2001
Marc Draco
Re: Re: Er, I think I have a Problem
31/07/2006 14:03:00
Count me in too, if you need anything. I rather expected this would
happen sooner or later: in spite of the fact we are exercising our right
to free speech - just as the fundies do; only they LIE as well.
Ian Lowe wrote:
>
> > Does anyone have a spare web site/domain name that we can use? I don't
> want to spend a vast amount of time and money setting up something from
> scratch. I have no skills whatsover in producing web sites.
>
> It takes neither, so don't panic !!
>
> Roger, I'll mail you off list - I can help with this.
>
>
2002
MB
RE: Er, I think I have a Problem
31/07/2006 14:18:00
>
>
> That way, it is under your control and yahoo (who do not, as news from china
> shows, have a great record on protecting freedom of speech or political
> groups) cannot simply pull the group for a TOS violation. (incidentally, if
> your own account is "TOS"ed, this group will be deleted along with it,
> unless there is another owner)
>
I hope somebody other than Yahoo has the files archives stored elsewhere, away
from
Yahoo! This goes for Debunk also.
Regards,
MB
2003
Mikey Brass
Politics and science
31/07/2006 19:17:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> The fundies have a massive weakness - they are fighting a war on three
> fronts - politics, religion and science. It's overstretch. Let's fight
> on our terms - just science.
A slight correction, Roger. The fight over here is and will continue to
be different; it is instead a fight over the politics of science.
As an aside, I would like to copy & paste a comment I made a few days ago:
So far we have been concentrating on "Christian" fundamentalism here but
Islamic fundamentalism in schools is just as much of a problem, if not
more. The medical schools appear to be more affected by the latter than
the former.
2004
Roger Stanyard
End Time Wackiness
31/07/2006 19:40:00
Some of you may want to see this that appeared in the Guardian today:
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1833810,00.html
It's comment on George Bush is truely frightening - that he believes he
is preparing for the end-time.
Roger
2005
John Germain
RE: End Time Wackiness
31/07/2006 19:54:00
Let's just hope that "this end-time it's personal".....
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Roger
Stanyard
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 7:40 PM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] End Time Wackiness
Some of you may want to see this that appeared in the Guardian today:
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1833810,00.html
It's comment on George Bush is truely frightening - that he believes he
is preparing for the end-time.
Roger
Yahoo! Groups Links
2006
Roger Stanyard
Re: Politics and science
31/07/2006 19:53:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> Roger Stanyard wrote:
>
> > The fundies have a massive weakness - they are fighting a war on
three
> > fronts - politics, religion and science. It's overstretch. Let's
fight
> > on our terms - just science.
>
> A slight correction, Roger. The fight over here is and will
continue to
> be different; it is instead a fight over the politics of science.
I agree completly!
> As an aside, I would like to copy & paste a comment I made a few
days ago:
> So far we have been concentrating on "Christian" fundamentalism
here but
> Islamic fundamentalism in schools is just as much of a problem, if
not
> more. The medical schools appear to be more affected by the latter
than
> the former.
>
Yep, really, really important issue.
It's one of the reasons why I want religious opinions kept well away
from this forum. We need Muslims on side. Right now the amount of
information I have about creationism in Muslim education is about
1/1000th of what we know about it in mainstream education. Literally,
we apppear largely to be in the dark about it.
Anyone have any ideas how we can find out more about the Islamic
fundamentalists pushing creationism in the UK. Do we know anyone in
the know, so to speak, who we can get to join the forum?
Sooner or later I'll be writing to Steve Jones. He may be able to
help with contacts at University College Hospital.
(For Americans, UCH is one of the big, leading, teaching hospitals in
the UK. It's part of University College London.)
Roger
2007
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Politics and science
31/07/2006 21:31:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> It's one of the reasons why I want religious opinions kept well away
> from this forum. We need Muslims on side. Right now the amount of
> information I have about creationism in Muslim education is about
> 1/1000th of what we know about it in mainstream education.
I think you are right that Professor Jones is the best one to either
provide information or point us in the right direction on this.
2008
Roger Stanyard
General Comment
31/07/2006 23:06:00
Ian just unsubscribed from the group. I must say in one sense I'm
disappointed. I liked and respected him.
It doesn't surprise me, though. I've long felt that Ian is going to do
his own thing. I wish him well.
Roger
2009
Wilson Alan
RE: Re: Politics and science
31/07/2006 23:12:00
bgcolor="white"
----
From:
BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mikey Brass
Sent: 31 July 2006 21:31
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] Re:
Politics and science
Roger
Stanyard wrote:
>> It's one of
the reasons why I want religious opinions kept well away
>> from this
forum. We need Muslims on side. Right now the amount of
>> information I
have about creationism in Muslim education is about
>> 1/1000th of
what we know about it in mainstream education.
>I think you are
right that Professor Jones is the best one to either
>provide information
or point us in the right direction on this.
2010
John Germain
RE: General Comment
31/07/2006 23:25:00
Here comes the break-up.
Ian is even more anti than I.
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Roger
Stanyard
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 11:07 PM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] General Comment
Ian just unsubscribed from the group. I must say in one sense I'm
disappointed. I liked and respected him.
It doesn't surprise me, though. I've long felt that Ian is going to do
his own thing. I wish him well.
Roger
Yahoo! Groups Links
2011
Roger Stanyard
Re: General Comment
31/07/2006 23:38:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "John Germain" <jtg.germainsjy@...>
wrote:
>
> Here comes the break-up.
>
> Ian is even more anti than I.
I'm lost, John. Not sure what you mean. Anti-what?
Roger
2012
John Germain
RE: Re: General Comment
31/07/2006 23:47:00
Religion, Roger.
Ian isn't going to do his own thing, he'll stalk any group tainted by religion.
More power to you, Ian.
Rather than beak-up, I ought to have said "schism"
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Roger
Stanyard
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 11:38 PM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: General Comment
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "John Germain" <jtg.germainsjy@...>
wrote:
>
> Here comes the break-up.
>
> Ian is even more anti than I.
I'm lost, John. Not sure what you mean. Anti-what?
