Comments by Roger Stanyard

Comment #262667 by Roger Stanyard on October 9, 2008 at 7:57 am

"There is a documentary on Google that was responsible for reopening Congressional hearings on the events in Waco. There is a lot of evidence that suggests the ATF effectively slaughtered men, women, and children inside that compound."

Where and where has it been substantiated?

452. Surviving Waco

Comment #262305 by Roger Stanyard on October 8, 2008 at 9:52 am

Is there some kind of Darwin Award that we can give Fagan for being the stupidest fundamentalist in Britain?

I mean - he has lost his mother and wife and spent 14 years in jail and still believes the crap of David Koresh?

453. Surviving Waco

Comment #262183 by Roger Stanyard on October 8, 2008 at 4:49 am

Methinks Fagan is none too bright. I would like to ask him a few questions such as:

1. Did David Koresh have sex or intefere with his children?

2. Did Koresh force him to divorce his wife and if is, did koresh have sex with her?

3. Does he condone David Koresh for having sex with children?

4.Does he think David Koresh morally justified in making 12 and 13 year old girls pregnant?

5. Does this stil happen within his movement?

454. Arguments Against Evolution

Comment #261743 by Roger Stanyard on October 7, 2008 at 9:43 am

God Freaing Atheist - Please accept my apologies but the reach appears to have been fragmented across our wiki - see http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/WhoIsWho

What I can do though is provide some published details by email. If anyone wants it, email me at stanyardroger@yahoo.co.uk.

I would ask that it not be placed on the Internet as it is a bit dated now. Moreover, I am still inclined to try and get it published.

455. Arguments Against Evolution

Comment #261712 by Roger Stanyard on October 7, 2008 at 8:54 am

God Fearing Atheist - I had no such budget to do that sort of poll research, which, in any case, could not identify by name all of the creationist/IDers as such polling is a sampling method.

What I did do, though, was write to every known advocate of ID in the UK to confirm their position (I only got 2 replies, IIRC). The bulk of my evidence was taken from the know public position of "scientists" who were openly in favour of creationism or ID. In that sense, my research covered all scientists in the UK.

It is possibe that there are other scientists who beleive in ID or creationism. It's just that I can't identify them and suspect that there is no means of doing so.

Amongst the techniques I used for identifying the "creationist/ID" scientists in the UK was working through the public available list provided by the Institute for Creation research, a list provided by a US creationists called John Baumerger (or something like that) and the list of scientists who "rejected" evolution published by the Discovery Institute.

I also went through the publications of the Bibical Creation Society and the Creation Science Movement to identify names, membership of Truth in Science and other creationist organisations and a general trawl of other sources including Internet. Finally, I asked my numerous contacts at the time for "known names". IIRC, it took about 3-4 man months to put it together.

For what it is worth, the vast majority of "scientists" I identified where not working in biology or geology and a large number that the creationists claimed to be scientists were simply not. They were engineers (common), in medical sciences, philosophers, theological academics, sociologists or whatever.

They had no more claim to be "authoritative" on evolution or the old age of the earth than the average person in teh street.

Incidentally, the research is on the BCSE's wiki at www.bcseweb.org.uk. It's a couple of years out of date.

456. Arguments Against Evolution

Comment #261696 by Roger Stanyard on October 7, 2008 at 8:26 am

God Fearing Atheist - I wish I knew. Presumably all of them.

Interesting isn't it that I have not come across a single creationist geologists working in the mineral exploartion/extraction industry. One might think that the odd creationist geologists here and there might occasionally put their money where their mouths are and set up in business to explore for minerals using their radically different interpretations.

Even the old fraud Andrew Snelling used the old age of the earth when selling his expertise to the Australian minerals industry whilst at the same telling telling the rest of the world that the information was crap and the world only 6,000 years old. "Man speak with forked tounge."

But then, I've long come to the conclusion that creationists lie out of necessity, habitually and repeatedly. Moreover, none of them seem to have ever heard of the ninth commandement.

457. Arguments Against Evolution

Comment #261689 by Roger Stanyard on October 7, 2008 at 8:15 am

Steve,

Thanks for the comment. I certainly want to keep away from the Sarah Palin thread.

