1. How to stop creationism gaining a hold in Islam

Comment #301037 by Roger Stanyard on December 13, 2008 at 8:20 am

Steve Zara says "So, I am buggering off, which I am sure will please some I could name :)

I have started to do some more constructive work on other sites that promote reason."

Yep, me too. I've had enough. I don't want to be associated with the forum anymore.

2. Harun Yahya's Dark Arts

Comment #300994 by Roger Stanyard on December 13, 2008 at 5:18 am

PaulJ - Somewhere on the net there is a video of an interview he gave to the French media.

In essence, Oktar is running a business and the interviews are essentially staged managed to get him and his cause maximum publicity. It's a PR puffery exercise.

It would not surpirse me that he asked for and vetted all the questions before the interview.

I doubt whether he would let any "investigative" journalist anywhere near him.

3. Harun Yahya's Dark Arts

Comment #300973 by Roger Stanyard on December 13, 2008 at 1:59 am

epeeist - The internet throws up all sorts of allegations against Adnan Oktar.

What we really need is some firm evidence about him. Such as precisely why he was convicted earlier this year.

He's exceedingly litigous and if we are gonna make any impact we need to be absoluetly sure of our facts. Otherwise, we may fall flat on our faces.

At the moment we don't actually know the state of his appeal against the convictions earlier this year.

We don't really know where his money comes from. We've been looking to identify Saudi sources for a long time.

If anyone here who is Turkish has hard facts about Adnan Oktar, not only would I be delighted to hear them, but we at the BCSE will make very good use of the info over time.

The quality of journalism reporting on him so far has been, to put it mildly, piss poor. The jornos are simply not doing thier basic research.

The matter is important. He's getting his crapola into British schools as well as universities.

When we are ready, In am inclined to call for help on this (should be in the next week or so).

4. Richard Dawkins interviews Father George Coyne

Comment #300797 by Roger Stanyard on December 12, 2008 at 3:05 pm

Coltsr2 says "As a scientist he should have tested each and every faith to ascertain which was the most logical and had the highest possibility of being the RIGHT one!"


Don't be so bloody stupid. No scientist should be forced to spend years studying religion. If you think they should, tell us the number of years you have done so and why everybody else should do likewise.

It may not of entered your tiny little head that we are all free to choose whatever belief about religion are comfortable with. Forcing people to study religion before they do so is an utter denial of basic personal freedoms and rights. It's the mindset of fundies.

5. Key Event That Breaks Continents Apart Discovered

Comment #300703 by Roger Stanyard on December 12, 2008 at 9:51 am

xsjadolateralus - my limited knowledge of plate tectonics is that where the magma pushes upwards in the mid-oceanic ridges, there is plenty of "debris" and undersea mountain ranges (some of which break surface). It is simply wrong to say that the sub-oceoanic areas are somewhat smooth.

6. How to stop creationism gaining a hold in Islam

Comment #300552 by Roger Stanyard on December 12, 2008 at 4:15 am

More on Adnan Oktar from Wednesday's Guardian. Apparently he's spent some time in a lunatic asylum:

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - 12:56 in Psychology & Sociology
Learn more about: adnan oktar muslim richard dawkins scientists theory of evolution white trouser suit
Adnan Oktar is fond of challenging people, throwing down the gauntlet to Richard Dawkins and anyone else who thinks they can prove Darwin's theory of evolution. Oktar is the public face of the Atlas of Creation, a book of epic proportions – in size and production costs – that has thudded onto 10,000 doormats since its publication in 2006. In the ongoing debate about creationism, which has divided academic, scientific and religious communities, the Turk is something of a juggernaut. His book, weighing the same as a three-year-old child, claims to refute the theory of evolution on every one of its 786 pages and has been lapped up by creationist advocates across the religious and political spectrum. Almost as promiscuous as the book's mailing list is the PR machine surrounding Oktar, which bombards journalists with offers of free flights to Turkey to interview the 52-year-old. The Guardian paid its own way to Istanbul to meet Oktar, en route to discover more about the Gulen movement, to find the high priest of creationism holding court in a plush gated development in Çengelköy, Istanbul. His people – an array of sharp-suited, slick and shiny-haired Turks – filmed the interview for their own purposes. The experience felt sinister, but not as sinister as his retinue refusing to give directions to the interview location. Instead they insisted that a representative from Global Publishing – publisher of the Atlas – meet us at a gas station and accompany us to the house, a gaudy affair stuffed with figurines and gold-plated fittings. Oktar, squeezed into a white trouser suit, declines to reveal how the Atlas industry is funded, nor will he say how much he is paid, or indeed whether he is paid at all. Challenged to explain the apparent contradiction between his beliefs and his plush surroundings, he responds: "I want to resemble Prophet Solomon. Prophet Solomon was like this. He used to be well dressed. He liked being well dressed. His palace was beautiful; there were beautiful people around him. Allah is beautiful. Allah loves those who are beautiful, wants everywhere to be beautiful. Paradise is also beautiful. [The] aim of a Muslim should be beauty."Not everything that surrounds Oktar is aesthetically pleasing. He carries around with him a legacy of court appearances and allegations. In May he was given a three-year prison sentence – which he intends to challenge – following a spate of arrests in 1999. Oktar also claims he was thrown in a mental institution as punishment after the publication of his first book. This "persecution" is, says Oktar, a burden on those called to God: "I'm a writer but at the same time I am a man of dawah [mission]. I support an idea. Every such person has been put pressure on, defamed, oppressed because of his ideas or assassinated. Anybody with an idea always sticks to his ideas, keeps spreading his ideas no matter how much he is oppressed, and this is what I think."What he thinks, unashamedly and unapologetically, is that Darwin was lying and that there has been no evolution. He repeats this point throughout the interview. "Almost 100 million fossils have been unearthed so far. All of these show that plants, animals, humans and insects have never undergone evolution whatsoever and they were all created in the same way by God. We can see this fact in each fossil we come across. There is no fossil proving the contrary. If they can show one, I will reward them 10 trillion Turkish Lira."Around a minute later he adds: "There exists no fossil to prove the Darwinian theory. If they can show a few fossils, I will reward them 10 trillion. But there are almost 100 million fossils proving creation. In Turkey, we have exhibited thousands of them."Another 30 seconds passes before he says: "Also let them coincidentally produce a single protein that maintains life I will again give 10 trillion TL."He summons one of his men to fetch an Atlas of Creation and, thumbing through the pages, shows me why Darwin was wrong. He explains how the illustrations of fossils prove that no creature has evolved, that all organisms remain the same as they were 100m years ago."There is not one single fossil showing that humans evolved. For example, a 100-million-year-old crocodile, it didn't transform into a professor after a while."How does he reach these conclusions, I wonder, imagining him to have laboratories and researchers at his disposal. Oktar himself, by his own admission, has no scientific experience or background. He is not an academic. He studied interior design. Richard Dawkins has pointed out several glaring inaccuracies in The Atlas of Creation, but Oktar retains a powerful influence over various communities – especially Muslim ones – around the world. Earlier this year two of his representatives gave a talk at University College London at the invitation of the university's Islamic Society. Oktar's website lists more than a dozen such events in the UK in November and December alone. On another website "complimentary" letters are featured from individuals and organisations following receipt of a Harun Yahya publication. The content ranges from a polite acknowledgement of the book to wholehearted support for its message. What does Oktar make of his global impact?"Hundreds of professor, scientists, students and public send e-mails to our internet sites … We receive sincere messages that [the Atlas] has a great effect on them … It made an atomic bomb effect. Afterwards it had a radiation effect and it keeps going on. Those who read the book tell others and those tell others. It has an irresistible power. That is why it has a demolishing effect."An exhausting 90 minutes later, the interview finishes with Oktar and his people disappearing into the basement to pray. The sun has set and, with no idea where we are, we wait for our escort out of the house.Charles DarwinEvolutionControversies in scienceReligionIslamFossilsguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

