BaldySlaphead

John Mayall – De Montfort Hall

2011-11-08T11:27:00.003Z

One of the nice things about doing reviews for a paper is that you get the opportunity to exerience things that you might not have gone to see otherwise. Other than his more famous bandmates, and his reputation as a leading light in the British Blues Boom, I knew precious little about Mayall before going to see him. This was one of those occasions when I was well rewarded.

John Mayall may have been overshadowed by some of the guitarists that passed through his Bluesbreakers band (Eric Clapton, Peter Green and Mick Taylor) but he certainly held centre stage at De Montfort Hall on Tuesday night. The singer and multi-instrumentalist seemed a fraction of his 77 years as he lead his band through a blistering set of blues rock numbers.

Mayall began solo, alternating between harmonica and vocals with aplomb, finishing the song with one hand playing piano and his harmonica held to his mouth by the other. Once the band emerged, they had opportunities aplenty to shine during the blues jams and standards and all were virtuoso talents. Bassist Greg Rzab pulled off a solo that sounded like noted Primus four-stringer Les Claypole, while Rocky Athas on guitar was pulling out fluid solos with sweet vibrato and chunky riffs that underscored where more recent bands such as Audioslave had been plundering.

Star of the show was Mayall himself. His voice was strong and distinctive, and his blues piano, harmonica and guitar playing were all phenomenal. It was a shame that the hall wasn't more full to hear numbers like the breakneck Parchment Farm and Chicago Line, with its blues harp evocation of speeding trains.

Mayall remarked on how quiet the crowd was on several occasions. It certainly wasn't that they weren't enjoying themselves, as their enthusiastic applause demonstrated, just that there were slightly too few to see a hero of British blues and his band put in a bravura performance.

Paul Foot - Curve, Leicester

2011-10-11T23:59:00.001+01:00

If Paul Foot looked unconventional in his kipper tie and with the haircut of Dave Hill from Slade, then his stand up show at the Curve on Tuesday night was too. He begin by announcing his imminent arrival onto the stage over the PA and then deciding that he liked doing the announcements so much that he kept us - literally - in the dark for another five minutes. Once he finally came out, he spent another ten minutes clambering over the audience as he explained exactly what was going to happen once he came out to start the show for 'real'.

There was a similar absurdist streak running through the show; not much really made sense and there was little recognisable as a conventional joke. Nevertheless, Foot had the audience gasping with laughter from early on, no mean feat for a comedian who has something of a reputation for polarising audience opinion. At one point, he was able to sustain the laughter from a preposterous anecdote for minutes, without saying a word, but virtually conducting the crowd with a raised eyebrow and a nod. Not everything worked quite so well. A bit where a hobby horse was swung to change the conversation between gibberish and English was slightly long for its slim premise, but even that got big laughs at times.

He ended the show in equally bizarre manner, simply laying out his merchandise on a table, sitting on a chair and waiting to see if people would twig the show was actually over.

Paul Foot is possibly a genuis.

App Review - Camera Art FX 1.01

2011-06-21T15:29:00.001+01:00

I thought I'd start doing some iPhone app reviews. I download plenty of the things, so why not?

This review is for iPhone 3Gs.

Camera Art FX (Version 1.01) is an ad-supported iPhone App developed by Audacity Software. At the time of downloading (20/06/2011) it was free from the App Store. A paid-for version removes the ads, but these are unobtrusive and limitations with the program mean that I doubt many will bother at this stage of the product's life.

The application provides stylised filters that can be added to photographs or video during capture. One really nice touch is that the effect can be viewed in real time, so you know exactly what it's going to look like when it's captured. Impressively, this feature is available even in video mode. If only more developers would include such a feature, we'd all be happier!

GUI

The screen is simplicity itself. The majority of it is just the input from your camera. At the top is a button to hide the controls. Under that is the name of the current effect and < and > arrows to scroll through the others. At the bottom of the screen is a discrete 'i' information button and any controls for the selected effect.

Filters

I will consider each filter in turn, along with a picture to demonstrate. All of these photographs have been reduced in size by 50% from the 768 * 1024 size at which they were captured. I did this to try and get a sense of how they actually looked on the screen, but it is still apparent how badly pixelated the native output actually is. I'm not sure what the dpi is on the images, but it's not nearly enough.

Cartoon

Cartoon - This effect reminded me of the art work of the superb artist Arthur Ranson, whose work I particularly recall from a Judge Anderson story he did in 2000AD called Shamballa. Unfortunately, it doesn't compare particularly favourably. The effect is rather crude. In video mode, this effect resembles the 'photocopied orcs' from the 1970s animated Lord of the Rings cartoon. It was crap then.

Comes with Line and Color sliders to control how much of either is in the captured image/video.

Comic Book

Comic book - Very similar to Cartoon. Dark areas are 'inked' in black, and there's some colour shading. Video still looks pretty crappy.

Comes with Line and Color sliders to control how much of either is in the captured image/video.

Comic B/W - As above, only with greyscale shading instead of colour. Crap orcs in B & W. The clouds rendered particularly badly.

Comes with Line and Shade sliders to control how much of either is in the captured image/video.

Pencil Sketch

Pencil Sketch - as it suggests, a standard HB pencil effect. This is probably the most effective effect in either mode, giving a fairly realistic cross hatching effect. In camera mode, this reminds me of Dire Strait's effective Brothers In Arms video, or maybe a-ha's Take On Me.

Comes with a Line slider to control how heavy the lines are in the captured image/video.

Ink Sketch

Ink Sketch - looks a little like a drawing done with black and blue ballpoint pens over a background of a ruled feint page, but the effect is entirely ruined by the heavy pixelation and a lack of variation in the strokes. It looks reasonable in video mode, surprisingly.

Comes with a Line slider to control how heavy the lines are in the captured image/video.

Vintage/ Old Parchment

Vintage/Old parchment - This is pretty much strict two-tone Sepia, but with some subtle discolouration spots. If it had some sort of texture to it, it would be an improvement. Another one that works reasonably in video mode.

Comes with Line and Color sliders to control how much of either is in the captured image/video.

"Hope" Poster

"HOPE" poster - in the style of the Obama campaign poster. It is very difficult to get it to balance the colours as well as the actual Obama poster, however. Incoherent in video mode.

Comes with Line and Color sliders to control how much of either is in the captured image/video.

Watercolor

Watercolor - This effect is bizarre. It consists of what seems to be nasal effluvia floating over a 15 year old edge-detection rendering. There does some seem to be some sort of intelligent edge detection going on that affects how the snot is applied, but it's unclear what the logic is. Vile in either mode.

Comes with Line and Color sliders to control how much of either is in the captured image/video.

Summary

The effects, as detailed in the section above, have the ability to adjust the line strength and colour saturation. These tools are useful but frequently don't go as far as I wanted. It would be good to be able to save favourite combinations and a wider range of settings for an individual effect - i.e. from no line to heavy lines.

Beyond the basic inadequacy of the image quality, the problem with the majority of the effects is that they just lack finesse. Comic Book, Comic B/W and Cartoon are too similar and the differences should be down to in-camera control tweaks. The edge detection is sometimes frustrating. Clouds were rendered in far too much detail in many of my pictures, for instance. I appreciate this is probably almost impossible to sort out, however, and will doubtless require another program for image correction.

Although the GUI is intuitive, it would have been helpful to have a bare bones FAQ/Help Screen to explain exactly what the controls on each screen do.

"Yeah, OK," you may say, "but you've not paid for it, so where's the problem?" And you're right. It is somewhat churlish to complain about the quality given I've not paid for it. However, one can reasonably expect that if a product is released to the market, the developer is prepared to accept criticism, and by and large, I think that my criticisms have been legitimate and constructive.

What is frustrating is that you can really sense where the developers are trying to get to. The sketch effect is really rather effective, but it's the only one that feels like it's there. The ball-point effect, you sense, could be really quite good with just a few tweaks and improvements, yet currently, it's pretty lame. I hope that the developers stick with it and get it right because this could be a useful and fun product that people would happily pay a few pence for, but it's not there yet.

In Which I Become the Missing Link Between the Female Kidnapper of a Mormon Missionary, and Marillion.

2011-06-20T14:55:00.003+01:00

OK, this is weird. It's sort of funny, but it's sort of not. It's definitely weird.

Call me a good two shoes, if you like, but I don't associate with many criminally-inclined people. I don't not associate with them out of any sense of moral superiority particularly. I just don't know any. I guess I move in the wrong circles. If I planned to associate with any criminally-inclined people, I could have pretty much guaranteed that they wouldn't be the female kidnapper/rapist of a Mormon missionary.

Yesterday, I received an email:

"We read on your column on the internet about a song called "Holloway Girl" which is on an album called "Seasons End". It did not say the name of the group who sang it. Could you please call us and let us know where we can get a copy of the album, as I am a screenwriter and I would like to use it as underscoring for a screenplay I am writing about Joyce McKinney, a beautiful American girl who was falsely arrested in England in 1977 when she went there to find her missing fiancé, and found him under brainwashing of the dangerous Mormon Cult. She tried to do a CULT RESCUE to get him out but the powerful Mormons and their tabloid connections paid off people to have her falsely imprisoned even though she was innocent. And she was illegally held in black Holloway Women's prison until she got out on bail and became a celebrity. She had her life destroyed by the tabloids who pretend a PRESS HOAX for 34 years that she "kidnapped and raped" him, and he was 300 pounds and 6'5" tall.

This poor women suffered so much due to this tabloid press hoax and now we are writing a movie to clear her name, especially in light of the fact that a defamatory trashy film distributed by Mormons just came out to discredit her again.

We want to do a TRUTHFUL script telling HER side of the story and tell the story BEHIND the headlines. Could you tell us how to order or hear the song "Holloway Girl"?

Our phone number is XXXXXXXXXXXXX. THANKS."

No name was given.

As you may possible know, I run a website dedicated to the lyrics of the band Marillion - stop sniggering at the back. There is indeed a page about the song Holloway Girl that explains the song is about a woman called Judith Ward who was imprisoned there for being involved in acts of IRA terrorism. Ward was mentally ill and inclined to making false confessions and her conviction was overturned for being unsafe in 1992, after she'd spent 18 years inside. I'm not entirely sure if my correspondent was suggesting Holloway is a prison exclusively for black inmates, but we don't have racially-segregated prisons. Although it doesn't say on the "Holloway Girl" page that the website is specifically about Marillion, they're mentioned 197 times on the site, so it's not exactly hiding it, but whatever - so much for that side of the story.

Then I looked up 'Joyce McKinney' on everyone's lazy first port of call, Wikipedia. That name redirects to another page entitled The Mormon Sex In Chains Case. Along with a couple of other sources, I learned how, in 1977, former Miss Wyoming McKinney and an accomplice abducted Kirk Anderson, a Mormon missionary from a Mormon meetinghouse in Surrey using chloroform and a replica firearm, drove him to Devon, tied him to a bed and did bad things to him against his will. Three days later, fearing he would be kept there for weeks, and having promised marriage, he was released and promptly went to the authorities. McKinney and accomplice were arrested and charged with false imprisonment and possession of a false firearm. There was a court appearance at which the defence made much of the Mormon’s considerable size advantage over the former model (seemingly glossing over the apparently genuine weapon and the fact that he was tied to a bed, which I would have thought were rather important details). Apparently there was much squalid speculation in the tabloids about how it could even be possible for a man to be 'raped' (no such crime existed in British Law back then, and in fact the charge eventually made was Indecent Assault on a man).

All of that is bizarre enough. It is at this point that McKinney and her accomplice were bailed, absconded, obtained false passports and escaped to Canada disguised as - I'm not making this up - deaf-mute mime artistes. The FBI later picked the pair up and did them over getting passports using false details, but the UK never instituted extradition proceedings, so they were given sentenced in absentia to a year in jail.

I also learned that in 1984, McKinney was subject to further police action in the States for stalking the now-married Anderson.

Very, very odd, and all a rather different slant than that given by my correspondent. Then I noticed two other things. The first was about a film that my nameless emailer claimed was a stitch up by the Mormons. That, I think, referred to a film called Tabloid by someone called Errol Morris which, as far as I can tell from reading a number of reviews on the net, attempted to be even handed in telling the story and is generally well-regarded.

The other thing that raised an eyebrow, was the email alias. It contained the word 'clone'. In 2008, a Californian woman paid £25,000 to a South Korean laboratory to have her dead pitbull cloned, in the first transaction of its kind. She had saved tissue from the pooch's ear, which was frozen and then used as DNA source material to produce five pitbull pups. The woman's name was 'Bernann McKinney', and it didn't take long before someone discovered that the middle name of Joyce McKinney was... Yeah.

There's an interesting YouTube in which McKinney turns up at a promotional event for Tabloid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqyO81UZ3Mc

All very, very odd.

What did I do? I told her who the song is by:

I've Had An Eiffel

2011-05-25T11:06:00.001+01:00

On the morning of my 40th, I was confused when K___ told the children to grab their teddies to bring to Grandma's. They never take their teddies outside of the house because of the trauma that would ensue should they get lost. Being slow on the uptake, I didn't work out this meant they would be staying overnight with Grandma until it was explicitly spelled out. For someone who leans towards skepticism, I can be astonishingly guileless at times. Then K___ pulled out a small suitcase from the dinning room, all packed up.

I learned we were going to 'That London'. It wasn't until we were at Victoria Station that K___ handed me revealed we were to be travelling on the Orient Express to Paris for four days. I was genuinely gobsmacked, not having got close to imagining anything so grand!

Dining on the Orient Express

We boarded a Pullman service and settled back into our armchairs while we were plied with Belinis and a gorgeous three course brunch. Once through the tunnel on an executive coach - and further lubricated with wine - we got onto the Orient Express proper. We had a day cabin to stay in and drink Prosecco until dinner was served. We were on the first service in order to get through the seven magnificent courses before we disembarked. It was a struggle, but we forced ourselves through it. There was the odd moment of drama when the train slowed unexpectedly and everyone had to dive for their wine buckets, lest anything spill. A wonderful experience!

Having spent all day basically lounging about, drinking and eating, we decided it would be a good idea to walk from the Gare de L’est to our hotel and actually get some exercise. Some of the roads were a little less than salubrious, but we arrived unharmed.

The next day, we woke early and headed out for the Louvre (we looked into the room and just laughed at the monumental bunfight over trying to get a decent view of the Mona Lisa and spent our time more productively). In the afternoon, we caught the overland to Versailles, and wandered about the place astonished at the sheer opulence of the place. There is gilt everywhere and you can understand how they afforded it when you discover how much it costs for a bottle of pop.

By the time we got back into Paris, there was just enough time to make our dinner appointment at 7:00. As we neared the restaurant, Kate pointed out a shop across the road selling Tibetan stuff and said, "Isn't that shop odd?" “Not really,” I thought, and had the first suspicion something might be up. Seconds later, I was delighted and amazed to see L & W sitting at a table laid for eight.

I must be the most guileless person around, because I honestly hadn't imagined anyone else was coming and it was a complete shock - a lovely one though. Of course, once the initial reveal is over, and I counted the chairs at our table, I knew there were more coming. P & J and G & A had been slightly delayed, but they appeared five minutes later and it mattered not a jot. The restaurant didn't look all that much, but the food was really excellent and I enjoyed the conversation greatly. Afterwards, we repaired to a bar for more vino and talking toot.


J&G at La Tour Eiffel

After a breakfast near the Moulin Rouge, Saturday found us traipsing from the Trocadero, under the Eiffel Tower and through the gardens - where I photographed a Scotsman taking a picture of a bush - to the Military Academy. We spent some time wandering happily among the smelly cheeses and greengrocery of the Rue Cler street market, where we grabbed some lunch. After that, it was past the military hospital Les Invalides (and Napoleon's tomb), over the Alexander III bridge to the Petit Palais and the Champs Elysee. Down that to the Place de la Concorde, and into the Tuileries gardens, where we sat for a while on granite blocks topped with bronze forearms, like some sort of bizarre monument to amputation, saw a miniature typhoon and wondered whether it might be the Rapture, and discovered pigeons with plastic epaulettes. After a good rest, we roused ourselves for the final leg, through formerly royal gardens to the Louvre, down to the Seine and finally to Notre Dame. All of this was done under the baking sun, so our evening meal felt well deserved! K___ and I slept badly the previous night and had had two days of drinking, so stayed sober, called it a night early, and left the others to hit the town.

The next morning, we grabbed a quick breakfast and mounted an assault on the hawkers of cheap trinketry to climb the hill of Montmartre to Sacre Coeur and then on into the bustling artists’ quarter and its street market with jumble of caricaturists, peddlers of knocked-out impressionist views of Paris and actually talented artists. Back down the hill past the two remaining Parisien windmills and into a junk market where G_____ bought some sunglasses and told us all about h’s dressing up box. Trauma.

The gang in front of the Opera de Paris.

We wandered down towards the centre of town to see the Opera de Paris, but that part of town was very quiet indeed and most of the shops were shut. It was Sunday, I suppose. We found a bar down a side street and grabbed a last meal together before going our separate ways; P&J for a cab to get their earlier Eurostar, G&A going back into town because they had another day, and K___, L&W and I wandered back to the hotel to grab our luggage and then head off ourselves.

If I could have asked for more, it would only have been for the rest of my friends to have been there to enjoy what the rest of us did, but I was spoiled beyond my wildest imaginings anyway and it is a trip that will take some beating. Many, many thanks to those of you who were generous enough to contribute, to those of you who were able to make it to Paris and increase my enjoyment even further, to G&A for being wonderful tour and wine guides and most of all to K___; the world’s least trustworthy but most amazing wife; I love you.

Mark Thomas: Walking The Wall – Extreme Rambling - The Y

2011-04-14T11:33:00.001+01:00

In 2010, comedian-activist Mark Thomas decided to walk the 750 km long wall that separates the West Bank from Israel “to see what it was about”. Ostensibly in place to ensure Israel's security from suicide bombers, the 'separation barrier' also enabled a land-grab by sectioning off Palestinian land from its people.

Given the subject material, Thomas's show was frequently serious. Through the minutiae of what he experienced as a self-confessed naïve Englishman abroad (“a bit like Hugh Grant”), he was able to illuminate the effect the wall has had on both communities.

While many of the tales were bleak - children being forced to crawl through sewers to get to school, workers queuing for four hours at checkpoints that didn't open until 6am - Thomas rang big laughs from the material too. A Python-quoting Israeli guide, a British diplomat from the pages of Evelyn Waugh, and a hippy cameraman were on hand to puncture the tension of an arrest from the militarised zone, a stoning and a tear-gassing with a well-delivered quip.

Thomas’s storytelling was suspenseful and evocative, and the audience was alternately rapt then guffawing loudly. While his sympathies clearly lay with the Palestinians, Thomas was careful not to present a completely one-sided view of the situation. While some people he encountered were so bigoted they were virtually parodies, he admitted to greatly liking an Israeli responsible for granting Palestinian land to settlers.

He acknowledged that there were no easy answers. There were, however, an unexpected number of laughs.

Milton Jones – De Montfort Hall

2011-04-06T23:19:00.000+01:00

Despite winning the 1996 Perrier comedy award for best newcomer, and various shows on Radio 4, Milton Jones has only become a household name since he started appearing on panel shows like Mock The Week.

Clearly the television experience has boosted his profile, yet panel shows are not the best environment to experience Jones's comedy, which tends towards tightly constructed one liners. Very few performers - Stephen Wright comes to mind - can manage to do an entire show of just one liners, and Jones was no exception, adding little bits audience interaction and using props to give some structure to the show.

Initially, he came on in character as his own grandfather performing some of Milton's gags. Later, in his trademark Hawaiian shirt, he used a slide projector to tie together some vaguely geography-related gags. What was often apparent, despite their fleeting nature, was the level of intelligence at work. One liners had sub-text that had you admiring their cleverness even as the next one was arriving to bust your guts. One liners also suffer from the fact that they are easy to remember and so get repeated down the pub or on Twitter, yet Jones’s delivery is so unique and integral, that it’s hard to imagine too many getting lost in this way.

The audience was hugely appreciative, and the large size of the venue didn't appear to phase him at all. A tour de force of puns and whimsy, Milton Jones seemed simply unstoppable.

Fairport Convention - Loughborough Town Hall, 01st March 2011

2011-03-01T23:39:00.011Z

Folk rock legends Fairport Convention have been going since 1967. Their heyday may have been from the late 1960s to mid 70s, and guitarist Simon Nicol their only original member (next longest serving member, bassist Dave Pegg joined in 1970), but the band still pulled in the punters to a packed Loughborough Town Hall.

In 1971, the band released an ambitious 'folk opera' (which really means it's a concept album) called Babbacombe Lee, based on the life of John 'Babbacombe' Lee, about a murderer who was reprieved of the death sentence after the gallows failed three times, and it was this album which formed the first half of the set. Although it sold disappointingly on its release, it certainly went down a storm with the appreciative audience on Tuesday, with sterling work from Ric Sanders on violin and fabulous multi-part harmonies from the band.

The second half was mainly comprised of new tracks. Audiences are often less than generous with material with which they're unfamiliar, but that certainly wasn't the case in Loughborough, with enthusiastic applause for the numbers. For me, however, the newer stuff seemed more generic and less characterful than the 1970s work. It wasn't bad, it just wasn't as good.

The band's avuncular introductions were interesting too, adding colour to the often historically-inspired numbers, even if some of the gags fell flat. The band finished up with some classics; the classic Meet on the Ledge missed the vocals of the legendary Sandy Denny, but Matty Groves, the tale of an affair that ends in a bloody duel was superb, even minus the extended coda from the album version.

A great night out with the most important band of the English folk-rock revival.

Jim Jefferies - The Y

2010-12-09T23:36:00.039Z

Australian stand up Jim Jefferies first came to national prominence after he was assaulted by an affronted audience member at a Manchester comedy club and the resulting video became a viral hit on the Internet. He later incorporated the footage into his act.

Jefferies was a curious act, being an offensive comic, playing up to a hard-living image (he has given up drinking due to an inflamed liver) that revelled in assaulting society's niceties yet also revealing his humanity in a series of unsentimental anecdotes that revealed his own flaws, and problems, such as a discussion of his bi-polar disorder. He seemed slightly ill at ease on stage, as a consequence of a heavy cold that meant that he performed large portions of his act from a chair.

His resolutely un-PC material certainly didn’t go down well with everyone. There were moments which lacked any sufficient purpose or insight that would justify them. Material about Jordan’s disabled son, much like similar recent comments by Frankie Boyle, seemed unnecessary, whatever one thinks of his mother. However, when he rounds on an audience member for only finding a joke about Madeline McCann merely "a bit offensive" it is apparent that he has at least considered the offence he is giving.

Jerry Sadowitz, who is a more offensive comedian, can at least hide behind the fact that his audience are supposed to be laughing at his misanthropy, not with him. With Jeffries, there isn't such a clear line - while he readily admits to being an imperfect human being, he doesn't invite the victim status that Sadowitz does. He seemed to suggest that the audience is to blame for buying the tickets, but that does rather rely on the audience knowing what it is they're going to get, and I suspect Jeffries knows full well that isn't a convincing justification. He also remarked that the audience was the smallest of his tour and reflected that his material is much more difficult to do when the atmosphere is so intimate and it's easy to imagine how any offence might be less charged in a larger theatre.

There was no denying that Jefferies was very funny and able comic but it's equally undeniable that a good proportion of the laughs came with a hand held over the mouth in genuine shock. Very definitely not one for Michael McIntyre fans.

Chris and Pui – Show Me – De Montfort Hall, 18th October 2010

2010-10-18T16:23:00.001+01:00

Chris Jarvis and Pui Fan Lee are known to parents of young children as the presenters of the popular CBeebies show Show Me Show Me. I took my youngest daughter with me to see what was going on. She would be useful in writing my review! In all honesty, she was probably a little too young, being just a week short of her second birthday. She was interested for a bit, but kept losing interest in what was happening on stage.

The show wasn’t an official version of the TV programme, but certainly shared much of the energy and the ethos.

Chris put the audience at ease, saying, “We’re not on video now; you can talk back!” After initial resistance, children and parents clapped, sang and laughed along with gusto. The emphasis was on well-known children’s songs and rhymes to encourage joining in; Grand Old Duke of York, Humpty Dumpty and I Can Sing a Rainbow all featured. One slightly odd moment occurred when Pui came out dressed as Incy Wincy Spider. The children probably didn’t notice, but Incy had too many legs... Oh well!

The stage was simply set with a few free-standing banners. Props, with the exception of a couple of costumes were simple; a few toys, some fancy dress and even a clothes drying rack. This simplicity kept attention focussed on the two leads, which was no mean feat when at least some of the crowd were as interested in the mere fact that their seat went up and down as the people on stage. The use of large cards counting up to ten also helped structure the show for the kids.

I hadn't been to anything like this before, so was completely unsure of what to expect. My closest experience was the occasional panto show. Chris and Pui slipped in a few references that were designed to appeal more to the adults, but most of it was aimed squarely at the kids. The enjoyment on the faces of the children was reward enough for most of the parents.

Mine, needless to say, was more interested in her seat going up and down.

Stewart Lee - Vegetable Stew

2010-10-17T12:18:00.003+01:00

Stewart Lee was at the Curve to present Vegetable Stew; material intended for his forthcoming Comedy Vehicle TV show. In his book, How I Escaped My Certain Fate, Lee admitted that he enjoys deliberately losing an audience and attempting to win it back, which made it difficult to tell if Sunday's performance just didn't always tickle the audience, or whether it was deliberately designed to lose them.

Lee’s understanding of the art of stand up was evident through,out the three pieces he presented, with numerous asides for meta-observations about the nature of the routine. On occasion, he would stop the flow to comment on what had appeared, when originally made, to have been an unplanned remark or aside and it would became apparent how carefully planned Lee’s comedy actually is. He relied on the audience being sufficiently familiar with stand-up to understand when its conventions were being subverted, and for the most part, it seemed they were with him. One audience member who supposedly expressed boredom with the routine was rewarded by having it extended for an additional five minutes. Whether there actually was such a person in the crowd, or whether it was part of Lee's act was certainly unclear to me.

The first piece concerned Lee's grandfather (albeit a fictional one), crisps, xenophobia and Japanese movie monsters. After twenty minutes of building the story the entire audience has anticipated the inevitable punchline, but Lee labours over it, deliberately stretching the tension beyond it's natural snapping point such that the punchline is anticlimactic by the time it comes, but all the funnier because we've been forced to wait so very long for it.

The middle of the show elicited less audience approval, concerning satirical observations about Adrian Chiles and similar mid-level celebs and the work they do for charity. By the time he was making accusations that comedian Russell Howard was responsible for deaths in the developing world, the decline in crowd response suggested they weren’t so sure the targets deserved it, and indeed there was a real sense of wanting to know where the hell the routine was going. He brought the crowd back together for a confessional tale about his involvement with the elitist Bullingdon Club at Oxford University, and their famous alumni of David Cameron and Boris Johnson, before defiantly derailing it at the close.

Lee deserved his plaudits for daring to challenge his audience, and they in turn recognised a masterclass when they got it, but there was also a genuine sense that he really wasn't joking when he launched into a (very funny) tirade about crisp-promoting local boy Gary Lineker in order to flag up the deficiencies of the Leicester reaction.

Knowing Lee, it probably made him perversely happy.

Don't Prey For Me

2010-09-04T23:40:00.007+01:00

If you put something on a blog or elsewhere on t'Interwebulator that anyone can read, then you must naturally expect to be open to comment and criticism. Anyone who doesn't anticipate this is rather frighteningly naive.

