Can animals use language?

Alex the parrot could, or so it appears. Read this lovely piece from the New Yorker on the whole issue of chatty beasts.

Peanut butter disproves evolution

Anyone out there who thinks the theory of evolution might be true may as well just forget it, as it's almost certainly disproved by jars of peanut butter which, if the theory stood up, would occasionally contain new life when you opened them:



Thanks to New Humanist reader Alistair Scott for sending this in. He was convinced it was a gag until he Googled the presenter, Chuck Missler, and found out that he's a well-known evangelist and a former "Branch Chief of the Department of Guided Missiles" in the US military...

Darwin's private papers now freely available online

For anyone interested in Charles Darwin (which I'm assuming is a lot of you), the Darwin Online project have just now made his entire private papers (around 20,000 items) freely available on the internet.

I spoke to the project director John van Wyhe earlier this week, who told me he thinks the availability of this archive means "we might be on the verge of a new revolution in the study and appreciation of the work of Charles Darwin." Read my interview to find out what's in the archive (letters, original notes, experiments, news clippings, photos, Emma Darwin's recipe book, and so much more) and discover links to some of the best bits.

The day Ricky Gervais became an atheist

American men's magazine Best Life has a short piece by comedian Ricky Gervais on how he became an atheist.

After saying how, at the age of 9, he was a massive fan of Jesus – "More than pop stars. More than footballers. More than God" – Gervais describes the day his 19-year-old brother, Bob, walked in just as he was drawing Jesus on the cross as part of his RE homework:

"There I was, happily drawing my hero when my big brother Bob asked, 'Why do you believe in God?' Just a simple question. But my mum panicked. 'Bob,' she said, in a tone that I knew meant 'shut up.' Why was that a bad thing to ask? If there was a God and my faith was strong, it didn’t matter what people said. Oh…hang on. There is no God. He knows it, and she knows it deep down. It was as simple as that. I started thinking about it and asking more questions, and within an hour, I was an atheist."

So, a fairly rapid conversion then. And Gervais goes on to describe the "gifts" that opened up to him as a result of his "newfound atheism":

"The gifts of truth, science, nature. The real beauty of this world. Not a world by design, but one by chance. I learned of evolution—a theory so simple and obvious that only England’s greatest genius could have come up with it. Evolution of plants, animals, and us—with imagination, free will, love, and humor. I no longer needed a reason for my existence, just a reason to live. And imagination, free will, love, humor, fun, music, sports, beer, and pizza are all good enough reasons for living. But living an honest life—for that you need the truth. That’s the other thing I learned that day, that the truth, however shocking or uncomfortable, in the end leads to liberation and dignity."

Nice one, Ricky. And thanks for giving me a great excuse to put up a clip of the hilarious Genesis scene from stand-up show Animals:

Interview with Ben Stein of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

I just thought I'd share this clip of what may be the least objective interview I've ever seen. It features Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly talking to Ben Stein, the star of pro-intelligent design documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (you're more likely to remember him as the teacher in Ferris Bueller's Day Off).

We begin with an introduction from O'Reilly, who asks: "How did life on Earth begin? Religious people believe a higher power created the universe, secular progressives say all kinds of things, but God is not in the equation."

It's not really an interview as O'Reilly spends the entire time agreeing with Stein, at one point expressing his disgust that "you cant mention in biology class that there are theologians that believe there was a higher power responsible for the first life" and disdainfully pointing out that when he asks atheists like Hitchens how the universe began they have the audacity to say "we don't know yet".

By the end of it O'Reilly is ranting about persecution, "secular pinheads" and the "separation of church and state" (mockingly of course – just listen to the voice he uses when he refers to this). Have a watch:

New Humanist readers say you can't deny creationists a platform

Last week, amid the controversy over a talk by Islamic creationists in a lecture theatre belonging to University College London, we posed the following question in a poll on this blog:

Following the Islamic creationist talk in one of University College London's lecture theatres, do you think creationists should ever be allowed to speak in university buildings?

294 people voted, and the results were as follows:
Yes: 76% (225 votes)
No: 23% (69 votes)

So a clear majority came down in favour of free speech. It seems readers of this blog are more uncomfortable with the idea of banning groups from speaking than they are with the idea of anti-scientific nonsense being espoused in university buildings. Which seems like a solid humanist view to us.

Farewell David Attenborough (sort of...)

Tonight the last instalment of David Attenborough's wonderful series Life in Cold Blood is broadcast on BBC1.

