3051
ukantic
Counter.
26/09/2006 23:23:00
Roger, I have just added a counter to the bottom of the main page. It
shows visits to main page & total visits to all pages. What do you think?
Alan.
3052
Wilson Alan
RE: Draft Letters
26/09/2006 23:30:00
bgcolor="white"
Roger,
May I suggest that the second paragraph, and
any other occurrences be changed to “…instead of, or together with,
mainstream science.”
Regards,
Alan
----
'From:'
BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] 'On Behalf Of 'Roger Stanyard
'Sent:' 26 September 2006 17:00
'To:' BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
'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. 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
3053
Michael Roberts
Re: Re: Draft Letters
26/09/2006 23:20:00
Both Curry and layfield are connected with the Christian Institute and
Emmanuel Coll, Gateshead (as are Burn , McQuoid and D Holloway - who taught
me some ethics at theological college), now Vardy is a sponsor of Emmanuel
College.
Further most if not all of the Truthinscience committee are clearly YEC and
not ID
Also links with BCS and AIG, Evang Times etc.
It's a spiders web
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Stanyard" <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 10:13 PM
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: Draft Letters
> --- 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
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
3054
Roger Stanyard
Re: Draft Letters
26/09/2006 23:55:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Roberts"
<michael.andrea.r@...> wrote:
>
> Both Curry and layfield are connected with the Christian Institute
and
> Emmanuel Coll, Gateshead (as are Burn , McQuoid and D Holloway -
who taught
> me some ethics at theological college), now Vardy is a sponsor of
Emmanuel
> College.
>
> Further most if not all of the Truthinscience committee are clearly
YEC and
> not ID
>
> Also links with BCS and AIG, Evang Times etc.
>
> It's a spiders web
>
> Michael
We've got all of this on the web site. In fact I am sitting on a
table which shows the connection of each of the main fundies to each
creationist group. It's frightening.
Methinks it is worth looking at the web site to show how I have put
together the links. It took me ages.
What Truth in Science is basically about is that seven of the names
were on the 2002 Estelle Morris letter. That's the letter from which
I was able to race back all the links.
The one I am tracing at the moment is Cecil Andrews of Take Heed
Ministries. I think that he has been a gopher at the political level
for Truth in Science.
Roger
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...>
> To: <BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 10:13 PM
> Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: Draft Letters
>
>
> > --- 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
> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
3055
Roger Stanyard
Re: Counter.
26/09/2006 23:59:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <alan@...> wrote:
>
> Roger, I have just added a counter to the bottom of the main page. It
> shows visits to main page & total visits to all pages. What do you
think?
>
> Alan.
Yep, great Alan.
I changed the colour though. Bright red doesn't go with blue.
Thanks
>
3056
oeditor
Re: Draft Letters
26/09/2006 23:59:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Michael
Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@...> wrote:
> Further most if not all of the Truthinscience committee are clearly
YEC and > not ID
>
Agreed; but why are they pretending to be IDers when ID got such a
trouncing in the USA? Don't they understand that, or have they got a
Cunning Plan?
Brian
3057
ukantic
Re: Counter.
27/09/2006 00:15:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <alan@> wrote:
> >
> > Roger, I have just added a counter to the bottom of the main page. It
> > shows visits to main page & total visits to all pages. What do you
> think?
> >
> > Alan.
>
> Yep, great Alan.
>
> I changed the colour though. Bright red doesn't go with blue.
>
> Thanks
>
> >
Well in that case you should like this even more:
http://www.blackshadow.me.uk/?action=totalcounter
Although you may wish to PW protect it.
Alan.
3058
oeditor
Re: Counter.
27/09/2006 00:27:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <alan@...> wrote:
> Although you may wish to PW protect it.
>
I think you should. However trivial, better that the opposition is
kept in the dark.
Brian
3059
Timothy Chase
Tinshill Free Church''s "The Magazine, No 226 "Truth in Science"
27/09/2006 02:56:00
I have the pdf...
"Recently the group Truth in Science has appointed a full time worker
who starts in the New Year. The aim is to provide a resource for
teachers to enable design based alternatives to be taught in schools.
In a similar way to the Christian Institute, we wish to present a
clear alternative to the atheistic humanism rampant through most of
our schools today. The aim is to launch some time in the middle of
2005."
pg. 6, "The Magazine," No 226, Dec 2004 - Jan 2005
Tinshill Free Church
3060
Timothy Chase
March 2004: Take Heed Ministries on "Truth in Science"
27/09/2006 02:50:00
NOTE: I have the rest of the webpage, if needed...
- - -
CAMPAIGNING for CREATION
What seems to have become virtually an annual tradition was once more
enacted on television screens as the early part of January saw the
screening of quite a number of programmes that unashamedly promoted
?evolution? as being tantamount to ?fact?. No such expenditure of
course is ever given to promote the case for ?divine creation? so it
is clear that the viewing public are not being told ?the truth, the
whole truth and nothing but the truth?. In view of this biased,
one-sided attempt to brain-wash people as to their ?origins? I am
reproducing here a notice that appeared in the January 2004 issue of
EVANGELICAL TIMES and I would encourage as many of God?s people as
possible to contact this group with a view to giving help and support.
TRUTH IN SCIENCE
It is a concern to many when science is wrongly taught in our schools,
colleges and universities. In particular, macroevolution is taught as
though it were a proven and unchallengeable fact. For our children and
grandchildren, God is thus robbed of His glory. Young people are
encouraged into a way of thinking that leads to atheism, hedonism,
despair and moral bankruptcy. Belief in a Creator is often ridiculed
and anyone advocating such a view is portrayed as either foolish or
naﶥ.
In reality evolutionary claims often constitute speculative beliefs
about the past and use explanations that are contrary to the spirit of
empirical science. For example, human origins are typically presented
with simplistic diagrams supposedly showing the progression from
ape-like ancestors to modern man. We believe this amounts to
deception. Problems with evolutionary theory are well documented but
many scientists seldom acknowledge this, choosing rather to gloss over
them. This matters because a false view robs us of our sense of value
and purpose before a Sovereign Creator God.
