Recently in evolution Category

Following on from yesterday's piece about "Truth" In Science trying to get their crackpot creationist theories taught in British schools, I see that MP Graham Stringer has tabled an Early Day Motion on this issue. You might consider popping over to WriteToThem and asking your MP to sign this EDM.

From the front page of today's 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".

The group behind this are called Truth in Science - which must be a joke as they seem determined to lie about science whenever possible. It's also worrying that that they are a completely different group to the one that has been lobbying MPs recently.

The story goes on to say:

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."

This man is head of chemistry. A post that is traditionally held by a scientist.

Now let's be clear on this (as I've been misunderstood when writing about this before). I'm all for pupils being taught the history of belief and comparative religion. But the only way that creationism (or "intelligent design") should be covered in a science lesson is to illustrate how far our understanding of the world has increased in a relatively short time.

And, yes, I'm all in favour of questioning Darwin's theories. That's how science works. Theories are tested and questioned. But any questions need to come from scientific research, not from idiots who are upset because science disagrees with their favourite fairy story.

It's not all bad news though. The government has said that this material should not be used in the classrrom.

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."

So, I wonder what will happen to the teachers who have used it already? In my opinion people who teach this nonsense to children should be banned from teaching. But I'll be very surprised if that happens.

Update: The same story on the BBC.

I always thought the Canadians were eminently sensible people. From the Ottawa Citizen:

The Quebec ministry of education has told unlicensed Christian evangelical schools that they must teach Darwin's theory of evolution and sex education or close their doors after an Outaouais school board complained the provincial curriculum wasn't being followed.

Not going far enough of course. Superstition schools should just be closed down. But it's a step in the right direction.

And in similar news, Tom Watson mentions the report in the latest New Scientist about the large amount of home-schooling that goes on in the US. And, of course, most of this home schooling is done because the parents want to indoctrinate their children in the rules of their particular superstitions and don't want to run the risk of the children coming across rational thought.

(The creationists are going to love this!)

From the BBC (tho' note that the research was carried out for the dodgy satellite channel Bravo - make of that what you will):

Humanity may split into two sub-species in 100,000 years' time as predicted by HG Wells, an expert has said.

Evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry of the London School of Economics expects a genetic upper class and a dim-witted underclass to emerge.

The human race would peak in the year 3000, he said - before a decline due to dependence on technology.

People would become choosier about their sexual partners, causing humanity to divide into sub-species, he added.

The descendants of the genetic upper class would be tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative and a far cry from the "underclass" humans who would have evolved into dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures.

Evolutionary theory says that species become differentiated when two populations are separated by environmental factors. This could lead to the first instance of it happening because two populations just choose not to interbreed.

Are you Eloi or Morlock?

This doesn't seem to have been advertised particularly well, but Richard Dawkins is speaking at the Institute of Education this evening. I've just got tickets - which is pretty amazing given how impossible it was to get tickets the last time I tried. The talk at the LSE celebrating the 30th anniversary of The Selfish Gene sold out in minutes.

Richard Dawkins' new book, The God Delusion is published today and over the weekend the publicity machine started up. On Friday Dawkins was interviewed on Newnight. The interview will still be available from that site until tonight's edition replaces it later today. The Newsnight site also has some extracts from the book and a discussion on some of the points. It's good to see the number of rational people who are contributing to the discussion - but there are still a few religious types desperately clinging to their medieval beliefs.

Then the Guardian on Saturday had more extracts from the book and a review - they make it their book of the week.

Then on Sunday, Dawkins was apparently on the Heaven and Earth Show. I never watch the Heaven and Earth Show and the show doesn't seem to be on the BBC web site so I don't know what was said. Maybe I'll try to track down a torrent tonight.

I haven't read the book yet (I've got it on order from Amazon - got it for a tenner), but from what I've seen it's an extension of the arguments that Dawkins' presented so clearly in his documentary The Root of all Evil? earlier this year.

In a world where the voices of medievalism and superstition seem to drown out a lot of rational debate, it's great to see Dawkins' eminently sensible views getting such a lot of publicity.

Update: I've just found the Newsnight interview (albeit in a very dodgy aspect ratio) on YouTube.

