The Virgin Daughters (Channel 4 TV)

Last Thursday, at exactly the same time that Five was broadcasting The Million Dollar Mind Reader, Channel 4 showed the latest in the Cutting Edge documentary series: The Virgin Daughters. To quote from the Channel 4 website:

This week Cutting Edge explores the controversial purity movement currently sweeping across the United States. One-in-six American girls now pledges to remain a virgin - and some even to save their first kiss - until their wedding day. But is this their decision, or their fathers'?

Providing a fascinating insight into America's heartland, award-winning documentary maker Jane Treays follows a group of fathers and daughters as they prepare to attend a Purity Ball in Colorado Springs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvALXGl9zYA (1/5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws4AeWlq54A (2/5)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98ttHqot7Do (3/5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0pK7Qq8oMo (4/5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4lQpMHeEcI (5/5)

(Thanks again to threespeed79 for uploading the YouTube video clips. BitTorrent enabled viewers go here.)

It was fascinating to watch, not just for the fairly neutral stance that the documentary makers took with the commentary, but also for the way the film accentuated the superficial wholesomeness of the community. The fathers were upstanding, quietly reverent and sincere. The daughters were beautiful, well-spoken and articulate. The religious aspect was evident but not stressed. The whole production spoke of quality, and indeed purity. Even the background music promoted an air of idyllic magnificence.

But despite the portrayal of genuine concern for the future of young lives needing to be cherished, the many scenes with the fathers and daughters together was undeniably and disturbingly creepy. So much utter perfection on display could only, I felt (entirely without evidence), hide something horrendously putrid at its core. Maybe I'm conditioned by so many sad news reports of in-family abuse, but this impression was, for me, unavoidable.

Randy Wilson, a father, is the minister at New Life Church, Colorado Springs* (where the infamous Ted Haggard was minister until his spectacular fall from grace), and he runs the Purity Ball. His wife Lisa was asked about her reasons for promoting purity. Surprisingly she did not quote biblical texts to support her view. Rather, she pointed out the risks of sex before marriage: unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. This is ironic, given that these people clearly support 'abstinence only' sex education (which means, in effect, no sex education at all).

It was telling, also, that the one son interviewed on the programme was shown wearing a tee-shirt emblazoned "Patrick Henry College", a university that was the subject of another Channel 4 documentary, God's Next Army.

(*If Randy Wilson is the minister of New Life Church, Colorado Springs, why can't I find his name listed anywhere on the church's website?)

The Million Dollar Mind Reader

On the UK's Channel Five TV last Thursday night we were treated to an hour-long documentary in the Extraordinary People strand - the Million Dollar Mind Reader, about Derek Ogilvie, who had a series in 2006 on the same channel called The Baby Mind Reader.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=sExz7BntLn8 (1/5)



http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=XhhcweRKkfo (2/5)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=gjZwxO4YnE0 (3/5)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BuiBnMHqdV0 (4/5)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6wgxqiOD3hQ (5/5)

(Thanks to threespeed79 for posting the YouTube videos.*)

Credit must go to Derek Ogilvie for stepping up to the challenge. That he did so reinforces the impression given in the documentary that he genuinely believes he has psychic powers. A charlatan would know that he or she stood very little chance of coming through a proper scientific test. How many other high-profile 'psychics' have accepted James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge? Maybe some are in the process, but, so far, no others have been tested.

After his miserable performances at, firstly, Goldsmiths College, University of London (under the supervision of Professor Chris French), and secondly at the University of Miami, Florida, where he was tested by Randi, Ogilvie willingly submitted to some EEG tests that apparently showed something unusual going on in his brain, but the scientist concerned too readily linked this to some kind of 'ability'. So what if Ogilvie is able to go into a kind of semi-trance when he does his readings - that doesn't mean he's psychic. Googling the the scientist himself doesn't inspire confidence in his scientific rigour, bringing up this website (amongst others) for Dr. Gerald Gluck, PhD.

Derek Ogilvie: genuine person? Possibly. Genuine psychic? No.

(*Also available via BitTorrent, here.)

The Atheist Blogroll

Back in 2005 when I came across the Skepticality podcast, I was delighted to find people who were actually talking about stuff that had been bothering me for some time (I said so on my own podcast The Rev Up Review, and Derek and Swoopy were kind enough to include a clip of it on a later show). It was a revelation to me that there were lots of like-minded individuals out there in the world, and that my doubts about religion and the paranormal were not just stubborn refusal to take things on trust.

Fast forward over three years and I have my own sceptical blog (you're reading it), and I'm far from alone. Notes from an Evil Burnee has been added to The Atheist Blogroll, which comprises hundreds of blogs. Look to the right of this page, scroll down and you'll find links to some of the recently updated ones there. The Atheist Blogroll is a community-building service provided free of charge to atheist bloggers from around the world. If you'd like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts for more information.

