…and this is a 
Here is a piece of text from a textbook used by fundamentalist Christians in a biology class.
Have you heard of the 'Loch Ness Monster' in Scotland? 'Nessie,' for short has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur.
Could a fish have developed into a dinosaur? As astonishing as it may seem, many evolutionists theorize that fish evolved into amphibians and amphibians into reptiles. This gradual change from fish to reptiles has no scientific basis. No transitional fossils have been or ever will be discovered because God created each type of fish, amphibian, and reptile as separate, unique animals. Any similarities that exist among them are due to the fact that one Master Craftsmen fashioned them all.
Oy, that's familiar tripe — creationists repeat this kind of nonsense over and over again. The cryptozoology angle is also drearily common: many creationists think dinosaurs and humans coexisted recently, and that dinosaurs even still exist in exotic locations like the Congo and Canada. The existence of modern dinosaurs is considered evidence against evolution.
So that book is unsurprisingly stupid. There is something surprising about it, though: a UK government agency has just decided that such garbage is legitimate education, and has declared the fundamentalist young-earth creationist curriculum to be equivalent to their international A-levels. This agency, the National Recognition Information Centre (Naric), is blithely advising employers and universities that students who have gone through the creationist indoctrination and propaganda program have received a respectable education in science.
Well, you now know how much to trust a Naric recommendation. Not at all.
Education
Comments
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 31, 2009 10:54 AM
But can you fit a saddle on Nessie? Enquiring minds want to know!
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
July 31, 2009 10:55 AM
Blah blah blah! Just wait until I find Sasquatch; that will disprove evolution! And even if I never find Bigfoot, I still have pygmies and dwarfs. How about it perfesser? WHAT ABOUT PYGMIES AND DWARFS???
Posted by: Paul The Burptist | July 31, 2009 10:57 AM
That's where you're wrong creotards, the Yeti proves evil-loos-shun once and for all.
Posted by: Jeff Risher | July 31, 2009 10:59 AM
I look forward to hearing "would you like fries with that?" with a lovely British accent.
Posted by: Josh | July 31, 2009 11:00 AM
A. Yes, they could.
B. Plesiosaurs aren't dinosaurs.
Next.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 31, 2009 11:00 AM
And there was someone on another thread who said that exposing creationists wasn't important...
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
July 31, 2009 11:00 AM
PZ, you might want to be careful on this one. NARIC isn't a UK governmental agency - it is a European Union agency that each country is required to designate, and together they form a network. In no way is any country required to have NARIC in anything other than an advisory role. I don't know the specifics in the UK, but my guess is that since the UK already has a very strong educational system, NARIC's recommendation isn't going to gain much traction over there and will be essentially meaningless. What may happen, though, is that the creationist degrees may have more status than they should outside the UK, especially in countries that use NARIC in a stronger role.
Posted by: Caine | July 31, 2009 11:01 AM
@ Bill Dauphin
Don't be silly, you don't saddle sea critters - bareback riding only!
Posted by: Larry | July 31, 2009 11:02 AM
I love it! Using one mythical creature to prove another.
There is a scientific foundation build on bedrock.
Posted by: shyster | July 31, 2009 11:02 AM
I had a discussion with a YEC and pointed out that his children, in a religious school, were going to be at a disadvantage in applying for jobs because of this type of crap. His answer, "No they won't. Did any employer ever ask what type of biology you had in high school?"
I said,"No, but what about college?"
He said, "Colleges are begging for students. We will work it out."
You know what? He's right. Where do you think these adult wackaloons come from? They come from young, misinformed wackaloons. And that is the saddest part of all of this; many in the business community don't care. There is no penalty for being stupid.
Posted by: Randy | July 31, 2009 11:03 AM
Going bareback with a sea critter? Doesn't sound safe... you might get crabs or something... (I'm here all week, don't forget to tip your server)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 31, 2009 11:05 AM
California would like to have a talk with your friend.
Posted by: Sili
|
July 31, 2009 11:08 AM
Reading Goldacre's Bad Science at the moment, I fear that problem is not with the creos exams, but with the A-levels.Posted by: Dania
|
July 31, 2009 11:09 AM
Lying for Jesus again. What a surprise...
Posted by: Geds | July 31, 2009 11:12 AM
Jeff Risher: I look forward to hearing "would you like fries with that?" with a lovely British accent.
I believe you'll be hearing, "Would you like chips with that?"
Also, is someone going to tell the Loch Ness Bible Bangers that Loch Ness is only, like, ten thousand years old? Oh, wait, that won't solve any problems. That still makes it four thousand years older than the entire Earth in their version of the world...
Posted by: Walton | July 31, 2009 11:12 AM
Bizarrely enough, despite being a Brit, I've never heard of NARIC before. The main government agency for accrediting qualifications in the UK is the QCA (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority), which is widely renowned for its total incompetence, so I wouldn't be at all surprised at their doing something like this. But I don't know what NARIC is, or what authority, if any, it actually has.
In any case, this event does rather prove my point that government interference with educational standards is, at best, useless. (I hate to say "I told you so...")
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 31, 2009 11:14 AM
Just suppose a living plesiosaur was discovered. That would disprove evolution... how? It's amazing how creobots can lay down layer upon layer of stupid.
Just a more cheering item from the UK. The Law Lords (the UK's highest court) has ruled unanimously that the Director of Public Prosecutions must spell out when prosecutions would and would not be pursued in cases of assisted suicide. Until now, anyone accompanying a relative or friend to Switzerland for voluntary euthanasia has run a risk of unknown magnitude of being prosecuted for a crime with a maximum sentence of 14 years in jail - although no prosecutions have actually occurred. The case was brought by Debbie Purdy, who suffers from MS. Of course, a law on the lines of Oregon's would be much better, but even this is a victory over the religious obscurantists who have so far successfully prevented such a law, which has overwhelming public support, from being passed.
Posted by: Cheb Ghobbi | July 31, 2009 11:18 AM
I'm ashamed that this is going on in my once-rational country...
Posted by: rob | July 31, 2009 11:23 AM
@Rev BigDumbChimp:
you said: "And there was someone on another thread who said that exposing creationists wasn't important..."
why, oh why, would you want to expose a creationist? i shudder to think what they look like nude. i would find myself mentally dressing them.
