British Centre for Science Education, winner of the Henry Rollins Award
by KrauzeThe British Centre for Science Education, which I mentioned in my previous post, is a self-described "pressure group", targeting UK science education. They used to go by the name "Black Shadow", but presumably thought that changing their name and dialling down the overt advocacy of Humanism would help them gain political influence. However, their old website is still up, and it displays some high-quality threatiness. It starts with their slogan - "Beware the Black Shadow of CREATIONISM: One Dark Age was enough!" - but it's nothing compared to this banner:
Or what about this touching scene, from their "Join the Fight" page?
Remember, these are people who are being taken seriously by UK politicians, who have endorsed them in a Motion in the House of Commons. Guess threatiness sells over there.
For their great efforts in warning us that a new Dark Age is coming and that "fundies" are going to put a gun to our head, the brave people at the BCSE win the Henry Rollins Award.
Update, Oktober 29: The "gun" image has now been removed from Black Shadow's homepage. The "What did you do in the Great War against the Fundies?" image is still there, though.
October 22nd, 2006 at 3:34 pm
It will definitely catch attention, I will give you that. But they are totally right. Let's face it, creationism is not a science. It is mere wishful thinking and a great percentage of christians already know that. Fundamentalist groups in the US had a despicable impact on this great secular country of ours. It now says "In God, We Trust" on every dollar bill. "under God" was added to the pledge of Allegianc. All this took place during the cold war by fundamentalist christian lobbying groups still very much active today. Our founding fathers would be shocked if they saw what happened to us.
We need to defend ourselves from the spread of ignorance and repair the damage that has been done. The world needs to know that creationism is a hoax. An ignorant citizen does not make a good citizen. A well informed citizen will certainly make better decisions and serve his country better. Clearly, election day would be very different if there was no religion in this country. Utah and the bible belt overwhelmingly voted for Bush. It surely was not because they knew where Bush standed on the issues that matter. A true secular country would vote for the best candidate for the job and this would make the country so much better as a result.
It is our job to tell people the Truth! Creationism is a hoax. There is absolutely no evidence that God does exist. Prayers are pure superstitious, this was demonstrated by actual studies.
Comment by StephInSD — October 22, 2006 @ 3:34 pm
October 22nd, 2006 at 4:05 pm
Hi StephInSD,
So, the word "God" is on the money and in the Pledge, therefore the fundamentalists will put a gun to your head? Perhaps you could fill out some of the details on your chain of logic?
Comment by Krauze — October 22, 2006 @ 4:05 pm
October 22nd, 2006 at 4:52 pm
Hi Krause,
Why are you surprised at an emotional, rhetorical response in a thread that begs for it?
I am still confused in how this is in keeping with our (TT contributors) expressed goal ""¦to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides. We hope this blog will provide a small voice that helps rectify this situation."
Like I have indicated before, I like Telic Thoughts. I would like to keep it from spinning off into just another gathering point for Culture Warriors battling the other side. Wouldn't it be better to promote discourse we can all be proudly point to as coming from our blog?
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 22, 2006 @ 4:52 pm
October 22nd, 2006 at 5:00 pm
I did not say that fundamentalist will put a gun to your head (although it happened in the past). Clearly, this image is meant to shock. I also think this image does not serve their purpose and will alleniate many people.
Comment by StephInSD — October 22, 2006 @ 5:00 pm
October 22nd, 2006 at 5:25 pm
Hi TP,
"Why are you surprised at an emotional, rhetorical response in a thread that begs for it?"
What makes you think I was surprised by StephInSD's emotional, rhetorical response?
And what do you mean by the thread "begging" for such a response? Surely you don't think it's the thread's fault that StephInSD chose to react in an emotional, rhetorical manner?
"I am still confused in how this is in keeping with our (TT contributors) expressed goal "…to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides. We hope this blog will provide a small voice that helps rectify this situation."
Our "About Us" page also promises that "we will explore intelligent design and the issues surrounding it", and the behavior of ID critics is one of those issues. For years, many critics have set themselves up as the Objective Judges of Science. So on this blog, we've decided to take a closer look at the critics, to see how objective those Judges really are. And it turns out that under those black robes are often hiding a lot of stereotypes, sloppy logic, and paranoid fears. This has been illustrated again and again. Do you want us to stop pointing out those facts because they don't correspond with your abstract ideas about what this blog should be about?
