2901
Roger Stanyard
Re: Truth in Science
22/09/2006 17:47:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "jon_12091" <jon_12091@...> wrote:
>
> TIS launched their shiny new website a couple of days ago, in case
> anyone missed it (or dosen't browse Science, Just Science)....
>
> http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/
>
> Nothing new, just dragging out the same old tired creationist
schtick,
> but not exactly comforting that post-Dover they still think they
can
> get away with foisting it on the state education system.
Jeez, I take a different view. They have got their act together
seriously. They have gone through the National Cuuicululm and found
all the loop holes that allow creationism into science lessons.
Moreover, they have covered their tracks as YECers by promoting
Intelligent Design.
Notice also that theoor postal address is Newcastle - that means that
they are either directly or indirectly linked to the Christian
Institute. Don't forget that the head of TIS is Andy McInIntosh who's
web pages are on the site of David Walton who has been involved with
the Christian Institute for years. Walton recently established his
own creationist organisation in Newcastle.
>
2902
Roger Stanyard
Re: Truth in Science
22/09/2006 18:27:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "jon_12091" <jon_12091@...> wrote:
>
> TIS launched their shiny new website a couple of days ago, in case
> anyone missed it (or dosen't browse Science, Just Science)....
>
> http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/
>
> Nothing new, just dragging out the same old tired creationist
schtick,
> but not exactly comforting that post-Dover they still think they
can
> get away with foisting it on the state education system.
>
Looking at the web site I notice thring things -
1. A direct connection with the Christian Institute in Newcastle
through its Council of reference.
2. Use of the PO Box in Newcastle. The Christian Institute does not
(as far as I am aware) use a PO Box).
3. Lack of any telephone number to contact anyone.
4. Lack of a contact name.
4. Lack of any online sales.
But they are clearly up and running and I suspect that all these will
follow soon.
I haven't a clue who is doing the day to day running of the show. The
only one of the names listed on the web site that does not appear to
be in full time employment but who has lived in the Newcastle area is
Stephen Layfield.
From memory, they could have a problem if they start publishing. IIRC
publishers must show the postal address of premises out of which they
operate. They cannot hide behind a PO Box number.
Other comments: Nearly all of the names listed on the website as
being involved in TIS I have detailed on our web site. However, there
are a few new names which I will try to follow up over the weekend.
I suspect that we really need to think deeply about making sure the
world knows how dangerous these people are.
They are lying through their back teeth in what they are saying in
promoting ID. It's just the old fundie trick of teach the controversy.
Fortunatey I have detailed McIntosh's extremisms on our web site and
these are directly linked to his involvement in Truth in Science
despite the crude attempts to doctor the Take heed Ministries
newsletter.
Incidentally I can now see why they did this. The newsletter showed
up their true colours and contradicts their "reasonableness" in the
new TIS web site.
It's too late, though - they have already shot themselves in the
foot. (grin)
Roger
Um, I've just thought of some wicked ideas like writing to TIS asking
about the apparent contradictions between it supporting ID and the
beliefs of the people behind it, the failure of ID at Dover....
2903
Roger Stanyard
New Member, Heselbine
22/09/2006 19:10:00
We have a second new member today, Heselbine, who has been a very
regular poster on Science Just Science.
Welcome Heselbine.
Roger
2904
oeditor
Chink in Ken Ham''s armour?
22/09/2006 19:12:00
Thanks to Google Alerts, I've seen the following:
"AIG founder Ken Ham has told me he thinks belief in evolution doesn't
preclude one from believing in Jesus."
http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060921/LIFE/609210347/100\
5
= http://tinyurl.com/gwylh
Seems Ham's contradicting the AiG creed.
Brian
2905
oeditor
Re: Truth in Science
22/09/2006 19:37:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> Looking at the web site I notice thring things -
<snip>
> 4. Lack of any online sales.
>
> From memory, they could have a problem if they start publishing.
>IIRC publishers must show the postal address of premises out of
which they > operate. They cannot hide behind a PO Box number.
>
The web site is registered to John Perfect:
"The registrant is a non-trading individual who has opted to have their
address omitted from the WHOIS service."
So the moment they sell so much as a used altar candle (oops-wrong
denomination) they have to expose John Perfect. Who with a name like
that could be a pseudonym anyway. Which I'm sure isn't allowed.
Brian
2906
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: Truth in Science
22/09/2006 22:06:00
> Looking at the web site I notice thring things -
I'm noticing one thing mostly - the buggers are trying to worm their way
into Scottish Schools.
That being said, picking Maurice Roberts as their Scottish bod is a pretty
bad idea (good for us though) - this is the Wee Free fire breather who can't
even get along with other Wee Free nutters - he has been disciplined and
expelled from the original Wee Free, and got in bed with the Wee Free
(continuing) - a church that perhaps numbers in the high hundreds.
I.
2907
John Germain
(No subject)
22/09/2006 22:13:00
http://richarddawkins.net/mainPage.php?bodyPage=ourMission.php
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
2908
Roger Stanyard
(No subject)
22/09/2006 22:48:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "John Germain" <jtg.germainsjy@...>
wrote:
>
> http://richarddawkins.net/mainPage.php?bodyPage=ourMission.php
>
> John Germain
> Jersey
> British Channel Islands
Thanks for the link, John. I am somewhat reeling from fundies today so
perhaps I am too knd towards Dawkins strident atheism.
Roger
>
2909
oeditor
This is ridiculous!
22/09/2006 23:47:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "John Germain"
<jtg.germainsjy@...> wrote:
>
> http://richarddawkins.net/mainPage.php?bodyPage=ourMission.php
>
How on earth did we (with two honourable exceptions) miss both this
and the launch of the "Truth" in Science web site? Outflanked on both
the enemy side and our own.
