Creationism Vs Science

The so called controversy has reared it's head yet again. This time, not in the ole USA but in Britain.

It seems that Professor Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society, was forced to step down for appearing to advocate the teaching of creationism in schools. It turns out that he was urging science teachers to explain to students why creationism is bad science.

However the intelligent design brigand jumped on his comments, twisted them to make it seem that they had the support of the Royal Society. Reiss tired to clarify his statement but it was too late. I imagined that internal politics had kicked in and Reiss stepped down for "causing damage to the Society's reputation."

So the Royal Society is taking the same approach as other science bodies to ignore the whole creationism/intelligent design balderdash. Let the fanatics rant and rave, gnash at the teeth, froth at the mouth and sooner or later people will recognise them for the nuts they are. Remember the old adage, never argue with a fool, people won't be able to tell you apart.

At this point I should make it clear that creationism is a literal belief in the creation story of the bible, not just a belief in god.

Thing is, I agree with Professor Reiss. As the Professor pointed out, one in ten British students come from a home where they are taught Creationism. In America I believe that it is somewhere around one in two, or one in three (actually I believed it was around one in five, but looking at the polls has reversed that opinion).

By ignoring them, creationists are not going to go away. In fact, in places like America where voting is voluntary, they're just going to become more powerful, because they're fanatical enough to keep people like me from enjoying the levels of power they themselves have enjoyed for centuries. Right wing christian groups in America have stated that an atheist will never be president. Look at the trouble a Mormon had in the presidential selections.

We need to sit down with the kids and explain in a rational debate why creationism is bad science. Wait, now I'm telling lies. Creationism is not a science. It's a philosophy that is incompatible with science. Again, I'm talking about literal creation myth, not a belief in god.

At the beginning of the year I had called around to my parents early in the morning to drop something off when I spied my parent's neighbour who works in Maitland walking towards the bus stop. Since I was on my way home to Maitland I offered her a life. The neighbour is friends with my parents and they go to the same church. She knows I'm an atheist and she asked about my views on the whole creationism debate that was happening in the USA.

I told her about a book I had read years ago on philosophy. It had a chapter called God does exists, followed by a chapter called God doesn't exist. The first chapter was about how a logical person had to believe in god as science was flawed because there was never an ultimate answer. No matter what the answer to a question was, it always raised more questions which eventually could not be answered where as a belief in god meant the ultimate answer was always god.

For example, the question "Where did the Earth come from?"would be answered by science as "It formed from the protoplasma of the forming sun" This leads to "Where did the protoplasma come from?" To which the answer is "From the big bang""What caused the big bang?" "Cosmic dust rubbing together" "Where did the dust come from?" "....Don't know.

The same question "Where did the Earth come from?"Is answered by belief in god as "God made it" "Where did god come from?" "God is a Omnipotent being and has always existed."

The next chapter used the same argument to prove that a logical person could not believe in god. Because science was always advancing human knowledge, each answer gives us a new set of questions to research, study and eventually form answers to. Where's a belief in god stagnates human development because the answer is always god and therefore we don't need to look any longer.

I believe this example illustrates perfectly the differences between creationism and science. And this should be explained to children who struggle to assimilate their beliefs with their science education. And once we remove the elephant of creationism from the room, people of all faiths can work together to explain the mysteries of the universe and continue to advance humanity.

References:
http://www.theherald.com.au/news/world/world/general/scientist-quits-in-creationism-uproar/1275760.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/996_intelligent_design_not_accep_9_10_2002.asp
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Statement_of_Objectives_Feb_12_07.pdf
http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/darwinanddesign.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/09/leading_theistic_evolutionist.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/09/royal_society_on_creationism_v.html
http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2008/09/intelligent-design-and-popular-culture_16.html
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/3/2008/09/17/catholic_church_to_hold_debate_on_god_an
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/3/2008/09/17/creationism_biologist_quits_job
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7619670.stm
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/09/michael_reisss_big_mistake.php
http://www.judgingpbs.com/dfp-slide2.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/oct/05101705.html
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm

They have only themselves to blame

Despite the predictions from caucus and the threats from the ALP membership, Iemma and Costa, defying all logic (except for Costa's special to hell with anyone who disagrees with me logic) pushed the electricity privatisation and lost.

