Why Dont You Blog?

The British can’t feel too smug in the face of American gullibility. Ken Ham is busy dipping into our own bottomless well of credulity, according to James Randerson in the Guardian. He’s been on a lecture tour of the UK and seems able to draw a few hundred people to a venue.

The operation in the UK is smaller but still significant, with an annual turnover of around £500,000. One report suggested it dispatches between 30,000 and 50,000 books, DVDs and videos each year.

Let’s hope that most of these DVDs and videos are pirate copies of “Lost” .
Or else that the word “dispatched” is being used in the sense of “disposed of humanely”. Landfill would be my first suggestion, although I know that’s not too ecologically friendly.

Popularity: 23% [?]

Popularity: 23% [?]

According to Matthew Taylor in today’s Guardian:

State schools could teach the theory of intelligent design in science lessons, the Church of England’s new head of education has suggested.

Well, where do you start on this?

In my limited understanding of Intelligent Design, it is not “science”. It cannot be considered a science using any definition that I can recognise. “That’s really complex, so someone must have planned it” doesn’t seem wildly scientific to me.

There was brilliant post on Pharyngula that pointed out that astrology is much more scientific than ID. At least you can falsify astrological predictions. (It always gladdens my heart when “real” scientists show knowledge of epistemology.)

Popularity: 39% [?]

Popularity: 39% [?]

Karl Popper’s classic characterisation of scientific thought as providing hypotheses which can be falsified provides a pretty unarguable definition of science as far as I can see. There used to be much debate about this in A level sociology courses (which is where my limited knowledge of epistemology comes from) and there are other valid descriptions of how science works.

However, what distinguishes science from other types of thought is that scientific theories can be tested.

Intelligent design cannot be tested. I can’t really bring myself to say that the Theory of Intelligent Design can’t be tested. I don’t think it constitutes much of a theory, in that it doesn’t explain anything. I can’t even understand why believers feel threatened by evolutionary theory, which basically comes down to -

An organism that is best fitted to its environment is more likely to survive and reproduce than one that isn’t. It is likely to pass on the characteristics that helped it to survive to its offspring. This means that, over time, groups of that organism will tend to show more of the traits that favour survival and the characteristics of the population will change.

I know this is a simplistic interpretation (due to my limited understanding) but it is a theory that can be tested. Quite simply, if populations of organisms didn’t adapt to changes in their environments, it would be easy to spot this.

But, Intelligent Design? It is an “explanation” that cannot be tested. Anyone is entitled to believe whatever they like about the unknowable. I believe hundreds of eccentric things myself. Even I would have a problem if someone suggested that my ideas should be taught in schools as alternatives to science.

This was sparked by TW’s posts intelligent-design-in-the-uk and blogwar.

Popularity: 13% [?]

Popularity: 13% [?]

Some days I am embarrassed to be British. Fortunately this is rare, but it does happen, the Big Brother farce was one occasion and today I found another. (Steve Fuller’s Strange Arguments)

During the US Intelligent Design trial in Dover, there was a UK based [sometimes referred to as "British" but I am fairly sure he is an American who lives over here] “Philosopher of Science” who was brought out for the defence (i.e. he was there to convince the Judge that ID should be taught as a science) called Steve Fuller. Apparently he is a professor in the Sociology Department at Warwick University and was an “expert witness” as the result of specialising in the history and sociology of science. Now, I am going to refrain from commenting on the crackpottery which took place in the trial (of which Prof. Fuller was a prime example, sorry, I tried) but highlight some newer points he has raised. More worryingly he appears on a blog called ID in the United Kingdom which is what really shames me as a Brit but more later.

Popularity: 18% [?]

Popularity: 18% [?]

Thanks to Pharyngula for bringing this to my attention: You can get the creationist Truth In Science DVD through Bittorrent.

Popularity: 10% [?]

Popularity: 10% [?]