Thanks for spelling my name correctly

So I was at the monthly Skeptics in the Pub meeting in London on Monday evening when I got a phone call from Samantha Stein, the director of Camp Quest UK. She was doing an article with a journalist from the Independent on the upcoming inaugural Camp Quest here in the UK, and asked if the journalist could speak to me to get a perspective from a parent who was sending their children to Camp Quest.

As I fully support the ethos of Camp Quest, I was naturally more than happy to say a few words.

The article appeared on page 13 of Wednesday 29th April’s edition of The Independent and is also available on line here.

All in all I thought it was a fair article that gave a pretty accurate portrayal of the aims and goals of Camp Quest. Not knowing the journalist, I did have a few worries about how the article might have portrayed Camp Quest and my specific reasons for booking my children onto the camp, but my worries were unfounded.

I am of course aware that journalists often take a number of sources and reviews and then distil those down to the story they are interested in, so I was fully prepared to be edited out completely or restricted to a short sentence. Especially as I was only providing a token parental anecdote to give a sample opinion of those signed up to the concept. The quote attributed to me in the article was, I am pleased to say, relevant and accurately reported.

I did think however I want to use this blog to repeat my other reasons for booking my children onto the camp that did not make the final edit.

I did mention that I would be equally happy to send my children on a general summer camp not affiliated to any particular faith purely for the physical activities (which I know my kids are looking forward to). As I suspect a week away from home would help teach valuable responsibility and social skills, as long as I knew there was no hidden religious agenda. If we lived in a world were ancient myths were not afforded such reverence then I would concede that specific non religious camps would not be needed. Sadly we do not yet live in such a world.

I also mentioned the usefulness of learning some basic logical philosophy and critical thinking skills of which I have seen little evidence in their school work. I would hope that the thinking skills taught are applied to a wider set of credulous beliefs to help children evaluate and reach their own decisions on a wide range of topics such as alternative medicines, paranormal claims and conspiracy theories.

The other point I made to the journalist was my belief in the need to teach children how to think, not what to think. From my research on Camp Quest I have confidence that this exactly what they aim to do. I have no more desire to have my children indoctrinated into an Atheist viewpoint than I have to have them indoctrinated into a Jewish, Islamic or Christian viewpoint. I just want them to be able to think for themselves and reach a logical and rational explanation for the world they will inherit from us.

Science & Religion Lectures: Conway Hall, 25th April 2008

I wasn’t planning to blog about this event as I was expecting Martin to be doing another of his fine in-depth live blogs. However, as he hasn’t, I feel duty bound to put fingers to keyboards for a brief summary of the day’s lectures.

I must admit that one of the key speakers that I was most looking forward to hearing was Baroness Mary Warnock, and I joined in with the collective air of disappointment on the announcement that she was unable to make it. Nonetheless Stephen Law once again provided a formidable line-up of fine minds for the days entertainment. I shall give a quick overview of each of the 4 lectures as best I can remember.


1. Jack Cohen

Jack introduced those unfamiliar with the 1857 work of religious biologist Philip Gosse with his explanation of the biblical creation. Gosse’s motivation was for a way of explaining the scientific evidence that is all around us while strictly adhering to the biblical texts he was completely unable to refute.

Most modern day creationists have to reject scientific evidence or invent convoluted excuses to explain how the earth is only 6,000 years old and how dinosaurs and humans coexisted. Gosse’s method is much more elegant in dealing with the evidence, whilst fully accommodating his belief in the word of God scribed verbatim in his preferred religious text. Of course whilst being more elegant it is still utterly bonkers.

Image visiting the Garden of Eden directly after the biblical creation. All of Gods creations are fully formed. A man with developed limbs, bones and hair can be seen along with fully grown trees existing in this mature state since the very start of creation a few moments previous. If you were to cut one of these tree’s in half, you would see the same as we would see today, i.e. a series rings representing previous growing seasons and showing what appears to be evidence for its existence prior to the recent creation event.

In other words, Gosse argues that everything was created with the details of its previous history as if it had existed before its creation. This is were the title of his book “Omphalus” from the Greek for navel, comes from. Many theologians argue that Adam was the first man and as he was not born of woman, he had no need for a navel. However, following Gosse’s hypothesis even though he had no need for his navel, he would have one as part of his inbuilt non existing history that was created along with him.

