3101
George Jelliss
Bible citations barred
27/09/2006 21:57:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Roberts"
<michael.andrea.r@...> wrote:
>
> 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
>
///
Since us atheiats have been barred from making comments agin religion
could the reverend gents kindly be dissuaded from citing the bible.
3102
Timothy Chase
Re: Bible citations barred
27/09/2006 22:22:00
On 27/09/06, George Jelliss <gpjnow@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Roberts"
> <michael.andrea.r@...> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >
> ///
>
> Since us atheiats have been barred from making comments agin religion
> could the reverend gents kindly be dissuaded from citing the bible.
I don't think that he was citing these passages with the intent of
promoting religion, but I believe you have made a good point.
Might I also personally suggest that the BlackShadow/BCSE website and
Wiki touch on religion only for the purpose of criticising creationism
and fundamentalism. Organisations and individuals should of course be
able to take positions both pro and con. Moreover, I personally see
no problem with links to their own websites, preferably the main page.
It would demonstrate the diversity of opinion which exists within the
alliance and further stress the importance of its goals to its members
such that they are able to set aside their differences and work
together against a common threat.
3103
Roger Stanyard
Re: Bible citations barred
27/09/2006 22:53:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "George Jelliss" <gpjnow@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Roberts"
> <michael.andrea.r@> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >
> ///
>
> Since us atheiats have been barred from making comments agin religion
> could the reverend gents kindly be dissuaded from citing the bible.
>
Ladies and Gentleman,
George has a point. We are a singe issue organisation to fight
creationism. Anyone on our side, atheist, agnostic, Christian, Muslim,
Taoist, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Scottish Nationalist, Marxist,
socialists, liberal, conservatist, Sinn Feiner or whatever is an ally.
Please keep religion and atheism out of discussions or we aill pull
ourselves apart.
This is a group that attracts, without exception, people of strong,
individualistic, robust and varied personal opinions. Let's direct that
against fundies who don't have that strength.
I am not in the business of letting us fail over our strengths.
Roger
3104
Michael Roberts
Re: Bible citations barred
27/09/2006 22:56:00
Poor lad! No humour! Try
2 Corinthians 11vs1!
I am sure this will appeal to Lenny Flank
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Jelliss" <gpjnow@ntlworld.com>
To: <BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 9:57 PM
Subject: [BlackShadow] Bible citations barred
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Roberts"
> <michael.andrea.r@...> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
> ///
>
> Since us atheiats have been barred from making comments agin religion
> could the reverend gents kindly be dissuaded from citing the bible.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
3105
John Germain
RE: Re: Bible citations barred
27/09/2006 23:08:00
Errm, YAY for Roger..
<?>
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 10:53 PM
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: Bible citations barred
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "George Jelliss" <gpjnow@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Roberts"
> <michael.andrea.r@> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >
> ///
>
> Since us atheiats have been barred from making comments agin religion
> could the reverend gents kindly be dissuaded from citing the bible.
>
Ladies and Gentleman,
George has a point. We are a singe issue organisation to fight
creationism. Anyone on our side, atheist, agnostic, Christian, Muslim,
Taoist, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Scottish Nationalist, Marxist,
socialists, liberal, conservatist, Sinn Feiner or whatever is an ally.
Please keep religion and atheism out of discussions or we aill pull
ourselves apart.
This is a group that attracts, without exception, people of strong,
individualistic, robust and varied personal opinions. Let's direct that
against fundies who don't have that strength.
I am not in the business of letting us fail over our strengths.
Roger
Yahoo! Groups Links
3106
Lenny Flank
Re: Bible citations barred
27/09/2006 23:44:00
> Poor lad! No humour! Try
> 2 Corinthians 11vs1!
>
> I am sure this will appeal to Lenny Flank
>
I be rude in speech, but not in knowledge. ;>
===================================
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
3107
oeditor
Re: Bible citations barred
27/09/2006 23:57:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Michael
Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@...> wrote:
>
> Poor lad! No humour! Try
> 2 Corinthians 11vs1!
>
> I am sure this will appeal to Lenny Flank
>
I wouldn't know - have you a link for that?
Brian
3108
Roger Stanyard
Re: Bible citations barred
28/09/2006 00:07:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "John Germain"
<jtg.germainsjy@...> wrote:
>
> Errm, YAY for Roger..
>
> <?>
>
> John Germain
> Jersey
> British Channel Islands
>
well, I was about to get back to you John.
A letter has been sent by me about Truth in Science to the education
board of the Diocese of Winchester. As you know the Diocese covers
the Channel Islands.
Does the Diocese have any influence over education in the Channel
Islands?
I know that you have got a nutter there who runs the Guernsey
Biblical Creation Society - it sounds like he is tied to the Biblical
Creation Society and I know that there has been a connection in the
past.
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
3109
Timothy Chase
Re: Re: Bible citations barred
28/09/2006 00:15:00
On 27/09/06, oeditor <b-jordan@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Michael
> Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@...> wrote:
....
> >
> > I am sure this will appeal to Lenny Flank
> >
> I wouldn't know - have you a link for that?
Drop the "vs1!" enter it into Google (no quotes) and it comes right
up. Its pretty cute...
3110
Michael Roberts
Re: Re: Bible citations barred
28/09/2006 07:38:00
What all need to see is that the vast majority of YECs are not Anglican. YEC
Anglicans have less influence in the church's view of education than
mainstream ones. In TIS the only Anglican to my knowledge is Curry, whose
views are not representative of most Anglicans and also would be
disregarded.
One problem is that because of their non-evangelical backgrounds and lack of
awareness of the issues many Anglicans will not see YEC or TIS as a
problembut rather an irritant which is best ignored.
In my diocese there are a few YECS several sympathisers and the vast
majority ignore it though they think it wrong.
The challenge in the CofE is to get all to realise that it is a serious
problem which has been growing under their noses for 30 years
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Stanyard" <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 12:07 AM
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: Bible citations barred
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "John Germain"
> <jtg.germainsjy@...> wrote:
>>
>> Errm, YAY for Roger..
>>
>> <?>
>>
>> John Germain
>> Jersey
>> British Channel Islands
>>
> well, I was about to get back to you John.
>
> A letter has been sent by me about Truth in Science to the education
> board of the Diocese of Winchester. As you know the Diocese covers
> the Channel Islands.
>
> Does the Diocese have any influence over education in the Channel
> Islands?
