There are times when I look back at my home country, with its comparative lack of Christian fundamentalism (and fantastic draught beer readily available), with nostalgia and yearning. Although I’ve been away from England for quite some time now, I think I keep pretty much up to speed with how things are there, and my impressions are generally supported by comments and writings from British colleagues. So I am disappointed to read in The Guardian that
Four out of 10 people in the UK think that religious alternatives to Darwin’s theory of evolution should be taught as science in schools, according to a BBC poll.
The good news is that there are prominent Brits who are ready to stand up and speak out against such patent nonsense. Sir David Attenborough, England’s best known public natural historian has sensible things to say, and Richard Dawkins makes the right point about public science education in that predictable Dawkins manner (which I happen to love)
“These ignorant people would probably welcome enlightenment. It is up to scientists to get out of their labs, from time to time, and enlighten.”
Another nice thing is that mainstream British television appears prepared to tackle these issues, although I’d love to hear from people who saw the program about whether it did a good job. Growing up, there was lots of science on television and I felt like I got a fun and interesting exposure to a broad range of topics, even though occasionally some nonsense about UFOs or Bigfoot (but, wait a minute …) would creep in. I hope that even this recollection is not just more nostalgia.
February 1st, 2006 at 12:16 pm
I was wondering how long it would take this to be mentioned on Cosmic Variance. The original article on this came out several days ago on the BBC.
February 1st, 2006 at 12:38 pm
Hi damtp_dweller. Sometimes our commitment to up-to-the-minute reporting just falls apart. I also saw it on the BBC which, I think, actually did a better job of reporting it. Martin Rees says the right things, but I think seems a bit complacent about the possibility that a US-like movement could take off in England.
February 1st, 2006 at 12:39 pm
The ‘Horizon’ program was actually quite good – though my memory of it is slightly fuzzy so details may be a bit off. It had the traditional TV science type narrative (challenge to science’s best and most successful theory etc.), with nice background to the Dover school board court case. Having not read much detailed argument about ID’s claims I found it interesting to hear that the main ID idea is based upon “irreducible complexity”.
The program went into some detail about this idea and discussed the microbe used as the most common evidence against evolution, which has a 50 component ‘engine’ by which it propels itself. They argue that if you remove any part of this engine then the thing doesn’t work, thus it can’t have evolved gradually. The program had the ID people first, then a Biology prof who had examined the microbe and other members of the same family, concluding that there are loads of different mutations on the basic engine structure, some of which need only 10 components to work, so evolution explained things fine.
They also had a mathematician (I think from the Southern Baptist University – he’s the one holding the dice in the main posts link) who calculated the probability of humans having evolved from scratch, which, unsurprisingly, was a small number
They argued against this with the analogy of a card game: if you have four people playing cards then the probability of any given set of cards being dealt in that precise order is extremely small, but that doesn’t stop people being able to play.
Dawkins turned up and did his usual plain speaking thing, as did Attenborough. The end segment of the program was the on verdict of the Judge, which made me quite cheerful about the American judiciary, or at least that member of it
All in all, quite enjoyable, though not being an expert in that area I don’t know how accurate the arguments were (on both sides).
Mike
February 1st, 2006 at 12:49 pm
Thanks Mike – that’s very helpful. The mathematician is William Dembski (who, just coincidentally, is a born again Christian) who is one of the charlatans the Discovery Institute relies on.
The Judge’s summary and verdict was masterful, I agree.
February 1st, 2006 at 1:29 pm
For what it’s worth, the program is available for download on BitTorrent. I’ll email the link to anybody who wants to see it.
February 1st, 2006 at 1:54 pm
Mark said: “Sometimes our commitment to up-to-the-minute reporting just falls apart.”
cvj:- Oh! did we make such a commitment?! I never signed anything!
-cvj
February 1st, 2006 at 1:58 pm
More seriously, I’d like to point out that I’m glad that others (thanks Mark) are observing this complaceny that the UK has…I’ve spoken about it on this blog before, in my discussins of science education, and people tell me “oh no, we’re the UK, we’re way too well educated over here for that to take root here…” I roll my eyes and usually continue to urge vigilance….
Remember: “When the USA sneezes, the UK catches cold.”
-cvj
February 1st, 2006 at 2:37 pm
I wonder if the poll would have been the same if they had not asked about creationsim as if it was something different than ID. Some that might have rejected creationism as rubbish may have selected ID because it at least sounds somewhat scientific. The wording of the poll itself indicates that there are at least two “alternatives” to evolution even though intelligent people that follow the “controversy” realize there is no scientific alternative and that Creationism and ID are not science. In fact the Dover trial made it clear that ID is just a shabby trick to foist bad religion onto high school students.