If one is going post on controversial subjects, one should naturally be even less surprised to attract comment. Considering that so many of my posts are about the fetid crock of shite that is creationism (AKA Intelligent Design) I'm surprised I don't attract more comments. I don't say that because I'm completely ingenuous about how many people read this blog, but because I know creationists have a habit of keyword searching out blogs that mention them.

Self-deprecation aside, it's been interesting, given the lack of any posts for quite a while, to note that the one post that has attracted a couple of comments of late is the one concerning my grandmother's death back in March. There are three comments on there. The first is from Ex-Pat Matt, whom I know, and is a reflective and empathic post from someone who had also recently lost his grandmother.

The next two are from Christians. The first is from a chap called Lloyd. I don't know Lloyd, and don't know how he came to find my blog. He wrote:

So sorry for your loss. I will pray that you have the peace and comfort that only our Lord can bring to you.

I really enjoyed reading the posts on your blog. I would like to invite you to come over to my blog and check it out. God bless, Lloyd

Well, that first paragraph is OK. I don't share Lloyd's religious beliefs, but if someone were to say they were praying for me, I'd thank them for it not lecture them. The second paragraph though, is where it falls apart. The key point of Lloyd's comment is 'come and check out my blog'. Having checked out his blog and found out that Lloyd is a right wing evangelical, whose blog features anti-homosexual rants and claims that Obama is not a Christian but influenced by the devil, I find it extremely hard to believe he did enjoy my blog, given that it's full of posts so opposed to his beliefs. His real reason is entirely apparent.

The final comment is from a woman who calls herself "African Cutie". She writes a pornographically explicit blog (and I don't mean to express any disapproval in describing it thus) about how much she enjoys sex; surprising because she is also a Christian. I recently commented on a thread in which her blog was discussed, so I imagine that's how she found this one. She writes:

sorry to hear about your loss, maybe you should use this to reflect on what actual truth is, because your nana has not ceased to exist...

Now, is it just me, or is that just plain rude? More than that - and this applies to Lloyd too - I find myself slightly appalled at the fact that these two people thought that a post in which I attempt to describe my feelings upon my grandmother's death was the appropriate one to use to attempt to evangelise to me. Thankfully, I haven't been destroyed with grief as a consequence of Nana's death. I have found myself able to think of her without sadness but fondness, and often, but what if I had been at my lowest ebb? Have these two done similar things to other people. - found people laid low by grief and then used their victim's emotional frailty to push religion at them?

I notice, checking his blog in order to write this one, that Lloyd's mother died in July. I wonder whether Lloyd would consider it appropriate if I were to offer some cardboard sympathy before blatantly attempting to drag him to my blog to convert him to atheism?

I suspect - rightly - he'd think me a dick.

If there are any Christians (or members of any other religion) out there who find this blog and think I'm a terrible sinner in desperate need of saving, well, I understand you think that. That's absolutely fair enough - as I said at the start, if you write a blog about this kind of thing, you must be prepared to face criticism for what you write so, if you really have to, you can even try and convince me that you're right and I may engage with you. Perhaps you'll even convert me.

But why not show some human decency and basic empathy? If someone you do not know, whose blog you don't read as a matter of course, posted, "My mum's just died and I'm rather distraught," at best you should offer your commiserations. Don't be vultures hanging around the bereaved thinking they're easy pickings for your evangelism, eh?

A Wise Man Once Said

2010-08-20T09:08:00.006+01:00

Inspired by (for which read 'blatantly imitating') my wife's decision to tweet Pride and Prejudice to Jane Austen fanatics, I have decided to tweet the entirety of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species.

You can follow me by going to http://twitter.com/MrDarwinDaily. Here's hoping I can keep it up. It should be fun, anyway, but I must be insane.

Robert Cray - De Montfort Hall - 06th July 2010

2010-07-06T23:50:00.022+01:00

I decided to apply for this gig largely because I didn't know anything about Robert Cray beyond the name. I knew he was a good guitarist, but I couldn't have told you a single song by him. Given that I get to see gigs for free, it seems like a sensible idea to be a bit more adventurous than I might be with my own money.

Robert Cray first came to mainstream attention with his 1986 album Strong Persuader. He was feted by stars such as Eric Clapton and, for a while, his star shone brightly but after a couple more bluesy-soul albums, he largely disappeared from sight in the UK.

Despite a low public profile of late, his gig at De Montfort Hall was well attended by a largely appreciative audience to whom Cray revealed he had got married in Leicester 20 years ago. His voice was smooth and expressive, his guitar phrasing quite sublime and his four-piece band were tight and economical as they laid down some smooth mid-tempo tracks.

A common criticism is that Cray is too pop for blues fans but too bluesy for pop fans. It's clear that his music is as much rooted in the Stax sound and even bands such as Jethro Tull and Fleetwood Mac, whose songs he covered in his first band, just not enough. There was even an audience heckle demanding some proper blues. Cray refused to rise to it, and just said there'd be some bluesier stuff later.

A more valid criticism was that his set list lacked sufficient dynamics – too many of his tracks are cut from the same cloth. Even songs he declared were funky weren't really that different from the rest of the set and in an 80-minute show that was unfortunate. Where was the light and shade? The blues stuff he said was coming later was never really bluesy. You could hear the man could put some great licks together, but he never really cut loose. Even live, it was like there was a coffee table album production gloss over everything. I had to agree with the heckler. I hadn't even known he'd covered stuff like Tull or Hendrix let alone expected it, but it would have been welcome.

The show was a fine display of consummate musicianship, particularly between Cray's lyrical guitar playing and Jim Pugh's fine piano and organ work and I genuinely quite enjoyed it despite not really being my thing. Lyrically, it seemed pretty banal stuff. You didn't get any sense that it was autobiographical or even particularly meaningful. Chicken In The Kitchen was not a great existential essay, let us say, but then it wasn't really the point of music like this, and I'm just being a churl.

Robert Cray and his band were clearly excellent musicians but by god did the sameyness detract.

Pride and Prejudice - Donington le Heath Manor House

2010-06-26T22:09:00.007+01:00

It is a truth universally acknowledged that all Pride and Prejudice reviews begin with a parody of the book's opening line. The Chapterhouse Theatre Company appeared in the beautiful gardens of Donington le Heath Manor House to present their adaptation of Jane Austen's most famous novel.

The nine cast members were kept busy throughout the two-and-a-half hour performance; with the exception of Mr Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet, they all took on multiple roles.

The action took place on a small stage with Regency-esqe windows at the back, upon which a few judiciously-chosen props could be moved to suggest locations. The actors had to raise their voices to be heard over the ambient noise of the garden, and one or two were closer to shouting than projecting, but the acting was of a generally high standard, and the action was generally well-paced.

Inevitably, adaptations necessitate abridging, but certain key scenes – such as Darcy's letter to Elizabeth, or his proposal – were condensed so much they lost their impact. I'm no Austen expert - in fact, I've kind of picked up on it by osmosis from my wife - but even I knew there was some over zealous excision in places. Darcy bore the brunt of the cuts, with the reasons for Elizabeth's softening towards him being passed over so quickly that one wondered why she was falling for the arrogant man.

Good opinion once lost, is lost forever, they say. Fortunately, Austen fans know the source material, and at the end of the play there was an audible sigh of contentment as rose petal confetti fell over the happy couple.

You Look Good In My Shirt

2010-04-13T12:27:00.009+01:00

My friend Gary and I have put together a couple of t-shirts on MySoti.
You can buy them.
If you like.
You don't have to.
We're not forcing you.
We're just saying.
They're only £14.99 each, thank you for asking.
Very of little of which goes to Gary or me, I assure you.

First up we have the 'Guardianista' t-shirt. I can't see anything funny about this personally, but then I am one.

Then we have the 'Only Google Knows I'm A Pervert' t-shirt.

No One Leaves You When They Live In Your Heart and Mind

2010-03-13T13:40:00.013Z

My grandmother passed away on Friday at the age of 94.

Since a diagnosis of throat cancer at Christmas, there has been a steady decline in her health. Both times we've been able to go and see her, I've been very conscious that there was a good chance it would be the last time. In truth, I've watched the gradual decline of a highly intelligent and vivacious woman over the past ten years. First her eyesight deteriorated to the point where she could no longer read, then an attack of shingles took her lower still. Gradually, she began to lose her memory, to the point where she was like a goldfish, repeating the same thing every three seconds. Whether it was - as she herself claimed - the shingles that ruined her memory or just the normal run of ageing, we will never know, but she gradually went from a good-humoured and benevolent woman who at eighty years of age would regularly go on five mile hikes in the country, who was informed about the world and its goings on and as independent as it is possible to be to, for the past few years, the frail (and often petulant and selfish) child who depended on my mother to minister to her most basic needs.

I am very conscious that when we would go and see her, we were seeing her at her best. Seeing me, my wife and kids was a treat for her that would lift her spirits and there were flashes of her real self in there. I knew that she found these visits very welcome but also exhausting, and some of her worst behaviour would come after she'd had a visit. My mother would bear the brunt of this petulance, and I know she found it draining.

Given the drawn-out timescale of her final decline, I find myself not really sure how I feel. I remarked to my brothers that I've learned that I'm not good at pre-empting how I will feel about things. I thought I knew how I would feel when I got married. I thought I knew how I would feel when my first child was born. I didn't. It appears I've been fitted with a b-movie brain that scripts everything far too simplistically.

I'm glad it's over and my grandmother is no longer suffering; any sadness is for me and my family, not her. For the past two and a half weeks, she's been on morphine and not eating and we all knew that the end was imminent. From what my mother tells us, we don't think my grandmother was particularly aware of what was happening, but there's not really anyway to cast suffering in a good light. When my brothers and I spoke last night after getting the news, we remarked on how we'd already said most of the things to say. The grieving has been going on for a long time; for years we'd opined that it would be no bad thing if our grandmother were to die, such was her quality of life. With how it's been since Christmas, it's just been a waiting game.

I do feel sad, of course, but so far it's a quiet, reflective sadness. I have no faith to cling to. My grandmother has not gone to a better place; her consciousness has ceased to exist with the cessation of biochemical activity in her brain. What is left is simply meat; it might look like my grandmother, but it is not her. I tell the children that Great Nana has gone to be part of the universe, and in a simplistic sense this is true; the molecules which comprised her body will be broken down and will go on to interact with others and may even become part of another living being, but this is not any sort of continuation of her existence.

I don't find myself feeling nihilistic though. Nana always said that for whatever she'd done for her children, she would be repaid if they did the same for their children. Although I'm one generation removed from her, I cannot but pass on at least some of her wisdom and generosity because it is a part of me too. As reflected in the title for this entry, how we live on is in the hearts and minds of those who remain - I would add 'and in our DNA' too, though that's more prosaic - and this is where I know I will be able to find my hope and my comfort.

OYJ - 5th May 1915 - 12th March 2010

Fool If You Think It's Over

2010-03-08T14:12:00.009Z

Given the time that had elapsed, I had foolishly assumed that the lack of a reply to my lengthy response to a local creationist here was deliberate. Foolishly, I'd imagined that my response had been considered too intemperate or too damning to respond to. Foolishly, I even considered whether the email might have bounced and not been received, but the lack of a bounce message suggested it had gone through successfully.

It transpires that there's a reason I made all these foolish errors; it's because I'm a fool!

Damn it - why didn't I notice this before?

Mr Vanderput has been in touch to inform me that he's keeping a DVD back for me and simply needs to know where to send it. He also sent me an attachment by a 'leading evolutionist', which he thought I might find very interesting:

The Confessions of an ‘Evolutionist’

Ardent evolutionist and former Harvard University Professor of Biology Richard Lewontin says,

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

(Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and Billions of Demons’, The New York Review, 9 January 1997, p.31)

Interpretation of the above: “We know science does not substantiate evolution in spite of our efforts to make it sound plausible. However, we insist evolution is true because we have already made up our minds that it is true and that there is no God! Well, we really know there is a God, but we do not want him in our lives!”

The Bible says: “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools (unwise/foolish)…”(Romans 1:22), and “The fool has said in his heart , ‘There is no God’…” (Psalm 14:1) The Bible commentator Matthew Henry says, “(He) cannot doubt of the being of God, … He says this in his heart; it is not his judgment, but his imagination. He cannot satisfy himself that there is none, but he wishes there were none, and pleases himself with the fancy that it is possible there may be none … (Note) The character of this sinner. He is a fool.”

How true! Lewontin says: “We…” Is he speaking for you? Do you agree with him?

The first thing I'd note is that he'd already given this quote - uncited that time - in his previous reply to me. At least he's correctly referenced it this time, even if he's still completely failed to understand what's being said. Let's break it down:

The Confessions of an ‘Evolutionist’

Not that it's massively important, but nice pejorative title! It's not a confession but a proclamation! There's nothing apologetic about what Lewontin is saying; quite the contrary.

Ardent evolutionist and former Harvard University Professor of Biology Richard Lewontin says,

Again, this is pretty trivial, but a) 'ardent' is unnecessary and slightly pejorative, giving an impression of over-excitability and fervour (imagine a fundamentalist preacher (see next point) re: false associations) and b) 'evolutionist' isn't a word used much outside of creationist writings these days. "Evolutionist" and "evolutionism" are sometimes employed to try and create a false association between the negative fascism\ist, sexism\ist, racism\ist, and eventually pass into common use within creationist circles even though the original intent is now absent. However, I'm aware this interpretation may itself be pejorative.

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

(Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and Billions of Demons’, The New York Review, 9 January 1997, p.31)

Yay - it's correctly cited this time! You can find the whole article here, by the way: http://www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/Lewontin_Review.htm I discussed what Lewontin is actually saying in my previous article, so won't repeat it here.

Interpretation of the above: “We know science does not substantiate evolution in spite of our efforts to make it sound plausible. However, we insist evolution is true because we have already made up our minds that it is true and that there is no God! Well, we really know there is a God, but we do not want him in our lives!”

Well, that might be Vanderput's sincere interpretation of what's being said, but it certainly doesn't read like that to me, but then I know that I've read it in context. It's unclear whether my correspondent has done the same.

When one notes that the quote is a paragraph missing its first sentence ("Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural."), and its last ("The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.") it becomes easier to grasp how it can be understood to be saying something it is not in context. That's not even considering it within the context of the whole piece.

Creationists - generalisation coming up, but one which personal observation of and interaction with creationists would suggest is not lacking a basis in fact - do have a nasty habit of failing to go back to the source, relying instead on being drip fed by organisations such as Answers in Genesis or similar (my correspondent seems to be affiliated with Creation Ministries International).

I fail to see what is philosophically difficult to grasp about the notion that science sometimes requires us to accept the counter-intuitive - it's counter-intuitive that energy can simultaneously exist as both a wave and a particle, but all the evidence shows that it does - yet this is the point on which the creationist misunderstanding appears to be based. Lewontin isn't saying, "Oh yeah, it's all just made up, but we tell you it's true anyway..."!

The idea that evolution is accepted because "we" (interpreted by Vanderput to mean atheists, even though in context it's clearly referring to scientists) need it to be as having God around interferes with our desire to eat babies, listen to Black Sabbath (\m/), be gay at each other and give women the vote (among other massively evil activities) seems equally daft. "We" accept evolution because all the evidence shows that its happening. Whether "we" like it, or whether it's convenient is utterly irrelevant. What is even dafter is the idea that "we" all know God is actually real but just pretend otherwise and no one ever throws up their hand and says, "I can't keep this up - we all know there's a God (and it's the Judeo-Christian one at that) and I can't pretend otherwise just so you don't feel bad..."

The Bible says: “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools (unwise/foolish)…”(Romans 1:22), and “The fool has said in his heart , ‘There is no God’…” (Psalm 14:1) The Bible commentator Matthew Henry says, “(He) cannot doubt of the being of God, … He says this in his heart; it is not his judgment, but his imagination. He cannot satisfy himself that there is none, but he wishes there were none, and pleases himself with the fancy that it is possible there may be none … (Note) The character of this sinner. He is a fool.”

The "fool says in his heart" quote is quite regularly rolled out by creationists. It's like if I were to pull out a quote from some prominent biologist saying, "creationists are fuckwits" but then saying, "No, it's not me saying that; biologist X says it." Both convincing and brave! I wonder how I'll sleep tonight knowing the Bible says I'm a fool? About the same as I do knowing that the Quran calls me cursed and destined for hell, I suspect.

How true! Lewontin says: “We…” Is he speaking for you? Do you agree with him?

Lewontin is using "we" to refer to scientists. If Mr Vanderput actually reads the article, it's abundantly clear who Lewontin's speaking about, and yes, I agree with the point he's actually making, but not with the point Vanderput wishes to believe he's making.

Anyway, I've given my address again and told him that the response is on the blog.

Simon Singh's weird idea

2010-02-11T14:36:00.003Z

Those of you who are aware of SImon Singh and the campaign to reform English libel law may be interested to read the following message from Simon. Signatures are not restricted to British citizens, and Simon deserves all our support for being sued merely for making the entirely correct observation that chiropractic as a cure for childhood ailments such as asthma is bogus.

Please mention if you've signed, as I'd quite like the name check (but signing is the important thing).

Dear Friends,

I’ve had an idea – an unusual idea, but I think it might just work.

As you know, England’s chilling libel laws need to be reformed. One way to help achieve this is for 100,000 people to sign the petition for libel reform before the political parties write their manifestos for the election. We have 17,000 signatures, but we really need 100,000, and we need your help to get there.

www.libelreform.org/sign

My idea

My idea is simple: if everyone who has already signed up persuades just one more person each week to sign the petition then we will reach our goal within a month!

One person per week is all we need, but please spread the word as much as you can. In fact, if you persuade 10 people to sign up then email me (simon@simonsingh.net) and I promise to thank you by printing your name in my next book … which I will start writing as soon as I have put my own libel case behind me. I cannot say when this will be, but it is a very real promise. My only caveat is that I will limit this to the first thousand people who recruit ten supporters.

When persuading your friends remember to tell them:

(a) English libel laws have been condemned by the UN Human Rights Committee.

(b) These laws gag scientists, bloggers and journalists who want to discuss matters of genuine public interest (and public health!).

(c) Our laws give rise to libel tourism, whereby the rich and the powerful (Saudi billionaires, Russian oligarchs and overseas corporations) come to London to sue writers because English libel laws are so hostile to responsible journalism. (In fact, it is exactly because English libel laws have this global impact that we welcome signatories to the petition from around the world.)

(d) Vested interests can use their resources to bully and intimidate those who seek to question them. The cost of a libel trial in England is 100 times more expensive than the European average and typically runs to over £1 million.

(e) Three separate ongoing libel cases involve myself and two medical researchers raising concerns about three medical treatments. We face losing £1 million each. In future, why would anyone else raise similar concerns? If these health matters are not reported, then the public is put at risk.

My experience has been sobering. I’ve had to spend £100,000 to defend my writing and have put my life on hold for almost two years. However, the prospect of reforming our libel laws keeps me cheerful.

Thanks so much for your support. We’ve only got one shot at this – so I hope you can persuade 1 (or maybe 10) friends, family and colleagues to sign.

Massive thanks,

Simon

www.libelreform.org/sign

The Libel Reform Campaign is a coalition of English PEN, Index on Censorship and Sense About Science.

So far, 188 MPs have signed our Parliamentary Early Day Motion calling for libel reform and the Justice Secretary Jack Straw has formed a working party that the Libel Reform Coalition is represented on.

Please also considering donating to keep our campaign going: www.libelreform.org

Bridget Christie - My Daily Mail Hell - The Y, Leicester - 11th Feb 2010

2010-02-11T09:49:00.048Z

Bridget Christie has gained plaudits for absurdist post-modernist takes on characters such as Charles II, making this anecdote-based show about her time on the diary pages of the Daily Mail something of a departure.

Much of the first half was dedicated to Christie's attempts to get quotes from celebrities such as Liam Gallagher (unprintable), Antonio Banderas (he claims to own 72 lions) and Gene Wilder (he strangled her). Unfortunately, the vapidity being highlighted meant that while the stories amused, their very banality undercut the humour somewhat.

The second half saw Christie analyse how the Mail "drunk man falls off a chair at function" could be spun into a 400-word attack on the hated BBC, merely because the man in question was Alan Yentob. It reminds me of the many tales of similarly dubious behavior detailed in the excellent Flat Earth News by Nick Davies, and I have no trouble believing it.

Overall there isn't much real vitriol against the Mail, apart from a diatribe against Richard Littlejohn (and that cried out for stronger punchlines). I'm in two minds about this lack of venom. The Daily Mail is a thoroughly horrible and reactionary newspaper. This is hardly relevalatory. Kicking the Daily Mail is so easy, that it's almost unnecessary. It's certainly easy to get a cheap laugh just by calling them the wankers they are and therefore Christie is to be applauded for not going down this route. The trouble is, I don't think she found something to replace it.

One thing I particularly liked was the use of different lighting and a discussion of Jack Vetriano's painting The Singing Butler - you know the one; the couple dancing on the beach while the butler holds up an umbrella. It did remind me a little of the dissection Stewart Lee - Christie's husband - used to do of the postcard of the piano playing animals, but Christie's take was entirely her own and effective as a framing device for the show. Another great touch, possibly a legal necessity, was a postscript in which Christie came back out and explained which bits of the show were made up or exagerated.

The show was slightly uneven. There were bits I really liked and bits that felt flat and I really hope it doesn't sound completely patronising if I say that it felt like Christie was an act with more potential than was being achieved in this show.

Is That The Question? And If So... If So...

2010-01-27T20:07:00.010Z

I received a response to the email I sent regarding the "Is Darwin Right" leaflet in my previous post. Here's my response to that.

Dear Mr Vanderput,

Thank you for your reply. I would like to respond to a few of your points, if I may. I would like to say up front that I will be posting this letter and my response to my blog at: http://baldyslap.blogspot.com/ You are cordially invited to respond; I would be delighted to have your thoughts on there.

Firstly, I do not agree it is ‘totally impossible’ to respond to the question as requested. Many people respond to Creation magazine (produced quarterly by CMI ) in this way.

Secondly, ‘…in a meaningful way…’. Meaningful is subjective. We were not asking for a PhD thesis on the subject of evolution, but whether you thought Darwin is right. Someone wrote: “I think Darwin is right. All life is the result of the laws of nature acting over time – naturalism”. (19 words) This person said something very meaningful. He believes that at least one aspect of Darwinism/evolution (naturalism) is meaningful. Unfortunately “naturalism” is itself flawed.

Since your question was posed to me as the reader and not other people, I fail to see why their replies should affect my opinion that it is impossible to respond meaningfully in 50 words (a single idea, not two, by the way).

There are a number of observations that I would make.

I'm not able to view this question as being an objective request; it is an attempt to evangelise, dressed up as honest inquiry. The question reminds me of the Scientologists, a deeply disreputable bunch, I am sure we can both agree. Have you ever been stopped by them and done one of their questionnaires? I have. They ask a series of questions along the lines of “Do you think the world is a nice place?” It doesn’t matter how you respond; yes, no or somewhere in between; all results in the astonishing revelation that you require their intervention. Still, although I can entirely blame you for pushing junk mail through my door, I can hardly be churlish if you respond to an email I sent knowing full well the consequences of doing so.

More specifically, however, I would observe the following (you will, I trust, note that it takes more than 50 words to do so):

The theory of evolution does not, of course, depend on Darwin. Indeed, as I would hope you know, his contemporary Wallace had stumbled on it independently, causing Darwin to rush to publish having procrastinated over whether to do so for nearly 20 years. Had Wallace not discovered it, someone else would have done. While we should acknowledge Darwin for being the one to discover it, we should not be concerned about attempting to inextricably link the theory to the man. There is a despicable tendency among creationists to attempt to besmirch the theory of evolution by impugning Darwin’s character. That is another reason that I am wary of the way your question was presented.

Let us be very clear that Darwin could be the most unpleasant man to ever have lived without it affecting whether evolution is true one iota. He could be a mass-rapist and child murderer and evolution would not be any the less true or false than if he spent his time ministering to the poor and needy and worshiping God in his every thought and action. Equally, the theory of gravity is not affected one jot by the fact that Newton was a convinced alchemist, even though alchemy is utter bunk. My point is that the theory of evolution is, to the best of our ability to determine based on the evidence, true while that the version originally put forward by Darwin is unquestionably not right in certain respects.

Thirdly, the Harvard geneticist (and atheist) Dr Richard Lewontin is one who has examined the ‘evidence’ such as is displayed on the CMI website. He wrote that, no matter what the evidence is (for creation/a creator), he will not consider any alternative to materialistic atheism. His reason for this is, (quote) “…we cannot allow a divine foot in the door” (unquote) – emphasis mine.

You are either ignorant or disingenuous about what Lewontin actually means. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but this quote is pasted all over creationist websites without anyone ever apparently bothering to read it in context or understand what is being said, so you will have to excuse my tetchiness. Lewontin’s quote is taken from a review of Carl Sagan’s “The Demon Haunted World”. You can find it here and it’s well worth reading in full: http://www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/Lewontin_Review.htm

Note that Lewontin is not talking about evidence for creation/ a creator as you claim above, nor does he say anything about “materialistic atheism”.

In context what he clearly expresses is the epistemological view of methodological naturalism, namely that hypotheses be explained and tested only by reference to natural causes and events. This does not preclude that supernatural explanations may exist, merely that they cannot be accounted for by methodological naturalism.

To illustrate this, imagine we are attempting to understand the process by which Haiti was recently devastated. If we introduce a supernatural aspect to this process (for example, “God was punishing the Haitians because they made a pact with the devil to overthrow the French” which is Pat Robertson’s delightful claim, if you didn’t know), since it cannot be measured nor accounted for (how would one go about empirically proving that God were responsible?), we must reject it as useless. If we were to accept that Haiti’s earthquake was because “supernatural agent X did Y”, the rest of our scientific explanation is of no value since we cannot rule out any other equally non-testable component. It is this that Lewontin is referring to.

So, the evidence for Creation is there but he will not accept it!

Since we’ve already established – by reading what Lewontin actually wrote rather than what creationist websites claim he wrote – that isn’t what he was discussing, there’s no need to respond to any claims about Lewontin’s position on the evidence for creation.

He has the right to reject it, but does he have the right to ‘push’ false notions or theories of evolution on others?

Yet I observe that you seem to think you have a right to push your evangelical materials through my door! Your no doubt sincerely held belief that you are correct doesn’t make you any more right than Lewontin’s beliefs do. That’s why we look to credible and testable evidence to determine what is right and wrong, not the conviction of one’s own correctness.

Fourthly, more and more evolutionists realise that while Darwin was right on many points – Natural Selection, for example - life did not begin millions or billions of years ago.

The evidence that life began millions of years ago is overwhelming. Heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection are all seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent, supporting the scientific view that evolution took billions of years. Radiometric dating of independent isotopes all confirms that the Earth is sufficiently old for this process to have occurred.

Would you care to offer something other than mere assertion that it is not so? Additionally, I would be interested to see support and numbers for the claim that more and more ‘evolutionists’ (whatever they are) doubt life began billions of years ago. I am unaware of any credible claims that this is true, and mere assertion to the contrary isn’t worth the time spent typing it.

Many/all attempts and claims that say ‘the missing link’ in the Tree of Life has been discovered have failed and, sadly, some have even been falsified in an attempt to ‘prove’ evolution.

While you may wrongly believe that evolution depends on so-called “missing links”, scientists who accept evolution do not ascribe such importance to them. If you are going to make any real headway in convincing people that your point of view is right, you need to learn to deal with what the theory and the evidence actually says, rather than what you’d like it to say.

While you’re right to say that some forgeries have been perpetrated and other errors have occurred, I would point out that it was scientists that accept evolution who debunked them or discovered the errors, not creationists.

