Creationism and Intelligent Design in AQA biology exam papers

In june 2009, a British examination board (AQA) featured this caper of a question in their GCSE Biology paper:

 AQA received a lot of criticism for the question because of it's misleading nature. It implies that Creationism and Intelligent Design are genuine theories within the field of biology. It also implies that this nonsense was being taught as part of the curriculum. Is it necessary to learn about alchemy to better understand chemistry, or to include astrology in physics and cosmology exams? No, so why is it necessary here? It's quite possible  that the word theory was being used in the sense that Muammar Gaddafi has a theory about how he is a  fashion god in charge of one of the happiest countries in the world. However, this is not an acceptable use of the word in a science paper.

Following the exam, the Daily Telegraph printed a story about the bizarre question. AQA replied with a swift response :

"Merely asking a question about creationism and intelligent design does not imply support for these ideas. Neither idea is included in our specification and AQA does not support the teaching of these ideas as scientific.

In the examination question, information was given to candidates and they were asked to relate evidence to conclusions. The use of the term 'theory' was intended in its common, everyday sense. However, we accept that in the context of a science examination this could be misleading and we will be addressing this issue for any future questions."

It seems they paid attention to the criticism because their 2010 Biology paper did not include any mention of Creationism or Intelligent Design. New Humanist magazine contacted AQA to see if these topics would feature in their 2011 paper. Their spokesperson responded by saying:

"The subject team have confirmed that future exam papers will not contain any questions on creationism or Intelligent Design."

The Intelligent Design Colouring Book

Hey Kids! It's the birthday gift you've all been waiting for... The Intelligent Design Colouring Book, and (according to the cover) it's 100% Fact free! YEY!!! Check out the description below:

A child’s life is full of both joys and challenges—the infinite wonder of learning, the literal and figurative scraped knees of everyday life, and, of course, deep, penetrating theological terror.

That’s why Pastor Brett of the Mega-Pheasant Heights Assembly Church has created an activity book that will divert those long lazy hours of idle youth into a soul-saving good time. Inside are crafty puzzles, mazes of wrath, and connect-the-dots! Also, the mysteries of God’s creation are revealed and explored, including, but not limited to: why God sometimes does not answer your prayers; why heterosexual monogamy is demanded of us; and why listening to scientists will end with your corporeal destruction and eternal damnation. You will learn the nature of other “religions” as well as how best to crush them. And then there will be juice boxes.

While tradition states that the path to heaven is paved by knowledge of scripture, the doing of good works, and the conversion of heathens, it has recently been revealed that no one can obtain their eternal reward without first obtaining a copy of The Intelligent Design Coloring Book!

It's quite obviously a parody, but if you're still not convinced or have a complete lack of faith in mankind, check out the author's bio:

Before joining the Mega-Pheasant Heights Assembly Church in 2010, Pastor Brett Pirkle headed up the Intelligent Design think tank at American Family Mission. A proponent of corporal punishment, he claims that the Holy Spirit channels God's love into his fist before he corrects the evildoer. The jury did not see it this way.

A Medical Dilemma for a Sunday Creationist

This is just genius cartoon highlighting the problem of making choices based on your beliefs when they are misinformed :)

 A strip from Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau

The PCR Song: A musical tribute to one of the most important advancements in genetic research.

The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a technique used amplify multiple copies of specific DNA sequences. It was developed in 1983 by Kary Mullis and is now one of the most widely used techniques in the biological sciences (even I use it). PCR provides scientists with a large quantity of pure DNA, allowing scientists to perform DNA analysis even with tiny amounts of genetic material. In additional to scientific pursuits, PCR is also applied to the diagnosis of diseases and DNA-fingerprinting, so its has also made a significant contribution in the fight against illness and crime.


This is a music video made by a company that develops equipment for procedures such as PCR, which humorously highlights how thankful scientists are for this technique.

Possibly creationism's best ever attempt to explain feathered dinosaurs

Almost every creationist argument is based on the assumption that Genesis is an account of actual events, and that the bible is the word of God and therefore the only truth. This is one of the main reasons why all their attempts at science have failed, because they only look for 'evidence' which is remotely compatible with their own assumptions. Alternatively they look for 'evidence' (a term we should use very loosely in this case) that contradicts their own grotesque caricature of the theory of evolution, often based on misunderstanding, deliberate misinformation, and complete ignorance of reality.

