51. Pastor Michael Guglielmucci spun gospel of lies

Comment #234983 by Roger Stanyard on August 22, 2008 at 10:25 am

Reply to EvidenceOnly


The BCSE takes a different approach to you. We start from the premise that the whole fundamentalist/creationist shooting match is a problem because it is a political movement.

If the wackjobs kept out of politics, there would be little concern. As far as I am concerned they are free to believe and practise whatever they like.

The problem is when they use the political process to try to impose it on others. That is exceedingl dangerous. The outcome, if they are successful, is a theocracy, with them in charge.

If you don't think it can happen in te British Isles, think again. For years the Republic of Ireland was a theocracy. In Northern Ireland, the DUP is openly pushing for a theocracy.

The key issue is that the fundamentalists, amongst the churches, are the ones with money and American organisational techniques. The are well on the way to controlling the Church of England.

If you want to take these monsters on, "education" is not sufficient. You need to get and think political.

52. Pastor Michael Guglielmucci spun gospel of lies

Comment #234960 by Roger Stanyard on August 22, 2008 at 9:58 am

I should have also said that the fundqmentalists in Australia have been running scams for years - such as raising funding from the publi to searc for Noah's Ark.

Many in here will also be familiar with the Australian creationists being down each oters troats about money (AiG v Creation Ministries) as well as the accusations of necrophlilia.

I'm afraid to say all this is being imported into the UK. We are going to see years of thos sort of thing.

We already have a political party with seats in Westminster pushing creationism.

Roger Stanyard

53. Pastor Michael Guglielmucci spun gospel of lies

Comment #234949 by Roger Stanyard on August 22, 2008 at 9:50 am

There is a lot of mileage in this report and anyone who wants to know about the political power and money mkaing escapades of the pentecoastal movement in Australia should take a further look.

This guy is connected with Hillsong church (Sydney) which has become a force in Australian politics - in effect it has its own political party.

Moreover, Hillsong is a giant and unaccountable money making machine which ha s made the familty that run it immensely rich.

One of the family was abusing young boys for years and got off scott free.

The church has a repuation of being a nasty cult which treats former members abysmally. They are not nice people.

they are particuarly virulent i the hatred of gays which, um, seems inconsistent with one of the members of teh family that run it abusing young boys for years.


The last time I checked out Hillsong it had an anual income of in excess of Aus$50 million a year but was only accounting for about US$4 million in expenditure. You can take it for granted that the family that controls it live in palatial houses and run luxury cars.

Yep the Australians have imported, big time, the Elmer Gantry world of US religious fundmentalism.

BTW, the have also opened up shop in London and Hillsong is also creationist (it backs Intelligent design, IIRC).

54. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #234826 by Roger Stanyard on August 22, 2008 at 4:50 am

Jesus86: "The Hippocratic Oath goes like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath"

it's a pity that you didn't have the integrity to point out that the Hypocratic Oath today is not the same as the ancient document that you claim it to be.

Is this another fundamentalist example of "lying for Jesus"?

55. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #234801 by Roger Stanyard on August 22, 2008 at 3:37 am

"Oh? Well, if there's no absolute morality - then by what standard do you consider these men evil?"

1. My moral compass is based on the pragmatic and universal idea of doing to others as I would have done to myself.

2. It reflects the culture and times I live in. (Dunn- No man is an island to himself.)

3. Moral absolutes are full of contractions and are unworkable guides to behaviour.

4. Moral absolutes themselves inevitably lead to evil.

In the words (crie de cour, if you like) of Monty Python's Life of Brian, we are all individuals and have to work it out for ourselves.

56. No credit for creationism

Comment #234796 by Roger Stanyard on August 22, 2008 at 3:19 am

Jesus86 "answer to ID believers isn't "That's not even a theory! {guffaw, guffaw}" But, "There's no evidence to support your theory.""

But the ID believers have publically stated that ID is not a scioentific theory! Your patronising comments about "guffaw" are a smokescreen.

Let me ask you again, "What is the scientific theory of ID and how can it be tested by the scientific method?"

So far you have evaded this simple question. Now stop the BS and answer it.

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education

57. No credit for creationism

Comment #234794 by Roger Stanyard on August 22, 2008 at 3:12 am

Jesus86: "For the past x days, you guys have been challenging me to show that ID meets this or that definition or criterion for a scientific theory. I have met every challenge, in part by presenting a more charitable and modest version ID than you are accustomed to latch onto on these pages. But the goalposts keep moving."

Do, do tells us where you have presented the scientific theory of Intelligent Design. All I recall is waffle from you.

You don't seem to know what a theory is and are unaware that the Discovery Istitute has dismissed ID as a theory.

