They’re befuddled over there in the UK—I know that when I visited, I seemed to down a couple of pints of that potent stuff every day, so I’m assuming the natives must also be living in a constant state of alcohol saturation. Right? It’s the only explanation I can think of for the latest burst of creationist foolishness in the UK. They’ve got the former head of some school out there coming out in favor of the shoddy pseudoscience that this creationist group, Truth in Science, has been peddling.
However, Mr Cowan says the materials are “very scholarly” and could be extremely useful in helping children understand the importance of scientific debate
He told the BBC: “Darwin has for many people become a sacred cow.
“There’s a sense that if you criticise Darwin you must be some kind of religious nut case.
“We might has well have said Einstein shouldn’t have said what he did because it criticised Newton.”
Hmmm. You can find the ‘Truth’ in Science lesson plans online. I would not call them “scholarly” in the slightest—superficial, maybe, or misleading. If you look at the Irreducible Complexity stuff, for instance, you find a vacuous interview with Michael Behe and a PowerPoint file that shows mousetraps and flagella and parrots Behe and Minnich. There is no mention that scientists find IC to be a misinterpreted concept that supports evolution, rather than contradicts it, as the IDists claim. It’s a lesson plan that is in opposition to accepted science.
As for Darwin…he was a smart guy, who had a revolutionary insight, and backed it up with evidence. He also got a lot of things wrong (his model for inheritance, for instance, which I rip to shreds in my genetics class). Are the men in white coats coming to take me away now? Will my membership card in the Evil Atheist Conspiracy be revoked?
Cowan also tries to play the “teach the controversy” card.
“All the Truth in Science stuff does is put forward stuff that says here’s a controversy. This is exactly the kind of thing that young people should be exposed to,” Mr Cowan added.
This is incorrect. There is no controversy over Intelligent Design creationism in the scientific community—it’s a ginned-up hoax, and not a genuine subject for evidence-based, scientific debate. It’s like insisting that physics classes must discuss the possibility that the Apollo moon landing was a hoax perpetrated on a California sound stage. While that can be a useful pedagogical tool for highlighting absurdities, it’s not teaching physics…and similarly, the Truth in Science lesson plans don’t teach biology. They echo silly creationist propaganda, and the only useful lesson plan would be one that points out how wrong and stupid the ideas are, and why. There isn’t a hint of skepticism about patently false ideas in those plans.
Don’t be too harsh on us PZ. One (chemistry) teacher is none too bad. The report also states that 39 schools have considered using these as teaching materials, and while that is 39 too many, its hardly terrible out of over 5000 schools that were send this drek.
At least the goverment has come out and said that this stuff is unsuitable and should not be used in the classroom. As ever i suspect it is a classic case of people (teachers) being ignorant of biology being taken in by the ‘teach the controversy’ line. If you don’t know better, you might well swallow the ‘many scietists now agree….’ statements – I know enough people who have been fooled before.
That said, Creationism is clearly a growing problem in the UK (and the rest of Europe) and anything like this needs to be stamped out. I am more in the ‘live-and-let-live’ camp with respect to religion – but not when it comes to pedalling false information and is deliberatly anti-science. I think too many British and European workers are under the impression that this is all an American problem, it isn’t, and over here they use the publicity generated by the US groups to champion that existence of the ‘controversy’.
As ever, we simply need more funding and more, better information getting out there. So with a less than subtle change of tack: PZ you still oew me a biography, and anyone who is interested, please check this out! http://biopalaeo.blogspot.com
I have some on-line friends in England. I had told them not to be surprised about creationism developing there but they were quite certain it could not happen. I then explained how creationists evolve quite quickly and use cultural back-doors to get in, much like using the term “Politically-incorrect” is used by some creationists here in the US to make it seem they are rebels, and free-thinkers. After a while, I could see they realized it could possibly happen…
Well boys, time to roll up them shirt sleeves and get an ass a whoopin’…
It looks like the IDiots are employing the tried-and-true tactic used by many U.S. corporations; if a product fails in America, export it.
