creationism

You are currently browsing the archive for the creationism category.

P Z Myers amuses me with his latest Pharyngula posting on Intelligent Design creationism: The Discovery Institute’s mask just slipped a bit more. The post includes a video from the Discovery Institute’s Stephen Meyer, who pontificates away about the existence of his god/creator. Meyer repeats once more the silly misrepresentations of Signature in the Cell, and really comes of the fence. Once more the Discotute claims that Intelligent Design creationism is science slip further away. As Myers says:

It’s been settled for a long time, but this is one more nail in the coffin: Intelligent Design is simply a front for religious pitchmen. And not just any religion, but far right Christianity.

I note that the video is linked with (produced by) Focus on the Family, and its “The Truth Project”. I somehow doubt their definition of Truth accords with mine.

Tags: ,

In this rather splendid blog article (The Discovery Institute feels sorry for my students – Mountain Beltway – AGU Blogosphere), Callan Bentley reveals a brief email correspondence between a Discotute ‘media relations specialist’, and writes an excellent takedown of Intelligent Design creationism.

Tags:

There’s an article in today’s Guardian which indicates that all these free schools which form part of Michael Gove’s misguided concept of state centralisation of education must teach evolution (Free schools must teach evolution, ministers announce).

All free schools will be forced to present evolution as a comprehensive and central tenet of scientific theory, ministers have announced, following lobbying by senior scientists concerned that Christian-run institutions could exploit loopholes in the rules to present creationism as a credible theory.

The significance here is clear – for all the free schools founded by the more extreme sectors of evangelical christianity (and, I guess, schools run with any other religious ethos) evolution must be taught as part of the science curriculum. The worry had been that such Free schools such as the Grindon Hall Christian School (see The Grindon Hall Creation Policy document) would teach their (ir)relevant creation myths under the guise of Religious Studies, and then just omit evolutionary biology from their science classes.

Still, worries must arise around just how these religiously motivated Free schools will be inspected – both in terms of how effective this can be and who actually does the inspection.

Wouldn’t it just be easier not to allow these kinds of people to run schools in the first place?

Tags: ,

Since my time available for blogging has somewhat disappeared at the moment, I’m merely going to briefly link to postings generally relevant to creationism.

Peer reviewed Intelligent Design creationism?

Claims of Peer Review for Intelligent Design examined … and debunked – Dave Gamble reviews the supposedly peer reviewed publications of intelligent design creationism, focussing on the output of the Discovery Institute. His initial filter weeds out papers in BIO-Complexity, the house journal of the Biologic Insitute (the research arm of the DI). Similarly, other classes of output are cast aside. Dave’s conclusion?

The complete lack of any credible scientific evidence tells you all you really need to know. Is there any scientific foundation for Intelligent Design? The quick one word summary is “No“.
With no credible evidence on the table, any and all creationist claims need not be addressed, but instead should simply be dismissed. If they wish to ever assert a claim that is not dismissed, then they need to first go do some science that backs it up.

But you really should read the article.

ENCODE and the reality of junk DNA

Of course, the big news in the last few weeks has been the bizarre claims of the ENCODE project that they have identified a ‘function’ for 80% of the human genome…and they expect that proportion to increase. This was eagerly set upon by ID creationists as some kind of demolition of the existence of junk DNA, along with erroneous claims that junk DNA was originally defined or equated with non-coding DNA. Of course, the latter is incorrect, and anyway, the ENCODE project had to redefine ‘function’ to get the 80% figure. It’s worth reading ENCODE says what? at the Cryptogenomicon blog – written by labs who really know what they are talking about.

Similarly T. Ryan Gregory at Genomicron has weighed in: ENCODE spokesperson: 40%, not 80%; Student ENCODE authors show the way; Good reads about ENCODE; ENCODE (2012) vs. Comings (1972). Many of these articles present a clear historical perspective.

Sites like Genomicron and Cryptogenomicron have articles that really ought to put to rest this new fable that Junk DNA is a myth, but it has spread like wildfire round the internet at the hands of those who are too ignorant or deceitful to understand the reality of the data.

The Salem hypothesis revisited

Here’s a blog article that popped up in my Trapit app the other day: Intelligent Design, Evolution, & Molecular Machines. The author, Orrin Woodward, would appear to be an engineer. That an engineer might sign up to ID creationism shouldn’t really be a surprise (see The Salem Hypothesis).