Neither fakes nor mistakes have the importance you seem to wish to attribute to them. The fossil evidence is but a tiny part of the evidence that proves evolution is true and far from the best. We do not expect every missing link to exist. It would be contrary to the process by which they are formed.

Incidentally, you might like to read your own website, where you will find the claim "there are no transitional fossils" is listed on the page entitled “Arguments we think creationists should not use”. Transitional fossils are to all intents and purposes (certainly yours) “missing links”.

Well, Mr [Slaphead], I would still be happy to send you a dvd – there is no charge – if you will tell us where to deliver it.

I hope it’s “The Voyage That Shook The World” – it sounds almost as good as “Expelled”! It can go on my special shelf with my Ray Comfort books.

My address is: [Redacted]

I promise you will not be inundated with unsolicited literature on this subject.

Neither inundated nor a trickle and not on any other subject either, I trust? To do so would be a breach of the Data Protection Act. I’m happy to continue to discuss matters via email though.

Yours sincerely,

BaldySlaphead

I Can't Answer, I Can't Answer That

2010-01-21T22:21:00.007Z

Look what plopped through letter boxes in my town this morning:

I intend to respond along the lines of:

It is totally impossible to respond to this question in anything approaching a meaningful way in 50 words or less, but having checked out the embarrassing lack of understanding of evolution demonstrated on your website, I doubt it would make much difference however many I used.

You Lie So Much You Believe Yourself

2009-12-17T11:21:00.007Z

My mother-in-law is a card. We were over there for Sunday lunch and she hands me this glossy leaflet with a picture of Charles Darwin on the front of it, produced by Pastor Cotton of the Ebenezer Reformed Baptist Church, in Sleaford, Lincolnshire. Then she stood well back and waited for me to explode, which, being entirely predictable where such things are concerned, I did.

Let me take you through the leaflet and my response to its author…

Dear Pastor Cotton,

I recently obtained a copy of your pamphlet Open Letter to a Pagan Nation. Notwithstanding the fact that you appear to have confused the very different atheists and pagans (pagans do actually believe in deities, for a start), I found your leaflet profoundly troubling.

Why is a follower of Jesus Christ – a pastor no less – repeatedly breaking one of the Ten Commandments by telling what can only be described as out-and-out lies about the theory of evolution? Perhaps you are unaware that you are writing lies but they are nevertheless lies. This pamphlet is a travesty of decent research, relying on extensively debunked claims from creationists and assertations without evidence.

I understand that for some people with religious beliefs that the theory of evolution seems troubling. I sincerely do. I get that you feel a well-established scientific theory undermines your faith, and I understand you’re scared. I totally understand why you feel it is necessary to try and convince other people that you’re correct about evolution being wrong. I get all of that.

What I cannot understand is why it is apparently acceptable to tell lies about the basic facts in order to attempt to discredit it, and I would most sincerely welcome an explanation. I would love to be able to have a civilised debate about the issue, but your naked dishonesty makes it difficult.

For your reference, I am publishing my open reply to your open letter upon my blog. Any response you send to me, I will repost, exactly 'as is' there. I am very happy to receive any comments you may wish to make.

Open Letter to a Pagan Nation

November 2009 marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin

But is it really a cause for celebration?

Dear Reader,

On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin was first published on November 24th 1859. This year is therefore the 150th anniversary of a book which in many ways has changed the world. In fact, belief in human evolution shapes the thinking of countless millions of people the world over.

I have to wonder why human evolution has been particularly singled out? A key point about evolution is that human evolution is not especially remarkable and relies on the same processes that caused the evolution of every other living thing.

In present day Britain it provides the worldview in which every area of life, from biology to the arts, from medicine to morality is to be interpreted.

It really doesn’t, you know. How does a description of a natural process tell someone what is moral? How does evolution tell you anything about the arts? It describes a natural process; that is all. It is not prescriptive.

It is the belief which attempts to dethrone God and allow men to do that which is right in their own eyes.

Many people who accept evolution are atheists. This is unquestionably true. It’s probably also true to say that most atheists accept evolution. But the vast majority of people who accept it also have a religious faith of some description; most Christians accept it, for instance.

Again, I have to ask you whether you would be prepared to justify the fact that you think the theory of evolution - a description of a natural process - can possibly have a motive. Would you, for example, similarly ascribe motives (of whatever nature) to the theory of gravity?

But is it true? Is it science?
If evolution is true we ought to be able to see the evidence. Science has to do with observation, experimentation and repeatable testing. But the fact is that no-one has ever seen evolution take place.

This is quite simply untrue. Evolution has been seen numerous times. I would advise that you might wish to acquaint yourself with Richard Lenski’s recent e-coli/ citrate experiments. An overview can be found here.

Speciation – where one organism changes to such an extent that it forms a distinct new organism – has been directly observed on a number of occasions.

However, you later go on to define evolution in a way that is used only by anti-evolutionists, so I appreciate that the above explanation is unlikely to satisfy you, even though it is correct, and you are egregiously wrong.

Belief in evolution is strictly a matter of incredulity. It may be objected that we are wrong. Did not Darwin observe changes in living species? To which we reply that he did. However, we must go a step further and ask what kind of changes did he see? Indeed, what kind of changes do we see today? Are they onwards and upwards leading to greater and greater organised complexity culminating in man?

I’m afraid you expose your scientific ignorance in making this statement. Evolution is not aimed at “greater and greater complexity culminating in man”. Humans are no more the apex of evolution than a bacterium or a rat or a crab or a geranium or any other living organism is. The claim that evolution works as though it had some ultimate goal or aim in mind is something nobody with even just a basic understanding of the subject would ever make.

Asking this question exposes the fact that you simply doesn’t understand what you criticise. It is perfectly legitimate to criticise a scientific theory; it is, after all, how science progresses. To do so, however, requires that you understand the claims of the scientific theory.

I could extensively criticise Christianity for its dishonesty in hooking new believers with its provably false promise that believers will be rewarded with financial security and good health, but it wouldn’t make it a true claim about your religion or do anything other than make me look ignorant and foolish. That is the equivalent of how you make yourself look to me.

No, they most definitely are not. The changes that we see in living species are either horizontal changes, i.e., at the same level of organised complexity, for example, different types of cat, various tribes of people, or different colours of roses, or downward changes, e.g., mutations and extinctions.

Mutations can be one of three things:

1) Deleterious – this is analogous to your term “downwards”, and means where the mutation makes the organism less fit for its environment, or negative.
2) Neutral – the mutation is neither beneficial nor deleterious to the organism.
3) Beneficial – the mutation makes the organism more fit for its environment, or positive.

The majority of mutations are neutral, deleterious are the next most common, and beneficial the least common. However, when one considers that organisations that suffer from deleterious mutations are less likely to survive, it should be obvious that beneficial mutations are more likely to be passed on to future generations and thus are preserved. It should be noted that whether a mutation is beneficial or deleterious may often depend on environment – what is beneficial in one environment may be decidedly unhelpful elsewhere.

Mutation is a key component for evolution.

This means that the necessary kind of changes that evolutionists require to prove human evolution from amoeba to man have simply NEVER been observed.

The error you make is to assume that direct observation is the only way in which evolution could be proven. For example, we have the nested hierarchy of life, independently supported by morphological, genetic and biochemical evidence, all of which agree on the same nested hierarchy. It is further supported by the fossil evidence.

Heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection are all seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.

Moreover, we would not expect to be able to observe amoeba to human evolution. Such a thing would invalidate the theory as it currently stands.

The theory is not scientific. It is a belief. It is a religion.

It is scientific and not a religious belief, and it is decidedly odd that a pastor would think he was going to damage evolution by seeking to equate it with the very same thing which motivates him to write and publish a leaflet such as this – that is it a religious belief!

When evolutionists speak dogmatically of the fact of evolution they are engaging in a massive act of propaganda. Some may call it indoctrination.

This is wishful thinking on your part. Evolution is based upon evidence that is available for anyone to look at. If your objection is that evolution is spoken of as fact, then one must presume you feel equally strongly about the similarly 'dogmatically'-promoted germ theory.

That Darwin’s book has had a profound affect upon our nation cannot be denied. But a lie widely believed is still a lie and the truth disbelieved is no less the truth.

I think you mean ‘effect’ not ‘affect’. Unfortunately, you have not even begun to support your case that On The Origin Of Species is a lie. You’ve made a lot of assertations that it is not true, but have failed to prove it, and moreover have demonstrated a profound lack of understanding of the theory. Nevertheless, let us go on…

Moreover, as a bad well brings forth dirty water, so a wicked worldview brings forth destruction. Our Lord said “ye shall know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16).

Since you are clearly willing to promote easily disproved lies (you give every impression of either lacking the capacity or being merely ignorant of why what you write is incorrect, and I accept they may not be deliberate lies on your part) in order to support your religious agenda, what sort of water would you imagine might be perceived as coming from your own well?

Therefore, let us now consider the fruits of evolution...

Yes, lets.

The Corrupt Fruits of Evolution
When a house has weak foundations it is not fit to be a dwelling. A dwelling ought to be a place of comfort and safety. For that a house needs firm foundations. The same is true for families and nations. If we build our society on a wrong foundation then we can expect that society to crack, crumble and collapse.

The term “broken Britain” is one which is often banded about today. Broken families, sexual immorality, pornography, abortion etc. are evils prevalent among us. Even our ability to be able to place trust and respect in others and our leaders is on the wain. Let it be remembered also that the twentieth century was quite possibly the most bloody in history. Millions upon millions were slaughtered as one ideology fought for dominance over another. Now, of course all of these evils and many more have always existed since sin came into the world (Genesis 3). These things are nothing new. Thus we do not say that the evolutionary theory is the fundamental cause of all these evils. It isn’t. Nevertheless, it has become their justification.

I’m interested to see the evidence that evolution is the justification for ideological and bloody wars (I think technological progress and greater population might be significant factors in why more have died in the 20th century), lack of trust in our leaders (I thought it was because they keep getting caught out telling lies to us about WMD, being caught with their snouts in the trough and generally behaving in a manner that doesn’t engender trust) etc etc. But perhaps you’re right that evolution is to blame. I look forward to seeing this idea backed up with credible evidence. Let’s read on.

Take the issue of abortion. A terrible holocaust is taking place in Britain. Since the Abortion Act was passed in 1967 literally millions of little ones have been sacrificed on the altar of sexual promiscuity. But what is the justification? Has it not been that the embryo goes through different stages of development which mirrors our evolution.

Ignoring the unhelpful emotive language, that embryo development mirrors evolution is certainly a claim that has been made – based on the work of Ernst Haeckel. It was pretty much totally discredited by the start of the 20th century.

Therefore, aborting a baby is no worse than killing a fish.

However, this in no way proceeds from the previous statement. I am unaware of anyone who has made such a justification for abortion, but you may have the advantage over me here. It is not a subject I would claim to be well up on. I would be interested to see a source for this claim.

I have searched extensively, and cannot find a single example of this claim outside of creationist literature and those within do not provide any credible sources for the claims they then go on to rubbish, which is a little surprising. You’d think they’d want to support their claims with evidence that anyone could go and check.

This theory, has now been soundly debunked. Dr Sabine Schwabenthan states, “We now know, ... that man in his prenatal stages, does not go through the complete evolution of life - from a primitive single cell to a fish-like water creature to man. Today it is known that every step in the foetal development process is specifically human” (emphasis mine).

It has indeed been debunked; by scientists who accept evolution, as it happens (and as mentioned above, a long time prior to the 1967 Abortion Act, though it is also true to say that the notion persisted outside of the sciences for a longer). These scientists looked at the claim and then examined the evidence, and found the claim wanting. The truth isn’t quite as removed from the original claim as all that though. Human embryos do not have gill slits. They do, however, have what are called pharyngeal pouches. Now, where the confusion may have occurred is that in fish, these pharyngeal pouches do develop into gills, but in reptiles, mammals, and birds they develop into other structures and never gills, not even rudimentary ones. The fact that the pouches appear in all vertebrates is evidence to support the theory of evolution, by the way.

This quote is taken from an article by Sabine Schwabenthan entitled Life Before Birth, Parents (October 1979), and it is not describing a contemporary overturning of a prevailing scientific view. Of course, I imagine you knew that, having carefully researched your article. Did you read it in its original German or from the only place I can locate it online in English, in a creationist screed?

Or take the history of the Second World War. What was Hitler’s justification for the wholesale slaughter of men, women, and children? It was evolution.

If evolution led to the Nazi holocaust, as you claim, why is it nowhere cited by Hitler or leading Nazis, given that they do expound at great length on the (psuedo-scientific) justifications for their atrocity, and even Sparta was praised by Hitler for its policy of weeding out the weak, and given that appeals to justifications citing Christianity abound?

Why was On the Origin of Species on a list of books banned by the Nazis (Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel), Die Bücherei, 1935, 279)? Moreover, you may also be interested to know of another class of books found on another Nazi prohibited publications list: “c) All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk." From Fighting League for German Culture: Guidelines.

In fact, Hitler was far more influenced by the views of his acquaintance Houston Stewart Chamberlin, whose book Die Grundlagen des Neunzehnten Jahrhunderts or The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century underpinned the racial blathering of Hitler. Chamberlin explicitly rejected Darwinism, evolution and social Darwinism, saying 'Darwinism' was "the most abominable and misguided doctrine of the day". He preferred a concept known as ‘gestalt’, which derived from Goethe. Chamberlin also wrote "one of the most fatal errors of our time is that which impels us to give too great weight to the so-called 'results' of science" both of which quotes I am sure you can immediately see are damaging to any claim that Nazism used the theory of evolution to underpin the holocaust.

Sir Arthur Keith in his book Evolution and Ethics writes, “The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution”.

Would that Sir Arthur were still alive to put to him the points raised in my previous paragraphs. Sadly, this is not a possibility.

These examples will suffice to make the point that evolution has given an intellectual justification for so much wickedness in this world. Why then do we continue to promote it, accept it and even celebrate it? Why do we reject God for this naturalistic worldview?

Let us pretend for one moment that it actually turned out to be true that evolution were used as a justification for abortion and the holocaust.

Now ask yourself this: given that evolution is a description of a natural process that happens, how would this description invalidated by acts it inspired?

To further illustrate this point, are you aware, for example, that Richard Dawkins, one of the most vigorous champions of evolution has stated comments along the following lines many, many times: “I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how things have evolved. I am not saying how we humans morally ought to behave. ... If you wish to extract a moral from it, read it as a warning. Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish”?

The point is that evolution is true in the same way that other scientific theories are true. We have the evidence to support them and more importantly, we do not currently know of any credible way in which these theories can be disproved. It doesn’t really matter whether you or I despise that situation, are delighted by it or are indifferent. I don’t like the fact that germs will be responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths of children this year, but my dislike doesn’t make germ theory any the less true, nor does it mandate any behaviour on my part. I do not feel compelled to claim that it is acceptable to murder hundreds of thousands of children, merely because of a description of how germs behave. Do you..?

The remainder of your document is a religious diatribe which is both tedious and lacking any sort of credibility, and I have no interest in discussing it beyond saying that you would need to prove to me that the Bible is true before I could possible accept any arguments that proceed from what it says. As it is, you merely expect me to believe that it is true on the basis of no evidence, and you have already proved that your claims need to be tested against credible evidence. “What can be asserted without evidence,” as Christopher Hitchens wisely observed, “Can be dismissed without evidence.” I therefore dismiss it.

Throughout your document you have – whether through ignorance, laziness or wilful dishonesty – misrepresented the theory of evolution in a way that is very simply checked. I think you’re foolish to dismiss evolution, even if I totally understand why you feel so threatened by it, but that is not the point of my reply either. I do not expect to convince you of your errors. That you could write such a load of egregious lies and yet present yourself as a follower of Christ and God’s commandments without the apparent remotest awareness of what a gross hypocrite you are strongly suggests you are incapable of changing your mind, though I hope otherwise. I do hope to draw attention to your behaviour, however, and will be publicising this response on my blog. It’s at http://baldyslap.blogspot.com/ and you are very welcome to respond.

I am well aware my response is intemperate. Perhaps you might try and understand why my fuses blew?

Yours sincerely,

Etc

And Then You Look Behind You

2009-12-16T09:05:00.003Z

Somewhat frighteningly, I discover I haven't posted anything to the Blog since July. I know I've written things that could have gone on here.

Haven't I?

I must have.

Surely I have?

I don't validate my life by whether it makes it onto a blog - which is a bloody good thing, given how few posts I make - but it does tend to emphasis the passing of time.

I've got something I know I'll be putting up very soon, possibly even today, but it's amazing how quickly it gets away from you. I have another couple of blogs too - deliberately not linked to this one because I'd like to attempt to keep some anonymity (whilst still indulging the obviously egotistical urge to post my thoughts on to the Interweb to general indifference (does that make me masochistic..? Or is that just the desire to be tied up and whipped..? Who can say?)) - and I haven't updated them in ages either.

Maybe there's just too much information now. I realise this is hardly a new complaint. Even Duran Duran were writing songs called "Too Much Information" back in 1993. Fuck you, Simon le Bon - you didn't have to cope with Twitter and Facebook and Blogs and Forums and Wikis...

"And then you look behind you..." and all that, Mr Floyd.

Beware the Spinal Trap

2009-07-29T21:33:00.005+01:00

I wrote a piece below about how the respected science writer Simon Singh was being targetted for daring to publish an article in which he called a number of claims about chiropractic "bogus". This is a bowdlerised copy of the article Simon Singh wrote that got him sued for libel by the BCA. It's been cleaned up to ensure that the BCA can't target the many bloggers who are posting this article on their sites today in support of Simon, but the uncensored version can be viewed on ORAC's blog Respectful Insolence. I'm sorry not to put up the uncensored version - blame cowardice. Nevertheless, I hope to do my little bit to promote Simon's situation.

Check out the Sense About Science campaign to change the libel laws. Please take a look at the Facebook group and consider signing the petition to get the disgraceful UK libel laws changed.

Some practitioners claim it is a cure-all, but the research suggests chiropractic therapy has mixed results – and can even be lethal, says Simon Singh.

You might be surprised to know that the founder of chiropractic therapy, Daniel David Palmer, wrote that “99% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae”. In the 1860s, Palmer began to develop his theory that the spine was involved in almost every illness because the spinal cord connects the brain to the rest of the body. Therefore any misalignment could cause a problem in distant parts of the body.

In fact, Palmer’s first chiropractic intervention supposedly cured a man who had been profoundly deaf for 17 years. His second treatment was equally strange, because he claimed that he treated a patient with heart trouble by correcting a displaced vertebra.

You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact some still possess quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything, including helping treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying – even though there is not a jot of evidence.

I can confidently label these assertions as utter nonsense because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world’s first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor. This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects, he examined the evidence from 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions.

But what about chiropractic in the context of treating back problems? Manipulating the spine can cure some problems, but results are mixed. To be fair, conventional approaches, such as physiotherapy, also struggle to treat back problems with any consistency. Nevertheless, conventional therapy is still preferable because of the serious dangers associated with chiropractic.

In 2001, a systematic review of five studies revealed that roughly half of all chiropractic patients experience temporary adverse effects, such as pain, numbness, stiffness, dizziness and headaches. These are relatively minor effects, but the frequency is very high, and this has to be weighed against the limited benefit offered by chiropractors.

More worryingly, the hallmark technique of the chiropractor, known as high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust, carries much more significant risks. This involves pushing joints beyond their natural range of motion by applying a short, sharp force. Although this is a safe procedure for most patients, others can suffer dislocations and fractures.

Worse still, manipulation of the neck can damage the vertebral arteries, which supply blood to the brain. So-called vertebral dissection can ultimately cut off the blood supply, which in turn can lead to a stroke and even death. Because there is usually a delay between the vertebral dissection and the blockage of blood to the brain, the link between chiropractic and strokes went unnoticed for many years. Recently, however, it has been possible to identify cases where spinal manipulation has certainly been the cause of vertebral dissection.

Laurie Mathiason was a 20-year-old Canadian waitress who visited a chiropractor 21 times between 1997 and 1998 to relieve her low-back pain. On her penultimate visit she complained of stiffness in her neck. That evening she began dropping plates at the restaurant, so she returned to the chiropractor. As the chiropractor manipulated her neck, Mathiason began to cry, her eyes started to roll, she foamed at the mouth and her body began to convulse. She was rushed to hospital, slipped into a coma and died three days later. At the inquest, the coroner declared: “Laurie died of a ruptured vertebral artery, which occurred in association with a chiropractic manipulation of the neck.”

This case is not unique. In Canada alone there have been several other women who have died after receiving chiropractic therapy, and Edzard Ernst has identified about 700 cases of serious complications among the medical literature. This should be a major concern for health officials, particularly as under-reporting will mean that the actual number of cases is much higher.

If spinal manipulation were a drug with such serious adverse effects and so little demonstrable benefit, then it would almost certainly have been taken off the market.

Simon Singh is a science writer in London and the co-author, with Edzard Ernst, of Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial. This is an edited version of an article published in The Guardian for which Singh is being personally sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association.

Keep the Libel Laws out of Science

2009-06-16T23:35:00.005+01:00

I don't have much time to write about this at the moment, but I've meant to put something up here about Simon Singh's libel case for a couple of weeks now.

Singh wrote a piece for the Guardian in 2008, in which he stated the following;

The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments.

The British Chiropractic Association objected to this passage (and this passage alone) .They were offered a right of reply in the Guardian and various other non-legal courses of action, but declined the opportunity to present evidence that would have shown their remedies to be efficacious . Rather than present the evidence to the contrary, the BCA sued Singh for libel.

This is most worrying. Under British libel laws, Singh must now prove that what he said is correct. Even worse, in a preliminary hearing, Justice Eady determined that when Singh wrote that "[the BCA] happily promotes bogus treatments." he meant that the BCA knew that the treatments were bogus.

Singh disputes this interpretation. He is quite prepared to believe that the BCA honestly believes their treatments work. His point is very specifically that the treatments have not been shown to work. He should know. He's the co-author of Trick or Treatment?: Alternative Medicine on Trial, a book that sceptically examines alternative medicine claims. Edzard Ernst, with whom he wrote the book, examined 70 trials that looks at the effects of chiropractic on non back-related conditions and found no evidence to suggest it worked. Despite not accepting Justice Eady's interpretation of his intent, Singh will be forced to defend that meaning in court, a ludicrous situation.

Fighting a libel claim in the UK is 140 times more expensive than the European average. It frequently has the effect of protecting those who deserve to be exposed, simply by dint of the fact that most people do not have the money to fight it.

The bottom line is this: it should be acceptable for legitimate concerns about issues affecting the health and welbeing of the public to be examined by informed writers. If they get it wrong, simply showing the evidence should be sufficient. Running to the libel courts suggests something else entirely.

Simon Singh, as a successful author, has decided to fight the BCA. His initial plan is to appeal Justice Eady's ruling on Singh's intentions when writing the piece. He says he's fortunate enough to be in a position where he can afford to fight, but he has asked people support the Sense About Science campaign to change the libel laws. Please take a look at the Facebook group and consider signing the petition to get the disgraceful UK libel laws changed.

Music Time

2009-06-07T00:34:00.008+01:00

Every Friday, my daughters go to 'Music Time' at the local baptist church. Since I have wangled it so I get every other Friday off, one week in two, I take the girls and give K___ a bit of time off.

My mother-in-law often makes cracks about me going to something being put on by a church. I do point out to her that I'm an atheist not a Satanist and consequently not actually all that concerned about a fictional entity. I'm not entirely sure that she doesn't think I'll melt as soon as I step over the threshold.

Music Time is run by a few women from the church and there are a few mentions of God and Jesus. Mostly it's just Humpty, Incy Wincy and counting songs about monkeys jumping on beds. 95% of it is entirely secular.

There are one or two things that do make me wince a bit. They do a song about God's flood killing all the sinners which concludes with a verse proclaiming how this demonstrates God's love for humanity. Disregarding the fact that the Biblical flood never happened, what struck me about the song was the disconnect between the verses about God killing all the sinners and then this lovely-dovey coda. There was no attempt at a rationale as to how God killing all these people equated to love and it just made my brain stutter and go, 'eh?' Only a child could sing such things and accept there was a no problem there.

They also do a song that includes the lyrics, "This is the nose God chose for me, thank you Lord!" and in my head, I always substitute the word 'genetics' for 'God'. I'm aware this is wanky, and I don't attempt to stop my daughter singing their version, but it is nonsense. Would someone who was facially-disfigured also be expected to praise God for gifting them a schnoz that they couldn't breathe through, for example?

The song I do enjoy is the old one about the wise man building his house upon the rock:

The Wise Man Built His House

The wise man built his house upon the rock (*3)
And the rain came tumbling down...

Oh, the rain came down, And the floods came up (*3)
And the wise man's house stood firm.

The foolish man built his house upon the sand (*3)
And the rain came tumbling down

Oh, the rain came down, And the floods came up (*3)
And the house on the sand fell down!

The only reason I like that one ('like' being a relative term pertaining to children's songs you hear waaay too often rather than music one might listen to through choice) is that I amuse my small brain by pretending the rock is analogous to reason, science and scepticism, and the sand is analogous to religious faith, thus cleverly satirising the intended point of the song. I am aware this may also reveal something quite pathetic about me...

Anyway, after the singing is done, they put out a few snacks and we all natter about how awful little Tarquin and Jemima are. Friday just gone, a man wandered into the hall and started chatting to me. I recognised him as the minister of the church from photo on a board in the entrance hall, though I couldn't have told you his name. He asked me about what I do for a living and probed me as to whether I'd always intended to do what I do as a profession. I said that I hadn't, and explained how I'd had to get a post-graduate degree in order to allow me to take up my current discipline.

"And what about you?" I asked. "Did you always intend to go into the church?"
"No, I was a scientist," he revealed. "In fact, I was in the middle of a PHD in biology when I became a Christian."

A biologist who became a baptist minister? Could my ears be hearing correctly? Thing is, I've always steered clear of getting involved in any religious discussions at Music Time. It's not like the subject came up a lot, but obviously, with the people organising the thing being in the church, naturally it was mentioned in passing a few times. However, no one ever asked a direct question, so I never felt the need to say anything about my own beliefs (or lack thereof), but this was too good to let go.

"May I ask you a somewhat loaded question?" I asked.
He cocked an eyebrow but said that I could. "If you were a biologist, where do you stand on the issue of evolution versus Creationism?"
He considered this and then answered. It hadn't occurred to me at the time, but of course, he might have thought I was a Creationist, so was weighing what he said from that perspective. He told me that when he'd first become a Christian, he had felt it was important to believe the Bible literally, but, having considered his position further, he concluded that it wasn't important to believe in a six day creation, and that it was, in his opinion, metaphor designed for the bronze age target audience. What was important, he said, was that God was behind it.
I told him that although I wasn't a believer, his position seemed to me to be the logical position to take if one were one (which is not to say there aren't still issues with cognitive dissonance, but at least you're not constantly organising tag team cage fights between reality, logic and evidence in the blue corner versus faith, wishful thinking and putting your hands over your ears and going 'la la la' in the red in your own bloody head).

We ended up having a good chat about what his biological discipline had been (regrettably, it was a very narrow field of interest and I wasn't familiar with the area, so I've forgotten it) and discussed the Simon Singh libel case among other things science-related. It was something of a relief to know that whatever differences we may have - and I'm 100% sure we do - they're not Creationists.

Since first becoming interested in the evolution\Creationism battle a few years back, I've spent quite a lot of time and effort in attempting to do my bit to hold back the encroaching tide of stupidity, and a good number of the people I've had discussions with, particularly online, have been so egregiously idiotic that it's difficult to not fall into a lazy default characterisation of everyone with a religious belief. Once you've been told the most blatant lies by someone, you start to tar everyone with the same brush. It's not something I'd do with the sort of C of E type of Christians, but anyone "with a personal relationship with God", I'll admit I have a tendency to prejudge. It's good to have such things brought to your attention.

