Monday, January 01, 2007

"Wolf! Wolf!" (II)

Readers may remember that in December, the BCSE twice tried to intimidate and/or discredit me by inventing bogus legal threats against me:

  1. At one time, the BCSE website carried paragraphs including allegations such as: "We also advise readers of this wiki that Anderson is in serious breach of UK and international copyright laws in information he is offering to the public." (one, two, three).

  2. After the above allegation seriously back-fired (when the BCSE discovered that a) it was false and b) their private e-mails demonstrated that they knew it was false and c) I was documenting their own multiple and actual breaches of copyright law), the BCSE came up with a new one: that I was attempting to break into their website contrary to the "computer misuse act" and that they had received legal advice to report me to the police (one, two, three).

I called the BCSE a bunch of bluffing bullies, challenging them to take their evidence to the law if it existed. In fact, I promised to do it myself just to prove the point of how empty their threats were.

And lo and behold... few days later, the BCSE silently deleted the second allegation from their website too.

Before (notice that it's a "sticky" topic, meaning that it was permanently locked to the top of the forum so that all visitors would see it):

And now, it's gone...

How The BCSE Operate

You will be unsurprised to learn that after carrying this post with its allegations of serious criminality, the BCSE have not troubled themselves to:
  1. Send me any kind of apology for any damage done to my reputation.

  2. Put up any kind of statement on their website correcting their errors so that anyone who read the original post can now understand that the BCSE are no longer backing their own allegations.
Nope - it's just been silently deleted. Let's just pretend they never said it! Remember that the front page of the BCSE website says:
BCSE believes in ... Righteousness.
I have to say that I find BCSE-style righteousness not very palatable.

The Boy Who Cried Wolf...

The trouble with making bogus legal threats which you have no intention of standing behind should it come to the crunch, is that it damages your credibility. Once you've done it a few times, people no longer see any reason to take you seriously. (For a third case in point, see the footnote of this article). All that the BCSE have accomplished through this saga is:

  1. Far from damaging my integrity, they have established it. My words about the BCSE still stand - theirs about me have had to be deleted.

  2. They have proved my own thesis that the "research" on their website will have to be deleted once it comes under scrutiny. Or in other words, their own credibility has been damaged.

  3. They have shown themselves up as bullies - using threats with no substance behind them.

  4. They have shown themselves as too small-minded to publish any kind of apology once their smears are exposed as false.

Or in other words, the BCSE are showing the world all the features which led me to start this blog in the first place so that others could see what was going on...

David Anderson


Psiloiordinary said...

Hi David,

Please will you do a blog entry telling everyone about your own views on ID and creationism. Is science is a religion? How old is the earth? When did the dinosaurs live and die out?
On the subject of education - which subjects should be taught without inclusion of your own religious beliefs?



David Anderson said...

Reply to Mark Edon:

The purpose of this blog is not much more than to investigate the credibility of the so-called "British Centre for Science Education". (I take it that you are the same "psiloordinary" who is a BCSE member). As such, your question is off-topic. Nevertheless, I'll make an exception this time.

Science may validly be done by people of all kinds of religious persuasions, and as such I oppose the efforts of militant atheists to have non-Darwinists made into persona non grata.

However, in some areas a person's religious biases (whether atheistic or theistic) will have a considerable effect on how you they go about it. I am interested in science because of my religious persuasions. Like many of the pioneers of modern scientific disciplines (Newton, Faraday, Joule, Kelvin, Maxwell, etc.), because of my faith in a God of order and purpose, I expect science to be a fruitful endeavour as it attempts to investigate, describe and harness that order.

For answers to specific scientific questions, I recommend you follow the links in my link section. There you will find many articles written by specialists in their fields.

As for education, it depends who's being educated and who's doing the educating! I notice that you have signed the petition at showall=1 which calls for the law to require all children to be raised in a secular manner until they are 16.

Frankly I abominate the use of this kind of intolerant coercion to force your views upon others. If atheism is such a winning world-view, then it ought not to require the use of the law to win through! (I note that Richard Dawkins has now deleted his name from the petition after receiving some bad publicity about it!). The 20th century saw enough atheist and statist coercion in the realm of education (Stalin, Tsetung, Pol Pot, etc.), and I'm opposed to it. I believe that we are all answerable to God for our own children's education.

Whilst we have a state education system, though, there is always going to be some degree of compromise. I am in favour of children learning the arguments and evidence both for and against Darwinism in science lessons, and for discussing the evidence for design and intelligence in nature.

As your question is off-topic, please direct any replies to me via e-mail.