Wasteful Witnesses

This was sent to me, or rather to "The Householder", by post (2nd class) at my street address. I don't know a great deal about Jehovah's Witnesses but I can understand that the pandemic has limited their door-to-door activities. This handwritten card, however, seems rather wasteful of resources. It doesn't appear to be personalised in any way, so it could have been printed in bulk. What are the JWs trying to say with such a profligate squandering of their time?

Here's a larger version of the handwritten text:

Noah's Anecdotal Ark

I'm on the mailing list of Creation Ministries International (because... see this post from a while back, about my previous local creationism encounter).

So today I learned that Australians Rod and Nancy Walsh will shortly be touring the UK giving presentations and answering questions about Noah's Ark and the Global Flood. The nearest venue to me is Southampton, on Thursday 28 April, but judging by the poor quality of 'arguments' in the article linked above I can't summon enough enthusiasm to motivate me to endure any more creationist twaddle.

As far as I can tell creationists live in a self-imposed logic-free bubble with its own force field that grows more impregnable the more it encounters actual science. My inclination, therefore, is to let them get on with it — provided it's kept out of school science classes.

Complexity, inevitability, and life — Evolution 2.0 on Unbelievable?

Listening to the latest Unbelievable? show from Premier Radio I was struck by what appeared to be a failure of imagination on the part of Perry Marshall, who was debating evolutionary biologist PZ Myers about the former's recent book, Evolution 2.0. Not being a biologist of any kind I'm unable to comment authoritatively on the actual mechanisms of evolution, but having followed PZ Myers' blog Pharyngula in the past (less so these days) I'm fairly confident he knows what he's talking about when it comes to his own subject. Perry Marshall's background, however, is in engineering and marketing, which on the face of it should make me wary of pronouncements that are outside his field of expertise.

Myers rubbished pretty much everything Marshall proposed, and given the above I'm prepared to accept that Myers is right and Marshall is wrong. The debate was fairly technical, but seemed to me to boil down to Marshall's claim that the “random” part of random mutation is insufficient to explain how evolution works (notwithstanding other aspects of evolution such as horizontal gene transfer).

At one point Marshall stated that the code in DNA could fit on a Compact Disc, and that if you eliminated “junk DNA” the code would be merely ten percent of what could fit on a CD. The core of his argument appeared to be disbelief that such a relatively small amount of information could produce the complexity we see in living organisms today. By comparison he cited the amount of code required to install modern computer operating systems such as Windows 10 and Mac OS X.

Marshall's engineering background has hampered his thinking here. Engineers who design systems, be they engines, bridges, or computer operating systems, need to specify mechanisms in minute detail (or make use of minutely detailed specifications already available) in order to make their systems work. This notion of "engineering ex nihilo" is what in my opinion leads to the essential failure-of-imagination exhibited by intelligent design proponents and creationists (of whom a disproportionately large number are engineers) — “it's all so complicated it must have been minutely designed by an intelligence of some kind.”

But imagine a software programmer who has never encountered fractals is shown a picture of the Mandelbrot set, and is given the task of writing code to generate the same picture from scratch. Without knowledge of the simple equation that produces fractals the picture could indeed be generated, but I suspect the code would be somewhat large. Or imagine a manufacturer of breakfast cereal wants its packaging department to come up with a special gadget to ensure that each carton of cornflakes contains a gradation of flakes, such that the larger flakes are mostly towards the top of the carton and the smaller ones mostly towards the bottom. I'm sure such a gadget could be made, but it's not actually necessary as the cornflakes tend to sort themselves out this way on their own.

Such self-organisation is, in my view, an aspect of the discussion about complexity that is often overlooked. If things inevitably organise themselves in a particular way, trying to make them happen in other ways, against the natural order, will indeed require complex intervention. “Going with the flow” on the other hand, will often require no intervention at all. It seems to me that much of the complexity we see in nature is there because in a given environment, things tend to work out that way rather than any other, just like in a packet of cornflakes.

A small part of the Mandelbrot set

This is applicable in other systems too, such as how you organise your life. For instance, it makes sense to keep things you need regularly in designated places, so that you don't have to embark on a time-consuming search every time you need them. If you need to take something with you when you go out, you could set an alarm on your smartphone to remind you to pick it up at the appropriate time — or you could simply place the item where you will see it when you do go out.

To put this another way: don't expend energy trying to achieve things in spite of your environment. Rather, create, encourage and adjust your environment such that it allows those things to be achieved automatically. (There you go — who'd have thought a debate on evolution would lead to productivity advice and life-coaching?)

UPDATE 2016-01-04: Perry Marshall has published online his transcript of the debate, along with some restrospective comments:
http://cosmicfingerprints.com/pz-myers/
...And here's PZ Myers' response to the comments:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/01/03/perry-marshall-2-0/

UPDATE 2016-01-10: Looks like this will run and run. Perry Marshall has responded to PZ Myers' response to his comments on his transcript:
http://cosmicfingerprints.com/pz-mcclintock/

UPDATE 2016-01-12: ...and PZ Myers further responds here:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/01/11/everything-existing-in-the-universe-is-the-fruit-of-chance-and-necessity/ 

UPDATE 2016-01-22: Will this never end? Perry Marshalls's next shot:
http://cosmicfingerprints.com/telorexia/

...And possibly the last from PZ Myers?:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/01/12/my-last-post-on-perry-marshall/

---

PZ Myers' blogpost about his encounter with Perry Marshall is here:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/01/01/another-day-another-creationist/

The Human Heart proves evolution wrong!

