1851
Marc Draco
Re: No To Academies Website/Blyth Meeting
21/07/2006 23:27:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@>
> wrote:
> >
>
> Congratulations in your new role, Marc.
Thank you. I doubt I can fill Pete's shoes really, but I will take his
lead.
>
> > 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.
Trinity (Doncaster), Kings (Middlesbrough) and Emmanuel (Gateshead).
> Have the parents been consulted about turning them into faith schools?
> (Er, need I ask this?)
Not so far as I am aware. I'm looking into this, but it's delicate.
>
> Looks like what is happening is that Vardy is now aiming to make
them into openly fundie schools.
That would be my analysis too. Some (NOT ALL) of the Blyth union reps
don't see this as a problem. I do.
>
> 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.
Makes perfect sense. But I would be more concerned that he's reaching
for YOUNGER kids. It's easier to indoctrinate younger people.
> 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.
1852
Marc Draco
Re: Darwins ship replica being build.
21/07/2006 23:30:00
The "not meant to sail" BS is fairly standard stuff when the design
problems are attacked, Roger. The idea is that the Ark was an
emergency measure (!) built to bob around with no control - rather
like a raft with decks.
My guess is that the original version of the story was little more
than that - but it's become embellished over the millenia.
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> --- 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
>
1853
Marc Draco
Re: Truth in Science
21/07/2006 23:32:00
These are all near to me. I can scout them out if needs be.
Google Maps are better than Multimap in my experience (maps.google.co.uk)
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- 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
>
1854
Marc Draco
Re: Final Draft Statement (I hope)
21/07/2006 23:35:00
> I suggest:
>
> "In the name of modern science and for the sake of both education and
> society, creationism must be barred from schools."
>
> Thoughts?
It already has been, according to the BHA! That clearly isn't stopping
Vardy.
1855
Ian Lowe
RE: The Conundrum
22/07/2006 00:20:00
> I have tried to carefully choose my words (Ian, don't get offended).
Don't feel the need to tread on eggshells ;)
> Ian might want to add some comments, specific to Scotland, to this.
Yeah, for all intents and purposes, the Church of Scotland is in the same
position as the CoE in England as representing a milder, moderate form of
christianity, and therefore probably of similar mind to us with regards to
the fundies.
We don't have CoS schools - the Catholic Church is the only large group with
it's own state funded schools in Scotland, and that's a very different beast
- they are absolutely not pro-creationist or fundamentalist.
They do, however, discriminate on the basis of religion in recruitment.
Those with a more atheist/secular bent will obviously wish to campaign on
these issues, but that's clearly not the same ballpark as BCSE.
> 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?
I consider myself a fairly virulent atheist. I have little or no time for
religion of any kind, but I see the need to work on a broad base of support
for this campaign.
Seems the only sensible approach to me.
Ian.
1856
Ian Lowe
RE: The Conundrum
22/07/2006 00:45:00
bgcolor="white"
Alan,
That has to be some of the most offensive drivel I have encountered.
Can I suggest you bother to actually find out some facts before spewing your uninformed bile?
Religious Backwaters? "more akin to the US bible belt"?
You clearly know absolutely nothing about the religious or political scene in Scotland. Our parliament has refused to implement Blair's wacky Academies, are seeking to prevent new faith schools from being set up, and have moved towards joint campus schools rather than segregated catholic/non denom schools? Scotland is much further along the path of secularisation of education than England.
I actually agree that England should be the primary target, but not for the xenophobic reasons you suggest - there's more of a need there, the fundies are well organised and quite clearly targetting English Schools, and the large percentage of Church schools lends itself too easily to infiltration by those religious extremists.
For all your ignorant "religious backwaters" rubbish, a very tiny proportion of Scottish schools are "of religious character", and we have the lowest observance of an "act of daily worship" in the UK - less than 2% of our schools do so. The Church of Scotland (which to all intents and purposes is the established church north of the border) is against the teaching of creationism, does not see evolution as contrary to faith and has quite an enlightened approach to science. (as can be seen clearly here: http://www.srtp.org.uk/ )
Seriously, you have some screwed up notions about the rest of the UK. Try not being such a narrow minded bigot in future, yeah?
I.
----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Wilson Alan
Sent: 21 July 2006 19:27
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [BlackShadow] The Conundrum
Roger,
My view is that we should consider England to be our “primary target audience” since
NI, Scotland and probably Wales are in my opinion 17th Century religious backwaters
more akin to the US bible belt than to mainstream Anglicanism.
That doesn’t mean we should ignore them but by treating them as backward we can concentrate
on elevating Anglicanism (and Roman Catholicism) as having the sanest approach to science and evolution education in the UK
Alan W
----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Stanyard
Sent: 21 July 2006 18:35
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] The Conundrum
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 empl oying 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?
1857
Ian Lowe
RE: The Conundrum
22/07/2006 00:55:00
in fact, go read this and educate yourself:
http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=448232006
THE leader of the Scottish Episcopal Church said yesterday that creationism
should not be taught in schools and that a 'false battleground' was pitting
science against faith.
The position was supported by both the Church of Scotland and the Catholic
Church in Scotland. A spokesman for the Church of Scotland said: 'The
situation in England with creationism being taught in schools has not arisen
in Scotland. Creationism would be a minority position in the Church of
Scotland.'