Is this what they mean by a "wake-up call"?
Brian
2910
oeditor
Re: Dawkins site launch
22/09/2006 23:53:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> I am somewhat reeling from fundies today so
> perhaps I am too knd towards Dawkins strident atheism.
>
Well, I doubt very much that Dawkins would seek to kill you for not
agreeing with him (I hadn't realised that you didn't, btw). Just don't
rely on the other buggers' being equally magnanimous.
Brian
who is seriously pissed off that most of us hadn't noticed the launch
of the Dawkins website or that of LiesMasqueradingAsTruthInScience. Spit.
2911
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: Dawkins site launch
23/09/2006 01:08:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> I am somewhat reeling from fundies today so perhaps I am too knd
> towards Dawkins strident atheism.
>
Well, I doubt very much that Dawkins would seek to kill you for not agreeing
with him (I hadn't realised that you didn't, btw). Just don't rely on the
other buggers' being equally magnanimous.
Brian
who is seriously pissed off that most of us hadn't noticed the launch of the
Dawkins website or that of LiesMasqueradingAsTruthInScience. Spit.
Yeah, the TruthinScience one has me reeling a bit: annoying as this spouting
of the same old lies and nonsense will mean that we are going to see it
being repeated for years to come, in an annoying circle of self-reference.
It's also infuriating to see that bloody National Curriculum bullshit line
being touted as supporting their nonsense - it's hard not to see it as a
deliberate insert to allow them to do exactly that.
As for Dawkin's new site - well, it has been in the offing for some time,
and I have been looking forward to it. There was a spat while it was being
set up about some group of fundie screwups registering his name then
pointing it at a YEC website, clearly showing just how much of a threat to
their bullshit he represents.
Richard is a personal hero of mine, and his particular brand of "no
nonsense" dismissal of religion (whether it's the fluffy kind or the fundie
kind) just hits my buttons every time.
He is indeed a strident Atheist. That's a badge of honour, not something to
be ashamed of ;)
I.
2912
Helen Wood
Re: New Member, Helen Woods
23/09/2006 01:29:00
--- Mikey Brass <michael.brass@uclmail.net> wrote:
> Dr Woods, you name is vaguely familiar. May I ask
> which discipline?
>
>
> --
> Best, Mikey Brass
> MA in Archaeology degree, University College London
> "The Antiquity of Man" http://www.antiquityofman.com
> Book: "The Antiquity of Man: Artifactual, fossil and
> gene records explored"
>
> - !ke e: /xarra //ke
> ("Diverse people unite": Motto of the South African
> Coat of Arms, 2002)
>
Mikey,
My degrees are in science education although I have
taught science from our (US) 8th grade through
university graduate courses. My areas are geology and
natural history.
I made a few postings in Debunkcreation and that may
be why my name rings a belll.
I also presented at the British Association for
Science Education (I may have the name wrong, but the
spirit is there) At Reading and Leeds in the 1990"s.
Anyway, I enjpoyed your postings in Deunk and am
looking forward to being in this group.
Helen
2913
Roger Stanyard
Another New Member Eduard Yeoman
23/09/2006 09:10:00
Eduard Yeoman from Canada has joined our group overnight (UK time)
Eduard is a big contributor to CED and is amongst the level heads in
that group.
Welcome Eduard.
Roger
2914
George Jelliss
Re: This is ridiculous!
23/09/2006 14:47:00
I had difficulty with the link to the new Richard Dawkins site given
previously probably due to there being a video. (My computer reacts
violently to anything using Active X).
The home page is less high-tech:
http://richarddawkins.net/index.php
Did you see his interview with Jeremy Paxman (Newsnight Friday 22nd
September) about his new book "The God Delusion"?
I'm definitely of the Dawkins persuasion. Those who hold to religious
beliefs are really going to have to be much more rigorously scientific
in maintaining the validity of their ideas.
2915
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: This is ridiculous!
23/09/2006 15:24:00
>
Those who hold to religious
> beliefs are really going to have to be much more rigorously scientific
> in maintaining the validity of their ideas.
>
Well, religion has done just fine in the face of the last 200 years
of science. Somehow I doubt that the next 200 years of science will
cause religion to collapse in a shapeless heap. Particularly since
science doesn't have a single word to say about "do unto others as
you would have them do unto you". (shrug)
But once again, let me say -- if y'all turn this into a "science vs
religion" fight, you will lose. Badly.
This is simply not a science vs religion fight. Most religious
people think the fundies are just as nutty as you do. This is a
"tiny coterie of fundamentalists vs . . . well . . . everyone else"
fight, and most religious people are on our side.
So don't play the fundies' favorite game, and don't let the fundies
set the terms of the "debate". They are far better at it than we
are, and they will effortlessly mop the floor with us.
And, lest anyone get their ideological panties all in a bunch at me,
let me remind everyone that I do not assert, and I do not accept, the
existence of any god, gods, goddesses, or supernatural entities of
any sort whatsoever.
But I know who my enemy is, and who my enemy is NOT.
===================================
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
2916
Roger Stanyard
New Member
23/09/2006 16:42:00
David Jones, who runs his own blog, Cloudsoup, has joined the group
today. David has had some pretty strong things to say about Emmanuel
College and the creationists.
We came across his blog a couple of so weeks back and were going to
make contact with him. Joining us has saved a bit of effort!
Welcome to the group David.
Roger
2917
Roger Stanyard
Re: This is ridiculous!
23/09/2006 17:11:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
> >
> Those who hold to religious
> > beliefs are really going to have to be much more rigorously
scientific
> > in maintaining the validity of their ideas.
