451
ukantic
Choice is ruining education
07/03/2006 22:50:00
Choice is ruining education
Rod Liddle
"Here's my education white paper. Please read it — I spent nearly 15
minutes drawing it up and one hates to see such valuable time go to
waste. Feel free, too, to table amendments. But keep them short."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,24393-2070205,00.html
452
ukantic
Re: The new fundamentalists – Dispatches Monday at 8.00
07/03/2006 23:00:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "bonytrux" <bonytrux@...> wrote:
>
>
> I am told that this programme will cover the Emmanuel Schools
> Foundation's Trinity Academy (Thorne) and King's Academy
> (Middlesborough)in some depth
>
It certainly did as well!
I have made a recording & when I find some time I will post a
transcript of the relevant bits.
Alan.
453
Dean Morrison
RE: Re: The new fundamentalists - Dispatches Monday at 8.00
08/03/2006 04:17:00
Cheers Alan!
have been involved in lots of discussion on the C4 boards on this
Dean
----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ukantic
Sent: 07 March 2006 23:00
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: The new fundamentalists – Dispatches Monday at 8.00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "bonytrux" <bonytrux@...> wrote:
>
>
> I am told that this programme will cover the Emmanuel Schools
> Foundation's Trinity Academy (Thorne) and King's Academy
> (Middlesborough)in some depth
>
It certainly did as well!
I have made a recording & when I find some time I will post a
transcript of the relevant bits.
Alan.
----
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 2148 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!
454
ukantic
Creationism has no place in science lessons
08/03/2006 21:12:00
Creationism has no place in science lessons
http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/newsarticleview.asp?article=2154
On 27th February, Jacqui Smith answered a parliamentary question
tabled by MP Keith Vaz.
His question was: `To ask the Secretary of State for Education and
Skills what her policy is on the teaching of creationism as a
subject in schools; and if she will make a statement.'
In her reply, the minister said that pupils should "be taught
about "how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of
interpreting empirical evidence". Also, the biblical view of
creation can be taught in RE lessons, where pupils are taught to
consider opposing theories and come to their own, reasoned
conclusions. Therefore, although creationism and intelligent design
are not part of the national curriculum, they could be covered in
these contexts."
Click here for her full answer.
The BHA has written to DfES ministers Jacqui Smith and Lord Adonis
asking whether the Government really considers "that creationism
and `intelligent design' are examples of scientific theories based
on empirical evidence within the meaning of the national
curriculum."
The letter explains that this is the BHA's specific concern in Ms
Smith's written answer:
"Our specific concern is your interpretation of the phrase `how
scientific controversies can arise from different ways of
interpreting empirical evidence' in the national curriculum
programme of study for science at key stage 4. You say that
creationism and `intelligent design' "could be covered in these
contexts.
"From discussions with science teachers, the BHA had understood that
the controversies covered under this section over evolution
specifically were only those with some claim to being genuinely
scientific, such as the discredited Lamarckian theory. We are
concerned, therefore, to hear the government endorsing the view of
religious extremists that, firstly, a scientific controversy to do
with creationism actually exists, and secondly that it could be
taught in a state-funded school."
For the full letter click here .
Andrew Copson, education officer at the BHA said, "It seems
inconceivable that the government should give even tacit approval to
the teaching of creationism as a scientific theory. That they should
approve its teaching within the national curriculum for science is
outrageous."
455
ukantic
Ref Post 454, Jacqui Smith’s Reply.
08/03/2006 21:15:00
Ref Post 454, Jacqui Smith's Reply.
Written Question answered on 27/02/06
Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills
what her policy is on the teaching of creationism as a subject in
schools; and if she will make a statement. [49613]
Jacqui Smith: Neither creationism nor intelligent design is taught
as a subject in schools. The national curriculum programme of study
for science at key stage 4 covers evolution. It sets out that pupils
should be taught "that the fossil record is evidence for evolution"
and also "how variation and selection may lead to evolution or
extinction". Pupils should however be taught about "how scientific
controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting
empirical evidence". Also, the biblical view of creation can be
taught in RE lessons, where pupils are taught to consider opposing
theories and come to their own, reasoned conclusions. Therefore,
although creationism and intelligent design are not part of the
national curriculum, they could be covered in these contexts.
456
ukantic
Re: Ref Post 454, Jacqui Smith’s Reply.
08/03/2006 21:29:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@...> wrote:
>
> Ref Post 454, Jacqui Smith's Reply.
>
> Written Question answered on 27/02/06
>
> Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills
> what her policy is on the teaching of creationism as a subject in
> schools; and if she will make a statement. [49613]
>
> Jacqui Smith: Neither creationism nor intelligent design is taught
> as a subject in schools. The national curriculum programme of
study
> for science at key stage 4 covers evolution. It sets out that
pupils
> should be taught "that the fossil record is evidence for
evolution"
> and also "how variation and selection may lead to evolution or
> extinction". Pupils should however be taught about "how scientific
> controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting
> empirical evidence". Also, the biblical view of creation can be
> taught in RE lessons, where pupils are taught to consider opposing
> theories and come to their own, reasoned conclusions. Therefore,
> although creationism and intelligent design are not part of the
> national curriculum, they could be covered in these contexts.
It is bad enough having the creationists wilfully misinterpreting
the NC key stage 4 science to support their idiotic claim that
creationism/intelligent design should be taught in science classes,
without the government jumping on the bandwagon as well.
Alan.
457
oeditor
Creationism in GCSE - Official
10/03/2006 09:46:00
The TES reports that creationism is to be included in new GCSE Biology
module:
http://www.tes.co.uk/search/story/?story_id=2202842
This seems to be an abstract from the print version - does anyone take
it regularly or will I have to buy one?
There's also a pretty typical debate at
http://tinyurl.com/rcn55
Thanks, btw to Google Alerts (Jacqui Smith Creationism) which pointed
me not directly to the TES but to an article in The Sun:
"Can you Adam and Eve it?"
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006110502,00.html
Brian,
who is choking on his porridge!
458
ukantic
Pennock''s Dover response
13/03/2006 22:54:00
Pennock's Dover response
The battle to get intelligent design into school books was lost in
Dover, and it is time for proponents to lay down their swords.
By Robert T. Pennock
(March 6, 2006)
"Creationists describe their mission to overturn evolution in military
language, calling it the fundamental dispute of the culture wars. We
recently saw the resolution of one of the most significant battles in
this war: the end of the Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School
District trial in Pennsylvania."
http://www.stnews.org/Commentary-2688.htm
459
Roger Stanyard
Re: Pennock''s Dover response
14/03/2006 14:32:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@...> wrote:
>
This is a superb respose by Pennock. Alas, I suspect that the IDers
will not go away; even if they did, it still leaves the YECers and
their apologists elsewhere leading the nutters. They'll find some other
excuses, tactics or strategy to get their religion into education (as
they are already doing with home education and their second rate
universities like the BJU, Patrick Henry, Liberty, etc.). This is a
political battle, not one about science at all. They want a theocracy
and ID is only a small element in their aims. (They can't even agree on
ID.)
The DI is small fry in the movement. AIG and ICR both have bigger
budgets and all pale into insignificance when one looks at the size of
the fundies' (and other evangelicals') broadcasting empires,
ministries, colleges and so on.
