51
Peter Foster
Vardy discussion on today board
17/03/2005 20:08:00
A discussion is on the today board about Vardy:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-perl/h2/h2.cgi?state=view&thread=%
3C1111051036-13863.1%40forum2.mh.bbc.co.uk%
3E&board=today.day&sort=Te&offset=0
52
blackshadowcouk
Re: Vardy discussion on today board
17/03/2005 23:41:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Foster"
<peterfoster@t...> wrote:
>
> A discussion is on the today board about Vardy:
>
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-perl/h2/h2.cgi?state=view&thread=%
> 3C1111051036-13863.1%40forum2.mh.bbc.co.uk%
> 3E&board=today.day&sort=Te&offset=0
They are interesting Peter, (reference last 2 posts) for the
records, I am going to tidy them up.
Post 1
Vardy hunting 01 – the beginning
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/A3796293
Vardy hunting 02 – my e-mails
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/A3796707
Vardy hunting 03 – responses
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/A3796734
And discussion about above, at:
http://tinyurl.com/5mxkc
Then post 2
http://tinyurl.com/4tafy
I am particularly interested in this bit:
At the end of the discussion about City Academies, Sir Peter Vardy
categorically denied that creationism is taught at Emmanuelle
College, Gateshead (which started as a CTC, by the way). I have no
direct knowledge about their current schemes of work, but I was at a
meeting led by their head of science about four years ago and I can
assure you that they were teaching it then. In fact, he was trying
to make the case for us all to do it. We also saw their schemes of
work, which stressed the need for staff to push the Bible
interpretation of science at every opportunity.
Do you know G. H & would he allow me to use that on my website do
you think?
Alan
53
blackshadowcouk
The Vardy Foundation not teaching creationism.
17/03/2005 23:51:00
Barry Sheerman, Chairman of the Education Select Committee, explains
why sponsorship of schools by city academies is a bad idea. Sir
Peter Vardy is a sponsor.
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today3_education_2
0050317.ram>
17 March 05
I have managed to write some of this interview down.
To build an academy costs £21,000 per pupil compared with
£14,000 for a new secondary school.
PV – "City Academies are only offered to the worst performing
schools in the country"
BS – "In the best pilot, we would compare an academy with
sponsors & without sponsors".
PV – "I haven't introduced creationism, that is an
absolute fallacy"
Interviewer – "I understand it happened at Emmanuel
College".
PV – "No it did not".
BS – "I can agree with Peter, I have been there, we've
talked about this – that is a daily mail story".
For as long as I have been investigating this, The Vardy Foundation
has been claiming they are not teaching creationism in their schools
or else that state that these claims have been exaggerated. There
are many problems with their denials. For instance:
If they are not teaching creationism in schools, then why do they
keep making statement's that indicate that they are. They are the
source of these stories & I find it irritating that they keep saying
one thing in one breath & the opposite in the next. I am now
starting work on the quotes section of Black Shadow & shortly
everyone will get to see exactly what I mean. Here is just one of
many examples.
'If we are educating children I think it is our duty to tell them
about both, absolutely. We tell them about Evolution and we tell
them about Creation. It's up to the children to make their minds
up.'
But what about the 200 years of evidence that proves Evolution as
fact?
'I think that is brainwashing.' Peter Vardy.
Teach the Controversy, Critical Thinking, etc are designed to
undermine a student's trust in evolution; they are tenets of
creationism & should not be allowed into science classes under any
circumstances. I think there is a very good possibility that these
are being taught to students.
TVF are masters of twisting & misconstruing things. There is a
possibility that when they say they are not teaching creationism,
they simply mean they are not teaching scientific creationism in
science classes but are teaching ID creationism instead.
You only have to go to to my FURL page at
www.furl.net/members/bsgroup
& examine the topic, Removed Curriculum, to see that the whole
curriculum is saturated in fundamentalist Christian beliefs. As far
as I am concerned (not wanting to split semantic hairs), anyone who
believes in biblical absolutism or literalism is a creationist &
should not be teaching children their extreme views.
I have been hearing that these teachers are being forced to sign
confidentiality agreements, which effectively gag them from ever
speaking about their experiences in these schools. If TVF really
have nothing to hide, then why are they doing this? It beggars
belief that any government in our democracy should be empowering
people & groups that display such authoritarian attitudes. It was
Nigel McQuoid who spoke of opposition to TVF's creationist
policies as, fascist, yet he is one of those responsible for
implementing some of these harsh policies. Such an example of
hypocrisy would be hard to beat.
Finally, even if it could be proved beyond any doubt that TVF were
not teaching students any form of creationism, then it would not
change a single thing in my eyes. They are still religious
extremists with an extreme right wing agenda & it is an absolute
disgrace that Tony Blair, leader of an apparently left wing
government should abuse his position of trust by giving control of
these schools to a bunch of loons.
Alan
54
blackshadowmeuk
Ian Brew on the "we are not teaching creationism debate"
18/03/2005 01:34:00
In 2002 the media placed the college at the centre of national
attention by claiming that creationism was taught exclusively at
Emmanuel. The reality is that college is one of the few schools in
the country to keep the National Curriculum which requires the
teaching of both sides of the creation vs. evolution debate.
Ian Brew
http://www.transforminglives.org.uk/downloads/EmGTP.pdf
55
Peter Foster
Re: Vardy discussion on today board
18/03/2005 07:25:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "blackshadowcouk" <alan@b...>
wrote:
>
> I am particularly interested in this bit:
>
> At the end of the discussion about City Academies, Sir Peter Vardy
> categorically denied that creationism is taught at Emmanuelle
> College, Gateshead (which started as a CTC, by the way). I have no
> direct knowledge about their current schemes of work, but I was at
a
> meeting led by their head of science about four years ago and I can
> assure you that they were teaching it then. In fact, he was trying
> to make the case for us all to do it. We also saw their schemes of
> work, which stressed the need for staff to push the Bible
> interpretation of science at every opportunity.
>
> Do you know G. H & would he allow me to use that on my website do
> you think?
Sorry I do not know G.H, you could try posting your question as a
reply to him on the Today board. The BBC do not like the posting of
non BBC addresses but search strings for google are ok.
Peter
56
Adam Tjaavk
The Bible vs the Volcano
19/03/2005 12:10:00
A New Screen Test for Imax:
It's the Bible vs the Volcano
Cornelia Dean |New York Times
The fight over evolution has
reached the big, big screen.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/19/national/19imax.html
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the perspicacious and preposterous
57
blackshadowcouk
BBC messageboard.
20/03/2005 22:07:00
Someone has posted the following piece of double-dutch on a BBC
messageboard:
http://tinyurl.com/5o7y2
// I think the denial that creationism was taught at Emmanuel
College was a bit specific. The last time I read a piece about the
college, it seemed that many staff shared the Christian commitment
of the Vardy Foundation and that - when National Curriculum science
was taught that might be in conflict with creationism - staff were
encouraged to stress this was only a theory and to state that there
was a alternative creationist view.
// Such a policy would push creationism forward as an option of at
least equal value to mainstream evolutionary theory without
actually 'teaching' creationism.
// The accusation of teaching creationism is - therefore - deniable
by the school.
This is going to be my reply:
Hang on a moment; if they are not teaching creationism in science
classes then they should not even be mentioning the subject at all.
If you are making children aware of creationism as an alternative to
evolution, then you are teaching them a falsehood, even if you do
not elaborate on it. There is no scientific alternative to the
theory of evolution & to state otherwise is to state an outright lie.
Intelligent design creationism (IDC), which has superseded its
discredited relative, scientific creationism is an American product
engineered to wedge its way into the mainstream American educational
system by circumventing the regulations that separate Church &
State. IDC's essential features are:
(1) The claim that it is not religion (i.e. "we are not teaching
creationism").
