When caught...

Previous parts in this investigation: one, two, three, four, five, six. (Please also support my appeal for education in a very deprived part of Kenya in Africa).

The Story So Far...

The purpose of "BCSE Revealed" is to document the reality behind the fraudulent group presenting itself to the public and law-makers as a credible authority on science education.

In the last month, we've had a great opportunity to show how this group works, as it launched its latest attempt to discredit "BCSE Revealed". As in previous attempts (e.g. here), this attempt didn't consist of producing any evidence that you can examine to show that any of my reports have been false. As before (e.g. here), the attempt basically consisted in sending a whole load of un-documented accusations and abuse my way, and hoping that somehow some of it would stick.

This latest attempt consisted of: 1) asserting that my report that Roger Stanyard, the BCSE's de facto leader, had fallen out with the BCSE and walked out, was false and then 2) heaping on the insults about what an appalling liar I was.

The wheels fell off this attempt rather badly, though, when I revealed some of the conversations of the BCSE leaders which demonstrated that I was telling the truth, and that the same BCSE leaders were indulging in a cynical, planned attempt to smear me based on allegations they knew were absolutely false.

And that is primary evidence for the "BCSE Revealed"'s investigations.

When Caught... Run and Bluff!

How would a credible body of scientists or educators respond to being caught out so spectacularly? I think heads would have to roll and groveling apologies might have to be made. However, I showed that a majority of the BCSE leadership were complicit in this deception, making any kind of repentance particularly hard; if those heads rolled, the BCSE would end.

So, what happened? Did Ian Lowe, who wrote that those who were caught lying and didn't apologise showed themselves to be very small men indeed, when caught lying, apologise? Did Michael Brass, who had such fine words to say about how you should never listen to a proven liar, resign when he was proved to be a liar? Did Roger Stanyard, who after making up with the BCSE went along with its "he didn't walk away - he merely had Internet access problems" story, retract and apologise for misleading the BCSE's supporters?

Nope. Two things happened. Firstly, the BCSE silently removed the page that contained all of the various statements that I proved to be outright and known falsehoods, locking it with a password (http://community.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t=1116):

Before: A page full of insults, innuendos and downright slanders.



After: Gone, gone, gone...

We've seen this before: when the BCSE are caught with their trousers down, they don't apologise, they don't explain; they simply delete the evidence, and pretend that nothing happened. See here for more of that. Not really the way to convince anyone of your credibility, and a real disaster if you want to take the moral high ground and issue allegations that everyone who questions Darwinism is a despicable rogue.

Secondly, the BCSE published a new policy, spoken through the lips of Ian Lowe, which they summarise in these words:

"Posts which contain links to, or material from, this blog will be removed by the forum admin team New Topics posted about Anderson, or his Blog will similarly be removed."

http://community.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t=1184

Lowe was careful to lock the post; a previous response to "BCSE Revealed" went a bit wrong when the responders started calling the BCSE's bluff, the response to which drew out more demonstrable falsehoods from the BCSE in trying to defend their position - which were later silently deleted (see here).

We wonder if Mr. Lowe has any sense of irony after such a sequence of events as this:

• Lowe, Brass and their fellow BCSE committee members, unsolicited, launch a thread and e-mail campaign to refute "BCSE Revealed", and to slander me.
  
  
• I then document that Lowe, Brass, etc., telling falsehoods, but that they were of the most cynical kind.
  
  
• When caught in this way, the BCSE committee then silently delete the material...
  
  
• .. and post a statement to express their displeasure that BCSE forum participants were talking about me. Well, duh.
  

Maybe Mr. Lowe is suffering from an advanced form of schizophrenia. One of his personalities launches campaigns to discredit me, and the other issues policies that BCSE members shouldn't talk about me? We do wonder just who Lowe's request to not talk about me was aimed at...

Lowe then went on to direct his readers to a website run by a BCSE member, some kind of copy-cat blog whose purpose is ostensibly to "reveal" the appalling truths about me. The individual in question e-mailed me privately some months ago, posing as an observer wanting a conversation about Christianity, evolution and a whole manner of other topics; but when the conversation didn't go as he was hoping, he then revealed that he was a BCSE member, and would, without permission, be posting from my e-mails in public - and did so, rather dishonestly representing them as if they were the answer to the question "what would David like to see taught in state school science lessons?".