Posted by: Richard Eis | July 31, 2009 11:24 AM
-Tim Buttress, Naric's spokesman, told the TES its remit did not cover the curriculum's content.-
What then is the point of the Naric? They judge the level of a curriculum without looking at the curriculum?
Posted by: Sastra
|
July 31, 2009 11:24 AM
There's a new term that's been bouncing around scienceblogs recently -- I think Orac came up with it: "crank magnetism." It refers to the observation that people who believe in one form of pseudoscience will often believe in other, seemingly unrelated types of woo. An alternative medicine advocate might be a 9-11 Truther. Someone who denies the holocaust also believes that "They" put fluoride in the water to sterilize the unwary masses. Vaccinations cause autism AND people are being abducted by space aliens. Creationists can believe in the Loch Ness monster. Why not?
One form of crankery attracts other forms of crankery, like a magnet, because once someone's critical thinking facility is out of whack, there's no filter. They've lost the brakes which allow them to go "whoa, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it?!"
The special world view of the conspiracy mindset is capable of interpreting everything -- even a lack of evidence -- as evidence in support of a favored theory. And feeling as if you are one of the special few, the clear-thinking, courageous, humble maverick who bucks the majority and sees the truth -- is a very heady feeling indeed.
So this may be just another example of crank magnetism, at work in the UK. And yet another reason for atheists to try to put the quash on the idea that there's something really noble and admirable about the ability to "have a deep and unshakeable faith" -- as long as it's kept confined to one tiny little area.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 31, 2009 11:25 AM
Walton. Please. PLEASE. Stop the thread jacking of every single fucking thread.
PLEASE
Posted by: Mr T | July 31, 2009 11:26 AM
Walton:
Yes, Walton, it's quite striking how stupid both of these arguments are. Thanks. *sigh* If only the Creation Museum LLC would free us from the tyranny of the TX Board of Education....
Oh, by the way, my head has just exploded.
Posted by: MarkW | July 31, 2009 11:26 AM
Jeff Risher at #4:
There is no one "British accent". A Geordie (from Newcastle-Upon-Tyne) and a Cockney (from East London) sound as different (at least to my ears) as a New Yorker and a Texan probably do to yours.
Hell, I can tell a Burnley accent from a Bolton accent, and they're only about 20 miles apart.
Posted by: BlueMonday | July 31, 2009 11:28 AM
When I was a young child I had a serious obsession with dinosaurs. (OK, OK, I still have it--I was moved to tears upon entrance to the AMNH.) I could identify even the more obscure dinosaurs by the time I was about 5. My mother, who to this day is still a hyper-superstitious xian, bought me a creationist book about dinosaurs. Do you have any idea how cruel it is to tell a young, dinosaur-obsessed child that those creatures may still roam the earth?
For the record, I had a miserable science education at my private xian school. It was so bad that I was too afraid to pursue any science courses beyond general requirements while in college--I knew I would be behind the other students, despite being reasonably smart, and I was afraid of not being able to catch up. I've worked on a science education since, but it would've been nice to have it at the start.
One more note: I don't want to out myself too much here, but for those YECs who think that they can just send their young'uns to a xian university and be done with it: I attended the evangelical cream of the crop (Oral Roberts University--don't make fun of me, I didn't want to be there), and they taught plain ol' evolution in the gen. ed. biology classes. The administration didn't approve of it, but the professors did it anyway--because it's science. They were still nutty otherwise, e.g. speaking in tongues in class. (And yes, it's bad when you're afraid of not keeping up with the science at ORU.)
Posted by: shyster | July 31, 2009 11:32 AM
Chimp, at no point did I say "friend."
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
July 31, 2009 11:34 AM
How so?
If this is a government agency, they can be pressured by the public to retract the endorsement. It happens often. Sometimes even public pressure fails, certainly.
If we abandoned schools to for-profit corporations, schools would be allowed to teach non-science like this with no real public option. There would always be enough whack-a-loons to make a school like this profitable.
Here we are bemoaning a situation that would, at worst, give greater freedoms to schools in the areas of science education, freedoms that would be intrinsic to for-profit or non-standardized schools.
If you feel a self-regulating industry with a self-governed standards body is free from this sort of shenanigans, I have several examples to the contrary (such as the hijacked ECMA/ISO standardization of MS-OOXML).
Government oversight of education is not perfect, but it's demonstrably better than the alternatives.
Posted by: dea | July 31, 2009 11:37 AM
PZ this is similar to what you've highlighted about Romania.
Holy crap in the UK?!!?
I liked those people, with their reasonably weak religious feel.
The fun part is this is actually against the EU directive that specifically prohibits creationism.
Posted by: Sili
|
July 31, 2009 11:42 AM
I can see that I should have paid more attention to my surroundings in Bath (this was before I'd awakened to these issues, though) - town and gown, I guess.
That ACE system, they mention, has been ruled unsatisfactory here in Denmark, too, if I recall correctly.
Yes, we do apparently have a small group of fundies around. Though, I can't honestly recall if this particular brouhahaha was over the Muslim fundamentalist school or not.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | July 31, 2009 11:43 AM
There goes the thread. Bye Nessie!
Posted by: Karma | July 31, 2009 11:44 AM
From the article:
"Tim Buttress, Naric's spokesman, told the TES its remit did not cover the curriculum's content."
How the Hell do you determine the equivalence of courses without looking at their content ?
Looks like a pretty cushy job to me. I wonder what qualifications are required to get it ?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 31, 2009 11:44 AM
ooops, my bad.
Posted by: SC, OM, Blogmistress | July 31, 2009 11:45 AM
I'm sorry - this is just the coolest freakin' science story I've seen in some time, and I had to share:
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/07/an_entire_bacterial_genome_discovered_inside_that_of_a_fruit.php
Posted by: truthspeaker | July 31, 2009 11:45 AM
Walton, no one here is interested in your ideology. You admittted that 19th Century Britain was the closest thing you could think of to the libertarian society you envision. Nobody here wants to live in a society like that. You are advocating a society that the posters here find morally repugnant. You're not going to win any converts.
Posted by: Gorogh | July 31, 2009 11:47 AM
"Evil", "dishonest", "stupid".