The idea of dinosaurs with plumage has often ruffled the feathers of the creationist movement. They've never really tried to explain why dinosaurs have feathers at all. All previous attempts by creationists to explain can be summarised by at least one of these points :

• In Genesis- birds were made on the 5th day, but God filled the land with animals on the 6th so birds must have come before dinosaurs. Look, it's in the Bible - which is the word of God because it says so in the Bible- therefore it's true.
• When I don't inspect it closely, it looks more like a bird than a dinosaur. It's a bird.
• Evolution is only a theory.
• I don't know much about the natural world at all.

 However, after searching through answersingenesis.org I finally found an attempt at an explanation that tickled me.
Dinosaurs ate Birds. Birds have feathers. Dinosaurs therefore ate feathers. If you completely ignore every piece of scientific evidence which suggests that dinosaurs had feathers and completely ignore the context in which these these sort of observations should be made- it makes perfect sense.

If you want to know more about evolution, two books I'd highly recommend are Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters and Why Evolution Is True.

Homeopathy: Declared unfit for animals, yet still the perfect prescription for gullability.

Homeopathy has been declared unfit for use on animals in the UK because of a complete lack of proven efficacy, but this late-18th century German fruitloopery is still available for those who suffer from gullibility or deliberately mimic the symptoms of complete and utter stupidity. Harsh words? Not really when you think that more common sense is being applied to veterinary medicine than our own.

The concept of homeopathy is that diluting  a substance which produces similar effects to the symptoms of a known illness and diluting it again and again (until it is basically indistinguishable from water ) actually increases its potency to cure that illness. Scientists have pointed out time and time again that the little success from homeopathy (supported only by anecdotal evidence) is due to the placebo effect.  One of homeopathy's main arguments against this claim has been that the placebo effect does not occur in animals (a very debatable point) so successful homeopathic remedies in veterinary medicine prove that it works. Recently, vets seem to have been asking "What success?".  In December 2010 the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) made clear that remedies could only be classed as medicines, and therefore be prescribed by vets, if they could scientifically demonstrate their efficacy- and that homeopathic remedies do not meet these requirements by any standard. The VMD Director of Operations, John FitzGerald, said:

“Some of these products are claiming to be effective and safe when no scientific evidence has been presented to us to show they are.

“Animal owners have a right to know if a product does what it claims. The products claim to treat diseases which can cause serious welfare problems and in some circumstances kill animals if not properly treated. So in some cases owners are giving remedies to their pets which don’t treat the problem.”

Other examples of unproven quack-shite under the axe of the VMD include:

• Animal food supplements – known as neutraceuticals, which claim to treat diseases or bring extra health benefits such as improved mental ability in pet animals.
• Herbal liquids, powders and pellets – sold as herbal wormers – claiming to irritate and repel parasitic worms from the guts of horses, livestock, and pets.

So why are homeopathic medicines still being funded by the NHS despite the fact that they're unsuitable as medicine for animals? The reason is simply because the government believes that it is very important to give people the choice to take alternative medicines rather than treatments which have been scientifically proven to work. It is yet another example of how confused the government is about the scientific evidence concerning particular substances and treatments and the moral implications of giving people the choice the use of them or endanger their lives.

Why is it that the government seemed reluctant to permit the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes (the benefits of which have been scientifically proven), yet is fine with the use of alternative medicines which have no proven medicinal benefit or may even exacerbate the problem. It also  supports giving people the choice to endanger their lives by ignoring medical advice and taking ineffectual preventative remedies when travelling to areas of the world stricken by malaria and polio - yet at the same time wastes millions and millions of pounds a year trying to stop people from choosing to use substances that they have made illegal for reasons which are contradictory to current scientific evidence.

They obviously can't decide whether patient health is more important than patient choice. In the Guardian, Drevan Harris explained the faulty reasoning behind the confusion:
"The Labour government of the day, in their evidence, defended the use of homeopathy on the NHS on the basis of "patient choice" and the fact that because some doctors swore by it, the efficacy question was not settled.
Some science teachers swear by creationism, but that does not mean that evolution is an unsettled question and that school science lessons should offer creationism as an alternative to their choosy consumers."

