British Centre for Science Education, Humanism's Trojan Horse
by KrauzeOn their website, the British Centre for Science Education claims to be a "newly formed organisation with the primary purpose of stopping the teaching of Creationism in UK state schools." They've had a letter published in the Times, and has even been endorsed by a motion in the House of Commons.
However, David Anderson at "The BCSE Revealed" has been doing some digging, and has discovered some interesting facts. For example, the BCSE isn't "newly formed". It previously existed under the name "Black Shadow", but changed to the current name earlier this year.
Their old website is still accessible, and invites people to "Join The Fight" by joining the British Humanist Association. The group is also using its concern about creationism in schools as an excuse to make political jabs at UK's Prime Minister Tony Blair:
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the UK government under the leadership of Tony Blair has an unstated agenda to increase the influence & involvement of religious organisations in the running of our society. Many of these are associated with creationism & other forms of fundamentalism that seem to have crawled straight out of the Dark Ages.
So, it's a group using concern for science as a front for its metaphysical and political agenda. Isn't that what many critics are accusing the Discovery Institute of doing?
October 22nd, 2006 at 9:52 am
I nominate the picture with the gun for Threatiness of the Year award.
Comment by MikeGene — October 22, 2006 @ 9:52 am
October 22nd, 2006 at 10:08 am
Hi Mike,
We think alike. I was planning on using that picture (along with the "Daddy, what did you do in the Great War against the Fundies?" picture) in my post awarding them the Henry Rollins Award.
Comment by Krauze — October 22, 2006 @ 10:08 am
October 22nd, 2006 at 10:28 am
Sounds good. Maybe we need a Henry Rollins of the Year Award and TT readers can vote in December.
BTW, did you see this:
Comment by MikeGene — October 22, 2006 @ 10:28 am
October 22nd, 2006 at 10:35 am
Yes, and I sent Nick Matzke at the NCSE an e-mail, asking him what was up with that. Maybe the NCSE just replied to one of their mails with a list of useful links, as I can imagine them responding to any random request. It seems the BCSE has a history of inflating their own importance (see here), and I didn't want to draw attention to this before I had given the NCSE a chance to offer their side of the story.
Comment by Krauze — October 22, 2006 @ 10:35 am
October 22nd, 2006 at 10:43 am
Good point, Krauze.
Comment by MikeGene — October 22, 2006 @ 10:43 am
October 22nd, 2006 at 2:17 pm
As a general rule, I ignore anybody who uses the term "Dark Ages."
Comment by macht — October 22, 2006 @ 2:17 pm
October 24th, 2006 at 6:33 am
I do like that BCSE revealed blog, the hysterical tone of it is amusing. The post about BCSE 'lies' is great. It starts with a bunch of quotes from the BCSE forums and then switches half way through to a bunch of quotes from what appears to be a totally different science campaign! Cast iron evidence this Anderson guy appears to have…
Comment by Odd Digit — October 24, 2006 @ 6:33 am
October 24th, 2006 at 10:48 am
Hi Krauze.
A rather unfortunate set of posts, really - it may have helped to acually speak to us first, rather than going off half-cocked.
My name is Ian Lowe, I'm one of the core members of the BCSE.
Some clarification is called for, of course, but there really is nothing sinister here. I will provide the background, if you are willing to listen.
The Yahoo group, "black shadow", was started a few years back, and acted as a posting place for stories about creationism etc within the UK. Largely composed of humanists, secularists and atheists, the group had a quite anti-religious tone, and those of us who enjoy sarcastic snippy discussion and generally poking fun at the creationists and fundies used the group as a general discussion area.
The "gun" image you have posted is nothing more than a graphic knocked up to have a laugh. Whilst many in the dominionist movement would quite like to see atheists being shot, I don't think anyone in the BCSE believes that we face any real danger of being lined up against the wall any time soon.
Earlier this year, however, a particularly odious creationist, John Mackay, visited the UK in a flurry of publicity and visited some schools to propagate his religious views. This was enough to galvanize people to action, and an embryonic version of the BCSE emerged. Initially, we simply re-used the Yahoo group - it was, after all, where many of us had "met".
Frustrations with the format, and the growing understanding that this campaign would involve cooperation between humanists, christians, theists and atheists led us to our new web "home".
In the meantime, the organisation has grown. Despite David Anderson's "research", we have a real world membership and it is a rather more diverse membership than he suggests. I personally am an atheist, however, four of our members are Anglican Clergy, several are Christians, and a couple are more general pantheists.
Of the main organising group, one is a christian, two are atheists, the other two are more private. To paint us as a humanist organisation is patently wrong.
For the chap who is checking with the NCSE - I look forward to your post when you get a response.
Now clearly, you have something of an agenda of your own here (doesn't everyone), but perhaps you should engage a little before letting rip.
IL.
PS> so, where do we collect our award then?
Comment by IanLowe — October 24, 2006 @ 10:48 am
October 27th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
Hi Ian,
I can certainly understand your concerns. After all, I frequently deal with critics who think that if they can just show that some ID supporters have previously been involved in creationist activities, they will have proven that intelligent design is re-branded creationism. However, I have some questions about BCSE.
"The "gun" image you have posted is nothing more than a graphic knocked up to have a laugh."
And yet you posted it at the very entrance to the site, requiring visitors to click on it to enter.
"Frustrations with the format, and the growing understanding that this campaign would involve cooperation between humanists, christians, theists and atheists led us to our new web "home"."
Was the understanding that you needed to cooperate with theists unanimous? Did all of the previous members, who had been attracted to a group with a "quite anti-religious tone" just accept the new goal of the group?
"Despite David Anderson's "research", we have a real world membership and it is a rather more diverse membership than he suggests."
Where can I find a list of your members?
Comment by Krauze — October 27, 2006 @ 6:27 pm
October 28th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
"I frequently deal with critics who think that if they can just show that some ID supporters have previously been involved in creationist activities, they will have proven that intelligent design is re-branded creationism."
Indeed. There are debates at both ends of the spectrum, from the quite involved discussion of specific biological structures, right through to the equivelant of "yeah, your mom". I strive for the middle ground.
My own concern is not so much with ID, as with those people who seek to bypass the proper processes of peer review, and go straight to the classroom. In that sense, far too many ID proponents have a clear religious agenda, and pursue it in the same way that creationists have.
Ultimately, the BCSE exists to confront this back door infiltration of the Science classroom - the actual validity or otherwise of ID is a matter for peer review.
"However, I have some questions about BCSE."
Sure. I'm not speaking in a formal capacity, but rather as one of the leadership group.
That description of the leadership sounds a little nebulous simply because we are in the midst of discussions with the bodies which oversee non profit groups such as ourselves in the UK as to the precise structure that is acceptable. I am sure that you will appreciate that organisations, much like life itself, evolve, rather than springing fully formed from the mind of Zeus.
"And yet you posted it at the very entrance to the site, requiring visitors to click on it to enter."
I have checked just now, and can confirm that this image is not present (and has never been present) on the BCSE website. I have to stress again that the BCSE and Blackshadow are not the same organisation - BCSE was formed as a new organisation by some members of that Yahoo group.
The websites are visually similar, as the same software is used for both, however, they are completely seperate, including being hosted by different companies.
