UK based ID pressure group

[Mojo]

There's a thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64500) on the JREF forum about an organisation called "Truth in Science" which is sending materials about ID to "all Secondary School and College Heads of Science in the United Kingdom" They also launched a website last week, which can be found here (http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/).


Welcome to Truth in Science, a new organisation to promote good science education in the UK. Our initial focus will be on the origin of life and its diversity.

I wonder how long it'll be before they get around to physics or chemistry. ;)

[Essex]

Does the spread of ID prove that creationism is evolving? :confused:

[Zendal Darkman]

The faq on the site quotes the infamous "600 scientists doubt evolution". Yeah, there are christian scientists who do doubt evolution, not because the science is "dodgy", but because.....they are christians. It’s a circular argument. The list of 600 scientist (with Phds!!!!) includes statisticians, mathematicians, electrical engineers etc, to be fair geneticists are on there). (by the way one of the signatories is Andy McIntosh, a member of the board of "truth in science", he is a Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory)

Of cource the reason why Andy McIntosh is so keen to teach ID is seen in here
http://www.amen.org.uk/actconf/minevang.htm point 6(d).


Not exactly relevant but this made me laugh
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp

[Zendal Darkman]

Is Intelligent Design based on the Bible?
No. Plato, Aristotle and Cicero articulated early versions of design theory, as did virtually all of the founders of modern science. Indeed, most scientists until the latter part of the nineteenth century accepted some form of intelligent design. The scientific community largely rejected design in the early twentieth century after neo-Darwinism claimed to be able to explain the emergence of biological complexity through the unintelligent process of natural selection acting on random mutations. During the past decade, however, new research and discoveries in such fields as physics, cosmology, biochemistry, genetics, and palaeontology have caused a growing number of scientists and science theorists to question neo-Darwinism and propose design as the best explanation for the existence of specified complexity in the natural world.
of course they articulated it, "god did it" was the only mechanism they could use to describe the world around them. Only in 1859 did an alternative theory become available.

What are they referring to in the last sentence? I might e-mail them.

[vbloke]

There's nothing I'm aware of in cosmology that could promote ID or design.

I wish these people would cite their sources*.


* I forgot, they don't seem to have any except themselves or the bible ::)

[Mongrel]

Is Intelligent Design based on the Bible?
No. Plato, Aristotle and Cicero articulated early versions of design theory, as did virtually all of the founders of modern science. Indeed, most scientists until the latter part of the nineteenth century accepted some form of intelligent design. The scientific community largely rejected design in the early twentieth century after neo-Darwinism claimed to be able to explain the emergence of biological complexity through the unintelligent process of natural selection acting on random mutations. During the past decade, however, new research and discoveries in such fields as physics, cosmology, biochemistry, genetics, and palaeontology have caused a growing number of scientists and science theorists to question neo-Darwinism and propose design as the best explanation for the existence of specified complexity in the natural world.
of course they articulated it, "god did it" was the only mechanism they could use to describe the world around them. Only in 1859 did an alternative theory become available.

What are they referring to in the last sentence? I might e-mail them.



If you mean the 'Specified Complexity' then Talk Origins (http://talkorigins.org/) has a few entries for it here (http://www.google.com/custom?q=specified+complexity&sa=Search&sitesearch=www.talkorigins.org).

From what I can make out it's yet another, disguised, Argument from incredulability (sp) with some nonsense maths (Good Math, Bad Math (http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/06/dembskis_profound_lack_of_comp.php)) and hand waving thrown in for good measure

[Mojo]

...snip...

During the past decade, however, new research and discoveries in such fields as physics, cosmology, biochemistry, genetics, and palaeontology have caused a growing number of scientists and science theorists to question neo-Darwinism and propose design as the best explanation for the existence of specified complexity in the natural world.

What are they referring to in the last sentence?

A load of "Creation Science" textbooks with the words "creation" and "God" crossed out and replaced by "intelligent design" and "an unknown designer", perhaps?

Or maybe they just mean the stuff Dembski and Behe have been coming up with.

[Zendal Darkman]

Does the spread of ID prove that creationism is evolving? :confused:

I think it does. It will be interesting to see how UK ID differs from the US version. At the moment they look pretty much the same to me! In fact I am sure I have seen the exact same literature on a US site a while back.

[Admin]

As Dawkins points out, accepting that there's an intelligent designer inevitably invites the question, "who designed the designer?"