Er ... no ... actually it doesn't. In fact this article from Yec Headquarters 6 Day Creation is so much non-science I have a hard time believing it isn't a poe. Here's an extract:

Recent medical findings have found that the human heart plays several roles with how we actually feel and think. In fact, the human heart is the only organ that can communicate with the brain in 4 different ways:

1) Neurological communication (nervous system)
2) Biophysical communication (pulse wave)
3) Biochemical communication (hormones)
4) Energetic communication (electromagnetic fields)

This would explain why our heart hurts when we lose some one near and dear to us. And it is now believed that one of the functions of the heart deals with our emotions and attitude. But because heart transplants have become more of the norm for a failing heart. Another unexpected side effect has come up. The people who received the donor heart can often experience:

1) The other person’s memories.
2) The other person’s food cravings.
3) Some of the other person’s attitudes.
4) And some of the fears, hates, and loves of different things.

Recent medical findings? No citations are provided, but they're hardly needed — just a cursory scanning of this utter BS is enough to falsify it. Need I bother? And check this out:

This would explain why Christ resides in a person’s heart when they are saved. It also explains why God said that He hardened Pharaoh’s heart towards Moses instead of changing his mind. God knew, even before medical science, that emotion of love and hate reside in the heart and not in our minds.

This is too ridiculous — one might be forgiven for thinking this was a tongue-in-cheek April Fool joke. Let me check the date of the article...

Scottish Parliament Petitions Committee

Here's the BBC's video recording (from Democracy Live) of the Scottish Parliament Petitions Committee hearing evidence from Spencer Fildes and Professor Paul Braterman of the Scottish Secular Society in support of their petition PE01530: "Guidance on how creationism is presented in schools."



Written representations to the committee can be seen here (including mine):
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/gettinginvolved/petitions/creationismguidance

Fantastic (not in a good way) Unbelievable? show

What's next for Unbelievable? Raëlians? Scientologists? Moon hoaxers? 9/11 truthers?

Today on his radio programme Justin Brierley played host to a conspiracy theorist: one Andy McIntosh, a young earth creationist who seems to have spent an inordinate amount of time inventing circumstances which could somehow fit his wacky non-mainstream beliefs. His argument was an object-lesson in doing science backwards: start with a conclusion — the Earth is less than 10,000 years old — then look for evidence that could fit that conclusion. If something else contradicts that evidence, invent some additional circumstance in order to shoe-horn it into the story. Don't bother if there's no independent evidence for the additional circumstance, just declare that the evidence fits and choose the conclusion you prefer. This is Carl Sagan's "dragon in my garage" argument — it's unfalsifiable, and therefore scientifically worthless.

My sympathies were with McIntosh's sparring partner on the show, palaeontologist Robert Asher, whose aim appeared to be simply investigating the natural world. Andy McIntosh, however, was doing everything he could to make the evidence fit with a preconceived idea. At the beginning of the show McIntosh — perhaps unwittingly — disclosed the intransigent depth of his preconceptions:

"…as a person thinking into these issues as a Christian, I became aware, actually, that if the Bible's not true on the first few pages, I might as well dump it for the rest…"

So for McIntosh the Earth is young because anything else conflicts with his literal interpretation of Genesis. I'm not sure why he bothers with all that re-interpretation of scientific data when he already knows to what conclusions it will lead him.

What's amusing about "creation scientists" is the extraordinary lengths to which they will stretch the evidence in order to reconcile it with their unshakeable worldview. Young earth creationism inevitably requires the denial of so many different branches of science that its adherents end up living in a kind of alternative universe that could have been invented by Terry Pratchett. Sure, they somehow make it all fit, but in doing so they arrive at a scientific model that can only be described as speculative fantasy.

Direct link to mp3 of today's Unbelievable?:
http://media.premier.org.uk/unbelievable/ccec9398-7132-4965-b3de-073d928861cb.mp3

Signs of desperation at C4ID

I can't remember exactly how I got on the mailing list of the Centre for Intelligent Design, but the result is I get the occasional peevish missive from its director Alastair Noble:

Dear Paul,

Teach science, not secular dogma

You may have noticed that the Education Secretary, the Rt Hon Michael Gove MP, announced recently that the revision of the National Curriculum will include teaching evolution in primary schools.

Now you may wonder what is wrong with that, given that the scientific establishment regards evolution as a 'fact'.  Well, there are two problems.  Firstly, every scientific theory is tentative and subject to revision as fresh evidence is uncovered.  You can be sure that the growing body of evidence against the all-pervasive theory of evolution will not be considered.

Sounds like Noble is against teaching of the theory of gravity as "fact" because it is "tentative and subject to revision as fresh evidence is uncovered."

And here's what children won't be told about evolution:
Evolution has no explanation for the origin of life in the first place.  By saying evolution doesn't deal with that, while implying it does, just highlights its deficiency.

But neither does the theory of gravity explain the origin of life. Is this a reason for not teaching children about gravity? Gravity doesn't deal with the origin of life — and as far as I'm aware no-one claims (or implies) that it does. Neither does anyone (apart from creationists) imply that evolution deals with the origin of life.

Random mutation and natural selection cannot explain the synthesis of the hundreds of complex bio-molecules, like proteins, which are necessary for life.
The mechanism of evolution - natural selection acting on random mutation - has been shown to be unequal to the task of creating new organisms[1].

May I suggest Alastair Noble peruses the Talk Origins archive? There's really no excuse for this kind of wilful ignorance.

The 'junk DNA' hypothesis, an integral part of the teaching of evolution, has now been abandoned in light of recent work on the human genome[2].

The fact that science changes its theories in the light of new evidence is one of the reasons it actually works and is a path to new knowledge.

