1801
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Final Draft Statement (I hope)
19/07/2006 20:50:00
On 19/07/06, jbs13uk <jbs13uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Regarding the first paragraph:
>
>
> > 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....
>
> I know of a number of groups and individuals who are set against the
> teaching of Creationism and ID as science in science lessons but none
> who argue that creationism should not be discussed in RE classes....
On second thought, you are probably right. My apologies. Our focus
should be on science classes only. However, we should not suggest
teaching their material in religion classes. We willing leave that
for them to suggest, then let the secularists shoot that one down.
Getting them out of science classes is an important first step for the
secularists and it should be our primary focus.
1802
oeditor
Re: Final Draft Statement (I hope)
19/07/2006 20:47:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "jbs13uk" <jbs13uk@...> wrote:
>
Any
> organisation intent on "stopping the teaching of creationism in UK
> state schools" wold be vulnerable to claims of censorship and that's
> certainly not science needs to be associated with.
>
ID - certainly not science, and they claim it's not religion, so
that's out.
YEC - quite the opposite of science and mainstream Christianity
disapproves of it. So no different than promoting any other minor sect
in RE lessons. So that's out.
OECs - I'm not very clued-up how they stand on evolution. I can be
confident that it's not science, but is it acceptable to mainstream
Christianity?
So... who needs censorship when there's such a crowded timetable that
Latin, Greek and Hebrew, the original languages of bible study, have
long since been abandoned, negating any cretinist claims of revelation?
Brian
1803
Peter Abel
Re: Who is this guy?
19/07/2006 21:16:00
The only way to bring these guys down is to subject their views to
independant scientific scrutiny via a peer reviewed paper, otherwise
they can just blind the lay person with the science of which they are
so proficient. Does anybody know if this is being done? Is there
a 'Journal of proving that religion is cobblers' for example
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
wrote:
>
> 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
> > <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."
> >
> >
>
1804
Roger Stanyard
Re: Final Draft Statement (I hope)
19/07/2006 21:58:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "jbs13uk" <jbs13uk@...> wrote:
>
>> I know of a number of groups and individuals who are set against
the
> teaching of Creationism and ID as science in science lessons but
none
> who argue that creationism should not be discussed in RE classes.
Any
> organisation intent on "stopping the teaching of creationism in UK
> state schools" wold be vulnerable to claims of censorship and that's
> certainly not science needs to be associated with.
>
Extremely good point Jim.
Seems to me though that it is nothing like as simple as this. What
appears to be happening in the Vardy schools is that they are
teaching creationism in another, non-examined but compulsory subject
called philospohy, theology and ethics.
OK, so we get it out of science and what do they do - get in in
through another back door.
The game that they are playing is to discredit science. It doesn't
matter where they teach creationism. The effect is the same.
Let's put it more bluntly. The majority of denominational schools in
the UK are either CofE or Catholic; both denominations object to
teaching of creationism. So why do we have a problem about RE? It
doesn't fit there either.
I've laboured over this problem for weeks and I don't know the way
round it.
Roger
1805
Roger Stanyard
Re: Final Draft Statement (I hope)
19/07/2006 22:05:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "jbs13uk" <jbs13uk@> wrote:
> >
> Any
> > organisation intent on "stopping the teaching of creationism in UK
> > state schools" wold be vulnerable to claims of censorship and that's
> > certainly not science needs to be associated with.
Except the fundies are their own worst eneies on this. They claim
creationism and ID stand on their own scientific merits irrespective of
religion. Ipso Facto they have no cause for complaint if people object
to it being taught in RE lessons. As Lenny would say, no siree, Bob,
it's go nothing to do with religion.
Let them prove it has.
Roger
1806
Roger Stanyard
Truth in Science
19/07/2006 22:25:00
Truth In Science
Thanks to the help (again) of Drew Smith I've got some extra bits and
pieces on Andy McIntosh and his pals. Apparently McIntosh is closely
involved with the Tinshill Free Church in Leeds. It has a web site
and Drew directed me to this page for its newsletter
http://www.tinshill.f9.co.uk/223.pdf where McIntosh has said that the
names involved in Truth in Science are Willis Metcalfe, Maurice
Roberts, Stephen Layfield, John Perfect and McIntosh himself.. Whilst
dated September 2004, the McIntosh article states that Truth in
Ministries was "really taking shape".
McIntosh seems to suggest that within the church there is a Creation
Ministry.
We still can't trace who John Perfect is although Drew has identified
that he owns the domain name www.truthinscience.org.uk. This is the
website of the organisation but is not open to outsiders.
Willis Metcalfe is believed to be a Yorkshire farmer. I did a search
on him and he appears to be rabidly anti-Catholic. Whilst Layfield is
best know has head of science at Emmanuel College, I understand that
he was previously employed in a state school in Yorkshire (I could be
wrong on that).
However, the newsletter throws up another interesting gem of
information – Andy McIntosh's engagements diary, in particular for
20th September 2004. It appears that McIntosh is trying to get to the
undergraduates in the first week of their first term at Leeds
University (for American's this is called Fresher's week).
According to the diary McIntosh gave a lunchtime speech to the
students on the subject of "Does God exists, has science contradicted
the bible?" Presumably this was addressed to the very same sort of
student who will now be forced to take compulsory courses to undo the
damage done by the seriously mad professor and his mates.
Some more on Willis Metcalfe: See www.evangelical-
times.org/Articles/July02/jul02a07.htm for some serious suggestions
of anti-Catholicism. Metcalfe is understood to have been involved in
(and, maybe still is), the Evangelical Press.
Another titbit of how the fundies are getting everywhere: Edgar
Andrews, one of the 27 signatories to the Estelle Morris letter and
past head of the Biblical Creation Society, is, apparently, editor of
the Evangelical Times. My understanding is that it is owned by the
Evangelical Press.
1807
oeditor
Re: Truth in Science
19/07/2006 22:50:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
> Willis Metcalfe is believed to be a Yorkshire farmer. I did a search
> on him and he appears to be rabidly anti-Catholic. Whilst Layfield
is > best know has head of science at Emmanuel College, I understand
that > >he was previously employed in a state school in Yorkshire
Roger, I think I've linked to info on this a day or two ago. IIRC,
Layfield was employed as a physics teacher at St. Bede's Grammar
School in Bradford in the 90's. Then a direct grant school, always an
RC school. Which I imagine was unimpressed by his creationism.
Depending which way the papal wind was blowing at the time, that is :-)
Brian
1808
ukantic
Re: I do not believe it!
