2151
John Germain
RE: Charter Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion)
07/08/2006 20:07:00
Does anyone know what the National Curriculum defines as Science vs Arts
subjects?
That would seem to be the best definition to use, if it has such thing.
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of
oeditor
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 7:17 PM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Charter Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the Creationist
Onion)
--- 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
Yahoo! Groups Links
2152
Roger Stanyard
Charter Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion)
07/08/2006 22:17:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "John Germain"
<jtg.germainsjy@...> wrote:
>
> Does anyone know what the National Curriculum defines as Science vs
Arts subjects?
>
> That would seem to be the best definition to use, if it has such
thing.
I doubt whether it does. In academia the division hasn't normally
been between the arts and science but between humanities and science
(see CP Snow on this).
Moreover, the distinction has been dying for years and, indeed, was
never black and white. I have a joint honours degree in geography
(and economics) which is a BSc. Others from the same department who
did more of what I would describe as applied science (physical
geography) were awarded BAs.
I don't think it really relevant what the National Curriculum says.
Roger
2153
Mikey Brass
Re: Charter Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion)
07/08/2006 22:26:00
oeditor wrote:
> --- 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.
History is a social science subject and certainly is regarded, rightly,
as a school science subject in various countries. Geography has never
been lumped outside of science in any school curriculum I am familiar with.
This is *precisely* why I mentioned the necessity of obtaining copies of
the national curriculum, for various age groups.
2154
Roger Stanyard
Charter Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion)
07/08/2006 22:40:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- 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.
Maybe but physical geography isn't part of economics or sociology by
any definition and it is widely taught. Moreover, there are other parts
of geography such as the study of climate and ecology which are part of
applied science.
Sorry to have to labour on this but the division between humanties and
science are not clear cut, never where and are dying anyway.
I think Mikey has a very clear cut case to suggest that history now
involves a substantial application of science. One only has to look at
the extent to which our understanding of the history of the British
Isles has changed over the last, I dunno, 30-50 years. Of recent we
have, yet again, genetic evidence appearing which, if it is accepted,
with change our understanding of the dark ages.
Let me put it slightly different. Children are taught in history about,
for example, major pre-historic sites in the British Isles such as
Stonehenge, Newgrange and Avebury. Do we accept that fundie view that
such sites, part way through their developement, were subject to the
Noachian flood? Or, that they cannot be older that 2,400 years BC?
Roger
Roger
>
> Brian
>
2155
Mikey Brass
Yaahooooo, Nniiiccckkkkyyy dearest
07/08/2006 23:00:00
Where are you hiding Nick-dearest? Do you need a cookie or something to
answer the questions posed to you months ago, chicken?
2156
Mikey Brass
Re: Charter Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion)
07/08/2006 22:59:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> I think Mikey has a very clear cut case to suggest that history now
> involves a substantial application of science.
It already has been for decades in universities. Certainly, in South
Africa, that filtered down back in the distant past into the school
curriculum.
Non-science based subjects for schools would be crafts, accountancy, PE,
art, music and languages.
I also think it is nit-picking to have to define what the term "science"
covers.
2157
John Germain
RE: Charter Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion)
07/08/2006 23:28:00
Well, what the NC says is what ought to be taught, so I suspect that there might
be some
certain relevance if one wishes to contest the efficacy of the teaching.
Perhaps Moderns vs Classics would be a better distinction?
<grump>
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Roger
Stanyard
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 10:17 PM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Charter Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the Creationist
Onion)
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "John Germain"
<jtg.germainsjy@...> wrote:
>
> Does anyone know what the National Curriculum defines as Science vs
Arts subjects?
>
> That would seem to be the best definition to use, if it has such
thing.
I doubt whether it does. In academia the division hasn't normally
been between the arts and science but between humanities and science
(see CP Snow on this).
Moreover, the distinction has been dying for years and, indeed, was
never black and white. I have a joint honours degree in geography
(and economics) which is a BSc. Others from the same department who
did more of what I would describe as applied science (physical
geography) were awarded BAs.
I don't think it really relevant what the National Curriculum says.
Roger
Yahoo! Groups Links
2158
oeditor
Charter Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion)
08/08/2006 01:37:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> Maybe but physical geography isn't part of economics or sociology by
> any definition and it is widely taught. Moreover, there are other
parts > of geography such as the study of climate and ecology which
are part of > applied science.
>
> Sorry to have to labour on this but the division between humanties
and > science are not clear cut, never where and are dying anyway.
