Update on evolution education issue in Ohio
Some background information is in my article titled "Evolution education is a hot potato in Ohio".
The Akron Beacon Journal reported the following statements from the District 7 and District 8 candidates for the Ohio Board of Education:
So what candidate Craig seems to be saying is that no students, teachers, administrators or parents have said that we need to have students think.
District 7 candidate Deborah Owens Fink is the incumbent and has been one of the Board of Education's chief advocates of including critical analysis of evolution in the curriculum. Tom Sawyer, one of her election opponents, says above that he is opposed to teaching creationism in the public schools, but none of the proposed lesson plans included creationism or even intelligent design. Also, even though it was Darwinists who persuaded Sawyer to run, his campaign website is giving a very low profile to the evolution issue -- the issue is not even mentioned on the website's homepage or on a webpage titled "About the Campaign." A backpage has links to news articles that discuss this issue. One particularly informative article listed here says,
However, the above statements could be misleading because a significant fraction of those emails could have come from those who support the proposed template. Darwinists are not the only ones who can rally the faithful.
Also, well-known fanatic Darwinist Ken Miller is scheduled to give seven pre-election speeches across the state in three days on the subject, "Science, God, & Intelligent-Design: Why all three matter in the 2006 Ohio elections." Also, Ohio State University will be hosting a panel discussion and a series of lectures on the controversy in the period November 1-3. It is apparent that Ohio is now considered to be a key state in the controversy over evolution education in the public schools.
The Akron Beacon Journal reported the following statements from the District 7 and District 8 candidates for the Ohio Board of Education:
What is your stand on the proposed "Controversial Issues Template" that provides teachers guidance on teaching controversial subjects? The plan has had support from Deborah Owens Fink, among others on the state school board. They said it would elevate discussion on controversial issues.
Many scientists criticize it, saying it would create the illusion of controversy where it doesn't exist and also could open the door for religion-based challenges to evolution. (The state school board recently voted to end discussion of the guidelines, although one member said he intends to keep it alive.)
District 7 candidatesJones: I see nothing wrong with the proposed "Controversial IssuesTemplate." Teaching controversial subjects should be explored. Who gave scientists the ultimate authority? If you put two or more scientists in a blue room they could not agree on the color.
Kovacs: Biology teachers know best how to teach their subject. My campaign proposes something far more controversial than creationism: Teach students to think for themselves. This can be accomplished by creating elective classes in philosophy and funding courses in philosophical ethics. The division of sciences must be maintained.
Owens Fink: Those opposed to this template have likely not read it. It was developed to provide teachers and students with tools to improve classroom instruction, prepare them for the global economy. It could be used to discuss Darwinian thought... or any area such as social studies to discuss immigration policies or Iraq.
Sawyer: I support teaching evolution. It is grounded in numerous basic sciences and is itself a foundational life science. By contrast, creationism in its many forms is not science but theology. And while faith is important to most Americans, its interpretation is best left to our many diverse faith communities.
District 8 candidatesCain: The state school board just voted to remove the "Controversial Issues Template" and I support that removal.
Craig: The template has not been proposed. It was distributed... by the Ohio Department of Education staff, for the (state school board's) achievement committee... to look at. While I believe it is a great idea to have students think, I have had no students, teachers, administrators or parents say that we need this type of lesson plan.
So what candidate Craig seems to be saying is that no students, teachers, administrators or parents have said that we need to have students think.
District 7 candidate Deborah Owens Fink is the incumbent and has been one of the Board of Education's chief advocates of including critical analysis of evolution in the curriculum. Tom Sawyer, one of her election opponents, says above that he is opposed to teaching creationism in the public schools, but none of the proposed lesson plans included creationism or even intelligent design. Also, even though it was Darwinists who persuaded Sawyer to run, his campaign website is giving a very low profile to the evolution issue -- the issue is not even mentioned on the website's homepage or on a webpage titled "About the Campaign." A backpage has links to news articles that discuss this issue. One particularly informative article listed here says,
Some of the scientists rallied like-minded people across the country to flood the e-mail boxes of school board members, urging them to reject a proposed template for teachers to follow when covering controversial issues such as global warming, stem-cell research and evolution.
Board President Sue Westendorf said she's received between 25,000 and 30,000 e-mails.
However, the above statements could be misleading because a significant fraction of those emails could have come from those who support the proposed template. Darwinists are not the only ones who can rally the faithful.
Also, well-known fanatic Darwinist Ken Miller is scheduled to give seven pre-election speeches across the state in three days on the subject, "Science, God, & Intelligent-Design: Why all three matter in the 2006 Ohio elections." Also, Ohio State University will be hosting a panel discussion and a series of lectures on the controversy in the period November 1-3. It is apparent that Ohio is now considered to be a key state in the controversy over evolution education in the public schools.
