There’s a group in the UK called “Truth in Science” (it’s not just Republicans who title things ironically) which is pushing creationism in the schools there. A recommendation in Parliament is trying to dismiss these silly people as something that should be treated very cautiously by the schools, and one blogger wrote his member of Parliament asking for support. He got a curious reply.
I would be very happy to act on this matter as soon as you can prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Creationism is not true, and I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.
My first thought is that our blogger is being blown off. Seriously, anyone who makes such an overweening demand is not looking for a genuine answer—he’s looking for an excuse to pretend to have evaluated the evidence, but his mind is made up. The brave blogger is going to try and persuade him otherwise, and has a draft letter online. It’s not bad; take a look and make suggestions.
It’s amazing how well that reply sums up exactly what is wrong with creationism.
That’s pretty unbelievable, after getting a reply like that I’d be spreading it far and wide and specifically to all other MPs and candidate in that constituency.
Coincidentally I sent a near-identical fax to my MP on the same issue about a week and a half ago but have still had no response. It also mentioned the recent amendments in Parliament making it easier for state-funded faith schools to discriminate against staff and pupils on religion grounds and the relaxation of rules surrounding the labelling of alternative medicines. Going to send the same message to all other MPs in my area, best response gets my vote at the next election :-)
Is anyone putting together an index of responses from MPs? I’d like to see if there is a response pattern from particular areas of the country or political party. And has anyone done Ian Paisley yet?
I know there are some people in the UK who reject evolutionary theory, but I thought it was restricted to the JWs and some independent evangelical congregations. I’m quite shocked that one of our MPs is a creationist!
Hmm, are there any uni campuses near Sedgefield? Maybe that Vardy bloke has been making donations to nuLab again.
It reminds me of the debate in Poland at the moment over the deputy education minister, Orzechowski, a creationist who actively campaigns against the teaching of evolution. There was a quote in Nature from Molecular Biologist Maciej Zylicz that sums up the situation “the point that really requires further discussion is not evolution, but how a minister can say such stupid things.”
First of all, you might like to look at this web-site, specifically organised to fight this lunacy…
http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/forum/
There is the Early Day motion, number 2708, now signed by at leat 33 MPs’. Remember that “Goernment” men and women (Ministers, PPS’ etc) cannopt normally sign EDM’s, and of course there are a lot of gutless coward who are frightened of the religious loonies.
There has bee quite a bit of publicity, but as usual, most people have not woken up, and don’t care, and don’t think it matters.
Depressing, isn’t it?
mah9, I wrote to my MP via the WriteToThem site. Somewhere on that site, you can find out every MP’s response rate, just root around and you’ll find it. Mine is languishing in the bottom half of the table as far as I can remember, not a good sign…
Don’t have the actual responses but will start saving them if there’s somewhere to put them.
Unfortunately to reply on his blog you have to get one of those identities.
To me his reply is way too long winded. If he wants an analogy flat earth is way better choice. Explain that we know the earth is not flat because we have photos of it, can measure the curvature, and can sail round it.
Then point out creationism demands that the earth is only 6000 year old and prove this is bullshit because we can measure it in a variety of ways, just as we can measure the curvature of the earth. Give the various ways, say what the conclusions are, quote standard textbooks and say “now I have proved it will you please take action.”
Creationism doesn’t demand that.
A couple of years ago I wrote to my then MP (Nick Palmer, Lab., Broxtowe) about faith schools and creationism, and got a prompt and courteous, if rather handwavey, reply of which the important sentence was:
“My understanding is that all schools in the state system will continue to be subject to the national curriculum and OFSTED inspections, and schools who teach eccentric views (intelligent design etc.) as fact will get rapped over the knuckles.”
Unfortunately, Tony Blair has recently all but said he doesn’t care if creationism is taught in schools (unless it becomes “mainstream”, whatever that means). I’d get back to Dr Palmer about this, but I’ve since moved out of his constituency. Which is a shame, as he was a good MP despite his tendency to Tony-worship.
