2051
Ian Lowe
RE: Polling Group
02/08/2006 09:09:00
The polls in Yahoo groups are fairly self explanatory Roger, but a lot
depends on what you are trying to determine.
Log into the group's website, go to Polls, click "Create a new poll"
Firstly, you just add your initial question, then add sensible options to
the end (up to 25 or so)
Then there are two key options - whether to show results as people vote, and
whether to allow multiple choice. Your choice.
Set a closing date (remember that not everyone reads email every day, so
allow a week or so) and that's you.
The difficult thing of course, as any market researcher will tell you, is
designing the questions. These polls are very poor tools, as it is very easy
to ask questions in a way which leads to the questioners desired result.
I'll also ask a direct question - what do you want from a poll?
Ian.
2052
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: General Comment
02/08/2006 09:16:00
> 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 ?
I would strongly advise against that.
Academy schools seem to be more of a political football - more to do with a
struggle for power between local councils and central government. As we are
talking about building broad support, coming out against academies generally
would be (imo) politically partisan.
I would think that we should be moving the other way - to say that
creationism in *ANY* science classroom, whether private or state funded is
the problem.
Basically, I am concerned by the appearance of more private faith schools or
US style "home schools" as a response to squeezing them in the public
sector.
I don't think academies are the problem per se - allowing fundies into a
position of control over curricula is the problem, and that happens in
academies, private schools and home schooling "cooperatives".
Ian.
2053
Mikey Brass
Charter
02/08/2006 10:56:00
[new subject heading as I would like to take this thread in a new direction]
Ian Lowe wrote:
>> 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 ?
>
> I would strongly advise against that.
Indeed. This is what I meant to everyone when I said that the strategy has
to be defined and targeted. In this case, campaigning in any form against
academy schools would be counter-productive.
> Basically, I am concerned by the appearance of more private faith
schools or
> US style "home schools" as a response to squeezing them in the public
> sector.
Unless anyone objects, I strongly recommend that the above two principles
are the bedrock upon which this list (and organisation) rests. If such
agreement is forthcoming, then I believe we have made the first step
towards creating a charter that everyone can be unified behind.
2054
MB
Re: Charter
02/08/2006 11:10:00
> In this case, campaigning in any form against
> academy schools would be counter-productive.
>
>> Basically, I am concerned by the appearance of more private faith
> schools or
>> US style "home schools" as a response to squeezing them in the public
>> sector.
>
> Unless anyone objects, I strongly recommend that the above two principles
> are the bedrock upon which this list (and organisation) rests. If such
> agreement is forthcoming, then I believe we have made the first step
> towards creating a charter that everyone can be unified behind.
>
I would suggest being very careful what you campaign against.
What people do in their own homes on their own time with their own money is not,
IMHO, our business.
The project we're working on is the apparant government
sponsorship/underwriting/approval of non-science in the science classroom.
Regards,
MB
2055
Roger Stanyard
Re: Polling Group
02/08/2006 11:16:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
>
>>
> I'll also ask a direct question - what do you want from a poll?
>
> Ian.
I want to see what the consensus is in the group.
2056
Roger Stanyard
Re: General Comment
02/08/2006 11:14:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Wilson Alan" <Alan.Wilson@...>
wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
Insofar as academy schools are being used to promote creationism, we
have to oppose them. Vardy is aiming, IIRC, for a total of seven
academy schools and I thus think it essential that this group
supports Marc and Peter's efforts to oppose them.
They are the biggest Trojan Horse in England and Wales for getting
creationism to undermine the teaching of science.
We have already seen attempts by two other fundies to establish
academy schools. I am not aware of attempts to create Muslim
fundamentalist/creationist academies but assume that the door is wide
open for them as well.
My view is that until such time that governmental policies stop the
creationists taking control of state schools by the academy route,
then they remain probably the biggest single problem we face.
Let's put it another way, as Lenny has pointed out, we need to look
where the money is. I've estimated that the total bill to the
taxpaper of the current fundie schools and the ones that are in the
pipeline is £1,015 million over the next 25 years.
That makes the £500-£800k a year income of AiG look like peanuts.
I think it wrong just to limit ourselves to opposing invidual plans
by Vardy et al. They will just keeep popping up elsewhere. The
problem is the policy rules that allow fundies to take control. And
it is those policy rules (and, quite frankly, those that have put
them in place and/or lobbied for them) that we need to address as
well as supporting opposition to Vardy and his pals.
Even if Vardy and his pals drop their plans, there will be others
emerging. Don't forget that the evangelical movement in the CofE is
growing and a third of schools in England are CofE. The evangelicals
have their own organisation that has promoted academy schools - the
Christian Institute. Even the Evangelical Alliance is silent on the
creationism in schools issue.
(Yep, I know that evangelical is not the same as fundamentalist but
all fundies I have every come across in the UK and North America are
evangelical Christians.)
OK, so most of the CofE schools are at primary level or earlier. But
Vardy has made it clear that he is looking at incorporating infant
and primary education into his academies.
In my view the whole academy game is deeply flawed and very dangerous.
Like yourself, I could have gone along with the academy concept had
not the door been open to fundies. But it is.
Let me put it to you in a broader framework. The current system is
not just wide open to creationism, it's also open to all the other
nuttiness of fundies including dispensationalism and dominionism.
How does everyone in the group feel about that even though it is not
part of our agreed remit?
How do you feel about your children being taught that environmental
issues (applied science, if you like) are irrelevant because the
rapture is going to take place in 50 years?
That's my pennyworth for this morning. It's an issue we need sorted
so post away with comments everyone, please.
Roger
PS, I forgot to add that what we are doing is political; it's about
public policy.
2057
Roger Stanyard
Re: General Comment
02/08/2006 11:19:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
>
> I don't think academies are the problem per se - allowing fundies
into a
> position of control over curricula is the problem, and that happens in
> academies, private schools and home schooling "cooperatives".
>
> Ian.
Does anyone know how big the home schooling thing is in the UK? From
memory the fundies are claiming that bout 500 children are being taught
this way with fundamentalist educational material.
I suspect that the fundies have exaggerated the claim.
Roger
2058
Roger Stanyard
Re: Charter
02/08/2006 11:23:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Mikey Brass" <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
>
>
> > Basically, I am concerned by the appearance of more private faith
> schools or
> > US style "home schools" as a response to squeezing them in the
public
> > sector.
>
> Unless anyone objects, I strongly recommend that the above two
principles
> are the bedrock upon which this list (and organisation) rests. If such
> agreement is forthcoming, then I believe we have made the first step
> towards creating a charter that everyone can be unified behind.
>
Mikey, I'm confused as to what you are saying here. I assume that you
don't mean that we should oppose private daith schools or home
schooling because I can't see how we could.
Roger
2059
Mikey Brass
Re: Charter
02/08/2006 11:52:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
> > Unless anyone objects, I strongly recommend that the above two
> principles
> > are the bedrock upon which this list (and organisation) rests. If such
> > agreement is forthcoming, then I believe we have made the first step
> > towards creating a charter that everyone can be unified behind.
> >
>
> Mikey, I'm confused as to what you are saying here.