I have to say that I had no idea that this graphic was being used in this way on the blackshadow.co.uk website. I personally believe that the way this is presented is quite threatening, and will ask the author of the blackshadow site to consider removing the image - I am, however, in no position to insist that this is done.
"Was the understanding that you needed to cooperate with theists unanimous?"
No. The debate of whether to work with theists and mdoerate christians, or view them as "part of the problem" has been a strong theme in secularist groups for a very long time, and continue to present day.
"Did all of the previous members, who had been attracted to a group with a "quite anti-religious tone" just accept the new goal of the group?"
Some members of the blackshadow group did not agree, and have therefore opted not to be a part of the BCSE.
"Where can I find a list of your members?"
In the same place you will find a list of the members of the Labour Party, or the Church of England - locked away safely in the offices of those organisations. We exist as a campaign group, and it is neither required nor appropriate for us to publish membership information.
I am unsure what jurisdiction you are posting from, but it is exceptionally unusual for a UK organisation to disclose it's membership figures, let alone produce a list of members for public perusal.
Comment by IanLowe — October 28, 2006 @ 4:14 pm
October 28th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
An interesting addendum to my last post. I have actually found out why the gun image was made in the first place, and thought you might like to know.
It seems like you might have another entry for your "threatiness" award.
http://www.answersingenesis.or...
Just in case that is changed, I have a screenshot here:
http://bcseweb.org.uk/images/a...
The context of course, is that Answers in Genesis is suggesting that the teaching of Evolution is the reason why those Amish schoolgirls were killed, or Columbine happened…
The Blackshadow "gun" image was made up the morning after AIG posted their lovely new front page. I think the AIG one has the edge in "threatiness", what with being a real gun, how about you?
Comment by IanLowe — October 28, 2006 @ 5:47 pm
October 28th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
Krausse wrote:
There have been tensions - since well before moving from BlackShadow. Anderson is well aware of this, having stated as much, and as such I am at a loss when it comes to finding a charitable way of interpreting how he has presented us as having some hidden, ideological agenda rather than being a genuine coalition consisting of individuals of often radically-differing views.
Comment by timothychase — October 28, 2006 @ 8:54 pm
October 28th, 2006 at 9:33 pm
Hello, Ian. It's good of you to check in when your org was mentioned. You say that Blackshadow put up the gun image the day after AIG put up their front page image. Which is awful, so thanks for bringing it to our attention.
In your first post you said Blackshadow is "several years" old, and put up the gun graphic to "have a laugh," in a way that when I read your post, suggested it was pretty much there all along.
When did AIG start using this graphic, for Blackshadow to have put up their gun graphic the next day? And did BCSE exist at that time? I have a request in via email at AIG - as well as a complaint. But since you already know, perhaps you could go ahead and enlighten us on the timeline?
By the way, non-profit organizations in the US must jump through tax laws as well as public disclosure laws. Board, officers and donors are all recorded and accessible, even though it sometimes takes some digging. I presume the UK has separate tax designations for non-profits as well, so as to monitor where the money comes from and where it goes.
So, should we go ahead and presume BCSE is standard for-profit per funding purposes, so that donors don't need to be recorded and membership isn't deductible?
Comment by Joy — October 28, 2006 @ 9:33 pm
October 28th, 2006 at 11:19 pm
Hi Ian,
Thanks for the AiG info. I'd say they deserve some type of Scapegoat Award, but the Henry Rollins award safely belongs to the BCSE. It's interesting to watch the BCSE emulate the AiG. From where I sit, it's simply fundie vs. fundie fighting over who gets to point the gun.
That's fine. So we are supposed to accept your claims about membership on Faith?
Comment by MikeGene — October 28, 2006 @ 11:19 pm
October 29th, 2006 at 7:46 am
Hi Ian,
"In that sense, far too many ID proponents have a clear religious agenda, and pursue it in the same way that creationists have."
I would be a little careful with that "agenda" card if I were you. After all, it is seems that many of the founding members of BCSE have a clear atheistic agenda.
"I have checked just now, and can confirm that this image is not present (and has never been present) on the BCSE website."
No, as I said in the post showing the gun, it was placed at the entrance of the old "Black Shadow" page.
Besides, your original argument was that it was "nothing more than a graphic knocked up to have a laugh." But there's nothing about the picture that indicates this. It's placed at the entrance of the site, such that it is the first thing visitors will see of your organization. And there is nothing to indicate that's just a joke, either on the page with the gun or on the page that it leads to.
Indeed, in a post on BCSE's own forum, Roger Stanyard defends the image by saying that it's a reference to Howard Ahmanson and "the murderous Chalcedon Foundation which advocated killing everyone that disagreed with its fundamentalist religion."
Krauze: "Did all of the previous members, who had been attracted to a group with a "quite anti-religious tone" just accept the new goal of the group?"
Ian: "Some members of the blackshadow group did not agree, and have therefore opted not to be a part of the BCSE."
So all of the members of BCSE agree to leave the anti-theistic sentiments in the closet?
"I am unsure what jurisdiction you are posting from, but it is exceptionally unusual for a UK organisation to disclose it's membership figures, let alone produce a list of members for public perusal."
That's fine. On this blog, we have also chosen to remain anonymous, for a variety of reasons. But as Mike pointed out, you're making some grand claims for the expertise of your members, such as that "many are qualified scientists and include people with post-graduate qualifications, including PhDs from leading universities such as Leeds." Imagine if, on this blog, we presented ourselves as "qualified scientists with PhDs from leading universities", yet refused to reveal our real names. Wouldn't you want to know who we were, so that you could check our expertise for yourself?
Comment by Krauze — October 29, 2006 @ 7:46 am
October 29th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
Joy
Firstly, I wasn't actually aware that the image was being used on the blackshadow website!
I'm sorry if you read my post as implying that the graphic was an old one - I do not believe that to be the case. The blackshadow domain has been in existance since 2003, whilst the Yahoo Group dates from early 2005.
Forming the BCSE was being discussed as a possibility as early as 12th July, and various elements of the organisation were falling into the place in the months following. The best date I have for the "Official" start of the BCSE is the 6th October, however, there were a number of letters etc written before this date.
I believe that AIG posted their gun image a few days after the Amish school shooting.
We are in the process of discussions on whether the benefits of charitable status are worth the restrictions in terms of our ability to campaign politically, however, your assumptions are basically correct.
The UK's mechanism for tax recovery for charities seems different from the US. Registered charities are able to recover the portion of a person's Income Tax paid on a donation, so if a taxpayer makes a donation of 76p, the charity can claim roughly 23p from HMRC.
The BCSE is not registered for this scheme at this time. If we do register in this way, information about those members wishing to make gift aid donations has to be supplied to HMRC, however, there is no requirement to disclose this information to the public (and very few organisations do so).
MikeGene,
The BCSE Have not emulated AIG - the BCSE's website is http://bcseweb.org.uk. The blackshadow.co.uk domain is an entirely seperate entity. That's pretty much the crux of the confusion here.
Krauze,
"It's placed at the entrance of the site, such that it is the first thing visitors will see of your organization."
That's simply not the case!