?If the foundations be destroyed what
can the righteous do?? Psalm 11:3
To respond to this, a group of professional and business people are
meeting under the heading TRUTH IN SCIENCE [TIS]. As citizens with a
concern for the family we seek to encourage Christians to be confident
that God?s spoken command in space-time history resulted in
supra-natural creation. Non-believers must be challenged in such a way
that they can no longer hide behind the delusion that science has
disproved the existence of God. TIS seeks to encourage scientists to
present the truth fairly and to expose as charlatans those who
deliberately mislead. Our aim is to compliment the work of existing
Creation groups by targeting education in particular.
Do you share this vision? We believe that as children of the Lord
Jesus Christ, bought at the price of His own shed blood, we cannot sit
back and allow this situation to continue unchallenged. Do you wish to
see our children being taught the truth rather than having their moral
and spiritual lives undermined? Although TIS have ways and means in
mind, at this early stage we are flexible about the best approach. If
finance is made available have you the time and ability and commitment
to be the driving force, co-operating with us, in this venture to
effect the education of young people in our land. If so, we wish to
hear from you.
Steve Layfield, Professor Andy McIntosh,
Willis B Metcalfe, John Perfect, Rev Maurice Roberts.
Our Council of Reference includes the following
Dr John Blanchard; Dr Stuart Burgess; Gerard A Crispin;
Prof. Derek Linkens; Prof. Richard Porter; Dr Stephen Taylor;
Please reply to TIS by email at ? applications@TruthinScience.org.uk
This email address was given for those wishing to apply but can be
used by those wishing to consider supporting Truth In Science. If you
need a postal address to write to I can supply that upon request.
--
Evolving Perspectives
http://evolvingperspectives.blogspot.com
3061
Timothy Chase
Blogger claims to have set-up "Truth in Science" website
27/09/2006 03:46:00
His name is Luke Plant...
http://lukeplant.me.uk/blog.php?id=1107301649
20 Sep 2006 22:15 - The website for Truth In Science has just launched
5 minutes ago (I know because I pressed the switch to make it go
public, having helped out a bit with building the website).
Truth In Science is a UK organisation seeking to improve science
education in the UK, especially in the area of theories of origins. It
is hoping to promote teaching of alternatives to evolution, especially
Intelligent Design, and encourage critical examination of evolutionary
theories. I'm proud to have helped out as I've been able.
...
[check out the first sentence below...]
Lionel: Thanks for leaving a comment. To some extent I agree with what
you say, that Intelligent Design is not a *scientific* theory (I
didn't actually say it was). You can certainly say that it is a theory
of origins. To some extent it is a philosophy, in the same way that
evolution is. The theory of evolution fails the 'disprovability' test
in a very similar way -- there is simply no experiment you can
construct that will disprove evolution. Evolution can explain
everything, but consequently it can predict nothing (since *any*
outcome can be explained) -- that makes is a theory of sorts, but
definitely not a scientific one.
However, the fact of the matter is that evolution *is* being taught in
schools, and in the UK it is being taught as not only a scientific
theory, but 'scientific fact', and in a totally uncritical and biased
way. As such, I believe it is a very bad influence on science in
general, especially biology, and on philosophy, and that it is a very
good thing for it to be critically examined.
I should also say that although theories of origins are not exactly
scientific theories, you would expect to be able to use science, or
something like it, to examine them, as you can examine with other
aspects of history. Theories which don't match up to the reality of
history ought to be abandoned.
Christianity especially stands or falls by its historicity -- the
apostle Paul was willing to say to the early converts "if Christ has
not been raised from the dead, your faith is in vain", and he
encouraged people to go and talk to the 500 witnesses of the
resurrection, "most of whom are still alive".
3062
Mikey Brass
Re: Blogger claims to have set-up "Truth in Science" website
27/09/2006 07:55:00
Posted a response on his blog. Guess I can tick him off my Christmas list.
3063
Roger Stanyard
Re: Draft Letters
27/09/2006 09:41:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Michael
> Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@> wrote:
>
> > Further most if not all of the Truthinscience committee are clearly
> YEC and > not ID
> >
> Agreed; but why are they pretending to be IDers when ID got such a
> trouncing in the USA? Don't they understand that, or have they got a
> Cunning Plan?
>
> Brian
>
My guess is that their model is based on the Discovery Institute. Their
aim is to de-stablise science to get (in the UK's case) religion into
every classroom (not just science).
Alan posted some comments a few days ago about the scary papers on the
Christian Institute's web site which shows that the fundies want
history, music, maths and English literature based on their
fundamentalist religious beliefs.
They have adapted what the DI has done but adapted it to UK conditions.
Like the DI, they know that the cannot get away with crude YEC stuff.
That was probably decided as far back as 2002 when the Vardy schools
stuff became widely known.
But the aim is still the same, social re-engineering.
This is basically a personal observation (opinion if you like) of mine
but I would like to spell it out on our web site.
If I am going to to so, I think it would be a very good idea that it
reflected a consensus amongst us.
Therefore any comments, additions, or whatever, would be highly
apprecriated.
Roger
3064
Roger Stanyard
Re: Counter.
27/09/2006 09:43:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <alan@> wrote:
>
> > Although you may wish to PW protect it.
> >
> I think you should. However trivial, better that the opposition is
> kept in the dark.
>
> Brian
>
I'll password protect it at lunch time. If anyone wants the password,
let me know.
3065
Roger Stanyard
Re: Tinshill Free Church''s "The Magazine, No 226 "Truth in Science"
27/09/2006 09:45:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase"
<timothychase@...> wrote:
>
> I have the pdf...
>
> "Recently the group Truth in Science has appointed a full time
worker
> who starts in the New Year. The aim is to provide a resource for
> teachers to enable design based alternatives to be taught in
schools.
