They're catching up to us!

Don't lose heart in us! Another recent survey showed that the current 'youth' generation here in the UK are the most godless yet.

At least they have 56 percent. What do we have, like twelve?

Another 19% favoured the theory of intelligent design

What's the comparable statistic in the USA? (Just for intelligent design - I know we're buried in open creationism over here.)

At least they have 56 percent. What do we have, like twelve?

Exactly! 56% supporting the theory of evolution would be a dream come true in the US.

Regarding these polls though, it's the rate of change and the trend that counts, not the current number.

And, only 10% of our population are regular church goers! That can't be bad!

Of course, you know whose fault this is: Richard Dawkins.

You know what certain people are going to say. Since Dawkins is an outspoken atheist who happens also to be a scientist, any criticism he makes of religion causes people to be more anti-science.

These are the same people who trot out Karl Marx when someone suggests that public schools are a good thing.

It probably will get a little worse, and then reverse itself.
The "Great and the Good" and the educational trusts, and the unviersities here have seen the awful example of the USA, and are starting to fight back, before it is too late.

Besides, we have the ghastly example of creeping little christian Tony B. Liar to shudder away from.

I wouldn't worry.

The survey was all students not just science not just science students.

The survey is based on self selection, so what it actually tells us is of the people with a .ac.uk email address (includes anyone who works at a UK university including secretaries, IT technicians etc), who are registered with the website and decided to fill in the survey.

Most people in the UK think that intelligent design is the same thing as theistic evolution.

The company who ran this survey, Opinionpanel, is one of these online sites where you can sign up to take surveys and get paid in amazon.com certificates, etc. They say their surveys are representative, and they do invite members of their "panel" selectively to ensure representativeness. I'm still a little skeptical.

Richard Dawkins? I assume that must be a joke, because if you are blaming anyone (or eventually perhaps thanking them) it should be the good folks at Answers in Genesis and stuff.

Hey, we have our ways and means of convincing people time to time. Sure you might not agree with our science, but ya gotta give us some credit for pure grit and determination to the cause. :)

Well, anyway... back to working that 12% down even more.

z.

You know what certain people are going to say. Since Dawkins is an outspoken atheist who happens also to be a scientist, any criticism he makes of religion causes people to be more anti-science.
These are the same people who trot out Karl Marx when someone suggests that public schools are a good thing.

No, they include people like Eugenie Scott, who certainly isn't against public schools (and who is an atheist herself). If you doubt the usefulness of Dawkins to the opposition, why do you think Creationist presentations practically always include a slide giving a quote from Dawkins showing him to be a fire-breathing atheist? Other scientists they misquote in order to make them seem more supportive of creationism, but Dawkins serves their purposes perfectly just as he is.

I found it interesting, but not surprising, that Muslims in the UK were more likely to be creationists than Christians.

Hmmm. Well, they've got Conway Morris too, don´t they. And the fact that dawkins exists and is very outspoken, menas that he has always had someone to talk back to. I mean Dawkins must have crashed into enough creationists right there in the UK. I don't know how he then deludes himself into being smug iand point his finger to America. Strong religiousness, church-oriented life and puritanical delusions are a very old staplemark aspect of anglo culture. It has been merely perpetuated in America. I'd gues its stronger in the UK than most believe, and could perfectly well grow yet stronger. I do admit though that some buffers hep out over there, specially proximity and fluid contact with the continent.
One thing I find telling is that some british evolutionary biologists like Dawkins are MORE obsssesed than americans with debating creationism, ID and religion.
Gimme a Gould, a Lewontin anytime. The UK can keep their far too darwinian and religion-bashing "geniuses" like Dawkins and Maynard Smith.

If you doubt the usefulness of Dawkins to the opposition, why do you think Creationist presentations practically always include a slide giving a quote from Dawkins showing him to be a fire-breathing atheist?

Whoever is using it, it's the same tactic as those who invoke Marx to rail against public schools.

"Since Marx was a Communist, then anything Marx supported must be wrong."

is the same argument as

"Since Dawkins is an atheist, then anything Dawkins supports must be wrong."

