2101
oeditor
Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion
06/08/2006 11:18:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "George Jelliss" <gpjnow@> wrote:
> >
> George
>
> There is no room for discussion of religion on this group.
Er...won't we have to decide/define what we mean by creationism?
Brian
2102
oeditor
Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion
06/08/2006 12:24:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...> wrote:
>
>
> On a separate issue, Richard Dawkins is a valuable ally in fighting
> creationism here.
Yes, but what is the point of our tail trying to wag the Dawking dog?
Let alone the chance of Dawkins getting involved with a 50-member
newsgroup? Personally, I'd rather hang onto Dawkins coat-tails than
hold an umbrella to shelter the likes of the Faraday Instutute from
the cold rain of reason.
Brian
2103
George Jelliss
Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion
06/08/2006 13:53:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "George Jelliss" <gpjnow@>
wrote:
> > /// (snipped)
> >
>
> George
>
> There is no room for discussion of religion on this group. We want
> the Faraday Institute onside.
>
> Roger
>
I didn't think I was "discussing religion" I thought I was just
correcting an error of historical fact about Faraday by quoting his
own words.
Anyway, it's pretty impossible to discuss anything about "creationism"
without "discussing religion" in some way, since creationism is a
religious point of view.
OK, to practical activities: has anyone detected on the Faraday or
Templeton Institute pages any explicit statements about the teaching
of creationism in relation to the teaching of science? The Faraday
Institute pages are very sparse with details of what they actually say
in their courses. But they only started in January this year, so
perhaps they're still working out what they're for. If not can we
stimulate/irritate them enough to produce such a statement? We should
start a campaign to get them to commit themselves one way or other.
2104
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion
06/08/2006 14:41:00
>>
> OK, to practical activities: has anyone detected on the Faraday or
> Templeton Institute pages any explicit statements about the teaching
> of creationism in relation to the teaching of science?
Templeton opposes teaching creationism or ID.
Templeton also opposes the Discovery Institute. When Templeton asked
the ID to produce a scientific research program for Templeton to
possibly fund, DI refused to submit anything, leading Templeton to
conclude: "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual
seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well
in our world of scientific review," and "They're political - that for
us is problematic."
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
2105
Lenny Flank
RE: Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion
06/08/2006 14:45:00
At this point
> in time, there is no clear goal, no idea of which organisations you
> need to lobby against and so on.
As I said, there are three specific questions that need to be
answered before anything practical can be done. They are:
(1) what do we want
(2) who can give it to us, and
(3) how can we *make* them give it to us
Vague generalities do not an organizing campaign make. We need
specific proposals, specific names to target, and specific steps to
start taking.
Talk is cheap. Organizing is not. But it's organizing that gets
things done.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
2106
Roger Stanyard
Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion
06/08/2006 15:28:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
OK, let's start with Lenny's point 1. "What do we want". We have
already come up with the obkective that we want to stop the teaching
of creationism and Intelligent Design in science in schools. I want
to add that they should also be stopped as being taught as science.
I asked the following during the week and I only had one reply. We
need to get this sorted pretty damn quick as I want to start writing
letters this week.
"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"
As soon as I can get some firm consensus on this I can start stating
who we need to be approaching. We all have ideas on this.
What I want to do is put together a poll on this simple statement
asap; hoepfully today.
2107
Roger Stanyard
Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion
06/08/2006 15:35:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@>
wrote:
> >
>
> >
>>
> Yes, but what is the point of our tail trying to wag the Dawking
dog?
> Let alone the chance of Dawkins getting involved with a 50-member
> newsgroup? Personally, I'd rather hang onto Dawkins coat-tails than
> hold an umbrella to shelter the likes of the Faraday Instutute from
> the cold rain of reason.
>
> Brian
Brian, I think you should read Machiavelli; It's a war and we need
all the allies we can get. In that war the purpose of the Faraday
Institute is to help us, not us to help them.
2108
Roger Stanyard
Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion
06/08/2006 15:41:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> Ian Lowe wrote:
> > there's very little actual campaigning being discussed.
>
> Thank you for bringing again up two points which some of us have been
> harping on for some time: the need for a charter/statement of being
and
> an action plan.
>
This is what I regard as the charter. There has been a big input from
group members into it and I have taken into account virtually all of
the feedback. I posted it up weeks ago.
No we really do need to get in final comments before I put it to a poll
to get agreement.
So, fire away with any comments you wish:
Introduction
The British Centre for Science Education (BCSE) is a new international
group of individuals formed to act as an umbrella organisation with the
primary purpose of stopping the teaching of creationism in UK state
schools. Our main role will be to act as a co-ordinating group to
support other groups and individuals who share our purpose and to
develop and implement activist tactics to achieve our purpose.
The BCSE has about 50 international members, resident in the UK, North
America, Australia, South Africa and the mainland of Europe. We are
mostly professional people who also have considerable experience and
knowledge of the creationist movement. Many of us are already active in
opposing creationism elsewhere in the world, including the United
States. Our backgrounds include science, business, theology, education,
academia, engineering, IT and research.
BSCE is an international group because the creationist movement itself
is international, with strong connections with the USA and Australia.
The British universities being affected have strong international links
through students, staff and research. We believe that the international
links considerably strengthen the organisation in terms of contacts,
knowledge and expertise.
We are building up a database of the structure and activities of
fundamentalist organisations that are active in teaching creationism in
UK schools, which will be available for use by the organisations we
support. It will also be made available to: teachers and other
educators; local education authorities; local and national politicians;
students at universities with active fundamentalist staff; businesses
recruiting from schools and universities; the media and trade unions
and other professional bodies involved in science and education.
BSCE is set to launch its first campaign to raise awareness of the
problem of creationism in education.