Meanwhile, Father Michael McMahon, a scholar with the Catholic Church in
Scotland, said: 'The Hebrews, the people who composed the Book of Genesis,
didn't believe it was first-hand reportage, that there was someone peering
behind the trees writing it all down. The book is a literary thesis about
the creativeness of the world, not a description of the scientific process
by which the world was created. You don't read Genesis as you do a science
book. To do that is to reduce what it is trying to do, which is explain the
relationship between human beings, one to another and those to God.'
I.
1858
Wilson Alan
RE: The Conundrum
22/07/2006 01:28:00
bgcolor="white"
Ian,
As a humanist and, with my wife, adoptive
parents of two black children,
I don’t think I’m a narrow
minded bigot, but you’re entitled to your opinion like everyone else.
Try not to jump to conclusions in future,
yeah?
Northern Ireland is, in my opinion, to which I’m also entitled, a 17th
Century religious backwater.
The NI “Evangelicals” are
strongly supported, in their 17th Century Reformation religious
views, by their Scottish equivalents.
Although I’m delighted to hear that Scotland is in fact more secular than England, I didn’t
write or imply they were in a minority in either country.
I gave my opinion based on a lifetime’s
experience having being born and brought up in NI, as the son of a mixed
catholic and protestant parents.
Northern Ireland’s “born again” evangelical “Christianity”
has blighted NI politically and socially, for decades in my opinion!.
Like you, I am an atheist, although I
would present myself as an agnostic when debating religious matters.
I’m also sorry that you find what I wrote
“offensive drivel” but in the end – so what! <shrug>
At least we agree that England should
be the target audience but for different reasons.
Alan W
----
From:
BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ian Lowe
Sent: 22 July 2006 00:45
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [BlackShadow] The
Conundrum
Alan,
That has to be some of the most offensive
drivel I have encountered.
Can I suggest you bother to actually find
out some facts before spewing your uninformed bile?
Religious Backwaters? "more akin to
the US
bible belt"?&nb sp;
You clearly know absolutely nothing about
the religious or political scene in Scotland. Our parliament has
refused to implement Blair's wacky Academies, are seeking to prevent new
faith schools from being set up, and have moved towards joint campus schools
rather than segregated catholic/non denom schools? Scotland
is much further along the path of secularisation of education than England.
I actually agree that England should be
the primary target, but not for the xenophobic reasons you suggest -
there's more of a need there, the fundies are well organised and quite clearly
targetting English Schools, and the large percentage of Church schools lends
itself too easily to infiltration by those religious extremists.
For all your ignorant "religious
backwaters" rubbish, a very tiny proportion of Scottish schools are
"of religious character", and we have the lowest observance of an
"act of daily worship" in the UK - less than 2% of
our schools do so. The Church of Scotland (which to all intents and
purposes is the established church north of the border) is against the
teaching of creationism, does not see evolution as contrary to faith and
has quite an enlightened approach to science. (as can be seen clearly here: http://www.srtp.org.uk/ )
Seriously, you have some screwed up
notions about the rest of the UK.
Try not being such a narrow minded bigot in future, yeah?
I.
----
From:
BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Wilson Alan
Sent: 21 July 2006 19:27
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [BlackShadow] The
Conundrum
Roger,
My view is that we should consider England
to be our “primary target audience” since
NI, Scotland
and probably Wales
are in my opinion 17th Century religious backwaters
more akin to the US bible belt than to
mainstream Anglicanism.
That doesn’t mean we should ignore them but by treating them
as backward we can concentrate
on elevating Anglicanism (and Roman Catholicism) as having the
sanest approach to science and evolution education in the UK
Alan W
0;
----
From:
BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Stanyard
Sent: 21 July 2006 18:35
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] The
Conundrum
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?
1859
Wilson Alan
RE: The Conundrum
22/07/2006 01:38:00
bgcolor="white"
And you ya boo!:
http://www.redflag.org.uk/frontline/four/04sectar.html
A.
----
From:
BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ian Lowe
Sent: 22 July 2006 00:55
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [BlackShadow] The
Conundrum
in fact, go read this and educate yourself:
http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=448232006
THE leader of the Scottish Episcopal Church said yesterday that creationism
should not be taught in schools and that a 'false battleground' was pitting
science against faith.
The position was supported by both the Church of Scotland and the Catholic
Church in Scotland.
A spokesman for the Church of Scotland said: 'The
situation in England
with creationism being taught in schools has not arisen
in Scotland.
Creationism would be a minority position in the Church of
Scotland.'
Meanwhile, Father Michael McMahon, a scholar with the Catholic Church in
Scotland,
said: 'The Hebrews, the people who composed the Book of Genesis,
didn't believe it was first-hand reportage, that there was someone peering
behind the trees writing it all down. The book is a literary thesis about
the creativeness of the world, not a description of the scientific process
by which the world was created. You don't read Genesis as you do a science
book. To do that is to reduce what it is trying to do, which is explain the
relationship between human beings, one to another and those to God.'
I.
1860
Andrew
Re: The Conundrum
22/07/2006 01:52:00
Sorry for coming in late on this. I think I've now caught up with where we
are. Other demands and also a timewasting debate on another board have been
a problem.
As I mentioned at the start of this, I think Lenny is absolutely right that
we need to regard people in agreement with our main aim as allies, and that
includes mainstream Christians.
---- Original Message -----
From: Roger Stanyard
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
> 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.