If a designer can simply just exist why not the universe? Adding in an extra level of complexity just means that we explain less and understand less.

"God works in mysterious ways" is an easy, simplistic intellectual cop-out: it explains precisely nothing.

[boffin]

I've just been on the web-site truthinscience.org.uk.

This is very worrying.

The shitty and deluded ID movement is truly attempting to force its primitive ideas on school children - this could be religious indoctrination on an unprecedented scale.

Creationism dressed up in a lab-coat!

[vbloke]

ID for Dummies

©2006 vbloke publishing

1: Life, the universe and everything is too complex to have "evolved" through random mutations, not because we can't understand the mechanisms behind it or we don't want to admit that Darwinian "evilution" pretty much precludes the need for a god.

2: Therefore, there must have been a designer who created life pretty much as we know it. I mean, look at some of the cool stuff out there - it must have been designed. Flagellum, or eyes for example. How can eyes have "evolved"? I mean, come on.

3: This designer is not a specific god; in fact, it might not have even been a god, it might have been a race of super-intelligent aliens. We prefer the idea it was a god though - especially if it was our god.

4: ID is science because we say so - we're doing experiments on it, honest.

5: ID is not creationism, creationism says it was god (again, we prefer the notion it was our god) that did it all, whereas ID says it could have been anyone (see point 3)

6: There are loads of scientists who disagree with Darwinian "evilution" - we have a list of them. Please try and disregard the fact that they're all fervent Christians and very few of them have PhDs related to Biology, although we've snipped the media studies guys.

7: Our main textbook "Of Pandas and People" may have mentioned "creationism" once, but we rewrote it to replace "creationism" with "ID", as we felt people might not take us seriously if we left "creationism" in.

8: Although we don't explicitly state "god", we do try and imply it as much as possible. It also helps that we're a Christian pressure group.

9: Because ID is real science, the Darwinian "evilutionists" have to resort to using the courts to supress us as they feel threatened by us, or something.

10: God did it. It could have been aliens. Honest.

[Mongrel]

ID for Dummies

©2006 vbloke publishing
6: There are loads of scientists who disagree with Darwinian "evilution" - we have a list of them. Please try and disregard the fact that they're all fervent Christians and very few of them have PhDs related to Biology, although we've snipped the media studies guys.

Fixed that for you :)

[vbloke]

Fixed. Ta.

[Mongrel]

On a slightly more serious note though, I will say that the huge majority of people who profess belief in God(s) have no problem with Evolution. Once again it's the disproportionally loud minority (in the States) who are pushing this and I wouldn't be surprised if they're behind the UK attempt as well

[huw-l]

I went and had a look at truthinscience.org.uk when it cropped up on BBC news (the report was the usual "fair and balanced" he said she said). I was horrified to note that a lecturer in biology at Cardiff University is listed as being on their science panel.

I'm horrified for two reasons: I'm a graduate of the School of Biological Sciences at Cardiff and currently a staff member of Cardiff University.

So I sent the lecturer a polite email to ask if he is really affiliated with them and if he accepts their position that ID is a valid scientific hypothesis.

[sonofajoiner]

I've come across a rather interesting (if slightly worrying) comment piece by Nick Cohen in The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1885071,00.html) regarding some of the tactics Truth In Science (amongst others) are using in spreading their creationist nonsense.


Truth in Science has established a website and sent information packs to every school. Its suggested coursework for teachers to base lessons around is very slick and includes powerpoint presentations, video clips and arguments questioning that life could have emerged without a creator. If the group is to be believed, more teachers have thanked it for their help than phoned to say they had thrown their packs in the bin.
Though of course that doesn't mean that none of the info ended up at the local landfill. :)

Of particular concern is the suggestion that 'ID' will be all but impossible to keep out of UK schools due to our lack of laws keeping religion out of education coupled with the seemingly never ending spread of City Academies and the average persons sense of fairness (what Cohen calls the 'BBC fallacy').

[wollery]

Most heads of science have far more important things to do than waste their time responding to ignorant nutters. I'm willing to bet that the vast majority took one look at the pack, snorted derisively, chucked it in the bin, and thought no more about it.

[huw-l]

I got a reply from Dr Tim Wells of truthinscience.org.uk



Dear Huw,

Maybe you could come up to see me and we could talk this through?

Dr Tim Wells.


