2351
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: creationist schedules
20/08/2006 21:40:00
Well, we had the Mackay tour up here at St Andrews Uni - it would have been
good to get along to that.
I have a contact who can get some info from the Evangelical Alliance about
any upcoming visiting preachers doing the tour circuit: I'll see if I can
narrow the scope a little to make it a bit more useful, as many of them are
not a problem from a creationist pov.
If we have another visiting (or home grown) fundie doing the rounds of
schools/churches, I'll make myself available to visit/report on their
northern legs!
Ian.
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Roger Stanyard
Sent: 20 August 2006 18:29
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: creationist schedules
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Curious --- does anyone have an itinerary for any of the
creationsit
> speakers in the UK (where they will be and when)?
This is doable except in Northern Ireland. I thing it essential to bring SJS
on board if we are going to establish welcoming comittees.
The position is that it appears that the fundies largely don't keep quite
about their venues but Mackay did earlier this year - so we have a half
understanding when and where they are going to turn up.
If anyone wants to, er, be a sympathetic insider, all I can say is that you
get my strongest support. It's a great idea.
It seems to me that "welcoming comittees" outside school gates would get
maximum publicity, as distinct from turning up at obscure backstreet chapels
and churches with tiny congretations (which seems to be the norm). A demo
outside a large school has a lot more PR value.
(My thinking here also refelects that the public won't actually seen the
welcoming committees in backstreets.)
Moreover, methinks some simple leaflets for such an occasion would be very
vaulable.
The biggest issue though with welcoming committees outside of school gates
is that it means taking time off work.
The alternative is for welcoming committes to the various venues that they
hire for larger occassions.
In terms of organising this, Blackshadow (and SJS) members are spread all
over the UK. Methinks that those that take the initiative to state that they
want a demo/welcoming comittee raise the matter from which we will then do a
trawl through Blackshadow and ask SJS for support.
I am willing to turn up and be part of every and all welcoming committees.
There is actually a venue that I have in mind. Email me off site for more
info.
So the whole of Lenny's suggestion has now been thrown open to the floor.
Suggestions, offers of help, proposals etc. now welcome.*
Roger
* Don't state here which event because that will give the game away.
Yahoo! Groups Links
2352
Roger Stanyard
Re: London Meeting With Science Just Science
20/08/2006 22:22:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@> wrote:
> >
> > We have a bit of an advantage over the position that
> > American creationists have because the UK is much more of a
> >centralised > society - a quarter of the population of the UK live
> >within London and > the towns in its orbit.
> >
> More's the pity. It could equally well be argued that the UK's ills
> stem from exactly that geographical phenomenon.
Couldn't agree with you more but what has this got to do with
developing an anti-creationist movement?
We are not in the business of trying to make the UK more de-
centralised. We are in the business of using the system to get our own
way. If it's over-centralised, recognise it and recognise it as a
parameter we have to exploit for our own purposes, not defeat.
Roger
>
2353
Roger Stanyard
Re: creationist schedules
20/08/2006 22:26:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
>
> Well, we had the Mackay tour up here at St Andrews Uni - it would
have been
> good to get along to that.
>
> I have a contact who can get some info from the Evangelical
Alliance about
> any upcoming visiting preachers doing the tour circuit: I'll see if
I can
> narrow the scope a little to make it a bit more useful, as many of
them are
> not a problem from a creationist pov.
>
> If we have another visiting (or home grown) fundie doing the rounds
of
> schools/churches, I'll make myself available to visit/report on
their
> northern legs!
>
> Ian.
>
If you want to do a welcoming committe job, count me in. It's a long
haul for me up to Scotland but I'll do it.
Roger
>
2354
oeditor
Re: London Meeting With Science Just Science
20/08/2006 22:54:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@> wrote:
> > >
> > > We have a bit of an advantage over the position that
> > > American creationists have because the UK is much more of a
> > >centralised > society - a quarter of the population of the UK live
> > >within London and > the towns in its orbit.
> > >
> > More's the pity. It could equally well be argued that the UK's ills
> > stem from exactly that geographical phenomenon.
>
> Couldn't agree with you more but what has this got to do with
> developing an anti-creationist movement?
I knew I should have added an "off topic" tag :-(
But since you ask, you were saying that centralisation is part of the
solution. I say that it's part of the problem.
>
> We are not in the business of trying to make the UK more de-
> centralised. We are in the business of using the system to get our
own > way. If it's over-centralised, recognise it and recognise it as
a > parameter we have to exploit for our own purposes, not defeat.
>
I don't feel in the slightest bit defeated, just annoyed that the
London tail tends to wag the English dog. Let alone the Corgies and
Scotties. If, as you reckon, the cretinists are infesting the
peripheries, perhaps peripheral denizens might have something to
contribute to the battle.
Brian
who's looking forward to hunkering down in his clogs as the nights
draw in.
2355
oeditor
"The English are Best"
20/08/2006 23:21:00
The latest, trivial, argument between Roger and me, about the
consequences of a centralised England/Britain/UK reminds me of the old
Flanders & Swann song about "The English are Best". In one of the
verses, they castigate - I think - the Scots and the Welsh,
complaining "They haven't got bishops to show them the way."
It might seem way off-topic but we've just seen the secular_newsline
group torn apart over very little at all. Much ado about nothing. The
forces of "god" however, are very well organised, with bishops and
more. They can afford to take time from fighting among themselves to
ward off invaders. Secularists, on the other hand, are - by definition
- too individualistic to form a solid group, let alone do as they're
told. Stands to reason, after all - we aim for freedom, not a theocracy.
I think I've seen this problem mentioned in the arena of more
conventional politics. About which I'm clueless.
Would anyone like to offer any constructive suggestions how we can
stop squabbling over details, without accepting somebody as a supremo?
Brian
who has a nasty feeling that this question first cropped up with the
French Revolution and hasn't been solved since. Do we have to elect an
Antipope?
2356
Lenny Flank
Re: "The English are Best"
20/08/2006 23:46:00
>
> Would anyone like to offer any constructive suggestions how we can
> stop squabbling over details, without accepting somebody as a supremo?
>
Keep your eyes on the prize. Anything that helps keep creationists
out of schools, is useful. Anything that doesn't, isn't.
Anyone who wants creationism in the schools, is your enemy. Anyone
who doesn't --- ANYONE -- is your friend.
Fight with your enemies. Not with your friends.
===================================
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
2357
oeditor
Re: "The English are Best"
21/08/2006 00:39:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
>
> Keep your eyes on the prize. Anything that helps keep creationists
> out of schools, is useful. Anything that doesn't, isn't.
>
> Anyone who wants creationism in the schools, is your enemy. Anyone
> who doesn't --- ANYONE -- is your friend.
>
> Fight with your enemies. Not with your friends.
OK. Since it's not a fight, but a distraction, I'll move any sniping
off-list. But I wish they... <grin>
Brian
2358
Roger Stanyard
Re: "The English are Best"
21/08/2006 08:57:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> The latest, trivial, argument between Roger and me, about the
> consequences of a centralised England/Britain/UK reminds me of the
old
> Flanders & Swann song about "The English are Best". In one of the
> verses, they castigate - I think - the Scots and the Welsh,
> complaining "They haven't got bishops to show them the way."