Almost unbelievably, Woodward homes in on that most discredited example of irreducible complexity, the bacterial flagellum. Reading this made it seem I was in a time warp and had ended up pre-Dover! What gives the game away are a series of quotations from the bible. Woodward closes with an exhortation “Indeed, it’s not as important that we all think the same, but it is desperately important today that we all start to think.” Unfortunately, his blog article clearly demonstrates the author’s unwillingness to think beyond outdated and discredited creationist misrepresentation of biology and his own religion’s sacred texts.

Tags: ,

Among the three Free Schools heavily implicated in creationism that were announced recently is Grindon Hall Christian School. Over at their website (Grindon Hall Christian School – The School), we can read:

A Christian School – this means we affirm Christian truth, employ Christian teachers, hold a daily act of Christian worship and aim to have Christ at the centre of all we do.  It means we pursue excellence in everything we do, from academic life to sport and extra-curricular activities.  It does not mean we only admit children from Christian families: around 80% of our pupils are from non-faith or other faith backgrounds and all are welcome.  And it does not mean that we adopt extremist positions which in our view can often devalue the reputation of Christian education.

So this Free School feels it appropriate to not only indoctrinate non-christian children, but discriminate against non-christian teachers. Has the school turned its back on belief in creationism and an intention to teach it? Interestingly this link leads to a Word document which outlines the School’s policy on creationism. (There doesn’t appear to be a direct link to this policy from the School’s website, so one might suspect that the link has been deleted to try and hide the document. But it was still on their server on 20th July 2012 – though maybe it will be deleted – see update at the bottom of this post). In that document the school’s former anti-science policy is laid bare:

We are therefore very happy to believe that God could have created the world in six days. But we do not feel that it is helpful to affirm it as an unarguable fact.

We do not believe that the very plain evidence supporting a lengthy process of evolution needs to be challenged by Christians.

However, we vigorously challenge the unscientific certainty often claimed by scientists surrounding the so-called “Big Bang” and origins generally.

We believe that no scientific theory provides – or ever will provide – a satisfactory explanation of origins, i.e. why the world appeared, and how nothing became something in the first place.

We will teach evolution as an established scientific principle, as far as it goes.

We will teach creation as a scientific theory and we will always affirm very clearly our position as Christians, i.e. that Christians believe that God’s creation of the world is not just a theory but a fact with eternal consequences for our planet and for every person who has ever lived on it.

We will affirm that to believe in God’s creation of the world is an entirely respectable position scientifically and rationally.

I’ve emphasised in bold some of the text which in my view correspond to the kind of rhetoric spouted by Young Earth Creationists. In my experience there is little correspondence between the strong religious belief held by creationists and honesty. I am aware that the BHA has posted an update to their blog article, in which the Grindon Hall Christian School repeat their assertion they will not teach creationism. But like the BHA, I find their assurances rather hollow, particularly in light of the classic creationist newspeak emboldened above in that document. I would be interested to know why that document, written by Rachel Nurse (who appears to be a school administrator) in 2007 still lingers on their web server.

Will Michael Gove now admit he may well have been hoodwinked by some creationists?

Updated 24/7/12: The school appears to have deleted the incriminating file from their server. Never mind, I have a copy.

Tags:

The BHA reports that a creationist group have had their bid to open a free school has been approved. (Creationists approved to open Free School in 2013)

A group of creationists has gained approval from the Department for Education (DfE) to open a Free School from 2013. The group are behind the plans for Exemplar – Newark Business Academy, a revised bid from the same people who proposed Everyday Champion’s Academy last year. Everyday Champion’s Academy, which was formally backed by Everyday Champions Church, was explicitly rejected due to concerns surrounding the teaching of creationism. The British Humanist Association (BHA) has expressed deep concern at the Government choosing to fund a creationist group.

This is a shameful decision by the Government, and one supposes that Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Education, is motivated more by his ideological drive to remove education from local authority control than in any genuine interest in educational quality. The BHA further comments:

In January the group decided to bid again, this time for Exemplar Academy and without the formal backing of the church. However, the website for the new Academy was initially part of the Everyday Champions Church website; and the plans were launched at Everyday Champions Church, being described as a ‘resubmission’ of the previous bid. The group commented that ‘The school will be run on Christian values and we are proud of that. There is a huge difference between Christian values and Christian theology, which is why the original bid was turned down.’

Visit the BHA article for a comprehensive set of links. I guess we should not be surprised that a politician with a distinct prediliction for faith-based education, and who organised a vanity project to send out unsolicited copies of the bible to schools would take a lax approach to approval of even the more dubious faith-related projects.

