The BCSE - According To Those Involved

Since opening, "BCSE Revealed" has shown with pretty comprehensive thoroughness that the "British Centre for Science Education" is not a bona fide group of scientists or educators, but simply a group of people, almost all hard-line atheists, with a strong grudge against evangelical Christianity. For most of them, their support for the creation myth of Darwinism is simply an outlet for them to promote their own materialist philosophy and fight against Christian ways of thinking.

Now that's fine, in it's own way; unlike the BCSE I don't believe that there should be "illegal ideas" which can't be discussed; if they want to promote Darwinism, let them. The problem, though, is the BCSE's track record in outright deception: constantly lobbying public bodies and conveniently omitting to mention that its grand sounding name does not have any reality behind it. If you're an editor of a national newspaper and you receive a letter from the spokesman of the "British Centre for Science Education", you might think that carries some weight - wouldn't you? If you knew that said spokesman was a management consultant who has never been professionally involved in science education - and that the same went for everyone else in the organisation's leadership (one has been professionally involved in science, but is retired) - wouldn't you feel like you'd been conned?

Not Science; atheism - the testimony of those who have been involved

In some previous posts, "BCSE Revealed" has catalogued some of the opinions of those who had close involvement in the BCSE. Consider these words, from a man who himself is an atheist activist:

"I am against fighting alongside other members of BSCE who are, themselves, religiously motivated" and "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."

http://bcse-revealed.blogspot.com/2006/10/fact-check.html

And now: more of the above

Michael Roberts himself is very confident of the truth of Darwinism, and actively campaigns in its favour. He has offered various bits of advice and encouragement to the BCSE, because he supports their position that any alternative position to Darwinism is unscientific and as such should never be discussed in schools. Roberts has on various occasions published some pretty insulting comments about myself on the BCSE's forum, which I take as an attempt to ingratiate himself with them; not being an atheist himself, presumably they might consider him suspect. Roberts posts on the BCSE forum under the name "Michael"; I suspect he doesn't supply his full name or a picture because he's a bit nervous about being too publicly associated with the BCSE:

http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=10133#10133

But what does Roberts really think of the BCSE? The Internet has the answer. Roberts gave a lecture to Garstang Methodist Church (http://www.gmeth.clara.net) in which he sought to give an overview of young earth creationism and intelligent design. Now, it's not my purpose in "BCSE Revealed" to critique such articles; in general I think it has good spots but is spoilt by a number of fairly major mistakes, particularly in touching upon history. I certainly don't think that Roberts provides anything to substantiate his conclusion "I rest my case that YEC and ID are disasters for education and the church", as the whole lecture appears to be more of a statement of Roberts' position rather than the outlining of arguments for it. The paragraph that has relevance to "BCSE Revealed" is this one. It is placed right at the opening of a section titled "Atheistic Science":

"One result of Truthinscience [sic] has been opposition from atheistic scientists, who can rightly point out the bad science, but also use it as an argument for their mantra “faith is contrary to reason”, and opposition to faith schools. Some of this is coming out on the web forum of the British Council for Science Education, which seems to have no leading scientists among its members."

(http://www.gmeth.clara.net/creation.htm)

Now, "British Council" should clearly read "British Centre", because there is no such body as the "British Council for Science Education". There is only one body with a name like that which matches Roberts' description. Whether the error was in Roberts' notes or in the transcription of them I don't know.

Notice then what Robert says:

• The BCSE are an example "atheistic scientists" ...
  
  
• ... except with the caveat that none of them appear to be scientists.
  
  
• Despite the BCSE's protestations of purely being motivated by good science rather than ideology, what they actually do is use evolution to forward the argument that "faith is contrary to reason".
  
  
• The BCSE's leaders are actually secularist campaigners who would like to do away with faith schools. In other words, they want taxpayers, the vast majority of whom aren't atheists, to have their money taken from them to fund an atheistic education that they don't agree with. Again, this makes the BCSE's slogan on their website's front page - "BCSE believes in... Democracy, Pluralism, Freedom and Righteousness" sound rather hollow.
  
  
• In fact, the BCSE are the pre-eminent example that Roberts could think of to illustrate the above behaviour on the behalf of atheists (he then goes on to discuss Richard Dawkins).
  

Such testimonies as Roberts are valuable, because Roberts very strongly sympathises with the BCSE's aims, and has offered them his own help and assistance on several occasions. When such people describe the BSCE as being atheists without scientific standing, that carries a lot of weight - and leaves the BCSE with a lot of explaining to do.

David Anderson


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

You're Off Message! (2)

Last week, I published some research on the BCSE's general membership. As expected, it turns out to be heavily dominated by campaigning atheists, and seriously lacking in credentialed science educators.

http://bcse-revealed..../2007/03/who-are-members-general-membership.html

One of the few vaguely-active members was George Jelliss, about whom I wrote:

"George Jelliss: A prominent member of Leicester Secular Society. Mr. Jelliss maintains the LSS's website. In April 2006 the LSS organised a special outing to demonstrate in support of "Jerry Springer The Opera", a spiteful and gratuitous mockery of everything connected with Christianity. So I think I can tell where they're coming from...

http://www.leicestersecularsociety.org.uk/jstopera.htm"

Giving The Game Away...