Dr Tim Wells, BSc, PhD
Senior Lecturer in Neuroendocrinology,
School of Biosciences,
Cardiff University,


I'm moving house this week so I'll have to see if we can arrange the meeting for next week.

[seren]

Huw, I'd be really interested to see what he says- please keep posting!

And hello from a fellow Cardiff-dweller. O0

Edited to add that Dr Tim is quoted on an anti-abortion website which I will not publicise by linking to. Google his name to find it, if you must:


Dr Tim Wells, lecturer in neurosciences at Cardiff University, also condemns therapeutic cloning of human embryos: "It is in my opinion immoral to terminate the life of one human being to advance the existence of another. I cannot defend therapeutic cloning because of the destruction of human beings which is implicit in the technique."

Not proof of anything, but a suggestion of Christian influence in his thinking if you combine it with the ID stuff. If the meeting begins with a prayer, leave. ;)

[Mongrel]

There's some more info about the Truth in Science group at the Black Shadow site <Clickie> (http://www.blackshadow.me.uk/index.php/Main/TruthInScience).

Found at The Panda's Thumb
(http://www.pandasthumb.org)

[huw-l]

Well here's a learning experience. Dr Tim will not talk to me, citing my above post as a breach of trust.

And he has a point. It should also be mentioned that Zendal Darkman warned me about exactly this problem minutes after I posted. I probably should have killed the post then but it didn't occur to me at the time.

Oh well, one lives and learns. Sorry guys.

:-[

[tkingdoll]

Never mind huw, if he wants to be petty then so be it. Perhaps it's more that you're a skeptic than that you've 'breached his trust'...?

[seren]

That's a shame Huw. You should have made it clear that you were posting your his words here, that's all. Why not ask him again on behalf of Skeptics UK instead?

[Admin]

Dr Tim will not talk to me, citing my above post as a breach of trust.


How is it a breach of trust? :confused:

He's probably well aware that his beliefs are not based on sound reasoning and logic and that there's no way he can justify holding them. For that reason, I guess he'd rather not face the music.

[huw-l]

John, I agree with you about his probable true reasons. However I'm annoyed with myself that I gave him the excuse. Because he's right that I should have asked If I could blog it before posting (which I did in the very next email). Anyway it's not a mistake I'll make twice.

Although what are the chances of pseudo-science of this magnitude turning up in the sleepy little principality again?

To jump back a few posts:
Hello Seren, nice to know I'm not the only skeptic in Cardiff.

[Zendal Darkman]

However I'm annoyed with myself that I gave him the excuse.
No need to be annoyed with yourself. For legal reasons I wont go into the reasons why I think Dr Tim withdrew, but I will say that people do not like their (private??) e-mails being quoted on message boards.

[sonofajoiner]

For some reason, this truth in science crap's in the news again ::)

BBC Article here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6187534.stm)

A chemistry teacher has informed the education secretary that we MUST allow kids to hear all about intelligent design as it will be 'useful' for debating Darwin's theories.
And of course, the tired old line about letting them hear both sides of the 'controversy' gets trotted out.
Thankfully, though, it would seem that those in a position to make decisions about science syllabus content are ignoring him. ;D

ETA: also came across this article (http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1957858,00.html) in The Grauniad which I haven't read through yet, but which looks a little worrying to say the least.

[Araneus]

I think kids should be taught all about ID. Specifically, what a crock it is.

[Jocky]

Some clown from TiS (Professor somebody-or-other) was being interviewed about this on Newsnight last night. He was peddling serious disinformation about the notion of a designer being scientifically valid, as usual.

I only caught the end of it, but it looked like Paxton was giving him a rough ride O0

[huw-l]

for those that missed the interview I've edited it out of the Newsnight download.

Small version 15MB
http://www.hlynes.com/archive/newsnight_truth_in_science_27112006_small.avi

Large Version 35MB
http://www.hlynes.com/archive/newsnight_truth_in_science_27112006_large.avi

the TiS guy is Andy McIntosh http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/191/82/

[Jocky]

Thanks Huw, that's the fella. I notice that he's not a biochemist :ponder:

The name in my last post should have been to "Paxman" of course (as in Jeremy). Typed in haste :-[

I have been in email correspondence for quite some time with TiS. A wearily familiar mantra - I ask them what evidence exists to support ID, they ignore my request and tell me untruths instead.

I have observed that they are relying heavily on assertions along the lines of "a government minister has stated that ID may be taught in school science lessons". They threw that at me in an email, and MacIntosh tried in on Paxman on Newsnight too.

