3001
Roger Stanyard
Truth in Science and Blackshadow
25/09/2006 12:15:00
Truth in Science has a URL on it to our Blackshadow Wiki!
See
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/component/option,com_weblinks/cati
d,18/Itemid,23/
Roger.
3002
oeditor
Re: Truth in Science Lying?
25/09/2006 12:31:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> 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!
>
See message 2319 where I reported:
It still has the weasle-words about spirituality, but
the Darwin/controversy stuff has gone. Darwin doesn't even get a
mention. The new version is:
"How science works
Data, evidence, theories and explanations
1
Pupils should be taught:
a how scientific data can be collected and analysed
b how interpretation of data, using creative thought, provides
evidence to test ideas and develop theories
c how explanations of many phenomena can be developed using scientific
theories, models and ideas
d that there are some questions that science cannot currently answer,
and some that science cannot address. "
Brian
3003
Roger Stanyard
Re: Website counter?
25/09/2006 12:33:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> 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
I would love to have a web site counter up now. Can anyone give me some
help on this?
It's been in my in tray of things I need to do for the least week or so.
Roger
3004
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: Darwin''s God?
25/09/2006 12:55:00
> 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;-)
>
>
Ahhhhh, the fun I could have had . . . .
;)
But it sounds as if he will be having nightmares about you, as well.
===================================
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
3005
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Darwin''s God?
25/09/2006 14:02:00
> But it sounds as if he will be having nightmares about you, as well.
Lets just say I'll be making it a point to be in the city centre around
the same time on Sundays for a while to come. If he happens to be there,
wwhhhoooppppppsssssssss.
If he does re-appear, I am going to find out more on where he came from,
who he is representing precisely (although the last time someone asked him
he said "God's Word").
3006
oeditor
Re: Truth in Science and Blackshadow
25/09/2006 15:03:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> Truth in Science has a URL on it to our Blackshadow Wiki!
>
> See
> http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/component/option,com_weblinks/cati
> d,18/Itemid,23/
>
= http://tinyurl.com/fs9jg You wouldn't think it from the url, but you
get to it from "Links" on the navigation bar.
I fear that it's a sign of their confidence. I don't suppose they did
it out foolishness: they'll know exactly what we're saying about them.
Brian
3007
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Truth in Science and Blackshadow
25/09/2006 15:18:00
> = http://tinyurl.com/fs9jg
I have sent the wackoos an e-mail they'll be delighted to see;-)
Given the crap (i.e. IDiocy/creationism) being spouted on this site, it
was refreshing to see links to sites espouting sanity. I recommend adding
http://www.antiquityofman.com .
3008
oeditor
Re: Website counter?
25/09/2006 16:58:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
> I would love to have a web site counter up now. Can anyone give me
some > help on this?
>
It could be difficult to have an ordinary counter on the wiki - you
have to paste code into the page, and the wiki mechanism might not
like it. But I'm not sure. Mikey's suggestion of using OnOnOne's
built-in statistics might be better. Keeps it away from prying eyes
and gives you lots more info if it's anything like my host's stats.
Brian
3009
Dave Challender
Re: Re: Truth in Science Lying? - The Lesson Plans
25/09/2006 17:00:00
On 9/25/06, jon_12091 <jon_12091@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> 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.
Too lacking in detail to be considered lesson plans
> 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!
Not on curriculum in any shape or form.
An idea with essential zero scientific credibility so really cannot be
taught under the curriculum auspices of theories that are in flux /
controversial (see recent other thread, wording has recently changed
in this area)
Cannot comment much more with the lack of detail..
> 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.
With "gaps" you would expect some simple discussion / Q&A with the
students to help develop their thinking skills as basic geology
knowledge should enable students to give many reasons why the fossil
record is patchy.
Indeed what is impressive is how many fossils we have from so many
different ages and habitats - geologists have done well in searching
out fossils, and as new areas (e.g. recent studies in China, Argentina
etc are producing a wealth of interesting finds) are probed the fossil
record grows..
>
> 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")
Hard to comment without more details but homology can be useful in
talking about biological development, e.g. compare hip structures of
some dinosaurs with birds, one of the many pointers that there is a
slim evolutionary link.
Can lead to a whole raft of interesting discussion e.g. convergent
evolution (DNA studies can occasionally show that organisms that
appear reasonably related on a structural examination are more
unrelated than would be expected.
Homology is one of those things that can challenge ID, plenty of
appalling "design" common through related organisms, easy to explain
with evolution which as not about the "best" solution, whereas if a
designer was involved you would hope for a bit more elegance in some
of the mechanical side of things especially.
Obviously never been challenged by bright clued up kids if they expect
homology can support ID.
>
> 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
Again need more detail to comment but new body plans appears strange
phrasing, though can lead to interesting stuff e.g. examine whale
skeleton, compare it to another mammal such as a rodent, so easy to
illustrate how the same basic skeletal structure can be adapted to fit
various functions, linking back to before, on elegance ground some of
the solutions are nasty but easily fit with evolutionary concepts.
To engage students (especially ugh! factor!) a few looks at drosophila
mutations should show how easy it is to cause quite radical body
structure changes very quickly, and once large timescales are
introduced they can easily see different body plans. Other classics
are fish - amphibian body plan changes with loads of fossil evidence,
and even hot off the press finds for current newsworthiness.
>
> 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.
Again too lacking in detail to really say, depends on exactly what is involved.
Would certainly be very poor teaching to give ID themed lessons from a
lot of those areas!
--
Regards
Dave
3010
Roger Stanyard
New Member from Australia
25/09/2006 18:57:00
We have a new member today from Australia whose ID is kilessgmailcom
"Hi - active on several skeptic forums, interested in the continuing
fight as an educator."
Welcome to the group.
Roger
3011
ukantic
Re: Website counter?
25/09/2006 20:22:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@> wrote:
> >
> > 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
>
> I would love to have a web site counter up now. Can anyone give me some
> help on this?
>
> It's been in my in tray of things I need to do for the least week or so.
>
> Roger
See:
Click for Image
For last week's page views. Total = 3595
Total unique views = 642
I think it is possible to place a counter on the site. I will have a
look into it if you want Roger.
Alan.
3012
John Germain
RE: Truth in Science and Blackshadow
25/09/2006 20:27:00
Pharywotsit has a heads-up:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/09/truth_in_science.php
the Pagan Prattle (linked within) even has a respondent asking if anyone has
told Marc
Draco!
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Roger
Stanyard
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 12:16 PM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Truth in Science and Blackshadow
Truth in Science has a URL on it to our Blackshadow Wiki!
See
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/component/option,com_weblinks/cati
d,18/Itemid,23/
Roger.
Yahoo! Groups Links
3013
bonytrux
Trinity Senior Management
25/09/2006 21:40:00
Principal: Ian Brew - much already covered -vice principal at
Emmanuel following a spell in industry - relatively short experience
as vice-principal
Vice-Principals:
Doug Blackledge appointed deputy head of Thorne Grammar Sept 2002
(by me) Acting Head Sept 2004 for 1 year until the school closed to
make way for Trinity. Little sign of religious interest during the
term I worked with him. Only just allowed (Sept. 06)to do assemblies
at Trinity - were usually done by Brew and the other 2 vice-
principals during 2005-6 school year
Ian Richardson - spent last 14 years at christian boarding school in
Zambia, last 9 years as head.Previously spent 4 years teaching
science in Bristol. Would not expect him to get deputy headship in
1300 pupil comprehensive on the basis of that experience !
Dr. Julie McGonigle - completed PhD at Jesus College Oxford on
integrating schools in Northern Ireland. Then English teacher and
middle manager in a nice school in Cambridge. Then went to Kings,
Middlesbbrough to do a research project on 'their transformation
process'. Again quite thin experience for vice-principal post
Assistant Vice-Principals (6)
Five were ex-Thorne Grammar 1 transferred from Assistant Head, other
4 were promoted.
