401
Dean Morrison
RE: Hi from Deano! - tactical thought- defeating creationism and ID in UK schools
09/02/2006 02:35:00
According to the BHA site
he had a few knock-backs over faith schools an hadn't realised how unpopular they were with most of the public:
http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?article=2090
Let's hope he's on his way out anyway.
As we can't change the constitution - faith schools is a Big battle - what do you think about fighting for a proper science curriculum?
----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew
Sent: 09 February 2006 02:13
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] Hi from Deano! - tactical thought- defeating creationism and ID in UK schools
----- 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.
----
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 2037 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!
402
Roger Stanyard
Re: Hi from Deano! - tactical thought- defeating creationism and ID in UK schools
09/02/2006 10:24:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Morrison" <deanmorrison@...>
wrote:
>
Dean,
I would love to join your forum and contribute. However, I've just been
to you web site and can't figure out how to register. Any ideas how to
do it? The "register" button does't help at all.
Best Regards
Roger Stanyard
403
Mikey Brass
Re: Hi from Deano! - tactical thought- defeating creationism and ID in UK schools
09/02/2006 11:55:00
Andrew wrote:
> I have a strong suspicion Blair understands perfectly well and wants this,
I would agree. Dawkins has been asking the government, ever since Labour
came to power, to look at his proposals to strengthen biology teachings
at all levels of junior and high schooling. The government has not even
met with him. Dawkins has been forced to go round to individual schools,
speaking with the headmasters and trying to supplement the existing poor
texts with additional materials.
404
Dean Morrison
RE: Re: Hi from Deano! - tactical thought- defeating creationism and ID in UK schools
09/02/2006 12:45:00
Hi Roger!
not sure whats happening - 'Kyu' does the Admin.
Try this direct link to the registration page:
http://justscience.1.forumer.com/index.php?act=Reg&CODE=00
- of course you'll have to delete my name and password (if you find it that is)!
Deano
----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Stanyard
Sent: 09 February 2006 10:25
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: Hi from Deano! - tactical thought- defeating creationism and ID in UK schools
@@--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Morrison" <deanmorrison@...>
wrote:
>
Dean,
I would love to join your forum and contribute. However, I've just been
to you web site and can't figure out how to register. Any ideas how to
do it? The "register" button does't help at all.
Best Regards
Roger Stanyard
405
Dean Morrison
RE: Hi from Deano! - tactical thought- defeating creationism and ID in UK schools
09/02/2006 13:21:00
Doesn't sound good - interesting that Dawkins is trying the same line - surely they must have replied to him! Perhaps a movement to get them to meet him would be in order?
----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mikey Brass
Sent: 09 February 2006 11:55
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] Hi from Deano! - tactical thought- defeating creationism and ID in UK schools
@@Andrew wrote:
> I have a strong suspicion Blair understands perfectly well and wants this,
I would agree. Dawkins has been asking the government, ever since Labour
came to power, to look at his proposals to strengthen biology teachings
at all levels of junior and high schooling. The government has not even
met with him. Dawkins has been forced to go round to individual schools,
speaking with the headmasters and trying to supplement the existing poor
texts with additional materials.
406
Roger Stanyard
Re: Hi from Deano! - tactical thought- defeating creationism and ID in UK schools
09/02/2006 13:34:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Morrison" <deanmorrison@...>
wrote:
>
Hello Deano and Thanks,
I have just registered on your site and given an introduction of myself.
I'll be posting some more bits and pieces/views over the next few days.
BR
Roger Stanyard
407
ukantic
Re: Hi from Deano! - tactical thought- defeating creationism and ID in UK schools
09/02/2006 15:21:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "deanmorrison2000"
<deanmorrison@...> wrote:
>
> 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:
<snip>
> 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).
Hi Dean,
The problem with the key stage 4 curriculum for science is the
paragraph in which it says:
"how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of
interpreting empirical evidence [for example Darwin's theory of
evolution]".
This clearly gives the impression that there is controversy about
the ToE. If nothing else it is just plain badly worded.
This was the subject of the following letter:
http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?
article=1352
http://tinyurl.com/avdrt
Again & again you will find examples of this paragraph being used by
the supporters of creationism to justify either denigration of
evolution or the teaching of so-called alternatives such as IDC.
For example, Nigel McQuoid used exactly this argument in the
guardian recently.
The offending paragraph is so misleading that I have argued that it
must have been written by a creationist. Of all of the examples they
could have given of genuine controversy, they mention evolution in a
manner that is out of context with the rest of the sentence. There
is controversy *within* evolution relating to various aspects &
their importance; however, the core principles are believed to be
scientifically sound.
No, it is almost as if the offending sentence was deliberately
constructed to denigrate evolution. Its author could not come
straight out with what he or she wanted to say directly, so they
have cloaked its meaning in a badly worded & ambiguous sentence.
This subject came up on another forum recently & someone who knew a
science teacher said that the key stage 4 wording as used above
wasn't intended to be interpreted in the manner that it is being by
creationists. They also said that the new science curriculum (that I
think is coming into effect this year) makes no mention of this
wording. If that is the case then the UK creationists have lost one
of their most effective pieces of ammunition.
> 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'.
That's not a problem Dean – feel free.
The present link is:
http://justscience.1.forumer.com/
You can place a link in the links section if you want & I suggest
tagging it onto the end of your posts as well.
Alan.
408
Dean Morrison
RE: Re: Hi from Deano! - tactical thought- defeating creationism and ID in UK schools
09/02/2006 15:35:00
Someone on the Panda's Thumb pointed out that there was no empirical evidence for Creationism or ID - none that stood up to any scrutiny anyway.
The problem with 'teaching the controversy' is when people start doing that before they've taught evolution at all.
There is a controversy about 'holocaust denial'. Imagine if kids were taught that before they were taught about World War 2?
Thanks for that link - seems that people are well ahead of me!
What was the response to that letter?
----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ukantic
Sent: 09 February 2006 15:22
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: Hi from Deano! - tactical thought- defeating creationism and ID in UK schools
@@--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "deanmorrison2000"
<deanmorrison@...> wrote:
>
> 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:
<snip>
> 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).
Hi Dean,
The problem with the key stage 4 curriculum for science is the
paragraph in which it says:
"how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of
interpreting empirical evidence [for example Darwin's theory of
evolution]".
This clearly gives the impression that there is controversy about
the ToE. If nothing else it is just plain badly worded.
This was the subject of the following letter:
http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?
article=1352
http://tinyurl.com/avdrt
Again & again you will find examples of this paragraph being used by
the supporters of creationism to justify either denigration of
evolution or the teaching of so-called alternatives such as IDC.
