351 To 400

351
ukantic
Ministers put faith in schools
20/01/2006 22:32:00

Ministers put faith in schools

http://www.tes.co.uk/2180586

Graeme Paton

Published: 20 January 2006

Nine out of 10 attempts by faith groups to gain control of schools
in the past eight years have been approved, official government
figures show.

The findings show the support shown for Christian, Muslim, Jewish
and Sikh education since Labour came to power in 1997.

In total, 112 applications were made by religious organisations to
take over community schools – turning them into faith-based
primaries and secondaries – and 103 were supported.

The Government has made no secret of its backing for faith education
and Tony Blair has driven reforms to create a new wave of academies
and "trust" schools run by independent organisations, including
churches. Christian groups, such as the Church of England and the
United Learning Trust, an Anglican charity, now account for more
than a third of academy sponsors.

But new figures obtained by The TES show that inspectors believe
that fewer faith schools are "highly effective" – Ofsted's top mark –
compared to those without a religious ethos.

A study by the National Foundation for Educational Research,
published last year, showed that there was no difference in the
value-added GCSE scores of faith schools compared to non-religious
neighbours.

Further statistics obtained by The TES this week show that in the
past academic year, only 1 per cent of faith secondary schools
visited by inspectors was deemed to be "highly effective" compared
to 3 per cent of non-denominational secondaries.


352
ukantic
Trust Schools.
21/01/2006 21:59:00

Trust schools - A selection of articles from the BBC website.

Q & A: Trust schools

The government's package of school reforms for England continues to
confuse and bemuse many observers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4449374.stm


School entry pledge is 'rubbish'

A teachers' leader says it is "absolute rubbish" for the government
to say that school admission rules will not be changed by its
Education Bill.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4587352.stm


'Parent power' to change schools

Parent power will be the driving force behind improving England's
schools, says Education Secretary Ruth Kelly.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4376084.stm


Prescott in blow to school reform

John Prescott has dealt a serious blow to Tony Blair's plans to give
state schools in England more say over admissions, staffing and
finances.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4539074.stm


What is in the White Paper

"Self-governing, independent state schools" have been announced as
the future model for schools in England by the Prime Minister Tony
Blair.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4371182.stm


Labour MPs query school plans

Education Secretary Ruth Kelly has faced a series of challenges from
Labour backbenchers over her proposed reforms to England's schools.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4381890.stm


White Paper's selection confusion

"We are clear that this is entirely different from an 11-plus system
that divides children into different schools on the basis of
academic ability.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4542566.stm


Much ado about school changes

"An heroic compromise" - that was how one expert summed up the
government's planned school reforms.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4515008.stm


Why school reforms were re-sold

How did the government get into this pickle over its education
reforms? For a pickle it undoubtedly is.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4450638.stm


Forward to the past for schools?

Never knowingly under-launched, the government managed to spread out
the announcements for Tuesday's schools White Paper for England over
an entire week.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4382220.stm

The fight for good school places

If you have a child who is moving to secondary school next year, the
chances are you have already fallen victim to one of the many
diseases of parenthood.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4364272.stm


School admissions in the frame

Right, hands up if you don't understand what this row about school
admissions is all about?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4632980.stm


353
Mikey Brass
Re: Trust Schools.
21/01/2006 22:11:00

I am confused as to what the hell would be the actual outcome if Blair's
"reform" package passes. Without wanting to sound arrogant, if someone
involved in the higher education sector is confused, imagine how the
major of the general public are feeling!


354
ukantic
Reply to supporter of trust schools
21/01/2006 22:24:00

Whilst investigating the issue of trust schools, I came across the
following discussion on the matter, which seemed to be dominated by
a supporter of the changes by the name of Rhino:

http://www.tes.co.uk/section/staffroom/thread.aspx?
story_id=2181479&path=/Opinion/&threadPage=&messagePage=1

http://tinyurl.com/cfo6z

I replied with the following:

I note that Rhino uses words such as Stalinist Russia & ideology;
this is always a sure sign of someone attempting to make up for a
loss of substantive argument by using rhetoric instead.

I find it curious that people who call objectors of these so-called
school reforms, ideological or stuck in the past, seem at the same
time perfectly happy to ignore the problems being highlighted with
the new system such as allowing creationists to run schools. It is
impossible to imagine anything more ideological or stuck in the past
than biblical literalism with its anti-science & illiberal doctrines.

How can allowing religious fundamentalists to take over state
schools so they can push their extreme views onto other people's
impressionable children, be compatible with improving education; are
there no standards anymore.

What is worse is that these sponsors' eccentric views are being
forced onto substantial numbers of children whose parents are
atheists, agnostics or of a different religion & therefore have
opposing views. They have either to put up with the situation or
move their children to another school.

Children around here go to the local school, which is about 10
minutes walk away. If a new sponsor were to start teaching
creationism & a parent disagreed with this, then that parent would
be forced to spend at least 1 hour a day travelling by car to get to
the next school.

Therefore, when people like Rhino, Blair & Adonis go on
about, "freedom of choice", what they are really advocating is the
exact opposite.

Alan.

I think some of the respondents could have been a bit more robust in
countering Rhino's assertions. For example, it only took me a couple
of minutes on the internet to find a country with a state
educational system that is recognised as one of the best educational
systems in the world. See:

http://www.egremont-today.com/education.htm

"As a start, a visit to Finland might be very enlightening. State
education there is also very well funded. Their pupils' achievements
top most world league tables with very little recourse to tests and
assessments and teachers are highly respected members of a popular
profession. What is the secret of their success?"

This seems to blow Rhinos dogmatic assertion that state education is
inherently flawed, clean out of the water.

Alan.


355
Mikey Brass
Re: Reply to supporter of trust schools
21/01/2006 22:32:00

> http://www.egremont-today.com/education.htm
>
> "As a start, a visit to Finland might be very enlightening. State
> education there is also very well funded. Their pupils' achievements
> top most world league tables with very little recourse to tests and
> assessments and teachers are highly respected members of a popular
> profession. What is the secret of their success?"
>
> This seems to blow Rhinos dogmatic assertion that state education is
> inherently flawed, clean out of the water.

See also:
http://www.southafrica.info/ess_info/sa_glance/education/curriculum-190705.htm


356
ukantic
New academy has failed to win over the people who matter
22/01/2006 20:14:00

New academy has failed to win over the people who matter

http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?
SectionID=101&ArticleID=1308903

http://tinyurl.com/cy39z

11 January 2006

From: Tony Brookes (Headteacher, Thorne Grammar School 1987-2002),
Thorne.

THE attempt by the Emmanuel Schools Foundation to subdue the young
people of Thorne/ Moorends at the new Trinity Academy seems to have
hit stormy waters with parents calling a meeting (for tonight,
January 11) to discuss the harsh disciplinary regime. This comes as
no surprise to anyone who knew Thorne Grammar

School, which the academy replaced, and the community it served.
Doncaster LEA ran a feeble consultation exercise about establishing
the academy. Parents were given no hint about the type of regime the
sponsors would enforce. The exercise produced a total of 76
responses, with only 21 from parents.

On the basis of this underwhelming level of support, the elected
mayor pushed the proposal through.

The sponsors made no attempt to understand the community or to
involve parents in any meaningful discussion about what they would
want from a new school and how they would like it to operate.
Instead, they imposed their ethos, religious views, dress code,
curriculum and draconian discipline code without consultation.

Parents would have willingly agreed to strong sanctions for
disruptive behaviour, bullying, bringing offensive weapons or drugs
on site, etc. They would not have readily agreed to long detentions
for having your top button undone or permanent exclusions for two
offences of smoking.

The sponsor's contempt for the local community also included an
insistence that a thriving youth club on their site should be closed
along with the local adult education centre. Parents and local
councillors have been given no place in the first tier of governance
of the academy.

Trinity Academy has proved the classic example of how not to set up
an academy and how not to get the community behind you.

The sponsors may have found it easy to gain control by paying £2m
but they have totally failed to win the hearts of the people who
matter– the pupils and parents.

That is something that money cannot buy.


357
ukantic
More on Trinity.
22/01/2006 20:54:00

Academy 'is bullying children'

http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?
SectionID=55&ArticleID=1310802

http://tinyurl.com/bo62x

Academy 'is bullying children'

Angry parents claim pupils are stopped from using the toilet and
suspended for trivial matters

Rob Waugh

A controversial new school academy, funded by a Christian
fundamentalist, was last night accused of bullying its children at a
packed public meeting of angry parents.

Parents of children at the Trinity Academy at Thorne, near
Doncaster, said their children were stopped from going to the toilet
and even suspended for simply being on the wrong side of the
corridor.

The meeting was called by the Thorne and Moorends Parents and
Students Support Group set up in the wake of over 100 pupils being
suspended from the academy in the first term since it took over from
the former state secondary school.

Billy Chapman, who chaired the meeting which attracted around 300
parents and pupils, said he accepted any school had to have
discipline.

But he added: "We did not sign up for our children to be bullied and
excluded for minor reasons. We do not expect our children to be
refused to go to the toilet in the classroom and soil their
underclothes.

"We have all heard of children self-harming over undue pressures and
then there's an inquiry into why. I say let's have the inquiry
before it happens."

One parent said that the academy's head, Ian Brew, was accused of
having told children whose parents were unhappy with the new
school "Tell your parents to take me on".

Pauline Wood, one of the group's organisers, said: "When you go and
see Mr Brew all he says is if you don't like the academy you can go
elsewhere."

The academy is funded by the controversial Vardy Foundation, a
charitable organisation backed by millionaire car dealer and
evangelist, Reg Vardy.

The foundation has courted criticism from some quarters for its
Christian fundamentalist approach which gives equal precedence to
both creationism and scientific theories of evolution.

One parent, who was due to send his child to the academy, claimed
the school's strict disciplinary system was being manipulated "to
select through stealth".

