Two days ago I wrote about the creationist exhibit at the Giant’s Causeway Visitor Centre, a World Heritage site owned by the U.K.’s National Trust. This was obviously another attempt to inject religious viesw where they doesn’t belong, the result being the purveying of lies about science to gullible visitors. But in Northern Ireland!
My earlier report noted that the creationist part of the exhibit was installed after pressure by evangelical Christians, and has been warmly endorsed by the evangelic Caleb Foundation.
Obviously motivated by religion, right? As I always say, you can have religion without creationism, but you never see creationism without religion behind it.
Nevertheless, accommodationists will do anything to avoid blaming creationism on religion, ridiculous as that tactic is. The latest attempt is an article in by Nelson Jones in New Statesman, “Creationism and political power in Northern Ireland.”
What’s behind Causewaygate? According to Jones, not religion but politics:
The important thing to recognise is that this row is essentially about politics rather than science – and, specifically, about the politics of Northern Irish unionism. The Caleb Foundation’s claim to being representative of mainstream evangelical opinion may be open to debate, but it certainly has considerable political influence. Its vice-chairman is Mervyn Storey MLA, a senior member of the DUP and the Orange Order, and several other prominent DUP politicians also have close links to Caleb. According to Roger Stanyard of the British Centre for Science Education Storey, who has no scientific background, “appears to have set himself up as an authority on the geology of the Giant’s Causeway.”. . .
Another MLA, the late George Dawson, wrote in a letter to a Unionist newspaper in 2006 that he and Storey, along with DUP Westminster MP David Simpson,
…have been pressing government on the need to ensure that interpretation at the new Causeway interpretative centre is inclusive of the views expressed by Rev Dr Greer [a creationist who argues that the Causeway provides evidence of Noah’s Flood]… This is a matter of equality and tourism opportunity. In equality terms it is incumbent upon government not to discriminate against this equally scientific viewpoint and those who believe it.
“Equally scientific viewpoint and those who believe it”? That could have come from American creationists!
According to Stanyard, “a core of, maybe, around half a dozen very senior politicians within the DUP” have been involved in promoting Young Earth creationism in the province and that “the evidence over the last few years suggests that there are very strong pressures within the party to get creationism into schools.” . .
It may not be a coincidence that creationism has grown in importance in Ulster politics as the peace process has advanced. The politics of creationism may partly be a replacement for the more overt sectarianism of the past.
Teaching creationism alongside evolution in school science lessons is the ultimate ambition of these campaigners and politicians. Getting creationism acknowledged in the Giant’s Causeway visitors’ centre, even tentatively, counts as a minor victory towards this goal. It helps to establish creationist views as mainstream.
Creationism motivated by political considerations, such as those wanting to appeal to a religious base is still creationism. And there’s no reason for this kind of “politics” except to promote religion. At bottom, the problem is not political but religious.
Absent Christianity, this would not be happening. Absent the DUP, it probably would still have happened.
I just received an acknowledgement of the email I sent objecting to the sign. It said my message would be forwarded to the powers that be. Hopefully something will come of it ’cause I know I wasn’t the only objector 🙂
Mine bounced back because their mailbox is too full.
I just received a reply. It’s standard copy-paste work so we’ll all get the same one. It’s essentially the same as what they posted on their Facebook page and their press office. It’s also too long to reproduce here.
Bottom line, they hold they are not supporting or endorsing the creationist POV (D’oh! Facepalm), and they will not be altering the exhibition.
Between the lines (and from what they don’t say) I read that there was some political pressure (as discussed, the party in power has a lot of members of Caleb). I gather their public funding could therefore depend on it.
My, possibly cynical, take on it right now is, they’ve been told so many times they’re being used, they should understand. The only reason I can think of for them to keep denying it is that they are aware of the background but have to put on a brave face, in light of the above. Quite some pickle they got themselves into!
yeah – I got the same long reply. Something about listing all the tales & intepretations while clearly listing the scientific details. Not sure I like it either. It’s a load of bollocks. It shouldn’t be listed with any other than local myth & legend.
