2201
Wilson Alan
RE: Charter Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion)
11/08/2006 13:44:00
bgcolor="white"
My view is that science is anything that uses
the scientific method.
For example, some aspects of Art may be
scientific such as proving the authenticity of a painting or the type/age of
the paint used etc.
I may be wrong but I think they all
probably fit into some sort of spectrum from wholly scientific through some
scientific content to no scientific content at all.
Therefore I don’t think that we need
necessarily classify whole subjects as “science” or “not
science”.
As for the NC, we may or may not be happy
with NC content as individuals and we may or not change our minds over time as
the NC does or does not change.
So I think we should concentrate on those
parts of the NC, if any, that encourage or permit creationism or ID to sneak
into the academies curriculum and teaching methods and leave the rest alone as
a group.
Alan W
----
From:
BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Germain
Sent: 07 August 2006 23:28
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [BlackShadow] Charter
Discussions, (was Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion)
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
2202
Timothy Chase
FOX News: U.S. Lags Behind Europe, Japan in Acceptance of Evolution
11/08/2006 19:17:00
My God! What is happening to FOX News?!
A fairly objective piece with only one of Bruce Chapman's naughty bits...
FOX News: U.S. Lags Behind Europe, Japan in Acceptance of Evolution
Friday, August 11, 2006
By Ker Than
http://snipurl.com/usk4
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207858,00.html
A comparison of peoples' views in 34 countries finds that the United
States ranks near the bottom when it comes to public acceptance of
evolution.
Only Turkey ranked lower....
2203
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: website
11/08/2006 21:19:00
> 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.
>
And feel free to pirate anything you like from my Creation 'Science'
Debunked website.
===================================
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
2204
Marc Draco
Re: What next then?
11/08/2006 22:22:00
Money's tight right now with Pete pulling out on the NTA. We need to get
the wording right on the leaflets or we'll all come off looking like a
bunch of screaming loonies - which is what we want people to think of Vardy/
I'm working on a "SPV Reign Oil" advert to embarrass them, but it needs
group "troups."
Remember, mate, you can always come to my house! ;-)
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. 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?
>
>
2205
Marc Draco
Re: What next then?
11/08/2006 23:46:00
Given that bloody yahoo is spitting messages out when it feels like
it, perhaps the NTA website should have some kind of private area. I
missed a load of messages from my email and only see part replies in
my email. <grinds teef.>
Stefan, count me in for £20 (but make sure the wife isn't in!!!)
;-)
Use Roger and I to get the words right. Martin Young I think is great
at the design side. Pity no one could post a message on THAT
roundabout where people post birthday messages etc... I wouldn't think
of doing such a thing, myself. ;-)
Martin, if you're getting this, I'm for you running the financial side
of things. So that's you seconded.... just need people to vote now.
Marc
--- 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
>
2206
John Germain
RE: Re: What next then?
12/08/2006 01:41:00
Send the details off-list and I'll get a cheque off tomorrow.
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Marc
Draco
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 11:47 PM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: What next then?
Given that bloody yahoo is spitting messages out when it feels like
it, perhaps the NTA website should have some kind of private area. I
missed a load of messages from my email and only see part replies in
my email. <grinds teef.>
Stefan, count me in for £20 (but make sure the wife isn't in!!!)
;-)
Use Roger and I to get the words right. Martin Young I think is great
at the design side. Pity no one could post a message on THAT
roundabout where people post birthday messages etc... I wouldn't think
of doing such a thing, myself. ;-)
Martin, if you're getting this, I'm for you running the financial side
of things. So that's you seconded.... just need people to vote now.
Marc
--- 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
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
2207
Roger Stanyard
Re: What next then?
12/08/2006 07:32:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "John Germain" <jtg.germainsjy@...>
wrote:
>
> Send the details off-list and I'll get a cheque off tomorrow.
>
Same with me Marco.
Roger
2208
Wilson Alan
RE: Re: What next then?
12/08/2006 08:12:00
bgcolor="white"
Same here Marco,
Alan W
----
From:
BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Stanyard
Sent: 12 August 2006 07:33
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: What
next then?
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com,
"John Germain" <jtg.germainsjy@...>
wrote:
>
> Send the details off-list and I'll get a cheque off tomorrow.
>
Same with me Marco.
Roger
2209
Wilson Alan
RE: Re: What next then?
12/08/2006 13:12:00
bgcolor="white"
Sorry,
That should have been Marc.
Alan W
----
From:
BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Wilson Alan
Sent: 12 August 2006 08:12
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [BlackShadow] Re:
What next then?
Same here Marco,
Alan W
----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Stanyard
Sent: 12 August 2006 07:33
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: What
next then?
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com,
"John Germain" <jtg.germainsjy@...>
wrote:
>
> Send the details off-list and I'll get a cheque off tomorrow.
>
Same with me Marco.
Roger
2210
Wilson Alan
RE: Re: Layers of the Creationist Onion
12/08/2006 13:30:00
Another phrase came to mind after McClaren’s recent “evolution
not revolution” remark on
the future direction of the England Team:
“We want our children taught evolution in science
classes not revelation”,
or simply “Evolution not Revelation”.
Alan W
2211
oeditor
Kenyan creationists want fossils hidden
12/08/2006 15:55:00
By Mike Pflanz in Nairobi, Telegraph, 12/8/06
http://tinyurl.com/fjbuo
'Powerful evangelical churches are pressing Kenya's national museum to
sideline its world-famous collection of hominid bones pointing to
man's evolution from ape to human.'
'""The Christian community here is very uncomfortable that Leakey and
his group want their theories presented as fact," said Bishop Bonifes
Adoyo, the head of Christ is the Answer Ministries, the largest
Pentecostal church in Kenya.
"Our doctrine is not that we evolved from apes, and we have grave
concerns that the museum wants to enhance the prominence of something
presented as fact which is just one theory."'
Out of America, Into Africa.
Brian
2212
Roger Stanyard
Re: Kenyan creationists want fossils hidden
12/08/2006 16:50:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> By Mike Pflanz in Nairobi, Telegraph, 12/8/06
>
> http://tinyurl.com/fjbuo
>
> 'Powerful evangelical churches are pressing Kenya's national museum to
> sideline its world-famous collection of hominid bones pointing to
> man's evolution from ape to human.'
>
> Out of America, Into Africa.
>
> Brian
Yep, there is American money behind this; IIRC one of the prime movers
is the pentecostal JD Jakes or something similar.