The image was (it has been removed) placed at the entrance of another website, which is NOT the website of the BCSE.
You may feel that the non seriousness of the image was my key point - that is not my understanding of the discussion. As far as I am concerned, the key point was (and remains) that the assertion made by David Anderson (and repeated here at telic thoughts) is that blackshadow became the BCSE. This is simply not the case.
The blackshadow Yahoo Group (distinct from the domain) was used as a discussion forum by the founding members of the BCSE, that is all.
As I understand it, the blackshadow.co.uk domain is now being used by the owner for a seperate anti-creationism website. It has a link to us, but it is not a part of the BCSE.
As for Roger's post, he clearly states that the criticism here is of Alan Bellis's website. The only reason for me posting here is to correct the mistaken view that the two entities are, in fact, one and the same.
Moving on, you ask "So all of the members of BCSE agree to leave the anti-theistic sentiments in the closet?"
To the same extent that any group of people with disparate views agree to put their differences to one side to cooperate on the issues which matter to them. The BCSE has both Christian and Atheist members who are as human as the rest of us - sometimes tempers and passions are raised, and points are debated and discussed.
It's healthy.
Comment by IanLowe — October 29, 2006 @ 12:14 pm
October 29th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
Hello Ian,
You write:
Hold on. For years, ID critics have been telling us that creationism and ID "is one and the same." They have been telling us that ID proponents and fundamentalists are "one and the same." It's all a Trojan Horse!, they exclaim. Then, when there is a clear connection between an extreme atheist group and the BCSE, you come along expecting to be treated differently? If critics spend years and years painting their opponents as deceptive, don't expect the people you have been accusing to treat you with a different standard. As some might say, you are simply involved in "rebranding" and are probably actively looking for religious supporters to play the token role as part of the marketing campaign.
Comment by MikeGene — October 29, 2006 @ 1:55 pm
October 29th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
Hold on a moment, Mike. Who is this 'us' you refer to? There is an institution or organization question in this for you at TT's as well. The fact is that none of you are 'IDists' in the sense that those who coined the term 'intelligent + design' are IDists. You have no voice to claim 'we' in the same sense that Johnson, Behe, Dembski, Meyer, Nelson, Chien, Pearcy, Gonzalez, Corova, et al. have a voice to say 'critics have been telling us.' The fact is that just what you are defending is sometimes ambiguous at best, though perhaps your upcoming book will solve this problem of clarity and coherency.
Mike Gene is (self-proclaimed in pieces) an agnostic-front-loading-ID-evolutionist with a 'hunch' that some 'intelligence' was 'behind' the 'design' of life. From what I've read in almost five years of his on-line contribution, he has an agenda as well, even it is something less offensive (and oftentimes more defensive) as simple tolerance. Ian's claim that theists and atheists are both welcome sounds similar to the tone at TT's, doesn't it?
Besides, Ian and others at BCSE can simply say their organization 'evolved' from something previous to something 'new entirely.' That is the point he is defending - one thing is not the same as the other. It seems improper trying to defend territory that is not yours in the first place.
Arago
Comment by g arago — October 29, 2006 @ 3:07 pm
October 29th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
Hi g arago,
You write, "Hold on a moment, Mike. Who is this 'us' you refer to?"
Anyone who doesn't dismiss ID as bunk. You may make a distinction between us as TT and those who coined the term 'intelligent + design,' but most critics don't. I myself, for example, have been accused of being part of the Wedge conspiracy in a book by Barbara Forrest. We at TT have been held responsible for what Ann Coulter writes, for example. The point is that the critics of ID do not have a reputation of making distinctions. On the contrary, they have a reputation of lumping ID with creationism with fundamentalism with theocracy with evil. Thus, it is ironic to see an ID critic like Ian pleading that we recognize subtle distinctions. Apparently, ID critics are entitled to a double standard.
Again, most critics do not make such distinctions. So why are you defending them as if you speak for them?
In all honesty g arago, it's not clear what you are defending.
As for my position, I spelled it out here. http://telicthoughts.com/?p=36...
I think you are getting carried away with the labels. I never claimed to be an agnostic, but I have noted that you can think of me as an ID evolutionist, as I explore the possibilities that follow from life's design. Yes, I do have a hunch that life was designed by some form of intelligent agency. What am I supposed to do? Ignore it? Or do you think I am deep down a True Believer that is hiding my True Motivations?
Sure. I don't doubt that Ian is part of an emerging political organization that is open to both theists and atheists. It would be political suicide not to be. I'm just giving him a teeny tiny taste of what it would be like to be an ID proponent with such an agenda.
Yep, like ID.
I'm not defending territory; I'm just highlighting another double standard.
Comment by MikeGene — October 29, 2006 @ 4:13 pm
October 29th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
"I don't doubt that Ian is part of an emerging political organization that is open to both theists and atheists."
This was the original misunderstanding (actually, a mistake by David Anderson which was repeated) which I was seeking to address.
Job Done!
Comment by IanLowe — October 29, 2006 @ 5:05 pm
October 29th, 2006 at 6:04 pm
Thanks for the clarification, Ian. So… You didn't know Blackshadow was using the gun image, but claimed they did it the day after AIG put up theirs, which was after the Amish school shooting. Which occurred precisely 23 days ago. This is all quite confusing to me, but I admit I can be really dense about such things.
One of your old friends probably told you that, and you've no reason to doubt it. Seeing the AIG gun graphic, I don't either - though I certainly could have come up with something way more effective by way of complaint than just another ugly gun graphic. And hope I have, by complaining directly to them about their total lack of taste.
btw, There are special tax classifications for political and social issue action organizations/groups in this country as well, which also must report membership/donors and expenditures to comply with laws. Non-profit special interest groups lobbying here are a dime a dozen, and NCSE is one of 'em. I don't know how thrilled they'd be by BCSE's attempt at alignment with them if BCSE doesn't comply with any regulatory laws that apply to political/interest activities and makes no pretense of being a non-profit organization.
I'd advise y'all to legalize your efforts before curious people start looking deeper. Or at least come up with a title for your for-profit that doesn't look like you're borrowing NCSE's legitimacy. If you are serious about your project and expect to get donations from the public, a little legal loophole-jumping is better than appearing dishonest.
At any rate, thanks again and good luck.
Comment by Joy — October 29, 2006 @ 6:04 pm
October 29th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
Well, right now you're speaking with me, Mike. I am certainly an ID critic in your terms. Though, I don't dismiss ID as bunk (*some* of it certainly is bunk!), I don't equate ID with creationism and I'm well aware of the differences between your views at TT's and those of mainstream ID. You are certainly not mainstream, especially given your avoidance of the theological (and philosophical) relevance and underpinnings of mainstream ID.
If the word 'underpinnings' raises your axe, then let me just add that the best arguments for design + intelligence as the 'mysterious cause of front-loading' which some mainstream IDists ascribe to are those that arise from theological premises. God is the Ultimate Front-Loader (such a reductive, impersonal thing to say!) according to some IDists. The world is designed (i.e. an ontological argument, quack, quack), then why not let's look for the design(s) cause they jus mus be there folks?! God did it either way, as you know and perhaps also believe (in transition from agnosticism! :cool:).
