2951
Marc Draco
Re: Re: Stuart Burgess?
24/09/2006 12:37:00
George said:
"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."
Oh boy, that is priceless! The human body's perfect design! I wonder how
many holes we could shoot in that one? Here's your starter for 10.
1. Cancer.
2. MND/MD/Celebral Palsy/Epilepsy/Spinabifida/Down's Syndrome... oh I
could go on, the list is almost endless.
3. Alzheimer's
4. Position of the prostate.
5. "Design" of the birth canal.
6. Inability for young to fend for themselves at birth...
and so on and so forth.
So much for perfect, then!
2952
Roger Stanyard
Re: Stuart Burgess?
24/09/2006 12:41:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "George Jelliss" <gpjnow@...> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
Yet, at the same time he accepts that God deliberatly wiped out all but
eight of the human race during the Noachian flood, babies and children
included. Strange indeed.
2953
Roger Stanyard
Re: The Association of Christian Teachers
24/09/2006 12:45:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Challender"
<dave.challender@...> wrote:
>
> On 9/24/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@...> 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
>
Dave, thanks for the comments. Seems to me that we need to follow up
with some research and an article on ACT for our web site. I'm really
pushed for time on this. Can anyone help?
2954
Roger Stanyard
Re: Stephen Oppenheimer''s New Book
24/09/2006 12:51:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Rudy Vonk <rudy@...> wrote:
>
> 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.
LOL!!!
Maybe its a case of plus ca change.
IIRC there was at one stage a belief that the "beaker people" in the
UK introduced serious pottery because they needed to have something
to store alchohol in and drink it out of.
The mind boggles at the prospect of a load of people emigrating out
of the Iberian peninsula thousands of years ago so they could get
blotto on the equivalent of the stone/bronze age Saturday night.
>
2955
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Darwin''s God?
24/09/2006 12:57:00
George Jelliss wrote:
> --- 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.
Indeed. He is one of the most prominent anti-creationist fighters in the
US and a Roman Catholic.
> This is just the sort of approach that we need to see from the
> Bishops in making their ideas 'respectable' to science.
I've seen a posting from Miller recommending people give a copy of his
book to creationist relatives as a Christmas present;-)))))))))))))
Personally, I am a Christian but my views are heretical to every single
Church. Then again, I feel nothing but disgust with those who are so
insecure in their personal views that they have to preach.
I would like to recommend that list members work on the website for
another half or year, at the end of which a public statement gets sent
to all the local and national newspapers members can think of.
2956
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: This is ridiculous!
24/09/2006 12:57:00
Roger, I would recommend a close look at the head of the dept of
engineering at Bristol. He is a YEC.
2957
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Stuart Burgess?
24/09/2006 12:57:00
Marc Draco wrote:
> The human body's perfect design!
The YEC claimed that as well. He pretended to ignore my hernia retort.
He also ignored my invitation to go and preach in Iraq.
2958
oeditor
Re: This is ridiculous!
24/09/2006 14:32:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...> wrote:
>
> Roger, I would recommend a close look at the head of the dept of
> engineering at Bristol. He is a YEC.
>
Er...isn't this the Stuart Burgess I was asking about - he's head of
Mechanical Engeering there? Or is there an overall head of engineering
who is also a YECer?
Brian
2959
ukantic
Re: The Association of Christian Teachers
24/09/2006 14:45:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Challender"
<dave.challender@...> wrote:
>
> On 9/24/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@...> 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
<snip>
I have downloaded all the significant letters for the record. It says
somewhere that this & other parts of the site are going to be made
private in the future, so it might be an idea to make a record of
anything else of interest now.
Alan.
2960
ukantic
Re: Notes on Gary Weick
24/09/2006 14:41:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase" <timothychase@...>
wrote:
>
> On 22/09/06, ukantic <alan@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@> wrote:
> > These people give the impression of being almost at war with society.
> > The enemy is secular atheism, the school is the battleground, the
> > teacher the latest high-tech weapon & the child's mind the territory
> > to be conquered & reclaimed in the name of Christ.
>
> This is a very succinct way of putting it - and quite eloquent.
Thanks Timothy, I wondered how that might be received (i.e was it over
the top).
> > There is for example, David Holloway:
> >
> > "In the mean time two things need to happen. First, we need to realize
> > what is going on. Then, secondly, like-minded people have to take
> > action in many small and little ways. That is how cultures are
> > affected. Revival starts and works church by church, Christian by
> > Christian. Schools change, school by school. Every opportunity must be
> > taken at work and at leisure for standing up for Christ, his gospel
> > and his standards. Never forget the importance of the "margins". Above
> > all pray that God's will is done in the General Election."
>
> http://www.church.org.uk/resources/csdetail.asp?csdate=01/03/1997
>
> This quote should also be quite helpful - in illustrating their
> determination and the ideological nature of their approach, the manner
> in which they view this as some sort of religious war.
He also wreote the following:
"Chapters 1-3 of Genesis still raise certain questions. But after
nearly 150 years of detailed argument and analysis, many thoughtful
people at the beginning of the 21st century are coming to the
conclusion that Darwin does not provide the answers. Is it not wrong,
therefore, to give the ideology of evolution a privileged place in our
education today? As a 'myth' or 'model' it may have value if it
secures results. But it should not then be taught, with all the
secular prejudices we are now so used to, as reflecting what really
happened in history. T.H.Huxley invented the word 'agnostic' with
regard to belief in God. Surely agnosticism with regard to the theory
of evolution is what is now called for in our schools. This is not an
unreasonable demand for Christians to make in respect of
twenty-first-century education."
http://www.church.org.uk/resources/csdetail.asp?csdate=01/04/2002
Alan.