Nigel Westhead - Maths teacher in Wakefield, then 5 years as
presbyterian minister in East Hull. Then spell as RE teacher in
Wakefield, then returned to Maths teaching. Listed as collecting
theological books and doing some lay preaching in his spare time.
Shows clearly that apart from ex-Thorne Grammar staff there is a
bias in appointments to religious belief and to previous Vardy
experience !
3014
Mikey Brass
Re: Trinity Senior Management
25/09/2006 22:31:00
bonytrux wrote:
> Ian Richardson - spent last 14 years at christian boarding school in
> Zambia, last 9 years as head.Previously spent 4 years teaching
> science in Bristol. Would not expect him to get deputy headship in
> 1300 pupil comprehensive on the basis of that experience !
Based on that experience (particularly as I rate many southern African
schools ahead of English schools), I would disagree with you re your
last sentence.
However, I do agree with:
> Shows clearly that apart from ex-Thorne Grammar staff there is a
> bias in appointments to religious belief and to previous Vardy
> experience !
3015
Roger Stanyard
Re: Trinity Senior Management
25/09/2006 23:56:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "bonytrux" <bonytrux@...> wrote:
>
Thanks for this info.
This is the sort of detail that we need to build up a picture with.
It is painstaking but, at the end of the day, it is powerful stuff.
I'll be posting it all up on our web site within two days (sadly I
only do this part time and tomorrow I have to complete some draft
letters about Truth in Science).
Roger
> Principal: Ian Brew - much already covered -vice principal at
> Emmanuel following a spell in industry - relatively short
experience
> as vice-principal
> Vice-Principals:
> Doug Blackledge appointed deputy head of Thorne Grammar Sept 2002
> (by me) Acting Head Sept 2004 for 1 year until the school closed to
> make way for Trinity. Little sign of religious interest during the
> term I worked with him. Only just allowed (Sept. 06)to do
assemblies
> at Trinity - were usually done by Brew and the other 2 vice-
> principals during 2005-6 school year
> Ian Richardson - spent last 14 years at christian boarding school
in
> Zambia, last 9 years as head.Previously spent 4 years teaching
> science in Bristol. Would not expect him to get deputy headship in
> 1300 pupil comprehensive on the basis of that experience !
> Dr. Julie McGonigle - completed PhD at Jesus College Oxford on
> integrating schools in Northern Ireland. Then English teacher and
> middle manager in a nice school in Cambridge. Then went to Kings,
> Middlesbbrough to do a research project on 'their transformation
> process'. Again quite thin experience for vice-principal post
> Assistant Vice-Principals (6)
> Five were ex-Thorne Grammar 1 transferred from Assistant Head,
other
> 4 were promoted.
> Nigel Westhead - Maths teacher in Wakefield, then 5 years as
> presbyterian minister in East Hull. Then spell as RE teacher in
> Wakefield, then returned to Maths teaching. Listed as collecting
> theological books and doing some lay preaching in his spare time.
>
> Shows clearly that apart from ex-Thorne Grammar staff there is a
> bias in appointments to religious belief and to previous Vardy
> experience !
>
3016
Roger Stanyard
Re: Website counter?
26/09/2006
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <alan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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
> >
> > I would love to have a web site counter up now. Can anyone give
me some
> > help on this?
> >
> > It's been in my in tray of things I need to do for the least week
or so.
> >
> > Roger
>
>
> See:
>
> Click for Image
>
> For last week's page views. Total = 3595
>
> Total unique views = 642
>
> I think it is possible to place a counter on the site. I will have a
> look into it if you want Roger.
>
Alan, Methinks that this is a good idea. We have well over 150 pages
on the site and 3,600 hits seams to recognise that we are being
looked at by people outside of the group.
>
3017
oeditor
Re: Website counter?
26/09/2006 00:26:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> > For last week's page views. Total = 3595
> >
> > Total unique views = 642
> >
> > I think it is possible to place a counter on the site. I will have a
> > look into it if you want Roger.
> >
> Alan, Methinks that this is a good idea. We have well over 150 pages
> on the site and 3,600 hits seams to recognise that we are being
> looked at by people outside of the group.
>
I fancy the number to watch is the 642 unique views. A lot fewer, but
still not to be sniffed at.
Brian
3018
jon_12091
Re: Truth in Science Lying? - The Lesson Plans
26/09/2006 10:34:00
> With "gaps" you would expect some simple discussion / Q&A with the
> students to help develop their thinking skills as basic geology
> knowledge should enable students to give many reasons why the fossil
> record is patchy.
Its that level of knowledge that I quierying, I didn't do biology, but
I did chemistry, physics & geography at both GCSE & A-level and
entered my degree with only a pretty sketchy understanding of geology,
I'd have been hard pressed to make coherent arguments on the subject
of gaps in geology even after completing the degree's basic geology
course.
> Indeed what is impressive is how many fossils we have from so many
> different ages and habitats - geologists have done well in searching
> out fossils, and as new areas (e.g. recent studies in China,
Argentina
> etc are producing a wealth of interesting finds) are probed the
fossil
> record grows..
Geologists are able to better target areas of interest by comparing
the stratigraphic and fossil records, many researches are deliberately
targeting regions of the stratigraphic column where the fossil record
if patchy or where they expect to find important "transitional"
fossils. This aided by a better understanding of sedimentary
environments, how they develop and how they may change. While a
particular strata may have been orginally described as barren
continental desert sandstone we better understand that there is
potential for a lateral change in environment, such as finding basin
lake deposits, which may harbour preserved fossils. Detailed re-
examinations in the field of the stratigraphic record often turn up
things that were previously overlooked or dissmissed
as "unrepresentative". Historic type-localities are often found to
actually be unrepresentative of the overall strata rather than
repsentative in the light of modern field work. However the very
nature of the geological record means that there will always be
significant gaps which we can not close. Erasmus Darwin said "the
geological record was more gap than record" well before his grandson
perhaps rather foolishly predicted the ease with which we would find
transitional forms.
3019
Roger Stanyard
Truth in Science Update
26/09/2006 12:14:00
Here is an update on Truth in Science I have produced.
Any comments or additions would be warmly welcomed. It also needs
proof reading!
Chris Hyland over at Science Just Science is getting hold of a copy
of the material sent to heads of science departments. I think a
review of this would be very valuable.
TIS Breaks Cover
On 20th September 2006 Truth in Science broke cover from its largely
self-imposed silence over the last two years. It's was opened to the public.
Truth in Science is lying on its web site. It is trying to convince
the public and educators that the issue it wants taught in schools
is "Intelligent Design". This is a scam to cover its real intentions
which are the same as the Discovery Institute in the USA to get its
fundamentalist religion into science classroom.
That means that anything that contradicts the literal interpretation
of the bible, including the fact that the world is only six thousand
years old, should be taught in the school classroom.
Take a look at the strange case of the
of Take Heed Ministries?.
Back in March 2004 an obscure Northern Ireland ministry, Take Heed
Ministries, published a newsletter which described what Truth in
Science was about. Weirdly in the Summer of 2006 it doctored the
online newsletter to omit all mention of Truth in Science.
The original article on Truth in Science, which Take Heed Ministries,
has told us was there with the agreement of Truth in Science, clearly
stated that the aims of the organisation were religious and to expose
those that disagreed with it as charlatans. That means people who
teach science and disagree with its extreme creationism.
There is absolutely no doubt that the backers do not believe in
mainstream science and want teaching of it stopped in favour of their
own Christian fundamentalist religious opinions. It makes absolutely
clear that the backers believe that mainstream science undermines
children's moral and spiritual lives. It makes absolutely clear that
its objectives are religious.
