Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

ID in the UK

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I’d like to encourage people on the ground in the UK to comment on this and what it is likely to mean.

Senior academics support Truth in Science
Monday, 01 January 2007

As reported yesterday in the Sunday Times, twelve senior academics have written to the Prime Minister and Education Secretary in support of Truth in Science.

The group was lead by Norman Nevin OBE, Professor Emeritus of Medical Genetics, Queen’s University of Belfast and included Antony Flew, former Professor of Philosophy at Reading University and a distinguished supporter of humanism.

“We write to applaud the Truth in Science initiative,” the letter said. Empirical science has “severe limitations concerning origins” and Darwinism is not necessarily “the best scientific model to fit the data that we observe”.

They concluded: “We ask therefore that, where schools so choose, you ensure an open and honest approach to this subject under the National Curriculum, at the same time ensuring that the necessary criteria are maintained to deliver a rigorous education.”

The other signatories were: David Back, Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Liverpool; Steve Fuller, Professor of Sociology at Warwick University; Mart de Groot, Director, Retired, Armagh Astronomical Observatory; Terry Hamblin, Professor of Immunohaematology, University of Southampton; Colin Reeves, Professor of Operational Research at Coventry University and John Walton, Professor of Chemistry, St Andrews University, as well as the three University Professors who are members of the TiS Board and Council.

Professor Norman Nevin has authored over 300 peer-reviewed publications on various aspects of genetics, especially single gene disorders and congenital abnormalities. In his distinguished career he has held the posts: Head of the Northern Regional Genetics Service, President of the UK Clinical Genetics Society, member of the Human Genetics Advisory Commission and of the subsequent Human Genetics Commission, member of the European Concerted Action for Congenital Abnormalities, Chairman of the UK Gene Therapy Advisory Committee (GTAC). In 2003 he received an OBE for his services to gene therapy.

On 11 December, Professor Nevin received a response from the Department for Education and Skills’ Public Communications Unit on behalf of both the Prime Minster and the Education Secretary. The support for Truth in Science had been “noted by the Department” but the “vast majority” of enquiries that the DfES received had “expressed concern” about the Truth in Science resource pack.

“Intelligent design is not a recognised scientific theory” the Department claimed “and is therefore not included in the science curriculum. The Truth in Science information pack is not therefore an appropriate resource to support the science curriculum.”

However, intelligent design could discussed in science classes in response to pupil’s questions: “During a science lesson on evolution it is possible that pupils may ask about creationism and intelligent design. In this situation, the Department would expect teachers to answer pupil’s questions about this and other beliefs in a balanced way.”