The much-vaunted 'tree of life' is being increasingly shown to be highly speculative and at odds with the evidence[3]. The fossil record is not consistent with the numerous slight successive changes required by evolution, as Charles Darwin himself recognised[4].

I note that this reference to Darwin is footnoted not to Darwin's text but to a book by an ID proponent (as are all the references, which doesn't inspire confidence in the impartiality of Noble's sources).

Evolution is completely unable to explain the existence of the complex genetic information carried by every living cell in its DNA[5].

It's true that there are gaps in the theory, but "completely unable" is over-egging the argument, especially as ID has no alternative explanation.

Evolution has no explanation for mind and consciousness, other than that it is an accidental by-product of chemistry and physics[6].

"[A]ccidental by-product" or "emergent property" — take your pick. The alternative offered by ID proponents isn't an explanation, so I don't understand what their problem is.

Any other scientific hypothesis with such glaring deficiencies would certainly not be taught as 'fact' in schools.

Noble is spinning these imponderables as "glaring deficiencies" when they are merely the fuzzy edges of a science that is on a constant quest to elucidate and illuminate the world we live in, bringing amazing new discoveries every week. To suggest that it should not be taught in schools is tantamount to criminal intellectual negligence.

But the second problem is that, behind all this, there are now, as Prof Phillip Johnson has pointed out, two definitions of science[7].  The first is the popular definition which insists science can only deal with natural processes and, for example, cannot contemplate any explanation about origins which suggests a non-material explanation such as 'mind before matter'.  The older and more honest definition is that science goes where the evidence leads and does not rule out any possible explanation before it is given due consideration.

Science must be confined to methodological naturalism if it is to make any progress. The alternative — the invocation of some undefined, unknown, untestable causal agent — has zero explanatory power. Worse, it has nowhere else to go. It you decide to "explain" some phenomenon by saying NotGoddidit, what's the next step? What are you supposed to do in order to expand your knowledge of this "causal agent"? Pray?

It is clear then that evolution is based on the first definition.  It is essentially materialistic dogma, not science.  It persists for ideological reasons, despite the evidence.

It is clear Alastair Noble doesn't understand what science is. We should be grateful he is no longer inspecting schools.

So what is going to be taught in primary schools is the secular, humanistic, naturalistic worldview which rules out any possibility of design in nature, even before the evidence is considered.  It is, in fact, a form of secular indoctrination.

Perhaps Noble would like to state what evidence there is for "design in nature" — other than "it looks terribly complicated, and I can't imagine how it could come about by natural processes."

The scientific study of origins is unlike any other because it has to consider the possibility of deliberate design in nature.  That's why we argue that Intelligent Design should also be considered in any scientific study of origins.

Intelligent Design is not science. By all means discuss it (and its implications) in a philosophy class, but it has no place in science classes.

Interestingly, in Radio 4's Today programme on March 6th, 2004, Sir David Attenborough said, 'The problem Darwin never solved was how one inorganic molecule became a living one.  We're still struggling with that one.'  That's the kind of honesty science needs, even though it is less apparent in some of his nature programmes.  And in the film 'Expelled'[8] Richard Dawkins, in an interview with Ben Stein, validates intelligent design by admitting that the intricacies of cellular biology could lead to us to detect the existence of a 'higher intelligence' or 'designer' (his words).  So why wouldn't we explore that with students?

The reason why we shouldn't explore that with students (at least in a science class) is because science education should be about teaching established science. David Attenborough was talking about abiogensis, which is not what evolution is about, and as for Expelled — the less said about that despicable piece of trash (more or less outright lies from start to finish), the better.

It is high time we stopped indoctrinating pupils with the philosophy of naturalism dressed up as the scientific consensus.  We should do what all honest scientists do, which is to go where the evidence leads.  As has been observed, it takes years of indoctrination to miss the obvious signs of design in nature.

It's interesting that ID proponents are unable to tell us how they can tell that something is designed — other than "it looks like it" — despite their insistent claims.

If schools are not going to be allowed to explore all the dimensions of origins, then perhaps it's time parents and churches did so!  Or maybe even Free Schools! 

Churches? What happened to "we're not saying anything about the designer, nudge nudge, wink wink"?

The rest of the email is taken up with a call to arms — encouraging parents and others to write to Michael Gove and to sign up for the C4ID email newsletter. There are also the footnotes: references to pro-ID books and Noble's "32-page booklet 'An Introduction to Intelligent Design'" available for £2 (plus pp!). Is cash-flow at C4ID so strapped that Noble has to shill for a 32-page document that could easily be linked as a PDF? Perhaps we should take that as a good sign.

Jehovah's Creationists

One Saturday in January, thinking the doorbell indicated the postman delivering an expected package, I opened the door to two gentlemen whom I instantly identified (don't ask me how) as either Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses. Their first question confirmed my initial assessment: they asked me what I thought God's name was. My reply — that I didn't think there was any such entity as God, and so his name was of no importance to me — brought a suggestion that they read me something from the Bible, but I interrupted with a counter-suggestion that quoting Bible verses to an atheist was a hiding to nothing.

The younger guy who had so far conducted this conversation seemed a bit deflated by this, but the older one stepped in at this point to ask me why I was an atheist. I said I hadn't come across convincing evidence for the existence of any gods. Cue the creationist argument: had I looked at the multitude of living things and how marvellous and complicated they were? Yes I had, and I understood that they are all related, with common ancestry, and had come about over very long periods of time through a process of random mutation and natural selection.