The page is a bit puzzling from two points of view. From one, it doesn't actually contain any revelations - beyond the fact that I'm a Christian who thinks that other people should become Christians too. Well, blow me down! If this would-be reported had bothered to examine the very first post on this blog and my Blogger profile, or the church website which distributes my sermons, leaflets, etc., he could have been spared the effort needed to make this sensational expose or the bizarre conclusion that I'm trying to hide my beliefs and am therefore a "hypocrite". Even readers of "BCSE Revealed" alone will find plenty of explicitly Christian material (e.g. here).

The second point is that the page then forwards the argument that as a Christian, my beliefs make my opinions on science and/or education invalid. Now, I know that the blogger, and the majority of the BCSE do believe that the point of science is to completely replace religion. However the BCSE's official position is meant to be that religion and science are perfectly compatible and that they have no anti-Christian prejudice. To promote a site which explicitly argues that unless you're a philosophical materialist then you don't understand the basis of science is a bit off-message! That's precisely the kind of revealing anti-religious statement that "BCSE Revealed" exists to unmask - so, a bit strange for the BCSE to actually commend such a page when it's so at odds when his purported purpose. Maybe Mr. Lowe was suffering from schizophrenia again, and forgot whether he was wearing his "I operate the Scottish Atheist Council - all religion is evil" hat, or his "I work for the BCSE - we have no religious bias" one...

Summing it up

The BCSE has embraced moral nihilism. Its homepage boldly proclaims that the "BCSE believes in ... Righteousness"; but the reality is that this statement is not there to describe the reality but to substitute for it. When caught in the most execrable acts, instead of apologising (whether to me or to the members of their forum who they willingly deceived), they simply delete the evidence, announce a new policy, and pretend that nothing happened. Talk about me; be proved to have completely lied; then announce a convenient new policy that the BCSE doesn't talk about me!

It's cynical, it's ugly, and it's the fast track to empty yourselves of any membership except those who are ready to embrace moral nihilism themselves - those who believe that "the cause" of Darwinism is so important, that it justifies whatever indulgence in lying, slander, deceit, etc., that you care to partake in. Clearly if Charlie's theory is in such a mess that it needs this kind of help from its supporters, things aren't looking too good.

The BCSE: all we can say is, "yuk".

David Anderson



Non-anonymous factual corrections welcomed by e-mail. Comments are moderated - please read my comments policy.

A plug - raising money for education in Africa

If you've come here looking for documentation on the real identities, (lack of) credentials and fraudulent activities of the "British Centre for Science Education", scroll down. This post is a commercial break!

Later this year I'm hoping to run my first marathon, and raise money to fund teachers and schools in a very under-developed part of Kenya (no electricity or water, terrible roads). A little money in that particular place will go a long way. Investing in children's education is one of the most effective to help people in places like these. Can you help?

I'm digging for water. I'd rather go to school!

I have a website up with more information (including dozens of photos), and can take debit/credit card donations securely, and re-claim gift-aid to boost the value of UK gifts by 28%. Please consider donating what you can, and passing on this link to anyone and everyone you know who has an interest in Kenya, development and/or education. Link me from your blog, pass it on to e-mail lists, mention it on your website, print it out - whatever you can. My goal is to raise £10,000; we have 3 months - let's go for it!

http://david.dw-perspective.org.uk/marathon

Please educate us! Go here!

David Anderson

A recommendation, and a few odds and ends

Here are some words of encouragement for me from "Intelligent Design and Evolution Behind the Scenes" - a new blog which describes itself like so: "This blog is about Intelligent Design, and deals with the ID-Evolution Controversy seeking to expose and correct misrepresentations that exist in the increasingly politicized discipline of science."

BCSE REVEALED

The BCSE is a very interesting lobby group. Unlike the NCSE, the BCSE is rather forward about its intentions, copying off of the American NCSE, or national center of science education (aka national center for selling evolution). The NCSE and BCSE do not really live up to their names. From the title, one would expect something more substantial than simply a group which argues against creationists. Some have even gone as far as to accuse them of false advertising as this self-proclaimed "National Center" for "Science Education" has nothing at all to do with science except writing apologetics articles for the theory of Evolution and seeks political action against people who question the theory... nothing more.

The BCSE is pretty much the same, although they have been much less successful. A renagade weblog called the BCSE REVEALED has done irrevocable damage to this lobby group, and torn through the BCSE like a shredder shreds paper. My favorite part of his site, where the BCSE members are caught in blatent dishonesty.

