1751
Roger Stanyard
Re: Not for publication.
16/07/2006 16:21:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Rudy Vonk <rudy@...> wrote:
>
>
> If I am not mistaken, Ruth Kelly is still there? She is self-
confessed
> Opus Dei, but that lot is definitely not creationist.
Alas, Kelly was, in May, appointed Secretary of State for Communities
and Local Government. The Minister now in charge of education is Alan
Johnson.
Roger
1752
Roger Stanyard
Re: Quotations
16/07/2006 16:55:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Marc Draco" <midnight.diamond@...>
wrote:
>
Marc,
Looking again, I'm not sure what the question is? Do you mean within
the Vardy schools and foundation or Reg Vardy PLC?
If the former, how abou something from this which was in the Guardian
in 2003: Emmanuel's head of science, Stephen Layfield, urged colleagues
to "show the superiority" of creationist beliefs in one lecture, and
Gary Wiecek, who will be vice-principal of the King's Academy, said in
a talk: "It must be our duty as Christian teachers to counter these
false doctrines [anti-creationist arguments] with well-founded
insights."
See http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,945524,00.html
Here's Layfield again in the paper pulled by the Christian
Institute: "Note every occasion when an evolutionary/old-earth paradigm
(millions or billions of years) is explicitly mentioned or implied by a
text-book, examination question or visitor and courteously point out
the fallibility of the statement. Wherever possible, we must give the
alternative (always better) Biblical explanation of the same data."
Roger
1753
oeditor
Re: Quotations
16/07/2006 18:25:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Marc Draco"
<midnight.diamond@...> wrote:
>
> I'm looking for some well publicised (and reliable) quotations from
> well-known figures in the Vardy group
There's this one (on cretinism) also from 1998 which I haven't seen
before:
http://www.amen.org.uk/cl-north/98_sept.htm
...if he was a physics ....physics!!!???...teacher from Bradford at
the time.
Brian
1754
Marc Draco
Re: Quotations
16/07/2006 18:31:00
Hallo Roger. Being a sunny day here, I've been invited to get drunk
with the neighbour... so I have downed a couple of cans and my email
is still off.
OK. Quotations. Yes. Christian Institute are fair game (and excellent)
Vardy himself, McQuoid, Layfield, etc. You get the idea.
If you want to know what I'm up to, you'll have to email me off list -
or ask Peter H. This is a semi-secret project right now and I would
like to get it ready for prime-time before revealing it.
I've taken a lot of what Lenny and others have said on board, bitten
the bullet and am drawing a line between Christians (other normal,
everyday theists) and the outright loons.
I will leave it to others to judge if I get the balance right: but
this project has the potential to raise public awareness very quickly.
1755
oeditor
On p/r/os/...er, Publicity
16/07/2006 19:16:00
Following my find of Layfield's lecture in Bradford, I came across a
couple of things recommending methods of prosyletising.
I think we could well take note - they include things similar to
suggestions for campaigning already made here. It also gives a peep
into their methods. I'm trying to work out which schools are involved
- could one described in the first article be Bluecoat? - but the web
was a lot smaller in 1998.
http://www.amen.org.uk/cl-north/99_feb.htm
http://www.amen.org.uk/actconf/recractv.htm
Both involve Peter Smith, then head of science in "a Christian school"
somewhere near Leeds.
I've also come across what looks like the original Layfield
instructions on "Getting the message into schools", rather than the
Guardian quote:
http://www.amen.org.uk/actconf/schoolms.htm
And religious ranting by Andy MacIntosh (then a mere Dr. ...evidently
cretinism didn't come with his chair at Leeds)
http://www.amen.org.uk/actconf/minevang.htm which ends with:
"The serious implications in belief and practice A non-literal belief
in Genesis implies:
No difference between men and the animals
Conflict in many OT & NT passages.
No absolutes in Marriage.
No absolutes on clothing. [***note this***]
No absolutes on the individual before his Maker.
Evolution - the endless discarding of the individual, whereas Creation
implies the individual is important and responsible to God his Creator."
Hmmm, maybe he wants to shut down the Leeds-originated Marks & Spencer
for selling poly-cotton clothes.
The last two come from http://www.amen.org.uk/actconf/ - a rich pasture.
Also a note on Layfield's origins:
Layfield, Steve (Phys/Mus): Head of Science at St. Bede's Grammar
School, Bradford. He is also Chairman of the Bradford Creation Science
Group. (list of Keele alumni,
http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/uso/alumni/wht/1999/wht9980.htm
(I'm told St. Bede's is/was an RC Direct Grant school)
Finally (this is getting too messy) an article on the dumbing-down of
Geology, which also mentions an Instute of Biology anti-creationism
recommendation in 2002 - I hadn't heard of that one.
http://www.horne28.freeserve.co.uk/dumb.htm
Brian
Brian
1756
oeditor
Another cretinist idea
16/07/2006 19:29:00
A free CD Encyclopaedia of Cretinism - all the answers in one place.
Did anything come of it?
Could it be a good idea but before its time - should it evolve into an
anti-cretinist source? Or has the web dislaced it?
http://www.amen.org.uk/actconf/microped.htm
Brian
1757
Andrew
Re: On p/r/os/...er, Publicity
16/07/2006 19:22:00
----- Original Message -----
From: oeditor
> Hmmm, maybe he wants to shut down the Leeds-originated Marks & Spencer
> for selling poly-cotton clothes.
:D You never know. I seem to recall the Torah saying you should only wear
clothes of one colour (this was after Joseph). Can't remember the exact
reference, though I could find it if Marks or Top Shop or whoever start to
get worried about what a theocracy would mean for them.
1758
MB
Re: On p/r/os/...er, Publicity
16/07/2006 19:54:00
Brian writes:
>
> Finally (this is getting too messy) an article on the dumbing-down of
> Geology, which also mentions an Instute of Biology anti-creationism
> recommendation in 2002 - I hadn't heard of that one.
>
> http://www.horne28.freeserve.co.uk/dumb.htm
>
Thanks for this URL. It was a fascinating article and I enjoyed it a great deal!
I
have forwarded the URL to several other folks who I think would find it
interesting
also, even though we are in the US.
