1. Comment #52690 by Shuggy on June 27, 2007 at 6:43 pm

Intelligent design (ID) is one of a wide range of theories of origin currently taught as part of the Religious, Moral and Philosophy Studies (RMPS) SQA course,

I trust the theory of origin that Papatuänuku, the Earth Mother, and Ranginui, the Sky Father, were locked in an embrace until they were cruelly separated by their children, Täne (God of Forests and Birds), Rongo (cultivation and the peaceful arts) Haumia-tiketike (uncultivated foods) etc, over the opposition of Tawhirimatea (the God of Storms) and Tumatuaenga (God of War), will be given equal time on the Religious, Moral and Philosophy Studies (RMPS) SQA course, and doubtless there are indigenous Scottish theories, perhaps involving Ghoulies and Ghosties and Long-legged Beasties that ought also to be given equal time.

Other Comments by Shuggy

2. Comment #52692 by konquererz on June 27, 2007 at 6:59 pm

This makes no god damn sense! They speak up ignorantly stating that this theory is taught in religious, moral, and philosophy studies, but have no problem making it part of the science class? Someone stop the insanity please and let me off this religious crazy train.

Other Comments by konquererz

3. Comment #52709 by Zaphod on June 27, 2007 at 9:58 pm

Luckily a lot of people spoke on that forum on the side of sanity.

Other Comments by Zaphod

4. Comment #52736 by Jamougha on June 28, 2007 at 12:51 am

Oh fuck.

Other Comments by Jamougha

5. Comment #52737 by Corylus on June 28, 2007 at 12:54 am

Question: Does the Scottish Parliament have an e-petitions service like 10 Downing Street?

See this recent petition:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/NoCreSciEd/

They provide a response if more than 200 sign (which you get mailed when the petition closes)

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page12021.asp

I suspected the response was a bit of a fob off actually – what will their (as yet unwritten) guidelines actually say?? But nevermind, a response is a response!

Maybe this is a way forward…

Other Comments by Corylus

6. Comment #52739 by epeeist on June 28, 2007 at 1:11 am

Comment #52690 by Shuggy

I trust the theory of origin that Papatuänuku, the Earth Mother, and Ranginui, the Sky Father, were locked in an embrace until they were cruelly separated by their children.

Atum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atum) has got to be one of my favourite gods, but I can't see the way he created the world being taught in schools.

Other Comments by epeeist

7. Comment #52758 by mmurray on June 28, 2007 at 2:51 am

There are some good comments on the Sunday Herald site.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

8. Comment #52778 by Scott McMeekin on June 28, 2007 at 4:10 am

A 2006 UK-wide Mori poll suggested 41% believed intelligent design should be taught as part of science education.

I see, and how many people were surveyed, which demographics were chosen, what was the exact question asked?

What a completely pointless statement. Might as well have said "A 2006 UK-wide Mori poll suggested that 41% of grannies who bothered to stop and chat to our pushy and wildly annoying surveyers, jumping in front of people on the street on their way to work, with inane and hopeful grins on their faces demanding 30 minutes of your time for a poxy £2 per sheet completed commission, had no idea what "Intelligent Design" actually was "but it sounded very nice".

Hearsay, anyone?

It'll never happen, no doubt in spite of our limp-wristed self-serving tribal political system.

Scott.

Other Comments by Scott McMeekin

9. Comment #52793 by an_ant_under_a_penny on June 28, 2007 at 5:09 am

I actually do think that ID should be talked about in science classes. Not to present it as an "alternative theory", of course, but simply to warn students against it. You wouldn't even have to spend a lot of time on it, just quickly explain - or better still, let the students find out - what's wrong with it.

Reason: There is now so much discussion about this non-issue, and so many pamphlets produced etc, that most students will be reached by ID propaganda in some form or other. And they may be in danger of falling for it. ID poses as a kind of "Maverick" theory, after all, something that "challenges" the establishment. And we all know how appealing that kind of thing is to kids. When I was fourteen I would have bought into almost anything as long as it wasn't the mainstream view. ;)

What's more, students generally need the ability to distinguish between real science and quack science. They need to learn to separate the wheat from the chaff so that they don't trust the first person in a lab coat who (in RD's words) "comes on and spouts long words." Discussing the ID spoof in class could provide an opportunity to foster critical thinking, so to speak.

Other Comments by an_ant_under_a_penny

10. Comment #52816 by olebag on June 28, 2007 at 6:13 am

Too right it's worrying and dangerous. So is the Scottish Executive's latest wheeze to make selection of teachers on the basis of acceptable (i.e. good catholic) "religious belief and character" selection even more rigorous in state-funded catholic schools than it is at the moment.
Oh, and how unwise/bloody stupid (delete as appropriate) is it to rely on the judgement of haedteachers? What if said heidie (good Scottish word) is an Evangelical or similar?