One of the reasosn why I was unhappy about the way things were going was the way you were treated by some of the people in the forum.

Roger

458. Arguments Against Evolution

Comment #261684 by Roger Stanyard on October 7, 2008 at 8:08 am

Thinksalot thinks that "so if evolution is a still to be proven THEORY that alot of P.H.Ds think is faulty at best..."

Really? I've done research on this in the UK and found that in the key discplines of biology and geology, the number of practising PhD scientists that reject the theory of evolution in favour of creationism/ID is exactly one.

Not an argument that can be used in favour of ID.

It's worse that that though because Intelligent Design is not an explanation of the differences between species - i.e a theory.

We have this on the word of Phillip Johnson, the driving force behind the Discovery Institute who has openly admitted that it is not only not a theory but not even a hypothesis. It is, in his words, just some "ideas".

Given that the people behind ID don't believe that it is an explanation of the differences between species, how can anyone else believe it to be so?

No wonder the rest of the world thinks the Intelligent Design community and its apologists to be a bunch of frauds and charlatans.

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education

459. Arguments Against Evolution

Comment #261673 by Roger Stanyard on October 7, 2008 at 7:54 am

Thninksalot - Methinks you need to get some very basic understanding of simple science. Evolution is both a fact (it's been observed repeatedly in the form of speciuation and ring species) and an explanation of why species differ from each other. In science such an explanation is known as a theory and does not mean the same as what the typical layman thinks. It is simpler and much more precise that the commonly used "laymans" understanding.

Nor does the theory of evolution have anything to do with the cosmology behind the big band. It stands whatever we think was the "cause" of the big bang or, indeed, whether the big bang ever took place.

Thirdly, most Christians accept the theory of evolution so it is therefore not "anti-religious" or denies religion. It is only in the USA where there are a significant number of Christians, nearly all unrepresentative of Christianity at large, who reject evolutionary theory.

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education.

460. Arguments Against Evolution

Comment #261657 by Roger Stanyard on October 7, 2008 at 7:41 am

It's strange isn't in that as soon as a fundamentalist gets his or her chance, they have to tell the world how much people who disagree with them just "hate" god. Tell us, Thinksalot the following:

1. Which gods are you referring to?

2. Why anyone who doesn't accept there is a god can also hate god at the same time?

3. Which gods science should invoke as explanations?

4. Which gods should it not invoke?

5. When should science invoke gods?

6. Which religions should scientists "favour?

7. Which religions should science ignore?

8. Which of the 35,000 Christian sects and denominatiosn should science accept?

9. Which of the 35,000 Christian sects and denominations should science reject?

10. Please also answer "Why" to all these questions.

461. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #260956 by Roger Stanyard on October 6, 2008 at 8:18 am

Al rawandi

"simple minded bigot".

Interesting. I've seen this group get nastier and nastier of the last few weeks.

Seems to me that it has turned into a forum for ideological fundamentalists anmd I want nothing more to do with it.

Bye all.

462. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #260935 by Roger Stanyard on October 6, 2008 at 7:47 am

Al Rawandi,

You really are a nasty piece of work.

463. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #260912 by Roger Stanyard on October 6, 2008 at 7:10 am

DarwinsPitbull asks us "Why are the greatest universities in america private universities?"

Oh, what you mean like the Bob Jones University, Regent University, Liberty University, Oral Roberts University, Pacific International University, Bryan University, BIOLA, heavens now how many fundamentalist "seminaries" and whatever masquerading as universities....

They sure are turning out a lot of Nobel Prize winners tehse days!

464. Christian group calls for a Christian university in Britain

Comment #260289 by Roger Stanyard on October 5, 2008 at 6:30 am

It doesn't surprise me that Nigel Paterson utters a banality such as theology once being the queen of sciences. He is a former middle school teacher and now at a university that does not teach science at all. He actualy teaches English there, not science.

His church, the Pentecoastal Immanuel Church, was out on the streets in Winchester on Saturday trying to recruit. It's a regular occurance and the church uses children in its efforts.

PS: There are a lot of other subjects that have been claimed to be the "Queen of Sciences" including (notably), maths, physics, psychology, philosophy metaphysics, industrial maths, geography and, no doubt, many more.

