Comments by Roger Stanyard

Comment #245160 by Roger Stanyard on September 10, 2008 at 10:35 am

Al Rawanda,

Drink driving in the UK is exceedingly well controlled. It's illegal and a serious criminal offence. Moreover, it is not seen as a big issue these days. Most people would never dream of drinking and driving. For most, there is very little need to.

Part from the odd use in medicine and as a preservative, etc., alcohol is only designed and manufactured for pleasure. Guns are designed only to hurt, maim and kill.

If drink driving is a problem, then the answer is tighter laws and more policing, not banning alcohol.

Unarmed police? Not been a problem ever in recruiting them either in the UK or the Republic of Ireland. What's more the vast majority of police officers are opposed to be armed.

Tell me, why do you think the police are unarmed in the UK and the Republic of Ireland?

BTW, your comment about me being scared of guns is facetious. I've been trained to handle and fire them and I find them utterly boring.

702. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #245151 by Roger Stanyard on September 10, 2008 at 9:49 am

Al Rawanda "4. You don't understand guns, they scare you, so you don't like them. Now change out guns with blacks, and you get the same wooly thinking. What you think about guns and the culture is largely NOT the case. So please tell me what you think "gun culture" is."

40,000 deaths a year from gun shot wounds and armed police.

PS, I'm not Australian, don't live there and am not au fait with the international pecking order of its universities.

703. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #245127 by Roger Stanyard on September 10, 2008 at 8:47 am

Titania "I am just curious as most people seem to want more enforcement which translates into fewer people being able to immigrate legally and making the process almost impossible."

I'm puzzed as well. Seems to me that the USA has an opposite problem - too few immigrants. It's always been able to draw on the world's brightest and best but in the last few years its standing in the world has plummeted.

I was once a great fan of the USA but it is near bottom of the list nowadays of countries I would ant to live in. I suspect I would be miserably unhappy there.

The reasons are pretty straight forward:

1. I don't accept any religion. Atheists are basically despised by and are utterly untrusted by religious Americans.

2. My politics are, by the standards of the country I live in, middle of the road. By American standards I would be far to the left and, no doubt in many people's mind, some form of "commie".

3. I could not ever vote for a politician who kept letting everyone know his/her religious position.

4. I dislike the gun culture.

5. I could never, I guess, stand for public office because I don't accept religion.

6. I assume that any job I held would be insecure because of that position.

7. By and large, the education system well below standard.

8. There is nearly a 1 in 2 chance of anyone I meet i America being a creationist and a near 1 in 5 chance of being a 17th century stye religious fundamentalist. It's difficult to look people in the eye with that sort of culture around.

I must admit there is also my view that America has now become a deeply "foreign" country that is increasingly isolated from the global mainstream

I don't think I am unusual in my view. Many of my friends and associates have expressed the same position and, in my country, Australia has now long replaced the USA as the destination of choice for younger Brits.

My home town is chock a bloc with people from Asia who have come here to learn English. A few years ago they would have gone to the USA. Likewise, the universities.

It's America's loss and our gain.

This is not a casual tirate. The UK, arguably, as the biggest diaspora in the world. We have been emigrating in droves for several centuries (thats why Americans speak English). It's as if the USA is now, for the first time in centuries, off the list of desirable destinations for British emigrants.

(Even though the Aussies think we all smell.)

704. Devolution in Education

Comment #245101 by Roger Stanyard on September 10, 2008 at 8:13 am

Laurie Fraser,

You've a point!(Large foot comes down on the band followed by Monty Python and the Norwegian Blues playing the Liberty Bell March, backed by a bunch of pissed up Australian philosophers all called Bruce.)

Gdday

Roger

705. Devolution in Education

Comment #245072 by Roger Stanyard on September 10, 2008 at 7:30 am

Big band - Well if we are talking about cosmology, how about Bill Halley and the Comets?

706. Devolution in Education

Comment #245071 by Roger Stanyard on September 10, 2008 at 7:28 am

justaminute: "The belief that the universe runs on materialist principles is a belief held by faith."

Oh, no, not this old chestnut.

How many times have we heard this from fundamentalists. Let's translate what they actually mean.

God exists and therefore science is wrong not to invoke the supernatural but it is wrong to invoke the supernatural in the form of Zeus, Buddha, Thor, fairies at the bottom of the garden, hobgoblins [slot in any name you like] because they are faith positions.

Science, rightly, discounts the lot because, otherwise, there would be no science.

Science is not a faith position, it;s a methodology.

Science could only ever be a faith position if it invokes the supernatural. It can't do be cause religious belief is all over the place - a matter of personal opinion and opinion alone.

So you utterly contradict yourself.

707. Devolution in Education

Comment #245051 by Roger Stanyard on September 10, 2008 at 6:57 am

Justaminute: "As design can be detected empirically it is not unreasonable to argue by analogy that the first cause in creation was not matter but intelligence."

