Creationism's lack of Wonders

When I watched the first episode of Brian Cox's new TV series Wonders of Life I was struck by the uncompromisingly naturalistic assumptions behind his explanation of how life began on Earth. Never before have I heard such a godless approach on prime-time mainstream TV in Britain. Maybe, I thought, the tide is turning and the BBC is forsaking — albeit temporarily — its habit of "balancing" anything remotely atheistic with something necessarily faith-based. Well, maybe. But nevertheless I expected protests, especially from creationists, and I was relishing the prospect.

So I was more than a little disappointed with this lack-lustre response from my local creationist organisation, the Creation Science Movement.

On Sunday 27th January, the BBC TV aired the first of a new series called Wonders of Life, presented by Professor Brian Cox. In this first episode he wondered what life was and how it began. Like all science writers for the Beeb, Cox is a fully paid up atheist, and he set out to establish a sequence from inanimate matter to simple living cells, and so on to ourselves. He informed us that at the beginning there was energy. The First Law of Thermodynamics says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, though it can change from one form to another. He demonstrated this with a waterfall where potential energy at the top of the fall is changed into kinetic energy of movement, heat and noise as the water descends. But the total amount of energy remains unchanged. All correct! He then argued that if energy cannot be added to or lost, then energy is eternal! He does not conclude that if energy has always existed, so too must matter be everlasting. Thus he dodges the problem of how matter and energy could have been created from nothing in the first place.

But Einstein showed that matter and energy are equivalent (E=mc²). And of course we have the old chestnut about creating something from nothing. Who says there was nothing in the first place? If the current spacetime continuum came into existence at the Big Bang, so too did cause and effect — because cause and effect have no meaning in any atemporal or aspacial sense. We can have no concept of existence in the absence of time and space, so to talk about "something" and "nothing" in a realm that lacks a coherent concept of existence is mere speculation.

He continued by saying that all processes involve a change whereby the energy becomes less able to do work, this being the Second Law. He doesn’t draw the obvious conclusion that if the universe has always existed, all the energy would have lost its potential to do work long ago and would have degenerated into heat at a very low temperature. Our universe is brimming over with energy at a high potential, so it isn’t eternal at all, but had a beginning. How could it have started at a high potential, that is, a highly ordered state? Well, not on its own!

Despite this unidentified blogger's exclamation mark, the idea that the universe came into existence spontaneously as a necessary result of a random event seems to me entirely plausible. Also I don't think many cosmologists believe that the universe as we know it has existed eternally, so I'm not sure what point is being made here.

Dr Cox told us that all living things that have ever been derive their energy from a flow of hydrogen ions in their mitochondria. Quite true! He demonstrated a simple battery made from two bottles of water with different acidities. He then wired them up to a miniature fan, which sprang into life, while gases bubbled from the electrodes. So, he argued, a flow of hydrogen ions creates life – QED. He didn’t take into account the glaring fact that the current needed a motor to make use of this energy as a fan. In the same way, in every living thing, the hydrogen ion potential in the mitochondrion requires a miniature protein motor called ATP Synthase to produce usable energy for the living cell. Someone must have designed and manufactured the fan. How much more is a Creator required for the ATP Synthase with its 31 precise components?

The reason why someone had to design and manufacture the electric fan is that electric fans don't reproduce by themselves. Why creationists appear to overlook this obvious distinction baffles me.

From then on, the professor told us, living things progressed from simple to more complex living things by mistakes in copying genes that are then selected by the environment – Darwinian evolution. Yet we know that mutations scramble the information in those genes. Moreover, how can precise genetic information come about by chance?

Anyone who seriously asks this question obviously hasn't grasped the implications of natural selection.

Now that he has told us how life began, the series should become more credible as he celebrates the wonders of life. It could hardly get less believable! 

An odd, muted conclusion — exclamation mark notwithstanding. We get the first thorough explication of current thinking on abiogenesis on mainstream TV — something of a landmark, in my opinion — but of course creationists are going to dismiss it, as this one has. That it's such a half-hearted dismissal may indicate (let's hope so) the creationist bandwagon is running out of steam.

---

Shame. I had hoped for something more meaty to celebrate my 700th blogpost!