465. Christian group calls for a Christian university in Britain

Comment #260073 by Roger Stanyard on October 4, 2008 at 2:47 pm

Shaunfletcher,

To call themselves a university and award their own degrees would require a Royal Charter. It is possible for them to award degrees from other universities but that would still not give them to right to call themselves a university.

Paterson's paper does not appear to address the problem how his proposed universities would obtain a Royal Charter, given that he wants them to use the Bible as a reference source in every subject.

My guess is that a scam could be set up to establish the "univessities" as branches of US fundamentalist US universities accredited by a religious body there. I've not, though, seen this done in the UK yet.

The nearest I guess is the Seventh Day Adventist college in Bracknell but it does not call itself a university.

466. Zehirli Yilanlar, Kaygan Yilanbaliklari ve Harun Yahya

Comment #260067 by Roger Stanyard on October 4, 2008 at 2:27 pm

D'Arcy - I may be wrong on this but the three (not four as I stated) Scottish banks that issue their own bank notes are not licensed to do so by the Bank of England. They are regulated, instead by Act of Parliament. The 19th Century legislation involved was introduced specifically to by-pass the Bank of England's power in such matters.

I've no idea what the position is in Northern Ireland.

467. Zehirli Yilanlar, Kaygan Yilanbaliklari ve Harun Yahya

Comment #260027 by Roger Stanyard on October 4, 2008 at 12:56 pm

"If banks, officially recognised, can create money, then why can't other officially recognised corporations do the same?"

They do. GE Finance is a good example. It is basically GE's in-house bank and, indeed, makes the majority of its profits.

468. Zehirli Yilanlar, Kaygan Yilanbaliklari ve Harun Yahya

Comment #260026 by Roger Stanyard on October 4, 2008 at 12:51 pm

"And of course banks can't simply create money, or they would be creating boat loads now in order to bail themselves out."

Well, actually banks can and do create money. They print and issue their own bank notes. The British bank notes are issued by five seperate banks (four in Scotland and one in England and Wales). Only one is a state-owned central bank. In the past it has been a cause of inflation.

IIRC in the 19th Century it was very common for US commercial banks to print and issue their own bank notes. There were a lot of dodgy practices involved.

469. Christian group calls for a Christian university in Britain

Comment #260001 by Roger Stanyard on October 4, 2008 at 11:37 am

I am one of the Godless Scum of Gower Street and am thus well versed in the history of religious control of university education in England. As most will know, it was a requirement of both Oxford and Cambridge universities until well into the 19th century that students were required to be members of the Church of England. Everyone else was denied entrance. It was worse than that though because until University College, London was established in 1826, they were the only universities in England. Quite frankly until major reforms were forced on Oxbridge in the 2nd half of the 19th century, they were not even good universities. Much of the brainpower for the British Empire came out of Scotland as a result. What many regard as the English (and Scottish) Enlightenment was simply not a product of Oxbridge. Whole disciplines were developed without any significant impact from either �" economics, geology, most of engineering, for example. Even the Renaissance in Italy was centred on rejection of the then universities of the time which were viewed as reactionary, riddled with religion and backward.

What Paterson is proposing is a throw-back to the 18th century, if not the mediaeval world, not a university at all. He openly admits that the core reference book in every subject will be the Bible.

I also suspect that there is a hidden agenda in keeping science out of his proposed "university". It simply could not attract any research funding if the core reference work was the Bible. Let all be aware that the dozens of fundamentalist universities in the USA have not produced one iota of "science" based on creationism. It's not that the creationists don't have the funding to do so. Answers in genesis raised US$27 million for its crapola museum opened last year. The Discovery Institute reputedly has an income of US$7 million a year (mostly, -it appears spent on PR puffery), the Institute for Creation Research (which awards degrees and PhDs) has an income of US$4 million a year. This is, of course, in addition to the vast funds generated by the likes of the Bob Jones University, Oral Roberts University, Regent University, Liberty University, Patrick Henry University, the SDA universities and colleges and heaven knows now many other fundamentalist institutions that claim to be universities. They don't do science at research level because they know that they will be caught out and have no credibility whatsoever. Even the Discovery Institute has tried to keep its ludicrous Biologic Institute secret. What do you expect from a scientific research institute that appears to have a scientific staff totalling two in number and attempting to overthrow the whole of mainstream science?