SOURCE: http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/217/63

Comments
“I’ll accept random mutation and natural selection as the cause of life and its diversity…” (my bold) which suggested that he might not make the distinction that you assure me he does. In which case, my comments were redundant. They were not intended to lecture, merely to address the point he asked me to address.
Didn't notice that myself. Dave was too quick with a response. DaveGoofPoints++; But, yes, I know he understands the difference from previous experience (we've both been mods on UD for a while now). Anyway, I'd like to see the program that generates what you claim. Last time someone made that claim they wrote a program that generates 10 letter words, which doesn't even come close to producing 500 informational bits since it was using 8-bit single-byte coded graphic character sets. Even a 10 character word was difficult. For calculating the informational bits, here is an example: “ME THINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL” is only 133 bits of information(when calculated as a whole sentence; the complexity of the individual items of the set is 16, 48, 16, 16, 32, 8, 48 plus 8 bits for each space). So aequeosalinocalcalinoceraceoaluminosocupreovitriolic would be 416 informational bits. Even though that’s not 500 I’d still be surprised if that showed up unless the fitness function was designed in a certain manner.Patrick
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
Hi, Patrick I'm sorry if I made an erroneous assumption. DaveScot's comment began: "I’ll accept random mutation and natural selection as the cause of life and its diversity..." (my bold) which suggested that he might not make the distinction that you assure me he does. In which case, my comments were redundant. They were not intended to lecture, merely to address the point he asked me to address. I am happy to run a search on "genetic algorithms" but I would appreciate it if you would say what claim of mine you were referring to. My point was simply that if intelligence, for the purpose of inferring an "intelligent designer" from an example of "specified complexity" is defined as "the power and facility to choose between options" (and I agree with Dr. Dembski that an agent with such power is required to produce a pattern with "specified complexity"), then natural selection has that power and facility. Genetic algorithms are interesting (and I work on learning algorithms myself) but they were not central to the point I was making. A simple if...then statement is all that is required to satisfy the requirement of "the power and facility to choose between options". Cheers LizzieFebble
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
Febbles: First off, Dave and everyone here is fully aware that OOL is different from TOE. Whenever a Darwinist comes on here and blindly starts "lecturing" I just roll my eyes. Secondly, run a search on "genetic algorithms" because that is obviously what you're referring to. And Bunjo's hypothetical discussion is a false caricature of ID. Only a teacher who is either ignorant of ID or purposely distorting it would respond as such. So do you guys have anything truly interesting to add to UD or is going to be another repetition of common nonsense?Patrick
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT
Good points, bunjo. At present Paley's design argument is explicitly covered in R.E., indeed lots of schools liaise to "cover" that unit as Science lessons "do Darwin". The Muslim position is interesting - I have known many Muslim students say "we don't believe in Darwin". They then fully agree with all the processes & assumptions behind NDE, while still holding they don;t agree with "Darwin", as if the very name is some cultural talisman. Finally, to sladjo, I get the feeling you would really be shocked by the low level of respect the Bible carries here in the UK. The consensus seems to be that one "picks & chooses" the nice bits & ignores the "silly" bits (people living to 900, seas parting etc). Church of England bishops here openly doubt virginal birth, for example, and no-one bats an eyelid. As for Catholics & the origin of life, well, that isn't NDE, is it, as surely that's only meant to cover the subsequent development of life...littlejon
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
Patrick: What claim? And if you have a link to something that refutes something I have claimed, please provide it. Thanks.Febble
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
Febble, go read the UD archives. That claim has been repeated so many times it's not funny.Patrick
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