No mention whatsoever was made of Intelligent Design. Yet it's newly
opened web site is riddle with references to Intelligent design,
makes only a small reference to the extreme literal creationism
accepted by those involved in it and drops the aggression and
reference to charlatans made in the March 2004 Take Heed Ministries
newsletter. It downplays religion and claims that its position is
purely based on science.
It makes no reference whatsoever that the people involved in Truth in
Science are nearly all hardline Christian evangelical creationist who
believe in young earth creationism. It makes not reference to the
fact that most of them are deeply involved in creationist
organisations.
It makes no reference to the fact that mainstream denominations
reject creationism.
Worse still, it appears that nearly all of the people behind Truth in
Science do not believe in Intelligent Design. They all appear to be
young earth creationists who believe the world was formed 6,000-
10,000 years ago and that any and all evidence (scientific or
otherwise) that contradicts their literal interpretation of the bible
is wrong.
Nearly all of them have close and long associations with creationist
organisations including Answers in Genesis, the Biblical Creation
Society and the Christian Institute.
They are all hardline evangelical Christian fundamentalists. Few of
them are scientists and many of their attempts to write science from
their fundamentalist viewpoint are risibly incompetent and wrong. It
is clear that many of them are utterly out of their depth and lack
the expertise to do so.
None of them has ever produced any scientific paper on their
creationist opinions that has been published in a mainstream
scientific journal. NOT ONE.
None of these facts have been presented by them on their web site to
the general public.
Truth in Science is a carefully orchestrated and apparently well-
funded exercise in deceiving both school teachers and the general
public so that extreme fundamentalists can get their religious
opinions into each and every classroom.
The people behind Truth in Science are part of a well-organised
network of creationist fundamentalists whose aim is to replace all
teaching with their own religious agenda.
Truth in Science has gone over the heads of both headteachers and
school governors by distributing, it claims, a "resource pack" (DVD
and supporting print material) to every school and college science
department head in the country. No effort has been made to inform the
parents of the children involved.
Former schools minister Jacqui Smith has declared categorically that
the government is against the teaching of creationism and Intelligent
Design in science lessons in English and Welsh schools a position
reiterated by the current Secretary of State for Education, Alan
Johnson. The OCR Examination Board has also ruled it out.
Truth in Science claims that it "encourages a rigorous examination of
whether or not this can explain the origin of life and its huge
diversity." This is a statement of gross deception. The backers of
Truth in Science dismiss mainstream science altogether. Their
attempts to get a foot in the classroom is a step to getting
mainstream science (and any other subject that does not support their
religious opinions) out of schools altogether.
Truth in Science openly admits that it wants to extend its activities
beyond its current undermining of biology. (see the opening page of
its web site which says "Our initial focus will be on the origin of
life and its diversity," clearly showing that it intends to also
focus on other, unspecified areas.)
None of the people involved in Truth in Science are distinguished
scientists. They have virtually no support whatsoever in the
scientific community. Their religious views are those of a tiny
minority or extremists.
The Intelligent Design concept they are claiming to promote has been
utterly discredited both in the courts, where one of its leading
advocates, Michael Behe, described the science behind it as on a par
with astrology. It has also been repeatedly discredited by leading
scientists.
It's protagonists have been completely unable to draft a syllabus
based on it and have resorted to using it solely to undermine
conventional science without being able to offer any alternative
whatsoever. Indeed, the protagonists for years hid from the public
that their real objectives have nothing at all to do with science
they are solely about social re-engineering and political control.
Truth in Science appears to have put together a series of loopholes
based on the word of the National Curriculum, to allow teachers to
bring religious fundamentalism into the science classroom. This is
what is called a "wedge strategy" or foot in the door approach. They
have no intention whatsoever of stopping there.
The whole exercise is in breach of public policy on teaching science
in the school classroom. Truth in Science appears to be pushing the
line that its religious extremism should be brought into the science
lesson but fails to ever mention why, in that case, should all other
religious views be taught in science.
The material being presented by Truth in Science will undoubtedly be
attractive to the small but growing number of fundamentalist teachers
in schools. It explains to them where then can present Intelligent
Design to children, especially to GCSE standard. It also provides a
religious justification for doing so.
The material also presents some very crude creationist "science"
which attempts to provide alternatives to mainstream science. Our
initial look at this suggests that much of it is just plain wrong; so
much so that the lot looks to be entirely worthless. However, it is
unlikely that this would be discernable to the layman or the non-
scientific headmaster or schools governor.
It appears that the people behind Truth in Science believe that
Ofsted will not object to what they are putting forward. However,
given that what Truth in Science is pushing is, at the end of the
day, religion in science lessons, it appears Ofsted will need to
address the issue.
What Truth in Science is doing is likely to confuse many children. It
conflicts not only with science but mainstream religion. It appears
that it is likely to raise hostility from both secularists and the
religious. It has also been pointed out to us that Truth in Science's
strategy is likely to do considerable damage to faith-based schools
in the UK.
How Well Funded is Truth in Science
From what we 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.
That's probably at least £45k including social costs. Plus the
production of CDs. Well, we guess a figure of £10 a disc (including
the cost of its content). With 3,000 schools, that's another £30k.
Plus written material. Say £3 a shot. Plus postage and distribution,
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 money 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, we guess 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. It therefore looks likely that funding is
in place for stock and distribution handling.
Where Has the Money Come From
This is not known at present but Truth in Science has claimed that it
has business people involved with it and states that > Metcalfe? is a businessman. Andy McIntosh?, its head, claims that
profits from his online bookstore all go to "Creation ministries" but
we believe that this is insufficient to cover the scale of the
operation. Truth in Science is not registered with the Charity
Commission so there are no details there either.
What is the Involvement of Creationist Groups in Truth in Science?
At this stage the direct involvement, if any, is not known although
Truth in Science has a Newcastle PO Box number. There is absolutely
no doubt though that the people behind Truth in Science are nearly
all connected with the main creationist groups.
Of the 18 people know to have been involved in Truth in Science,
seven (McIntosh, Burgess, Tyler, Taylor, Linkens, Wells and Jones)
were signatories to the 2002 letter to the then Secretary of State
for Education, Estelle Morris, lobbying to allow creationism to be
taught in science lessons. Four have been involved with the Biblical
Creation Society (McIntosh, Tyler, Jones and Burgess). John
Blanchard, whose PhD is from an unaccredited diploma mill, is author
of creationist books. Richard Porter has been involved in Answers in
Genesis, Willis Metcalfe is a long-standing shareholder in the
creationist Evangelical Times, John Perfect appears to have written
for that newspaper, David Harding has been involved with Andy
McIntosh in promoting creationism in Rochdale, Richard Buggs appears
to be associated with George Curry's church and Curry himself has
been involved in the Christian Institute and the hardline Church
Society.
In other words, the people involved in Truth in Science are part of a
well-connected and organised network of high profile creationists.
Whilst the organisation has clearly based its UK strategy on that of
the Discovery Institute in the USA, we are not aware of a connection
between the two (we don't dismiss the idea either). However, the
Discovery Institute has, with some glee, published details of Truth
in Science on one of its web sites:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/british_organization_seeks_to.htm
l
Who Runs Truth in Science?
It is understood that Truth in Science has at least one full time
employee but we are unaware who it is. The acting chairman of the
board is Willis Metcalfe. The other board members are Andy McIntosh,
John Perfect, Stephen Layfield and Maurice Roberts. The board is the
same as it was in March 2004.
The council of reference consists of Stuart Burgess, John Blanchard,
Gerard A. Chrispin, George Curry, David Harding, Russell Healey and
Derek Linkens. The council has seen two departures since March 2004
Stephen Taylor and Richard Porter. George Curry, David Harding and
Russell Healey are new names.