The meeting also heard from Jim Board, Doncaster council's
reintegration officer, who works with the borough's excluded pupils.

He said: "We predicted that when the education authority gave away
Thorne Grammar School to the Vardy Foundation we would see increased
exclusions and exclusions used in a way we didn't support."

One girl in the audience said she had been excluded eight times, on
one occasion for having her hair tied back too loosely.

There were only a couple of voices of support for the academy's
regime including a parent who suggested some of the complaints
were "petty".

Local MP Edward Miliband who represents Doncaster North sent his
apologies and did not attend but did send a constituency
representative to take the temperature of the meeting.

No-one from the academy was present but it has previously stood by
its disciplinary code, claiming its exclusion rates are no worse
than the rates recorded at the old grammar school.

Earlier in the week a spokeswoman said: "The academies are set up to
make a difference and raise standards.

"We have made no secret of the fact that when we were chosen as
sponsors we would have very high expectations of behaviour and
attendance."

At the end of the meeting the group said it would hold
demonstrations against the running of the school.

12 January 2006


358
ukantic
Social division warning over school reform
23/01/2006 20:04:00

'Social division' warning over school reform

http://www.tes.co.uk/2182456

(23/01/06)

PA News
Published: 23 January 2006

Tony Blair's plans for a new breed of "independent" state schools risk
excluding children from poor families, a report from a Government
adviser warned today.


359
Mikey Brass
Re: Horizon: War on Science.
24/01/2006 16:00:00

I don't have a tv so if anyone watches this....?


--
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)


360
ukantic
Re: Horizon: War on Science.
24/01/2006 20:52:00

--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <mike@a...> wrote:
>
> I don't have a tv so if anyone watches this....?
>
If you want Mike, I can record it on DVD & post it on.

In the meantime, if you are looking for a bit of light entertainment
then take a look at this:

http://creative.gettyimages.com/source/Film/filmresultsmain.aspx?
source=quickSearchFilm&txtSearch=717-57&brand=14

http://tinyurl.com/dyrgz

Just click on, "play clip" & pretend the smaller ship to the left/back
is called SS Creationism!

Alan.


361
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Horizon: War on Science.
25/01/2006 11:07:00

ukantic wrote:
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <mike@a...> wrote:
>> I don't have a tv so if anyone watches this....?
>>
> If you want Mike, I can record it on DVD & post it on.

I'd appreciate that, but only if it isn't any trouble for you.

Mike


362
ukantic
Canada
26/01/2006 00:36:00

"Some of Harper's top people do happen to believe in creationism.
Well, so what? Harper himself took pains to declare that he,
personally, had "evolved.""

http://www.rosweed.com/WordPress/?p=227


363
ukantic
Re: Horizon: War on Science.
26/01/2006 00:43:00

--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <mike@a...> wrote:
>
> ukantic wrote:
> > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <mike@a...> wrote:
> >> I don't have a tv so if anyone watches this....?
> >>
> > If you want Mike, I can record it on DVD & post it on.
>
> I'd appreciate that, but only if it isn't any trouble for you.
>
> Mike
>
It is not a problem Mike, although you will have to e-mail me your
address.

Alan.


364
ukantic
ARE AMERICANS AT LAST WAKING UP THE DANGER THEY ARE IN?
26/01/2006 15:26:00

ARE AMERICANS AT LAST WAKING UP THE DANGER THEY ARE IN?

Quotes From the NSS Newsline.

"I can't help but recall the words of my ethics professor at Harvard
Divinity School, Dr. James Luther Adams, who told us that when we
were his age, and he was then close to eighty, we would all be
fighting the `Christian fascists.' He gave us that warning twenty-
five years ago, when Pat Robertson and other prominent evangelists
began speaking of a new political religion that would direct its
efforts at taking control of all major American institutions,
including mainstream denominations and the government, so as to
transform the United States into a global Christian empire. At the
time, it was hard to take such fantastic rhetoric seriously. But
fascism, Adams warned, would not return wearing swastikas and brown
shirts. Its ideological inheritors would cloak themselves in the
language of the Bible; they would come carrying crosses and chanting
the Pledge of Allegiance."
(Chris Hedges, Harpers magazine)

"What is unique today is that the radical religious right has
succeeded in taking over one of America's great political parties -
the country is not yet a theocracy but the Republican Party is and
they are driving American politics, using God as a battering ram on
almost every issue... What's also unique is the intensity,
organization, and anger they have brought to the public square.
Listen to their preachers, evangelists, and home grown ayatollahs:
Their viral intolerance their loathing of other people's beliefs,
of America's secular and liberal values, of an independent press, of
the courts, of reason, science and the search for objective
knowledge has become an unprecedented sectarian crusade for state
power."
(Bill Moyers, Union Theological Seminary)

"I am persuaded we face in our country a movement that is trying its
best to hijack this nation in the name of a set of ideals and values
it claims to be Christian but which, on examination, are the very
antithesis of the Gospel that our Lord preached and by which we, as
Jesus disciples, are challenged to live our lives in the world. If
this movement is successful if it is not stopped in its tracks it
will transform the United States into a political and cultural
nightmare that not only turns its back on two hundred years of
American history, it will also be one that leaves this nation
unrecognisable from all that we have been and all that we might
aspire to be as a democratic society."
(Dr Hubert Locke, Afro-American theologian)


365
ukantic
Britons unconvinced on evolution
26/01/2006 19:56:00

Britons unconvinced on evolution

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm

26 Jan 06

More than half the British population does not accept the theory of
evolution, according to a survey.


366
Max Wurr
Horizon
27/01/2006 17:28:00

Hi All

I watched Horizon last night. It was a good summary of the US debate,
but I was disappointed that no mention was made of attempts to sneak
creationism into British classrooms. Perhaps the BBC want to sell the
programme to the international market and didn't want the parochial
angle?

I think, however, that the biggest problem we face is that the British
public in general are not even aware of the threat to our children's
education from the likes of Reg Vardy. When will we get our equivalent
of the Dover case? Particularly in light of the level of ignorance
about evolution in the UK, something needs to be done sooner rather
than later.

Max


367
ukantic
Re: Horizon
28/01/2006 21:53:00

--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Max Wurr" <mail@m...> wrote:
>
> Hi All
>
> I watched Horizon last night. It was a good summary of the US
debate,
> but I was disappointed that no mention was made of attempts to
sneak
> creationism into British classrooms. Perhaps the BBC want to sell
the
> programme to the international market and didn't want the
parochial
> angle?

I was contacted (via the website) by a Horizon researcher last May.
I spent ages on the phone explaining my objections to creationism to
her. She was looking for information for a story & I had to admit
that I knew little that was not already available in the press. I
said if she was looking for a good story on creationism then they
should be looking across the water at America. This was not long
after Debunk Creation book donation to Dover, Pennsylvania & I
pointed out that that story was going to be big.

She is not the only person I have had contact me looking for
information for a TV program on creationism. Someone else was
planning to make a drama on the subject & again was looking for good
stories. This was going to deal specifically with the British
situation but I never heard anymore.

My guess is that there is simply not enough of a story there at
present. It is also tied in with politics & other issues such as
faith schools, which complicate matters. Also, some of the details
are quite complicated to understand, are pedantic & hardly make the
most exciting TV viewing.

Another reason why Horizon may have steered clear of the British
situation was that it would have involved criticism of government
policy & those involved, such as Blair & his creepy friends &
advisors; being a science based program, I do not think they really
want to go there.

I think Horizon did a good job with the way they presented the
issues. I think It may have been to pro-ID but I would say that
wouldn't I! For example, Meyer talked about their famous list of 450
scientists who do not agree that evolution provides an adequate
explanation for the complexity of life. Everyone knows about the
problem with this list, from the misleading wording to the fact that
the vast majority of the signatures are from scientists or others
who are not biologists. Who cares less what a mathematician thinks
about evolution – his or her authority on the subject is precisely
zero. To provide balance they could have pointed out project Steve
where there is over 680 signatures from scientists (Two thirds in
the field of biology) supporting evolution with the first name of
Steve, Steven etc & where these names represent by proportion just
1% of the population.

> I think, however, that the biggest problem we face is that the
British
> public in general are not even aware of the threat to our
children's
> education from the likes of Reg Vardy. When will we get our
equivalent
> of the Dover case? Particularly in light of the level of
ignorance
> about evolution in the UK, something needs to be done sooner
rather
> than later.
>
> Max

The NSS were looking into the legal aspects of this the back end of
last year but I haven't heard anymore. My personal view is that the
creationist's political ambitions will probably be defeated by bad
publicity, resistance from parents & staff & the failure of Blaire's
educational policies.

Alan.


368
stanyardroger
Letters to the Daily Telegraph
30/01/2006 08:08:00

Um, this is a letter to the Daily Telegraph in response to Stepehen
Meyer's article on Intelligent Design. For some reason it didn't get
published:

To the Editor
Daily Telegraph
London, UK

From Sir Herbert Gusset
Dun Sheepmolesta
Tyneham Bomedout
Dorset
UK

Dear Boris,

Your article on "Intelligent design is not creationism" reminds me of
the recent discussion I had in the saloon bar of the Lamb and Flag
with my neighbour, Buffy Frobisher. Monty Balon, the landlord, says
that the boffins nowadays believe that we all contain bits of
computers call programmes in our bodies and that these keep conking
out or something.

It is all down to some outfit in Seattle called Microsoft and an egg-
headed fellow called Dr. Crick Watson who used to work for Sherlock
Holmes.

Fortified with several pints of the landlord's best ale and a few
bottles of scotch from the cellar we decided to have an all-night
discussion to get to the bottom of what these boffins are up to.

Monty had it on good authority that there is a bunch of clever-clogs
in the USA who claim that the computer bits were designed by God but
that God didn't exist and this was proven by something that was very
complex but which nobody understood except a single mad professor and
he has forgotten all about it anyway.