From a UK viewpoint I have to say that the general response to ID will be underwhelming. From my own experience and the more recent experience of my sons, the discussion in the Science class is likley to be along these lines: Pupil: "Sir, what about the Intelligent Design theory?" Teacher: "The Intelligent Design hypothesis argues that life is too complex to have evolved through natural causes alone, and must have been designed." Pupil: "Who was the designer?" Teacher: "The hypothesis doesn't say." Pupil: "When did this happen?" Teacher: "The hypothesis doesn't say." Pupil: "How was the design carried out?" Teacher: "The hypothesis doesn't say." Pupil: "Who designed the designer?" Teacher: "The hypothesis doesn't say." Pupil: "The hypothesis isn't much use then is it?" Teacher: "No. Lets move on." The debate in R.E. (Religous Education) will almost certainly be longer and more interesting but ID will be associated with the idea of supernatural creation. As littlejon says there are very few people in the UK who believe that the Biblical creation stories are factually correct, and many of those who do also accept the Theory of Evolution as scientific fact at the same time. Most other Christians accept the Biblical creation stories as metaphors and most other non-Abrahamic faiths have other sacred texts. I am unsure about the views of Muslims and Jews. I hope that helps - in the UK there just isn't the same level of acceptance of the literal truth of the creation stories in the Bible, so you need some real scientific proof to back the ID hypothesis to make any significant headway.bunjo
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT
DaveScot: I'm sorry, I did not respond to this point: "I’ll accept random mutation and natural selection as the cause of life and its diversity right after someone shows me how to design a computer by trial and error starting from nothing but the simple unorganized elements (silicon, copper, etc.) that make it up. Start explaining that to me if you would." Firstly, of course, "random mutation and natural selection" are not p0stulated as the cause of life, only of its diversity. Darwin said nothing about the how the first cell came into existence, and nor do evolutionary biologists. So the equivalent operation in computer terms is not "design[ing] a computer by trial and error starting from nothing but the simple unorganized elements (silicon, copper, etc.) that make it up". The theory of evolution tells us nothing about how the first DNA molecule was assembled from "simple unorganized elements", nor indeed how any molecule is assembled from "simple unorganized elements", although chemistry tells us a lot, particularly about how complex organic molecules are formed from carbon and hydrogen. However, if you want me to explain how, given a computer and an operating system, complex algorithms can be created by trial and error, then I'm happy to do so. It involves a random number generator, and a series of "if...then" statements. In other words, the computer equivalent of random mutation, and natural selection proposed by the ToE. Such a program has the "power and facility to choose between options", and is thus capable of producing patterns with "specified complexity", and possesses "intelligence" as defined in this context by Dr Dembski. As does the system of random mutation and natural selection. Dr. Dembski's Intelligent Design theory is not, therefore, an alternative to the Theory of Evolution. Rather, the system proposed in the Theory of Evolution is, by Dr. Dembski's own definition, an example of "intelligent" design.Febble
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
02:18 AM
2
02
18
AM
PDT
DaveScot: Yes, I am aware that cells are complex. But you are arguing ID from degree of complexity, not kind. Dr Dembski's ID argument is that it is the quality ("specified"), not the quantity, of the complexity exhibited by living things that identifies them as having been produced by an intelligent agent, for which he provides an operational definition. Natural Selection possesses "intelligence" according to that operational defines it. As such, it can produce specified complexity. Whether it can produce enough "complexity" to account for the variety of life is separate issue. IDist: Nature may not be "intelligent" by many definitions. I do not ascribe to it intention or foresight, or consciousness, for example. But I refer you again to Dr Dembski's definition of intelligence for the purpose of inferring an intelligent designer from observed patterns (e.g. in a signal picked up by SETI), namely "the power and facility to choose between options". Natural Selection has this power and facility. It's how it works. It's also why it's called selection. (BTW, you assumed I'm male. I'm female, as it happens.) shaner74: Again, we were talking about ID as a scientific theory. As a scientific theory ID is sound, if "intelligence" is defined as Dr Dembski defines it. And, as Dr Dembski defines it, an intelligence "with the power and facility to choose between options" is indeed capable of, as you put it "inputting new information into the system". It's how computers work. You may not believe it is capable of making a cell work, but that is not the debate here. The debate is whether ID, as defined by Dr Dembski is a scientific hypothesis. It is. And it describes Natural Selection very nicely. Natural Selection cannot, of course, account for the existence of my immortal soul. But the origin of my immortal soul cannot be investigated by means available to science. Cheers Elizabeth Liddle (just so there is no further confusion as to my gender).Febble
January 5, 2007
January
01
Jan
5
05
2007
12:50 AM
12
12
50
AM
PDT