IMO this assertion is disingenuous. Here is the actual excerpt from Hansard:


Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked Her Majesty's Government: Further to the Answer by the Lord Filkin on 31 January ... whether the scientific theory of intelligent design [sic] could be taught in United Kingdom schools.

Lord Filkin: In all aspects of the science curriculum, we encourage pupils to consider different ideas and beliefs, and how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting evidence.
Intelligent design theory is not part of the National Curriculum. The National Curriculum for Science states that students must learn that the fossil record is evidence for evolution and how variation and selection may lead to evolution or extinction. Intelligent design theory could be discussed in schools, but only in the context of being one of a range of views on evolution that students might consider and evaluate against the evidence.

Source (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldhansrd/vo050221/text/50221w09.htm#50221w09_spnew3)

Notice: he only said it could be discussed "in schools", not "in science lessons"; he explicitly said that it has no place in the National Curriculum; he clearly differentiates it from evidence-based science; and he stresses that when it is mentioned, it should then be tested against the evidence (when it will of course be found sorely wanting).

Thou shouldest not take the words of the Lord thy minister in vain: but it seems that TiS will not hesitate to do so. Beware quote mining ... >:(

[Mongrel]

A humourous response from the 'An American' over at The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/) after they ran the story yesterday:


We apologize for sending the ID morons overseas. We realize that they're not one of our finer exports; but we had to get rid of them somehow. We're comforted by the fact that they'll be well cared for. Since ID's are mental defectives, your MP's will probably vote to make them a protected species and post cameras and microphones around their habitat. Who knows? Maybe you can revive the textile mills with their labor? They're cheap, stupid and expendable.

P.S. Should you eventually find them as tedious and cretinous as we do (and you will), please be aware that we've revoked their citizenship.

An American

[Mojo]

A chemistry teacher has informed the education secretary that we MUST allow kids to hear all about intelligent design as it will be 'useful' for debating Darwin's theories.

I'd have thought that, as a chemistry teacher, he'd be more interested in alternative theories of chemistry, such as some of the ideas the reDiscovery Institute (http://www.re-discovery.org/) are proposing.

[Mojo]

Ministers to ban creationist teaching aids in science lessons (http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1965987,00.html)!


The government is to write to schools telling them that controversial teaching materials promoting creationism should not be used in science lessons.
The packs include DVDs and written materials promoting intelligent design, a creationist alternative to Darwinism, that were sent to every school in the country by the privately-funded group Truth in Science.

[Jocky]

Ministers to ban creationist teaching aids in science lessons (http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1965987,00.html)!

Hurrah!!! :trumpet:

Reason is not totally dead in Government

[vbloke]

http://www.marriedtothesea.com/021506/booze-time.jpg
(somewhat possibly NSFW due to swearing)

Huzzah! Took them long enough though.

[Admin]

Well that's good news for a change.

In fact, the only sad thing about it is that I am gobsmacked (and I suspect many others are too) at such a sensible decision being made by the government.

It's so commonplace to find stupidity taking precedence over reason that when it happens in reverse, it's like winning the lottery! ;D

Or perhaps they've realised it isn't a vote-winner. :ponder:

[sonofajoiner]

I'd have thought that, as a chemistry teacher, he'd be more interested in alternative theories of chemistry, such as some of the ideas the reDiscovery Institute (http://www.re-discovery.org/) are proposing.


Wow. I had no idea just what a tool of evil the periodic table is. ;D

[vbloke]

One thing everyone can do is go here:
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=31313&SESSION=875
and see if your MP has signed the Early Day Motion.

If not, you can write to them here:
http://www.writetothem.com
and ask them to put their name against it.

[Jocky]

Thanks for the links vbloke - but don't our MPs have an easy out on this one? They can just say that the decision has been made now, and so it's too late and there's no point in signing the EDM?

[vbloke]

you could always ask them why they didn't sign it...

[Hazen]

Another (unexpected) step in the right direction:

2. EVOLUTION OF COBB COUNTY: WARNING STICKERS ARE GONE FOR GOOD.
Five years ago the school board in Cobb County, GA put stickers
on science textbooks warning that "evolution is just a theory,"
http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN02/wn062702.html . The legal
battle opposing the stickers was led by Americans United for
Separation Church and State, with the help of the same team that
defeated the Philistines last year in Dover, PA. In a consent
decree signed on Tuesday, the School Board agreed never to use a
similar sticker or undermine the teaching of evolution in science
class. In a separate agreement the School District agreed to pay
a substantial portion of the plaintiff's legal fees. That more
than anything else will discourage similar actions elsewhere.

http://www.bobpark.org/

[vbloke]

Well, to see what all the fuss was about, using my privileged position as a teacher, I sent off for the TiS DVD pack.

