More anti-evolution rumblings in the UK

"Critical analysis"

Help help! I'm drowning in irony!!!!

Ahhhhhhh!

Thanks for getting this up so quickly Tara - any suggestions gratefully received American chums :)

Lots of detailed background on the organisation on the 'Blackshadow of Creationism' site:

http://www.blackshadow.me.uk/index.php/Main/TruthInScience

The challenge, at least in the US but maybe in the UK as well, is to design code phrases that will make it stone obvious to religious congregations that we're importing Jeezus into science classes, while sumultaneously disguising this intent from courts so thoroughly that judges won't be able to notice. The good news is that judges tend to be a bit more insightful and perspicacious than congregations. The bad news is, judges tend to assume words have traditional meanings, while congregations understand that words mean whatever they SAY words mean.

I think that "critical" must be meant in the vulgar sense, that is, they mean simply to bad-mouth evolution. Anyway, I've never seen anything from them that rose above mere put-downs of good science (the real critical analyses of shaky evolutionary ideas never come from IDists, as far as I can tell).

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

this must be some form of convergent evolution, but haven't you noticed that most conspiracy, pseudo science groups always have the word "Truth" in their title?

Type in "truth" and "organization" in google, and you can see what I mean.

The fact that it's Truth - with a capital 'T' kinda gives the game away?

When you say "sounds familiar", I assume you are thinking of this Tara:

"evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

That, and Ohio's "critical analysis" language, and similar phrases elsewhere.

Thanks from yet another SJS member for putting this up Tara. Here's a link to the main Science Just Science site. We encourage all concerned UK residents to sign our petition, it only takes a few seconds :)

bah... I thought, with such "bright" folks as dawkins, the brits were all safe from ID (chuckle)

I can't stop thinking that this whole battle would be so much easier if "theory" didn't have two meanings.

Is it any easier in other languages, where "Theory" of Evolution can't be conflated with "good guess"?

Is it any easier in other languages, where "Theory" of Evolution can't be conflated with "good guess"?

Enjoy your vowels while you still can, lxndr, you blvtng trll.

Chuckle.

I mean the "theory" part.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard "It's only a theory", where the word theory is used implied to mean nothing more than "good guess".

I mean, if you have this guy Dawkins constantly saying that evolution somehow implies there is no god, you are asking for the religious people to take it against evolution. Then this bloke blames everyone not joining the war againts religion, of being either religious or cowering in the closet. Dawkins and friends do not have the capacity to see it any other way than in this simplistic fashion.
Of course, there are us atheists who think science will never prove or disporove god. We don't give religion that much credit nor do we blame it for all our problems. Neither do we think world peace and well being will just flow over the brim by praising science and reason. But to Dawkins, I guess we must just have some physiological problem of unreason. Yeah, there you go. A perfectly simplistic explanation. Dawkins style.
Dawkins lives from perpetuating a XIXth century debate, with no innovations. In the end, it is STILL is ALL about religion, isn't it. Which is quite sad.
I guess the fact that anglo culture comes from a deeply religious and purist background has nothing to do with this, huh? Sure,some say it only continues to bes o in the US...but could it be, my british buddies, that it si still there, sleeping under the surface, ready to make a comeback?

The first thing I would recommend about critically analyzing "Darwinism" is to pay close attention to how often, and misleadingly, the word is used by anti-evolution activists who know that there is no alternate theory, but want students to think there is.

Darwinism is the idea that evolution is mainly directed by natural selection. This propostion has been for a long time debated within proper scientific discussion. What is not debated is common descent, of course. Interestingly, those academics most bent on attacking relgion using evolution as a banner, also happen to be "ultradarwinians" ( term used by Gould, Lewontin) such as the british Dennet and Dawkins, and the american? EO Wilson. Now of course, this feeds the very grave confusion of "criticizing darwinisn" with "criticizing evolution" , which has ben denounced several times here at the PT...only to see the same confusion pop up over and over again (as is the case of Frank J here who thinks there is no alternative to darwinism).

I guess the fact that anglo culture comes from a deeply religious and purist background has nothing to do with this, huh? Sure,some say it only continues to bes o in the US...but could it be, my british buddies, that it si still there, sleeping under the surface, ready to make a comeback?

Guys saying that it is time for humanity to step into the enlightened age of reason peace and progress brought on by science alone have existed since the XIXth century... science has actually made a lot of progress since then...yet the wonderful times of peace and enlightment, alas, has not yet arrived. Just saying "science should do it" seems to be not helping very much... isn't it (chuckle)
I myself believe that before stepping inot such enlightmente, some social and economic problems should be dealt with... rather than just sit and wait for science to just solve it all....

"I guess the fact that anglo culture comes from a deeply religious and purist background has nothing to do with this, huh? Sure,some say it only continues to bes o in the US...but could it be, my british buddies, that it si still there, sleeping under the surface, ready to make a comeback?"

No, I dont think so. Religious expression in the UK has varied hugely over the past 20 generations, I see no signs that it is experiencing a rennaisance. Sure, the more virulent strains make a lot of noise, but on the whole there is little to no danger.

The [insert expletive here] have got a special section on Scotland!
This means war!

And they've our good friend Prof Macintosh on board:
"Andy McIntosh
Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory at the University of Leeds and author of over 100 research papers. Prof. McIntosh's research includes biomimetics where natural mechanisms are studied with a view to using them for engineering applications. He has written numerous articles concerning the debate over Origins."

He's the prof of thermodynamics who is a creationist. Note how they are talking up his credentials and work etc.

Clastito, let's get past this boring old Dawkins==>evolution==>atheism canard and get down to the real issue:

Are you pro-gerbil* or not? Be a man, take a stand!**

____________
*Spread the word: End A War! Save A Gerbil!

**Bumperstickers available shortly.

Have you read McIntosh's twisting of geology in his "Genesis for Today", it verges on the dishonest

science has actually made a lot of progress since then...yet the wonderful times of peace and enlightment, alas, has not yet arrived.

