151. Priest Antonio Rungi wants beauty contest - for nuns

Comment #236685 by Roger Stanyard on August 25, 2008 at 4:43 am

Lighten up everyone. Priest Antonio Rungi has a delightful idea and a good sense of humour.

I find him a bit of a hero.

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

Comment #235822 by Roger Stanyard on August 23, 2008 at 4:34 pm

"I agree. The Enlightenment must be credited for having moved the moral zeitgeist away from such barbarous practices."

Not in Northern Ireland did it. Over the last thirty odd years it, and other barbaric practices such as knee capping (putting a bullet through someone's knees) has been common practice there.

As you no doubt appreciated the province remains equaly locked in the past when it comes to creationism.

It is dfficult not to conclude that the two are connected.

153. Study: Conservatives Grow Wary Of Mixing Religion, Politics

Comment #235684 by Roger Stanyard on August 23, 2008 at 11:47 am

Dunno about the others in here but it seems to be that the fundamentalist religious right ain the USA re in for a big shock this year. Sonce the 1980s their star has been on the rise but the in the current Presidential hustings they haven't known who to back..

Much of the mainstream Republican Party thinks the fundamentalists are just plain bonkers. The fundamentalists have been used by Bush who has provided them with very little in return. It is a trick that can't be repeated.

It also seems to me that public opinion in general in the USA is increasingly turning against the excesses of the fundamentalists - indeed, I suspect the fundamentalists have seriouslu damaged the reputation and standing of religion in the USA

Certainly the creationists have looked increasingly desperate since they spectacularly lost the Dover trial in 2005. The recruitment of wingnuts to the ID cause and the openly biased Expelled film are clear evidence of the desperation. Ted Haggard little problem with his willie and recreational drugs proved not exactly to be the fundamentalists' best advocacy either,

One thing that puzzles me, though, is whether The God Delusion was a significant factor in the now waning phase of US fundamentalism. I've got mixed messages from my American pals on this.

Does anyone have any views on it.

don;t know who to back.

154. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235632 by Roger Stanyard on August 23, 2008 at 10:10 am

Sorry Fanusi,

I completly misread what you said.

Please accept my apologies.

155. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235612 by Roger Stanyard on August 23, 2008 at 9:18 am

re Joe Moreale

He's a cut and past nutter. How do we contact Josh to get rid of him?

156. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235567 by Roger Stanyard on August 23, 2008 at 8:28 am

Joe Morreale: Oh, I forgot, How silly of me. Evolution is just part of a giant international conspiracy organised by the Freemasons just for the fun of it. I'll have to ring up the New World Order and find out more.

Do you have a contact name and telephone number at the New World Order? Do they have a branch office in my local high street. Is it anywhere near Boots the Chemist?


Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education

157. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235533 by Roger Stanyard on August 23, 2008 at 7:29 am

Joe Morreale appears to be so stupid that he doesn't appear to realise that Adnan Oktar is in jail for a long period and therefore Richard can't debate with him.

158. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235532 by Roger Stanyard on August 23, 2008 at 7:26 am

Message to Joe Morreale,

So which jail can we contact Adnan Oktar in so he can convert us with his obious high levels of personal integrity compared to Richard Dawkins?

Presumably he hasn't asked to share the same cell with Kent Hovind.

(Shakes head at the utter banality of a person pushing a convicted criminal as a paragon of virtue.)

159. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235529 by Roger Stanyard on August 23, 2008 at 7:20 am

Comment by Mrs Gregory:

"I think Richard Dawkins was very restrained when talking to lunatics like MacKay et al. I would have shot him down in flames!"

It's a lot harder than it sounds. We have a vicar who regularly posts to our forum who tried it and fell flat on his face. Mackay then used the debate to claim that he ran rings around people who accept the theory of evolution.

What you are dealing with in John "Necrophilia" Mackay is a professional snake oil sales who has thirty years or more experience of pushing his religion through public speaking.

The man is also part mad - he thinks God speaks to him and casts demons from his cat. He ain't retional by any standards!

Richard has a long held policy of not debating with creationists - IIRC his view is that such debating would give them an "air of respectability" that they don't deserve.

In essence, they claim that debating with scientists shows that scientists take them seriously. They push the link for all it is worth. (It's an old snake oil salesman's trick.)

BTW, in many ways handling them is like handling the JWs.

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education

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

Comment #235440 by Roger Stanyard on August 23, 2008 at 4:09 am

"Now, sans God, can we define a moral code that has a rational standard, that is, purpose?"

Dead easy, just look at the examples where it has been done. The implication of this comment is that only countries/nation states that are predominantly Christian/Jewish/Muslim can offer justice to their citizens and that all and evrything about justice must be based on Abrahamic religion.

