1351
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Boooo!!
06/07/2006 10:26:00
> Mikey, are you absolutely sure there is no flood evidence, because Mr
> Cowan said it actually happened, so it must be there. Right?
Well apparently I'm missing the fluvial layer in aeolian levels because
I haven't been looking for it.
> Being an Archeologist you must find you have to lie a lot
> when Mr Cowan makes you sweat.....
The meetings behind the boiler keep me constantly warm.
1352
Marc Draco
Letters pro/con Blyth Academy (Vardy is proposed sponsor)
07/07/2006 11:03:00
bgcolor="#ffffff"
BLYTH
Valley's MP, Ronnie Campbell, is right in opposing the building of an
academy in Blyth on the grounds that it will split the town
educationally and be very costly financially (News Post Leader,
June 1).
(continues)
You will also find the opposite opinion here too: and guess what? It's
the money that's attracting the "pros". Balance? Balance goes under the
rug, it's tough titty on those not included!
http://www.blyth-wansbecktoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=1857&ArticleID=1606175
http://tinyurl.com/rg4py
1353
Marc Draco
Blyth Academy debate makes local paper
07/07/2006 10:58:00
Plan for academies comes under fire
UNION leaders have launched a campaign to prevent Northumberland's
education being turned into a market-driven free for all.
http://www.blyth-wansbecktoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=1115&ArticleID=\
1606
http://tinyurl.com/reaj3
I was there and although this guy looks annoyed, he's not shouting at
the floor, he's shouting for them! People are angry, local people and
trade unionists doubly so.
1354
Marc Draco
ESF caught lying (again)
07/07/2006 12:06:00
Some people might know that fundies lie, but here's a great example of
the Emmanuel Schools Foundation fibbing about how science (biology, I
would guess) is taught. The take a clear government guideline and twist
it to let them teach what they want. Let the exposure begin!
www.marcdraco.co.uk/evolie.htm
http://tinyurl.com/oad5l
The formatting of this page is painful right now as I'm learning a new
authoring package, but this should interest some of you who need
ammunition to prove that the ESF should NOT be allowed near
impressionable people.
Marc Draco
Spread the word!
Just say NO!
www.notoacademies.org.uk
1355
Lenny Flank
Ahmanson has a rival ?
07/07/2006 12:56:00
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1164576.ece
===================================
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
1356
Roger Stanyard
Message to Nick Cowan
07/07/2006 15:08:00
Is this how creationism has got into Bluecoat?
Creation Science - Getting the Message into Schools
Steve Layfield
Supernatural creationism (ex nihilo) is not presently respected as a
credible paradigm of origins within mainstream education. It is
typical for the RE staff to teach that Genesis Ch 1 is poetry and
therefore needn't be interpreted literally. It is likewise typical
for Science teachers in general to present big-bang cosmology,
biological evolution and old earth geology as substantially
established facts. In such a context the Christian who 'sticks his
neck out' and ventures to suggest that the Genesis account may be
actually historical and true stands to meet with a barrage of
criticism & scorn. If he/she is an 'average teacher' his respect and
status among the pupils may already be minimal. Among the staff
his 'fundamentalist' views can be expected to arouse rather more
vocal or undercurrent antagonism causing his self-esteem to take yet
a further dive. It is therefore somewhat understandable that for the
most part, Christians who believe the Biblical account of Genesis
tend to keep their views private. Is this the right (& therefore the
spiritual) response? Can God be pleased with such a situation?
It is this author's sorry testimony that this situation persisted in
his own teaching experience as long as it did. However, over recent
years and with support and encouragement from sympathetic Christians
some turn around and measurable progress and development has
occurred.
Just What Can Be Done?
Firstly, be seen & known to be a conscientious & hardworking teacher
who takes his/her responsibilities seriously. Good evangelism
(communication of a message) is like a song: the message is in the
words) the musical accompaniment is analogous to the quality of our
actual lifestyle and the general tenor of our conversation! Personal
holiness is the lever which God uses to open the hearts of
unbelievers. (Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast
spirit within me. Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy
Spirit from me. Restore to me the joy of your salvation and grant me
a willing spirit, to sustain me. Then I will teach transgressors your
ways, and sinners will turn hack to you [Ps 51:10-13]).
Utilise wall space in your laboratory for creation-type posters.
These can be easily manufactured and illustrated using CD-ROM
micropaedia and/or Internet pictures, etc. (Impress them on your
children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk
along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as
symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on
the door-frames of your houses and on your gates [Deut 6:7-9]).
Bite the bullet! Let one or two of your colleagues know about your
aversion to the myth of evolution. There will be a plethora of
opportunities for you to do so. The topic & its multiple
offspring/related cousins crop up all the time. I now find I have to
bite my tongue in general social conversation in case I am making
passing comment abound the subject or its social implications too
frequently!! (The wicked man flees though no-one pursues, but the
righteous are as bold as a lion. [Proverbs 28:1]) For God did not
give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love and of
self-discipline. [2 Timothy 1:7]
Have literature available to hand to lend/give to interested pupils
&/or staff. The factual data coupled with illustrations and pertinent
quotations will serve well to disarm those who are genuinely open
minded whilst being doubtful of the integrity of your assertions.
There is a wealth of excellent material available! (Always be
prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the
reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and
respect. [1 Peter 3:15])
Organise an occasional Creation/Evolution lecture & invite a well
qualified Creationist to speak. Such an event may prove popular with
some or all of the Sixth Form who may be able to appreciate the drift
& sense of some of the lines of argument. This will be especially the
case if you the teacher have already primed them and taken the
opportunity to rehearse some of the lines of reasoning with them.
This is really an invaluable exercise given the relative open-
mindedness of young people at that age & stage in life. Free
literature should be available afterwards along with a transcript of
the lecture. (You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine
[Titus 2:1])
Organise a Creation/Evolution debate in the sixth form. Such an
event, when properly and fairly planned, represents a good
opportunity for interested third parties (together with those who may
have been previously disinterested and/or unconcerned) to gauge how
well the available data fits the respective world views of the
Creationist/Evolutionist. It is the conviction (and happy experience)
of this writer that much prejudice and ignorance can be undermined by
conducting oneself with both charity and rigour and by making full
use of such an opportunity. (We demolish arguments and every
pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we
take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. [2
Corinthians 10:5])
1357
oeditor
Old Immovable Nick
07/07/2006 15:04:00
A nice article (well, book review) explaining that we're wasting our
breath trying to drum any sense into poor old Nick. It arguess that
fundamentalists' views are logically derived from a fallacy and they'd
rather believe impossible rubbish than admit that the fallacy is just
that.
