651
ukantic
Debate continues on creationist visit storm
13/05/2006 21:33:00
The Blackpool Citizen has printed 4 letters from creationists in
its reader's letters section this week. URL at:
http://www.blackpoolcitizen.co.uk/letters/
For clarity, I am going to label them 1 to 4 & post them
individually.
Here's the first:
Debate continues on creationist visit storm
By Citizen letters.
I have seen in the Times Educational Supplement that the head
teacher of Millfield School has written about his school being the
one involved in the visit of the "controversial creationist" John
Mackay, by announcing that he has cancelled this visit to his school.
I have a number of questions I wish to raise on this topic.
From what is said, Millfield School seems to have a positive
enthusiasm for "Christian values" to be a part of school life,
believing this to be beneficial to the pupils.
So why is the biblical account of creation something that the pupils
must not be allowed to hear about when it would come from someone
who is reckoned to be an authoritative figure in this field?
Is the theory of evolution the only view of the origin of the world
that the pupils are allowed to know about?
Does the school, which I believe is a specialist Science and
Performing Arts College, not feel sufficiently confident in the
teaching of science to be able to let pupils hear about alternative
views?
Is it not true that pupils should be encouraged to think and study
theories and evidences put before them in an analytical and critical
way, especially in science classes, rather than just being told that
something is fact?
Is it even known what subject lessons were to receive this visiting
speaker science, religious education or other lessons?
The Times article also says that John Mackay has been to this school
before when was this?
If this previous visit "was observed and felt it was inappropriate"
why (and when) was a return visit arranged - then cancelled at the
last minute?
Does your paper claim any credit for bringing about the cancellation?
If the school has links with the local churches and some clergymen
are governors, what do they think about this decision?
Mr Harvey's closing statement in the TES is perhaps the most
puzzling of all: "As a scientist and a Christian myself, I like to
see a broad perspective expressed rather than one that's
specifically geared towards one view and the rejection of all the
others".
Isn't that just what is happening now in Millfield school if pupils
are told in science lessons that evolution is the only true
explanation of the origin of life, even though they can (presumably
in religious education lessons) "become skilled at arguing for and
against an atheistic view of the creation of the universe".
That's an interesting concept isn't it.. . the universe 'created'
atheistically?
Finally, if a school was to invite a Buddhist to speak to pupils,
would that person be expected to give a 'balanced view of all major
religions' rather than give an interesting insight into Buddhism?
I look forward to more on this issue in your paper.
John Butler, Thornton-Cleveleys
2:58pm Thursday 11th May 2006
652
ukantic
Evolution is a belief system
13/05/2006 21:42:00
Second
Evolution is a belief system
By Citizen letters
Your 'worried Citizen reader' (April 6) speaks of creationism as a
belief and undermining to science.
I was at the debate at the Sheffield University Students' Union in
November when John Mackay debated Dr Ross - and won - and can assure
her Mr Mackay's victory was largely based on the science, with the
question being 'This House Believes Evolution To Be a Myth.' He is
after all a geological expert on coal formation, polystrate fossils
and has a degree in genetics.
I have long studied the 'science' of both sides and can assure her
that evolution is also a belief system.
Les Arnott, Athelstan Road, Sheffield
3:23pm Thursday 27th April 2006
653
ukantic
Creationism and science
13/05/2006 21:51:00
Third
Creationism and science
By Citizen letters
I write in response to your "concerned reader" whom you quote as
saying "It (creationism) is clearly a religious belief, which people
are entitled to hold.
"However it's often used to undermine science, and that bothers me."
Your reader need have no concerns.
As a retired science teacher and the beneficiary of life-saving
surgery I can assure her that accepting the universe and everything
in it is the result of a deliberate act of creation and not a cosmic
accident in no way undermines science.
The Bible has little to say about experimentally-proven theories.
It mentions only one chemical experiment - one any of your readers
can do at home!
You'll find it in Proverbs, chapter 25 and verse 20. The laws of
gravity, thermodynamics, electromagnetism and so on are not
mentioned.
That's not what the Bible is about. You can certainly be a scientist
and a creationist - many are.
The only point of difference is in the theory of origins. Here, the
commonly accepted theory of evolution from the molecules to Man is
widely believed.
And that is the whole point the creationists are making - evolution
is not something which has been demonstrated experimentally, it is a
theory which must be believed.
There is a famous quotation by Professor Richard Dawkins, a fervent
evolutionist, which contains the phrase "... if you meet somebody
who claims not to believe in evolution ..." which demonstrates this
clearly and easily.
Evolution has to be believed, and as such it is every bit as much a
religious belief as creation.
Anyone can demonstrate the Law of Universal Gravitation by
calculating how long it would take for something to hit the ground
when released from the top of Blackpool Tower, then doing the
experiment.
There are no laws of evolution. No-one can calculate what the pet
cat species will evolve into. And no-one can do the experiment.
As a creationist I'm in firm agreement with that famous physicist
Richard Feynman who said: "If it can't be expressed in figures, it's
not science - it's opinion" and "It doesn't matter how beautiful
your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are.
"If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Evolution is not expressed in figures.
Evolution is not experimentally verifiable.
Evolution is wrong.
Stuart Hatch Portland Street Blyth Northumberland
3:20pm Thursday 27th April 2006
654
Mikey Brass
Re: Evolution is a belief system
13/05/2006 21:55:00
> He is
> after all a geological expert on coal formation,
Oh right, a coal formation "expert" can pronounce of palaeoanthropology.
I think I can go tell an oil prospector where to drill for oil then.
Idiot.
--
Best, Mikey Brass
MA in Archaeology degree, University College London
"The Antiquity of Man" http://www.antiquityofman.com
Book: "The Antiquity of Man: Artifactual, fossil and gene records explored"
- !ke e: /xarra //ke
("Diverse people unite": Motto of the South African Coat of Arms, 2002)
655
ukantic
Theories are open to debate
13/05/2006 21:56:00
Fourth
Theories are open to debate
By Citizen letters
In his dogmatic defence of the theory of evolution, Alan Bellis
(Letters April 13) makes the assertion that "there is absolutely no
debate within the mainstream scientific community over the soundness
of the theory of evolution."
This is not the case.
When asked to write the introduction to the Centennial Edition of
Darwin's Origin of Species, W.R.Thompson, then Director of the
Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, in Ottawa, Canada,
wrote: "As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among
biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about
the actual process.
"This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and
does not permit any certain conclusion.
"It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-
scientific public to the disagreements about evolution."
More damning is what the lates Sir Arthur Keith, the world's most
foremost evolutionist once said: "Evolution is uproved and
unprovable."
So why should schoolchildren not hear the other side of the
argument, so to speak?
That there is a God and that He alone brought the ordered universe
and all living creatures in to being?
However just to set the record straight, the six creative days are
not meant as 24 hour days but are to be understood as six
indeterminate periods of time.
D Jordan Bartle Road St Annes-on-Sea
3:19pm Thursday 27th April 2006
656
Mikey Brass
Re: Theories are open to debate
13/05/2006 22:04:00
> When asked to write the introduction to the Centennial Edition of
> Darwin's Origin of Species, W.R.Thompson, then Director of the
> Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, in Ottawa, Canada,
> wrote: "As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among
> biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about
> the actual process.
This smacks to me as being an out of context quote.
> More damning is what the lates Sir Arthur Keith, the world's most
> foremost evolutionist once said: "Evolution is uproved and
> unprovable."
Ha ha ha ha. Keith accepted human evolution and would have said the
above (which is probably also taken out of context) before the modern
evolutionary synthesis.
> So why should schoolchildren not hear the other side of the
> argument, so to speak?
There is no argument and no "atheistic evolution vs Christian creationism".
> However just to set the record straight, the six creative days are
> not meant as 24 hour days but are to be understood as six
> indeterminate periods of time.
Your personal opinion counts for jack shit.