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ac_grayling/2006/08/religion_and_ed…

Check it out, everybody. This particular commentator is the dog's bollocks.

I want my Enlightenment back.

I think PZ posted this just to annoy Vargas. :)

Rick @ shrimp and grits, what do you like about public schools?

Whoever is using it, it's the same tactic as those who invoke Marx to rail against public schools.

No, Rick. You miss the point. You don't have to think atheism is wrong to see the practical problem of publically linking it to evolution. Imagine that instead of an outspoken atheist, Dawkins was an outspoken proponent of legalizing narcotics. Even someone who is a recreational pot smoker could see that linking that to evolution probably isn't a good idea for furthering acceptance of evolution.

That's not quite right.

Evolution directly contradicts the bible. It's a logical step to see why Atheists reject the bible and Creationism.

Weed has nothing to do with the rejection of Creationsim.

Also. There's nothing wrong with being an Atheist. And it's legal.

Evolution directly contradicts the bible. It's a logical step to see why Atheists reject the bible and Creationism.

Rejection of creationism certainly logically follows from acceptance of evolution, but atheism doesn't logically follow from acceptance of evolution, nor does acceptance of evolution logically follow from atheism (and I speak as an atheist evolutionary biologist).

Also. There's nothing wrong with being an Atheist. And it's legal.

The same thing can be said for weed, although the legality depends on the country.

You know what certain people are going to say. Since Dawkins is an outspoken atheist who happens also to be a scientist, any criticism he makes of religion causes people to be more anti-science.

Yes, this blog has plenty of its own concern trolls who will jump at the opportunity to "remind" everyone that slagging religion simply "emboldens" the fundies and "feeds the stereotypes" that ignorant religious people hold about the "elites."

Sadly for the concern trolls, the facts prove them wrong: ID is dying and it's dying in the midst of a booming wave of religious criticism that is long overdue.

Am I afraid of the "backlash"?

Not at all. Not a tiny freaking bit.

It's hard to draw any conclusions from the survey since there are no trend lines to determine if support for creationism is growing, shrinking, or staying steady.

Since Christian fundamentalists are a non-factor in UK politics it is not likely there will be any Kansas-like attempts to hijack the public school system. If anything, the growing Muslim population will be more of a threat to the teaching of evolution, but even they are still a small minority and it remains to be seen what influence fundamentalist Islam will have over the younger generations.

Well but if ID is on the rise in the UK (as it has been eslewhere for a long time) this pretty much proves that Dawkins definitely doesn't help. As simple as thata. Which means all that "science-crusader" lifestyle is baloney, that it has no effective justification. Anyway, what else can we expect form self-indulgentfrighteousness, other than utter uselessness?.

I also meant to add that since we don't know if there really is a trend towards creationism, it's quite possible that British skepticism of evolution has been around for quite a while. The lack of a strong Christian church doesn't mean that the majority of the population has abandoned their religious beliefs.

While everyday life in the UK is decidedly secular, when people turn to questions about origins, the meaning of life, etc, many are still likely to hold to some form of spiritual belief. The idea of a completely materialistic existence that comes to a screeching halt when you die can be tough to come to terms with. In that light, the belief that some sort of higher being had a hand in our origins is not really very surprising.

I've been loafing in a British university for over ten years, as undergrad and postgrad, and I've also done a lot of undergraduate teaching. I've only ever met one student who even raised the possibility of any sort of divine intervention in supervision. She was Jewish, from an Orthodox family, and awfully apologetic about the whole thing. I got the distinct impression her heart wasn't in it at all. I really don't think the survey of UK students is at all accurate - they're (we're?) a lazy bunch who rarely believe in anything except drinking and daytime television. I think Chris Hyland is right - there's very little awareness of what 'intelligent design' means over here. It certainly has very little exposure, thank goodness. Our overtly Christian prime minister and his willingness to support faith-based education and evangelical cronies (no separation of Church and state here!) do not sit well with the country as a whole. I'm certainly happy to say that the UK is an increasingly secular society, even if it's mostly through apathy. Which is remarkable, when one considers we also have a state religion (though not even the Church of England believes in God anymore).

