick Cowan, head of chemistry at Bluecoat school, in Liverpool, said: "Just because it takes a negative look at Darwinism doesn't mean it is not science. I think to critique Darwinism is quite appropriate."
But the government has made it clear that "neither intelligent design nor creationism are recognised scientific theories". The chairman of the parliamentary science and technology select committee, the Lib Dem MP Phil Willis, said he was horrified that the packs were being used in schools.
"I am flabbergasted that any head of science would give credence to this creationist theory and be prepared to put it alongside Darwinism," he said. "Treating it as an alternative centralist theory alongside Darwinism in science lessons is deeply worrying."
The teaching pack, which includes two DVDs and a manual, was sent to the head of science at all secondary schools in the country on September 18 by the group Truth in Science. The enclosed feedback postcard was returned by 89 schools. As well as 59 positive responses, 15 were negative or dismissive and 15 said the material was "not suitable".
"We are not attacking the teaching of Darwinian theory," said Richard Buggs, a member of Truth in Science. "We are just saying that criticisms of Darwin's theory should also be taught."
"Intelligent design looks at empirical evidence in the natural world and says, 'this is evidence for a designer'. If you go any further the argument does become religious and intelligent design does have religious implications," added Dr Buggs.
But leading scientists argue that ID is not science because it invokes supernatural causes. "There is just no evidence for intelligent design, it is pure religion and has nothing to do with science. It should be banned from science classes," said Lewis Wolpert, a developmental biologist at the University of London and vice-president of the British Humanist Association.
The DVDs were produced in America and feature figures linked to the Discovery Institute in Seattle, a thinktank that has made concerted efforts to promote ID and insert it into high school science lessons in the US. Last year a judge in Dover, Pennsylvania, ruled that ID could not be taught in science lessons. "Intelligent design is a religious view, a mere relabelling of creationism, and not a scientific theory," he wrote in his judgment.
It is not clear exactly how many schools are using the Truth in Science material, or how it is being used.
The government has made it clear the Truth in Science materials should not be used in science lessons. In a response to the Labour MP Graham Stringer on November 1, Jim Knight, a minister in the Department for Education and Skills, wrote: "Neither intelligent design nor creationism are recognised scientific theories and they are not included in the science curriculum."
Andy McIntosh, a professor of thermodynamics at the University of Leeds who is on the board of Truth in Science, said: "We are just simply a group of people who have put together ... a different case."
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Monday, November 27, 2006 | PermalinkComments 1 - 36 of 36 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #10220 by thegashman on November 27, 2006 at 1:43 pm
Cheers asdf.Just sent a mail off to my local MP Dr Evan Harris.
6. Comment #10226 by thegashman on November 27, 2006 at 1:59 pm
Tsk tsk Timelord, for someone able to move through time and space you really do have too many questions that you should know the answers to already.Or is it that when you open up dirty science books all you see is blank pages... :0)
Like Anon says, try reading The Blind Watchmaker for example (may be best to get it on audio book) and then come to us with a proper question.
7. Comment #10251 by goddogit on November 27, 2006 at 3:01 pm
Ah! If only we could safely tour the sort of mind, such as it is, that exists in someone as silly as Timelord, who is the type of creationist lacking the real excuses for his (I am sure) beliefs. Turn over a rock here, or a moldering thought there and we'd find many nasty, nasty things, but not a shred of humility, or awe (his sense of awe is the same as his sense of shame), much less any thoughts that could be considered, in the 'nice" sense of the word, "Christian."Creationists are perfect examples of the totally convinced, and "the totally convinced and the totally stupid have to much in common for the resemblance to be accidental."
You are a crappy little, dried-up, vain mortal wasting a perfectly good and rather expensive human lifetime, "Timelord". Be sure to hide within whatever flock of believers will camouflage your meanness and fear.
8. Comment #10264 by Irate Harry on November 27, 2006 at 3:47 pm
Andy McIntosh, who was on the Newsnight tonight on behalf of TIS, is such a phoney. He was digustingly dishonest in claiming that there was nothing religious in what TIS were doing.Andy McIntosh is billed as a "Creationist, combustion theorist and aerodynamicist" and the Author of "Genesis for Today". He is also a vice-president of the "Creation Science Movement".
Need I say more?
Beware - the vandals are at the gate, they have crossed the Atlantic. And they are after our children now, to infect our children's minds now, the scoundrels...
9. Comment #10269 by Yorker on November 27, 2006 at 4:12 pm
MY PERSONAL RULEI will only engage in debate with those who state their willingness to have their minds changed by force of reason. I will answer all direct questions and expect the same of others. I suggest that all comments be preceded by the word "WILLING". That way, we can see who is really interested in discourse that moves forward rather than going around in circles and bloating this site with gigabytes of unnecessary text. Comments directed at me that do not show "WILLING", will be ignored.