>
> It might seem way off-topic but we've just seen the secular_newsline
> group torn apart over very little at all.
Methinks in a sense the issue is on topic. It's banter between
friends and helps getting ideas and issues yogether. In a sense
decentralisation has let us off the hook on Scotland (until the
fundies weasel they way in there as well - they'll try).
My thinking on how we exploit the situation is that the national
press and (too much of) television is centralised in London. That
means it is relayively easy to meet with journalists. If you meet
say, Lunchtime O'Booze at opening time, you have time to get down the
road the meet Phil Space for another "discussion". They are easy to
get round.
Likewise, if we get something in one of their rags, we get near
national coverage; to get that with regional newspapers takes a
massive amount of time and effort.
Basically, for PR purposes the buggers are all in the same place. The
only slight problem is that BSkyB is well out of central London but
even then it has a news operation in the QE2 centre in Westminster.
Much ado about nothing. The
> forces of "god" however, are very well organised, with bishops and
> more. They can afford to take time from fighting among themselves to
> ward off invaders. Secularists, on the other hand, are - by
definition
> - too individualistic to form a solid group, let alone do as they're
> told. Stands to reason, after all - we aim for freedom, not a
theocracy.
I was in the NSS newsline before it closed. It seemed to me that the
problem was that the people in it we fighting with several agendas.
Atheism as well as secularism with feminism thrown in at the same
time. There was an aweful lot of what I can only describe as anti-
Islamic talk as well.
>
> I think I've seen this problem mentioned in the arena of more
> conventional politics. About which I'm clueless.
>
> Would anyone like to offer any constructive suggestions how we can
> stop squabbling over details, without accepting somebody as a
supremo?
That is, methinks, going to sort itself out.
From what I have seen of other groups, they take time to bed down as
people get to know each other. It takes a bit of pushing to get the
act together but in the early stages, I think a lot of aggression is
caused by the fact it is stranger talking to stranger. We all in this
group have robust opinions - we wouldn't be here otherwise - and, to
put it bluntly, it isn't helped by the fact that people here are all
bright and thus have very different perspectives. The people in here
are not driven by complacancy or a desire to be one of the crowd.
> Brian
> who has a nasty feeling that this question first cropped up with the
> French Revolution and hasn't been solved since. Do we have to elect
an
> Antipope?
LOL but count me out on that one. The fundies probably think that we
are all Satan's agents anyway.
Alan is giving me some advice and it looks as if we are going to have
to have some kind of closed user group which the fundies can't spy
on. I don't assume that our only option is to make this group closed
(which I don't like doing). So that matter is now (just) in hand.
2359
Roger Stanyard
Re: "The English are Best"
21/08/2006 09:04:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Keep your eyes on the prize. Anything that helps keep creationists
> > out of schools, is useful. Anything that doesn't, isn't.
> >
> > Anyone who wants creationism in the schools, is your enemy. Anyone
> > who doesn't --- ANYONE -- is your friend.
> >
> > Fight with your enemies. Not with your friends.
>
> OK. Since it's not a fight, but a distraction, I'll move any sniping
> off-list. But I wish they... <grin>
>
> Brian
>
Maybe Brian but it is good banter even though, rightly, I guess most of
us feel strongly about political decentralisation. London is over-
bearing.
Lenny runs a very effective ship with his Yahoo group and allows plenty
of OT stuff. He is very clear though that there is no religion on it -
either for or against. Methinks likewise with this group with the
addition that there is no f****** and blinding between members. I have
only deleted one post because of that. For two reasons. I can't handle
people who behave like that (and neither can anyone else in the group)
and it is extremly damaging to the group.
Roger
2360
George Jelliss
Re: creationist schedules
21/08/2006 11:38:00
ALERT - Ken Ham is back in Leicester 1st September speaking at the
students union building on Leicester University campus:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/details.aspx?Event_ID=5293
I've only just noticed this, and alerted Leicester Secular Society
members. I hope we can organise something better than last time.
2361
Roger Stanyard
Re: creationist schedules
21/08/2006 14:00:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "George Jelliss" <gpjnow@...> wrote:
>
> ALERT - Ken Ham is back in Leicester 1st September speaking at the
> students union building on Leicester University campus:
>
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/details.aspx?Event_ID=5293
>
> I've only just noticed this, and alerted Leicester Secular Society
> members. I hope we can organise something better than last time.
>
George count me in on a welcoming committee for him. Leicester isn't
too far away.
Keep me informed. I can help in getting out some very cheap and
chearful handouts this week. It's too late to get them done at a
printers.
It's best if we handle this off site. Message to all, email me if you
want to be in any any discussion with George.
Roger
2362
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: creationist schedules
21/08/2006 14:03:00
Too far away for me, but remember there is very good material about Ham on
Lenny's site.
2363
Phil
Re: London Meeting With Science Just Science
21/08/2006 16:26:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> An apple logo is a good idea.
>
Just uploaded a good apple logo to the Photos/Miscellaneous section
with tongue firmly in cheek...
2364
John Germain
RE: Re: London Meeting With Science Just Science
21/08/2006 18:41:00
How about the Apple Corp. apple with a distant relative of mankind beside it?
Or even Bubbles?
Nah, too tacky....
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Phil
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 4:27 PM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: London Meeting With Science Just Science
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> An apple logo is a good idea.
>
Just uploaded a good apple logo to the Photos/Miscellaneous section
with tongue firmly in cheek...
Yahoo! Groups Links
2365
Roger Stanyard
Re: London Meeting With Science Just Science
21/08/2006 18:55:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" <wankle_rotary_pyjamas@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@>
> wrote:
> >
> > An apple logo is a good idea.
> >
>
> Just uploaded a good apple logo to the Photos/Miscellaneous section
> with tongue firmly in cheek...
Very witty Phil!
2366
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: London Meeting With Science Just Science
21/08/2006 21:06:00
On 20/08/06, oeditor <b-jordan@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@> wrote:
> > >
> > > An apple logo is a good idea.
> > >
>
> OTOH, what about a Darwinfish? I can't imagine that there would be
> copyright problems.
> How about a Darwinfish crushing a car?
Been gone for a bit I realise... Projects which might be of value later.
Re: Logo.
I like the apple. Darwinfish is a bit overdone in evolution circles,
I believe - although I like it a fair amount. (I was thinking of
using something along those lines for myself at one point - except
with a biohazard sign in the belly to signify the retroelement-engine
which drives much of evolutionary development.) I would also consider
the dragonfly - a benevolent predator with the ability to see in
(nearly) all directions - no blind spots, integrated vision
representing the unity of empirical, scientific knowledge.
Then again, the new archetypal symbol for evolution is that recent
find in Northern Canada, the fish-tetrapod titaalik roeae - our
ancestor emerging from the the ocean - the womb of life, the emergence
of which might be symbolic of the process of attaining knowledge.
Incidently, this is your real Darwinfish. Another possibility would
be a tree - representing both knowledge and the branching of the tree
of life. This could be combined with the apple.