Jack went on to further explain the hypothesis by giving more examples, and I really enjoyed his bumbling presentation style. This argument will of course neatly deal with the miles of rock strata, fossils and light from distant galaxies that are such an inconvenience to most creationists. However, after we had understood the gist of the Omphalus idea it would have been nice to have applied it to a relevant use rather than simply reinforcing the idea with further examples.

As amusing as it would be to present creationists with an alternative load of fetid dingo’s kidneys for not critically challenging the biblical account of creation, I’ve yet to see how another crazy idea can help those blinded by faith to accept evidence. Unless the absurdity of the idea can somehow provide a mirror for seeing more traditional creationist accounts for what they are.

An entertaining talk and one that will certainly cause me to look up Jack Cohen on Amazon. The science of Terry Pratchett’s discworld sounds like a good place for me to start.


2. Simon Singh

It is of course always a privilege to hear Simon Singh talk as there is no doubting his gift for communicating and his love of science. It is in fact for this reason I photo-shopped Simon on to the shoulders of Carl Sagan in my recent TAM London speakers’ blog. Despite the comic indignation, I hope it will be seen as the mark of reverence in which it was intended.

Simon’s talk on this occasion was the Big Bang theory and consisted of a brief and entertaining run through of his excellent book of the same name. One of the reasons I love Simon Singh’s Big Bang book is that it answers the question: “How do we know that?" And "Why do scientists think that?” Teaching the Big Bang without reference to how we know it just leaves you wondering why you should believe it. Singh’s book starts from first principles and builds up by first explaining how we know the circumference of the Earth, how we know the distance of the sun and the moon, and how we know the workings of the solar system.

Due to time restrictions Simon starts of the lecture from the initial idea of the big bang theory by Belgium Catholic Priest Georges Lemaître. Of course the name “Big Bang” was not in use at this time and the theory was not scientifically accepted, especially as it smacked of the Biblical creation story rather than the solid state model preferred by Einstein and other contemporary scientists.

Singh then goes on to explain how astronomer Edwin Hubble went on to observe how the galaxies are all moving away from each other by noticing that the light from these galaxies is shifted to the red end of the spectrum. The Doppler Effect shows how the wavelength varies depending on if an object is moving away, or towards the observer (as in the familiar sound of a passing racing car).

Despite this evidence for an expanding universe and the extrapolation of running the scenario backwards to the beginnings of space and time, many scientists preferred to stick with the solid state model of the universe. In fact the phrase “Big Bang” was coined by Fred Hoyle at this time as a somewhat disparaging term for the theory. But of course it stuck, and Singh even manages to play us the original radio excerpt where the phrase was coined.

Further evidence was however required to fully validate the big bang theory and although the notion of echoes of microwave radiation emitting from the big bang should be detectible to validate the theory, the equipment of the time was not sufficient to do so.

Most of us are familiar with the tale of Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson years later using a microwave receiver to pick up signals emitted by celestial sources in our milky way but being constantly plagued with background noise from all directions. After cleaning out the deposits left by the pigeons nesting in the receiver they eventually realise they are listening to the cosmic radiation of the big bang and had discovered the predicted evidence required to fully support the Big Bang model.

Naturally Simon explains all this in much more detail and with numerous witty interjections, but of course you’re much better off reading the book than this clumsy summary.


3. Stephen Law

“It’s pretty obvious” says Stephen law, “that an all loving benevolent God does not exist”. Stephen takes us through some of the obvious points put forward by non believers such as “Why is there so much evil and suffering in the world?” For each of these pieces of evidence for the non existence of a benevolent God, Stephen points us at the arguments that sophisticated theologians have come up with to counter this evidence.

The main argument used by the religious to explain the existence of evil deeds is of course “freewill”. Without freewill we are mere puppets doing the good bidding of our creator. In order for our actions to have meaning and for us to truly exhibit love and compassion we must have freewill and the ability to choose these options for ourselves. Therefore the potential for evil is the price we must pay for the necessity of freewill.

So perhaps it’s not as obvious after all that there is no benevolent God, because theologians have come up with imaginative reasons to explain what at first glance look like screaming evidence for the non existence of God. Stephen gives further examples that I’ll gloss over in this review for the sake of brevity.

Having established a reasonable set of theological notions to refute each of the supposed obvious claims of the non-believers, Stephen proposes the idea that the universe was created by an all evil God. Not Satan, but a creator God who is completely evil and wants nothing but suffering, pain and misery.