I haven't done precisely that, but some experiences may have a bearing on
this. Bear with me if the first part of this isn't obviously connected with
the present question.
I'm not a Christian, but I've come into contact with several different
church denominations in recent years, and one of the things that's
repeatedly struck me is how little most Christians know about Biblical
scholarship and recent theology (or indeed *any* theology). I became
concerned about fundamentalist ideas taking hold because the churches didn't
seem to be giving their congregations the requisite knowledge to see through
them. That was confirmed when a former close friend moved more and more
towards a fundamentalist position and eventually became impossible to talk
with reasonably.
She was a Methodist, and I asked the Methodist church what they're doing to
guide and educate their people regarding Biblical scholarship and theology.
They didn't even seem to understand the question, which presumably explains
why my former friend was prey to misleading ideas.
I also raised this with the C of E. I'd already found out the Bishop for
this diocise is a fundamentalist, so it was no good asking him. Not knowing
where else to go I wrote to Rowan Williams and was deflected off to the
bishop of a neighbouring diocise, who seemed pleased to encounter someone
actually interested in these questions (as no-one in his church is), but the
outcome was unsatisfactory. One thing I did find out is that mainstream C
of E churches have been using the Alpha Course as a recruiting method and
then trying to correct that course's excesses once people have joined.
Knowing peope who've attended these courses and havign read the literature
behind them it seems clear that anyone who recognises the extremism of the
Alpha Course doesn't get as far as joining the church, which would mean an
influx of people to whom the evangelical slant of the Alpha Course appeals.
That would perhaps explain why there seem to be more and more evangelicals
and theologically uneducated people in the C of E. Another explanation is
the reluctance that properly trained ministers have tended to show in recent
decades when it comes to giving their poeple the benefit of recent
scholarship (i.e. the last 150 years or so of scholarship). I used to know
a minister and stayed with him regularly while he was training, so I know
what training C of E ministers were getting that wasn't being passed on for
fear of rocking the boat once they got into a parish. Whether they still
get that kind of training is something I wonder about.
What this amounts to is that we may find the rank and file in the mainstream
churches are less clear about balanced mainstream ideas than the
spokespeople who are making statements about being opposed to Creationism.
Balanced statements from the top may give an impression of mainstream good
sense that may not indicate the situation throughout their church.
Add to that the astounding lack of interest in the basics of New Testament
scholarship displayed by my local Bishop, and a picture emerges of a C of E
with a rising problem with evangelicism and ultimately fundamentalism.
I don't know how widespread this is. It's particularly bad where I live,
but other parts of the country may fare better. But I think the indications
are that the C of E will slip further and further toward extremism unless
someone puts the brakes on, and Rowan Williams doesn't look to me like the
man to do that. And the Methodists don't seem very interested either.
So in short I do think it's important to ensure the mainstream churches are
allied with us as far as Creationism in science classes is concerned, but I
don't think we should place absolute confidence in their solidarity down
through the ranks or in their continuing to be moderate as time goes by.
My experience may not be giving a fully balanced view. But the above is
what my experience has amounted to in recent years.
1861
Ian Lowe
RE: The Conundrum
22/07/2006 12:54:00
bgcolor="white"
>Try not to jump to conclusions in future, yeah?
truce?
> The NI “Evangelicals” are strongly supported, in their 17th Century Reformation religious views, by their Scottish equivalents.
I suspect there's an element of grass being greener on the other side there - on both sides! It has always been my impression that the scottish problem with sectrarianism (to be more specific, the "greater glasgow" problem - it's unheard of in the rest of the country) is largely fuelled by the once a week influx of Rangers and Celtic fans from Norther Ireland. that being said, I am well aware of the money that flows from Lanarkshire to NI.
One thing is certai - we clearly agree that NI is not worth pursuing. They just have too many darn problems right now to be a good ground for buiding a sensible campaign. It's also unlikely that a sensible common ground could be found on education, given waht a tinderbox it is.
> I gave my opinion based on a lifetime’s experience having being born and brought up in NI, as the son of a mixed catholic and protestant parents.
I'm an "across the barricades" guy myself - My family were (and some still are..) red hand of ulster waving protestant bigots, my wife comes from an irish catholic immigrant family. Some of my family did not attend our wedding for that reason (not that I particularly cared!). I can appreciate where you are coming from more than most.
> I’m also sorry that you find what I wrote “offensive drivel” but in the end – so what! <shrug>
I was offended by my country being described as a 17 Century religious backwater - that just doesn't reflect the current reality of my home, and I felt you were out of order.
I think you are probably being too harsh on Wales as well - from what I understand, welsh education is pretty homogenous with England, and I certainly don't believe that there is a hotbed of creationism/fundamentalism in the valleys ;)
1862
Marc Draco
Re: The Conundrum
22/07/2006 13:04:00
Roger's absolutely right here.
Vardy is going to generate religious schools over a period of years,
slowly and steadily so people won't notice. Teachers who don't hold his
extreme views won't get jobs because they don't hold those views.
Teachers who won't teach them will be dismissed for the same reason -
legally too. This is legalised rape of our education system!
<oh, wait, I'm in bigot mode!>
I honestly think that as a raving secular humanist I actually scare some
moderates, but this has helped me realise what the moderates don't see.
Been on a fringe allows one to look inside sometimes.
Anyhoo.
I have an idea for a stunt that I'd like to try at Blyth since this is
Vardy's current area of attack.