Whatever you do, it would also be possible to do it in a stylized
manner, perhaps as a mosaic - representing the mosaic nature of the
major transitions. Along the lines of mosaics, Penrose tiles come to
mind: five-fold symmetry representing the five digits of extant
tetrapods and their five major limbs (like in the Da Vinci golden mean
representation of man - and assuming you count the neck with that
bulbous thing at the end). Moreover, the infinite variation of
Penrose tiles could represent the infinite variation of life and the
discovery process which is a major component of the process of
evolution itself.
Just a few ideas off the top of my head. Not pushing for anything in
particular.
2367
George Jelliss
Re: creationist schedules
22/08/2006 10:08:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "George Jelliss" <gpjnow@>
wrote:
> >
> > ALERT - Ken Ham is back in Leicester 1st September speaking at
the
> > students union building on Leicester University campus:
> >
> > http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/details.aspx?Event_ID=5293
> >
> > I've only just noticed this, and alerted Leicester Secular
Society
> > members. I hope we can organise something better than last time.
> >
>
> George count me in on a welcoming committee for him. Leicester
isn't
> too far away.
>
> Keep me informed. I can help in getting out some very cheap and
> chearful handouts this week. It's too late to get them done at a
> printers.
>
> It's best if we handle this off site. Message to all, email me if
you
> want to be in any any discussion with George.
>
> Roger
>
Leicester is a long way from Winchester!
I've started to print out some simple A4 card hand-held posters that
pickets could show. They tend to cast ridicule on creationist ideas.
The first was pinched from you I think. The wordings I have so far
are:
Universities are for Teaching not Preaching
Ken Ham [__] Prophet of Ignorance
Ken Ham [__] Myth-Spreader General
Grow Up! Noah's Ark [__] is a Children's Fairy Tale
Galaxies really are [__] Millions of Years Old
Only Fred Flintstone [__] lived with the Dinosaurs!
Where [__] indicates space to paste in an illustration.
Any other or better ideas?
Other LSS members will be involved but some (well, one) worry about
giving Ken Ham extra publicity.
2368
Roger Stanyard
Catholics Rethink ID and Creationism
22/08/2006 10:18:00
See http://www.beliefnet.com/story/198/story_19838_1.html
It looks as if the Catholic Church may be shifting towards
creationism/ID.
Methinks a big problem is emerging for the anti-creationist movement
in the UK. If the Roman Catholics decided that either creationism or
ID are the basis of Catholic teaching in science, then the door is
wide open to teaching such nonsense in Catholic state-funded schools
in the UK. There are a lot of them. IIRC there are about 250 plus
Catholic state-funded secondary schools (for those over the age of
11).
So far we (the anticreationist movent including SJS) have been
basically "neutral" on mainstream religion. But when
Catholic "fundamentalists" get control of hundreds of schools, we
have a real big problem to address. Methinks the problem may no
longer one of saying we oppose the teaching of creationism as (or
within) science.
That attitude may quickly become an example of "too little, too late"
in terms of what "should" be done to stop creationism in schools.
I dunno the answer to this. It's time to start thinking deeply about
it, though.
My worry is that we will, of neccessity, be pushed into a corner of
arguing in favour of secularisation of schools. In that case the
battle will between religion and science. I don't like that prospect
at all. It means we lose our biggest allies to the enemy (mainstream
religion) and will be faced with a truely frightening prospect of
fighting on several fronts.
Sadly, the problem has been there for a long time with some Muslims
fighting hard for creationism in schools. I don't think the anti-
creationist movement in the UK has even begun to consider that
problem.
Dor the Americans amongst us, a very large number of state-financed
schools in the UK are Catholic (just as an even bigger numer - a
third - are Anglican). teaching of religion in schools is compulsory
as are daily religious services (although that is frequently
breached).
(There is a creationist Catholic organisation in the UK, the Daylight
Origins Society - see
http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/daylight/daylight.html -
although, as far as I can make out, it isn't very active. I could be
wrong, though. It doesn't appear to cooperate at all with mainstream
creationist groups.)
I've cross-posted this message to Science Just Science.
Comments welcome.
Roger
2369
Roger Stanyard
Re: creationist schedules
22/08/2006 10:46:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "George Jelliss" <gpjnow@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "George Jelliss" <gpjnow@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > ALERT - Ken Ham is back in Leicester 1st September speaking at
> the
> > > students union building on Leicester University campus:
> > >
> > > http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/details.aspx?
Event_ID=5293
> > >
> > > I've only just noticed this, and alerted Leicester Secular
> Society
> > > members. I hope we can organise something better than last time.
> > >
> >
> > George count me in on a welcoming committee for him. Leicester
> isn't
> > too far away.
> >
> > Keep me informed. I can help in getting out some very cheap and
> > chearful handouts this week. It's too late to get them done at a
> > printers.
> >
> > It's best if we handle this off site. Message to all, email me if
> you
> > want to be in any any discussion with George.
> >
> > Roger
> >
>
>
> Leicester is a long way from Winchester!
>
Not so bad George. It's about two hours and five minutes if there are
no jams on the M1. I've done here to Castle Donnington (I dunno, 20
miles further) dozens of times.
Roger
2370
oeditor
Re: Catholics Rethink ID and Creationism
22/08/2006 11:41:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> See http://www.beliefnet.com/story/198/story_19838_1.html
>
> It looks as if the Catholic Church may be shifting towards
> creationism/ID.
>
The trouble is, Roger, if you scratch a Christian you'll find a
creationist. I know the mainstream Christian authorities (up to now)
have accepted that the OT is allegorical but I bet not many of the
congregation have heard them preach that. Look at the fuss when the
occasional CofE bishop did anything like that in the '60s and '70s. So
it's not surprising that sooner or later a little Hitler Youth grows
up and repudiates it.
> Methinks a big problem is emerging for the anti-creationist movement
> in the UK. If the Roman Catholics decided that either creationism or
> ID are the basis of Catholic teaching in science, then the door is
> wide open to teaching such nonsense in Catholic state-funded schools
> in the UK.
Thereby denying pupils a proper science education. Perhaps employers
should test candidates on their scientific knowledge. If they don't
know/admit the real age of the earth, they're not qualified for a
scientific job. Like teaching science?
> There are a lot of them. IIRC there are about 250 plus
> Catholic state-funded secondary schools (for those over the age of
> 11).
>
> So far we (the anticreationist movent including SJS) have been
> basically "neutral" on mainstream religion. But when
> Catholic "fundamentalists" get control of hundreds of schools, we
> have a real big problem to address. Methinks the problem may no
> longer one of saying we oppose the teaching of creationism as (or
> within) science.
>
> My worry is that we will, of neccessity, be pushed into a corner of
> arguing in favour of secularisation of schools. In that case the
> battle will between religion and science. I don't like that prospect
> at all.
That's what it's all about, Roger. Whatever apologists might say,
science and religion are incompatible if either is done properly.
Brian
2371
oeditor
Re: Catholics Rethink ID and Creationism
22/08/2006 11:45:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> (There is a creationist Catholic organisation in the UK, the Daylight
> Origins Society - see
> http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/daylight/daylight.html
The arrogance of these people is astonishing:
"Patrons: The Immaculate Conception, St Michael, St Bonaventure, St
Thomas Aquinas"
If I were a saint, I'd be getting ready to do some serious face-smacking!