For example, Nigel McQuoid used exactly this argument in the
guardian recently.
The offending paragraph is so misleading that I have argued that it
must have been written by a creationist. Of all of the examples they
could have given of genuine controversy, they mention evolution in a
manner that is out of context with the rest of the sentence. There
is controversy *within* evolution relating to various aspects &
their importance; however, the core principles are believed to be
scientifically sound.
No, it is almost as if the offending sentence was deliberately
constructed to denigrate evolution. Its author could not come
straight out with what he or she wanted to say directly, so they
have cloaked its meaning in a badly worded & ambiguous sentence.
This subject came up on another forum recently & someone who knew a
science teacher said that the key stage 4 wording as used above
wasn't intended to be interpreted in the manner that it is being by
creationists. They also said that the new science curriculum (that I
think is coming into effect this year) makes no mention of this
wording. If that is the case then the UK creationists have lost one
of their most effective pieces of ammunition.
> 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'.
That's not a problem Dean – feel free.
The present link is:
http://justscience.1.forumer.com/
You can place a link in the links section if you want & I suggest
tagging it onto the end of your posts as well.
Alan.
409
oeditor
Re: More Letters to the Daily Telegraph
09/02/2006 19:27:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "deanmorrison2000"
<deanmorrison@...> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Catching up with the NSS "What The Papers Say", I found this Grauniad
link re Steven Fuller:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/profile/story/0,,1698284,00.html
=
http://tinyurl.com/9ewuz
Brian
410
ukantic
Re: More Letters to the Daily Telegraph
09/02/2006 21:12:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "deanmorrison2000"
> <deanmorrison@> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> Catching up with the NSS "What The Papers Say", I found this
Grauniad
> link re Steven Fuller:
>
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/profile/story/0,,1698284,00.ht
ml
> =
> http://tinyurl.com/9ewuz
>
> Brian
>
<from the article>
"Fuller claims he doesn't personally favour ID, but feels that it
should have a "fair run for its money". His view on evolutionary
theory is that the jury is out,"
<rep>
Given that he is not qualified in the field he is pontificating on,
then his views on evolution carry no more authoritative weight than
those of the janitor who empties his wastepaper bin.
<from the article>
"I see myself in an affirmative action position, voicing a point of
view that would otherwise be systematically excluded," he says."
<rep>
ID is not taught in science classes because it has not met the
strict standards required to be included. Therefore, what Fuller is
really saying is that he is trying to undermine the selection
procedure by providing a back door for something that had failed the
normal procedures of peer-review etc.
411
ukantic
Re: More Letters to the Daily Telegraph
09/02/2006 21:15:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "deanmorrison2000"
> <deanmorrison@> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> Catching up with the NSS "What The Papers Say", I found this
Grauniad
> link re Steven Fuller:
>
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/profile/story/0,,1698284,00.ht
ml
> =
> http://tinyurl.com/9ewuz
>
> Brian
I found this letter in reply:
Dangerous intervention
(7 Feb 05)
I have been a fan of Steve Fuller's work (Designer trouble, January
31) for its revelation of how claims to scientific or intellectual
authority both conceal and sustain political agendas. The question
for him on his own terms, then, is not just about the validity or
not of "intelligent design". It is why he made a deliberate choice,
from Warwick, to intervene in a legal case in Dover, Pennsylvania,
to try to legally force his, and the religious right's, view of
science to be taught to its children, evidently against the wishes
of their parents. Fuller has led calls for intellectuals to be held
accountable for the political consequences of their actions. How
then would he be judged by the standard to which he holds others? By
me, with disappointment.
Dr Bill Cooke
Manchester Business School
412
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: More Letters to the Daily Telegraph
09/02/2006 21:24:00
I once had a conversation with a taxi driver while a radio news report
was giving a summary on city academies. The driver said he had heard
they were trying to teach the earth was young and the premise of
evolution was faulty. He knew nothing on evolution but in his own way
had come to the conclusion that (a) scientists would fight amongst
themselves like the rest of the population, (b) people in their own
fields are best qualified and (c) he could see subtle changes in life
when he went for walks. So he saw no reason why he should take the word
of a certain group of people above his own eyes and those of specialists
he had no competency in judging.
He said the above in a more tortured way but give him credit for
thinking about it with what knowledge he has, and for using basic common
sense.
413
Roger Stanyard
Re: More Letters to the Daily Telegraph
09/02/2006 22:41:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <mike@...> wrote:
>
Oh, yes, but did Bertie Einstein, cab number EMC2, give his email
address so we could get him to contribute to this forum?
BR
Roger Stanyard
> I once had a conversation with a taxi driver while a radio news
report
> was giving a summary on city academies. The driver said he had
heard
> they were trying to teach the earth was young and the premise of
> evolution was faulty. He knew nothing on evolution but in his own
way
> had come to the conclusion that (a) scientists would fight amongst
> themselves like the rest of the population, (b) people in their own
> fields are best qualified and (c) he could see subtle changes in
life
> when he went for walks. So he saw no reason why he should take the
word
> of a certain group of people above his own eyes and those of
specialists
> he had no competency in judging.
>
> He said the above in a more tortured way but give him credit for
> thinking about it with what knowledge he has, and for using basic
common
> sense.
>
414
ukantic
School rules: The new row threatening Tony Blair''s reforms
11/02/2006 00:16:00
School rules: The new row threatening Tony Blair's reforms
The Government's academies are being accused of using exclusions to
select pupils covertly. In Yorkshire, a row has erupted that goes to
the heart of Labour MPs' fears over Tony Blair's school reforms. Ian
Herbert and Richard Garner report
Published: 02 February 2006
http://education.independent.co.uk/schools/article342338.ece
http://tinyurl.com/dqm8z
415
ukantic
More on Fuller.
11/02/2006 01:10:00
http://www.michaelberube.com/index.php/weblog/comments/789/
416
Roger Stanyard
Re: More on Fuller.
12/02/2006 10:07:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.michaelberube.com/index.php/weblog/comments/789/
>
Thanks Alan,
I've got some serious doubts about how far sociology has anything
serious to say about science (or, indeed, anything!). To put it another
way, my background is basically in economics. That subject has a lot to
say about technology but precious little about science. I can't see why
sociology is any different. Fuller seems to support my point.
417
Andrew
Re: Re: More Letters to the Daily Telegraph
13/02/2006 14:31:00
I received a card today telling me my letter to the Telegraph isn't being
printed, but the editor is grateful for my time and trouble, all letters are
read and appreciated, and I shouldn't be dissuaded from writing again, etc.
