Some Pertinent Questions... (Part 3)

The Story So Far...

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

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

1. Why are you presenting yourself as a national centre for science education when you apparently have not a single individual within your leadership who has ever been involved in science education? Isn't this a massive act of dishonesty and fraud?
   
   
2. How do you explain the evidence I presented showing your cluelessness about the UK education scene in general? Isn't it grossly fraudulent of you to represent yourself as experts when none of you had even read the National Curriculum? Shouldn't a group professing to be experts on education have, say, a teacher in its leadership somewhere?
   
   
3. How is it that you claim to speak with authority on science education without a single practising PhD scientist amongst your leaders - and only one retired one? (And his PhD is not in the field which you claim as your area of expertise...)
   
   
4. How do you explain my evidence that you wrote to MPs, lobbying them to condemn material whose contents, when your wrote, were unknown to you? How much more blatantly dishonest an act could you carry out?
   
   
5. How should we reconcile the statements on your website that you have no religious agenda with the many quotes I have produced from your leaders explaining their religious agenda in their BCSE activity?

The Response

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some More Questions

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


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

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


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


http://bcse-.../2006/11/amazing-disappearing-evidence.html


2. Massive Exaggeration Of Its Own Size

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

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

Can the BCSE explain this?


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

http://bcse-.../2006/10/who-are-members-part-2_19.html
http://bcse-.../2006/10/who-are-members-part-3.html
http://bcse-.../2006/12/note-on-bcses-membership.html


3. Neither a scientist, nor an educator.

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

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

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

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

• Was Mr. Stanyard guilty of deceit when he asked the public to believe that the BCSE wasn't really a "one-man band"? How much would he have to do to qualify for this description?
  
  
• If Mr. Stanyard really was the leader whilst describing himself as the "spokesman", then what does this tell us about the BCSE's honesty?
  
  
• If Mr. Stanyard was really the leader, then what was his motivation for passing himself off to the public and MPs as a "spokesperson"? Surely the answer is to be found in the question...
  
  
• What are Mr. Stanyard's qualifications to speak in the areas of science and education - even, to set up a national centre for science education - and to seek to gain influence in parliament in these areas? Apparently, he has none. Is this not a gross act of fraud?
  
  See http://bcse-.../2006/10/take-me-to-your-leader.html and http://bcse-.../2006/11/take-me-to-your-leader-part-2.html for documentation.
  

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/.../letters/article657958.ece

4. Former Members Told Us What They Really Think

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

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

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


http://bcse.../2006/10/fact-check.html
http://bcse.../2006/11/fact-check-ii.html


Conclusion

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


David Anderson



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

Some Pertinent Questions... (Part 2)

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

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

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

And it's not just me... over the last couple of days I've appreciated the moral support from two much bigger blogs - Uncommon Descent (here - http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/2044) and Telic Thoughts (here - http://telicthoughts.com/david-anderson-a-very-dangerous-man/).

More of the same...

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


What's missing from this picture?

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

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

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

1. No Science Educators
   
   http://bcse-revealed.../2006/10/whats-national-curriculum.html
   
   Despite representing itself to the public, newspapers and MPs as a national centre for scientific education... the BCSE's leadership has not one member who has actually any experience in providing science education.
   
   Prove me wrong! Am I lying? All it requires is a list of the universities/colleges/schools and years where the BCSE's leadership have held appropriate positions. And then I'll stop saying it.
   
   
2. No Clue About UK Education In General
   
   http://bcse-revealed.../2006/10/whats-national-curriculum.html
   
   In fact, the BCSE's leadership were so clueless about education in the UK, that they even had to converse amongst themselves about what the National Curriculum was... and still got it wrong.
   
   The BCSE can easily prove me wrong here, by releasing the releveant e-mails public archive of the Yahoo group on which they discussed this matter to the public. I have them, and I have offered to make them available to any researcher. If I have fabricated these e-mails - then it's very easy for the BCSE leaders to make public the real ones. The references are in the link above.
   
   
3. The Most Meagre Scientific Qualifications
   
   http://bcse-revealed.../2006/10/who-are-members-part-3.html
   
   The BCSE leadership only contains a single individual with a doctorate in a scientific subject - and he is retired. (Ironically, his expertise was in a branch of (chemical) engineering. This is ironic, because the BCSE often criticise engineers for not being qualified to speak about evolution... go figure that one out!)
   
   I can't see how the BCSE could possibly prove me wrong on this one, as the above is directly stated on the front page of their own website. But still, I'm willing to be corrected...
   
   
4. Caught Lying To MPs
   
   http://bcse-revealed.../2006/10/red-handed-bcse-caught-lying-to-mps.html
   http://bcse-revealed.../2006/10/when-youre-in-hole.html
   
   The BCSE had sent letters to MPs condemning Truth in Science's mailed material as "full of scientific mistakes" at least three days before they discovered any of the contents of that material. Or in other words, they lied openly and brazenly.
   
   And when I discovered it, they attempted to obfuscate the matter - by bringing in the irrelevant fact that when they received the material, they discovered that it contained some of the same content as some material they'd seen in another context a few months before.
   
   To this day, the BCSE have continued to completely ignore this major issue for their credibility. You can't lie to MPs in such a shameless fashion and then expect to be taken seriously.
   
   Of course, if the BCSE have the proof that their reviewer received the material before 29th of September (the date which he announced on the Internet that he had received it - being 3 days after Roger Stanyard had already written to MPs), then all they have to do is produce it... this will be hard though, as then they'll have to explain the places where said reviewer mentions that he hasn't yet received the material...
   
   
   
5. Founding members caught stating that their aims were not scientific, but religious
   
   http://bcse-revealed.../2006/11/freedom-pluralism-and-deception.html
   
   We documented quotes from some of the BCSE's present leadership, explaining that their aim in participating was to make people think of certain religious groups as they do of paedophiles. Other explained that their goals were not to do with science, but politics.
   
   Again, if I fabricated these quotes, then all the BCSE has to do is reproduce the messages with the numbers I cited from the now deleted "BlackShadow" Yahoo group in full, so that people can see that the quotes I documented don't exist....

Conclusion - And Challenge

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

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

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

So, the challenge is there. Provide the documentation.

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

David Anderson


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

Some Pertinent Questions...

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

What's Been The Reaction?

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

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

1. Over 50 personal e-mails.
   
   
2. At least 3 brand new blogs or websites, and the promotion of these sites at many places across the Internet.
   
   
3. Plenty of material on 2 existing blogs.
   
   
4. Many and various edits to their own website, including whole new sections researching into my educational background and colleagues, and churches I have preached at.
   
   
5. Time spent researching such essential questions as "Which university did David's pastor obtain his doctorate from?", "Which web hosting company hosts David's wife's nappy business?".
   
   
6. Threats of legal action (still unfulfilled...) for alleged offences against the computer misuse act.
   
   
7. Communications to my colleagues in the Christian ministry to seek to persuade them to ask me to stop blogging.
   
   
8. Reconfiguring their own website to block any accesses which are referred from this blog.

I think that that constitutes quite a lot of effort.

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

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

Well, that's fairly comprehensive.

And?

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

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

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

Secondly, no BCSE leader has ever tried to post a comment on this blog. The BCSE website carries a complaint that I was "censoring" them by not having comments on the blog (http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/Links). However, I've had comments for some time now, and it looks to me like this complaint was empty rhetoric.

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

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

What If It's True?

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think I know... do you?

(Part two: follow this link).

David Anderson



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