Apparently these clever-clogs spend all their time running around
waiving their hands in the air and shouting alleluia, especially when
they get large cheques to pay for their nefarious activities.

Buffy believes that all this nonsense couldn't possible be true as he
had read in the Daily Telegraph that the famous astrologer, Sir Fred
Hoyle, had discovered that we are all descended from comets.

After many hours of informed and lively debate we all agreed that it
was due to River Piddle flooding the world and an invasion of flying
saucers.

Later on my way home from the Lamb and Flag, I can distinctly
remember being attacked by a hideous-looking alien creature with a
device that looked like an umbrella. The alien was all in green and
bore a passing resemblance to my good lady-wife, whose name for the
moment temporarily escapes me.

All this should obviously be taught to young people in schools today,
otherwise they won't believe their elders and betters.

Yours Sincerely,

H. Gussett


369
stanyardroger
Daily Telegraph and Intelligent Design
30/01/2006 08:17:00

Here is my letter to the Daily Telegraph re Stepen Meyer's rubbish
about Intelligent Design; it didn't get published:

To the Editor

The Daily Telegraph

From Roger Stanyard

Sir - I am astonished to hear that "intelligent design is not
creationism" (Stephen Meyer, Daily Telegraph, 28th January 2006) and
am staggered that the names of Professors Anthony Flew and Richard
Dawkins are rolled out as evidence to support this statement. It is
beyond reasonable doubt that intelligent design is religious
creationism and not science.

In December 2005, the US District Judge John Jones ruled in the case
of Kitzmiller v Dover School Board of Directors that Intelligent
Design was creationism and not an evidence-based scientific theory
about life's origins. Specifically Jones concluded that "the
overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious
view, a mere re-labelling of creationism, and not a scientific
theory."

Moreover, the Judge also concluded that the defence, backed by the
Discovery Institute, repeatedly lied under oath in presenting legal
evidence that it was a scientific theory. The media reported this
accurately. The full text of the devastating ruling is widely
available on Internet.

It is incredulous to suggest that the religious conversion of
Professor Anthony Flew from atheism supports Intelligent Design as a
purely scientific theory. Flew is a distinguished philosopher but has
no training in science. He has subsequently recanted his views on
Intelligent Design.

Meyer juxtaposes his introduction to Intelligent Design with a
statement that the views of Richard Dawkins support it. Dawkins, one
of the world's most authoritative biologists, is an outspoken critic
of Intelligent Design.

Moreover, Meyer extensively draws upon the work on "irreducible
complexity" by Professor Michael Behe to support Intelligent Design.
Behe has virtually no support in the scientific community for his
views on irreducible complexity; scientist have also been waiting for
some years for Behe to explain his own, admitted, inconsistencies, on
the subject.

Meyer also argues that the work of Crick and Watson support
Intelligent Design. The reader should be aware that there has never
ever been any peer-reviewed papers on Intelligent Design published in
any scientific journal, nor has it ever involved scientific research
or testing. Meyer is also wrong to state that it is a new theory; it
dates back t the early 1990s. Given the millions that have been
poured into the Discovery Institute by such religious fundamentalists
as Howard Ahmanson and others, it is incredulous (if Meyer is to be
believed) that the Discovery Institutes numerous fellows and senior
fellows have never produced any scientifically accepted evidence for
the idea.

Whilst Meyer categorically denies that ID is not based on religion,
the Discovery Institute has categorically said that it is. In a
leaked document (the Wedge Document) from the organisation, the
Institute's Centre for Science and Culture states that its governing
goals are to defeat "scientific materialism" (Darwinism) with "the
theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by
God".

I have taken Professor Flew's advice to follow the evidence and have
concluded from Meyer's article that Intelligent Design is wholly
bogus.

Yours Sincerely

Roger Stanyard


Notes: The full text of the 139 page ruling by Judge Jones can be
found at:
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdfSee; Page
46 of the ruling states that the defendants' testimony was marked by
selective memory and "outright lies under oath".


370
stanyardroger
Daily Telegraph and Intelligent Design
30/01/2006 08:20:00

Here are the letters to the Daily Telegraph re Intelligent Design
which did get published today. As far as I can make out, the
only "heavyweight" name amongst the writers is Matt Ridley:

Intelligent Design lacks intelligence

Sir - Intelligent Design (Opinion, January 28) is merely a dishonest
attempt to repackage a literal interpretation of the Bible as
science - and so sneak it into the American school curriculum, where
religion is banned.

To argue from "Gosh, living things are complicated" straight
to "Therefore they must have been put together by an intelligent
entity" is (to quote the conservative judge who recently threw it out
when adopted by the school board in Dover, Pennsylvania) "a
breathtaking inanity". Besides, if you believe the free market came
up with a better economic system than Marx, you don't believe in
Intelligent Design.

Matt Ridley, Blagdon, Northumberland

Sir - Stephen Meyer, in explaining the difference between ID and
biblical creationism, fails to mention the recent findings of Judge
John Jones in the Pennsylvania school-board case: that the first is a
mere re-labelling of the second.

Steve Jones, University College London

Sir - Prof Meyer may have caused some confusion by stating that ID
is "an evidence-based scientific theory". This would only be true
with a new definition of "scientific". At the trial in Dover, ID
proponent Michael Behe went as far as to suggest that science should
be redefined in a way that would include astrology.

Bob O'Hara, University of Helsinki

Sir - As the state of the art in creationism, by all means teach ID
in religious education classes. But it has no place in any scientific
forum, especially that of the school science lesson.

Peter Risdon, Soham, Cambs

Sir - Prof Meyer's explanation of ID as evidence-based science
provides an interesting contrast with many media reports. I cannot
help but note that the scientific methodology promoted by figures
such as Richard Dawkins cannot handle intelligent agency (beyond
human causation). Indeed, it excludes it as a matter of principle.

There is a science that accepts only material causes and a science
that has material causes plus intelligent agency. Both these science
methodologies seem to have metaphysical roots that have religious
implications.

Intelligent Design challenges the positivist assumptions underpinning
much modern science. This issue is not "is ID faith-based?" but "can
science be practised with a diversity of metaphysical roots?"

Dr David J. Tyler, Manchester Metropolitan University


371
Andrew
Re: Daily Telegraph and Intelligent Design
30/01/2006 09:12:00

I hadn't been thinking at all in terms of having a letter published. I'd
quite forgotten they do that, somehow. My intention has been to write to
the editor and point out that publishing the article in question throws into
question any status his paper may have as an intelligent and reliable
publication, and continuing down that line is guaranteed to make The
Telegraph a laughingstock, and to illustrate the point briefly by referring
to the Dover case.

Accordingly I'm writing my letter today when I've checked the address.


372
stanyardroger
Re: Daily Telegraph and Intelligent Design
30/01/2006 10:39:00

--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" <taoist.hermit1@v...>
wrote:
>
Hello Andrew,

The email address for letters to the Daily Telegraph is dtletters[at]
dailytelegraph.co.uk.

Still, one wonders whether the Torygraph was being true to form when it
published Meyer's nonsense. It's always been an old farts' newspaper.
Even The Economist used to describe it as an old fogey's newspaper.

Most of its readers are so old that they probably thing that Charles
Darwin is one of those "troublesome youngsters" that they have read
about in the Torygraph.

Best Regards

Roger Stanyard

> I hadn't been thinking at all in terms of having a letter published.
I'd
> quite forgotten they do that, somehow. My intention has been to
write to
> the editor and point out that publishing the article in question
throws into
> question any status his paper may have as an intelligent and reliable
> publication, and continuing down that line is guaranteed to make The
> Telegraph a laughingstock, and to illustrate the point briefly by
referring
> to the Dover case.
>
> Accordingly I'm writing my letter today when I've checked the address.
>


373
ukantic
Re: Daily Telegraph and Intelligent Design
30/01/2006 21:18:00

--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "stanyardroger" <roger@d...>
wrote:
>
> Here are the letters to the Daily Telegraph re Intelligent Design
> which did get published today. As far as I can make out, the
> only "heavyweight" name amongst the writers is Matt Ridley:

Thanks Roger, I will come back to this when I find a bit more time.
I wish to post some replies to the DT article on my website & would
like to use your letters if that is okay.

Out of interest Steve Jones is probably the geneticist & writer:

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/biology/academic-staff/jones/jones.htm

"In addition I have written extensively in the press on scientific
issues and have a regular column in The Daily Telegraph - "View from
the Lab"."

Funnily enough there is also a creationist called Steven Jones over
at:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/testimny.html#deism

This bit will interest Mike:

"I probably would have become bored with this and left, except that
an older man named Laurie Appleton5 who was a young-Earth
creationist, posted a series of quotes from evolutionists doubting
aspects of evolution. I was surprised that there were any
evolutionists with doubts about evolution (I had never read any
Creation-Science material), and I expected these knowledgeable
evolutionists to slaughter poor old Laurie with calm, courteous,
rational, scientific arguments (which is what I then thought that
real scientists did!). But the evolutionists responded to Laurie's
quotes with ridicule, abuse and answers that even I could see were
weak."

He also claims to accept common descent in his blog heading:

http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/

But then seems to devote most of his time arguing against evolution
& attacking its supporters.

He also spends a lot of time defending ID but is clearly motivated
by his own strong religious beliefs. But hang on a moment ID has
supposed to have nothing to do with religion.

David Tyler is a typical British YEC. One of his articles his here:

http://www.darwinreconsidered.org/tournewswd.asp

And there are many more on the internet.

Alan.


374
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Daily Telegraph and Intelligent Design
30/01/2006 21:42:00

ukantic wrote:

> Funnily enough there is also a creationist called Steven Jones over
> at:

Ask Michael Suttkus on DC about this liar.


375
stanyardroger
Re: Daily Telegraph and Intelligent Design
31/01/2006 09:41:00

--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@y...> wrote:
>
Alan,

> Thanks Roger, I will come back to this when I find a bit more time.
> I wish to post some replies to the DT article on my website & would
> like to use your letters if that is okay.
>
Feel Free.