Just...be warned

Do you have any idea what the child mortality IS in the thrid world? Do you have any idea how many young people die? Do you have any idea of the conditions that people have to work in, modern machinery or not?
You burgeois bubbleboy... can`t trust people who have never had a dcent revolution or killed a despot monarch, I'm telling ya (hehehe)

Just...be warned

Do you have any idea what the child mortality IS in the thrid world? Do you have any idea how many young people die? Do you have any idea of the conditions that people have to work in, (with plenty of modern machinery, by the way)
You burgeois bubbleboy... can't trust people who have never had a decent social revolution (hehehe)
The modern machinery part is specially funny....like if labor abuse had been eliminated by industralization...
Most of the beter conditiosn stemmed from social movements, You see the bosse were not very much into the theory of being nice to the workers as you may think

Seems to me all UK chrsitians need is a bit more of US propaganda to feel like maybe hopping onto "the new science" hehehe
But hey, also other european countries, if that makes you feel better.
Except France , of course (OUCH!!! hahaha)

Do you have any idea what the child mortality IS in the thrid world? Do you have any idea how many young people die? Do you have any idea of the conditions that people have to work in, (with plenty of modern machinery, by the way)

Yes of course. But you see, just hailing science is wortheless, if we do not realize how economy, politics, and interests are an unavoidable part of this too...war included. Yeah Science can do great things, when it comes to figuring out how to kill others, too. The biggest business of ALL!!! I kid you not. O yeah, and you have the role of science in everso many new frivolous ways of spending money while others starve, new ways of contaminating the environment, and so on.
So lets not get into frivolous "science worshipping" please.. even a defintion of health shpuld include psychologicla wel being, etc.
just naked "scientism" is only a source os stupidity, of simplistic wishful thinkig thinking... quite in vogue, I am afraid.

ps! Cdn't qt ndrstnd wht y wr trng t sy thr, vrgs.

Myb y shld spk ldr.

R jst tr mkng sns fr chng.

everso defintion shpuld psychologicla wel os thinkig quite in vogue, I am afraid.

Clastito, once you've finished the sermon, do you want to say something useful?

Now would be a good time to put over that "scientific critical analysis" is a critical part of usual science (peer review, market of ideas) and that "critical analysis of science" is a critical part of funding science.

I see that this is so important that even the famous lxndr Vrgs has taken an interest. Or perhaps he is looking for his vowels.

stevaroni:
Perhaps it is universal, at least it is as hard in swedish. A theory is "en teori", and a good guess is "en teori".

This would also be timely to put over. Perhaps a simple evo/creo dictionary would be a start?

Evolution
*Creationism
**Meaning

scientific (critical) analysis
*-
**peer review, market of ideas, ethics commitees

(critical) analysis of science
*critical analysis
**reviewing funding, reviewing etics commitees

theory
*-
**selfconsistent and falsifiable framework

hypothesis
*-
**testable part of a framework

-
*theory
**guess

evolution
*-
**the observed fact of common descent, and the theory that explains it, with many mechanisms

-
*darwinism
**strawman with one erroneously described mechanism, 'dogma', 'atheism'

microevolution
*-
**evolution under species level

-
*microevolution
**evolution accepted by creationists

macroevolution
*-
**evolution over species level

-
*macroevolution
**evolution not accepted by creationists

As the Quixote said, "let the dogs bark, Sancho, it just means we are making way" . Some dogs are even talking in tongues over here hahaha
Something useful? Sure. To start with, a baby step.
"Science" just for the sake of "Science" "reason" just or the sake of "reason" is quite a pointless thing to defend, since both can be put to anything. So, science is great, sure, but what we need to ask is , science for the sake of WHAT?

a well-tested hypothesis tentatively accepted by concensus among the scientific public

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.

Gvl:
The list was intended as a quick, short and somewhat humorus list of rudimentary definitions. I am myself of the opinion that it doesn't seem to be easy to describe science and its methods. (One of my pet peeves is when people conflate it to 'inductive logic'. It is sooo 19th century.) I nicked an attempt to description of theory from wikipedia and compressed it as much as possible.

I deliberately held back on the "well-tested" part, both since wikipedia does that, and since people argue over what tested means and if it is necessary here. String theory is described by most as a nontested theory, by some as theoretically tested theory (is consistent with QFTs, relativity, black hole entropy, AdS/CFT, et cetera), and by a few as a proto-theory.

I have yet to see a reasonable definition of a theory and the demarcation rules. That said any scientist recognises what is science in her area when doing science, and perhaps a general framing description may be easy enough. I welcome any attempts.

As you can see Clastito conversely complains about me making the list at all. I don't blame him - pulling down the drawers of creos immediately expose their shortcomings. Creationism is sterile - it is the eunuch of dogmas.

"It is sooo 19th century."

Or 18th. Or 20th. Too old to have street cred anyway.

Hmmm...? I haven't complained of any definitons.
I thought that was some boring parallel discussion.
If you are not into scientism "a la dawkins", sympathizers will accuse you of being religious or cowering in the closet, as I said above. So Larsson just decided to slap a creationist label on me? How original. Predictable like religious fundies. Whatever makes you feel safe, Larsson.

Clastito:
You complained about the list, and it is a serious attempt to push for science to take the lead and clarify what 'critical analysis' means before it gets an official meaning.

As the much more eminent doctor House I tend to get bored with the usual trivia cases and do a quick hip shot analysis of symptoms from the last comment.

Let's see all comments then.
"this guy Dawkins": - 1
"us atheists": + 1
"confusion of "criticizing darwinisn" with "criticizing evolution"": + 10
"who thinks there is no alternative to darwinism": +10
"science worshipping" -10
"scientism" -10
""Science"" - 100

=> - 100.

Sorry, I'm not convinced a weighted 'differential diagnosis' gives any new result. Maybe I'm reading too much anti-science into your comments, and I need to make apologies. But if so maybe you need to restate them clearly first. What do you mean by Dawkins 'scientism' and "Science"?

Clastito:
TP is intermittent and I need to sleep. To avoid any delayed bad feelings I apologize carte blanche for my hasty judgement.

Instead I want comment that Dawkins is agnostic on science AFAIK, and his dismissal of religion is based on its track record and other stuff. As Stevepinhead says you repeat an old canard, which mostly seems to come from creationists otherwise. Just saying.

Larsson, you're deluded. Please indicate where did I complain about your definitions.
I am not antiscience. You have no idea how close I am to science. The point is I hate to see science transformed into some stupid ideology by a bunch of amateurs and rotten apples.
You just don't want to think about what I am saying because it doesn't look good for you ways, I guess. That is an entirely different matter. Try to say something actually relevant to the points I bring up.