>
That's as may be, but we're trying to reduce the scope for cretinism,
not increase it. If we say that science includes history, they'll say
that it doesn't. While I might have a narrow, old-fashioned definition
of 'science', Vardy & Co would cheerfully go along with me and say
that various subjects aren't part of it, if we don't specifically
include them. They'd probably say, for instance, that the physical
geographical description of the Grand Canyon says nothing about its
alleged Noachian formation. (Poor example - geology intervenes, I
know.) Remember, we're not dealing with reasonable people here -
better to stop up the rat-holes now, not later.
Oh, and in another post, Mikey mentions accountancy. The fundies can
be pretty creative there, too ;-)
Brian
2159
BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
New poll for BlackShadow
08/08/2006 07:45:00
Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the
BlackShadow group:
Do you agree that we need to focus on the following areas:
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.
o Yes
o No
To vote, please visit the following web page:
http://groups.yahoo.comhttp://surveys?id=2300997
Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.
Thanks!
2160
Mikey Brass
Re: Charter Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion)
08/08/2006 07:51:00
oeditor wrote:
> If we say that science includes history, they'll say
> that it doesn't.
Which has as much value as them believing in Noah's Ark.
I'm more than happy for them to play symantecs while we stick to proper
definitions; the more they shoot themselves in the foot, the better.
2161
Roger Stanyard
Charter Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion)
08/08/2006 08:11:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
>
>
My own personal opinion is that I would agree fully with Ian about
all six of his points below but clearly many in the group feel that
the first two are the only ones that we can realistically address.
However, as you are all aware fundamentalism by the back door is a
big worry of mine.
There is an alternative approach which addresses Ian's concerns (and
mine) and that is to state that part of our objective is to raise
public awareness of fundemantalism in state schools.
That then puts us in a position to point out which schools are under
its influence (such as Bluecoat), point out where fundamentalist
governors are being appointed and, indeed, provide us with some real
ammunition.
One of my concerns is the presence of fundies in my own home town.
There are a couple of us here who have put together an action plan
should the fundies move from just proselytising to actually
attempting to get their people into positions of authority.
In essence this includes informing local councillors, existing school
governors and local MPs - and, indeed, the Church of England (they
appear to loath the fundies in this part of the world and we have a
good number of CofE schools).
This approach allows us to (for want of a better term) "nip the
problem in the bud".
It seems essential to me to get the message out that the fundies are
well organised; it may seem innocuous that a fundie gets appointed as
a school governor but, from the experience of others in this group,
it seems that there is a high probality that it will soon be followed
by attempts to get creationism taught in the school.
Likewise, the approach of keeping local politicians, etc., informed
opens up, again, the freedom for us to act as an umbrella
organisation.
Several have raised the issue of whether we should oppose academy
schools. Given that the vast majority do not involve creationism, the
answer is clearly no. However, I think it essential that we need to
be in a position to at least raise public awareness where a
fundamentalist sponsor is involved.
If we do get our act together, there is also another issue here.
Getting ourselves appointed as school governors (by all accounts it's
not that difficult). That will need some supporting effort.
It seems to me that we really do need to know, for example, where the
Christian Institute is active in schools, even though we cannot do
anything about the formation of Christian Unions and their use to
push creationism (because they are outside of our remit).
Comments gratefully received as usual.
Roger
PS, I have put the first simple poll up today.
.> 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".
>
2162
Roger Stanyard
Charter Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion)
08/08/2006 08:15:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> oeditor wrote:
> > If we say that science includes history, they'll say
> > that it doesn't.
>
> Which has as much value as them believing in Noah's Ark.
>
> I'm more than happy for them to play symantecs while we stick to
proper
> definitions; the more they shoot themselves in the foot, the better.
Me thinks that we can get round all of this quite easily by defining
science as "pure and applied science and subjects that use them".
Feel free to reword this and make comments.
Roger
2163
Mikey Brass
Re: Charter Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion)
08/08/2006 08:20:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> Me thinks that we can get round all of this quite easily by defining
> science as "pure and applied science and subjects that use them".
> Feel free to reword this and make comments.
Happy with that.
2164
Mikey Brass
Re: Charter Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion)
08/08/2006 08:19:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> There is an alternative approach which addresses Ian's concerns (and
> mine) and that is to state that part of our objective is to raise
> public awareness of fundemantalism in state schools.
Hhmmm...., that is not an alternative approach, that's part and parcel
of what is being proposed.
> That then puts us in a position to point out which schools are under
> its influence (such as Bluecoat), point out where fundamentalist
> governors are being appointed and, indeed, provide us with some real
> ammunition.
With the proviso, of course, of avoiding lawsuits for slander.
2165
Roger Stanyard
Charter Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion)
08/08/2006 08:33:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> History is a social science subject and certainly is regarded,
rightly,
> as a school science subject in various countries. Geography has never
> been lumped outside of science in any school curriculum I am familiar
with.
