Social media excoriates British teacher for claiming there’s more evidence for the truth of the Bible than of evolution

February 3, 2016 • 9:00 am

This incident was reported on January 26 by the Godless Spellchecker: the head teacher of a British faith school, one Christina Wilkinson of St. Andrews Church of England School in Lancashire, pushed back against another teacher (Tom Sherrington), who had earlier posted his support of evolution.

Below is Wilkinson’s tw**t that caused all the trouble (note that her handle is “WilkinsonHead”, which gives a bit of official imprimatur to her claim; Sherrington’s—”headguruteacher”—is similar).

The Godless Spellchecker (may the peace of Ceiling Cat be on him) wrote an open letter to St Andrew’s Primary School, politely calling attention to the problem and offering to help finance a visit of the students to London’s Natural History Museum to see the evidence for evolution. I joined in a bit, directing my first ever to-a-person tw**t to Ms. Wilkinson, offering to send her a copy of Why Evolution is True (I never got a response, and I don’t think Spellchecker did, either).

Now today’s Guardian continues the story, reporting the criticism of Wilkinson on Twi**er:

A primary school headteacher has been mocked on Twitter after claiming that evolution was “a theory” and there was “more evidence that the Bible is true”.

. . . Amid criticism and calls for her to resign on Twitter, Wilkinson issued a statement saying: “I’d like to make it clear that we teach the full national curriculum in school and that our pupils receive a fully rounded education.”

She also said her tweet was sent from a personal account and “represents my own views”. However, her Twitter handle was @WilkinsonHead, apparently referencing her role as headteacher. The tweet has since been taken down and the account closed.

Since Wilkinson’s account is closed, I can’t look at the responses on Twi**er, but mine was polite, and others, while perhaps less polite, were within the bounds of critical discourse (i.e., a minimum of name-calling and no threats):

Wilkinson’s assertion was met with scorn on the social media site. One person suggested she retrain as a vicar, while another said: “That’s an unacceptable level of stupidity from a headteacher.”

Liv Boeree tweeted: “This is horrifying. I’m still holding out hope her response is some kind of performance art. Pls pls pls tell me this lady doesn’t work in education. Please.”

Sherrington, whose pro-evolution tw**t ignited the whole issue, also responded politely:

Sherrington wrote: “Sigh. I sincerely hope your students aren’t told that. Take them to a natural history museum.”

His original posts, which sparked the exchange, had read: “For me, it is critical that teachers do not water down the science to accommodate religious perspectives if that means sacrificing the acceptance of evidence.

“This applies to science and RE teachers. New Earth creationism and more subtle variants of Intelligent Design are a denial of science and I think all teachers need to be conscious of that.”

Richard Dawkins and others have corrected Wilkinson on the meaning of the word “theory” in science (a perennial task), and of course she’s dead wrong about the evidence supporting evolution vs. the “truth claims” of the Bible. Nevertheless, there are those who still offer a weak defense of Wilkinson’s views, including a Labour MP!:

Graham Jones, Labour MP for Hyndburn, whose constituency includes Wilkinson’s school, said: “It’s a Church of England school and it will, of course, teach the Bible. But it should also teach the children about other religions and beliefs.

“The national curriculum requires a more broad-based perception of evolution and a balance of opinions has to be struck so pupils can make up their own minds.”

That’s ridiculous. British law requires that there be no teaching of creationism in science classes, with the warning that a violation could lead to withdrawal of government funding. I’m opposed to government-funded faith schools of any stripe, and am still amazed that Britain has them, but there should be no teaching of creationism as science in any class, including religion classes. You can say, I suppose, that “some Christians believe this” in religion class, but that itself is misleading, as it may signal approval.

And Jones’s statement that there should be a “balance of opinions” so that “pupils can make up their own minds” is completely off the mark. We’re not talking about opinions but facts, and to allow the presentation of every opinion about the origin and diversity of organisms is sure to confuse rather than enlighten students. You might as well teach alchemy in chemistry class and faith-healing in health class, and let the students make up their own minds. Some British reporter ought to query Jones about what he means.

At any rate, there should be an investigation of what is being taught in the science classes at St. Andrews School, and a fix to assure it’s conforming to government standards. Wilkinson should not be threatened with losing her job unless it was shown that she was teaching creationism in science class or allowing others to do so—and even then I think that firing is too draconian a punishment. Just ensure that she doesn’t promulgate creationism in school. If she wishes to do so on her own Twi**er account, preferably not identifying herself as a “head teacher,” well, she’s free to privately disseminate her misguided views about biology and the Bible.

