The amazing Anzac tribute of Atatürk (Mustafa Kemal)

It’s probably not escaped the attention of many that today is Anzac Day, and the 100th anniversary of the Gallipoli landings. Like all of WWI, it’s an horrific part of history, which makes me glad that I was not born 100 years earlier. For all our problems today, the world is surely a better place.

One of the reasons that the world today is a better place is leaders of the world who have advanced peace and reconciliation. One such leader was the commander of the Turkish forces at Gallipoli, Mustafa Kemal. He later became the first president of Turkey when it became a republic in 1923 and was given the title “Atatürk” - father of the Turks - in 1934. The same year, he wrote this tribute to the Anzacs killed at Gsllipoli:

Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives … You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side here in this country of ours … You, the mothers who sent their sons from faraway countries, wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well.

A lego HMS Beagle for Darwin Day

It’s Darwin Day again, and what better way to celebrate than to support the awesome work of LuisPG by voting for his outstanding rendering of “HMS Beagle: A Voyage of Researches”:

The eight minifigures include some all-time favourites for fans of The Voyage of the Beagle, or anyone following Darwin’s tweets/blog of his travels. (He’s around Cape Horn at the moment.)

The Charles Darwin’s Beagle Diary blog features extracts from the diaries of Darwin, Fitzroy and Syms Covington, as well as artwork from Conrad Martens, so it’s good to see them all feature!

There’s more pictures and info at the “Lego ideas - HMS Beagle” page, and in the designer’s flickr album. So go, register (if you need to) and give the Beagle a vote: it’s what a 206 year old Darwin would have wanted.

Advance Australia Fair

Today is Australia Day, so I though I would write a post celebrating the attitude of Australia. Whilst the nation has undoubtedly done some terrible things in its not-too-distant history, and has its fair share of bigots, one of the things that I really like about Australia is the way that optimism and inclusiveness are promoted as part of the national identity.

Recognising its foundation and continued growth/development at the hands of immigrants, it manages this without (in my eyes) the excessive patriotism of some other countries one could mention. There is a pride to be Australian without the insecurity of thinking/implying that any non-Australian must be inferior.

This is captured in one of my favourite things about Australia the nation, which is the national anthem, “Advance Australia Fair”. There are a couple of things I like about this. First, the lyrics of the song itself:

Verse 1 Australians all let us rejoice, For we are young and free; We’ve golden soil and wealth for toil; Our home is girt by sea; Our land abounds in nature’s gifts Of beauty rich and rare; In history’s page, let every stage Advance Australia Fair. In joyful strains then let us sing, Advance Australia Fair.

Verse 2 Beneath our radiant Southern Cross We’ll toil with hearts and hands; To make this Commonwealth of ours Renowned of all the lands; For those who’ve come across the seas We’ve boundless plains to share; With courage let us all combine To Advance Australia Fair. In joyful strains then let us sing, Advance Australia Fair.

OK, so the reality might be a little different, but as something aspirational you can’t do much better than: “For those who’ve come across the seas, we’ve boundless plains to share; with courage let us all combine to Advance Australia Fair.”

It certainly beats lines about killing and/or being killed by ancient foes, who are now your close neighbours (or even fellow countrymen). Admittedly, Australia’s federation as a nation was a blood-free independence (and they’ve not yet done away with the monarchy completely) but it’s still decidedly up-beat and lacking in über-nationalism.

The second thing I like about it is the fact that, whilst performed in 1878, it only became the official national anthem in 1984, supplanting the fusty and outdated God Save the Queen. As merits the national anthem of a modern democracy, it was chosen by plebiscite (i.e. non-binding referendum) - something that I think should be at the heart of a lot more political decisions in the digital age.

You don’t have to be stuck in the past. In my opinion, a national anthem should reflect modern ideals. After all, it’s supposed to be something to identify with. I’d love if it the UK replaced God Save the Queen with something more secular and democratic (even if it does contain the classic line, “Frustrate their knavish tricks”). I’m sure that the anthems of a few other nations could do with a bit of a spruce up too.

Well done, Australia.

