The BCSE - According To Those Involved

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

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

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

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

"I am against fighting alongside other members of BSCE who are, themselves, religiously motivated" and "One of the reasons I distanced myself from the BSCE is for the very reason you have pinned that they are ... a small number of individuals claiming to be something bigger than they are."

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

And now: more of the above

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notice then what Robert says:

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

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

David Anderson


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

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.

What is the BCSE's competency, exactly?

We already know that the "British Centre for Science Education" don't have credentials that would allow them to speak with any kind of authority about science education (one, two, three). But just what is their specialist area of knowledge? Again, despite their large output on religious questions, it's certainly not this either (one, two).

In recent days I received an e-mail from a creationist scientist, who had some comments to make on what he had seen on the BCSE's website. I thought that the e-mail made so many telling points about the BCSE's lack of knowledge of the things it seeks to critique, and about the quality of the BCSE's research, that I asked him for permission to publish it.

My correspondent is a qualified scientist and a fellow of the relevant society, and has published a good deal of material. Or in other words, he knows what he is talking about.

Here it is:

Hi David,

I thought you might want to capture Roger Stanyard's latest post on the BCSE forum before it disappears - because it's just possible that it will be deleted once his friends realise how off-the-wall it is!

http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=717

Roger's stated aim in his posted article is to describe "intelligent design theory" for the general public as they browse the BCSE website. As we've come to expect from the BCSE, the errors and misrepresentations are numerous - so much so that it's difficult to know where to begin putting it right - but Roger manages to make this contribution even more hilarious than usual. Here are just a few things that immediately spring out:

1) It's only a draft, I know, but Roger's English grammar and spelling are extremely poor - ironically something that the BCSE used to claim was a characteristic of those poorly-educated "fundies". This suggests that the article was written in a hurry with little attention to accuracy or detail - surprise!

(David comments: My correspondent is referring to some of Mr. Stanyard's mocking words on the BCSE's now hidden "Rough Guide To Fundamentalism" page, which I have covered in previous posts: one, two, three. I have not drawn attention to this myself as I have had it suggested to me by someone else who noticed Mr. Stanyard's consistently poor spelling that he has a mild form of dyslexia - but his hypocrisy in abusing others (as he does on the afore-mentioned page) for the same fault is blameworthy and justifies the mention of this).

2) Roger repeats the standard nonsense about creationists believing in the separate creation of individual species - but, as informed creationists point out ad nauseam in articles and talks, the diversification of species within the created kinds is an integral part of the creationist model of the history of life. A cursory browsing of any major creationist website (AiG, CMI, BCS, etc) would have revealed that inconvenient fact to Roger.

3) One claim (presented by Roger as a creationist belief) is truly bizarre: "existing species suddenly start producing offsprings of a completely different species and then, after a short while, revert to back breeding their own species. So hippos suddenly start giving birth to whales or tigers to lions or foxes to wolves. Or dinosaur eggs suddenly start hatching into mammals or birds." It's difficult to imagine where Roger could have picked up such an extraordinary notion - perhaps he's confusing creationist views with the evolutionary "hopeful monster" theory of Goldschmidt? It's certainly not from any creationist literature I've ever read.

4) He says of creationists: "The majority believe that all life was zapped into existence on a single day, within a few hours, 6,000 years ago." On a single day? You'd think the term "six-day creationist" would be a giveaway even to the BCSE!

5) Roger seems to think that God individually created species such as mammoths, tigers, lions, sabre-tooths, etc from the very beginning. In fact, creationists regard these species as having arisen by the diversification of the created kinds after the Flood. For example, lions and tigers are varieties of cat probably descended from an ancestral pair of cats taken on the ark.

6) And then Roger makes another bizarre claim that he attributes to creationists: "And all of these creatures would be sterile and incapable of breeding...They would never have any young. None of the birds would produce eggs, raise chicks or eat insects." Now why on earth would creationists believe such an odd thing? Roger has the answer: "That’s because, in the opinion of the proponents of Intelligent Design, the bible says so." I wonder, then, what he makes of Genesis 1:22?

7) After all this, Roger has the brass-neck to say that "intelligent design" is "a seriously bent scam", "an insult to religion", "devoid of even basic common-sense and honesty" and promoted by those who are "deliberately deceptive, evasive and completely dishonest. They lie, out of necessity, repeatedly and habitually to promote their beliefs." He concludes: "If you believe in Intelligent Design, you have been had and therefore a mug." Reading this extraordinary article, the words "pot", "kettle" and "black" come to mind.

Now, of course, Roger has only offered this as a "draft" for "feedback". But it's embarrassingly bad even for a first draft. As a piece of "research" or even a critical summary it's shambolic. If a creationist author had submitted an article of equivalent quality to our journal, (snip), I'd reject it immediately. Not that any of Roger's colleagues have so far managed to point out these failings to him. So far they've advised him to use a spell-checker, suggested that he's really describing creationism rather than ID, asked him to qualify his use of the word evangelical, and invited him to take into account the fact that there is a Muslim creationist movement - but the blindingly obvious mistakes, errors and misrepresentations have gone completely unremarked! It suggests that Roger and his friends in the BCSE actually know next-door to nothing about the very movement they are seeking to criticize - which hardly inspires confidence in their campaign!

I hope this might spark some useful thoughts for your blog.