--
Best, Mikey Brass
MA in Archaeology degree, University College London
"The Antiquity of Man" http://www.antiquityofman.com
Book: "The Antiquity of Man: Artifactual, fossil and gene records explored"
- !ke e: /xarra //ke
("Diverse people unite": Motto of the South African Coat of Arms, 2002)
657
ukantic
Church and council row over signs (with video)
13/05/2006 22:30:00
Church and council row over signs (with video)
http://www.lep.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=73&ArticleID=1499668
A dispute has broken out between a Leyland church and South Ribble
Council over signs advertising the visit of a controversial figure.
Leyland Pentecostal Church put up 10 signs around the town
advertising the visit of geologist and creationist John Mackay.
But they were left angry when the council's litter hit squads
removed three of the signs and others have since also disappeared.
The council says the signs – placed at junctions and pedestrian
crossings – were removed amid fears they could cause an accident.
Mr Mackay, a former science teacher, is visiting Lancashire to talk
about the origins of the earth.
He believes the book of Genesis is true and argues that the earth is
less than 10,000 years old and created by God.
Bill Mason, deacon at the Broad Street centre, said the church was
dismayed at the council's actions.
He said: "We put them in places where we knew people would see them.
"The council say they have taken them down because they could cause
an accident but there are signs like this everywhere. It's because
they don't like the things that John Mackay is talking about."
But the council insisted that the signs were removed simply because
they were put up without permission and not because of their content.
South Ribble was recently named as the cleanest borough in
Lancashire by the Audit Commission and the council is keen to ensure
this continues.
Coun Tony Pimblett, cabinet member for street scene, said: "We
removed three signs that had been erected by Leyland Pentecostal
Church.
"Each had been dangerously positioned and presented a hazard for
drivers. We returned the signs to the church and explained the
reason for their removal."
12 May 2006
658
Roger Stanyard
BBC1 Creation Alert
14/05/2006 08:09:00
Apparently the Politics Show on BBC1 today at mid-day today (Sunday)
will discuss the creationist agenda in schools.
Roger Stanyard
659
Roger Stanyard
Re: Evolution is a belief system
14/05/2006 08:59:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@...> wrote:
>
> I was at the debate at the Sheffield University Students' Union in
> November when John Mackay debated Dr Ross - and won - and can
assure
> her Mr Mackay's victory was largely based on the science, with the
> question being 'This House Believes Evolution To Be a Myth.' He is
> after all a geological expert on coal formation, polystrate fossils
> and has a degree in genetics.
>
But John Mackay does not have a degree in genetics. His sole
qulification is a degree in geology from the University of Queensland.
This comes up from time to time - I have heard other claims from
YECers that Mackay has "studied genetics". I have never seen any
evidence as to where (what university) and when.
Seems like there are some serious porkies floating around about
Mackay. Now, where did those originate from?
Roger Stanyard
660
Roger Stanyard
Disconcerting Number of School Teachers
14/05/2006 10:36:00
The anecdotal evidence coming out of this Yahoo group and some of the
research I am undertaking is that a disconcerting number of YECers
are school science teachers - Mackay himself was a science school
teacher and I have a feeling that Ken Ham was as well. The Cowans are
clearly both school science teachers and one of the writers of
letters that Alan has justed posted is a former science teacher.
Has anyone got any reason to suggest why school science teachers seem
so willing to believe in creationism?
I have to say that the creationistshave, for years, being targeting
teachers with specifically tailored DVDs VCR tapes and, no doubt,
booklets and pamphlets. They have kept this away from the public eye.
From comments by Nick Cowan, one wonders whether Mackay and his pals
have built up an underground network of sympathetic school science
teachers in the North West of England. His local base, Creation
Research UK, is based at Ashton under Lyne near Manchester.
Comments welcome.
Roger Stanyard
661
Mikey Brass
Re: Disconcerting Number of School Teachers
14/05/2006 10:59:00
> Has anyone got any reason to suggest why school science teachers seem
> so willing to believe in creationism?
It is noticeable that none of them are biology teachers; they teach in
chemistry or other areas. They have been exposed to chemistry
experimentations and anything that does not meet these expectations is
therefore not science as they know it. Also, they would not have been
exposed to biology per say during their teaching training. This, coupled
with their religious beliefs, is dangerous.
>From comments by Nick Cowan, one wonders whether Mackay and his pals
> have built up an underground network of sympathetic school science
> teachers in the North West of England.
I would not be surprised.
--
Best, Mikey Brass
MA in Archaeology degree, University College London
"The Antiquity of Man" http://www.antiquityofman.com
Book: "The Antiquity of Man: Artifactual, fossil and gene records explored"
- !ke e: /xarra //ke
("Diverse people unite": Motto of the South African Coat of Arms, 2002)
662
Robert Kilner
Re: Disconcerting Number of School Teachers
14/05/2006 11:17:00
Roger,
consider ages, esp in UK. This goes to standards and
qualifications. How
long has it been that a degree in a subject is
required to BECOME a
teacher in the subject? It has never been a
requirement to REMAIN a
teacher. How many started their careers in PE, or
woodwork. Remember
that the Nat Curr was introduced because core
standards and content were
so varied. Nick Cowan = 54. Has he ever had any
teacher training?
Rbt
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
663
Roger Stanyard
Re: Disconcerting Number of School Teachers
14/05/2006 12:09:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Robert Kilner <rmkyargo@...>
wrote:
>
Interest points Robert.
I actually don't know very much about the secondary education system
in the UK but Cowan has a degree from, I think, Downing College in
Cambridge. I don't actually know what the subject is but I assume it
is in chemistry. I dunno about up to the ages of 16, but at 16-18 it
simply would not be possible to teach chemistry successfully with a
degree in the subject.
Certainly where I went to school virtually all of the teachers had
degrees (that was in the 1960s and early 1970s) and those that didn't
(about four) did not teach those in the sixth form. However, that
school was not typical because it was a grammar school. Bluecoat is
not a grammar school.
I don't actually know when it became a requirement for all teachers
in state schools to have a teaching certificate (i.e. do the one-year
teaching course). I assume in the better state schools, it has been a
requirement for years before it became universlly mandatory.
I'm also not sure about the actual status of Bluecoat - whether is is
a true state school. I know that in the private sector it is not
mandatory to have a teaching diploma.
Roger
> consider ages, esp in UK. This goes to standards and
> qualifications. How
> long has it been that a degree in a subject is
> required to BECOME a
> teacher in the subject?
664
Roger Stanyard
Re: Disconcerting Number of School Teachers
14/05/2006 14:19:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
Hum
Big typo error in last post:
"I dunno about up to the ages of 16, but at 16-18 it
simply would not be possible to teach chemistry successfully with a
degree in the subject."
"with" should, of course, read "without"
Roger Stanyard
665
Marc Draco
Re: Re: Evolution is a belief system
14/05/2006 15:20:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> But John Mackay does not have a degree in genetics. His sole
> qulification is a degree in geology from the University of Queensland.
>
> This comes up from time to time - I have heard other claims from
> YECers that Mackay has "studied genetics". I have never seen any
> evidence as to where (what university) and when.
>
> Seems like there are some serious porkies floating around about
> Mackay. Now, where did those originate from?
>
> Roger Stanyard
>
Funny how he has a degree in Geology. Presumably he didn't put what he
really thought down in his examns - otherwise he wouldn't have gotten it
- YEC timelines cannot be ratified with geological science, for
instance. Pity you can't ban people from degrees in the same way you can
ban them for dangerous driving.
Perhaps this is something academia should consider in future!
666
Roger Stanyard
Re: Evolution is a belief system
14/05/2006 15:58:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
wrote:
>
>
> >
> Funny how he has a degree in Geology. Presumably he didn't put what
he
> really thought down in his examns - otherwise he wouldn't have gotten
it
> - YEC timelines cannot be ratified with geological science, for
> instance. Pity you can't ban people from degrees in the same way you
can
> ban them for dangerous driving.
>
> Perhaps this is something academia should consider in future!
>
As far as I am aware Mackay became religious after he left university
(although I've seen a variation on this which suggests he became a
YECer as an undergraduate).