2961
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: This is ridiculous!
24/09/2006 15:05:00
oeditor wrote:
> Er...isn't this the Stuart Burgess I was asking about - he's head of
> Mechanical Engeering there? Or is there an overall head of engineering
> who is also a YECer?
I had accidentally sent my message to the list instead of privately to
Roger; corrected subsequently. I had not been following your thread but
the answer is yes, it is the same Stuart.
2962
Rudy Vonk
Re: Re: Stephen Oppenheimer''s New Book
24/09/2006 15:37:00
On 24 sep 2006, at 13:51, Roger Stanyard wrote:
> IIRC there was at one stage a belief that the "beaker people" in the
> UK introduced serious pottery because they needed to have something
> to store alchohol in and drink it out of.
>
Are you sure it wasn't the "tankard people"?
Attachment: (text/enriched) [not stored]
2963
Rudy Vonk
Re: Re: Stuart Burgess?
24/09/2006 15:49:00
On 24 sep 2006, at 13:57, Mikey Brass wrote:
> He also ignored my invitation to go and preach in Iraq.
I applaud your initiative.
I remember thinking (foolishly, ingenuously) at the beginning of the
second Iraq war, that soon Iraq would become a tourist boomer; just
think of the awesome archeological sites, the history, the wonderful
climate...
Conclusion: Islam is the kiss of death to any form of development, be
it industrial, cultural or even touristic. (What we could do with Lybia
- history galore - or even Saudia Arabia...) Pakistan is home to some
of the world's most ancient and venerable civilizations, but look at it
now. Even an Oxford-educated beauty queen felt she had to accept an
arranged marriage (albeit to a corrupt billionaire) in order to gain
enough acceptance to be elected PM.
Attachment: (text/enriched) [not stored]
2964
jbs13uk
Trust in Science ID drive?
24/09/2006 16:41:00
Link at JREF forums:
http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=64500
"I haven't posted on here for quite some time, but I got some mail
this morning that has really got me going.
I am head of science in a comprehensive school in north-east England.
My post this morning contained a Jiffy bag with two free DVDs in it
from an organisation called Truth in Science, which you may have heard
of before, but I haven't, though as it's based in Newcastle Upon Tyne,
I wouldn't be surprised if there were links to the notorious
creationists at Emmanuelle College.
To cut a long story short, they have sent these DVDs to every
secondary school and college in the UK, trying to push the Intelligent
Design side of things, even including such 'Learning Outcomes' as
"Understand that irreducibly complex structures cannot evolve by
slight, successive, advantageous variations, because at certain points
in their evolution they will lose function altogether". This is only
one of many gems.
I haven't yet decided whether to send them back with a letter of
protest, bin them or use them to keep the birds off my vegetables
(handy use of an unwanted CD or DVD disc, for you novice gardeners)."
2965
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Stuart Burgess?
24/09/2006 16:35:00
Rudy, I need to point out that the first attempts at some form of
systematic archaeological investigation were by Muslims during the
European Middle Ages. Do not forget maths either.
2966
Roger Stanyard
Re: This is ridiculous!
24/09/2006 16:52:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@>
wrote:
> >
> > Roger, I would recommend a close look at the head of the dept of
> > engineering at Bristol. He is a YEC.
> >
> Er...isn't this the Stuart Burgess I was asking about - he's head of
> Mechanical Engeering there? Or is there an overall head of engineering
> who is also a YECer?
> Brian
>
Yep. This is the same man but it is also a bit more complex than this.
Mark Toleman at Bristol Univesity looks to be a YECer as well.
Moreover, it is possible that the head of the department for remote
sensing is a YECer but I only have one piece of evidence to show that
this is the case, (I need two to make my case.)
Burgess was involved in remote sensing before he came to Bristol. He
had been working for the European Space Agency on the deployment arms
of the solar pannels of the European Space Agency's Envisat remote
sensing spacecraft.
I suspect that at least part of this satellite was built in Bristol
(BAe used to have a satellite manufacturing plant there). That is
probably why Bristol University is a centre of expertise on remote
sensing.
I actually spend three days at an academic conference at Bristol
University on remote sensing. It was years back. I was bored rigid.
2967
Roger Stanyard
Re: Trust in Science ID drive?
24/09/2006 16:59:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "jbs13uk" <jbs13uk@...> wrote:
>
> Link at JREF forums:
> http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=64500
>
> "I haven't posted on here for quite some time, but I got some mail
> this morning that has really got me going.
> I am head of science in a comprehensive school in north-east
England.
Truth in Science has well and truely broken cover.
> My post this morning contained a Jiffy bag with two free DVDs in it
> from an organisation called Truth in Science, which you may have
heard
> of before, but I haven't, though as it's based in Newcastle Upon
Tyne,
> I wouldn't be surprised if there were links to the notorious
> creationists at Emmanuelle College.
> To cut a long story short, they have sent these DVDs to every
> secondary school and college in the UK, trying to push the
Intelligent
> Design side of things, even including such 'Learning Outcomes' as
> "Understand that irreducibly complex structures cannot evolve by
> slight, successive, advantageous variations, because at certain
points
> in their evolution they will lose function altogether". This is only
> one of many gems.
