1051
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Boooo!!
26/06/2006 01:05:00
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: m_cowan32
>
> > it isn't "unprofessional" to hold YEC views
>
> Your answers, if they ever appear, will be relevant to that issue.
>
> > even though fascist atheists would like it so.
>
> Personally I don't know what faschist atheists would like, as I don't
> know any. I have met a few faschists, but in most cases I haven't
> known their religious beliefs. In all the cases where I have known,
> however, they've been Christian fundamentalists.
Perhaps Nick could explain to us who this "Creator" is that Herr
Hitler keeps referring to in "Mein Kampf" . . . . . ?
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
1052
oeditor
Re: Boooo!!
26/06/2006 01:09:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "m_cowan32" <m_cowan32@...> wrote:
>
> www.aqa.org.uk/qual/pdf/AQA-4461-4462-4421-EX2-W-SW.pdf
>
> Apart from spelling Ussher's name wrongly, and getting the date/time
> wrong (it was actually October 23rd at 3pm), it's encouraging that
> they concede that there are creationists around, and that these
> things are worthy of discussion in Science classes!
You're taking it out of context, Nick. First they say:
"In the 1800s there was an obvious
discrepancy and split between science and religion"
then
"(there are some creationists still around today)."
They're clearly requiring you to teach that Ussher was hopelessly
wrong, and that the residual creationists are poor, benighted fools.
Try reading it in the cold light of day, not when wound up with
hysterical excitement. (I take it that it was a good sermon, then?)
Brian
Brian
1053
John Germain
RE: Re: Boooo!!
26/06/2006 01:10:00
Very good, Mr. Cowan.
I will accept your assertion that your Union will support you. I suppose that
most Joiners
join their preferred. I know quite a lot about Education, having two children...
Sorry,
but I don't bother keeping up with the internal job-squabbling of misfit
Teachers ....
Fascist atheists? Which Teaching Code of Practice allows you to use this
terminology even
when addressing an Internationally read e-group in you own time? Especially when
that
e-group is hostile to you because of your having boasted of having taken a
Religious
stance in your Scientific Class?
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of
m_cowan32
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 12:43 AM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: Boooo!!
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "John Germain"
<jtg.germainsjy@...> wrote:
>
> I think this is spoofed at Cow-Pokes addy. (no-one is this
potty...)
(Pinch yourself) No, it's not a spoof.
>
> He can't believe that he's not going to be brought up before the
NUT. When his 'n Hers
> Pensions go tits up, penury is a sharp focuser of what remains of
the mind...
Moira and I are both in the ATL union not the NUT. You probably mean
the GTC (do you know ANYTHING about education?!), and it
isn't "unprofessional" to hold YEC views, even though fascist
atheists would like it so. Even if I were dismissed (it's a
possibility) my pension wouldn't be affected. But what's money
anyway - you can't take it with you, and even if you could it would
burn!
>
> Blah, BLAH, & THE LINK DOESN'T work...
I've just tried both of them again. You need to actually type them
in. Sorry if this is tricky.
>
> Good start.
>
> What exams are still running, Nick?
>
> Which Board?
As I've already said, tomorrow is AQA Chemistry A-level Modules 5
and 6. The following day is Advanced Extension (AE) Chemistry.
Biology AE is later this week. You could ring AQA headquarters in
Manchester (0161-953-1180) to check if you wish. I mean, all
creationists are liars aren't they?
>
>
>
>
> John Germain
> Jersey
> British Channel Islands
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
[BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> m_cowan32
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 12:02 AM
> To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [BlackShadow] Boooo!!
>
> Well hello there everybody - have you missed me?
> (Replies must not mention the words "hole" and "head")
>
> It's exam. time, and I've been busy feeding the little goats.
> Thankfully there are some sheep among them, including at least one
> YEC who's on his way to Oxford to read Chemistry - a proper science
> (as opposed to the pseudosciences of evilutionary Biology
> and "origins" Geology), which is based on observable, repeatable,
> measureable and falsifiable experiments. Evilution is not
> falsifiable, as some new speculative (faith) statement such as "the
> gaps in the fossil record will one day be found" can always be
> adduced as support for its (increaingly discredited0 position.
>
> The last A-level Modules are tomorrow, and I'm amusing myself
> reading about the "new campaign". You're fighting a losing battle,
> reminiscent of King Canute. Here for example (on page 14) is part
of
> a suggested Scheme of Work for the new AQA (exam board) GCSE
> syllabus (for 14-16 year olds):
>
> www.aqa.org.uk/qual/pdf/AQA-4461-4462-4421-EX2-W-SW.pdf
>
> Apart from spelling Ussher's name wrongly, and getting the
date/time
> wrong (it was actually October 23rd at 3pm), it's encouraging that
> they concede that there are creationists around, and that these
> things are worthy of discussion in Science classes! Boy, am I
> looking forward to teaching this from September!! You'd better get
> going on another New Campaign...
>
> ....which brings me back to your last attempts to gag me. Why
hasn't
> one of you had the "bottle" to write to my Headmaster or a Governor
> here to complain about my "indoctrination" of the kids? Is it
> because the only governor with a Science degree is a Christian who,
> like me, attends "Spring Harvest" - in fact we last saw each other
> at Butlins, Skegness at Easter (check it out)? Or is it because
I've
> now got paper copies of some of your "vitriol" (the nearest some of
> you get to a real science!), which clearly shows that it is your
> atheistic world-view (hence the abundant references to NSS and BHA)
> which drives you, and not a love for scientific truth?
>
> Some interesting stuff these last 3 weeks.
> Strange thing about light and its speed - now that really would set
> Schrödinger's cat among the pigeons! Maybe Setterfield was right
> after all:
>
> www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2196225%2C00.html
>
> I'll be back soon with some individual replies to previous posts.
>
> Must have a break now. I need to decide what to put in the
Chemistry
> Dept's notice-board ready for Blue Coat school's Open Evening on
> Thursday week (July 6th from 6.30-8.30pm). Hey, some of you should
> come along; please introduce yourself to me - I'll be in room N10
> behind the smoke and burning sulphur.
>
> "Old Nick"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Old Nick"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
1054
oeditor
Re: Boooo!!
26/06/2006 01:12:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
> Perhaps Nick could explain to us who this "Creator" is that Herr
> Hitler keeps referring to in "Mein Kampf" . . . . . ?
>
And whether he supports the Christian Council of Great Britain
(you know, the BNP one)
Brian
1055
Andrew
Re: Re: Boooo!!
26/06/2006 01:12:00
----- Original Message -----
From: Lenny Flank
> Perhaps Nick could explain to us who this "Creator" is that Herr
> Hitler keeps referring to in "Mein Kampf" . . . . . ?
Yes. If I remember rightly, Hitler describes in one of the early chapters of
Mein Kampf how he got his anti-Semitism from the Christian Socialist party,
who he agreed with while believing they didn't go far enough. He, of
course, subsequently went further.
I suppose the main thing to note, though, is Cowan's deliberate and
inaccurate slur on the people questioning his extreme beliefs. And the main
thing to keep focusing on is those important questions he keeps promising to
reply to and somehow never seems to get round to. Perhaps if he spent less
time casting false slurs on other people he might have more time to focus on
what actually matters.
1056
John Germain
RE: Boooo!!
26/06/2006 01:16:00
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of
m_cowan32
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 12:02 AM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Boooo!!
Well hello there everybody - have you missed me?
