It hasn’t been a good week for my blood pressure. Reading stupid things written by people who know nothing is fine. Reading stupid things written or said by people in a position of authority who really should know better is just upsetting.
First up, NASA chief executive Mike Griffin.
First of all, I don’t think it’s within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that’s a rather arrogant position for people to take.
I’m not sure where to begin with this, so I’ll let the Bad Astronomer say it for me, and move on to something more local.
Step forward the Rev Jan Ainsworth, the Church of England’s new head of education, who according to the Guardian said about intellegent design
You would get howls of protest from the scientific community, which would say there is absolutely no place for it in the curriculum. But you could do it in history of science,” she added, pointing out that religious education lessons in CofE schools include discussions of different beliefs.
This is just utterly wrong, so consider this my howl of protest. Would it be possible to include discussions of the alternatives to evolution that were considered in the late 19th and early 20th centuries? Yes, and such a discussion might even be a useful way of demonstrating the evidence in support of evolution. Is intellegent design such an alternative? No. It was invented 20 years ago when the US supreme court ruled that teaching ‘creation science’ breached the ban on mixing state and religion. See this and much else on the Panda’s Thumb for more details.
I’m writing to the Guardian right now.
Julius on June 2, 2007
Chris, I share your frustrations. Whatever you do, I hope you don’t find Scott Adams posts on Global Warming \ Evolution \ Science in General on his dilbert blog. Great cartoons, but (borderline) disturbing views on the the scientific approach.
Sue Mitchell on June 2, 2007
Re: ‘Intelligent Design’
The human body has a useless bit of equipment called an appendix whose sole purpose seems to be to become inflamed and removed. It also has nerves in *teeth.*
How can anyone possibly call a Designer of such a flawed piece of kit “Intelligent?” It beggars belief!
–
Stuart on June 2, 2007
Sue, to add to your comment about “design”, our lungs only react to a build up of carbon dioxide rather than a lack of oxygen. So, if you find yourself working in a low oxygen environment (e.g. if you are working with liquid nitrogen which turns to vapour and displaces the oxygen), your breathing doesn’t become heavy as there is no build up in carbon dioxide. So you can asphyxiate without really being aware of it. Of course with nature cobbling things together via mutation and natural selection, you just need something to work well enough that it gives an advantage. If you were actually designing a human body with an aim in mind you probably would do a much better job of it. Perhaps the word intelligent should be replaced with stupid.
Alice Sheppard on June 2, 2007
Oh, I see. It’s fine to change the composition of the atmosphere by pumping masses of carbon dioxide into it, but only so long as we don’t have the arrogance to make decisions as well. (I never get why people say the addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere shouldn’t make any difference. Add any chemical to something, and its composition and characteristics will change. I dare say polonium amounted to a very small percentage of the total mass of Litvinenko . . .) Millions of years ago we weren’t really in a position to make decisions or changes, but biology is a major factor that drives the climate – why else is oxygen such a large component of the atmosphere? People in a position of power shouldn’t make pathetic excuses to avoid responsibility!
And as for Unintelligent Design, if I have to teach it I will explode! What a shame this country has taken to copying so many U.S. attitudes. Historically, here, there has been little conflict between science and the church. A lot of priests, bishops, etc., supported Copernicus and wrote 17th and 18th-century sci-fi, often full of new and controversial science. I bet they wouldn’t have subscribed to this “let God take care of everything, we’re not arrogant” business.
I’ll look out for your letter in the Guardian . . .
Rob on June 4, 2007
Well written Chris.
The toxic effects of “Intelligent Design” (and the ‘No Child Left behind’) trends are increasingly evident in science education in parts of the US. It is indeed unfortunate to see the spread of ID’s influence to the UK. We had a nasty scare here in Australlia a couple of years ago when the then Sience and Education minister said that schools could teach it if that was what parents want – he later clarified (modified) his statement to say that it should be covered in religious studies classes but the damage was don. Fortunately the topic has been relatively quiet over recent months.
The head of science at the CoE obviuosly doesn’t have a firm grasp of either history or science.
Alice Sheppard on June 4, 2007
Having seen Stuart’s comment, it occurs to me perhaps, according to ID, we do react to a build-up of carbon dioxide in order that we may burn fossil fuels to our hearts’ content in perfect safety, but not to displacement of oxygen because we aren’t really supposed to do chemistry experiments lest we become too knowledgeable and get arrogant enough to make scientific decisions . . .
Or perhaps not.
Sorry folks, how could I resist!?
Gill Colling on June 4, 2007
I wonder if the predicted sea level rise displaces huge numbers of people by flooding low lying coastal areas they would appreciate Mike Griffin’s comments? Maybe he could explain to them that it’s OK, they may be homeless but others are much happier with the new climate thankyou very much!!!
In May the news broke that the Southern Ocean isn’t absorbing as much carbon dioxide as it used to, in fact the amount it absorbs are continuing to decrease, as a direct result of climate change causing increased wind and changing ocean currents, bringing carbon dioxide rich deep waters to the surface. So with a such a huge sink of carbon dioxide affected the rate of climate change will increase. Ready to change your life style Mr Griffin??
As for ID it seems that God still uses the time honored technique of trial and error. Maybe we should provide God with powerful computers and CAD applications so he can model his ‘creations’ ! After all computers don’t mistakes…..do they?
Chris Lintott’s Universe » A watery Venus on June 6, 2007
[...] On Earth, there’s (currently – see the comments on this post below for the latest discussion here of our attempts to warm the planet) only one place where this happens (in the Pacific, just NE of Australia) but this must be what happened across the whole of Venus billions of years ago. [...]
Alice Sheppard on June 7, 2007
The link for Gill’s comment is http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article1805870.ece
(Don’t encourage us, Chris . . .)
Ciaron Drain on January 27, 2008
I don’t know what is funnier intelligent design or the people who proport still I recommend the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster on http://www.venganza.org/ their heaven has a beer volcano which is definately an improvement.
Graham Chambers on March 4, 2009
You know, I rather agree with the Head of NASA wrt global warming/climate change. His position is little different from that of James Lovelock and the Gaia hypothesis. We humans of course look at things from a very anthropocentric viewpoint- this is natural, but the planet doesn’t care whether we survive as a species or not. And at the end of the day, global warming and all other attendant ills visited on our planet come from one single source – human overpopulation. If we don’t stop it, we’ll pay for it.
The idea that we as humans occupy a special place on this planet or in the universe is rather arrogant is it not? Indeed it begins to sound rather like “Intelligent design”!