Home schooling is at the discretion of the local education authorities
who are obliged to make regular checks to see that the work is being
followed and the standard offered, et al. Now obviously there is
nothing that can be done to prevent a parent imposing his/her own
views in private, but think of this scenario: a parent tells an
inspector that he/she is both following the prescribed curriculum but
that they have religious objections to evolution and are teaching
their children that. At the moment the inspector would have to give
the green light as the curriculum is being followed. But if that
parent is being permitted to teach creationism as science, as valid
objections to evolution, then we are entering into murky waters.
No creationism in science teaching should mean no creationism in
science teaching. In the above scenario, the education authorities
should have the authority to say to the parent "you may say what you
want in private, but this is not to be any part of you teaching
science to your children".
2060
oeditor
Re: Charter
02/08/2006 11:59:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> I assume that you
> don't mean that we should oppose private daith schools or home
> schooling because I can't see how we could.
>
Not as such, but teaching anti-science is as bad wherever it's done.
Private schools and home-schoolers are both subject to inspection (a
friend of mine has been inspected). I think we should campaign for
guidelines against anti-science and try to make it widely known that
it's bad for the children who are taught it. Look at the Leeds
remedial lectures, and think that universities are going down the
route of entrance exams.
Brian
2061
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: General Comment
02/08/2006 11:49:00
There are more than 500 in Scotland alone - Scottish exec reckons that
around 2200 children up here are home schooled.
There's going to a proportion of those kids who were bullied, parents who
just don't like schools, kids with special needs etc as well as the
religious extremists. The problem being that these reasons are not recorded
(that I am aware of)
One of the reasons some people choose home schooling is to "drop off the
radar" in this way.
I can see if the exec have stats on teaching materials used when kids
present for examination - they do have a list of acceptable teaching tools
etc, which includes a couple of church based sets.
I suspect that DFES will keep the same basic stats as the Scottish Exec.
Ian.
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Roger Stanyard
Sent: 02 August 2006 11:19
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: General Comment
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
>
> I don't think academies are the problem per se - allowing fundies
into a
> position of control over curricula is the problem, and that happens in
> academies, private schools and home schooling "cooperatives".
>
> Ian.
Does anyone know how big the home schooling thing is in the UK? From
memory the fundies are claiming that bout 500 children are being taught
this way with fundamentalist educational material.
I suspect that the fundies have exaggerated the claim.
Roger
Yahoo! Groups Links
2062
ukantic
Re: General Comment
02/08/2006 12:17:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
> That's my pennyworth for this morning. It's an issue we need sorted
> so post away with comments everyone, please.
>
> Roger
My view is that there are many problems with the Academies Program.
For example, even taking into account the contribution from the
sponsor, the Academy design is gratuitously expensive. It would have
been much better to have used a lower cost (but still effective)
design or renovation. I know a building contractor & I have watched in
the past as he has taken dilapidated old buildings & very quickly
renovated them into practically brand new units with a modern, fresh
appearance at a fraction of the cost of rebuild. Remember this is
taxpayer's money that is being wasted – money that could have for
example been used on providing better healthcare or reducing taxes.
Most of these problems are irrelevant to the issue of creationism & we
should not be taking sides in the controversy over these issues &
others such as the role of private finance in education.
However, the fact cannot be ignored that the Academies program is the
main vehicle for transport of creationism into our school system & for
that reason I think we should at least oppose that element of it.
Alan.
2063
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: Charter
02/08/2006 12:29:00
>I assume that you don't mean that we should oppose private daith schools or
home schooling because I can't see how we could.
That's certainly not what I am suggesting - instead, it is closing the
loopholes, to ensure that fundies are not able to bypass proper rules on
science education in these ways.
Basically, it's the discussion of whether it's about the money (and the
problem is state funds being used for bad/anti science education) or about
the actual education - and it doesn't matter who is teaching or paying.
Personally, I believe the latter. There's already precedent in the UK -
there is a (very small) minority of Islamic parents who do not wish to see
their daughters educated or exposed to western culture, and they have used
both faith schools (who were in on the gig) and home schooling to try to
avoid having to educate their girls.
There was a private Islamic school in Glasgow closed last year for exactly
this - girls were kept in a courtyard all day, and given "housework"
classes, whilst boys were properly educated. I know of one Jehova's witness
family who were forced to return their children to school after a year of
staying at home because it was clear that the parents were not fulfilling
their obligation to provide a proper education.
What I think is needed is a clear consistent message - Science must be
taught, and taught properly, whether in a state school, private school or at
home, because not doing so fails to prepare a child for an adult life within
a modern society.
In a sense, it's the concept of not fighting vardy's schools one by one, but
going to the source and trying to cut off the entire thing.
Ian.
2064
Roger Stanyard
Re: General Comment
02/08/2006 12:52:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <alan@...> wrote:
>
> However, the fact cannot be ignored that the Academies program is the
> main vehicle for transport of creationism into our school system & for
> that reason I think we should at least oppose that element of it.
>
> Alan.
I'm not sure what you mean, here Alan. Are you saying that we oppose:
1. Existing fundamentalist academies which are basically the three
Vardy schools, or
2. Planed academies that are backed by fundamentalists or
3. The bits of public policies that allow creationists to take control
of such schools.
4. Or do we just stand back and so we don't oppose academy schools at
all but just the teaching of creationism in such schools - which is, to
put it simply, the same position that we are looking at in respect of
all schools.
Roger
PS: Methinks that Marc and Peter's positions and opinions would be
extremely useful in this thread. However, Peter appears to be busy so
we may have to wait a while for a reply from him.
2065
Roger Stanyard
Re: General Comment
02/08/2006 13:07:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
>
> There are more than 500 in Scotland alone - Scottish exec reckons
that
> around 2200 children up here are home schooled.
>
The figure of 500 I quoted came, IIRC, from the fundie home schooling
organisation based in Swindon and, IIRC, applies to the whole of the
UK. I could be wrong, though, on the latter point. However, the
figure of 500 is actually the number using its fundamentalist course
material rather than an estimate of the total number in the uK being
home educated and even then it wasn't clear whether it refered to the
number of children or the number of households undertaken home
education using fundie material.
From memory Randall Hardy of Creation Research UK home educated three
of his six children so, presumably, was able to reuse material.
As far as I am aware there is only one organisation supplying fundie
home education material in the UK but, of course, there is nothing to
stop anyone buying such material through Internet from the USA. As
far as I know, it isn't subject to import duties.
I also suspect some of what I can only describe as micro-schools with
a dozen or so pupils use the fundamentalist material. I think we have
already seen this in a Seventh Day Adventist school in London (I
could be wrong, though).
Methinks we need some more research on this issue at some time.
Roger
2066
Roger Stanyard
Re: Charter
02/08/2006 13:14:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
>
> In a sense, it's the concept of not fighting vardy's schools one by
one, but
> going to the source and trying to cut off the entire thing.
>
> Ian.
I'm trying to find out what the consensus in the group is so would I
be right to summarise your position by saying that we need to
concentrate on the following issues regarding teaching of creationism
in science:
1. The national (and the Scottish) curriculum.
2. The examination rules.
3. The regulation of schools and home schooling.
4. And the related issue of inspection and monitoring of education.
Roger
2067
Mikey Brass
Re: Charter
02/08/2006 13:22:00
Roger, that sums up my stance.
2068
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: Charter
02/08/2006 14:07:00
Yep, that pretty much sums it up.
