Truth In Science

Truth in Science

Quotations

Wikipedia Entry for Truth in Science

One of the main contributors to the Wikipedia entry has informed us that it has been deliberately altered on numerous occasions by those sympathetic towards Truth in Science.

Among many edits, large sections of text, including a transcript of a radio interview with Stuart Burgess, and the Truth in Science stance of speciation have so far been blanked. He has advised BCSE that the TiS sympathisers have used red herring arguments to exclude material, on the basis that it is "biased", "POV", and constitutes "original research", yet they provide no argument, justification, or evidence to back these assertions.

The Corporate Position

In January 2007 the Wellcome Trust distributed a 16 page booklet on evolution to heads of science in British schools. This looks to have been a deliberate response to Truth in Science’s September 2006 escapade in distributing Intelligent design material to schools.

The UK’s pharmaceuticals industry suffers from a shortage of good science graduates.

The Wellcome material can be found at http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/node5980.html

Truth in Science has condemned it here: http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/blogcategory/51/63/

Truth in Science claims that the publication is anti-Intelligent Design. Most of it is a description of mainstream science. Only about half of one of its 16 pages discusses Intelligent Design.

(Strictly speaking, the booklet is Issue 5 of the Trust's publication "Big Picture". Far from being dedicated to being anti-Intelligent Design, it is called "Big Picture on Evolution". It is backed up with online resources for the teacher and student.)

• Introduction
• How bad is Truth in Science's science?
• Call for information
• Truth in Science breaks cover!
• How well funded is Truth in Science?
• Where Has the money come from?
• What is the involvement of creationist groups in Truth in Science?
• Who runs Truth in Science?
• Truth in Science’s bogus science
• Truth In Science - A primer on the organisation
• Update on Truth in Science (September 2006)
• Details of Truth in Science from Companies House, September 2006

Introduction

The organisation Truth in Science is the central issue facing the anti-creationist movement in the UK. Truth in Science is trying to push for the teaching of creationism in state schools. However, it does not have the honesty to admit this; it is actually trying to pass off its “science” as Intelligent Design.

Nearly all of the people who are involved in Truth in Science are prominent young earth creationists.

Truth in Science appears to have raised a considerable sum of money and has sent creationist material to every head of science departments in UK state schools and colleges. The material is well organised and presented and shows how teachers can sneak creationism and/or Intelligent Design into the science classroom.

Truth in Science has adapted the US technique of “teach the controversy” to get its fundamentalist religion into the science classroom. It hasn’t the honesty to tell the public what its real intentions are. It has withheld from the public that it is backed entirely by young earth creationists and religious fundamentalists.

We have pointed this out in the national press. Here is our letter published in the Times newspaper on 3rd October 2006:

Rather than address the issues of dishonesty raised in our letter to the Times, the head of Truth in Science, Andy McIntosh, replied by trying to bamboozle the public with the wholly discredited hypothesis of “Intelligent design” – in particular Irreducible Complexity.

Here is his letter, published in the Times on 7th October 2006:

The letter does not reveal the real agenda of Truth in Science, which is on record as saying that its objectives are to confront people who don’t agree with its religious opinions and expose them as charlatans.

The Times also published on the same day a letter from Dr Richard Buggs:

Pity the truthfulness doesn’t extend to telling the world that Buggs is a religious fundamentalist and that the real aim of his organisation is proselytising and social re-engineering.

But it’s worse than this because it appears that the fundamentalists want their religion pushed in science lessons for children as young as eight.

Here is another letter that appeared in the Times on the same day as the letters from McIntosh and Buggs.

We don’t know who Dr Mike Snow is but his argument is standard fundamentalist boilerplate – science is just a religion and therefore his religious opinions should be pushed onto other people’s children in the science classroom.

So, it’s time we took up the challenge of the above individuals. Please see the science section for starters in addition to the materials presented below.

How bad is Truth in Science's science?

Truth in Science is currently pushing Intelligent Design. This is what Jacqui Smith, Minister of State for Schools, had to say about it in April 2006:

See also this recent article by three American academics with a strong background in religion showing what is wrong with teaching Intelligent Design.

Furthermore, many of the arguments being made in Truth in Science's "Evidence for Evolution" are taken straight out of Well's "Icons of Evolution." As such, the US' NCSE has already responded to much of this material in detail.

These are the topics TIS covers in their Evidence for Evolution section, with numbers corresponding to the "Icons" responses found at NCSE:

Development of Biologial Resistance

Comparative Genetics and Biochemistry

Sickle-cell Anaemia

The Peppered Moth #6

Misrepresentation of Alternatives

Horse Evolution

Darwin's Finches #7

The Miller-Urey experiment #1

Hominid Fossils

Embryology #3

The Fossil Record

Homology in vertebrate limbs

In any case, TIS' bit on "Homology in vertebrate limbs" was apparently so bad they had to remove it in late 2006: "This page has been taken down for revision. TiS is grateful to a number of scientists who have pointed out certain short-comings in the earlier content of this essay. A new version will be published shortly." The revised version is up at http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/46/65/

Call for Information

This is an organisation that we are still short of key details on and if anyone can help with providing further information, please let use know via the contacts page.