>
> This is *precisely* why I mentioned the necessity of obtaining copies
of
> the national curriculum, for various age groups.
>
Just as an aside, Mikey's comments illustrate the benefit of having a
fairly cosmopolitan membership of the group. We can argue for ever
whether history is a social science and thus science. It's good to see
what the thinking is elsewhere in the world before we do so.
My own pennyworth is that I have all along assumed that sooner or later
the fundies will want to start attacking history.
So, does anyone want to take on the job of obtaining and looking at the
national curriculum* for us. I simply don't have the time to do
everything (as it is, I'm spending on average 3 hours a day before nine
o'clock, plus part of my lunch time plus an hour or so in the evening
plus weekends trying to pull everything together).
Roger
* Ian, do you think it is worth looking at the Scottish curriculum as
well at this stage?)
2166
BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
New poll for BlackShadow
08/08/2006 08:39:00
Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the
BlackShadow group:
Do you agree that our objective is to stop the
teaching of creationism and Intelligent Design in science and as science in
state schools in the United Kingdom?
o Yes
o No
To vote, please visit the following web page:
http://groups.yahoo.comhttp://surveys?id=2301008
Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.
Thanks!
2167
Roger Stanyard
Charter Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion)
08/08/2006 08:43:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> Roger Stanyard wrote:
>
> > There is an alternative approach which addresses Ian's concerns
(and
> > mine) and that is to state that part of our objective is to raise
> > public awareness of fundemantalism in state schools.
>
> Hhmmm...., that is not an alternative approach, that's part and
parcel
> of what is being proposed.
>
Yes, but I'm trying to make the issue clearer as some of the
discussions seem to be pointing to a much narrower approach.
I think it is libel rather than slander that we need to be very careful
of.
As and wehen we get the web site up and running I think it would not be
a good idea to transfer all the stuff from my blog to it!
2168
Roger Stanyard
Timetable
08/08/2006 09:04:00
To keep the ball rolling, I think we now need to begin to put together
a timetable for the next few weeks.
I hope that we are now pulling all the strings together.
My proposal is that during this month (August) that we should aim to:
1. Complete the discussions and reach final agreement on our objectibes
and broad tactics.
2. That a draft charter be drawn up.
3. We open up our web site.
4. We have in hand some opening moves.
It looks as if I have to get the web site organised but I will have to
draw heavily on both the expertise of others and for content and links.
I have in hand letters to Estelle Morris and Steve Jones. My own
opinion is that these shouldn't go out until early September (and, at
that, I would prefer mid-September). The purpose of these letters is
really to help kick start what we are doing.
I need a bit of help on the Estelle Morris letter on how to address a
peer and the address to send it to her. Can anyone help (I know is
minor but tese problems are irritating and can take a lot of time).
Does anyone want to draw up the charter?
I will also be contacting the BHA today for some help in pointing in
the right direction on lobbying (it's all new to me - I've actually
done it before but that was in relation to communications policy so my
contacts and knowledge there are irrelevant).
August, alas, is not an easy month to get things moving. For the
Americans in the group, the British tend to normally take four weeks'
holidays a year usually including two weeks or more around this part of
the year. Moreover we have a public holiday this month. I'm going to be
having a few days off this month as well.
So, how does everyone feel about this short-term timetable? It gives us
a month in which to internally discuss and reflect and a time to do
some of the basic essentials. It gives me a bit of flexibility if no
one wants to, for example, draw up the charter.
Anyway, it's now 9 am so I have to turn my attention to other matters
for a few hours.
Roger
2169
Ian Lowe
RE: Charter Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion)
08/08/2006 09:30:00
Yep, excellent wording, captures the essence perfectly.
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Mikey Brass
Sent: 08 August 2006 08:20
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] Charter Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the
Creationist Onion)
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> Me thinks that we can get round all of this quite easily by defining
> science as "pure and applied science and subjects that use them".
> Feel free to reword this and make comments.
Happy with that.
2170
John Germain
RE: Charter Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion)
08/08/2006 12:19:00
Yup. That covers the entire curriculum in one way or another, even if only
tangentally.
I can't think of any exceptions.
I don't have a problem with that.
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Ian
Lowe
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 9:31 AM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [BlackShadow] Charter Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the
Creationist Onion)
Yep, excellent wording, captures the essence perfectly.
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Mikey Brass
Sent: 08 August 2006 08:20
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] Charter Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the
Creationist Onion)
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> Me thinks that we can get round all of this quite easily by defining
> science as "pure and applied science and subjects that use them".
> Feel free to reword this and make comments.
Happy with that.
Yahoo! Groups Links
2171
John Germain
RE: New poll for BlackShadow
08/08/2006 12:21:00
Sorry, Roger,
Why 2?
I may just be being thick!