Any combination thereof describes both the authors of this book and the people who expose their kids to it.
Did I forget "disgusting"?
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
July 31, 2009 11:49 AM
Yikes! Mea culpa.
Sorry, folks. I haven't had coffee yet this morning, and I wasn't thinking. I apologize for replying to Walton.
Walton, I retract my post. It has little to do with the issue at hand, and further discussion would hijack this thread. If you wish to continue this discussion, my profile leads to my personal website, where you can hopefully figure out my email address. I'd be happy to continue this in private.
Again: sorry.
Just to make this on-topic: I (heart) Nessie. I really really wish it did exist, as that's way cooler than the truth. But even if it did, how in Grue's Great Name does it disprove evolution?
Posted by: Geds | July 31, 2009 11:50 AM
Karma: Looks like a pretty cushy job to me. I wonder what qualifications are required to get it ?
I believe that you have to spell your name accurately (within two letters) on the application and demonstrate your ability to say confusing things to the media.
Compromising photos of the people on the hiring committee are also strongly recommended.
Posted by: SEF | July 31, 2009 11:50 AM
@ shyster #10:
That would make such a great M$ (or indeed many other companies!) product slogan (given that far too many things are aimed at allowing the incompetent to preserve their delusions of adequacy - at the expense of competent people who want stuff to work properly), ie:
Microsoft: because there's no penalty for being stupid.
PS I may have to dial my cynicism down a notch; but I've just had to deal with some financial bods on the phone, so I've already used up what very limited enthusiasm I had today.
Posted by: SC, OM, Blogmistress | July 31, 2009 11:51 AM
Oh, oops - I guess it's a repost. One I'm grateful for, as an uninformed non-biologist.
:)
Posted by: blueelm | July 31, 2009 11:53 AM
Wow, SC. That is a really interesting link.
Posted by: SC, OM, Blogmistress | July 31, 2009 11:55 AM
Erm, from almost two years ago.
*shuffles off*
*vows to stick to posting about social science*
Posted by: Pseudonymous | July 31, 2009 11:55 AM
Depending on whether the NARIC agency in question is UK based or the entire organisation, I am may be ashamed. No qustion, though, I am outraged at this.
Posted by: Gorogh | July 31, 2009 11:58 AM
@Blogmistress #33, I did not read it before and am grateful for the link. Awesome, fascinating.
Posted by: TigerRepellingRock | July 31, 2009 11:59 AM
I don't know what makes me angrier, the creationist idiocy or this:
Walton: It may interest you to know that the UK's NARIC is run by ECCTIS Ltd, a shareholder owned private limited company (sorry, am I feeding a troll?)
Posted by: sasqwatch | July 31, 2009 11:59 AM
#2 The Science Pundit sez:
"Blah blah blah! Just wait until I find Sasquatch; that will disprove evolution!"
Well... you found him. I'm right here. But don't expect me to disprove evolution any time soon. And spell my name correctly the next time, buddy.
Seriously, it's unfortunate that the Guardian reprints the news w/o adequate fact-checking (Naric not being a government agency is a pretty critical factoid to get right). Still glad they bring the whole nutter thing out front and center for a round of ridicule. Ridicule is good.
Posted by: Matt Heath | July 31, 2009 12:01 PM
I don't what units you'd use to measure this but I've heard it claimed that there is much variation in accent just between the Wash and the Severn as in the entire US. If this is true the difference between broad Geordie and broad Cockney (if you could find someone still speaking the latter) would be a lot more than between New York and Texas.I suspect that people who didn't already know wouldn't reliably group Geordie, Cockney and (let's say) Glaswegian closer to one another than to accents from other English speaking countries, but it's possible I'm just hearing from down wrong end of a telescope. Can non-British English speakers hear distinctly British features shared in these accents?
Posted by: Jeff Risher | July 31, 2009 12:02 PM
MarkW at #24
I'm aware of the fact that there is no one "British" accent (and actually thought twice about using that descriptor as soon as I hit "post"). I was being brief and snarky between the first and second cup of coffee. You understood what I was saying, right? ;)
Posted by: Suricou Raven | July 31, 2009 12:05 PM
"Tim Buttress, Naric's spokesman, told the TES its remit did not cover the curriculum's content."
Mystery solved.
Claiming NARIC certified the qualifications is like saying your agency selling tickets for holidays on Pluto is ISO9001 certified. It may be true, and that certification may be hard earned and deserved - but that doesn't mean the business is actually a good one. It just means that when it flogs ridiculous nonsense to customers, it keeps a properly up to code paper trail of exactly what nonsense was sold and who by.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 31, 2009 12:05 PM
Nope, it is a Government agency.
Their website is here.
The agency functions are outsourced to a private company, ECCTIS but the functions remain a Government agency.
Posted by: Paul | July 31, 2009 12:05 PM
Every time you respond to Walton, God kills a kitten.
Please, think of the kittens.
Also, maybe he'll go away if you refuse to treat his regurgitated right wing talking points as if they are honestly held and arrived at beliefs.
Posted by: Barklikeadog | July 31, 2009 12:06 PM
A lot of people apply to my program where I teach. We look for the classes they have taken and from where. Yes it does make a difference.
"you took it where? Well, we require you to take the one we offer before we can consider you. Plus we'll have to adjust the GPA to reflect that as a 'NO Credit'".
Which can sometimes help them if they may a D or C I guess.
And yes, this is in the great land that spawned ORU.
Posted by: eric | July 31, 2009 12:07 PM
What is most embarrasing about the news article is that the British creationists are using imported American books.
On behalf of the colonies, I apologize.
Posted by: Suricou Raven | July 31, 2009 12:10 PM
Also, much as I dislike to admit this, creationist training doesn't make someone that much harder to employ. Yes, it means they'll be completly unsuitable for any research role, or anywhere that needs actual thinking. But - sorry all you wannabe scientists - most science workers are basically drones. The lab techs and assistants who make sure the standard solutions are standard, the equipment is calibrated, and that every one of those ten thousand petri dishes gets it's microbe spots counted by the time the real scientists arrive to go over the results. I see no reason a creationist couldn't handle such tasks.