In Northern Ireland, as will be apparent to anyone who knows anything about its recent history, it’s not possible to divorce religion and politics. All political parties are considered to be either Catholic or Protestant (although they don’t necessarily actually say that) or, like the alliance party, actively promote themselves as non-sectarian – i.e. it is not an automatic assumption. In these circumstances, promoting a Protestant version of geology is as much a political act as a religious act. This being so, the National Trust should be sensitive to what the political implications of including this exhibit are. 40 years ago the widespread impression in the N.I. Catholic community was that all British institutions were natural allies of the Protestant community. Although there has been a period of relative peace, such ideas are still around. It is irresponsible to do anything that lends them credibility.
Sounds like all the more reason to keep any hint of religion out of the visitor’s center.
Daniel Dennett: Religion is the best vehicle for social conflict ever invented.
Northern Ireland, Iraq, the USA, Africa, India, it never fails.
Much of the bible is about the conquest and genocide of the Canaanites by the Israelis. Much of the rest is the payback as they get overrun by the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans.
It occured to to to wonder which view is the “protestant” — that is, whether Creationism in Ireland is more common among Protestants or among Catholics? A quick whack at Google turns up a piece (doi: 10.1088/0963-6625/8/2/302) suggesting that about a decade back in Northern Ireland, that did seem to be the case.
However, this may be more due to the “Free Church” (Presbyterian?) protestants than the established Anglican Church of Ireland. I’m not sure how much political significance is given the distinction between them.
Shocking and must be fought at all levels!
According to Wikipedia, the Giant’s Causeway was declared a World Heritage Site by UNESCO in 1986. Does this not mean that its owner – the National Trust – has some obligations towards UNESCO regarding the quality of public information, and regarding political and religious neutrality?
In a rational world yes. Do we live in one? No…
Only to a very limited degree. The convention says:
“The States Parties to this Convention shall endeavor by all appropriate means, and in particular by educational and information programmes, to strengthen appreciation and respect by their peoples of the cultural and natural heritage defined in Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention”
… but I suspect the NT would say they’ve done that. Arguments about the precise meaning of “appropriate” in that sentence would doubtless keep a battalion of lawyers employed.
I don’t see why I as a property owner should suddenly have obligations towards another party simply because they’ve taken it upon themselves to designate my property as something that interests them.
In particular, I can’t see why a heritage body designating a feature would suddenly impose obligations relating to public information/religious neutrality, as opposed to obligations relating to planning/zoning laws.
Property is a social institution, there is no magic or supernatural connection between the owner and the owned. Whether an owner has obligations depends on the particular form the institution takes.
It is true that US acted with undue initiative when the White House under the republica Nixon administration called for a ‘World Heritage Trust’. How dare they go against the private interests that should under no circumstances provide for social interests!? [/sarcasm]
The idea of a World Heritage Trust seems to be to promote national parks and heritage sites, pioneered by US in order to protect “priceless treasure”.
“UNESCO designation as a World Heritage Site provides prima facie evidence that such culturally sensitive sites are legally protected pursuant to the Law of War, under the Geneva Convention, its Articles, Protocols and Customs, together with other treaties including the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and international law.”
It is interesting to see that it is indeed a legal protection and obligation under “planning” laws, more specifically planning against effects of war. At the very least it is also a “I scratch your back, you scratch mine” mutual interest, as loosing the WHS protection means increasing risk.
Thanks for making such a throw out comment that I was spurred to learn about the WHS! It certainly fits UNESCOs remit, which is to contribute to peace and security by promoting education, science et cetera.
Seems like a genuine good and noble thing, which we don’t have too many of. The connection to education and science certainly seems appropriate here on WEIT!
Becoming listed as a World Heritage Site is not a unilateral affair – it does not just happen out of the blue.
http://whc.unesco.org/en/convention/
This move by the NT is probably a commercial gamble that takes into consideration the sadly very high proportion of N Ireland’s population that believes in creationism.