Brian
2372
Ian Lowe
RE: Catholics Rethink ID and Creationism
22/08/2006 11:07:00
Oh dear - that is *not* good.
I guess we now need to see if Funes has a spine - doubtful, as he has been
appointed by Ratzinger.
I understand that there has been something of a Pentecostal movement
appearing in the catholic church recently, but this remains isolated because
as much as the protestant fundies hate everyone else, they hate the
catholics even more...
I won't comment on the general secularism as against anti-creationism
debate, as I guess my position is fairly clear. Hopefully, it won't come to
that - the CoE is still the "established" church, and has a vast number more
schools under it's sway than the RC Church.
Scotland, on the other hand... well, we'll have to have a serious look at
this. It depends on whether the Council of Bishops shows some backbone -
they don't always toe the line as it were.
Still, not the best thing to read first thing.
Ian.
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Roger Stanyard
Sent: 22 August 2006 10:18
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Catholics Rethink ID and Creationism
See http://www.beliefnet.com/story/198/story_19838_1.html
It looks as if the Catholic Church may be shifting towards
creationism/ID.
Methinks a big problem is emerging for the anti-creationist movement
in the UK. If the Roman Catholics decided that either creationism or
ID are the basis of Catholic teaching in science, then the door is
wide open to teaching such nonsense in Catholic state-funded schools
in the UK. There are a lot of them. IIRC there are about 250 plus
Catholic state-funded secondary schools (for those over the age of
11).
So far we (the anticreationist movent including SJS) have been
basically "neutral" on mainstream religion. But when
Catholic "fundamentalists" get control of hundreds of schools, we
have a real big problem to address. Methinks the problem may no
longer one of saying we oppose the teaching of creationism as (or
within) science.
That attitude may quickly become an example of "too little, too late"
in terms of what "should" be done to stop creationism in schools.
I dunno the answer to this. It's time to start thinking deeply about
it, though.
My worry is that we will, of neccessity, be pushed into a corner of
arguing in favour of secularisation of schools. In that case the
battle will between religion and science. I don't like that prospect
at all. It means we lose our biggest allies to the enemy (mainstream
religion) and will be faced with a truely frightening prospect of
fighting on several fronts.
Sadly, the problem has been there for a long time with some Muslims
fighting hard for creationism in schools. I don't think the anti-
creationist movement in the UK has even begun to consider that
problem.
Dor the Americans amongst us, a very large number of state-financed
schools in the UK are Catholic (just as an even bigger numer - a
third - are Anglican). teaching of religion in schools is compulsory
as are daily religious services (although that is frequently
breached).
(There is a creationist Catholic organisation in the UK, the Daylight
Origins Society - see
http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/daylight/daylight.html -
although, as far as I can make out, it isn't very active. I could be
wrong, though. It doesn't appear to cooperate at all with mainstream
creationist groups.)
I've cross-posted this message to Science Just Science.
Comments welcome.
Roger
Yahoo! Groups Links
2373
Roger Stanyard
Re: Catholics Rethink ID and Creationism
22/08/2006 14:32:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@> wrote:
> >
> > See http://www.beliefnet.com/story/198/story_19838_1.html
> >
> > It looks as if the Catholic Church may be shifting towards
> > creationism/ID.
> >
> The trouble is, Roger, if you scratch a Christian you'll find a
> creationist. I know the mainstream Christian authorities (up to now)
> have accepted that the OT is allegorical but I bet not many of the
> congregation have heard them preach that. Look at the fuss when the
> occasional CofE bishop did anything like that in the '60s and '70s.
So
> it's not surprising that sooner or later a little Hitler Youth grows
> up and repudiates it.
>
This is Off-topic (but as you are one of the good guys and it is
banter........) and, moreover, I disgree with it strongly. My own
opinion, for what it is worth and I have discussed it with Peter
Henderson over at SJS, is that the fundies are a serious threat to
Christianity. It's not so much that science is incompatible with
religion as fundamentalism is incompatible with religious belief.
Fundamentalism is zealotry (anyone know how to spell that properly)
and most people are not naturally zealots. Ian has robust opinions
but is clearly a bloke who has seriously been put off by his first
hand experience of zealotry.
No do I accept Ian's view that religion is like an onion with a hard
inner core and layers of reducing fundamentalism the further one gets
from the centre. This was the model of Republicanism that Gerry Adams
used to argue and Gerry Adams failed. He just didn't get it that the
outer bits of the onion were not there when it came to the crunch.
It seems to me that the whole set up is a lot more messy than that (a
bit like biology or geology). Maybe a series of overlaping Venn
diagrams would be a more appropriate (but crude) model.
If anyone has forgotten, I'm not at all religious. If it wasn't for
the fundies (and Islamic zealots) it would be something that doesn't
bother me much or interest me in the slightest.
My own experience of and attitude towards religion is not typical. I
saw it at its worst with a family member who is a devote believer and
autistic (Asperger's Syndrome) at the same time. That was religion in
very dangerous hands, indeed, and monsterous and frightening to
behold. In others I have found it benign.
> > Methinks a big problem is emerging for the anti-creationist
movement
> > in the UK. If the Roman Catholics decided that either creationism
or
> > ID are the basis of Catholic teaching in science, then the door
is
> > wide open to teaching such nonsense in Catholic state-funded
schools
> > in the UK.
> Thereby denying pupils a proper science education. Perhaps employers
> should test candidates on their scientific knowledge. If they don't
> know/admit the real age of the earth, they're not qualified for a
> scientific job. Like teaching science?
How? Stephen Layfield taught science in a Catholic school before
Vardy took him on as head of science at Emmanuel College.
Methinks that business will turn against creationist "scientists" as
soon as it affects their profits but my guess is that business
already filters out the nutters anyway. How many nutter geologists
does the oil industry employ? Where are they in the pharmaceuticals
or bio-technology sectors? Or the commercial laboratories?
Virtually all of the leader nutters in the UK I have listed do not
work or never have worked in the private sector - they are/have been
teachers or are/have been in the universities. A few are associated
with the public sector NHS. I can think, offhand, of only two that
have worked in the commercial sector - Bill Worraker and Paul Garner.
IIRC only one of the signatories to the DI list of "dissenters" works
in the commercial sector and he failed to respond to my email asking
him whether he believed in Intelligent Design.
I don't know why but perhaps it is because nutters and crackpots
don't fit in the more competitive/ruthless world of business or
because they believe that they have a God given right to change
peoples' minds and education is the best entrance to proselytising.
> > There are a lot of them. IIRC there are about 250 plus
> > Catholic state-funded secondary schools (for those over the age
of
> > 11).
> >
> > So far we (the anticreationist movent including SJS) have been
> > basically "neutral" on mainstream religion. But when
> > Catholic "fundamentalists" get control of hundreds of schools, we
> > have a real big problem to address. Methinks the problem may no
> > longer one of saying we oppose the teaching of creationism as (or
> > within) science.