>
> I know that you have got a nutter there who runs the Guernsey
> Biblical Creation Society - it sounds like he is tied to the Biblical
> Creation Society and I know that there has been a connection in the
> past.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
3111
Mikey Brass
Re: Bible citations barred
28/09/2006 07:40:00
Timothy Chase wrote:
> Might I also personally suggest that the BlackShadow/BCSE website and
> Wiki touch on religion only for the purpose of criticising creationism
> and fundamentalism.
I agree completely.
3112
Roger Stanyard
Re: Bible citations barred
28/09/2006 10:24:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Roberts"
<michael.andrea.r@...> wrote:
>
> What all need to see is that the vast majority of YECs are not
Anglican. YEC
> Anglicans have less influence in the church's view of education
than
> mainstream ones. In TIS the only Anglican to my knowledge is Curry,
whose
> views are not representative of most Anglicans and also would be
> disregarded.
I have tried to check out the denominations of those involved in TIS
and there are some gaps in my knowledge here. It looks as if Richard
Buggs, one of the scientific advisors, is Anglican because he appears
to worship at Curry's St Stephen's Church.
However, some of the others I just don't know about, including Tim
Wells (another of the scientific advisors).
I cna't make out what Stephen Layfield's denominational position is.
He was head of department in St Bede's, Bradford before moving to EC.
St Bede's is a Catholic school.
I am also lacking in information on Russell Healey, Derek Linkens and
Arthur Jones.
>
> One problem is that because of their non-evangelical backgrounds
and lack of
> awareness of the issues many Anglicans will not see YEC or TIS as a
> problembut rather an irritant which is best ignored.
>
> In my diocese there are a few YECS several sympathisers and the
vast
> majority ignore it though they think it wrong.
>
> The challenge in the CofE is to get all to realise that it is a
serious
> problem which has been growing under their noses for 30 years
>
I may not have the strategy right but it is one of the reasons why I
have written to the education booard of the Winchester Diocese. It
seems to me that, on the face of it, that is not the best use of my
limited time. However, back in April when I began to think what could
be done, two of us concluded that approaching and informing Anglican
clergy would be an important element in getting the message across at
local level.
Roger
3113
Roger Stanyard
Re: Bible citations barred
28/09/2006 10:27:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
>
> Timothy Chase wrote:
>
> > Might I also personally suggest that the BlackShadow/BCSE website
and
> > Wiki touch on religion only for the purpose of criticising
creationism
> > and fundamentalism.
>
> I agree completely.
Me also
Roger
3114
George Jelliss
CofE and creationism
28/09/2006 11:19:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Roberts"
<michael.andrea.r@...> wrote:
>
> What all need to see is that the vast majority of YECs are not
Anglican. YEC
> Anglicans have less influence in the church's view of education
than
> mainstream ones. In TIS the only Anglican to my knowledge is
Curry, whose
> views are not representative of most Anglicans and also would be
> disregarded.
>
> One problem is that because of their non-evangelical backgrounds
and lack of
> awareness of the issues many Anglicans will not see YEC or TIS as
a
> problembut rather an irritant which is best ignored.
>
> In my diocese there are a few YECS several sympathisers and the
vast
> majority ignore it though they think it wrong.
>
> The challenge in the CofE is to get all to realise that it is a
serious
> problem which has been growing under their noses for 30 years
>
> Michael
You can say that again!
A year ago, or it may be two now, I emailed nearly all the bishops
of the Church of England, well a good many of them, trying to find
out why there was nothing on the CofE sites against creationism.
Only one or two who replied understood the problem and were clearly
pro-evolution. Most of those who replied didn't understand that
there were different brands of creationism. One supported
Sheldrake's theory of morphogenetics, if I remember aright. Most
others just sat on the fence. The Bishop of Rochester directed me to
the works of Michael Behe. I'll have to go back again over the
replies I received and give a summary here.
The Bishop of Leicester failed to reply at that time, but I was able
to force a statement from him as a result of my Darwin Day article
in the Leicester Mercury earlier this year.
I wrote a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury and subsequently
had an exchange of three letters with one of his advisers. At that
time the adviser took the view that it was not the church's role to
get involved in 'scientific controversy'. In my final letter I
pointed out that the church was prepared to get involved in the
issue of climate change which was a genuine scientific controversy,
and that the evolution v creation debate was a theological one.
Subsequently the Archbishop issued his statement in favour of
evolution. Whether my efforts had any influence I don't know.
However, there is still very little about creationism on CofE
websites as far as I can ascertain. I'm not sure what sort of
status 'Ekklesia' has among the CofE clergy. I have the impression
that it is more related to the 'Sea of Faith' group who are of the
Don Cupit school of christians who don't believe in the supernatural
any more, yet still want to hang on to their faith in some way.
3115
Dave Challender
Re: Evolutionary Maintenance of Sex
28/09/2006 11:30:00
On 9/27/06, Rudy Vonk <rudy@mores.es> wrote:
> 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...)
>
I know comments a joke but serious answer is to maintain bonding - in
species where offspring development is slow (humans e.g. par
excellence) and need parental input then benefit for parents to stay
together.
In social animals things that maintain group harmony are useful, hence
sex as bond reinforcement tool.
Short term "cost" analysis is too simplistic as the whole point is
long term survival which is aided by reasonable ability to change with
conditions so genetic variety is useful.
asexual reproduction CAN give genetic variety - mutations by
radiation, chemicals etc, transcription errors etc all contribute
however this "background" mutation rate is slow, but in organisms with
short reproductive lifecycle i.e. lots of generations in a short time,
then you can get some genetic changes. As has been mentioned though
even "primitive" organisms have alternate strategies such as plasmid
swaps by bacteria.
In longer reproductive lifecycle species asexual reproduction slow
"background" rate of change is insufficient to give good genetic
variety and so sexual reproduction is more likely to give long term
competitive advantage. Note there re also considerations of number of
offspring, high numbers can give some defence against lower "fitness"
in crowding out competitors. Thus there are cases when both sexual and
asexual reproduction may be useful e.g. some plants, aphids etc. as
ability to get large numbers of "clones" quickly can allow
exploitation of a resource that has just become available and can help
crowd out competitors and these organisms (usually) also have the
sexual route open so eehy have the option of producing "fitter"
offspring too.