Just a few days ago, Mr. Jelliss was involved in another of those "oops - I keep confusing our public stance with what we're really about!" moments which the BCSE apparently have such trouble avoiding.

In a post on the BCSE's forum, Mr. Jelliss discusses a short video on Richard Dawkins' website, involving philosopher Daniel Dennett.

It's not news that the BCSE's membership's favourite websites are those of militant atheists Dawkins and Dennett, but in commending a particular video, take a look at what Jelliss says...

On the Dawkins website currently there is a series of short videos in which Daniel Dennett talks on various Darwinian and religious topics that are well worth listening to:

(snip)

He continues on the need for evolutionists to make more of cartoons and other popular media to get the science across, since that is what our opponents, the creationists and evangelicals, are doing very successfully.
_________________
GPJ

http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=7829#7829

Oops! That's a bit off-message! Read that carefully.

He didn't say "our opponents - creationists who seek to promote their ideas within state schools"; he didn't say "our opponents - creationists"; no, he said "our opponents - creationists and evangelicals". And not just "my opponents" - its "our opponents".

Jelliss' thinking is pretty clear. He's in the BCSE to oppose evangelicals; and as a member of the BCSE, his understanding is that his fellow-members are doing the same thing.

Now, unless you're completely new to "BCSE Revealed", you'll know that that's a pretty fair assumption. But the BCSE's members and leaders normally make some kind of attempt to avoid saying so quite so openly - in case either it damages the BCSE's credibility when it seeks to make authoritative public statements about science or education; or in case it scares away any of the "useful idiots" who they'd like to get to support them. Such "useful idiots" allow the BCSE to make the pretence that it is a religiously diverse body from a whole range of views... whilst of course the leadership remains solidly in the hands of campaigning atheists.

("Useful idiot" - "The tone of usage implies that the 'useful idiot' is ignorant of the facts to the extent that they end up unwittingly advancing an adverse cause that they might not otherwise support." - Wikipedia)

An Honest Mistake?

Could it be the case that Mr. Jelliss is a newcomer to the BCSE, and hadn't yet had time to work out what it was really about?

Nope.

Take a peek at the graphic above - Jelliss joined the BCSE's forum on the first full day of its existence (October 7th). That's because Jelliss was a member of "BlackShadow", the BCSE's parent. His first post in the "BlackShadow" Yahoo group was on the 26th of May, 2005 - nearly 2 years ago:

(BlackShadow post 130)

Jelliss has been involved in the BCSE's discussions from the very start. He didn't just turn up in the last week or two. If anyone should know very well what the BCSE's real agenda is, it would be him.

But Why?

George Jelliss

Mr. Jelliss, however, has in previous posts shown that he does not know or understand the first principles of evangelical Christianity. Now, that's something I take no pleasure in at all. I'm a preacher - my role is to teach the Christian faith. And to not understand the basic principles of salvation is the most awful position anyone could be in.

In October 2006, amongst other things Jelliss wrote: "However, Luther said that while everyone should do their best in whatever role they were allotted in life, only God could judge. This was known as "justification by faith alone"." (http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=52).

On a purely historical and cultural level, it is a tragedy that someone could be approaching 20 years old, let alone approaching 70, without understand the fundamental principles of the most significant and far-reaching event in world history, religion, politics and culture in the last millennium, namely the Protestant Reformation, at the heart of which was the doctrine of "justification by faith alone". But when the matter of which one is ignorant is of eternal consequence, it is infinitely more so.

The principle of "justification by faith alone" has nothing to do with and is almost the opposite to the outline which Mr. Jelliss describes above. Let me explain.

• God is our Creator. In him we live, move and have our being. We owe everything to him. He has set the bounds on our lives, their beginning and their end.
  
  
• As such, we owe to God worship, honour and glory. He is before all things; we depend upon him. He made us, and gives us life and breath each day. He is worthy of uninterrupted loving obedience.
  
  
• But, none of us has given to God this obedience. Our race is fallen, and we are corrupt. Our first parents rebelled against God. Every day we prove this to be so, as corruption comes out of our hearts. There is much in human life that is dignified, and admirable; all of which God designed; but there is also continual corruption and uncleanness and rebellion, which the Bible calls "sin".
  
  
• As such, we all stand in a position of condemnation before God. He is the righteous judge of the universe, whether we rebel or not. He will judge us. But the verdict is already known - we are condemned.
  
  
• But God, who is full of mercy and kindness, has done something unspeakably wonderful to rescue us from this predicament. He himself came to earth, in the person of his Son, Jesus. Born of a virgin and so not inheriting the corruption that is common to humankind, Jesus lived out the perfectly righteous life that we all owe to God.
  
  
• Much more than that, when Jesus died on the cross, he offered up to his Father a sacrifice, an offering, for sinners. He willingly offered himself up to endure the wrath of God, paying the price which infinite justice demanded - a price which we can only pay through an eternity in hell.
  
  
• The good news of the Christian message - which is known as "justification by faith alone" is that we may freely receive the benefit of what Jesus has done. That is:
  
  
  1. We may be "justified". The Greek and Hebrew words translated "justified" in the Bible work like the English one - to be "justified" is the opposite of to be "condemned". It is for God to declare that he is fully satisfied with us, and completely accepts us. Instead of condemning us, he announces that we have fulfilled all of his requirements.
     