It was still genetics that gave 'em that snout though.

Electioneering

2009-06-03T12:27:00.004+01:00

Oh fiddlesticks! Who to vote for tomorrow?

Lincolnshire is a traditionally Tory county, and I suspect that's unlikely to change, especially given these elections (both local and European) will unquestionably be treated as a referendum on national politics even if it is a mind-bendingly idiotic way to behave.

What is in contention locally is the second party. Traditionally, it's Labour, but they're unlikely to do well given the general contempt in which they're currently held, and regrettably, given the large numbers of immigrants in the county - mainly Eastern European and Portuguese - and the issues around this, the BNP have made headway too. They may do quite well and though my vote isn't going to amount to a whole hill of freshly picked beans, I am morally obliged to cast it against them.

The BNP are also seeking to make gains at the European level too. With a low turnout expected, they could make big gains. The fucks.

UKIP are, as comedian Mitch Benn so succinctly remarked, the Waitrose BNP and the BNP themselves are, of course, the same knuckle-draggers they've always been (perhaps, I grudgingly concede, wearing a slightly better ironed shirt than previous years), and obviously neither of them gets my vote.

All the main parties are tainted by the expenses debacle and in any case, the Tories are just going to be horrific when they get in at the next general election and Cameron's just a joke, Labour are scaling new heights of incompetence by the hour and the Lib Dems are, damningly, the Lib Dems; nice people but you'd feel nervous about letting them have the steering wheel.

Greens are, in my limited experience, also nice and well-meaning people and I broadly support their views on the environment, but they've also got some fairly ridiculous views about a lot of pseudo-science, and I'm not about to vote for that.

Then you've got the independents, who are generally single issue campaigners. Just white noise, essentially. Maybe something for the political equivalent of My Bloody Valentine fans.

Where's my "None of the above" box? In reality, I probably do know who I'm going to vote for, but they're not votes I'm casting with a great deal of joy, but rather with obligation.

Lark Rise Band

2009-05-13T09:08:00.034+01:00

The Lark Rise Band were formed in 1981, when Ashley Hutchings, one time bass player with Fairport Convention, Steeleye Span and the Albion Band, became musical director at the National Theatre and worked on a stage adaptation of Flora Thompson’s classic book Lark Rise to Candleford, releasing a commercially successful CD of the songs. The band provided new music for the 2008 Dawn French-led TV adaptation too and now they’re touring to support a new CD of material from the TV show and unreleased songs from the theatrical production.

Loughbough Town Hall was a perfect venue, evoking the right atmosphere for a selection of dance tunes and hymns from the period from late Victorian-era to the First World War. The audience was pretty old - I was the youngest there bar one other, and he was clearly there with his grandparents - and the turn out was pretty poor, with lots of empty seats.

Despite this - acknowledged from the stage - the band played the full show with good grace and humour. Hutchings’ enthusiasm for the material was obvious in his (occasionally overly long) introductions and the band’s accomplished performance on fiddles, melodeons and acoustic guitars. I caught myself admiring the band's strong six-part harmonies on several occasions, marvelling at the sheer technical ability of the singers - fiddle player Ruth Angell particularly impressed.

It was an evening of authentic folk music, including morris dancing songs and hymns. There was no attempt to modernise it or incorporate other influences and as such, the band was always going to have a limited appeal to those who appreciate Hutching’s role as curator of traditional folk or fans of the plays and TV series, evoking a long gone British way of life.

It wasn't dangerous or edgy. Even the Daily Mail would probably approve - although they might think it was too sympathetic to farm workers for it's own good. If I say it was 'nice' that sounds like I'm damning it with faint praise. I enjoyed it for what it was.

Charming, but not for everyone.

Socialist Movies

2009-04-21T20:23:00.003+01:00

My mate Chris requested ideas for #socialistmovies on Twitter. I contributed a couple and also collected together the responses and mocked up a poster.

The Doctor Will Sue You Now - or, "Why this stuff matters."

2009-04-17T13:04:00.006+01:00

This is an extract from BAD SCIENCE by Ben Goldacre Published by Harper Perennial 2009.

You are free to copy it, paste it, bake it, reprint it, read it aloud, as long as you don’t change it – including this bit – so that people know that they can find more ideas for free at www.badscience.net.

The Doctor Will Sue You Now
This chapter did not appear in the original edition of this book, because for fifteen months leading up to September 2008 the vitamin-pill entrepreneur Matthias Rath was suing me personally, and the Guardian, for libel. This strategy brought only mixed success. For all that nutritionists may fantasise in public that any critic is somehow a pawn of big pharma, in private they would do well to remember that, like many my age who work in the public sector, I don’t own a flat. The Guardian generously paid for the lawyers, and in September 2008 Rath dropped his case, which had cost in excess of £500,000 to defend. Rath has paid £220,000 already, and the rest will hopefully follow. Nobody will ever repay me for the endless meetings, the time off work, or the days spent poring over tables filled with endlessly cross-referenced court documents.

On this last point there is, however, one small consolation, and I will spell it out as a cautionary tale: I now know more about Matthias Rath than almost any other person alive. My notes, references and witness statements, boxed up in the room where I am sitting right now, make a pile as tall as the man himself, and what I will write here is only a tiny fraction of the fuller story that is waiting to be told about him. This chapter, I should also mention, is available free online for anyone who wishes to see it.

Matthias Rath takes us rudely outside the contained, almost academic distance of this book. For the most part we’ve been interested in the intellectual and cultural consequences of bad science, the made-up facts in national newspapers, dubious academic practices in universities, some foolish pill-peddling, and so on. But what happens if we take these sleights of hand, these pill-marketing techniques, and transplant them out of our decadent Western context into a situation where things really matter?

In an ideal world this would be only a thought experiment. AIDS is the opposite of anecdote. Twenty-five million people have died from it already, three million in the last year alone, and 500,000 of those deaths were children. In South Africa it kills 300,000 people every year: that’s eight hundred people every day, or one every two minutes. This one country has 6.3 million people who are HIV positive, including 30 per cent of all pregnant women. There are 1.2 million AIDS orphans under the age of seventeen. Most chillingly of all, this disaster has appeared suddenly, and while we were watching: in 1990, just 1 per cent of adults in South Africa were HIV positive. Ten yearslater, the figure had risen to 25 per cent.

It’s hard to mount an emotional response to raw numbers, but on one thing I think we would agree. If you were to walk into a situation with that much death, misery and disease, you would be very careful to make sure that you knew what you were talking about. For the reasons you are about to read, I suspect that Matthias Rath missed the mark.

This man, we should be clear, is our responsibility. Born and raised in Germany, Rath was the head of Cardiovascular Research at the Linus Pauling Institute in Palo Alto in California, and even then he had a tendency towards grand gestures, publishing a paper in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine in 1992 titled “A Unified Theory of Human Cardiovascular Disease Leading the Way to the Abolition of this Disease as a Cause for Human Mortality”. The unified theory was high-dose vitamins.

He first developed a power base from sales in Europe, selling his pills with tactics that will be very familiar to you from the rest of this book, albeit slightly more aggressive. In the UK, his adverts claimed that “90 per cent of patients receiving chemotherapy for cancer die within months of starting treatment”, and suggested that three million lives could be saved if cancer patients stopped being treated by conventional medicine. The pharmaceutical industry was deliberately letting people die for financial gain, he explained. Cancer treatments were “poisonous compounds” with “not even one effective treatment”.

The decision to embark on treatment for cancer can be the most difficult that an individual or a family will ever take, representing a close balance between well-documented benefits and equally well-documented side-effects. Adverts like these might play especially strongly on your conscience if your mother has just lost all her hair to chemotherapy, for example, in the hope of staying alive just long enough to see your son speak.

There was some limited regulatory response in Europe, but it was generally as weak as that faced by the other characters in this book. The Advertising Standards Authority criticised one of his adverts in the UK, but that is essentially all they are able to do. Rath was ordered by a Berlin court to stop claiming that his vitamins could cure cancer, or face a €250,000 fine.

But sales were strong, and Matthias Rath still has many supporters in Europe, as you will shortly see. He walked into South Africa with all the acclaim, self-confidence and wealth he had amassed as a successful vitamin-pill entrepreneur in Europe and America, and began to take out full-page adverts in newspapers.

˜The answer to the AIDS epidemic is here,” he proclaimed. Anti-retroviral drugs were poisonous, and a conspiracy to kill patients and make money. “Stop AIDS Genocide by the Drugs Cartel said one headline. “Why should South Africans continue to be poisoned with AZT? There is a natural answer to AIDS.” The answer came in the form of vitamin pills. “Multivitamin treatment is more effective than any toxic AIDS drug. Multivitamins cut the risk of developing AIDS in half.”

Rath’s company ran clinics reflecting these ideas, and in 2005 he decided to run a trial of his vitamins in a township near Cape Town called Khayelitsha, giving his own formulation, VitaCell, to people with advanced AIDS. In 2008 this trial was declared illegal by the Cape High Court of South Africa. Although Rath says that none of his participants had been on anti-retroviral drugs, some relatives have given statements saying that they were, and were actively told to stop using them.

Tragically,Matthias Rath had taken these ideas to exactly the right place. Thabo Mbeki, the President of South Africa at the time, was well known as an “AIDS dissident”, and to international horror, while people died at the rate of one every two minutes in his country, he gave credence and support to the claims of a small band of campaigners who variously claim that AIDS does not exist, that it is not caused by HIV, that anti-retroviral medication does more harm than good, and so on.

At various times during the peak of the AIDS epidemic in South Africa their government argued that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, and that anti-retroviral drugs are not useful for patients. They refused to roll out proper treatment programmes, they refused to accept free donations of drugs, and they refused to accept grant money from the Global Fund to buy drugs. One study estimates that if the South African national government had used anti-retroviral drugs for prevention and treatment at the same rate as the Western Cape province (which defied national policy on the issue), around 171,000 new HIV infections and 343,000 deaths could have been prevented between 1999 and 2007. Another study estimates that between 2000 and 2005 there were 330,000 unnecessary deaths, 2.2 million person years lost, and 35,000 babies unnecessarily born with HIV because of the failure to implement a cheap and simple mother-to-child-transmission prevention program. Between one and three doses of an ARV drug can reduce transmission dramatically. The cost is negligible. It was not available.

Interestingly, Matthias Rath’s colleague and employee, a South African barrister named Anthony Brink, takes the credit for introducing Thabo Mbeki to many of these ideas. Brink stumbled on the “AIDS dissident” material in the mid-1990s, and after much surfing and reading, became convinced that it must be right. In 1999 he wrote an article about AZT in a Johannesburg newspaper titled “a medicine from hell”. This led to a public exchange with a leading virologist. Brink contacted Mbeki, sending him copies of the debate, and was welcomed as an expert.

This is a chilling testament to the danger of elevating cranks by engaging with them. In his initial letter of motivation for employment to Matthias Rath, Brink described himself as “South Africa’s leading AIDS dissident, best known for my whistle-blowing exposé of the toxicity and inefficacy of AIDS drugs, and for my political activism in this regard, which caused President Mbeki and Health Minister Dr Tshabalala-Msimang to repudiate the drugs in 1999″.

In 2000, the now infamous International AIDS Conference took place in Durban. Mbeki’s presidential advisory panel beforehand was packed with “AIDS dissidents”, including Peter Duesberg and David Rasnick. On the first day, Rasnick suggested that all HIV testing should be banned on principle, and that South Africa should stop screening supplies of blood for HIV. “If I had the power to outlaw the HIV antibody test,” he said, “I would do it across the board.” When African physicians gave testimony about the drastic change AIDS had caused in their clinics and hospitals, Rasnick said he had not seen “any evidence” of an AIDS catastrophe. The media were not allowed in, but one reporter from the Village Voice was present. Peter Duesberg, he said, “gave a presentation so removed from African medical reality that it left several local doctors shaking their heads”. It wasn’t AIDS that was killing babies and children, said the dissidents: it was the anti-retroviral medication.

President Mbeki sent a letter to world leaders comparing the struggle of the “AIDS dissidents” to the struggle against apartheid. The Washington Post described the reaction at the White House: “So stunned were some officials by the letter’s tone and timing during final preparations for July’s conference in Durban that at least two of them, according to diplomatic sources, felt obliged to check whether it was genuine. Hundreds of delegates walked out of Mbeki’s address to the conference in disgust, but many more described themselves as dazed and confused. Over 5,000 researchers and activists around the world signed up to the Durban Declaration, a document that specifically addressed and repudiated the claims and concerns–at least the more moderate ones–of the “AIDS dissidents”. Specifically, it addressed the charge that people were simply dying of poverty:

The evidence that AIDS is caused by HIV-1 or HIV-2 is clearcut, exhaustive and unambiguous… As with any other chronic infection, various co-factors play a role in determining the risk of disease. Persons who are malnourished, who already suffer other infections or who are older, tend to be more susceptible to the rapid development of AIDS following HIV infection. However, none of these factors weaken the scientific evidence that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS… Mother-to-child transmission can be reduced by half or more by short courses of antiviral drugs â€¦ What works best in one country may not be appropriate in another. But to tackle the disease, everyone must first understand that HIV is the enemy. Research, not myths, will lead to the development of more effective and cheaper treatments.

It did them no good. Until 2003 the South African government refused, as a matter of principle, to roll out proper antiretroviral medication programmes, and even then the process was half-hearted. This madness was only overturned after a massive campaign by grassroots organisations such as the Treatment Action Campaign, but even after the ANC cabinet voted to allow medication to be given, there was still resistance. In mid-2005, at least 85 per cent of HIV-positive people who needed anti-retroviral drugs were still refused them. That’s around a million people.

This resistance, of course, went deeper than just one man; much of it came from Mbeki’s Health Minister, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang. An ardent critic of medical drugs for HIV, she would cheerfully go on television to talk up their dangers, talk down their benefits, and became irritable and evasive when asked how many patients were receiving effective treatment. She declared in 2005 that she would not be “pressured” into meeting the target of three million patients on anti-retroviral medication, that people had ignored the importance of nutrition, and that she would continue to warn patients of the sideeffects of anti-retrovirals, saying: “We have been vindicated inthis regard. We are what we eat.”

It’s an eerily familiar catchphrase. Tshabalala-Msimang has also gone on record to praise the work of Matthias Rath, and refused to investigate his activities. Most joyfully of all, she is a staunch advocate of the kind of weekend glossy-magazine-style nutritionism that will by now be very familiar to you. The remedies she advocates for AIDS are beetroot, garlic, lemons and African potatoes. A fairly typical quote, from the Health Minister in a country where eight hundred people die every day from AIDS, is this: “Raw garlic and a skin of the lemon–not only do they give you a beautiful face and skin but they also protect you from disease.” South Africa’s stand at the 2006 World AIDS Conference in Toronto was described by delegates as the “salad stall”. It consisted of some garlic, some beetroot, the African potato, and assorted other vegetables. Some boxes of anti-retroviral drugs were added later, but they were reportedly borrowed at the last minute from other conference delegates.

Alternative therapists like to suggest that their treatments and ideas have not been sufficiently researched. As you now know, this is often untrue, and in the case of the Health Minister’s favoured vegetables, research had indeed been done, with results that were far from promising. Interviewed on SABC about this, Tshabalala-Msimang gave the kind of responses you’d expect to hear at any North London dinner-party discussion of alternative therapies.

First she was asked about work from the University of Stellenbosch which suggested that her chosen plant, the African potato, might be actively dangerous for people on AIDS drugs. One study on African potato in HIV had to be terminated prematurely, because the patients who received the plant extract developed severe bone-marrow suppression and a drop in their CD4 cell count–which is a bad thing–after eight weeks. On top of this, when extract from the same vegetable was given to cats with Feline Immunodeficiency Virus, they succumbed to full-blown Feline AIDS faster than their non-treated controls. African potato does not look like a good bet.

Tshabalala-Msimang disagreed: the researchers should go back to the drawing board, and “investigate properly”. Why? Because HIV-positive people who used African potato had shown improvement, and they had said so themselves. If a person says he or she is feeling better, should this be disputed, she demanded to know, merely because it had not been proved scientifically? “When a person says she or he is feeling better, I must say ‘No, I don’t think you are feeling better’? I must rather go and do science on you’?” Asked whether there should be a scientific basis to her views, she replied: “Whose science?”

And there, perhaps, is a clue, if not exoneration. This is a continent that has been brutally exploited by the developed world, first by empire, and then by globalised capital. Conspiracy theories about AIDS and Western medicine are not entirely absurd in this context. The pharmaceutical industry has indeed been caught performing drug trials in Africa which would be impossible anywhere in the developed world. Many find it suspicious that black Africans seem to be the biggest victims of AIDS, and point to the biological warfare programmes set up by the apartheid governments; there have also been suspicions that the scientific discourse of HIV/AIDS might be a device, a Trojan horse for spreading even more exploitative Western political and economic agendas around a problem that is simply one of poverty.

And these are new countries, for which independence and self-rule are recent developments, which are struggling to find their commercial feet and true cultural identity after centuries of colonisation. Traditional medicine represents an important link with an autonomous past; besides which, anti-retroviral medications have been unnecessarily – offensively, absurdly – expensive, and until moves to challenge this became partially successful, many Africans were effectively denied access to medical treatment as a result.

It’s very easy for us to feel smug, and to forget that we all have our own strange cultural idiosyncrasies which prevent us from taking up sensible public-health programmes. For examples, we don’t even have to look as far as MMR. There is a good evidence base, for example, to show that needle-exchange programmes reduce the spread of HIV, but this strategy has been rejected time and again in favour of “Just say no.” Development charities funded by US Christian groups refuse to engage with birth control, and any suggestion of abortion, even in countries where being in control of your own fertility could mean the difference between success and failure in life, is met with a cold, pious stare. These impractical moral principles are so deeply entrenched that Pepfar, the US Presidential Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, has insisted that every recipient of international aid money must sign a declaration expressly promising not to have any involvement with sex workers.

We mustn’t appear insensitive to the Christian value system, but it seems to me that engaging sex workers is almost the cornerstone of any effective AIDS policy: commercial sex is frequently the “vector of transmission”, and sex workers a very high-risk population; but there are also more subtle issues at stake. If you secure the legal rights of prostitutes to be free from violence and discrimination, you empower them to demand universal condom use, and that way you can prevent HIV from being spread into the whole community. This is where science meets culture. But perhaps even to your own friends and neighbours, in whatever suburban idyll has become your home, the moral principle of abstinence from sex and drugs is more important than people dying of AIDS; and perhaps, then, they are no less irrational than Thabo Mbeki.

So this was the situation into which the vitamin-pill entrepreneur Matthias Rath inserted himself, prominently and expensively, with the wealth he had amassed from Europe and America, exploiting anti-colonial anxieties with no sense of irony, although he was a white man offering pills made in a factory abroad. His adverts and clinics were a tremendous success. He began to tout individual patients as evidence of the benefits that could come from vitamin pills – although in reality some of his most famous success stories have died of AIDS. When asked about the deaths of Rath’s star patients, Health Minister Tshabalala-Msimang replied: “It doesn’t necessarily mean that if I am taking antibiotics and I die, that I died of antibiotics.”

She is not alone: South Africa’s politicians have consistently refused to step in, Rath claims the support of the government, and its most senior figures have refused to distance themselves from his operations or to criticise his activities. Tshabalala-Msimang has gone on the record to state that the Rath Foundation “are not undermining the government’s position. If anything, they are supporting it.”

In 2005, exasperated by government inaction, a group of 199 leading medical practitioners in South Africa signed an open letter to the health authorities of the Western Cape, pleading for action on the Rath Foundation. “Our patients are being inundated with propaganda encouraging them to stop life-saving medicine,” it said. “Many of us have had experiences with HIV infected patients who have had their health compromised by stopping their anti-retrovirals due to the activities of this Foundation.” Rath’s adverts continue unabated. He even claimed that his activities were endorsed by huge lists of sponsors and affiliates including the World Health Organization, UNICEF and UNAIDS. All have issued statements flatly denouncing his claims and activities. The man certainly has chutzpah.

His adverts are also rich with detailed scientific claims. It would be wrong of us to neglect the science in this story, so we should follow some through, specifically those which focused on a Harvard study in Tanzania. He described this research in full-page advertisements, some of which have appeared in the New York Times and the Herald Tribune. He refers to these paid adverts, I should mention, as if he had received flattering news coverage in the same papers. Anyway, this research showed that multivitamin supplements can be beneficial in a developing world population with AIDS: there’s no problem with that result, and there are plenty of reasons to think that vitamins might have some benefit for a sick and frequently malnourished population.

The researchers enrolled 1,078 HIV-positive pregnant women and randomly assigned them to have either a vitamin supplement or placebo. Notice once again, if you will, that this is another large, well-conducted, publicly funded trial of vitamins, conducted by mainstream scientists, contrary to the claims of nutritionists that such studies do not exist. The women were followed up for several years, and at the end of the study, 25 per cent of those on vitamins were severely ill or dead, compared with 31 per cent of those on placebo. There was also a statistically significant benefit in CD4 cell count (a measure of HIV activity) and viral loads. These results were in no sense dramatic – and they cannot be compared to the demonstrable life-saving benefits of anti-retrovirals – but they did show that improved diet, or cheap generic vitamin pills, could represent a simple and relatively inexpensive way to marginally delay the need to start HIV medication in some patients.

In the hands of Rath, this study became evidence that vitamin pills are superior to medication in the treatment of HIV/AIDS, that anti-retroviral therapies “severely damage all cells in the body–including white blood cells”, and worse, that they were “thereby not improving but rather worsening immune deficiencies and expanding the AIDS epidemic”. The researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health were so horrified that they put together a press release setting out their support for medication, and stating starkly, with unambiguous clarity, that Matthias Rath had misrepresented their findings.

To outsiders the story is baffling and terrifying. The United Nations has condemned Rath’s adverts as “wrong and misleading”. “This guy is killing people by luring them with unrecognised treatment without any scientific evidence,” said Eric Goemaere, head of Médecins sans Frontières SA, a man who pioneered anti-retroviral therapy in South Africa. Rath sued him.

It’s not just MSF who Rath has gone after: he has also brought time-consuming, expensive, stalled or failed cases against a professor of AIDS research, critics in the media and others.

But his most heinous campaign has been against the Treatment Action Campaign. For many years this has been the key organisation campaigning for access to anti-retroviral medication in South Africa, and it has been fighting a war on four fronts. Firstly, TAC campaigns against its own government, trying to compel it to roll out treatment programmes for the population. Secondly, it fights against the pharmaceutical industry, which claims that it needs to charge full price for its products in developing countries in order to pay for research and development of new drugs – although, as we shall see, out of its $550 billion global annual revenue, the pharmaceutical industry spends twice as much on promotion and admin as it does on research and development. Thirdly, it is a grassroots organisation, made up largely of black women from townships who do important prevention and treatment-literacy work on the ground, ensuring that people know what is available, and how to protect themselves. Lastly, it fights against people who promote the type of information peddled by Matthias Rath and his ilk.

Rath has taken it upon himself to launch a massive campaign against this group. He distributes advertising material against them, saying “Treatment Action Campaign medicines are killing you” and “Stop AIDS genocide by the drug cartel”, claiming–as you will guess by now–that there is an international conspiracy by pharmaceutical companies intent on prolonging the AIDS crisis in the interests of their own profits by giving medication that makes people worse. TAC must be a part of this, goes the reasoning, because it criticises Matthias Rath. Just like me writing on Patrick Holford or Gillian McKeith, TAC is perfectly in favour of good diet and nutrition. But in Rath’s promotional literature it is a front for the pharmaceutical industry, a “Trojan horse” and a “running dog”. TAC has made a full disclosure of its funding and activities, showing no such connection: Rath presented no evidence to the contrary, and has even lost a court case over the issue, but will not let it lie. In fact he presents the loss of this court case as if it was a victory.

The founder of TAC is a man called Zackie Achmat, and he is the closest thing I have to a hero. He is South African, and coloured, by the nomenclature of the apartheid system in which he grew up. At the age of fourteen he tried to burn down his school, and you might have done the same in similar circumstances. He has been arrested and imprisoned under South Africa’s violent, brutal white regime, with all that entailed. He is also gay, and HIV-positive, and he refused to take anti-retroviral medication until it was widely available to all on the public health system, even when he was dying of AIDS, even when he was personally implored to save himself by Nelson Mandela, a public supporter of anti-retroviral medication and Achmat’s work.

And now, at last, we come to the lowest point of this whole story, not merely for Matthias Rath’s movement, but for the alternative therapy movement around the world as a whole. In 2007, with a huge public flourish, to great media coverage, Rath’s former employee Anthony Brink filed a formal complaint against Zackie Achmat, the head of the TAC. Bizarrely, he filed this complaint with the International CriminalCourt at The Hague, accusing Achmat of genocide for successfully campaigning to get access to HIV drugs for the people of South Africa.

It’s hard to explain just how influential the “AIDS dissidents” are in South Africa. Brink is a barrister, a man with important friends, and his accusations were reported in the national news media –and in some corners of the Western gay press–as a serious news story. I do not believe that any one of those journalists who reported on it can possibly have read Brink’s indictment to the end.

I have.

The first fifty-seven pages present familiar anti-medication and “AIDS-dissident” material. But then, on page fifty-eight, this “indictment” document suddenly deteriorates into something altogether more vicious and unhinged, as Brink sets out what he believes would be an appropriate punishment for Zackie. Because I do not wish to be accused of selective editing, I will now reproduce for you that entire section, unedited, so you can see and feel it for yourself.

The document was described by the Rath Foundation as “entirely valid and long overdue”.

This story isn’t about Matthias Rath, or Anthony Brink, or Zackie Achmat, or even South Africa. It is about the culture of how ideas work, and how that can break down. Doctors criticise other doctors, academics criticise academics, politicians criticise politicians: that’s normal and healthy, it’s how ideas improve. Matthias Rath is an alternative therapist, made in Europe. He is every bit the same as the British operators that we have seen in this book. He is from their world.

Despite the extremes of this case, not one single alternative therapist or nutritionist, anywhere in the world, has stood up to criticise any single aspect of the activities of Matthias Rath and his colleagues. In fact, far from it: he continues to be fêted to this day. I have sat in true astonishment and watched leading figures of the UK’s alternative therapy movement applaud Matthias Rath at a public lecture (I have it on video, just in case there’s any doubt). Natural health organisations continue to defend Rath. Homeopaths’ mailouts continue to promote his work. The British Association of Nutritional Therapists has been invited to comment by bloggers, but declined. Most, when challenged, will dissemble.”Oh,” they say, “I don’t really know much about it.” Not one person will step forward and dissent.

The alternative therapy movement as a whole has demonstrated itself to be so dangerously, systemically incapable of critical self-appraisal that it cannot step up even in a case like that of Rath: in that count I include tens of thousands of practitioners, writers, administrators and more. This is how ideas go badly wrong. In the conclusion to this book, written before I was able to include this chapter, I will argue that the biggest dangers posed by the material we have covered are cultural and intellectual.

I may be mistaken.

Please distribute:

This work is licenced under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivative Works License described here, you are free to copy it wherever you like as long as you keep it whole, and do please point people back here to badscience.net so that if they like it, they know where to find more for free.

Pure Reason Revolution - Bodega Social Club, Nottingham - 13/03/09

2009-03-31T01:55:00.003+01:00

As a consequence of the following review, I'm now part of a pool of music reviewers for a local regional newspaper. This was sent to them 'on spec', and wasn't intended for publication, hence I can post it up here. I'm waiting to discover whether I'm allowed to post the published reviews I've done up here.

