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.

Richard Dawkins - The Plot Thickens!

Readers may remember my parable, "Does Richard Dawkins Exist" ( http://david.dw-perspective.org.uk/does-richard-dawkins-exist.html). So far it's had 1,750 hits and counting.

Towards the end of January, I was sent an MP3 inspired by the parable. I told the author I thought it was brilliant, and encouraged him to publish it.

It's now out there, so here it is: Does Richard Dawkins Exist? A radio interview with Dr. Tommyrot...



Or: http://www.uncommondescent.com/audios/Dawkins_Delusion.wma (Windows Media Audio)

A number have asked - is the interviewer William Hague? I asked this question myself when I listened to the preview... the answer is, "loosely, yes".

And whilst we're on the subject, here are a couple of amusing quotes I received from the proprietor of a website devoted to G. K. Chesterton:

I liked your "parable" on Richard Dawkins! You might like to take a look at my G.K.Chesterton page. I found a couple of relevant quotes:

"The atheist told me so pompously that he did not believe there was any God; and there were moments when I did not even believe there was any atheist."
-- Autobiography

"A man wrote to say that he accepted nothing but Solipsism, and added that he had often wondered it was not a more common philosophy. Now Solipsism simply means that a man believes in his own existence, but not in anybody or anything else. And it never struck this simple sophist, that if his philosophy was true, there obviously were no other philosophers to profess it."
--St Thomas Aquinas

Meanwhile, for the right combination of words, the summit of Mount Google has now been reached...


We're not quite there for "Dawkins" yet - still languishing in the 20s... so come on, give us a link! :-)

David Anderson

Freedom, Pluralism and Deception (II)

In two articles so far (one, two) , we have been looking at the BCSE's discovery of the secret Theocratic Masterplan being pursued by British Christians. So far, we have learnt a lot about the BCSE and its religious views, but not a great deal about these purported plans. Ho hum.

The BCSE's "Theocracy" page was written by Dr. Brian Jordan, one of the BCSE's leaders (one, two).

Seeing as Dr. Jordan has raised this subject, today we will have a little look at Dr. Jordan's own views on the use of the law to enforce religious views.

Let's get a little background. Maybe you remember this quote from the front page of the BCSE's website:

BCSE believes in the tools for everyone to think for themselves - Science, Education and Reason - and the outcome – Democracy, Pluralism, Freedom and Righteousness.

We have already had opportunity to remark on the BCSE's somewhat unconventional definitions of pluralism and freedom (one, two), and righteousness (here)... now let's have another look.

Background

In late 2006, an individual called Jamie Wallis created a petition on the Prime Minister's website.

There were already a few other existing petitions calling for new coercive policies from the government to enforce secular thinking. However, these were apparently not extreme enough for Mr. Wallis, so he decided to start his own. In this new petition, he called upon the Prime Minister to make all regular religious instruction of children illegal.

According to Mr. Wallis, "free thinking" is incompatible with religious instruction, and the only way to protect our children is to ensure that the first 16 years of their life are approached from an atheistic point of view, where all regular religious instruction is disallowed.

Here is Mr. Wallis' motion in his own words:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make 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 or be allowed to be defined as belonging to a particular religious group based on the views of their parents or guardians. At the age of 16, as with other laws, they would then be considered old enough and educated enough to form their own opinion and follow any particular religion (or none at all) through free thought.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/freethinking

Subtle, it isn't. Mr. Wallis doesn't specify exactly what penalties should be inflicted upon parents who refuse to follow his secular way of life. I suppose though, if the parents don't repent of their wicked ways, then they shall eventually have to have their children taken away. And those children will have to end up in the much safer and more beneficial environment of the council children's home, away from their dangerous and crazed non-secularist parents.

Ah, what a utopia that would be! Just as long as every person who takes religion seriously changes their mind and conforms to Mr. Wallis' way of thinking, that is.

(The other part of Wallis' idea, that children shouldn't be "labelled" I don't care to discuss. As a Christian, I do not care for labels - I care for the reality of a relationship with God through the Lord Jesus Christ. You can't give that to your children or to anyone else by applying a label to them).

Richard Dawkins... Surprise!

You may not be completely surprised to learn which was one of the first signatures to go down on this petition. Yes, it's Britain's most famous atheist activist:


Not only that, but Dawkins put up a prominent link on the front-page of his website at http://richarddawkins.net/home, encouraging others to do likewise.

However, a little later, the mad professor claimed that he hadn't read the petition properly, and that signing it had been a mistake. He contacted the administrator of the petition, and asked to have his name removed. We wonder what all of the minions at richarddawkins.net who had dutifully followed their master and added their names made of that?

Apparently, though it was a good exercise in (to use Dawkins' words), "consciousness raising".