Then he began talking about "kinds" and separate creation, and that different kinds could not breed with each other. I said that if he meant species, this was a reasonable definition, but although different species can't in general inter-breed, it's useful to consider the analogy of language. Children understand the language of their parents, who understand the language of their parents, and so on, and if you go back far enough you'll find a couple speaking one language who are direct ancestors of people alive today who can't understand each other's languages. And so it is with evolution.

But then he changed tack and talked about the eye, saying it couldn't have come about by evolution, to which I responded that it probably could, starting with something as simple as a patch of skin that had randomly developed some basic sensitivity to light. I think at this point he realised that he was talking to someone who has actually thought about such things, and suggested I might like to read something, to which I responded that, yes, I would. (This whole conversation took place on my doorstep, and I had things to do.)

They gave me a brochure entitled Was Life Created? And in return I gave them an Atheist Tract — several copies of which I keep by the door specifically for occasions like this. I thanked the pair of them, wished them good morning and closed the door.

But what of the brochure?

Was Life Created? is published by Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, in 2010. Though the masthead says "Made in Britain", spellings reveal it was written for an American audience. I read it through, making a few notes, and a quick check of the Jehovah's Witnesses' website turned up a PDF (the PDF, however, says "Made in the United States of America").

From the first section, "What do you believe?":

It is not the purpose of this material to ridicule the views either of fundamentalists or of those who choose not to believe in God. Rather, it is our hope that this brochure will prompt you to examine again the basis for some of your beliefs. It will present an explanation of the Bible’s account of creation that you may not have previously considered. And it will emphasize why it really does matter what you believe about how life began.

First, note the implication that atheism is a choice. This, no doubt, is tied up with what Paul says in Romans 1:20, about being "without excuse", though that part is left out of the quote when it appears later in the brochure.

The next section, "The Living Planet" — which is essentially a crude rendering of the fine-tuning argument — contains a number of loaded phrases that might be missed by those unfamiliar with the low-grade apologetic techniques employed here.

Are earth’s features a product of blind chance or of purposeful design? Without its tailor-made moon, our planet would wobble like a spinning top... ...earth is protected by amazing armor—a powerful magnetic field and a custom-made atmosphere. Earth’s atmosphere and magnetic field truly are marvels of design that are still not fully understood.

Note the language of design and manufacture taken for granted in these question-begging excerpts. The circularity, however, does not end there; next we have a section titled "Who designed it first?" which aims to catalogue instances of engineering and science taking their inspiration from nature.

As you consider the following examples, ask yourself, ‘Who really deserves the credit for these designs?’
...
Who deserves the credit? 
...
Who is nature’s patent holder?

They quote Michael Behe, who says (essentially, as all Intelligent Design proponents do, no matter what fancy language they use) it's designed if it looks designed.

Each section of the brochure ends with a couple of questions, and most of these are loaded or begged in some way. The section just covered ("Who designed it first?") asks:

• Does it seem logical to you to believe that the brilliant engineering evident in nature came about by accident?
  

To which I would answer, no it doesn't, because that's not what happened. Natural selection is not an accidental process — indeed it could be considered the very opposite. Evolution by random mutation and natural selection occurs because of environmental pressure — it's a process that occurs because it's taking the line of least resistance. Statistically speaking, it couldn't happen any other way.

There's then a subsection headed "Was it designed? If the copy requires a designer, what about the original?" Unfortunately for the brochure's thesis, this subheading appears to undermine itself. The copy doesn't require a designer, it only requires a copier — which is what the "original" does, albeit imperfectly. Indeed it is this very imperfection that drives evolution.

The next section — "Evolution myths and facts" — attempts to discredit the theory of evolution and claims that the fossil record doesn't provide evidence of what creationists and ID proponents like to call "macro-evolution". They claim to be happy with the idea that species can change (or "adapt") due to environmental pressure, but only up to a point. And that point appears to be arbitrarily undefined. What it comes down to is analogous to believing that it is possible for someone to stand on a step, but quite impossible to ascend a flight of stairs. Much is made of "Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany," who claims that:

“Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”

Some Googling reveals that Lönnig is an ID proponent who, like Michael Behe, appears to have been disowned by his own institution. The brochure includes a footnote:

Lönnig believes that life was created. His comments in this publication are his own and do not represent the opinion of the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research.

Fond though they are of footnotes, the JW's are not above making a bald assertion:

To date, scientists worldwide have unearthed and cataloged some 200 million large fossils and billions of small fossils. Many researchers agree that this vast and detailed record shows that all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged, with many species disappearing as suddenly as they arrived.

If this was Wikipedia, that phrase "Many researchers agree" would be immediately followed by "[citation needed]".

The final main section is titled "Science and the Genesis account". Jehovah's Witnesses, apparently, are not young-earth creationists, but old-earth creationists. How, then, do they reconcile the conflicting information in Genesis? Do they claim it's meant to be poetic? Metaphorical? Wrong? Untrue? No, they don't. This section, it turns out, is one huge exercise in semantic gymnastics. I won't go into it here — read the linked PDF if you're interested. Suffice to say, if the JW's really think that reading scripture in this way can reveal truth of any kind there's no hope for them — they are beyond logic. The Bible, for them, can mean anything they want it to mean.

The final section, "Does it matter what you believe?" seems to be an argument from consequences. After quoting William Provine saying, "I can see no cosmic or ultimate meaning in human life," they ask:

Consider the significance of those words. If ultimate meaning in life were nonexistent, then you would have no purpose in living other than to try to do some measure of good and perhaps pass on your genetic traits to the next generation. At death, you would cease to exist forever. Your brain, with its ability to think, reason, and meditate on the meaning of life, would simply be an accident of nature.

Well, yes.

That — apart from the "accident" bit (see above) — is how it is.

Get used to it.

