Darwinis and popular culture: Archbishop attacks UK exam question on ID

SEATTLE—Earlier this week, The Daily Telegraph reported attacks on the inclusion of intelligent design in a British science exam, provoking a sharp response from the intelligent design research community, led by Stephen C. Meyer, a Cambridge University-trained philosopher of science whose just-released book Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperOne) is already drawing praise from leading U.K. scientists.

Lecturer James Williams of Sussex University complained to The Telegraph, “This gives an unwarranted high profile to creationism and intelligent design as ideas of equal status with tested scientific theories.”

“Mr. Williams apparently knows very little about the scientific case for intelligent design," said Dr. Meyer, who also directs the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture in the United States. "The exam board should be commended, not attacked, for exposing students to competing ideas about the origin and development of life."

Go here for more.

[The question asked students to "One question asked students to compare Darwinian evolutionary theories with Lamarckian evolutionary theory, the theory of intelligent design and Biblical creationism." It would only be useful if the students actually knew what all these positions were - distinctively - about. If they did, it would be an excellent way of distinguishing "Darwinism" from "evolution."

I'm told the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, also chimed in. He was last heard claiming that sharia law might be a good idea. You'd think he would, at some point, get round to his own collapsing church - but only so many hours in a day, after all.]

Don't believe in God? Doubt Darwin anyway? No problem ... thank Richard Dawkins!

Discovery Institute (yes, yes, the evil Discos) writes to say,

Zogby Poll Shows Dramatic Jump in Number of Americans Who Favor Teaching Both Sides of Evolution

Surprisingly Strong Support Seen Among Democrats and Liberals

A new Zogby poll on the eve of Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday shows a dramatic rise in the number of Americans who agree that when biology teachers teach the scientific evidence for Darwin’s theory of evolution, they also should teach the scientific evidence against it. Surprisingly, the poll also shows overwhelming support among self-identified Democrats and liberals for academic freedom to discuss the “strengths and weaknesses” evolution.

Over 78% of likely voters agree with teaching both the evidence for and against Darwin’s theory, according to the new national poll.

“This represents a dramatic 9-point jump from 2006, when only 69% of respondents in a similar poll favored teaching both sides,” said Discovery Institute’s Dr. John West. “At the same time, the number of likely voters who support teaching only the evidence that favors evolution dropped 7 points from 21% in 2006 to 14.4% in 2009. More here.

Here's the whole gruesome poll.

I personally believe that the change in the numbers who say, "Aw, just teach it all," is due to the strident celebration of Darwin by materialist atheists. They need his theory to be true, despite evidence, and they are simply out of step with what most people think.

Oh yes, and dim Bible School profs who think we all need protection from the Darwinists. "No conflict between science and religion," says the prof.

Yeah sure, but what does the prof think science is, and what does he think religion is? Darwin thought that black people were closer to gorillas than white people are. Is that really science?

Also, the universe shows overwhelming evidence of intelligent design. Is that really religion?

I am tempted to get down on my knees and thank the "new atheist" movement, and especially, Richard Dawkins, for these results. Everyone now wants the window to be opened, to dissipate the foul air.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Darwinism and popular culture: Merry Christmas, and could we all now try minding our own business about Christian schools?

An Australian school has been cleared of the charge of teaching creationism.

According to Anna Patty of the Sydney Morning Herald

A Christian school that teaches a biblical view of creation in science classes has been cleared of breaching state curriculum requirements for the teaching of evolution.

The NSW Board of Studies has found that Pacific Hills Christian School at Dural has met its requirements for teaching the science syllabus, including evolution, to years 7 to 10 (December 9, 2008)

Also,

Mr O'Doherty said Mr Bonnor had misquoted the Pacific Hills science teacher, and Dr Kaye's comments amounted to vilification.

I'll bet. Any time I go to give a talk at a Christian school, it is a pleasure. Clean, non-violent, drug free kids with a low sense of entitlement are worth teaching.

By contrast, I go to schools of which the Darwinist approves and, half the time it is like walking into a den of bears. You can be pretty sure that no one has ever suggested to the kids that the universe might be intelligently designed. Sure, one meets lots of good kids in those schools, but one also meets lots of kids who are, I am afraid, going to learn the hard way.

I would suggest leaving the Christian schools to get on with teaching science, without strategic investigations aimed at tying up their time and resources defending themselves. Especially, let them get on with turning out kids whom you would want as your doctor or nurse when you get sick.