7. How to stop creationism gaining a hold in Islam

Comment #300546 by Roger Stanyard on December 12, 2008 at 4:01 am

Here is a report on Adnan Oktar I have just come across at http://whoisharunyahya.wordpress.com/harun-yahya-or-adnan-oktar-the-promised-mahdi/

Seems like he is a Turkish equivalent of L Ron Hubbard.


Harun Yahya or Adnan Oktar: The Promised Mahdi?
The following article is mostly a personal criticism of a public figure. However, I am not committing the logical fallacy known as ad hominem, since the attack is relevant to the argument and is justified. After reading the article, you will decide it for yourself.

Adan Oktar, who later started using the nickname Harun Yahya, was my apprentice in mid 1980’s. In our first meeting, I was a famous Sunni author and political activist, and he was an unknown Sunni zealot influenced by the books of the Kurdish Mullah, Said Nursi. At that time, my books were making editions after editions and I had hundreds of thousands readers, yet I had no special group of mine. He was not famous then, but he had a few dozen followers among university students. He was in his late twenties, a college drop-out, unemployed, and was living with his mother in an apartment located in a middle class neighborhood at Ortakoy, Istanbul. He had a long black beard, soft voice, smiling face, childish jokes, and most importantly a well calculated plan for his assumed mission.

Adnan was mixing mysticism with scientific rhetoric and presenting it gently and in a modern fashion to the children of the privileged class, without intimidating them. He was a refined and urbanized version of Said Nursi. Ironically, unlike beardless Said, he was fond of his well-groomed stylish beard. (Religious clerics, on the other hand, managed to grow ugly-looking beards by cutting their mustache short and shaving their hair, resembling Franciscan monks). This proved to be a magic solution. He would always keep a certain distance between himself and his followers and would treat them as if they were his children, though he was only seven or ten years older than them. He would pat the heads of his young pupils and encourage them to work for the mission and they would accept this charming and patronizing treatment with delight. He was targeting the university students and especially the handsome children of the rich and affluent. They would pull each other to the circle.

Meanwhile, when I was doing my mandatory military service in Samsun in 1986, I started communicating with Rashad Khalifa. After several rounds of hot snail-mail discussions and upon reading his landmark book, Quran, Hadith, and Islam, I decided to dedicate my religion to God alone. I shared my newly discovered faith with my close friends, including Adnan Oktar. He was very receptive. He would frequently ask me questions and convey the information to his followers. He was trying his best to keep our meetings secret from his followers. Then I did not know the reason, and I did not care much. I thought he was considering my style too bold and my culture too rural. He was right: when discussing political or religious issues, I did not care much about people’s cloths, wealth, or their personal feelings. But in retrospect I know the real reason behind this secrecy: he was thinking that my presence would jeopardize his charisma and dilute his influence over them. He wanted his followers to think that he was receiving a special information or inspiration from God. He did not know Arabic but he was clever enough to dupe the unquestioning gullible followers and give them the impression that he knew a lot. He was considering me as a potential rival in his mission.

To my dismay, later I discovered that his interest in the message was not prompted by his philosophical quest for truth but by his pragmatic strategy for his political ambitions. He thought that he could use it easily to attract the children of the rich people who had modern life style and culture that was incompatible with the medieval Arab culture which was promoted by the teachings of Hadith and Sunna. He was extremely obsessed with recruiting the handsome children of the rich people wearing expensive cloths. He was not interested in guiding poor people.

After discovering his intention and his deep belief that he was the promised MAHDI, I cut my relationship with him in 1988. Soon after this, he turned back to his Sunni roots and market. To expose his real face, I had secretly recorded one of my last conversations with him, but later I gave up releasing it. I just did not feel comfortable with the secrecy of my act. I had given the tape to Mustafa and Yelda Sahin, two of his former followers. However, after I was forced to immigrate and start a new life in America, I learned that the tape was handed to Girisim, an Islamist magazine directed by Mehmet Metiner. The magazine published the transcript to warn Sunni Muslims against Adnan’s Machiavellian politics. In the taped conversation I was reprimanding him for cooperating with Sheikh Nazim of Cyprus who had influence among some wealthy British Muslims. He was apologetic and was justifying his relationship for purposes of using Nazim’s influence. I warned him against for such tactics, since I always believed that honesty is a necessary characteristic of being a Muslim. The transcript of this conversation is available on the Internet and was also posted in Turkish forum .

A funny portion of the conversation reveals the childish tactics used by Adnan Oktar to recruit members for his cult. In that portion I was criticizing him for preferring the wealthy. (The transcript refers to Adnan Octar with acronym A.H. for Adnan Hoca, pronounced Hodja, meaning religious teacher):


A.H.- For instance we purchase a shirt, paying five times more. When the guys see the shirt they come after us.

E.Y.- Alright, I understand; but a person coming because of a shirt will escape because of another shirt.

A.H.- No, they cannot escape; they cannot escape!

Unveiling Adnan’s secret relationship with me and his hypocrisy in his relation with Sunni leaders, in a normal world would mean that he would too be the target of a major attack, threats and excommunication. Surprisingly, despite this scandal, he continued to become a rising star in Sunni market. He was once secretly teaching his followers that Mustafa Kamal Ataturk was the prophesized DAJJAL (deceptor) and later he embraced him for political reasons and declared him a great hero. He is now playing a double game: to appease the Turkish oligarchy he is exploiting Ataturk-worship, and to exploit the Muslim market he is indirectly giving the message that Ataturk was a disbeliever. He played the game of double-speak pretty successfully so far. Adnan has danced among many contradictory positions, but the single conviction he has maintained since early 1980s is “Adnan Oktar is the promised MAHDI.”

