551
oeditor
Re: Storm brews over preacher''s training school
26/04/2006 21:22:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Morrison" <deanmorrison@...>
wrote:
>
> Well that's good news and a bit of an embaressment for Mackay - no doubt
> they will be moaning about 'censorship'.
>
To which the reply is "misrepresentation". If they put a proposal to
the school which was accepted then later denied when the head found
out what they were really about, that is not censorship. Nor would it
have been if they'd come clean at the start: there's no obligation on
the head to throw his classes open for all-comers to address.
Brian
552
Roger Stanyard
Re: Storm brews over preacher''s training school
27/04/2006 09:25:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Morrison"
<deanmorrison@...> wrote:
>
Mackay and his pals have already got nasty about it; there is the ad
hominem attack on Michael Roberts (he "brags"), the put down that he
lost a debate with Mackay, the suggestions (long standing) that the
media are all atheists....
Touch wood, it is more than a bit of an embaressment to Mackay; it's
a serious push off message.
Roger Stanyard
Well that's good news and a bit of an embaressment for Mackay - no
doubt
> they will be moaning about 'censorship'.
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
[BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Roger Stanyard
> Sent: 26 April 2006 17:05
> To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: Storm brews over preacher's training
school
>
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@> wrote:
> >
> From ScienceJustScience, it is now certain that the school was
> Millfield in Thornton Cleveleys. The head master has decided to
cancel
> Mackay's teach-in/show there. Apparently he was not full aware of
just
> what were Mackay's views.
>
> Roger Stanyard
>
> > Most controversially, Mr Mackay will be given four days at one
school
> > in Lancashire to teach classes his views on the beginning of the
> > world. The name of the school is being kept secret to avoid
protests.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Evolution
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=Evolution&w1=Evolution&w2=Creation&w3=I
> ntelligent+design&c=3&s=53&.sig=R-7PaQ5LwHCeI4cNAM-5Ug>
Creation
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=Creation&w1=Evolution&w2=Creation&w3=In
> telligent+design&c=3&s=53&.sig=yYWO4rD47ZNxdRtesCkqRw>
Intelligent
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=Intelligent+design&w1=Evolution&w2=Crea
> tion&w3=Intelligent+design&c=3&s=53&.sig=7E9xDoLSAR1nUum2znyseA>
design
>
>
> _____
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
>
> * Visit your group "BlackShadow
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BlackShadow> " on the web.
>
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> BlackShadow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> <BlackShadow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?
subject=Unsubscribe>
>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
>
>
> _____
>
>
>
> _____
>
> I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
> It has removed 2252 spam emails to date.
> Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
> Try SPAMfighter <http://www.spamfighter.com/Product_Info.asp?> for
free
> now!
>
553
C. Mark Whitten
Hello people
27/04/2006 10:52:00
Hello,
Just thought I'd ask if there are ever any "get-togethers," live
discussions, etc. Creationists have a bit of an upper hand on that
since church folk regularly meet (and typically give lots of money).
I'm from Tennessee, part of the lovely bible belt, and I study
evolution/genetics so I have a very big interest in the evo-ID debate.
I just finished an MSc and am currently doing research in north london
until I can find some funding for more studies.
I've joined groups like BHA and the brights but I was wondering if
there was something with more of a focus on evolution/creationism. Or
are there any other groups I don't know about?
Mark.
554
Roger Stanyard
Re: Hello people
27/04/2006 12:56:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "C. Mark Whitten" <tnprimate@...>
wrote:
>
Mark,
Try ScienceJustScience (http://justscience.1.forumer.com). It's a bit
new but is growing quite fast. If you join, there is a weekly chat
forum and there is also a London meet-up (in a pub) early in May.
ScienceJustScience is, in essence, a spin-off from the US Panda's Thumb
forum.
I think that you would be made welcome.
Roger Stanyard
PS: I have to declare an interest in that I am a member of
ScienceJustScience.
> Hello,
> Just thought I'd ask if there are ever any "get-togethers," live
> discussions, etc. Creationists have a bit of an upper hand on that
> since church folk regularly meet (and typically give lots of money).
> I'm from Tennessee, part of the lovely bible belt, and I study
> evolution/genetics so I have a very big interest in the evo-ID
debate.
> I just finished an MSc and am currently doing research in north
london
> until I can find some funding for more studies.
> I've joined groups like BHA and the brights but I was wondering if
> there was something with more of a focus on evolution/creationism. Or
> are there any other groups I don't know about?
>
> Mark.
>
555
Roger Stanyard
Ken Ham on Revelation TV
27/04/2006 18:06:00
Hello Alan,
Here is a report on Ken Ham's appearence on revelation TV. Feel free
to post it to your web site. It could do with a proof read.
Roger Stanyard
Ken Ham on Revelation TV
By Roger Stanyard
Ken Ham, Chief Executive of Answers in Genesis, a Christian
fundamentalist movement, appeared on Revelation TV on 26th April
2006, In a one hour interview with presenter and station
manager/owner Howard Conder, Ham discussed his views on religion and
science and answered a number of live questions from the station's
viewers.
Revelation TV is a British Christian Evangelical TV channel noted for
its adherence to dispensationalist and creationist (YEC) views.
Unfortunately, technical problems with the transmission of the
programme, World in Focus, meant it was basically unwatchable,
Indeed, the show had to switch to another channel r music TV (also
controlled by Revelation TV).
Your correspondent eventual saw the programme in full the following
day when it was retransmitted on Revelation TV. Ironically,
Revelation TV also interviewed another YECer earlier in the day on
the 26th April. This was Vance Nelson, a Canadian who is involved in
the controversial tour of the UK by Australian creationist John
Mackay. However, I was not aware of this at the time and therefore
missed it.
I assume that the Nelson appearance was done at short notice,
possibly in connection with apparently substantial problems arising
with the Mackay tour.
Revelation TV is well know for its support of the YEC viewpoint and,
not surprisingly, Conder gave Ham an easy time. Indeed, Ham only
faced one, slightly adversarial, telephone call and that was from a
man (they were all men) in Northern Ireland who wanted his views on
Intelligent Design.
Ham's basic proposition became very evident as the show continued.
Armed with a bible, Ham repeatedly insisted that this was the source
of all truth and that anything that contradicted it was wrong. It was
very clear than Ham believed in a literal interpretation of the bible.
Ham also demonstrated a very nasty streak – the repeated rubbishing
of anyone who believed in the Theory of Evolution. Not only was Ham
shooting the message (that there is lots of evidence for Evolutionary
Theory) but also, repeatedly, the messenger.
He attacked the current Archbishop of Canterbury; he attacked the
19th Century Anglican clergy for accepting the the world was millions
of years old – he argued that the clergy had hijacked the idea.
He accused Australian state schools and the media of brainwashing
Australian children about the Theory of Evolution although, as is so
often the case with those that make this extravagant claim, failed to
show who did the brainwashing, how and when (it takes a lot of
preparation, effort and skills to brainwash a person). Moreover,
there is no known case ever of someone being brainwashed to believe
in Evolutionary Theory any where in the world, ever.
