Monday, February 26, 2007

Theocracy: Giving The Game Away

When the BCSE's founders were holding their pre-launch discussions, there was one thing they kept saying. The BCSE's ultimate aim is to save the UK from the threat of a theocracy.

But no, by that they don't mean Islamic Jihadists, or the like. They mean, those people from the local evangelical church. According to the BCSE, the real reason why people disagree with naturalism in its various forms is that it's part of a master-plan to abolish democracy...

In my mind, a somewhat surreal future scene floats before me. It is the year 2156, and the month is October. The people of the UK are gathering together to mark "Roger Stanyard day". They gather round busts of the BCSE's first leader in their town squares. Speeches are given. Toasts are made. The whole country is remembering that momentous day 150 years earlier, when the BCSE launched - and saved democracy! At the time, nobody realised that freedom was under such severe threat. But happily, a few alert Internet atheists spotted the danger - and saved our country! Here in the year 2007 we may presently be remembering evangelical Christian William Wilberforce, and his efforts to abolish the slave trade. But in future years, the world will toast Mr. Roger Stanyard - rabidly anti-evangelical, the saviour of democracy!

OK. That's just a bit ridiculous. But that's the point, isn't it? If the BCSE really are the guardians of our democracy...

Where We've Been

I've shown you plenty of quotes documenting this immense silliness. Here are a couple of reminders. BCSE committee member Timothy Chase:

As for their dishonesty, it runs very deep. When you consider what they are after -- indoctrinating students in science classes with a religio-political ideology intended to establish a theocracy ... well, I don't know what other word to use, I can only describe it as evil. [BlackShadow 1273]

and Chase again, suggesting an alternative name for the BCSE before it had picked its present title:

Science Education Coalition United Regarding Evolution


... because we are defending education against the threat posed by creationism and creationist ideology, and both the UK and democracy against the threat of theocracy. The name would draw attention to the threat posed by what it is we are against. [BlackShadow 1506]

The front page of the BCSE's website presently carries words written by Mr. Roger Stanyard, committee member and de facto BCSE leader:

Moreover, the [creationist] movement includes extreme political objectives, one of which is the replacement of democracy with a theocracy based on its extreme religious opinions.

I have been documenting the BCSE's position on these issues - and the fairly obvious contradictions between such political/religious statements and the BCSE's statements that it is a non-political and non-religious organisation! For most people, statements like the ones above will be quite sufficient to mark the BCSE out as belonging to the Dawkinsian lunatic fringe of Internet atheism. That's why I blog - to point out who they really are.


Most of my previous articles on this theme have arisen from a challenge I made to the BCSE - and their attempt to meet it. If those questioning Darwinism in the UK really are aiming for "the replacement of democracy with a theocracy" - if the BCSE isn't telling enormous falsehoods - then why don't they document it for us? Why not show us the evidence? Those listed on the BCSE's "Who is Who" page have produced a great number of books, tapes, leaflets, etc. between them. Please show us we can find this political program reflected!

In response, the BCSE put up a page on its website entitled "Theocracy". In the BCSE forum, its author, Dr. Brian Jordan, confirmed that it was a response to my challenge.

I then proceeded to analyse the page, quote-by-quote. The main thing that came out was this: the BCSE have no evidence ffor its allegations. In case after case, we found that Dr. Jordan hadn't produced quotes that said anything about the replacement of democracy. He had produced quotes which in some way or other stated the truthfulness of Christianity - or disagreed with secular humanism.

The application to the political sphere, and the inference that therefore Christians ought to rise up against democracy, existed only in Dr. Jordan's head. It provided more evidence again that the main driving force of the BCSE's ideology isn't science, or education - it's to oppose the expression of authentic Christianity.

What's New?

The point of today's article is to point out that the BCSE have now taken a step which gives the game away.

After my series of articles on their "Theocracy" page had ended, they took a significant step. They re-named the page. It is now called: "The Theocratic Tendency".

In that change, we see two significant concessions:

  1. They have no evidence

    The front page of the BCSE's website continues to allege that the creationist movement in the UK is aiming for "the replacement of democracy with a theocracy".

    But where's the evidence? All the BCSE is now offering us is a few quotes in which Christians affirm Christianity - but say precious little about how this affects their political outlook, and nothing at all about any desire for a different system of government.

    So - we're back where we started. We have all these allegations from the BCSE - but nothing to back it up.

    Or in other words - the BCSE have again been caught out in making vacuous claims. And on issues which are their the reason for their very existence!

  2. It Is About Christianity After All

    The BCSE now have a web-page (linked from every single page of their site) entitled "The Theocratic Tendency", containing quotes in which Christians affirm various tennets of historic Christianity - the supremacy of God, our duty to worship him, the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and Christ's return as judge at the end of the present age. This is what their page details: Christian doctrine.

    The BCSE have now implicitly admitted that these quotes do not explicitly advocate the replacement of democracy. They say next to nothing about politics. But now they have taken a new position - these quotes contain a "theocratic tendency".

    Or in other words - orthodox Christianity must be opposed, because its doctrines have theocratic "tendencies".

    The problem with evangelical Christianity, according to the BCSE, as that it isn't secular humanism. It doesn't agree that man is self-sufficient. It doesn't agree that man should act independently of God. It doesn't agree that whatever God there may be should be ignored, and all of public life should be carried out on stricitly non-religious principles. It tends towards the idea that man should bow the knee to his maker. Well, blow me down!

    To this charge, guv'nor, I, as a Christian must plead "guilty as charged". The Christian faith is indeed, not secular humanism. It has a tremendous amount to say about God, his rule, and our duty to him. All the following are statements which I believe to be true, and fundamental to a right view of the universe and ourselves. And I would love to debate them with anyone - providing that they're willing to admit what they're really debating about, and not do it under the pretence of being scientists or educators. Here are some key assertions of Christianity:

    • God is indeed God. He rules. Everything is under his authority.

    • Because God made us, that includes us. We live under his sovereign rule.

    • Because God made us, we owe him total obedience. The idea of human "freedom" to behave as we please, such that even God cannot forbid us, is atheistic bunk.

    • God has given everybody a conscience, as a testimony to the truth of these facts. We are unavoidably moral beings. Even atheists, when promoting atheism, usually do so by borrowing the tools of theism, and arguing that this or that religion is morally defective. Try as we might, we cannot get away from the centrality of moral law in the universe which God has made.

      Naturalism cannot explain this phenomena. We all act and behave as if morality is an undeniable fact - and when we do that, we testify that God is.

