“scientific falsehoods being purveyed in the name of religion.”
I had suggested that the elevation of DUP MLA Mervyn Storey to Chairman of the Assembly’s Education Committee could see “more skirmishes ahead in the battle against The Un-Enlightenment.” And Lo! It came to pass.. The NewsLetter today carries his comments on his “personal” belief that
“Creationism is not for the RE class because I believe that it can stand scientific scrutiny and that is a debate which I am quite happy to encourage and be part of. The issue for the current Education Minister (Caitriona Ruane] is that she tells us she’s all for equality – surely if that is the case, you can’t have one set of interpretations being taught at the expense of others.”
Time for the introduction of those guidelines, in particular – “The use of the word ‘theory’ can mislead those not familiar with science..” Fortunately Richard Dawkins was around yesterday to respond in The NewsLetter article
“I have no objection to all kinds of daft ideas being taught in comparative religion classes but in science what we should teach is what there is evidence for and children should be encouraged to examine evidence,” he said. “If this politician (Mr Storey] wants to import creationism into science classes, I’m wondering which kind of creationism – Hindu creationism, Jewish creationism, Babylonian creationism, Aztec creationism?”
Or indeed His Noodly Appendage’s creationism.. The article also makes mention of the on-going pressure from young-Earthers over educational material at the Giant’s Causeway Centre. Adds Knowledge is, indeed, power.
Oswald .
‘There are varying accounts of evolution and the jury is still out there.’
Where ? Evolution is accepted as a fact of life by 99% of the world’s scientists , biologists , paleontologists and anthropolgists . They have for the past century or so accumulated a damn sight more evidence for evolution than have the ‘Creationists’ with their 6,000 year old Earth horse manure .
‘I don’t drink’
Perhaps you should . I’d recommend several cases of a good Nuit St Georges .Allah may not approve but Jesus IIRC was fond of ‘creating ‘ it from water so it’ll expand your conciousness no end !
‘ But I do intend to eat further at the tree of knowledge’
So far it would appear you have left only a few canine toothed scratches on the bark of the rotting tree of ‘creationist’ mythology.
Load of oul cobblers is what it is your ‘creationism ‘ . Dressed up as pseudo science to give comfort to the ignorati who still want to believe in an ‘intelligent ‘ creator and destructor
So what is so bad about having an enormous amount in common with Ian Paisley?
Listen mo chara, if we’re going to have a discourse, let’s agree to be honest with each other.
the comparison with paisley in that review was meant in the most unflattering way, it was an appeal to a populist opinion of Paisley as a demagogue. You know that if you’ve read the full article, so don’t come the funny bugger with me sonny Jim.
Did you read Eagleton’s article?
Not all of it, I got bored with it about a third of the way in since the premise seems to be that we can’t compare god to the tooth fairy or the Loch Ness monster because…well just because, and lots of theologians agree on this point, so you must read theology to understand the deeper meaning of this “‘just because” argument.
Let’s be clear, you would have to stack at least 1,000 Mervyn Storeys on top of each other to create a scientific colossus equivalent to Dawkins, but does he understand theology?
Define understand?
My understanding of theology is that it’s bollox, will that suffice?
Not only that, but Eagelton paints a picture of Jesus which is radically (literally) different from the Jesus of modern Christendom, but at the same time most Christians will claim the credit for his analysis.
this is a common parlour trick of believers, they insist that you know all their theology, but if you point out the discrepancies of one train of thought they’ll shift the argument to another school of theology, all of them believing different things, but all of them claiming a victory if they can get one school of thought to stand up under scrutiny.
A final point.
The irony is that this thread is about some Christian nutter insisting that his fairy tale creation story is as valid as scientific thought and established facts, even though it’s patently obvious that Storey wouldn’t know his arse from his elbow as far as scientific facts are concerned, and then we get a link to an article which claims people who haven’t read theology have no right to criticise belief.
Why have I as an unbeliever no right to call shennanigans on religion?
Does Eagelton address the why, or is it another of his oh so fiendishly clever “just because” arguments?
Just noticed that Paula Kirby’s review of anti-Dawkins books is now followed by 7,766 comments in the thread.
http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2285,Fleabytes,Paula-Kirby,page156#comments
That’s a lot of weekend reading….
TAFKABO
“don’t come the funny bugger with me sonny Jim”
You have me bang to rights there.