When I was trying to convince him about the message of the Quran Alone he did not insist nor even defended any traditional Sunni precepts, with the exception of hadiths about Mahdi. It amazed me for a short while to see him trying to strike a compromise with me regarding this issue. He wanted me to accept his conversion to the Quran Alone together with his belief about the promised Mahdi. I tried to tell him that the Hadiths about Mahdi were among the most fabricated and unreliable Hadiths, even according to the lousy standards of Hadith experts; they were fabricated by the supporters of Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties to promote the interest of the sultans. To him MAHDI (that is his leadership) was the most important subject. His take on Masons and Zionists is just a strategy to get him an international fame and popularity to finally announce his mission to the world. His cult resembles the modus operandi of Moon or Scientology cult: targeting affluent people and exploiting their resources.

We met each other in prison too. In December 3, 1986 I was imprisoned second time for promoting a theocratic revolution in Turkey via the first volume of my best-selling book, Interesting Questions. Though I had written that book before my conversion from Sunni Islam to monotheistic islam, the book was not reflecting my hard core revolutionary ideology; it contained some mild hints and innuendos. But, this was sufficient for the government to imprison me since (unaware of my radical transformation) they were trying to deter me from engaging in open and underground political activities.

I met Adnan in the prison clinic. I was taken there by the doctor who happened to recognize me from my books and conferences; he wanted to save me from the crowded ward which was filled with convicted murderers and burglars. Adnan was there for a different reason, a much different one. He was acting like a paranoid schizophrenic in order to get medical report to dodge the draft. It was ironic, since he was indeed mentally sick; he was a delusional megalomaniac, yet he was cunningly acting for another mental illness. He was successful; he dodged the draft and since then he has been found lacking mental capability to be the subject of criminal law. So, he is getting away with sexual abuses, fraud, libel, blackmailing schemes, and other criminal activities. If Adnan has demonstrated a miracle as a Mahdi, this must be his miracle: he is officially insane and criminally teflon!

Though Adnan is a lay person by academic standards, he is a gifted manipulator, a patient and highly skilled team manager: he uses various highly efficient psychological devises and marketing gimmicks to depict his image as a divinely ordained leader with a great mission. It would be in the best interest of the naïve and young pupils to join his cause, since soon he will be ruling the entire world and they would be his lucky and powerful aids. Besides, the cult provides a holy club for the children of the rich and well connected; they also get second-hand girls as a fringe benefit. In turn they lose their freedom and part of their identity; but we know that millions of people are ready to trade those precious rights and values to join a cult or a religious organization. Though the dates for victory he has given have been extended several times, who would not be the secretary or the spoke person of the long-awaited great ruler of the entire world? If it is not in 1999, then the victory would come in 2005, or in 2014…. The Jehovah Witnesses have extended the end of the world several times in a century, and Adnan, as I know him, is no less talented than them. After his death, his followers will have enough experience to keep the enthusiasm of the army of the Mahdi until the end of the world! An army comprising of rich, educated and devoted cult members who are experts in cutting and pasting, clipping and editing, in putting together the plagiarized pieces like a jig saw puzzle, and are generous in presenting them to masses under the name of their leader, yes this army is a powerful force. But, there is always the risk of getting into a holy fight for leadership after the Mahdi.

Adnan’s relation with me became the topic of articles and political analyses in Turkish media, books and magazines (for instance, see Ayet ve Slogan by Ruþen Çakýr, a prominent Turkish journalist), and his frequent turns and twists have been well documented in Turkish media, such as Hurriyet, Milliyet, Radikal, Sabah newspapers. Many of his followers left him with disappointment; but each time a group left him, he was somehow able to maintain his cult by attracting fresh blood from gullible youth ready to become the future rulers of the globe as Mahdi’s close assistants. His former followers were intimidated and blackmailed in sophisticated ways and occasionally in Mafia style. They work like a professional intelligence agency with covert operations and misinformation campaigns. Their habit of getting what they want via blackmail, slander and libel put them in trouble with high ranking Turkish politicians several years ago. As I said above, Adnan showed his miracle: his medical report regarding his mental illness not only saved him from mandatory military service but also from the criminal prosecutions.

Adnan is not formally educated, neither in science nor in religion, and he is not capable to understand the depth of subjects that are presented in books and videos carrying his nick name. Therefore, you never see him in public debating with experts. A single public discussion on a TV channel would be enough to turn him to the proverbial Naked King. And he may consider this article as my challenge for him: I am ready to meet him in a live debate on TV.

Adnan uses proxies and gets credit for everything. He uses his medical report and gets away for any criminal charge. There are a lot to learn from Adnan Oktar or the exploiter of the names of two messengers of God, Harun and Yahya! His followers, mostly educated and rich, yet gullible youngsters, work day and night to prepare books and videos mostly plagiarized from works of western scientists and artists. In the end, those collaborative and plagiarized works are all together credited to Harun Yahya. Thus, Harun Yahya is a brand name, an artificial name aimed to boost the personal agenda of Adnan Oktar. For instance, in 1990’s many of the books credited to him were written by his former follower Metin Kimildar who also used the nick name Cavit Yalçin. (Where are you Cavit Yalçin now?! Are you now renting your nick name as a portal for Harun Yahya’s websites or is it taken away from you?). His former student MA, who has long time declared his freedom from the Adnan Oktar wrote most of the books on Evolution. Unfortunately, MA’s books are published under the pen name Harun Yahya and credited to Adnan Oktar. Like many of Adnan’s former students who know well the dirty tricks of their former master, MA too is trying to forget the days when he was a young and naive university student.

Adnan Oktar strongly believes that he is the MAHDI (the Sunni and Shiite imitation of Messiah) and he has a powerful charisma, the pool of unlimited gullible rich people and a market of more than a billion individuals easily impressed by the work of his followers.

Knowing him before 1990s, I could not believe that he would be indulging in promiscuous sexual activities, since at that time he was a devout Sunni who was very scrupulous about interacting with women. He would not even shake hands with women. However, according to the media reports and published confessions of his former followers, Adnan has evolved and transformed since. His sexual abuse of girls around him has been the frequent topic of Turkish media and acknowledged by the defectors. He reportedly claims right to have sexual intercourse with every female member of his cult. He has even invented a name for those females: MOTOR (engine). Reportedly, his male followers are feeling lucky in letting him taste their girl friends first.