David's comments:

My correspondent is completely correct, but I think that his corrections will be lost on Roger Stanyard. Mr. Stanyard's standard response to the revelations from this blog has been to claim, in effect, that he knows better than his opponents do about their own beliefs. If you try to correct him by explaining what you really believe, he will tell you that you are lying! (This was Stanyard's response to the "Theocracy" series!).

My correspondent was, however, wrong in his suggestion that some member of the BCSE would eventually jump in to point out how embarassingly ignorant Stanyard's understanding of ID and/or creationism were...

David Anderson


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

Real Scientists - And The BCSE

Have you heard of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy? It goes like this. "No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." "But I do!" pipes up wee Jimmy from Glasgow." "Ah, but no true Scotsman does - you don't count!".

This fallacy is employed routinely by campaigning atheists in their attempts to argue that Darwinism is a proven scientific fact. You see, apparently no true scientist questions Darwinism. "But I do", pipes up Royal Society member, Professor Boggins from the University of Readbridge. "Ah, but no true scientist does - wackos like you don't count!".

The BCSE - True Scientists...?

We've already seen that the British Centre for Science Education is not a group of science educators. Not only is it not a group of science educators, its core doesn't even include any!

The man we revealed as the BCSE's leader, Roger Stanyard, is neither a scientist nor an educator - he is a management consultant who has spent all his adult life in business (one, two).

However, minor facts like these do not deter the Stanyard or the BCSE from deciding just who is and who is not a scientist. If you were to head over to their page on the organisation "Creation Ministries International" (CMI), then at the bottom of the page you can find an edited copy of CMI's list of staff, as follows:


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

Did you notice all those quotation marks? Jonathan Sarfati's not a scientist - he's a "scientist". Tas Walker isn't a geologist - he's a "geologist". (Incidentally, the commas on the BCSE web page may give you the wrong idea about which job title applies to which individual).

The message is clear - here we have some more of those creationist charlatans masquerading as scientists - but the BCSE aren't fooled. Roger Stanyard (who wrote the article) certainly ought to know a non-scientist when he sees one - and he isn't going to allow his website's readers to be fooled. CMI may call its staff scientists, but true scientist Roger knows better.

So, let's take a look at these pseudo-scientists. On what grounds do they claim their titles? Unlike the BCSE, CMI aren't afraid to give you the full facts about themselves (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/45/63/):

Senior "Scientist": Don Batten, B.Sc.Agr.(Hons I), Ph.D.(Sydney): "... worked for a state Department of Agriculture for over 20 years, in the field of plant science. His research included environmental adaptation of tropical / subtropical fruits such as mango, lychee and custard apple (Annona spp.); floral biology, floral induction; breeding; environmental physiology (especially water requirements, effects of water deficits), plant taxonomy, and mineral nutrition. His research on floral induction of lychee and mango overturned long-held ideas on this, which were a big impediment to scientific progress as well as causing economic loss due to inappropriate management of these crops."

Senior "Scientist": Jonathan Sarfati, B. Sc. (Hons), Ph. D., F. M.: "... obtained a B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry with two physics papers substituted (nuclear and condensed matter physics). His Ph.D. in Chemistry was awarded for a thesis entitled ‘A Spectroscopic Study of some Chalcogenide Ring and Cage Molecules’. He has co-authored papers in mainstream scientific journals on high temperature superconductors and selenium-containing ring and cage-shaped molecules. ... He is a former New Zealand Chess Champion, and represented New Zealand in three Chess Olympiads. In 1988, F.I.D.E., the International Chess Federation, awarded him the title of F.I.D.E. Master (FM). Dr Sarfati regularly accepts challenges from multiple players (12 is the most played simultaneously to date) where he is blindfolded."

I admit the chess bit isn't relevant to the question of who is a scientist, but I found it impressive!

Senior "Geologist": Tas Walker BEng, BSc, PhD: "Bachelor of Engineering with first class honours (University of Queensland), Doctorate in mechanical engineering (University of Queensland), Bachelor of Science majoring in Earth Science (geology) with first class honours (University of Queensland)".

Staff (not "Senior", as per the BCSE) "Scientist": David Catchpole, B.Ag.Sc. (Hons), Ph.D.: "Dr David Catchpoole received his B.Ag.Sc. (Hons) from the University of Adelaide and a Ph.D. from the University of New England (New South Wales). His Ph.D. investigated nitrogen transfer between tree legumes, associated grass and ruminant animals (goats). This was undertaken in Indonesia as part of a joint Australia-Indonesia project in forage research, aimed at improving the quality and availability of animal feed. Dr Catchpoole subsequently worked for the Queensland Department of Primary Industries as a plant physiologist. His focused primarily on plant nutrition of tropical fruit trees (especially mango), and varietal selection. He has also worked as a science educator at James Cook University, which included lecturing in tropical horticulture."

Staff "Scientist" Pierre Jerlström BSc. PhD.: His list of fellowship, professional appointments, conferences and publications is a bit too long to summarise: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3566/. The title of his PhD thesis was "L-Asparaginases in E. coli: a genetic study." Dr. Jerlström is fluent in four languages and has a patent to his name from his biological research.

Senior "Scientist" Dr. Emil Silvestru: "earned his Ph.D in geology at the ‘Babes-Bolyai’ University in Cluj, Romania, (where he has worked as an associate professor) in karst1 sedimentology. A world authority on the geology of caves, he has published 30 scientific papers, and co-authored one book. He was, until recently, the head scientist at the world’s first Speleological Institute (speleology = the study of caves) in Cluj. ... His areas of expertise include: karstology, sedimentology, geology and hydrogeology of limestone terrains, cave glaciology, show-cave assessment & designing, metamorphic ore geology and prospecting."