Roger
Yahoo! Groups Links
2013
oeditor
Re: General Comment
01/08/2006 01:01:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "John Germain"
<jtg.germainsjy@...> wrote:
>
> Religion, Roger.
>
> Ian isn't going to do his own thing, he'll stalk any group tainted
by religion.
>
> More power to you, Ian.
>
> Rather than beak-up, I ought to have said "schism"
>
Something's up. I'm not sure what, but the fire seems to have gone out
of secular_newsline's belly. Perhaps too many of its activists haved
moved over here and got fed up with the suggestion that we get all
huggy-feely with mainstream xians. I'm relatively new to this game,
but I'm not at all happy with the American take on things. They have a
population besotted with religion. We have a few xian nutcases
(largely imported from the colonies ;-) and an undercurrent of islamic
literalism. Agreed that Michael etc from SJS are solid people, but I
don't think that they are the folk that Ian is railing against. Not
many Christians are religous maniacs, not many Muslims are religious
maniacs. But each probably contributes a similar number of nutters,
and their nuttiness is based on, if not derived from (though
personally I'm sure it is) their religion.
So, I'm sorry, but I don't think that you can separate educational
cretinism from religious nuttery. And you can't separate religious
nuttery from religion - it's part and parcel.
Rather than stifling discussion, perhaps it should be pointed back to
secular_newsline where it belongs. Or to some new group where no holds
are barred?
Brian
2014
Timothy Chase
Re: End Time Wackiness
01/08/2006 01:02:00
On 31/07/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Some of you may want to see this that appeared in the Guardian today:
> www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1833810,00.html
>
> It's comment on George Bush is truely frightening - that he believes he
> is preparing for the end-time.
As I read it, they don't really say what he believes. He panders to
the religious right, and this includes the extremists who believe that
the end times are near -- in fact, I suspect this is fairly common
among them, but a matter of degree in terms of expectation: possible,
probable, certain - that sort of thing.
From what I have seen, Bush is extremely pragmatic and manipulative
and his only true loyalties are to his friends. He is using the
religious right just as he created a war for the sake of convenience
and opportunity. But fundamentally it means nothing to him.
2015
John Germain
RE: Re: General Comment
01/08/2006 01:19:00
I wrote the cheque and it's still in the envelope in the car.
NSS held a bit of hope for me, but they're just UK ball-jugglers at the end of
the day.
Not going to help me, here.
It really doesn't matter which one you belong to, just so long as you subscribe
to some
God-Botherer's set-up. If you're in one.....
Open war on all religion? No, I don't think so: do the religious bit in private:
make love
to your god as you would your wife.
First religious loon who plays the "My God is bigger than Your God" gets my vote
for
instant and permanent promotion.
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of
oeditor
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 1:01 AM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: General Comment
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "John Germain"
<jtg.germainsjy@...> wrote:
>
> Religion, Roger.
>
> Ian isn't going to do his own thing, he'll stalk any group tainted
by religion.
>
> More power to you, Ian.
>
> Rather than beak-up, I ought to have said "schism"
>
Something's up. I'm not sure what, but the fire seems to have gone out
of secular_newsline's belly. Perhaps too many of its activists haved
moved over here and got fed up with the suggestion that we get all
huggy-feely with mainstream xians. I'm relatively new to this game,
but I'm not at all happy with the American take on things. They have a
population besotted with religion. We have a few xian nutcases
(largely imported from the colonies ;-) and an undercurrent of islamic
literalism. Agreed that Michael etc from SJS are solid people, but I
don't think that they are the folk that Ian is railing against. Not
many Christians are religous maniacs, not many Muslims are religious
maniacs. But each probably contributes a similar number of nutters,
and their nuttiness is based on, if not derived from (though
personally I'm sure it is) their religion.
So, I'm sorry, but I don't think that you can separate educational
cretinism from religious nuttery. And you can't separate religious
nuttery from religion - it's part and parcel.
Rather than stifling discussion, perhaps it should be pointed back to
secular_newsline where it belongs. Or to some new group where no holds
are barred?
Brian
Yahoo! Groups Links
2016
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: General Comment
01/08/2006 03:21:00
On 31/07/06, oeditor <b-jordan@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "John Germain"
> <jtg.germainsjy@...> wrote:
> >
> > Religion, Roger.
> >
> > Ian isn't going to do his own thing, he'll stalk any group tainted
> by religion.
> >
> > More power to you, Ian.
> >
> > Rather than beak-up, I ought to have said "schism"
>
> Something's up. I'm not sure what, but the fire seems to have gone out
> of secular_newsline's belly. Perhaps too many of its activists haved
> moved over here and got fed up with the suggestion that we get all
> huggy-feely with mainstream xians. I'm relatively new to this game,
> but I'm not at all happy with the American take on things. They have a
> population besotted with religion. We have a few xian nutcases
> (largely imported from the colonies ;-) and an undercurrent of islamic
> literalism. Agreed that Michael etc from SJS are solid people, but I
> don't think that they are the folk that Ian is railing against. Not
> many Christians are religous maniacs, not many Muslims are religious
> maniacs. But each probably contributes a similar number of nutters,
> and their nuttiness is based on, if not derived from (though
> personally I'm sure it is) their religion.
>
> So, I'm sorry, but I don't think that you can separate educational
> cretinism from religious nuttery. And you can't separate religious
> nuttery from religion - it's part and parcel.
>
> Rather than stifling discussion, perhaps it should be pointed back to
> secular_newsline where it belongs. Or to some new group where no holds
> are barred?
With regard to my own personal views, once "mainstream Christians"
distance themselves from a literal interpretation of the Bible,
particularly with regard to Genesis (that opens the door),
Fundamentalism and dogmatism will no longer be a problem. Moreover,
to the extent that we try to present things in terms of religion vs.
science, the more we will encourage people who might otherwise be our
allies to join the ranks of the Fundamentalists. However, these are
just my views - at least with regard to this list.
*
On a more practical level, my own thoughts were that we would need to
buffer things, to keep things separated. Have religious organisations
under the umbrella, but leave religion to the religious organisations.