As foretold: Genesis Expo to resurrect

Well, this is a surprise (and not, generally, a pleasant one). It seems that Genesis Expo — Portsmouth's very own creation museum, and incidentally the headquarters of the Creation Science Movement — has not died a permanent death after all. I was aware of the planning permission for increasing exhibition space using a mezzanine floor, and additional office space by building a rear extension, but it's over two years since the Expo closed for improvements. As the website continued to say the Expo was closed I assumed they'd run out of money. I heard a rumour that they'd found the whole place needed rewiring, but such unforeseen contingency seemed unlikely to have scuppered the entire project.

Nevertheless it was comforting to know it was out of action, and that opportunist schoolkids were no longer being lured in and fed unsubstantiated nonsense. Alas, it seems the hiatus was merely an all too brief respite. According to the latest bulletin from CSM, Genesis Expo will be re-opening in its refurbished and dual-floored glory. Within the invitation to celebrate CSM's 80th anniversary at a Day Conference on 3^rd November comes this throwaway line:

There will be an opportunity to view the newly refurbished Expo and exhibits as well.

Personally I'll not be spending £10 on three creationist lectures and coffee (and I wouldn't do so even if I didn't have to bring my own sandwiches). I'll wait until Genesis Expo is properly open, and see how it actually turns out. (And of course I'll post an update to my original review.)

---

It appears that only advance booking is available for the "Day Conference" — no tickets on the door.

Divine law and gay marriage

Every single argument I've heard against the legalisation of same-sex marriage has been fundamentally flawed in every particular. Here's yet another example, which I highlight not just because it's an easy target, but because young-earth creationists are at least honest about where their dogma originates. This is the latest "Creation News Update" from our very own (and local) Creation Science Movement.

Firstly, we note that it is already legal for gay partners to enter into civil partnerships, as sort of secular contracts, and if that is what humanists and secularists want then it doesn't have an impact upon the spiritual aspect of human life. In an open society we do not oppose secular civil partnerships if that is what people living in the world want. However, we would suggest that a secular society has all it can want in the concept of civil partnerships, so why try and change the meaning of marriage, if it is not an attack on religious belief and religious communities?

What about the concept of equality? CSM are saying here that gays can have a kind of second-class marriage, but not "proper" marriage, which CSM want to reserve for partnerships between opposite sexes. Note that they assume that gay marriage is "an attack on religious belief and religious communities" without backing up this assertion.

We need to recognise that marriage is a covenant relationship between a man and a woman that has a spiritual dimension - it transcends, or goes beyond, secular civil contracts (even if unrecognised by participants) - as the saying goes, 'marriages are made in heaven.'

Why not a covenant relationship between a man and another man, or a woman and another woman? And marriages are made in heaven? (See what I mean about an easy target?) Note that they claim a "transcendent" quality of marriage "even if unrecognised by participants". This is a classic instance of religious dogma being applied to those who don't share their religious convictions. In the same paragraph CSM talk about a secular state having no mandate to change spiritual laws. To my mind a secular state has no business making "spiritual laws" at all. State law should be entirely secular.

Of course people may point out that not all cultures have upheld monogamous marriage between men and women. Some religions allow a man to marry four or more women, and even homosexual marriage has been known in the past. The Greeks and Romans allowed such marriages, Nero for instance married a male freed slave, but it often also occurred between grown men and young boys. However, Rome was a brittle kingdom and struggled to maintain social cohesion due to its brutality and inconsistencies (Nero also murdered his own mother and wife).

The Roman Empire fell, and by the way Nero was a murderer. Therefore everything the Romans did was invalid. Spot the fallacy.

The lesson from this is that if secularists and populist governments seek to overthrow the order that Christianity brings to society, for instance by undermining the Mosaic ordinance of marriage, it will be sadly Britain that collapses, and not the Church which will stand as a beacon of hope in the darkening land. By undermining Christian values and principles, for instance in marriage, what principles will society have other than those based upon fickle human sentiments?

I can't make up my mind whether that's a threat, a vain hope, or a simple misunderstanding of the origins of human morality — or all three.

We are not to be slaves to our thoughts and feelings; instead we are volitional beings. So we do not believe that people are born gay, but gay sentiment arises through other factors, particularly through biased media propaganda that closes down honest debate. ‘Gayness' then is not intrinsic to the human condition, but is extrinsic and arises according to a lifestyle choice. It cannot then be a human rights issue. 

