1701
Marc Draco
Re: Re: Unison report on Academies
15/07/2006 11:56:00
bgcolor="#ffffff"
Just to answer the "beating kids" question, Roger.
No. The ESF are no allowed to hit children - that's covered by a
different law. The same one that prevents parents from smacking, IIRC.
McQuoid certainly believes in it - and using his own words - forms part
of my stage demonstration. ;-)
All I need now is somewhere to put this on.
In fact, that gives me an idea, perhaps a full-strength play is in
order: like JS:TO? My current work is only a demonstration using humor
and, seawater and some melons.
If anyone else would like to co-author such a thing, drop me a note.
Roger Stanyard wrote:
->
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com,
"Andrew" <taoist.hermit1@...>
wrote:
>
>
> I notice section eight ends by commenting that Academies are
outside the
> scope of the Human Rights Act.
>
Andrew,
This is way outside of my knowledge. I have virtually no training in
law.
However, what would be really interesting to find out is who pushed
to get the academies exempt from the Human Rights Act and why.
You may be aware that The Chrisian Institute, which is a big lobbier,
is really keen on corporal punishment - smacking children. One
wonders whether the exemption allows academies to have the freedom to
use corporal punishment. I'm not aware of any of them do use it,
though. It's probably far to a sensitive issue.
(
1702
Marc Draco
Re: Re: IMPORTANT: Invites to Blogs and Email Lists
15/07/2006 12:07:00
bgcolor="#ffffff"
You can always put me on a private list. I'll talk and talk and talk...
;-)
Seriously one thing that we keep missing though - this isn't a hard
science debate, it's pop science debate. The educated people here often
get into deep discussions about how things work and honestly, when this
happens, you lose.
Keep to stuff people can understand. TalkOrigins is great, but it's
high-brow most of the time. Ordinary people, the majority of voters,
cannot follow these arguments. You need to spell it out to them in
simple language (like the fundies do) or you WILL LOSE.
Take the Banana argument that's occasionally used. It may be wrong, but
it's simple. You need to make the refutation TWICE AS SIMPLE!
You also need to know your audience. Movers and shakers are one bunch,
teachers another, parents another again.
Seriously, let's write something like:
Creationism: The Opera.
and make it funny. We have bucketloads of dumb-ass examples that we
can make fun of, not pour scorn on. Make fun of someone's argument and
it loses its potency. Scorn it and you look like you're making sour
grapes.
Outclevering creationists is easy: they're dumb. But that only wins
them friends. Brits especially love the underdog and that's the
audience that McQuoid, Vardy and chums are playing to.
"Oooooo look at us, poor Christian folk and those wicked scientists are
making fun of us...." etc.
We need to turn this around and comedy is a great way to do it.
Timothy Chase wrote:
->
On 13/07/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk>
wrote:
>
> I think the really serious stuff should never be on a Yahoo group,
open
> or closed. It should be by private email. From what everyone has
said,
> it looks as if we made need both an open and closed group but,
please,
> please, lets get the ball rolling with some action first.
...
Sounds good. I will let people know that this is for pro-Evos only,
but advertise in creation_evolution_debate and try my older
connections -- which should be of higher quality than
creation_evolution_debate.
1703
vulcannuk
Re: news story
15/07/2006 12:18:00
The writer has contacted me. However, this was a couple of days ago
and he has yet to reply.
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
> >> Well, this article might be a good place to start with any
campaign,
> > typically for a piece of local reporting, the Vardy Foundation
(in the
> > form of N.M) are doing all the talking, there is the usual straw
man
> > about pupils carrying Bibles, some wishy-washy criticism etc. Is
the
> > Vardy Foundation the only one allowed to put its views across?
Is this
> > censorship by omission?
>
>
>
> May I suggest that someone contact the writer of this article and
> present the other view? I can't imagine an editor passing up an
> opportunity to generate a bit of controversy. Good for
readership,
> ya know.
>
>
>
> ===================================
> 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
>
1704
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Not for publication.
15/07/2006 12:34:00
>> Methinks that if there is to be a demo, it is an extremely good idea
> if this forum is represented.
Make sure the press is alerted, and have a spokesperson available at
the demo to answer (briefly and clearly) any questions the press
might have.
The key to getting th message out through the press is to have a
single message (don't get sidetracked into a dozen different things)
that you want to get across, keep it short and simple, and repeat it
to the press over and over and over again.
===================================
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
1705
Lenny Flank
Re: Not for publication.
15/07/2006 12:30:00
>>
> The truth of the Vardy Foundation schools (and the King's Academy in
> particular) is rather different the one-sided view your writer
> reported.
>
Um, just a little hint --- we want the press to be on OUR side.
They are not the enemy. Don't treat them like they are.
===================================
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
1706
Roger Stanyard
2nd Draft of Statement
15/07/2006 12:36:00
This is the draft as it now stands following comments (all of which I
have used to modify it - thanks). One thing missing is a statement
aboout criteria for becoming members of it. Alan's policy has always
been by invitation only but that doesn't says who we want to invite.
What ideas does everyone have on this?
My own view is anyone but bloody fundies but that isn't exactely a
tactful way of stating things. It seems to me that we need to get
over that it is anyoone who is against creationism and we need to
emphasise that it includes people with religious views and of any
political pursuasion (except the BNP and their like). It also needs
to make it clear that a science background is not necessary at al.
Draft Statement about the British Centre for Science Education
The British Centre for Science Education is a newly formed group of
individuals which intends to act as an umbrella group to stop the
teaching of creationism in state schools. Its primary role is to act
as a co-ordinating group to support other groups and individuals with
the same aim and to develop and implement activist tactics. The
movement currently has some 50 members, resident in the UK, North
America, Australia, South Africa and the mainland of Europe. It is
currently open to membership, free of charge, by invitation.
The group is actively building up an intelligence base of the
structure and activities of fundamentalist organisations active in
attempting to teach creationism in schools. This is intended for use
by both the organisations we support, educators, local education
authorities, local and national politicians, students intending to
study at universities with active fundamentalist staff, businesses
recruiting from schools and universities, professional bodies
involved in science and the media.
The individuals involved have, between them, considerable experience
and knowledge of the creationist movement. They are mostly
professional people. Many are experienced activists in their own
right. Their backgrounds include science, business, theology,
education, academia, engineering and research.
We have put together an international group because the creationist
movement itself is international, with strong connections with the
USA and Australia. The universities being affected have strong
international links through students, staff and research. We believe
that the international links considerably strengthen the organisation
in terms of both knowledge and skills.
The movement is set to launch its first campaign to raise awareness
of the problem of creationism in education.
The United Kingdom is faced with a highly organised, well-funded
coalition of fundamentalist Young Earth Creationist groups including
but not limited to Answers in Genesis, the Emmanuel Schools
Foundation, the Christian Institute, Creation Research UK, Genesis
Agendum, the Creation Science Movement and the Biblical Creation
Society.