(2) Argument by Incredulity (life is too complex to have arisen by
chance), which was discredited 150 years ago.
(3) Irreducible Complexity (that complex biological systems cannot
arise from a series of simpler ones), which has also been thoroughly
discredited.
(4) A series of negative statements about the scientific validity of
evolution, designed to undermine a child's understanding of it &
to a lesser extent, other scientific disciplines such as cosmology &
geology.
If a teacher refers to another theory that competes with evolution;
even if the do not mention the Bible or go into details, then the
teacher IS teaching creationism. Because the only people who ever
want to talk about a challenge or alternative to evolution are
creationists!
If a teacher claims that evolution is, "only a theory", then
he or she IS teaching creationism. Most scientists consider
evolution to be such a well-established idea, that it is considered
by them to be a fact. It isn't, "only a theory",
suggesting that it is only a guess or a hunch, & the only people who
ever claim otherwise, are creationists.
If a teacher claims that that there is controversy surrounding
evolution (suggesting that evolution may be untrue) then the teacher
is wilfully misleading students. There may well be controversy
surrounding various issues within evolution; however, there is no
controversy amongst scientists over the occurrence of evolution.
Teach the Controversy is a prime tenet of intelligent design
creationism & is a term used exclusively by the creationist
movement. If a teacher teaches, Teach the Controversy, then that
teacher IS teaching creationism.
If a teacher tells students they need to think critically about
evolution, then again, the teacher is wilfully misleading them. Of
course, students need to think critically about all the information
they are presented with; however, creationists always insist on
singling out evolution for this critical thinking treatment when
there is absolutely no justification for doing so. The theory of
evolution has been extensively examined & revised to incorporate new
information as it arises. It has also been repeatedly challenged by
people & groups such as the creationists, yet has survived all these
challenges unscathed. By claiming students need to think critically
about evolution, the teacher is deliberately planting unwarranted
doubt about it in their minds.
Finally, if the Emmanuel's Schools foundation is not teaching
creationism to children, why have they made literally dozens of very
well documented statements claiming the exact opposite?
We should be handing the teaching of science back to the scientists,
rather then letting a bunch of right-wing fundamentalist fanatics
pontificate rubbish on a subject they do not understand & are
hostile too. It is incredible that the Government has allowed the
educational system of this country to get into this mess by handing
control of state schools to loons. It has made a grave error of
judgement & should stop issuing silly denials (the evidence is
incontrovertible) & do some something about rectifying the situation
before it can get any worse.
Alan.
I have a feeling I should have mentioned Dembski in there somewhere.
What would I call that, Argument by Improbability or Bullshitting by
Numbers!?
Beware the Black Shadow of Creationism.
www.blackshadow.co.uk
58
blackshadowmeuk
Top marks for sect schools that shun the modern world
21/03/2005 15:53:00
Passing this across from Debunk Creation. I had to check the date to
make sure it was not April the first.
It's official, Britain has lost its marbles re education. See here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1534692,00.html
By Tony Halpin, Education Editor
Top marks for sect schools that shun the modern world
A SECRETIVE religious sect that bans children from using computers or
reading fiction has won praise from Ofsted for the quality of
education provided by its schools.
The Exclusive Brethren, which also believes that members should not
go to university because it is too "worldly", runs 43 private schools
educating 1,400 children.
The group, an offshoot of the Evangelical Protestant Plymouth
Brethren, cuts itself off from the outside world, which it regards as
evil. Members are not allowed to have friends from outside the
Brethren. They work only in Brethren-owned businesses, and their
meeting halls have no windows. They must follow a rigid code of
behaviour set down by their leader, known as the "Elect Vessel".
Television, radio, mobile telephones, newspapers and going to places
of entertainment are all banned. Computers and the internet are
regarded as tools of the Devil.
All private schools are now required to register either with Ofsted
or the Independent Schools Council to show that they satisfy minimum
criteria for education, although they are not required to follow the
national curriculum. Ofsted has already accredited six of the
Brethren's schools through the Focus Learning Trust, an educational
group established by the church.
A spokesman for the trust said it hoped to have all of them
registered by the summer. He said that the schools observed the same
rules as the Brethren on the use of computers and modern technology.
"We don't have such things in our homes, we don't have them in our
businesses and we would not have them in our schools," he
said. "Children were educated extremely well, some would say better,
before such things were dreamt up. There is a general perception in
the educational world that the teacher who needs to employ such
gimmicks to get their message across is clearly not the most
committed teacher."
David Bell, the Chief Inspector of Schools in England, praised the
Exclusive Brethren in his annual report last month, in which he also
criticised Islamic schools for teaching a narrow curriculum that
posed a potential threat to Britain's sense of national identity.
The sect, which adheres to a strict interpretation of biblical
teaching, has most of its schools in the South of England. They were
set up to keep children "away from damaging influences" in the state
system.
Mr Bell said in his report that teaching in the Focus Learning
schools visited so far by inspectors was generally good. He went
on: "Focus Learning provides good support to its schools and has
developed a number of common policy documents that are of very good
quality . . . The quality of teaching, most of which is done by
experienced practitioners, is generally good."
Most of the schools, which cater for pupils aged 11 to 17, had
operated previously as tuition centres for children who were
otherwise taught at home. They rely on fees from parents or donations
from the Exclusive Brethren. Pupils are entered for GCSE and
vocational qualifications.
The Exclusive Brethren was founded in the mid 19th century. It
believes the world is the domain of the Devil, and members spend most
of their time in "safe places" such as meeting rooms and their own
homes.
Ofsted's praise of education standards at its schools has drawn
criticism. Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National
Secular Society, said: "Denying children access to knowledge that
would help them to cope in the modern world is tantamount to abuse.
"It will leave them ill-equipped to cope if they later decide that
life inside the Brethren is not for them. It is alarming that Ofsted,
in its keenness to accommodate religion, appears to have suspended
its critical faculties."
Doug Harris, director of the Reachout Trust charity, which provides
support for former members of religious sects, said: "The basis of
Exclusive Brethren belief is separation from the rest of the world.
It can be distressing for them if they try to leave."
SEPARATE LIVES
Members believe that the world is full of wickedness
Main group of Exclusive Brethren are called "Taylorites" after James
Taylor Sr and Jr, who led the sect for much of the last century
There are up to 15,000 Exclusive Brethren in Britain, with
congregations in 98 towns
Until recently, Brethren who left the sect, or "leavers", were
ostracised
Members must keep away from others who do not follow the teaching
Members must marry young and have big families
Men must be clean-shaven, keep hair short and not wear ties, while
women should keep hair uncut and wear blue or white headscarves
Worship is very simple with no ritual
And for a biting take on it:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-1532182,00.html
Oh, Lordy, what a school
by David Mattin
Ofsted has praised the educational policies of the Exclusive
Brethren. At an open day . . .
"GOOD morning . . . soldiers of evil," said the master, with his head
down. "I mean, non-brethren. With reluctance I welcome you to our
Exclusive Brethren school open — but not too open — day. I
hope that
during your visit you will feel only slightly guilty about your
sinful lives."
A small troupe of nervous parents and children followed him. On one
wall was an honour board entitled Best Bible Reader.
"I expect some of you are wondering about this," he continued from
behind a large, black screen. "This is to stop me inadvertently
looking into your eyes, which are those of the Devil. Right, let's
get going! First question?"
"It's awfully dark in here," volunteered one timid father.
"Yes. Well, at the Exclusive Brethren school we do not have windows,
which are a portal to the world of sin outside. I have not left this
building since 1908, but I hear that many beyond these walls have
also become disillusioned with windows, which, to confuse us, the
devil has called 98 or XP."