And in case they're a bit short of expertise, those who aren't employed as scientists still manage to amass the following qualifications between them:

• A BSc. in biology/paleontology
• An M.Sc. in chemistry
• An M.Sc. in hydrogeology
• A Ph.D. in science/engineering
• A Ph.D. in physics (fulltime university research Fellow)
• A Ph.D. in geology
• A Ph.D. in zoology (nematology)
• A B.Sc.(Hons) in zoology
• A medical doctor
  

That's right - pick just a couple of those who aren't employed as scientists, and you still have more relevant qualifications than the combined credentials of the British Centre for Science Education's leadership...

Recent Events In The UK

Meanwhile, this week in the UK, another twelve senior academics (including ten professors and the director of an astronomical observatory) wrote to the government publically applauding Truth in Science, the group which is seeking for a more fair presentation of the Darwinism debate in UK schools.

These professors included Norman Nevin OBE, Professor Emeritus of Medical Genetics, Queen's University of Belfast and Antony Flew, former Professor of Philosophy at Reading University and an eminent supporter of humanism.

To quote:

"We write to applaud the Truth in Science initiative," the letter said. Empirical science has "severe limitations concerning origins" and Darwinism is not necessarily "the best scientific model to fit the data that we observe".

They concluded: "We ask therefore that, where schools so choose, you ensure an open and honest approach to this subject under the National Curriculum, at the same time ensuring that the necessary criteria are maintained to deliver a rigorous education."

You can see a fuller report on this on Truth in Science's own website: here.

This, of course, isn't in the BCSE's script. According to the BCSE propaganda, the evidence against Darwinism is illusory and exists only in the imaginations of fundamentalist fanatics likely to fly planes into your workplace or storm Westminster in order to set up a theocracy (one, two, three, four).

Conclusion

The BCSE's leadership certainly ought to know a non-scientist when it sees one, given the wealth of personal experience of not being scientists available within its ranks.

But when the BCSE, having taken the label "Centre for Science Education" for themselves, demand the right to strip others of the title "scientist" because of their non-adherence to Darwinism, the only outcome is to make themselves look bigoted, hypocritical and ridiculous. The BCSE's website seeks to paint those who question Darwinism as being unqualified in science and driven by religion. We wonder if the authors of this website have any sense of irony?

Meanwhile, those who don't have an atheist agenda recognise that there are some good evidences for intelligence and design in the natural world, that Darwinism is in serious trouble, and that our schoolchildren deserve to not be given a misleading impression over this.

In the BCSE's book, you are a scientist not because you have proved yourself in scientific disciplines - you can only be a scientist if you agree with a hard-line Darwinian outlook. And if you agree with that outlook, you can write to newspapers and MPs representing yourselves as scientific experts, qualifications or no qualifications!

The BCSE like to portray those whom they disagree with as being extremists and bigots. It is valid to ask the question as to whether the BCSE are not a perfect mirror of the caricature they present of their opponents.

David Anderson


(Non-anonymous factual corrections welcomed. Would-be commenters should consult the comment criteria).

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

The BCSE, Educational Incompetence, and the Nazis! (Part 2)

This is part 2 of our look at the BCSE's internal discussions of home-education. Part one is here. If this is your first time here, then you probably want to skip over these articles and see some of the more basic material about the BCSE.

Setting the Context

Let's remember the slogan at the bottom of the BCSE's web site:

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

What we've seen so far is that this is more a slogan that a reality. In fact, the BCSE had a serious internal discussion about what they could do to get the state to prevent parents passing on criticisms of Darwinism to their own children. But I'll assume that you've read all of that.

Where we left off last time, we had seen that Michael Brass had given his fellow BCSE members a completely wrong account of how UK laws deal with home-schooling. Nobody else in this group of purported educational authorities jumped in to point this out. Instead, they begin to build upon it.

What Happened Next

From this point on, the BCSE members assumed that they had a sound understanding, and began to move forward. Roger Stanyard then proposed the four fundamental areas that should be the focus for the BCSE. Here are numbers 3 and 4[8]:

3. The regulation of schools and home schooling.

4. And the related issue of inspection and monitoring of education.

There are no significant turns in discussion after that - it is mostly the BCSE's core chiming in to voice their agreement. Parents talking to their own children is dangerous - and must be monitored! There must be regulations. Creationism and intelligent design are ideas that need to be censored - whether in schools, around the breakfast table, or wherever.

So there it is. The BCSE don't make their charter public on their website - but one of their four main priorities is to have more regulation of what parents teach their own children. That's not very liberal is it? It appears that the BCSE's commitment to "plurality" doesn't extend as far as disagreements about Darwinism. They're all for tolerance - but only of people like themselves!

The State And Parents

Well, let's move on. In another discussion a couple of months later, the topic of parents and the state arises again. And again we find Michael Brass contributing - to again express some extreme statist views. Brass appears to have no children of his own, but those of us who do can only feel a chill coming down our spines when we read words like these[9]:

Schools are not an extension of a family but a public resource and facility. This is actually where a lot of problems come in because some parents believe they know better than educators on how their children should be educated.

Yes, you did read that correctly. Schools aren't there to help parents with their responsibility to raise and train their own children. Schools are there because parents are incompetent, and the state knows better than they do. Parents have this rather naive and ignorant belief that they know their own children best - but thankfully the good old state is there with its schools to raise those children as they ought to be raised.

