New research has just been published by Devon Quick and John Rubin at Oregon State University in The Journal of Morphology which throws into doubt the widely-held Darwinian belief that birds evolved from the Theropod dinosaurs. This work has been reported by EurekAlert! an online global news service operated by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). The commentary is entitled "Discovery raises new doubts about dinosaur-bird links". Professor Rubin is reported to have said

It's really kind of amazing that after centuries of studying birds and flight we still didn't understand a basic aspect of bird biology. This discovery probably means that birds evolved on a parallel path alongside dinosaurs, starting that process before most dinosaur species even existed.

The research at Oregon State University has focused on the fixity of the unique avian skeletal structure and musculature to support its lungs and the requirement in birds to take in 20 times more oxygen than cold blooded reptiles. Researcher Devon Quick is quoted in EurekAlert!

This is fundamental to bird physiology. It's really strange that no one realized this before. The position of the thigh bone and muscles in birds is critical to their lung function, which in turn is what gives them enough lung capacity for flight.

There is now a growing body of evidence that undermines the Darwinian belief that birds evolved from dinosaurs. For example, Professor Rubin is quoted as saying

For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from. That's a pretty serious problem, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dinosaur theories. A velociraptor did not just sprout feathers at some point and fly off into the sunset.

While the researchers maintain that birds and dinosaurs may have had a common ancestor, Professor Rubin is quoted as follows:

Frankly, there's a lot of museum politics involved in this, a lot of careers committed to a particular point of view even if new scientific evidence raises questions. In some museum displays, the birds-descended-from-dinosaurs evolutionary theory has been portrayed as a largely accepted fact, with an asterisk pointing out in small type that "some scientists disagree". But now there are more asterisks all the time. That's part of the process of science.

We refer readers to the Truth in Science web article shown here. In addition, we do not anticipate a David Attenborough documentary!

Before we get carried away with all the hype, we refer readers to an article published Thursday 21st May in New Scientist entitled “Why Ida is not the Missing Link”. Chris Beard, Curator of Vertebrate Palaeontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History writes as follows:

What does Ida's anatomy tell us about her place on the family tree of humans and other primates? The fact that she retains primitive features that commonly occurred among all early primates, such as simple incisors rather than a full-fledged toothcomb, indicates that Ida belongs somewhere closer to the base of the tree than living lemurs do. But this does not necessarily make Ida a close relative of anthropoids – the group of primates that includes monkeys, apes – and humans. In order to establish that connection, Ida would have to have anthropoid-like features that evolved after anthropoids split away from lemurs and other early primates. Here, alas, Ida fails miserably.

The Telegraph (31st January 2009) and the Guardian (1st February 2009) report on a survey entitled “Rescuing Darwin” conducted by Theos, a theology think-tank. According to the survey, half of the British adults surveyed do not believe in evolution. Moreover, only 25% believe that evolution is "definitely true".

James Williams, a lecturer at Sussex University, is reported as saying:

Evolution is very badly taught in schools so the results of the survey don't surprise me.

Truth in Science is inclined to agree. Evolution theory must be taught much more thoroughly if the public are to be convinced. We need to critically re-examine the so-called evidences of evolution without recourse to the blind presumption that evolution is a “fact”. Adam Rutherford is predictably incensed. He states in his comment in the Guardian of 2nd February:

Another day, another creationism survey. Godly think-tank Theos have conjured yet another set of figures that reveal just how dim Britain is when it comes to evolution. This time, it's the atheists' fault.

This is a very interesting statement. Apparently, Theos have conjured up the figures. But why should this be? Theos have no creationist axe to grind. Quite the opposite, this survey has been done in association with the Faraday Institute which is predominantly Darwinist in outlook.

Theos have also reported on their findings. They try to explain the reticence of the general public:

Popular opinion encounters Darwinism not so much as a well-testified and supremely elegant scientific theory, but as a quasi-metaphysical one, an outlook on life that has become inextricably linked, through the purple prose of its most eloquent modern advocates, with reductionism, nihilism, atheism, and amorality.

This Darwinism is one in which morality (in as far as we can still talk about it) becomes calculating and fundamentally self-interested, ethical systems arbitrary, agency an illusion, and human beings completely irrelevant and accidental. Love, charity, compassion, and altruism are "tendencies... grounded in underlying selfishness. The human mind is "an artefact created when memes restructure a human brain so as to make it a better habitat for memes." The universe is reduced to "blind forces and physical replication" with "no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

According to Rutherford, the atheists have to work harder to convince the public that their worldview is actually to be preferred. Quite rightly, he makes the connection:

When Theos makes this association, let's be honest, they're knocking Richard Dawkins. Although he has profoundly influenced my intellectual development, I accept that he can be divisive.

There is none so blind and those who will not see. Rutherford himself is a committed atheist and has difficulty in recognising that there are other legitimate worldviews. He goes on:

Theos also say that it is possible to be a Christian and accept evolution as fact. Empirically, of course this is true: there are outstanding scientists who are religious. If one takes a deist view, that there is a non-interventionist supreme absentee landlord who set up universal rules, and let them play out forever, then evolution is perfectly cromulent to Christianity. God hasn't actually done anything for 13bn years. I've got no real beef with this, though it seems pointless, a metaphysical mumbling excuse for why there is something rather than nothing.