Charles Darwin, the gentleman scientist

Yesterday, we went to Down House, the home of Charles Darwin, with a friend from the US. I've been meaning to go for a while and, as an evolutionary biologist, I guess it is something of a Pilgrimage. (Somehow fitting, therefore, that my Tom Tom Sat Nav decided to direct via all the country backroads, including Pilgrim's Way.) The house is now looked after by English Heritage and features some great exhibits and insights into the great man's life.

As I am reading the blog of Darwin's Beagle diaries, I was initially most interested in the material from that time of his life, including the reconstruction of his cabin on the Beagle. Perhaps what struck me most, though, was Darwin the man, not Darwin the scientist.

Darwin was a gentleman in every sense. It is true that he was independently wealthy and never had to work for his money, being the son of a very successful doctor and financier. Although he did not eschew this inheritance (honestly, who would?!) it is clear that he did not take his fortune for granted. I have already seen glimpses of his opposition to slavery in his journal comments but it was clear from Darwin House that he was also a kind employer to those paid to serve on his staff. His butler, Joseph Parslow, for example was described on his headstone as "Faithful servant and friend of Charles Darwin" and used to play billiards with Darwin. One of Charles Darwin's sons, Frances, wrote (quote taken from TwoJays):

"“As a master of servants he was much loved and respected; he always spoke to them with politeness, using the expression "would you be so good" in asking for anything. And he was considerate in giving them trouble, one little thing I remember, how he used to reprove one for using a useless number of spoons because it gave so much more trouble in cleaning."

On the subject of Darwin's children, the other thing that really came across from the house and the quotes taken from letters etc. was how much he cared for his family. Not only was Darwin a keen lover of nature, he was a loving husband and a doting father. It is not hard to imagine Down House and its gardens as the site of happiness and fun as well as some of the most influential science of the modern age.

Critics of Darwin often try to make him out as some kind of monster, as if discrediting the man can discredit the science. Of course, this is nonsense on many levels. Newton, it seems, was a pretty nasty piece of work but his scientific genius remains. In Darwin's case, not only has the science stood the test of time but the character of the man himself deserves respect, whether you accept the scientific truth of evolution by Natural Selection or not.

All aboard The Beagle! (Again!)

Back in October, I posted about Darwin tweeting his adventures on the second voyage of HMS Beagle. (His first.) Well, it seems that I was a bit premature as, although scheduled to depart on 24th October 1931, it did not actually leave until December. Well, if you got bored waiting for the departure, and/or find the tweets tantalising but too short, I am happy to report that Darwin's Diary of the whole journey has also been released in blog form and the first entry is today! (Well, it was six years ago today, but if you want to follow it again in "real time", you can start again today.)

All aboard the Beagle with Darwin

If you've not already seen it, you can follow the adventures of Charles Darwin, who is posting updates of his voyage as @cdarwin on Twitter. (Delayed by 181 years, naturally):

  Geologist, naturalist and gentleman. On board The
  Beagle with Capt Fitzroy on a voyage around the world.

It's a five year voyage (near enough) and comes highly recommended. He's only just on board, so plenty of time to catch up.

h/t: WEIT

Putting Greenwich at the centre of the World

If, whilst watching the Equestrian events at Greenwich Park, you wonder how Greenwich got to be home to the Prime Meridian Line - and thereby determine both world time and world longitude - you could do much worse than Episode 91 of A History of the World in 100 Objects, which features the ship's chronometer from HMS Beagle.

It represents technological advancement that didn't get a mention in the opening ceremonies but was arguably much more important than putting men on the moon (as Steve Jones did argue) or robots on Mars. (As undeniably cool as those things are!)

I've been slowly working my way through the episodes of this great series over the past few months - there are a lot of them! - and was particularly pleased to listen to this one yesterday as Darwin and Deep Time both get a mention. (I'd just been updating the MapTime Organic Evolution TimeLine and Keywords.)

So, if you are in London and looking to kill some time between events, download the podcast (or read the transcript) and then visit the British Museum!