It is not a high proportion. This is one of the things that infuriates many of us in Northern Ireland.The young-earthers are a minority among the Protestants. Catholics accept evolution, so do most Protestant, not to mention all the other world religions who have small congregations here, much less the sizable group of non-believers.
Catholics do not accept evolution. They merely say they do. There is a difference. If they accepted evolution how do you explain the fact that they believe in (and teach about) a god that created the Earth, Adam and Eve, original sin, Noah and the flood, a soul, and other “facts” that are not compatible with the scientific theory of evolution?
I base this on being raised Catholic in a parish that would be considered liberal (many basic Catholic doctrines were ignored by most of the parishioners). Catholics are creationists of sorts. It follows from their religion. They are just not young Earth creationists.
As far as I am informed, Catholics (at least the educated ones) do accept evolution, as far as it concerns animals and plants. For humans they make an exception: here god intervened in the evolution of the primates and transplanted a ‘soul’ into some human ancestor species. Which human species was so lucky to be transmuted into potential Catholics, has (as far as I now) never been specified by the Catholic experts on these matters.
Maybe you missed the extensive WEIT discussions on this. The consensus seems to come down to that any type of creationism (unobserved souls, physical laws (!?), species, guided selection if so by opportune variation) is explicitly anti-scientific, as the accepted theory is explicit minimal and natural both (no unnatural agency).
The religious stance here is to pretend to bear vestments which they don’t own and don’t actually want. They “accept evolution” which means they force themselves to accept “evolution” creationism. They couldn’t care less for process-based evolution.
Thank you for our feedback. I should not have used the word ‘accept’. I know that Catholics (and other believers) have there own ways to deal with science. An example:
From time to time I give talks about Darwin and evolution for a general public, and usually there is this one True Believer in the audience pointing out to me that “everything you say about evolution and selection is correct — but all this is Gods Work. The Laws of Nature, time, infinity, the Big Bang, all that is God’s work.”
My standard reply to this is referring to Laplace, and his answer to Napoleon: “I do not need that hypothesis!” Napoleon, as you surely know, had asked Laplace “Where is God in your system?”
There is actually no official Catholics doctrine on this at all. They are not biblical literalists and for centuries considered that bible could be misleading to the great unwashed. It is consistent with official dogma to be a YEC but I have never met one who is. Most recent popes have accepted Teihard de Chardin’s idea that God planted an immortal soul into man at some time in the distant past. De Chardin seems to have taken this to be the criterion for when we became human. This, of course, would make it impossible to say when it is supposed to have happened.
Jerry, in Norn Iron politics and religion are inseparable. The Caleb foundation is rooted in Ian Paisley’s DUP – in fact you could say that the DUP is the political wing of Caleb – and vice versa. It is that sort of society.
“Equally scientific viewpoint and those who believe it.”
You cana’t believe in a scientific viewpoint. You can assume it’s correct or not.
It’s always nice to see how they contradict themselves.
Do you suffer from low blood pressure?
Then I REALLY recommend reading some of the chapters on the web page at http://www.calebfoundation.org/
Especially the gems under these heading:
– CHRISTIAN RIGHTS FURTHER ERODED
– ST GEORGE’S MARKET TO OPEN ON SUNDAY
– CALEB SPEARHEADS CAMPAIGN FOR EQUALITY IN ULSTER MUSEUM
– Parades Commission Chariman Biased on Gay Pride.
Warning: Reading the site in its entirety may raise your blood pressure to dangerous levels!
.. especially that last one is .. hm, can I use the word ‘hilarious’ in this context?:
The [Gay Pride] Parade Commission Chairman said that ..
The Caleb Foundation’s reaction:
I can already anticipate the gay community’s reaction:
Quite. Bigotry combined with special pleading makes for an ugly sigh [sic!], whether or not it is religious.
[It is just that the religion makes it frequent, naturally.]