Creationist Organisations in the UK
The United Kingdom is faced with a highly organised, well-funded
coalition of fundamentalist Young Earth Creationist groups. These
include, but are not limited to: Answers in Genesis, the Emmanuel
Schools Foundation, the Christian Institute, Creation Research UK,
Genesis Agendum, the Creation Science Movement and the Biblical
Creation Society.
The creationist movement receives money and assistance from other parts
of the world including Australia, through Creation Ministries
International and Creation Research International, and the United
States, through such organisations and individuals as Answers in
Genesis; the Institute for Creation Research; the Discovery Institute
and; Howard Ahmanson, the American billionaire recluse who also funds
the Discovery Institute.
Creationist Ideological Objectives in Education and Politics
These organisations have long established tactics for infiltration and
are active in bringing bogus creationist science into the classrooms of
British state schools, frequently without the knowledge of parents or
local education authorities. The movement has already taken full
control of three state schools and has the funding and intentions to
control many more.
They actively discredit or subvert the teaching of all subjects taught
in schools that contradict their extreme fundamentalist religious
opinions, which are based on strictly literal biblical interpretations.
Most notably they state that all of science is wrong because it does
not agree with their dogma that the world was created 6,000-10,000
years ago, there was a world wide flood with dinosaurs on Noah's Ark
and that these dinosaurs roamed the countryside in Tudor times.
In particular the movement is targeting the teaching of biology,
physics, geology and geography in British schools, either directly
within the lessons or through guest speakers and Christian Unions.
Their actions undermine or subvert the teaching of these subjects and
can result in the failure of pupils to pass their exams.
The position has become so serious that two leading, prestigious,
British universities, Leeds and Leicester, are introducing compulsory
remedial courses to undo the damage done. The credibility of a third,
Bristol, is being seriously damaged by the actions of one of its staff
active in the creationist movement.
Indeed, there is a core of about seven activist fundamentalists within
British universities attempting to discredit subjects taught there
which contradict their religious opinions. Such subjects include
medicine, biology, genetics, microbiology, biochemistry, physics,
astronomy, cosmology, geology, earth sciences, geophysics, geography,
chemistry, archaeology, paleoanthropology, ancient history, theology
and linguistics. These represent a vast area of higher education and
research in the UK.
Moreover, the movement includes extreme political objectives, one of
which is the replacement of democracy with a theocracy based on its
extreme religious opinions. Howard Ahmanson was, for a quarter of a
century, on the board of the Chalcedon Foundation which advocated the
murder of those that disagreed with its fundamentalist religion and the
re-introduction of slavery. Ahmanson funds the Discovery Institute,
which has a clear agenda to take political power and he is also deeply
involved in the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies.
Creationist Tactics
The movement has clearly adopted techniques of evasion and deception
about its techniques and objectives, following practices developed
within the fundamentalist movement in the United States.
In 2002 a group of 27 fundamentalists in academia, education and
business lobbied the then Secretary of State for Education, Estelle
Morris, to allow the teaching of creationism in science lessons in
state schools. In a letter to the Secretary of State, made publicly
available, they claimed to be acting as individuals and gave their
professional positions and the names of the organisations that employed
them, including leading universities. The letter also claimed that
their views did not necessarily represent the organisations they were
associated with.
However, it now transpires this was far from the case. 15 of the 27
were involved in the fundamentalist Biblical Creation Society inc luding
its then head and its now current head. All of the 27 were involved in
at least one, and in many cases, more, of the main creationist
organisations in this country. One was also closely involved in the
Christian Institute which itself has been involved in and closely
associated with the creationist state-funded Emmanuel Schools
Foundation schools. These organisations are involved in teaching
creationism in schools and thus had a vested interest in its
continuance. None of this was disclosed in the letter either to the
Secretary of State or the public.
Yet this is a major issue of public policy. The creationist movement,
through the academy schools it is sponsoring, is likely to receive well
over £1,015 million in funding from the taxpaying public, which is
already paying for remedial education in universities as a result of
the actions of creationists.
What You Can Do!
BCSE is open to all, irrespective of religious or political
affiliations, who wish to oppose the tide of creationism in the United
Kingdom. If you wish to join or support our anti-creationist movement,
please visit our email forum and discussion group at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/blackshadow.
2109
Roger Stanyard
Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion
06/08/2006 15:47:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> On a separate issue, Richard Dawkins is a valuable ally in fighting
> creationism here. He is widely respected amongst the public and is,
> along with Stephen Law and Steve Jones, one of the three most high
> profile names. He has media contacts, he has been an irritant to the
> Dept of Education and, most importantly, he has specific plans he
wishes
> to discuss with education authorities on how to teach evolutionary
> biology in schools.
I have no personal objections to approaching Dawkins; if anyone wants
to draft up some for circulation within the group as a letter of
introduction, feel free.
My own personal preference is for approaching Steve Jones first; as
soon as we can get over the current attempts to reach a consensus, it
is my immediate priority.
Roger
>
2110
oeditor
Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion
06/08/2006 16:21:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
...the purpose of the Faraday
> Institute is to help us...
Sez who? Do they even know we exist? If they did, would they care?
Just because their sponsors are against ID doesn't mean that they
won't see see us as the top layer of an anti-religious onion.
Brian
2111
Drew Smith
RE: Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion
06/08/2006 16:33:00
"The British Centre for Science Education (BCSE) is a new international
group of individuals formed to act as an umbrella organisation with the
primary purpose of stopping the teaching of creationism in UK state
schools."
If the organization itself is international, then the name doesn't seem to
work. It would need to be something like "the Centre for Science Education
in Britain".
Drew Smith
2112
oeditor
Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion
06/08/2006 16:31:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> This is what I regard as the charter.
<snip>
> If you wish to join or support our anti-creationist movement,
> please visit our email forum and discussion group at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/blackshadow.
