Foreign Perspectives

Archive for May, 2010

As it stands, I suspect not and ironically the problem is because it tries to frame what’s essentially a belief system in terms that could be put across as science.

The biggest problem with it in scientific terms is that it starts from the premise that everything that exists now was created out of nothing about 6000 years ago. This causes the direct conflict with science in that there are proofs that show that life existed on earth for many millions of years and that the universe has been around for billions of years. The scientific theories that show those ages are inter-linked and many of the underlying principles behind them are used to make 21st century life work too: just about every piece of technology in your house (including the house construction itself) relies on at least some of those scientific principles.

However, supposing that instead of a creator (or rather Creator), there were a race of beings with a civilisation billions of years old. Could such a bunch of people simply create an earth with all the pseudo-history in the form of things like fossils that appeared to be millions of years old? I suspect that the answer would be a clear “yes”. Asking whether or not they would bother to do that is no more relevant than it would be for bacteria to attempt to understand our own reasons for doing things.

Science basically ignores that possibility and attempts to explain things as they are (or appear to be) and goes on to use that knowledge to improve things. Creationism assumes that there’s no point in attempting to understand it and would leave us in the dark ages.

One of the basic tenets of the new politic of Northern Ireland that the various institutions were set up to encourage was the removal of religious bigotry and now we find that the Minister for Culture and Leisure has weighed in with the most extreme version of it that I’ve seen in a long time.

What he took upon himself was to write a letter suggesting (which, from the government minister in charge means essentially ordering) the Ulster Museum to incorporate creationism into its various displays. Not as a religious belief mind you, but as scientific fact (hence his referring to it as creationism rather than Christian belief).

Now, I don’t see that representing the influence of Christian (and Viking and Pagan) beliefs on the social development of Ulster as a problem. After all, there are significant Pagan burial grounds all over the place and we’re almost knee deep in Christian churches so obviously there’s been significant influence on the social development of the country over many centuries. In fact, those influences are shown at various points in the museum; the Christian ones aren’t so obvious as they’re so deeply ingrained in the culture.

What is wrong is to show the pseudo-science (false science to be truthful) that is creationism. This puts forward the notion that everything was created about 6000 years ago which is something of a problem as some of the exhibits in the museum are somewhat older than that. Millions of years older in many cases and billions of years older in some cases. Even the Egyptian exhibit would cause some issues.

The basic problem with his entire belief system is that it starts from the premise that evolution is only a theory. The problem is that there’s whole raft of science behind it which would need to be very wrong for it not to be right. For example, if the carbon dating used to date the fossils (millions of years old) is fundamentally wrong then it means that a number of fundamental physical theories are also wrong which would be a bit of a problem as some of them are required to control the operation of things like nuclear power stations. Similarly, it would mean that some fundamental principles behind biology are wrong and that’s a problem as some of those things that support evolution in biology are also used to create new vaccines. Creationism also has to deal with the “small” problem that for the first time man has created a life form that never existed before; that creation relies on using a number of those theories which support evolution.

But what about the other religions? If one is to be (incorrectly) represented then shouldn’t others be given equal treatment too? Nelson McCausland shouldn’t be permitted to try and impose his own fundamentalist Christian beliefs and should be considering his resignation speech this evening.

Those certainly seem to be good things on the whole, but what seemed very clear as the Queen’s speech ran on was that, by and large, it was a case of cancelling out just about every major piece of legislation that Labour has put through over the last 13 years or so.

Out goes the all-time black hole of expense which would have been ID cards and in comes the related limits on the DNA database and restrictions on CCTV. It’s nice to see that the big brother state is being rolled back in very concrete ways; hopefully they’ll rail back on some of the other less than libertarian ideas of the security services too.

Freedom of choice comes back to schooling with academies and to local authorities with more powers being devolved to them. Devolution in another form becomes safer through blocks on more powers being taken by Europe. Rolling back the state continues through reductions in the number of quangos and giving health professionals more say in the basic decision making.

Welfare reform is promised which is interesting as it’s something that the Conservatives have historically been scared of doing.

Pensions get some attention by regaining the link to earnings (good) and raising the state retirement age (not so good). Very good is the final acceptance that the government had a lot to do with the fall of Equitable Life and therefore should be paying compensation: this will take ages I’m sure and will definitely be complex as many of those due compensation have died.

A rather short speech which introduces a veritable mountain of legislation.

As with all final tutorials the one yesterday was mainly centred around the exam.

For this course that exam consists of three very different types of questions which require three equally different approaches to revising for them and similarly different tactics in answering them. As always, good time management is important in both revision and on the day of the exam and it’s even more important when the exam paper is made up of totally different types of question.

Coming first on the day are eight short questions whilst last is a choice of one essay from four. Yesterday the consensus was that it was best to answer the essay first as that’s a relatively known quantity so should make for some settling time. The problem with that is that you need to be fairly strict in doing the essay within an hour or so as much of an over-run will cause problems for the rest of the exam. That potential for over-running the time is a big problem for some people: it’s very important to remember that the essay only counts for 30% of the marks so spending, say, 50% of the time on it is unlikely to be productive.

The analysis question is something of an unknown quantity. My thinking on it is that it should be done second basically because it’s the kind of question that you wouldn’t want to feel rushed over. There are likely to be a lot of easy marks to be had from it, notably on the graph if they ask for one as it can take up to 1/3rd of the total marks for the question. Don’t run over the hour on this either though!

Finally, the thinking seemed to be that the short questions should be done last. That’s basically because it would be very easy to over-run the time on this and it could be rather de-motivating if you found that you could only do 6 or 7 of the questions.

Revision should really be done in that order too I think although it’s not really possible to revise for the analysis question.

Saturdays seem to be getting busier and busier for us as it seems like every activity you want to do ends up being scheduled for some time on a Saturday. Thus, we found ourselves on the go pretty much non-stop from about 9.30 through to almost 6pm today.

For the usual reasons (ie religion), Sunday never gets even half so busy as even the least busy Saturday. Whilst may deride the “day of rest” aspect as being totally out of touch with modern society, we’re finding increasingly that we need that day of rest. Granted, we don’t drop all activities on Sundays but we generally end up with something like a half-day at minimum unallocated time.

Today on the other hand was truly manic! Since it was the day for my biology class it meant an early start for the kids with their Kumon which did have the upside that they’d a longer gap between that and the football. However, after football it was off to an audition so we ended up on the go ’til after 6pm: longer than a normal work-day!

Tomorrow is Wendy’s birthday so our normal schedule (OK, ragbag collection of things that we end up doing) will be thrown up in the air although I suspect that most of the birthday activities will take place in the morning and evening.