Blue Coat School Liverpol is a highly academically selective Independent school with some of the best exam results in the country. I can see why you would dislike the “teach the controversy” angle, but I would be VERY surprised if the School would risk its exam record by teaching material that jeopardised its pupils’ performance in Biology GCSE and A-Levels, which when I sat them certainly expected students to understand the basic concept of evolution by natural selectin.
Surely there are ways that ID material _could_ legitimately be used in the classroom, e.g. Science vs Non-science and so forth..
In any case, because of Blue Coat School’s unusual nature (i.e. an independent school that is not an English “public” school in the usual sense, this is hardly an indicator that education in England is going Creationist in any real sense.
Having read the actual article now, I note that this Cowan bloke is EX head of CHEMISTRY at the school. I am wondring what the current head of biology there thinks. Would be a shame if he didn’t stand up to be counted.
I like the moon-landing analogy. I think you hit the nail on the head.
I think what the ID crowd really needs people to forget in the debate over whether it should be taught in school is how much real material there is to cover in a college or high school biology class. They think we don’t want to “teach the controversy” because we’re afraid students might make up their mind the wrong way. But class time is finite and deciding what gets taught or not is a zero-sum game. I’m in my first year teaching Chemistry at a small college and I’m just blown away by how fast-paced it seems, even though I obviously took basically the same classes when I was an undergrad. I enjoy arguing about science and I’d love to engage some stubborn fool in a debate about whether quantum theory is really controversial or not, but it would be self-indulgant of me to do so during class time. I’d have to say, “sorry guys, I guess you’re not learning the ideal gas law because I spent two lectures teaching the ‘controversy’. I hope it’s not on the MCATs or the GRE.”
I also realize there are plenty of creationists who would be happy to respond that if time is so short, nix evolution altogether. But I think that tends to be more of the young earth attitude. The people trying to pretend ID is really a science know they can’t just pretend evolution isn’t out there. So they make a lot of arguments that boil down to “what’s so bad about teaching ID with the caveat that it’s only one possible interpretation.” It’s worse than wrong…it’s a waste of precious time.
See also this article. I don’t think there’s cause to worry that this is a battle that’s not being won. ‘Truth In Science’ (I resent having to call them that…) aren’t winning over anyone who matters to the curriculum as far as I can see.
Although Truth-In-Science (irony award is currently being engraved) may be appealing directly to the occasional kooky teacher, the government has strongly criticised their bullshit literature and recognised that it has absolutely no place in the science classroom.
Apparently they sent literature to every school in England. Wow, imagine the actual research they could have done with that money if they weren’t just a hollow PR movement :P
PZ – Don’t worry, there are plenty of people in the UK already blasting this stuff to pieces, it already got knocked back in the House Of Commons. There’s a group called BCSE set up specifically to oppose them. We’ll be alright, just have to sort out the City Academies problem and we’ll be in the clear :-)
“Having read the actual article now, I note that this Cowan bloke is EX head of CHEMISTRY at the school. I am wondring what the current head of biology there thinks.”
That’s what I thought when I read the Guardian article this morning. What the hell does Cowan’s opinion have to do with anything?
I know about the BCSE — I met Roger Stanyard when I was over there.
ikonen – it’s not that we don’t want “the controversy” taught. It’s that when “the controversy” is taught, it’s taught in a shoddy and incompetent manner.
Here is how I would present ID and evolution.
On the first day, I’d walk in and say “Right, today we are going to start studying evolution. There are some people who think that evolution didn’t happen – they tend to be called Intelligent Design advocates or creationists. If you want to know about them, ask in your next religious studies or philosophy class. Or come and have a chat after class, and I can point you towards books and websites by people who think in this manner and by people who think they are wrong. It is mostly a religious and philosophical debate rather than a scientific debate.”