I'd like to set up some stalls in the town centre selling Snake Oil
under a religious extremist banner; actually pretend to support the
Vardy idea and push even his ideas into insanity. As Roger suggests,
turn the idea on its head. Hand out "pro-Vardy" leaflets describing
exactly HOW Sir Peter teaches evolution in schools and so on but make it
so outrageous that we actually create a total furore. Let's play these
buggers at their own game. Show people what they're really up to.
How's that sound?
1863
Marc Draco
Shameless plug!
22/07/2006 13:17:00
Hi all,
NoToAcademies.org.uk is off and running with a bang: we're shortly
launching a collection of "NTA" gear that not only looks good, but
feels great against your skin! (No wait, that's my girlfriend's
pantyhose....)
Tee-shirts, available in most sizes are £8 + P&P, will be available to
order direct from our supplier soon.
The first ones, hot off the press are based on our "Binvert" design by
Martin Young with more to follow. The artwork preview is available at
the Blackshadow group's photo area.
Ordering details when I get them.
1864
Andrew
Re: The Conundrum
22/07/2006 15:44:00
----- Original Message -----
From: Marc Draco
> I'd like to set up some stalls in the town centre selling Snake Oil
> under a religious extremist banner; actually pretend to support the
> Vardy idea and push even his ideas into insanity. As Roger suggests,
> turn the idea on its head. Hand out "pro-Vardy" leaflets describing
> exactly HOW Sir Peter teaches evolution in schools and so on but make it
> so outrageous that we actually create a total furore. Let's play these
> buggers at their own game. Show people what they're really up to.
> How's that sound?
Interesting idea, but in my view it could seriously backfire. We already
know what liars these people are. They'll just deny every point on the
leaflets and then do them anyway, and any subsequent attempts to raise the
alarm will fail because most people will think "We've already heard all
this, and it proved not to be true."
It's far better to use genuine quotes to show what they believe, and
believable challenges to their denials.
1865
Roger Stanyard
Re: The Conundrum
22/07/2006 16:07:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" <taoist.hermit1@...> wrote:
>
>>
> Interesting idea, but in my view it could seriously backfire. We
already
> know what liars these people are.
Maybe, but the one thing the fundies are wide open to is satire. Me
thinks that there is no group in the UK as so wide open to it.
The piece of satire I'm sitting on is probably dead now but it involves
a letter from the head of Hampshire Constabulary to Phillip Bell of AiG
pertaining to his planned visit to Winchester.
Basically it outlines the difficulties in providing safety for Bell
based on his allegations about alien abductions, UFOs and dinosaurs
roaming the local countryside.
Unfortunately Bell appears to be parting company with AiG, so the
planned visit is off.
If only I could get a column in Private Eye on fundies!
Roger
1866
MB
Re: Re: The Conundrum
22/07/2006 16:41:00
Roger writes:
>
> The piece of satire I'm sitting on is probably dead now but it involves
> a letter from the head of Hampshire Constabulary to Phillip Bell of AiG
> pertaining to his planned visit to Winchester.
>
> Basically it outlines the difficulties in providing safety for Bell
> based on his allegations about alien abductions, UFOs and dinosaurs
> roaming the local countryside.
>
> Unfortunately Bell appears to be parting company with AiG, so the
> planned visit is off.
>
Oh dear. Why does so much of the best stuff end up being hidden? I'd love to see
that, your description made me LOL!
Regards,
MB
1867
Marc Draco
Re: Re: The Conundrum
22/07/2006 19:56:00
bgcolor="#ffffff"
Roger's got it. Satire is the one thing they cannot easily escape or
defend against.
We use their exact quotes and turn them back on them. I'm working on a
much bigger spoof that will turn them white if I can pull it off. It's
a big IF though.
It's HOW you use the quotes that counts. Use their quotes of usual
bullshit and really PUSH them with a dose of winkys.
You won't get into Private Eye - Hislop is Xian.
Roger Stanyard wrote:
->
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com,
"Andrew" <taoist.hermit1@...> wrote:
>
>>
> Interesting idea, but in my view it could seriously backfire. We
already
> know what liars these people are.
Maybe, but the one thing the fundies are wide open to is satire. Me
thinks that there is no group in the UK as so wide open to it.
The piece of satire I'm sitting on is probably dead now but it involves
a letter from the head of Hampshire Constabulary to Phillip Bell of AiG
pertaining to his planned visit to Winchester.
Basically it outlines the difficulties in providing safety for Bell
based on his allegations about alien abductions, UFOs and dinosaurs
roaming the local countryside.
Unfortunately Bell appears to be parting company with AiG, so the
planned visit is off.
If only I could get a column in Private Eye on fundies!
Roger
1868
Marc Draco
Just in case we forget...
22/07/2006 19:59:00
"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty
to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will
preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been
built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national
morality, and the family as the basis of national life."
Adolph Hitler (My New World Order, Proclamation to the German Nation at
Berlin, February 1, 1933)
1869
John Germain
RE: Re: The Conundrum
22/07/2006 20:51:00
bgcolor="white"
He’s also a satirist and seems
vaguely rational.
Nothing ventured…
John
Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
[BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Marc Draco
Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 7:56
PM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] Re: The
Conundrum
Roger's got it. Satire is the one thing they cannot
easily escape or defend against.
We use their exact quotes and turn them back on them. I'm working on a much
bigger spoof that will turn them white if I can pull it off. It's a big IF
though.