Moreover, I have to say that Americans can't stand loss of face. The
IDers/creationists will do everything they can to find a face saving
formula as the next step on from their Dover fiasco. Indeed, ID itself
looks to be a face saving exercise after they lost the legal battle
over creationist nonsense in 1987.
I suspect that the only way the fundies will ever be defeated is at the
balot box. I fear, though, that even that won't stop them.
Roger Stanyard
Rant for the day over
> Pennock's Dover response
>
> The battle to get intelligent design into school books was lost in
> Dover, and it is time for proponents to lay down their swords.
>
> By Robert T. Pennock
> (March 6, 2006)
>
> "Creationists describe their mission to overturn evolution in
military
> language, calling it the fundamental dispute of the culture wars. We
> recently saw the resolution of one of the most significant battles in
> this war: the end of the Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School
> District trial in Pennsylvania."
>
> http://www.stnews.org/Commentary-2688.htm
>
460
ukantic
Intelligent design and educational stupidity
16/03/2006 20:31:00
Intelligent design and educational stupidity
by David Perks (14 Mar 06)
Worried about the rise of creationism in UK schools? This teacher
blames the timidity of the science establishment.
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAFC8.htm
461
oeditor
Re: Intelligent design and educational stupidity
16/03/2006 21:10:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@...> wrote:
>
> Worried about the rise of creationism in UK schools? This teacher
> blames the timidity of the science establishment.
>
> http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAFC8.htm
>
I'm gobsmacked by this. In my day, science was about the periodic
table and the charge on the electron. Maybe Millikan's experiments
weren't all that they might have been, and Mendel might have fiddled
his results, but the self-correcting mechanisms of science have
produced the results that they should have done.
Quite what sociology and politics have to do with it, I've no idea.
Perhaps when I've digested the article and slept on it, I might. But
I'm horrified.
Brian
462
ukantic
Re: Intelligent design and educational stupidity
16/03/2006 21:26:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@...> wrote:
>
> Intelligent design and educational stupidity
> by David Perks (14 Mar 06)
>
> Worried about the rise of creationism in UK schools? This teacher
> blames the timidity of the science establishment.
>
> http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAFC8.htm
< D.P > "As Fuller sees it, Darwinism is being taught as dogma and
intelligent design acts as a 'critical foil' to those ideas. To him,
teaching intelligent design in US schools is the lesser of two
evils, if it allows pupils to question the domination of the
established scientific community when it comes to understanding
evolution. For Fuller and other cultural critics of science, the
loss of scientific objectivity is a small price to pay for a chance
to undermine the dominance of the scientific elite.
< D.P > This gives the lie to the idea that the attack on Darwinism
is the product of a right-wing conspiracy to infiltrate mainstream
education with Christian morality. Despite the work done to uncover
the 'wedge' strategy of the intelligent design lobby in the USA,
teachers would do well to look at the scientific and educational
elites before looking for fundamentalist Christians under the bed
(5)."
< Rep > What utter nonsense, it is not only their (inferior)
morality that they want to force on other people's children, it is
the whole gamut of their fundamentalist beliefs. As anyone reading
press reports on this subject or following internet forums will
know, 99% of the attacks on evolution are coming from creationists
of various forms. The hearing at Dover was not about postmodernism,
it was about religion & creationism. Steve Fuller (representing the
other 1%) was just a bit player. In fact, the only thing I can
remember the judge saying about him was that he had previously
identified ID as a form of creationism!
< D.P > "On this point, I agree with Steve Fuller rather than
Richard Dawkins. Lambasting religion as being the source of all evil
will win no-one to the cause of science. Instead, we need to
understand why people think science has lost its relevance to them,
and challenge the idea that science is an elitist tool of
domination."
< Rep > Teaching unnecessary or ill-informed postmodernist criticism
of science is one thing (assuming that it is actually going on),
deliberately trying to subvert the modern teaching of evolution in
favour of a religious alternative straight out of the Dark Ages, is
far worse.
I must admit my knowledge of the issue of postmodernism in the
curriculum is very limited; however, even assuming it is as bad as
he says it is, then that detracts not one iota from the threat posed
by creationism (although it obviously compounds it).
Richard Dawkins may rub some people up the wrong way (including
postmodernists, who he has criticised in the past) but it should be
remembered he has been at the forefront of the battle against
creationists for decades now. Besides, David Perks is sadly mistaken
if he thinks the problem of creationism can be solved by saying or
doing nothing.
As for Steve Fuller, am I the only one who has noticed the hypocrisy
of claiming to be in the business of opposing dogmatic or
authoritarian belief systems by siding with the followers of one of
most authoritarian & dogmatic in existence, i.e. the creationists?
Alan
463
Roger Stanyard
Re: Intelligent design and educational stupidity
17/03/2006 18:17:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@...> wrote:
>
David Perk's article is deeply disturbing; the only point of optimism
I see is that the British Association has recognised that there is a
serious threat to science education in the UK and has started to do
something about it.
Strange, though, that a post-modernist sociologist is aligned with a
bunch of US fundies some of which are clearly Pol Pot wanabes.
Roger Stanyard
> Intelligent design and educational stupidity
> by David Perks (14 Mar 06)
>
> Worried about the rise of creationism in UK schools? This teacher
> blames the timidity of the science establishment.
>
> http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAFC8.htm
>
464
Roger Stanyard
Re: Intelligent design and educational stupidity
17/03/2006 18:34:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
Yep, it appears that no one has learned from the Sokal Affair.
Roger Stanyard
> Quite what sociology and politics have to do with it, I've no idea.
> Perhaps when I've digested the article and slept on it, I might. But
> I'm horrified.
>
> Brian
>
465
ukantic
The New Fundamentalists
21/03/2006 15:02:00
The following is a transcript of a section of Rod Liddle's recent C4
program, The New Fundamentalists. Here he interviews 2 former pupils
of Emmanuel College & Nigel McQuoid.
Alan.
Nigel McQuoid in assembly:
Let's say a prayer to start our reading. Our father, the world is
full of injustice but that doesn't mean we give up. We want to have
our society strong & healthy. Some of the good things we just read
from the Bible. Please help us to pursue these things in our
personal lives, so our society might be all the better for it. We
ask these things of you this morning – amen.
Rod Liddle:
Trying to find out what goes on inside Sir Peter's schools is
difficult; people on the inside are reluctant to speak out. But one
teacher still serving at the academy (King's Academy)) did say there
was an awful lot of Bible-bashing in school assemblies. Something
which wasn't much in evidence the day we came & filmed.
This teacher did not want to be identified, so her words are being
spoken by an actor.
Teacher:
Every Monday they banged away at them about Christianity being
literally true. The principal is always very careful to say, "now
you may not believe this but I am going to meet my maker & I am
going to be judged". It is the one-sidedness that is troubling & the
absolutism. It is a kind of old-fashioned Christianity. It is
critical of feminism & homosexuality is an absolute sin you know.
You've got Christian teachers who have been brought in, not because
of their experience, not because of their expertise but because of
their religion.
And it is wrong. I believe that education is about opening the kids
minds up. I think what they want to do is close them.
Rod Liddle:
I had to travel to Wexford in the Republic of Ireland to find a
second teacher who would speak to us. Someone who had spent a term
at another of Sir Peter's schools: Emmanuel College in Gateshead.
Cormack O Duffy was rather surprised by the authoritarian atmosphere
he had found at the college & left after disagreements about the
ethos of the school.
