Ding Elsberry still obsessed with Cheri Yecke
Wesley "Ding" Elsberry, in an article noting that she is leaving her Florida position, noted,
What I haven’t seen in any of the various places the story has run is Yecke’s association with antievolution. They mention that she presided over the 2003 rewrite of science standards in Minnesota, but do not mention how closely the process had to be watched to prevent antievolution content from being incorporated.
Ding, the source you cited did not say that she presided over the 2003 rewrite of Minnesota "science standards" -- the source said that it was a rewrite of Minnesota "academic standards" (which happened to include science standards). Just a fine point.
Well, Ding, maybe the reason why you haven't seen mention of Yecke's "association with antievolution" is that the newsmedia does not consider it to be newsworthy. Has it ever occurred to you that not everyone is as obsessed with "anti-evolution" as you are? That "association with antievolution" did not prevent Yecke from being one of three finalists for the position of Florida education commissioner out of 24 applicants considered qualified for the position.
Also, Ding, it generally appears that those who want their side to be taught dogmatically -- with not even a mention of the other side -- are the Darwinists. In fact, I have yet to see anyone say that creationism, intelligent design, and/or other criticisms of Darwinism should be taught dogmatically in public schools, though opinion polls show that some people think that.
.
Labels: Cheri Yecke #1
7 Comments:
The post should have been called "Dunghill Fafarman still obsessed with Cheri Yecke".
> the source you cited did not say that she presided over the 2003 rewrite of Minnesota "science standards" -- the source said that it was a rewrite of Minnesota "academic standards" (which happened to include science standards). <
After your pettifoggery about what Judge Jones actually said, you have the nerve to post this? The difference is that Dr. Elsberry's interpretation is logically correct while yours was no. Just a fine point.
> maybe the reason why you haven't seen mention of Yecke's "association with antievolution" is that the newsmedia does not consider it to be newsworthy. <
And maybe they just hadn't discovered it.
Has it ever occurred to you that not everyone is as obsessed with "anti-darwinism" as you are?
> it generally appears that those who want their side to be taught dogmatically <
... are the creationists.
The evolutionists would be happy to include other scientific theories, but not religious dogma such as creationism and intelligent design misrepresented as science. They can be taught in a course on mythology and the scientific community would have no objections.
Do any of the sane people here know where the jackass gets the name "Ding" for Dr. Elsberry?
I am sure that the dunghill doesn't realize how much this sort of crap has led to his reputation on the net as a foaming at the mouth dingbat.
Sadly Fafarman remains far more obsessed with Yecke than he is with facts.
Who's Sadly?
Sadly Fafarman is a distant cousin (as distant as possible...) of the infamous "Dung" Fafarman, the host of this alleged blog.
I see the evolution zealots are out for blood. I came across this blog when I saw what the likes of Odd nature aka FeloniousMonk, JoshuaZ, Orangemarlin, Guettarda, etc., over at WP, via PZ Myers' fishwrap at scienceblogs. Too bad they ran you off from WP. Keep up the good fight.
Thanks for your support, Anonymous.
Post a Comment
<< Home