For completeness sake (the updated BCSE committee)

For Completeness' Sake...

There have been three new names added to the BCSE committee recently, to replace the continuing stream of resignations.

I can't do much apart from yawn at them, as it's now obvious enough that the only qualification necessary to get onto the BCSE committee is that you are 1) not dead and 2) willing to join. If you happen to have any experience in teaching science then that is of course good, but it's quite sufficient if all you've done is put up some websites to promote atheism then that's definitely a bonus. Well, on that score we've already commented on new member Mark Edon (see here).

For completeness' sake, that just leaves Dr. Jeremy Hodge and Chris Hyland to add a few notes on.

Dr. Jeremy Hodge

Dr. Hodge joined the BCSE committee in late 2007. He has a doctorate from Oxford University in chemical engineering, and runs an electrical manufacturing company. The BCSE presents itself as an expert source of information on questions about biological origins. Dr. Hodge, though, apparently has no qualifications in biological origins or in science education in general - but he is, as with the BCSE leadership in general, an outspoken atheist. Dr. Hodge was a supporter of the infamous petition which sought to forbid parents to instruct their children in any way of life except for secularism and atheism. In fact, he went as far as to argue that this was required by the UN convention on human rights! So, it's obvious where he's coming from. I'm sure our children all look forward to being carted away to the nearest council home in order to enjoy a better life, free from their religious parents, and they'll certainly thank Dr. Hodge and those of his ilk should it ever come to pass. Ho hum.

(http://community.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=5216#5216)

In the following paragraph, Dr. Hodge shows us that he makes the classic atheist division of religion from science and reason, as if they were mutually exclusive, not to mention some obviously whacky political ideas, and drops in the hallmark of Dawkins-style fundamentalist atheism: the suggestion that Christianity is really little different from Islamic terrorism:

"I think we may be seeing the early stages of the Second US Civil War here, or at least the breakup of the USA into two groups of states, one which follows reason and science (e.g., California and the North East) and which is the dominant economy, and the other which is religion-dominated (e.g., Mid-West and South). Thinking as a secular European, this may be to our ultimate advantage. I don't particularly care if they delude themselves, or whatever else they do, as long as they don't turn dangerous, as some Islamicists appear to have become, and as long as they don't try to peddle their nonsense over here.''

(http://community.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t=1548)

In other words, Dr. Hodge is a good fit at the BCSE.


Chris Hyland

Finally, Chris Hyland. Mr. Hyland may be Dr. Hyland by now for all I know, as I suppose that most doctorates are finished by age 25 (which is what Mr. Hyland's age is).

Chris Hyland joined the BCSE committee in later 2007. Now aged 25 (end of 2007), he began campaigning with the BCSE as a 23 year-old biology PhD candidate at Leeds University.

Hyland has from the beginning been the only evolutionary biologist of any kind belonging to the BCSE. That fact alone would be enough to convince most investigators that it's probably not his love of biology that drew him to the BCSE!

See these stories for more on Mr. Hyland:

• "The BCSE Caught Lying To MPs" - Hyland was involved in the first major BCSE scandal, as they were caught having lobbied MPs, asking them to condemn the materials of Truth in Science as being "full of errors" before they even knew what was in them.
  
  
• How the BCSE changed its story about its lobbying of MPs - and gave itself more problems - Hyland was then involved in the BCSE's attempt to spin a story to cover itself up; which only created new questions and highlighted new aspects to the apparent deception.
  
  
• Hyland's own university, Leeds University, threatened the BCSE with legal action over the article on the BCSE's website about it and one of its non-Darwinist professors. The BCSE pulled the article without putting up any fight to defend its contents. See here.
  
  
• Hyland was complicit in the BCSE's pre-meditated slander campaign (based upon allegations which I easily proved false) against me. See here. For this, Hyland has never offered any explanation or apology.
  

Mr. Hyland is taking a major risk with his credibility by being involved with a group of imposters such as the BCSE; the only conclusions I can draw from this is either that Mr. Hyland does not intend to be involved in academia any more after his PhD, or that he is so blinded by atheistic zeal that he believes the price is worth paying. Hyland himself appears to know this, because he gave the following effective testimony to the effectiveness of my exposures of the BCSE. Before he joined them, on another website he wrote this about his advice to the BCSE:

"We did also advise that they get their website in order BEFORE starting thei lobbying, which they failed to do. The result = BCSE 'revealed'." Hyland: Yeah I was willing to write that of as the ramblings of some idiot but as it stands now it's a major problem for their credibility."