I think Terry Eagleton is right. RD and IJP are both fundamentalist demagogues, however IJP has the virtue of a sense of humour. Why else would he have teamed up with Marty to give us the ‘Chuckle Brothers’.
Don’t get me wrong, I think Richard Dawkins is a National Treasure. I wish we had his equivalent in Engineering. However he appears to be entirely bereft of a sense of humour.
The truth about the distant past is that we do not know what happened. No seriously, we don’t. We can make very good guesses but we cannot experiment in the same way we can with the present.
‘The truth about the distant past is that we do not know what happened.’
How distant is distant ? Geologists have proven the Earth is some 4.5 billion years old . We know it took a couple of billion years to ‘oxygenate ‘ the earth . The evidence is still there in stromatolites a few which are still extant off the NW Australian coast . The Matopos National Park in Zimbabwe rests on a granite underlay which is some 3.5 billion years old . We know that complex life emerged in the sea some 600 to 700 million years ago. We know that animal life was alost exterminated in world wide catyclisms one generated from within the Earth the Permian mass extinction and the other 65 million years ago by a mix of an asteroid the size of Mount Everest crashing into the gulf at 6 miles a second plus the world wide volcanic eruptions set off by after effects .
We are as human beings extremely fortunate to be here . If we rolled back the historical clock and left out just one major factor geologic or climactic e.g the particular location of the continent of Africa 4 million years ago or that undergound volcanos did not erupt and join the north and south american continents thus coolin the northern hemisphere and indirectly creating the African savannah which enabled an ancient primate forebear to stand on two legs etc etc -then we would not be here – and the planet would no doubt be a more congenial place for the thousands of species whuch humanity has exterminated either willingly or in ignorance .
We know the future too . Some day the tectonic plate movement and vulcanism which gave the earth life will stop and the Earth will become a Mars – devoid of life except perhaps a few hardy bacteria.
Not to worry
. It won’t be for a billion years according to the geologists so that should give the species some time to come up with an alternative plan 
TAFKABO
Good call on Eagleton and others it’s known as the
courtiers reply.
I also find that the increased ad hominems on Dawkins are a pathetic response by supernaturalists to an argument already lost. He is the Chair for the Public Understanding of Science, it’s his job to be populist!
Greenflag: You obviously have not read my posts for whatever reason. I am not a creationist or a supernaturalist as Pauljames puts it and I actually wrote where the Jewish myths came from. Darwin’s myth proves nothing as a theory that explains everythng explains nothing. Isn’t it strange that Darwinism, like Marxism and other crackpot nineteenth century theories still has its adherents?
I note your smart ass remarks about alcohol and religion and take them as an indication of why drinking in bars is a lower class pursuit.
I did FLICK through some of the other links helpfully given. Eagleton is just your average literate religious apologist, of no great consequence, and Paul Kirby’s defence of Stalinist “religion”, not to mention the 7,766 replies, is not worth wading through at this point of time.
Read Crick and other established, credible, anti religion scientists on evolution. Then get back to us.
Pauljames: I am glad you agree Dawkins is a mere populist. Any chance of a link to his PhD? Wasn’t it Men in Black that popularized the notion that crickets answer all?
Weinberg says the whole universe is pointlewss. So is arguing with lager louts.
Apparently we have all been blessed by Oswald having lowered his standards to bother talking with the untermenschen
You know Oswald, I think it is probably not a bad thing for a biologist to have done his PhD on crickets, with them being an animal and everything. There are very few people who go on to win a Nobel prize with their doctoral thesis, but come up with quite interesting stuff later. This is just an example of you being nasty, which is a bit of a turn off by the way.
Plus, all this stuff about populism. It is seen as a good thing these days that academics engage with the public, no more ivory tower and that. So if he is raising public debate, then good. Obviously you are getting hot under the collar that he is ‘winning’. Are you some sort of Janotus de Bragmardo theologian who is feeling a bit vulnerable?
“I am prepared to be proved wrong but I am on a quest similar to Nietzsche or that outlined in The Emperor’s New Clothes if the nutty Nazi inspirer is too much for you.”
…..and so said Oswald Murphy.
Probably a wrong comparison as Nietzsche was so anti-religion! His utterings equating slavery and christianity in ‘The Anti-Christ’ no doubt inspired atheism among subsequent philosophers and scientists.