     
  2. But justification is not by "works" - it is not by doing the right thing. We cannot do this; we have already failed to. Our works are corrupt in God's eyes. But instead, we may be justified because God accepts Jesus in our place. He sees Jesus' perfection - and counts it as ours. He sees Jesus' death - and accepts it on our behalf.
     
     
  3. How do we receive this free gift? Simply by trusting. "Faith" in the Christian message is something quite simple. It means to firstly understand the good news about Jesus, then to accept it as true, and then to trust oneself wholly to Jesus himself. This is faith - to rely upon him for acceptance with God, and not on anything else. When we have trusted in Christ, we now belong to the family of God: we are justified.
     
     
• Justification is by "faith alone", because nothing else plays a part in our acceptance with God. We cannot contribute anything - Christ contributes all. Therefore the only thing of any use for getting us "right with God" is to rely on Christ - alone.
  
  Read more: "Two ways to live: the choice we all face": http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/2wtl/
  
  

James White, PhD: "The God Who Justifies"

The best full-length treatment of the doctrine of "justification by faith alone" currently available. Reliable, informed, readable.

Get it from Amazon




That is the great doctrine of justification by faith alone. I have staked my eternity on it - but it is no gamble. It is the truth of God, written in the Bible. It is proved by Jesus' resurrection from the dead. It was re-discovered in the Bible by Luther after many centuries of lying dormant during the Protestant Reformation. It has been tried and tested by millions of people from the nations of the whole world. Its effects on the societies and cultures it has touched have been phenomenal. It is the most precious truth in all the world. Jesus Christ loves us, and offers us a free pardon. So why not trust in him?

David Anderson



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

Who Are The Members? (General Membership)

OK - back to a bit of research. Don't expect anything earth-shattering here - just the "grunt work" of researching and documenting.

The previous parts of this investigation:

1. Who Are The Members? (Part 1 - in the early days, the BCSE, despite making impressive claims for itself and being willing to make serious allegations about others, were reluctant to reveal the identities of those behind their own claims).
   
   
2. Who Are The Members? (Part 2 - in which I exposed the fraudulent method the BCSE used to claim artificially inflated membership numbers for itself).
   
   
3. Who Are The Members? (Part 3 - in the days before the BCSE had named any of its leadership, I named ten core individuals, documenting their lack of experience in science education, and their credentials as campaigning atheists. When the BCSE eventually named seven leaders, all seven of them turned out to be on the list I had revealed many weeks before).
   
   
4. A Note On The BCSE's Membership (Showing the evidence of the BCSE's failure to attract a broader membership).
   
   
5. Who Are The Members? The Website Editors (In which I revealed the identities of the BCSE website editors - all of are campaigning atheists).
   
   
6. (Also the series on the BCSE's de facto leader, who turns out to have no credentials or experience either in science or education: one, two, follow-up).
   

So far, I have provided evidence in four key areas:

1. The "British Centre for Science Education" is not composed of scientists or educators.
   
   
2. Its leadership contains no science educators at all, no educators at all, and only one scientist (retired). The evidence showed that 9 of its 10 core members were hardline atheists, many with experience in anti-religious campaigning.
   
   
3. This picture is also true amongst its website editors. Five out of five proof-readers are non-science educators who are also campaigning atheists.
   
   
4. The BCSE's attempt to persuade real science educators to lend it support has failed. In order to gain any members, the requirement for a monetary donation had to be dropped.
   

Today I will continue to document details of the BCSE's membership. We have seen that the BCSE does now have a defined membership - even if nothing definite is actually required of its members.

So who cared enough to join? What kind of membership would the BCSE attract? Who will feel drawn to it? Will the country's science educators be forming a queue? Or will it just attract the "usual crowd" of Internet atheists? These are questions which will give us more data - as we seek to document what kind of organisation the BCSE really is.

Gathering The Data

When someone joins the BCSE, they are then marked as a BCSE member in its forums. I think that this is so that forum participants can tell who is who - which is a good thing. Here, for example, is what you see when BCSE website proof-reader John Flemming posts in that forum:

http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=52#52

So, for this analysis I decided to count the number of posts made by each and every person marked as a "BCSE Member" - and analyse the results.

Once the BCSE members already listed in previous articles are dropped out, the following names are, in order, the ten members who post most in the BCSE forums. As you can see, some of them are not willing to be publicly identified with the BCSE using their full names - I can understand that!

Dave Oldridge, George Jelliss, "wilmot" = Paula Thomas, "jon_12091", James Rocks, Chris Sergeant, "molecanthro" = Mark Whitten, "psiloiordinary" = Mark Edon, "Gwynne", Steve Denton.

Anybody not on this list of ten has averaged less than one message per week to the forum over the past few months.

Here We Go Again...

So. You know where this is going. How many of these individuals will be Bible-believing Christians? None, of course. How many will be atheists? The majority!

