Truth in Science

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

Truth in Science

Postby Roger Stanyard » Sat Oct 14, 2006 9:16 am

Following the Early Day Motion, Truth in Science has made this statement on its web site:

Friday, 13 October 2006
On 11 October, Graham Stringer MP tabled an Early Day Motion against Truth in Science in the House of Commons. The motion states:
That this House shares the concerns of the British Centre for Science Education that the literature being sent to every school in the United Kingdom by the creationist religious group Truth in Science is full of scientific mistakes and fails to disclose the group's creationist beliefs and objectives; and urges all schools to treat this literature with extreme caution.
It has now been signed by eight other MPs.

To identify the scientific mistakes of the materials that TiS sent to schools we visited the website of the British Centre for Science Education (the BCSE is a relaunch of the "Blackshadow" group, and still uses their URL).

Surprisingly, we discovered that the BCSE has not yet reviewed the materials we sent to schools. Here is an extract from their site, taken today:

The Material Distributed to Heads of Science Departments
At this stage we have not reviewed the resource material sent to heads of science departments. The initial feedback is that the material has been professionally put together and, in terms of presentation, is of high quality.
It seems that the BCSE is briefing MPs with claims against TiS that it has not substantiated. We are concerned that busy MPs are taking these claims at face value.

We are willing to do all we can to correct any statements in TiS materials that can be shown, with convincing evidence, to be genuine scientific mistakes. However we cannot respond to unsubstantiated allegations.
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Truth in Science

Postby Anonymous » Sat Oct 14, 2006 9:24 am

Roger Stanyard wrote:

We are willing to do all we can to correct any statements in TiS materials that can be shown, with convincing evidence, to be genuine scientific mistakes. However we cannot respond to unsubstantiated allegations.

My reply would be simple: "Everything put forward in the public domain
to date in the US concerning ID has been comprehensively shown to be
unscientific. If TiS has access to information unavailable to their US
counterparts, they should be making this information available first to
the scientific community for evaluation through peer-review publication.
Only after it is accepted by the scientific community should it be
incorporated into school textbooks. Until such time, and given the
history of ID, it is disingenuous to claim innocence and accuracy over a
deliberate campaign to bypass the scientific community and influence
children directly without solid backing. Until such time as the
religious-based ID becomes mainstream in evolutionary science, the BCSE
(http://www.bcseweb.org.uk) will oppose such efforts to undermine the
basis of modern biology."


If you wish to use this statement, attributed to me, on the BCSE site,
you are welcome to. I would suggest including my credentials.
Anonymous
 

Re: Truth in Science

Postby Roger Stanyard » Sat Oct 14, 2006 9:33 am

mikeybrass wrote:Roger Stanyard wrote:

We are willing to do all we can to correct any statements in TiS materials that can be shown, with convincing evidence, to be genuine scientific mistakes. However we cannot respond to unsubstantiated allegations.

My reply would be simple: "Everything put forward in the public domain
to date in the US concerning ID has been comprehensively shown to be
unscientific. If TiS has access to information unavailable to their US
counterparts, they should be making this information available first to
the scientific community for evaluation through peer-review publication.
Only after it is accepted by the scientific community should it be
incorporated into school textbooks. Until such time, and given the
history of ID, it is disingenuous to claim innocence and accuracy over a
deliberate campaign to bypass the scientific community and influence
children directly without solid backing. Until such time as the
religious-based ID becomes mainstream in evolutionary science, the BCSE
(http://www.bcseweb.org.uk) will oppose such efforts to undermine the
basis of modern biology."


If you wish to use this statement, attributed to me, on the BCSE site,
you are welcome to. I would suggest including my credentials.


I'll do that Mikey. Thanks.

Of course Chris Hyland has reviewed the material and we knew this and details when we started approaching MPs. TiS fails to point out that Chris Hyland was quoted on 12th October as saying there were 21 substantive erros in the material. It was me who put the Independent in touch with Chris a couple of weeks or so back.

Moreover, the analysis is in the public domain - http://www.justscience.org.uk/tikiwiki- ... +materials

Ironically Chris is at Leeds University.

Roger
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Truth in Science

Postby Anonymous » Sat Oct 14, 2006 9:45 am

Roger Stanyard wrote:

Of course Chris Hyland has reviewed the material and we knew this and details when we started approaching MPs. TiS fails to point out that Chris Hyland was quoted on 12th October as saying there were 21 substantive erros in the material. It was me who put the Independent in touch with Chris a couple of weeks or so back.

Moreover, the analysis is in the public domain - http://www.justscience.org.uk/tikiwiki- ... +materials

Ironically Chris is at Leeds University.


I suggest including all that in a separate response of your own, either
on the same or a separate page from mine.

(an important bit of mine is the mentioning of the url, for TiS has
mistakenly taken the redirection from blackshadow to bcseweb as evidence
there has been no change. They are grasping at straws.)

Between your response and mine, it will be clear to everyone that theirs
is a desperate attempt at tarnishing and the BCSE has made a swift but
effective rebuttal. They are attempting to cut us off by appealing to
the public's sense of fairness; unfortunately for them, such a campaign
has its drawbacks, as we are highlighting to them through the targetted
strategies to date. Educational authorities will be taking note of the
fact that TiS has been mentioned in bad light in parliament and that
alone would cause some school heads to turn against them or, at least,
ignore their material.
Anonymous
 


Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 16 guests

cron