Cormack O Duffy:
Well, Emmanuel school is for me a very very different school – is
not a school like – I have never experienced anything like it
anywhere in the world & I have seen schools in at least 3 or 4
different countries. The word totalitarian is strong but that is the
type of thing where you don't really speak. You don't really say
what you think, you accept what you are told to do & to teach. That
sort of repressed atmosphere & to me doesn't tie in at all with how
I see Christianity.
Rod Liddle:
This totalitarianism is perhaps the result of an unbending adherence
to the Bible. So we dug around a bit on the internet & discovered
some interesting information about some of the top teachers there.
One of them, Nigel McQuoid was headmaster of King's Academy. Now he
is in charge of all 3 schools run by the ESF. He co-wrote a long
treatise, "Christianity & the school curriculum", which makes the
Foundations approach to education absolutely clear. Christianity &
Biblical truth he says must find a place across the whole curriculum
& must not be confined to the acts of worship & RE.
But its Mr McQuoids insistence on how the ToE should be taught in
schools that worries me most. He believes that scientific
evolutionary theory & the old testament account of the creation of
the world in 6 days should be given similar academic status. Both
creation & evolution provide ways of explaining the past, he says,
that are beyond direct scientific examination & verification.
He says both creation & evolution are faith positions & science
teachers should be given opportunities to demonstrate this.
(Gap – continues)
Evolution a faith position? Well it might not be fact proved beyond
dispute but the process that lead us to accepting it was at least
entirely rational, rather than grounded in superstition.
I met 2 former pupils of Emmanuel College who both learned about
evolution at the school. But the scientific theory was taught to
them by teachers who believed in the Biblical account of creation
described in Genesis. I found it hard to believe what they told me
about the way that they were taught.
Richard Almond:
Most of the teachers being Christians believed in creationism. So
what they would say is erm, this is erm curriculum, this is Darwin's
evolutionary theory,ToE. However, we believe that creation, God
created the world in 7 days, so.
Rod Liddle (interrupts):
In 7 days?
Richard Almond:
Yes.
Rod Liddle:
Did anyone ever raise a query about this belief?
Richard Almond:
When your young, you just take what your told a lot of the time, so
no one stood up & disagreed.
Adam French:
One of my teachers – we were reading from a text book & one of the
teachers told us all a story about the big bang & how dinosaurs were
born & how man eventually evolved from there. He told us all this &
then all of a sudden he whipped out the Bible & read the first
passage in the Bible: & in the beginning God created the heaven &
the Earth, blab la bla. And he said he believed the Bible version,
although he did strictly tell us that in an exam we should write the
textbook version & not the Bible version.
Rod Liddle:
When you were told about creationism, did you think that theory then
is equal then to the evolutionary approach?
Adam French:
Pretty much that's how they brought it across. Because they always
pushed evolution onto you as just a theory, so you never thought of
it as purely a factual scientific thing.
Richard Almond:
They did try to teach creationism as fact.
Adam French:
We were even taught that the err, that the Earth was only 6000 years
old.
Rod Liddle:
They taught you that?
Adam French:
I don't think it was in lessons but we were told…
Richard Almond (interrupts):
Not in terms for an exam but now that I think about it, there was a
lot of contradiction in the teaching.
Adam French:
Err, I don't think it is right what they are doing with
contradictory theories in science, it is not a good thing.
Rod Liddle:
These creationists beliefs did prompt OFSTED, the government body
that oversees standards in state schools, to ask for an explanation.
Sir Peter Vardy responded by sending a fairly detailed letter to the
chief inspector of schools, Mike Tomlinson, during which he
said, "we are therefore happy to assure you that we do not breach
any of the legal requirements relating to the curriculum".
Nevertheless, if OFSTED had entered into a dialog with the man who
runs Sir Peters 3 schools, he might have had cause for concern.
Certainly when I spoke to him, I found the conversation a bit
disturbing.
(Lead in to an advertising break) Nigel McQuoid:
I am not going to fib to you – I actually believe in something that
science says can't happen.
(Program continues) Rod Liddle:
It took a lot of persuading to get to see Nigel McQuoid, the man who
now heads all 3 of Sir Peter's schools. Eventually they let me in to
ask him a few questions. Mr McQuoid is forthright: No, there is no
anti-feminism or anti-gay feelings in the schools. No, it is
absolute nonsense to say that teachers are chosen because of their
faith, rather than their skills. And as for that totalitarian
atmosphere, staff would be leaving in droves if that were true. But
what about the creationist views that the students have been hearing?
Nigel McQuoid:
The Foundation doesn't say how old the Earth is, the Foundation
doesn't say how long it took God to make the world.
Rod Liddle:
The Bible does say of course that the world was created in 6 days,
doesn't it?
Nigel McQuoid:
It does.
Rod Liddle:
What about when they come & ask you about that?
Nigel McQuoid:
I would say to the kids, well the Bible says it was created in 6
days, so you either believe that is an allegory or factual or
whatever you want to believe.
Rod Liddle:
But hang on a minute, are you saying to them that these 2 ideas are
equally valid?
Nigel McQuoid:
The 2 ideas that one says …
Rod Liddle (interrupting)
The 2 ideas that 1 says 6 days, the other (clicks fingers) big bang.
Nigel McQuoid:
No, I say its complicated. If they said to me is it 6/24 hours Mr
McQuoid, I would say I can't prove that but do I believe it – I
believe the Bible.
Rod Liddle:
You Believe that the Earth was created in 6 days?
Nigel McQuoid:
I believe that's what the Bible says, yes I accept that.
Rod Liddle:
And you're the principal of a state school?
Nigel McQuoid:
Yeees And can I not have a view?
Rod Liddle
Yes, I can also have a view that your made of red Leicester cheese
but it would be fatuous.
Nigel McQuoid:
No, I think the nature of faith is that if the Bible says that the
world was made in however long, I've got a position where I believe
that or not.
Rod Liddle (interrupts)
Now come on
Nigel McQuoid (continues):
If you say I'm made of red Leicester cheese …
Rod Liddle (interrupts)
No, no, come on a minute. It is not fine to tell these children that
there is an equivalence, that I believe this, he believes that, make
your own mind up.
I believe your made of red Leicester cheese, someone else believes
your made of flesh & blood. Its an equivalence, make your own mind
up – it is an absurdity.
Nigel McQuoid:
But there are millions of people on the planet who believe God made
the world.
Rod Liddle:
There's a few million living in the (sounded like) appellations
backwoods of Kansas & Tennessee river valley.
Nigel McQuoid:
& me.
Rod Liddle:
And you, yes.
(pause) But you a clever man, a rational clever man.
Nigel McQuoid:
Apparently not.
Rod Liddle:
The head of a huge school, well of course you are. You must know
that the Earth was not created in 6 days. You must know that
dinosaurs & men were not running around at the same time together.
They weren't, we know that.
Nigel McQuoid:
Okay, you know that.
Rod Liddle:
But you don't, you think that they were running around together?
Nigel McQuoid:
I don't know whether they were running around together.
Rod Liddle:
Well if you believe 6 days, then they must have been because if day
4 was the animals or day 5, I forget what it was, then they must
have been together by about day 7.
Nigel McQuoid:
But now what we have is the scientists coming along & saying that
can't be scientifically true.
Rod Liddle:
But it isn't, that's why they are saying it. Although it could be
metaphorically true of course.