(Replies must not mention the words "hole" and "head")
It's exam. time, and I've been busy feeding the little goats.
Thankfully there are some sheep among them, including at least one
YEC who's on his way to Oxford to read Chemistry - a proper science
(as opposed to the pseudosciences of evilutionary Biology
and "origins" Geology), which is based on observable, repeatable,
measureable and falsifiable experiments. Evilution is not
falsifiable, as some new speculative (faith) statement such as "the
gaps in the fossil record will one day be found" can always be
adduced as support for its (increaingly discredited0 position.
The last A-level Modules are tomorrow, and I'm amusing myself
reading about the "new campaign". You're fighting a losing battle,
reminiscent of King Canute. Here for example (on page 14) is part of
a suggested Scheme of Work for the new AQA (exam board) GCSE
syllabus (for 14-16 year olds):
www.aqa.org.uk/qual/pdf/AQA-4461-4462-4421-EX2-W-SW.pdf
Apart from spelling Ussher's name wrongly, and getting the date/time
wrong (it was actually October 23rd at 3pm), it's encouraging that
they concede that there are creationists around, and that these
things are worthy of discussion in Science classes! Boy, am I
looking forward to teaching this from September!! You'd better get
going on another New Campaign...
....which brings me back to your last attempts to gag me. Why hasn't
one of you had the "bottle" to write to my Headmaster or a Governor
here to complain about my "indoctrination" of the kids? Is it
because the only governor with a Science degree is a Christian who,
like me, attends "Spring Harvest" - in fact we last saw each other
at Butlins, Skegness at Easter (check it out)? Or is it because I've
now got paper copies of some of your "vitriol" (the nearest some of
you get to a real science!), which clearly shows that it is your
atheistic world-view (hence the abundant references to NSS and BHA)
which drives you, and not a love for scientific truth?
Some interesting stuff these last 3 weeks.
Strange thing about light and its speed - now that really would set
Schrödinger's cat among the pigeons! Maybe Setterfield was right
after all:
www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2196225%2C00.html
I'll be back soon with some individual replies to previous posts.
Must have a break now. I need to decide what to put in the Chemistry
Dept's notice-board ready for Blue Coat school's Open Evening on
Thursday week (July 6th from 6.30-8.30pm). Hey, some of you should
come along; please introduce yourself to me - I'll be in room N10
behind the smoke and burning sulphur.
"Old Nick"
"Old Nick"
Yahoo! Groups Links
1057
John Germain
RE: Boooo!!
26/06/2006 01:28:00
Oh, well: AQA & his Union (giggle) defenders have had copies of everything.
(Cheers, Nick, BTW, if you weren't a twat you would never have told me your
Graunion.)
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
1058
m_cowan32
Re: Boooo!!
26/06/2006 02:27:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
> > Well hello there everybody - have you missed me?
>
>
> Yes.
>
> Now answer my questions.
>
> You claim that the dinosaurs were fossilized separately from the
> humasn because the dinosaurs were all engulfed in mudslides, while
> the humans were all swept away by waves and drowned.
I've never claimed such a thing, either directly or implicitly.
Please check back through my posts. Do I detect a "straw man" being
set up here?
>
> A few questions:
>
> (1) How do you know that to be so?
I don't KNOW it - I wasn't there. How do YOU know for sure what
happened? I would suggest that during the 40 days of rain from above
(balanced out thermodynamically by the water from below, so there's
no energy/temperature problem as has been naively suggested) the
more intelligent humans moved to higher ground and mostly drowned:
the dinosaurs were mostly buried. It's plausible, although I'm not
claiming any palaeontological expertise here.
>
> (2) what about the aquatic marine reptiles --- how the heck were
THEY
> swept away by a mudslide?
Maybe most weren't, although some may have been caught.
>
> (3) how is it that EVERY SINGLE DINOSAUR ON EARTH, every single
> solitary one without excpetion, was so selectively hit by these
> mudslides, while EVERY SINGLE HUMAN ON EARTH, every single one of
> them, was selectively hit by waves --- and NOT A SINGLE ONE was
> caught by its opposite. How the heck did that happen?
Some dinosaurs may have drowned and there are, I believe, some human
fossils which may have been hit by mudslides, so I don't regard this
as a "black and white" issue. At best we can both speculate from our
different philosophical/worldview positions. I could of course make
a faith claim here, and say that I believe that human and dinosaur
fossils will one day be found together.
>
> (4) what about all the dinosaurs and humans that died BEFORE THE
> FLOOD. How the heck did THEY get separated by these flood waters?
As I understand it, there are few human fossils. Maybe the dead were
cremated for the most part. How can we tell whether a dinosaur
fossil was pre-deluge or not? This is speculation not testable
science! I'm glad I'm a Chemist!
Regards, Nick
>
>
> ===================================
> Lenny Flank
> "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
> Creation "Science" Debunked
> http://www.geocities.com/lflank
>
> My Reptile Page
> http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
>
1059
Andrew
Re: Re: Boooo!!
26/06/2006 02:53:00
----- Original Message -----
From: m_cowan32
[quote from Lenny Flank]
> > You claim that the dinosaurs were fossilized separately from the
> > humasn because the dinosaurs were all engulfed in mudslides, while
> > the humans were all swept away by waves and drowned.
> I've never claimed such a thing, either directly or implicitly.
> Please check back through my posts. Do I detect a "straw man" being
> set up here?
I've just checked back. Quote from message to this group from Nick Cowan,
26th May:
> The land dinosaurs would largely have been
> buried in the mud-flows, and the humans mostly drowned and decomposed
1060
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Boooo!!
26/06/2006 03:15:00
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
> > > > Well hello there everybody - have you missed me? > > > Yes. > >
> Now answer my questions. > > You claim that the dinosaurs were
> fossilized separately from the > humasn because the dinosaurs were all
> engulfed in mudslides, while > the humans were all swept away by waves
> and drowned.
>
> I've never claimed such a thing, either directly or implicitly.
Sure about that, Nick . . . . ?
> Please check back through my posts. Do I detect a "straw man" being
> set up here?
>
No, but *I* detect a goddamn liar here:
Message Number 847, Friday May 26, 2006, 11:11 am:
My question:
1. How old do you think the earth is? How do you think fossils
> formed? Where do you think the humans were while dinosaurs and
> trilobites were being fossilized, and where do you think both
> dinosaurs and humans were while the trilobites were beign
fossilized?
Your answer:
(I could quote 3 words Ken Ham here but I'll resist!)
No-one knows for certain from science alone: the evidence is
contradictory. For theological reasons I believe it is just less than
6,000 years.
Fossils are clear evidence for catastrophism and against
uniformitarianism. Most were formed shortly after the Flood. I'm not
a paleontologist but I guess trilobites would fossilise separately as
they were sea-dwellers. The land dinosaurs would largely have been
buried in the mud-flows, and the humans mostly drowned and decomposed
(hence the relative lack of human fossils). I'm open to learning more
on this!
Is there some other Nick Cowan posting under your name, Nick? Or are
you just a goddamn liar?
> > A few questions:
> >
> > (1) How do you know that to be so?
>
> I don't KNOW it - I wasn't there.
How do you know the Roman empire existed, Nick. You weren't there
for THAT either, were you?
How do YOU know for sure what
> happened? I would suggest that during the 40 days of rain from above
> (balanced out thermodynamically by the water from below, so there's no
> energy/temperature problem as has been naively suggested)
BWA HA HA HA HA AHA HA HA HA AHA HA HA A !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Good one, Nick.