I also suspect that the UK's God TV is involved. It has been setting up
terrestrial transmitters in east Africa and has been transmitting there
by satellite for some time. (Jakes books time on God TV). The couple
who are behind God TV, the Alec's (it's a stage name, apparently, not
their real surnames) come from South Africa.
There was an article in the Economist on the pentecostals in Kenya a
couple of weeks ago. I'll try and dig it out.
Roger
>
2213
Roger Stanyard
Web Site
13/08/2006 18:49:00
We now have a web site up and running. There is very little on it and I
am still having a few problems in understanding how to create pages on
it.
However, I have losts of stuff to post on it to fill it out and this
will be done over the next few days.
The web site is at www.blackshadow.me.uk
2214
Mikey Brass
Re: Web Site
13/08/2006 21:17:00
It is an impressive start. I am happy to contribute towards the end of
October.
2215
Lenny Flank
Re: Web Site
13/08/2006 21:20:00
> We now have a web site up and running. There is very little on it and
> I am still having a few problems in understanding how to create pages
> on it.
>
> However, I have losts of stuff to post on it to fill it out and this
> will be done over the next few days.
>
> The web site is at www.blackshadow.me.uk
>
>
Looks good. I've linked to it from the Creation "Science" Debunked
website.
===================================
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
2216
ukantic
Re: Web Site
13/08/2006 23:18:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...>
wrote:
>
> We now have a web site up and running. There is very little on it
and I
> am still having a few problems in understanding how to create
pages on
> it.
>
> However, I have losts of stuff to post on it to fill it out and
this
> will be done over the next few days.
>
> The web site is at www.blackshadow.me.uk
>
Hi Roger,
You may be getting confused by the fact that the sidebar requires
the format page name?. On a normal page just use > name? & save to create a new page. See post:
http://groups.yahoo.comhttp://message/2195
One thing I should have added was that if you make a mistake naming
a page & want to delete it, just remove all content, type delete &
save.
I see that there might be a problem using the blackshadow (which can
also be accessed from the .co.uk) domain in that it has nothing
obvious to do with the BSCE. Originally I used the tagline, "Beware
the black shadow of creationism" to make the connection clearer.
However I cannot see that working here.
One way out would be to keep the BS website as an entry site for the
forum & BCSE. In this case the introduction would explain this & all
the information on BCSE would be in one heading in the sidebar along
with other headings, for example, "humour". That way the content in
the part of the site relating to BCSE could be kept strictly
relevant & other not so relevant information could go under other
headings.
The other alternative of course is to obtain a dedicated domain,
which really needs to be a .co.uk. This rules out BCSE as it is
already taken. If you can change the organisations heading to
something different that hasn't been taken, I will get it for you &
transfer the wiki (or the relevant bits) & contents onto it.
It should be pointed out that the power of the wiki comes from
involving many people in the construction of the site. Think of the
pictures you might have seen of a group of people lifting someone
just using a finger each: it's the same principle. So hand out the
password to trusted members of the group Roger & let them get
involved.
Remember you can always undo mistakes or sabotaged pages; & if the
worst come to the worst I can always reload a saved copy.
A good start might be to ask the members to come up with a new logo
for the group to replace my crappy attempt.
Alan.
2217
Martin Young
NtA work, money, objections?
14/08/2006 12:15:00
Hi,
I recently volunteered to act as a quasi-official treasurer for the
NtA campaign. I've exchanged emails with Marc about this (pertinent
text below) and I intend to move ahead with it unless anybody objects.
I've posted this message to to NtA site too.
If you want to do it instead, or have any objections, now is the right
time to raise them.
> Sometime next week, most probably Tuesday, I'll see about opening a
> bank account in the name of "No To Academies" with a chequebook so
> that money can be distributed. It used to be the case that one
> could walk in off the street and open a deposit account in almost
> arbitrary names. There have been money laundering law brought in
> since I last did that and I'm not sure if this will introduce
> complications or a delay; I'll let you know.
>
> If [...] somebody else wants to do this instead I don't see why it
> shouldn't be possible to switch the registered address and
> signatories.
>
> All other things being equal, I suggest that once the account is
> open you [Marc] contact any people who have expressed an interest is
> contributing and forward my address to them. I think such
> information should come from a known and trusted source (i.e. you
> [Marc]).
Cheers,
Martin.
2218
Wilson Alan
RE: Web Site
14/08/2006 13:37:00
bgcolor="white"
Looks like a great starter for ten to me
Roger.
Well done.
Alan W
----
From:
BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Stanyard
Sent: 13 August 2006 18:50
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Web Site
We now have a web site up and running. There is very
little on it and I
am still having a few problems in understanding how to create pages on
it.
However, I have losts of stuff to post on it to fill it out and this
will be done over the next few days.
The web site is at www.blackshadow.me.uk
2219
Roger Stanyard
Re: Web Site
14/08/2006 15:26:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Wilson Alan" <Alan.Wilson@...>
wrote:
>
> Looks like a great starter for ten to me Roger.
>
> Well done.
>
>
>
> Alan W
>
Thanks,
Hopefully there will be a bit more on it this evening but it's going
to be a couple of days before I have got the ideas of shape of the
site together.
Then I'll open it up to group regulars to post to it.
Roger
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
[BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Roger Stanyard
> Sent: 13 August 2006 18:50
> To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [BlackShadow] Web Site
>
>
>
> We now have a web site up and running. There is very little on it
and I
> am still having a few problems in understanding how to create pages
on
> it.
>
> However, I have losts of stuff to post on it to fill it out and
this
> will be done over the next few days.
>
> The web site is at www.blackshadow.me.uk
>
2220
Roger Stanyard
Re: Web Site
14/08/2006 15:53:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
> > We now have a web site up and running. There is very little on it
and
> > I am still having a few problems in understanding how to create
pages
> > on it.
> >
> > However, I have losts of stuff to post on it to fill it out and
this
> > will be done over the next few days.
> >
> > The web site is at www.blackshadow.me.uk
> >
> >
>
>
> Looks good. I've linked to it from the Creation "Science" Debunked
> website.
>
Thanks Lenny
Roger
2221
Roger Stanyard
Question on Yahoo Emails
14/08/2006 15:56:00
I read and post all Yahoo group emails through the Yahoo group web
page/reader rather than through my normal email software (Outlook
Express).