What changed? When did the BCSE recover its credibility? Or, more likely, is it Hyland that changed? Is it not a "major problem" for Hyland's own credibility that he was prepared to join the BCSE leadership despite knowing all that "BCSE Revealed" had shown about its nature? Note, though, that it's not the nature of the BCSE that was worrying Hyland; it was the fact that unless they re-wrote their website to cover up certain sections, that that nature might be made known to others.

So, the BCSE has added some new committee members - each with demonstrable track records in at least one of atheist campaigning, being caught telling pre-meditated lies without apology, or both. In other words... they'll be right at home in the BCSE.

David Anderson

Non-anonymous factual corrections welcomed by e-mail (bcse-blog at dw-perspective dot org dot uk). Comments are moderated - please read my comments policy.

A Note On The BCSE's Membership

(If you want to read the latest on the BCSE's latest backfiring attempt to discredit me, go here).

Some of you may remember the embarassment caused to the BCSE a couple of months ago when I focussed attention on its membership policies (one, two, three).

How The BCSE De-Cloaked

In the first phase of its existence, the BCSE kept very tight-lipped about who its members were; nevertheless, it insisted that it had a considerable number of them - numbers from 80 and increasing. The BCSE revealed an early sensitivity to the charge that its essential membership contained little more than a handful of atheist activists.

However, "BCSE Revealed" shed some light on how the BCSE was obtaining the numbers it was boasting for its "membership" - it simply included everybody who had ever joined its e-mail or web discussion forum. This number included various people who were posting in order to strongly disagree with the BCSE, some obvious pseudonyms - and a significant proportion of people who had never posted and single message and could not be identified at all.

Moving on from there, "BCSE Revealed" then identified who the core members really were. And for the next two months, that was all the information the outside world had available. But in early December, the BCSE finally succumbed to the pressure to name some of its official representatives (beyond the single figure of Roger Stanyard, its "spokesman"), and named a leadership of seven on its website.

Vindication for "BCSE Revealed"

Despite the BCSE linking back to my former article from two months previously with the words "the information is wrong" (http://www.bcseweb.org.uk), the BCSE's list instead gave a boost to "BCSE Revealed" by establishing the accuracy of the identification which I had made two months earlier: all seven of the BCSE's named committee were on the list of ten core, generally religiously motivated activists who I had named , giving my readers a satisfying proof of just how on track I have been.

I found this "list of seven" pleasing for another reason - it meant that the BCSE's efforts to recruit credible and qualified authorities to represent and work with it had failed. Whether this was due to the light shed by "BCSE Revealed" in dissuading any prospective individuals who had been wondering about doing so or not, I do not know - but I can always flatter myself!

Problems Attracting Real Members?

I want today to point to some evidence that the BCSE are having continuing problems in attracting real supporters - supporters, that is, who are willing to do more than just allow their name to boost the purported membership, but to actually do some work.

This is not a new problem - you may remember that back in August, Roger Stanyard, whilst boasting in public that his organisation had 50 members, was saying something quite different in private. Here's what he said in public (from the front page of the BCSE's website on the 18th of August):

(http://www.blackshadow.me.uk)

And here's what he said in private:

(http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/BlackShadow/message/2198)

Well, after "BCSE Revealed" exposed what was going on, the BCSE announced a new policy. From now on, members would only be defined as those who were willing to make a financial contribution.

Now, frankly I think that's a fair policy. It would be a lot better if a minimum contribution was specified, as knowing that someone is willing to back the BCSE with at least 1 penny of their cash doesn't tell us a lot. But it's a start. (There may of course have been a minimum contribution that was just not publicised).

Here's what was said by at least the 6th of November (and possibly earlier) on the BCSE's website about their new rule:

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

The key thing to note in that quotation is that membership was made "dependent on a financial contribution to BCSE".

However, by the 12th of December, something changed. Because on that date, BCSE Committee Member Ian Lowe announced a new policy:

"Joining the BCSE ... There is no membership fee this year, so if you wish to join, all you have to do is send an e-mail to membership@bcseweb.org.uk including the following information..." - http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3525#3525

What is more, at about the same time, Lowe set up a page on the BCSE website soliciting donations, which was then linked from every page on the BCSE website (http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/MakeADonation).

Evaluating This Change

Now, what should we make of this change in policy?

Of course, I don't have any of the BCSE's internal records, but I think it's pretty clear that the "you must give the BCSE some money before you can join the membership" policy was not working.

If the BCSE was successfully recruiting members who were willing to pay a subscription, then why would the subscription fee be dropped? If people were signing up in good numbers to the BCSE's agenda and providing money to forward it, then why would they stop asking them to?