Now, I'd like to think that Michael is only speaking about his own family experience. But frankly I don't think he is. He really means it. In Michael's mind, "pluralism" and "freedom" are only good up until parents start discussing ideas from science or religion that he doesn't approve of. At that point, he'd like the state's inspectors to be knocking round, to tell the parents to stop it.

The Sobering Ice Bucket Of Reality...

Michael doesn't seem to show any awareness of the complete absurdity and hopeless mess of contradictions in his position. Here are a few obvious points:

• Does the state really always know better than its individual parents? So, the state. Would that include... the Taleban in Afghanistan? Nazi Germany? Communist China? Stalin's Russia? Would Michael be happy to have any of his children raised by the state in today's Iran, North Korea, or Afghanistan - because they know better than he does as a parent? Does he believe what he's saying?
  
  
• Different states, very obviously, have enforced mutually contradictory ideas. Medieval Spain enforced Roman Catholicism and so everybody's child was raised a Catholic; Communist Albania enforced atheism and so everybody's child was raised an atheist. Did the state know better than parents in both cases? If not, just when does it actually know best?
  
  
• In actual fact, of course, our present state, in its settlement (national church, bishops in the Lords, etc.), asserts the superiority of Christianity. But as we've seen, the BCSE's core activists very definitely do not believe that the state knows better than them about this...
  
  
• If the state is always automatically right... then why is the BCSE bothering to lobby it anyway? If the state does know better than parents about raising children... then surely it knows better than an ad-hoc group of unqualified Internet activists?
  
  
• What if the state says that the parents know best? Catch 22! And as a matter of fact, the present law in the UK quite rightly places the responsibility for education very firmly upon parents and gives them great individual freedom for it. So if Michael thinks the state knows best, then he's going to have to accept that the state today gives very wide freedom for home education. In other words, the logical conclusion of Michael's belief that the state knows best - is that Michael is wrong.
  
  
• If Michael thinks that the state knows best, then logically the BCSE ought to stop campaigning. Because the fact is, that the present law is that schools can teach whatever they like. There is a National Curriculum which forms a minimum common core for state schools; but once that common core is taught, schools can supplement it with whatever they like. And that includes creationism, intelligent design, and anything else that the governors and teachers deem best. However this cuts away the basis for the BCSE's whole lobbying campaign - the aim of which is to prohibit any teaching of alternatives to Darwinism. If Michael really believes that the state knows better than himself as a private individual, then he ought to stop campaigning against it!
  
  
• And finally, the ultimate conundrum for Michael. What if the state actually required the discussion of creationism. Will Michael still hold to his belief that the state knows best?
  

Well, we think we know what Michael really means.

What he means is - "The state knows best - as long as it prohibits criticisms of Darwinism! Otherwise, the state is completely foolish and stupid!" If the state does allow criticims of Darwinism, then it is completely wrong and needs the BCSE's educational expertise to re-inform it. After all, that's the official reason why the BCSE exists.

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

I am glad that the BCSE's activists' ideas have very little correspondence with the actual rules governing home education. Whilst the BCSE is labouring under the impression that what is said at home is subject to inspections to enforce a curriculum and prevent the discussion of illegal ideas, nothing could be further from the truth. The National Curriculum applies to state schools only - not even to private ones, let alone home ones. Parents are legally free to educate their children any way they please, as long as it equips the children to live as competent citizens in our society. And that doesn't require an uncritical indoctrination in Darwinism. Phew!

Winding Up

The BCSE look worryingly ignorant in the areas meant to be their core specialities, don't you think? How come I know more about this stuff than they do? After all, I'm just a private individual, tapping away at my keyboard at home. I'm not a public educator. I'm not writing to MPs in the guise of a "Centre for Science Education". I'm not representing myself to the public as an expert.

Let's now wind this thing up and ask some questions:

• What does the fact that the BCSE didn't know any of that tell you about their educational expertise? What does it tell you about their competence to lobby parliament? Are they credible?
  
  
• Do the BCSE's views on the policing of what is said by parents to children in their own homes strike you as just a little, well, oppressive? Does it endear them to you as the kind of people you'd like to influence your children's education?
  
  
• Does it seem as if the BCSE have even begun to think through the implications of their view for democracy and freedom? Do you think that their protestations about loving these values are really heart-felt and intelligent - or just empty sloganeering? Are their actual ideas in fact some of the most oppressive and anti-freedom ideas you've heard for a long time?
  

It seems to me that the BCSE have only just begun to think through some of the very basics about education. They're still at the stage of making some real schoolboy howlers.

Or in other words - you just can't take them seriously.

Epilogue: Some Moral Support For The BCSE

(You'll have to have read the first paragraph of part one to get this...)

Well, the BCSE aren't totally alone. There have been others in history who have felt that home-schooling was dangerous. Others down the years have been concerned about its potential to breed citizens who might critically question the official dogma - whether that be Darwinism or something else.

There is one country in Europe which still has on its statute books a law banning home-schooling. Only one though. It's had that law since 1938. The country's leader passed it himself.

You do know who that was, don't you?

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

The BCSE have taken the BlackShadow Yahoo group off-line so that it can no longer be publically viewed - but anyone wishing to determine the accuracy of my quotations can ask me for a copy.

[8] BlackShadow Yahoo group message 2066
[9] http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=50

The BCSE, Educational Incompetence, and the Nazis!