I would say don't worry about Scotland too much - our situation is very
different from England's and given that all of the major players here are
non creationist, I think England/Wales is where the focus must be.
Ian.
-----Original Message-----y
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Roger Stanyard
Sent: 02 August 2006 13:14
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: Charter
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
>
> In a sense, it's the concept of not fighting vardy's schools one by
one, but
> going to the source and trying to cut off the entire thing.
>
> Ian.
I'm trying to find out what the consensus in the group is so would I
be right to summarise your position by saying that we need to
concentrate on the following issues regarding teaching of creationism
in science:
1. The national (and the Scottish) curriculum.
2. The examination rules.
3. The regulation of schools and home schooling.
4. And the related issue of inspection and monitoring of education.
Roger
Yahoo! Groups Links
2069
ukantic
Re: General Comment
02/08/2006 20:02:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <alan@> wrote:
> >
> > However, the fact cannot be ignored that the Academies program is the
> > main vehicle for transport of creationism into our school system & for
> > that reason I think we should at least oppose that element of it.
> >
> > Alan.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean, here Alan. Are you saying that we oppose:
>
> 1. Existing fundamentalist academies which are basically the three
> Vardy schools, or
>
> 2. Planed academies that are backed by fundamentalists or
>
> 3. The bits of public policies that allow creationists to take control
> of such schools.
>
> 4. Or do we just stand back and so we don't oppose academy schools at
> all but just the teaching of creationism in such schools - which is, to
> put it simply, the same position that we are looking at in respect of
> all schools.
>
> Roger
>
> PS: Methinks that Marc and Peter's positions and opinions would be
> extremely useful in this thread. However, Peter appears to be busy so
> we may have to wait a while for a reply from him.
>
Well what I think I am trying to say Roger is that just as we have all
agreed that is best if the group (regardless of their individual
beliefs) should remain neutral with regard to the issue of religion,
so it is probably best if it also tries to remain neutral with regard
to politics.
As I have pointed out, I have serious concerns about issues
surrounding the Academies Program such as the cost, loss of local
control, etc but to an extent these are irrelevant to the issue of
creationism. I am trying to keep an open mind on the issue of allowing
private companies to run schools & do not think it is a good idea for
us to be perceived as siding with the left by insisting that only the
state should be allowed to run publicly financed schools.
In short we should stick to opposing the creationists & insisting that
no matter how the government finances education (private vs. public),
that they are kept out of the school system; regardless of the
lilywhite image they present to dumb politicians who seem to get
sucked in by the lying, conniving & duplicitous little shit-heads.
As for opposing Academies that have been or are in danger of being
taken over by creationists, then oppose them by all means; just as
long as the reason for opposing them is because they are teaching
creationism (covertly or otherwise).
Alan.
2070
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: General Comment
02/08/2006 20:22:00
On 02/08/06, ukantic <alan@blackshadow.me.uk> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
> >
>
> > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <alan@> wrote:
> > >
> > > However, the fact cannot be ignored that the Academies program is the
> > > main vehicle for transport of creationism into our school system & for
> > > that reason I think we should at least oppose that element of it.
> > >
> > > Alan.
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean, here Alan. Are you saying that we oppose:
> >
> > 1. Existing fundamentalist academies which are basically the three
> > Vardy schools, or
> >
> > 2. Planed academies that are backed by fundamentalists or
> >
> > 3. The bits of public policies that allow creationists to take control
> > of such schools.
> >
> > 4. Or do we just stand back and so we don't oppose academy schools at
> > all but just the teaching of creationism in such schools - which is, to
> > put it simply, the same position that we are looking at in respect of
> > all schools.
> >
> > Roger
> >
> > PS: Methinks that Marc and Peter's positions and opinions would be
> > extremely useful in this thread. However, Peter appears to be busy so
> > we may have to wait a while for a reply from him.
> >
>
>
> Well what I think I am trying to say Roger is that just as we have all
> agreed that is best if the group (regardless of their individual
> beliefs) should remain neutral with regard to the issue of religion,
> so it is probably best if it also tries to remain neutral with regard
> to politics.
> ...
I fully agree.
The BCSE should be focused on the issues which are essential to it -
if we are to keep with the plan for it to be an umbrella organisation.
The organisations which it includes may very well have other agendas
and goals - and I see absolutely no problem with that. They will
succeed or fail in their particular agendas to the extent that they
are able to garner support. But the BCSE itself should always seek to
be neutral with respect to issues or affiliations which are not
essential to its defining mission.
2071
Marc Draco
Re: Re: Charter
02/08/2006 23:13:00
Sorry I'm burried at the moment, but Vady schools are going for a faith
status which basically means that they can teach any shit that the like.
We need to decapitate Vardyism at the source: not what they can "teach"
because they will always find a way around it.
Roger Stanyard wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
> <BlackShadow%40yahoogroups.com>, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
> >
> > In a sense, it's the concept of not fighting vardy's schools one by
> one, but
> > going to the source and trying to cut off the entire thing.
> >
> > Ian.
>
> I'm trying to find out what the consensus in the group is so would I
> be right to summarise your position by saying that we need to
> concentrate on the following issues regarding teaching of creationism
> in science:
>
> 1. The national (and the Scottish) curriculum.
>
> 2. The examination rules.
>
> 3. The regulation of schools and home schooling.
>
> 4. And the related issue of inspection and monitoring of education.
>
> Roger
>
>
2072
Roger Stanyard
Re: Charter
03/08/2006 10:45:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
wrote:
>
> Sorry I'm burried at the moment, but Vady schools are going for a
faith
> status which basically means that they can teach any shit that the
like.
> We need to decapitate Vardyism at the source: not what they
can "teach"
> because they will always find a way around it.
>
Marc, so I and others can get our heads around this one, can you point
us in the right direction regarding precisely what the status of faith-
based schools entails? How does it, for example, reflect on the
teaching of science? What does it entail in terms of slective entrance
criteria? Can an academy school be faith-based from day one? Etc., etc..
Roger
2073
oeditor
Muslim creationism
03/08/2006 17:48:00
This is not quite to the topic, but may be an important underpinning
of the teaching of Islamic creationism. Found on the NSS site.
Apparently UK universities validate Islamic Studes courses in private
colleges. Their curriculum is based on that in Islamic seminaries.
"Islamic teaching in the seminaries is based on a medieval curriculum
which encourages Muslims to believe that Jews and Christians are their
enemies condemned to perish in hell."
I would assume from this that they are equally anti-science in general
and anti-evolution in particular. If people from these colleges get
into schools, hey presto!
http://education.independent.co.uk/higher/article1197785.ece
Brian
who thought it might be a good idea to start a separate thread so the
occasional contributions to the topic won't get lost.
2074
Mikey Brass
Modern species concepts
03/08/2006 20:42:00
Jody Hey. 2006. On the failure of modern species concepts. Trends in
Ecology and Evolution Vol.21 No.8
Abstract:
The modern age of species concepts began in 1942, when
Ernst Mayr gave concept names to several different
approaches to species identification.A long list of species
concepts then followed, as well as a complex literature on
their merits, motivations and uses. Some of these complexities
arose as a consequence of the semantic shift that Mayr introduced, in
which procedures for identifying species were elevated to concepts.Much
of the debate in recent decades over concepts, and over pluralism versus
monism, can be seen as an unnecessary consequence of
treating species identification criteria as if they were more
fundamental concepts. Recently, biologists have begun
to recognize both the shortcomings of a lexicon of multiple
species concepts and a common evolutionary idea
that underlies them.