(PS, notice the crude attempt at the patronising BS that we don't understand ID therefore we are unreasobale. It's an attempt to try and tar us with the label of ignorance. Pity Jesus86 hasn't demonstrated any knowledge of of ID himself. A lot of us are exceedingly familiar with all its maifestations.)

58. No credit for creationism

Comment #234787 by Roger Stanyard on August 22, 2008 at 3:02 am

Jesus886 comments:

"I repeat: the best version of ID is a scientific theory, just a bad one."

Except Phillip Johnson, the driving force behind it and the Discovery Institute openly states that it isn't. Johnson has publicly stated that it is not only not a theory, it isn't even a hypothesis, just a set of ideas. That is a statement which clearly shows that you don't even know your own arguments.

Worse still for you, ID was shown in the Dover trial to be nothing more than a religious position. Creationism crossed out (literally and metaphorically) and replaced with intelligent design.

It's a religious scam, nothing more, nothing less.

Unless, of course, you would like to show us here what the scientific theory of Intelligent Design is and how can it be tested by the scientific method.

How about beginning with who or what interfered with the genome?

Then tell us how this thing did it. What process was involved?

When did it occur?

How can we observe this process in action today?

What defines something that displays evidence of Intelligent Design as distinct from evolution?

What is the "best version of Intellient Design" and how does that differ from all the others?

(Sits and waits forever for a reply.)

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education

59. Q&A with Richard Dawkins after lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #234439 by Roger Stanyard on August 21, 2008 at 11:08 am

"Why do we have sex? One of the main biological reasons, contends Ridley, is to combat disease. By constantly combining and recombining genes every generation, people "keep their genes one step ahead of their parasites," thereby strengthening resistance to bacteria and viruses that cause deadly diseases or epidemics"

So how does the selfish gene explain (alleged) necrophilia amongst Australian creationists?

Answers on a post card to one Richard Dawkins, please.

60. Central Texas Man's Death Sentence Upheld Despite Bible In Jury Room

Comment #234432 by Roger Stanyard on August 21, 2008 at 10:58 am

"Holding a dogmatic stand against executions seems to believe in some hippy like notions of sanctitiy of life. One has to look at hidden choices. By choosing not to execute a cold blooded murderer, you are choosing to have another 5-6 innocent victims killed due to the reduced deterrence that you have to offer."

Had the UK continued with the death penalty, then the civil war in Northern Ireland would have been far worse than it was - maybe tens of thousands of people killed instead of 3,300.

The USA retains the death penaltry and has one of the highest murder rates in the world after South Africa.

Does anyone really think that in South Africa things would have turned out better if Nelson Mandela had been hanged after the Rivona trial?

Nah.

Advocates of capital punishment are after revenge, not justice. And the greatest form of justice is remorse. The death penalty removes it.

61. Central Texas Man's Death Sentence Upheld Despite Bible In Jury Room

Comment #234428 by Roger Stanyard on August 21, 2008 at 10:46 am

"Many murderers are cold-blooded killers. They're called sociopaths.

I wouldn't even care if the death penalty failed to deter crime. Some people just need to die.
"
I dunno about the position in the USA where there is a strong culture of violence and guns but in the UK there is a big problem in introducing the death penalty.

That's because a third of people who commit homicide never come to trial. They kill themselves before hand.

Personally, I've always felt there is something wrong with people who vote in favour of or advocate the death penalty. They think it clever to have the death penealty for someone who as killed an innocent person but are the first to run away from the same consequences to them when the legal system wrongly convincts (as it does from time to time).

They are also usually utterly politically niave. One of the reasons why the UK lost control of ireland was the execution of the leaders or the 1916 Easter uprising.

I am afraid that the USA debauched itself and reduced itself to the same level when it allowed Saddam Husein to be hanged (and filmed at the same time).

62. US school district sued over homophobic 'witch hunt'

Comment #234422 by Roger Stanyard on August 21, 2008 at 10:35 am

"We aren't out to tar and feather anyone."

Rubbish - they were out to tar and feather Jane Doe and did it effectively and brutally.

Duno about the others, but the more I see of this side of the USA, the more I feel utterly ill at ease with the country. It is nothing more than a latter day Salem Witch Trial backed by 17th century religious bigotry.

It stinks to high heavens.

63. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #234408 by Roger Stanyard on August 21, 2008 at 10:12 am

"I have the advantage of knowing that there is an absolute moral standard. "

No such thing except in the minds of ideological bigots who claim to know the answer to everything.

As I have long said, religious fundamentalists are exactly the same as the fans of Adolf Hitler, Maoism, Pol Pot, Trotsky, et all - all birds of a feather screaching to the same tune.