I was about to charge that you were misrepresenting Mr. Jones’s position. Then I realized that I was reading i an article in by as is an article by rather than, as intended (?), is in an article by. Nevertheless, I really don’t see any accommodationism either in, or cited by, the article.
On the surface ir looks tenous, but certainly it is an apologist article by Nelson Jones, who posts on religion and calls open atheism and its social reaction ‘unusual or exaggerated´.
More importantly perhaps the much cited Stanyard is from BCSE, and British Centre for Science Education is modeled on the accommodationist American National Center for Science Education, NCSE.
Maybe Jerry used some biological sense? “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.”
Exactly. Politics is just the tool being used, as it so often is, to further religious goals. The two have been bedfellows since the beginning of human culture, each being used as a tool by the other to enhance the power of a few over, and at the cost of, many. Past time for the flocks to stand up and tell their religious leaders to piss off.
Should we be worried about that?
Well, after reading #2 above, it sounds more and more like we should be worried.
Compared with the problems that religion has previously caused in Northern Irish politics, this isn’t that bad.
Jerry .. this quote will show how deep these people have rooted themselves in Norn Iron’s politics.
“Wallace Thompson, the chairman of the Caleb Foundation and a former ministerial adviser to Nigel Dodds when he was a DUP minister in Stormont, said that he hoped the decision to include a creationist viewpoint in the centre would set a precedent for other such exhibitions.
In 2007, the then DUP Environment Minister Arlene Foster was asked in the Assembly by Alliance’s Trevor Lunn for her “assessment of the age of the Giant’s Causeway”.
Mrs Foster did not give her own view but responded: “Geologists generally agree that the Giant’s Causeway is some 60 million years old.
“As you will be aware, however, there are alternative views in relation to the age of the Giant’s Causeway.”
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/local/giant-row-over-age-old-stones-1-4027700
Just to make it even more surreal Arlene Foster is, right now, as Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, responsible for the Geological Survey of Northern Ireland!
I love that: “geologists generally agree” on the age of the earth makes it sound as if they polled a bunch of people on what they want for dinner. No fair forcing everybody to eat liver and brussel sprouts just because that’s what the majority prefers, is it? A “general agreement” should certainly allow a smorgasbord from which all may choose, each according to their own tastes. It’s such a genial little phrase.
Religion never motivates people: apparently people only motivate themselves. Unless, of course, there’s some indication that the pious do something the secular appreciate. In THAT case, of course, it was the religion.
Best summary so far:
http://sluggerotoole.com/2012/07/06/giants-causeway-interpretive-centre-the-national-trust-fully-supports-the-scientific-explanation-for-the-creation-of-the-stones-60-million-years-ago/
There is a petition here http://www.change.org/petitions/the-national-trust-remove-creationist-exhibit-from-the-giants-causeway-visitors-centre-2?utm_campaign=friend_inviter_modal&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition
Done!
It is predictable that a stone age explanation for the forces of nature would be fully marketed and embraced and publicized in pop media.
Magical beliefs are some of the best sales tools out there.
The Orange Order – what a charming bunch of bigots.
We sort of imagine that the problems in Norn Iron have been solved.
We tend to forget that the “peace” is because the extremist parties (Sinn Fein/IRA and DUP) are now in charge, and the moderate parties (SDLP and UUP) don’t sabotage political solutions when the extremists are in power in the way that the extremists did when the moderates were in power.
Its not a stable solution.
The National Trust [sic] sent this reply to my expression of concern :
‘Thank you for your e-mail in relation to interpretation at the new Giant’s Causeway Visitor Centre.
We would like to stress that all of the information presented to visitors in relation to how the Giant’s Causeway was formed, and how old it is, clearly reflects the science, i.e. that the Causeway stones are 60 million years old. This is reflected in the visitor centre, the audio trails which visitors use to explore the Causeway stones, and in all the literature provided both before and during the visit.
There is no creationist interpretation and no alternative theories as to the formation of the Causeway are presented.