In some respects it's a farewell, as the great man will no longer be making programmes on location. However, it's not all doom and gloom as he will still be making documentaries (including an upcoming series on Darwin, which is clearly something to look forward to). He just wont be travelling the world to film them, which is a bit of shame given that it's been suggested that Attenborough is the most well-travelled individual in human history.

Anyway, this seemed like a good opportunity to remind you all to read Laurie Taylor's interview with Attenborough from our January/February issue...

Poll: Should creationists ever be allowed to speak in university buildings?

Following on from the controversy over last night's Islamic creationist talk in a UCL lecture theatre, we thought we'd set up a poll asking whether universities should ever allow such organisations to use their facilities?

Do you think universities should be happy to let creationists speak at events, if only to see them have their arguments torn apart by the scientifically-minded people who would surely outnumber them on a British campus, or do you believe (as was the case with UCL) that universities, in the name of free speech, have no choice but to provide student societies with buildings to host their events, regardless of whether they want to invite speakers who propagate such nonsense?

Alternatively you may believe that universities should never allow their facilities to be used by people advocating a "theory" that completely denies empirical evidence uncovered through decades, even centuries of hard work by scientists who may even have worked within the very same buildings. Does the need for a university to uphold science and reason outweigh the need to allow free speech for all?

Let us know by placing your vote at the top right of this page, and leaving your comments on this post.

Steve Jones on creationism

As part of the debate over the Islamic creationist event at UCL (see post below), the Telegraph also had a piece by Steve Jones, Professor of Genetics at UCL (who participated in our recent Dinner with Darwin feature).

He writes how, while he objected to the lecture being held in the Darwin lecture theatre, he could not object to the event itself taking place: "UCL, the Godless College of Gower Street, insists (just as all religions do) on freedom of speech, so they are welcome to their meeting. We biologists choke, though, on the idea of such buffoonery in the Darwin Building; instead, it has been moved to a theatre used to teach medieval history."

[Note his labelling of UCL as "the Godless College of Gower Street". Since we, along with the British Humanist Association, are also situated on Gower Street, I hereby declare it to be "Godless Street"]

For anyone in search of an excellent put-down to use against creationism, it may be worth remembering Prof Jones's closing statement: "The idea that life began by magic a few thousand years ago is entirely absurd - yet believers, of whatever persuasion, insist on its truth. This does no harm to science, but to my secular eyes seems to do immense damage to religion itself."

Indeed.

Islamic creationists lecture at UCL

Last night, University College London played host to a lecture by Dr Oktar Babuna and Ali Sadun Engin, who may be more familiar to readers of this blog as two of the people behind Harun Yahya, a catch-all pen name for the writings of the "Science Research Foundation", a Turkish Islamic creationist group.

The lecture, organised as part of the university's student Islamic society's Islam Awareness Week, was originally destined to take place in UCL's Darwin Lecture Theatre, but was moved following protests from students and academics.

As Damian Thompson, author of Counterknowledge, pointed out on a Telegraph blog yesterday, the student society had marketed the lecture as providing "an insightful view into the reality of evolution and the shaky grounds upon which several of the theories are based.”

He then showed just how "insightful" the folks at Harun Yahya can be by quoting from one of their books, The Dark Clan, which explains that evolutionary science is inspired by “a dark clan behind all kids of corruption and perversion, that controls drug trafficking, prostitution rings”. Evolution is the “greatest deception in the history of science”.

Now, many readers will no doubt be shocked that such counter-intellectual nonsense could be allowed to be expressed within the walls of one of our finest educational establishments. But should it have been banned? It's not as if the university was actively sanctioning the lecture – it was merely providing one of it's student societies with a venue to host an event. As free thinkers we can quite rightly oppose the encroachment of creationism into our education system, but can we really condone denying its advocates a platform altogether?

I'm not quite sure what my own view is on this, and I'd be fascinated to hear what the blog readers think – please leave your comments on this post.

Also, I've been unable to find any reports of what actually happened last night at the lecture – if there's anyone who went to it please get in touch (either by comment or email) and let us know what was said, whether there was an open forum for questions etc...

Florida legislators prepare to rein in teaching of evolution

Three leading Florida state legislators are preparing to challenge new state science education standards which will make the teaching of evolution compulsory for the first time in Florida's history.

The standards, set to be approved by Florida's Board of Education on 19 February, will ensure all middle and high school students are taught about evolution and natural selection in science classes. Three Republican legislators are unhappy with these guidelines, as they believe evolution should be explicitly referred to as a "theory" and not fact. One of the three, state Senator Stephen Wise, believes creationism should be taught alongside evolution. State Representative Marti Coley, who believes in intelligent design, told the Miami Herald that evolution "is technically a theory. Let's present it for what it is."