@littlejon "I would say that every Christian I know here in the UK has no issue with NDE - along the lines of “that explains the body, God explains the soul” - essentially the line of the Church of England & Catholics." Sorry, folks, but some of you in UK have real theological problems... I'm not familiar with the Church of England's doctrine, but what you suggest it's not what the Bible teaches... And I'm sure Catholics would not have a similar position on OOL... Bible is very precise when it comes to life origin. Some would have divergent opinions regarding the time period in which God created the Universe and life (YECs, OECs), but it is stated clear that the bodies AND souls were CREATED by God... Don't you think that your statement is rather funny ? Evolution created bodies, souls where created by God ?... No surprise, then, that Dawkins has such big success in UK... :-) I don't want to offend anyone, but hey! You really need to reconsider that type of thinking, for your own sake.Sladjo
January 4, 2007
January
01
Jan
4
04
2007
11:15 PM
11
11
15
PM
PDT
“The fact that the selection process postulated by the ToE is a “natural” one (”Natural Selection”) does not disqualify it from being an agent “with the power and facility to choose between options”.” The blind watchmaker becomes a person. “This is exactly what it does, by means of a simple IF…THEN selection algorithm. IF a variant survives THEN it replicates. Variants with greater capacity to survive are selected (chosen), while those with lesser capacity are rejected.” I’ve read this so many times. When someone designs a “simple” IF…THEN logical test capable of creating and modifying self-replicating biological machines without inputting new information into the system and demonstrates this in the lab I will take another look at NDE. Until then I'll just be ignorant, stupid and wicked.shaner74
January 4, 2007
January
01
Jan
4
04
2007
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT
Mr. Febble I'm not by any means a scientist, just a university student. However I find your "view" of ID is somehow strange. Natural Selection is the opposite of intelligence, because "Nature" has no intelligence. ID doesn't mean that the system's design itself is "intelligent", but that the system was intelligently designed, that is some intelligent entity/entities designed the system, not blind natural forces. Therefore I can't understand how ID is the same as natural selection. I do agree that ID is not completely against darwinian evolution, they can both work together perfectly fine, but the problem is claiming that NDT explains everything, which is not true IMO.IDist
January 4, 2007
January
01
Jan
4
04
2007
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT
Febble As a scientist maybe you have some idea how complex the computer is that you're using to read this. Maybe you also have some idea that even the simplest living cell is a machine far more complex than your computer. I'll accept random mutation and natural selection as the cause of life and its diversity right after someone shows me how to design a computer by trial and error starting from nothing but the simple unorganized elements (silicon, copper, etc.) that make it up. Start explaining that to me if you would. I'll excuse Darwin's 19th century ignorance of how even the simplest bacteria is a machine of extraordinary complexity that far exceeds any machine mankind has managed to put together even in the 21st century. I won't forgive anyone who claims to be a scientist today for the same level of ignorance. DaveScot
January 4, 2007
January
01
Jan
4
04
2007
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT
This is exactly what it does, by means of a simple IF…THEN selection algorithm. IF a variant survives THEN it replicates. Variants with greater capacity to survive are selected (chosen), while those with lesser capacity are rejected. Survival of the survivors. Brilliant! I guess we can all go home now. Case closed.DaveScot
January 4, 2007
January
01
Jan
4
04
2007
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT
I am a scientist, a Christian theist, and a UK citizen, with a son in a UK secondary school. This is my response to your encouragement to comment. I am happy to accept "Intelligent Design" as a scientific hypothesis to account for the development of life, as proposed by yourself, Dr Dembski, as long as you stand by this definition of intelligence: ' by intelligence I mean the power and facility to choose between options--this coincides with the Latin etymology of “intelligence,” namely, “to choose between” ' http://www.designinference.com/documents/2000.11.ID_coming_clean.htm However, such a hypothesis need not (and should not) be presented as an "alternative to evolution" as it is described in the Truth In Science materials. Far from rejecting an agent "with the power and facility to choose between options", this is exactly what the Theory of Evolution postulates as the agent of evolutionary change - a process of_selection_ (aka "choice") between options. The fact that the selection process postulated by the ToE is a "natural" one ("Natural Selection") does not disqualify it from being an agent "with the power and facility to choose between options". This is exactly what it does, by