No, not from my understanding of science. Current speculation amongst cosmologists and physicists suggests that such events as the big bang was not "a start" but possibly a collision between two membrains. Moreover, that approach suggests there never was a start - that matter and energy and whatever have always existed, indefinetely. the big band was just another event in a never ending, never starting environment. To put it bluntly big bands happen all the time and for all enternity.

Moreover, there is also speculation we can even actually create (parallel) universes in the laboratory.

Morality is not the effect of a "law giver". throughout history it hs been a social construct of mankind; the nature morality varies from place to place and over time and is always moving on. What morality is certainly not dependent on is the existance of an Abrahamic deity.

I know that most Americans appear to think otherwise but the USA is (and Americans are) no less and no more moral than most other countries where Christianity is basically absent or weak.

Order in nature does not require a designer. It occurs all the time without any prompting from an intelligence. Indeed, a basic understanding of the second law of thermodynamics shows that order arises from disorder as well as the other way round - without any prompting. The issue is one of statistical probability. You've been given the example of snowflakes which breach the norm.

Appearance of design is not evidence of design.

The physicist Victor Stenger is very good on this. He has argued that the further we go back towards the big band, the less order there is in the universe until it reaches zero. In other words, there was no intelligence behind the big band whatsoever. All the order arose afterwards through the normal functioning of the laws of physics, including, it appears, the laws of physics themselves.

708. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #244739 by Roger Stanyard on September 9, 2008 at 11:53 am

Corylus,

I recently had one of my email accounts closed so it may not have got to me.

Try emailing me at stanyardroger@yahoo.co.uk

709. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #244737 by Roger Stanyard on September 9, 2008 at 11:50 am

Decius,

I could care less what their religion is but why are such cretinists so utterly dim?

Most of us have an instinct to shut up when we know when we don't understand or are out of or depth.

The all seem to think that no matter how stupid they come over as, they are doing a grand job in preaching.

None of them grasp that they are doing religion a massive amount of damage.

The Muslim ones seem to be particularly stupid which is saying something after several years of handling the Christian variety of creationist.

This one doesn't have the wits to work out that his "pal" is in jail and Dawkins therefore can't debate with him.

710. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #244726 by Roger Stanyard on September 9, 2008 at 11:18 am

Re only one god

Oh no! Not another troll spewing out the same creationist crapola as Joe Morealle.

i'd be a rich man if I had £1 for every time I have heard someone trot out this sort of banality.

Or is it one and the same person?

Um, we've read the stuff from BAV as well as the ICR where he drew much of his material from and it isn't science. End of story.

Do you actually know what a theory is? What the term means?

(Watch him ignore the question.)

711. Museum in censorship row over Darwin sign

Comment #244103 by Roger Stanyard on September 8, 2008 at 10:08 am

Re Gary Arthur "I have been following the comments on this post with interest, and tried to post before but somehow my post has not appeared. I was actually the member of museum staff that Pat Chapman first spoke with in regard to the reason the signboard was covered up, and would like to make comment on a couple of issues."

Hi Gary.

It would be much appreciated if we could post you comments to our web site www.bcseweb.org.uk

We have been involved in bringing this affair to the attention of the public and have been following the activities of creationists in the Northampton area for some years.

We have a significant amount of "intelligence" on the activities of the creationists but cannot for legal reasons publish them.

We are trying to get more info on the activities.

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education

712. Face to faith

Comment #243711 by Roger Stanyard on September 7, 2008 at 3:20 am

Rod The Farmer Says: "Ditto. I was fairly sure by about 13, that it (religion) was codswallop. Many who post here have reported similar reactions at such a young age. I wonder what it is about us that caused such a rejection when our understanding of reason & science was minimal, at best. Others did not reach this stage until adulthood, or later. Why ? This question is probably worth pursuing as a thesis, or better a funded project/investigation. Maybe the Pew group ?"

I;m not sure it has anything to do with "rejection" as such. We are all faced with a huge varierty of opinions and views in life, most of which we don't accept. My own experience wa that I found religion to be unconvincing - it was not a matter of rejecting it, but much more of a matter of never having accepted it in the first plae.

I no more "rejected" Christianity" that I rejected Judaism, or Islam or any other of the 400 or so main religions in the world.

Whatever position we come to in the big issues that surround us, it always involves not accepting a lot. It's absoulutely innevitable. It is not about science and our reasoning and intellectual skills honed as we grow up. All people do it all of the time and at every age.

I also have to say that a critical factor is not rejecting the message because of its arguments. We also intuitively fail to accept because of how we perceive the messanger.

My own experence of not being convinced by religion dates back to when I was 11. I listened to an evangelist proselytiser in a Baptist church. I couldn't understand what the heck he was talking about and left thinking he was part nuts. He probably was, btw. Was the issue the message or the messanger?