2075
Mikey Brass
Re: Muslim creationism
03/08/2006 21:17:00
"It does not ask serious questions about how to reinterpret medieval
texts in a modern pluralist society."
Here is the crux of the matter in both Islam and fundie Christinaity:
taking textual writings as fundamental, unalterable and uncritical
teachings.
2076
ukantic
Re: Muslim creationism
03/08/2006 22:29:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> "It does not ask serious questions about how to reinterpret
medieval
> texts in a modern pluralist society."
>
> Here is the crux of the matter in both Islam and fundie
Christinaity:
> taking textual writings as fundamental, unalterable and uncritical
> teachings.
>
Out of interest, I recently caught the end of a TV program on
medical research into areas such as stem cells & in-vitro
fertilisation. They were interviewing patients, doctors &
researchers; it came as a complete surprise to learn that the
country concerned was of all places – Iran.
In this area at least they seem pretty forward thinking. Here is an
example:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/middleeast/view/187153/1/.html
Alan.
2077
Rudy Vonk
Re: Muslim creationism
04/08/2006 08:39:00
On 03 ago 2006, at 22:17, Mikey Brass wrote:
> Here is the crux of the matter in both Islam and fundie Christinaity:
> taking textual writings as fundamental, unalterable and uncritical
> teachings.
And, in both cases, mostly because they were "directly" (e.g. to Moses)
or "semi-directly" (through Gabriel to Muhammad) communicated to
somebody who was completely alone at the time, without witnesses. This
"evidence" wouldn't last longer in court than a snowball in hell. What
were these people smoking...
cellpadding="2"
Attachment: (text/enriched) [not stored]
2078
Marc Draco
Well I''ll be! Sunderland-based paper criticises Vardy school!
04/08/2006 11:51:00
This is our very own Mr Vulcan!
http://tinyurl.com/fnssv
Nice one Stefan! Maybe someone will start to listen now. Of course,
McQuoid defends his position in the same paper, but this is a start. At
last McClean has reported the opposing view without making our side look
like blithering idiots.
2079
Roger Stanyard
Re: Well I''ll be! Sunderland-based paper criticises Vardy school!
04/08/2006 14:43:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
wrote:
>
Well done Stefan! I made mention of Stefan on the Science Just Science
site this morning.
Roger
2080
Roger Stanyard
Landover Baptist
04/08/2006 18:37:00
As regulars may be aware from my blog, my dubious identical twin
brother is making himself a packet as head of communications for
Landover Baptist Church in the United States.
Well, blow me if he hasn't started publishing letters on the Church's
web site from creationists.
See this at www.landoverbaptist.org/mail/0706.html :
I read the article on the flying dinosaurs and Noah's ark. Now I am a
creationist and a former evolutionist who is working on a biology
degree. There are many problems with the article from a creation
science point of view. The first problem is that the dinosaur bones
currently being found in China have been a very big problem for
scientists because they are commonly turning out to be hoaxes.
National geographic has published many articles on the subject
of "feathered dinosaurs" but when one reads the fine print he sees
that what they found were "hairlike structures" that were thought to
be "proto-feathers" by evolutionists. In addition these "hairlike
structures" are identical to fossilized plants that we find so a more
reasonable conclusion would be that the animal died and plants began
to grow on the dead carcass.
There are many problems with the article itself besides the
dinosaurs. Noah and his family were only required to bring
every "kind" of animal on the ark. In genesis it says that God
created them to bring forth after their kinds. The biblical "kind"
and scientific term "species" are two different things. The term
species is meant to be very specific in terms of classification. For
example dogs and wolves can reproduce together and produce fertile
offspring just fine, but they are considered a separate species
because they have some unique behavioral patterns and slight
differences in physiology, but mainly because humans generally do not
allow cross-breeding between dog and wolf populations. The dogs and
wolves, however, are the same "kind" because they can bring forth
together. In reality Noah would probably only have had to bring a few
thousand pairs onto the ark. The Bible also says that only animals
with the breath of life in their nostrils were required on the ark.
This means that land animals with nostrils were brought, and Noah
would obviously not be required to bring fish onto the Ark (they will
be fine if the world becomes covered in water, obviously). The part
about bringing animals from Australia did not rub well with me
because before the flood, most of the currently ocean water was
underground and the water on the Earth were gathered to one place. At
the end of the flood God made the mountains rise and he lowered the
valleys (the continents were being brought up out of the oceans).
On a personal note. As a former evolutionist, if someone had given me
that particular article a few years ago, I would probably never have
become a creationist or a true Christian. If you were to use articles
on the bacterial flagellum or the bombardier beetle then an
evolutionist would be more likely to listen. This particular article
really would be a turn off to any evolutionist who reads it. The best
way to catch a fish is with good bait, and the best way to hook an
evolutionist on God is with good scientific questions and evidence.
Scientists like to think, they like to say "Well this certainly opens
up a door of possibilities. This looks like it could have been
designed, but who could the designer be? Is it robots, aliens, gods,
humans from the future, Krishna, Allah, the God of the Bible...?"
Once you open up the wonderland of possibilities then they start
considering different perspectives and at least for me, the other
Holy books were a joke compared to the Bible.
Here are a few web sites with articles that I did enjoy and many
which I would have abandoned evolution on the spot had I been given
them a few years ago. Answersingenesis.org and ICR.org
Bootcher7
2081
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Muslim creationism
04/08/2006 19:25:00
ukantic wrote:
> In this area at least they seem pretty forward thinking. Here is an
> example:
>
> http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/middleeast/view/187153/1/.html
It should be kept in mind that Islam during the early Middle Ages had
very progressive thinking and an ideology which encouraged investigation
(I am not saying today's Islam doesn't). Some of the first
"archaeologists" were Muslim and there are hints in the writings from
the time of thinking along evolutionary lines for biology.
2082
Mikey Brass
[Fwd: [ncse-news] Evolution education update: August 4, 2006]
04/08/2006 19:29:00
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [ncse-news] Evolution education update: August 4, 2006
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 10:20:45 -0700
From: Glenn Branch <branch@ncseweb.org>
Reply-To: owner-ncse-news@ncseweb.org
To: ncse-news@ncseweb2.org
Dear Friends of NCSE,
In Kansas, the balance of power on the state board of education is expected
to shift in the wake of the August 1, 2006, primary
election. Plus: Barbara Forrest recounts her involvement in Kitzmiller v.
Dover, and a major health research advocacy organization takes a firm stand
in support of evolution education.
THE PENDULUM SWINGS IN KANSAS
With the results of the August 1, 2006, primary election in Kansas, the
pendulum swung in favor of the integrity of evolution education. In
November 2005, the state board of education voted 6-4 to adopt a set of
state science standards that were rewritten, under the tutelage of local
"intelligent design" activists, to impugn the scientific status of
evolution. Now, no matter who wins in the November general election, two
of the members of the board who voted for the standards will be replaced by
two new members who have condemned those standards.
* In District 1, incumbent Janet Waugh, a supporter of evolution education,
handily defeated her antievolution challenger Jesse L. Hall in the
Democratic primary.