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-07-07.html
Brian
1358
Timothy Chase
Re: Ahmanson has a rival ?
07/07/2006 14:56:00
On 07/07/06, Lenny Flank <lflank@ij.net> wrote:
>
> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1164576.ece
>
From the same newspaper:
Mr. Anschulz "... is a billionaire conservative who has used his vast
wealth and influence to promote his Christian viewpoint, to rally
against gay marriage and fund an organisation that questions the
theory of evolution.... [He is connected to] the Discovery Institute,
a 'think-tank' he funds in Seattle that criticises Darwin's theory of
evolution and argues for the involvement of a 'supernatural' actor in
the development of living things."
The Christian tycoon who wants to ban gay marriage
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
Published: 07 July 2006
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article1164577.ece
Yep.
And I don't know whether or not he has heard about Dover. Do you
suppose he is a Dominionist as well?
1359
Andrew
Re: Message to Nick Cowan
07/07/2006 15:40:00
From `Creation Science - Getting the Message into Schools' by Steve Layfield
> Just What Can Be Done?
> Firstly, be seen & known to be a conscientious & hardworking teacher
> who takes his/her responsibilities seriously. Good evangelism
> (communication of a message) is like a song: the message is in the
> words) the musical accompaniment is analogous to the quality of our
> actual lifestyle and the general tenor of our conversation! Personal
Any chance that'll mean being honest and straightforward? It'd be a massive
improvement if fundamentalists would stop lying and equivocating.
1360
Ian Lowe
RE: Old Immovable Nick
07/07/2006 15:56:00
I disagree Brian -
There are literally thousands of people worldwide who have "woken up" from
the delusion that fundamentalist Christianity represents. Some end up as
theists, some move into other religions, and some end up as atheists.
http://www.ex-christian.net
is a resource and support group for some of us.
There's always hope that Nick will wake up and come back to his senses. He
was, after all, not a "born again" believer for the first 34 years of life,
so he knows what freedom to think feels like.
There's always hope in talking to fundies that the seeds of rationality
might grow into something productive.
Inside every fundie is a human being wasting the one and only life they will
ever have. It's worth expending a little energy to try to save them.
Ian.
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of oeditor
Sent: 07 July 2006 15:05
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Old Immovable Nick
A nice article (well, book review) explaining that we're wasting our
breath trying to drum any sense into poor old Nick. It arguess that
fundamentalists' views are logically derived from a fallacy and they'd
rather believe impossible rubbish than admit that the fallacy is just
that.
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-07-07.html
Brian
Yahoo! Groups Links
1361
Rudy Vonk
Re: Message to Nick Cowan
07/07/2006 16:55:00
On 07 jul 2006, at 16:08, Roger Stanyard wrote:
> Is this how creationism has got into Bluecoat?
>
> Creation Science - Getting the Message into Schools
> Steve Layfield
(snip)
Terrifying! Who is this Layfield character? You have probably mentioned
him before, but I do not remember.
(I feel so lonely here - not a fundie in sight. We have Opus Dei, but
even they don't take any creationist shit...)
cellpadding="2"
Attachment: (text/enriched) [not stored]
1362
Roger Stanyard
Re: Message to Nick Cowan
07/07/2006 17:59:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Rudy Vonk <rudy@...> wrote:
>
> On 07 jul 2006, at 16:08, Roger Stanyard wrote:
>
>
> Terrifying! Who is this Layfield character? You have probably
mentioned
> him before, but I do not remember.
>
I'll leave it to others to give more detail but he is now head of
science of Emanuel School, the first of the Vardy fundamentalist
schools. One of the Vardy schools where Vardy denies creationism is
being taught in science lessons. Nobody believes him.
Roger Stanyard
1363
Mikey Brass
Re: Old Immovable Nick
07/07/2006 18:14:00
I can count the number of former "Christian" fundamentalists I've
encountered, and witnessed (sic) them realise the errors of
creationism,on one hand.
1364
midnight.diamond@ntlworld.com>
Re: Re: Message to Nick Cowan
07/07/2006 19:41:00
You'll find more of his wisdom (!) at my site
www.marcdraco.co.uk
and others too, I don't doubt.
>
> From: Rudy Vonk <rudy@mores.es>
> Date: 2006/07/07 Fri PM 03:55:57 GMT
> To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] Message to Nick Cowan
>
> On 07 jul 2006, at 16:08, Roger Stanyard wrote:
>
> > Is this how creationism has got into Bluecoat?
> >
> > Creation Science - Getting the Message into Schools
> > Steve Layfield
>
> (snip)
>
> Terrifying! Who is this Layfield character? You have probably mentioned
> him before, but I do not remember.
>
> (I feel so lonely here - not a fundie in sight. We have Opus Dei, but
> even they don't take any creationist shit...)
>
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
1365
Roger Stanyard
Re: Message to Nick Cowan
07/07/2006 19:29:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, <midnight.diamond@...> wrote:
>
> You'll find more of his wisdom (!) at my site
>
And you'll find my information here as to who is paying John Mackay:
I've done some quick checking at the Charity Commission and have come
up with the name of a charity called the Creation Research Trust
(charity number 1103449) whose sole trustee is Randall Hardy, head of
Creation Research UK.
The details on the Commission's web site states that it makes grants
to individuals (includes loans), makes grants to organisations (incl.
schools, charities etc) and sponsors or undertakes research. It
also "acts as umbrella or resource body", whatever that means.
It also makes quite clear that the trust is aiming at education and
children, amongst others. In 2004 it had an income of £9,943 and
expenditure of £8,328.
I can't find any mention on Randall Hardy's web site of a registered
charity (although it does, surprisingly, state that it rejects much
of scientific creationism on the grounds that it is demonstrably
incorrect!)
However, Hardy has his own organisation which appears to be called
www.amen.org.uk, his web site address on which Creation Research UK
has its own web page.
Given that the name Creation Research Trust is so close to Creation
Research UK, I take it from Nick Cowan's statements that Creation
Research Trust is a vehicle for paying John Mackay's expenses/fees
when he visits the UK.
I have been told by a private source involved in stopping him and his
pals teaching in Millfield School that Millfield was not going to pay
him for his troubles. According to Mackay's rate card on his web
site, the costs would have been around £4,800. Likewise, Nick Cowan
has confirmed that he and others paid for Mackay's expenses out of
their own pockets. It would make sense to establish a charitable
trust to do so as the trust can reclaim back a notional 28% income
tax from the Inland Revenue.
Still, it's peanuts in comparison with AiG UK's budget - well under
2%.