The one heartening thing about the whole affair, at least for Britain, is that such a tw**t by a teacher wouldn’t cause a social media storm in the U.S.; indeed, such a teacher might be seen as a hero in certain parts of the country.

Here are a few responses, pro and con, to the Guardian article about Wilkinson:

This is why the Guardian shouldn’t ban comments on some controversial issues, as it seems to be doing. The comments section often affords an enlightening look at what people think about the topic at hand.

Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ Pakistan

February 3, 2016 • 8:00 am

The new Jesus and Mo was, the artist noted, inspired by an article by Maajid Nawaz in The Daily Beast, “How the Mullah Mafia is Destroying Pakistan,” an article I publicized on Twi**er (but didn’t discuss) last Sunday. It’s well worth reading, outlining the latest damages inflicted on that vibrant country by Islamic theology. These include the failure of the Pakistani legislature (after pressure by the Council of Islamic Ideology, or CII) to pass a bill outlawing child marriage, and the sad tale of a 15-year-old Pakistani boy who cut off his own hand after accidentally raising it in a mosque.

Nawaz is losing hope for Pakistan as it slowly creeps towards Islamism, but offers a bit of optimism, too:

But then I think of this boy. And I think of the child “brides,” and the acid victims, and all the brave voices—military and civilian—who have given their lives to fight this madness; and I think of the assassinated Governor Salman Taseer’s son, Shahbaz Taseer, and former Prime Minister Yousuf Gilani’s son, Ali Haider, both still missing after terrorists kidnapped them hoping to ransom them. And it wrenches at my gut.

When I see the protesters lighting candles at Liberty Chowk after every major terrorist attack, when I hear of brave new Pakistani voices boldly proclaiming their counter-extremist message from within, when I behold the slightly paralyzed left side of Malala’s face looking back at me in her photograph, I am forced to remind myself, amid all the depression: Pakistan Zindabad, Pakistan Lives.

Yes, that’s written by the man called a “Muslim validator and a “lapdog” by the odious Nathan Lean and a “house Muslim” by the even more odious C. J. W******n, and a “porch monkey” by one of Glenn Greenwald’s colleagues, Murtaza Husain (see link for proof). It seems that a moderate, anti-Islamist Muslim can’t catch a break these days. Is there any Muslim or ex-Muslim critic of extremist Islam who is still admired by most Lefists?

But I digress. Today’s strip is clearly about Muhammad’s sexual violation of his nine-year-old bride, as well as the statement by the head of the CII which blocked the child-marriage law: “Parliament cannot create legislation that is against the teachings of the Holy Quran or Sunnah,” he had said while backing his arguments with relevant laws and a few references from the Holy Quran and Hadith.”

If the founder of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, were to see his country’s shenanigans, I’m sure he’d be appalled. Although he was a Muslim and a dubious character, he was not a theocrat. India and Pakistan were once a single nation, sundered in 1947 after Jinnah’s endless importuning of the British. Now, after 70 years, India and Pakistan have gone different routes. India, though loaded with problems, is a vibrant and largely secular democracy, although the ruling BJP is turning it a bit more Hindu-centric. Pakistan, in contrast, is on the road to a medieval theocracy, and I don’t share Nawaz’s optimism.

Readers’ wildlife photos

February 3, 2016 • 7:15 am

Reader Damon Williford sent some photos of an interspecific interaction between birds over food; I’ve numbered the photos to correspond to his text below:

Attached are a series of photos featuring competitive interaction between a Black Vulture (Coragyps atratus) and several Crested Caracaras (Caracara cheriway) in South Texas during January of this year. A pair of adult caracaras claimed the remains of what appeared to be a rabbit (1). They were driven off by a an adult Black Vulture (2). But before the vulture could enjoy its ill-gotten meal it was challenged by a juvenile caracara (3-7). The vulture won Round 1 but was being stalked by another juvenile caracara (8). Round 2 ended with the vulture being chased away by the second juvenile caracara (9-16). The juvenile was confronted by an adult and the adult managed to convince the juvenile to abandoned its hard-earned meal without the use of violence (17-19). This might be because a juvenile caracara has a lot more to fear from an adult of its own species than from an adult New World vulture.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19. The winner!!!