This creationist movement is receiving money and assistance from
other parts of the world including the United States, through such
organisations and individuals as Answers in Genesis, the Institute
for Creation Research, the Discovery Institute and the billionaire
reclusive Howard Ahmanson, who also funds the Discovery Institute.
The movement receives assistance and support from Australia through
Creation Ministries International and Creation Research International.
The organisations are active in bringing bogus creationist science
into the classrooms of British state schools, frequently and
surreptitiously without the knowledge of parents or local education
authorities. It has long established tactics for infiltration. The
movement has taken full control of three state schools and aims to
control many more. It has the funding to do so.
The objective is to discredit all subjects taught in schools which
contradict the fundamentalist extreme religious opinions of the
movement. The movement is based on the strict literal interpretation
of the bible, most notably that all science must agree with the
opinion that the word was created 6,000-10,000 years ago and that
there were dinosaurs on Noah's Ark. The movement is also promoting
the existence of UFOs and alien abductions and that dinosaurs roamed
the British countryside in Tudor times.
In particular the movement is targeting the teaching of science,
geology and geography in British schools, either directly within the
lessons or through guest speakers and Christian Unions. Their actions
make the teaching of these subjects ineffective with the resultant
failure of pupils to pass their exams.
The position has become so serious that two leading, prestigious,
British universities, Leeds and Leicester, are introducing compulsory
remedial courses to undo the damage done. The credibility of a third,
Bristol, is being seriously damaged by the actions of one of its
staff active in the creationist movement.
Indeed, there is a core of about seven activist fundamentalists
within British universities attempting to discredit subjects taught
there which contradict their religious opinions. Such subjects
include medicine, biology, genetics, microbiology, biochemistry,
physics, astronomy, cosmology, geology, earth sciences, geophysics,
geography, chemistry, archaeology, paleoanthropology, ancient
history, theology and linguistics. These represent a vast area of
higher education and research in the UK.
Moreover, the movement includes extreme political objectives, one of
which is the replacement of democracy with a theocracy based on its
extreme religious opinions. Howard Ahmanson was, for a quarter of a
century, on the board of the Chalcedon Foundation which advocated the
murder of those that disagreed with its fundamentalist religion and
the re-introduction of slavery. Ahmanson funds the Discovery
Institute, which has a clear agenda to take political power and he
is also deeply involved in the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies.
The movement has clearly adopted techniques of evasion and deception
about its techniques and objectives, following practices developed
within the fundamentalist movement in the United States.
In 2002 a group of 27 fundamentalists in academia, education and
business lobbyed the then Secretary of State for Education, Estelle
Morris, to allow the teaching of creationism in science lessons in
state schools. In a letter to the Secretary of State, made publicly
available, they claimed to be acting as individuals, ad hoc, and gave
their professional positions and the names of the organisations that
employed them, including leading universities. The letter also
claimed that their views did not necessarily represent the
organisations they were associated with.
However, it now transpires this was far from the case. 15 of the 27
were involved in the fundamentalist Biblical Creation Society
including its then head and its now current head. All of the 27 were
involved in at least one, and in many cases, more, of the main
creationist organisations in the country. One was also closely
involved in the Christian Institute which itself has been involved in
and closely associated with the creationist Vardy schools. These
organisations are involved in teaching creationism in schools and
thus had a vested interest in its continuance. None of this was
disclosed in the letter either to the Secretary of State or the
public.
Yet this is a major issue of public policy. The creationist movement,
through the academy schools it is sponsoring, is likely to receive
well over £200 million in funding from the taxpaying public, which is
already paying for remedial education in universities as a result of
the actions of creationists.
It you wish to join or support our anti-creationist movement, please
visit our email forum and discussion group at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/blackshadow.
1707
Roger Stanyard
Re: Not for publication.
15/07/2006 12:54:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
> >>
> > The truth of the Vardy Foundation schools (and the King's Academy
in
> > particular) is rather different the one-sided view your writer
> > reported.
> >
>
>
> Um, just a little hint --- we want the press to be on OUR side.
>
> They are not the enemy. Don't treat them like they are.
Good point Lenny, I should have spotted that.
I dunno what the position is in the USA but I guess that virtually
all of the UK media, in private, thinks the fundies in the UK are
raving bonkers. The media is on-side already.
It's one of the reasons why I am gearing up my intelligence reports
for them. I'm trying to make life very easy for them - we do their
research for them and give them the sound bits and the quotes.
The only fundie that I have come across who appears to be, or has
been, in the UK media is a guy at Creation Science Movement who used
to read the weather forecasts on BBC local radio (exactely!). We've
got a bit of a problem with Melanie Phillips and Peter Hitchens at
the Dail Mail - Phillips appears to have decided to become an IDer
AFTER Dover which, um, seriously questions her sanity.
Hitchens is someone we need to tread warily of (for Americans
Phillips and Hitchens are our equivalent of wingnuts). Hitchens is
useful because he is passionate about freedom and against the sort of
closed door loonyness behind the creation of academy schools.
We could probably safely let him know useful information (my term for
an obvious euphemism).
Roger
PS: Thanks for the valuable advice (again) Lenny.
> ===================================
> 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
>
1708
Roger Stanyard
Re: Not for publication.
15/07/2006 12:57:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
I forgot to add that there is one area where we can't assume that the
media is onside and that is the religious TV channels. My working
assumption is that these services are very influential amongst fundies
and the people they are trying to convert.
1709
Roger Stanyard
Open Invitation
15/07/2006 14:28:00
We have an open invitation to a barbie if anyone is interested! This
came into my email box last week in response to my research into the
extent of belief in ID in the UK.
Dear Roger,
Glad to make your aquaintance electronically. I confirm that I signed
the Discovery statement and I am very skeptical of the claims for the
ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the
complexity of life. I have been an academic scientist for a number of
years now and I must say that this skepticism has increased almost on
a daily basis as I delve further into the mind boggling complexity of
bacteria let alone higher eukaryotes like ourselves.
I have only in the recent past started to look at the details of the
creation -evolution issue as you will have read on the wasdarwin
right website about myself and have only written one article.
However, from that one article it seems clear to me that Darwin came
from a lineage of evolutionists as both his father and grandfather
were vociferous adherents of evolution. What was more shocking to me
was the fact that Erasmus Darwin became the leading Medical sage of
his day and wrote the definitive medical text book of the day.
Unfortunately his evolutionary beleifs especially in spontaneous
generation misled a whole generation of medical people. This error I
beleive seriously delayed the realisation that infectious diseases
were the result of bacteria--later proved by Pasteur, Lister and
envisioned by Semmelweiss. If you have read my article you will see
that Pasteur was a bible beleiving Christian who has probably made
more of an impact on the science of infectious disease and human
health than any other single individual. Therefore certainly in this
respect (medical microbiology) I would say that the theories of
evolution have had a major negative influence on the progress of
science.