>
I was a bit surprised by this - I thought the archive had been
switched to members only, but I see that it isn't. I still think that
it should be, but either way I think a web site would be a better face
to present to the world. Better if we get people to bite before we
reveal our petty squabbles. Or indeed, anything to watching creationist.
I know you want to get on, but I for one would be happy to drop
everything else (well, apart from retrieving the greenhouse I've been
given :) to help with a web site.
Despite my occasional disagreements, all power to your elbow, Roger.
Brian
2113
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion
06/08/2006 16:59:00
oeditor wrote:
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...> wrote:
>
>> On a separate issue, Richard Dawkins is a valuable ally in fighting
>> creationism here.
>
> Yes, but what is the point of our tail trying to wag the Dawking dog?
> Let alone the chance of Dawkins getting involved with a 50-member
> newsgroup?
"Here" refers to the UK.
2114
Roger Stanyard
Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion
06/08/2006 17:03:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@> wrote:
> >
> ...the purpose of the Faraday
> > Institute is to help us...
> Sez who? Do they even know we exist? If they did, would they care?
> Just because their sponsors are against ID doesn't mean that they
> won't see see us as the top layer of an anti-religious onion.
>
> Brian
>
Blackshadow is not the top layer of an anti-religious onion. Anybody in
it is free to hold what ever religious opinions they like. Right now
the position is that some in it are religious, others are not.
Roger
2115
Roger Stanyard
Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion
06/08/2006 17:08:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
Thanks for the offer Brian. It is really appreciated. It is
remarkably time consuming trying to get Blackshadow together. I was
up at 5.20 am this morning to get through just the bits and pieces
(I've had to do some proper work today as well).
I'll be back to you on this shortly.
Roger
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@> wrote:
> >
> > This is what I regard as the charter.
> <snip>
> > If you wish to join or support our anti-creationist movement,
> > please visit our email forum and discussion group at
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/blackshadow.
> >
> I was a bit surprised by this - I thought the archive had been
> switched to members only, but I see that it isn't. I still think
that
> it should be, but either way I think a web site would be a better
face
> to present to the world. Better if we get people to bite before we
> reveal our petty squabbles. Or indeed, anything to watching
creationist.
>
> I know you want to get on, but I for one would be happy to drop
> everything else (well, apart from retrieving the greenhouse I've
been
> given :) to help with a web site.
>
> Despite my occasional disagreements, all power to your elbow, Roger.
>
> Brian
>
2116
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion
06/08/2006 18:22:00
Okay, there might be a bit of confusion here - this isn't a charter. It acts
as an introduction letter/article to the issue, a "call to arms" if you
will, but this is not a document which can be used for planning a political
campaign.
What we need is a highly specific look at what is objectionable, why, what
we can do about it, and what needs to happen for that to be the case.
Here's an outline of what I think we can use as a basis:
*NOTE* This post mentions religion. Get over it. It's in context, and not
"bashing". These questions have to be asked, and answered, because the
course of action taken will depend on those answers. Don't post another
weenie "no religion" deflection - answer the real question.
I have added numbers to this - it helps build up a document if people can
refer to things by section, rather than cut/pasting the whole thing. It may
even be appropriate to ask these questions as a series of Polls.
1) Key Objection.
We need to be clear what our objection is - what is is that we are against?
A) Are we against bad science teaching? (so, the problem is the poor
scientific credentials of creationism/ID etc, and if they had a valid model
with experimental evidence etc, we would be happy)
(or)
B) Are we against the teaching of religion in inappropriate places? (so, for
instance, would we have any problem with classroom materials which use
Noah's ark as an example in a Maths class, and refer to religious matters in
each and every class)
(or)
C) are we against the influence of YECers/Fundamentalists in schools
generally? (so, someone like Nigel McQuoid making school policy which
enforces bible study/group worship, or homophobic policies)
It should be pretty clear that we have different avenues to take dependant
on what it is we actually object to. The next general question though is,
what do we want to see happen:
2) Preferred Outcome
What is our end goal? Where do we part ways and go our ways, job done?
Do we want:
A) Primary legislation through parliament, which either restricts religious
matters to the RE class, explicitly prevents the teaching of religious
matters in science (or other) classrooms, or enforces a duty of impartial
responsibility on headmasters etc.
Primary legislation is very difficult to get, and even campaigns on deeply
emotive issues such as child abuse have failed to produce a good response.
Constitutionally, Blair's direct support for creationists is difficult to
get around.
(or)
B) Secondary legislation/guidelines from DFES or the examination bodies (AQA
etc), which explains in non ambiguous terms that science education has to
include only "proper" science, and specifically and explicitly prevents the
teaching of ID, creationism, or even "the controversy" in vague terms.
This might be the first step, which then requires primary legislation to
actually enforce the guidelines. This is probably the least effective end
point, but also the one which is most accessible to us.
(or)
C) Heightened public awareness, with something like a parent's backlash
against the extremists, or more public attention on the problem.
However, the Channel Four program "the new fundamentalists" covered Vardy's
school, and was scathing - it has not, however, produced a public backlash.
If a well produced expose like this cannot produce a groundswell of public
opinion, it is unlikely that a campaign with minimal resources can do so.
3) How will we operate?
A) Do we go for many letters in support of the cause, getting members to
send them directly for a "grass roots" effort
(or)
B) Do we maintain a single point of contact to keep control of the message,
with members supporting the sending of letters by one person.
There's obviously more, but these have to be answered first. Please don't
ramble - answer the points with a short (1-2 sentences at most) reasoning if
needed.
Ian.
2117
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion
06/08/2006 18:44:00
> B) Are we against the teaching of religion in inappropriate places?
Reword this to: "Are we against the teaching religious views in science
classes as appropriate criticism to evolution, or as an alternative
reality or in the form of "teach the controversy" ?"