470. Christian group calls for a Christian university in Britain

Comment #259900 by Roger Stanyard on October 4, 2008 at 6:07 am

On reflection from my last post, the thought has crossed my mind that what Paterson is actually looking at is conversion of the University of Winchester into a fundamentalist university.

One minor point is that Paterson's PhD is not in science.

471. Christian group calls for a Christian university in Britain

Comment #259894 by Roger Stanyard on October 4, 2008 at 5:34 am

Hayseed University

I've been digging around a bit this morning on Paterson and his proposal for a Hayseed University in the UK. I live in Winchester where Paterson works. I'm alarmed. What he appears to be proposing is a "fundamentalist" university.

I understand that Paterson is an elder in Immanuel Church in Winchester. This is a small Pentecostal church affiliated with Cornerstone Church. The alarm bells should now start ringing.

Cornerstone is the church of John Hagee �" he "endorsed" John MaCain and got McCain into a lot of hot water. Hagee is immensely rich �" his church preaches the prosperity gospel. Worse still he is generally regarded as a fundamentalist extremist �" a Christian Zionist and dispensationalist, loathes Catholics and gays and is politically well to the right even by US standards. As far as I can make out he also backs Intelligent Design. I'm not yet sure of his position on YEC. He also sits on the board of Oral Roberts University. He does not believe in global warming.

Paterson's church has no proper web site at present although Google shows it to be located in the centre of Winchester. I checked that out this morning and there was a notice on the premises that it had moved to the University of Winchester.

Paterson is on the academic staff of the University of Winchester which a few years back was upgraded from a college of higher education to full university status. It's origins are as an Anglican teacher training college and it has a strong Christian ethos �" apparently, though, not strong enough for Paterson. The university does not teach any of the natural sciences.

I therefore conclude that what Paterson is calling for is another hayseed university along the lines of the Bob Jones, Oral Roberts, Liberty and Regent universities �" sinks of ignorance and bigotry. In this case, though, a death cult appears to be behind the proposal.

I'll be digging around further in the next few days amongst my contacts in Winchester.

472. Debate: Would We Be Better Off Without Religion?

Comment #259460 by Roger Stanyard on October 3, 2008 at 11:46 am

Mitchel Gilks - I thing you mis-read what I said which was specifically about the following "Some vague idea of a universal supernatural force in the world is sufficient in my mind to qualify something as religion."

All I am refering to is the fact that very few organised religions would accept this.

Maybe I am wrong but I don't actually care either way.

473. Bill Maher's Religulous Opens Today

Comment #259404 by Roger Stanyard on October 3, 2008 at 10:23 am

I wonder just what bile and hate and calls for censorship are going to emerge from the fundamentalists over this film?

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

Comment #259378 by Roger Stanyard on October 3, 2008 at 9:54 am

Most-Truth

Richard Dawkins has debated with creationists in the past and won. As he has subsequently said repeatedly, he doesn't now do so because it would be used by creationist nutters to claim that scientists "accept" them and make out that they are respected and respectable.

Why should anyone debate with Ha Ha? He is a convicted criminal?

Now, about these allegations that Ha Ha is a blackmailer? Please do tell the world more or are are you gonna run away from the issues!

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

Comment #259370 by Roger Stanyard on October 3, 2008 at 9:46 am

"Living specimens are identical in appearance to the model."

No they are not. They don't have huge steel hooks sticking out of their backsides.

476. Debate: Would We Be Better Off Without Religion?

Comment #259321 by Roger Stanyard on October 3, 2008 at 8:56 am

Riley, there are a lot of prblems with your suggestion "I just disagree with your point that religion must have dogma. Some vague idea of a universal supernatural force in the world is sufficient in my mind to qualify something as religion."

I doubt whether more than a handfull of then tens of thousands of organised religions/sects/denominations in the world would accept this.

Some time back I suggested to a liberal Christian cleric that the only valid definition of being a Christian was to believe in Christianity. He responded that the minimum requirement was to accept the Nicene Creed - in other words a formal set of written down rules and beliefs.