Diversion over and apologies for getting off the track--
Yes I am in agreement with the discovery statement that an
intelligent designer was involved in the design of all life on earth
and would also agree with the Apostle John in naming Him as the one
and only himself, Jesus the Christ.
Regarding the time when the earth and everything in it was created- I
dont know and have not studied in depth the evidence for either of
the views.
I am a full time member of staff at Bristol university in the
department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine. My Job Title is
Research Fellow, I have degrees in Biochemistry, a Masters in
Environmental Biotechnology and a PhD in Medical Microbiology. I have
been research active for several years and have authored numerous
papers in the field of antibiotic resistance, the most recent ones
being last month including one in the review journal MMBR,
rated as number one for impact factor out of all journals in the
field of Microbiology.
It sadens me that the groups that you are involved with are intent on
name throwing and defamation of character-I do not know Andy
Macintosh or Stuart Burgess personally.But, I do know that to get to
the positions that they are in as senior professors and head of
department (Burgess) takes an enormous amount of dedication, hard
work and inspiration. I forgive you in advance anyway!
I beleive the fundamentals of the Christian faith are summed up by
Jesus in the sermon on the mount chapters 5-7 of Mathews gospel.
Fundamental Christians are therefore ones who love their enemies as
well as their neighbours, when they are struck on one cheek they turn
the other. The central teachings of the Christian faith are summed up
by Jesus in Chpt7 as "In everything do to others as you would have
them do to you, for this sums up the law and the prophets". As such I
strive to be a fundamental Christian. Furthermore God is not against
you personally-He actually likes you-"Out of 50 million sperm you are
the one who made it!" He created you to be a winner and you are
valuable and precious in His sight.
I have a Hog roast every year in a field behind my house in South
Wales-just missed the last one-but you would be welcome to come next
year if you would like and bring your friends-its an annual thing
where we invite our friends, enemies, neighbours and people we dont
know.
Best wishes to you
Mark Toleman
1710
Wilson Alan
RE: Re: Bob Geldof (was Draft Statement)
15/07/2006 14:47:00
bgcolor="white"
----
'From:'
BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] 'On Behalf Of 'Roger Stanyard
'Sent:' 15 July 2006 08:15
'To:' BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
'Subject:' [BlackShadow] Re: Bob
Geldof (was Draft Statement)
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com,
"Wilson Alan" <Alan.Wilson@...>
wrote:
>>
>> Although I
admire Bob Geldof greatly I am not convinced that he
>>would
> >want to
represent our group since he is Irish and not British and
> >therefore
would probably have little influence on the domestic
> >educational
scene.
> >
> John Macakay is
Australian and that hasn't stopped him trying to
> influence British
education. I don't think we should rule out people
> because they are
not British. That's bonkers given the support we are
> getting from the
Americans, Rudy and others.
> Moreover about a
fifth of the population of the UK
claim to be Irish
> or have Irish
ancestry. 37m Americans claim likewise!
> I also assume that
Bob Geldorg owns a British passport. After all he
> was married or
whetever to a Brit and has a knighthood. The British
> establishment
captured him as their own years back. I also assume
> that he is
resident in the UK
but could be wrong on that.
I don’t disagree
with any of this but I’m still not convinced he’ll take it up.
Alan W
> we've mentioned
trying to get Steve Jones on board. That's someting
> I'll be working on
this weekend. My own view is at this stage someone
> with the right
contacts at the Royal Society could prove invaluable.
> Now, of course the
one that would really give us a profile is Ossie
> Osbourne!!! Dead
Ringers and Royal
Garden parties here we
come!
Roger
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
[BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Andrew
> Sent: 14 July 2006 22:56
> To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] Bob Geldof (was Draft Statement)
>
>
>
>
> Ok. I've now got a couple of possible routes if people think it
might be
> a
> good idea to contact Bob Geldof.
>
> Is this an idea people think we should pursue, or not?
>
> If we do, we'd need to agree a draft of the communication to him.
>
1711
oeditor
Excellent Times article
15/07/2006 15:01:00
Homoeopathy: voodoo on the NHS
Jamie Whyte, Times, 15/7/06
Although mainly about homoeopathy, this excellent article generalises
towards the end and calls for a return to Enightenment values. I
particularly like:
"And, despite their intellectual frivolity, they also claim a right to
be taken seriously. They expect their prejudice (or “faith�, as they
prefer to call it) to be protected by limitations on free speech and
to be pandered to in tax-funded hospitals and schools.
Tony Blair is eager to oblige them. Of course, he is himself a man of
superstition. But even among more rational politicians I sense a drift
towards the idea that state services should reflect the distribution
of stupidity in the population. It is a shame. Nothing could be less
in need of government subsidy than stupidity."
Whyte is a philosopher and author from New Zealand. Could be a useful
man to know.
Brian
1712
Roger Stanyard
Re: Bob Geldof (was Draft Statement)
15/07/2006 15:11:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Wilson Alan" <Alan.Wilson@...>
wrote:
>
>
>>
> I don't disagree with any of this but I'm still not convinced he'll
take
> it up.
>
> Alan W
>
Of course. Couldn't agree with you more. The question is - what's in
it for Geldorf? I can't see anything.
However, if someone wants to put the effort in, feel free. It would
at least get us good publicity if we got him on board.
Roger
1713
Timothy Chase
Re: Open Invitation
15/07/2006 17:10:00
On 15/07/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> We have an open invitation to a barbie if anyone is interested! This
> came into my email box last week in response to my research into the
> extent of belief in ID in the UK.
>
> Dear Roger,
>
> Glad to make your aquaintance electronically.
> Best wishes to you
> Mark Toleman
TOLEMAN, DR MARK B.Sc. M.Sc (Distinction) Ph.D.
AUTHORS PAGE OF WAS DARWIN RIGHT?: Toleman, Mark
http://www.wasdarwinright.com/authors-f.htm#TOLEMAN,%20MARK
I am happily married with six children and became a Christian at
University ~ 20 years ago after being confronted with the good news of
the gospel of Jesus Christ together with the fact that I had fallen
far short of His standards. Despite almost constant text book bashing
and evolutionary brain-washing throughout my education the general
theory of evolution has always appeared to me as no more than a
fashionable belief. In the last few years I have become more
interested in looking at the details of the evidence for and against
evolution and the impact of evolutionary belief on society. I am
amazed at the wild dogmatic statements of the text books based on such
flimsy and incomplete evidence and the awful fruit that this theory
has produced in our Western society.
I am currently employed by the University of Bristol as a Research
Fellow in the Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine. I also
have tutorial and lecture teaching commitments. My main area of
expertise is the genetics of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. I have
authored or co-authored over fifty peer-reviewed publications and
presentations at major scientific meetings in this area and have
served as a reviewer for several journals. Mark had kindly contributed
the evolution of evolution article to this site.