> B) Secondary legislation/guidelines from DFES or the examination bodies (AQA
> etc), which explains in non ambiguous terms that science education has to
> include only "proper" science, and specifically and explicitly prevents the
> teaching of ID, creationism, or even "the controversy" in vague terms.
I am in favour of this.
> B) Do we maintain a single point of contact to keep control of the message,
> with members supporting the sending of letters by one person.
I am in favour of this.
2118
Drew Smith
RE: Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion
06/08/2006 19:18:00
Ian wrote:
1) Key Objection.
We need to be clear what our objection is - what is it that we are
against?
A) Are we against bad science teaching? (so, the problem is the poor
scientific credentials of creationism/ID etc, and if they had a
valid model
with experimental evidence etc, we would be happy)
(or)
B) Are we against the teaching of religion in inappropriate places?
(so, for
instance, would we have any problem with classroom materials which
use
Noah's ark as an example in a Maths class, and refer to religious
matters in
each and every class)
(or)
C) are we against the influence of YECers/Fundamentalists in schools
generally? (so, someone like Nigel McQuoid making school policy
which
enforces bible study/group worship, or homophobic policies)
Drew: I think that C is necessarily too vague, as all kinds of groups have
"influence". And while A is true, it would appear to assert that
"creationism" is science, but just bad science, while I would point out that
it isn't science at all. B is pretty close, although does this mean that
the group would also object to the teaching of religion as history?
How about this instead?: "We are against the use of state-supported science
education to teach ideas that are primarily motivated by religious belief."
2119
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion
06/08/2006 21:37:00
> How about this instead?: "We are against the use of state-supported science
> education to teach ideas that are primarily motivated by religious belief."
I would sign up to it.
--
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)
2120
oeditor
Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion (O/T)
06/08/2006 22:11:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...> wrote:
>
> > How about this instead?: "We are against the use of
state-supported science
> > education to teach ideas that are primarily motivated by religious
belief."
>
> I would sign up to it.
>
It's no wonder that things have got shambolic: it's newsgroups wot dun
it!!!!!
I had an ill-informed snipe at the Templeton Foundation and suddenly a
lot of the discussion of the group's policies is hung on that hook.
Shurely shome mishtake!
Is There Any Alternative?
Brian
2121
Wilson Alan
RE: Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion
06/08/2006 22:44:00
bgcolor="white"
----
From:
BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Stanyard
Sent: 06 August 2006 15:29
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: Layers
of the Creationist Onion
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com,
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
OK, let's start with Lenny's point 1. "What do we want". We have
already come up with the obkective that we want to stop the teaching
of creationism and Intelligent Design in science in schools. I want
to add that they should also be stopped as being taught as science.
I asked the following during the week and I only had one reply. We
need to get this sorted pretty damn quick as I want to start writing
letters this week.
"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,
I have no disagreement
with these four points.
Alan W
As soon as I can get some firm consensus on this I can start stating
who we need to be approaching. We all have ideas on this.
What I want to do is put together a poll on this simple statement
asap; hoepfully today.
2122
Roger Stanyard
Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion
06/08/2006 22:50:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Wilson Alan" <Alan.Wilson@...>
wrote:
>
Thanks Alan, at least one person has replied and stopped waffling.
Roger
> OK, let's start with Lenny's point 1. "What do we want". We have
> already come up with the obkective that we want to stop the
teaching
> of creationism and Intelligent Design in science in schools. I want
> to add that they should also be stopped as being taught as science.
>
> I asked the following during the week and I only had one reply. We
> need to get this sorted pretty damn quick as I want to start
writing
> letters this week.
>
>
2123
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion
06/08/2006 22:51:00
>>
> I have no personal objections to approaching Dawkins; if anyone wants
> to draft up some for circulation within the group as a letter of
> introduction, feel free.
>
Dawkins did contact me about seven or eight years ago, mentioning
that he liked my "Creation 'Science' Debunked" website.
He may remember me; he may not. (shrug)
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
2124
Roger Stanyard
Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion
06/08/2006 22:53:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> > How about this instead?: "We are against the use of state-supported
science
> > education to teach ideas that are primarily motivated by religious
belief."
>
> I would sign up to it.
>
Um. well I wouldn't. Doesn't stike me as something that is going to
catch anybody's attention, let alone the public.
2125
Drew Smith
RE: Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion
06/08/2006 23:16:00
Drew Smith: How about this instead?: "We are against the use of
state-supported science education to teach ideas that are primarily
motivated by religious belief."
Mikey Brass: I would sign up to it.
Roger Stanyard: Um. well I wouldn't. Doesn't strike me as something that is
going to catch anybody's attention, let alone the public.
Drew Smith: Roger, I don't see the statement's purpose as something to catch
attention (by the public or anyone else). Its purpose is to be a succinct
statement as to why the organization exists. It's an organizational mission
statement (or part of one). Most companies and organizations have mission
statements, but they are rarely crafted in order to catch attention. They
are crafted so that employees and members know quite clearly when the
organization is acting toward its purpose or outside of it. If you're
looking for statements that catch attention, you're talking about
advertising slogans and such. But you don't create those until after you've
already got your mission statement firmly in place.
2126
Roger Stanyard
Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion (O/T)
06/08/2006 23:19:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@>
wrote:
> It's no wonder that things have got shambolic: it's newsgroups wot dun
> it!!!!!
> I had an ill-informed snipe at the Templeton Foundation and suddenly a
> lot of the discussion of the group's policies is hung on that hook.
> Shurely shome mishtake!
>
There is nothing hung up about it. The Templeton Foundation is onside
and I worked that out weeks and weeks ago. Lenny confirmed that. It's a
non-issue.