There is only one obvious reason why the BCSE should perform a U-turn and announce that membership will, after all, be free. The people who were willingly to support them on any other terms simply didn't exist in sufficient numbers to make the BCSE viable. Hence a new method of raising money had to be found - such as providing a link to solicit donations from every page of the BCSE's website.


If this is correct, then it provides further evidence (on top of that from the eventually announced committee) that the BCSE is failing to persuade outsiders of its credibility. No matter how much protestation it adds to the front page of its website that its leadership are not religiously motivated, it is not managing to be convincing. (And those who share their religious motivations are apparently not willing to bet on the BCSE's competence to help forward them).

And how could the BCSE be convincing, when "BCSE Revealed" keeps showing them up? Let's remember again the words of two individuals who the BCSE previously claimed amongst its membership, but who have since distanced themselves:

1. "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." - see here.
   
   
2. "I am fed and bored with the strident tones of BCSE.
   
   ... many posters prattle on about Dawkins' nonsense about religion being a virus and faith contrary to reason (and moderators delete my posts if I challenge them) and adopt this view with no understanding and less tolerance.
   
   ...
   
   I expect BCSE (BSE?) to be fatal and soon disappear.
   
   Many of their articles are both shoddy and strident.
   
   ...
   
   I was fed up with atheistic bigotry." - see here.
   

I have three final thoughts:

1. It is interesting to note what details (in the previous quote) Ian Lowe says that would-be members have to send in:
   
   
   • Your Name
   • Postal Address
     
   • Preferred Email Address
   • Your worldview – Atheist, Agnostic, Theist, Christian etc. (optional: This will be used *only* to provide broad membership statistics, and for no other purpose.)
     
     
   What's missing from that list? Oh yes - any details about whether you have any scientific or education credentials! Not surprising - we have already seen that if there were any kind of test for such credentials before you could become a member of this "Centre for Science Education", then most of the BCSE leadership themselves would not pass (Lowe himself included).
   
   But notice what Lowe is interested to know about - your religion. Not science - religion. The BCSE's website, discussion forums and leaderships' motivations are full of religion - we keep seeing that. Little science - plenty of religion. Quite telling, isn't it?
   
   
2. I wonder if the BCSE will now resurrect its previous practice of claiming to have large numbers of members? But now at least they know that this won't fool anyone - we now know that membership can be obtained in exchange for a mere e-mail.
   
   
3. If the BCSE makes it into future years, I wonder what their renewal policy will be. Will members be culled from the list unless they send money next time? Or will the BCSE resurrect its previous practice of defining members in such a way that the number can only realistically go up, and never down?
   
   

Whatever happens, one thing is clear - all is not well for the BCSE.

David Anderson


(Some of the links above refer to pages which existed previously but which the BCSE have removed - I have archives of all cited evidence and am willing to provide copies to any researches who wish to verify my accuracy).

The BCSE and Richard Dawkins

We've seen by now where the BCSE are coming from. If you want to see the evidence that the core of the BCSE are campaigning atheists, campaigning for atheism, then you should see these previous articles:

• Our detailed post exposing the 10 core activists behind the BCSE's launch
• A later follow-up with further information and confirmation
• A recent post with some pretty damning quotes
  

How They Argue

Campaigning atheists, in my experience, tend to use two different sets of arguments.

1. The first argument is the defensive tactic. Here, they will argue that science and religion are totally separate fields and that neither can say anything about the other. Then, for example, if scientists from the field of "intelligent design" begin to present evidence that there are clear marks of intelligence to be found in nature, or that there exist structures which show evidence of design, a red flag will be waved. It will be said that these implications are religious, and that therefore the whole enterprise is invalid. Using this tactic, the British Centre for Science Education have sought to argue that the material being presented by "Truth in Science" is not eligible for consideration in school science lessons - even though that material is completely restricted to scientific considerations. Under this scenario, Darwinism wins by default - because at this point it is also argued (or just assumed) that the materialistic assumptions behind Darwinism are "neutral" assumptions, or are necessary or essential for true science.

2. The second argument comes out when the atheists are on the attack. Here, it will be argued that Darwinism is an indisputable scientific fact, and that therefore all religion is shown, scientifically, to be wrong. Darwinism, it will be said, has established that the universe and all the life within it is explainable using purely naturalistic, materialistic explanations. Therefore, there is no super-natural of any kind. True science has spoken, and religion must listen. The most well known proponent of this viewpoint is militant atheist, Professor Richard Dawkins, and his new book "The God Delusion" - we will come back to this shortly.

Now, it doesn't take a genius to spot that the two above arguments are completely incompatible. Either science can say nothing about religious questions, or it can completely decide them. But it certainly can't do both! Atheist activists, though, only bring out one of the above arguments at a time - according to whether they're on the defence or on the attack - so you'll only spot what's going on if you pause to look at the big picture.