    • God could have damned us all for our wrong-doing... but instead, he has in mercy set up a kingdom of love - through Jesus Christ. Instead of sending his Son to condemn us, he sent his Son to save. God has now established the kingdom which will never end. This kingdom is the one which is ruled by God's Son, Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is Lord, and rightful ruler of the entire cosmos.

    • Jesus Christ will one day judge both the living and the dead. God has proven this fact by raising him from the dead. (Yes, I know that in the news today a film-maker claims to have proved this false ... but please take the time to notice the contradictions between this year's new conspiracy theory and last year's... they can't both be true... and if this year's is true, next year's, which will also be contradictory, isn't...). Those who refuse God's offer of mercy and determine instead to continue in rebellion against their maker and against his Son's rule can only hope for eternal justice - which means eternal damnation.

    • The final rule of Jesus Christ is not yet established. It is established in principle - he is at the right hand of God. It is being established in practice gradually and inwardly, as people are persuaded to receive his gracious offer of free and full forgiveness for all of our wrong-doing and rebellion - and as their lives are changed into lives of love by his Holy Spirit.

    • The final outward form of Jesus' kingdom will indeed be outward, and total. It will be a theocracy! But that final outward form is explicitly not to be established by his followers using politics or any other outward means. It is not to be established until Christ himself returns and establishes it by his own power - not ours. Only prayer and persuasion - and these only - are our legitimate tools today. Christianity is radically different from Islam. Over 3,000 years ago the Israelite prophets prophesied that the nations of the world would come to worship the God of Israel, because of the coming Messiah. Today, the Christian message is spreading throughout the world, and people out of all countries are worshipping the God who first revealed himself to Israel - because of Jesus Christ. Coincedence? I think not!

Doesn't that sound like a "theocratic tendency" to you? Of course. Because God rules, whether we let him or not. Newsflash: Christianity is not secular humanism! For a time, God allows us to rebel - but he has set limits on that time. During that time, he opens wide his arms, and lovingly offers us a totally free pardon. What love! What kindness! He has been offended - but offers us grace. He, 2000 years ago, gave his own Son to the death of the cross, to bear the sentence the offence deserved, so that we can go free. We deserve damnation - but are offered freedom. But make no mistake - if we determine not to go free, his rule will remain.

This is orthodox Christianity. This is what you will find if you read the words of Jesus in the Bible. This is what you will find taught by the apostles in the New Testament. This is the consistent perspective of the Bible. This is what is affirmed in the historic creeds and confessions of the Christian church. This is Christianity. It is true. Millions of true Christians have relied upon it, and found Jesus Christ to be a wonderful friend - and a mighty Saviour.

The BCSE don't like it. It's not the secular humanism which they arrogantly insist everyone must conform to. They call it "the theocratic tendency".

But now they do that full-well knowing that their problem is not about "the replacement of democracy". Now, they do it full-well knowing that it is about their own resistance Jesus Christ. They oppose Christianity, because its tendency to teach that man is not the ultimate ruler - God is. They oppose Christianity, because it teaches that humanism is a false religious system that leads to misery and damnation. They oppose Christianity, because it teaches that however much we rebel against him, God still rules.

The mask has come off... the game has been given away.

I hope that the BCSE will be honest enough to stop pretending that their problem is with science. Their problem is with the claims of Jesus Christ. When they've stopped pretending - we can have a proper discussion. I'm all up for it.

David Anderson

I presume that none of my readers imagine that I think the above belongs in state school science lessons. I have to say that, because the BCSE's web-site is full of the following non-sequitor: 1) Mr. X makes scientific criticisms of Darwinism 2) Mr. X also believes certain religious doctrines 3) Therefore, Mr. X thinks that his religious doctrines should be taught in science lessons. Err, no.

BlackShadow posts have been pulled by the BCSE from the Internet. I am able to provide a copy to researchers - e-mail me.

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

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Some Pertinent Questions... (Part 3)

The Story So Far...

In part one of this series, I pointed out what the BCSE have done by way of response to "BCSE Revealed". They have spent very much time and energy in responding. Almost all of this response, though, has been directed to discrediting me by way of insult. Almost none of this response has been actually directed towards answering the questions I've been raising - or explaining the damning evidence for the BCSE's mendacity and true agenda.

In part two, I then raised again some of the questions which the BCSE have ignored - and challenged them to provide some answers. If you want to represent yourself to the public and to legislators as a bona fide body, then you have to be able to provide answers. Here are the questions again, in brief:

  1. Why are you presenting yourself as a national centre for science education when you apparently have not a single individual within your leadership who has ever been involved in science education? Isn't this a massive act of dishonesty and fraud?

  2. How do you explain the evidence I presented showing your cluelessness about the UK education scene in general? Isn't it grossly fraudulent of you to represent yourself as experts when none of you had even read the National Curriculum? Shouldn't a group professing to be experts on education have, say, a teacher in its leadership somewhere?

  3. How is it that you claim to speak with authority on science education without a single practising PhD scientist amongst your leaders - and only one retired one? (And his PhD is not in the field which you claim as your area of expertise...)

  4. How do you explain my evidence that you wrote to MPs, lobbying them to condemn material whose contents, when your wrote, were unknown to you? How much more blatantly dishonest an act could you carry out?

  5. How should we reconcile the statements on your website that you have no religious agenda with the many quotes I have produced from your leaders explaining their religious agenda in their BCSE activity?

The Response

First of all, it is quite clear that the BCSE leaders regularly read my blog - a quick visit to their own blogs, website or forum will show you that.

And secondly, from the continuing activity at various websites to discredit me with various insults and assertions-without-evidence, it is clear that the BCSE leaders are still willing to put up a good chunk of time in the effort to discredit me. (I am particularly amused by the individual who has taken to claiming that I am incompetent in secondary-level science, and I invite him, if he has the guts, to post his examination record in my comments. Then we can compare who the facts say is more or less competent...)

But thirdly... there's not been a single comment submitted to me, either privately by e-mail, or as a comment to this blog, to answer any of the above questions.

Now, I don't intend to go away. As long as the BCSE continue to make any kind of public claim or demand to be heard in the field of science education, I intend to make the information available showing just who they are and what they're up to. The BCSE have the greatest possible of motives for providing good answers to these questions.

And that is why I can feel pretty confident in asserting that the reason why they haven't even tried to answer these questions is... because they can't. They're willing to spend lots of effort - but none here. What does that tell us?

Whereas the "research" on the BCSE website merely asks you to take their word for it on assertion after assertion... I have provided documentation. The world can see what's going on...

Some More Questions

I do not expect the BCSE to try to answer any of the following questions - because I do not think they can. But for the sake of completeness, I shall ask them. Here are some more reasons why it's pretty difficult to take the BCSE as anything but an act of fraud.