Does anyone know how I can add a signature to my Yahoo group messages.
It seems to me that it could generate a but of extra "publicity" for
this forum, our cause and our web page?
2222
Roger Stanyard
Re: NtA work, money, objections?
14/08/2006 15:51:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Young" <martin@...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I recently volunteered to act as a quasi-official treasurer for the
> NtA campaign. I've exchanged emails with Marc about this (pertinent
> text below) and I intend to move ahead with it unless anybody
objects.
> I've posted this message to to NtA site too.
>
> If you want to do it instead, or have any objections, now is the
right
> time to raise them.
Martin,
I have no objections at all. I'm happy to see someone willing to
offer time and effort on this. The finance but can be time consuming
because of the need to visit the back, keep accounts and so on.
All I can add is the word thanks for supporting Marc. He's one of the
good guys.
Roger
PS, we did someting like this for a voluntary group some 10 years ago
and found it much easier to open a pass book account at a building
society. They have special arrangements for voluntary groups and you
may find there is a slight tax advantage (it could have changed). The
only problem was that we had to draw all the cheques actually in the
building society itself. That can be a bit time consuming especially
if you are not near a building society.
The other issue I looked at in paying donations (to Debunkcreation)
is Paypal. It's useful if you are trying to get money in from outside
the UK. Bank charges for dollar cheques can be hideous and unless you
have a special arrangment with the bank, they don't clear for weeks
if not months. Paypal is not difficult to set up if you have a bank
account.
2223
Rudy Vonk
Re: Question on Yahoo Emails
14/08/2006 17:50:00
On 14 ago 2006, at 16:56, Roger Stanyard wrote:
> Does anyone know how I can add a signature to my Yahoo group messages.
Try the following:
1) Go to "My Account"
2) On the right, under "Options", hit "Mail"
3) Towards the bottom of the middle column, hit "Signature"
cellpadding="2"
Attachment: (text/enriched) [not stored]
2224
Roger Stanyard
Re: Question on Yahoo Emails
14/08/2006 18:36:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Rudy Vonk <rudy@...> wrote:
>
> On 14 ago 2006, at 16:56, Roger Stanyard wrote:
>
> > Does anyone know how I can add a signature to my Yahoo group
messages.
>
> Try the following:
>
> 1) Go to "My Account"
> 2) On the right, under "Options", hit "Mail"
> 3) Towards the bottom of the middle column, hit "Signature"
Rudy,
I'm probably being dense but under options there is no option called
mail.
Maybe I'm going about this the wrong way by the My Account link is at
the top of this page and, indeed, it takes me to details of my account
which I can change but there is no mention of a mail option.
How am I getting this wrong?
Roger
2225
Rudy Vonk
Re: Re: Question on Yahoo Emails
14/08/2006 18:55:00
On 14 ago 2006, at 19:36, Roger Stanyard wrote:
> How am I getting this wrong?
Perhaps the layout at yahoo.co.uk is different from the one at
yahoo.com? I sign in, go to "Groups", then "My Account", and I get a
page like the one you describe, which is mostly taken up by a box
labeled "Yahoo! ID Card. Within this box, there is a greyish kind of
sidebar on the far right that says "Public Information". Lower down
that same sidebar there is a caption "Options" (for individual
services) followed by a list of services including Mail. If you don't
have this layout, it must be due to the UK version being different.
Good luck!
cellpadding="2"
Attachment: (text/enriched) [not stored]
2226
Roger Stanyard
Re: Question on Yahoo Emails
14/08/2006 22:36:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Rudy Vonk <rudy@...> wrote:
>
> On 14 ago 2006, at 19:36, Roger Stanyard wrote:
>
> > How am I getting this wrong?
>
> Perhaps the layout at yahoo.co.uk is different from the one at
> yahoo.com? I sign in, go to "Groups", then "My Account",
Ah ha! the UK version allows me to, er, sign out but not sign in. But
it does allow me to go to "my account" which then requires me to sign
in.
Seems to me that there are a lot of very daft thinking behind Yahoo.
Anybody else finding the same problems (I've got loads of examples)?
Roger
2227
John Germain
RE: NtA work, money, objections?
14/08/2006 22:42:00
When you guys have it sorted, let me know - the offer still stands.
Unless we really go international and Offshore banking might come in handy: <eg>
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Martin
Young
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 12:15 PM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] NtA work, money, objections?
Hi,
I recently volunteered to act as a quasi-official treasurer for the
NtA campaign. I've exchanged emails with Marc about this (pertinent
text below) and I intend to move ahead with it unless anybody objects.
I've posted this message to to NtA site too.
If you want to do it instead, or have any objections, now is the right
time to raise them.
> Sometime next week, most probably Tuesday, I'll see about opening a
> bank account in the name of "No To Academies" with a chequebook so
> that money can be distributed. It used to be the case that one
> could walk in off the street and open a deposit account in almost
> arbitrary names. There have been money laundering law brought in
> since I last did that and I'm not sure if this will introduce
> complications or a delay; I'll let you know.
>
> If [...] somebody else wants to do this instead I don't see why it
> shouldn't be possible to switch the registered address and
> signatories.
>
> All other things being equal, I suggest that once the account is
> open you [Marc] contact any people who have expressed an interest is
> contributing and forward my address to them. I think such
> information should come from a known and trusted source (i.e. you
> [Marc]).
Cheers,
Martin.
Yahoo! Groups Links
2228
Rudy Vonk
Re: Re: Question on Yahoo Emails
15/08/2006 00:37:00
On 14 ago 2006, at 23:36, Roger Stanyard wrote:
> Ah ha! the UK version allows me to, er, sign out but not sign in. But
> it does allow me to go to "my account" which then requires me to sign
> in.
You probably have told your computer to sign in automatically (as I
have), so when you first go to Yahoo in a session, you are signed in to
start with. Ergo, you can sign out, but not sign in until you sign out.
This is what I had actually done before the last post I made on this,
however I can get to the same place when signed in automatically.
The crunch is, if the page with your "Yahoo! ID Card" doesn't have the
sidebar with the "Options" list in it, my advice is clearly not
applicable to the UK version.
cellpadding="2"
Attachment: (text/enriched) [not stored]
2229
JAF
Grauniad today
15/08/2006 05:58:00
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1844478,00.html
Creationism in Schools.