I don't know about you, but my consciousness of what an intolerant and foolish bunch Dawkins and his cohorts can be didn't need a great deal of raising. But I suppose it's brought it onto someone's radar somewhere.

Get On With It, Anderson!

Where was I? Oh yes. The relevance of all this is that the petition seeks state enforcement of a particular view of religion. Mr. Wallis' aim is to have all children raised in a secular manner. The first 16 years of every little one's life must be carried out under the presumption that there is no god who requires them to learn anything about him until they are adults. This isn't just Mr. Wallis' preference for his own children - he'd like it enshrined in law for every family throughout the nation.

As I have remarked before, Mr. Wallis is behaving like a consistent atheist. Whilst a Christian like myself can believe that God has made us as rational beings, and that God is active in the world to restrain evil and promote good, and that in particular the power of the Holy Spirit is at work to advance the cause of truth - the atheist can believe none of that. The idea of using persuasion with prayer means nothing to him. The tool that the atheist commonly resorts to in his thinking is coercion - the long arm of the law, and criminal penalties for disobedience.

Plenty of Historical Precedent

The track record of those who have thought like Wallis isn't, um, great. The 20th century saw anti-religious and statist coercion attempted on a scale never tried before. Albania under dictator Enver Hoxha, the USSR under Stalin, China under Mao Tsetung, Cambodia under Pol Pot - they all tried to create better societies by removing religion. And butchered millions in the process.

Dawkins and his supporters devote long sections of their writings to arguing that the atheism and evolutionary beliefs of such dictators was merely incidental to the abysmal regimes that resulted. And then they merrily set to work in petitioning the government to re-create them.

If this is rational and scientific thought, then I'd prefer something else.

A Winning World-View?

If atheism is the view backed by reason and science, as some of its proponents claim, then I wonder why the only way that it can apparently find for its views to win out is for the state to make others illegal. If the arguments are so strong - then why do we need to ban the alternatives? Why can't atheism just win by strength of argument?

And Now...

I suppose you know where this is going. Guess who else signed the petition?

That's right, it's that noted opponent of theocracies, Dr. Brian Jordan...

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

Apparently, the only reason why Dr. Jordan opposes theocracies... is because he himself is campaigning for an a-theocracy!

What's Wrong With This Picture?

So, let me see if I've got this straight. Because there are non-Darwinists who want the evidence against as well as for Darwinism to be presented in state schools, Dr. Jordan and the BCSE start losing their heads and talking about theocracy and "fundamentalists in politics". Despite not having a scrap of evidence for any such thing.

On the other hand, though, Jordan himself is petitioning the prime minister to pass new laws to make non-secularist upbringings illegal.

Well, I suppose we can say that Jordan ought to know religious bigotry and plans for religious coercion when he sees them.

But blow me down - whose name is that on the petition just three up from Jordan? Yes - it is! It's Ian "Calamity" Lowe!

If there is any opportunity available to make the BCSE look bigotted, incompetent, deceitful or just plain daft then Lowe normally ends up being involved somewhere (one, two, three). And here the fellow is again! Sometimes I wonder if Lowe is an anti-Darwinist stooge on a mission to make sure that nobody takes the BCSE too seriously.

So, How Do You Explain That?

The BCSE claim officially that they are opposed to religious coercion and the use of the state's resources to enforce one religious view.

On the other hand, though, two of the BCSE's committee are publicly campaigning for just the opposite.

Maybe there are two Brian Jordans, and two Ian Lowes? Or maybe they each have advanced schizophrenia? One does wonder how one can be both opposed to the idea of religious coercion, and on the other hand petitioning the PM for it.

I can well understand how anti-Darwinists can both oppose Darwinism and at the same time not wish religion to be taught in science lessons. The criticisms of Darwinism with its missing fossil evidence and the like can be made quite simply without any appeals to religion. Evidence of intelligence and design in nature which can't be explained by natural selection can be presented without bringing in the question of who any designer might be. As such, I find the BCSE's criticisms of groups such as Truth in Science for wanting state schools to handle this debate fairly quite incoherent. Whether or not any of Truth in Science's backers have religious motives, there is no evidence of any agenda from anti-Darwinists to use coercion or any other tool than proper scientific debate to advance their case.

On the other hand, the BCSE are simply hypocritical. Their leaders are both anti-religious, and they are using political campaigning to advance their anti-religious agenda - whilst at the same time wrongly condemning others for just that.

Conclusion

Let's once again remember that quote from the BCSE's front page:

BCSE believes in the tools for everyone to think for themselves - Science, Education and Reason - and the outcome - Democracy, Pluralism, Freedom and Righteousness.

It's just not true, is it? Unless "pluralism" and "freedom" now mean the same thing as "making religion that we don't agree with illegal". This is taking cognitive disonance to whole new levels.