> I haven't yet decided whether to send them back with a letter of
> protest, bin them or use them to keep the birds off my vegetables
> (handy use of an unwanted CD or DVD disc, for you novice
gardeners)."
>
2968
Rudy Vonk
Re: Re: Stuart Burgess?
24/09/2006 18:00:00
On 24 sep 2006, at 17:35, Mikey Brass wrote:
> Rudy, I need to point out that the first attempts at some form of
> systematic archaeological investigation were by Muslims during the
> European Middle Ages. Do not forget maths either.
I think we have had this argument many months ago. Forget it. Whatever
"enlightenment" there was under Islam was mostly in Al-Andalus, here in
Spain, where the slightly less witless North African converts found a
fertile cultural substrate, as well as a pleasant climate and plenty of
time to spend on thoughts other than faith. Also some in medieval
Morocco, Mali, etc., Islam was born in the very, very dark Middle Ages
and has stayed there ever since. Your post (those many months ago) to
the contrary, practically no science comes out of Muslim universities.
Plenty of cretinist creed does, that I will admit.
PS I am an atheist, but Benny Hex is fast becoming one of my heroes. If
Manuel II could see it that clearly in the early 15th century, and
present-day illiterate mobs need less than 24 hours to prove him (and
the Pope) right, what has changed?
cellpadding="2"
Attachment: (text/enriched) [not stored]
2969
Rudy Vonk
Re: Re: Darwin''s God?
24/09/2006 18:06:00
On 24 sep 2006, at 13:38, George Jelliss wrote:
> 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?
Postulate: "God(s) was (were) invented by man."
Kindly disprove.
cellpadding="2"
Attachment: (text/enriched) [not stored]
2970
Roger Stanyard
More Truth in Science
24/09/2006 18:28:00
I've done some back of the envelope calculations on TIS and it appears
that this is a bigger peration than I thought. Bear in mind tha the
Creation Science Movement has an annual income of around £62k and AIG
UK and the Christian Institute £500-600k.
From what I can work out Truth in Science has spent around £116k to
date.
TIS appears to have had a full time employee for a year and a half.
Well, that's probably at least £45k including social costs. Plus the
production of CDs. Well, I guess a figure of £10 a disc. With 3,000
schools, that's another £30k. Plus written material. Say £3 a shot.
Plus postage and distribition, another £1. Well the figure is now £87k.
Add another 25% minimum for overhead - rates, rent, heating, lighting,
equipment, sundry production costs, cost of mailing shot list....That's
£116k.
It's a lot of dosh for an operation that has yet to sell a thing. As it
is an ongoing operation its backers will have also had to put up
working capital over and above £116k.
Moreover, I guess (and I am guessing) that the £116k spend so far is
basically advertising so it can sell creationist books, CDs and
publications to schools. This sort of thing is always a large element
of income for creationist organisations.
Methinks in the next few days if not weeks TIS is going to get a lot of
publicity in the national press.
2971
Michael Roberts
Re: Re: Darwin''s God?
24/09/2006 18:33:00
bgcolor="#3ec173"
Your partner doesn't love you .
Kindly disprove
Michael
->
----- Original Message -----
From: Rudy Vonk
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] Re: Darwin's God?
On 24 sep 2006, at 13:38, George Jelliss wrote:
-->There can <>x-tad-bigger><>fontfamily>
be no objection if people want to add some element of mysticism to <>x-tad-bigger><>fontfamily>
their worldview, the question is what else do they deduce from this <>x-tad-bigger><>fontfamily>
belief, does it have tangible effects and consequences in the real <>x-tad-bigger><>fontfamily>
world, or is it just poetry?
<>x-tad-bigger><>fontfamily>
Postulate: "God(s) was (were) invented by man."
Kindly disprove.
2972
oeditor
Re: Trust in Science ID drive?
24/09/2006 19:04:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "jbs13uk" <jbs13uk@...> wrote:
>
> Link at JREF forums:
> http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=64500
>
>> I haven't yet decided whether to send them back with a letter of
> protest, bin them or use them to keep the birds off my vegetables
> (handy use of an unwanted CD or DVD disc, for you novice gardeners)."
>
Poor birds - the discs were invented after they were created and of
course they can't evolve to become fearless.
More seriously, we urgently need copies of these DVDs. I've joined the
JREF forum to ask the poster for his, but must wait up to a day for
authorisation before I can post. I've been able to send an email via
the forum, but don't know if it will get through. Have we any JREF
member who can post a request? Or anyone who can get their hands on an
unwanted set?
Brian
2973
Rudy Vonk
Re: Re: Darwin''s God?
24/09/2006 19:23:00
On 24 sep 2006, at 19:33, Michael Roberts wrote:
> Your partner doesn't love you .
>
> Kindly disprove
No contest. Are you also yielding that Dawg was (obviously) invented by
man? Recently, even?
cellpadding="2"
Attachment: (text/enriched) [not stored]
2974
bonytrux
Trinity Board of Directors
24/09/2006 19:28:00
These were announced from Autumn 2004 during the 'year of
preparation' before Trinity opened. Info came from local press,
Yorkshire Post and Trinity newsletters to pupils at Thorne Grammar
Chair : Peter Vardy
Deputy: John Burn
Coopted Directors
John Hair - former deputy head of Bircotes/Harworth Community
School. listed as 'active member of The Salvation Army'.