Organised religion basically requires rules of membership and that means accepting a large body of belief. The option to vaguely accept some kind of supernatural intelligence or whatever, is simply not acceptable to organised religion or to the religious in general.

At worse, it's seen as blasphemy, apostacy or whatever.

Mind you, knowing the Church of England, you might just get away with it there. I've met two Muslims who also claim to be Anglicans at the same time. (The mind boggles at this.)

477. Zehirli Yilanlar, Kaygan Yilanbaliklari ve Harun Yahya

Comment #259193 by Roger Stanyard on October 3, 2008 at 3:51 am

FrederickK - And millions have no doubt seen just how much of a fraud Ha Ha is. So what?

478. Coming soon: 'In God We Trust' tags

Comment #259188 by Roger Stanyard on October 3, 2008 at 3:44 am

Thinksalot - you do talk a load of old bollox. You are in here to preach, nothing more, nothing less. I've seen it time and time again with fundamentalists.

Why don't you push off and try and save souls elsewhere?

479. Why I left Young-earth Creationism

Comment #258969 by Roger Stanyard on October 2, 2008 at 3:32 pm

"Paines track record is probably not public because he never had access to the media when he was 13 years old."

So? What on earth has that got to do with it.

480. Why I left Young-earth Creationism

Comment #258947 by Roger Stanyard on October 2, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Payne comments "Based on what? Looking at this article, I see a guy who took TWENTY YEARS to figure out that the earth is more than 6000 years old. And he's supposedly had an education. I dont see anything worthy o respect."

Because he looked at the evidence, changed his mind, had the courage to admit that he was wrong and then fight his corner.

And your public track record on such matters is precisely what?

481. Why I left Young-earth Creationism

Comment #258851 by Roger Stanyard on October 2, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Rational Skpetic - thanks for the comments about the CBC programme. I must admit that is roughly the way I seen things. It seems to me that creationism is nothing more than a subset of fundamentalism which in turn, is part of the culture wars in the USA. A war, if you like, between backward and progressive America or between reason/thinking and emotion or between education and ignorance.

Identity, power and culture are central to it.

482. Why I left Young-earth Creationism

Comment #258818 by Roger Stanyard on October 2, 2008 at 11:35 am

Janus,

40% of American scientists do believe in religion. In that sense, Glenn is far from being odd. He's pretty well mainstream.

Why America still clings to religion, though, is another matter. I'm baffled by the country.

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education

483. Why I left Young-earth Creationism

Comment #258812 by Roger Stanyard on October 2, 2008 at 11:30 am

Blitz442 comments about Glenn ""Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true"....would that not be same for biology, cosmology, physics, logic and reason in general???"

IIRC Glenn accepts all of mainstream science including evolutionary biology.

In reply to Cartmancer, BCSE is aware of two graduates from Oxford who are young earth creationists - Richard Buggs (PhDE in biological sciences, felft 2006) and David Anderson with a 1st and masters in maths (left around 2003). Neither are now resident in the UK.

In addition there appears to be a couple of IDers amongst the academic staff, one of whom is John Lennox (i'm just about to read his latest book on the matter.)

It seems that Oxford has been targeted by creationists. There is a fair amount of info on the matter on our web site at www.bcseweb.org.uk

The fundamentalists have gained controlled of Wycliffe Hall.

I was at a debate last year between Steve Fuller and Lweis Wolpert. It was held at Royal Holloway and amongst the audience there were clearly a number of creationists. I did notice, though, that Muslims seemed to be the most vocal amongst them.

Where the creationists are "getting" at the universities is through evangelical Christian Unions. The overall body overseeing the CUs appears to have been heavily infiltrated by creationists.

I certainly never noticed any fundamentalists whilst I was an undergraduate (or postgraduate) but then I am one of the "Godless Scum of Gower Street). Andy McIntosh was a contemporary of mine at Cranfield Institute of Technology. I don't recall him there, though.

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education

484. Why I left Young-earth Creationism

Comment #258785 by Roger Stanyard on October 2, 2008 at 11:03 am

One point about the ICR and its graduates.

It appears that not one of them has ever put their money where their mouth is and set up a mineral/oil exportation company using "Flood Geology".

This is more than a minor point. A huge proportion of geologists is not in academia - but actively working for commercial companies. They (and the creationists) cannot argue that "creationism" is subject to a scientific conspiracy by "liberals" or whatnot.