> >
>
>
> Well, religion has done just fine in the face of the last 200 years
> of science....
Thanks for the timely reminder.
The Blackshadow group looks to be expanding quite fast now. We now
have 60 members of which twenty have joined in the last three months.
The anti-creationist movement in the UK is tiny and it needs to
attact as many people as possible. The combined membership of this
group and Science just Science is probably no more than 130 people.
None of us is full time yet we are up against a much, much better
financed and orgnanised enemy. Their real numbers are vastly greater
than ours. They have full time people, orgnisations, networks, state
money (in prodigous quantities) and are basically a Mafia network.
Both Science Just Science and Blackshadow have members who are
religious and contribute heavily to the anti-creationist movement.
The fact that both groups are not anti-religious is one of the
reasons why the movement is growing.
If you kick your allies in the teeth, we are all going to have big
problems.
For starters, organised religion which opposes creationism IS
ORGANISED. It has the networks, brains, money, numbers and influence
to outnumber, outmanover and outsmart creationists. They have
millions of people onside. We have 130.
How the hell is an anti-religious group going to handle the
politicians as well? You can bet your bottom dollar that many a
politician will prove to be very cool in handling an anti-creationist
organisation which the fundies can show to be anti-religious.
What do you want to do - walk straight into the fundies' hands?
Right now I am preparing some draft letters and an action plan to
expose Truth in Science. Amongst the options I have pencilled it is
to approach the Bishop of Winchester warning him of the position.
What do you want to do instead - kick him as well as the fundies?
vreSomehow I doubt that the next 200 years of science will
> cause religion to collapse in a shapeless heap. Particularly since
> science doesn't have a single word to say about "do unto others as
> you would have them do unto you". (shrug)
>
> But once again, let me say -- if y'all turn this into a "science vs
> religion" fight, you will lose. Badly.
>
> This is simply not a science vs religion fight. Most religious
> people think the fundies are just as nutty as you do. This is a
> "tiny coterie of fundamentalists vs . . . well . . . everyone else"
> fight, and most religious people are on our side.
>
> So don't play the fundies' favorite game, and don't let the fundies
> set the terms of the "debate". They are far better at it than we
> are, and they will effortlessly mop the floor with us.
>
> And, lest anyone get their ideological panties all in a bunch at
me,
> let me remind everyone that I do not assert, and I do not accept,
the
> existence of any god, gods, goddesses, or supernatural entities of
> any sort whatsoever.
>
> But I know who my enemy is, and who my enemy is NOT.
>
>
>
>
> ===================================
> 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
>
2918
Roger Stanyard
Richard Dawkins
23/09/2006 17:20:00
I have just looked at Richard Dawkins new web site.
It lists Claire Enders as one of the trustees of his new organisation.
I know Claire very well although I haven't spoken to her for about
fifteen years. I got on with her very well.
.
2919
Roger Stanyard
Who Are the Govenors of Vardy Schools
23/09/2006 17:37:00
I have tried to find out how the governors are of the three
fundamentalist Vardy schools. Um, this looks to be well and truly
hidden information. None of the prospectus's of the three schools
names them. Nor are they named on the web sites of the three schools
or on Emmanuel Schools Foundation's main web site. Nor does it appear
that any of the three Local Education Authorities know who the
governors are. You may well recommend asking Ofsted (the regulatory
agency for education n England and Wales0. Well they don't know
either. The Department for Education and Skills? Forget it. They
don't know.
Let's have a look at this again. It's clear that parents must know
who one of the Governors is as they are allowed to elect a single
governor. I believe that each LEA is allowed to have one governor on
board. That leaves the other three positions in the control of the
Emmanuel Schools Foundation. And they are not saying. And three
positions out of five mean that the Foundation controls the boards of
each of the schools.
Yet my understanding is that legally the Board of Governors is the
school in the sense that it has the ultimate responsibility for the
running of the schools. If the school, for example, is a known fore
risk and the governors do nothing about it and there is a fire in
children are injured, they it's the governors who can be prosecuted
and fined.
So we have three schools, each with around 1,000 pupils but no-one
knows who is actually responsible for the schools.
Er, there looks to be something wrong here, chaps and chapesses.
These are schools whose running costs and nearly all of their capital
costs are provided at public expense and they are paid to educate
children of the public but no one is allowed to know who is actually
responsible for the schools in law?
It's worse than it seems. Even the names of directors of the tinyest
limited liability company are information in the public domain. The
Charity Commission requires that charities provide it with the names
of their trustees. It's public domain information. Yet we are not
allowed to know who is responsible for the education, welfare and
safety of some 3,000 children in state-financed schools.
Unlike most schools, the Emmanuel School Foundation academies do not
publish the names of its governors in the school prospectus, and
neither OFSTED, nor the Department of Education, appears to know who
they are. The Local Education Authority, South Tyneside, does not
even list Emmanuel College as being in its (geographic) area. Ofsted
reports show only the name of the chairman of the Board of Governors
at the time of inspection.
2920
oeditor
Stuart Burgess?
23/09/2006 17:34:00
Looking at TIS's list of names, it seems that at least two of their
four engineers as well as being creationists are also preachers. That
makes at least five preachers on the list. This suggests that the
group is pursuing their intelligent design agenda for fundamentalist
religious reasons rather than "scientific" reasons.
If Stuart Burgess has a degree in theology, it seems likely that he
also does some preaching on the side.
Has anyone any evidence of this?
Brian
2921
bonytrux
Trinity Exclusions Fiddle
23/09/2006 18:03:00
As I reported earlier Cllr Martin Williams was contacting Lord Adonis
(Academies Minister). Doncaster Star covered his letter as its front
page tonight.