Nigel McQuoid:
Again & that would be to say that basically the Bible is a metaphor,
I actually believe not.
End Interview.
466
ukantic
Archbishop: stop teaching creationism
22/03/2006 00:20:00
Archbishop: stop teaching creationism
Williams backs science over Bible
Stephen Bates, religious affairs correspondent
Tuesday March 21, 2006
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has stepped into the
controversy between religious fundamentalists and scientists by saying
that he does not believe that creationism - the Bible-based account of
the origins of the world - should be taught in schools.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1735730,00.html
http://tinyurl.com/zeq82
467
Andrew
Re: Archbishop: stop teaching creationism
22/03/2006 00:52:00
Good. About time he stood up for sense and moderation. Maybe this'll help
the Church retain some credibility.
468
Dean Morrison
RE: Archbishop: stop teaching creationism
22/03/2006 02:04:00
Brilliant Ukantic!
not much time to comment here - but this is icredibly useful to us I think,
here is a comment I've just posted at the Panda's Thumb where this has also been noticed:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/03/another_radical.html#comment-88333
----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ukantic
Sent: 22 March 2006 00:20
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Archbishop: stop teaching creationism
Archbishop: stop teaching creationism
Williams backs science over Bible
Stephen Bates, religious affairs correspondent
Tuesday March 21, 2006
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has stepped into the
controversy between religious fundamentalists and scientists by saying
that he does not believe that creationism - the Bible-based account of
the origins of the world - should be taught in schools.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1735730,00.html
http://tinyurl.com/zeq82
----
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 2183 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!
469
Roger Stanyard
Re: Archbishop: stop teaching creationism
22/03/2006 14:14:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Morrison"
<deanmorrison@...> wrote:
>
> Brilliant Ukantic!
>
> not much time to comment here - but this is icredibly useful to us
I think,
>
Dean, Alan, etc.,
I agree but it still leaves open a lot of questions. My understanding
is that it is still open to individual bishops as to what view they
take both on creationism and teaching it in schools.
Moreover, it seems from what Rod Liddle is saying that the the CoE in
the UK is slowly being taken over by evangelicals and, of these, a
significant element are fundies.
As far as I can make out the influential vicar, David(?)Holloway, in
Newcastle, is a fundie; he has been closely associated with Nigel
McQuoid (and, therefore Peter Vardy). McQuoid is a hard-line fundie
(as extreme as they get). Holloway, again as far as I can see, is the
brains behind the Christian Institute in Newcastle. That looks to
also be very anti-liberal and appears to have about
10,000 "adherents".
Nor do I know where the funding for the Christian Institute comes
from. I doubt whether much comes from Jesmond where Holloway is vicar.
The Bishop of Oxford, who has come down heavily against creation and
appears, amongst the lot, to be the closest "on-side" is only a few
months away from retirement. In any case, his star appears to have
been on the wane for some years because of his attempt to appoint a
gay priest as the Bishop of Reading.
One minor point is that I understand that 26 Anglican bishops sit in
the House of Lords but only five for life. Those five are the most
senior (the two archbishops and the bishops of London, Durham and
Winchester). The others only sit in the Lords for their duration as
bishops.
My position is that I would like to see the CoE on-side, so to speak,
in the cultural wars between fundies and science. Alas I don't trust
it in these matters, despite what Williams has just stated.
Holloway opposed the ordination of Williams as archbishop of
Cantebury, btw. From memory he was co-signatory of a letter to Tony
Blair which opposed the move.
Finally, Rod Little's recent programme on fundamentalism generated a
lot of complaints to Channel 4. Unless that was generated by some
opinionated trash in the Daily Mail, I suspect that the complainst
may have been coordinated. Any ideas who was behind this? Stephen
Green? The Christian Institute? AiG (which has an operation in
Leicester)?
Roger Stanyard
PS: Anyone know just what demonination Peter Vardy is?
470
ukantic
Clarke opposes creation teaching
22/03/2006 14:21:00
Clarke opposes creation teaching
By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent
(Filed: 22/03/2006)
Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, stepped into the controversy over
creationism yesterday by declaring that he was "totally opposed" to
the concept.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?
xml=/news/2006/03/22/nedu22.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/03/22/ixhome.html
http://tinyurl.com/kdqer
471
Andrew
Re: Re: Archbishop: stop teaching creationism
22/03/2006 14:38:00
I think you're absolutely right, unfortunately.
Fundamentalism is very seriously on the increase in the CofE. I wondered if
Rowan Williams would have the guts to make any kind of stand at all,
actually, as he needs to choose between trying to please a large and
aggressive part of the CofE or keeping the CofE in the areas of reason and
common sense.
My personal view is that if the fundamentalists get much stronger in the
CofE and in Britain generally, we can see a peak and then a very swift
decline as the tide turns against the CofE because of them. That could mean
the CofE ceasing to be part of the establishment within as little as ten
years. Williams may be the last, or penultimate, AofC of the established
Church in this country if the fundamentalists manage to drag the Church into
irrationality and lack of intellectual credibility. And they've already
lost so much ground with shallying over the results of recent theology and
Biblical studies that they're going to have to work virtual miracles to
close the massive gap between the healthy parts of the Church and the
general public's understanding what what the Church stands for.
There are still compromises and lines of stress in what the Archbishop has
said, but he's in a situation where massive strength of character and wisdom
would be needed to steer a course through the problems that are escalating
in the Church.
I remember being totally shocked and astounded by the sheer garbage my local
Bishop was coming out with not so long ago, and thinking `a fundamentalist
bishop? What's going on?' Just part of the rise of irrationalism and
intellectual dishonesty that's got us into this mess in our education system
and elsewhere.
472
ukantic
Re: Archbishop: stop teaching creationism
22/03/2006 14:58:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...>
wrote:
> As far as I can make out the influential vicar, David(?)Holloway,
in
> Newcastle, is a fundie; he has been closely associated with Nigel
> McQuoid (and, therefore Peter Vardy). McQuoid is a hard-line
fundie
> (as extreme as they get). Holloway, again as far as I can see, is
the
> brains behind the Christian Institute in Newcastle. That looks to
> also be very anti-liberal and appears to have about
> 10,000 "adherents".
>
> Nor do I know where the funding for the Christian Institute comes
> from. I doubt whether much comes from Jesmond where Holloway is
vicar.
There are strong links between the two organisations. For example,
from memory, Holloway is a Governor of Emmanuel College & member of
the Christian Institute. Burns is a Founding member of the Christian
Institute & educational advisor for the Emmanuel Schools Foundation.
At a guess, Vardy is probably financing the CI as well.
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,5500,664608,00.html
> Finally, Rod Little's recent programme on fundamentalism generated
a
> lot of complaints to Channel 4. Unless that was generated by some
> opinionated trash in the Daily Mail, I suspect that the complainst
> may have been coordinated. Any ideas who was behind this? Stephen
> Green? The Christian Institute? AiG (which has an operation in
> Leicester)?
Steven Green is a possibility but other organisations use similar
tactics such as mass e-mail protests.
http://blogs.salon.com/0003494/2006/03/13.html
Here is a letter I wrote to the NSS on the subject a bit back.
Now that the dust is finally beginning to settle around the Springer
Show controversy, I would like to point out what I consider some of
the more worrying aspects of this episode.