I've noticed that the ID critics Mike prefers to respond to are usually not theists, and most often not Christians. Keith Miller, David Campbell, Denis Lamoureaux and George Murphy really seem to ruffle his bunny whiskers. Polkinghorne and the recently deceased A. Peacocke he simply ignores.
I'm not speaking for or defending ID critics, just for me and what I've learned about ID, the IDM and about those who think 'there really might be something to ID,' which were your words a couple of months ago. I am not 'most critics,' but rather a unique/individual voice in this collage of voices. You seem to be not willing to confront me, the person, Gregory Arago, who makes criticisms of your position and the weaknesses of Mike Gene-front-loaded-ID-evolutionism, and instead set me up as a straw person who represents 'the critics' (as if they were one) that you have become most comfortable arguing against. When your book is published, there'll be no more hiding in public as the subjective and private person will finally become objective and open to public criticism (at least in book form).
If I could put a (constructively critical) word on your greatest failing Mike (or what has frustrated me most about dialoguing with you), it would be this: un-reflexive. You try so hard to distance yourself from your 'science' (but you seem to back away from even that word) by attempting a kind of unrealistic objectivity. The problem is that science itself has gone through a kind of hermeneutic process that leaves it now not so much vulnerable as compromised for its contribution to what counts as socially important knowledge. The individual scientis/scholart is *always* involved in the process of doing science and cannot be conveniently removed from contextual surroundings.
If you try to represent old science (e.g. today you wrote: "the spirit of Science, remaining as objective as possible while focusing on the data and evidence") in a new epoch, the language won't resonate. In one sense, mainstream ID has put its finger (for a moment only) on the pulse of the age in challenging what science actually is, using HPS and 'reverse perspective.' But Mike Gene is clearly not a liscenced philosopher and expressely doesn't propose 'revolution' (!) or see the definition of science changing in any way significant, so the old science paradigm continues.
You ask: "Or do you think I am deep down a True Believer that is hiding my True Motivations?"
Well, that's getting a bit personal, isn't it? Could it be possible - Mike Gene, a true believer? Well, I only guess that certainly you do have motivations. A believer in what, I'm not sure and wouldn't presume. You capitalize life (Life), as do new agers, you 'sense' some kind of design in life, as many traditional believers do. So where does that leave us. Panentheism? Steiner school? Gaia? Save the Design of Life!! At least one can wonder if one chooses to tune in.
Next thing you'll likely write is: 'this thread is not about Mike Gene.' I've seen it here before. It's been said anytime someone gets too close for comfort. Yet you talk about about Ian's supposed motivations, to solicite religious supporters to play a token role in marketing at BCSE.
Intelligent agency - how does one study this, from the perspective of chemistry, biology, ecology, geology, information theory, computer science? Wouldn't it make sense that a social scientist might have a better take on this topic? On the other hand, perhaps 'origins of life' is a heroes field which may somehow give personal answers to questions about where we (human beings) came from, where we're headed, what does life mean (beyond itself), why should we have hope (made in the Image)?
If Ian's position is solved, then the thread is basically finished.
Otoh, TT's seems to be using a hidden concern for metaphysics and politics (though with few if any trained philosophers) as a background for its ambiguous scientific agenda. Assume life is designed and then detect like Sherlock for it! Gosh those two words have been recycled…and yet they've inspired such heated discourse about the relationship between science, religion and philosophy that I'm encouraged to remain in touch even when design craze phase #3 is overturned.
Perhaps Mike and I will sit for a beer over his Design Matrix and my small contribution to scholarship someday and share thoughts about such well-meaning probes and probings to each other. Who knows?
Arago
Comment by g arago — October 29, 2006 @ 6:27 pm
October 29th, 2006 at 11:13 pm
Thanks for the thought food, gregory. I'll try to pick it up here next weekend.
Comment by MikeGene — October 29, 2006 @ 11:13 pm
October 30th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
g arago,
You do raise a point. All of us who have an interest in ID do at least wonder about there being something else-theists, deists, pantheists, panentheists, EAM ( a philosophy I learned about on this site), and agnostics who wonder and even hope there is something beyond just matter and energy. On the other side, are the materialists. It's been this way for a long time.
It is getting time that IDists put a little more meat on the bone. I hope that Mike Gene's book advances the discussion. And I for one wish that we could get to a time when religion, philosophy and science could work together to advance our life together.
We are all pretty small in the scheme of things, especially when you consider the time frames which involve the development of life and ideas. We are not all that far removed from the Enlightenment and even less from Darwin and the metaphysical implications of his views. Hopefully, all this discussion can result in some kind of broader understanding of the nature of life which utilizes all the disciplines at our disposal. Just speculating.
Comment by bj — October 30, 2006 @ 1:44 pm
October 30th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
Mike, glad to serve and provoke, as always. Looking forward to your response next weekend (as I also return home then as well - from snow to snow).
bj, greetings. Nice thought about science, philosophy and religion (or even theology) working in cooperative dialogue or multilogue. Also, to acknowledge the metaphyiscal implications of Darwin's views or even 'evolutionary theory' itself is a significant step against pure physicalism. One small note of linguistic wriggling - would you consider removing the phrase 'the nature of' before the noun 'life,' if doing so may help in a small way to tip the balance away from naturalism as well?
Arago
Comment by g arago — October 30, 2006 @ 3:27 pm
October 30th, 2006 at 7:15 pm
Hi Ian,
So you're backing down from your initial claim that the gun image was "nothing more than a graphic knocked up to have a laugh." That's good.
As for what you regard as the key point, that "Black Shadow" was just a discussion forum used by the founders of BCSE, it seems that reality is more complicated than that. As David Anderson has pointed out, you used a "Black Shadow" banner when first launching the BCSE site. Also, as a cached version of the forum shows, Black Shadow and BCSE was presented as one and the same:
The forum has now been shut down and the messages are no longer available. But why delete a forum just because some of its users start an organization? Many of the bloggers here met each other at the ARN Forum, but it wasn't shut down when we started a blog.
Comment by Krauze — October 30, 2006 @ 7:15 pm
October 30th, 2006 at 9:10 pm
Hi Krauze.
I'm sorry, but you are either deliberately misreading my posts, or simply being manipulative.
Nobody is "backing down" from a position. On 28th October, I posted "I have actually found out why the gun image was made in the first place".
When I saw the gun image previously, it was in the context of a series of images posted for general humour. That is my initial position.
On the 28th, I discovered the reason for the creation of that image. Do you somehow consider it a flaw to incorporate new information?
As for the assertion that the origin of the BCSE is "more complicated"… as with so many things, it is only complicated if you seek to make it so.
The website of the BCSE is: http://bcseweb.org.uk. It uses the same software as the blackshadow domain (a common piece of open source software) because the various contributing authors are familiar with it.
Whilst the new domain was being set up, some of the members of the blackshadow group were starting to put together content, a small amount of which made it onto our website when it launched.
The Forum has been shut down because it was no longer required, and was clearly causing confusion - as witnessed by Anderson's misguided assertions.
The simple facts of this matter can be clearly seen:
1) The BCSE is a newly set up organisation, launched by some (but not all) of the members of the blackshadow mailing list.