Larsson, you're deluded. Please indicate where did I complain about your definitions.
I am not antiscience. You have no idea how close I am to science. The point is I hate to see science transformed into some stupid ideology by a bunch of amateurs and rotten apples.
You just don't want to think about what I am saying because it doesn't look good for you ways, I guess. That is an entirely different matter. Try to say something actually relevant to the points I bring up.

Something useful? Sure. To start with, a baby step. "Science" just for the sake of "Science" "reason" just or the sake of "reason" is quite a pointless thing to defend, since both can be put to anything. So, science is great, sure, but what we need to ask is , science for the sake of WHAT?

The point is I hate to see science transformed into some stupid ideology by a bunch of amateurs and rotten apples.

"Thus far, science (Or rather the results of scientific endeavours) has been used for improvements ni public health, food production, increases in production of material goods, and so on."

Certainly so, but this contrast even more with current poverty and bad life conditiosn, not to mention war, unjustice and other points that we cannot expect to solve without actually thinking about this, as if this were to happen as a mere, effortless by-product of scientific advancement.

"Do you want the general populace to have some control over the uses of scientific results? Or do you wish to restrict areas of research?"
Actually, no. Of course I wish less research were dedicated to making lethal weapons and more was done , for instance, about natural history, ecology. I want problems taken care of with responsibility, rather comofort ourselves in that the science-enlightened future "will come" and all we need to do is merely hail to science. Notice that hails to science and reason can be made by anyone, not only Dawkins, but the pope, creationsist. The more they hail rational thinking, the less likely they are actually doing any of it. This is my point. hailing to science and reason is vacuous and unnecessary adornment, yet some poeple think that's the solution.

(The point is I hate to see science transformed into some stupid ideology by a bunch of amateurs and rotten apples)

"And these individuals are?"

Anyone who feels identified, to start with.
Dennet, is not a researcher, and thus as science goes, he is an amateur.
Dawkins, is not that hot an evolutionary biologist as some would want him to be (specially to counter the plenty simplism and ignorance he spews on social issues) He has become a cultural warrior, engrossed with fighting in the creationist muck, for quite a long time now.
Of couse, some practicing scientists, can be very smug and like to claim some kind of ultimate superiority or even "defend the job". This is humanly understandable since they may carry out very difficult feats and are really hard-working and don't give much thought at all to social issues. Fortunately, very few working, practicing scinetists spend any time promoting scientism, even if they sympathize.

"And can you explain how they are that much more dangerous that creationists and others, who are after all the topic of this thread"

They are not truly dangerous, nor are creationists. They both are just useless, self-comforting and obnoxious.

"And can you explain how you are not blatantly insulting everyone on here by this general sweeping statement?"

I would hate to think everyone over here is into scientism "a la Dawkins". If that is the case, you should have no problem getting me banned. Open-mindedness is upheld from the mouth outwards by this kind of people but in fact they are very dogmatic. All they need to do is say that "reason" is on their side, to squash anything... "unreasonable" (that is, that they do not like)

BBC: New challenge over school science "Truth in Science," a new British organization, is aiming to promote better origins education in UK schools. Unsurprisingly, evolutionists are responding negatively, referring to the movement as "superstition." One of the scientists behind the project is Dr. Andy McIntosh, author of Genesis for Today. We hope and pray that efforts such as this enlighten students to the fact that not all scientists agree that millions of years of evolution is responsible for life---despite what they may be taught in the classroom.

Hello, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit! :)

How ironic: Only Clastito who could see that the Oxford's Emperor in Darwinism---Richard Dawkins---actually has no clothes!

Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter---just a food for thought, from a self-introspective Darwinist evolutionist perspective. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening! :)

Best wishes, Mong 9/30/6usct1:24p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.

Interestingly, those academics most bent on attacking relgion using evolution as a banner, also happen to be "ultradarwinians" ( term used by Gould, Lewontin) such as the british Dennet and Dawkins, and the american? EO Wilson.

— Clastito

Mong, thanks, but reduce the self-propaganda and the whimsical guru expressions. I'm here to be everyone's pain in the butt, you too (hahaha).
The connection between darwinian adaptationism and the attack on religion is all within the predominantly UK functionalist tradition of thought. That connection is the concept of "optimization" or "perfect adaptation" with two alternative explanations: 1) The intelligent design argument, by Paley's natural theology 2) Darwins alternative: increasing "better" adaptation through the competitive survival of the fittest. For those that agree that "perfect adaptation" is THE true problem, the only alternative to god is that adaptation perfects itself through natural selection. hence the connection of atheism and ultradarwinism: they both accept optimization, adaptionism, and a dichotomy to explain it, either God or natural selection. It's pretty clear.

Now, Wilson thinks the same way Dawkins does. He is a naïve empiricist, ultrapositivist let's say (a natural correlate of scientism), of the kind that says, just show me the evidence, and I would believe in god. He accepts the basic notion that science could prove god exists (which I dissagree, as I said above) and then points to biology, to say that evolution has removed any evidence for the existence of god coming from Biology. Both Dawkisn and Wilson are in fact "provisional", they admit science may show a god exists but say there "just is no evidence". The only difference between them, is that Wislosn says that there is no evidence for god in biology but wonders, rather stupidly from an epistemological point of view, that maybe physics will provide that evidence. Yeah, Wilson, maybe the smallest particles have "made by god" written on them (chuckle). So, both admit god may exist, only Dawkins does not entertain the idea that evidence will actually show up as much as Wilson.
With a teeny tiny more room for philosophical sophistication beyond such ultrapositivist scientism, it is quite easy to see that all of this is actually quite silly, and that science will never provide evidence that god exists, nor refute the existence of god, an entity defined as supernatural.

Hello, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit! :)

Anton Mates said: Dennett's about the only guy I can think of who could legitimately be described as "attacking religion using evolution as a banner," in that he really does seem to think that acceptance of evolution would completely revolutionize science, philosophy and religion. But he's not even a scientist.

Wrong: Dennett---the Tufts armchair philosopher (not a scientist)---is only a blind, faithful disciple of Dawkinsian Scientism or Evolutionism of the 2 myths: the selfish gene and the hopping meme, that Dawkins has had been propagating in The Selfish Gene, since 1976---gloriously and utterly without any self-reflection or introspection whatsoever, a typical imperial mentality?!