The Oxford University Museum of Natural History

Earlier this week, we visited Oxford and went to the Oxford University Museum of Natural History. (I blogged earlier about on one of their beetle exhibits.) The original plan had been to visit this Museum and the attached Pitt Rivers Museum and then visit the Ashmolean Museum of Art & Archaeology. We never made it to the Ashmolean.

There are so many great things about this museum that I will have to spread them over several posts (and save the Pitt Rivers for one of its own). The thing that struck me above and beyond everything else, though, is how it managed to be a pretty comprehensive Natural History museum looking at the global scale but, at the same time, managed to be all about Oxford and have a real local flavour. I guess it helps that Oxford is a world-renowned seat of learning and that many of the scientists making the big world-changing discoveries were at Oxford. Even so, it was great to see fossils etc. from nearby and see how the local geology helped shaped thoughts about geological time etc.

For a start, the building itself has historical significance as it was the site of the famous 1860 debate about evolution featuring Thomas Huxley and Samuel Wilberforce. There are lot of legends associated with that debate and, not having been there, I don't know what actually happened but it is certainly clear that evolution and its supporters have subsequently been thoroughly and (scientifically at least) entirely vindicated. This, perhaps, explains why the statue of Darwin inside is leaning against the pillar so nonchalantly!

The inside of the building is also pretty impressive and really beautiful. Many of the pillars are constructed from different rocks (more on that another day) and have different, distinctive patterns. The displays are also really well laid out and manage to cram a lot in to the building without feeling cramped or crowded.

You get welcomed with the impressive dinosaurs upon entry. The Iguanodon and Tyrannosaurus are not from Oxford but many of the other dinosaur bones and footprints features in the exhibit are local or feature identifications by local Oxford-based scientists. The centre of the room is dominated by these and other animal skeletons etc. and lots of the displays also have interesting regular history along with the natural history. I also like the way that you are able to touch some of the animals and minerals - although obviously nothing too fragile.

Natural History is not just about biology/evolution and there is also a bunch of great stuff on geology - something that I find increasingly interesting the older I get. I am always struck by how much sense the scientific geological explanation makes of different rock formations, strata and fossil patterns. You have to be pretty determined not to accept it.

I won't waffle on here as you can find out lots more at the the museum website. I will post a couple more of my favourite exhibits over the coming days, though. Having browsed the website, however, I do realise that I will have to go back as I managed to miss one of the most famous exhibits - the Oxford Dodo. Given that their logo is a dodo, I'm not sure how I missed this other than the obvious distraction of having so many other interesting things to look at!

Withdrawing my support: where the National Trust went wrong

I am a member of the National Trust and I think they do a lot of excellent work around the country, preserving both historical and natural sites. I am also an evolutionary biologist and dead set against representing Creationism in any of its forms as science.

The recent debacle concerning the reference to Young Earth Creationism (YEC) at the new Giant's Causeway visitor centre has therefore caused a mixture of emotions. Although I still think that some people might be over-reacting (the NT is not "promoting" Creationism), it gives me great confidence for the future of mankind that there are so many people prepared to over-react. At the same time, though, I am saddened to think that the NT might lose money and members due to this. I am also increasingly convinced that the Trust have made some big mistakes here and need to make some changes to fix the damage.

Facts first. The National Trust does not support or promote the YEC position. They have made that clear throughout. The original press release does not mention YEC at all and the only science I can find linked to by the NT is the real stuff, while the only myths they talk about are the traditional legendary giants. They clearly consider the contentious exhibit to be a small part of the overall centre - you can read their view of the interpretation of their blog and a second post highlights the overall number of exhibits in the centre.

It is also clear that the Caleb Foundation misrepresented their relationship, according to a NT spokesman on the blog. He denied "that the Trust has worked closely with the Caleb Foundation over many months":

"No – Caleb were one of a number of groups consulted on the exhibition. We do not support their views and none of the language in the exhibition came from them."

He also denied that the Trust accepts "the assertion that the new visitor centre includes an acknowledgement of the ‘legitimacy’ of the ‘ongoing debate’ around the creationist position":

"No – The National Trust fully supports and promotes the science in relation to the formation of the Giant’s Causeway and the age of the earth. All of the information presented to visitors clearly reflects science and that the Causeway stones are 60 million years old."

