Showing posts with label Richard Dawkins. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Richard Dawkins. Show all posts

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Facebook no longer permits me to add friends

Yesterday evening, as I was connecting with like-minded people (other atheists, humanists, etc) by seeking to add them to my list of Facebook friends, I was stopped by a FB warning. Since I first posted on my wall on 9 March an article by Jack Huberman “How To Save Our Secular America”, I have been doing just that and I now have 261 friends. Hardly abusive behavior – here are some comments my FB friends have left on my wall:

  • “I assume I really don’t know you but if you a humanist, I am happy to be your friend. I see that you have been working on very important projects and do let me know if I could be of any help.”
  • “Hi Lola, nice to be in touch with you. I am a secular humanist working with the marginalised communities in India. …”
  • “Oh... I like your website! I’ll be adding it to my blogroll. We obviously share a lot of the same goals.”
  • “Pleased to meet you Lola!!!”
  • “Hello Lola, It is a pleasure meeting you as well! It is always nice to meet a friend with common views. Stay well.”
Oh, and the latest comment: “Hi Lola, thanks for adding me. I’m intrigued by your work and your website. The Network of those Abused by Church. What a wonderfully gutsy approach!” I haven’t added new friends since the warning and Declan says I should get my head around the fact that it is likely that I am going to be blocked or my account permanently disabled: hasn’t his petition to the UN in support of therapeutic cloning been brought to a halt through spamming - despite that 24 Nobel laureates have signed it – and our website twice removed from the internet (see our “About us”)? A short while ago, I received an email from a FB friend who also happens to be a recognised authority in stem cell research and has signed Declan’s petition. The email is in relation to a Christopher Hitchens video that I posted on my wall yesterday evening on the UN's Anti-Blasphemy Resolution – American Atheists will be demonstrating outside the UN next Saturday. It has had a good response but it seems he isn’t able to add his comment (among the comments last night, I announced my receipt of the FB warning) and is not sure if Facebook “is blocking it or not”. He is using an iPhone, but was able to write on somebody else’s wall. “It’s insane what FB is doing,” he says. I keep thinking about the video “The Four Horsemen”, convened by The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (RDFRS), which features an unmoderated 2-hour discussion between Richard Dawkins (FB friend), Daniel Dennett (NAC Honorary Associate), Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. Within 20 seconds, they raise the whole issue of religion being “held off the table of rational criticism” (Sam Harris).

Sunday, September 21, 2008

Creationism a threat to human rights - Council of Europe

Creationism is enjoying a resurgence in the UK

Creationism – the belief that God created the earth and man in six days less than 10,000 years ago – is enjoying a resurgence of support in the UK, says a BBC News website item on 15 September, "Who are the British creationists?" Creationism is widely believed in the United States, where, according to the BBC, an estimated 47% of Americans reject outright Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, accepting instead the Bible's account of the creation of the universe - as laid out in the first chapter of Genesis.

Leading British scientist and author Richard Dawkins has warned of creationist "brainwashing" in the UK – spurred on by an unwillingness of the authorities to offend religious sensibilities. His creationist adversaries say their ideas are beginning to gain wider acceptance within these shores as dissatisfaction grows with "materialist" evolutionary explanations of how life began.

A 2006 survey for the BBC found that more than a fifth of those polled were convinced by the creationist argument. Less than half - 48% - chose evolution. Said Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the National Secular Society: "There is no question that creationism is growing. It is increasingly well funded, and well organised." The society says Britain is beginning to follow the lead of the US where supporters and opponents of creationism have joined battle – in the school classroom.

An article in The Independent of 12 September "The Big Question: Why is creationism on the rise, and does it have a place in education?" reports that, according to a More 4 report earlier this year, there are at least 40 schools in Britain that teach creationism in science lessons. Of those schools, five were part of the state system, but defied government guidelines. The report was the result of enquiries to just 50 faith schools, of almost 7,000 in the country (over 99 per cent of which are Christian) – so there may be many more schools doing the same thing.

The Government's Guidance on Creationism and Intelligent Design – to which the Royal Society's former director of education Rev Michael Reiss (see previous blog) contributed – says that creationism and intelligent design should not be taught as part of the national curriculum; but, crucially, it adds that "there is a real difference between teaching 'x' and teaching about 'x'", and argues that questions about creationism "could provide the opportunity to explain why they are not scientific theories".