I've replied, and my reply follows. I've also reproduced my original letter
below that:
REPLY SENT TOAY:
Dear Sir/Madam,
I refer to the card I received today telling me my letter of 30/1/06 isn't
going to be printed on your letters page.
The letter wasn't for printing. It was to tell you why your paper now has
no more credibility or interest than a Christian fundamentalist tract.
In the hope that the article that started this may have been a mistake, I
took the trouble to refer you, in your capacity of Editor, to sources of
reliable information on the issues involved.
It seems the chances of The Telegraph becoming informed on these issues are
basically nil. I won't be buying your paper again or recommending it to
anyone.
Quite frankly I'm appalled at the ignorance being displayed. The bias and
ill-informed one-sidedness make Britain's so-called gutter press infinitely
preferable to The Telegraph.
ORIGINAL LETTER:
Dear Sir/Madam,
I was astounded to find an ill-informed endorsement of
Creationism/Intelligent Design in Saturday's Daily Telegraph. (Endorsements
of Creationism are always ill-informed, incidentally, though they often make
a pretence of being scientifically credible).
I would have expected better than this from The Telegraph, but my total
amazement is due especially to the fact that the perpetrators of this
fundamentalist propaganda were recently discredited in court in the USA's
Dover Case, and were additionally shown to have lied under oath.
This nonsense has been shown to be a ruse to get fundamentalist propaganda
taken seriously as science. It isn't science because it isn't based on
scientific methodology and the `facts' it presents are taken out of context
to serve a pre-decided position. In many cases the `facts' turn out not to
be facts at all.
The Telegraph article said "Contrary to media reports, ID is not a
religious-based idea, but an evidence-based scientific theory about life's
origins." Your readers will probably have been surprised by that as the
opening part of the article links the subject with religious belief before
making this statement. Having perpetrated this outright lie, the writer of
the article then tries to bring in Richard Dawkins (of all people!) to
further his argument, despite the fact that Dawkins' views are totally the
opposite of those your writer is trying to argue.
The whole article is a tissue of dishonesty and ill-disguised propaganda,
and publishing it in The Telegraph raises serious questions about your
paper's
reliability as a serious newspaper.
I've been buying The Daily Telegraph quite often recently, but I now find
myself unable to take it seriously or to place any trust in it. Not only
have you published a dubious piece of Christian fundamentalist propaganda,
but you've done that within a matter of weeks of this propaganda having been
thoroughly exposed in court, which surely should have drawn attention to
what it is.
I believe I should add a couple of points to clarify that what I've said is
objective and not merely based on dissenting opinion.
First, there's a discussion group that's been set up on the Internet to make
it possible for proponents of Creationism/Intelligent Design to discuss
their alleged science with genuine scientists. The Internet has been chosen
because this makes the location freely available for reasoned and informed
debate, but no genuine science has ever been forthcoming from the
Creationist/Intelligent Design camp despite their continued assertions that
they have science to back up their claims. As happened in the Dover court
case, their claims to be scientific are totally sham and are easily exposed
when presented to genuine scientists. The location of this group is
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
I'd recommend it as a guide to the issues involved.
Second, although Creationism/Intelligent Design is based on fundamentalist
religious ideas, opposition to it isn't based on religion. The informed
people who've examined it and found it worthless include both religious
people and atheists. In my own case, I'm a writer on the subject of
inter-religious dialogue, having published on a number of occasions in such
publications as the World Congress of Faith's journal Interreligious
Insight, as well as publishing articles on translating and interpreting
religious texts in such publications as The Middle Way. So this letter
isn't based on any kind of hostility to religion. The real issue is
fundamentalist propaganda, which has no place in a serious newspaper.
418
ukantic
Re: More on Fuller.
13/02/2006 21:09:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@> wrote:
> >
> > http://www.michaelberube.com/index.php/weblog/comments/789/
> >
> Thanks Alan,
>
> I've got some serious doubts about how far sociology has anything
> serious to say about science (or, indeed, anything!). To put it
another
> way, my background is basically in economics. That subject has a lot
to
> say about technology but precious little about science. I can't see
why
> sociology is any different. Fuller seems to support my point.
>
Yes, never in the field of creationist bullshit, has so much hot air &
so many big words, been used to such little effect.
Thanks Alan.
419
ukantic
Re: More Letters to the Daily Telegraph
13/02/2006 21:26:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" <taoist.hermit1@...>
wrote:
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
>
> I was astounded to find an ill-informed endorsement of
> Creationism/Intelligent Design in Saturday's Daily Telegraph.
(Endorsements
> of Creationism are always ill-informed, incidentally, though they
often make
> a pretence of being scientifically credible).
>
> I would have expected better than this from The Telegraph, but my
total
> amazement is due especially to the fact that the perpetrators of
this
> fundamentalist propaganda were recently discredited in court in
the USA's
> Dover Case, and were additionally shown to have lied under oath.
>
> This nonsense has been shown to be a ruse to get fundamentalist
propaganda
> taken seriously as science. It isn't science because it isn't
based on
> scientific methodology and the `facts' it presents are taken out
of context
> to serve a pre-decided position. In many cases the `facts' turn
out not to
> be facts at all.
>
> The Telegraph article said "Contrary to media reports, ID is not a
> religious-based idea, but an evidence-based scientific theory
about life's
> origins." Your readers will probably have been surprised by that
as the
> opening part of the article links the subject with religious
belief before
> making this statement. Having perpetrated this outright lie, the
writer of
> the article then tries to bring in Richard Dawkins (of all
people!) to
> further his argument, despite the fact that Dawkins' views are
totally the
> opposite of those your writer is trying to argue.
>
> The whole article is a tissue of dishonesty and ill-disguised
propaganda,
> and publishing it in The Telegraph raises serious questions about
your
> paper's
> reliability as a serious newspaper.
>
> I've been buying The Daily Telegraph quite often recently, but I
now find
> myself unable to take it seriously or to place any trust in it.
Not only
> have you published a dubious piece of Christian fundamentalist
propaganda,
> but you've done that within a matter of weeks of this propaganda
having been
> thoroughly exposed in court, which surely should have drawn
attention to
> what it is.
>
> I believe I should add a couple of points to clarify that what
I've said is
> objective and not merely based on dissenting opinion.