> Out of interest Steve Jones is probably the geneticist & writer:

Thanks for the references. I've followed them up. They are vey useful.


BR

Roger
>
> http://www.ucl.ac.uk/biology/academic-staff/jones/jones.htm
>
> "In addition I have written extensively in the press on scientific
> issues and have a regular column in The Daily Telegraph - "View
from
> the Lab"."
>
> Funnily enough there is also a creationist called Steven Jones over
> at:
>
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/testimny.html#deism
>
> This bit will interest Mike:
>
> "I probably would have become bored with this and left, except that
> an older man named Laurie Appleton5 who was a young-Earth
> creationist, posted a series of quotes from evolutionists doubting
> aspects of evolution. I was surprised that there were any
> evolutionists with doubts about evolution (I had never read any
> Creation-Science material), and I expected these knowledgeable
> evolutionists to slaughter poor old Laurie with calm, courteous,
> rational, scientific arguments (which is what I then thought that
> real scientists did!). But the evolutionists responded to Laurie's
> quotes with ridicule, abuse and answers that even I could see were
> weak."
>
> He also claims to accept common descent in his blog heading:
>
> http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/
>
> But then seems to devote most of his time arguing against evolution
> & attacking its supporters.
>
> He also spends a lot of time defending ID but is clearly motivated
> by his own strong religious beliefs. But hang on a moment ID has
> supposed to have nothing to do with religion.
>
> David Tyler is a typical British YEC. One of his articles his here:
>
> http://www.darwinreconsidered.org/tournewswd.asp
>
> And there are many more on the internet.
>
> Alan.
>


376
ukantic
Children who need to learn a vital lesson in discipline
01/02/2006 00:10:00

Children who need to learn a vital lesson in discipline

http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?
SectionID=97&ArticleID=1310852

http://tinyurl.com/bg62o

Nick Seaton

Nick Seaton, from York, is chairman of the Campaign for Real
Education.

NEWS that parents of children at the new Trinity Academy near
Doncaster have formed a Parents and Teachers Support Group to
protest against the school's firm discipline will have shocked many
people.

This is because one of the most widespread concerns about today's
state schools is that young people's behaviour is getting so bad
that many schools are near to anarchy. Firm discipline and
unambiguous rules, strictly enforced, are exactly what thousands of
parents and teachers want but can't get.

Although city academies such as Trinity may not be the solution to
all the ills of the education system, they do offer a welcome degree
of independence from the prevailing orthodoxy, where discipline and
standards are practically non-existent.

Ian Brew, the principal of Trinity College, shows admirable
independence from this orthodoxy, which has made things worse, not
better. As a spokesman for the school has suggested, "high
expectations of behaviour and attendance" are vital if standards of
work are to improve.

Surely, if they are to succeed at school and in later life, his
pupils (and parents) must share this aim and support it absolutely?

In many ways, the disagreement between the staff at Trinity Academy
and some (almost certainly a minority) of the school's parents
highlights a fundamental educational issue: should schools be
predominantly "child-centred" and free of constraints? Or should
young people be taught generally to respect authority, and that they
are unlikely to succeed in the wider world of work without this
respect?

Unbelievable though it may seem, the predominant ideology, promoted
by all the controlling bodies in state education including the
National Union of Teachers, is child-centredness.

This encourages children to believe that they are the centre of the
universe and that everything should revolve around them and their
immediate needs. Because many of today's parents are themselves
products of this ideology, inadequate parenting is the inevitable
result.

Let's look at it from a youngster's viewpoint.

From a very early age, you learn that you can manipulate your
parents, or get what you want, by misbehaving.

In primary school, there is little structure, whether in learning to
read or the wider curriculum. You sit in groups or circles ("circle
time") in which the teacher is included. You learn that the teacher
does not expect any special respect for their age, knowledge or
experience. Everyone is equal and your "self-esteem" is paramount.

According to the National Curriculum Handbook for Teachers published
by the Department for Education and Skills and the Qualifications
and Curriculum Authority, you are taught (politically
correct) "values" under headings which start with the "The Self"
followed by Relationships, Society and the Environment.

You are not even taught to obey the law. You should merely "respect
the rule of law and encourage others to do so".

In secondary school, your Citizenship, Personal, Social and Health
Education lessons are based on the premise that you must make your
own "informed choice" about everything you do.

You are taught about Children's Rights. But whose rights take
precedence? The child's right to choose to misbehave, or the
teacher's right to maintain order?

You are expected to experiment with drugs, so you are taught to do
it as safely as possible. You are expected to indulge in sexual
activity from an early age – whether legal or not. So the state (or
the school) will provide free condoms or morning-after pills to
reduce adverse consequences.

These are just a few examples chosen at random. But they illustrate
how, by giving out mixed messages and surrendering their authority
to children, responsible adults such as parents, teachers, police
officers and religious leaders may be doing more harm than good.

Of course, as they grow in age, wisdom and experience, youngsters
increasingly make their own choices. But in the early years,
children need clear boundaries and clear messages about what is
expected of them. Shades of grey can come later.

It is also vital that children understand that actions have
consequences. We all break the rules occasionally, but if caught,
surely we should accept the punishment and learn from the experience.

The protesting parents of Trinity Academy seem unwilling to discuss
their concerns with the principal, though he has offered to meet
them. They want to "stop things from getting any worse" and accuse
the school of "trying to break the spirit of the children who
attend".

This is nonsense. Unless "free spirits" fully understand the link
between actions and consequences, misfortune (perhaps more serious
than a few days' suspension from school) may follow.

Genuine experts on the rearing of children invariably advise that
this should be a partnership between parents and teachers.
Sometimes, as explained above, teachers (and parents) may be
misinformed and do the wrong thing.

In this case, unless the differences can be resolved at a meeting
with the principal of Trinity Academy, perhaps the dissatisfied
parents should seek another school?

12 January 2006


377
ukantic
Re: Children who need to learn a vital lesson in discipline
01/02/2006 00:18:00

--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@y...> wrote:
>
> Children who need to learn a vital lesson in discipline
>
> http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?
> SectionID=97&ArticleID=1310852
>
> http://tinyurl.com/bg62o
>
> Nick Seaton

< snip >

> In this case, unless the differences can be resolved at a meeting
> with the principal of Trinity Academy, perhaps the dissatisfied
> parents should seek another school?
>
> 12 January 2006
>

What rubbish. Just take the last paragraph; this is little different
to telling someone who complains about some problem, that if they
don't like it then they should go & live in another country. If
nothing else, he is assuming that the parents are in the wrong WHEN
HE DOES NOT KNOW THAT.

Everyone knows that discipline must be maintained in schools, that
is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the discipline is
excessive or unduly petty and if the parents feel it is then they
should be allowed to express their opinions without this abusive &
intimidating input from some axe-grinding screwball.

Alan.


378
ukantic
£22m flagship school hit by exclusions row
01/02/2006 21:08:00

£22m flagship school hit by exclusions row

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?
xml=/news/2006/01/29/nteach129.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/29/ixnewstop.
html

http://tinyurl.com/9972x

By Julie Henry, Education Correspondent

(Filed: 29/01/2006)

A city academy is at loggerheads with parents after excluding record
numbers of pupils under a controversial zero-tolerance discipline
policy.

The row, at the new Trinity Academy, in Doncaster, is the latest
controversy to dog the Government's flagship initiative. It has
erupted days after Bexley Academy, in south-east London, was
criticised by inspectors and league tables revealed several other
city academies are among the worst-performing schools.

The £22 million Trinity Academy school, in the working-class area of
Thorne, is run by the Emmanuel Schools Trust, a Christian
organisation founded by Reg Vardy, the car dealership tycoon. The
trust also runs Emmanuel College, in Gateshead, which hit the
headlines for teaching creationism theory alongside evolution.
Opened in September the school, which replaced Thorne Grammar, a
comprehensive with low results but deemed by inspectors to be
improving, was billed as a fresh start based on firm discipline and
an ethos of high expectations.

Under the new regime, there have been more than 100 suspensions for
offences ranging from smoking, answering back and uniform
infringement.

For some parents, the rules have come as something of a shock.
Teenagers who they claim had not been in trouble at the old school
are now constantly in detention and under threat of suspension.
Two pupils have been expelled, including Chris Barwell, 15, who
received warnings for smoking in school and was then permanently
excluded for smoking outside the school premises.

His mother Janet Barwell insists he has been excluded
unfairly. "Chris was down for seven GCSEs and on course for good
grades," she said. "I am behind school discipline but now his whole
future could be ruined because he had two drags of a cigarette, and
not even on school premises."

A number of families have formed a support group and a meeting was
held last week to discuss the punishments attracted 200 parents.
Another is planned for Wednesday.

Ian Brew, the head teacher, makes no apology for the approach, which
he insists is necessary to restore order in the classroom.

Nigel McQuoid, the director of schools for the Emmanuel Schools
Trust, is also unrepentant, describing the stance as a "moral duty".
"For the sake of the majority who want us to stick to the standards
we have set out, we will not capitulate to a few people that have
demonstrated an attitude that sadly, their children have picked up,"
he told the Sunday Telegraph.

"We have to hold our nerve. We have to show the good, decent kids
and families that it will no longer be the case that if you kick up
a fuss, you get what you want - that if you break the rules, nothing
happens.

"When we took over, smoking was endemic at the school. Now, there
are no kids smoking."

Despite reassurances that the school is determined to cater for
local children - it has turned down the option to select 10 per cent
on aptitude - some parents suspect there is a more sinister reason
for the crackdown.

They claim that it is being used to weed out trouble-makers or low
achievers, an accusation made against other academies including
Unity Academy, in Middlesbrough, and West London Academy, in Ealing.
"They are trying to manipulate admissions," said Janet Wood, whose
daughter was suspended from Trinity for a uniform infringement that
the school later admitted was a mistake. "They have a waiting list,
so they expel local pupils or encourage them to go somewhere else
and change the intake."