"Science lessons are not the appropriate place to discuss creationism, which is a world view in total denial of any form of scientific evidence," said John Fry, a physicist at the University of Liverpool. He said challenging evolution scientifically was appropriate in school science classes. But he added: "Creationism doesn't challenge science, it denies it." His views echo those of Dawkins, who said science was being threatened in classrooms because the Government accepts that theories including "intelligent design" (described as creationism's trojan horse) can be discussed "in the context of being one of a range of views on evolution".

Why is creationism an issue? It is partly to do with an increasingly organised evangelical Christian movement and a growing number of Muslims in the UK who subscribe to creationism, explains The Independent. "There is an insidious and growing problem," says the geneticist Steve Jones. "It's a step back from rationality. They (the creationists) don't have a problem with science, they have a problem with argument. And irrationality is a very infectious disease."

On 21 June 2006, the world's leading scientists urged schools to stop denying the facts of evolution amid controversy over the teaching of creationism (Smithers, Guardian, 22/6/06). The national science academies of 67 countries – including the UK’s Royal Society – issued a joint statement warning that scientific evidence about the origins of life was being "concealed, denied or confused". It points out that "within science courses taught in certain public systems of education, scientific evidence, data, and testable theories about the origins and evolution of life on Earth are being concealed, denied, or confused with theories not testable by science". It went on: "We urge decision makers, teachers, and parents to educate all children about the methods and discoveries of science and foster an understanding of the science of nature. Knowledge of the natural world in which they live empowers people to meet human needs and protect the planet."

A year later, on 4 October 2007, the Council of Europe (CoE) urged governments to "firmly oppose" the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline (Lipsett, Guardian, 5/10/07). Members of the CoE's Parliamentary Assembly voted 48 to 25 against giving creationism the same status in education as the theory of evolution. "If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights," they said. "The prime target of present-day creationists, most of whom are Christian or Muslim, is education. Creationists are bent on ensuring that their ideas are included in the school science syllabus. Creationism cannot, however, lay claim to being a scientific discipline." The parliamentarians said there was "a real risk of a serious confusion" being introduced into children's minds between belief and science. They added: "The theory of evolution has nothing to do with divine revelation but is built on facts. Intelligent design, presented in a more subtle way, seeks to portray its approach as scientific, and therein lies the danger." They said creationism was affecting "quite a few" CoE member states, including Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the UK.

As I explained in the blog of 16 September "Royal Society's stance on religion under fire", our campaign in support of human embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning will have a section called "Science and Religion" which will carry pieces about the spread of faith schools; the growing influence of bodies such as the Templeton Foundation; and the prospect of creationism being taught in science classrooms. Because of the addition of this section to the website, I have decided that my model will not be Make Trade Fair; instead, the campaign will initially be loosely based on Greenpeace UK (see, for example, their section on "Climate change"); and eventually, as we get more material and cooperation from scientists and groups, on Greenpeace International (see, for example, their section on "Protect ancient forests").

This is not wishful thinking on my part: the NAC website, which was suspended on 8 March, was loosely based on Greenpeace International – and, in fact, by the time we were made homeless I had uploaded hundreds of articles and photographs on the Vatican and the Christian right and their tireless work to insinuate their values into every aspect of public policy at every level of government. Oh, we also featured books, and had three original campaigns – one of which was titled "The Vatican and the achievement of the UN Millennium Development Goals", incorporating as a Take Action an email to Pope Benedict XVI urging him to stop obstructing family planning. NAC was also interested in gay rights, but we have decided that NAC is exclusively about the public being exposed to the scientific perspective – and this presupposes the separation of church and state and public policies that are based on secular principles, not religious doctrine. We actually stated the following in our mission page: "Science transcends borders and provides the most reliable basis for finding solutions to our problems. NAC maintains that secular, not religious, principles must govern public policy."