--
JAF
anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
2230
Mikey Brass
Re: Grauniad today
15/08/2006 10:19:00
> Chris Parker, a final-year English student at Hertford College,
Oxford, believes God made the world. Ask him why, and he talks cogently
about the gaps in evolutionary theory and how explanations involving
intelligent design are unsatisfactory. But, ultimately, it is because:
"As a Christian, I have believed in it for a long time and I have no
reason to doubt it."
> Kim Nicholas, who is studying to be a primary school teacher at the
University of Hertfordshire, agrees. "I have grown up in a family that
goes to church and I have become a Christian," she says. "When I look at
things in the world I think it is amazing that God has created it for
us. If you have faith in God you can believe he has done it, whether
there is evidence or not."
At least on a surface level, these two people sound like they are
leaning towards theistic evolution, rather than creationism.
Actually, that is a point: the UK media, and public, appear unable to
distinguish between theistic evolution and ID or creationism as a whole.
I certainly do wonder about the results of these surveys given this fact.
It is also important to understand the survey questions and the
methodology used.
2231
Wankle Rotary-Pyjamas
NtA work, money, objections?
15/08/2006 10:32:00
I'll transfer my offer from the NTA binverts to this one. I sent two cheques off
to Pete H, but, as you know, they were destroyed. I'll be happy to contribute
the same amount to this campaign if it gets off the ground.
Phil (the world's best lurker..!!).
----------
>When you guys have it sorted, let me know - the offer still stands.
>
>Unless we really go international and Offshore banking might come in handy:
><eg>
>
>John Germain
>Jersey
>British Channel Islands
>
-----Original Message-----
>From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On
>Behalf Of Martin
>Young
>Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 12:15 PM
>To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [BlackShadow] NtA work, money, objections?
>
>Hi,
>
>I recently volunteered to act as a quasi-official treasurer for the
>NtA campaign. I've exchanged emails with Marc about this (pertinent
>text below) and I intend to move ahead with it unless anybody objects.
> I've posted this message to to NtA site too.
>
>If you want to do it instead, or have any objections, now is the right
>time to raise them.
>
>> Sometime next week, most probably Tuesday, I'll see about opening a
>> bank account in the name of "No To Academies" with a chequebook so
>> that money can be distributed. It used to be the case that one
>> could walk in off the street and open a deposit account in almost
>> arbitrary names. There have been money laundering law brought in
>> since I last did that and I'm not sure if this will introduce
>> complications or a delay; I'll let you know.
>>
>> If [...] somebody else wants to do this instead I don't see why it
>> shouldn't be possible to switch the registered address and
>> signatories.
>>
>> All other things being equal, I suggest that once the account is
>> open you [Marc] contact any people who have expressed an interest is
>> contributing and forward my address to them. I think such
>> information should come from a known and trusted source (i.e. you
>> [Marc]).
>
>Cheers,
>Martin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
2232
Marc Draco
Creationism on a steady rise.
15/08/2006 11:02:00
Evolution is on the way out - more than 30% of students in the UK say
they believe in creationism and intelligent design. Harriet Swain
reports on a surprising new survey
http://tinyurl.com/zpwj5
2233
oeditor
Re: Grauniad today
15/08/2006 11:14:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...> wrote:
>
> I certainly do wonder about the results of these surveys given this
fact.
>
> It is also important to understand the survey questions and the
> methodology used.
>
Facts are very thin on the ground - no mention of any differences
between these non-scientists and scientists. Looking at the
opinionpanel site doesn't throw much light. It would be interesting to
know who the client was, it might make a lot of difference to how the
questions were framed.
http://tinyurl.com/fsdsf
Since the information isn't likely to be of commercial value, I think
that something so important should be put into the public domain. With
all the information gathered, not just a selective digest.
Brian
who wonders which creationist group will be the first to cite the
survey and whether they've commissioned it.
2234
Roger Stanyard
Re: Grauniad today
15/08/2006 11:29:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
>> It is also important to understand the survey questions and the
> methodology used.
>
Yep, dead right. It appears that the survey involved was not based on
a random sample of students but on a self selected group. As far as I
can see it was done through this web site:
http://www.opinionpanel.co.uk/students/index.cfm. Having had the
misfortune to study statistics (ad nauseum), my own opinion is that
this is a highly suspect methodology. It can be very easily
manipulated by a core group (and nothing would surprise me with
fundies).
Even without that issue, methinks that the whole approach looks
unscientific (in the sense that statistics is a stand alone branch of
mathematics which itsef is "the queen of sciences". There doesn't
appear to be anything in the approach which involves a calculated
methodology of randomness.
Indeed, the Guardian report seems to clearly suggest that the whole
sample was anything but random or approximating to randomness.
The "survey" seems to suggest that 20% of schools are teaching
creationism/ID. That doesn't stack up with anything I know. I've only
identified five state schools in the whole of the mainland of the UK
and one in Northern Ireland where creationism appears to have been
pushed. They consist of the three Vardy schools, Bluecoat (see this
group passim) a school in Bromley (of all places! - but it isn't
entirely clear to what extent creationism has been pushed there) and
a grammar school in Northern Ireland where Stuart Burgess apparently
told the kids that they would go to hell if they believed in ET. My
list isn't exhaustive, btw. There are certainly others but I haven't
been able to find out their names.
2235
Roger Stanyard
Web Site Report
15/08/2006 18:51:00
Just a quick update on our web site. I've filled out a lot of the
bits and pieces I wanted to do and have started filling the main
sections.
My intention is to have something quickly that we can present to the
media and the rest of the world to show how clever we are!
I have the whole of tomorrow penciled in to get stuff loaded. The
problem is not loading material. It's editing it. Simple cut and past
from Word etc. still requires a lot of sub-editing.
I've done some research through debunkcreation archives for material
that I think will be of interest to the world. That should get
posted. There are some articles of Lenny's that should be up tomorrow
and I'll be looking at Mikey's site later in the day.
Realistically I won't have loaded everything I want until the
weekend. I have a lot of stuff that I haven't put into the public
domain that I think would be not just informative but also give the
media and others a much more systematic base of intelligence to work
through.
I've also tried to give each section an overview.
So, basically we are getting there quite quickly although I'm still
learning about using a wiki.
I'm finished for today btw. Four hours of editing is enough.
Any comments at this stage would as usual be highly appreciated and
valuable.
2236
Timothy Chase
UK Guardian: How did we get here? 30% of students creationists
15/08/2006 20:29:00
NOTE: Some of you may have seen this on DebunkCreation already. It
appears creationist views are fairly common among students in the UK.