With that done, I’d then get them to open their books up and we’d have a gander at the DNA evidence.
On that note, the teaching of evolution wasn’t particularly prevalent in my school – mostly because they taught Combined Sci rather than the individual subjects (which sucks – it means you only get two qualifications rather than three, and if you, say, do really well at chemistry and really suck at physics, the latter pulls your overall grade down – it also means that you get only two-thirds of the amount of science teaching as you would if you are on the individual subjects – which works out as six hours per week rather than nine).
(Disclaimer: I am not a teacher. I’m a programmer by trade and a philosopher by training.)
I think we need to test PZ’s beer theory — I’ll volunteer to be part of the evolution team and we’ll take on the creationists pint-for-pint. My hypothesis is that we’ll drink ’em under the table. Who’s with me?!?
“We might has well have said Einstein shouldn’t have said what he did because it criticised Newton.”
Of course, he’s either missing or deliberately omitting the fact that Einstein worked on the details of his theory for years, published them (thus making them available for criticism, verification, and falsification) and then soon thereafter saw it experimentally verified (and relativity has been verified experimentally many, many times since then). So far, all ID proponents have done is used reality-by-assertion to try and declare that there’s a controversy (which really only exists in their own heads), without bothering to come up with any real science to back themselves up. “I can’t figure it out, so someone musta dunnit” is not a testable, falsifiable proposition; it only speaks to the ignorance of the declarer.
This certainly worries me.Most of our cultural elite, while not religious, don’t know the first thing about science, and wouldn’t care if we taught that the sun went around the earth (well doesn’t it? sure looks like that to me….). But supposing that some sect started to teach that Shakespeare was a German (could have been – how do we know he wasnt? teach the controversy…)then by heck you’ll see some outrage. It’s about which facts are more important to the elite.
“I think we need to test PZ’s beer theory — I’ll volunteer to be part of the evolution team and we’ll take on the creationists pint-for-pint. My hypothesis is that we’ll drink ’em under the table. Who’s with me?!?”
I’m in. Can we go to 4 Peaks Brewery in Tempe, AZ, and use Kiltlifter as the test ale (at least for one of the testing runs)?
Two points:
1. The “Truth in Science” crowd are quite well-known as a collection of fringe nutters. What is not generally appreciated is that they have a lot of US money behind them. Yup folks, its yore very own Id’ers and cretinists exporting yore trash to us pore benighted EUroopeens ….
2. BEER. There is a sizeable “Real Ale” movement here called CAMRA – I’m a life member. There are similar movements in the USA and other countries now, devoted to ensuring that proper, tasty, (though not necessarily very strong) beer is more generally avilable, as opposed to “Miller” or Anheuser or our home-grown and equally repulsive eqivalents.
And yes, we do go out and ample different ales, and we have Beer festivals. There’s one in Hackney E. London 5-8th December, and another next February in Battersea. In fact there’s a small beer-festival every weekend SOMEWHWERE in the UK – see CAMRA’s web-site referenced above for more information.
OOPS!
Sorry about the HTML – I think that should have read CAMRA
PZ – we’ve had a reputation for being a permanently drunk nation since about the 12th century (I could probably dig out the sources at home, but it’d take a while). However, my subjective observation from uni would be that Americans can’t hold their drink :) Would this affect the team choice for the creationist vs evolutionist drinking bout?
First it was the creationist stall at the farmers’ market. Then it was the creationist pamphlets sneakily stuffed into the science books at the library (which has now stopped, I think the librarians must have caught the buggers). Then the govt decided with foundation schools to basically let people indoctrinate children for a small contribution to their education (though I should point out, not here in the People’s Socialist Republic of Scotland, at least not yet). And now ‘Truth’ in science. It’s creeping, and this has only taken a couple of years.