But, as a basic rule, longer reproductive lifecycle organisms normally
tend to do better with sexual reproduction as it gives more diversity
and better chance of coping with change
--
Regards
Dave
3116
Dave Challender
Re: Re: Emmanuel''s governors (No news).
28/09/2006 11:45:00
On 9/27/06, oeditor <b-jordan@lineone.net> wrote:
> --- 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,
They are required to have a CRB check - I did when I was a UK school
(parent) governor.
> and where the (presumed) fact
> that each individual has been cleard is kept?
>
> Definitely a Freedom of Information issue.
If a parent is thinking of sending their child to a school then
information on governors is a thing schools readily provide (in my
experience).
FOI act allows various data to be requested from schools.
Some information is exempt from release - off the top of my head I do
not know if names of governors is amongst them, it would seem bizarre
if it was.
However i have only had experience of school who are HAPPY to let
people know who their governors are.
--
Regards
Dave
3117
ukantic
Counter
28/09/2006 12:54:00
Yes you're right about the counter Roger, there appears to be no way
to PW protect it (but it is not shown as a page, so it cannot be
picked up with list group), although I can always change the URL if
this is a problem.
Incidentally I made some changes to my article on the NC KS4 which was
a bit garbled. It is far from complete but you might find it useful
(For TIS).
http://www.creationism.co.uk/index.php/Main/MisrepresentationOfScienceCurriculum
http://tinyurl.com/ounv3
Pity one of the (?) 50, 000 teachers around didn't see fit to pick up
on this.
Alan.
3118
Roger Stanyard
Re: CofE and creationism
28/09/2006 13:38:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "George Jelliss" <gpjnow@...>
wrote:
>
> > The challenge in the CofE is to get all to realise that it is a
> serious
> > problem which has been growing under their noses for 30 years
> >
> > Michael
>
>
> You can say that again!
>
> A year ago, or it may be two now, I emailed nearly all the bishops
> of the Church of England, well a good many of them, trying to find
> out why there was nothing on the CofE sites against creationism.
> Only one or two who replied understood the problem and were clearly
> pro-evolution. Most of those who replied didn't understand that
> there were different brands of creationism. One supported
> Sheldrake's theory of morphogenetics, if I remember aright. Most
> others just sat on the fence. The Bishop of Rochester directed me
to
> the works of Michael Behe. I'll have to go back again over the
> replies I received and give a summary here.
>
> The Bishop of Leicester failed to reply at that time, but I was
able
> to force a statement from him as a result of my Darwin Day article
> in the Leicester Mercury earlier this year.
>
> I wrote a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury and subsequently
> had an exchange of three letters with one of his advisers. At that
> time the adviser took the view that it was not the church's role to
> get involved in 'scientific controversy'. In my final letter I
> pointed out that the church was prepared to get involved in the
> issue of climate change which was a genuine scientific controversy,
> and that the evolution v creation debate was a theological one.
> Subsequently the Archbishop issued his statement in favour of
> evolution. Whether my efforts had any influence I don't know.
>
> However, there is still very little about creationism on CofE
> websites as far as I can ascertain. I'm not sure what sort of
> status 'Ekklesia' has among the CofE clergy. I have the impression
> that it is more related to the 'Sea of Faith' group who are of the
> Don Cupit school of christians who don't believe in the
supernatural
> any more, yet still want to hang on to their faith in some way.
>
I think it a very good idea to have a section on our web site about
the position (or lack of it) on creationism. It would highlight the
problem that both you and Michael have demonstrated.
I can put it together if you can provide the information, George.
Alternatively, why don't you put it together as you special section
of the web site. Wiki is dead easy to use.
Roger
3119
oeditor
TIS company details
28/09/2006 14:51:00
According to companieshouse.gov.uk :
Registered number 05378298 Truth In Science
Name & Registered Office:
TRUTH IN SCIENCE
OFFICE 4 TEAM VALLEY BUSINESS
CENTRE EARLSWAY
TEAM VALLEY
TYNE & WEAR NE11 0QH
Company No. 05378298
Date of Incorporation: 28/02/2005
Company Type: PRI/LBG/NSC/S.30 (Private, limited by guarantee, no
share capital,
section 30 of the Companies Act)
Nature of Business (SIC(03)):
None Supplied
Accounting Reference Date: 28/02
Last Accounts Made Up To: 28/02/2006 (DORMANT)
Next Accounts Due: 28/12/2007
Last Return Made Up To: 28/02/2006
Next Return Due: 28/03/2007
You can order further information from
http://tinyurl.com/fs88k at £1 a throw.
Brian
3120
Roger Stanyard
New Member
28/09/2006 15:32:00
We have a new member who has just joined us, Bob Carling from
Southampton.
Bob tells us he rejected creationism when he went to Reading University
to study zoology.
Welcome Bob.
Roger
3121
Roger Stanyard
Re: Counter
28/09/2006 16:36:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <alan@...> wrote:
>
> Yes you're right about the counter Roger, there appears to be no way
> to PW protect it (but it is not shown as a page, so it cannot be
> picked up with list group), although I can always change the URL if
> this is a problem.
>
> Incidentally I made some changes to my article on the NC KS4 which
was
> a bit garbled. It is far from complete but you might find it useful
> (For TIS).
>
Alan,
I've put a URL link in the BCSE site page on tha National Curriculum
to it.
I hope you dpn't mind.
Roger
http://www.creationism.co.uk/index.php/Main/MisrepresentationOfScience
Curriculum
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ounv3
>
> Pity one of the (?) 50, 000 teachers around didn't see fit to pick
up
> on this.
>
> Alan.
>
3122
Roger Stanyard
Request for Help
28/09/2006 16:51:00
I would like to ask the UK members for some very simple help over the
day or so. It will only take a few minutes of everybody's time.
I think we should all be warning our local MPs about Truth in
Science. I think a semi-individual letter from each of us to our MP
will be a big step forward from moving from a talking shop to getting
the word out about the danger of creationism.
I have now done a practice run with two SJS members on this and
written to my local MP. This basically uses the standard letter I
have already posted on this site.
I realise that many in the group are busy so to get matters moving
quickly and efficently, I am offering to produce the full letter
tailored to each MP so that all you have to do is email it -
virtually no work whatsoever.
However, you will need to tell me the name of your MP and your
personal address, email and contact telephone number. You can do that
off site. I'll do all the rest.
