Oh No, Not Again!

In my upcoming book (it’s been upcoming for years because I also have to eat) I made reference to a “think-tank” in America called the Discovery Institute [http://www.discovery.org/] and quipped that the only thing it has actually discovered is how to make monkeys from apes: a reference both to the old saying “Making a monkey out of someone”.

Humans are apes related to gorillas and chimps more than we are to gibbons or macaques; yet in common American parlance apes are also alluded to as monkeys: perhaps a trip of language - (you say potato, I say solanum tuberosum). Many Americans - and an increasing number of often influential westerners can’t seem to grasp this simple fact.

Evolution doesn’t have a plan any more than it has a purpose. It just is and for some people that’s just not acceptable because it doesn’t fit within their ordered worlds where things have to happen by cause, effect and design. By anthropomorphising nature, they infer an influence were there simply isn’t one. Former British Prime Minster, Tony Blair and Sir Peter Vardy of the Emmanuel Schools Foundation are two such men of enormous power and wealth.

This becomes a problem when such people start to leverage their ideas into vulnerable minds and thanks to Blair and his toadies in Middlesbrough, Vardy has managed to buy up several schools in Northern England: and today he is after another.

Vardy and Middlesbrough council have already made monkeys out of the people of Coulby Newham but with your help, they might be prevented from doing so again.

The full consultation is here:http://consult.middlesbrough.gov.uk/portal/el/abscc and I would urge free thinking people to write and inform Middlesbrough of the true nature of the Emmanuel Schools Foundation and its links with neo-conservative America.

I'm Deluded & I'll I Lie If I Want To

Marie Jon is as a depressing as she is undeniably beautiful and astonishingly deluded.

I catch her opinions on the right-wing websites I occasionally trawl for the marked stupidity, but Ms. Jon is the upcoming Ann Coulter of her generation; undeniably charismatic and dangerously crazed. I don't have a free picture of her, but she can be seen here (assuming that the smouldering looks peering back are really her - I have no reason to doubt it though!)

She is also a nurse.

Her latest piece is particularly depressing in it's cerebral stupidity.

In her opening salvo, Jon writes:

"For nearly a century, our public school textbooks have been more than suggesting that humans are related to specific members of the animal kingdom. In fact, Darwinism insists on such teaching.

"The untruthfulness of the man-made theory of evolution is astounding. It’s bewildering that well-educated people should believe so ardently in this unproven science. This godless teaching is foisted upon our society as though it were empirically-demonstrated fact. Because of Charles Robert Darwin’s belief, secularization and atheism have gained wide acceptance throughout the world."

Dear Ms. Jon. Go to the fucking zoo and look in the ape cages, will you?

It's not rocket science.

Sure, the intricacies of evolution might be lost on you but it doesn't take a bloody genius to realise those beautiful creatures peering back at us through glistening eyes are our relations.

LOOK AT THEM! But mind they don't throw a pooball at you.

The have opposable thumbs - like you; lack tails - like you; nurse their young just like you (could).

Is it really such a leap of faith to realise that you share over 95% of your DNA with these gentle creatures?

What you call Godless teaching is the study of observed reality - your God is neither denied nor confirmed by it; evolution just is. Darwin started out as a cleric-in-waiting and became the greatest scientist of his time: by operating with an open mind.

But it didn't end there, Marie.

A couple of dudes by the names of James Watson and Francis Crick that you can read about in this Time article cracked the code of life decades after Chuck Darwin first proposed evolution. Since that discovery, now over a century old, we can decode vast tracts of the code that make us what we are.

Thought Experiment Time

Let's assume for a moment (shudders) that we were the product of some supernatural designer. If we are, then the designer made our DNA (unless Jon and Co. want to deny that too).

DNA carries the information that transfers information from one generation to the next and it is the material that makes humans, human and small furry creatures from Alpha-Centauri real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri (sorry Douglas).

We can reverse engineer a creature's DNA just as a skilled computer hacker can unravel the code of a complex computer program and then get himself nicked for entering the US Dept. of Defense while claiming to look for evidence of UFOs.

The point is that computer programs look remarkably like DNA - accepting that, DNA is almost infinitely more complex. As computer programs have little chunks of reusable code (subroutines or procedures) and computer scientists have developed shared algorithms so DNA carries shared bits.