Roger Stanyard
1366
Wilson Alan
RE: Re: Boooo!!
07/07/2006 20:51:00
bgcolor="white"
----
From:
BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Nick & Moira Cowan
Sent: 29 June 2006 02:50
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [BlackShadow] Re:
Boooo!!
> From: Rudy Vonk [rudy@mores.es]
> Sent: 28 June 2006 16:28
> To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] Re: Boooo!!
>
>
>
> On 28 jun 2006, at 13:31, Wilson Alan wrote
> Unfortunately I am conducting an experiment to
> disprove flat earth beliefs that day.
You don't need to - the Bible affirms that the earth
is a sphere - Hebrew (phoenetic): chug - often
mistranslated as "circle" (Isaiah 40v22).
Pretty good science for 8th century B.C. don't you
think?
A bit selective of you don’t you think?
Everyone knows that the biblical literalist YECs mistakenly
think that the Earth is flat ;->
Isaiah 11:12
And he
shall set up an ensign for 'the' nations, and shall assemble 'the' outcasts 'of' Israel,
and
gather together 'the'dispersed
'of' Judah
from 'thefourcornersoftheearth'.
Revelation 7:1
And after 'the'se
things I saw 'four' angels standing on 'thefourcornersoftheearth',
holding 'thefour'
winds 'of' 'theearth',
that 'the'wind
should not blow on 'the''earth', nor on'the'sea, nor on any tree.
>> Really, Alan, have you never been to Kansas? Or
>> Norfolk, since you are
>> in the UK? :-)
>>
>> Well I've been
to several American states and to
>> Norfolk.
>> the Theory of
Evolution is probably the greatest and
>> soundest
scientific
>> theory in all
of science.
> What? Better than
the 1st and 2nd Laws of
> Thermodynamics?
Yep!
> As they used to say in Stoke when I
> was a kid:
"Pull the other one - it's got bells on!"
They’d probably just call you a dickhead today.
> >Also the easiest
to understand, since the effects
> >are clearly
visible
> >all around us,
even to the most reactionary
> >fundamentalist
moron.
> They certainly are
- in variation within a kind. Do
> you know that
scientists even got 2 butterflies
> recently to
produce a new species of ....er.....
> butterfly.
Perhaps you should look up the scientific definition of “species”?
> I mean, how long before they get a moth?
About the same length of time it will take for a YEC to
define “kind”.
> > Yes I agree
but some people think that bronze age
> > Judaist
writings are
> > more
scientifically reliable. Sad really.
> No (shrug) - God's
words are, by definition,
> authoritative.
Read 1st comment above again.
Self referential circular reasoning old man!
Retake Logic 101
> Interesting what
"bronze" symbolises in Scripture -
> (some Bibles say
"brass" but we won't argue over it in
> case Mikey gets
upset).
Either way it’s a corruption.
Alan W
.
__________________________________________________________
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and
ease of use." - PC Magazine
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
1367
Ian Lowe
RE: Old Immovable Nick
07/07/2006 21:08:00
I can think of four or five Mikey - including at least one on the
ex-christian.net forums who was a baptist pastor for thirty years before
rejecting the supernatural.
It might seem that we are wasting in our breath, but the number of fundies
who end up "backsliding" (the term they use for falling away from the faith)
is quite large - in most cases because someone has asked a question or
highlighted some absurdity of the faith which has got them thinking.
Ian.
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Mikey Brass
Sent: 07 July 2006 18:15
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] Old Immovable Nick
I can count the number of former "Christian" fundamentalists I've
encountered, and witnessed (sic) them realise the errors of creationism,on
one hand.
1368
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Boooo!!
07/07/2006 21:14:00
Wilson Alan wrote:
> You don't need to - the Bible affirms that the earth
> is a sphere - Hebrew (phoenetic): chug - often
> mistranslated as "circle" (Isaiah 40v22).
>
> Pretty good science for 8th century B.C. don't you
> think?
>
> A bit selective of you don’t you think?
Indeed. After all, the Bible also states that the mustard seed is the
smallest.
Fortunately, most Christians worship God and not a book.
1369
Mikey Brass
Re: Old Immovable Nick
07/07/2006 21:25:00
Ian Lowe wrote:
> I can think of four or five Mikey - including at least one on the
> ex-christian.net forums who was a baptist pastor for thirty years before
> rejecting the supernatural.
I'm not interested in those who have rejected religion, which is why the
url you supplied is useless as it presents a false impression.
I'm interested in those who have formerly embraced fundamentalism and
then left it, whether they engaged with mainstream religious
organisations, became agnostic or became atheist.
1370
Marc Draco
Re: Old Immovable Nick
07/07/2006 21:37:00
bgcolor="#ffffff"
From little acorns!
You only have to sew one seed of doubt and the whole thing comes
tumbling down... or does it?
The problem is that when fundies go looking for something to buck their
waning faith, there's plenty of bullshit to pick them up. Some of it is
quite convincing to the non-sceptic. As a science promoter (my work is
simplifying science for dummies and the fearful) I have to read a lot
of this crap and some of it makes weird sense IF you don't look any
further. Oftentimes you don't need to invoke a god, the explanation is
enough. Woodmorappe lies at every turn, yet his books are used as
standard references by cretins (like Nick). Darwin's Black Box - long
debunked by the scientific community is still sold as a evidence for a
creator!
These people pretend to be your friend, they pretend to be on your side
and they give you simple answers to very hard questions. SAFE answers.
That's powerful!
For example: when Peter, Tim or Lenny start blasting off about
specialist stuff, they lose the average reader in a heartbeat. The
situation is far worse in Debunk Creation which advertises itself as a
science list.
You've got a second or two to get the message across and the instant
you invoke quantum doodahs or thermodynamic thingamajigs the tabloid
reading eyes of the majority glaze over.
Cowan may be wrong, but he isn't stupid. He knows this and relies on
it. So does the AiG, Discovery Institute, Christian Institute, ESF -
name your fundie.
The crap spouted by Emmanuel Schools and how they are the only ones to
correctly teach the National Curriculum is a prime example. They
interpret the NC to suit their own ends and teach creation in science:
they admit it and are proud of the fact - in spite of the fact that the
government specifically forbids the teaching of creationism. They
haven't found a loophole, they've just found a way of bullshitting
people who aren't better educated to know the difference.
This point should be sent to every MP that we have representing us. The
ESF need to be brought into line whether they like it or not.
Ian Lowe wrote:
->
I can think of four or five Mikey - including at least one on the
ex-christian.net forums who was a baptist pastor for thirty years
before
rejecting the supernatural.