The BCSE's Approach To This Question

Officially, the BCSE's aims are to prevent other models than Darwinism from being discussed in UK education. It is a defensive organisation. As such, it uses the first argument above. Religion and science are separate - therefore only Darwinism can be discussed (the materialistic assumptions undergirding Darwinism being kept out of view). Thus, the BCSE's website has an essay written by Timothy Chase arguing this very view:

"However, when people attempt to mix the realms of religion and science -- attempting, for example, to use science to promote a given religious or philosophic view -- in the long run, given the very nature of the relationship between religion and science, the results will be the reverse of what is intended, and may end up damaging what in fact they hold most dear." - http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/ForClergy/ReligionAndScience

The incongruency of a professing atheist and materialist making declarations on what religion can and can't do won't escape the discerning reader, but that is not our point for now.

Bring on Richard Dawkins

At this point, we should introduce Richard Dawkins to the mix.

In September 2006, Dawkins published his new book "The God Delusion". This is an "attacking" move intended to promote atheism, and as such uses argument 2. above - that science has definitively proved the falsehood of all religious views bar atheism.

And now, in the last few days, a new move has been advanced. As reported in the Sunday Times of 19^th November:

RICHARD DAWKINS, the Oxford University professor and campaigning atheist, is planning to take his fight against God into the classroom by flooding schools with anti-religious literature.

He is setting up a charity that will subsidise books, pamphlets and DVDs attacking the “educational scandal” of theories such as creationism while promoting rational and scientific thought.

The foundation will also attempt to divert donations from the hands of “missionaries” and church-based charities. - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2460338,00.html

Now, notice just what's happening here. Dawkins is apparently planning to target schools with anti-religious literature - on the alleged basis of "science".

And now, remember what the BCSE have done in the last couple of months. They have been campaigning on the grounds that Truth in Science's scientific material is illegitimate because of religious motives - even though Truth in Science's material doesn't go on to draw conclusions from outside of science. In response to the BCSE's lobbying, a sympathetic MP filed a parliamentary motion arguing that Truth in Science's material should be rejected because it did not disclose their own religious background (http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=31313&SESSION=875).

Dawkins, however, not only has religious motives - he wants to explicitly promote his religious point of view. He not only wants to talk about science - but its implications too. In other words, Dawkins is planning to go far, far beyond what Truth in Science have currently done.

In other words, Dawkins is planning to go far, far beyond the point that the BCSE have already publicly condemned and campaigned against.

What Happens Now?

So, in the name of consistency, the BCSE are duty-bound to come out and vigorously campaign against Richard Dawkins and his venture. If their website condemns Truth in Science (which it certainly does!), then, for consistency's sake, they must now condemn Richard Dawkins even more forcefully.

Do you think that will be happening?

Of Course Not!

The BCSE's leader, Roger Stanyard, as we have seen, is neither a scientist nor an educator. So what's he in it for? Well, in fact he's something of a Dawkins fan. Here, from his own (Yahoo) website, is a list of his favourite books:

http://360.yahoo.com/lists-679QwMkib6enGIsUE2Z09ARZQczZ

Seven books are listed there. Who wrote the first two listed? You've guessed - Richard Dawkins!

Stanyard also obtained "The God Delusion" and read it all within a couple of days. He decided not to post a review on the BCSE's discussion forum in part because said review might be too inflammatory (http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=898#898).

And what's listed next? A book promoting hard-line atheism, by militant atheist Sam Harris. Stanyard is obviously quite a fan of Harris, as he wrote to him personally (and received a response) to discover when his latest anti-Christian book ("Letter to a Christian Nation") would be published in the UK. (http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1369#1369)

(Incidentally, there is a brilliant series of responses to this latest book at http://dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=ArchivesByTopic&TopicID=61 - just remember that the order is reversed: the first articles are last on the page).

And then below that on the left... more of the same. AC Grayling's "What is Good", a sustained argument in favour of secular humanism and against religion.

Were you to have a look at a list of Stanyard's favourite films, then you'd find that it includes Monty Python's blasphemous mockery of the life of Jesus Christ, "The Life of Brian". (http://360.yahoo.com/lists-679QwMkib6enGIsUE2Z09ARZQczZ). There's no doubt, then, when Stanyard is coming from.

Where's The Consistency?

Were Stanyard consistent, of course, then he ought to be appalled at Dawkins' using his understanding of science to advance a religious viewpoint. And the fact that Dawkins is now planning to have this argument forwarded in schools in the name of science ought to be sending him into apoplexy. Dawkins is doing what Stanyard has been campaigning furiously against - but is intending to go much further. But so far are the BCSE from opposing Dawkins' approach, that in August 2006 they actually discussed approaching him to be one of their public backers[1].