The Evolution of Evolution
http://www.wasdarwinright.com/oldscience-f.htm#The evolution of evolution
Mentioned on:
Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/few_biologists.html
British signers of "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" - second from bottom
Bernard d'Abera, Visiting Scholar, Department of Entomology - British
Museum (Natural History)
Geoff Barnard, Senior Research Scientist, Department of Vetinary
Medicine - University of Cambridge
Mark A. Chambers, PhD Virology - University of Cambridge
Malcolm D. Chisholm, PhD Insect Ecology (MA Zoology, Oxford
University) - University of Bristol
I. Caroline Crocker, PhD Immunopharmacology - University of Southampton
Eshan Dias, PhD Chemical Engineering - King's College, Cambridge University
Alistair Donald, PhD Environmental Science - University of Wales
Martin Emery, PhD Chemistry - University of Southampton
Mike Forward, PhD Applied Mathematics (Chaos Theory) - Imperial
College, University of London
Martin Krause, Research Scientist (Astronomy) - University of Cambridge
Alan Linton, Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology - University of Bristol
Andy McIntosh, Full Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory
- University of Leeds
Stephen C. Meyer, PhD Philosophy of Science - Cambridge University
Alistair M. Noble, PhD Chemistry - University of Glasgow
Philip R. Page, PhD Theoretical Particle Physics - University of Oxford
Luke Randall, PhD Molecular Microbiology - University of London
Colin R. Reeves, Professor of Operational Research (PhD Evolutionary
Algorithums) - Coventry University
Peter Silley, PhD Microbial Biochemistry - University of Newcastle upon Tyne
Mark Toleman, PhD Molecular Microbiology - Bristol University
John Worraker, PhD Applied Mathematics, University of Bristol
1714
Timothy Chase
Re: 2nd Draft of Statement
15/07/2006 18:16:00
Looking over the statement, I have made a few suggestions. I am quite
pleased with the content and the wording, but I believe readability
will be enhanced through the use of section breaks. It has been my
experience that dividing things into sections generally makes papers a
more manageable read as it encourages the reader to pause and think
about what they have just read prior to moving on to the next section.
(Incidentally, if anyone is interested in how to do this with a
particularly long text, begin at the end, read the text backwards to
identify where the beginning of a new topic exists, title the
sections, then appropriately group the sections into titled parts.)
I have included an explanation in brackets just below suggested changes.
On 15/07/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> This is the draft as it now stands following comments (all of which I
> have used to modify it - thanks). One thing missing is a statement
> aboout criteria for becoming members of it. Alan's policy has always
> been by invitation only but that doesn't says who we want to invite.
>
> What ideas does everyone have on this?
>
> My own view is anyone but bloody fundies but that isn't exactely a
> tactful way of stating things. It seems to me that we need to get
> over that it is anyoone who is against creationism and we need to
> emphasise that it includes people with religious views and of any
> political pursuasion (except the BNP and their like). It also needs
> to make it clear that a science background is not necessary at al.
Agreed. I have made a suggest below.
> Draft Statement about the British Centre for Science Education
Opposing the Tide of Creationism in the UK:
The Formation of the British Center for Science Education
[NOTE: title of statement above]
Introduction
[NOTE: labeled section as Introduction]
> The British Centre for Science Education is a newly formed group of
> individuals which intends to act as an umbrella group to stop the
> teaching of creationism in state schools. Its primary role is to act
> as a co-ordinating group to support other groups and individuals with
> the same aim and to develop and implement activist tactics. The
> movement currently has some 50 members, resident in the UK, North
> America, Australia, South Africa and the mainland of Europe. It is
> currently open to membership, free of charge, by invitation.
>
> The group is actively building up an intelligence base of the
> structure and activities of fundamentalist organisations active in
> attempting to teach creationism in schools. This is intended for use
> by both the organisations we support, educators, local education
> authorities, local and national politicians, students intending to
> study at universities with active fundamentalist staff, businesses
> recruiting from schools and universities, professional bodies
> involved in science and the media.
>
> The individuals involved have, between them, considerable experience
> and knowledge of the creationist movement. They are mostly
> professional people. Many are experienced activists in their own
> right. Their backgrounds include science, business, theology,
> education, academia, engineering and research.
>
BSCE is an international group because the creationist
> movement itself is international, with strong connections with the
> USA and Australia. The universities being affected have strong
> international links through students, staff and research. We believe
> that the international links considerably strengthen the organisation
> in terms of both knowledge and skills.
[NOTE: modified first sentence above]
BSCE is set to launch its first campaign to raise awareness
> of the problem of creationism in education.
[NOTE: modified beginning of sentence above]
Creationist Organisations in the UK
[NOTE: titled section break above]
> The United Kingdom is faced with a highly organised, well-funded
> coalition of fundamentalist Young Earth Creationist groups including
> but not limited to Answers in Genesis, the Emmanuel Schools
> Foundation, the Christian Institute, Creation Research UK, Genesis
> Agendum, the Creation Science Movement and the Biblical Creation
> Society.
>
> This creationist movement is receiving money and assistance from
> other parts of the world including the United States, through such
> organisations and individuals as Answers in Genesis, the Institute
> for Creation Research, the Discovery Institute and the billionaire
> reclusive Howard Ahmanson, who also funds the Discovery Institute.
> The movement receives assistance and support from Australia through
> Creation Ministries International and Creation Research International.
Creationist Ideological Objectives in Education and Politics
[NOTE: titled section break above]
> The organisations are active in bringing bogus creationist science
> into the classrooms of British state schools, frequently and
> surreptitiously without the knowledge of parents or local education
> authorities. It has long established tactics for infiltration. The
> movement has taken full control of three state schools and aims to
> control many more. It has the funding to do so.
>
> The objective is to discredit all subjects taught in schools which
> contradict the fundamentalist extreme religious opinions of the
> movement. The movement is based on the strict literal interpretation
> of the bible, most notably that all science must agree with the
> opinion that the word was created 6,000-10,000 years ago and that
> there were dinosaurs on Noah's Ark. The movement is also promoting
> the existence of UFOs and alien abductions and that dinosaurs roamed
> the British countryside in Tudor times.
>
> In particular the movement is targeting the teaching of science,
> geology and geography in British schools, either directly within the
> lessons or through guest speakers and Christian Unions. Their actions
> make the teaching of these subjects ineffective with the resultant
> failure of pupils to pass their exams.
>
> The position has become so serious that two leading, prestigious,
> British universities, Leeds and Leicester, are introducing compulsory
> remedial courses to undo the damage done. The credibility of a third,
> Bristol, is being seriously damaged by the actions of one of its
> staff active in the creationist movement.
>
> Indeed, there is a core of about seven activist fundamentalists
> within British universities attempting to discredit subjects taught
> there which contradict their religious opinions. Such subjects
> include medicine, biology, genetics, microbiology, biochemistry,
> physics, astronomy, cosmology, geology, earth sciences, geophysics,
> geography, chemistry, archaeology, paleoanthropology, ancient
> history, theology and linguistics. These represent a vast area of
> higher education and research in the UK.