In particular we do not know who it is employing (or how many), its source of finances, and its direct connections with other creationist organisations.

So far we have collected a large amount of basically fragmentary evidence about Truth in Science. This suggests that its backers have big ambitions for it but remain secretive about their intentions.

We believe that it is aiming to be a major fundamentalist and creationist pressure group on a par with the Christian Institute.

Additionally, Truth in Science has suggested that it has other, undisclosed tactics to support its objectives. We would like to establish what these are.

We are keen to forewarn readers that they may include the following:

• Appointment of its supporters or members as school governors (one member of the organisation is already a governor of two schools) to facilitate and support teaching of creationism in the classroom or presentations in schools by outside fundamentalist creationists.
• Involvement in political lobbying to alter the National Curriculum to allow teaching of fundamentalism in the classroom. At least seven members or associates of Truth in Science have already been involved in this in recent years.
• Involvement in the formation of new academy schools, particularly those being financed by fundamentalists.
• Infiltration of its members and associates into other Christian organisations such as the Association of Christian Teachers. At least one member/associate of Truth in Science has become involved in this organisation and looks to have successfully pushed a creationist agenda within it.
• Infiltration of Anglican diocese educational boards. We believe that this has, in one case, already been done.
• Lobbying of examination boards to allow creationism into the relevant school syllabuses.
• Pressurising teacher training institutes and programmes to get creationism pushed onto the agenda.
• Infiltration of or pressurisation of theological colleges to get creationism taught to would be religious education teachers and advisors.

When Truth in Science broke cover

Truth in Science broke cover on 20th September 2006 from its largely self-imposed silence over the last two years.

The information present on its website attempts to convince the public and educators that the issue it wants taught in schools is “Intelligent Design”. This is a scam to cover its real intentions which are the same as the Discovery Institute in the USA – to get its fundamentalist religion into science classrooms.

That means that anything that contradicts the literal interpretation of the bible should not be taught in the school classroom.

What Truth in Science Really Wants Taught: Truth in Science wants anything and everything that contradicts its literal interpretation of the bible thrown out of the classroom. That means anything which suggests that the world is more than 6,000-10,000 years old. It means anything which suggests that Noah's Ark and the Noachian flood are not absolutely true and accurate stories should be thrown out. It means that any interpretation of history that does not include God intervening regularly - to create the Black Death, World War One or the Industrial Revolution, for example, should be thrown out. It means that all of biology should be thrown out alongside the chemistry textbooks, the physics textbooks, the geography textbooks, the geology textbooks....

Lets take a step back and look at the strange case of the doctored newsletter of Take Heed Ministries.

Back in March 2004 an obscure Northern Ireland ministry, Take Heed Ministries, published a newsletter which described what Truth in Science was about. Weirdly in the Summer of 2006 it doctored the online newsletter to omit all mention of Truth in Science.

The original article on Truth in Science, which Take Heed Ministries has told us was there with the agreement of Truth in Science, clearly stated that the aims of the organisation were religious and to expose those that disagreed with it as charlatans. That means people who teach science and disagree with its extreme creationism.

There is absolutely no doubt that the backers do not believe in mainstream science and want teaching of it stopped in favour of their own Christian fundamentalist religious opinions. It makes absolutely clear that the backers believe that mainstream science undermines children’s moral and spiritual lives. It makes absolutely clear that its objectives are religious.

No mention whatsoever was made of Intelligent Design. Yet it’s newly opened web site is riddle with references to Intelligent design, makes only a small reference to the extreme literal creationism accepted by those involved in it and drops the aggression and reference to charlatans made in the March 2004 Take Heed Ministries newsletter. It downplays religion and claims that its position is purely based on science.

It makes no reference whatsoever to the fact that the people involved in Truth in Science are nearly all hardline Christian evangelical creationists who believe in young earth creationism. It makes no reference to the fact that most of them are deeply involved in creationist organisations.

It makes no reference to the fact that mainstream denominations reject creationism.

Worse still, it appears that nearly all of the people behind Truth in Science do not believe in Intelligent Design. They all appear to be young earth creationists who believe the world was formed 6,000-10,000 years ago and that any and all evidence (scientific or otherwise) that contradicts their literal interpretation of the bible is wrong.

Nearly all of them have close and long associations with creationist organisations including Answers in Genesis, the Biblical Creation Society and the Christian Institute.

They are all hardline evangelical Christian fundamentalists. Few of them are scientists and many of their attempts to write science from their fundamentalist viewpoint are risibly incompetent and wrong. It is clear that many of them are utterly out of their depth and lack the relevant expertise.

None of them has ever produced any scientific paper on their creationist opinions that has been published in a mainstream scientific journal. Not one.