I think that you basically have a hang up about Dawkins, and his ‘popular science’. His denouncements of god and theology probably appear rather cheeky coming from a man with ‘no qualifications,’ as ye say.
BTW I know a person form Armenia who works and lives here in Ireland now. As ye know Armenia was part of the former USSR, so this person grew up in a rather communist, religion free environment, despite Armenia once having a strong Christian past heritage and many a fine ancient church/cathedral to boast. St. Bartholomew is the patron saint. Anyway, this ‘godless’ person is so civil and polite, a pillar of the community, one could say, and has a superb cool attitude to the stresses of work etc…They are rather amused too by the religious folk here in the west and indeed back home as the Orthodox church is a bit more popular again. So living without the concept of god is possible. BTW Marx, Engels etc.. theories on society was a product of their time. Like the Utilitarians it was an attempt at reforming the injustice and inequality of the imperial social structures of the late 19th century. (Okay, it went askew, with a horrific loss of life).
Gilgamesh and Noah, probably expert boatmen et al, but I’m sure their fear of a god and floods was really an ignorance of early climate change!
Here’s a link to Terry Eagleton’s review of the God Delusion…..
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html
Here’s an extract, it’s so awful too….
Perhaps when he speaks of ‘god’ he is really refering to his own deep ‘subconscious’ and what’s inside himself!
“This, not some super-manufacturing, is what is traditionally meant by the claim that God is Creator. He is what sustains all things in being by his love; and this would still be the case even if the universe had no beginning. To say that he brought it into being ex nihilo is not a measure of how very clever he is, but to suggest that he did it out of love rather than need. The world was not the consequence of an inexorable chain of cause and effect. Like a Modernist work of art, there is no necessity about it at all, and God might well have come to regret his handiwork some aeons ago. The Creation is the original acte gratuit. God is an artist who did it for the sheer love or hell of it, not a scientist at work on a magnificently rational design that will impress his research grant body no end.
Because the universe is God’s, it shares in his life, which is the life of freedom. This is why it works all by itself, and why science and Richard Dawkins are therefore both possible. The same is true of human beings: God is not an obstacle to our autonomy and enjoyment but, as Aquinas argues, the power that allows us to be ourselves. Like the unconscious, he is closer to us than we are to ourselves. He is the source of our self-determination, not the erasure of it. To be dependent on him, as to be dependent on our friends, is a matter of freedom and fulfilment. Indeed, friendship is the word Aquinas uses to characterise the relation between God and humanity.”
Oswald ,
So you have a personality problem with Dawkins ? Sorry can’t help you on that one .
‘Isn’t it strange that Darwinism, like Marxism and other crackpot nineteenth century theories still has its adherents?’.
So has the 18th century French Revolution ,the American Revolution and the Enlightenment .
Marxism given it’s time of origin was not ‘crackpot’ . It was a comprehensive attempt to ‘unravel’ and understand ‘ a fast industrialising world and how ‘capital ‘ or those that possessed it managed to accumulate it through the exploitation of the rest of humanity.
There are many in the West today who ‘miss ‘ Marxism not that they were ever or could ever be adherents of that doctrine but it’s no coincidence that since the demise of State ‘marxism ‘ in the former USSR and it’s slave States it’s been no accident that many millions of middle and working class people in the developed ‘ capitalist ‘ states have a slow but steady ‘emisseration’ of their relative living standards etc .
Darwinism is still extant and continues to grow in stature simply because it explains for life what the geologic record explains for the history of the Earth . Dawkins explains that ‘process’ in reverse in his book the ‘Ancestors Tale’
Go and read it and educate yourself. So what if Dawkins is not a cool dude !
Much as yet another discussion of Richard Dawkins is to be welcomed, the point of this thread is the declaration by the DUP’s currently most senior politician in the Education field that his understanding of science and the scientific method can bear scrutiny and debate. This is despite the fact that he has no formal scientific qualifications.
Mervyn Storey, one must assume, is a supporter of Academic Selection at 11. Judging by his choice of Secondary school, he either did not take the 11+, failed it, or decided that having passed it he had no need for an Academic education. Yet he has no problem in asserting that his knowledge of subjects which he has never studied is equal to that of an Oxford Professor.