The Government aims to establish 200 city academies by 2010.


379
ukantic
Letters ref: Trinity Academy
01/02/2006 21:16:00

http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?
SectionID=101&ArticleID=1316825

http://tinyurl.com/b6xgq

Parents should be grateful for a school with real discipline

From: H Mason, Chapel Close, Rawcliffe, Nr Goole.

FURTHER to the letter from Tony Brookes (Yorkshire Post, January
11), may I suggest he has overdosed on sour grapes?

He carefully makes no reference to the problems that beset Trinity
Academy, formerly Thorne Grammar School, in years gone by when many
residents in Doncaster yearned for a greater degree of discipline at
its senior school.

In my view, the area has now got a school of which it can be proud.
It is time now for Mr Brookes to get off the backs of those who are
working so hard to make it a success. Can I add that I was a pupil
at Goole Grammar School in the 1940s. I dread to think of the
consequences of being found smoking on the premises. There was
little awareness then of the dangers to health that smoking posed.
How times have changed.


From: Catherine Watson, Norman Road, Hatfield, Doncaster.

WITH reference to the article by Paul Whitehouse about pupil
suspensions at Trinity Academy (Yorkshire Post, January 10), what on
earth are parents of pupils whingeing about?

They had full information about the rules of the school and standard
of behaviour expected from the pupils when the school started.

Some of the pupils have broken those rules and standards, and are
being disciplined for their misdemeanours and now there is to be a
public meeting to moan about the sanctions being imposed.

The one permanent exclusion so far has been for a girl who was found
to be carrying a knife.

I can only applaud the Academy for their decision, after reading
recently about pupils being slashed across the face in other schools.

Many people in this area are so pleased to have a school in their
midst with such high expectations of behaviour, leading to raising
standards and levels of attainment, but it seems that some parents
of the fortunate pupils who attend the school cannot accept the
disciplining of their children when it is necessary.


From: Mrs ME Oglesby, Mansion Court Gardens, Thorne, Doncaster.

I HAVE been a reader of the Yorkshire Post for many years and always
praised your impartial reporting. No longer.

You published another letter from Tony Brookes, the ex-headmaster of
Thorne Grammar School (Yorkshire Post, January 16), complaining
about the new Trinity Academy that has opened in its place.

Contrary to claims, most parents in Thorne have nothing but praise
for the Academy.


From: John G Davies, Alma Terrace, East Morton, Keighley.

NICK Seaton employs a mixture of non-sequiturs and wilful
misinterpretations to push his view on disciplining children
(Yorkshire Post, January 12).

He obviously has no more idea than I have, regarding the number of
parents disagreeing with Trinity Academy's policy, but he resorts to
saying "almost certainly a minority".

The important thing is that the number is "significant" in that they
have made enough waves to have their views heard.

The former head, Tony Brookes, appears to agree with them.

Mr Seaton ignores the complexity of the real world and the mixed
messages that it sends out. Are the messages that Jeremy Clarkson
sends out, loud and clear, more or less appropriate than his for the
kids of Thorne? The churches and the Government may be telling them
to behave in one way, yet they see very different attitudes on Big
Brother and they see the apparently glamorous lifestyle of its
participants.

In the past, there was a system to impose authority on all
individuals, not just children, for the common good. Unfortunately,
that system collapsed in the Prague Spring along with the Berlin
Wall.

Authoritarian systems have failed in the past, which is why modern
teachers use strategies like circle time to negotiate with pupils,
the vast majority of whom do want to learn and do behave reasonably,
so it is relatively easy to achieve a satisfactory consensus.

Far better to have a cheerful agreement than a sullen compliance
with imposed authority.


380
ukantic
Pupils need fairness, not harsh discipline
01/02/2006 21:29:00

Pupils need fairness, not harsh discipline

http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?
SectionID=97&ArticleID=1319009

http://tinyurl.com/cu7ll

19 January 2006 <letters in previous post dated 18 Jan>

Tony Brookes

Dr Tony Brookes was headteacher of Thorne Grammar School, Doncaster,
from 1987 until 2002. The school has now been replaced by Trinity
Academy.

THE parental unrest about the allegedly harsh disciplinary regime at
South Yorkshire's Trinity Academy has brought the issue of
discipline in schools sharply into focus.

Before looking at discipline, you need to consider the type of ethos
you wish a school to have and the way in which you wish pupils to
behave. This is usually expressed as a set of rules or behaviour
policy. If everyone follows the rules, you don't need discipline or
sanctions. But we don't live in that ideal world.

What happens in schools tends to reflect what is happening in
society. Maintaining order in schools is getting more difficult but
it is the same in society. You only need to look at increasing
numbers of public order offences and a rising prison population for
evidence of that.

Where do school rules come from? In a state school, the headteacher
is charged with maintaining order but is accountable to the board of
governors which must approve the behaviour policy. The local
education authority usually provides guidelines.

When the headteacher uses the sanction of permanent exclusion, a
governors' committee must meet to confirm the decision, taking
advice from the LEA. Governors will be involved in appeals about
exclusions and are the first port of call for complaints which
parents have not been able to resolve with the head.

Traditionally, school rules were a set of negatives – don't do this,
don't do that. More recently, schools have tried to make rules more
positive and to express why a type of behaviour is beneficial to
pupils.

It is good practice to involve pupils in drawing up the rules – they
are thus far more likely to accept them. Many schools give pupils a
voice through a school council; some develop a charter of rights and
responsibilities.

The major purpose of any behaviour policy is to allow the school to
function in an orderly and effective way. It must ensure that there
is a climate in which pupils can learn and teachers can teach.

The rules should protect learners and staff from abuse, intimidation
and physical threat, thus ensuring safety. Many other rules
contribute in a lesser way to the school ethos. One can argue that
how a pupil dresses or wears their hair will rarely be detrimental
to good order.

Every school has an armoury of sanctions to use when the rules are
broken, ranging from verbal reprimand to permanent exclusion
(expulsion). It can be difficult to ensure that sanctions are
applied fairly and consistently by staff, but the most contentious
issue is making sure that the punishment fits the crime.

Any act of indiscipline which disrupts teaching or learning, or
causes harm to a pupil or member of staff, deserves a strong
response. Sending a pupil home for wearing trousers which are the
wrong shade, as in the Trinity Academy dispute, seems unnecessarily
harsh.

Smoking is another difficult issue. Statistics show that many pupils
of school age smoke, often with their parents' blessing. The "quick
fag behind the bike shed" is part of school folklore.

Schools send clear messages about the dangers of smoking but the
message is not always received. For some pupils (and staff), smoking
is an addiction. Most schools limit smoking by staff patrols of the
most likely smoking hot-spots.

However, as smoking doesn't disrupt teaching and only tends to
endanger the smoker's well-being, schools tend to opt for detentions
as punishment with a short-term exclusion if the offence is repeated
frequently.

Trinity Academy's sanction of permanent exclusion for smoking twice
would not be supported by an LEA.

Experience shows that a school's discipline policy is most likely to
work if parents understand it and willingly agree to it.
Consultation is better than imposition.

Most schools have home-school agreements on dress and behaviour
which parents are expected to sign, although they are not legally
binding. It is clear that many TrinityAcademy parents feared losing
a place at their local school for their child and signed up for a
sanctions code on which they had not been consulted and which they
had reservations about.

I am sad to see the unrest at Trinity Academy. I worked with the
parents of Thorne/Moorends for 15 years. I know that if you treat
them fairly and show them that you care about their children, you
will get their respect and support.

I suffered a harsh disciplinary regime at my secondary school and I
know the effect it had on me.

As a nervous 11-year-old, on my first day at school, I got lost and
was caught asking another pupil directions.

The punishment was two strokes of the strap. I was not allowed to
explain why I was talking in a corridor. My confidence was destroyed
and for years I would not say boo to the proverbial goose.

Even when I was bullied, I was too scared of my teachers to report
it. It took years to regain my self-confidence after one incident in
which I feel I was unfairly treated to this day.

This highlights what schools are really about: developing self-
confidence, self-esteem and inquiring minds. This is best done in a
climate in which children feel relaxed, valued and fairly treated.
Education is something which you do with a child, not to a child and
it is most likely to be successful if it is enjoyable. Trinity
Academy must be careful that it does not crush pupils' spirit and
individuality.


381
stanyardroger
Re: Pupils need fairness, not harsh discipline
02/02/2006 09:09:00

--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@...> wrote:
>
> Pupils need fairness, not harsh discipline
>
> http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?
> SectionID=97&ArticleID=1319009
>
> http://tinyurl.com/cu7ll
>
> 19 January 2006 <letters in previous post dated 18 Jan>
>
Alan,

Well done for posting some letters that show the alternatives to
the "string 'em up" Daily Mail school of thought.

BR

Roger


382
stanyardroger
More Letters to the Daily Telegraph
07/02/2006 14:44:00

Here are a couple of more recent letters to the Daily Torygraph in
response to Stephen Meyer's rantings. I missed them when published as
I don't read the Torygraph (not surprisingly given the rubbish from
Meyer that they print):

Sir - Most readers of books by Michael Behe or William Dembski find
intelligent design a rational, but not necessarily correct, idea
(Letters, January 30).
Darwinists clearly think they can refute the idea that complex
structures need a designer; others think they are wrong. All this is
fine - we call this scientific debate.

However, for taking this line, I have been called a creationist (when
I am an agnostic) and anti-evolution (despite having provided an
addition to the theory of natural selection).

From this, I conclude that most of the debate is not about science,
but is a battle between the creationists and atheists to determine
who will set the present, and future, cultural agenda. Those of us
who are not involved should make sure that neither side wins.

Dr Milton Wainwright, University of Sheffield

And . . .