means of a simple IF...THEN selection algorithm. IF a variant survives THEN it replicates. Variants with greater capacity to survive are selected (chosen), while those with lesser capacity are rejected. Certainly Natural Selection has no_intentionality_ but you yourself, Dr Dembski, have made it clear that the "intentionality" problem ", together with the "ethical", "aesthetics" and "identity" problems,"are not questions of science". Yes, patterns we see in life-forms indicate an "intelligent" (as per your definition) design process. But they do not imply anything not also implied by Natural Selection. Suggesting that the appearance of "intelligent design" ( by your definition of intelligence) contradicts the Theory of Evolution is therefore illogical, and it would appear that the Truth In Science materials do just that. Suggesting that life-forms have the appearance of "intelligent design" using a definition of intelligence that would NOT cover Natural Selection (e.g. one that invoked intentionality) would not, as you say, be science at all. I am therefore opposed to the Truth In Science materials.Febble
January 4, 2007
January
01
Jan
4
04
2007
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT
Woooooah. "Well, if you believe in God you cannot accept NDE, unless you are not aware of some facts or unless you are ignorant" Bit strong, surely? I would say that every Christian I know here in the UK has no issue with NDE - along the lines of "that explains the body, God explains the soul" - essentially the line of the Church of England & Catholics. As regards schools, at GCSE (equivalent to 12 grade) "teach the controversy" tends to mean Darwin vs Lamarck, or details - Out-of-Africa vs multiple evolution of H. sapiens, for example, weighing up the evidence for sapiens / Neanderthal interbreeding...littlejon
January 4, 2007
January
01
Jan
4
04
2007
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT
I agree with trystero57, most people in the UK are only interested in as Schaeffer has stated personal peace and affluence. Those that are Christians generally have an anti intellectual bias; we are exhorted to feel not to think. Of course this is a generalisation and as always thankfully there are exceptions to the rule.WormHerder
January 4, 2007
January
01
Jan
4
04
2007
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
"They haven’t thought and - probably - they don’t care." Yes, I think that's exactly right. The majority of people (in the UK) simply don't care; they don't see anything as being at stake. I cannot see ID catching on over here (nor, however, I think, have or will the implications of NDE and "materialistic abiogenesis"). "Well, if you believe in God you cannot accept NDE, unless you are not aware of some facts or unless you are ignorant. As simple as that. Those are two totally different worldviews, one based on a Designer of life, and one based on materialistic abiogenesis. Those two cannot coexist logically and cannot be both true." Pace Steve Gould and Ken Miller, I agree with this too - as far as the Abrahamic religions go, at least. It all depends how you define God, though, surely. As an aside, some of the people who I've discussed this with who are actual Christians (as opposed to having been brought up vaguely C of E and then simply stopped thinking about it) believe in some sort of emergence-of-soul theory with which they reconcile NDE and Christianity.trystero57
January 4, 2007
January
01
Jan
4
04
2007
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
"In my experience most people (of my generation at least) in the UK, whether athesit/agnostic or religous, don’t base their beliefs on NDE. Almost all (Christian) believers I know are happy to accept NDE and their religion and don’t see a conflict, probably simply because they haven’t thought about it very much." They haven't thought and - probably - they don't care. Well, if you believe in God you cannot accept NDE, unless you are not aware of some facts or unless you are ignorant. As simple as that. Those are two totally different worldviews, one based on a Designer of life, and one based on materialistic abiogenesis. Those two cannot coexist logically and cannot be both true.Sladjo
January 4, 2007
January
01
Jan
4
04
2007
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT
"This kids will grow up one day and they will have a deformed worldview which was gained in that particular school where they didn’t have a chance to hear about the debate. So, reconsider that apathy thing… " In my experience most people (of my generation at least) in the UK, whether athesit/agnostic or religous, don't base their beliefs on NDE. Almost all (Christian) believers I know are happy to accept NDE and their religion and don't see a conflict, probably simply because they haven't thought about it very much. Remember, hardly anyone in this country goes to church regularly, even those who call themselves Christians (the few who do often do so in order to secure places in Church schools for their children and leave once this mission is complete), and most people stop classroom learning about science at the age of 16. I know few people whose worldviews are based on either NDE or any perceived holes in the theory. People are much more interested in politics than religion/NDE, in my experience. That's what I meant by apathy.trystero57