1. Why Did The BCSE Spend So Much Energy In Deleting Evidence Of Its History?

As I launched "BCSE Revealed" and began documenting the evidence of the BCSE's true composition and aims, something started happening. As soon as I blogged - evidence would start disappearing. Logs of changes to the BCSE website were passworded; paragraphs and words change or disappear; a Yahoo e-mail group was locked and then deleted; and the BCSE even took steps to block anyone following a link from this blog to their website! (Last I heard that was still in place, but I haven't tried it).

Given that the BCSE's website alleges that its opponents are secretive (try doing a search for "Mafia" on its site)... why did it start doing this? Wasn't it because the evidence was too damning? I showed people what the BCSE was really up to - and so they moved to cover it up... is there any other explanation? Nothing started to be locked down - until "BCSE Revealed" started pointing it out...


2. Massive Exaggeration Of Its Own Size

The BCSE made several public claims about its own size - including in the context of protesting that it wasn't a one-man band. The numbers it claimed for its membership went into three figures.

I exposed the method that the BCSE was using to arrive at the figures it was giving. It was counting everyone who posted even a single message on its web discussion forum as a member - whether they agreed, or whether they disagreed. Unwitting non-Darwinists would post a message on the BCSE discussion forum - and unbeknown to them, the BCSE would then start including them in the numbers it gave out for its membership. This was a highly convenient counting method too from the point of view that once someone loses interest, they'll just float away - but probably not bother to delete their forum account. Membership was guaranteed only ever to go up!

Can the BCSE explain this?

Can they explain, furthermore, why, after announcing a policy that only those who made a financial contribution could be members, they later reverted it and accepted anyone, without payment? Is it because hardly anyone (no-one?) was willing to send them any money? What would this say about the BCSE's trustworthiness - that even those sympathetic to its position weren't symphathetic enough to actually trust them any cash... ?


3. Neither a scientist, nor an educator.

Whilst the BCSE's website was busily protesting that it was not a one-man band but full of qualified individuals, I was documenting the fact that the majority of BCSE activity was (and still is) due to a single individual - Mr. Roger Stanyard. I provided evidence that he:

  • writes twice as many internal communications as anyone else,
  • is recognised internally as the leader,
  • calls the shots,
  • wrote the charter,
  • owns the website,
  • wrote almost all of the website,
  • represents them in public,
  • and is the primary contact...

Ironically, of course, it was Mr. Stanyard himself who wrote the parts of the BCSE website which protest that the BCSE is not a one-man band...

... but anyway, the point was this. Mr. Stanyard has never been a practising scientist - his entire career has been in management consultancy. This left us with some significant questions:

  • Was Mr. Stanyard guilty of deceit when he asked the public to believe that the BCSE wasn't really a "one-man band"? How much would he have to do to qualify for this description?

  • If Mr. Stanyard really was the leader whilst describing himself as the "spokesman", then what does this tell us about the BCSE's honesty?

  • If Mr. Stanyard was really the leader, then what was his motivation for passing himself off to the public and MPs as a "spokesperson"? Surely the answer is to be found in the question...

  • What are Mr. Stanyard's qualifications to speak in the areas of science and education - even, to set up a national centre for science education - and to seek to gain influence in parliament in these areas? Apparently, he has none. Is this not a gross act of fraud?

    See http://bcse-.../2006/10/take-me-to-your-leader.html and http://bcse-.../2006/11/take-me-to-your-leader-part-2.html for documentation.

4. Former Members Told Us What They Really Think

One individual who had been involved in the planning for the launch of the BCSE, and a second who had been claimed by the BCSE as a member and had an article published on its website, e-mailed me to clarify that they were now certainly not members.

One described the BCSE as "religiously motivated" and said "One of the reasons I distanced myself from the BSCE is for the very reason you have pinned that they are ... a small number of individuals claiming to be something bigger than they are." The other individual said that he was "fed [up] and bored with the strident tones of BCSE" ... "Many of their articles are both shoddy and strident." ... "I was fed up with atheistic bigotry."

This is the verdict of former BCSE insiders. Were they wrong? How does the BCSE explain that they came to just the same verdict as I had?



So, here are some more hard questions for the BCSE. I expect them to devote no time to answering them; I expect them to continue devoting time to insulting me on their blogs and websites. And you, dear reader, will know just what to make of that. But just in case someone has some answers - the comments are open, and we are all ears.

David Anderson

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

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

An Endorsement ...

Here's another blogger who "gets it". Emphases mine:

To counter Intelligent Design in [Britain], a copy of the NCSE (American version) was established. [Not] as official and as grandiose as this name may sound, there is only one PhD. in the entire organization, and none of them have experience in Science Education.

The purpose of the Centre is described very well at IanB's blog here. The BCSE is essentially an organization founded to dig up dirt on Christians and Creationists in an attempt to discredit them and keep evolution an unquestioned dogma.

This organization is pretty much as new as it can be, and already they have become full of [blatant] lies and distortions in an attempt to fool the public into believing inane things about anyone who disagrees with evolution. An example would be the BCSE's claim that Answers in Genesis was

"going round the UK telling all in [sic] sundry that UFOs, manned by aliens who believe in the theory of evolution, are busy abducting people."

This one is one of my favorites:
"Much of the movement is deeply anti-intellectual. Moreover, even at the top there is a widespread belief in wackiness such as UFOs and flying saucers, dinosaurs roaming the British countryside in Tudor times and fire breathing dragons."

Wow... Just wow.

After reading the above link I feel dirty from all the political agenda driven propaganda.

There is in the Blogosphere a fellow named David Anderson who has a blog called The British Centre for Science Education: Revealed and up to this point he has been trashing the Centre all over the place. Way to go David for Sticking it to the man!!!

Thanks guys - whoever you are!

David Anderson

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

Monday, February 19, 2007

Is This A Pork Pie I See Before Me?

Readers who've been with us for a month or so may remember our exposure of the "Rough Guide to Fundamentalism" page on the BCSE website. (Recall that the BCSE do not use "fundamentalism" in its proper sense to describe the movement which actually uses this label - it is their label for evangelical Christianity in general).

This page, now hidden behind a password, well and truly exploded the BCSE's claims that it was religiously neutral.

If you want to know what the BCSE's leaders really want to tell people about Bible Christianity (and were telling the public for some time), you should read our three articles:

  1. http://bcse.../2007/01/were-not-anti-religion-but.html
  2. http://bcse.../2007/01/were-not-anti-religion-but-part-2.html
  3. http://bcse.../2007/01/were-not-anti-religion-but-part-3.html

This investigation also gave us some more data about the quality of BCSE's research. Instead of doing something reasonable like, say, purchasing and reading some of the books written by evangelical Christianity's most respected authors... they decided to trawl the Internet to quote-mine the absolute worst they could find - and then present that to the public as a fair picture. Way to go!