Related humans shared large bits with each other; all humans share less bits and all life shares even smaller bits. Counting the number of bits that we share allows us to determine how closely two creatures are related.

Crucially (and unlike Darwin who deduced his findings by observation - a study called Phenology) we can take two unknown samples of genetic material and by comparing the similarities deduce their origin.

I wonder how Marie Jon would feel if she was raped and the only evidence that could specifically identify her attacked was his DNA? What if a close family member of hers brutally murdered and the only evidence available was DNA?

I wouldn't wish this on her, no matter what, like that infamous bloody cat in quantum physics, this is purely a thought experiment.

But WHAT IF?

DNA - even small samples of it can uniquely identify no just the race and sex of a person, it can even determine their likely traits too: eye colour, height and so on (although not always with pinpoint accuracy). If Marie's relative was attacked by an animal, we could determine which one by the same means. DNA makes us unique as individuals - no one precisely like us has ever live or ever will live again. Yet is also demonstrates how we are connected too - to all other life on Earth from the simplest virus to the most complex organism imaginable.

Marie denies this.

"Let’s be clear about this: It is not social interaction alone, or communication skills alone, that distinguishes humans from other living things. It’s the fact that God made us unique — putting us miles above the other living things and creatures in intelligence, language, and social abilities."

Rubbish.

You're no more unique than any other highly evolved creature and in your denial of the very facts you rely on to live and enjoy your life says you're probably mentally ill: only it's an illness that we call faith and that somehow makes it acceptable.

I think I'll have to go wash my brains now.

UPDATE:

That fine chap and all-round good egg, Luke O'Dell has a take on this too (and some other idiots) at this blog Creationist Idiocy. Luke clearly has a stronger stomach than I since he was able to dissect even more of Jon's ludicrous assumptions (plus two others) and still maintain his sanity.

I can't recommend this blog enough for those times when you just need reminding that some people really shouldn't be breeding and you need a hearty belly laugh.

Edinburgh Professor Believes In Teaching Creationism

According to a recent Guardian poll a quarter of UK teachers believe that creationism is should be taught. Says the paper:

The Ipsos/Mori poll of 923 primary and secondary teachers found that 29% of science specialists agreed with the statement: "Alongside the theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory, creationism should be TAUGHT in science lessons.

Anyone with a scientific mind should be able to dismiss creationism and intelligent design as dumb without much difficulty, but demonstrating how far the reach of belief can distort the view of otherwise learned and intelligent people, we need look no further than Thomas Crowley, professor of geosciences at the University of Edinburgh.

Professor Crowley has, reports the paper, taught evolution in North America where fundamentalism is rife and young earth creationism is accepted almost as matter of fact. It doesn't state his credentials - so I can't say that he is (or is not) qualified to teach biological sciences, but nevertheless he feels there is an argument for creation. Writing in the Guardian, here, he says:

"... it [science] cannot in fact explain how 'something' (the energy of the universe compressed into a volume the size of a golf ball) arose from nothing beforehand."

This is entirely true - science has ideas, but no proof of anything prior Big Bang. The professor then disconnects the logical parts of his brain and by adding:

"This yawning logical gap leaves open the possibility that something else may be going on. The history of life is consistent with Darwinian evolution, although life's increasing complexity - including the very recent appearance of modern man - is also consistent with (but not proof of) the possibility of some special creative agent existing."

and, futher:

"It [intelligent design] is embedded in any Christian religion that continues to treat the promise of a messiah, the incarnation and the resurrection as historical fact (the reasoning being that, if God is responsible for creating the big bang, then the incarnation and resurrection would be child's play by comparison)."

This is the old and rather jaded "god of the gaps" argument: which goes, "you can't explain something so God did it."

He continues along a similar path by commenting:

"And it is essential for any teacher to point out that, even if 'soft [old earth] creationism' and 'intelligent design' are true, they cannot be considered science until they make predictions that can be falsified."

But surely this is a case of not just having your cake and eating it, but not even paying for the cake in the first place. If Intelligent Design (which is creationism wrapped in fancy language and complex straw man arguments) is true then we should be able to prove it.