19/07/2006 23:40:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <alan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "George Jelliss" <gpjnow@>
> wrote:
> >
> > 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?
> >
>
> Note that there is no mention of this organisation's connections
> with creationism. Anyone not familiar with these issues (which is
> probably 95% + of the population) would therefore be completely
> mislead as to its motives.
>
> They are therefore deceiving people & yet again this is just
another
> example of their gross dishonesty. Hopefully, this will backfire
on
> them eventually – especially if we end up with another court case
in
> Kansas & the judge notes the creationist background, its pervading
> hostility to evolution then rules that this, "teach the
controversy"
> approach even though it makes no mention of religious belief,
either
> explicit or implied is clearly a tactic to get creationism into
> schools.
>
> Remember, that at Dover, Judge Jones ruled against ID on these
> grounds,
He wrote: "An objective observer would know that ID and teaching
about "gaps" and "problems" in evolutionary theory are creationist,
religious strategies that evolved from earlier forms of creationism
(p. 18)."
Alan
1809
Timothy Chase
Re: Truth in Science
19/07/2006 23:52:00
Roger,
You have traced Metcalfe to the Evangelical Times. I noticed that
there is a "John Perfect" who has written several reviews for the
Evangelical Times. He may still live in Northallerton.
From Shore to Shore
Mike Perrin
Bryntirion Press
185 pages, £6.95, ISBN 1-85049-166-6
Review by John Perfect of Northallerton
http://www.evangelical-times.org/etreviews/feb01/feb01r05.htm
On 19/07/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Truth In Science
>
> Thanks to the help (again) of Drew Smith I've got some extra bits and
> pieces on Andy McIntosh and his pals. Apparently McIntosh is closely
> involved with the Tinshill Free Church in Leeds. It has a web site
> and Drew directed me to this page for its newsletter
> http://www.tinshill.f9.co.uk/223.pdf where McIntosh has said that the
> names involved in Truth in Science are Willis Metcalfe, Maurice
> Roberts, Stephen Layfield, John Perfect and McIntosh himself.. Whilst
> dated September 2004, the McIntosh article states that Truth in
> Ministries was "really taking shape".
> Some more on Willis Metcalfe: See www.evangelical-
> times.org/Articles/July02/jul02a07.htm for some serious suggestions
> of anti-Catholicism. Metcalfe is understood to have been involved in
> (and, maybe still is), the Evangelical Press.
>
> Another titbit of how the fundies are getting everywhere: Edgar
> Andrews, one of the 27 signatories to the Estelle Morris letter and
> past head of the Biblical Creation Society, is, apparently, editor of
> the Evangelical Times. My understanding is that it is owned by the
> Evangelical Press.
1810
Lenny Flank
Re: I do not believe it!
20/07/2006 00:11:00
>>
> How soon before we see this line adopted over here?
As soon as the young-earth creationists lose.
===================================
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
1811
oeditor
Re: Truth in Science
20/07/2006 00:08:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
> Willis Metcalfe is believed to be a Yorkshire farmer. I did a search
> on him and he appears to be rabidly anti-Catholic.
Come back altavista, all is forgiven. It found this one which google
didn't:
... WEB-SITE - http://www.takeheed.net. NEWS FROM THE FRONT ... Steve
Layfield, Professor Andy McIntosh, Willis B Metcalfe, John Perfect,
Rev Maurice Roberts ... [note McIntosh and Layfield are there].
The link is dead, but takeheed.net seems to be a rabid Northern Irish
site.
I also came across evangelicalpress.org which is based in Darlington
"Evangelical Press (EP) had been founded by Robin Bird and was a
comparatively small work which published booklets and imported
selected titles from USA. Robin sought the help of Yorkshire farmer
and preacher Willis Metcalfe, who agreed to set up a Board to run EP."
http://www.evangelicalpress.org/_articles/bill_clark.htm
You probably know all this. I'd prefer not too, buy needs must when
the devils drive.
Brian
1812
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: I do not believe it!
20/07/2006 00:18:00
>
Now it has arrived, should we give it a name & simply
> refer to it as, "teach the controversy creationism" (TTCC)?
>
It's the same ID arguments, made by the same ID apologists.
It's nothing but ID, repackaged. Call it what it is.
===================================
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
1813
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Final Draft Statement (I hope)
20/07/2006 00:15:00
> On 19/07/06, jbs13uk <jbs13uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
>
> > Regarding the first paragraph:
> >
> >
> > > 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....
> >
> > I know of a number of groups and individuals who are set against the
> > teaching of Creationism and ID as science in science lessons but
> > none who argue that creationism should not be discussed in RE
> > classes....
>
> On second thought, you are probably right. My apologies. Our focus
> should be on science classes only. However, we should not suggest
> teaching their material in religion classes. We willing leave that
> for them to suggest, then let the secularists shoot that one down.
> Getting them out of science classes is an important first step for the
> secularists and it should be our primary focus.
>
I quite agree.
In the US, just getting them to admit that ID/creationism is
religious, is enough to kill them dead. Alas, y'all over on the, uh,
wrong side of the pond ;> don't have that advantage.
Our job is to keep the fundies out of science classrooms. Keeping
religion out of schools altogether, is someone else's job, not ours.
===================================
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
1814
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Final Draft Statement (I hope)
20/07/2006 00:16:00
> Let them call it censorship - and we will point out that censorship
> means that the government forbids you to discuss on your own time and
> dime certain subjects. Freedom of Speech does not mean that the
> government must promote your ideas or indoctrinate students in your
> ideology. Freedom of Speech does not mean that a teacher - who is a
> public servant - has the right to teach whatever he wants, in either
> classes devoted to science or religion. If they want their
> creationist ideas taught in religion classes, how much time will have
> to be spent on other creation myths?
>
> Give them a soapbox and tell them to go to Hyde Park or Hades - their
> choice.
Let it go. It's a fight you won't win, and it lets them fight on
their own terms.
Keeping their crap out of science classrooms should be our goal.
===================================
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
1815
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Who is this guy?
20/07/2006 00:20:00
> The only way to bring these guys down is to subject their views to
> independant scientific scrutiny via a peer reviewed paper
Alas, this fight simply isn't about science. If it were, it would
have been over a hundred years ago. It's not even about religion,
either, since the vast majority of churches, worldwide, think the
fundies are nutters.
This fight is about politics. Pure and simple.
Creationists were not won TO creationism because of science. They
won't be won AWAY from it because of science, either.
The only way to beat them is the same way any OTHER political
movement is beaten --- by out-organizing them.