The earlier part of that page, critique of the various museums, is sorta what I
was
suggesting on Debunk when we were discussing "digs" that were available for
regular
folks to see and/or be part of, especially children - to fire them with the
fascination of science.
Regards,
MB
1759
Timothy Chase
Re: Another cretinist idea
16/07/2006 20:21:00
On 16/07/06, oeditor <b-jordan@lineone.net> wrote:
> A free CD Encyclopaedia of Cretinism - all the answers in one place.
> Did anything come of it?
> Could it be a good idea but before its time - should it evolve into an
> anti-cretinist source? Or has the web dislaced it?
> http://www.amen.org.uk/actconf/microped.htm
I do not know whether there is a specifically British cretinist
encyclopedia. However, while there are different strains of
cretinism, I believe there is considerable recombination and
reassortment, much like eighteen different strains of influenza in the
same long-distance migratory waterfoul.
As such, the following websites are probably not that much different
from anything you might find in the UK:
CreationWiki
http://www.creationwiki.net
Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia
An astounding amount of scientific evidence disproving evolutionary
theory has been uncovered. Here is part of that evidence.
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/index.htm
We could add to this list later.
Nevertheless, I believe it is good to keep in mind the point that to
debate creationism on scientific grounds typically lend credence to
its claim that the positions of creationists are a matter of
scientific debate. Cretinists do not need to win a debate: they only
require the appearance of a draw in order to "win."
1760
Marc Draco
Re: Re: Not for publication.
16/07/2006 21:27:00
bgcolor="#ffffff"
Someone mention a demo? Hell's teeth, Yahoo gets on my boobies.
We're represented at the Blyth meeting next week hopefully wearing
(modified) NoToAcademy tee-shirts and there's a good possibility we'll
get invited to campaign then. If everyone (Peter H. included) agrees, I
can tack this group's URL onto the flyer... or perhaps, a link to a
similar site: NOT - repeat NOT talkorigins. These are gentle,
tabloid-reading northern folk, not degree-holding scientists. They
aren't stupid by any means, but throwing a lot of big words and long
explanations at them won't help either.
Yes, Roger, the group SHOULD refute the bullshit in the Blyth &
Wansbeck paper, my Yahoo email is arriving in bits (when it does) so I
can't really contribute directly but I'll happily add my name to it. I
rather doubt they will publish it - the first article opens with a
straw man argument about children carrying bibles in school and refutes
it easily (such is the nature of straw man) but I rather doubt anyone
who would allow that to pass would publish a decent refutation.
Marc
Lenny Flank wrote:
->
>> 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
1761
Roger Stanyard
Re: Quotations
16/07/2006 21:35:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Marc Draco" <midnight.diamond@...>
wrote:
>
> Hallo Roger. Being a sunny day here, I've been invited to get drunk
> with the neighbour... so I have downed a couple of cans and my email
> is still off.
>
I'll be back to you on this. I've just got drunk with my neighbours.
1762
George Jelliss
Re: Cretinistas in Norfolk
16/07/2006 21:53:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> In the July 'Freethinker', Barry Duke reports that evangelicals in
> Kings Lynn are handing out anti-atheist pamphlets which cite the
> banana as evidence of intelligent design. If they're getting as
bold
> as that, it wouldn't be surprising if they're worming their way
into
> schools, a la Liverpool. Unless the YECers are already there and
> fending them off, of course ;-)
>
> Anyone got news of those parts?
>
> Brian
>
According to the QI Quiz in The Sunday Review in the Independent
today, bananas as we know them were designed mainly by intelligent
human plant breeders!
"Wild bananas, which can still be found in South-East Asia, contain
large stony seeds but little flesh and are pollinated by bats. The
banana in your local supermarket is a cultivated variety, chosen by
farmers for its fleshy pulp and lack of seeds. Domestication has
produced plants that are sweet and tasty, but sterile: they canot
reproduce without human help. Almost every banana we eat has been
propagated by hand, from a sucker of an existing plant, whose
genetic material has not changed in 100 centuries. As a result
bananas are extremely prone to disease."
1763
Roger Stanyard
Re: Cretinistas in Norfolk
16/07/2006 22:07:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "George Jelliss" <gpjnow@...> wrote:
>
I've just checked and, indeed, bannas are triploid polyploidal. Do the
idiots in Kings Lynn understand the implications?
Roger
> "Wild bananas, which can still be found in South-East Asia, contain
> large stony seeds but little flesh and are pollinated by bats. The
> banana in your local supermarket is a cultivated variety, chosen by
> farmers for its fleshy pulp and lack of seeds. Domestication has
> produced plants that are sweet and tasty, but sterile: they canot
> reproduce without human help. Almost every banana we eat has been
> propagated by hand, from a sucker of an existing plant, whose
> genetic material has not changed in 100 centuries. As a result
> bananas are extremely prone to disease."
>
1764
Timothy Chase
Re: 2nd Draft of Statement
17/07/2006 00:01:00
On 16/07/06, Andrew <taoist.hermit1@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Wilson Alan
>
> > 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 agree. I think this is very important. People see attacks on religion as
> intolerant, even if they're not particularly reigioous themselves....
Different Views
Introduction
In what follows, I intend to explain my own personal perspective on
the relationship between philosophy and religion on the one hand and
science and the other. But then I also wish to explain why I think
this view cannot be adopted by BCSE, what I see as the best
alternative, and then what implications this has in terms of specific
strategy.
My Views in Relation to the Scientific Method
My own personal perspective is a kind of variation on that of Karl
Popper. I believe that there exist different domains to human
knowledge which employ different methodologies. Empirical science is
largely based upon some form of the hypothetico-deductive model, and
scientists properly aim for the ideal of making their theories
falsifiable. However, perhaps in contrast to Popper, I also believe
that there exists an interdependence between various aspects of
empirical science, and that ultimately all branches of empirical
science form a unity.
One point I and Popper (as well as Hume and Kant) would agree upon is
that one cannot test fundamental ethical statements. They are not
subject to empirical falsification or validation. As such, I am of
the view that there exists a complementarity between either philosophy
or religion on the one hand and empirical science on the other.