I wonder how Dubya will reconcile his new image as the “science president” with his earlier stupid comments about teaching ID in schools. Of course inconsistency does not appear to trouble him and his administation very much.
February 1st, 2006 at 3:55 pm
Fact is, if not for the Internet I would never have heard of ID, this debate is purely US.
So my *hope* is that this UK survey is due to people being uninformed and that if there was a public debate things would quickly shift dramatically against those who want to infuse religion into science.
*thumbs pressed*
February 1st, 2006 at 4:28 pm
Mark, you’ve touched on two important topics in this post. One is the difference in attitude toward pseudo-science between British and American prominent public figures (in spite of views held by the body politic). The other is beer. Now, while widely available domestic draught beers are, with a few exceptions, pretty crummy, I haven’t found any beers abroad that rival my favorite–but sometimes less readily available–American beers. I’m talking about Dogfish Head’s 90 Minute IPA, Bell’s Cherry Stout (a microbrew from MI), Three Floyds’ Alpha King and Gumballhead, even good old Goose Island Honkers Ale or a Sierra Nevada pale. (As you can see, I’m kind of an ale guy.) Have you had any of these? If so, do they compare? I haven’t had any British beers, besides Bass, which I do like.
February 1st, 2006 at 4:36 pm
I have had many of these Tom. One problem I have is with the carbonation. the closest I find in the US are the cask-conditioned ales, some of which I can get in Syracuse. I like the beers you refer to, for example Goose Island and Three Floyds’, but for my tastes they don’t compare to a decent pint of, for example, Tetley’s Ale (I use this one just because it is very common and well-known), that one can get at many pubs.
This is my real point: I feel that it is actually a great time to be a beer drinker in the US right now and I can find good beer somewhere in most towns. However, in England, one can find good beer within a block of wherever you are in most towns, and walking randomly into a pub will most likely be OK, whereas walking randomly into a bar here will not likely lead to interesting good drafts.
Mostlly though, I was just getting in a cheap dig
February 1st, 2006 at 5:50 pm
The Horizon programme:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/war.shtml
had a good overall interesting overview.
What about this horizon programme of a couple of weeks ago:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/ghostgenes.shtml
This has some mjor implications for Darwinism?
February 1st, 2006 at 10:05 pm
Fantastic …what…? beer
February 1st, 2006 at 10:25 pm
Sorry NL. Occasionally I lapse into a little known language called English. I’m trying to remove such confusion from my writing and have succeeded for the most part, except for the odd slip like this one.
The next step is to curb my use of multisyllabic words and ramp up the frequency with which I use the word “like”, in order to complete my assimilation into American society.
February 1st, 2006 at 11:01 pm
Ooooh, careful Mark, you’re getting as sarky as cvj there!
-cvj
February 1st, 2006 at 11:13 pm
Yeah, that’s why my rule is that extreme web sarcasm must be accompanied by an emoticon. I see you follow the same book.
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:31 am
I think the most significant aspect of the Horizon program was that David Attenborough was seen to be arguing for evolution and against ID. Politicians and non-scientists, who might find it easy to dismiss the opinions of Dawkins as those of an anti-religious extremist, will find it much harder to do the same with the much-loved establishment figure Attenborough. In the past, I have got the feeling that Attenborough underplayed the evolutionary aspects of the wonders that he showed in his programs (maybe I am being unfair to him), but it is really good to see him now using his considerable influence when it matters.
February 2nd, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Mark, I don’t always remember to follow that rule…. perhaps unfortunately.
-cvj
February 3rd, 2006 at 6:08 am
Tom Fish- if you havnt tried any British beers except Bass, you have to come over here to try them straight from the cask. They really dont travel very well in bottles.
There is “the campaign for real ale”, CAMRA, who have lists of pubs selling real beer in the UK. Unfortunately, total consumption of real ale is falling, but there are lots of breweries, and supermarkets usually have good stocks of bottled ales, but as I said before, you really need to try nice fresh striaght out the cask ales.
I’ve seen many people point out that Attenborough is well liked by most of the British population, and he should be wheeled out as often as possible to say that ID is bunk.
February 3rd, 2006 at 7:43 pm
At school in the UK, I did study ID and other evolution and Big Bang “alternatives”. But it was in my Religious Studies class, not science. RS is a requires subject until age 16 in the UK.
–Q.