The eagerness of Dawkins to bash religion is fine with me, but he's made himself somewhat unpopular amongst my peers. I think it's partly because it's seen as a bit, well, un-English and Not The Done Thing to have a go at people in public. He isn't seen as wrong, just rude. For some, there is no greater crime. (Sigh) The scientific community are also a bit sniffy about him, probably for several reasons:
1) the rudeness (see above)
2) he's not a particularly accomplished scientist in his own field (and let's face it, he hasn't done any original science), and lastly
3)he's willing to engage with the public (and that leads to the oh, but-they're-such-chavs-sort-of-snobbery that still pervades the higher echeleons of British science).

But more power to his elbow, I say.

Lastly, Conway Morris is a very odd fish. No-one is really sure what he believes, and I'm not convinced that he's particularly certain himself. He is somewhat eccentric, and regarded as a bit of an oddball even by his fellow academics. Frankly, I'm not sure he's all there, but for goodness' sake no-one tell him I said so! He keeps forgetting who I am as it is...

"Well but if ID is on the rise in the UK (as it has been eslewhere for a long time) this pretty much proves that Dawkins definitely doesn't help."

Um, no, it doesn't prove that.

The UK can keep their far too darwinian and religion-bashing "geniuses" like Dawkins and Maynard Smith

Anyone who thinks Dawkins has anything to do with the problem has their head in the sand. He is the voice of reason is a sea of irrationality. To silence sciences greatest champions is simply a crime. And he is entitled to his views on religion as well just as everyone else is.

Rejection of creationism certainly logically follows from acceptance of evolution, but atheism doesn't logically follow from acceptance of evolution, nor does acceptance of evolution logically follow from atheism (and I speak as an atheist evolutionary biologist).

I used to think this to a degree but now I think Dawkins is more right than wrong. Although I think deism and a few others are reconciable I just don't see it being practical with Christianity or Islam.

The scientific community are also a bit sniffy about him, probably for several reasons:
1) the rudeness (see above)
2) he's not a particularly accomplished scientist in his own field (and let's face it, he hasn't done any original science), and lastly
3)he's willing to engage with the public (and that leads to the oh, but-they're-such-chavs-sort-of-snobbery that still pervades the higher echeleons of British science).

Many said the same thing about Sagan. Whats funny about this is that the role of Dawkins as a populizer of science and reasoned thought is a very important aspect of the scientific community. One could easily argue we need more like him and not less. He is a teacher of the highest order.

And his rudeness I think is more perceived than real. He is blunt but I appreciate that type of candor but I realize opinions vary in this regard.

Vargas believes that outspoken atheists promote increased christian fundamentalism.

So everytime a Christian belief system is insulted... an angel gets its wings. ;)

Of ourse it does. It doesn't mean it's all his fault. Its everyone's failure. But if ID is on the rise, this means he has proven himself unable to help. Thefact you LIKE what he says is preaching to the choir. That you think he MUST help, crashes with the completely justified demand for RESULTS. No results, you've flunked. As simple as that.

No. I think conflating evolution with atheism is stupid and leads otherwise neutral religious people against evolution.

And ya got no proof!

I think its clear its not helping. Which is specially relevant because the extremist "warrior of science" atiitudes can only be justified if they actually help. But since it does not help, there you go. Its just hot air.

Lycanenops wrote "and let's face it, he [Dawkins] hasn't done any original science)"

Of course most his work is popularization, but is it true that he hasn't done any original science? What about his work on wehther digger wasps engage in Evolutionary stable strategies (see Journal of Theoretical biology from about 1979). I think this work was co-authored, but still, it sure seemed like original science.

I know you feel that very strongly Vargas. But there's no proof that it promotes acceptance in ID.

Alexander Vargas wrote "But if ID is on the rise, this means he has proven himself unable to help."

Well, no. Why couldn't it be the case that it would be on the rise even faster if Dawkins' hadn't existed? You need a better argument.

Chris Stephens -

You're right, I should have said "no original science for twenty years". Personally, I think his book the Extended Phenotype is his best original work in the field, although again his real achievement there was to interpret things in a new and provocative way. He's a Professor of the Public Understanding of Science now, so what he does is his job, but part of me wishes academic posts like that weren't necessary, as all scientists would look upon public education as part of their duty to society.