As you probably appreciate I can't write to evry MP; it is normal
practice for an MP only to deal with members of the public in his/her
own constituency.
At the moment we have sent letters to MPs for the following
constituencies:
Reading East
Loughborough
Winchester
Roger
Here, as an example, is the letter sent to the MP for Loughborough,
Andy Reed (Labour):
To: Andy Reed MP
Unity House
21 Fennel Street
Loughborough
Leicestershire
LE11 1UQ
01509 261226
From: Dr Iorwerth Owain Thomas
7 Sovereign Court
Victoria Street
Loughborough
LE11 2TL
Telephone: 01509 216759 (I'm out of the country for a fortnight)
email:iorweththomas@hotmail.com
28th September 2006
Dear Mr. Reed,
Teaching religious creationism instead of science
I am a member of an organisation, [British Centre fo 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 alongside 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.
Moreover, members of the organisation have had close links with the
highly controversial fundamentalist city academies in Northeast
England backed by Sir Peter Vardy.
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.
Former Schools Minister Jacqui Smith has stated that "Creationism is
not taught as a subject in schools, and is not specified in the
science curriculum. The National Curriculum for science clearly sets
down that pupils should be taught that the fossil record is evidence
for evolution, and how variation and selection may lead to evolution
or extinction."
We would like to receive your assurances that your are aware of the
serious danger to education posed by Truth in Science.
We would also like to know what action the Labour Party is taking
both within Westminster and the Loughborough constituency in
preventing creationism being sneaked in by the backdoor without
parents, the local education authority or school governors being
aware.
For background information on Truth in Science, there is a large
amount of material on this web site at
http://www.blackshadow.me.uk/index.php/Main/TruthInScience.
If you need further help, we are happy to provide assistance in the
form of advice
Yours Sincerely
Dr Iorwerth Owain Thomas
Department of Physics, University of Loughborough
3123
jbs13uk
Re: Request for Help
28/09/2006 17:35:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> I would like to ask the UK members for some very simple help over the
> day or so. It will only take a few minutes of everybody's time.
>
Snipped for brevity
I've changed it a little and will send one to Michael Jack (MP for
Fylde, Lancashire) tomorrow. Over the weekend, I'll revamp it further
for forwarding to the heads of science for all local schools and
colleges. I'm going to phone around tomorrow to see if I can lay my
hands on a copy of TiS' disinformation pack. Has anyone else made any
progress on getting hold of a copy?
J.
3124
Roger Stanyard
Re: Emmanuel''s governors (No news).
28/09/2006 17:56:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, JAF <anarch@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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?
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 - You are dead right. No governors of the schools are listed and
what DFES is trying to fob you off with is the names of the Vardy
family and John Burn.
These are my notes: "There are no names of governors listed at the
Charity Commission; nor are any listed in the Foundations latest
accounts submitted to the Commission. What are listed are five
trustees but none of these appear to be governors as such. They are
David Vardy, Peter Vardy, John Burn, Margaret Vardy and Richard
Vardy. Moreover, no trustees at all are listed for the three Vardy
schools – Emmanuel, King's and Trinity.
Our understanding is that the Foundation is managed by a governing
body, the board of trustees, who are also directors of it under
company law. The trustees are appointed by the board of the Vardy
Foundation. Thus, it appears, there is no LEA or parent
representation on the board of ESF and it is wholly controlled by Sir
Peter Vardy and his family.
Each of the charity's subsidiaries appoints a board of directors or
trustees in accordance with its own governing document."
> JAF
> anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
>
3125
Mikey Brass
Re: New Member
28/09/2006 18:22:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> Bob tells us he rejected creationism when he went to Reading University
> to study zoology.
It would perhaps be enlightening to hear the process of Bob's acceptance
of evolutionary theory?
3126
Mikey Brass
Re: Request for Help
28/09/2006 18:22:00
I'll get you the details of the Cambridge MP next week, Roger.
3127
JAF
Re: Re: Emmanuel''s governors (No news).
28/09/2006 18:44:00
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 16:56:01 -0000, you wrote:
>--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, JAF <anarch@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 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?
>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 - You are dead right. No governors of the schools are listed and
>what DFES is trying to fob you off with is the names of the Vardy
>family and John Burn.
>
>These are my notes: "There are no names of governors listed at the
>Charity Commission; nor are any listed in the Foundations latest
>accounts submitted to the Commission. What are listed are five
>trustees but none of these appear to be governors as such. They are
>David Vardy, Peter Vardy, John Burn, Margaret Vardy and Richard
>Vardy. Moreover, no trustees at all are listed for the three Vardy
>schools – Emmanuel, King's and Trinity.
>
>Our understanding is that the Foundation is managed by a governing
>body, the board of trustees, who are also directors of it under
>company law. The trustees are appointed by the board of the Vardy
>Foundation. Thus, it appears, there is no LEA or parent
>representation on the board of ESF and it is wholly controlled by Sir
>Peter Vardy and his family.
>
>Each of the charity's subsidiaries appoints a board of directors or
>trustees in accordance with its own governing document."
>
>
Would you object to me C&P-ing that, and replying to the DfES with it?
--
JAF
anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
3128
Timothy Chase
Re: New Member
28/09/2006 19:00:00
On 28/09/06, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@uclmail.net> wrote:
>
> Roger Stanyard wrote:
>
> > Bob tells us he rejected creationism when he went to Reading University
> > to study zoology.
>
> It would perhaps be enlightening to hear the process of Bob's acceptance
> of evolutionary theory?
Whether it is onlist or offlist, I would certainly be interested,
assuming he felt like sharing. I would also be interested in hearing
about his area of specialisation. I am strictly an amateur, but I
always enjoy learning more.
3129
Roger Stanyard
Re: Emmanuel''s governors (No news).
28/09/2006 19:09:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, JAF <anarch@...> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 16:56:01 -0000, you wrote:
>
>> >Each of the charity's subsidiaries appoints a board of directors or
> >trustees in accordance with its own governing document."
> >
> >
> Would you object to me C&P-ing that, and replying to the DfES with it?
> --
> JAF
> anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
>
JAF, not at all, feel free.
However, I am doing some more research on it and it may be worth
hanging fire until after lunch tomorrow.
Roger
3130
ukantic
Re: Counter
28/09/2006 21:13:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <alan@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes you're right about the counter Roger, there appears to be no way
> > to PW protect it (but it is not shown as a page, so it cannot be
> > picked up with list group), although I can always change the URL if
> > this is a problem.