If I sound annoyed, it's because I've just applied for a job as a school laboratory technician. Yay, test tube cleaning :(
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 31, 2009 12:10 PM
Like you I am not sure quite how accents are measured, but I have read in what I would consider reliable sources that the UK has more accent diversity than any other country.
I live in Wales, and there are distinct differences between accents even here. A valleys accent is different from a Cardiff accent, and both are different from a Swansea accent. They are only about 50 miles apart.
Posted by: eddie | July 31, 2009 12:10 PM
I feel I should point out, nessie being a scot, that scotLand has a separate education system which is more sensible than the rest of uk, although there are other issues with it.
This separation predates devolution and stems from a reaction to the decline of A levels, as exemplified by Walton.
Posted by: truthspeaker | July 31, 2009 12:11 PM
Linguists, specifically phoneticians, actually can measure such differences. Phonetics is fascinating stuff. Not fascinating enough to get me to go to graduate school, but fascinating nonetheless.
Posted by: bobxxxx | July 31, 2009 12:18 PM
No transitional fossils have been or ever will be discovered because God created each type of fish, amphibian, and reptile as separate, unique animals.
OK, that settles it then. If I had known this earlier I never would have wasted my time and money reading Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne and The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution by Sean Carroll.
Posted by: not a gator | July 31, 2009 12:26 PM
So Nessie is real now?
Hm, I'm going to write a bio textbook based on the assertion that the comic book supervillain Henry Bendix is real. I'll devote a chapter to the CIA-Zionist-Illuminati conspiracy to graft Daemonite DNA gathered from the Roswell crash site onto human subjects.
Posted by: Barklikeadog | July 31, 2009 12:30 PM
There is one good thing about this that people might be overlooking. At least you can expect that the person treating your HTN isn't a graduate of these schools.
Posted by: Rich V | July 31, 2009 12:40 PM
Unfortunately...even blatant stupidity is not evidence against evolution.
Posted by: BlueMonday | July 31, 2009 1:14 PM
Barklikeadog,
I actually just experienced that very thing. I didn't expect anyone to take my ORU biology credit seriously. Although, to be fair, it was just the non-major version, and that department does actually do a valiant job of trying to stick to the science. It's not easy, considering the students they draw (or did during my day--maybe it's different now). The main problem is that these xian schools don't really teach scientific reasoning--it's all rote. So even when they are presenting actual facts (which isn't exactly common), the students are just memorizing them and not exercising their reasoning skills.
Of course, I don't know what else one could expect from places with classes like "The Charismatic Life and the Healing Ministry." Yes, that was a gen. ed. requirement.
Posted by: Jackal | July 31, 2009 1:24 PM
Gah, that is needlessly stupid. Why stake your evolution denial on a myth like Nessie when you could just ask, "Why are there still fish?" or, for that matter, "Why are there still worms?" or "Why are there still bacteria?" It's all the same creationist ignorance, but at least the last three aren't pinned on the outrageous claim of the existence of a modern day plesiosaur. The redundancy of the stupidity - it burns!
Posted by: Didac | July 31, 2009 1:35 PM
As a biologists we are very sensitive about this kind of approved textbooks that introduce mythology (specially, Hebrew mythology) as a science. However, I do not want to imagine what kind of textbooks are approved in social sciences. I do not want to imagine it! However, some historian friends know very well about a policy in supposedly secular Catalonia about teaching "both sides" in History: the Garden of Eden as a small text box in the Paleolithic lesson. Very sad, very sad.
Posted by: jgregson | July 31, 2009 1:37 PM
The most worrying quote is:
“True science will never contradict the Bible because God created both the universe and Scripture…If a scientific theory contradicts the Bible, then the theory is wrong and must be discarded.”
(http://cavalcadeofwhimsy.wordpress.com/2009/07/31/fundamentalist-exams-on-par-with-a-levels/)
But wait, doesn't the Bible contradict itself? That means...
Posted by: M Clifford Pickard | July 31, 2009 1:37 PM
I've observed this as well. As a skeptic of evolution I dutifully read "Hidden history of the human race" by Micheal Cremo. I was with him until he brought in Bigfoot. He destroyed his own argument with that one, just like Richard Hoagland in the "Face of Mars" when he tried to link crop circles as a "message" to and from the space aliens or whoever.
After reading those books I was reminded of my confirmation class where my pastor was trying to convince us that Noah's flood created the grand canyon.
What is it with these cranks who over-extend themselves anyway?
Posted by: MrFire | July 31, 2009 1:47 PM
...that it's time for the doublethink to kick in, and make evrything alright.
Posted by: not a gator | July 31, 2009 2:00 PM
@19
I snorted.
Win.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
July 31, 2009 2:09 PM
Sastra #21 Said:
You might be interested in what I said in another comment on a different post, then. There's a book you might like to read.
Posted by: Didac | July 31, 2009 2:17 PM
As for the expression "crank magnetism" put by Sastra #21, there are two meanings:
1. crank magnetism: phenomenon by which a cranky belief attracts in the same person other cranky beliefs, or the phenomenon by which several cranky movements coalesce in a pancranky movement.
2. crank magnetism: the magnetical attraction of crankyness to the physical phenomenon of magnetism. E. g. magnets in tap in order to magnetize tap water; biological magnetism to explain mesmerism; magnetic fields as a analogy to morphic fields; and so on, and so on.
Posted by: Uncephalized
|
July 31, 2009 2:23 PM
"one Master Craftsmen"
LOL
Posted by: not a gator | July 31, 2009 2:37 PM
@54
Seriously? Even countries which have multiple official languages? You're kidding, right?
Or (I hope) you meant the English language specifically, not accents in all languages everywhere?
The UK is the English language's "locus of diversity" or whatever, so you would expect more specifically English accents. When English settlers arrived in America they were all jumbled up (or soon became so) as to local origin, causing their way of speech to homogenize.
However, after this, things get fuzzy, because American dialects derive from interference with many other languages, notably a number of non-Indo-European languages, making them, I should think, qualitatively different from British Isles accents. I'll leave it to linguists to tally up the number of Scottishisms vs. Black Englishisms (and really, a numerical count of regional-specific words might really speak to how well a group disseminates their memes into the broader population rather than anything else). However, my point is that you go past accent into distinct dialect as you begin speaking a language with a similar vocabulary but distinct grammar.