What kind of results do you have to see before it counts as "helping"? Does Dawkins have to singlehandedly conquer all the religious fundamentalists in the UK and the rest of the world? (Excuse the split infinitive; the adverb would have been awkward anywhere else.)

It is entirely possible that Dawkins is slowing the rise of ID and that without him, the vast majority of UK students would be creationists. But I think that crediting Dawkins with so much help (or harm) is unrealistic.

Dawkins educates the public about evolution. That is a good thing. He also mentions where scientific evidence contradicts certain religious teachings. What's wrong with that?

I disagree it's not helping. Quite the opposite actually I can give a few real world scenarios as an educator as well.

In any group of 100, even here in Texas where I am, you have a variety of backgrounds. If Dawkins is quoted and used a % will be agasp perhaps, some won't care a wit, and more than a few will for the first time hear a different type of thinking.

I can flat out tell you that many, many individuals know when something doesn't sound right or is incomplete(as all creationism/ID eventually does) and when they here a view that makes sense they don't automatically oppose it on an emotional level. Some do but your not going to reach that 10-20% anyway. They fear things to deeply from childhood indoctrination. The middle can and will come to change their views if only allowed to hear the side Dawkins presents so well. He doesn't hurt at all.

So Vargas I simply don't think your correct on this as an educator.

Certainly people are not unwilling to criticize atheists for fear it will make others more determined to be atheists. Funny, that. Does it only work one way?

Please excuse frequent typos. I'm on my out for awhile.

here should be hear.

Believe me, ID is not on the march over here, Dawkins or no Dawkins. A close friend of mine (also a palaeontologist) went to the Creation 'Museum' in Portsmouth recently and couldn't stop laughing. In main, we in the UK have mercifully little to fear from such loons.

The creationist loon in the White House, on the other hand...

Lycaenops | - I agree with you about The Extended Phenotype. I also agree it would be nice if we had more scientists communicating effectively to the lay audience (though, overall, evolutionary biology has it pretty good in this respect).

If Dawkins is rude, either in his public appearances (that I've watched on video/the internet--I've never seen him in person) or on "Root of All Evil?" I didn't see it; I thought he showed tremendous restraint, while still speaking his mind. He is direct, and it may be that his frankness is more appreciated by American fans than by British viewers of any stripe.

I'm not qualified to judge any scientist's accomplishments, but I don't agree that he is not accomplished in his own right. The Extended Phenotype is an important work and one that, even more than The Selfish Gene, he will be known for. (In Gene he admits that he is popularizing the work of others, anyway.) I'm grateful that he's willing to write for a general audience, as I'm grateful that Gould and Sagan did.

Moreover, I think that he was motivated to speak out against religion so visibly as a result of Tony Blair's initiative to fund more religious schools in Britain. He wasn't just picking on the United States.

Some do but your not going to reach that 10-20% anyway. They fear things to deeply from childhood indoctrination. The middle can and will come to change their views if only allowed to hear the side Dawkins presents so well. He doesn't hurt at all.

Sure, when he sticks to science, sure, he writes well and is helpful. But what is the most common reason for non-acceptance of evolution by natural selection? Perhaps a tiny fraction of people oppose it because they are neo-Lysenkoists or something, but obviously the most common objection is that it is "atheistic". That's why the scientific community has devoted so much time to refuting this, even though many scientists are atheists themselves.

Given this situation, Dawkins' outspoken atheism simply logically *cannot* help because it merely confirms the reason why people didn't accept evolution in the first place. Granted, the positive propaganda value of his science writing may exceed the negative value (to the acceptance of evolution) of his "religion is eeeevil" propaganda, but I don't understand see how people can't see that the latter is a liability, even if they personally agree with it.

Jon, It's a short-term vs long-term thing. If you identify science with atheism, in the short term it will lose support. But in the long term, as long as there's religion there'll be fundy craziness like anti-evolution and al qaeda.

but obviously the most common objection is that it is "atheistic". That's why the scientific community has devoted so much time to refuting this, even though many scientists are atheists themselves.