Remember what the point is here. I'm not saying that no atheist has anything to say about science or education. Neither am I saying that they can't be charming or talented people. I don't believe that for a moment. What I am doing is pointing out that the make-up BCSE's membership is too skewed to be anything like a coincedence. Like attracts like - and the kind of membership attracted by the BCSE tells us what we need to know. Here, then, they are:

1. George Jelliss: A prominent member of Leicester Secular Society. Mr. Jelliss maintains the LSS's website. In April 2006 the LSS organised a special outing to demonstrate in support of "Jerry Springer The Opera", a spiteful and gratuitous mockery of everything connected with Christianity. So I think I can tell where they're coming from...
   
   http://www.leicestersecularsociety.org.uk/jstopera.htm
   
   
2. Paula Thomas, a political campaigner.
   
   "As I think is well known I am an atheist."
   
   Responding to a comment from another BCSE member: "... but that arises out of Christianity's complete lack of ability to view women as anything more than baby factories."
   
   http://www.justscience.org.uk/..._parentId=773
   
   
   http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4473#4473
   
   
   
3. James Rocks: Mr. Rocks is the founder of a similar group to the BCSE, "Science Just Science", and (like many of the BCSE's leadership) works in the world of IT. (Which I point out because you might expect that those who write to the press in the name of organisations with "Science" in their titles might, well, be from the world of science!).
   
   "I consider myself to be a militant atheist (I have been referred to as a fundamentalist atheist ...)"
   
   http://justscience.1.forumer.com/a/kyuuketsuki-kent-uk_post7.html
   
   
   
4. Chris Sergeant: Another atheist, describes Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" a piece of "rational science" !
   
   http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5729#5729
   
   
   
5. Steve Denton: Another atheist.
   
   
   http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5367#5367
   
   
6. "Gwynne": An atheist, explains that his reason for joining the BCSE is so that his children aren't influenced by religion.
   
   http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2418#2418
   
   
   
7. Mark Edon: Another atheist. Like BCSE committee members Brian Jordan and Ian Lowe, Mr. Edon signed the infamous petition demanding that the Prime Minister legislate to make any kind of non-atheistic child-rearing illegal:
   
   
   
   http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/freethinking/?showall=1
   
   
8. Mark Whitten ("molecanthro")
   
   Mark is the first BCSE member I have come across who actually has a graduate qualification in a biological discipline. I salute him! (He's only been in Britain a few years and so never attended a British state school... but still!).
   
   Having seen Rod Liddle's recent Channel 4 program "The Trouble With Atheism", Mark labelled it as a "anti-science nonsense". Mark also supports the "brights", a secular humanist group - "A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview... A bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements... The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview" (http://www.the-brights.net/).
   
   
   http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=590#590
   http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3909#3909
   http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2161#2161
   

The British Centre for Slandering Evangelicals

One more. Dave Oldridge is a Catholic (not Roman). So he is not an atheist. But the Internet appears to contain gazillions of quotes demonstrating a very deep dislike for evangelical Christianity. So he's very much at home in the BCSE. I won't go into that, as this article is long enough - you can turn up plenty in the BCSE forum along those lines if you want. Oldridge's acceptance by the BCSE does show up the BCSE's hypocrisy: Catholic doctrine is explicitly theocratic - it claims that the church has a head on earth, and that he is the rightful political and temporal ruler of the world. That is of course why the Vatican is a state and has political ambassadors. To those who've followed my series on "Theocracy" and the BCSE's vacuous claims that evangelical Christians are planning to replace democracy, this utter silence on actual theocratic doctrine is another clue. It tells us who and what the BCSE are really opposing.

Conclusion

OK, so that's 8 out of 10 who I was able to identify as being atheists. And generally of the militant variety. Let's throw that into the pot. Of the top ten leaders at launch-time, all the website editors, and the top ten most active members in the forum, there are 20 out of 23 whom I have identified as atheists - and generally of the militant, campaigning variety.

Let's run a similar calculation to one we've run before. The number of atheists in Britian is sometimes estimated at around 10%. Let's be generous, and say 15%. Let's be very generous, and ignore the "militant" factor. Let's do some maths. If you choose 23 people at random, the probability that it just happens that 20 or more would be atheists, is approximately equal to... just under 1 chance in 27 trillion. Or, just under 2 million times less likely than winning the UK's national lottery.

So - is the BCSE's make-up a coincedence? Is their science really independent of their religion? The answer's not hard to work out...

David Anderson



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

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

SECURE

... 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.

Theocracy?

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.

http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3210#3210

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".

http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/Theocracy

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.

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 10^th of February.

Presently, it looks like this:

http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/DavidTyler

(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 10^th 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.

Who Are The Members? The Website Editors

I think I have picked up a few new readers lately, with all the attention to the Richard Dawkins parable, and the brilliant YouTube radio spin-off (which has been viewed 3,300 times in its first couple of days existence).

So let me remind my readers what the purpose of this blog is.

In September 2006, a new organisation made an appearance. Mentioned in the House of Commons by Graham Stringer MP, interviewed on BBC Radio Manchester, and with letters printed in the Times and Financial Times newspapers, it sounded like a very impressive authoritative body. Its name was the "British Centre for Science Education", and it made some very dogmatic pronouncements about what should and should not be taught in science lessons in the United Kingdom. The unsuspecting member of the public, reading such pronouncements, would assume that the nation's top scientists were speaking - which was, presumably, the intention behind choosing such a name.

(http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=31313)

The truth, however, was rather different - and I set about documenting it.