Ham also accused the schools of indoctrinating children with the
Theory of Evolution, again, without showing evidence. Indoctrination
is an extremely strong word and Ham clearly knows how to use it to
advance his case.
However, the institutional attacks didn't stop there – they extended
to the Natural History, the Geological and Science Museums in South
Kensington in London (Ham seemed to be confused which was which – the
Geological Museum is, now, part of the Natural History Museum, not
the Science Museum).
Ham rubbished the Geological Museum's Darwin exhibition and accused
the Natural History Museum of being fraudulent. It is indoctrinating
the public, he claimed.
Note the technique, time and time again, of demonising decent people
who can't answer back. It may be good rhetorical skill to
advance "the cause", honest and decent it is not. It sounds like a
combination of cowardice and bullying.
Ham argued that the general public had been "misled" over
Evolutionary Theory. Again, behind such rhetoric is the underlying
claim that those who do not subscribe to Ham's religious views are
either stupid or frauds.
It is clear in Ham's world that the public are easily duped by
experts and he knows better, even though his scientific credentials
are pretty thin. He's a school teacher by profession.
Ham is also certain that what he calls "Evolutionists" do not want
people to believe in the bible because this would undermine their
position. Such astonishing and unfounded claims are easily stated and
unchallenged when you have a presenter like Conder who is both
onside, and to his own admission, almost completely ignorant about
science.
Ham also managed to get in ad hominem attacks on Professor Steve
Jones (who he tried to make a fool of) and Professor Richard Dawkins,
who he described as an atheist (so what) and whose understanding of
the Theory of Evolution was contemptuously dismissed as "blind faith"
Your correspondent has not detailed, in this report, Ham's statements
on his "scientific" evidence against Evolution.
Having heard him speak, I concluded that he didn't demonstrate any
such evidence at all. Basically his rhetoric chopped and changed
between stating that the scientists were wrong and the bible had it
all right and couldn't possibly be wrong.
Underneath Ham is playing a very simple minded game: the only valid
science is that which proves his personal religious opinions are
right. Anything or anyone that contradicts his religious views must
therefore be wrong.
That includes most religious people, virtually all scientists and all
believers in Intelligent Design.
Ham clearly has no respect for anyone who doesn't agree with his own
opinions on science and religion.
All of Ham's "scientific" arguments can be found on the Answers in
Genesis web site (www.answersingenesis.org) and are all fully
debunked at www.talkorigins.org and elsewhere, ad nauseum, ad
infinitum.
Ham clearly has as his target audience the scientifically illiterate;
that his own arguments are just wrong all of the time doesn't
register with such an audience. It doesn't matter, therefore, that
they don't stack up or aren't even in agreement with other
creationists.
In personality, Ham came over as deeply dogmatic and authoritarian.
His attitude towards the rest of the world was a parody of a school
master responsible for a class of children. The rest of the world
were uninformed children who he had to put right.
Indeed, the school master appears never to have left him.
The idea that others might be his peer group or, indeed, considerably
more knowledgeable on their subjects than him (that's the fact that
everyone else in the world has to face) doesn't show through.
In appearance, Ham is also somewhat odd. He was seated during the
programme so I could not judged how tall he is. However, Ham does
have a beard (it's common amongst Christian fundamentalists), looks
to be relatively thin for his age but doesn't appear to have any
dress sense for a public figure. His shirt was a darkish green and
his trousers a karki colour. The tied was black/grey (no colour, in
other words).
Ham kept picking up the bible; I would normally take this as a stage
prop for someone long experienced in public performance and
presentations but, in this case, it looked almost like an emotional
prop – the prop of a man who presents personal certainty to the world
but, underneath, is covering something up (knowingly or otherwise).
It just didn't feel or look right.
In style, Ham has a quick answer or response for everything; it
doesn't matter to him that all of the answers are either wrong or
highly contentious. I suspect that if he is ever effectively
challenged he would easily evade the issue (he's clearly a skilled
performer).
Areas not Addressed by Conder: My view is that Conder deliberately
gave Ham an easy time. Indeed, Ham was able to plug the recent
Swanwick fundamentalist conference in which he was actively involved,
claiming that 400 people turned up (in what appeared to be footage of
the event, there were, indeed, a lot of people there).
However, Conder asked no questions at all about the huge rifts in AiG
which has resulted in the split from its parent organisation in
Australia. Nor did Conder ask about the growing competition in the UK
from John Mackay's Creation Research movement, even though Mackay and
Ham had started out together.
Note: John Mackay is due to appear on revelation TV's World in Focus
programme at 9.00pm on 28th June 2006. Mackay is a past colleague of
Ham but, nowadays, runs his own YEC operation called Creation
Research.
© Roger Stanyard, 2006
556
ukantic
Re: Ken Ham on Revelation TV
27/04/2006 20:58:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...>
wrote:
>
> Hello Alan,
>
>
> Here is a report on Ken Ham's appearence on revelation TV. Feel
free
> to post it to your web site. It could do with a proof read.
>
> Roger Stanyard
>
> Ken Ham on Revelation TV
>
> By Roger Stanyard
>
< snip >
Thanks Roger, that's very interesting. I have put it up at:
http://www.creationism.co.uk/html/creationists_main.html
Incidentally, have you seen the report of his day trip out in London
yesterday, it's at:
http://info.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/?p=738
Someone e-mailed him this:
"Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, and your website's is
astonishingly narrow-minded and alienated from the real world. It's
interesting that you would rather refute all the evidence apparent
to us through other sources merely to credit the original authors of
the book of creation. It almost sounds like you're one step away
from strapping a bomb to your chest and running into a museum of
natural history before the children see it. I know it's hard for you
to accept the truth, being manipulated and brainwashed since birth.
I will pray for you to see the light, which where we come from, is
produced by the combustion of natural gases."
Alan.
557
ukantic
Fears at faith school project
27/04/2006 21:06:00
Fears at faith school project
Apr 26 2006
By Shahid Naqvi, Education Correspondent
http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/tm_objecti
d=16994341&method=full&siteid=50002&headline=fears-at-faith-school-
project-name_page.html
http://tinyurl.com/qnst8
The education boss of a Midland authority set to open a city academy
in September said it would rather have had the cash to build an
ordinary state school.
The Grace Academy will replace Solihull's Whitesmore School in
Chelmsley Wood with a brand new building backed by millionaire
Christ ian entrepreneur Bob Edmiston.
But Ken Meeson (Con Dor-ridge & Hockley), the borough's cabinet
member for education, admitted officials had reservations about the
move.
He claimed in the absence of any other option, the authority had no
choice but to go with the programme.
Coun Meeson said: "Clearly had the Government offered us the money
to rebuild it ourselves that is the road we would have gone down.
"But that wasn't an option at the time and we were offered the
option of having an academy and gaining a brand new school."
The authority gave the greenlight more than three years ago - before
the Government launched its Building Schools for the Future drive to
refurbish every secondary in the country.
"We were in a position of could we afford to say no to a brand new
school to replace a pretty awful building," added Coun Meeson.
An extensive consultation process was launched before final
approval - a stage Birmingham's proposals have not reached yet.
