201. The Evangelical Rebellion

Comment #105557 by Roger Stanyard on January 1, 2008 at 1:19 am

Shrommer,

Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter were brought up in the Southern Baptist Convention movement before it fell into the hands of fundamentalist extermists in the 1980s.

Moreover, there are an awful lot of people who think that evangelists meddling in African or Indian culture, are bloody dangerous do-gooder incompetants and cause far more harm than good. How many people have died in Africa because the evangelists argue for abstinence rather tha contraception? As if someone else's sex life is their business.

202. The Evangelical Rebellion

Comment #105555 by Roger Stanyard on January 1, 2008 at 1:11 am

Shrommer: "Fundamentalist poltics and fundamentalist theology are not the same thing. The title of the article should be "the dominionist rebellion" instead of "the evangelical rebellion." Hedges has every right and in my opinion should be speaking out against the dangerous political movement he is
aware of. What he should not be doing is trying to lumo those politics together with evangelical Christianity as if they were any type of cause-effect relationship."

That is exatly what Hedges has demonstrated - that evengelical chrsitianity is the God Father of fundamentalist religion in the USA, as well as the extreme Religious Right. There are many evangelicals who accept neither; unfortunatly, it appears, most do. Evangelism in the USA is thoroughly and dangerously politicised.

203. The Evangelical Rebellion

Comment #105554 by Roger Stanyard on January 1, 2008 at 1:06 am

Shrommer,

Ahmanson has left the Anglican Church, after having spent years trying to destroy it.

204. The Evangelical Rebellion

Comment #105553 by Roger Stanyard on January 1, 2008 at 1:05 am

You're avoid. the issues Shrommer. It's Protestant evangelism that is dangerous because it is wholly the parent of the ugly sisters of Dominionism, Dispensationalism and Creationism. It's that way because of the acceptance of the flaky theology of Sola Scriptura, the Protestant foundation. Mopreover, there are an aweful lot of Christians whoo are not evangelical and, rightly, are deeply concerned about its flaws.

Again you confuse your religious beliefs with Christianity at large. The majority of Christians are deeply uneasy with Evangelism. Nor is Billy Graham particularly well respected amongst them. Born Again Christian is a deeply suspect term.

205. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105283 by Roger Stanyard on December 31, 2007 at 4:33 am

Has anyone notice that Wooter has been posting his same old crapola elsewhere in the RD forums and that:

1. He has totally ingore what everone has pointed out to him.

2. Has failed to answer any questions.

3. Has failed to tell anyone what his scientifc explanation why they are the differences between species is.

4. Continues to repeat himself endlessly.

5. Fails to recognises that he has made a complete idiot of himself and religion.

It's all par for the course with fundies.

As I keep saying, the average cretinist is two sandwiches short of a picnic.

So, um, why don't yoy try and show to the world otherwise by telling us what is the scientufic theory of creationism and how can it be tested with the scientific method?

[Answer to everyone: he won't 'cause he can't.)

206. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105275 by Roger Stanyard on December 31, 2007 at 4:17 am

Thanks Wooter for demonstrating to the word yet again that the average creationists is utterly clueless about what the theory of evolution by natural selection actually says.

So, pray tell us all, how a pile of dirt can be turned into a human being instantaneously and how can we observe that process in action today.

No wonder the cretinists keep losing in the courts in the USA. Every time their crapola is faced with scrutiny, they fall flat on their faces.

How about showing us your science, Wooter. I bet you can't!

So I'll ask you again:

What is the scientifc theory of creationism and how can it be tested with the scientific method?

For nearly 50 years the creationists have been telling everyone including the courts that creation science is justified on science alone. So, um, show us your science. Or are the fundies, yet again, lying?

Never heard of the ninth commamdment, then Wooter?

207. Monkey, Business

Comment #105084 by Roger Stanyard on December 30, 2007 at 2:21 pm

Notsoband: "Evolutionary biology supports laissez-faire .. some people here are going to have a hard time accepting this one."

Up to a point, Lord Copper. Pragmatism in the face of evidence might be a better policy option that ideology. You've only got to look at Th American mobile phone system or its terrestrial television to see you can do better than blind laissez faire.

208. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #105075 by Roger Stanyard on December 30, 2007 at 2:07 pm

Epeeist: "I agree that for the majority of people involved in IT something like Information Theory isn't necessary. However, isn't it the mark of someone who is well educated that they actually are aware of things outside the requirements of their daily life?"

I'm still surpised that people in programming don't have a basic knowledge of what information is. Surely thy learn something about this in A level applied maths, for example. I'm not a mahematician nor an engneer no am I in IT and nor have I done anything but the minimal amount of programming but I come across Shannon information theory all the time. We are talking about stuff that involves mass market consumer goods and huge swaths of the economy - TV, mobile phones, Internet, radio, PCs....How do these people explain what happens when you unpack a bit of software? Do they never even bother reading theior trade literature?

Roger







Having discussed religion (and a variety of other topics) both with people on this site and elsewhere it fills me with despair that large numbers of them don't seem to realise that there is rather more to life than getting up, going to work, coming home, watching TV and going to bed (I know this is a caricature, but I think most people will see where I mean).

209. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #105067 by Roger Stanyard on December 30, 2007 at 1:50 pm

Scottishgeologist:

"Gonna have to disagree with you here, mate. I think there are some YECs who are VERY intelligent. The best example I can think of off hand is Kurt Wise."

"Dawkins himself has referred to him on this site as an "honest creationist"

Yes, but he also described him as a "sad case". Yep, I have no doubt that some of the leaders are very clever in their own right; others are not. Ham and his ex-colleague John Mackay, for example, were not professional geologists. They were school teachers, contributing nothing in the way of original research and despite running ministries, neither have any theological qualifications. Al large proportion of the tiny number of academics or ex-academics in the UK who are involved in the creationist movement have undistinguished careers.

"A lot of the evangie types I know are actually highly qualified, some of whom are undoubtedly YECs. That Ken Ham tour of Scotland a few months ago took in a LOT of the types of churches that these otherwise intelligent people go to - I am talking hospital consultants, accountants, doctors, middle managers, people like that."

It is sad if this is the case but I suspect that most evangelicals with that sort of professional status do not accept creationism. As far as I can make out, it is often pretty common for a pastor to hold YEC views whilst much of his congregation don't or are pretty indifferent to it.

As one of them told me some time back, the matter is not really very important in many evangelical circles. Much more emphasis is placed on religious experience rather than knowing anything about theology. It is simply not an intellectual exercise.

Somewhere I recall that Ham's tour of Scotland this year was no big success – AiG would have pumped it up but I recall that we had some private feedback which suggested a pretty piss-poor turn-out.

"OK, some of them wont be YEC, but I know several who swallow it all."

"In fact, I honestly think that the toughest nut to crack is the middle class, well heeled SUV driving, suburb living type evangie. The so called "successful" churches in this country are full of this type of person. And they are absoultely sure that they have got it right."

(I've got a real problem here as I am simply not as knowledgable about Scotland as I should be. My comments therefore probably apply mostly to England and Wales – dodgy Sassanachs if you like). Most "middle class, well heeled SUV driving suburb living types" of my generation aren't even university graduates, let alone members of recognised professions. Only 11% of my generation went to university (including Polytechnics, OU, etc..) and I suspect most of them can't afford SUVs! I also suspect that most of the "middle classes" who would be creationists are very much Mr and Mrs Average of that group – Daily and Sunday Mail readers rather than Grauniad/Times/Torygraph/Scotsman/FT/Economist/New Scientist readers.

You can pretty well see that in the attitude of those newspapers towards creationism. They are all basically indifferent or hostile with the exception of the Mail which is sympathetic. All these newspapers have their fingers on the pulse in understanding what their readers understand, believe or will accept.

Nevertheless, I may well be wrong about this. My doubts centre on the younger types – 20s-30s – who I don't have much contact with these days.