>
> Moreover, the movement includes extreme political objectives, one of
> which is the replacement of democracy with a theocracy based on its
> extreme religious opinions. Howard Ahmanson was, for a quarter of a
> century, on the board of the Chalcedon Foundation which advocated the
> murder of those that disagreed with its fundamentalist religion and
> the re-introduction of slavery. Ahmanson funds the Discovery
> Institute, which has a clear agenda to take political power and he
> is also deeply involved in the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies.
Creationist Tactics
[NOTE: titled section break above]
> The movement has clearly adopted techniques of evasion and deception
> about its techniques and objectives, following practices developed
> within the fundamentalist movement in the United States.
>
> In 2002 a group of 27 fundamentalists in academia, education and
> business lobbyed the then Secretary of State for Education, Estelle
> Morris, to allow the teaching of creationism in science lessons in
> state schools. In a letter to the Secretary of State, made publicly
> available, they claimed to be acting as individuals, ad hoc, and gave
> their professional positions and the names of the organisations that
> employed them, including leading universities. The letter also
> claimed that their views did not necessarily represent the
> organisations they were associated with.
>
> However, it now transpires this was far from the case. 15 of the 27
> were involved in the fundamentalist Biblical Creation Society
> including its then head and its now current head. All of the 27 were
> involved in at least one, and in many cases, more, of the main
> creationist organisations in the country. One was also closely
> involved in the Christian Institute which itself has been involved in
> and closely associated with the creationist Vardy schools. These
> organisations are involved in teaching creationism in schools and
> thus had a vested interest in its continuance. None of this was
> disclosed in the letter either to the Secretary of State or the
> public.
>
> Yet this is a major issue of public policy. The creationist movement,
> through the academy schools it is sponsoring, is likely to receive
> well over £200 million in funding from the taxpaying public, which is
> already paying for remedial education in universities as a result of
> the actions of creationists.
What You Can Do
[NOTE: titled section break above]
BCSE is open to all who wish to oppose the tide of creationism in the
United Kingdom. IF you wish to join or support our anti-creationist
movement, please
> visit our email forum and discussion group at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/blackshadow.
[NOTE: included statement regarding who is welcome, changed "It" to
If" at the beginning of "If you wish to join..."]
1715
oeditor
Re: Open Invitation
15/07/2006 19:04:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...>
wrote: (quoting Mark Toleman)
>
> Unfortunately [Erasmus Darwin's] evolutionary beleifs especially in
>spontaneous
> generation misled a whole generation of medical people. This error I
> beleive seriously delayed the realisation that infectious diseases
> were the result of bacteria--later proved by Pasteur, Lister and
> envisioned by Semmelweiss. If you have read my article you will see
> that Pasteur was a bible beleiving Christian who has probably made
> more of an impact on the science of infectious disease and human
> health than any other single individual.
In his far from orthodox book "Fabulous Science", John Walker argues
that Pasteur's experiments to disprove 'spontaneous generation' were
in fact flawed and that to some extent Pasteur was aware of it. He was
in dispute with Pouchet who had carried out some convincing
experiments which appeared to show the opposite. The dispute became
political - for which read religious - and a commission to adjudicate
was heavily stacked against Pouchet. Spontaneous generation was
regarded as synonymous with atheism, and had to go. Of course,
spontaneous generation is abiogenesis, and as Walker points out must
have occurred at least once in the universe. So although Pasteur's
germ theory was correct, in a way he was wrong.
> I agree with the Apostle John in naming Him as the one
> and only himself, Jesus the Christ.
Surely the true One and Only is Newcastle Brown ;-)
> I am a full time member of staff at Bristol university in the
> department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine. My Job Title is
> Research Fellow, I have degrees in Biochemistry, a Masters in
> Environmental Biotechnology and a PhD in Medical Microbiology. I have
> been research active for several years and have authored numerous
> papers in the field of antibiotic resistance, the most recent ones
> being last month including one in the review journal MMBR,
Which makes your espousal of religious pseudoscience all the worse.
And of course you avoid mentioning that none of these papers will have
been about "intelligent design".
>I do not know Andy
> Macintosh or Stuart Burgess personally.But, I do know that to get to
> the positions that they are in as senior professors and head of
> department (Burgess) takes an enormous amount of dedication, hard
> work and inspiration.
What's that got to do with the price of fish?
> Furthermore God is not against
> you personally-He actually likes you-"Out of 50 million sperm you
are > the one who made it!"
This, from a medical microbiologist? The soul resides in the
spermatozoon, then? Nicely misogynistic as well as ridiculous.
Brian
1716
Mikey Brass
Re: Open Invitation
15/07/2006 19:19:00
> However, from that one article it seems clear to me that Darwin came
> from a lineage of evolutionists as both his father and grandfather
> were vociferous adherents of evolution.
There were a variety of evolutionary hypotheses around at the time. As
each one was tested, the strengths and weaknesses were debated. Some
dropped by the wayside and eventually genetics and natural selection
were combined to form the modern evolutionary synthesis.
This person conflates scientific and religious thinking. Of course,
playing his game, one could point out that Erasmus Darwin was a
Christian. Ooooooppppsssssss.
> Therefore certainly in this
> respect (medical microbiology) I would say that the theories of
> evolution have had a major negative influence on the progress of
> science.
So one example from a hundred and seventy-odd years ago disproves all
that has been done in the field, based on evolutionary principles, in
the interim time? Diversion indeed... More like a prime example of
someone stepping into a deep pool.
> It sadens me that the groups that you are involved with are intent on
> name throwing and defamation of character
As yes, the classic diversionary tactic.
1717
oeditor
Re: Open Invitation
15/07/2006 19:11:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase" <timothychase@...>
wrote: (quoting Mark Toleman)
> In the last few years I have become more
> interested in looking at the details of the evidence for and against
> evolution and the impact of evolutionary belief on society....and
>the awful fruit that this theory > has produced in our Western >society.
This man is clearly in favour of a theocracy. It IS politics :-((
Brian
1718
Roger Stanyard
Re: Open Invitation
15/07/2006 19:25:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase"
<timothychase@...> wrote:
>
> > TOLEMAN, DR MARK B.Sc. M.Sc (Distinction) Ph.D.
> AUTHORS PAGE OF WAS DARWIN RIGHT?: Toleman, Mark
> http://www.wasdarwinright.com/authors-f.htm#TOLEMAN,%20MARK
> I am happily married with six children and became a Christian at
> University ~ 20 years ago after being confronted with the good news
of
> the gospel of Jesus Christ together with the fact that I had fallen
> far short of His standards.
I think we have a hard line fundie here. Thw worrying bit is that
Bristol University is looking increasingly to be a centre for
academic fundies in the UK.
It's late in the day so I can't do it now but I think I need to put
together a list of the IDers and YECers at Bristol. I expect its
going to total about five academic staff.