Catriona Ruane must be very pleased about how things have turned out.
Obscure nonsense has no relevance!
Posted by Greagoir O Frainclin on Aug 08, 2008 @ 01:10 AM
Jaysus! I’m glad I’m not you.
Willis,
“the point of this thread is the declaration by the DUP’s currently most senior politician in the Education field that his understanding of science and the scientific method can bear scrutiny and debate. This is despite the fact that he has no formal scientific qualifications.”
Now apply this concern to those who have provided the education policy reform and research advice to government over the past ten years or so and you may elicit some degree of concern that applies to the contributions of many others up to their necks in matters that cannot withstand scrutiny and debate.
Projects such as the “enriched Curriculum”, pupil profiles, brain-based learning, primary movement, etc. The same names pop up time after time. It has all the appearances of self-certification.
How come the silence from those with opposite viewpoints? Are they afraid of being uninvited to the constructivists club and the money it attracts?
Essentialist
“Now apply this concern to those who have provided the education policy reform and research advice to government over the past ten years or so and you may elicit some degree of concern that applies to the contributions of many others up to their necks in matters that cannot withstand scrutiny and debate.”
Would a constructivist have been able to construct a sentence to equal that one? I think you are trying to suggest, as on previous occasions, that everyone in DENI is as potty as Mervyn.
I fear that up until now I have not made any serious attempt to address your concerns, mostly because I thought you were a monomaniac.
I am not in the least involved in early years teaching, however I am very involved in Adult learning. I can see how you would be concerned that concepts which are appropriate to Adult learning can be damaging when imported wholesale into early years teaching however I am not convinced that this is currently a problem.
In Adult training the ideas of Kolb
http://www.haygroup.com/tl/Downloads/Why_People_Learn.pdf
are accepted generally because they work. Businesses are not generally inclined to wear the Emperor’s New Clothes if it costs them money. Do the ideas look familiar?
“Jaysus! I’m glad I’m not you.”
Yes indeed Bfb, but are you glad you are you?
That’s the question you should be asking yourself!
I very strongly encourage everyone interested in the future of education and creativity to watch this talk. Perhaps N.I.’s politicians should invite him to advise them….
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html
Expat,
that was excellent. Leaving aside the serious nature of the content which was original and thought provoking, some cracking jokes and a brilliant delivery.
Expat ,
Thanks for the link.
‘ Perhaps N.I.’s politicians should invite him to advise them’
I don’t think so
. Quite a few of them ‘dance around enough already . Many dress up in all kinds of paraphenalia and have been seen sashayiny up and down the streets of NI for most of each summer anyway or so it would appear . The ‘effect’ of all of the above ‘artistic ‘ creativity on finding practical solutions to pressing economic and political problems remains yet to be seen 
On a more serious note much of what Sir Ken says rings a bell from personal life experience .He is largely correct in regard to the system as a whole being designed to produce ‘professors’. But then what area of modern life is not designed from the top down to feed the egos , bank accounts and career or political prospects of the ‘establishment ‘? Look at health care systems in the USA . Designed for the patients or designed for and by the private health insurance companies, drug companies, and the legal and medical professions ?
As for the world in 2065 -assuming we survive the next ‘eagerly’ awaited Mayan Armageddon 2012, the Asian ‘giants ‘ China and India as well as other countries in the region and elsewhere are ‘producing ‘ tens of millions of mathematicians , scientists, and engineers and in another ten years will have ‘produced ‘ in absolute numbers more of the above than all the western countries have since the Industrial Revolution . How creative will they be ? We saw how the Japanese from being a feudal age economy in the early 19th century became the number two economy in the world by the late 20th century . With respect to Sir Ken they did’nt get there by ‘dancing’ or by reading the Bible .
Off thread so I’d better stop
No need to stop Greenflag.
At least Sir Ken differs from the two Ken clowns involved in education here. Enough said.
Essentialist ,
‘At least Sir Ken differs from the two Ken clowns involved in education here.’
Darwinism in action . If brains aren’t needed at top policymaking level in NI then nature allied to politics will ensure they won’t be supplied.
Existentialist wrote: “Walsh advocates “children thinking about thinking”…Is it any wonder that constructivism leads to chaos in education”
Existentialist,
Since you enjoy “thinking about thinking” and Hofstadter’s puzzles, here’s another link to “the meaning of meaning” that you might like. Among the more esoteric aspects of the commentary, you’ll notice that Intelligent Design theory (aka “creationism”) reappears as the way in which Justice Antonin Scalia tries to prove his point.