Council officials from the borough visited other academies under
construction and discussed with Mr Edmiston to see if his aims and
objectives matched those of the authority.
A scrutiny exercise followed with taken from a wide range of
stakeholders including teacher unions, headteachers and teachers.
Once satisfied, further consultation with parents followed through a
series of roads shows.
Coun Meeson said: "The director of education worked very closely
with the sponsor on the development of the academy and how it would
work within a family of schools in the area as part of a collegiate.
"We have been very impressed with the way the academy up to this
stage has been prepared to work with the local authority."
The Grace Academy will cover the same catchment area as Whitesmore
and operate existing admission criterias, the authority claimed.
Evangelical Christian groups have become heavily involved in
sponsoring academies, sparking criticism that faith-based
organisations are gaining influence over pupils.
Mr Edmiston, whose Midland car import business has amassed him a
fortune of about £300 million, is founder of the Christian Vision
charity.
He is a member of Birmingham's Riverside Church and was recently
linked to the current 'cash for honours' allegations that wealthy
business figures were offered titles in return for sponsoring
academies.
Mr Edmiston, who has donated millions to the Conservatives, had a
Tory nomination to give him a peerage blocked by the Government.
Coun Meeson admitted there were original concerns over his religious
roots.
"It was an area that we questioned very closely because we wanted to
be assured that this was not going to be a school that was going to
go down the creationism route.
"We had assurances on that. Mr Edmiston's beliefs are around
business and enterprise which is his background. That will be the
style of the school."
Speaking to The Birmingham Post two years ago, Mr Edmiston claimed
he was passionate about education.
558
ukantic
Super-rich academy sponsor donated £43m to charity
27/04/2006 21:11:00
Super-rich academy sponsor donated £43m to charity
Apr 25 2006
http://iccoventry.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/tm_objectid=
16990989&method=full&siteid=50003&headline=super-rich-academy-
sponsor-donated--pound-43m-to-charity-name_page.html
http://tinyurl.com/m8kbl
THE MAN who is sponsoring a city academy in Coventry has been
revealed as the top charity giver in Britain.
Super-rich Bob Edmiston has given away more than 10 per cent of his
salary last year - mostly to his Christian Vision charity.
He gave away a larger proportion of his earnings than any of the
other super-rich philanthropists in the country.
The wealthy man who built his fortune importing cars to Britain was
named as the 154th richest person in Britain in the Sunday Times
rich list.
He earned £410 million last year from his IM Group and gave away
more than £43 million.
His charity Christian Vision - which has a string of radio stations
broadcasting with a Christian ethos to a host of countries including
China and India - got £28 million.
Another £13 million was spent spreading the Christian message across
the world, with £2 million being reserved for the city academy.
Mr Edmiston - who already sponsors the Grace Academy in Solihull -
recently got the go-ahead to turn Woodway Park School in Coventry
into another city academy.
That gives him the right to nominate the school governors, set the
curriculum and admissions policy.
The Government will then stump up £25 million for a new school
building.
559
ukantic
Creationist school is praised
27/04/2006 21:26:00
'Creationist' school is praised
26 April 06
A college that is sponsored by a fundamentalist Christian foundation
has been rated as an outstanding school by Ofsted - for the third
time in a row.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4946222.stm
Emmanuel College, in Gateshead, is backed by Christian
philanthropist Sir Peter Vardy, and attracts controversy by teaching
pupils about Creationism.
The city technology college was called "remarkable" in the latest
report.
It is now one of only 12 secondary schools in the country to have
received three consecutive top ratings.
Emmanuel College has a strong Christian ethos but has attracted
controversy by teaching Biblical creationism as well as evolutionary
theory.
In the latest Ofsted report, inspector Andrew Bennett praised
teaching at the school, which has 1,231 pupils.
"Students appreciate their teachers' efforts, enjoy their work and
are unfailingly supportive and courteous towards one another," he
said.
"Excellent behaviour and very high levels of attendance emphasise
their desire to make the most of what the college offers them.
"Students feel safe and secure and, while expected to conform to the
college's rules and expectations, are encouraged to express freely
their own views and articulate personal feelings."
However, there were some criticisms.
The report stated that more time should be spent helping lower
achievers to gain higher grades at GCSE.
And the proportion of A and A* grades needs to be raised after a
slight fall last year.
Creationism
The report prompted Emmanuel head Jonathan Winch to say: "Visitors
to college often ask what our secret is and inspectors pretty much
put their finger on it when they wrote: 'the specific Christian
ethos of the college ensures that the students' spiritual, moral,
social and cultural development lies at the heart of all that it
does'."
National Union of Teachers leader Steve Sinnott recently said
wealthy businessmen should not be able to exert "undue influence"
over the way academies were run.
Nigel McQuoid, who chairs Emmanuel's governing body, said: "For Sir
Peter Vardy, who so often bears the brunt of unfair criticism over
his personal financial support of Emmanuel College and its sister
academies in Middlesbrough and Doncaster, this is a hat-trick of
which he and everyone connected with Emmanuel is rightly proud."
Sir Peter said recently he believed God had created the Earth and
man in his own image.
"Quite how long it took him I don't know and frankly I don't care,"
he said.
If God had wanted to create the Earth in six days he could have
done, he added - but he said that he, as sponsor, had no say in what
was taught in the schools.
The Emmanual foundation says its schools teach the theory of
evolution, as required by the national curriculum for science.
Creation is taught in religious education. But the two
concepts "touch" at points, it says.
This approach has the approval of the Department for Education and
Skills and Ofsted, it says, so parents can be assured the issue is
not presented as "certain more sensationalist commentators" suggest.
The foundation (ESF) "holds that God made the world and all that is
in it".
"ESF holds also that the Bible is God's Word to the world and that
it is true."
560
oeditor
Re: Super-rich academy sponsor donated �43m to charity
27/04/2006 21:41:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@...> wrote:
>
> Super-rich academy sponsor donated �43m to charity
>
> Super-rich Bob Edmiston has given away more than 10 per cent of his
> salary last year - mostly to his Christian Vision charity.
>
HIS charity? Can one have such a thing? It sounds as though what he's
really doing is getting a massive tax rebate on the money he spends on
his hobby of ranting.
Brian
561
oeditor
Re: Creationist school is praised
27/04/2006 21:46:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@...> wrote:
>
> 'Creationist' school is praised
> The Emmanual foundation says its schools teach the theory of
> evolution, as required by the national curriculum for science.
> Creation is taught in religious education. But the two
> concepts "touch" at points, it says.
>
> This approach has the approval of the Department for Education and
> Skills and Ofsted, it says, so parents can be assured the issue is
> not presented as "certain more sensationalist commentators" suggest.
> The foundation (ESF) "holds that God made the world and all that is
> in it".
>
> "ESF holds also that the Bible is God's Word to the world and that
> it is true."
>
That last sentence says it all. Clearly of unsound mind.
Brian
562
Andrew
New school location forJohn Mackay?
27/04/2006 22:31:00
I heard today that John Mackay is due to be involved in a debate at Penketh
High School, Warrington, Cheshire. As yet the only other information I have
is that the debate is to be between him and another Christian who doesn't
accept his fundamentalist view of creation.