Other Comments by olebag

11. Comment #52822 by PrimeNumbers on June 28, 2007 at 6:23 am

Perhaps, an ant under a penny, you're right an that ID shouldbe taught in Science class, in the section "what is science?" as an example of what is not science, and why. At the same time they can show that ID is totally wrong and tell children that it's a load of old bull.

Other Comments by PrimeNumbers

12. Comment #52850 by Jamougha on June 28, 2007 at 8:23 am

"I see, and how many people were surveyed, which demographics were chosen, what was the exact question asked?"

Why do people ask dumb questions when they have the internet?

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/2006/bbc-horizon.shtml

Other Comments by Jamougha

13. Comment #52854 by liberalartist on June 28, 2007 at 8:39 am

I thought this problem only existed in my country. Beware Scotland, or your schools will be as dumbed-down as America's! There are many reasons our k-12 education ranks so low and religion is one of them.

Other Comments by liberalartist

14. Comment #52862 by Scott McMeekin on June 28, 2007 at 9:14 am

RE: #52850 (Jamougha)

Ah yes, all hail Google, the small-god of the internet.

Thankyou - I consider myself roundly chastised.

My point, however, was that more often than not statistics like these are trotted out by all and sundry with no citation, and less dedicated people as yourself either do not think to look them up (case in point - me), or simply take them at face-value.

Personally I didn't think it was a "dumb" question. I'd rather you simply answered it graciously, and left it at that. It's people like you that cause people like me never to ask questions in public forums like these.

However, I was duly impressed by your obviously superior intellect, and the ease with which you used your razor-like wit to tear me down.

Scott.

[edit]

In other news, Mr Friendly here actually proved my point, at least in my mind. Here's the prep information given by the interviewer:

a) The "evolution theory" says that human kind has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process.

b)The "creationism theory" says that God created human kind pretty much in his/her present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.

c)The "intelligent design theory" says that certain features of living things are best explained by the intervention of a supernatural being, e.g. God.

All described as "theories", with apparent equal weighting. No advisory note casually mentioning, say, that only one of these is actually this other thing known as a "scientific theory" as opposed to the popular definition of a "theory". No mention that only one of the options actually has any supporting evidence, and no mention of the fact that in specific terms, only one of them can actually be defined as "science".



Other Comments by Scott McMeekin

15. Comment #52873 by Diplo on June 28, 2007 at 10:15 am

I guess this is the start of the Scottish Disenglightment... How sad.

Other Comments by Diplo

16. Comment #52875 by scottishgeologist on June 28, 2007 at 10:36 am

Diplo said: "I guess this is the start of the Scottish Disenglightment"

Unfortunately, if this gets going thats exactly what it'll be.

Hard to believe that the small country that produced David Hume, James Hutton, Adam Smith, Robert Burns, Sir Walter Scott,et al should end up even thinking about having a debate over this dross.

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

17. Comment #52878 by pewkatchoo on June 28, 2007 at 10:58 am

scottishgeologist et al
Careful guys, we will have the wrath of the wee flea down on our heads shortly for such heresy. Fucking twat.

Incidentally, did you see that Ruth Kelly has now been made minister of transport. That's the rail service fucked then.

Got a new pukiemon story on Gibbo's accession here: www.pukiemon.com. Two things to look for, the last pic where gobem(brown) is falling and the 'story behind the story' where he talks about his moral compass (praise the lord). Feedback is appreciated.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

18. Comment #52880 by BillySands on June 28, 2007 at 11:19 am

I like the Egyptian account of creation: Amun Ra had a chug http://www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk/amun.html wonder if they will teach that in catholic schools?

Other Comments by BillySands

19. Comment #52882 by Thrall on June 28, 2007 at 11:28 am

Scotland often makes america look like a bunch of athiests. Remind me not to move there.

Other Comments by Thrall

20. Comment #52929 by nancy2001 on June 28, 2007 at 2:39 pm

I hope Scotland comes to its senses and bans this idiotic American export from its shores.

Other Comments by nancy2001

21. Comment #52968 by Satanburiedfossils on June 28, 2007 at 7:55 pm

When will Intelligent Weather (IW) be taught alongside Meteorology?

Science is too narrow to explain weather. Have scientists ever built a weather machine in the laboratory? Of course not, so clearly they have no idea what they're talking about. Fortunately, the good book (KJV bible) has all the answers...