Fairly unequivocal stuff.

But...

It is clear from the comments in response to both posts that people are not impressed. Having read many more of the comments - and many from NT members - it is both much clearer to me what specifically has got people cross and also much less clear to me whether I was right to initially support the National Trust. Earlier, I revisited that support and said that the context was vital. The second NT blog post summarises this context (with detail in the first post):

Lastly there is the ‘debating characters’ exhibit, which sparked the discussion. This exhibit consists of five different audio samples triggered by buttons. It is designed to give a flavour of the historical debates there have been over the Causeway’s formation – starting with arguments between Sir Thomas Molyneux and a mystery correspondent (probably George Ashe) over whether the columns were fossil or mineral. The next clip sets out a flavour of the argument between Vulcanists and Neptunists. The next clip details how James Hutton’s work opened the way for definitive proof of an ancient earth. The fourth clip mentions a theory published in the 1800s that the Causeway was fossilised bamboo. Then the final clip states that Young Earth Creationists exist who wish to continue the debate today, as they believe the earth is only 6000 years old.

The problem here is that the first four debates seem to be genuine scientific discussions of their age. Young Earth Creationism is not. It was a genuine scientific discussion of a by-gone age but the age question is one long-settled by science and the YEC stance is wildly inaccurate. To suggest that the debate continues in this context does imply it is a scientific debate. It is not. The fact that the audio subsequently makes it clear that the debate only continues for "some people ... based on a specific interpretation of the Bible" does not entirely undo this initial error. Although I am willing to believe that this is an accident and the NT did not mean to imply that the scientific debate continues, the fact that some people interpret it this way is reason enough, in my book, to change it. This was the first big mistake.

The second big mistake was the use of the word "mainstream" in the sentence: "This debate continues today for some people, who have an understanding of the formation of the earth which is different from that of current mainstream science." Again, although this is immediately followed by a sentence that makes it clear that these people have a different understanding for religious (not scientific) reasons, I find myself agreeing with those commentors who see this sentence as implying that there is some other kind of science that disagrees with the current "understanding of the formation of the earth". There isn't. This is misleading and, even if not giving YEC legitimacy, it reduces the legitimacy of the NT exhibit.

I stand by my original view that the words themselves are true but it is clear that the context and exact choice of phrase - whether deliberate or accidental - is not giving an impression that is consistent with the Trust's stated position on this topic. For this reason alone, they must revise the wording of the exhibit, even if they do not drop the YEC reference altogether. Given the context of that exhibit, though - as a present-day continuation of legitimate debate rather than an historical view that is still held by some folks despite the evidence to the contrary - I find it hard to justify how they can keep the exhibit at all. When it comes to educational resources, good intentions ultimately count for nothing, I'm afraid. It's the consequences that count.

I do not regret my initial support for the National Trust and reluctance to jump on the complaints band-wagon but neither am I too proud to admit that I was wrong. I won't be cancelling my membership just yet - they do too much good - but if this turns out not to be an isolated mistake then I will be reversing that position too.

In support of the National Trust and the "Creationist Exhibit" at Giant's Causeway

I don't think that this is a new story but it seems to have resurfaced recently with a recent article by the National Secular Society, blogged on the Why Evolution Is True website under the rather provocative title of "U.K.’s National Trust promotes creationism!" (The original title of the National Secular Society article was a slightly less zealous "National Trust puts creationism on show at new visitor centre".) The articles report that

The National Trust has come under fire for including an exhibit in the new Giants' Causeway Visitors' Centre acknowledging the creationist view of how the world-famous stones were formed.

The point of contention seems to be that:

A transcript from an audio exhibit in the visitor centre reads:

"Like many natural phenomena around the world, the Giant's Causeway has raised questions and prompted debate about how it was formed.

"This debate has ebbed and flowed since the discovery of the Causeway to science and, historically, the Causeway became part of a global debate about how the earth's rocks were formed.