===================================
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
1816
Roger Stanyard
Re: Truth in Science
20/07/2006 07:53:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
>>
> ... WEB-SITE - http://www.takeheed.net. NEWS FROM THE FRONT ... Steve
> Layfield, Professor Andy McIntosh, Willis B Metcalfe, John Perfect,
> Rev Maurice Roberts ... [note McIntosh and Layfield are there].
>
> The link is dead, but takeheed.net seems to be a rabid Northern Irish
> site.
>
Strange, isn't it, that this link has suddenly become dead since I
posted details of it and started talking about Truth in Science. Maybe
I'm just paranoid but the original article in Evangelical Times does
not come up in a search of its web site.
1817
Roger Stanyard
Re: Final Draft Statement (I hope)
20/07/2006 09:03:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
>> Let it go. It's a fight you won't win, and it lets them fight on
> their own terms.
>
> Keeping their crap out of science classrooms should be our goal.
>
There is obviously string debate and opinion in the group whether
BCSE should limit itself to opposing the teaching of creation in
science lessons (although I doubt anyone disagrees that, for
practical purposes, the definition of should also include geology and
geography).
Let me suggest a compromise: that BCSE should state that its
objective is to stop the teaching of creationism as science in state
schools.
This covers what I regard as the Maginot line problem. That is, if
creationism is kept out of science, it will be taught in other
disciplines (not just Religious Education) or with the use of outside
speakers claiming to be scientists – the Ken Hams, Andrew Snellings
and John Mackays of this world.
Its only a couple of months or so back when John Mackay hit the
headlines in the UK over Millfield school. A lot of people seriously
objected to his involvement in the school. Are we to discount them
out by saying that it didn't matter because what Mackay planned
didn't involve teaching in science lessons?
After all, Alan Bellis was the leading light in this group in
opposing him. Alan actually wrote to the local newspaper. The Rev
Michael Roberts over in SJS appears to have had a major role as well.
Whilst I propose this compromise, I still am unsure whether it will
be effective enough. Alan quite rightly raises the issue of "Teach
the Controversy Creationism" being pushed in schools. That seems to
me not to be quite the same thing as teaching creationism as science.
It seems to be an exercise in trying to de-stabilise science for
religious and political objectives.
How do we handle that?
Roger
1818
Roger Stanyard
Re: Truth in Science
20/07/2006 09:15:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase"
<timothychase@...> wrote:
>
> Roger,
>
> You have traced Metcalfe to the Evangelical Times. I noticed that
> there is a "John Perfect" who has written several reviews for the
> Evangelical Times. He may still live in Northallerton.
>
Tim,
Thanks for the tip off. It does appear that this John Perfect is the
one and the same as that behind Truth in Science. The Northallerton
connection is significant in that it is in Yorkshire - where McIntosh
is based, where Layfield taught before he went to Emmanuel College
and where Metcalfe also appears to live.
It does seem that Truth in Science is a North country organisation
with fairly local rather than national roots.
The odd person in the list is the Rev Maurice Roberts. He seems to be
an ex-minister of the Wee Frees (?) in Scotland (Inverness) who
appears to have picked a big argument with that movement (or vice
versa). That appears to have taken place in the 1990s. Whether he
still lives there is unknown to me.
Roger
1819
Martin Young
Re: Truth in Science
20/07/2006 09:15:00
A little bit of investigation reveals you can find takeheed at
<http://takeheed.net/>, last update 15th July 2006.
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@> wrote:
> >
> >>
> > ... WEB-SITE - http://www.takeheed.net. NEWS FROM THE FRONT ... Steve
> > Layfield, Professor Andy McIntosh, Willis B Metcalfe, John Perfect,
> > Rev Maurice Roberts ... [note McIntosh and Layfield are there].
> >
> > The link is dead, but takeheed.net seems to be a rabid Northern Irish
> > site.
> >
> Strange, isn't it, that this link has suddenly become dead since I
> posted details of it and started talking about Truth in Science. Maybe
> I'm just paranoid but the original article in Evangelical Times does
> not come up in a search of its web site.
>
1820
Roger Stanyard
Re: Truth in Science
20/07/2006 09:23:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> > Roger, I think I've linked to info on this a day or two ago. IIRC,
> Layfield was employed as a physics teacher at St. Bede's Grammar
> School in Bradford in the 90's. Then a direct grant school, always
an
> RC school. Which I imagine was unimpressed by his creationism.
> Depending which way the papal wind was blowing at the time, that
is :-)
>
Apaologies for forgetting that you posted the info.
I checked out St Bede's and, indeed, it is an RC school.
Interestingly it specialises in science!
There is a very good database/summary of creationism on the
Christians in Science web site at
www.cis.org.uk/resources/links/creationism.shtml
It gives a link to a UK Catholic YECer organisation, Daylight Origins
Society. See
www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/daylight/daylight.html
Roger
1821
Roger Stanyard
Re: Truth in Science
20/07/2006 10:35:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Young" <martin@...> wrote:
>
> A little bit of investigation reveals you can find takeheed at
> <http://takeheed.net/>, last update 15th July 2006.
>
True, but its the page that refers to Truth in Science that has been
removed.
I think it's worth pointing out that McIntosh, in the Tinsdale
newsletter I have referred to, states that his dream is to have a
major creationist museum, along the lines of the AiG museum in the
USA, established in the UK near to Birmingham.
The statement followed his visit to the then partly completed AiG
museum in the USA.
We should keep our eyes open for a lottery grant application to fund
it. In the last accounts filed by AiG UK with the Charity Commission,
there was a one-off receipt of some £290k plus (IIRC). Presumably
this was left by someone who died. It would be a start to funding
such a museum.
I'll check later to see if it was "restricted" (meaning set aside for
a specific use).
Roger
1822
Martin Young
Re: Truth in Science
20/07/2006 10:55:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Young" <martin@> wrote:
> >
> > A little bit of investigation reveals you can find takeheed at
> > <http://takeheed.net/>, last update 15th July 2006.
> >
>
> True, but its the page that refers to Truth in Science that has been
> removed.
Is it this one, from Google's cache?
<http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:oH1fQEnljbMJ:www.takeheed.net/MARCH%25202004\
.htm+Willis+Metcalfe+truthinscience&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a>
<http://tinyurl.com/kg9ny>
"Our aim is to compliment the work of existing Creation groups by
targeting education in particular."
If not, can you post the actual broken link please?
1823
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Final Draft Statement (I hope)
20/07/2006 11:27:00
On 20/07/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> ...
