And big daddy fly said...

------------------------
Via PZ Myers. Grow into these trousers... >>

Testing Intelligent Design creationism

YouTube video makers C0nc0rdance and Thunderf00t throw down a challenge to advocates of ID: "find a gene without an evolutionary heritage", let's say that again "look for a single gene that shows signs of non-evolutionary origin."

Shortened version: Put up or STFU.

Challenging the Discovery Institute to Discover

I doubt this is restricted to followers of Christianity. Anyone who believes that evolution does not occur and that speciation is divinely guided, supernatural or magic may post their hypothesis on YouTube. Or feel free to make a suggestion below, I will forward your idea to C0nc0rdance.
------------------
HT PZ Myers. Grow into these trousers... >>

A nice synopsis - Evolution/Creation

Via LGF, I was tipped off about this video on The Basics of Evolution. It's from QualiaSoup, a YouTuber who deserves more attention. He's not bad.

It's a good presentation of evolutionary biology with the bonus of clarifying the misconceptions of some religious points of view.

Evolution


For those unfamiliar with the banana and crocoduck arguments, there are further educational videos below the belt:

Do not feel obliged to watch all of this, but:

See ~3:50 for the hilarious crocoduck
God must exist... because the crocoduck doesn't!


And look ~2:30 in for cola cans and bananas (FFS have they never heard of the Cavendish?)
The Way Of The Master : Atheism (Part 1 of 3)


You may now feel the need to wash your brain. This is perfectly normal!

BTW, my earlier thought that the Rational Response Squad had been pulled from YouTube was misinformed and JREF have been reinstated (thought it's still unclear to me why they were pulled in the first place - a copyright issue?). Grow into these trousers... >>

Amanda Gefter - How to spot a hidden religious agenda

Last month I posted about a New Scientist article by Amanda Gefter reminding us all How to spot a hidden religious agenda. If you visit that NS link now you see this:

New Scientist has received a legal complaint about the contents of this story. At the advice of our lawyer it has temporarily been removed while we investigate. Apologies for any inconvenience.

What? This was good article and deserves to be read by a wide audience, especially in the UK where the ill conceived idea of 'Intelligent Design' is creeping into the science teaching of some schools.

The internet wins again because the article is now re-posted all over. Read it, and beware the next time you open a newspaper, view television, or review your kid's school curriculum. I wait to see who (note the singular) has made the 'legal complaint' and why.
------------------------
Via everyone in science blogosphere. Grow into these trousers... >>

More creationist nonsense

Via The National Secular Society and Telegraph.co.uk.

Third of teachers would give creationism the same status as evolution in classrooms

Concludes an email poll by Teachers TV.

What? I hope the respondents were PE teachers or have nothing to do with biology or any other science. Why do I fear I am wrong? (Note: it was 31.1%. That is not one third, it's nearer 3 out of 10. Good start Teachers TV).

So a proportion of teachers feel it is acceptable to hold back scientifically aware students while they pander to superstitious belief! Why are those children taking science in the first place, are they advised that way? Kind of "It's good to have a science qualification and biology is easy. None of those damn formulae and stuff." If true that is bad advice for the children. If it's not true then surely remedial classes, at the pupils expense (or their parents) would be more productive - why opt to study biology when your background understanding is lacking?

I followed this up by watching the featured video on Teachers TV School Matters - Adam Rutherford on Evolution and Creationism.
Whilst it starts well it descends rapidly into murk.

Michael Reiss appears early on and I still think he's wrong. In fact Jeremy Pritchard and Randal Keynes seem to be the only sane voices.

Next appearance was from the inappropriately named creationist organisation 'Truth in Science*' who mailed their propaganda to all schools in the country a couple of years ago. Fifty nine schools responded that it was a "valuable classroom resource". OK there are thousands of schools in the UK but 59 responded positively, and that is 59 too many. I hope some of those head teachers were joking. Or was it the PE teachers again. I doubt it. Truth in Science produces some very modern looking science videos which are just eye candy to draw the unaware into bullshit. The sensible move would be to bin it and forget it. It's about as valuable as Harun Yahya's fishing lures (more on this some other time).