I'm glad they did this though - because it gives the discerning reader a hint as to how the rest of the BCSE's website is constructed.

Why They Took It Down

Why did the BCSE password-protect the offending web-page? (

It did so in response to an e-mail from a semi-anonymous member of the public who identified himself only as "Iain", which it received on the 13th of October. He had some comments about the BCSE's website in general. Here is Mr. Roger Stanyard introducing it.

I just got this through my private email. What does everyone think of it! (Grin)

I don't know much about Rushdoony, but I thought the web-site was truly appalling in its tone and disrespect.

I found particularly offensive the page "Rough guide" (to fundies), where they have deliberately selected postings from the complete lunatic fringe of Christianity, some of them attacking atheists with bad spelling and in one case replete with F words. It also came across at the end as pretty arrogant and anti-American, given the following sentence at the end:

"If you ever want to see an advert to the effect that the average American is seriously stupid, this is it. This is a country at the bottom of the OECD pile when it comes to acceptance of evolution. The web site shows why – it's at the top when it comes to a combination of arrogance and ignorance. Most Americans we have met in life we like and respect. So what's gone wrong?"

One might well counter that if you met the average British yob who hangs around outside shopping precincts and if you look at then says "WOT CHOO F---IN' LOOKIN' AT?" that the average Brit was also seriously stupid. By contrast, most of the fundamentalists I've met have been gracious and humble & would never behave like the lunatics quoted on that page.

On other pages, creationists are described as "Creationuts" etc. This is just as bad as Answers In Genesis, who repeatedly use derogatory language like "Goo-to-you evolution".

If you want to oppose the growth of Young Earth Creationism (and I do), then you must take the moral high ground and behave with proper humility and respect. But if you just indulge in name calling, then you're just as bad as the other side.


The thread goes on from there. At various points:

  • Michael Brass, one of the BCSE committee, brushes aside the entire criticism as a mistake.

  • Another poster (who like Iain disagrees isn't a young earth creationist) says that Iain, having received Mr. Stanyard's reply (which isn't recorded), had forwarded it on to him, that it was "rude and silly" and that Roger needed to "get real".

  • The same poster sought to educate the BCSE on the fact that Rousas Rushdoony is actually dead (six years now!). (For the unitiated, the BCSE's whole premise of operation is that a) Rushdoony was a would-be mass-murderer and b) the bulk of anti-Darwinist activity is traceable back to him. At various times there have been attempts by various individuals in the BCSE forum to point out that a) the BCSE's interpretation of Rushdoony's theology is explicitly rebutted as a mis-construction on the websites which would be the primary sources for anyone making such an investigation and b) Rushdoony was such a fringe figure that the great bulk of evangelicals in the UK will never even have heard of him, let alone been influenced by him. Such attempts have turned out to be quite futile though. That's as we might expect... if this thesis is bunk, then the BCSE's whole raison d'etre falls apart - and that's a whole lot of pride that would have to be swallowed).

  • Iain himself turns up, having been informed that Mr. Stanyard was publishing his private e-mails without permission (he describes himself as "incensed"). Here is a partial extract:

    "Then unfortunately I clicked on the "Rough Guide" link which displays examples of the most lunatic fringe of fundamentalist American society, and I sent back my impressions (displayed above) to ASA with a CC: to Roger's email, which Michael had put in his original post. I had genuinely (and I see now naively) believed that the BCSE were interested in feedback, and that negative feedback would be listened to. Instead, I got a silly and rude reply from Roger. Later Michael informed me that my feedback had been posted on this forum."

    and later on:

    "Suppose I pointed him at your website and he clicked on the "Rough Guide" link. How do you, as a Christian, think that would help our discussion? He's going to say "they're just a bunch of bigoted atheists". After the rude reply I got from Roger, I'm inclined to agree! (So does Michael)."

    Iain also makes the assertion, as "BCSE Revealed" has done many times, that the BCSE is guilty of "cherry-picking" its data - not a good practice if you want to present yourselves as scientists.

  • Another BCSE committee member, Timothy Chase, also tries to justify the "Rough Guide" page as reasonable.

  • Roger Stanyard says something that anyone who's read his various writings will know is too true - "I don't know much about Rushdoony".

Eventually, Mr. Stanyard ended the discussion of the page two days later, by saying:

In response to Iain's letter I have password protected the two pages "Enjoy Yourselves" and "Rough Guide" - that means the public can't read then - nor can group members unless they have the password.

I agree with Iain that they probably no longer help our cause.


Notice, then that Iain criticised the BCSE's web-site in general for being "appalling in its tone and disrespect", and the "Rough Guide" page as being "particularly offensive", a "deliberate" misrepresentation, "arrogant and anti-American", utterly untrue to his experience of "fundamentalists" who have generally been "gracious and humble".

Notice, too, that Mr. Stanyard said that "in response to Iain's letter" he had removed public access to this page (and another), because he "[agreed] with Iain that they probably no longer help our cause".

Bringing This Up To Date

Wind forward a few months. In the mean-time, I have exposed the hidden page, showing the world what the BCSE are really about. This has been picked up across various big blogs on the Internet, and a whole load more people now know more about what the BCSE are about.

On February 11th, on his own blog, Mr. Stanyard put up a post justifying the contents of the page. My guess (and that of a correspondent in my mailbox) is that the material that goes on Mr. Stanyard's own blog is the stuff that the BCSE veto as too obviously extreme or indefensible - but you can read it and make up your own mind on that.

In this post, Mr. Stanyard tries to justify his article as being accurate, and if anything, not going far enough. Here's a sample:

When I put together the wiki list for BCSE I stated the following:

"Most of the information for this article has come from the web site Fundies Say the Darndest Things ( The site has a vast number of quotes from fundamentalists, nearly all of them in North America. It presents a picture of a movement of pig-ignorant inarticulate bigots, racists, xenophobes, anti-Semites, misogynists, homophobes, rape apologists, AIDS deniers, government haters, scientific illiterates, gun-lovers, murderous paramilitaries and others predisposed towards extreme violence, half-baked misfits and haters, all obsessed with their own religious and moral superiority."

I stick by my statement that this is what much of the American fundamentalist movement appears to be. ... In fact, though, the position is actually worse than this.