 The government's chief scientific adviser, Professor John Beddington, also agrees that the the NHS should not fund homeopathy. The last labour government ignored him and now the new coalition government has issued an equally pathetic response based on the same wishy-washy 'patient choice' nonsense. I wonder how long a government which claims that severe cuts are needed everywhere can keep funding an alternative medicine based on scientific nonsense despite the fact it costs them "only a few million pounds" each year.

The other problem is a very, very misinformed idea that old traditional medicines are better for you. Old traditional medicines that have been proven to work are known as... medicine. Those that doesn't work are known as alternative medicine or new age quack-shite. For example the demand for traditional Chinese medicine is growing in western Europe. Remember that this area of medicine includes grinding up phallic like parts of endangered animals to cure problems like erectile dysfunction and infertility. Yet at the same time, these parts of the world have taken to western medicine with open arms. In Africa, they're dying (literally) for western medical aid because their traditional remedies don't work at all, yet 'new age' members of the middle class over here reckon they can cure all their illnesses by chanting ancient languages or touching 'magic crystals' which produce 'resonant frequencies' or 'energy'  and various other idiotically vague terms.

Personally I think that because the principles of homeopathy state that a substance becomes more potent the less it is used, the best way to use homeopathy is not to use it at all.

Recommended Reading

In his brilliant book Bad Science, Ben Goldacre explains and destroys pseudo-scientific nonsense such as homeopathy, aqua detox and advice from 'nutritionist' Gillian McKeith who claimed to have a PhD (one of a number of qualifications she basically bought on the Internet including a professional membership to the American Association of Nutritional Consultants which Ben Goldacre's dead cat, Hettie, is now also part of for a mere $60).

UK Government continues to ignore scientific advice on drugs

Downgrading the Importance of Scientific Advice

A new plan has been announced that will allow the UK government to make new policies on drugs without consulting expert doctors and scientists, effectively allowing them to change the law on controlled substances for reasons which are not supported by any evidence. The decision will come at the cost of a greatly reduced quality of scientific advice in government and a huge dent in the relationship between the government and scientists.
 
The changes are new amendments to the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act, which requires the government to seek advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) when making decisions to ban drugs and potentially criminalise large numbers of people. The ACMD is required to have at least 20 members, among them representatives of the practices of medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine and pharmacy, the pharmaceutical industry, and chemistry (other than pharmaceutical chemistry); and members who have a wide and relevant experience of social problems connected with the misuse of drugs. All are unpaid and have active careers in their area of expertise. The new plans are to remove the requirements for advisers from these professions.

The crime prevention minister James Brokenshire, on behalf of the government, said today:

"Removing the requirement on the home secretary to appoint to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs at least one person with experience in six specific areas will allow us greater flexibility in the expertise we are able to draw on."

I wonder though,  in what scenario wouldn't you want a medical doctor or pharmacist to give scientific advice on the misuse of drugs?



The Government do have a right not to take on board the advice from the ACMD, which they have exercised almost to its full potential over the last few years. On the Advice of the ACMD, Home Secretary David Blunkett downgraded cannabis from Class B to Class C in 2004. However, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith returned it to Class B in 2009. In February of the same year, the ACMD advised the government  to downgrade ecstasy from a Class A to a Class B drug. The ACMD's report on ecstasy, based on a 12 month study of 4,000 academic papers, concluded that it was nowhere near as dangerous as other Class A drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine. Once again, Jaqui Smith didn't listen to the advice.


Background: The Sacking of David Nutt

Senior Advisor to the ACMD, David Nutt, publicly condemned the UK government for ignoring scientific advice when making it's decisions. He believed that drugs should be classified according the the evidence of how harmful they are to the individual and to society. Nutt pointed out that alcohol and tobacco caused more harm than LSD, ecstasy and cannabis.

He also published a paper which showed that whilst there is one instance of acute harm for every 350 exposures to horse riding, there is only one instance of acute harm for every 10'000 exposures to ecstasy. His point was that the classification of drugs is obviously not based on how harmful they are but on an attitude fuelled by "scare stories" over the years. He backed up his claim for this distorted media attitude with a study of drug related news paper reports over a period of 10 years:

"the likelihood of a newspaper reporting a death from paracetamol was in per 250 deaths, for diazepam it was 1 in 50, whereas for amphetamine it was 1 in 3 and for ecstasy every associated death was reported."