2) The new website was set up across a period of a couple of weeks, during which time various combinations of domain/content existed.
3) The Current state is properly representative - blackshadow.co.uk points at a private website maintained by Alan Bellis, bcseweb.org.uk is the proper domain of the BCSE and the Yahoo Group originally added to complement the blackshadow.co.uk website has been removed.
I see nothing further to add to this discussion, so this will be my last post on the matter.
Ian.
Comment by IanLowe — October 30, 2006 @ 9:10 pm
October 30th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
Hi Ian,
"I'm sorry, but you are either deliberately misreading my posts, or simply being manipulative."
Not at all. You initially made the claim that the gun image was "nothing more than a graphic knocked up to have a laugh." But there was no evidence to support this claim, and one of your fellow BCSE members justified the gun by reference to Howard Ahmanson and "the murderous Chalcedon Foundation which advocated killing everyone that disagreed with its fundamentalist religion." You've subsequently made it clear that this is no longer your position. You want to call that "incorporating new information", fine. I call it backing down.
"Whilst the new domain was being set up, some of the members of the blackshadow group were starting to put together content, a small amount of which made it onto our website when it launched."
You need to be more specific about this part. How exactly did the banner of a completely different organization "make it unto" BCSE's website?
"The Forum has been shut down because it was no longer required, and was clearly causing confusion - as witnessed by Anderson's misguided assertions."
No longer required? But wasn't it a completely different organisation, with a different purpose and with a non-identical group of members? Did the need for an anti-religious group disappear after the BCSE was formed?
As for Anderson's supposed confusion, I hardly think he can be blamed for the forum calling itself "BlackShadow · British Centre for Science Education".
"I see nothing further to add to this discussion, so this will be my last post on the matter."
That is your opinion. As my questions above show, I believe there are still a couple of loose ends to be tied up.
Comment by Krauze — October 30, 2006 @ 9:54 pm
October 31st, 2006 at 6:21 am
It's rather simple, Krauze. Black shadow 'evolved' into BCSE. At one time it was one assocation/organization, now its another (i.e. 'new species'). You didn't expect the 'transformation' to happen with a single special creation or unnatural intervention, did you? One thing obviously changed-over-time into another.
The irony of course, is that David Anderson's investigation is helpful in identifying the intentionality involved in the transformation process. Whether or not the controversial issues raised in this thread were done with or without purpose, intention, alterior motive or agenda is significant for assessing the effective usage of evolution as a theory of everything in human-social action.
Yet Krauze still seems to sit on his fence, favouring evolution all the way down the ladder of turtles on which it's built! No sarcasm for Krauze, please friends.
Comment by g arago — October 31, 2006 @ 6:21 am
November 2nd, 2006 at 7:03 pm
Can I start by congratulating this blog for the effect it seems to have had. First the "gun graphic" has been removed from the BlackShadow site and now the BCSE site has changed its colours "“ one presumes this is to put distance between itself and its evolutionary ancestor.
Having read this page there seems to some fog about who and what BCSE is and Ian Lowe's contributions only served to increase its density. I hope I can help clear it away and confirm that g arago was right when he said, "It's rather simple, Krauze. Black shadow 'evolved' into BCSE." I'll explain how I am aware of the details a little further down. There are in fact a number of domains all involved in the emergence of BCSE from the ranks of fundamental anti-creationism here in the UK. The first two were:
blackshadow.co.uk & creationism.co.uk The oldest is blackshadow registered on 24-Sep-2003 and followed by creationism.co.uk on 20-Mar-2004. Both are registered to "J & A Merchandise" which is strange as it is also stated that "The registrant is a non-trading individual who has opted to have their address omitted from the WHOIS service." (WHOIS is the search database service of Nominet the Internet registry for .uk domain names.) That aside it is generally acknowledged. as Lowe says above, that blackshadow.co.uk is "Alan Bellis's website." Bellis lives in Goole, UK and has been an active anti-creationist for some years as the registration date off his domain name confirms.
These two domains have been, as long as I have been visiting them, running with a single set of pages, blackshadow.co.uk has its own front page but all the links point to creationism.co.uk URLs. As of now this continues to be the case and on most of my visits the two pages have been identical in appearance.
Alongside these there have been two other linked Internet "resources". furl.net/members/bsgroup is linked the above as Black Shadows Furl (BS Group Furl). It is basically an archive of newspaper articles and other quotes, some from blackshadow/BCSE contributors. Until October this year there was also a Yahoo! Group, groups.yahoo.com/group/BlackShadow/ which anyone could view the posts to. Around the time BCSE went public, this group closed its doors to non-members. I having checked earlier today Yahoo! now says "Group Not Found - There is no group called BlackShadow." (David Anderson has has an archive of all the material posted there whilst the group was open for viewing by non-members.)
This brings us to the emergence of the new group and a new web site. However, there was a transitional form blackshadow.me.uk registered to J & A Merchandise (AKA Alan Bellis) on 04-Mar-2004. At the time of writing this URL automatically redirects visitors to creationism.co.uk However very recently it has been described by Roger Stanyard as BSCE's web site. In a post dated September 26, 2006 03:21 pm, which can be found at here Stanyard circulated a draft standard letter to send to MPs. He suggests signing it, "For the British Centre for Science Education - http://www.blackshadow.me.uk" From looking at the site earlier in the year it appeared that Bellis had handed over the management of the site to Stanyard, who was using it as BCSE's domain as the above suggests. That situation changed with the registration of bcseweb.org.uk to Roger Stanyard on 06-Oct-2006 (Lowe's date for the "launch" of BCSE). Observant readers will note that it is not registered to an organisation, but to an individual who again "has opted to have their address omitted from the WHOIS service."
If some are doubting the link between BCSE and the BlackShadow marquee from which it emerged look at this page. Here the author, speaking on BCSE's behalf, refers to the now missing Yahoo! Group as "our Blackshadow Yahoo email forum". (Italics mine)
Perhaps I can add another point of clarification. Krauze asked about a list of BCSE's membership and Lowe replied that they could be found, "In the same place you will find a list of the members of the Labour Party, or the Church of England - locked away safely in the offices of those organisations." Joy encouraged Lowe in regard to BCSE to, "legalize your efforts before curious people start looking deeper." Lowe's response is at least honest about the recent launch of BCSE, but it does not clarify its present legal or constitutional status. Anyone visiting to its present web site today will find no details of its constitution or the address of its offices. The contact phone number is a mobile/cell phone and its email address is one belonging to Stanyard at Hotmail.
The Labour Party certainly has real offices, and the Church of England has far too many scattered around the country, and I do not doubt that both have databases with their members details on them kept in one or more of those offices. It is of course it is quite a simple thing to find the mailing addresses for all these offices on the web sites of these two organisations. Look as much as I can though, I cannot find any office address for BCSE on its web site. Again David Anderson has done a good job at showing that so far membership of BCSE seems to be achieved by signing up for the BCSE Forum on their web site. If that is so, it means its list of members is not safely locked away in its unknown offices, but stored on a server somewhere in cyberspace.