And you even spelled "thermodynamically" correctly.
Alas, Nick, when water vapor turns to liquid, heat is released.
And it doesn't matter a rat's ass how much liquid water is already
there.
Explain please.
the more
> intelligent humans moved to higher ground and mostly drowned
What about the dead ancestors of those humans, Nick. Did the fleeing
humans stop long enough to dig up the buried corpses of all their
ancestors before they headed to the high ground?
Oh, and Nick, if the humans headed for the high ground, then why is
it we find fossil WILLOW TREES along with these fossil humans?
Willow trees live in lowland areas near water, Nick.
How did the willow trees get to the high ground along with the
humans, Nick? Did they run for the high ground, too?
: the
> dinosaurs were mostly buried. It's plausible, although I'm not
> claiming any palaeontological expertise here.
No kidding.
>
>
> > (2) what about the aquatic marine reptiles --- how the heck were
> THEY
> > swept away by a mudslide?
>
> Maybe most weren't, although some may have been caught.
Then, uh, why are they separated form all the other aquatic marine
animals, like, say whales or trilobites, Nick.
>
> >
> > (3) how is it that EVERY SINGLE DINOSAUR ON EARTH, every single
> > solitary one without excpetion, was so selectively hit by these
> > mudslides, while EVERY SINGLE HUMAN ON EARTH, every single one of
> > them, was selectively hit by waves --- and NOT A SINGLE ONE was
> > caught by its opposite. How the heck did that happen?
>
> Some dinosaurs may have drowned and there are, I believe, some human
> fossils which may have been hit by mudslides, so I don't regard this
> as a "black and white" issue.
That's nice.
And why, again, do we never find human fossils together with dinosaur
fossils . . . .?
At best we can both speculate from our
> different philosophical/worldview positions.
No, Nick, YOU can speculate from your Biblical literalist position.
I have fossils. I dont' need to speculate.
I could of course make a
> faith claim here, and say that I believe that human and dinosaur
> fossils will one day be found together.
What about humans and trilobites, Nick.
Humans and Pikaia?
Humans and cotylosaurs?
Humans and paraeosaurs?
And on and on and on . . . ?
>
> >
> > (4) what about all the dinosaurs and humans that died BEFORE THE
> > FLOOD. How the heck did THEY get separated by these flood waters?
>
> As I understand it, there are few human fossils. Maybe the dead were
> cremated for the most part.
What about the buildings they lived in, Nick. Did the buildings run
for the high ground too?
Oh, and Nick, when you learn some beginner's archaeology, you'll
realize that archaeologists can find remnants of human villages even
if they are utterly completely burnt to the ground.
Wait -- let me guess ----- you, uh, don't have any expertise in
archaeology either, right?
Just what the hell DO you have any expertise in, Nick? Why the hell
are you teaching science to children if you don't know a damn thing
about it?
How can we tell whether a dinosaur fossil
> was pre-deluge or not? This is speculation not testable science!
You mean your creationist geologists can't tell which layers are
water-deposited and which layers aren't?
Gee, no WONDER oil companies don't hire creationist geologists.
Sounds like they're utter incompetents.
I'm
> glad I'm a Chemist!
>
If you're a chemist, then maybe you should, you know, shut up about
evolution and biology.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
1061
Roger Stanyard
Re: Boooo!!
26/06/2006 08:28:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "m_cowan32" <m_cowan32@...> wrote:
>
> Well hello there everybody - have you missed me?
> (Replies must not mention the words "hole" and "head")
>
> It's exam. time, and I've been busy feeding the little goats.
> Thankfully there are some sheep among them, including at least one
> YEC who's on his way to Oxford to read Chemistry - a proper science
> (as opposed to the pseudosciences of evilutionary Biology
> and "origins" Geology), which is based on observable, repeatable,
> measureable and falsifiable experiments. Evilution is not
> falsifiable, as some new speculative (faith) statement such as "the
> gaps in the fossil record will one day be found" can always be
> adduced as support for its (increaingly discredited0 position.
>
As a public educator in a senior position in one of Brtian's leading
state schools can you explain to us, the people paying your monthly
salary, the following:
1. How does claiming the world is 10,000 years old improve your
childrens' pass rates wne they use it in answering questions in their
geology, geography and physics GCSE and A level exams?
2. Do you tell them not to use "creationist sceice" in their exams?
3. If so, are you telling them to lie about what you believe in order
to pass their exams?
4. How many of your pupils have gained better grades by using your
creationist science?
5. How many have gained worse grades by using your creationist science
in exams?
6. Has Bluecoat school done an audit on this?
7. For every one YECer that as passed through your hands and gone to
Oxbridge, how many have failed to get into good universities as a
result of using creation science in their exams?
8. How many do you expect to fail their degrees because of their YEC
belifs that yo are promoting?
9. have you advised the parents, the school governors and biology and
geology teachers in Bluecoast that biology and geology are completly
unsound subjects.
10. Have you advised on the basis of your beliefs that the subjects
should be withdrawn for the school?
11. How many children have opted out of these subjects after your have
raised YECer beliefs in the school?
12. What impact has John Mackay had in the school in these matters?
I don't give a stuff what your religious opinions are. I'm asking some
very hard questions about exam performance.
Roger Stanyard
1062
Roger Stanyard
Re: Boooo!!
26/06/2006 08:32:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "m_cowan32" <m_cowan32@...> wrote:
>
> Well hello there everybody - have you missed me?
> (Replies must not mention the words "hole" and "head")
>
> It's exam. time, and I've been busy feeding the little goats.
> Thankfully there are some sheep among them, including at least one
> YEC who's on his way to Oxford to read Chemistry - a proper science
> (as opposed to the pseudosciences of evilutionary Biology
> and "origins" Geology), which is based on observable, repeatable,
> measureable and falsifiable experiments. Evilution is not
> falsifiable, as some new speculative (faith) statement such as "the
> gaps in the fossil record will one day be found" can always be
> adduced as support for its (increaingly discredited0 position.
>
Extra question:
Do you mark exam papers and do you mark them down when the children
quote pseudoscience as suggested by your definition above?
Yes or no?
1063
Roger Stanyard
Re: Boooo!!
26/06/2006 08:37:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "m_cowan32" <m_cowan32@...> wrote:
>
> Well hello there everybody - have you missed me?
> (Replies must not mention the words "hole" and "head")
>
> It's exam. time, and I've been busy feeding the little goats.
> Thankfully there are some sheep among them, including at least one
> YEC who's on his way to Oxford to read Chemistry - a proper science
> (as opposed to the pseudosciences of evilutionary Biology
> and "origins" Geology), which is based on observable, repeatable,
> measureable and falsifiable experiments. Evilution is not
> falsifiable, as some new speculative (faith) statement such as "the
> gaps in the fossil record will one day be found" can always be
> adduced as support for its (increaingly discredited0 position.
>
Further question:
Now you are on public record as saying that biology is a
pseudoscience; have you told pupils in the school and their parents
that this is the case?
Are you using the term evilutionary and evilution to them in advising
and teaching on science?
Roger Stanyard
1064
Roger Stanyard
Re: Boooo!!
26/06/2006 08:41:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "m_cowan32" <m_cowan32@...> wrote:
>
> Well hello there everybody - have you missed me?
> (Replies must not mention the words "hole" and "head")
>
> It's exam. time, and I've been busy feeding the little goats.