Ernie Bridgewood - listed as 'a practicing Christian' who spent 33
years teaching in Doncaster, 12 years as Head of ICT at Hall Cross
School (occasionally wrote letters to local press criticising my
criticism of the academy !!)
LEA nominated: Tony Sockett, former teacher and youth worker, Labour
councillor on Doncaster Council for Bentley. Was member for
education on elected mayor Martin Winter's cabinet when it approved
the Trinity plan. Not aware of any religious connections
Origin unknown: 'from outside the area Nigel Robson, a partner in
Evershed's law firm'
Sponsor Governor: Pastor Graham Johnson of The assemblies of God
Church in Thorne (known locally as the happy clappy church - used to
operate in a wooden hut but is now in a redundant primary school).
Pastor Johnson publicly condemned me (and got his flock to write me
unpleasant letters) when as head of Thorne Grammar I hired the
school hall to a clairvoyant - work of the devil etc. There were
rumours that noisy kids at his church were locked in cupboards - may
catch on at Trinity !
Elected Parent Governor: Martin Oldknow - was chair of governors at
Thorne Grammar when it closed. In management in local fire service.
He was secreted onto the board of Trinity when it opened. Trinity
was forced to have an election in Jan. 2006 and he was elected. He
is a Labour Councillor on Thorne/Moorends Town Council. Bit of
a 'yes man'. Attended a public meeting on harsh discipline at
Trinity in Jan 2006 but did not speak or identify himself to the 200
parents present. No known religious links.
Press also suggests a local business representative to be chosen but
I have not picked up details.
Using the same sources I will post details of Trinity's senior
managers.
2975
Michael Roberts
Re: Re: The Association of Christian Teachers
24/09/2006 18:51:00
I am familiar with ACT and about 12 years ago I wrote a 1000 word article
for them with the encouragement of Richard Wilkins to refute Wendy
Sharpless's article on YEC.
My wife was a member for many years and the head of the school of which I am
chair of governors is also - she is a director along with Arthur Jones.
I read the letters which were variable and a typical product of Jones and
Tyler concealing their real beliefs. The letter by Dr Hazel Lucas was good -
she is a chemist .However she does not look like the picture at the end of
her letter. Her husband Ernest is a Ph D both in Chemistry and Theology and
very good on the whole subject and has a very similar stance to me. He is
typical of many in Christians in Science.
Finally I have a feeling that YECs are having too much influence on ACT
which is very sad
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "ukantic" <alan@blackshadow.me.uk>
To: <BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 2:45 PM
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: The Association of Christian Teachers
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Challender"
> <dave.challender@...> wrote:
>>
>> On 9/24/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@...> 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
> <snip>
>
> I have downloaded all the significant letters for the record. It says
> somewhere that this & other parts of the site are going to be made
> private in the future, so it might be an idea to make a record of
> anything else of interest now.
>
> Alan.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
2976
eduard at home
Re: Another New Member Eduard Yeoman
24/09/2006 20:25:00
bgcolor="#ffffff"
Oh .... I guess I should do the usual intro thingy.
I'm 61 years old ... going on 15 or something
Live in Breckenridge, Quebec which is sort of across the river from Ottawa where I work.
I'm an engineer.
My philosophy is Nooism, which I invented, since nothing else seems appropriate.
I travel a great deal. Been to the UK perhaps 6 or 7 times. Was told to leave once, by the police, as I had crashed into a BMW, somewhere in London. Geez, when are you guys going to change over to the correct side of the road??
eduard at home
----- Original Message ----- From: Roger Stanyard
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 4:10 AM
Subject: [BlackShadow] Another New Member Eduard Yeoman
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
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.comhttp://
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.comhttp://join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
BlackShadow-digest@yahoogroups.com
BlackShadow-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
BlackShadow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
2977
Roger Stanyard
Re: Darwin''s God?
24/09/2006 21:56:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Roberts"
<michael.andrea.r@...> wrote:
>
> Your partner doesn't love you .
>
> Kindly disprove
>
> Michael
Very well put Michael.
2978
Roger Stanyard
Re: Another New Member Eduard Yeoman
24/09/2006 22:17:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, eduard at home <yeoman@...> wrote:
>
> Oh .... I guess I should do the usual intro thingy.
>
> I'm 61 years old ... going on 15 or something
> Live in Breckenridge, Quebec which is sort of across the river from
Ottawa where I work.
> I'm an engineer.
> My philosophy is Nooism, which I invented, since nothing else seems
appropriate.
>
> I travel a great deal. Been to the UK perhaps 6 or 7 times. Was
told to leave once, by the police, as I had crashed into a BMW,
somewhere in London. Geez, when are you guys going to change over to
the correct side of the road??
As the local fundies will tell you, the British drive on the side of
the road that God all intended us to.
Roger
2979
Michael Roberts
Re: Re: Darwin''s God?
24/09/2006 22:12:00
Lenny Flank has the religious aspects of this problem well-summed up!
Dawkins does not and I am fed up with picking up the pieces of the problems
he causes among clergy colleagues, who opt for at least ID because they
object to Dawkins' strident atheistic Darwinism
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Stanyard" <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 9:56 PM
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: Darwin's God?
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Roberts"
> <michael.andrea.r@...> wrote:
>>
>> Your partner doesn't love you .