Labels: Ohio controversy
posted by Larry Fafarman | 10/24/2006 07:46:00 PM
11 Comments:
> So what candidate Craig seems to be saying is that no students, teachers, administrators or parents have said that we need to have students think. <
Have you considered taking an ESL (English as a Second Language) course?
I don't think that a sane person familiar with the English language would read what Craig said in that way.
Anonymous said...
>>>>>> So what candidate Craig seems to be saying is that no students, teachers, administrators or parents have said that we need to have students think. <
Have you considered taking an ESL (English as a Second Language) course? <<<<<<
Have you considered taking an EFL (English as a First Language) course?
Comment notice -- I recently posted this comment on an old thread.
I suggest that visitors also post notices of comments posted on old threads, as the comments might otherwise go unnoticed. Unfortunately, I do not have coding for listing the most recent comments posted anywhere on the blog.
To create a direct link to a comment, just click on the date and time at the bottom of the comment on the tan pages (this does not work on the white comment-entry pages).
Larry's inviting people to watch me kick his ass yet again. If you want to see even more of Larry getting his ass kicked, there's a long thread (~450 comments) over at Thoughts from Kansas on the UC lawsuit. Look at the timing of his posts here, and you'll notice that many of them were "inspired" by the merciless beating he is receiving over at TfK.
>>>So what candidate Craig seems to be saying is that no students, teachers, administrators or parents have said that we need to have students think.<<<
Those of us who don't have problems with reading comprehension will note that Craig is saying that no students, teachers, administators, or parents have indicated that this is a program that will help students to think or come out in support of it.
Board President Sue Westendorf said she's received between 25,000 and 30,000 e-mails.
>>>However, the above statements could be misleading because a significant fraction of those emails could have come from those who support the proposed template.<<<
Well, we know that about 20,000 of those emails came from DefConBlog in the span of a week, and were thus against the template. It is probable that more people used that after the first week, so it seems likely that a super-majority at the very least came from those against the template.
>>>It is apparent that Ohio is now considered to be a key state in the controversy over evolution education in the public schools.<<<
And pretty soon Larry is going to announce that it is now apparent that Kansas and Pennsylvania are key states as well. I think the most appropriate response to this statement is "No shit, Sherlock."
W. Kevin Vicklund said ( October 25, 2006 9:56:11 AM ) --
>>>>> Larry's inviting people to watch me kick his ass yet again. <<<<<<
Impossible. To do something again, you must first do it at least once.
If you think you can "kick my ass," what is stopping you?
You are just a big bag of hot air.
>>>>> If you want to see even more of Larry getting his ass kicked, there's a long thread (~450 comments) over at Thoughts from Kansas on the UC lawsuit. <<<<<<
You are really getting desperate. The UC lawsuit has absolutely nothing to do with my suits against the smog impact fee -- nothing at all.
>>>> Look at the timing of his posts here, and you'll notice that many of them were "inspired" by the merciless beating he is receiving over at TfK. <<<<<
Wrong. My recent posts "Backlash Against Judges" and "Judge Jones' Lame Excuses" were "inspired" by recent media articles that have nothing to do with the debate on Thoughts from Kansas. And in the post and thread on "Judge Jones' Lame Excuses," YOU were the one who brought up my suits against the smog impact fee.
>>>>>> Those of us who don't have problems with reading comprehension will note that Craig is saying that no students, teachers, administators, or parents have indicated that this is a program that will help students to think or come out in support of it. <<<<<
People who don't want students to think will not support a lesson plan which would help students to think.
Craig's statement was deliberately ambiguous.
>>>>> Well, we know that about 20,000 of those emails came from DefConBlog in the span of a week, and were thus against the template. <<<<<
Anyone can set up a push-button on a blog to send a canned message.
( October 25, 2006 1:53:28 PM ) --
>>>>> And pretty soon Larry is going to announce that it is now apparent that Kansas and Pennsylvania are key states as well. I think the most appropriate response to this statement is "No shit, Sherlock." <<<<<<
I have not heard anything about PA being a key state in the upcoming election. Kansas is still considered to be somewhat important, but the primary was considered to be the big election for the Kansas Board of Education. Darwinists are still insecure about Ohio even after winning the last BOE vote by 14-3.
> If you think you can "kick my ass," what is stopping you? <
It appears that nothing is stopping Kevin. You have come out last in every discussion with him.
Your results have been so poor that I would think that you would have given up by now, or at least learned something. It is clear that you have done neither so we can look forward to many more weeks of seeing Kevin kick your ass.