Roger
2127
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion
06/08/2006 23:57:00
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
> wrote: > > > How about this instead?: "We are against the use of
> state-supported science > > education to teach ideas that are
> primarily motivated by religious belief." > > I would sign up to it. >
>
> Um. well I wouldn't. Doesn't stike me as something that is going to
> catch anybody's attention, let alone the public.
We must not forget that while most of us HERE are opposed to
creationism/ID for political/ideological reasons, most other people
won't care a rat's ass about those.
What we need is a list of hard-nosed practical reasons why people
should oppose ID/creationism being taught in schools -- reasons that
do NOT have to do with this or that ideological agenda.
For example:
In a technological society where voters are often called upon to make
decisions based on scientific matters (global warming, environmental
issues, biotechnology), an understanding of science by an informed
citizenry is crucial, and creationism/ID weakens science education.
Evolution is the very core of biological sciences, and any school
that waters down evolution or does not teach it at all, should not be
accredited to teach science. It is nothing more than intellectual
dishonesty to teach that there are controversies over evolution in
the scientific community when in fact there are none. Those who
cannot teach science as it is, should not be teaching it at all.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
2128
oeditor
Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion (O/T)
07/08/2006 00:47:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@> wrote:
>>discussion of the group's policies is hung on that hook.
> There is nothing hung up about it. The Templeton Foundation is onside
> and I worked that out weeks and weeks ago.
As you can see, I said HUNG, not HUNG UP. I was talking about the
imperfections of newsgroups, not the Templeton Brigade. But since you
insist, I wonder who is on whose side? Why on earth do you think that
a bunch of Christian academics, funded by a wealthy Christian
non-academic, will give a toss about a bunch of nit-pickers like us?
Cretinism is biblical fundamentalism and without fundamentalism there
will be no religion. Full Stop. Trouble is, we can't wait for them to
fall over - they need a push. I don't think pulling will serve.
Brian
2129
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion
07/08/2006 07:29:00
> We must not forget that while most of us HERE are opposed to
> creationism/ID for political/ideological reasons, most other people
> won't care a rat's ass about those.
As an introductory abstract, Drew's sentence captures the essence
nicely. What Lenny writes below is an add-on explanation:
> In a technological society where voters are often called upon to make
> decisions based on scientific matters (global warming, environmental
> issues, biotechnology), an understanding of science by an informed
> citizenry is crucial, and creationism/ID weakens science education.
>
> Evolution is the very core of biological sciences, and any school
> that waters down evolution or does not teach it at all, should not be
> accredited to teach science. It is nothing more than intellectual
> dishonesty to teach that there are controversies over evolution in
> the scientific community when in fact there are none. Those who
> cannot teach science as it is, should not be teaching it at all.
I like this.
Re Roger's questions, I've provided my views in various e-mails over the
last month.
2130
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion (O/T)
07/08/2006 09:08:00
>The Templeton Foundation is onside and I worked that out weeks and weeks
ago. Lenny confirmed that. It's a non-issue.
Roger, you need to stop doing this - the Templeton Foundation are *not*
onside until you have a letter/email or statement saying that they endorse
your position.
You cannot assume the support of an organisation simply because you like
their ideology/outlook. Heck, you can't assume the support of an
organisation, even if you know *for a fact* that they share your opinions.
They *might* be onside.
Just as soon as we have a clear statement of what "onside" actually means,
and approach them.
I.
2131
Ian Lowe
Charter Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion)
07/08/2006 09:32:00
Guys, guys...
I agree with the text Lenny has posted, but that's still missing the point
of my original question.
What this text is, is a useful intro passage, it explains *why* we are
"against creationism". It's valid, and sooner or later, someone would need
to have written it.
What we need to know is *exacty* what do we mean by that.
If things went great, and an MP turned around and said to you, "well, okay
then, what should we do?"... you can't be vague, or leave room for
interpretation. We need to know *exactly* what changes we want to see in
AQA/DFES guidance, what elements of Legislation need to change, which
precise government policies need tweaking.
*that* is what we need to decide first, because everything else is a step on
the road to winning that change.
I'll try asking "The question" slightly differently, because it needs to be
unambiguous.
Consider a set of situations - in each case, is this situation acceptable?
1) A teacher who brings up creationist materials in class, directly
challenging evolution.
2) A teacher sticking to the curricula, but "teaching the controversy" in
science class and casting doubt on proper science as a "my opinion is..."
comment.
3) A teacher who sticks to the curricula in class, but who uses extra
curricular meetings (like Christian Union lunchtime bible clubs) to
undermine the teaching in class.
4) A school which sticks to the letter of the curricula, but which has
religious assemblies where the staff deliberately undermine science
education, comparing what "we know" and what "they make us teach you".
5) A maths teacher is using materials provided by a religious group, which
uses biblical stories to teach maths - how many times Joshua walked round
Jericho, that sort of thing.
6) A Parent who objects to evolution being taught, so withdraws their child
from school to bring them up "in the faith".
These are not just vague questions - each of them relates to a different
possible campaign goal.
If you object to 5) for instance, the problem is not purely science
education, it's fundamentalist influence in education generally. If you
object to 3) or 4), the problem is still science education, but it extends
to beyond the science classroom.
There's no wiggle room here - define these goals, then we start looking at
the DFES guidelines, the NC, and what primary legislation is involved. And
what it is that we want changed.
At that point, we look at who can give us this change, and what we need to
do to convince those people.
I.
2132
Mikey Brass
Re: Charter Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion)
07/08/2006 10:10:00
On Mon, August 7, 2006 9:32, Ian Lowe said:
> If things went great, and an MP turned around and said to you, "well, okay
> then, what should we do?"... you can't be vague, or leave room for
> interpretation. We need to know *exactly* what changes we want to see in
> AQA/DFES guidance, what elements of Legislation need to change, which
> precise government policies need tweaking.