Their latest anti-Religionism propaganda---in Breaking the Spell (Dennett) and The God Delusion (Dawkins)---have had been their lazy-intellectual derivatives of their Evolutionism since the 1990s!

On this issue, I've had commented here, Wells: "Darwinism is doomed" because we keep making progress (ScienceBlogsUSA; September 27); and elsewhere since April 2006---please see the links listed in my simple blog below.

Post script: Clastito, thanks for your kind words! Although we may come from different viewpoints, Dawkins is definitely out running naked again---chuckle! :)

Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter---just a food for thought, from a self-introspective Darwinist evolutionist perspective. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening! :)

Best wishes, Mong 9/30/6usct3:05p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.

Why have all the incoherent nutters suddenly descended upon us?

Because they can!

OT - I've just started reading Dawkin's new book and its now hurting my neck as I keep nodding in agreement with everything I read.

The connection between darwinian adaptationism and the attack on religion is all within the predominantly UK functionalist tradition of thought.

— Clastito

That connection is the concept of "optimization" or "perfect adaptation" with two alternative explanations: 1) The intelligent design argument, by Paley's natural theology 2) Darwins alternative: increasing "better" adaptation through the competitive survival of the fittest. For those that agree that "perfect adaptation" is THE true problem, the only alternative to god is that adaptation perfects itself through natural selection. hence the connection of atheism and ultradarwinism: they both accept optimization, adaptionism, and a dichotomy to explain it, either God or natural selection. It's pretty clear.

Anton Mates said: Dennett's about the only guy I can think of who could legitimately be described as "attacking religion using evolution as a banner," in that he really does seem to think that acceptance of evolution would completely revolutionize science, philosophy and religion. But he's not even a scientist. Wrong: Dennett---the Tufts armchair philosopher (not a scientist)---is only a blind, faithful disciple of Dawkinsian Scientism or Evolutionism of the 2 myths: the selfish gene and the hopping meme, that Dawkins has had been propagating in The Selfish Gene, since 1976---gloriously and utterly without any self-reflection or introspection whatsoever, a typical imperial mentality?!

— Mong H Tan, PhD

I would hate to think everyone over here is into scientism "a la Dawkins". If that is the case, you should have no problem getting me banned.

Clastito:
"Larsson, you're deluded. Please indicate where did I complain about your definitions. "

You said:
"Something useful? Sure. To start with, a baby step.
"Science" just for the sake of "Science" "reason" just or the sake of "reason" is quite a pointless thing to defend, since both can be put to anything. So, science is great, sure, but what we need to ask is , science for the sake of WHAT?"

"The point is I hate to see science transformed into some stupid ideology by a bunch of amateurs and rotten apples."

If you hide behind a handle nobody will take that claim seriously. (Regards the science pissing contest, you can currently find my work by adding "sputtering" at google scholar. Your turn.)

You have still not explained how Dawkins' view is scientism. Dawkins is agnostic regarding science: "We cannot prove that there is no God, but we can safely conclude the He is very, very improbable indeed." ( http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1994-12religion.shtml ) It seems his atheism has other sources.

Almost pure barking. Irrelevant criticisms and mutual reassurances. Just the expected behaviour of those who like moving in herds. No arguments there, and thus, no answers required.

Anton,
I'm not saying that adaptationism is about a war against religion, but a conceptual link can indeed be found. "Perfect adaptation" was once considered the most clear signal of the intelligence of god...which darwin explained alternatively, through the perfecting and increase of adaptation by the means of natural selection.
Now, you don't have to go too far to find, that there is indeed something very fishy about adaptationism. We can leave the refutation of adaptationism to Gould and Lewontin... though I think they were not nearly hard enough!

Larsson, if you knew what scientism was, you'd know Dawkins is the best representative you could ever pick.

Clastito:

"Scientism is an ideology which holds that science has primacy over other interpretations of life (e.g., religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations)." (Wikipedia.)

I repeat: Dawkins is (secondarily) agnostic from science, yet (primarily) atheist from other sources, as seen from earlier citation. This immediately refutes your claim.

As noted by Stevepinhead, you are really trying to claim "this boring old Dawkins==>evolution==>atheism canard". But you can't make your argument go through.

I'm curious, Clastito --- are you a "commie"?

I ask that in all seriousness.

And do you know the difference between "science" and "the social uses to which scientific knowledge is put"?

I ask that in all seriousness, too.

As noted by Stevepinhead, you are really trying to claim "this boring old Dawkins==>evolution==>atheism canard". But you can't make your argument go through.

Thats a hypothesis worth testing lennie. Now will the subject hang around long enough to test it properly?

Their posts do remind me of a poster at Ben Goldacreas bad science forum, who says nothing about science, but perpetually moans about the misuses and human foibles of scientists. They are very close to that idea that you have suggested. But I dont think clastito is them, the writing style is too different.

Why have all the incoherent nutters suddenly descended upon us?

The fact that I do not feel the impulse to repeatedly cry hails to science does not mean I have a mug with Che Guevara's face on it. I aim only to push the intellectual rigor up a notch, beyond congratulating ourselves all the time just because we repeat and thump the table that "we must be scientific"... and then feel so goddam right about it, that we ignore important issues that we actually need to think about, and start believing in a naïve scientism that turns us into something quite downright unscientific!!!

If I tell you that t by its own effortlessly bring the solutions to humanity's problems, without major ethical and sociological adjustments as to HOW science and limited resources are actually put to use, you should try and think about this. That's all. It's about intellectual honesty, not about "being a commie": Rev. Dr. Mc Arthy... "You see commie people"

And BTW, I am not at all into the kind of argument the you think Rev., of blaming darwinsim for capitalism and such...If anything, its the other way round. Capitalism has influenced biology into an "economical" framework of benefits, trade offs, and so. This indeed is much more historically accurate too. The flow was the other way round. And please note that by pointing this out, I am NOT disqualifying any biological notions on the basis of their possible origins.

One "lefty" thing I WILL say, though: You live in countries that have an upper hand in the world. With religious, "democratic" or "rationalist" banners of superiority, your leaders may continue stomping on the rest of the world as if it is their inborn right, and as long as they continue acumulating money and power for your countries, what are you going to say?
You can indulge in any cultural war or useless hobby you wish. If you yet remain well fed and payed, why care about wondering about how the troubles of the world fit or not into your comfy scientism?