Big time

What surprises me is that they didn't see it coming.

First of all selling public assets is a very Liberal party idea. It goes against the grain of the ALP. It's almost a betrayal of the ALP's founding principles. It was always going to be a very tricky proposal to get the party to agree to in the first place, let alone get ALP MPs to vote for it. It would require careful negotiation, compromises, a great deal of tact.

And who lead these delicate talks with the party? Costa, who wouldn't know tact if he picked it and caved someone's head in with it. Some advice Michael, yelling and screaming at people who are vital to voting for your proposal and calling anyone who disagree a moron doesn't win friends. In fact it's just going to piss a lot of people off who are not going going to oppose it but seek your downfall.

Second, unions are going to oppose it. That's a given. After all, when any company changes hands there's uncertainty. Even more so when you change from public to private. Jobs often get axed. Positions and descriptions change dramatically. The unions have every right to be concern and it is the union's job to fight for its members. Given the long standing relationship between and the ALP and the unions, not to mention the impressive war chest the union's accumulated to fight Howard's work choices, it was always going to need kid gloves dealing with the unions.

Again, Mr Costa took point. The resulting fight was like any public fight between an old married couple, brutal, vicious and personal.

Now given that Costa was unwilling to compromise his proposal and his charming and personal way with people meant that the government was never going to be able to pass it without major help from the opposition.

An ALP premier and treasurer take a Liberal party stance on selling assets, go to war with large sections of their own party, defy public opinion and are forced to side with the Liberals. Did no one learn anything from Meg Lees' decision to vote for the GST and the subsequent destruction of the democrats?

Actually I'm surprised they thought the Liberal's would support them. Think about it, they've languished in opposition for over a decade. Given the state of the State at the last election should of been voted in, but still lost and most people don't even know the opposition leaders name. Suddenly they're looking across at a government that's self imploding and calling out for them to save them.

Yeah right.

The opposition did exactly what anyone would do it it's position. Give them a few hoops to jump through before still denying them the help they so desperately wanted. Mature? Not really, but very human.

And Iemma fell for it!

Not only did he jump their hoops, when he had cleared the last one he recalled Parliament at tremendous cost making their final denial not only soul crushing but humiliating to boot.

Now, not only did their bill fail, Costa and Iemma are now both looking for work. Given their performance over the last year I would expect too many private companies to hire them, nor will the unions take them back. Maybe the circus is looking for a few new clowns?

What do you think?

The above footage is apparently of a serpent like creature that is believed to be the Storsjoe, a Swedish version of the Loch Ness monster. Legend of the Storsjoe have existed for around 400 years.

The legend of the Swedish beast has swirled for nearly four centuries, with some 200 sightings reported in the lake in central Sweden.

"On Thursday at 12:21 pm, we filmed the movements of a live being. And it was not a pike, nor a perch, we're sure of that," Gunnar Nilsson, the head of a shopkeepers' association in Svenstavik, told AFP.

The association, together with the Jaemtland province and local municipality of Berg, installed six surveillance cameras in the lake in June, including two underwater devices.

The project, which has so far cost some 400,000 kronor ($72,300), is aimed at resolving the mystery of the Swedish Nessie.

The first sighting dates back to 1635 and the most recent to July 2007, with most speaking of a long, serpent-like beast with humps, a small cat or dog-like head, and ears or fins pressed against the neck.

The association employs one person full-time to review the recorded video footage each day.

In the images filmed and posted on a website dedicated to the Storsjoe monster (www.storsjoodjuret.nu), a long serpent-like being is seen swimming in the murky waters.

"A highly-advanced system on one of the cameras detected heat produced by the cells," indicating that it was a live being, Nilsson said.

"It's very exciting and quite spectacular," he said.

He readily admitted however that the project was also "aimed at improving business around the lake."

"The monster has helped us," he added.

Some 20 more cameras are due to be installed soon, including one at a depth of 30 metres (100 feet) to catch any movements under the winter ice.

ABC News

I don't know what the cells are telling them, but to me that things does not look like it's swimming to me. It looks like something long and flexible is simply floating on the currents. If it is a living thing, then I would say it was almost dead.

Tell me what you think.