The scientific panel consists of Richard Buggs, Arthur Jones and Tim
Wells. All three have scientific PhDs although Jones is not a
practising scientist. The scientific panel appears to have been set
up since March 2004.
The Material Distributed to Heads of Science Departments
At this stage we have not reviewed the resource material sent to
heads of science departments. The initial feedback is that the
material has been professionally put together and, in terms of
presentation, is of high quality.
Truth in Science's Bogus Science
Truth in Science's web page contains unsubstantiated claims,
deception and outright misrepresentation.
According to Michael Roberts, "the material on the (Truth in Science)
website is carefully packaged, and its young earth creationist roots,
and thus its scientific worthlessness, may not be immediately
apparent to the undiscerning. Though the "Cambrian Explosion" is
mentioned (the sudden explosion of life forms spread over 10 million
years some 550 million years ago), any reference to the vast age of
the earth is carefully avoided."
This of course gives the game away that the people behind Truth in
Science doesn't believe in Intelligent Design which does allow for an
old age of the earth. They are, instead, young earth creationists who
believe the world was created 6,000-10,000 years ago.
Roberts also points out that "there is an air of superficial
plausibility" about Truth in Science's scientific claims, "which is
apparent in four lesson plans on Irreducible Complexity (Intelligent
Design's catchphrase), the Fossil Record, Homology and Natural
Selection
."
"Fossil Record Lesson Plan, where "Pupils are introduced to the three
theories currently used to interpret the fossil record: Phyletic
Gradualism, Punctuated Equilibrium and Phyletic Discontinuity." These
three are, of course, Darwinian gradualism, PE and essentially Six
Day Creation. Both scientists and theologians contend, with massive
evidence that it is disingenuous to present the last as a scientific
theory."
To put this in simple terms, Truth in Science are suggesting teachers
tell children that it is as plausible as any other theory that all
fossils were created between 6,000 and 4,000 years ago, mostly by
Noah's flood.
Truth in Science claims that few would dispute that natural selection
can alter allele frequencies over time and adapt organisms to
particular environments. The controversy is over whether this
mechanism can generate new levels of complexity and explain the
origin of all living things.
This is fiction. There is no doubt that this can lead to increased
complexity. What Truth in Science is failing to point out that there
are upwards of 400 alleles at some genetic loci in the human body.
This means that if Truth in Science's science is accepted we couldn't
exist as the human race would have been wiped out by cancer over
4,000 years ago.
Truth in Science claims that "there are undoubtedly many cultural
reasons why people find the theory of the origin of life and its
diversity by blind processes controversial. There are also cultural
reasons for why some people find this theory of origins very
attractive. No-one can fully divorce their cultural background from
their thinking about such a topic."
This is seriously bad science. Good science is independent of
culture. There are not distinct Welsh scientific explanations that
are different from Lithuanian or Buddhist scientific theories of
gravity or whatever. Science is an international, inter-cultural
discipline. What Truth in Science is trying to sneak in here is
religion disguised as culture.
Truth in Science claims that it welcomes the "acknowledgement of the
wider issues which relate to biology, and it is for this reason that
we suggest that particular care should be taken to teach the subject
of origins in a manner which is fair and balanced."
Except there is nothing fair and balanced about Truth in Science. It
has demonstrated in public that it is highly confrontational and
believes that scientists and teachers who disagree with it are
charlatans. The people behind Truth in Science are not liberally
minded. They are extreme religious fundamentalists. They are
Ayatollah wanabes.
Truth in Science claims that "asexual reproduction is twice as
efficient at passing on genes to the next generation. Furthermore, it
means that an optimal gene configuration can be passed on - in its
entirety - to offspring. Therefore, within an evolutionary framework
the origin of sexual reproduction is deeply mysterious."
Except this is wrong. Asexual reproduction is not efficient; it tends
to lead to extinction of species earlier that their sexual
equivalent. That is not efficient.
Truth in Science claims that "while there is general agreement that
some of the diversity of living organisms is due to selection and
evolution, it is controversial to claim that it can account for all
diversity.". There is nothing controversial about this except in the
minds of protestant fundamentalist creationists.
Truth in Science says that many scientists who are sceptical of the
claim that all of life is the result of unguided evolution still
believe that at least some evolution has happened in all species of
organism, and at least some new species have arisen.
Except that very, very few scientists are that sceptical. What Truth
in Science objects to is "a claim that all five kingdoms of life, and
the species within them, are the result of evolution alone. This is a
very controversial claim, and should not be taught as an
unquestionable fact."
Unfortunately for Truth in Science, it is not controversial.
Intelligent Design itself is discredited in the scientific word as
scientific alternative, leaving only the hocus pocus of young earth
creationism as an alternative to creationism.
Unfortunately there is no scientific theory of creationism. It simply
does not exist. What Truth in Science is trying to do is to get
teachers is to get rid of science and teach religious explanations
based soley on fundamentalist literal interpretations of the bible.
Truth in Science claims that "not all scientists believe that natural
selection, acting on genetic variation, can create new complex,
specified information. Students deserve to be able to explore these
issues."
Yet it risibly fails to state what these alternatives are. There is a
reason for this. Truth in Science is not in the slightest bit
interested in science. Science stands in the way of conversion of
people to its religious opinions. Truth in Science wants to undermine
science and cast doubt in peoples minds, rather than provide any
alternative whatsoever. Because it can't.
Truth in Science claims that a significant minority of qualified
scientists do not believe that Darwinian evolution can explain the
origin of the diversity of life we see around us. It points to a
claim that over " 600 scientists with PhDs have signed a public
statement: "We are sceptical of claims for the ability of random
mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.
Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be
encouraged."
Except all scientists are trained to be sceptical about all
scientific statements. It's a meaningless statement and a meaningless
list. But lets look at it a bit more carefully. It is a list of 610
people put together by the Discovery Institute in the USA, a right-
wing a and highly politicised public policy think tank, not a
scientific establishment.
That's the same Discovery Institute that has been promoting
Intelligent Design which Truth in Science is pushing but the people
behind it don't believe in it. It's the same Discovery Institute that
got caught lying when its secret "Wedge Document" leaked into the
public domain.
So you might reasonable expect the people involved in Truth in
Science to have not signed the Discovery Institute's list. If so, you
would be dead wrong.
Step forward Andy McIntosh, head of Truth in Science. He signed it!
3020
eduard at home
Re: Re: Stuart Burgess?
26/09/2006 12:36:00
bgcolor="#ffffff"
Marc ---
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!
eduard ---
I think that if one were to really look at the body for what it is, rather than to identify diseases that may plague it, that there is an essence of perfection. Of course, I'm not suggesting that anyone should look at my* body.
3021
oeditor
Truth In Science - the evidence
26/09/2006 13:27:00
Roger,
you mention in your long TIS post that evidence is found in Take
Heed's doctored newsletter. Elswhere, you pointed out that there was a
similar account in the Evangelical Times which you can't find on their
web site.
Since Evangelical Times is a printed journal, if the account was in
that then there should be copies filed somewhere. Has anyone access
to a library holding back issues (2004, IIRC). Michael?
Brian
3022
oeditor
Re: Truth in Science Update
26/09/2006 13:39:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> Here is an update on Truth in Science I have produced.
>
> Any comments or additions would be warmly welcomed. It also needs
> proof reading!
>
I haven't time to go into detail at the moment, but my immediate
reaction is that it's far too long to present in one piece. Ideally
you'd have several punchy paragraphs on the various topics, luring
people to more detailed separate pages. I think I saw a fair bit of
repetition, too.
I'll be glad to proof it, but wouldn't want to do any editing without
discussing it with you.
See also my separate posting re evidence. If we could find that
statement in print, it would be brilliant.
Brian
3023
Michael Roberts
Re: Truth In Science - the evidence
26/09/2006 14:14:00
Sorry, I have never bought a copy!