> In a similar way to the Christian Institute, we wish to present a
> clear alternative to the atheistic humanism rampant through most of
> our schools today. The aim is to launch some time in the middle of
> 2005."
>
> pg. 6, "The Magazine," No 226, Dec 2004 - Jan 2005
> Tinshill Free Church
>
Timothy,
Could you upload it to the files of DEBUNKCREATION (Lenny's group)?
There is a reason for this. I need to put a link on our web site to
it so it needs to sit on a none-password protected but reliable web
page and server.
Thanks
Roger
3066
Roger Stanyard
Re: Blogger claims to have set-up "Truth in Science" website
27/09/2006 09:55:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase"
<timothychase@...> wrote:
>
> His name is Luke Plant...
>
> http://lukeplant.me.uk/blog.php?id=1107301649
>
>
> 20 Sep 2006 22:15 - The website for Truth In Science has just
launched
> 5 minutes ago (I know because I pressed the switch to make it go
> public, having helped out a bit with building the website).
Luke Plant looks to live in Cambridge and is a graduate of Cambridge
University. He looks to be a YECer and has written for Evangelical
Times. His web site links to that of John Blanchard (involved in
Truth in Science) and Answers in Genesis.
However amongst the YECers he looks to be a fringe player.
I could be wrong though.
Roger
>
> Truth In Science is a UK organisation seeking to improve science
> education in the UK, especially in the area of theories of origins.
It
> is hoping to promote teaching of alternatives to evolution,
especially
> Intelligent Design, and encourage critical examination of
evolutionary
> theories. I'm proud to have helped out as I've been able.
>
> ...
>
> [check out the first sentence below...]
>
> Lionel: Thanks for leaving a comment. To some extent I agree with
what
> you say, that Intelligent Design is not a *scientific* theory (I
> didn't actually say it was). You can certainly say that it is a
theory
> of origins. To some extent it is a philosophy, in the same way that
> evolution is. The theory of evolution fails the 'disprovability'
test
> in a very similar way -- there is simply no experiment you can
> construct that will disprove evolution. Evolution can explain
> everything, but consequently it can predict nothing (since *any*
> outcome can be explained) -- that makes is a theory of sorts, but
> definitely not a scientific one.
>
> However, the fact of the matter is that evolution *is* being taught
in
> schools, and in the UK it is being taught as not only a scientific
> theory, but 'scientific fact', and in a totally uncritical and
biased
> way. As such, I believe it is a very bad influence on science in
> general, especially biology, and on philosophy, and that it is a
very
> good thing for it to be critically examined.
>
> I should also say that although theories of origins are not exactly
> scientific theories, you would expect to be able to use science, or
> something like it, to examine them, as you can examine with other
> aspects of history. Theories which don't match up to the reality of
> history ought to be abandoned.
>
> Christianity especially stands or falls by its historicity -- the
> apostle Paul was willing to say to the early converts "if Christ has
> not been raised from the dead, your faith is in vain", and he
> encouraged people to go and talk to the 500 witnesses of the
> resurrection, "most of whom are still alive".
>
3067
Roger Stanyard
Re: Counter.
27/09/2006 11:15:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <alan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <alan@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Roger, I have just added a counter to the bottom of the main
page. It
> > > shows visits to main page & total visits to all pages. What do
you
> > think?
> > >
> > > Alan.
> >
> > Yep, great Alan.
> >
> > I changed the colour though. Bright red doesn't go with blue.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > >
>
> Well in that case you should like this even more:
>
> http://www.blackshadow.me.uk/?action=totalcounter
>
> Although you may wish to PW protect it.
>
> Alan.
Thanks Alan,
I'm a bit lost on passwrod protection for this. The way the wiki is
set up there is no internal link to this function that outside
readers can use. I have put the URL in a password protected page so
that members can see details if they have the password.
However, before I did this, the only way I could get access to the
total country was externally through the URL you give above.
So am In right in saying that, in effect outside users of the web
site couldn't see it?
Roger
>
3068
Roger Stanyard
Re: Draft Letters
27/09/2006 11:19:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Wilson Alan" <Alan.Wilson@...>
wrote:
>
> Roger,
>
> May I suggest that the second paragraph, and any other occurrences
be
> changed to "...instead of, or together with, mainstream science."
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Alan
>
Done
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
[BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Roger Stanyard
> Sent: 26 September 2006 17:00
> To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
> 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. 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.
> <http://www.blackshadow.me.uk/index.php/Main/TruthInScience.>
>
> Yours Sincerely
>
> Joe Bloggs BSc DipFin MBA
>
3069
Roger Stanyard
Re: Draft Letters
27/09/2006 12:48:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Wilson Alan" <Alan.Wilson@>
> wrote:
> >
Here is another draft letter for comment. It has been written by two
of us over in Science Just Science and it is for them to send it. As
we agreed a couple of months back one of the stated aims of BCSE is
to help other groups.
Now is our chance to demonstrate it. So naly comments on the draft
below would be doubly welcome.
Dear Sirs,
Science Just Science is deeply concerned about the teaching of
pseudoscience in place of science in schools in the UK and the affect
that will have on our nation's children.
Science Just Science is a pressure group that aims to keep science
and only science in the science classrooms of the UK. Its members are
professional and concerned individuals from all walks of life,
backgrounds and beliefs.
We are writing to inform your readers, be they parents or teachers,
of the launch of a fundamentalist creationist religious group called,
disingenuously, Truth in Science. It is aiming to get creationism
taught in science lessons in schools.
It is committed to "encouraging a rigorous examination of whether or
not this [current scientific thinking] can explain the origin of life
and its huge diversity."
The backers of Truth in Science believe in a literal interpretation
of the bible and that the world was created 6,000-0,000 years ago.
They believe that any evidence, scientific or otherwise, that
contradicts their religious opinions is wrong.