We can show evolution to be true. On the microscopic scale it happens so rapidly that bacteria and other organisms are out-evolving the treatments we devise to protect against them. On a larger scale, things are much slower so we have to look to the fossil record - which is incomplete by its very nature. In some ways, we're lucky to have fossils at all - we burn a lot of fossil goo in our cars every day on the way to work!

The Christian faith and promises that Professor Crowley alludes to were developed from stories thousands of years old at a time when science was something of the future. Even Issac Newton, himself a great scientist, thought that God did everything and his job was just to unravel it all.

Yet there is no tangiable evidence of the supernatural anywhere. The further we walk down the path of enlightenment (scientific enlightenment that is) the deeper our understanding becomes and the more bleak things appear.

Why are we here? We just are.
What is my purpose in life? Life has no purpose - it's just blindly walking into the future.

Some of us, and I assume from what he writes, Professor Crowley is one of them, need to believe there is a higher purpose. This is what drives and ultimately probably buffers them from descent into mental illness. They cling on to the promise of something greater than they are in the hope of eternal life.

The rest of us accept our lot and get on with it. One of us is going to be wrong, but only one is in for a shock.

Professor Crowley can be reached here: thomas.crowley@ed.ac.uk

Oh Pleeeeeeeeeze!

Radio 4 is never far from my heart, and when I heard an unnamed (well, he was named but I forgot it) evolutionary biologist stating that the virgin birth had a potential scientific explanation, my ears pricked up faster than a speeding bullet. Oh, crap! I'm mixing my metaphor, but no matter.

Parthenogenesis (literally virgin-creation) is a form of reproduction where a single female creature gives birth to another female without the ova being fertilised. The reason for only female births is that a male requires a Y chromosome and females don't posses it.

Now this evolutionary biologist was a Christian who took his bible pretty seriously, and although he accepted Darwin's theory (and neo-Darwinian theory) he felt that the virgin birth could be real. He even went on to explain the rare case of a woman who does carry a Y chromosome - someone in the comments will doubtless remember the name.

Anyway, assuming "Mary" had this rare condition AND had experienced parthenogenesis, that would explain the fact that she was a virgin who had a spontaneous pregnancy and gave birth to a son. Ta dah!

And this is a respected biologist!

The fact that virgin birth stories existed before Jesus would only serve to strengthen his argument, but since this guy is a scientist, how can he have missed Occam's Razor?

Oh shit. Maybe he was snoozing that day?

I don't personally believe in supernatural intervention; but I do accept virgin birth. Not in the church's version of course. Sperm are pretty tricky little buggers and although unlikely, it is possible for a couple of horny teens in a fit of dry humping, end up with an surprise.

If we accept (and I highly doubt) that Mary WAS a virgin, there's no way to tell that this child wasn't just a product of a simple mistake.

So our choices are:

1) Supernatural power;
2) An early example of dry humping or;
3) Mary had a little shag (before she knew Joseph)?

Occam's Razor says 3: every time and it's very rarely wrong and even assuming that parthenogenesis was the cause, why has it never been reported since in 2000+ years of human history?

Science Exams Eroded: Shocker!

BBC UK reports that children, in spite of getting better grades, are actually performing worse in real science.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7750717.stm

Well "d'uh"!

Anyone with a modicum of knowledge of science knows the world was created by a loving god six millenia ago: oh wait, that was Tony Blair's idea wasn't it. Course, he never said as much, but he is the fucking idiot who savaged the UK's education system replacing "poor performing" schools with Academies and was the architect of results-based education.

Science is hard folks. Science requires effort, and honestly, no matter how hard teachers try, not everyone will get it. This is an uncomfortable fact for politicians who want to show results: and this is what drips down to the education system. Results count, good results make politicians look good. It's tricky to massage actual results, so the education system moves the goalposts so that kids have an easier time and hey look, record results in science. Year on year since Blair and his lackies came to power shouting "Education, Education, Education" the results have improved by percentage points, the government looks smug and parents are proud.

The rot sets in when you take your eye off the ball. When these kids take their places at university, they are ill-prepared for the rigours of real science. It's no longer a case of join the dots, you suddenly have to reason for yourself: and for most that's going to be tricky to impossible.

No everyone is cut out for science and the sooner we accept that as parents, teachers and politicians, the sooner we can start moving forward.