This is a stunning state of the art interpretation centre with over 50 exhibits and interactive displays and two hours of audio trails. One of the exhibits in the Visitor Centre interpretation tells the story of the part the Giant’s Causeway played in the historical debate which took place about how the earth’s rocks were formed and about the age of the earth. This is an interactive installation in which by pressing buttons visitors can hear a flavour of some of the different debates from historical characters over centuries. In the context of this exhibit listeners hear a statement that for some people this debate continues today and that Creationists have a different understanding from that of science. We do not explain, justify or support that view.
We are sorry that you are unhappy about this exhibit. However, we hope that you will have the opportunity to come to the Giant’s Causeway , enjoy the visitor centre and see the interpretation in its entirety. The Centre, which opened on 3rd July, is receiving great feedback from visitors.’
In reply to my mail, the National Trust sent me the following reply (I omit the formalities):
” Below is our position statement and FAQ’s, if you have any further questions please contact the regional office for Northern Ireland on NI.customerenquiries@nationaltrust.org.uk.
Position Statement:
The Giant’s Causeway visitor centre provides a state-of-the-art exhibition area which showcases the science and the stories of the Giant’s Causeway.
All of the information presented to visitors in relation to how the Giant’s Causeway was formed, and how old it is, clearly reflects mainstream scientific understanding that the Causeway stones were formed 60 million years ago.
For centuries the Giant’s Causeway has prompted debate about how it was formed and how old it is.
One of the exhibits in the Giant’s Causeway visitor centre tells the story of the part the Giant’s Causeway played in the historic debate about how the earth’s rocks were formed and about the age of the earth.
In this exhibit we also state that for some people this debate continues today.
A National Trust spokesperson said: “The interpretation in the visitor centre showcases the science of how the stones were formed, the history of this special place and the stories of local characters.
“We reflect, in a small part of the exhibition, that the Causeway played a role in the historic debate about the formation of the earth, and that for some people this debate continues today.
“The National Trust fully supports the scientific explanation for the creation of the stones 60 million years ago.
“We would encourage people to come along, view the interpretation and judge for themselves.”
FAQs
Q. Is there a debate about the age of the earth – why is NT suggesting science is up for debate?
A. No, there is no debate on the age of the earth. The National Trust fully supports and promotes the science in relation to the formation of the Giant’s Causeway and the age of the earth.
All of the information presented to visitors in relation to how the Giant’s Causeway was formed, and how old it is, clearly reflects science and that the Causeway stones are 60 million years old.
Q. What does the controversial interpretation refer to ?
A. In summary, one of the exhibits in the Giant’s Causeway visitor centre interpretation tells the story of the part the Giant’s Causeway played in the historical debate which took place about how the earth’s rocks were formed and about the age of the earth.
The detail of the exhibit which sparked the discussion consists of five different audio samples triggered by buttons. It is designed to give a flavour of the historical debates there have been over the Causeway’s formation – starting with arguments between Sir Thomas Molyneux and a mystery correspondent (probably George Ashe) over whether the columns were fossil or mineral. The next clip sets out a flavour of the argument between Vulcanists and Neptunists. The next clip details how James Hutton’s work opened the way for definitive proof of an ancient earth. The forth clip mentions a theory published in the 1800s that the Causeway was fossilised bamboo. Then the final clip states that Young Earth Creationists wish to continue the debate today, as they believe the earth is only 6000 years old. The National Trust does not support this view.
Q. What is in the visitor centre ?
A. We have an amazing visitor centre with fantastic facilities, walking trails, and the interpretation includes many themes and topics. These include science, geology, wildlife, history and myths and legends and stories of local characters, past and present. Please see the attachment of the Welcome Leaflet on the email body.
Q. Will we be changing the exhibition?
A. The entire interpretation in the Visitor Centre has just been installed. We have no plans to change this exhibit at present.