> >
> > My worry is that we will, of neccessity, be pushed into a corner
of
> > arguing in favour of secularisation of schools. In that case the
> > battle will between religion and science. I don't like that
prospect
> > at all.
>
> That's what it's all about, Roger. Whatever apologists might say,
> science and religion are incompatible if either is done properly.
That we differ on. I held this opinion until about 5 months ago but I
changed my mind based on the simple evidence that many scientists
believe otherwise. They support both. And, in most cases, they know
more about both than I do.
Roger
PS; this is banter between pals. We really should shut up about
religion. It's bad PR!
2374
Roger Stanyard
Re: Catholics Rethink ID and Creationism
22/08/2006 14:41:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
>
> Oh dear - that is *not* good.
>
> I guess we now need to see if Funes has a spine - doubtful, as he has
been
> appointed by Ratzinger.
>
> I understand that there has been something of a Pentecostal movement
> appearing in the catholic church recently, but this remains isolated
because
> as much as the protestant fundies hate everyone else, they hate the
> catholics even more...
LOL!!! Too true about that, Ian. I wish I could have put it that way
myself.
2375
Roger Stanyard
Re: Catholics Rethink ID and Creationism
22/08/2006 14:37:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@> wrote:
> >
> > (There is a creationist Catholic organisation in the UK, the
Daylight
> > Origins Society - see
> > http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/daylight/daylight.html
>
> The arrogance of these people is astonishing:
> "Patrons: The Immaculate Conception, St Michael, St Bonaventure, St
> Thomas Aquinas"
>
> If I were a saint, I'd be getting ready to do some serious face-
smacking!
>
Maybe, but fundies hate Catholics. At worst our enemy's enemy is our
friend! Said Catholic creationist organisation looks to be pretty
moribund anyone. Remember ths is a war and anyone who is against
fundy opinions on science is an ally. Methinks what we need onside
and in the group are a few Jesuits.
Roger
2376
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: Catholics Rethink ID and Creationism
22/08/2006 15:42:00
> PS; this is banter between pals. We really should shut up about
religion. It's bad PR!
Yes please.
Just as a nasty venomous rant about religion by me would alienate some
people, I find myself repulsed by descriptions of religion as essentially
harmless.
It's the wrong forum - this sort of discussion could happen quite amicably
in the pub with people putting their points across in a good natured way.
Email isn't like that - It's an emotionless medium that lends itself too
well to taking offence and being upset.
Ian.
2377
oeditor
Re: Catholics Rethink ID and Creationism
22/08/2006 19:50:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
> This is Off-topic
Sorry Roger, I still haven't got used to this group not being the
livelier brother of secular_newsline.
>(but as you are one of the good guys
<grin, wicked>
> fundies are a serious threat to Christianity. It's not so much that
>science is incompatible with religion as fundamentalism is
>incompatible with religious belief.
Me, I say nothing. <grin, even more wicked>
> Fundamentalism is zealotry (anyone know how to spell that properly)
My OED says that *you* do!
> > Thereby denying pupils a proper science education. Perhaps employers
> > should test candidates on their scientific knowledge. If they
>>don't > know/admit the real age of the earth, they're not qualified
>>for a> > scientific job. Like teaching science?
>
> How? Stephen Layfield taught science in a Catholic school before
> Vardy took him on as head of science at Emmanuel College.
Sorry, just wishful thinking. It rather looks, though, as if the RC's
didnt exactly frown on creationism even back then.
> Methinks that business will turn against creationist "scientists" as
> soon as it affects their profits but my guess is that business
> already filters out the nutters anyway. How many nutter geologists
> does the oil industry employ? Where are they in the pharmaceuticals
> or bio-technology sectors? Or the commercial laboratories?
>
> Virtually all of the leader nutters in the UK I have listed do not
> work or never have worked in the private sector - they are/have been
> teachers or are/have been in the universities.
An interesting speculation. Is there a genuine correlation, or do the
professors flaunt their status to gain kudos for the creationsist?
STOP! WIND BACK! The ones in the commercial sector use their millions
to fund the fundies - more productive to earn and let someone else
preach. Or to buy cut-price schools.
> A few are associated > with the public sector NHS.
I'm interested - that's my territory. Can you expand on that please?
Applying religious dogma to medicine is extremely dangerous. Do their
insurers know?
> I don't know why but perhaps it is because nutters and crackpots
> don't fit in the more competitive/ruthless world of business or
> because they believe that they have a God given right to change
> peoples' minds and education is the best entrance to proselytising.
I wonder. Do they just keep their heads down, and if so why? I only
worked in industry for a short while and only came across a couple of
religious people there. Most people were robustly indifferent to
religion but never went beyond gentle mocking of the one who was an
idiot anyway and were quite protective of the really sad chap who was
absorbed by it.
> PS; this is banter between pals. We really should shut up about
> religion. It's bad PR!
Er... I thought this thread was about the RC church generating its own
bad PR. ( I won't mention the medical expansion of that acronym, btw ;-)
(Bantering) Brian
2378
George Jelliss
Re: creationist schedules
23/08/2006 10:44:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...>
wrote:
> >
> > Leicester is a long way from Winchester!
> >
>
> Not so bad George. It's about two hours and five minutes if there
are
> no jams on the M1. I've done here to Castle Donnington (I dunno,
20
> miles further) dozens of times.
>
> Roger
>
I notice that Ken Ham is going on to Oxford the next day (2nd
September) to speak at Cheneys School, Headington. Do we have anyone
in Oxford to keep an eye on him?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/details.aspx?Event_ID=5294
Who is he speaking to at the school, just evangelicals? Presumably
the pupils are still on holiday.
2379
Roger Stanyard
Re: creationist schedules
23/08/2006 16:56:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "George Jelliss" <gpjnow@...> wrote:
>
> >
> I notice that Ken Ham is going on to Oxford the next day (2nd
> September) to speak at Cheneys School, Headington. Do we have anyone
> in Oxford to keep an eye on him?
>
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/details.aspx?Event_ID=5294
>
> Who is he speaking to at the school, just evangelicals? Presumably
> the pupils are still on holiday.
>
I don't know if we have anyone in Oxford. Headington, btw, is way out
from the centre of Oxford.
2380
Marc Draco
Re: Re: creationist schedules
23/08/2006 19:58:00
Ya know. I think we need to do webcasts. All this discussion is fine and
nice but Ham is out there spreading the bullshit thicker than clotted
cream on a Devonshire scone.
Webcasts are cheap and easy to do: get them on YouTube and people will
see them.
Make enough fun of Ham and pretty soon that's all he (and his ideas)
will be. My musical is about 20% done but it's on hold while I help a
friend out... friends in need and all.
Write some comedic sketches - base one on the Aristocrats gag for
instance - film them on 8mm digital tape/dvd and you got yourself a
product. They only need to be 30-120 seconds in length to hold people's
attention long enough to deliver a short message.
Need inspiration? Look at sucessful ad campaigns done on the cheap like
the Apple/Intel PC ones that Apple did recently.
Sorry this is short. I am just about out of energy right now = school is
out and I have three hormonal girls at home (plus a baby!).