The crowd shuffled its feet before a concerned mother asked: "Will we
be able to contact our children via e-mail?"
"The internet," said the headmaster, "is a device created by Satan to
yoke together unbelievers. In www we see the stamp of the devil, and
it says: wicked, wicked, wicked."
A mother asked: "Do you do any sports? I don't want little Alfred's
health to suffer."
"Contrary to the teachings of the established churches, Our Lord did
not engage in sports, but we have a long traditionin the school game
of Second Coming Rounders, which works as normal but with bonus
points if Christ's reign on earth starts when your team is in to
bat."
"What about the syllabus?" asked a father. "Do you teach
mathematics?"
"Yes, but this is not some kind of university. When we do arithmetic,
it's never about money. One question might be: `If Matthew
contributes seven palm leaves, and Mark five, and an evildoer steals
two, how many are there?' Or: `If a twig burns in three minutes and a
bush has 30 twigs, how long does it take for the whole bush to
combust?' "
"What about lunch?" said one podgy boy. "Do we get chicken
drumsticks?"
"The words of Our Lord pertaining to school dinners were not
recorded, so we've taken a liberal view — allowing turnips and
carrots, so long as they come from our allotment and have not been
exposed to mobile phones."
"Is everything evil?" asked one father, crossly. "What on earth is
wrong with mobiles?"
"The Devil moves among us in radio-wave form, brother. Is not Orange
curiously close to another colour: red, the red heat of Hell?"
"What about discipline? Do you have expulsions?" said a primly
dressed man.
"We really don't do expulsions," said the headmaster. "The Lord has
already expelled us from The Garden. We prefer to call our method
excommunication." He smiled, then added: "You really have got the
wrong end of the stick, haven't you? Or should I say pitchfork?"
59
blackshadowmeuk
Talk reason updates
21/03/2005 16:08:00
Recent Talk Reason updates:
When the Moon is in the 7th House...
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Moon.cfm
By Steve Reuland
Steve Reuland reports in this essay on a obscure and obscurantist
website maintained by a group calling themselves Magi. Although
their stuff reads like a parody they seem to be serious in their
beliefs. In particular they adhere to a certain version of astrology
(the fallacy they unfortunately share with a substantial part of the
USA population, although their particular brand of astrology differs
in certain respects from the version propagated on the back pages of
many popular publications in this country). What is of a special
interest to our readers is the Magi's assertion that their
astrological exercises support and even provide an undeniable proof
of intelligent design. Such an ally is quite natural for the
purveyors of pseudo-science of intelligent design.
21 March 05
And
Dembski "displaces Darwinism" mathematically -- or does he?
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/newmath.cfm
By Mark Perakh
In this essay Mark Perakh briefly reviews a recent article by
William Dembski
(http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.03.Searching_Large_Spa
ces.pdf) and shows that, contrary to Dembski's claims, it cannot
serve as part of the mathematical foundation of intelligent design.
Among several serious faults of Demsbki's paper is his view of
biological evolution as a search for a small target in a large
search space. In fact, biological evolution is not searching for a
target. Probabilities calculated by Dembski, for example,
for "finding" a specific protein in the space of all possible
proteins of a given length are irrelevant because evolution is
not "searching" for a predetermined specific protein. Likewise,
Dembski's "displacement problem" (which in his new article is in
fact not identical to the problem of the same name as rendered by
Dembski in his earlier publications) is equally irrelevant for
evolution, since the latter conducts no target-oriented searches.
Posted March 18, 2005
60
Peter Foster
IMAX venues in America shun evolution films
21/03/2005 19:16:00
I found this and thought it would be of interest:
By Cornelia Dean
• Religion is influencing the fate of science documentaries in some
IMAX theatres.
The fight over evolution has reached the big, big screen.
Several IMAX theatres, including some in science museums, are
refusing to exhibit movies that mention the subject -- or the Big
Bang or the geology of the Earth -- fearing protests from people who
object to films that contradict biblical descriptions of the origin
of Earth and its creatures.
The number of theatres rejecting such films is small, people in the
industry say -- perhaps a dozen or fewer, most in the South. But
because there are only a few dozen IMAX theatres that routinely show
science documentaries, the decisions of a few can have a big effect
on a film's bottom line -- or a producer's decision to make a
documentary in the first place.
People who follow trends at commercial and institutional IMAX
theatres say that in recent years religious controversy has adversely
affected the distribution of a number of films, including Cosmic
Voyage, which depicts the universe in dimensions running from the
scale of subatomic particles to clusters of galaxies; Galapagos,
about the islands where Charles Darwin theorized about evolution; and
Volcanoes of the Deep Sea, an underwater epic about the bizarre
creatures that flourish in the hot, sulphurous emanations from vents
in the ocean floor.
More on this from:
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/11179970.htm
You will need to register to access the article.
61
Peter Foster
Re: IMAX venues in America shun evolution films
21/03/2005 19:18:00
Sorry I did not see the other link to this story.
62
blackshadowmeuk
MPs debate Academies
22/03/2005 20:11:00
Interesting parliamentary debate on academies & other bits & pieces.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2004-12-09.1334.0&m=1161
http://tinyurl.com/5n4rc
"It is argued that sponsors spend relatively little and have too
much control over schools, thus skewing the way in which certain
subjects are taught. There is concern that creationism is taught in
one or two Anglican schools. The Select Committee visited one
Anglican school, and although the ethos is different, we did not
find evidence that creationism was being taught as a science subject
in the curriculum. We understand that creationism was discussed in
liberal studies as something that can be evaluated along with other
theories. I do not go along with the tabloid scare stories."
– Barry Sheerman.
I assume he meant that creationism is a religious belief.
Alan
63
blackshadowcouk
Northern Echo article
22/03/2005 23:46:00
Retrieved this from the google cache from where it would have
disapeared into oblivion. For the records.
The Northern Echo
First published on Monday 18 August 2003:
The man with mission
With one school already under his belt, another opening next month,
and more on the wish list, Sir Peter Vardy is creating his own
education empire.
Nick Morrison looks at how a car salesman is stirring up controversy
in the classroom.
A SIGN outside the entrance states that when Emmanuel College opened
in 1990, it was "Built and dedicated to the glory of God". Further
on, the stone gateway carries the inscription, "The Lord has done
great things for us and we are glad", a quotation from Psalms 126,
verse three. Further still, the engraving on a stained glass window
above the door reads, "In the beginning God created the Heavens and
the Earth". For a school accused of indoctrinating its pupils with
Christianity, there's certainly no hiding of lights under bushels.
But while Emmanuel has never made any secret of the prominence it
gives to religion, it has provided plenty of ammunition for its
critics, most recently over allegations that it taught its pupils
that the Bible's account of creation was a theory on the same level
as evolution. Richard Dawkins, esteemed Oxford professor, was
prompted to accuse the Gateshead school of "deliberately and
wantonly" misleading its pupils.
Emmanuel rode the storm but, while it hardly needs propping up, at
least its isolation is about to end. The Vardy Foundation, which
sponsors Emmanuel, is investing another £2m in the King's Academy
in
Middlesbrough, which opens its doors next month, replacing two other
secondary schools. After that, the foundation will open another
school in Doncaster, with more planned for Newcastle and Sunderland.
Soon, the foundation will have its own education empire.
Sir Peter Vardy, foundation chairman and the emperor in question,
is, not surprisingly, unapologetic about his stipulation that the
schools should have a Christian ethos, as well as an insistence that
all pupils wear a uniform and that rules are strictly enforced.