A quick note on style. Reviews are 250 words, submitted after the gig itself (i.e. about 1 am once you've driven home), and this trial review was done as if under normal conditions. I would say that tonally they're a bit dry; we're certainly not supposed to be doing heavily-subjective, gonzo journalism. I will also freely confess I could have done with twice as many words, but it's not bad. The first one I did for real was pretty terrible; stilted and laboured, but the last one I did was much better (even if I do say so myself).

-----------------------------------------

Pure Reason Revolution, touring to support their newly-released second album, Amor Vincit Omnia, have certainly brought the punters out tonight. There's a palpable sense of anticipation building as roadies ready the stage. PRR release that tension with opening number Les Malheurs, a throbbing slab of darkly-groovy electro rock. Chloe Alper and Jon Courtney weave effective close harmonies through the guitar-free tune, setting the agenda for the show.

The first four tracks are all from the new album and showcase the band's new direction. Heavy electronica is the foundation, although that's not to say guitars are absent. The band still pulls off densely-layered and syncopated riffs that tip the hat to the Smashing Pumpkins and Muse, but spend as much time bent over keyboards, triggering samplers and jiggling oscillators to great effect.

Bassist/keyboardist Alper, standing stage centre in a Sonic Youth shirt, is the obvious focal point for the band but interplay with the crowd is minimal. The punters don't seem to mind as the band launch into The Bright Ambassadors of Morning, an epic that fuses Pink Floyd-esque soundscapes with contemporary dub and the band's trademark three part vocals, pitched somewhere between the Beach Boys and Rumours-era Fleetwood Mac. Animated projections play in the background as the band builds the song through multiple sections, the crowd singing the titular refrain with gusto. The euphoric AVO closes the main set, but the crowd aren’t ready to go yet.

The encore starts with Voices in Winter, a song that builds from a whisper to a roar while the Intention Craft sees more tight riffing and triumphant vocals to bring the evening to a satisfying conclusion. More please, and soon!

There's no real evidence to support the theory of evolution

2009-03-30T19:47:00.008+01:00

Recently, an anti-evolution letter appeared in the Grantham Journal, my local paper. Here it is:

There's no real evidence to support the theory of evolution

Published Date: 27 March 2009

WITH the 200-year anniversary of Charles Darwin's death, plus 150 years since the publication of his famous book The Origin of Species, we have been bombarded in the media with his theory of evolution.
The fact remains however, that no real evidence has yet been unearthed to substantiate his theory.
The monkey/human missing links have proved to be well - missing, they are either ape or human or indeed fabrications.

These include the Java man, Piltdown man, Lucy and even now Neandertal man.

In the animal species there is evolution but within their kind but no evidence yet exists of evolution between the species.

Let's leave the final statement to Darwin himself.

"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed must have been enormous. Why then is not every geological formation full of such intermediate links?
"Geology does not reveal any such finely graduated chain, and this, perhaps, is the most serious objection which can be urged against my theory" - Charles Darwin.

EDDIE BARRADINE
West Willoughby

Sigh... It's so egregiously wrong in pretty much every claim it makes, that it's almost as amusing as it is depressing.

To go through the claims one by one:

WITH the 200-year anniversary of Charles Darwin's death, plus 150 years since the publication of his famous book The Origin of Species, we have been bombarded in the media with his theory of evolution.

Wrong! It's the 200-year anniversary of Darwin's birth, not death. This sets the bar for the accuracy of what's to follow.

The fact remains however, that no real evidence has yet been unearthed to substantiate his theory.

Wrong! In fact, the theory of evolution is one of the best supported scientific theories we have. Rather than detail all of it at length, Mr Barradine might like to check out Jerry Coyne’s new book, Why Evolution is True

The monkey/human missing links have proved to be well - missing, they are either ape or human or indeed fabrications. These include the Java man, Piltdown man, Lucy and even now Neandertal man.

We need to go through these one at a time:

Java Man
Java Man is the popular name for the partial remains of one of the first known specimens of the species now known as Homo erectus, found in 1891 at Trinil, East Java by Eugène Dubois. Dubois called his discovery Pithecanthropus erectus, meaning ‘upright ape-man’.

At the time of their discovery, the remains were the oldest hominid remains that had been found and many contemporary scientists suggested Pithecanthropus erectus was the direct shared ancestor of modern humans and the other great apes. The current view is that the direct ancestors of modern humans were African populations of Homo erectus, not the Asian populations, of which Java Man is one.

Some creationists, notably Duane Gish's Institute for Creation Research and Ken Ham’s Answers In Genesis have attempted to imply that Dubois denounced his find later in life, claiming it was merely a large gibbon. The pro-evolution site Talk Origins comprehensively demolished the claims here and indeed the previously-cited Answers in Genesis article does appear to accept that Dubois did still think his find was a missing link.

Piltdown Man
Piltdown Man was discovered in 1912, by Charles Dawson and Arthur Smith Woodward. They had found a mandible and parts of a skull from a gravel pit near Piltdown, England. The mandible bore signs of wear as one would expect from a human, but in structure, it was ape-like. The skull was like a modern human's, and together, these suggested to Dawson and Woodward a transitional fossil, halfway between man and the apes, one they believed was 500,000 years old.

Sadly, they were a bit too keen to believe they'd discovered the 'missing link'; Piltdown Man was a fraud. It was never universally accepted anyway, but it took until the 1950s, before it was firmly established that Piltdown Man was a fake. The fossil didn't gybe with the evidence from other hominid finds and the reason turned out to be that the jaw was from an orangutan, filed down to give the human-like wear with chimpanzee fossil teeth and fragments of a modern Homo sapien skull and then all stained to age them.

The prime suspect in the fraud is now considered to be Dawson himself, the man who originally found Piltdown Man. The problem with Piltdown Man is that it suggested that large brain size occurred before jaws adapted to a more human-like diet, and considerably resources were wasted as a consequence, including the ignoring of Australopithecineremains in 1920s South Africa, fossils which may well be a genuine ancestor of the Homo genus and in any case, is certainly transitional between hominids and apes.

Lucy
Lucy, more scientifically known as Australopithicus afarensis, is an East African hominid from between 3.9 and 2.9 million years ago, and ancestral to both the genus Australopithecus and the Homo genus (which includes modern man). Creationists make some claims that Lucy’s knee, which is somewhat germane to whether she could have been bipedal or not (there is debate about whether Lucy would have been exclusively bipedal or arboreal, since her skeleton shows features associated with both modes), was found too far from the rest of her skeleton to be sure it is part. Lucy’s skeleton does not have any intact knees, however. The knee in question belongs to a different individual of the same species, and in any case, subsequent discovery of additional specimens rather torpedoes this supposed difficulty and additionally, the pelvis alone contained enough evidence to support at least bipedalism.

Neandertal man
For a start, it’s most commonly written “Neanderthal man”, but it’s possible the newspaper introduced this less common spelling. I have to presume that Mr Barradine believes the notion that Neanderthals were merely modern humans with rickets, but this is so comprehensively destroyed as an argument, that I want to be charitable and think it must be something else. Sadly, I am not aware of any other claims. Rickets, as an ailment, leaves very distinctive marks on the body, most notably a frailty of bones. Neanderthal’s bones are about 50% thicker than our own, which sort of pisses on that notion. And then flicks it the Vees for good measure. And then kicks it in the love spuds for good measure and spits on the crumpled remains.

Moreover, Neanderthals were contemporaneous with modern humans, so couldn’t possibly be missing links. DNA analysis shows quite categorically that Homo neanderthalensis is distinct from Homo sapiens.

In the animal species there is evolution but within their kind but no evidence yet exists of evolution between the species.

Ah – smoking gun! Here we have proof of the religious motivation behind Mr Barradine’s claims. ‘Within their kind’ is exclusively used by those who believe in Biblical literalism. It derives from Genesis 1:11-24, in which God makes the plants, fish, birds and animals “according to their kinds”. It crops up again in the story of Noah, Gen:6:19-20 (“19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.”).

The notion is that there are broad groups of similar animals that are ‘kinds’, so, for example, horses, donkeys and zebras can be considered a “kind”. Creationists refuse to be drawn on an exact definition of what “kind” actually means, but they nevertheless insist that evolution can take place within ‘kinds’, but that one would never see evolution between the species. Some, for example, the noted evolutionary dunce and evangelical preacher Ray Comfort will cite the fact that we’ve never seen a ‘croco-duck’ as proof that this is true, despite the fact that all evolutionary scientists would also be astonished if such a thing happened, since it is completely contradictory to the theory of evolution. They can be safely ignored because if you’re that stupid, you’re unlikely to be dangerous to anyone other than yourself. Those a little less embarrassingly ignorant will still fail to explain how they believe that ‘micro-evolution can take place within kind’ yet they can reject the notion that with enough micro-evolution and a long time you’d see the emergence of new species.

Let's leave the final statement to Darwin himself.

"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed must have been enormous. Why then is not every geological formation full of such intermediate links?
"Geology does not reveal any such finely graduated chain, and this, perhaps, is the most serious objection which can be urged against my theory" - Charles Darwin.

The quote derives from the end of the very first paragraph of Chapter Nine of ‘On the Origin of Species’, as so:

“In the sixth chapter I enumerated the chief objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume. Most of them have now been discussed. One, namely the distinctness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty. I assigned reasons why such links do not commonly occur at the present day, under the circumstances apparently most favourable for their presence, namely on an extensive and continuous area with graduated physical conditions. I endeavoured to show, that the life of each species depends in a more important manner on the presence of other already defined organic forms, than on climate; and, therefore, that the really governing conditions of life do not graduate away quite insensibly like heat or moisture. I endeavoured, also, to show that intermediate varieties, from existing in lesser numbers than the forms which they connect, will generally be beaten out and exterminated during the course of further modification and improvement. The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.”

Firstly, we should note the reconstruction of the quote that has gone on. Some of it, we can charitably choose to believe is simply excised in the interests of space. However, it is difficult to excuse the restructuring that gives the impression that the quote stands alone. Moving the highlighted ‘must’ and the excision of the comma in the first sentence substantially changes the meaning. Worse still is the failure to report the last sentence. The quote is clearly intended to give the impression that even as he formulated it, Darwin knew of damning inadequacies in his theory, whereas in context, it is abundantly clear that he is anticipating a criticism and is clearly about to expand upon why that criticism is actually incorrect.

Of course, this further ignores the fact that the theory of evolution is not the same theory Darwin came up with. The neo-Darwinian evolution, or better still, the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a hybrid of what Darwin got right – and he got a lot right – and the introduction of genetics, which was unknown in Darwin’s time. This is because creationists love to poison the well, and therefore over-emphasize the dependence of the theory on its creator. A favorite tactic is to make claims about Darwin’s racism. That these claims are pretty baseless – Darwin certainly holds some pretty unpalatable views on race by modern standards, but by his own age was an enlightened progressive who had a life-long ethical antipathy to the then commonplace practice of slavery – but ignores the fact that Darwin could have fucked and murdered babies and it still wouldn’t affect whether his description of a natural phenomena was right or wrong; it would just make him a cunt who had also described a natural phenomena.

Here is the letter I sent to the editor:

Dear Sir,

Eddie Barradine's letter, "There's no real evidence to support the theory of evolution" (27th March 2009), contains so many falsehoods I could hardly correct them all in the space I could reasonably expect to be given in your paper.

To limit myself to just addressing two of the most appalling errors, while there have indeed been faked 'missing links', they do not disprove the evolution of man and ape from a common ancestor.

No one credible believes Neanderthal man is either a missing link (they were contemporaneous with Homo sapiens, so couldn't possibly be) or fake. The Darwin quote is actually incorrectly reported and consists of a hypothetical objection to his theory anticipated by Darwin himself in On the Origin of Species, to which he then responds.

Suffice it to say that Mr Barradine is entirely wrong to suggest there is no real evidence to support evolution. In fact, there is overwhelming evidence to support the theory and I'd be delighted if Mr Barradine were to contact me and allow me the opportunity to share it with him.

Yours etc.

"Who Watches The Night Garden"

2009-03-05T22:55:00.003Z

It's a Shame About Ray Comfort

2009-03-02T20:56:00.008Z

I wrote a review of a book by an evangelical preacher on Amazon. Some bloke called Shawn implied I wasn't in a position to judge it.

I wrote a reply. It's long and quite wanky. I hope it makes a point.

----------------------------------------------

Shawn,

You've asked me whether I've read Ray's book or just skimmed it. I have not read Ray's book, nor have I skimmed it. I have read the excerpt provided on this website, and I am one of the many atheists whom Ray has misquoted and lied to on his blog 'Atheist-Central'. Ray's dealings with atheists have been characterised by extreme dishonesty. For a man that claims to be guided by an objective morality from his deity, Ray is sadly lacking in basic decency or intellectual rigour. Dealing with Ray is an exercise in frustration because he will not accept that there is anything wrong with inventing positions on issues and then insisting that these inventions are true despite being told unequivocally why they are wrong.

I would like to ask you to indulge me and follow me through the first seven paragraphs of Ray's book, as transcribed from the excerpt provided on Amazon. At every juncture on this journey, I implore you to check what I am saying. If I cite a source, please check it out. If I make an argument, please scrutinise it as closely as you can. Shake it and see if bits fall off.

I intend to show you why I do not need to read more than a few paragraphs of Ray's book to know it is terrible.

Halfway down the first page of Chapter One of 'You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think', immediately after the chapter heading 'Creation must have a Creator', Ray Comfort quotes Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time as follows:

"It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us”

Stephen Hawking

This quote is not actually right. It hasn't been altered much, but it has been altered enough to hide the fact that this quote does not stand on its own two feet. The actual quote is as follows:

"It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in *just* this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us."

Page 127, Chapter 8, The Origin and Fate of the Universe, A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking

The removal of the word 'just' subtly alters the meaning and gives the impression that Hawking's quote stands alone. In context, this quote is part of an argument in which Hawking examines the nature and origin of the universe. One of the questions he considers is issues about the standard model of the Big Bang and how there is a definite starting point to the universe, shortly after the expansion of the singularity that comprised all of the matter in the universe. He discusses various observed phenomena such as the fact that the microwave radiation we can detect is universally the same temperature, and how the rate of the expansion would have to be 'just so' in order that the universe expanded enough but no less and no more. He then says,

"This [the factors just mentioned] means that the initial state of the universe must have been very carefully chosen indeed if the hot big bang model [the standard model as mentioned above] was correct right back to the beginning of time."

He then gives the comment that Ray quotes.

So, in fact, taking the whole paragraph into account, it appears that Hawking is advocating that the universe is so finely balanced that it can only have been as an act of a God, and that my initial observation that Ray's removal of the word 'just' is extremely pedantic and irrelevant.

But hold on! Considered in its wider context, the chapter as a whole considers a more radical notion, that the universe has no boundary. It is this notion that Hawking supports. Why does this matter..?

"The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started - it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator? "

End of chapter 8, The Origin and Fate of the Universe

At this point, I would like to observe that it has taken me about eight hundred words to demonstrate how Ray Comfort has headed his chapter with a 30 word quote that, stripped of its context, appears to be saying something entirely different to what it actually is saying. This is classic Comfort. You can look on his blog and find many other examples of him doing the same thing with quotes from other people. This practice is so common among certain types of creationists that it even has a name; 'quote mining'. Ray is a master.

Let's move on to Ray's first chapter proper. Let's break that first paragraph down.

"Atheists' beliefs vary as much as atheists themselves."

That's actually true; beyond the lack of belief in the existence of deities, there is no reason we should all think the same.

"Still, atheists hold a fundamental belief that unifies them. An "atheist" believes that there is no God and that man came into being without any intelligent design."

Note the use of the words 'belief' and 'believes' there. In fact, later on in his book, Ray will state, as he has in previous books, that there is no such thing as an atheist and that atheists all *know* there's a god, but pretend there isn't so they can be morally lax.

It's not entirely true to say that all atheists believe that man came into being without any intelligent design. A minority support the idea that life on Earth was seeded from elsewhere in the universe, a notion called Panspermia. Panspermia includes the possible position that an alien intelligence could have used their technology to plant the necessary ingredients for life on another planet. Most atheists wouldn't support this idea, but there is a faint probability that it could be true.

You may be aware that Ray claims Richard Dawkins holds this view. He doesn't - he was asked in the anti-evolution film Expelled whether there were any way in which intelligent design could be possible and he explained about Panspermia as a possibility, albeit an unlikely one, not as something he considers to have any great merit.

"If there was no designer, then an atheist owes his existence to random chance, over millions or billions of years, of course."

It would be a fair comment, except for the fact that no one with a GCSE or better level of understanding of evolution thinks it's random.

"While some believers in evolution deny that evolution is a random process, if it's not unplanned, it's planned."

On his blog, Ray has repeatedly been told by atheists that evolution by natural selection is not random. I don't know how much you know about natural selection, so I'll try and give you a thumbnail explanation so this point becomes clear.

A member of a population of creatures experienced a mutation (or series of mutations) that benefited the members of the species by helping them to live long enough to pass on their genes to children. Those children, also with the adaptation, were better at surviving to an age where they could reproduce too and thus gradually, the gene that makes an individual better at surviving to become parents becomes the norm in the population.

Maybe it gave some of them longer legs and this made them able to run from predators more quickly and thus more of them survived. Maybe it allowed them to include a wider variety of food in their diets, so they survived. Maybe it gave them a better sense of smell, so they could seek out food more efficiently or maybe it gave them longer hair so they were better protected against the weather, but in some small way, it made them more fit to survive in their environment to the point where the individuals that survived to pass on their genes all shared this advantageous gene.

This is why we say natural selection is not random. Yes, the mutation that gave advantage arose randomly, but it is the fact that ONLY advantageous genes that are passed on which proves that natural selection is not random. For Natural selection to be random, it would have to allow all mutations to prosper, regardless of whether they were beneficial.

"And if it's is planned, then there is Someone doing the planning."

Snowflakes have a predictable shape, yet no one suggests that there is some sort of intelligence planning them. A cannon ball dropped off a tower will accelerate towards the ground at a constant and repeatable rate, yet this is not planned. The beta decay of unstable atoms to stable atoms is entirely predictable, yet this is not planned either.

'Planned' is not the opposite of 'random'. Astonishingly, 'non-random' is the opposite of 'random'. Just because something isn't random, it does not necessarily follow that it must be planned. Ray's contention that non-random is the same as planned is wrong, so his implication that a supernatural entity deserving of a capital letter is involved is also false.

"Let's be a fly on the wall as man evolves as an unplanned being. We will give him a generic name, just to make it easier for us to refer to him. Let's call him "Adam"."

Ray's ploy is entirely obvious here, but it masks something else. When we think of the Biblical Adam, we're thinking of a modern human being. Ray's analogy will continue to present the notion that human beings arrived in situ as a complete being. It should be obvious to you why this is complete nonsense. As Ray's extended metaphor continues, you'll notice that he just repeats the same point again and again in a slightly different guise. His aim is to make us think that the range of factors that have to be `just so' is so great, that there is some weight to his claim.

"As a fly on the wall, we are there when Adam takes his first breath. It is fortunate that, when his lungs drew in the air that surrounded him, the air was there. If there had been no air, he wouldn't have been able to breathe and he would have instantly died. But for some reason it was here, presumably at 14.7 pounds per square inch."

So, here's the first claim. That it is somehow evidence that human beings can breathe the air that they must have been created by a god (or God, if you prefer). But human beings did not arise in situ; Ray's analogy is more akin to a spaceman arriving on an alien planet picked at random by his computer, opening his faceplate and attempting to breathe without having run any tests on the atmosphere first. If he succeeded, then yes, that really would be quite astonishing. That a creature that evolved via non-random natural selection could breathe is about as surprising as discovering the word `zoo' contained the letter `z'.

The truth is, there's no such thing as the first human. We will never ever get an individual ape that gives birth to an individual human, or even an ape that gives birth to an individual semi-human. We would see an individual ape give birth to an ape that was virtually identical to its mother but with a teeny tiny genetic difference from her. They're both still the same species and will always be the same species.

Think about a rainbow. We can all say that the colours in a rainbow are Red, Orange, Green, Blue, Indigo, Violet. We could clearly point to a picture of a rainbow and point out where each colour was on the rainbow.

However, at what point does the Red become Orange..? Sure, you can point at Red and you can point at Orange, but at what point is the rainbow Red and then the next point Orange?

That's impossible to answer except by making an arbitrary declaration; "*There* on the rainbow is Red, but a micrometer further down the bow, it's Orange." Yet, you probably couldn't put those two colours next to each other and tell them apart, could you? You would require a pretty sophisticated and sensitive chromoscope to tell the difference.

That's exactly how it is with the mother and child, and in the same way you can start with one species and with lots of tiny changes over a long period of time you can get the equivalent of easily identifiably different species, much like the Red and Orange in our rainbow.

The point being, of course human beings were adapted to be able to breathe; their ancestors were.

"But it's more miraculous than the air just being there. It was fortunate the air was made up of 78.09 percent nitrogen and 20.95 percent oxygen - the exact mixture that his lungs and blood needed to survive. Without that oxygen Adam would have gasped, and his first breath would have been his last."

There is no miracle. If air had a different composition, life (assuming it were possible at all) would have evolved to metabolise that instead. Moreover, it's wrong to suggest that we rely on this exact proportion of air. What does Ray imagine is in a medical oxygen cylinder other than oxygen, yet that's what they give to sick people?

"What a miracle of chance that oxygen existed in just the right percentage to maintain Adam's life, and the life of his wife, whom we will give the generic name "Eve." She needed to be around to procreate the Adamic race. It's another amazing miracle that she evolved (with lungs) by chance over millions of years to maturity, at the same time as Adam."

This is just ridiculous. A child of ten could tell you why this is preposterous! Why would anyone assume that males and females evolved separately? It's totally inane and it's difficult to believe that Ray genuinely doesn't understand that the male and the female are the same species, yet despite repeatedly having been told that this is the case, he continues to write this nonsense on his blog (do check this claim out, please) and, it seems, in his book.

"It was also an amazing coincidence that gravity existed at the time of their evolution. Without it, the first man and his first mate would have spun off into the infinitude of space. But for some reason, it evolved and matured at just the right time to keep their feet firmly planted on the earth, which also evolved."

This is just rubbish. Gravity didn't `evolve' or `mature' and it existed long before there was any life on Earth, let alone human life. What Ray is doing here is implying that there is a purpose in gravity existing. But there isn't. It doesn't exist in order to facilitate something else. It exists and it unquestionably affects the development of life, but it doesn't do so for a purpose. Life has arisen in an environment where gravity means that it has weight, and this has consequences in terms of development. The point being, life has evolved to take account of the fact that gravity pulls everything in a particular direction.

"Another fantastic happenstance: the fact that Adam and his companion not only evolved a thirst or liquid that they had never tasted, but the needed life-giving water also evolved for them at he right time. Without its quenching ability, they would have dried out and died out."

Are we to believe that water exists for the benefit of human beings? Are we seriously supposed to perceive some coherent point here? Again, there's this notion of purpose. Water has chemical properties that make life more probable than somewhere without water, but that's not purpose. There's millions of planets with water but no life that we know of.

"Another incredible twist of Providence was that light existed. Somehow the sun evolved and set itself 93 million miles away from the Planet Earth."

It's probably worth pointing out that Ray has a history of exploiting ambiguity. For example, here he implies that the Sun has evolved. Well, yes, in the sense that it has changed over time, but Ray is clearly trying to get the reader to think the Sun's evolution is somehow in doubt and also somehow related to evolution by natural selection. The formation of the Sun and other stars is incredibly well understood, and it doesn't involve evolution of the natural selection variety. It does involve gravity, however.

"Without light, Adam and Eve wouldn't have been able to see each other, to come together for procreation, so that they could bring forth offspring after their own kind. But the light wasn't just for them to see each other."

The light wasn't there *so* Adam and Eve could see each other. It was there because vast numbers of photons are produced because of the Sun's nuclear fusion. Over eons of time, through very well understood processes, organisms developed organs that allowed them to process these photons to their advantage. Again, he assumes a purpose where there is none.

"Without it, they would have starved to death, because the food that had evolved could not have existed without photosynthesis. A process which itself evolved over the years."

I think we should re-iterate that light is a by-product of the nuclear fusion going on in the Sun, and without the Sun pumping energy into the Earth, there would be no life at all. Not just Adam and Eve, but any life, so there could never be any possible scenario in which Adam and Eve popped into existence full formed only to immediately asphyxiate, die of starvation or any of the other scenarios Ray has postulated. They're all equally stupid and not based on reality. His analogy is false, and exists only in his own mind. It is not a position held by any atheist I'm aware of and he has repeatedly been told this.

"Bear in mind that an atheist believes all these miraculous coincidence took place by chance."

Repeating something doesn't make it true, Ray.

"But he doesn't just believe that man and woman came into being without a Creator, but that all of creation did - amazing flowers, massive trees, succulent fruits, beautiful birds, the animal kingdom, the sea, fish, natural laws, etc."

No, we don't. I like the way that Ray mentions all those lovely things. Sir David Attenborough made an extremely good observation about this kind of thing recently; "They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds. I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator.".

"His faith is much greater than mine. I could never for a moment believe that all these things happened by chance. Never in a million years."

Ray has repeatedly shown he is far too lazy and intellectually dishonest to understand evolution, so I agree with this point.

"But the believing atheist does, and he amazingly looks down intellectually on those that maintain all this incredible creation wasn't an accident at all, but the act of an incredible Creator."

I look down on someone who knowingly lies to other people to make them believe that perfectly well-understood processes should be thrown aside in favour of explanations that explain nothing.

Shawn, that's over 3,000 words to explain why Ray's opening seven paragraphs are full of total garbage. It's virtually impossible for anyone to rebut every wrong thing someone like Ray says or writes. It would take more time than any person could have. I have spent several hours compiling this response so you can understand quite how appalling Ray's logic and arguments are.

Do you really think he's suddenly going to start being intellectually honest after chapter one? I've seen the contents page. I've seen the posts on his blog he's basing that stuff on. I know for a fact he's going to be using more terrible arguments that people have already explained to him are incorrect.

So, you keep defending it. Have you read it or skimmed it..?

Immoral Scum

2009-02-24T19:51:00.004Z

Your morality is 0% in line with that of the bible.

Damn you heathen! Your book learnin' has done warped your mind. You shall not be invited next time I sacrifice a goat.

Do You Have Biblical Morals?

The Bible Project

2008-12-16T09:05:00.007Z

My friend A___ and I seem to end up getting involved in those sorts of email discussions where, although the tone is friendly, there is a competitive edge to it. He likes arguing, and so do I. I could deny it, but it would be a lie. The main difference is that he's more likely to argue a point simply for the craic, whereas I tend to argue for things I actually support.

A recent example of such an argument started from a very small acorn. A question was put on a mailing list that many of my friends are on; "Tell us one book you think everyone should read at least once." I said the Bible, and it all took off from there. Alan responded, "Why is everyone saying The Bible???? Weird! Have you really read the whole thing?"

As it happens, I have read the Bible all the way through, though not for a long time. Nowadays, it tends to be that I read it for the purpose of rebutting creationists or other literalists. However, when someone on a blog I read mentioned she was going to start reading the Bible from scratch and invited other people to join her, I thought I'd take the opportunity to do precisely that and so did a number of others.

To that end, we've set up a blog and plan to start reading on January 1st. We've got a schedule and we're going to read the whole thing over the course of a year, and we're going to blog it as we go.