Consistency, as we've seen, is not the BCSE's strong point. As we watch and wait to see what campaigns the BCSE launch against Dawkins' new initiative, the silence will be deafening. It will be deafening because the BCSE are great Dawkins' fans. If you hop over to the discussion forum on Dawkins' own website, and you can find BCSE members there - including Stanyard - cheering on. You can even find Stanyard attempting to recruit support. (http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3716#3716).

Where Does This Leave Us?

So, what are we seeing here? I'd say that we're seeing the same picture as we've seen before - again and again.

• We're seeing the religious commitments which drive the BCSE in general, and its leadership in particular.
  
  
• We're seeing the most blatant double-standards in the BCSE's approach to the question of science and religion.
  
  
• We're seeing that the BCSE's public pronouncements differ very greatly from what they say when they're talking to one-another.

What is left of the BCSE's credibility now? In my mailbag I have one reader's verdict. Do you agree?

You have... [demolished] the BCSE. I am now finding myself wondering whether you have holed them so substantially below the waterline that it is time to leave them to sink and move on to another target?

I invite my readers to observe carefully the BCSE's response to Dawkins and his new activities. The silence will tell us everything.

David Anderson
bcse-blog at dw-perspective dot org dot uk : Non-anonymous factual corrections welcomed.

[1] BlackShadow Yahoo group message 2109 - removed from the Internet by the BCSE, but available from me by request for anyone wishing to verify.

How Many Atheists Is That?

The purpose of "BCSE Revealed" is to look at the group calling itself the "British Centre for Science Education". This group has written to MPs and national newspapers, presenting itself to them as an authoritative voice in the world of science education.

Our investigations, however, have revealed quite a different picture. The "BCSE" has a gross lack of both scientists and educators. e.g. See here, here, and here.

However, whilst lacking any such standing, the BCSE does not restrain itself from making sweeping condemnations of those who are properly qualified scientists and educators - headmasters, professors, and members of the Royal Societies. In one particularly egregious example, the BCSE's leader, Roger Stanyard, a businessman with no scientific standing, went on BBC Radio Manchester and accused Professor Andy McIntosh (a man on the highest rung of UK academia, who has higher academic qualifications on his own that the entire BCSE membership combined) of believing that "physics is wrong" and of being "in complete contradiction of mainstream science"[1]. Professor McIntosh was appointed as a fellow of the Institute of Physics in January 2002[2], so I assume he found Stanyard's allegations at least mildly amusing. But the Institute of Physics is the real world - we're dealing with the BCSE's mad world of activist propaganda here.

What's The Motivation?

So, if the BCSE lack credible scientists, educators, then just why is it making such absurd dogmatic pronouncements?

Well, we've seen something of the answer to that too. In previous stories (such as this one and this one) I have displayed evidence that the BCSE's core activists are not being driven by science (as they claim), but by a religious commitment to atheism. We have seen too that this assessment is explicitly confirmed by two former members of the BCSE - who variously described the BCSE as "religiously motivated" and characterised by "atheistic bigotry".

Now, you can't argue against the basic idea of people being motivated by religious views. At a fundamental level, everybody has religious beliefs, one way or the other. And if you don't act in accordance with them, then you're just being irrational. Our religious views - whether positive or negative - control all our behaviour. So that's fine.

So What's The Problem?

But what's not fine, is the BCSE's blatant double standards. Darwinism, "creation science" and "intelligent design" are all scientific paradigms that can be examined independently of their religious implications. The fact that a scientist holds religious beliefs does not mean that he is disqualified from making scientific arguments. But the BCSE wish to do precisely this. Arguments against Darwinism must be suppressed, apparently, because those making them are religiously motivated - but arguments for Darwinism are fine, the BCSE's own religious motivations not withstanding.

We see this illustrated pretty graphically in the text of the infamous Early Day Motion 2708 (emphasis mine)[3]:

That this House shares the concerns of the British Centre for Science Education that the literature being sent to every school in the United Kingdom by the creationist religious group Truth in Science ... fails to disclose the group's creationist beliefs and objectives ...

On the other hand, though, when the BCSE has written to MPs or the press, it has also completely "failed to disclose the group's atheistic beliefs and objectives". Truth in Science's material - the material mentioned in the above motion - contained no religious content - only scientific. Hence it is suitable for discussion in the context of school science lessons. However, the BCSE wish to disqualify any discussion of that science, because of motives. This is why our discussion of the BCSE's own motives is relevant. There's nothing wrong with motives per se - what's wrong, is obvious double standards, and attempts to foreclose the scientific discussion because the general goal is to promote atheism.