Look, I've told you this before. You are perfectly free to start up your own blog, correcting any lacks you perceive with Telic Thoughts. That's the beauty of being a person of free will, living in a free society.
Comment by Krauze — October 22, 2006 @ 5:25 pm
October 22nd, 2006 at 5:38 pm
Frankly, I am not sure that my reply was emotional. Even if it was, I did not make anything up. I understand that it may not please you and it goes against your personal set of beliefs, but there is very little I can do about that, aside from not participating in these debates.
Please point out where the sloppy logic is? Frankly, your answer is totally rhetorical.
I do not see a whole lot of that to be honest. I am certainly opened to good arguments in favor of ID. I think that we all strive to increase our knowledge of this world.
I just discovered this blog and I am looking forward to intelligent conversations. Bear in mind there is still a lot that I haven't read, but much of what I have seen looked to me to be more propaganda than true and honest desire to explore ID as a theory.
Comment by StephInSD — October 22, 2006 @ 5:38 pm
October 22nd, 2006 at 6:02 pm
And one of the things they may be shocked at is the Dover case. They would be amazed at the federal courts interfering with local school decisions.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — October 22, 2006 @ 6:02 pm
October 22nd, 2006 at 6:08 pm
Even though I am an ID proponent, as a political liberal, I don't find the gun image all that unrealistic. Especially now that we've given Bush the legal authority to arrest and imprison and hold indefinitely anyone he deems to be an enemy combatant. When Ann Coulter can label all liberals as "Godless" and do so with the encouragement and support of people like Dembski, Behe, and Wells, the threatiness gets a little closer to home.
Comment by Bilbo — October 22, 2006 @ 6:08 pm
October 22nd, 2006 at 6:15 pm
Hi StephInSD,
"I understand that it may not please you and it goes against your personal set of beliefs, but there is very little I can do about that, aside from not participating in these debates."
Please, tell me what my "personal set of beliefs" are.
Anyway, I didn't come up with "emotional, rhetorical response"; TP did. Did your reply also go against his "personal set of beliefs"
"Please point out where the sloppy logic is? Frankly, your answer is totally rhetorical."
My words refer to a large number of posts made on this blog over the last year or so. If you're interested, I'm sure we can find a couple of examples of ID critics using sloppy logic.
"Bear in mind there is still a lot that I haven't read, but much of what I have seen looked to me to be more propaganda than true and honest desire to explore ID as a theory."
Every blog engages in some light entertainment every once in a while - for example, try counting how many posts over at "ScienceBlogs" are actually about science, as opposed to politics or Kent Hovind's trial.
If you're interested in discussing the technical aspects of intelligent design, I recommend that you read Mike's forthcoming book, The Design Matrix. Or check out some of the posts here.
Comment by Krauze — October 22, 2006 @ 6:15 pm
October 22nd, 2006 at 6:27 pm
Hi Bilbo,
"Especially now that we've given Bush the legal authority to arrest and imprison and hold indefinitely anyone he deems to be an enemy combatant."
While I agree with you about the travesty of the Bush administration's violation of civil rights, I doubt that they'll start rounding up "gays, liberals, single mums, cohabitees, evolutionists, atheists, and agnostics" for the "fundies". Especially in light of recent claims that the Bush administration doesn't actually like the "fundies".
"When Ann Coulter can label all liberals as "Godless" and do so with the encouragement and support of people like Dembski, Behe, and Wells, the threatiness gets a little closer to home."
We all have different levels as to what constitutes a threat. Richard Dawkins can label theists "delusional" with the encouragement and support of people like PZ Myers and Sam Harris, yet theists shouldn't worry about rabid atheists taking control of government and putting guns to their heads.
Comment by Krauze — October 22, 2006 @ 6:27 pm
October 22nd, 2006 at 6:48 pm
But why does one get the feeling that you only seem to be concerned about Culture Warriors on the other side? Wasn't it you who not only chose to quote Scalia out of context, but wouldn't let go, in spite of the fact that you could point to no evidence that Scalia held the views you wanted to assign to him?