The title for this article is half-joking. It's the stuff of legend that on the Internet, in any disagreement one side will eventually end up being compared with Hitler. But we'll come back to that... (part two of the article is here).

The BCSE's Educational Experience

This article is a real two-parter. Others have been reasonably self-contained. This time, you'll need part 2 to give you the whole picture.

Today we're going to follow up our earlier story, which demonstrated pretty conclusively the BCSE's total educational incompetence. What other words could we use to describe what we saw? No head-teachers, teachers or experienced educationalists at all within the membership; no knowledge of the National Curriculum's contents - the BCSE's internal discussions instead had to focus on the question "What is the National Curriculum, anyway?". It takes quite some bravado to begin lobbying the Department of Education in the name of a "Centre for Science Education" when you're that badly lacking in standing.

Today's Twist

In this article, we're going to carry on shining light on the BCSE's competence, or lack thereof, to speak about education. And in doing so, we're going to learn some disturbing things about how these activists' minds work.

At the bottom of the front page of the BCSE's website, there's a nice little quote. Here it is:

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

Now, I think that everyone thinking for themselves sounds pretty good. I don't understand how it agrees with the BCSE's campaigns to prevent schoolchildren hearing about scientific criticisms of Darwinism, or about other scientific models. But that's another question.

Our Question Is...

My topic today is home-schooling. Today in the United Kingdom, thousands of parents have made the decision that the best education for their children is one within the context of the home. Rather than delegating the work of education to others, they've decided to educate their children themselves.

Now personally, I think that is a very noble decision. After all, nobody knows children better than their own parents. There are of course some advantages in having a class full of peers and a trained teacher. However, the advantage of a personal tuition from those who love you more than anyone in the whole world has got to take some beating. And the results bear that out - home-schoolers routinely out-perform their peers by a good distance.

Well, whether you'd go for that option or not, I think you'll agree that it's a valid option, and one for which those taking it are to be admired. Admired their dedication to their children, and for their willingness to go against the grain and to take on such an undertaking, if not anything else.

And might we not expect that as lovers of free-thinking, "democracy, pluralism, freedom and righteousness", the BCSE are certainly going to agree?

Errr..... No.

Well, not exactly. Quite the opposite, in fact.

You see, from the BCSE's point of view, home-schooling is rather dangerous. The problem is, that if parents are allowed to give instruction to their children, then they might fail to correctly indoctrinate them in materialism and Darwinism. Gasp! The horror!

In their discussion of this problem, the BCSE's ignorance of how the education systems in our country work again comes to the fore. We'll follow that discussion, giving our comments along the way. I believe that this will give my readers an interesting insight into the way these would-be "science educators" think.

In The Beginning

Here's how it began. When the BCSE began discussing precisely what their aims were, the topic of home-schooling came up. Here's Ian Lowe, making first mention of the issue[1]:

I typed up a reasonable extension of the "what do we want" post, with bits about home schooling, private faith schools (especially in the light of Patrick Henry College) etc. I am *not* prepared to talk tactics in a forum that any fundie can read.

For the uninitiated, Patrick Henry College is a US college that caters especially for those who have been previously home-schooled. (Home schooling in the US is a major success story having been pioneered mostly by Christians, it is now fairly widespread as people from all over society have seen its results). Because Patrick Henry College is also based on Christian principles and is also highly successful, its existence is a major focus for the displeasure of hardline secularists and atheists in the US. That Ian flags it up is another clue to what drives him (and you'll notice that word "fundie" again - again identifying for us if Ian is really concerned about science, or if it's something else). Only militant atheists talk about Patrick Henry College. The rest of the world is just happy that successful colleges exist.

Note, then, that Ian is concerned about both home-schooling and faith schools. He's not willing to spell out his concerns publically. However, whatever it is he wants to say, it is obviously that in Ian's mind the plurality that such schools bring to society, and the freedom that parents enjoy to use them, are not necessarily good things.

Responses to Ian

In response to Ian, Timothy Chase replies[2]:

Home schooling?

Let them teach religion as a matter of individual freedom, but test them on science and demand science standards - real science standards.

Now, you'll see that Timothy is a generous man. He's willing to allow parents to teach their own children whatever they please - as long as it's within the realm of "religion".

However, on "science", Timothy demands testing. But what kind of testing does Timothy have in mind? Presumably not just the usual A-Levels and GCSEs - children already take those tests. Timothy seems to have in mind something more. It looks to me like he's suggesting that the state monitor parents' instruction of their own children, to see if conforms sufficiently with Timothy's brand of hard-line Darwinism-only approach to education or not.

Whether I'm reading Timothy rightly or not, that's certainly what Ian seems to believe, because his was the next significant contribution. Here it is; it's worth reading twice, and reading carefully[3]:

I would think that we should be moving ... to say that creationism in *ANY* science classroom, whether private or state funded is the problem.

Basically, I am concerned by the appearance of more private faith schools or US style "home schools" as a response to squeezing them in the public sector.

I don't think academies are the problem per se - allowing fundies into a position of control over curricula is the problem, and that happens in academies, private schools and home schooling "cooperatives".

Did you get that? According to Ian, there is a fundamental problem with parents educating their own children. The fundamental problem is that those parents may teach their children a faith that atheist Ian does not approve of. There is a "fundamental problem" of parents who cannot be trusted to uncritically endorse Darwinism in the way that Ian prefers. If parents are given the liberty to gather together in home schooling "cooperatives", then some of those parents may be "fundies" - who can't be relied upon to teach their children the right thing.