Perhaps you are right but all denominations in the UK bar one continue to see their congregations fall. The exception is the Pentecostals but half of them are black churches and half in London so they don't reflect the country at large. Sadly black people tend a bit too frequently to be the have-nots. Moreover, as far as I can make out, many Pentecostal churches are simply not creationist. Even the white evangelical congregations are falling (although a lot less fast than many mainstream denominations/movements).

I have to say, though, that it does appear that many of the creationist Anglican churches have much bigger congregations than typical in the CofE. I'd hazard at a guess that this is probably one of the biggest problems we face because it means they can hold to ransom the rest of the Anglican church. In contrast, a lot (almost certainly most) of the other creationist churches I've identified are independent so lack influence in other churches.

So far, I've only identified four large churches in the UK that are creationist and three are inner city – Kensington Temple (Elim Pentecostal), Hillsong (AoG Pentecostal) and Jesmond Parish Church (Anglican). The fourth is the Crescent Church (Brethren) in Belfast. Hillsong seems to be heavily focused on ex-pat Australians, Kiwis and South Africans in their late teens and twenties. KT looks to be a mixture of yuppies and black people, amongst others. Jesmond is heavily dominated by students. The Crescent used to be (it's near the university in Belfast) but from what I can make out, it now has a declining congregation.

For what it is worth, I've identified some 760 creationist churches in Britain; there may be as many as five times this (there are about 45,000 churches in Britain). The vast majority are absolutely tiny, not surprisingly as the average congregation size of an individual church in England and Wales is only 54. The four big churches listed above have typical Sunday congregations in excess of 600. According to the last English Church Census (2005, IIRC), only 6% of the population attended a church service on the Sunday when the survey took place. A comparable figure for the USA would probably be between 15-20%. (Americans grossly over-exaggerate their tendency to go to church.)

210. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105003 by Roger Stanyard on December 30, 2007 at 10:14 am

The huge Rafael186 post is just a cross between spam and trolling. What the author appears to have done is cut and past together a hold load of drivel from different sources.

It appears that much of it was written around 1936.

Moreover, parts of it display an absolutely idiotic knowledge of the world -for example, where he suggests that Jews and Muslims have been fighting over Israel/Palestine for thousands of years.

Best to ignore it all unless he starts on the same game again. I suspect that the person behind it is someone in their early teens.







(one, apparently dating back to 1936) and suggest it is his own work.

The whole lot is incoherent drivel

211. The Evangelical Rebellion

Comment #104987 by Roger Stanyard on December 30, 2007 at 9:27 am

"The way I see it, it's precisely because we Americans have Christian foundations that we uphold separation of church and state."

So what? England has Christian foundations that run far deeper and longer into history than the USA but we still have an established church. Before you get onto your high horses, the UK does not have an established church. The reasons for and against an established church are far more complex than you suggest.

This seems to be Thomas Jefferson's understanding in his famous letter to a Baptist Association in 1802 in which he immortalized the phrase "Separation of Church and State". Human free will, open communication, and powers of reason are held sacred by the Christian God to an extent that no other religion demonstrates.

Living in a part of the world with some 1,900 years of Christianity, all I can say is that it did everything it could to do the opposite – just as the fundamentalists are now doing in the USA. It made damn sure for over a 1,000 years it had a complete monopoly on belief, reason and education and only reluctantly gave it up after a civil war that left, perhaps, a fifth of the population dead. And even then, it took a further two hundred years to remove its monopoly power on education. You demonstrate a wilful ignorance of the history of Christianity.

Our Creator gives us the inalienable rights of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So why are the American fundamentalists and many evangelicals hell bent on destroying the separation of church and state? Why is the evangelical movement politicised to its very core?

"Spreading the Gospel depends on love, truth, and respect, not on the authoritarian coercion typical of modern theocracies."

So what? There are no Christian theocracies in the world although Hedges warns that one country is going that way – the USA. Hedges knows all about Christianity, btw, because he holds an MA in theology, is a Christian himself and, as a war correspondent, has seen how it is used to kill and impose on other people.

What do you think the Falange is in the Lebanon? It's a Christian fascist militia organisation. Who do you think did the bulk of the killings in Bosnia-Herzegovina? Orthodox Yugoslavians and Catholic Yugoslavians.

"Jesus said that his way is narrow with few who find it, so Christians expect the evil tendency for any majority-imposed religion to be contrary to God. This includes religions which go by Christian labels."

Strange, I could have sworn the dominionists in the USA argue exactly the opposite. Rousas Rushdoony claimed that anyone who disagreed with his religious fundamentalism should be stoned to death. So, er, what are the dispensationalists doing meddling in Israel if it is not to make Christianity the dominant, if not the only, religion? Why are they trying to, and knowingly, facilitate genocide of the Jews?

Regarding holidays (holy days), the Bible (Romans 14:5-6) praises diversity of personal convictions and opposes demands for conformity. It is not each nation which is supposed to make the conscientious decision to celebrate or not, but rather each individual.

Strange, isn't it, that evangelicals seem so willing to keep Sunday as a day of rest for everyone because of their religious opinions and ensure that the politicians back them. Strange, isn't it, that one of the major lobbying organisations in the UK turns out to be the fundamentalist and creationist Lord's Day Observance Society.

"This statement is the most ridiculous and alarmist thing I've ever read about the Christian movement in America: "Labor unions, civil rights laws and public schools will be abolished. Women will be removed from the work force to stay at home, and all those deemed insufficiently Christian will be denied citizenship." Nothing could be further from the heart of Christianity."

There is nothing ridiculous about it all. The evangelicals in the USA are highly politicised and make up the Religious Right. They openly support a right-wing and conservative political party, the Republicans. Vast numbers of them eject state education for religious reasons; the Southern Baptist Convention was close to voting to ask all its members to pull their children from state schools – a move that would have led to the collapse of public education in many areas. The Republican Party which they back is hostile towards trade unions – it's the Democrats, who they despise as liberals, who have had a power base in the unions. Focus on the Family is a Christian organisation. I've seen statement after statement from fundamentalists claiming that people who are not religious have no right to be American citizens. It goes right to the top. George Bush senior has made the same comment about atheists. Teachers live in fear about teaching sound biology. Why is it that the Religious Right so hate the ACLU?

Hedges is absolutely spot on to conclude that the Christian Right in the USA is fascist and conducting a war on America. If you start dabbling with unsound and flaky theology such as Sola Scriptura and evangelism, then the problem is are very likely to occur – especially in the USA with its long history of distinctly dubious religious movements (Mormons, Scientologists, JWs, to name a few).

I really do think you need to take a hard look at just what much of Christianity consists of in the USA. It looks as if about 30 million Americans belong to the Religious Right – that's one in ten of the population. Your biggest protestant church, the southern Baptist Church, fell into the hands of extremists in the 1980s. Your country is riddled with creationism which many Christians believe is nothing more than heresy. Many Christians (and others) see your leading fundamentalist pastors as money and power seeking autocratic charlatans – see the track records to Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Tim LaHaye, Rick Scarborough, John Hagee, Ted Haggard, Kent Hovind, Mike Huckabee, James Dobson, Paul Crouch, Benny Hinn….

I don't live in the USA but from my part of the world, I've concluded that the West faces a double-barrelled attack on its foundations in the Hellenistic world and the age of enlightenment (the foundations of the only system that works, liberal democracy) – from American Christian fundamentalists and Muslim fundamentalists, They are one and the same beast.

So, before you start preaching again, I do suggest that you stop trying to treat people in this forum as fools and do some considered research of your own. I don't have any problems with mainstream Christianity but fundamentalism has now become a dangerous menace which has little resemblance to what I was brought up to understand is Christianity. Stop trying to whitewash fundamentalism it or pretend it does not exists. If you don't, you bring the whole of religion into disrepute.