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 7:45 AM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] New poll for BlackShadow
Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the
BlackShadow group:
Do you agree that we need to focus on the following areas:
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.
o Yes
o No
To vote, please visit the following web page:
http://groups.yahoo.comhttp://surveys?id=2300997
Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.
Thanks!
Yahoo! Groups Links
2172
Roger Stanyard
Re: New poll for BlackShadow
08/08/2006 12:42:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "John Germain" <jtg.germainsjy@...>
wrote:
>
> Sorry, Roger,
>
> Why 2?
>
> I may just be being thick!
>
From a pragmatic viewpoint we had a case some time back where one of
the examination boards seemed to allow creationist answers to exam
questions.
From what I can make out (and others in this group are better informed)
the fundies seem to have been able to influence the examination boards
(or at least one of them).
My understanding (and I could be dead wrong on this, so please correct
me if I am) is that the National curriculum defines what is studied and
is common to all schools in England and Wales where the examination
boards interpret it for the purpose of setting exams. There are several
examination boards each with their own interpretation. Different
schools use different examination boards and, IIRC, are free to chose
which ones they do use.
Moreover, the evidence seems to suggest that the curriculum is
sufficiently ambiguous to allow the examination boards to sequeeze in
creationism even without it being explicit in the curriculum.
Roger
2173
Roger Stanyard
Re: New poll for BlackShadow
08/08/2006 12:51:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "John Germain"
<jtg.germainsjy@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry, Roger,
>
> Why 2?
>
> I may just be being thick!
>
I forgot to add that I feel strongly that we should, at this stage,
leave open the option to campaign for an explicit ban on teaching ID
and creation in science.
As far as I can see there is no such explicit ban; the wording of the
bnational curriculum is, I understand, still ambigious. It proposes
what should be taught; omitted from what this covers is ID and
creationism but, of course the fundies are past masters at trying to
get ways around this such as teach the controversy and whatever
wheezes they are now up to in the USA.
But before we propose to campaign for an explcit (rather that the
current implicit) prohibition we must get our facts right. We need to
do a lot of research on the curriculum first. Hence keeping the
option open.
Roger
2174
John Germain
RE: Re: New poll for BlackShadow
08/08/2006 13:03:00
Ah. OK. All is now clear!
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Roger
Stanyard
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 12:51 PM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: New poll for BlackShadow
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "John Germain"
<jtg.germainsjy@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry, Roger,
>
> Why 2?
>
> I may just be being thick!
>
I forgot to add that I feel strongly that we should, at this stage,
leave open the option to campaign for an explicit ban on teaching ID
and creation in science.
As far as I can see there is no such explicit ban; the wording of the
bnational curriculum is, I understand, still ambigious. It proposes
what should be taught; omitted from what this covers is ID and
creationism but, of course the fundies are past masters at trying to
get ways around this such as teach the controversy and whatever
wheezes they are now up to in the USA.
But before we propose to campaign for an explcit (rather that the
current implicit) prohibition we must get our facts right. We need to
do a lot of research on the curriculum first. Hence keeping the
option open.
Roger
Yahoo! Groups Links
2175
Roger Stanyard
Wedge Strategy
08/08/2006 13:21:00
I think it is worthwhile if everyone looks at the following
http://www.evolutionsociety.org/download/anti-wedge.pdf for refining
our objectives and strategy. The link has been posted to Science Just
Science and a couple of people there are responding to it.
Comments and thoughts will be well appreciated as usual.
Roger
2176
Ian Lowe
RE: Charter Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion)
08/08/2006 13:29:00
> So, does anyone want to take on the job of obtaining and looking at the
national curriculum* for us.
I don't have the time just now to go through it - busy with work.
The information is all online though - the DFES website has all of the
guidance documents supplied to headmasters as well as the text of the NC
itself.
Here's the NC with notes:
http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/management/atoz/n/nationalcurriculum/
This details how the NC can be "dissapplied":
http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/management/atoz/d/disapplyingthenationalcurricu
lum/
one thing that we may have to look at is "section 96", which is the list of
external qualifications that are approved for state schools. This includes
the usual good guys like EdExcel and AQA, but seems to be a very open list.
There's a potential for someone to make up a "phoney" exam body that asks
favourable questions for YEC oriented schools, and the current DFES rules
would seem to allow the headmaster to disapply the NC in favour of these
exams..
As I say, I don't have enough free time to get really into this... that and
I have already invested time getting an understanding of the situation north
of the border.
Can one of the English guys pick this up?
> Ian, do you think it is worth looking at the Scottish curriculum as
well at this stage?
No, I think the focus should be on England/Wales just now - Scotland doesn't
have an imminent threat from the creationists.
I.