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "oeditor" <b-jordan@lineone.net>
To: <BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 1:27 PM
Subject: [BlackShadow] Truth In Science - the evidence
> Roger,
> you mention in your long TIS post that evidence is found in Take
> Heed's doctored newsletter. Elswhere, you pointed out that there was a
> similar account in the Evangelical Times which you can't find on their
> web site.
> Since Evangelical Times is a printed journal, if the account was in
> that then there should be copies filed somewhere. Has anyone access
> to a library holding back issues (2004, IIRC). Michael?
>
> Brian
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
3024
Michael Roberts
Re: Re: Stuart Burgess?
26/09/2006 14:18:00
bgcolor="#ffffff"
My problem neck disproves design!
Michael
Here's something I wrote in Debating Design;
In their understanding of Creation IDCs open themselves to having a split-level understanding of Creation, as part designed and part not. Behe states that, If a biological structure can be explained in terms of those natural laws, then we cannot conclude that it was designed.#_ftnref1] To take one of Behes examples haemoglobin is not designed, but blood-clotting is. This is in contrast to Design of Paley and Buckland where all is designed. Buckland took this to its extreme in his lecture on Megatherium, which as a sloth both Buffon and Cuvier thought was poorly designed. Buckland would have none of that and showed how such an apparently ill-designed beast was superbly designed to dig potatoes! I completed my paper on Buckland and Behe on an alpine holiday, and considered on the implications of Behes concepts of Design while ascending the Col du Lame at 3040 meters, which is overshadowed by le Petit Combin with its glaciers. Despite the steepness of some immense lateral moraines, I kept a good pace with the exhilaration of feeling fit with heart and lungs working well. Then I thought. Behe argued that haemoglobin is not designed and as I scrambled up the last few hundred feet of unstable scree, I thought, Haemoglobin is not designed, thus my good aerobic condition is not God-given. I then realised that if I slipped off the loose rock on to the glacier headwall below, I would have been shredded on the descent. And as I lay bleeding at the foot of the slope Design would come into action as my bleeding wounds began to clot! However I did not slip and at the summit I continued to think of Design as I considered the panoramic view with Mont Blanc to the west and the Great St. Bernard Pass below me. The beauty was breath taking, but to identify Design in such a complex and chaotic landscape was impossible. Awesome and wonderful, Yes! But designed?
Undoubtedly glaciated scenery is an extreme case, but the question of Design must be considered. However the example of haemoglobin as Undesigned and blood-clotting as Intelligently Designed poses a problem. In this case Intelligent Design will not satisfy any theist, but the perspective of Calvin and Orr would. Intelligent Design results in some of Creation being designedly created whereas the rest is undesignedly created. We end up with a two-tier Creation, with some life systems, which are due to the process of natural laws and are not designed and those which are supernaturally designed. The further question is whether inanimate bodies are designed or not. This Van Till has aptly named Punctuated Naturalism,#_ftnref2] whereby most processes are to be explained naturalistically (e.g. Haemoglobin and glaciers) but only some Theistically (e.g. bloodclotting). There was no two-tier Creation for Buckland; God had created (and thus designed whatever that means) all things, visible and invisible including Cuviers woeful Megatherium. Viewed teleologically apparently random and chaotic structures like glaciers may reflect what Polkinghorne terms the Inbuilt Potentiality of Creation and what Orr termed the order, plan, arrangement, harmony, beauty, rationality in the connection and system of things.
----
#_ftn1] M.Behe, Darwins Black Box, 1996, New York: The Free Press, p203.
#_ftn2] H van Till in Denis Lamoureux ed Darwinism Defeated? 1999. The intelligent design concept as it has been promoted by Johnson, with its intense emphasis on episodes of form-imposing intervention and its frequent association of material processes with naturalistic causes, could be more accurately called a theory of punctuated naturalism." (p. 88)
->
----- Original Message -----
From: eduard at home
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 12:36 PM
Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] Re: Stuart Burgess?
Marc ---
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!
eduard ---
I think that if one were to really look at the body for what it is, rather than to identify diseases that may plague it, that there is an essence of perfection. Of course, I'm not suggesting that anyone should look at my* body.
3025
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Stuart Burgess?
26/09/2006 14:30:00
Michael Behe accepts that chimps and humans shared a common ancestor;
something which upsets many creationists when it is pointed out;-)
3026
oeditor
Re: Truth In Science - the evidence
26/09/2006 15:21:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Roberts"
<michael.andrea.r@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry, I have never bought a copy!
>
I didn't imagine you'd have subscribed but I was hoping you'd have
access to a library with a set mouldering in the stack. Have you any
idea where such a library might be? If we can track one down, maybe
we'll have a local member who can look at a copy. They claim a
readership of 40000, so there must be some copies lurking somewhere.
OTOH, ET have a plushy new office in Darlington. Anyone from the North
East fancy trying to blag their way in? Anyone with a journalist
friend up there, who might stand a better chance?
Brian
3027
Roger Stanyard
Draft Letters
26/09/2006 17:00:00
I am putting together some draft letters that people can use to start
kicking up a stink about Truth in Science.
Science Just Science is doing the same thing at the moment so,
hopefully we should be able to save some effort and get letters out
in both names (the more the better).
Here is my first draft. This is intended to be sent to the education
departments of CofE Dioceses. From my limited research, this id dead
esy to find out - just Google "Diocese of (place local dioces name
here)" and look for education.
Any comments would be warmly welcome as usual.
To XXXX
The Department of Education
Diocese of XXXX
From Joe Bloggs
Email XXXXX
For and on behalf of the British Centre for Science Education
www.blackshadow.me.uk
Date: September XXXX 2006
Dear Mr. XXXX,
I represent an organisation, the British Centre for Science
Education, which is deeply concerned about the teaching of
creationism as science in schools in the United Kingdom.
We wish to draw you attention to a new organisation, Truth in
Science, that is aiming to have creationism taught in state schools
instead of mainstream science.
Last week Truth in Science announced that it was sending material to
the heads of science of all schools and colleges in the UK. We
understand this material suggests that such teachers teach
creationism in science lessons and shows how they can do so even
though it is not part of the National Curriculum.
Truth in Science is an organisation wholly run and controlled by
prominent young earth creationists in the UK. Nowhere in its
literature or on its web site has it let it be known what their real
position is on science.
As you are aware the official position of the Church of England is
that it does not accept creationism. This has been stated by both Dr
Rowan Williams and, in a BBC telephone programme to one of our
members, by Dr John Sentamu.
It is very clear to us that Truth in Science is trying to hide its
objectives and position by claiming that what it wants taught is
Intelligent Design. This has recently been shown in a court of law to
be nothing more than creationism.
We advise that neither headteachers nor governors or trustees of the
schools contacted by Truth in Science were made aware by the
organisation of material distributed last week.
We also point out that material being presented by Truth in Science
if full of scientific errors and misunderstandings.
We would like to receive your assurances that the Diocese of XXX is
taking active measures to prevent the teaching of creationism in the
XX (number of) schools and colleges it has responsibility for.
For background information on Truth in Science, there is a large
amount of information on our web site at
http://www.blackshadow.me.uk/index.php/Main/TruthInScience.
Yours Sincerely
Joe Bloggs BSc DipFin MBA
3028
jon_12091
Re: Stuart Burgess?
26/09/2006 17:00:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> Michael Behe accepts that chimps and humans shared a common
ancestor;
> something which upsets many creationists when it is pointed out;-)
>
You don't happen to have a reference for that "gem" in print anywhere?
Mike, with regard to your street preacher, I have vague memories of
there being a fundamentalist preacher regularly on the streets of
cambridge in the early '90's conected to a fundamentalist church
possibly out towards Cherry Hinton way?