In short it is pushing supernaturalism as a viable alternative to the
accepted science regarding the origins and development of life on
this planet and established geological knowledge that the earth is
very old. This is at its heart a theological debate fit for a
religious education class, but not a science class.
Truth in Science's views on the bible and creationism are
unrepresentative of Christians as a whole and senior church figures
have spoken out recently against creationism. The teaching of any
form of creationist viewpoint in science classes, as part of the
National Curriculum, has been categorically ruled out by government
ministers.
Truth in Science is controlled and run by prominent and controversial
fundamentalist who, between them have lobbied government to allow the
teaching of creationism in the science classroom and have close
connections with the highly controversial fundamentalist academies in
Northeast England back by Sir Peter Vardy. They are also closely
involved with leading creationist organisations in the UK such as
Answers in Genesis and the Biblical Creation Society.
We believe that anything that obfuscates scientific understanding in
the young may have a future impact on our country's economy. Both the
Government and opposition parties wish to ensure that the UK remains
competitive in the global market has seen an increasing emphasis on
high-technology industries. This requires well-educated science
graduates, the numbers of whom are already falling year by year. This
country does not need school children confused and bemused by
religious fundamentalism in science lessons.
Truth in Science have recently sent free resource materials to every
school in the UK. We urge teachers to treat this material with
extreme caution and if they are in anyway unsure of its place in
class to recycle it forthwith.
We must also point out that Truth in Science is suggesting that it is
promoting "Intelligent Design", a simplified version of creationism
yet its backers are prominent young earth creationist activists whose
opinions on science are much more extreme. The material is full of
scientific errors and misrepresentations and fails to tell the
recipients about their creationist beliefs and objectives.
We would warn parents that well-intentioned, but misguided attempts,
to deliver this material in a science classroom may confuse rather
than enlighten children, and could well place their future academic
success and careers at risk.
Detail information on Truth in Science, the people behind it and
their connections with the creationist and fundamentalist movement
can be found at www.blackshadow.me.uk.
Yours Sincerely, for Science, Just Science
3070
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Blogger claims to have set-up "Truth in Science" website
27/09/2006 13:52:00
On 27/09/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > His name is Luke Plant...
> >
> > http://lukeplant.me.uk/blog.php?id=1107301649
> >
> >
> > 20 Sep 2006 22:15 - The website for Truth In Science has just
> launched
> > 5 minutes ago (I know because I pressed the switch to make it go
> > public, having helped out a bit with building the website).
>
> Luke Plant looks to live in Cambridge and is a graduate of Cambridge
> University. He looks to be a YECer and has written for Evangelical
> Times. His web site links to that of John Blanchard (involved in
> Truth in Science) and Answers in Genesis.
>
> However amongst the YECers he looks to be a fringe player.
>
> I could be wrong though.
>
> Roger
Honestly, I figured he is just a bit player, but I thought it was
interesting, just one or two of those little details.
3071
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Tinshill Free Church''s "The Magazine, No 226 "Truth in Science"
27/09/2006 13:55:00
On 27/09/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase"
>
> <timothychase@...> wrote:
> >
> > I have the pdf...
...
> > pg. 6, "The Magazine," No 226, Dec 2004 - Jan 2005
> > Tinshill Free Church
> >
>
> Timothy,
>
> Could you upload it to the files of DEBUNKCREATION (Lenny's group)?
>
> There is a reason for this. I need to put a link on our web site to
> it so it needs to sit on a none-password protected but reliable web
> page and server.
>
Not a problem.
3072
Roger Stanyard
Letters Sent
27/09/2006 14:08:00
Just a quick note to tell everyone that I have sent the first two of
our letters - one to Mark Oaten, my local Lib Dem MP nad one to the
Winchester Diocese education board.
I have placed copies on our web site but in a password protected area.
If you need the password, let me know.
Roger
3073
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Tinshill Free Church''s "The Magazine, No 226 "Truth in Science"
27/09/2006 14:19:00
Roger - you can't view the files section for DebunkCreation unless you have signed in. I guess membership has its privileges.
However, I looked it back up. While the webpage goes back only one year in issues of the magazine, the older issues are left up.
Here it is:
http://www.tinshill.f9.co.uk/226.pdf
On 27/09/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
->
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase"
<timothychase@...> wrote:
>
> I have the pdf...
>
> "Recently the group Truth in Science has appointed a full time
worker
> who starts in the New Year. The aim is to provide a resource for
> teachers to enable design based alternatives to be taught in
schools.
> In a similar way to the Christian Institute, we wish to present a
> clear alternative to the atheistic humanism rampant through most of
> our schools today. The aim is to launch some time in the middle of
> 2005."
>
> pg. 6, "The Magazine," No 226, Dec 2004 - Jan 2005
> Tinshill Free Church
>
Timothy,
Could you upload it to the files of DEBUNKCREATION (Lenny's group)?
There is a reason for this. I need to put a link on our web site to
it so it needs to sit on a none-password protected but reliable web
page and server.
Thanks
Roger
--
Evolving Perspectives
http://evolvingperspectives.blogspot.com
3074
Roger Stanyard
Re: Tinshill Free Church''s "The Magazine, No 226 "Truth in Science"
27/09/2006 14:42:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase"
<timothychase@...> wrote:
>
> Roger - you can't view the files section for DebunkCreation unless
you have
> signed in. I guess membership has its privileges.
>
> However, I looked it back up. While the webpage goes back only one
year in
> issues of the magazine, the older issues are left up.
>
> Here it is:
>
> http://www.tinshill.f9.co.uk/226.pdf
>
Thanks Tim,
What I have done is to upload it onto the files of a completly
unmoderated and open Yahoo group at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DEBUNKINGEVOLUTIONISM
My understanding is that you don't have to sign into this group.
My idea is that I can then put a URL link too into on the BCSE web
site that can be opened with having to have membership of Blackshadow.