Firstly, it is obvious that the campaign against the show was an
organised affair, lead by some of the more extreme Christian
organisations, such as Christian Voice. In contrast to previous
events, most of the complaints were received before the show, rather
than as normally happens, after it. This is strange, as obviously
most of the complainants would not have had the opportunity to see
what they were supposed to be complaining about.
Most of the complaints were received by e-mail, which suggests the
possibility that they were not individual responses, but were the
result of a, "chain e-mail" originating from just one or two main
sources. Anyone can bulk e-mail a message to all members of an
organisation and then ask them to copy and paste it into a new
message, as well as pass it on. The resultant avalanche of e-mails
may look impressive, but such underhand activity seriously distorts
the true picture.
Such manipulation brings the complaints procedures into disrepute
and seriously damages their effectiveness. In addition, it would not
always be easy to determine duplication as it would be a trivial
matter to construct an algorithm that automatically generated
apparently unique responses from a "master" letter.
Secondly, the number of swear words reported was wildly exaggerated
by taking a single swear word sung by the choir & then multiplying
it by the number of people in the choir. These exaggerated figures
were then widely reported in the press. Are the facts going to be
misrepresented every time there is a controversy such as this, with
these religious fanatics & a biased press reporting deliberate lies?
Thirdly, I am concerned by the threats & intimidation that appears
to becoming a feature of these issues. This incident and the one at
the Birmingham theatre, both have the curious feature that no one in
authority considers it necessary to condemn such conduct. Football
hooligans and rioters will find their mug shots splashed all over
the papers. However, religious thuggery appears to be something to
be ignored. This is an attitude that surely only encourages it.
It is obvious from the emotive language used, that Christian Voice
were inciting its members in a way that could have resulted in
violence. Having published the home phone numbers of the BBC staff
involved it was inevitable what the outcome was going to be. It is
completely unacceptable for these people to then feign innocence and
try to shift the blame on to third parties. They and they alone were
responsible for the threats made to BBC staff and families; to
blame "non-Christians" just shows how dishonest they really are.
None of this bodes well for the future. These people appear to be
determined and fanatical; they are not only willing to misuse the
complaints system and lie, but also it seems, to incite violence to
get their way. Given the Government's insistence (in the face of
widespread opposition) on pushing ahead with its bill on Incitement
to Religious Hatred, you would have thought that they would clamp
down hard on this type of activity.
Perhaps the NSS should be reminding the Government about this. And
also contacting the BBC, asking if they, in all seriousness, can
justify a figure of 50,000 complaints about the Springer Show. I
have read that the BBC received 19 written complaints about it;
perhaps if we add on Christian Voice's original e-mail, the true
figure would be much nearer 20. This issue is worth investigating
further and has the potential to discredit many of the show's
critics.
Alan.
473
Roger Stanyard
Re: Archbishop: stop teaching creationism
22/03/2006 16:06:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@...> wrote:
>
Hum,
It's clear that I need to look into the CofE a lot more. In the
meanwhile, at least one CofE priest appears to be on our side.
Roger Stanyard
Here is a letter that appeared in today's Guardian:
Your reference to Archbishop Rowan Williams' critique of what you
call "the Bible-based account of the origins of the world" has
confused the debate over "creationism", giving the impression that
the archbishop has opted for "science" against the Bible (Archbishop:
stop teaching creationism, March 21). Biblical fundamentalism - of
which literalism has been a variable part - is a late 19th-century
north American mutant of Christianity. The word fundamentalism was
not widely known till the 1920s. Earlier Christian thinkers had a
much more intelligent sense of the place of symbol and myth in the
Bible. By his statement the archbishop is reasserting the richness of
orthodoxy against the ignorance and narrowness of this very modern,
unintelligent and untraditional literalism.
Rev Dr Kenneth Leech
Ashton Under Lyne, Tameside
474
ukantic
Ministers under fire over academy plans (24 Mar 06)
25/03/2006 11:43:00
Ministers under fire over academy plans (24 Mar 06)
http://www.sunderlandtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=1107&ArticleID=1401\
257
http://tinyurl.com/jv9re
GOVERNMENT officials today came under fire for censoring documents on
the creation of academies on Wearside.
Education chiefs are awaiting a Government decision on their
joint-sponsored city academies at Pennywell as well as Hylton Red
House and Castle View.
Sunderland's own vision – part of a £95million bid to create new
schools across the city under Building Schools for the Future (BSF) –
wants to see private firms invest up to £2million to co-run schools
with the council, under its own rules.
It's the only proposal of its kind in the UK.
Last year, in documents obtained by the Echo under Freedom of
Information, it emerged that Ministers had key concerns over
Sunderland's flagship plans and its opposition to Sir Peter Vardy's
Emmanuel Schools Foundation.
Now officials at the Department of Education have refused to make
public swathes of correspondence on Sunderland's Building Schools for
the Future and academies, outlining how education chiefs arrived at
their decision.
Material exempt under the ban include mundane details of lunch
appointments and train journeys from London to Sunderland.
Others, detailing emails between the Department for Education and
Sunderland Council, Schools Secretary Lord Adonis and Council leader
Bob Symonds, have been kept under wraps.
A spokesman said despite a "general public interest", officials needed
"space to explore different options."
He added: "The impartiality may be undermined if advise is routinely
made public and there is a risk that officials could come under
political pressure."
Robert Oliver, Sunderland's Conservative education spokesman, said: "I
am concerned that not enough information is getting out.
"The time to have a debate is when all the issues have come out.
People, generally, are unsure. We need to have the facts."
475
ukantic
Scots church leader joins row over teaching of creationism in schools
25/03/2006 12:03:00
Scots church leader joins row over teaching of creationism in schools
STEPHEN MCGINTY (22 Mar 06)
THE leader of the Scottish Episcopal Church said yesterday that
creationism should not be taught in schools and that a "false
battleground" was pitting science against faith.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=448232006
476
ukantic
British leaders continue to speak out against creationism
25/03/2006 14:30:00
The Daily Dose: British leaders continue to speak out against creationism
Following in the path of the Rt. Rev. Rowan Williams, leading Britons
ratchet up the anti-creationist rhetoric
By Matt Donnelly
(March 23, 2006)
http://www.stnews.org/commentary-2726.htm
477
ukantic
A battle that is all of their own creation
25/03/2006 14:28:00
A battle that is all of their own creation
Ron Ferguson (23 Mar 06)
http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/58656.html
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face
of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Thus run the first three verses of the Book of Genesis – part of the
Hebrew scriptures that are foundational for Judaism, Christianity and
Islam. In the King James Version, they are majestic and poetic lines –
but are they science?
< End extract >
Interesting article, shame that by page 3 he began to sound like Nigel
McQuoid: "Dogmatic high priests", now where have I heard that type of
language before!
478
ukantic
And on the eighth day Blair created academies
25/03/2006 15:07:00
The following press report is unique. It is unique because it is the
first report in a UK local paper that is genuinely critical of
teaching creationism in schools. Up until this, local press reports
have given far too much credence to the statements issued by
politicians, councillors & representatives of sponsors, who naturally
enough deliberately play down all negative aspects of the creationism
issue whilst simultaneously promoting the view that these schools are
the best thing since sliced bread.
Could this possibly be a result of Rod Liddle's C4 program, is it &
other recent comments by politicians & religious leaders the first
crack in the Teflon coated public image of the fundies?
