Sleazy PZ Myers misrepresented the Minnesota State Science Standards
PZ Myers has misrepresented the Minnesota State Science Standards. His quote of the standards includes the following statement:
PZ then commented, "This does not support the teaching of Intelligent Design creationism in the classroom." It doesn't support teaching "Intelligent Design creationism" specifically, but it does support teaching the "controversy."
Also, the National Center for Science Education said,
"Moderate amount of public attention"? Well, there was a fairly big stink back then in 2003-2004 over then Minnesota Commissioner of Education Cheri Yecke's evolution-education policies at that time (1, 2). Even the NCSE acknowledged the controversy (1, 2, 3). And the Darwinists are still making a stink about it.
Also, a reminder regarding the claim that the Santorum Amendment's "teach the controversy" language in the conference committee report of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act carries no weight: the Supreme Court's decision in Blum v. Stenson was not based on explicit statements in a Senate report accompanying a bill but was based on court opinions cited by that report!
.
"The student will be able to explain how scientific and technological innovations as well as new evidence can challenge portions of or entire accepted theories and models including but not limited to cell theory, atomic theory, theory of evolution, plate tectonic theory, germ theory of disease and big bang theory." (PZ's emphasis)
PZ then commented, "This does not support the teaching of Intelligent Design creationism in the classroom." It doesn't support teaching "Intelligent Design creationism" specifically, but it does support teaching the "controversy."
Also, the National Center for Science Education said,
In contrast with some other states, the place of evolution in the science curriculum attracted only a moderate amount of public attention during the writing and approval process in Minnesota.
"Moderate amount of public attention"? Well, there was a fairly big stink back then in 2003-2004 over then Minnesota Commissioner of Education Cheri Yecke's evolution-education policies at that time (1, 2). Even the NCSE acknowledged the controversy (1, 2, 3). And the Darwinists are still making a stink about it.
Also, a reminder regarding the claim that the Santorum Amendment's "teach the controversy" language in the conference committee report of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act carries no weight: the Supreme Court's decision in Blum v. Stenson was not based on explicit statements in a Senate report accompanying a bill but was based on court opinions cited by that report!
.
posted by Larry Fafarman | 11/21/2007 12:10:00 PM
13 Comments:
Hello Mr. Fafarman. I'm glad to see you are against censorship. I'm against it myself.
This thread caught my attention because you called one of my favorite biologists "sleazy". To be fair to your readers, they should know all of what Myers said and to your credit you provided a link to his thread about this subject. His thread has the title "The Discovery Institute lies to educators".
After a quick glance of your website I'm guessing you are an evolution denier (also known as a flat-earther). For example you call evolution "Darwinism". Only creationists or intelligent design creationists call it that. I just looked at your "Florida to teach Darwinism dogmatically" thread. It seems you don't like the idea of Florida deciding to put the word "evolution" in their state science standards, and calling evolution one of the ""big ideas that must be taught as part of in-depth, hands-on learning".
You said "The Fordham Institute's report on state science standards is worthless." Perhaps you didn't approve of the F grade they gave Florida, and their complaint about the word "evolution" completely missing from the standards.
I'm wondering why you deny evolution. Some famous biologist said "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" and it would be almost impossible to find a biologist who would disagree with that.
Mr. Fafarman, why do you deny this scientific fact that has more evidence than the earth's orbit around the sun? Have you studied the new genetic evidence? It's extremely powerful and rapidly growing. What motivates you to deny all this evidence? Is it a religious issue with you? Do you prefer believing in magic instead of science? Do you also deny humans are an ape species? Do you think humans were magically created by some supernatural designer? Or did the designer just magically create bacteria flagellum?
What do you think about the Discovery Institute? I have had some experience with them and I found out they are thugs. Also, as everyone knows, they are professional liars who make their living from their gullible supporters. Their dishonest business makes good money and it sure beats getting a real job. The Discovery Institute has never discovered anything. All they do is constantly lie about the hard work of real scientists. The disco institute, and the other liars for jesus, are causing great harm to this country. They are making Americans even more stupid than they already are.