Most of the real contributors have now left the BCSE, and Dave has pointed out a sharp decline in posting among other things that point to its end. I was going to go over there and stirr up some mischief myself, but then I realized I would probably do best to simply ignore them. There are enough battles to fight, so that's all for them.

http://ownzor-pwnzor.blogspot.com/2007/05/bcse-revealed.html

I agree with my anonymous encourager's conclusion. From my observations, I'd say that going into the BCSE forum for a debate is probably slightly less productive than throwing opening your local's door at closing time and shouting "Who wants some?"... with the difference that the BCSE's output is apparently all vomited forth whilst perfectly sober.

Moving Swiftly On...

Secondly, here's a website with some good resources: http://atheistdelusion.net/. If you're looking for a treasury of articles, books and audio refuting the distortions perpetrated against science by Professor Richard Dawkins in the cause of his atheist religion, and his many schoolboy errors in philosophy and religion, then this is a solid resource.

Finally, I've recently joined the gang blog at http://intelligent-sequences.blogspot.com/. The guys over there have forgotten more biology than I ever learned, but I hope I'm adding something to the mix; I've begun with some analysis of the arguments commonly used on the Internet in the "Intelligent Design" debate:

• Introduction
• Is "God of the gaps" always a fallacious argument?...
• What is the "Fine Tuning" argument?

Until Next Time!

This Sunday, all being well, I'll be carrying on preaching the series in the book of Acts, the recordings of which you can find here. Or from an atheist point of view, I'll be carrying on doing whatever the chemical reactions inside my brain require me to do, as all our molecules continue to bounce aimlessly and meaninglessly together down the corridor of time. Have a good new week!


David Anderson

Documenting the depths of BCSE cynicism (continued)

Previous parts in this investigation: one, two, three, four, five.

In the last post from Ian Lowe (containing the words "he resigned" in regard of Stanyard) which we covered in the last installment, Tim Hague then posted on a different subject, regarding plans for re-organising the BCSE. Hague began as follows. This was still on the 13th of June:

Tim Hague: As I'm not going to be there tomorrow I had a 'brain dump' of various things that could be discussed.

Roles and Responsibilities I like the idea of one (or two) people having 'overall responsibility' for a particular facet or area of BCSE. Some suggestions for areas we could be concentrating on:

Hague then proceeded to list ten areas: overall management, public relations, tech support, forum admin, research, liaison, events, publications, online publications, "SJS campaign".

A very revealing comment is then made by Hague:

Because we have more areas than people, some people will need to wear two hats (I suggest we limit it to a maximum of two each).

In other words, "BCSE Revealed" has been spot-on in its argument that the figures show the BCSE as having failed to recruit beyond the boundaries of its committee. Hague lists ten areas, and then says that there are "more areas than people". I can count more than ten people (but not too many more), so I think Hague means those who would be ready to put in serious hours of work for the BCSE's cause. Remember that when I posted that the BCSE was in serious decline, BCSE chairman Michael Brass posted a statement to the BCSE's public discussion group to say the following (emphasis mine):

Contrary to Anderson's latest crapola, Roger is a member of the BCSE committee. The only thing in freefall is Anderson's overactive tendency to leap in head first.

http://community.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=10440#10440

Brass knew he was telling untruths in his various claims that Stanyard hadn't left the BCSE - we've documented that many times over. Now, from Hague's comments, we've also shown that the BCSE's public and private statements about the health of its membership are in conflict. According to Hague, ten areas of activity will outnumber the supply of people to work in them. If that's a healthy organisation....

Back to the point

The next comment in the discussion was a reply to Ian Lowe. It was from Paula Thomas, BCSE committee member:

Paula Thomas: I wouldn't really be concerned here Ian. How much audience does Anderson actually have other than committed creationists and a few people like you and me? As I've said before he's a distraction.

I think we can use Roger's removal of himself from the frontpage positively after all isn't he writing a book? Maybe he needs time to concentrate on that...

Paua [sic]

I think that Paula would be surprised by my visitor statistics, but my guess would be that she's probably right in that I also think they generally include people at the opposite polarities in the Darwinism discussion. I'd also tend to agree with Paula that there's no real reason for Lowe to have been so concerned about whether I knew that Stanyard had walked out or not. My concern has always been to document the BCSE's gross dishonesty and lack of credentials, rather than their falling out with each other. What Lowe has done, though, by deciding to try to cover up Stanyard's walk-out and use it as a base to slander me and offer no apology or retraction when caught, has been to turn it into exactly the kind of material that I am interested in documenting.