(A similar situation (to Black English) is the Eastern (surviving) Yiddish, with a large German vocabulary but more Slavic (Polish) grammar and word-formation. There was a Western (Germanic) Yiddish, which is extinct.)
Which says nothing about mutual intelligibility, of course, much of which may be in the ear of the hearer. Research indicates that the language spoken to an infant will determine which sounds that infant comprehends as distinct for the rest of his life. I wonder if linguists play tapes to their children in a hope of giving them a leg up in the field?
Posted by: Steamshovelmama | July 31, 2009 2:45 PM
A few years back this would never have been allowed.
I blame Blair who, in Brit terms, is a fundamentalist christian (I realise that the Americans reading this are now holding their sides, laughing. Yes, I know, your nuts *really are* nuttier and more numerous than ours...) but the fact is Blair allowed legislation that directly led to the situation where we actually have two (or it may be three by now) hristian creationist schools. In England, hitherto and on the whole a bastion of secularism. I want to cry.
The *real* pisser is that these schools are at least partially government funded. Them's my tax dollars... er... pounds paying for it. And that's the bit I blame Blair for. Muslim madrassahs are usually self funded so I guess they can do what they like but in a system where the schools are (mostly) centrally funded and must follow a centrally enforced curriculum I find this enraging.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | July 31, 2009 3:09 PM
Faith indoctrination camps . . . err, I mean 'schools' and now this!? What kind of nutter seriously believes Nessie even exists. It has categorically been demonstrated to be a fake, and not even a very good fake. To think that I usually derive such enjoyment from mocking the USA's superior breed of crazy. Once upon a time the UK system of education was respected, even emulated in some parts of the world. Today is a dark day for the UK. Today I am ashamed to be a Brit.
Posted by: red rabbit | July 31, 2009 3:13 PM
Wait, WHAT?!?!
Nessie the imaginary friend of a beautiful lake in Scotland?
I need a beer.
Posted by: Mandrake | July 31, 2009 3:31 PM
Hi everyone, long-time lurker, first-time poster here. I'm a failed scientist (completed one semester as an astronomy major and was just smart enough to realize that I'm far too stupid to be a scientist) and am trying to figure out where I stand on the non-belief scale. (Born and raised Jewish, really enjoy some of the cultural aspects but, starting in early-teenagerhood became pretty skeptical to the point where now, the whole God thing just seems not credible.)
Anywho, back to the original post here, I don't understand how people can so blatantly and boldly disregard evidence. Real and credible evidence. It makes no sense to me. I hope I'm old enough not to be that naive, but I have a hard time believing that YECs and fundies of all religions are totally stupid, evil, or delusional (or all three). How can some people perceive facts so differently? Where's the evidence that Nessie exists? Where's the evidence that the earth is 6,000 years old? Why do some people believe that the Flintstones is historical fiction?
Maybe these are more rhetorical questions, but I just don't understand. It's very frustrating and somewhat frightening. Is there anything that can be done?
Posted by: Gorogh | July 31, 2009 3:44 PM
@Mandrake #75, I liked your intro ;)
Otherwise too drunk to contribute.
Posted by: Stuart Van Onselen | July 31, 2009 3:59 PM
Quoth TigerRepellingRock:
That's actually typical in a way of the beliefs of those who want to inject religion into school curricula: They believe that "culture" can only be preserved through schooling, and that somehow parents and the community have no role. That's why they're horrified when God is not part of schooling, as if church and Sunday school and so on are insufficient.
Of course racism and/or ridiculous ignorance and naivete are also large components of the quoted tripe. Truly shocking. Even as a white South African I would consider that even more evil and insidious than the creationist crap.
Posted by: jws | July 31, 2009 4:08 PM
I must have missed a meeting. When did Canada become 'exotic' ?
Posted by: Barklikeadog | July 31, 2009 4:11 PM
BlueMonday, at least you sound as though you survived your ordeal. I've always wondered what it would be like at a university were cognitive dissonance was the norm. Problem is (or good thing) most of those don't go into fields that have any hard science in it. Instead they end up being real estate sales or policy decision maker or politician or some other useless endeavor that rips into the fabric of society. Or they sell donuts.
Posted by: Sastra
|
July 31, 2009 4:13 PM
Ryan Egesdahl #68 wrote:
Heh, yes. I remember reading your comment, following that link, and sticking Culture of Conspiracy on my Wish List. Thanks :)
Posted by: mattand | July 31, 2009 4:16 PM
Using Nessie to disprove evolution? Unreal.
I live in South Jersey, where our homegrown crypto-beastie is the Jersey Devil. Guess that proves everything in the Bible (any version) is true.
Fundies take to logic like a slug to salt.
Posted by: JJR | July 31, 2009 4:27 PM
reading this post, and the thread, I can't help but think of the Bill Hicks stand up routine where he rips YEC and jokes about Jesus sending a brontosaurus (?) to Scotland, who became "Nessie"..."a tourist attraction for fat Americans and their fat families and all the Scots did say 'oh thank you, Jesus.'..."
Posted by: Coryat | July 31, 2009 4:29 PM
I know it's already been mentioned (#72) but UK education has taken a plunge lately, with Tony Blair creating academies; essentially an invitation for rich idiots to inflict their own stupidity on the young if they flush in some cash. Now we have creationism in our schools part paid for by our own government!
Vardy is a creationist joker teaching creationism in Newcastle, for example.
http://www.humanism.org.uk/campaigns/religion-and-schools/countering-creationism
Posted by: Nap | July 31, 2009 4:30 PM
*FACEPALM* (note the caps; it means Faceslap) How stupid can you get?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 31, 2009 4:30 PM
The fundamentalists believe the Bible is the Word of God™. God, by definition, does not lie. Therefore every word in the Bible is literally true. Six days for creation? Check. Noachian flud? Sho 'nuff. Methuselah living 900 years? His birthday cakes were not allowed indoors due to the fire hazard. The problem comes about when the fundies try to correlate the Bible with reality. That's when we get Jebus riding an allosaur around Galilee and the Grand Canyon carved out by the flud.
The fundies start with a conclusion and try, unsuccessfully, to get reality to match the conclusion. Scientists look at the evidence and try to build a theory to explain the evidence. The really nasty thing about the fundies is not only do they believe their shit but they want the rest of us to believe it also.