How did we get here?
Evolution is on the way out - more than 30% of students in the UK say
they believe in creationism and intelligent design. Harriet Swain
reports on a surprising new survey
Tuesday August 15, 2006
The Guardian
http://snipurl.com/uzfx
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1844478,00.html
Chris Parker, a final-year English student at Hertford College,
Oxford, believes God made the world. Ask him why, and he talks
cogently about the gaps in evolutionary theory and how explanations
involving intelligent design are unsatisfactory. But, ultimately, it
is because: "As a Christian, I have believed in it for a long time and
I have no reason to doubt it."
Kim Nicholas, who is studying to be a primary school teacher at the
University of Hertfordshire, agrees. "I have grown up in a family that
goes to church and I have become a Christian," she says. "When I look
at things in the world I think it is amazing that God has created it
for us. If you have faith in God you can believe he has done it,
whether there is evidence or not."
Annie Nawaz, a second-year law student at Hertfordshire, distinguishes
between scientific and "natural" evidence written in stone in the holy
books. "As a practising Muslim, the holy Qur'an - that's our proper
evidence," she says. It does bother her when this conflicts with other
kinds of evidence, but "it just comes down to the way you have been
brought up and your beliefs and values and how strong they are".
Such views are less unusual among UK students than you might think. In
a survey last month, more than 12% questioned preferred creationism -
the idea God created us within the past 10,000 years - to any other
explanation of how we got here. Another 19% favoured the theory of
intelligent design - that some features of living things are due to a
supernatural being such as God. This means more than 30% believe our
origins have more to do with God than with Darwin - evolution theory
rang true for only 56%.
Opinionpanel Research's survey of more than 1,000 students found a
third of those who said they were Muslims and more than a quarter of
those who said they were Christians supported creationism. Nearly a
third of Christians and 10% of those with no particular religion
favoured intelligent design. Women were more likely to choose
spiritual explanations: less than half chose evolution, with 14%
preferring creationism and 22% intelligent design.
While three years of learning how to weigh evidence appears to make
students slightly more inclined towards evolution, with 57% of
third-years choosing it compared with 54% of first-years, it does not
appear to put them off belief in God. As many third-years as
first-years believed in creationism, although slightly fewer supported
intelligent design.
The findings come as little surprise to Roger Downie, professor of
zoological education at Glasgow University. Two years ago he surveyed
the views on evolution of biology and medical students there. "What
was extremely worrying for students embarking on evidence- and
science-based disciplines was that they were perfectly prepared to say
they had rejected it not on the basis of evidence but on the basis of
their religious beliefs," he says.
He says schools and universities need to be clearer about how science
differs from other evidence, such as that provided by religion. "The
impression people get is that science is about accumulating a lot of
facts in your head rather than testing of evidence and fine-tuning
what you find."
Scientists have recently expressed growing concern about creationism
being taught alongside evolution in schools, particularly at the new
academies run by the Christian Vardy Foundation. In April, a Royal
Society statement opposed the misrepresentation of evolution in
schools to promote particular religious beliefs.
Steve Jones, professor of genetics at University College London, who
gave a public lecture on "Why evolution is right and creationism is
wrong" at the time, has been talking about evolutionary biology in
schools for 20 years. For the first 10 of those he was lucky to find
one student in 1,000 expressing creationist beliefs. "Now in any
school I go to I meet a student who says they are a creationist or
delude themselves that they are."
He blames the influence of Christian fundamentalists in America and
political correctness among teachers here who, he says, feel they have
to give a reasonable hearing to beliefs held by people from other
cultures, particularly Muslims.
In the Opinionpanel survey, nearly 20% said they had been taught
creationism as fact by their main school. Most thought it would be
best to teach a range of theories, but nearly 30% of those who
supported creationism felt that pupils should learn about creationism
alone.
According to Linda Woodhead, professor in the sociology of religion at
Lancaster University, religious studies is now the biggest growth
subject in schools. She suggests that this reflects pupils' interest
in philosophical and moral questions - questions that are likely to
persist into their undergraduate years. "I don't think there is
anywhere in the curriculum where most university students get these
sorts of questions addressed," she says.
Some universities are beginning to recognise this. Jeremy Rayner,
professor of zoology at Leeds University, which is to incorporate
lectures on creationism and intelligent design into its second-year
course for zoology and genetics next year, says the idea is to teach
students about the creationism hypothesis "so they are in a position
to make their own rational judgment and counter it".
While he has seen no evidence that students are more inclined to
believe in creationism, he perceives a growing willingness within the
creation movement to be prepared to cause disruption by promoting its
views. "The best thing we can do," he says, "is what universities
should be doing anyway - producing bright, intelligent young minds
with the confidence to be advocates for science."
2237
Timothy Chase
Sorry - (was UK Guardian: How did we get here? 30% of students creationists)
15/08/2006 20:43:00
Sorry...
I spent the morning at my former cardiologist's office, got back, saw
the story, then did a quick check to see if anyone had sent in a story
with the same title. Not seeing the title, I sent it in, only to
realise it had been sent in twice before.
In any case, it appears that creationism is fairly common in the UK -
assuming this research group can be trusted. It doesn't seem to be
just a few extremists. If so, then this would suggest religious
belief is actually fairly prevalent.
On 15/08/06, Timothy Chase <timothychase@gmail.com> wrote:
> NOTE: Some of you may have seen this on DebunkCreation already. It
> appears creationist views are fairly common among students in the UK.
>
> How did we get here?
>
> Evolution is on the way out - more than 30% of students in the UK say
> they believe in creationism and intelligent design. Harriet Swain
> reports on a surprising new survey
>
> Tuesday August 15, 2006
> The Guardian
> http://snipurl.com/uzfx
> http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1844478,00.html
2238
Timothy Chase
Re: Grauniad today
15/08/2006 20:58:00
On 15/08/06, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@uclmail.net> wrote:
>
> At least on a surface level, these two people sound like they are
> leaning towards theistic evolution, rather than creationism.
Reminds me of a US survey of doctors that the Discovery Institute was
using for propaganda purposes. If you read the questions and the
responses carefully, the majority of doctors (~67%, give or take) did
not believe in creationism "or" intelligent design - because while
many believed in a god, they were theistic evolutionists who
recognised the distinction between science and religion. However, the
Discovery Institute naturally lumped them in with creationists since
they were theists and thus not atheistic evolutionists, making it
appear that a majority (~60%) were creationists.