BobC said,
>>>>>Hello Mr. Fafarman. I'm glad to see you are against censorship. I'm against it myself.<<<<<
Well, Sleazy PZ practices arbitrary censorship, so how can he be one of your favorite biologists?
>>>>>> This thread caught my attention because you called one of my favorite biologists "sleazy". <<<<<<
Well, here are the things that Sleazy PZ says about me:
Miscreant: Larry Fafarman AKA Larry Farma, many others
Crime: Stupidity, Morphing
Sentence: Automatically Junked
Comments: This fellow is probably mentally ill, but he's able to maintain a blog that is a bottomless pit of stupidity. Also banned at the Panda's Thumb.
>>>>> After a quick glance of your website I'm guessing you are an evolution denier (also known as a flat-earther). For example you call evolution "Darwinism". Only creationists or intelligent design creationists call it that. <<<<<<
And only Darwinists call intelligent design "intelligent design creationism." LOL
The term evolution covers many concepts -- e.g., theistic evolution, atheistic evolution, common descent, and front-loaded evolution. So I use the term "Darwinism" to mean the idea that evolution was driven solely by natural genetic variation (mostly random mutation) and natural selection.
>>>>>> I just looked at your "Florida to teach Darwinism dogmatically" thread. It seems you don't like the idea of Florida deciding to put the word "evolution" in their state science standards, <<<<<
Not at all -- I just don't like the idea of other ideas and the weaknesses of evolution being excluded.
>>>>>> You said "The Fordham Institute's report on state science standards is worthless." Perhaps you didn't approve of the F grade they gave Florida and their complaint about the word "evolution" completely missing from the standards. <<<<<<
It has nothing to do with the grade they gave Florida. I explained what I do not like about the Fordham Institute's report:
The rating criteria are vague and there is far too much emphasis on evolution education, even though evolution education officially accounts for only 3 points out of a total of 69 in the Fordham rating system. The Fordham ratings do not correlate with student achievement. Fear of low Fordham Institute ratings frightens states into adopting excessively pro-Darwinist science teaching standards.
>>>>> I'm wondering why you deny evolution. Some famous biologist said "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" and it would be almost impossible to find a biologist who would disagree with that. <<<<<<<
I disagree. I think that there are quite a few biologists who would disagree with that statement -- even including some biologists who accept evolution theory.
>>>>>> Mr. Fafarman, why do you deny this scientific fact that has more evidence than the earth's orbit around the sun? <<<<<<<
I just don't find Darwinism to be credible. For example, look at co-evolution, which is supposed to be the mutual evolution between two co-dependent organisms such as bees and flowering plants. In co-evolution, unlike evolutionary adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment, e.g., water, land, air, and climate, there may be nothing to adapt to because the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism may be initially absent. This dilemma with co-evolution would be a barrier to evolution even if irreducible complexity were not.
>>>>> Do you also deny humans are an ape species? <<<<<<
No -- we have obvious similarities to other apes.
>>>>>> Do you think humans were magically created by some supernatural designer? Or did the designer just magically create bacteria flagellum? <<<<<
Don't know. But Intelligent Design has made a lot of people aware that cells are not always just amorphous blobs of protoplasm but can have amazingly complex and sophisticated nanomachines (e.g., the flagellum), chemical factories (the blood-clotting cascade), and informational databases (the DNA code).
Also, ID is not a "science stopper" -- on the contrary, it expands scientific knowledge by forcing scientists to confront weaknesses in evolution theory.