We are not sure that there are many religious scientists who would agree with Rutherford. Like Richard Dawkins, he is prepared to tolerate a deistic God but the major religions are profoundly theistic. Accordingly, human beings have an innate sense that somehow or other the supernatural is involved and thus many remain sceptical. As Rutherford points out:

Of course there are religious implications for the truth of evolution. But if so many people truly do not understand it, and some people are indeed driven away from understanding it by an association with the personalities of atheism, then this is a losing battle.

In this bicentennial year with all its media coverage you would think that more people could be persuaded. However, the blinkered approach may well have the opposite effect. Rutherford continues:

We must use this bicentennial year to promote understanding the science of evolution. When this truth is the dominant view, I'm sure that many more people will migrate from irrational and frankly daft fairytale views about the origin of species.

The prospects are not good. According to an article entitled “Natural born believers” written by Michael Brooks for the New Scientist (7th February 2009), 84% of the world’s population believe in a supernatural force of some kind. The theistic religions of Christianity and Islam comprise more than half of this number (see figure). Apparently, humanity has an innate predisposition to believe in the supernatural as the article makes abundantly clear. The reasons for this will most certainly differ and the determination of some to equate evolutionary theory with atheism is unlikely to succeed even in another 200 years.

In one of his responses to the numerous comments made to his original article in the Guardian, Rutherford admits his confusion:

That's not to say I understand how being religious and scientific works ... I assume that in modern times this relies on a form of mental compartmentalisation that allows simultaneous but non-overlapping truths. I've not come up with a more convincing explanation, but would love to. In this context I'm just hoping for the elimination of anything but the theory of evolution as an explanation for life on earth. Unless an alternative credible scientific theory comes up, which currently seems unlikely.

Truth in Science will continue to encourage an openness which allows for a critical examination of the evidence for the Darwinian hypothesis without recourse to any particular worldview.

The Press Association reports today the results of a new poll of UK teachers:

Three in 10 science teachers believe creationism should be taught in science lessons, according to a new survey.

And more than a third (37%) of primary and secondary teachers in general believe that the subject should be taught alongside evolution and the Big Bang theory.

The Ipsos Mori poll of more than 900 primary and secondary teachers in England and Wales found that while nearly half (47%) believe it should not be taught in science lessons, two thirds (65%) agree that creationism should be discussed in schools.

This rises to three quarters of teachers (73%) with science as their subject specialism. Two in three science specialists (65%) do not think that creationism should be taught in science lessons. But few teachers think creationism as an idea should be dismissed outright.

Just one in four (26%) agree with a view expressed by Professor Chris Higgins, vice-chancellor of Durham University that "creationism is completely unsupportable as a theory, and the only reason to mention creationism in schools is to enable teachers to demonstrate why the idea is scientific nonsense and has no basis in evidence or rational thought."

Fiona Johnson, head of education research at Ipsos Mori and director of the Ipsos Mori Teachers Omnibus, said: "Our findings suggest that many teachers are trying to adopt a measured approach to this contentious issue, an approach which attempts not only to explain the essential differences between scientific and other types of 'theory', but also to acknowledge that - regardless of, or even despite, "the science" - pupils may have a variety of strongly held, and arguably equal value, faith-based beliefs."

Prof Higgins said: "Creationism, as an alternative to the evolution of species, has long been thoroughly discredited by rigorous analysis of data. Of course, if a pupil raises it as a hypothesis then a brief discussion as to why creationism is wrong might be appropriate as part of an education in intellectual integrity and rational thought.

"But it would undermine any educational system to purposefully teach discredited ideas which are now only perpetuated through ignorance or flawed thinking - one might as well teach astrology, flat earthism, alchemy or a geocentric universe."

A Teachers TV poll of 1,200 teachers, published last month, revealed that a third of teachers believe creationism should be given the same status as evolution in the classroom. In September, leading biologist the Rev Professor Michael Reiss resigned as the Royal Society's director of education days after suggesting creationism be included in science lessons.

Speaking at the British Association Festival of Science at the University of Liverpool, Prof Reiss - an ordained Church of England minister - said it was better for science teachers not to see creationism as a "misconception" but as a "world view". Ipsos Mori questioned 923 primary and secondary school teachers in England and Wales between November 5 and December 10.

Truth in Science predicts that if a question had been asked about intelligent design, a large number of teachers would have supported the teaching of this scientific theory in science lessons. There is a genuine scientific debate to be had about the ability of Darwinian mechanisms to produce the living world as we know it today. Intelligent design claims that the appearence of design that everyone agrees is found in the living world is exactly what it seems to be: the work of a designing intelligence.

In 2006, Truth in Science sent a DVD to every secondary school science department in the UK outlining the theory of intelligent design. The intelligent design debate, as many teachers know, is not about science versus "faith-based beliefs", nor is it about science versus "discredited ideas". It is about science versus science.

Truth in Science's opinion on the recent controversy over Prof. Reiss and the Royal Society can be found here.