> Thankfully there are some sheep among them, including at least one
> YEC who's on his way to Oxford to read Chemistry - a proper science
> (as opposed to the pseudosciences of evilutionary Biology
> and "origins" Geology), which is based on observable, repeatable,
> measureable and falsifiable experiments. Evilution is not
> falsifiable, as some new speculative (faith) statement such as "the
> gaps in the fossil record will one day be found" can always be
> adduced as support for its (increaingly discredited0 position.
Does the biology department of Bluecoat school teach that "the
gaps in the fossil record will one day be found"?
Can you give us the name of any biology or geology text book that
teaches this and quote from the section that states this?
Please feel free to define what an intermediate species is between
two other species? What proportion of fossils are intermediate
species?
Roger Stanyard
1065
Roger Stanyard
Re: Boooo!!
26/06/2006 08:44:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "m_cowan32" <m_cowan32@...> wrote:
>
>You're fighting a losing battle,
> reminiscent of King Canute. Here for example (on page 14) is part of
> a suggested Scheme of Work for the new AQA (exam board) GCSE
> syllabus (for 14-16 year olds):
>
> www.aqa.org.uk/qual/pdf/AQA-4461-4462-4421-EX2-W-SW.pdf
>
Er, this is a chemistry syllabus, not a biology or geology syllabus.
>
>
1066
Roger Stanyard
Re: Boooo!!
26/06/2006 08:47:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "m_cowan32" <m_cowan32@...> wrote:
>
> Well hello there everybody - have you missed me?
> (Replies must not mention the words "hole" and "head")
>
We have missed you. Big time.
Roger Stanyard
1067
Roger Stanyard
Re: Boooo!!
26/06/2006 08:46:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "m_cowan32" <m_cowan32@...> wrote:
>
> Well hello there everybody - have you missed me?
> (Replies must not mention the words "hole" and "head")
>
Further question:
Are you advising puplis not to go to Leeds University to study biology
because the university is introducing cumpulsory courses that rubbish
creation science?
Roger Stanyard
1068
Roger Stanyard
Re: Boooo!!
26/06/2006 08:53:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "m_cowan32" <m_cowan32@...> wrote:
>
> > Some dinosaurs may have drowned and there are, I believe, some
human
> fossils which may have been hit by mudslides, so I don't regard
this
> as a "black and white" issue. At best we can both speculate from
our
> different philosophical/worldview positions. I could of course make
> a faith claim here, and say that I believe that human and dinosaur
> fossils will one day be found together.
>
So, er, science is about speculating on different philosphical and
wordview points?
So the periodic table is a matter of speculation depending on your
philospohical and worldview?
So radiometric dating techniques are a matter of speculation
depdending on your philospohical and worldview?
How does that improve the exam performance of your puplis?
Roger Stanyard
>
> > (4) what about all the dinosaurs and humans that died BEFORE THE
> > FLOOD. How the heck did THEY get separated by these flood waters?
>
> As I understand it, there are few human fossils. Maybe the dead
were
> cremated for the most part. How can we tell whether a dinosaur
> fossil was pre-deluge or not? This is speculation not testable
> science! I'm glad I'm a Chemist!
>
> Regards, Nick
>
> >
> >
> > ===================================
> > Lenny Flank
> > "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
> >
> > Creation "Science" Debunked
> > http://www.geocities.com/lflank
> >
> > My Reptile Page
> > http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
> >
>
1069
Roger Stanyard
Re: Boooo!!
26/06/2006 08:55:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "m_cowan32" <m_cowan32@...> wrote:
>
> > (4) what about all the dinosaurs and humans that died BEFORE THE
> > FLOOD. How the heck did THEY get separated by these flood waters?
>
> As I understand it, there are few human fossils. Maybe the dead were
> cremated for the most part. How can we tell whether a dinosaur
> fossil was pre-deluge or not? This is speculation not testable
> science! I'm glad I'm a Chemist!
>
So Noah and seven others went round after the flood, cremating millions
of dead human bodies.
And I thought that the bible said Noah had a drink problem?
Roger Stanyard
1070
Peter Hearty
Re: Re: Boooo!!
26/06/2006 09:17:00
> I would suggest that during the 40 days of rain from above
> (balanced out thermodynamically by the water from below, so there's
> no energy/temperature problem as has been naively suggested)
Excuse me? Ever hear of conservation of energy? Where did the ENERGY come
from evaporate am 8km body of water?
1071
Roger Stanyard
Re: Boooo!!
26/06/2006 09:25:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "m_cowan32" <m_cowan32@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@> wrote:
> >
> > > Well hello there everybody - have you missed me?
> >
> >
>> >
> > A few questions:
> >
> > (1) How do you know that to be so?
>
> I don't KNOW it - I wasn't there. How do YOU know for sure what
> happened?
So, er, let's get this right what you are saying. Nobody can
understand anything about a past even unless they were there. So the
history teachers at Bluecoat are talking bunkum?
I would suggest that during the 40 days of rain from above
> (balanced out thermodynamically by the water from below, so there's
> no energy/temperature problem as has been naively suggested) the
> more intelligent humans moved to higher ground and mostly drowned:
So the less intelligent were so stupid that they didn't?
Er, I don't get this. Only intelligent people can walk away from
flood water?
> the dinosaurs were mostly buried. It's plausible, although I'm not
> claiming any palaeontological expertise here.
> >
Nor are you demonstrating any expertise in science.
>
> > (2) what about the aquatic marine reptiles --- how the heck were
> THEY
> > swept away by a mudslide?
>
> Maybe most weren't, although some may have been caught.
>
By who? Noah loaded all the animals onto the Ark before the flood
started IIRC from the literal interpretation of the bible.
Remember, the bible is absolutely true and not open to
interpretation, according to fundamentalists.
> >
> > (3) how is it that EVERY SINGLE DINOSAUR ON EARTH, every single
> > solitary one without excpetion, was so selectively hit by these
> > mudslides, while EVERY SINGLE HUMAN ON EARTH, every single one of
> > them, was selectively hit by waves --- and NOT A SINGLE ONE was
> > caught by its opposite. How the heck did that happen?
>
> Some dinosaurs may have drowned and there are, I believe, some
human
> fossils which may have been hit by mudslides, so I don't regard
this
> as a "black and white" issue.
At best we can both speculate from our
> different philosophical/worldview positions. I could of course make
> a faith claim here, and say that I believe that human and dinosaur
> fossils will one day be found together.
So, er, why haven't creationists found them yet?
>
> >
> > (4) what about all the dinosaurs and humans that died BEFORE THE
> > FLOOD. How the heck did THEY get separated by these flood waters?
>
> As I understand it, there are few human fossils.
At 4,000 years old there are copious numbers of human remains; loads
of them all over the world, all over the English coountryside, So why
are all dinosaur bones mineralised replacements of the originals but
no such human bones 4,000 years old?
Why don't you, er, answer Lenny's question about dinosaurs and humans
that died before the flood?
Maybe the dead were
> cremated for the most part. How can we tell whether a dinosaur
> fossil was pre-deluge or not? This is speculation not testable
> science! I'm glad I'm a Chemist!
You tell us. You are reminded that there are a wide variety of dating
methods for material 4,000-6,000 years old, both comparative and
absolute.
You should know about some of these as you are a chemist.
Or, are you telling the pupils at your school that the scientists who
have devloped and use these techniques are all bogus and are really
speculating and lying?