---

This post is based on one of my segments in a recent episode of the Skepticule podcast.

Edited 2022-06-08 to update links to JW.ORG and Jason Curry's Atheist Tract.

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!

Creationist road trip conspires against reality

Yesterday I noticed BBC Three was to broadcast the second in a three-episode series ostensibly on conspiracy theories, this one taking a small group of creationists on a coach trip in America and showing them the evidence for evolution. It sounds like a recipe for disaster, and so it turned out, more or less. Jerry Coyne was in it:



Soon after watching the whole thing, I posted my reaction on Facebook:

OK I watched it, and some parts were indeed disastrous — kind of like Big Brother Goes On The Road. They started in Las Vegas, for no other reason (that I could discern) than it allowed for some clichéd photo-opportunities.

Jerry Coyne doesn't suffer fools, and his debunking of Noah's Ark did not go down well with the creationists. The creationist who appeared to have appointed himself "star-of-the-show" also seemed to be entertaining the idea that the show itself was a conspiracy, and he was impervious to reason, maintaining that the purpose of science was to deny God.

The presenter, Andrew Maxwell, nailed it with his bemused announcement that he couldn't understand how, in the face of so much evidence for evolution, the creationists simply dismissed anything that was contrary to scripture. He asked one of them why they even bother to look at the science if they're not going to accept anything that doesn't agree with what they already believe.

A frustrating programme that generated — on my part — more than its fair share of sighing and head-shaking.

Conspiracy Road Trip: Creationism is on iPlayer at the moment, and as it's BBC Three it's likely to be available again fairly soon.

---

UPDATE 2012-10-13:

Here's the whole thing on YouTube:
http://youtu.be/Oju_lpqa6Ug

...and here's Jerry Coyne's post about it:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/10/10/conspiracy-road-trip-with-creationists-noahs-ark-and-other-lolz/

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.

A creationist talk in Portsmouth

I've been suffering a surfeit* of creationism recently, which reminded me that I'd not written up the creationist talk I attended locally back in April. It was put on by Creation Ministries International and hosted by Portsmouth Christian Fellowship at the Drayton Institute, which is a community centre cum church hall within walking distance of where I live. (Though I've not written about this before, I did talk about it on Skepticule Extra episode 25.)

The talk was given by Dominic Statham, a name vaguely familiar to me — and more familiar once I realised I'd blogged about an article he wrote on last year's riots. Statham is a good speaker; he has his delivery down pat and "gives good Powerpoint". He sounds British, and is apparently an engineer, not a biologist. His talk was titled "Darwin's Theory: Good Science?" and appears to be one of several he gave throughout a UK tour — apparently he was giving another talk in Plymouth the next day.

His talk in Drayton was well attended; about 50 chairs were laid out, and most were occupied. I arrived in plenty of time and got a good seat near the front.

Dominic Statham

Statham began by stating (in words and on screen) that "Microbes to Man" is contrary to the Bible, and went on to explain the basics of Darwin's theory. This was OK as far as it went, though he slanted his explanation with typical creationist doublespeak. He talked about "survival of the fittest" as if it meant only that the stronger win out over the weaker, but this isn't what Darwin exclusively meant, as I'm sure Statham is aware. "Fittest" in this context means most closely adapted to prevailing conditions, as in "fitting its environment". Statham's implied meaning was "fittest" as in "most fit and healthy", which is clearly a skewed interpretation if not a downright distortion.

Mentioning education, Statham referred to "so-called" science classes, showing his bias, and such loaded language was evident throughout his talk. As part of his explanation of evolutionary theory he said ordinary chemicals "just happened" to come together to form living organisms. His overview of evolutionary theory was specifically set up to be easily knocked down. He described two "steps" to evolution: number one, chemicals evolved to single-cell organisms; and number two, cells evolved to man. That's a very lopsided division, but it enabled him to claim, correctly, that science currently has no proven explanation of abiogenesis, and therefore, even before we begin to discuss evolution from microbes to man, half of evolutionary theory is speculative hypothesis unsupported by evidence. But this is a straw man; abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory, and Darwin had little to say about it.

There was no mention of plants in Statham's explanation of evolution, though my understanding is that all plants are part of the evolutionary tree of life. There was mention of "variation within kinds" — but my understanding of "kind" is that it's a biblical term with no scientific validity.

Statham soon moved on to some technical aspects of evolution, beginning with homology — animals sharing similar body plans (same number of limbs, digits, etc., laid out in similar patterns). Despite what evolutionists infer, Statham claimed, homology does not point to common ancestry. He gave three reasons for this:

1. Embryonic development in homologous animals is different. For example, in comparing human hands to frog hands, human hands develop in the womb by the death of cells between the fingers, while in frogs the digits are formed by sprouting new growth. I took this at face value, but later, consulting the Talk Origins archive, I discovered the reason for this is that frogs have webbed feet, which cell-death between the digits would not allow.
2. Similar structures (such as limbs) in homologous animals grow from different segments of the embryo. Again, a bit of research reveals that this is by no means universal — some homologous structures grow from the same embryonic segments, some grow from different segments. Statham was presenting this as cut-and-dried disproof of evolution when it isn't.
3. Similar structures are controlled by different genes, therefore homology doesn't prove evolution. Statham merely quoted an authority for this one, giving no examples.

At the time, of course, Statham's confident statements sounded convincing, and if I'd been on the fence I would quite likely have taken what he said at face value and come away with the idea that evolution wasn't true. Clearly that was his intention, and no doubt it was effective with some of his mostly Christian audience (if they weren't already creationists).