64. Q&A with Richard Dawkins after lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #234399 by Roger Stanyard on August 21, 2008 at 10:05 am

Mitch-486:

A very good and witty introduction to modern science is Bill Bryson's Brief History of Everything. It ranges across a wide spectrum of science and therefiore gives a broad oicture of biology including genetics, paleontology and so on.

I'm a non-scientist and it helped me tremedously in bringing ideas together.

What I like about Bryson is that he is not at all scared to go into the gaps of scientific knowledge. I guess that there is a tendency in popular science writing for the gaps in knowledge to be pasted over.

I recently read Mat Ridley's Genome (again). It's a bit more technical and, alas, now somewhat out of date but I found it to be very readable and interesting.

Anything by Richard Fortey is also highly readable. He's a paleontologist, btw.

I'm told by one friend (who worked under Fortey for a while) that I should now be looking at quantum life sciences for new interesting ideas.

However, so far all I have been able to read up on it has been on Internet.

If you are interested in seeing the "science" of creationists being pulled tp pieces, that are a very large number of resources on Internet dedicated to that splendid cause.

It has been pulled to pieces in as much detail as anyone could ever want and all for free. I can't recall a single creationist argument that has not been entirely demolished (few creatonists are aware of this though; they just go one repeating the same old crapola as if nothing happended).

However nearly all of what "creation science" has produced is some 30 or more years old.
,

65. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #234317 by Roger Stanyard on August 21, 2008 at 7:16 am

Jesus86: "126: I'm not changing the argument. I have always stated my position that people should be free to contract for the services they want. Since a contract involves (at least) two parties, both need to be equally free -- doctors and patients. That's the position articulated in #12, which I have been urging you all to go back to, as well. Where have you been? "

Except, in medicine there is a long established and extremely important exception, the Hypocratic Oath. Doctors who sign the oath are, in effect, signing away their rights to act whenever they like acording to their conscience.

The deal we, as members of the public, have with the medical profession is not the same as normal contracts and buyer seller relationships.

66. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #234313 by Roger Stanyard on August 21, 2008 at 7:07 am

Jesus86 "Yes, most people are "singularly ill-informed about science." But I don't have to know anything about science to get in an airplane and fly across the ocean. All I need is a copy of Consumer's Reports from the library to tell me how the airlines stack up in terms of safety."

Shakes head at the utter banality of the comment. I once worked on such issues and a simople statistical record of the safety of individual airlines is a gross understatement of the complexity of the issues involved. For starters the data is historic and the further you go back in time the more irrelevent it is. It is also subject to huge issues of chance (band luck if you like) rather than regular occurances. The data requires a vast amount of interpretation to even begin to understand the risks.

Moreover, it ignores other factors such as the record of air traffic control in the regions being overflown, how old the airline is, the age of the aircraft, the safety records of the airports involved, how many stopovers are involved, the political risk climate....

That also ignores the safety of the design of the aircraft being flown as well as all the underlying scientific knowledge that has gone behnd airline safety. If you really want to understand saftey issues an exceedingly strong knowledge of applied science is required.

Running to consumer magazines is an amateur's approach.

67. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #234254 by Roger Stanyard on August 21, 2008 at 3:33 am

Comment by Mark Jones: "Like Vaal I thoroughly enjoyed Part 3 whilst being scared by the fundamentalists. John McKay dismissed evolution because we couldn't see it; presumably then he doesn't believe in the creation story of Genesis either, since he didn't see that."

Methinks that there was a touch of genius selecting Mackay and Cowan to be interviewed. These are two of the biggest clowns imaginable amongst the creationist camp. Unfortunately the biggest clown of the lot, Kent Hovind is currently in jail so presumably couldn't offer his kind help.

Perhaps someone ought to write a paper on the biological origins of necrophilia. ;-)


Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education

68. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

Comment #233520 by Roger Stanyard on August 20, 2008 at 2:28 am

One other point worth remembering about Mackay is that he and Ken Ham started off with a busines selling creationist literature to schools in Queensland. When this source of revenue for their business disappeared, they fell out.

Well Ken Scam went on to creat a bigger business in the USA, Answers in Genesis, and then fell out with his past Australian buddies over power and money. He is now buddy buddy with Mackay again, apparently because its good for his business.

Neither Ken Scam or Mackay appear to be accountable to anyone, not least the people who put up the money for their activities.

If it all sounds sordid, it is.

Oh, and apparently Mackay chases demons from cats, presumably after he has had conversations with God.

As I say, he is about as bonkers as they get.

69. Last Night's TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin, Channel 4

Comment #233514 by Roger Stanyard on August 20, 2008 at 2:18 am

Smiling Atheist,

Mackay appears to be better known in the UK than in Australia. That's because he fell out with his buddies at Answers In Genesis Australia when he made a power grab in the mid-1980s to take control of it. He was this sidelined. Moreover, the Aussies are probably betteer aware about his allegations (totally unfounded) about necrophilia amnongst the staff of AiG Australia (apparently he is still pushing this line). He basically pissed off the Australian creationists.