All the creationists need to do is to show how their alternative "flood geology" leads to finding resources more effectively and they are sure onto a winner. The mineral exploration companies will be banging on their doors with employment contracts.

Perhaps Andy McIntosh might like to substantiate his claim that coal can be formed in a few hours by telling the energy industry where this process can be seen in action today. He'd make a damn fortune if he did.

485. Why I left Young-earth Creationism

Comment #258775 by Roger Stanyard on October 2, 2008 at 10:53 am

I know Glenn Morton - he has helped us at the BCSE and I highly respect him.

However, he is highly unusual. He has really used his intellect to over-ride his emotion. Very few of the creationists or IDers that I have ever debated with online are capable of using their intellect. The whole shooting match is about emotion.

Moreover, whilst most of the "debate" about creationism centres on biology and the theory of evolution, Glenn's background is in geology where the pro-science arguments are much more easily demonstratable (just look at the landscape).

I can't take John Morris seriously. His father (Henry Morris) was a hydraulic engineer who did a PhD in the subject "to prove" that a literal interpretation of the BIble was "true". (i.e. that Noah's Flood could have happened.) He did not go in with an open mind. I dunno what Richard thinks but it seems to me that in any undergraduate or post graduate course at all but the lowest grade of university (such as the creationist universities in the USA, BJU, etc.), an open mind is essential. You simply cannot learn without it.

As Royal Holloway College has pointed out to me, it's getting creationist students who, because of their "beliefs" are essentially unteachable. I've been through universities four times and what I came out knowing bears little resemblance to my pre-conceived ideas about what I expected to learn before I entered each course.

Lenny Flank (over ar Debunk Creation) has been fighting creationisn for 25 years and says that in all that time, he has only ever seen a couple of creationists change their minds and accept mainstream science.

My own opinion, for what it is worth, is that the problem runs deeper than science v religion. With creationism you're dealing with a fundamentalist mindset. That is an ideology that ecompasses far more that just "creationism". Even in the are event of there being a "conversion" to mainstream science, the extreemism and ideological mindset remain.

I don't, incidentally, think that is the case at all with Glenn.

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education

486. A biologist reviews an evolution textbook from the ID camp

Comment #255194 by Roger Stanyard on September 27, 2008 at 2:55 am

Soilworker describes Explore Evolution as "Of Pandas and People, 3rd Edition". Maybe, but it sounds to me more like the implementation manual for the Wedge Document.

Roger Stanyard

487. A biologist reviews an evolution textbook from the ID camp

Comment #255191 by Roger Stanyard on September 27, 2008 at 2:42 am

Interesting.

Paul Nelson is an out and out young earth creationist.

His PhD is in philosophy and he is on record as saying that there is no scientific theory of intelligent design.

Meyer has a first degree in geology but his PhD is also in philosophy.

Not very impressive, is it?

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education

488. Turkey bans biologist Richard Dawkins' website

Comment #250677 by Roger Stanyard on September 20, 2008 at 5:56 am

Quirinus,

Does anyone actually know where BAV and Harun Yahya actually get their money from? We've been told that his organisation receives funding froom Saudi Arabia but I am sceptical about the claim.

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education

489. Turkey bans biologist Richard Dawkins' website

Comment #250283 by Roger Stanyard on September 19, 2008 at 8:51 am

"Here is what CIA Director Porter Goss said bluntly before the Senate Intelligence Committee in February 2004, "It may be only a matter of time before Al Qaeda or other groups attempt to use chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons. We must focus on that." And we know that he knows; has known for the longest time!"

This, of course, is the same CIA that brought us evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

490. Creationist Britain (would you Adam and Eve it?)

Comment #250216 by Roger Stanyard on September 19, 2008 at 5:02 am

Wes McNabb is pastor of the Slade Eveangelical Church in Plumstead in London. It appears to be some form of Baptist church. A quick seearch on Google through up connections with a couple of fundamentalist organisations/churches.

I have my svere doubts whether McNabb has any serious influence. My past research suggests that such churches as his tend to have tiny memberships/congregations. In any event the number of white evangelicals in the UK is falling (offset by black evangelicals, in London mostly from Africa).