So, having shown to his satisfaction that evolution is insufficient to explain the diversity of life, Statham stated his own explanation: a designer. He went on to state that "software encoded in DNA" is how cells work, and showed a computer animation of the highly complex structures within a cell, with the clear implication that this was all too complicated to have happened by chance. And such it might be, but it's not by chance alone that evolution works. Variations resulting from faulty copying of genes (mutation — aka the "random chance" part) coupled with natural selection, whereby those organisms less suited to their environment tend to die out before reproducing while those more suited (by virtue of their different genetic information) survive, is mostly how evolution works. As for the complexity of the cell, I would guess that the earliest cells were very much simpler than shown in the animation. The complexity of present-day cells is the result of eons of evolution — but nevertheless creationists want to say it was put there, ready made, by God.

Statham went on to cite ATP Synthase and the bacterial flagellum as examples of complexity. I know nothing of ATP Synthase, but the flagellum is a favourite of creationists in general, and of engineer-creationists in particular — and Statham is one such. We know, despite the best efforts of Michael Behe that the flagellum is not "irreducibly complex". But if you deny stepwise refinement, as Statham apparently does, the development of such structures must be highly mysterious. He quoted Michael Denton describing the complexity of the cell, and then edged into conspiracy-theory mode, claiming that academics are not free to voice doubts about evolution. He promoted the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, understandably omitting to mention that it's pretty much outright lies from start to finish.

Having already appealed to authorities, Statham quoted several more. Prof Sir Ernst Chain FRS apparently said that evolutionary theory had "…no evidence and was irreconcilable with the facts," (though I'm unable to verify this quote). Statham put up a slide with big letters reading "Evolution is a Faith" and stated that if the Bible is not right about creation, people will question it about other things. Well, yes, that's the logical thing to do. It's not logical to believe something is true just because you don't like the consequences if it's false.

Statham moved on to yet another authority, this time William Provine of Cornell University. The quote on screen contained lots of ellipsis, which immediately set alarm bells ringing — creationists are notorious for quote-mining. Back home I looked up the quote and found something a bit strange.

"Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either."

That's pasted directly from CMI's website, and yet it isn't what Statham showed. Looking at the screen he explained that when Provine says "modern science" he means "evolution". But Provine doesn't say "modern science", he says "modern evolutionary biology". I've no idea what's going on here.

Still quoting, now from the Bible; Romans 1:20:

"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

This is basically, "Look around you, of course there's a creator!" (We'll leave aside the inherent problem of clearly seeing qualities that are invisible…)

Then Matthew 7:13-14:

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Creationists, thankfully, are in the minority.

Rounding off this trinity of Bible quotes we have 1 Peter 3:15:

"But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,"

This is the apologists' verse. (Too bad some of them forget the last sentence.)

Statham suggested members of the audience might like to subscribe to the quarterly Creation magazine — a year's subscription would get you an extra issue; a three-year subscription would get you an extra issue plus a DVD. (But only if you paid in full on the night.) Statham showed several examples of the articles in the magazine — on, for example, "modern science" — though here that doesn't necessarily mean "evolution", apparently. Another article was on refuting Richard Dawkins — which I was pleased to see. Dawkins got several mentions in Statham's talk, indicating that the infamous god-hating militant evolutionist baby-eater is still rattling cages.

Then it became a bit farcical. Statham showed some testimonials for Creation magazine — after all, you wouldn't simply take his word for how great it is, would you? The first testimonial was from that well-known arbiter of all that's worthwhile in scientific literature, the comedian Peter Kay. The second was from someone named Pat F. The third … there was no third — we have two testimonials: a comedian, and anonymous Pat F. (I'm convinced — here's my credit card.)

Finally before the break, Statham promoted the website (Creation.com) and a book titled The Creation Answers Book by Batten, Catchpoole, Sarfati and Wieland, disturbingly suggesting it could be bought for teenagers setting off for university.

During the break I looked at the merchandise, of which there was plenty: books and DVDs, including the despicable Expelled.

There were six questions in the Q&A, all answered by Statham with confidence, giving me the impression that there was nothing he hadn't heard before. He even had additional Powerpoint and videos to address specific questions — almost as if the questions were planted (but I don't think they were). I've paraphrased Statham's responses below, and added appropriate links.

Q1: Darwinism is bad science — why is it still taught?

• Because animals are observed to change. But this is micro- not macro-evolution. Genetic information for micro-evolution is already present.
• Evolutionists are committed to philosophical naturalism.
• Secular scientists say natural processes today means natural processes for origins.
• They are looking for reasons not to believe in God.
• The Intelligent Design movement is doing a lot of good, but they don't present an alternative. We do; the alternative is Christ.

Q2: There's lots of evidence for the Earth being older than 10,000 years.

• Yes there is evidence for an ancient Earth, but dating methods are unreliable. Carbon 14 dating shows the Earth is young. [My understanding is that radiocarbon dating is good for up to 60,000 years, so it can't be used to prove an old Earth, but neither does it show the Earth is young.]
• The Moon's orbit is increasing, but at the rate it is, for an old Earth it ought to be farther away by now.
• There's not enough salt in the sea for an old Earth.
• Dinosaur remains are evidence for a young Earth. In Montana, dinosaur bones (not fossils) have been found with organic soft tissue still in evidence, which should have decayed if they were millions of years old.
• Science cannot tell us how old the Earth is.
• An old Earth conflicts with the Bible. Statham recommended another book: 15 Reasons to Take Genesis as History.

Q3: Where are dinosaurs in the Bible?

• Dinosaurs were made on the same day (the sixth) as Man.
• Dinosaurs were on the Ark, and lived contemporaneously with Man.
• Dinosaurs were called dragons, and some were fire-breathing.
• Carlisle Cathedral has a picture of a dinosaur on the tomb of Richard Bell, dating from 1496.