Well, he "evidence" for necrophlilia is about as sound as his science. Apparently God talks to him. His church kicked him out because of his lying.

The man is utterly bonkers.

One of his "pals" in the UK is Nick Cowan of Blue Coat School - that speaks volumes about Cowan and his school.

One wonders which teenager there may end up being accused of necropilia.

70. No credit for creationism

Comment #233503 by Roger Stanyard on August 20, 2008 at 2:04 am

Jesus86 comments: "So I innocently point out that in fact ID is a theory - albeit a bad one - and you bolster your argument by citing a tendentious definition of 'theory' from the National Academy of Sciences. Perhaps a teenage girl giving a casual interview might be forgiven for using common parlance?
"
But ID is not a theory, as I have already pointed out to you, as has Phillip Johnson, its prime protagonist. It isn;t even a hypothesis.

So, I'll ask you again:

What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design and how can it be tested with the scientific method?

How do you define what features show evidence of intelligent design and which don't?

What process did this intelligent force or whatever, make the "design changes"

When were these design changes made?

How can we see this process in action today?

The one thing you are not going to get from Jesus86 is any answer whatsover. IDers never answer my questions. All we get is BS about "you scientists" (I'm not a scientist, btw) - or complete distractions abou big bang theory.

So how about stop lying for Jesus and give us some straight answers?

If you have an alternative explanation about the differences between species, we are all ears.

(Shrugs and waits forever.)

71. No credit for creationism

Comment #233185 by Roger Stanyard on August 19, 2008 at 9:04 am

While you're at it Jesus86, please also explain away the position of Phillip Johnson, the "founder" and driving force behind Intelligent Design who has admitted that not only is it not a theory but not even a hypothesis. All it is is a set of ideas.

No wonder the rest of the world looks on at creationists like you and conclude that you don't even know your own arguments.

72. No credit for creationism

Comment #233182 by Roger Stanyard on August 19, 2008 at 9:00 am

Jesus96 "ID, at least in its best form, IS a testable model. It even has putative evidence to support it."

Oh! Do, do tell us all in your own words then what the scientific theory of Intelligent Design is and how can it be tested with the scientific method.

Do do, go on to tell us who or what this agent or agents was/were who changed the gentic code.

Let us know how they did it.

And in what species they did it.

Tell us when they did it.

And finally where can we see this process in operation today.

I'm all ears!

73. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #233179 by Roger Stanyard on August 19, 2008 at 8:49 am

Comment by Vaal: "I don't know if Richard reads these threads but I think he missed an opportunity when the Cretinists allege that evolution has never been observed."

It's not like that at all. The Creationists (i.e the ones that known "creation science" believe in what they call micro-evolution as distinct from macro-evolution.

Their "argument" is that the Bible specifices the size of Noah's Ark in cubits and therefore only 17,000 or so animals could be accomodated aboard.

That we have many more species today is "accounted for" by rapid evolution since Noah's flood.

However, the 17,000 onboard wre not species as such but "kinds" (none of the nutters haas ever defined what a kind is).

However fundamentalists are usually down each other's throats so you would not be surprised to learn that they disagree on this as well with one group beleibing in recolonisation (look it up on Google).

I am not making this all up.

The second point you need to remember is that most rank and filecreationists are so damn pig ignorant that they don't know their own creationist arguments and believe that all evolution never happened.

This is at the same time they are cutting and pasting from Answers in Genesis's web site and claiming that they are authoritative!

74. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #233067 by Roger Stanyard on August 19, 2008 at 4:55 am

Methinks getting Mackay and Cowan on the programme was a wise choice as neither can ever be taken seriously.

Cowan appears to be a buddy of Mackay and has raised finance for him to come to th UK. oth appear to be hell bent on using state eduation in the K to push their religious position and undermine teaching of science.

However, Cowan appears to have been demoted from his position as head of chemsitry = presumaly because he was giving Blue Coat school in Liverpool an exceedingly bad reputation.

How the school lets Mackay in is a mystery. The man has been excommunicated from his church for lying - accusing (for years) Magaret Buchanan of necrophilia with her dead husband.

Buchanan was at the time the personal scretay of Ken Ham, now head of Answers in genesis. She went on to marry the now head of Communications Ministry which has been at loggerheads with Answers in Genesis over power and money.

However ken Scam is now buddy-buddy with Mackay because Mackay has backed him in the money struggle with Creation Ministries.

These are not, it appears, people of any personal integrity.

It's standard ppractice though. Fundamentalists always end up falling out with each other.