Posted by: Sastra
|
July 31, 2009 4:44 PM
Mandrake #75 wrote:
There are probably a lot of complicated answers to your question, but I think one simple answer is that most people have a strong tendency to buy into the assumptions of the group they "belong" to, and then frame everything in line with the story they're all following. There's too much information out there to check and verify it all. We take shortcuts, then, by picking reliable authorities from the group we already trust.
What science brings into our picture is the concept of the Big picture, where everything must fit together. I once read a definition of science which said it comes down to "respect for the critical opinions of others." The high need for consensus across different cultures, circumstances, background beliefs, etc. helps to level out biases. You need to meet and answer the specific objections of critics, not come up with excuses for why they don't count as people. Don't turn questions of fact into a social game.
But people are more comfortable operating inside the social game, the 'little picture' of their own tribe. A lot of folks I talk to, who are into 'woo,' can't seem to see the value of consilience. Energy healers are using a form of energy that doesn't interest physicists and engineers, because it's not the sort of energy that interests physicists and engineers. And that doesn't bother them, or sound fishy.
They think that there are different kinds of sciences, and every group chooses their own kind. People look at the same thing and get different 'facts' out of it, and there's nothing to be done about that. Bias is a good thing, because the group that picks the truth did so as a result of their special bias.
Can you imagine a six thousand your old earth being true? If so, then, as the tribally-oriented see it, whether you believe this or not is up to you, and how much you want your group to be the right one. I notice that both the religious and pseudoscientists keep harping on the idea of "choosing" and making a "choice," as if facts are decided by loyalty, and not by evidence. If you're buying into a story, then maybe that's how they're decided.
And if you're surrounded by people you respect who keep reassuring you that this all makes sense, it's easy to follow along and accept that it does. It's the other people, the outsiders, who make no sense.
They've done studies where they placed subjects in a group of subjects who were actually stooges, and asked them one by one to say which line was longer -- A or B? If everyone else in the group said A was longer than B, then the subject usually tended to say the same thing, even when it rather clearly wasn't. More interesting was that they would often defend this choice later, and seem to actually believe it. We're social animals, and may be more influenced by our instincts to 'fit in' than we think we are.
Posted by: Mandrake | July 31, 2009 4:50 PM
Thanks, 'Tis. I understand that fundies think that the Bible is God's literal word. I just don't understand *how* they can believe that. Plenty (most?) believers in God acknowledge that one can't read and interpret the Bible literally (which is another story for another day). I just don't get the grasping at irrationality despite evidence to the contrary.
On a disclosure note, I suppose I addressed my innate need to learn through evidence by getting an undergrad and a grad degree in criminal justice. It ain't science, but at least it acknowledges the search for truth takes more than fantasy and wishful thinking.
Posted by: Skemono | July 31, 2009 5:05 PM
This just fuels my desire to see a series involving Darwin going around wiping out cryptids and mythological beasties because their existence would disprove evolution.
Darwin: Monster Hunter!
Posted by: Brian Jordan | July 31, 2009 5:30 PM
#73 "To think that I usually derive such enjoyment from mocking the USA's superior breed of crazy. Once upon a time the UK system of education was respected, even emulated in some parts of the world. Today is a dark day for the UK. Today I am ashamed to be a Brit."
It's bad, but at least this particular pile of dinosaur shit isn't local. The "Accelerated Christian Education" nonsense is imported from the good old U.S. of A. I'm not sure about the Loch Nonsense bit though - I suppose that could be home-brewed.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
July 31, 2009 5:47 PM
Can I have that? Please? CanIcanIcanIpurtypleaseWithCreamAndSugarOnTop? (This actually looks like one of my typical variable names.)
I would give him an arch story in which he's chasing an alien across the world.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
July 31, 2009 5:54 PM
It's important for a conspiracy theory to have evidence of a cover-up. If there's a cover-up, that means the original proposition (Nessie lives!) is true. In this way, you validate something that has no evidence (Nessie lives!) with the fact that there is no evidence (The Man covers up all the evidence for the fact that Nessie lives! There is no evidence, so that proves The Man is covering it up!)
It's quite a slick move. By introducing Nessie, it stirs a little bit of regional pride. The kids (like me) would probably really like Nessie to exist. This makes them more susceptible to the garbage that follows.
At least, that's how I see it.
Posted by: ckitching | July 31, 2009 5:59 PM
It's true. The Canadian Senate is where old dinosaurs go to die. But, I've heard that political dinosaurs are a different species.Posted by: Dave Gregory | July 31, 2009 6:57 PM
Having read TFA, I just have to ask "Jonny Scaramanga"? How many nipples does this schoolkid have?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | July 31, 2009 7:08 PM
"Determine" is exaggerated (Exhibit A: yours truly), but you will start learning any language by interpreting those distinctions into it that the languages you already know make and unconsciously ignoring those that they don't make.
So one event in one country proves a general point?
Sometimes, Walton, I'm just left speechless by the depths of stupidity you're capable of. Really, most of what you write is on a completely different level. It's astounding.
Posted by: Zmidponk | July 31, 2009 7:49 PM
Matt Penfold #49:
It depends on what, precisely, you mean by 'government agency'. Is it actually part of the UK government? No. It is, however, considered an official source of information from the UK government, and it is set up as a result of a contract with the UK government to carry out specific tasks on behalf of the UK government.
One thing I noted in that article, though - nowhere does it actually say that that the ICCE is being regarded as equal to, say, an A-level in Biology, it merely says that NARIC reckons it should be counted as 'equivalent to an A-level'. I'm not sure if things have changed since my day, but, when I was of the relevant age, when it came time to apply to universities, most, if not all, universities that offer science-based courses would require A-levels in related subjects, so, for example, if I had wanted to study Applied Biology, I would've probably needed something like at least A-level Biology and also one other A-level from Chemistry, Physics or Mathematics, so, unless they go onto study Theology or something, that's basically an almost worthless bit of paper. From the point of view of gaining employment, in my experience, most UK employers aren't terribly impressed by the sheer number of A-levels you have, they're more concerned with whether the A-levels you have are of any use in your prospective job, and I can't really think of many jobs where the 'knowledge' that the Loch Ness Monster disproves evolution would be of any use.