In other words, only theocracies can offer justice. Bad news about Japan [fill in a few other names here, if you like], then. It seems to show otherwise on a spectacular scale.

Do do, tell us all if you think the people behind Intelligent Design are, by your standards, benign or not.

161. Pastor Michael Guglielmucci spun gospel of lies

Comment #235434 by Roger Stanyard on August 23, 2008 at 3:59 am

"So, to clarify this for me, people making statements that infer many Christians are pedophiles, those using the word "whores" and those being "abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated" are wholeheartedly embraced.....so long as it is directed at Christians."

Where the heck did I or anyone else make such a statement. My references are to a church and one individual in Australia.

Moreover it was creationist John Mackay who made the allegations of necrophilia against a fellow Christian, Margaret Buchanan. And it was his own church that showed he was lying and excommunicated him for lying.

Why should anyone respect Mackay or Hillsong Church because they are Christian. Respect is something that is hard earned; it is not a right to be demanded just because of one's religious opinions.

I haven't been in this forum to knock religion. but when it comes to creationism, the evidence points massively to the whole fundamentalist movement being an organised and dishonest scam, unterrly wanting in integrity. Mackay is part of my evidence.

If you wish to believe that he is a wonderful person because he is a Christian, so be it. But before you do, have a look at Margaret Buchanan's presonal testimony of his behaviour.

This is a man who accused, for years, Margaret Buchanan of witchcraft and necrophilia, hounded her out of her job and, IIRC, her church as well.

His evuidence? Well he appears to have admitted that the only evidence he has was that God had personally told him.

As I have long stated, creationism itself brings the whole of religion into discredit. It is a dreadful advertisement for religion. The creationists are, it appears, usually too daft to recognise the damage they are doing to religion.

162. Pastor Michael Guglielmucci spun gospel of lies

Comment #235402 by Roger Stanyard on August 23, 2008 at 1:40 am

D'Arcy: John "Necrophlia" Mackay is basically a one mand band and unconnected with the Pentecostals. He was expelled from his own church for lying.

Mackay is a fairly typical fundamentalist - not only does he hate mainstream science but, it appears, has ben at loggerheads with other fundamentalists for years.

There is nothing that fundamentalists hate more than other Christians. If tey don't accept whatever fundamentalist dogma people like Mackay have, they are obviously agents of Satan.

163. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235394 by Roger Stanyard on August 23, 2008 at 1:14 am

Another questions for Pennandteller in respose to this:

"To all of you,

Q: Given a few billion years or so, how does a fish get across the island?

A: It grows wings and flys across.

Ha Ha
"

Precisely how old are you, junior?

164. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235393 by Roger Stanyard on August 23, 2008 at 1:11 am

Message to PennandTeller:

Yep, theis forum does enourage debate on ID. I keep asking the IDers to bring what they know to the table.

So, do, do tell us what the scientific theory of ID is and how it can be tested with the scientific method.

Do, do tell us why, time and time again, the IDers ignore this request.
-
Please, please tell us how we use Of Pandas and People to distinguish it from creationism.

We, and the rest of the world, are all ears.

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education

(shrugs under the full knowledge that we will get no replies at all to these questions.)

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

Comment #235285 by Roger Stanyard on August 22, 2008 at 4:17 pm

Yep, yet again we have another half wit fundamentalist entering the forum. This time its Parisienee who um, can't/won't answer the question "what is the scientific theopry of creationism" and who seems to think that Christians don't bel;ieve in creationism and onl atheists do thinks.

I've seen this BS time and time again. My bet is that Parisiene's motive fpr entering this forum is to try nd save souls.

So far, the bahvious has fitted the model.

1. The are American and from the arsehole of nowhere and bigotry, Texas

2. They avoid all the questions.

3. They think that because the are religious they have something to say about science. (Science doesn't give a stuff about religion.)

4. They waffle.

5. The think the world is divided into Christians who believe in creationism or ID and atheists who belive in evolution.

If you want to see the rest of the world give a bit of ground on ID/creationism, it's dead simple. Show us the scientific theory of creationism/ID.

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

Comment #235265 by Roger Stanyard on August 22, 2008 at 4:01 pm

Parisienee comments "Actually seeing how many animals you can realistically fit in an ark of such a size is not a bad experiment *wink*. I am surprised no one has tried it yet (on either side!).

Oh!, well ID does have something to do with religion. So the propoents of Intelligent Design such as yourself are lying when they say it doesn't.

Do keep on lying to this group and the rest of the world. It's really convincing.

As I say. creationists lie - out of necessity, habitually and repeatedly.

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

Comment #235109 by Roger Stanyard on August 22, 2008 at 12:29 pm

Parisiene comments "Religious is very relevant in science because it presents opposition. Isn't it a goal in science to consider all and reject none?"