Likewise, I personally advocate a kind of pluralism in relation to
worldviews and an individual's ability to shift between different and
possibly complementary frameworks depending upon the specific problem
at hand.
In my view, if there is any conflict between religion, philosophy and
empirical science, then it is not between religion and empirical
science, but between religion and philosophy. But a conflict between
these two isn't the sort of thing which is likely to undermine modern
society. Creating the appearance of a conflict between religion and
empirical science simply serves to make empirical science vulnerable
to attack by religious fundamentalists and makes it easier for them to
recruit the religious who might otherwise hold more moderate views.
A Different View
However, my perspective is not necessarily that common in the UK.
There are intellectuals who embrace a form of scientism, and,
recognizing that at some level, all human knowledge forms a unitary
whole, honestly believe that the methodology of science can be applied
to all aspects of human existence, and moreover, they believe that so
long as religious belief exists, it has the potential for turning into
a form of religious fundamentalism. Moreover, they view tolerance for
religion as a form of tolerance for irrationalism as such, and believe
that such tolerance at least potentially invites the more destructive
aspects of religion. I disagree, but I believe that this particular
point is a matter for debate at another time and most likely a
different forum.
The Position of the BCSE
In some ways I believe we have already dealt with this, but I would
like to highlight what I believe must be the central point for the
BCSE. We are opposed to creationism, we recognize that evolutionary
biology is well-established science, and we acknowledge that evolution
is a fact. Moreover, we believe that even if people disagree upon
other points, it is possible for them to agree upon this, and as a
consequence of this agreement, to work together, oppose and ultimately
defeat creationism. Such a standpoint needn't embrace the view that
religion and science are compatible or incompatible. It simply
embraces the genuine possibility of cooperation between people who
hold different views, but agree upon certain basic points which
provide the basis for working together.
The Implications for Strategy
I do not think that as a group we can properly advocate the
complementarity of religion and empirical science. I do not think
that the BCSE can attempt to form an organisation which embraces such
a view. If we did either, we would risk alienating those who believe
that ultimately no such complementarity is possible, and these may
include intellectuals who could make good allies.
But I do believe that those individuals in BCSE who believe that such
a complementarity exists may acknowledge their views as their own
personal views. Moreover, I believe that BCSE itself may acknowledge
the fact there exist different views among those who are part of the
alliance.
Likewise, I believe that individuals within the organisation may, on
their own time, help to form such an organisation, and once it exists,
whether it embraces religion or simply complementarity, it can and
should become one of the independent member organisations of BCSE.
Once this happens, it should enjoy the same support given to other
member organisations.
In Conclusion
Some of what I have said may or may not be controversial. I realise
there may be some need for discussion. Furthermore, I am quite
willing to consider other views. However, as I see it, the policy
which I am suggesting is both proper and fair.
1765
Joe Cooper
Who is this guy?
17/07/2006 00:24:00
Dr. John Sanford, who will present the July 17 lecture, is the primary
inventor of the gene gun process. His research has been used to engineer
most of the world's transgenic crops.
http://www.djournal.com/pages/story.asp?ID=224002&pub=1&div=Lifestyles
"My talk will be for non-specialists," Sanford said. "I will show that
evolutionary theory - mutation plus natural selection equals evolution -
can be conclusively shown to be false."
1766
oeditor
Re: 2nd Draft of Statement
17/07/2006 00:53:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase" <timothychase@...>
wrote:
>
> On 16/07/06, Andrew <taoist.hermit1@...> wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Wilson Alan
> >
> > > 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 agree. I think this is very important. People see attacks on
religion as > > intolerant, even if they're not particularly reigioous
>themselves....
>
> Different Views
>
> Introduction
>
> In what follows, I intend to explain my own personal perspective on
> the relationship between philosophy and religion on the one hand and
> science and the other. But then I also wish to explain why I think
> this view cannot be adopted by BCSE, what I see as the best
> alternative, and then what implications this has in terms of specific
> strategy.
>
Bugger strategy. Theists are the deluded victims of centuries of
conspiracy. There is no evidence, whatsoever, of the existence of any
kind of supernatural creature and so no reason to debate the putative
origin or nature of such. I'm growing weary, very weary. Better that I
go to bed or I'll be calling for their heads next.
Brian
Brian
1767
oeditor
Re: Who is this guy?
17/07/2006 01:15:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Joe Cooper <joe0727@...> wrote:
>
> Dr. John Sanford, who will present the July 17 lecture, is the primary
> inventor of the gene gun process. His research has been used to
engineer
> most of the world's transgenic crops.
So this man changes the flora and fauna on the world, then says
"goddidit". Very nice - not. But where does the supernatural come in?
Brian
who ought to know better - but they have to be smacked down
1768
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: 2nd Draft of Statement
17/07/2006 01:20:00
On 16/07/06, oeditor <b-jordan@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase" <timothychase@...>
> > Different Views
> >
> > Introduction
> >
> > In what follows, I intend to explain my own personal perspective on ...
*
> Bugger strategy. Theists are the deluded victims of centuries of
> conspiracy. There is no evidence, whatsoever, of the existence of any
> kind of supernatural creature and so no reason to debate the putative
> origin or nature of such. I'm growing weary, very weary. Better that I
> go to bed or I'll be calling for their heads next.
Good night...
Sleep well...
Pleasant dreams...
... and may you be well-rested tomorrow!
--
Joel: What do you guys want for Christmas?
Tom Servo: I want to decide who lives and who dies.
(MST3K - Mystery Science Theater 3000)
1769
oeditor
Re: 2nd Draft of Statement
17/07/2006 09:07:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase" <timothychase@...>
wrote:
>
> On 16/07/06, oeditor <b-jordan@...> wrote:
> >
> > Bugger strategy.
>>snip<<
>> I'm growing weary, very weary. Better that I
> > go to bed or I'll be calling for their heads next.
>
> Good night...
>
> Sleep well...
>
> Pleasant dreams...
>
> ... and may you be well-rested tomorrow!
>
Thanks, and sorry about that. The surfeit of lager didn't cool me down
(we're having a heat wave in the UK). I should have stayed in the
garden, like Marc.