On teaching creationism in the schools ...

Climb down from the drapes, you idiot! The pattern looks better without you in the middle of it.

In the combox here, in response to this post at Uncommon Descent, "scottrobinson" wanted me to be more clear as to where I stand on teaching creationism in science class.

I see now that my comments may require some unpacking if the reader is not familiar with the point of view that underlies them. So here goes:

1. I do not think that creationism should generally be taught in science classes because creationism is by nature an apologetics project: It harmonizes scripture or tradition with current findings of science. Hugh Ross (Christian), Gerald Schroeder (Jewish), Harun Yahya (Muslim), and Vine DeLoria, Jr. (Native American) have all written in this area. I understand that there is a work in progress from Hare Krishna as well.

What should be obvious from my list is that a demonstrated harmony between current science and a scripture or tradition is of interest only to those for whom a given work or way of life is scripture or tradition. Otherwise, it will sound like an attempt to introduce the religion itself in a more favourable light than other religions.

And how shall we address the Dalai Lama's obvious disappointment with Big Bang theory in his book The Universe in a Single Atom? (Buddhists are happier with an eternal universe, or perhaps a Big Bounce universe, as recently proposed by Roger Penrose.)

I live in a multicultural society, and I will not attempt to prescribe for a monocultural society. But I would say that the obvious solution for a multicultural society is just not to have any such material on the curriculum.

2. That said, I am intrigued by the neo-fascists who want their government to hound creationist teachers. I worry that these people themselves would be perfectly happy teaching vast reams of Darwinian or Dawkinsian nonsense. Here are some examples of stuff they don't like and have to teach around:

The history of life has not been the long, slow “survival of the fittest” transition that classical evolution theory requires. Life got started on Earth soon after the planet cooled. All the basic divisions of animal life took shape rather suddenly in the Cambrian seas, about 550 million years ago. Later, there was, for example, the "Big Bang" of flowers and the Big Bang of birds, where many life forms appear quite suddenly.

Modern human consciousness is one of these leaps, judging from the superb cave paintings from recent millenniums.

... the peacock’s tail did not evolve to please hen birds; hens don’t notice them much. The allegedly yummy Viceroy butterfly did not evolve to look like the bad-tasting Monarch (both insects taste bad). The eye spots on butterflies’ wings did not evolve to scare birds by resembling the eyes of their predators. Birds avoid brightly patterned insects, period. They don't care whether the patterns resemble eyes. Similarly, the famous “peppered moth” of textbook fame has devolved into a peppered myth, featuring book-length charges and countercharges.

And remember that row of vertebrate embryos in your textbook years ago? It was dubbed in the journal Science one of the "most famous fakes" in biology—because the embryos don’t really look very similar. And Darwin’s majestic Tree of Life? It's now a tangleweed, or maybe several of them.

I wouldn't be the least surprised to hear that they were teaching the Big Bazooms Theory of Human Evolution .... yawn ...

I would be more impressed with these teacher-hounds if there was a Darwinist theory so flamingly and obviously stupid that they actually didn't believe it. So stick a fork in their persecutions!

(Note: The only time anyone actually tried, they fell for the hoax.)

3. If students ask questions, teachers can either discuss them intelligently or lose respect. "Discuss intelligently" does not mean quacking some idiocy written by a consultant, Dover-style. Consultants are bigger idiots than teachers because they do not deal directly with students and therefore do not need to live in the real world.

I also think that teachers should briefly give their own opinion if asked, but then insist on moving on to the curriculum at hand. My teachers always did that, and students respected them the more for it*.

4. Here in Canada, thugs, snitches, and nannies are rapidly outwearing their never very generous welcome. I, in particular, am an unusually hard sell on the subject of firing anyone for their opinions. I'd prefer to fire the thug, the snitch, and the nanny, and vote that other guy a raise. It appears that 99% of the Canadian Conservative Party convention thinks somewhat like me ...

If that is an accident, it is an accident with consequences. Good thing the Eurocracy never tried taking over Canada. Bad timing, that would sure be.

Did humans and dinos live at the same time? Yes, fur sure, ... at the movies! Here's a great Jurassic Park trailer for your enjoyment:



(*I was very lucky because in my day, many intelligent people could not attend U for financial reasons and ended up in teacher's college. It was a Grade Seven teacher who first told us about Fred Hoyle's spontaneous creation of hydrogen atoms and a Grade Eight teacher who told us about tectonic plates while the theory was still being routinely trashed at Yankee U's.)