The BCSE believe in pluralism and freedom... ...apart from the committee who run it, who believe in exactly the opposite. Confused? You will be... until you work out what's actually going on.

David Anderson


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

Off-topic: A scientific investigation into Richard Dawkins

I haven't posted much in the last fortnight. I've been on holiday!

But I've also been working on what follows. It's not directly related to the BCSE, except in so far as we've seen that the core of the BCSE leadership is generally following the script which Richard Dawkins writes (see here and here).

Here is is:

"Does Richard Dawkins Exist? A Parable"

http://david.dw-perspective.org.uk/does-richard-dawkins-exist.html

If you like it, you can show your appreciation by linking it from any websites or blogs which you have.

David Anderson

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.

Freedom, Pluralism and Deception

In an earlier article (part one, part two), we learnt a number of things about the "British Centre for Science Education" as we examined their views upon the subject of parents teaching children at home.

The BCSE, Its Competence, And Its Agenda

That article showed us two things. Firstly, it again highlighted the "BCSE"'s lack of knowledge of the education system in the UK - something that they are representing to MPs as their core competency. Secondly, we saw evidence of a deeply illiberal and interventionist approach to family life. If parents are likely to teach their children something wrong - then the state needs to intervene, sharpish!

The BCSE's home page contains a noble, if somewhat ungrammatical, claim:

BCSE believes in the tools for everyone to think for themselves - Science, Education and Reason - and the outcome - Democracy, Pluralism, Freedom and Righteousness.

We saw that this love of freedom and pluralism doesn't extend too far. Should parents teach their children things contrary to Darwinism, then the BCSE's members would like government monitors and inspectors to start intervening. As such, the BCSE decided that one of its four fundamental priorities would be to campaign for more "regulation", "inspection and monitoring" of home-schooling. In one BCSE leader's words, "a lot of problems come in because some parents believe they know better than educators on how their children should be educated."

That's probably not the most liberal or pluralistic of statements you've heard recently, is it?

Why Are They Doing This?

My analysis is that the BCSE are not equipped for an open and fair debate about Darwinism's problems, and the merits of alternative scientific models. Instead of open discussion in which alternative views can thrash it out on equal terms (as happens in real science), the BCSE simply want to suppress discussion of anything that contradicts the presuppositions of their own hard-line materialism. And if democracy, pluralism and freedom have to go to the wall in the struggle, then so be it.

A Little Follow Up

Today I want to draw a little more attention to the BCSE's leadership on this matter. Let us take their own statements, and hold them up to the light. Do they match the tolerant, freedom-loving image they wish you to associate with them?

Here's Ian Lowe. You may remember Ian for some of his earlier quotes, such as this one:

Have you lost sight of the fact that the actual enemy here is the fundmanetalists (sic), and not in fact the big mouthed atheists?

or this one:

"I have little or no time for religion of any kind"

But what's particularly relevant is what Ian said about his goals and motivations:

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

In the same message, Ian discussed further how he wants to achieve such an aim. It is quite revealing, and certainly will give new insight to anybody who saw Ian's letter in the Financial Times[1]:

It should be relatively easy to rally against the fundies.

Pick an obnoxious trait, focus on whatthat would mean for the public at large, exaggerate it, and demonise that trait to the point that no rational person would consider supporting them. Caricature the entire dominionist/reconstructionist movement as nothing more than an embodiment of that trait.

Then, in every public debate or discussion, keep returning to the same obnoxious trait, referring to it the same way, giving the media their sound bite, and making sure that even if someone can't tell you one single element of a group's actual beliefs or plans, they can tell you that they have this obnoxious trait.

Now, let's just make sure we got that. This is crucial for interpreting what I'll present next.

Ian, in what he thought was a private conversation with his fellow activists, tells us just what he intends to do. His aim is not to have a fair interaction with those who he disagrees with. No; he wishes to deliberately "exaggerate", "demonise", and to "caricature". This should be done "in every public debate or discussion". His opponents' "actual beliefs or plans" are not important - the important bit is to brand them with the exaggerated, caricatured, trait.

That's worth keeping in mind if Mr. Lowe should pop up in public again wanting you to take his statements as being accurate or reliable, isn't it?

Ian Lowe, The BCSE, and Home Education

Well, bearing all that in mind, we now come to a message where Mr. Lowe gives some more of his views on parent-led education.

Whilst allowing that many home-educators have honourable motives, Ian sees two main problems with home-schooling[2]. Here's one:

Firstly, there's the fact that it's used as a method of bypassing any aspect of modern society - a parent of a sufficiently isolationist mindset is free to educate a child that the holocaust didn't happen, that people of a different religion are subhuman or in some other way lesser - it is easy for a parent to opt not to educate girls properly, teaching them only housekeeping duties etc.