Sir - Stephen Meyer's article (Opinion, January 28) on intelligent
design was a thoughtful and calm outline of the background to the
debate.

In my own research area of evolutionary algorithms, intelligent
design works together with evolutionary principles to produce better
solutions to real problems.

Sometimes the results are novel and surprising, but, on reflection,
they were always inherent in the initial formulation. Without the
initial activity of an intelligent agent, the evolutionary mill has
no grist to work on.

As molecular biology advances, the Darwinist dogma becomes ever more
implausible as an explanation for the sort of complexity that Meyer
describes.

Prof Colin Reeves, Rugby, Warwickshire


383
Mikey Brass
Re: More Letters to the Daily Telegraph
07/02/2006 15:22:00

stanyardroger wrote:

> As molecular biology advances, the Darwinist dogma becomes ever more
> implausible as an explanation for the sort of complexity that Meyer
> describes.
>
> Prof Colin Reeves, Rugby, Warwickshire

Professor Colin Reeves |
| School of Mathematical and Information |
| Sciences |
| Coventry University |
| Priory St |
| Coventry

I value his opinion on molecular biology much like my plumber values
mine on piping.


384
Roger Stanyard
Re: More Letters to the Daily Telegraph
07/02/2006 21:46:00

--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <mike@...> wrote:
>
> stanyardroger wrote:
>
> > As molecular biology advances, the Darwinist dogma becomes ever
more
> > implausible as an explanation for the sort of complexity that
Meyer
> > describes.
> >
> > Prof Colin Reeves, Rugby, Warwickshire
>
> Professor Colin Reeves |
> | School of Mathematical and Information |
> | Sciences |
> | Coventry University |
> | Priory St |
> | Coventry
>
> I value his opinion on molecular biology much like my plumber
values
> mine on piping.
>
Yes, and I guess a message addressed to the world from Coventry
Polytechnic doesn't exactly inspire confidence either.

(Says me remembering one of the biggest jerks I've ever met
associated with the place.)


385
ukantic
Re: More Letters to the Daily Telegraph
08/02/2006 00:41:00

--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "stanyardroger" <roger@...>
wrote:
>
> Here are a couple of more recent letters to the Daily Torygraph in
> response to Stephen Meyer's rantings. I missed them when published
as
> I don't read the Torygraph (not surprisingly given the rubbish
from
> Meyer that they print):
>
> Sir - Most readers of books by Michael Behe or William Dembski
find
> intelligent design a rational, but not necessarily correct, idea
> (Letters, January 30).
> Darwinists clearly think they can refute the idea that complex
> structures need a designer; others think they are wrong. All this
is
> fine - we call this scientific debate.
>
> However, for taking this line, I have been called a creationist
(when
> I am an agnostic) and anti-evolution (despite having provided an
> addition to the theory of natural selection).
>
> From this, I conclude that most of the debate is not about
science,
> but is a battle between the creationists and atheists to determine
> who will set the present, and future, cultural agenda. Those of us
> who are not involved should make sure that neither side wins.
>
> Dr Milton Wainwright, University of Sheffield

Reply

< Milton>
Sir - Most readers of books by Michael Behe or William Dembski find
intelligent design a rational, but not necessarily correct, idea
(Letters, January 30).

<Rep>
That's funny because the general consensus on this subject these
days is that it is NOT rational to conclude design by disproving
evolution – which is what both Behe & Dembski have attempted (&
failed) to do in their respective books.

< Milton>
Darwinists clearly think they can refute the idea that complex
structures need a designer; others think they are wrong. All this is
fine - we call this scientific debate.

<Rep>
Given that all the arguments that have ever been put forward by
designists such as Paley, Behe & Dembski have been comprehensively
refuted, it is difficult to see what is left to debate.

<Rep>
Besides, what does that have to do with teaching creationism &
denigrating evolution in schools, which is what the debate is really
about?

< Milton>
However, for taking this line, I have been called a creationist (when
I am an agnostic) and anti-evolution (despite having provided an
addition to the theory of natural selection).

<Rep>
Hang on a moment, he is making references to, "Darwinists" above.
That & other rhetoric is the type of language creationists use; so
what does he expect?

<REP> As for being anti-evolution, again what does he expect. It is
one thing saying there should be open debate about whether or not
evolution is correct; it is quite another to side with henchmen of
the Discovery Institute, especially when they have been shown to be
wrong. Alternatively, if he is not siding with them, then what is he
going on about?

<Milton>
From this, I conclude that most of the debate is not about science,
but is a battle between the creationists and atheists to determine
who will set the present, and future, cultural agenda. Those of us
who are not involved should make sure that neither side wins.

<Rep>
How can he possibly justify such a sweeping conclusion, just because
someone has called him a creationist? Milton seems to have some
weird, preconceived notions about this issue, which he is trying to
rationalise.

<Rep>
Furthermore, anyone reading this who was not aware of the background
would be seriously misled into believing that perhaps that this was
a battle between two extreme sides, with atheists on one &
fundamentalists on the other.

<Rep>
However, there are no rich supporters of Dawkins trying to take over
state schools in the UK so they can adorn the school walls with
pictures of well-known atheists, atheistic slogans & have the
children singing atheistic songs in assembly. Therefore, it is
blindingly obvious that religious fundamentalism is the real problem
& nothing else.

<Rep> It should also be remembered that many of those opposing
creationism are far from being atheists. Christians who believe in
theistic evolution for example, are also opposing it.

<Rep>
This tactic of labelling anyone who opposes the denigration of
evolution as an atheist is a typical creationist deception; yet
again Milton is sounding like a creationist.

<end>

I personally would have thought that if Milton really opposed
creationism, then he would come down in support of those trying to
block its teaching as science to schoolchildren, rather than
appearing to support it.


386
Andrew
Re: Re: More Letters to the Daily Telegraph
08/02/2006 00:55:00

Just a side note. My letter to the Telegraph hasn't been reproduced here. I
don't know if that means it hasn't been published (I'm not supporting the
paper by buying it to find out), but it's beginning to look that way.

Mine was actually intended as a letter to the Editor for him to respond to
rather than for publication, but I haven't had a reply either, yet.

To me, the indications so far seem to be that the paper is one-sidedly
supportive to Creationism/ID. Am I over-interpreting this? It seems a bit
surprising that a British newspaper should go down this line. But then
again, it's bizarre that a British Prime Minister is pushing this stuff, as
well.

If I get a reply from The Telegraph I'll post my letter and the reply here.
I've also written to my LibDem candidate, and would have written to the
Conservative one if the Conservatives had answered my question of over a
fortnight ago regarding who my candidate is (I suspect there isn't one at
the moment, but they don't seem to be telling).


387
Roger Stanyard
Message to Alan re BBC Poll
08/02/2006 04:52:00

Alan,

From memory there were some postings here a couple of weeks back re the
BBC poll which showed "widespread" support for ID in the UK. (If not
the debate was in debunkcreation). What I think surprised us all was
the extent to which the BBC poll contradicted past research on public
opinion. My suggestion was that it was down to the way the BBC poll was
phrased and the "desire" for the BBC to produce some controversial PR
to advertise its programme on ID.

However, that was just my opinion. I subsequently noticed that a long
article in the Daily Mail on ID was posted to the photos section of
this group. However, the PDF files are of too poor a quality to read.
The article was written by Peter Hitchens who I have always regarded as
a prize nutter. The date appares to be August 2005.

I would love to be able to see the original Daily Mail report by
Hitchens. I suspect that it may have been influential in changing
public opinion given its apparent prominence in the Mail and the size
of article.

Any idea where I can get a readable copy of the report?

Thanks

Roger


388
Roger Stanyard
Re: More Letters to the Daily Telegraph
08/02/2006 07:09:00

--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" <taoist.hermit1@...>
wrote:
>
Andrew,

I think your up against the usual nutters in the Torygraph. Here is
an article from Christopher Booker, one of its more bonkers
opinionated hacks, dated August 2005:

Talking with dinosaurs

It does not take long these days to spot one of that ever-lengthening
list of issues on which the BBC has a clear "agenda", which dictates
just what can and can't be said on its airwaves. Just as, a few years
ago, the BBC was quite shameless in propagandising for Britain to
join the euro, one could not now miss, for instance, that it is
implacably opposed to President Bush and the Iraq war, and equally in
favour of the wind turbine racket as an answer to global warming.

Another recent addition to the BBC's hate list is "intelligent
design", the movement gathering way among many respected scientists
in the US and elsewhere who have become profoundly sceptical about
the adequacy of Darwinian natural selection to explain the
complexities of evolution. Not for the first time, this was again
prominently featured on last Monday's Today programme. And as usual
when Today has an agenda, the subject was presented in such a crudely
distorted way as to be laughable.

On the side of the Darwinians were the BBC's science correspondent,
the Today presenter and Sir David Attenborough, all of whom went out
of their way to ignore the fact that the proponents of "intelligent
design" are scientists, some very eminent, such as Professor Dean
Kenyon who, 30 years ago, was the father of the "chemical evolution"
theory for the origins of life.

Despite the best efforts of Dr Steven Meyer, an American scientist
who was the lone voice arguing for "intelligent design", the BBC trio
tried to present it as no more than a cause for religious nutters,
an "upgrade" of creationism. Sir David Attenborough clearly had not
the slightest idea of what the "intelligent design" thesis is about.

He insisted that "science looks at the facts" and that "We must stick
with scientific logic": oblivious to the fact that intelligent design
is argued by expert scientists who have come to their conclusions
precisely because they are following those principles.

Twenty years ago, in his series Life On Earth, Sir David himself
sought to demonstrate the miracle of Darwinian natural selection by
showing how an earthbound shrew evolved into a bat, by growing
membranes on its feet which developed into wings. But this was the
worst possible example for him to pick. From the moment that membrane
began to develop, until it became a proper wing, the creature would
have been markedly less fitted to survive rather than more.