Right now religion has a serious problem on its hands because of extremism in its elements. The Zeitgeist in the West (including, big time, the USA) is turning against religion because of fundamentalism and its politicisation. It is mainstream religion that is loosing out on this battle and it is about time, for its own good, that the bulk of religion turns against the extremism rather than pretending it's not a problem or wishfully thinking that the fundamentalists are doing a good job because they are spreading the message of the gospel.

212. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #104970 by Roger Stanyard on December 30, 2007 at 7:41 am

Steve Zara,

"However, I do find creationists who wish to debate their beliefs rarely having any understanding of so-called "Creation Science" rather bizarre."

For years Answers in Genesis has had a section telling creationists what arguments not to use yet they still gone on using them and ignore anyone commenting that they are using material that even the creationist oprganisations are saying is crapola.

The same happens when they claim that because they are creationists they don't believe evolution has ever happended and you point out that all the "creation scientists" claim micro-evolution happens. It gets even worse with Intelligent Design when you have to tell them Michael Behe belives in macro-evolution and the evolution of hominids from ape ancestors.

I've seen the nutters claim that creationism shows men everywhere in the world to be genetically predisposed towards being attracted to white (and just white) women in red high-heeled shoes (eyes roll).

213. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #104938 by Roger Stanyard on December 30, 2007 at 4:52 am

Shrommer,

Thanks for the preaching but you are talking out of your backside.

""If you claim that genocide is evil, I will examine the evidence which supports your claim; if you have no evidence, I will not accept that what you say is true and I will think you a foolish and gullible person for believing it so.""

"This is the problem with Dawkins' approach to truth. It has no philosophical basis for condemning Stalin or Hitler or any action as evil. You can't do a DNA test on a genocide and see the evil gene."

No-one has ever claimed that to be the case. You're fantasising.

"It's fine to question God and examine the historical evidence for the resurrection and other miracles. That's why so many people are becoming Christians today, precisely because they've done that serious rational search and criticism! "

Bad news, Shrommer! Belief in religion is on the decline throughout the Western World. Eve in the USA it is declining. It's been declining in Western Europe since at least the middle of the 19th century and probably earlier.

"Others pursue the same matters and come to different conclusions. The unexamined life is not worth living, and the unexamined belief is not worth believing."

So? It statement is ludicrous – you're claiming that people who don't accept your opinions on religion have lives not worth living? Pity then for all the Chinese and Japanese who haven't noticed. They must all be lying through their back teeth.

"The Bible prescribes the death penalty for every sinner."

It's not much of a religion then. If a child steals a packet of sweets he/she deserves to be strung up from the nearest lamppost,

"His holy commandments are found in the Bible, but He is not commanding us to do everything we read about in the Bible."

Strange, isn't it, that Sola Scriptura says otherwise, especially as interpreted by the fundamentalists in the USA who have what they claim is an absolute unquestioning literalist interpretation.

"He is teaching us how helpless we are to live up to His standards. There came a point in history when the death penalty we all deserved was put upon one man who was representative of the entire human race. That is the story the Bible tells."

Nice religion you have there Strommer – everyone deserves to be strung up from the nearest lamppost. Sounds like Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union and Pol Pot's Cambodia were liberal and tolerant places by your moral standards.

"When Christians don't stone the homosexual today, it's not because we've become less serious about the sin or the penalty, but rather because we know that Jesus took the death penalty on himself in place of that homosexual."

Hum, that's not what Rousas Rushdoony, Gary North and the Dominionist movement say. They call for the stoning to death of gays (as well as people that don't accept their fundamentalist, evangelical Christianity.) Let's have a look at the other "sins" the Dominionists claim we should be stonnd to death for: Having pre-marital sex (women only, there Shrommer so maybe there's a chance you can gt away with it and gloat as your partner who you made love to dies an appalling death. Perhaps you'd like to join in the stoning), apostacy, being lippy to your parents, criticising Dominionist religion….

"Christ put the sin to his own record, and then he took the punishment for it, so that the homosexual can be forgiven, set free, and have Jesus' righteousness attributed to his record for free, as an act of grace."

Except what gay people do in privacy isn't your or anyone else's business. If they don't break the law they are not doing anything wrong and don't need "forgiveness". Honest, decent gays are every bit as moral as non-gays. Or is your religion homophobic?

Thanks for lecturing to the world about Grace. Pity you don't have the honesty to point out that it doesn't require a belief in grace to be a Christian.

"There is an exchange of records. The sinner's record becomes Jesus', and the record of the perfect Messiah becomes ours as a free gift. We can go to heaven because of Jesus' righteous acts and sinlessness. If it were up to us alone, we would all be going to hell based on what we've done."

Except that most religious people simply do not accept the crap you are putting forward here as absolutely fact. What's more, you know it.

"All have sinned and fall short of God's standard. It is not a question of degree, but of 1 or 0, on or off, perfect or imperfect."

So, you're judge, jury and executioner who sees sin everywhere and knows exactly who should get their "just rewards"?

"We are all made imperfect because of our inheritance from Adam."

So you're a fundamentalist? Um, that is why religion is now getting such a bad name. Let's see what you mean. If Joe Bloggs down the road robs a bank, everybody deserves to go to prison unless they accept your personal religious beliefs. Adam did something that God didn't approve of and everyone therefore deserves to get it. Not much of a morality is it Shrommer? Especially when nobody with any wits believes Adam ever existed and that the who Genesis story is an allegorical myth out of "pagan" Mesopotamia.

"We are all made perfect because of our inheritance from Jesus Christ."

So everyone who existed up until, I dunno, 33 AD were not made perfect and everyone after that was? That's a strange peace of fantasising, Shrommer.

"If you don't want to be with this loving God for all eternity, all you have to do is reject your inheritance from Christ and stick with what you inherited from Adam."

Sounds like a choice of being either a heroin addict with as many fixes as I like or one without the fixes. Pity then for all those evil Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and anyone else who doesn't have the same religious opinions as Shrommer. Nice to hear that his is a member of an exclusive sect.

"No DNA test will reveal that someone has received new life from Christ, just like no DNA test will reveal that the Holocaust was evil."

So? No-one has ever claimed such a banality. Sounds like you are a fantasist who believes that nobody except Christians can me moral. So, presumably you think all Hindus, Buddhists, Taoist, Indians, Chinese, Muslims, Japanese, Jews and anyone who doesn't accept the facile nonsense you have presented are all totally immoral, ignorant morons.

I dunno about the others in this forum, but my attitude towards religion is basically easy-going. It is what people feel comfortable with, then so be it. However, I begin to get on edge when the term evangelical comes up, suspicious when it is Baptist and alarmed when the terms Bible-believing, creationist, dominionist, dispensationalist or fundamentalist comes up. They are basically ideologies and al ideologies are dangerous. They are on a par with extreme nationalism, fascism, Trotskyism, Lenninism, Maoism… They are all birds of a feather.

"Do a cost/benefit analysis. Try it out from your own personal experience. Ask God, "If you exist, please reveal yourself to me", and let God do the rest."

Shrommer – cost/benefit analysis is a quantitative economic tool intended to take into account economic externalities (both positive and negative) which the price mechanism can't. It is intended to more efficiently allocate, according to economic welfare maximisation principles (Pareto criteria, basically), scarce economic resources. It has nothing to do with religious belief and can't be applied to it. Unless, or course, you are in believer in the Christian Economics of Gary North and think that everyone who disagrees with you should be stoned to death.

Or are you just here to preach, save souls and talk out of your posterior orifice?

214. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #104654 by Roger Stanyard on December 29, 2007 at 4:39 am

Annabanana

I accept that you are right about the Bible Belt but my own research and first hand experience makes me very cautious in saying that creationists are a typical cross section of the socio-economic spectrum, either in the USA or in the UK. Indeed, Chris Hedges in American Fascists argues that fundamentalists are distinctly not – they are the people who have lost out on the American dream, mostly through poor education and the disappearance of well-paid semi-skilled jobs.