It depends on who you are talking to doesn't it? To a deist no, to many Christians yes. I would argue to any Christian not compartmentalizing.

Given this situation, Dawkins' outspoken atheism simply logically *cannot* help because it merely confirms the reason why people didn't accept evolution in the first place.

The problem with this is that many people simply don't know enough about real atheists and their positions. Him being vocal simply doesn't hurt because of what HE says but if anything because of what they think he is. And that is not his fault nor should it silence him.

but I don't understand see how people can't see that the latter is a liability, even if they personally agree with it.

because in the real world of the classroom his views provide an entire swathe of individuals who doubt much of religion a view that works for them. I think your missing the forest despite the trees. His voice and other voices like his absolutely NEED to be heard by these people. His arguments and logic will work like tumblers falling in place for alot of people in the middle. It's something they already know and feel, they just need the conduit to express it.

Silencing a person like Dawkins keeps those people forever in the clutches of social irrationality. They need to hear what he has to say. All of it.

Kristine-

Forgive me, I didn't mean that Dawkins isn't accomplished, it's just that to have credibility within the academic community, one really needs to be publishing original research (it's the old publish-or-perish, as they say to us young'uns), and Richard hasn't published much that's new since the eighties. His popular works are enormously important - of course I have all of them! - but there is undoubtedly a feeling among some scientists that he isn't pulling enough weight on the research front to justify his top billing. There is also some undoubted jealousy, and his department in Oxford is apparently not a happy place to work. People don't stay there long.
As far as the perceived rudeness goes, I think there is still a feeling over here that there are two topics of conversation considered impolite in unfamiliar company: religion and politics. I know, I know - it's a load of old-fashioned rubbish (Now, of all times, we need to get political and sling Blair out on his ear), but being militantly atheist is still somewhat frowned upon. As I said before, most people here are atheist by apathetic default. They just don't care anough about religion to subscribe to it. Why bother with religion when you can have an iPod and read Heat magazine?!
The increased funding of faith schools is certainly an issue Richard was right to speak out on, particularly as it is aimed at promoting Muslim and Catholic schools which, in all fairness to them, are unlikely to be singing off the Sensible Team hymn-sheet. The Church of England runs the most schools in the UK (I went to one myself), but as I said before, even the Anglicans don't bother much with God these days. And there is no way any government would abolish the church schools as they still provide the best state education going, and such a move would be overwhelmingly unpopular. (Not because people believe in God - they just don't want the government dicking around with the only schools which work.) Dawkins' beef (and mine) is less with the old established church schools and more with some of the new 'city academies' (one of halfwit Tony's great ideas) which are funded privately, in some cases by individuals with of dubious character. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,945475,00.html for details of this particular irritation. However, I think the government's motivations are different here than in the US: rather than being about facilitating indoctrination, it's all about the money.
On a personal note, I've heard Richard speak several times, and he's a great deal calmer and more considered in person than probably comes across in his televised polemics. I imagine the TV programme-makers do ham it up somewhat. He also scores major points with sci-fi fans as he's married to a former Dr Who companion!

but there is undoubtedly a feeling among some scientists that he isn't pulling enough weight on the research front to justify his top billing.

Honestly this sounds like a little bit of the green monster to me.

Of course! Scientists are only human, after all.

Not divine. (!)

I agree that Dawkins is not that important, neither against or in favor of ID, but it pisses me off, that he mixes science with the god theme: i'm equally pissed by the otter brit, conway morris, dishing out good science but getting it on with the god subject (this time in favor). Pure muck.

Dawkisn needs to seel paperbacks and he does so resurrecting the cheap rationalism of the 30's. And he miseducates people with his foolish ideologuy of the selfish genes, as if it were top science. I hate that shit. Bad science.

Anyway, I'm done talking about dawkins. Dawkobots are silly and predictable...

Thats it Varga take your potshots and go. You never actually prove a point about Dawkins and call people who agree with him Dawkobots.

And if you want to refute his ideas on genetics and evolution then do so. But I would use a different tack other than 30's rationalism, it's not as if it ever goes out of style or has changed.