Brian
1770
Wilson Alan
RE: 2nd Draft of Statement
17/07/2006 12:00:00
bgcolor="white"
Tim,
I empathise with your philosophical views
and do not really want to be exclusive about BCSE membership.
However, I would find it it very difficult
to accept a religious person’s view as valid if it has been falsified by
empirical science.
Alan W
----
'From:'
BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] 'On Behalf Of 'Timothy Chase
'Sent:' 17 July 2006 00:02
'To:' BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
'Subject:' Re: [BlackShadow] 2nd
Draft of Statement
On
16/07/06, Andrew <taoist.hermit1@virgin.net>
wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Wilson Alan
>
> > 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 agree. I think this is very important. People see attacks on religion as
> intolerant, even if they're not particularly reigioous themselves....
Different Views
Introduction
In what follows, I intend to explain my own personal perspective on
the relationship between philosophy and religion on the one hand and
science and the other. But then I also wish to explain why I think
this view cannot be adopted by BCSE, what I see as the best
alternative, and then what implications this has in terms of specific
strategy.
My Views in Relation to the Scientific Method
My own personal perspective is a kind of variation on that of Karl
Popper. I believe that there exist different domains to human
knowledge which employ different methodologies. Empirical science is
largely based upon some form of the hypothetico-deductive model, and
scientists properly aim for the ideal of making their theories
falsifiable. However, perhaps in contrast to Popper, I also believe
that there exists an interdependence between various aspects of
empirical science, and that ultimately all branches of empirical
science form a unity.
One point I and Popper (as well as Hume and Kant) would agree upon is
that one cannot test fundamental ethical statements. They are not
subject to empirical falsification or validation. As such, I am of
the view that there exists a complementarity between either philosophy
or religion on the one hand and empirical science on the other.
Likewise, I personally advocate a kind of pluralism in relation to
worldviews and an individual's ability to shift between different and
possibly complementary frameworks depending upon the specific problem
at hand.
In my view, if there is any conflict between religion, philosophy and
empirical science, then it is not between religion and empirical
science, but between religion and philosophy. But a conflict between
these two isn't the sort of thing which is likely to undermine modern
society. Creating the appearance of a conflict between religion and
empirical science simply serves to make empirical science vulnerable
to attack by religious fundamentalists and makes it easier for them to
recruit the religious who might otherwise hold more moderate views.
A Different View
However, my perspective is not necessarily that common in the UK.
There are intellectuals who embrace a form of scientism, and,
recognizing that at some level, all human knowledge forms a unitary
whole, honestly believe that the methodology of science can be applied
to all aspects of human existence, and moreover, they believe that so
long as religious belief exists, it has the potential for turning into
a form of religious fundamentalism. Moreover, they view tolerance for
religion as a form of tolerance for irrationalism as such, and believe
that such tolerance at least potentially invites the more destructive
aspects of religion. I disagree, but I believe that this particular
point is a matter for debate at another time and most likely a
different forum.
The Position of the BCSE
In some ways I believe we have already dealt with this, but I would
like to highlight what I believe must be the central point for the
BCSE. We are opposed to creationism, we recognize that evolutionary
biology is well-established science, and we acknowledge that evolution
is a fact. Moreover, we believe that even if people disagree upon
other points, it is possible for them to agree upon this, and as a
consequence of this agreement, to work together, oppose and ultimately
defeat creationism. Such a standpoint needn't embrace the view that
religion and science are compatible or incompatible. It simply
embraces the genuine possibility of cooperation between people who
hold different views, but agree upon certain basic points which
provide the basis for working together.
The Implications for Strategy
I do not think that as a group we can properly advocate the
complementarity of religion and empirical science. I do not think
that the BCSE can attempt to form an organisation which embraces such
a view. If we did either, we would risk alienating those who believe
that ultimately no such complementarity is possible, and these may
include intellectuals who could make good allies.
But I do believe that those individuals in BCSE who believe that such
a complementarity exists may acknowledge their views as their own
personal views. Moreover, I believe that BCSE itself may acknowledge
the fact there exist different views among those who are part of the
alliance.
Likewise, I believe that individuals within the organisation may, on
their own time, help to form such an organisation, and once it exists,
whether it embraces religion or simply complementarity, it can and
should become one of the independent member organisations of BCSE.
Once this happens, it should enjoy the same support given to other
member organisations.
In Conclusion
Some of what I have said may or may not be controversial. I realise
there may be some need for discussion. Furthermore, I am quite
willing to consider other views. However, as I see it, the policy
which I am suggesting is both proper and fair.
1771
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: 2nd Draft of Statement
17/07/2006 17:01:00
On 17/07/06, oeditor <b-jordan@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> Thanks, and sorry about that. The surfeit of lager didn't cool me down
> (we're having a heat wave in the UK). I should have stayed in the
> garden, like Marc.
>
No problem.
I thought you were trying to introduce some humour, and I was simply
trying to be humorous in response.
1772
Timothy Chase
Re: 2nd Draft of Statement
17/07/2006 17:21:00
CORRECTION
On 17/07/06, Wilson Alan <Alan.Wilson@uk.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> Tim,
>
> I empathise with your philosophical views and do not really want to be
exclusive about BCSE membership.
>
> However, I would find it it very difficult to accept a religious person's view
as valid if it has been falsified by empirical science.
>
> Alan W
>
I would also have the same difficulty with religious views which have
been falsified by empirical science. Then again, I kind of doubt that
they would ever consider joining our group, either.
However, I believe I must have left myself open to being misunderstood
to a fairly significant degree.
What got me to writing the "essay" was that it had been said, "It
should be made clear that we are not hostile to religion" or something
along those lines, and I believe that this might be a little sweeping
as far as some member organisations are concerned. I believe it is
fine for organisations within BCSE to be fundamentally against
religion, but it is nevertheless possible for such organisations to
work under the same umbrella with organisations which are essentially
religious in nature yet share our goals - if the BCSE simply
recognises that there are differing views among different member
organisations.