For recruiting new members and promoting his brand name, he uses sex, money, popular symbols, and famous people. But the main tool he uses is deception, yet I think he does the deception “righteously”, that is for a good end! He justifies his deceptive propaganda by the abused Quranic word TAQIYYA (this holy hypocrisy is a part of belief system of Shiite sect!) After learning Rashad’s claim of messengership and his argument regarding the definition of Rasul and Nabi, Adnan assumed to be a messenger and expressed this belief to his closest circle. I think later, to be able to access the one-billion-head Muslim market, he went back to his original claim of MAHDI. There he could exploit to the bone. (But, his picking Harun Yahya as his nickname indicates his deep belief in his messengership. Why? Well, here is a clue: because of his ignorance of the Quran, he thinks that Harun was not given any book, so according to him Harun was a messenger but not a prophet!)

It is a shame to see modern Muslims are duped by this cult leader like their ancestors duped by Ebu Hurayra and the ilk, and it is a shame that the books and videos falsely attributed to him are so popular in Muslim bookstores like the hadith books falsely attributed to Muhammad are so popular. These books and videos are mostly plagiarized collections of western work that mix truth with falsehood. Science is mixed with pseudo-science, such as ignorant criticisms of the theory of evolution. The message of the Quran is mixed with fabricated hadith, such as the identity and adventures of the Mahdi.

Knowing the history and the success of many delusional people among the gullible, the popularity and success of this man is no surprise.

PS: Adnan Oktar has sued me in a Turkish court for defamation. Through his attorneys he asked me to delete this article from the world of Internet. I rejected his request, since I can prove every claim in this article through media and live witness testimony.

8. How to stop creationism gaining a hold in Islam

Comment #300530 by Roger Stanyard on December 12, 2008 at 2:57 am

jaytee_555 - up to a point Lord Copper. Creationism (and fundamentalism) are deeply politicised so I don't think, at the end of the day, science can ignore the political arena.

The objective of fundamentalism is theocracy which will destroy science. We've already seen this happening in the USA (see The Republican War on Science). Truth in Science has been lobbying politicians to get creationism into science lessons.

The big issue is that education is political because the state funds most of it. It goes well beyond that, though.

Are you suggesting that non-scientists such as myself should do the political dirty work for science without any suppoert from it?

I don't think so, somehow.

9. How to stop creationism gaining a hold in Islam

Comment #300523 by Roger Stanyard on December 12, 2008 at 2:35 am

From the research I did a couple of years back there is amuch bigger problem in the Islamic world that is normally suspected.

Adnan Oktar undertook what I can only describe as a near-terror campaign against Turkish academics pushing the theory of evolution. As a result, many academics are scared to teach it and the quality of teaching (and research into) biology in Turkey has collapsed.

For what it is worth, his organisation, BAV, is also opposed, on religious grounds, to Intellogent Design.

I'm no expert on higher education in the Islamic world but my understanding is that the natural sciences are usually shunned by students in favour of more applied subjects such as medicine and engineering - precisely because they don'y conflict with religious views.

IIRC teaching of science in Pakistani universities is near on a jioke.

Indeed, the Islamic states between them have produced very little in the way of good science.

Seems to me that the Islamic world is not a fertile area for science at all.

The problem is that once this sort of "culture" is dominant it becomes almost impossible for a student to be taught science. They become unteachable.

I may need to be corrected on this but my understanding is that very little in the way of books is translated into Arabic. Somewhere I recall an estimate that claimed that the total number of books ever translated into Arabic is less than the number translated into Spanish in a single year.

10. Richard Dawkins interviews Father George Coyne

Comment #300414 by Roger Stanyard on December 11, 2008 at 3:40 pm

Dr Hameer ">>What else are you open to scientifically investigate? Loch Ness, Big Foot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? A green little invisible monster in the palm of my hand?<<

No credible evidence or argument exist for these, so they can be classified as "higly unlikely" until "new evidence comes in" (if it comes in)"

You must be joking?

11. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson On Religion And Science: 'It's Not A Clean-Cut Division'

Comment #300409 by Roger Stanyard on December 11, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Brian, yep, that's my understanding. The Scots have traditionally and for a long time been better educated than us riff raff/sasanachs south of Hadrian's Wall. IIRC Darwin got part of his education in Scotland.

12. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson On Religion And Science: 'It's Not A Clean-Cut Division'

Comment #300406 by Roger Stanyard on December 11, 2008 at 3:25 pm

Evilcore - I also forgot to add:

1. The equivalent of a community college in the UK is a college of further education or higher education. In the latter case many have over recent years been awarded university status.

2. Roughly (very) speaking the pecking order is (top downwards)

Oxbridge
Red Brick universities (a misnomer)
Upgraded polytechnics
Upgraded colleges of higher education

We also have a system of sixth form colleges for students between the age of 16 and 18. They are basically preparotary schools for universities.

13. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson On Religion And Science: 'It's Not A Clean-Cut Division'

Comment #300403 by Roger Stanyard on December 11, 2008 at 3:12 pm

Evilcore - I just cocked up a bit. In the UK school usually refers to institutions providing education up to the age of 18, rather than university level education. there are some excpetions such as business chools providing MBAs.

Generally, though, if you ask someone from the UK what school they went to they will give the name of somewhere they attended before the age of 18 or so (or look at you in dumb amazement).

14. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson On Religion And Science: 'It's Not A Clean-Cut Division'

Comment #300401 by Roger Stanyard on December 11, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Evilcore - Yes, what the British refer to as public schools are, indeed private. It's a historical thing. IIRC Winchester College, in my town, is one of the oldest schools in the world. It long predates state education. It's public in the s3ense that any membert of the public can send their children there (at vast expense).

From my limited knowledge of the American system it differs partly because there are two huge differences between the UK and the USA. Your economy is about eight times the size of the UK and you just as much half a continent as a nation.

You don't have the misfortune of living in a damp, fog shouded and overcrowed smallish island stuck in the North Atlantic.

Certainly of my generation one went to the best university possible irrespective of where it was (not a big problem in a rather small county where one that is relatively close to home wherever).

Yep, there are also big differences between specific departments rather than just universities. In that sense, the UK is no different from the USA.

As I have suggested, the system is different in Scotland. The reason partly reflects the 1707 Act of Union between England and Scotland (which created the UK). That Act specifically forbid the English meddling in the then (IIRC) five Scottish universities. In any case, Scotland has always retain its own educational and legal system (and bank notes).

The English, of course, are a bit thick so we only had two universities until 1826 or thereabouts. (They were piss poor as well.)

there is no real equivalent of the BJUs, Liberty or Regent Univesrities - I guess partly because of how the system works in the UK.