It might seem that we are wasting in our breath, but the number of
fundies
who end up "backsliding" (the term they use for falling away from the
faith)
is quite large - in most cases because someone has asked a question or
highlighted some absurdity of the faith which has got them thinking.
Ian.
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
[BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com]
On
Behalf Of Mikey Brass
Sent: 07 July 2006 18:15
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] Old Immovable Nick
I can count the number of former "Christian" fundamentalists I've
encountered, and witnessed (sic) them realise the errors of creationism,on
one hand.
1371
Marc Draco
Surprise! The Academy sponsors are in it for the money!
07/07/2006 21:42:00
bgcolor="#ffffff"
Extract from letter by R M
Nixon, Local Lib Dem Councillor.
This is a wake up to those who didn't already know this - and the REAL
reason why Vardy and his rich mates are buying schools - they have
nothing (and I do mean NOTHING) to lose; not even the 2M! Read on!
It's unlikely that Peter Vardy will be around to spend the money he'll
recoup from this sale, but his foundation will.
--------------------
BLYTH Valley's MP, Ronnie
Campbell, is right in opposing the building of an academy in Blyth on
the grounds that it will split the town educationally and be very
costly financially (News Post Leader, June 1).
These
are Government-funded independent schools, where the Government finds a
sponsor who puts in up to £2m. The government then puts up £25m to have
the school built under Private Finance Initiative (PFI), which is twice
the amount it costs to build a normal state comprehensive.
The sponsor appoints the governors, the school staff, and has control
over the school curriculum.
Not
only is the Government to allow academies to opt out of one of their
major educational reforms, ie the General Teaching Council (GTC), a
body that looks after standards in teaching, but also to be outside of
local authority control.
Eventually, the sponsor gets to keep the
land that the school stands on, which could mean that after 25 or 30
years he could recoup his original £2m outlay. The Government pays for
the upkeep of the school, ie repairs and maintenance of the building,
and the cost of the staff wages, etc.
R M NIXON
Liberal Democrat District Councillor
Parkside Ward
Cramlington
1372
Roger Stanyard
Re: Old Immovable Nick
07/07/2006 22:35:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
>
>
> I can count the number of former "Christian" fundamentalists I've
> encountered, and witnessed (sic) them realise the errors of
creationism,on
> one hand.
I must admit, I'm stretching it a bit to say that I have only ever met
three fundies outside of cyberspace, let alone seen them converted.
Well, maybe four as I was at university with Andy McIntosh; I still
can't remember him though.
Roger Stanyard
1373
Andrew
Re: Old Immovable Nick
07/07/2006 22:42:00
----- Original Message -----
From: Ian Lowe
> It might seem that we are wasting in our breath, but the number of fundies
> who end up "backsliding" (the term they use for falling away from the
> faith)
> is quite large - in most cases because someone has asked a question or
> highlighted some absurdity of the faith which has got them thinking.
I agree. I think we often don't see the positive results because it takes
guts to admit you were wrong, even when misled. People may tend to take
note of things that make sense and question the fundamentalist teachings
they've been getting, but they may also prefer to slip away quietly and try
to make sense of what happened to them. After what appeared to be a `see
the light' conversion to fundamentalism, they aren't likely to say much
about having really seen the light and seen through what they've just
experenced. They're more likely to be cautious and be very wary of making
any more sudden statements of their beliefs.
Of course it depends on individuals. Some may feel a sense of relief.
Others may feel confused and need time to find their feet again. But people
do come through this. I know because I've seen it happen and I've also
experienced it myself, although I was led into fundamentalism for a fairly
short time when I was in my teens, so the experience isn't the same as a
longer period for an adult or the situation of someone brought up wth this
stuff.
Like Ian, I believe it's worth making an effort for people led into this
kind of teaching. It won't make any impression with the real hard-liners,
but for those misled and egged on by the hardliners it could be very
beneficial.
I think basically the best thing anyone can do is simply state facts as
clearly and calmly as possible. What fundamentalists really need is to be
presented with reality. They don't need another set of beliefs. They need
to be presented with reality so they can see it for themselves and find
their way out of the propaganda and the pressures. And they may also need
support, especially as - as Ian commented - the fundamentalist tactic is to
characterise their `falling from faith' as `backsliding' In fact it can be
a difficult effort to climb out of a problem, just as easly as it can be a
sliding away; rather than `falling' it can be a climb that requires courage
and independence of mind.
1374
Lenny Flank
Re: Ahmanson has a rival ?
07/07/2006 23:29:00
>
> And I don't know whether or not he has heard about Dover. Do you
> suppose he is a Dominionist as well?
>
I've never heard of the guy before.
I'm wondering where he came from, and why I haven't heard of him
before . . . .
===================================
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
1375
Ian Lowe
RE: Old Immovable Nick
07/07/2006 23:38:00
> I'm not interested in those who have rejected religion, which is why the
url you supplied is useless as it presents a false impression.
Mikey, with all due respect, don't talk shite. "presents a false impression"
my ass.
> I'm interested in those who have formerly embraced fundamentalism and then
left it, whether they engaged with mainstream religious organisations,
became agnostic or became atheist.
Huh? You are not interested in those who rejected religion, you are just
interested in those who rejected religion? I know it's a Friday night, but
you might want to let up on the happy juice there.
People who "formerly embraced fundamentalism and then left it" are *exactly*
what you will find at ex-christian.net if you bothered to look.
People who have turned away from faith and rejected something that was
incredibly real to them: that takes quite considerable resolve and is to be
congratulated. Many of the folks that post there regularly were products of
the southern baptist churches - 7 day creationists, genesis literalists,
bible innerancy nuts.
That you somehow want to dismiss the experiences of these people leaving the
faith because they are somehow not fundamentalist enough for you simply
shows that you didn't bother your ass to read any of the personal "anti
testimony" stories of the people there.
I can assure you from personal experience that it is entirely possible for
people who were formerly biblical absolutist, born again, dyed in the blood
of jeesus fundies to come to their senses and leave it all behind.
I.
1376
John Germain
RE: Old Immovable Nick
08/07/2006 00:17:00
From the Bowels of Which particular CHURCH crypt did you send this shite, Ian?
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Ian
Lowe
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 11:39 PM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [BlackShadow] Old Immovable Nick
> I'm not interested in those who have rejected religion, which is why the
url you supplied is useless as it presents a false impression.
Mikey, with all due respect, don't talk shite. "presents a false impression"
my ass.
> I'm interested in those who have formerly embraced fundamentalism and then
left it, whether they engaged with mainstream religious organisations,
became agnostic or became atheist.