Opposition to what? There is no science whatsover in Intelligent design or creationism. They are religious positions. If you want to teach religion, teach it in a religious education class.

Unless, of course, you can show us what the scientific theory of creationism/Intelligent Design is and how it can be tested with the scientific method.

I bet you won't.

(Sighs at the utter banality of Parisiene's "arguement".)

168. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235100 by Roger Stanyard on August 22, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Comment by Val "If it had been David Attenborough presenting "The genius of Charles Darwin", I am convinced there would have been zero criticism and a storm of accolades."

Wanna bet? I seriously dout it. The creationists are well organised and operate as a network. It is standard practice to demonise anyone who attempts to show that their "science" is hocus pocus.

They did it on the Australian geologist who led the country's anti-creatonist movement in the 1980s and 1990s and nearly bankrupted him. And he is a practising Christian.

The tried it on me and attempted to get the police to investigate me.

They have already tried it on Attenborough.

Trying reading Bill Dembski's blog to get the message. There's a man who has no personal integrity whatsoever.

Your not dealing with nice people here. They lie, systematically, repeatedely and out of necessity. It is the only way they can sustain their position and they justify it because they think they are saving souls.

They are ideologues - just the same as Pol Pot, Mao, Trotsky, Hitler, Stalin. They all screech to the same tune.

Let me remind everyone that the biggest financier of the Discovery Institute, Howie Ahmanson, has been backing the introduction of biblical law and wants anyone who is lippy to their parents, commits adultery, blaspheses, criticises his religious views, commits apostacy and so on to be executed.

I've done the calculations and it would result in over 98.5% of the population of the UK being murdered. Ahmanson's wife is on public record as dimissing the issue because some people would not be convicted because bibilical law requires two witnesses.

The creationists will all say "no, that's not us". Well, I put it to you that it is. The likes of McIntosh and his network of pals across the UK have been pushing Intelligent Design - the same ID that is funded by Ahmanson.

Since when has McIntosh or any of the others involved in Truth in Science ever distanced themselves from Howie Ahmanson and his dubious pal Rousas Rushdoony?

Some may think that John Mackay is an affiable larrikin. Think again - when Margater Buchanan crossed his path in his power bid to control Answers in genesis in Australia, he accused her of necrophilia and witchcraft and has never ever retracted the allegations or apologised.

Creationism is an exceedingly nasty movement full of exceedingly dodgy people.

169. Pastor Michael Guglielmucci spun gospel of lies

Comment #235009 by Roger Stanyard on August 22, 2008 at 11:05 am

Ishrull "I thought you were a teacher or something in a science facility of some sort (blurry memory here), wich make me proud when I read your post because it make my typing look good in comparison. "

Alas poor eyesight these days is a big problem.

Nah, I'm not a teacher or an academic. I'm a management consultant mostly working in satellite communications. I've done a bit of teaching in universities in the past, though.

170. Pastor Michael Guglielmucci spun gospel of lies

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

Reply to EvidenceOnly


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

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

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

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

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

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

171. Pastor Michael Guglielmucci spun gospel of lies

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

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

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

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

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

Roger Stanyard

172. Pastor Michael Guglielmucci spun gospel of lies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Moral absolutes themselves inevitably lead to evil.

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

175. No credit for creationism

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

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

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

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

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

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education

176. No credit for creationism

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

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

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

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

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

177. No credit for creationism

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

Jesus886 comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When did it occur?

How can we observe this process in action today?

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

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

(Sits and waits forever for a reply.)

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It stinks to high heavens.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mitch-486:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Running to consumer magazines is an amateur's approach.

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

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

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

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

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


Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education

187. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

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

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

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

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

If it all sounds sordid, it is.

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

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

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

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

Smiling Atheist,

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

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

The man is utterly bonkers.

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

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

189. No credit for creationism

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

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

So, I'll ask you again:

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

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

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

When were these design changes made?

How can we see this process in action today?

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

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

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

(Shrugs and waits forever.)

190. No credit for creationism

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

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

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

191. No credit for creationism

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

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

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

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

Let us know how they did it.

And in what species they did it.

Tell us when they did it.

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

I'm all ears!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am not making this all up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

194. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

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

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

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

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

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

Moreover abiogenesis is a different subject matter altogether,

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

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

195. The rebellion of the child-brides

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roger Stanyard

British Centre for Science Education.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Never underestimate just how stupid creationists are.

198. Call to teach biblical creation as science

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education

199. Call to teach biblical creation as science

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

Some more details on Storey taken from his DUP bio:

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

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

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

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

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

Roger Stanyard

British Centre for Science Education

200. Call to teach biblical creation as science

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

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

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

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education.