In the USA you have accreditation agencies. There is no equivalent in the UK. Universities in England and Wales have the status to award recognised degrees because they have Royal Chsrters, not because they are accredited. There really isn't an equivalent of a Royal Charter in the USA. IIRC from my education years ago, the nearest equivalent is the legal foundation of the Red Cross in the USA.

Royal Charters are common in the UK and not confined to universties. It's a method by which the state recognises an organisation can run its own affairs without supervision (the UK is a prety centralised state). Typically charters are the legal basis of cities, universities and, incidentally, the BBC.

The colleges of the University of London do not award theer own degrees even though they are basically free standing univesrities. Their degrees are awarded by the University of London which itself doesn't provide any education at all.

Just to confuse you, there are many universities in London that are not part of the Univesirty of Lodon, or have dropped out from it, who do award their own degrees.

Wales also has a peculiar system. Most universities there are part of the University of Wales but Cardiff dropped out and the University of Glamorgan isn't welcome to join.

I've never figured out quite how Oxford and Cambridge work (I suspect nobody else ever has).

Finally, an institution does not need a Royal Charter to teach degrees. However, it can only award degrees of universities that have a Royal Charter. It used to be slightly different from that, though.

Hope that this explains the basics.

15. Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson Debate

Comment #300301 by Roger Stanyard on December 11, 2008 at 11:12 am

severalspeciesof - interesting points you make. I'll dwell on them when I finish my day's work in a few minutes (I'm off for a beer with a BCSE member and her husband.)

I've been cooperating with the American anti-creationist Lenny Flank for the last three years. He's been an active anti-creationist for some 25 years and is clearly much closer to the US political scene than I can ever hope to be.

Lenny's view is that politically, the fundies started to decline about 20 years ago and that following Dover, they were politically dead.

I'm not so sure and think that they are not starting to go away in the UK.

Seems that one demographic change, though, will hit them hard. As far as I can make out, religious belief is beginning to decline rapidly in the USA. It's the young who are not accepting it so decline happens when the old (the believers) die off.

In the UK, as I say, its not as clear as that because, whilst religious belief is declining fast, what's left is shifting into the hands of fundamentalists. They are filling a religious power vacuum, if you like.

16. Interview with Nicholas Wade

Comment #300279 by Roger Stanyard on December 11, 2008 at 10:40 am

splink - DP thinks Vlad the Impaler is a reasonable guy.

17. Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson Debate

Comment #300276 by Roger Stanyard on December 11, 2008 at 10:30 am

Dunno about what the others think in here but, at a guess, I would say that effective use of Internet is resulting in a huge amount of re-thinking about religion.

Seems that it is the young and the well educated who are using the Internet to hone their knowledge of the world. 30 years ago we would have been fare more reliant on standardised newspapers and broadcast services which are not that effective.

Obama essentially has risen to power off of effective use of Internet, producing a grass root movement which both the Democratic and republican establishment don't like at all.

The RD.net forum is, in effect, a loose grass roots movement that would not have existed 10 years ago. BCSE is the same.

The fundies are clearly making good use of Internet but I'll stick my neck out and say that Internet puts them in a very weak position as it allows their movement to be pulled to pieces, in excrutiating detail and all for free.

It gives us free acces to their crapola as well as an easy and free right of reply to destroy its credibility.

My guess there is a power battle here and my experience so far is that those on the side of reason will, over the medium to long term, win it.

Prior to Internet, the information flow was asymetric, loaded heavily in favour of fundamentalists (TV channels, churches, magazines, radio and whatever). It no longer is because communications have become so dirt cheap anyone can now fight back.

18. Richard Dawkins interviews Father George Coyne

Comment #300266 by Roger Stanyard on December 11, 2008 at 9:55 am

Vaal, it happened some six months ago and the school governors and the person's local MP were written to.

The person involved did contact us and we gave her support and advice. She gave her name in confidence so I can't repeat it here. I don't know what the outcome was but assume that it was favourable to her as she has not come back to us of recent.

Edit: I forgot to add thanks for the offer. Writing to MPs, etc.. is an exceedingly important tactic in dealing with the creationists. There are several we are aware of who won't touch complaints about creationism but most seem pretty sympathetic to our cause.



The school was in the West Midlands, btw.

19. Richard Dawkins interviews Father George Coyne

Comment #300258 by Roger Stanyard on December 11, 2008 at 9:41 am

Vaal - it's a bit more complex than that. IIRC the librarian was responsible for selecting books that were appropriate to what the school was teaching. She was forced to procure the creationist books out of the school's budget, thus breaching what she was employed to do, and at the expense of other books that were required. Nevertheless, IIRC there was some "financial assistance" from a Muslim organisation. I believe that the creationist books did go in the science section.

The real issue was that she was threatened with being fired for complaining that her job was being interfered with. The claim was that she was a racist because she objected to creationism as non-scientific.

Criticising Islamic creationism is not racism. It is a serious matter that educators in state schools lose their jobs because they object to creationism masquerading as science. Alas it is not the first time. It appears to have happened in the Vardy schools.

20. Richard Dawkins interviews Father George Coyne

Comment #300245 by Roger Stanyard on December 11, 2008 at 9:13 am

David - OK, I stand corrected. I'm no theologan.

Thanks.

21. Richard Dawkins interviews Father George Coyne

Comment #300244 by Roger Stanyard on December 11, 2008 at 9:09 am

PJG - Yep, Muslim creationists are a real problem for us. The problem is that we do not understand what is going on. We don't have many contacts in the Islamic world.

We've tried hard but not got very hard. If anyone in this forum would like to help out in gathering basic intelligence on what is going on, it would really, really help.

The intelligence can came from all sorts of places - knowing what is going on in university Islamic societies, what's being sold in Islamic book shops, monitoring Islamic web sites, experience of Islamic creationists at university, understanding their creationist positions (which are different from Christian creationism), pulling to pieces their scientific crapola, even just monitoring the press....

We've got one or two horror stories about it. One school librarian (state school, non-denominational) approached us and said that she was expecting to be fired because she objected to Islamic creationist books being put in the library. She was told that her objection was "racist" even though the school had many white children.

22. Richard Dawkins interviews Father George Coyne

Comment #300235 by Roger Stanyard on December 11, 2008 at 8:54 am

flying goose - yep, dead right, they are impervious to reason. Many of them are so idiotic that they can't and don't recognise when they have made complete fools of themselves. Few of them understand anything at all about science. They don't even understand their own creation arguments and they are usually as equally pig shit ignorant on religion.

It's wast of space trying to get any sense into them. They are bigoted ideologues.

What of course we can do is to show to the rest of the world that this is, indeed the case. They lie, out of necessity, habitually and repeatedly. Show the world that, and you are seriously winning. No normal person believes proven liars.