What is needed, in order to address this in heavy detail after defining
the goals more specifically, is a copy of:
1. The national curriculum
2. The guidelines given to local educational authorities
3. An overview of the guidelines the local educational authorities give to
the school governing bodies (and how these may differ regionally)
> These are not just vague questions - each of them relates to a different
> possible campaign goal.
I think I'll answer this in a separate mail.
2133
Mikey Brass
Re: Charter Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion)
07/08/2006 10:19:00
> 1) A teacher who brings up creationist materials in class, directly
> challenging evolution.
Not acceptable. Campaign against.
> 2) A teacher sticking to the curricula, but "teaching the controversy" in
> science class and casting doubt on proper science as a "my opinion is..."
> comment.
Not acceptable. Campaign against.
> 3) A teacher who sticks to the curricula in class, but who uses extra
> curricular meetings (like Christian Union lunchtime bible clubs) to
> undermine the teaching in class.
I don't like this. It's not our job or position to determine the makeup
and/or activities of clubs or assemblies.
> 5) A maths teacher is using materials provided by a religious group, which
> uses biblical stories to teach maths - how many times Joshua walked round
> Jericho, that sort of thing.
If there is a solid scientific education in the science classrooms, the
vast majority of the pupils will tend to view it as an analogy, rather
than something specific. So no, I do not see this as our business.
> 6) A Parent who objects to evolution being taught, so withdraws their
> child
> from school to bring them up "in the faith".
I do not like this from an educational perspective, as I have argued in a
previous mail from a few weeks back. However, should this feature in
initial targetting? No, I don't feel it should. Should it be kept in mind
for the future? Yes.
Matters are pretty straightfoward for myself, whether they are for this
group as a whole is of course another matter.
2134
Wilson Alan
RE: Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion
07/08/2006 10:24:00
bgcolor="white"
----
From:
BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mikey Brass
Sent: 06 August 2006 21:38
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] Re:
Layers of the Creationist Onion
Ø How
about this instead?: "We are against the use of state-supported science
> education to teach ideas that are primarily motivated by religious
belief."
I would sign up to it.
Ø Me too, but I might prefer “opposed”
to “against” and leave out “primarily” if I was a
pedant J
Ø
2135
Wilson Alan
RE: Charter Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion)
07/08/2006 10:37:00
bgcolor="white"
----
From:
BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mikey Brass
Sent: 07 August 2006 10:19
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] Charter
Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion)
> 1) A teacher who brings up creationist materials
in class, directly
> challenging evolution.
Not acceptable. Campaign against.
> 2) A teacher sticking to the curricula, but "teaching the
controversy" in
> science class and casting doubt on proper science as a "my opinion
is..."
> comment.
Not acceptable. Campaign against.
> 3) A teacher who sticks to the curricula in class, but who uses extra
> curricular meetings (like Christian Union lunchtime bible clubs) to
> undermine the teaching in class.
I don't like this. It's not our job or position to determine the makeup
and/or activities of clubs or assemblies.
> 5) A maths teacher is using materials provided by a religious group, which
> uses biblical stories to teach maths - how many times Joshua walked round
> Jericho,
that sort of thing.
If there is a solid scientific education in the science classrooms, the
vast majority of the pupils will tend to view it as an analogy, rather
than something specific. So no, I do not see this as our business.
> 6) A Parent who objects to evolution being taught, so withdraws their
> child
> from school to bring them up "in the faith".
I do not like this from an educational perspective, as I have argued in a
previous mail from a few weeks back. However, should this feature in
initial targetting? No, I don't feel it should. Should it be kept in mind
for the future? Yes.
Matters are pretty straightfoward for myself, whether they are for this
group as a whole is of course another matter.
2136
Wilson Alan
RE: Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion
07/08/2006 10:45:00
bgcolor="white"
Dick Busch’s Kansas elections article gave me an idea for
another caption:
“We want our children taught science
in science classes, not religion.”
Alan W
----
From:
BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Wilson Alan
Sent: 07 August 2006 10:25
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [BlackShadow] Re:
Layers of the Creationist Onion
----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mikey Brass
Sent: 06 August 2006 21:38
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] Re:
Layers of the Creationist Onion
Ø How about this
instead?: "We are against the use of state-supported science
> education to teach ideas that are primarily motivated by religious
belief."
I would sign up to it.
Ø Me too, but I might prefer “opposed” to
“against” and leave out “primarily” if I was a pedant J
Ø
2137
Wilson Alan
RE: Charter Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion)
07/08/2006 10:51:00
bgcolor="white"
2138
Roger Stanyard
Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion (O/T)
07/08/2006 11:29:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
>
> >The Templeton Foundation is onside and I worked that out weeks and
weeks
> ago. Lenny confirmed that. It's a non-issue.
>
> Roger, you need to stop doing this - the Templeton Foundation are
*not*
> onside until you have a letter/email or statement saying that they
endorse
> your position.
>
> You cannot assume the support of an organisation simply because you
like
> their ideology/outlook. Heck, you can't assume the support of an
> organisation, even if you know *for a fact* that they share your
opinions.
It has nothing to do with whether I like the ideology/outlook of the
Templeton Foundation. We have already worked out that it is pro-
science and anti-creationism.
Moreover, I think it essential at this stage to assume it is onside
basded on its public statements. For starters, it's got money and is
therefore a potential source of funding for us.
OK, so we could be proven wrong in the future. That's a risk but
there is no way we can eliminate the risks in what we are doing. All
we can do is manage them.
Roger
2139
Roger Stanyard
Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion
07/08/2006 11:53:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Wilson Alan" <Alan.Wilson@...>
wrote:
>
> Dick Busch's Kansas elections article gave me an idea for another
> caption:
>
> "We want our children taught science in science classes, not
religion."
>
I'm going to have to be away from my desk untill late afternoon (I
have to go to Portsmouth) so I am pushed for time to think this thing
through.