Richard Dawkins' programme The Root of All Evil? generated 23 complaints to Ofcom. The latest Ofcom bulletin is published today and it deals with these complaints (the relevant section starts on page 10).

In summary, the complainants considered that the programme:

1. showed a negative portrayal of religious beliefs and called religious faith “a virus”, and that this was both offensive and harmful;
2. contained inflammatory comments, slanderous remarks and atheist propaganda, which resulted in possible incitement to religious hatred;
3. allowed an “ill-informed” presenter to treat religion with “ridicule and scorn”, and misrepresented religious views, which - along with disingenuous editing - offered no opportunity for debate. As there was no balancing programme on the same service, this resulted in an approach to the religious matters being explored that was not responsible;
4. allowed the presenter to air bigoted, intolerant, biased and anti-religious views;
5. attempted to promote religious (i.e. atheist) views by stealth;
6. generally contravened Ofcom’s rules on due impartiality and due accuracy; and
7. focused on the behaviour and beliefs of “religious extremists”, with little reference to moderate/mainstream religious belief and practice, and that therefore this was misleading;

(I particularly like the description of Richard Dawkins as "ill-informed")

After considering the complaints carefully, Ofcom has decided that the programme was not in breach of its guidelines. This is, of course, a victory for rational thought over superstition.

(via MediaWatchWatch.org.uk)

I've just spotted this article from Tuesday's Education Guardian which talks about the teaching of creationism in schools and concentrates on the visit to the UK of mad Australian creationist John Mackay. Of course, Richard Dawkins can always be relied on for a good quote:

"The spread of Peter Vardy's creationist beliefs into the academies run by the Emmanuel schools foundations is extremely worrying," says Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist and author of The Selfish Gene. "In March 2002, Stephen Layfield - Emmanuel's head of science - delivered a lecture in which he openly listed ways creationist teachers should provide alternative biblical explanations for evolutionary data. This is a man charged with the responsibility of teaching our children and whose department received a star rating from Ofsted. "We cannot afford to take creationism lightly. It is not an amusing diversion, but a serious threat to scientific reason. People like Mackay thrive by drip-feeding misinformation. We need a much more open public debate, both in schools and elsewhere, so that his ideas can be seen for the rubbish they are."

And then today we have AC Grayling writing about religion and atheism. He includes a call to complately ban the teaching of religion from schools.

Let us challenge religion to leave children alone until they are adults, whereupon they can be presented with the essentials of religion for mature consideration. For example: tell an averagely intelligent adult hitherto free of religious brainwashing that somewhere, invisibly, there is a being somewhat like us, with desires, interests, purposes, memories, and emotions of anger, love, vengefulness and jealousy, yet with the negation of such other of our failings as mortality, weakness, corporeality, visibility, limited knowledge and insight; and that this god magically impregnates a mortal woman, who then gives birth to a special being who performs various prodigious feats before departing for heaven. Take your pick of which version of this story to tell: let a King of Heaven impregnate - let's see - Danae or Io or Leda or the Virgin Mary (etc, etc) and let there be resulting heaven-destined progeny (Heracles, Castor and Pollux, Jesus, etc, etc) - or any of the other forms of exactly such tales in Babylonian, Egyptian and other mythologies - then ask which of them he wishes to believe. One can guarantee that such a person would say: none of them.

It's a nice idea, but unfortunately it doesn't stand a chance whilst the PM is a believer in an invisible sky pixie.

I'll just add that to the list of reasons why Blair must go.

I found a couple of reports of this week's evolution lecture. Firstly a write-up from a blogger who was lucky enough to get in and secondly a review at The Register.

The Register also gives a link to a statement issued by the Royal Society about evolution, creationism and intelligent design.

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 religious 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.

I failed to get in to Steve Jones's lecture at the Royal Society last night. Unfortunately, I didn't fail to get in until I had been standing in the rain for over half an hour. Apparently there was room for 500 people in the hall and I estimate that at least 200 were turned away. It's heartening that so many people were interested in the lecture, but I wonder if many of the people there were creationists turning up to argue with the sane people. There are certainly a lot of them on the discussion board.

If anyone was there or has pointers to any reports of the evening then I'd love to hear from you.

Update: Looks like the lecture is available online. I haven't had a chance to watch it yet.