The bit I'm really interested in, though, is further down the same article, where Stanyard seeks to explain why the BCSE pulled the page. Read it carefully:

For what it is worth, BCSE's wiki page of quotes was pulled for two main reasons. The first was that no one in the UK would believe that American fundamentalists are so extreme. Nor would they understand such things as Rapture Ready. Secondly, the quotes are so numerous and frequent that we couldn't find the time to select the best for our wiki.

Notice what Stanyard says. There were two main reasons why the page was pulled. They are as follows:

  1. Though its contents were fair and true, they would be hard for UK readers to believe.

  2. There were too many quotes to be able to find the time to select the best ones.

Can you believe your eyes? Mr. Stanyard really must think that the BCSE can say whatever it likes, and expect people to believe it. Even when the evidence proving the opposite is on the Internet for everyone to see. Truly, that takes some gumption...

I remind my readers again that the comments are open. If there is some way in which the above statements can be harmonised, then we're all ears! Seems like a bit of a task though... there's not much correspondence between saying that you have taken down the page "in response" to a critic who says that it's an obvious piece of extreme anti-religious bigotry, and saying that you have taken down the page because it didn't go far enough.

I think that it's pretty clear that the BCSE's leaders have once again been revealed telling pork pies... don't you?

The other point here is that the BCSE's main de facto leader and researcher has now stated on his blog that he completely stands behinds the contents of the page. Will the rest of the BCSE move a finger to contradict him? Can we, after all, take this anti-religion rant as being the BCSE's official position? I expect the silence to be deafening...


The BCSE's credibility is shot. It can only begin to think about recovering it if it dispenses with its entire leadership, issues a full and formal public apology for its many gross misdemeanors, and starts over again with a new website and wiki. (We note that the BCSE did nothing about Iain's larger complaint - the general obvious anti-Christian prejudice of its website). But the BCSE can't do that, because Mr. Roger Stanyard basically is the BCSE. Get rid of him, and the BCSE would not be.

David Anderson

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

Friday, February 16, 2007

Cognitive Dissonance

"Cognitive dissonance" is when you believe or proclaim two mutually exclusive things at once.

I suffer from cognitive dissonance when I arrange to do two different things on Tuesday evening, and don't spot the clash until too late. All through the day, I'm looking forward to one or the other... and never quite twig until the evening comes that I can't do both.

There is a high degree of cognitive dissonance in the BCSE's proclamations. Let's take a look.

Science - Nothing Else!

Sometimes, the BCSE is especially keen to make sure we know that it is absolutely, definitely not anything other than a purely scientific organisation.

This line gets trotted out when the suspicion is thought to be entertained that they are motivated by religion. Take a look at what it says on the BCSE front page (emphasis mine):

"What BCSE is not

BSCE has no other agenda that the single issue stated above ["The British Centre for Science Education is a single issue pressure group dedicated solely to keeping creationism and intelligent design out of the science classroom in publicly-funded schools in the United Kingdom."]. There is no hidden agenda. We are not here to back any one political movement or any one view on religion. It is not part or [sic] any larger organisation or movement pushing specific religious or any-religious positions or any political party or any broad political movement or outlook.

We do not object to or support religion or atheism. We do not object to the teaching of creationism or intelligent design outside of the science lesson or as non-scientific subjects.

We do not promote any religious or atheistic viewpoint."

Note that carefully. The BCSE:

  • Is concerned with science, not politics. It is "not part or (of) any ... broad political movement or outlook."

  • It has no opinions either way on things religious - either positive or negative. They have no objections to what the religious teach about origins outside of school science.

  • Wish you to know that that's all there is to it - "no other agenda ... no hidden agenda"

  • And the most sweeping statement of all: "We do not promote any religious or atheistic viewpoint."

But on the other hand...

Or sometimes, if they're suffering from a bit of cognitive dissonance...

"the [creationist] movement includes extreme political objectives, one of which is the replacement of democracy with a theocracy based on its extreme religious opinions." - Roger Stanyard, BCSE committee member and de facto leader, writing on the same BCSE homepage, a little further down.

"It is a political fight. The fundies want a theocracy, and are trying very hard to get it. So this is a fight between everyone who wants a fundamentalist theocracy and everyone who doesn't." - Lenny Flank, discussing the setting up of the BCSE, 25th June 2006. [BlackShadow 1024]

"I agree with everything you say Lenny" - Alan Belliss, BCSE founder and committee member, replying to the above, 25th June 2006. [BlackShadow 1030]

"we are defending education against the threat posed by creationism and creationist ideology, and both the UK and democracy against the threat of theocracy." - Timothy Chase, BCSE committee member, 11th July 2006. [BlackShadow 1506]

"This fight really isn't about science -- it's about political power." - Lenny Flank, 11th July 2006. [BlackShadow 1498]

"My advice? Don't focus on the "science". No one cares about it, and no one understands it anyway. And it's not what this fight is about. This is a POLITICAL fight, not a scientific one." - Lenny Flank, quoted approvingly by BCSE committee member Roger Stanyard, 30th October 2006 (

"... one could easily argue that the science isn't our primary objective, either, that since what we are trying to stop is an extremist ideology which threatens society we should just focus on their political objectives." - Timothy Chase, BCSE committee member, 6th November 2006 (

So, let me see if I've got this straight...

The BCSE is a purely scientific organisation. Whose primary aim is political.

It has no political or religious aims. Its reason for existing is to save Britain from the threat of theocracy.

They have no interest at all in what dissenters from Darwinism do outside of school science lessons. Their aim is to protect society at large from religious dictators.

I'm glad that's clear! Do you think even they really know what they mean?

David Anderson

BlackShadow posts have been removed by the BCSE from the Internet. You may obtain a copy of the posts above by verification from me on request.

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

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

You're Off-Message!

The BCSE has a page on Dr. David Tyler, a chartered physicist, member of the Institute of Physics and with a further qualification in education, senior lecturer at Manchester Metropolitan University and centre manager at the "Hollings Faculty for food, clothing & hospitality management". Going from that description alone, Dr. Tyler is clearly a man with multi-disciplinary expertise. Of course, the BCSE "researcher" ignores these obvious multi-disciplinary skills, and merely announces ipse dixit that he is unqualified to discuss any subject outside of physics.... but we'll leave that aside.

What I want to point out is that the final line on the BCSE's page disappeared on the 10th of February.

Presently, it looks like this:

(Yes, that last bit you can see is indeed a complaint from Mr. Roger Stanyard, management consultant, complaining that those involved in management education aren't qualified to speak about evolution...Yes, I know, I know... Mr. Kettle, the Pot is on line one - something about being black?)

Before the 10th of February, it looked like this, with the extra line having been there for about five months:

"Welcome to the unreal fantasy world of protestant evangelical fundamentalism."