It is fascinating to see how the Darwinians have now put themselves
in the same position as the Christian creationists they so despise.
They rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined
a priori assumptions, fanatically intolerant of anyone who dares
question their beliefs.

How apt that they should now be supported by that latest home of lost
causes, the BBC. And how the BBC might have felt confirmed in its
self-righteousness when, later that same day, President Bush himself
said he could see no objection to Darwinian orthodoxy being subjected
to scientific questioning in the American education system. Of course
such a thing should be banned by law.



>
> Just a side note. My letter to the Telegraph hasn't been reproduced
here. I
> don't know if that means it hasn't been published (I'm not
supporting the
> paper by buying it to find out), but it's beginning to look that
way.
>
> Mine was actually intended as a letter to the Editor for him to
respond to
> rather than for publication, but I haven't had a reply either, yet.
>
> To me, the indications so far seem to be that the paper is one-
sidedly
> supportive to Creationism/ID. Am I over-interpreting this? It
seems a bit
> surprising that a British newspaper should go down this line. But
then
> again, it's bizarre that a British Prime Minister is pushing this
stuff, as
> well.
>
> If I get a reply from The Telegraph I'll post my letter and the
reply here.
> I've also written to my LibDem candidate, and would have written to
the
> Conservative one if the Conservatives had answered my question of
over a
> fortnight ago regarding who my candidate is (I suspect there isn't
one at
> the moment, but they don't seem to be telling).
>


389
ukantic
Re: More Letters to the Daily Telegraph
08/02/2006 11:54:00

--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" <taoist.hermit1@>
> wrote:
> >
> Andrew,
>
> I think your up against the usual nutters in the Torygraph. Here
is
> an article from Christopher Booker, one of its more bonkers
> opinionated hacks, dated August 2005:
>
> Talking with dinosaurs
>
> It does not take long these days to spot one of that ever-
lengthening
> list of issues on which the BBC has a clear "agenda", which
dictates
> just what can and can't be said on its airwaves. Just as, a few
years
> ago, the BBC was quite shameless in propagandising for Britain to
> join the euro, one could not now miss, for instance, that it is
> implacably opposed to President Bush and the Iraq war, and equally
in
> favour of the wind turbine racket as an answer to global warming.
>
> Another recent addition to the BBC's hate list is "intelligent
> design", the movement gathering way among many respected
scientists
> in the US and elsewhere who have become profoundly sceptical about
> the adequacy of Darwinian natural selection to explain the
> complexities of evolution. Not for the first time, this was again
> prominently featured on last Monday's Today programme. And as
usual
> when Today has an agenda, the subject was presented in such a
crudely
> distorted way as to be laughable.
>
> On the side of the Darwinians were the BBC's science
correspondent,
> the Today presenter and Sir David Attenborough, all of whom went
out
> of their way to ignore the fact that the proponents
of "intelligent
> design" are scientists, some very eminent, such as Professor Dean
> Kenyon who, 30 years ago, was the father of the "chemical
evolution"
> theory for the origins of life.
>
> Despite the best efforts of Dr Steven Meyer, an American scientist
> who was the lone voice arguing for "intelligent design", the BBC
trio
> tried to present it as no more than a cause for religious nutters,
> an "upgrade" of creationism. Sir David Attenborough clearly had
not
> the slightest idea of what the "intelligent design" thesis is
about.
>
> He insisted that "science looks at the facts" and that "We must
stick
> with scientific logic": oblivious to the fact that intelligent
design
> is argued by expert scientists who have come to their conclusions
> precisely because they are following those principles.
>
> Twenty years ago, in his series Life On Earth, Sir David himself
> sought to demonstrate the miracle of Darwinian natural selection
by
> showing how an earthbound shrew evolved into a bat, by growing
> membranes on its feet which developed into wings. But this was the
> worst possible example for him to pick. From the moment that
membrane
> began to develop, until it became a proper wing, the creature
would
> have been markedly less fitted to survive rather than more.
>
> It is fascinating to see how the Darwinians have now put
themselves
> in the same position as the Christian creationists they so
despise.
> They rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and
unexamined
> a priori assumptions, fanatically intolerant of anyone who dares
> question their beliefs.
>
> How apt that they should now be supported by that latest home of
lost
> causes, the BBC. And how the BBC might have felt confirmed in its
> self-righteousness when, later that same day, President Bush
himself
> said he could see no objection to Darwinian orthodoxy being
subjected
> to scientific questioning in the American education system. Of
course
> such a thing should be banned by law.

It would not be so bad if he had even managed to get it half-right
but all he has done here (especially in the light of Dover) is prove
that he does not have a clue what he is talking about.

For example, Bush never said anything about having no objection
to, "Darwinian orthodoxy being subjected to scientific questioning
in the American education system".

What he actually said was: "I think that part of education is to
expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "You're
asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different
ideas, the answer is yes."

As you can see, that has certainly taken some bending to fit into
his deranged article.

This is not the first time the BBC has been accused of bias towards
evolution. Out of interest I once randomly selected 10 of their news
stories on the subject to see if any of this were true. In fact I
still have them here:

http://www.furl.net/search?enc=UTF-
8&search=true&sort=&dir=&pos=1&count=&showRead=all&expd=7&keyword=&sr
c=7&category=408568&date=0&x=25&y=3

http://tinyurl.com/buqy3

Alan.


390
ukantic
Re: Message to Alan re BBC Poll
08/02/2006 12:02:00

--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...>
wrote:
>
> Alan,
>
> From memory there were some postings here a couple of weeks back
re the
> BBC poll which showed "widespread" support for ID in the UK. (If
not
> the debate was in debunkcreation). What I think surprised us all
was
> the extent to which the BBC poll contradicted past research on
public
> opinion. My suggestion was that it was down to the way the BBC
poll was
> phrased and the "desire" for the BBC to produce some controversial
PR
> to advertise its programme on ID.
>
> However, that was just my opinion. I subsequently noticed that a
long
> article in the Daily Mail on ID was posted to the photos section
of
> this group. However, the PDF files are of too poor a quality to
read.
> The article was written by Peter Hitchens who I have always
regarded as
> a prize nutter. The date appares to be August 2005.
>
> I would love to be able to see the original Daily Mail report by
> Hitchens. I suspect that it may have been influential in changing
> public opinion given its apparent prominence in the Mail and the
size
> of article.
>
> Any idea where I can get a readable copy of the report?
>
> Thanks
>
> Roger
>

Sure Roger,

What has happened is that Yahoo has recently changed the way they
display photos. Originally, there was the thumbnail, then a larger
low-resolution version, then a high-resolution image. Now there is
just a thumbnail & a medium resolution one. All images such as the
DM article you are after have been converted to the lower, medium
resolution & hence are unreadable. I have a backup here:

http://photobucket.com/albums/a123/bsgroup

Alan.


391
ukantic
Re: More Letters to the Daily Telegraph
08/02/2006 12:10:00

--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@>
> wrote:


>> This is not the first time the BBC has been accused of bias
towards
> evolution. Out of interest I once randomly selected 10 of their
news
> stories on the subject to see if any of this were true. In fact I
> still have them here:
>
> http://www.furl.net/search?enc=UTF-
>
8&search=true&sort=&dir=&pos=1&count=&showRead=all&expd=7&keyword=&sr
> c=7&category=408568&date=0&x=25&y=3
>
> http://tinyurl.com/buqy3

Sorry, try:

http://www.furl.net/members/ukantic?enc=UTF-
8&search=browse&sort=&dir=&pos=&keyword=&category=408568&date=0&x=30&
y=8

http://tinyurl.com/9ub7e


392
ukantic
Re: More Letters to the Daily Telegraph
08/02/2006 12:19:00

--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" <taoist.hermit1@...>
wrote:
>
>
> Just a side note. My letter to the Telegraph hasn't been
reproduced here. I
> don't know if that means it hasn't been published (I'm not
supporting the
> paper by buying it to find out), but it's beginning to look that
way.
>
> Mine was actually intended as a letter to the Editor for him to
respond to
> rather than for publication, but I haven't had a reply either, yet.
>
> To me, the indications so far seem to be that the paper is one-
sidedly
> supportive to Creationism/ID. Am I over-interpreting this?

No, I think you are right Andrew, as far as I can see, they are
showing a definite bias.

It seems a bit
> surprising that a British newspaper should go down this line. But
then
> again, it's bizarre that a British Prime Minister is pushing this
stuff, as
> well.
>
> If I get a reply from The Telegraph I'll post my letter and the
reply here.

Look forward to seeing it.

Alan.


393
Roger Stanyard
Re: More Letters to the Daily Telegraph
08/02/2006 14:47:00

--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@...> wrote:
>
Thanks Alan for the Daily Mail info; I've just read through it. I
seems to me that there may have been a concerted effort to get ID in
the UK press during 2005; the idea as been around for years now but
it seems odd that four major media outlets have published details of
ID in 2005 on a relatively uncritical basis. These include the Dail
Mail, The Telegraph, the BBC (I listened to something on the Today
programme around about the summer of 2005 which appeared, from memory
to be largely uncritical) and The Economist.

The Economist is never very critical of anything American because
half its sales are in North America. However, it failed to report on
Dover but immeditaley afterwards had an Ed-Op which seriously
undermined the DI and its apologists without getting into specifics.
Basically it argued that Darwinism was not going away.

So, the position before the BBC poll is that a number of UK media
organisations covered ID in the months prior to the poll taking
place; the poll then shows that a much higher percentage of people
believed in ID than expected. The DI then gloats on its web site
about the BBC poll.

I'm revising my views on what has happended. Looks like some evidence
may be emerging of a PR campaign/assault on the UK by the nutters.
I'd love to establish whether the Telegraph or the Mail covered the
Dover decision (as you know the BBC did).

Any ideas what other popular publications in the UK have covered ID
in the last year?

Why have all these minor academics in support of ID suddenly crawled
out of the woodwork?