I’m starting to think I was a bit too hard on my MP, who wrote back to me to say that he wasn’t signing the EDM because he didn’t think they were much use, but had written to the relevent ministers about it.
I’m starting to think that this is the MP equivalent of organising a 10,000 strong protest…
“Then point out creationism demands that the earth is only 6000 year old
Creationism doesn’t demand that.”
Sorry Caledonian, I should have said ten thousand years.
I think what Cale was implying was the distinction between young and old earth creationists.
er, unless you were as well and just being sarcastic about it.
i threw out my irony meter ages ago.
Unfortunately, things in Germany start get worse too: According to the web site of german evolutionary biologists (http://www.evolutionsbiologen.de) the minister for education of the state of Hessen suggested to teach creationism in biology classes. (http://www.evolutionsbiologen.de/protestschreibenkultusministerium.pdf). A few months ago the prime minister of the state of Thuringia Dieter Althaus invited DI fellow Siegfried Scherer for a public discussion on evolution.
Luckily, Ulrich Kutschera and his coworkers keep figthing creationisms back by press releases, public discussions etc.
Creationism doesn’t imply that, either.
The important fact is not whether Creationism says it’s 6,000, 8,000 or 10,000 its that says it’s not around 4.5 Billion years old.
I wish the following reply would suffice…
“It is impossible to prove that creationism is not true. That’s what makes it NOT scientific”
… but I think the power of Popper’s criterion for scientific falsification is lost on most people.
No, Creationism doesn’t say that. The age of the world is immaterial. What matters is the belief that life as we are familiar with it originated suddenly as the result of being specially created.
I would say that teaching creationism (OEC, YEC, ID, etc.) weakens science education because the point we are trying to teach young students is that science relies on method; inserting God in some gaps totally voids the process. There is no method to saying “God must be in here, or here, or here” because we don’t have the full answer from science.
Academic excellence requires the ability to conduct further research. You don’t want your British students to be dumbed down like our American students, do you?
Uh ok. So you think that creationists are ok with the earth being 4.55 Billion years old as long as all life appeared exactly as it is now at the “creation”…4.55 byo?
I think that in order for the creationists to be in concert with their bible literralism they have to try and age the earth. If not their theory makes even less sense. To say that Creationism cares nothing about the age oif the earth is myopic and is trying to hide the reality of what is taught and espoused by many if not most Creationism groups. Granted there are parts that are Old Earth creationists, and IDers and such but saying that creationism has zero to do with the age of the earth is not being honest.
There are many creationists who believe the earth is old. Reasons to Believe, for instance, is a stronghold of Old Earth Creationism. They have lots of arguments—I find them silly and inconsistent, but hey, they exist.
I don’t think they believe all life was created as it is now 4.5 billion years ago. Rather, I suspect it’s got to be something like Agassiz’s creationism, where he postulated cycles of creation by a divine creator.
[quote]Uh ok. So you think that creationists are ok with the earth being 4.55 Billion years old as long as all life appeared exactly as it is now at the “creation”…4.55 byo?
[/quote]
*clunk* *clunk*; ok i pulled my irony meter out of the garbage, but I’m still not sure if it’s working…
you guys HAVE heard of old earth creationists before, right?
those are the guys who think the earth is as old as it is but either think:
humans are a special creation unto themselves, and evolution never created them, and all evolution has never produced a “new” “kind”.
or they are basically theisitic evolutionists, who think god created everything and simply set the “ball” rolling.
both of these are still correctly labeled creationists, regardless of whether they accept that the earth is billions of years old or not.
this is what Cale is talking about.
And has anyone done Ian Paisley yet?
I wish somebody would – both of ’em.
Oh, hang on. You didn’t mean that way, did you?
Yes I know there are old earth creationist. The very fact that the groups names themselves part of either Old Earth or Young Earth creationism makes my point.
The age of the earth does have something to do with Creationism. If it did not they wouldn’t clasify themselves one way or the other.