3029
Roger Stanyard
Re: Truth In Science - the evidence
26/09/2006 17:06:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Roberts"
> <michael.andrea.r@> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, I have never bought a copy!
> >
> I didn't imagine you'd have subscribed but I was hoping you'd have
> access to a library with a set mouldering in the stack. Have you any
> idea where such a library might be? If we can track one down, maybe
> we'll have a local member who can look at a copy. They claim a
> readership of 40000, so there must be some copies lurking somewhere.
>
> OTOH, ET have a plushy new office in Darlington. Anyone from the North
> East fancy trying to blag their way in? Anyone with a journalist
> friend up there, who might stand a better chance?
>
> Brian
I might be able to help, Brian.
I suspect that the Diocese of Winchester has its own library for such
thinks (it, indeed, has a world famous library but that's for things
like original copies of King Alfred's Pastoral Care and the Anglo Saxon
Chronicle, not for the outpourings of what appear to be nutters).
I am writing to the Diocese shortly and may be able to follow up that
way.
Roger
>
3030
Timothy Chase
Re: Truth in Science Update
26/09/2006 17:58:00
On 26/09/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Here is an update on Truth in Science I have produced.
>
> Any comments or additions would be warmly welcomed. It also needs
> proof reading!
I will try looking at this more closely tonight. However, while
scanning, I did find one argument which was missing some important
elements:
> To put this in simple terms, Truth in Science are suggesting teachers
> tell children that it is as plausible as any other theory that all
> fossils were created between 6,000 and 4,000 years ago, mostly by
> Noah's flood.
>
> Truth in Science claims that few would dispute that natural selection
> can alter allele frequencies over time and adapt organisms to
> particular environments. The controversy is over whether this
> mechanism can generate new levels of complexity and explain the
> origin of all living things.
>
> This is fiction. There is no doubt that this can lead to increased
> complexity. What Truth in Science is failing to point out that there
> are upwards of 400 alleles at some genetic loci in the human body.
> This means that if Truth in Science's science is accepted we couldn't
> exist as the human race would have been wiped out by cancer over
> 4,000 years ago.
At the very least, this should mention something to the effect that if
the rate of mutation were high enough to produce these many alleles at
a given locus within such a brief amount of time (where only mutations
within the gametes would be passed on to the next generation), the
rate of mutation would have to be so high within cells throughout the
body (somatic as well as gametic) that the human race would have long
since become extinct.
Of course even this is rather breezy, but at the very least, something
to this effect is required for the argument to make sense. However,
what might work best here would simply be an explanation at the same
level you have given it (slightly reworded), then a link to the piece
by Lenny that goes into this issue in more detail, assuming he is
willing to contribute it. Likewise, Michael Suttkus might already
have something worth contributing on the evolution of sexual
reproduction - which you could also link to.
*
Incidentally, I can adapt some material which I have previously
produced which may be of some use in ridiculing creationists, and a
little later I may be able to contribute some science pieces. I have
other thoughts as well.
3031
Mikey Brass
Re: Draft Letters
26/09/2006 18:38:00
Roger, no offence but officials would shrug their shoulders. In order to
get attention, a link needs to be made in the letter between Truth in
Science and the likes of Vardy et al.
3032
Roger Stanyard
Re: Another Draft Letter
26/09/2006 18:40:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...>
wrote:
>
Here is a draft letter for sending to your MP.
Any comments would be appreciated
MP Draft
To Joe Bloggs MP
Address
Tel: 01xxx xxxxx
Email: xxxx
From Bill Smith
AddressJ
Telephone 01xxx xxxxxxx
Email roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk
For the British Centre for Science Education
www.blackshadow.me.uk
27th September 2006
Dear Mr. XXX,
Teaching religious creationism instead of science
I represent an organisation, the British Centre for Science
Education, which is deeply concerned about the teaching of
creationism as science in schools in the United Kingdom.
We wish to draw you attention to and serious concerns about a new
organisation, Truth in Science, that is aiming to have creationism
taught in state schools instead of mainstream science.
Last week Truth in Science announced that it was sending material to
the heads of science of all schools and colleges in the UK. We
understand this material suggests that such teachers teach
creationism in science lessons and shows how they can do so even
though it is not part of the National Curriculum.
Truth in Science is an organisation wholly run and controlled by
prominent young earth creationists in the UK. Nowhere in its
literature or on its web site has it let it be known what their real
position is on science.
As you are aware the official position of the present government is
that creationism is not part of the National Curriculum and has no
place in science lessons in state schools.
It is very clear to us that Truth in Science is trying to hide its
objectives and position by claiming that what it wants taught is
called Intelligent Design rather than creationism. This has recently
been shown in a court of law to be nothing more than creationism.
We advise that we believe neither headteachers nor governors or
trustees, nor local education authorities nor diocese education
boards of the schools involved were made aware by Truth in Science of
material distributed last week.
We also point out that material being presented by Truth in Science
of full of scientific errors and misrepresentations.
We would like to receive your assurances that (name of political
organisation) are aware of the serious danger to education posed by
Truth in Science.
We would also like to now what action the (name of political
organisation) are taking both within Westminster and the XXXX
constituency in preventing creationism being sneaked in by the
backdoor without parents, the local education authority and school
governors being aware.
For background information on Truth in Science, there is a large
amount of material on our web site at
http://www.blackshadow.me.uk/index.php/Main/TruthInScience.
Yours Sincerely
Bill Smith BSc DipFin MBA
3033
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Stuart Burgess?
26/09/2006 18:51:00
jon_12091 wrote:
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
> wrote:
>> Michael Behe accepts that chimps and humans shared a common
> ancestor;
>> something which upsets many creationists when it is pointed out;-)
>>
> You don't happen to have a reference for that "gem" in print anywhere?
It's in his black box book. Lenny has posted the extract on
DebunkCreation and probably has it in a ready-made cut & paste e-mail;-)
> Mike, with regard to your street preacher, I have vague memories of
> there being a fundamentalist preacher regularly on the streets of
> cambridge in the early '90's conected to a fundamentalist church
> possibly out towards Cherry Hinton way?
There is the Baptist church by the Grafton Centre which appears to
attract a few nutters; the church, unsurprisingly, targets Americans and
undergraduates.
3034
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Another Draft Letter
26/09/2006 19:06:00
Roger, you would still need to physically mention creationism in faith
schools to catch the reader's attention. In particular, a couple of
sentences linking TiS and the faith schools together.
3035
John Germain
Great Lives - Darwin BBC Radio 4
26/09/2006 19:48:00
Radio 4 Monday afternoon - listen again link
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/mainframe.shtml?http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/ra\
dio4_aod.s
html?radio4/greatlives
http://tinyurl.com/r3u5e
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
3036
Michael Roberts
Re: Draft Letters
26/09/2006 19:27:00
My comments preceded by MR
You could give a reference to my web article
Michael
---- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Stanyard" <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 5:00 PM
Subject: [BlackShadow] Draft Letters
>I am putting together some draft letters that people can use to start
> kicking up a stink about Truth in Science.
>
> Science Just Science is doing the same thing at the moment so,
> hopefully we should be able to save some effort and get letters out
> in both names (the more the better).
>
> Here is my first draft. This is intended to be sent to the education
> departments of CofE Dioceses. From my limited research, this id dead
> esy to find out - just Google "Diocese of (place local dioces name
> here)" and look for education.
>
> Any comments would be warmly welcome as usual.
>
> To XXXX
> The Department of Education
> Diocese of XXXX
>
> From Joe Bloggs
>
> Email XXXXX
>
> For and on behalf of the British Centre for Science Education
> www.blackshadow.me.uk
>
> Date: September XXXX 2006
>
> Dear Mr. XXXX,
>
> I represent an organisation, the British Centre for Science
> Education, which is deeply concerned about the teaching of
> creationism as science in schools in the United Kingdom.