In accordance with the principle of falsifability, I personally
believe that fundamental ethical statements and metaphysical
statements are outside of empirical science. As such, statements
regarding the afterlife or a personal yet transcendental god are
outside of the domain of natural science. Consequently, I embrace a
form of methodological naturalism. But there may be some who believe
that as a matter of logic, one should embrace metaphysical naturalism,
and anything less would involve the toleration of what is essentially
irrational. This would of course generally exclude religion.
However, if rather than saying "we are not hostile to religion," we
simply say that "there are different views on religion among our
members," this isn't any sort of endorsement of religion. Likewise,
if BCSE as a whole isn't involved in the creation of organisations
which embrace its objectives and are essentially religious, but
welcomes such organisations once they come into existence since they
share our fundamental goals, then provides them with the same level of
support, I see no reason why this would be will be a problem - even
for metaphysical naturalists or other organisations which are
essentially atheistic in character.
I simply want to make sure that we don't exceed anyone's level of
comfort by having BCSE make statements in its own name which member
organisations might find at odds with their own views, statements of
principle or objectives. And I believe we can do that by principally
sticking to the fundamental principles of our organisation,
recognizing differences of opinion among our members and having the
BCSE state that such differences exist, thus avoiding the creation of
the appearance of unanimity which does not in fact exist. This
should still leave the ability to cooperate untouched.
1773
Timothy Chase
Re: 2nd Draft of Statement
17/07/2006 17:08:00
On 17/07/06, Wilson Alan <Alan.Wilson@uk.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> Tim,
>
> I empathise with your philosophical views and do not really want to be
exclusive about BCSE membership.
>
> However, I would find it it very difficult to accept a religious person's view
as valid if it has been falsified by empirical science.
I would, then again, I kind of doubt that they would ever consider
joining our group, either.
However, I believe I must have left myself open to being misunderstood
to a fairly significant degree.
What got me to writing the "essay" was that it had been said, "It
should be made clear that we are not hostile to religion" or something
along those lines, and I believe that this might be a little sweeping
as far as some member organisations are concerned. I believe it is
fine for organisations within BCSE to be fundamentally against
religion, but it is nevertheless possible for such organisations to
work under the same umbrella with organisations which are essentially
religious in nature yet share our goals - if the BCSE simply
recognises that there are differing views among different member
organisations.
In accordance with the principle of falsifability, I personally
believe that fundamental ethical statements and metaphysical
statements are outside of empirical science. As such, statements
regarding the afterlife or a personal yet transcendental god are
outside of the domain of natural science. Consequently, I embrace a
form of methodological naturalism. But there may be some who believe
that as a matter of logic, one should embrace metaphysical naturalism,
and anything less would involve the toleration of what is essentially
irrational. This would of course generally exclude religion.
However, if rather than saying "we are not hostile to religion," we
simply say that "there are different views on religion among our
members," this isn't any sort of endorsement of religion. Likewise,
if BCSE as a whole isn't involved in the creation of organisations
which embrace its objectives and are essentially religious, but
welcomes such organisations once they come into existence since they
share our fundamental goals, then provides them with the same level of
support, I see no reason why this would be will be a problem - even
for metaphysical naturalists or other organisations which are
essentially atheistic in character.
I simply want to make sure that we don't exceed anyone's level of
comfort by having BCSE make statements in its own name which member
organisations might find at odds with their own views, statements of
principle or objectives.
1774
Wilson Alan
RE: 2nd Draft of Statement
17/07/2006 17:54:00
bgcolor="white"
----
'From:'
BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] 'On Behalf Of 'Timothy Chase
'Sent:' 17 July 2006 17:22
'To:' BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
'Subject:' Re: [BlackShadow] 2nd
Draft of Statement
CORRECTION
On 17/07/06, Wilson Alan <Alan.Wilson@uk.fujitsu.com>
wrote:
>
> Tim,
>
> I empathise with your philosophical views and do not really want to be
exclusive about BCSE membership.
>
> However, I would find it very difficult to accept a religious person's
view as valid if it has been falsified by empirical science.
>
> Alan W
>
I would also have the same difficulty with religious views which have
been falsified by empirical science. Then again, I kind of doubt that
they would ever consider joining our group, either.
However, I believe I must have left myself open to being misunderstood
to a fairly significant degree.
What got me to writing the "essay" was that it had been said,
"It
should be made clear that we are not hostile to religion" or something
along those lines, and I believe that this might be a little sweeping
as far as some member organisations are concerned. I believe it is
fine for organisations within BCSE to be fundamentally against
religion, but it is nevertheless possible for such organisations to
work under the same umbrella with organisations which are essentially
religious in nature yet share our goals - if the BCSE simply
recognises that there are differing views among different member
organisations.
In accordance with the principle of falsifability, I personally
believe that fundamental ethical statements and metaphysical
statements are outside of empirical science. As such, statements
regarding the afterlife or a personal yet transcendental god are
outside of the domain of natural science. Consequently, I embrace a
form of methodological naturalism. But there may be some who believe
that as a matter of logic, one should embrace metaphysical naturalism,
and anything less would involve the toleration of what is essentially
irrational. This would of course generally exclude religion.
However, if rather than saying "we are not hostile to religion," we
simply say that "there are different views on religion among our
members," this isn't any sort of endorsement of religion. Likewise,
if BCSE as a whole isn't involved in the creation of organisations
which embrace its objectives and are essentially religious, but
welcomes such organisations once they come into existence since they
share our fundamental goals, then provides them with the same level of
support, I see no reason why this would be will be a problem - even
for metaphysical naturalists or other organisations which are
essentially atheistic in character.
I simply want to make sure that we don't exceed anyone's level of
comfort by having BCSE make statements in its own name which member
organisations might find at odds with their own views, statements of
principle or objectives. And I believe we can do that by principally
sticking to the fundamental principles of our organisation,
recognizing differences of opinion among our members and having the
BCSE state that such differences exist, thus avoiding the creation of
the appearance of unanimity which does not in fact exist. This
should still leave the ability to cooperate untouched.
1775
Timothy Chase
Re: 2nd Draft of Statement
17/07/2006 18:12:00
On 17/07/06, Wilson Alan <Alan.Wilson@uk.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
Alan wrote, "I personally am quite comfortable with what you have
written as I'm willing to cooperate with anyone who wants to stop the
teaching of creationism in state schools by legitimate means."