>
> First, there's a discussion group that's been set up on the
Internet to make
> it possible for proponents of Creationism/Intelligent Design to
discuss
> their alleged science with genuine scientists. The Internet has
been chosen
> because this makes the location freely available for reasoned and
informed
> debate, but no genuine science has ever been forthcoming from the
> Creationist/Intelligent Design camp despite their continued
assertions that
> they have science to back up their claims. As happened in the
Dover court
> case, their claims to be scientific are totally sham and are
easily exposed
> when presented to genuine scientists. The location of this group
is
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
>
> I'd recommend it as a guide to the issues involved.
>
> Second, although Creationism/Intelligent Design is based on
fundamentalist
> religious ideas, opposition to it isn't based on religion. The
informed
> people who've examined it and found it worthless include both
religious
> people and atheists. In my own case, I'm a writer on the subject
of
> inter-religious dialogue, having published on a number of
occasions in such
> publications as the World Congress of Faith's journal
Interreligious
> Insight, as well as publishing articles on translating and
interpreting
> religious texts in such publications as The Middle Way. So this
letter
> isn't based on any kind of hostility to religion. The real issue
is
> fundamentalist propaganda, which has no place in a serious
newspaper.
>
That is a good reply Andrew, I am going to put some of these
responses to the Telegraph article on my website. There is Roger's
reply & a few other bits kicking about; is it okay if I add yours
(minus the personal details in the last Paragraph)?
Alan.
420
Roger Stanyard
Re: More on Fuller.
13/02/2006 22:25:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@...> wrote:
>
I couldn't agree with your more.
Roger
PS, I've just come back from the pub, so I'll follow up some time in
a bit more of considered mode.
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@> wrote:
> > >
> > > http://www.michaelberube.com/index.php/weblog/comments/789/
> > >
> > Thanks Alan,
> >
> > I've got some serious doubts about how far sociology has anything
> > serious to say about science (or, indeed, anything!). To put it
> another
> > way, my background is basically in economics. That subject has a
lot
> to
> > say about technology but precious little about science. I can't
see
> why
> > sociology is any different. Fuller seems to support my point.
> >
>
> Yes, never in the field of creationist bullshit, has so much hot
air &
> so many big words, been used to such little effect.
>
> Thanks Alan.
>
421
Andrew
Re: Re: More Letters to the Daily Telegraph
13/02/2006 22:45:00
----- Original Message -----
From: ukantic
> That is a good reply Andrew, I am going to put some of these
> responses to the Telegraph article on my website. There is Roger's
> reply & a few other bits kicking about; is it okay if I add yours
> (minus the personal details in the last Paragraph)?
Yes, certainly - go ahead. That might do more good than sending it to the
Telegraph.
422
ukantic
Talk Reason updates.
13/02/2006 23:40:00
Talk Reason updates.
Can you hear me NOW?
By Andrea Bottaro
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/NOW.cfm
Professor Bottaro demonstrates the amazing unsubstantiated
self-assurance and lack of logic in Michael Behe's response to Judge
Jones's ruling in the Kitzmiller vs DASD case. While Behe's
testimony at that trial was clearly a devastating debacle for Behe,
he seems to be under the delusion that he was very successful and is
pleased with his own performance, despite his utter failure to
convince the judge and scores of observers. This is a sad picture of
a man who used to be a decent scientist but converted into astubborn
self-delusional defender of pseudo-science. Discussion of this essay
can be seen at the Panda's Thumb blog
(http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/can_you_hear_me.html).
published: Feb 09, 2006
Strange Bedfellows: Science, Politics and Religion
By Shirley M. Tilghman
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/?
http://www.princeton.edu/president/speeches/20051201/index.xml
http://tinyurl.com/cf3z7
The president of Princeton University talks about evolution theory
and intelligent design, eloquently and accessible to laymen. (Off-
site link.)
published: Feb 13, 2006
423
Roger Stanyard
Re: More on Fuller.
14/02/2006 11:02:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, never in the field of creationist bullshit, has so much hot
air &
> so many big words, been used to such little effect.
>
> Thanks Alan.
I've studied sociology formally in various ways but can't claim that
I am an expert on the subject. Nevertheless, it seems to me to be one
of the weaker disciplines in understanding the world. It's biggest
problem is that it can be defined to be whatever you want as long as
it somehow involves society. Sociologists have been shilly-shallying
and flip-flopping about what they look at for years.
Back in the early 70s much of the subject appeared to be little more
than social anthropology which saw social groups as little more than
tribes. From memory, three well-known sociology books spring to mind
to illustrate my point - Family and Kinship in East London (Michael
Young and Peter Willmott), Working for Ford (Hugh Benyon) and The
Fishermen: The Sociology of an Extreme Occupation(Jeremy Tunstall).
By the 1980s, it seems to have dropped this approach to one that
could explain just about any human activity; the trouble is, that by
doing so, it was treading on the toes of just about every other area
of academic study ranging from economics, business, psychology,
anthropology (again), history and so on. It tried to be everything at
once.
It then got itself into a horrible mess with post-modernism where it
seemed to reject not only its own internal logic but also that of
every other discipline. Its feet were firmly off the ground.
Moreover, its practioneers also decided that they were experts in a
whole range of other subjects - media studies being one of the more
notorious. I dunno about you, but I don't consider media studies to
be a proper academic subject (it has its uses, no doubt).
I understand the media very well as I work in communications
technology but that understanding comes from a combination of
economics and general knowledge.
Much of what comes out of the sociology world on the subject matter
of such areas as media studies is spurious, shallow and irrelevant.
Indeed, much of it is nothing more that slightly erudite market
research with a few numbers thrown in.
I happen to think that the gulf between the sciences and humanities
is falling away (about time, too) but the sociologists remain
isolated. Sociology a discipline that lacks scientific methodology
and, indeed, requires no knowledge of science in the first place.
The post-modernism idea itself is a nasty trap when it comes to
science. Twenty years or so ago, there was an old saw that 80% of the
world's knowledge had been derived in the last 40 years. By arguing
that understanding has little real meaning because the world is seen
through the cultural lenses of time and place that taint the view
contradicts the idea that understanding of the world increases (and
therefore changes) over time as a function of increasingly knowledge.
I happen to work in an area that requires an understanding of several
engineering disciplines; an understanding of basic science is also a
major asset (try, for example, understanding how mobile phones work
without understanding physics).
But, I am afraid to say, economics does not provide any useful or
specific insight into understanding science or why science takes
place and, likewise, conclude the same with sociology. In either
case, the end result is banality.
That's today's rant over.
>
424
Dean Morrison
RE: Re: More on Fuller.