They don't even have balls. As soon as sunshine is used to show what they are doing, like vampires, they run for the cover of darkness. We did that with Truth in WScience and Andy McIntosh admitted to us that his organisation has now gone underground so it doesn't get adverse publicity.

They'll all whinge with their martyrdom complex. Let 'em and show the world what it is.

23. On Human Rights Day, the Center for Inquiry Works to Uphold the Universality of Rights.

Comment #300215 by Roger Stanyard on December 11, 2008 at 8:02 am

aquilacane says "Blasphemy is a conscious expression of thought about religion, fuckwits! I live to blaspheme, it is the only thing that gets me up in the morning."

Yep. Seems to me that all religions (and non-religious positions) are blasphemy against other religions.

Not, for example, believing in the trinity, is, I understand, blasphemous to many Christians. Where does that leave Jews, or Unitarians or Buddhists?

Banning blasphemy makes everyone a criminal.

24. Richard Dawkins interviews Father George Coyne

Comment #300210 by Roger Stanyard on December 11, 2008 at 7:53 am

Mark - yep, methinks Northern Ireland is a real worry. I'm due out there in July, mostly, I hope, on a fact finding mission.

25. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson On Religion And Science: 'It's Not A Clean-Cut Division'

Comment #300199 by Roger Stanyard on December 11, 2008 at 7:32 am

Brainsys - "So, are all BA/BSc degrees, or at least in the same subject covering the same period - equal in England & Wales?"

I believe that they are supposed to be. To what extent they are is beyond my ability to say.

26. Richard Dawkins interviews Father George Coyne

Comment #300196 by Roger Stanyard on December 11, 2008 at 7:22 am

Mark says "If you are drawing up people on either side of the picket line between fundamentalists and everyone else, then there are always going to be people hovering between the two sides."

Yep, you are right. However, from a purely UK point of view creationism is largely limited to certain "sects" or "denominations". (Northern Ireland is different, btw).

The research we have undertaken suggests that it is overwhelmingly concentrated (IIRC) amongst independent evangelical churches, Pentecostals, the Plymouth Brethren and non-Baptist Union Baptist churches. All of these are Calvinistic. The worrying aspect, though is its growth amongst evengelical Anglicans. We've published the research on our web site, btw.

It's worrying because the CofE has so much power over education. As I say in 10-20 years' time the Anglican church will be controlled by fundamentalists. Follow the money to understand why and how.

This is why I would like to see religion moved out of schools altogether.

Creationism is basically absent in the Methodist and Catholic churches.

So, from a practical position of finding allies, we pretty well know which denominations to seek help from.

As I say, though, Northern Ireland is different. Creationism is rampant and all over the place there amongst Protestant denominations. The ancedotal evidence we have is that about half of practising Protestants are creationists. It's a way of getting at the "taigs" just as fundamentalist in the USA is a way of getting at the blacks.

Indeed, Paisley is a creationist and the biggest creationist nut job in the British Isles, Gavan Ellison, comes from the province. The Vardy schools specifically targeted Northern Ireland to recruit its teachers because that is where it would most easily find creationists.

27. Richard Dawkins interviews Father George Coyne

Comment #300188 by Roger Stanyard on December 11, 2008 at 6:55 am

Mark says "But your comment suggests that you don't see any value in a scientific Christian? Or that such a person does not contribute to the battle for reason?"

Yes, of course I do recognise value in scientific Christians. Some of them are doing a good job in flighting creationism (Ken Miller springs to mind but there are many others). However, I don't think that any of them will undermine fundies. It's the other way round. It is fundamentalists (including the handful of fundies who claim to be scientists) who are undermining science.

It's one way traffic. There are no doubt many scientists (especially in the USA) that have turned to religion in their adulthood. However, the number of creationists that have accepted mainstream science is miniscule. Off the top of my head, I am only aware of two. I would be pushed to find a dozen.

28. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson On Religion And Science: 'It's Not A Clean-Cut Division'

Comment #300177 by Roger Stanyard on December 11, 2008 at 6:20 am

Brainsys - Good grief no. Indeed, I take the view that a first degree from Imperial (because it is a four year degree) is generally better than that offered by any of the English universities including Oxbridge. Others will no doubt disagree for a variety of reasons such as the better tutorial system at Oxbridge.

I know that they are all supposed to be cross checked but there clearly is a pecking order. One only has to look at what A level grades one needs for Oxbridge.

My comments are solely based on the published pecking order of universities - see, for example, the Financial Times. It's clearly crude and open to widespread criticism. Moreover, the pecking orders also strongly reflect the amount of research undertaken so they are not a proper reflection on the quality of first degrees. And, of course, some universities do not offer first degrees at all.

I've no idea whether standards of traditional universities have slipped from the 1960s. I suspect not but leave it to others to say something intelligent about the issue.

29. Richard Dawkins interviews Father George Coyne

Comment #300169 by Roger Stanyard on December 11, 2008 at 5:58 am

Quetzalcoatl - Yep. A universal quality, indeed. I've never met nor ever heard of a person who is not, to some extent, self delusional. Me included.

PS: One minor point is your use of the term fundamentalist when it comes to Christianity. It is normally used to mean that set of religious beliefs embodied in the 10 fundamentalist tracts The Fundamentals) produced in the USA between 1910 and 1915. It is exclusively Calvinistic and the Catholics have no truck with them. Indeed, they are anti-Catholic.

30. Richard Dawkins interviews Father George Coyne

Comment #300167 by Roger Stanyard on December 11, 2008 at 5:43 am

PJG - Comments appreciated. Seems to me though, that this was a very long interview where Richard gave George Coyle a lot of opportunity to explain himself and leave it to the discerning viewer (such as ourselves) to make up our own minds. This was not Fox News.

Quite frankly the interview was not aimed at the public at large. Much of it (regarding science) is over many peoples' heads.

Richard didn't need to "show up" Coyle for what he is (Richard, though, brilliantly did this with Joseph Cohen and Ted Haggard).

I dunno about others in here, but George Coyle is the sort of person I would really enjoy as a guest over dinner or even enjoy his company over a pint of beer or whatever. I cannot, for self evident reasons, say the same about Cohen or Haggard.

Imay disagree with Coyle over religion but then, many of the most interesting people I have met I disagree with. That's why they are interesting.

31. Richard Dawkins interviews Father George Coyne

Comment #300164 by Roger Stanyard on December 11, 2008 at 5:23 am

Mark Jones - seems to me what is happening in Europe is that the moderate Christians are disappearing and organised religion is increasingly falling into the hands of fundamentalists. Within 10-20 years the Anglican Church will be controlled by fundamentalists.