George Jelliss wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
> <BlackShadow%40yahoogroups.com>, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
> <BlackShadow%40yahoogroups.com>, "George Jelliss" <gpjnow@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > ALERT - Ken Ham is back in Leicester 1st September speaking at
> the
> > > students union building on Leicester University campus:
> > >
> > > http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/details.aspx?Event_ID=5293
> <http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/details.aspx?Event_ID=5293>
> > >
> > > I've only just noticed this, and alerted Leicester Secular
> Society
> > > members. I hope we can organise something better than last time.
> > >
> >
> > George count me in on a welcoming committee for him. Leicester
> isn't
> > too far away.
> >
> > Keep me informed. I can help in getting out some very cheap and
> > chearful handouts this week. It's too late to get them done at a
> > printers.
> >
> > It's best if we handle this off site. Message to all, email me if
> you
> > want to be in any any discussion with George.
> >
> > Roger
> >
>
> Leicester is a long way from Winchester!
>
> I've started to print out some simple A4 card hand-held posters that
> pickets could show. They tend to cast ridicule on creationist ideas.
> The first was pinched from you I think. The wordings I have so far
> are:
>
> Universities are for Teaching not Preaching
>
> Ken Ham [__] Prophet of Ignorance
>
> Ken Ham [__] Myth-Spreader General
>
> Grow Up! Noah's Ark [__] is a Children's Fairy Tale
>
> Galaxies really are [__] Millions of Years Old
>
> Only Fred Flintstone [__] lived with the Dinosaurs!
>
> Where [__] indicates space to paste in an illustration.
>
> Any other or better ideas?
>
> Other LSS members will be involved but some (well, one) worry about
> giving Ken Ham extra publicity.
>
>
2381
Roger Stanyard
Re: creationist schedules
24/08/2006 00:25:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
wrote:
>
> Ya know. I think we need to do webcasts. All this discussion is fine
and
> nice but Ham is out there spreading the bullshit thicker than clotted
> cream on a Devonshire scone.
Yep, looked at it last year and it's a great idea. Who pays?
2382
Nick & Moira Cowan
Newton was a Fundie!
24/08/2006 02:41:00
So, no rapture yet. It's good to be back in the UK
after Ryanair stranded us in Italy - don't you just
hate those Muslim fundies! It's taken me a few days to
catch up with all the latest BS posts, but I've
recovered from the repeated falls from my chair and
the strain from prolonged laughter. Only 10 days more
holiday to prepare for next school year's science
indoctrination - sorry, teaching. A new GCSE syllabus
too, with plenty of scopes(sic) for controversy! Good
that our exam. board (AQA) has already proposed a
relevant Scheme of work:
www.aqa.org.uk/qual/pdf/AQA-4461-4462-4421-EX2-W-SW.PDF
(see page 14 of 16. They seem to think that there are
still creationists around - must tell the kids!)
Nearer the time I'll let you know the exact date of
John Mackay's visit, so that your "rent-a-mob" can
prepare themselves. (snicker) (giggle)
By the way, the head teacher here at Blue Coat is Mr
TitterSHILL - hope this is a useful piece of info.
Love the idea of the apple logo - there's a strong
Liverpool link there, and the Apple Corporation's
litigious reputation is ill-deserved. Go ahead! As for
old Isaac, he wrote more about the Bible than he ever
did about Maths & Physics - in fact, more about a
single book: Daniel, which he treated as literally as
the next fundie in trying to interpret its
eschatological significance. I would suggest a better
role model for you (keeping the apple logo) is Rene
Magritte - his pictures make more sense than most of
the surreal nons(ci)ence in this forum!
Regards, "Old Nick" (55 last week)
PS. If you don't understand Eschatology it's not the
end of the world.
___________________________________________________________
All New Yahoo! Mail – Tired of Vi@gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you.
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
2383
Mikey Brass
Re: Newton was a Fundie!
24/08/2006 08:00:00
Nick & Moira Cowan wrote:
> So, no rapture yet. It's good to be back in the UK
> after Ryanair stranded us in Italy - don't you just
> hate those Muslim fundies!
I dislike public stances and actions taken by *any* fundamentalist.
Now...about the Flood level?
2384
Roger Stanyard
Re: Newton was a Fundie!
24/08/2006 11:25:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Moira Cowan
<m_cowan32@...> wrote:
>
> So, no rapture yet. It's good to be back in the UK
> after Ryanair stranded us in Italy - don't you just
> hate those Muslim fundies! It's taken me a few days to
> catch up with all the latest BS posts, but I've
> recovered from the repeated falls from my chair and
> the strain from prolonged laughter. Only 10 days more
> holiday to prepare for next school year's science
> indoctrination - sorry, teaching. A new GCSE syllabus
> too, with plenty of scopes(sic) for controversy! Good
> that our exam. board (AQA) has already proposed a
> relevant Scheme of work:
So, you are going to teach these controversies in your chemistry
lessons then?
>
> www.aqa.org.uk/qual/pdf/AQA-4461-4462-4421-EX2-W-SW.PDF
> (see page 14 of 16. They seem to think that there are
> still creationists around - must tell the kids!)
>
> Nearer the time I'll let you know the exact date of
> John Mackay's visit, so that your "rent-a-mob" can
> prepare themselves. (snicker) (giggle)
The snicker giggle bit is just copying Lenny Flank's style.
>
> By the way, the head teacher here at Blue Coat is Mr
> TitterSHILL - hope this is a useful piece of info.
>
So, he is another fundamentalist, like yourself?
> Love the idea of the apple logo - there's a strong
> Liverpool link there, and the Apple Corporation's
> litigious reputation is ill-deserved. Go ahead! As for
> old Isaac, he wrote more about the Bible than he ever
> did about Maths & Physics - in fact, more about a
> single book: Daniel, which he treated as literally as
> the next fundie in trying to interpret its
> eschatological significance. I would suggest a better
> role model for you (keeping the apple logo) is Rene
> Magritte - his pictures make more sense than most of
> the surreal nons(ci)ence in this forum!
So show us your science - er, the scientific theory of creationism.
(Twiddles thumbs and waits forever.)
>
> Regards, "Old Nick" (55 last week)
Happy birthday.
>
> PS. If you don't understand Eschatology it's not the
> end of the world.
Well, clearly we are not all as well educated as you then Nick.
2385
Roger Stanyard
Re: Newton was a Fundie!
24/08/2006 11:39:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Moira Cowan
<m_cowan32@...> wrote:
>
>>
> www.aqa.org.uk/qual/pdf/AQA-4461-4462-4421-EX2-W-SW.PDF
> (see page 14 of 16. They seem to think that there are
> still creationists around - must tell the kids!)
>
Message to the rest of the group - top of page 14 appears to show tat
the fundies have sneaked ssomething in regarding Bishop Ussher. The
devil is in the detail - it claims that there was a split between
religion and science over the old age of the earth in the 19th
century.
Michael Roberts has done a lot of work on this and shown no such
split between the two caused by this. (IIRC his work is on the
website of the Diocese of Blackburn.) He shows that not a single
member of the clergy of the CofE dissented from the old age viewpoint
between 1855 and 1919. And most of them had accepted it, IIRC, before
1800.