PZ: When I was a Brit many decades ago, the British pint was about 20% larger than the U.S. pint. If that is still the case, it may be the reason for the effects you felt on consuming British beer. I feel sad when I hear that these old superstitions are rearing their ugly heads in what appeared to be a bastion of secularism.
25% bigger actually – a British pint has 20 fluid ounces, while the US one has only 16.
Intelligent design creationism is causing a fuss in conservative American circles, too, with a healthy dollop of that “teach the controversy” nonsense and cries of censorship by the Darwinian elite. Some conservatives, however, are wary of ID. I read about it (featuring some comments from the Discovery Institute’s Jonathan Witt) this Thanksgiving weekend, where I found my parents had a couple of issues of the Claremont Review of Books. I like book reviews, but there was a lot of ID bluster in there, too. Here’s my report, with a bunch of quotes: Claremont tussles over ID.
More from The Guardian on the subject:
Dawkins campaigns to keep God out of classroom
Speaking of exports, could you please use the future wall-on-the-border thing to keep the crazies from moving south? It’s getting a bit annoying.
Life will be made easier for BCSE and all right thinking Brits when Tony Blair is finally raptured. This is a contemptibly feeble piece of evasion.
While this stuff has absolutely no chance of gaining a foothold in the classroom just yet (apart from in faith schools and some of those fucking Vardy-backed “city academies”) I’m concerned that the PR offensive might succeed in making it look as if there’s a genuine scientific controversy. Fact is, the British really don’t know anything of the fuss over in America about this. To the vast majority of people, this is going to be new.
Much is made of British society’s supposed secularity, and it’s true to a significant extent. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that atheism is all that popular either. And it certainly doesn’t mean that understanding of evolution is any better here than it is in America.
I’d think that most here would still consider themselves “Christian”, nominally at least, even if they never go to chapel or church apart from weddings, baptisms and funerals. Up until now, most won’t have given this any thought at all. But if the PR campaign succeeds in making it appear as if there might be an “alternative” to evolution that manages to be compatible with their vague notions of God, they might well go for it.
I don’t know, we’ll just have to wait and see I suppose.
Although one encouraging thing is that not a single member of parliament is openly creationist as far as I know. I’m pretty certain tha if one were to come out of the closet, the very fact itself would be fairly big news and I think it’s quite plausible that he or she would be ridiculed.
I almost wish to see it happen, just to see what would follow. In all honesty, I’m no surer than you Americans how this is going to pan out. I’m curious.
I admit the Apollo moon landing hoax is a clever analogy.
But the current beer controversy is more like a flat earth theory: the british still wants their ale lukewarm, while countries that have adopted central heating and refrigerators wants their lager cold. Stouts and porters presents no problem for evolving beer theory since Irreplaceable Guinness is a misinterpreted concept that supports the importance of correct temperature.
I admit the Apollo moon landing hoax is a clever analogy.
But the current beer controversy is more like a flat earth theory: the british still wants their ale lukewarm, while countries that have adopted central heating and refrigerators wants their lager cold. Stouts and porters presents no problem for evolving beer theory since Irreplaceable Guinness is a misinterpreted concept that supports the importance of correct temperature.
It’s usually in my living room.
Brits do seem to be particularly susceptible to New Age bollocks, or as Orac would have it, Chopra-woo. This may be because the C of E is not very doctrinaire. The Daily Mail, which portrays itself as the paper of “Middle England”, is constantly peddling the latest Bible Code/Kabbalah/astrology/pyramids/crystals bullshit.
Yeah, but everyone knows he was a klingon, or maybe Arabic
Bingo. It’s within the impressionable New Age type constituency that potential British support for creationism lies. While it’s true that evangelicalism is growing, it’s still a tiny minority and overall religiosity is still declining. But the latter is entirely down to apathy rather than some sort of increase in critical thinking; as I said, most would still probably call themselves Christian.
It is well documented that the passengers on the Mayflower were rationed to one gallon of beer/ day, a bit less for the kids. Only a gallon?…..so, they staggered off the Mayflower…….