Oops! That's a bit off-message, isn't it? Aren't the BCSE meant to be a religiously neutral organisation? Whatever are they doing pronouncing a verdict on evangelicalism? They don't have religious opinions! Seems like Mr. Stanyard forgot his own propaganda when he wrote that bit...

The BCSE's home page. Oh really?
Why's there smoke coming out of your trousers?

The BCSE must think that we're pretty dim. Apparently they imagine that removing single lines like this makes it somehow less obvious that they loathe Bible Christianity and wish whenever possible to belittle it. As if that wasn't made pretty clear on nearly every page! The message isn't exactly subtle...

Or as we might say:

Welcome to the unreal fantasy world of unqualified campaigning Christ-haters masquerading as centres for science education...

David Anderson

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

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

More Deception From The BCSE

In The Beginning...

I started this blog because I felt offended at the deception which a small group of individuals were perpetrating on the public.

They were doing it in the Times...

... in the Financial Times ...

... and even persuading one (obviously predisposed) MP ...

... and in other places too (including BBC Radio Manchester and other newspapers).

It all sounded very authoritative. The nation's scientific experts had spoken! Note what Messrs Stanyard and Lowe wrote. Not "I am deeply concerned" but "The British Centre for Science Education is deeply concerned". What letters editor would refuse to publish an announcement from such an important body?

It Could All Have Been Different...

If they had written in their own names, I would probably never have started this blog. If Roger Stanyard had written to MPs as himself, explaining that he was neither a scientist nor an educator, but a management consultant with no qualifications or experience in science education but simply a grudge against those whom he calls "fundamentalists", then "BCSE Revealed" would probably never have existed.

But this small group of Internet activists, with no science educators and no practising scientists, who had only launched themselves but a few weeks earlier, decided to represent themselves to the public in all these places as experts - and on a national scale, no less! And they used this false claim to gain a platform to deride even professors at top universities - such as the infamous (to readers of this blog!) occasion when Roger Stanyard, with no relevant qualifications in physics since leaving school, accused a Fellow of the Institute of Physics on BBC Radio of being ignorant of the subject... Integrity? Whatever is that?

I, however, knew that the BCSE was really (and still is) mostly the work of a single unqualified individual, with a few encouragers to help out here and there. And I knew that almost all of them were atheist activists with a philosophical commitment to naturalism and to whom silencing criticisms of Darwinism was important on that account. And so I started blogging.

So What's New?

It appears that the BCSE have learnt very little over the last few months. Despite having been publicly exposed, and their infamy extending even to blogs which have several thousand readers a day, they carry on regardless. Here's what Michael Brass, chairman of the BCSE committee, posted to the BCSE's news forum just seven days ago:

On the 26th January 2007, the BCSE received a request by the National Learning Centre to comment on the short reports emanating from "four 24-hour stakeholder conferences to explore how the new A Level courses under development, in biology, chemistry, physics and psychology could meet the needs of the next generation of science students", held at the National Learning Centre at the end of October.

"...A high-level implementation group composed of the Royal Society, Wellcome Trust and other funders and supporters of the conference, will meet on the 21st February to help ensure that the recommendations of the report are considered in the writing of the courses and texts currently being drafted, and in the presentation of the curriculum in the classroom. The group is also keen that future curriculum development can benefit from the process undertaken. I would therefore welcome your comments on the short reports, accessed through the following link: where hard copies can also be ordered."

(snip - the rest is further down)

The link given lists the funders and supporters of this discussion over the future of A-Levels as being "the Wellcome Trust and Royal Society ... QCA, the Royal Society of Chemistry, Institute of Physics, Nuffield Curriculum Centre, Salters’ Institute, the Institute of Biology, Biosciences Federation, the British Psychological Society and the ASE".

In other words, those are real scientists and educators. People with qualifications. And experience!

What did the BCSE do when receiving a communique from them? Did they say - "Look - you've made a mistake. We know what our name says - but not one of us has actually ever stood up in a science classroom. None of us is a practising scientist, and none of us have ever been a scientific educator of any kind. We're just a group of IT workers, consultants and businessmen. We can't really respond to your consultation papers, because we're completely unqualified to make statements about the future direction of A-Level science subjects." Did they just quietly ignore it?

The BCSE's Response

No, they didn't. Here's the remainder of Mr. Brass's note:

The BCSE has submitted a comments report as requested and welcomes this opportunity to have a positive input into the development of the above curricula.

That's right. The BCSE didn't put the National Learning Centre right. They didn't even quietly bin the request and have a chuckle that the fellow who used the Internet to gather a few names and addresses but didn't read enough of the BCSE website to spot what kind of organisation it was. No - they actually had the brass neck to reply(*). And then they put up a notice in their public forum to tell everyone!

If that's not a brass neck... just what is?

I have no way of knowing what the BCSE put in their response. It would surely make interesting reading!

One thing is now clear. The BCSE's reality blindness is not just a little thing. It's gone nuclear. They now believe their own propaganda, and act in accordance with it. Not only do they want you to believe that they are a voice of authority - they have begun believing it themselves. And they are apparently willing even to deceive a list of bodies that reads like the "Who's Who" of real science education in the UK, in the pursuit of their goals.

The BCSE. You couldn't make it up.

David Anderson

(*) I'm not sure if the pun was intended, or if the word was just floating around in my head...

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

Monday, February 12, 2007

... and statistics

What would a real "Centre for Science Education" like talking about? And what do the BCSE like talking about?

Well, you should always take statistics with a pinch of salt. Statistics might answer a question... but are they answering the question you thought they were answering? When I read in my newspaper that 75% of people from Ipswich eat corn-flakes, is that because living in Ipswich makes you like corn-flakes, or because eating corn-flakes makes you want to live in Ipswich, or is there something else that causes you to want to do both... or neither?

(Disclaimer: I have no idea how many people living in Ipswich eat corn-flakes).

With that in mind, I thought I'd run a few primitive scans of the BCSE wiki, which contains about 180 pages. How many lines within it will contain certain key-words? (Words appearing twice within the same line only count once).

1. Significant figures / institutions

(As well as the words on the labels, I used associate words - Darwinism as well as Darwin, etc. This is true for all the graphs.)

2. Concepts

3. Subject Areas

(That's actually a dead heat on the top two.)

Make of that what you will!

David Anderson

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

Saturday, February 10, 2007

Some Pertinent Questions... (Part 2)

Part one of this article set the scene - we want to conduct an analysis of the BCSE's response to the questions raised by "BCSE Revealed". What does this response show? How much pressure do they feel from the facts that we've been documenting? What kinds of answers do we have?