I suspect hat you don't understand what is going on in organised religion. The moderates are not gonna infiltrate the fundies. They are not double agents. They are the outsiders to fundamentalism.

Try looking at the reality of politics. If you are a trade union organisers who calls out the workforce on strike, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what the political beliefs of the workforce are. All that matters is how many you have on your side of the picket line. Everybody on your side is a friend - everyone on the other side is your enemy.

If you don't grasp that, you fail. Deservedly so, as well. It's incompetence in leadership.

32. Richard Dawkins interviews Father George Coyne

Comment #300158 by Roger Stanyard on December 11, 2008 at 5:10 am

Steve,

BCSE would be delighted if you, or anyone else in this forum, joined us. (see www.bcseweb.org.uk)

The one thing I must point out, though, is that the BCSE is a single issue organisation. It is not about bashing religion and includes people who are religious. Most of he people in it are not religious but I think that reflects British society at large.

However, the BCSE is not the only organisation that may be attractive to Brits in here. I have an enourmous amount of regard for the BHA and the NSS. There are other similar organisations such as the Leicester Secular Society where people like George Jellis are doing good work. Richard, of course, is involved in the BHA.

33. Richard Dawkins interviews Father George Coyne

Comment #300153 by Roger Stanyard on December 11, 2008 at 5:00 am

Yesterday I promised I would post something on just how extreme fundamentalists are in comparison to George Coyle.

The following is a blog entry of a hard line fundamentalist pastor with whom some of us at BCSE are more familiar.

It makes for some very interesting reading. The person seems to relish half the world being exterminated. Reading between the lines, he himself appears to want to do the exterminating because he thinks he is on a mission from God to rid the world of sinners.

Note that he is saying that all the films he enjoys watching have the same theme, the slaughter of billions of people. It all sounds like a Pol Pot mentality. (The pastor, like Pol Pot, hates liberals.) There is not one shred of sympathy in anything I am aware of what he has said towards the bilions of individuals who he relishes being killed. Not one jot.

The pastor is clearly a complete screwball without an ounce of humanity or compassion. Can anyone here possibly suggest how he could be a Christian? (Dave Oldridge, your comments would be appreciated.)


The Great Story

The latest newsletter of the C. S. Lewis Society (of California - I'm not a member, but it is a mightily interesting newsletter!) dropped into my inbox. I didn't used to watch many films, but in the last couple of years my wife and I have had a "movie night" (DVD) most weeks. To me a good film has a final confrontation between good and evil in which half the universe is destroyed along the way; to my wife a good film ends with the smouldering Victorian hunk getting a smooch at the altar with his hard-won bride. But, no need to spend time pyschoanalysing any of that... let's pass on to the bit of the newsletter that caught my eye:

"New Book Presents Skeptic's Appreciation of The Chronicles of Narnia:

... Along the way, she has come to appreciate Lewis's immense accomplishment in the Narniad, but largely believes that this relates solely to Lewis's use of pre-Christian legends and symbols and that the Christian imagery was inappropriate and a "betrayal"... Her error lies in failing to appreciate Lewis's (and J.R.R. Tolkein's, Charles Williams's and G.K. Chesterton's) deppert point that all truly good literature, including ancient legend, reflects shadowings of Christian truth. For Lewis, the difference betwen standard myth and Christianity is not that the former is more authentic myth, but that Christianity is most authentically what Tolkein called "true myth", in which the truths embedded in those legends, which although untrue have inspired and thrilled generatations for millenia, became all too real (DA: not too real!) in the true story of Jesus Christ."

Hear, hear, and amen. This is what caught my attention as I have sat back to reflect on the common themes of the films I have watched. There are themes which human story-tellers seem irresistably attracted to. A fight between good and evil. Love that is stronger than death. A flawless hero who conquers all against overwhelming odds. A promised one who fulfils his destiny. A last battle that brings half the world down in the process. A new beginning won at a terrible cost. Redemption. And so on, and so forth.

It's as if these themes were woven somehow in the fabric of existence, even though most of us personally have never encountered even one of those aspects at any order of magnitude, though we find echoes of them here and there in different events in life. That's the point. Those themes are woven into the fabric of existence; history is indeed, his story. That's one of the reasons why, in combination with the power of God's Spirit, the good news of Christ our conquering hero-Saviour-Redeemer, is so powerful in all times, places and cultures. It is, as Tolkein says, "the true myth". And hence I've taken up Douglas Wilson's advice and started reading Narnia to my children!

34. Richard Dawkins interviews Father George Coyne

Comment #300142 by Roger Stanyard on December 11, 2008 at 4:30 am

PJG says "This is the "moderate" religion that is the thin end of the wedge. This is what we treat with "respect" and refrain from questioning because it would be "impolite" and we don't want to offend such a nice old man by pointing out that he is teaching people things that all evidence indicates is untrue."

PJG - "The man doth protest too much."

But Richard is questioning him and his beliefs. He isn't refaining from doing so out of respect for religious belief. Coyne is no Ted Haggard or Joseph Cohen.

35. Richard Dawkins interviews Father George Coyne

Comment #300101 by Roger Stanyard on December 11, 2008 at 2:15 am

At the BCSE many of us have long concluded that the Jesuits are very much onside when it comes to fighting creationism. Coyne's position illustrates it. I was impressed at the way he dismissed creationists as ignorant. Coyne comes over as a Rennaisance man.

Richard has interveiwed more than his fair share of bigots over the last few years - Haggard, Joseph Cohen, etc.. At the end of the day none of these bigots had anything to contribute to understanding or humanity. Coyne does.

36. Odontochelys, a transitional turtle

Comment #299906 by Roger Stanyard on December 10, 2008 at 3:28 pm

Goldy - their idea of right and wrong is to save souls. That's it. Truth never entered into their tiny little minds. It's not even that benign. It's a cult that glorifies in seeing the unsaved been killed. The BNP knows it.

When I've got time tomorrow I'll show just how extreme it all is. Makes Hitler look like a liberal

37. Odontochelys, a transitional turtle

Comment #299894 by Roger Stanyard on December 10, 2008 at 3:20 pm

Goldy - I thought the ninth commandment was part of God's plan. Seems not when it comes to fundamentalists.

38. Odontochelys, a transitional turtle

Comment #299879 by Roger Stanyard on December 10, 2008 at 3:09 pm

Goldy - rationality doesn't enter into it. My intuition tells me what I mean - i.e. he's lying.

39. Odontochelys, a transitional turtle

Comment #299867 by Roger Stanyard on December 10, 2008 at 2:58 pm

Enlightenme - I've spent well over a week bringing this to the public domain.I was one of the people that forced BCM to make this statement.

I have 2 comments.