I hope it works!
The actual path is at
http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/0HUaRfbjjD2A64yzDm8e_qIz2T9DbQdpu1tRb2QTp
ND5-NKV61SssEG43YyhifZ1ykpaLIZ3wZKlK4C1LU367ZNqT96dBcsHLoM/Tinshill%
20226.pdf
What worries me is that anyone in the BSCE web site needs to be
registered with Yahoo to gain access. Am I correct that this is the
position?
I have a feeling it isn't.
Roger
3075
Timothy Chase
Evolutionary Maintenance of Sex
27/09/2006 15:18:00
In population theory, there is a problem in explaining why sex
continues to exist, and to "prove" their point, all creationists would
have to do is cite the sentences from below - or sentences like them :
"The question of the adaptive value of sexual reproduction has proven
to be the source of a great deal of controversy in evolutionary
biology, and has occupied the minds of some of the big names in the
field for over twenty years... The search for the adaptive value of
sexual reproduction became yet more problematic when Maynard Smith
(1975) proved that there is a two-fold reduction in fitness associated
with sexual reproduction. This 'cost of males' occurs in aniosgamous
species (species with gametes of different sizes). "
The maintenance of sex
Graeme Pound
http://www.hpcc.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~gep98r/third.html
However, it is hardly the problem that they make it out to be.
The central problem has to do with the cost of sex which is entirely
incurred by the female, at least in most species. She is at a
disadvantage compared to the males, so all things being equal, she
would seem to be at a disadvantage when compared with the asexually
reproducing female who passes on all of her genes to the next
generation. From the perspective of population theory, it would seem
that asexually-reproducing females would overrun the population - in
the long-run.
Arguments which simply point to the survival value of sexual
reproduction for the population are just that. They do not show how
it is advantageous to the individual female in the short run - at the
level that natural selection works - and as it is analyzed in terms of
population theory. Nevertheless, many solutions have been proposed -
with the real difficulty being that of finding empirical support for
them. (The "problem" is given an additional level of complexity in
that some species are capable of both sexual and asexual
reproduction.)
At this point, evidence seems to be accumulating for the view that
asexually-reproducing females are at a disadvantage in that their
offspring are unable to occupy as many niches and are in fact limited
to only one niche. Of course, there are other so-called "problems,"
such as explaining sexual dimorphism, etc, but typically when
scientific literature cites sex as something problematic, this what
they mean.
In sum:
It is not as if we have no solutions for explaining how sex is
maintained given the paradox uncovered by population theory: we have
about twenty of them. The problem is choosing between them on the
basis of the evidence, and currently the evidence suggests that clonal
populations will be much more limited in their niches - not to mention
far more susceptible to diseases which have the potential for wiping
out such monocultures. The genetic diversity made possible by sexual
reproducing greatly mitigates such threats.
3076
Roger Stanyard
Boris Johnson!
27/09/2006 15:48:00
Boris Johnson needs to be watch like a hawk. He is no longer editor
of the Spectator but is Shadow Minister for Higher Education. Johnson
appears to be sympathetic towards creationism.
In the Summer of 2002 Cecil Andrews, the itinerant Northern Ireland
minister, young earth creationist and rabid anti-catholic sent a
creationist video to all 659 MPs in Westminster. All but four ignored
it. Johnson was one of the four and he also replied to Andrews.
This was his reply:
"Dear Mr Andrews,
Thank you for your letter and for sending me a copy of the video A
Question of Origins. You are quite right in identifying the
controversy, which surrounds to the long-standing debate between
those who believe in biblical creation and supporters of the theory
of evolution. I believe this debate to be another part of a wider
agenda which seeks to replace the Judeo Christian beliefs that
underpin society with secularism, a product of political correctness
and in my view with little to offer any of us. Thank you for writing.
Best wishes.
BORIS JOHNSON MP."
Roger
PS, for Americans etc amongst us Boris Johnson is regarded as an
eccentric Member of Parliament (equivalent of a US Congressman), a
sort of Bertie Wooster characater but, unfortunately, without the
guiding hand of a Jeeves. Consequently he gets into all kinds of
escapades and trouble.
3077
Roger Stanyard
Re: Evolutionary Maintenance of Sex
27/09/2006 15:59:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase" <timothychase@...>
wrote:
>
> In population theory, there is a problem in explaining why sex
> continues to exist, and to "prove" their point, all creationists would
> have to do is cite the sentences from below - or sentences like them :
Tim, I have pasted this onto our web site, linking from the Truth in
Science section.
Roger
3078
Roger Stanyard
Re: Truth in Science Update
27/09/2006 16:04:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase"
<timothychase@...> wrote:
>
> 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.
I think we should get this in if we can. Does Lenny have a piece on
the allele/cancer issue (or Michael Suttkus)?
Roger
>
3079
JAF
Emmanuel''s governors (No news).
27/09/2006 16:16:00
About a week ago, I sent this email to the DFES -
"On your web site, under the heading of 'Frequently Asked Questions' is the
following -
" How are Academies accountable to their local communities?
We want Academies to be at the heart of their communities, and expect them
to be established in consultation with local stakeholders. We have been
encouraged by the public response to the first Academies opening and the
development of future Academies. Local interests are represented on the
governing body."--
Then why is it impossible to find out who the Governors ('Directors') of the
three schools are? Do you have this information?"
This is the reply I received today -
"
Thank you for your e-mail of 24 September about the Emmanuel Schools
Foundation.
Unfortunately the Department for Education and Skills does not maintain
a database of all Academy Governors. As registered charities, however,
the names of all the Directors (which are normally also the Governors)
of an Academy are listed on the Charity Commission website at
www.charitycommission.gov.uk <http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/> ,
and this information is open for all to see.