I've done a lot of research (so far unpublished) on the issue in the UK and it clearly shows that creationism is most prevalent amongst five groups/sects – Baptists, Independent evangelical churches (read Bible believing), Plymouth Brethren, Pentecostal and the evangelical wing of the Church of England. The first four have traditionally be churches of the working classes and lower middle classes. People with a bit of money and education traditionally belonged to the Anglican church or the Church of Scotland.

Moreover, perhaps the most creationist church, the Free Presbyterian Church is overwhelmingly a product of the working classes and lower middle classes. My understanding of the Pentecostal movement in the USA is that it, too, has its roots as a working class movement, of the have nots if you like.

Whilst many creationists clearly don't fit into this rather dated and crude schematic, I'm hard pushed to identify creationist leaders in the UK who have a broad liberal education. Where they have got to the top of the education system, it usually involves pretty vocational qualifications such as engineering.

My own educational background is not exactly stellar but after having "debated" creationism with numerous fundamentalists on the Internet, I am astonished at just how ignorant they are of not only science, but their own "creation science" and religion in general. It seems that none of them have ever even read popular science books. I suspect that few have read the Bible or know what the ten commandments are. (They all appear to have severe problems with the ninth.) It's like dealing with a black and white world – anything that supports their opinion is "right" and everything and everyone else is wrong. The attitude goes well beyond just creationism and extends to history, geography, politics, economics, etc..

They never ever seem able to answer any questions. I can only put it down to ignorance. One I was "debating" with earlier this week claims to be a computer programmer but couldn't tell anyone what he thought information was. Good grief, this is a man working in information technology with all its bytes and bits. He appears to have been utterly unaware of Shannon information theory and what distinguishes it from raw data and meaning.

In my book, all this is a strong indicator of relatively low levels of educational achievement amongst creationists.

Moreover, I also have to say that many of the leaders of the creationist movement are distinctly odd. Many of them behave and sound like autocrats and semi-tyrants. It doesn't take long to put together a list of such leaders. Ian Paisley in Northern Ireland and Monty White, head of Answers in Genesis UK, spring immediately to mind on this side of the pond. One that I have been dealing with seems to have Asperger's Syndrome. John Mackay looks to be clearly in need of psychiatric help. He's openly paranoid and is clearly a pretty nasty piece of work was well (see the story of Margaret Buchanan). The creationist organisation Truth in Science has openly advertised in a national newspaper that it intends to expose as "charlatans" those that disagree with its opinions. It's headed by an academic, Andy McIntosh so presumably he intends to publicly label his own students and fellow academics at Leeds University as charlatans if they disagree with him. This is not the mindset of a decent broad liberal education. (Having seen is CV, I question the extent to which he has one despite holding a DSc.)

So, I stick to my general conclusions that creationists are not the brightest or the best educated. The whole fundamentalist shooting match is crude, openly populist and down market. Just under the surface of any society, there is a deep well of sinister ignorance and prejudice. Newspapers and politicians have been exploiting it for eons. Fundamentalist pastors and pseudo-pastors know the game just as well. It is a mark of a good education that one rises above it.

215. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #104318 by Roger Stanyard on December 28, 2007 at 10:19 am

Double bass Atheist:

I've "debated" online creationism with dozens of creationists. In generally few of them are particularly bright or weel eductated. My impression is that in the USA it is esentially a poor white/redneck movement. At best the creationists may be technicians.

The striking hink about them is just how ignorat they are even of their "creation science". They are usually prettu clueles about religion as well. They all think they are experts on science. Yet they seem unable to understand when they are made utter fools of. None of them ever answer any questions on science you put to them.

For the most part their idea od debating is top tell you that they are Christians, endless repeated themselves and preach. Most of them seem to think that debating is about saving souls. Most, if not all, of them appear utterly unable to stand loss of face.

Even when you show them up to be completly idiotic they still repeat themselves.

It's bit different with those that lead the cretinists and IDiots. They usually do have a good education but all too often they believe they are experts in areas of science where they are, in practice, no better (or even less) qualified than the average person in the street. Andy McIntosh of Truth in Science is a classic example.

Some of them also appear to be complete screwballs - John Mackay readily spring to mind. Ideed, in general, I've come to the conclusion that most of them are nuts in some way or other.

The worse case I have seen is one who looks to have Asperger's Syndrome. He's more than obssesive.

All of them, though, demonstrate that their position is built, out of necessity, on systematic, endemic and repeated lying, evasiveness, shiftyness and deception. The martyrdom and persecution complexes govern everything they say. It is not a pretty sight to behold.

BTW, they all think they are Christians and represent all of Christianity and that everyone who disagrees with them is an atheist. They are not. Almost without exception the creationists are Protestant, Calvinistic evangelicals of some sort. Most Christians are simply not young earth creationists or IDers.

The creationists also often lie about their denominations by claiming that are members of non-denominational or "Bible-believing" churches. Those are just euphemisms. As often as not they mean Baptist or Pentecostal.

216. Top Ten Stories of 2007

Comment #103921 by Roger Stanyard on December 27, 2007 at 10:20 am

Scottishgeologist:

"Wonder what bunnies he'll pull out of his hat for 2008?"

You mean out of his arse, don't you?

217. The Pagan Christ

Comment #103696 by Roger Stanyard on December 26, 2007 at 2:15 pm

Krisking,

Dawkins has not used the theory of evolution to disprove the existance of God and doesn't claim to. He's used the full swath of science and a lot else to suggest the existance of an Abrahamic God (and any other supoernatural intelligence) is highly improbable.

Science does not about proof of anything. If you don't understand that simple statement, then you are utterly out of your depth. All science is tentative, aiming to be the best explantion based on available evidence.

Any half decent degree in any subject teaches the same basis. There are no absolutes proofs except in mathematics.

Unfortunately for you, the theory of evolution by natural selection neither proves or disproves the existance of a supernatural being or beings. Nor can it. What it does do is seriously undermine and discredit a literal Protestant (as distinct from Christian) interpretation of the Bible.

But I think you can't grasp that most Christians accept the theory and creation scientists and their apologists do not represent Christianity.

Creationism is a freak show largely originating with the extremes of Calvinistic evangelical fundamentalism. Most Christians think creationists are bonkers.

Perhaos you might want to read up a bit on what other Christians think about biblical literalism. Start with St Augustine who in 404 AD wrote that Bibical literalism, when applied to science, would make Christians look stupid (plus ca change) - or, of recent, Ken Miller who made a complete fool of creationists in the Dover trial. Or Francis Collins. Both the latter two are very senior scientists and practising Christians.

But, then, I think you are so utterly blinkered that you think the world is divided into creationist fundamentalist Cristians and atheists.

218. The Pagan Christ

Comment #103678 by Roger Stanyard on December 26, 2007 at 1:48 pm

krisking -

"Can you post some photos of the billions of fossils in your back garden."

Don't need too. Just look at a photo of the White Cliffs of Dover. Its basically made of the same material. Chalk.

Never heard of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, then Krisking? Or Lysenko? This is kids stuff you pick up with a general education up until the age of 18.

Humm, you do have a knack of demonstrating your utter ignorance.

219. The Pagan Christ

Comment #103620 by Roger Stanyard on December 26, 2007 at 10:13 am

Well it does look as if Krisking is a fundamentalist troll. tell us all Krisking, which theory of evolution are you talking about?

Or, like most fundamentalists aren't you aware of any science?

What the heck has atheism got to do with evolution? Science doesn't give a flying fig about atheism, or religion. It doesn't give a stuff whether you, or me, or anyone else, is a Hindu, Muslim, evangelical, follower of Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Jewish, American, Chinse, Buddhist, British, a supporter of Manchester United Football Club, agnostic, atheist, believer in astrology, Santa Claus or fairies at the bottom of the garden....

If you think that there is precious little evidence for evolution apart from a few bones glued together, then you demonstrate yet again that the average creationist is a pig-ignorant moron and fuckwit.

Why don't you, er, go to a public library (that's the place where they have books, if you weren't aware) and ask for a standard biology or geology textbook.