> Whilst I propose this compromise, I still am unsure whether it will
> be effective enough. Alan quite rightly raises the issue of "Teach
> the Controversy Creationism" being pushed in schools. That seems to
> me not to be quite the same thing as teaching creationism as science.
> It seems to be an exercise in trying to de-stabilise science for
> religious and political objectives.
>
> How do we handle that?
Well, I see several problems, but I believe I also see a solution.
The following paragraph may seem tangled, but it demonstrates the
interrelatedness of the problems, and I will then separate into
enumerated points shortly thereafter.
Lenny has already brought up one: you don't have the recognition of
the principle of the Separation of Church and State as of yet, and
just because it isn't science doesn't mean that it isn't religion - so
as things currently stand, they could try and teach it as religion,
and it may take a while to establish the Separation of Church and
State. Getting creationism out of the science classes is most
important - as it denies them the right to claim that it is just as
valid as modern science, but getting it out of schools is almost as
important, and children may have difficulty making the distinction
between legitimate and illegitimate science if it is still taught in
schools. Moreover, there is no organisation which seeks to remove it
from schools if that organisation is not the BCSE - not without trying
to establish the Separation of Church and State. And as you have
already pointed out, some of the people who might otherwise align
themselves with the BCSE will feel put-off if we don't try to drive
creationism out of the schools as such.
So now that I have made this tangle, let's enumerate:
1. no Separation of Church and Sate;
2. creationism could still be taught as religion;
3. students may be unable to understand the distinction;
4. it may take a while to establish the Separation of Church and State;
5. no organisation would specifically seek to remove creationism from
schools as such; and,
6. some people who might align themselves with us will be
understandably upset if we don't try and get creationism removed from
schools a such.
In a certain sense, we are well within uncharted territory here, and
the experience of those from the states isn't necessarily applicable.
So let me propose a compromise: we should have enumerated goals which
we can present in the form of a simple logical progression, then be
able to summarise them all with a simple statement.
For the enumerated points, I suggest:
1. creationism should be kept out of science classes since it is not science;
2. since creationism sets itself up as a "reasonable" alternative to
modern science in the interpretation of scientific evidence, it is an
irrational, ideological attack upon science, and it should not be
taught in state schools;
3. insofar as private schools receive any financial state support,
they should not be able to present creationism for the very same
reasons;
4. insofar as the state recognises the accreditation of private
schools, these private schools cannot be permitted to teach
creationism, for the same reason as (3); and,
5. given the preceding logical progression, an organisation devoted
to the defence of science education can legitimately oppose
creationism being taught in state schools and private credited
schools.
However, we need to be able to summarise this succinctly - and not as
enumerated points.
I suggest:
"In the name of modern science and for the sake of both education and
society, creationism must be barred from schools."
Thoughts?
1824
Roger Stanyard
Re: Truth in Science
20/07/2006 11:28:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Young" <martin@...> wrote:
>
> Is it this one, from Google's cache?
>
> <http://66.102.9.104/search?
q=cache:oH1fQEnljbMJ:www.takeheed.net/MARCH%
25202004.htm+Willis+Metcalfe+truthinscience&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=1&c
lient=firefox-a>
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/kg9ny>
>
> "Our aim is to compliment the work of existing Creation groups by
> targeting education in particular."
Yep, that's the one although the Tiny URL didn't work. Thanks Martin.
Roger
>
> If not, can you post the actual broken link please?
>
1825
oeditor
Re: Truth in Science
20/07/2006 11:48:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Young" <martin@> wrote:
> > "Our aim is to compliment the work of existing Creation groups by
> > targeting education in particular."
>
> Yep, that's the one although the Tiny URL didn't work. Thanks Martin.
>
One signatory is Willis B. Metcalfe. BT reveals that there's a
W.B Metcalfe
427 North Rd, Darlington DL1 3BN
Could be something, could be nothing. Multimap shows that it's not a
farm, but he could have retired. BT also shows a W. Metcalfe in
Stockton and another at Leeming Bar - and the address is in farm land:
W Metcalfe
43 Leeming La, Leeming Bar, Northallerton DL7 9RR
Probably nothing, but there you are.
Brian
1826
oeditor
Re: Truth in Science
20/07/2006 13:03:00
A bit more digging comes up with a few things - which may not be new.
1) Magazine of Tinshill Free Church, Leeds, Sept 04
McIntosh boast of forming Truth in Science with Layfield, Metcalfe,
Roberts and Perfect. Says he 'did some ministry' in the USA, and is
listed as giving a creationist talk at Leeds Freshers' Week.
http://www.tinshill.f9.co.uk/223.pdf
2) Metcalfe went on a preaching trip to Slovakia with one Philip
Slater who seems to be very anti-catholic:
"It is the superstitious fog of Catholicism. It obscures from view the
glories of the gospel. Catholic churches and their shrines abound, be
they Roman, Greek or Eastern Orthodox. The sight of a pathetic figure,
in an apparent trance, standing before a side altar holding his rosary
beads, is fixed in my memory.
There are also many Lutheran hurches. The Reformer would disown them
because of compromise with Rome on the scriptural verity of
justification by faith alone in Christ alone."
http://www.evangelical-times.org/Articles/July02/jul02a07.htm
3)Metcalfe is described as "Evangelical Press Director" here:
http://www.evangelical-times.org/ETNews/Apr02/apr02n09.htm
4)Evangelical Press's address is:
Grange Close
Faverdale North Industrial Estate
Darlington
DL3 0PH
http://www.evangelicalpress.org
where there is no mention of Metcalfe. Executive Director is David
Clark - would he be the son of co-founder Bill Clark?
That's enough of that - there's a limit to what I can stand, and the
lode seems to be mined out.
Brian
1827
Roger Stanyard
Re: Truth in Science
20/07/2006 13:37:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> A bit more digging comes up with a few things - which may not be new.
>
Thanks Brian,
I've put all the bits together in a mini-article on my blog at
http://360.yahoo.com/stanyardroger
I checked out AiG's annual accounts and the £291k legacy - it's
unrestricted so, presuumably, AiG can do the hell what it likes with it.
Roger
1828
Jim S
Re: Re: Final Draft Statement (I hope)
20/07/2006 13:55:00
How about:
"The British Centre for Science Education (BCSE) is a
new international group of individuals formed to act
as an umbrella organisation whose primary purposes are
to counter the teaching of Creationism and its
variants in science classrooms and highlight instances
in educational establishments where Creationism is
being promoted as a factual explanation for (the
emergence of modern-day lifeforms)"
Is an organsation allowed to have two primary
purposes? ;)
The first statement emphasises the objection to
Creationism being taught as science, the second allows
for BCSE objections if Creationism is found being
taught as fact in any other school topic."