But then Ian seemed alright with the way things were going. At the
same time, I suspect that there are a good number of people who
believe much along the same lines as Ian, and many of them would be
alienated by a religion-friendly approach as part of the umbrella
itself as opposed to some of the organisations which it subsumes.
Feelings are bound to be rather strong on both sides of the aisle with
regard to this issue. If the religious have to deal with
anti-religious rhetoric or the ant-religious have to deal with
religion-friendly rhetoric, someone is going to be unhappy.
I still think we should buffer things. This list and the BCSE should
practice an Olympian detachment with respect to this issue, in my
view.
2017
John Germain
RE: Re: General Comment
01/08/2006 03:34:00
Ah, yes. The Olympian Gods got sort-of ignored. The history of god-ism is
fascinating.
The only trouble is, you *must* be pro- or anti- some nebulous set of deities.
They (the godists) can cope with interal argy-bargy. Splitters? They're wrong,
but they're
OUR Wrong.
And then there's US.
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of
Timothy Chase
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 3:21 AM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] Re: General Comment
On 31/07/06, oeditor <b-jordan@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "John Germain"
> <jtg.germainsjy@...> wrote:
> >
> > Religion, Roger.
> >
> > Ian isn't going to do his own thing, he'll stalk any group tainted
> by religion.
> >
> > More power to you, Ian.
> >
> > Rather than beak-up, I ought to have said "schism"
>
> Something's up. I'm not sure what, but the fire seems to have gone out
> of secular_newsline's belly. Perhaps too many of its activists haved
> moved over here and got fed up with the suggestion that we get all
> huggy-feely with mainstream xians. I'm relatively new to this game,
> but I'm not at all happy with the American take on things. They have a
> population besotted with religion. We have a few xian nutcases
> (largely imported from the colonies ;-) and an undercurrent of islamic
> literalism. Agreed that Michael etc from SJS are solid people, but I
> don't think that they are the folk that Ian is railing against. Not
> many Christians are religous maniacs, not many Muslims are religious
> maniacs. But each probably contributes a similar number of nutters,
> and their nuttiness is based on, if not derived from (though
> personally I'm sure it is) their religion.
>
> So, I'm sorry, but I don't think that you can separate educational
> cretinism from religious nuttery. And you can't separate religious
> nuttery from religion - it's part and parcel.
>
> Rather than stifling discussion, perhaps it should be pointed back to
> secular_newsline where it belongs. Or to some new group where no holds
> are barred?
With regard to my own personal views, once "mainstream Christians"
distance themselves from a literal interpretation of the Bible,
particularly with regard to Genesis (that opens the door),
Fundamentalism and dogmatism will no longer be a problem. Moreover,
to the extent that we try to present things in terms of religion vs.
science, the more we will encourage people who might otherwise be our
allies to join the ranks of the Fundamentalists. However, these are
just my views - at least with regard to this list.
*
On a more practical level, my own thoughts were that we would need to
buffer things, to keep things separated. Have religious organisations
under the umbrella, but leave religion to the religious organisations.
But then Ian seemed alright with the way things were going. At the
same time, I suspect that there are a good number of people who
believe much along the same lines as Ian, and many of them would be
alienated by a religion-friendly approach as part of the umbrella
itself as opposed to some of the organisations which it subsumes.
Feelings are bound to be rather strong on both sides of the aisle with
regard to this issue. If the religious have to deal with
anti-religious rhetoric or the ant-religious have to deal with
religion-friendly rhetoric, someone is going to be unhappy.
I still think we should buffer things. This list and the BCSE should
practice an Olympian detachment with respect to this issue, in my
view.
Yahoo! Groups Links
2018
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: General Comment
01/08/2006 04:09:00
On 31/07/06, John Germain <jtg.germainsjy@localdial.com> wrote:
>
> Ah, yes. The Olympian Gods got sort-of ignored. The history of god-ism is
fascinating.
>
> The only trouble is, you *must* be pro- or anti- some nebulous set of deities.
>
> They (the godists) can cope with interal argy-bargy. Splitters? They're wrong,
but they're
> OUR Wrong.
>
> And then there's US.
I worship at the altar of pluralism, myself. It goes well with
detachment - at least if you have something to spice them up with.
Tastes a bit like sweet-and-sour, actually.
I would argue that individuals and organisations should be free to
pursue their agendas, whether they be for or against religious belief.
But the BCSE itself should not take sides, not if it wishes to go
national as a science organisation.
Of course, if there is some other more practical approach, I would be
most interested in hearing about it. As for what happens with regard
to religion a hundred or a thousand years from now, fortunately this
isn't something we need to concern ourselves with here.
Would be interesting to find out though, wouldn't it? But I suspect
we will have more than enough to worry about before then.
2019
John Germain
RE: Re: General Comment
01/08/2006 04:23:00
S&S crispy Won-Tons especially... <dribble>
Why has the last Take-Away always closed just before you need it?
*That* is one of the GUQOL (Great Unanswerable Questions Of Life).
Well, I think that it's `high time' we got ourselves somewhere a little less
arbitrary.
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of
Timothy Chase
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 4:09 AM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] Re: General Comment
On 31/07/06, John Germain <jtg.germainsjy@localdial.com> wrote:
>
> Ah, yes. The Olympian Gods got sort-of ignored. The history of god-ism is
fascinating.
>
> The only trouble is, you *must* be pro- or anti- some nebulous set of deities.
>
> They (the godists) can cope with interal argy-bargy. Splitters? They're wrong,
but
they're
> OUR Wrong.
>
> And then there's US.
I worship at the altar of pluralism, myself. It goes well with
detachment - at least if you have something to spice them up with.
Tastes a bit like sweet-and-sour, actually.
I would argue that individuals and organisations should be free to
pursue their agendas, whether they be for or against religious belief.
But the BCSE itself should not take sides, not if it wishes to go
national as a science organisation.
Of course, if there is some other more practical approach, I would be
most interested in hearing about it. As for what happens with regard
to religion a hundred or a thousand years from now, fortunately this
isn't something we need to concern ourselves with here.