However, one wonders whether he was forced to give up teaching in the
tertiary sector (teaching, presumably geology) because of his YECer
views. It seems that all of his students would have failed their exams
if they ended up believing what he beleived.
Mackay and Ham had what looked like a money making wheeze to get
themselves out of teaching and that was selling creationist books to
schools in Queensland. At that time the Queensland government was
extremely corrupt and extremely conservative and had allowed teaching
of creationism in state schools.
That dried up in 1987 when the rougue conservatives basically lost
power and a Labour govt stopped the creation nonsense in schools.
Surprise, surprise, Mackay and Ham then parted company. Ham even left
Australia, presumably because his money wheeze had dried up) and went
to America. He later formed another money making wheeze, the US arm of
AiG.
Presumably Mackay's interest in UK schools is partly motivated by the
revenue earning potentials if teaching creationism takes off in the UK.
Follow the money to find out what is really going on.
Roger Stanyard
667
MB
Re: Re: Disconcerting Number of School Teachers
14/05/2006 16:38:00
Roger writes:
> I dunno about up to the ages of 16, but at 16-18 it
> simply would not be possible to teach chemistry successfully with a
> degree in the subject.
? Do you mean "without"? Or with "only" a degree in the subject... as in,
one needs a Master's?
>
>
> I don't actually know when it became a requirement for all teachers
> in state schools to have a teaching certificate (i.e. do the one-year
> teaching course). I assume in the better state schools, it has been a
> requirement for years before it became universlly mandatory.
>
> I'm also not sure about the actual status of Bluecoat - whether is is
> a true state school. I know that in the private sector it is not
> mandatory to have a teaching diploma.
>
I don't know about the UK, but I'm not at all clear that a "teaching
diploma" is very helpful in the US unless it will show a young person how
to fill out all the required forms and explain the laws and restrictions
and requirements.
Some people can teach and others cannot, it seems to be a matter of
charisma and personality below the university level. What is necessary,
however, is that the teacher know more about the subject than the
brightest, most advanced student in the class... which some,
unfortunately, do not. Those are the ones whose degree was in Physical
Education and ended up teaching Chemistry or some such...
Regards,
MB
668
Roger Stanyard
Re: Disconcerting Number of School Teachers
14/05/2006 17:13:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "MB" <mbb386@...> wrote:
>
> Roger writes:
>
> > I dunno about up to the ages of 16, but at 16-18 it
> > simply would not be possible to teach chemistry successfully with a
> > degree in the subject.
>
> ? Do you mean "without"? Or with "only" a degree in the subject... as
in,
> one needs a Master's?
>
Typo, I meant without.
669
Marc Draco
Re: Re: Disconcerting Number of School Teachers
14/05/2006 18:22:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
> >
>
> Hum
>
> Big typo error in last post:
>
> "I dunno about up to the ages of 16, but at 16-18 it
> simply would not be possible to teach chemistry successfully with a
> degree in the subject."
>
> "with" should, of course, read "without"
There's a song about that. ;-)
I suspect you could teach Chemistry without a degree, Roger. A lot of
teachers just muddle through regurgitating some textbooks. At primary
some of the crap given to my kids (from Scholastic) are so poorly
written I've had to correct them myself!
670
jbs13uk
Re: BBC1 Creation Alert
14/05/2006 18:24:00
Thanks for the notice Roger. It's only after having fast forwarding
through my recording of the show did I realise it has a regional
segment. The Creationism article was in the South only. Fortunately,
forum members who live elsewhere can watch it online now here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4757357.stm
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Stanyard" <roger@...> wrote:
>
> Apparently the Politics Show on BBC1 today at mid-day today (Sunday)
> will discuss the creationist agenda in schools.
>
> Roger Stanyard
>
671
Marc Draco
Now this is just annoying
15/05/2006 01:50:00
Nick Cowan sees fit to write to me off list - I don't appreciate his
pedantry, so here is his letter and my reply for all to examine.
--- "m_cowan32" <m_cowan32@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Dear Marc,
> Your own posts (665 and 669) on this thread contain a
> number of grammatical inaccuracies (it is not normally part of my
> vocabulary, but I would suspect that "crap" is singular): it
> therefore ill behoves you to criticise the poor writing of others. I
> doubt therefore that you would be appointed to a teaching position
> in this state grammar school if you were to apply. What are your own
> qualifications by the way, since you seem so dismissive of John
> Mackay's? The latter is, incidentally, a regular guest speaker here
> at Blue Coat School, Liverpool.
> Yours sincerely, Nick Cowan M.A.
>
> [Head of Chemistry (1978-2006) and Young Earth Creationist.]
>
Even as a professional writer for over 20 years I am not above making
the odd grammatical error - especially typing on the fly without
benefit of a spelling checker, grammar checker or time to re-read
before hitting send. I have eight books and countless articles to my
credit; all written under a string of pseudonyms.
Was I criticising you in this post? Cross swords with me and I will,
make no mistake. Ask the moderator for advice if you want to make an
enemy of me. I critiqued the appalling state of some of Scholastic's
output - particularly errors that should not appear in print. If you
inferred use of English, then you were mistaken.
As for my qualifications, they are irrelevant in this context, yours
are not. You claim an M.A. and while I'm not 100% up to speed on these
things, isn't an M.A. a degree in a non-science discipline (arts and
theology for instance)? Perhaps you could fill the group in on the
details?
I would have thought that at least BSc would have been more
appropriate for one to actually teach chemistry which, unlike YEC, is
a proper scientific discipline. All of my teachers were qualified to
that level - one was a PhD as I recall (and that was long before a
real degree was required).
Would I apply for a position at a school that teaches creation as a
science or even encourages people like MacKay? Young Earth
Creationism, as you well know, teaches ideas that fly in the face of
accepted, peer-reviewed geological science; so either Mr MacKay is a
liar or his qualification must be in dispute since he obviously does
not believe what he used to obtain them.
Creationism flies in the face of science and as a believer in science,
you'll forgive me for thinking that the YEC position is worse than
idiotic. Not one single claim ever made for YEC has ever been
supported by properly peer-reviewed evidence. Quite the contrary -
ever single theory has been widely exposed as fraud.
Believe all you want, but teaching anything other that what real
scientists can prove is disingenuous and dishonest.
Mr Cowan, do not contact to me off list again. I won't ask you twice.
672
Andrew
Re: Now this is just annoying
15/05/2006 02:32:00
Nicely put, Marc.
Mr Cowan is a remarkably discourteous person. Not only does he continue to
make these petty swipes at people, but he continues to pester people
privately and ignores the fact that he's using a public discussion area to
gain those people's email addresses. In fact he's doing that in two public
areas, as he's been doing the same thing at Debunk Creation as well as here.
If he really wants a debate, as he claims, perhaps he'll have the courtesy
to stop privately pestering individuals and instead make proper use of the
Debunk Creation group, which as he should know has been specifically set up
to provide an accessible public forum for debating the very issues he claims
he wants to debate.
Instead, he seems to think it's appropriate for other people to physically
attend a debate at the school in which he teaches, regardless of their
geographical location and regardless of the time involved. That's an
unreasonable and discourteous expectation when there's an already existing
public forum provided by specialists in the various disciplines challenged
by his creationist views. In addition, that public forum is available to
many more people than would be present at a debate at his school.
Perhaps Mr Cowan would have the courtesy to stop pestering individuals and
instead make proper use of the facilities made available for just the kind
of debate he claims he wants to be involved in.
I hope pupils at the Bluecoat School aren't unduly influenced by their
teacher's cavalier attitude. I also hope they have the opportunity to see
their teacher's claims examined by suitably qualified experts. That is, if
Mr Cowan will face those experts and present his views in the public forum
that's been made available.
673
Roger Stanyard
Re: Now this is just annoying
15/05/2006 08:01:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Marc Draco"
<midnight.diamond@...> wrote:
>
> Nick Cowan sees fit to write to me off list - I don't appreciate his
> pedantry, so here is his letter and my reply for all to examine.