"I believe that God created the Earth and he created man in his own
image," he says. "There are an awful lot of folks that believe in
creation, and what we seek to do here is reflect a broad education,
so in RE we tell them about creation, and in science we tell them
about evolution. That is a rounded education.
"It is very narrow minded to teach evolution and not creation, and
it is very narrow minded to teach creation and not evolution. Here,
they get both."
Last year's furore erupted after a Creationist group rented a room
at Emmanuel for a meeting, and Sir Peter still clearly feels
aggrieved at the way the college was treated and the pupils were
portrayed as Christian Stepford children.
'It was all blown out of proportion - you would think we were part
of the Ku Klux Klan the things people say about us," he says. "If
anyone is indoctrinated it is them outside," he waves
dismissively, "they're walking around like robots. We really have
been attacked unmercifully and unjustly. It is demoralising, when
I'm trying to do the best for the children and make a difference,
and I'm getting pilloried by the Press."
Despite the controversy, Emmanuel's results ensured it had no
problem resisting outside interference. Last year's GCSE results
ranked it the fourth best comprehensive in the country, 98 per cent
of its pupils scoring five or more A-C grades.
Sir Peter saw the opportunity to get involved in education when the
Thatcher government came up with the idea of City Technology
Colleges, privately sponsored schools independent of local councils.
Sponsors put in 20 per cent of the cost - taxpayers made up the
rest - and got to dictate how the schools are run.
"I saw it as an opportunity to make a difference. There are all
sorts of problems in society, and most of it comes down to
education. If we can give children the right start in life and a
good understanding of values, then we will have a better society,"
he says. "Obviously, I'm motivated by my Christian faith, and I want
to leave the world a better place."
By law, all schools should have a morning assembly with a broadly
Christian theme, and the fact that Emmanuel is one of the few to
comply means it should be congratulated, not vilified, in Sir
Peter's view.
"Every school should be doing what we're doing. We have morning
assemblies that are broadly Christian, but there's no indoctrination
of the children, they don't have to carry three Bibles around with
them," he says.
Emmanuel's pupils themselves don't feel they're being brainwashed,
although there is a certain resignation to the way they've been
characterised, not just the result of the Christian-thing, to be
fair, but bolstered by the school's strict uniform code and rigid
adherence to discipline.
"People think we're robots," complains 15-year-old Rachel
Miller. "We don't get brainwashed at all - we get taught the facts,
and it is up to you whether you believe it or not."
"Sometimes it gets a bit annoying when people prejudge you," adds
Steven McFarlane, also 15. "People think we carry around three
Bibles and say 'God is good', but we don't."
Nigel McQuoid, the principal of Emmanuel who will also become
principal of the King's Academy, shares his pupils' frustration at
how they have been depicted.
"There was initial anger that we were being misrepresented, and the
big things are that we've creamed off the clever kids, that all our
kids are picked from nice homes, and they are all brainwashed from
the Bible," he says. "But the children don't all walk around with
three Bibles like robots."
This "three Bibles" seems to have become a bit of a mantra, but,
while it hardly helps to refute the brainwashing charge, it would be
uncharitable to suggest it was anything more than a standard
response to the criticism, a sort of self-defence mechanism.
The anger at the attacks turned to relief that Emmanuel was finally
getting attention, then anger again when they were still being
misrepresented, and finally resignation, presumably tempered with a
certain amount of satisfaction that, while it may be getting a bad
press, it still had 600 applications for 200 places. "People are
still queuing up to get in," he adds. Nor does the King's Academy
seem to have been affected: it has had to turn away 50 youngsters
this year.
Emmanuel, and, by extension, the King's Academy, is not about
brainwashing, but about developing passion, Mr McQuoid says,
encouraging children to believe in something, even if they end up
upsetting someone. "People say we're brainwashing kids - if we were
we would be more successful," he jokes.
He says pupils are presented with what the Bible says, "everybody
should have the right to read it", but can reject it if they
want. "It is there, it is something the children are aware of." On
the creation debate, he says it's a leap of faith to believe in
evolution, just as it's a leap of faith to believe in God. For
himself, he says, "I find evolution hard to believe."
He says it's like a parent who tells their children about the
dangers of alcohol. In the end, you have to accept that the decision
to drink is theirs.
"Although there might be a calling for a Christian to share their
faith with other people, the only genuine faith position is the one
they come to themselves. Of course, I would want my children to
share the faith I have, but I can never hit it into them. The best I
can do is equip them to make their choices. Schools should be about
getting you through life, not just getting you a job."
Few people would argue with that, although it doesn't mean everyone
is happy with the path Mr McQuoid and his benefactor are taking.
64
Adam Tjaavk
Who''s Afraid of Intelligent Design?
23/03/2005 13:31:00
Who's Afraid of Intelligent Design?
Jay Mathews |Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58465-2005Mar22.html
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the perspicacious and preposterous
65
blackshadowcouk
Education and Skills - Fifth Report
24/03/2005 01:16:00
Education and Skills - Fifth Report (March 05)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmeduski/8
6/8602.htm
http://tinyurl.com/45m8w
Lots of good bits & pieces here. Wasn't it Blair who seemed to
justify teaching creationism because diversity was beneficial?
The Rhetoric of Diversity
37. The Specialist Schools and Academy programmes have added to the
increasing diversity in the types of secondary school now available.
As we noted in our original report on Diversity of Provision, "the
present Government has explicitly linked this form of diversity with
its efforts to raise standards".[30] We do not believe that the link
between diverse types of schools and improved overall standards has
been proven. We have similar concerns regarding both the Academy
initiative and the Specialist Schools programme. Despite the
Government's proclaimed attachment to evidence-based policy,
expensive schemes seem to be rolled out before being adequately
tested and evaluated compared to other less expensive alternatives.
66
Adam Tjaavk
Re: Who''s Afraid of Intelligent Design?
26/03/2005 19:35:00
Responses to Jay Mathews's
Who's Afraid of Intelligent Design?
Letters |Washington Post
The Evolution of an Alternative Theory
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2209-2005Mar25.html
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the perspicacious and preposterous
67
Adam Tjaavk
Why Intelligent Design Fails
27/03/2005 12:33:00
Why Intelligent Design Fails:
A Scientific Critique of the
New Creationism
Ed: Matt Young & Taner Edis
Reviewer: Austin Cline
http://atheism.about.com/od/bookreviews/fr/WhyIDFails.htm
______________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious and preposterous
68
blackshadowmeuk
Re: Who''s Afraid of Intelligent Design?
27/03/2005 19:00:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Adam Tjaavk" <tjaavk@y...>
wrote:
>
>
> Who's Afraid of Intelligent Design?
> Jay Mathews |Washington Post
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58465-2005Mar22.html
Mathews > My favorite high school teacher, Al Ladendorff, conducted
his American history class like an extended version of "Meet the
Press." Nothing, not even the textbooks other teachers treated as
Holy Writ, was safe from attack. I looked forward to that class
every day.
Rep > The idea of a child attending an elementary history lesson is
to learn history; not to question the validity of otherwise well-
known facts. Is he really suggesting that a history teacher cannot
teach the subject in a manner that is interesting without going to
all this rigmarole?
Mathews > My biology class, sadly, was another story. I slogged
joylessly through all the phyla and the principles of Darwinism,
memorizing as best as I could. It never occurred to me that this
class could have been as interesting as history until I recently
started to read about "intelligent design," the latest assault on
the teaching of evolution in our schools.
Rep > You do not need to teach students Intelligent Design
Creationism in order to make a science lesson interesting. There are
no excuses for force-feeding other people's superstitions to
children.
Mathews > Many education experts and important scientists say we
have to keep this religious-based nonsense out of the classroom. But
is that really such a good idea?
