I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Monday, July 17, 2006

Bleeding Kansas Redux

For the second time in its history, Kansas has become a site for a proxy war between warring factions across the nation. The reason this time is that half the members of the Kansas Board of Education that passed the "teach the controversy" evolution education standards are up for re-election on August 1, and many out-of-state forces are trying to influence the election. Information and commentary are here, here, and here.

Darwinists know that the Kansas Board of Education did not do anything that could be considered unconstitutional -- otherwise, the Darwinists would have sued the Kansas BOE a long time ago. Opinion polls show that the majority of the public wants both the weaknesses and the strengths of evolution theory to be taught, so there is a good chance that some other state(s) will pass a "teach the contoversy" science education standard. So why the fuss?

The Darwinists have been moaning that states that have adopted a "teach the controversy" standard -- e.g., Kansas and Ohio -- have added disclaimers repudiating any intention to add intelligent design to the curriculum. Also, the Darwinists have been insisting that all criticisms of Darwinism are parts of ID. One of the big reasons for this emphasis on ID is that ID and one of its components, irreducible complexity, were the only criticisms that Judge Jones trashed by name in his Dover opinion. A lot of the criticisms of Darwinism are not ID, but ID is such an important criticism of Darwinism that it seems that any "teach the controversy" program would eventually get into ID.

Darwinism must be pretty badly flawed if the Darwinists go to such great lengths to suppress criticism of it.

Labels:

17 Comments:

Blogger Manuel said...

>>>>>>>>Darwinists know that the Kansas Board of Education did not do anything that could be considered unconstitutional -- otherwise, the Darwinists would have sued the Kansas BOE a long time ago

The state BOE has nothing to lose (except credibility) in this -- the group(s) that will lose is/are the local school board(s) that adopt a policy of teaching something other than evolution. That's when the lawsuits begin.

In short, your comment is irrelevant.

>>>>>>>>>Opinion polls show that the majority of the public wants both the weaknesses and the strengths of evolution theory to be taught

That doesn't mean that the public knows anything. If you're a typical example, then I'm not at all surprised at the ignorance of the populace. But there are many, many, many other signs of that ignorance as well.

Democracy doesn't mean we vote on every issue. If we were to do that, judging by what I've read on this blog, you would HAVE TO commit yourself (or admit that the blog is a parody of ID arguments). But alas, we have to wait for you to take the most vital step in your treatment. Ho hum.

>>>>>>>>>>>The Darwinists have been moaning that states that have adopted a "teach the controversy" standard

That's because this is a strategy propagated by the DI. Of course, they've created a controversy where there is none (at least scientifically). If you'll remember, Michael Behe UNDER OATH admitted/accepted that his work DOES NOT FOLLOW the rules of science, ie., it is NOT a SCIENTIFIC criticism of evolution, which is a SCIENTIFIC subject. That's why ID = creationism; it's not science.

Monday, July 17, 2006 8:12:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> Also, the Darwinists have been insisting that all criticisms of Darwinism are parts of ID. <

If there are others, what are they?

Darwinism must be pretty solid if the IDiots go to such great lengths to criticise it.

Monday, July 17, 2006 9:18:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Manuel said ( 7/17/2006 08:12:06 PM ) --

>>>>>>The state BOE has nothing to lose (except credibility) in this -- the group(s) that will lose is/are the local school board(s) that adopt a policy of teaching something other than evolution. That's when the lawsuits begin.<<<<<<

If the state standards are not unconstitutional, then how could following the state standards be unconstitutional?

The Supreme Court said in Edwards v. Aguillard, "We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught."

Hopefully, any Kansas school district that tries to teach or mention criticism of Darwinism will avoid the mistakes that the Dover school board made.

>>>>>>>>>Opinion polls show that the majority of the public wants both the weaknesses and the strengths of evolution theory to be taught<

That doesn't mean that the public knows anything. If you're a typical example, then I'm not at all surprised at the ignorance of the populace.<<<<<<<

And if you are a typical example of a Darwinist, then I am not at all surprised that Darwinists are mostly just big bags of hot air. I cannot recall you participating in any of the discussions about evolution here. You just talk big.

Also, a recent opinion poll shows that a large percentage of physicians -- who are well-trained in the biological sciences -- are Darwinism Doubters. See "Many physicians skeptical of Darwinism".

>>>>>>Democracy doesn't mean we vote on every issue.<<<<<<

Well, we sure as hell vote on this one -- we elect the public officials who decide the issue or who appoint other public officials who decide the issue.

>>>>>>If we were to do that, judging by what I've read on this blog, you would HAVE TO commit yourself (or admit that the blog is a parody of ID arguments).<<<<<<<

I have committed myself to defending my arguments here.