Sounds good.
I figured we saw essentially eye-to-eye on this. Sometimes I don't
express my ideas with as much clarity as I would like. Too much
emphasis on largely irrelevant side-issues, for example, or the lack
of essential details which would clarify my meaning.
Something to work on, I guess.
Take care.
1776
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: 2nd Draft of Statement
17/07/2006 20:56:00
oeditor wrote:
> Thanks, and sorry about that. The surfeit of lager didn't cool me down
> (we're having a heat wave in the UK).
30 degrees isn't a heatwave ! It's merely got nice and warm !
1777
MB
RE: 2nd Draft of Statement
17/07/2006 22:34:00
> I believe it is
> fine for organisations within BCSE to be fundamentally against
> religion, but it is nevertheless possible for such organisations to
> work under the same umbrella with organisations which are essentially
> religious in nature yet share our goals - if the BCSE simply
> recognises that there are differing views among different member
> organisations.
Many groups have difficulty with this kind of thing. The Libertarian Party has
struggled to express its platform without offending half the members.
Seems that we could say something on the order of
Religious views are outside the scope of BCSE. Our goal is .... etc.
or
BCSE is not concerned with personal religious views and affiliations. Our
objective
is...
Regards,
MB
1778
oeditor
Re: 2nd Draft of Statement
17/07/2006 23:18:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...> wrote:
>
> oeditor wrote:
>
> > Thanks, and sorry about that. The surfeit of lager didn't cool me
down > > (we're having a heat wave in the UK).
>
> 30 degrees isn't a heatwave ! It's merely got nice and warm !
>
Ah well - that depends where you live, and when. Up North, we're used
to sitting shivering in our clogs for most of the year. When the ice
starts to melt, we wonder how people living in flat-roofed biblical
climes cope with an ambient temperature above the physiological 37C.
Must have been a bloody crafty designer to find a work-round for such
a major cock-up.
Brian
1779
Timothy Chase
Re: 2nd Draft of Statement
18/07/2006
On 17/07/06, MB <mbb386@main.nc.us> wrote:
>
> > I believe it is
> > fine for organisations within BCSE to be fundamentally against
> > religion, but it is nevertheless possible for such organisations to
> > work under the same umbrella with organisations which are essentially
> > religious in nature yet share our goals - if the BCSE simply
> > recognises that there are differing views among different member
> > organisations.
>
> Many groups have difficulty with this kind of thing. The Libertarian Party has
> struggled to express its platform without offending half the members.
Why oh why doesn't this surprise me?
> Seems that we could say something on the order of
>
> Religious views are outside the scope of BCSE. Our goal is .... etc.
>
> or
>
> BCSE is not concerned with personal religious views and affiliations. Our
objective
> is...
Either sounds fine to me.
Simple neutrality with regard to religion. BCSE as a clearing house
and a means of coordination, leaving individual organisations free and
independent to set their own with regard to this subject. Honestly,
though, I prefer the language in the second. Somehow it seems less
like, "We wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot cattle prod!"
1780
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: 2nd Draft of Statement
18/07/2006 07:13:00
oeditor wrote:
>> 30 degrees isn't a heatwave ! It's merely got nice and warm !
>>
> Ah well - that depends where you live, and when.
I come from SA, my fiancee from Malta, and we live in Cam. This heat is
decent to us and more of a proper summer, unlike last year's :-)
> we wonder how people living in flat-roofed biblical
> climes cope with an ambient temperature above the physiological 37C.
Oh I have excavated in Israel at the height of summer. The temperature
rose above 40 degrees daily, with the reflection from the ground. With
my type of skin, you couldn't tell me apart from anyone else in the Med
- especially since my facial features are Mediterranean.
1781
Roger Stanyard
Blyth Academy School Proposal
18/07/2006 11:39:00
I've just emailed a letter to the editor of the local newspaper in
Blyth in the North East of England.
The Vardy ESF is trying to establish an academy school there.
Marc Draco and Peter Hearty (both members of ths forum) at No to
Academies are working hard on this issue.
If anyone wants a copy of the letter please email me directly.
I believe that the publication date for the next issue of the newspaper
is 21st July.
Roger Stanyard
1782
Roger Stanyard
Re: 2nd Draft of Statement
18/07/2006 12:08:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase" <timothychase@...>
wrote:
>
> > BCSE is not concerned with personal religious views and
affiliations. Our objective
> > is...
>
I prefer this second option for the reason given below.
>
> Simple neutrality with regard to religion. BCSE as a clearing house
> and a means of coordination, leaving individual organisations free and
> independent to set their own with regard to this subject. Honestly,
> though, I prefer the language in the second. Somehow it seems less
> like, "We wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot cattle prod!"
>
We might also want to add political to affiliations. I have already had
a tart jibe from the NSS newsline to the effect why don't I have a go
at the Conservative party rather than Labour (it was from an ex-Labour
policy wonk).
(For Americans, the next general elections are still 3-4 years away (we
don't have precise fixed periods between elections). It's beyond my
capabilities to predict who will win the next election but Labour is
starting to look very tired in office. The Tories (i.e. the day to day
term for Conservatives) do not look like they are on-side when it comes
to fundie academies.)
Roger
1783
Marc Draco
Stefan contacted by reporter
18/07/2006 23:08:00
Our man from King's... ;-) young Stefan has been contacted by the journo
who wrote the straw man article for the Blyth and Wansbeck paper that
we're all mad about.
I don't know how he got his contact details, but I've told Stefan to
keep schtum until we can discuss this properly. Stefan won't leak
anything, there's nothing to leak, but some misquoted words could make
the poor guy look like a complete jerk.
It may be the guy is on the level, but from the last showing I rather
doubt that he is. IF we are to make a statement at all, it needs to be a
written one and we need to get it done FAST. I don't have a printer, but
I can arrange to get something done Thursday AM if necessary (but
tomorrow would be better).
If they misquote a written statement signed off by the Blackshadow group
AND Pete's NTA site (need Pete Hearty to do that) we have some redress.