* In District 3, antievolution incumbent John W. Bacon prevailed over
challengers Harry E. McDonald III and David A. Oliphant in the Republican
primary, and will face Don Weiss, a supporter of evolution education, in
November.
* In District 5, Sally Cauble, a supporter of evolution education, defeated
antievolution incumbent Connie Morris in the Republican primary, and will
face Tim Cruz, a supporter of evolution education, in November.
* In District 7, antievolution incumbent Ken Willard prevailed over
challengers Donna Viola and M. T. Liggett in the Republican primary, and
will face Jack Wempe, a supporter of evolution education, in November.
* In District 9, where antievolution incumbent Iris Van Meter was not
seeking re-election, Jana Shaver, a supporter of evolution education,
defeated antievolution candidate Brad Patzer, Van Meter's son-in-law, in
the Republican primary, and will face Kent Runyan, a supporter of evolution
education, in November.
The race attracted national attention, with The New York Times observing
(August 1, 2006), "God and Charles Darwin are not on the primary ballot in
Kansas on Tuesday, but once again a contentious schools election has
religion and science at odds in a state that has restaged a
three-quarter-century battle over the teaching of evolution," and the
Associated Press describing (August 1, 2006) the primary as "the latest
skirmish in a seesawing battle between faith and science that has opened
Kansas up to international ridicule."
The electoral defeat is clearly a further setback for the "intelligent
design" movement, already reeling from the legal defeat in Kitzmiller v.
Dover in December 2005 and from the Ohio board of education's decision in
February 2006 to rescind a "critical analysis of evolution" model lesson
plan and a corresponding indicator in the state's science standards. Both
the Kansas-based Intelligent Design Network and the Discovery Institute
engaged in massive publicity campaigns in Kansas prior to the election,
putatively in defense of the standards themselves.
Speaking to the Kansas City Star (July 28, 2006) a few days before the
election, antievolution incumbent Connie Morris -- who notoriously
described evolution as "biologically, genetically, mathematically,
chemically, metaphysically and etc. 'wildly' and 'utterly impossible'"
(sic) in a newsletter to her constituents -- acknowledged that if the
antievolution faction on the board is defeated at the polls, "the science
standards will be removed within an hour" of the new board's first
meeting. NCSE congratulates Kansas on the prospect of her prophecy's
coming true.
For the unofficial election results, visit:
http://www.kssos.org/ent/kssos_ent.html
For the cited newspaper stories, visit:
http://www.nytimes.com/us/01evolution.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080100704.\
html
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/15140409.htm
For Morris's newsletter (PDF), visit:
http://cjonline.com/images/061605/morrisnewsletter.pdf
For NCSE's previous coverage of events in Kansas, visit:
http://www.ncseweb.org/pressroom.asp?state=KS
REACTIONS TO THE KANSAS VOTE
Following the August 1, 2006, primary election in Kansas, supporters of the
integrity of evolution education are expected to form the majority on the
state board of education, no matter who prevails in the November 2006
general election. A likely consequence is a reversal of the board's
decision in November 2005 to adopt a set of state science standards that
was rewritten, under the guidance of local "intelligent design" activists,
to impugn the scientific status of evolution. Within the state and across
the country, the election elicited comment, analysis, and congratulations.
Speaking to the Lawrence Journal-World (August 3, 2006), NCSE's Nick Matzke
described the result of the primary election as the latest in a series of
setbacks for the "intelligent design" movement, citing its legal defeat in
Kitzmiller v. Dover and the subsequent decision of the Ohio state board of
education to rescind a "critical analysis of evolution" model lesson plan
and a corresponding indicator in the state's science standards. "If they
are having trouble winning in Kansas, a red state, and in the Republican
primary, it has to be somewhat discouraging. This was their crown jewel,"
he said.
Janet Waugh, a member of the board who won her party's nomination in the
August primary and a supporter of evolution education, told the
Journal-World that the struggle was not over. Speaking of supporters of
"intelligent design," she said, "It's like they won't give up ... They just
keep trying. Why won't they accept the fact that we can teach religion in
school, but we can't teach it in a science class?" She added, "What I
would like to see done is to revisit all 6-4 decisions," which includes not
only the vote to adopt the antievolution versions of the standards but a
number of other controversial decisions as well.
The New York Times (August 3, 2006) reported, "Several of the winners in
the primary election, whose victories are virtually certain to shift the
board to at least a 6-to-4 moderate majority in November, promised
Wednesday to work swiftly to restore a science curriculum that does not
subject evolution to critical attack," and quoted Jana Shaver, who won the
Republican nomination for the District 9 seat on the board of education in
the August primary, as saying, "We need to teach good science and bring the
discussion back to educational issues, and not continue focusing on
hot-button issues."
NCSE's Eugenie C. Scott told the Times, "I think more citizens are learning
what intelligent design really is and realizing that they don't really want
that taught in their public schools." She acknowledged, however, that the
supporters of "intelligent design" are resilient. "They've had a series of
setbacks," she said, "but I don't think for one moment that this means the
intelligent design people will fold their tents and go away." The Times
noted that "Kansas has been over this ground before," after the board
similarly rewrote the standards at the behest of creationists in 1999.
In its August 3, 2006, editorial, the Times took notice of the ups and
downs of evolution in the state standards, remarking, "We'd be inclined to
rejoice in this evidence that Kansas may be rejoining the modern world were
it not for the state's disturbing habit of backtracking from teaching
evolution whenever the anti-science ideological faction gains the upper
hand," and urging, "the cause of science would be well served if the
pro-evolution side could gain a greater majority. Voters will have another
chance in November to oust two Republican conservatives who collaborated in
the board's attacks on the bedrock theory of modern biology."
Also congratulating Kansas was the American Institute of Biological
Sciences, whose president Kent Holsinger said, in a press release dated
August 2, 2006, "This appears to be a great outcome ... This shows that
when scientists, educators, parents and the business community come
together to explain the value of quality science education, everyone
benefits." AIBS's Robert Gropp added, "The primary results demonstrate
that people are not yet willing to accept special political interests
redefining science to serve political agendas. Science is a process that
we can not afford to let become a political tool."
For the story in the Lawrence Journal-World, visit:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/aug/03/election_hailed_proevolution/
For the story and the editorial in The New York Times, visit:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/03/us/03evolution.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/03/opinion/edit-2-thu.htm
For AIBS's press release, visit:
http://www.aibs.org/position-statements/20060802_biologists_resp.html
AAAS WARNS KANSAS: SCIENCE CLASSROOMS ARE FOR SCIENCE
Shortly before the primary election, two representatives of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science urged the state of Kansas not to
confuse students about science by encouraging religiously motivated and
scientifically unwarranted criticisms of evolution to be taught in the
state's public classrooms. In the July 30, 2006, issue of the Wichita
Eagle, Gilbert S. Omenn and Alan I. Leshner wrote, "In the climate of
turmoil that now surrounds how biology and evolution are taught in public
schools, a troubling distortion has become common: The issues are wrongly
cast as a conflict between science and religion, as if they were two rival
football teams. With a crucial State Board of Education election just days
away, and with the long-term future of Kansas children at stake, it's
important to avoid such misunderstanding."