>
Well put, Marc.
For what it is worth, both Oxford and Cambridge first degrees are
basically called Master's degrees even though they are not.
Essentially when you leave you get a Bachelor's degree which is
pretty well automatically upgraded to a Master's if you pay your bar
bills, etc. Yu certain;y do not to to study or pass exams for it.
A lot of people who have actually had to work for their Master's
degrees get really pissed off with the Oxbridge MAs, particuarly as a
first degree at Oxbridge only takes three years.
The matter came up on Radio 4 about 20 years ago and one caller
pointed out that an Oxbridge MA isn't even recognised as a first
degree in Germany. The BBC checked it out and found she was right.
Oxbridge replied that it was awarding such degrees because it had
always done so!!
The position in Scotland is slightly different in that the four
ancient Universities (St Andrews, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen)
all require four years of study for a first degee which is than
counted as a Master's. However, I think this is partly to do with the
higher Scottish School leaving certificate which is more akin to a
Bac generalist qualifation that A levels. In a sense the first year
at the ancient universities is catching up with the specialisations
that would be taught at A level standard in England.
However, I'm not sure of the position of other Scottish universities.
Imperial College, London offers four-year first degrees with a
Master's title at the end. It developed the four year degree to
compete with universities on the mainland of Europe. Strictly
speaking Imperial is the only university in England that offers a
first degree that is recognised in much of Europe.
However, before everybody goes apeshit about their degrees, my
understanding is that the basic reason why UK first degrees are only
for three years is that we specialise at 16 with A levels. The rest
of Europe has the Bac system which is less (but still partly)
specialised.
The position in France is more complex because university degrees as
such are not very highly rated there. The status lies with the
qualifications of the Haute Ecoles such as Po-Sciences, X and ENA.
If anything,, the weakness of the British sysem is the over-
specialisation between 16 and 18. It doesn't make for a broad view of
life.
Roger Stanyard
> --- "m_cowan32" <m_cowan32@...> wrote:
> > Dear Marc,
> > Your own posts (665 and 669) on this thread contain a
> > number of grammatical inaccuracies (it is not normally part of my
> > vocabulary, but I would suspect that "crap" is singular): it
> > therefore ill behoves you to criticise the poor writing of
others. I
> > doubt therefore that you would be appointed to a teaching position
> > in this state grammar school if you were to apply. What are your
own
> > qualifications by the way, since you seem so dismissive of John
> > Mackay's? The latter is, incidentally, a regular guest speaker
here
> > at Blue Coat School, Liverpool.
> > Yours sincerely, Nick Cowan M.A.
> >
> > [Head of Chemistry (1978-2006) and Young Earth Creationist.]
> >
>
> Even as a professional writer for over 20 years I am not above
making
> the odd grammatical error - especially typing on the fly without
> benefit of a spelling checker, grammar checker or time to re-read
> before hitting send. I have eight books and countless articles to my
> credit; all written under a string of pseudonyms.
>
> Was I criticising you in this post? Cross swords with me and I will,
> make no mistake. Ask the moderator for advice if you want to make an
> enemy of me. I critiqued the appalling state of some of Scholastic's
> output - particularly errors that should not appear in print. If you
> inferred use of English, then you were mistaken.
>
> As for my qualifications, they are irrelevant in this context, yours
> are not. You claim an M.A. and while I'm not 100% up to speed on
these
> things, isn't an M.A. a degree in a non-science discipline (arts and
> theology for instance)? Perhaps you could fill the group in on the
> details?
>
> I would have thought that at least BSc would have been more
> appropriate for one to actually teach chemistry which, unlike YEC,
is
> a proper scientific discipline. All of my teachers were qualified to
> that level - one was a PhD as I recall (and that was long before a
> real degree was required).
>
> Would I apply for a position at a school that teaches creation as a
> science or even encourages people like MacKay? Young Earth
> Creationism, as you well know, teaches ideas that fly in the face of
> accepted, peer-reviewed geological science; so either Mr MacKay is a
> liar or his qualification must be in dispute since he obviously does
> not believe what he used to obtain them.
>
> Creationism flies in the face of science and as a believer in
science,
> you'll forgive me for thinking that the YEC position is worse than
> idiotic. Not one single claim ever made for YEC has ever been
> supported by properly peer-reviewed evidence. Quite the contrary -
> ever single theory has been widely exposed as fraud.
>
> Believe all you want, but teaching anything other that what real
> scientists can prove is disingenuous and dishonest.
>
> Mr Cowan, do not contact to me off list again. I won't ask you
twice.
>
674
Mikey Brass
Re: Now this is just annoying
15/05/2006 08:13:00
Marc Draco wrote:
> You claim an M.A. and while I'm not 100% up to speed on these
> things, isn't an M.A. a degree in a non-science discipline (arts and
> theology for instance)? Perhaps you could fill the group in on the
> details?
Bachelor - Masters - Ph.D. in the Arts & Humanities, social sciences and
many physical science disciplines.
675
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Now this is just annoying
15/05/2006 08:17:00
The routine is this. If you graduate with an undergraduate degree from
either Cambridge or Oxford and do not continue on to post-graduate
studies at them or any other university, you degree gets upgraded to a
MA after two years. The first degree is recognised across the continent.
The Masters degree at both Cam and Oxford is distinguised by calling it
the M.Phil.
At other UK universities (like University College London), the Masters
degree is the MA. UCL's undergraduate degree course length, in the
Institute of Archaeology, is 3 years.
676
Mikey Brass
Re: Now this is just annoying
15/05/2006 08:21:00
> If he really wants a debate, as he claims, perhaps he'll have the courtesy
> to stop privately pestering individuals and instead make proper use of the
> Debunk Creation group,
I have twit-filtered him as I literally have a mountain of legitimate
research to get through in the next two and a half months with articles
to write and a conference to attend, I don't wish to have unsolicited
crap. If he wants to talk, let him post on DC and invite his students to
watch... But then I doubt he has the balls to venture outside a rigged
"debate" into a forum where he will be made to produce scientific
evidence for his stance. Actually, I think he is a coward *shrugs*
677
Roger Stanyard
Re: Now this is just annoying
15/05/2006 08:36:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
wrote:
The first degree is recognised across the continent.
>
I can only talk about engineering here but you are quite right, a first
degree is recognised on the mainland of Europe. However, in Germany and
the Netherlands, for example, it is not recognised as a degree; it is
only recognised as a diploma. Therefore you can't operate there as a
professional engineer unless you go on to get post-grad qualifications.
I did my Masters at what was then Cranfield Institute of Technology
which was wholly a post-grad university and mostly dedicated to
engineering (I didn't do engineering). Its engineering output had no
problems getting jobs on the mainland of Europe.
Roger Stanyard
> The Masters degree at both Cam and Oxford is distinguised by calling
it
> the M.Phil.
>
> At other UK universities (like University College London), the
Masters
> degree is the MA. UCL's undergraduate degree course length, in the
> Institute of Archaeology, is 3 years.
>
678
Roger Stanyard
Postings on Fundies
15/05/2006 08:43:00
Hi All,
I've just posted another essay on my blog about the connection between
the fundies and the neoconservatives in the USA and their attempts to
destroy the Church of England.
It stinks.
You can see the essay at http://360.yahoo.com/stanyardroger
What is clearly emerging is a concerted effort by the religious right
in the USA that is spilling over into the UK.
Roger Stanyard
679
Marc Draco
Re: Now this is just annoying
15/05/2006 12:41:00
Mikey Brass wrote:
> Marc Draco wrote:
> > You claim an M.A. and while I'm not 100% up to speed on these
> > things, isn't an M.A. a degree in a non-science discipline (arts and
> > theology for instance)? Perhaps you could fill the group in on the
> > details?
>
> Bachelor - Masters - Ph.D. in the Arts & Humanities, social sciences and
> many physical science disciplines.
Ok. Now I am confused. ;-)
What I really want to know is this: does this guy actually have a real,
science-based qualification - or some wooly degree that he actually
hides behind?