Ridiculous of course, this sounds like a prosperous idea, how could such an evil God allow for someone like Mother Teresa who (apparently) did so much good in the world. Well of course, such an evil God could make us puppets to carry out his evil deeds, but they would be meaningless unless we had freewill in order to truly choose to be evil. For each of the claims to refute the existence of an all evil God we are able to use the exact same theological argument to dismiss it as we did for the benevolent God. This time though it sounds more absurd because the idea of an all evil God is less familiar and the counter arguments used in this context just sounds like pathetic bleating. But they are the exact same arguments used by theologians today. Why should they be any more valid when defending the benevolent God?

I thought Stephen came up with one of the cleverest arguments for the support of the evil God hypothesis during the Q&A session. “Why would an evil God create religions that are a comfort to people, provide solace and hope and do so much good work in the world”. Well suppose the all evil God revealed his extisance to a group of people in order to perpetuate such a religion, but then revealed himself to an alternative group with a few pieces of different information. The belief by each group that they alone have the divine unquestionable truth would recreate centuries of hatred, suffering and religious wars, it the perfect move for the all evil God.


4. Raj Persaud

I have to confess to not knowing who the final speaker was but I was filled in by some of my fellow attendees over lunch. I understand that Raj Persaud is a well known psychiatrist thanks to regular appearances on TV, and he was certainly a dapper and eloquent orator. The main focus of his talk was on the differences between “Internals” and “Externals”.

Raj starts us off with an imaginary scenario. Two people attend a job interview and are both unsuccessful in securing the job. The first person is an “Internal”; they take responsibility for their fate and view their failure at the interview as a consequence of their own qualifications and ability. The “External” assumes that there were forces outside of his control and he never had a chance of getting the job.

The external person gets more immediate gratification, although he didn’t get the job he can take solace in the fact that there was nothing he could have done about it anyway. The internal person however takes more responsibility and examines how he could do better in the future, peruses further education and skills and in the long term becomes better equipped for future job interviews.

These are traits that I can clearly recognise in a lot of people so I felt a lot of resonance with Raj’s talk. More disturbing however were the statistics presented showing a growing trend in the number of externals in the modern world today and the changes in our culture that fosters and promotes this type of viewpoint.




As always a highly enjoyable set of lectures, and I would recommend checking the CFI website for future events.

Daniel Dennett: A Darwinian Perspective of Religion (Video)

A few weeks a go I posted a blog on a Daniel Dennett lecture that I attended, put on by the British Humanist Society at Conway Hall in London.

The video of this lecture has now been produced and uploaded in its entirety to YouTube. It includes the introduction by Richard Dawkins, and the questions and answer at the end of the lecture.

So get yourself a drink, put your feet up and feed your brain

The Basingstoke Fairies Vs The Cottingley Fairies

I went for a short walk in the woods this afternoon with the wife and kids. In the midst of the dark woods I saw a glint of light flash past my eyes. We all stood still for a few moments and focused our eyes, what looked like a large dragonfly hovered just above a branch. We sat still and watched closely. Gradually it came nearer and settled a few feet away from the children. By this time we could clearly see that it was not a dragonfly, but we had in fact been lucky enough to catch a rare glimpse of a woodland fairy. We stayed in the woods a little while and gradually the fairies gained enough confidence to come up to my children and even settle on their outstretched hands. I was fortunate enough to have my camera with me and so was able to take the following photographs.



The photograph’s I took of the Basingstoke fairies today, reminded me in many ways of the Cottingley fairies photographed in July 1917. Picture below.




However, unlike the photographs I took this afternoon, the Cottingley fairies were widely regarded as genuine by a large number of people, including a non-critical thinking Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. I believe the young girls who faked the above picture kept up the pretence into their old age before finally admitting to the prank.

Everyone who looks at my pictures will instantly think that I have photo-shopped some images of fairies from the Internet on to some snaps I took of my kids. And of course they would be quite right. The reason, however, they would jump to this conclusion I think is no reflection on my Photoshop skills, I believe they would have reached the same conclusion, however professionally done the photographs looked. The reason why everyone automatically assumes that my photographs were faked is because we are all familiar with the tools and techniques for doctoring photographs. You don’t need to be Jonathon Creek to work that one out.

When the Cottingley fairy pictures were taken, people were not so familiar with the notion of altering photographs or producing fake images, so the initial assumption with many people was that they were real.