See www.doncastertoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?
SectionID=2167&ArticleID=1785138
I will search my newspaper cuttings for details of Trinity's Board of
Directors - not known as governors
2922
Mikey Brass
Cambridge creationist
23/09/2006 19:13:00
Isabelle and I were quietly going about our shopping in the city centre
when we rounded a corner to see a small crowd gathered around someone
standing on top of a basket and shouting. On closer inspection, our
suspicions were confirmed: it was a young American creationist
attempting to convert shoppers to YEC.
Keep in mind that Cambridge is ruled by the Liberal Democrats and not
Blairs' sidekicks.
There was someone already arguing with the twit. Most of the people who
stopped to see what the fuss was about were people who did not know
creationism but who, given time, saw through the preacher's rants.
That's when it got interesting...
I do not remember precisely what was said to get us involved, but I do
remember yelling out, "That's rubbish!" As we got involved, we moved
closer to the front. I do recall the person arguing walking up to the
preacher and the preacher yelling at him to step back (establishing a
podium of authority, imo). Soon afterwards, said person walked off in
disgust.
We, er, warmed to the matter at hand and opened up with both barrels.
Two others, a doctoral paleontologist and a astro-physicist whose hobby
is theology, then joined the fray. The preacher was forced to admit
everything he said was religious based and that he had no idea what
alleles. He also claimed that God exists because all cultures have a
"morality code" and that missionaries found "cultures which had the Ten
Commandments" (which he later denied he had said). At one point, we four
were applauded by the crowd.
Later, when people lost interest and we were done roasting him, we were
talking with the paleontologist and astro-physicist. During the
conversation, I had my back turned to the preacher's sidekicks. One of
them pulled on my backpack straps; turned around, looked the arsehole up
and down with disdain and turned back round. He pulled my bag back the
second time and the conversation went:
"You called him a liar."
"Yes, he is."
"If you think he is a liar then why did you stop? Go, walk on."
"I am staying."
"Move it! No one forced you to listen. Move it, now!"
"I will stand wherever I damn well please."
"I said leave."
"Bugger off, idiot", turned my back again and left him fuming.
The preacher was standing near us as we talked to the others afterwards
and I enjoyed slamming him again, with him unable to do anything without
having an audience...
If I see this arsehole preaching again in the centre, there will be a
repeat of a slicing and dicing.
2923
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: This is ridiculous!
23/09/2006 19:18:00
George Jelliss wrote:
> Did you see his interview with Jeremy Paxman (Newsnight Friday 22nd
> September) about his new book "The God Delusion"?
We went into Waterstones after demolishing the creationist to see "The
God Delusion" displayed prominently behind the tellers. The irony was
quite ironic;-))))
2924
oeditor
Re: Who Are the Govenors of Vardy Schools
23/09/2006 19:16:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> I have tried to find out how the governors are of the three
> fundamentalist Vardy schools. Um, this looks to be well and truly
> hidden information.
This is surely a valuable finding in itself. Clearly time to invoke
the Freedom of Information Act. Ian explained how to do this in
message #2328. It looks as though the best bet is for a local to ask
his MP. At the same time, it would be worth looking to see what other,
non-Vardy academies do.
I tried to download the Trinity 2005/6 prospectus (the only one
on-line) but the link failed. I'd be interested to see it, if you have
a copy. TIA
Brian
2925
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: This is ridiculous!
23/09/2006 19:16:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> The anti-creationist movement in the UK is tiny and it needs to
> attact as many people as possible. The combined membership of this
> group and Science just Science is probably no more than 130 people.
I mentioned blackshadow to the astro-physicist; whether or not he will
look at the website and this list is, of course, another matter entirely.
What I do know is that I am taking the first week of November to review
the website and to write a couple of pieces.
The creationist today highlighted first-hand their intolerance of free
speech and criticism...
2926
Mikey Brass
Re: New Member, Helen Woods
23/09/2006 19:19:00
Helen Wood wrote:
> I made a few postings in Debunkcreation and that may
> be why my name rings a belll.
Got you and welcome to BS ;-)
--
Best, Mikey Brass
MA in Archaeology degree, University College London
"The Antiquity of Man" http://www.antiquityofman.com
Book: "The Antiquity of Man: Artifactual, fossil and gene records explored"
- !ke e: /xarra //ke
("Diverse people unite": Motto of the South African Coat of Arms, 2002)
2927
Mikey Brass
Re: Cambridge creationist
23/09/2006 19:29:00
> The preacher was standing near us as we talked to the others afterwards
> and I enjoyed slamming him again, with him unable to do anything without
> having an audience...
By this I am meaning that the nut did not dare interrupt our conversation;-)
2928
Rudy Vonk
Re: Richard Dawkins
23/09/2006 18:49:00
On 23 sep 2006, at 18:20, Roger Stanyard wrote:
> I know Claire very well although I haven't spoken to her for about
> fifteen years. I got on with her very well.
Well, I am sure you'll know what to do now :-) Not having spoken with a
girl for fifteen years has never stopped me getting on with her very
well *again* - especially if it is for a good cause.
2929
Dave Challender
The Association of Christian Teachers
23/09/2006 19:48:00
You may have an "interesting" read if you browse through old copies of ACTNow
http://www.christian-teachers.org.uk/actnow
And look at some of the articles in terms of creationism (and letters
pages responding to them so enthusiastically).
Over 1500 members (though it does not say how many are actively
involved in UK teaching) and pushing a pro-creationism / ID agenda
very strongly, based on the articles I have browsed..