Tags:

A new visitor centre has opened at the Giant’s Causeway, after an earlier centre burnt down a few years ago. The Giant’s Causeway is an impressive site: thousands of basalt columns formed millions of years ago. Wikipedia has a succinct overview of the geological origins of the causeway:

Some 50 to 60 million years ago, during the Paleogene period, Antrim was subject to intense volcanic activity, when highly fluid molten basalt intruded through chalk beds to form an extensive lava plateau. As the lava cooled rapidly,contraction occurred. Horizontal contraction fractured in a similar way to drying mud, with the cracks propagating down as the mass cooled, leaving pillarlike structures, which are also fractured horizontally into “biscuits”. In many cases the horizontal fracture has resulted in a bottom face that is convex while the upper face of the lower segment is concave, producing what are called “ball and socket” joints. The size of the columns is primarily determined by the speed at which lava from a volcanic eruption cools. The extensive fracture network produced the distinctive columns seen today. The basalts were originally part of a great volcanic plateau called the Thulean Plateau which formed during the Paleogene period.

Giant’s Causeway (Wikipedia)

Unfortunately, news from Northern Ireland seems to be suggesting that the local evangelicals have got their teeth into the National Trust and have their ludicrous creationist misinformation incorporated in an audiovisual display. There’s little information as yet on how prominent this is, but it has the potential to be rather a shameful embarrassment for the National Trust. The Caleb Foundation (“Promoting the Fundamentals of the Historic Evangelical Protestant Faith”) are proudly proclaiming their success in inserting their dodgy version:

As an umbrella organisation which represents the interests of mainstream evangelical Christians in Northern Ireland,we have worked closely with the National Trust over many months with a view to ensuring that the new Causeway Visitor Centre includes an acknowledgement both of the legitimacy of the creationist position on the origins of the unique Causeway stones and of the ongoing debate around this. We are pleased that the National Trust worked positively with us and that this has now been included at the new Visitor Centre.

I’ve blogged previously about the Caleb Foundation -The Caleb FoundationMore creationism in Northern IrelandCreationist Claims in Northern Ireland (UTV News)Creationist claims in Northern Ireland (The Guardian), and the BCSE has a couple of articles about the Caleb Foundation – Part 1 and Part 2.

At this stage, it’s not clear quite how the evangelical and creationist viewpoint is projected, but it has received some media attention. Ulster TV reports Causeway centre gives creationist view. The National Trust come across as rather naive in that report:

The trust said that the exhibit gives recognition to the fact that, for creationists, the debate about the age of the Earth is still ongoing.

A statement read: “The Giants’ Causeway has always prompted debate about how it was formed and how old it is.

“One of the exhibits in the Giants’ Causeway Visitors’ Centre interpretation tells the story of the part the Giants’ Causeway played in the debate about how the Earth’s rocks were formed and the age of the Earth.

“This is an interactive audio exhibition in which visitors can hear some of the different debates from historical characters.

“In this exhibition we also acknowledge that for some people, this debate continues today and we reflect and respect the fact that creationists today have a different perspective on the age of the Earth from that of mainstream science.”

It appears that the Caleb Foundation “worked with” the National Trust to ensure that misinformation was presented at the Visitor Centre. This is potentially an astonishing and appalling lapse on the part of the National Trust.

Tags:

The Discovery Institute recently published a brief book (maybe booklet would e more accurate) penned by Anne Gauger and Douglas Axe of the Biologic Institute and Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute. Having recently ploughed through Stephen Meyer’s effort, I am in no mood to waste further time on Discotute crud. But, lo! Over at Still Monkeys, Paul McBride blogs his way through this, chapter by chapter:

Here starts a chapter-by-chapter review of Gauger, Axe and Luskin’s Science and Human Origins, a Discovery Insititute publication that is intended to challenge–amongst other things–the notion that humans share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, and that we couldn’t have had descended from a literal Adam and Eve.

As one might expect, the religious creationist bent of the authors seems to shine through. McBride is really very thorough in his demolition of the booklet.

Tags:

I’ve long been following the antics of Glasgow’s Centre for Intelligent Design (C4ID), the UK’s little brother to the Discotute, a setup which aims to push Intelligent Design creationism in the UK. Indeed, I find it rather amusing to be on their mailing list – I was invited to attend last year’s lecture by Stephen Meyer, one of the main men of the Discotute (and, I believe, a leading author of the Wedge Strategy which clearly states the Discotute’s aims). I did not attend the lecture, but did as a consequence read Meyer’s Signature in the Cell (for example No Signature in the Cell).

C4ID appears to be fairly small outfit, very largely run by Dr Alastair Noble, who’s PhD is in chemistry and who has been active in education (particularly through christian organisations). Other figures are the president (Norman Nevin, an emeritus professor in medical genetics who is on record preaching the literal truth of Genesis) and the vice-president (Dr David Galloway). All three are strongly religious.