Would be interesting to find out though, wouldn't it? But I suspect
we will have more than enough to worry about before then.
Yahoo! Groups Links
2020
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: General Comment
01/08/2006 07:17:00
Timothy Chase wrote:
> Feelings are bound to be rather strong on both sides of the aisle with
> regard to this issue. If the religious have to deal with
> anti-religious rhetoric or the ant-religious have to deal with
> religion-friendly rhetoric, someone is going to be unhappy.
Except none of this has got anything whatsoever to do with freedom of
expression. Instead, it has to do with recognition that theists are the
best weapon any anti-creationist movement has.
2021
Mikey Brass
Re: General Comment
01/08/2006 07:21:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> It doesn't surprise me, though.
I cannot say I am disappointed. At least in this forum, he was a hothead
and his tendency to shoot from the hip without stopping to think would
have eventually caused problems.
2022
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: General Comment
01/08/2006 08:10:00
On 31/07/06, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@uclmail.net> wrote:
>
> Timothy Chase wrote:
>
> > Feelings are bound to be rather strong on both sides of the aisle with
> > regard to this issue. If the religious have to deal with
> > anti-religious rhetoric or the ant-religious have to deal with
>
> Except none of this has got anything whatsoever to do with freedom of
> expression. Instead, it has to do with recognition that theists are the
> best weapon any anti-creationist movement has.
I am not thinking of this as a Freedom of Speech issue. The point is
that we need people from both sides of the aisle on this issue and
others to work together in opposing the creationists and
Fundamentalists. That is one of the essential reasons for the BCSE
being focused. We need to be able to set aside our differences.
If we are to work together, it helps to avoid pressing each-other's
buttons. I realize that you have the hide of a rhino, but some aren't
so equipped. Taking a pro- or anti- religion stand simply shouldn't
be part of the equation here - since this is the umbrella.
Organisations under the umbrella make take different and even opposite
stands.
Moreover, to the extent that England and the UK are predominantly
secular, it would seem just as unproductive to alienate the
non-religious as it would be to alienate the religious.
2023
Wilson Alan
RE: Re: Politics and science
01/08/2006 09:22:00
bgcolor="white"
My reply, which seems to have been cut off,
was:
Is Professor Richard Dawkins not an
additional possibility?
Alan W
----
From:
BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Wilson Alan
Sent: 31 July 2006 23:13
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [BlackShadow] Re:
Politics and science
----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mikey Brass
Sent: 31 July 2006 21:31
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] Re:
Politics and science
Roger
Stanyard wrote:
>> It's one of the
reasons why I want religious opinions kept well away
>> from this
forum. We need Muslims on side. Right now the amount of
>> information I
have about creationism in Muslim education is about
>> 1/1000th of
what we know about it in mainstream education.
>I think you are
right that Professor Jones is the best one to either
>provide information
or point us in the right direction on this.
2024
Roger Stanyard
Re: Politics and science
01/08/2006 10:16:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Wilson Alan" <Alan.Wilson@...>
wrote:
>
> My reply, which seems to have been cut off, was:
>
>
>
> Is Professor Richard Dawkins not an additional possibility?
>
> Alan W
>
Yes, but Steve Jones is closely associated with the Royal Society's
campaign against creationism and he is London-based. Also, IIRC
King's College London's medical school has had problems with
fundamentalism. King's is quite close to UCL so maybe he has
reasonable contacts there as well.
Dawkins will also undoubtedly upset a lot of the religious.
Roger
2025
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: General Comment
01/08/2006 10:22:00
Timothy Chase wrote:
> If we are to work together, it helps to avoid pressing each-other's
> buttons.
Working together is the point, but there is a carrot. The fundies like
to characterise their opponents as being anti-religion and themselves as
the true Christians. This is essentially the politics of science. The
best form of attack on his front is to simply point to members who are
from all walks of life and to hit them hard in other areas which will
leave them reeling. In essence, theists are the best bulwark not in
terms of science but in terms of public perception and the "feel good"
factor.
While the UK is predominantly secular, never underestimate the extent to
which people still pay attention to the Anglican church as the last
bulwark - a moral authority against which they can measure their own
views. This is what I am referring to by perception and "feel good".
Perception and reality together are the most powerful combination;
separate, the fight is weakened.
Aside from drawing on the skills and knowledge range of those who have
been involved in anti-creationism, it is also necessary to draw on the
skills of social anthropologists. We need people on the ground, school
children, parents, economists, engineers, social anthropologists,
medical students, et al.
2026
ukantic
Re: Er, I think I have a Problem
01/08/2006 12:09:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "MB" <mbb386@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > That way, it is under your control and yahoo (who do not, as
news from china
> > shows, have a great record on protecting freedom of speech or
political
> > groups) cannot simply pull the group for a TOS violation.
(incidentally, if
> > your own account is "TOS"ed, this group will be deleted along
with it,
> > unless there is another owner)
> >
>
> I hope somebody other than Yahoo has the files archives stored
elsewhere, away from
> Yahoo! This goes for Debunk also.
>
> Regards,
> MB
>
I have most of them (BS that is), although I mislaid some of the
earlier ones when I swapped computers recently.
Alan.
2027
ukantic
Re: Er, I think I have a Problem
01/08/2006 12:36:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...>
wrote:
>
> This came into my email in-box this morning. Um, does anyone have
any
> comments? I suspect it applies to my blog but it doesn't say:
>
> Dear Yahoo! account holder:
>
> By creating and using your Yahoo! account, you agree to abide by
> Yahoo!'s Terms of Service (TOS). Pursuant to the TOS, Yahoo!
reserves
> the right to terminate your account or otherwise prohibit use of
your
> account in the event that, among other things, Yahoo! believes
that
> you
> have violated or acted inconsistently with the letter or spirit of
the
> TOS.
>
> It has come to our attention that you may have violated the TOS.
> Please reread the TOS and cease any use of your account that may
> violate the TOS.
>
> If your use of your Yahoo! account is brought to our attention
again,
> and we believe that such use violates the TOS, then we may
terminate
> your account without further notice.