If it did not they wouldn’t clasify themselves one way or the other.
you’re kidding, right? It only makes the point that there are two groups, not that there is a relevance of age to the creationist argument as a whole.
one group thinks age has nothing to do with it, the other thinks it has everything to do with it.
the point is… just claiming that all one has to do to disprove creationism is prove the earth is old is insufficient to reject the “special creation” claim in it’s entirety, you only eliminate one of the groups of creationists with that.
ID does not claim age relevance either, but it’s still just as bad to teach it as science, and for the same reasons, really.
stop, already.
If only our decadent society didn’t permit people who would otherwise be too stupid to live to prosper! Our blog discussions would be so much more rational – granted, somewhat less interesting, as there wouldn’t be nearly so many utter nutcases.
Ok I guess I’m not making myself clear and that’s my fault. I’m not saying that there are only two groups or 5 groups or 100 groups, but the fact that the age of the earth is part of the discussion in Creationism means it has relevance.
I never, ever said this. There is much more to the discussion than just age of the earth. My point is, is that it is A part of creationism, not the ONLY part.
The reply should simply be:
“It is impossible, as you well know, to prove a negative. Since the burden of proof falls upon the one who makes the positive claim, I will respond to your evidence for Creation as soon as I receive it.”
and your point, again, is wrong.
age is ONLY an issue for ONE brand of creationism, YEC, period.
it is NOT an issue for any other brand of creationism, and you can’t lump it all together as if it is.
this plays right into the OEC/IDC folks’ hands.
they simply claim:
“you aren’t arguing against Intelligent Design, you are arguing against YEC.”
“You don’t understand ID/OEC/theistic evolution”
get it?
the primary thrust of the creationist argument is just that, CREATION, and that is what needs to be shown as vacuous.
the elimination of YEC is, of course, trivial, and just as easy as eliminating geocentrism or flat earth.
I really can’t figure out any way to express this any more clearly to you, short of telling you to spend some time on the website PZ pointed you to.
you wouldn’t get very far there arguing that age is important to the creationist argument.
try it and see.
Personally, I find it much easier to test for the vacuousness of Creationism by seeing if the Creationist being tested is aware of what a placoderm is.
Right. A very calm elephant.
I recently had an argument by email with Prof Andy McIntosh (Engineer at Leeds U) of Truth in Science (TiS). He said, “… reason is that the science fits extremely well with the notion of design and does not fit with some fanciful stories of creatures making themselves. It is no less scientific to observe that dragonflies with exquisite 4 wing separate control show great design than to wonder at the design of an Airbus A380”. Doh! This dork does online sermons, too.
Anyway, I sent an email to my MP regarding these TiS fundamentalists sending their DVDs of creationist nonsense to schools about two weeks ago, asking for him to support the EDM. I’ve only had an acknowledgement, but not the proper reply that it promised me.
The comments point up the key to the creation “controversy”, namely that it is actually among the various creation hypotheses. So I would reply along these lines:
Sir:
To be able to “teach the controversy”, we will need to know exactly what it controversial. And so I will disprove Creationism as soon as you indicate which creation hypothesis you want to teach. There are hundreds, for example
1. The Universe and all Life was created 10,000 years ago, by a supernatural entity, in one single event, with fully speciated forms that have not significantly changed since then.
2. The Universe and all Life was created billions of years ago, by a supernatural entity, and the species have not significantly changed since then.
3. Billions of years ago, one life form was created spontaneously by electro-magnetic-chemical-gravity-nuclear force-energies, and adapted itself to the environment, branching into many species, some of which are still alive today.
4. Life was probably created and destroyed naturally several times in the history of the universe, with the “Cambrian Explosion” being the most recent creation event.
5. A supernatural entity emerged from primordial waters and masturbated. From his semen and breath emerged the earth and the sky and all things in it we call Egypt.