As I said to A___, I think it's important people know the Bible, not least because so much of our literature and idioms borrow from it and also because reading it is instructive. Randolph Churchill, son of Winston, had never read the Bible and was persuaded to do so by the very religious Evelyn Waugh who reported the experience thus:

"In the hope of keeping him quiet for a few hours Freddy & I have bet Randolph 20 [pounds sterling] that he cannot read the whole Bible in a fortnight. It would have been worth it at the price. Unhappily it has not had the result we hoped. He has never read any of it before and is hideously excited; keeps reading quotations aloud 'I say I bet you didn't know this came in the Bible, "bring down my grey hairs in sorrow to the grave'" or merely slapping his side and chortling, 'God, isn't God a shit!'"

"Why not the Koran?" asked A___.

I have read the Koran too, but there's a number of reasons. Firstly, the Koran steals liberally from the Bible, including things such as Noah's flood. If the Bible is wrong about such things - and it clearly is - then we need not bother with the Koran from the perspective of whether it is a truthful document. Secondly, British culture is historically informed by Judeo-Christian culture, and while Islam has become significantly more important in recent years, it doesn't have the same cultural ramifications as the Bible does. That's why the Bible.

Actually, I think I'd like to read the Koran next; it would be useful to have a more in depth knowledge of it. I recently debunked the claims of a Muslim who reckons the Koran is scientifically acurate, but most of it, I can't recall at all.

Anyway, so if I abandon reason and suddenly start posting about how evolution is a lie or how you're all infidels, you'll know why.

Throw Those Curtains Wide

2008-11-05T05:31:00.005Z

With the arrival of a new baby plus Olivia failing to get to grips with the transition out of BST, I've had a week and a half of heavily disrupted sleep. I had every intention of try to stay up and watch the elections last night, but by nine o'clock, I was unable keep my eyes open, and reluctantly, I went to bed.

I've never been so delighted to have been woken up at five in the morning. There's lots ahead, but for now, I'll keep it simple: well done, America!

So Here I Am Once More...

2008-11-04T09:39:00.008Z

Not that it looks that way now, due to other posts added from elsewhere retrospectively, but the first significant post I ever put on this blog (the actual first was a two sentence intro post) was about the US in 2004, and the second was to say, 'Oh bugger!'

Here we are again. I'm really hoping I won't be writing another post saying, 'Oh bugger!' tomorrow. To my American friends, I've got my fingers crossed for you all.

At the moment it looks good.

Reflections on Tony Hart

2008-09-30T23:46:00.005+01:00

Just a short post to say that I was saddened to read today that Tony Hart is no longer able to paint or draw as a result of two strokes. He is very stoical about it, saying, 'I endeavour to stay cheerful, as there is nothing to be done about my condition.' Clearly though, it must be a terrible loss to someone whose life revolved around his art.

It struck me how much time I spent as a child watching this gentle man create his works of art. and the enormous amount of pleasure I got from it. My brother even had a picture featured on The Gallery of two West Ham footballers going up for a header.

So, here's to you, Tony Hart. You touched an awful lot of lives, and reading about you today made me realise that you were a valued part of my childhood that I look upon fondly.

A shocking exposé that really makes you think

2008-08-13T22:26:00.003+01:00

A review of Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed, as posted on Amazon UK.

This is a truly terrifying movie that exposes one of the most evil thought experiments ever perpetrated against human beings by other human beings. Nothing could have prepared me for what I learned over the course of this movie; nothing. I went in believing one thing, and came out with my opinions irrevocably altered. I sincerely caution potential viewers to consider what it is they are about to watch before they do it.

Expelled is the story of one man's voyage of discovery into a heart of darkness. Ben Stein may be vaguely familiar to British viewers as the boring economics teacher from the movie 'Ferris Buller's Day Off'. He was that one that said the hysterical line, 'Anyone, anyone, Buller, anyone?'

In the States, Stein is also well known as a political pundit, particularly on the subject of economics. In this movie, viewers follow Stein as he is systematically stripped of his ability to use his brain by a sinister cabal intent on using fear tactics - essentially mental terrorism - to manipulate societal change.

The film shows Stein being fooled into believing stories of academics claiming provably untrue persecution on the grounds of their religious faith. Although it is obviously upsetting for the viewer to see Stein being suckered into falling for these easily investigated lies without checking the facts, it is nothing compared to what comes next.

By the end of the movie, Stein seems to me to have suffered Stockholm Syndrome and actually identifies with his persecutors. Completely incapable of logical thought, we even see him implying Charles Darwin's descriptive Theory of Natural Selection - a scientific theory backed by reams of independently verifiable data - somehow leads to the Nazi holocaust against the Jews, a tragedy that is patently obviously not natural in the slightest.

I feel this film is deeply unethical and repugnant and would not recommend it to anyone. I just hope that poor Mr Stein recovers from his ordeal.

The Great Global Warming Swindle Swindle

2008-07-21T13:38:00.009+01:00

At eleven o’clock-ish this morning, the media regulator OFCOM will announce whether a 2007 documentary about global climate change broke the rules on accuracy and fairness. That result will almost certainly be in before I have completed writing this blog. On Saturday, while having quick scan of the papers, I noticed the Grauniad‘s front page lead broke this story. I was delighted, not least because my own father-in-law has cited this particular documentary as evidence that the popularly espoused view that there is a scientific consensus that global warming is man-made is wrong.

The Great Global Warming Swindle is a polemic by a chap called Martin Durkin. Durkin is... I was going to say well known. Unfortunately, that’s not the case, because if it were, people would almost certainly know to steer clear of anything bearing his name. He is, however, relatively known in certain circles. In the UK, he is perhaps best known for an earlier Channel 4 film critical of the environmental movement called Against Nature. The Independent Television Commission found the programme was guilty of misrepresenting and distorting the views of interviewees by selective editing. Now, to suggest merely because he has been guilty of it in the past that The Great Global Warming Swindle must be similarly terrible would be unreasonable, but perhaps we should be careful to examine it's claims more carefully, and listen when scientists say they're being misrepresented or that key data claims are inaccurate and disproved.

The latest broadcast has been a tremendous success globally, and is often cited by those who wish to convince themselves that there’s nothing happening. The trouble is, it’s just wrong. That global climate change is a man-made phenomenon is not a fiction. Wouldn’t it be lovely if it were? Who wouldn’t be thoroughly delighted to know we were off the hook and it wasn’t our faults? Woo hoo!

But it is true, and it is down to us.

The facts are actually uncontroversial and moreover, they’re really not that difficult to understand.

The chemical element carbon has three isotopes. Isotopes are simply versions of an element with differing numbers of neutrons, while the number of protons in the nucleus remains the same. Carbon has six protons, but may have either six, seven or eight neutrons. Adding the number of protons and neutrons gives the different names for the isotopes; respectively C12, C13 and C14.

C14 is radioactive and will decay to form a stable nitrogen isotope.

C12, C13 are stable elements, and luckily for us, each can be associated with different types of activity. C13 naturally occurs at a rate of about 1% of total carbon with C12 forming about 98.89% of carbon. Everyone knows that when plants respire they take in oxygen and release CO2. That’s C12.There are various natural phenomena that can record the amount of carbon of any given period. Using tree rings which capture carbon isotopes in their growing cycles, and cross checking with ice cores and corals and sponges, we can check to see what type of carbon are present in the atmosphere at any given point.

In fossil fuels, the ratio of C13:C12 is much lower and from 1850, the start of the industrial revolution, those lower ratios suddenly appear in the coral, sponge, tree and ice records. This also marks the point at which the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere significantly rise. Current levels of the C13:C12 ratio are the lowest they've ever been, directly correlating with our use of fossil fuels. The changes in the ratio of different isotopes of CO2 (C12 and C13 respectively) going from full glacial-to-interglacial change over a period of several thousand years is 0.03%. The changes in same isotopes in C02 levels as a direct consequence of antropogenic (man-made) C02 levels since 1850 is 0.15%.

We cannot affect natural CO2 production. CO2 is held both in the atmosphere, but also in the oceans, which act as a carbon sink. Without man, the atmosphere still could not support the levels of CO2 except for the fact that the oceans hold it. Imagine the oceans are at 9/10 capacity with just naturally occurring CO2. That is the starting position. Remember, we cannot affect natural CO2 production.

Now we want to add a load more C02 into the sink, the equivalent of 2/10. If we add too much, it will end up in the atmosphere where we know it will cause climate change.

That's the problem. It's not that the natural stuff doesn't contribute, it's that that we can't do anything about that but the stuff we can do something about is too much for the system.
We know that CO2 levels are significantly higher now than at any point in history. We know that our activities are directly responsible for that CO2 and we know that CO2 is responsible for global climate change. We are producing CO2 at a level that cannot be completely taken up by the carbon sinks of the oceans, resulting in an increased (and increasing) level of atmospheric CO2.

According to a 2008 MORI Poll, 60% of people agree with the statement, ‘many scientific experts still question if human beings are contributing to climate change’. This is worrying on a number of fronts.

Firstly, it’s worrying because it suggests people won’t change their minds and more importantly their behaviour. If we are to ride out the consequences of global warming, a massive adjustment is going to have to happen. Instead, you only have to read the comments in various online fora to see most people have reduced the arguments to a general distrust of scientists and government and demands for their ‘stolen taxes’ to be returned.

The reality is that at this time, the only credible explanation of what is happening, based on the interpretation of the vast quantities of testable data from multiple independent sources, is that mankind's activities are causing global warming.

That may change in the future as we learn more, but right here, right now, that conclusion is the only one that makes sense of the facts. Wishful thinking will do nothing to affect that. (This issue actually illustrates another problem, namely that science is often quite woolly in how it presents its results. This is technically quite correct because science is always the best explanation available to fit the evidence at a given time, but this appropriate level of caution about being to definitive can give the impression that there may be reasonable grounds for doubt. I don’t want to get into another of my pet bug bears here - that of the creationist’s arguments against ‘The Theory of Evolution’ - but there are a lot of people saying that we really ought to be more forceful and rename it ‘The Law of Evolution’ because there really isn’t any credible dissent. Maybe the same should happen with Global Warming, however unnatural that may feel?)

While I’m at it, we really need to stop referring to ‘Global Warming’; it’s a total misnomer and it just leads to people saying, ‘but it’s been colder/wetter this year, therefore it’s not true…’

..and the result is in.

It’s not as good as I had hoped, but it’s not all bad news either. According to OFCOM, Channel 4 ‘did not fulfil obligations to be impartial and to reflect a range of views on controversial issues’. However, it judged that the film did not mislead audiences ‘so as to cause harm or offence’. The logic is that as ‘the link between human activity and global warming... became settled before March 2007’, it cannot be controversial.

Eh..? Is that just me, or..?

This, I suppose, is one problem of a press that always feels it has to show two sides to every argument. It’s fine when there is no consensus, but when 99% of scientists agree that man-made climate change is a multiply independently-verified reality, that has repeatedly been falsified (a key principle by which scientific ideas are deemed to be valid if it has been determined what would cause the claimed facts to be disproved and that this has not occured), is it really fair to give the other one percent half the air time..?

Happy 150th Birthday Natural Selection

2008-07-01T23:20:00.006+01:00

It's one hundred and fifty years ago today, the first of July, 2008, that Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace first presented papers on the idea of natural selection to the Linnean Society in London.

At that time, there was little understanding among those present of how Earth-shattering the theory of natural selection really was. It took the publication of Darwin's seminal On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, commonly (and incorrectly) known as 'The Origin of Species' in 1859 for it to really take off.

Since then, Darwin's original ideas have been modified somewhat; for instance, Darwin couldn't include any discussion of the role of genetics - it wouldn't be discovered until some time afterwards. Nevertheless, the theory underpins our entire understanding of how life on Earth developed and makes it possible to properly understand where we have come from.

Despite the best (which admittedly is normally pretty feeble) that its opponents can throw at it, the theory of evolution remains in robust health. Here's just a few of the evolution-themed stories I've picked up on Digg this year alone:

Bacteria evolve; Conservapedia demands recount
Fossil fills out water-land leap
New Discovery Proves 'Selfish Gene' Exists
Jellyfish and human eyes use similar genetic building blocks
Origins of the brain: Complex synapses drove brain evolution
New Way To Think About Earth's First Cells
Fossil reveals oldest live birth
Religion is a product of evolution, software suggests
The superior eyes of shrimp
Scientists discover ''frogamander'' fossil
Giant bacterium carries thousands of copies of its genome
Genetic blueprint of worlds strangest mammal deciphered
Lizards Evolve Rapidly Once Introduced On Different Island!
Ancient Snake Had 2 Legs

This stuff is so thrilling, and so awe inspiring, and yet based on such a simple and elegant idea, it's hard to believe that some people find it threatening and refuse to engage with it, yet sadly, they do.

The fact is that the theory stands up every which way you look at it. No significant holes have appeared in it in 150 years. To believe that this is not a theory with legs takes an unwillingness to engage with reality. Sure, the theory might change more as more evidence comes to light, but that's fine. Right here, right now, this is the best explanation we have, and it's a damn convincing one.

Happy birthday Natural Selection - here's to the next 150.

Contentious Theory of the Day: "Bad Singers Make Better Lyricists"

2008-07-01T14:27:00.002+01:00

Over on the Guardian website at the moment, there’s a thread asking punters to nominate their favourite lyricists for inclusion in a series of booklets to be given out at some future juncture.

Dylan and Cohen seem to be topping the suggestions thus far.

(As an aside, there is an almost tedious inevitability about this result. It’s not that I’m suggesting it’s wrong, just that it’s been done to death, and if the Grauniad were to put out booklets on great lyricists, it would be lovely if they were a bit more leftfield for once – but then that probably wouldn’t shift more papers, which is the whole reason why they want to do these booklets in the first place...)

Here’s my oh-so contentious theory: less good singers make better lyricists than great singers.

If you can impart feeling through vocal technique – and I don’t mean those who are the vocal equivalent of Steve Vai as evinced by certain diva-types and their technically-difficult, emotionally-bankrupt, chin-wobbling trill-fests – is it more likely that your lyrics will be a bit more mundane?

If you’re less gifted in the technique department, does it spur you to create better words to impart your meaning? To Dylan and Cohen, we could add Waits and Waters, for example. Celebrated for their words, but not necessarily for their vocals, and certainly not for their singing. Could we add Andrew Eldritch and Nick Cave, representing the gothic contingent..? I would say we can. I can’t believe I’ve not mentioned Lou Reed yet! Oh, and Ian Dury.

This is not - obviously not - going to be a hard and fast rule. Not everyone who sings like the aforementioned is going to be a lyrical genius. Being able to sing does not preclude also being lyrical genius (Paul Simon comes immediately to mind), but maybe it makes it more likely.

Of course, none of this contentious theory takes any account of those singers who sing other people’s words, but I would say few bands would pick a non-writing singer who couldn’t.

Maybe the issue is that if you sing like Waits, Dylan and Cohen etc, you’d better have some damn good lyrics to convince people to listen to you.

Max Headroom was right after all - here come the blipverts!

2008-06-12T11:17:00.001+01:00

According to the Metro newspaper, "The pop song has become the latest victim of our ever-hectic lifestyles.

People no longer listen to an entire three-minute track and prefer instead to 'snack' on snippets, a study shows.

Nine out of ten 18 to 24-year-olds regularly tune in to just part of a song before skipping tracks. And women have the lowest attention span.

'Bands know that the consumer is listening to just small snippets, so they may have to concentrate on getting more catchy intros,' said Sony Ericsson, which carried out the survey."

Now, I've done a bit off Google research, and I can't find any other reference to this survey, not even on the Sony Ericsson site, and the Metro ('Yesterday's News Tomorrow') is the world's worst newspaper, but presumably this claim is based on some sort of actual evidence.

I was recently saying on the Word magazine forum that I didn't understand why people seemed to find the idea of a long track such a difficult thing to cope with, and then it turns out that we're now finding it too hard to cope with a three minute pop song.

Is this down to too many E numbers in our food?

How long before even the ringtone fails to keep our attention?

Bill Drummond may be right; we may well see the end of recorded music, not for the reasons he thinks, but because no one can possibly concentrate on one song for three minutes...

It's not some sort of nostalgia or because I like prog that this depresses me. It's because great music - really great music - enhances being alive. It makes the colours more vivid and heightens the emotions. The really great stuff can make you weep or dance or laugh or think or yes, goddamn it, even horny. It can become, cliché though it is, the soundtrack to your life. It *means something*. It does for me.

A 20 second blipvert might make you weep, but it won't do anything else.

Boots Go Quack

2008-05-27T12:12:00.004+01:00

Boots, the high street chemist, is becoming the country's largest seller of quack medicines, failing to notify customers that their homeopathic remedies contain no active ingredients and are ineffective in clinical trials, according to Edzard Ernst, professor of complementary medicine at Exeter University.

My daughter goes 'quack' a lot, but that's because she's 16 months old and infatuated with ducks. You expect an infant to babble nonsense. You do not expect it from high street chemists.

What happens if you go into Boots and ask one of their pharmacists for a homeopathic remedy for malady X? Do they actually advise you that it's no better than doing fuck all? In fact, do they advise you that fuck all would be better than taking the pill, because the pill's made of sugar..?

I'm very disapointed to hear this is going on and may have to investigate. Watch this space.

The worst of it is that I've married into a family containing a Google-able homeopath. I've always bitten my tongue when she's around.

The 'Frogamander' Problem

2008-05-22T09:54:00.006+01:00

Another day, another magnificent transitional fossil.

The new fossil, a chappy called Gerobatrachus hottoni, proves that some modern amphibians, frogs and salamanders evolved from an ancient amphibian group called temnospondyls. The fossil has both frog and salamander features - it has two fused bones in the ankle normally only seen in salamanders, as well as a lightly built and wide skull similar to that of a frog. It also gives us a good indication of when the split between salamanders and frogs occurred - about 240 and 275 million years ago.

If you are a creationist or IDer, you're probably going 'la la la' and pretending this doesn't mean anything. Inside though... inside, your stomach must be knotting, even as you decry evolution and tell your lies; 'If evolution is true, why are there no transitional fossils..?'

Every time scientists find one of these things, that knot must be getting tighter and tighter. One of these days it might kill their adherence to their discredited belief in the palpably untrue.

Fuck 'em and their lies.

In fact, stitch Job 13:7-12:

7 Are you defending God with lies? Do you make your dishonest arguments for his sake?

8 Will you slant your testimony in his favor? Will you argue God’s case for him?

9 What will happen when he finds out what you are doing? Can you fool him as easily as you fool people?

10 No, you will be in trouble with him if you secretly slant your testimony in his favor.

11 Doesn’t his majesty terrify you? Doesn’t your fear of him overwhelm you?

12 Your platitudes are as valuable as ashes. Your defense is as fragile as a clay pot.

They've made the claim that God is available to be seen in the science. Trouble is, we keep finding the science that proves God wasn't anywhere near the things the creationists and IDers would insist God had a personal hand in. There's fewer and fewer gaps where God can be hiding and they're getting closed all the time, so they've just forced themselves into a place where they cannot possibly win.

The more time that passes, the more discoveries scientists make, the stupider they look and the more obvious it is they're liars.

Still, as much as they annoy the piss out of me, I must give them their due, and thank them profusely. As a direct consequence of their bullshit, my interest in, and knowledge of science, and particularly evolution, has gone through the roof. Before I was quite happy that evolution was the explanation for what we see. Now I can explain why it is.

So thank you Creationists. Thank you IDers. Thank you Ben Stein. Fuckwits one and all, but praise where it's due: I probably wouldn't have come this far without you.

Break out the self-raising...

2008-05-21T15:45:00.008+01:00

...The Fields of the Nephilim are back! They're playing the Shepherd's Bush Empire on the 12th and 13th of July and I'm going to be there.

Ah, the Neph... How cool were the Neph..?

Well, in keeping with virtually all of my record collection, the answer is not very.

Over three albums, they developed a form they called 'spaghetti metal' - left-field psychedelic rock with shades of Ennio Morricone and indeed laterly Pink Floyd, thrown in for good measure. They wore Sergio Leone-style dusters and wide-brimmed hats, covered themselves in flour and sang about pagan concepts such as Sumerian and chaos magic and appeared to genuinely believe the Necronomicon was a real book. After the release of a live album in the early 90s, singer Carl McCoy went his own way. He released an industrial-metal album under the name 'The Nefilim' in the mid 90s, to much indifference, then had an album of FotN demos released by a pissed off record company after he took too long to deliver the finished article. Finally, in 2005, FotN managed to deliver a new album, Mourning Son that built on the legacy of the original band.

And now they're playing live in London again. The Neph live were wonderful. Despite my own atheism, I Ioved the sense of ceremony and mysticism at Neph gigs. They were always tighter than a gnat's proverbial, swathed in preposterous amounts of dry ice and their audience would literally go into raptures, hands held aloft, like those ridiculous evangelical types. Best of all were the human pyramids, sometimes four goths high, waving precariously in the smog as the band conjured these portentious soundscapes behind them.

They were stupid. They were so very, very stupid, but they were magnificent with it.

I can't wait.

Pure Reason Revolution: Live at NEARfest 2007

2008-05-21T15:35:00.005+01:00

Excellent news - the utterly wonderful Pure Reason Revolution have a live set released from their set at NEARfest in 2007. PRR combine Smashing Pumpkins-esque riffs with Pink Floyd soundscapes and three part vocal harmonies, and increasingly, electronica. This is a welcome stop gap until the release of their second studio album later this year.The album will be released on June 20, 2008, the first day of NEARfest X.

Tracklisting:

1. Intro/In Aurélia

2. The Borgen's Vor

3. Deus Ex Machina (download free rough mix)

4. The Bright Ambassadors of Morning

5. Victorious Cupid

6. Voices in Winter

7. The Twyncyn/Trembling Willows

8. Golden Disco

9. Aeropause

10. Apprentice of the Universe

11. Nimos & Tambos

12. Arrival/The Intention Craft

Catlog Number: NFR0010

NEARfest Records: http://www.nearfestrecords.com

read more digg story

Phucking Up Phorm

2008-04-25T21:27:00.005+01:00

Virgin Media, BT and TalkTalk, three of the UK's largest ISPs are planning to implement a thing called Phorm. Phorm is a very bad thing. It allows the ISPs to track everything you do online - even 'read' (or to be correct 'parse') the contents of most online webmail systems and then sell your browsing history to third parties so that they can ensure you see personally targetted adverts.

This breaks several laws including the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (commonly called 'RIPA'), the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act 1998. There's bunch called BadPhorm who have written extensively on the subject. They say it better than me.

What I wanted to write about, since it's what I do for a living, is some ways in which you can use the law to protect yourself against this crap.

Here's two things everyone should know about how to stop it.

Section 10 Notice

Everyone with an ISP that is going to implement Phorm needs to lodge a Section 10 notice with the ISP. Section 10 of the Data Protection Act 1998 says that an individual has the "Right to prevent processing likely to cause damage or distress".

To write a S10 notice, you need to write to the ISP stating that the processing of your data by Phorm consititues a breach of Article 8 of The Human Rights Act 1998 "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence" and that such processing will cause you unwarranted and distress by violating your right to privacy.

Within 21 days the Data Controller - the ISP - must respond to say how they intend to respond. The S10 notification DOES NOT oblige the data controller to comply, but if they do not comply, they must state why they are not complying.

Please see suggested wording below:

Dear [ISP or contact name],

I am [insert name]. My customer number is [insert customer number or other relevant identification here]

Under Section 10 of the Data Protection Act 1998, I hereby serve notice upon you as Data Controller to cease immediately processing of my personal data by means of Phorm.

My browsing habits will reveal information about me falling into some or all of the following categories deem to be 'sensitive personal data' under Section 2 of the Data Protection Act 1998:

(a) the racial or ethnic origin of the data subject,
(b) his political opinions,
(c) his religious beliefs or other beliefs of a similar nature,
(d) whether he is a member of a trade union (within the meaning of the [1992 c. 52.] Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992),
(e) his physical or mental health or condition,
(f) his sexual life,
(g) the commission or alleged commission by him of any offence, or
(h) any proceedings for any offence committed or alleged to have been committed by him, the disposal of such proceedings or the sentence of any court in such proceedings.

The processing of my personal data by Phorm consititues a breach of Article 8 of The Human Rights Act 1998 "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence" and that such processing will cause me unwarranted and distress by violating my right to privacy."

Phorm further constitues a use of my personal data and a violation of the second and third Data Protection Principles, from Section 8 of the Data Protection Act 1998:

2 Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes.

3 Personal data shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they are processed.

Under the law, you have 21 days to inform me of your response, stating your reasons for regarding the data subject notice as to any extent unjustified and the extent (if any) to which you have complied or intends to comply with it.

Please be aware that if I am unsatisfied with your response, I am entitled to complain to the Information Commissoner who can investigate and, should it find you to have failed to comply with a reasonable request, force you to comply.

Yours sincerely,

[Insert Name]

Section 11 Notice

Section 11 of the Data Protection Act 1998 states:

11 Right to prevent processing for purposes of direct marketing

"(1) An individual is entitled at any time by notice in writing to a data controller to require the data controller at the end of such period as is reasonable in the circumstances to cease, or not to begin, processing for the purposes of direct marketing personal data in respect of which he is the data subject.

(2) If the court is satisfied, on the application of any person who has given a notice under subsection (1), that the data controller has failed to comply with the notice, the court may order him to take such steps for complying with the notice as the court thinks fit.

(3) In this section “direct marketing” means the communication (by whatever means) of any advertising or marketing material which is directed to particular individuals."

Please see below for suggested wording:

Dear [ISP or contact name],

I am [insert name]. My customer number is [insert customer number or other relevant identification here]

Under Section 11 of the Data Protection Act 1998, I hereby serve notice upon you as Data Controller to cease immediately processing of my personal data for the purposes of direct marketing by means of Phorm.

I am legally entitled to have a data controller cease, or not to begin, processing of my personal data within "a reasonable period". I suggest a period of five working days should be sufficient to stop processing of my data.

Please be aware that if I am unsatisfied with your response, I am entitled to complain to the Information Commissoner who can investigate and, should it find you to have failed to comply with a reasonable request, force you to cease processing my data.

Yours sincerely,

[Insert Name]

This is distinct from S10 and you should do both.

Please post a link to this article to as many places as you can - if you do post the text elsewhere, a link back here would be appreciated.

Expelled - Could This Be The World's Worst Movie?

2008-04-15T10:01:00.025+01:00

Once upon a time, my mate Emlyn and I wrote, directed, filmed and ‘acted’ in a thing called Thomas is Different - The Movie.

It was, being generous, a turd. This may have had something to do with the fact that we were pissed for most of it, and hadn't the first clue about how to write, direct, shoot or act in a flick. On the rare occasion I've been forced to see any of it since, I have normally ended up in a fetal position, mewing helplessly, a speck of white dribble gleaming at the corner of my mouth. It was a definite candidate for the world's worst movie.

Now, however, there's a new contender in town, and unlike our piece-of-crap movie, this one apparently had quite a lot of money behind it, and the people making it were almost certainly not drunk.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a movie that purportedly investigates how a sinister cabal of scientists and educators are censoring anyone who dares even think that there might be any evidence of intelligent design at work in the universe.

Intelligent Design is Creationism by another name. It claims to be scientific and a serious contender to evolution, but is essentially saying,' um... God did it'. There is no serious evidence to back up their claims. Their best attempt is a thing called 'Irreducible complexity', which says that certain biological systems could not have come into existence except as a complete entity, since removing one part of the system renders the whole thing useless. If you're talking about a respiratory system, then you can see there's a sort of logic - if you remove part x, the lungs no longer work, the organism cannot possibly survive. The problem is that as a system is put forward as irreducibly complex, mainstream science discovers how such a system could evolve in small incremental stages. Examples include the flagella of certain bacterium (debunked), the eye (debunked) and the blood clotting cascade system (debunked). Despite the fact that examples keep getting debunked and it has been shown time and time again that very complex biological systems absolutely can arise through incremental change, the Intelligent Designers keep insisting this is a valid theory. Enough about Intelligent Design - after all, if they can't even be bothered to actually try and explain what it is in the movie, why should I?