And here's the other:

Secondly, and more disturbingly, it is a means for a small subset of parents to carry out quite horrific physical and sexual abuse on their children, safe in the knowledge that no teacher will ever see the bruises or be confided in.

Well, it seems that Lowe had read my previous critique of the BCSE's position on home education. What spin will he put on that? Let's give him a chance to show us the liberal generosity which the BCSE wants you to know is its hallmark[2]:

Clearly he's the sort of person who wants to keep everything behind closed doors.

How safe are his children going to be?

That's nice, isn't it? Question the BCSE's illiberal views, and you're probably - or even "clearly" - a child abuser! Wow. I'm not sure that would be totally clear to everyone who read my article, though if you're in doubt you can follow the link and read it again. I think the most credible interpretation of Mr. Lowe's response is that it shows that the criticisms of "BCSE Revealed" are hitting home. I'd say that Lowe's reaction indicates that our public exposure of the BCSE's views and methods is making him rather uncomfortable. What I'm saying is both too well documented to be refuted properly - but is also too painful to pretend that it isn't there. Or as we might say, "Surely the fellow doth protest too much!"

I call Lowe's analysis of why people home-school "spin", of course, because Lowe, as is the BCSE's wont, merely makes an assertion. He says that home-schooling is chosen by parents who want to assault their children - but he gives us no statistics or facts to show that this assertion has any substantial basis in reality. We are left wondering - how many holocaust-denying home-schooling families does Lowe actually know? How many families has he actually come across where it's taught that people of other religions are sub-human? In the United States, an estimated 2.5 million children are home-schooled; so if Lowe's view is reality, then it ought not to be too hard to show it.

Of course, it's not really uncommon to find this kind of overwhelming prejudice and ignorance on the Internet. You don't have to search far. But to actually find someone who wishes to pass himself off as a credible authority in education saying such things, is a little more troubling.

Hang On...

But if we bring in Mr. Lowe's earlier statements about his intentions, then we see things in a different light. If we let Mr. Lowe be his own interpreter, his statements look a little different. It's not ignorance after all - it's just what he said he was going to do.

Remember, that Lowe's stated goal is not to discuss issues of education with fairness, honesty or open-mindedness. His stated goal is to make the public think of Christians as they do of paedophiles. His stated goal is to use "exaggeration", deliberate "demonisation" and "caricature", so that the public mind is completely corrupted by it.

And here, we see Lowe acting in perfect conformity with his beliefs. In fact, he's taking them very literally indeed. He doesn't just want people to think about his enemies in the same way as they do of paedophiles... he actually wants them to suspect that they quite likely are paedophiles. Is this what the "righteousness" in the BCSE's slogan is referring to?

Concluding

Well, that's pretty unpleasant material for me to have to research, and for you to have to read. But as long as Lowe and others are passing themselves off as respectable, credible educators, it's necessary. As long as Ian Lowe is appearing in the Financial Times masquerading as a spokesman for a "Centre for Science Education", it's material that needs to be exposed.

Having seen what you've now seen, what do you think of the BCSE? What are their real goals? Are you led to believe that they are trustworthy? In the light of what you've read above, can you rely upon what they say?

Looking to the future, let's ask one more question. Imagine that a real, credible science education institute had this kind of scenario. A prominent member openly admitted an agenda to pervert the truth, and to accuse those who disagree with him of being child molesters. What kind of thing would then happen? Especially if that institute was publically committed to "freedom" and "righteousness"?

Would it be likely that the organisation would...

• Rid and distance itself from such a member promptly, and make sure everybody knew about it? Or would it...
  
  
• Carry on as usual and hope that nobody notices?

We shall wait and see. It will be another data-point for us as we try to evaluate the credibility of the "British Centre for Science Education".

An After-Word

It is interesting to me to notice that just before Lowe made some of the comments above, a video of well-known campaigning atheist Richard Dawkins became public. In this video, he discusses tactics and political strategies for countering Christians' arguments, and for restricting their civil liberties.

Within this discussion, the topic of home-schooling comes up. Dawkins argues that it should be made illegal. He argues that in order to obtain this goal, atheists should argue that it is a form of child-abuse. If the public can be led into equating home-education with child-abuse, then it will get some traction for outlawing it - which will in turn, get more traction for the overall goal of preventing Christians from passing on their views to their children.

That's interesting, isn't it? It certainly tells us what hymn sheet some of the BCSE's activists are singing from.

The video is available on YouTube, here. The whole recording is about an hour; to get to the material on home education, wind forward to about 49 minutes. Many thanks to one of my correspondents for bringing this material to my attention.

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

The BlackShadow Yahoo group posts have been removed from the Internet by the BCSE; if you wish to see for research purposes, then e-mail me for a copy of the archive.

[1] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/33e9de02-60a1-11db-a716-0000779e2340.html
See BlackShadow Yahoo group, message 1029.
[2] http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2001#2001