I don't think it really matters gievn my age at the time. It wasn't a developed intellect that led me to being unconvinced. More like nothing more than intuition.

I don't think there is much mileage in a thesis on this!

713. Importing a slave class

Comment #243637 by Roger Stanyard on September 6, 2008 at 2:41 pm

"There are definite pressures on manual labour, with immigration stifling wages. Millions of people suffer from this fact.
The uneducated are usually xenophobic. The uneducated make up the majority of manual labourers. The greatest pressure from immigration is on the manual work force. A vicious circle that leads to the high tensions, evidenced by the most poor areas displaying these tensions, burnley, bradford, stoke the list goes on, look at the success of the BNP in an area and look at the biggest industries in the area and see the correlation. To say immigration does not cause problems is so, for lack of a better term, middle-class."

Nothing to do with Middle Class attitudes. What you are presenting is just serious incompetenet economics. You view is called the fixed pool of labour fallacy.

Fallacy it is, big time. It is tired and stupid.

714. Palin's Church May Have Shaped Controversial Worldview

Comment #243636 by Roger Stanyard on September 6, 2008 at 2:21 pm

"What you see in a terrorist -- that's called the invisible enemy. There has always been an invisible enemy. What you see in Iraq, basically, is a manifestation of what's going on in this unseen world called the spirit world. ... We need to think like Jesus thinks."

Oh, you mean that we, um, have to accept the American view on terrorism. The same view that, er, financed the terrorism and bombing of my country, for years and years.

Like, er, Noraid and all those nice freedom fighters that blew the head off of a friend of mine.

All with American money?

715. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #243595 by Roger Stanyard on September 6, 2008 at 10:48 am

Well, Lenny Flank over at DebunkCreation points out that his father told him that fundamentalist girls are an easy lay (his dad was a fundamentalist minister).

The reason is simple. They are repeatedly browbeaten with claims that thinking about sex was a deadly sin that would send them to hell.

When the opportunity arose for the real thing, it became a matter of better being hung for a sheep than a lamb.

it all illustrates just how utterly stupid fundamentalists are.

One suspects that all too many of them also think prayer is a good form of contraception.

PS, I've just seen one of the wackeroons claiming that Democrats masterbate ten times more often that Republicans. I am not joking.

716. Opening minds

Comment #243592 by Roger Stanyard on September 6, 2008 at 10:37 am

Epeeist

The whole process of "infiltration" into positions of power is exactly how various hardline Marxists used to operate.

717. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #243589 by Roger Stanyard on September 6, 2008 at 10:27 am

SidewalkCynic says; "We of the non-theist demographic are very much familiar with theist politicians pandering to theists and ignoring Atheists, because Atheists are irrelevant to political progression. When was the last time an Atheist put forth a concept that advanced society toward the better that theists overwhelmingly accepted? "

Shrug. So what? Most of the politicians in my country are non-beleivers or if they are, they keep their religion private, where it should be. Atheists or whatever you want tocall them are at the core of the political process, not least because most well educated people are not religious.

It may be different in the USA but the USA is not the centre of the world.

In fact, I would go as far to say that most American politicians are flat out lying about their religiousity and the more they brag about it, the bigger the lies.

It's worse that that theough because the fundamentalists who backed Bush have nothing worthwhile whatsoever to offer to the political process. Their politics is just a giant hate towards modernity and everything involved in it. They are not "for" anything - just against everything.

That's why Dubya ignored them all.

718. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #243588 by Roger Stanyard on September 6, 2008 at 10:16 am

SideWalkCynic:

"There is no doubt in my mind that violence and teen age pregnancy has dramatically increased since the banishment of school prayer..."

Except that the obvious evidence completly contradicts you. In my country and no doubt many others, school prayers remain compulsory and it hasn;t made one iota of difference to the increase or decrease in teenage pregnancies. They are lower than they were 40 years ago because of the availability of contraception and sex education, not because of praying to not get pregnant or whatever.

On the other hand violence (or at least reported violence) probably has increased a bit. In my day, we would seriously fight each other in school and it wasn't even a punishable offence unless it involved bullying. Nowadays its a serious offence.

The problem Americans have with violence in schools is, I guess, yet again the gun culture.

Perhaps if you looked at other countries without the gun culture you might get a real understanding of what is going on.

[I now fully expect a tirade about how evil the anti-gun brigade is.]

719. Opening minds

Comment #243585 by Roger Stanyard on September 6, 2008 at 10:00 am

Hellene:

195. Comment #243581 by Roger Stanyard

And here it is;

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Now I'm going fishing.....2

Sad to hear that the morons still have influence.

Hope the fishing goes well.