It's HOW you use the quotes that counts. Use their quotes of usual bullshit and
really PUSH them with a dose of winkys.
You won't get into Private Eye - Hislop is Xian.
Roger Stanyard wrote:
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com,
"Andrew" <taoist.hermit1@...> wrote:
>
>>
> Interesting idea, but in my view it could seriously backfire. We
already
> know what liars these people are.
Maybe, but the one thing the fundies are wide open to is satire. Me
thinks that there is no group in the UK as so wide open to it.
The piece of satire I'm sitting on is probably dead now but it involves
a letter from the head of Hampshire Constabulary to Phillip Bell of AiG
pertaining to his planned visit to Winchester.
Basically it outlines the difficulties in providing safety for Bell
based on his allegations about alien abductions, UFOs and dinosaurs
roaming the local countryside.
Unfortunately Bell
appears to be parting company with AiG, so the
planned visit is off.
If only I could get a column in Private Eye on fundies!
Roger
1870
Joe Cooper
Hovind''s religious freedom restricted
23/07/2006 00:44:00
Hovind also contends in the motion that travel restrictions violate the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act
http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060721/NEWS01/6\
07210336/1006
1871
oeditor
Re: Truth in Science
23/07/2006 01:22:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
> 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.
>
A couple of days ago, truthinscience.co.uk came up as a
password-protected page.
Now, it's vanished altogether.
I've tried two browsers, so I don't think it's some sort of clever
cookie trick.
Brian
1872
John Germain
RE: Re: Truth in Science
23/07/2006 01:54:00
Rootling for "truthinscience" without the tags gives quite a few results.
I liked this rant:
http://takeheed.net/JUNE2006.htm
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of
oeditor
Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 1:23 AM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: Truth in Science
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
> 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.
>
A couple of days ago, truthinscience.co.uk came up as a
password-protected page.
Now, it's vanished altogether.
I've tried two browsers, so I don't think it's some sort of clever
cookie trick.
Brian
Yahoo! Groups Links
1873
Wilson Alan
RE: The Conundrum
23/07/2006 02:00:00
bgcolor="white"
----
From:
BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ian Lowe
Sent: 22 July 2006 12:55
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [BlackShadow] The
Conundrum
> >Try not to jump to conclusions in
future, yeah?
> truce?
No problem.
> > The NI “Evangelicals” are
strongly supported, in their 17th Century Reformation religious
views, by their Scottish equivalents.
> I suspect there's an element
of grass being greener on the other side there - on both sides! It has
always been my impression that the scottish problem with > sectrarianism
(to be more specific, the "greater glasgow"
problem - it's unheard of in the rest of the country) is largely fuelled by the
once a week influx of >
Rangers and Celtic fans from Norther Ireland.
that being said, I am well aware of the money that flows from Lanarkshire to
NI.
Northern Irish and Scottish protestant extremism is, in my opinion,
beyond the comprehension of most English Anglicans and Roman Catholics.
> One thing is certai - we
clearly agree that NI is not worth pursuing. They just have too many darn
problems right now to be a good ground for buiding a sensible > campaign. It's also
unlikely that a sensible common ground could be found on education, given waht
a tinderbox it is.
So you think NI is a 17th
Century backwater do you? J
> > I gave my opinion based on a lifetime’s experience having
being born and brought up in NI, as the son of a mixed catholic and protestant
parents.
> I'm an "across the
barricades" guy myself - My family were (and some still are..) red hand of
ulster waving protestant bigots, my wife comes from an irish > catholic immigrant family. Some of my family did not attend our
wedding for that reason (not that I particularly cared!). I can appreciate
where you are coming > from more than most.
Bigotry knows no bounds! I once introduced a girlfriend to my
family and later overheard my father ask my mother: “Do you know that
XXXXX is a Roman Catholic?” My uncle also fell in the hearth under the
influence of alcohol while proclaiming to my father, who had organised my
maternal grandfather’s funeral because nobody else would, that he “Protestantism
was not a religion”!
> > I’m also sorry that
you find what I wrote “offensive drivel” but in the end – so
what! <shrug>
> I was offended by my
country being described as a 17 Century religious
backwater - that just doesn't reflect the current reality of my
home, and I felt you were > out of order.
I did not intend to offend since I was not referring to Scotland in
general but to the extreme Catholic and Protestant minorities there.
> I think you are probably
being too harsh on Wales as
well - from what I understand, welsh education is pretty homogenous with England, and I
certainly don't > believe that there is a hotbed of creationism/fundamentalism in the
valleys ;)
You are probably right but then I had the more rigid Welsh Methodist
minority in mind when I wrote this.
I think the BCSE is right in disregarding all personal religious
views in favour of opposing creationism in science classrooms in UK state Schools and in treating England
as the primary target audience for the reasons you have elucidated.
Alan W
1874
John Germain
RE: The Conundrum
23/07/2006 02:19:00
bgcolor="white"
Wot ‘E sed.
Cheers!
Bloody hell, you’re worse than the
Donkeys, the pair of you…
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Wilson Alan
Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 2:01
AM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [BlackShadow] The
Conundrum
----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ian Lowe
Sent: 22 July 2006 12:55
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [BlackShadow] The
Conundrum
> >Try not to jump
to conclusions in future, yeah?
> truce?
No problem.
> > The NI
“Evangelicals” are strongly supported, in their 17th
Century Reformation religious views, by their Scottish equivalents.