The Reality

In fact, the "British Centre for Science" turned out not to include a single individual within its leadership who had any experience in science education (one, two). Actually, its founder and leader were two men with no experience either in research science or in education whatsoever (one, two, three). Whilst the "BCSE" presents itself as an authority on what should be taught in state schools.... not a single member of leadership has ever taught in one. In October 2006 I documented the BCSE leaders, in their own words, confessing that they did not even know what the National Curriculum was, let alone what was in it.

Not only that, but I also proved that when the BCSE wrote to MPs, telling them that Truth in Science's material was "full of scientific mistakes" - they hadn't yet discovered what material Truth in Science were distributing. Read that story here.

Whyever, then, would such a bunch of lay people be attempting to hoodwink the British public and legislators in believing that they were the nation's leading authorities on science education? The answer to this didn't take too long to discover, as I documented how the BCSE's leadership is overwhelmingly dominated by Richard Dawkins style anti-religious activists. We have documented quote after quote in which the BCSE leaders have explained their own religious motivations, hard-line atheism, and such-like (one, two, three, four).

And it's gone on from there, as the BCSE and/or its individual leaders have been threatened with legal action by one UK university, launched various campaigns of abuse and spurious legal threats against me (one, two, three, four, five), taken part in their own political campaigning to make religion illegal, and so on (one, two). We've also documented the BCSE's now-hidden anti-religious rants (one, two, three), and their ineptness when it comes to research (one, two, three).

Today : Membership Update

In previous articles I have documented the lack of scientific/educational credentials of the BCSE leadership, and the BCSE's troubles with attracting members. Today I want to provide documentation on another handful of its core. Let us see - what are their credentials? What is motivating them?

If you look at the very last line of many of the articles on the BCSE website, you will see a capital P followed by further capital letters - like this:

(http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/PeterSenior)

What do they mean? Simply this: The "P" stands for "proof-read"; and the following letters are initials. If there is no such line, then it means the article hasn't been proof-read. This is the system the BCSE are using to check on which articles have been reviewed. So, the above "PRS" means "Proof read by RS = Roger Stanyard".

I ran an analysis of the whole of the BCSE public website as it stood on the 1st of February (i.e. 4 days ago). The results were as follows:

Number / Signature
21 / PRS
17 / PJAF
8 / PTC
7 / PRV
2 / PTA

Analysis

Two of those names are familiar to us already. RS - Roger Stanyard, a management consultant and atheist, the individual responsible for the majority of the BCSE's activity. TC - Timothy Chase, a software engineer and atheist, one of the BCSE's committee.

Who are the there others?

1. JAF, John Flemming

Describing his own religious position in his own words:

"I'm an atheist, and proud of it. I am atheist, hear me roar. Godless and glad of it."

"I have a t-shirt that says 'Godless, and glad of it'."

"According to the bible, god killed over two and a half million people. Satan, only ten. It makes you wonder."

And making quite clear his own understanding of the connection between Darwinism etc. and atheism:

"Knowing what we now know about the origins of Life, the Universe, and Everything (pace Douglas Adams), god is unnecessary. As is discussion of his/her/its existence/non-existence."

From the above sentence, it sounds as if Mr. Flemming knows the answers to the knotty problems of life arising from non-life (i.e. abiogenesis), and the origin of time and matter (cosmogenesis). That's news me - and to all the real scientists still toiling fruitlessly in those fields!

Here is the graphic which Mr. Flemming uses as his emblem in the BCSE's forums:

If I was an atheist, I don't think I'd want to say that. Because if atheism is the "default" setting ... then the overwhelming majority of human beings throughout history have abandonned it for something else - including 11 in every 12 (92%) of those alive in 2005, according to http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html.

Mr. Flemming advertises his e-mail address as "anarch at ntlworld fullstop com". I suppose that "anarch" is short for "anarchist", but I'm only guessing.

I was able to find the above information on Mr. Flemming quite easily. But could I find any data on his qualifications to be a proof-reader for such an august body as a national centre of science education? I did a search of the Internet for any reference of Mr. Flemming in a scientific context... I could not find a thing. I suppose that I may be looking in the wrong places.

My default assumption when I find a new name in the BCSE is that I might have a good chance of finding more about them by going to Richard Dawkins' website, or on the website of the National Secular Society... and Mr. Flemming didn't disappoint me.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/letterstonewsline23.html
http://bcseweb.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4467#4467
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/search.php?search_author=jaf

Same old story here then. Who's next?

2. RV, Rudy Vonk

Born in the Netherlands, Mr. Vonk is in his 50s and lives in Oviedo, Spain.

I was not able to find his name in connection with any scientific research, qualifications or the like.

Mr. Vonk hasn't had a very visible profile in the BCSE (just 30 or so posts each in the BlackShadow group that preceeded the BCSE, and a similar number in the BCSE's forum). But there was enough in those few posts to find Mr. Vonk ridiculing the Bible, Christians, etcetera, and professing his own atheism.

Talking about former education secretary, Ruth Kelly, Mr. Vonk wrote: "remember these people are by definition very theist ... they are, OTOH [On The Other Hand], generally also very intelligent."

Another quote (censorship mine): "What the f*** are 'basic religious rights'?".