This is simply false. CSM may not like the idea that people are indeed born gay, but that doesn't change the facts.

Marriage is a sacred union between two human temples, one man and one woman, for the purpose of bringing forth children. One wonders about the arrogance of politicians who think they can alter divine law. 

I'm not interested in changing divine law, nor, I believe, is David Cameron. It's the secular law that needs changing, for the sake of human equality.

The magic of living in a bubble

Here's a quote:

News presenter Jeremy Paxman, in a Newsnight programme, has recently referred to a large section of religious believers as ‘stupid' and religious creation narratives as ‘hogwash.' At many levels this is unacceptable behaviour for a BBC presenter, yet the BBC not only justifies it but allows him to get away with it!

Just who is getting so offended at this blatant anti-religious rant by a famous BBC anchor-man? You've probably guessed already: Creationists!

Although the context was an interview with Richard Dawkins about his new book, The Magic of Reality, Paxman also made categorical statements that the truthfulness of religious creation accounts cannot be taken seriously and should therefore be treated with utter disdain. His disrespect and lack of impartiality was self-evident despite later BBC attempts to justify it. A response from the BBC argued that he ‘was being provocative by playing devil's advocate.' But that isn't how it came across to anyone listening; it sounded very much like Paxman was expressing his own opinion as a statement of fact, not in the context of asking a question to Dawkins.

There's a reason why it sounded like Paxman was making a statement of fact. It's because he was, as it happens, stating a fact. Religious creation narratives are, on the whole, hogwash — meaning false, not true, non-congruent with reality. Dawkins charitably described them as myth, and expressed a fondness for Genesis, as myth. Listen for yourself:

http://youtu.be/N-TFIxW1d10


My copy of the book arrived this morning, and I only had time to glance briefly at it before leaving for work. The illustrations are amazing. I look forward to reading the whole thing as I'm apparently within Dawkins' target age-range (12 to 100).

But back to those hyper-sensitive creationists. See how they attempt to justify their position with oblique references to research and other non-biblical texts:

Christian creationists have always recognised the multi-levelled nature of the creation account, reading it both literally and with theological symbolism, and not just with the eyes of simplistic literalism. Creationists are also interested in mapping global creation and flood stories from around the world to see whether there is a common pattern. It would seem in fact that there is knowledge of a global flood in many of those accounts, and this is to be expected if the world population is related to Noah's family, just as the Bible says. Oxford Professor Peter Harrison has also argued recently that a literal reading of the Bible led to a more literal reading of nature, and this helped to get science going in a more meaningful way in the early modern period.

So the creation account is both literal and symbolic? How convenient, allowing them to push the symbolism when their literalism is challenged, and vice versa. Plus there's an appeal to authority — an "Oxford Professor" no less, who has argued. He may well have argued, but has anyone (apart from creationists) taken him seriously? We won't find out from this piece, as it provides no references.

In summary, I would suggest that the BBC hierarchy is out of touch with its viewers and has little interest in genuine respect and dialogue. Instead it appears to be living in a bubble of its own making.

The BBC likely considers creationists deserving of respect, just like anyone else, even if they believe nonsense. But the nonsense itself deserves none. And we can clearly see who's living in a bubble (hint: it's not the BBC).

God-talk and eschatology at the Creation Science Movement

Over at the Creation Science Movement website, "Dr Stephen Hayes offers his thoughts on evolution, the fact of extinction and the environment."

Most of what he says seems relatively "non-creationist", though he seems to be hung up about what happens when species become extinct. He's claiming that because we don't see evolution instantly filling the gaps left by extinct species, therefore evolution isn't happening (which proves it isn't true). He even mentions that biologists don't expect to see evolution filling the gaps because it happens slowly. But isn't that precisely what we should expect? Extinction may occur "suddenly", but the resulting gaps in the environment aren't going to be instantly filled. Evolution takes time.

Further on he says this rather odd thing: "Species can split into different varieties through natural or intelligently guided selection-as with dog or apple breeding- but this is division, not addition of the gene pool." It is addition to the gene pool — where once you had a single species, now you have two. Greater variety or biodiversity is surely an increase in the total of genetic information.

Hayes seems to be in two minds about environmentalism, espousing sensible ecological husbandry on the one hand (not for the good of the planet, but because it will look good to be doing the right thing when Jesus returns), while on the other admitting it's probably all for nought as the good guys are going to be raptured.