720. Opening minds

Comment #243581 by Roger Stanyard on September 6, 2008 at 9:33 am

Hellene,

I think you got "knackered" about right.

ys, the neo-cons. It was that lot which really raised the alarm bells in me about exactly what the Bush administration was about and just how pernicious fundamentalism was.

Oddly, I came to the whole issue as part of my normal full time profession (which is in satellite communications). We just saw the whole lot screwing up and it turned out to be as we predicted.

The neo-cons seem to me to be another throw back to backwardness. Strauss, whilst a Jewish refugee from Germany, basically reflected the same German mindset and outlook that led to Hitler. The Neo-cons even sounded at times like something out of the bile and rage of Nazi Germany.

I haven't kept up with what has happened to the neo-cons but I assume that they are now nearly totally discredited and a spent force. Presumably neither McCain nor Obama want anything to do with them?

Roger

721. Opening minds

Comment #243575 by Roger Stanyard on September 6, 2008 at 9:13 am

Titania "Roger, as an American living admidst these nutcases, I agree with much of what you say. RD also agrees with you and Lawrence Krauss and Eugenie Scott that different tactics are required for the politcal battle for rational education and that he is not the best spokesperson for that cause. I have heard him say so many times.

I, like RD, am so tired of the influence religious people have over education. I'll think about your points, but I can't help but think that letting them keep their delusions (and imparting them to our children) undermines the cause of rationalism so much that it may not be worth it in the long run."

Richard has taken the intellectual rather than the political high-ground. I suspect that as an American you are faced with a radically different religious/cultural environment that the UK. To put it bluntely, Richard is not going to make that much of an inroad in the UK because the vast majority of people here are not religious anyway. He's preaching to the converted or the utterly indifferent. If TGD was just published in the UK it would, I guess, be a minor work and maybe not one of Richard's best sellers.

Let's put it another way, the USA needs much more healthy and open public debate about religious belief and religiousity than the UK.

Still, we also have our fundamentalists - in Northern Ireland in particular - and the creationists are making big inroads into mainstream religion (Catholic Church apart - they think the fundamentalists are all nuts). It looks as if what the fundamentalists are doing here is moving into a power vacuum as belief in religion continues to collapse in Britain. It's even collapsing amongst off-springs born here of Muslim immigrants.

There seems to be a culture in England in particular that has never really taken religion that seriously. Getting rid of the Puritans was one example but it probably pe-dates that by many centuries. On the eve of the Battle of Hastings, the Normans prayed. The English did their usual thing and got drunk instead. The baddies won, btw.

Then there is Melton Combustible, a village in East Anglia. In mediaeval times, the locals got, well lets say, a bit concerned about the local Bishop taking religion somewhat too seriously and kindly and out of the generousity of their own hearts, helped him to get the message by burning his palace down (hence the name of the place).

Perhaps you should try the same thing with Pat Robertson or Ken Ham

Roger

722. Opening minds

Comment #243572 by Roger Stanyard on September 6, 2008 at 8:50 am

hellene asks "Does not science free us from ignorance, and superstition?
Does not science help keep us free of disease, and discomfort?
Has science not allowed us to communicate freely?"

Yes, indeed, on all three counts. I would also add that it has allowed us religious freedom by showing that dogmatic religion gets it seriously wrong.

Put another way, the enlightenment ideal of science is also the enlightenment ideal of freedom of thought.

I have to say that there is also a strong argument that science has udermined religion. However, what puzzles me is that the USA, almost alone of the prosperous nations, is riddled with religion (to a degree that is dangerously unhealthy for a modern democracy). Worse still much of it is pernicious and full of bile.

It's one of those contradictions that seems o fly in the face of the experience of the rest of the world. Quite frankly, when it comes to religion, maybe 20% or more of the population of the USA are still resolutely stuck in the 17th century.

In contrast I suppose my view is that science took off in England after the end of the Commonwealth because everyone was fed up with fundamentalism. The RS was established partly in reaction to the excesses of the Puritans and the relief from more moderate religion coming back. I don't think it without signficance that Principia was published just after the fundamentalists got kicked out of power once and for all.

Once the Anglican Church had been given the implicit job of protecting England from religious extremism, science flourished on a staggering scale. And, incidentally, the UK was quickly formed and created the biggest empire the world has ever seen.

As an aside, I live in Winchester in the UK and the vandalism caused by the fundamentalists to its Cathedral is all too evident today. Fundamentalists hate other believers.

It should ome as no surprise to any Americans here that England's one and only military dictatorship was organised and run by religious fundamentalists - the same lot as your Pigrim Fathers. Most of us who have looked at the issues have a serious disdain for the American Pigrim fathers.

They left England not because they were persecuted but because they wanted total control of the monopoly religion. Their idea of religious freedom was freedom to impose their religion on everyone. America is still paying the price, I guess.

We got rid of them by 1661.