2177
oeditor
Re: Wedge Strategy
08/08/2006 13:54:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> I think it is worthwhile if everyone looks at the following
> http://www.evolutionsociety.org/download/anti-wedge.pdf for refining
> Comments and thoughts will be well appreciated as usual.
>
An excellent paper - well spotted Roger. I think it would be a good
idea to have links to this and similar documents (e.g. Royal Society
statement) on our web site so that serious anti-creationist statements
can be easily found by the curious.
Brian
2178
Drew Smith
RE: Charter Discussions
08/08/2006 14:22:00
Roger: My own pennyworth is that I have all along assumed that sooner or
later the fundies will want to start attacking history.
Drew: In Florida, they already have:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0717-22.htm
2179
Mikey Brass
Re: Wedge Strategy
08/08/2006 21:30:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> I think it is worthwhile if everyone looks at the following
> http://www.evolutionsociety.org/download/anti-wedge.pdf
A good summary, outline and strategy which can be adapted for ourselves.
2180
Mikey Brass
Re: Charter Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion)
08/08/2006 21:30:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> I simply don't have the time to do
> everything
Nor do I, given my archaeological research and writings outside of my
work hours and the need to have a private life. Afraid I can read
through postings, offer advice based on my experience and knowledge, et
al., but do not have the time to compose.
2181
Roger Stanyard
Re: Charter Discussions
09/08/2006 10:29:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Drew Smith" <drewsmithtpa@...>
wrote:
>
> Roger: My own pennyworth is that I have all along assumed that
sooner or
> later the fundies will want to start attacking history.
>
> Drew: In Florida, they already have:
> http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0717-22.htm
Thinking about it, they are already attacking history in the UK. I
have come across several fundamentalist web sites (including IIRC
that of the Lord's Day Observance Society) where Oliver Cromwell's
name is being "rehabilitated" and pushed. It's clear that the message
is that the fundies want to return to a puriticanical society (i.e.
back to the 17th century).
Sadly Cromwell was an authoritarian dictator who basically screwed up
and lost the plot.
Roger
2182
ukantic
website
09/08/2006 11:43:00
Roger,
Sorry if I haven't been of much help recently, but if it is of any
help I have set up a basic wiki on www.blackshadow.me.uk.
www.blackshadow.co.uk is redirected onto this. The .co.uk could not
be used as the main web address as it is outside of the web hosting
package.
You can use this as a website if required.
I have added a temporary logo, the only thing I would like you to do
is to try & keep the memory usage to a reasonable level by linking
to photos & graphics offsite (there are loads of free services for
this such as flickr) & linking offsite to long, verbose articles
that consume a lot of bandwidth.
Other than that I will loan the web space & domains for as long as
required.
I can e-mail you a general password for trusted members & an admin
password for altering the sidebar, which needs sorting out.
If this is of any use, please let me know.
Alan.
2183
Timothy Chase
Re: Charter Discussions
09/08/2006 20:27:00
On 08/08/06, Drew Smith <drewsmithtpa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Roger: My own pennyworth is that I have all along assumed that sooner or
> later the fundies will want to start attacking history.
>
> Drew: In Florida, they already have:
> http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0717-22.htm
According to Lenny Flank's research, it was history and not biology
which got the Fundamentalists started in the first place. Their
movement was born in the 1910s as a reaction to German Higher
Criticism of the 1870s of the Bible pertaining to the multiplicity of
authors and where a given book or chapter might be the result of a
synthesis of different traditions. It would seem only fitting for
them to return to where they began.
As for the article you cite, I would wish to amplify one point:
assuming one is not dealing with a purely formal branch of knowledge,
there will always be some degree of interpretation involved, and from
this perspective, any discourse regarding anything empirical will
necessarily involve at least some interpretive aspects. But the study
of history necessarily brings this to a much higher level. Whenever
one examines history, there exists a large multiplicity of factors
which are "responsible" for any given event.
How far, for example, should one trace the efficient causation which
gave rise to a given event? What sorts of causes should one consider?
"Important" individuals who appeared to be at the center of action?
Cultural trends? Technological? Economic? Ideational? Should one
think simply in terms of efficient causation? What about formal?
As for omitting those aspects of US history which might put our
country in a bad light, this shouldn't be that much of a suprise,
either, I suppose. At some level, Fundamentalists view themselves as
God's Chosen, and by extension, US Fundamentalists view the United
States in the same light. It may be in need of saving from the
evolutionist, secular, humanistic, atheistic liberals, but it can,
should and will be redeemed in time for the coming tribulation.
God's Chosen, at some Fundamental level, are on God's side, and "our
Righteousness is of Him, sayeth the Lord." Speaking of things which
would put the United States in a critical light is, in their minds,
equivilent to denying that the United States, and by extension, that
they themselves are the Chosen of God.