I wouldn't agree with Paula, though, that "BCSE Revealed" is just a distraction. The fact is, we live in a moral universe. Human beings are hard-wired with consciences, and cannot simply cynically disregard truth without it taking its toll and gaining a bad reputation amongst those who know them - a fact which Christians such as myself have always pointed to as a God-given evidence of an ultimate day of judgment: we have a witness inside ourselves already. The facts that "BCSE Revealed" have been showing have been immensely damaging to the BCSE, and will continue to be so. When you switch off your conscience and decide to simply ignore inconvenient truths, you go down the road of moral nihilism and disaster.

Notice, then, what Thomas suggests: more deception. She suggests that the BCSE, in order to cover up their fall-out with Stanyard, make the false claim that he had had left to be able to spend more time on a book that he is apparently writing: "I think we can use Roger's removal of himself from the frontpage positively after all isn't he writing a book? Maybe he needs time to concentrate on that...".

There is one significant further data-point in the discussion: Michael Brass added a comment. His comment wasn't related to the issue of the deception campaign, but was agreeing with something else said later on by Paula Thomas. The significance, though, is that it shows that Brass read and knew the contents of this discussion: further evidence, added to what we already have, to show Brass's dishonesty. Brass knew that Stanyard had resigned and that my story that he had done so was accurate.



Summing it up

We now know that the individuals listed below:

• Knew that Stanyard had resigned and deleted mentions of himself from the BCSE's website, and then
  
  
• Took part in discussions planning the BCSE's slander campaign to discredit me, when it believed that I wouldn't have the evidence to prove that Stanyard's departure had taken place. This included allegations about being a proven liar, that I abuse my wife, that I'm impossible to work with, lazy, with no sense of morality, unable to apologise for wrong-doing, a control freak, a fragile ego, etc. etc.

Some of these individuals took part in the public smear campaign; others merely were involved in discussion of it, and chose to keep silent when it went ahead despite knowing that it was a pack of lies:

• Michael Brass, BCSE chairman
  
  
• Roger Stanyard, BCSE founder, spokesman, researcher
  
  
• Ian Lowe, BCSE committee member
  
  
• Brian Jordan, BCSE committee member
  
  
• Chris Hyland, PhD candidate at Leeds University and BCSE member (and one of the leadership of "Science, Just Science", the group in the process of merging into the BCSE)
  
  
• Tim Hague, BCSE member (and one of the leadership of "Science, Just Science").
  
  
• Paula Thomas, BCSE committee member
  
  
• James Rocks, BCSE member (and leader of "Science, Just Science").
  

I believe that that number, eight, accounts for a majority of those actively involved in the BCSE. It includes five of the seven BCSE committee.

What we've documented here is simply this: the BCSE is rotten to the core. It carries out planned campaigns of lies and slander of the nastiest kind, simply hoping that those who listen to it won't know enough to know what it's doing. This rottenness pervades the whole organisation. The chances of reform or apology are slim, because it's not just the odd renegade doing it: it's from top to bottom.

There is one more interesting comment in the thread I've been documenting above; it's from James Rocks. He says that it might be a good idea to delete some of the content of the "Science, Just Science" forums, and gives the following as one of his reasons:

James Rocks: Of course some material here should be deleted and never referred to again (such as the behind the scenes stuff we did on line and discussions arising from it) ... no one mentioned it last night as far as I know (well done) but if Roger and Brian knew about it they might just be a wee bit annoyed.

David Anderson



SJS/the BCSE have moved to delete some of the above material from the web - a copy is available from me for you to verify the accuracy of the quotations - just e-mail.

Non-anonymous factual corrections welcomed by e-mail. Comments are moderated - please read my comments policy.

Documenting the depths of BCSE cynicism

In the last two posts, I have been providing some evidence of the depths to which the BCSE's leadership have been willing to go in the last month to forward their propaganda ends.

Go here to read the unfolding story: one, two, three, four. In short: lying and slander, on a big and deeply cynical scale, with the involvement of a very significant number of the BCSE's core leaders.