It reminds me of a tale I was told recently of a Trotsyite group splitting up and folding becasue they couldn't agree whether Trotsky was murdered with an ice pick or a pick-axe.

They are all the same at heart - ideologues creaching to the same tune.

If you think that the whole lot of them are nuts, you would be quite right.

75. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #230828 by Roger Stanyard on August 15, 2008 at 8:25 am

What is it about creationists that make them so utterly idiotic the minute they open their mouths. I've seen them claim that men are genetically pre-disposed to white women in high heeled red shoes (I'm not making this up), that the water from the Noachian flood escaped through "wholes in the ozone layer" (I jest not)....

Well this one is yet another example of them showing themselves to be utterly idiotic (its from Prince zephyr):

Richard Dawkins, a most ardent supporter of Darwinism, has long accounted for the perfect creation of the universe in terms of the theory of evolution, which has lately suffered a global collapse. In his recent writings and interviews, however, Dawkins has started to express that "life cannot form by chance." It is an absence of sense and reason to support evolution on one hand and to state that life cannot come about by chance on the other. That is due to the fact that according to the theory of evolution, which Dawkins supports, the existence of life is based on entirely random coincidences. "

Um, the theory of evolution is not the theory of evolution by random chance. It is the theory of evolution by natural selection, a process which is far from random or by chance.

Moreover abiogenesis is a different subject matter altogether,

The rest of your idiotic statement is complete and utter bullshit.

Do keep on posting to demonstrate to the world your own utter ignorance and how stupid and idiotic creationists and.

76. The rebellion of the child-brides

Comment #230636 by Roger Stanyard on August 15, 2008 at 2:03 am

Raping children is one of the most serious criminal offences there can possibly be.

So why has no Muslim been prosecuted in the UK for marrying and raping children?

Are the police incapable of dealing with this or are they frightened to do so because of potential allegations of being "anti-Muslim" or racist? Who is protecting their backs for the lack of action? Or forcing them into lack of action?

77. Judge says UC can deny class credit to Christian school students

Comment #229137 by Roger Stanyard on August 13, 2008 at 6:14 am

The UC affair has a bizarre equivalent in Northern Ireland where the fundamentalists put together a petition to get equal marks in science exams for both scientific and creationist "answers". The petition called for such equal marks not only in school examinations but also in the province's universities.

Given the fact that the power brokers in the Democratic Unionist Party (including Mervyn Storey) and essentially creationists, I suspect that this demon will raise its ugly head again.

No wonder creationist organisations such as Answers in Genesis can't keep away from the province.

If anyone thinks thatthe matter involves just a handful of nutters, belief in creationism is rampant in Northern Ireland amongst Presbyterians and other Calvinistic religious denominations.

Roger Stanyard

British Centre for Science Education.

78. Judge says UC can deny class credit to Christian school students

Comment #229128 by Roger Stanyard on August 13, 2008 at 5:55 am

Tyler - 2Strange, they never seem to go after Einstein's General Theory of Relativity - "well, that's only a theory" - possibly because they don't actually understand it."

The creationists have been attacking the theory of relativity for years and years. They have no option because they can't explain why much of the universe is millions of light years away.

The hocus pocus they have come up with is truely astobnishing. One of the best known nutters in this sector is Barry Setterfield, a 1st year university drop out, who claims and still claims that he has proven that the speed of light has fallen in recent centuries.

His measurements were incompetent but he, and his equally as daft wife, are still pushing the nonsense as is the Genesis Expo creation "museum" in Portsmouth.

Setterfield also claims that modern measurements of the speed of light now show it has stopped falling. How convenient!

Never underestimate just how stupid creationists are.

79. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #226440 by Roger Stanyard on August 8, 2008 at 4:43 am

Lamentz comments: "There is a difference Cartomancer in the beliefs of the regualar Presbyterians and the Free Presbyterians, thought you are right in what you say, none of the churchs you mention would teach creationism as literal truth."

Hang fire a moment. Creationism is rife amongst mainstream Presbyterians in Northern Ireland and the main Presbyterian church is the largest Protestant denomination in Ireland.

Like it on not a lot of Protestants in NI cling to creationism because they think it is part and parcel of "proper" religion rather than that practiced by Catholics. It's a prop.

Take a look at the web site of the DUP. It is openly an exercise in Protestant triumphalism (which is what much of creationism and fundamentalism is about). The web site screams Protestant triumphalism at you.

The creationists are flocking to the province to push their idiocy - Don Batton, Philip Bell, Ken Ham and others are amongst recent or soon to be expected visitors to the provinces. None of them have the slightest background in politics but they are up to their necks in taking a partisan position in NI's deep, ancient, enmities.

As I keep saying, creationism is a political issue, not a debate between science and religion.