I see tht you are getting your butt kicked on Thoughts on Kansas too. You even display your ignorance of electronics there too. Keep it up. You are a million laughs.
I have refrained from further comment on this thread until I finished the essay-length response in the other thread Larry mentioned.
>>>>>> Larry's inviting people to watch me kick his ass yet again. <<<<<<
>>>Impossible. To do something again, you must first do it at least once.
If you think you can "kick my ass," what is stopping you?
You are just a big bag of hot air.<<<
I've kicked your ass so many times, your nerve ending gave up the ghost and you simply can't feel the can of whup-ass I periodically pop on you.
>>>>>> If you want to see even more of Larry getting his ass kicked, there's a long thread (~450 comments) over at Thoughts from Kansas on the UC lawsuit. <<<<<<
>>>You are really getting desperate. The UC lawsuit has absolutely nothing to do with my suits against the smog impact fee -- nothing at all.<<<
It has one thing in common - I exposed your legal incompetence in both. Besides, your smog impact fee has fuck-all to do with the Ohio evolution issue, so why'd you post a link of me kicking your ass here?
>>>>>> Look at the timing of his posts here, and you'll notice that many of them were "inspired" by the merciless beating he is receiving over at TfK. <<<<<<
>>>Wrong. My recent posts "Backlash Against Judges" and "Judge Jones' Lame Excuses" were "inspired" by recent media articles that have nothing to do with the debate on Thoughts from Kansas.<<<
Yet "Darwinism is Overrated II" was clearly "inspired" by TfK, as were a number of others. I didn't say all were. Cherry-picking in such a way is dishonest.
>>>And in the post and thread on "Judge Jones' Lame Excuses," YOU were the one who brought up my suits against the smog impact fee.<<<
Sorry, try again. I was responding to YOUR asinine and ignorant assertion that we couldn't possibly know your record in court by proving that I have the court records, and that I got it on the internet (from Westlaw, by the way - I had a gift certificate that was about to expire and nothing better to blow it on).
>>>>>> Those of us who don't have problems with reading comprehension will note that Craig is saying that no students, teachers, administators, or parents have indicated that this is a program that will help students to think or come out in support of it. <<<<<
>>>People who don't want students to think will not support a lesson plan which would help students to think.
Craig's statement was deliberately ambiguous.<<<
People who don't know how to think won't be able to understand Craig's perfectly clear statement.
>>>>>> Well, we know that about 20,000 of those emails came from DefConBlog in the span of a week, and were thus against the template. <<<<<<
>>>Anyone can set up a push-button on a blog to send a canned message.<<<
That still doesn't negate the fact that we know for certain that a supermajority of the emails received were pro-science.
( October 25, 2006 1:53:28 PM ) --
>>>>>> And pretty soon Larry is going to announce that it is now apparent that Kansas and Pennsylvania are key states as well. I think the most appropriate response to this statement is "No shit, Sherlock." <<<<<<
>>>I have not heard anything about PA being a key state in the upcoming election. Kansas is still considered to be somewhat important, but the primary was considered to be the big election for the Kansas Board of Education. Darwinists are still insecure about Ohio even after winning the last BOE vote by 14-3.<<<
You said nothing about upcoming elections. Rather, you said: It is apparent that Ohio is now considered to be a key state in the controversy over evolution education in the public schools. Which has been blindingly obvious for the past three years, and something that can also be said of Kansas, Georgia and Pennsylvania.
Minor correction: I meant to offer up "Darwinism is grossly overrated III" as an example in my previous post.
There was one final clash of wits on the Lame Excuses thread. Once again, I was using live steel against Larry's limp noodle. The take away: whenever Larry whinges about the judge not giving an opinion when tossing his case out of court, just quote Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 52(a) at him.
Rule 52. Findings by the Court; Judgment on Partial Findings
(a) Effect.
In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon, and judgment shall be entered pursuant to Rule 58; and in granting or refusing interlocutory injunctions the court shall similarly set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law which constitute the grounds of its action. Requests for findings are not necessary for purposes of review. Findings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of the witnesses. The findings of a master, to the extent that the court adopts them, shall be considered as the findings of the court. It will be sufficient if the findings of fact and conclusions of law are stated orally and recorded in open court following the close of the evidence or appear in an opinion or memorandum of decision filed by the court. Findings of fact and conclusions of law are unnecessary on decisions of motions under Rule 12 or 56 or any other motion except as provided in subdivision (c) of this rule.
Rule 56 is the Rule governing summary judgement (which is how his cases were dismissed).
Remember: when Larry moans about lack of opinions, just say "FRCP 56(a)"
Post a Comment
<< Home