Today's Revelation

In a previous investigation, I revealed that there were 10 core BCSE activists responsible for its launch. And I revealed that at least 8 of those 10 were atheists. And pretty hard-line atheists too. When just chatting amongst themselves (i.e. not in the midst of the heat of polemical debate) they toss around thoughts like "I despise any person who even admits to worshipping- something", "I am, pretty much unashamedly, anti-religious", and "Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious."

I have now uncovered that we have to up that figure to 9 out of 10. Timothy Chase, step forward. Chase, we saw, was the 8^th most active in conversation leading up to the BCSE's launch. As I researched my original article, I admired Chase's ability to remain uninvolved in the heated religious debates that went on. Chase kept his own religious views out of the picture pretty well.

But, in fact, Chase is an atheist too. Chase's own words can be found over at the blog of self-confessed "godless liberal" and outspoken atheist, Paul Myers[4]:

Honestly, at age thirteen, for me it was just the realization that someone (Einstein) didn't believe in a personal god that was enough. I thought about it for perhaps a day or two, realized that I had no rational reason for my position, then decided that I didn't believe in a personal god, either.

Where Does This Leave Us?

The number of atheists in Britian is sometimes estimated at around 10%. Let's be generous, and say 15%. Let's do some maths. If you choose 10 people at random, the probability that it just happens that 9 or more would be atheists, is approximately equal to... 1 chance in 3 million.

Or in other words, the chances that the BCSE are in fact a religiously neutral group, motivated only by purely scientific concerns, are approximately equal to the chances of winning the national lottery in any given month (1 ticket per week).

If the BCSE stuck to discussing scientific data, that wouldn't be a problem. If they refrained themselves from arguing that their opponents must be ignored because they have religious motivations, that would be fine too. The BCSE have not proved their own competence in normal, observable science - but believe they have a right to be heard when they make arguments about the speculative, non-observable field of origins. Those whom the BCSE targets as opponents have proved their qualifications in the world of normal, observable science - and so arguably have a right to be heard when they make arguments about origins. The BCSE is trying to have its cake, eat it, have it again, and then eat it once more. It wishes to silence others using standards it could not even begin to apply to itself.

That's why "BCSE Revealed" is here. We're not fooled.

David Anderson
bcse-blog at dw-perspective dot org dot uk: Non-anonymous factual corrections welcomed.

[1] See the BCSE's own transcript at: http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/PressCoverage
[2] http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/a_mcintosh.asp
[3] http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=31313&SESSION=875
[4] http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/01/miscellaneous_dawkinsiana.php#comment-5974

Take Me To Your Leader! (Part 2)

Today I want to continue with the presentation of my research into the BCSE's leadership.

Where We've Been

In part 1 of this investigation, we observed that the BCSE, in its public lobbying, presents Roger Stanyard as being its spokesman. Moreover, its website does not provide the public with information about who its leadership then is. Neither does it tell us what their qualifications are to present themselves to the public as an authoritative voice in science education.

Now, our last article gave us a pretty big clue as to why that is - the BCSE's core does not have any experience in education full stop, let alone science education. We saw that there needed to be an internal discussion to even work out what the National Curriculum was, let alone what was in it.

De Facto Leader

Nevertheless, we saw that Roger Stanyard is clearly the leader of the BCSE. More than that, we saw that whilst the BCSE may not be a "one man band", certainly a single individual is playing most of the instruments.

We ended up by asking a question. Why would Stanyard be motivated to present himself to the public as a mere "spokesperson", when his true role is vastly different? Could it be because Stanyard's true qualifications clash with the BCSE's desire to present itself as credible science educators? Pulling all the evidence together, is Stanyard and are the BCSE demonstrating a consistent pattern of deliberate misrepresentation and untrustworthiness?

Stanyard's Qualifications

That brings us to today's research.

Now, "research" is probably a bit of a grand word for it. We haven't had to do much digging. Stanyard gives a pretty full biography of his education on his Yahoo profile page. Here it is[1]:

That takes us up to 1981. To fill in the picture from then onwards, we need to go to Stanyard's business website. From there, we can pick up what the qualification from South Bank University was - a diploma in finance:[2]

These two excerpts give us a complete picture of Stanyard's adult life since leaving school in 1972 (a couple of "gap" years excepted). After a bachelor's degree in economics, he took a diploma in finance, then a masters in business administration - and then went into a consultancy and management business in the field of satellite communication; a field which he has apparently remained in ever since. (According to Companies' House, DTT Consulting wound up as a limited company in 2004)[3].