I intend to contact the headmaster of the school and give him some
background on Mackay and detauils of the school where the headmaster changed
his mind about Mackay's visit.
563
ukantic
Re: Creationist school is praised
27/04/2006 23:07:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@...> wrote:
>
> 'Creationist' school is praised
>
> 26 April 06
>
> A college that is sponsored by a fundamentalist Christian
foundation
> has been rated as an outstanding school by Ofsted - for the third
> time in a row.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4946222.stm
> The report prompted Emmanuel head Jonathan Winch to say: "Visitors
> to college often ask what our secret is and inspectors pretty much
> put their finger on it when they wrote: 'the specific Christian
> ethos of the college ensures that the students' spiritual, moral,
> social and cultural development lies at the heart of all that it
> does'."
Here is some more of Winch's handywork:
A CHRISTIAN ETHOS SCHOOL
Jonathan Winch
"A Levels Not Worth the Paper They're Written On", "Grade A for
47%", "Cut Price GCSE Results", "Cake-Decorating Earns Four GCSEs".
Teachers learn to dread the late August headlines!
It seems that a steady rise in GCSE and A Level results over fifteen
years has done little to reassure asceptical public that schools are
now turning out better educated young people. A massive hike in
state funding for education over the same period is regarded by the
man in the street as a lavishing of tax payer's money with little
to show for it.
Although as a head teacher I regret the damage the headline writers
do to the morale of those young people that do pick up well-deserved
top grades, I have to agree that education today is in crisis.
Undoubtedly school discipline is at an all-time low. As long ago as
1989 a government report found that in one week just over a thousand
secondary school teachers experienced physical aggression `of a
clearly violent nature' from pupils. The subsequent trend has been
steeply downhill. The prevailing climate is one of moral relativism,
with the family- fundamental as the building block in any society-
now redefined as "any domestic arrangement whatsoever of any single
adult, or any number of consenting adults, living together and
taking some responsibility for children". The emotional deprivation
for growing numbers of victims of divorce, domestic violence or
neglect cannot but find outlet in the classroom.
Pounded by a constant subliminal message from all-pervasive media,
the generation gap has widened to a yawning gulf, and the young and
strong reject any notion of an inherent authority vested in parents
and teachers. "If they want my respect they'll earn it!"
With the notion of absolute values abolished, a society shaped by
post-modernism redefines morality with reference to the promotion of
tolerance and diversity. Absolute truth is given similarly short
thrift, and, with the religious education curriculum loaded with
competing philosophies, the one clear message children receive is
that god is whom you want him to be.
Meanwhile a hopelessly naïve view of the child dictates classroom
practice. Inner creativity has only to be harnessed- the true
innocence of the child has only to be protected from the corrupting
effect of domineering adults- for the learning revolution to take
effect and children to be transformed into confident, knowledgeable
young adults! Schools will thrive if Heads harness the power
of `student voice', if Student Councils determine policy, if rules
are negotiated, and leadership is firmly exercised by everyone.
Ideas have consequences, as any good history lesson teaches, and the
ferment in which education finds itself at the dawn of the third
millennium AD has arisen slowly and terribly as the consequence of
an atheism which has only relatively recently been given
intellectual credibility with the establishment of humanistic
Darwinism as the prevailing scientific paradigm. This atheism may
take the form of an outright rejection of God or simply content
itself with declaring the existence of the divine an irrelevance;
either way, the effect is the same. Man achieves autonomy, but at a
price. The cry of triumph as man sheds the `shackles' of religion
becomes a howl of despair as he turns to see what he has declared
himself to be- a brute beast; as to history, the product of
purposeless, random mutations in the primordial slime; as to
geography, located on an insignificant speck orbiting a tiny star
which is but one grain in the mighty and terrible sandstorm of an
impersonal universe; as to purpose, `beyond freedom and dignity'.
Gone are the ennobling concepts of justice, truth, right and beauty,
which our forefathers understood to be a reflection of the divine
character; in their place we have at best a consensus as to what is
convenient for the moment, at worst, a destructive individualism,
even nihilism. As a man sows, so shall he reap.
My purpose in painting this somewhat bleak analysis of the British
education system is not to discourage but to point to an alternative-
and deeply exciting- foundation for education. It is my personal
experience that historic, biblical Christianity with its `creation,
fall, redemption' framework, provides a solid rock on which learning
can take place. And I am not alone. This summer forty six of the
nation's one hundred top achieving comprehensives were faith
schools, the vast majority Christian. A historical survey of the
British education system shows that churches were active in the
field of schooling long before the state took over. Why might this
be?
The doctrine of creation asserts that the child is the image bearer
of the Almighty. Formed to reflect his creator, he has the capacity
to know right from wrong, to create in music, literature or art, to
communicate with clarity and meaning, to experience awe and wonder
and ascribe meaning to existence, to seek meaningful and sustaining
relationships. Every child is equally precious and possesses a body,
mind and spirit with more innate potential than he himself has dared
to dream. Moreover, every child is differently talented and must be
developed as an individual.
The universe "declares the glory of God," and the ultimate object of
the study of the sciences or mathematics is a fuller discovery of
that glory as seen in the majestic splendour of what He has made. To
teach one of the fine arts is to nurture a God-given talent and
spark, to open up the eyes, ears, and heart of the learner to the
beauty they possess, and enable them to use that beauty to enhance
the lives of others. The study of language- our own and others'-
reveals more clearly those qualities of intellect and spirit that
make us human. We touch and transform one another through words and
ideas, and the ability to reason and communicate with strength and
subtlety is but another imprint of the Creator.
Moreover, only with reference to a Creator can absolute truth,
absolute values and absolute beauty be understood- and without
these, education is ultimately absolutely pointless! How can right
and wrong, beautiful and ugly, true and false be distinguished if
there is no ultimate arbiter; no standard against which our values
can be measured?
The doctrine of the fall of all mankind in Adam explains what is
otherwise incomprehensible- the problem of evil. The teacher is
rescued from a hopelessly naïve optimism as to a child's motives,
and set free to exercise discipline as an expression of love. Not
that all our actions are as bad as they possibly could be, but that
the best of our actions are tainted by the effects of sin- a
rebellion against our maker. The moral law acts both to restrain the
law-breaker, protecting others in the school community, and to shed
light upon the true nature of one's heart, thus preparing it for the
gospel. A school which has properly grasped that "foolishness is
bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will
drive it far from him" is strongly placed to promote learning
alongside long-term personal development.
The disciplinary code of the school which is founded upon God's
revealed Word is not arbitrary; neither is it defined in relation to
the shifting sand of human opinion. Values underpin its rules-
values such as faithfulness, loyalty, integrity, perseverance,
humility. These values are directly derived from the character of
God himself, and as such are stamped upon, and resonate with, the
conscience of every child, no matter how seared that conscience may
be. Discipline in a school with a Christian ethos carries a moral
force which is hard to resist.