> >
> > Incidentally I made some changes to my article on the NC KS4 which
> was
> > a bit garbled. It is far from complete but you might find it useful
> > (For TIS).
> >
> Alan,
>
> I've put a URL link in the BCSE site page on tha National Curriculum
> to it.
>
> I hope you dpn't mind.
>
That's fine Roger. Incidentally, one of the things that I have
wondered about the past is, is there any connection between John Burn
of the CI & the dodgy KS4 NC sentence that implies (if read by a
criminal mind – sorry, I meant creationist) that evolution is
controversial?
Because: "He is Chairman of The Christian Institute and until
September 1995 was a member of the School Curriculum and Assessment
Authority. In 1994 he was awarded the OBE for services to education"
http://www.christian.org.uk/html-publications/values.htm
And:
"In England QCA maintains and develops the national curriculum and
associated assessments, tests and examinations; and accredits and
monitors qualifications in colleges and at work and advises the
Secretary of State for Education and Skills on these matters."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_Curriculum_and_Assessment_Authority
From what I can gather, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority
(QCA) that took over from the SCAA in 1997, performs the same
functions. It is therefore at least possible that he was involved in
the development of the NC.
Alan.
3131
Timothy Chase
Sharing Interests
28/09/2006 21:20:00
I realise of course that the focus of the list is primarily political
- namely getting the creationists out of power and keeping them out,
but at the same time it helps to sometimes share personal interests if
for no other reason than getting to know one another a little more.
For this reason I will name a few of mine.
My own interests include: the origin of life (for example, the RNA
World, the work of Spiegelman and Eigen from the 1960's and 1970's
with the Q-beta phage up to the Step-wise metabolic theory of House
and Ferry from 2005); the co-evolution of phages and bacteria; the
role of endogenous retroviruses in the evolution of life; lateral gene
transfer; the role of tandem repeats in the evolution of coding,
regulatory and intronic sequences; the cis-regulatory system,
regulatory gene networks; and, evolutionary developmental biology. If
anyone runs across something along these lines which they think might
be of interest, please feel free to write me on or off list. In turn,
I may (at the very least) be able to suggest articles or papers which
may be of interest in closely related areas.
Typically, we will probably want to keep discussion of such topics
somewhat limited, but it is often the case that when you get involved
in something like this, you have already developed interests along
these lines, and it is good to find people of similar and often
off-beat tastes.
3132
Bob Carling
Re: SPAM-LOW: New Member
28/09/2006 21:37:00
At 15:32 28/09/2006, Roger Stanyard wrote:
->We have a new member who has
just joined us, Bob Carling from
Southampton.
Actually I live in Canterbury - must've got my info from my Yahoo a/c
which I should update...
->Bob tells us he rejected
creationism when he went to Reading University
to study zoology.
Welcome Bob.
Many thanks.
Bob
->Roger
============================
Bob Carling
Flat 3, Underwood Court
152 Old Dover Road
Canterbury CT1 3EX, UK
Tel: 01227 464983
Mob: 07800 522724
email: bcarling@ambitnewmedia.com
http://www.ambitnewmedia.com
skype: bcarling
============================
cellpadding="2"
Attachment: (application/octet-stream) 3f3815f.jpg [not stored]
3133
Bob Carling
Re: New Member
28/09/2006 22:19:00
At 19:00 28/09/2006, Timothy Chase wrote:
->On 28/09/06, Mikey Brass
<
michael.brass@uclmail.net> wrote:
>
> Roger Stanyard wrote:
>
> > Bob tells us he rejected creationism when he went to Reading
University
> > to study zoology.
>
> It would perhaps be enlightening to hear the process of Bob's
acceptance
> of evolutionary theory?
Whether it is onlist or offlist, I would certainly be interested,
assuming he felt like sharing. I would also be interested in hearing
about his area of specialisation. I am strictly an amateur, but I
always enjoy learning more.
I would be delighted. First off I should make it clear that I am a
convinced Christian believer - but one that is very definitely NOT a
young earth creationist!
It was a gradual realisation of the overwhelming evidence for evolution
while studying zoology at Reading that convinced me that creationism was
bunk (I was at Reading from 1975-1978). Before going to university I had
of course studied biology at A-level but I had also been influenced a bit
by the anti-evolution literature that was around in Christian circles
those days - although I do recall always being a little bit wary of it.
It all seemed so amateur and so out of touch... but, hey, what did I know
as a teenager...
But when at University I really thought a lot harder about it - I had to
- and it caused a bit of a crisis in my Christian beliefs, i.e. along the
lines of "if Christians have got this wrong, then what about other
stuff that they believe?" But then I slowly realized that it was
only some Christians who believed that evolution was wrong - with great
relief, I came across many other Christians who were evolutionists. I
began to realize that in fact it is only some Christians with whom I was
struggling in my mind (and that these few held rather extreme and
minority views - moreover, they also tended NOT to be biologists or
geologists or palaeontologists, but engineers and lawyers!).
So, increasingly I came across Christians who were scientists and who
were convinced by the cogency of evolutionary ideas (mostly via the
Research Scientists' Christian Fellowship - as it was then called - it's
now called Christians in Science). People like Sam Berry (Prof. R J
Berry, geneticist/ecologist at UCL) and the late Donald MacKay
(cyberneticist at Keele Uni) helped me in my thinking - and I also read
quite a few theologians who were not anti-evolutionist (e.g. John Stott,
Francis Schaeffer). I also spent a lot of time reading people like
Michael Polanyi, Karl Popper and other philosophers of science - together
with historians of science like James Moore and Colin Russell (both at
the OU) - and became convinced that just as the 'threat' to Christian
belief from heliocentric cosmology (a la Copernicus, Galileo, etc.) was
in fact not a threat to Christian belief at all - so would evolutionary
science not be a threat. And nowadays I align my own thinking with people
like Francis Collins, Sam Berry, Colin Russell, Denis Alexander, John
Haught, etc.
And indeed I find that this is still the most intellectually satisfying
position for me (and many others) to take. In other words I find the
arguments of both atheists (such as Richard Dawkins, Pete Atkins, etc.
etc. on the one hand) and young earth creationists on the other hand to
BOTH be equally unconvincing. They both make the same mistake - the
assumption that science and faith are necessarily in conflict with each
other.