Rep > Well you have just admitted it is religious based nonsense, so
what do you think?
Mathews > I am as devout a Darwinist as anybody. I read all the
essays on evolution by the late Stephen Jay Gould, one of my
favorite writers. The God I worship would, I think, be smart enough
to create the universe without, as Genesis alleges, violating His
own observable laws of conservation of matter and energy in a six-
day construction binge. But after interviewing supporters and
opponents of intelligent design, which argues among other things
that today's organisms are too complex to have evolved from
primordial chemicals by chance or necessity, I think critiques of
modern biology, like Ladendorff's contrarian lessons, could be one
of the best things to happen to high school science.
Rep > As IDC criticisms of modern biology are without substance, why
an earth do you want to go & trot them out to a class full of
biology students?
Mathews > Drop in on an average biology class and you will find the
same slow, deadening march of memorization that I endured at 15. Why
not enliven this with a student debate on contrasting theories?
Rep > Because there is no competing theory to evolution, there are
only religious beliefs dressed up as pseudoscience. Are you
seriously suggesting it is a good idea to be teaching children these?
Mathews > Why not have an intelligent design advocate stop by to be
interrogated?
Rep > Because the students are there to LEARN evolution, they do not
have the knowledge or experience at that point to differentiate good
& bad science and will simply absorb whatever nonsense the IDC
advocate tells them. This sort of teaching method would not be
accepted in other areas of the curriculum (you would not for
instance teach students that tigers come from Australia), so why
allow it in biology classes?
Mathews > Many students, like me, find it hard to understand
evolutionary theory, and the scientific method itself, until they
are illuminated by contrasting points of view.
Rep > What contrasting point of view (because there isn't a
scientific one)?
Mathews > And why stop with biology? Physics teachers could ask
students to explain why a perpetual-motion machine won't work. Earth
science teachers could show why the steady-state theory of the
universe lost out to the Big Bang -- just as Al Ladendorff exposed
the genius of the U.S. Constitution by showing why the Articles of
Confederation went bust.
Rep >Yes, students can learn something about the nature of physics
by understanding why a perpetual motion won't work & I have no
doubt that somewhere along the line they might even learn about
Paley's, "argument from design", so they do get to hear
about alternatives in biology anyway. But that is not what Mathews
is saying he wants to do. He seems to be arguing that IDC should be
taught as an alternative to evolution & seems unaware that as IDC
has no science to offer, it consists exclusively of unfounded
criticisms of evolution. In the physics example, it would be the
equivalent of claiming that well-founded objections to perpetual
motion were controversial.
Mathews > Amazingly, neither pro- nor anti-intelligent design people
like the idea of injecting their squabble into biology classes. John
West, associate director of the Center for Science and Culture at
the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which promotes intelligent
design, said that requiring its use in schools would turn their
critique of evolution "into a political football."
Rep > Isn't he aware that the ONLY reason John West doesn't
want IDC teaching in classes, is because he knows it would be
challenged in court & that they would loose & hence end up with more
court judgements against them?
Mathews > Eugenie C. Scott, executive director of the National
Center for Science Education Inc. in Oakland, Calif., said it would
distract from proven evolutionary research, crowd out other topics
and create confusion.
Rep > That is enough reason by itself NOT to teach IDC in science
lessons.
Mathews > Some fine biology teachers said the same thing. Sam
Clifford in Georgetown, Tex., said that intelligent design is "a
piecemeal, haphazard concoction" that he does not have time for. Dan
Coast at Mount Vernon High School in Fairfax County said that a
dissection of intelligent design in his class would be seen by some
students as an attack on their religion. They all seemed to be
saying that most U.S. high school students and teachers aren't smart
enough to handle such an explosive topic.
Rep > They did not say that at all, Eugenie C. Scott, for instance,
said it would create confusion, which it would. Why should you
deliberately teach children nonsense in the hope that they will then
be bright enough to see through it? If they can see through it, then
why is the average American more liable to believe in young Earth
creationism than in evolution? Surely, it is obvious that a
significant proportion of those students exposed to this, "teach
the nonsense", teaching method will end up believing IDC. Given
the
scale of the existing problem, it would be hard to think of a worse
idea.
Mathews > But how do we know if we keep paying expensive lawyers to
make sure the experiment is never conducted?
Rep > It is NOT an experiment; it is about deceit, deception &
forcing irrational religious beliefs onto susceptible
schoolchildren. All things Mathews can countenance as long as it
supports his stupid theory that you can somehow get a students to
understand evolution better by forcing them to learn false IDC
propaganda that demeans it! Secondly, if the people making these
challenges to evolution actually obeyed the law & stopped trying to
force their absurd beliefs onto children, then there would be no
need to waste money on lawyers.
Mathews > The intelligent-design folks say theirs is not a religious
doctrine. They may be lying, and are just softening up the teaching
of evolution for an eventual pro-Genesis assault.
Rep > Anyone with an internet connection & a search engine can check
out the IDC movement for themselves. It is obvious that IDC is
creationism & that anyone who says otherwise IS lying. I am very
surprised that someone who considers himself knowledgeable enough to
be writing newspaper science reports on the subject seems incapable
of comprehending this.
Mathews > But they passed one of my tests.
Rep > And the fact that they have failed all the rest seems to have
gone straight over your head.
Mathews > They answered Gould's favorite question: If you are real
scientists, then what evidence would disprove your hypothesis? West
indicated that any discovery of precursors of the animal body plans
that appeared in the Cambrian period 500 million years ago would
cast doubt on the thesis that those plans, in defiance of Darwin,
evolved without a universal common ancestor.
Rep > In order for a theory to be falsifiable, you need one to start
with! Simply saying, God did it, (sorry, sorry I meant the unknown
intelligent designer) is not good enough. As for IDC criticism of
the fossil record, the fact they could be proved wrong about this is
no more relevant than the fact that they have been proved wrong
about every thing else.
Mathews > That is the start of a great class,
Rep > Total rubbish. The evidence is that many teachers are being
bullied into avoiding mentioning evolution, whilst others are using
the present lawless situation to force their religious views onto
children.
Mathews > and some teachers are doing this, albeit quietly. John
Angus Campbell, who teaches the rhetoric of science and speech at
the University of Memphis, has been trying to coax more of them into
letting their students consider Darwin's critics.
Rep > Why, isn't there enough nonsense being pontificated by
idiots on this subject without him adding to it.
Mathews > Like me, Campbell reveres the 19th-century philosopher
John Stuart Mill, who said good ideas should be questioned lest they
degenerate into dogma.
Rep > Students do not go to elementary biology classes to question
evolution; they go there to learn it. If they later go on to a
higher level, they will then be in a position to deal with some of
the more controversial aspects & come to their own conclusions based
on the scientific evidence (rather than someone else's religious
dogma).
Mathews > Turning Darwin into an unassailable god without blemishes,
Campbell said, doesn't give student brains enough exercise. "If you
don't see the risks, if you don't see the gaps," he said, "you don't
see the genius of Darwin."
Rep > I have never seen IDC doctrine compressed into so few words
before. In one short paragraph we have:
Evolution is a form of unquestionable religious belief.
They will learn evolution better if they critically examine it.
Evolution is controversial.
Finally, for someone who is obsessed by questioning things, he seems
to be ignoring those issues most deserving of questioning, i.e. the
beliefs & motives of the IDC crowd. I wonder why that is?