>
> Please do not reply to this email. Any questions concerning
Yahoo!'s
> Services should be submitted through the on-line form in the help
area
> ( http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/help ).
>
Richard Dawkins, I turn my back for two minutes & look what happens!
Googling some of the terms shows that a many people have had this
sort of message across a range of Yahoo services. It may have not
necessarily been the forum that is causing the problem but another
one of their services that you are using of theirs that has the same
username.
It could be that you have activated some sort of automated response
that is spat out in response to say swear words or something similar
that is associated with your blog (which has the same username). My
guess is also that people are more liable to complain about the blog
as this is where you are actually exposing the creationists, whereas
on the forum the discussion tends to be more general & less specific.
I am not sure what would happen if Yahoo did decide to act against
your blog. If they revoked all services, you would automatically
lose the forum as a result. It might be worth considering making
another trusted member with knowledge of Yahoo groups, co-owner to
help avoid this eventuality. Mike Brass & MB come to mind (assuming
they want to of course).
Alan.
2028
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Er, I think I have a Problem
01/08/2006 12:52:00
ukantic wrote:
> another trusted member with knowledge of Yahoo groups, co-owner to
> help avoid this eventuality. Mike Brass & MB come to mind (assuming
> they want to of course).
I am happy to be a silent moderator.
2029
Roger Stanyard
Re: General Comment
01/08/2006 13:07:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> Timothy Chase wrote:
>
> > If we are to work together, it helps to avoid pressing each-
other's
> > buttons.
There is also the huge advantage that people who practice religion
are often "in the know" about what the fundies are up to. My view has
always been that the "intelligence" (as in what spies gather) on what
the fundies are up is a must have if we are to be effective.
Intelligence isn't just information; it's interpretation. Those close
to the fundies are, I guess, usually in the best position to provide
that understanding as well as the raw information.
As Mikey has well pointed out twice, this does not just apply to
evengelical protestant fundamentalists, it applies to other religions
including Islam and Hinduism. And we are not close to Islamic
fundamentalism. It's another world. We need access to it.
Roger
2030
MB
Re: Re: Er, I think I have a Problem
01/08/2006 13:32:00
>> I hope somebody other than Yahoo has the files archives stored
> elsewhere, away from
>> Yahoo! This goes for Debunk also.
>>
>> Regards,
>> MB
>>
>
> I have most of them (BS that is), although I mislaid some of the
> earlier ones when I swapped computers recently.
>
> Alan.
That's good to know! :) Those files are important and it would be painful to
lose
them all. Maybe somebody else has the missing ones? I'm a relative late-comer to
this list so I don't.
If they are still on Yahoo then they should be downloaded and saved against
catastrophe.
Regards,
MB
2031
MB
Re: Re: Er, I think I have a Problem
01/08/2006 13:40:00
> ukantic wrote:
>
>> another trusted member with knowledge of Yahoo groups, co-owner to
>> help avoid this eventuality. Mike Brass & MB come to mind (assuming
>> they want to of course).
>
I'm a mod on several snake lists, but I am not of the UK and I am not a
scientist -
so perhaps you want to look further.
And you need not just another mod, but co-*owner*. A mod does not own the
group.
At least that's my understanding.
Regards,
MB
2032
Wilson Alan
RE: Re: Politics and science
01/08/2006 14:24:00
bgcolor="white"
I agree that Professor Dawkins is perhaps too well known as
anti-religious to be a public asset to a mixed group such as the BCSE who
probably have members from all points on the spectrum of personal beliefs from theism
to atheism.
However David Archard (Professor of philosophy and public
policy at Lancaster
University) has written the
following interesting article on what pupils should and should not be taught in
school in today’s Guardian and he might be approachable for support,
although I have no contacts with him or Lancaster that could help:
Children are not products
The values pupils are taught at school should not be dictated by the views of
their parents
David Archard
Tuesday August 1, 2006
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1834538,00.html
Alan W
----
From:
BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Stanyard
Sent: 01 August 2006 10:17
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re:
Politics and science
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com,
"Wilson Alan" <Alan.Wilson@...>
wrote:
>
> My reply, which seems to have been cut off, was:
>
>
>
> Is Professor Richard Dawkins not an additional possibility?
>
> Alan W
>
Yes, but Steve Jones is closely associated with the Royal Society's
campaign against creationism and he is London-based. Also, IIRC
King's College London's medical school has had problems with
fundamentalism. King's is quite close to UCL so maybe he has
reasonable contacts there as well.
Dawkins will also undoubtedly upset a lot of the religious.
Roger
2033
Roger Stanyard
Re: Er, I think I have a Problem
01/08/2006 14:48:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "MB" <mbb386@...> wrote:
>
>
> >> I hope somebody other than Yahoo has the files archives stored
> > elsewhere, away from
> >> Yahoo! This goes for Debunk also.
How do you actually save all the files for the Blackshadow forum? I
assumed that you couldn't except for painfull saving each page.
Tim has saved content from my blog but all the postings I made there I
have in M/S Word format anyway.
Roger
2034
Roger Stanyard
Re: Er, I think I have a Problem
01/08/2006 14:56:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "MB" <mbb386@...> wrote:
>
> And you need not just another mod, but co-*owner*. A mod does not
own the group.
>
> At least that's my understanding.
>
> Regards,
> MB
My understand is that I can appoint anyone and everyone who is a
member of this group as a moderator with changing ownership.
I'll wait a day or so before I decided what the next step should be.
From some of the comments I have received the warning that I got
yesterday is pretty standard stuff; basically one should expect it if
you are owning a Yahoo group with a reasonable amount of traffic.
Of course, I still don't know if the complaint reffered to my blog.
Alan suggests that it did but the reference page stated in the
warning makes no mention of Yahoo 360 blogs.
A question for those of you in this group; do you have to sign up to
Yahoo to post to Yahoo email forums such as Blackshadow?
Roger
2035
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Er, I think I have a Problem
01/08/2006 15:04:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> A question for those of you in this group; do you have to sign up to
> Yahoo to post to Yahoo email forums such as Blackshadow?