>>
>> Kindly disprove
>>
>> Michael
>
> Very well put Michael.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
2980
JAF
Re: Re: Another New Member Eduard Yeoman
24/09/2006 22:55:00
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 21:17:44 -0000, you wrote:
>Geez, when are you guys going to change over to
>the correct side of the road??
>
>As the local fundies will tell you, the British drive on the side of
>the road that God all intended us to.
The others may drive on the *right* side, but we drive on the *correct*
side.
After all, who ever heard of a left-handed swordsman?
--
JAF
anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
2981
Ian Lowe
RE: Re: Darwin''s God?
24/09/2006 23:53:00
> Dawkins does not and I am fed up with picking up the pieces of the
problems he causes among clergy colleagues, who opt for at least ID because
they object to Dawkins' strident atheistic Darwinism
Hi Michael,
Richard Dawkins has chosen to express his opinions in a forthright manner.
His opinions are the result of study and are largely supported by the
scientific evidence at his disposal. That being said, he is simply one
scientist - well known, for sure, but still just one person.
If your clergy colleagues have a problem at such a basic level that it
requires you to "pick up the pieces" simply because one single atheist
expresses an opinion that they disagree with, then I am afraid any common
ground between us is going to be very hard to come by.
I am an atheist, and I find myself offended almost daily by the clergy -
when someone quotes the bible in support of their political views, when
someone says "let us pray", when all scientific evidence says they are
simply talking to themselves, I find that incredibly offensive.
I am, however, able to regulate my disgust towards those who participate in
superstition for the greater good. I do not feel the need to bash Rowan
Williams when he deeply offends me (and believe me, he does that almost
every time he opens his mouth)
The Fundamentalists and Creationists pose a serious threat to our society,
and they hate your moderate christianity just as much as they hate my
atheism. It is clearly in our interests to work together for political ends.
However, I have not heard anyone outside of the Fundie churches use the
phrase "atheistic Darwinism" in that way, and I consider your use of it here
ill-advised. If you wish to make clear that moderate christians and CofE
Clergy are more than watered down versions of the fundamentalists and are
part of the solution, rather than part of the problem, then perhaps you
should not fall so quickly into using their language and mannerisms.
The atheists in this group have had our knuckles rapped over and over again,
having to bite our tongues to avoid causing any possible offence to moderate
christians.
The least you can do is show us the same courtesy - so please, keep your
negative opinions about Richard Dawkins to yourself in future.
Ian
2982
oeditor
Re: Darwin''s God?
25/09/2006 00:19:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Roberts"
<michael.andrea.r@...> wrote:
>
> Lenny Flank has the religious aspects of this problem well-summed up!
>
> Dawkins does not and I am fed up with picking up the pieces of the
problems > he causes among clergy colleagues, who opt for at least ID
because they > object to Dawkins' strident atheistic Darwinism
>
Er...sorry? Dawkins writes a few books and gets on the television
occasionally - serious problem. Most of the world is suffused with
religion, from the benign to the terrifying, but the clergy goes to
pieces over one small voice for Mankind. Not very confident, then.
I doubt Dawkins would be heard over Christianity's "still small voice"
if he wasn't prepared to stick his head over the establishment's
parapet, his personal atheism is surely nothing to do with the fact or
otherwise of evolution, and "Darwinism" is just the creationist's term
chosen to minimise, personalise and ultimately demonise evolution. It
sounds as though you're saying that Dawkins should shut up, all brass
monkeys should do their thing, then all will be well in the world.
Meanwhile "Truth" In Science will subvert education in this country
and their American mentors will laugh all the way to [fill in
aim/target/prophecy of choice - I'll be circumspect and not say "bank"].
Whatever Dawkins says or doesn't say has no impact on whether ID is
fact or fantasy. If he endorsed it tomorrow it would still be
nonsense. It's crude misrepresentation of science for a religious
(some would say political) purpose. Perhaps they should be teaching a
bit of elementary biology on theological courses.
Brian
Brian
Brian
2983
Lenny Flank
RE: Re: Darwin''s God?
25/09/2006 01:44:00
>
> Richard Dawkins has chosen to express his opinions in a forthright
> manner.
Alas, his opinions don't help fight creationists.
===================================
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
2984
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Darwin''s God?
25/09/2006 01:48:00
> Er...sorry? Dawkins writes a few books and gets on the television
> occasionally - serious problem. Most of the world is suffused with
> religion, from the benign to the terrifying, but the clergy goes to
> pieces over one small voice for Mankind. Not very confident, then.
>
Perhaps, perhaps not. But that is a fight for another day.
Our fight is to stop creationists, not to stamp out religion.
Anyone -- ANYONE -- who supports stopping creationists, is our
friend. Anyone -- ANYONE -- who supports creationists, is our enemy.
Fight with our enemies, not with our friends. Fighting with our
friends, doesn't help us.
Consider it a lesson in tolerance and in getting along with people
you disagree with.
The alternative is to turn this into a "science vs religion" fight ---
-- and that is an unnecessary fight that you will absolutely lose.
And before anyone gets their ideological panties all in an uproar, I
point out again that I do not assert, nor do I accept, the existence
of any god, gods, goddesses or any other supernatural entity
whatsoever.
===================================
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
2985
Michael Roberts
Re: Re: Darwin''s God?
25/09/2006 07:09:00
Sorry to offend you but Dawkins' opinions on religion are prejudice and not
study and are as reliable as YECs on science
My last comment
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Lowe" <ian@scottishatheistcouncil.org.uk>
To: <BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 11:53 PM
Subject: RE: [BlackShadow] Re: Darwin's God?