One third of British teachers think ID or creationism okay

In The Daily Telegraph, Martin Beckford tells us "One in three teachers says teach creationism alongside evolution" (07 N0v 2008).

The poll found that 31 per cent of teachers agree that creationism or intelligent design – the theory that the universe shows signs of having been designed rather than evolving – should be given the same status as evolution in the classroom, including 18 per cent of science teachers.

Half of those questioned agreed that excluding the alternative to evolution would alienate religious pupils, and almost nine out of 10 believed they should be allowed to discuss creationism if pupils bring it up.

Mr Bethell said: "Although over half of teachers either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the idea that creationism should be given the same status as evolution, there is a significant minority who believe that it should be given equal weight.

"Nearly half of teachers also agreed with Professor Michael Reiss' sentiment that excluding alternative explanations to evolution is counter-productive and alienates pupils from science.

No surprise here, except, were I advising those teachers, I would tell them to keep quiet about their doubts for now. The people who fired Michael Reiss are perfectly capable of a purge, and indeed, a purge has already been threatened.

The elite Darwinist materialists will then - par for the course - replace experienced teachers with their stooges - signally free of either brains or guts, and likely to resolve evidence-based doubts by an orgy of compulsory communal Darwin worship.

Arthur Jones, chair of the British Association of Christian Teachers, writes to say,

If you want to watch what TeachersTV in the UK is producing for teachers and schools, promoting Darwin and attacking creationism and intelligent design, then go here.

It is dreadful, but it does illustrate a stark divide - scientists agitating for dogmatism and indoctrination and educationists and teachers feeling that discussion and argument are better.

I say it was dreadful because at no point does it explain what creationists or ID proponents actually believe, nor how they handle the evidence. Almost none of the 'evidence' mentioned in the programme discriminates between the positions. Adam Rutherford, the presenter, is, in relation to the issue he was addressing, plain ignorant (and that's being generous!)

However there are some good omens in the UK - growing instances of the atheists having to face the hard questions that their control of the UK media has hitherto enabled them to avoid (e.g. Justin Brierley's interview of Richard Dawkins after his last debate with John Lennox in Oxford on 21 October - you can listen to it on the Premier website here ).

Actually, Dawkins - who told Ben Stein that, given a choice, he is willing to believe space aliens created life rather than that God did - should long ago have been discredited as a public figure. The fact that he hasn't been tells you how bad things are in Britain.

So British teachers, read as much as you can about design and teach those alert students with whom you can safely share information to remain quiet about what they know for now. And wait for the signal.

See also: Can we all just spell out together "U-S-E-F-U-L I-D-I-O-T-S" and have done with it?

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Former famous atheist Antony Flew asked for intelligent design to be taught in British schools.

As the ID controversy grows worldwide, I simply don't and can't keep up with everything. One thing I hadn't realized - which a friend mentioned recently - is that one of the 12 prominent academics who asked at the end of last year for intelligednt design to be explored in science classes was Antony Flew:

It has emerged that 12 prominent academics wrote to Tony Blair and Alan Johnson, the education secretary, last month arguing that ID should be taught as part of science on the national curriculum.

They included Antony Flew, formerly professor of philosophy at Reading University; Terry Hamblin, professor of immunohaemotology at Southampton University; and John Walton, professor of chemistry at St Andrews University.

Flew was best known for being converted from atheism to deism (there is at least some kind of God) by intelligent design - after about fifty years of being one of the world's most respected academic atheists. He commented on DNA that

... the investigation of DNA “has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved.

Of course, the British government nixed the idea, but I bet it doesn't die. And people wonder why there is an intelligent design controversy. By the way, to keep up with ID in Britain, go here.

Eccentric social history: When dull conformists think they are cool

This editorial from the Akron Beacon-Journal - against allowing any student to know that Darwinism could be questioned on factual grounds - is an interesting bit of social history because it is complete boilerplate, beginning to end.

You can deduce a large proportion of the pieties of middle-class Americans (courts are right, professional bodies are right, organizations of "concerned scientists" are to be trusted ... well, even when they are not right or trustworthy, they are actually right and trustworthy because it is NEVER right to allow oneself to be disturbed by thinking that they might be wrong or untrustworthy .... )

An intriguing fact about the times we live in is that, in my experience, the people who write sludge of this type often think of themselves as persons of daring, novel, intriguing, dangerous, or important ideas ...