Education alone cannot deal with the disastrous effects of man's
fall from innocence. The doctrine of redemption rescues us from
despair when the moral law has done its work. The daily act of
worship still mandatory under the terms of the 1988 Education Act-
can provide a daily reminder to students that a loving God stands
ready and willing to extend mercy to repentant sinners. If the
essence of true wisdom is arriving at a right view of oneself and of
one's Maker, then an understanding of redemption is essential in
that it demonstrates most majestically both the love and the
holiness of God in that act of rescue planned in eternity and
executed in time by the Holy Trinity.
It was John Milton who wrote, "The end, then, of learning is to
repair the ruins of our first parents by regaining to know God
aright, and out of that knowledge to love him, to be like him, as we
may the nearest, by possessing our souls of true virtue, which,
being united to the heavenly grace of faith, makes up the highest
perfection."
May God raise up a body of men and women who are willing and able to
engage in the awesome and yet deeply satisfying task of promoting
this kind of learning!
Jonathan Winch (October 2005) is Principal of Emmanuel College,
Gateshead.
http://www.churchsociety.org/issues/ethics/iss_ethics_education.htm
564
Roger Stanyard
Re: Ken Ham on Revelation TV
28/04/2006 00:05:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@...> wrote:
>
> Incidentally, have you seen the report of his day trip out in
London
> yesterday, it's at:
>
> http://info.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/?p=738
>
Yep, looked at it - it's astonishing. The bloke claims that the
British Museum provides "overwhelming confirmation of biblical
history. Because they didn't have cameras back in the days of the
Assyrians, etc., artisans sculptured many pictorial representations
of battles and their normal lifestyles. I have attached a photograph
of a clay tablet that outlines the Babylonian account of the Flood—
one of the many Flood legends that exist in cultures around the
world, attesting to the fact that there was a real Flood—Noah's Flood—
and the original is recorded in the Bible (in Genesis)."
Somewhere in the dimmer receses of his mind, he might have seen
something from other societies in the past which don't support his
world view.
Roger
565
Roger Stanyard
Re: Creationist school is praised
28/04/2006 00:21:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@...> wrote:
>
Why do so many prominent fundies appear to be school teachers? -
Winch, Mcquoid, Ham, Mackay, Phillip Bell....
What is it about school teachers that makes them think they have a
special insight? I've met school teachers I admire, respect and like
but, as a profession that gives special insight to its practioners,
it belongs in the "so what" category.
It gives me the distinct impression that fundie teachers think the
rest of the world are fourteen year olds with dim-witted parents who,
between the lot of them, couldn't run a whelk stall.
Roger Stanyard
!
>
> Jonathan Winch (October 2005) is Principal of Emmanuel College,
> Gateshead.
>
> http://www.churchsociety.org/issues/ethics/iss_ethics_education.htm
>
566
oeditor
Re: Ken Ham on Revelation TV
28/04/2006 00:30:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
>
> Yep, looked at it - it's astonishing. The bloke claims that the
> British Museum provides "overwhelming confirmation of biblical
> history. Because they didn't have cameras back in the days of the
> Assyrians, etc., artisans sculptured many pictorial representations
> of battles and their normal lifestyles. I have attached a photograph
> of a clay tablet that outlines the Babylonian account of the Flood
Just as an aside, what's the position about taking photographs in
museums? I thought many banned it, either for fear that the artefacts
would be damanged by endless flashes, or for copyright reasons. Mandy,
can you throw any light (sorry!) on this?
Brian
567
oeditor
Re: Creationist school is praised
28/04/2006 00:35:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@> wrote:
> >
> Why do so many prominent fundies appear to be school teachers? -
> Winch, Mcquoid, Ham, Mackay, Phillip Bell....
>
> What is it about school teachers that makes them think they have a
> special insight
What is it about fundies that makes them think that they have a divine
calling to pollute childrens' minds? Which came first, the madness or
the urge to promulgate it?
Brian
568
oeditor
Alarmed head axes creation lecture
28/04/2006 01:48:00
This was worth staying up for!
http://www.tes.co.uk/2224721
"Mr Harvey said Millfield, which was only identified following local
enquiries by The TES, is a non-denominational school with “strong�
links to local churches. A number of governors are local clergymen, it
plans to open its own chapel and inspectors noted in its last Ofsted
report that pupils are skilled at arguing “for or against an atheistic
view of the creation of the universe�.
So, 1) it's the TES wot dun it!
and 2) what a load of crap - it's obviously a fundie establishement
which got outed in the nick of time.
also 3) note that in the article, it's played down as "a lecture", not
a four-day invasion of the school by cretinists.
oh, and 4) who are these bloody inspectors who equate evolution with
atheism?
Brian
569
oeditor
Re: Alarmed head axes creation lecture
28/04/2006 02:22:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <b-jordan@...> wrote:
>
--- In secular_newsline@yahoogroups.com, "oeditor" <bjordan@...> wrote:
> inspectors noted in its last Ofsted
> report that pupils are skilled at arguing “for or against an atheistic
> view of the creation of the universe�.
Or did they? The OFSTED report says:
"Their understanding of Christianity is deep enough for the higher
attaining pupils to explain the doctrine of the Trinity and its
relevance today. Many can argue maturely for or against an atheistic
view of the creation of the universe."
All in the same breath! Is it praise: "They can repeat what the
priests told them, and they can use the priests arguments against
science." Or is it a complaint: "Despite being able to repeat the
priests' arguments, they can refute them in defense of science"?
Brian
570
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Ken Ham on Revelation TV
28/04/2006 07:04:00
oeditor wrote:
> Just as an aside, what's the position about taking photographs in
> museums?
It is permitted in the BM provided the flash is turned off.
571
ukantic
£50m to set up a flagship school
28/04/2006 12:02:00
£50m to set up a flagship school
Warwick Mansell and Graeme Paton
Published: 28 April 2006
Academies are costing the taxpayer up to £50 million each, The TES can
reveal
http://www.tes.co.uk/2224712
572
ukantic
Re: £50m to set up a flagship school
28/04/2006 12:16:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@...> wrote:
>
> £50m to set up a flagship school
>
> Warwick Mansell and Graeme Paton
> Published: 28 April 2006
>
> Academies are costing the taxpayer up to £50 million each, The TES
can
> reveal
>
> http://www.tes.co.uk/2224712
>
<quote>
"However, academy heads have strongly defended their costs. Sir
Michael Wilshaw, principal of Mossbourne Community Academy, in
Hackney, east London, said ministers should be praised for investing
in inner-city areas.
"For the first time, these children are getting a fair crack of the
whip," he said
<end quote>
Why, were they being taught in mud huts before? Furthermore, as a
normal school costs only £16 million (& can be refurbished for less)
then obviously any money wasted on extravagances is going to result
in restrictions in other areas.
573
ukantic
Creationists gather to convince UK
28/04/2006 14:14:00
Creationists gather to convince UK
By Rachel Harden
KEN HAM, founder of the Creationist organisation Answers in Genesis
(AiG), said last week that, just because Dr Rowan Williams was
Archbishop of Canterbury, it did not mean he was correct.
http://tinyurl.com/ra6rc
574
Roger Stanyard
Re: Creationists gather to convince UK
28/04/2006 14:37:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@...> wrote:
>
Well, Ham is telling porkies again. He claims that all the speakers at
the conference were from the academic world. News to me. Ham himself
was a speaker and he is no academic. He is a school teacher by
training. As indeed were two other on-academic speakers there, Paul
Taylor and Phillip Bell, Lets have a look at the academic credentials
of some of the others as well:
Monty White: um,a professional administrator who has never held an
academic position in his life.