>
> We wish to draw you attention to a new organisation, Truth in
> Science, that is aiming to have creationism taught in state schools
> instead of mainstream science.
>
> Last week Truth in Science announced that it was sending material to
> the heads of science of all schools and colleges in the UK. We
> understand this material suggests that such teachers teach
> creationism in science lessons and shows how they can do so even
> though it is not part of the National Curriculum.
>
> Truth in Science is an organisation wholly run and controlled by
> prominent young earth creationists in the UK. MR add here; One is Rev
> George Curry, cahirman of Church society.
Nowhere in its
> literature or on its web site has it let it be known what their real
> position is on science.
>
> As you are aware the official position of the Church of England is
> that it does not accept creationism. This has been stated by both Dr
> Rowan Williams and, in a BBC telephone programme to one of our
> members, by Dr John Sentamu. MR there is no official position by the
> cofe. BTW nearly 10% of CofE clergy are YEC and more are sympathisers.
>
> It is very clear to us that Truth in Science is trying to hide its
> objectives and position by claiming that what it wants taught is
> Intelligent Design. This has recently been shown in a court of law to
> be nothing more than creationism.MR they actually conceal their YEC basis
> and focus on critical teaching of science. This ploy has been used in the
> USA eg in Ohio
>
> We advise that neither headteachers nor governors or trustees of the
> schools contacted by Truth in Science were made aware by the
> organisation of material distributed last week.
>
> We also point out that material being presented by Truth in Science
> if full of scientific errors and misunderstandings.
>
> We would like to receive your assurances that the Diocese of XXX is
> taking active measures to prevent the teaching of creationism in the
> XX (number of) schools and colleges it has responsibility for.
>
> For background information on Truth in Science, there is a large
> amount of information on our web site at
> http://www.blackshadow.me.uk/index.php/Main/TruthInScience.
>
> Yours Sincerely
>
> Joe Bloggs BSc DipFin MBA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
3037
Michael Roberts
Re: Re: Truth In Science - the evidence
26/09/2006 19:20:00
There's no chance that they will have it. However they will have Sir Walter
Raleigh's History of the world, written while contemplating the severance of
neck vertebrae, who argues for a few thousand years and gives a wonderful
detailed map of the rivers of Eden
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Stanyard" <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 5:06 PM
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: Truth In Science - the evidence
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>>
>> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Roberts"
>> <michael.andrea.r@> wrote:
>> >
>> > Sorry, I have never bought a copy!
>> >
>> I didn't imagine you'd have subscribed but I was hoping you'd have
>> access to a library with a set mouldering in the stack. Have you any
>> idea where such a library might be? If we can track one down, maybe
>> we'll have a local member who can look at a copy. They claim a
>> readership of 40000, so there must be some copies lurking somewhere.
>>
>> OTOH, ET have a plushy new office in Darlington. Anyone from the North
>> East fancy trying to blag their way in? Anyone with a journalist
>> friend up there, who might stand a better chance?
>>
>> Brian
>
> I might be able to help, Brian.
>
> I suspect that the Diocese of Winchester has its own library for such
> thinks (it, indeed, has a world famous library but that's for things
> like original copies of King Alfred's Pastoral Care and the Anglo Saxon
> Chronicle, not for the outpourings of what appear to be nutters).
>
> I am writing to the Diocese shortly and may be able to follow up that
> way.
>
> Roger
>
>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
3038
Timothy Chase
Layfield: "The Teaching of Science: A Biblical Perspective"
26/09/2006 20:32:00
This piece seemed familiar, but I did a few searches of the email I
have received from the group, and nothing turned up. My apologies if
it has already been mentioned.
However, here we have Layfield insisting upon a literal interpretation
of Genesis, including the creation story (which one?) and the story of
the flood. (Allegory seems to be too abstract a concept for the poor
fellow!) We also have him insisting that biology is simply one front
in the assault upon science -- physics and chemistry must be made to
conform to his fundamentalism, too.
What the Christian Institute really believes
"The Teaching of Science
"A Biblical Perspective"
A lecture given by Steven Layfield at Emmanuel College, Gateshead on
21 September 2000
http://www.darwinwars.com/lunatic/liars/layfield.html
*
Steven Layfield is listed on the board of directors for "Truth in
Science" and is the head of science at Emmanuel College, Gateshead.
(The Emmanuel Schools Foundation was formerly known as the Vardy
Foundation.)
3039
Michael Roberts
Re: Draft Letters
26/09/2006 20:37:00
Also note that ALL directors of education will not be YEC and many are not
Evangelical so tend to be bemused by all this YEC nonsense. Most CofE
schools are primary so are not affected. There are only 9 in Blackburn
diocese.
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
To: <BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] Draft Letters
> My comments preceded by MR
>
> You could give a reference to my web article
>
> Michael
>
> ---- Original Message -----
> From: "Roger Stanyard" <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk>
> To: <BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 5:00 PM
> Subject: [BlackShadow] Draft Letters
>
>
>>I am putting together some draft letters that people can use to start
>> kicking up a stink about Truth in Science.
>>
>> Science Just Science is doing the same thing at the moment so,
>> hopefully we should be able to save some effort and get letters out
>> in both names (the more the better).
>>
>> Here is my first draft. This is intended to be sent to the education
>> departments of CofE Dioceses. From my limited research, this id dead
>> esy to find out - just Google "Diocese of (place local dioces name
>> here)" and look for education.
>>
>> Any comments would be warmly welcome as usual.
>>
>> To XXXX
>> The Department of Education
>> Diocese of XXXX
>>
>> From Joe Bloggs
>>
>> Email XXXXX
>>
>> For and on behalf of the British Centre for Science Education
>> www.blackshadow.me.uk
>>
>> Date: September XXXX 2006
>>
>> Dear Mr. XXXX,
>>
>> I represent an organisation, the British Centre for Science
>> Education, which is deeply concerned about the teaching of
>> creationism as science in schools in the United Kingdom.
>>
>> We wish to draw you attention to a new organisation, Truth in
>> Science, that is aiming to have creationism taught in state schools
>> instead of mainstream science.
>>
>> Last week Truth in Science announced that it was sending material to
>> the heads of science of all schools and colleges in the UK. We
>> understand this material suggests that such teachers teach
>> creationism in science lessons and shows how they can do so even
>> though it is not part of the National Curriculum.
>>
>> Truth in Science is an organisation wholly run and controlled by
>> prominent young earth creationists in the UK. MR add here; One is Rev
>> George Curry, cahirman of Church society.
> Nowhere in its
>> literature or on its web site has it let it be known what their real
>> position is on science.
>>
>> As you are aware the official position of the Church of England is
>> that it does not accept creationism. This has been stated by both Dr
>> Rowan Williams and, in a BBC telephone programme to one of our
>> members, by Dr John Sentamu. MR there is no official position by the
>> cofe. BTW nearly 10% of CofE clergy are YEC and more are sympathisers.
>>
>> It is very clear to us that Truth in Science is trying to hide its
>> objectives and position by claiming that what it wants taught is
>> Intelligent Design. This has recently been shown in a court of law to
>> be nothing more than creationism.MR they actually conceal their YEC basis
>> and focus on critical teaching of science. This ploy has been used in the
>> USA eg in Ohio
>>
>> We advise that neither headteachers nor governors or trustees of the
>> schools contacted by Truth in Science were made aware by the
>> organisation of material distributed last week.
>>
>> We also point out that material being presented by Truth in Science
>> if full of scientific errors and misunderstandings.
>>
>> We would like to receive your assurances that the Diocese of XXX is
>> taking active measures to prevent the teaching of creationism in the
>> XX (number of) schools and colleges it has responsibility for.
>>
>> For background information on Truth in Science, there is a large
>> amount of information on our web site at
>> http://www.blackshadow.me.uk/index.php/Main/TruthInScience.