--
Regards
Dave
2930
Marc Draco
McHitler
23/09/2006 21:42:00
Hey, I know that picture of McQuoid is sick - but it made me laugh! ;-)
2931
Roger Stanyard
Stephen Oppenheimer''s New Book
24/09/2006 09:46:00
Stephen Oppenheimer
Has anyone read Stephen Oppenheimer's new book "The Origins of the
British : A Genetic Detective Story" or his book "Out of Eden". I
have just read an article by him in this month's Prospect Magazine (I
doubt if you can buy in in the USA but it is usually on the shelves
of WH Smith in the UK).
What he is putting forward is a radical reinterpretation of UK
history up until about 600 AD based on genetic evidence. It looks
controversial to me – both in terms of the genetic evidence and his
interpretation.
Basically his conclusions are as follows:
1. The British are basically Basques by origin – not Anglo-Saxon or
Celtic.
2. Genetically the Ango-Saxons are much more closely related to the
Bretagnes than the are to the Welsh.
3. The language(s) of England at the time of the Roman invasion were
(mostly?) not Brythonic Celtic but Germanic languages close to what
became early English.
4. Far from Wales and Ireland being the genetic Celtic heartlands of
Britain, England remains the genetic Celtic heartland.
5. The Celts came from Anatolia.
6. There was no Anglo-Saxon wipe-out of Celts in England.
Roger
2932
Roger Stanyard
Re: This is ridiculous!
24/09/2006 10:08:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> Roger Stanyard wrote:
>
> > The anti-creationist movement in the UK is tiny and it needs to
> > attact as many people as possible. The combined membership of
this
> > group and Science just Science is probably no more than 130
people.
>
> I mentioned blackshadow to the astro-physicist; whether or not he
will
> look at the website and this list is, of course, another matter
entirely.
>
> What I do know is that I am taking the first week of November to
review
> the website and to write a couple of pieces.
>
Thanks Mikey,
It needs a heavyweight hand to review it. Moreover contributions from
a heavyweight will add gravitas.
Roger
> The creationist today highlighted first-hand their intolerance of
free
> speech and criticism...
>
2933
oeditor
Re: Stephen Oppenheimer''s New Book
24/09/2006 10:02:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> Stephen Oppenheimer
<snip>
> 1. The British are basically Basques by origin � not Anglo-Saxon or
> Celtic.
Nah... they're the Lost Tribe of Israel ;-)
Brian
2934
Roger Stanyard
Re: The Association of Christian Teachers
24/09/2006 10:05:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Challender"
<dave.challender@...> wrote:
>
> You may have an "interesting" read if you browse through old copies
of ACTNow
> http://www.christian-teachers.org.uk/actnow
> And look at some of the articles in terms of creationism (and
letters
> pages responding to them so enthusiastically).
>
> Over 1500 members (though it does not say how many are actively
> involved in UK teaching) and pushing a pro-creationism / ID agenda
> very strongly, based on the articles I have browsed..
>
Dave,
I have just looked through some of the issues of the magazine. It
looks as if the fundamentalist mafia has its foot well and truely in
the door there. I notice three of the high profile fundie names
writing in ot - Slyvia Baker, David Tyler and Arthur Jones.
It just looks like another example of the same mafia names
infiltrating yet another organisation.
Or, to put it another way, they are well organised and doing what is
utterly predicatable of them.
Does anyone what to do a bit of research on the extent to which they
have infiltrated ACT? Jones looks as if he has brought his cronies
into the game. I suspect that he is pushing them to write for the
magazine or write to it.
The problem is going to be when they get one of their people as
editor.
Roger
2935
Roger Stanyard
Re: Cambridge creationist
24/09/2006 10:14:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
>> We, er, warmed to the matter at hand and opened up with both
barrels.
> Two others, a doctoral paleontologist and a astro-physicist whose
hobby
> is theology, then joined the fray. The preacher was forced to admit
> everything he said was religious based and that he had no idea what
> alleles. He also claimed that God exists because all cultures have
a
> "morality code" and that missionaries found "cultures which had the
Ten
> Commandments" (which he later denied he had said). At one point, we
four
> were applauded by the crowd.
>
> Later, when people lost interest and we were done roasting him, we
were
> talking with the paleontologist and astro-physicist. During the
> conversation, I had my back turned to the preacher's sidekicks. One
of
> them pulled on my backpack straps; turned around, looked the
arsehole up
> and down with disdain and turned back round. He pulled my bag back
the
> second time and the conversation went:
> "You called him a liar."
> "Yes, he is."
> "If you think he is a liar then why did you stop? Go, walk on."
> "I am staying."
> "Move it! No one forced you to listen. Move it, now!"
> "I will stand wherever I damn well please."
> "I said leave."
> "Bugger off, idiot", turned my back again and left him fuming.
>
> The preacher was standing near us as we talked to the others
afterwards
> and I enjoyed slamming him again, with him unable to do anything
without
> having an audience...
>
> If I see this arsehole preaching again in the centre, there will be
a
> repeat of a slicing and dicing.
Well done, Mikey. Did you find out the name of the preacher?
We had the fundies playing the same game in Winchester but I never
got to see them. They appear to have stopped because they got no
results at all.
Winchester itself is a liberal town - We have a Lib Dem MP. Moreover,
two of the contiguous constituencies are also Lib Dem.
The trouble is that the fundies appear to have a growing base here.
Roger
>
2936
Dave Challender
Re: Stephen Oppenheimer''s New Book
24/09/2006 10:10:00
On 9/24/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Stephen Oppenheimer
>
> Has anyone read Stephen Oppenheimer's new book "The Origins of the
> British : A Genetic Detective Story" or his book "Out of Eden". I
> have just read an article by him in this month's Prospect Magazine (I
> doubt if you can buy in in the USA but it is usually on the shelves
> of WH Smith in the UK).