Clouds are solid (how else could they hold water?): Job 26:8

How clouds originate: they are stirred up when God walks across the sky (clouds are "the dust of his feet"). He also causes storms when he's angry:

Nahum 1:3 The LORD is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the LORD hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet.

God controls clouds:

Ezekiel 32:7 And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light.

(You see, the sun, moon, and stars are literally in the sky -- and at no great distance -- so God can easily cover them up and make them go away.)

God uses clouds as a form of transportation:

Numbers 11:25 And the LORD came down in a cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease.


Rain: The sky has windows that God opens and closes to produce rain (Genesis 7:11, Genesis 8:2)

(The entire universe is made of water [perhaps it's about time we taught this alternate theory in Astronomy class] and the sky contains a huge dome [literally the "vault of heaven"] that holds back this water. The "atmosphere" is actually a massive air bubble inside the dome. The "earth" lies at the base of the dome, and is an enormous land mass surrounded by water -- essentially a huge island. The whole notion of a "spherical" earth was probably cooked up by Satan to challenge your Faith.)


God causes flash floods:

Nahum 1:8 But with an overrunning flood he will make an utter end of the place thereof, and darkness shall pursue his enemies.


Frost is caused by God's breath:

Job 37:10 By the breath of God frost is given: and the breadth of the waters is straitened.


God is responsible for droughts: Haggai 1:11

Little known fact -- droughts are caused by sin: 1 Kings 8:35 When heaven is shut up, and there is no rain, because they have sinned against thee; if they pray toward this place, and confess thy name, and turn from their sin, when thou afflictest them:

However, earnest prayer can make it rain:

James 5:17-18 Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit.

(Certainly by now, the Almighty has seen fit to install some form of celestial plumbing. Unfortunately, God seems to have become increasingly absent-minded of late and sometimes forgets to turn on the spigots -- which perhaps explains today's frequent need to "pray for rain".)


More meteorological phenomena, courtesy of the Supreme Weatherman:

Hail and snow: Exodus 9:19, Haggai 2:17

Job 38:22-23 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail, Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?

(God stores up hail and snow to use whenever there's "trouble". Apparently there's a lot of "trouble" in the northeastern United States during wintertime.)

Thunderstorms:

Jeremiah 51:16 When he uttereth his voice, there is a multitude of waters in the heavens; and he causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth: he maketh lightnings with rain, and bringeth forth the wind out of his treasures.

(God stores wind. There's a burrito joke in there somewhere.)

Psalm 18:13-14 The Lord also thundered in the heavens, and the Highest gave his voice; hail stones and coals of fire. Yea, he sent out his arrows, and scattered them; and he shot out lightnings, and discomfited them.

(The Hebrew sky-god doing his best Zeus impersonation.)

Other Comments by Satanburiedfossils

22. Comment #52972 by Downunder on June 28, 2007 at 8:23 pm

Shuggy's post 1, I like that story, just a reading from another of the variety of Good Books, Bibles. Some are better than others, depends on one's taste.

Other Comments by Downunder

23. Comment #53025 by amazeen on June 29, 2007 at 3:22 am

People in Scotland will have to stand up against this. I´m moving there in a couple of months, it´s a good thing I don´t have children.

Other Comments by amazeen

24. Comment #53075 by RAS on June 29, 2007 at 8:23 am

The truly deppressing thing in the above mentioned poll is that while 69% think that evolution theory should be taught in school science class, 15% think it should NOT!
(the rest are unsure)
(thanks to Jamougha for doing the homework)

Other Comments by RAS

25. Comment #53083 by Greg23 on June 29, 2007 at 9:21 am

Oh man, this is really disheartening. I really like Scotland (esp. Edinburgh) and hate to see this happen.

- from U.S.A.

Other Comments by Greg23

26. Comment #53084 by phasmagigas on June 29, 2007 at 9:25 am

if this was an enforced part of the curriculum (the same could happen in England and Wales) then its a very good reason for science teachers to put down their chalk/interactive pens and go on an honest strike on the basis that they would be by law forced to tell the pupils lies regarding alternative theories. Admittedly the Maori myth is far more exotic, maybe that one should be included instead for a bit of cultural diversity, you know, cross curriculum and all that, maybe it could include the 'wetapunga' cricket the worlds largest insect (well, one of them) in the discussion, afterall it means 'god of ugly things' if i remember correctly.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

27. Comment #53087 by phasmagigas on June 29, 2007 at 9:31 am

the one thing that is extremely infuriating is that polling on evolution would be akinto polling the public on their view on eutectic points in molten rocks, do they accept them or not, most peole wouldnt have a clue and the same for evo, most people do not know what it is and why would they, how many people remember much of their chemistry or physics, how many can correctly label a flower cross section? The point is this, for some unfathomable reason people believe they are qualified enough to reject evo theory and you can bet your bottom $ that those who do couldnt even string together 2 factual sentences about the subject.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

28. Comment #53139 by PaulJ on June 29, 2007 at 4:00 pm

"It deserves formal consideration. It presents a scientific challenge to the construct that the world is the result of blind and purposeless forces."