You can subscribe via e-mail. If using this method and you don't already
have a Yahoo profile, none will be created.
If you subscribe via the web and/or want to use the web interface, the
answer is yes.
2036
Rudy Vonk
Re: Re: Er, I think I have a Problem
01/08/2006 15:35:00
On 01 ago 2006, at 15:56, Roger Stanyard wrote:
> A question for those of you in this group; do you have to sign up to
> Yahoo to post to Yahoo email forums such as Blackshadow?
To post from the Yahoo website you have to be a member (in the case of
this group, that requires your approval) *and* signed in. I post from
my mail program, and I assume mail from addresses not corresponding to
members is rejected. I'll try it out in a minute.
cellpadding="2"
Attachment: (text/enriched) [not stored]
2037
Roger Stanyard
Re: Er, I think I have a Problem
01/08/2006 16:09:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> Roger Stanyard wrote:
>
> > A question for those of you in this group; do you have to sign up
to
> > Yahoo to post to Yahoo email forums such as Blackshadow?
>
> You can subscribe via e-mail. If using this method and you don't
already
> have a Yahoo profile, none will be created.
>
> If you subscribe via the web and/or want to use the web interface,
the
> answer is yes.
Well this opens up a can of worms because I have been posting to other
groups using the web interface and have been giving Kurt a seriously
hard time in his own Yahoo group. Could be him that's doing the
complaining. Kurt stopped moderating his group years back as far as I
can make out although Mike Suttkus says he is still banned from it.
Dunno how that works. Seems that anyone can post to Kurt's group but
those he banned some years back appear to be permenantly banned by
methods I don't understand.
It's strange; anyone can post to Kurt's group anything that is breach
of Yahoo's terms of service. Yahoo can't turn to Kurt and put the blame
on him because he doesn't give a stuff and walked away years ago,
leaving it open to all comers.
This sort of thing must happen frequently; most Yahoo groups appear to
be half dead or moribund and many have open access without needing
moderator permission.
I'll check this all out later today.
Roger
.
2038
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Er, I think I have a Problem
01/08/2006 16:22:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> Dunno how that works. Seems that anyone can post to Kurt's group but
> those he banned some years back appear to be permenantly banned by
> methods I don't understand.
There is a moderator setting that permits the banning of profiles and
addresses.
The problem arises when the moderator/owner's login details are changed,
such as when their Yahoo profile is hacked. The owner can then no longer
access his/her own group and be owner.
2039
freefromchrist
Re: General Comment
01/08/2006 20:15:00
I had left the group without a flourish or some big bluster, because I
did not want to make an issue of this, however, I have been persuaded
that it's "better to be inside the tent pissing out" rather than vice
versa (nice visual imagery there).
Thanks to the people who mailed me privately.
I was frustrated by the pointless arguments and what I perceived as
more of a focus on internal argument than external action.
For my own part, I intend to simply delete those messages which I
strongly disagree with. In practice, this probably means one specific
person, and from the varied responses to this thread, I can safely say
that the feeling is probably mutual.
I feel that I should point out that I already do "do my own thing". I
am the convenor of the Scottish Atheist Council, and have been so
since before I joined this list!
Whilst not being as active as we would like yet (is any campaign ever
happy with their level of activity?), we were invited to participate
in a Government consultation last week - the experience of getting
known by journalists, building an information resource about MPs/MSPs
etc is worthwhile and something I can share.
As John points out, I am extremely anti religious. I see religion as
providing nothing of value, and it's followers as inherently part of
the problem, rather than part of the solution. That is my personal
opinion, which I have arrived at after many years of experience and
contemplation.
Basically, I don't like christians. I have my reasons. Most christians
don't like vocal atheists either. That does not mean that we cannot
get along well enough to work together for the greater good.
I have sat down to discuss matters of education or other policy with
dedicated catholics, lay preachers of the Church of Scotland and
Baptist pastors. As with any decent person, we do not feel the need to
insult each other, to be offensive, childish or to take every chance
to tell each other what we think of our various beliefs (or lack of them).
However, I do not lose sight of the fact that behind the civility is
genuine dislike. I represent something that these people hate, and
vice versa.
What bothers me about this group is the apparent inability to accept
this duality.
Would you jump down the throat of a christian who said "God Bless" or
"I'll pray about this"? Would you lecture them on not offending the
atheists?
When trying to build a broad consensus, remember that atheists/
agnostics outnumber christians in the UK by a long, long way. Less
than 14% of people attend any form of religious service *at all* It's
certainly not the same as in the US, where offending the religious
would be a death sentence for a campaign. Moderate christians are
helpful individually, but I don't believe that they are the magic
bullet some people are suggesting.
Anyway, I am back on the list for now. If it helps put things in
context, consider me as speaking in an official capacity on behalf of
the Scottish Atheist Council, as an organisation which supports the
basic goals of BCSE.
Ian
2040
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: General Comment
01/08/2006 22:03:00
freefromchrist wrote:
> what I perceived as
> more of a focus on internal argument than external action.
Before action can be taken effectively, both the strategy and means
needs to be decided down to fine detail and *stuck* to.
> Would you jump down the throat of a christian who said "God Bless" or
> "I'll pray about this"? Would you lecture them on not offending the
> atheists?
Depending on the context in various situations, been there and done
that. Again, do not presume and do *not* take any comment of mine
personally.
My expertise and knowledge are open for the list to use and ignore as
various members see fit. However, what I am seeing is fundamental
disagreement over strategy and means; so we are stuck in 1st gear and
need to get out of it. This is a bloody professional fight, people,
against creationists and it is about time this list gets its act
together as such.
2041
MB
Re: Re: General Comment
01/08/2006 22:05:00
> I had left the group without a flourish or some big bluster, because I
> did not want to make an issue of this, however, I have been persuaded
> that it's "better to be inside the tent pissing out" rather than vice
> versa (nice visual imagery there).
> [...]
Glad you're back. :) Infighting is such a bad way to accomplish things... it
drains
our resources.