Did you know that there was a time - and I am old enough to remember the tail end of it - when people who had no novel ideas prided themselves on being good conformists - which was a fair assumption. That is to say, they prided themselves on a quality they really had.

Today, such people pride themselves on being good non-conformists for gurgling and regurgitating the treacle administered to them by an establishment.

The resulting language deficit hampers people who actually do have genuinely new or different ideas. Because everyone who thinks the establishment is right, also thinks he is innovative, the people who really do innovate don't know what language to use to explain that they think the establishment could actually be wrong.

I was corresponding with a person who genuinely has interesting, new ideas in the history of life area, but he admitted to me that he had difficulty writing in the present climate.

The trouble is, everything old is new again, and everything new is old again. Only new ideas that are already old can be accepted.

I replied,

That is the real effect of political correctness and prescribed views. Sometimes they tell you to bark along with the pack, but other times they merely surround you with the din created by the barking pack.

Such an environment withers independent thinking. Barking along with the pack comes to seem so natural - until you stop and realize that you are in fact barking, not speaking.

Well, he’ll manage. Oh, he’d better. Otherwise, you will all be hearing that dull sludge link, clink, and clank for decades.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Are you looking for one of the following stories?

A summary of tech guru George Gilder's arguments for ID and against Darwinism

A critical look at why March of the Penguins was thought to be an ID film.

A summary of recent opinion columns on the ID controversy

A summary of recent polls of US public opinion on the ID controversy

A summary of the Catholic Church's entry into the controversy, essentially on the side of ID.

O'Leary's intro to non-Darwinian agnostic philosopher David Stove’s critique of Darwinism.

An ID Timeline: The ID folk seem always to win when they lose.

O’Leary’s comments on Francis Beckwith, a Dembski associate, being denied tenure at Baylor.

Why origin of life is such a difficult problem.

Blog policy note:Comments are permitted on this blog, but they are moderated. Fully anonymous posts and URLs posted without comment are rarely accepted. To Mr. Anonymous: I'm not psychic, so if you won't tell me who you are, I can't guess and don't care. To Mr. Nude World (URL): If you can't be bothered telling site visitors why they should go on to your fave site next, why should I post your comment? They're all busy people, like you. To Mr. Rudeby International and Mr. Pottymouth: I also have a tendency to delete comments that are merely offensive. Go be offensive to someone who can smack you a good one upside the head. That may provide you with a needed incentive to stop and think about what you are trying to accomplish. To Mr. Righteous but Wrong: I don't publish comments that contain known or probable factual errors. There's already enough widely repeated misinformation out there, and if you don't have the time to do your homework, I don't either. To those who write to announce that at death I will either 1) disintegrate into nothingness or 2) go to Hell by a fast post, please pester someone else. I am a Catholic in communion with the Church and haven't the time for either village atheism or aimless Jesus-hollering.

US Prez Bush supports teaching intelligent design alongside no-design evolution

In an interview with five Texas newspapers, Bush dropped this little bombshell, while refusing to answer other questions.

Fellow Toronto hack David Warren chuckles,

And, in the course of suggesting this to Texas hacks, he composes an excellent new Bushism:

"You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."

Warren has about as much time for bullying Darwinists as I do.

Bush majored in poker at university, and I have reason to believe that he was waiting to play this hand.

(Note: If this is not the story you were looking for, see the stories listed in the sidebar. Also, I have temporarily pulled the story on the various events happening re ID in the schools because I became aware that I might be republishing material without permission - something I had not realized when I first received the material. If I can straighten that out to my satisfaction, I will put the material up again. - Denyse)

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

School board addresses intelligent design issue for years without controversy

A school board in Bluffton, Indiana, seems to me a model of good sense, compared to some, in how it approaches the intelligent design controversy.

“The intent of this board directive is not to replace the teaching of the theory of evolution with the theory of intelligent design or any other theory. On the contrary, the intent is to discuss the scientific evidence — not religious evidence — for and against appropriate theories at all grade levels where this topic is discussed,” Gerber read from his one-page statement.

Half of me feels bad about even mentioning Bluffton, for fear the Blufftonites will become the target of anti-freedom groups (see the post below) that will attempt to tie them up in costly litigation, even though there has been little or no local controversy.

High school principal Steve Baker told the board that for the last six years he had never received a phone call from a parent who thought too much or too little evolution or intelligent design was being taught at the high school.

Perhaps the local public is tired of bullying by the Darwin lobby, and just wants curriculum to reflect the range of science-based views on origins?