None of these facts have been presented by them on their web site to the general public.

Truth in Science is a carefully orchestrated and apparently well-funded exercise in deceiving both school teachers and the general public so that extreme fundamentalists can get their religious opinions into each and every classroom.

The people behind Truth in Science are part of a well-organised network of creationist fundamentalists whose aim is to replace all teaching with their own religious agenda.

Truth in Science has gone over the heads of both headteachers and school governors by distributing, it claims, a “resource pack” (DVD and supporting print material) to every school and college science department head in the country. No effort has been made to inform the parents of the children involved.

Former schools minister Jacqui Smith has declared categorically that the government is against the teaching of creationism and Intelligent Design in science lessons in English and Welsh schools – a position reiterated by the current Secretary of State for Education, Alan Johnson. The OCR Examination Board has also ruled it out.

Truth in Science claims that it “encourages a rigorous examination of whether or not this can explain the origin of life and its huge diversity.” This is a statement of gross deception. The backers of Truth in Science dismiss vast amounts of mainstream science altogether. Their attempt to get a foot in the classroom is a step to getting mainstream science (and any other subject that does not support their religious opinions) out of schools altogether.

Truth in Science openly admits that it wants to extend its activities beyond its current undermining of biology. (see the opening page of its web site which says “Our initial focus will be on the origin of life and its diversity,” clearly showing that it intends to also focus on other, unspecified areas.)

None of the people involved in Truth in Science are distinguished scientists. They have virtually no support whatsoever in the scientific community. Their religious views are those of a tiny minority or extremists.

The Intelligent Design concept they are claiming to promote has been utterly discredited in the courts, where one of its leading advocates, Michael Behe, described the science behind it as being on a par with astrology. It has also been repeatedly discredited by leading scientists.

Its protagonists have been completely unable to draft a syllabus based on it and have resorted to using it solely to undermine conventional science without being able to offer any alternative whatsoever. Indeed, for years the protagonists hid from the public the fact that their real objectives have nothing at all to do with science – they are solely about social re-engineering and political control.

Truth in Science appears to have exploited a series of loopholes in the wording of the National Curriculum, to allow teachers to bring religious fundamentalism into the science classroom. This is what is called a “wedge strategy” or foot-in-the-door approach. They have no intention whatsoever of stopping there.

The whole exercise is in breach of public policy on teaching science in the school classroom. Truth in Science appears to be pushing the line that its religious extremism should be brought into the science classroom but fails to ever mention why, in that case, all other religious views shouldn't be taught in science.

The material being presented by Truth in Science will undoubtedly be attractive to the small but growing number of fundamentalist teachers in schools. It explains to them where then can present Intelligent Design to children, especially to GCSE standard. It also provides a religious justification for doing so.

The material also presents some very crude creationist “science” which attempts to provide alternatives to mainstream science. Our initial look at this suggests that much of it is just plain wrong; so much so that the lot looks to be entirely worthless. However, it is unlikely that this would be discernable to the layman or the non-scientific headmaster or schools governor.

It appears that the people behind Truth in Science believe that Ofsted will not object to what they are putting forward. However, given that what Truth in Science is pushing is, at the end of the day, religion in science lessons, it appears Ofsted will need to address the issue.

What Truth in Science is doing is likely to confuse many children. It conflicts not only with science but mainstream religion. It appears that it is likely to raise hostility from both secularists and the religious. It has also been pointed out to us that Truth in Science’s strategy is likely to do considerable damage to faith-based schools in the UK.

How well funded is Truth in Science?

From what we can work out Truth in Science spent around £116k up till the end of 2006.

TiS appears to have had a full time employee for a year and a half. That's probably at least £45k including social costs. Plus the production of CDs. Well, we guess a figure of £10 a disc (including the cost of its content). With 3,000 schools, that's another £30k. Plus written material. Say £3 a shot. Plus postage and distribution, another £1. Well the figure is now £87k. Add another 25% minimum for overhead - rates, rent, heating, lighting, equipment, sundry production costs, cost of mailing shot list....That's £116k.

It's a lot of money for an operation that has yet to sell a thing. As it is an ongoing operation its backers will have also had to put up working capital over and above £116k.

Moreover, we guess that the £116k spend so far is basically advertising so it can sell creationist books, CDs and publications to schools. This sort of thing is always a large element of income for creationist organisations. It therefore looks likely that funding is in place for stock and distribution handling.

Where Has the Money Come From

This is not known at present but Truth in Science has claimed that it has business people involved with it and states that Willis Metcalfe is a businessman. Andy McIntosh, its head, claims that profits from his online bookstore all go to “Creation ministries” but we believe that this is insufficient to cover the scale of the operation. Truth in Science is not registered with the Charity Commission so there are no details there either.

What is the involvement of creationist groups in Truth in Science?

At this stage the direct involvement, if any, is not known. There is absolutely no doubt though that the people behind Truth in Science are nearly all connected with the main creationist groups.