I 'spect the Delete Key *is* the best answer - and not just for you! :)
Regards,
MB
2042
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: General Comment
02/08/2006 00:35:00
On 01/08/06, freefromchrist <ian@scottishatheistcouncil.org.uk> wrote:
> ...
There is of course much that you wrote that I agree with, and have
said as much previously. However, for the moment I will focus on a
few points of disagreement.
> However, I do not lose sight of the fact that behind the civility is
> genuine dislike. I represent something that these people hate, and
> vice versa.
>
> What bothers me about this group is the apparent inability to accept
> this duality.
>
> Would you jump down the throat of a christian who said "God Bless" or
> "I'll pray about this"? Would you lecture them on not offending the
> atheists?
Actually, I probably would "lecture them up" to a point.
I would see the arbitrary insertion of religion into the conversation
where the speaker realizes that others do not share his religious
views as an unneeded, unwelcome, and disrespectful attempt to force
their religious views upon others. However, I don't expect to see
this sort of evangelism among the religious individuals who might join
us: someone that preachy is far more likely to be on the other side.
Typically, it is the other side that you join when you wish to force
your religious views upon the unwilling.
Nevertheless, I would not expect someone who is inclined towards this
sort of evangelism to obsess about how much they how much they dislike
or even hate those who are not religious and to be expressing such
views every chance they get. Perhaps if they are Fundamentalists, but
even among that crowd, I would expect this to be more the exception
than the rule - simply as a remnant of good manners kept alive by
custom, if nothing else.
My two cents. I would just prefer not to have this sort of thing
happen again in another three weeks, but of course this is just a
personal preference on my part.
2043
ukantic
Re: General Comment
02/08/2006 00:38:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...> wrote:
>
> freefromchrist wrote:
> > what I perceived as
> > more of a focus on internal argument than external action.
>
> Before action can be taken effectively, both the strategy and means
> needs to be decided down to fine detail and *stuck* to.
>
> > Would you jump down the throat of a christian who said "God Bless" or
> > "I'll pray about this"? Would you lecture them on not offending the
> > atheists?
>
> Depending on the context in various situations, been there and done
> that. Again, do not presume and do *not* take any comment of mine
> personally.
>
> My expertise and knowledge are open for the list to use and ignore as
> various members see fit. However, what I am seeing is fundamental
> disagreement over strategy and means; so we are stuck in 1st gear and
> need to get out of it. This is a bloody professional fight, people,
> against creationists and it is about time this list gets its act
> together as such.
>
In America they have separation of Church & State, which makes things
easier, because all that is necessary to defeat the creationists is
prove that they are promoting a specific religious viewpoint.
Here in the UK, where there are no such laws & a long history of
Church involvement in education, there are naturally different
perceptions of the problem & the solution to it.
For example, secularists would view the creationist issue as just one
example of the numerous problems caused by giving privileged religious
groups control over the education of other people's children. They
would argue that rather than dealing with these issues individually,
it would be better for everyone if state education was simply made
secular.
The alternative is to concentrate on the specific issue of creationism
within the school system & not worry too much about the wider issues.
Such a strategy has the advantage of being acceptable to a much
broader range of people (religious or not) & more easily achievable in
the short term. It is the one used in this group & it shouldn't really
be necessary to keep repeating it all the time. Perhaps it would help
if all new members were directed to a page explaining all of this. It
could be stored in the files section & used for reference when these
issues crop up.
Just a though.
Alan
2044
oeditor
Re: Politics and science (LONG)
02/08/2006 00:41:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> Anyone have any ideas how we can find out more about the Islamic
> fundamentalists pushing creationism in the UK. Do we know anyone in
> the know, so to speak, who we can get to join the forum?
>
Googling on creationism +muslim +education
It's pretty clear that Mohammedans, by definition, would deny
evolution - if asked. It seems that the question barely occurred to
them until recently. Until, largely, they were stirred up by Western
cretinists. Having been asked, a lot of them are now sure that
evolution is wrong and shouldn't be tought in schools. There's
precious little evidence of it, though. Where can we find a mole, I
wonder?
Brian
A few of the Google links are below.
1) Independent Online Edition
http://education.independent.co.uk/schools/article485814.ece
This quotes from Steve Jones, and seems to be the most direct evidence
there is:
"It's not a problem we've faced in Britain until now. I get feedback
from Muslim schoolkids who say they are obliged to believe in
creationism, because it's part of their Islamic identity,"
2) Science
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/292/5520/1286
Needs subscription, summary says
"Turkish scientists are stepping up their efforts to promote the
teaching of the theory of evolution in the face of a well-organized,
well-funded effort to discredit it by Turkish creationists with ties
to U.S. groups."
3) Spiked
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAFC8.htm
"But what escapes most commentators is that both Muslim and Christian
views on Darwinism are a recent product of the attack on scientific
certainty in the West. The anti-Darwinian views of Muslims are not a
product of the Koran. Instead, they are a product of the same
left-wing critique of scientific elitism which has predominated in
Western universities for the past 20 or so years."
[That is most bizarre! I thought the fundies were supposed to be
"fascists", not "commies" :-0]
4) Harun Yahya and Islamic Creationism
http://www2.truman.edu/~edis/writings/articles/hyahya.html
"However, until recently, "creation-science" was not very visible in
Muslim lands. Ironically, this was mainly because Darwinian evolution
rarely appeared in education or in intellectual life.
In 1873, in the days of the Ottoman Empire, Mithat Efendi mentioned
Darwin's theory in one of his writings. The religious scholars put out
a fatwa declaring him an apostate. In the twentieth century, the
scholars lost their traditional power in many countries, and Western
ideas increased in influence. Still, Muslim thinkers took it for
granted that either evolution did not occur, or that any development
in life happened under direct divine guidance. The Quran, after all,
declares special creation, particularly of humans. The blind
naturalistic process modern science has come to accept obviously had
to be wrong; the Darwinian view of nature was but another indication
of Western degeneration in religion and morals. However, Muslim
apologists rarely felt a need to elaborate their dismissal of Darwin."