That talk about "liberty" and "pluralism" is beginning to sound a little hollow, isn't it? Plurality - as long as it doesn't mean people of faith! Liberty - but not for believers! What Ian doesn't seem to realise is that it is precisely this kind of talk which is driving people towards home-schooling. If state-schooling is going to be influenced by people like Ian, then that's pretty worrying!

Reaction to Ian

But is Ian a crazed lone ranger, who immediately got reeled in by the saner members of the group? Err, no. In direct response to the above quote, Michael Brass replied[4]:

Unless anyone objects, I strongly recommend that the above two principles are the bedrock upon which this list (and organisation) rests. If such agreement is forthcoming, then I believe we have made the first step towards creating a charter that everyone can be unified behind.

Did you get that? Far from saying, "Whoah, Ian! You're suggesting forbidding parents to instruct their own children as they see fit? Have you gone stark raving bonkers?", Michael actually suggests making Ian's ideas the "bedrock" of the BCSE's operation. Wow!

At this point, one lone voice of sanity does intervene, for the first and last time. It comes from an anonymous contributor, who only signs off as "MBB". Quite reasonably, he proposes as follows[5]:

I would suggest being very careful what you campaign against.

What people do in their own homes on their own time with their own money is not, IMHO, our business.

Now, in normal circumstances, I'd expect people to say "Of course! What were we thinking of! We can't propose setting up the thought police! Parents can say to their own children whatever they like! Whoah, I'm glad you stopped us there. We were going to do something that would make us look really stupid!" At first, Roger Stanyard did indeed seem to be moving in the right direction, because he interjected[6]:

"Mikey, I'm confused as to what you are saying here. I assume that you don't mean that we should oppose private daith [sic] schools or home schooling because I can't see how we could."

In reply, Michael gave us his explanation his understanding of home education and how it works. Now, the posts get a big long at this point, but Michael's basic understanding is as follows. It's important to understand, because it is then accepted by the rest of the BCSE group, who then compose their charter based upon it. If you wish for a fully copy of the post in which he outlines this view, ask me[7].

According to Michael Brass, then:

• Home schooling is only permitted to parents if the local education authority (LEA) permits it.
  
  
• The LEA are required to make regular checks that standards are being followed.
  
  
• Parents are allowed to make known their own views "in private", but in their schooling they are required to follow a prescribed curriculum.
  
  
• If a parent were to want to question evolution, then the schools' inspector would have to give permission.
  
  
• In summary, the schools' inspector is allowed to forbid parents to teach creationism to their children. In Michael's own words, ' the education authorities should have the authority to say to the parent "you may say what you want in private, but this is not to be any part of you teaching science to your children".'
  

Anybody who has a basic knowledge of UK education laws will recognise that Michael is about as wrong as wrong can be.

The actual situation is as follows:

• Parents have complete liberty to choose whether to educate their own children through the state schools, private schools, or personally - or any other way they please.
  
  
• The state has authority to intervene only if it has evidence that a child is not being prepared to cope with society. They have no authority to object to anything that the parents choose to discuss with their own children. In their own homes - or in public or anywhere else - parents may teach their own children what they please. That's a relief, isn't it! The thought police aren't with us just yet...
  
  
• Of course, some public bodies have over-zealous, nannying officials - who may try to gain access to a home, or to muscle in on the education. But the parents have the right to refuse. At that point, the official's only legal possibility is to mount a case and demonstrate positive evidence that the parents are not equipping their children. Of course, most parents won't want to have to go through this - so will provide some form of co-operation. But this is entirely at the parents' discretion. Children belong to their parents, not the state.
  

Being an allegedly credible body of educators that is fit to influence MPs and other public bodies, you'd think that the other members of the BCSE would know that, and jump in to point it out. No such thing happens. What does that tell you?

What does actually happen, is the subject of part 2...

David Anderson
bcse-blog at dw-perspective dot org dot uk - non-anonymous factual corrections welcome.

The BCSE have taken the BlackShadow Yahoo group off-line so that it can no longer be publically viewed - but anyone wishing to determine the accuracy of my quotations can ask me for a copy.

[1] BlackShadow Yahoo group message 1545
[2] BlackShadow Yahoo group message 1547
[3] BlackShadow Yahoo group message 2052
[4] BlackShadow Yahoo group message 2053
[5] BlackShadow Yahoo group message 2054
[6] BlackShadow Yahoo group message 2058
[7] BlackShadow Yahoo group message 2059

What's the National Curriculum?

In this article, we're going to shine some more light to help us to answer the question: "Who are the BCSE, and how should we respond to them?"

Our Purpose

Let us once again remind ourselves of this blog's purpose. It is not here to refute arguments on the BCSE's website. It is not here to correct untruths and errors in its database. It is simply to answer the question above. When we can see whether the BCSE can give straight and honest answers about their own identities, qualifications and agenda, then we'll know whether we should even bother reading the rest of their material. Put more simply: If we find they can't tell us the truth about straightforward facts about themselves - then why should we listen to any of their opinions about other matters? This question has become all the more relevant now that the BCSE has been making representations in national media and to MPs.

Today's Research

Today's article focuses on the question of the British Centre for Science Education's qualifications to talk about education. What is their knowledge, and what is their experience?

However, we're not going to give a full answer to this question. Instead, we're going to simply focus upon one issue that arose prior to the BCSE's launch. This issue shines rather a lot of light upon our question.