To put it shortly - even if it ends up effectively being an A-level, it will be an A-level that's barely worth the paper it's written on.
Posted by: Gray Gaffer | July 31, 2009 7:52 PM
#4, #24, #46: "A Geordie (from Newcastle-Upon-Tyne) and a Cockney (from East London) sound as different (at least to my ears) as a New Yorker and a Texan probably do to yours"
Last I heard, about 20 years ago, there were 50+ mutually incomprehensible dialects of the English language spoken in Great Britain. Total number of dialects of course is far larger than that. When I was a high-schooler we could tell where somebody came from in London alone to within a couple of miles (1960's). These days, of course, my particular accent is duplicated by nobody else: 28 years of NW London + public schooling, 18 yrs Los Angeles, 15 yrs Seattle. Here I sound Brit, to my family in the UK I sound American.
TV may have reduced the number of mutually incomprehensibles, though. I'm guessing the primary forcing behind these is limited neighbor contact. Used to be 10 miles or so was the radius of contact, being 1 day's travel, and dialects probably therefore varied over distances no greater than 20 miles by quite a lot. Even in the 60's the rural population was pretty static.
Even I, as a Londoner, turned out not to be as cosmopolitan about distances as I had thought. Before experiencing LA, a trip from London to visit friends in Manchester was something we undertook only if they had a bed for us, and we could spend Friday through Sunday evening on the event. On my first visit back to the UK, I rode the London- Manchester round trip twice in one day, so I could spend the afternoon in my London house with my Manchester friend, and only realized afterwards how much I had changed.
Back On Topic: A levels used to be a pretty serious deal. They formed the basic admittance criteria into Undergraduate Colleges. Somewhat more stringent than the SAT, since things like essays and showing your computations and derivations were primarily required, and multiple choice tests were considered inadequate. I really can not imagine Creationist/YEC standards being thought anywhere near comparable. I expect that even if the 'official' rankings include them, the colleges will ignore them.
Posted by: Joffan | July 31, 2009 7:56 PM
nigelTheBold:
Anyone maintaining your code should get danger money.Posted by: Gray Gaffer | July 31, 2009 8:17 PM
"The fundies start with a conclusion and try, unsuccessfully, to get reality to match the conclusion. Scientists look at the evidence and try to build a theory to explain the evidence. The really nasty thing about the fundies is not only do they believe their shit but they want the rest of us to believe it also."
I hypothesize there are three factors in this one way of describing how this works:
1: Reality as it is, out there, independent
2: ones' internal model of Reality as filtered through our perceptions
3: ones' internal model of Reality as we would like it to be
Applying a little bit of cybernetic feedback theory, and making a wild guess as to neurological functions, I have these corollaries:
A: we feel good to the extent that 1, 2, and 3 appear to agree.
B: we feel bad to the extent that they differ.
C: to get from B to A we choose one of the three and try to modify it until we get to A.
At this point schooling and experience come into play regarding the choice of which to change. And there is no single answer, only heuristics and contextual awareness.
The scientist generally works on getting 2 to match 1, then 3 to match 2, and is interested in how 1 works. The result of their work is a codification of 3.
The YEC OTOH holds 3 sacrosanct and works on getting 2 to match 3, pretty much ignoring where 2 might differ from 1. The result of their work is hallucinations,which is another way of describing a corrupted 2.
Of course most of the time 2 is close to 1 and we work on changing 1 to bring 2 into line with 3. e.g. eating when we are hungry is changing 1 (preparing food) to get 2 (hunger) closer to 3 (not hungry). That's just pragmatics.
Add in the fact (at least, my observation) that whatever we usually choose to do on a regular basis for any given situation becomes habitual and then unthinking and unexamined. Which can render step C entirely unconscious, and any attempts to point out when it's effects are grossly out of step with Reality can result in great emotional pain and rejection. I'm guessing brain structures used for the decisions are doing double duty with internal states. Even more out there guessing: I think the Amygdala is at the root here, but I'd like to run this by somebody who knows whereof they speak. A 'Gut Feel', as it were.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
July 31, 2009 8:56 PM
My personal WAG about fundamentalist creationism has to do with redemption.
Sin started with Adam and Eve and the Tree of Knowledge, hence the name Original Sin. All of humanity became contaminated with Original Sin. Jesus died as a sacrifice to redeem humanity from sin, thereby giving us the chance to go to Heaven. Not only was the redemption necessary but sin was necessary as a reason for redemption. If we deny the Genesis story then we deny Original Sin, making the redemption unnecessary, thereby removing the possibility of Heaven.
Us saying the universe is 13.7 ± .3 billion years old is denying Ken Ham and Ray Comfort the opportunity to spend eternity plunking on harps and singing hosannas.
Posted by: E.V. | July 31, 2009 9:05 PM
" Hey Sanna, Ho-sanna, sanna, sanna hey..."
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
July 31, 2009 9:43 PM
Thanks for the earworm, EV.
Posted by: Lyle R | July 31, 2009 9:49 PM
And it seems they misspelled "craftsman."
Posted by: E.V. | July 31, 2009 10:03 PM
Just a little Jesus Christ Superstar for your evening pleasure!
Posted by: truthspeaker | July 31, 2009 11:48 PM
Sastra and Gray Gaffer, those were very good posts.
Posted by: Dan W | August 1, 2009 1:18 AM
Yes, but clearly recent evidence for the Yeti's existence supports that evolution! I have the evidence right here... of wait, I seem to have forgotten where I put it... but the Yeti clearly exists! I just know it!
To get serious for a moment, WTF? Bullshit "evidence" about Nessie somehow means evolution is wrong? It's like saying evidence of fairies (or any other mythical creature that is magical) disproves gravity and shows that magic is what keeps the Earth orbiting around the Sun and human beings from floating off the planet into space! It's so stupid that... gah! *facepalm*
Posted by: Dan W | August 1, 2009 1:23 AM
And WTF is with the UK government? Which idiot(s) decided that creationist nonsense could be acceptable compared to good science education? That's just f*cking stupid. Seems the UKs education standards have really declined.
Posted by: blf | August 1, 2009 7:06 AM
You should unwrap the food before tossing it to the lions.