1. The BNP has repeatedly told national and international news organisations that the list was a membership list, not a contacts list.

2. How did Paul Garner's name get on the list?

There are some serious unanswered questions about his name being on the list.

As for the comment "All of us, as individuals and as an organisation, are glad of this opportunity to explain that any form of racism is entirely incompatible with creationism", all I can reply is you could have fooled me. It's central to it.

40. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson On Religion And Science: 'It's Not A Clean-Cut Division'

Comment #299790 by Roger Stanyard on December 10, 2008 at 12:04 pm

Lucas - the system in the UK is that specialisation starts at 16. Students are expected to do two years studying three subjects which are basically foundation courses for university.

In the USA students continue with a broad education until they are 18.

My understanding of the US system is that the basic degree after that is for two years which the first year is equivalent to A levels.

Virtually all British first degrees are three year degrees (I've mentioned the exceptiosn before).

Americans, if they are bright or whatever, then go on to do two more years. So the British first degree is not strictly comparable with that in the USA.

Scotland is also different from England and Wales because it does not generally use the A level system.

As is the case in the USA, there is a wide difference between the best and the poorest universities. Oxford and Cambridge are generally considered at the top. The top five, including Oxfordand Cambridge, are known as the Golden Triangle and the top 17 known as the Russell League. It's all a bit more complex than that because the divisions are somewhat arbitary.

The Open University, for example, is an exceedinbgly good institution but is generally (and wrongly) not listed as such.

At the bottom of the scale are colleges of higher education that have, in the last decade or so, been upgraded to university status.

From a purely personal viewpoint, I find that the British system over-specialises far too early. It's not a good idea asking kids to specialise at 16 and I think it leaves most of us with a too narrow educational experience.

See CP Snow's rift between sciences and the humanities.

41. Why we believe in gods

Comment #299784 by Roger Stanyard on December 10, 2008 at 11:44 am

andy2001 - evolution is an observed fact in nature as well as being a theory.

You are just wrong on this.

42. Here Be Dragons - The Movie

Comment #299773 by Roger Stanyard on December 10, 2008 at 11:26 am

Corylus - thanks. The only reason why I replied in the forum was time. I have two projects I'm working on tonight and I needed to get info to the BCSE quickly.

The basics are now up in our public forum.

Veronique does have a strong point. Way back I was a regular user/poster on the NSS yahoo forum. it went belly up because nobody was actually prepared to do anything beyond posting to it.

Peter Hearty had set it up with the aim of participants forming local secular groups. They just did not bother.

For what it is worth, it's pretty easy to spot the differences between the talkers and the doers. The latter spend an inordinate amount of day working out what CAN be done rather than assuming that whatever they think should be done will, somehow, come to pass. There is a huge gap between the two.

It's a bit like the old adage - armchair generals think strategy, professional military men think logistics.

Time and time again I have seen in the RD Forum people who seem to have no idea what they want and even less idea what can be done. No idea that at the end of the day it is a political issue, no idea who their allies are... It's just talk.

Fortunately there are some notable exceptions.

43. Here Be Dragons - The Movie

Comment #299752 by Roger Stanyard on December 10, 2008 at 10:32 am

Skep - grow up.

44. Here Be Dragons - The Movie

Comment #299749 by Roger Stanyard on December 10, 2008 at 10:21 am

shadesofgrey - thanks for the PM. It was a very valuable piece of evidence as to what is going on. We'll follow it up.

45. Here Be Dragons - The Movie

Comment #299688 by Roger Stanyard on December 10, 2008 at 7:45 am

Veronique says "I don’t read all articles or comments on RDF any longer. Being a long term subscriber to this site has allowed me to gauge, over the past couple of years, the quality and direction of the comments on RDF. It’s nearly a year since I left off commenting because the comment quality started to diminish a few months earlier and I found myself being caught up in that."

Some of the threads are very good indeed but I've been on the point of pulling out totally for some months, much for the same reason.

Seems to me that there are a lot of people in here willing to moan and bitch like hell but when it comes to actually doing anything in the real world, their absence appears to be 100%.

It's a comment not true about everyone and there are some notable exceptions. But they are distinctly in the minority. Amongst the Brits in here, there seems to be a huge reluctance to join activist organisations such as the NSS and the BHA but a strong willingness to spout on endlessly online.

I've found that I am one of the few in here who has ever put in consistent effort to doing something in the real world. It isn't nice to have it thrown straight back in one's face.

46. SUVs at altar, Detroit church prays for a bailout

Comment #299287 by Roger Stanyard on December 9, 2008 at 10:59 am

Styrer - why the personal attack? It's exceedingly nasty.

47. SUVs at altar, Detroit church prays for a bailout

Comment #299285 by Roger Stanyard on December 9, 2008 at 10:55 am

Styrer I do not recall you asking a question.

The rest of your comments are pretty insulting.

Now, if you don't think I should be here, then tell everybody why you feel free to be in this forum?

Don't reply to me, reply to the forum and tell them what you think the rules are as to who should or should not post here and why.

Do, do also tell everyone at the same time what a wonderful job you are doing here.

48. SUVs at altar, Detroit church prays for a bailout

Comment #299272 by Roger Stanyard on December 9, 2008 at 10:31 am

gazzaofbath - you may be right but there is a downside. A lot of the American fundamentalist churches ask members to tithe 10% of their pre-tax income. A lot of people are not going to be able to do this if they become unemployed.

A lot of others are gonna be hard pushed to continue with such levels. Americans are gonna have to start saving - most Americans are facing a steep decline in the value of their pensions and also cannot use the equity in their properties anymore.

49. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson On Religion And Science: 'It's Not A Clean-Cut Division'

Comment #299264 by Roger Stanyard on December 9, 2008 at 10:20 am

brainsys says "Roger, The differentiation between US 'for profit' and UK Universities is fast diminishing. My wife's department exists entirely on short term contracts from the NHS and is the biggest department in the University."

Yes, of course. The universities have been getting more "commercially minded" for years and years.

I think I may have not been clear about what I meant. As far as I am aware, the only "private" university in Britain is Buckingham University. (My former tutor headed it up at one time.) I guess that most American universities would be described as private.

50. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson On Religion And Science: 'It's Not A Clean-Cut Division'

Comment #299209 by Roger Stanyard on December 9, 2008 at 9:09 am

"Personally I would go for making all first degrees arbitarily BA to avoid confusion and misrepresentation."

Not so easily done in the UK. The ancient Scottish universities and Imperial College, London all have only 4 year first degrees which (rightly) leads to a masters rather than a bachelor's degree. OxBridge awards BAs but after a year, if yoy have kept your nose clean and paid college bar bills, etc. the MA is available for a few quid.