Someone with more knowledge of the subject than me
should clarify the text in brackets.
How will this BCSE differ from the SJS campaign?
J.
--- Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk>
wrote:
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank"
> <lflank@...> wrote:
> >
> >> Let it go. It's a fight you won't win, and it
> lets them fight on
> > their own terms.
> >
> > Keeping their crap out of science classrooms
> should be our goal.
> >
> There is obviously string debate and opinion in the
> group whether
> BCSE should limit itself to opposing the teaching of
> creation in
> science lessons (although I doubt anyone disagrees
> that, for
> practical purposes, the definition of should also
> include geology and
> geography).
>
> Let me suggest a compromise: that BCSE should state
> that its
> objective is to stop the teaching of creationism as
> science in state
> schools.
>
> This covers what I regard as the Maginot line
> problem. That is, if
> creationism is kept out of science, it will be
> taught in other
> disciplines (not just Religious Education) or with
> the use of outside
> speakers claiming to be scientists – the Ken Hams,
> Andrew Snellings
> and John Mackays of this world.
>
> Its only a couple of months or so back when John
> Mackay hit the
> headlines in the UK over Millfield school. A lot of
> people seriously
> objected to his involvement in the school. Are we to
> discount them
> out by saying that it didn't matter because what
> Mackay planned
> didn't involve teaching in science lessons?
>
> After all, Alan Bellis was the leading light in this
> group in
> opposing him. Alan actually wrote to the local
> newspaper. The Rev
> Michael Roberts over in SJS appears to have had a
> major role as well.
>
> Whilst I propose this compromise, I still am unsure
> whether it will
> be effective enough. Alan quite rightly raises the
> issue of "Teach
> the Controversy Creationism" being pushed in
> schools. That seems to
> me not to be quite the same thing as teaching
> creationism as science.
> It seems to be an exercise in trying to de-stabilise
> science for
> religious and political objectives.
>
> How do we handle that?
>
> Roger
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
___________________________________________________________
Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Yahoo! Mail.
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
1829
Peter Abel
Re: Who is this guy?
20/07/2006 14:38:00
That's true but a lot of fundies are using pseudo-scientific language
to get public acceptance and to get their creationist rhetoric into
our school lessons, eg. Intelligent Design theory. We need to win the
argument to get the general public on our side and to ridicule these
creationist nutters into oblivion.
The best way to do this I feel is to use our strongest weapon,
Reason. We are never going to win over the fundies but we can
relegate them to the sidelines where there opinions don't count
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
> > The only way to bring these guys down is to subject their views to
> > independant scientific scrutiny via a peer reviewed paper
>
>
>
> Alas, this fight simply isn't about science. If it were, it would
> have been over a hundred years ago. It's not even about religion,
> either, since the vast majority of churches, worldwide, think the
> fundies are nutters.
>
> This fight is about politics. Pure and simple.
>
> Creationists were not won TO creationism because of science. They
> won't be won AWAY from it because of science, either.
>
> The only way to beat them is the same way any OTHER political
> movement is beaten --- by out-organizing them.
>
>
>
>
> ===================================
> 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
>
1830
oeditor
Re: Who is this guy?
20/07/2006 16:57:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Abel" <peteabel12@...> wrote:
>
> That's true but a lot of fundies are using pseudo-scientific language
> to get public acceptance and to get their creationist rhetoric into
> our school lessons, eg. Intelligent Design theory. We need to win the
> argument to get the general public on our side and to ridicule these
> creationist nutters into oblivion.
> The best way to do this I feel is to use our strongest weapon,
> Reason. We are never going to win over the fundies but we can
> relegate them to the sidelines where there opinions don't count
>
I agree. It's all very well saying that it's not about science, but
that's now how the average punter will see it. I think it's important
to have refutations of their pseudoscientific claims at had. In
layman's terms, with links to proper scientific stuff - perhaps in two
layers of complexity. Preferably with the inital attack available in
print.
Brian
1831
Drew Smith
RE: Re: Truth in Science
20/07/2006 17:00:00
Roger: The odd person in the list is the Rev Maurice Roberts. He seems to be
an ex-minister of the Wee Frees (?) in Scotland (Inverness) who appears to
have picked a big argument with that movement (or vice versa). That appears
to have taken place in the 1990s.
Drew: It appears that Roberts was one of a number of Free Church of Scotland
ministers who were facing suspension for their activities as part of the
"Free Church Defence Association", which had been complaining during the
late 1990s that the Free Church was becoming too liberal. So on 21 January
2000, 31 of these ministers walked out of a Free Church conference to create
their own denomination, Free Church of Scotland (Continuing).
1832
oeditor
Re: Truth in Science
20/07/2006 17:02:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@> wrote:
> >
> > A bit more digging comes up with a few things - which may not be new.
> >
I've been skimming through back-issues of the Tinshill Free Church
magazine. From September 2005 (233) to July/August 2006 (242) are
available on their web site as pdfs.
At first, they seemed pretty inoccuous, mainstream christian
witterings. 236 was broken, and then 237 (February 2006) opened with a
bang: a tirade against Dawkins which in passing accused the 'Our
Dynamic Earth' exhibition in Edinburgh of harming children's
understandings of origins, of life and of spiritual life.
The following issue (238) has a grumble about David Attenborough and
his BBC web site which the pastor found overly evolutionary. In
addition, Andy McIntosh is listed as preaching on the evening of 2/4/06
Issue 240 (May 2006) grumbles on about the secularisation of society
along with an anti-evolutionary dig. It says that were it not for the
muslim presence, matters of faith 'would be entirely frowned upon' -
so much for the '70% christian' myth!
That's about all there is of interest, but it shows the presence
and influence of Andy McIntosh. Also, the pastor regularly takes part
in the ASDA chaplaincy. I wonder if WalMart coughs up any money for
the cretinists?
Finally, they seem to be very involved with developing countries - no
doubt spreading a cretinist version of christianity.
Brian
1833
Roger Stanyard
Re: Truth in Science
20/07/2006 17:46:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Drew Smith" <drewsmithtpa@...>
wrote:
>
Drew;
Damn.
I thought there might have been a juicy tabloid press story behind
this; something along the lines that he had been molesting the
cleaning lady of his church or run off with her and the church
steeple fund.
Seriously, though, thanks for the info; I'll add it to my blog. Me
thinks that if Truth in Science is a serious organisation, the info
may well prove to be useful.