14/02/2006 17:29:00
Well put,
it was embarrassing to have a Pomo Prof from the UK standing up for ID at Dover - even if he was an American.
how Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World' - by Francis Wheen contains an entertaining demolition of Post-Modernism amongst other things
Dean Morrison
----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Stanyard
Sent: 14 February 2006 11:03
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: More on Fuller.
@@--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, never in the field of creationist bullshit, has so much hot
air &
> so many big words, been used to such little effect.
>
> Thanks Alan.
I've studied sociology formally in various ways but can't claim that
I am an expert on the subject. Nevertheless, it seems to me to be one
of the weaker disciplines in understanding the world. It's biggest
problem is that it can be defined to be whatever you want as long as
it somehow involves society. Sociologists have been shilly-shallying
and flip-flopping about what they look at for years.
Back in the early 70s much of the subject appeared to be little more
than social anthropology which saw social groups as little more than
tribes. From memory, three well-known sociology books spring to mind
to illustrate my point - Family and Kinship in East London (Michael
Young and Peter Willmott), Working for Ford (Hugh Benyon) and The
Fishermen: The Sociology of an Extreme Occupation(Jeremy Tunstall).
By the 1980s, it seems to have dropped this approach to one that
could explain just about any human activity; the trouble is, that by
doing so, it was treading on the toes of just about every other area
of academic study ranging from economics, business, psychology,
anthropology (again), history and so on. It tried to be everything at
once.
It then got itself into a horrible mess with post-modernism where it
seemed to reject not only its own internal logic but also that of
every other discipline. Its feet were firmly off the ground.
Moreover, its practioneers also decided that they were experts in a
whole range of other subjects - media studies being one of the more
notorious. I dunno about you, but I don't consider media studies to
be a proper academic subject (it has its uses, no doubt).
I understand the media very well as I work in communications
technology but that understanding comes from a combination of
economics and general knowledge.
Much of what comes out of the sociology world on the subject matter
of such areas as media studies is spurious, shallow and irrelevant.
Indeed, much of it is nothing more that slightly erudite market
research with a few numbers thrown in.
I happen to think that the gulf between the sciences and humanities
is falling away (about time, too) but the sociologists remain
isolated. Sociology a discipline that lacks scientific methodology
and, indeed, requires no knowledge of science in the first place.
The post-modernism idea itself is a nasty trap when it comes to
science. Twenty years or so ago, there was an old saw that 80% of the
world's knowledge had been derived in the last 40 years. By arguing
that understanding has little real meaning because the world is seen
through the cultural lenses of time and place that taint the view
contradicts the idea that understanding of the world increases (and
therefore changes) over time as a function of increasingly knowledge.
I happen to work in an area that requires an understanding of several
engineering disciplines; an understanding of basic science is also a
major asset (try, for example, understanding how mobile phones work
without understanding physics).
But, I am afraid to say, economics does not provide any useful or
specific insight into understanding science or why science takes
place and, likewise, conclude the same with sociology. In either
case, the end result is banality.
That's today's rant over.
425
Roger Stanyard
Re: More on Fuller.
15/02/2006 22:14:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Morrison"
<deanmorrison@...> wrote:
>
Worse still, what the fuk is he doing working at a not well known
University in the UK at UK academic salary rates? He'll earn more as
a lorry driver.
> Well put,
>
> it was embarrassing to have a Pomo Prof from the UK standing up for
ID at
> Dover - even if he was an American.
>
> how Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World' - by Francis Wheen contains an
> entertaining demolition of Post-Modernism amongst other things
>
> Dean Morrison
>
> _____
>
> From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
[BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Roger Stanyard
> Sent: 14 February 2006 11:03
> To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: More on Fuller.
>
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, never in the field of creationist bullshit, has so much hot
> air &
> > so many big words, been used to such little effect.
> >
> > Thanks Alan.
>
> I've studied sociology formally in various ways but can't claim
that
> I am an expert on the subject. Nevertheless, it seems to me to be
one
> of the weaker disciplines in understanding the world. It's biggest
> problem is that it can be defined to be whatever you want as long
as
> it somehow involves society. Sociologists have been shilly-
shallying
> and flip-flopping about what they look at for years.
>
> Back in the early 70s much of the subject appeared to be little
more
> than social anthropology which saw social groups as little more
than
> tribes. From memory, three well-known sociology books spring to
mind
> to illustrate my point - Family and Kinship in East London (Michael
> Young and Peter Willmott), Working for Ford (Hugh Benyon) and The
> Fishermen: The Sociology of an Extreme Occupation(Jeremy Tunstall).
>
> By the 1980s, it seems to have dropped this approach to one that
> could explain just about any human activity; the trouble is, that
by
> doing so, it was treading on the toes of just about every other
area
> of academic study ranging from economics, business, psychology,
> anthropology (again), history and so on. It tried to be everything
at
> once.
>
> It then got itself into a horrible mess with post-modernism where
it
> seemed to reject not only its own internal logic but also that of
> every other discipline. Its feet were firmly off the ground.
>
> Moreover, its practioneers also decided that they were experts in a
> whole range of other subjects - media studies being one of the more
> notorious. I dunno about you, but I don't consider media studies to
> be a proper academic subject (it has its uses, no doubt).
>
> I understand the media very well as I work in communications
> technology but that understanding comes from a combination of
> economics and general knowledge.
>
> Much of what comes out of the sociology world on the subject matter
> of such areas as media studies is spurious, shallow and irrelevant.
> Indeed, much of it is nothing more that slightly erudite market
> research with a few numbers thrown in.
>
> I happen to think that the gulf between the sciences and humanities
> is falling away (about time, too) but the sociologists remain
> isolated. Sociology a discipline that lacks scientific methodology
> and, indeed, requires no knowledge of science in the first place.
>
> The post-modernism idea itself is a nasty trap when it comes to
> science. Twenty years or so ago, there was an old saw that 80% of
the
> world's knowledge had been derived in the last 40 years. By arguing
> that understanding has little real meaning because the world is
seen
> through the cultural lenses of time and place that taint the view
> contradicts the idea that understanding of the world increases (and
> therefore changes) over time as a function of increasingly
knowledge.
>
> I happen to work in an area that requires an understanding of
several
> engineering disciplines; an understanding of basic science is also
a
> major asset (try, for example, understanding how mobile phones work
> without understanding physics).
>
> But, I am afraid to say, economics does not provide any useful or
> specific insight into understanding science or why science takes
> place and, likewise, conclude the same with sociology. In either
> case, the end result is banality.
>
> That's today's rant over.