Finally, to declare my interest in all this. Ian Lowe wrote, "Earlier this year, however, a particularly odious creationist, John Mackay, visited the UK in a flurry of publicity and visited some schools to propagate his religious views. This was enough to galvanize people to action, and an embryonic version of the BCSE emerged." If you visit the BCSE's web site you will find me described in this way "Randall Hardy is a fundamentalist who heads up the UK/European arm of John Mackay's Creation Research organisation." That is probably the kindest thing Stanyard has said about me. (Can I make clear though that I am not employed by Creation Research, most of my work with John Mackay has been on a voluntary basis.) Lowe is correct when he states that John's visit earlier this year was "in a flurry of publicity". However, what is left ambiguous is what the source of that publicity was "“ there is just the slightest hint that we stirred it up.
Alas, I am not as well connected as people like Alan Bellis, who in one message to his (when it was his not BCSE's) Yahoo! Group said his web site was regularly visited by a large number of journalists. Whilst I don't have the full paper trail, there is enough evidence to convince the neutral observer that Bellis, Stanyard, Lowe and other anti-creation fundamentalists did their very best to stir up the British media against John Mackay in order to stop his planned visit to one particular school. Whilst they were successful in that, what they had not envisaged was how interested the media would be in John Mackay and Creation Research. (We have listed as many articles and interviews we can find on the Internet on our UK web site here along with a few photos. BTW that is one part of a domain which has been registered to me since 14-Feb-2000, Creation Research's main web site is http://www.creationresearch.ne... )
My only regret about the media interest which was stirred up around Mackay's visit was that I don't have the influence on the media there seems to be in Blackshodow/BCSE circles. Just in case any of these guys decide to come back to this page, can I finish by saying a heartfelt thank you to them. I really appreciate all that they did to get the media interested in John Mackay's visit to Britain. We could not have made it into the national newspapers and onto international television without their help. May God bless them for their efforts.
Comment by Randall — November 2, 2006 @ 7:03 pm
November 2nd, 2006 at 9:51 pm
Randall, thank you very much for checking in here with what you know and/or understand about Blackshadow and the BCSE. The "official" appearance of BCSE seems to have been so recent (less than a month) that of course there would be confusion about it.
The issue isn't so much who belongs to a given church or non-profit, but who gives money to them. Our tax laws allow for donations to such organizations to be deducted by the donor, and this can only happen if the organization is registered properly with the IRS *as* a non-profit or religious org. Churches do not have to report their income or their membership to the government, but they do have to document salaries to employees (and employees pay income tax on that), funding for ongoing and special projects, and payments to subsidiary or selected charities.
Charities and social/political action non-profits aren't churches, and have to keep very good records for grant-use purposes and to keep their tax exemptions.
If donors don't care about tax deductions, it's just money spent - nobody's business. But the people who receive that money and use it as income or expenses will have to report it as income and expenses if they wish to stay out of jail. I can imagine the British government has some folks whose jobs are to track money too. Y'all are as capitalistic as we are.
I notice that Creation Research does accept public donations, so I imagine you jump through some money hoops. NCSE certainly does. You can read about it here and click through to find a list of supporters, staff and details for donation deduction purposes. Office address and contact numbers are at the bottom of every page. Their income/expense and tax records are public, though more trouble to access, just like corporate income and expenses and tax records are public.
Perhaps we in the US are just more accustomed to open records (despite recent attempts to make them less open). That's because we're also very accustomed to crooks at all levels of corporate, public and non-profit finance. The honest organizations don't want anything to do with possible fly-by-nights, and BCSE is just way too close to NCSE by title for comfort if they're not operating in a similar vein. If I were NCSE, I'd want some more details. Right now.
But I'm not NCSE, so who knows? §;o)
Comment by Joy — November 2, 2006 @ 9:51 pm
November 3rd, 2006 at 12:17 am
Hello Gregory,
You write:
Yes, but I was not speaking to you before, now was I? I simply pointed out the simple fact that many critics have made a great fuss about the creationist connections to the ID movement. Are you saying there is no room for a little fuss about the connections between Black Shadow and the BCSE?
Er, ok.
If they have something to say that is relevant to my position, simply spell it out. For example, I did indeed reply to something Keith Miller has written. You, and many others, have chosen to ignore the twitching of my bunny whiskers.
Sometimes. Other times, you are dime-a-dozen (as when you get carried away with the significance of the IDM, as it if the Rosetta Stone that makes sense of everything).
That's how you see it. I think I have spent a fair amount of time addressing your criticisms.
In other words, you don't care about the arguments; you focus only on the person.
Instead of painting with an obscure, broad brush, it would help if you listed specific examples of my greatest failing.
I am quite aware of my subjectivity. I am simply able to tease apart ID from God, as my mind does not hear "God" when "ID" is spoken or written. Thus, I am able to approach this topic without having to worry about God being disproved or proved.
So it is all-or-nothing? Why think in such binary terms?
Such is life.
And what are your motivations?
LOL. So much significance in a letter. For you, at least.
Faulty impression. I've written this a few times when critics ignored the argument I put on the table to decided instead to talk about the person who put the argument on the table.
I have learned from years of experience that most critics think motivations are of primary importance. Are they supposed to be excluded from the analyses they hand out?
Who said I was trying to study intelligent agency? I thought you were trying to understand my views.
If they have something to offer, let them offer it.
Nah. I see no reason to root metaphysics to speculations about the OOL. I think it fascinating because it just happens to be the most fundamental question in biology and thus helps define how we perceive this thing called Life, er, life. Not to mention that way it helps us see evolution, er, Evolution.
Comment by MikeGene — November 3, 2006 @ 12:17 am
November 3rd, 2006 at 4:31 am
Randall,
I notice you link to http://www.amen.co.uk, which has a bunch of links to various YEC sites. So what's your position on ID? Does your group officially support the Truth In Science group? Just wondering.
Also, you need to be a bit careful complaining about any other group's 'lack of transparancy' when the site you have chosen to associate with returns a 404 'page not found' error when you click on the 'Who are we' link.
Comment by Odd Digit — November 3, 2006 @ 4:31 am
November 3rd, 2006 at 11:21 am
Dear OD,
First, many thanks for your much needed slap on the wrist.
I won't go on about the problems of having two people co-managing a web site, instead I'll offer you my apologies and say that I have now rectified the problem and you can find the page in place here.
You also asked about my position on ID, etc. I'll try and give you a fuller response in the next 24 hours, but for now you could have a look at this which is something I wrote earlier in the year. It is not all relevant to your question, but a good portion of it is. (BTW Is there a more appropriate thread for me to reply on than this one?)
Comment by Randall — November 3, 2006 @ 11:21 am
November 3rd, 2006 at 11:50 am
Dear Joy,
I think that is the very point which is being discussed here and by David Anderson. Is BCSE a bona fide organisation or is it a "fly-by-night" The one thing which I am sure has been established now is that it is not a group which has been founded by responsible educational or scientific bodies. It has been birthed on-the-hoof by a group of zealous enthusiasts in their spare time. In that respect it is more their hobby than an accredited institution, though its name suggest otherwise.
Here I am speculating, but I doubt very much if they have given any thought to the raising or handling of money. As I pointed out in my first post, their domain has been registered to an individual, which means that it is also probably paid for out of his own pocket. They have no employed staff, no premises to maintain and I have yet to see any professional stationery bearing their letterhead.