2184
Dick Busch
Re: Yaahooooo, Nniiiccckkkkyyy dearest
09/08/2006 20:54:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> Where are you hiding Nick-dearest? Do you need a cookie or something
to
> answer the questions posed to you months ago, chicken?
>
GEE, Mikey... Why don't you just say what you mean?!?
;-) ... ROTFLMAO...
Dick.
2185
Roger Stanyard
Re: Yaahooooo, Nniiiccckkkkyyy dearest
10/08/2006 07:39:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Dick Busch" <dicktaurus@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Where are you hiding Nick-dearest? Do you need a cookie or
something
> to
> > answer the questions posed to you months ago, chicken?
> >
>
Dick, Mikey et al,
Nick Cowan has been on moderated status for weeks. He hasn't attempted
to post anything (does that surprise you?). I just don't want him to
start preaching in this group. Religion is a no-no here.
Roger
2186
vulcannuk
What next then?
10/08/2006 20:46:00
As some you of know I have recently appeared in a local paper in blyth
where a new ESF academy has been proposed. I will also be appearing in
my local paper doing my usual slandering of the institution. I also
plan to distribute my home made leaflets into neighboring estates
warning them of our local "Kings Academy" out of my own pocket and
time.
Is it not time to start some collective orgainization to combat this
growing threat? The warnings are all there; Vardy himself keeps going
on about creating more academies. It just personally feels like all
that we are doing is chatting to ourselves whilst the institution
grows. Lets take the debate to the people together! Or, is this merely
my ignorant youth getting the better of me?
2187
Lenny Flank
Re: What next then?
10/08/2006 23:40:00
> As some you of know I have recently appeared in a local paper in blyth
> where a new ESF academy has been proposed. I will also be appearing in
> my local paper doing my usual slandering of the institution. I also
> plan to distribute my home made leaflets into neighboring estates
> warning them of our local "Kings Academy" out of my own pocket and
> time. Is it not time to start some collective orgainization to combat
> this growing threat? The warnings are all there; Vardy himself keeps
> going on about creating more academies. It just personally feels like
> all that we are doing is chatting to ourselves whilst the institution
> grows. Lets take the debate to the people together! Or, is this merely
> my ignorant youth getting the better of me?
>
Your ignorant youth is spot on.
Time for some collective action.
===================================
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
2188
Ian Lowe
RE: What next then?
11/08/2006 08:36:00
> It just personally feels like all that we are doing is chatting to
ourselves whilst the institution grows. Lets take the debate to the people
together! Or, is this merely my ignorant youth getting the better of me?
No, it's the voice of reason.
Did you see what happened though? When it was all about a mob with
pitchforks, there's action a-plenty. When it starts to turn into an actual
plan, suddenly, there's nothing but the sound of tumbleweed.
We need someone to read through the National Curriculum, the guidelines to
headteachers and the DFES rules about applying that curriculum with a
critical eye to figure out what we need to actually be campaigning to
change.
Despite the 50 or so members on this list, precisely four people have
responded: Marco is up to his elbows in the notoacademies campaign, I'm busy
with the Scottish campaign, Mikey is busy with his research, and Roger can't
be expected to spend any more time on this than he already is.
Hell, I spent time *at work* going through the DFES site to find the
documents, in the hope that someone with a bit more time would read them
through.
So, where the hell is everyone? Cat got your tongues all of a sudden?
Lurking on the group because you don't want to post is one thing - sitting
idly by whilst we ask for help with getting a campaign going is another.
Ian.
PS> Hopefully should be obvious, but this sure as hell isn't a dig at you
vulcan - you are playing your part already.
2189
Roger Stanyard
Re: website
11/08/2006 09:03:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <alan@...> wrote:
>
> Roger,
>
> Sorry if I haven't been of much help recently, but if it is of any
> help I have set up a basic wiki on www.blackshadow.me.uk.
> www.blackshadow.co.uk is redirected onto this. The .co.uk could not
> be used as the main web address as it is outside of the web hosting
> package.
>
> You can use this as a website if required.
>
Alan,
I think it essential that we take up your kind offer.
I'll get back to you later today.
Roger
2190
Roger Stanyard
Re: What next then?
11/08/2006 09:00:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "vulcannuk" <vulcannuk@...> wrote:
>
> As some you of know I have recently appeared in a local paper in
blyth
> where a new ESF academy has been proposed.
Stefan,
I'm prepared to chip in some help financially on this if you need
some leaflets printed. Even if a handful of us cough up £20 each its
a start.
If you need help in drafting I'll do that as well.
You also mentioned a demonstration; I am prepared to turn up to that
was well. Let us have further details.