Frankly, when I hear this sort of nonsense, I really want to have a pint or two.
As a couple of people have already pointed out, we actually don’t have a big problem with creationism in the UK. Having said that, it would help if T. Blair would stop thinking it was a good idea to give £25 million of our money to bloody Academy Schools which allow Evangelican Christian used car salesmen (an oxymoron if ever there was one) teach creationism to our kids in return for 30p and a Mars Bar. But this is the same Prime Minister who says he loves science while allowing lots of science departments to close and lets you get homeopothy on the NHS, so I think we all need another drink or three.
If you need a drink in the US while despairing at all of this, there is either these guys http://beeradvocate.com/ or more politically http://drinkingliberally.org/
Personally I think CAMRA’s Good Beer Guide http://www.camra.org.uk/page.aspx?o=207729 should be a set text…
Regarding beer in the UK. The alcohol volume in UK beers is much lower than US micros of similar styles.
As for the UK pint, the Imperial pint is 20 oz, US 16 oz. However the US Ounce is larger than the Imperial Ounce so UK pints are actually 19.2 US oz.
“But supposing that some sect started to teach that Shakespeare was a German”
Huch, potzblitz. The secret’s out. Yes he was. A relative of mine, in fact, by the name of Wilhelm Schachspeer. Couldn’t get his works published in the homeland so like all good family black sheep he tried his luck in merry ole England.
When I was in my pre-GCSE year at 14 or 15, we were told one day in Biology that the teacher was required to teach us about the ‘other opinions’. I don’t know if this was school policy, national curriculum or law. Teaching this consisted of a minute long spiel about how ‘some people’ believe that the world was created as is, and in six days; this won’t be on your test and now back to your regularly scheduled science. We spent the rest of the lesson giggling at the rot that ‘some people’ believe.
I think it’s because he doesn’t understand the difference between science and technology, or rather because he actually likes technology but thinks/says he likes science. That New Scientist interview is very telling in that regard, but you can discern this confusion in many of his comments, and indeed his abandonment of pragmatic/evidence-based policy early in his reign.
Just for the record I would like to point out it is only our southern, slightly strange, country men and women who like their beer warm as wash water… Up north in Scotland we very much appreciate a cold beer. And yes, we are British here… Although if any of my friends find out I admit to that they will take away my kilt and chase me around the chilly highlands until I look like haggis.
Whats that Mark? Are you trying to claim that we like fizzy cold lager up here? ONly if your into Brewed-IN-Trent-Tenents.
(The bastards have closed the last major brewery in Edinburgh. THere is now only 1 proper brewery, and manybe a micro or something. I need to join CAMRA)
Theres plenty of warm tasty pints sold up here in Scotland. And some cold whisky, and unfortunately cold fizzy dishwater.
Those lesson plans rather give the game away about their authors’ motives. For instance, the ‘Irreducible Complexity Lesson Plan’ is simply a tidying-up of a Guardian interview of Michael Behe, which is either misleading or irrelevant for schoolchildren on several counts.
After an opening salvo of false dichotomy between Darwin and ID (note: not even evolutionary biology and ID, Darwin!), the interviewer mentions the “1925 Scopes monkey trial”. This is US political history. UK schoolchildren will not have heard of it! Then Behe misrepresents the common metaphor of ‘molecular machinery’ to support his notion that the cell really is intelligently designed. He takes up half the interview using the widely-discredited analogy of the mousetrap.
After that, there are three lines of vague description of the bacterium flagellum (if an interview with Behe doesn’t even get as far as discussing why it supposedly supports ID, then it must have been brief!). Finally, we have a quick appeal to common sense on micro- versus macro-evolution to say that he doesn’t reject all of Darwin’s ideas (thereby contradicting his answer to the first question where he set up that dichotomy between Darwinism and ID). That’s it, folks.