However, it seems to me at first glance is that the comment has a lot
of merit. Dunno what the others think but it seems to me that a
positive message (we are for something) is always better PR that a
negative message (we are against something).
The anti-something idea seems to me to smack a bit of reactionism and
they we are responding to the fundies rather than being on top and
ahead of them. It's almost like an admission that they set the agenda
and "terms of debate" and we respond. That means that they are
setting the rules for us to play by; my own view has always been to
fight the fundies on our terms, not theirs.
I haven't worked it through but, using an analogy, if you are
organising a strike it makes far more sense to say that you are for
the workers than against the bosses. If you assume that you are
basically against the bosses, there is nothing to stop the thing
getting out of hand and just damaging the bosses rather than
improving the wages or whatever of your fellow union members. The
ultimate is that everyone ends up without a job.
What we are is, essentially, a pro-science group. My own, personal
position, is that the stakes are much higher than bashing fundies.
The fundie movement is an attack on all progress, rationality,
reason, democracy and intellect. The scientific method is the bedrock
on which modern society is built. Jeez, my job, and a lot of others
in this group, depends on it.
All comments gratefully received, as usual.
Roger
PS: My suggestion at this stage is that we could make the statement a
lot more catchy by saying ""We want our children taught science in
science classes, not extreme fundamentalist religion."
I think the public will take to this a lot more readily. In the real
world, I am afraid to say that a lot of parents vaguely believe that
teaching religion is a good thing. We need to hammer the message home
time and time again that the fundies are extremists and very un-
British.
2140
b-jordan@lineone.net
RE: Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion
07/08/2006 12:15:00
>--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Roger
>wrote:
>PS: My suggestion at this stage is that we could make the statement a
>lot more catchy by saying ""We want our children taught science in
>science classes, not extreme fundamentalist religion."
>
I like the sound of that, but won't such a direct statement make it easier
for the fundies to deny? Even such an open chap as Nick doesn't admit to
more than dropping the odd hint in class while Vardy is in out-and-out denial
and claims to be within the (previous) national curriculum.
Brian
___________________________________________________________
Tiscali Broadband from 14.99 with free setup!
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/products/broadband/
2141
Ian Lowe
RE: Charter Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion)
07/08/2006 12:49:00
>> 1)
>Not acceptable. Campaign against.
>> 2)
> Not acceptable. Campaign against.
> 3) A teacher who sticks to the curricula in class, but who uses extra
> curricular meetings (like Christian Union lunchtime bible clubs) to
> undermine the teaching in class.
I don't like this. It's not our job or position to determine the makeup
and/or activities of clubs or assemblies.
I agree (in this context) - I wonder if there is a legitimate way to cope
with the "Cowan Effect" where a teacher uses his authority in a lunchtime
group setting, to prime a student with the right questions to ask in science
class, only to then claim that he is simply answering their questions.
I don't see a way to prevent this, but it's hopefully rare enough (until
fundies adopt it as an actual strategy)
>>5)
I agree.
>>6)
>No, I don't feel it should. Should it be kept in mind for the future? Yes.
Again, I agree - this is a future concern, not a "here and now" thing.
Getting the required documentation etc should not be a problem, and we can
hopefully start getting a more formal set of goals together.
Ian.
2142
Mikey Brass
RE: Charter Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion)
07/08/2006 13:09:00
On Mon, August 7, 2006 12:49, Ian Lowe said:
> I agree (in this context) - I wonder if there is a legitimate way to cope
> with the "Cowan Effect" where a teacher uses his authority in a lunchtime
> group setting, to prime a student with the right questions to ask in
> science
> class, only to then claim that he is simply answering their questions.
>
> I don't see a way to prevent this,
Nor do I, but then neither do I think we should even try. If taught good
critical thinking skills, many of the students would start to question
such tactics anyways. I see this as part of their development rather than
something which should be an imposition outside of the science and history
classes.
> Getting the required documentation etc should not be a problem, and we can
> hopefully start getting a more formal set of goals together.
Good. We have finally found some common ground for agreement and action.
2143
Wilson Alan
RE: Charter Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion)
07/08/2006 15:14:00
bgcolor="white"
----
From:
BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mikey Brass
Sent: 07 August 2006 10:19
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] Charter
Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion)
<snipped for brevity>
> 5) A maths teacher is using materials provided by a religious group, which
> uses biblical stories to teach maths - how many times Joshua walked round
> Jericho,
that sort of thing.
If there is a solid scientific education in the science classrooms, the
vast majority of the pupils will tend to view it as an analogy, rather
than something specific. So no, I do not see this as our business.
Well I would want my
children taught maths and not myths J
Alan W
> 6) A Parent who objects to evolution being taught, so withdraws their
> child
> from school to bring them up "in the faith".
I do not like this from an educational perspective, as I have argued in a
previous mail from a few weeks back. However, should this feature in
initial targetting? No, I don't feel it should. Should it be kept in mind
for the future? Yes.
Matters are pretty straightfoward for myself, whether they are for this
group as a whole is of course another matter.
2144
Roger Stanyard
Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion
07/08/2006 18:17:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, b-jordan@... wrote:
>
> >
> I like the sound of that, but won't such a direct statement make it
easier
> for the fundies to deny? Even such an open chap as Nick doesn't admit
to
> more than dropping the odd hint in class while Vardy is in out-and-
out denial
> and claims to be within the (previous) national curriculum.
>
> Brian
>
Possibly Brian but fundies have a pathological inability to keep their
mouths shut.
> ___________________________________________________________
>
> Tiscali Broadband from 14.99 with free setup!
> http://www.tiscali.co.uk/products/broadband/
>
2145
Roger Stanyard
Charter Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion)
07/08/2006 18:28:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
>
> Guys, guys...