Huh? You are not interested in those who rejected religion, you are just
interested in those who rejected religion? I know it's a Friday night, but
you might want to let up on the happy juice there.
People who "formerly embraced fundamentalism and then left it" are *exactly*
what you will find at ex-christian.net if you bothered to look.
People who have turned away from faith and rejected something that was
incredibly real to them: that takes quite considerable resolve and is to be
congratulated. Many of the folks that post there regularly were products of
the southern baptist churches - 7 day creationists, genesis literalists,
bible innerancy nuts.
That you somehow want to dismiss the experiences of these people leaving the
faith because they are somehow not fundamentalist enough for you simply
shows that you didn't bother your ass to read any of the personal "anti
testimony" stories of the people there.
I can assure you from personal experience that it is entirely possible for
people who were formerly biblical absolutist, born again, dyed in the blood
of jeesus fundies to come to their senses and leave it all behind.
I.
Yahoo! Groups Links
1377
Lenny Flank
RE: Old Immovable Nick
08/07/2006 01:30:00
Dudes, this is not a fight between "science" and "religion".
And if you turn it into one, you will lose.
This is a fight between "a tiny lunatic fringe of fundamentalist
nutcases" and "everyone else".
Most religious people think the fundies are just as nutty as I do.
Those people are not your enemies. Don't turn them INTO enemies. It
does you no good, and it does lots of harm.
===================================
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
1378
Andrew
Re: Old Immovable Nick
08/07/2006 01:31:00
What exactly is going on here?
Brian links to an article that discusses the ways that fundamentalism
defends itself against critical reasoning.
Ian points out, though, that people do see through this and get free from
it. He posts a link to the accounts of several people who've done just
that.
Micky says very few fundamentalists change from their views.
Ian says they do, and suggests it's worth trying to communicate with them.
Micky posts the statements that Ian subsequently questions because he
regards them as contradictory:
> I'm not interested in those who have rejected religion, which is why the
> url you supplied is useless as it presents a false impression.
> I'm interested in those who have formerly embraced fundamentalism and
> then left it, whether they engaged with mainstream religious
> organisations, became agnostic or became atheist.
Marc adds some relevant observations.
Roger adds that he's hardly met any fundamentalists at all.
I add some comments, agreeing with Ian and adding some points.
Ian disagrees with Micky's rejection of the accounts on the forum he linked
to. At this point the problem turns on what Micky meant by the site giving
a false impression. To my mind it can either mean the accounts aren't
genuine, or it can mean they're too untypical to be relevant (or there may
be some other meaning not apparent to me).
I suspect Micky means they're too untypical to be relevant?
Ian then questions what he sees as a contradiction in the two statements
from Micky posted above. And I'm in agreement with Ian - the two statements
*are* contradictory. The accounts given on the forum Ianlinked to are of
exactly the kind outlined in Micky's second point. They are by former
fundamentalists who now have a variety of beliefs, ranging from other kinds
of belief to agnosticism and atheism.
John is then abusive and agressive towards Ian, but makes no attempt to
respond to any of the points he's made.
Ian did refer to one of Micky's points as `shite,' but did say that in the
context of a relevant questioning of what Micky had said. He wasn't simply
abusive as John was.
Looking at the whole thing that way I can see no reason for the abuse and
aggression towards Ian.
----- Original Message -----
From: John Germain
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 4:17 PM
Subject: RE: [BlackShadow] Old Immovable Nick
From the Bowels of Which particular CHURCH crypt did you send this shite,
Ian?
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Ian
Lowe
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 11:39 PM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [BlackShadow] Old Immovable Nick
> I'm not interested in those who have rejected religion, which is why the
url you supplied is useless as it presents a false impression.
Mikey, with all due respect, don't talk shite. "presents a false impression"
my ass.
> I'm interested in those who have formerly embraced fundamentalism and then
left it, whether they engaged with mainstream religious organisations,
became agnostic or became atheist.
Huh? You are not interested in those who rejected religion, you are just
interested in those who rejected religion? I know it's a Friday night, but
you might want to let up on the happy juice there.
People who "formerly embraced fundamentalism and then left it" are *exactly*
what you will find at ex-christian.net if you bothered to look.
People who have turned away from faith and rejected something that was
incredibly real to them: that takes quite considerable resolve and is to be
congratulated. Many of the folks that post there regularly were products of
the southern baptist churches - 7 day creationists, genesis literalists,
bible innerancy nuts.
That you somehow want to dismiss the experiences of these people leaving the
faith because they are somehow not fundamentalist enough for you simply
shows that you didn't bother your ass to read any of the personal "anti
testimony" stories of the people there.
I can assure you from personal experience that it is entirely possible for
people who were formerly biblical absolutist, born again, dyed in the blood
of jeesus fundies to come to their senses and leave it all behind.
I.
Yahoo! Groups Links
1379
John Germain
RE: Old Immovable Nick
08/07/2006 03:30:00
Who is Micky?
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
1380
John Germain
RE: Old Immovable Nick
08/07/2006 03:32:00
Lenny, would you PLEASE stop with the making sense?
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Lenny
Flank
Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 1:31 AM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [BlackShadow] Old Immovable Nick
Dudes, this is not a fight between "science" and "religion".
And if you turn it into one, you will lose.
This is a fight between "a tiny lunatic fringe of fundamentalist
nutcases" and "everyone else".
Most religious people think the fundies are just as nutty as I do.
Those people are not your enemies. Don't turn them INTO enemies. It
does you no good, and it does lots of harm.
===================================
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
Yahoo! Groups Links
1381
John Germain
RE: Old Immovable Nick
08/07/2006 03:36:00
Why is Andrew?
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of John
Germain
Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 3:30 AM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [BlackShadow] Old Immovable Nick
Who is Micky?
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
Yahoo! Groups Links
1382
Mikey Brass
Re: Old Immovable Nick
08/07/2006 07:52:00
Ian Lowe wrote:
>> I'm interested in those who have formerly embraced fundamentalism and then
> left it, whether they engaged with mainstream religious organisations,
> became agnostic or became atheist.
>
> Huh? You are not interested in those who rejected religion, you are just
> interested in those who rejected religion?
What part of rejecting *fundamentalism* is hard to grasp?
Or do you equate Christianity as fundamentalism?
1383
Mikey Brass
Re: Old Immovable Nick
08/07/2006 07:56:00
The point, Andrew, is the seeming conflation of *religion* with
*fundamentalism*.
1384
Ian Lowe
RE: Old Immovable Nick
08/07/2006 09:43:00
> From the Bowels of Which particular CHURCH crypt did you send this shite,
Ian?