I offer this as a suggestion that might be adopted by all, and invite all to comment on this proposal.
10. Comment #10275 by Yorker on November 27, 2006 at 4:21 pm
WILLINGI think we need to unite on this issue and call for the sacking of all educators who attempt to subvert the official guidelines. If Mr.Dawkins would care to use his public influence and front such an issue, I for one, would support it.
This nonsense is getting out of hand, we need to combat every single instance of public foolishness no matter how small, at the very least, it will raise public consciousness.
12. Comment #10288 by Aaron on November 27, 2006 at 5:44 pm
TimeLord,You are one of the first seemingly firm believers in a god I have seen on this forum. Would you like to lay out your beliefs and I'll lay out ours so that we can debate the issue more honestly? I'd be happy to explain the darwinian evolutionist/atheist's side. It would be much more useful than for each side to assume the beliefs of the other. If you would like to continue the debate on this forum, however, stick to the argument at hand. The issue is whether or not intelligent design is a scientific alternative to Darwinian evolution, which it is not. I can point you towards material on the subject. I would assume you've read a bit counter argumentative to your own beliefs to maintain a well rounded opinion but after reading your first two posts I highly doubt it. Asking questions like "If you can get a poodle from a wild dog, why not a walrus?" shows your ignorance. It might help to read up a bit before responding. Also, if you want to have an intelligent debate, stay away from using the "argument from authority" (i.e. "Andy McIntosh as mentioned above is probably one of the UK's leading academics..."). His intelligence is not the issue either. Finally, it does not prove a point to ask question to which you presuppose an answer (i.e. "Why do animals only breed to type?") Would scientific answers that counter your beliefs actually make you change your them? Let's make this an honest discussion.
13. Comment #10305 by Aussie on November 27, 2006 at 8:13 pm
I must admit that I am becoming increasingly convinced by arguments supporting the concept of "Intelligent Design". This novel scientific theory has definitively demonstrated its superiority over the now discredited Theory of Evolution as proposed by Charles Darwin.Random chance, to me, can never explain how diseases so exquisitely cruel as H5N1, Ebola, HIV, Variola or Yeminia pestis can have developed in the absence of a malevolent and pitiless designer. The consequences of these agents are so evil they must have been part of an overall plan designed by a higher intelligence that would have far outclassed that of the designers of any atrocity conceived of during WWII.
And why should we stop with Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Following my recent enlightenment I have been inspired to find a supernatural alternative to Newton's Theory of Gravity and I have it almost complete and ready for publication. (Sneak preview: - I have developed a new explanation for why that apple fell off the tree)
Future projects will be to find similar supernatural alternatives to Einstein's General Relativity, Maxwell's Electromagnetic theory and the Quantum Mechanics of Planck, Bohr et al. The beauty of this new approach is that we will be able to do away with all those nasty equations that I never really understood anyway.
We must insist that these alternatives should be taught in schools and universities alongside the traditional boring accounts that have been thrust down our throats over the years. A major advantage will be that the original explanations can be replaced by greatly simplified propositions. This will enable many more people to study physics, chemistry and biology without actually having to understand them.
The greatly increased number of science and engineering graduates that will result will drive the US economy into a glorious future entrenching our uncontestable global technological superiority and, as a result, ensure the unassailability of our national security.
14. Comment #10389 by Mads on November 28, 2006 at 2:12 am
I agree with Aussie.I teach chemistry and physiology at a tertiary level and I have often thought of how much easier my work would be if I adopted a dogmatic, scripture literal approach. Most questions could be answered by either "God made it so" or, in the case of patophysiology, "It's the work of the devil."
Grading papers would be a doddle!
Best regards
Mads
15. Comment #10401 by John Phillips on November 28, 2006 at 3:12 am
Aussie and Mads: what a brilliant proposition, I totally agree with you for we could do away with all questions and all education, simply constantly repeat goddidit to all questions. All together now, repeat after me, goddidit, goddidit, godditit ad infinitum. Think of the money we could save, do away with schools, in fact we could do away with everything as well as this fake science thingy, dismissing all we don't like or find inconvenient as the work of the devil and leaving the rest to god. Oh oh, according to the bible, the devil can't do anything without god's permission so goddidit again, even science. Whoops, another contradiction, help my brain hurts, is this how fundamentalist creationists and IDers feel, I almost feel sorry for them, but only almost.20. Comment #10598 by Aaron on November 28, 2006 at 1:36 pm
TimeLord,You evaded my questions only to pose your own: "There is no evidence for evolution is there?" Which argument would you rather counter?