UPDATE: Ever since I posted this entry it has bugged me that I couldn't find the edition of Skepticality in which Derek & Swoopy played my clip. Extensive (!) research has revealed the reason. They didn't. It's funny how memory can play tricks, especially when tacitly reinforced by the very person who, I thought, played the clip (see Derek's comment to this post).

What actually happened is they posted a downloadable clip on the front page of the Skepticality website. Of course, it's no longer there, but through the wonders of the Wayback Machine you can still see the page, if not actually download the clip.

Burnee links for Sunday

The Freethinker › Platitude of the Day

See also this previous post of mine:
Thought for the Day: Time to retire this tired old format

ABC News: Why Do We Believe Impossible Things?

Creationist Britain (would you Adam and Eve it?) - Home News, UK - The Independent

Bad Science » Don’t let the facts spoil a good story

Sam Harris on Sarah Palin and Elitism | Newsweek Politics: Campaign 2008 | Newsweek.com

Sarah Palin must be a dirty creationist - Telegraph

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Hadron Collider halted for months

More on what actually happened:
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | What happened to the Big Bang machine?

I don't believe that believers really believe | Jamie Whyte - Times Online
Neither do I.

Shining a light where science and theology meet -Times Online

Michael Reiss: did he jump or was he pushed?

So Michael Reiss has 'stepped down' from his post as Director of Education at the Royal Society. Shortly prior to the announcement this letter appeared in The Times:

Sir, Creationism has no scientific validity but this does not stop some people from believing that it does (“Royal Society and the case for creationism”, Sept 12). If a young person raises the issue of creationism in a science class, a teacher should be in a position to examine why it does not stand up to scientific investigation. This position is the same as current government policy.

Evolution is recognised as the best explanation for the history of life on Earth from its beginnings and for the diversity of species. It is rightly taught as an essential part of biology and science courses in schools, colleges and universities across the world.

Professor Michael Reiss

Director of Education

The Royal Society

I believe Michael Reiss also issued a statement attempting to clarify his position (I say 'believe' because I remember reading it somewhere, but now I can't find it).

Anyway, his original piece is available to view at the British Association website, so whatever he has said subsequently, we can judge his words as they stand:

My central argument of this article is that creationism is best seen by a science teacher not as a misconception but as a worldview. The implication of this is that the most a science teacher can normally aspire to is to ensure that students with creationist beliefs understand the scientific position. In the short term, this scientific worldview is unlikely to supplant a creationist one.

So how might one teach evolution in science lessons, say to 14-16 year-olds? The first thing to note is that there is scope for young people to discuss beliefs about the origins of the Earth and living things in other subjects, notably religious education (RE). In England, the DCSF (Department for Children, Schools and Families) and QCA (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority) have published a non-statutory national framework for RE and teaching units which include a unit asking 'How can we answer questions about creation and origins?'. The unit focuses on creation and the origins of the universe and human life, as well as the relationships between religion and science. It can be downloaded from http://www.qca.org.uk.

Well, that seems eminently sensible. But there's more:

I do believe in taking seriously and respectfully the concerns of students who do not accept the theory of evolution while still introducing them to it. While it is unlikely that this will help students who have a conflict between science and their religious beliefs to resolve the conflict, good science teaching can help students to manage it - and to learn more science. Creationism can profitably be seen not as a simple misconception that careful science teaching can correct, as careful science teaching might hope to persuade a student that an object continues at uniform velocity unless acted on by a net force, or that most of the mass of a plant comes from air. Rather, a student who believes in creationism can be seen as inhabiting a non-scientific worldview, that is a very different way of seeing the world. One very rarely changes one's worldview as a result of a 50 minute lesson, however well taught.

It's that penultimate sentence that irks. "Rather, a student who believes in creationism can be seen as inhabiting a non-scientific worldview, that is a very different way of seeing the world."

Yes, and giving it credence in a science lesson is the last thing science teachers should do. Soft-pedalling on the conflict between science and patently unscientific views of the nature of the physical world will only perpetuate irrationality. It's not enough to point out that a worldview is incompatible with science ("but that's ok, I respect your religious beliefs"). Rather, a student who believes in creationism should be shown how his or her worldview is in direct contradiction to actual physical reality.

Michael Reiss was pushed, and rightly so.

CFI: It's Time for Science and Reason

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_o2_U0ggvb8



We need more efforts like this, to counter the pernicious spread of woo-woo throughout modern life. We need more of the likes of Dawkins, Pinker and Dennett on TV, and more exposure of rational thinking generally.

Politics, religion and moral psychology: Jonathan Haidt - TED Talks

Jonathan Haidt: The real difference between liberals and conservatives



These TED Talks are usually (as here) short, pithy and well worth watching. Unique, provocative content.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html