Roger
Despite almost constant text book bashing
> and evolutionary brain-washing throughout my education the general
> theory of evolution has always appeared to me as no more than a
> fashionable belief. In the last few years I have become more
> interested in looking at the details of the evidence for and against
> evolution and the impact of evolutionary belief on society. I am
> amazed at the wild dogmatic statements of the text books based on
such
> flimsy and incomplete evidence and the awful fruit that this theory
> has produced in our Western society.
>
> I am currently employed by the University of Bristol as a Research
> Fellow in the Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine. I also
> have tutorial and lecture teaching commitments. My main area of
> expertise is the genetics of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. I
have
> authored or co-authored over fifty peer-reviewed publications and
> presentations at major scientific meetings in this area and have
> served as a reviewer for several journals. Mark had kindly
contributed
> the evolution of evolution article to this site.
>
> The Evolution of Evolution
> http://www.wasdarwinright.com/oldscience-f.htm#The evolution of
evolution
>
> Mentioned on:
> Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition
> http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/few_biologists.html
>
> British signers of "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" - second
from bottom
>
> Bernard d'Abera, Visiting Scholar, Department of Entomology -
British
> Museum (Natural History)
> Geoff Barnard, Senior Research Scientist, Department of Vetinary
> Medicine - University of Cambridge
> Mark A. Chambers, PhD Virology - University of Cambridge
> Malcolm D. Chisholm, PhD Insect Ecology (MA Zoology, Oxford
> University) - University of Bristol
> I. Caroline Crocker, PhD Immunopharmacology - University of
Southampton
> Eshan Dias, PhD Chemical Engineering - King's College, Cambridge
University
> Alistair Donald, PhD Environmental Science - University of Wales
> Martin Emery, PhD Chemistry - University of Southampton
> Mike Forward, PhD Applied Mathematics (Chaos Theory) - Imperial
> College, University of London
> Martin Krause, Research Scientist (Astronomy) - University of
Cambridge
> Alan Linton, Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology - University of
Bristol
> Andy McIntosh, Full Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion
Theory
> - University of Leeds
> Stephen C. Meyer, PhD Philosophy of Science - Cambridge University
> Alistair M. Noble, PhD Chemistry - University of Glasgow
> Philip R. Page, PhD Theoretical Particle Physics - University of
Oxford
> Luke Randall, PhD Molecular Microbiology - University of London
> Colin R. Reeves, Professor of Operational Research (PhD Evolutionary
> Algorithums) - Coventry University
> Peter Silley, PhD Microbial Biochemistry - University of Newcastle
upon Tyne
> Mark Toleman, PhD Molecular Microbiology - Bristol University
> John Worraker, PhD Applied Mathematics, University of Bristol
>
1719
Roger Stanyard
Re: 2nd Draft of Statement
15/07/2006 19:17:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase" <timothychase@...>
wrote:
>
> Looking over the statement, I have made a few suggestions. I am quite
> pleased with the content and the wording, but I believe readability
> will be enhanced through the use of section breaks. It has been my
> experience that dividing things into sections generally makes papers a
> more manageable read as it encourages the reader to pause and think
> about what they have just read prior to moving on to the next section.
Spot on Tim. I'll modify the document accordingly and repost it late
tomorrow; that gives time for everybody else to make comments.
BTW we have just got our 50th member, Peter Abel from Southport. -
Welcome Peter. Peter is a biomedical scientist working in the National
Health Service and who also lectures in universities. Like the rest of
us he is concerned about the creeping stranglehold of creationism.
Southport is near Liverpool!
Roger
1720
ukantic
Re: Not for publication.
15/07/2006 20:31:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Sir,
> >
> > your article by Antony McClean exposes...
>
>
> I think it much better to use the term student (or even pupil) than
> child. A lot of them there are old enough to fight for their country,
> marry and so on.
The term student tends to conjure up an image of someone who is 16
years or older; possibly studying for A levels or a degree, etc.
However, the Vardy Foundation are processing them from the age of 11,
so I feel from a purely factual viewpoint it is better to describe
them as children.
The Vardy Foundation are indoctrinating impressionable children –
other people's children with their fundamentalists beliefs. That is
what is happening & that is how it should be described (in my opinion).
I think we need to attract more students and ex-
> students from the Vardy schools.
Agreed – perhaps we should start deprogramming courses for the worst
affected.
> We struck lucky with Stefan who is clearly a bloke with his head
> screwed on the right way (as McQuoid knows). Stefan - can you get
> some of them to join us?
Especially if they believe in young earth creationism, it would be
interesting to speak to some of the victims.
Alan
1721
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Not for publication.
15/07/2006 21:08:00
ukantic wrote:
> The term student tends to conjure up an image of someone who is 16
> years or older; possibly studying for A levels or a degree, etc.
> However, the Vardy Foundation are processing them from the age of 11,
> so I feel from a purely factual viewpoint it is better to describe
> them as children.
"Student" and "pupil" is used for all age levels at school (note to
North Americans: the term "school" excludes universities) in South
Africa. I do not subscribe to the view in parts of Europe that there is
a starting point within schools for "student". I agree with Roger.
"Children" is patronising (apologies to who find the frankness
disturbing but I am not intending any of this to be personal).
My personal view is that if I was writing a report on education, I would
use "pupil" for schools and "student" for universities. I most certainly
would avoid "children".
1722
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Open Invitation
15/07/2006 21:44:00
On 15/07/06, oeditor <b-jordan@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase" <timothychase@...>
> wrote: (quoting Mark Toleman)
>
> > In the last few years I have become more
> > interested in looking at the details of the evidence for and against
>
> > evolution and the impact of evolutionary belief on society....and
>
> >the awful fruit that this theory > has produced in our Western >society.
>
> This man is clearly in favour of a theocracy. It IS politics :-((
I hadn't caught this - other than to chalk it up to pragmatic view of
what should be regarded as science based upon its affects upon
society. Clearly fallacious: appeal to the consequences.
Apparently he believes that with regard to the pursuit of knowledge by
other scientists and the freedom of thought enjoyed by all members of
society, his own religious views and those of others who believe as he
does should be the overriding concern. Or as you put it with far
greater brevity, "This man is clearly in favor of a theocracy."
I will try and catch that from now on. It is a very common argument
among creationists and the point you make puts it in the right
context.
1723
oeditor
Re: Lines on the Arrest of Dr Dino
15/07/2006 22:13:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@> wrote:
> >
> > Lines on the Arrest of Dr Kent Hovind
> >
> Excellent news, Roger - and hot off the press.
Meanwhile, Ken Ham takes up the running, with a new quarterly magazine
'Answers'. The next edition "includes pieces about camels, the star of
Bethlehem, whether leaves die and global warming."
I can't wait - my mind is boggling too much!
http://www.wcpo.com/news/2006/local/07/15/creationism.html
Brian
1724
ukantic
Re: Not for publication.