The "split" in the USA appears to wholly be a product of the 20th
century as Lenny has explained in his article on the origins of
fundamentalism.
Lenny - would you like to comment on this. It's important to
establish that the comments on page 14 are invalid.
All comments welcome - looks like with have something to get our
teeth into.
Roger
2386
Roger Stanyard
Re: Newton was a Fundie!
24/08/2006 11:42:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Moira Cowan <m_cowan32@...>
wrote:
>
>>
> www.aqa.org.uk/qual/pdf/AQA-4461-4462-4421-EX2-W-SW.PDF
> (see page 14 of 16. They seem to think that there are
> still creationists around - must tell the kids!)
>
So, Nick, how does this open the door for teaching creationism in
chemistry lessons?
Or are you just talking b******t?
Why, if it does not open the door, was it put in there in the first
place?
2387
oeditor
Re: Newton was a Fundie!
24/08/2006 13:31:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Moira Cowan
> <m_cowan32@> wrote:
> >
> >>
> > www.aqa.org.uk/qual/pdf/AQA-4461-4462-4421-EX2-W-SW.PDF
> > (see page 14 of 16. They seem to think that there are
> > still creationists around - must tell the kids!)
> >
> Message to the rest of the group - top of page 14 appears to show that
> the fundies have sneaked ssomething in regarding Bishop Ussher.
This is not new, btw. Nick was boasting about it back in June (message
1041).
Brian
2388
Roger Stanyard
Re: Newton was a Fundie!
24/08/2006 14:40:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Nick & Moira Cowan
> > <m_cowan32@> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > > www.aqa.org.uk/qual/pdf/AQA-4461-4462-4421-EX2-W-SW.PDF
> > > (see page 14 of 16. They seem to think that there are
> > > still creationists around - must tell the kids!)
> > >
> > Message to the rest of the group - top of page 14 appears to show
that
> > the fundies have sneaked ssomething in regarding Bishop Ussher.
>
Your dead right and I missed it. The trouble with doing all this anti-
creationist stuff us that it involves a long learning curve. It's
only in the last couple of weeks that I have been addressing the NC
issues.
I thought that the new NC was only published late this month. Still,
I profess ignorance on the basis that I'm not a school teacher or in
education.
Roger
2389
oeditor
Re: Newton was a Fundie!
24/08/2006 15:58:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
> I thought that the new NC was only published late this month. Still,
> I profess ignorance on the basis that I'm not a school teacher or in
> education.
It's all very confusing. Nick's pdf is actually a sample course of
work for that particular AQA board. The NC itself is merely weak
rather than wrong (see my post 2319). I've tracked down the AQA
syllabus and extracted the evolution and geology sections. The latter
clearly requires Nick Cowan to teach old-Earth geology in his
chemistry classes.
I've posted this on SJS as well.
Brian
There's a fuller syllabus here.
http://www.aqa.org.uk/qual/pdf/AQA-4461-62...51-W-SP-REV.PDF
It looks as if the introductory pdf had things in the wrong places.
Evolution is discussed in Biology 1, p11 of the pdf.
"Changes in the environment of plants and animals may cause them to
die out.
Particular genes or accidental changes in the genes of plants or
animals may give them characteristics which enable them to survive
better. Over time this may result in entirely new species.
Candidates should use their skills, knowledge and
understanding of how science works:
• to suggest reasons why scientists cannot be certain about how life
began on Earth
• to interpret evidence relating to evolutionary theory
• to suggest reasons why DarwinÂ's theory of natural selection was
only gradually accepted
• to identify the differences between DarwinÂ's theory of evolution
and conflicting theories
• to suggest reasons for the different theories.
Their skills, knowledge and
understanding of how science
works should be set in these
substantive contexts:
• Fossils provide evidence of how much (or how little) different
organisms have changed since life developed on Earth.
• The theory of evolution states that all species of living things have
evolved from simple life-forms which first developed more than
three billion years ago.
• Studying the similarities and differences between species helps us
to understand evolutionary and ecological relationships.
• Extinction may be caused by:
âˆ' changes to the environment
âˆ' new predators
âˆ' new diseases
âˆ' new competitors.
• Evolution occurs via natural selection:
âˆ' individual organisms within a particular species may show a
wide range of variation because of differences in their genes
âˆ' individuals with characteristics most suited to the environment
are more likely to survive to breed successfully
âˆ' the genes which have enabled these individuals to survive are
then passed on to the next generation.
• Where new forms of a gene result from mutation there may be
more rapid change in a species."
The Geology section, however, DOES appear in the Chemistry 1 syllabus
and clearly requires the teaching of ancient Earth geology. p32 of the
pdf:
"What are the changes in the
Earth and its atmosphere?
The Earth and its atmosphere provide everything we need.
The Earth has a layered structure. Large-scale movements of the
EarthÂ's crust can
cause changes in the rocks. The EarthÂ's atmosphere was originally very
different
from what it is today. It has been much the same for the last 200
million years
and provides the conditions needed for life on Earth. Recently human
activities
have produced further changes.
Candidates should use
their skills, knowledge
and understanding of
how science works:
• to explain why the theory of crustal movement (continental drift)
was not generally accepted for many years after it was proposed
• to explain why scientists cannot accurately predict when
earthquakes and volcanic eruptions will occur
• to explain and evaluate theories of the changes that have occurred
and are occurring in the EarthÂ's atmosphere
• to explain and evaluate the effects of human activities on the
atmosphere.
Their skills, knowledge and
understanding of how science
works should be set in these
substantive contexts:
• The Earth consists of a core, mantle and crust.
• Scientists once thought that the features of the EarthÂ's surface
were the result of the shrinking of the crust as the Earth cooled
down following its formation.
• The EarthÂ's crust and the upper part of the mantle are cracked
into a number of large pieces (tectonic plates). Convection
currents within the EarthÂ's mantle, driven by heat released by
natural radioactive processes, cause the plates to move at relative
speeds of a few centimetres per year.
• The movements can be sudden and disastrous. Earthquakes
and/or volcanic eruptions occur at the boundaries between
tectonic plates.
• For 200 million years, the proportions of different gases in the
atmosphere have been much the same as they are today:
âˆ' about four-fifths (80%) nitrogen
âˆ' about one-fifth (20%) oxygen
âˆ' small proportions of various other gases, including carbon
dioxide, water vapour and noble gases.
• The noble gases are in Group 0 of the periodic table. They are all
chemically unreactive gases and are used in filament lamps and
electric discharge tubes. Helium is much less dense than air and is
used in balloons.
• During the first billion years of the EarthÂ's existence there was
intense volcanic activity. This activity released the gases that
formed the early atmosphere and water vapour that condensed to
form the oceans.
• Some theories suggest that during this period, the EarthÂ's
atmosphere was mainly carbon dioxide and there would have been
little or no oxygen gas (like the atmospheres of Mars and Venus
today). There may also have been water vapour and small
proportions of methane and ammonia.
• Plants produced the oxygen that is now in the atmosphere.
• Most of the carbon from the carbon dioxide in the air gradually
became locked up in sedimentary rocks as carbonates and fossil
fuels.
