edinburghcreationgroup.org

Firstly thank you to Stuart Richie for bringing an insightful talk about the scientific evidence for evolution. We are grateful that he went into some detail about the scientific evidence as this gives ground for discussion. Below is a brief response to his opening points, more will follow as we get time:

1. The Extent of Acceptance of Creationist Claims

Stuart gave statistics which showed 48% of adults in the UK believe evolution, 13% are unsure and 39% of adults doubt it. Additionally 30% of students doubt it. Stuart claimed this is because of the prevalence of Creationist teaching. However compared to the teaching of evolution the teaching of creation is not prevalent. The size of these numbers suggest that the majority of the people who reject Darwin would not be found in church or a mosque. The BBC states that in 2006 only 6.3% of the UK population attends church while 3.1% are Muslims. Add to this that the previous Pope has said evolution is: ‘more than a hypothesis’ and the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has apologised to Charles Darwin. So the claim that the established church is aggressively pushing Creationism is unfounded. Creationists have not been given the same access to the mass media as evolution’s promoters like Richard Dawkins. There are groups like Edinburgh Creation Group that promote creation at a grass roots level but we cannot be given the credit for the fact that evolution is believed by only by a minority of people in the UK.

The best explanation of these figures is that many people reject the claims of evolution having only heard the positive case put for it and not the argument against it. It also suggests that if mainstream churches promoted Intelligent Design the majority of people would not think less of them for doing so. If we can win so many people without putting our case, then what will happen when we do put our case clearly?

2. Micro and Macro-Evolution

Stuart made the case that micro-evolution (the changes we observe today between children and their parents) shows that evolution is responsible for the large differences we see between different kinds of animals. However the changes we see between parents and their offspring can mostly be explained by inherited characteristics (that is pre-existing features borrowed from previous generations). These are not new features which are moving a species forward into a new kind of creature but pre-existing characteristics being displayed in new combinations. So some animals of the same kind have long hair, others short hair, some black hair and some brown. The blueprint of the creature stays the same but parameters such as size, colour, texture and strength change. In order to get a new kind of creature you cannot simply shuffle existing genes you need to generate new genetic code by mutation (by mistake) each of these small changes needs to be favourable in order to be preserved by natural selection. It is this mechanism which creationists claim is unproven. An example of a new feature that would be very difficult to evolve would be the lungs of birds (see video: Design Information and the Word of Godstart at 13min 30sec).

It is not surprising when we take two working modular computer programs with the same blueprint and swap corresponding parts that you get a third working system. However it is very surprising if we type random letters into a piece of working code and get a new piece of working code that does something new. In order to make functional changes to a computer program you have to make several changes at the same time e.g. misspelling a command by a single letter will cause the code not to run. In order to add a new command you also need to add valid parameters. If DNA is code is similar to computer code then generating new code by adding random changes is a fundamentally different process from swapping existing pieces of code which are known work and known to perform the compatible functions. Proof of micro-evolution is not proof of macro-evolution. For more on this subject see Kirk Durston’s video on Intelligent Design where he shows how we can mathematically quantify the difficulty of achieving different steps of evolution.

more soon …

Human evolution is grinding to a halt because of a shortage of older fathers in the West, according to a leading genetics expert. The Times

Edinburgh University’s Humanist Society have organised a talk with the above title (Thu, 9 Oct, 18:15, Appleton Tower, LT 5, George Square, EH8 9LE):

As part of Darwin 200, Stuart Ritchie, President of the UoE Humanist Society, explores Creationism and ‘Intelligent Design’, and shows how they can’t even come close to challenging the massive evidence base for Evolution.

ECG very much encourages debate and the presentation of scientific evidence. Clearly setting out the positive evidence for macro-evolution provides a good foundation for debate. Creationists and Evolutionists both accept natural selection (micro-evolution). Creationists however do not believe that the limited variation we observe in offspring is strong evidence for the common descent of all creatures. We encourage open minded people to hear both sides by attending Hum Soc’s lecture and the new Edinburgh Creation Group series. We will try to address any significant objections raised at this lecture in our meetings.

To get you in the mood for our new series we have uploaded two talks by Kirk Durston recorded in the summer at events organised by Edinburgh CU. Be warned his talks are quite technical and cover a number of areas few people study together: biology, mathematics, artificial intelligence and philosophy.
Does God Exist? | Intelligent Design

Please visit the Flyers Page to see our new flyers for series 4. They come in a variety of shapes and sizes please print them out as posters and put them anywhere you think would be helpful. Feel free to send electronic copies to friends or embed them in your blog or web page.

The World’s Laura Lynch reports on a debate that’s erupted in Britain over the teaching of creationism in schools. A top official in Britain’s Royal Academy of Science was forced to resign over comments he made about discussing creationism with students of science. Creationism in Britain (4:00)

Dr Arthur Jones will discuss the teaching of origins in science in his forthcoming talk Is Atheism Scientific?

Article in the Telegraph following the dismissal of Michael Reiss.

click here to read

Tuesday 23 September, 2008 - 18:15 - George Square Lecture Theatre.
A debate with Alistair McBay (National Secular Society) & David Robertson (author or “The Dawkins Letters”). Joint event with Edinburgh University’s Philosophical Society. £1.

Talk titles for our Autumn series are now on the home page below the news section more details will follow soon.

Leading Atheists in the Royal Society have forced Michael Reiss to quit his job. Even though Prof Reiss believes evolution is responsible for the diversity of life, Atheists were unhappy that Reiss thought children should be allowed to express their point of view or question the theory in science lessons. You can see an article about what Reiss said here:

Post details: Michael Reiss and the science-religion issue

And reaction to his stepping down here:

Nature article