Are you advising pupils not to go to universties which use or teach
such techniques because, in your opinion, they are wrong?
Or are you encouraging them to go to universities which teach them
and use bogus science. Straight answer, here, Mr Cowan, please.
Does this include Oxbridge?
Indeed, does Bluecoat school require members of its science
department to advise pupils on university entrance?
Roger Stanyard
1072
Ian Lowe
RE: Boooo!!
26/06/2006 09:32:00
>It's exam. time, and I've been busy feeding the little goats.
>Thankfully there are some sheep among them, including at least one
>YEC who's on his way to Oxford to read Chemistry
How do you know that this student has YEC beliefs Nick?
In what context have you discussed religion with this student?
Do you feel that it's appropriate to refer to your students as sheep and
goats? For that matter, do you feel that it is acceptable behaviour for a
teacher to speak in a derogatory fashion about students because they do not
share your religious views, and speak in a more positive way about those who
do?
Do you allow this favouritism to show in the class? In your marking?
It's interesting that you feel confident in carrying out a religious
ministry in the classroom with impunity because you have a fellow
fundamentalist watching your back. Have you discussed this matter with your
Governor friend? Are the two of you actively discussing how to teach
creationism in the science class?
Your behaviour on this list demonstrates perfectly why "born again"
Christians are inherently untrustworthy and not suitable for a role in the
public sphere.
Ian.
1073
Roger Stanyard
Re: Boooo!!
26/06/2006 09:53:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Hearty" <psh@...> wrote:
>
> > I would suggest that during the 40 days of rain from above
> > (balanced out thermodynamically by the water from below, so there's
> > no energy/temperature problem as has been naively suggested)
>
> Excuse me? Ever hear of conservation of energy? Where did the ENERGY
come
> from evaporate am 8km body of water?
>
From the mind of the fundy shuffle as demonstrated by Mr. Cowan - er,
maybe, could of, how do you know, you weren't there...
All you can do, Peter, according to the chemistry department of
Bluecoat school, is to speculate according to your worldview and
philosophy.
Jeez, one wonders just how many people at Bluecoat have failed their
exams because of this nonsense spewing round the school.
It's staggering! This is a school that pulls in Creation Research
to "teach science"; you know, the organisation that has as its UK head
an electrician.
Can you imagine a university science department appointing an
electrician as its head?
Roger Stanyard
1074
Roger Stanyard
Re: Boooo!!
26/06/2006 10:03:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Your behaviour on this list demonstrates perfectly why "born again"
> Christians are inherently untrustworthy and not suitable for a role
in the
> public sphere.
>
> Ian.
To put it bluntly, Ian, fundamentalists lie out of necessity,
habitually and repeatedly.
As seen by my report on Randall Hardy of Creation Research - you
know, the electrician and John Mackay's man on the hround in the UK.
The very same John Mackay that was kicked out of Millfield because
its RE department concluded he was an extremist.
You know, Millfield, the obscure NW of England school where the
headmaster said this in public - the one that Bluecoat has ignored.
The same Bluecoat school that's inviting John Mackay back next year.
The same Bluecoat school that brags about its high standards of
education and is using an organisation headed by an electrician to
teach science.
The same electrician that lies in public and smears by innuendo.
Roger Stanyard
1075
Roger Stanyard
Re: Boooo!!
26/06/2006 10:24:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
>
> >It's exam. time, and I've been busy feeding the little goats.
> >Thankfully there are some sheep among them, including at least one
> >YEC who's on his way to Oxford to read Chemistry
>
> How do you know that this student has YEC beliefs Nick?
> In what context have you discussed religion with this student?
>
> Do you feel that it's appropriate to refer to your students as
sheep and
> goats?
And precisely who in Bluecoat School is responsible for getting John
Mackay, whose head of Creation Research UK is an electrician, to
teach children in Bluecoat about science?
You know, the same John Mackay who is an extremist according to the
Head teacher of Millfield School and its RE department.
Roger Stanyard
1076
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: Boooo!!
26/06/2006 10:47:00
> As seen by my report on Randall Hardy of Creation Research -
I'd appreciate a look at that report Roger - your reports on these lowlife
are both interesting and useful. You seem to have a natural aptitude for
research, and casting light into the shadows that these guys lurk in.
Given that we now have an admission that one of the Governors at the
Bluecoat School is a fundamentalist who is sympathetic to the political
wheeling and dealing of McKay/Hardy etc, and essentially covering for Cowan
in the classroom, it poses some serious questions.
It's clear that the Discovery institute's Wedge strategy is alive and well,
and spreading like a cancer in the UK!!
Ian.
1077
Wilson Alan
RE: Boooo!!
26/06/2006 11:13:00
bgcolor="white"
----
'From:'
BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] 'On Behalf Of 'm_cowan32
'Sent:' 26 June 2006 00:02
'To:' BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
'Subject:' [BlackShadow] Boooo!!
Well hello there everybody - have you missed me?
(Replies must not mention the words "hole" and "head")
Not in the slightest.
It's exam. time, and I've been busy feeding the little goats.
Thankfully there are some sheep among them, including at least one
YEC who's on his way to Oxford
to read Chemistry - a proper science
(as opposed to the pseudosciences of evilutionary Biology
and "origins" Geology), which is based on observable, repeatable,
measureable and falsifiable experiments. Evilution is not
falsifiable, as some new speculative (faith) statement such as "the
gaps in the fossil record will one day be found" can always be
adduced as support for its (increaingly discredited0 position.
And as someone said on
this or the DC list: “baldness is a hair colour”!
The last A-level Modules are tomorrow, and I'm amusing
myself
reading about the "new campaign". You're fighting a losing battle,
reminiscent of King Canute. Here for example (on page 14) is part of
a suggested Scheme of Work for the new AQA (exam board) GCSE
syllabus (for 14-16 year olds):
www.aqa.org.uk/qual/pdf/AQA-4461-4462-4421-EX2-W-SW.pdf
Apart from spelling Ussher's name wrongly, and getting the date/time
wrong (it was actually October 23rd at 3pm), it's encouraging that
they concede that there are creationists around, and that these
things are worthy of discussion in Science classes!
Ussher did not mention a
time old man, unless my reference is wrong or a liar:
http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit5/deeptime.html
!! James
Ussher (1581-1656)
Protestant Archbishop of Armagh (Anglican Primate of All Ireland).
Classical & biblical scholar.
Sought a careful and critical chronology of human
history, including the date of the Creation.
Sources were biblical and middle-eastern and
Mediterranean history.
His date for the Creation, from volume 4 of his Annals of the World (1650), was:
The evening of Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC (Julian)
The is
the first Sunday after the Autumnal Equinox in 4004 BC by the 'Julian' Calendar (recall that Britain did not
adopt the Gregorian Calendar until 1752).
Note:
Contrary
to many accounts, Ussher did not give a specific time of day, although you will
often read that he gave the time of creation as "9am". This
mis-statement of Ussher's work is an unfortunate conflation of his work with
that of Sir John Lightfoot. You can read Bishop Ussher's words for yourself in this
excerpt from Ussher's Annalen Mundi.
(http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit5/ussher.html):
“…I
have observed that the Sunday, which in the year 710 aforesaid came nearest the
Autumnal Aequinox, by astronomical tables (notwithstanding the stay of the sun
in the dayes of Joshua, and the going back of it in the dayes c Ezekiah)
happened upon the 23 day of the Julian October; from thence concluded that from
the evening preceding that first day of the Julian year, both the first day of
the creation and the first motion of time are to be deduced.” James
Ussher, The Annals of the World,
iv (1658)
Boy, am I
looking forward to teaching this from September!! You'd better get
going on another New Campaign...