Today I carry on with providing that documentation. In previous installments I have showed extracts of various BCSE members, including Ian Lowe, Chris Hyland and Tim Hague, discussing how to manage the fall-out from Stanyard's resignation. Here, I continue on that theme. We pick up just after the point we left off in the post "Red-handed: They lied and lied and lied". This is just after Ian Lowe had written a paragraph which contained clear statements that Stanyard had walked out, removed himself from a BCSE mailing list and various web pages - all contrary to Lowe's public claims that no such walk-out had happened and that I was a dreadful liar for saying any such thing. Here's what comes next. This is on the 13th of June.

Tim Hague: I think someone - probably not you Ian! - should send Roger an email and ask him what he's up to. I'm thinking that his wiki priveliges [sic] should be revoked as well.

I think it's worth putting him back there as well, at least until we've got past Thursday and are ready to annouce [sic] this merger...

Hague is referring in the last sentence to the combination of the BCSE with a second similar group, "Science Just Science", which as yet we've said little about. Notice that Hague suggests contacting Stanyard to see what's going on, and suggests revoking his (BCSE) website editing privileges in the mean-time - presumably in case Stanyard makes any more changes that will reveal what's been going on. (Remember that it is the website changes that I first highlighted as evidence of Stanyard's departure - and which Michael Brass, BCSE chairman, was particularly hasty to e-mail me about to tell me that I was making it all up, in one e-mail telling me the following: "Unfortunately for you, looking at the history of modifications of any page on the wiki will not give you a true reflection of anything.")


Notice that Hague suggested putting Stanyard's name back on the web-page in the meantime - presumably so that the outside world would not be able to detect what was going on.

Hague then put forward a different option:

Tim Hague: Another option is to remove everyone and leave a message that 'big changes are on the way'!

This suggestion of Hague's is close to what happened; they removed the names of the whole committee. This has left the BCSE in the strange position of having a website proclaiming themselves as authorities on science education but not even supplying a single name of those alleged authorities so that anyone can verify (or not!). It's put them back to where they were before "BCSE Revealed" exposed their identities and lack of credentials and forced them to put statements on the website about themselves: being virtually anonymous. (one, two - and then see some of the rampant exaggeration of credentials we exposed in one of those descriptions: one, two, three, four).

Chris Hyland then chipped in with a comment, responding to Hague's first suggestion:

Chris Hyland: Please nothing like that until after tomorrow. We really need to start with a clean slate as it were.

What was to happen "tomorrow" was apparently a meeting of some of the BCSE / SJS members to discuss the way forward.

The next post is much more significant; from Ian Lowe, as follows:

Ian Lowe: Actually, I misread the logs.. damn time zones :| It was actually edited on Monday night, 10 O'clock, so pretty much when he resigned. Which pretty much guarantees that nappy boy has seen it. Probably a good idea to change the page to remove all of us though. I'll do that just now.

For some reason, the BCSE's website is run a few hours out from BST. Lowe says that Stanyard edited the website on Monday evening, which would be Monday the 11th of June. Notice what Lowe says in that connection: "pretty much when he [i.e. Stanyard] resigned".

"Nappy boy" is apparently me; when the BCSE was trying to "dig dirt" on me, it discovered that my wife has a small business selling washable nappies; my guess is that "nappy boy" refers to that. That the BCSE is the kind of organisation which takes part in this kind of operation against those who dare to question its credentials speaks volumes...

Lowe then goes on to agree with Hague's latter suggestion: that the whole committee be deleted from the page, to hide the fact that only Stanyard's name was missing. If the BCSE later tries to claim that this step was taken as a precursor to a re-organisation, or relaunch, etc., you'll know better. It was taken to hide the fact of Stanyard's resignation.

At this point, let me remind you of Lowe's words after I first began publishing, without the proofs yet (as I was waiting to see the BCSE's response), that Stanyard had resigned:

"Watch him now - he has stated that Roger has left, simply on the basis of a change to the website, when it is simply not true. Roger had a problem with his ISP for a week or so, and we changed the email address to make sure that people could still contact us. Roger remains part of the BCSE committee. Anderson will blow and huff and puff, but he won't apologise and correct his mistake. That's the measure of the man."


http://community.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=10461#10461

For the record, Lowe hasn't been in touch to apologise in any way; comment from me is needless, as Lowe had already in the above paragraph given us the verdict he wishes us to pass against him.