>>>>>> What do you think about the Discovery Institute? I have had some experience with them and I found out they are thugs. Also, as everyone knows, they are professional liars who make their living from their gullible supporters. <<<<<<
And I have had a lot of experience with Darwinists and found that a lot of them are thugs. For example, Darwinist bloggers Fatheaded Ed Brayton, Sleazy PZ Myers, and Wesley "Ding" Elsberry censor comments solely because they disagree with them. The ACLU, the Anti-Defamation League, Ken Miller, et al. are thugs because they misuse the Constitution's establishment clause to try to suppress scientific ideas that they don't like. The Darwinist Wickedpedian administrators are thugs. Darwinist Judge Jones is also a thug.
One thing that I don't like about the Discovery Institute is that its staffers have turned down requests for interviews for a book and a TV show. IMO that is really stupid. They should just participate and then complain later if they feel that their views were not adequately presented. Not participating assures that their views will not be presented at all.
> Well, Sleazy PZ practices arbitrary censorship <
For those new to this blog, be advised that Larry accuses everyone of "arbitrary censorship" but has never given an example of where this has happened. Larry is banned all over the net but alway for good cause. At the same time he has admitted censorship in the past, sometimes claiming that the material is "gossip". He claims not to censor now but posts mysteriously "disappear" and one major contributor who was a thorn in Larry's side disappeared a few months ago.
> so how can he be one of your favorite biologists? <
Even if PZ Myers did arbitrarily censor (there is no evidence that he does), this seems quite irrelevant to his qualifications as a biologist.
> Well, here are the things that Sleazy PZ says about me: <
> Miscreant: Larry Fafarman AKA Larry Farma, many others <
As recently as this week Larry logged in as "Joe Blow" and agreed with himself. He later admitted it. He has posted on Ed Brayton's blog as well as this one with his brother's name while denying the posts of his real brother are his.
> Crime: Stupidity, Morphing <
You can see it here.
> Comments: This fellow is probably mentally ill, but he's able to maintain a blog that is a bottomless pit of stupidity. <
You can see that here too.
>>>>> After a quick glance of your website I'm guessing you are an evolution denier <
He is also a holocaust denier.
> So I use the term "Darwinism" to mean ... <
Larry often redefines words.
>>>>>>> it would be almost impossible to find a biologist who would disagree with that. <<<<<<<
> I disagree. <
You are not a biologist. You are a failed engineer.
> Darwinist bloggers Fatheaded Ed Brayton, Sleazy PZ Myers, and Wesley "Ding" Elsberry censor comments solely because they disagree with them. <
There is no evidence of this. They have only banned a few people for outrageous behaviour, generally after being warned. Larry has been banned for the sort of ad hominem attacks, mindless repetition, and sock puppetry that you can see on this blog.
> The ACLU, the Anti-Defamation League, Ken Miller, et al. are thugs because they misuse the Constitution's establishment clause to try to suppress scientific ideas that they don't like. <
What scientific ideas? They are just trying to take non-scientific ideas out of science classes.
> The Darwinist Wickedpedian administrators are thugs. <
Because they would not play into Larry's self-proclaimed "edit war".
> Darwinist Judge Jones is also a thug. <
Because he disagrees with Larry.
Read this quickly bobc. It is likely to be quickly censored as "gossip".
>>>>> For those new to this blog, be advised that Larry accuses everyone of "arbitrary censorship" but has never given an example of where this has happened. <<<<<
Automatically censoring all comments from a particular commenter is arbitrary censorship, dunghill.
>>>>> Even if PZ Myers did arbitrarily censor . . . .this seems quite irrelevant to his qualifications as a biologist. <<<<<<
It is relevant to his qualifications as one of someone's favorite biologists.
>>>>> As recently as this week Larry logged in as "Joe Blow" and agreed with himself. He later admitted it.<<<<<<
And you have posted on this blog as "Anonymous" and agreed with yourself. You later admitted it.
>>>>>> I disagree.<
You are not a biologist. <<<<<<
Irrelevant.
>>>>>> The Darwinist Wickedpedian administrators are thugs. <
Because they would not play into Larry's self-proclaimed "edit war". <<<<<<
Edit wars for which they were solely to blame.