>
> What he is putting forward is a radical reinterpretation of UK
> history up until about 600 AD based on genetic evidence. It looks
> controversial to me – both in terms of the genetic evidence and his
> interpretation.
>
> Basically his conclusions are as follows:
>
> 1. The British are basically Basques by origin – not Anglo-Saxon or
> Celtic.
> 2. Genetically the Ango-Saxons are much more closely related to the
> Bretagnes than the are to the Welsh.
> 3. The language(s) of England at the time of the Roman invasion were
> (mostly?) not Brythonic Celtic but Germanic languages close to what
> became early English.
> 4. Far from Wales and Ireland being the genetic Celtic heartlands of
> Britain, England remains the genetic Celtic heartland.
> 5. The Celts came from Anatolia.
> 6. There was no Anglo-Saxon wipe-out of Celts in England.
>
> Roger
On a similar theme an article from the Indy a while ago
http://groups.google.dm/group/sci.med/browse_thread/thread/f5a7c04f3ea2c644/effd\
1792421152e1?hl=en
--
Regards
Dave
2937
Roger Stanyard
Re: Stuart Burgess?
24/09/2006 10:17:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> Looking at TIS's list of names, it seems that at least two of their
> four engineers as well as being creationists are also preachers. That
> makes at least five preachers on the list. This suggests that the
> group is pursuing their intelligent design agenda for fundamentalist
> religious reasons rather than "scientific" reasons.
> If Stuart Burgess has a degree in theology, it seems likely that he
> also does some preaching on the side.
> Has anyone any evidence of this?
IIRC Burgess's theological qualification was from an outfit connected
to the London Metropolitan Tabernacle. If it is a "degree" it has no
status as such. I seem to remember it was a couse rather than a degree
he took. Details should be on our web site under "Stuart Burgess".
Roger
>
2938
Roger Stanyard
Re: Stephen Oppenheimer''s New Book
24/09/2006 10:31:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Challender"
<dave.challender@...> wrote:
>
> On 9/24/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@...> wrote:
> > Stephen Oppenheimer
> >
> > Has anyone read Stephen Oppenheimer's new book "The Origins of the
> > British : A Genetic Detective Story" or his book "Out of Eden". I
> > have just read an article by him in this month's Prospect
Magazine (I
> > doubt if you can buy in in the USA but it is usually on the
shelves
> > of WH Smith in the UK).
> >
> > What he is putting forward is a radical reinterpretation of UK
> > history up until about 600 AD based on genetic evidence. It looks
> > controversial to me – both in terms of the genetic evidence and
his
> > interpretation.
> >
> > Basically his conclusions are as follows:
> >
> > 1. The British are basically Basques by origin – not Anglo-Saxon
or
> > Celtic.
> > 2. Genetically the Ango-Saxons are much more closely related to
the
> > Bretagnes than the are to the Welsh.
> > 3. The language(s) of England at the time of the Roman invasion
were
> > (mostly?) not Brythonic Celtic but Germanic languages close to
what
> > became early English.
> > 4. Far from Wales and Ireland being the genetic Celtic heartlands
of
> > Britain, England remains the genetic Celtic heartland.
> > 5. The Celts came from Anatolia.
> > 6. There was no Anglo-Saxon wipe-out of Celts in England.
> >
> > Roger
>
> On a similar theme an article from the Indy a while ago
>
http://groups.google.dm/group/sci.med/browse_thread/thread/f5a7c04f3ea
2c644/effd1792421152e1?hl=en
>
>
Hum,
Seems like there is a serious re-writing of British history underway
and another example of history becoming a scientific subject. Which
is, no doubt, another reason why fundies have history teaching as one
of their targets. (I jest not - see the stuff I have posted on our
wiki and here about Gwyneth Evans at Emmanuel College -she's Vice
Principal there.)
Roger
.
> --
> Regards
>
> Dave
>
2939
Rudy Vonk
Re: Stephen Oppenheimer''s New Book
24/09/2006 10:55:00
On 24 sep 2006, at 10:46, Roger Stanyard wrote:
> Stephen Oppenheimer
(snip)
> Basically his conclusions are as follows:
(snip)
Thank you for your succinct abstract. You have saved me whatever the
book costs! And with regard to the post that Dave Challender pointed us
to: yeah, Iberians; 6,000 B.C.; ocean-going boats. Can you think of a
single good reason why Iberians would want to move to Britain?
Personally, I vote for the Elymians. My photo archive CDs are in the
office, but tomorrow I shall post definitive proof that the British are
descended from the Elymians.
All of a sudden, that video from Richard Dawkins' website begins to
make even more, horrifying, sense!
2940
Roger Stanyard
Re: Stephen Oppenheimer''s New Book
24/09/2006 11:11:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Rudy Vonk <rudy@...> wrote:
>
> On 24 sep 2006, at 10:46, Roger Stanyard wrote:
>
> > Stephen Oppenheimer
>
> (snip)
>
> > Basically his conclusions are as follows:
>
> (snip)
>
> Thank you for your succinct abstract. You have saved me whatever
the
> book costs! And with regard to the post that Dave Challender
pointed us
> to: yeah, Iberians; 6,000 B.C.; ocean-going boats. Can you think of
a
> single good reason why Iberians would want to move to Britain?
Well here is a long list of reasons:
2941
Roger Stanyard
Re: Trinity Exclusions Fiddle
24/09/2006 11:08:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "bonytrux" <bonytrux@...> wrote:
>
> As I reported earlier Cllr Martin Williams was contacting Lord
Adonis
> (Academies Minister). Doncaster Star covered his letter as its
front
> page tonight.