Frankly I don't understand your problem with him. I think you buy into the entire seperate magistrum crap a little to heavily.

I wonder if any one of you Dawkin's critics could write a book as clear lucid and persuasive as "the Blind Watchmaker".
The problem is Dawkins cannot be expected to be the only spokesperson for evolution. He has his weaknesses, he is a little intellectual and does not try to get his message over to the masses. But why should that be his responsibility? We need a lot more people saying the same thing. If anyone else can do better, do it. Don't just criticize.
and Alexander Vargas, if it bad science please explain. Saying "that's bad" does not meaningfully contribute.

Jon, It's a short-term vs long-term thing. If you identify science with atheism, in the short term it will lose support. But in the long term, as long as there's religion there'll be fundy craziness like anti-evolution and al qaeda.

Well, then, get used to those things forever if you think only the end of religion will end them. Essentially, all the valid points in favor of atheism (gods are invisible and their supposed will suspiciously agrees with whatever their priests want, nature appears to work according to law and not caprice, different myths seem to conflict, etc.) were already made in the declining times of Roman paganism when people just couldn't take Jove seriously any more. But history showed that the vaccuum was soon filled by new religions. Again the same thing happened after the Enlightenment, when new Christianity rebounded after the shock of the "godless" French Revolution. I personally like the idea of religion going away forever but it seems as naiive to believe that it will as it does to believe that the nations of the world will disband their armies and live in harmony.

In some ways I must agree with you, Mr Vargas. Evolution (and the rest of science, for that matter) has nothing to say about about the existence or otherwise of a supernatural deity, as no such question can be framed in terms that science can test. Fundamentally, the existence or otherwise of a god is just a boring non-question from a scientific point of view. However, the scientific method does show us that no material or natural phenomenon need require a supernatural explanation, and so cannot be used to justify the existence of any deity. In a sense, that should simplify any religious belief, as it reduces it to an issue of pure faith. If you have faith, why should you need or desire any evidence? Doesn't that defeat the whole point of the bloody exercise? Where is the moral and spiritual courage of faith if it needs to be shored up with material evidence? It goes without saying that the only dispassionate viewpoint one can hold is atheism, as there's no a priori reason to think otherwise. It's simply the most parsimonious explanation, and requires the fewest assumptions.

As for "foolish ideology of the selfish genes", I have to say that Dawkins' first book was a welcome and scientifically provocative (and productive) interpretation of what was mostly other people's work. It has to be viewed as a product of its time. By refocusing attention closer to the real units of selection, Dawkins helped to move the field of behavioural ecology away from the rather flaccid, poorly-supported ecological models of behavioural evolution that were popular in the 60s and 70s. It's dated now, and (like the Origin itself) misused and miscited by those with political ends. The Extended Phenotype is a much better and more original book, and is almost totally without political import - hence, it tends to get ignored by those with an axe to grind. Conway Morris, as I said earlier, is a mixed-up cookie, and totally harmless.

In passing, I have to back up what someone else has said on this on on of these threads recently: science is not a democracy. If you haven't put in the years to study and immerse yourself in a particular field, then your opinion is worth shit. I wouldn't be so arrogant as to comment on the works of Proust, or motor mechanics, or astrophysics: consequently it gets on my tits when people with no expertise, training or education in biology feel they have a right to impinge on my turf. That particularly applies to zealous idiots from the physical sciences who feel they have the right to weigh in on biological matters. It wastes my thinking-time and makes them look like muppets.

I wonder if any one of you Dawkin's critics could write a book as clear lucid and persuasive as "the Blind Watchmaker".

Was it really all that clear or persuasive? I read it for the first time just last year, and although I obviously couldn't see it as a layperson would, I was struck that even though it started well (and the much maligned WEASEL demo actually was quite brilliant for its era), I seem to recall it degenerating later on into random petty attacks on Gould and Lewontin. But such things were par for the course back then, I suppose. Fortunately, nowadays people like Sean Carroll don't seem to feel the need to attack their rivals in their books for laypeople.