1) Intelligent Design is not a valid alternative to Darwinian Evolution? (which is the original topic)
or
2) There is no proof of Evolution? (something about which you seem fascinated)
I'll school you on either. Your choice.
21. Comment #10610 by Randy Ping on November 28, 2006 at 2:19 pm
The lady at Jesus Camp wants a war?Cool, you bring your bible and I'll bring an AK.
22. Comment #10625 by Aussie on November 28, 2006 at 4:12 pm
From Comment #10414 by Bishop"Reading this Aussie character's post just makes me sad. Its sad there has to be such vile stupidity in the world. On the plus side, he or she is probably phsychotic and probably does not pose any real threat. Who else would describe any mechanism for destruction as "exquisitly cruel"? Cruelty is never exquisit. I think this person should be a candidate for a Darwin Award."
Bishop, I would be honoured to be nominated for such a prestigious award. We creation scientists need as much exposure as we can get to allow us to demonstrate our impeccable credentials and to convince the world that we really do follow the true scientific method using both reason and logic. It is just that we start off with different axioms than the miserable sinners who blindly follow the discredited Theory of Evolution.
As I said in my original post, the scientific theory of Intelligent Design greatly simplifies science making it available to the masses rather than reserving its understanding to an elite priesthood.
Is the Darwin Award also presented in Stockholm? Just to make it clear that I am not particularly concerned about any small monetary consideration, such as that accompanying the other well-known prize, as we creation scientists are already very generously funded by our many tax advantaged benefactors. In that case I would be happy to donate it to the Richard Dawkins retirement fund.
25. Comment #10717 by Aussie on November 29, 2006 at 2:44 am
Bishop,Thanks for being such a good sport and playing the counter role that was essential to demonstrate the point.
I attempted to be as outrageous as I could in order to draw attention to the absurd positions that many of these irrational believers adopt. It only goes to show that the degree of their absurdity is so great that it is very difficult for a normal person to differentiate it from gross caricature.
We make a good team. Lets get together again sometime.
26. Comment #10719 by walter on November 29, 2006 at 2:51 am
LET THEM TEACH THE 'CONTROVERSY'!I'd be willing to bet that the average creationist probably knows more about evolution than the average person on the street!
Why? Because by teaching the 'controversy' they are probably teaching their kids more evolution than they would EVER get from a typical public education.
Most of them acknowledge what they call 'microevolution' and so tell their kids that THIS much is 'o.k.'. But by doing that they are really teaching the mechanism of evolution because 'macroevolution' is really just 'microevolution' on a much greater time scale!
They learn even more about evolution with their never ending and futile attempts to disprove it.
Consider those creationists who once tricked Mr. Dawkins into letting them interview him in his house. They asked him "Is their any known example of genetic information being added to a gene pool?" or something very close to that.
Upon honest reflection one must concede that this is NOT the kind of question a thoroughly illiterate person would ask. Because such a person wouldn't have known enough to ask it!
So the more they try to disprove the more they actually learn and teach to their kids...
...totally against their will! Ha! Ha! Ha!
27. Comment #10770 by Bitterman on November 29, 2006 at 5:59 am
"it is as though they were just planted there without any evolutionary predecessors"Ho ho ho Timelord, how appropriate. I'm currently re reading TGD and the Dawkins quote you use was taken out of context. Also Creationism has no place in a science lesson because it is not science. I have no problem with it being taught within the borders of such subjects as philosophy, or non subjects (theology, faeryology, Big Footology etc. Please in future quote in the proper context. All who peddle these falsehoods shoud be ashamed of themselves.
29. Comment #10884 by walter on December 1, 2006 at 4:01 am
reply to Inci #10753""birds like archaeopteryx which had teeth": these kinds of birds had teeth with flat top surfaces and large roots, but theropod dinosaurs had saw-shape-teeth and narrow roots."
Yes indeed! And their is a very good reason for this and NO it has nothing to do with evolution being wrong.
Birds did NOT come from dinosaurs. Dinosaurs came from birds.
The ancestors of birds were NOT theropod dinosaurs. They were arboreal, thecodont ('socket-tooth')archosaurs. The dinosaurs, on the other hand, were the FLIGHTLESS OFFSHOOTS of prehistoric birds like archaeopteryx.
This accounts for the asymmetric digit reduction seen in the theropod hand. The FLYING ancestors of theropods lost those outer digits while evolving better wings. (possibly created vortexes under the wing which countered lift and so they were reduced) Whenever and wherever a population of prehistoric birds became flightless that population was 'stuck' with fewer meathooks. Then, in order to compensate for the lack of digits for grasping prey the teeth themselves evolved to resemble grasping claws and became serrated.