And this is not about being lefty, or a "commie" at all!!! It's about thinking things through with honesty.

By the way, you know that you are talking to a sectarian, when you say something they do not like, they immediately attempt a classification... "he's a creationist" "a commie" "this troll" you know, to label and dismiss, without paying attention to actual arguments. Sooo predictable... you can't figure me out, but I can figure many here, easily.

"I can figure many here, easily"

Sure you can. Like you figured me, for instance.

I'm not saying that adaptationism is about a war against religion, but a conceptual link can indeed be found. "Perfect adaptation" was once considered the most clear signal of the intelligence of god...which darwin explained alternatively, through the perfecting and increase of adaptation by the means of natural selection.

— Clastito

Anton said

"Historically speaking I don't think many people were ever moved to believe by Paley's particular version. The first-cause argument was always more popular AFAIK (...) Dawkins is pretty unusual in being so struck by the perfection of adaptation, which I think is the root cause both of his former design-argument-based-theism and of his current adaptationism"

I think you underestimate the role of the "perfection of adaptation" argument. It is pretty popular: easy to chew and digest. Just watch any nature documentary...phrase fter phrase of adaptationism... it just so happens, "for this" adaptationist explanations can be grasped by anyone and used to come off as "knowledgeable". Those things that are NOT adaptive... well they just don't "make sense" that easily. They cannot be sold with the candy-like ease of adaptationism. How many times the concept of "spandrel" has ever been explained in a documentary? The concept of drift? Exaptation?
So, adaptationism is quite the popular referent... which is why you have Behe, using complex adaptations to argue intelligent design, and whoa, a bestselling book, if not a whole darn neocreationist movement...then you have Dawkins, the other great bestseller!! voted number 3-4 "intellectual" of the world, tackling the same old "problem" and providing the same old alternative explanation.

"For others, there's a link between adaptationism and support of theism or religion. Adaptationism, after all, essentially restricts the role of evolution by demanding that adaptations be almost perfectly suited to the environment. Imperfect adaptations, therefore (like the "unnecessary" mental abilities of early man), must be the product of some other process or entity---and for Wallace that meant God. I think many theistic evolutionists reason along the same lines; they deny that evolution could have produced altruism, language, etc. on adaptationist grounds and credit God with that instead."

This is interesting because it shows how upholding an ultradarwinian view of evolution as "THE scientific explanation", when adaptationism fails to fit the data, as it frequently will, some roll their eyes to the skyes and believe there is no scientific explanation!!!!Very funny indeed, but I'm pretty sure even trained scientists have been drawn to "scientific theism" through this pathway. Scietims greatky contributes, since the attitude is "this has already beeen scietifically explained" so when something is shown to be in fact far more problematic than say a simplistic explanation in terms of selfish genes, whoa, some believers will sprout here and there. The "scientific explanation" was wrong! they'll exclaim.

"Conversely, Gould takes his contingency-based viewpoint of evolution as arguing against a personal God, since life doesn't appear to have developed along any predetermined divine plan...while Ken Miller thinks contingency assists Christian theism by allowing life to act freely and determine its own future"

Yes, isn't that funny? When it comes to prove or disprove god, both sides shout eureka with the same data. Of course, this just shows that trying to refute or prove god with science is a failed attempt since even talking about god draws the discusion out of a truly scientific realm.

"IOW, you can find a conceptual link between almost any evolutionary viewpoint and almost any theological one---just find a scientist who held both and ask him."

Yes but according to what I said above I do not think that what I pointed out is just an artefactual construction, but in fact a debate that has been so persistent, with no end in sight, it could even be actually used as an aspect characterizing angloamerican culture. Dare I say this relates to their well know pragmatism, too.

Man, this clastito guy babbles even worse the "dr" martin. Diarrhea of the mind. Must be troll week.

Good to see that Dawkins is having some effect. I keep agreeing with him more and more.

It goes something like: capitalism ---> "immutable laws run the world" ---> science ---> anti-leftism

And BTW, I am not at all into the kind of argument the you think Rev., of blaming darwinsim for capitalism and such...If anything, its the other way round. Capitalism has influenced biology into an "economical" framework of benefits, trade offs, and so. This indeed is much more historically accurate too. The flow was the other way round.

you can't figure me out, but I can figure many here, easily.

WEll, lennie, looks like he has you bang to rights!

I still dont get his comments on scientism though. Labelling us all scientism worshippers without providing evidence is usually fairly poor tactics. Then moaning on how only those who agree with their labelling them like that have anything to worry about is just silly.

Anyway, a google on the name clastito turns up various posters who speak Spanish and appear to be paleontologists.

Rev, you got capitalism at one end...and antileftism at the other. I'd agree its a kind of "cyclical" thing, but unless you think all of this is crap, why did you call me a commie? What is your point?

On this very thread

"I've just started reading Dawkin's new book and its now hurting my neck as I keep nodding in agreement with everything I read".

"Good to see that Dawkins is having some effect. I keep agreeing with him more and more"

To agree so much with Dawkins means you are into scientism. It is easy to think this way. Therefore, Dawkins fans are abundant, always lurking... but rarely contributing with an actual argument. More like cheerleaders.

So Clastito, you think we should replace the teaching of evolution in our schools here in the uk with religious alternatives just to avoid what you view as 'scientism'?

As Lenny said, the study of science is something different from the social uses to which it is put. It sounds like you should be having a go at the social aspects of society rather than the scientific ones, since that's what seems to piss you off.

Clastito

I've just read through some of your posts and I can honestly say I haven't got a clue what you are going on about!

What is your point?

Humph, if I'd gotten to work a bit earlier, my post would have been before lennies, where it belongs.

Meanwhile, after complaining about the "truthiness in science" people on another forum, I flushed out 2 people of the "Science cannot prove anything" and "Views should be heard" kind of thinking. Which is entertaining, because one of them is well know for insulting people, and has a terrible online reputation for rabidly attacking people he disagrees with, even when he is wrong.

On the other hand, 5 or 6 people have basically agreed with me.
Meanwhile, the proponent of views keesp asking why creationism shouldnt be taught, having missed the multiple times I have suggested that it is lies.