>>
>> Yours Sincerely
>>
>> Joe Bloggs BSc DipFin MBA
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
3040
Roger Stanyard
Re: Draft Letters
26/09/2006 22:13:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> Roger, no offence but officials would shrug their shoulders. In order
to
> get attention, a link needs to be made in the letter between Truth in
> Science and the likes of Vardy et al.
OK, I'll work that in. It isn't difficult as Layfield is involved in
Truth in Science. There are other connections as well.
Roger
>
3041
Roger Stanyard
Re: Draft Letters
26/09/2006 22:11:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Roberts"
<michael.andrea.r@...> wrote:
>
> My comments preceded by MR
>
> You could give a reference to my web article
>
> Michael
>
Thanks for the tip.
I'll do that.
Roger
3042
Roger Stanyard
New Message
26/09/2006 22:08:00
We have another new member.
Dave Oldridge has joined us. Dave is an ordained minister and a real
heavyweight anti-creationist.
He is based in Vancouver in Canada and tends to eat creationists alive.
Welcome Dave and thanks for joining us.
Roger
3043
Roger Stanyard
Re: Another Draft Letter
26/09/2006 22:16:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> Roger, you would still need to physically mention creationism in
faith
> schools to catch the reader's attention. In particular, a couple of
> sentences linking TiS and the faith schools together.
Bit difficult because there is a problem about the definition of faith
schools.
Do you have a definition? Seems to me that any school, including CofE
and Roman Catholic schools, are faith schools.
Roger
3044
Michael Roberts
Re: Layfield: "The Teaching of Science: A Biblical Perspective"
26/09/2006 21:19:00
Isn't it wonderful! Read what he says about the effects of Adams Fall on
page 6
Poor Adam, when he took a bite out the apple, craters appeared in the moon
An apple a day makes a crater a day!
also on that day dogs and cats mutated and grew fangs.
This was beautifully put by Hugh Miller in The Testimony of the Rocks in
1857 (Miller was a member of the Free Church of Scotland and an evangelical)
"shortened their bowels, lengthened their teeth and stuck formidable claws
into the points of their digits" p386
This is in a wonderful chapter entitled "the Geology of the Anti-geologists"
and is a superb romp through lunatic fringe Christians on geology. He even
cited one of Isaac Watts hymns
"let dogs delight to bark and bite
For God hath made them so"
but according to one loopy guy in 1853 it should have been
"Let dogs delight to bark and bite
Satan hath made them so"
I follow Watts at his point and many others even though he popped his clogs
in 1748.
Incidentally I can only name one YEC Anglican clergyman from 1858 to 1970
and that was Griffith Thomas in 1919 who became brown bread in 1924 (all
this is on audio on the Faraday inst website) and now it is approaching 10%
i.e. 1000 today
I wonder why the Christian Inst removed it form their website in 2002
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Timothy Chase" <timothychase@gmail.com>
To: <BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 8:32 PM
Subject: [BlackShadow] Layfield: "The Teaching of Science: A Biblical
Perspective"
> This piece seemed familiar, but I did a few searches of the email I
> have received from the group, and nothing turned up. My apologies if
> it has already been mentioned.
>
> However, here we have Layfield insisting upon a literal interpretation
> of Genesis, including the creation story (which one?) and the story of
> the flood. (Allegory seems to be too abstract a concept for the poor
> fellow!) We also have him insisting that biology is simply one front
> in the assault upon science -- physics and chemistry must be made to
> conform to his fundamentalism, too.
>
>
> What the Christian Institute really believes
>
> "The Teaching of Science
> "A Biblical Perspective"
>
> A lecture given by Steven Layfield at Emmanuel College, Gateshead on
> 21 September 2000
> http://www.darwinwars.com/lunatic/liars/layfield.html
>
> *
>
> Steven Layfield is listed on the board of directors for "Truth in
> Science" and is the head of science at Emmanuel College, Gateshead.
> (The Emmanuel Schools Foundation was formerly known as the Vardy
> Foundation.)
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
3045
Roger Stanyard
Re: Great Lives - Darwin BBC Radio 4
26/09/2006 22:46:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "John Germain"
<jtg.germainsjy@...> wrote:
>
> Radio 4 Monday afternoon - listen again link
>
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/mainframe.shtml?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4_aod.s
> html?radio4/greatlives
>
> http://tinyurl.com/r3u5e
>
> John Germain
> Jersey
> British Channel Islands
An interesting programme. I have always had a high opinion of Adair
Turner.
Roger
>
3046
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Another Draft Letter
26/09/2006 22:50:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
> wrote:
>> Roger, you would still need to physically mention creationism in
> faith
>> schools to catch the reader's attention. In particular, a couple of
>> sentences linking TiS and the faith schools together.
>
> Bit difficult because there is a problem about the definition of faith
> schools.
I'm referring to the Vardy et al. schools.
3047
Roger Stanyard
Re: Layfield: "The Teaching of Science: A Biblical Perspective"
26/09/2006 22:53:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Roberts"
<michael.andrea.r@...> wrote:
>
> Incidentally I can only name one YEC Anglican clergyman from 1858
to 1970
> and that was Griffith Thomas in 1919 who became brown bread in 1924
(all
> this is on audio on the Faraday inst website) and now it is
approaching 10%
> i.e. 1000 today
>
> I wonder why the Christian Inst removed it form their website in
2002
Presumably for exactly the same reasons as the following:
1. The Christian Institute removed Stephen Layfield's infamous paper.
2. Take Heed Ministries removed all past reference to Truth in
Science.
3. Evangelical Times removed all past reference to Truth in Science.
4. Tinshill Church has just removed all reference to Truth in Science.
Roger
3048
Roger Stanyard
Re: Another Draft Letter
26/09/2006 22:58:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> Roger Stanyard wrote:
> > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@>
> > wrote:
> >> Roger, you would still need to physically mention creationism in
> > faith
> >> schools to catch the reader's attention. In particular, a couple
of
> >> sentences linking TiS and the faith schools together.
> >
> > Bit difficult because there is a problem about the definition of
faith
> > schools.
>
> I'm referring to the Vardy et al. schools.
I get it. Thanks.
Roger
>
3049
Michael Roberts
Re: New Message
26/09/2006 23:12:00
I prefer mine stewed rather like Jonah in the whale
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Stanyard" <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 10:08 PM
Subject: [BlackShadow] New Message
> We have another new member.
>
> Dave Oldridge has joined us. Dave is an ordained minister and a real
> heavyweight anti-creationist.
>
> He is based in Vancouver in Canada and tends to eat creationists alive.
>
> Welcome Dave and thanks for joining us.
>
> Roger
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
3050
Michael Roberts
Re: Re: Layfield: "The Teaching of Science: A Biblical Perspective"
26/09/2006 23:15:00
Perhaps they should preach on John 18 vs 38
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Stanyard" <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 10:53 PM
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: Layfield: "The Teaching of Science: A Biblical
Perspective"
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Roberts"
> <michael.andrea.r@...> wrote:
>>
>> Incidentally I can only name one YEC Anglican clergyman from 1858
> to 1970
>> and that was Griffith Thomas in 1919 who became brown bread in 1924
> (all
>> this is on audio on the Faraday inst website) and now it is
> approaching 10%
>> i.e. 1000 today
>>
>> I wonder why the Christian Inst removed it form their website in
> 2002
>
> Presumably for exactly the same reasons as the following:
>
> 1. The Christian Institute removed Stephen Layfield's infamous paper.
> 2. Take Heed Ministries removed all past reference to Truth in
> Science.
> 3. Evangelical Times removed all past reference to Truth in Science.
> 4. Tinshill Church has just removed all reference to Truth in Science.
>
>
> Roger
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