Q. What is the National Trust’s relationship with the Caleb Foundation
A. Caleb is an organisation which expressed interest in our plans for the Visitor Centre interpretation. As part of the consultation process on the development of the Interpretation we met with a wide range of groups – international visitors, community, funders, scientific community and Caleb was only one of those groups. We met with Caleb and discussed our plans for visitor centre interpretation as we did with many groups.
Q. Did the National Trust receive any funding from Caleb?
A. No.
Q. Did the National Trust take any wording from Caleb ?
A. None of the language in the interpretation came from the Caleb Foundation
Q. Why did you only consult with Caleb groups as your religious group ?
A. We did not only consult with Caleb in the process. The consultation process was with a wide range of stakeholders, including radio and press adverts to stimulate awareness. Caleb responded in the consultation process. We simply reference in a small part of the interpretation that they hold a different view from science but the National Trust does not support or endorse this view.
Q. This interpretation makes the Visitor Centre unsuitable for children/education visits
A. All of the information on how the Giant’s Causeway was formed and how old it is reflects science: i.e. that it is around 60 million years old. The interpretation in the Visitor Centre is very child friendly and suitable for education visits. The National Trust fully supports and promotes the science in relation to the formation of the Giant’s Causeway.
Q. Does the National Trust have any plans to change interpretation at other sites to reflect the Creationist perspective?
A. No. The exhibit at the Giant’s Causeway is specific to that site and tells the story of the part the Causeway played in the historical debate which took place about how the earth’s rocks were formed and about the age of the earth.
Q. Was the National Trust under pressure from political parties to include Creationist perspective in the centre ?
A. This is not a creationist exhibition. We undertook an extensive consultation process with a range of stakeholders, including the local community, international and domestic visitors, the scientific community and political stakeholders. These consultations informed the National Trust’s decisions on the interpretive content of the entire exhibition. We the National Trust took the decision to include the exhibit in question in the interpretation.
Q. Was funding for the Creationist perspective funded by government money ?
A. It is not a creationist representation within the Giant’s Causeway visitor centre – we simply reference that Creationists have a different perspective – we do not explain, support or justify those views. The £18.5 million project for the new facilities, interpretation and trails was funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund (£3million), £9.25million from the Northern Ireland Tourist Board with support from the European Union Regional Development fund and £6.25 million from the National Trust. Our interpretation was supported within this overall package.
Q. Why is the Creationist perspective used in the centre ?
A. It is not a creationist representation within the Giant’s Causeway visitor centre – we simply reference that Creationist have a different perspective – we do not explain support or justify those views One of the exhibits in the Giant’s Causeway visitor centre interpretation tells the story of the part the Giant’s Causeway played in the historical debate which took place about how the earth’s rocks were formed and about the age of the earth. This is an interactive, audio exhibit in which visitors can hear a flavour of some of the different debates from historical characters. In this exhibit we also acknowledge that for some people this debate continues today, and we simply reference the fact that Creationists have a different perspective from that of science. We do not support or endorse their views.
Q. Were the funders aware of this inclusion ?
A. We kept all the funders abreast of the full interpretative approach and content during its development.
Q. Can I still access the stones for free ?
A. Anyone entering the site on foot has free access to the stones and linked path network. “
I greatly enjoyed this dissonance in their explanation.
vs
It’s all weasel words. In effect, they bowed to creationist pressures.
Email to the accomodationists:
Progressive Science Institute
Box 5335
Berkeley, CA 94705
510-VIA-SOIL (voice/cell)
530-655-0018 (fax)
http://www.scientificphilosophy.com
gborchardt@gmail.com
BLOG: http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2007/06/welcome-to-scientific-worldview.html
Dear Team:
If you are going to include creation, you must say that it is wrong, because, scientifically, that is what it is. You don’t include the flat-earth theory and a million others, because they have been falsified. By mentioning creation, you are giving credence to it, just as you would be doing if you mentioned flat-earth theory as an alternative to the elliptical-earth theory. We encourage you to keep religion out of your scientific exhibits, despite the prodding of your funding sources.
Glenn Borchardt
Director