There we go... thinly veiled, if at all, accusations of religiousness and creationsim, all over again. You guys certainly are masters in finding excuses to wave things away to not bother to think. Soo predictable. Stop it, and THINK!!!!
My point is clear enough. The reason you have problems with the creationists, and will definitely continue to have them, both in the UK and the USA, is that in your pragmatists culture who loves simple explanations and one-liners, an agreement exists on both sides to discuss perfect adaptation, with intelligent design and adaptationism as the alternative explanations. Of course the fact that Dawkins pushes his flawed utradarwinian views as "the science" and further wishes to impose atheism to the extreme of suggesting that children growing up in a religion is "child abuse" is basically begging for people to identify his silliness with evolution itself and gives them good argumentative tools to keep the nasty, never-dying debate going.
It seems you cannot conceive other than two possibilities, either you are into a ridiculous ultrapositivist scientism "a la dawkins", where people who disagree with you have some "physiological problem of unreason" (chuckle), OR you are some kind of religious looney (as you constantly strive to fit me into) that easily embraces creationism.
And where is humanism in all this? You know, some TRUE left-thinking? Oh, right... You don't have any.You are all waiting for either god or science to effortlessly bring utopia.

Ummm, so wheres your evidence?

So far all youve done is smear the members of this website, like a good troll, and accuse them of all sorts of things, without any evidence.

Do you want us to assassinate Dawkins for you or something?

And whats with the "LEftier than thou" thinking? You have no information whatsoever on the political leanings of the people you smear, yet seem happy to castigate them for not living up to your standards, whatever they are.
You appear to be saying that we should be using humanism to oppose religion for some reason.

god is a human construct and I don't require it in my utopia, which is real - life is good as it is. I don't need to hold anything accountable for the bad-times either!

Just point out a few flaws in your reasoning; yes, simple is best. It's not always possible but when it gets the message across it works well. The difference between the ID/C people and the rest of us is that we are open to alternative explanations (but here's the catch) so long as they are testable. We don't have a front-loaded perception of reality that prevents us from questioning our existence? It's that freedom that gives us the ability to THINK, without the guilt!

I wouldn't deny anyone the freedom to believe in whatever they want but that same courtesy is not forthcoming from te ID/C crowd who would have our children indoctrinated given the chance. Take a look at Dembski's new venture - he even promotes it as '..give us your young people' You can't beat honesty!

"Ummm, so wheres your evidence"

Wow Guthrie that objection sounds so "sciency"..actually without specifying exactly what kind of evidence you want me to produce over which point, it is no better objection than a mindless shrug or a cynical "so what"

Many of the things I say are quite undeniable, like the persistence of creationism, the bestselling popularity of both Behe and Dawkins, the pervasiveness of adaptationism in "popular biology" documentaries, the capitalist origins of darwinism... So be more specific about what you want. Statistics that prove dawkins is part of the problem? Yeah, probably (chuckle). Hey, I want some that prove he is NOT part of the problem. Iguess its just useless for anyone to point out when he says something silly, no matter how clear his mistake, huh?
But you see, we can use our brains to follow logical implications and argue...its not like if we don't have some statistics proving probably nothing we have to throw our arms in the air and cancell all thinking process because it is unassailable mystery, if you get what I mean. So, I repeat, if you demand evidence, say what kind of evidence. Think it well!!!

And stop whining about "me smearing everyone here", you look like some rusty old patriot. I am not talking of all PT or even of you (unless you feel so), I'm describing general cultural conditions that you have, and its up to you to ponder if you are part of the silliness or what can you do about it. Because it's there, whether you like it or not.

And no, I am not asking for someone to kill dawkins. Try saying something sophisticated, please. That kind of argument is a joke, the kind of one-liner Steve Colbert would use.

BJM: If dembsky wants to embarrass himself showing sooo clearly he is just after a political agenda, let the fool do so! We don't have to believe in following the same strategies.

Where/how do you differ from Dembski et al? The message doesn't sound too dissimilar?

It seems you cannot conceive other than two possibilities, either you are into a ridiculous ultrapositivist scientism "a la dawkins", where people who disagree with you have some "physiological problem of unreason" (chuckle), OR you are some kind of religious looney (as you constantly strive to fit me into) that easily embraces creationism.

Pffff... BJM, I'll tell you, only when you make it clear how do YOU differ from mashed potatoes.
Yet another IDIOT accusing me of creationism... that does it. It's happened like four times...SUCH pigheadedness. I'd rather watch the colbert show.

Stevie, It's kind of amazing to me that you actually cannot imagine other than that dichotomy, just as in my worst expectatives.
Do you really need a LABEL for something else? How about...no label?
Do not rest on easy formulas and prefabricated answers, and do not look at me for new ones. I wont provide you with any!!! YOU on your own, will have to figure things out. Because thats the way it is and how it should be. Pure personal thought.

The answer that sounds more "sciencey" or atheistic does not necessarily address the problem, even if you get cheers from the herd. It is putting an end before adequate examination of a problem. Usually it will lead you into some truly stupid simplistic mistake... and ultimately, you will be a very bad scientist indeed. Things are not simple. No one-liners from me. Sorry.

Of course the fact that Dawkins pushes his flawed utradarwinian views as "the science" and further wishes to impose atheism to the extreme of suggesting that children growing up in a religion is "child abuse"

— Clastito

Thanks, Clastito. Kinda what I was beginning to think: you've got lots of vaguely-articulated criticisms of (your own oversimplified version of) other people's approaches, while having nothing concrete to offer yourself.

I'm glad to know I can skip anything else you post.

Yeah, stevie, go look yourself for a herd somewhere else. Believe me, I have my way of thinking, and it works. But it's not a one -liner, nor do I want some silly badge for it (none would work). Thinking carefully is not EASY Stevie, don't expect any easy way unless it is false. You lazy slob.

Anton,
If Dawkins says the same about atheism it just strikes me as equally silly!!!!. Such improvised, unelegant "fairness" does not make it right, it just makes it worse. Usually when you say something silly you have to say something equally silly if you want to merely balance it without taking it away. It's obvious that parents raisning their kids in atheism is NOT child abuse. It doesn't mean they cannot turn religious, later on, either.

