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.

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.

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Letter to Texas Education Commissioner

I used this contact form to send the following letter to Texas Education Commissioner Robert Scott. The subject area I selected on the contact form was "Commissioner of Education":

Letter to Education Commissioner Robert Scott

Re: Opposition to Letter from Texas University Biology Professors Defending Biological Evolution as a Central Pillar of Modern Science Education"

Though I feel that Chris Comer should not have been ousted, I am strongly opposed to the above letter from biology professors.

Comer is certainly not innocent. The Barbara Forrest lecture that Comer announced was not about science but was a false ad hominem attack on all critics of Darwinism, using guilt-by-association to vilify them as allegedly being part of a fundy conspiracy to create a Taliban-type theocracy in the USA. Forrest is a bigot who is trying to shut down discussion of the scientific issues. Forrest cannot stand discussion of the scientific issues because if Intelligent Design or other criticisms of Darwinism have scientific merit, then her conspiracy theory is irrelevant. What Comer did was like a government AIDS agency sending out an "FYI" announcement of a Fred Phelps demonstration. A "Darwin-to-Hitler" lecture might be more neutral, as it would not necessarily be an attempt to shut down discussion of the scientific issues. And I have seen no claim that Comer was even-handed about the "FYI" public-event announcements that she sent out. Finally, Comer violated the Texas Education Agency policy of neutrality on upcoming science standard reviews. There is good reason for the policy of neutrality -- in the future the TEA may have to implement a science curriculum that includes study of the weaknesses of Darwinism. Anyway, right or wrong, neutrality was the policy.

Earlier this year there was a “Darwin v. Design” conference at Southern Methodist University in Dallas — that conference got a lot of publicity because some Darwinist faculty members asked the administration not to hold it. If Chris Comer knew in advance about that conference — and there is a fair chance that she did — did she send out an “FYI” notice about it?

Also, you should forget about what that stupid judge in Pennsylvania said. He did not even write the ID-as-science section of the opinion -- the ACLU did. And he showed extreme prejudice against the defendants -- regardless of whether or not Intelligent Design is a religious concept -- by saying in a Dickinson College commencement speech that his decision was based on his notion that the Founders based the establishment clause on a belief that organized religions are not "true" religions. He said,

". . . this much is very clear. The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry. At bottom then, this core set of beliefs led the Founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things, to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state."
-- from



Larry Fafarman



The Darwinists may be better organized than their opposition, but a large proportion of the public feels that both the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinism should be taught, and I think we are being heard.

Labels: ,


Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

You come off as a babbling idiot. This probably helps the Darwinists.

Friday, December 14, 2007 1:38:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem is, once you get to the weaknesses part, the fundies jump in and think it's open season for bible thumping since in their self-righteous micro-brains, they orchestrated the whole "teach the controversy" crap and feel a bullshit sense of entitlement that their own faith gets first dibs on being taught. The wedge document needs more exposure for it's role in opening up this silly debate.

Friday, December 14, 2007 10:26:00 AM  
Blogger Jay Fuller said...

Since when have the "Darwinists" been better organized than million dollar organizations like the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis?

Friday, December 14, 2007 11:03:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hobby, hobbier, hobbiest?

Friday, December 14, 2007 12:39:00 PM  
Blogger Jim Sherwood said...

These Darwinist-believers are apparently so ignorant, that they think that everyone who lacks faith in the Darwinist version of evolution, is a "fundie" or a "creationist!"

Friday, December 14, 2007 3:59:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's the common creationist lie being propagated by the fundies themselves. You zealots need and crave this "us vs. them" mentality as a motive to fight because in your sick scarred minds, a strong belief in anything other than god is a faith contrary to your own. Modern evolution theory is not the dogmatic word-for word teachings of Darwin if you had bothered to gain even the slightest understanding of evolution theory. And as a theory, it is open to change as new (scientific and independently reproducible) research lead it in direction that may be contradictory to what the current theory states. Don't try to fit science into your religiously deluded constructs.

Friday, December 14, 2007 4:52:00 PM  
Blogger PTET said...

"stupid judge"?

When people like you are on the side of cdesign, I sleep better at night.

Saturday, January 26, 2008 5:26:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> "stupid judge"? <<<<<<

That's right -- and I explained why he is a stupid judge.

Saturday, January 26, 2008 5:47:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home