Some background Intelligence on Truth in Science

Of the 18 people known to have been involved in Truth in Science, six (McIntosh, Burgess, Taylor, Linkens, Wells and Jones) were signatories to the 2002 letter to the then Secretary of State for Education, Estelle Morris, lobbying to allow creationism to be taught in science lessons. Three have been involved with the Biblical Creation Society (McIntosh, Jones and Burgess). John Blanchard, whose PhD is from an unaccredited diploma mill, is author of creationist books. Richard Porter has been involved in Answers in Genesis, Willis Metcalfe is a long-standing shareholder in the creationist Evangelical Times, John Perfect appears to have written for that newspaper, David Harding has been involved with Andy McIntosh in promoting creationism in Rochdale, Richard Buggs appears to be associated with George Curry’s church and Curry himself has been involved in the Christian Institute and the hardline Church Society. Stephen Layfield was chairman of the Bradford Creation Science Group.

In other words, the people involved in Truth in Science are part of a well-connected and organised network of high profile creationists.

Whilst the organisation has clearly based its UK strategy on that of the Discovery Institute in the USA, we are not aware of a connection between the two (we don’t dismiss the idea either). However, the Discovery Institute has, with some glee, published details of Truth in Science on one of its web sites: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/british_organization_seeks_to.html

Who runs Truth in Science?

It is understood that Truth in Science has at least one full time employee but we are unaware who it is. The chairman is Stephen Hyde, the vice-chairman is Willis Metcalfe. The other board members are Andy McIntosh, John Perfect, and Maurice Roberts. Stephen Layfield (1) stepped down from the board.

The council of reference consists of Stuart Burgess, John Blanchard, Gerard Chrispin, George Curry, David Harding, Russell Healey, Stephen Taylor, George Curry, David Harding, Russell Healey and Derek Linkens. The council has seen one departures since March 2004 – and Richard Porter.

(Note that Truth in Science has stopped referring to John Blanchard as Dr John Blanchard – presumably this follows us pointing out that his PhD is from a diploma mill.)

The scientific panel consists of Geoff Barnard, Paul Garner, Arthur Jones and Tim Wells. All have scientific degrees although Garner and Jones are not practising scientists.

A total of six of these people were signatories to the 2002 Estelle Morris letter - McIntosh, Burgess, Taylor, Linkens, Wells and Jones. The following also appear to have been involved in Truth in Science as work by them is presented on Truth in Science's web site: Marc Surtees, Paul Garner (Biblical Creation Society and also signatory to the 2002 Estelle Morris letter) and John Peet (also of the Biblical Creation Society and signatory to the 2002 Estelle Morris letter).

In other words it is the same long standing group of UK creationists regrouped around yet another name.

(1) The Newcastle Journal reported on 23rd November 2006 the following:

"Science teacher quits faith pressure group

A prominent teacher in the North has quit a body accused of pushing creationism to schools.

Stephen Layfield, head of science at Emmanuel College in Gateshead, was a director of Truth In Science, which has sent material to schools around Britain calling on them to get children questioning the theory of evolution.

But the school released a statement yesterday saying: "Recently, the private involvement of the head of science as a director of the organisation Truth in Science has been interpreted by some as reflecting the views of Emmanuel College and its teaching of science. This is not the case. To underscore this fact Mr Stephen Layfield, head of science at Emmanuel College, has today resigned from the board of Truth in Science.""

Truth in Science’s bogus science

Truth in Science’s web page contains unsubstantiated claims, deception and outright misrepresentation.

According to clergyman and geologist Michael Roberts, “The material on the (Truth in Science) website is carefully packaged, and its young earth creationist roots, and thus its scientific worthlessness, may not be immediately apparent to the undiscerning. Though the “Cambrian Explosion” is mentioned (the sudden explosion of life forms spread over 10 million years some 550 million years ago), any reference to the vast age of the earth is carefully avoided.”

This of course gives the game away that the people behind Truth in Science doesn’t believe in Intelligent Design which does allow for an old age of the earth. They are, instead, young earth creationists who believe the world was created 6,000-10,000 years ago.

Roberts also points out that “there is an air of superficial plausibility” about Truth in Science’s scientific claims, “which is apparent in four lesson plans on Irreducible Complexity (Intelligent Design’s catchphrase), the Fossil Record, Homology and Natural Selection ….”

“Fossil Record Lesson Plan, where “Pupils are introduced to the three theories currently used to interpret the fossil record: Phyletic Gradualism, Punctuated Equilibrium and Phyletic Discontinuity.” These three are, of course, Darwinian gradualism, PE and essentially Six Day Creation. Both scientists and theologians contend, with massive evidence that it is disingenuous to present the last as a scientific theory.”

To put this in simple terms, Truth in Science are suggesting teachers tell children that it is as plausible as any other theory that all fossils were created between 6,000 and 4,000 years ago, mostly by Noah’s flood.