"This debate continues today for some people, who have an understanding of the formation of the earth which is different from that of current mainstream science.
Young Earth Creationists believe that the earth was created some 6000 years ago. This is based on a specific interpretation of the Bible and in particular the account of creation in the book of Genesis.

"Some people around the world, and specifically here in Northern Ireland, share this perspective.

"Young Earth Creationists continue to debate questions about the age of the earth. As we have seen from the past, and understand today, perhaps the Giant's Causeway will continue to prompt awe and wonder, and arouse debate and challenging questions for as long as visitors come to see it."

This is turn has triggered a widespread response, including a Facebook Group for removing the display and the call from WEIT to send complaints to the National Trust.

I would like to preface the rest of this post by saying that I am 100% unequivocally against representing Creationism as science under any circumstances. It is not science and there is nothing scientific about it. It is, in fact, anti-science. If, therefore, I thought that the National Trust was "promoting" Creationism or presenting the Creationist view as a viable alternative to the "mainstream science" position, I would be dead against it and most definitely write to the National Trust and complain. (I am a National Trust member.)

The thing is, though, this is not what they are doing. The National Trust made their position clear, quoted in the same National Secular Society article:

"The interpretation in the visitor centre showcases the science of how the stones were formed, the history of this special place and the stories of local characters.

"We reflect, in a small part of the exhibition, that the Causeway played a role in the historic debate about the formation of the earth, and that for some people this debate continues today.

"The National Trust fully supports the scientific explanation for the creation of the stones 60 million years ago."

A lot of Irish history is steeped in myths and legends of various sources. The Giant’s Causeway itself is named because legend has it that it was created by an Irish giant, Fionn mac Cumhaill. Are people suggesting that by keeping that name, or having a Fionn mac Cumhaill exhibit in the visitor centre, the National Trust are promoting belief in giants? I suspect not.

I am not sure how new the "new visitor centre" is but I visited the Causeway in 2008 and certainly don’t remember seeing anything that outlandish. If the transcript on the National Secular Society page is as bad as it gets (and why not quote the worst bit?), it is clear that the National Trust are not giving the Creationist position any legitimacy beyond saying that it exists.

Apart from the reactionaries, the only person who seems to believe this is the case is a Creationst:

Wallace Thompson, chairman of the creationist Caleb Foundation said he was pleased with the inclusion of the creationist view:

"We have worked closely with the National Trust over many months with a view to ensuring that the new Causeway Visitor Centre includes an acknowledgement both of the legitimacy of the creationist position on the origins of the unique Causeway stones and of the ongoing debate around this."

Well, Creationists make claims like this all the time and, frankly, regularly lie and misrepresent reality - their position is so untenable, they have to. The only thing being given legitimacy by opposing this display so strongly, it seems, is this bogus position that the National Trust are giving Creationsim legitimacy.

One important point to remember here is the purpose of the National Trust as an organisation. From their website, they are:

a UK conservation charity, protecting historic places and green spaces, and opening them up for ever, for everyone.

They are not a scientific organisation and their primary focus is history, not science. That does not, of course, mean that they can get the science wrong. What it means, however, is that the science should not be the sole focus of their visitor centres, even for their "natural monuments". Acknowledging the existence of the Creationist belief is giving them historical legitimacy, not scientific legitimacy.

As far as I can see, everything that the National Trust has said about the Creationist position is true. Furthermore, I think it is important that we have the myths and legends alongside the science – not as equal points of view regarding truth but as examples of how our beliefs and knowledge have matured through time. How many people are going to visit the exhibit and think “Wow, the Flood must have happened, how blind have I been?” versus, “Crikey, Creationists still believe that?!”

And here is a second important point in favour of the exhibit, even if it is not the intention of those apparently lobbying for it. Young Earth Creationism is often held up as some kind of straw man argument that atheist scientists like to argue against as an example of how religious faith can cause belief in quite non-sensical things despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The fact is, it is not a straw man. There really are lots of people out there who, due to their religion, believe it. There are a lot of people lying out their to support that belief. Only by acknowledging its existence in the context of exhibits that also explain why it is wrong - essentially the rest of the visitor centre at Giant's Causeway, as far as I can tell - can we really combat this kind of thinking. Young Earth Creationsim is a myth, not science. It should be discussed by an organisation that discuss myths and legends, like the National Trust.