15/07/2006 22:32:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...> wrote:
>
> ukantic wrote:
>
> > The term student tends to conjure up an image of someone who is 16
> > years or older; possibly studying for A levels or a degree, etc.
> > However, the Vardy Foundation are processing them from the age of 11,
> > so I feel from a purely factual viewpoint it is better to describe
> > them as children.
>
> "Student" and "pupil" is used for all age levels at school (note to
> North Americans: the term "school" excludes universities) in South
> Africa. I do not subscribe to the view in parts of Europe that there is
> a starting point within schools for "student". I agree with Roger.
> "Children" is patronising (apologies to who find the frankness
> disturbing but I am not intending any of this to be personal).
Well I would ban you, but I handed over full ownership of the group to
Roger the other day, so I am just another minion now. (-:
> My personal view is that if I was writing a report on education, I
would
> use "pupil" for schools and "student" for universities. I most
certainly
> would avoid "children".
>
Looking back over Marc's reply, I must agree that it would have been
better to have used the term pupil or student in the context of a
school & obviously in any official reply this would be appropriate.
However we are also in the business of communicating a message which
is that fundamentalists are targeting children. In that sense it is
always worth weighing up what is technically correct against what will
make the most impact.
Alan.
1725
John Germain
RE: Re: Not for publication.
16/07/2006 01:27:00
Both Pupil and Student could be qualified by "younger" or "older"..
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Mikey
Brass
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 9:09 PM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] Re: Not for publication.
ukantic wrote:
> The term student tends to conjure up an image of someone who is 16
> years or older; possibly studying for A levels or a degree, etc.
> However, the Vardy Foundation are processing them from the age of 11,
> so I feel from a purely factual viewpoint it is better to describe
> them as children.
"Student" and "pupil" is used for all age levels at school (note to
North Americans: the term "school" excludes universities) in South
Africa. I do not subscribe to the view in parts of Europe that there is
a starting point within schools for "student". I agree with Roger.
"Children" is patronising (apologies to who find the frankness
disturbing but I am not intending any of this to be personal).
My personal view is that if I was writing a report on education, I would
use "pupil" for schools and "student" for universities. I most certainly
would avoid "children".
Yahoo! Groups Links
1726
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Not for publication.
16/07/2006 01:40:00
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...>
> wrote: >
>
> I forgot to add that there is one area where we can't assume that the
> media is onside and that is the religious TV channels. My working
> assumption is that these services are very influential amongst fundies
> and the people they are trying to convert.
>
They preach to the converted. They're not worth worrying about, or
bothering with. (shrug)
===================================
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
1727
Lenny Flank
Re: Open Invitation
16/07/2006 01:37:00
> Yes I am in agreement with the discovery statement that an
> intelligent designer was involved in the design of all life on earth
> and would also agree with the Apostle John in naming Him as the one
> and only himself, Jesus the Christ.
>
But ID doesn't have anything to do with religion. No sirree Bob.
It's just them lying atheist darwinists who say it does.
I love IDers. Really, I do. Every time they open their mouth, they
shoot themselves in the head.
At least now we know why this dolt didn't testify at Dover.
(snicker) (giggle)
===================================
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
1728
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Lines on the Arrest of Dr Dino
16/07/2006 01:39:00
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote: >
> > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@> wrote:
> > > > > Lines on the Arrest of Dr Kent Hovind > > > Excellent news,
> Roger - and hot off the press.
>
> Meanwhile, Ken Ham takes up the running, with a new quarterly magazine
> 'Answers'. The next edition "includes pieces about camels, the star of
> Bethlehem, whether leaves die and global warming."
>
> I can't wait - my mind is boggling too much!
>
Heck, this is the first time in two decades that anyone has taken any
of these crackpots seriously.
They must ALL be about to cum in their pants.
===================================
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
1729
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Not for publication.
16/07/2006 01:43:00
> I dunno what the position is in the USA but I guess that virtually all
> of the UK media, in private, thinks the fundies in the UK are raving
> bonkers. The media is on-side already.
>
Alas, though, the media can only report on things that happen and
things they are told about.
Right now, it's just the FUNDIES who are doing things to report and
telling the press about it. So it's just THEIR side that the media
is reporting on.
We need to change that.
ASAP.
===================================
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
1730
Timothy Chase
Re: Open Invitation
16/07/2006 02:16:00
On 15/07/06, Lenny Flank <lflank@ij.net> wrote:
>
> > Yes I am in agreement with the discovery statement that an
> > intelligent designer was involved in the design of all life on earth
> > and would also agree with the Apostle John in naming Him as the one
> > and only himself, Jesus the Christ.
>
> But ID doesn't have anything to do with religion. No sirree Bob.
> It's just them lying atheist darwinists who say it does.
>
> I love IDers. Really, I do. Every time they open their mouth, they
> shoot themselves in the head.
>
> At least now we know why this dolt didn't testify at Dover.
>
> (snicker) (giggle)
The scary thing is, this guy is one of the few biologists they
actually have on their side - and he is a microbiologist to boot, but
at this point he is sounding like Wells. If I were ever to meet him,
I would be worried about his breaking into song about Reverend Father
at any moment!
I guess it sometimes is "piled higher and deeper."
But for most fundies, intelligent design is just a little too
abstract: "we don't care what you worship, just insert it here." Now
how is this going to help someone who claims that there god is the
only true god - other than to get rid of a secular society in order to
make way for a religious war? Fundies really don't have the patience
for that sort of thing any more than they want to put off preaching:
why hold hands with fundamentalists of other religions or sects - even
for the sake of public appearance - when you can just let them know
how you truly feel?
1731
Marc Draco
Re: Bob Geldof (was Draft Statement)
16/07/2006 10:11:00
bgcolor="#ffffff"
We can't assume anything. Geldof might be Irish, but he's helping
Africa. He may also want to do something about sectarian education in
the world.
What we need is a source of funds and an influential person to head it
up. Why stop at Geldof? Get one on board and the rest will follow. Poly
Toynbee for example. I think Richard Dawkins would be a bad idea as
he's too obviously anti-Theism.
In any case, I would like to use some Boomtown Rats music in something
I have planned. ;-)
If you don't ask, you don't give someone the chance to say YES! You
have to think positive. It's negative thinking that's allowed us to get
into this state in the first place.
Wilson Alan wrote:
->
Although I
admire Bob Geldof greatly I am
not convinced that he would want to represent our group since he is
Irish and
not British and therefore would probably have little influence on the
domestic educational
scene.
Alan W
----
'From:'
BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] 'On Behalf Of 'Andrew
'Sent:' 14 July 2006
22:56
'To:'
BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
'Subject:' Re:
[BlackShadow] Bob
Geldof (was Draft Statement)
Ok. I've now got a couple of possible routes if people think it might
be a
good idea to contact Bob Geldof.
Is this an idea people think we should pursue, or not?
If we do, we'd need to agree a draft of the communication to him.