>> Dawkins does not and I am fed up with picking up the pieces of the
> problems he causes among clergy colleagues, who opt for at least ID
> because
> they object to Dawkins' strident atheistic Darwinism
>
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> Richard Dawkins has chosen to express his opinions in a forthright manner.
> His opinions are the result of study and are largely supported by the
> scientific evidence at his disposal. That being said, he is simply one
> scientist - well known, for sure, but still just one person.
>
> If your clergy colleagues have a problem at such a basic level that it
> requires you to "pick up the pieces" simply because one single atheist
> expresses an opinion that they disagree with, then I am afraid any common
> ground between us is going to be very hard to come by.
>
> I am an atheist, and I find myself offended almost daily by the clergy -
> when someone quotes the bible in support of their political views, when
> someone says "let us pray", when all scientific evidence says they are
> simply talking to themselves, I find that incredibly offensive.
>
> I am, however, able to regulate my disgust towards those who participate
> in
> superstition for the greater good. I do not feel the need to bash Rowan
> Williams when he deeply offends me (and believe me, he does that almost
> every time he opens his mouth)
>
> The Fundamentalists and Creationists pose a serious threat to our society,
> and they hate your moderate christianity just as much as they hate my
> atheism. It is clearly in our interests to work together for political
> ends.
>
> However, I have not heard anyone outside of the Fundie churches use the
> phrase "atheistic Darwinism" in that way, and I consider your use of it
> here
> ill-advised. If you wish to make clear that moderate christians and CofE
> Clergy are more than watered down versions of the fundamentalists and are
> part of the solution, rather than part of the problem, then perhaps you
> should not fall so quickly into using their language and mannerisms.
>
> The atheists in this group have had our knuckles rapped over and over
> again,
> having to bite our tongues to avoid causing any possible offence to
> moderate
> christians.
>
> The least you can do is show us the same courtesy - so please, keep your
> negative opinions about Richard Dawkins to yourself in future.
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
2986
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Darwin''s God?
25/09/2006 08:13:00
Lenny Flank wrote:
> Fight with our enemies, not with our friends. Fighting with our
> friends, doesn't help us.
Isabelle and I had a good chuckle imaging you had been here to witness
that YEC preacher as well;-)
2987
Roger Stanyard
Re: Darwin''s God?
25/09/2006 08:20:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Roberts"
<michael.andrea.r@...> wrote:
>
> Lenny Flank has the religious aspects of this problem well-summed
up!
This is exactly my position was well.
>
> Dawkins does not and I am fed up with picking up the pieces of the
problems
> he causes among clergy colleagues, who opt for at least ID because
they
> object to Dawkins' strident atheistic Darwinism
>
This is my view as well. Dawkins is playing right into the hands of
the fundies.
This forum is not a discussion group for religious fundamentalists or
atheist fundamentalists. It's only a forum for combating EXTREME
CREATIONISTS. That means YECers and IDers.
My own view on this is quite simple. I admire Dawkins as a biologist.
I don't admire him on religion. He doesn't have the bredth of
knowledge or the background to pull it off.
As a non-scientist, my view is that there is much more to
understanding life than just science. It has severe limitations and
Dawkins doesn't recognise it. Moreover, I am wary of his team (as you
know, one of them I know very well.)
There is something wrong with Dawkins when it comes to religion. He
doesn't know who is onside and who isn't. Dawkins doesn't get my
basic principal that religion is fine as a servant and dangerous as a
master.
I found his attack on Richard Harries was offensive. He coupled him
up together with some real nasties in his two-part programme early
this year and didn't pull it off.
Harries is patently a decent man. Even if I disagree with some of his
views, there is far more that I agree with him.
For starters Harries, unlike fundies, is liberal, progressive and not
homophobic.
He brings serious intellect to the table - how many damn fundies do
we know who do that?
The battel we are in is ultimately a battle between intellect and
ignorance. It's the US culture wars imported. It's political. It's
not, ultimately, about religion.
The likes of McIntosh, Burn, Burgess, Ham or any of the other nutters
we care think of are authoritarian power seekers hell bent on
imposing their opinions on everyone no matter how. They are narrow-
minded and, apart from their determination, second raters.
So, everybody is reminded, keep the religious arguments out of this
Yahoo group.
Everytime people start on it, they do immense damage. It upsets a
load of people in this group, it deeply undermines what a lot of us
have put an immense amount of effort into over the years - Lenny,
Michale, Mikey and myself to name a few. It puts of people coming
into the group. It undermines what our allies at Science Just Science
is doing (they have got it right on religion). It removes the options
we have open to us.
Sooner or later we should be merging with Science Just Science. How
are we going to do that with the constant bickering about the off-
topic subject of religion? How the hell are we going to attract
Muslims into the debate about what to do creationism?
We have gone a long way over recent months. We are getting our act
together as a team. Don't throw it away.
Roger
And, like Lenny, I will again point out my personal position on
religion. I am not very interested in it. I've seen it mis-used in my
family. I don't want the fundies doing that on grand scale. But I am
not a strident atheist.
2988
Roger Stanyard
Re: Darwin''s God?
25/09/2006 08:23:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> Lenny Flank wrote:
>
> > Fight with our enemies, not with our friends. Fighting with our
> > friends, doesn't help us.