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Royal Society's stance on religion under fire

Yesterday morning was the first time since 3 November 2006 that the Catholic Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre didn’t hand each homeless a grated-cheese sandwich (“for later”) with their cereal breakfast – the only meal they provide. My only food M-F after 9.00am is two of these sandwiches – Declan makes a two-hour round-trip walk to the Catholic Manna Centre to be guaranteed a bite to eat for lunch – so I was pretty hungry for the day. This morning at the Dellow, as I was gone for my take-away coffee, Declan got manhandled by a homeless: “Ey, mate; I am talking to you,” he says as he repeatedly hits Declan in the arm.

In the last blog “Human Embryonic Stem Cell Secretions Minimize Tissue Injury After Heart Attack” I said that I had compiled the email addresses of medical practitioners from Israel's Hadassah Medical Organization to send Declan’s email to yesterday. Well, they were sent (127 in total, plus 17 Nobel laureates) but I got zero out-of-office autoreplies, and unsurprisingly no signatures. Normally, the majority of emails that I send to scientists and academics inviting them to sign Declan's petition to the UN on research cloning of embryos and stem cells go to spam boxes (or to cyberspace, see blog of 4 September "Obama: Yes to stem cells, funding") – like on Friday for example: I emailed 77 scientists, got only two autoreplies, and not one single signatory despite that 31 went to the Department of Chemistry at Yale University, from which we have two signatories, one of them a Nobel laureate.

No signatories from Hadassah University Hospital is all the more baffling because in the blog of 10 September "Human Embryonic Stem Cells Reduce Multiple Sclerosis Symptoms" I feature a significant discovery made by scientists from Hadassah Hospital; one of the lead investigators involved in this discovery is a signatory of the petition; and in his email Declan writes that our campaign in support of human embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning will feature the discovery as an application of hESC technology (we are trying to raise £450 to buy a laptop so I can build a website, see blog of 26 August “Fighting for the Right to Clone”).

Faith or fact  ... Michelangelo's The Creation Of AdamFaith or fact ... Michelangelo's The Creation Of Adam

Two Nobel prize winners – Sir Harry Kroto (NAC Honorary Associate) and Sir Richard Roberts – have demanded that the Royal Society “sack” its education director, Professor Michael Reiss, writes The Observer science editor Robin McKie in an article of 14 September titled “Creationism call divides Royal Society”. The call, backed by other senior Royal Society fellows, follows Reiss's controversial claim last week that creationism be taught in schools' science classes.

Reiss, an ordained Church of England minister, has since alleged he was misquoted. Nevertheless, several Royal Society fellows say his religious views make him an inappropriate choice for the post. “I warned the president of the Royal Society that his [Reiss] was a dangerous appointment a year ago. I did not realise just how dangerous it would turn out to be,” said Kroto, a Royal Society fellow, and winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize for Chemistry. Roberts, winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize for Medicine for his work on gene-splicing, was equally angry: “I think it is outrageous that this man is suggesting that creationism should be discussed in a science classroom. It is an incredible idea and I am drafting a letter to other Nobel laureates – which would be sent to the Royal Society – to ask that Reiss be made to stand down.”

Zoologist Richard Dawkins, a Royal Society fellow, said: “A clergyman in charge of education for the country's leading scientific organisation – it's a Monty Python sketch.” McKie reports that a spokesman for the Royal Society rejected the principle that it was inappropriate for a clergyman to hold a senior post at the organisation. “Michael Reiss's views are completely in keeping with those of the Royal Society,” he said.

The row over Reiss's remarks is the second recent controversy over the society's stance on religion. Fellows, including cancer expert and Nobel Prize winner Sir Paul Nurse (one of the first signatories of Declan’s petition), complained about the financial links that had been established between the society and the Templeton Foundation, a conservative US organisation that seeks to establish links between science and religion. The latter funded a lecture course at the society.

Many fellows fear the society, the world's oldest and most prestigious scientific organisation, is failing to take a sufficiently robust stance against the spread of fundamental religions which oppose scientific teachings about the origins of the Earth and humanity. “The thing the Royal Society does not appreciate is the true nature of the forces arrayed against it and the Enlightenment for which the Royal Society should be the last champion,” Kroto said.