1732
Marc Draco
Re: Not for publication.
16/07/2006 10:22:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
> >>
> > The truth of the Vardy Foundation schools (and the King's Academy in
> > particular) is rather different the one-sided view your writer
> > reported.
> >
>
>
> Um, just a little hint --- we want the press to be on OUR side.
>
> They are not the enemy. Don't treat them like they are.
Lenny,for once, this is wrong (I assume this is because you live ina
much larger country). The local press are potentially the enemy.
This particular company is publishing Vardy's spin and not both sides
of the story. ONLY Vardy's spin. All the local papers near King's are
doing the same. He's an influential millionaire with connections all
over the North. They are scared shitless of annoying him. I suspect
they directors play golf with him or belong to the same clubs. The
reporting is just too one-sided.
The NATIONAL press are not scared; and we do have them on our side.
One should never assume that a local paper has any sway over what our
nationals say.This is something worth looking at.
In this one issue we had a report from King's Academy - ALL +ve for
Vardy *and* another piece with David Vardy using the "Yacht in the
South of France" straw man again.
£2M would buy peter a £2M Yacht. It would not buy him a £25M school
and all the future running costs; a fact the paper neglects to mention.
1733
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Not for publication.
16/07/2006 10:24:00
ukantic wrote:
> However we are also in the business of communicating a message which
> is that fundamentalists are targeting children. In that sense it is
> always worth weighing up what is technically correct against what will
> make the most impact.
Except what quicker way to annoy almost teenagers and young teenagers
(who do have influence with their parents as they would report back some
of the stuff going on in the school) than by calling them children?
Everyone knows what "pupil" refers to and it is a neutral term.
The more "hearts and minds" language needed to grab attention can be
used elsewhere in the sentences:-)
1734
Mikey Brass
Re: Bob Geldof (was Draft Statement)
16/07/2006 10:26:00
I would *much* rather have Bono than Geldof, if there was ever a poll. I
lost any respect I had for Geldof over the last Live Aid concerts.
1735
Marc Draco
Re: Not for publication.
16/07/2006 10:27:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
> > I dunno what the position is in the USA but I guess that virtually all
> > of the UK media, in private, thinks the fundies in the UK are raving
> > bonkers. The media is on-side already.
> >
>
>
>
> Alas, though, the media can only report on things that happen and
> things they are told about.
>
> Right now, it's just the FUNDIES who are doing things to report and
> telling the press about it. So it's just THEIR side that the media
> is reporting on.
>
> We need to change that.
>
> ASAP.
I have the dubious honour (I think) of being the only former journo in
this group and I can tell you it doesn't work like that.
Lenny, you know it's about money. Money is king. Money is God.
As a journo I wasn't given a lot of leeway to write what I wanted
about who I wanted (even within a strict legal framework.) I was
called to see the editor on a number of occasions for criticising our
advertiser's products. So often that in fact, I had to leave the whole
messy business behind.
Much the same thing will happen if Vardy has connections to the
paper's board (or owner). No journalist in his/her right mind would
dare to contradict Vardy if they value their job.
Worse, Vardy has direct connections to the Prime minister, Tony Blair.
Now that's dangerous.
1736
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Not for publication.
16/07/2006 10:36:00
Marc Draco wrote:
> I have the dubious honour (I think) of being the only former journo in
> this group
I'm engaged to a former journo:-)
> No journalist in his/her right mind would
> dare to contradict Vardy if they value their job.
Which speaks volumes for the working environment is a journalist cannot
voice legitimate disagreements in conversation with the editor.
> Worse, Vardy has direct connections to the Prime minister, Tony Blair.
> Now that's dangerous.
Exceedingly, although Blair's authority is on the decline. The
longer-term question is, "What connections does Vardy have with both
Gordon Brown and David Cameroon?"
1737
Wilson Alan
RE: 2nd Draft of Statement
16/07/2006 11:18:00
bgcolor="white"
----
'From:'
BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] 'On Behalf Of 'Roger Stanyard
'Sent:' 15 July 2006 12:36
'To:' BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
'Subject:' [BlackShadow] 2nd Draft
of Statement
This is the draft as it now stands following comments
(all of which I
have used to modify it - thanks). One thing missing is a statement
aboout criteria for becoming members of it. Alan's policy has always
been by invitation only but that doesn't says who we want to invite.
What ideas does everyone have on this?
Roger,
We could make it clear
that although we are not opposed to religious views in general, we are opposed
to views, religious or otherwise, that contradict reason or science and the scientific
method
I have also re-drafted the Draft Statement
to try to tidy it up and shorten it a little but feel free to discard it or modify
it as you see fit:
Draft Statement about the British Centre for Science
Education
The British Centre for Science Education (BCSE) is a new international group of
individuals formed to act as an umbrella organisation with the primary purpose
of stopping the teaching of creationism in UK state schools. Our main role will
be to act as a co-ordinating group to support other groups and individuals who
share our purpose and to develop and implement activist tactics to achieve our
purpose.
The BCSE has about 50 international members, resident
in the UK, North America, Australia, South
Africa and the mainland of Europe.
We are mostly professional people who also have considerable experience and
knowledge of the creationist movement. Many of us are already active in
opposing creationism elsewhere in the world, including the United States. Our backgrounds
include science, business, theology, education, academia, engineering, IT and
research. Our group is currently open to membership by invitation and free of
charge.
We are building up a data base of the structure and activities of
fundamentalist organisations that are active in teaching creationism in UK schools,
which will be available for use by the organisations we support. It will also
be made available to: teachers and other educators; local education authorities;
local and national politicians; students at universities with active
fundamentalist staff; businesses
recruiting from schools and universities; trade unions and other professional
bodies involved in science and education and; the media.
This statement is the first in our campaign to raise awareness of the problem
of creationism in education because the United Kingdom is faced with a
highly organised, well-funded coalition of fundamentalist Young Earth
Creationist groups. These include, but are not limited to: Answers in Genesis;
the Emmanuel Schools
Foundation; the Christian Institute; Creation Research UK; Genesis Agendum; the
Creation Science Movement and; the Biblical Creation Society.
The creationist movement receives money and assistance from other parts of the
world including Australia,
through Creation Ministries International and Creation Research International,
and the United States,
through such organisations and individuals as Answers in Genesis; the Institute
for Creation Research; the Discovery Institute and; Howard Ahmanson, the American
billionaire recluse who also funds the Discovery Institute.
These organisations have long established tactics for infiltration and are
active in bringing bogus creationist science into the classrooms of British
state schools, frequently without the knowledge of parents or local education
authorities. The movement has already taken full control of three state schools
and has the funding and intentions to control many more.
They actively discredit or subvert the teaching of all subjects taught in
schools that contradict their extreme fundamentalist religious opinions, which
are based on strictly literal biblical interpretations. Most notably they state
that all of science is wrong because it does not agree with their dogma that
the world was created 6,000-10,000 year