Jaqui Smith received an enormous amount of criticism from the scientific community for bullying Professor Nutt into apologising for implying that horse riding was more dangerous than taking ecstasy, despite the fact he was doing his job as a scientist to set out the facts and that the paper was published outside of his ACMD role. Her successor, Alan Johnson, sacked David  Nutt, adding:

"It is important that the government's messages on drugs are clear and as an advisor you do nothing to undermine public understanding of them. I cannot have public confusion between scientific advice and policy and have therefore lost confidence in your ability to advise me as Chair of the ACMD."

However, he was never clear on how David Nutt had broken any guidelines or codes of practice.


David Nutt claimed that it was almost as if the ACMD was expected to find evidence to support the government's stance on drugs and that, in the end, they didn't like what real scientists were saying. His sacking delivered quite a blow to the relationship between scientists and the government and was followed by the resignation of many more scientific advisers on the ACMD. Many have also criticised the 'War on Drugs' for causing more harm than the drugs themselves.

"Science Opposing 'War on Drugs' is Overwhelming"

These are the words from  Dr. Evan Wood, the director of the urban health research initiative at the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS. He is also the co-author of the Vienna Declaration, which calls on the world’s politicians to let scientific evidence guide their policies on illicit drugs.  Vienna was chosen as the site for the 2010 conference because it is home to the United Nations commission on narcotic drugs and a crossroads for Westerners to Eastern Europe and Central Asia, where HIV infections from dirty needles are skyrocketing.

He believes that the war on drugs, waged by many governments worldwide, continues to ignore the health and social harms cased by their antiquated policies and described it as a "global catastrophe. Up until now, the scientific community hasn’t really been outspoken about it,” he said.

“Scientists have been attacked by groups seeking to maintain the status quo. I have been in a leadership position involved with the evaluation of the supervised injecting facility in Vancouver and have experienced first-hand how scientists promoting the notion that addiction is a public-health problem and a medical problem can be attacked for those views.” 

"One in 100 adults in Russia is already HIV-infected because of heroin use,” said Wood, chair of the committee that wrote the declaration. His main concern is the negative role the War on Drugs has played in the fight against AIDS, “It’s an injection-drug-related epidemic. Needle exchange is illegal.” He pointed out that methadone, one of the best substitutes for heroin to combat addiction, is illegal there, even if prescribed.

Wood points out the declaration stresses gang violence in cities such as Vancouver is directly related to drug prohibition.“When these drugs are made illegal, organized crime groups are enriched by that,” he said. "They fight one another to maintain those profits.”

He also stated that the money spent on combating drug related crime could be better spent elsewhere. “In California, they spend more on incarceration than they do on post-secondary education. It’s estimated that one in nine African-American males between the ages of 25 and 35 are in prison on any given day in the U.S.”

The World Health Organisation and Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS have also strongly endorsed the call for drug-policy reforms.

Public Opinion

The reception to the evidence from the experts has been met with mixed feelings. This is largely due to the fact that many haven't heard about the evidence  and don't seem to understand that people like David Nutt and Dr. Wood aren't just spouting out their innermost thoughts based on biases concerning drugs, the media and government. They're doing their job, which is to represent the facts in the best way possible and tell us what those facts are. It seems that people don't like what they're now being told. Many people seem to be against drugs, not because the facts tell them to be but because of some moral obligation to oppose them.

The main problem is, it's hard to shake off what we've been told for so long about drugs. And that is probably the main reasons that the government is not willing to change the laws on drugs because they think it will send people the wrong message: that on the subject of drugs, they didn't know what they were talking about.

Researchers say societal values must be considered in endangered species decisions

Researchers argue that, when making decisions on whether a species need protection from extinction, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has excluded significant research findings about human threats to protected species, even though the law governing the agencies action requires all decisions to be based “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”

A group of scientists, led by Jeremy Bruskotter of Ohio State University, argue in the December issue of the journal BioScience that research about societal values should be considered along with biological and ecological data in listing decisions. The researchers refer to the Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2009 decision to remove grey wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains from endangered species protections to demonstrate their point.

In it's decision to remove Grey Wolves from the endangered species list in 2009, the Fish and Wildlife Service acknowledged  that “human-caused mortality” pushed them dangerously close to extinction in the 1930s, but then claim that “attitudes toward wolves have improved greatly over the past 30 years.”