680
Mikey Brass
Re: Now this is just annoying
15/05/2006 13:01:00
Anyone with a Masters degree from Oxford or Cambridge will say they
have a MPhil.
Anyone with a Masters degree from another UK university will say they
have a MA.
So if someone claims to have a MA from Oxford/Cambridge, they are
either conflating the terms or are trying to sound pretentious (i.e.
have a post-graduate degree when they just have the undergraduate
degree: the BA turned into a MA after two years).
681
Marc Draco
Re: Re: Now this is just annoying
15/05/2006 13:17:00
Mikey Brass wrote:
> Anyone with a Masters degree from Oxford or Cambridge will say they
> have a MPhil.
>
> Anyone with a Masters degree from another UK university will say they
> have a MA.
>
> So if someone claims to have a MA from Oxford/Cambridge, they are
> either conflating the terms or are trying to sound pretentious (i.e.
> have a post-graduate degree when they just have the undergraduate
> degree: the BA turned into a MA after two years).
Masters or not Mike, what the hell sort of qualification does Cowan
have? I mean, is the grand defender of stupidity a proper scientist
who's lost the plot or just another trumped-up theologian?
Here's the Wikipedia entry - perhaps it needs editing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_Arts_%28postgraduate%29
http://tinyurl.com/g34ey
682
ukantic
Re: Now this is just annoying
15/05/2006 13:50:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Marc Draco"
<midnight.diamond@...> wrote:
>
> Nick Cowan sees fit to write to me off list - I don't appreciate
his
> pedantry, so here is his letter and my reply for all to examine.
>
> --- "m_cowan32" <m_cowan32@...> wrote:
> > Dear Marc,
> > Your own posts (665 and 669) on this thread contain a
> > number of grammatical inaccuracies (it is not normally part of my
> > vocabulary, but I would suspect that "crap" is singular): it
> > therefore ill behoves you to criticise the poor writing of
others.
Well he is a schoolteacher remember. I noticed on the TES forum that
the creationists there would far rather pull someone up for petty
errors in spelling & grammar, than debate.
I
> > doubt therefore that you would be appointed to a teaching
position
> > in this state grammar school if you were to apply. What are your
own
> > qualifications by the way, since you seem so dismissive of John
> > Mackay's? The latter is, incidentally, a regular guest speaker
here
> > at Blue Coat School, Liverpool.
> > Yours sincerely, Nick Cowan
M.A.
> >
> > [Head of Chemistry (1978-2006)
In other words, he probably knows no more about evolutionary biology
than the janitor that is emptying his bins.
And (sic – damn he's got me doing it now!) the only difference
between them is that the janitor has enough sense not to go around
implying otherwise.
> > and Young Earth Creationist.]
683
Roger Stanyard
Re: Now this is just annoying
15/05/2006 13:59:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
wrote:
>
I may be wrong but it has always been standard practice for graduates
of Oxbridge to describe their 1st degrees as MAs. At least it proves
you paid your bills to the college and I think it highly unrealistic
to expect them to state they have BAs (or BScs) instead.
Given that Bluecoat is a leading grammar school with a 6th form I
take the view that it is almost certain that Nick Cowan's degree is
in chemistry.
I don't think this whole thing as to whether he has an appropriate
degree or not is worth bothering about. Just assume he has.
Nice point though about having lost the plot!
Just as a minor point, time and time again when I come across the
better educated fundamentalists, they have inappropriate science
degrees (inappropriate in the sense that they are not trained to
understand evolution or, say, cosmology). Very few appear to be arts
graduates. Still the most vocal anti-creationists appear to be people
with some form of science background.
Roger Stanyard
>
684
Roger Stanyard
Re: Now this is just annoying
15/05/2006 14:09:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@...> wrote:
>
I dunno about the rest of the people in this group but I feel mocked
and patronised by Nick Cowan. I've controlled my anger because the
average creationist we come across is usually and outright jerk who
probably IS a janitor (they are not the brightest as you well know).
I'm not sure we should put up with this Cowan bloke. Anyone fancy
writing a few letters about him to local worthies. I've posted bits
to the SJS site but no-one looks prepared to follow up there. Anyone
here a member of the NSS?
Roger Stanyard
>
> In other words, he probably knows no more about evolutionary
biology
> than the janitor that is emptying his bins.
>
> And (sic – damn he's got me doing it now!) the only difference
> between them is that the janitor has enough sense not to go around
> implying otherwise.
>
> > > and Young Earth Creationist.]
>
685
ukantic
Reply to Nick
15/05/2006 15:13:00
I was going to e-mail this to Nick, but there isn't a lot of
pointing, seeing as he is reading the posts anyway.
<Reply to Nick>
<Nick> Hello Alan - I have been alerted to your comments by one of
an increasing army
<Rep Alan> Are you sure that shouldn't be, "barmy"?
<Nick> of "Young Earth Creationist" science teacher friends here in
the north-west. (My wife, for example, is Head of Science at
Liverpool's top independent girls' school.)
<Nick> Yes, it's time to "come out of the playpen". Perhaps you'd
like to come to Liverpool to debate me on this issue,
<Rep Alan> Why, what is wrong with debating it on the internet, then
posting the replies on a website for people examine at leisure? In
fact, we already are debating it.
<Nick> in front of the young men and women I teach (mostly non-
Christians aged 16-18 - hardly "children") in this non-
denominational school.
<Rep Alan> As I have previously pointed out, creationism is both bad
science & bad theology. For that reason, you should not be teaching
it to children in a state school (the government have said it is NOT
taught in their schools) regardless of whether you doing it
officially upfront on the blackboard or doing it unofficially by
constant reference to your personal opinions.
<Rep Alan> I note that you have yet to reply to my original question
about fairies & alien abductions. From a scientific point of view,
these are about as implausible as creationism & if a teacher started
teaching those ideas to children, there would be an outcry. Why do
you believe creationism should be immune from the principle that
there should be standards in education? Surely, it would be far
better for everyone if teachers restricted their activities to
teaching the subjects they were paid for, rather than delving into
thoroughly contentious issues such as creationism.
<Rep Alan> Sixteen to eighteen year olds may not strictly be
children; nevertheless, they are still, to varying degrees,
inexperienced, immature & easily influenced. This coupled with their
lack of confidence & subservient position within the teacher/student
relationship makes them vulnerable to predatory individuals or
groups who wish to abuse their position of trust to teach covertly
ideas so extreme that they have been unanimously reject by the
government, the scientific community & the church.
<Nick> Or are you afraid - like Professor Dawkins (an evangelical
atheist whose views are admirably demolished by Alister McGrath in a
recent book) –
<Rep Alan> That wouldn't be the same Alister McGrath who believes in
theistic evolution, by any chance?
<Nick> to actually engage with the scientific issues involved, in a
head-to-head debate. Maybe you can provide a justification for the
spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter - a theory I
thought had been refuted in the late 17th century as superstitious
nonsense!
<Rep Alan> What was refuted was the belief complex life forms can
spontaneously come into existence without explanation. That is
completely different from believing that the very first precursors
to very simple life forms could not come into existence by the
action of known physical & chemical processes.
<Rep Alan> Furthermore, no one knows for sure how these first life
forms arose on this planet & research into this subject
(abiogenesis) is ongoing. However, this has nothing to do with
evolution, which concerns itself with process of how life developed
after it had come into existence. You cannot undermine evolution by
talking about weaknesses in our understanding of abiogenesis. The
two are not the same thing & creationists should stop deliberately
conflating the two issues.
<Nick> Perhaps you can convince my students that (Neo-)/Darwinism
<Rep Alan> Why not simply use the term evolution? It's not because
the term Neo-Darwinism sounds slightly sinister or authoritarian (a
bit like, "Neo-Nazis") by any chance? I thought I would mention this
because it seems to me that what creationists lack in sound
scientific arguments they make up for by promoting an almost
subliminal hostility to their opponents with the use of terms like
this.