>>>>>>> Darwinist Judge Jones is also a thug. <
Because he disagrees with Larry. <<<<<<
No -- because he agrees with you.
> Automatically censoring all comments from a particular commenter is arbitrary censorship, dunghill. <
Only if you redefine "arbitrary" to mean "for good reason".
>>>>> Even if PZ Myers did arbitrarily censor . . . .this seems quite irrelevant to his qualifications as a biologist. <<<<<<
> It is relevant to his qualifications as one of someone's favorite biologists. <
Why? It seems quite irrelevant.
> And you have posted on this blog as "Anonymous" and agreed with yourself. <
False. I, unlike you, have never posted on this blog as "anonymous".
> You later admitted it. <
False. Larry lies as usual.
>>>>>> I disagree.<
You are not a biologist. <<<<<<
> Irrelevant. <
It is quite relevant when the point is what biologists think.
> Edit wars for which they were solely to blame. <
You were to blame. You insisted on changing material to fit your delusions. Their only other choice was to surrender to your madness.
>>>>>>> Darwinist Judge Jones is also a thug. <
Because he disagrees with Larry. <<<<<<
> No -- because he agrees with you. <
An equally lame excuse for calling him a thug.
Keep talking, Larry. You are proving yourself to be what I said you were.
Who's message board/comment box did you vandalize this time, Larry? It seems that the only way you get new readers is to spam your blog URL along with a few insulting comments to anywhere that allows messages to be placed without review.
< I, unlike you, have never posted on this blog as "anonymous". >
IMO this is true (on both counts) (still true).
BTW, "Anonymous" is not a sock puppet. Excerpt: The key difference between a sockpuppet and a regular pseudonym is the pretense that the puppet is a third party who is not affiliated with the puppeteer.
Let's do something that has never happened on this blog before. Let's bring something quite simple to a conclusion.
ViU said:
> Larry logged in as "Joe Blow" and agreed with himself. He later admitted it.<
This is a fact as can be still seen on this blog.
Then Larry said:
> And you have posted on this blog as "Anonymous" and agreed with yourself. You later admitted it. <
I find no evidence of this and ViU denies it. Here Larry can either show where this occurs, or more likely he will ignore the challenge and show himself to be a liar.
I would bet on the latter. Is it any mystery why Larry has earned his reputation for making unfounded irrational statements?
I came on this blog as a neutral a few weeks ago. Nobody can read Larry's garbage and remain neutral long.
ViU said that several people posted under the name "Anonymous." That's all I've got to say, dunghill.
The sleezy dunghill said...
> ViU said that several people posted under the name "Anonymous." That's all I've got to say, dunghill. <
And so you admit you lied when you said that I admitted posting under the name anonymous?
Has it ever occurred to you that if it is necessary to lie and misrepresent things to support your case, you don't have much of a case?
> No, you worthless bag of crap, I am saying that you lied. And I said that is all I am going to say about the matter. <
Well here we have proof. The truth of what ViU said is here for all to read. Larry's claim, which we can all see is a lie has been shown to be such.
After stating something quite apart from the issue he has repeated his original baseless claim and followed it with "And I said that is all I am going to say about the matter."
We will also know in the future that his claim on the header "My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer." is also a lie. Larry's non-response on any issue can be taken as proof that he admits he is unable to answer.
Polonius, it seems that it took you several weeks to see what the rest of us already knew. Larry is a lying windbag who makes all sorts of baseless assertions and always fails to back them up.
Often, after his lies are exposed, he will finish his participation by declaring victory and going back into his cave.
I stick around for the entertainment value. Where else can you see someone dive spread eagle into a pile of lemon meringue pies and then come out with his face dripping proclaiming "Well, I won another one. I am undefeated!"?
Larry takes a step forward and raises his arms. He steps off the board and falls into a perfect swan dive position. Splat! He splashes spread eagle into the pies. He comes out dripping meringue and holds up his hands to await applause but, once more, he hears only laughs.
Post a Comment
<< Home