Q4: Has the universe been around longer than the Earth?

• The stars were made after the Earth.
• Billions of light years away should mean they are billions of years old, but relativity accounts for the apparent age of starlight.
• The Bible says God "stretched out the heavens" — meaning cosmic inflation.

Q5: Did Darwin have a deathbed conversion?

• Probably not, but either way it makes no difference.

Q6: How were the fossils created?

• A global flood; there is lots of evidence that fossils were buried in flood conditions.
• Fossils in the Grand Canyon are all aligned, as if carried by a current.
• Jellyfish fossils must have fossilised in hours, because they are very soft and would otherwise decay or be destroyed.
• There is an absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, such as between invertebrate marine animals and vertebrate marine animals (fish).
• The order of fossils in rock is virtually a formal falsification of Darwin's theory.

Statham made that last point (or rather, assertion) as his final comment to the final question at the end of the evening. There was no opportunity to challenge him on it before the organiser from Portsmouth Christian Fellowship got up to thank him for his talk and to lead the congregation — pardon me, the audience — in a prayer, after which I made my escape.

What did I learn from this talk? I learned that a creationist lecturing to a sympathetic audience can sound very convincing. Dominic Statham was quite clever in not stating some things outright; instead he let the audience infer what they wanted to believe from his tacit implications. I recognised his use of loaded language immediately, but only because I've heard such disingenuous slanting before. Creationists, however, are at least open about what they're up to — they want God back in our culture, and have no truck with secularism. The Intelligent Design crowd on the other hand are more insidious in their aims, all the while claiming that ID has nothing to do with religion.

---

*Watch this space...

My QED 2012 experience — part 1

For me the stand-out features of QED this year were the range of speakers and the socialising. Unlike last year I didn't stay at the conference hotel so I had to carry everything for the day with me — which turned out to be a raincoat and a fairly large camera bag. These, I'm happy to report, didn't impede me much.

Like last year I arrived on Friday, catching an earlier train than I'd expected from Euston, and took my time ambling from my lodging to the Mercure Piccadilly Hotel for a relaxed meal before the Mixer, which was scheduled for 8 but seemed to be in full swing some time before that. By 8, however, wandering through the packed bar area was like swimming through a sea of skeptic celebrities. It's not called the Mixer for nothing and is one of the things that makes QED special. Whether or not they had read Hayley Stevens' blog, many people seemed to be taking her advice about talking to 'strangers'.

As for the event itself, I shall blog about it in short bursts, with photographs:



On Saturday, after Andy Wilson's official opening — not much more than a welcome and some housekeeping, Deborah Hyde kicked off with the historical context of the werewolf myth. Being the first speaker at an international conference can be, I imagine, a bit daunting, but Deborah displayed no sign of nerves even as her microphone was replaced or adjusted only seconds into her talk. Last year's first speaker was Bruce Hood, and I seem to remember he did take a few minutes (though not many) to get into his stride.

Deborah's talk was a new one, though she had given us a sneak preview at Portsmouth Skeptics in the Pub about a month earlier. In her QED talk she outlined the popular myths, and how it might have been reasonable, given the context and specific examples, to believe that werewolves were real. Bringing the myth down to earth, she included some real wolves.



Next was Steve Jones, explaining what is meant by natural selection — immediately illustrating the diversity of speakers and topics at this year's QED: from an investigation into the historical basis of popular myths we had moved on to why evolution, as understood by Charles Darwin (though he never used the word in his Origin of Species), is an undirected process. The example Steve used was the generation of effective shapes for nozzles used in the industrial manufacture of powder, by applying random but small variations to successively more effective shapes, thus refining the efficiency and durability of the nozzles without knowing precisely why they work. It's apparently an engineering technique still in use today.



The last speaker before lunch was David Aaronovitch. I was particularly keen to hear what he had to say as I attended the CFI Conspiracy Theories day at Conway Hall, at which David was scheduled to speak, but he had to withdraw due to ill health. So I was not entirely pleased when he began by announcing that his talk would be completely new and unike any of his previous talks. Nevertheless it was lively and off the cuff — conspiracy theories are everywhere so it's not as if there's a dearth of material — and well worth hearing. He spoke mostly about the conspiracy theory that's grown up around the affair of Dominique Strauss-Kahn — that the allegations against him of attempted rape are part of a sting organised by the French government (or more particularly by factions loyal to Nicolas Sarkozy).

After an equally lively Q&A session it was time for lunch. Topics had already ranged far and wide. More next time.

(Click here for part 2.)

---

This is my 600th blogpost. I thought you'd like to know.

It's that man again — the Craig "itch"

Regular readers of this blog (and listeners to Skepticule Extra) will know that I have an oscillating attitude to William Lane Craig. No sooner have I concluded that he has nothing new to tell me and therefore I can forthwith ignore him, than I find myself irresistibly scratching at something he's said, knowing that it's wrong without being able to put my finger on precisely why. But I think Thunderf00t has nailed it:

http://youtu.be/4u6Mz21jTaA


Being a confident speaker will go a long, long way towards convincing people that what you say is true. If you behave in a way that says loudly and clearly that of course what you say is true, many people will believe you by default. But with Craig there is always that niggling doubt that his approach to his various arguments for the existence of God rests on something not just unsound but profoundly silly. This video exposes that doubt and parades it for all to see.

4thought.tv: "Should creationism be taught in schools?"