Environmentalism clearly doesn't easily mix with God-talk and eschatology.

A creationist bleats about Dawkins (again)

In the light of Richard Dawkins' latest TV programme on More4, Faith Schools Menace? the Creation Science Movement has posted an article about Dawkins and the British Humanist Association on its website: "Richard Dawkins, the BHA and a New Inquisition".

Dawkins in fact wishes to abolish faith schools, but he acknowledges that their teaching standards are often better than secular schools. So good in fact that he would be willing to lie to get his children into one. He comments that he does not blame those atheists who pretend to be religious in order to get their children into the best faith schools, and comments that as he has 'absolutely no belief at all, I wouldn't be betraying anything' by lying and pretending to be religious.

Dawkins' point was that he would be prepared to lie about his lack of religious belief in order to counteract the inequitable availability of state schools. Faith schools discriminate against children whose parents have contributed to the funding of these schools. It's wrong that such children should be arbitrarily excluded.

What Dawkins fails to understand is that the quality of the education in faith schools is to do with their ethos.

What the (anonymous) author of this article fails to mention is that the "ethos" of the school is only part of the story. Faith schools practice selection on the basis of parents' religion. As was made clear in the programme, such selection tends to filter out less able children due to their background (their parents' willingness to do what it takes to gain admission for their offspring is a major part of that background).

Dawkins own words reveal that he is willing to destroy the very thing, the inherent values, that make faith schools so good.

As outlined above, it's not the inherent values that are the cause of good league-table performance.

The BHA has lobbied the Education Secretary Michael Gove and reports suggest that the policy developed will seek to exclude 'extremist groups' from taking over schools, and furthermore there would be no creationism taught in science classes.

Quite right too.

Andrew Copson of the BHA is concerned about the 'dangers of the influences of fundamentalist groups in our school system.' Presumably he doesn't mean to imply that the BHA owns the school system by use of the word 'our', but the faux pas is evident nonetheless.

This is a telling criticism that exposes CSM's misunderstanding (or deliberate misrepresentation) of the state school system. Voluntary aided faith schools are state schools. Over 90% of funding for these schools comes from the taxpayer — they are indeed our schools.

He is perhaps too blinkered to know that true pluralism must respect those who have different religious beliefs to his own and allow them to have an equal voice in education.

Andrew Copson is not the one who is blinkered. In the matter of education funded by the taxpayer, "those who have different religious beliefs" are not entitled to "an equal voice". In the case of voluntary aided faith schools, they are entitled to — at most — 10% of a voice.

The BHA wants us to believe that secular humanism is religiously neutral, but it is not. It is instead biased in favour of atheism.

First, atheism is not a religion. Second, the author of this article clearly doesn't know the definition of "secular" (1. not religious, sacred or spiritual; 2. not subject to or bound by religious rule; Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11th ed).

So the BHA's claim that it seeks to develop 'totally inclusive schools for children of all faiths and none' is entirely bogus. The BHA wants atheistic humanism to have a dominant position in schools and by its actions wishes to treat those who have religious and scientific convictions about creation as second-class citizens.

Not "atheistic humanism", secular humanism; there's a difference — see the definition above. It's entirely right that state-funded education should be secular in nature, without giving preference to any religious belief over another. As for scientific "convictions" — these need to be ratified by the scientific community before they are included in the school curriculum.

We wonder why the BHA should have such influence in society that greatly exceeds its popular mandate, especially when advocating such extreme views. Christians and other religious groups greatly outweigh the membership of the BHA.

Popular mandate? BHA members are not elected by the British public, but neither are Christians and other religious groups. The BHA, however, recognises that Christians and other religious groups have disproportionate influence in society, and therefore seeks to bring that influence down to more equitable levels.

Children must be given the opportunity to learn skills in the critical analysis of complex arguments and data; skills that are the hallmarks of true education.

This is precisely what the BHA is campaigning for.

We would ask that children and students be allowed to learn skills in critical thinking within the science class and be allowed to question the problems with evolution while respecting their faith. Anything less is not science, but humanistic, religious dogma of a fundamentalist nature.

Children and students should indeed be encouraged to learn critical thinking skills, but primary and secondary education science classes are not the places to discuss theories that have no evidential base. Creationism is not science, it is religious dogma of a fundamentalist nature.