Brian Edwards: A "pastor and writer" who has never held an academic
position or title and doesn't appear to have a first degree.
Mike Zovath, believed never to have held any academic position or title.
Jonathan Sarfati - not an academic. Is a full time employee of Creation
Ministries, an evengelical creationist organisation not an academic
institute.
That's before I start pulling to pieces the qualifications of those
that might be considered as academics.
The fundies demonstrate again that they can't help but lie.
Roger Stanyard
Creationists gather to convince UK
>
> By Rachel Harden
>
> KEN HAM, founder of the Creationist organisation Answers in Genesis
> (AiG), said last week that, just because Dr Rowan Williams was
> Archbishop of Canterbury, it did not mean he was correct.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ra6rc
>
575
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Creationist school is praised
28/04/2006 14:49:00
Having come from a school which was predominantly Christian (in terms of
a prayer at the end of assembly and the majority religion amongst the
pupils, but ending there), I find such a statement to be bloody scary
and immoral.
576
jbs13uk
Re: Debate about creation
28/04/2006 15:28:00
Alan & company. More news on this at SJS>common room.
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "jbs13uk" <jbs13uk@...> wrote:
>
> Alan,
>
> The Citizen has published your letter! Page 25 of the 13th April
edition.
>
> Jim.
>
>
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
577
Dean Morrison
RE: Re: Hello people
29/04/2006 10:28:00
I second 'science just science' as well Mark - but I wonder if you know about the 'Panda's Thumb' which has a more US focus:
www.pandasthumb.org
and the associated forum:
www.antievolution.org
----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Stanyard
Sent: 27 April 2006 12:56
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BlackShadow] Re: Hello people
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "C. Mark Whitten" <tnprimate@...>
wrote:
>
Mark,
Try ScienceJustScience (http://justscience.1.forumer.com). It's a bit
new but is growing quite fast. If you join, there is a weekly chat
forum and there is also a London meet-up (in a pub) early in May.
ScienceJustScience is, in essence, a spin-off from the US Panda's Thumb
forum.
I think that you would be made welcome.
Roger Stanyard
PS: I have to declare an interest in that I am a member of
ScienceJustScience.
> Hello,
> Just thought I'd ask if there are ever any "get-togethers," live
> discussions, etc. Creationists have a bit of an upper hand on that
> since church folk regularly meet (and typically give lots of money).
> I'm from Tennessee, part of the lovely bible belt, and I study
> evolution/genetics so I have a very big interest in the evo-ID
debate.
> I just finished an MSc and am currently doing research in north
london
> until I can find some funding for more studies.
> I've joined groups like BHA and the brights but I was wondering if
> there was something with more of a focus on evolution/creationism. Or
> are there any other groups I don't know about?
>
> Mark.
>
----
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 2254 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!
578
ukantic
Schools minister says creationism has no place in classroom science
29/04/2006 11:33:00
Schools minister says creationism has no place in classroom science
28/04/06
UK schools minister, Jacqui Smith, has declared categorically that the
government is against the teaching of creationism and so-called
`intelligent design' in science lessons in British schools.
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_060428create.shtml
http://tinyurl.com/motqd
579
Roger Stanyard
Re: Schools minister says creationism has no place in classroom science
29/04/2006 22:23:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@...> wrote:
One can be cynical about this, but it appears, to me, to be very good
news.
Can you imagine George W Bush making such a statement?
Roger Stanyard
>
> Schools minister says creationism has no place in classroom science
>
> 28/04/06
>
> UK schools minister, Jacqui Smith, has declared categorically that the
> government is against the teaching of creationism and so-called
> `intelligent design' in science lessons in British schools.
>
>
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_060428create.
shtml
>
> http://tinyurl.com/motqd
>
580
ukantic
ESF - Teachers comments
30/04/2006 01:01:00
Look, a teacher at, The Kings Academy, has stuck his head out of the
Vardy Foundation trench!
"Please would everyone stop banging on about Vardy-sponsored schools
and creationism. It is a non-issue. In my school, The King's Academy
in Middlesbrough, very few if any of the science teachers even
believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. If they
suggest to students that there are sane, intelligent people
(scientists, even) that believe in a 'young earth', then that can
only be a good thing. Too often children (and adults) are led to
believe that current scientific understanding is infallible.
As a geography teacher, one of the key things I hope to encourage in
my students is to develop a degree of healthy cynicism about what
people (especially the media!) sell them as being the truth, the
whole truth and nothing but the truth. The King's Academy is a good
school, well managed, forward-thinking, with dedicated teaching
staff. Sir Peter is a well-meaning old-fashioned philanthropist who
simply wants to use some of the wealth he feels God has blessed him
with for good. He certainly is not in the business of wanting to
brain-wash young people with young-earth creationism. Essentially he
believes that modern society would be improved if (1) children are
disciplined effectively but lovingly, so that they learn about
boundaries and consequences; (2) children realise that they
were "wonderfully made" for a good purpose (Psalm 139). Whether or
not you agree with the Christian basis from which he is coming at
things, surely very few people would suggest that the effective
communication of these two ideas to children is a bad thing?"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4954646.stm
I think I am going to put a reply to this on my website.
Further on someone has used the term, "cash for power", which to me
sums up the real problem better than, "cash for honours".
Alan.
581
jbs13uk
SJS forum hacked
30/04/2006 23:56:00
Is anyone able to contact one of the admins of the SJS forum to tell
'em to sort it out?
J.
582
oeditor
Re: SJS forum hacked
01/05/2006 00:23:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "jbs13uk" <jbs13uk@...> wrote:
>
> Is anyone able to contact one of the admins of the SJS forum to tell
> 'em to sort it out?
>
What seems to be the matter? I've just had a look, and there are
postings up to half past seven Sunday evening and I don;t see anything
contra. I haven't tried to post though, because I'm not registered.
Brian
583
Jim S
Re: Re: SJS forum hacked
01/05/2006 00:41:00
Thanks for replying. Is what you're seeing a cached
version of the forum or a fresh version? I'm
continually getting a black screen with a hacker group
thank you message. The URL is
http://justscience.forumer.com/ , yes?
It'd probably be best if replies were emailed to my
address at jbs13uk@hotmail.com to avoid clogging up
the BlackShadow with these tech difficulties.
Cheers,
Jim.
--- oeditor <b-jordan@lineone.net> wrote:
---------------------------------
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "jbs13uk"
<jbs13uk@...> wrote:
>
> Is anyone able to contact one of the admins of the
SJS forum to tell
> 'em to sort it out?
>
What seems to be the matter? I've just had a look, and
there are
postings up to half past seven Sunday evening and I
don;t see anything
contra. I haven't tried to post though, because I'm
not registered.