The Emmanuel Schools Foundation Academies are slightly different in that
the three Academies are managed by one charitable trust, and therefore
only the names of the Directors of the central Trust are available on
the Charity Commission's website. I would therefore suggest that you
contact the Academies concerned or the Trust itself should you have
queries relating to the Governing Bodies of these Academies"
Needless to say, I can't find anything at all at the above url, in spite of
what the DFES says. Maybe someone else can? (There should be a prize!)
--
JAF
anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
3080
Roger Stanyard
BHA and Ekklesia React to Truth in Science
27/09/2006 16:32:00
This has just come into my email in box. (I've also just had my
letter to my local MP acknowledged.)
The British Humanist Association and the UK Christian think tank
Ekklesia have today written to Education Minister Alan Johnson asking
him to ensure that their guidelines are explicit in requiring
teachers to maintain a wholly scientific perspective on the matter of
the origin of species by evolution.
The move comes after a new group calling itself `Truth in Science'
sent a letter and free teaching resources to all secondary heads of
science seeking space for creationist ideas, and appealed to parents
through a new website to challenge the current science teaching
agenda. BHA and Ekklesia are calling on the Government to ensure that
teachers know this material is not appropriate for school science.
BHA and Ekklesia say that they are making a joint statement `to make
it absolutely clear that the issue of the integrity of evolutionary
theory as a cornerstone for teaching modern biology is not one of
religious or non-religious conviction, but a matter of
straightforward scientific truthfulness.'
`Truth in Science' last week (20 September 2006) established a web
page which suggests that parents should complain about
alleged `bias' in science teaching – by which they mean the exclusion
of anti-Darwinian ideas and so-called Intelligent Design, which
proposes that life on earth may have been produced by an
unidentifiable extra-terrestrial cause.
The new organisation, established by fundamentalist Christians, also
proposes teaching plans and curriculum ideas to introduce these
notions into the classroom, claiming that this will be acceptable to
OFSTED.
But the British Humanist Association and Ekklesia point out that
there is `no scientific basis' to creationism and ID, as the landmark
judgment in the Dover School Board case in the USA last year made
clear, on the advice of expert witnesses.
Declared Ekklesia co-director Simon Barrow: `Reputable scientists and
reputable theologians are clear that the anti-evolutionary ideas
propagated by groups like this are in no way comparable to scientific
theories of origins. The government and its inspectorate should have
no truck with superstition in the modern science classroom.'
Andrew Copson, Education and Public Affairs Officer for the British
Humanist Association added: `Thoughtful people of all persuasions
reject the use of religion to undermine truthfulness in education. It
is vital that the government assure parents that our children will be
taught proper science and proper investigative methods, not these
wild ideas.'
In April 2006, after a representation by the BHA, the UK schools
minister declared categorically that the government is against the
teaching of creationism and so-called `Intelligent Design' in science
lessons in British schools and the examinations board OCR gave
assurances that they would revise their Science specification to make
it clear that creationism and ID should not be taught.
But both the British Humanist Association and Ekklesia say that
science teaching may be threatened by publicly-funded schools coming
into the hands of extreme religious groups. They say there is
evidence that creationism is already on the agenda in some schools,
and that anti-evolution activists are trying to confuse parents by
claiming there is a `controversy to be taught'.
`A clear line from the DfES, through Oftsed or the QCA, will help
settle this matter once and for all', the two bodies stress.
To read the letter to Alan Johnson see http://tinyurl.com/o4lka
`Truth in Science' (the creationist website):
www.truthinscience.org.uk
For further comment, contact:
Andrew Copson at the BHA on 07855 380633 or education@humanism.org.uk
Web: www.humanism.org.uk
Simon Barrow at Ekklesia on 07904 376514 or
simon.barrow@ekklesia.co.uk
Web: www.ekklesia.co.uk
3081
Rudy Vonk
Re: Evolutionary Maintenance of Sex
27/09/2006 16:09:00
On 27 sep 2006, at 16:18, Timothy Chase wrote:
> It is not as if we have no solutions for explaining how sex is
> maintained given the paradox uncovered by population theory: we have
> about twenty of them. The problem is... (snip)
My problem is: why is sex maintained long after the individual organism
has consciously shed all interest in reproduction :-)
(Talking about cost...)
cellpadding="2"
Attachment: (text/enriched) [not stored]
3082
oeditor
Re: Emmanuel''s governors (No news).
27/09/2006 16:35:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, JAF <anarch@...> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately the Department for Education and Skills does not
maintain
> a database of all Academy Governors.
Gross incompetence, criminal negligence or simply conniving and
lying? I find it incredible that the DES doesn't know who they've
given the control of millions of pounds worth of schools to. I
wonder, also, who then does the CRB checks which one would imagine
school governors are required to have, and where the (presumed) fact
that each individual has been cleard is kept?
Definitely a Freedom of Information issue.
3083
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Evolutionary Maintenance of Sex
27/09/2006 17:05:00
On 27/09/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In population theory, there is a problem in explaining why sex
> > continues to exist, and to "prove" their point, all creationists would
> > have to do is cite the sentences from below - or sentences like them :
>
> Tim, I have pasted this onto our web site, linking from the Truth in
> Science section.
Well just so that you know what you put me through:
I was scrounging around the net, trying to look up the origins of
sexual reproducing, then I remembered how e coli reproduce both
sexually and asexually and proceeded to look up literature on that.
At one point I found myself staring at an e coli with both its pili
hanging out. Bacteria porn.
But I'm much better now.
3084
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Truth in Science Update
27/09/2006 17:44:00
On 27/09/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I think we should get this in if we can. Does Lenny have a piece on
> the allele/cancer issue (or Michael Suttkus)?
Here are the pieces. If they don't want to polish them or put them up
at BlackShadow, you can always link. The first of each set is largely
self-contained.