My hypothesis suggests that as people become more familiar with the tools and techniques used by charlatans, hoaxers and fraudsters, they become less accepting of their claims and more likely to lean towards a more rational explanation for what they see.

Therefore if we all become more familiar with cold reading, will more of us find rational explanations to why psychics seem to know the unknowable?

If Richard Wiseman teaches us all how to bend spoons, will we be less impressed with certain Israeli conjurors?

If we understand more about neurology and pareidolia will we see less ghosts and UFO’s?

The example of my fairy photo’s suggest that all we need is a bit of familiarity in the methods of the hoaxers.

TAM London – Standing On The Shoulders of Giants

Inspired by the great guest line up announced for The Amazing Meeting in London on 3-4th October this year, I decided to arse around with Photoshop. Although I suspect they might not be amused.


NB Bill Murray is actually in character (Dr Peter Venkman), otherwise it just doesn’t work.

Link to real site here

Will our Teachers Vote for Science, Reason & Critical Thinking?

A motion at the NUT conference this weekend will argue:

whilst religion and philosophy should be taught in schools, religious groups on the other hand, “should have no place in the control and management of schools.”

So will our teachers vote to try and halt the spread of Blair’s Faith School Madness?

Read the full Article from the Freethinker Here

Freemania: Because all roads in life lead to Spaghetti Junction

Had to make a link to this great new bus campaign

Freemania: Because all roads in life lead to Spaghetti Junction

Arsetrology: Your Daily Shitoscope Reading

As we all know, Astrology is a belief that the relative positions of the celestial bodies can predict the personalities and affairs of individuals. I have discovered a far more accurate and precise method of predicting an individuals fortune and personal traits based on the much more accurate science of bowel movements. Like traditional Astrology, everybody can be divided into 12 groups, or Houses. Unlike celestial astrology, the 12 houses represent not the dates of birth, but the 12 possible bowel movements each person may have on any one day. I then use a complex and mysterious set of axioms to determine your own personal shitoscope reading.

Before I use my mystical powers to tell your fortunes, I will first need to introduce you to the twelve “Shit Houses”:

1. Rusty Water
Diarrhea also known as arse piss or anal firewater

2. Ghost Turd
A stool of which there is no trace when one stands up to admire it

3. Dead Otter
A single stool of immense proportions

4. Copper Bolt
Large or heavy stool also known as a Depth Charge or Belly Flopper

5. Anal Delight
Soft light brown fluffy chocolate or butterscotch coloured pudding served in a large porcelain bowl

6. Baking One
The act of not going for a shit when you really ought to

7. Bum Goblin
A gnarled malevolent turd that jumps out from behind you, casting a painful spell on your ringpiece

8. Shitterish Allsorts
A single lavatorial sitting that produces a pot-pourri of stool consistencies from copper bolts to a rusty water geyser and all points between. Aka Bomb Bay Mix

9. Bovril Bullets
Peppering the porcelain with brown shot

10. Brown Lilo
A buoyant Tom Tit that, left alone, will eventually float out to sea

11. Fizzy Gravy
Bubble poo

12. Shitsophrenia
The condition where the sufferer alternates between having wild squirts and normal bowel movements throughout the day


Once you have had your daily bowel movement(s) and determined your "Shit House", look up your Shitoscope below, and prepare to be amazed at the accuracy of this amazing new phenomenon.


Rusty Water:
You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them.


Ghost Turd:
At times you have serious doubts whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing.


Dead Otter
Most of the time you are positive and cheerful, but there has been a time in the past where you were very upset. You have a tendancy to be critical of yourself.


Copper Bolt:
You are a very kind and considerate person, but when somebody does something to break your trust, you feel deep-seated anger.


Anal Delight:
Disciplined and self controlled on the outside, you tend to be insecure inside.



Baking One:
you are mostly shy and quiet, but when the mood strikes you, you can easily become the center of attention.


Bum Goblin:
You pride yourself as an independent thinker and do not accept others’ statements without satisfactory proof.


Shitterish Allsorts:
You have found it unwise to be frank in revealing yourself to others. You have a great need for people to like and admire you.


Bovril Bullets:
Some of your aspirations tend to be very unrealistic. You feel great sometimes, other times you feel like hiding away.


Brown Lilo
You are trying to go the way you want to go and are beginning to succeed. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage.



Fizzy Gravy
At times you are extraverted, affable, sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, reserved.


