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.

Friday, September 15, 2006

Ohio Board of Education meetings like Mad Hatter's Tea Party

As noted in "Quibbling over Ohio evolution education plans", the scandal-ridden Ohio Board of Education held publicly unannounced phony "emergency" discussions and votes on the previous evolution lesson plan in January and February. This month, a replacement plan was finally put on the agenda but was not voted on or even discussed, as described by the Ohio Citizens for Science:

On September 11, the Achievement Committee of the Ohio Board of Education considered the "Controversial Issues" Template, drafted by a staff member of the Ohio Department of Education. This was the final item on the agenda of the Achievement Committee meeting.

The document was distributed to committee members. After a pause, there was a motion for adjournment from Deborah Owens-Fink. Although the motion did not receive a second, the meeting was adjourned.
(emphasis added)

The full board met on September 12. The template was not discussed by the board at this meeting.

On September 11, the meeting was adjourned early by a motion that was not even seconded, let alone voted upon! How can anyone take these clowns seriously?

A CantonRep.com online news report about the meetings said,

The committee, which started its meeting more than 15 minutes late, originally was scheduled to meet for three hours but cut it down to two . . . .

Jim Craig of 2345 Bevington St. NW in Canton, who chaired the meeting, adjourned it without getting a second or taking a vote on motion to adjourn.

Critics accused Craig and other committee members of ducking the issue. They said those who support the teaching of intelligent design are delaying the vote because they don’t command a majority of the committee.

There we go again with that darned misconception that all scientific (or pseudoscientific, to some) criticism of evolution is intelligent design. This was supposed to be an objective news article.

One blog made the claim that 140,000 emails opposing the new Ohio lesson plan were sent in, but that figure seems doubtful because the bloggers had no way of knowing the number and because such a high number is doubtful, especially considering that there was not much advance notice that the plan would be on the agenda. The blog claimed that 20,000 of its own members sent in protest emails and that is possible because the blog had a fill-in submission form and so could count the emails, but that number seems high because the blog gave only about a week of advance notice.

The latest news is that the Board of Education has been accused of altering a July meeting's tape recording and minutes record. LOL

It looks like we are seeing the same kind of vacillation in Ohio that is going on in Kansas, where the state school board has reversed itself three times already on evolution standards and will probably reverse itself again because of the election of Darwinist board members.

Labels:

4 Comments:

Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> There we go again with that darned misconception that all scientific criticism of evolution is intelligent design. <

Where did you get that from what this follows?

You have never come up with any criticism of evolution that is scientific. ID, of course, is not scientific.

Saturday, September 16, 2006 2:02:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

< Ohio Board of Education meetings like Mad Hatter's Tea Party >

And you're not even there yet!

Saturday, September 16, 2006 11:31:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In The Wilderness said...

<<<<<<> There we go again with that darned misconception that all scientific criticism of evolution is intelligent design. <

Where did you get that from what this follows? <<<<<<

That should be obvious to anyone with half a brain. The new lesson plan says absolutely nothing about intelligent design, and a lot of the criticisms of Darwinism have nothing to do with design, intelligent or otherwise.

<<<<< ID . . . . is not scientific. <<<<<<

We all know what you think, you lousy troll. I called it "scientific" to distinguish it from criticisms that are expressly based on religion -- e.g., blblical creationism. Of course, only a nitpicker like you would complain about that. However, I will add my standard disclaimer -- "(pseudoscientific, to some)" -- to my original post.

BTW, "scientific" does not necessarily mean that something is good science -- if it did, there would be a lot more people who would not be calling Darwinism scientific, because Darwinism makes a lot of claims that are not supported by science.

Sunday, September 17, 2006 2:04:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> That should be obvious to anyone with half a brain. <

I'm sure that it is, however those of us with whole brains can see that none of the criticisms of evolution that have been presented here are scientific by any definition.

> The new lesson plan says absolutely nothing about intelligent design, and a lot of the criticisms of Darwinism have nothing to do with design, intelligent or otherwise. <

Nor do they have anything to do with science.

> I called it "scientific" to distinguish it from criticisms that are expressly based on religion <

Why not call it horse crap? It is not scientific in any way.

> only a nitpicker like you would complain about that. <

Or anyone who wants to talk abour reality rather than the gibberish that you get from your personal redefinition of words to make your own secret code.

> However, I will add my standard disclaimer -- "(pseudoscientific, to some)" -- to my original post. <

So finally you are admitting that ID is pseudoscience. We are making progress.

> BTW, "scientific" does not necessarily mean that something is good science <

But ID is not good or bad science. It is not science at all.

It looks like you are grudgingly admitting many of your past errors. Good!

Sunday, September 17, 2006 8:29:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home