• Nowadays the release of carbon dioxide by burning fossil fuels
increases the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."
Phew!
2390
Roger Stanyard
Re: Newton was a Fundie!
24/08/2006 16:52:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> It's all very confusing. Nick's pdf is actually a sample course of
> work for that particular AQA board. The NC itself is merely weak
> rather than wrong (see my post 2319). I've tracked down the AQA
> syllabus and extracted the evolution and geology sections. The
latter
> clearly requires Nick Cowan to teach old-Earth geology in his
> chemistry classes.
> I've posted this on SJS as well.
>
It's very confusing. To make sure I have got this clear in my head,
Am I right that the NC is used by AQA to produce its syllabus which
is then put into a working shape by AQA with sample course work and
guidance for the teacher?
> Evolution is discussed in Biology 1, p11 of the pdf.
> • to identify the differences between DarwinÂ's theory of
evolution
> and conflicting theories
This looks very worrying. I may be wrong, but the only "serious"
alternative or conflicting theory is that of Lammarcism (spelling?).
Whilst in a highly modified and technical context some of that seems
to be accepted in modern evolutionary theory, it's about as out of
date as one can possibly get. It's getting on for two centuries out
of date.
Why should it then be taught in biology? It's a long-dead theory.
I just feel deeply uneasy about "conflicting theories". It seems to
open the door for fundie teachers to suggest ID or creationism but,
as we all known, there is no scientific theory of ID (or creationism).
My own view is that the fundie game is not to beat science but to
discredited by smear, innuendo or whatever. It's enough to bring
these alternatives up to cast the seeds of doubt without ever having
to say that the scientific theory of creationism doesn't exist.
It's a bit like Stuart Burgess who told school children in Northern
Ireland that they would go to hell if they believed in the theory of
evolution. It's smear, not science. Proselytising, not teaching.
> • to suggest reasons for the different theories.
Same comments. The AQA syllabus doesn't actual say what the
alternative theories are. It looks to be open.
2391
oeditor
Re: Newton was a Fundie!
24/08/2006 17:32:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> It's very confusing. To make sure I have got this clear in my head,
> Am I right that the NC is used by AQA to produce its syllabus which
> is then put into a working shape by AQA with sample course work and
> guidance for the teacher?
I imagine so. The NC is very vague about most things, evidently
leaving it to the exam boards to flesh it out. I would think that the
syllabus is mandatory and the examples just examples.
>
> > Evolution is discussed in Biology 1, p11 of the pdf.
> > • to identify the differences between Darwin�'s theory of
> evolution
> > and conflicting theories
>
> This looks very worrying. I may be wrong, but the only "serious"
> alternative or conflicting theory is that of Lammarcism (spelling?).
> Whilst in a highly modified and technical context some of that seems
> to be accepted in modern evolutionary theory, it's about as out of
> date as one can possibly get. It's getting on for two centuries out
> of date.
>
> Why should it then be taught in biology? It's a long-dead theory.
There's the rub. It's more likely that they mean creationism. However,
the rest of the syllabus is strongly evolutionary. Perhaps the
creationists persuaded them to leave a loophole. That's my view of the
NC itself.
> I just feel deeply uneasy about "conflicting theories". It seems to
> open the door for fundie teachers to suggest ID or creationism but,
> as we all known, there is no scientific theory of ID (or eationism).
I fear you're probably right. Chris Hyland on SJS it trying to get a
copy of the teachers' guide, which might throw more light on what they
mean.
However, behind everything is the categorical statement by Estelle
Morris (I think) that creationism mustn't be taught in science
lessons. If it turns out that the syllabus is introducing it then, as
Lenny says, there's a strong legal argument against it.
Brian
2392
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Newton was a Fundie!
24/08/2006 18:51:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> Message to the rest of the group - top of page 14 appears to show tat
> the fundies have sneaked ssomething in regarding Bishop Ussher.
I think that it, instead, is a poorly worded reference to Huxley's
"debate" with a certain bishop. The prominence of that "debate" has left
am impression of science trumping certain religious views around the
same time. This, of course, neglects the fact that a pre-4000 BC earth
had been accepted for decades already.
2393
ukantic
Humanists'' concern at academy proposals
24/08/2006 23:48:00
Humanists' concern at academy proposals
24 August 2006
I WRITE as a resident of Northumberland and a member of North East
Humanists.
Humanists are very concerned about the prospect of an academy and
especially one run by the Emmanuel Schools Foundation in Blyth.
Many of your correspondents have addressed the particular issues of
the schools likely to be affected by the establishment of an
academy; I would like to take up the specific points about the ESF.
Humanists believe that children should be educated together and not
necessarily according to the beliefs of their parents. Children
should be able to choose for themselves their own beliefs.
We have seen how separating children according to the religion of
their parents can make worse the problems of divided communities:
Northern Ireland for example.
The particular Christian ethos of schools run by the ESF is a very
narrow one and takes the stories in the bible in a very literal way.
The teaching on sexual matters as outlined in the prospectus for
Emmanuel College Gateshead conjures up a world which few of us would
recognise.
The following is from the school's website: "We believe that human
beings are created to a divine design. Therefore physical and sexual
information will be presented within a biblical moral framework
whereby self respect and respect for others are seen in chastity
outside of marriage and fidelity within it. Marriage is understood
to be a lifelong monogamous heterosexual partnership".
Although Ofsted reports are generally good, some comments in the
April 2006 reports are very telling: "…but it is true that some
teaching could aim more consciously to promote students' independent
thinking skills".
The website on the ESF also has some interesting views on how
science is taught within the schools. It attempts to address the
deserved criticism over creationist views and then states in dealing
with the interface between evolution and creationism: "This
interface is therefore also embraced, most within RE but, as
appropriate to the teaching of the reasons behind certain scientific
controversies, within Science also".
Could one conclude therefore that creationism figures in biology?
Surely the children of Blyth deserve better than this?
Part of the popularity for academies with local councils is the
sponsorship of part of the capital cost for a new building: usually
about ten per cent.
Public funds still have to meet the rest of the costs including the
ongoing costs of staff salaries etc. Yet according to a recent
report in a national newspaper, the Government has decided that
sponsors may no longer contribute to capital costs, but may donate
this sum to a charitable foundation. (Guardian, July 28).
So the worst case scenario is that the ESF get to run a school, we
pay for it in council tax and general taxes, the land is given over
to the foundation, the sponsor gets to run the school largely as he
pleases with his own governors and he gets to donate his own money
to his own charitable trust!
Some years ago Harold Macmillan criticised Mrs Thatcher's
privatisation programme with the words: "Selling the family silver".
At this rate with sponsors we are paying them to take away our
family silver of schools, buildings, land and above all our children.
CHRIS BUTTERWORTH
Wagtail Road
Rothbury
http://www.blyth-wansbecktoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?
SectionID=1857&ArticleID=1712376
http://tinyurl.com/glxfn
2394
ukantic
Whose head is ugly?
25/08/2006 00:11:00
Jonathan Wells and Lysenkoism
By Mark Perakh
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/ugly.cfm
This is a review of chapter 16 (titled "Lysenkoism in America")