>
> I agree with the text Lenny has posted, but that's still missing
the point
> of my original question.
>
OK, I thing that there is a large amount of consensus emerging about
what Ian has proposed.
However, as everyone is aware, I have been consistently concerned
that the fundies will attacj science by the backdoor if they can't
teach their mumbo-jumboism in science lessons. We've been ober theis
issue several times.
In practice there is general agreement that we can't stop creationism
being taught as part of RE or being promoted in Christian Unions etc..
However, I would like the definition of science to remain broad to at
least stop some of the backdoor routes. It certainly needs to
accomodate geology. My own opinion is that it needs to ecompass
geography because geography is widely taught in British schools.
There is also the issue of applied maths. Fundies are for ever
claiming that information theory proves their case. Applied maths is
a pretty standard offering at A level. I have no idea if it includes
information theory at this level but assume that, nowadays it does.
So does anyone obkect if we keep the definition of science relatively
open to encompass these subjects and any others that overlap with
pure science?
Roger
What I would like to see is some agreement on what defines> What this
text is, is a useful intro passage, it explains *why* we are
> "against creationism". It's valid, and sooner or later, someone
would need
> to have written it.
>
> What we need to know is *exacty* what do we mean by that.
>
> If things went great, and an MP turned around and said to
you, "well, okay
> then, what should we do?"... you can't be vague, or leave room for
> interpretation. We need to know *exactly* what changes we want to
see in
> AQA/DFES guidance, what elements of Legislation need to change,
which
> precise government policies need tweaking.
>
> *that* is what we need to decide first, because everything else is
a step on
> the road to winning that change.
>
> I'll try asking "The question" slightly differently, because it
needs to be
> unambiguous.
>
> Consider a set of situations - in each case, is this situation
acceptable?
>
> 1) A teacher who brings up creationist materials in class, directly
> challenging evolution.
>
> 2) A teacher sticking to the curricula, but "teaching the
controversy" in
> science class and casting doubt on proper science as a "my opinion
is..."
> comment.
>
> 3) A teacher who sticks to the curricula in class, but who uses
extra
> curricular meetings (like Christian Union lunchtime bible clubs) to
> undermine the teaching in class.
>
> 4) A school which sticks to the letter of the curricula, but which
has
> religious assemblies where the staff deliberately undermine science
> education, comparing what "we know" and what "they make us teach
you".
>
> 5) A maths teacher is using materials provided by a religious
group, which
> uses biblical stories to teach maths - how many times Joshua walked
round
> Jericho, that sort of thing.
>
> 6) A Parent who objects to evolution being taught, so withdraws
their child
> from school to bring them up "in the faith".
>
>
> These are not just vague questions - each of them relates to a
different
> possible campaign goal.
>
> If you object to 5) for instance, the problem is not purely science
> education, it's fundamentalist influence in education generally. If
you
> object to 3) or 4), the problem is still science education, but it
extends
> to beyond the science classroom.
>
> There's no wiggle room here - define these goals, then we start
looking at
> the DFES guidelines, the NC, and what primary legislation is
involved. And
> what it is that we want changed.
>
> At that point, we look at who can give us this change, and what we
need to
> do to convince those people.
>
> I.
>
2146
Roger Stanyard
Charter Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion)
07/08/2006 18:38:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
>
> Guys, guys...
>
> I agree with the text Lenny has posted, but that's still missing
the point
> of my original question.
>
OK, I think that there is a large amount of consensus emerging about
what Ian has proposed.
However, as everyone is aware, I have been consistently concerned
that the fundies will attack science by the backdoor if they can't
teach their mumbo-jumboism in science lessons (as the Vardy schools
appear to do with their cumpulsory courses on ethics, philosophy and
whatnot). We've been over this issue several times.
In practice there is general agreement that we can't stop creationism
being taught as part of RE or being promoted in Christian Unions,
etc..
However, I would like the definition of science to remain broad to at
least stop some of the backdoor routes. It certainly needs to
accomodate geology. My own opinion is that it needs to encompass
geography because geography is widely taught in British schools.
Physical geography makes no sense if the creationists get their way.
There is also the issue of applied maths. Fundies are for ever
claiming that information theory proves their case. Applied maths is
a pretty standard offering at A level. I have no idea if it includes
information theory at this level but assume that, nowadays it does.
So does anyone object if we keep the definition of science relatively
open to encompass these subjects and any others that overlap with
pure science such as astronomy and archeology?
Roger
2147
oeditor
Charter Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion)
07/08/2006 18:55:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> So does anyone object if we keep the definition of science relatively
> open to encompass these subjects and any others that overlap with
> pure science such as astronomy and archeology?
>
Science, history, earth sciences, maths, applied science, medicine,
technology, engineering, mining. I would specifically include marine
engineering ;-)
Brian
2148
Mikey Brass
Re: Charter Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion)
07/08/2006 18:56:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> However, I would like the definition of science to remain broad to at
> least stop some of the backdoor routes. It certainly needs to
> accomodate geology.
The term "science classes" already covers it: chemistry, biology,
geography and history for schools.
--
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)
2149
oeditor
Charter Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion)
07/08/2006 19:06:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
> Science, history, earth sciences, maths, applied science, medicine,
> technology, engineering, mining. I would specifically include marine
> engineering ;-)
Oh, I forgot to mention fuel technology or whatever Andy McIntosh
calls it as another specific include - he preaches the laws of
thermodynamics.
Brian
2150
oeditor
Charter Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion)
07/08/2006 19:16:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...> wrote:
>
> The term "science classes" already covers it: chemistry, biology,
> geography and history for schools.
>
Sorry, but I can't agree. These days science is regularly joined in
"science and technology" in schools but the pair aren't all
encompassing. Geography might well be lumped in with
economics,sociology and the like on the arts side and history is
never, ever, a school science subject.
Brian