> I suspect
there's an element of grass being greener on the other side there - on both
sides! It has always been my impression that the scottish problem with > sectrarianism (to be more specific, the
"greater glasgow"
problem - it's unheard of in the rest of the country) is largely fuelled by the
once a week influx of >
Rangers and Celtic fans
from Norther Ireland. that being said, I am well aware of the money that flows
f rom Lanarkshire to NI.
Northern Irish and Scottish protestant extremism is, in my
opinion, beyond the comprehension of most English Anglicans and Roman
Catholics.
> One thing is certai - we clearly agree that NI is not worth
pursuing. They just have too many darn problems right now to be a good
ground for buiding a sensible > campaign. It's also unlikely that a sensible
common ground could be found on education, given waht a tinderbox it is.
So you think NI is a 17th Century backwater do
you? J
> > I gave my
opinion based on a lifetime’s experience having being born and brought up
in NI, as the son of a mixed catholic and protestant parents.
> I'm an
"across the barricades" guy myself - My family were (and some still
are..) red hand of ulster waving protestant bigots, my wife comes from an irish
>
catholic immigrant
family. Some of my family did not attend our wedding for that reason (not that
I particularly cared!). I can appreciate where you are coming > from more than most.
Bigotry knows no bounds! I once introduced a girlfriend to
my family and later overheard my father ask my mother: “Do you know that
XXXXX is a Roman Catholic?” My uncle also fell in the hearth under the
influence of alcohol while proclaiming to my father, who had organised my
maternal grandfather’s funeral because nobody else would, that he “Protestantism
was not a religion”!
> > I’m also sorry that you find what I wrote “offensive
drivel” but in the end – so what! <shrug>
> I
was offended by my country being described as a 17 Century
religious backwater - that just doesn't reflect the current reality
of my home, and I felt you were > out of order.
I did not intend to offend since I was not referring to Scotland
in general but to the extreme Catholic and Protestant minorities there.
> I think you are probably being too harsh on Wales as well - from what I understand, welsh
education is pretty homogenous with England, and I certainly don't > believe that there is a hotbed of
creationism/fundamentalism in the valleys ;)
You are probably right but then I had the more rigid Welsh
Methodist minority in mind when I wrote this.
I think the BCSE is right in disregarding all
personal religious views in favour of opposing creationism in science
classrooms in UK state
Schools and in treating England
as the primary target audience for the reasons you have elucidated.
Alan W
1875
Roger Stanyard
Re: Truth in Science
23/07/2006 11:27:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@> wrote:
>
> A couple of days ago, truthinscience.co.uk came up as a
> password-protected page.
> Now, it's vanished altogether.
> I've tried two browsers, so I don't think it's some sort of clever
> cookie trick.
Some thing has come up with me. When I did a Whois search a few days
ago it suggested that the domain name was registered with John Perfect
until 2007! So, presumably it is not dormant.
Roger
1876
oeditor
Re: Truth in Science
23/07/2006 12:25:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@> wrote:
> >
> > A couple of days ago, truthinscience.co.uk came up as a
> > password-protected page.
> > Now, it's vanished altogether.
> > I've tried two browsers, so I don't think it's some sort of clever
> > cookie trick.
>
> Some thing has come up with me.
It's back now - must have been a glitch.
While I was digging, I came across the (dormant) truthinscience.org
This was set up in 2003 and is registered to some lobbyists:
Carol/Trevelyan Strategy Group
Helps political candidates, ballot campaigns, non-profits, unions,
socially responsible businesses and other organizations market their
ideas in the public policy arena.
Now why would they reserve a domain like that?
Brian
1877
Drew Smith
RE: Re: Truth in Science
23/07/2006 16:43:00
Brian: While I was digging, I came across the (dormant) truthinscience.org
This was set up in 2003 and is registered to some lobbyists: Carol/Trevelyan
Strategy Group Helps political candidates, ballot campaigns, non-profits,
unions, socially responsible businesses and other organizations market their
ideas in the public policy arena. Now why would they reserve a domain like
that?
Drew: One of the CTSG founders, Dan Carol, was one of John Kerry's
environmental advisors. It's likely that they registered the domain to use
as for an advocacy/lobbying group complaining about the way science
(especially environmental science) has been abused or ignored by the Bush
administration. In 2003, CTSG was deeply involved in global warming issues.
There are some details here:
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/01/13/doe-reprint/
1878
oeditor
Re: Truth in Science
23/07/2006 18:12:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Drew Smith" <drewsmithtpa@...> wrote:
>
> [an] advocacy/lobbying group complaining about the way science
> (especially environmental science) has been abused or ignored
> There are some details here:
> http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/01/13/doe-reprint/
>
Which includes this:
"Protecting the environment is indeed supported by a large majority --
it's just not supported very strongly. Once you understand this, it's
much easier to understand why it's been so easy for anti-environmental
interests to gut 30 years of environmental protections."
Replace environmentalism with secularism and you have exactly our
predicament:-((
Brian
1879
Roger Stanyard
Re: The Conundrum
23/07/2006 19:20:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "MB" <mbb386@...> wrote:
>
> Roger writes:
> >
> Oh dear. Why does so much of the best stuff end up being hidden?
I'd love to see
> that, your description made me LOL!