If they misquote Stefan from a conversation, it will be much harder to
refute. I've been in his shoes and I got bit: hard - which is why when I
got on the other end of the pencil I was careful how I treat my sources.
I know Roger is penning a letter, perhaps that could comprise some of
our "official" statement?
Remember: this has to be brief, very brief. No big scientific words, no
American names, no anti-religion, no pointers to "talkorigins" and so
on. Just the SIMPLEST facts. The ESF are brilliant at lying, we have to
be brilliant at exposing the lies so that Joe Public can spot them.
Marc
1784
Roger Stanyard
Re: Stefan contacted by reporter
19/07/2006 08:29:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
wrote:
>
> I know Roger is penning a letter, perhaps that could comprise some of
> our "official" statement?
>
Penned? I've penned it and sent it! Went yesterday lunchtime.
Roger
1785
Marc Draco
Re: Who is this guy?
19/07/2006 11:10:00
bgcolor="#ffffff"
Another dangerous lunatic.
Why give a talk when you could just publish a peer-reviewed paper in a
respected journal?
If evolution could be shown to be wrong, we'd have to re-write the
textbooks - the problem is that when clever people "get god" and in
some cases that is likely a form of mental illness, they discard (or
brush over) opposing arguments and only present the ones that support
their ideas. Non-scientists get drawn into this and then we're all in
the shit. One of my favorites is '-Dr. Grady S. McMurtry-'
a guy who although highly educated goes into fantastic detail on how
Noah made the ark and other crazy ideas. These are the sort of people
who should be banned from claiming PhDs since they preach something
opposite to the science that earned them the grade. If he were plain
"Grady" - the former doctor struck off for preaching anti-science he
would achieve notoriety, sure, but I expect his audience would be the
converted ONLY.
Douglas Adams uses the "non-specialist" explanation to prove several
theories in his Hitchhiker's books.
Perhaps someone else could find the exact passages, one was about the
coinage Ningies and Pughs. A ningy is triangular rubber coin some miles
along each side, for example, so on had ever collected enough to own a
Pugh. Apparently, the galactic banks don't exist either because they
refuse to deal in fiddling small change.
Another one was about the number of people in the universe being, zero.
The argument for that goes:
Number of worlds in the universe: infinite.
Number of inhabited worlds: 1
Now, since any number divided by infinity is as near to zero as makes
no odds, the number of people in the universe is also 0. Any people you
may actually meet are merely figments of your imagination.
Douglas's tongue was firmly implanted in his cheek when he wrote that,
but one can see how a genuinely complex argument can be oversimplified
to the point at which it makes no real sense: except to prove an
erroneous premise.
Actually, this is the sort of thing that would be useful in an
information leaflet to show just how cretins use scientific
explanations (with important bits missed out) to prove their ideas.
Noah's Ark, for example, does look like a possibility: but then, no one
actually asks how the hell it was made. It's just assumed that it was.
There is no explanation offered for how the thing was held together,
how Noah got sufficient pitch to coat it inside and out or, for that
matter, how he cut the planks to make the damn thing! Let alone all the
other gaping holes in the story - but the "experts" like Grady don't
discuss these areas, they lie by omission. That's still lying.
Joe Cooper wrote:
->
Dr. John Sanford, who will present the July 17 lecture, is the
primary
inventor of the gene gun process. His research has been used to
engineer
most of the world's transgenic crops.
http://www.djournal.com/pages/story.asp?ID=224002&pub=1&div=Lifestyles
"My talk will be for non-specialists," Sanford said. "I will show
that
evolutionary theory - mutation plus natural selection equals evolution
-
can be conclusively shown to be false."
1786
Marc Draco
Re: Re: Stefan contacted by reporter
19/07/2006 10:46:00
bgcolor="#ffffff"
HA HA! Nice. I would love to be a fly on that wall when the letter
lands.
Now, Stefan is keen to talk to the press - something I've advised
strongly against since the press who have contacted him so far (insofar
as I can see) are Vardy warriors. I suspect they want to rubbish him so
he is useless to the nationals. I may be wrong, but it's not a chance I
want to take. Stefan is a weakness in the King's armour and he's
something they ought to be frightened of.
OK, very quickly, can we have a group statement that I can give to the
press and public at Blyth TOMORROW. I know this is short notice, but we
need to move quickly.
I'll reproduce it on some A5 and, since Stefan and I should be wearing
some LOUD anti-Vardy tee shirts, we will probably get them to all the
right people. Remember, this has to be factual statements ONLY with
citations; statements made on the BBC, to the quality dailies and so on.
->
1787
Roger Stanyard
Re: Stefan contacted by reporter
19/07/2006 15:05:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
wrote:
>
> HA HA! Nice. I would love to be a fly on that wall when the letter
lands.
>
> OK, very quickly, can we have a group statement that I can give to
the
> press and public at Blyth TOMORROW. I know this is short notice,
but we
> need to move quickly.
Will be done by 7pm this evening.
So, any late or last minute comments I need asap.
Roger
>
>
1788
Roger Stanyard
Re: 2nd Draft of Statement
19/07/2006 15:14:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
>> Ah well - that depends where you live, and when. Up North, we're used
> to sitting shivering in our clogs for most of the year.
What, you mean all 26 of you in a tiny little house, no roof, half the
floor missing, no furniture and everybody huddled together in one
corner in case of falling.
Eh, luxury!
Roger
1789
oeditor
Re: 2nd Draft of Statement
19/07/2006 16:05:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> What, you mean all 26 of you in a tiny little house,
No, just the 4 of us - we're not religious!
Brian
1790
Roger Stanyard
Final Draft Statement (I hope)
19/07/2006 16:12:00
I've incorporated (I hope) everybody's comments, additions,
deletions, revisions and whatever in the statement of the BCSE.
Here it is:
Opposing the Tide of Creationism in the UK
The Formation of the British Centre for Science Education
Introduction
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.
BSCE is an international group because the creationist movement
itself is international, with strong connections with the USA and
Australia. The British 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 contacts, knowledge and expertise.
We are building up a database 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; the media
and trade unions and other professional bodies involved in science
and education.