You seem to be doing a
pretty good job of discrediting yourself and need very little help from us.
....which brings me back to your last attempts to gag me. Why hasn't
one of you had the "bottle" to write to my Headmaster or a Governor
here to complain about my "indoctrination" of the kids? Is it
because the only governor with a Science degree is a Christian who,
like me, attends "Spring Harvest" - in fact we last saw each other
at Butlins, Skegness at Easter (check it out)?
Who cares what your or
your Governor mate’s religious views are, as long as you keep them out of
science classes.
Or is it because I've
now got paper copies of some of your "vitriol" (the nearest some of
you get to a real science!), which clearly shows that it is your
atheistic world-view (hence the abundant references to NSS and BHA)
which drives you, and not a love for scientific truth?
Well it’s certainly
not a love for the falsehoods of biblical creationism that drives me.
Some interesting stuff these last 3 weeks.
Strange thing about light and its speed - now that really would set
Schrödinger's cat among the pigeons! Maybe Setterfield was right
after all:
www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2196225%2C00.html
Fox News???
Bwah haw haw haw hee hee
hee.
If you’re a
scientist, why don’t you provide a proper scientific journal reference?
I'll be back soon with some individual replies to previous posts.
I doubt very much you
will give any scientific answers at all but are
much more likely to deny
you made any such false scientific claims or
waffle on about
philosophy and religious beliefs instead.
Must have a break now. I need to decide what to put in the Chemistry
Dept's notice-board ready for Blue Coat school's Open Evening on
Thursday week (July 6th from 6.30-8.30pm). Hey, some of you should
come along; please introduce yourself to me - I'll be in room N10
behind the smoke and burning sulphur.
"Old Nick"
Would you like to send a formal
invitation to attend your Open Evening to
discuss your predilection
to teaching religion in your science classes from the floor?
Alan W
1078
Roger Stanyard
Re: Boooo!!
26/06/2006 11:13:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
>
> > As seen by my report on Randall Hardy of Creation Research -
>
> I'd appreciate a look at that report Roger - your reports on these
lowlife
> are both interesting and useful. You seem to have a natural
aptitude for
> research, and casting light into the shadows that these guys lurk
in.
>
Thanks Ian; actually it is what I do, of sorts, for a living.
Here is the full report which is also on my blog at
http://360.yahoo.com/stanyardroger.
Creation Research's Notorious Press ReleasesRoger Stanyard, 5th May
2006
In response to growing public interest in Mackay's tour, Creation
Research UK has recently responded with two very mendacious press
releases. I have analysed these in some depth to show the techniques
fundamentalists use to handle the public.
Firstly, is the analysis of the 12th April press release posted to
Creation Research UK's web site (see
http://www.amen.org.uk/cr/CR_PressRelease060412.htm) This was in
response to press enquiries about Mackay's tour.
The author of this report has seen thousands of press releases in his
time (and produced more than a few) and this one takes the biscuit.
It displays every fundamentalist creationist trick in the book. From
experience, the author has become well used to reading between the
lines in PR statements. This one is as wily as they come.
One purpose of this section of the report is to is to show the tricks
used by fundamentalists, in particular, the "fundie shuffle", the
martyrdom/self-pity complex, the smear and innuendo tactics and the
outright dishonest use of the English language. This one's got the
lot and also manages to breach the Ninth Commandment to boot.
Read this part, for example: "Whilst Creation Research welcomes
invitations to speak in schools and universities, we do not "target"
them or any other institutions. What we do target is the unbelief in
Jesus Christ which is underpinned in some people's minds by the
claims that evolution has been unequivocally proved."
No mention, of course about Creation Research's own religious beliefs
which are far from mainstream – just the bogus and meaningless trick
of stating that "some people" believe that evolution has
been "unequivocally proved" It's rhetoric meant to cast doubt in
people's minds. Without having the courage to say so, it was implying
that some, wiser, people believed otherwise. It doesn't even say that
evolution is unproven.
For what it is worth – Nobody believes that The Theory of Evolution
is proven, not even its most dedicated advocates amongst biologists
and geologists. It's science and the basis of all science is
scepticism. It's always being revised as new evidence comes to light.
Randall Hardy is using dirty tricks to imply otherwise.
Hardy then moves onto the standard Martyrdom trick of fundamentalist
creationists (it's as old as the hills). That is, how unreasonable is
it for people to oppose academy and faith schools and all they want
to do is ridicule Christian fundamentalists. No mention, of course,
that there is serious public debate about the issues which run well
beyond the religious issues (such as selection, quality of results,
local control, the high costs…)
No, Hardy whines on that the whole shooting match is dominated by
atheists and people stupid enough to join them. Hardy also whinges on
that "it is convenient" to ridicule fundamentalists, whatever that
means? See – no precise meaning to the words – all rhetoric, no
substance.
Hardy also demonstrates a brilliant example of the "fundie shuffle"
(old, old trick). Instead of calling the media atheists who
misrepresent everything (as he has previously done so), he now
provides no explanation why he is not answering their simple
question – what s the name of the school where Mackay is teaching for
three (or four or five) days.
"One report, on the Ekklesia web site, carries the
headline "Creationists target schools and universities in Britain".
This is a report put together without any direct contact with
ourselves and suffers from lavish amounts of spin."
Thus, instead he "attacks" a mainstream religious web site, Ekklesia
(no URL given – it is, though www.ekklesia.co.uk ). Unlike the
Observer, the BBC, TES, Sky News and others that have approached
Randall, this is a soft target for him.
Judge for oneself if the Ekklesia article is full of "lavish amounts
of spin" as Hardy suggests:
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_060410creat
ion.shtml. I can't see a word of spin in it anywhere.
Somewhere in the deeper recesses of the minds of Creation Ministries,
someone has figured out that you get bad publicity if you ridicule
the national media. Hence, I assume, targeting Ekklesia instead.
Randall Hardy then moves onto the next fundamentalist creationist
trick "We are good guys" and how unreasonable people are to "us". To
quote: "Whilst Creation Research welcomes invitations to speak in
schools and universities, we do not "target" them or any other
institutions".
Really? In 2002 Creation Ministries bragged that it was targeting
every academic in the UK to see what their views were.
Sadly, Randall Hardy must have a definition of target that this
author is not aware of. What he is trying to say is that Mackay's
visit to the UK is solely a result of requests, not a managed event
to have maximum impact. Managed it is; Hardy is one of the managers.
The target is people (including children) who it thinks will be
amenable to its proselytising. That includes those in schools and
universities.
Now, here is the biggest lie of the lot: "Unlike the British Humanist
Association we are not involved in a political campaign." Randall
missed out the word "yet" turning a statement into a breach of the
Ninth Commandment (indeed, twice, so – see below).
Note how Randall Hardy carefully associates the BHA with politics in
contrast to he own squeaky-clean outfit. The fundamentalists in the
USA want to take over the state.
In contrast the BHA is a registered charity and is therefore
prevented by law from being involved in political campaigns, a fact
that Hardy has either overlooked or ignored. In either case, he has
managed to add a second breach of the ninth commandment in a single
sentence.
Having given up his past attacks on the media for being atheistic,
Randall Hardy now carefully tries to lead the reader into believing
that the real opposition are the atheists at the NSS (a single issue
organisation whose aims are supported by many Christians) and the BHA.