>
> Isabelle and I had a good chuckle imaging you had been here to
witness
> that YEC preacher as well;-)
Me as well! The mind boggles at the preacher's likely reaction to Lenny.
Message to Lenny - I think we should pay for you to fly into the UK
sometime!
>
2989
Roger Stanyard
Re: Darwin''s God?
25/09/2006 08:25:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Lowe" <ian@...> wrote:
>
> > Dawkins does not and I am fed up with picking up the pieces of the
> problems he causes among clergy colleagues, who opt for at least ID
because
> they object to Dawkins' strident atheistic Darwinism
>
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> Richard Dawkins has chosen to express his opinions in a forthright
manner.
Ian. This is over the limit. It's offensive.
> His opinions are the result of study and are largely supported by
the
> scientific evidence at his disposal. That being said, he is simply
one
> scientist - well known, for sure, but still just one person.
>
> If your clergy colleagues have a problem at such a basic level that
it
> requires you to "pick up the pieces" simply because one single
atheist
> expresses an opinion that they disagree with, then I am afraid any
common
> ground between us is going to be very hard to come by.
>
> I am an atheist, and I find myself offended almost daily by the
clergy -
> when someone quotes the bible in support of their political views,
when
> someone says "let us pray", when all scientific evidence says they
are
> simply talking to themselves, I find that incredibly offensive.
>
> I am, however, able to regulate my disgust towards those who
participate in
> superstition for the greater good. I do not feel the need to bash
Rowan
> Williams when he deeply offends me (and believe me, he does that
almost
> every time he opens his mouth)
>
> The Fundamentalists and Creationists pose a serious threat to our
society,
> and they hate your moderate christianity just as much as they hate
my
> atheism. It is clearly in our interests to work together for
political ends.
>
> However, I have not heard anyone outside of the Fundie churches use
the
> phrase "atheistic Darwinism" in that way, and I consider your use
of it here
> ill-advised. If you wish to make clear that moderate christians and
CofE
> Clergy are more than watered down versions of the fundamentalists
and are
> part of the solution, rather than part of the problem, then perhaps
you
> should not fall so quickly into using their language and mannerisms.
>
> The atheists in this group have had our knuckles rapped over and
over again,
> having to bite our tongues to avoid causing any possible offence to
moderate
> christians.
>
> The least you can do is show us the same courtesy - so please, keep
your
> negative opinions about Richard Dawkins to yourself in future.
>
> Ian
>
2990
Roger Stanyard
A Reminder to All
25/09/2006 08:34:00
It's time to remind the group that this is not a forum for attacking
religion. We are getting together a first class groupp of
professionals with broad experience. If anyone attacks religion, it
is doing deep damage to that team.
I have a problem with this group because I inhereted it and have
never therefore had the freedom to work out and agree the the basic
rules about keeping the strident anti-religious rhetoric out of the
group.
However, the group is developing - our numbers are well up on what we
had when I took over three months ago. We now have a very substantial
web presence. We have an increasing number of people who are
participating rather than lurking.
I want this group to continue going forward.
Therefore it's time that everybody stops bickering about religion.
NOW!
Roger
2991
oeditor
Anti-evolutionists seek to lure parents
25/09/2006 10:18:00
"UK anti-evolutionists seek to lure parents with new website -25/09/06
Creationists and anti-evolutionists in the United Kingdom have
established a new website, called `Truth in Science', to try to
persuade school parents to lobby for their ideas within the British
education system."
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_060925evolut.shtml
= http://tinyurl.com/frymm
Excellent article by Ekklesia on TIS. It features MIchael who speaks
out well - thanks Michael.
Brian
2992
jon_12091
Re: Darwin''s God?
25/09/2006 10:50:00
Dawkin's beinging to seriously annoy me, not for his strident
unfocused atheism, but for the fact that his chair is in the "public
understanding of science". And as far as I can tell he has done
precious little to advance the "public understanding of science" and
appears bent on using his public profile to flog books, which are
about church-bashing, and are doing nothing to do with advancing the
highly sketchy understanding of modern science that the UK public
have! And if he says Darwin turned him into an aetheist just one more
time.....
Can anyone tell me when he last appeared on TV to actually talk about
the advancement of science?
2993
Mikey Brass
Re: Anti-evolutionists seek to lure parents
25/09/2006 11:09:00
Here is what I would propose:
By end of January: have got the website into a position where it can be
more formally announced.
Start of February: Letter gets sent out to all major newspapers and as
many regional newspapers as possible
By middle of February: Formal letter sent out to the heads of the major
teaching, advertising the availability of the website and ourselves as a
resource. This would need some effort, including a mention to the PBS's
series (available on dvd) on good evolution teaching, combating creationism.
I'll be dammed if I'm going to let a punk-arsed, brain-washed American
YEC be the voice for these arseholes in Cambridge.
------
2994
oeditor
Website counter?
25/09/2006 11:23:00
Most of the website traffic at the moment will be from group members,
but when we go public it would be useful to know what sort of traffic
we're getting. Is there any way we can get stats, or put a (preferably
invisible) counter on the site?
Brian
2995
Mikey Brass
Re: Website counter?
25/09/2006 11:27:00
On Mon, September 25, 2006 11:23, oeditor said:
> Most of the website traffic at the moment will be from group members,
> but when we go public it would be useful to know what sort of traffic
> we're getting. Is there any way we can get stats, or put a (preferably
> invisible) counter on the site?