Roger
>
> Drew: It appears that Roberts was one of a number of Free Church of
Scotland
> ministers who were facing suspension for their activities as part
of the
> "Free Church Defence Association", which had been complaining
during the
> late 1990s that the Free Church was becoming too liberal. So on 21
January
> 2000, 31 of these ministers walked out of a Free Church conference
to create
> their own denomination, Free Church of Scotland (Continuing).
>
1834
Timothy Chase
A Win/Win Compromise? Science Education or Education as Such
20/07/2006 19:36:00
Roger had written, "There is obviously string debate and opinion in
the group whether BCSE should limit itself to opposing the teaching of
creation in science lessons (although I doubt anyone disagrees that,
for practical purposes, the definition of should also include geology
and geography)."
He then suggested a compromise which consisted of focusing on the
science lesson in state schools.
20/07/2006, 8:07 am
http://groups.yahoo.comhttp://message/1817
This seemed reasonable - given the BCSE's focus on science education.
But he also expressed his dissatisfaction with this approach:
"Whilst I propose this compromise, I still am unsure whether it will
be effective enough. Alan quite rightly raises the issue of 'Teach the
Controversy Creationism' being pushed in schools. That seems to me not
to be quite the same thing as teaching creationism as science. It
seems to be an exercise in trying to de-stabilise science for
religious and political objectives."
Likewise, Lenny acknowledged that things would be made much more
difficult given the lack of formal recognition for the principle of
the Separation of Church and State in your legal system, and as I
pointed out, this leads to a variety of other problems.
So I proposed a different compromise. I wrote, "we should have
enumerated goals which we can present in the form of a simple logical
progression, then be able to summarise them all with a simple
statement."
Afterwards I listed the following points:
1. creationism should be kept out of science classes since it is not science;
2. since creationism sets itself up as a "reasonable" alternative to
modern science in the interpretation of scientific evidence, it is an
irrational, ideological attack upon science, and it should not be
taught in state schools;
3. insofar as private schools receive any financial state support,
they should not be able to present creationism for the very same
reasons;
4. insofar as the state recognises the accreditation of private
schools, these private schools cannot be permitted to teach
creationism, for the same reason as (3); and,
5. given the preceding logical progression, an organisation devoted
to the defence of science education can legitimately oppose
creationism being taught in state schools and private credited
schools.
Then I suggested the following summary statement:
"In the name of modern science and for the sake of both education and
society, creationism must be barred from schools."
20/07/2006, 10:27 am
http://groups.yahoo.comhttp://message/1823
One point I would like to emphasize: I do not see this compromise as
in any way changing the fundamental mission or focus of BCSE. It is
instead a logical justification in terms of our mission (the defence
of science education against creationism) for a broader campaign
against creationism in education as such. As such, it preserves the
minimalistic mission stressed by those who would focus on science, but
justifies the wider concrete goals of those who believe our focus
should be wide enough to include all education, private as well as
state.
1835
Roger Stanyard
Re: A Win/Win Compromise? Science Education or Education as Such
20/07/2006 21:40:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase"
<timothychase@...> wrote:
>
Tim,
I am sitting on some more thoughts that I may need to use over the
next 24 hours to help address this issue.
We can't touch private schools. That will be about kicking the
establishment and, in any case, the best of them are onside.
The schools that Sylvia Baker is involved in are so small to be
irrelevent.
I do have to say that our target is state schools; by definition
schools that the state pays for educating children, whether or not
they are state owned. There are some odd British nuances in this
definition that need to be thought about.
It's late at night so I will get back on this important issue in the
morning.
Roger
> Afterwards I listed the following points:
>
> 1. creationism should be kept out of science classes since it is
not science;
>
> 2. since creationism sets itself up as a "reasonable" alternative to
> modern science in the interpretation of scientific evidence, it is
an
> irrational, ideological attack upon science, and it should not be
> taught in state schools;
>
> 3. insofar as private schools receive any financial state support,
> they should not be able to present creationism for the very same
> reasons;
>
> 4. insofar as the state recognises the accreditation of private
> schools, these private schools cannot be permitted to teach
> creationism, for the same reason as (3); and,
>
> 5. given the preceding logical progression, an organisation devoted
> to the defence of science education can legitimately oppose
> creationism being taught in state schools and private credited
> schools.
>
> Then I suggested the following summary statement:
>
> "In the name of modern science and for the sake of both education
and
> society, creationism must be barred from schools."
>
> 20/07/2006, 10:27 am
> http://groups.yahoo.comhttp://message/1823
>
> One point I would like to emphasize: I do not see this compromise
as
> in any way changing the fundamental mission or focus of BCSE. It is
> instead a logical justification in terms of our mission (the defence
> of science education against creationism) for a broader campaign
> against creationism in education as such. As such, it preserves the
> minimalistic mission stressed by those who would focus on science,
but
> justifies the wider concrete goals of those who believe our focus
> should be wide enough to include all education, private as well as
> state.
>
1836
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: A Win/Win Compromise? Science Education or Education as Such
20/07/2006 22:09:00
On 20/07/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase"
> <timothychase@...> wrote:
> >
> Tim,
>
> I am sitting on some more thoughts that I may need to use over the
> next 24 hours to help address this issue.
...
>
> It's late at night so I will get back on this important issue in the
> morning.
Sounds good. Whatever works will most certainly work for me. As for
sleep, I can understand. I had only two hours last night and was
falling asleep on the bus to work. Complicated story. Fairly awake
at the moment, but I can feel it creeping up on me.
1837
Joe Cooper
Hovind plea: subornationof false muster
20/07/2006 23:08:00
Hovind's attorney, Assistant Public Defender Kafahni Nkrumah, told U.S.
Magistrate Judge Miles Davis at a hearing Monday that his client did not
want to enter a plea because he does not believe the United States, the
Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Attorney's Office "have
jurisdiction in this matter."
When pressed by Davis to enter a plea of either guilty or not guilty,
Hovind said he wished to enter a plea of "subornation of false muster."
"Subornation," according to Webster's Dictionary, means instigating
another to do something illegal. "Muster" is an assembly, often for
inspection or roll call.
When pressed by Davis, Hovind said he was entering a not guilty plea
"under duress."
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/scienceblogs/dispatches/~3/http%3A%2F%2Fsciencebl\
ogs.com%2Fdispatches%2F2006%2F07%2Fmore_on_hovinds_trial.php
1838
Joe Cooper
Darwins ship replica being build.