The program had also contacted various faith schools/organisations to see if they would enter into dialogue. The answer? No, not one of them. None would even offer an opinion. That says a lot about closed mindedness. Only one teacher, seemingly found at random taking a school trip round the Natural History Museum, was willing to speak about his faith and it's just blustering apologetics.

On to a school classroom where the teacher had won an award, and the lesson looked like good fun till it was polluted by a 'chaplain' misinforming a young man about the evolution of the eye. The teacher then claimed it was a case of playing devil's advocate, so what is happening? Are the kids being taught biology or debating skills?

Should creationism be taught? Yes, as part of a study of comparative religion, contrasting mythologies from around the world. I have no argument with that, social studies are important. History, especially the history of science is anther field where creationism has a place. Teaching how modern thought has developed (evolved) from Dark Age belief can give an insight into the scientific methods used today.

But classroom time in real science is too valuable to waste on primitive ideas which make no contribution to understanding.

Only one thing left to say:

-----------
* this link has the rel="nofollow" attribute so Google will not count it as any kind of positive endorsement. Grow into these trousers... >>

The "Origin of" videos

A while ago I posted a video by cdk007 called The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis.
I've been a bit slow to keep up but parts 2 and 3 of the "Origin of" series are on YouTube.

Part 2
The Origin of the Genetic Code


When I came to part 3 I found an all too common occurrence. In the notes for the video cdk007 says:

For my regular viewers, this is a REPOST. YouTube removed the original video. Let's send the creationists a message that they cannot censor the truth.
Help spread this video.
Repost it, Link to it, e-mail it to friends. Thanks.

Happy to oblige. I like a good laugh.
Part 3, The Origin of the Universe - Justnowism, is below the belt.
Grow into these trousers... >>

A gleam of sanity in Crazy Week

I admit I get too worked up sometimes, and this week seems to exemplify crazy, so it was good to read the insights of Taner Edis on the Michael Reiss/creationism issue and Sharia Law in the UK.

Followed by Richard Dawkins' letter to New Scientist on the Reiss controversy.

Michael Reiss has since resigned his position at the Royal Society. Grow into these trousers... >>

Oh No! Not in the UK!

From Thursdays Grauniad:

Teachers should tackle creationism, says science education expert

Blah.
The Royal Society just went down in my estimation. Big time.
Reverend Professor Michael Reiss, director of education at the UK's national academy of science said:

"I realised that simply banging on about evolution and natural selection didn't lead some pupils to change their minds at all. Now I would be more content simply for them to understand it as one way of understanding the universe"

Reiss wants the classroom to be broad minded and open and I would normally agree, but not in this case. Reality is not a consensus, though many think it to be so. Rather it is an endless learning curve. There is no vote in the 'how reality is' debate. None. Believing something is true, no matter how deep your conviction, does not make it true. Note this because the future of humanity depends on it.



Professor Reiss, I thought you would have been well aware that evolution is the best explanation we humans have for the existence of life; including ourselves. An invisible magician poofing things into being is not an explanation and is of NO scientific merit AT ALL (sorry for shouting). Add to this the observation that if these young people are unable to change their minds, why are they studying science in the first place? Science is dynamic in that if new evidence is uncovered, theories will have to change. This is called learning. Religion is static and dogmatic, it kills free thought and investigation. In an unchanging universe it may have a place but the universe we inhabit is not unchanging.

"Reiss, who is an ordained Church of England minister, told the British Association Festival of Science in Liverpool that science teachers should not see creationism as a "misconception" but as an alternative "world view". He added that he was not advocating devoting the same time to teaching creationism or intelligent design as to evolution."