There's much more that I could say - but if anyone's interested in
reading my ideas further on this, I tried to summarize it in a paper
called
"Some Philosophical Implications of Evolution by Natural Selection
for Christianity", which I will try and place onto the files section
of this Yahoo group. (If that fails, or is not permitted on this group, I
will be happy to email it to anyone who wants to read it.)
Bob Carling
============================
Bob Carling
Flat 3, Underwood Court
152 Old Dover Road
Canterbury CT1 3EX, UK
Tel: 01227 464983
Mob: 07800 522724
email: bcarling@ambitnewmedia.com
http://www.ambitnewmedia.com
skype: bcarling
============================
cellpadding="2"
Attachment: (application/octet-stream) 419f946.jpg [not stored]
3134
George Jelliss
Re: CofE and creationism
28/09/2006 22:07:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "George Jelliss" <gpjnow@>
> wrote:
> >
> > > The challenge in the CofE is to get all to realise that it is
> >a serious
> > > problem which has been growing under their noses for 30 years
> > >
> > > Michael
> >
> >
> > You can say that again!
> >
> > A year ago, or it may be two now, I emailed nearly all the
> > bishops of the Church of England, well a good many of them,
> > trying to find out why there was nothing on the CofE sites
> > against creationism.
///
> I think it a very good idea to have a section on our web site
> about the position (or lack of it) on creationism. It would
> highlight the problem that both you and Michael have demonstrated.
>
> I can put it together if you can provide the information, George.
>
> Alternatively, why don't you put it together as you special
> section of the web site. Wiki is dead easy to use.
>
> Roger
>
I've just got round to putting it all on the Leicester Secular
Society's site under Religion, with the subject title "Evolution and
the Church of England". Or click here:
http://www.leicestersecularsociety.org.uk/creationism_cofe.htm
You're welcome to include a link on the BCSE site.
3135
Roger Stanyard
Re: New Member
28/09/2006 23:49:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Bob Carling <bcarling@...> wrote:
>
>
> There's much more that I could say - but if anyone's interested in
> reading my ideas further on this, I tried to summarize it in a
paper called
> "Some Philosophical Implications of Evolution by Natural Selection
> for Christianity", which I will try and place onto the files
section
> of this Yahoo group. (If that fails, or is not permitted on this
> group, I will be happy to email it to anyone who wants to read it.)
>
> Bob Carling
>
It's absolutely permitted Bob. It would be very nice if it were also
posted to our web site - it's a wiki and if you want to do that
yourself, I'll let you have the keys. I can, alternatively, post it
myself. The only problem is if it is in pdf form.
Roger
3136
Roger Stanyard
Re: CofE and creationism
29/09/2006 00:09:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "George Jelliss" <gpjnow@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "George Jelliss" <gpjnow@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > The challenge in the CofE is to get all to realise that it is
> > >a serious
> > > > problem which has been growing under their noses for 30 years
> > > >
> > > > Michael
> > >
> > >
> > > You can say that again!
> > >
> > > A year ago, or it may be two now, I emailed nearly all the
> > > bishops of the Church of England, well a good many of them,
> > > trying to find out why there was nothing on the CofE sites
> > > against creationism.
>
> ///
>
> > I think it a very good idea to have a section on our web site
> > about the position (or lack of it) on creationism. It would
> > highlight the problem that both you and Michael have demonstrated.
> >
> > I can put it together if you can provide the information, George.
> >
> > Alternatively, why don't you put it together as you special
> > section of the web site. Wiki is dead easy to use.
> >
> > Roger
> >
>
>
> I've just got round to putting it all on the Leicester Secular
> Society's site under Religion, with the subject title "Evolution
and
> the Church of England". Or click here:
>
> http://www.leicestersecularsociety.org.uk/creationism_cofe.htm
>
> You're welcome to include a link on the BCSE site.
George,
It's a really entertaining set of replies. I can see why even
practising Anglicans get infuriated with the CofE, let alone
secularists.
It's about time the CoE made up its mind. (Says me wishing pigs could
fly.)
I dunno if you have ever read that odd book by Jeremey Paxman
called "The English" but he quotes a Bishop of Oxford (presumably
Richard Harries).
Paxman asked Harries what do you exactly have to believe in to be a
member of the CofE. Harries replied (words to the effect), "That's an
interesting question...".
After a while Harries came back to Paxman as said "Well, it all
depends on what you mean...."
Plus ca change...
Roger
3137
Dave Oldridge
RE: New Message
29/09/2006 00:05:00
On 27 Sep 2006 at 20:50, John Germain wrote:
> I was hoping for some good restaurant tips near the Holy See,
> Dave...
Never been there. Probably not going there. But I can point to
some of our better spots here!
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
VA7CZ
3138
Roger Stanyard
Re: Sharing Interests
29/09/2006 00:27:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase"
<timothychase@...> wrote:
>
> I realise of course that the focus of the list is primarily
political
> - namely getting the creationists out of power and keeping them out,
> but at the same time it helps to sometimes share personal interests
if
> for no other reason than getting to know one another a little more.
>
> For this reason I will name a few of mine.
>
Sort off. But I don't think it is really like that at all. This group
consists entirely of a set of volunteers who only contribute because
they want to.
I suspect that few if any off its members are not interested in
science. If that's what we are interested in, then the more science
the better.
I have put together our web site very hurridly (spelling?) but it
seems to me that we should be posting our knowledged of science there
as much as possible. I'm trying to get all of the science posted here
re-posted to the web site.
(I hope that I have not let you down on his, Tim. Virtually
everything you have posted is there somewhere.)
It's an advertsiemnt for the group as well as a highly effective tool
in undermining the fundies.
If the fundies can bullshit about science, let's show to the world
that we are cleverer. There is a pile of talent and knowledge a mile
high in this group. Let's use it and enjoy ourselves in the process.
We're volunteers. Anybody got a better way of doing things?
3139
Roger Stanyard
Re: Request for Help
29/09/2006 00:30:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "jbs13uk" <jbs13uk@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@> wrote:
> >
> > I would like to ask the UK members for some very simple help over
the
> > day or so. It will only take a few minutes of everybody's time.