Whilst there are several properly constituted secular humanists organisations here in the UK, some of which are Registered Charities, I suspect that so far neither Blackshadow nor BCSE have any legally established status. In the 1980's the "Association for the Protection of Evolution" (APE), was a three person campaign against creationists which made a lot of noise here in Britain, but also disappeared from the scene as quickly as it came. I suspect that BCSE will turn out to be nothing more than an Internet savvy reincarnation of APE. How long it will survive before it dies of boredom or internal disputes I have no idea, but a friend of mine once said that houses which lack good foundations don't survive storms. I have no reason to doubt Him.
Comment by Randall — November 3, 2006 @ 11:50 am
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:20 pm
Randall:
Well, BCSE certainly appears to me to be more of a cloak-and-dagger operation than a fly-by-night. It keeps its 'constitution' page password-protected (though that very fact means it's more than just a single person), and has a whole page devoted to threats against anyone contacting the admin with legal questions. Hmmm…
Now, a Black Shadow can be a motorcycle, a yacht, a rifle (by Winchester!), a sword, at deer stand, a rock band, or a Jamaican record label. But I don't think BCSE's precursor group had any of these things in mind with the name "Blackshadow."
That title was likely taken from a 1970s role-playing game (basic D&D style). Black Shadow was an "Ace" superhero in the "Wild Card" sci-fi series. His talent is to absorb radiation (light, heat) to create 'voids' of blackness and cold. He can also walk on walls and has super powers of strength, speed and healing.
He's apparently not very bright though, so was manipulated by another Ace known as Puppetman - a sociopathic Senator using other mutants as tools to further his own political ambitions.
Now, it's a genuine toss-up on whether Blackshadow/BCSE is the tool of Lowe/Stanyard/Bellis *as* Puppeteers, or whether it's situated against what Lowe/Stanyard/Bellis believe to be Puppet masters in the Creationist movement. Not being familiar with the game, I don't know if Black Shadow ever managed to beat Puppetman once he figured out he was being used as a hit man, or was just another pitiful tool. Either way, BCSE is not a legal non-profit entity like NCSE is. It's a role-playing charade.
In the end, it's likely to last as long as it takes to rake in some money (and possibly political clout for its puppeteers) from the gaming, then it'll either go legit or simply disappear into the shadows again.
Interestingly, I did notice that Nick Matzke - an NCSE staff member - has joined the BCSE forum. Perhaps he's attempting to glean some facts from the shadows, or maybe he's anxious to align his legitimate organization with this illegitimate one. So [btw] has our own g. arago.
Comment by Joy — November 3, 2006 @ 1:20 pm
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:41 pm
Randall - I'd also like to illuminate my position on all this Creationism stuff, since that is where you have (openly!) placed yourself. Thanks for your honesty.
First, I am not a Creationist, and neither is that the focus of the Telic Thoughts forum. We do have YECs among our commenters, who are welcome so long as they don't distract topics wildly with absolutist assertions of YEC beliefs *as* science. Because those beliefs are NOT science, and have nothing to do with whether or not there are detectible indications of intelligent design in nature and/or life.
Second, it is - and has been affirmed numerous times - unconstitutional in the US to teach religion *as* science in public schools. We here at TT do not support the efforts of either YECs or 'mainstream' ID advocates to insert religion into public school science classrooms. Because it's rightly unconstitutional, and I for one (speaking only for myself) am rather fond of the Constitution. Have sworn more than once to "Protect and Defend" it against all enemies foreign and domestic, too. If there is something to ID, science itself will come around eventually. Everything else is just Dueling Metaphysics.
Third, I understand that the situation is quite different in Britain and much of Western Europe, where there are in fact "State Religions." Our constitution forbids that, and it's worked very well for us overall for 219 years. In a nation where there is an official State Religion, there is no hard and fast prohibition against teaching religion in public schools, though I don't know if it's okay or not to teach it *as* science (which it's not). So the struggle is different in your neck of the woods than in ours.
Just wanted to make this positioning clear for you, so you may understand a little more about our issues and concerns. The debate here often looks just like the debates in your country, but on this forum it is MORE than just dueling metaphysics. It's dueling science *as* science, not religion. Our resident critics often don't see the difference, but that's to be expected of ideologues. So many of our tongue-in-cheek themes are aimed at ridiculing the rampant confusion of issues. With as much good humor as we can muster… §;o)
Comment by Joy — November 3, 2006 @ 1:41 pm
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:56 pm
Hi Randall,
"BTW Is there a more appropriate thread for me to reply on than this one?"
You (and everyone else) are welcome to raise any topic you want in the newly-posted open thread.
Comment by Krauze — November 3, 2006 @ 1:56 pm
November 3rd, 2006 at 6:06 pm
Joy,
Thanks for your helpful comments.
Can I assure you that it is not my intention to dump my convictions on you. I signed up for this forum because of the BCSE thread in the hope I could clarify a few things. I probably would not have done so if the atmosphere here had not struck me as somewhat different from the majority of "origins" sites there is an abundance of on the Internet.
However, wanting to make my contribution I knew I could not do so if I did not fully declare my position (dishonesty by whatever means serves no useful purpose when it is found out). On the same grounds I must also make myself available for questioning, especially by those who know this place well. Which is why I will get round to OD's reply tomorrow (God willing).
Can I also make a correction to my earlier posting in which I speculated that it would have been Stanyard who had paid for the registration of BCSE's domain. Since then I have come across the BCSE members' newsletter posted a few days ago on this page. This states:
"Brian Jordan arranged and paid for our new domain name and Ian Lowe has donated the server space."
Whilst I was right that the domain would have been paid for by an individual, I was incorrect as to that that might have been. However, regular readers of this thread will notice that Ian Lowe's claim that BCSE's list of members is "locked away safely in the offices" of the organisation, might be taken to imply that those offices are wherever his server is sited.
I think that is enough for today - it is much later here in the UK…
Comment by Randall — November 3, 2006 @ 6:06 pm
November 4th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
Well, I had indicated that I would not post on this thread again, but who could pass up another opportunity to lock horns with Randall Hardy.
Some key points.
"Either way, BCSE is not a legal non-profit entity like NCSE is. It's a role-playing charade"
The BCSE is a properly registered non profit group within the UK. We are registered with the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, and have notified HMCR of our existance as is appropriate.
Truth in Science, incidentally, is not.
"It keeps its 'constitution' page password-protected"
Our constitution is being voted on by the members at present. The constitution will be made public when the final votes are in (this week coming).
Note that Randall's organisations do not actually make their constitutions available (if in fact, they actually exist)
"Observant readers will note that it is not registered to an organisation, but to an individual"
Can I point out the irony here?
http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/...
Truth in Science is registered to an individual.
BCSE is embryonic. Our critics seem to want to have it both ways - we are being criticised for not having everything in place, for lacking some of the trappings of a larger, more established organisation… and yet, at the same time, the fact that we are a new organisation is being called into question.
Which is it guys? Can you at least get your attacks straight?
Comment by IanLowe — November 4, 2006 @ 7:00 pm
November 4th, 2006 at 8:49 pm
LOL!!! "Embryonic" indeed!. Wow. This is the first time I've been privileged to be on a sociopolitical embryogenesis! I feel very privileged.