426
ukantic
SJS logo attempt
16/02/2006 15:46:00
Hi Dean,
I thought I would have a quick go at the SJS logo competition & have
uploaded my attempt at:
(I recently did something similar for someone else & have used the
same colour scheme & background)
Regards – Alan
427
ukantic
Mixed views on Academies strict regime.
16/02/2006 15:48:00
Goole Times (26 Jan 2006)
Mixed views on Academies strict regime.
Strict Discipline at the new Trinity Academy in Thorne has brought a
string of complaints in recent weeks culminating in a public meeting.
The level of anger among some parents led to a heated meeting in
Moorends recently, where issues raised included alleged bullying of
a child for having the "wrong" haircut, pupils being refused
permission to go to the toilet and suspensions for being on the
wrong side of the corridor.
Pauline Woods, a member of the Thorne and Moorends Parent and
Support Group said that she felt the Academy should be made
accountable to the community and hoped to raise a petition to show
the strength of support for her group's stance.
Bill Chapman, who chaired the meeting, said they are not against
discipline, but looked for it to be applied in a much fairer way. He
went on to ask that the problems be sorted out to prevent pupils
being put under intense emotional pressure.
Ian Brew, principle at the new £24 million Academy which opened last
September did not attend the public meeting in Moorends, but is
reported to be prepared to meet the parents in private.
While concerns at the severity of the discipline regime have been
raised in some quarters, others are supportive of the Academies
stance. "My cousin loves the school," a former Moorends resident
told the Goole Times this week. "The facilities are brilliant and
with the strict rules he can get on with it and enjoy his work."
"Thorne is a different place now, especially at lunch times",
commented a local resident. "For everyone's sake including the
pupils, I hope Mr Brew does not back down."
The Academy, one of the Government's flagship City Academies is
managed by the Emmanuel Schools Trust, and sponsored by the Vardy
Foundation. It was built to replace the "failing" Thorne Grammar
School – demolition of which has only recently been completed.
428
Dean Morrison
RE: Re: More on Fuller.
17/02/2006 11:08:00
Are you joking? - Lorry driving requires rational thought - He'd probably decide that the paradigm of driving on the left was just the British establishment defending its interests. -- Imagine the carnage.....
----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Stanyard
Sent: 15 February 2006 22:14
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: More on Fuller.
@@--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Morrison"
<deanmorrison@...> wrote:
>
Worse still, what the fuk is he doing working at a not well known
University in the UK at UK academic salary rates? He'll earn more as
a lorry driver.
> Well put,
>
> it was embarrassing to have a Pomo Prof from the UK standing up for
ID at
> Dover - even if he was an American.
>
> how Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World' - by Francis Wheen contains an
> entertaining demolition of Post-Modernism amongst other things
>
> Dean Morrison
>
> _____
>
> From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
[BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Roger Stanyard
> Sent: 14 February 2006 11:03
> To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: More on Fuller.
>
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, never in the field of creationist bullshit, has so much hot
> air &
> > so many big words, been used to such little effect.
> >
> > Thanks Alan.
>
> I've studied sociology formally in various ways but can't claim
that
> I am an expert on the subject. Nevertheless, it seems to me to be
one
> of the weaker disciplines in understanding the world. It's biggest
> problem is that it can be defined to be whatever you want as long
as
> it somehow involves society. Sociologists have been shilly-
shallying
> and flip-flopping about what they look at for years.
>
> Back in the early 70s much of the subject appeared to be little
more
> than social anthropology which saw social groups as little more
than
> tribes. From memory, three well-known sociology books spring to
mind
> to illustrate my point - Family and Kinship in East London (Michael
> Young and Peter Willmott), Working for Ford (Hugh Benyon) and The
> Fishermen: The Sociology of an Extreme Occupation(Jeremy Tunstall).
>
> By the 1980s, it seems to have dropped this approach to one that
> could explain just about any human activity; the trouble is, that
by
> doing so, it was treading on the toes of just about every other
area
> of academic study ranging from economics, business, psychology,
> anthropology (again), history and so on. It tried to be everything
at
> once.
>
> It then got itself into a horrible mess with post-modernism where
it
> seemed to reject not only its own internal logic but also that of
> every other discipline. Its feet were firmly off the ground.
>
> Moreover, its practioneers also decided that they were experts in a
> whole range of other subjects - media studies being one of the more
> notorious. I dunno about you, but I don't consider media studies to
> be a proper academic subject (it has its uses, no doubt).
>
> I understand the media very well as I work in communications
> technology but that understanding comes from a combination of
> economics and general knowledge.
>
> Much of what comes out of the sociology world on the subject matter
> of such areas as media studies is spurious, shallow and irrelevant.
> Indeed, much of it is nothing more that slightly erudite market
> research with a few numbers thrown in.
>
> I happen to think that the gulf between the sciences and humanities
> is falling away (about time, too) but the sociologists remain
> isolated. Sociology a discipline that lacks scientific methodology
> and, indeed, requires no knowledge of science in the first place.
>
> The post-modernism idea itself is a nasty trap when it comes to
> science. Twenty years or so ago, there was an old saw that 80% of
the
> world's knowledge had been derived in the last 40 years. By arguing
> that understanding has little real meaning because the world is
seen
> through the cultural lenses of time and place that taint the view
> contradicts the idea that understanding of the world increases (and
> therefore changes) over time as a function of increasingly
knowledge.
>
> I happen to work in an area that requires an understanding of
several
> engineering disciplines; an understanding of basic science is also
a
> major asset (try, for example, understanding how mobile phones work
> without understanding physics).
>
> But, I am afraid to say, economics does not provide any useful or
> specific insight into understanding science or why science takes
> place and, likewise, conclude the same with sociology. In either
> case, the end result is banality.
>
> That's today's rant over.
>
>
429
Dean Morrison
RE: SJS logo attempt
17/02/2006 11:09:00
Thanks Alan! - duly entered into competion!
----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ukantic
Sent: 16 February 2006 15:46
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] SJS logo attempt
Hi Dean,
I thought I would have a quick go at the SJS logo competition & have
uploaded my attempt at:
(I recently did something similar for someone else & have used the
same colour scheme & background)
Regards – Alan
----
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 2108 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!
430
Roger Stanyard
Re: More on Fuller.
17/02/2006 12:35:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Morrison"
<deanmorrison@...> wrote:
>
> Are you joking? - Lorry driving requires rational thought - He'd
probably
> decide that the paradigm of driving on the left was just the British
> establishment defending its interests. -- Imagine the carnage.....
>
LOL!!!
Roger
>
>
> _____
>
> From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
[BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Roger Stanyard
> Sent: 15 February 2006 22:14
> To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: More on Fuller.