Anyone interested should check out Olshevsky's BCF (birds came first) theory.
But I dare say one can actually compare creationists with dinosaur paleontologists. Both think 2+2=5 for no better reason than because they want it to!
Creationists want desperately not to be related to apes and dino-paleontologists want equally desperately to bring those monsters they worshipped as children back from the dead!
30. Comment #10915 by K on December 1, 2006 at 9:33 am
Why are we wasting time with TimeLord defending evolutionary theory - the evidence is sufficient.Besides, the real issue is that all of the various flavors of creationism (ID included) are not scientific. So, Creationism in any form has no business in science classrooms.
'nuff said.
31. Comment #11119 by Roy on December 3, 2006 at 7:25 am
Anyone fancy a good laugh?http://shop5.gospelcom.net/isroot/AIGUS/SampleChapter/10-2-267.pdf
(The 'reason' why we do not find dinosaur and human remians in the same strata )
On a more serious note, is this the sort of thing what they propose to teach the kids?
33. Comment #11318 by Roy on December 4, 2006 at 6:43 am
Andy_in_oz,Was it the so called "Paluxy footprints"
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC101.html
Well you know, Raquel Welch did have a close call with one or two Dinosaurs in The film "One Million Years B.C." and you know what they say, the camera don't lie!
34. Comment #11769 by celestial_T on December 7, 2006 at 7:49 am
I wrote to my MP (Stephen Crabb, cons) about the charming folk at Truth in Science and their helpful mailout, and he tells me that the government has 'actually gone as far as ordering it [the TIS material] to be banned'. not sure how this ties in with the Motion put forward by Graham Stringer. but good news, surely? Other Comments by celestial_T
35. Comment #12493 by CatMac on December 12, 2006 at 7:34 am
I'd like to go back to an earlier objection of TimeLord's on a comment from one of his/her many detractors"The Christian creation story is based upon numerous other mythological stories"
And, of course, you can prove that?? Or even support it???
The Christian creation story does indeed appear to be based on numerous earlier myths. In fact if one examines the parallels closely, it seems to be a direct copy of earlier creation myths. You don't have to look very hard for the evidence that might support this argument. Consider the similarities between the story of Christ and any of the many of "pagan" religions that were popular around the time of, or preceding, the alleged birth of Christ. The Dionysis myth of ancient Greece and the Sun God Ra from ancient Egypt are just two examples. You will find a common thread in all of them; a child is born of God, who then must die and be resurrected before achieving enlightenment and a higher state of consciousness. These are likely reinterpretations of more ancient mythology that comes from a time from which no proper written or oral history has been preserved. There is nothing new here, the foundations of all creation myths probably originate from early beliefs that the primary God or Goddess was nature, from a time when the cycling of seasons and the death and rebirth of the land dictated the beginning of new life and consequently was the basis of human spirituality. Therefore, there is nothing new in Christianity, or any modern religion for that matter; they simply recycle ancient mythology that had its foundations in the nature of survival.
The birth of any new religion or creed is generally founded not on some cataclysmic supernatural event but in frustration with the political and spiritual control exercised by the existing authorities. A new religion does not appear overnight, it is a gradual process of political change over decades, or more likely centuries. It is often generated by a small group of individuals who take a Gnostic approach towards theology rather than literal interpretation. People who want to retell this particular story, for that is what it is, in an allegorical form that gives guidance on raising the level of consciousness in the individual to elevate moral, ethical and spiritual standards in society. It is a fable, a tale to teach a moral lesson on humanity. This new faith is gradually adopted by those who become disillusioned with the old until it grows to such an extent that it finally has to be hijacked by the establishment as a way of regaining authority.
There is no doubt that humans search for spirituality, it permeates every aspect of our history and there is growing evidence for it in ancient prehistory of our species. The question you should be asking yourself, if you have courage to question yourself, is not whether this proves the existence of God but rather what it is in the genetic make up of our species, compared with all others, that causes us to adopt these practices and look towards abstract symbolism for answers.
Your counter arguments against evolution are weak and unformed. You seem to dismiss all evolutionary biology out of hand because there are flaws in Darwinism or because there are significant gaps in the fossil record. Rather than just dismissing these well constructed but admittedly incomplete and sometimes flawed theories, you might consider this. As a species we are in our infancy and so far we have been gathering scientific, evidence-based information on the origins of life for a mere 200–300 years. This is a very short period to collect and comprehend all the information that might explain the development of a hugely complex biological matrix that has been ongoing for several billion years. Here is the biggest problem that I have with your arguments; humans who follow your creed, or any other religious doctrine that supports the idea of creationism, seem to believe that we are the endpoint of evolution, that we are the pinnacle of creation and, therefore, must be all knowing. In which case, surely we must have an argument that provides a definitive answer to the origins of life? For if we don't, what does that say about our importance on this earth?