Shitsophrenia:
You need close relationships but at the same time hate being restricted by them.




Please let me know how acurate I am, hopefully we can replace the daily horoscopes in a National newspaper with my new Shitoscopes.

BTW. Thanks to Viz’s Roger’s Profanisaurus and some random Barnum statements from the web.

Church Signs

Jack Huberman: The Quotable Atheist

The best, and quite frankly by far the easiest way, to review a book of quotations, is by listing some of my particular favourite and pithy pearls of wisdom. So here goes…

“Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.”
Anonymous

“Morality is doing what is right no matter what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told no matter what is right.”
Anonymous

“Only sheep need a shepherd”
Anonymous

“Why be born again, when you can just grow up.”
Anonymous

“Faith is the fatigue resulting from the attempt to preserve God’s integrity instead of one’s own.”
Matt Berry

“A soul? Give my watch to a savage, and he will think it has a soul.”
Napoleon Bonaparte

“The Vatican is against surrogate mothers. Good thing they didn’t have that rule when Jesus was born.”
Elayne Boosler

“Not one man in ten thousand has either strength of mind or goodness of heart to be an atheist.”
Samuel Taylor Coleridge

“Where knowledge ends, religion begins.”
Benjamin Disraeli

“A myth is a religion in which no one any longer believes.”
Jules Feiffer

“The way to see faith is to shut the eye of reason.”
Benjamin Franklin

“I don’t see any god up here.”
Yuri Gagarin

“It is possible to pull out justification for imposing your will on others, simply by calling your will Gods will.”
Ruth Hurmence Green

“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.”
Adolf Hitler

“Skepticism is the highest duty and blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”
Thomas Henry Huxley

“The splendour of human life, I feel sure is greater for those who are not dazzled by the divine radiance.”
Bertrand Russell

I could just keep going, no really, it’s just a matter of copying them from the book, but I would be doing the compiler of this fine source of wit an injustice. Get the book instead, every coffee table should have one.

Education, Education, Education

I suspect that it may be another 13 months or so before the British public will be able to pass judgement on Gordon Brown’s premiership. However, the welcomed news that Ken Clarke has today pledged that a Tory government would raise the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million is a reminder that it’s never too early to start electioneering.

The mantra of “Education, Education, Education”, that so convincingly swept New Labour to power in 1997 is a totally commendable one. I believe that the same mantra is now even more necessary in the next general election. While education remains the corner stone of any civilised culture, its importance in the next election is enhanced by the need to put right the misguided education policies of the current government.

In the past my vote has be a foregone conclusion based on my political affiliations with one particular party. These days however, I’m more fickle; my allegiances lie with my principles rather than any preselected political party. Therefore, adoption of the following three education policies into any parties manifesto will make a difference to my vote, and I suspect a large number of like minded people too.

1. Abolition of Faith Schools

Stephen Law gave a very good analogy in his “Thought for the world” which I shall attempt to quickly paraphrase:

Imagine a country where the state supports the sponsorship of schools based on allegiances to particular political parties. Children of Labour parents may elect to send their children to “Labour Schools” where they are schooled with the policies, principles and history of that party. Portraits of eminent parliamentarians of that party line the walls and they gather at morning assemblies to sing political songs and be indoctrinated in to the one true political party.

With the above example it’s easy to see how abhorrent it is to segregate children’s education by random factors such as parental political affiliations or indeed ethnicity. Faith schools indoctrinating children into the arbitrary faiths of their parents are no different.

Tony Blair justifies his support and sponsorship of faith based schools with the excuse of “Diversity”. This justification would hold equally for the opening of Fascist and Communists schools to add diversity to the pre-existing politically affiliated schools in the example above. Blair’s policy of diversity merely promotes separation of beliefs, cultures and races; it provides a free pass to allow for the teaching of dangerous misinformation and breeds contempt and in extreme cases fans the fires of hatred.

Clearly giving children a grounding and understanding in the history and beliefs of all major religions in a non-bias way is a better option. If they then choose to pursue any one particular religion as an extra curriculum activity then that would be their own choice and perfectly reasonable.

I’m obviously not advocating the closure of faith schools merely merging them into the national curriculum by dropping their particular creed in favour of a more rounded religious education and a nationally agreed science syllabus.