>>>>>>>If you'll remember, Michael Behe UNDER OATH admitted/accepted that his work DOES NOT FOLLOW the rules of science, ie., it is NOT a SCIENTIFIC criticism of evolution, which is a SCIENTIFIC subject.<<<<<<<

Capitalizing your points does not add any weight to them.

ID is actually more scientific than Darwinism, because unlike Darwinism, ID does not make claims that are beyond what can be demonstrated by science.

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 5:08:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> The Supreme Court said in Edwards v. Aguillard, "We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught." <

But ID is not a scientific critique so this seems irrelevant.

> I cannot recall you participating in any of the discussions about evolution here. You just talk big. <

So he is new. What is your point? He just talks sensibly. You just repeat blather.

>>>>>>Democracy doesn't mean we vote on every issue.<<<<<<

Well, we sure as hell vote on this one -- we elect the public officials who decide the issue or who appoint other public officials who decide the issue.

And what happens when the public elects public officials who oppose the teaching of ID and flat earth?

> I have committed myself to defending my arguments here. <

You have committed yourself to dodging questions and repeating discredited arguments.

> ID does not make claims that are beyond what can be demonstrated by science. <

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 6:20:00 AM  
Anonymous Bombast in the Bushes said...

You seem to be the supreme IDiot. You claim to believe in Intelligent Design yet you seem to hold that no designer is required. How do you explain this?

My guess is that you will dodge the question.

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 7:46:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

VIW said --

<<<<<<<> The Supreme Court said in Edwards v. Aguillard, "We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught." <

But ID is not a scientific critique so this seems irrelevant.<<<<<<

That is not for you to decide.

<<<<<<> I cannot recall you participating in any of the discussions about evolution here. You just talk big. <

So he is new. What is your point?<<<<<<<

When he makes comments about previous statements or discussions on this blog, he is not new. The fact that he was just a "lurker" before does not make him new -- quite the opposite.

>>>>>>And what happens when the public elects public officials who oppose the teaching of ID .... ?<<<<<<

It sometimes happens. But in the Dover school board election, the pro-ID incumbents lost by relatively narrow margins, and it was suggested that many voters were primarily motivated by concern about the big potential legal bill, so it is possible -- even probable -- that many people who voted against the incumbents actually supported the ID policy, or at least did not oppose it.

<<<<<<> I have committed myself to defending my arguments here. <

You have committed yourself to dodging questions<<<<<<<

I have not dodged your questions here. I have demolished them.

>>>>>>> ID does not make claims that are beyond what can be demonstrated by science. <<<<<<<

I see that you have no answer for this one. That figures.

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 9:00:00 AM  
Blogger LarryFarfarafararman said...

did you know, DaveScot has been fired from Uncommon Descent?

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 9:11:00 AM  
Anonymous Larry Fafarman said...

No, I'm the real Larry Fafarman

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 10:53:00 AM  
Anonymous Farry Lafarman said...

No, I am.

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 10:54:00 AM  
Anonymous LarryForceDaveTardFarman said...

Those other Larrys are clearly fakes, I am the real Larry Farfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfarfar

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 10:58:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

The vandals who are cluttering up this blog with their breathtakingly inane graffiti are reflecting very poorly on other Darwinists. Even something that appears witty at first (not including the graffiti posted here) quickly becomes stale when repeated over and over. I have visited Darwinist blogs that have comment moderation turned off and I do not see graffiti there waiting to be cleaned up, so it is obvious that anti-Darwinists are much better behaved than Darwinists.

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 1:57:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>did you know, DaveScot has been fired from Uncommon Descent? <<<<<<

One of the reasons why DaveScot left as comment moderator was that Dembski found a blog co-host, Denyse O'Leary, who was willing to be the comment moderator.

Here was DaveScot's statement before he left:

I only have time to go through the comments in the administrative windows which list them in order received on the whole site. I can respond in that window quickly by appending at the bottom of the comment. If I have to drop out of that window to do it another way it will take too much time.

Commenting is what I like doing here. Moderating is a pain that I can do without. If appending my comments directly onto others is too much to ask in return for all the time spent moderating then I’m going to quit moderating. Someone else can do it and I’ll just be a regular user once more.


Actually, I never had a problem with the idea of the moderator's replies being directly appended to the original comments. As for DaveScot's complaint that he would have to drop out of the comment moderation window to reply to the comment in another way, I don't know if that complaint is valid or not. If the comment moderation window shows the topic or thread where the comment was posted, it seems that it would be easy to go to that topic or thread and post a separate comment.

My blog service, www.blogger.com, emails me copies of all comments that are posted here -- I was able to request these copies without turning on comment moderation. Unfortunately, the topic or thread where the comment was posted is not identified and therefore I often have to search for the comment on this blog if I want to post a reply. I often use the email itself to prepare my reply. I believe that the comment moderation option on this blog service does not allow editing or appending of comments.