Have a look again at Storey's background. He's up to his neck in the Caleb Foundation and the Orange Order. The connection with creationism is not incidental. If you think there is no cultural or social connection between the Caleb Foundation/orange movement and the main presbyterian church, think again.

Moreover, like Storey, the Caleb Foundation wants to take NI back to the 17th Century.

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education

80. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225703 by Roger Stanyard on August 7, 2008 at 9:03 am

Some more details on Storey taken from his DUP bio:

Member of the Independent Orange Order; Apprentice Boys & Knights of Malta.
Vice Chairman of Caleb Foundation.
Committee Member of Ballymoney Free Presbyterian Church.

The thing to watch here is the Caleb Foundation. This is an untra-fundamentalist and secretive movement, Richard Dawkins, IIRC, had a run on on BBC NI with its head who apparently is so well informed about science that he could not pronounce the word "Neanderthal" Richard had to ask him several times what he meant.

As for Storey's science background, he is the product of a secondary school education and has no degree in any subject.

As I have said, creationism in Northern Ireleand is now a well organised political movement. It is not going to go away. For starters, it is another fundamentalist tool to get at the "taigs".

Storey needs watching like a hawk. Any info on his past statements on creationism would be highly welcome and very useful. As would any info on the secretive Caleb Foundation.

Roger Stanyard

British Centre for Science Education

81. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225693 by Roger Stanyard on August 7, 2008 at 8:12 am

Comment by Steve Zara "I doubt that Storey has any idea about what science is about, which is a bit troubling for the chair of an Education Committee."

Well, wev'e been following his antics for quite some while. Any doubts that he doesn't understand science should be dispelled. Not only is he utterly cluelesss about science, he doesn't even understand the basics of creation science that he is putting forward! He's clueless.

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education.

82. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225584 by Roger Stanyard on August 7, 2008 at 3:28 am

The BCSE has undertaken a fair amount of research on creationism in NI and the position is deeply worrying. Storey is not an odd ball - he appears to be part of a well organised movement to get creationism into the science lesson and is at the core of teh power block inside the DUP. As far as we can make out this bloke itself wants creationism taught in scienc lessons.

Worse still, belief in creationism is rampany amongst protestants in the province. Storey really does reflect a big element of public opinion there.

Underneath this all we have organisations such as teh Caleb Foundation pulling together fundamentalist Protestantism (and creationism) - with its connectsions to heaven knows in the Orange orders.

The main creationist organisations, notable Answers in Genesis, are highly active in the province and have bragged about their contacts with NI politicians.

Worse still the DUP appears to be pressurising business in Northern Ireland not to support next year's 150/200 Darwin anniversary.

Northern Ireland is the problem of creationism in Britain! The Vardy schools have recruited staff from the province to push fundamentalism in its schools; a vast amount of effort is being put into ther province by mainland and Ameriocan creationists. It looks to us that the province is a springboard to get creationism into the mainland of the UK.

Storey is not yet a Westminster MP but our beeting is that he will stand for election to Westminster - and will lobby there on behalf of the creationist movement,

83. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #224127 by Roger Stanyard on August 4, 2008 at 6:55 am

Comment by Steve Zara - "So what is the opposite of religion? That is hard to describe. Religion has the foundation of theism (or at least supernaturalism) to build upon. Atheism provides no such foundation, as it is the absence of belief. It is the absence of a scaffold."

Why shouldthere be any "opposite" of religion(s). I don't get the point. It seems that the idea is about as useful as understanding the opposite of engineering, or porridge, or custard or computers.

84. Breeding for God

Comment #223394 by Roger Stanyard on August 2, 2008 at 7:19 am

Hang dire veryone - "If immigration continues as is we will have approx 16% muslims in europe in 2050."

Well, not really. My understand in the UK is that acceptance of Islam amongst nominally muslim people born in the UK is falling fast - at the same rate as belief in christianity, If a nominally muslim chield is brought up by muslim parents there is only a 50% chance that they accept Islam in adulthood. In other words, with no more immigration, Islam will largely die out.

It doesn't seem to me that Islam in Europe has much of a future if it is dependent on immigration to sustain itself.

American evangelicals have found out the hard away that they can't import their own brand of christianity into Europe. yet if you believe some of their rhetoric, we are all just about to become fundamentalists.

Religion in Europe is dying.!

85. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #223392 by Roger Stanyard on August 2, 2008 at 7:06 am

"The prominent scientist Richard Dawkins has been denounced as a "secularist bigot" by a philosopher who was himself once renowned for being an atheist."

Pot to Kettle - You're black.