A Closer Look

Let's examine those words again:

Lowe's words: "Watch him now - he has stated that Roger has left, simply on the basis of a change to the website, when it is simply not true."

The facts "BCSE Revealed" has now exhibited, from Lowe's own words:

1. Stanyard had in fact resigned.
2. Stanyard himself changed the website because of his resignation.
3. Lowe himself then made further alterations to the website to try to cover this up.
   

Lowe's words: "Roger had a problem with his ISP for a week or so, and we changed the email address to make sure that people could still contact us."

The truth: Stanyard had walked away, and removed his own e-mail address (not Lowe) and telephone number. The "ISP problem" story was brought forward to cover up the truth.

Lowe's words: "Roger remains part of the BCSE committee. Anderson will blow and huff and puff, but he won't apologise and correct his mistake. That's the measure of the man."


The truth, from Lowe's own words: Stanyard had resigned. I was neither blowing nor huffing and don't need to apologise or correct any mistake, because I made none. My measure is that I've stood up to the BCSE's bluffing liars and bullies; none of them have apologised or made any public comment on the scandalous slander campaign they've conducted against me.

In the above report, we have also exhibited more data showing Hyland and Hague's deep involvement in the campaign of slander and deception. They knew exactly what was going on, and took part in the planning of it. This will be worth noting for if and when the BCSE do announce a new committee: "BCSE Revealed" will be watching closely to see just how many on it have been proven to be part of this particularly depraved episode in their history. If the BCSE wants its spokesmen and representatives to be taken seriously, these are another two individuals who have a big job in front of them to explain just why anyone should do so. Another two individuals for whom "BCSE Revealed" is racking up a documented record of public deception.

The material above was available at this link: http://www.justscience.org.uk/wiki/..._parentId=2129 - the BCSE moved swiftly to delete it. As ever, I have a copy available for anyone who wishes to verify the accuracy of the material - just e-mail.

David Anderson


Non-anonymous factual corrections welcomed by e-mail. Comments are moderated - please read my comments policy.

... and then they lied some more.

My plan in the next few posts is to start demonstrating just how badly the BCSE has lied in its recent campaign against "BCSE Revealed". If you're just picking this story up, the earlier parts are here: one, two, three.

Basically, the story is this: "BCSE Revealed" began running a story that Roger Stanyard had fallen out with the rest of the BCSE committee, and walked out. The BCSE then made attempts at reconciliation - which, after a fortnight or so, were successful. As I posted this story, the BCSE committee, in particular Ian Lowe, Michael Brass, Stanyard him and Brian Jordan, decided that they didn't think I'd have the evidence to prove it: so they used the opportunity to rubbish me and the accuracy of "BCSE Revealed" in some particularly insulting ways. However, it turned out that I did have the evidence. As I've begun showing this evidence, the above named BCSE leaders have been exposed as telling the most astonishingly bare-faced lies.

Before I showed the evidence, the BCSE leaders were running away with a theme of "this set of lies from Anderson is so appalling - let us pyschoanalyze just how he could do this". Lowe started offering the BCSE forum readers his diagnosis - apparently I'm lazy, abuse my wife, and have a pathological inability to work with others - and then he condemned me in advance for not apologising.

So, Lowe appears to know that heinous misdeeds ought to, when exposed, be followed by an apology. The lack of any such apology (whether from Lowe or any others of the BCSE leaders who jumped in with the premature insults) simply gives us more data to go on when we're trying to evaluate if the BCSE are bona fide science educators, or liars and hypocrites. As yet Lowe has been strangely silent in offering us a pyschoanalysis of just why he has such problems in handling truth...

Here's More Of The Evidence

In fact, the fact that Stanyard had walked out on the BCSE was not only known by the BCSE committee. The below quotations are part of a discussion by Chris Hyland and Tim Hague, two BCSE members. They're discussing it over on the website of "Science, Just Science", which is presently in the process of merging into the BCSE. (As the two groups are very similar and have a considerable overlap in membership, I've considered this something of a non-event, so am not saying much about it at the present). I don't believe Mr. Hague's name has come up on "BCSE Revealed" before; you may remember Hyland from his involvement in the events when the BCSE began telling MPs that "Truth in Science" were distributing material "full of scientific errors" before the BCSE knew the contents of the material... (see here).