I couldn't find out which denomination/sect his church is affiliated to. That might throw up some usefull information. The leading fundamentalist/creationist Baptist church in London is the Metropolitan Tabernacle which was centre stage in introducing creationism into Britian during the 1970s. It is still run by the same pastor. Nominally, the church is "independent" but in practoce is a 19th century breakaway church from the mainstream Baptist Union.

It is in the independent/breakaway Baptist churches where you will find much of the fundamentalism/creationism in Britain today.

491. Turkey bans biologist Richard Dawkins' website

Comment #249373 by Roger Stanyard on September 18, 2008 at 4:05 am

Epeeist - Ha Ha and BAV did more than lift crapola from AiG's web site. A lot of their material was supplied by the Institute for Creation Research, which bragged about it all as well.

Whereever you look in the creationist world, American and Australian fundamentalists are behind it.

BTW, John "Necrophilia" Mackay is back in the UK on his annual "tour"

492. Charles Darwin to receive apology from the Church of England for rejecting evolution

Comment #247429 by Roger Stanyard on September 14, 2008 at 12:15 pm

I must say I think it very good news indeed that the CofE has taken this position because, in effect, it is distancing itself from creationists in a very public, albeit discrete, manner. It sounds like a very clever move to me and makes the Royal Society look somewhat stupid.

Quite frankly, why is it that the Anglican church has openly come down against creationism and Royal Society not? On the one hand we have a religious organisation backing science and on the other a National Academy of Sciences stuck with its foot in its mouth unable and unwilling to say anything sensible and making an utter fool of itself.

My personal opinion, for what it is worth, is that the Anglican Church has saved England from religious extremism for 350 years. The Royal Society seems blind to the problem now emerging. The CofE doesn't.

I suspect I will annoy many in here by my position but will remind everyone that creationism is not a science v religion battle. It is a political battle and the more we have onside in this battle, the more we are likely to win. The CofE is now onside. The Royal Society isn't.

493. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #246794 by Roger Stanyard on September 13, 2008 at 7:59 am

Fanusi, I can't recall where the 10% figure came from but there are numerous and regular surveys of religious belief in the UK.

IIRC The Economist quoted one recently which showed that 50% of children born in the UK to two believing Muslim parents end up apostate. It is exactly the same percentage for children born to two believing Christian parents.

So I'll ask the question again in a slightly different form "Whom are you gonna kill, how do you select them and why are you gonna kill them?"

I think what more to the point is why some UK Muslims end up as religious monsters. You don't have to look to Islam to find the answer. You can see then same thing operating amongst American fundamentalist rednecks. They feel politically isolated, nobody represents them, they have limited education, they live in a near closed world, they don't understand what is going on around them and all too frequently are poor and on the margins of society.

Precisely what do you think is the difference between an American fundamentalist redneck clutching a rifle in one hand, a bible in the other and hating the US goverenment is and a Muslim with a crap job, a rifle in one hand and the Koran in the other and hating the British government?

Was Timothy McVeigh a patriot as he thought he was or was he just another Mohammed Atti?

494. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #246753 by Roger Stanyard on September 13, 2008 at 3:24 am

"Right now the long war against Islam has heated up again. That means ideas such as patriotism, or at least a visceral civilizational loyalty, will be desperately necessary."

Given that 2.5% of the population of the UK are Muslim (and 10% of these are apostate), does that mean we should, as patriots, go to war against our own fellow citizens over religious differences? Who do you propose we kill?

495. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #246258 by Roger Stanyard on September 12, 2008 at 3:44 am

The problem with the idea of patriotism is that it is often indistinguisable from blind jingoism and seriously clouds people's judgement.

It's also life threatening. I jest not. The killing fields of Northern France in the 1914-1918 war were fueled by a nasty country-loving concotion of jingoism and partiotism. Not surprisingly after WW1 the world patriotism became a dirty word and fell out of favour.

I also comment that the Soviet Union used the term "Great Patriotic War" to describe WW2. As Johnson said, patriotism is the last refuge of the despot. In this case, Stalin.

496. Teachers should tackle creationism, says science education expert

Comment #246252 by Roger Stanyard on September 12, 2008 at 3:25 am

Worldview = all ecompassing ideology where everything must fit to it or be discarded and demonised.