Lenny Flank:
Re: [DebunkCreation] Response to Multiple Responses. [Noah and mutations]
Tue Feb 22, 2005 5:16 am
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/message/70061
Re: [DebunkCreation] Re: A little help, please. [Noah and mutations addendum]
Sun Apr 17, 2005 4:38 pm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/message/72441
Michael Suttkus:
Re: male/female sexual organ evolution [a largely self-contained piece]
Sun Jul 16, 2006 3:02 pm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/message/95373
Re: male/female sexual organ evolution [addendum, different topics]
Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:13 am
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/message/95396
Yahoo Groups Search has improved a great deal in the past year. Much
easier to find stuff.
3085
Michael Roberts
Re: Boris Johnson!
27/09/2006 17:50:00
An Eton and Oxford education is NBG! I suppose his favourite passages are;
1 Samuel ch11 vs2-5
1 Kings 11 vs1 -3
Song of Solomon ch 4 vs1-7
He was married for a time to one of the Mostyn-Owens from Woodhouse near
Shrewsbury. Darwin's first girlfriend was Fanny Mostyn Owen and there are
several letters from her in CD's correspondence. 15 years ago her
great-great-grandson's wife invited me to a creationist meeting in Oswestry
led by Paul Gardner
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Stanyard" <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 3:48 PM
Subject: [BlackShadow] Boris Johnson!
> Boris Johnson needs to be watch like a hawk. He is no longer editor
> of the Spectator but is Shadow Minister for Higher Education. Johnson
> appears to be sympathetic towards creationism.
>
> In the Summer of 2002 Cecil Andrews, the itinerant Northern Ireland
> minister, young earth creationist and rabid anti-catholic sent a
> creationist video to all 659 MPs in Westminster. All but four ignored
> it. Johnson was one of the four and he also replied to Andrews.
>
> This was his reply:
>
> "Dear Mr Andrews,
>
> Thank you for your letter and for sending me a copy of the video A
> Question of Origins. You are quite right in identifying the
> controversy, which surrounds to the long-standing debate between
> those who believe in biblical creation and supporters of the theory
> of evolution. I believe this debate to be another part of a wider
> agenda which seeks to replace the Judeo Christian beliefs that
> underpin society with secularism, a product of political correctness
> and in my view with little to offer any of us. Thank you for writing.
>
> Best wishes.
>
> BORIS JOHNSON MP."
>
> Roger
>
> PS, for Americans etc amongst us Boris Johnson is regarded as an
> eccentric Member of Parliament (equivalent of a US Congressman), a
> sort of Bertie Wooster characater but, unfortunately, without the
> guiding hand of a Jeeves. Consequently he gets into all kinds of
> escapades and trouble.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
3086
Rudy Vonk
Re: Stephen Oppenheimer''s New Book
27/09/2006 18:04:00
On 24 sep 2006, at 11:55, Rudy Vonk wrote:
> On 24 sep 2006, at 10:46, Roger Stanyard wrote:
>
>> Stephen Oppenheimer
>
> (snip)
>
>> Basically his conclusions are as follows:
>
> (snip)
>
> Thank you for your succinct abstract. You have saved me whatever the
> book costs! And with regard to the post that Dave Challender pointed
> us to: yeah, Iberians; 6,000 B.C.; ocean-going boats. Can you think of
> a single good reason why Iberians would want to move to Britain?
>
> Personally, I vote for the Elymians. My photo archive CDs are in the
> office, but tomorrow I shall post definitive proof that the British
> are descended from the Elymians.
>
> All of a sudden, that video from Richard Dawkins' website begins to
> make even more, horrifying, sense!
>
I uploaded a folder called "Elymians" to the Photo section of the
group's Yahoo website. (I'll take it down next week since it is OT.) I
am sure you agree that the boat anchors and the ocean-going boat,
together with an archive photo of early settlers, present conclusive
proof that Elymians from Western Sicily, not Basques, populated Britain
during the Neolithic. (The last photo, taken on the same trip,
illustrates the hidden advantage of complying with one's Rotarian
duties whilst on holidays...)
Basques, my foot!
cellpadding="2"
Attachment: (text/enriched) [not stored]
3087
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Draft Letters
27/09/2006 18:13:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> But the aim is still the same, social re-engineering.
Of course it is. They are "free speech zone" Taliban wannabes.
3088
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Blogger claims to have set-up "Truth in Science" website
27/09/2006 18:14:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> Luke Plant looks to live in Cambridge and is a graduate of Cambridge
> University.
Well he is a Cambridge alumni. At what stage he bowed out, or whether he
has got a doctorate, is another matter. I do not see anything there
suggesting he still resides in Cam.
I do, however, wonder about his connection to the local fundie group we
encountered last weekend. If he replies to my post, I will ask him.
3089
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Tinshill Free Church''s "The Magazine, No 226 "Truth in Science"
27/09/2006 18:14:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> What worries me is that anyone in the BSCE web site needs to be
> registered with Yahoo to gain access. Am I correct that this is the
> position?
Yes. You would be better off hosting the file using Alan's blackshadow
webspace.
3090
Mikey Brass
Re: Boris Johnson!
27/09/2006 18:14:00
Our letters need to be sent not only to the Tory education minister but
David Cameroon's office as well.
3091
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Draft Letters
27/09/2006 18:13:00
For Science Just Science:
> The backers of Truth in Science believe in a literal interpretation
> of the bible and that the world was created 6,000-0,000 years ago.
This is obviously true in reality. In practice, on the website, they
espouse ID. While ID is a camouflage, this needs to be stated in the letter.
Who will this letter be sent to?
3092
Roger Stanyard
Re: Stephen Oppenheimer''s New Book
27/09/2006 18:19:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Rudy Vonk <rudy@...> wrote:
>
> On 24 sep 2006, at 11:55, Rudy Vonk wrote:
>
> > On 24 sep 2006, at 10:46, Roger Stanyard wrote:
> >
> >> Stephen Oppenheimer
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> >> Basically his conclusions are as follows:
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> > Thank you for your succinct abstract. You have saved me whatever
the
> > book costs! And with regard to the post that Dave Challender
pointed
> > us to: yeah, Iberians; 6,000 B.C.; ocean-going boats. Can you
think of
> > a single good reason why Iberians would want to move to Britain?