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002603.html
For more down-to-earth amusement, have a look at what happened when someone left a knowledge management talk early and the meaning of this in that context became the subject of a thread.
http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/dave/2008/07/social_constructivism.php
Sometimes the simplest answer without too much “interpretation” is all that is needed.
‘ Perhaps N.I.’s politicians should invite him to advise them’
Oh they have, they have.
http://www.dcalni.gov.uk/unlocking_creativity_-_a_strategy_for_developement.pdf
Read and weep.
Yes Willis – we’re weeping. The educationalists and those directing them (note SF’s McGuinness as Minister of Education) have never been slow in adapting other’s ideas in order to promote constructivism. Evaluate the deliverables for yourself.
Expat
I fear that you have pegged me incorrectly. It is impossible to think about thinking. In exchange of ideas why don’t you take a look at the references supporting Martin McPhillips of QUB School of Psychology work on Primary Movement. (note this is the same school that came up with the “enriched Curriculum)
Are you seeing the beginnings of a pattern?
Now turn your brain on by rubbing your tummy children. (not a joke) These people have fooled the entire teaching profession in N. Ireland. There has been no dissent on Primary Movement from any of the educationalists. A nice little earner for McPhillips since he runs the company. Try asking you GP or a medical consultant if it has any basis in medicine. In past times music and movement served to get children out from behind their desks
Many thanks for the pointers to what goes on in N.I. education. Having virtually no knowledge of the personalities or educational dogmas developed over here the last 35 years, I have a lot to catch up on. My main focus in looking at N.I. education is to see when Mandarin Chinese will be offered at primary level since that is the best time to orientate the brain to a non-alphabetic language.
Now it’s time for me to fly off to the far end of the Mediterranean for a while and out of reach of the Internet. I’ll look back at this site when I get back to learn about these developments in education strategy. Thanks and bye for now.
Sticking to the theme of questionable science imposed on the back of religious/philosophical ideology i invite further examination of local imposition.
To provide some perspective on the Primary Movement study by QUB (from an idea from CCEA) it may be useful to include criticisms already highlighted about this area in the published literature. Why is Martin McPhilip’s name not to be found as an investigator on the paper?
Possibly because as stated in an abstract in Dyslexia 2004 Nov;10(4);316-38 …”the persistence of primary reflexes cannot be used as a causal model for reading difficulties, including dyslexia.”
The real question to be answered is why were CCEA (an exams and curriculum quango) initiating studies in this area?
Back to the Trojan Horse agenda again.
Before the floods of self-certification references deluge the thread intrepid blog investigators may wish to read:
The Psychologist Vol 14 No 2 from February 2001
The Title of the article is; On Reading, Reflex and Research.
It features Martin McPhillips. This quotation may help explain how the old saying “if at first you don’t suceed….. now ends …try CCEA.
……”One would expect research grants to be
pouring in for Martin. ‘No,’ he smiled. The
Dyslexia Project had been turned down for
funding by numerous bodies. ‘We seem to
fall between two stools. The programme is
too medical for the educational grants and
too educational for the medical grants. Also
we are coming at learning from a different
dimension.’
In that case will I see Martin McPhillips
brushing the streets of Belfast next week?
I asked. He smiled and told me the job
security would be welcome. The study was
only possible because of funding from the
Peter F. Smith Charitable Trust. ‘Quite
a few times I have come into the office
and started to pack my bags because
I could not see a way of continuing.
Sometimes I wondered should I just give
up and move to steady employment. My
wife and two children noticed I was a lot
grumpier,’ he smiled. However, seeing the
kids do well makes it all worthwhile.”….
Oh shucks. What next – intelligent design?
How much shall we pay Mervyn and the other advocates?
http://rapidshare.com/files/136767099/dawkins_lennox.rar
Gents: Here is a link to the Dawkins_Lennox debate. I have all rounds, except maybe the last one to Lennox. Richard “Continuing Education” Dawkins mught have shaded the last round by getting jesus to intervene a la WW Wrestling.
Hope this educates those of you who are not totally brain dead.
|No time now as some of us have to work foor a living.