And on the eighth day Blair created academies
Mar 20 2006
http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/
tm_objectid=16835572&method=full&siteid=50002&headline=---and-on-
the-eighth-day-blair-created-academies-name_page.html
http://tinyurl.com/zvy7b
Plain Speaking From Ex-Teacher Brenda Bullock
More than a hundred years ago, Edmund Gosse published a memoir -
Father & Son - of his relationship with his father, Philip, an eminent
Victorian biologist.
His father was a fanatical Christian fundamentalist who saw his career
unravel because of the new theories of evolution of Charles Darwin.
Although he intellectually knew as a scientist that Darwin's theory
was correct, he could not let go of his deeply held religious faith,
which taught that the world was only a few thousand years old, was
created in six days along with all the creatures that now inhabit it.
He preferred, as his son said, "the servitude of error" to "a flood of
light;" everyone had to hold that belief as he "had no concept of the
importance of liberty".
What it was that brought the book to my mind was the revelation that
in Middlesbrough there are three new "academy" schools, paid for and
run by car dealer Peter Vardy, who is an avowed Christian
fundamentalist and believer in the same myths Gosse's father adhered
to a hundred years ago.
The headmaster he has appointed to run his schools also holds the same
views and the creationist theory is taught as fact in all three
schools. It is even claimed that teachers in the schools are appointed
for their adherence to the religious dogma rather than for their
skills as teacher.
I realise that a good many people who have no religious affiliations
or belief are prone to say, when faced with unruly teenagers, that
they could all do with a dose of "good old Christian ethics". But I
hardly think that even these people could approve of having three such
state secondary schools without any consultation with the parents
about what was to be taught in the school, the ethos of the school or
the fact that no alternative choice of school was offered.
Should we be alarmed that Tony Blair, himself blinded by ideas of the
benefits of religion, should allow groups to set up "faith" schools,
naively failing to understand just how much scope that gives to
religious zealots to get at children in their formative years and
brainwash them into all manner of ideas about the world and other people?
Has he learned nothing from Northern Ireland, where for many years
children have been brainwashed into believing that those of the
"wrong" religion are inferior?
It is no use expecting Ofsted to rescue children from such regimes and
prevent this shutting down of children's minds in the name of "faith".
After all, these three schools get 96 per cent of their pupils through
five good GCSE passes and are therefore acclaimed as proof of the
success of the "academy" system.
Does Ofsted care that parents allege that, in addition to unacceptable
Bible-bashing, children are regimented and watched constantly, not
even allowed to leave the classroom to go to the toilet or change a
soiled sanitary towel?
Or that the good results come from the practice of permanently
excluding significant numbers of children, not because of bad
behaviour but because they are considered not clever enough to pass
five GCSE subjects?
Does it not seem a bit fishy that children are taught creationism as
well as Darwin's theory but are told by teachers only to mention
Darwin in their exams? Could it be that they don't want examining
boards to become alarmed at what is being taught in these schools?
All this I find very disturbing. During the 40 years that I taught it
was a constant battle against the loony left Marxists to influence
(and destroy) education in this country.
Are we to have for the next 40 years religious extremists moulding our
children's minds and setting the curriculum in state schools?
Blair might ponder on the following: "Bad men do evil; good men do
good; only religion makes good men do evil".
479
Roger Stanyard
Re: A battle that is all of their own creation
25/03/2006 18:06:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@...> wrote:
>
Worse still, Ferguson is just plain wrong. He states that scientists
have turned Evolutionary Theory into a theory of everything. They
haven't.
Roger Stanyard
> A battle that is all of their own creation
> Ron Ferguson (23 Mar 06)
>
> http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/58656.html
>
> In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
> And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the
face
> of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the
waters.
> And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
>
> Thus run the first three verses of the Book of Genesis – part of the
> Hebrew scriptures that are foundational for Judaism, Christianity
and
> Islam. In the King James Version, they are majestic and poetic
lines –
> but are they science?
>
> < End extract >
>
> Interesting article, shame that by page 3 he began to sound like
Nigel
> McQuoid: "Dogmatic high priests", now where have I heard that type
of
> language before!
>
480
ukantic
Observer letter
27/03/2006 15:55:00
Your letters
Sunday March 26, 2006
The Observer
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,1739800,00.html
In your front-page article, 'Academy backer named as new Blair "secret
loan" source' (News, last week), you say Andrew Rosenfeld 'has funded
one of Tony Blair's controversial city academies'.
This contributes to the erroneous impression that these 'contributors'
have a greater role in the financing of academies than is the case.
In most instances, they contribute around 8 per cent, the rest being
paid by the government. This I would put under the heading of a
'top-up' rather than 'backing or funding'.
Indeed, I am bemused by the prominence these donors receive, not just
in the press, but in the running of the schools, as evidenced by the
apparent influence of Sir Peter Vardy in the north east.
In any other undertaking, would a share of less than 10 per cent allow
the holder to have a direct influence on policy?
Jonathan Cahill
London NW1
481
ukantic
Unknown group to take over school in city
27/03/2006 19:34:00
Unknown group to take over school in city
James Reed
Education Correspondent (22 Mar 06)
http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=1084&
ArticleID=1393656
http://tinyurl.com/ryxmz
THE director of education in Bradford claimed yesterday that the
Government's decision to announce the replacement of a school with a
city academy came "out of the blue."
He also confirmed the council had "never heard" of the British
Edutrust Foundation, the group intending to sponsor the new academy.
482
Mikey Brass
Re: Unknown group to take over school in city
27/03/2006 23:44:00
Why allow donators, who only make up some 10-odd percent of the overall
budget assigned to the new school, to have such an influential role to
play? Why not upgrade the existing facilities? It makes no sense and
commercialises education.
483
Roger Stanyard
The Root of All Evil
06/04/2006 12:18:00
I have posted this message to Debunkcreation and the NSS Yahoo Group
(albeit with a couple of modifications):
I watched the first of Richard Dawkin's programmes, Root of All Evil?
last night and have to say that it showed fundies in an extremely bad
light. Dembski might be crowing but I think Dawkins showed truely
frightening examples of fundamentalism.
He interviewed Pastor Ted Haggard, a big-time nutter from Colorado
Springs, after which Haggard spectacularly lost his cool and
threatened Dawkins with the police if he didn't get off the church
premises immediately (Dawkins had been invited there in the first
place).
Haggard came over as an extremely opinionated, uneducated, blaggard
and bully. He exuded menace - this is a man who has a weekly
videoconference with Dubya. Haggard is clearly a thoroughly nasty
piece of work.
Dawkins went on to interview atheists/agnostics in Colorado Springs
who were frightened of the fundies. They were basically meeting in
secret because they feared, for example, losing their jobs.
Dawkins also interviewed an American Jew who had converted to Islam.
He made Osama bin Laden look like a moderate - English girls deserved
to be killed because they were all whores, for example.
There is no doubt that Dawkins had problems in handling both. Haggard
attacked Dawkins on the grounds that he was arrogant because he
belived in science; Haggard also rolled out the old saw about the
human eye being evidence that ET was wrong. Dawkins couldn't get a
word in edgeways.
It was clear that Dawkins viewed Haggard with incredulity (as did I).
Dawkins, rightly, in my view, also told Haggard that his organisation
was like the Nuremberg rallies of the 1930s.
Haggard would be made mincemeat of if he started posting
his "science" to this group. I guess, though, he is too busy building
his empire of hell here on earth to do so.