It has now arrived!
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/140/352582308_e7c167245e_m.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vbloke/352582308/

I'll be subjecting myself to watching it and writing up a thorough review about it. Hopefully, it may be of some use to see how TiS (as funded by the Discovery Institute) are distorting the truth to get their agenda across.

I note with dismay that in the DVD manual, a lot of prominence is given to Behe and Dembsky and the flagellum argument.

The things I do for skepticism...

[Jocky]

I salute your noble sacrifice for the good of the cause O0 and I look forward to reading your conclusions.

I would be particularly interested to know what you think of the value of the TiS material in the light of Lord Filkin's much-quoted parliamentary answer (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldhansrd/vo050221/text/50221w09.htm#50221w09_spnew3) on the subject of ID. TiS have often claimed that this government position legitimises them disseminating this stuff to schools. But does their material actually make it possible to "consider and evaluate" the 'theory' of ID "against the evidence"?

I reckon that a systematic analysis of this material would make an excellent adornment to the main site ...

[vbloke]

The first DVD will be going into the player soon...

I have my laptop on standby :D

[Mojo]

The first DVD will be going into the player soon...

I have my laptop on standby :D


Judging by that smiley, the brainwashing is taking effect already!

[vbloke]

Oh dear

Episodes 2 and 3 is all about how the bacterial flagellum "proves" Darwin was wrong and ID is right.

Michael Behe is there spouting off the stuff he was ripped apart for in the Dover trial and mousetraps.

:D

[vbloke]

That was the most painful hour of my life.

I'm busy writing up some notes about the DVD and Teachers Manual, which I'll make available soon.

Basically, the DVD "Where Does The Evidence Lead?" is split into 6 "lessons", each 10 minutes long (the second DVD, "Unlocking the Mystery of Life", is essentially the same material joined together into an hour long feature) covering aspects of ID versus evolution.

Episode 1 - "Life: The Big Questions" - Darwin based his theory of Evolution after going to the Galapagos for a month and looking at Finches.

Episode 2 - "What Darwin Didn’t Know" - Michael Behe explains the bacterial flagellum and how it "can't have evolved".

Episode 3 - "Molecules and Mousetraps" - Dembski and "irreducible complexity" - why mousetraps don't work if you take a piece away.

Episode 4 - "How Did Life Begin?" - why amino acids coming together in chains to form proteins is impossible.

Episode 5 - "The Language Of Life" - Dr Dean Kenyon could not explain how proteins could replicate without DNA, nor the origins of DNA, so it must have been created.

Episode 6 - "The Design Inference" - Look at a house, it has been designed. Look at a cell, it too must have been designed.

The DVDs are produced by Illustra Media (http://www.illustramedia.com) whose other work includes "The Privileged Planet" and "The Case For A Creator".

If time allows, I'll try and get some of the stuff onto YouTube.

[Jocky]

That was the most painful hour of my life

Thanks vbloke, really interesting stuff - worth all the pain!

Looks like it shouldn't be too hard to present a convicing case on why this simplistic nonsense is flawed ...

[vbloke]

That was the most painful hour of my life

Thanks vbloke, really interesting stuff - worth all the pain!

Looks like it shouldn't be too hard to present a convicing case on why this simplistic nonsense is flawed ...


I've just found another pressure group lobbying to get their voice heard in school science lessons: Truth in Pirates (http://www.be-spoke.com/TiP/index.html)

[Dr B]

Truly commendable stuff Mark. I am a bit swamped at present but hope to give some feedback on this as soon as I can - keep fighting the good fight!

[Jocky]

I've just found another pressure group lobbying to get their voice heard in school science lessons: Truth in Pirates (http://www.be-spoke.com/TiP/index.html)


;D

[Aardvark]

I am sure that I have read the following on this forum.

In engineering and example of a bit of kit which is designed for purpose has the following attributes.

1 the design meets the intended application
2 the design has efficiency of materials and manufacturing costs
3 the design does not contain redundant features.