> See www.doncastertoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?
> SectionID=2167&ArticleID=1785138
> I will search my newspaper cuttings for details of Trinity's Board
of
> Directors - not known as governors
I had a few problems getting the link to the article.
So here is the article in full:
'Fiddle' row over pupils
DONCASTER'S Trinity Acad-emy is today at the centre of a call for a
Government investigation over its exclusion figures.
The school has been accused of skewing its figures by sending
youngsters home - but not putting them through official suspension
procedures.
Trinity says pupils are sometimes sent home for a short time to
correct simple matters such as uniform or hair cut when a suspension
is not desirable.
But Thorne Coun Martin Williams has written to Government schools
minister Lord Adonis calling on him to launch an independent
investigation into exclusions at the school in Thorne, which is run
by a Christian education foundation. He claims by using unofficial
exclusions it is keeping its figures deceptively low.
It follows the recent high profile case of Lee Kilgour, who was out
of school for more than a week after being sent home because of his
hair style.
Coun Williams said: "I've written to Lord Adonis because I think they
are sending pupils home instead of giving written exclusion notices.
"I think this is fiddling the figures on expulsions and getting rid
of pupils on the quiet. I'm not going to have a school that's a law
unto itself.
"I want an investigation into the number of exclusions that have been
registered and the number where pupils have been asked to go home and
sort something out."
To carry out an official exclusion, schools have to follow legal
procedures, including issuing a letter to parents. Coun Williams has
told Lord Adonis he is receiving complaints from parents who have had
neither a letter nor a time scale for their child's return.
But Trinity insists its actions are reasonable and in the best
interests of its pupils.
In a statement, the school said: "Trinity Academy has a published
discipline code which clearly states the sanctions that follow
certain misdemeanours.
"The punishment for breach of uniform, including hairstyles,
is 'correction'. While correction of uniform can usually take place
in school, occasionally a parent may be asked to take their child
home for a short time, for example to correct a hairstyle. A formal
exclusion or suspension is not desirable in such cases."
23 September 2006
2942
Dave Challender
Re: Re: The Association of Christian Teachers
24/09/2006 11:15:00
On 9/24/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> I have just looked through some of the issues of the magazine. It
> looks as if the fundamentalist mafia has its foot well and truely in
> the door there. I notice three of the high profile fundie names
> writing in ot - Slyvia Baker, David Tyler and Arthur Jones.
>
> It just looks like another example of the same mafia names
> infiltrating yet another organisation.
>
> Or, to put it another way, they are well organised and doing what is
> utterly predicatable of them.
>
> Does anyone what to do a bit of research on the extent to which they
> have infiltrated ACT? Jones looks as if he has brought his cronies
> into the game. I suspect that he is pushing them to write for the
> magazine or write to it.
>
> The problem is going to be when they get one of their people as
> editor.
Editorial approach seems to be that (fundamentalist) way already -
e.g. if you look at the "letters" section of the recent edition,
comments full of support for creationism (and more pernicious, in
terms of the damage it can do to pupils and society in general,
homophobia as you get comments about the right to teach homosexuality
is sinful).
As the letters immediately opposite the editorial section are all of a
highly fundamentalist stance, it is reasonable to assume the editorial
policy is to support this viewpoint, so irrespective of whether Rupert
Kaye (editor) is "known", you can assume he is a creationist.
For example he has written a review (anti, of course) of "the New
Fundamentalists" TV program and this appears at:
http://biblicalcreation.co.uk/educational_issues/bcs156.html
I would assume, given that this group is a pro creation group, he
would not submit an article there unless he followed that stance.
--
Regards
Dave
2943
Rudy Vonk
Re: Re: Stephen Oppenheimer''s New Book
24/09/2006 11:22:00
On 24 sep 2006, at 12:11, Roger Stanyard wrote:
> Well here is a long list of reasons:
>
You forgot to include:
You cannot get a decent pint of London Pride in Spain.
2944
George Jelliss
Re: This is ridiculous!
24/09/2006 11:35:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
> >
> Those who hold to religious
> > beliefs are really going to have to be much more rigorously
> scientific in maintaining the validity of their ideas.
> >
>
> Well, religion has done just fine in the face of the last 200
> years of science. Somehow I doubt that the next 200 years of
> science will cause religion to collapse in a shapeless heap.
> Particularly since science doesn't have a single word to say
> about "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
> (shrug)
Doesn't it? I think it does. There are advances in neuroscience that
will give us greater insight into the way the human brain works.
What about the ideas of evolutionary psychology, and other
developments in psychology? What about sociology - doesn't that
include consideration of ways to organise society for optimal
interrelationships?
> But once again, let me say -- if y'all turn this into a
> "science vs religion" fight, you will lose. Badly.
I'm not trying to make this into a science v religion fight. I'm
just pointing out that for compatibility between science and
religion those with religious beliefs will need to explain
themselves in scientific terms, and not make claims that are
incompatible with scientific knowledge.
> This is simply not a science vs religion fight. Most religious
> people think the fundies are just as nutty as you do. This is a
> "tiny coterie of fundamentalists vs . . . well . . . everyone
> else" fight, and most religious people are on our side.
Where then are all those "Christians against Creationism" sites?
Locally I find very little resistance being put up by the Church of
England to the Evangelical wing. It's been like getting blood from a
stone to even get the Bishop of Leicester and the Archbishop of
Canterbury to express their, very muted, support for evolution.
>
> So don't play the fundies' favorite game, and don't let the
> fundies set the terms of the "debate". They are far better at
> it than we are, and they will effortlessly mop the floor with us.
>
This seems a rather defeatist attitude.