<Nick> fits all the accepted categories of scientific proof viz:
observability,
<Rep Alan> What do you think Darwin was doing when he noted
fossilised seashells halfway up the Andes or noted the differences
between Galapagos Finches! Surely, the starting point for much of
evolution is supplied by field biologists, palaeontologists, etc who
are observing things.
<Nick> measurability,
<Rep Alan> Measuring the age of rock strata (& hence the age of the
fossils within them) is a comparatively straightforward procedure,
the size & shapes of fossils can be measured, the genetic makeup of
species can be determined & compared… the list just goes on & on.
<Nick> repeatability
<Rep Alan> Ever since Darwin first proposed the theory of evolution
150 years ago, scientists have been constantly evaluating the
evidence for evolution across numerous disciplines (Biology,
palaeontology, geology, genetics, etc) as it becomes available. All
of this evidence has only further strengthened the position of
evolution.
<Nick> and falsifiability.
<Rep Alan> The theory of evolution could be falsified by any number
of means, for example, fossils in the wrong strata. However, it is
ironic that you bring this up, when you consider that the whole
thrust of creationism is directed at proving evolution is false!
Moreover, being a faith based religious belief, creationism can
never be falsified because it starts with a conclusion (that of a
young earth) & then simply works backwards blasting inconvenient
facts & theories clean out of the way; which regardless of what you
want to call it, is not science.
You might even be able to give them a plausible model for the
biogenesis of a DNA molecule - we teachers here rather struggle to
do so.
<Rep Alan> Again, how does that detract from evolution?
<Nick> So let's talk science, as I do in my classroom - and in my C.
of E. church, where the vicar (as he, like most of our parents with
secondary schoolchildren, has no science credentials himself) wisely
leaves me to teach the church about the harmonisation of Scripture
and Science.
<Rep Alan> At last we get to the crux of the matter – your so-called
criticisms of evolution are nothing more than a rationalisation of
your literalist religious beliefs. You have started with biblical
based conclusions & then twisted or rejected whole junks of modern
science in order to substantiate them. What is worse, rather than
presenting your grand conclusions to the real world of science &
peer-review (where they are laughed at) you attempt to force them
onto other people's children. That is not science: that is the very
antithesis of science.
<Nick> Even Prof. Roger Penrose is happy to accept the notion
of "the Creator"! I will check out the Debunk website - I'll even
recommend it to my students as long as it seems open to honest truth-
seeking and not to atheistic faith-centred brainwashing.
<Rep Alan> In other words, you have no intention of debating this
issue on the internet. Pity really, because I bet your students
would have just loved to watch you slaying them rotten evilutionists!
<Rep Alan> As far as I am aware, many of the regulars over at Debunk
Creation are believers in Gods of one sort or another (but they
are, "all atheists with respect to Zeus & Thor" – Dawkins). There is
also a fair smattering of oppressed atheists such as myself. As I
told an atheist relative recently, if you're ever on a plane that
gets hijack by fundamentalists & they start questioning you about
your beliefs, then tell them you're a Christian, tell them you're a
Muslim or even a Jew – but for f-cks sake don't tell them you're an
atheist; not unless you want you want your brains blowing out.
<Rep Alan> Incidentally, I notice you are carrying on the
creationist's fine tradition of vilifying atheists – I suppose the
atheist pupils must just love having you as a teacher.
<Rep Alan> As for the truth, then the real truth that we should be
teaching our children in school, is that they are being targeted by
religious extremists who are antagonistic to not only much of modern
science but also much of our modern liberal society. We should
explain to them that these fundamentalists are devious, deceitful, &
determined to infiltrate our educational system; & that they seem to
be spreading like dry rot through it.
<Nick> Time to come out of the play-pen Alan!
Nick Cowan (0151-733-1407)
<Rep Alan> play-pen (sic) (1 all) (half the creationists they get
over at DC are functionally illiterate by the way)
<Nick> PS. I'm not a historian, but I'm intrigued by the controversy
about the Roman Empire to which you allude. Please amplify.
<Rep Alan>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4371166,00.html
<Nick> PPS. I've just read the "Sidney" (sic) Morning Herald
article. Can't find the words "preach" and "boasted". Have I missed
something?
<Rep Alan> You sounded quite pleased with yourself & nothing you
have written since suggests caution or a sense of shame at abusing
your position in the manner that you are doing.
<Rep Alan> Preach – "Urge people to accept something: to make an
opinion or attitude known to others and urge others to share it"
Microsoft® Encarta® Premium Suite 2003..
Alan.
686
ukantic
Re: Reply to Nick
15/05/2006 18:50:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@...> wrote:
>
> I was going to e-mail this to Nick, but there isn't a lot of
> pointing, seeing as he is reading the posts anyway.
>
> <Reply to Nick>
I've spotted a couple of typos but I will leave them in for Nick.
After all, I would hate to think he was going home empty handed.
687
Mikey Brass
Re: Reply to Nick
15/05/2006 19:57:00
> <Rep Alan> Why, what is wrong with debating it on the internet, then
> posting the replies on a website for people examine at leisure?
Creationists love having a platform. They also like feeling they are
setting the agenda and are the benchmarkers.
> <Rep Alan> Sixteen to eighteen year olds may not strictly be
> children; nevertheless, they are still, to varying degrees,
> inexperienced, immature & easily influenced.
The purpose of a school is to provide the children with the best
education currently available. In all disciplines, this means teaching
the mainstream views so as to equip the pupils with the basic framework
upon which to build. No school pupil can adequately critique a lengthy
journal chemistry or genetics paper, and most certainly not a detailed
palaeoanthropology article. It is merely an attempt to grab the pupils
before they have progressed further in life. It is brainwashing,
dishonest and intellectually immoral.
> <Rep Alan> At last we get to the crux of the matter – your so-called
> criticisms of evolution are nothing more than a rationalisation of
> your literalist religious beliefs.
And the fact that he considers himself to the arbiter on such matters.
In other words, he elevates himself above his community and indeed most
of the scientific community. And he uses this self-inflated ego to
pretend that people must respond to his demands on his own terms.
Let him debate on DebunkCreation, let him present papers to
peer-reviewed journals, let him participate in valid academic
conferences, et al. The day he and his views are actually accepted in
the chemistry and biological communities is the day I'll grant him the
right to speak as a scientist. Right now, he is a dangerous manipulator
who uses the cover of free speech to preach closed-minded bigotry.
--
Cheers,
Mike
688
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Now this is just annoying
15/05/2006 19:58:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Brass <michael.brass@...>
> wrote:
> The first degree is recognised across the continent.
> I can only talk about engineering here but you are quite right, a first
> degree is recognised on the mainland of Europe. However, in Germany and
> the Netherlands, for example, it is not recognised as a degree;
I can only talk about my knowledge of the social sciences and a first
degree is recognised as such by all EU countries.
--
Cheers,
Mike
689
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: Now this is just annoying
15/05/2006 19:58:00
Roger Stanyard wrote:
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "ukantic" <ukantic@...> wrote:
> I dunno about the rest of the people in this group but I feel mocked
> and patronised by Nick Cowan.
His two e-mails to me suggest a tone of superiority which borders on
arrogance stemming from his belief system. He is unknowledgeable in
biology but has complete faith in his interpretation (and worship) of a
particular religious text. He doesn't worship God, he worship a book.
That mentality is dangerous. It is also dangerous for any academic to
get involved in a "debate" with this person, because (a) that provides
him with legitimacy he doesn't deserve, and (b) the pressure which the
British public will take notice of is pressure exerted by, well, the public.
Whether I like it or not, my qualifications, experience and expertise
make it extremely easy for anyone to catagorise me as "ivory tower".
Given this and my extremely heavy workload, I am currently preferring to
operate behind the scenes and consider it better if a member of the
public is the public voice.
690
Robert K
Oh dear, Oh Dear...
15/05/2006 20:04:00
Nick Cowan (yes YOU), included me in his apparent round of private
angst last night. I wondered today whether to respond to assumptions
therein, but alas, I have to admit that the rules of the Forum would
not be upheld with private responses to what was originally a public
query by Roger.