Examples: Trotskyism, Maoism, Polt Pot, Robert Mugabe, Fascism, National Socialism, Stalinism, Marxism, Creationism, Intelligent Design.

The Demonised: Liberals, non-believers, fellow travellers, intellectuals, the well educated....

Outcome: Totalitarianism and mass killings.

Examples: 9/11, London bombings, Madrid bombings, Oklahoma City, Jonesville and the whole of history.

Modus Operandi: Learn nothing, forget nothing.

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education

497. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #245838 by Roger Stanyard on September 11, 2008 at 1:03 pm

Patriotism = the last refuge of the despot. Dr Johnson.

498. Teachers should tackle creationism, says science education expert

Comment #245791 by Roger Stanyard on September 11, 2008 at 12:29 pm

Let's get one thing straight first. Teachers are not allowed to teach creationism or ID in science classes.

Secondly, ID is not just not science, it is a political tool to re-engineer society (see the Wedge Document). Let it into the science classroom and you have just let in politics.

There is no half measure about this. Truth in Science has been pushing ID for all it is worth. It is still doing so.

Thirdly, precisely what is it the fundamentalists want "taught" in the science lesson:

1. Young Earth Creationism?

2. Old Earth Creationism?

3. Muslim creationism (a third variant)?

4. Intelligent Design?

5. Theistic Evolution?

6. Hindu creationism?

7. Recolonisation theory (another YEC variant)?

Teach these and there is no time left for proper science.

Riess also has a problem in that the courts in the USA have repeatedly concluded that there is no science in creationism and it is solely a religious position.

So what Reiss is calling for is religion to be taught in the science classroom to serve the political objectives of deeply conservative fundamentalists.

It's worse than that, though because the creationists don't limit themsleves to undermining the theory of evolution. It's any part of science that contradicts their religious position including physics, chemistry, geology, physical geography and no doubt others.

So ever time a physics teacher says that the speed of light is a constant, he/she has to explain heaven knows what crackpottery that claims it isn't because the world is only 6,000 years old?

Or if the geography teacher explainingg where coal coal comes from has to present Professor Andy McIntosh's idiocy that coal seams were formed in a few days?

I'll continue. What er, text books are going to be used to "explain" all this idiocy? Of Panda's and People? Or McIntosh's work on geology? What are the teachers going to do apart from hand out religious tracts?

Are they going to hand out the gibberish from BAV even when the books themselves are full of breaches of copyright?

Talk about screwing up the educational system.

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education

499. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #245761 by Roger Stanyard on September 11, 2008 at 11:54 am

"First, you already HAVE shariah courts. They are "voluntary", and deal with certain domestic and financial issues."

They have no standing in law whatsoever.

"There were several Iranians who requested asylum. One was gay and was sent home despite the fact that he would face death (interesting since the British won't send a suspect back to the US if he faces death). The other a political dissident who begged not to be sent home."

So why were they sent back? We get this stick all the time. One lot says we are too weak in allowing Muslim asylum seakers in, another lot says we should stop all but the most extreme cases.

Back to my orginal question: How was backing Bush and sending our own armed forces into Iraq (for the second time, and Afghanistan) a form of appeasement to Muslims? There are a lot of good soldiers still dying there.

Good grief, we've had London bombed, attempts at bombing it again, attacks on airports and heaven knows what planned attacks on aircraft as a consequence of our participation in Iraq. How is that appeasement or a whimper?

The UK, probably above all countries in Europe has stood up to what it thought were the excesses of the Muslim world. And unlike one European country, we didn't run away when we got bombed as a result.

500. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #245726 by Roger Stanyard on September 11, 2008 at 11:29 am

"P.S. BTW, many of your "leading scientists" are foreigners who completed their undergraduate degrees outside the U.S. You have some of the best research institutions in the world, no question about it. But your basic education is a mess."

The best of the US universities are very good indeed and much of Europe (notably France) should be ashamed of its own universities.

However, the Economist newspaper pointed out some while back that even the top American universities (Ivy League and so on) are now losing their international reputation - basically through bad management and complacancy. Oxford and Cambridge know it as well. Watch this space.