Odd question John - if you are assuming/suggesting that I am still part of a
church, sorry - that ship sailed a long long time ago. I'm an atheist.
If you are asking which Church I was part of in my teens, that would be the
Church of Christ the King in Pather here in Scotland. I *was* a born again
christian who held fundamentalist beliefs (part of an isolationist church
that seperated itself from "the world" etc).
I used to think that my own escape from religion was very unusual, thanks to
exchristian.net I realise that it's a lot more common than most people
think.
Ian.
1385
Ian Lowe
RE: Old Immovable Nick
08/07/2006 09:46:00
> Dudes, this is not a fight between "science" and "religion".
> And if you turn it into one, you will lose.
Quite right - I agree. My own background is quite anti-christian because of
my own personal life experiences, that doesn't mean I don't see the bigger
picture.
> Most religious people think the fundies are just as nutty as I do.
And even within fundie churches there is a slope from relatively normal to
out and out strange! We have many more friends than enemies.
Besides, this whole strange debacle started because I disagree that there's
"no point" in talking to fundies - I'd rather see more converts come to our
side.
Ian.
1386
Ian Lowe
RE: Old Immovable Nick
08/07/2006 09:51:00
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Mikey Brass
> What part of rejecting *fundamentalism* is hard to grasp?
> Or do you equate Christianity as fundamentalism?
Mikey, a significant number of the apostates on ex-christian.net *were*
fundamentalists. Not all of them, *some* of them.
Do you have some notion of fundamentalism as somehow being separate from the
host religion?
All Christians are not fundamentalists, but all Christian Fundamentalists
are, by definition, Christian. Same goes for muslims - not all members of
Islam are radicals, but the ones who are are all, by definition, part of
Islam.
Not all of the apostates on exchristian.net were fundamentalists, just as
not all christians are fundamentalist. However, a significant number of
apostates on that site *were* fundamentalist.
What's so hard to understand?
I.
1387
Ian Lowe
RE: Old Immovable Nick
08/07/2006 09:59:00
No, the point is the seeming missunderstanding of what a "fundamentalist"
actually is.
A fundmantalist is someone who takes the fundamental beliefs of a religion
to be absolutely literal - in the case of islam, demanding sharia law for
all and violent jihad, and in the case of christianity giving rise to the
whole recontructionist/dominionist camps.
All Christians are not Fundamentalists, but in this context, all
Fundamentalists are Christians.
ex-christian.net contains a significant number of apostates, and therefore
presents a cross section of the Christian faith. Some of the people there
left moderate churches, some of them left hardcore fundie churches.
This was a simple discussion - You say there's no point talking to these
people, I know from personal experience that you are wrong, there *is* a
good reason to keep talking, and I posted a link to a real community of
apostates to highlight my point.
Perhaps you should be less quick to dismiss the real life experiences of
others.
I.
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Mikey Brass
Sent: 08 July 2006 07:56
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] Old Immovable Nick
The point, Andrew, is the seeming conflation of *religion* with
*fundamentalism*.
1388
MB
RE: Old Immovable Nick
08/07/2006 11:39:00
> This was a simple discussion - You say there's no point talking to these
> people, I know from personal experience that you are wrong, there *is* a
> good reason to keep talking, and I posted a link to a real community of
> apostates to highlight my point.
>
Although in the larger picture I agree with Lenny that our main push must
be on the political field, there is no doubt in my mind that offering
support to those who are receptive is a Very Good Thing.
Sort of like I have to do for my sweet snakes, I must leave little
questions in people's minds, make folks hesitate before they come out with
their rote condemnation.
I keep remembering the man who towed my car - and his question about my
Darwin Fish sticker. He was on the attack, it was plain. And I opened my
eyes very wide and said that Darwin Fish had nothing to do with God, it
had to do with The Way This World Works. I thought to myself, well, I hope
that seed fell on good ground. But you never know.
And we must not forget Mike Sims!
Regards,
MB
1389
ukantic
Re: ESF caught lying (again)
08/07/2006 11:53:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco
<midnight.diamond@...> wrote:
>
> Some people might know that fundies lie, but here's a great
example of
> the Emmanuel Schools Foundation fibbing about how science
(biology, I
> would guess) is taught. The take a clear government guideline and
twist
> it to let them teach what they want. Let the exposure begin!
>
> www.marcdraco.co.uk/evolie.htm
> http://tinyurl.com/oad5l
That just about sums it up Marc, & as you have pointed out, the
latest curriculum makes no mention of badly worded example of, "how
scientific controversies can arise from different ways of
interpreting empirical evidence". Furthermore, the government have
specifically stated that the disputed wording is NOT meant to be
interpreted to suggest that evolution is controversial. I have
written about this here:
http://www.creationism.co.uk/index.php/Main/JacquiSmithForcedToBackDo
wn
& the pertinent bit is here:
http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/newsarticleview.asp?article=2175
I guess that means the Vardy Foundation is doing something that the
government have now said specifically should not be done. Then again
the VF seems to think they can do what they like, so it doesn't
surprise me.
Actually, Dawkins & many other top scientists wrote to the
government in 2002 complaining about the wording of this section of
KS4:
http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?
article=1352
But the government did nothing about it. This to me is evidence that
they are incompetent, thick & bloody stupid – and a lot of other
unprintable things as well.
What's the betting that when if or when the VF are confronted &
forced to withdraw their absurd claims, the first thing they do is
start whining about intolerance & persecution.
Alan.
Creationists – Give them an inch & they will take your kids.
1390
Roger Stanyard
Awkward Questions for IDers
08/07/2006 16:59:00
My questionnaire to UK people who signed the DI's bogus question has
remained entirely unanswered and unacknowledged by all those I wrote
to.
You can see the questionnaire on my blog at
http://360.yahoo.com/stanyardroger and there are also a nimber of
other postings I have made in the last few days.
It's clearly a waste of space thinking about a conventional
questionnaire to the signatories. So I have come up with a rather
harder hitting on. It is basically a list of very difficult questions
for them to handle.
I've posted it here below and was wondering if anybody in
Blackshadow would like to add some more very awkward questions to
the list. Feel free to do so!
Here is the questionnaire:
Dear Dr. <fill in name>,
I am undertaking research in association with the Science Just Science
forum (http://justscience.1.forumer.com/) on the extent of doubt
amongst scientists and academics about the Theory of Evolution by
natural selection, the central paradigm of the biological sciences.
I notice that your name appears on the Discovery Institute's list of
610 scientists who, it says, are sceptical about it.