If Dembski is gloating about Dawkins, me thinks it says more about
Dembski's faulty judgement than Dawkin's innocuous and unremarkable
(by UK standards) religious views.
Roger Stanyard
PS the first of Dawkin's programmes is a lot better than the second.
It's the worst advertisement I have ever seen for fundamentalism and
a must watch. There was also not a black face to be seen amongst
Haggard's church congregation (several thousand), btw. The US fundies
are basically racist.
484
Mikey Brass
Re: The Root of All Evil
06/04/2006 12:28:00
> Haggard came over as an extremely opinionated, uneducated, blaggard
> and bully. He exuded menace - this is a man who has a weekly
> videoconference with Dubya. Haggard is clearly a thoroughly nasty
> piece of work.
Hmmmm...he is only 50 so many more years of destruction lay ahead. He is
ugly enough to be mentioned here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard . He is a complete fruitbasket.
485
ukantic
Debate about creation
06/04/2006 17:29:00
Debate about creation
By Nikki Masters (6 April 06)
http://www.blackpoolcitizen.co.uk/display.var.726000.0.debate_about_c
reation.php
http://tinyurl.com/qst5k
Organisers of a controversial visit by a creationist to a Fylde
Coast school say they're keeping the location a secret to protect
staff and pupils from abuse.
Geologist John Mackay, who disputes the theory of evolution and
claims scientific evidence for the Biblical version of creation,
will visit three local churches in May, and one secondary school the
identity of which is being kept under wraps by organisers.
One worried Citizen reader contacted the paper to say: "Why is the
location being kept secret? Why are parents, teachers and governors
not being informed? Why is a man whose background cannot be verified
being given three day access to a secondary school?"
She feared science teachers would not be properly prepared to
counter Australian Mr Mackay's creationist arguments.
She added: "It's clearly a religious belief, which people are
entitled to hold.
"However it's often used to undermine science, and that bothers me."
Scientists and religious groups in parts of the United States have
been wrangling for some time over whether or not creationism should
be taught in the classroom alongside Darwin's theory of evolution.
The Fylde Coast school in question is thought to be in Wyre.
Lancashire County Council the authority responsible for Wyre's state
schools could not confirm any school visits by Mr Mackay as the
Citizen went to press.
Randall Hardy, a spokesman for Mr Mackay's Creation Research
organisation, blamed atrociously poor levels of journalism in the
national media' for moves to keep the school's identity under wraps.
He told The Citizen: "Once a paper identifies the school, it could
be very easily be inundated with inquiries from journalists who have
political axes to grind."
He added: "There is a tendency in the British media not to be
interested in facts when it comes to reporting on challenges to
evolutionary dogma.
"Instead, there is a rush to ridicule anyone who is prepared to
allow the challenges to evolution to be discussed publicly.
"You only need to look at the way schools like Emmanuel College,
Gateshead, have been vilified over the last five years by one
atheist after another in a collection of daily papers and TV
programmes, to appreciate what I mean."
In March 2002, Emmanuel College was slammed by Oxford University
genetics author, Professor Richard Dawkins, for teaching ludicrous
falsehoods' because creationism was included in the curriculum.
But Fylde Coast churches believe Mr Mackay's tour will provoke
healthy debate.
Paul Clemence, vicar of St John Church, Little Thornton, said the
visit would be part of a regular topical discussion evening open to
all.
He said: "Christian thought is enthusiastic about engaging with
modern scientific hypotheses, not in an aggressive debate, but in a
genuine search for truth that seeks answers."
John Mackay will visit St Annes Baptist Church, St Annes, on May 9,
St Thomas Church, Blackpool on May 10, and St John's Church,
Thornton on May 11. All talks start at 7.30pm.
2:58pm today
486
Roger Stanyard
Re: Debate about creation
07/04/2006 10:11:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@...> wrote:
>
> Debate about creation
>
> By Nikki Masters (6 April 06)
>
>
http://www.blackpoolcitizen.co.uk/display.var.726000.0.debate_about_c
> reation.php
>
To say that there is something wrong with what is going on here is an
understatement of all time.
John Mackay is a hardline, crackpot, extreme religious
fundamentalist. His views are in complete contradiction to scientific
evidence and mainstream religious beliefs. Despite claims that he is
a geologist and geneticist, he is, by profession, a school teacher
and full time proselytiser. He is (full time) international director
of a Queensland, Australia, outfit called Creation Research
International.
Yet Mackay has gained access to a secondary school to teach for three
full days. Nobody knows in what subjects he is going to teach – is it
in the science (or geology or geography) classes or the RE classes?
The movement he represents is both highly political and extremely
right wing. It is far from being politically neutral. The
fundamentalist movement, of which Mackay is a leading advocate, is
closely associated with racism, homophobia and, in the USA, hard
right Republican politics. CRI is an offshoot of the American Answers
in Genesis organisation.
Nobody is allowed to know what school is involved – not the parents
of the children at the school, not the public who are paying for the
school, not the school governors. All are totally in the dark.
Parents have not been consulted about what is a massively
controversial issue.
Nobody knows if the school is CofE or RC, both denominations of which
reject creationism outright as in breach of their faiths.
Nobody is in a position to provide the pupils with the honest view of
science. We can't send relevant books to the school's library (we
don't know what school is involved). The British Association can't
advise the science teachers in the school how to counter-argue the
creationist fruitcake theory. The public can't organise a
demonstration…
Nobody knows whether Mackay or other such creationists, such as Ken
Ham, will be flogging their religious and scientific nonsense in
other state schools.
Then there is the whinging, diddums, attack on the media. All the
media are atheists and therefore totally incompetent. So the
creationists are therefore totally justified in keeping their
activities secret and away from the public eye even though they are
directed at the public. Democracy is therefore rubbish.
Then there is the claim that the teachers and pupils need to be
protected from public opinion about the controversy, as if the
public, like the media, are also dangerous, evil and stupid.
Creation Research's view is that it appears to want freedom to teach
nonsense, unaccountably, to impressionable children but the rest of
the world is too irresponsible to express its own views.
And, finally, the local CofE clergy believe it is all OK.
Roger Stanyard
487
ukantic
Curb influence of religions in schools, says NUT
07/04/2006 21:30:00
Curb influence of religions in schools, says NUT
Rebecca Smithers, education editor
Friday April 7, 2006
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1748953,00.html
Teachers are to call for an end to state funding for faith schools in
an attempt to halt the growing influence of religious organisations in
education and end the controversial teaching of creationism.
488
ukantic
Re: Debate about creation
07/04/2006 21:42:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@> wrote:
> >
> > Debate about creation
> >
> > By Nikki Masters (6 April 06)
> >
> >
>
http://www.blackpoolcitizen.co.uk/display.var.726000.0.debate_about_c
> > reation.php
> >
> To say that there is something wrong with what is going on here is
an
> understatement of all time.
>
I e-mailed this off last night to the letters section of the
Blackpool Citizen
Sir,
I wish to comment on your recent article, "debate about creation" in
which it is stated the creationist John Mackay will visit a
secondary school in this area.
Firstly, there is absolutely no debate within the mainstream
scientific community over the soundness of the theory of evolution.
Although there may be disagreement about relatively minor details,
the core principles are widely accepted & are confirmed by a massive
amount of evidence stretching across many disciplines.
This is the message that we should be sending to our schoolchildren,
not the pathetic nonsense preached by a fundamentalist from
Australia.