>
> To Mr. Phillip Bell
Vice President
Answers in Genesis (UK)
16 Morris Road
Leicester LE2 6BR
From the Assistant Commissioner of Police
Hampshire Constabulary
Romsey Road
Winchester
Hants
Dear Mr Bell,
I refer to you recent request for police protection during your
planned visit to Winchester to convert its citizens and save souls.
We have investigated the animal drawing that appeared on the side of
the public toilets in Market Street three weeks ago and have
concluded that, far from showing a dinosaur, it is, in fact, graffiti
by one Nipper Stokes, aged 12, and his mates. Stokes assures us that
it is meant to represent his pet gerbil which recently died when his
father sat on it after coming home from a heavy session in the Pig
and Whistle.
We cannot, therefore agree with your conclusion that it is firm
evidence of the Hampshire countryside swarming with dangerous man-
eating dinosaurs as predicted by your colleagues from scientific
evidence in the Book of Genesis.
I must also warn you and members of your organisation that it is a
criminal offence to be in possession of Class A hallucinatory drugs.
Our extensive enquiries regarding you claim of a sighting of a
strange looking scaly creature in the vicinity of Winchester have
confirmed that it was Nipper Stokes' dad on his way back from the Pig
and Whistle, on all fours, as usual.
We therefore feel it unnecessary to arrange for an armed police
escort for you in you journey from Leicester and back.
I would like to suggest that you take simple precautions in this
matter. In the event of you seeing a dinosaur trotting along the M3
motorway, stop you car, get out and jump into the boot, closing it
behind you. Our records show that there has never been a case in
Hampshire of someone in a car boot being successfully attacked by
dinosaurs.
May we also suggest, as an extra precaution, that you get someone to
lock the boot after you get in it, and throw the key away down the
nearest drain (in Vladivostok).
My officers are, of cause, concerned about you claims that you may,
during the course of your visit, be abducted by UFOs manned by fallen
angels trained by a Mr R. Dawkins of Oxford.
However, the very large object in the centre of the town which you
claim may be an alien spaceship awaiting you, is, in fact, Winchester
Cathedral. We are therefore unable to meet your request that we
impound it and arrest and detain the Dean and Bishop of that
institution.
We have also visited both these persons and state that neither has
two horns and a tail.
Hampshire Constabulary is always pleased to receive comments from the
public that assist us in our duties. However, we are somewhat
confused about your comments that stones are plentiful along the
Hampshire coastline and that we should put them to good use enforcing
God's law during your visit.
Moreover, we are not in a position to follow your suggestions that we
sell wrong-doers to members of your organisation in Alabama in return
for a donation to our Police Benevolent Fund.
Yours Sincerely
1880
MB
Re: Re: The Conundrum
23/07/2006 23:18:00
Thanks, Roger! What a hoot. :)))
Regards,
MB
>> Roger writes:
>>
>> To Mr. Phillip Bell [...]
1881
Roger Stanyard
Re: The Conundrum
23/07/2006 23:40:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "MB" <mbb386@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Roger! What a hoot. :)))
>
> Regards,
> MB
>
Thanks, but it means I have to find out all about another jerk called
Paul Taylor or some such.
1882
MB
Re: Re: The Conundrum
24/07/2006 03:54:00
Roger wrote:
> Thanks, but it means I have to find out all about another jerk called
> Paul Taylor or some such.
>
>
It's that Whack-a-mole game for sure!
Regards,
MB
1883
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Truth in Science
24/07/2006 07:43:00
On 20/07/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> ...
>
> 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
I found out about Rev Maurice Roberts by checking Stuart J. Mackay's:
The Home Page of Reformed Christian Pages
http://www.btinternet.com/~s.j.mackay/index.html
... on the page:
Around the Church
http://www.btinternet.com/~s.j.mackay/foundations/around.html
... it states:
"Inverness: The Rev Maurice Roberts was suspended from the ministry
for condemning the hypocrisy and the wickedness that he had witnessed
at this year's General Assembly. He has continued to preach God's Word
in Inverness Royal Academy. Here some seventy to a hundred gather to
listen to God's Word each Sabbath. Those who worship there have stated
that Mr Roberts has preached with more liberty and blessing than for
many years. "
Incidentally, the rest of the webpage is well worth a read if you ever
feel in a bad mood.
I also found:
Nigel Robinson
http://www.daylightcpt.org/index.html
Not sure what that is worth, but I thought I would throw it in.
1884
George Jelliss
Re: The Conundrum
24/07/2006 12:55:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "MB" <mbb386@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, Roger! What a hoot. :)))
> >
> > Regards,
> > MB
> >
> Thanks, but it means I have to find out all about another jerk
called
> Paul Taylor or some such.
>
Paul Taylor is a representative of "Answers in Genesis". I think he
was the main creationist who came to the discussion I held at
Secular Hall recently. Here is a letter from him that appeared in
the Leicester Mercury back in March:
======
DARWIN'S DAYS NUMBERED?
10:30 - 17 March 2006
"The detailed operations of heredity" that George Jelliss (First
Person, February 11) mentions do not support evolution at all.
Perhaps Mr Jelliss prefers the view of Francis Crick, discoverer of
DNA, who was so concerned about the lack of evidence for molecules-
to-man evolution that he proposed that life was seeded on earth by
aliens!
He is not correct to state that Answers in Genesis is a US-based
organisation. Fully registered in the UK, and staffed by UK staff,
we have sister organisations in other countries.