2. Abolition of University Tuition Fees

When I went to University 20 years ago as a “mature” student, I had long since left home and become self-sufficient. I was however fortunate enough to still be able to leave my job and go back to full time education to get my degree thanks to no tuition fees and a LEA grant. If I were in the same situation today, the option of going to University for me would have been completely out of the question.

My children may be lucky enough that I will, in all likelihood, be in a financial position to support them through University, should they have the ability and desire to do so, but many more may not be so lucky. I believe that any society that wishes to advance must provide University education free of charge to those with the academic ability to benefit from it, regardless of their background.

3. Promotion of Science Education

The lack of government support for science education over many years has left us in an unenviable situation where science is ill understood in the public and frequently portrayed in a negative light. We are now at the point where we lack enough qualified science teachers, and interest amongst students is alarmingly low. Many schools even offer science as one combined subject, a regression from 30 years ago when I was at least able to study Physics, Biology and Chemistry as separate subjects at secondary school.

I know a number of recent government initiatives have recognised this shortfall and some tentative policies have been suggested to address this issue. I don’t want to sound like a member of the opposition by simply claiming it’s all too little, too late, but I would welcome some original policies on solving this problem.


And if you’re scrabbling around for some more polices to add to your manifesto to fully secure my vote, why not eject the Bishops from the House of Lords.

Noah's Ark Zoo Farm

A couple of very good Christian friends of mine in Bath have been raving on for a while about a place called "Noah’s Ark". It’s a sort of Zoo / Working farm for families and school trips near Bristol.

I have to admit to never visiting, and I don’t really want to, but after hearing about a recent visit Micahel Shermer made, I thought I’d look it up on the web to find out some more.

Although this looks like a perfect family day out with lovely attractions and animals, it seems to me that there is a darker underbelly. I’ve pasted a few quotes directly from their website, followed by my comments

“The BBC has recently run an excellent but controversial series of programmes presenting Evolution by natural selection as the mechanism to explain the origin and all subsequent variation of life. See Creation Biology & Evolution: Yes and No along with the Earth History material for another perspective on this important subject.”

There’s nothing controversial about the account of Evolution presented recently by the BBC at all. Conventional scientists are in as much agreement over evolution by natural selection as they are over gravity. There may be some minor differences down in the detailed mechanisms, but the overarching theory itself is not in contention. Suggesting there is a controversy is an underhand way of trying to undermine scientific fact that simply doesn’t match with biblical texts by playing on the general public’s lack of understanding of evolution

“Popular media presents us with only two theories to explain the origins of life: Darwinism or Creationism. Both are flawed in their theory; both are extremes in their own rights. One theory leaves no room for a God or a Creation, only randomness and mutation to provide the great abundance and variety in nature; the other requires a God for Creation and a strict Genesis chronology without evolution in any form.”

Critical thinkers will recognize the "False Dichotomy" logical fallacy here. Evolution by Natural Selection (given the name Darwinism, to sound more sinister) is presented as an extreme view that has no compatibility with God, therefore forcing it to be an unavailable option for Christian’s. This is of course not the case as even the Pope has accepted evolution (for fear of having to apologize again as in the Galileo case). The Noah’s Ark web site goes on to offer an alternative of a God Created world, using elements of evolution where even they do not have the gall to deny the evidence.

“We can draw a number of conclusions from this. First, the ark was a real vessel, not a fanciful addition to the story. Second, the righteous man in the story must have been forewarned, or he would not have thought of building an ark. And third, the Flood was a global event. At least two of every animal kind had to be preserved so that the earth thereafter could be recognized.”

Do I really need to counter argue this completely absurd claim? Rather than list a ream of reasons why the earth could not possibly have been completely covered in global flood, with all rescued animals gathered aboard an Ark, I’ll ask the question do you want your children to be taught this as fact on their school trip?

“Crystalline rocks usually give very old radioisotope dates, within a broadly consistent sequence from older to younger. There is also other evidence that a substantial amount of radioactive decay has gone on in the past:

• The right amount of decay products - just what we would expect from millions of years of decay at today's rates.
• Short-lived radioisotopes are absent - suggesting that long ages have passed to allow them to all decay away.
• Visible scars (radiohalos) left by decay - direct evidence for hundreds of millions of years' worth of decay at today's rates.
• Crystal damage (fission tracks) left by splitting atoms - indicating millions of years of decay at today's rates.
• The expected heat in rocks near the Earth's surface - left by millions of years of decay at today's rates.