January 4, 2007
January
01
Jan
4
04
2007
03:38 AM
3
03
38
AM
PDT
Just loved the fairy tail... I'll tell it to my little girl tonight, before sleep... I'll bet she will fall asleep in a minute!Sladjo
January 4, 2007
January
01
Jan
4
04
2007
02:02 AM
2
02
02
AM
PDT
Here is a 6 minute video clip of the late Carl Sagan preaching evolution BIG time. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-522726029201501667&q=carl+saganRobo
January 4, 2007
January
01
Jan
4
04
2007
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PDT
"I did, however, attend a (compulsory) lecture by a YEC lecturer that was so astoundingly bad that I think I would give it a fair bit of credit in forming my NDE-based atheism!" Yeah, a bad teacher can negatively influence a pupil... But you can find bad teachers in almost every school, not only among YEC supporters... Bad teaching of an idea/theory does not mean that the idea/theory is necessarily bad. That's why I personally consider that ID has solid ground, because it tries to demolish one belief system with it's own method and weapons: real science. And that's why the NDE supporters are so worried about. For instance, M. Behe cannot be compared with some YEC pseudo-scientist... "Generally speaking, however, and speaking as someone who attended a quite religious school, I think the chances are that kids are mainly too busy either swotting for exams or laughing at drawings of naked ladies in textbooks to care much one way or the other about these debates in biology classes. Thanks goodness for old-fashioned British apathy! " This kids will grow up one day and they will have a deformed worldview which was gained in that particular school where they didn't have a chance to hear about the debate. So, reconsider that apathy thing...Sladjo
January 4, 2007
January
01
Jan
4
04
2007
12:17 AM
12
12
17
AM
PDT
Wormherder/antg: ". . .Don’t forget the most ground breaking research was done by theists." Including also Galileo Galilei and Nicolaus Copernicus . . .Emkay
January 3, 2007
January
01
Jan
3
03
2007
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT
Having taken Science GCSEs I admit I don't remember evolution being a major part of my biology lessons in any case. As far as I recall biology was taught principally synchronically rather than historically. I did, however, attend a (compulsory) lecture by a YEC lecturer that was so astoundingly bad that I think I would give it a fair bit of credit in forming my NDE-based atheism! Generally speaking, however, and speaking as someone who attended a quite religious school, I think the chances are that kids are mainly too busy either swotting for exams or laughing at drawings of naked ladies in textbooks to care much one way or the other about these debates in biology classes. Thanks goodness for old-fashioned British apathy!trystero57
January 3, 2007
January
01
Jan
3
03
2007
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
This Antony Flew is a very interesting person... http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/belief/scripts/antony_flew.html http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/index.cfmChristopherSaint
January 3, 2007
January
01
Jan
3
03
2007
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
I agree with country6925. At the very least GCSE students should be told what the serious problems with the TOE are, even if they're given the "the cheque's in the post" response scientific materialists are so fond of. I'm cheered to see a petition's been made, but not too optimistic. This is the country that has a picture of Charly D on the back of the £10 note, after all.mattghg
January 3, 2007
January
01
Jan
3
03
2007
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
As a basketball fan from Indiana (the state, and also the University), I suddenly realize that the thread title is not "IU vs. UK", and find my interest dwindling.Douglas
January 3, 2007
January
01
Jan
3
03
2007
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
Just finished watching your debate with Lee Silver on the ISI website for the third time. So much for his claim that this debate only rages in America.gwhite
January 3, 2007
January
01
Jan
3
03
2007
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
Mats:
In the Darwinian mind, criticizing Darwinism is presenting an alternative. Remember: “critical analysis” means “Creationism”.
If you read what our side writes, you will also have to conclude that in the IDers mind, criticism of Darwinism is presenting an alternative. Physics lived for a number of years in the collapse of the ether theory before Einstein provided a new theory. Having to live with an incomplete theory is not impossible for science. If we don't bite off more than we can chew, if we only allow the world to know that there are HUGE unanswered questions, then ID stands a good chance of finding its way into the mainstream. At least we will end the cockiness of Dawkins et. el., and I will continue to be able to raise my children right.bFast
January 3, 2007
January
01
Jan
3
03
2007
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply