851
Roger Stanyard
Re: repeating my questions for Mr Cowan
26/05/2006 19:33:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "m_cowan32" <m_cowan32@...> wrote:
>
Hello Lenny, Apologies for my slowness in responding to your (and
others') challenges. Your persistence merits more than silence.
Believe it or not, I have had to do a lot of thinking and searching
over the last 2 weeks (it seems longer) because I am not at all used
to the cut-and-thrust of open debate in a forum that is unashamedly
hostile to my position. I was alerted by a friend to my being a topic
of interest to BS, and I made some mistakes of protocol out of
ignorance.
We owe you an apology back on this one.
I was challenged to sign up to both DC (where I have not posted yet)
and BS, whose avowed interest - as is mine - involves the teaching of
science in schools. I am happy to be called a fundamentalist
Christian and a YEC, and to affirm that yes, my belief system
inevitably colours the way I present science (Chemistry).
So, it's quite alright then if different versions of chemistry are
taught in school according to the religious opinion of the teacher?
When was this agreed?
What I will seek to show is that this is true for everyone, including
atheists, and that presenting young people with both sides of what is
clearly at the moment (whether you like it or not) a controversy, is
desirable. I'm not afraid to answer your questions - some of my
answers may actually surprise you.
None of them are remotely surprising. They are all bog standard
fundamentalist views.
Others you will have heard before, probably too many times in view
of your long-standing opposition to "religion" in the classroom. One
point I would make before I start is that it is not illegal in the UK
to mention/quote from the Bible in any lesson. For example, my
English and History teacher colleagues, both believers and non-
believers, confirm that they do so: why should this be forbidden to
the science staff?
Because your religious opinions flatly contract all mainstream
science.
Should your friends in the UK really be seeking my dismissal? Should
they actively seek to prevent John Mackay presenting a different view
from their own in a voluntary lunchtime Christian Union meeting (he
has never spoken in a science class)?
Simple – John Mackay is a religious extremist. That's why he was
blocked from teaching at Millfield school. Its RE department decided
he was an extremist. Moreover, his extremism is not confined to
geology. Like many fundamentalists, his outlook is deeply
conservative, anti-women and homophobic.
Since when have British state schools had the right to expose their
children to any extremist views they like?
Do you believe that Bluecoat should let Abu Hamza present his
opinions in the school to its Muslims? Do you suggest that Bluecoat
should be giving the BNP a platform given that it is establishing its
own, fundamentalist, church? Do you think that Christian
fundamentalists associated with the Chelcedon foundation, advocating
dominionism and mass murder be given a platform? Do you think
Christian fundamentalist movements such as Battlecry be allowed to
present its violent views to Bluecoat puplis.
The purely materialist/secularist theory of "origins" is constantly
(and misleadingly) presented to them as established fact:
The theory of evolution by natural selection is not a secularist
theory. It is accepted by most mainstream denominations including the
Roman Catholic Church, the Church of England, the Methodist Church,
The Eastern Orthodox Church, the mainstream Baptist movement, parts
of the Pentecostal movement, much of Judaism, the majority of
Hindusim, Jainism, Shintoism, Buddhism, Taoism…Vast numbers of people
with degrees in biology, anthropolgy, geology, biochemistry and other
disciplines where evolutionary theory is taught are religious. Some
atheists and agnostics reject it and most don't even understand it.
I regard this as a misuse of the scientific method, and I attempt to
redress the balance. Out of the thesis of Evolutionism and the
antithesis of Creationism can come a better synthesis of the
strengths and limitations of science, as is increasingly being
recognised
By who – Christian religious fundamentalists. The British government
has no policy whatsoever which supports you assertion that it
believes creationism should be taught in science lessons in public
schools as it gives a more balanced world-view. Andrew (Lord) Adonis
has recently specifically and publicly stated that the government's
view is exactly the opposite. Indeed, the government has also
explicitly repudiated you view at ministerial question time in recent
months.
Tony Blair's personal views are irrelevant. He is a high Anglican
widely reported to be sympathetic to Catholicism. He is not a
religious fundamentalist.
The ambiguous prospect of creationism being included in the
examination system has also recently been removed.
I fear you are fighting a losing battle, and by seeking to censor
what is taught in science lessons by calling it religion will, in the
end, be exposed as fundamentalist brainwashing akin to that I am
being accused of!
Hasn't someone told you that the fundamentalists are loosing this
battle in the USA? Read Judge John's report. You LOST Dover. Why is
it fundies just can't seem to grasp this. It was a disaster for them.
Since when has it been your job to bring your religious
fundamentalist opinions into the science classroom? Since when did
the taxpayer and the public whose children you are teaching give you
the authority to preach you own religious opinions in science classes?
In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote: > >
> > Once again, my simple questions for Mr Cowan. > > 1. How old do
you think the earth is? How do you think fossils > formed? Where do
you think the humans were while dinosaurs and > trilobites were being
fossilized, and where do you think both > dinosaurs and humans were
while the trilobites were beign fossilized? (I could quote 3 words
Ken Ham here but I'll resist!)
What's Ken Ham got to do with it? AiG has three staff in the UK. It's
a religious proselytising organisation. It isn't responsible for
setting the curricula for science or any other subject which contract
its own fundamentalist views. Those subjects include biology,
history, geography and geology.
No-one knows for certain from science alone: the evidence is
contradictory. What evidence is contradictory and, if so, why does it
show that creationism is not?
For theological reasons I believe it is just less than 6,000 years.
So what,. That's your fundamentalist Christian religious opinion. You
a chemist, not a geologist. The vast majority of geologists have
concluded otherwise. Of the very few who believe in creation, none
are regarded as significantly talented in the subject matter.
Fossils are clear evidence for catastrophism and against
uniformitarianism.
That's your fundamentalist Christian religious opinion. You a
chemist, not a geologist. The vast majority of geologists have
concluded otherwise.
Most were formed shortly after the Flood. I'm not a paleontologist
but I guess trilobites would fossilise separately as they were sea-
dwellers.
Who cares what you think about this. You admit that you don't
understand paleontology and you are guessing about the distribution
of trilobites in the geological column. It takes no knowledge or
ability to guess on this matter.
The land dinosaurs would largely have been buried in the mud-flows,
and the humans mostly drowned and decomposed (hence the relative lack
of human fossils). I'm open to learning more on this!
So you should be, it's completely lacking in basic common sense. Why
should dinosaurs be buried and human bodies rot above aground? They
were made of the same material.
What exactly is the scientific theory of creation, and how do we
test it using the scientific method? It isn't a scientific theory, as
it isn't repeatable or falsifiable, just like every other theory
about "Origins".
Well if creationism isn't a theory, that is to say, an explanation of
what happened, then it isn't science and shouldn't be taught by a
scientist and passed off as science. Or, are you also saying AiG,
Creation Ministries, Kent Hovind and Creation Research are lying when
they say they are promoting creation science?
If so, why did you let John Mackay into the school?
Jeez, yet again we have, in Nick Cowan, an example of a
fundamentalist who does understand the fundamentalist position on
creationism. Heard it all, seen it all and am never failed to be
amazed.
It begins with a faith position, which some science seems to support
while some doesn't.
How cares about you religious opinion. Your paid to teach mainstream
science, not to change it in accordance with you religious views.
Since young-earth creationism died a pitiful death in the US >
almost 20 years ago, why do you expect it to do any better in the UK?
It seems to be very much alive in both countries judging by the
interest it is arousing!!
You LOST Dover and you LOST in the Supreme Court in 1987. You all but
in name LOST the Monkey Trial.
What, exactly, makes your religious opinions any more > authoritative
than, say, mine or my next door neighbor's or my car mechanic's or
the kid who delivers my pizzas? I was warned by the moderator of this
forum not to engage in religious debate so I'll pass this, assuming
it is a serious question!
It's on topic so there is no need to avoid the question. What is off-
topic is preaching.
Why did the American AiG section split with the Australian Creation
Ministries section, and why did the UK section apparently throw its
lot in with the American section? Were you involved at any > level
with that? How much support, financial and otherwise, do young earth
creationists in the UK receive from American AiG and/or ICR? (i) I
didn't even know they had split - it's not generally desirable for
Christians to do so.
So why are you helping to split the CofE on this. The fundamentalist
evangelical wing of the CoE is receiving money from Howard Ahmanson –
you know, the American that sat on the board of the Chalcedon
Foundation for years and which advocates stoning blasphemers,
adulterers, non-believers and lippy children to death. The death wish
list includes girls that have sex before marriage. Yes, this is the
one and the same Howie Ahmanson that is funding the split in the
Episcopalian church in the USA and in Africa. The one and the same
that funds the Discovery Institute.
Oh, I forgot, you don't understand the creation science view – not
surprising because AiG USA doesn't agree with Creation Ministries in
Australia about creationism which in turn does'nt agree with the near-
criminal perjurer Kent Hovind. Oh, and John Mackay can't stand any of
them.
Both are a long way from Liverpool!
Wrong: AiG UK is based in Leicester. Its world "Creation Without
Compromise" Conference was held recently in Swanwick – details all
over the national press. Creation Research UK is based in Ashton
under Lyne.
(ii) Definitely not. (iii) No idea - they don't tell the likes of
me! But I would happily support both as I believe they do good work.
Even though they disagree with each other so much that they can't
work together.
(To whoever asked me for the AiG "From A Frog To A Prince" video -
was it Marc? - if you give me a mailing address eg workplace, I'll
send you a free copy! The point isn't what Professor Dawkins said -
it's what he didn't/couldn't say! Very illuminating!!)
Dawkins says he was set up on this one. Prove he is lying. Whatever
you may think about Dawkins, he doesn't lie.
Who said, and where: "A fair result can be obtained only by fully
stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each
question"?
So what happened when both sides of the argument were given forty
days, shed loads of money and the best expert witnesses in the world
available to present their case in front of an impartial audience.
You LOST. You LOST so badly that you didn't go to appeal.
DOVER…..Thomas Huxley would not have been surprised.
But, of course, there was the 1860 debate in Oxford. You LOST that
one as well.
And in the Supreme Court in 1987? You LOST.
So, here we are over 40 years after Morris wrote his bonkers
creationist flood book and the creationists have never had published
a single peer reviewed paper in a scientific journal anywhere in the
world, have contributed absolutely nothing to main-stream science and
convinced no one outside their very minority religious circles and
you think you might be winning?
852
Mikey Brass
Re: repeating my questions for Mr Cowan
26/05/2006 21:32:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "m_cowan32" <m_cowan32@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Lenny,
> Apologies for my slowness in responding to your (and
> others') challenges. Your persistence merits more than silence.
So why do you:
(a) not answer his questions
(b) persist in believing your interpretation of a religious text
trumps both theologians and the material record
(c) refuse to provide a scientific theory of creationism
(d) not point to the Flood layer
(e) deny the genetic and anatomical evolutionary links between chimps
and humans
(f) believe that because the Bible is used as a text in history and
Biblical archaeology, it gives you the write to cite it as the
ultimate authority
(g) think it right to base your chemistry teachings on creationism
when the government specifically states that creationism is not to be
taught in any science class
and
You really should read Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwin's God".
I am not in favour in dismissal, but I am completely and utterly in
favour of keeping *all* religious viewpoints out of a *science* classroom.
853
John Germain
RE: ***S-P-A-M*** Re: repeating my questions for Mr Cowan
26/05/2006 21:44:00
Unless, of course, he has the faintest whiff of a scent of a suspicion that
one of his past/present/future students/colleagues/employers might - I'm
sure that you can follow the ......
Our Fundie Friend chose to put his Metaphysical Neck on the Scientific
Block. I'm not sure that he even began to consider the implications.
To be brutally honest (and not being driven by any Rupture)(Twinge of Gout,
I'll allow) Mr. Cowan would be best served by Mrs. Cowan changing her login
password and all thoughts of Armageddin more Recruits be quietly consigned
to the compost heap.
I believe a decent pension attaches to a Schoolmaster's position. Or not.
Failing that, staying on-topic and on-topic ONLY in Science Classes is good.
I won't speak here with any claim to speak for the others: Nick, teach
Science - If you don't believe in what you teach, find another job.
If you must make it some personal mission to spout bollocks (Ruderies HAVE
already been posted, so I think the brakes are off now), don't do it in the
classroom: not unless you are going to stand up and support the freedom of
speech of a teacher of, for example, EFL (English as a Foreign Language) who
ever-so-subtly (or ever-so-crassly) points / disabuses the pupils to / from
the "correct" viewpoint of that teacher's faith (and no, I am NOT thinking
specifically of Moslems, not by a long Pope.).
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
-----Original Message-----
From: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com [BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Lenny Flank
Sent: 25 May 2006 23:34
To: BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com
Subject: ***S-P-A-M*** Re: [BlackShadow] repeating my questions for Mr Cowan
Importance: Low
> Lenny Flank wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > As usual, I will repeat my questions again, and again and again and
> > again and again, every time Mr Cowan posts anything to this list,
> > until he either answers or runs away.
> >
> > I'm a very patient man.
> >
> You must love the sound of crickets in the morning Lenny! ;-)
>
Actually, I love demonstrating to all the lurkers that creation, uh,
"scientists", quite literally have nothing to offer. :>
So far, our creationist chemist pal has done exactly what every OTHER
creationist I've seen for the past 20-odd years has done. He has (1)
preached a lot and (2) never answered a single question put to him.
If he follows the standard pattern, he will very soon explain that he
(3) "doesn't have time" to answer our questions, followed shortly
afterwards with (4) screaming "you all just hate Christians !!!!!!"
before (5) leaving all in a huff.
I've seen this movie a gazillion times before. (shrug)
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
Yahoo! Groups Links
854
Roger Stanyard
Re: repeating my questions for Mr Cowan
26/05/2006 21:51:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "m_cowan32" <m_cowan32@...> wrote:
>
> I am happy to be called a fundamentalist Christian and a YEC, and
to
> affirm that yes, my belief system inevitably colours the way I
> present science (Chemistry). What I will seek to show is that this
is
> true for everyone, including atheists, and that presenting young
> people with both sides of what is clearly at the moment (whether
you
> like it or not) a controversy, is desirable.
>
Be under no illusion about me, or other people's position on this. I
object to the teaching or promotion of creationism in state public
schools in any form whatsoever.
It is a scientific monstrousity which children up to the age of 18
are largely incapable of making a critical judgement of.
It is unsupported either by a scientific model or theory. Every
argument made in its favour is either completely wrong or so tenuous
as to be irrelevent.
The vast majority of scientists and people with scientific degrees do
not agree with it and the fundamentalists have entirely failed to
convince them otherwise.
The handful of scientists who proselytise it are nearly all third or
fourth rate and are undistinguished in their professions. Others hold
and promote bogus scientific qualifications.
It's support nearly all comes from extremist Christian
fundamentalists who have also been unable to convince mainstream
denominations.
From a religious viewpoint, I take it as nothing more that a form of
paganism.
The religious fundamentalists behind it, of necessity, endemically,
repeatedly and frequently lie; deceit is built into proselytising it.
Moreover, huge swaths of the movement are financially dishonest,
exploitative, are associated, in the USA, with paramilitary
organisations and promote violence and the overthrow of democracy.
In the Middle East, dispensationalists within the movement are
attempting to create conditions for war and the killing of two-thirds
of Jews.
In the United States fundamentalists oppose the entire Green movement
because they believe the world as we know it is comming to an end.
Moreover, I take Christian fundamentalism to be one of the biggest
threat to the Western world there has ever been. It intends to undo
history, the age of enlightenment, rationality, reason and modernity.
It's anti-feminist, homophobic, inherently racist and deeply involved
in extreme right-wing politics. Swaths of the movement intend to
abolish democracy.
It is also a menance to mainstream religious belief.
If you want to teach adults creationism outside of the state system
and with someone else's money that's your business. In a state school
it is my, and everybody else's, business.
That is my position.
Now, let me ask you some more questions.
Did Bluecoat tell its pupils and their parents about John Mackay's
extreme views? Such as his attitude towards women? His homophobia? If
not, why not? If the school didn't know, why?
Did the RE department tell the children amd their parents that all
the mainstream religions oppose his views?
Has the school explained about Howard Ahmanson and his involvement in
the fundamentalist movement. Did it explain that Ahmanson was, for
years, on the Board of the Dominionist Chalcedon Foundation which has
stated that it wants most of them killed?
Did the school explain that Ahmanson was financing the evangelical
wing of the CofE in Oxford? Did it explain why?
Did the school tell its pupils or their parents that AiG was
promoting the ideas of Kent Hovind, a man with a bogus PhD who has a
track record of perjury and claims to be above the law?
Roger Stanyard
855
Mikey Brass
Re: repeating my questions for Mr Cowan
26/05/2006 21:57:00
> We're hostile
> because your extreme minority view is fucking up what thousands of
great
> men over the last century or so have worked tirelessly, often without
> recognition or financial reward to discover.
Every time Cowan is sick he will go to his materialistic doctor and
take materialistic medication to cure his materialistic illness.
> English and history are ARTS you fool! Not critical subjects based in
> the seeking of absolute truths.
History is a critical, scientific discipline. Cowan is merely
confusing Biblical archaeology with creationism; theology with
critical textual, historical and archaeological analysis.
856
Marc Draco
Re: Re: repeating my questions for Mr Cowan
26/05/2006 20:03:00
>
> (To whoever asked me for the AiG "From A Frog To A Prince" video -
> was it Marc? - if you give me a mailing address eg workplace, I'll
> send you a free copy! The point isn't what Professor Dawkins said -
> it's what he didn't/couldn't say! Very illuminating!!)
Wasn't me and I'm quite well aware of Professor Dawkins' side of the
argument.
Indeed it is illuminating - particularly when you see BOTH sides of the
argument. He was filmed in that stance as part of the normal
pre-production setup and edited in specifically to give that misleading
impression. If Dawkins was really this dumb, he'd have made the
"mistake" elsewhere - and he never has. The fact this video is produced
by the AiG speaks volumes.
The very fact that you believe the spin says just how closed-minded you
really are! A proper scientist would have double-checked that. I
remember doing the same the first time I read the statement that "speed
of light has been slowing down...". That would have proved a lot of what
I have learned to be wrong. So I checked the references: and guess what,
the paper was universally panned as utter bollocks.
857
oeditor
Re: repeating my questions for Mr Cowan
26/05/2006 23:35:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "m_cowan32" <m_cowan32@...> wrote:
>
> (To whoever asked me for the AiG "From A Frog To A Prince" video -
> was it Marc? - if you give me a mailing address eg workplace, I'll
> send you a free copy! The point isn't what Professor Dawkins said -
> it's what he didn't/couldn't say! Very illuminating!!)
> >
I did. Yahoo can't find my post, but I said that I'd only accept the
loan of a copy if you could assure me that Dawkins said (whatever he
was supposed to have 'admitted'), directly and without
misrepresentation. Instead, you now damn him because he *didn't* say it!
You disappoint me Nick, you really do. I was beginning to think that
you were at least honest.
Brian
858
Roger Stanyard
Re: repeating my questions for Mr Cowan
26/05/2006 23:37:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
wrote:
>
I assume that you are referring to Barry Settlefield's nonsense.
Guess what? When he was checked out he had no qualifications
whatseover. He had dropped out after one year of his first degree
The fundamentalists hadn't even bothered to check his references.
Oh, um, he came from Australia - the same place that gave us the
Dawkins film crew, AiG, John Mackay and the corrupt Queensland
Government that gave Ham and Mackay their break. The very same
Australia that gave us Houston Snr, the paedophile charismatic.
Roger Stanyard
> The very fact that you believe the spin says just how closed-minded
you
> really are! A proper scientist would have double-checked that. I
> remember doing the same the first time I read the statement
that "speed
> of light has been slowing down...". That would have proved a lot of
what
> I have learned to be wrong. So I checked the references: and guess
what,
> the paper was universally panned as utter bollocks.
>
859
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: repeating my questions for Mr Cowan
27/05/2006 00:03:00
I'm breaking this into pieces so I can cover it all. . . .
> (I could quote 3 words Ken Ham here but I'll resist!)
> No-one knows for certain from science alone: the evidence is
> contradictory.
Um, why is it only young-earth creationists who think so? Why do
anti-evolution old-earth creationists, for instance, think all of the
young-earth arguments are full of crap? Are they just god-hating
atheists, too?
For theological reasons I believe it is just less than
> 6,000 years.
I see.
And school science classrooms should be teaching your theological
opinions why, again . . . . . . ?
You, uh, DO understand that your job is to serve as the children's
TEACHER, not as their PASTOR. You DO understand that. Right?
Fossils are clear evidence for catastrophism and against
> uniformitarianism. Most were formed shortly after the Flood.
See my next post.
I'm not a
> paleontologist
No creationist is.
I wonder why not?
but I guess trilobites would fossilise separately as
> they were sea-dwellers. The land dinosaurs would largely have been
> buried in the mud-flows, and the humans mostly drowned and decomposed
> (hence the relative lack of human fossils). I'm open to learning more
> on this!
I bet you aren't.
Here are some simple questions for you, though. Naturally, I don't
expect you to answer them. I'm posting them for the benefit of the
lurkers, to show you how ridiculously easy it is to shred "flood
geology" to insignificant little bits (which is why scientists
rejected "flood geology" over a century ago).
You say trilobites were fossilized separately from the dinosaurs
because they are sea creatures. Sea turtles are also sea creatures,
so are whales, so are sharks, so are corals, and so are tuna fishes --
and they're not found in the same layers as trilobites.
Why not?
Humans and dinosaurs are both land dwellers. They're not found in
the same fossil layers either. Why not? Your blither about "all the
dinosaurs were buried in mud flows, but the humans drowned", is silly
on the face of it. Are you telling me that in this raging earth-
destroying worldwide flood, NOT ONE SINGLE DINOSAUR DROWNED?????????
Is THAT what you are telling me????????
Humans die in mud flows all the time --- dozens in California each
year. And yet you are telling me that NONE --- NOT ONE SINGLE HUMAN -
- died in the same mud flow as a dinosaur did????????
How about the flying reptiles like pteranosaurs --- how the heck did
THEY manage to get caught in a mud flow?
What about titanotheres, pareiasaurs, pelycosaurs . . . why aren't
they found with EITHER dinosaurs or humans?
Do you have any idea how idiotic you sound? Any idea at all? Dude,
if THESE are the sort of answer you plan on teaching to
schoolchildren, then any reasonably bright ten year old (who seem to
have uncanny knowledge of dinosaurs) will know that you are full of
crap. (shrug)
Oh, and about this "pre-flood" thingie of yours. Since you think
nothing evolved and everything was created on days 1-6, it seems
reasonable to assume that you must accept that, before the Flood,
every living thing on earth, everything from humans to T rexes to
Dimetrodons, were alive and well and happily living together, side by
side. I presume some of them died before the Flood.
Where, then, can we see this pre-flood layer of fossils of all living
things, side by side?
What about the dwellings and buildings built by the humans who lived
before the Flood. Where can we see the archeological remains of
human habitations BELOW the flood-drowned dinosaurs and trilobites?
(Or do you think the buildings ran for the high ground too, like the
oak trees apparently did.)
> > 2. What exactly is the scientific theory of creation, and how do
> we
> > test it using the scientific method?
>
> It isn't a scientific theory
No kidding.
So why, again, do you think it should be taught in science
classrooms?
And why, then, did all those American creationists (ya know, the ones
you British creationists get your money from) claim it IS a
scientific theory. In court. Under oath.
>, as it isn't repeatable or falsifiable,
> just like every other theory about "Origins".
The Roman Empire isn't repeatable either. Does that mean, in your
view, it can't be demonstrated to have existed?
And if evolution is "unfalsifiable", then, uh, why do creatiokooks
waste so many books trying to lay out all the "evidence" which, they
claim, PROVES IT FALSE???????????
Make up your friggin mind, Nick. Is evolution FALSE, or is it UNFALSIFIABLE?
Or do you just switch from one assertion to the other according to
which is most convenient at the moment?
It begins with a faith
> position, which some science seems to support while some doesn't.
If science is a, uh, "faith position", then, um, why is it that
evolutionary biologists run the gamut from Christians to Hindus to
Buddhists to Muslims to atheists to agnostics, while creation
"scientists" are all, without exception, fundamentalist Christians.
Why is that?
> >
> > 3. Since young-earth creationism died a pitiful death in the US
> > almost 20 years ago, why do you expect it to do any better in the
> UK?
>
> It seems to be very much alive in both countries judging by the
> interest it is arousing!!
> >
If you say so. I'm afraid, though, that you're quite ignorant of the
situation in the US, where teaching creation "science" is, um,
illegal, and where YEC's are routinely ignored by the press, the
courts, and everyone else. If your YEC pals in the UK are telling
you that creationism is alive and thriving in the US, they are lying
to you. Neither the press nor the legislatures nor anyone else pays
any attention at all to YEC's, not since the creationists lost so
crushingly and embarrassingly in the Supreme Court. As far as
evolution-deniers go, Intelligent Design is the only game left in
town, and they try as hard as they can to DENY that they are
creationists. YEC is, in the US, a political and social nonentity.
Now answer my question. What on earth makes you think YEC's will do
any better in the UK?
> > 4. What, exactly, makes your religious opinions any more
> > authoritative than, say, mine or my next door neighbor's or my car
> > mechanic's or the kid who delivers my pizzas?
>
> I was warned by the moderator of this forum not to engage in
> religious debate so I'll pass this, assuming it is a serious question!
It IS a serious question, and it goes directly to YOUR response that
creationism is a theological position (one that, by the way, you want
taught in school SCIENCE classrooms).
So I ask again: what, exactly, makes your religious opinions any
more authoritative than, say, mine or my next door neighbor's or my
car emchanic's or the kid who delivers my pizzas?
If there is some objective reason why your religious opinions are
more divine or infallible than anyone else's (other than simply your
say-so), I'd like to hear it.
And if your religious opinions are, as I strongly suspect, NOT any
more authoritative or divine or infallible than anyone else's, then
I'd like to know (1) why anyone should pay the slightest attention to
them, and (2) why they deserve to be taught in a science classroom
any more than anyone else's.
I am not interested in any "religious debate" --- I don't give a
flying fig WHAT your religious opinions are. All I want to know is
why anyone should think your religious opinions, **whatever they
are**, are any more authoritative or infallible than anyone else's.
Other than your say-so.
I simply do not believe that you are infallible, Mr Cowan. Please
demonstrate to me why I *should* think you are . . . . .
> > 5. Why did the American AiG section split with the Australian
> > Creation Ministries section, and why did the UK section apparently
> > throw its lot in with the American section? Were you involved at
> any
> > level with that? How much support, financial and otherwise, do
> young
> > earth creationists in the UK receive from American AiG and/or ICR?
>
> (i) I didn't even know they had split
Are you REALLY that utterly pig-ignorant of the movement you're
involved in? Really and truly?
Wow. Just, wow.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
860
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: repeating my questions for Mr Cowan
27/05/2006 00:08:00
> One point I would make before I start is that it is not illegal in
> the UK to mention/quote from the Bible in any lesson. For example, my
> English and History teacher colleagues, both believers and non-
> believers, confirm that they do so: why should this be forbidden to
> the science staff?
Um, because the Bible isn't science.
Should your friends in the UK really be seeking my
> dismissal?
Yes. At least until you're able to remember that you are those
children's SCIENCE TEACHER, not their PASTOR.
Should they actively seek to prevent John Mackay presenting
> a different view from their own in a voluntary lunchtime Christian
> Union meeting (he has never spoken in a science class)?
Yes. Creationism is not about "science". It has a political agenda,
which it does not bother to conceal, and which is repugnant to any
person with an IQ above room temperature.
Read all about it at:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/fundies.htm
As for your idiotic "flood geology" nonsense, I shred it pretty
thoroughly at:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/sorting.htm
and
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/kinds.htm
Feel free to respond. Better read a few science books first, though
(not just your creationist religious tracts).
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
861
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: repeating my questions for Mr Cowan
27/05/2006 00:09:00
What I will seek to show is that this
> > is true for everyone, including atheists
By the way, Mr Cowan, I am not an atheist.
Neither are *many* of the people on this list telling you that you're
full of crap.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
862
midnight.diamond@ntlworld.com
Re: Re: repeating my questions for Mr Cowan
27/05/2006 01:12:00
> > I assume that you are referring to Barry Settlefield's nonsense.
> > Guess what? When he was checked out he had no qualifications
> > whatseover. He had dropped out after one year of his first degree
> >
> > The fundamentalists hadn't even bothered to check his references.
> >
> > Oh, um, he came from Australia - the same place that gave us the
> > Dawkins film crew, AiG, John Mackay and the corrupt Queensland
> > Government that gave Ham and Mackay their break. The very same
> > Australia that gave us Houston Snr, the paedophile charismatic.
Yeah, that was the one Roger. I'm having a slow day. But this proves the
point even more. Scientists and scientific thinkers like you and I check our
results (or the results put to use). Creationists accept every bit of drivel
that comes their way in support.
863
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: repeating my questions for Mr Cowan
27/05/2006 00:16:00
>
> >
> > (To whoever asked me for the AiG "From A Frog To A Prince" video -
> > was it Marc? - if you give me a mailing address eg workplace, I'll
> > send you a free copy! The point isn't what Professor Dawkins said -
> > it's what he didn't/couldn't say! Very illuminating!!)
My standard response to all the YEC crap about "no beneficial
mutations" and "genetic information cannot increase":
Oddly enough, when the creationists cite the "fact" that "most
mutations are deleterious" and "genetic informaiton cannot increase",
it disproves CREATIONISM itself.
See, according to the creationists, all humans alive today are
descended from 8 people who got off a Really Big Boat. Anyone who
understands junior high genetics will know that 8 people have between
them a maximum possible of 16 different alleles for each genetic
locus (in reality, the 8 people on the Big Boat would have had even
FEWER, since some of them were descended from others and thus shared
alleles, but for the sake of argument we will give the creationists
every possible benefit of the doubt and assume that they were ALL
heterozygous and shared no alleles at all in common). That means, if
the creationists are correct that "most mutations are deleterious"
and that "no new genetic information can appear through mutation",
there can not be any human genetic locus anywhere today with more
than 16 alleles, since that is the MAXIMUM that could have gotten off
the Big Boat.
But wait ---------- today we find human genetic loci (such as
hemoglobin or the HLA complex) that have well over *400* different
alleles (indeed some have over *700* different alleles). Hmmmm.
Since there could have only been 16 possible on the Big Boat, and
since there are over 400 now, and since 400 is more than 16, that
means that somehow the GENETIC INFORMATION INCREASED from the time
they got off the Big Boat until now.
That raises a few questions ----- (1) if genetic mutations always
produce a LOSS in information, like the creationists keep telling us,
then how did we go from 16 alleles to over 400 alleles (perhaps in
creationist mathematics, 400 is not larger than 16). (2) if these
new alleles did not appear through mutations, then how DID they get
here.
But wait -- there's more:
Not only, according to creationists, must these new alleles have
appeared after the Big Boat, but, according to their, uh, "theory",
all of these mutations must have appeared in the space of just *4,000
years* -- the period of time since the Big Flood. That gives a rate
of BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS, which add NEW GENETIC INFORMATION, of one
every 10 years, or roughly two every generation ------- a much higher
rate of beneficial mutation than has ever been recorded anywhere in
nature. Nowhere today do we see such a rate anywhere near so high.
So not only would I like to know (1) what produced this
extraordinarily high rate of non-deleterious mutations, but (2) what
stopped it (indeed, what stopped it conveniently right before the
very time when we first developed the technological means to study
it).
But wait --- we're not done YET . . . . . .
Since less than 1% of observed mutations are beneficial (the vast
majority of mutations are indeed deleterious or neutral and have no
effect), that means for every beneficial mutation which added a new
allele, there should have been roughly 99 others which did not. So
to give us roughly 400 beneficial mutations would require somewhere
around 40,000 total mutations, a rate of approximately 100 mutations
in each locus EVERY YEAR, or 2,000 mutations per locus for EACH
GENERATION. Do you know what we call people who experience mutation
rates that high? We call them "cancer victims". The only people
with mutation rates even remotely comparable were victims of
Chernobyl.
But wait, we're STILL not finished . . . . . .
In order for any of those mutations to be passed on to the next
generation to produce new alleles, they MUST occur in the germ cells -
- sperm or egg. And since any such high rate of mutation in a
somatic cell (non-sperm or egg) would have quickly produced a fatal
case of cancer, if the creationists are right this mutation rate
could ONLY have occurred in the germ cells and could NOT have
occurred in any of the somatic cells.
If one of our resident creationists can propose a mechanism for me
which produces a hugely high rate of mutation in the germ cells while
excluding it from any other cells, a Nobel Prize in medicine surely
awaits --- such information would be critically valuable to cancer
researchers. But alas, no such mechanism exists. The rate of
mutations made necessary by creationist "arguments" would certainly
have killed all of Noah's children before they even had time to have
any kids of their own. In order to produce 400 beneficial alleles in
just 4,000 years, humanity would have been beset with cancers at a
rate that would have wiped them all out millenia ago.
Mr Cowan, you're a chemist. Feel free to give me your, uh,
explanation of all this.
Oh, and as a good YEC'er, I also assume you buy into the "evolution
violates the laws of thermodynamics" crapola, too. If so, I'd like
you to point out a specific chemical sequence in evolution that you
feel violates the laws of thermodynamics, and explain how it does so.
Please be as specific as possible.
I'll hold my breath waiting.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
864
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: repeating my questions for Mr Cowan
27/05/2006 00:20:00
>
> Regarding local radio, though, I'm a bit wary because of the
> complexity of the issues involved. As always, there's the problem
> that creationism cuts across several specialised subjects. The
> creationist is free to roam at will because he isn't constrained by
> the discipline involved in undersanding the subject and responding to
> facts, and it's easy for him to throw out all sorts of weird ideas
> that it takes a whole group of specialists to rebut properly.
That is only a problem is one treats this as a SCIENCE matter. It's
not. As Mr Cowan was so kind as to confirm for us, it is a matter of
teaching RELIGIOUS OPINIONS in a science classroom.
There simply is no scientific theory of creation. None. Zip. Zero.
Zilch. Nada. Not a one.
What Mr Cowan and others like him want is to preach their extremist
religious opinions to a captive audience of schoolkids, in the
service of a theocratic political program. That's ALL they want.
Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.
I doubt that agenda would win much popular support.
So don't bother with the "science debate". Turn it into a POLITICAL
debate. That, after all, is what it is. And the fundies can't win
it. Nobody supports their extremist views. Nobody.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
865
oeditor
Re: repeating my questions for Mr Cowan
27/05/2006 00:41:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "m_cowan32" <m_cowan32@...> wrote:
presenting young
> people with both sides of what is clearly at the moment (whether you
> like it or not) a controversy, is desirable.
Goddidit or didn't. Theology, not science. There is no scientific
controversy.
>
> I'm not afraid to answer your questions - some of my answers may
> actually surprise you. Others you will have heard before, probably
> too many times in view of your long-standing opposition to "religion"
> in the classroom.
I don't know Lenny, but I'd have thought he was like most of us here
and objects to religion in the SCIENCE classroom, masquerading as science.
>
> One point I would make before I start is that it is not illegal in
> the UK to mention/quote from the Bible in any lesson.
No, but it's lying, cheating and f'ing unprofessional to do it in
science classes. Or rather, it's lying, cheating and f'ing
unprofessional to teach science when you don't believe what you're
teaching.
> For example, my
> English and History teacher colleagues, both believers and non-
> believers, confirm that they do so: why should this be forbidden to
> the science staff?
English: KJ bible influenced the language. History: the church
influenced the nation - just go to York Minster and think of all
those poor peasants who were tithed all their lives to build it. Then
think of the even more unfortunate people who were murdered for the
sake of one benighted version of it or the other. Science: not a
problem if you use science to analyse (remember that from you A-level,
Nick?) religion. But just don't pretend that it can be done the other
way round.
> The
> purely materialist/secularist theory of "origins" is constantly (and
> misleadingly) presented to them as established fact: I regard this
as > a misuse of the scientific method, and I attempt to redress the
> balance.
Pity you had to have that irony bypass!
> Out of the thesis of Evolutionism and the antithesis of
> Creationism can come a better synthesis of the strengths and
> limitations of science, as is increasingly being recognised - by
your > own Government as well as by Tony Blair etc.
Quadruple irony bypass, evidently. Bush's backwoodsmen fiddle
scientific findings whenever it suits them. Blair's minions have had
to back down and forbid teaching creation in science classes. Watch
out, Nick!
> I fear you are
> fighting a losing battle, and by seeking to censor what is taught in
> science lessons by calling it religion will, in the end, be exposed
> as fundamentalist brainwashing akin to that I am being accused of!
Why to we waste our breath? It's not teaching science and calling it
religion, it's teaching religion and calling it science. Why won't you
understand?
>
>
> For theological reasons I believe it is just less than
> 6,000 years.
What's that got to do with the p/r/i/c/e/ age of fish?
> Fossils are clear evidence for catastrophism and against
> uniformitarianism. Most were formed shortly after the Flood. I'm not
> a paleontologist but I guess trilobites would fossilise separately >
> as > they were sea-dwellers. The land dinosaurs would largely have
been > buried in the mud-flows, and the humans mostly drowned and
decomposed > (hence the relative lack of human fossils). I'm open to
learning more > on this!
>
Wouldn't it have been better to learn first, before spouting rubbish?
Brian
866
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: repeating my questions for Mr Cowan
27/05/2006 00:44:00
> --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@...>
> wrote: >
>
> I assume that you are referring to Barry Settlefield's nonsense.
Heck, is Nick spouting out THAT old crapola? Even ICR gave up on
that one over a decade ago:
HAS THE SPEED OF LIGHT DECAYED?
by Lenny Flank
(c) 1995
One method of demonstrating the extreme age of the universe is done
with a telescope. Using powerful reflecting telescopes (and now with
the space-based Hubble Space Telescope), we are able to observe
objects in space that are several million--even several billion--
light years away. When we observe a quasar in our telescope that is a
billion light years away, the light we are seeing now left that
object a billion years ago and is just now reaching us. If the
universe were only 6,000 years old, though, as the creationists
claim, we would be quite unable to see anything more than 6,000 light
years away from us, since the light from objects further away than
that would not have had enough time to reach us by now. The fact that
we are able to see objects several billion light-years away indicates
that the universe itself must be at least several billion years old.
The creationists attempted to explain this inconsistency with a
theory called "C-Decay", first put forth by the Australian
creationist Barry Setterfield in 1981. Setterfield's thesis was a
simple one: "The basic postulate of this article is that light has
slowed down exponentially since the time of creation." (Setterfield,
1981, cited in Strahler, 1987, p. 116)
Setterfield cites figures for the speed of light (known to physicists
and astronomers as "c") that were calculated at various times as far
back as 1675. Back in the 17th century, the astronomers Roemer and
Picard measured the speed of light at 299,270 km/sec, plus or minus 5
percent. Setterfield then took the higher value in this range,
301,300 km/sec, and compared it to the modern figure of 299.792.5
km/sec . (He ignored the fact that scientific instruments in 1675
were nowhere near the quality as modern ones and could not give a
similar accuracy).
Setterfield then concluded that the speed of light had lessened or
"decayed" from 1675 to the present, and if this trend were projected
backwards, the speed of light would have been 1.5 million billion
kilometers per second in the year 4040 BC (plus or minus twenty
years), approximately 500 billion times faster than it is now. Thus,
Setterfield concluded, the only reason why astronomical objects
appear to be so far away today is because the speed of light has
slowed down by a factor of half a trillion. In reality, says
Setterfield, these objects are only several thousand light years away
from us. "I propose," Setterfield concluded, "that this initial high
value of c would have produced the appearence of great age to the
universe in that one week (to those who look with eyes and minds
fixed on the current value of c)." (Setterfield, 1981, cited in
Strahler, 1990, p. 116)
The flaws in Setterfield's reasoning are obvious. There was no
justification for assuming that the highest possible value of Picard
and Roemer's experimental range was the correct value, other than the
fact that it exaggerated the presumed "decay". The 1675 range of
values, in fact, contains the current value of the speed of light,
and there is thus no reason whatsoever to conclude that the speed of
light in 1675 was any different than it is now.
When it was pointed out to Setterfield that the values for c that
were measured in the early 1960's are identical with those made in
the 1980's, he promptly concluded that the "decay" must have stopped
shortly before that: "From these observations it would seem that
beyond 1960 the speed of light had reached its minimum value and was
constant thereafter". (cited in Robert P.J. Day, "The Decay of C-
Decay", undated) Setterfield has never cited any reason why the speed
of light should suddenly stop decaying after so many centuries (and,
coincidentally, just at the time when technological methods were
becoming precise enough to measure the speed of light very
accurately).
Similarly, Setterfield made the assumption that the speed of light
did not decay at all for some period of time after the original
creation, but remained stable for a period. His "scientific
reasoning" for this conclusion? "I will assume that this value held
from the time of creation until the time of the Fall, as in my
opinion the Creator would not have permitted it to decay during His
initial work." (Setterfield, 1981, cited in Strahler, 1990, p. 116)
If, creationists point out, we assume that the value for c has varied
over time, then some other consequences can be derived from that
fact. As creationist Alan Montgomery points out, Setterfield's theory
would "radically alter the dimensions of the age of the universe,
eradicate the 'Big Bang', sink the Nebular hypothesis, undermine
geological Uniformitarianism, and destroy Darwinism all at the same
time." (Montgomery, "Creation Science", Creation Science Association
of Ontario, Summer 1987) It is indeed unfortunate for the
creationists that there is not a shred of evidence which indicates
that the speed of light has ever varied.
By the late 1980's, the complete lack of scientific support for
Setterfield's assertions caused even the ICR to publicly reject his
theory, concluding that it was "not warranted by the data upon which
the hypothesis rests." (Gerald Aardsma, ICR Impact, "Has the Speed of
Light Decayed?", May 1988). "Even a cursory glance at the data," the
ICR concluded, "reveals that the above analysis is inappropriate for
the given data set, and, hence, the conclusions drawn from it are not
valid . . . . This result says pretty clearly that there is no
discernible decay trend in the data set." (Gerald Aardsma, ICR
Impact, "Has the Speed of Light Decayed?", May 1988)
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
867
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: repeating my questions for Mr Cowan
27/05/2006 02:01:00
> > The
> > purely materialist/secularist theory of "origins"
My, my, how did I miss this one the first time . . . .?
This prompts yet another question for Mr Cowan. Once again, I don't
expect Mr Cowan to actually answer. And once again, my question
makes its point whether Mr Cowan answers or not --- I do not need his
cooperation.
What, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than,
say, weather forecasting or accident investigation or medicine?
Please be as specific as possible.
I have never, in all my life, ever heard any weather forecaster
mention “god” or "divine will” or any “supernatural” anything, at
all. Ever. Does this mean, in your view, that weather forecasting
is atheistic?
I have yet, in all my 45 years of living, to ever hear any accident
investigator declare solemnly at the scene of an airplane crash, “We
can’t explain how it happened, so God must have dunnit.” I have
never yet heard an accident investigator say that “this crash has no
materialistic causes — it must have been the Will of God”. Does this
mean, in your view, that accident investigation is atheistic?
How about medicine. When you get sick, do you ask your doctor to
abandon his “materialistic biases” and to investigate possible
“supernatural” or “non-materialistic” causes for your disease? Or do
you ask your doctor to cure your naturalistic materialistic diseases
by using naturalistic materialistic antibiotics to kill your
naturalistic materialistic germs?
Since it seems to me as if weather forecasting, accident
investigation, and medicine are every bit, in every sense, just as
utterly completely totally absolutely one-thousand-percent
“materialistic” as evolutionary biology is, why, specifically, is it
just evolutionary biology that gets your panties all in a bunch? Why
aren’t you and your fellow creationists out there fighting the good
fight against godless materialistic naturalistic weather forecasting,
or medicine, or accident investigation?
Or does that all come LATER, as part of, uh, “renewing our culture” …
. . ?
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
868
Peter Hearty
Re: Re: repeating my questions for Mr Cowan
27/05/2006 07:28:00
> As creationist Alan Montgomery points out, Setterfield's theory
> would "radically alter the dimensions of the age of the universe,
>
It would do even more than that. Light can be viewed as self propagating
interactions between electric and magnetic fields. If the speed of light is
altered then that means that the ratio of electric and magnetic forces would
alter too. As these are the root of all chemistry, chemistry as we know it
today would not exist. This is a very strange position for a chemistry
teacher to adopt.
The change in the electric force would be sufficient to radically alter
nuclear physics as well.
The spectra of stars suggests that chemistry and nuclear physics have
remained relatively stable over the observable timespan of the universe
(regardless of its age). There is of course some evidence of a tiny
variation in the fine structure constant, but this is unconfirmed and is
many many orders of magnitude away from a variation that could help YECs.
869
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: repeating my questions for Mr Cowan
27/05/2006 10:57:00
Lenny Flank wrote:
> That is only a problem is one treats this as a SCIENCE matter. It's
> not. As Mr Cowan was so kind as to confirm for us, it is a matter of
> teaching RELIGIOUS OPINIONS in a science classroom.
What this whole discussion tells me is that if Cowan is really
interested in both increasing his science knowledge and gaining a deeper
theological understanding, he should read books like "Finding Darwin's
God" and various textual Biblical critiques (William Dever's books are a
good place to begin).
870
Roger Stanyard
Re: repeating my questions for Mr Cowan
27/05/2006 11:24:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
> > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@>
> > wrote: >
> >
> > I assume that you are referring to Barry Settlefield's nonsense.
>
>
>
>
> Heck, is Nick spouting out THAT old crapola? Even ICR gave up on
> that one over a decade ago:
>
>
My understanding is that the latest thinking amongst some some
cosmologists is that the speed of light may have increased!
Setterfield, a self-pityist if ever there was one, is, apparently,
still pushing his nonsense now that he has moved to the USA.
Roger Stanyard
871
Roger Stanyard
Re: repeating my questions for Mr Cowan
27/05/2006 14:23:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
> > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, Marc Draco <midnight.diamond@>
> > wrote: >
> >
> > I assume that you are referring to Barry Settlefield's nonsense.
>
>
>
>
> Heck, is Nick spouting out THAT old crapola? Even ICR gave up on
> that one over a decade ago:
>
Here is some evidence about the teaching of this nonsense in Bluecoat.
According to the Guardian Newspaper of 2nd May 2006, John Mackay, is
quoted as saying this about the speed of light:
The age of the solar system? "It all depends on whether you believe
the speed of light is constant. If you think it is, then when you
look into outer space the stars appear to be billions of years old.
But there's no reason we should make this assumption and some highly
respected physicists are now beginning to openly question it."
Um, the is the very one and the same John Mackay, the trained SCHOOL
TEACHER, who was presenting his views on science to Bluecoat pupils
in May 2006. The one and the same John Mackay who was there in 2005
and has been invited back to speak in 2007.
Roger Stanyard
872
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: repeating my questions for Mr Cowan
27/05/2006 15:15:00
.
>
> What this whole discussion tells me is that if Cowan is really
> interested in both increasing his science knowledge and gaining a
> deeper theological understanding, he should read books like "Finding
> Darwin's God" and various textual Biblical critiques (William Dever's
> books are a good place to begin).
Alas, though, it is quite apparent to me that Cowan is no different
than any of the other creationists I've run into in the past 25 years
-- he isn't interested in the slightest in science or theological
understanding. All he wants to do is get his religious opinions into
other people's heads, whether they like it or not.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
873
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: repeating my questions for Mr Cowan
27/05/2006 15:57:00
Lenny Flank wrote:
> All he wants to do is get his religious opinions into
> other people's heads, whether they like it or not.
He has never met my South African stubbornness before.
874
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: repeating my questions for Mr Cowan
27/05/2006 16:55:00
> Lenny Flank wrote:
> > All he wants to do is get his religious opinions into
> > other people's heads, whether they like it or not.
>
> He has never met my South African stubbornness before.
>
What struck me was his genuine surprise that anyone would actually
DISAGREE with him -- and cite REASONS for disagreeing.
In general, fundies tend to insulate themselves from the real world,
and only talk about such things amongst themselves. When one of them
blithers "ya know, evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics",
the rest of them just nod stupidly and say "amen, brother". It's how
they can get away with spouting out such silly idiotic nonsense as
"well, all the dinosaurs died in mud flows, but all the humans
drowned in open water, so that's why we don't find them together."
It must come as a terrible shock to them, then, when they try the
same line of BS on a non-fundie, only to get back "you're full of
shit, and here's why". It must be particularly hard on them when,
like Cowan, they really don't know what they are talking about, and
run headlong into someone who DOES know what they are talking about.
And, as a final insult to Cowan's smug self-righteousness, many of
the people here that are telling him he's full of shit, are not
atheists.
No WONDER fundies like Cowan prefer to "discuss" the matter with
young schoolchildren who can't respond back. (shrug)
Poor guy. He was told by his "betters" at AiG that (1) creation
'science' is winning, (2) creation 'science' is unassailable, and (3)
anyone who opposes creationism is just an atheist devil-worshipper.
So he came barging in here, all full of piss and vinegar and ready to
do battle with the godless darwinist dragon -- only to get his head
handed to him, and find out that NONE of AiG's assertions are true. .
. .
I'd actually feel sorry for him, if he wasn't such a prideful
arrogant self-righteous prick who thinks, quite literally, that he is
holier than everyone else.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
875
Joe Cooper
Re: Re: repeating my questions for Mr Cowan
27/05/2006 17:08:00
Lenny Flank wrote:
> > Lenny Flank wrote:
> > > All he wants to do is get his religious opinions into
> > > other people's heads, whether they like it or not.
> >
> > He has never met my South African stubbornness before.
> >
>
>
>
> What struck me was his genuine surprise that anyone would actually
> DISAGREE with him -- and cite REASONS for disagreeing.
>
> In general, fundies tend to insulate themselves from the real world,
> and only talk about such things amongst themselves. When one of them
> blithers "ya know, evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics",
> the rest of them just nod stupidly and say "amen, brother". It's how
> they can get away with spouting out such silly idiotic nonsense as
> "well, all the dinosaurs died in mud flows, but all the humans
> drowned in open water, so that's why we don't find them together."
>
> It must come as a terrible shock to them, then, when they try the
> same line of BS on a non-fundie, only to get back "you're full of
> shit, and here's why". It must be particularly hard on them when,
> like Cowan, they really don't know what they are talking about, and
> run headlong into someone who DOES know what they are talking about.
> And, as a final insult to Cowan's smug self-righteousness, many of
> the people here that are telling him he's full of shit, are not
> atheists.
>
> No WONDER fundies like Cowan prefer to "discuss" the matter with
> young schoolchildren who can't respond back. (shrug)
>
> Poor guy. He was told by his "betters" at AiG that (1) creation
> 'science' is winning, (2) creation 'science' is unassailable, and (3)
> anyone who opposes creationism is just an atheist devil-worshipper.
>
> So he came barging in here, all full of piss and vinegar and ready to
> do battle with the godless darwinist dragon -- only to get his head
> handed to him, and find out that NONE of AiG's assertions are true. .
> . .
>
> I'd actually feel sorry for him, if he wasn't such a prideful
> arrogant self-righteous prick who thinks, quite literally, that he is
> holier than everyone else.
>
>
>
> ===================================
> Lenny Flank
Surely he has run into informed opposition in science classes in the
university he graduated from.