Odd behaviour if we are to take you at your word.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — October 22, 2006 @ 6:48 pm
October 22nd, 2006 at 6:48 pm
Krauze:
Yet that's exactly what conservative Republicans had people worrying about in the '40s and '50s. Now they want us to worry about "Islamofascists" and "Godless" liberals. But since they're in power, I'm worried about them. And they don't have to like fundies in order to use them. If only the fundies would realize this.
Comment by Bilbo — October 22, 2006 @ 6:48 pm
October 22nd, 2006 at 7:04 pm
Bilbo,
Ann Coulter isn't in power. There are tons of Republicans and conservatives who can't stand her. I think you are mixing up things that aren't interchangable.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — October 22, 2006 @ 7:04 pm
October 22nd, 2006 at 7:07 pm
TP
In order to maintain a certain level of discourse - of the subjects our bloggers contribute, it is sometimes necessary to deal with the occasional troll among our commenters.
I haven't yet determined if StephInSD is a troll, but he chooses mostly to toss epithets at scarecrows in broken English. I expect the intent will become clear soon.
Comment by Joy — October 22, 2006 @ 7:07 pm
October 22nd, 2006 at 7:13 pm
RoberRabbit:
But they don't mind her doing they're dirty work for them. Too bad Dembski, Wells, and Behe like her. It has a tendency to drag the rest of us ID supporters into her cesspool.
Comment by Bilbo — October 22, 2006 @ 7:13 pm
October 22nd, 2006 at 7:24 pm
Given the fact you were not too thrilled by my posts, I must assume that our personal set of beliefs are somewhat different:smile:
You can't possibly argue that a couple of posts demonstrate that. According to the original sentence, sloppy logic is a common occurence amongst ID critics (You use the word often). And given the reply came after one of my posts, I assumed my logic was sloppy. If you can tell me where it is sloppy, I would certainly appreciate.
Thanks for the link. I will read definitely read these posts. Also, I am very much looking forward to Mike's new book.
Come on now, this is very unlikely to happen. First, for a politician to say he is an atheist would be political suicide. Second, atheists are amongst the most liberal, well-educated and non-violent members of the community.
Comment by StephInSD — October 22, 2006 @ 7:24 pm
October 22nd, 2006 at 7:36 pm
Hi StephInSD,
"Given the fact you were not too thrilled by my posts, I must assume that our personal set of beliefs are somewhat different"
So asking you to support your claims = me not being thrilled?
"According to the original sentence, sloppy logic is a common occurence amongst ID critics (You use the word often)."
Yes. Del Ratzsch deals nicely with many arguments popular among ID critics here.
Comment by Krauze — October 22, 2006 @ 7:36 pm
October 22nd, 2006 at 7:46 pm
Oops, forgot this:
"Come on now, this is very unlikely to happen. First, for a politician to say he is an atheist would be political suicide. Second, atheists are amongst the most liberal, well-educated and non-violent members of the community."
Being educated is no guarantee against saying stupid things. For example, Richard Dawkins obviously has a long education, yet in his newest best-seller we find the following gems:
But while I wouldn't like to live in a society where Dawkins' superstition formed the basis of laws, I have enough confidence in democracy and liberty to doubt that this'll happen in anything resembling the near future.
Comment by Krauze — October 22, 2006 @ 7:46 pm
October 22nd, 2006 at 7:51 pm
I tried to make my posts as valuable as I could, although I probably should have waited a bit before making my first post (I was just so happy to participate in one of those debates). I find the topics related to creations, ID and the impact of religions on science simply fascinating. I was not born in the US although I have lived here for about 10 years. This explains the broken english. Even though I am not american yet, I do consider myself american and the US is my home. I feel the urge to contribute to make it a better place to live.
I have been mostly very quiet on this topic since I concluded my journey to become an atheist (I became an atheist about 15 years ago). But recently, small discussions with people who literally believed in the bible and the creation, the impact of religion on our lives, the stigma endured by atheist, etc forced me to become more vocal. Here I am today challenging ideas because everything that I know indicates they are wrong. I am looking forward to be proven wrong and that some of these ideas truly have convincing evidence in their favor. Consequently, I am going back to reading some of these older discussions.
Comment by StephInSD — October 22, 2006 @ 7:51 pm
October 22nd, 2006 at 7:57 pm
I did not see where you were asking me to support my claims. What claims are you talking about?