The BCSE's great pre-occupation, as seen from its website, is to prevent criticisms of Darwinisms or presentations of alternative creationist or "intelligent design" models from being made in schools. At all costs, schoolchildren must not be allowed to think critically about origins - the conclusions may not be welcome! Now personally, I would be very happy for a full presentation of Darwinism to be made to schoolchildren. A full presentation means honesty about the theory's problems, the swathes of missing evidence for it, and the enormous philosophical problems it poses. A full investigation of Darwinism, I am convinced, will only persuade more people to abandon it. The BCSE, however, don't feel this way about intelligent design or creationism. They feel that a full, open, candid investigation is bad. That's not really the rational or scientific approach, is it?

Anyway, I am wandering from the point, and becoming controversial. The point is that the BCSE's main focus is schools. They present themselves as science educators, and so we may expect them to be well qualified to do so. The question is: Are they?

The National Curriculum

In August 2006, the BCSE was preparing to launch itself upon the world. As its core members readied themselves, they realised that they were going to have to know the answer to a question. They needed to know what was actually in the National Curriculum. Interrupting a discussion of exactly what counted as "science", and as "arts", Michael Brass piped up[1]:

This is *precisely* why I mentioned the necessity of obtaining copies of the national curriculum, for various age groups.

Roger Stanyard, BCSE leader, agreed[2]:

So, does anyone want to take on the job of obtaining and looking at the national curriculum* for us. I simply don't have the time to do everything (as it is, I'm spending on average 3 hours a day before nine o'clock, plus part of my lunch time plus an hour or so in the evening plus weekends trying to pull everything together).

What's Wrong With This Picture?

Now, remember that the BCSE are presenting themselves to politicians and public as an authoritative group of educators - with several dozen experienced members. Given that, what would you expect would happen next in the discussion?

Well, I don't know about you... but I'd expect that one of the many experienced teachers within the BCSE group would chime in. One of those heads of science who is implementing the national curriculum week in, week out, would provide an authoritative answer. Or, one of those old hands who has now retired from a lifetime in education will tell us what the score is. After all, this is the core competency of the BCSE, isn't it?

Or failing that, at least some teacher will just give us the answer?

Err...

The shocking (unless you've read this blog before, that is) truth, though, is that the BCSE didn't have any teachers, ex-teachers, or other science educators within its membership. Not one. Nobody interjected. Nobody supplied the answer. Because nobody knew.

In fact, the kind of thing that then had to be discussed was not "What are the fine points of the National Curriculum?", but "What is the National Curriculum, anyway?" That's why, in the quote above, Stanyard is saying - "where can we get a copy?"

Here's Stanyard again - and remember, this is just 2 months ago[3]:

My understanding (and I could be dead wrong on this, so please correct me if I am) is that the National curriculum defines what is studied and is common to all schools in England and Wales where the examination boards interpret it for the purpose of setting exams.

Now, notice just what Roger says. He "could be dead wrong". He's not sure what the national curriculum is, but he has an idea. Is this par for the course for the leader of an educational lobbying group?

Well, we'll give him 7 out of 10 for his attempt. Actually there are separate national curriculums in England and Wales - and Scotland and Northern Ireland too. It defines a common core and targets. But still, he wasn't to know that, was he - after all, it's not as if he's the leader of a group claiming to be educators, is it? Oh, hang on...

However, later posts reduce Roger's mark down from that 7. He suggests the idea that the National Curriculum can ban certain things from being taught in schools. But it can't - it's merely a common core, a minimum standard; it is purely inclusive. What else is taught, or not taught, is up to individual schools. Now, I'm rather grateful that there is no governmentally banned knowledge - aren't you? Aren't unmentionable ideas a feature of repressive regimes and police states? However, Roger's posts show that it's something he'd rather like. (Those pesky problems of Darwinism again)[4].

What Next?

What happens next is even more revealing. Here's core BCSE member Ian Lowe (he of the Scottish Atheist Council) a few days later[5]:

We need someone to read through the National Curriculum, the guidelines to headteachers and the DFES rules about applying that curriculum with a critical eye to figure out what we need to actually be campaigning to change.

Despite the 50 or so members on this list, precisely four people have responded: Marco is up to his elbows in the notoacademies campaign, I'm busy with the Scottish campaign, Mikey is busy with his research, and Roger can't be expected to spend any more time on this than he already is.

Hell, I spent time *at work* going through the DFES site to find the documents, in the hope that someone with a bit more time would read them through.

Then Michael Brass replies. Of course, there's interesting data in both these quotes for the question of whether or not the BCSE are being honest in their claims to be more than a tiny group of activists, though that's not our point[6]:

I will be able to do so after the end of the first week of October. Until then, I have just submitted a journal paper for review, will be doing revisions to a second paper for review and writing about 5 articles for two encyclopedias. Plus time to earn money and my personal life.

I am planning on reading through the curriculum during the course of October. Of course that is two months away.

Some days later, an outsider called "Andy" joined in, commenting on a page on the BCSE's nascent website. He'd spotted a problem[7]:

"Our analysis of the National Curriculum" would lead to huge embarrassment if any journalist asked about the detail of same. Black Shadow records clearly the difficulty in finding someone who has the time to read it (let alone analyse it) and this is obviously a work in progress not a completed task. Identifying creationists as liars and then failing to be factually accurate is not wisdom."