Marc should also be in on this. He's got a lot of energy.
It's unrealistic for me to turn up doing door-to-door distributing on
leaflets. It's too far away, especially if you are thinking of doing
it in the evenings.
I can put my hat on as both a Blackshadow member and a member of the
No to Academies campaign - the latter is now, of course, Marc's baby.
What other contributions nad help would you like?
I have already writtent to the Blyth local newspaper, btw. If you
think more letters are necessary, let me know.
Roger
2191
Roger Stanyard
Panda''s Thumb
11/08/2006 09:36:00
I think everybody might want to take a quick lot at a survey just
published on public attitudes towards creationism. Details and
commentary can be found on Panda's Thumb (www.pandasthumb.org).
Good news! The UK is one of the countrys surveyed that least likely
to accept creationism. The USA is near top (Turkey tops the poll).
Icelanders are the least likely to accept creationism.
It's a doubly whammy in a sense because the UK is an easy target for
creationists because it is English speaking. Turkey has its own (in
effective) branch of ICR. Moreover, it contradicts the BBC poll early
this year which suggested that the UK had turned into a nation of
fundies.
As one might guess, the fundies have responded to the international
poll. I'll quote just one reply (from Panda's Thumb); its from an
American, apparently, who can't even quote the name of his source
correctly.
"Well this just goes to show the affect of godless evolution
ideology. Just look at that list of economically troubled countries
filled with unhappy people engaged in all sorts of wickedness and
crime. Why, my understanding is that morality was finally purged from
the UK in late 1993. Compared to the US, their society is rife with
murder, mayhem and chaos. At least, that's the message I get from Ken
Hamm."
Perhaps we should rename Ken "Hamm", Ken Pork (or Porkies). It'll
make life a bit easier on the spelling front for dim-wited fundies.
2192
Mikey Brass
Re: What next then?
11/08/2006 09:51:00
Ian Lowe wrote:
> We need someone to read through the National Curriculum, the guidelines to
> headteachers and the DFES rules about applying that curriculum with a
> critical eye to figure out what we need to actually be campaigning to
> change.
I will be able to do so after the end of the first week of October.
Until then, I have just submitted a journal paper for review, will be
doing revisions to a second paper for review and writing about 5
articles for two encyclopedias. Plus time to earn money and my personal
life.
I am planning on reading through the curriculum during the course of
October. Of course that is two months away.
> So, where the hell is everyone?
Words on a screen are the easy part; doing the background research is
harder... Between Vulcan, you, me, Roger and Marco - with apologies to
whoever I have left out - there is only so much which can be done. At
least two other people are needed, minimum!
2193
vulcannuk
Re: What next then?
11/08/2006 09:51:00
Naturally Roger it is not my expectation for you to distribute door
to door, I was just trying to demonstrate. The financial help is
much appreciated, as financially speaking I have always been in a
rut. However such an action would put me in a position way to un-
comfortable to bear. It was not my intention to attempt to be-little
anyone on this board, we all have our own private lifes (I'm
becoming a father soon!) and we all are doing our own little bits.
It just feels that the enemy is more organized. I appologise if I
have. True they have many advantages, the government for one, but
apart from the odd spirts from people such as liddle and Dawkins
(although I must say rare spirts) the government will always be able
to advertise that parents love the scheme and thus the scheme (of
ESF and academies) will dramatically expand.
I think Ian is correct. There is a hardcore centre within this
group, where are the rest?
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "vulcannuk" <vulcannuk@> wrote:
> >
> > As some you of know I have recently appeared in a local paper in
> blyth
> > where a new ESF academy has been proposed.
>
> Stefan,
>
>
> I'm prepared to chip in some help financially on this if you need
> some leaflets printed. Even if a handful of us cough up £20 each
its
> a start.
>
> If you need help in drafting I'll do that as well.
>
> You also mentioned a demonstration; I am prepared to turn up to
that
> was well. Let us have further details.
>
> Marc should also be in on this. He's got a lot of energy.
>
> It's unrealistic for me to turn up doing door-to-door distributing
on
> leaflets. It's too far away, especially if you are thinking of
doing
> it in the evenings.
>
> I can put my hat on as both a Blackshadow member and a member of
the
> No to Academies campaign - the latter is now, of course, Marc's
baby.
>
> What other contributions nad help would you like?
>
> I have already writtent to the Blyth local newspaper, btw. If you
> think more letters are necessary, let me know.
>
> Roger
>
2194
Mikey Brass
Re: Panda''s Thumb
11/08/2006 10:02:00
> "Well this just goes to show the affect of godless evolution
> ideology. Just look at that list of economically troubled countries
> filled with unhappy people engaged in all sorts of wickedness and
> crime. Why, my understanding is that morality was finally purged from
> the UK in late 1993. Compared to the US, their society is rife with
> murder, mayhem and chaos. At least, that's the message I get from Ken
> Hamm."