Actually, there's one more interesting detail. Here's Stanyard in the BCSE's discussion group, happening to mention his degree:[4]


Now, I find that interesting. On a business website, which is presumably trying to emphasise his business qualifications, Stanyard describes his degree as being in economics. However, in another context, he reveals that it is a joint honours degree in geography and economics. In my mind this raises the question of whether Stanyard is deliberately misrepresented on the business website. However, I am not an expert in whether or not it is legitimate to describe a joint honours degree only in terms of one of the subjects or not. So I leave that up to your own judgment. There may be facts here of which I am not aware.

Where Does This Take Us?

Well, we're not just digging into this for fun, or nosey-ness. Roger Stanyard heads up a purported "Centre for Science Education", which lobbies MPs, educational authorities, and writes to newspapers. Anyone receiving such lobbying is entitled to ask the question, "What are your credentials to do this? How can I know that you're not just one of those groups of Internet nutters?". If Stanyard were just writing in his own name, and making it clear that he lacked proper standing, then people could adjust the amount of credibility they accorded his opinions accordingly. And this report of mine would just be intrusive and irrelevant. However, as Stanyard is presenting himself publically as a voice that ought to be listened to, we are entitled to examine the details of whether he has standing or not.

We can see, then:

• Stanyard has no experience in the field of education. We knew already that Stanyard had no experience as an educator when we saw yesterday that he wasn't completely sure what the National Curriculum was. Now, we see it more clearly.
  
  
• Stanyard has no experience in research science. His entire working life has been spent in consultancy and management business.
  
  
• Stanyard's only involvement in the world of science is half of a bachelor's degree in geography. He has no accredited experience in the field in which his organisation focuses - the teaching of Darwinian evolution.

Summing Up

It's far to say, then, that Stanyard is neither a scientist nor an educator. That's worth remembering. We should say it again! The British Centre for Science Education is an operation founded, headed and mostly run by a man who is neither a scientist nor an educator. Yet it feels great liberty to fill its website with articles rubbishing scientists and educators who are leaders in their fields - professors, headmasters, members of the Royal Society - and so on. How much authority do those articles speak with? Or to put it more simply - can we trust the BCSE?

Now you know why I'm not spending time on this blog to interact with those articles. I am convinced that the BCSE are consistently characterised by deceit and misrepresentation, and cannot be relied upon to speak the truth even on simple facts about themselves. To earn the right to have their other material considered, the BCSE need credibility. And at this time, their credibility account has a severe deficit.

An After-thought

On the Internet, it is said, "nobody knows if you're a dog". The idea is that anyone can just set up shop. If their website looks good, then they can compete with the real experts and professionals. You can present yourself as a big-shot, and nobody will know any different!

However, there is another side to that coin - and that's why "The BCSE Revealed" exists. On the Internet, anyone can point out who really is a dog. Light can be shone, facts can be documented, and bogus experts can be exposed. That's why we're here.

David Anderson
bcse-blog at dw-perspective dot org dot uk

All web pages as at 2^nd November 2006.

[1] http://360.yahoo.com/profile-679QwMkib6enGIsUE2Z09ARZQczZ
[2] http://www.spotbeam.com/consultancy.htm. This is not strictly "Stanyard's" website, but this particular page advertises his services.
[3] See http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/ and do a search for "DTT Consulting". Do not confuse it with the similarly named "DTT Consultancy".
[4] http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/BlackShadow/messages/2152 (now only available with a password - contact me for a copy for verification).

Take Me To Your Leader!

(Part two is here; further relevant information is here).

In previous articles, we have made some progress in answering the question "Who are the BCSE?". By announcing themselves to the press and legislators in the way they have, you'd expect some pretty impressive credentials. Our research has turned up a rather different picture. Here's where we've been so far:

• "Who are the BCSE?"
  Their highly misleading name and self-description.
  
  
• "Who are the Members? (Part 1)"
  The BCSE's reluctance to give you information about itself.
  
  
• "Who are the Members? (Part 2)"
  The fraudulent method the BCSE uses to claim for itself a membership seven to nine times larger than the reality, and the evidence that the BCSE knows its own claims to be fraudulent.
  
  
• "Who are the Members? (Part 3)" - The details of only ten with a claim to substantial real involvement at the launch unmasked, their motives, and lack of credentials.
  
  
• "Fact Check" - One of the figures heavily involved in launching the BCSE publically distances himself from them - describing them as religiously motivated fraudsters.

On more than one occasion, I have described Mr. Roger Stanyard as the de facto leader of the BCSE. This article will examine the evidence for saying this.