The Fish and Wildlife Service cited only a single study from 2002 to support this claim. Bruskotter said, “This is not for a lack of literature on the topic.”  He stated that there were plenty of studies on the attitudes towards wolves dating back to the 1970's. Bruskotter and his colleagues discovered that attitudes towards wolves had actually remained "stable over the last 30 years" and that there was no indication of improvement. In addition, the researchers found that attitudes have become more negative between 1999 and 2008, especially in the northern Rocky Mountains.

In it's decision to delist the Grey Wolves, the Fish and Wildlife Service also argued that state management of wolves will foster local support of wolves and wolf recovery; and existing state regulatory mechanisms will “balance negative attitudes” and ensure recovery. However an Idaho survey cited by Bruskotter suggests that powerful stakeholders in the state  (mainly big game hunters and livestock producers) “are motivated to kill as many wolves as possible without returning wolves to federal protections.”

The researchers also questioned the ability of state regulator mechanisms to "balance negative attitudes" towards wolves by citing several legislative actions from states in the Northern Rockies which call for the removal of wolves.

“Risks that relate to humans range from direct killing of animals to a municipality encouraging development in areas where species are sensitive,” Bruskotter said. “The Fish and Wildlife Service will look at direct impacts, or the proximate cause of species decline. They don’t often step back and consider what lies behind those causes. And that’s one of the things we’re saying they need to do.”

He also sympathised with the organisation, saying the Fish and Wildlife Service is “hammered from every angle. This is not a condemnation of their action. It’s meant to be forward thinking — to provide a roadmap for how to incorporate social science information into future endangered species decisions.

The researchers concluded that "It is time for the Fish and Wildlife Service to expand its view of what constitutes ‘science’ and fully incorporate the social sciences into listing decisions.”

Y5FW9JGVRCWX

Anti-Evolutionist Parody

This is a great parody of the sort of 'logic' that is parroted by advocates of Intelligent Design and Creationism. One of the biggest of these is the Discovery Institute. There are still many people who think that evolution means that humans came from slime, or that a cat gave birth to a dog. Once again this video's best asset is it's comedy value.  Enjoy :)

Perspectives from an ignorant minority

This quite a popular video of 3 guys acting out quotes made by fundamentalist christians on forums. Although there is a clear take home message, that most of the opposition to science and atheism is based purely on ignorance of almost everything, the video is far more appealing purely due to its comedy value. In fact, you can see that one of the guys has a hard time trying to keep a straight face. People often say to me that these type of people are in a minority, and I agree. However, I believe that people forget just how many fundamentalist christians there are, so a minority in their case can still be quite a considerable number. Some of them even get slots on prime time television! Just imagine if they replaced the word 'atheists' with 'homosexuals', 'mixed race couples', 'people who read the times' or 'people who ate meat'. You'd be mad not to get angry.

There is an entire website devoted to examples of crazy  quotes called Fundies Say the Darndest Things. They also have quotes from paranoid conspiracy theorist and bigoted racists, some of which are frightening in their stupidity.

Atavisms: A blast from the past

The evidence for evolution comes in a variety of forms, many of which can only be understood with a good grasp of  modern concepts in  biology, genetics, ecology, molecular biology, developmental biology or geology. However, there are examples which can be seen with the naked eye and can be understood by anyone. For me, this is one of the best examples around...

In the natural world, traits which have been lost through evolution can reappear naturally. These are known as atavisms, and they are one of the most visually compelling evidences for evolution.

Here are a few examples:

 Human Tails

Most primates have long tails which can be used for balance or even serve as a fifth limb, which suits their arboreal lifestyle. However, all apes have lost their long tails through evolution, yet we still have the genes for a tail- they just aren't expressed anymore. This is because other genes override the expression of a tail during development. However, every so often a mutation may occur which permits the development of a tail.

Over the years, there been over 100 reports of human tail atavisms. These are not just stumps or extra bits of tissue; instead they have vertebrae, and some people can even move them!

Hind limbs in dolphins and whales

Dolphins and whales are both mammals. Since mammals evolved on land, the ancestors of dolphins and whales must have also lived on the land. During their transition to a marine lifestyle, they have lost their hair and their hind legs and develop a more streamlined shape. Occasionally these features reappear in the wild. In October 2006, this four finned dolphin was donated to the Taiji Whaling Museum after being captured off the west coast of Japan by fishermen.