Wednesday: Hili dialogue (and squirrel lagniappe)

February 3, 2016 • 6:15 am

It’s hump day and, if all goes well, in exactly a week I’ll be sitting behind a pint and a lunch of fish and chips (and mushy peas) at the Turf Tavern in Oggsford. On this day in 1637, the tulip-mania bubble collapsed in what is now the Netherlands, the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was passed, ensuring that we’ll all pay income tax forever, and, in 1947, “The lowest temperature in North America, −63.9 °C (−83.0 °F), was recorded in Snag, Yukon” (we won’t see that again!). On this day in 1924, Woodrow Wilson died, something students won’t be observing at Princeton, and, in 1959, February 3 was “the day the music died,” with a small-plane crash killing the Big Bopper, Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens, and pilot Roger Peterson (I still remember hearing the announcement; I was nine). Finally, in 2005, Ernst Mayr, one of my scientific mentors and a great evolutionary biologist, died at the age of 100; I wrote an assessment of his life and career for Evolution that you can read here, and an obituary in Science that, sadly, remains behind a paywall (I’ll send a pdf to those who ask). Meanwhile, reports from Dobrzyn are that it’s unseasonably warm (12°C or 54°F), and Hili is enjoying the weather:

Hili: I’m skeptical.
A: What about?
Hili: This weather is not compatible with the calendar.

In Polish:

Hili: Jestem sceptyczna.
Ja: W jakiej sprawie?
Hili: Ta pogoda nie zgadza się z kalendarzem.

Reader Anne-Marie Cournoyer has proven herself very good at photographing squirrels. Here’s a lovely rodent she photographed at Mont St Bruno National Park near Montreal. It’s an American red squirrel, Tamiasciurus hudsonicus. The animal is in fine nick, and have a look at at its lovely white eye rings and soft white belly! Note, too, its flexible clawed feet, highly adapted for climbing trees.

Raccoon rides the Toronto subway

February 2, 2016 • 3:15 pm

Some animal fun for the afternoon from Blog TO: a raccoon rides the Toronto subway, and just this morning!

Brief delay at Spadina, southbound due to a raccoon aboard the train! @TTCnotices pic.twitter.com/Q3yPzLU5iK

— Heather Leach (@heatherlleach) February 2, 2016

Toronto’s unofficial mascot was spotted on the TTC earlier today, to the surprise, amusement and chagrin of morning commuters. The raccoon was seen lurking around the subway platform sniffing at people’s feet before boarding the train at Spadina station.

As reported by CP24, trains were briefly delayed before our furry bandit-eyed friend disappeared into the subway tunnel. It’s unclear how the raccoon got into the station.

I hope it’s okay in the tunnel. Raccoons need to be aboveground! Remember that Toronto loves its raccoons (see also here).

201522-racoon-ttc2 — Is it looking for poutine?

h/t: James

Maybe there are fundamentalist atheists

February 2, 2016 • 1:30 pm

I’ve criticized those people who say that atheism is like religious fundamentalism, as well as those believers who demonize New Atheists as “fundamentalist atheists.” How can nonbelief be “fundamentalist”? But after reading a new piece by Wendy Kaminer in Spiked, I’m not so sure. Now I’m thinking that some types of atheism—the brands wedded to rigid ideologies that have nothing to do with religion per se—might be called “fundamentalist.”

Kaminer’s article, “The self: fear, loathing, and victimhood,” is about self-styled victimhood—not just of oversensitive college students who criticize the cultural appropriation of sushi, but also of Christians and, yes, there’s a paragraph on the victimization complex of some atheists. Kaminer’s an equal-opportunity critic, and she notes this:

Visit a progressive campus immediately before attending a Donald Trump rally or browse a right-wing Christian website and your head will be spun by polarised versions of reality and victimisation.

Kaminer, a long-time liberal, feminist, rationalist, atheist, and expert on the self-help culture of America, is always worth reading. I’ve finished three of her books.

After surveying the pervasive rise of the Victimhood Narrative, and suggesting why it emerged, Kaminer concludes that courts must protect equality but not prevent “hate speech” or offenses to “dignity and emotional well-being”, something that the Perpetually Offended demand. (Kaminer was a long-time member of the governing board of the American Civil Liberties Union, a group I hold in high esteem since it defended us in Coyne et al v. Nixon et al.)