69
Adam Tjaavk
Re: The Bible vs the Volcano
28/03/2005 16:19:00
Re: The Bible vs the Volcano
EDITORIAL
Censorship in the
Science Museums
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/28/opinion/28mon3.html
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious and preposterous
70
blackshadowmeuk
Slay Goliath, sail the Ark
28/03/2005 17:36:00
Slay Goliath, sail the Ark – it will be a hell of a ride at
Holyland
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1544218,00.html
"Mrs Webster, who is married with two children aged 7 and 12, is
a creationist who believes in the "entire trustworthiness and
supreme authority" of the Bible "in all matters of faith and
conduct", including the creation of the world in seven days."
71
Adam Tjaavk
Re: Who''s Afraid of Intelligent Design?
31/03/2005 19:39:00
Experiments in Teaching Science
Letter in response to Jay Mathews's
Who's Afraid of Intelligent Design?
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14387-2005Mar30.html
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious and preposterous
72
Adam Tjaavk
Not Intelligent, and Surely Not Science
01/04/2005 02:31:00
Not Intelligent, and Surely Not Science
Michael Shermer |Los Angeles Times
http://tinyurl.com/5ys9c
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious and preposterous
73
Adam Tjaavk
Richard Dawkins in American Scientist
01/04/2005 08:33:00
And Gladly Wolde He Lerne and Gladly Teche
Robert Richards |American Scientist
Review
The Ancestor's Tale:
A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution
Richard Dawkins
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/BookRevi
ewTypeDetail/assetid/40740
=
http://tinyurl.com/5zp67
Author Interview
The Bookshelf talks with Richard Dawkins
Christopher Brodie
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/Intervie
wTypeDetail/assetid/41240
=
http://tinyurl.com/3vptv
NOTE
No need to be registered; just
use sideswipe to reach articles
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious and preposterous
74
me
Blair Still Keen on City Academies
01/04/2005 14:02:00
Apparently Blair thinks people should "lose the hangup" about City
Academies. Perhaps he hasn't read the recent reports criticising them?
He does seem a trifle confused. For instance, he says "Here in the UK
we should be proud of the work of the churches; proud of the
commitment of the British people, witnessed to such a remarkable
degree after the tsunami catastrophe," is he trying to say that that
the response to the tsunami was all down to churches? I think not, Mr
Blair.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election/story/0,15803,1443906,00.html
75
Max Wurr
Adam and Eve - UK creationism
01/04/2005 14:23:00
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4398345.stm
76
blackshadowcouk
Would you Adam and Eve it?
01/04/2005 14:40:00
Passing this across from Debunk Creation.
Would you Adam and Eve it?
By Stephen Tomkins
Author
Planet Earth
A teachers' union has said it is alarmed by an increase in lessons
which teach that Adam and Eve was the literal truth, rather the fable
which science believes it to be. The rise in creationism is not just
an American phenomenon.
For many British people, belief in a six-day creation seems to be one
of those incomprehensibly American quirks, like beef jerky and
pledging allegiance to the flag. But a large and growing number of
British Christians are defying Darwinist orthodoxy in favour of
creationism - the belief that Adam and Eve are the mother and father
of humanity.
They are less outspoken than in the US, where a new $25m museum of
creationism is being built in Kentucky, but they quietly number
hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions.
Dr Monty White tours churches throughout the UK, teaching "the
biblical view" that the universe is about 6,000 years old.
Evolution is not compatible with Christianity
Dr Monty White
"People believe in evolution because they choose to do so," he says.
"There is not a shred of real evidence for the evolution of life on
earth."
Though he argues his case scientifically, it is fundamentally a
religious commitment, a matter of faith in the Bible.
"Evolution is not compatible with Christianity," he insists. "Genesis
tells us that death only came into the world because of Adam's sin.
There was no death before then, and you can't have evolution without
death."
There is a creationist museum in Portsmouth called Genesis Expo, run
by the Creation Science Movement (CSM). Children can play with Boris
the dinosaur and learn why evolution is scientifically impossible.
'Brainwashing'
Where do Boris and his fellow dinosaurs fit into this worldview?
Many were killed off in Noah's flood and became fossils. Others hung
around to scare our ancestors who called them dragons. Bill Cooper, a
council member of CSM, argues the 8th Century poem Beowulf records a
genuine encounter with a Tyrannosaurus Rex.
The chairman, Dr David Rosevear, says even non-Christian visitors
often accept their claims, "in spite of the brainwashing they get
from the media".
"Typically," he says, in a statement that would make arch
evolutionist Richard Dawkins' blood run cold, "a mother will bring
her children round in the holidays and say to me 'Yes, that's pretty
much what I always felt'."
How common are such beliefs among UK Christians?
So many evolutionists are incredibly arrogant and give the impression
that only fools believe in creation
The Reverend William Gardner
Monty White feels he is in a growing minority, David Rosevear in a
clear majority. More objectively, the Evangelical Alliance has polled
its members, which number about a million.
One-third of those surveyed believe Adam and Eve were created within
six days of the start of the universe. Of the other two-thirds, some
would accept evolution while others see Adam and Eve being created
after six "ages" of creation, rather than six literal days.
Reverend William Gardner of Devonshire Drive Baptist Church in
Greenwich is one minister who endorses the creationist view. He says
the world was created in six days, several thousand years ago, and he
teaches this in church.
Is evolution incompatible with Christianity? "Yes," he says, "because
ultimately evolution simply dismisses God."
Charles Darwin
Before Darwin, creationism was the widely held view
He feels frustrated that the scientific evidence is not treated more
seriously. "So many evolutionists are incredibly arrogant and give
the impression that only fools believe in creation, when there are
many eminent scientists who say there is some evidence of design
there."
Most apologists for creationism share this frustration. One of CSM's
leaflets rallies support for teaching creation in schools: "The hard-
nosed humanism of evolutionism has become entrenched in the British
educational system and in society at large. We need your dedicated
support to topple it!"
Dr White is less gung-ho, but is saddened and mystified by schools'
refusal to set Genesis alongside Darwin. In his university career,
there was often open and heated debate on the subject, so why not in
the classroom? "I simply don't understand what the problem is. Why
can't evolution be criticised in schools?"
Bucking the trend
On the other side of the desk, Mel is 16 and goes to an Anglican
church in Leeds. She respects people who don't take Genesis
literally, but no one has yet convinced her that evolution is more
than a theory.
"People think you're nuts if you don't believe in evolution," she
says. "But maybe in 100 years there'll be some new discovery, and
people living then will think that everyone today was nuts to believe
we evolved from monkeys."
How, at this already sufficiently awkward age, does it feel to be so
out of step with the world around you?
"If you're a Christian, you have to go against the flow on all kinds
of things - sex, smoking and getting drunk. Evolution isn't a big
deal really. It doesn't come up a lot."
Add your comments to this story using the form below:
Any philosopher of science will tell you that evolution is theory,
not fact, but so is gravity and all other pieces of scientific
knowledge. However, gravity being a theory (rather than irrefutable
fact) doesn't stop us from putting astronauts on the moon.
Creationists should really rethink what science is before criticising
it.
George, UK
I have no right to accuse a Christian of holdng a false belief. Why
should anyone have a right too deny my belief in evolution? If it is
wrong, where is the proof?
Ray Lashley, Bristol, UK
Neither evolution or creationism can be scientifically proven, in the
sense that you can recreate the conditions that led to them. What we
believe about our origins is therefore a matter of faith, not fact. I
used to believe in evolution, and now I don't. It isn't just that I
object to the teaching of evolution as fact or that there are
proponents of evolution who use the theory to promote their atheistic
views. It is because of the abuse of science and a belief in random
chance that suspends belief more than the belief in a creator.
John Airey, Peterborough, UK
I remain deeply worried about any closed minded approach to teaching.