723. Importing a slave class

Comment #243556 by Roger Stanyard on September 6, 2008 at 7:37 am

"Unfettered immigration just leads to social breakdown and undue pressures on the indigenous population."

News to me. In the European Union we have unfettered immigration between nearly all member states. Nobody has noticed that any of them have experienced social breakdown as a result. Nor do I see the slightest evidence of "undue" pressures on the indigenous population(s). The internal migration has contributed immensely to economic wealth and welfare.

724. Opening minds

Comment #243553 by Roger Stanyard on September 6, 2008 at 7:18 am

Decius

"Couldn't undermining education be seen as a conspiratorial act against the public welfare? Aren't there laws protecting the public interest against conspiracies? We need a new relentless and concerted effort to drive these people out of civil society. Off the silk gloves, I say. "

No can do on either. The creationists in the UK are not breaking the law.

Look, this is a political battle and our only tools are the political tools of a liberal democracy. It is not a battle between science and religion (and I deeply disagree with Professor Dawkins on this). It is a battle between rigid and unyielding ideologues and freedom.

The aim of the fundamentalists is to create a theocracy with them in charge. Nobody who has even the slightest knowledge of what they are doing in the USA should have any doubts about that. Just look at their political movements �" The Christian Coalition, the Moral Majority (neither notably moral and certainly not a majority), Focus on the Family, the Discovery Institute and the Wedge Document, Howie Ahmanson and the Chalcedon Foundation….

All big movements have extremist wings - whether those movements be the Conservative Party, the Labour Party, the Greens, the Animal Rights movement. Religion is no different in that respect. Anyone who is fighting creationism, though, would be utterly daft to not work through the main political parties (all of them) whatever their personal political views are.

If you want to win political battles against the creationists, anyone and everyone who opposes them is onside, including most of mainstream religion. If you want to be morally pure (intellectual masturbation) and have only the non-religious onside, it is a recipe for total failure.

Like it or not, the very basic right of being able to hold and practice whatever religious belief or position you feel comfortable with is absolutely central to that battle. Ignore it and we are back to the fundamentalist's idea of totalitarianism. They one thing they hate more than non-believers are religious people that disagree with them. They hate with bile. What does any expect? That's how all rigid ideological positions operate. They are all birds of a feather that screech to the same tune.

It is ludicrous to suggest that in a democracy you can someone oust fundamentalists from civil society. That would require totalitarianism. �" throwing out the bay with the bath water.

The political reality is that all you can do is to show the world exactly what they are and consequentially limit their influence.

The one thing you will never do is to convert the creationists by force of argument and debate. They are ideologues and are not listening. In their world, everything has to be either forced to it their ideology or be rejected and demonised. It is worse than that, though, because even if you do "convert" them, more often than not the fundamentalist mindset remains. They just shift to another plane of ideology or nuttiness.

I've spent a long time coming to my position on creationism. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that it is plain silly to try to be an effective anti-creationist and knock all religion. Most people who are religious want the same as I do when it comes to freedom of thought and action.

Incidentally, my position leads me to currently conclude that getting religion out of UK schools altogether is an exceedingly bad idea. As a pragmatist, though, I suspect will change my opinions as the Anglican church becomes more and more dominated by fundamentalists. I'm also unconvinced at present about separation of church and state. The British system, which nominally does not separate the two is, in practice far more secular that the US political system where politics is dripping in sanctimonious religiosity. Why �" because it appears the British system controls religious extremism and the American system encourages it.

The British system offers a safety valve for religious pressure. The American system doesn't. I fear that religious fundamentalism will destroy America by blowing the whole system apart.

Finally, if anyone thinks I have suddenly turned religious, I haven't. I am shit scared of Islam and find the Bible to be historically hugely inaccurate, scientifically impossible, largely utter fiction, deeply ambiguous, repeatedly contradictory and mostly allegorical. It is alien to my way of thinking. Nor do I believe in God, gods or any form of supernaturalism. I couldn't actually care less whether a God exists and if it did, it would have no resemblance whatsoever to what Muslims or Bible believers think.

I'll comment on RD as well while I am at it. TGD is a brilliant book and Richard is the right man at the right time to put such views forward. The excesses of religiosity in the USA over the last decade or so has created a seriously backlash and Richard is reflecting it (It would have happened without Richard). But Richard is not a politician or political animal. It's time to work out exactly what the real political problem is and do something about it. It is a fact of life, though, than many religious believers who are onside in tackling fundamentalism are put off by Richard. It's a painful job trying to bring them onside again. There is a huge problem in the creationists/fundamentalists have been very successful in equating science with atheism and anti-religious positions. In the tiny minds of creationists there are only two sorts of people �" creationists and atheists. The message, though, is simple and highly effective. Anyone who opposes fundamentalists must therefore be an atheist. Dead wrong! I want to get that message over loud and clear.