Who his this Vargas chap, anyway? Tell me it's not this guy http://www.futurehealth.ucsf.edu/FELLOWS/05fellows/vargas.html

Evolution (and the rest of science, for that matter) has nothing to say about about the existence or otherwise of a supernatural deity, as no such question can be framed in terms that science can test.

Sure it can. There have been a few studies on intercessory prayer and its effect on sick people. I believe they all showed no effect. If it had been shown that it did have a beneficial effect, and that only prayers of a particular religion had the effect, and that prayers made on a particular holy day had the most effect, that would indeed be some evidence towards the existence of that particular deity.

Jon, It's a short-term vs long-term thing. If you identify science with atheism, in the short term it will lose support. But in the long term, as long as there's religion there'll be fundy craziness like anti-evolution and al qaeda.

And now I have the sudden urge to describe the attacks of creationism as "flying planes into ivory towers."

Narc-

Not really. A beneficial effect of prayer in that instance would tell you nothing about the existence of a supernatural deity. It just tells you that the null hypothesis, that kneeling down and mumbling grovelling platitudes has no effect on sick people, is not supported by the results of that experiment. More importantly, from our point of view, it offers no support whatsoever to any other hypothesis or explanation. It wouldn't preclude, for example, some as-yet-undiscovered force generating a healing effect as it passed from praying to prayed-for. It could be religion-specific as a result of the ethnic origin (and therefore genetic makeup) of the gimps involved. And even a bullshit hypothesis like that is still way more parsimonious that deducing the presence of some omniscient, omnipotent eternal deity. The fact is that you can't test for the existence of God(s), and so the whole issue is rather dull and uninteresting, frankly.

Lycaenops, I think that the point regarding the expectation to do original research is the important one, rather than Dawkins himself. It's a good point to raise, because there is enormous pressure for professors to also do research. Massimo Pigliucci, in his book "Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science" identifies this as a problem.

Pigliucci would rather see researchers do research, and professors teach, and would like to see the U.S. adopt the Oxford/New College chair for the public's understanding of science model. At the end of the book he makes several suggestions for improving the atmosphere in America for science, and I think that they are good ones.

Academia isn't so different across fields; literature professors are expected to "publish" as well, even if it's sucky poetry that no one reads! Like Pigliucci, I think it's a problem, but I'm no expert.

I have no expertise or training, and practically no education in biology, and to be honest I'm struggling with The Extended Phenotype, and wondering if I'm equal to the material.

[Dawkobots! Vargas, sorry, I laughed. Guilty as charged, I guess. And after all that S.J.Gould I read as a young girl, warning me about Dawkins.]

Anyway, I'm done talking about dawkins. Dawkobots are silly and predictable...

Hypocritical ass.

Vargas plainly hasn't got the faintest idea as to what actually happens in the UK.....

"Strong religiousness, church-oriented life and puritanical delusions are a very old staplemark aspect of anglo culture."

That's right OLD - but not any more, unless you are a muslim - which is why we are getting so twitchy about them. The rest of us have mostly outgrown this nonsense. We DO have USA-funded and supported fundie churches, which are well hated by the residents of the areas in which they are situated, because they are christian all over the landscape.

"It has been merely perpetuated in America." And almost died out here, until dear leader Tony started rabbiting on .....

"I'd guess its stronger in the UK than most believe," ( NO).. "and could perfectly well grow yet stronger."

We are doing our best to stop it.

Oh, and Dawkins is a proper scientist, has done original research etc. He studied under the great ethologist Niko Tinbergen, whose semi-popular book "The Herring Gull's World" is a classic. (I've got a copy)

I'm still looking for a copy of "The Extended Phenotype" - without going to Amazonk....

Totally agree Tingey! We got rid of most of the fundie puritans by sending them to found America (possibly not a good idea with hindsight) and we think the same way. There are a few scary churches, but most of them are linked to the US and are thought of as totally weird by the majority of the population anyway.

The idea that people take creationism seriously is only just dawning in the UK, so people aren't so vigorous about getting up and yelling about the idiots....most people just can't believe anyone would believe in it for real!

I think we're in danger of crediting the UK public, and that includes students, with far more thought on the subject than is actually the case. I doubt that most people, whatever their (non) beliefs, have even heard of Dawkins. Most would probably ask 'Who does he play for?'