20/07/2006 23:13:00
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/south_west/5190734.stm
Maybe someone could sponser a race between this replica and a replica of
Noah's Ark
Joe Cooper
1839
JAF
Re: Re: 2nd Draft of Statement
21/07/2006 06:48:00
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:14:29 -0000, you wrote:
>--- 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!
>
All we had was a cardboard box in t'gravel pit, an' a roll of barbed wire
for a pillow.
Kids today, don't know they're born.
--
JAF
anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
"Caw" said the crow.
"Balls" said the Milligan.
1840
Roger Stanyard
Re: 2nd Draft of Statement
21/07/2006 09:54:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, JAF <anarch@...> wrote:
>
>> All we had was a cardboard box in t'gravel pit, an' a roll of barbed
wire
> for a pillow.
> Kids today, don't know they're born.
Aye, Obidiah, and you try and tell t'Americans that - they won't
believe you!
Roger
1841
Marc Draco
No To Academies Website/Blyth Meeting
21/07/2006 10:23:00
As from today, I am assuming day-to-day running of NoToAcademies.org.uk
as per Pete's request.
Like Alan, Pete has to concentrate on his own life (and PhD!) for a
while and I wish him well; as I'm sure we all do. The site remains
Pete's baby so don't expect any massive changes, it's just that I have a
little more free time to look after daily happenings.
OK. Other news, I attended the Blyth meeting last night and although I
managed to shoot down some of the "Vardyisms" it's pretty clear that
some of the union support is non-specific; probably because they are
(rightly) protecting their members. It's unlikely that they will need
direct support from NTA centrally as they're well organised and plugged
in. I suspect that some (certainly not all) are frightened of strong
anti-Vardy messages. Anti-Vardy - not anti-Christian, but it looks to me
like Vardy is doing an excellent job of hiding behind his bibles just
like a terrorist might hide behind a human shield. This mixing of
(generally reasonable) Christian message with a dose of extremism needs
to be exposed fo all to see.
That said: they is a groundswell from the humanists present and some
union members that Vardy's particular style of education is also
unwelcome. The humanist rep pointed out the section on the "marriage is
the only way forward" route that is presented by McQuoid, et. al.
Vin Wynne also reminded those present that THREE of the Vardy schools
have applied for "faith" status. This will allow them to hire/fire staff
on the basis of their belief.
This is bloody dangerous given what they ALREADY teach.
It will also allow them to select children based on that faith position:
which effectively allows them to select kids from a much wider area.
1842
Marc Draco
Re: Darwins ship replica being build.
21/07/2006 13:05:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Joe Cooper <joe0727@...> wrote:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/south_west/5190734.stm
>
> Maybe someone could sponser a race between this replica and a
replica of
> Noah's Ark
>
> Joe Cooper
Noah's Ark wasn't meant to sail, it was meant to float.
What they need to do is explain HOW Noah's Ark was constructed. It's
not like Noah could go to B&Q to get some power tools; B&Q didn't
exist then.
The might also explain how Noah cut the planks and how he got
sufficient pitch to coat a boat of that size inside and out.
1843
oeditor
Re: Darwins ship replica being build.
21/07/2006 13:39:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Marc Draco"
<midnight.diamond@...> wrote:
>
> What they need to do is explain HOW Noah's Ark was constructed. It's
> not like Noah could go to B&Q to get some power tools; B&Q didn't
> exist then.
How many people is he supposed to have have had to help - just his own
tribe? How many people had 'Adam and Eve' multiplied to by that time?
I can't be bothered to re-invent the raft - somebody must have worked
it out already. Any ideas? Nick?
Brian
1844
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: 2nd Draft of Statement
21/07/2006 14:19:00
On 21/07/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, JAF <anarch@...> wrote:
> >
> >> All we had was a cardboard box in t'gravel pit, an' a roll of barbed
> wire
> > for a pillow.
> > Kids today, don't know they're born.
>
> Aye, Obidiah, and you try and tell t'Americans that - they won't
> believe you!
My mother and father reminded their children on numerous occasions how
much more difficult things were when they were growing up. Winters
were colder, the snow was deeper, and going to school, they would both
walk several miles uphill both ways.
1845
Roger Stanyard
Re: Darwins ship replica being build.
21/07/2006 14:49:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Marc Draco" <midnight.diamond@...>
wrote:
>
I dunno if you know but the leading idiot in th Noah's Ark crapology is
one John Woodmorappe. That's not his real name for some reason, but he
is, apparently, a school teacher with no background in naval
architecture whatsoever.
Glen Morton has reviewed his book on Talkorigins - Morton treats him
sympathetically in his review. You can see it at
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-review.html.
However, in replying Woodmorappe is utterly viscious, claiming that
anyone who contradicts his religious opinions and his book is a
criminal. There is a URL link to the reply giving at the end of the
Morton review.
I think Nick Cowan sometime back stated suggested that he admired
Woodmorappe.
After reading Woodmorappe's reply to Morton, it is difficult not to
conclude that Woodmorappe is a raging arrogant bigot who is hopelessly
out of his depth.
Never mind the hopeless crackpot biology; anyone with even a cursory
understanding of the engineering of floating vessels could pull the
book to pieces.
Incidentally, who said that Noah's Ark wasn't meant to sail? The
nutters seem to think it had anchors. So why not sails or oars,
steerboard or rudder?
If the myth is to be believed, the fundies seems to need to explain
how, in seriously turbulant seas it kept away from rocks and other
hazards.
Woodmorappe suffers from the same syndrome as Ahmanson, Tourette's
Syndrome, which probably accounts for him appearing to be as mad as a
hatter.
Roger
1846
Roger Stanyard
Re: No To Academies Website/Blyth Meeting
21/07/2006 15:01:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
wrote:
>
Congratulations in your new role, Marc.
> Vin Wynne also reminded those present that THREE of the Vardy schools
> have applied for "faith" status. This will allow them to hire/fire
staff
> on the basis of their belief.
Marc, which three Vardy schools are these? He's only got three at
present.
Have the parents been consulted about turning them into faith schools?
(Er, need I ask this?)
Looks like what is happening is that Vardy is now aiming to make them
into openly fundie schools.
My guess is that sooner of later, Vardy and his pals will be looking to
establish a fundie university with close ties to his fundie schools.
This goes back to my points in previous posts; we can aim to keep
creationism out of science lessons but the fundies will always, and
easily, find some way around it to descredit science in the name of
their religious opinions.
That's their tactic in the first place.
Roger
/
>
> This is bloody dangerous given what they ALREADY teach.
