Friday, March 23, 2007

The Nameless One fisks sodding Terry Hamblin's fucking dreadful piece of accusatory writing (that he later removed from his blog). Go read the whole thing.

Strangely, Terry seems to have got into the mood.
A blighter, on the other hand, is a contemptible person; one who casts a blight on his surroundings.

Yup.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hamblin's column was bad science in that he knew that the autopsy would not begin until Monday, and until it was concluded he had no business as a scientist making any wild guesses. Still, scientists aren't immune from pomposity and confusing the passing of exams for being clairvoyant. That is pretty much what Sir Roy and Williams substituted for evidence in the first place.

What is really galling though, is that it was bad theology, and just about the worst type of self-righteous smug condemnatory tosh which gives Christianity a bad name. This matters because Hamblin is associated with the idiotic and deceitful creationist groups who are trying to smuggle their fundamentalist brand of religion in to school science teaching.

Hambin is a signatory to the letters of 2002 and 2006 which tried to bamboozle ministers in to letting this hogwash in to the curriculum. He has made a tape and written a pamphlet in the past and generally hangs about with a bunch of bitter and snotty know-alls who don't, when it comes down to it, know very much at all. Operating under various names, the latest is Truth in Science (see Wiki) which is neither true nor scientific. Their latest wheeze was to manipulate the aging Anthony Flew in to the dispute, although it is not clear that his mind is quite what it was as a young man.

To the credit of the Dept of Ed it rebuffed this stupid letter politely, but was so diplomatic that further written questions had to be put in the house to clarify that they really had said 'No'.

Unfortunately anyone who has dealt with a door-stepping religious Holy Joe knows, you really have to stamp on their toes hard or they don't get the message that they must not interfere with other peoples' business or they will find their own beliefs being intensely scrutinized instead of politely tolerated.

Anyway, many thanks to CoralPoetry who linked the offending material before Hamblin could delete it. I have copies - of the full post and the revised version - and I'm going to make sure that all and any persons from head teachers to ministers to any politician who could conceivably have any thought of letting these sanctimonious scumbags in to a school, know that that Hamblin and his cohort are really just nasty bastards who know very little about science outside their own narrow fields, and even less about Christianity.

What sort of Christian would insult the memory of an innocent woman who was half-crucifed by the justice and medical systems, and then suggest, very hurtfully for the living, that she was a murderer who then committed suicide. Whilst her body was still warm? Terry Hamblin; that sort of Christian.

(Thank you. It is nearly Easter and I know Christians do understand what the story means. These good people should not be sullied by Hamblin's ravings. No criticism is intended of Christianity; Hamblin is just the worst advert for it and might conceiveably put people off when they could go to a proper Church and benefit both their souls and everyone else's.)

CoralPoetry said...

Hi,

Science operates on academic integrity. “Truth in Science” is based on lies. The authors distort scientific facts and libel dead people.
.
.
http://thesquire.blogspot.com/2005/03/being-nice-takes-longer.html
.
.
Take bacterial antibiotic resistance. Evolution describes the mechanism for its development and the same theory suggests means to slow down the development of antibiotic resistance. How does Intelligent Design, which denies that mutations can be beneficial to an organism, deal with antibiotic resistance?

Intelligent Design is just as valid as the Time Cube, which is not scientifically valid. ID is an attempt to force Fundamentalist Christian beliefs into the public discourse by means of suppressing rational, evidence-based science.

There is an order to creation - go ask a physicist. Monsignor Stuart Swetland, the campus Catholic chaplain, had his original B.S. in Physics, and has a t-shirt that says "And God said: [Maxwell's equations] ...and there was light." From physics directly flows the study of Chemistry, the interactions between the electrons of atoms. Many of these atoms form molecules. Those containing carbon are incredibly versatile, and as such carbon is the basis for most, if not all, organic molecules. These can arise through various means. The amino acids are known to have come from the prebiotic soup. Nucleic acids are a bit harder to create, but analogous precursors (which I'll mention again later) with similar catalytic properties could be constructed from 2-carbon molecules, which are much more abundant. The sugar backbone of RNA and DNA themselves differ by only one atom (which is important in DNA's stability) and since the nucleoside bases used by both DNA and RNA are similar (three are exactly the same, while the other two differ only by a methyl group) it is easy to transfer information between the two data media. In fact, this transference takes place all the time, is called either transcription or reverse transcription, depending on the direction of the transfer. Without transcription, genes in DNA couldn't be translated into proteins, which are what actually do most of the work of the cell. The RNA copies of genes are translated into proteins (which themselves are strings of amino acids) by ribosomes. Ribosomes themselves are merely groups of a few RNA strands that, together, are catalytically active and can use other RNA tags attached to amino acids to order those amino acids according to the instructions in the gene and to link the amino acids together into proteins. Current data indicates that ribosomes may be the oldest part of the cell machinery, and it is easy to assume that if RNA can facilitate the coordination of different strands of RNA to create a protein, that RNA catalysts (called ribozymes) may have also existed that could function as RNA copying machinery to replicate genetic material. In fact, short nuclear RNAs have been found that, when associated with each other, can excise out segments of other RNAs and re-attatch the pieces so that the new, shorter RNA makes sense to the ribosomes. Once RNA machinery, and then proteins, got going, all that was needed to create the most primitive cell would be to enclose a ribosome, some other RNAs, some amino acids, and some free nucleotides in a lipid bilayer (most likely formed from a bubble in the sea where this all occurred). Who's to say that God did not use this method to create a cell, over spans of geologic time? Remember, God has all the time in the world. He can be patient. Since God is not necessarily excluded from creation, even though evolution exists, there is no moral vacuum. Science is not atheistic, and neither is evolution. Science is, however, agnostic, because the presence or absence of God cannot (currently, and likely for some time) be proven from direct, re-creatable observation. The Scientific Method doesn't reject God, it merely rejects faulty hypotheses.

Regards,
Coral

CoralPoetry said...

Hi,


Why is the Dept of Education in the UK getting the nuclear fall-out from the Seattle-based Discovery Institute and its proponents of ID in a re-branding, repackaged (evolved)form of creationism?

This quote from Caroline Crocker (the second proponent of ID emanating from the University of Southampton - the most vociferous ID pusher being Professor Terry Hamblin of Southampton Uni) who has been barred by her Department from teaching Evolution and Intelligent Design in the USA.

"There really is not a lot of evidence for evolution,"

"Without the accountability of Judgment Day and Hell, why would people follow the Ten Commandments?"
.
.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7037/box/4341062a_bx1.html
.
.
The Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at George Mason University said:

"I'm a Buddhist, but I don't think we should teach reincarnation in biology classes."

Regards,
Coral