Secondly, I am appalled by the deceitful rhetoric of John Mackay. He
seems to be deliberately creating the impression that he & other
creationists are subject to victimisation, talking for example of
abuse & vilification.
They are the ones going out of their way to impose their discredited
& extreme views on other people's children & I am amazed that they
feel they should be allowed to do so without criticism.
In a circular distributed by John Mackay's organisation, they speak
of spending three days in a state school near Blackpool. If this is
allowed to happen then the children concerned will have their
understanding of modern biology & geology seriously undermined.
Although the creationists are trying to keep the exact location of
the school a secret, I would nevertheless urge all concerned parents
to make their disapproval known at their school.
If these people are so sure that they can prove that the universe
was created as described in the Bible, then they should present
their arguments through the normal scientific channels of peer
review, etc, rather than trying to force them onto schoolchildren.
Alan.
489
Andrew
Re: Re: Debate about creation
07/04/2006 22:28:00
----- Original Message -----
From: ukantic
> I e-mailed this off last night to the letters section of the
> Blackpool Citizen....
Superb. You've hit every nail perfectly on the head.
490
Roger Stanyard
Re: Debate about creation
08/04/2006 00:03:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" <taoist.hermit1@...> wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: ukantic
>
> > I e-mailed this off last night to the letters section of the
> > Blackpool Citizen....
>
> Superb. You've hit every nail perfectly on the head.
Seconded
Roger Stanyard
491
Roger Stanyard
The New Fundamentalists
08/04/2006 13:32:00
FYI: There is currently a substantial and lively debate on Ron Liddle's
programme, The New Fundamentalists, on the Channel 4 web site. The URL
is
http://community.channel4.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/69460501/m/18800461
24.
Sorry, I don't yet know how to create a tinyURL.
Roger Stanyard
492
oeditor
Re: The New Fundamentalists
08/04/2006 13:58:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry, I don't yet know how to create a tinyURL.
>
Just copy the url from the address slot at the top of your browser.
Then go to tinyurl.com and paste it into the slot there. Click on
"make TinyURL" and Bob's your uncle. You can then copy and paste the
tinyurl into your post. If you're using IE4 or later, the tinyurl goes
straight to your clipboard for pasting.
Brian
493
Roger Stanyard
More on John Mackay''s Con Job
09/04/2006 11:31:00
From today's Observer. I've crossed posted this to debunkcreation.
Note that Mackay is now expected to push his hocus-pokus in several
secondary schools names of which continue to be with-held from the
parents of children involved and the general public.
M<arc Draco over on the NSS group has found that a creationist nutter
has been appointed as a governor of the state-owned and secular state
school which his daughter attends.
These people are getting themselves organised :-(
Roger Stanyard
Creationist to tour UK universities
Jamie Doward, home affairs editor
Sunday April 9, 2006
The Observer
A leading member of the controversial creationist movement who claims
to use science to dismiss evolution is to visit Britain on a lecture
tour that will include several schools and universities.
The tour comes after teaching unions warned that creationism - which
rejects Darwin's theory of natural selection and insists that God
created the world in six days - is creeping into Britain's classrooms
and lecture halls.
John Mackay, an Australian geologist whose claims that the Earth's
crust provides evidence for the biblical flood have earned him a
global following, will tour the UK this month. He has already been
signed up to speak at St Andrews, Bangor and Northamptonshire
universities and plans to give speeches at a number of secondary
schools, including one on the Fylde coast in Lancashire, as well as
visiting British churches.
Randall Hardy, Mackay's spokesman, expressed dismay that leading
creationist sceptics, such as the zoologist, Richard Dawkins, had
declined invitations to debate the issue. 'Most of the people who
make a hue and cry about creationism are out-and-out atheists,' Hardy
said. 'They don't want the issue to be debated.'
As its supporters have become more vocal, creationism has become an
increasingly contentious subject in the UK. The Archbishop of
Canterbury recently warned that creationism should not be taught in
schools, and the National Union of Teachers last week demanded new
laws to prevent the teaching of creationism in science lessons.
Mackay's views have also been attacked by teaching unions and secular
groups. 'The authorities must put a stop to these groups sneaking
into schools,' said Terry Sanderson of the National Secular
Society. 'The secrecy surrounding this visit means parents and pupils
have no say in whether they want to be part of this barmy creationist
agenda.'
494
jbs13uk
Steve Jones webcast: creationism/evolution Tues11Apr06
10/04/2006 22:31:00
Source: http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=4110
"Next live Webcast: Why creationism is wrong and evolution is right
Webcast commences: 1730GMT / 1830BST Tuesday 11th April
Intro:Many biologists are worried by a recent and unexpected return of
an argument based on belief by the certainty, untestable and
unsupported by evidence, that life did not evolve but appeared by
supernatural means. Worldwide, more people believe in creationism than
in evolution.
Why do no biologists agree? Steve Jones will talk about what evolution
is, about new evidence that men and chimps are close relatives and
about how we are, nevertheless, unique and why creationism does more
harm to religion than it does to science."
495
Mikey Brass
Re: Steve Jones webcast: creationism/evolution Tues11Apr06
10/04/2006 22:40:00
I saw today that one of the columnists in the Daily Mail argued for ID...
496
Mikey Brass
Online archaeology courses
10/04/2006 22:41:00
Dear all,
I am going to be offering two online archaeology courses for anyone
interested. The first course details the whole timespan of human
evolution and the second examine the archaeology of Ancient Egypt:
1. Human evolution
It is an eight week course, starting on 28 May. Details on the content
of this course and its cost are available at
http://www.antiquityofman.com/course_worldarchaeology.html .
2. Ancient Egyptian archaeology
It takes place over 6 weeks, also from 28 May. The cost and details are
available at http://www.antiquityofman.com/course_AE_general.html .
Please feel free to contact me offline for any queries.
--
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)
497
oeditor
Re: Steve Jones webcast: creationism/evolution Tues11Apr06
10/04/2006 23:33:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <mike@...> wrote:
>
> I saw today that one of the columnists in the Daily Mail argued for
ID...
>
I can't find it on their site - have you a url please?
TIA
Brian
498
jbs13uk
Re: Steve Jones webcast: creationism/evolution Tues11Apr06
11/04/2006 00:13:00
I reckon Mikey's talking about the latest polemic from Melanie "MMR"
Phillips. I can't find a link on the DM website but I'll have the
chance to scan the article tomorrow (Tues) so if it hasn't appeared
I'll upload it for you to read.
J.
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <mike@> wrote:
> >
> > I saw today that one of the columnists in the Daily Mail argued for
> ID...
> >
> I can't find it on their site - have you a url please?
> TIA
> Brian
>
499
jbs13uk
Steve Jones on Radio 4 last Sun
11/04/2006 02:19:00
Here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/sunday/archive/index.shtml
Sunday 9 April: Creationism, 7mins.
Incidentally, if you're not already aware of this ...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/details.aspx?Event_ID=2460
500
ukantic
Creationists target schools and universities in Britain
11/04/2006 12:18:00
Creationists target schools and universities in Britain
Theological news from ekklesia 10/04/06
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_060410creation.shtml
http://tinyurl.com/q8w8z
An figure associated with a controversial creationist movement which
claims to use science against evolution is visiting Britain on a
lecture tour that will include several schools and universities, the
Observer newspaper has reported.