On the 19th of June, Hyland asked the following question:

Chris Hyland: "Roger no longer appears to be a user on this site, can we find out when he deleted himself. I've had a quick look through the admin pages with no luck. Any idea Tim?"

Notice that Hyland appears to know that Roger had been responsible for removing himself from the SJS forum - back in mid June. This contradicts the story spun by the BCSE that Lowe temporarily removed Roger because Roger was having problems with his ISP.

What was Hague's reply?

Tim Hague (2oth June): I deleted him at his request last week.

Note that - the reason why Stanyard wasn't posting on the SJS forum wasn't because he had Internet problems - it was actually because he asked the forum administrator to delete his account. He was leaving permanently. What happened?

Chris Hyland: When last week?

Tim Hague: Ian appears to have removed Roger's 'I quit' messages from the forum. It was just after Roger announced that he was going to quit, I've no idea exactly which day or time that was.

Notice that: Stanyard quit, and told everyone so. Hague doesn't know exactly when it was, because Ian (Lowe) removed the dated "I quit" messages which Stanyard had posted. This is presumably from the BCSE forum rather than the SJS one, as that is the form that Lowe is the administrator of (Hague is the administrator of the SJS one). So here we have the following facts:

• Roger quit, and posted "I quit" messages to announce it. Stanyard's endorsement of Lowe's "Roger hasn't been around for a while because he had ISP problems" upon his reconciliation and return was a massive lie.
  
  
  http://community.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=10517#10517
  
  http://community.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=10480#10480
  
  
  
• Lowe actually removed Stanyard's "I quit" messages. From the beginning, Lowe went into panic mode and tried to cover up what had happened. (I don't know why... the fall-out is evidence of childishness, but hardly more than that; "BCSE Revealed" cares about the BCSE's deceptions; its childishness is small beer). His campaign of lies and insults against "BCSE Revealed" is the continuation of a policy he decided on immediately. Remember again Lowe's words when he thought he would be able to get away with this:
  
  "Watch him now - he has stated that Roger has left, simply on the basis of a change to the website, when it is simply not true. Roger had a problem with his ISP for a week or so, and we changed the email address to make sure that people could still contact us. Roger remains part of the BCSE committee. Anderson will blow and huff and puff, but he won't apologise and correct his mistake. That's the measure of the man."
  http://community.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=10461#10461
  
  How many lies and slanders is that? Not just one or two. Well, rather than making our own comment, we'll leave Lowe facing his own verdict; does he agree with himself? Apparently, someone who behaves like this and then fails to apologise is a very small person indeed. Apparently, we should "watch him now" to see what his measure is.
  
  
  
• Stanyard's quitting was well-known. It was announced publicly by Stanyard, seen by members of the forum, and known by those outside of the committee. None of those individuals, though, stepped in when the BCSE began its campaign of lies and slanders against "BCSE Revealed"; some of them kept silent, some joined in. Hyland and Hague were complicit. If they have evidence otherwise of e-mails and forum posts in which they tried to persuade Lowe/Brass/Jordan/Stanyard not to go down the path they did, then I'd be more than willing to reproduce them in order to clear their reputations.
  
  

This is a disaster for the BCSE: its public representatives have been caught telling the most cynical and bare-faced of untruths and running a nasty slander campaign based on statements it knew were baseless. Who, knowing this, is going to believe any of their future pronouncements? The only people who are going to accord credibility to the BCSE in future are those who have made their minds up, evidence or not. The BCSE has the choice either to get rid of its committee and start over - which will be very hard to do because it is now such a small organisation that its committee are almost a majority of active members - or to cynically bet that it will be able to carry on with nobody noticing, hoping people aren't going to find out what kind of individuals those behind it are.

The BCSE's website alleges that one of the major issues in the Darwinism debate is that those who opposed Darwinism are systematic and cynical liars. Well, on this one I can't make the common criticism I've been making over the months... this time, the BCSE really do appear to be talking within their field of expertise.

You can find the web page with the posts extracted above at: http://www.justscience.org.uk/...omments_parentId=2159
You'll have to rush, though: the BCSE's response to these revelations so far has been to remove such evidence within minutes... whilst leaving all the lies and slanders against me up for you to read. Go figure what that tells you about how they operate! As ever, I have copies to supply to researchers - just e-mail me.

David Anderson



Non-anonymous factual corrections welcomed by e-mail. Comments are moderated - please read my comments policy.