Oh, and Dawkins is a proper scientist, has done original research etc. He studied under the great ethologist Niko Tinbergen, whose semi-popular book "The Herring Gull's World" is a classic. (I've got a copy)

Yes, but I think it is quite fair to say that neither Dawkins, nor Gould, nor Sagan would be known even among their scientific peers if it weren't for their popular works.

Obviously all people getting doctorates have to a bit of research at one point -- but there's a difference between people like Maynard Smith and Crick who conduct significant research all their life (often while amazingly still finding time to write books for laypeople) and those who more or less give up original research as soon as they get a tenured position.

Often, scientists who bring up the less than stellar scientific accomplishments of celebrity scientists are accused of jealousy, but that's quite unfair, because generally such complainers don't feel that they themselves deserve fame, but that simply feel that the general public would get a better sense of science if the celebrities were active scientists.

Some good news (from Australia):

THE controversial theory of "intelligent design" has been ridiculed by Federal Education and Science Minister Julie Bishop, who says it should not be taught in schools.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/christian-theory-not-science-mp/…

Well but if ID is on the rise in the UK (as it has been eslewhere for a long time) this pretty much proves that Dawkins definitely doesn't help.

Well but if crime is on the rise in the UK (as it has been eslewhere for a long time) this pretty much proves that the police definitely don't help.

Therefore, we would have less crime if we disbanded the police forces, right?

This paragraph strongly suggests self-selection was involved:

In the Opinionpanel survey, nearly 20% said they had been taught creationism as fact by their main school. Most thought it would be best to teach a range of theories, but nearly 30% of those who supported creationism felt that pupils should learn about creationism alone.

There is no way that 20% of all UK children, let alone 20% of all children five years ago, are being taught creationism as fact. The only places creationism would be taught as fact with any non-trivial frequency would be Muslim and Evangelical schools, of which there aren't that many (yet). Catholic and Anglican schools don't have a policy of teaching creationism, and secular schools certainly don't. I'd not be surprised if this survey hasn't been freeped by a nutty group like Christian Voice.

There was one too many negatives in that last sentence, but you know what I mean.

To Vargas it's only bad if you are rude to creationist fundies.

Evolution loving atheists are another matter. We're the problem.

"The general public would get a better sense of science if the celebrities were active scientists."

Oh so true, and another really good point. But there are only so many hours in a day, too.

How many cinéma vérité documentaries have been made following scientists in their work? (And how many people watch documentaries anyway, Kristine?) Just thinking on-line...

Getting the public to participate (admittedly in limited ways) in research/field work is an idea. The public archaeology project along the mill site in Minneapolis was very successful with the school groups who worked alongside trained archaeologists for several weeks. With the "just drop-in" Saturdays, it was less successful, but at least it exposed kids and their parents to actual techniques and the experience of "how it feels." (Some children thought it was "boring," and some had to be coaxed to leave.)

Definitely there needs to be better representation to the public about what the heck scientists do--I'm just wondering how one goes about doing that.

Yeah, online scientists that do research are respectable. Scientists that just put a different spin on their own and other's observations should be ignored. Like Darwin and Einstein. Screw'em. Those pussies weren't actively engaged in research, they just made novel observations. And that's not what real scientists do.

Seriously, we shouldn't listen to Dawkins because he's not actively engaged in research? My doctor doesn't do research either, but I still listen to him when he tells me about his field.

Science needs all sorts, so don't get your panties in a bussel because someone gets public recognition because he talks to the public.

Typo correction time. It should read only scientists, not online scientists.

I really don't get your examples. Darwin did *tons* of original research, both on evolution and biology in general. In fact he was an active scientist almost to the time of his death -- he published a book on his own studies of earthworms and how they form vegtable mould quite late on.

Einstein certainly did plenty of original research too (and not just on relativity -- on brownian motion and the photoelectric effect as well) , although being a theoretician meant that he didn't do experiments but worked out equations. Of course most of his later years were spent working on a fruitless quest for a universal field theory, but he couldn't very well have known that was wasted time.