"America faces unprecedented science-related challenges -- to protect our
national security, to find new energy sources, and to defend against
diseases such as avian flu," Omenn and Leshner wrote. "If we undermine
science education, we put the people of Kansas and the United States at
risk. What's needed is a commitment to mutual respect. Religion is a
personal matter, and it should be taught in the home and in churches and
synagogues. But science classrooms are where we cultivate the mind-set of
discovery and where we prepare the workers of tomorrow. Those classrooms
must be reserved for science." Omenn is chairman of the board of the AAAS
and a professor of medicine, genetics, and public health at the University
of Michigan; Leshner is chief executive of the AAAS and executive publisher
of its journal, Science.
For Omenn and Leshner's op-ed, visit:
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/editorial/15154297.htm
"THE 'VISE STRATEGY' UNDONE"
Barbara Forrest, who was among the expert witnesses to testify for the
plaintiffs in Kitzmiller v. Dover, recounts her involvement in the case, in
a detailed article posted at the Committee for the Scientific Investigation
of Claims of the Paranormal's Creationism and Intelligent Design Watch
website. "Not only did I show up for my deposition," Forrest writes,
contrasting her appearance with the disappearance of three of the
"intelligent design" proponents who were supposed to have testified for the
defense, "but I also testified at the trial despite being delayed by
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Moreover, I had the distinction of being the
only witness whom the defense tried to exclude from the case. When they
failed, the Discovery Institute tried to discredit me with ridicule."
But in the end, Forrest's thorough knowledge and articulate description of
the "intelligent design" movement and its unsavory tactics convinced Judge
Jones, who wrote in his ruling: "Dr. Barbara Forrest ... has thoroughly
and exhaustively chronicled the history of ID in her book and other
writings for her testimony in this case. Her testimony, and the exhibits
... admitted with it, provide a wealth of statements by ID leaders that
reveal ID's religious, philosophical, and cultural content." In the wake
of the Kitzmiller decision, Forrest notes, "ID creationists continue their
efforts to discredit both Judge Jones and me. They employ their usual
m.o.: lacking scientific evidence for ID, they make things up and/or
slander their opposition," and cites a number of such misrepresentations.
Forrest is Professor of Philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University and
a member of NCSE's board of directors. With Paul R. Gross, she wrote
Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design (Oxford
University Press, 2004), the definitive expose of the "intelligent design"
movement's so-called Wedge strategy. A paperback edition, with a new
foreword by the Reverend Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of
Church and State and a new chapter on the Kitzmiller trial, is to appear in
early 2007.
For Forrest's essay, visit:
http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/kitzmiller.html
For information about Creationism's Trojan Horse, visit:
http://www.creationismstrojanhorse.com/
RESEARCH!AMERICA RAISES ITS VOICE FOR EVOLUTION
A strong position statement supporting the teaching of evolution and
opposing the teaching of "intelligent design" was issued by
Research!America, which describes itself as "the nation's largest
not-for-profit public education and advocacy alliance working to make
research to improve health a higher national priority." The statement
reads:
***
Research!America supports the scientific community's unanimous position
that intelligent design does not meet the criteria of a scientific concept
and thus should not be presented as one in the classroom. Evolution is
backed by a substantial body of scientific evidence, whereas intelligent
design is a matter of belief and not subject to proof.
Opinion polls commissioned by Research!America and others show a woeful
lack of appreciation among the public that biological evolution is
well-supported by scientific evidence. At a time of heightened global
competition in science and technology, the American public deserves, now
more than ever, nothing less than the best science education in the world.
***
Founded in 1989, Research!America is supported by more than 500 member
organizations that represent the voices of more than 125 million
Americans. Its public opinion polls, advocacy programs and publications
reach the public and decision makers to help advance medical and health
research.
For Research!America's position statement, visit:
http://www.researchamerica.org/publications/Position.Statements/intelligentdesig\
n.html
REMINDER
If you wish to unsubscribe to these evolution education updates, please
send:
unsubscribe ncse-news your@email.com
in the body of an e-mail to majordomo@ncseweb2.org.
If you wish to subscribe, please send:
subscribe ncse-news your@email.com
again in the body of an e-mail to majordomo@ncseweb2.org.
Thanks for reading! And as always, be sure to consult NCSE's web site:
http://www.ncseweb.org
where you can always find the latest news on evolution education and
threats to it.
Sincerely,
Glenn Branch
Deputy Director
National Center for Science Education, Inc.
420 40th Street, Suite 2
Oakland, CA 94609-2509
510-601-7203 x305
fax: 510-601-7204
800-290-6006
branch@ncseweb.org
http://www.ncseweb.org
Eugenie C. Scott's Evolution vs. Creationism is now available:
http://www.ncseweb.org/evc
NCSE's work is supported by its members. Join today!
http://www.ncseweb.org/membership.asp
--
Best, Mikey Brass
MA in Archaeology degree, University College London
"The Antiquity of Man" http://www.antiquityofman.com
Book: "The Antiquity of Man: Artifactual, fossil and gene records explored"
- !ke e: /xarra //ke
("Diverse people unite": Motto of the South African Coat of Arms, 2002)
2083
oeditor
Re: Landover Baptist
04/08/2006 20:11:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> As regulars may be aware from my blog, my dubious identical twin
> brother is making himself a packet as head of communications for
> Landover Baptist Church in the United States.
>
And since you are guilty by association, you must immediately ban
yourself from this group! However, if the more vocal members could dip
their hand (regularly!) into the communion plate, perhaps we might
intercede on your behalf. Intercede with ourselves that is - we don't
want any paradoxes or circular reasoning here! (Does that get me two
dips?)
Brian
2084
oeditor
Layers of the Creationist Onion
05/08/2006 00:49:00
In the current NSS Newsline, there's a mention of the 'Faraday
Institute' which is funded by the 'Sir John Templeton Foundation'. Now
Sir John, like Sir Reg, is a man awash with money who, although in no
way trained in science, fancies himself as knowing about Things That
Matter. In this case, science and religion - to the point of throwing
lots of his dosh at people prepared to conflate the two.
Google reveals all sorts of vague stuff and a network of people who
keep cropping up. All well-qualified scientists who (Like Faraday)
dabble in the occult in their spare time . At first sight, they seem
to be fairly mainstream Christians, but the odd code word keeps
cropping up. The trail leads eventually to the Cambridge Templeton
Consortium.
"The John Templeton Foundation has made up to $3 million available for
research grants to stimulate and sponsor new research insights
directly pertinent to the 'great debate' over purpose in the context
of the emergence of increasing biological complexity, ranging from the
biochemical level to the evolution of life and the emergence of
society and culture"
http://www.cambridge-templeton-consortium.org/
For which read, creation > cosmological fitness for life > intelligent
design: "Biochemistry and Fine-Tuning: to what extent can arguments
analogous to "fine tuning" in physics and cosmology be applied to
chemistry and biochemistry?"
http://www.cambridge-templeton-consortium.org/scope.php
It looks to me as though the likes of McKay and Ken Ham are just the
shock troops of cretinism. Behind them are the various professors of
unrelated subjects, like fuel technologist McIntosh. Behind them all
are are the likes of the Tempeltonists who are expert enough in their
subjects to feed fallacies down the line to the less knowledgeable
cohorts.
Go on, tell me I'm being paranoid. (No, not you Nick!)