Truth in Science claims that few would dispute that natural selection can alter allele frequencies over time and adapt organisms to particular environments. The controversy is over whether this mechanism can generate new levels of complexity and explain the origin of all living things.

This is fiction. There is no doubt that this mechanism can lead to increased complexity. What Truth in Science is failing to point out is that there are upwards of 400 alleles at some genetic loci in the human body. This means that if Truth in Science’s science is accepted we couldn’t exist since the human race would have been wiped out by cancer over 4,000 years ago.

This page on Truth in Scence's web site is pushing pure creationist nonsense called Baraminology. Except that it hides the fact from the would be teacher and everyone else reading the material. Instead of using the term baraminology or the dead giveway creationist term "kinds", the author uses the term "basic types."

There is no such thing in biology as "basic types" of organisms or animals.

However, there is no mistake that the author of the article deliberately hid this because he is Paul Garner, head of the Biblical Creation Society and a long time close associate of the people behind Truth in Science including Andy McIntosh.

For the uninitiated creationists can't handle the term species because they believe at least two of each kind of animal was on the Ark. As they believe the literal measurements as stated in genesis, the Ark could not have held two of every species. It wasn't big enough.

So, to get round this problem they spout no end of nonsense and jump through mental hoola hoops such as that the dinosaurs on the Ark were all baby dinosaurs (they thus took up less room). Another trick is to claim, for example, that there was a definition of animal groups called kind so all Noah had to do was, for example, have two members of the cat family on board from which all other species of cat - lions, tigers, cheaters, leopards, lynxs and so on have evolved in the last 4,400 years.

The trouble is that they have never been able to define what a "kind" is. This is the rubbish that Paul Garner and Truth in Science are trying to push in schools without telling anyone why or having the honesty to say what it is. It's what is called a pack of lies.

Truth in Science claims that “there are undoubtedly many cultural reasons why people find the theory of the origin of life and its diversity by blind processes controversial. There are also cultural reasons for why some people find this theory of origins very attractive. No-one can fully divorce their cultural background from their thinking about such a topic.”

This is seriously bad science. Good science is independent of culture. There are not distinct Welsh scientific explanations that are different from Lithuanian or Buddhist scientific theories of gravity or whatever. Science is an international, inter-cultural discipline. What Truth in Science is trying to sneak in here is religion disguised as culture.

Truth in Science claims that it welcomes the “acknowledgement of the wider issues which relate to biology, and it is for this reason that we suggest that particular care should be taken to teach the subject of origins in a manner which is fair and balanced.”

Except there is nothing fair and balanced about Truth in Science. It has demonstrated in public that it is highly confrontational and believes that scientists and teachers who disagree with it are charlatans. The people behind Truth in Science are not liberally minded. They are extreme religious fundamentalists who want to impose their opinions on children through the classroom.

Truth in Science claims that “asexual reproduction is twice as efficient at passing on genes to the next generation. Furthermore, it means that an optimal gene configuration can be passed on - in its entirety - to offspring. Therefore, within an evolutionary framework the origin of sexual reproduction is deeply mysterious.”

Except this is wrong. Asexual reproduction is not efficient; it tends to lead to extinction of species earlier than their sexual equivalent. That is not efficient. For further details click here.

Truth in Science claims that “while there is general agreement that some of the diversity of living organisms is due to selection and evolution, it is controversial to claim that it can account for all diversity.". There is nothing controversial about this except in the minds of protestant fundamentalist creationists.

Interestingly, Truth in Science managed to get onto the subject of Piltdown Man on its web site in late September 2006. That was not a good idea. Click onto the link to Piltdown Man to see why.

Truth in Science says that "many scientists who are sceptical of the claim that all of life is the result of unguided evolution still believe that at least some evolution has happened in all species of organism, and at least some new species have arisen."

Except that very, very few scientists dispute mainstream evolutionary theory. What Truth in Science objects to is “a claim that all five kingdoms of life, and the species within them, are the result of evolution alone. This is a very controversial claim, and should not be taught as an unquestionable fact.”

Unfortunately for Truth in Science, it is not controversial. Intelligent Design itself has been discredited in the scientific world as a scientific alternative, leaving only the hocus pocus of young earth creationism as an alternative to mainstream evolutionary explanations.

Unfortunately there is no scientific theory of creationism. It simply does not exist. What Truth in Science is trying to do is to get teachers is to get rid of science and teach religious explanations based soley on fundamentalist literal interpretations of the bible.

Truth in Science claims that “not all scientists believe that natural selection, acting on genetic variation, can create new complex, specified information. Students deserve to be able to explore these issues.”

Yet it risibly fails to state what the alternatives are. There is a reason for this. Truth in Science is not in the slightest bit interested in science. Science stands in the way of conversion of people to its religious opinions. Truth in Science wants to undermine science and cast doubt in peoples minds, rather than provide any alternative whatsoever. Because it can’t.