While I personally believe in Darwinian evolution through natural
selection, I'm happy for it to be held up against creationism since
exploration of ideas is how we learn. However, why just use the
Christian orthodoxy? To be truly fair, you have to look at all the
major religions, at all major theories.
Ian, UK
It's so refreshing to see the media actually producing an article
that delivers the Christian creation account, rather than hindering
it.
Joe Burrows, England
I really don't understand why these people try to say that evolution
and Christianity are mutually exclusive. It seems self-defeating,
because there's far more evidence for evolution than there is for the
theological hurdles required to be a Christian.
Michael Hammond, UK
Believing in evolution takes just as much faith as beliwveing in a
six-day creation - it is all about interpretation of the evidence.
Evolution is actually impossible, but the scientific community and
the media (especially the BBC) seem so intent on indoctrinating the
country that evolution is fact.
Stuart, UK
Creationism offers an explaintaion only if you have previously
accepted the belief in a Christian god. So presumably then this
invalidates any non Christian belief system including Hindus,
Buddists, etc. in one fell swoop. And creationist call evolutionists
arrogant!
Stuart band, UK
Belief in the creation theory merely encourages man's belief in his
importance over all other life on the planet. A view which has
ultimately resulted in the environmental problems we now suffer.
Greg Miller, United Kindom
If you believe Creationism, you are not just dismissing Darwin's
theory of evolution as wrong, but by believing that the earth is only
about 6,000 years old, you are contradicting theories of cosmology,
hydrology, geology, glaciology, palaeontology, archaeology,
radioactivity and linguistics, many of which were developed before
Darwin's work was published.
Tim, Bath, England
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
77
blackshadowcouk
Re: Adam and Eve - UK creationism
01/04/2005 17:12:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Max Wurr" <mail@m...> wrote:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4398345.stm
Sorry Max, I seem to have duplicated your story. Anyway, here is my
reply, which probably stands no chance of appearing on the comments
page,
Reverend William Gardner is not a scientist, he obviously knows
nothing about science & it is utterly dishonest of him to claim
there are any eminent scientists who agree with him, because there
are NONE. His beliefs are a throwback to the middle ages & the only
reason for their recent comeback can be traced to fundamentalist
fanatics in America & the incompetence of Tony Blair who has
encouraged these people to take over state schools so that they can
indoctrinate their young captive victims with this indescribably
foul nonsense.
Alan
78
Adam Tjaavk
The End of Reason
02/04/2005 19:46:00
The End of Reason
David Morris |AlterNet
Organized religion elevates superstition
to an entirely new level, so let's call
its institutions by their proper name:
superstition-based institutions.
http://www.alternet.org/story/21641/
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious and preposterous
79
Adam Tjaavk
New IDiot weblog: IDthefuture
03/04/2005 21:34:00
New IDiot weblog: IDthefuture
Exploring issues central to the case for
intelligent design, from the Big Bang to
the bacterial flagellum and beyond.
http://www.idthefuture.com/index.php
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious and preposterous
80
Max Wurr
Here''s mine
04/04/2005 17:14:00
I posted too, but we'll see if the BBC thinks we're worth publishing!
"Many of your correspondents are displaying a woeful lack of
understanding of what is meant by a scientific theory. Theories in
science are not guesses; they are conceptual frameworks - explanations
for facts. Evolution happens and can be observed happening in labs and
in the natural world. In this sense, evolution is a fact. The theory
of common descent as put forward by Darwin is a the theory that
explains these facts. As yet, no one has produced an alternative
theory that is supported by observation and evidence, least of all the
creationists. If creationists want their fairy stories treated as
science they must tell us what is their scientific theory of creation
and how it can be tested. I guarantee you that they will be unable to
do this. Keep religion in religion classes and science in science
classes or risk dragging our country back to pre-Enlightenment days,
for all our sakes."
Max
81
Adam Tjaavk
Repentance
05/04/2005 21:24:00
Repentance
Okay, We Give Up - We feel so ashamed
The Editors |Scientific American
http://tinyurl.com/56gpr
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious and preposterous
82
mike@antiquityofman.com
Re: Repentance
05/04/2005 21:56:00
ROFLMAO! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! This is hilarious!
=====
Mikey Brass
MA in Archaeology
"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)
83
Adam Tjaavk
A Lysenkoist solution
06/04/2005 01:38:00
A Lysenkoist solution
An Academic Question
Paul Krugman
New York Times
Conservatives should be worried by the
alienation of the universities; they should
at least wonder if some of the fault lies not
in the professors, but in themselves. Instead,
they're seeking a Lysenkoist solution that would
have politics determine courses' content.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/opinion/05krugman.html
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious and preposterous
84
blackshadowmeuk
Dawkins''s interview.
06/04/2005 14:36:00
You won't fool the children of the evolution
By Barry Didcock
ARRIVING ahead of time for my audience with Professor Richard
Dawkins, I loiter on the doorstep of his palatial Oxford home. Then
I think: such a famous champion of Darwin: hasn't he spent too
many decades studying the slow sweep of the evolutionary hour hand
to worry about seven solitary minutes? So I ring the doorbell and
wait.
"You're early," he sniffs accusingly when the door
finally swings open. He's right. It's still only 2:23pm and
I'm not due to cross the threshold until half past, another 420
seconds. But just as I think he might count them down before letting
me in, Dawkins ushers me into a huge open-plan living room. As if to
make his point, though, he removes himself to another room and has
me wait just a little bit longer.
Continued at:
http://www.sundayherald.com/48727
85
Adam Tjaavk
Scars of Evolution
07/04/2005 07:18:00
Coming soon
Scars of Evolution
First of two programmes in which David
Attenborough explores the conflicting
theories of the evolution of man.
Contributors include Philip Tobias,
Elaine Morgan and Daniel Dennett.
BBC R4, Tue 12 Apr, 11:00-11:30
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious and preposterous
86
blackshadowcouk
Trinity Academy latest.
08/04/2005 19:33:00
£24m academy is ahead of schedule
by Stephanie Bateman
AHEAD of schedule and aiming towards its July completion date is the
£24m superstructure that is to be the new home of Thorne education.
Trinity Academy will open its doors in September bringing with it old
fashioned values based on Christian principles but with top
technology.
http://www.gooletoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?
SectionID=766&ArticleID=979565
http://tinyurl.com/3kjh4
Yes, I suppose you could call creationism old fashioned!
87
Adam Tjaavk
Scars of Evolution |BBC R4 today
12/04/2005 07:45:00
Scars of Evolution |BBC R4 today
David Attenborough presents a two-part
series exploring the conflicting theories of
the evolution of man. In this first programme
he examines the origins of the once dominant
savannah theory, and looks at the offence,
outrage, and hostility caused by the rival
aquatic ape theory. Amongst those taking
part are Philip Tobias, Elaine Morgan
and Daniel Dennett.
BBC R4, Tue 12 Apr, 11:00-11:30
No BBC promo pages for the above and no links
to the following (five-year-old?) article.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/features/141index.shtml
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious and preposterous
88
me
Tories Propose "thousands" more faith schools
13/04/2005 09:35:00
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4438453.stm
What about the parents who don't want faith schools, and wouldn't want
their kids to go to one? Do they have a voice?
89
mike@antiquityofman.com
Re: Tories Propose "thousands" more faith schools
13/04/2005 10:19:00
I have no problems against "faith schools", except that creationism in them
should be kept out of the science classroom.
90
blackshadowmeuk
Re: Tories Propose "thousands" more faith schools
13/04/2005 12:02:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "me" <tonyjbuk@y...> wrote:
>
>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4438453.st
m
>
> What about the parents who don't want faith schools, and wouldn't
want
> their kids to go to one? Do they have a voice?