Brian
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "BlackShadow" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
BlackShadow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
___________________________________________________________
24 FIFA World Cup tickets to be won with Yahoo! Mail http://uk.mail.yahoo.com
584
MB
Re: Re: SJS forum hacked
01/05/2006 02:59:00
> Thanks for replying. Is what you're seeing a cached
> version of the forum or a fresh version? I'm
> continually getting a black screen with a hacker group
> thank you message. The URL is
> http://justscience.forumer.com/ , yes?
>
I just checked it and it's black, as you say. I'd never been there before
AFAIK, so don't have it cached.
Regards,
MB
585
Dean Morrison
RE: Re: SJS forum hacked
01/05/2006 23:16:00
I've just been there and there doesn't seem to be a problem - I think Tim may have been trying to make some updates install chatroom software? anyway thanks for the tip-off..
Dean
----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of MB
Sent: 01 May 2006 02:59
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] Re: SJS forum hacked
> Thanks for replying. Is what you're seeing a cached
> version of the forum or a fresh version? I'm
> continually getting a black screen with a hacker group
> thank you message. The URL is
> http://justscience.forumer.com/ , yes?
>
I just checked it and it's black, as you say. I'd never been there before
AFAIK, so don't have it cached.
Regards,
MB
----
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 2266 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!
586
MB
RE: Re: SJS forum hacked
02/05/2006 02:20:00
> I've just been there and there doesn't seem to be a problem - I think Tim
> may have been trying to make some updates install chatroom software?
> anyway
> thanks for the tip-off..
>
Well, I just rechecked it and you're right, it looks fine now. It sure
wasn't like that before.
Regards,
MB
587
Andrew
Re: New school location forJohn Mackay?
02/05/2006 12:37:00
There follows the text of a letter I've just written to the
headmaster/headmistress of the school in Warrington, Cheshire, where John
Mackay is reported to be debating. It's rather long, bu if anyone has any
comments please let me know before I post it.
It may be the debate's already happened, but if so the letter may at least
focus any subsequent discussions in the school.
LETTER TEXT:
The Headmaster/Headmistress,
Penketh High School,
Heath Road,
Penketh,
Warrington
WA5 2BY
Dear Sir/Madam,
I've heard a rumour that you're planning to host a debate involving John
Mackay, a fundamentalist schoolteacher who claims to be a geologist.
I think it's good for schoolchildren to become aware of as many different
ideas as possible, especially if it equips them to deal with fundamentalists
who tend to prey on children and young people.
Despite that, though, I have misgivings about inviting fundamentalists into
schools. Debate implies there are two sides to an issue, whereas in fact
John Mackay's creationist ideas aren't one balanced side of an open
question. It depends to some extent who you have debating him, but Mackay's
position is an extreme one well outside the realms of serious research in
the subjects he chooses to discuss. Fundamentalists like Mackay try to push
their extreme ideas by rhetoric and misleading argument. Many
fundamentalists are skilled at slanting a debate by misleading arguments
that really need to be pinned down and dissected bit by bit to reveal the
massive amounts of misleading notions they contain. That doesn't lend
itself to the debate format, especially in the case of children and young
people, many of whom tend to find the serious scholarship involved `boring.'
That being the case, the debate form often unduly favours the
fundamentalists, and the issues get clouded under rhetorical appeal and
personal charisma. That's obviously a very bad way for anyone to form an
opinion.
As you're no doubt aware, Mackay's team have been claiming they need to
carry out their agenda in Britain without media attention because, they
claim, they're unfairly treated by the atheist media. Obviously their claim
that people working in the media are all atheists is somewhat far-fetched.
The real reason for their media-shy approach isn't far to seek. They want
to avoid being challenged by anyone who not only really knows their subject
but also anyone experienced in untangling fundamentalist debating methods.
If, as they claim, there are two sides to the issue and debate is
appropriate, it's rather ironic that they fear publicity so much, especially
when atheism isn't a prerequisite for working in the media anyway.
If the false claims put forward by someone like Mackay were to be examined
in a classroom situation and shown for what they are, that might be a
valuable lesson in scientific method and the ways in which ideas can be
manipulated and used to mislead. Since there is no serious debate in any of
the appropriate sciences about creationism, there are not two sides to the
story. There's simply science and a group of extremists who wish to mislead
and are actively doing that. There's no debate between geology and young
earth creationism, just scientific evidence and the disciplines of
geological research opposed to an obstinate insistence that the people who
wrote the Bible weren't limited by current knowledge but somehow had
supernatural access to information that just happens to contradict the
evidence we can discern rationally when we actively study a discipline which
basically didn't even exist when the Bible was written.
Similarly there's no debate between creationism and evolution. Modern
biology is based on evolution and there's a wealth of evidence and knowledge
that no serious scientist working in the relevant fields has any cause to
doubt. Open questioning is of course encouraged in science, and the
questions being asked are not of the type proposed by people like John
Mackay. Fundamentalists have to resort to ridiculous conspiracy allegations
when asked why they don't present their arguments for serious scientific
study.
The one time their arguments were examined impartially, in the court case in
Dover, Pennsylvania, the creationists were not only found to be advocating
unreasonable ideas, but they were also pushing a misleading school textbook
that was written by people who weren't specialists in he subject they were
writing about and who had decided on their views in advance and gone looking
for ideas to fit. Not only that, but the creationists were found to have
lied under oath in court.
There is no debate, either, between serious archaeology and creationism. I
could go on, but that shouldn't be necessary.
Creationists range freely across massive areas of scientific knowledge.
They're able to do so because they don't apply any scientific discipline at
all and they pick and choose whatever they want to use to advance their
spurious arguments. It takes a team of specialists in each of these areas
to focus on the false claims made are prove them wrong each time. I don't
know who you have lined up to debate with Mackay, but you'd need specialists
in each of the areas of knowledge that fundamentalists misuse to advance
their false arguments. If you don't have such specialists, Mackay is likely
to jump from one area to another and present the impression that he has
superior knowledge and understanding.
Then in addition to all that, there's the false claim made by
fundamentalists that their ideas are necessary for Christians to believe.
That view, if it prevails, will obviously make Christianity unacceptable to
any clear thinking person and seems set to do massive damage to Christianity
in the long term. But in any case, creationists have been proved to be
actively dishonest time and time again, which is completely contrary to the
Christian view that Jesus is truth and that the Holy Spirit will lead people
into truth. The real agenda with these people seems to be political power,
either at the lowest level with power over their followers, or at the
highest level with power at a government level. Like most people involved
in politics, distortion and outright lying are regarded by them as
legitimate means to further their cause, and it's particularly nauseous to
see them misusing religion to advance themselves.
Given the massive areas of knowledge involved in the arguments put forward
by creationists, there's a need for a group of specialist scientists to
correct the false ideas being put forward. That group of specialists also
needs to be generally accessible to people like me, and to people like you
who are responsible for the education of young people. It also needs to be
readily available to creationists so they can advance their views and have
them examined by people who really understand the areas which they refer to
in their arguments. With that in mind an Internet discussion group was set
up several years ago to allow creationists to present their views to a range
of specialists. It's called `Debunk Creationism' which of course implies
that creationist views aren't taken seriously. But as I said earlier,
creationist views really aren't taken seriously by any real specialists in
the relevant fields. Creationists sometimes try to hide that by listing
scientists who they claim support them, but on closer examination those
scientists turn out to be either misquoted or to be specialists in a totally
different area to the one relevant to the discussion.