Truth in Science claims that a significant minority of qualified scientists do not believe that Darwinian evolution can explain the origin of the diversity of life we see around us. It points to a claim that over “600 scientists with PhDs have signed a public statement: "We are sceptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

Except all scientists are trained to be sceptical about all scientific claims. It’s a meaningless statement and a meaningless list. But lets look at it a bit more carefully. It is a list of 610 people put together by the Discovery Institute in the USA, a right-wing and highly politicised public policy think tank, not a scientific establishment.

That’s the same Discovery Institute that has been promoting Intelligent Design which Truth in Science is pushing but which the people behind don’t believe in. It’s the same Discovery Institute that got caught lying when its secret “Wedge Document” leaked into the public domain.

So you might reasonable expect the people involved in Truth in Science to have not signed the Discovery Institute’s list. If so, you would be dead wrong.

Step forward Andy McIntosh, head of Truth in Science. He signed it!

Notes: Take a look at the strange case of the doctored newsletter of Take Heed Ministries.

See also http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_060925evolut.shtml and http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_060925roberts.shtml and http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site.

Truth in Science - A primer on the organisation

Roger Stanyard, 30th June 2006 (updated September 2006)

The names come from the web site of a Northern Ireland religious organisation called Take Heed Ministries and the details were to be found at http://www.takeheed.net/MARCH2004.htm.

Between July 2006 and September 2006 Take Heed Ministries edited out the information on Truth in Science. Click on to the Take Heed Ministries page for further details of this astonishing move.

(Apparently the original information was published in Evangelical Times in January 2004 although we are unable to find it on the web site of the organisation. It also appears to have been deliberately edited out from the online copy of the January 2004 newspaper!)

It listed the following as involved: Stephen Layfield, Professor Andy McIntosh, Willis Metcalfe, John Perfect, Rev Maurice Roberts. It also listed a "Council of Reference" as including Dr John Blanchard, Dr Stuart Burgess, Gerard A Crispin (believed to be a mis-spelling of Gerard Chrispin), Prof. Derek Linkens, Prof. Richard Porter and Dr Stephen Taylor.

The web site also gives an email address for Truth in Science: applications@TruthinScience.org.uk. It says that "This email address was given for those wishing to apply but can be used by those wishing to consider supporting Truth In Science. If you need a postal address to write to I can supply that upon request."

It also gives some details of what this organisation is about:

Note very carefully that the organisation includes business people. Follow the money to find out what is really going.

Truth in Science includes signatories to the Estelle Morris letter who describe themselves as academics, scientists and educationalists!

Smell a rat here, do you? You should because this organisation is aiming for students at Liverpool, Bristol, (name witheld for legal reasons) and Manchester Metropolitan University to accept that the academics teaching them are "charlatans". Yes, that’s the very word they are using. And, as a consequence anything that contradicts the religious opinions of Burgess, Taylor, and Linkens is wrong. What an advertisement for the universities they work in, at taxpayers’ expense.

But these paragons of virtue from leading liberal universities are quite clear that they intend to lean very hard on those they disagree with. "Non-believers must be challenged in such a way that they can no longer hide behind the delusion that science has disproved the existence of God."

In other words, the universities are to be used to push a hardline protestant evangelical fundamentalist interpretation of religion. Those that have other opinions are not allowed to "hide".

We don't know how the reader interprets their statement but it sounds to us as though the organisation intends to force people into believing in creationism. What does "in such a way" mean?

And they are targeting children with this - your children. The same ones who, as a result, wouldn't be able to understand science and won't be able to study biology, genetics, geology, physics, astronomy, cosmology, geography, history or any other subjects that contradict the religious opinions of those involved in Truth in Science.

But you will still be paying part of their salaries. Really democratic, isn't it? They take your money, deceive you and the government in lobbying, call you a charlatan if you disagree with them and, all the time, they are attempting to hijack the education system.

Let’s look at that sentence again; there’s something else about it that is very nasty indeed. It is saying that it will force people to disbelieve that science has disproved the existence of God. It looks distinctly like these people are saying that others have no right to their religious opinions and beliefs unless they agree with evangelical Christian fundamentalists. Or, is it saying that we must be confronted by these people? Or is it saying that we are deluded and are cowards by hiding?

Look again at the way it is worded. The implication is that you cannot accept modern science and be religious at the same time. Really? So, all the Catholics are wrong - the mainstream Anglicans, the Methodists, Eastern Orthodox, vast numbers of Baptists, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists.... And, um, non-believers in what, precisely?

So, there you have it; the evil people in British universities and the public hide behind delusions - whilst McIntosh, Burgess, and Linkens hide their real motivations and the organisations they belong to in a letter to the Secretary of State for Education and continue to draw salaries from universities full of charlatans, including the students they teach.

Interesting to see that all four describe themselves as educators but three are freelancing for organisations explicitly aimed at rubbishing science to children. Presumably the very same children being given, at taxpayers’ expense the chance to study science at the universities that are paying these hardline religious fundamentalists.