Many people think that evidence such as this proves that the Earth is billions of years old.”

Yes indeed, many geologists do believe that, but as that evidence does not fit in with the predefined dates required by the religious proprietor of Noah’s Ark, he has to invent a reason why it is wrong. As you can see in the examples above, the estimates in radio carbon dating are based on the current decay rate, therefore rather than accepting the answer that the earth is billions of years old based on those observable decay rates, he prefers to stick with the answer he likes and assume instead that the rate of decay was obviously much quicker in the past.

In Shermer's interview with the Noah’s Ark proprietor, he stated that the proprietor was keen to distance himself from those "Crazy American Young Earth Creationists" who think the earth is only 6,000 years old. No, he thinks the earth is about 100,000 years old. This is based on his own research as opposed to the globally agreed scientific opinion that the earth is 4,540,000,000 years ago. Yeah that’s nowhere near as crazy.

“The creation account in Genesis states that God made animals 'according to their kinds'. This does not mean that God made the animals according to the species we see today. Rather, he made them with the potential to diversify into many species; all the genetic material required for such diversification was there from the beginning.”

In this passage he has found a way of interpreting the book of Genesis to imply that God did not make the animal and plant kingdoms as we see them today. This allows for accepting a little bit of evolution for variety within species, but sticks to the rigid dogma of all creation coming from God. Sadly, however we have seen direct evidence where this is not true, the genetic make up of the AIDS virus has evolved within the last 50 or so years, before our very own eyes, creating new DNA not present before.


The whole web site, lists ridiculous claim after claim that even an amateur like me can easily debunk. Rather than further demonstrate the prosperous claims of the web site, I’ll leave you to do the others yourself, or this blog is in danger of becoming far too long.

I did however want to raise one more critical point. Noah’s Ark is presented primarily as a Zoo and Working Farm to appeal to children, families and schools. It has all sorts of interesting animals and activities to stimulate its visitors. It also appears to promote standard key stage elements of the National Teaching Curriculum to attract school trips. However it looks to me that this is fancy façade to draw in unsuspecting minds before submitting them to unfounded and dangerous misinformation.

Postscript:

Following the publication of this blog a couple of months ago I have noticed a bit more coverage of this place that I wanted to link to.

Sink The Ark: Is a website dedicated to this attraction and highlights the misinformation it presents.

There is also a Number 10 petition to withdraw government support for this attraction.

And a fair and unbiased entry in Wikipedia

God In the Lab: Conway Hall - 21st March 2009

I attended a rather interesting set of 4 lectures at Conway Hall yesterday covering the science behind religious beliefs.

As I was sat next to “FaithlessGod” who was doing a live blog of each lecture, it would seem rather foolish to try and repeat his excellent work.

So this is a rather lazy blog and simply links to his four comprehensive blogs of each lecture.

Do ghosts get itchy? Mind, body, and afterlife in cross-cultural perspective

Divine Madness

Born Believers: The Naturalness of Childhood Theism

Religious Based Analgesics

Daniel Dennett: A Darwinian Perspective on Religion (Lecture at Conway Hall)

I attended this lecture put on by he British Humanist Association at Conway Hall last night and just had to write a few quick words about it.

I shan’t attempt to review the lecture in full by going through all the points covered, partly because I wasn’t taking notes, but mainly because it was filmed and you’re much better off watching the film than my diluted transcripts and spoilers.

Apparently the video will be posted on the British Humanist Association web site. Link here. However, it wasn’t up last time I checked, but may well be by the time you read this.

Richard Dawkins introduced Daniel Dennett and gave him a great and worthy build up, including the inevitable comment on the physical similarities between Dennett and Darwin.

Dennett mused on the origins of language and applied Darwinian principles of evolution to show how words are naturally coined and enter the language, in much the same way as genes in a species. By comparing a linguistic family tree to a biological tree it can be seen how the present day languages and species are but a small subset of all that has ever been with successful genes and words mutating and spreading down the branches.

The same principles are then applied to show how superstitions, rumours and folklore memes can take a hold until such a time, as the successful ones are able to acquire stewards to shepherd them, propagate them further and equip them with the attributes for survival.

Religions may well have formed a necessary part in our evolutionary past much like Dumbo’s magic feather or “Nurse Crops” that are planted amongst the hay to control weeds and provide support until such a time as the main crop can rise above and stand on it’s own.