You might also learn that most "fossils" are not "glued" together. Why don't you show us all that you are not a fuckwit by telling us:

1, What a fossil is.

2. What are the most common types of fossils.

3. How you think the oil industry uses fossils.

I'll give you a clue. I can dig up billions of fossils in a few minutes in my back garden.

220. The Pagan Christ

Comment #103590 by Roger Stanyard on December 26, 2007 at 8:42 am

Krisking,

Are you another American fundamentalist who belives there are only two sorts of human beings - Christian Republicans and atheist communists?

221. Man and God

Comment #103526 by Roger Stanyard on December 26, 2007 at 6:08 am

Paula et al,

I've always used my own name when posting to forums but would advise others to be careful in doing so.

My postings to richarddawkins.net have been stalked by a fuckwit fundamentalist pastor who has used them on a blog to personally attack me as part of a string of ad hominem and maliciously libelous statements. He ludicrously suggests (and, apparently, believes) that he has become a public figure for doing so.

It's the same pastor that sent Richard Dawkins a "birthday card" telling him to repent because he'll soon have to meet his maker.

I've gotten thick skin about it but can guarantee that the attacks can be very distressing. Indeed, the idiot even tried to get the local police to investigate my "nefarious" activities in criticising cerationists. (The cops totally ignored him, btw. As far as I can make out they think he is totally barking.)

Where it was of particular concern is that the idiot claimed that I had lied about my qualifications because I had described my 1st degree as a joint honours as well as a BSc in economics. For what it is worth, it was a joint honours degree but the Uiversity of London has strict rules as to what goes on the degree certificate. That means one subject only.

It's distressing because, for example, it also suggests that I (and everyone else who did the same course) have lied to numerous companies and organisations for the last 32 years in obtaining contracts and jobs. As far as I am aware, I believe lying about one's qualifications is a criminal offence. It is not pleasant to have a religious bigot screaming on the Internet that I am a criminal. It is also not very good for one's income/job/business/family, either.

Fortunately the fuckwit appears to have recently lost his job and is living abroad without a work permit, I'm delighted to tell everyone here. ;-)

Roger Stanyard

222. Taking children for a ride

Comment #103200 by Roger Stanyard on December 24, 2007 at 1:17 pm

Yep, I don't think anyone in Britain should now be laughing at the USA. We have, in Britain, a politicl party whose leaders are creationist religious fundamentalists and who have spent four decades helping wreck their part of the world. It's the democratic Unionist Party in Northern Ireland. The fundamentalists in Northern Ireland are evry big as extreme, if not more so, than their American counterparts. They are also exceedingly well organised - that's why they hold power in NI. They've been organising the Orange Order as a creationist movement.

Moreover, thanks partly to the efforts of the British Centre for Science Education th creationists on the mainland of the UK are unwilling to show their faces. My guess is that is this is the reason why the husband and wife team behind the plan for Wigan won't disclose who is backing them.

As soon as they reveal their faces, it is usually dead easy to show that they are extremists and/or bonkers. As we have found out with Northern Ireland.

223. Disquiet over schools' moment of silence

Comment #103056 by Roger Stanyard on December 24, 2007 at 9:03 am

FightingFalcon,

If I were an American Christian I would still take issue with the insistance on 15 seconds' or one minute's silence in state schools.

The Religious Right (read fundamentalists) detests what they believe is compromise and I suspect that the compulosry silence is just part of a larger agenda for them to get total control over education and use it for their own ends.

We've already seen this time and time again with trying to get creationism into schools. We have known for years that Intelligent Design is an utterly fraudulent scam to do so and even then, the real motive is to socially re-engineer America as a fundamentalist Christian state. The evidence is in the Wedge document.

I've long concluded that fundamentalists systematically, habitually and repeatedly lie, deceive and cheat out of necessity. It is the only way their position is sustainable.

My personal view is that I don't have a quarrel with mainstream religion - it's with fundamentalist and creationists. I don't see them as proper Christians. They are basically members of exclusive cult movements - much the same as scientologists, moonies or whatever.

Yep, it is there that I believe the real danger of religion is and, for what it is worth, and am very happy to work with the mainstream religious in exposing fundamentalists for what they are - dangerous ideological extremists on a par with facists, hard-line Trotskyites, Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, They are all birds of a feather.

It's not just that they are for the most part creationists; they are also dispensationalists and dominionist. Their aim is theocracy and a war in the Middle East.

What do the Americans in this group think about the periods of sielce in schools? Do they think it is just a front for the rampant extremism in religion in the USA today?

224. Bible bashing dying out in Kansas

Comment #102658 by Roger Stanyard on December 23, 2007 at 11:25 am

It needs an encyclopedia of English English to understand the British use of the term "piss": Here are a few examples:

Piss = urine

Piss (as in to have a piss) = urinate/slash/point Percy at the porcelain/Dennis at the Doulton/splash one's boots)

Pissed = blotto, tired and emotional, Brahms and List, pissed as a newt, pie-eyed, legless

Pissed up = drunk

Pissed as a newt = seriously drunk

Pissed as a parrot = seriously drunk

Pissed as a fart –seriously drunk

Gnat's piss = weak, lousy beer

Tom cat's piss = what lousy peer tastes like

Piss head = a drunk/boozer

Piss-artist = comedian who likes his/her beer

Piss artist's paradise = University of Portsmouth

Piss-poor = damn dreadful

piss poor protoplasm = idiot

Piss down = to rain heavily

Piss up = a drinking session (as distinct from "I wouldn't piss up his arse if his kidneys were on fire.")

Piss up in a brewery = what idiots can't organise

Taking the piss = making fun of

Taking a piss = urinating

Pisser = loo/bogs/khazi

pisser = willie

Real pisser = bummer/bad news

Pissed off = annoyed

Piss off = go away/go stuff your head up a dead bear's bum

Piss some one off = annoy them

Piss it all up against the wall = waste one's money

Pissing in the wind = wasting one's time/effort

Scare the living piss out of = frighten

Pissing along = going fast

Piss-ant = worthless

Piston broke = drunk and out of money

225. Bible bashing dying out in Kansas

Comment #102337 by Roger Stanyard on December 22, 2007 at 12:03 pm

The BBC report does not surprise me at all. The Zeitgeist appears to be turning against the American fudamentalists and it is all of their own making. Once they had becoe utterly politicised and right wing, it was inevitable that much of America would begin to turn against them.

They are basically relics from the past fighting a lost cause. They made utter fools of themselves at the Kansas Kangaroo Court in 2005, the US press turned against them and the rest of the USA increasingly perceived Kansas as peopled by a bunch of redneck, dimwitted hayseeds.

There are a lot of people in Kansas, rightly, don't like such public relations and are consequntly questionig just what the fundamentalists are.

Well, the fundamentalists now have another big problem. The powers that be in the Republican party basically think they are bonkers and increasingly an electorial liability. Moreover, the Republicans look set to take a massive bashing in next year's presidential election and could be out of the Oval Office for years.

Yet the grass roots fundamentalists are so dim that they don't seem to grasp that their (increasingly) favourite candidate for President, Mike Huckabee, is, himself, a massive potential liability for the Republicans. He hasn't a cat in hell's chance of ever being elected President.

My bet is that the Republicans will have to ditch their bogus religiosity and turn back into being a party of political pragmatism. Otherwise, as The Economist has pointed out, the party will no longer be a national party but one of the Bible Belt and Deep South and out of office for ever.

226. Synthetic DNA on the Brink of Yielding New Life Forms

Comment #101985 by Roger Stanyard on December 21, 2007 at 10:48 am

Rainbow, so what is your alternative explanation of abiogenesis?

As far as I am aware nobody is claiming that we all evolved from a single cell way back; the nearest approximation seems to suggest that life started over widely disparate geographc areas and was far from just chance. It was inevitable given the physical environment of the time.

But that still raises the issue of the alternative explanations. The pure creationist drivel has a seriously daft explanation, that mankinded was created from a pile of dirt pretty well instaneously and the rest of life was created pretty well instantaneously from nothing at all. What is the probability of that happening?