Thx for the link.
Comment by StephInSD — October 22, 2006 @ 7:57 pm
October 22nd, 2006 at 8:05 pm
This is not a superstition. It is what is really happening to most children in this world. I was brought up as a catholic and I was never given a choice. I think it is wrong to bring up our children in a particular faith. I believe we should teach them about all religions this world has to offer when they are in an age to understand. If they decide to become religious, then let it be. It will be their own right. Don't you agree?
Comment by StephInSD — October 22, 2006 @ 8:05 pm
October 22nd, 2006 at 8:09 pm
Hi Krause,
You wrote…
Krause, one of the differences between you and MikeGene is that Mike knew impact of me quoting the About Us statement, apparently you did not.
I have been an upfront and reasonably polite contributor to this blog. I researched the blog before I joined in the conversation. From its introduction statements, I thought it might be a good place to explore my thoughts on Telic Organizing Principles in Nature. If you want me gone, please quit beating around the bush and tell me I am unwelcome.
If your pronouncement goes unchallenged, I will leave Telic Thoughts in peace. Until then, I will consider myself an equal participant including making constructive suggestions on maintaining this Blog's charter (including providing reminders to people like Daniel).
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 22, 2006 @ 8:09 pm
October 22nd, 2006 at 8:20 pm
Hi Joy,
You wrote…
I whole-heartedly agree that dissuading people from disrupting the topic of conversation requires constant vigilance. But look that the topic of this thread. Krause posted a picture of a gun pointed at you!
With that as a standard, I could easily post the infamous Discovery Institute picture of God's finger pointing to the DNA and dredge up all the creation to ID morphs that occured in the book Of Pandas and People. While on topic, it could be easily seen as a troll activity.
BTW, I am glad you responded. It shows you are thinking about this.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 22, 2006 @ 8:20 pm
October 22nd, 2006 at 8:32 pm
Hi RogerRabbitt,
You wrote…
I have made my position on religion very clear. I have also presented Pro-ID discussion points (EAM). There is nothing "odd" about my behavior in this regard. Or is there?
You and I disagreed on the importance of Scalia's statement. I provided the link you used to argue against me. It is called a debate. I am not interested in arguing our motives, but I will be more that willing to continue our discussions on the implications of Scalia's and Thomas' original intent philosophy.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 22, 2006 @ 8:32 pm
October 22nd, 2006 at 9:00 pm
StephInSD
The question of whether or not there is teleology in the design of life is not a religious one, even though religious people on both 'sides' of the aisle may embrace their particular view for religious reasons. Science is intelligently designed. It was not designed to be religion.
What idea do you claim is wrong? There are religious blogs out there aplenty, and lots of anti-religious blogs as well. Then there's Yahoo's message boards. Telic Thoughts is not a religious blog, so familiarizing yourself with some of the material is a good idea.
btw, congratulations on your choice to become an American. Hopefully you'll take steps to naturalize before the next elections, and will contribute to our representative democracy by voting. Meanwhile, it wouldn't hurt to try and wrap your head around the concept of "We the People…" - it's a great one. It means government serves the people at the will of the people, not the other way around.
Conformity of belief is not something Americans have traditionally valued (for the most part), and not something our government is empowered to impose. That's fine with most of us, and that's how it works.
Comment by Joy — October 22, 2006 @ 9:00 pm
October 22nd, 2006 at 9:53 pm
Teleology ultimately is trying to make a case of the existence of God. I fear this process corrupts the way science is supposed to work. I would very much pefer that science is left to continue on its own. If it stumbles on some evidence that show the existence of some kind supernatural being or force, then let it be.
Claim is too strong a word. I said everything that I know indicates they are wrong. As a side note, I was refering to a lot more than just ID. Regarding ID, it is a theory that has no concrete evidence. Yes, the flagella of bacteria as been used by ID advocates to claim it is a great example of irreducible complexity. But, the same advocates have not explained why it would be irreducible. Most biologists think likewise. There are other examples such as the eye, etc but none are convincing, far from it. Please feel free to point me towards concrete evidence in favor of ID.
Therefore in the absence of concrete evidence in favor of ID, I cannot conclude that ID as a theory could possibly be true.