First of all, we must notice that the BCSE itself does not wish to describe Stanyard in this way. Officially, it presents Stanyard as being its spokesman. This was how Stanyard announced himself in the BCSE's letter to "The Times"[1]:



When Stanyard was interviewed on BBC Radio Manchester on behalf of the BCSE, he quickly afterwards edited the BCSE's website, seeking to make it clear that the BCSE was not a one man band, and that he was its spokesman, not its all[2]. (Notice the initials "RJS" for the editor):

Roger Stanyard was acting as one of the two spokesman for BCSE in the above interview. We point out that of the 83 members of BCSE many are qualified scientists and include people with post-graduate qualifications...

...

BCSE is not a one-man band. It has 83 members.

Well, we've already seen what the "83 members" assertion boils down to. But note for now that Stanyard here identifies himself as a spokesman.

Now, just take a step back for a moment. If Stanyard is the spokesman, then there's another question you'll want to ask, isn't there? Don't you want to know...

Just who is the leader?

Which scientific and educational mastermind is behind such an august-sounding institution as the "British Centre for Science Education" - that noble body that seeks the ear of our MPs? Well, as we've already seen, the BCSE don't want to tell you that. Now, how does that reflect on their credibility? An organisation that won't tell you who runs it? But I digress...

But, as we'll see, in fact Stanyard is in charge. Let's look at the facts.

1. He writes twice as much in internal discussions as anybody else

We've already seen that the BCSE is a re-launch of the "BlackShadow" activist group. It was planned during the year leading up to September 2006 on the corresponding Yahoo group.

During that year, there were 2566 e-mails posted to that group. Stanyard posted 524 - that's 20.4%, or over 1 in every 5. The next most active member was Michael Brass, who posted 261 - or just under half as many[3]. Did you get that? Nobody else said even half as much as Stanyard.

2. The original founder says so

We've seen before that Alan Bellis was the original founder of "BlackShadow". But in July 2006, Alan announced that he had too much on his plate. Who did he hand over the reins to?

3. He calls the shots

In early August 2006, Roger laid down the following roadmap for the BCSE:[4]

I hope that we are now pulling all the strings together.

My proposal is that during this month (August) that we should aim to:

1. Complete the discussions and reach final agreement on our objectibes and broad tactics.

2. That a draft charter be drawn up.

3. We open up our web site.

4. We have in hand some opening moves.

That's normally the kind of thing the leader does - isn't it?

4. He wrote the charter

"Spokesman" Roger didn't only suggest that the BCSE have a charter. He wrote it too.

You can find the full message at http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/BlackShadow/messages/2108 - if you can't get access to that, then it's substantially the same as the front page of the BCSE's website.

5. He owns the website

Well, who owns the BCSE's domain name (bcseweb.org.uk)? You guessed it.[5]



6. He wrote the website

Take a look at the list of "Recent Changes" on the website. You'll find one name comes up rather a lot, especially for an organisation that isn't a "one man band"[6]:



7. He represents them in public

And of course, as we've seen, it's Stanyard who wrote to The Times, drafted and sent letters to lobby MPs, and appeared on BBC radio (Manchester).

8. He's the contact

Do you want to contact the BCSE? Well, it's hard to find out any solid details about where to find them, but on their "Contact" page you will find an e-mail address. Guess whose?[7]

stanyardroger@yahoo.co.uk

Well, there's more evidence that could be shown. But that's enough, isn't it?

Pulling It Together

So where does this leave us?

I take it that the man who...

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

...is the leader. Yes?

Clearly Roger is something of a phenomenon when it comes to his zeal for supressing criticisms of Darwinism. He's obviously not keen on them. I wonder where he gets the energy? I wonder if he ever wakes up screaming because there's still no scientific evidence that non-life could ever give rise to life? But I digress...

So, this all leaves us with four questions.

• Was Roger protesting too much 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 Roger really is the leader whilst describing himself as the "spokesman", then does this help us to trust the BCSE, or does it throw a question-mark over its honesty?
  
  
• If Roger is really the leader, then what is 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 Roger's qualifications to speak in the areas of science and education, and to seek to gain influence in parliament in these areas?
  

Well, I'm sure you've seen enough of the BCSE to guess what the answer to that question might be...

... but that's another story. (Part two is here; further relevant information is here).

David Anderson


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

All links as at 26^th October 2006.
[1] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2385220.html
[2] http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/PressCoverage?action=diff and http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/PressCoverage
[3] http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/BlackShadow/messages. The BCSE have made this archive private, but I can supply any researcher with a copy.
[4] http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/BlackShadow/messages/2168
[5] http://webwhois.nic.uk/cgi-bin/whois.cgi?query=bcseweb.org.uk
[6] http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/RecentChanges
[7] http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/Contacts