Now lets have a look at some other names who have been or are involved in Truth in Science. Stephen Layfield. He is head of science at Emmanuel College, Gateshead. The Vardy school that denies that creationism is taught in science lessons there. But this is the very same Layfield who is involved in a hardline organisation that says, to quote "to encourage scientists to present the truth fairly and to expose as charlatans those who deliberately mislead."

Once again, notice the nasty smear – those that don’t agree with Layfield and his pals are "charlatans". The authors of biology textbooks used in schools are charlatans because they don’t accept Layfield’s religious opinions.

But wait, Layfield appears to be one of several fundamentalists who have got into state secondary education. He has reviewed a creationist book alongside apparently, another creationist school teacher: Edgar Powell, head of science at Chislehurst and Sidcup Grammar School. See http://www.evangelicalpress.org/esales/product_info.php?products_id=32.

Also reviewing this book was Edgar Andrews, one of the 27 signatories to the Estelle Morris letter and who manifestly failed to point out that he was head of the Biblical Creation Society to which 13 other signatories were associated or members of.

The book, incidentally, is called "Has Science Got Rid of God?" by Dr John Blanchard. The very same Blanchard involved with Truth in Science. Pity that the truth in science didn’t extend to his PhD.

You may well ask about the standard of science in Blanchard’s book as he has the title Dr. Well, he is no more a PhD graduate than a cat’s backside is. His PhD is from the Pacific International University. Ever heard of it?

Almost certainly not. Well it’s a diploma mill owned by some extremely dubious creationists who are so wacky that other creationists want nothing to do with them. The creationists involved have awarded themselves their own degrees. It has no full time academic staff. Indeed, it appears to have no academic staff at all.

Wikipedia is polite about it so go to this link for a look at its standards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_International_University. Others are scathing about its dishonesty. Blanchard has a joke degree. Just the thing to claim 'truth' in science.

Yet Burgess, Taylor and Linkens are at universities that award proper PhDs. So what status do the PhDs have when the four are involved in an organisation that appears to recognise Pacific International University as a bona fide degree awarding organisation?

And are members of an organisation that describe him as Dr.?

We don’t quite get this. Please, somebody, explain how signatories to a letter to the Secretary of State for Education are endorsing a book on science written by somebody with a bogus PhD and who is a member of the same secretive creationist organisation that they are involved in.

Remember, the 27 described themselves as "academics, scientists and educationists". They are PERFECTLY well aware that this man has a bogus PhD because they have reviewed his book and have postgraduate qualifications themselves. If they are responsible for supervising PhD students, do they accept the same standards as the Pacific International University? Do they accept that students draw upon sources of material from people with bogus PhDs?

Let’s have a look at another name involved in Truth in Science: Prof. Richard Porter, formerly Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery at the University of Aberdeen. Well he is retired but you can find out all about him at Answers in Genesis at http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i1/upright.asp.

That is the very same Answers in Genesis going round the UK telling all in sundry that UFOs, manned by demons who teach the theory of evolution, are busy abducting people. The one and the same organisation that believes dinosaurs roamed the British countryside in Tudor times.

This is the science these people want taught in schools and universities. But then Truth in Science pushed the professional status of a graduate of Pacific International University. If that’s acceptable to the likes of McIntosh, Burgess, and Linkens, then anything is.

Or it isn’t because the real game they are playing is that they are right and anything which disagrees with their religious opinions is wrong. They believe that they have a moral duty to impose their religious standards on everyone. And sod the science.

The very same Answers in Genesis claims that "the contributions of modern creationists to scientific research are well-kept secrets by the modern media and scientific establishment" but can’t back this up with facts.

Let us ask the reader: where is the evidence that modern media, such as the Internet, are organised to hold this information back? The creationists are all over the place on the Internet. Where on earth do you think we get the information for this article from? What about the 11 religious TV channels in the UK? – the numerous televangelicals in the USA? And their junk universities - the Bob Jones Unversity, Regent College, Liberty College and Patrick Henry College?

Think again about the "scientific establishment". Answers in Genesis explicitly states that Professor Porter has had paper after paper published by the "scientific establishment". The very same establishment that gave him his professorship, alongside Burgess and McIntosh, the very same establishment that appointed him Director of Education and Training for the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh from 1995–97, as stated by Answers in Genesis who also say that he has "published over 120 papers in peer-reviewed journals (50% on spinal disorders), mostly as senior author. He is the author of five textbooks and over 30 contributory chapters. In 2001 Edinburgh University awarded him a D.Sc. degree for research on spinal stenosis, and he was awarded the Syme professorship for work on congenital talipes (formerly called ‘club foot’)."

Now, as we repeatedly point out, creationists lie, systematically, habitually and repeatedly. The liar here was Australian Jonathan Sarfati of Answers in Genesis. Well, he was of AiG, because AiG USA fell out with him and his buddies in Australia. AiG in Australia has renamed itself Creation Ministries International.