>
> It will also allow them to select children based on that faith
position:
> which effectively allows them to select kids from a much wider area.
>
1847
Roger Stanyard
The Conundrum
21/07/2006 18:34:00
The Conundrum
Let's turn the issue on its head.
Teaching religion and religious assembly in English (I use the word
carefully as I will explain) schools basically means presenting
children with something that their parents consider uncontroversial.
For the most part that means teaching a bland form of Anglicanism
with limited proselytising.
Whilst we don't have a legal separation of church and state in the
UK, there is an unwritten assumption that what is taught is moderate
and does not offend the majority of denominations (and, nowadays,
other religions).
The Catholics have long had their opt outs from this (including in
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland).
But, in practice it means that most schools in the UK (whether they
are CofE or not) are free to teach religion only if a moderate
position is taken. They are not there to proselytise.
The fundamentalists believe completely otherwise. The schools are
seen as a method of destabilising science in pursuit of their
religious and political ambitions and potentially captive vehicles
for proselytising to children. Unlike the RCs they are not opting for
their own denominational schools but a wholesale infiltration of
state schools.
That seriously threatens both the position of the CofE within schools
and the teaching of religious education and religious assemblies.
In extremis, are we to idly sit by and ignore the majority of
Christians who are not fundamentalists and who oppose the
creationists?
If we do, we will, quite rightly be accused of sitting on the fence.
The evidence from Millfield is that it was the Religious Education
department of the school that got Mackay and his pals kicked out,
after considerable effort from local Anglican clergy.
I may be wrong on this but understand that a disproportionate number
of RE teachers in UK schools are both Anglican and trained at the
expense of the Anglican church to be teachers (you need a teaching
certificate to teach in state schools in the UK and that requires a
one-year full time post graduate course).
Whilst I wholeheartedly agree that BCSE should not (and cannot) aim
to stop religious education in schools (something I personally don't
have strong views on anyway), I think we would be doing a great
disservice to our cause in not trying to get the mainstream religious
educators on-side.
Ignoring their plight is a quick way to alienate them and a lot of
other people as well. That's why I suggested the compromise.
I have tried to carefully choose my words (Ian, don't get offended).
The problem is that separation of church and state in the UK is not
what it means. The Anglican Church is disestablished in Wales and
Northern Ireland and never has been the established church in
Scotland. Moreover, its involvement in education is not, strictly
speaking, an issue of separation of church and state. The RCC is
deeply involved in state education in the UK and it, for obvious
reasons, is not an established church.
But, as an established Church the unwritten rules are that it keeps
its nose clean and represents a lot and offends few. It's a fudge, a
compromise (and don't fundies just love to hate the word compromise).
Whilst it appears that about 10% of its clergy are YECers, they are
still in a tiny minority and few of the YECers I have reported on are
Anglicans. Ahmanson, John Burn, Nick Cowan and some of the people at
the Christian Institute are the only ones I can recall that have
influence in the UK.
Like the RCC, the Anglicans are basically not neutral on teaching
creationism in schools (both oppose it in science and I assume the
RCs don't invite along the fundies to teach it in RE) but I think
that the unwritten Anglican opposition also extends to the teaching
of creationism in RE and other disciplines as well.
Are we to ignore that? How many of us have actually bothered to ask
UK RC and Anglican RE teachers and clergy about these issues and what
their opinions are. How many have even bothered to ask anyone who is
a practising Catholic or Anglican in the UK? I've done it once and
once only.
However, bearing all of this in mind, my thinking does not entirely
apply to Scotland for the reasons given and from what Ian has gone
out of his way to elucidate for us. I'm on weak grounds in talking
about Wales and the issue in Northern Ireland is much more complex
because there is widespread support there amongst the general public
(well, amongst Protestants) for creationism. From my understanding
there is also a fair amount of hostility in Northern Ireland towards
segregated education depending on which religious sect you belong to.
Ian Henderson over at SJS, who is extremely knowledgeable about
fundamentalism and is a practising Presbyterian, has been a big help
in explaining this and I expect would be most helpful if we need to
ask more questions.
Ian might want to add some comments, specific to Scotland, to this.
Finally, Marc has pointed out that Vardy is looking to convert three
of his schools to faith schools. I haven't thought this through yet
but it seems to me to add another seriously complexity to the issue
as it allows Vardy to restrict entry to his state funded schools
based on religious belief and discriminate against employing teachers
who do not hold his religious views.
In general in the UK, it is illegal to discriminate against someone
in employing them, based on religion, gender or race. Well Vardy is
aiming for exemption from this.
How nice. So a Christian teacher is likely to be refused employment
because he/she is not a fundamentalist. We need people like this on-
side.
I think these are about all I have to say on this issue. We gonna
have to take a decision on whether we go for the compromise or not.
Can we have any final comments, please?
1848
John Germain
RE: Re: Darwins ship replica being build.
21/07/2006 19:34:00
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Woodmorappe
Quite how this dickhead had a struggle to adapt to the language and culture of
the USA
when he was bloody well BORN there eludes me.
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Roger
Stanyard
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 2:50 PM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: Darwins ship replica being build.
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Marc Draco" <midnight.diamond@...>
wrote:
>
I dunno if you know but the leading idiot in th Noah's Ark crapology is
one John Woodmorappe. That's not his real name for some reason, but he
is, apparently, a school teacher with no background in naval
architecture whatsoever.
Glen Morton has reviewed his book on Talkorigins - Morton treats him
sympathetically in his review. You can see it at
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-review.html.
However, in replying Woodmorappe is utterly viscious, claiming that
anyone who contradicts his religious opinions and his book is a
criminal. There is a URL link to the reply giving at the end of the
Morton review.
I think Nick Cowan sometime back stated suggested that he admired
Woodmorappe.
After reading Woodmorappe's reply to Morton, it is difficult not to
conclude that Woodmorappe is a raging arrogant bigot who is hopelessly
out of his depth.
Never mind the hopeless crackpot biology; anyone with even a cursory
understanding of the engineering of floating vessels could pull the
book to pieces.
Incidentally, who said that Noah's Ark wasn't meant to sail? The
nutters seem to think it had anchors. So why not sails or oars,
steerboard or rudder?
If the myth is to be believed, the fundies seems to need to explain
how, in seriously turbulant seas it kept away from rocks and other
hazards.
Woodmorappe suffers from the same syndrome as Ahmanson, Tourette's
Syndrome, which probably accounts for him appearing to be as mad as a
hatter.
Roger
Yahoo! Groups Links
1849
Wilson Alan