>
> And, lest anyone get their ideological panties all in a bunch
> at me, let me remind everyone that I do not assert, and I do
> not accept, the existence of any god, gods, goddesses, or
> supernatural entities of any sort whatsoever.
>
Never thought you did!
> But I know who my enemy is, and who my enemy is NOT.
>
Likewise. I'd just like to see more people, both in religion and
science, wake up to the dangers.
2945
George Jelliss
Re: Stuart Burgess?
24/09/2006 11:55:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> Looking at TIS's list of names, it seems that at least two of their
> four engineers as well as being creationists are also preachers. That
> makes at least five preachers on the list. This suggests that the
> group is pursuing their intelligent design agenda for fundamentalist
> religious reasons rather than "scientific" reasons.
> If Stuart Burgess has a degree in theology, it seems likely that he
> also does some preaching on the side.
> Has anyone any evidence of this?
>
> Brian
>
I attended the Creationist seminar at Aylestone Leisure Centre in
Leicester two years ago. (I put a report about it on the Brights forum
at the time, I'll try to trace the link).
The talk given by Burgess was essentially a sort of engineering
lecture in which he praised the "perfect design" of the human body.
The speech given at the end by McIntosh on the other hand was more of
an impassioned sermon. He really got worked up! I think he gave a more
considered talk in an earlier session, but I was in a separate
parallel group so didn't hear that.
You're right of course that they are "pursuing their intelligent
design agenda for fundamentalist religious reasons rather
than 'scientific' reasons", but I'm sure Burgess has convinced himself
that his arguments are scentifically valid.
One of the illustrations used by McIntosh was of the Garden of Eden
superimposed on a charnel house of bones. His point being that there
was initially a "perfect creation" and that death only came into the
world after the "fall". The idea that human beings ("the pinnacle of
creation") could have evolved by natural selection, which depends on a
life-and death struggle for existence appals him, and is something he
cannot accept emotionally.
2946
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Cambridge creationist
24/09/2006 11:57:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> Well done, Mikey. Did you find out the name of the preacher?
He did not, er, volunteer the information. I think he is a new graduate
student with links to the local Baptist church, because I have seen
fundamentalists coming out of that particular church. What struck me is
that his retinue was half American, half English (no Welsh or Scots, Ian!).
I utterly resent their attempt to mute any criticism of his preaching,
while claiming that he was not attempting to force his views down
anyone's throat by standing there yelling.
> We had the fundies playing the same game in Winchester but I never
> got to see them. They appear to have stopped because they got no
> results at all.
A young woman attempted to hand me a small small booklet afterwards. I
told her she has to be joking.
If this arsehole rears his ugly shaven head again, I'm going to be his
worst nightmare in the centre.
2947
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: This is ridiculous!
24/09/2006 12:01:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> It needs a heavyweight hand to review it. Moreover contributions from
> a heavyweight will add gravitas.
I cannot contribute before the start of November due to offering an
archy course, finishing off a contribution to an encyclopaedia and
something else which will take up most of my time throughout October.
I want to write short pieces on:
"Races"
Overview of genetic evidence for human evolution
Overview of morphological evidence for human evolution
The "Flood"
Oh, that YEC also claimed that anyone can claim they are Christians but
unless they are YECs then they cannot possibly be.
2948
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: This is ridiculous!
24/09/2006 12:05:00
George, I would like to ask out of curiosity whether you have read
"Finding Darwin's God"?
2949
Roger Stanyard
Re: This is ridiculous!
24/09/2006 12:35:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> Roger Stanyard wrote:
>
> > It needs a heavyweight hand to review it. Moreover contributions
from
> > a heavyweight will add gravitas.
>
> I cannot contribute before the start of November due to offering an
> archy course, finishing off a contribution to an encyclopaedia and
> something else which will take up most of my time throughout
October.
>
> I want to write short pieces on:
> "Races"
> Overview of genetic evidence for human evolution
> Overview of morphological evidence for human evolution
> The "Flood"
>
>
> Oh, that YEC also claimed that anyone can claim they are Christians
but
> unless they are YECs then they cannot possibly be.
>
This sounds just the job, Mikey. We are very thin on some of the key
issues that the nutters are putting forward.
I am doing some research on Dr John Bimson at Trinity College,
Bristol. How highly rated is he as a scholar of biblical archeology?
I can't make out whether he is a YECer but he has been giving
lectures within the framework of Genesis Agendum.
Roger
2950
George Jelliss
Re: Darwin''s God?
24/09/2006 12:38:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> George, I would like to ask out of curiosity whether you have read
> "Finding Darwin's God"?
>
No. But I did a google search and found it is a book by Kenneth
Miller. He was one of those who argued against the IDers if I
remember right. He is able to reconcile evolution with his christian
faith. Here is an extract from the conclusion of his boo, which is
given on the website I found:
"We know from astronomy, for example, that the universe had a
beginning, from physics that the future is both open and
unpredictable, from geology and paleontology that the whole of life
has been a process of change and transformation. From biology we
know that our tissues are not impenetrable reservoirs of vital
magic, but a stunning matrix of complex wonders, ultimately
explicable in terms of biochemistry and molecular biology. With such
knowledge we can see, perhaps for the first time, why a Creator
would have allowed our species to be fashioned by the process of
evolution."
This is just the sort of approach that we need to see from the
Bishops in making their ideas 'respectable' to science. Though
personally I still have difficulties in understanding what "God"
means in this interpretation. Dawkins is also able to express
his "awe" at nature in this way, and I'm with him on that. There can
be no objection if people want to add some element of mysticism to
their worldview, the question is what else do they deduce from this
belief, does it have tangible effects and consequences in the real
world, or is it just poetry?