In summary, the response has been "many insults - little substance". I am not aware that the BCSE have addressed any of the substantive issues I have raised over their credibility. On the other hand, I am aware of a very substantial and very personal campaign to blacken my name.

I find this response revealing. If the BCSE had some solid arguments against my case - why would they resort to this instead? On the other hand, though, it is what I expected from my research before launching this blog. A brief visit to the BCSE's website will show that ad hominem combined with and a crude "you're either for us or against us - and surely you're not with those nutters!" appeal is the BCSE's stock-in-trade.

And it's not just me... over the last couple of days I've appreciated the moral support from two much bigger blogs - Uncommon Descent (here - and Telic Thoughts (here -

More of the same...

As if to prove this point, about 48 hours after I posted, the BCSE's spokesman turned up on RichardDawkins.Net, adding "ad hominim [sic] attacks, pedantry, sanctimonious self righteousness and his vile, amoral blog" to the list of my crimes. Ah well. I can at least appreciate consistency... (,626,Does-Richa...mments)

What's missing from this picture?

Now I want to do what the BCSE's leadership apparently are very keen for me not to do - raise those awkward questions again.

I remind my readers once again that I am interested in facts. I am sure of my case - the BCSE are a bogus, fraudulent and deceptive organisation. And because I am sure of my case, I do not want it to be sullied by errors or unnecessary personalisation of the issues. I want all the mistakes to be weeded out. So, the comments are open - and I place my e-mail address at the end of every post.

Here, then, are some of the key issues I've documented - and what the BCSE could do to provide a credible response. The links given are representative - following the labels (down the navigation bar) you can find plenty of others on this site.

  1. No Science Educators


    Despite representing itself to the public, newspapers and MPs as a national centre for scientific education... the BCSE's leadership has not one member who has actually any experience in providing science education.

    Prove me wrong! Am I lying? All it requires is a list of the universities/colleges/schools and years where the BCSE's leadership have held appropriate positions. And then I'll stop saying it.

  2. No Clue About UK Education In General


    In fact, the BCSE's leadership were so clueless about education in the UK, that they even had to converse amongst themselves about what the National Curriculum was... and still got it wrong.

    The BCSE can easily prove me wrong here, by releasing the releveant e-mails public archive of the Yahoo group on which they discussed this matter to the public. I have them, and I have offered to make them available to any researcher. If I have fabricated these e-mails - then it's very easy for the BCSE leaders to make public the real ones. The references are in the link above.

  3. The Most Meagre Scientific Qualifications


    The BCSE leadership only contains a single individual with a doctorate in a scientific subject - and he is retired. (Ironically, his expertise was in a branch of (chemical) engineering. This is ironic, because the BCSE often criticise engineers for not being qualified to speak about evolution... go figure that one out!)

    I can't see how the BCSE could possibly prove me wrong on this one, as the above is directly stated on the front page of their own website. But still, I'm willing to be corrected...

  4. Caught Lying To MPs


    The BCSE had sent letters to MPs condemning Truth in Science's mailed material as "full of scientific mistakes" at least three days before they discovered any of the contents of that material. Or in other words, they lied openly and brazenly.

    And when I discovered it, they attempted to obfuscate the matter - by bringing in the irrelevant fact that when they received the material, they discovered that it contained some of the same content as some material they'd seen in another context a few months before.

    To this day, the BCSE have continued to completely ignore this major issue for their credibility. You can't lie to MPs in such a shameless fashion and then expect to be taken seriously.

    Of course, if the BCSE have the proof that their reviewer received the material before 29th of September (the date which he announced on the Internet that he had received it - being 3 days after Roger Stanyard had already written to MPs), then all they have to do is produce it... this will be hard though, as then they'll have to explain the places where said reviewer mentions that he hasn't yet received the material...

  5. Founding members caught stating that their aims were not scientific, but religious


    We documented quotes from some of the BCSE's present leadership, explaining that their aim in participating was to make people think of certain religious groups as they do of paedophiles. Other explained that their goals were not to do with science, but politics.

    Again, if I fabricated these quotes, then all the BCSE has to do is reproduce the messages with the numbers I cited from the now deleted "BlackShadow" Yahoo group in full, so that people can see that the quotes I documented don't exist....

Conclusion - And Challenge

There's plenty more where that came from. But I think that five test cases to start with is enough.

So, the gauntlet is laid down. The typical response from BCSE leaders to my material has been to complain amongst themselves on various websites that I am lying again - and to post new blog entries or set up new websites to try to persuade people what a piece of dirt I am.

But if I am lying, there is a much simpler remedy which makes all the superfluous. The comments thread is open. I will accept any comment that addresses one of the five points above, and is free from irrelevant asides. That is, cut out the personal stuff, and just provide straight down the line documentation of where I've gone wrong. As, according to the front page of the BCSE website, my blog is "unmitigated rubbish from start to finish", this should be fairly easy to do - shouldn't it?

So, the challenge is there. Provide the documentation.

If you can't, then the Internet will know just what you're really up to.

David Anderson

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

Thursday, February 08, 2007

Flock of Dodos

I normally like to save "off-topic" content (i.e. items which are not research into the BCSE) for Saturdays, but this particular item has a shelf life.

On another website, I read the following paragraph:

The first documentary film to take an even-handed look at the intelligent design versus evolution clash [Randy Olson's "Flock of Dodos"] will have its UK premiere at University College London (UCL) on Friday 9 February 2007.

The only problem with this description is... it's not true.

There's plenty of documentation - even a YouTube video - demonstrating that film-maker Randy Olson had a clear agenda to produce a piece of anti-intelligent design propaganda. If you want to look into that, here are some links:

  1. - "In Flock of Dodos oceanographer Randy Olson makes a number of false assertions about Discovery Institute and scientists and scholars associated with the Institute. Here we expose two of the most egregious false facts in the film."

  2. - "Flock of Dodos Filmmaker Wrongly Claims Haeckel’s Embryo Drawings Weren’t in Modern Textbooks"

  3. - "Filmmaker Uses Fuzzy Math and Falsehoods to Distort the Truth about Discovery Institute"

I have to say that I like - I am continually impressed by its careful, measured, fact-based analysis, avoiding over-blown rhetoric. It's a model to aspire to for investigative bloggers.

Here's the YouTube video:

If you haven't heard the hilarious Dawkins interview yet, then it's heading for 7,000 views in its first 5 days... here's the link again.

David Anderson

Someone Gets It...

As a follow-up to my earlier post, I came across a blogger who gets it (emphasis mine)...

Just a quick note to further publicise this amusing "debate".