Brian
2085
Timothy Chase
Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion
05/08/2006 04:51:00
On 04/08/06, oeditor <b-jordan@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> In the current NSS Newsline, there's a mention of the 'Faraday
> Institute' which is funded by the 'Sir John Templeton Foundation'. Now
> Sir John, like Sir Reg, is a man awash with money who, although in no
> way trained in science, fancies himself as knowing about Things That
> Matter. In this case, science and religion - to the point of throwing
> lots of his dosh at people prepared to conflate the two.
>
> Google reveals all sorts of vague stuff and a network of people who
> keep cropping up. All well-qualified scientists who (Like Faraday)
> dabble in the occult in their spare time . At first sight, they seem
> to be fairly mainstream Christians, but the odd code word keeps
> cropping up. The trail leads eventually to the Cambridge Templeton
> Consortium.
>
> "The John Templeton Foundation has made up to $3 million available for
> research grants to stimulate and sponsor new research insights
> directly pertinent to the 'great debate' over purpose in the context
> of the emergence of increasing biological complexity, ranging from the
> biochemical level to the evolution of life and the emergence of
> society and culture"
> http://www.cambridge-templeton-consortium.org/
>
> For which read, creation > cosmological fitness for life > intelligent
> design: "Biochemistry and Fine-Tuning: to what extent can arguments
> analogous to "fine tuning" in physics and cosmology be applied to
> chemistry and biochemistry?"
> http://www.cambridge-templeton-consortium.org/scope.php
>
> It looks to me as though the likes of McKay and Ken Ham are just the
> shock troops of cretinism. Behind them are the various professors of
> unrelated subjects, like fuel technologist McIntosh. Behind them all
> are are the likes of the Tempeltonists who are expert enough in their
> subjects to feed fallacies down the line to the less knowledgeable
> cohorts.
>
> Go on, tell me I'm being paranoid. (No, not you Nick!)
Hey! The Templeton Foundation makes me nervous...
I think they mean well and all, but I wouldn't want them to pave any
roads I had to travel. And I sincerely hope their insurance covers
psychiatrists - real psychiatrists, not those new agey types - or any
of the other "nonsense" (OK, that's a euphemism) they might be drawn
to.
Incidentally, a while back they offered the Discovery Institute a
bundle for research. (Some members of the committee thought it would
be a good thing to do - others weren't so sure.) The DI never got
back to them - and the Templeton Foundation have made it pretty clear
since then that they think this makes the DI look bad. They keep a
pdf up at their website to that effect. (I could find it if you
like.)
2086
Roger Stanyard
Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion
05/08/2006 10:44:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> In the current NSS Newsline, there's a mention of the 'Faraday
> Institute' which is funded by the 'Sir John Templeton Foundation'. >
Go on, tell me I'm being paranoid. (No, not you Nick!)
>
Your paranoid! (well you did ask). I have had doubts about the
Templeton Foundation - some months ago someone in Debunkcreation
described it as a Trojan Horse for creationism.
However, I did follow up some time later in checking it out; IIRC there
were quite a few responses in Debunkcreation in answer to my question
(s). The consensus strongly appeared to be that the Foundation is not a
Trojan Horse and is, in effect, anti-creationist and therefore very
much on-side.
My own research also appears to suggest that if there is a Trojan Horse
in Oxbridge, we would do much better to look at Oxford rather than
Cambridge. The is quite a lot of background on this on my blog. One
outfit to keep in mind is the Oxford Center for Mission Studies. It is
wholly independent of Oxford University (it awards external degrees of
the University of Wales). However, it is connected to other "movements"
associated with Oxford University. The Centre appears to have received
finance from Howard Ahmanson.
It would not surprise me that the IDers and YECers are deliberately
focusing on Oxford rather than Cambridge because of the presence there
of Richard Dawkins. According to Nick Cowan (IIRC), Mackay has spoken
there.
Roger
2087
Roger Stanyard
Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion
05/08/2006 11:22:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase" <timothychase@...>
wrote:
>
> Incidentally, a while back they offered the Discovery Institute a
> bundle for research. (Some members of the committee thought it would
> be a good thing to do - others weren't so sure.) The DI never got
> back to them - and the Templeton Foundation have made it pretty clear
> since then that they think this makes the DI look bad. They keep a
> pdf up at their website to that effect. (I could find it if you
> like.)
IIRC Phillip Johnson had connections somewhere with the Templeton
Foundation and actually solicted funding from it. That seems to suggest
that DI's left hand didn't know what its right hand was doing.
Roger
2088
oeditor
Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion
05/08/2006 14:23:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
>
> Your paranoid! (well you did ask). I have had doubts about the
> Templeton Foundation - some months ago someone in Debunkcreation
> described it as a Trojan Horse for creationism.
>
> However, I did follow up some time later in checking it out;
Digging deeper myself, I agree that they've gone a good way to
dissociating themselves from the IDers. Despite having (almost
accidentally?) funded Dembski.
The problem is that as Christians, they can only see science through
the lens of religion. Nuff said.
Brian
2089
oeditor
Secular_newsline
05/08/2006 14:25:00
Many of you will know that the secular_newsline group (s-n)is
approaching meltdown, accellerated by a bout of trolling. Some of its
problems are applicable to this group too.
It seems to me that secular_newsline's problems stem from its members'
diverse interests.
S-n was originally allied with the NSS's aim of keeping religion out
of public life. The NSS itself sufferered from members holding
different views: secular in the sense of irreligious or atheistic vs
parallel secular and religious establishments.
S-n has now spread out to include discussions of semantics and
politics, while a lot of members' efforts have spread to Blackshadow.
Which is itself plagued by fragmentation into atheists and theists and
between attacking creationism and attacking all religion in schools -
the latter bringing us full circle back to the NSS's aims. At the
other edge of Blackshadow is opposition to academies in general -
again split into educational and political opposition. Blackshadow
also has the problem of trying to be a "broad church" umbrella
organisation pulling together unconnected and unrelated bodies opposed
to creationism in schools - few of which have been told anything about
this yet!
I'm sure that there's room for discussion groups of all these
flavours, but not within the two groups in question. Perhaps we
should, between us, have several groups with clearly defined charters.
E.g.
a) aligned with the NSS's aims of separating religion from public life
in the UK (and the EU)
b) opposed to religion in general - but to what end?
c) opposed to creationism in general - it's enough of a danger to need
to be publicised
d) opposed specifically to creationism in schools - this will clearly
be campaigning and so merits a group on its own.
All of the above would exclude debates pro and con religion - members
will be assumed to have their own ideas which they can debate
elsewhere as they wish.
The problem is that, from experience, any such groups would need
strong moderators with the time and energy to keep them on-topic.
Brian
2090
Roger Stanyard
Re: Secular_newsline
05/08/2006 14:51:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> S-n has now spread out to include discussions of semantics and
> politics, while a lot of members' efforts have spread to
Blackshadow.
> Which is itself plagued by fragmentation into atheists and theists
and
> between attacking creationism and attacking all religion in
schools -
> the latter bringing us full circle back to the NSS's aims.
Well, I hope I have made my position clear repeatedly that
Blackshadow is not a forum for attacking religion. I have yet to use
my powers as moderator to enforce this position. I would rather, at
this early stage, argue the position out, in public, with members of
the forum.