Roger

725. Opening minds

Comment #243535 by Roger Stanyard on September 6, 2008 at 5:40 am

"What, Hitler was a fan of Ken Ham's? That makes sense. (sort of)"

Other way round Laurie. Both rigid ideologues basically screeching to the same tune and who can sway a crowd.

I'm not jesting on this either.

726. Opening minds

Comment #243532 by Roger Stanyard on September 6, 2008 at 5:34 am

"Well, I don't know, fellows - I've always thought that Ken Ham would be a wonderful, inspiring team leader."

As did Hitler.

727. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #243526 by Roger Stanyard on September 6, 2008 at 5:14 am

Epeeist "I was musing about Al-Rawandi's post about the Jews buying land from Palestinians and establishing sovereignty over it. It sounds a bit like what the British did with India and Rhodesia. "

Rhodesia was disgusting, It was basically taken over by a commercial company using mercenaries. The locals were conned out of their land and when they consequentially got nasty, were herded into caves and sticks of dynamite were chucked in. The place was run as a joint stock company until, IIRC, 1923. Zimbabweans haven't forgotten.

728. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #243522 by Roger Stanyard on September 6, 2008 at 5:05 am

"Funny how the British seem to have been at the root of many of these issues, epeeist. (Now, where's that smiley face?)"

We English just blame it on on the Scots. ;-)

729. Opening minds

Comment #243519 by Roger Stanyard on September 6, 2008 at 4:43 am

Allan W.

Now that is a completely wicked suggestion!

730. Opening minds

Comment #243510 by Roger Stanyard on September 6, 2008 at 4:24 am

Epeeist,

I can't imagine Joe Morreale gettig a job as a gardener. You need to know something about biology for that such as what a plant is, which end you stick in the ground, etc..

Still, I doubt that would be a handicap for the position of head of Answer in Genesis UK.

Roge

731. Opening minds

Comment #243504 by Roger Stanyard on September 6, 2008 at 3:54 am

Laurie Fraser,

Your applying? Well we've opened up a book at www.bcseweb.org.uk

We need to know a bit more about your credentials for this prstigous position before we can offer some odds.

Anyone like to bet on your chances? Anyone like to offer some odds for Wooter or David Robertson?

732. Opening minds

Comment #243498 by Roger Stanyard on September 6, 2008 at 2:48 am

For some inexplicable reason, this advertisement has fallen into my in-tray. Perhaps Professor Dawkins may wish to apply.

Olde, Harrold and Nicholas, Recruitment Consultants and Head Hunters

Recruitment and Head Hunting firm, Olde, Harrold and Nicholas is pleased to announce that we have been retained by Britain's world-beating centre of scientific excellence, Answers in Genesis UK, to fill the current vacancy of chief executive. The position arises from the sudden departure of its previous incumbent, Monty White, to spend more time bashing his Bible.

This UK subsidiary of a leading American producer of thermally enhanced combined atmospheric gases is located on a prestigious trading estate in the East Midlands. The position involves reporting directly to the main terrestrial subsidiary and its agent on earth, President Ken Ham. Answers in Genesis operates in the highly competitive global market of making money.

You will be responsible for a substantial team of up to nearly two non-practising cutting edge scientists as well as its charitable arm for relieving the public of the considerable burden of having excessive amounts of cash.

As Answers in Genesis is at the forefront of cutting-edge science, we are seeking candidates with an outstanding and exemplary track record in the natural sciences, outstanding communications skills and strong conservative convictions.

You should be familiar with and extensively well-read in all aspects of science, notably and exclusively the Bible, except the bit about the ninth commandment. (Catholics need not apply.)

Knowledge of herpetology, particularly serpentes, and biochemistry would be exceedingly useful. Candidates must demonstrate a proven track record in research, testing, application and sales of oil and oil-based compounds derived from serpentes. Experience of use of venom in an advanced primate environment would also be valuable, especially where it could be applied to Creation Ministries International.

We are particularly keen to interview candidates with experience of producing science in challenging areas of controversy. You will be required to produced a substantial list of precisely no published peer reviewed scientific papers whatsoever, demonstrate a successful career to date of being totally ignored by the entire scientific community and being ridiculed repeatedly by the Guardian newspaper.

You will have earned or purchased your PhD from a leading international university, such as the European Theological Seminary or the Pacific International University. You must demonstrate that your PhD has taken no less than 11 weeks to research and write up and cost upwards of £500. The University must be recognised by Bryant and May (USA) or any other leading vendor of packets of matches advertising such institutions. You must demonstrate that your research is original, such as showing it first appeared in Reader's Digest or equivalent learned sources published by DC Thompson in Dundee.

You must have experience of negotiating and presenting at the highest levels of the international scientific and academic world, such as Lisburn Town Council. You must be widely connected throughout the scientific community, notably to GCSE candidates (expected grades E and F).