The three, who also include future state House Speaker Dean Cannon, have said they will be willing to use the powers of the state Legislature, which can override the Board of Education, to ensure the word "theory" is inserted into the standards.

The standards have been exercising creationists ever since they were proposed last October. One Florida Department of Education employee even sent round an email calling on fellow Christians to oppose the guidelines, as they would be "a COMPLETE contradiction of what we Teach them at home."

This religious challenge to science education has alarmed the man who carried out the review of Florida's standards. Professor Joseph Travis, dean of Florida State University's Arts and Sciences College, told the Herald: "If you use the word theory to imply that scientists think evolution is just a hypothesis and is not real, that gives an incorrect impression."

Texas may sanction creationism "degree"

Buried in the middle of a story about attendances at Kentucky's Creation Museum is something even more shocking – the state of Texas may be about to approve an online master's degree in science education provided by the Texas-based Institute for Creation Research. The "degree", which has already been given preliminary approval by a Texas state advisory group, is now awaiting the final go-ahead from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.

Needless to say, bona fide scientists are unimpressed with this development. Alfred Gilman, dean of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center told the Dallas Morning News: "The latest round of so-called creation science truly scares me and all of my colleagues here at UT Southwestern Medical Center. Approval of this sort of nonsense as science in Texas will have a significant negative impact on our ability to attract the best minds to the state. How can Texas simultaneously launch a war on cancer and approve educational platforms that submit that the universe is 10,000 years old?"

As for museum attendances, well, who ever said Americans weren't interested in science? According to the Baptist Press, in its first eight months Kentucky's creation museum has surpassed all expectations, drawing in 300,000 visitors eager to be taught how the Earth is just thousands of years old and how dinosaurs once roamed the land alongside men.

Apparently all the media attention the "museum" received – hardly any of it complimentary – helped raise its profile and attract thousands more visitors than expected. Based on this, one could certainly present a case for just ignoring these people in future in order to avoid giving them and their nonsensical ideas any free publicity. However, as far as we're concerned we find them far too amusing to stop.

Creationists to start an "academic" journal

Guardian science correspondent James Randerson reports on his blog how the creationist nutters at Answers in Genesis have set up the Answers Research Journal, "a professional peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework."

They've clearly identified a gap in the market, as there can't be many other academic journals providing "scientists and students the results of cutting-edge research that demonstrates the validity of the young-earth model, the global Flood, the non-evolutionary origin of 'created kinds', and other evidences that are consistent with the biblical account of origins."

If you're wondering what's in store for readers of the Answers Research Journal, James has picked his favourite piece of "research" from the inaugural issue, which details the origins of HIV: "Since the corruption of creation, the corrupted retrovirus, HIV, and various leukemia viruses turn off the entire immune system, leaving the body open to devastating infections. These examples may provide clues to the origin of viruses and how some may have been created during Creation Week by design and how some have been corrupted as a result of the Fall."

Glad they've cleared that up.

Creators of Intelligent Design movie will pay people to see it

A few months ago we reported how Richard Dawkins had been tricked into recording interviews for Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a documentary film intended to promote the Intelligent Design agenda to the American public.

Now, as the film approaches its April release date, it seems its creators are so confident in the quality of their product that they are willing to pay people to go and see it in order to ensure a successful opening weekend.

Christian schools are being offered cash "donations" for every child they deliver to showings of Expelled, which it is hoped they will do by organising compulsory school trips. Parents would be expected to stump up for the price of a ticket, while the school receives at least $5 for every ticket stub they hand back to the filmmakers. The film gets more viewers, the school gets more cash, the kids get intellectually misled, and everyone's a winner. Except for human progress, obviously.

It all smacks of desperation, of course. And having watched the trailer, it looks suitably dreadful. You'd have to give me more than $5. Call it $50 and we can start talking...

Video of the US Dover Area intelligent design case

Alan Watson at Humani has forwarded us this great resource for anyone interested in the intelligent design debate in America. Popular US science TV series NOVA have put online their 2-hour show on the 2005 federal court case over the teaching of intelligent design in the Dover Area School District in Pennsylvania.

It was a landmark case in which the judge ruled that intelligent design had no place in science lessons. It originated when a group of parents sued the school district over a statement that the school board required teachers to read out in science classes whenever evolution was taught. This stated that evolution was a theory rather than a fact, and offered students a book on intelligent design, Of Pandas and People, if they were interested.

The film is split into handy 10 minute chunks, so dig in.