Mr Jelliss maintains that "all scientific knowledge" is against the
Earth being created 6,000 years ago. Many scientific facts - such as
the report in the journal Science (March 2005) of unfossilised soft
tissues, including blood vessels and cells, in a Tyrannosaurus rex
thigh bone - are causing many to question the ruling
evolutionary/millions-of-years paradigm.
In fact, Darwinist atheism is increasingly being seen as an
irrational response to the data.
The Bishop of Leicester believes that Genesis describes a "process
of creation" which is compatible with Darwinism, even though the
order of creation does not match evolutionary order.
However, Genesis 1 is written as a narrative, stating that the world
was made in six 24-hour periods, and emphasising this by counting.
No one debates the translation of "day" elsewhere in the Bible.
Perhaps the Bishop believes Joshua marched round Jericho for 7,000
years! Darwinists have staked a lot on a shaky theory that has
waning public support, and is losing scientific credibility.
It is their fear of the truth that motivates atheists' attempts to
bludgeon the public unquestioningly to accept Darwinism.
Paul Taylor, Answers in Genesis.
======
He is a very articulate speaker, and quite young (to my aged eyes).
Has he taken over from Philip Bell or Monty White?
Perhaps I should try to visit AIG HQ in Leicester and get to know
the personnel better.
1885
Roger Stanyard
Re: The Conundrum
24/07/2006 17:22:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "George Jelliss" <gpjnow@...>
wrote:
>
>> Paul Taylor is a representative of "Answers in Genesis". I think
he
> was the main creationist who came to the discussion I held at
> Secular Hall recently. Here is a letter from him that appeared in
> the Leicester Mercury back in March:
>
> ======
Thanks George,
His reponse is clearly based on the usual fundie out-right
fabrications, half-truths, mis-representations and smearing. AIG (UK)
is an American organisation. It's board of trustees include Ken Ham
and other US AiGers. If Taylor pushes this nonsense any further, take
a look at the name it is registered with at the Charity Commission
and its history. Jeez, it even uses the same web site as AiG in the
USA. It pushes the same damn creationist material - journals, DVDs,
whatever.
If you want to buy AiG material online in the UK you have to go
through AiG USA's web site because there isn't one for the UK.
Nor does it have "sister organisations in other countries". AiG UK is
the only AiG unit outside of the USA.
From the work I have done it appears that it is a decreasing number
of UK scientists that are YECers.
I'll be posting some initial notes on Taylor this evening. They are
mostly matter of fact.
It does appear that Bell has now broken completly with AiG but I have
no idea where the fruitcake has gone. I suspect from what was said in
AiG's 2005 accounts that they are seeking a replacement. They don't
appear to be short of cash but, maybe, sales of their journals have
been hit since AiG split off from Creation Ministries (well, I hope
so).
Monty White is still "head" of AiG UK but I guess that he has little
scope to do his own thing. By all accounts Ham is an abrassive
autocrat who likes to be surrounded by subservient people, including
his wife (he has bragged about her being subservient).
Interesting point you make about Taylor being articulate. He was
privately educated (dunno where) but I've looked at his web site and
he comes over as a Daily Mail intellect, complete with a "string 'em
up" belief in law and order.
My view is that Taylor is just another lying arrogant creationist
toad as demonstrated (repeatedly) in his letter to the Leicester
Mercury. BTW, he lives in Leicestershire - I wish you could keep him
there.
Roger
1886
oeditor
Early Leeds creationist link & more
24/07/2006 17:29:00
(not new, but please read to the end)This interesting article dates
from 1993. It mentions the "Evolution Protest Movement", founded in
1932, whose president in 1993 was "[the late]Professor Verna Wright,
chair of department of rheumatology at the University of Leeds". The
first president was Sir Ambrose Fleming who invented the
(electronic)vacuum tube. It became the Creation Science Movement, with
their hopeless museum in Portsmouth, but they don't say when. It looks
as though they might have changed from OEC to YEC at the time.
A Brief History of the Modern
American Creation Movement
by Jerry Bergman
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/CMBergman.html#Some
A more more tenuous link involves Mike Gascoign of Anno Mundi Books -
cretinist tomes. Formerly a chemical engineer (like McIntosh), his
wife was a some time a biochemist at Leeds Polytechnic. He has
cretinist articles on the web, including "Creation science education
in Britain" http://www.annomundi.com/bible/creation_science_education.htm
Looking at his site, I found I was in deeper than I'd realised. He's
currently publishing "Andrew Sibley's new book Restoring the Ethics of
Creation was at last sent for printing on Tuesday 21st March". The
blurb is quite remarkable, and will surely interest Roger! It says
"The book is about the ethical consequences of evolution and the
social and moral degradation that has occurred since the time of
Darwin, as the rule of "survival of the fittest" has been applied to
human behaviour. There is a need for restoration of social order,
based on a correct understanding of our place in nature and the
twin-book approach of the words and works of the Creator."
http://www.annomundi.com/news.htm
Brian
1887
Roger Stanyard
Re: Early Leeds creationist link & more
24/07/2006 17:43:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
Thanks for all the info Brian. It's all noted and I'll use it. If the
publishers were to sent me a copy of Sibley's book for review I would
be delighted to pull it to pieces. But I'm damned if I am paying for it
or any other creationist crapology.
Roger
Roger
1888
oeditor
Re: Early Leeds creationist link & more
24/07/2006 18:42:00
--- In