Er, the US has the second highest population to prison ratio in the
world. In the UK, lethal weapons are banned nationally (with apologies
for the bad terminology) and children don't get gunned down in schools.
Every country has its faults, but the above is *both deliberate*
ignorance (from the poster) and lies (doesn't Ham remember the Ten
Commandments he professes to love).
2195
ukantic
Re: website
11/08/2006 12:18:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <alan@> wrote:
> >
> > Roger,
> >
> > Sorry if I haven't been of much help recently, but if it is of any
> > help I have set up a basic wiki on www.blackshadow.me.uk.
> > www.blackshadow.co.uk is redirected onto this. The .co.uk could not
> > be used as the main web address as it is outside of the web hosting
> > package.
> >
> > You can use this as a website if required.
> >
> Alan,
>
> I think it essential that we take up your kind offer.
>
> I'll get back to you later today.
Its easy enough to use Roger. I will send you the password (there is
an admin password as well for altering the sidebar) & you can hand it
out to trusted members who can then add content as required.
I suggest someone is put in charge of overseeing the site structure,
which basically means determing the description of the high level
pages that will go in the side bar under the group, "main", (There are
two left there as an example: Home & Sandbox) & any lower essential
lower ones.
To create a page, then from a page, put 2 straight brackets around the
page description like this – My Page? then save. You will then see,
My Page? in blue. The ? signifies that that page has no content. Click
on it, which takes you to "My page", & add content. It is as simple as
that.
Do not use any punctuation in the page heading or, "&" as these are
not shown. As a convention I use a capital letter for the first letter
only then lower case. This saves confusion when you want to link to
another page from memory & you cannot remember if it was, My page or
My Page.
Want to link to another page? Easy:
description to right?
Ex: Blackshadow home page
(the | bar is left control + first button right/above it)
Note: http:// must be included – this is not normally a problem as
most people will be copying & pasting links anyway.
It is best to open links in a new window which can be done by adding
(with 2 w's) to front. As in:
Blackshadow home page
---- creates a solid line.
\\ then enter forces text onto line below.
Enter, Enter forces a paragraph break.
before text changes text colour.
Bold, Italic etc can be done from the text editor.
More complicated editing can done using the instructions found under
the Pmwiki heading in the sidebar.
There is also a site that will take html & convert it into Pmwiki mark
up with reasonable accuracy
That's it basically. I can back the site up once every couple of weeks.
New skins can be found at pmwiki if you are not happy with the
existing one. Features can be added from the cookbook or created by
anyone with the required programming knowledge.
Alan.
2196
Roger Stanyard
Re: What next then?
11/08/2006 12:30:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "vulcannuk" <vulcannuk@...> wrote:
>
>> I think Ian is correct. There is a hardcore centre within this
> group, where are the rest?
>
But, we have a hardcore centre. That's a big start. (I was worrying
about this myself). You are dead right that the enemy is well organised
and well funded but to put it bluntly they are still tiny minority and
not, for the most part, very bright.
Time and time again when I have researched these people I have come to
the conclusion that they are mostly non-entities who struck it a bit
lucky in gaining attention.
Roger
2197
Roger Stanyard
Re: website
11/08/2006 12:33:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <alan@...> wrote:
>
Thanks Alan,
I start work on this late this afternoon. If I can work out what I am
doing, we should have it up and running by the weekend.
This has been a really big help. It's saved me a vast amount of my
spare time and allowed us to keep the ball rolling.
Roger
2198
Roger Stanyard
Re: What next then?
11/08/2006 12:40:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
>
> Hell, I spent time *at work* going through the DFES site to find the
> documents, in the hope that someone with a bit more time would read
them
> through.
>
Ian,
I can do some work on this at the weekend; we should then be able to
post it to our new web site.
Can you direct me to the NC material so I can take a look at it?
Methinks that there are about 10 active, participating members in
this group. That's about 20% of its total members. That's a good
figure as far as I can make out. OK, so it's only a start. But we're
moving after much huffing and puffing.
Roger
2199
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: What next then?
11/08/2006 12:53:00
>
> I think Ian is correct. There is a hardcore centre within this
> group, where are the rest?
>
Get used to that -- it is, alas, common in any organization. There
is always a small hard core of people who do nearly everything, and a
larger fringe of people who mostly talk and give moral support.
===================================
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
2200
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: website
11/08/2006 13:38:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> I start work on this late this afternoon.
Feel free to quote from or borrow any of my articles on my website
pseudoscience page.
--
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)
