pumpkinstrokemarrow

One association here is the famous old pub of this name in Norwich, which I maybe used once in our six years there. But a more recent one is a picture in the Guardian accompanying a story which alleges that nearly a third of science teachers think that creationism ought to be taught as part of science lessions, alongside evolution. Now Prof. R. Dawkins might sometimes be a bit of a pain, but he is quite right to brand this result - assuming that the survey people have done their stuff properly (quite a big assumption in my mind) - a national disgrace. And as Prof. C. Higgins hints, while there might be a place for discussion of such stuff in a History of Science or Religious Information class, one ought also include, under the same head, flat earth science. And this is not the sort of stuff one should be cluttering up primary brains with. They will have enough trouble with real science without getting them onto to pretend science. Plenty of time for that when they are older. So who are all these sciences teachers who think this? Is the New Commonwealth becoming as strong in the science teaching profession as it is in the medical profession? Now I come to think of it, no reason at all why not. All rather depressing.

And apart from anything else, is there too much interest in pretend science and media studies? Which are all well and good, but is it leaving enough people interested in real science to make our toothpaste and drive our power stations? I dare say with computer aided design, the Internet and all the rest of it, one needs rather fewer working scientists per capita. One toothpaste design will serve the whole world - making for rather a flat and dull world, but one which does work. And but we do need some. Maybe we are relying on the Chinese and Indians, still keen on making things, rather than talking about them, to knock out the scientists and to make the toothpaste. We can spend our time chattering about why there is some inner need for creationism and other cranky matter.

Happily, there is a more mundane sort of creationism going on in the back garden. Having failed to remove the dead oak leaves from the small snowdrop bed there, they have already started to shoot. Have now removed the leaves, hopefully without doing too much damage to the shoots, and hopefully all will be well in due course. Bluebells on the move too; same story.

BH believes that dead oak leaves do in her lamb tails if not removed. I am starting to suspect them of doing in various clumps of ivy. Maybe I need to take a walk in an oak wood to see what sort of plants thrive at ground level. I remember that beech woods can be a bit dead at ground level so maybe prognosis not good. Although dead oak leaves can't be the whole story as at least one clump of sick ivy is nowhere near the oaks.

And the day before yesterday, another chunk of creation swooping low over the park, in the form of two or three flocks of our ring necked parakeets. Oddly, in the late afternoon winter sun, against the grass, they looked a splendid shade of deep green. Against the sky, black and against the houses, invisible. A passer-by explained that they all lived up on the Hogsmill somewhere, flew south each morning to feed, perhaps on Epsom Common, with a resting place in the trees along the back of Horton Lane on the way. The passer-by also claimed that it was all very regular. Same time every day - presumably GMT as I don't suppose birds are into summer and winter time.

I wonder if any one bird always roosts on the same branch every night, or more or less every night? Or do they just get as far as the same tree? Do all birds have regular habits in this way? Robins are territorial, but that is not the same as tying down their sleeping arrangements.