And in another place:

"I agree with you, except that Dawkins doesn't actually say that science can weigh in on the existence of a god. It can't. Reason can, and in that I agree wholeheartedly with Dawkins." Actually, Professor Dawkins wrote the following in November 2006 in Time Magazine: "The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no." (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-1,00.html). Vonk goes on to say, "You become an atheist not by 'not knowing', but by applying reason to the religious phenomenon [sic] that man has created for himself." It is not clear to me whether Mr. Vonk includes the universe, self-replicating life, meaning, love and morality amongst the phenomena which "man has created for himself"...?

Links:
http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5172#5172
http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1817#1817
http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/BlackShadow/1748 (since removed from the Internet by the BCSE - available on request)
http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1819#1819

3. Tim Atkinson

There was very little material on Mr. Atkinson available - no posts in the BCSE forum or BlackShadow group (and only 2 articles marked as being proof-read by him).

However Mr. Atkinson is attributed as the author of one part of a page on the BCSE website - http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/CreationScienceMovement, in which Mr. Atkinson reports on his visit to the "Genesis Expo" in Portsmouth - a report that was published in the "Freethinker", "The British monthly journal for Atheists, Secularists, Freethinkers, Rationalists and Humanists" (http://www.freethinker.co.uk/). Mr. Atkinson explains that he had no previous knowledge of the creation/evolution controversy, and learnt all he did about it from the Internet. He concludes: "And, more hopefully, I have discovered the National Secular Society, TalkOrigins, and many similar organisations, learning through them of the efforts still being made to turn our supposedly free society into a theocracy."

Ah, a theocracy. Haven't we been here before? (One, two, three, four).

Conclusion

I hope that my readers will understand the point of this article.

The point has not been to launch arguments against atheism, or against any of the statements or positions of the men mentioned above. I am happy to do that, but that is not what this blog is here for.

The point has been to document what kind of membership the BCSE has - whether they are credentialed scientists or educators or not; and so to gather more data for the investigation into whether or not the BCSE is a true scientific body or a grand deception.

We have documented that not one of the five listed proof-readers of the BCSE's website is a scientist or an educator - but that in fact all five are atheists, generally with form in secularist campaigning, to be found on the Richard Dawkins website, etcetera etcetera.

The effect on me of such evidence is that it confirms what I began believing - that the origins debate is about philosophy and religion as much as it is about science. Darwinism is not a neutral scientific fact, based upon empirical observation. It is a religious doctrine, underpinned by unprovable philosophical presuppositions of the atheist variety. That is why its most outspoken adherents are militant atheists. That is why those who don't share materialist assumptions are far more likely to reject it. This materialist agenda is subverting science, and it is time it was exposed.

I do not know whether the men named above are aware of to what extent Darwinism pre-supposes a materialist philosophy. I suppose it is well possible that they have swallowed the viewpoint that materialistic philosophy represents a "neutral" approach to the issues and is the only allowable paradigm within science. On the other hand, they may have a different slant.

Whether they have or not, though, it's becoming clearer and clearer as to what kind of organisation the "religiously neutral" BCSE are. Actually, I don't have a problem with not being "religiously neutral". The idea of religious neutrality is a myth - either we worship God, or we don't: no neutral territory.

What I would like to see is the BCSE becoming more honest - and let the worldviews fight it out, in open debate. It's my belief that the reason why that can't happen, is because then Darwinism can't win. Only if the decks are stacked by insisting on materialism as "neutral" or "science" can Darwinism make its case. And that's not the mark of a winning position.

David Anderson


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

Theocracy: Part 4

In this series, we have been reviewing the BCSE's "Theocracy" page. That page was put up in response to my highlighting of the BCSE's allegations on the subject and my challenge to them to prove it. We've been plodding through, as researchers are meant to do!

Previous parts are here and should be read for background: one, two, three. In summary, we've seen that the BCSE have an extremely poor understanding of Christian theology, and a proneness to read their own prejudices even into statements which point in the opposite direction.

We've seen too that somewhat hypocritically, the author of the BCSE's "Theocracy" page (Dr. Brian Jordan), has been doing some political lobbying of his own. Dr. Jordan has been petitioning the Prime Minister - to make it illegal for children to have anything other than a secularist upbringing:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to [m]ake it illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16.

In order to encourage free thinking, children should not be subjected to any regular religious teaching ... based on the views of their parents or guardians.

Current signatories:

...
Ian Lowe
...
Brian Jordan
...

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/freethinking?showall=1

Since Dr. Jordan apparently does know what an attempt to force your own views upon others using the arm of the state looks like, his failure (so far) to document any such activity by those named on the BCSE website is all the more blameworthy.

Let's continue down the "Theocracy" article. As we've made a lot of our basic points in the previous installments, we'll pick up the pace. Let's see just how good Dr. Jordan's evidence is that those wicked non-Darwinists are plotting to replace our democracy.

Quote #4

"Though our own land is not so riddled with atheism, we need to wake up to the deep crisis that threatens Western cultures — the cancer of postmodernism, a materialism with no values. We must resist the scourge of unbelief, and repent of the sin that so often rejects God’s clear testimony concerning creation. The Lord told the churches in Revelation that he would remove their lamps if they did not repent." - Andy McIntosh, Evangelical Times 2004

A few obvious points by way of critique:

• There's no suggestion of political action in this quote.
  