Back in June Channel 4's daily two-minute opinion film-clip slot, 4thought.tv, covered intelligent design. I blogged about it at the time, and we covered it on the Skepticule Extra podcast. A couple of weeks ago the subject was "Should creationism be taught in schools?"

Monday's clip was 18-year-old student Sam Scott Perry:

http://www.4thought.tv/themes/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/sam-scott-perry

Young Earth Creationist Sam Scott Perry believes the world is only between 6,000 to 10,000 years old and that dinosaurs roamed the land with humans. Sam thinks creationism should be included in schools in order to allow children to make up their own mind.

He believes that humans were formed from dust by God because that's what the Bible says, and wants creationism to be taught in schools in the interests of "fair and objective science." From these and other comments it's clear he has no notion of what science is — he admits that he gained his A* in GCSE Biology by writing the answers required even though he doesn't believe they are true. He believes humans walked with dinosaurs because dinosaurs are land animals and the Bible says that land animals and humans were created on the sixth day. This, according to Sam Scott Perry, is "logical". He also floats a weird conspiracy theory that creationism is not currently taught in schools because of fears it might convince people the Bible is true. Are his views typical of 18-year-old creationists? Perhaps not, but Channel 4 naturally go for the extreme case with which to start off this series.

Conspiracy theories are picked up by Tuesday's contributor, Stephen Law:

http://www.4thought.tv/themes/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/stephen-law

Stephen Law is a Lecturer in Philosophy who believes creationism is scientific nonsense. Stephen says it is wrong to teach children something he thinks is quite clearly false.

"Creationism is pernicious scientific nonsense." Stephen Law states simply that teaching creationism as fact is teaching things known not to be true, and goes on to suggest that clinging to the Biblical story of creation in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary could be interpreted as symptomatic of mental illness. (He has pointed out elsewhere that he didn't intend to imply that all creationists were mentally ill.)

Randall Hardy of "Creation Research" is another creationist who thinks that children should be allowed to make up their own minds:

http://www.4thought.tv/themes/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/randall-hardy

Creationist Randall Hardy wants children to be taught that God made the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Randall thinks evolutionists and atheists fear Creationism being taught in schools because children will find it convincing.

Creationists often play the "academic freedom" card, but in schools it's not appropriate to teach something that isn't accepted science. Otherwise the science curriculum would be full of phlogiston theory, the luminiferous aether, the four humours and all sorts of other unscientific stuff like alchemy and astrology. Students are free to investigate pseudo-science after school — they can even go on to study it at university. Randall Hardy displays appalling ignorance of evolution when he talks of cats bringing forth cats, dogs bringing forth dogs. He's also wrong when he claims people when they are born believe naturally in a creator. Leaving aside the fact that the existence of a belief has no bearing on whether that belief is true, what children are born with is an innate tendency to ascribe agency (to inanimate objects as well as people and animals). This is an evolved instinct — it supports evolution rather than creation.

Next we have Rev Canon Rosie Harper, who says that creationism is based on a literal reading of the Bible, and is an unnecessarily narrow viewpoint:

http://www.4thought.tv/themes/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/rev-canon-rosie-harper

Reverend Canon Rosie Harper believes teaching creationism to children is selling them short. Rosie thinks literal interpretations of the Bible are dangerously wrong-headed and risk bringing mainstream Christianity into disrepute.

She doesn't want creationism taught in schools, but she's one of those wishy-washy Anglicans about whom one might say, "there but for the grace of God goes an atheist." In this debate however, she's on the right side.

Laura Horner is the founder of CrISIS — Creationism In Schools Isn't Science:

http://www.4thought.tv/themes/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/laura-horner

Laura Horner is an Anglican and the founder of CrISIS; Creationism in Schools Isn’t Science. Laura started the group after a creationist movement visited her son’s school. Laura believes creationism discredits religion as much as it discredits science.

She's a Christian who believes creationism is bad religion as well as bad science, and makes the important point about valid science being falsifiable, while creationism isn't.

Saturday's clip was by Abdul Aziz, a maths teacher:

http://www.4thought.tv/themes/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/abdul-aziz

Muslim Abdul Aziz is a Maths Teacher who believes evolution is not convincing as a scientific theory. Abdul wants creationism presented alongside evolution in the classroom, so that children get the opportunity to make up their own minds.

He claims that belief in evolution is based on a "leap of faith" and comes out with the usual creationist micro/macro-evolution objection. His whole argument is one from ignorance — it appears he's never read a book about evolution (I'd suggest The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins). He also says (like Randall Hardy) that children should be allowed to make up their own minds, which from a teacher is a shocking misunderstanding of what education is about.

Finally we have Michael Reiss, who does not want to see creationism taught in schools, but he's not averse to it being discussed (though thankfully not as a science in science lessons):

http://www.4thought.tv/themes/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/michael-reiss 

A Professor of Science Education at the Institute of Education, University of London, Michael Reiss welcomes open discussion of creationism in the classroom provided it is made clear that it has no scientific basis whatsoever.

He complains that some materialist scientists can't understand what it's like to have a religious faith. What he's implying, I think, is that a hard-line atheistic attitude is alienating children with creationist beliefs, to the extent that they will not be open to the scientific evidence. Michael Reiss made similar comments when he was the Royal Society's Director of Education, which caused a bit of an uproar, and shortly afterwards he stepped down from his post. Although the 4thought.tv website makes no mention of it (except, someone has noted it in the comments), Michael Reiss is a minister of religion.

Creationism does seem to bring the wackos out of the woodwork, as the comments on these clips show. I posted a brief comment on the first clip, and found myself in a protracted exchange with a user named Phillip, who — though extremely polite — seemed to have no conception of how to distinguish what's true from what's false.