Some days later, Ian Lowe again. Do you agree with him?[8]

I have been away on business, and it's pretty sobering to see that we are not one step further forward on the important stuff. Seriously, nobody else came forward to have a look at the National Curriculum? But we have lots of edits being done on the website?

Sorry guys, but I'm just shaking my head in disbelief at this. Doesn't this strike anyone else as a bit "fur coat, no knickers"?

Later on the same day, Ian puts it to Roger: "You are taking time off work, and there's not even a volunteer to read the damn national curriculum?" and "you can't even get someone to help leaf through the NC to figure out what needs fixing".[9]

Well, that was a bit close to the bone, and Roger didn't appreciate it too well[10]:

Let me ask you a simple question. What has you contribution been to this group this week? Have you offered to edit the web site? Have you offered to draft out a constitution or whatever for the organisation. Have you offered to sent us copies of the national curriculum?

I'm sorry even that I didn't agree with you beforehand what days I took of and what days I should be working on your pet beef. If you want a constitution this week you write it. I've found time, why haven't you?

You trouble is Ian from day one you have walked in with fists flying everytime you disagree with some one.

Let's put it tactfully. You do not get voluteers by bullying. And that includes both me and Alan in this case.

Well, it goes on from there. We're not so interested in the squabbling (though it does show us things about the group's professionalism). We just want to know if anyone actually did discover anything about the curriculum that they wanted to present themselves as experts upon. After some more infighting, eventually, Brian Jordan, with a burst of unprintable profanity, decided to have a go. This was at 1:13 a.m. on Saturday the 19^th of August. He managed to find a few documents on the Department of Education's website. Between 15:00 and 16:28 on the same day he provided a few quotes from here and there. Here's a sample of how detailed and thorough the analysis got[11]:

I've searched for key words, and got:

Darwin 0

Controversy 0

Origin 3 - all satisfactory

Evolution 1 - too weak:

5b "variation within species can lead to evolutionary changes and similarities and differences between species can be measured and classified."

Even in doing so, Brian got a few things wrong. He culled the above from the new National Curriculum published for this year, under the assumption that the old one was obsolete. However, that was mistaken - the old one is still in effect for this year. Brian, though, misunderstood this, and didn't complete reading the old one. Still, that's excusable - he's not claiming to be an expert... is he?

And...?

And that's it. Yes, really. That was all the investigation or analysis of the National Curriculum that the BCSE undertook. Discussion on the subject ended. If you search the archives, then you'll only find 3 more mentions of the phrase "national curriculum". Two are irrelevant asides; the other is Michael Brass, on September 5^th, asking a question to Andy[12]:

would you have the time and/or the inclination to become more organisationally involved (such as assisting with and editing the Wicki [sic] and reading certain sections of the national curriculum, for example) ?

Did you catch that? That pesky curriculum still needs someone to actually find out something about it... And as I say, that's the last mention of the topic.

It's from this platform, this deep personal knowledge, years of experience, and thorough research, that the BCSE began lobbying MPs and public, and asking for a say in the British education system. Oh yes.

What to make of this?

Now I invite the open-minded reader to ask a few critical questions. I've given you the BCSE in their own words. There are the facts. How should we interpret them?

• Firstly, an aside. Notice who are the names taking part in the discussion above. Are they not just the people who we have identified previously as the BCSE's essential membership? Do our findings here tie in with our previous investigation? Is the BCSE telling the truth when it claims to have large numbers of qualified members, as opposed to just a religiously-motivated hard core?
  
  
• Secondly, let's be more to the main point. How much educational experience would you expect a public lobbying body to have, before it qualifies as a credible voice that should be allowed a say in the debate? Does the BCSE have that much experience? Is it close?
  
  
• More specifically... is the evidence above in keeping with the BCSE having any experience whatsoever? Let's be blunt. Do they have such a low level of experience, that the only accurate labels for them "fraudsters", "deceivers" and "conmen"?
  
  
• What do you think of the BCSE's eventual "investigation" into the national curriculum? Did it impress you with its thoroughness and carefulness? Or not? Did it strike you as the group of a fair, balanced and open-minded body - or as a hatchet job? What does this say about the leadership of the BCSE?
  
  
• Almost finally, what does all of this say about the BCSE, its credibility, and its agenda, in general? If the BCSE is not in this because they really are experienced and informed science educators - then why are they in this?

And finally, I want to apply this in a wider way. The BCSE want to talk about certain subjects. They want to tell you things about Darwinism, creationism, and politics. From what you've seen about how they handle much more simple and straightforward matters - is there any reason to trust them? Can you rely on their word? Do they have a track record in dealing with facts honestly?

Or not?

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

The BlackShadow Yahoo group archives are at http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/BlackShadow/messages. The BCSE have since removed public access to the archive, but I am able to supply a copy to any researcher wishing to verify the accuracy of the above.

[1] BlackShadow Yahoo group, message 2153
[2] BlackShadow Yahoo group, message 2165
[3] BlackShadow Yahoo group, message 2172
[4] BlackShadow Yahoo group, message 2173
[5] BlackShadow Yahoo group, message 2188
[6] BlackShadow Yahoo group, message 2192
[7] BlackShadow Yahoo group, message 2262
[8] BlackShadow Yahoo group, message 2289
[9] BlackShadow Yahoo group, message 2295
[10] BlackShadow Yahoo group, message 2298
[11] BlackShadow Yahoo group, messages 2307, 2310, 2312, 2314, 2315, 2319
[12] BlackShadow Yahoo group, message 2544