Darwin and spaghetti

10:07am Thursday 30th November 2006

Comments (17)   Have your say »

WHAT a lot of criticism British Airways came into for banning an employee from wearing a cross at work.

So much has been said and written on this topic, too much for secular ears, that I don't intend to add a great deal.

Except to point out two aspects of this religious row: one, it was a very big fuss over a very small cross; two, BA appears only to have climbed down after the Church of England made noises about the shares it owns in the company, therefore acting like any other big organisation in a bullying mood.

Here is another religious story. This one has caused only a stir, but maybe the ripples will spread - they certainly should.

According to a national newspaper report this week, dozens of schools are using creationist teaching materials which have been condemned by the Government as "not appropriate to support the science curriculum".

These packs are supplied by a group called Truth In Science, and they offer a creationist alternative to Darwinian evolution under the guise of promoting intelligent design.

It is worth taking a moment here to consider the two sides. Charles Darwin, the pioneering British naturalist, developed the theory of natural selection, which argues that mankind evolved - and was not summoned up by a deity in a week. His view has been argued over in the detail, but is supported by most scientists (and those who disagree often turn out to be Christians).

Yet to the religious right, particularly in the United States, Darwinism is seen as an insult to God. Hence the creationist theory, which argues that God created everything just as it says in the Bible.

Yet creationism is a tough swallow in a questioning world. So the creationists came up with an alternative, a sort of creationist-lite, and called it intelligent design.

This argues that life is so complex it must have been designed by a higher being or deity. It doesn't stick so closely to the biblical letter, and does at least acknowledge that the earth is millions of years old - which is just as well, because this has been proved beyond doubt.

For all that, intelligent design remains a religious or philosophical line of argument. It is not science because it cannot be tested, has no theoretical basis and is nothing more than a supernatural theory based on belief Phil Willis, the Lib Dem MP for Harrogate and Knaresborough, is horrified that such spurious material is being promoted in schools, and, in his role as chairman of the Parliamentary science and technology select committee, said that he was "flabbergasted that any head of science would give credence to this creationist theory and be prepared to put it alongside Darwinism".

Here is a quote from a supporter of intelligent design: "Just because it takes a negative look at Darwinism doesn't mean it is not science." Shockingly, the speaker teaches at a school in Liverpool. Even more shockingly, he is head of chemistry.

Isn't that like employing an ardent atheist to teach religious studies? That, as it happens, is just where intelligent design should be discussed, if it has to be taught anywhere - in religious studies, and not in science.

These matters are more heated in the States, where the religious right carries greater weight. But it is alarming to see evidence here of what might be termed under-hand evangelism.

Everything can inspire humour or satire, and so it is with intelligent design. In the US, a physics graduate called Bobby Henderson has created a mock-religion called Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, which argues that a competing theory has gone overlooked. This is that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

"None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it," says Bobby in an open letter to the Kansas school board, which is published on his website (go on, Google it - it's silly, but a good laugh). Bobby's point is easily understood: a Flying Spaghetti Monster is just as rational an explanation as intelligent design. Maybe, and it's just a passing disrespectful thought, more so.