Posted by: dave souza | August 1, 2009 7:59 AM
So many misconceptions. Nessie doesn't live in a lake in Scotland, there's only one natural lake in Scotland and it's the Lake of Menteith. Loch Ness is, surprisingly enough, a loch. And Nessie would presumably have had the Gaelic until a century or so ago, then having learnt English would have shared the reputation of Inverness for speaking the best English in the country; school learnt Standard English, or Recieved Pronunciation as the BBC used to say.
As for the separate system of schools in Scotland;
Wrong. The separation predates the union of the crowns, going right back to the Scottish Reformation in the 16th century when the country became about the first with a programme of universal education for all boys. Ok, girls took a wee bit longer, and it took a while to get implemented, but it had good effects by the 18th century. Scottish Highers and Lowers were on the go before A levels, if I recall correctly, and we've never had much truck with A levels here.
Back on topic: by the sound of it the Nessie issue is the least of the problems with this junk creationist school text. The textbooks also state that apartheid helped South Africa because segregated schools "made it possible for each group to maintain and pass on their culture and heritage to their children". And creotards have the cheek to accuse Darwin of being racist! Wrongly, I may add. He thought people were all educable, while holding the view that European civilisation had evolved to be more advanced than the extremely rough hunter-gatherer existence he saw in Tierra del Fuego. Wow, how un-PC.
Posted by: kevinj | August 1, 2009 7:59 AM
@ Walton
ermm NARIC's own website states
http://www.naric.org.uk/index.asp?page=8
so please elaborate on exactly how this supports your point?
Posted by: Spiro Keat | August 1, 2009 8:24 AM
# 95
"To put it shortly - even if it ends up effectively being an A-level, it will be an A-level that's barely worth the paper it's written on."
Which means kids are being cheated of an education.
Government sanctioned child abuse.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 1, 2009 8:56 AM
What would the existence of Nessie prove and not prove?
What the existence of such an animal would prove is that there is a species of plesiosaur like animal living today.
What it would not prove is that evolution is wrong, the existence of the yeti, Bigfoot, or the Almas, that Earth has been visited by extraterrestrial entities, the existence of angels, or extra-sensory perception. About the only thing the discovery of a living nessie would do is show that there are living nessies.
In short, using the possible existence of a living archaic marine reptile to prove or disprove anything not relevant to the possible existence of a living archaic marine reptile is just plain dumb.
Ultimately every claim must rest on its own merits, no claim can rely on findings regarding another claim unless those findings can be shown to have relevance to the claim in question.
In turn this means that findings regarding the existence of psychic abilities have nothing to do with the existence of Nessie because they deal with totally different subjects; one claims that an animal of ancient lineage dwells in a Scottish loch, the other that people have paranormal abilities that violate our observations regarding how the universe works. One is just not possible, the other is very slightly possible assuming a lot of improbable events.
Neither has anything to do with evolution, because evolution as a phenomenon, and the theory of evolution as the explanation for the phenomenon, have been proven to a fine degree and no one has yet come up with anything better.
Posted by: blf | August 1, 2009 9:15 AM
Nessie seems to have neither turds nor corpses. Whilst that doesn't prove it's alien, it's certainly a very unusual megafauna.
Posted by: Brian Jordan | August 1, 2009 3:20 PM
Nessie apart, they're into deliberate obfuscation:
"Are dinosaurs alive today? Scientists are becoming more convinced of their existence."
Of course they are. I had a dinosaur egg for breakfast and I hang nets of seeds in my tree to feed other smaller dinosaurs. But somehow I think they'd dispute the details of what they declare to be true.
They're also into downright lying:
"No transitional fossils have been or ever will be discovered because God created each type of fish, amphibian, and reptile as separate, unique animals."
Posted by: TomG | August 2, 2009 9:15 AM
Essentially NARIC are a business who are paid by 180 countries to tell the what different countries education qualifications are roughly equal. They do a pretty crazy job; who really knows if the US high school tests are as equal to a UK A-level? Or any other countries qualifications. What they then do is produce a set of broad guidelines that a University or employer can look at to try and translate your qualification into something they understand.
Does this show they need to look closer at content? Yes I think it does.
Does this mean the UK education system is slipping down around our ears? No probably not, it just means questionable qualifications are being considered equivilent to ours. It doesn't make those UK qualifications by the way, anyone approaching a job or Uni with their creationist qualification will still have to explain what it is and get the people at the other end to contact NARIC (in the process I would imagine they will hear what the course is and chuckle somewhat before saying no.) Our universities and employers still are well within their rights to ignore qualifications they choose not to recognise; hence the decision from some Universities to not recognise the new Diploma system some people want to bring in.
Basically the company has looked at the length of study and methods of assessment and judged it roughly the same as an A-level. They also look at the US AP courses and say that these are below the A-level and need to be supported by additional college time for entry to a UK University (although they will take AP for very low level entry such as through clearing when the UNI has too many spaces.) One of the main reasoning for this is method of assessment. The UK A-level is in most cases assessed by heavy weight of written work and has no multiple choice component.
So yes these qualifications are considered equivilent to an A-level by NARDIC (NOT the Uk Government, the body who do that is the QCA and they don't deal in international qualifications) but it is treated as a foreign qualification.
Posted by: bil leaman | August 8, 2009 12:15 AM
The profesor seem to be one of these globle warming dudes,who believes Manhatten will be under water in 2010!WOW!!! talk about the first rule in business...NEVER GIVE A TIME LINE!!!(ask Al Gore or even worse ... Micheal Moore)The ignorance of this man that if you don't agree with me ... we will send you to the camps is so subvers... it's so very German!!!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 8, 2009 12:27 AM
yawn again
Posted by: Helen | August 18, 2009 9:34 AM
Hmm,
Bit late for this.
The problem is the system. If NARDIC had the appropriate authority they would have ventured north of the border and asked themselves the following question.
"So why does this course fail to mention the obvious evidence provided by the lovely, haggis for the existence of the Creator?" Clearly this tasty wee three-legged animal/bird is evidence of an early attempt at creating life.
He was just trying out his magical powers with this one!
And the Scots have been created by god to do his work by selling lots of silly little toys to children and believers as they make their way to Iona!
Obviously.