Let me see if I can understand this. Roger suggests a characteristic
of recent postings in various media. There were responses, including
in my case what amounted to nothing more than a suggestion that the
changes of regulations in teacher training, recruitment (and
monitoring) may account for the apparent phenomenon that Roger raised.
Any specific information we might have used was only that ALREADY
available to anyone. As there was no discussion on whether anyone is
qualified to teach a given subject I was surprised, and even a little
disappointed when I received the mail last night. Why disappointed?
Because there was an excellent opportunity to discuss with us why the
observation by Roger might be wrong: Eg,
Given the absence of any controlling procedure and the impossibly
small sample size, the observation by Roger, as it remained would be
indistinguishable from any artifact generated by the anecdotal nature
of the evidence.
Or how about:
A life long career in teaching children may give one a somewhat
different view on the nature of the subject one specialises in than
say a university lecturer or private tutor. A history of challenges to
one's understand may in some cases produce a different outcome than a
history spent with those who more accept subject material. We would
not really expect those who have only taught adults to maintain the
same attitude to the teaching of the subject than those who have only
taught children.
Both these examples may or may not contain something of value with
respect to Roger's observation. But did we receive anything along
these lines? No. Instead I personally was met with what amounts to:
"Hey Pal! Look how far up the wall I can P...! Come down here if y'got
the stomach for a public slaying."
As I said - Angst.
But hey, this is a discussion forum, so discuss we are here to do. So
there will not be any private responses regarding any public matter
under debate - from myself. Feel free to comment openly and discuss.
Maybe there is something we can all learn. Enlightenment is our friend!
Several points from the message sent to me outside the forum rules
are, however, important. (message reproduced in full at end)
1."wild assertions" any assertions must indeed have been wild as they
were in fact suggestions, and even then not about any individual but a
group, the members of which have in common the fact that they TEACH
CHILDREN. Thus they are a prime concern in THIS forum.
2. It is surely a contradiction to maintain that only sufficiently
qualified people could possibly be in a position to discuss scientific
matters at all, and yet, ask those same rubes to partake in debate. If
qualifications matter, then there cannot be a debate. If there can be
a debate, then qualifications do not matter.
3. An actual assertion! "The science is not, sadly, on your side."
Aha! Change 'is not', for 'may not be' and you have - a suggestion!
Please, please show us though - this science! We have been looking for
this for so long, some are beginning to fear that they will find their
grave before it is ever is presented. We actually do have quite a few
people who specialise in a bewildering array of topics, ready and
waiting to understand and learn this ever ephemeral truth.
4. Most worrying, and a main reason for Alan's effort with this
particular forum. If it is being suggested that the parents of
children are insufficiently 'qualified' to discern whether a given
subject is being taught appropriately, then it follows that those
parents cannot be fully responsible for the welfare of their own
children. Is this the case? Are parents being considered too stupid to
know any better? Is a person's status as 'citizen' insufficient for
their concerns to be valid, even if they do not have children?
I have qualifications and much academic history. I like strawberrys.
Both these statements are EQUALLY relevant to the purpose of this forum.
====<START>====
Dear Robert,
My qualifications are as follows - feel free to check
them out:
M.A.Hons 2(i) - Natural Sciences Tripos, Downing College, Cambridge
University (1969-1972); Part II (3rd year) - Chemistry, Part IB (2nd
year) - Advanced Chemistry + Biochemistry.
Post-Graduate Certificate in Education - Leicester University (72/3)
Teacher of Chemistry, Blue Coat School, Liverpool from Sept. 1973.
Head of Chemistry department since Sept 1978.
Converted from atheism to Christianity: Feb. 18th 1986.
Young Earth Creationist since mid-1988.
My wife has a B.Sc. degree in Chemistry from Leeds University (1971)
What is your evidence for making such wild assertions on the Black
Shadow thread (entry 662)? Perhaps we are creationists precisely
because we DO understand the intellectual/scientific bankruptcy of
the religion that is Darwinism!
Maybe you should reveal your own qualifications. Better still, come
to Liverpool and debate the issue in front of the very children you
are trying to "protect". The science is not, sadly, on your side.
Yours sincerely, Nick Cowan (0151-733-1407)
====<STOP>====
Rbt
PS. Does that message differ only in the name of the recipient from
the ones others have received? Am I not special. :(
691
Mikey Brass
Re: Postings on Fundies
15/05/2006 19:58:00
Interesting that you mentioned Angola, because it was at the cladestine
behest of the US (and with CIA backing) that South Africa invaded Angola
in the early 1980s. America also supported the rebel movement in Angola.
When Cuba sent troops to support the Angola government government, it
made public America's involvement; America withdrew all its support and
left SA to carry the can (and the blame). In reality, the Reagan
administration supported the Apartheid government so long as it suited
its own aims.
692
Mikey Brass
Re: Oh dear, Oh Dear...
15/05/2006 20:30:00
> A life long career in teaching children may give one a somewhat
> different view on the nature of the subject one specialises in than
> say a university lecturer or private tutor.
Undoubtedly the case. I would also argue it is up the teachers to keep
track of the latest developments in their discipline through contacts
with their local universities and by pursuing further degrees.
> 2. It is surely a contradiction to maintain that only sufficiently
> qualified people could possibly be in a position to discuss scientific
> matters at all,
Degrees in a subject are an indicator that a person has obtained a
certain level of expertise. An undergraduate degree in the UK is not an
indicator of high knowledge, but merely an indicator of supposed
competence; it is intended not as the outcome but as a stepping stone to
more advanced research. Is it foolproof? Absolutely not. I know some
Ph.D. students who, quite frankly, lack the required critical facilities
and whose critical faculties do not match those of some farmers in the
hinterland of South Africa with regards to archaeology.
In the end what matters is knowledge and competence. Degrees are a
guideline.
> ====<START>====
> Dear Robert,
> My qualifications are as follows - feel free to check
> them out:
>
> M.A.Hons 2(i) - Natural Sciences Tripos, Downing College, Cambridge
> University (1969-1972); Part II (3rd year) - Chemistry, Part IB (2nd
> year) - Advanced Chemistry + Biochemistry.
Translation: undergraduate degree.
> Converted from atheism to Christianity: Feb. 18th 1986.
> Young Earth Creationist since mid-1988.
Only in his sick mind is this relevant to science.
> My wife has a B.Sc. degree in Chemistry from Leeds University (1971)
Undergraduate degree as well.
Neither degree is in a biology-related subject.
> The science is not, sadly, on your side.
Then win the Nobel Prize for science by proving it in the arena which
counts: peer-review.
He is a coward and an abuser *shrugs*
693
Marc Draco
Re: Oh dear, Oh Dear...
15/05/2006 21:07:00
Nick Cowan in a private rant to Roger says:
"Perhaps we are creationists precisely
because we DO understand the intellectual/scientific bankruptcy of
the religion that is Darwinism!"
BEEP!
Clearly Nick, you are so completely blinded by your faith, you can't
accept that you're wrong. This a foundation of all science - as
theorists, we must be able to accept that we are in error, when such
things are amply demonstrated. Cold Fusion is a famous example, but even
Newton's laws of gravity are only approximations that Einstein corrected.
Darwinism has never been defined in any dictionary that I have read as a
religion or listed among the many hundreds of world religions as one of
their number. Darwinism (as you call it) is a scientific theory -
accepted by those trained in the biological disciplines (and many
others) as a fact.
It is demonstrable, falsifiable and can be used to make predictions:
precisely the same as any other defined scientific theory.
Creationism does not make predictions, cannot by its nature be
demonstrated nor can it be falsified. Until it can meet at least these
three prerequisites, it is not a science - it's a belief system; in the
same way that Scientology is.
This from a man who dares to correct a typo!
As a chemist of your standing [all hail the great Nick] I would expect
you to understand the completely natural forces that created the
elements you describe in your day-to-day career - and the staggering
amount of time necessary for them to form and clump together here as
Earth. You would presumably prefer to think the whole thing winked into
existence as described in the biblical accounts.