"On April 6th, the Blackpool Citizen carried a lead story
entitled, "Debate about creation". This followed up contact from one
of its readers, who had heard that John was to visit a local school.
Approximately 3 hours after that story appeared on their web site, we
were contacted by The Observer newspaper seeking further details.
What should be of interest to all is that their reporter had been
alerted to Blackpool Citizen's story by an email circulated by the
National Secular Society. The Observer published its story on April
9th and since then our UK office has received numerous enquiries from
the media about John Mackay's visit, along with requests to interview
him."
So, there it is folks, the wicked NSS sent round an email pointing
out a press report in a free newspaper. How unreasonable of them.
Obvious trouble makers.
Hardy moves on: "…over those years there has been a sustained
campaign against the British government's education policies with
regard to academy schools and "faith schools". It has been convenient
to those conducting that campaign to ridicule Christians, and
creationists in particular, in an attempt to change that policy."
Note also how Hardy carefully tries to include all Christians as well
as fundamentalists as being onside to his views. Never mind that the
mainstream denominations oppose his scientific hocus-pocus or that
the Anglican clergy in Lancashire have (in their own words) "hit the
roof" over Mackay's teaching in state schools there.
Then there is the outright smearing: "We are however concerned that
secular groups are seeking to prohibit open debate in any part of
society, particularly by censorship through ridicule." No evidence is
being presented that these (unnamed) secular groups are "seeking to
prohibit open debate", just the innuendo that Hardy is "concerned"
that they are. It's neither a statement that they are or they could
be. It's just a nasty piece of rhetoric that secularists intend to
close down all open debate everywhere. It's called a lie.
It's the martyrdom complex again –how unreasonable the world is in
treating fundamentalists.
Then Hardy goes on to suggest that the press can meet Mackay on the
24th April (three days after he starts his tour – are those the three
days when he teaches in Lancashire?). So why not just tell the
journalists today the name of the school? Why wait 12 days (no
explanation given)? It's easily done today, on the web, and won't
take up Mackay's valuable time in his busy itinerary.
Exhibit 1: Press Release by Creation Research UK, 12th April 2006
John Mackay, Australian International Director of Creation Research,
is due to arrive in Britain on 20th April for one of his regular
visits to this country. John Mackay is a widely travelled geologist
and has also studied genetics. (His full biography can be found on
our web sites.) During the above dates John will be speaking in
venues from the Isle of Wight in England to Crieff in Scotland and as
far west as Haverfordwest in Wales.
John Mackay has been visiting Britain regularly for over 15 years. On
many of those visits he has spoken in schools and universities as
well as local churches. On several occasions he has debated with
evolutionary scientists from both within and outside the Christian
Church. In March last year, in Liverpool Cathedral, he debated with
Rev. Dr. John Polkinghorne KBE, FRS on the subject, "Is Evolution
Compatible with the Christian Faith?" Two further debates are
arranged for this visit; details are on our UK web site along with
the rest of his itinerary.
On April 6th, the Blackpool Citizen carried a lead story
entitled, "Debate about creation". This followed up contact from one
of its readers, who had heard that John was to visit a local school.
Approximately 3 hours after that story appeared on their web site, we
were contacted by The Observer newspaper seeking further details.
What should be of interest to all is that their reporter had been
alerted to Blackpool Citizen's story by an email circulated by the
National Secular Society. The Observer published its story on April
9th and since then our UK office has received numerous enquiries from
the media about John Mackay's visit, along with requests to interview
him.
One report, on the Ekklesia web site, carries the
headline "Creationists target schools and universities in Britain".
This is a report put together without any direct contact with
ourselves and suffers from lavish amounts of spin. Whilst Creation
Research welcomes invitations to speak in schools and universities,
we do not "target" them or any other institutions. What we do target
is the unbelief in Jesus Christ which is underpinned in some people's
minds by the claims that evolution has been unequivocally proved.
Though John Mackay has been visiting schools and universities in
Britain for over 15 years, it is only in the last 5 years that these
visits have caught the attention of the media. This is because over
those years there has been a sustained campaign against the British
government's education policies with regard to academy schools
and "faith schools". It has been convenient to those conducting that
campaign to ridicule Christians, and creationists in particular, in
an attempt to change that policy. It is a campaign being motivated by
people who are primarily atheists, though sadly others have been
drawn into supporting them.
Creation Research's priority has always been to present the evidence
for creation and against evolution. We believe that to the honest
enquirer, the evidence speaks for itself. Unlike the British Humanist
Association we are not involved in a political campaign. We are
however concerned that secular groups are seeking to prohibit open
debate in any part of society, particularly by censorship through
ridicule.
John Mackay will be available for interview by the media from Monday
24th April onwards. However, because he already has a pre-arranged
itinerary we ask any reporters/researchers interested in speaking
with him to contact us as soon as possible to arrange a suitable time.
For further information or to arrange an interview contact: Randall
Hardy Tel / Fax: 0161-282-1111 Email: creationresearch@amen.org.uk
By the 28th April it had become public news that the school that was
hosting Mackay's "teach-in" was Millfield School at Thornton
Cleveleys, near Blackpool. It isn't entirely clear what happened but
it appears that the headmaster dropped the whole idea and cancelled
the event. However, how much pressure he was under to do so has not
been placed in the public domain.
According to the Times Educational Supplement for 28th April
2006, "Alan Harvey, head of Millfield High, on Lancashire's Fylde
coast, said that John Mackay's views rejecting the theory of
evolution were too extreme and his presentation of them too
unbalanced." A local newspaper, the Citizen (5th May 2006), put it
slightly differently, quoting the headmaster as saying "The view of
the RE department head was that he [Mackay] was extremely
fundamentalist and really it wasn't a broad enough approach, which is
what we would have preferred." The school also claimed to be
concerned that Mackay had not submitted a lesson plan.
However, Millfield's statement is a public relations disaster for
Mackay as the school, with which, hitherto, he claims he had cordial
relations, has now branded him an extreme fundamentalist. Moreover,
Mackay cannot resort to blaming atheists as the school says it was
its religious education department's assessment of him.
Creation Research followed up the cancellation by posting a press
release on both its Australian and UK web sites.
The press release (see www.amen.org.uk/cr/CR_PressRelease060428.htm)
follows the same style as that issued on 12th April; that is to say,
it contains innuendo, half truths and opinion masquerading as
official statement.
In paragraph 1 we learn that the Millfield event was intended to last
five days – two days longer than originally suggested by Creation
Research UK.
In paragraph 2 they use inverted commas around the term worried
reader, suggesting (but not saying) to the reader that the reader was
bogus.
The press release goes on to suggested that parts of the media had
deliberately and knowingly undermined the work of Creation research
in recent weeks. No example is given. Your correspondent has not seen
any TV, radio or print reports that have done any such thing. He
therefore concludes that the comment is unsubstantiated and without
foundation. One is reminded of the ninth commandment at this stage.
The press report claims that the media has repeated and
sensationalised material being circulated by humanist groups in the
UK. No examples are given; nor are the humanist groups named. The
only humanist group your correspondent s aware of that has been
involved in opposing Mackay's visit is the National Secular Society.
Other, non-secular groups have been involved and these include
practising Christians.
The press release, failing to point this out, then tars all
opposition as being atheists. Breach of the ninth commandment, again.