>
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Morrison"
> <deanmorrison@> wrote:
> >
> Worse still, what the fuk is he doing working at a not well known
> University in the UK at UK academic salary rates? He'll earn more
as
> a lorry driver.
>
>
>
> > Well put,
> >
> > it was embarrassing to have a Pomo Prof from the UK standing up
for
> ID at
> > Dover - even if he was an American.
> >
> > how Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World' - by Francis Wheen contains
an
> > entertaining demolition of Post-Modernism amongst other things
> >
> > Dean Morrison
> >
> > _____
> >
> > From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
> [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On
> > Behalf Of Roger Stanyard
> > Sent: 14 February 2006 11:03
> > To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: More on Fuller.
> >
> >
> > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, never in the field of creationist bullshit, has so much
hot
> > air &
> > > so many big words, been used to such little effect.
> > >
> > > Thanks Alan.
> >
> > I've studied sociology formally in various ways but can't claim
> that
> > I am an expert on the subject. Nevertheless, it seems to me to be
> one
> > of the weaker disciplines in understanding the world. It's
biggest
> > problem is that it can be defined to be whatever you want as long
> as
> > it somehow involves society. Sociologists have been shilly-
> shallying
> > and flip-flopping about what they look at for years.
> >
> > Back in the early 70s much of the subject appeared to be little
> more
> > than social anthropology which saw social groups as little more
> than
> > tribes. From memory, three well-known sociology books spring to
> mind
> > to illustrate my point - Family and Kinship in East London
(Michael
> > Young and Peter Willmott), Working for Ford (Hugh Benyon) and The
> > Fishermen: The Sociology of an Extreme Occupation(Jeremy
Tunstall).
> >
> > By the 1980s, it seems to have dropped this approach to one that
> > could explain just about any human activity; the trouble is, that
> by
> > doing so, it was treading on the toes of just about every other
> area
> > of academic study ranging from economics, business, psychology,
> > anthropology (again), history and so on. It tried to be
everything
> at
> > once.
> >
> > It then got itself into a horrible mess with post-modernism where
> it
> > seemed to reject not only its own internal logic but also that of
> > every other discipline. Its feet were firmly off the ground.
> >
> > Moreover, its practioneers also decided that they were experts in
a
> > whole range of other subjects - media studies being one of the
more
> > notorious. I dunno about you, but I don't consider media studies
to
> > be a proper academic subject (it has its uses, no doubt).
> >
> > I understand the media very well as I work in communications
> > technology but that understanding comes from a combination of
> > economics and general knowledge.
> >
> > Much of what comes out of the sociology world on the subject
matter
> > of such areas as media studies is spurious, shallow and
irrelevant.
> > Indeed, much of it is nothing more that slightly erudite market
> > research with a few numbers thrown in.
> >
> > I happen to think that the gulf between the sciences and
humanities
> > is falling away (about time, too) but the sociologists remain
> > isolated. Sociology a discipline that lacks scientific
methodology
> > and, indeed, requires no knowledge of science in the first place.
> >
> > The post-modernism idea itself is a nasty trap when it comes to
> > science. Twenty years or so ago, there was an old saw that 80% of
> the
> > world's knowledge had been derived in the last 40 years. By
arguing
> > that understanding has little real meaning because the world is
> seen
> > through the cultural lenses of time and place that taint the view
> > contradicts the idea that understanding of the world increases
(and
> > therefore changes) over time as a function of increasingly
> knowledge.
> >
> > I happen to work in an area that requires an understanding of
> several
> > engineering disciplines; an understanding of basic science is
also
> a
> > major asset (try, for example, understanding how mobile phones
work
> > without understanding physics).
> >
> > But, I am afraid to say, economics does not provide any useful or
> > specific insight into understanding science or why science takes
> > place and, likewise, conclude the same with sociology. In either
> > case, the end result is banality.
> >
> > That's today's rant over.
431
MB
Re: Re: More on Fuller.
17/02/2006 18:07:00
Please edit.... your posts.
Thank you very much.
Regards,
MB
432
ukantic
Talk Reason Update (on S. Fuller)
20/02/2006 13:46:00
Steve Fuller and The Hidden Agenda of Social Constructivism
By Norman Levitt
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Fuller.cfm
The recent Kitzmiller case, over attempts to introduce "Intelligent
Design" into Pennsylvania biology teaching, presented the surprising
spectacle of an avowedly left-wing sociologist, Steve Fuller,
appearing as a vociferous, if ultimately futile, defence witness on
behalf of ID proponents. This essay examines the core of Fuller's
doctrines and the way they provided a rationale for him to enlist in
a campaign apparently inimical to his professed political ideals.
Moreover, I take up the question of whether Fuller's background in
philosophy really results in cogent analysis or sophisticated
thinking about science. My answer is decidedly negative. Further, I
scrutinize doctrines and discontents that lie, mostly hidden, behind
much of the hostility to science found in social constructivist
theory, an ethos out of which Fuller himself arose.
published: Feb 19, 2006
433
ukantic
BISHOPS SHOULD SPEAK UP ABOUT DARWIN''S TRUTH
20/02/2006 14:17:00
Recently, in a column of the Leicester Mercury, George Jellis of the
Leicester National Secular society asked where the Church stood on
the issue of creationism:
BISHOPS SHOULD SPEAK UP ABOUT DARWIN'S TRUTH
"10:30 - 11 February 2006 As scientists celebrate Darwin Day
tomorrow, George Jelliss wonders where the Church of England stands"
…
This elicited the following responses;
DARWIN DOES NOT CONTRADICT CHRISTIAN BELIEF
"10:30 - 14 February 2006 The Bishop of Leicester responds to the
challenge issued here on Saturday by George Jelliss" …
And
HOW SCIENCE AND ISLAM ARE IN HARMONY
"10:30 - 16 February 2006 Ibrahim Mogra responds to the views on
Creationism expressed in this column by secularist George Jelliss" …
< I just love this bit – "Although I have said Muslims must embrace
scientific findings, these findings will still be subject to
scrutiny under the light of the teachings of the Koran. That is
exactly why Darwin's theory of Evolution, suggesting the human being
started as something very different, is not acceptable. " >
http://secsoc.blogspot.com/2006_02_01_secsoc_archive.html
434
Roger Stanyard
AAAS http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4731360.stm
20/02/2006 16:08:00
BBC radio 4 news today has a report on ID in the USA which does not
make for happy listening. Despite Dover the buggers aren't going away
and are now teaching in on a "freelance" basis in schools, according to
the report.