And, indeed, I think that this has now been done.
I take this position because I only inherited the forum. There were
(and are) a lot of people in the forum who had, at that time, strong
views on religion. I don't want to see them go. As it stands we only
have 50 members. My job isn't to set the rules (Alan did that way
back), it's to change them into a workable format.
This morning we lost Peter Hearty as a member. He hasn't said why but
I'll email him this evening. Peter has very recently handed over his
No to Academies web site to Marc and today has pulled out as
moderator of the NSS newsline.
One of the issues I have been trying to pull together over the last
week is the extent to which Blackshadow opposes academy schools. It
looks as if the consensus is that, in effect, we don't specifically
oppose them. I had been waiting for Peter to make a contribution on
this.
I think we have worked out that specifically, we are opposed to the
teaching of creationism within and as science. We've had a big debate
about teaching creationism as part of other subjects. The general
consensus is that we can't actually do much, if anything, about the
latter.
There remains another issue that needs to be hammered out within
Blackshadow - that is, how to we differentiate ourselfs from Science
Just Science. It isn't good enough just to duplicate it.
I'll be putting a poll together shortly (probably tomorrow) to get
final consensus (or otherwise) on academy schools.
But I think it is now done that there should be no religion (pro or
against) in this group. That rule has to be applied toughly, IMHO.
You are probably right that I haven't been tough enough at times but
I don't want people walking away from the group because the rules
have changed.
Roger
2091
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Secular_newsline
05/08/2006 15:31:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> Well, I hope I have made my position clear repeatedly that
> Blackshadow is not a forum for attacking religion.
Roger, if I may interrupt: BlackShadow is not the forum to attack any
member's religious beliefs or the lack thereof, or religion or atheism
or agnosticism in general. Every single person is entitled to his or her
own personal views/stances on religion/atheism/whatever, but this forum
is not the place.
In my personal life, I am engaged to an atheist. I oppose, in real life,
any and all attempts to criticise other people on the basis of their
religious beliefs or lack of them.
With regards to this forum, I am here to assist in opposing creationism.
And that means utilising *all* strategic advantages. If a particular
fact or stance is useful, I will use it. This fight isn't about people's
personal views and preferences. This is a fight about the politics of
science. It is long, it is harsh and it is damn unfair.
That is the reality we face. Our success depends on how united we are
and how we utilise our advantages and leverage.
--
Best, Mikey Brass
MA in Archaeology degree, University College London
"The Antiquity of Man" http://www.antiquityofman.com
Book: "The Antiquity of Man: Artifactual, fossil and gene records explored"
- !ke e: /xarra //ke
("Diverse people unite": Motto of the South African Coat of Arms, 2002)
2092
Roger Stanyard
Re: Secular_newsline
05/08/2006 15:40:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> Roger Stanyard wrote:
>
> > Well, I hope I have made my position clear repeatedly that
> > Blackshadow is not a forum for attacking religion.
>
> Roger, if I may interrupt: BlackShadow is not the forum to attack any
> member's religious beliefs or the lack thereof, or religion or
atheism
> or agnosticism in general.
I absolutely agree; I just didn't spell it out in that great length.
The slight problem we have is that many group members have robust views
which are basically anti-religion. I was using a short cut to address
that rather than the general position which I hope we all now agree on
and which you have so well stated.
>
2093
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: Secular_newsline
05/08/2006 17:02:00
> The slight problem we have is that many group members have robust views
which are basically anti-religion.
Okay, can you explain to me why we are *still* talking about this? What
possible value is there in trotting this stuff out again?
This is really getting tired fast, Roger.
Peter Hearty has walked away from secular_newsline and this group, and has
made perfectly clear that the pointless side debates are the key reason.
So, why are you continuing to pound the pulpit on this issue? We get the
damn point mate. Don't say anything which might offend the overly sensitive
believers.
Have you lost sight of the fact that the actual enemy here is the
fundmanetalists, and not in fact the big mouthed atheists?
Ian.
2094
Roger Stanyard
Re: Secular_newsline
05/08/2006 17:19:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
>
>
> > The slight problem we have is that many group members have robust
views
> which are basically anti-religion.
>
The matter of discussing religion in this group is now closed.
Roger
2095
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Secular_newsline
05/08/2006 18:07:00
Ian Lowe wrote:
> We get the
> damn point mate. Don't say anything which might offend the overly sensitive
> believers.
The damn point is that fighting creationism does *not* mean promoting or
shooting one's mouth off about *any* religion or atheism. Religious or
otherwise views of any person on this list means as much to me as the
views of the server at supermarket check-out counters - none. Period.
2096
George Jelliss
Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion
05/08/2006 22:54:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> In the current NSS Newsline, there's a mention of the 'Faraday
> Institute' which is funded by the 'Sir John Templeton Foundation'.
> Now
> Sir John, like Sir Reg, is a man awash with money who, although in
> no
> way trained in science, fancies himself as knowing about Things
> That
> Matter. In this case, science and religion - to the point of
> throwing
> lots of his dosh at people prepared to conflate the two.
>
> Google reveals all sorts of vague stuff and a network of people who
> keep cropping up. All well-qualified scientists who (Like Faraday)
> dabble in the occult in their spare time . At first sight, they
> seem
> to be fairly mainstream Christians, but the odd code word keeps
> cropping up. The trail leads eventually to the Cambridge Templeton
> Consortium.
>
> ///(snipped)
>
> Brian
I'd just like to put in a word for Faraday, who I suspect would be
thoroughly annoyed by his name being used for an Institute on
Science and Religion.
He most certainly did not "dabble in the occult". One of his famous
experiments was to debunk the fashion for "table turning" that was
popular in the 1850s, by showing that the table was moved by the
unconscious desire of the people themselves to have it move.
Although he was certainly religious, a Sandemanian, he took the
view, like S. J. Gould, that religion and science were distinct
realms. "Let no one suppose for a moment that the self-education I
am about to commend in respect of the things of this life, extends
to any considerations of the hope set before us, as if a man by
reasoning could find out about God. It would be improper here to
enter upon this subject further than to claim an absolute
distinction between religious and ordinary belief."
I'd recommend "The Philosopher's Tree: Michael Faraday's life and
work in his own words." by Peter Day (Institute of Physics 1999).
2097
ukantic
Re: Secular_newsline
06/08/2006 01:46:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> I'm sure that there's room for discussion groups of all these
> flavours, but not within the two groups in question. Perhaps we
> should, between us, have several groups with clearly defined charters.
"Clearly defined", being the operative phrase – remember, if you don't
know where you are going, you might not get there.
Alan.
2098
Roger Stanyard
Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion
06/08/2006 05:44:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "George Jelliss" <gpjnow@...> wrote:
>
George
There is no room for discussion of religion on this group. We want the
Faraday Institute onside.
Roger
2099
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion
06/08/2006 10:19:00
>There is no room for discussion of religion on this group.
Uhuh. Broken record Roger.
>We want the Faraday Institute onside.
Well, there's a problem here.
Onside with what? You don't have any actual statement of belief, no stated
goal, just a vague "no creationism in science classrooms" (which is an exact
duplicate of Science Just Science). At this point in time, there is no clear
goal, no idea of which organisations you need to lobby against and so on.
There has been mention of forming some sort of "umbrella&quo