Seems to me that Flew has well and truely got himself mixed up with a a bunch of religious bigots in the form of the Discovery Institute and Biola University,

I'm afraid to say that senior academics (or ex-academics) don't suddenly switch from liberalism to ideological fundamentalism late in life unless there is something seriously wrong.

86. VOICES OF SCIENCE: PZ Myers - Buy it now on DVD

Comment #218371 by Roger Stanyard on July 25, 2008 at 10:23 am

WFR: I still don't understand. My limited knowledge of seperation of church and state in the USA is that it derives from the 1st Ammendment to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Therefore it is a constitutional arrangement deeply embedded in US law.

You seem to suggest the whole matter is an exercise in fiction and that organisations such as Americans United are deeply deluded.

87. VOICES OF SCIENCE: PZ Myers - Buy it now on DVD

Comment #218324 by Roger Stanyard on July 25, 2008 at 8:42 am

Comment by WFR on Seperation of Church ansd State: "In fact, there is no legal basis for it at all."

I still don't get what you are saying. Are you saying that there was no legal basis for the defendents taking action in the Dover case, or numerous other US court cases, and that Judge Jones was hopelessly mistaken in his decision?

88. VOICES OF SCIENCE: PZ Myers - Buy it now on DVD

Comment #218271 by Roger Stanyard on July 25, 2008 at 6:26 am

WFR: At about 00:31 in the interview with PZ, Professor Dawkins expresses an interest in the American "constitutional separation of church and state."

There is no such thing.

The famous phrase was penned by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a church in the state of Connecticut, fourteen years after the Constitution was adopted. The story of this letter, and of Jefferson's reasons for writing it, are fascinating.

The Constitution itself guarantees freedom of religion. Nothing else on that topic.

REPLY: I don't understand this statement at all. If there is no seperation of church and state in the USA, why do creationists keep losing in the courts (Dover etc.)

If there is no seperation of church and state then the head of state is head of the church - as is the case in the UK.

How do you explain freedom of religion and lack of seperation of church and state. The two are mutually incompatible.

Moreover, freedom of religion means just that - to hold and practice any religious position including atheism. That means freedom from religion as well.

It is irrelevent if 99.9999% of the population want the state to promote religion. That is still incompatible with the very idea of freedom of (and from belief) and the basic rules of democracy.

The alternative is theocracy - like Iran - or the mess of Northern Ireland.

Do you really think that religion should and can be politicised given that there are some 33,000 different Christian denominations and sects and some 400 different religions world-wide. Whose religious opinions take priority?

So please explain yourself and do tell us which religion the state should not be seperate from. Please also tell us which religions it should therefore be seperate from and why.

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education

89. The Return of Religion

Comment #212344 by Roger Stanyard on July 17, 2008 at 3:41 am

Srutton is a serious odd ball. He used the write for the Saturday edition of ther Financial Times before the nespaper fired him. His articles were excutiating to read.

Anyway, his comment "In the eyes of the evangelical atheists, however, this promise was not fulfilled. In their view of things, neither Judaism nor Christianity absorbed the Enlightenment even if, in a certain measure, they inspired it", is way off mark.

It is exceedingly common for US evangelicals to describe the Age of Enlightenment as the "Age of Endarkenment". There are huge swaths of religion (Christian, Jewich, Islamic) that far from inspiring the Age of Enlightenment even to this day openly reject it.

Still Scrutton sees it all as black and white - Christians against atheists. So who is the fundamentalist there, then?

90. An Irishman's Diary

Comment #208871 by Roger Stanyard on July 11, 2008 at 10:32 am

Oh Dear,

I don't know where to begin on this. Unfortunately creationists do believe that human language is only 6,000 and it proves evolution can't happen because it displays irreducible complexity. I've also seen them argue that it proves that information in genes muct fall over time because language itself gets less complex - thus (sigh) proving that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics supports creationism.

Still the creationists also believe that we have many languages as God enforced the multipliocity because of Adam's sin. (I'm not making this up).

91. The BBC announces a major season marking the life and work of Charles Darwin

Comment #207684 by Roger Stanyard on July 10, 2008 at 5:36 am

What's the betting that the creationists and the Democratic Unionist Party in Northern Ireland will be pressuring the BBC on this? Either to pull it or include disclaimers or transmit a creationist programme at the same time.

I dunno if everyone is aware but the DUP is pressurising local science firms in the province not to support celebrations of Darwin's 200/150 anniversary.

Expect also Truth in Science, if it is still in existance by then, to foam at the mouth about it.

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

Comment #207681 by Roger Stanyard on July 10, 2008 at 5:31 am

I've come across "Joe Moreale" posting elsewhere - or so it seems. I've seen the style including the repeated use of cap locks, the failure to reply to any questions and the repeated screaming opinion that he is absoutelt right and everything.