A few months ago, DaveScot invited me to become a team (crew) member on Uncommon Descent, but I declined because of my opposition to comment moderation. I had a particularly dim view of comment moderation as a result of having been moderated with extreme prejudice on Panda's Thumb and Ed Brayton's "Dispatches from the Culture Wars." I made the mistake of inviting attacks from vandals by pledging on this blog that I would not censor comments (I was finally forced to break that pledge when some jerk impersonated me on a post that misrepresented my views). I see lots of other blogs that have comment moderation turned off but the vandals leave those blogs alone because no official no-censorship policy is announced. I thought that I could run this blog on an honor system but that was a mistake.

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 3:54:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

>>>>> But ID is not a scientific critique so this seems irrelevant.<<<<<<

> That is not for you to decide. <

Are we just supposed to go along with your false analogies? The Supreme Court was talking about "scientific critiques" to Darwinism. Since ID is not a scientific critique, and yet that seemed to be implied by your post, I was merely pointing out the irrelevance. Unfortunately, like most things, that went over your head.

> it was suggested that many voters were primarily motivated by concern about the big potential legal bill, so it is possible <

It may be suggested that everyone who was ever lost an election was actually favored by the majority of the voters. Of course anyone saying this would look like a fool. Take you for example.

elected was-- even probable -- that many people who voted against the incumbents actually supported the ID policy, or at least did not oppose it.

> I have not dodged your questions here. I have demolished them. <

You must be posting your answers in invisible ink. For the most part you just dodge the questions. In a few instances you will cite either irrelevancies or long since demolished arguments. You only win these mental duels in your head.

> The vandals who are cluttering up this blog with their breathtakingly inane graffiti are reflecting very poorly on other Darwinists. <

The nonsense you continuously spout is reflecting very poorly on the other IDiots.

> Here was DaveScot's statement before he left: <

That can't be the same DaveScot as has posted on this blog. There are no spelling errors.

> I made the mistake of inviting attacks from vandals <

You must believe that anyone who disagrees with you is a "vandal".

> I thought that I could run this blog on an honor system but that was a mistake. <

Yes, you would have to be honorable to make that work.

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 4:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> I have not dodged your questions here. I have demolished them. <

Q. Do you still believe that the Los Angeles Times is written and distributed with supernatural aid?

A.

Q. Do you still believe that the Moon landings were faked?

A.

Q. Do you still believe that meteors come from inside the atmosphere and have no connection to meteorites?

A.

Q. Do you believe Intelligent Design does not require a designer?

A.

Q. Have you ever considered getting a job and stop living off the charity of your aging parents?

A.

Please demolish these questions.

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 4:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Artful Dodger said...

I don't have to answer these questions because you don't exist.

Wednesday, July 19, 2006 7:19:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

I guess that I just ran out of hot air.

Wednesday, July 19, 2006 7:21:00 AM  
Blogger Manuel said...

>>>>>>>>If the state standards are not unconstitutional, then how could following the state standards be unconstitutional?

That's because there's a difference between a potenially meaningful (but also potentially meaningless) statute and its implementation. How many states have unconstitutional laws on the books? That's the difference.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Opinion polls show that the majority of the public wants both the weaknesses and the strengths of evolution theory to be taught<

That doesn't mean that the public knows anything. If you're a typical example, then I'm not at all surprised at the ignorance of the populace.<<<<<<<

And if you are a typical example of a Darwinist, then I am not at all surprised that Darwinists are mostly just big bags of hot air. I cannot recall you participating in any of the discussions about evolution here. You just talk big.

Also, a recent opinion poll shows that a large percentage of physicians -- who are well-trained in the biological sciences -- are Darwinism Doubters. See "Many physicians skeptical of Darwinism".

First, whether I have particpated in discussions before or not (I have, thought it had been a while) is irrelevant. What matters is what is said, and you fail to address the point -- just because a majority of the population disagrees with an issue, say flag burning, doesn't mean that its prohibition is constitutional (in fact, it's not, hence the desire for some politicians to change it). Alas, whether doctors accept evolutionary theory or not (despite implicitly following it with their methodology and particuarly their treatment of disorders) does not change the facts about the scientific soundness of evolution.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If you'll remember, Michael Behe UNDER OATH admitted/accepted that his work DOES NOT FOLLOW the rules of science, ie., it is NOT a SCIENTIFIC criticism of evolution, which is a SCIENTIFIC subject.<<<<<<<

Capitalizing your points does not add any weight to them.

ID is actually more scientific than Darwinism, because unlike Darwinism, ID does not make claims that are beyond what can be demonstrated by science.

You ignore my statement completely. Behe himself admitted (under oath, no less) that ID is not scientific based on the current rules of science. Hence, ID is not science. I'm sorry if you're too dense to have been distracted by capital letters that emphasized certain points (that, you are correct, do not change the meaning of the sentence in any way), but their presence did not in any way change the meaning of the words.

Thursday, July 20, 2006 4:35:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home