It may not be religious, it is still theistic. So let me rephrase what I wanted to say: My interest is in theism and its impact on science. Consequently, I am definitely in the right place.
Thank you. I would love to vote at the next elections, but it is not my choice unfortunately. I need to possess the green card for at least 5 years before I can apply for the citizenship. When I will be able to apply, the next elections will be long gone.:sad:
While I agree that non-conformity is to be valued, I think the US is not a great example. Atheists are stigmatized for their lack of beliefs on a daily basis. As an example, it would be political suicide for a candidate to elections to disclose he is atheist. Do you think that's ok?
Comment by StephInSD — October 22, 2006 @ 9:53 pm
October 22nd, 2006 at 11:17 pm
StephInSD
Telic simply means purposeful. It does not mean theistic.
If you cannot conclude that ID could possibly be true, it wouldn't be worth your time to examine, think about, or talk about. It would just be something other people believe to be true, and there's not much anybody can do about that.
I have never argued Intelligent Design in theistic terms. It's not a good idea to pretend psychic powers around here. You're very likely to be demonstrated wrong if you claim to know the thoughts (or beliefs, or motivations, or knowledge) of others.
Yeah, life can be a bitch no matter who you are or what you believe. Politicians get elected by the votes of people they hope to serve. A candidate who doesn't appeal to a majority of people who can vote for him/her isn't likely to be elected.
That's fine with most of us too.
Comment by Joy — October 22, 2006 @ 11:17 pm
October 22nd, 2006 at 11:40 pm
I based my answer on what the wikipedia had to say about teleology
I quote:
Teleology depends on the concept of a final cause or purpose inherent in all beings. There are two types of such causes, intrinsic finality and extrinsic finality.
and again:
Intrinsic finality, while more subtle, provides the basis for the teleological argument for the existence of God, and its modern counterpart, intelligent design
I find that I am having a hard time getting a straight answer from teleologist or people who believe in ID. Who are they? Are they christians, deists, agnostics?
I wished people would vote for candidates because they know where these candidates stand on issues that matter instead of voting for the candidate who appeals them the most.
Comment by StephInSD — October 22, 2006 @ 11:40 pm
October 23rd, 2006 at 12:04 am
Hi StephInSD,
Let me offer you my insight since I have had similar struggles with understanding the distinction between the different ID alternatives.
At the risk of howls of indignation, it is pretty obvious that when many people say "ID" they mean GodDidIt. But since Dembski has identified "Telic Organizing Principles in Nature" as an "ID Alternative", that means ID does not always invoke God or even Space Aliens.
What I have learned, as Joy has explained, when you see the word "Telic" around here is does not mean God (no matter what Wikipedia says). Check out the thread A Telic View of the Universe and the discussion Joy, Bert and I were having.
P.S. For what it is worth, I will give you a straight answer on my telic ID proposal.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 23, 2006 @ 12:04 am
October 23rd, 2006 at 12:26 am
Hi StephInSD,
You wrote…
I share your wish. Unfortunately, my powers of reality-based thinking indicate people are overly vulnerable to pluralistic ignorance. This is a groupthink phenomenon where people think (or pretend) to be in agreement when they are not. This is why politicians and populous movements tend to be very successful using a Big Tent strategy. It is easier to build up an us-against-them mentality by defining what you are against while avoiding too much explanation of what you are for.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 23, 2006 @ 12:26 am
October 23rd, 2006 at 10:49 am
Please Steph, just answer his question. I'm really interested to see what you think about them.
Someone who makes this comment:
should have a firm assumption of what they think the other's beliefs to be. I think you should either answer his question ('Please, tell me what my "personal set of beliefs" are') or take the comment back.
You seem to be quite fundamental in your approach on the topic. You have a firm, emotional stake in your beliefs; you have made assumptions on what others' beliefs are; you seem to be intolerant of beliefs that are different from yours. How are you not a fundamentalist?
Comment by Doug — October 23, 2006 @ 10:49 am
October 23rd, 2006 at 11:35 am
StephInSD
Wikipedia is known to be spotty in its accuracy and sometimes dramatic in its bias, though sometimes it's got good stuff. For plain definitions, I prefer a dictionary. From the Random House Unabridged, we get:
telic adj.