No wonder that I am not be interested in analyzing every lousy utterance of dawkins of feeble band aids he has apllied over the cracks of his scientism. Reading Dawkins to me is as boring and annoying as reading Behe, sorry to say. The silliness that dawkina produces in his fans is all over the place on the science blogs... and that's quite enough for me, thanks.

Thinking carefully is not EASY Stevie

WEll, lennie, looks like he has you bang to rights!

And where is humanism in all this? You know, some TRUE left-thinking? Oh, right... You don't have any.You are all waiting for either god or science to effortlessly bring utopia.

But whatever it was, you seem to have forgotten, or mislaid. Or perhaps your intellectual reach just exceeded your neuronal grasp.

Yeah rev, you STARTED by calling me "incoherent nutter" but I didn't care a bit.. it was predictable. So now, be a man and don't whine if you indirectly inferr my doubts about your degree of mental sophistication. At least I am capable of containing major farts so I am entitled to believe in some kind of superiority hahaha
And no, having a country with parties from left traditions that actually CAN get some power, does not mean having a bunch of Lenins. I guess it must be difficult for you to trascend a lifetime of right wing cartoons drilled into your brain... coming from a country with only two right-wing parties, where "socialism" alone is some kind of dirty word. Actually at this point all you have is republicans, and republican wannabes (democrats).

Yeah rev, you STARTED

I guess it must be difficult for you to trascend a lifetime of right wing cartoons drilled into your brain...

Yeah rev, you STARTED by calling me "incoherent nutter" but I didn't care a bit.. it was predictable.

Oh, the shame! I said "you're" instead of "your"! I plead pre- morning coffee disfunction as my excuse...

For those of you still remaining in this discussion who have an interest in the original subject of the thread, here are 3 very relevant letters in today's Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,171-2385220,00.html

For those of you still remaining in this discussion who have an interest in the original subject of the thread, here are 3 very relevant letters in today's Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,171-2385220,00.html

"No one-liners from me. Sorry."

Aw, why not? You could at least TRY to be entertaining. But right now you're making Heywood sound intelligent. Ok, you're not a creationist but you got a problem with Dawkins and his 'scientism'. What are you, a disgruntled member of greenpeace or something? They chuck you out? If you got a problem with Dawkins, then go take it up with him. You got a problem with 'Darwinism', well since most people here are pro-evolution well that's obviously not gonna make you happy is it? So you seem to be wasting your time. And everyone else's since you're not making much sense.

Rebel without a cause.

oh goodie,i got its attention.

Hey, I want some that prove he is NOT part of the problem.
I understand that proving a negative is quite hard to do.

ACtually, I'm looking for evidence of these general cultural conditions you rabbit on about. Sure, creationism is still around, but I have yet to find out the origins of "Darwinism" in capitalism. Care to explain?

You do realise that I was joking about killing Dawkins, right? BEcause so far, you havnt come up with any solutions yourself- I was simply suggesting in an oblique manner that providing solutions to a problem that you see would be helpful.

A letter in the times directly attacking "truthiness in science" will probably draw some fire. It will be interesting to see how much. If they themselve monitor the media, I think we can expect a response from one of the academic blokes with a PhD and stuff, saying how scientific their critiscisms are, and how important debate is.

Callisto Said "And no, having a country with parties from left traditions that actually CAN get some power, does not mean having a bunch of Lenins."

I'm afraid to ask but what country are you from

I have yet to find out the origins of "Darwinism" in capitalism. Care to explain?

It goes something like this (as I heard it at a Socialist Scholars Conference back a few years ago): Capitalism, particularly in the Victorian age, was seen as dog-eat-dog competition, in which the strong survived and the weak were eaten. Darwin simply applied that reasoning to the biological world.

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

Darwin himself was the son of a wealthy Victorian doctor, and married into the wealthy industrialist Wedgewood family, so he (consciously or unconsciously) internalized the capitalist attitude and applied it to what he saw around him.

Jeez what a bunch of "fans"... I guess I cannot disappoint them with no answer now.
It's embarassing how you continue to confirm what I said... as I literally said: "you cannot conceive other than two possibilities, either you are into a ridiculous ultrapositivist scientism "a la dawkins", where people who disagree with you have some "physiological problem of unreason", OR you are some kind of religious looney (as you constantly strive to fit me into) that easily embraces creationism"
The brutish ignorance of dawkobot amateurs makes me cry bitter tears of rage...

Darth Robo, explain to us why evolution= Dawkins's ultradarwinism. PLEASE. (as I pointed out above,utradarwinism a la dawkins, with its gaping defects, when defended in the fashion of scientism as "unquestionable truth" and moreover conflated with evolution, ultimately gives tools to creationists to reject common descent)
Rev, do your homework you lazy preacher. You make a strawman of the capitalist connection with arguments so bad I have NEVER heard of, nor would I take them seriously. The connection is MUCH more direct, historical and unquestionable. Who was Malthus? Who was Adam Smith? Laissez-faire competition leading to progress? Ever heard of superproductivity therefore competition and progress? Pure capitalism. It's kind of sad to see how these vieww, though now ttally dated within economical theory, still are upheld as the purest natural truth by amateur peddlers of evolution.
Once again,all, don't be IGNORANT. Darwinism is not evolution. Lamarck, Buffon, etc had made the notion of eolution and common descent well known in academic circles quite before "the origin". Darwin just slapped a progressist notion of natural selection onto it to explain the "perfection of adaptation" problem, diectky inspired in the theories of the economists that fathered capitalism. You suffer from great cuktura bias to elevate Darwini to divinity... a good job he didi do in demosntarting common descent. he was gifted naturaliust biologist in genral. But he was wrong about his notions on how natural selection worked, and its supposed hegemonical role in evolution. And this is, in fact, the essence of "darwinism": not so common descent.

Darwin simply applied that reasoning to the biological world. Darwin himself was the son of a wealthy Victorian doctor, and married into the wealthy industrialist Wedgewood family, so he (consciously or unconsciously) internalized the capitalist attitude and applied it to what he saw around him. Hence, the theory of evolution.

The scientific method, however, along with the peer-review systems, specifically eliminates ideological slants from science by allowing all and sundry to have at them, thus cancelling them all out. Hence, while there may be times and places where ideology rules science, in the end things always work themselves out.

"Perfect adaptation" was once considered the most clear signal of the intelligence of god...which darwin explained alternatively, through the perfecting and increase of adaptation by the means of natural selection.