Debunk Creationism can be found at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/
As I said, it's a valuable resource for anyone wanting to understand these
issues more fully. It's worth adding that during the years the group has
existed no creationist has ever advanced any real scientific evidence for
creationism. They all want to push their religious views and try to bolster
them with spurious arguments.
It's also worth adding that the group is a science group, not a religious
group, and the people on there include a wide range of beliefs as well as a
wide range of knowledge. Contrary to the false statements put forward by
creationists, Christians are able to fully accept science and participate in
it. Debunk Creationism includes Christians as well as atheists, and I think
it also includes people of other religions.
I apologise for the length of this letter, but creationists tend to present
a mass of false information that needs to be carefully untangled. This is a
massive and complex area being manipulated by a few fundamentalist
extremists, and getting to grips with it is time-consuming and
paper-consuming. It's unsurprising serious scientists are reluctant to
spend time and effort on it, which tends to concede the field to
propagandists like Mackay.
588
Dean Morrison
RE: New school location forJohn Mackay?
02/05/2006 12:59:00
The letter is fine Roger - although it really is overlon - headteachers are busy people - and I'm afraid that your letter might find its way to the bin once the first couple of paragraphs have been read.
Also some overlong sentences ( I've highlighted one example) - they make it hard to untangle what you're saying and make it feel that you are ranting.
I'd suggest that you try to 'precis' it - keeping the excellent points that you are making whilst removing stuff that isn't essential to your argument.
Good luck and keep up the good work - let's keep 'em on the run!
( and see you on Saturday in London I hope - Wetherspoons 5pm for the SJS get together)
Deano
----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew
Sent: 02 May 2006 12:38
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] New school location forJohn Mackay?
There follows the text of a letter I've just written to the
headmaster/headmistress of the school in Warrington, Cheshire, where John
Mackay is reported to be debating. It's rather long, bu if anyone has any
comments please let me know before I post it.
It may be the debate's already happened, but if so the letter may at least
focus any subsequent discussions in the school.
LETTER TEXT:
The Headmaster/Headmistress,
Penketh High School,
Heath Road,
Penketh,
Warrington
WA5 2BY
Dear Sir/Madam,
I've heard a rumour that you're planning to host a debate involving John
Mackay, a fundamentalist schoolteacher who claims to be a geologist.
I think it's good for schoolchildren to become aware of as many different
ideas as possible, especially if it equips them to deal with fundamentalists
who tend to prey on children and young people.
Despite that, though, I have misgivings about inviting fundamentalists into
schools. Debate implies there are two sides to an issue, whereas in fact
John Mackay's creationist ideas aren't one balanced side of an open
question. It depends to some extent who you have debating him, but Mackay's
position is an extreme one well outside the realms of serious research in
the subjects he chooses to discuss. Fundamentalists like Mackay try to push
their extreme ideas by rhetoric and misleading argument. Many
fundamentalists are skilled at slanting a debate by misleading arguments
that really need to be pinned down and dissected bit by bit to reveal the
massive amounts of misleading notions they contain. That doesn't lend
itself to the debate format, especially in the case of children and young
people, many of whom tend to find the serious scholarship involved `boring.'
That being the case, the debate form often unduly favours the
fundamentalists, and the issues get clouded under rhetorical appeal and
personal charisma. That's obviously a very bad way for anyone to form an
opinion.
As you're no doubt aware, Mackay's team have been claiming they need to
carry out their agenda in Britain without media attention because, they
claim, they're unfairly treated by the atheist media. Obviously their claim
that people working in the media are all atheists is somewhat far-fetched.
The real reason for their media-shy approach isn't far to seek. They want
to avoid being challenged by anyone who not only really knows their subject
but also anyone experienced in untangling fundamentalist debating methods.
If, as they claim, there are two sides to the issue and debate is
appropriate, it's rather ironic that they fear publicity so much, especially
when atheism isn't a prerequisite for working in the media anyway.
If the false claims put forward by someone like Mackay were to be examined
in a classroom situation and shown for what they are, that might be a
valuable lesson in scientific method and the ways in which ideas can be
manipulated and used to mislead. Since there is no serious debate in any of
the appropriate sciences about creationism, there are not two sides to the
story. There's simply science and a group of extremists who wish to mislead
and are actively doing that. There's no debate between geology and young
earth creationism, just scientific evidence and the disciplines of
geological research opposed to an obstinate insistence that the people who
wrote the Bible weren't limited by current knowledge but somehow had
supernatural access to information that just happens to contradict the
evidence we can discern rationally when we actively study a discipline which
basically didn't even exist when the Bible was written.
Similarly there's no debate between creationism and evolution. Modern
biology is based on evolution and there's a wealth of evidence and knowledge
that no serious scientist working in the relevant fields has any cause to
doubt. Open questioning is of course encouraged in science, and the
questions being asked are not of the type proposed by people like John
Mackay. Fundamentalists have to resort to ridiculous conspiracy allegations
when asked why they don't present their arguments for serious scientific
study.
The one time their arguments were examined impartially, in the court case in
Dover, Pennsylvania, the creationists were not only found to be advocating
unreasonable ideas, but they were also pushing a misleading school textbook
that was written by people who weren't specialists in he subject they were
writing about and who had decided on their views in advance and gone looking
for ideas to fit. Not only that, but the creationists were found to have
lied under oath in court.
There is no debate, either, between serious archaeology and creationism. I
could go on, but that shouldn't be necessary.
Creationists range freely across massive areas of scientific knowledge.
They're able to do so because they don't apply any scientific discipline at
all and they pick and choose whatever they want to use to advance their
spurious arguments. It takes a team of specialists in each of these areas
to focus on the false claims made are prove them wrong each time. I don't
know who you have lined up to debate with Mackay, but you'd need specialists
in each of the areas of knowledge that fundamentalists misuse to advance
their false arguments. If you don't have such specialists, Mackay is likely
to jump from one area to another and present the impression that he has
superior knowledge and understanding.
Then in addition to all that, there's the false claim made by
fundamentalists that their ideas are necessary for Christians to believe.
That view, if it prevails, will obviously make Christianity unacceptable to
any clear thinking person and seems set to do massive damage to Christianity
in the long term. But in any case, creationists have been proved to be
actively dishonest time and time again, which is completely contrary to the
Christian view that Jesus is truth and that the Holy Spirit will lead people
into truth. The real agenda with these people seems to be political power,
either at the lowest level with power over their followers, or at the
highest level with power at a government level. Like most people involved
in politics, distortion and outright lying are regarded by them as
legitimate means to further their cause, and it's particularly nauseous to
see them misusing religion to advance themselves.
Given the massive areas of knowledge involved in the arguments put forward
by creationists, there's a need for a group of specialist scientists to