See the BBC's web site at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4731360.stm for further details.
I've posted the write up on Debunkcreation.
BR
Rogre Stanyard
435
Roger Stanyard
BBC on Intelligent Design
20/02/2006 16:21:00
Here is the BBC's write up of its audio report:
US scientists have called on mainstream religious communities to help
them fight policies that undermine the teaching of evolution.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) hit
out at the "intelligent design" movement at its annual meeting in
Missouri.
Teaching the idea threatens scientific literacy among schoolchildren,
it said.
Its proponents argue life on Earth is too complex to have evolved on
its own.
As the name suggests, intelligent design is a concept invoking the
hand of a designer in nature.
It's time to recognise that science and religion should never be
pitted against each other
Gilbert Omenn
AAAS president
There have been several attempts across the US by anti-evolutionists
to get intelligent design taught in school science lessons.
At the meeting in St Louis, the AAAS issued a statement strongly
condemning the moves.
"Such veiled attempts to wedge religion - actually just one kind of
religion - into science classrooms is a disservice to students,
parents, teachers and taxpayers," said AAAS president Gilbert Omenn.
"It's time to recognise that science and religion should never be
pitted against each other.
"They can and do co-exist in the context of most people's lives. Just
not in science classrooms, lest we confuse our children."
'Who's kidding whom?'
Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education,
which campaigns to keep the teaching of evolution in public schools,
said those in mainstream religious communities needed to "step up to
the plate" in order to prevent the issue being viewed as a battle
between science and religion.
Parents in Dover, Pennsylvania, won a court battle over evolution
Some have already heeded the warning.
"The intelligent design movement belittles religion. It makes God a
designer - an engineer," said George Coyne, director of the Vatican
Observatory.
"Intelligent design concentrates on a designer who they do not really
identify - but who's kidding whom?"
Last year, a federal judge ruled in favour of 11 parents in Dover,
Pennsylvania, who argued that Darwinian evolution must be taught as
fact.
Dover school administrators had pushed for intelligent design to be
inserted into science teaching. But the judge ruled this violated the
constitution, which sets out a clear separation between religion and
state.
Despite the ruling, more challenges are on the way.
Fourteen US states are considering bills that scientists say would
restrict the teaching of evolution.
These include a legislative bill in Missouri which seeks to ensure
that only science which can be proven by experiment is taught in
schools.
I think if we look at where the empirical scientific evidence leads
us, it leads us towards intelligent design
Teacher Mark Gihring
"The new strategy is to teach intelligent design without calling it
intelligent design," biologist Kenneth Miller, of Brown University in
Rhode Island, told the BBC News website.
Dr Miller, an expert witness in the Dover School case, added: "The
advocates of intelligent design and creationism have tried to
repackage their criticisms, saying they want to teach the evidence
for evolution and the evidence against evolution."
However, Mark Gihring, a teacher from Missouri sympathetic to
intelligent design, told the BBC: "I think if we look at where the
empirical scientific evidence leads us, it leads us towards
intelligent design.
"[Intelligent design] ultimately takes us back to why we're here and
the value of life... if an individual doesn't have a reason for
being, they might carry themselves in a way that is ultimately
destructive for society."
Economic risk
The decentralised US education system ensures that intelligent design
will remain an issue in the classroom regardless of the decision in
the Dover case.
"I think as a legal strategy, intelligent design is dead. That does
not mean intelligent design as a social movement is dead," said Ms
Scott.
Bush said students ought to hear different schools of thought
"This is an idea that has real legs and it's going to be around for a
long time. It will, however, evolve."
Among the most high-profile champions of intelligent design is US
President George W Bush, who has said schools should make students
aware of the concept.
But Mr Omenn warned that teaching intelligent design would deprive
students of a proper education, ultimately harming the US economy.
"At a time when fewer US students are heading into science, baby
boomer scientists are retiring in growing numbers and international
students are returning home to work, America can ill afford the time
and tax-payer dollars debating the facts of evolution," he said.
436
Dean Morrison
RE: More BBC on Intelligent Design
20/02/2006 17:45:00
BBC Radio 5 had a broadcast for the insomniacs amongst us which made for more cheerful listening than the Radio 4 item. Eugenie Scot, and two teachers from Dover - no pandering to the ID crowd.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/mainframe.shtml?http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/fivelive_promo.shtml
The ID slot is about 1 hour 5 mins in on the Monday night edition of 'Up all night'.
Eugenie pointed out that we shouldn't look down our 'patrician noses' at the US as out Vardy schools teach creationism. I posted an e-mail to try to bring up the British link but they didn't pick it up.
----
437
ukantic
Re: AAAS http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4731360.stm
20/02/2006 17:47:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...>
wrote:
>
> BBC radio 4 news today has a report on ID in the USA which does
not
> make for happy listening. Despite Dover the buggers aren't going
away
> and are now teaching in on a "freelance" basis in schools,
according to
> the report.
>
> See the BBC's web site at
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4731360.stm for further
details.
< From the article >
"[Intelligent design] ultimately takes us back to why we're here and
the value of life... if an individual doesn't have a reason for
being, they might carry themselves in a way that is ultimately
destructive for society."
That's just the sort of nonsense a creationist would come out with.
Which is a bit of a coincidence, because remember everyone – ID has
absolutely nothing at all to do creationism!
438
Roger Stanyard
Re: More BBC on Intelligent Design
20/02/2006 18:16:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Morrison"
<deanmorrison@...> wrote:
>
> BBC Radio 5 had a broadcast for the insomniacs amongst us which
made for
> more cheerful listening than the Radio 4 item. Eugenie Scot, and two
> teachers from Dover - no pandering to the ID crowd.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/mainframe.shtml?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/ao
> d/fivelive_promo.shtml
>
Dean,
Thanks for the URL but it seems that I can't pick it up as the
previous Monday's material has now been taken off site.
Roger
439
ukantic
Ring in the sort-of new
20/02/2006 18:32:00
Ring in the sort-of new
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/notebook/story/0,,1682454,00.
html
http://tinyurl.com/zn3jy
Matthew Taylor
Tuesday January 10, 2006
The Guardian
And something else that is likely to stir the pot again and kick-
start an old row is an article in the latest addition of Christian
magazine Cross Way by the headteacher at the Emmanuel College in
Gateshead, which has long denied accusations that it teaches
creationism to its pupils. Jonathan Winch wrote: "Only with
reference to a Creator can absolute truth, absolute values and
absolute beauty be understood - and without these, education is
ultimately absolutely pointless." Just in case anyone missed the
point, he conti