The BCSE (British Centre for Science Education) has been formed solely to try and stop Creationism or Intelligent Design being taught alongside evolution in our schools. It is seeking to do this by publishing "research" on people that believe in a young earth - so you will find much (what amounts to) dirt digging on individuals, churches, Bible seminaries etc.

The balance is being struck, though, by Derby minister David Anderson, who has started a blog to pick up on the inadequacies of the BCSE argumentation. The blog makes very interesting reading as you discover that the leaders of the BCSE have no scientific qualification (David has a science degree) and are proven to make up some of the contents of their articles.

In reading through both sites it quickly becomes evident that David Anderson is putting forward careful, reasoned argument, whereas the BCSE is quick to resort to blatant name calling when they run out of other words!

So, please have a read of these sites and be informed of the battle going on out there. I'm increasingly persuaded that atheists are the next "minority" group to be pushing for their voice to be heard, at the expense of anyone elses beliefs.

I would correct one thing in the above quote. I don't believe I have said that no BCSE leader has a science degree. I have said that no BCSE leader has any experience in science education. According to the BCSE website, there is one (just one!) member of the BCSE leadership who has a doctorate (in chemical engineering).

David Anderson

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

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Some Pertinent Questions...

The purpose of this blog is to investigate the new body calling itself the "British Centre for Science Education". We've come quite a long way so far - if you're new here, follow some of the label links down the side for the basic material.

What's Been The Reaction?

Today I want to take this opportunity to take a step back and ask "How has the BCSE responded to the questions raised here?".

Firstly, we notice that the BCSE leadership and members have invested a tremendous amount of time and effort in responding to this blog. This has included:

  1. Over 50 personal e-mails.

  2. At least 3 brand new blogs or websites, and the promotion of these sites at many places across the Internet.

  3. Plenty of material on 2 existing blogs.

  4. Many and various edits to their own website, including whole new sections researching into my educational background and colleagues, and churches I have preached at.

  5. Time spent researching such essential questions as "Which university did David's pastor obtain his doctorate from?", "Which web hosting company hosts David's wife's nappy business?".

  6. Threats of legal action (still unfulfilled...) for alleged offences against the computer misuse act.

  7. Communications to my colleagues in the Christian ministry to seek to persuade them to ask me to stop blogging.

  8. Reconfiguring their own website to block any accesses which are referred from this blog.

I think that that constitutes quite a lot of effort.

The message which the BCSE want to put out from this effort is also fairly clear. Firstly, "BCSE Revealed" is not reliable; secondly, David Anderson is extremely wicked (which in general I'll grant - that's why I trust in Jesus Christ alone for the forgiveness of my sins...)

The BCSE's leaders have, in private e-mails to me, in their forums, and on their website, described me or my blog variously as a child abuser, "clown", "liar", "fool", "stupid", "fundamentalist", "completely without standards or [conscience]", "cowardly", "gutless", "little weasel", "god boy", "extremist", "lowest of the low", "[worse than] the dirtiest little sewer rat chomping away on a turd", having "screamed and raged", "sanctimonious crapola", "windbag", "there is a possibility that he will report you to the police if he disagrees with what you say", "thoroughly immoral", "deeply offensive", "wholly inaccurate", "a pack of lies", "a sanctimonious blustering windbag", "comprehensive smear campaign", "dripping with sanctimonious and condescending self-righteousness", "consists of unmitigated drivel from start to finish", "unmitigated rubbish", "vicious", "particularly vile and smug". I am called a "fundamentalist", a movement which the BCSE website (on a now hidden page) describes as "a movement of pig-ignorant inarticulate bigots, racists, xenophobes, anti-Semites, misogynists, homophobes, rape apologists, AIDS deniers, government haters, scientific illiterates, gun-lovers, murderous paramilitaries and others predisposed towards extreme violence, half-baked misfits and haters, all obsessed with their own religious and moral superiority."

Well, that's fairly comprehensive.


But, you didn't come here to listen to me wallowing in self-pity. So what's the point?

The point is to compare all the activity and abuse above, with what the BCSE haven't done by way of response.

Firstly, the BCSE haven't ever taken up the offer which comes at the end of each article - to e-mail me with details of any documentable factual errors. I suppose though, that if you're convinced of the chain of allegations above, then you probably figure it's not worth it. I have observed through the BCSE website and forums that Mr. Roger Stanyard plays a particularly active role in convincing people that any non-Darwinist is necessarily a wicked liar. The majority of the quotes above are his.

Secondly, no BCSE leader has ever tried to post a comment on this blog. The BCSE website carries a complaint that I was "censoring" them by not having comments on the blog ( However, I've had comments for some time now, and it looks to me like this complaint was empty rhetoric.

Thirdly, though is the most significant point. Though the BCSE have spent many hours on all the activities listed above... they haven't actually spent time addressing any of the serious questions which this blog has raised.

That is, there's been a whole barrel load of time spent in trying to convince the Internet that I'm one of the biggest toads in existence... but all the real questions I'm asking have just been brushed under the carpet. That's a slightly curious strategy, isn't it, if the BCSE have all the facts on their side? If you have the truth and can document it - then why would you do that?

What If It's True?

So let's play this out. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that all the personal allegations about me are true. Let us suppose, even, that the BCSE have been too kind to me, and that I am even worse than they have said.

Now... what difference does this make to all that I have documented about the BCSE? Suppose I am really exceptionally evil... does the BCSE then become automatically credible or qualified as a result?

It seems clear to me that the BCSE's strategy to refute my documentation is a straightforward "them versus us - which side are you on?" play. A simple battle, with two sides - you're either for us or against us. If the BCSE can make clear that their opponents are desperately depraved - then the BCSE win the debate by default. All the issues over the BCSE's trustworthiness, credibility and agenda must come down to a simple polarisation - who do you trust? Surely not those insane and evil creationists or Intelligent Design proponents? Surely you trust us instead?

I don't think that intelligent observers will find this a very satisfying response. Even supposing that they are persuaded that I really do suck... the option is still open to them of deciding that it's also true that the BCSE is not a credible organisation in the field of science education, and has in fact been misleading the public about itself. The "either / or" dichotomy is a false one - we can both suck!

In a future article, I am planning to continue the process of taking this step back - and raising again some of those awkward questions which the BCSE don't want to answer. I will contrast the effort put into alleging that I'm a real bad egg, with the lack of effort in actually documenting what I've got wrong.

The BCSE's activity, listed above, is because they want to focus all the attention concerning the issues I've raised on me, instead of themselves. But why?

I think I know... do you?

(Part two: follow this link).

David Anderson

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