> >
> > Personally, I vote for the Elymians. My photo archive CDs are in
the
> > office, but tomorrow I shall post definitive proof that the
British
> > are descended from the Elymians.
> >
> > All of a sudden, that video from Richard Dawkins' website begins
to
> > make even more, horrifying, sense!
> >
>
> I uploaded a folder called "Elymians" to the Photo section of the
> group's Yahoo website. (I'll take it down next week since it is
OT.) I
> am sure you agree that the boat anchors and the ocean-going boat,
> together with an archive photo of early settlers, present
conclusive
> proof that Elymians from Western Sicily, not Basques, populated
Britain
> during the Neolithic. (The last photo, taken on the same trip,
> illustrates the hidden advantage of complying with one's Rotarian
> duties whilst on holidays...)
>
> Basques, my foot!
LOL!!! No wonder that rural types in the UK remain so attracted to
sheep. The're our ancestors!
3093
Roger Stanyard
Re: Draft Letters
27/09/2006 18:38:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> For Science Just Science:
>
> > The backers of Truth in Science believe in a literal interpretation
> > of the bible and that the world was created 6,000-0,000 years ago.
>
> This is obviously true in reality. In practice, on the website, they
> espouse ID. While ID is a camouflage, this needs to be stated in the
letter.
>
>
> Who will this letter be sent to?
>
Well, that's a sore point. I've put together a complete package for
Science Just Science so all they need to do is put a telephone number
and address on it and email straight to which ever quality paper they
want.
However, only three people have shown the slightest interest after the
rest complained for days that something needed to be done about TIS.
The latest is that I have been told to include the web addresses of
bith BCSE and SJS, re-write it from end to and get it cleared by the
moderators of the sight. Unfortunately the person that has requested
this hasn't even bothered to look at any of the drafts we have posted.
Unfortunately the moderators have sat back and done sod all for the
last day while three of us hammered it into shape. Not one has
volunteered to put his name to the letter despite my requests.
To say I am fuming is one of the word's understatements.
I'm going to check with them now and if they havent done anything it
gets scrubbed.
Roger
3094
Dave Oldridge
Re: New Message
27/09/2006 19:33:00
On 26 Sep 2006 at 21:08, Roger Stanyard wrote:
> 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.
Blush....
Just to be clear up front, though I am a priest in the apostolic
succession of Christ, I'm not a ROMAN catholic.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
VA7CZ
3095
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Draft Letters
27/09/2006 20:20:00
Roger,
Feel free to put my name to the letter coming from the BCSE, if you wish.
--
Best, Mikey Brass
MA in Archaeology degree, University College London
"The Antiquity of Man" http://www.antiquityofman.com
Book: "The Antiquity of Man: Artifactual, fossil and gene records explored"
- !ke e: /xarra //ke
("Diverse people unite": Motto of the South African Coat of Arms, 2002)
3096
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Draft Letters
27/09/2006 20:49:00
On 27/09/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> But the aim is still the same, social re-engineering.
>
> This is basically a personal observation (opinion if you like) of mine
> but I would like to spell it out on our web site.
>
> If I am going to to so, I think it would be a very good idea that it
> reflected a consensus amongst us.
>
> Therefore any comments, additions, or whatever, would be highly
> apprecriated.
My opinion, for what its worth...
I am entirely in agreement - and given the material you have cited - I
really can't see any room for doubt. What we are dealing with is a
religiously-inspired form of totalitarianism. However,
totalitarianism is not primarily political: it is ultimately
psychological and personal. This is about imposing a single unified,
ideological framework upon the individual to the exclusion of all
others for the sake of control - not as the means to any concrete end,
but as far as I can tell, for its own sake. That which they wish to
wipe out of existence is all independent thought, anything which might
call into question or raise any doubt regarding their fundamentalist
vision. I have seen nothing as of yet to suggest that there is any
real difference between your fundamentalists and groups like the
Dominionists in the United States - except that your fundamentalists
seem better positioned and further ahead in achieving their goals.
3097
John Germain
RE: Re: Stephen Oppenheimer''s New Book
27/09/2006 20:48:00
Basque-wearing sheep?
In white high-heels??
Be still! My beating heart...
(Or as Sir Henry would have it, "Be still!" (applies riding crop to pertinent
area))
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Roger
Stanyard
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 6:20 PM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: Stephen Oppenheimer's New Book
> Basques, my foot!
LOL!!! No wonder that rural types in the UK remain so attracted to
sheep. The're our ancestors!
3098
John Germain
RE: New Message
27/09/2006 20:50:00
I was hoping for some good restaurant tips near the Holy See, Dave...
(grin)
CofE never know where to find the good grub...
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Dave
Oldridge
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 7:33 PM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] New Message
On 26 Sep 2006 at 21:08, Roger Stanyard wrote:
> 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.
Blush....
Just to be clear up front, though I am a priest in the apostolic
succession of Christ, I'm not a ROMAN catholic.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
VA7CZ
Yahoo! Groups Links
3099
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Stephen Oppenheimer''s New Book
27/09/2006 21:29:00
On 24/09/06, oeditor <b-jordan@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
> >
> > Stephen Oppenheimer
> <snip>
> > 1. The British are basically Basques by origin � not Anglo-Saxon or
> > Celtic.
> Nah... they're the Lost Tribe of Israel ;-)
"Lost Tribes of Israel"
PBS Airdate: February 22, 2000
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2706israel.html
3100
Dave Oldridge
Re: Boris Johnson!
27/09/2006 21:38:00
On 27 Sep 2006 at 18:14, Mikey Brass wrote:
> Our letters need to be sent not only to the Tory education
> minister but David Cameroon's office as well.
Don't forget to copy the press on them. There is no sense
shining light into a crack if nobody is looking.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
VA7CZ