An example of a bit of kit which is adapted for purpose has the following

1 the design does not fully meet the intended application
2 The design is not materials efficent in that it contains elements that were used in previous applications
3 There are redundant parts.

This is called jury rigging.

How many parts are there in the human body that no longer have a purpose?

Nipples on men?
Tail bones?
Appendix?

Interestingly, although Mammals are considered to be the most advanced group, the mamalian eye is in many ways inferior to that of the cephalopod mollusks.

If an intellegent designer had come up with a perfect solution, would this not be applied across all applications needing this design spec?

I am sorry if this is poor logic, I am not an engineer, but I am trained in Biochemistry and Physiology.

[Araneus]

No, it's very good logic and strong argument against ID. Unfortunately, since ID is not based on logic in the first place, such an argument makes little impact upon its proponents (they probably have some waffle like "it's for a higher purpose we just don't understand").

[Admin]

I saw a lecture somewhere and the speaker was talking about 'intelligent design'. He gave a few examples of how the human body is an example of dumb design. Things like having to breathe and swallow via the same opening guarantees that some people will choke to death every year.

The best one though, was his example of "what's going on between our legs?"

What intelligent design engineer would place an entertainment centre in the middle of a sewage works? ;D

[Jocky]

What intelligent design engineer would place an entertainment centre in the middle of a sewage works?

ROTFL ;D

Thanks John, that has to be the best anti ID argument I've ever heard - or at least the most entertaining!

[Cuddles]

What intelligent design engineer would place an entertainment centre in the middle of a sewage works? ;D

Further proof of design by committee. Clearly the committee for waste management and the committee for reproduction never met each other.

[Aardvark]

What intelligent design engineer would place an entertainment centre in the middle of a sewage works? ;D




Ba..dum.........Tish!!!!

[vbloke]

I've been putting together a "Web 2.0" version of Intelligent Design which I call "intelligent designr" (I'm at work and it's a slow day...)

you can see it in all it's glory here: intelligent designr (http://www.be-spoke.com/id/)

[Jocky]

;D Good stuff, Mark. I particularly like the new words "hamsterma" and "complicatedness"

"blatantly" misspelt as "blatently" under "What about Science" - unless of course this is because hyper-bunnies from a higher dimension can't work spell checkers :)

BTW, have you managed to force yourself to watch all the Truth in Science "teaching materials" yet?

[Cuddles]

I've been putting together a "Web 2.0" version of Intelligent Design which I call "intelligent designr" (I'm at work and it's a slow day...)

you can see it in all it's glory here: intelligent designr (http://www.be-spoke.com/id/)



modern science has postulated that all we need to explain these seemingly unsolvable puzzles is an answer.

I like you. :D

[vbloke]

;D Good stuff, Mark. I particularly like the new words "hamsterma" and "complicatedness"

"blatantly" misspelt as "blatently" under "What about Science" - unless of course this is because hyper-bunnies from a higher dimension can't work spell checkers :)

BTW, have you managed to force yourself to watch all the Truth in Science "teaching materials" yet?


Thanks.

I've watched all 6 episodes, I haven't got the courage to watch the hour long version up yet...

[Admin]

I've seen the 6 episodes too.

They're slickly produced and cleverly presented. It will be well worth commenting on them as they rely on several examples of fallacious reasoning, not least the ultimate one: we don't understand this therefore God did it.

I think that anyone without a scientific background could easily be persuaded by the arguments presented - especially if they don't hear the other side.

[vbloke]

They're deceptively narrated and the vox pops are cunningly worded.

There's a lot of emphasis on "chance", "random", "designed" and "complex"

All of which is done to almost subconciously stack the deck in their favour.

I'm trying to write up reports on them, but I'm a lttle swamped with university work as well, so they're taking time to do - plus, there's only so much I can watch before I want to kill something.

It's also interesting that Behe and Dembski are still going on about irreducible complexity and the flagellum, despite this being thoroughly rebuked (not least during the Dover Panda trial).

[Admin]

Yes, there's a lot of emphasis on the personal incredulity of the scientists which support ID too.

My suggestion is that we take each episode individually, place it on the website (if we can claim fair use) and do a write up on each episode.

I'll be happy to do some. O0

Spread the workload.

[vbloke]

OK - I've done Episode 1 and the Teachers Manual and I'm currently ploughing through Episode 2.

If anyone else wants to have a crack at them, be my guest.