The press release also fails to point out that many, if not most, of
those who opposed Mackay's planned proselytising to children and
others are trained scientists, many far better qualified that Mackay.
Their reason for opposing him is not religion, as the press release
states, but because they believe his scientific claims for creation
are bogus and don't stand up to scrutiny. Most scientists see Mackay
as a crackpot. Back to the ninth commandment problem again.
Bizarrely, the press release trots out an old chestnut that as
atheism is a faith position, it is on a par with religious faith. The
argument just doesn't stack up as it is completely meaningless.
Atheism is a belief that there is no supernatural deity or deities.
It is wholly compatible with belief in a number of religions.
Mackay's press release states that Humanists had been discussing
holding protests outside of the schools and hoping that the British
Association (for the Advancement of Science) would send scientific
material there. It appears that Creation Research and others had been
monitoring the National Secular Society's newsline but wholly mis-
understood what was been considered.
Had the NSS and others been told what school was involved, it was
planned to put forward the idea of sending the school decent science
books for its library, giving the professional, scientific view of
Evolutionary Theory. The idea that there would be demonstrations
outside the school were dropped quickly and that was apparent from
the NSS and the ScienceJustScience newslines.
As far as this author is aware, the cerebral British Humanist
Association had never considered demonstrating. That is not the way
it operates,
Moreover, it is perfectly within anyone's rights, and the rights of
the parents of the school, to demonstrate in public against the
teaching of creationism in state schools, especially when the whole
issue has been arranged behind the backs of the parents and the
taxpaying public. By denying the name of the school, Mackay was
denied the very basic right of a parent to know what his/her child is
being taught, Schools are not exempt from demonstrations on moral
grounds.
Mackay's press release then goes on to an ad hominem attack on the
Archbishop of Canterbury, claiming that his views in teaching
creationism in science lessons will help lead to the eradication of
religion in society. No explanation is given to this preposterous,
arrogant, statement.
Looking back to the 12th April press release, it looks likely that
the intention is to undermine the general credentials of the CofE
given that the Rev Michael Roberts has (successfully) been involved
in opposing Mackay's attempt to teach at Millfield School.
Finally Mackay ends up with the fundamentalist's whinge. The
country's going to the dogs and if you don't let us teach children
our deeply contested science and religious views, your all going to
hell in a handcart. It's all dressed up as something deeply profound
but, in practice, is spurious polemic, not news.
Basically Mackay got kicked out of a school because he had no reason
to be there, interfering, in the first place.
Exhibit 2: Press release from Creation Research UK 28th April
2006John Mackay's visit to the UK 21 April to 28 June 2006Visit to
school in Blackpool
John Mackay has been visiting Britain for 19 years and yet it is his
current visit which has attracted far more interest from the media
than any other. The main factor which has precipitated this interest
has been the reaction to an invitation John received to lead
a "spirituality week" in a state secondary school near Blackpool.
Whilst we have not identified which school had invited him, we have
for some time made known that such an invitation had been received by
us.
Following contact from a "worried reader" to the Blackpool Citizen (a
local paper) a series of articles about John Mackay have appeared in
many newspapers and John has been interviewed by several radio and TV
stations - both national and local. On the whole all these reports
have been reasonably balanced though, as ever, there have been some
which have been clearly designed to undermine the work of Creation
Research. These have repeated and sensationalised material being
circulated amongst humanist groups in this country as part of a
campaign against the visit to the school. This campaign has been
nothing more than the latest skirmish in an ongoing campaign, not
just against Biblical creation being presented from time to time in
schools, but against all aspects of faith in schools. Ironically
atheism itself , which is the driving force behind this campaign, can
only be described as a faith position.
By withholding the name of the school, our intention was to protect
its staff from being overwhelmed by contact from the many activists
involved in this campaign, as well as from the media In general the
issue of teaching of creation in schools has been reported with
ridicule rather than reason by the media over the past five years.
Humanists have been discussing protests outside the school and also
hoping for the "British Association"; to send literature to the staff
there. Whilst we hoped as far as possible to shield the school from
that level of attention, staff and governors of the school cannot but
be aware of all the attention John Mackay has received during recent
weeks. In the wake of all this coverage we have been informed by the
school that they have decided to cancel the visit. We do not blame
the headmaster and governors for trying to avoid the incredible
pressure raised by this campaign. A report of the cancellation
appeared in today's (28/4) Times Educational Supplement and included
this comment, "Inspectors noted in its last Ofsted report
that 'pupils [at the school] are skilled at arguing "for or against
an atheistic view of the creation of the universe'". We can only hope
that others will recognise that real debate about what is taught in
schools is not between "science and religion", but between one
particular belief system, atheism, and other faiths.
In Britain the campaign is focussed against Christians who teach
creation, but it is being increasingly acknowledged (e.g. in Steve
Jones' recent lecture to The Royal Society) that there are other
faiths - Islam in particular - which are challenging the apparent
dominance of secularism in schools and universities. In this respect
it has to be noted that recent comments by the Archbishop of
Canterbury supporting the exclusive teaching of evolution have not
only provided one of the most common questions asked by reporters
interviewing John Mackay, but have also allied Rowan Williams with
those whose ultimate objective is the eradication of what they
describe as "religion" from society. It is now not possible to put
forward an alternative to evolution without a hue and cry being
raised to harass all involved. Western society's commitment to
freedom of speech has come from the influence of Christianity on our
culture over many centuries. We have now had 150 years or so of the
secularisation of Britain and this has had many adverse effects on
the condition of society. If it continues unchecked, one way or
another the freedom to express one's own beliefs (which atheists
enjoy as well as Christians) will be lost. Whilst that freedom
remains, John Mackay's tour of this country continues. Please see
www.amen.org.uk/cr/where for details of public meetings.
For further information or to arrange an interview with John Mackay
contact: Randall Hardy Tel / Fax: 0161-282-1111 Email:
creationresearch@amen.org.uk Creation Research UK, PO Box 1, Ashton-
under-Lyne, Lancashire. OL6 9WW
1079
Roger Stanyard
Re: Boooo!!
26/06/2006 11:23:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
>
> > As seen by my report on Randall Hardy of Creation Research -
>
> Given that we now have an admission that one of the Governors at the
> Bluecoat School is a fundamentalist who is sympathetic to the
political
> wheeling and dealing of McKay/Hardy etc, and essentially covering
for Cowan
> in the classroom, it poses some serious questions.
>
And, of course, that governor is responsible for the use of public
money. Which raises the question as to how much Mackay is paid by the
school. He doesn't do this for free. Look at his web site to see his
rates (sorry I don't have a URL to hand but I've checked it out
before).
Second question that needs to be address is did the school governor
involved let it be known to parents and whoever appointed him
beforehand that he was a religious fundamentalist?
Third question: why hasn't Belvedere school used Mackay or other
creationists given that its head of science is a hardline creationist
who believes all science that doesn't agree with her religious
opinions is wrong?
Can't have it both ways - teaching science and then saying it is
wrong - without some very hard questions being asked.
Note my guiding principle that fundamentalists lie out of necessity,
habitually and repeatedly.
Roger Stanyard
1080
Roger Stanyard
Re: Boooo!!
26/06/2006 11:45:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "m_cowan32" <m_cowan32@...> wrote:
>
>Maybe Setterfield was right
> after all:
Now is that the very same Barry Setterfield that even Answers in
Genesis says is completely wrong - the same AiG that John Mackay is now
buddy-buddy with and endorsing? You