'Alternative world view'. WTF ALTERNATIVE!?!?!
How many alternatives do you want Professor Reiss? One each? I say again, there is no vote in the 'how reality is' debate. There are only the facts that our humble minds can discern from the majesty of the cosmos which surrounds us. Let us look. Evolutionary biology is supported by many branches of science including: anthropology, archaeology, paleontology, ecology, zoology, biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, geology, comparative anatomy, cladistics... the list goes on.

If you would care to demonstrate your 'alternative world view' please present the evidence.

Waits
crickets chirp
tumbleweed blows past

Oh, that's right, you don't have any.

"Creationism is based on faith and has nothing to do with science, and it should not be taught in science classes," said Prof Lewis Wolpert, a developmental biologist at University College London. "There is no evidence for a creator, and creationism explains nothing."

well said Professor Wolpert.

Reiss agreed that creationism and intelligent design are not scientific theories, but he said that did not automatically exclude them from science lessons. "Just because something lacks scientific support doesn't seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from the science lesson … there is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have – hardly a revolutionary idea in science teaching – and doing one's best to have a genuine discussion."

OK, so lets teach astrology and an Earth centered universe in physics class, we can throw in the luminiferous aether for good measure. How about flat Earthism and the Noachian flood in geography, or alchemy in chemistry class, or π=3 in mathematics. Also, which creation story do you want to see taught? No doubt it's the Biblical creation but which one for the creation of humanity, Genesis 1 (see verse 27) or Genesis 2 (see verses 7, 21 and 22)? They can't both be correct. Furthermore, if scientific discussion has to include a Judaic/Christian/Islamic myth then we should also discuss the counterparts from other religions ie Hinduism, Buddhism, American Indian, Norse, Inuit, and a hundred others. Perhaps we should also include the Biblical teaching that insects have four legs, and bats are birds. How about the Moon being made of green cheese Prof Reiss? As you said above, "Just because something lacks scientific support doesn't seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from the science lesson".

I hope you now begin to see how your argument falls on its arse.





-----------------------

OK, maybe a bit of 'baby Jesus' is fine for the kids at Christmas, on the same level of fantasy as Santa Clause, but between grownups - let's keep reality real. OK? Please. Grow into these trousers... >>

Richard Dawkins at TED

Dawkins talks about evolution, atheism and religion:

An atheist's call to arms.
Grow into these trousers... >>

The Genius Of Charles Darwin

Richard Dawkins presents a 3 part series on the life, works and legacy of the 19th century naturalist Charles Darwin.

Broadcast August 2008 on C4.

Richard Dawkins' Genius Of Darwin - Episode 1 - (Part 1/5)


Here are playlists for each episode:
Episode 1 | Episode 2 | Episode 3
Much more below the belt:

Not covered in Dawkins' series is the emerging science of epigenetics which just goes to show that the Theory of Evolution is itself, err, evolving.

The Ghost In Your Genes - BBC Horizon (2006)


NOVA ScienceNOW have a shorter video (introduced, surprisingly, by Neil Degrasse Tyson) and there is more here.

There's also some good reading in the blogosphere from Pharyngula and erv, or watch them in discussion on Bloggingheads.

Finally, just to 'teach the controversy' as many ardent followers of the Abrahamic religions demand these days, here are creationist Christians Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron with their demolition of evolution.


You just can't make this shit up!
-----------
PS look up Cavendish banana, the most commonly eaten banana in the world. It's a cultivar which has to be propagated by farmers because it is seedless, ie sterile, so without mankind to take cuttings it would not fucking exist!
-----------
PPS the quote from Darwin about the evolution of the eye (~4:50) is taken out of context to the point of untruth.
Grow into these trousers... >>

Abiogenesis

Just tripped across this nice little vid from cdk007

The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis
Grow into these trousers... >>

Evolution disproved

You may stop listening before your ears melt if you wish.

Now hang on my fast-talking friend, evolution can be readily disproven. As JBS Haldane is reputed to have dismissively observed, “a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian.”

Oh bugger…

Read the full article here.

........

See also: Thunderf00t's video rebuttals of Shawn aka VenomfangX

Grow into these trousers... >>