Horses with extra toes

 Horses are actually standing on their hooves with the same bones as a human would if they were standing on tip toes. This is because although they evolved from a multi-toed creature,  these extra toes have shrank in size over millions of years. Now all that remains of them are a few vestigial bones. There are a  few recorded examples of extra toes in horses, such as "Clique, the horse with six feet", which was donated to Yale after it's death in 1891. Complete ulnas and fibulas have also been found in Welsh and Shetland ponies as well as miniature horses.

Chickens with teeth

This atavism has been induced by scientists by using viruses that mimic a known mutation which has the potential to cause chicken embryos to grow teeth. Birds evolved from dinosaurs, and we know that dinosaurs had teeth. In fact, even early birds such as Archeopteryx had teeth. Scientists can induce  this atavism because the chickens still retain the ability to grow teeth, but it is overridden by a complex set of developmental pathways. Unfortunately, the pathways are so complex that tinkering with them can often be lethal for the embryo. This tells us that (a) changes in natural populations are far more subtle than those in the lab, and (b) we are only skimming the surface of a science that has great deal of practical potential.

Can we bring the Dinosaurs back?

This weekend I spotted some Dinosaurs by the Blackpool lights. Unfortunately they're not real since the only living descendants of Dinosaurs today are Birds. But the worlds most famous Dino-hunter, Jack Horner, is helping the man who he thinks has the potential to change all this. His name is Hans Larsson. His work involves merging paleontology and molecular biology in order to understand major evolutionary changes. One of his goals it to 'switch on' dormant genes or change the regulation of currently active genes so that ancient traits, lost through evolution, will be expressed. Hans Larsson believes that although birds have lost many dinosaurian traits, it may be possible have them expressed once again.

So far, Larsson and his postdoctoral assistant have began working on chicken embryos. Traits such as a long tail have been lost in birds, and we can see the gradual reduction in tail length in the fossil record. Larsson found that although the tail grows very well in early development, "at a particular stage in development everything comes crashing to a halt". They found that retinoic acid, which stimulates the release of an protein called sonic hedgehog, “pushed tail growth to the upper range of normal development. It had some effect, but it didn’t break it out of the cycle.” This gave an Larsson an idea of how complex the growth of the tail is. Unfortunately there isn't much research on how to sustain growth in a tail, so Larsson and his assistant have had to do everything from scratch.

“The experiment I’m envisioning is that you have a single embryo developing in the egg with multiple injection sites and multiple kinds of molecules to be really fine-tuning the regulation of genes,” says Larsson. “We’ll be able to inject different parts of the embryo at different times of development with different things. If we do that, if the timing and position are correct, we should be able to manipulate lots of different kinds of morphologies—feathers, wings, teeth, tails.

“It would take just a little bit of time to work out each one of those systems in very great detail, which we’re now doing for the tail. Other people are doing it for the limbs for clinical work. And teeth are being worked out by other people for mammals and such, and then we can just sit down and play with all these in concert, which has never been done before.”

This'Chickenosaur' may resemble something from the coelurosaurs, a clade of theropod dinosaurs which resemble birds more than carnosaurs.“Birds are dinosaurs, so technically we're making a dinosaur out of a dinosaur. The only reason we're using chickens, instead of some other bird, is that the chicken genome has been mapped, and chickens have already been exhaustively studied. A number of people in a number of different places are moving forward with the project slowly and carefully,” says Horner.

Below is a video by Hans Larsson about the work he does.

Creationism lives on in US public schools - science-in-society - 20 October 2010 - New Scientist

Creationism lives on in US public schools - science-in-society - 20 October 2010 - New Scientist

I know it's frightening isn't it? Get 'em while their young is the prefered method of persuasuion for the desperate.

Why blog?

I am a zoology graduate from Bangor university, currently taking an MRes in Ecology. During my studies I have learned a great deal and my interest for Science and the natural world has continued to grow. However I have also encountered great ignorance of science and reason among many people, sometimes I even feel embarassed to belong to the 21st century.

Using my blog I hope to contribute to the cause of freethinking by sharing my passion for science and reason; and dismissing some of the nonsense that has somehow become mainstream in modern society despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.