6. Originally there were gods in the sky. A bear begged them to become human and they turned the bear into a woman, whom one of the gods married. They had a son, who created Korea.
7. If you mean Biblical Creation, which of the two conflicting descriptions do you want to teach?
Yours Truly
“What matters is the belief that life as we are familiar with it originated suddenly as the result of being specially created.”
The definition of creationism revolves around special creation, not age of the earth, yes.
“creationism is ideological support of the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, or the universe as a whole was specially created
…
“creationism” in common usage typically connotes a religious, political, and social campaign–for instance, in education–to assert the dominance or widespread acceptance of a spiritual view of nature and of humanity’s place in it.”
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism )
The root definition makes theists and deists creationists.
To be able to answer his MP faced with these ambiguities, postblogger used Truth in Science own references, which may have dragged age into this discussion.
Creationism is nuts, whichever age or special creation is discussed. Science have been able to pose feasible natural alternatives to all of them, even those we haven’t tested yet. These are now properly gods-of-the-gaps ideas AFAIK, and as such vacuous and non-relevant.
I’m the blogger concerned and would like to make three points…
First, thanks very much to PZ for posting this and thanks to all of you for the comments. The message I’m getting is make it shorter and more to the point, which I’ll do. In normal conversation, I tend to stick with arguments like June’s but because this EDM in Parliament is targetting a specific group (Truth in Science), I attacked their particular suggestions, as Torbjörn noted. Incidentally, several people have mentioned that they like the analogy to gravity; that’s obviously not my idea and has been doing the rounds for a while; my favourite version of it is still Intelligent Falling.
Second, as PZ mentioned, I suspect I’ll get blown off and people have asked why I didn’t post the MP’s name. It’s just very unusual for MPs here in the UK to actively support Creationism and I want to be absolutely sure that my MP isn’t simply making a trivial mistake (a misreading or something) before launching into them. If they are actively supporting Creationism, you can rest assured that the local press, the trade press and their party’s Education supremo are going to be hearing from me in fairly short order. I’ve been asked to post the outcome on the Talk.origins site, which I’ll do once I’ve heard back.
And, third, good luck with the elections tomorrow!
Thanks again!
Postblogger- if you could enable anonymous comments at your site some of us could post entertaining and instructive thoughts there!
Sorry! Thought I had. Should be available now…
To June:
You say that there are /two/ conflicting theories of Creationism, but to me it appears that there are more:
1) Young Earth Creationism
2) Old-Earth Creationism
3) Day-age creationism
4) ID
5) one of the two Genesis stories…
and so on with every twist that the people on the other side of the fence have thought up over the years…
Peter – I just listed some creation variants as they occurred to me, including 2 in the Bible itself. There’s plenty more (see Wikipedia), with variants, subsets, and combinations.
Asking someone to disprove “creationism” without specifying the creation hypothesis is like asking whether f(x) is continuous without knowing f(x).
Ichthyic,
No sure why you’re so hostile but ok. I still don’t think you get what I’m saying. The fact that they have an huge section of their FAQ devoted to the age of the earth and saying why they aren’t young earth creationists shows age is relevant. They have to distinguish them selves from the YEC folks. If it wasn’t an issue for them why would they invest so much time and effort explaining away YEC? That is all I’m saying. Be that one side is saying the earth is old or one side is saying the earth is young is a debate they have and obviously one that happens frequently. It makes it relevant. That’s all I’m saying. Whether their stated position is young or old they still use age of the earth to clarify who they are. I never said that age of earth is the only thing that needs to be proven / disproven to make a case. but in some instances it helps.
I’ll admit that age of earth becomes less relevant when debating ID and some other forms of creationism. You are correct.
Go ahead and berate me.
“… reason is that the science fits extremely well with the notion of design and does not fit with some fanciful stories of creatures making themselves. It is no less scientific to observe that dragonflies with exquisite 4 wing separate control show great design than to wonder at the design of an Airbus A380”.
The “argument from being an engineer” really should become a standard Creationist fallacy.