However, the poster did not use the same name. Nevertheless he was an extremely opinionated jerk then and is now.

Methinks you have a serial troll here.

93. Christians challenge teaching of evolution

Comment #204484 by Roger Stanyard on July 5, 2008 at 3:56 am

Methinks a lot of people have missed the point. Focus on the Family is an openly political and extreme right wing organisation. The material it distributed in NZ is almost certainly the same that the UK's Truth in Science distributed to UK schools nearly 2 years back. IIRC Focus on the Family is actually the official distributor of the CDS and pushed them onto Australian schools as well.

Focus on the Family are a bunch of wingnuts. Incidentally IIRC it is headquartered in Colorado Springs where that nice gentleman Ted Haggard ran a church before he got caught putting the willies up people.

94. Who Was More Important: Lincoln or Darwin?

Comment #202233 by Roger Stanyard on July 1, 2008 at 4:53 am

Who Was More Important: Lincoln or Darwin?

The Americans have answered this for us all. They shot Lincoln.

:-)

95. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #202223 by Roger Stanyard on July 1, 2008 at 4:28 am

Steve,

So which theological viewpoint does he want to impose on science - given that there are 400 main religions in the world?

I've seen this argument time and time again. Science doesn't give a stuff what his religious opinions are, or mine, or yours or Richard Dawkins.

I haven't seen this bloke's arguments but if past nonsense from creationists is anything to go bay, it will be the same ld tired stuff of 20-30 years ago which, if you taake to its conclusions means that science is utterly subjective and depends on which religious sect or cult you belong to.

96. PZ Myers - Expelled from Expelled

Comment #201134 by Roger Stanyard on June 29, 2008 at 5:54 am

One of the key issues that is widely lost in the "debates" over science and religion is that fundamentalism (as distinct from religion in general) is a serious political issue - between what is essentially a call for a theocratic state and what can broadly be described as the modern liberal democracy. The fundamentalists (YECers/IDers are nearly all fundemntalists_ are driven by a hard line ideology and they want to be in control.

Organisations such as the Christiann Coaltion, the Moral Majority, Focus on the Family, the National Association of Evangelicals, Truth in Science and the Discovery Institute are deeply political organisations.

There is no debate between YERers/IDers and science. Science has won. The YECers and IDers have contribute absolutely nothing to science in the last 50 years.

97. Dawkins on Darwin

Comment #201131 by Roger Stanyard on June 29, 2008 at 5:40 am

Rod the Farmer,

The possibility of convincing YECers that they are wrong is exceedingly remote. Lenny Flank has spend a quarter of a century or so in trying to do so and says that he can count on the fingers of one hand the number that have changed their minds.

No matter how silly or wrong they are shown to be they will always either find some other daft explanation or start preaching at you.

What you are dealing with is not normal people - they are hard line ideologues whose basic belief is that anything that contradiicts their own literal interpretation of the Bible MUST be wrong. They are not interested in facts or reason.

They all hate each others guts as well - what do you expect with extreme ideologues?

There is ony one point to arguing with such extreme fundamentalists - to show others how stupid and bigoted they are.

Remember, there is such a thing as Poe's Law. No matter how much you parody them, they will somewhere believe what you are parodying.

Most of them are so stupid that no only do they not understand even basic science but they don't understand the creationist position. Yet they all think they are "right".

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education

98. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #199311 by Roger Stanyard on June 25, 2008 at 1:52 pm

The Mormon position is dead easy to pull to pieces.

Marriage is not a christian institution, never has been and never will be. It is, as far as I am aware, a universal institution common to all societies, whether they be christian or not.

It is not the business of Mormons or any other religious group to impose their view of marriage on people who don't subscribe to their religious views. If they don't like it that way, then tough luck to them. Tell 'em to go shove it.

Roger Stanyard

99. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #124316 by Roger Stanyard on February 9, 2008 at 5:02 am

Sleep of Reason: "Hi Steve.

I've noticed that you don't like the Daily Mail!

But although I agree with your sentiment that they are right wing, that in itself does not mean the story in incorrect."

It probably does! The extreme right is pathologically dishonest; have a look at the Religious Right in the USA. The Mail has no credibility whatsover as a newspaper of accurate reporting.

Then there is the little matter that the Government's chief scientists who has basically stated that teh Daily Mail's campaign on MMR has killed between 50 and 100 children.

100. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124313 by Roger Stanyard on February 9, 2008 at 4:56 am

Krisking - "Is this a quote from Dawkin's writings? If so, I find it astounding that he can make such a statement, given that he himself was brought up in christian church-going family, and claims to have had a personal religious conversion/experience as a teenager. How difficult was it for him to shake off his inculcated beliefs? "

he was brought up within the Anglican movement and is essentially English. Therefore no problem at all.