The final reason that I support the National Trust in this instance is that opposing it lends credence to another Creationist lie - that their "science" is somehow being repressed by some giant scientific conspiracy. If we react in an over-the-top fashion any time anyone acknowledges that other views exist, we just feed this myth. These ideas are just nonsense and we should not be seen to be running scared from them. Put them alongside the science along with all the other myths (such as stones being hurled into place by giants) and it is quickly apparent which position provides any actual explanation of the phenomenon. If we complain about stuff that the National Trust is not actually doing, such as "promoting Creationsim", then we’re just like the boy who cried wolf and it will erode our legitimacy when there is something really worth complaining about.

Please see "Revisiting my support for the National Trust" and "Withdrawing my support: where the National Trust went wrong" for updates, and "How wrong is the Young Earth Creationist age for the Giant's Causeway?" if you are not sure why people are making a fuss.

Why the Titanic is a big deal to Southampton

There are several places that stake a claim to the RMS Titanic, which struck an iceberg one hundred years ago today (twenty minutes before midnight, ship's time) and sunk just over two and a half hours later with over one thousand people still on board. She was built in Belfast, set sail from Southampton, and last stopped at Cobh in Cork (Ireland), then called Queenstown. All three have Titanic museums, including the new Sea City museum in Southampton, which opened recently.

I think that Southampton stands out, however, because the claim is not really about prestige or fame but genuine heart-felt loss. The reason for this is quite simple and horrifying: four fifths of the crew and about a third of the 1514 who died came from the city. This is approaching 0.5% of the population of the city at the time. This is perhaps shown best at the Daily Echo interactive map of the Titanic crew victims and survivors from Southampton:



Another way to put things in perspective: in that one night, Southampton lost almost as many people as during the entire Blitz in World War II. (Southampton was bombed 57 times, destroying or damaging over 45,000 homes!) Some of the individual stories are worse even than this. At Northam School (near the current Saints stadium, St Mary's), for example, almost half of the 250 pupils lost their father in the disaster.

Living in Southampton, therefore, it seemed wrong not to write a short post about it. (Although, not coming from Southampton, I do not really think that I have a true sense of how the impact of the Titanic's loss is still felt.) So next time you are watching Kate and Leo in 3D, spare a thought for Southampton.

Mmmm.... Madeira

Tonight's wine tasting was a Madeira wine tasting. Madeira's come in a variety of styles but the most famous (I think) and best are very raisiny fortified wines. They range in sweetness but the sweetest "Malmsey" style is the nicest, in my book.

We had some interesting wines (Madeira table wine = bad!), including a 40 year old Verdelho from Blandy's. This was pretty nice, I must admit, and at £133 a pop, this was not a wine I was likely to drink any other time (or again, for that matter).

The standout wine of the night for me, however, was a delicious 1994 Cossant Gordon Malmsey [Colhieta], paired with a delicious madeira cake - not the English sponge cake but, rather, the traditional honey cake. (Recipe here, where I also half-inched the picture, below.)

Madeira wine has a pretty interesting history. I'm certainly not going to repeat all of it here (that's what Wikipedia is for) but I like the fact that Madeira, like so many great discoveries, was an accidnet. The Madeirans were shipping their wine aborad for sale to far-flung destinations, such as India, but they failed to sell it all - if it's like the Rose table wine we had tonight, I'm not surprised. The unsold wine was shipped back to Madeira on the same ships but, by the time it got home, it had changed. For the better. Gone was the pale, bland (I wonder if this was the origin of "Blandy's") wine and in its place was something dark and raisiny and delicious. For a while, they deliberatley shipped it long distances to make the transformation before finally realising that it was the heat of passing through the tropics that was responsible for the transformation. Now, they just stick the barrels up near the winery roof for a while, where it can get the required heat without the cost.

A favoured wine of Napoleon and Churchill, among others, it's an interesting wine with an interesting history and well worth a glass or two - especially if you have some tasty Madeira honey cake to go with it!