And the poor children are left with the impression that science is learned by reading newspaper interviews. Hopefully question 3, “What scientific evidence does he provide for this controversial conclusion?” will wake them up as they read and re-read and realise they’ve been duped. If you’re reading this, children, the answer to question 3 is:
None at all.
PZ’s Beer Theory explains why the Discovery Institute is located in Seattle. This has puzzled me for quite a while, since we are one of the least churched areas in the nation. But we do love our beverages. As Franklin said, “Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.” I’m not quite convinced, but it’s a strong argument.
“Evangelican Christian used car salesmen”
I think you mean redundancy.
A comment to all you USA’ians etc.
WHilst this bunch of creationists are trying to get their message across, they run into small problems like the NAtional curriculum not supporting it. This of course does not stop some places, especially those with POlitical support such as the Vardy religious academies. HOwever, with the large number of letters to MP’s written by people such as myself, we have sicced the gvt onto them in such a way that the gvt is trying to discourage truthiness in science’ rubbish.
However, there is little else we can do. We cant really take them to court (Although concievably, a school that kept teaching creationism could always be sued by someone). All we can do is squelch them when they appear in public. Remember, we do not have separation of church and state, although it is one of the 2 good things that the USA has gvt wise that we could borrow. (ALthough I suppose technically we have the other one already, sort of, but I’m no lawyer)
“As for the UK pint, the Imperial pint is 20 oz, US 16 oz. However the US Ounce is larger than the Imperial Ounce so UK pints are actually 19.2 US oz.”
Does anyone else long for the day when the metric system will finally take hold? I’ll take a half a liter of bitters, please; there’s a good barkeep.
Mark:
“Just for the record I would like to point out it is only our southern, slightly strange, country men and women who like their beer warm as wash water… Up north in Scotland we very much appreciate a cold beer. And yes, we are British here…”
I’m sorry if I gave offense. I should know better – I have been told off by Scot engineers often enough.
But I did include Scotland since I in my brief travels didn’t notice the temperature difference. Probably because I sampled so much uisge beatha. (Though I must confess that I am one of those pitiful souls who can’t find whisky to my tastes. I usually have to stick with vodka or cognac, respectively.)
And of course UK beer is much more enjoyable than my joke let on. For example, I love Wychwood’s Hobgoblin (soon to be renamed Hogwarts, I’m sure :-) and not only is Young’s Double Chocolate Stout perfect for someone who loves beers and chocolate and the female company that such liquors attract but it is also a nice alternative to belgian fruit beers on the occasions one’s taste goes for unusual liquor.
“Although if any of my friends find out I admit to that they will take away my kilt and chase me around the chilly highlands until I look like haggis.”
Haggis is another treat. It is a luxurious dish compared to similar but plainer swedish “pölsa”. That and hamburgers got me through my visit unscathed.
Keep the kilt, thank you. ;-)
Mark:
“Just for the record I would like to point out it is only our southern, slightly strange, country men and women who like their beer warm as wash water… Up north in Scotland we very much appreciate a cold beer. And yes, we are British here…”
I’m sorry if I gave offense. I should know better – I have been told off by Scot engineers often enough.
But I did include Scotland since I in my brief travels didn’t notice the temperature difference. Probably because I sampled so much uisge beatha. (Though I must confess that I am one of those pitiful souls who can’t find whisky to my tastes. I usually have to stick with vodka or cognac, respectively.)
And of course UK beer is much more enjoyable than my joke let on. For example, I love Wychwood’s Hobgoblin (soon to be renamed Hogwarts, I’m sure :-) and not only is Young’s Double Chocolate Stout perfect for someone who loves beers and chocolate and the female company that such liquors attract but it is also a nice alternative to belgian fruit beers on the occasions one’s taste goes for unusual liquor.
“Although if any of my friends find out I admit to that they will take away my kilt and chase me around the chilly highlands until I look like haggis.”