BSCE is set to launch its first campaign to raise awareness of the
problem of creationism in education.
Creationist Organisations in the UK
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.
Creationist Ideological Objectives in Education and Politics
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 years ago, there was a world wide flood with dinosaurs
on Noah's Ark and that these dinosaurs roamed the countryside in
Tudor times.
In particular the movement is targeting the teaching of biology,
physics, geology and geography in British schools, either directly
within the lessons or through guest speakers and Christian Unions.
Their actions undermine or subvert the teaching of these subjects and
can result in the 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
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 lobbied 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 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 this country. One was also closely
involved in the Christian Institute which itself has been involved in
and closely associated with the creationist state-funded Emmanuel
Schools Foundation 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 £1,015 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!
BCSE is open to all, irrespective of religious or political
affiliations, 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.
1791
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: 2nd Draft of Statement
19/07/2006 16:59:00
On 18/07/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase" <timothychase@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > > BCSE is not concerned with personal religious views and
> affiliations. Our objective
> > > is...
>
> I prefer this second option for the reason given below.
>
> > Simple neutrality with regard to religion. BCSE as a clearing house
> > and a means of coordination, leaving individual organisations free and
> > independent to set their own with regard to this subject. Honestly,
> > though, I prefer the language in the second. Somehow it seems less
> > like, "We wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot cattle prod!"
> >
>
> We might also want to add political to affiliations. I have already had
> a tart jibe from the NSS newsline to the effect why don't I have a go
> at the Conservative party rather than Labour (it was from an ex-Labour
> policy wonk).
I certainly think political neutrality is a great idea - as is making
it part of the platform. Neutrality of this sort helps to underscore
the fact that the introduction of creationism in schools is ultimately
in no one's interests and broadens the potential base. Whether or not
and to what extent the message penetrates into the parties will of
course in large part depend upon intellectual leaders in those
respective parties.
But forming alliances with either party, while potentially paying some
short-term gains would weaken BCSE in the long-run, particularly by
making it easier for the creationists to forge stronger alliances
(through the promising and offering of contitutencies) to the
penetrate more deeply the alternative party. Additionally, we would
be betting on only one of two horses, and likely lose on at least some
occasions. I think it is better to bet that at least one horse wins.
That way we will be right every time - I think.
> (For Americans, the next general elections are still 3-4 years away (we
> don't have precise fixed periods between elections). It's beyond my
> capabilities to predict who will win the next election but Labour is
> starting to look very tired in office. The Tories (i.e. the day to day
> term for Conservatives) do not look like they are on-side when it comes
> to fundie academies.)
Agreed. I suspect that everyone here agrees and understands that the
next election won't be the end of it. Political neutrality should be
part of the platform.
1792
George Jelliss
I do not believe it!
19/07/2006 17:39:00
The Discovery Institute's latest ploy in trying to get creationism
taught in schools, is to have the outright effrontery to call for
people to "Stand Up For Science"!
http://www.standupforscience.com/
How soon before we see this line adopted over here?
1793
Timothy Chase
Re: Final Draft Statement (I hope)
19/07/2006 17:52:00
I have included some suggestions on wording in the sections
"Creationist Ideological Objectives in Education and Politics" and
"Creationist Tactics." Nothing major, I think. However, please keep
in mind that my wife is the ruthless editor in the family. I am
basically an amateur, so the suggestions are just that.
On 19/07/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I've incorporated (I hope) everybody's comments, additions,
> deletions, revisions and whatever in the statement of the BCSE.
>
> Here it is:
>
> Opposing the Tide of Creationism in the UK
>
> The Formation of the British Centre for Science Education
>
> Introduction
>
> 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.
>
> BSCE is an international group because the creationist movement
> itself is international, with strong connections with the USA and
> Australia. The British 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 contacts, knowledge and expertise.
>
> We are building up a database 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; the media
> and trade unions and other professional bodies involved in science
> and education.
>
> BSCE is set to launch its first campaign to raise awareness of the
> problem of creationism in education.
>
> Creationist Organisations in the UK
>
> 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.
>
> Creationist Ideological Objectives in Education and Politics
>
> 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 years ago, there was a world wide flood with dinosaurs
> on Noah's Ark and that these dinosaurs roamed the countryside in
> Tudor times.
First sentence - "The actively discredit or subvert"
Should this be "They actively subvert"?
Reason: What they are trying to "subvert is the "teaching." But they
aren't really trying to "discredit" the teaching. They may try to
create the appearance of "discrediting" the "subjects," but they can't
actually discredit the knowledge which constitutes these subjects.
They can only debase the gold of this knowledge by mixing it with tin
of mythology and the lead of lies.
> In particular the movement is targeting the teaching of biology,
> physics, geology and geography in British schools, either directly
> within the lessons or through guest speakers and Christian Unions.
> Their actions undermine or subvert the teaching of these subjects and
> can result in the failure of pupils to pass their exams.
Last sentence "Their actions undermine or subvert"
should be "Their actions undermine"
Reason: "... or subvert" is superfluous and "subvert" would be a repitition.
> 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.
"The position" - first sentence
consider changing this to "Matters" or perhaps "conditions"
Reason: "Position" would suggest someone's stand rather than the
current conditions.
> 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.
"Indeed, there is a core" - first sentence
consider "Currently" (no comma)
Reason: Easier to read, sweeps the reader into the next part.
"Indeed," creates an pause which undermines some of the force of what
follows and seems slightly old-fashioned.
> 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.
"Moreover," is a good idea at this point, marking a major transition
from education to politics.
However, in the first sentence "the movement includes" makes this
sound like the political objectives are members of a group of people
that are members of the movement. Consider changing "includes" to
"has" or "entertains."
> Creationist Tactics
>
> 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.
"Clearly" is superfluous and weakens this sentence rather than
strengthening it. This suggests that the author simply wants you to
take this for granted as having been proven already and therefore is
in no need of a proof - which the author lacks and would be unable to
provide if asked.
> In 2002 a group of 27 fundamentalists in academia, education and
> business lobbied 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 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 this country. One was also closely
> involved in the Christian Institute which itself has been involved in
> and closely associated with the creationist state-funded Emmanuel