> >
> Snipped for brevity
>
> I've changed it a little and will send one to Michael Jack (MP for
> Fylde, Lancashire) tomorrow. Over the weekend, I'll revamp it
further
> for forwarding to the heads of science for all local schools and
> colleges. I'm going to phone around tomorrow to see if I can lay my
> hands on a copy of TiS' disinformation pack. Has anyone else made
any
> progress on getting hold of a copy?
>
> J.
>
JBS, brilliant! I'm trying to do the same with local schools. Could
you let us have a copy of the revamp to use? We are now up to six
MPs. It's small, but it is a start.
3140
Timothy Chase
OFFLIST - Re: Re: New Member
29/09/2006 00:53:00
Roger,
I certainly want to make this fellow feel welcome and I will most
certainly appreciate the material, but I believe we need to make sure
that the material that gets posted to the website is neither pro nor
con with regard to religion in general or Christianity in particular.
If the material is of this nature, then we can find webspace and link
to it - but otherwise we will run into problems with some members,
perhaps even lose valuable members.
On 28/09/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Bob Carling <bcarling@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > There's much more that I could say - but if anyone's interested in
> > reading my ideas further on this, I tried to summarize it in a
> paper called
> > "Some Philosophical Implications of Evolution by Natural Selection
> > for Christianity", which I will try and place onto the files
> section
> > of this Yahoo group. (If that fails, or is not permitted on this
> > group, I will be happy to email it to anyone who wants to read it.)
> >
> > Bob Carling
> >
> It's absolutely permitted Bob. It would be very nice if it were also
> posted to our web site - it's a wiki and if you want to do that
> yourself, I'll let you have the keys. I can, alternatively, post it
> myself. The only problem is if it is in pdf form.
>
> Roger
>
>
--
Evolving Perspectives
http://evolvingperspectives.blogspot.com
3141
Timothy Chase
Re: OFFLIST - Re: Re: New Member
29/09/2006 01:05:00
My apologies to all.
I have just been given an impossible schedule at work, and in the rush
to send something out to someone personally I forgot to change the
address.
3142
oeditor
OFFLIST - Re: Re: New Member
29/09/2006 02:18:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Timothy Chase" <timothychase@...>
wrote:
>
> Roger,
>
> I certainly want to make this fellow feel welcome and I will most
> certainly appreciate the material, but I believe we need to make sure
> that the material that gets posted to the website is neither pro nor
> con with regard to religion in general or Christianity in particular.
> If the material is of this nature, then we can find webspace and link
> to it - but otherwise we will run into problems with some members,
> perhaps even lose valuable members.
I'm not so much worried about members getting pissed off, as about the
possibility of the group being pissed on (to paraphrase Lyndon
Johnson). Bob may be as on-topic as Spongebob Squarepants, but how do
we know? Could be Andrew Shill again, could be a lot worse. The sooner
we go to another format with a public sandbox where new members at
least have to dance through a public hoop, the better.
>
> On 28/09/06, Roger Stanyard <roger@...> wrote:
> > It's absolutely permitted Bob. It would be very nice if it were
>also > > posted to our web site - it's a wiki and if you want to do
>that > > yourself, I'll let you have the keys.
Thank you so much Roger, I always wanted to place the gunpowder under
your tower,
A. Mc...should we say Kay?
Wake up - there's a war on.
Brian
3143
Timothy Chase
Re: New Member
29/09/2006 06:22:00
On 28/09/06, Bob Carling <bcarling@ambitnewmedia.com> wrote:
>
...
> There's much more that I could say - but if anyone's interested in reading my
ideas further on this, I tried to summarize it in a paper called
> "Some Philosophical Implications of Evolution by Natural Selection for
Christianity", which I will try and place onto the files section of this Yahoo
group. (If that fails, or is not permitted on this group, I will be happy to
email it to anyone who wants to read it.)
>
> Bob Carling
Dear Sir,
As a matter of honesty and respect, I should let you know that my
personal views in this area tend towards Spinozism. However, I would
most certainly be interested in receiving a copy of your paper, and
perhaps a little later I may return the favour with something which
may be of interest.
3144
Michael Roberts
Re: Re: CofE and creationism
29/09/2006 07:24:00
Don't worry. The Cof E has been like this for over 300 years so why should
we change?
On Science issues the only churches which will give ONE answer are those who
in the last 20 years have written Young Earth creationism into their basis
of faith
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Stanyard" <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 12:09 AM
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: CofE and creationism
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "George Jelliss" <gpjnow@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "George Jelliss" <gpjnow@>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > The challenge in the CofE is to get all to realise that it is
>> > >a serious
>> > > > problem which has been growing under their noses for 30 years
>> > > >
>> > > > Michael
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > You can say that again!
>> > >
>> > > A year ago, or it may be two now, I emailed nearly all the
>> > > bishops of the Church of England, well a good many of them,
>> > > trying to find out why there was nothing on the CofE sites
>> > > against creationism.
>>
>> ///
>>
>> > I think it a very good idea to have a section on our web site
>> > about the position (or lack of it) on creationism. It would
>> > highlight the problem that both you and Michael have demonstrated.
>> >
>> > I can put it together if you can provide the information, George.
>> >
>> > Alternatively, why don't you put it together as you special
>> > section of the web site. Wiki is dead easy to use.
>> >
>> > Roger
>> >
>>
>>
>> I've just got round to putting it all on the Leicester Secular
>> Society's site under Religion, with the subject title "Evolution
> and
>> the Church of England". Or click here:
>>
>> http://www.leicestersecularsociety.org.uk/creationism_cofe.htm
>>
>> You're welcome to include a link on the BCSE site.
>
> George,
>
> It's a really entertaining set of replies. I can see why even
> practising Anglicans get infuriated with the CofE, let alone
> secularists.
>
> It's about time the CoE made up its mind. (Says me wishing pigs could
> fly.)
>
> I dunno if you have ever read that odd book by Jeremey Paxman
> called "The English" but he quotes a Bishop of Oxford (presumably
> Richard Harries).
>
> Paxman asked Harries what do you exactly have to believe in to be a
> member of the CofE. Harries replied (words to the effect), "That's an
> interesting question...".
>
> After a while Harries came back to Paxman as said "Well, it all
> depends on what you mean...."
>
> Plus ca change...
>
> Roger
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
3145
Michael Roberts
Re: Re: CofE and creationism
29/09/2006 07:25:00
This article is fair and reasonable
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Jelliss" <gpjnow@ntlworld.com>
To: <BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 10:07 PM
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: CofE and creationism
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "George Jelliss" <gpjnow@>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > The challenge in the CofE is to get all to realise that it is
>> >a serious
>> > > problem which has been growing under their noses for 30 years
>> > >
>> > > Michael
>> >
>> >
>> > You can say that again!