Expelled maintains that people who have published pro-Intelligent Design material or even have sympathies with ID have been expelled from their jobs and colleges and otherwise victimised. A number of examples are given in the film. On further investigation, none of the claims stands up. Here's one:

Having previously given notice of his resignation six months previously, Richard Sternberg, published a pro-ID article in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington in his penultimate edition as editor. Other editors on the paper subsequently questioned how Sternberg was able to choose himself to handle with the article in question, given it wasn't in his field of specialism and other editors were much better qualified to carry out a peer review. As a result of Sternberg's failure to adhere to proper editorial policy, the paper was withdrawn, branded 'substandard science' and the journal issued a statement saying the PBSW supported the American Association for the Advancement of Science's statement that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity.

What terrible victimisation did Sternberg suffer..? er... none whatsoever. He retained all other posts he held at the time he published the offending article. Oh, and he was, according to Expelled, made to give back his office keys and denied access to specimen collections by the Smithsonian where he had another unpaid position. According to the Smithsonian, Sternberg was moved to a different office as part of a move involving 17 other people that was arranged prior to the publication of the offending article and retains access to the specimens. It would appear that bullying has gone through some changes since it last happened to me.

There's more on the other 'victims' at Expelled Exposed, a website set up to counter the claims in this movie.

The movie also features eminent pro-evolution scientists such as PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins and Eugenie Scott. All were told they were taking part in a movie called Crossroads that would investigate the ID/evolution debate. Expelled producer Mark Mathis would later claim that movies used working titles all the time. True. However, it later emerged that the domain name for the Expelled movie had been purchased prior to interviews with Myers, Dawkins and Scott being set up. Their interviews are edited selectively and presented out of context in order to make it seem as though the scientists, and by extension, evolution, are silly and trivial.

Riddle me this: does the Bible - in the Ten Commandments, no less - not state that 'Thou shalt not lie'..?

The single most egregious part of this movie is its attempt to suggest that 'Darwinism' - a term nearly exclusively used by Creationists and IDers who hope to poison the well by implying that Darwin's less pleasant personal characteristics must be inherent in evolutionary theory (which is a bit like suggesting that because John Maynard Keynes was gay, Keynesian Economic Theory must therefore show its cock to George Michael in public toilets) - directly caused Nazism and the holocaust.

PZ Myers has a great post on his blog Pharyngula. It makes the point wonderfully. The thing from Darwinism which IDers and Creationist would have you believe was an essential pre-requisite for Nazism and the Holocaust is this:

"If members of a population die or are killed off, they will leave no descendants for subsequent generations."

As Myers points out, "Any idiot can figure that one out - and many idiots have". The idea that it took Darwin to state this before anyone could attempt a genocide are clearly ridiculous - not least because God orders quite a few in the Old Testament. We should also consider the fact that Christians were carrying out pogroms against Jews for centuries before Darwin came along. Martin Luther held some particularly vile ideas about Jews. Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels was a defrocked monk who advocated the sterilisation of Jews as a lesser race in the early 20th century. He used the Bible to support his views. Finally, Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham H. Foxman has previously made the point regarding this argument, "Trivializing the Holocaust comes from either ignorance at best or, at worst, a mendacious attempt to score political points in the culture war on the backs of six million Jewish victims and others who died at the hands of the Nazis."

Richard Dawkins makes an entirely sensible observation:

"[...]there are two reasons why we need to take Darwinian natural selection seriously. Firstly, it is the most important element in the explanation for our own existence and that of all life. Secondly, natural selection is a good object lesson in how NOT to organize a society. As I have often said before, as a scientist I am a passionate Darwinian. But as a citizen and a human being, I want to construct a society which is about as un-Darwinian as we can make it. I approve of looking after the poor (very un-Darwinian). I approve of universal medical care (very un-Darwinian). It is one of the classic philosophical fallacies to derive an 'ought' from an 'is'."

At an early pre-release showing of the movie, interested parties were invited to apply for tickets via public website. PZ Myers did so, under his own name. When he turned up at the cinema and showed his ID to collect his tickets, he was ejected by the movie's producer. His guests, however, were allowed to see the movie. They included Myers's wife and daughter and a certain Professor Dawkins, who described the decision as "an extraordinary and costly lapse of judgment" and who further went on to describe the film itself as "a shoddy, second-rate piece of work" and "drearily boring, the tedium exacerbated by the grating monotony of [presenter Ben] Stein's voice".

Of course, one shouldn't take Dawkin's word that this film is a suckfest. You can't take the word of the numerous reviewers that say it's pisspoor either.

You can't take my word for it either; I haven't seen it.

"You haven't even seen it?"

Nope. It's only out today, and that's in the US. Here's a challenge to anyone who thinks that I should see it before criticising its contents: Feel free to point out anything I have claimed is in the film that is not. Feel free to point out any untruths in my rebuttals of what is in the film. I will not edit them.

My reason for writing this is two fold. Firstly, I want to promote Expelled Exposed which provides a commentary for the film. I may have accidentally linked every mention of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed to Expelled Exposed. Whoops...

Secondly, although we're not nearly as badly off as the US in terms of this kind of crud being foisted on the public, it is happening, and it's getting worse not better. The people behind Expelled may not be much good at movie making, but make no mistake that they are good at getting their message out there, and that they target those without the necessary knowledge to understand why their science has the prefix 'pseudo'. When my daughter gets to an age where she's in a science class, I want her taught science, not superstition.

I will watch Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and I think perhaps you should too, preferably without paying the makers for the privilege - but only if you can do that without committing an offence, obviously.

Alternatively, I have a copy of Thomas is Different - The Movie, if you're interested..?

Dr Who?

2007-02-13T12:17:00.004Z

I am thoroughly delighted to read that that wonk-faced New Age coprophiliac diet gnu (sic)McKeith has been forced to remove the title 'doctor' from her name after a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority that the American Holistic College of Nutrition from which she'd received her doctorate wasn't accredited when she received the award.

Her PHD thesis contains the following quote, for which alone she deserves mocking: "If you do not have enough RNA/DNA [you] may ultimately age prematurely".

She also believe that the tongue can be used to diagnose illnesses throughout the body and that the colour of food is nutriotionally significant. She is a twit.

And all this just three months after her company was censured for illegally selling sexual health remedies.

Terrible news.

Phwoar! Look at the tits on that assault victim...

2006-12-29T10:47:00.001Z

Slightly sensationalist subject line, but it makes the point.

Here follows a letter of complaint that I sent to the world's worst newspaper 'Metro' (unofficial slogan 'Yesterday's News Today') back in November. I meant to post it here before but forgot about until today when I sorted my in-box and did a bit of filing.

Of course, if I will insist on picking up free newspapers at railway stations, I only have myself to blame.

I think this is largely self-explanatory, but the details of the case are here. Needless to say, I didn't receive a reply.

----Original Message----
From: BaldySlaphead
Date: 17/11/2006 09:21
To: mail@metro.co.uk
Subj: Illustrating the Point

Dear Metro,

I'm sure I won't be the only reader to find it distasteful that next to a story about a serious sexual assault (Teacher cleared in pupil sex case, Nov 17), you printed a large picture of the teacher's glamour model sister in a low cut dress. I am unable to determine what possible relevance the sister has to the story. Hopefully Metro doesn't wish its readers to associate sexual violence with titillation?

I also note in the same issue that a story about Cosmopolitan magazine's recognition of Josie Russell's charity work is illustrated with a small inset of Ms Russell, and a considerably larger picture of TV presenter Fearne Cotton, despite the latter commanding a mere eleven words of the article.

Would it be too much to ask your picture editor to use a little more judgement in his or her choices, rather than just inserting barely relevant pictures of attractive young women at every opportunity?

Yours faithfully,

BaldySlaphead

All a-Google

2006-08-14T11:23:00.001+01:00

The search engine giant Google has thrown a wobbler over the use of its name as a verb.

The company has issued a series of letters to media organisations complaining about the violation of its trademark. Apparently it's okay to say you googled Britney Spears if you used Google, but not if you used (say) Yahoo. The Merriam-Webster dictionary has an entry for the verb 'to google' : "to use the Google search engine to obtain information on the Internet." (Interestingly, the Merriam-Webster has placed the verb in lowercase to avoid confusion with Google the brand.)

The search engine giant's concern apparently lies in not wanting their trademark to achieve ubiquity in the way that sellotape and hoover are now routinely used interchangably with sticktape and vacuum cleaner. They believe this genericising would devalue their brand.

Here's two examples of what the Google letters think is acceptable and unacceptable usage of their brand:

Appropriate: He ego-surfs on the Google search engine to see if he's listed in the results.
Inappropriate: He googles himself.

Appropriate: I ran a Google search to check out that guy from the party.
Inappropriate: I googled that hottie.

Aside from issues of brevity, the assumption that Internet users would call searching on a.n.other search engine 'googling' seems highly unlikely. I suspect this move has made Google look extremely petty in the eyes of the world. Does anyone seriously think that Yahoo might start selling its search service with references to 'how easy it is to google for information on Yahoo'? Clearly this is Google's fear.

Unlike, say Sellotape or Hoovers where it would be perfectly possible to use the product without noticing the name, the user is face to face with the company logo everytime they use the search engine. Brand association is extremely high. It would be pretty hard to form an association between Dogpile and Google, so I contend that useage is directly linked. If I say I googled something, I mean I ran a search in Google, and not Yahoo, Dogpile, All the Web etc etc.

I googled the word 'Googled' and got 1,400,100 matches. Here's another one.

Laughing at Your Own Jokes is Bad

2006-08-02T23:41:00.001+01:00

I do those You Gov polls. One day, when I am a very old man, I may have completed enough surveys they actually have to send me a cheque. Fortunately, I don't really do it for the cash. I do it because my opinions are just *so* fantastic...

No, hang on...

Today's survey was a right old hotchpotch of subjects, including television. I know it's very bad form to laugh at your own jokes, but some of the questions were just asking for it and I couldn't help myself...

Thoughts that make me happy (part 19,022)

2006-06-13T09:10:00.002+01:00

If you take the initial letter from the names of me and my brothers and put them in age order, you get:

If you take the names of our respective partners and put them in age order, you get:

If you take all of those and put them together, you get:

FECK EM

This makes me far more happy than it has any right to do.

I Predict a Riot...

2006-05-31T00:45:00.003+01:00

On a recent thread about birth signs on a question and answer site I use, I mentioned that I had been doing a course in doing personality readings and seemed to be reasonably good at it. I offered to do personalised readings if people would give me their birthdate and place of birth.

Three people took me up on my offer. The first said of my reading, "Bl00dy hell Baldy fekkin bang on mate", the second, "wow baldy i have to say mate i am pretty impressed , that sounds pretty much bang on , wow thanks for that" and the third, "Wow Baldy! Are you inside my head lol! [...] you are spot on with the not so obvious, deeper traits. I am very impressed that you have uncovered the deeper and less obvious stuff...but it's freaky too, lol!"

I was pretty confident with the first two. The third not so confident. How have I managed to read people's personalities so accurately with just their date and place of birth to go on? Well, astrology is based on a set of true facts that means with some hard work and some decent books about the stars, one can work out virtually everything about a person.

At least, that's what some people would have you believe.

In fact, I don't believe in astrology in the slightest. I think it's a load of pseudo-scientific horseshit. So, how did I get these incredibly acurate readings? Did I hire spies to study my victims? Nope. I used the Forer Effect.

Psychologist Bertram R. Forer discovered that people tend to accept general personality descriptions as being unique to them. In fact, he did an experiment where he gave a test to his students and gave them each a personality profile based on the results. He then asked the students to rate how accurately the profile matched their real personalities on a scale of one to five where five is the most accurate score. The students scored their profiles with an average of 4.2 out of 5, or over 84% accurate. All of them were given the exact same profile. Forer had cobbled it together from horoscopes from the paper without regard for which star signs were being described.

I used Forer's exact text for my first victim, as follows:

"You have a need for other
people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself.
While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate
for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your
advantage. Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be
worrisome and insecure on the inside. At times you have serious doubts as to
whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a
certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by
restrictions and limitations. You also pride yourself as an independent thinker;
and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. But you have
found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you
are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are
introverted, wary, and reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be rather
unrealistic."

This generated the reply "Bl00dy hell Baldy fekkin bang on mate" from victim number one.

For the second victim, I used the sample text found on site discussing Forer:

"You often try to leave an
impression on your surroundings that you are stern and rigid, while you are
actually an emotional and vulnerable person. Sometimes you are bright,
communicative and social, but you can turn into yourself, and in those times it
is hard for people around you to reach your thoughts. You live changes and
dynamic, and lack of freedom can make you discontent, even melancholic and
depressive. You know that you are a person that has an attitude and you don't
take random opinions without hard evidence. You have an amazing ability to
understand people who surround you and who you love. You also have a
well-developed sense for rightfulness, and it is hardest for you to accept human
greed and a lack of feeling for others.

"In your
love life you had lesser problems. Still, aside for a few weaknesses, your inner
strength provided you with means to successfully diminish them. You are often
expressing criticism about yourself, even more than it is necessary. The main
cause is that you have a strong need to be accepted and loved, and you turn too
strict when it comes to your character.

"You are
aware that you hold significant potential that you still haven't completely put
to work because of your reticence and insecurity. Soon you will learn how to put
your abilities to full use."

Result? "Wow baldy i have to say mate i am pretty impressed , that sounds pretty much bang on , wow thanks for that"...

For the third, I couldn't find any suitable example via Google, so I just made it up by copying lines from various sample personality profiles and making them vague. "You are spot on with the not so obvious, deeper traits" says victim three.

Despite being so vague they could apply to anyone, people will rate the depictions as highly accurate insights into their unique personalities. I wonder what the victims will think when they find me out? I fear they may wish to hunt me down and kill me...

Last Charge of the Right Brigade

2006-05-19T15:46:00.001+01:00

The movie of Dan Brown's mega-selling Da Vinci Code goes out on general release today. Reviewers seem to be saying, 'It's not great, but it'll sell lots of tickets'. How much of that is a reasonable criticism, and how much of it is because it's the 'in' thing to do (there's a huge number who feel the need to make the incredibly insightful observation that an airport thriller is badly written, whilst failing to mention the fact that it's a cracking yarn) is unclear.

I previously wrote about the Muslim cartoons and how they had some right to feel agrieved about the whole thing. The Christians obviously feel similarly about agreived about the Da Vinci Code movie and have decided to jump on the let's do a bit of relgious protesting in the street bandwagon. Let's ignore the fact that it's only your wee-smelling old nan and two cooler-than-thou Nathan Barley types that haven't read it and that it's difficult to fathom who might be about to be corrupted that hasn't already.

Do the Christians have a similar right to be offended? Not really. It's actually nothing like the cartoons row. What it's actually like is the old Salman Rushdie Satanic Verses row, and like that row, they really don't have a leg to stand on. The problem as they see it is that if people start to question the essential tenets of their religious faith, they might just work out that the whole edifice is built on sand. Unfortunately, they've made so much noise about a work of fiction that now people are thinking, 'Well, what are they so concerned about? Is it because the book has stumbled on something true..?'

Of course, the Da Vinci Code is fiction. You can tell it's fiction because of a number of things:

1) It's blatantly a work of fucking fiction. For fuck's sake, are you a some sort of fucking thicky or something?

2) In case you didn't know it was a work of fiction (see 1), there's a handy hint on the inside cover where it categorises the book as fiction.
3) But really, are you just totally fucking thick?

Reasons why some people seem to think it's not fiction:

1) They're just totally thick (see 3, above).

2) There's a note which says (and I quote): "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." and then people take that to mean '...and so is the story (the one we keep saying is so badly written)'

3) See 1)

So, it seems to me you have to wonder what's going on. For my part, I wonder if this is part of some last hurrah..? Perhaps all these religions are at the point now where the evidence against them is just getting too much, but there's too much invested in them - money, time, love, livelihoods and culture - that they're going to mount the religious version of the charge of the Light Brigade. Perhaps it's one last glorious huzzah before they get mown down in a volley of enlightenment logic?

But perhaps that's me being daft. Perhaps it's not that at all. Maybe it's the two religions getting in a bit of 'Yo mamma' practice prior to leaping at each others throats.

Hmmm. Despite the violence of my Light Brigade analogy, the collapsing in the face of overwhelming logic theory seems a lot better than the gung-ho, kick-the-shit-out-of-each-other clash of civilisations theory.

Oh well. Still, that Da Vinci Code, eh? No characterisation to speak of...

You've probably already seen this on someone else's site...

2006-04-27T16:09:00.001+01:00

Many years ago, I recall writing something on one of the mailing lists dedicated to Marillion that, in my opinion, 90% of all prog rock was crap but that in mitigation, one could say the same for any other genre too.

Today, I read about Sturgeon's Revelation. Essentially Sturgeon's Revelation came about in 1958 after the Sci-Fi author Theodore Sturgeon was told by a professor of English Literature that 90% of Sci-Fi was crap. Sturgeon replied, '90% of everything is crap' and Sturgeon's Revelation was born.

Now, it's not that I want to imply I'm terribly clever for having thought up something which is so well-regarded it has a name. I'm actually surprised it warrants one; it's not that amazing a conclusion, I don't think. However, at least it was my not-especially amazing notion before. Now, I'm wondering whether I picked it up from somewhere and was just parroting. Maybe I was! I don't know Sturgeon from Adam, but I do read sci-fi... And that's the thing, so what was once a theory I thought I'd arrived at by myself is now cheapened.

I just hope nothing similar happens with my new theory, 'relativity'.

The Bright Ambassadors of More Things To Come

2006-04-13T13:16:00.001+01:00

Perhaps it was just because Pure Reason Revolution’s debut single Apprentice of the Universe was released on Alan McGee’s achingly cool Poptones label but whatever it was, the UK music press fell over itself to praise the ambition and achievement of a band with progressive leanings. The launch of the album The Dark Third fared not as well (though there were still many loudly in favour). Could it really have been the move to a different label? It’s difficult to work out how the elements so lauded on the single could become the subject of so many hackneyed observations from some of those previously adulatory organs when found on the album, particularly when they are as well employed as this.

PRR aren’t scared of their progressive side. If they were they wouldn’t have written a conceptually-linked album of multipart, segued songs about dreaming. Neither, however, are they scared to write short pop songs which feature gnarly riffs straight out of the grunge era, nifty keyboard tricks from the cooler neighbourhoods of dance, dub-inspired bass lines, and multi-part harmonies that recall 60s west coast pop. The result is an album that has a great sense of swooping drama that takes the listener through the veil of sleep into the land of Morpheus and eventually out the other side as a triumphant dawn breaks. The ear is constantly engaged and enthralled by the inventive melodies that weave through the album and insistent musical and lyrical themes add to the thrill of the journey.

For a debut album, the scope and ambition are breathtaking. That Pure Reason Revolution manage to achieve a result that fulfils that vision suggests this is a band whose future is writ large.

It's enough to bring tears to your eyes

2006-04-11T21:02:00.001+01:00

I've just finished The Time Traveller's Wife by Audrey Niffenegger. It made me cry.

It is therefore either insufferably sentimental or an exquisitely beautiful and heart-rending novel. You will have to make up your own mind which it is most likely to be depending on what you think of me.

Don't Hurt Yourself

2006-03-17T15:21:00.003Z

If you were intrigued as to the nature of the 'non-specific angst' of a few days ago...

I've had a pain over my heart for the past couple of weeks or so. It wasn't constantly there, and it was a sort of awareness of something not quite right, rather than an outright pain - if you imagine a knuckle being pushed between two of your ribs - not too hard but enough that you'd know it was there. I am prone to getting 'stress balls' and it felt kind of similar to that - normally, I get them in my diaphragm. Not too much to worry about per se, but normally an indicator that I need to chill out and relax a bit. I haven’t been feeling out of breath since I’ve had this and hadn’t noticed my heart racing or anything, so I thought stress was almost certainly the cause. There’s not anything specific that I need to be stressed about, but I’ve a number of projects that are due about the same time; college work and a number of pilots I’ve been doing here at work, and I suppose it might be that that made me nervous.

Anyway, on Monday, I had a really lousy night's sleep - about three hours worth. I'd gone to bed thinking about this pain and ended up convincing myself that it wasn’t stress, it was an impending heart attack or lung cancer or something conceivably worse than that (whatever that might be), and the pain did seem greater. On the Tuesday, I actually told K___ I was a bit worried about this pain and I continued to fixate on it throughout the day. It was K___’s late night and I was in the house by myself all evening. I managed to work myself up into a right state worrying about it. I looked up ‘chest pains’ on the NHS Direct website and they scared the crap out of me. So, I then phoned NHS Direct and they categorically told me I needed to get to hospital and wanted to call an ambulance. I refused – K___ would have been on the way home, and I didn’t want to have to tell her something was up when she was on the train and couldn’t do anything about it. Besides, I’d had it for over two weeks by then, so didn’t think anything was likely to happen soon. However, I thought that it probably wasn’t a great idea and if I was in genuine danger of having a heart attack, hospital might be a good place to do it. I gave my folks a ring and my dad turned up and took me to hospital. I txt’d K___(she wouldn’t answer her phone) to say my mum would pick her up, and briefed my mum to get K___to the hospital as soon as possible.

Before my dad got to mine, I wrote a short message in Notepad on my computer. I would have written more, but then I was expecting them to say, 'Quite right, it's definitely stress, now calm down'. I didn’t really think that anything was going to happen, or at least I hoped it wouldn’t, but I hated the idea that I had missed my chance to tell everyone the things that you hope they know. That’s a good measure of how panicked I’d got myself, I think. I was seriously scared about what might happen.

So, at the hospital, they test my blood pressure and get me on an ECG machine (had my chest shaved for that, which was something you’d probably have to pay for anywhere else…). I saw the printout and wasn’t sure if it was good or not. All the peaks looked regular and the same height but there are four different lines of readouts on each page. On three, the spikes occurred at exactly the same time and were the same height. On one, it was completely flat for a period of three beats. Being the sort of person I am, I immediately wondered if that was normal, despite the fact that I obviously haven't the skill or knowledge to translate an ECG read out. Then they sent me out to wait until a doctor could see the results. In the interim, K___ arrived, looking a little bit teary and worried. Her phone had been flat and she’d been getting very upset when I didn’t pick her up at the station. Fortunately, my mum got there soon after. Unfortunately, I don't imagine that saying, 'your husband's gone to A&E with chest pains,' did much to make her feel any better.

Anyway, eventually, I see the doctor and he’s asking me to describe the pain, which I try to do as best I can. He’s not always happy with my responses and keeps asking me the same question over and over but not surprisingly, my answers remain the same. I don’t know if I wasn’t being specific enough or what. I described the ‘knuckle’ feeling, which is my best attempt to describe it. Eventually, he said he thought it was indigestion and prescribed Gaveston (or whatever it is). I thought and still think that’s crap, but am taking it anyway. He said my heart was perfectly all right. I asked about my blood pressure and he said it was a little high, but not particularly noteworthy - hell, I had to ask, so it clearly can't have been! So, I went home again. It was a relief to hear that my heart seems to be okay. I was a hole-in-the-heart baby, and so there was always a chance that it wasn’t 100%. That probably added to the stress.

The past couple of days, I’ve still managed to get myself stressed worrying about it when I've had particular twinges, but I eventually get it under control. I've not missed any work. I feel very tired in the evenings and I’m trying to relax as much as possible. K___'s been a godsend where this is concerned. I hate feeling like any sort of a burden. It’s difficult when the pain is located over your heart – naturally you tend to worry much more about that than some twinge in your calf muscle etc. Ultimately, the worrying just makes things worse not better, so practical steps are in order. I’m taking things easy and doing my best to get all my work etc prioritised and sorted. If nothing else, it seems to me that this is a wake-up call, a warning not to take my health for granted and I’m determined to take steps towards getting the weight down and eat more sensibly etc. I’ve no intention of going anywhere for quite some time.

I hate stress. I wish I wasn't prone to it, but clearly I am and therefore I need to take steps.

Don't hurt yourselves, people.

Thought for the Week

2006-03-17T09:23:00.002Z

Our local paper has a 'Thought for the Week' column on the second page. I occasionally read it to enjoy the unbearably crass messages that appear there. This issue comes with a story about God and barbers. You may have heard it, but if not, here it is. I cribbed this version from the net, but it's pretty much what they had in the local rag.

A man went to a barber shop to have his hair cut and his beard trimmed. As the barber began to work, they began to have a good conversation. They talked about so many things and various subjects. When they eventually touched on the subject of God, the barber said: 'I don't believe that God exists.'

'Why do you say that?' asked the customer.

'Well, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God doesn't exist. Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick people? Would there be abandoned children? If God existed, there would be neither suffering nor pain. I can't imagine a loving God who would allow all of these things.'

The customer thought for a moment, but didn't respond because he didn't want to start an argument. The barber finished his job and the customer left the shop.

Just after he left the barbershop, he saw a man in the street with long, stringy, dirty hair and an untrimmed beard. He looked dirty and unkempt. The customer turned back and entered the barber shop again and he said to the barber, 'You know what? Barbers do not exist.'
'How can you say that?' asked the surprised barber. 'I am here, and I am a barber. And I just worked on you!'

'No!' the customer exclaimed. 'Barbers don't exist because if they did, there would be no people with dirty long hair and untrimmed beards, like that man outside.'

'Ah, but barbers DO exist! What happens, is people do not come to me.'

'Exactly!' affirmed the customer. 'That's the point! God, too, DOES exist! What happens, is, people don't go to Him and do not look for Him. That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world.'

Fuck me. I'm convinced; I don't know about you... Oh no, hang on... I'm not.

Firstly, the above situation never ever happened. Even if we assume that the customer did manage to run into a knight of the road in the manner described, and even if we assume that the customer did manage to construct an inadequately thought about line of philosophical attack, things clearly couldn't work as depicted above. In reality, what would happen is that the customer would come back into shop and give his 'Barbers don't exist' line. Then, the barber would look at him like he was a bit lacking and eject the man from his shop before he caused a scene in front of the other customers.

Moreover, no decent writer would read that parable back and think to themselves, 'Yes, I think I've constructed a clever and convincing tale, with a logical consistency and strength of argument that cannot be denied.'

Instead, any reader is immediately irritated by the attempt to try and imply that the same burden of proof is required for an ordinary bloke who cuts your hair once every six weeks and who can provably be found where he claims to be and will actually demonstrate his claimed skills and an omnipotent, omnipresent and loving creator who allows George Bush to exist and only reveals himself to those who don't bother questioning badly constructed 'Thought for the Day' pieces.

I'm just glad I've not set foot in a barber's shop for over a decade. It seems their clientele are wankers.

Places wot I 'ave bin to.

2006-03-14T02:11:00.001Z

A silly thing, but it keeps you amused when non-specific angst keeps you awake at 2.15 am...

I think I've been to all of those places. I may be lying about a few, but not intentionally!

Us and Them...

2006-02-22T20:42:00.001Z

When the right-wing, anti-immigration, anti-minorities Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten printed those cartoons of Mohammed wearing a bomb-shaped turban on 30 September 2005, I don't think they could have had any sensible idea what they were about to let loose in the world.