As a science teacher, I assume he completed a minimum of science classes
there.
Joe Cooper
876
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: repeating my questions for Mr Cowan
27/05/2006 17:11:00
Lenny Flank wrote:
> What struck me was his genuine surprise that anyone would actually
> DISAGREE with him -- and cite REASONS for disagreeing.
Welcome to the world of academia and disagreements, Nick Cowan, where if
people will be corrected if they make a wrong statement, and smacked
down if they repeat it and come across as arrogant.
> I'd actually feel sorry for him, if he wasn't such a prideful
> arrogant self-righteous prick who thinks, quite literally, that he is
> holier than everyone else.
If I had a pound for every time I have heard you say this...
877
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: repeating my questions for Mr Cowan
27/05/2006 22:37:00
> Surely he has run into informed opposition in science classes in the
> university he graduated from.
Perhaps. Or, perhaps he had the good sense to shut up about them and
not demonstrate himself to be such a gullible fool.
> As a science teacher, I assume he completed a minimum of science
> classes there.
In the US, that would not be a safe assumption -- there is no
requirement whatsoever for teachers to have any degree at all in the
subjects they teach.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
878
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: repeating my questions for Mr Cowan
27/05/2006 22:39:00
> > I'd actually feel sorry for him, if he wasn't such a prideful
> > arrogant self-righteous prick who thinks, quite literally, that he
> > is holier than everyone else.
>
> If I had a pound for every time I have heard you say this...
That's just because there ARE so many fundies who are arrogent self-
righteous pricks who think, quite literally, that they are holier
than everyone else.
Indeed, I strongly suspect they ALL are.
;)
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
879
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: repeating my questions for Mr Cowan
27/05/2006 23:14:00
Lenny Flank wrote:
> In the US, that would not be a safe assumption -- there is no
> requirement whatsoever for teachers to have any degree at all in the
> subjects they teach.
Is that the case in all states?
Funny how us third world countries have more stringent requirements, if
that is indeed the case.
880
Lenny Flank
Re: Re: repeating my questions for Mr Cowan
27/05/2006 23:19:00
> Lenny Flank wrote:
>
> > In the US, that would not be a safe assumption -- there is no
> > requirement whatsoever for teachers to have any degree at all in the
> > subjects they teach.
>
> Is that the case in all states?
>
Every state I know of.
All one needs is a degree in education. And in many states, not even
that.
===================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
My Reptile Page
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
881
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: repeating my questions for Mr Cowan
27/05/2006 23:26:00
Lenny Flank wrote:
> All one needs is a degree in education.
Well, my rating of US education is pretty damn low as it is. I am *not*
impressed with the standard of archaeological teachings in any of the
Ivy League universities.
--
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)
882
Mikey Brass
Re: Re: repeating my questions for Mr Cowan
27/05/2006 23:35:00
I watched the movie CRASH and am reading about how the Dixie Chicks were
demonised. The US is such an angry nation.
883
midnight.diamond@ntlworld.com
Re: Re: repeating my questions for Mr Cowan
28/05/2006 01:12:00
--- Mikey Brass <michael.brass@uclmail.net> wrote:
> > > > Lenny Flank wrote:
> >
> > > All one needs is a degree in education.
> >
> > Well, my rating of US education is pretty damn low as it is. I am *not*
> > impressed with the standard of archaeological teachings in any of the
> > Ivy League universities.
Look out Mike - I think the Blairs of this world are set to dumb down our
education system too. It's not just the acadamies either - they've just
backtracked on the way that division and multiplication are taught to primary
kids - after SIX years. Why? Because kids are arriving at secondary unable to
do basic maths...
I despair.
884
Roger Stanyard
Re: repeating my questions for Mr Cowan
28/05/2006 00:21:00
--- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...> wrote:
>
> Every state I know of.
>
> All one needs is a degree in education. And in many states, not
even
> that.
>
I think it is necessary to be careful in handling the position in the
UK.
To teach in secondary state education schools (that is to say, pupils
over the age of 11) it is compulsory to have a first degree and a
teaching certificate. The later requires a one year full time sourse
at a specialised teacher training college or department.
However, the certificate is not required to teach in private schools
(which, bizzarly are normally called public schools in the UK).
Note that John Mackay is a qualified school teacher; his teacher
training qualification will be Australian and I don't know whether
that is acceptable in the UK but assume that it is.
Moreover, to teach in UK state secondary schools also requires
proficiency in maths. That normally means a general certificate of
education (GCSE) which is the standard for 16 year olds.
Nike Cowan undoubtedly teaches science to GCSE level but also,
because Bluecoat is for children up to the age of 18, A Levels as
well. A level is short for Advanced Level and is a specialised
qualification in that, for example, if you want to do science at
university you would normally take science or science related A
levels.
Normally pupils take about three of these, (four, if seriously
bright). Its roughly equivalent to the first year of a university
degree in some other countries (including Scotland and, I guess, the
USA). The Baccalaureate alternative is still rare in England and
Wales but my understanding is that the Scottish higher school leaving
certificate is akin to it.
Bluecoat is fairly unusual in that it is a grammar school and has
selective entrance at the age of 11. It used to be that only 20%
passed the exams (called 11 Plus) to get into such schools. Most
grammar schools were abolished in the 1960s and 1970s (including the
one I went to).
The school is a prestigious state school with a national name even
though its pupils will (almost certainly) be locals.
Like it or not, Nick Cowan is well qualified to teach in Bluecoat.
His first degree is from an extremely prestigious university,
Cambridge. The school is no obscurity such as that in Dover.
In terms of overall status Bluecoat is not a top British school in
that the more expensive private schools rank well ahead of it. No 2
of these is just down the road from where I live and yearly fees per
pupil are touching £20,000 (US$35,000) I suspect that the cost, to
the state, per pupil at Bluecoat is around £4,000-£5,000
There are some serious drips teaching at my local public school. A
loy of English people deeply object to private education and thus
think favourably towards the likes of Bluecoat.
Roger Stanyard
885
midnight.diamond@ntlworld.com
Re: Re: repeating my questions for Mr Cowan
28/05/2006 02:48:00
--- "Roger Stanyard" <roger@dttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > --- In BlackShadow@yahoogroups.com, "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...&> gt;
wrote:
> > >
> > > Every state I know of.
> > >
> > > All one needs is a degree in education. And in many states, not >
> > even
> > > that.
> > >
> > I think it is necessary to be careful in handling the position in the
> > UK.
> >
> > There are some serious drips teaching at my local public school. A
> > loy of English people deeply object to private education and thus
> > think favourably towards the likes of Bluecoat.
> >
> > Roger Stanyard
Thanks to the way acadamies "work" I suspect that many "unqualified" teachers
are working in them. I'm not sure on the exact proportion.
The fact that Nick Cowan teaches at a state-funded school, a state that
specifically outlaws (and I use the term loosely) the teaching of
creationism, leaves him on very uneven footing. I wonder what the good people
of Liverpool would think if they got to know that their exclusive grammar was
home to a head science teacher who had discarded the basic tenets of science;
preferring instead to preach from an ancient storybook!
886
Roger Stanyard
Why I Object to Teaching Creationism in Schools
28/05/2006 09:33:00
This is a "letter" from America which summarises my objection to the
teaching of creationism in schools. I've already expressed this in my
own words and pointed who what some of the monsters behind
creationism believe:
Science and the First Amendment
by Patricia J. Princehouse
(The Nation, 5/16/2006)
People ask me, Why pour so much energy into protecting science
education? Why not fight for literacy generally or any of a thousand
other educational