Yet, old bean, there are two, yes TWO biblical accounts of the creation
time line.
To date, all science and other arguments notwithstanding, not a single
one of your fellow believers has managed to explain why - or which one
is correct. Since they contradict each other, one of them must be wrong.
I've read a lot of the boilerplate, so I want to hear your explanation -
I'm sure a lot of us do.
I might also inquire as to the nature of the human body - nothing too
taxing. Just count your ribs, then count your wife's. Failing that, grab
yourself a biology text book. See the problem with your view yet?
The bible is full of errors and bad history. Consider Exodus for
example. Where's the evidence for all those people wandering around the
desert all that time? People drop litter - ancient peoples were known
for it - yet there isn't a single, solitary piece of archaeological
evidence that supports the story; because it's just that: a story.
So come on Nick. You've pulled the gun - now how about pulling the
trigger? I don't think you've got the balls.
694
John Germain
RE: Oh dear, Oh Dear...
15/05/2006 21:10:00
On Behalf Of Mikey Brass
Sent: 15 May 2006 20:31
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [BlackShadow] Oh dear, Oh Dear...
>>NC Converted from atheism to Christianity: Feb. 18th 1986.
>>NC Young Earth Creationist since mid-1988.
>MB Only in his sick mind is this relevant to science.
It must be very relevant to him, though: on the 17th he was an atheist; on
the 18th he was his God's newest best friend. He seems to have stayed afloat
for a while - just over two years.
>>>>
>MB He is a coward and an abuser *shrugs*
The term "groomer of impressionable minds" springs to mind..
I am really perturbed by Mr. Cowan.
He seems to have a very snide attitude: perhaps the time has come for him to
remove himself from the classroom to the pulpit.
Replies on list, please, Mr. Cowan. If received off-list, they will be
posted to and replied to on-list. Your choice.
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
695
Mikey Brass
Re: Oh dear, Oh Dear...
15/05/2006 21:18:00
John Germain wrote:
> The term "groomer of impressionable minds" springs to mind..
I like the term, I like it a lot.
> He seems to have a very snide attitude: perhaps the time has come for him to
> remove himself from the classroom to the pulpit.
Hmmm..I would have said the reverse:}}}}}}}}} From the pulpit into a
university biology classroom.
> Replies on list, please, Mr. Cowan.
He won't. He is a coward.
696
ukantic
Blue Coat School story, "creating" waves.
15/05/2006 21:23:00
Looks like Nick is making quite a name for himself.
See:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Pharmacology/dc-bits/jurassic.html#bcoat1
697
Roger Stanyard
Re: Oh dear, Oh Dear...
15/05/2006 23:55:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
wrote:
>
> Nick Cowan in a private rant to Roger says:
>
> "Perhaps we are creationists precisely
> because we DO understand the intellectual/scientific bankruptcy of
> the religion that is Darwinism!"
>
Jeez, this bloke has a degree in science!!!!! From Oxbridge???
Um what about some non-Darwinistic stuff such as how old is, er, the
earth? or, er, um, stratches bum, how old is the universe, or, um,
give me some info on the ages of glaciation, or 'er, how old is the
eldest tree in the world. How many, er, kinds were there on the Ark
and what were their, er names (twiddle thumbs for ever as there isn't
a list). None of which, um, involve, er, Darwin.
Oh! I forgot he's a brlliant word-class scientist that has figured
out that Darwin is wrong on the basis of chemistry. So what is the,
er, scientific theory of creationism? (Twiddle thumbs for ever with
the full knowledge he can't answer the question.)
Um, stick my finger up my bum and lets think. Oh! I just forgot, what
about archeology? So, um, what about the evidence from Israel about
the bible. Must look it up in my chemistry text book. Einstein's
theory of relativity - oh, its in my A-level chemistry text book.
Plate tectonics, punctuated equilibrium, Chicxulub, why, that's all
explained by a Chemist.
Oh, er, I forgot, Cowan also knows all about theology. The CofE
believes that he is right. As does the Roman Catholic Church.
Strewth, the guy's a genius, he's got the Methodists and the
mainstream Baptists and the Lutherans and the Presbyterians on his
side, Oh yes as a religious genius lets add the Jews to his list of
supporters. And the Taoists and the Shintoists and the Buddhists and
the Jains...
Oh! I forgot, Cowan has a first degree from Cambridge. He must know
therefore that that the Bluecoat Religious Education, biology,
history, language, geography, physics and geology teachers in his
school are, um, deceived, stupid and incapable of teaching.
Just like the rest of the output of Oxbridge (and every other decent
university in the world) who don't share his opinion.
So, anyway, this giant of a teacher clearly must be helping the
biology, history, geography, geology and physics students pass their
exams and Bluecoat is now a world class school. Our next generation
of geniuses - well ahead of the rest of the heathen riff-raff.
Oh! I forgot, some of them are going to make brilliant engineers as
well. Clearly as the story of Noah's Ark is true they will make
brilliant naval architects after listening to Jan Peczkis - far
better that the Darwinistic materialists that design ships today.
Are the Cowan students going to turn out well balanced. Of course as
fundamentalists they will clearly be muderous dominionists and
dispensationalists hell bent on making sure Christ returns in the
next 50 years and the Jews are wiped out in Armeggedon. All based on
the great theological knowledge of their chemistry teacher.
He clearly deserves the Noble Peace Price for his work in proving
main stream sciences to be wrong and an international award for his
teaching and theological brilliance!!!
I wonder why no one is putting his name forward for the awards?
Finally, let the pupils of Bluecoat find a job in my area of
expertise, satellite communications. Watch how the satellites and
space rockets work even better because Cowan has figured out Einstein
was wrong and the the second law of thermodynamics is crap. Watch the
aircraft land with precision after his pupils get their hands on GPS.
Watch the spacecraft land on Mars with pinpoint accuracy and timing.
Watch the shares of earth observation satellite owners shoot through
the roof as Cowan's pupils tell them there is no oil more that 6,000
years old. See gold company stocks soar as the revelations sink in.
See the Ordanance Survey redraw all its geological maps on the basis
of Cowan's new evidence.
(This can go on for ever. It's time to check my other emails.)
Roger Stanyard
698
midnight.diamond@ntlworld.com
Re: Blue Coat School story, "creating" waves.
16/05/2006 03:52:00
> >
> > http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Pharmacology/dc-bits/jurassic.html#bcoat1
> >
LOL! Yeah. They should ban him from teaching (anything) if you ask me.
Preaching belongs in churches.
Which makes me wonder if Ol' Nick was ever really an atheist as he purports
to be. Being "Godless" does not an atheist make.
There are many types of non-belief from the "couldn't care less either way"
right the way through to "there is *no* God, asshole!" variety. No prizes for
guess which end of that scale I am on!
I wonder if the Cowardly Cowan will come out from under his rock and actually
debate with us? Somehow I don't think he has the guts. Impressionable
schoolchildren are one thing, free-thinking and educated adults are quite a
different matter.
I challenge him to beat us in open debate and prove creation or resign
immediately from his position and never teach children again.
[sound of crickets]
Yeah. Thought so.
699
Mikey Brass
Re: Blue Coat School story, "creating" waves.
16/05/2006 13:18:00
midnight.diamond@ntlworld.com wrote:
> I challenge him to beat us in open debate and prove creation or resign
> immediately from his position and never teach children again.
He has turned up overnight on DebunkCreation but, as here, has not yet
posted publicly. I am fully expecting the coward to begin e-mailing DC
members offlist as well.
700
Paul Rooney
RE: Blue Coat School story, "creating" waves.
16/05/2006 13:39:00
>Mikey Brass wrote:
>He has turned up overnight on DebunkCreation but, as here, has not yet
>posted publicly. I am fully expecting the coward to begin e-mailing DC
>members offlist as well.
The problem with that is Lenny will just ban him from DC straight away, pity
cos I'd love to see Lenny & gang rip this guy to shreds publicly for all to
see!!