However, by the very nature of the scientific method, all scientists
are sceptical. I therefore have reason to believe that the Discovery
Institute is using the list to mislead the public as to the real
extend of doubt about the theory.
1. Given that Intelligent Design was exposed as creationism in a cheap
tuxedo in the Kitzmiller v Dover School District trial last year, do
you still agree with the Institute's position on Intelligent Design.
2. How does that square with your professional understanding of
biology?
3. Given that the Discovery Institute has told signatories to the list
not to reply to questions asking confirmation of your views, how does
that square with your intellectual and academic freedom of opinion?
4. Do you feel happy as a signatory after having been told by the
Discovery Institute to keep your mouth shut?
5. Do you believe that your name on the Institute's list now (post-
Dover trial) increases or decreases your personal credibility amongst
other scientists or the general public?
6. How do you feel as being listed alongside hard-line creationist
fundamentalists such as Prof Andy McIntosh who described anyone that
disagrees with their biblical literalism as charlatans?
7. Do you agree that they/you are charlatans?
8. How do you square your morality with the fact that Howard Ahmanson
is a major funder of the Discovery Institute and sat on the Board of
the Chalcedon Foundation for 25 years which counted amongst its
objectives the murder of anyone who disagreed with its fundamentalist
religious views?
9. Do you think the Discovery Institute and its apologists are
suitable
people to be involved in educating children given that the Institute
has been funded by an advocate of murder?
10. Does it occur to you that there might be something wrong with the
Institute and its science given that association?
Thanking you in anticipation of a reply,
A Very Concerned Citizen
1391
Marc Draco
Universe God''s work: Pope tells Hawking
08/07/2006 12:09:00
USA Today
http://tinyurl.com/g66wt
1392
Lenny Flank
RE: Old Immovable Nick
08/07/2006 13:29:00
> Besides, this whole strange debacle started because I disagree that
> there's "no point" in talking to fundies - I'd rather see more
> converts come to our side.
Well, that's a nice thought, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting.
In my 25 years of creationist-fighting, I can count on the fingers of
one hand the total number of "converts" I've seen. And for every one
that you "convert", there are a dozen more waiting to step in his
place. The effort simply isn't worth the payoff.
In any case, creationism is a political movement, not a religious
one, and it must be beaten by political methods, not by religious
ones. No political movement in history has ever been beaten by
"converting" all its members. Nor will the fundies. They must be
beaten by out-organizing them, as with any other political movement.
===================================
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
1393
Lenny Flank
RE: Old Immovable Nick
08/07/2006 13:30:00
> Lenny, would you PLEASE stop with the making sense?
Sorry, dude. I'll try to be more like a creationist. ;)
===================================
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
1394
Roger Stanyard
Re: Old Immovable Nick
08/07/2006 19:03:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
> > Lenny, would you PLEASE stop with the making sense?
>
>
> Sorry, dude. I'll try to be more like a creationist. ;)
>
Keep it up, Lenny, you have helped tremendously in this group.
This game is about activism using (hopefully) a large number of
people working in their spare time. The more we have onside the
better. The opposition has stacks of dosh, full time employees (AiG
UK has 11), heaven knows what in terms of resources including skills
in PR and years of experience.
The fundies appear to be wiling their way into the CofE, the
Evangelical Alliance (and there is the outfit that Stephen Green
runs), the Lord's Day Observance Society, the Christian Institute and
so on.
Trouble is, we don't have much in the way of numbers at present.
Seems to me we would do ourslves a much bigger favour trying to get
more people involved than wasting our time trying to convert Nick
Cowan or his wife. We're not going to and even if we did, its only an
extra name or so onside.
The creation v science battle was won 150 years go. Listen to the
activists such as Peter hearty and Marc Draco; they are at the
forefront and don't really bother with the issue. It's an aside.
It also seems to me we have a big problem in figuring out who we want
to work with. I have long held off joining the British Humanist
Association, which really does have some good political contacts,
because it is perceived as anti-religious. Likewise with the NSS and
the new Dawkins operation in Oxford.
I think the anti-creationsts amongst us have a long way to go in both
learning and organising and any help or advice from the other side of
the pond is extremely well appreciate. There is no point tryng to re-
invent the wheel.
The likes of Drew Smith and Tim Chase have given me considerable help
in what I am trying to do as well as contributing to this email forum.
Of course we have to work within a British rather than an American
framework - for starters we don't have a legal separation of church
and state and there is also the minor problem that there are three
(and, potentially four) parliaments in the UK to deal with.
Lenny has helped us a lot. He has well over two decades of experience
in activism. That is very valuable experience. He doesn't get paid
for giving us advice and we owe him, and others from across the Pond,
a big thank-you.
Lenny, keep sending the advice. Most of us are highly open to it and
value it tremedously
Roger Stanyard
1395
Marc Draco
Re: Re: ESF caught lying (again)
08/07/2006 18:36:00
bgcolor="#ffffff"
Thanks Alan,
I will amend my piece with those: helps to cite more references. I have
seen your piece before, as you know, but this snapshot was taken last
week and they're still protesting it! I also have the Feb 2006 report
from Unison which makes great reading and mentions Edminton (?) the guy
behind PCR.
I've written to my MP (who backed Kings) and Barry Sheerman citing this
example and demanding that they take these wholeasses to book over
this. I've also copied it to Laura Clark at the Mail.
This really should be their undoing as it exposes what they are really
up to for all to see.
ukantic wrote:
->
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com,
Marc Draco
<midnight.diamond@...> wrote:
>
> Some people might know that fundies lie, but here's a great
example of
> the Emmanuel Schools Foundation fibbing about how science
(biology, I
> would guess) is taught. The take a clear government guideline and
twist
> it to let them teach what they want. Let the exposure begin!
>
> www.marcdraco.co.uk/evolie.htm
> http://tinyurl.com/oad5l
That just about sums it up Marc, & as you have pointed out, the
latest curriculum makes no mention of badly worded example of, "how
scientific controversies can arise from different ways of
interpreting empirical evidence". Furthermore, the government have
specifically stated that the disputed wording is NOT meant to be
interpreted to suggest that evolution is controversial. I have
written about this here:
http://www.creationism.co.uk/index.php/Main/JacquiSmithForcedToBackDo
wn
& the pertinent bit is here:
http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/newsarticleview.asp?article=2175
I guess that means the Vardy Foundation is doing something that the
government have now said specifically should not be done. Then again
the VF seems to think they can do what they like, so it doesn't
surprise me.