The time has now come for the Magic feather to be thrown away, the nurse crops may have given us a good start, but now they just hinder, and Dennett urges us to throw away the religious crutch.

At the top of the lecture, Dennett listed 5 possible ways in which things could play out, from a regression to religions dominance to a complete disregard of religion. One questioner asked what Dennett thought was the most likely scenario. Dennett opted for a middle ground where religions retain their pageantry and ceremony but the creed withers and becomes irrelevant. And maybe that would be a satisfactory outcome.

Dennett lecture was packed full of original and brilliant thought, perfectly understandable and irrefutable. It was a real treat for the mind, please keep checking back at the BHA website or YouTube when it comes online.

Carl Sagan: The Demon Haunted World – Science as a Candle in the Dark

I have read several articles recently highlighting the rise of scepticism here in the UK. While I’m sure scepticism is something that’s always been with us in some guise or other, there certainly seems to be a recent growth of sceptical thinkers forming a more coherent movement. I see much of the foundations of this modern skeptism in America, with three key architects: James Randi, Michael Shermer and Carl Sagan. While Randi has been writing books and exposing charlatans since the early70’s and Shermer has been publishing the Skeptic magazine and various books, Sagan, to my mind, was the key mover in popularising real science, and I’m sure still would be if he was still with us today. I see this book in particular, originally published in 1995, as one of the cornerstones of the modern skeptical movement, so I expect you’ve read it already.

I can really think of no other popular science writer who so effectively communicates the sense of awe and wonder in the universe and enthuses his readers to understand the universe through the critical eyes of reason and rationality as Carl Sagan.

However, I fear that the lines between science and pseudoscience maybe somewhat blurred in many people’s minds. Purveyors of alternative medicines and old fashioned quacksalver’s have often employed scientific sounding jargon to try and add an air of credibility to their snake oil. Conversely, genuine science is often misrepresented by sensationalist headline grabbing journalists keen to jump on the band wagon with ill-founded stories such as the MMR vaccination scare. Phrases like “scientifically tested” now seem less in vogue than claims of “natural” or “organic”. Added together with vendors of paranormal and new age beliefs, it’s hardly surprising that the layman doesn’t know who or what to believe and which claims are genuinely based in scientific fact.

Sagan starts out with an anecdote to illustrate the confusions people have between science and pseudoscience. He tells the story of a taxi driver taking him to the airport who recognised him as “the science guy of the TV”. Wishing to take advantage of his scientifically minded passenger, the driver proceeded to ask a number of questions, all of which turned out be founded on misinformation and popular myths perpetuated by the media and modern culture and confused with real science.

In this book Sagan aims to show what is real and what is not, not by listing his fixed interpretation of the truth like a religious text, but by equipping us with the tools and methods to go away and work it out for ourselves.

Sagan takes us through a number of beliefs with no credible scientific evidence to support them including UFO’s, ESP, faith healing, astrology, mediums, superstitions, religious beliefs, reincarnation and psycho-kinesis. Each one is critically examined and scrutinised in an open minded way with no preconceptions determining the outcome. However, for each extraordinary claim he demands extraordinary evidence and for each of the above, none is forthcoming.

“The Demon Haunted World” provides us with a “Baloney detection kit” which consists of methods such as independent confirmation of facts, peer reviewed papers and the use of Occam’s razor. The “Baloney Detection Kit” also includes ways of recognising common fallacies of logic and rhetoric. Once versed in these fallacies it becomes easy to see the flaws and weaknesses in certain arguments supporting various bogus claims. I’ll not go through these logical fallacies here, but the SGU have produced a great summary list and explanation of the top 20 here.

Sagan also spends some time explaining how science actually works. Over the years I have gradually learnt the difference between the scientific body of knowledge I was taught at school and the scientific method. I no longer see science as a collection of fixed laws, rules and formula’s, I see it as a method for understanding the universe. Sagan clearly explains the scientific method from the formulisation of hypothesis through to widely accepted theories. He explains that even though our current scientific understanding may one day be refined, merged or updated they are the nearest approximations to the truth, and quite possibly the most precious thing we have.

When reading authors like Dawkins and Sagan I have to be very careful not to step in to the trap that Sagan clearly alerts us to in this book. It would be all too easy to blindly accept the arguments of their writing based purely on the respect they have gained. If I was however to do this I would hopefully be drowned out by a chorus of skeptics trilling: “Argument from Authority”.