In an article in Observer Comment titled “Our scientists must nail the creationists”, McKie explains that scientists such as Kroto, Roberts and Dawkins look with horror upon the spread of faith schools; the growing influence of bodies such as the Templeton Foundation, a conservative US organisation which constantly seeks to establish links between science and religion; and the prospect of creationism being taught in Britain's science classrooms. They expect the Royal Society to take a tough stand on these issues. McKie comments:

Many of their fears are based on their American experiences, it should be noted. Kroto and Roberts now work there while Dawkins is a frequent visitor on the US lecture circuit. And what they see in America unnerves them: school science teachers who firmly believe the world and humanity are the 6,000-year-old handiwork of God and who cannot accept what DNA tells us about our close relationships with the animal world, what isotope research reveals about the deep antiquity of our planet, what astronomical studies tell us about the size and age of the universe; and what fossils reveal about our own species' multimillion-year lineage. The prospect of such ignorance spreading to Britain quite rightly appals them.

Britain is still a broadly secular society which guarantees freedoms not just to atheists but to all religions, no matter how few its adherents, McKie notes. “If we follow the example of America then all are threatened by the rise of a powerful Christian right.” The Chistian right of course is particularly relevant for embryonic stem cell research (see here for The Boston Globe “GOP wants to close stem cell lab doors”). Accordingly, our campaign will have a section called “Science and Religion” which will carry pieces about the spread of faith schools; the growing influence of bodies such as the Templeton Foundation; and the prospect of creationism being taught in science classrooms.

Sunday, June 24, 2007

Church dogma? No thank you

After being barred by the manager of the Methodist-run Whitechapel Mission (she is the wife of the director Minister Tony Miller) due to, er, concerns about our safety, we are now washing in the streets and in toilets.

I am concerned that the same trick can be pulled elsewhere – why not have me also assaulted (again) in the porch we sleep in at night so the police can move us out due to the same concerns? – so I am staying out of the Sisters of Mercy-run Dellow Centre as much as possible.

I might as well, because when I went in last Thursday a homeless woman stepped into the shower just seconds before I was going to step in myself (the showers of the local Salvation Army women’s hostel, where she is a resident, must have been out of order). So, there: I can’t even shower now. Oh well.

Meanwhile, Declan has been assured by The Big Issue head coordinator at Liverpool Street that there is no chance I will be removed from my pitch out of a similar concern, even if I am assaulted by a homeless on it – such a dumb excuse you could only expect from a faith-based initiative organisation!

Anyway, the ramifications of this barring are starting to be felt in other areas. Take the porch we sleep in at night. Three nights ago, the cleaner blew the porch alarm – we were sleeping – on her way out of the office building. Two nights ago, she left eight large bags of rubbish inside the porch, which dripped of milk and other liquids when Declan moved them to the pavement for collection. And yesterday morning … well, I found an open large bag half full of rubbish beside my head when we woke to get up at 4.50am.

What is the purpose of all this intimidation? Short term, of course, it is to stop Declan’s application to the European Court of Human Rights – he already has a file number, having lodged his case against the UK by introductory letter of 18 May.

However, the ultimate purpose is to neutralise NAC: it is somehow considered a threat – we are rather pleased about that. This is why I think NAC is feared: (1) NAC is about teaming up with anti-dogma activists to form a broader opposition movement; (2) NAC aims to facilitate activists and groups in one part of the world to make common cause with those in other parts, and (3) NAC is dedicated to supporting these activists and promoting their views through photography, videos, podcasts, etc – open source is booming out at such a fantastic speed you only have to look at the Greenpeace website to see the enormous possibilities.

The right that the hierarchy of the Christian church – in their arrogance – believe they have to impose their repressive doctrinal values on the rest of society, even on those who like us are not (any more) religious, is really what NAC wants to tackle and I think – the police are doing a very good job at letting us know – that we could have great impact.

What about when activists in Africa or Asia can be given digital cameras, videos and laptops by NAC members that they can use to easily post their work and efforts – for example, to re-open a family planning clinic that the local priest has succeeded in closing – to the NAC website? It is a total winner.

Last Tuesday, the Hay festival brought Christopher Hitchens to London to talk to novelist Ian McEwan about his new book, God Is Not Great. We would have given anything to be able to attend but of course, given our present circumstances, that was pie in the sky (I don’t even have the money to buy his book). I particularly love that he is so aggressive and fierce in his slaying of religion – such a talented journalist.

Would love to hear Richard Dawkins of course – who wouldn’t?