It doesn't, and it doesn't.

Why do they insist on calling it Intelligent Design theory? The only science I've seen on the TiS website is stuff attempting (badly) to pick holes in evolution. Where's the alternative theory to explain what evolution explains? It's simply not enough to say that life-as-we-know-it was magicked into existence. And if they're not saying that, then what's the point?

By all means teach ID in RE (where it belongs), but never in science classes.

(Maybe all science teaching should begin with a primer about what is and isn't science.)

http://www.evilburnee.co.uk

Other Comments by PaulJ

29. Comment #53152 by Shuggy on June 29, 2007 at 5:12 pm

phasmagigas:

maybe it could include the 'wetapunga' cricket the worlds largest insect (well, one of them) in the discussion, afterall it means 'god of ugly things' if i remember correctly.

Wëtä are a kind of locust, and the wëtä punga (Deinacrida heteracantha) is indeed the giant wëtä. I have the greatest suspicion about this "god of ugly things" story: none of the references I could find have any authority; none of the several meanings of "punga" has anything to do with ugliness or gods. Wëtä is the name of the whole group of insects. The Mäori pantheon is very purposeful, as my first post indicated - what would a god of ugly things do or explain? Beauty is subjective and by many standards, the giant weta is a very handsome insect. My gut instinct says this is a modern myth, the kind of thing that tourist guides make up.

Other Comments by Shuggy

30. Comment #53162 by 386sx on June 29, 2007 at 9:14 pm

Why in the world would they think ID is worth anything. Don't they have the internet over there in Scotland?

Other Comments by 386sx

31. Comment #53261 by phasmagigas on June 30, 2007 at 12:21 pm

shuggy:

quote: 'Beauty is subjective and by many standards, the giant weta is a very handsome insect. My gut instinct says this is a modern myth, the kind of thing that tourist guides make up' unquote.

thats interesting that god of ugly things might be aload of recent nonsense. Im in total agreement with you on the beauty of the insect, the weta in general are incredible looking animals and i have had the good fortune to see THE giant weta, D.heteracantha in the wild.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

32. Comment #53281 by scottishgeologist on June 30, 2007 at 2:25 pm

I have just noticed on the Truth in Science web site, among the list of those involved, one name in particular:

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/191/82/

Notice Maurice Roberts. MR used to be a minister in the Free Church of Scotland, and was one of the leading figures in the split in 2000 that led to the "Free Church Continuing"

HE is a real fundie, biblical literalist and almost certainly a 6 day creationist / YEC.

The fact that someone like this is on their Board says it all.

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

33. Comment #53288 by BillySands on June 30, 2007 at 3:07 pm

just checked the truth in science joke site, Apparently there is a new design feature in the eye - shame they have no evidence of ths claim, I checked the flagellum page http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/240/63/
they cite this paper as evidence that the flagellum gave rise to the ttss and not the otherway around http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/17/7116
thet say

The authors disagree with the idea that the flagellum has evolved from the TTSS, and write that TTSS genes are "derived from" (p. 7120) flagellar genes. There is some evidence that the simpler structure of the TTSS could have evolved from the more complex structure of the flagellum, not vice versa.

However, the paper actually says

The structural features of the flagellum, along with the evidence of homology between FliI and ATP synthase subunits and between MotA/B and the secretion proteins TolQ-TolR, suggests that it originated as a primitive secretion system (16), first involving ATPase and then adding the rod, hook, and filament components by gene duplication and diversification. Its original role as a secretion apparatus is also supported by the clear links between the flagellum and the TTSS, a protein delivery system whose genetic architecture is similar to and derived from a flagellar gene complex (17, 20).

The paper also points out that some proteins are not necessary for flagellar function, further reducing its complexity.
Typical lying fundies!

Other Comments by BillySands

34. Comment #54151 by RogerScott on July 5, 2007 at 4:40 pm

Leeds U has disowned Prof McIntosh's ID activities.
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/media/news/mcintosh.htm
9 November 2006
Press statement: Professor Andrew McIntosh
Professor Andrew McIntosh's directorship of Truth in Science, and his promotion of that organisation's views, are unconnected to his teaching or research at the University of Leeds in his role as a professor of thermodynamics. As an academic institution, the University wishes to distance itself publicly from theories of creationism and so-called intelligent design which cannot be verified by evidence.

Other Comments by RogerScott