Or there is the deceit of Intelligent Design. Pray tell us all in this explanation who was the designer, what evidence there is for whatever you claim the designer to be, when did it go about whatever it was supposed to have done, how did it go about it and how can we see that process in operation today?

227. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #101867 by Roger Stanyard on December 21, 2007 at 3:47 am

yet again Wooter trolls out Answers in Genesis fundamentalist crapola and starts screaming by typing in upper case.

As I've said, he has no basic knopwledge of science and is here to preach; a with all fundamentalists this involves endless repeating himself using utter banalities and not listening to any replies.

So then, Wooter, which scientists claim the human (or any other eye) is prefectly designed? Or have you not bothered to have looked up the endless statements which show you are talking out of your backside?

In fact you are so dim you don't even realise that the theory of evolution does not say that evolution is by random chance.

You're even stupid enough to believe that the human body is prefectly working.

You're even daft enough to believe that nature works in "perfect harmony".

It never fails to stagger me that every time a fundamentalist opens his/her mouth, they display such utter ignorance and make complete fools of themselves. This guy hasn't even grasped the basics of science you pick up in education up to the age of 16.

SO. I'll ask you yet again: What is the scientific theory fo creationism that explains the differences between species and which can be tested by the scientific method?

Better still, why don't you make a complete fool of yourself again and tells us, in your own words, what a theory is?



[Twiddles thumbs and waits for ever.]

228. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #101225 by Roger Stanyard on December 20, 2007 at 5:41 am

What on earth is this banality: "Almost anywhere can be found features of being that show the universe to be basically friendly to life, mind, personality, and values."

There is no evidence whatsoever that all but one planet out of the billions that presumably exist in the universe supports life. The evidence dramtically and repeatedly, so far, points exactly in the opposit direction - that the universe is exceedingly hostile to life. Unless, of course, you believe little green men live on Mars and are all fundamentalist Christians.

Why is it fundies are so unutterably stupid?

229. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #101221 by Roger Stanyard on December 20, 2007 at 5:31 am

Alas, Wooter can hadly string a sentence together.

It's the same old game with creationists. Few of them have even a simple understanding of what "creation science" and even less about even GCSE standard science. When it comes to religion, they are incapable of judgement.

The game is always the same:

1. They enter a discussion forum with some ludicrous claim.

2. They fail to reply to any responses.

3. They change the subject, claiming they don't have any time.

4. They start on the martyrdom complex.

5. They move off in a huff.

They are usually around for no more than five days.

Of course, their real reason for being in the foum is to preach and save souls.

Of course, everyone else knows that they are pig-ignorantly stupid, as Wooter so visibly demonstrates.

So, Wooter, tell us all what the scientific theory of creatonism is and how it can be tested using the scientific method? Or can't you?

[Twiddles thumbs and waits for ever.]

Roger Stanyard





1.

230. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99536 by Roger Stanyard on December 17, 2007 at 2:37 am

The Wigan theme park plan involved public money which gives everyone in the UK the right to object to it. AH Trust is looking for public sector grants for its plans.

Moreover it is registered with the Charity Commission but at the same time is offering a competitive commercial rate of return for investing in the project. That means it looks to be in serious breach of Charity Commission rules - it is eiher a charity or a commercial operation and as it is heavily promoting its ability to generate profits and hand them out to investors, it is not, as far as I can make out, a charity.

Methinks that people in this group need to write to the Charity Commission (and to their MPs and European MPs) to complain. You may also want to write to HM Revenue and Customs.

231. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99343 by Roger Stanyard on December 16, 2007 at 11:26 am

LeroiJones,

Could you let us know which school it is that is teaching creationism/ID to small children? The national press would love to know. Enail me off site if need be.

This is exactly the way we should be fighting the creationists/IDers rather than being just a lot of people on te Internet talking to each other.

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education (www.bcseweb.org.uk). My email is rogerATdttconsulting.fsnet.co.uk

232. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99340 by Roger Stanyard on December 16, 2007 at 11:21 am

Well, some of the people at BCSE have dug aound a bit this afternoon and come up with some background on Jones. He's a genuine programme producer and literary agent and knows the ins and outs of financing programmes, it appears.

However, I'll comment on Scott's points about the likes of Falwell, Hagard and Robertson. They may be bonkers when it comes to religion but I would never ever under-estimate both their business and organisational accumen. Robertson is reported to be personally worth up to US$1 billion.

This is one of the reasons why fundamentalists are so dangerous. They are damn good at what they do when it comes to money, politics, power and influence. Never under-estimate one's enemy.

233. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99323 by Roger Stanyard on December 16, 2007 at 10:12 am

We'd like to know who is behind this theme park. As far as we can make out, it looks to be a husband and wife team - Jones and hs wife. However, Jones seems to be claiming that he has business money behind it. I somehow doubt it as anyone with the slightest commercial ability would not build a touristy type park in Wigan.

With all due respect to the good denizens of the town, it has never had any reputation as a fun place to go to for a day out. Just the opposite, I'm afraid.

The serious creationists are too savvy as well. They know, nowadays, to locate where it is easiest to get to and from. That's why Answers in Genesis UK is located in Leicester and its "museum" (for want of a better word) is in Kentucky. Even andy McIntosh has let it be known he "dreams" of creating a theme park near Birmingham airport.

I checked today AH Trust's latest accounts filed with the Charity Commission and it appears to have virtually no assets or cash whatsoever.

Jones himself is unknown to us at the BCSE; he doesn't appear connected with any of the creationist groups and I am not aware of his presence in the broacasting industry (an area where I mostly work in).

About three or four years back there was another plan for such a theme park, to be based in Yorkshire. It got absolutely nowhere because there were simply nowhere near enough fundamentalists to stump up the money. Despite all their shouting, the creationist groups have very little money or income between them and have all been totally eclipsed by Answers in Genesis UK.

Quite franky, Jones looks to me to be a complete rank amateur who is well out of his depth. I could be wrong, though.

234. Creation college seeks state's OK to train teachers

Comment #99047 by Roger Stanyard on December 15, 2007 at 10:39 am

Yep, Texas looks to be the big next battleground between science and creationists.

Well, it still remains illegal to teach creationism in state schools in the USA so let's see how the Institute for Creation Research intends to go about it.

My own view is that a court case in Texas could be a very good thing indeed because it will show to the public just how utterly stupid, deceptive and dishonest creationists are. As did the Kansas Kangaroo Court and the Dover court case.

I suspect many in this group will have noticed that Bill Dembski has now, at last, admitted that the "designer" in Intelligent Design is (in his words) the Chistian God. This is after he raked in some US$20,000 for written testiminay to be put before the Dover court where his pals from the Discovery Institute claimed just the opposite.

There is not a shred of integrity in the man whatsoever.

Basically what the bigots are arguing is that all scientists who are not Bible-believing literalist fundamentalists are bogus. Fortunately science doesn't give a stuff what anyone's religious opinions are, whether they be you, me, the Pope or Richard Dawkins.

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education

235. This deadly religious resistance to vaccinations

Comment #96896 by Roger Stanyard on December 11, 2007 at 4:11 am

K1MGY,

It looks to me that vaccination is a very good substitute for basic health care for the simple reason that much of the latter is missing in vast swaths of the world, such as Africa. At best it looks likely that basic health care will not be available in many of these areas for generations. So how many more people/children will uncessarily die because of a lack of vaccination.

It's worse than that though, because measles, mumps and german measles are not caused by lack of basic health care. Without vaccination, they are endemic in countries with good basic health care. IIRC, german measles epedemics used to kill thousands of people before vaccination was available and leave a lot of others deformed. Even mumps was a significant killer.

236. This deadly religious resistance to vaccinations

Comment #96880 by Roger Stanyard on December 11, 2007 at 3:24 am

Sir David King should be congratulated for standing up to the Daily and Sunday Mail. Melanie Phillips is scientifically illiterate; her only degree is in English. The one person who will never defend the Mail's position in public is its editor(s). That is cowardice coupled to power.