> Actually, that is a point: the UK media, and public, appear unable to
> distinguish between theistic evolution and ID or creationism as a whole.
> I certainly do wonder about the results of these surveys given this fact.
Perhaps more the media than the public.
> It is also important to understand the survey questions and the
> methodology used.
Quite right - the questions really matter - in terms of identifying
what the responses actually mean.
2239
Roger Stanyard
Those Friendly Decent Moral Fundies
16/08/2006 07:31:00
From: http://www.alternet.org/story/40318/ I think that this report
puts fundies in perspective.
Public Stoning: Not Just for the Taliban Anymore
By John Sugg, Church and State. Posted August 15, 2006.
Christian reconstructionists believe democracy is heresy and public
school is satanic -- and they've got more influence than you think.
Two really devilish guys materialized in Toccoa, Ga., last month to
harangue 600 true believers on the gospel of a thoroughly theocratic
America. Along with lesser lights of the religious far right who
spoke at American Vision's "Worldview Super Conference 2006," Herb
Titus and Gary North called for nothing short of the overthrow of the
United States of America.
Titus and North aren't household names. But Titus, former dean of TV
preacher Pat Robertson's Regent University law school, has led the
legal battle to plant the Ten Commandants in county courthouses
across the nation. North, an apostle of the creed called Christian
Reconstructionism, is one of the most influential elders of American
fundamentalism.
"I don't want to capture their (mainstream Americans') system. I want
to replace it," fumed North to a cheering audience. North has called
for the stoning of gays and nonbelievers (rocks are cheap and
plentiful, he has observed). Both friends and foes label him "Scary
Gary."
Are we in danger of an American Taliban? Probably not today. But
Alabama's "Ten Commandments Judge" Roy Moore is aligned with this
congregation, and one-third of Alabama Republicans who voted in the
June primary supported him. When you see the South Dakota legislature
outlaw abortions, the Reconstructionist agenda is at work. The
movement's greatest success is in Christian home schooling, where
many, if not most, of the textbooks are Reconstructionist-authored
tomes.
Moreover, the Reconstructionists are the folks behind attacks on
science and public education. They're allied with proselytizers who
have tried to convert Air Force cadets -- future pilots with fingers
on nuclear triggers -- into religious zealots. Like the communists of
the 1930s, they exert tremendous stealth political gravity, drawing
many sympathizers in their wake, and their friends now dominate the
Republican Party in many states.
Titus' and North's speeches, laced with conspiracy theories about the
Rockefellers and the Trilateral Commission, were more Leninist than
Christian in the tactics proposed -- as in their vision to use
freedom to destroy the freedom of others. That's not surprising --
the founder of Christian Reconstruction, the late fringe Calvinist
theologian Rousas J. Rushdoony, railed against the "heresy" of
democracy.
A Harvard-bred lawyer whose most famous client is Alabama's Judge
Moore, Titus told the Toccoa gathering that the Second Amendment
envisions the assassination of "tyrants;" that's why we have guns.
Tyranny, of course, is subjective to these folks. Their imposition of
a theocratic state would not, by their standards, be tyranny. Public
schools, on the other hand, to them are tyrannical.
North is best known to Internet users for his prolific auguring that
a Y2K computer bug would cause the calamitous end of civilization. In
the days prior to the advent of this millennium, North urged
subscribers to his delusional economic newsletters to go survivalist
and prepare for the end. Many did so, dumping investments and life
savings, a big oops.
"I lost a million and a half dollars when I sold off real estate,"
one of North's fans, a home-schooling advocate from Florida, told me
during a lunch break between lectures touting creationism and damning
secular humanism. But my lunch companion still anted more than pocket
change to hear North make more prophesies in Toccoa. "I believe Gary
North on Bible issues," he explained. I suggested that false prophets
often pocket big profits, but I was talking to deaf ears.
Hosting the "Creation to Revelation... Connecting the Dots" event was
a Powder Springs, Ga., publishing house, American Vision, whose
pontiff is Gary DeMar. The outfit touts the antebellum South as a
righteous society and favors the reintroduction of some forms of
slavery (it's sanctioned in the Bible, Reconstructionists say) --
which may explain the blindingly monochrome audience at the gathering.
The setting was the Georgia Baptist Conference Center, a sprawling
expanse of woods, hills and a man-made lake in the North Georgia
mountains. Four decades ago, the Southern Baptists officially
declared, "no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored
by the state" and "the church should not resort to the civil power to
carry on its work."
Times change. The Baptists lust for power, and they demand the state
to do their bidding. I guess that explains the denomination's hosting
of theocrats no less rigid and bloodthirsty than the Taliban's
mullahs.
DeMar christened the gathering with invective against science.
"Evolution is as religious as Christianity," he said, a claim that
certainly must amaze 99.99 percent of the scientific community.
Science is irrelevant to these folks.
Everything they need to know about the universe and the origin of man
is in the first two chapters of Genesis. They know the answer before
any question is asked. DeMar's spin is what he calls a clash
of "worldviews." According to DeMar and his speakers, God sanctions
only their worldview. And that worldview is a hash of enforcing Old
Testament Mosaic law (except when it comes to chowing down on pork
barbecue), rewriting American history to endorse theocracy and
explaining politics by the loopy theories of the John Birch Society.
(Christian Reconstructionism evolved, so to speak, from a radical
variation of Calvinism, AKA Puritanism, and the Bircher politics of
such men as the late Marietta, Ga., congressman, Larry McDonald.) For
most of the four-day conference, DeMar turned the Bible over to
others to thump. North blamed the Rockefellers and the Trilateral
Commission for the success of secularists. Titus told of Jesus making
a personal appearance in the rafters of his Oregon home.
At the heart of what was taught by a succession of speakers:
Six-day, "young earth" creationism is the only acceptable doctrine
for Christians. Even "intelligent design" or "old earth" creationism
are compromises with evil secularism.
Public education is satanic and must be destroyed.
The First Amendment was intended to keep the federal government from
imposing a national religion, but states should be free to foster a
religious creed. (Several states did that during the colonial period
and the nation's early days, a model the Reconstructionists want to
emulate.)
The Founding Fathers intended to protect only the liberties of the
established ultra-conservative denominati ons of that time. Expanding
the list to include "liberal" Protestant denominations, much less
Catholics, Jews and (gasp!) atheists, is a corruption of the
Founders' intent.