Haggis is another treat. It is a luxurious dish compared to similar but plainer swedish “pölsa”. That and hamburgers got me through my visit unscathed.
Keep the kilt, thank you. ;-)
As the ideal temperature for nice, tasty British ale is cellar temperature, it’s only natural that the beer in Scotland will be a little colder than in parts to the south of here.
The majority of US beers, British lagers and similar abominations are best served just over freezing so you don’t notice that they don’t taste of anything.
Feorag,
You are SOOOO lucky I don’t believe in hell… The reason ale should be at cellar temperature is because that’s where it should be locked away and stay. In the cellar.
By the way, I’ve had Polsa, it’s interesting…
MarkG, how bad is that ‘Dawkins campaigns…” article in the Guardian? Since when has Dawkins been a geneticist, and how can news of a website that’s been around since September have ’emerged today’?
Thanks PeeZee, a nice post – as usual, on the mark (beer nonsense aside).
Some semi-random comments:
1) What were the motivations of the ex-chemistry teacher? Why did he step up to the plate? Was he pushed?
2) Has anyone probed the workings and financing of ‘Truth’ in Science? Will investigative journalism work? Who is John Perfect, the person in Yorkshire who registered the domain name?
3) I can see the EDM might fail but it the press might not have got interested without the fuss. In case you missed all the flurry of interlaced posts – several MP have been written to and some even reply (e.g. my MP here and cjrs here . Others are not nice of course, like poor postbloggery’s MP (he’s a scumbag don’t you know – sorry for that – the arctic monkey-lovers will get it….)
4) I bet ID and creationism is alive and well in at some primary schools (where the boundaries of science and religion are more easily blurred) even those that are nominally secular as I discussed previously. If I were trying to indoctrinate future generations I would aim young. Admittedly they have religion of all types thrust upon them anyway – I remember hating that “all things bright and beautiful..the Lord God made them all” jolly happy primary school crap when I was at primary school. It seems nothing changes. Just call me a miserable sinner, I’m running as a scrooge wannabe this year. Enjoy.
Last night’s Newsnight had an item about this. Go to:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm
Click on latest programme (Nov 27th) on Newsnight player and skip to 18 minutes 47 seconds into the show (unless you also want to hear about Iraq and the Russian radioactive sushi poisoning).
The item included a debate between the Truth in Science guy Andy McIntosh and the biologist Lewis Wolpert. This is the first time I’ve seen McIntosh perform for the camera and he was as slippery and as cranky I imagined he would be. Still, I think Wolpert well slammed him.
But here’s the really scary bit: McIntosh is not some hick preacher. He is in fact a full Professor at Leeds University no less! We shouldn’t be too complacent here in the UK, it’s later that we think.
Britain is relatively secular (Scotland and Ireland less so, England being increasingly influenced by other medieval superstitions aside from US-led fundy christianity*), but that doesn’t stop people being ignorant and stupid about science anyway.
It’s not just the new age juju either, more a general tabloidesque anti-intellectualism / chip on shoulder about genuine experts / can’t trust scientists thing.
*http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6190080.stm
Tony- its not quite as bad as all that. Macintosh has been outed as a Creationist for probably nearly a decade or something. Hes not some new wonder worker or convert, he’ been busy running things behind the scenes for years.
In the small amount of online stuff I have found about him, he doesnt ever make the 2nd law of thermodynamics argument that fundies enjoy using. Could that be beause he professionally knows that it is wrong?
UNbearable Lightness- the BCSE have online pages about huge numbers of creationists, try looking them up.
Nick Cowan is a known Creationist, so only someone with no brain would disagree with the supposition that he has religious motivations for it. If you want investigative journalism, try actually finding a real ournalist, there arent many around these days.
‘A couple of pints every day’.
Amateur!
That’s an easy one. It’s because he’s a creationist (and an activist one at that).
http://education.independent.co.uk/schools/article1836323.ece
+ http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/NickCowan