Unfortunately, this belief is not confined to those adhering to literalist religion. There are many scientists who also believe that our species is the endpoint of evolution. Scientists are after all human and are no more or less immune to hubris that any one else. The difference is that there are many scientists who choose not to think this way and so, as a discipline of thought, science provides some hope of advancement in information and education of our species. With our current technology and level of understanding, science is riddled with imperfections and as I scientist I'll happily admit it. However, it is based on looking for answers. This in direct contrast to literalist religion, which seems to be based on ceasing to look for answers. That should be enough of a danger to prevent the latter being taught in our schools, to prevent a theory being taught to our children that will encourage them to stop thinking at the very point when they should be training themselves to think about everything.
My apologies that this has turned into a lengthy essay and that it barely scrapes the surface of what we could discuss. However, if you care to look for it, there is a mountain of literature available that covers all of the things I've outlined and much more besides. I can provide some references if you are interested. No doubt you will dismiss much of it as being based on unsupported theory and ask again for direct evidence that proves it. But if you do, bear in mind that there is no less evidence than there is in support of your own arguments. It is ironic that you ask those in support of current scientific theory to provide proof in the form of hard facts that would explain everything when you are unable to do so yourself.
So to go back to your original objection that I mentioned at the start – that there is nothing to support the creation myth being based on other, older myths – do you not think you should start by examining the supporting information that is available before maintaining that there is none, or before demanding that someone else lay it out before you? It might improve your credibility if you appear to know some thing about the theories you are refuting.
Other Comments by CatMac
36. Comment #12505 by NoLongerHaveBelief on December 12, 2006 at 9:16 am
A great post CatMac! I read it all and concur!TimeLord stated earlier, how do we not know McIntosh is not right?
I'm sorry, but the man is a LOON. He believes that the Earth is 6000 years old - which it is NOT and that Dinosaurs were drowning as Noah loaded up the Ark with the 1,000's of species of animal that were present on Earth. Forgive me if I laugh, but a 450-ft long boat is not capable of sustaining that many animals for the many weeks it had to have done so.
If McIntosh is a Professor and believes this nonesense, then there is NO REASON why a factory worker like myself can't become one! Indeed, Professor Dawkins and former Leeds University students have stated their disbelief with some of his statements. He clearly is DELUDED.
I'm Atheist. I have respect for believers. It is a leap of faith I can't make any longer (nor do I wish to). However; there is belief in a supreme being, then there are the LOONIES who take the Bible as literal truth. It ISN'T. And for many reasons. The Bible is wrong in many areas. To believe the world is 6,000 years old is an EVIL philosophy. I think McIntosh should be sacked from his position at Leeds University and put away in the loony bin, where he belongs.
Sorry if this offends you believers. This is not my intention. The problem is that a SCIENTIST as distinguished as McIntosh HAS to know that he is peddling lies. And gullible people would clearly fall for it. Which is EVIL.
Other Comments by NoLongerHaveBelief
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"Religions do make claims about the universe--the same kinds of claims that scientists make, except they're usually false."
Richard Dawkins
"Pointing to another world will never stop vice among us; shedding light over this world can alone help us."
Walt Whitman
"They said God was on high and he controlled the world and therefore we must pray against Satan. Well, if God controls the world, he controls Satan. For me, religion was full of misstatements and reaches of logic that I just couldn't agree with."
Gene Roddenberry
"Like computer viruses, successful mind viruses will tend to be hard for their victims to detect. If you are the victim of one, the chances are that you won't know it, and may even vigorously deny it."
Richard Dawkins
"If you are in possession of this revolutionary secret of science, why not prove it and be hailed as the new Newton? Of course, we know the answer. You can't do it. You are a fake."
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
Before the Dawn
Nicholas Wade
God: The Failed Hypothesis
Victor J Stenger
The Moral Animal
Robert Wright
Letter to a Christian Nation
Sam Harris
God Is Not Great
Christopher Hitchens
Read the 1st Chapter!
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #10204 by Anonymous on November 27, 2006 at 1:10 pm
askwho, the UK doesn't have a constitutional separation of church and state the way the US does, which is actually strange considering the US is so much worse off regarding the rampant creationist propaganda. If I were you I would be very, very afraid.