Education earned the most vitriol at the conference. Effusing that
the Religious Right has captured politics and much of the media,
North proclaimed: "The only thing they (secularists) have still got a
grip on is the university system." Academic doctorates, he contended,
are a conspiracy fomented by the Rockefeller family. All academic
programs (except, he said, engineering) are now dominated by
secularists and Darwinists.
"Marxists in the English departments!" he ranted. "Close every public
school in America!"
Among North's most quoted writings was this ditty from 1982: "[W]e
must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for
Christian schools until we train up a generation...which finally
denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God." Titus followed
that party line when he proclaimed that the First Amendment is
limited to guaranteeing "the right to criticize the government,"
but "free expression is not in the Constitution." When I asked him if
blasphemy -- castigating religion -- was protected, he shook his head.
Like North, Titus sees public education as decidedly satanic. Also,
welfare. He contended the Founding Fathers -- and Americans today --
owe their "first duties to God. It's not just worship. It's
education... welfare to the poor. Welfare belongs exclusively to God.
Why do schools fail? They're trying to do the business of God.
Medicaid goes. Education goes. The church gets back to doing what it
should do." And what should the church be doing According to these
self-appointed arbiters of God's will, running our lives. And stoning
those who disagree.
At the Toccoa conference, DeMar organized several debates -- and he
commendably invited articulate opponents of his creed.
One was Ed Buckner, a retired Georgia State University professor,
unabashed atheist and a member of the Atlanta Freethought Society. He
debated Bill Federer, who makes a living trying to prove America's
founders intended this to be a Christian nation.
Buckner offered to concede the debate if Federer could disprove any
one of four points: Americans don't agree on religion, human judgment
is imperfect, religious truth can't be determined by votes or force
and freedom is worth protecting. Federer ran from the challenge, and
instead offered a litany of historic quotes showing that most of
America's founders believed in God.
Federer never got the point that if, as he argued, government should
endorse his faith today, tomorrow officials might decide to ban his
beliefs.
The other debate featured University of Georgia biologist Mark Farmer
versus Australian "young earth" creationist Carl Wieland. Farmer,
religious himself, tried to explain that no evidence had ever damaged
evolutionary theory -- at best, creationists point to gaps in
knowledge.
"Yes, we don't know the answers to everything," Farmer told
me. "That's what science is all about, finding answers."
It would be easy to dismiss the Reconstructionists as the lunatic
fringe, no more worrisome than the remnants of the Prohibition Party.
But, in fact, they have rather extraordinary entrée and influence
with top-tier Religious Right leaders and institutions.
James Dobson's Focus on the Family is now selling DeMar's book,
America's Christian Heritage. Dobson himself has a warm relationship
with many in the movement, and he has admitted voting for
Reconstructionist presidential candidate Howard Phillips in 1996.
TV preacher Robertson has mentioned reading North's writings, and he
has hired Reconstructionists as professors at Regent University.
Jerry Falwell employs Reconstructionists to teach at Liberty
University. Roger Schultz, the chair of Liberty's History Department,
writes regularly for Faith for all of Life, the leading
Reconstructionist journal.
Southern Baptist Bruce N. Shortt is aggressively pushing his
denomination to officially repudiate public education and call on
Southern Baptists to withdraw their children from public schools.
Shortt's vicious book, The Harsh Truth about Public Schools, was
published by the Reconstructionist Chalcedon Foundation.
There are big theological differences between the Religious Right's
generals and the Reconstructionists. Traditional Christian theology
teaches that history will muddle along until Jesus' Second Coming.
That teaching is tough to turn into a political movement.
Reconstructionists preach that the nation and the world must come
under Christian "dominion" (as they define it) before Christ's
return -- a wonderful theology to promote global conquest.
In short, Dobson, Robertson, Falwell and the Southern Baptist
Convention (the nation's largest Protestant denomination) may not
agree with everything the Reconstructionists advocate, but they sure
don't seem to mind hanging out with this openly theocratic, anti-
democratic crowd.
It's enough for Americans who believe in personal freedom and
religious liberty to get worried about -- before the first stones
start flying.
John Sugg is senior editor of Creative Loafing Newspapers. He was the
recipient of the 2005 Society of Professional Journalists "Green
Eyeshade" award for serious commentary, and he has won more than 30
other significant awards.
2240
Roger Stanyard
Web Site - Request for Comments
16/08/2006 10:42:00
Our web site is being pulled together today. However, as you are all
aware, I view the web site as a primary PR tool for BSCE. I would
like something that attracts journalists and researchers.
It seems to me that this now requires a decision on two factors.
1. Contact details. At the moment there are none. I would be happy to
be put forward as a contact if the press or whatever need one. That
in turn means I will be acting as a spokeman.
What does everyone think about this? Would anyone else like to be the
organisation's spokeman?
2. I think that a news and analysis section might be valuable. It
would give journalists etc something to turn to as a source of
material and, hopefully, get our name in the press. However, at best,
I can probably only do one piece a week for this. It seems to me a
very good idea if others would like to contribute. Marc and Stefan,
for example, are much more knowledgable than me on what is happeing
in the Vardy schools in the North East of England. Ian has looked at
the NC. The Americans are in a much better position to understand the
big developments over on theor side of the pond.
What, in effect, the section would be is an analysis of significant
or major developments. The actual news bit may often be very small;
just the reference to where it is published and a brief summary. The
content would mostly be in the analysis. Of course it would be nice
if we could aact as journalists bringing in our own news reports but
that is totally unrealistic.
Don't forget that in handling analysis we have the Yahoo forum (and
other forums such as Lenny's) to get the analysis together. A lot of
the commentary there can be incorporated into analysis.
It seems yo me that the news and analysis section needs some kind of
regular commitment by a number of us to make it work. I don't want to
launch the idea without such a commitment and end up with a half-
hearted attempt that, quite frankly, is a poor advertisement for us.
What is the group's thinking. Would anyone like to commit to a
regular posting to it, say, once a week or fortnight (or even
monthly)? I'll commit if others do but I am very reluctant to take in
on on my own.
It doesn't need a commitment right now. August is a very quite month
in the UK because so many are on holiday and Parliament, etc.. is in
recess.
Roger
2241
Mikey Brass
Re: Web Site - Request for Comments
16/08/2006 11:48:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> What does everyone think about this? Would anyone else like to be the
> organisation's spokeman?