BR

Roger Stanyard


for t --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" <taoist.hermit1@>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Just a side note. My letter to the Telegraph hasn't been
> reproduced here. I
> > don't know if that means it hasn't been published (I'm not
> supporting the
> > paper by buying it to find out), but it's beginning to look that
> way.
> >
> > Mine was actually intended as a letter to the Editor for him to
> respond to
> > rather than for publication, but I haven't had a reply either,
yet.
> >
> > To me, the indications so far seem to be that the paper is one-
> sidedly
> > supportive to Creationism/ID. Am I over-interpreting this?
>
> No, I think you are right Andrew, as far as I can see, they are
> showing a definite bias.
>
> It seems a bit
> > surprising that a British newspaper should go down this line.
But
> then
> > again, it's bizarre that a British Prime Minister is pushing this
> stuff, as
> > well.
> >
> > If I get a reply from The Telegraph I'll post my letter and the
> reply here.
>
> Look forward to seeing it.
>
> Alan.
>


394
oeditor
Re: More Letters to the Daily Telegraph
08/02/2006 19:33:00

--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>

> Any ideas what other popular publications in the UK have covered ID
> in the last year?
>
How about the BBC? The presenters of the Heaven and Earth Show on
Sunday (5/2/06) absolutely lapped up another (American) ID professor,
this one from Warwick University. They gasped how complicated all this
science stuff is, and said they'd really, really, study it. No
suggestion of having a scientist kick the shit out of his crap.

Worse, however, was his claim, when asked how the Dover dispute came
about, that it was down to the local control of syllabi - no mention
of their Constitution! That being so, he said, under the Bliarite
education reforms we can look forward to much of the same over here.

Spit!

Brian


395
ukantic
Sunday Herald article.
08/02/2006 21:07:00

The battle has long raged between science and religion to explain the
origin of mankind. Now there's a growing move to put God back in the
driving seat. Guess which side George Bush is on?

By Torcuil Crichton

http://www.sundayherald.com/51552

04 Sept 05


396
Roger Stanyard
Re: More Letters to the Daily Telegraph
08/02/2006 21:52:00

--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@> wrote:
> >

Can you let us know the name of the academic from Warwick University?

Thanks

Roger

>
> > Any ideas what other popular publications in the UK have covered
ID
> > in the last year?
> >
> How about the BBC? The presenters of the Heaven and Earth Show on
> Sunday (5/2/06) absolutely lapped up another (American) ID
professor,
> this one from Warwick University. They gasped how complicated all
this
> science stuff is, and said they'd really, really, study it. No
> suggestion of having a scientist kick the shit out of his crap.
>
> Worse, however, was his claim, when asked how the Dover dispute came
> about, that it was down to the local control of syllabi - no mention
> of their Constitution! That being so, he said, under the Bliarite
> education reforms we can look forward to much of the same over here.
>
> Spit!
>
> Brian
>


397
ukantic
Re: More Letters to the Daily Telegraph
09/02/2006 00:21:00

--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@>
wrote:
> > >
>
> Can you let us know the name of the academic from Warwick
University?
>
> Thanks
>
> Roger
>
> >
> > > Any ideas what other popular publications in the UK have
covered
> ID
> > > in the last year?
> > >
> > How about the BBC? The presenters of the Heaven and Earth Show on
> > Sunday (5/2/06) absolutely lapped up another (American) ID
> professor,
> > this one from Warwick University. They gasped how complicated
all
> this
> > science stuff is, and said they'd really, really, study it. No
> > suggestion of having a scientist kick the shit out of his crap.
> >
> > Worse, however, was his claim, when asked how the Dover dispute
came
> > about, that it was down to the local control of syllabi - no
mention
> > of their Constitution! That being so, he said, under the Bliarite
> > education reforms we can look forward to much of the same over
here.
> >
> > Spit!
> >
> > Brian
> >
>

That's Steve Fuller; he gave evidence for the supporters of ID at
Dover. He asserted that ID had nothing to do with religion, when all
the evidence from the witnesses was pointing to the conclusion that
it clearly did.

He is just like the rest of the ID crowd - hot on rhetoric & short
on facts.

Funny how he ended up on a religious program.


398
deanmorrison2000
Hi from Deano! - tactical thought- defeating creationism and ID in UK schools
09/02/2006 00:54:00

Hi I'm Dean!

with a few other Brits who had been following the debate at the
Panda's Thumb in the States - we set a new board 'Science Just
Science' with essentially the same aims as yours; a few days ago.

We didn't realise you existed, and have no wish to 'compete' -we're
working on ways of gettin together or merging.

Anyway a conversation came up on our board on the subject of
'Constitutional rejection of Religion(or ID/creationism) in the States
vs. our lack of Church/State seperation.

This got me thinking so I wrote the following post:

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Morrison wrote:


In the UK 'commonsense' is usually considered to have triumphed over
nonsense.
We are able to take a 'laid back' and tolerant attitude because our
forefatheres went through all this hundreds of years ago. Technically
we don't have seperation of church and state (or monarchy) this
doesn't mean much other than Prince Charles isn't supposed to marry a
Catholic.

Or so we thought.

Globalisation of the media and money means that ideas can spead like
viruses if there is money (or power) to be made from them.

Even ten years ago do you think anyone would have known or cared about
what was in a Danish paper in Beiruit? Or what was happening in Dover USA?

We have good sense as our only protection - as afforded by our elected
representatives in the House of Parliament (and the unelected ones in
the other part of it).

We have the 'National Curriculum' which all state funded schools are
required to teach; upon serious pain of bad news. (interesting reading
if you want to know how hard a teacher's job is nowadays)

http://www.nc.uk.net/webdav/servlet/XRM?Page/@id=6016

This is what it requires that schools are required to teach in Science
Class ( this a fraction of a fraction of 'Science' which probably
takes at most a few hours teaching of 'evolution' as such in most
schools):

QUOTE

Variation, inheritance and evolution

3) Students should be taught:

1. how variation arises from genetic causes, environmental causes,
and a combination of both
2. that sexual reproduction is a source of genetic variation, while
asexual reproduction produces clones
3. that mutation is a source of genetic variation and has a number
of causes

Inheritance

4. how sex is determined in humans
5. the mechanism of monohybrid inheritance where there are dominant
and recessive alleles
6. that some diseases are inherited
7. the basic principles of cloning, selective breeding and genetic
engineeringClick to view notes

Evolution

8. that the fossil record is evidence for evolution
9. how variation and selection may lead to evolution or to extinction.

Living things in their environment
4) Students should be taught:

1. how the distribution and relative abundance of organisms in
habitats can be explained using ideas of interdependence, adaptation,
competition and predationClick to view notes
2. how the impact of humans on the environment depends on social and
economic factors, including population size, industrial processes and
levels of consumption and waste
3. about the importance of sustainable development.






This should apply to 'Vardy Schools' - but if evolution doesnt happen
to be the topic when the inspector visits - then who's to know? (- and
there is at least one 'Seventh Day Adventist OFSTED Inspector that is
shameless in requiring the teaching of creationism as good science)

In fact - short of putting in spycams - no-one but the kids and
teachers know. Blair doesn't understand and does some hand waving
about 'diversity'.


It could be that what we need to do in England (or the UK) is to
influence the National Curriculum - particularly for 'Science Key
Stage 4' which is being revised for this Autumn. Significantly
strengthen the 'Evolution' element - and if neccessary do something to
exclude Creationism as Science (especially for that age).

As far as I'm concerned Evolution should be the logical starting point
for teaching any biology from age 11. Its the guiding rule behind the
whole subject. Without it, it would be like trying to teach Physics or
Engineering without the laws of motion. At the guiding principle of
Biology and Life on Earth gets just a passing mention.

And then get Ofsted to enforce it - with big penalties against schools
that flout this.

Perhaps this is our way forward in the UK.

Blair has made concessions to his MP's - he'll not want to make any
more obvious ones. If we asked them to demand that he strengtnens the
school curriculum in favour of evolution and science, he could let it
pass without losing face.

Then when new 'faith' schools open - they'll have to teach 'Science
just Science' - and perhaps the prospect of invading Britain will be
just a little bit less attractive for the followeres of American
fundamentalists that want to come here.

---------------------------------------------------------

... so would challenging government to strengthen the National
Curriculum be our best tactical approach? Especially as it is up for
review?

I'll invite you all to check out our discussion at SJS - but I won't
post a link as I'm sesitive to the fact that I might appear to be
'poaching'.

Decide yourselves - you are welcome if you do 'pop in' of course.

Dean Morrison
Hastings


399
deanmorrison2000
Re: More Letters to the Daily Telegraph
09/02/2006 01:00:00

Steven Fuller is the 'Academic' from Warwick University.
A sociologist who is so confused by post-modernism that he thinks that
it would be okay to teach Astology as science.

He's actually from New York - and I suspect he's a closet fundie -
lots more on him at the 'Panda's Thumb:

for example here:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/12/and_a_shout_out.html

Cheers

Deano


400
Andrew
Re: Hi from Deano! - tactical thought- defeating creationism and ID in UK schools
09/02/2006 02:12:00

----- Original Message -----
From: deanmorrison2000

> Blair doesn't understand and does some hand waving
> about 'diversity'.

Are you sure about that? I got suspicious of Blair's religious agenda when
reports came out that he supports the Alpha Course (a fundamentalist wolf in
sheep's clothing course, when you delve into it, or if your suspicion's
aroused because you recognise this stuff and ask the right questions).

I have a strong suspicion Blair understands perfectly well and wants this,
just a Bush does. There have also been reports that Blair has been strongly
dissuaded by his advisors from making `Christian' comments on TV where the
advisors see the unacceptablility of his assumptions and Blair himself seems
surprised (or feigns to be surprised) that there could be any problem.

I may be reading too much in here, but every development that happens seems
to support what I suspected a couple of years ago. Don't underestimate
Blair.