5) Islam Online
http://tinyurl.com/kwq6p
"Call for Muslim Scientists
Join the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
By Mustafa Akyol**
"[An] 'ism' of great danger to Islam... is Darwinism," said Seyyed
Hossein Nasr, one of the leading Muslim thinkers of our time, in his
book Islam and the Plight of Modern Man. He is certainly right.
Darwinism is indeed a dangerous idea, and the reason for that is its
seemingly scientific affirmation of the naturalist philosophy â€" the
belief that nature is all there is and that life on Earth, including
humans, is the product of the blind forces of nature. If one accepts
that philosophy, then one will have little reason to believe in Allah,
the Lord and Creator of everything.
[that's fine by me {-)))]
That's why Nasr thinks that accepting the Darwinian evolution theory
would be to "surrender Islam" to modern atheism. And he warns fellow
Muslims against this risk"
** Mustafa Akyol is a Muslim writer and newspaper columnist living
in Istanbul, Turkey. In May 2005, he testified to the Kansas State
Education Board as an expert witness about Darwinism and Intelligent
Design" [so he'd know all about evolution then, wouldn't he?]
...and so on and so forth.
2045
ukantic
Re: General Comment
02/08/2006 00:43:00
> Just a though.
>
> Alan
>
or even a thought.
2046
oeditor
Re: Politics and science (LONG)
02/08/2006 01:06:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> It's pretty clear that Mohammedans, by definition, would deny
> evolution - if asked. It seems that the question barely occurred to
> them until recently. Until, largely, they were stirred up by Western
> cretinists.
A recent example can be seen here:
http://www.thewhitepath.com/archives/2006/02/conference_reth.php
= http://tinyurl.com/f5xyo
"An international symposium titled "Human Genetic and Reproductive
Technologies: Comparing Religious and Secular Perspectives" and
organized by the World Health Organization, Islamic Organization for
Medical Sciences and Council For International Organizations Of
Medical Sciences was held in Cairo, on 6 - 9 February 2006."
At which the following rubbish was regurgitated:
"In the recent decades, modern science has demonstrated that living
beings are imbued with ingenious architecture, databases, and
operating systems that construct, repair, and replicate themselves.
This amazing design of the biological world challenges the Darwinian
theory of evolution, which argues that life is the product of the
blind forces of nature such as natural selection and random mutations.
The challenge is raised by the new scientific theory called
Intelligent Design, which is creating a lot controversy right now in
the US."
and so on. Nothing new under the fundie (geocentric) sun. I take it
that this is an arm of the WHO that Bush will be happy to fund. :-(((
Brian
2047
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Politics and science (LONG)
02/08/2006 02:18:00
On 01/08/06, oeditor <b-jordan@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
> >
> > Anyone have any ideas how we can find out more about the Islamic
> > fundamentalists pushing creationism in the UK. Do we know anyone in
> > the know, so to speak, who we can get to join the forum?
> >
> Googling on creationism +muslim +education
>
> It's pretty clear that Mohammedans, by definition, would deny
> evolution - if asked. It seems that the question barely occurred to
> them until recently. Until, largely, they were stirred up by Western
> cretinists. Having been asked, a lot of them are now sure that
> evolution is wrong and shouldn't be tought in schools. There's
> precious little evidence of it, though. Where can we find a mole, I
> wonder?
It depends.
Turkey is fairly moderate, and they are much less likely to take such
a literalistic approach. Likewise, there are a fair number of
moderates as well as extremists in Pakistan. One name that leaps to
mind is the editorialist Irfan Hussain whose column shows up every
sunday in Dawn:
http://www.dawn.com/weekly/mazdak/mazdak.htm
While he has expressed considerable disapproval of US and Israeli
policy in the Middle East, he regards the extremism which has
overtaken much of the Muslim world as a dark age - and he speaks
forcefully for classical liberalism, the free market as opposed to
state intervention, democracy and individual rights. He is a strong
proponent of the Separation of Church and State. While I have not
seen him take a position regarding the "scientific status" of
creationism, I have little doubt with regard to where he stands.
I like him as an author. He is a very good editorialist who nearly
always puts a great deal of original thought into what he writes.
While I wouldn't put him at the same level, I would consider his
writing to be in a vein which is in some ways comparable to that of
George Orwell.
And of course he speaks to a wide audience.
2048
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: General Comment
02/08/2006 08:02:00
ukantic wrote:
> For example, secularists would view the creationist issue as just one
> example of the numerous problems caused by giving privileged religious
> groups control over the education of other people's children. They
> would argue that rather than dealing with these issues individually,
> it would be better for everyone if state education was simply made
> secular.
I'm entirely in agreement with secular education. However, whatever my
views on that there should be a strategy devised to campaign for the
removal of creationism from science classrooms. One of the many
questions still to be addressed is do we extend that campaign to
campaigning against academy schools in general, regardless of whether
any of them do not promote creationism ?
2049
Roger Stanyard
Polling Group
02/08/2006 09:20:00
I'm not in the business of imposing rules on this group be we need to
get our act together damn quick. What I am after is firm consensus.
I want to using the polling technique to show where we have agreement.
Can anyone show me how to use it.
Roger
2050
Wilson Alan
RE: Re: General Comment
02/08/2006 10:07:00
bgcolor="white"
----
From:
BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mikey Brass
Sent: 02 August 2006 08:03
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] Re:
General Comment
ukantic wrote:
> For example, secularists would view the creationist issue as just one
> example of the numerous problems caused by giving privileged religious
> groups control over the education of other people's children. They
> would argue that rather than dealing with these issues individually,
> it would be better for everyone if state education was simply made
> secular.
Mikey wrote:
I'm entirely in agreement with secular education. However, whatever my
views on that there should be a strategy devised to campaign for the
removal of creationism from science classrooms. One of the many
questions still to be addressed is do we extend that campaign to
campaigning against academy schools in general, regardless of whether
any of them do not promote creationism ?
Not in my opinion since, although I do
object to academies in general,
I think that it is a political matter not
directly related to
keeping creationism out of science classes
in state schools.
Alan W