I've watched as the reaction to the cartoons grows increasingly hysterical on both sides. On the Muslim part, there appears to have been a calculated policy by some of the more radical Imams to kick up as much fuss as possible. By adding cartoons that weren't even a part of the original series, they apparently toured Muslim countries informing the citizens of the blasphemy of the West. Cue riots, flag burning and deaths. To a large degree, the Muslims have every right to be upset. Despite what has frequently been touted, it's not actually forbidden to show images of Mohammed at all. It is however, considered a step too far when the prophet is portrayed as a terrorist. Their right to feel offended doesn't, of course, excuse acts of violence any more than Christians have the right to send death threats to high ranking BBC officers who put on Jerry Springer the Opera.

All this has been gone into at great length.

My take on this part of the issue:

1) The Danish newspaper should have been more mindful of causing offence. That said, there probably was a naivity about how great the outcome might be. (Since originally posting this, I have read that the newspaper is well known for its anti-immigration stance, so perhaps I was being over generous here)
2) The other media outlets that subsequently published the cartoons were definitely aware that their actions were likely to lead to more protests and were also likely to inflame tensions between communities. Freedom of Speech, despite what seems to have been touted around the West, does not mean that you shouldn't use your brain and not be mindlessly offensive.
3) The cartoons should have been protested not because they were blasphemous but because (for the most part) they were rubbish.
4) Muslim leaders who inflamed this situation by manipulating the ordinary men and women are scary motherfuckers.
5) I don't believe for one moment that most ordinary Muslims have any desire to overthrow the government.

What worries me at least as much is the reaction of some sections of the non-Muslim population here.

I spend the majority of my online time on a number of 'core' websites. Many are band/music-related sites, others not. Most of them have some sort of community element to them - a forum, noticeboard or chat facility.

Since the whole furore about the cartoons kicked off, I have noticed a frightening lurch to the right on these online forums. I can only suspect that it is the same everywhere. I work in a place that would probably be considered by most to be incredibly PC, and it was never likely to be much in evidence here. My mates are also unlikely to be a party to any such lurch, and therefore I haven't experienced it in real life. Perhaps everything I'm about to write is just simply a huge over-reaction and there isn't any such problem at all. I can only hope so.

I'm not talking about the two-dimensional types here. There's one chap that frequents a question and answer site that I use who is so preposterously right-wing that it's hard to take him seriously. For a long time, this chap has expressed views such as 'Islam is inherantly evil' and 'Islam is a virus' and 'We should get our boys out of Iraq and then just nuke it. And get Iran whilst we're at it'. I was seriously entertaining the notion that this guy was some sort of parody, perhaps a comedian trying out a new persona. Sadly, I don't think that's the case; occasionally this gentleman displays signs of actual intelligence and sense. But anyway, he's not the issue. He's clearly an idiot and generally people treat his views with the contempt they deserve.

No, the issue is with the 'normal' people. People who generally express reasoned views that you might hear in any pub, or at a gig or whatever. Just, you know, people. People who are reasonably intelligent, reasonably well informed, have reasonably good jobs etc. People, indeed, like me. All of a sudden, a great number of these people are coming out with comments that you wouldn't have heard even in the wake of the July bombings.

All of a sudden crass, racist jokes about Muslims seem to have become acceptable. These are not jokes that have any great insight into the human condition, the Muslim condition or anything else. Their closest analogy is Bernard Manning saying to a black man in his audience, 'How did you get here? Swinging from the lamp posts?' - making some sort of black man/ monkey comparison. Really base stuff. From a technical perspective alone, most of the jokes are incredibly lame - where's the expectation and subversion? It's not like these jokes are attempting to make people think by challenging their prejudices, they are purely and simply based around being offensive.

But worse than 'jokes' is the fact that there seems to be a new consensus; 'Enoch Powell was right with his Rivers of Blood speech'. 'The Muslims are out to take over this country.' 'By 2050, the UK will be a Muslim country.' 'Islam is a religion of violence and here is the proof in the Koran.'

Along with this, there is frequently an invocation of the increasingly redundant word 'racist'. The problem with the word is twofold. Firstly, many people now see a claim of 'racism' as a catch-all used to deny them their right to express their views and by pre-empting that accusation with 'but some people will call me a racist for having those views' it becomes very much harder for any legitimate arguement that it *is* actually racist to succeed. Indeed, it requires an in-depth analysis of the statement made for any rebuttal to hold water. Few seem to be interested in entering into such debates (and indeed online forums are not always the best place to have such indepth conversations), claiming that it's getting bogged down in semantics. Secondly, since many of these people would argue - and doubtless legitimately - that they do not hold these views about any non-white person, that Islam is not limited to people of one skin colour and that therefore it cannot be considered racist. So, in my opinion, the 'racist' angle has become problematic to say the least.

My real concern is what all of this means going forward. If what I have seen is representative of society in gereral - and as I said, I hope it isn't (but fear it is) - what can we expect going forwards. I remember studying 'war' at university as part of my anthropology options. The first thing that occurs in any conflict prior to it decending into violence is denigration. Human beings are actually extremely bad at enacting violence upon people they consider to be equals. I recall (though regretably I don't remember the name of the tribe involved) a discussion of a tribe of Amazonian cannibals. They were not exclusively cannibalistic - the environment simply couldn't have supported such a thing - but they would periodically go off and massacre another tribe and consume their flesh. What fascinated me was the fact that before they could carry out these attacks, the tribe would spend several days working through a ritual of self-aggrandisment and debasing of their target. This consisted of a primitive version of 'Yo Mama'! They would tell stories about how their intended victims indulged in sex with children, incest and other no-nos. The purpose of this, as you have undoubtedly guessed, was to make their victims seem less like people with whom they shared characteristics but mere animals. And it was acceptable to kill and eat animals...

Now, obviously I'm not suggesting the non-Muslims of the UK are about to decend on the followers of Islam and eat them! However, it strikes me that the characterisation of Muslims as violent animals, hell bent on wiping out Western culture, who demand special rights of consideration that are not allowed to the 'indigienous' people etc... all these things may breed a culture in which violence against Muslims becomes seen as acceptable.

It strikes me as particularly ironic that this is happening at the same time as the holocaust denier David Irving has been jailed for three years for having lectured Austrians on his odious views back in 1989. I'm not getting into that debate here, but suffice it to say that, sometimes regretably, free speech cuts both ways and fuckwits like Irving get the right to air their views. In my opinion, jailing him suggests his views have more creedence than they deserve. What I find ironic is the subject of Irving's rants - the Jews and, by extension, the rising tide of anti-semitism in Germany in the 1920s and 30s that allowed the Nazis to sieze power in the first place. With the exception of Irving and a few marginalised, deluded fools on the far right, it would be difficult to find many who could deny the horror of happened in Europe just a few decades ago. Any cursory glance at the history books will show that anti-semitism in Germany did not begin with the gas ovens, but with a society that looked for a scapegoat for its ills.

I hope that I'm not sounding like some sort of deluded maniac predicting a new holocaust. I'm not suggesting for one second that it will come to that, but it does feel to me that we are rushing headlong into a scenario that with utterly repugnant consequences. What is needed is to re-engage before this point is reached. By simply understanding the concerns on both sides, we can all stop this slide before it goes any further.

Or we can continue to deal in stereotypes and the politics of fear, escalating violence and increasing extremism and hatred and see where that leads us...

"And who knows which is which and who is who?"

Christian Voice

2005-12-08T21:23:00.002Z

Ah Christian Voice, for a bunch of bible-wielding, cunt-witted fucktards, you've got to admire their zeal.

Christian Voice are at the forefront of evangelical Christian Activism in the UK. You might recall them for their excellent campaign which stopped a small charity called Maggie's Centres receiving a certain donation. The donation was to have come from a special performance of Jerry Springer: The Opera by Richard Thomas and Stewart Lee and would have amounted to about £10,000. This money couldn't possibly be acccepted, since JS:TO is blasphemous, and the mouthpiece of Satan. Well done, Christian Voice. I'm sure Jesus would approve of your clever and excellent interpretation of his words.

Christian Voice's other campaigns include:

trying to stop gay police attending gay pride marches
promotting the boycotting of the Co-op Bank. They objected to CV's homophobia and asked CV to move their account elsewhere - in return CV surely did the Christian thing and offered the other cheek and started their campaign
claimed that Hurricane Katrina had purified New Orleans of ‘abortionists… voodoo priests and homosexual tourists’; all this despite the fact that the gay quarter was one of the least affected. Not sure how the abortionist and voodoo priest sections of town got on mind.

They seem to bang on about homosexuality a lot, don't they? It's like they can't stop thinking about it... Homosexuality is, by the way, treatable and all you naughty poofs and lezzers are just pretending you don't like the opposite sex. Presumably you're also masochists and actually like being teased, insulted, abused, beaten or even murdered for the sake of your little pretence... Not 100% on that last point there...

Stewart Lee is currently promoting the tour of JS:TO with Q&A sessions before each run in a town, and is being heckled by Christians in the audience to the point where Lee cannot make himself heard. Now, either Lee's opinions stand up to scrutiny, or they don't. Shouting so much that he can't be heard makes the Christians look irrational and gives Lee kudos, even though we can't hear him. That only one of the twenty-five invited audience members who turned out to be the Jesus Army version of the SAS had actually seen the show doesn't bare well either. If nothing else, you think; fer fuck's sake, do these idiots not read the history books? Do they not recall how the best publicity Monty Python's Life of Brian ever got came from irrational religious people standing outside making it the must-see show of the year? JS:TO; it's The Passion of St Tibulous all over again!

Christian Voice's leader, Stephen Green says of JS:TO: ‘This tour can only bring the judgment of Almighty God on the United Kingdom.’

Well, we'll see, shall we Stephen? Let's make a list of all the judgements that occur during the time of this tour. It lasts until July 2006 . If anyone spots any judgements of the Lord that can be directly attributed to the Bearded One's feeling on JS:TO, please add them in the comments section.

More: http://www.chortle.co.uk/news/dec05/opera071201.php

Waiting to Inhale

2005-10-24T13:47:00.001+01:00

Yesterday, I spent a couple of hours in a swimming pool in Benfleet. Nothing particularly odd or noteworthy there, you might think. People go to swimming pools all the time. However, we were wearing scuba gear. For just £25 we were able to view the odd sticking plaster or piece of sweet wrapper and swim round in circles for a couple of hours. That might not sound like much, but it really was... read on, McDuff!

When we were on honeymoon in Turks and Caicos, one of the attractions was the promise of being able to scuba dive in various locations close to the resort upon completion of a short course. We didn't get to do it and I was the cause. K___ was fine, but I really wasn't. We sat on the side of the pool whilst we were instructed in how to use the equipment and given some basic hand signals we would need to know. With that done, we were strapped into the equipment and jumped into the pool. For a few seconds, I was fine. I looked around and could see K___ across the pool, and the other six or seven people surrounded by the bubbles marking their point of entry. And then, trying to breathe in, I found myself in difficulties. I can't honestly recall exactly how I managed it, but I found myself with some water in my mouthpiece. Despite the fact that I was just a few centimetres under the surface of the water, this was a distinctly unpleasant and worrying sensation. I couldn't remember how to clear it, and I had to go to the surface. I cleared the water and went down again. This time, I was very conscious of my breathing.

If you've ever started thinking about breathing, you'll know that it rapidly becomes a very strange experience. We're not terribly good at controlling it 'manually' and it's quite an effort. I can recall as a child concentrating on my breathing until I started hyper-ventilating. I think this is what happened in Turks and Caicos. With my regulator cleared, I thought I would be all right, but I was concerned that I wasn't getting enough air in. It was all I could do to breathe in enough air in short gulps and I certainly wasn't in a position to concentrate on anything the instructor might have been trying to tell me. With my irregular breathing, the regulator soon filled with water again and I was forced back to the surface where I stood, panting. Even once I'd got my breathing back to normal, I was unable to go under the water before it happened again. The only other thing that I could think about whilst I was under was that I really didn't want to be ten metres down in open water if I was going to get a gobfull of water. All in all, I was a bit panicked, to say the least and I eventually decided that I had better get out of the pool.

To say I was disappointed would be an understatement; diving had been one of the things I was most looking forward too on our honeymoon. There was the added feelings that I had let K___ down too. I insisted that she should go out on a dive, but despite my protests, she refused to go, so I had banjaxed it for both of us.

I wouldn't generally say I am a scared person; certainly not when it comes to 'dangerous' pursuits. I've done rock climbing and abseiling and enjoyed them enormously. I've never been daunted by heights, and my mother insists I spent half my childhood climbing trees. I would love to chuck myself out of a plane and skydive etc. Perhaps it's just going below sea level that I have a problem with?

I think that one of the major issues was that I'd never even snorkelled at the point I went into the training pool. After the failure to scuba, K___ and I did at least one trip every day out onto the reefs and I quickly grew to love the feeling of being suspended above the brightly coloured fish, turtles and corals. I naively swam after the beautiful silver fish that I saw, only to later learn they were potentially dangerous barracuda. Mind you, they had little chance of being caught up by me! In Italy in 2005, I stole a mask and snorkel from my seven year old nephew C_____ (he much preferred to collect stones and build castles on the beach) and lie on my front collecting sand-smoothed pieces of glass from the shallows. Absolutely bliss! In doing this, I had acclimatised myself to the necessary breathing technique.

When we decided that we would go to Cuba in January 2006, the scuba issue came up once more. We booked a £25 course entitled 'Discover Scuba Diving' with a company based in Basildon; Reef and Wrecks Diving. Once we had signed the necessary medical forms and disclaimers and selected our equipment and driven to the pool, there was virtually no delay before getting into the water and getting the equipment on. Just a couple of minutes after getting in, we were swimming about underwater.

It was remarkably low stress and very much better for the fact that K___ and I had a dedicated instructor keeping an eye on us. With only two of us, we were able to work at a speed that suited us. The instructor, Jim, regularly brought us up to the surface to check on how we were feeling and to correct our technique. He was encouraging about our progress and provided us with constructive feedback on how we could improve. After two hours, I was entirely confident of being able to do it in Cuba and was wishing we had something more interesting to look at than the bottom of a school swimming pool. To me, it was a testament to the skill of the team at Reef and Wrecks Diving that I was confident enough to be bored of the tiles. Unfortunately, we won't be able to do a full 'Open Water' course before we leave, but both of us felt that it was something we would want to do when we return. In just two hours, I had gone from apprehension to anticipation of our trip. My heartfelt thanks go to Jim and the Reef and Wrecks Diving team.

I'll let you know how we get on in Cuba. I can't wait!

"Service Charge Refunds"

2005-09-01T10:32:00.003+01:00

Have you had doorsteppers from the energy companies come round?

We did last night. I was in the garden watering the tomatoes when they arrived, so K___ got the door.
'Hello, Mrs M______...? Or Mrs B_____?'

'Ye-eesss..?'

They proceeded to tell her that they needed to speak to the registered bill payer for electricity. K___ says it's me. They claimed that I should have been contacted last week regarding a reduction in service charge that we might be due and they would need to see our bills to check if it had been done. K___ said I wasn't available and she had food on the hob and wasn't terribly inviting. They then said they would call back at eight o'clock to speak to me and left.

So, K__ tells me that these people are coming back, and mentions the fact that they don't know who is there. Immediately we're thinking, 'Oh ho! If they were from our supplier they'd know who paid the bill. Moreover, if I was due some 'reduction of service charge' I would expect for them to write to me - they know where I live, cos they keep sending their Direct Debit statements here. So we're thinking this is a bit dodgy - it's one of those 'sign here to say we've visited you and you want to claim the 'service charge reduction' and the next thing you know, they have transferred you to a different supplier' type malarkies. Plus, I must be honest, I had a pretty much identical call a couple of months ago.

So, eight o'clock rolls around and there's a ring on the bell. I now know, having looked on the OFGEM website that they are only allowed to call between 9 in the morning and 8 at night - so they were already tettering on the cusp of their code of practice. Still, I didn't know that last night.

'Hello, Mr M_______?' It's a man and a woman, both wearing badges from an electricity supplier. We're not with this company. She talks. He says nothing.

I don't reply.

'...or is it Mr B_____?'

'Don't you know?' They've obviously just pulled our details from an old copy of the electoral role.

'We spoke to your wife...'

I say nothing...

'...or partner earlier and she said we could call back. It's regarding a possible service charge reduction on your electricty bill that you may be due. Did you get a call about this last week?'

'No.'

'Oh, you should have been contacted.' Chinnus, I think. ' We just need to see a copy of your latest bill.'

'Why don't you have a copy of my bill?'

'Oh, well, aren't you with PowerGen or Eastern?'

I shrug.

'Don't you know?'

I do know, because I checked before they came back, but regardless, it's none of their business.

'If you have a copy of your bill available, I can just check and see if you're due the service charge reduction?'

'So, you're from my electricity supplier but you don't know whether I'm due a service charge reduction so you want to see the bill you sent me?'

'Oh, er no.'

'So how can you offer me a reduction? You're just trying to get me to change electricity supplier, aren't you?'

'Well, yes.'

'Right,' I say, plucking pen and pad from my pocket. 'I want your name and company details please.'

'May I ask why?'

'Yes. I'm going to write to your company and complain.'

'I didn't think I was rude. I do apologise if I've offended you...' she said, rather taken aback.

'You weren't. That's not why I'm going to complain. Also, I'd like you to take my name of any list you might have. I don't want to receive any more calls like this.'

'I can't do that sir.'

'Yes you can,' I insisted. 'Now goodbye.'

I've since discovered that you can't stop people knocking on the door, which seems more than a little ludicrous to me, but there you go.

I admit I wasn't particularly pleasant to the woman and I know she's 'just doing a job' (her and the Nazis, right kids?) but it really pisses me off! (Did you spot that?) The first time I had someone try the exact same line I was perfectly pleasant - if a little confused - until I worked out what they were up to. Once bitten, twice nasty...

It would be one thing if they knocked at the door and said, 'Hello, we're from company X and we think we might be able to get you a better deal on your electricity' but they don't. They hide their intentions behind a load of flimflam. It relies on the fact that most people don't know who their supplier is - I didn't; we had to look before they got back. The bills go out, the DD pays it, thank you and good night. I may well not have the most efficient deal. Perhaps I should continually shop around for the best deals but I don't. That's my problem, surely? I don't get Primark on the doorstep saying 'Oh, we could do you a much better deal on black jeans.'

Only a short while before she died, K___'s grandma signed something to say she'd received some information on lower prices only to discover her supplier was changed. It is confusing, it's not clear what they're doing, why they need to see your bill or what 'a reduced service charge is'. It is deliberately vague and it is done with the intention of 'gaining a pecuniary advantage by deception' and it definitely exploits people who are that bit more vulnerable.

Unfortunately, since they don't outright tell lies, you've got precious little you can do about it. I am going to write to the relevant company and tell them I object to their sales technique, but I doubt much will happen because of it. You can sign up to the Telephone Preference Society, you can sign up to the Mailing Preference Society but apparently there's nothing you can do to stop people spamming your doorstep. It sucks.

(and breath and relax... breathe and relax...)

Intelligent Design - A Lament

2005-08-12T15:59:00.002+01:00

About three times in the last year, we have received a free rag from the Elim church around the corner from us. I've no idea what the peculiarities of Elim churches are. There's a few around. Their buildings tend to make me lump them in with the Methodists but for all I know they might believe in the whole God, Jesus, Holy Moly schtick but with something about the need to eat Smarties tacked on. The first issue of this paper that I recall featured upon its front page a story of how a British man of Christian faith caught on a beach survived the devastating Indonesian tsunami by praying to God while around him the non-Christians died in the waves. That the claim it was making was both fatuous and offensive is barely worth saying, but it did irritate me enough to read more - nothing like feeling some self-righteous ire. I suppose the Christians have always understood that.

Later on, there was some story - I forget the details - which presented some evidence which 'proved' there must be an intelligent creator rather than evolution. In the last issue, I read that the fact that a dinosaur fossil contained 'soft tissue' 'proved' that the fossils couldn't be as old as evolution claimed and that this dinosaur - a raptor-y type beast, I think - was around at the same time as man. A little reading on the Interweb threw up a number of news stories. Not one of them bothered to imply that this discovery invalidated evolution. All had quotes from the scientists concerned, excited at this new challenge and looking forward to discovering what this soft tissue would tell us. There were plenty of other example of similarly hysterical 'proofs' that evolution was a flawed (for which read 'wrong') theory and that it pointed towards an intelligent designer. I felt the arguements were all a bit dishonest and slightly unethical. I didn't have any great awareness that this was but the tip of an iceburg.

In August 2005, George W Bush, President of the United States of America, told Texan newspaper reporters that children should be taught about Intelligent Design in schools in order to understand better the origins of the universe.

Intelligent Design is 'Creationism Strikes Back'. It proposes that life is too complex to have developed through evolution and an unseen power must have had a hand. Essentially, it's a way to get the ghost back into the machine. Although the concept merely refers to 'an unseen power', a quick look at the chief movers and shakers behind the theory tells you what the actual agenda is. 'Surprise, surprise!,' chuckles Cilla, leaping out from under the discarded shell of a Galapagos tortoise. 'You thought Intelligent Design was a scientifically balanced counter-argument to evolution… Well, I'm here to tell you that it's actually your chance to reject rationalism and throw in your lot with Christian fundamentalists.' Emphasis on 'mentalists' there, naturally.

Intelligent Design (ID) does differ from the fundamentalist view of Biblical Creation. The Creationists would have it that God created the world in six days. That's a literal one hundred and forty four hours to create everything. By the time you factor in the time he must have spent checking his email, God must have worked pretty fast. In the face of the increasing amount of overwhelming evidence that this was not actually the case, fundamentalist Creationism had been suffering a decline in popularity. ID, however, is a way for Judeo-Christian Creationists to fight back by postulating a theory that - they claim - is more scientifically valid than evolution.

One of the more frustrating things about ID is the way in which it seems to go out of its way to create a problem for itself. How? Well, the problem is that science doesn't back literal creation, and people are buying into the notion that the scientific argument is sufficiently logically consistent to be correct, right? So, if one wishes to have a belief in an omnipotent, omnipresent creator, surely it would suffice to say, 'Yes, evolution is the correct mechanism to describe what has gone on, but it was designed by God.' This is quite simply not provable either way; it is a matter of faith and thus any arguments on the subject are ultimately futile. It seems that this is not acceptable to the Creationists. Perhaps it is because evolution (which, incidentally, is sometimes written by Creationists as the hilarious term 'evilution') is a cornerstone of atheism? They couldn't simply co-opt the mechanism, because to do so would be to legitimise a central tenet of the godless's paradigm. So they created a new one.

Dr Michael Behe, the originator of the notion of Intelligent Design is an interesting chap. Lehigh University biochemist and Fellow of the Discovery Institute*, Behe postulated his theory in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box. His credentials as a scientist are frequently cited by his fans to give credibility to his ascertations. Indeed, the reason for the groundswell of support behind ID is the fact that it is presented as a scientific theory with sufficient credibility to go head to head with evolution. That 'belief' is not a requirement of ID is a strength. Traditional Creationism relies on the patently absurd presentation of the argument 'Well, if you look at the evidence in the Bible…' to people who er… don't believe in the legitimacy of the Bible. Always a bit of a non-starter there. ID, on the other hand, works on the principle of 'Okay, we've used the criteria you wanted us to use, so you must accept it…'

One of the key aspects of Intelligent Design is that of 'Irreducible Complexity'. This argues that there are biological systems that are so complex that they could not have evolved. They contend that if one element of the system is removed, the whole does not worth, therefore it cannot have appeared except as a fully functioning system.

An example might be the lung of a bird. Birds' lungs utilise a 'circulatory' system, whereas the lungs of a reptile - from which evolutionists believe birds evolved - rely on a 'bellows' system. Since, say the ID supporters, any evolution would have required an intermediary stage where there was a hole in the diaphragm and that this in turn would have been detrimental to the organism's ability to breathe, there cannot have been any such stage. ID wisdom therefore says the birds' lungs must have arrived as a complete system. In turn, they claim, this necessitates a creator. If they are right, the Intelligent Designer conclusion is logical. Now, I certainly don't have the necessary biological background to be able to debunk the birds' lung conundrum, of which, more later.

However, there is a clear problem in the reasoning here. I am borrowing from Wikipedia's article on Irreducible Complexity to demonstrate this. Envisage a keystone arch. It is entirely true that removing any one segment of the arch thus destroys the arch. The arch ceases to exist without all elements being present. We could therefore attempt to argue that it is 'Irreducibly complex', could not have developed in stages and must therefore have arrived in situ. This is manifestly not correct - the process of building an arch relies on a scaffold being utilised. With the addition of the keystone, the arch is self-supporting and the scaffold is thus useless. It can be removed. What the ID supporters do not wish to acknowledge is that there could be a 'scaffold' stage in the birds' lung argument.

As far as I am aware, all systems put forward as proof of ID can either be debunked by evolutionary science or are thought capable of being debunked by evolutionary science. The methodology of the examples put forward for ID has been found to be flawed on several occasions. Behe has yet to present his work for peer review - the standard process for validation in the scientific community. In a number of cases, supposedly Irreducibly Complex systems have turned out to be nothing of the sort in light of subsequent investigations.

For the ID fans, debunkings are frequently dismissed. More interesting is their response to those that evolutionary science has not yet debunked but believes will ultimately be so. I believe this throws up a fundamental difference in the two sides.

Creationists necessarily believe that they know the driving force behind the world we see. It is God. This is central to their belief system and is not subject to debate. To deny God's role as creator of the universe is to deny God himself and therefore unacceptable. Therefore, it is inherent to their position that there is an agenda.

Evolutionary Scientists are adherents to scientific principals. Science is defined as "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." (dictionary.com). Science, in order to be scientific, cannot be dogmatic. If it so happened that scientific method bore out the theories of ID, that would become science. If science showed there were a God, God would become scientific fact. To the supporters of ID, the fact that there are holes in evolutionary theory is taken as evidence that it is wrong. In fact, of course, it merely demonstrates that the scientific investigation is not complete. Science is completely comfortable with this scenario. It doesn't invalidate it in the slightest. If science makes a discovery that invalidates previously held scientific notions, it is a triumph of science, not a failure. Science, by its fundamental nature, can and must accept changes in the body of accepted knowledge if the scientific method used to determine these observations is shown to be rigorous.

There is a key difference there.

Now, my worry in all of this concerns the presentation of these arguments. The Elim Church newspaper that I mentioned earlier and Bush's pronouncement mean that ID is becoming presented ever more widely as an acceptable challenge to evolution. Given that it, on the surface at least, has the appearance of good scientific practice, agenda-led science is being presented to more people. Although my gut feeling upon reading the Elim newspaper, and hearing the news of Bush was that they were wrong, I have had to read reasonably widely to be able to come up with credible arguments to justify feeling safe in thinking that. In my bag I have got a large tome called Evolution by Carl Zimmer. The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins is soon to be ordered from the library. In the interests of balance, I shall check out something by Behe. I feel I need to read up on subjects where previously I was entirely happy to have a very basic level of understanding and accept that the scientists knew what they were talking about. Let's face it, how many people bother to find out much about gravity? We simply accept it. In the light of this new development, I feel I need to be better informed - which is certainly no bad thing, regardless.

In the past century, science has advanced humankind's knowledge further than it did in the entire previous millennium. At the same time, superstitious beliefs are gaining new footholds. If modern times tell us anything, it's that the net result of allowing superstition to govern your behaviour creates a situation that is entirely undesirable. I only hope they don't start attacking science via quantum theory. It does my head in even at the numbskull level of understanding I have at present.

P.S. I feel I must acknowledge that, ironically, my own investigations were agenda led - hands up to that one, God! Fortunately for me, the arguments appear to support my position.

* since writing this article, I have discovered that this is a an institute dedicated to ID (which rather undermines its ability to give credibility to Behe's scientific credentials.