Past successful exposure to zoonotic neuroinvasive hydrophobia would be a considerable advantage in the communicative skills required for the position. An ability to call up bovine peristalsis in public debate would also be highly desirable. Fluency in both written and spoken Diarrheoa and an ability to verbally remove two of the rearward appendages of Equus asinus are essential. Our client does not require any knowledge of science, or anything else, in applying these skills.

An ability to speak in tongues and roll about on the floor would be an advantage

The candidate will be expected to demonstrate business development skills to exploit opportunities arising from necrophilia and witchcraft in Australia.

This is not a permanent appointment as the successful candidate may be raptured into heaven at any time.

Our client offers a highly competitive salary complete with fringe benefits including free faith healing and life ever after in a warm, welcoming environment operated by our subsidiary, Olde, Harrold and Nicholas Retirement Homes (Underworld) PLC.

Answers in Genesis is an equal opportunities employer. No liberals, women, gays, non-believers or anyone who knows what they are talking about need apply.

Interested applicants should send a resume and CV to:

Sinnead Bashir BA (BJU)
Olde, Harrold and Nicholas
Hayseed House
2, Horns and Ayetail Place
Hicksville
Leicestershire
LE1 666

733. Opening minds

Comment #243037 by Roger Stanyard on September 5, 2008 at 2:28 am

Quantum_Flux says "Is it really!? I will espouse my dogmatism here, and that is because I believe it to be true:"

Dogmatism? You said it.

Yawn, another fundie.

734. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242630 by Roger Stanyard on September 4, 2008 at 8:18 am

Well JDB245, Sarah Palin, as a gun nut, seems very good at arranging shotgun marriages for unwed pregnant teenagers (her own).

Surely that's good enough experience to be the most powerful person in the world?

735. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242506 by Roger Stanyard on September 4, 2008 at 1:02 am

Have we now got it established exactly what Sarah Palin is?

Seems to me she is basically an uneducated "God Guns and Guts" rural redneck.

Am I right in my conclusion?

736. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #241935 by Roger Stanyard on September 3, 2008 at 8:32 am

Epeeist "The daughter is named Bristol - you really have to wonder if she is one of a pair."

Yes, it is rather strange naming one's daughter after an industrial port.

Imagine calling a child Goole or Immingham Fish Dock.

Perhaps the grandchild will be called Goole.

(If twins, they would then be known as the Goolies.)

Still, the Brits can't complain - many of them are called Barry.

737. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #241888 by Roger Stanyard on September 3, 2008 at 7:24 am

Reply to Natural-Preservation

Why should "teach the controvery" be introduced into non-science lessons? It's proponents say that it is a scientific position that has nothing to do with religion at all.

Or where they just lying to the courts at Dover?
Either it is science or has no merit whatsoever.

Teach the controversy = scam

738. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #241865 by Roger Stanyard on September 3, 2008 at 6:58 am

"how can u believe that " you come from a monkey"::))) if so, why are there still monkeys in the world, when will they turn into human, or they didn t want to be a human like you::)) I didn t believe this story even when I was ten years old..
then why did monkeys die before being a human??::))
and why dont they turn into human nowadays,, :)
it s a story of a pre-tech times,, :) but now we can see DNA,, etc...:) I m visiting this kind of sites to see if there is logical ideas to believe.. You may also see the Harun Yahya's site,,and see the logical things..."

This needs to be posted to Fundies Say the Darndest Things.

739. Museum in censorship row over Darwin sign

Comment #241820 by Roger Stanyard on September 3, 2008 at 5:52 am

For the record:

Here is a report from the Creation Science Movement's newsletter for the 4th quarter of 2004:

"New Creation Group in Northampton

This group of local Christians concerned to make the truths of Creation known among churches and education establishments held its inaugural meeting this June. Pastor Lewis Houston (01604 471 626) is supported in leading the group by Dr. Richard Barrett, and by CSM Council member Dr. Farid Abou-Rahme who has recently moved to Northampton. It is hoped to hold bi-monthly Saturday meetings and major annual events."

The newsletter can be found https://www.csm.org.uk/journals/2004-4.pdf?PHPSESSID=d723fe950c0978559423871d028e5fee - scroll down to the end of page 4

That Pastor Lewis Houston remains chairman of the Northants Creation Group is indicated by this web page:

http://www.eden.co.uk/directory/northants_creation_group_O29185.html

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education

740. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #241725 by Roger Stanyard on September 3, 2008 at 2:20 am

Quantum Flux comments "I am not retarded or stupid."

So why have you just demonstrated that you are, all on your own without any prompting or assistance from anyone here?

If something squeals like a pig, looks like a pig, behaves like a pig and has a snout and a curly tail, then it is a pig.

741. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241470 by Roger Stanyard on September 2, 2008 at 10:23 am

742. Human geography is mapped in the genes

Comment #241208 by Roger Stanyard on September 2, 2008 at 2:10 am

"But seriously, concepts such as 'Celtic' and 'Anglo-Saxon' refer to cultural-lingustic traits, which are NOT genetic."

Oppenheimer's work is interesting on this matter because he argues that English (specifically a germanic language) was basically widely spoken in Southern England before the Romans turned up. He doesn't base this argument on genetics, though and I must admit I find him unconvincing on the matter.

If he is right, though, he has thrown a huge spanner in the works of received historical wisdom - that the Ango Saxons did not, after 400 AD, give the UK its prime language. It originated in Northern France/Belgium.

.

743. Theocratic Sect Prays for Real Armageddon

Comment #241198 by Roger Stanyard on September 2, 2008 at 1:46 am

"Why does Florida have so many of these strange christian organizations, like Benny Hinn and Mr. Hovind? Are there tax codes in Florida that protect hucksters? I think I'm starting to see a pattern."

Well Florida's tax code certainly didn't stop Hovind from going to goal over tax evasion.

Nor do I assume that Joel's Army isn't active in the UK. Becky Fischer was in Yorkshire earlier this year.

744. Human geography is mapped in the genes

Comment #240774 by Roger Stanyard on September 1, 2008 at 3:03 am

dvespertilio says "What?!!?? No Celts? I'm cut to the quick of my Anglo-Welsh-Irish heart!!! Say it ain't so!"

Well if it helps there are no Anglo-Saxons either!

So we are all a bit up the proverbial creek without a paddle when it comes to how we see ourselves.

745. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240769 by Roger Stanyard on September 1, 2008 at 2:57 am

Quetzalcoatl comments on David Robertson "No point is too cheap or too erroneous that he won't attempt to score it."

I see what you mean. The man is utterly bonkers.

746. Theocratic Sect Prays for Real Armageddon

Comment #240764 by Roger Stanyard on September 1, 2008 at 2:44 am

I think it has already been mentioned on the forum but the home church of John McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, appears to be connected to and endorses Joel's Army.

People should be seriously worried that a woman who may well end up as President of the USA is associated with a death cult. She will have her finger on the button for nuclear bombs.

747. Human geography is mapped in the genes

Comment #240753 by Roger Stanyard on September 1, 2008 at 2:25 am

Stephen Oppenheimer at UCL has also done a lot of work on this but from a historical perspective. he found that the Brits were simply not divided into Celts and Anglo Saxons but that both are all basically of Basque origin.

So the history books now need to be seriously revised and various sundry nationalistic movements in the Brtish Isles need a radical rethink of what they are on about. There are no Celts!

That's one of the things I love about science. It has huge ripple on effects about the way we think.

No wonder the religous fundamentalists hate it.

748. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240746 by Roger Stanyard on September 1, 2008 at 2:11 am

re David Robertson's comments "Maybe its my warped sense of humour but I do find it hilarious that there is a lobby based on a philosophy which has no beliefs, doctrines, dogmas, tenets, principles. And why or how can an atheist lobby on sex education? I thought that atheism was just simply the absence of belief in God. That there are no atheist doctrines or policies. So what does a lobby for atheism lobby for? The right not to believe? But that right already exists. If there are no atheist policies or beliefs then what is the point of an atheist lobby?W

Is this man for real or do we have just another nutter who thinks in black and white terms that the world is divided into fundamentalist Christians and atheists?

(Shakes head at the utter banality of Robertson's comments.)

749. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #240330 by Roger Stanyard on August 31, 2008 at 11:07 am

"In June, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal passed the Louisiana Science Education Act, encouraging schools to provide alternative critiques of global warming, human cloning and evolution."

Presumably as at tomorrow and because of global warming Louisiane won't have any schools left to teach alternative critiques of global warming.

750. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #240324 by Roger Stanyard on August 31, 2008 at 10:57 am

phiwilli: Why should ID/Creationism be taught in any lesson?

There is no substance whatsoever behind either.

What sort of lesson do you teach it in given that its proponents have repeatedly argued that it is wholly based on science?

How on earth do you teach "well" the scientific theory of creationism or ID as neither exists?

What is the controversy over ID/creationism? Science totally rejects them as baseless. There is no controversy as there is no science whatsoever in either.

Why should teachers waste their time teaching something that is intended to socially-re-engineer society along religious grounds? That isn't their job.

Why should teachers be asked to explain utter rubbish? They are paid to do otherwise.

How on earth do you teach bogus science well?

Or are you actually saying schools should be used to promote fundamentalist religion and the children should be lied to as it saves souls?

I'm not being facetious here as one of the leading members of Truth in Science (Stuart Burgess) has openly told the BBC that he teaches children that the theory of evolution is wrong so that they can't use it as an excuse on judgement day.