Actually, Dawkins & many other top scientists wrote to the
government in 2002 complaining about the wording of this section of
KS4:
http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?
article=1352
But the government did nothing about it. This to me is evidence that
they are incompetent, thick & bloody stupid – and a lot of other
unprintable things as well.
What's the betting that when if or when the VF are confronted &
forced to withdraw their absurd claims, the first thing they do is
start whining about intolerance & persecution.
Alan.
Creationists – Give them an inch & they will take your kids.
1396
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: ESF caught lying (again)
08/07/2006 13:32:00
>
hen again
> the VF seems to think they can do what they like, so it doesn't
> surprise me.
Nor me. It is a typical fundie attitude. After all, when you're
doing the work of the Lord, Man's Laws simply don't matter.
Fundies are indeed arrogant self-righteous prideful pricks who think,
quite literally, that they are holier than everyone else.
Just look at 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
1397
Marc Draco
Re: Re: ESF caught lying (again)
08/07/2006 18:55:00
bgcolor="#ffffff"
Thanks Alan, I've added that and those links to my site and the piece
at NoToAcademies which mirrors it (complete with gracious thanks).
ukantic wrote:
->
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com,
Marc Draco
<midnight.diamond@...> wrote:
>
> Some people might know that fundies lie, but here's a great
example of
> the Emmanuel Schools Foundation fibbing about how science
(biology, I
> would guess) is taught. The take a clear government guideline and
twist
> it to let them teach what they want. Let the exposure begin!
>
> www.marcdraco.co.uk/evolie.htm
> http://tinyurl.com/oad5l
That just about sums it up Marc, & as you have pointed out, the
latest curriculum makes no mention of badly worded example of, "how
scientific controversies can arise from different ways of
interpreting empirical evidence". Furthermore, the government have
specifically stated that the disputed wording is NOT meant to be
interpreted to suggest that evolution is controversial. I have
written about this here:
http://www.creationism.co.uk/index.php/Main/JacquiSmithForcedToBackDo
wn
& the pertinent bit is here:
http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/newsarticleview.asp?article=2175
I guess that means the Vardy Foundation is doing something that the
government have now said specifically should not be done. Then again
the VF seems to think they can do what they like, so it doesn't
surprise me.
Actually, Dawkins & many other top scientists wrote to the
government in 2002 complaining about the wording of this section of
KS4:
http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?
article=1352
But the government did nothing about it. This to me is evidence that
they are incompetent, thick & bloody stupid – and a lot of other
unprintable things as well.
What's the betting that when if or when the VF are confronted &
forced to withdraw their absurd claims, the first thing they do is
start whining about intolerance & persecution.
Alan.
Creationists – Give them an inch & they will take your kids.
1398
Andrew
Re: Re: Old Immovable Nick
08/07/2006 19:54:00
I think we might be talking about two different things.
One question seems to be `should we attempt to convert fundamentalists?'
And the other question `is it worth communicating with fundamentalists and
engaging in rational discussion?'
Those are two very different questions, and certainly from my own point of
view they require totally different answers. Of course we shouldn't tr to
convert fundamentalists, for the reasons already given, and also because
this shouldn't be about converting anyone, but simply about presenting
people with an informed basis for assessing things. As both Ian and I have
independently said, the hard liners won't be budged, but there are people
who'll listen and reconsider. That's why I would answer yes to the second
question in addition to answering no to the first one.
That doesn't mean I think everyone should answer yes to that question. I
agree it's usually a thankless task, and I agree with Lenny's point that for
every one who sees sense there are more to take their place. In fact in a
majority of cases I don't get involved because it's obvious what sort of
person I'm dealing with. But there are times when simply speaking sense and
presenting facts will come across effectively to someone.
Agreed, that won't win the battle. More comprehensive activities are needed
for that. But a yes answer is possible for some of us to that second
question, and in a few cases we perhaps shouldn't be so definite about
writing people off. I don't hold out much hope for Nick Cowan, but he isn't
a measure of other people's rationality and ability to reconsider.
So yes, more comprehensive action is required; trying to convert people is
wrong anyway; trying to make fundamentalists see sense is often pointless;
but sometimes it's helpful to a person who's been wrongly taught and misled
if someone presents some facts and some more balanced attitudes. It's up to
us as individuals whether we bother with that. But abusing people who do
see a point in doing that doesn't help anybody.
1399
Roger Stanyard
Re: ESF caught lying (again)
08/07/2006 22:03:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
> Fundies are indeed arrogant self-righteous prideful pricks who
think,
> quite literally, that they are holier than everyone else.
>
> Just look at Nick.
>
And look who is paying his public sector salary this month?
The very people, you and me included, he looks down on.
Er. Nick, why don't you answer my questions:
1. You have said that I am a liar. Where and when did I lie?
2. What the hell is a fundie atheist? (third time I've asked the
question!)
Roger Stanyard
1400
Timothy Chase
Re: [secular_newsline] Universe God''s work: Pope tells Hawking
08/07/2006 22:14:00
On 08/07/06, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> USA Today
>
> http://tinyurl.com/g66wt
>
The article states, "The scientist then joked that he was glad John
Paul did not realize that he had presented a paper at the conference
suggesting how the universe began."
Actually, if I remember correctly, the theory had to do with there
being no beginning to the universe, where a beginning would be more
like the point of a cone, but where what would exist as far as Hawking
was concerned would be more like the pole on a sphere -- had something
to do with imaginary time. More recently, Hawking has been talking
about the view that we can view the beginning of the universe only
from our perspective, and that as one looks back further in time
towards the presumed instant of the origin of the universe, histories
become probablistic in line with Quantum Mechanics, such that no one
history can be privileged over the other,and it is only as we view the
universe foward on from that point that the superposition of those
histories gives rise to a classical, macroscopic history leading to
today.
Of course, I am totally unfamiliar with the mathematics behind either
view (the farther I ever got was General Relativity and your standard
Quantum Mechanics), but the view that the past is itself somewhat
indeterminate and may become more so the further back you go seems
both somewhat disturbing -- and reasonable, given what little I know
in this regard.
However, there are other views, and to some extent, I believe
Hawking's fairly recent about-face on whether information regarding
what falls into a blackhole is destroyed or not (in relation to the
outside world) and expecting people to simply take his word for it for
a year (because he is. afterall, Stephen Hawking, I presume)
represented a certain cashing-in on and consequent devaluation of his
well-earned reputation.
In any case, it is an interesting topic. I hope to see a fair amount
of this more or less resolved within my lifetime. Not really the sort
of investigation one could ever hope to stop, either, although I
suppose it could be briefly delayed. Pope John Paul's request would
seem both theoretically misguided and practically unrealistic.