But that’s par for the course with creationists. They can’t agree with each other and hate dissent. Note with interest that the head of Answers in Genesis, Ken Ham, brags that his wife is extremely subservient.

Why Take Heed Ministries brought the subject up of Truth in Science is unclear but creationism is rampant in Northern Ireland. Moreover, the reference dates back two years, to when Stuart Burgess was bragging that he was frightening children in the province into believing in his creationism.

But the issue that worries us deeply is that Truth in Science claimed that it has business people involved in it. Do these include Peter Vardy and the evangelical fundamentalists trying to take over schools in the Midlands? Were they involved in the 2002 letter to Estelle Morris or did they just turn up out of the blue to become involved in Truth in Science?

That is the real issue we would like to find out about. The fundamentalists are well organised; to find out what they are up to, follow the money.

Update on Truth in Science (September 2006)

Since we put together the above report, we have found out some more about Truth in Science. Some of our research is presented in the page on Take Heed Ministries.

It appears that Truth in Science has obtained funding and employs at least one full time employee. The newsletter of Tinshill Church (Tinshill Magazine No 226, Dec04/Jan05 – see http://www.tinshill.f9.co.uk/226.pdf), where Andy McIntosh worships, states the following:

"Recently the group Truth in Science has appointed a full time worker who starts in the New Year. The aim is to provide a resource for teachers to enable design based alternatives to be taught in schools. In a similar way to the Christian Institute, we wish to present a clear alternative to the atheistic humanism rampant through most of our schools today. The aim is to launch some time in the middle of 2005."

So he suggested in the Autumn of 2004 (Nov/Dec04) that Truth in Science intended to push Intelligent Design. That completely contradicted the young earth creationist stuff he was pushing elsewhere in the article. So it was a cynical ploy, we think.

An Internet search on Juliet McIntosh has brought up a reference to a creation-materials catalogue, supposedly at http://www.creationforall.org.uk but the web site doesn't seem to have been set up. It was registered to McIntosh in 2000 until 2008.

However it appears that Juliet and Andy McIntosh already have an online bookstore, called Creation & Biblical Resources, with profits from it going to unspecified "Creation ministries". Its web presence can be found at http://www.dunelmsystems.co.uk/mcintosh/index.html.

There is a connection with the Christian Institute here. Dunelm Systems is the private business of David Walton – see http://www.dunelmsystems.co.uk. Walton has been involved in the Institute for years and was a signatory to the 2002 Estelle Morris letter. McIntosh was as well and he was spokesman for the 27 signatories.

Amongst the books on sale is Bomby: The Bombardier Beetle, by Hazel Mae Rue. As you can see from the web page on Andy McIntosh, he has more than a passing interest in the bombardier beetle. He has been involved in researching it.

It also appears that Andy McIntosh has been involved in producing other creationist material than books and articles. Take a look at this reference for an Answers in Genesis DVD - http://shop.gospelcom.net/epages/AIGUK.storefront/en/product/30-9-040.

This details a 2003 DVD by Andy McIntosh called “Genesis, Babel & the Chinese Language”. The advert states that “If the Tower of Babel really took place, do we have any evidence today? Dr McIntosh reveals some astonishing evidence that biblical events are recorded within the written language of ancient China!”

The advert also states that it is aimed at “High School, College, Adult” ages. Interestingly the DVD is not advertised on Juliet and Andy McIntosh’s online book stop.

Juliet and Andy McIntosh's names also appear jointly on a petition by Christians to the House of Lords, protesting the Religious Hatred Bill (see http://tinyurl.com/l4ofr) and there is an account of their proselytising at the Edinburgh Festival in 2001 (see http://www.evangelical-times.org/ETNews/Oct01/oct01n25.htm).

There is also a report of McIntosh cheekily giving "the annual Darwin lecture on 'A designer world' at Darwin College, University of Kent, in Canterbury". This can be found at http://www.evangelical-times.org/Articles/June01/jun01a13.htm.

Details of Truth in Science from Companies House (September 2006)

According to companieshouse.gov.uk : Registered number 05378298 Truth In Science

Name & Registered Office:

TRUTH IN SCIENCE

OFFICE 4

TEAM VALLEY BUSINESS CENTRE

EARLSWAY

TEAM VALLEY

TYNE & WEAR NE11 0QH

Company No. 05378298

Date of Incorporation: 28/02/2005

Company Type: PRI/LBG/NSC/S.30 (Private, limited by guarantee, no share capital, section 30 of the Companies Act)

Nature of Business (SIC(03)): None Supplied

Accounting Reference Date: 28/02

Last Accounts Made Up To: 28/02/2006 (DORMANT)

Next Accounts Due: 28/12/2007

Last Return Made Up To: 28/02/2006

Next Return Due: 28/03/2007

You can order further information from http://tinyurl.com/fs88k at £1 a throw.