Oneandone.co.uk already has an invisible webstats counter built in. The
url and login would be known to Roger and Alan. I would suggest it is left
that way.
------
2996
Roger Stanyard
Truth in Science Lying?
25/09/2006 11:40:00
I'm now very busy working through Truth in Science's web site to pick
up all the mis-representations and lies.
Can anyone give me a hand in checking some of the detail.
For example, on the following page,
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/24/45/
it claims that the National Curiculum states puplis should be
taught "how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of
interpreting empirical evidence [for example, Darwin's theory of
evolution]."
My understanding is that this notorious statement has been removed from
the National Curriculum. Can anyone confirm this? The bit [for example,
Darwin's theory of evolution] has, IIRC, been removed. They have just
added it back!
I am trying to catch them out lying.
Roger
2997
oeditor
Re: Anti-evolutionists seek to lure parents
25/09/2006 11:48:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Mikey Brass" <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> Here is what I would propose:
>
> By end of January: have got the website into a position where it can
be > more formally announced.
The more I think about it, the more I marvel at the excellent hatchet
job done by Ekklesia. I wonder if the web site's TIS entry should have
a reference and link to it very near the beginning, and continue
"...and here are the details..."
I suppose it will need re-working anyway, now that they've broken cover.
Brian
2998
Mikey Brass
Re: Truth in Science Lying?
25/09/2006 11:53:00
My recollection is that the dept of education has clarified it, stating
they are not referring to creationism ?
2999
jon_12091
Re: Truth in Science Lying? - The Lesson Plans
25/09/2006 12:19:00
I'm not an educationalist, so comments by anyone with real
experience of teaching will be most welcome. These plans are
apparently designed for GCSE biology.
1.1 - Irreducible Complexity Lesson Plan
1.2 - Starter Activity
Based on a Guardian article from Sept. 12th 2005, featuring an
interview of Michael Behe. Basically seems to be a piece of
comprehension and class discussion.
1.3 - Flagellum Concept Cartoon
An unconvincing argument in cartoon form
1.4 - I.C. (Optional Powerpoint)
Presents Behe's complexity argument using bacteria, and mentions the
mouse trap, in a handful of powerpoint slides. Apparently many
other scientists agreed with Behe – yet you give only one example!
2.1 - Fossil Record Lesson Plan
Among the Key Vocabulary is "Neo-Darwinism" - WTF
Anyway the main point of this lesson plan seems to be to get the
class to engage in a Newsnight-style debate. And I was thinking
that these plans where for a biology "science" class not media
studies…
2.2 - Starter Activity
Basically presents the some information about fossils in the form of
a pseudo-script for a TV production. Basically it attempt to
highlight that there are gaps in the fossil record – mentions
punctuated equilibrium, but fails to mention any of the other
potential reasons why we might be missing fossil evidence!
2.3 - Production Briefing Sheets
A series of sheets giving information for the different factions
appearing in the "TV debate". Basically they divide the argument
into the three groupings: Phyletic gradualism, Punctuated
equilibrium, & Phyletic discontinuity theory (ID/creationism by
another term)
2.4 - Powerpoint Introduction
A handful of un-illuminating powerpoints.
The basic thrust of this lesson is that there are gaps in the fossil
record the arguments in the "briefing notes" are thin and I couldn't
really explain some of them terribly well, and I'm post-grad
educated geologist, I have no idea how an ordinary biology teacher
would cope. Extremely fundamental arguments about the geological
column and the fossil record are boiled down into short sentences
and little attempt is made to integrate these into the over all
argument.
3.1 - Homology Lesson Plan
This basically drags up Ernst Haeckel's fraud from the 1860's
3.2 - Starter Activity
3.3 - Homology Concept Cartoon (another dodgy cartoon ramming home
the idea of a "creator")
4.1 - Natural Selection Lesson Plan
"Explain the term adaptation, and comment on the way animals best
adapted to their environment survive and reproduce, while those
least well adapted do not. Use the words variation, over-production
and competition. Emphasize that natural selection, just like
artificial selection, appears to be incapable of generating new body
plans." – Need I say anymore?
4.2 - Starter Activity
4.3 - Finches Concept Cartoon
I can't see these lesson plans attracting any but the most fanatical
or someone lazy to the point of incompetence. They are completely
devoid of content, other than ramming home the message creator,
creator, creator, but they clearly illustrate what the aims of this
organisation are - pure ID. The fundamental biological principles
are a bit beyond me, but so are some of the statements in the
discussion of the fossil record, which quite frankly boils the
argument so far down as to make it worthless.
As to weather these lesson plans could actually be taught in a
school without going against DE guidelines I don't know.
3000
Roger Stanyard
Re: Anti-evolutionists seek to lure parents
25/09/2006 12:18:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Mikey Brass" <michael.brass@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Here is what I would propose:
> >
> > By end of January: have got the website into a position where it
can
> be > more formally announced.
>
> The more I think about it, the more I marvel at the excellent
hatchet
> job done by Ekklesia. I wonder if the web site's TIS entry should
have
> a reference and link to it very near the beginning, and continue
> "...and here are the details..."
It's already in there. I put it in a couple of hours ago.
I'm working off site to update everything so it will be some hours
before you see any significnat change to out web site.
>
> I suppose it will need re-working anyway, now that they've broken
cover.
It's being done Brian. See above.
>
> Brian
>