Phillips, who is currently nothing more than an opinionated journalist in a powerful position, reminds me of the the term "power without responsibility, the perogative of the harlot through the ages". It is time to call her to account for the deaths of between 50-100 children resulting from her influence and scientific ignorance. Likewise with the Mail.

Roger Stanyard

237. The evolution of creationism

Comment #88009 by Roger Stanyard on November 14, 2007 at 6:09 am

Matt7895

You're quite right to point out the discrepancy in Steve Fuller's position but he uses post-modernist language so all is solved!!!

I've seen Fuller speak and have not understood his main arguments. They just sound like post-modernist rhetoric.

He also denies that his is a port-modernist but, at the same time, claims we are living in a post-Darwinist world.

What the heck does that mean?

(Send answers on a post-card to Warwick University's department of sociology, please.)

238. The evolution of creationism

Comment #87978 by Roger Stanyard on November 14, 2007 at 12:47 am

Matt7895:

I am aware of one IDer who is basically not religious. He is Steve Fuller at Warwick University and he has claimed to be an agnostic.

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education

239. The evolution of creationism

Comment #87876 by Roger Stanyard on November 13, 2007 at 1:06 pm

Freethinker25,

Do you have a website url for the museum?

Now that it has advertised that yet again Texas is a backwater, I think the world should know and contct it.

If it can't accept evolution, then it is not a museum of natural history.

240. Malaysia firm's 'Muslim car' plan

Comment #87771 by Roger Stanyard on November 13, 2007 at 4:34 am

LOL!!!

It all sounds like a British Leyland/Rover Group marketing ploy of a near-bankrupt car company trying to find new wheezes to sell their second-rate products.

Anyone got any ideas as to what an atheist's car might involve?

Or, for that matter, a Buddhist or a Jewish car?

Better still an American fundamentalist's car?

Roger Stanyard

241. Antony Flew's Bogus Book

Comment #87209 by Roger Stanyard on November 11, 2007 at 1:42 pm

I think we should all start digging around about Gary Habermas. He claims to have a DD (Doctor of Divinity) from Emmanuel College, Oxford – see http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/php/video_show_item.php?id=64

Which is fine but there is no such college in Oxford. I'm told that when this was pointed out, he dropped the claim.

See http://www.garyhabermas.com/habermas_resume.htm

Which speaks volumes about Liberty University where he teaches,

242. Church row evolves over fossil boy

Comment #86552 by Roger Stanyard on November 9, 2007 at 2:50 pm

I don't have time to research in any depth for the next few days but I think if you dig around a bit using Google you will find that Bishop Boniface Adoyo is a Pentecostal and represents only Pentecostals. You will also find American money behind his attack to the new museum.

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education

243. The Turning of an Atheist

Comment #85494 by Roger Stanyard on November 6, 2007 at 2:47 am

Strange, isn't it, that some four years after Flew attached his signatory to a 2002 letter to the government calling for a ban on the teaching of creationism in schools – see http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?article=1352 - it was attached to a letter to the government calling for the teaching of Intelligent Design (creationism in a cheap tuxedo) in schools - See Creationism gains foothold in schools by Christopher Morgan and Abul Taher, The Times, 31st December 2006, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/newspapers/sunday_times/britain/article1265412.ece?token=null&offset=12.

Truth in Science brags about the letter on its web site at http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/217/63/.

The rest of the signatories to the 2006 letter should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Talk about using old men!

Truth in Science lists the following as signatories to the 2006. Note that it claims there are 12 signatories but only 11 on the list: Antony Flew, Professor Norman Nevin, David Back, Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Liverpool; Steve Fuller, Professor of Sociology at Warwick University; Mart de Groot, Director, Retired, Armagh Astronomical Observatory; Terry Hamblin, Professor of Immunohaematology, University of Southampton; Colin Reeves, Professor of Operational Research at Coventry University and John Walton, Professor of Chemistry, St Andrews University, as well as the three University Professors who are members of the TiS Board and Council – McIntosh, Burgess and Linkens.

244. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #85475 by Roger Stanyard on November 6, 2007 at 1:37 am

What we really need is a good historian to work through the issues. If anyone has any references for books that look at the matter in the broader sense, I'd be appreciated to hear of them.

It seems to me that the fundamentalists who are arguing that belief in "Darwinism" was behind Hitler's and Stalin's attrocities is so flawed that volumes can be written about it. Their arguments are, ironically, almost exactly the same as their position on evolution – a selective picking of holes out of context rather than a considered understanding of the subject matter.

I've yet to see any of them consider whether atheism was behind Word War 1. Given that to many historians, WW2 was the last battle of WW1, there looks to be a glaring gap in their rhetoric.

It is worse than that, though, as some consider both wars to be the last battles of the thirty years war.

There are no good statistics on how many lives were lost in that war but it seems that 7.5 million is a good guesstimate. Atheism had nothing to do with it. Religion was, though, central to it. Of course, many fundamentalists will not accept this as they believe Catholics are not Christians. Let them say so (if they have the courage to do so). It is more ammunition to show them up for what they really are.

Moreover, the English Civil War was not only contemporary to the 30 years war but closely related to it. The death rate there was probably 600,000 plus and, again, religion was a key central issue. Most of the deaths appear to have taken place in Ireland.

In my personal opinion, for what it is worth, the troubles in Northern Ireland over the last 40 years are not only directly related to the England Civil War but part of that broader issue of the 30 years war – the last battle of it, if you like.

Whilst we are at it, it also seems that the Spanish Civil War with its deep pro and anti-clerical factions was just another extension of the 30 years war as Europe tried to come to terms with the position of religion in the public realm. Needless to say, the fundamentalists ignore the war in their rhetoric (too Catholic for their liking).

Steve Fuller, probably Britain's leading advocate of ID, seems to argue that he modernisation of European society from the time of the Renaissance was a direct result of it being religious. I beg to differ.

There seems to be a very strong case that the modernisation was wholly dependent on continuously reducing the power and influence of religion in political, intellectual and social life.

The intellectual underpinning of the Renaissance took place almost wholly outside of the universities in Italy – the latter were controlled by the Catholic Church. Indeed, it has been argued that the renaissance was eventually killed off by the Catholic Church through the arrest of Galileo.

Moreover, there is a pretty close correlation time-wise between the growth of Britain and its empire and the creation of the modern state through the Industrial Revolution and the pushing of religion to the sidelines after the English Civil War.

Someone with a closer knowledge of Oxford University may also want to point out that under the control of the Church of England until well into the 19th century, it was not much of a university. I suspect that is why the Scots played such a huge part in the creation and running of the British Empire and the Industrial Revolution. Out of the top of my head, I can't recall any graduate of Oxford University playing a leading role in either until the mid-19th century.

Thanks to the clergy England only had two universities until 1826 whereas Scotland had four at the time of the act of Union in 1707.

There is another area that needs to be addressed when dealing with fundamentalists. That is William Wilberforce. He is one of their heroes but on a closer look at their arguments, there is something deeply wrong. When England started its slave trade, the country was wholly religious and the Church did nothing at all to stop it for 200 hundred years. It seems that the intellectual movement against it came wholly out of the very anti-clerical French Revolution, not organised British religion.

Worse still, Wilberforce turned out to be no liberal. He was a major force in establishing the Society for the Suppression of Vice. It burned books and was hell bent on stopping the working classes understanding biology and using contraception. That looks to me an extension of the control behind slavery.

While I am at it, I must also point out that the growth in religious fundamentalism in the USA was directly an anti-reaction against the civil rights movement. In other words much of its historical underpinning is essentially racist. The same can be said about creationism.

If we are going to show the fundamentalists up for what they are, we need a good grounding in history as well as science.

The creationists have been trying to re-write science for the best part of fifty years. They are now trying to re-write history waving a Bible in their hands. Both are equally as fraudulent. It is now time for the intelligentsia to fight back on history.