I’ll leave you to read her piece yourself, but a few passages from it got me thinking about Fundamentalist Atheists. To wit:

There are, after all, substantial advantages to declaring yourself disadvantaged. Victims never have to say they’re sorry. Apologies – and accountability – are for victimisers. Victims are creditors, owed not just compassion but practical relief, like the power to censor whatever they consider offensive speech. The expression of unwelcome images or ideas in the presence of self-identified victims is labelled another form of victimisation, as student demands for trigger warnings and ‘safe spaces’ suggest.

. . . Free inquiry is unnecessary to people convinced they have absolute truth on their side. It’s considered unfair or abusive to people presumed to require the suppression of contrary ideas in order to be ‘free’ to express their own. In this perverse and nonsensical view, freedom lies not in de-regulating speech but in re-regulating it, to protect a growing list of victim groups.

Do those paragraphs remind you of anything? They sure do to me—those dogmatic atheists on the Internet who not only insist that certain viewpoints are ideologically correct, but that you must conform to them, passing purity tests to be acceptable, and that those who merely question those views are to be demonized and cast out. Such people never apologize or revise their narratives when they’re mistaken, and they never say they’re sorry for vilifying someone unnecessarily. In a very real sense, they see themselves as victims, “owed not just compassion but practical relief.” They also arrogate to themselves the power of censorship: determining who is and who is not allowed to speak. They mock free speech as “freeze peach.” Yes, fundamentalist atheism is deeply infused with the Victimhood Narrative.

Finally, the Fundamentalist Atheists are convinced, as in Kaminer’s description, that they have absolute truth on their side. But that truth is not about God, as the religious atheist-bashers claim. Rather, it’s about politics and society. For the True Fundamentalist Atheists™ are those who insist on not only wedding atheism to social problems, but to social problems whose solution cannot be questioned. They are at once victims and authoritarians.

I do think that atheism and liberalism, born of Enlightenment values, are natural partners. Both are based on reason, doubt, and empiricism. But there are also conservative atheists like S. E. Cupp, and one can make a case that atheism might fit with a pragmatic conservatism. It’s just that conservatives see society as benefitting from actions and ideologies different from those espoused by liberals. (I happen to think they’re wrong.) I thus prefer to keep my nonbelief separate from my liberalism, except to say that I think religion is best effaced by creating societies based on progressive values.

There are real debates to be had about these issues: debates about immigration, about feminism, about abortion, about affirmative action, about Islam, about how to deal with faith, and so on. By all means let the public forum ring with discussion and argument. But let us not demonize our fellow unbelievers for not holding the Right Views. Let us not call them “douchebags” or “scum” or “toxic sludge.” Yes, by all means debate them, but do not demand that they be fired, that they be no-platformed, that they be cast into the darkness with curses. Let our views be aimed at helping society—global society—rather than at demonstrating our own moral purity. Let us remember that society benefits most when speech is free rather than constrained. And let us echo what Oliver Cromwell said when writing to the Church of Scotland in 1650 (paraphrased):

I beseech you, in the bowels of Ceiling Cat, think it possible that you may be mistaken.

For atheism is more closely wedded to science than it is to social welfare, and if science tells us anything, it’s to keep in mind that we may be wrong.

An Oxford event

February 2, 2016 • 11:30 am

One week from today, while I’m visiting that Meyer Wolfsheim called “Oggsford” in The Great Gatsby, I’ll be doing a book event at Blackwell’s, sponsored by Five Books. The announcement is below (click on screenshot to go to the page). Since the London Darwin Day talk is sold out, this is a cheaper alternative: only three pounds admission (needless to say, I receive none of that).

It will begin as a discussion with Five Books editor Sophie Roell, followed by a Q&A with the audience. Books will of course be on sale, and if you say the Latin name of the only wild felid native to Britain*, I’ll draw a cat in your copy.

*I’m not sure whether the Scottish wildcat is the remnant of the ancestral species, or comprises domesticated cats that have gone feral.

p.s. If someone can tell me where in Oxford I can get a pint of Landlord in good condition, I’d be most grateful. The White Horse used to have it, but those pints were in poor condition, and it’s not listed as being there now on the Timothy Taylor site.

	whyevolutionistrue on Saturday: Hili dialogue
	whyevolutionistrue on Saturday: Hili dialogue
	grasshopper on Saturday: Hili dialogue
	Cransdale on Saturday: Hili dialogue
	Claudia Baker on Saturday: Hili dialogue