Well they do & that is probably one of the reasons the conservatives
are about to lose a third election. See:
http://pollingreport.co.uk/voteALL.html
One of the reasons (IMO) why they have done so badly is because they
seem so out of touch with the mood of the nation, which tends to be
more liberal these days. People get irritated by politicians
lecturing them on their private lives (for instance, pompously going
on about the problems associated with cohabitation) & I think
Collins comments are liable to put many people off voting
Conservative.
At least I will give him his due – he has laid his cards on the
table, unlike Blair who deceived people like me.
Alan.
91
Adam Tjaavk
Teach the Controversy - or Create it?
14/04/2005 08:01:00
Teach the Controversy - or Create it?
A common refrain from "Intelligent" Design
supporters is that public school science
classes should teach about the controversy
over evolution and critics' arguments against
evolution. There is no "debate" over evolution
within science - any debate or controversy
which exists is purely the product of
"Intelligent" Design groups. Coincidence?
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/160029.htm?nl=1
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious & preposterous
92
blackshadowcouk
Latest Talk Reason articles.
15/04/2005 23:54:00
Latest TalkReason articles:
A Response to Berlinski
By Wesley R. Elsberry
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/dumbski.cfm
In this article Dr. Elsberry addresses the recent op-ed piece by
David Berlinski in a California newspaper. In that paper Berlinski,
among other things, falsely accused Talk Reason of deliberately
misspelling William Dembski's surname in a derogatory manner and of
allegedly viewing such a misspelling as "clever beyond measure." In
fact, Talk Reason has never resorted to the mentioned misspelling of
Dembski's name and likewise never expressed any approval of such a
misspelling as being "clever beyond measure," or in any other way.
Berlinski's groundless accusations amounted to slander. In
subsequent messages to Talk Reason (posted under this essay), as
well as in his comments posted to the Panda's Thumb weblog,
Berlinski not only did not apologize for his groundless accusations
but tried to evade the question in point by using irrelevant
semantic acrobatics obviously aimed at obfuscating the matter under
discussion. Readers should draw their own conclusions regarding
Berlinski's intellectual integrity. Comment: While originally David
Berlinski asked not to post his letters (see discussion), in a
subsequent letter he gave his consent to make these letters public.
Posted April 11, 2005
Cryptic Ichthus
By Matt Brauer
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/cryptic.cfm
Intelligent Design advocates like to complain that they are done an
injustice when they are referred to as "Intelligent Design
Creationists". They would like to obscure that fact that the flavor
of creationism characterized by an emphasis on Intelligent Design is
simply a less specific and less honest derivative of "Scientific
Creationism". However, the major players in the movement are heavily
weighted towards theologians, and the symbols the movement uses are
not-so-subtle icons from Christianity.
Posted April 14, 2005
93
Adam Tjaavk
Evolution on Trial
16/04/2005 08:24:00
Evolution on Trial
Eighty years after a Dayton, Tennessee,
jury found John Scopes guilty of teaching
evolution, the citizens of "Monkeytown"
still say Darwin's for the birds
Steve Kemper |Smithsonian
The full text of this
article is not available online
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian/issues05/apr05/evolve.html
_____________________________
octoTerpsichorean impetus >8<
purveyor of pointers to the
perspicacious & preposterous
94
blackshadowcouk
Teach the controversy
19/04/2005 10:45:00
Should We "Teach the Controversy"?
Jason Rosenhouse
George Diepenbrock is a writer for the Southwest Daily Times, a
newspaper published out of Liberal, Kansas (yes, that is really the
name of the town). In a recent article (available here), about the
ongoing disputes about the state science standards in Kansas, he
wrote the following:
This scares opponents to death because they are more worried about
Kansas gaining criticism from national media as it did in 1999.
Instead opponents should come up with a good argument on why
teaching only the evolution theory does not violate the state
education science mission statement to make all students lifelong
learners who can use science to make reasoned decisions.
Presenting only one life science theory in classes without
alternatives breeds ignorance and violates the mission statement.
In this essay I propose to answer Diepenbrock's challenge.
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/controversy.html
95
blackshadowmeuk
IDC sea mine photo.
21/04/2005 13:14:00
I have been playing with my drawing program again. My latest attempt
is uploaded as photo 6 in the humour folder. The shark & ship are
clipart, but I had to design the mine from scratch, as I could not
find a suitable picture.
Alan
96
blackshadowcouk
Select Committee on Science and Technology Third Report
22/04/2005 20:38:00
This may be a few years old now, but it shows just how sophisticated
the creationist deception has become. In fact, to a casual observer
it would be hard to see what all the fuss was about.
Memorandum submitted by Emmanuel College
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-
office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmsctech/508/508ap49.htm
http://tinyurl.com/dyzck
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to your Committee's
inquiry into Science 14-19 and to clarify some matters in relation
to the recent press coverage regarding Science and Creation. You may
also know that OFSTED have written to Sir Peter Vardy, our Chair of
Governors, asking some similar information.
I am afraid that much of the "cloudiness" on these matters
involves a lack of clarity over the term "creationism" and the wrong
view that Emmanuel sees the Science curriculum to be in conflict
with biblical perspectives. I hope that what follows will clarify
the matters for you and answer, albeit in a different order, the
nine questions that you pose in your letter.
In spite of giving live interviews with, amongst others, the
Channel 4 News, Jimmy Young Programme (BBC Radio 4), Breakfast with
Frost and Easter Monday News (BBC Radio 4), there seems to remain a
widely-held misconception that:
(c) the College formally teaches as fact, within its Science
curriculum and elsewhere, that Earth History can be clearly dated to
show that the world is younger than 10,000 years; and
(d) that our Science Department teaches as fact that the universe
was made in six days, each made up of 24 hours.
The truth is that our Science Department teaches neither.
Within the assumption that "creationism" is defined as being the
belief that the two underlined propositions mentioned in (a) and (b)
above are fact, such "creationism" is not and has never been taught
within Emmanuel College.
This information/clarification was given to the DfES in March,
together with relevant Teaching Notes, through our normal Spring
Meeting of the College's Governing Body and is being reiterated in
our reply to OFSTED. This should come as no surprise to either
party, given the College's close relationship with DfES and our
recent OFSTED Inspection (published in March 2001) in which our
teaching methods were highly commended.
The teachers within the College's Science Department,
nevertheless, hold a wide variety of views regarding these issues,
ranging from atheistic evolution giving rise to life from nothing to
the concept which sees everything as having been created by an
Intelligent Designer God from nothing. There are, of course, many
places in between.
However, these are the personal views of individual teachers, held
in good conscience, and respected by the College in the spirit of
Academic Freedom. In this regard, staff are also free to express
their views as they arise within the proper consideration of their
science topics, regardless of whichever side of the debate they
prefer. As a learning institution, we would find any attempt to
silence such views as being inappropriate and censorial. This said,
in Assemblies, RE and elsewhere, the College stands upon the
traditional Christian view that "In the beginning God created the
Heavens and the Earth." Perhaps this should be less surprising than
it appears to be to some, given that the College has always been
pleased to take a clear stand on the Christian Foundation upon which
it was established in 1990 whilst enjoying a student population
drawn from all faiths and from those with no faith at all.
College does not, however, hold an absolute view as to how or over
how long a period the Creation came into being. It does, however,
ask staff and students to develop and retain their critical thinking
faculties in approaching the interface between fact and faith.
College does, however, hold that Almighty God is the Creator of
Natural Laws and is able to over-ride them through Miracle such as
Virgin Birth and Resurrection. In this sense, College holds to a
traditional view of what constitutes Christianity.
In this regard, the National Curriculum Programme of Study for
Science does expect Science teachers to tackle some of the