Now, now, Mr. Glen of the "electric consciousness" (chuckle)
Everyone knows that Darwin as a smart, sophisticated dude. He definitely payed attention to all the major issues, such as the non adaptive traits, historical constraints, and such. But one cloud in the sky does not make a raisntorm, Glen. Look at the general, majoritarian trends of Darwins's work (as Gould was constantly begging us, to properly judge historical figures)
Inasmuch as his main innovation, his new line of thinking, was the idea that natural selection was the main evolutionary force involved in the improvement of adaptaions, darwin emphasized it quite a lot, and defended it always as being, in the end, "the main thing". This is true darwinism, and the source of the many progressist notions that darwin repeatedly came up with.
And, as I sai above, it was capitalism that bolstered darwinism. and as I also pointed out above, I do not hold that against darwinism. darwinism can be questioned on purely scientific grounds... specially regarding what is the actual evidence for selection "molding" evolution by accumulation of micromutations. But you would not know about that. Read Orr, "the genetic theory of adaptation" in nature reviews in genetics

Rev, you strike me as a bit... absent-minded. I made the distinction between science, and social uses to which science is put, from the beggining. it is fundamnetla to my argument that the development of science alone, does not imply the effortless advent of an era of peace. This is the thinly veiled promise of naïve scientism a la dawkins implies wehn the think that religon produces the evild of the world and that things would spontaneously be so much better if we just were more "rational" and "scientific".

Dude, we get the idea YOU don't like evolution OR Dawkins. Not everyone here necessarily sgrees with Dawkins on stuff either. But back on topic, there's still one question I asked that you've not answered to any kind of satisfaction (not that the rest of your posts have been coherent):

Do you think it is a good idea to teach religious alternatives to science in school classrooms? You obviously don't like the 'ideology' that 'Darwinism' allegedly preaches, but wouldn't teaching religion in a science class be simply swapping one for another?

At least evolution can be tested. You can't test 'POOF!' (special creation).

"you strike me as a bit... absent-minded."

Hmmm...

"fundamnetla"

"wehn the think that religon"

"evild"

You know, what's even worse is, a creationist sits opposite me in work as I type this. Every now and then he get's curious as to what I'm up to and I have to say "Oh, it's nothing. Just a boring old science website." :)

OK, Darth Robo is idiot Number 5 that thinks I'm a creationist. My predictions work invariably. Expect more idiots like this to drop in.

Now, now, Mr. Glen of the "electric consciousness" (chuckle)

Everyone knows that Darwin as a smart, sophisticated dude. He definitely payed attention to all the major issues, such as the non adaptive traits, historical constraints, and such. But one cloud in the sky does not make a raisntorm, Glen.

Look at the general, majoritarian trends of Darwins's work (as Gould was constantly begging us, to properly judge historical figures)

Inasmuch as his main innovation, his new line of thinking, was the idea that natural selection was the main evolutionary force involved in the improvement of adaptaions, darwin emphasized it quite a lot, and defended it always as being, in the end, "the main thing".

This is true darwinism, and the source of the many progressist notions that darwin repeatedly came up with.

And, as I sai above, it was capitalism that bolstered darwinism. and as I also pointed out above, I do not hold that against darwinism.

darwinism can be questioned on purely scientific grounds...

specially regarding what is the actual evidence for selection "molding" evolution by accumulation of micromutations. But you would not know about that.

Read Orr, "the genetic theory of adaptation" in nature reviews in genetics

OK if you're not a creationist are you the elusive 'designer' that noone dare speak of? How many guesses can we have?

From your website, Glen

"Consciousness is comprised of one or more electromagnetic fields, probably mostly electrical in nature"

Sounds very sciencey, but actually is a piece of perfectly useless simplistic crap. That is what scientism is all about, and you provide just the perfect example.
Good luck with captain Kirk and everyone at the Glenterprise

I think Clastito is ODing on something. His first post here made a little bit of sense, but he's been going rapidly downhill since then. Should someone be calling Poison Control?

"A physiological problem of unreason?"

As predictable as creationists

From your website, Glen "Consciousness is comprised of one or more electromagnetic fields, probably mostly electrical in nature"

Overview of consciousness problems, and possible solutions Problem: Consciousness is characterized by unity (or unities). Explanation: Consciousness is comprised of one or more electromagnetic fields, probably mostly electrical in nature.

Sounds very sciencey, but actually is a piece of perfectly useless simplistic crap.

That is what scientism is all about, and you provide just the perfect example.

Good luck with captain Kirk and everyone at the Glenterprise

Hehehe. I can't say I did not enjoy that. Evil me.
Go sell your snake oil somewhere else, Glen... I would be surprised even if anyone here is buying it.

Babble and drool, cretin, babble and drool.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Ken Ham is upset by clergy in his blog

Anglican priest fights creationists in UK
Published October 2nd, 2006 in My Journeys, Current Issues in the World EMail This Post to a Friend
ANGLICAN PRIEST FIGHTS CREATIONISTS IN UK

Recently, a group of UK creationists (including well qualified scientists) sent an information packet to schools in the UK in regard to the creation/evolution issue. They have their own website to along with this information (www.truthinscience.org.uk) Sadly, but not surprisingly, a church leader is publicly opposing this group. A report from Ekklesia in the UK states:

It is not possible to predict the outcome of this exercise. Some teachers may have already used the DVDs to scare birds from their vegetable patch. However it will give a way for the increasing number of YEC science teachers to introduce creationism into the classroom, despite the fact that it is scientific nonsense and dependent on the gross misrepresentations of standard science.

It is a concern that the authors are sure that OFSTED will not object to their ideas. The result will be to confuse students, to increase the antagonism of non-believers, and to raise opposition to faith schools of any kind.

Sadly the church, and especially the Church of England, has avoided taking a stand on these issues, possibly to avoid confrontation with more conservative members. Far too often the opponents of this pseudo-scientific nonsense are atheists, who then use this to ridicule faith. Will the church now wake up?

You can read the rest of the report at: www.ekklesia.co.uk

WINNIPEG MINISTRY

By the time you read this blog, I should be on my way to Winnipeg Canada to speak at a conference. Please pray for the effectiveness of the talks. For further information, go to: Winnepeg Conference.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying

Ken