A good start is Chris Hedges' book, American Fascists.

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education

245. Response to Theodore Dalrymple

Comment #85341 by Roger Stanyard on November 5, 2007 at 2:10 pm

Why should Sam Harris or anyone else take any notice of Theodore Dalrymple. He's a whinging old fart and always has been.

See: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article698981.ece

246. The Turning of an Atheist

Comment #84953 by Roger Stanyard on November 4, 2007 at 10:25 am

Varghese seems to be in the habit of manipulating old men who are losing their faculties. See the photo at http://www.thewonderoftheworld.com/Sections2-article3-page1.html.

The Intelligent Design crew look to be damn desperate as they preside over the stinking rotting corpse of their pseudo-science.

Why is it, time and time again, as soon as someone starts digging around on these people, they turn out to be so damned second rate?

247. Believe it or not, courtesy counts

Comment #84672 by Roger Stanyard on November 3, 2007 at 7:06 am

Bizarro Dawkins preaches: That article is very outdated and filled with strawmen and oversimplifications. Aig actually wrote an article called "Arguments Creationists Should Not Use" and I'm sure you'll find many of the points Gould makes in that article.

All of those arguments are old arguments that I've dealt with many times before. Since 97, with the rise of Aig, I believe most if not all of those arguments are irrelevant, and as senior bio major, I'm more than familiar with them.

While I'm not going to address each point as it would obviously take too much time to answer each one sufficiently, I would like to point out something I found to be very disturbing…"


Strange isn't it, as soon as you try and pin down a creationist on science, they start blustering and avoiding the issues.

The list of the arguments presented in the Gould site article still stands. They haven't been shown to be "wrong" by mainstream science.

I've checked through all of Bizarro's postings – far from addressing them many times over, he appears to have addressed none of them at all – not once.

The AiG reference he makes is totally irrelevant as none of them address the statements in the article on Gould.

So, under oath and in eight sequential law cases, the creationists have lost every battle and creation science has been shown to be nothing to do with science at all but is nothing more than religion.

So, pray tell us all, what is the scientific theory of creationism and how can it be tested by the scientific method? You know, the one that you can't show to the US Supreme Court or to Judge Jones despite the use of creationist "expert witnesses" and 60 years of "research".

Precisely what are these straw men and oversimplifications in the Gould article.

Precisely what is the standing of Answers in Genesis in the scientific world?

What happened to its technical journal and why?

Good grief, no wonder Liberty is ranked as a fourth tier university.

Why should anyone believe a word that its students, staff and alumni say? I hope you don't quote from the PhD thesis of Liberty's Professor Ross. The "man speaks with forked tongue", telling the world in his PhD thesis that fossils are millions of years old (to one audience, his peer group) and to the rest of the world (including his students) that they are no older than 10,000 years old.

Stunning, isn't it that every time creationists open their mouths they come over as utterlly stupid.

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education

248. Most religious people are moderate, and don't hurt anybody

Comment #82332 by Roger Stanyard on October 26, 2007 at 4:56 am

Message to Eric Blair

We at the British Centre for Science Education have done some estimates of the proportion of Christians in the UK who are fundamentalist (extremist if you like). A rough definition of extremism is that the accept Sola Scriptura as extended into all public domains. In English that means into science - creationism if you like.

On a head count of churches it is somewhere between 5% and 10% of all churches. In terms of individual believers it seems to be around 400,000 out of a regular church going population of 3.5-4 million.

However, it ain't no good asking people if they are fundamentalists. No matter how much they foam at the mouth about creationism and hell fire and brimstone, most of them will deny it.

Sadly, in any society there are a lot of authoritarian extremists. Seems to me that you only have to scratch a fundamentalist slightly and underneath they are all the same as hardline fascists, BNPers, white supremicists, Abu Hamza fans, Marxists, racists, homophobes, Trotskyites, Leninists, Maoists, Northern Ireland paramilitaries, KKKers - all birds of a feather.

They all have a 'worldview' that they want to impose on others without consent.

It is silly, though, to suggest all religious believers are of that ilk or that religion is the platform off of which extremism rides. It is like saying that communism is the natural outcome of the beliefs of people who are in the Labour Party or fascism of those in the Conservative Party. The overwhelming majority in both parties believe in liberal democracy, are pragmatic and not prone to authoritarian extremes. Same with religiou believers.

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education





done

249. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80501 by Roger Stanyard on October 22, 2007 at 2:12 am

I suspect that there is an exceedingly good case that the growth in knowledge, the development and the spread of democracy and our high standards of living are a result of the rejection of Christianity.

I dunno if there are any authoritative recent books on this issue but I suspect that the current Zeigeist calls for one.

It seems to me that the core of the renaissance was the rejection of the medieval, religious, universities at the time and the revival of the stud of non-Christian works from classical Greece.

Indeed, in the United Kingdom, the rejection of religious fundamentalism after Cromwell's death and the containment of religious belief by the Church of England (the sweet mediocrity of our native church) were the seminal events that allowed the English Age of Enlightenment, the formation of the British Empire, the development of democracy and the invention of the modern world through the industrial revolution.

Most of this was done despite Oxford and Cambridge and their control by Anglican clergy.

Much of the history of Western Europe over the last five centuries or more has centred on the curtailment of the power and influence of religion.

Indeed, the growth of the USA as an economic super-power seems to me largely to rest on the separation of church and state. Had that not occurred, I suspect that North America today would consist of a collection of Latin American style economic minnows.

Moreover, one of the big intellectual driving forces of the last couple of centuries has been liberal Judaism. Jews were surpassed for centuries by Christianity and the escape from the ghetto mentality and that Christian anti-Semitism unleashed an intellectual whirl-wind.

Methinks there is also a very strong case that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were products of Christianity. Hitchens is very good on this issue.

Moreover, the 21st century is likely to see East Asia become the dominant economic powerhouse – thanks not to Christian missionaries but to the forces of economics, reason and rationality. The very things that the Age of Enlightenment gave us the understanding of.

There is also a good case to argue that the USA has now lost the plot because of its religiosity. The place is riddled with beliefs in pseudo science such as creationism. Its politics look to be stuck in the 1930s and are far to the right of any other Western democracy.

Roger Stanyard

250. Does fundamentalist religion cause the rejection of evolution? or is it the other way around?

Comment #80275 by Roger Stanyard on October 21, 2007 at 4:36 am

Rob Brown's article looks to me to be raving bonkers.

One of the big reasons why American's frequently reject the theory of evolution is that they have no knowledge of it at all.

The theory was almost completely dropped from all high school textbooks after the 1925 Scopes trial and didn't really become available to pupils until well into the 1960s.

It seems that a third of US high schools today simply don't teach it at all and others skip over it in the most cursory way.

Add to that the position of fundamentalist pastors shoving crapola onto their congregations and you have a whole society that is woefully ignorant not just of the theory of evolution but biology in general.

Add to that the 2 million or so that are home taught for fundamentalist religious reasons and the vast number of tinpot fundamentalist "universities" that teach only creationism in biology and you probably will get a picture where only a small minority have actually be taught the theory of evolution even at a rudimentary level.
Moreover, American high schools don't generally teach geography so kids are not exposed to physical geography which makes no sense if the old age of the earth is rejected.

Basically, the widespread acceptance of creationism in the USA reflects ignorance, pure and simple.

Time and time again, I've been in online debate with creationists who display almost absolute ignorance of the level of science taught to my generation in our early teens and have even less knowledge of their own "creationist" science.

I doubt whether one in twenty knows what an allele is. Virtually none appears to understand that in science a theory means an explanation. Few of them grasp that evolution requires both mutations and selection.

I'll stick my neck out and say that over the last eighty years there has been not one iota of improvement or extension of the teaching of proper biology in American state schools. It is stuck where it was before the 1st World War.

If you ask me, Rob Brown is doing nothing more than making excuses for belief in creationism.

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education