>> >
>> > A year ago, or it may be two now, I emailed nearly all the
>> > bishops of the Church of England, well a good many of them,
>> > trying to find out why there was nothing on the CofE sites
>> > against creationism.
>
> ///
>
>> I think it a very good idea to have a section on our web site
>> about the position (or lack of it) on creationism. It would
>> highlight the problem that both you and Michael have demonstrated.
>>
>> I can put it together if you can provide the information, George.
>>
>> Alternatively, why don't you put it together as you special
>> section of the web site. Wiki is dead easy to use.
>>
>> Roger
>>
>
>
> I've just got round to putting it all on the Leicester Secular
> Society's site under Religion, with the subject title "Evolution and
> the Church of England". Or click here:
>
> http://www.leicestersecularsociety.org.uk/creationism_cofe.htm
>
> You're welcome to include a link on the BCSE site.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
3146
Rudy Vonk
Re: New Message
29/09/2006 08:33:00
On 29 sep 2006, at 01:05, Dave Oldridge wrote:
> On 27 Sep 2006 at 20:50, John Germain wrote:
>
> > I was hoping for some good restaurant tips near the Holy See,
> > Dave...
>
> Never been there. Probably not going there. But I can point to
> some of our better spots here!
Stay on the same side of the river: Ristorante Sabatini - Piazza S.
Maria in Trastevere 13.
Attachment: (text/enriched) [not stored]
3147
Roger Stanyard
Re: Counter
29/09/2006 10:31:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <alan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <alan@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes you're right about the counter Roger, there appears to be
no way
> > > to PW protect it (but it is not shown as a page, so it cannot be
> > > picked up with list group), although I can always change the
URL if
> > > this is a problem.
> > >
> > > Incidentally I made some changes to my article on the NC KS4
which
> > was
> > > a bit garbled. It is far from complete but you might find it
useful
> > > (For TIS).
> > >
> > Alan,
> >
> > I've put a URL link in the BCSE site page on tha National
Curriculum
> > to it.
> >
> > I hope you dpn't mind.
> >
> That's fine Roger. Incidentally, one of the things that I have
> wondered about the past is, is there any connection between John
Burn
> of the CI & the dodgy KS4 NC sentence that implies (if read by a
> criminal mind – sorry, I meant creationist) that evolution is
> controversial?
>
> Because: "He is Chairman of The Christian Institute and until
> September 1995 was a member of the School Curriculum and Assessment
> Authority. In 1994 he was awarded the OBE for services to education"
>
> http://www.christian.org.uk/html-publications/values.htm
>
> And:
>
> "In England QCA maintains and develops the national curriculum and
> associated assessments, tests and examinations; and accredits and
> monitors qualifications in colleges and at work and advises the
> Secretary of State for Education and Skills on these matters."
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_Curriculum_and_Assessment_Authorit
y
>
> From what I can gather, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority
> (QCA) that took over from the SCAA in 1997, performs the same
> functions. It is therefore at least possible that he was involved in
> the development of the NC.
>
> Alan.
I can't work this out but Burn is extremely well connected even
outside of his North East mafia.
I've just found another connection in his spider's web of influence
and control.
Ernie Bridgewood, a director (governor) of Trinity Academy is listed
as 'a practising Christian' who spent 33 years teaching in Doncaster,
12 years as Head of ICT at Hall Cross School'. Has been a volunteer
helper for the Christian Institute.
Jobs for the boys again.
What jobs do his boys have in writing the NC?
Roger
>
3148
Roger Stanyard
Re: Request for Help
29/09/2006 10:37:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "jbs13uk" <jbs13uk@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@> wrote:
> >
> > I would like to ask the UK members for some very simple help over
the
> > day or so. It will only take a few minutes of everybody's time.
> >
> Snipped for brevity
>
> I've changed it a little and will send one to Michael Jack (MP for
> Fylde, Lancashire) tomorrow. Over the weekend, I'll revamp it further
> for forwarding to the heads of science for all local schools and
> colleges. I'm going to phone around tomorrow to see if I can lay my
> hands on a copy of TiS' disinformation pack. Has anyone else made any
> progress on getting hold of a copy?
>
> J.
Chris Hyland over at SJS has got his hands on a copy and is reviewing
it over the weekend.
He got on the blower to a couple of local science teachers. The latter
didn't even realise it was creationist material from a creationist
organisation so TiS appears to have deliberatly deceived/hidden from
science teachers as to what it is about.
Roger
3149
Dave Oldridge
Re: Re: Bible citations barred
29/09/2006 11:50:00
On 28 Sep 2006 at 7:38, Michael Roberts wrote:
> What all need to see is that the vast majority of YECs are not
> Anglican. YEC Anglicans have less influence in the church's
> view of education than mainstream ones. In TIS the only
> Anglican to my knowledge is Curry, whose views are not
> representative of most Anglicans and also would be disregarded.
>
> One problem is that because of their non-evangelical
> backgrounds and lack of awareness of the issues many Anglicans
> will not see YEC or TIS as a problembut rather an irritant
> which is best ignored.
>
> In my diocese there are a few YECS several sympathisers and
> the vast majority ignore it though they think it wrong.
>
> The challenge in the CofE is to get all to realise that it is
> a serious problem which has been growing under their noses for
> 30 years
What you need is a couple of really tough bishops who are
familiar enough with the science to give the YEC propaganda a
good going over and then pronounce the movement to be the heresy
that it actually is.
YEC propaganda is mostly lies and innuendoes. As such it
constitutes, when it is deliberate, false witness, and when it is
not deliberate, careless disregard for the scientists it libels.
For a church or ministry to teach that as being part of a
CHRISTIAN witness is heresy because it consists mainly of
suborning sins.
Of course the same people who commit THESE sins would be aghast
if their churches promoted adultery or armed robbery.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
VA7CZ
3150
Roger Stanyard
God News!
29/09/2006 11:59:00
I have just had a call from a national newspaper following my letter to
it about Truth in Science.
They are following it up with an article which will be published in w
week or so.
I'm keeping mum about the name of the newspaper but it is one all the
UK people in this group know about (it's a broadsheet).
Roger