  
• Rather, the suggestion is that Christians ("the churches") should "repent".
  
  
• The alternative posited is that churches will lose divine blessing.
  
  
• The entity opposed in this quote is not democracy, but postmodernism.
  

We scratch our heads, trying to wonder just how Dr. Jordan considers this quote as some kind of evidence that Christians want to abolish democracy. Huh?

Quote #5

"Secularism claims to provide the political and educational settings in which all are free to choose their own life, where no view is imposed, and where the state and school are neutral between competing worldviews. In reality, secularism is one more totalitarian option for private and public life which is an enemy of the Gospel of Christ. Only the continuing faith in science hides its nakedness. And again it is worth remembering that all the main political parties play to this secularist tune." - Arthur Jones, writing in "New Directions".

It is hard to evaluate this quote without the context. The wording of the first sentence implies that Dr. Jones believes that the brand of secularism he is critiquing is making a deceptive claim - claiming to provide a kind of neutrality when in fact its true agenda is to do something else (presumably, to go far beyond neutrality and into denying the truth value of any and all religious claims). It is not clear to me whether Dr. Jones believes that there is an alternative approach which would provide such a neutral setting.

My guess is that Dr. Jones is saying that there is a secularist agenda to remove all mentions of religion from public life, under the pretence of a kind of religious neutrality. Such an agenda is not neutrality at all - it represents the imposition of atheism by decree. True religious freedom is not found by the silencing of all religions. And with that point I can heartily agree.

But the main point for our investigation is that again, there is nothing here about any plans or schemes for replacing democracy in the UK. That only exists when Dr. Jordan reads in between the lines.

I find it telling that the only evidence for theocratic plans that is being provided by the BCSE comes from such reading in between the lines. Given the wealth of material available from those prominent in criticising Darwinism (books, articles, recordings, etc.), it ought to be possible to produce something more than this. Given that it apparently isn't possible, I'd say that here we have a case where the silence is significant. On-topic, to-the-point quotes in which Darwin-questionning Christians advocate political revolution aren't forthcoming.... because they don't exist.


Quote #6 - "Education Is Religion"

"So is Christianity & the Bible true - historically, scientifically and objectively or is atheistic, humanistic, materialism true? One's allegiance to either requires a certain leap of faith." - Stephen Layfield

I am really struggling to work out two things here: Firstly what the connection between the heading ("Education is Religion") and the quote is, and secondly what the connection between the quote and the subject of a theocracy is.

I agree with Layfield - materialistic atheism must make some quite spectacular leaps of faith. For example, the atheist must believe that the universe has no ultimate cause. Matter, space, time - they all came out of literally nothing, by themselves. Life began spontaneously out of non-life; and not just any old "life", but life with the capability to self-reproduce and to evolve into all the variety now visible in the world. All this must be believed, without it being possible to demonstrate that it is true. Frankly, if that's not a leap of faith, I don't know what is.

So as I say, I agree with Layfield - both being a Christian and being an atheist requires a certain amount of faith in things which cannot be observed. But what has this to do with theocracies?

My take on this is that it is again the BCSE showing their true colours. To the BCSE, atheism is the default, privileged position - anything else comes under their censure. Again, we see the BCSE arguing not scientifically, but philosophically. It is not theocracy which they are opposing - it is Christianity.

Quote #7

"In a similar way to the Christian Institute, we wish to present a clear alternative to the atheistic humanism rampant through most of our schools today." - Andy McIntosh

Does Dr. Jordan have the intelligence to be able to tell the difference between presenting an intellectual argument, and trying to replace democracy? Being able to make a case in an atmosphere free of illegal ideas and forbidden thoughts is part of the essence of democracy.

Presumably Dr. Jordan has quoted this quote because he disagrees with it. Or in other words, because he desires atheistic humanism to be given free reign, unchallenged. But that would contradict the BCSE's "we're religiously neutral" stance... so just what does Dr. Jordan want?

Quote #8

"Organise a Creation/Evolution debate in the sixth form. Such an event, when properly and fairly planned, represents a good opportunity for interested third parties (together with those who may have been previously disinterested and/or unconcerned) to gauge how well the available data fits the respective world views of the Creationist/Evolutionist. It is the conviction (and happy experience) of this writer that much prejudice and ignorance can be undermined by conducting oneself with both charity and rigour and by making full use of such an opportunity. (We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. [2 Corinthians 10:5])" - Stephen Layfield

Stephen Layfield suggests a debate in which both sides can present their evidence and allow it to be weighed up. Why would Dr. Jordan object to that? If the evidence for evolution is so strong, what's the problem? Layfield seems rather confident (and indeed appeals to his experience) that when such debates happen and people are presented with both sides of the argument, then many have change their minds. Is that why Dr. Jordan doesn't want such debates to happen?

If free and fair debates are the essence of theocracy, then I think that the word has lost all its meaning. Again, I can only infer that Dr. Jordan doesn't have a real agenda to promote the kind of discussion and toleration of dissent which is essential to true scientific inquiry - he has an agenda to oppose anything that doesn't fit in with his own atheistic worldview.

Summing Up

At this point I think it is probably unnecessary to continue examining the rest of the quotes on the page one by one - that would be over-kill. We've seen the gist.