1. [grammar] expressing end or purpose. 2. tending to a definite end.
American Heritage gives us:
telic adj.
Directed or tending toward a goal or purpose; purposeful.
For the noun teleology - a philosophical term - American Heritage gives us as the first (and most commonly applied) definition:
The study of design or purpose in natural phenomena.
So when you read the banner atop this blog and see Telic Thoughts, it means that the bloggers think about life in terms of design and purpose.
Who cares? Well… obviously you do, but it also looks as though you had a misconception already planted in your brain before you came here - apparently to do battle with metaphysical belief systems you reject.
As I said, there are literally thousands of fight-sites out there on the internet for that purpose. The purpose (there's that word again!!!) of this site is not to provide you with targets so that you can pick fights with other people's personal beliefs. Such dueling metaphysics has very little - if anything - to do with science.
Politicians (as Mark Twain and Will Rogers pointed out with such humor), are a class of professional liars with criminal tendencies. Where a politician says he stands in order to cajole your vote is NOT necessarily where s/he actually stands on any issue of interest, and has very little to do with how they actually perform in office. It's the power they covet, not the people they supposedly serve. A human nature issue.
Best example I can think of is the recent revelation that the Neocons who have so long used and abused the loyalties of the Religious Right (their "base") to get elected, regularly joke about what idiots the "base" are, and how easily duped. I'm hoping enough of 'em are at least smart enough to be insulted by that, so they'll stay home in droves on November 7 and let the real conservatives, broad-bellied middle and sensible left take the Congress back.
There is Constitutional value to a 'divided house' in government, which tends to keep the inevitable wannabe-Tsars from having too much power. We were never designed to be a dictatorship.
If you'd like to continue discussion about religion and politics, please make use of the Open Thread Krauze has opened.
Comment by Joy — October 23, 2006 @ 11:35 am
October 23rd, 2006 at 12:51 pm
Hi StephInSD,
"I did not see where you were asking me to support my claims. What claims are you talking about?"
In my post I showcased some nice examples of threatiness from the BCSE, including a banner warning me that "if the fundamentalists take over", they would put a gun to my head. Shortly thereafter, you posted a comment, saying that the BCSE "are totally right", followed by a long rant about creationists, Bush, and the efficiency of prayers. Since none of those things were relevant to my post, I tried to get the discussion back on track by asking you how the whole "fundamentalists are going to put a gun to your head" thing was "totally right".
As TP later pointed out, your comment was an "emotional, rhetorical response", and you have later had to pull away from your unqualified support, acknowledging that "this image does not serve [the BCSE's] purpose and will alleniate many people."
"This is not a superstition."
Dawkins makes a claim without any supporting evidence whatsoever, namely that religious upbringing is a form of child abuse, comparable to knocking out the teeth of a child. Considering that Dawkins himself equate theism with belief in fairies, I don't think the term "superstition" is too harsh.
"I was brought up as a catholic and I was never given a choice."
There are lots of things that children aren't given a choice over. I doubt your parents gave you any choice over what school to attend either, and if your father brought you to see baseball games, I'm pretty sure you were rooting for his favorite team. That's what upbringing is all about: Instilling lessons and values in your child that you think the child will need.
Of course, there are things parents shouldn't be allowed to do their children; we call those things "child abuse" and we rely on psychologists to tell us what qualifies as child abuse. If you and Dawkins want to claim that a religious upbringing is a form of child abuse, you will need to present more than anecdotes.
"I believe we should teach them about all religions this world has to offer when they are in an age to understand. If they decide to become religious, then let it be. It will be their own right. Don't you agree?"
No, I don't agree. I think parents should be free to raise their kids in whatever religious, political, or philosophical tradition they want (barring religions involving child sacrifice, pedophilia, or other forms of child abuse, of course). If some of those parents choose your "teach them all the religions in the world" approach, then good for them. But other parents will choose to raise their kids as Catholics, Muslims, or atheists, and that's their right as well.
What's the alternative? To have the government monitor parents to make sure that they're giving their children a sufficiently diverse upbringing? To remove children if their parents take them to church too often?
Comment by Krauze — October 23, 2006 @ 12:51 pm
October 23rd, 2006 at 1:20 pm
But is this how most view their religious belief? Like it's some kind of a flavor that another might like or they might not, but that it really doesn't matter? I don't know. That approach seems odd, because it already undercuts any truth that that particular religion might have.