I personally think you are doing virtually all of the work - for which I
apologise as I am just overwhelmed. It would be good if someone else
volunteered.
> What is the group's thinking. Would anyone like to commit to a
> regular posting to it, say, once a week or fortnight (or even
> monthly)?
I can commit for a few months as from end of Oct.
2242
Mikey Brass
Re: Those Friendly Decent Moral Fundies
16/08/2006 11:54:00
Thank you to Calvin.
2243
Roger Stanyard
Re: Web Site - Request for Comments
16/08/2006 12:38:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
Mikey,
Thanks for the offer from October. That eases my mind a lot. As it
stands the offer of material from your eexisting web site is, in my
opinion, a very big hel. A wiki like ours needs to reflect a bredth
of style and perspective across the group. Any erudite contribution
also helps as a selling point. It shows we are bright and it is a
message I want to get over.
It seems to me that we have people from a broad range of disciplines
and experiences in the group and the more we can demonstrate that the
better.
My own position is that I am more than happy to put a lot of work
into the web site this week to get together something we can be a bit
proud of and from which we can then work on.
Roger
2244
Wilson Alan
RE: Web Site - Request for Comments
16/08/2006 12:50:00
bgcolor="white"
I think we need at least one more
spokesperson (not me at present).
I think occasional or regular articles
from others such as Lenny, Timothy Chase, Mikey Brass, Michael Sutkus, Dave
Oldbridge etc. would be a good idea.
Alan W
----
From:
BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Stanyard
Sent: 16 August 2006 10:43
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Web Site -
Request for Comments
Our web site is being pulled together today. However,
as you are all
aware, I view the web site as a primary PR tool for BSCE. I would
like something that attracts journalists and researchers.
It seems to me that this now requires a decision on two factors.
1. Contact details. At the moment there are none. I would be happy to
be put forward as a contact if the press or whatever need one. That
in turn means I will be acting as a spokeman.
What does everyone think about this? Would anyone else like to be the
organisation's spokeman?
2. I think that a news and analysis section might be valuable. It
would give journalists etc something to turn to as a source of
material and, hopefully, get our name in the press. However, at best,
I can probably only do one piece a week for this. It seems to me a
very good idea if others would like to contribute. Marc and Stefan,
for example, are much more knowledgable than me on what is happeing
in the Vardy schools in the North East of England. Ian has looked at
the NC. The Americans are in a much better position to understand the
big developments over on theor side of the pond.
What, in effect, the section would be is an analysis of significant
or major developments. The actual news bit may often be very small;
just the reference to where it is published and a brief summary. The
content would mostly be in the analysis. Of course it would be nice
if we could aact as journalists bringing in our own news reports but
that is totally unrealistic.
Don't forget that in handling analysis we have the Yahoo forum (and
other forums such as Lenny's) to get the analysis together. A lot of
the commentary there can be incorporated into analysis.
It seems yo me that the news and analysis section needs some kind of
regular commitment by a number of us to make it work. I don't want to
launch the idea without such a commitment and end up with a half-
hearted attempt that, quite frankly, is a poor advertisement for us.
What is the group's thinking. Would anyone like to commit to a
regular posting to it, say, once a week or fortnight (or even
monthly)? I'll commit if others do but I am very reluctant to take in
on on my own.
It doesn't need a commitment right now. August is a very quite month
in the UK
because so many are on holiday and Parliament, etc.. is in
recess.
Roger
2245
oeditor
Re: Web Site - Request for Comments
16/08/2006 14:03:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> Our web site is being pulled together today. However, as you are all
> aware, I view the web site as a primary PR tool for BSCE. I would
> like something that attracts journalists and researchers.
>
It's looking good. I particularly like the idea of lists of villains -
and heroes, of course.
> It seems to me that this now requires a decision on two factors.
>
> 1. Contact details. At the moment there are none. I would be happy
to > be put forward as a contact if the press or whatever need one.
That > in turn means I will be acting as a spokeman.
>
> What does everyone think about this? Would anyone else like to be
the > organisation's spokeman?
Suits me - but I agree with the suggestion that we could do with
someone else as well. It only needs a bout of 'flu at a critical moment...
> I can probably only do one piece a week for this. It seems to me a
> very good idea if others would like to contribute.
I'll be glad to do what I can. It might be an idea to thrash out a
list of areas which different members are knowlegeable about/can swot
up on. I think something useful - perhaps as a section on the web site
- would be a breakdown of the main YEC arguments with clear, concise
refutations.
Brian
2246
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Web Site - Request for Comments
16/08/2006 14:22:00
I also think there should be a brief explanatory article on human
evolution, as well as a separate article with an anthropological slant
showing there is no such thing as "race" (thinking of Ken Ham's garbage).
2247
Roger Stanyard
Re: Web Site - Request for Comments
16/08/2006 15:55:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> > I can probably only do one piece a week for this. It seems to me a
> > very good idea if others would like to contribute.
> I'll be glad to do what I can. It might be an idea to thrash out a
> list of areas which different members are knowlegeable about/can swot
> up on. I think something useful - perhaps as a section on the web site
> - would be a breakdown of the main YEC arguments with clear, concise
> refutations.
>
> Brian
I agree with this but I don't want to do it myself. I think if we are
to do something like this it needs to be much simpler and more focused
that Talk Origins. Somewher I have ready to post today a short
article/paragraph on the hot air nature of the non-existant scientific
theory of creationism, for example.
Have we got something likewise on the non-existant scientific theory of
ID.?
What also would be nice if we had something that could show that not
one single scientific argument ever proposed as part of creationism has
ever stood up to scrutiny.
Roger
2248
Roger Stanyard
Re: Web Site - Request for Comments
16/08/2006 16:09:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> I also think there should be a brief explanatory article on human
> evolution, as well as a separate article with an anthropological
slant
> showing there is no such thing as "race" (thinking of Ken Ham's
garbage).
This would need to be written by someone with some gravitas to display.
Is there anything on you web site, Mikey, that we may use or something
that is in the public domain elsewhere where we won't be breaching
copyright rules?
Would anyone case to volunteer to do this? It's one I shouldn't do
because I have the wrong qualifications but I, of course, don't mind
helping in drafting and editing.
2249
JAF
Re: Re: Web Site - Request for Comments
16/08/2006 17:13:00
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 13:03:42 -0000, you wrote:
>Suits me - but I agree with the suggestion that