To Randall and Ian, it certainly looks like y'all have your work cut out for you. I'm not in Britain, we don't have a state religion here in the US, and so this is all just spectacular drama for me. It's like looking back in time.
As I told Randall, things in Britain (and Western Europe) are not the same as they are here. Science, I know (because I was there) crosses borders without a second thought. This does in fact remind me of the good ol' Cold War, and how things managed to get passed internationally anyway. Nostalgic.
It's good that your organization is jumping legal hoops, Ian. More power to you, and this is just how it should be. I've already spoken to Randall's position related (or oppositional) to ours at TT. When you both start your blogs do let us know, we should be sure to link them.
Comment by Joy — November 4, 2006 @ 8:49 pm
November 4th, 2006 at 11:29 pm
Ian,
Unlike the NCSE, will your group take a position regarding Dawkins' attempt to use science to disprove the existence of God?
For example, Dawkins writes "that the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science," and also adds, "the God Hypothesis is a proper scientific hypothesis." Does the BCSE agree or disagree?
Comment by MikeGene — November 4, 2006 @ 11:29 pm
November 5th, 2006 at 6:30 am
Mike -
The BCSE does not have a position on the existence or otherwise of god, and that will remain the case whether Richard Dawkins or the Queen herself brings out a book discussing it.
We are against the teaching of Creationism in the science classroom.
It's religion. it has no place in a science class.
UK Schools have Religious Education classes, it is not like the US with formal seperation of church and state. There is plenty opportunity for instruction in religious beliefs already.
Our position against ID is simple - the UK national curriculum is formed by consultation of expert opinion within the scientific community - it is reviewed, consultation is sought, and the final NC is published. This is then taken by the various exam authorities (who oversee the production and marking of exams) and turned into teacher's guidance notes.
This is a democratic process, with the opportunity to participate at all stages - despite being soundly rejected, people like Randall and Truth in Science are trying to bypass our elected government, bypass the experts who produced the national curriculum, bypass the QCA, AQA etc… and go straight to the school children.
and, as in the case of John Mackay's tour, as soon as they get in front of the school childre, what do they talk about? how God made the world. ID is the excuse for getting in the door, and from then on, it's wall to wall creationism.
The school which cancelled this year expressed concern that he was "too fundamentalist".
Whilst ID is being used as a wedge like this by people like Randy here to get his strongly religious views in front of school children, it falls into the focus of our campaign as well.
incidentally, our government appears to agree with the BCSE position:
http://tinyurl.com/ylguue
This link is to Hansard, the official journal of the UK parliament, to a written answer by Jim Knight on behalf of DfES, the government department which over see's education. He said:
"Neither intelligent design nor creationism are recognised scientific theories and they are not included in the science curriculum, the Truth in Science information pack is therefore not an appropriate resource to support the science curriculum."
Comment by IanLowe — November 5, 2006 @ 6:30 am
November 5th, 2006 at 9:29 am
Hi Ian,
Seeing as how you've decided to start posting again, maybe you could answer some of my previous questions: How did the BlackShadow banner "make it unto" BCSE's website, if they were two completely different organizations? You said that the BlackShadow forum was shut down after the creation of BCSE, "because it was no longer required". But why would this be the case, if there were two distinct organizations with entirely different purposes? Also, while it existed, the BlackShadow forum identified itself as "BlackShadow · British Centre for Science Education". Why would it do this, if the two organizations were distinct?
Comment by Krauze — November 5, 2006 @ 9:29 am
November 5th, 2006 at 10:12 am
Hi Ian,
I wasn't asking if the BCSE would take a position on God's existence. I was asking if they would take a position on using science to disprove the existence of God. As you know, Dawkins is not some obscure little scientist (especially in your country). So let's say some science teacher reads his book and decides to teach students that science has disproved the existence of God. Would the BCSE take a position on such teaching?
Comment by MikeGene — November 5, 2006 @ 10:12 am
November 5th, 2006 at 5:28 pm
Krauze,
As I have said several times now, the BCSE website is: http://bcseweg.org.uk. Each and every time you bring up something which was posted on blackshadow.co.uk you force me to restate the same position. blackshadow.co.uk is not the website of the BCSE.
I have attempted to answer your questions honestly, as manipulative as they are. The BCSE is a young organisation - these bizzare musings about who said what and when in the first days and weeks of our existance will, I am sure, only look more ridiculous as time passes.
Mike -
Come back to me when the science teacher is being encouraged to push that viewpoint by a nationally coordinated, well funded group that is working against the wishes of the elected government.
Then we'll talk. Until then, your hypothetical example is irrelevant.
Comment by IanLowe — November 5, 2006 @ 5:28 pm
November 5th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
Hi Ian,
"As I have said several times now, the BCSE website is: http://bcseweg.org.uk."
You mean this website?
Comment by Krauze — November 5, 2006 @ 5:43 pm
November 5th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
good grief.
Are you now dropping to the level of picking on typos?
oh dear. well, you have a pleasant week.
Comment by IanLowe — November 5, 2006 @ 7:43 pm
November 5th, 2006 at 8:03 pm
Typos? What are you talking about?
Comment by Krauze — November 5, 2006 @ 8:03 pm
November 5th, 2006 at 8:09 pm
Ian,
So you are saying that it is okay for a science teacher to teach his/her students that science has disproven the existence of God as long as the science teacher is not being encouraged to push that viewpoint by a nationally coordinated, well funded group that is working against the wishes of the elected government?
Comment by MikeGene — November 5, 2006 @ 8:09 pm
November 6th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
Ian, you seem to be leaving some questions unanswered here.
Comment by Lutepisc — November 6, 2006 @ 3:11 pm
November 6th, 2006 at 6:30 pm
Sorry to try to defuse some of the problems, but it is quite simple to answer such a question about 'typos.' Blackshadow 'evolved' into BCSE. In so doing the 'mutations' of the old (site) changed over time into the new (site). It did not happen (is not happening) all at once. Would Krauze expect perfection at the first 'poof'?
In a similar sense, certain persons who were used to dialoguing in a certain manner at Blackshadow will now need to adjust their language to a new situation where BCSE is not explicitly anti-religious. In this sense, labelling persons as 'creationists' (even if BCSE might prefer 'creationist' as a political and not as a religious term) who are not creationists would seem a behavioral mistake of the previous entity and not of the current one.
Mike's question is however still legit, if Ian should choose to answer it. What does 'a nationally coordinated, well-funded group' have to do with taking a stand for or against a teacher saying that science has disproved the existence of God? Such a circumstance may come up before long (likely will come up in one shape or form) in the U.K. and the BCSE will be asked their position on it. It may be early to expect an answer, however, especially not on their blog.
Comment by g arago — November 6, 2006 @ 6:30 pm
November 6th, 2006 at 8:39 pm
Hi G. Arago,
"Would Krauze expect perfection at the first 'poof'?"
No. In fact, I find your "gradual change" hypothesis very reasonable. Ian, though, doesn't agree that BlackShadow changed into BCSE, but claims the two are completely distinct organizations.
Comment by Krauze — November 6, 2006 @ 8:39 pm