Becoming religious (if one so wished) isn't like arbitrarily picking a favorite football team because you like one team's uniform color better than another.
If one were to take that approach, finding a religion that better fits one's disposition, I'd say scrap the whole thing.
Comment by Doug — October 23, 2006 @ 1:20 pm
October 24th, 2006 at 4:48 am
Ok, I understand what you are seeing. When I said they were totally right, I did not mean that one had to fear that a gun would be put on their head. The US is not Iran, far from it fortunately. The totally right comment was about the danger creationism they feel needs to be exposed. I do not agree with their poster, I feel it is more likely to aleniate people than to serve their cause unfortunately.
I also think that Dawkins would benefit a lot by toning down what he writes. It would certainly help his cause. That said, Dawkins has a point. Given what science has taught us thus far, theism and fairies are not beliefs that are the result of rational thoughts.
Yes, and I don't blame them to have done what they thought was best for me. Given what I know now, even if I was still a catholic, it would be very dishonest of me to bring my children as part of a specific religion.
This is yet another area where Dawkins is going too far. I understand that it is some form of abuse (since the child lacks the skills to defend himself), but I would certainly not use the term child abuse. Again, I think the use of this term hurts more the cause than helps it.
They may have the right but it is not very considerate for their children. When I made my journey to atheism, I was very angry by how much I had been tricked. After that, I will certainly educate my children to think for themselves. I feel this will serve them better than any form of indoctrination.
No, as far as I am concerned, parents are free and should stay free to do whatever they want. This topic is more akin to an eye opener which I hope will find some converts. I just hope that eventually most parents will realize they are doing their children a favor by not indoctrinating them in any form of beliefs.
Comment by StephInSD — October 24, 2006 @ 4:48 am
October 24th, 2006 at 10:59 am
Just to point out…
The graphic you have linked to is *not* endorsed by the BCSE. It's a throwback to before the BCSE even existed.
It's wrong to say that BCSE "used to be called blackshadow". It's correct to say that the people who used the black shadow Yahoo Group helped setup the BCSE.
of course, that's not as cool to poke fun at, but hey… never let a boring fact get in the way of a good story
Comment by IanLowe — October 24, 2006 @ 10:59 am
October 26th, 2006 at 12:26 pm
And some people were complaining about Bradford's manifesto. If there was a podium in front of Steph at the time he drafted this fundamentalist bray I bet he would have been pounding it.
If there's anyone I thought that might put a gun to my head to get me to 'change or die' I think it's safe to say that person would be Step.
Odd, he looked so happy on the link that Fred had posted.
Comment by Doug — October 26, 2006 @ 12:26 pm
October 26th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
Hi StephInSD,
"Ok, I understand what you are seeing. When I said they were totally right, I did not mean that one had to fear that a gun would be put on their head."
OK. It seems that we agree that my reply was appropriate, considering the signal your comment was giving. Maybe now we can get back to my question, which Doug also asked you to answer:
Please, tell me what my "personal set of beliefs" are.
"Yes, and I don't blame them to have done what they thought was best for me."
You're avoiding my point. If you agree that there's plenty of things children aren't necessarily given a choice over, why are you still complaining about the child's lack of ability to "defend" herself from a religious upbringing, calling it "a form of abuse" A child can't "defend" herself against from the consequences of her parents choosing her school either, yet you wouldn't call parental control in that area "a form of abuse".
Comment by Krauze — October 26, 2006 @ 1:59 pm
November 6th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
May I direct anyone wishing to get information about this new group to my investigative blog:
British Centre for Science Education - Revealed
The most important story carefully documents how they deliberately mislead MPs in their recent lobbying.
(Please don't post feedback comments here - I don't intend to check it. I have contact details on the blog).
David Anderson
http://bcse-revealed.blogspot....
Comment by David Anderson — November 6, 2006 @ 8:54 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 8:18 am
For anyone finding this in Google, the new canonical source of information on the British Centre for Science Education is this website:
British Centre for Science Education - Revealed
David Anderson
http://www.bcse-revealed.info
Comment by DavidAnderson — February 15, 2008 @ 8:18 am