After a series of communiques extolling their activities (e.g. their upcoming meeting, and their move to try and get a creationism pseudo-textbook adopted by schools), the latest is something of a mixed bag. Along with plans to recruit a recent PhD graduate to evangelise ID creationism to postgraduate students:

A major initiative to promote ID, formally and informally, among postgraduate students. This involves the appointment of a recent science PhD who will work across universities and colleges to promote the debate and provide support for students who find it hard to resist the peer pressure to shut down academic discussion of the subject.

To publish a book aimed at a lay audience:

A new, ground-breaking guide to Intelligent Design by Alastair Noble which is aimed at the layman and which will fill a gap in the range of available publications on the subject. This is part of our wider strategy to promote public debate of ID and its implications.

(Frankly, this isn’t the route to get ID creationism accepted – to do that one would need to do your actual research, to prove the existence of a designer etc, and get this stuff out there as science. Of course, as reheated creationism that isn’t exactly likely, so ID proponents have a strategy to try and confuse the lay public with silly arguments. And to try and insinuate their dubious texts into schools. It’ll be interesting to see what Noble comes up with – so far all C4ID have seemed to achieve is to import American ID creationist speakers and literature. It’s interesting to note in this context that Noble isn’t a biologist by training, and that his brief research career was in chemistry.)

To hold another meeting featuring Discotute ‘stars’ such as Douglas Axe (who is at the Biologic Institute, the flagship ID research institute that doesn’t actually seem to do much research) and others:

An autumn conference to be held in Malvern on September 28/29, 2012, which will focus on the science of ID with Dr Doug Axe (Biologic Institute, Seattle, USA) and the philosophical and religious implications with Prof John Lennox (Oxford). This is part of our long-term strategy to give the next generation of opinion formers confidence to explore all aspects of ID.

But things don’t seem so rosy in the C4ID playground, and they seem to be needing a bit of a cash injection:

Our capacity to promote Intelligent Design in the UK is significantly limited by our current financial resources. If you share our understanding that these issues are important and are willing to partner with us, we will be able to develop our plans and programs more quickly and have more impact.

Actually, I suspect that promoting ID creationism is rather more limited by the fact that it is complete tosh.

Tags:

I came across a credulous (or scientifically illiterate) article in The American Spectator (a conservative journal I’d never heard of before): Intelligent Design at the University Club. It’s by a journalist I’d never heard of before, Tom Bethell. It seems that Bethell attended a lecture by Stephen Meyer and organised by Socrates in the City, at which Meyer repeated his bizarre and unscientific proposition that DNA indicates that a creator designer must have initiated life on earth (see my review of Signature in the Cell). In my view it’s illustrative of the shortcomings of ID creationists. Bethell appears to have interviewed Meyer after his talk, the result being a farrago of pro-ID tosh, including this outline of the dear old Centre for Intelligent Design:

Internationally, ID is also growing. There’s a new Centre for Intelligent Design in London (C4ID). Affiliated with it is Norman Nevin, one of the leading geneticists in the UK. A number of full professors of science within the British system are also affiliated. The Centre has teamed up with Discovery Institute for various events.

Oh, a number of full professors of science are on board?  Not enough to make an impact on the literature, I guess. And while Norman Nevin is an emeritus Professor of medical genetics, he apparently delivers sermons espousing Young Earth Creationism. Of course, a general pattern in proponents of Intelligent Design proponents is that they are either (a) have no biological research experience (if indeed they have any qualification in science) or (b) hold strongly religious beliefs, or sometimes both. It’s quite clear that those qualities are entirely appropriate in pushing a re-branded form of creationism masquerading as science. And the triumvirate running C4ID clearly fall into that description. Nice to see that the C4ID, which is independent from the Discotute, has indeed teamed up with them for several events. But of course, C4ID isn’t based in London at all. But its output is almost all reheated Discotute material.

What are Bethell’s qualifications to push Intelligent Design creationism? Let’s look at Wikipedia for some clues.

Tom Bethell (born July 17, 1940) is a journalist who writes mainly on economic and scientific issues, and is known for his support of the market economy, political conservatism, and fringe science. He says that neither evolution nor intelligent design is falsifiable.

Bit of a flag there – “writes mainly on economic and scientific issues” – “support of [...] fringe science” – “says that neither evolution nor intelligent design is falsifiable”.  According to Wikipedia he’s an HIV denialist. Whatever. His grasp of science seems shaky.

 

Tags:

« Older entries