The gist is that Dr. Brian Jordan has very little sympathy for non-atheistic views of the world. Any discussion or toleration of them, in his mind, amounts to support for a theocracy. Dr. Jordan though doesn't seem to realise how "theocratic" his own ideas seem to those who aren't atheists - or rather, "atheocratic".

The BCSE ought to look into a mirror... it's not the BCSE's opponents who are opposing free or open debate. It is not the BCSE's opponents who are petitioning the Prime Minister to have all approaches to child-rearing other than their own made illegal. It is not the BCSE's opponents who are suggesting that their world-view should be imposed on others who don't share their beliefs. It is the BCSE themselves.

And that's the same old story once again.

David Anderson


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

We're Not Anti-Religion, But... (Part 2)

In part one, we introduced the (now hidden) page on the BCSE website "A Rough Guide To Fundamentalism".

In this page, the BCSE explained their understanding of those whose religious views they oppose. This was, of course, in the days before the BCSE decided to present themselves as being a purely scientific, religiously-neutral group ...

... but not in the days before "BCSE Revealed" was taking snap-shots of their website!

Fundamentalism?

Before looking at any of the details of the page, it's worth talking for a bit about the label "fundamentalist" which the BCSE routinely use.

For a "Centre of Science Education" which has no opinions about religion, the BCSE have rather a lot to say about "fundamentalists" and "fundamentalism". The words turn up on 74 and 22 pages respectively:

(http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/HomePage?action=search&q=fundamentalist)

The BCSE's use of this label, though, clearly marks them out as being driven by an anti-religious agenda. Let me explain what I mean.

What Is A Fundamentalist?

There is a sub-section of Christianity within the American scene that designates itself by the label "fundamentalist".

The origin of this label is from the controversy that arose with the rise of "Liberal Christianity" in the 19th century. Those who believed that "Liberalism" was ditching or re-writing essential Christian doctrines began calling themselves "Fundamentalists" to indicate that they were still holding on to the "fundamentals" of the faith.

However, over time the label became attached to a smaller sub-section of that movement, so that today a "fundamentalist" within the Christian world is a particular type of American Baptist, with a commitment not only to various beliefs shared with other evangelical Christians, but also to others besides which aren't. (For the record, I am not a fundamentalist - I am an evangelical Baptist, though like most Christians I prefer to make the main thing the main thing and just be called a Christian - a disciple of Jesus Christ).

In The United Kingdom

The fundamentalist movement is almost non-existant in the United Kingdom. I do not recall ever coming across a church that belonged to it, though I can remember on a couple of occasions coming across people whose views fitted in pretty well with it. None of the people listed on the BCSE's website that I am aware of agree with the particular distinctives of contemporary fundamentalism.

It is clear, then, that the BCSE are not using the label as it is used within the Christian world.

So, What Are The BCSE Up To?

The other way in which the label fundamentalist is used is by rabid Richard-Dawkins style atheists, to smear any and all religious folk. The idea is that by lumping them all in under the heading "fundamentalist", you start to imagine that there's no difference between Islamic terrorism and any other kind of belief in God.

You can see an example of this somewhat unsubtle line of argument by visiting Dawkins' own website. Scrolling a little way down the front page (http://richarddawkins.net/home), there are some leaflets which the Professor suggests you print off and distribute.

The text of the leaflets: "Imagine No Religion".

The image? The twin towers of the infamous 9/11 Islamic terrorist attacks.


A sophisticated intellectual argument, it isn't!

Does anybody wonder why Professor Dawkins didn't write "Imagine No Islam"? Possibly he would then get into trouble for spreading a bigotted stereotype?

Ah well... "Imagine No Religion" it is then - no bigotry or stereotyping there! (?)

Ah well. In case anyone did find that poster an irrefutable argument, here's an equally irrefutable reply.

I would have chosen Mao Zedung who also murdered millions in the cause of atheism, but I didn't suppose his face was so instantly recognisable.

Fundamentalism?

None of those described on the BCSE's pages that I am aware of actually are fundamentalists according to the meaning of that term within the Christian world... and neither are any of them planning to fly aeroplanes into skyscrapers any time soon either as far as I know.

The BCSE are using "fundamentalist" as a religiously-loaded insult. If they cared to describe those they oppose accurately, then many of them would be evangelicals, Pentecostals and/or Baptists.

Using deliberately pejorative (insulting) language to describe those whom you oppose is something of a give-away. Those who feel that they have heavyweight arguments do not need to do that. Re-defining language is the resort of those who know they're in trouble. Let me ask - just why does the defence of Darwinism need to stoop to this kind of level? If the scientific evidence is so good... then why doesn't the BCSE just stick to that? Of course, if you've been reading "BCSE Revealed" long, you'll know the answer (see here).

Add in two further facts...

• It's only Bible-believing Christians that the BCSE uses this pejorative approach to...
• and that it does it so very often...

... and there's only one reasonable conclusion. This isn't your normal group of science educators.

"That's where we need to be - that being a fundamentalist christianis as [sic] socially as acceptable as being a paedophile."

Ian Lowe, BCSE Committee Member, 25th June 2006

http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/BlackShadow/messages/1029 - until the BCSE deleted it. I have a copy for any researchers who would like to verify.

David Anderson


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