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.

Saturday, June 21, 2008

Judge "Jackass" Jones to blame for crosses burned into students' arms by creationist teacher

Well, maybe I am exaggerating a little. But Judge John E. "Jackass" Jones III set himself up to be a scapegoat here by greatly intensifying the culture war by issuing his extremely activistic pro-Darwinist Kitzmiller v. Dover decision.

A news report in a Columbus, Ohio newspaper says,

A Mount Vernon teacher undermined science instruction in the public school district by discrediting evolution in his classroom and focusing on creationism and intelligent design, a probe has found

Eighth-graders who were taught by John Freshwater frequently had to be re-taught in high school what they were supposed to have learned in Freshwater’s class, according to outside investigators hired by the district.

For 11 years, other teachers in the school district and people in the community complained about Freshwater preaching his Christian beliefs in class and slamming scientific theories, a school administrator told investigators . . .

Freshwater had been told to stop teaching intelligent design and creationism, but he continued, the report found . . .

The report confirms that Freshwater burned crosses onto students’ arms, using an electrostatic device, in December.

The technique that was used to burn the crosses onto students' arms is described in another news article.

It is ironic that this incident happened in Ohio, because in 2006 the Ohio Board of Education, intimidated by lawsuit threats that were based on the Dover decision, decided to repeal an Ohio evolution lesson plan that included the weaknesses of evolution. This Ohio BoE decision is discussed in a group of articles under the post label "Ohio controversy" on this blog.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

Labels: ,

19 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

You never made your point (as usual). How could Judge Jones be blamed for the creationists proving their lunacy?

Saturday, June 21, 2008 11:24:00 AM  
Anonymous 'Nonymous said...

In related news, Judge Jones was found to blame for Peak Oil, Diabetes, Acne, and the excessive prevalence of his surname (leading to the origin of the phrase "keeping up with the Joneses" -- the subtheme of this blog).

Saturday, June 21, 2008 1:12:00 PM  
Blogger Jim Sherwood said...

This guy Freshwater has at least engaged in some highly improper activities, if this is all true.

But certainly, Larry's point is still valid. The extremist and activist decision by Judge Jones has helped to increase conflict over the improper presence of the arbitrary, pseudoscientific dogma of the allegedly materialistic evolution of all of life, in the public schools.

Fans of that old dogma are evidently incapable of even realizing that they might be wrong. Hence such outfits as the ACLU and the NCSE fight to impose materialistic evolutionary dogmas in the public schools, and to restrict the access of students to evidence which might contradict them, or might tend to do so.

Along with Jones, these deluded zealots have done a lot of damage to the rights and freedoms of the people, and to the public interest. "NCSE" must evidently stand for Naturalism's Cops Suppressing Enquiry; or else for the National Censors of Science Education.

Saturday, June 21, 2008 5:43:00 PM  
Anonymous 'Nonymous said...

"NCSE" must evidently stand for ...

National Center for Science Education.

Which, oddly enough, is what they say it stands for.

But then, it is pretty obvious that your standards for "evidently" are ... well, rather strange.

Saturday, June 21, 2008 6:51:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous said...

>>>>> You never made your point (as usual). How could Judge Jones be blamed for the creationists proving their lunacy? <<<<<<

Well, I saw this news story as just an excuse to take another swipe at Judge Jones, who I despise. Also, I wanted to note the irony that this happened in Ohio, where Judge Jones' Dover decision intimidated the state board of education into repealing an evolution lesson plan that included weaknesses of evolution.

Sunday, June 22, 2008 12:55:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

> Well, I saw this news story as just an excuse to take another swipe at Judge Jones, who I despise. <

Why not just post the weather reports? They are equally relevant to your point.

It would be much more appropriate to blame the creationist whackos whose insistence on mixing science and superstition are causing the problem.

Sunday, June 22, 2008 6:55:00 AM  
Blogger Jim Sherwood said...

I said NCSE must evidently stand for National "Censors of" Science Education, not "Center for" it.

Anonymous Darwin-boosters may not be able to read: or at any rate, they don't understand logic. For what logically possible connection is there between Judge Jones and Peak Oil, Diabetes, etc.? None.

There is a logically possible, although not proven, connection between Jones' excessive decision and increased religious fanaticism, of the Freshwater type.

And anyway Larry made clear that he wasn't really serious. Darwin-fans have no sense of humor, although they direct sarcasm at others.

Sunday, June 22, 2008 12:54:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim Sherwood wrote, "The extremist and activist decision by Judge Jones has helped to increase conflict..."

Except this guy's been testifying to the Lord in middle-school science for at least 11 years -- the Dover decision was .... 2005? Three years ago? Glad he's got a time machine too. Too bad he doesn't use it to undo everything he did to get him fired.

Jim Sherwood continued: "over the improper (sic) presence of the arbitrary (sic), pseudoscientific (sic) dogma (sic) of the allegedly (sic) materialistic evolution of all of life, (sic) in the public schools."

See notes above. A number of mistakes are in your statement.

Jim Sherwood also wrote, "Fans of that old dogma are evidently incapable of even realizing that they might be wrong"

Not the point. The point is that what is taught follows the rules of science. Intelligent design doesn't. They had a chance in court to show how they did and they laid an egg. Behe admitted that the modern definition of science doesn't include ID.

Jim Sherwood continued, "and to restrict the access of students to evidence which might contradict them, or might tend to do so"

I had forgotten that our high schools are the hot bed of scientific research, unmatched by the research at scientific institutes and colleges and universities across the country. Silly me.

Larry wrote, "Well, I saw this news story as just an excuse to take another swipe at Judge Jones, who I despise."

Another miss. Oh for 200 or so?

Larry continued, "Also, I wanted to note the irony that this happened in Ohio,"

And he shows another failure: that to understand irony (I hesitate to point this out, because now readers will be subjected to numerous posts whereby he tries (and fails) to demonstrate that he knows what the concept means. The correct term here is coincidence.

Larry continued still, "where Judge Jones' Dover decision intimidated the state board of education into repealing an evolution lesson plan that included weaknesses of evolution."

Maybe they realized there were no weaknesses of evolutionary theory, at least none that are suitable for high school classrooms or that are constitutionally fit.

Why is following the law such a bad thing? Do you drive through stop signs and red lights? All the time?

Jim added, "For what logically possible connection is there between Judge Jones and Peak Oil, Diabetes, etc.? None."

He misunderstood the reference, displaying a lack of sense of humor. There was no connection between the Dover decision and this case, just as there is none between that decision and high oil prices.

Jim Sherwood wrote, "There is a logically possible, although not proven, connection between Jones' excessive decision and increased religious fanaticism, of the Freshwater type."

In this case there is no logical connection. In any case, would that justify assaulting kids and teaching poorly?

For the record, I'm not any of the other anonymice on this thread.

Sunday, June 22, 2008 6:29:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

> And anyway Larry made clear that he wasn't really serious. <

Larry is either never serious, or he is insane.

Sunday, June 22, 2008 8:58:00 PM  
Blogger Jim Sherwood said...

At least this post got the many "anonymice" worked up and scurrying around, didn't it? I find that to be humorous.

Monday, June 23, 2008 12:29:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymouse said...

They'd better not know that my name
Is "Rat." It's true that my game
Is repeating the lies
That Eugenie S. cries
To the public! All rats do the same.

(Mouse or rat, I'm trying to catch the damn thing. Right now, I'll just post what it seems to be squeaking. --Jim Sherwood )

Monday, June 23, 2008 1:05:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim Sherwood wrote, "Mouse or rat, I'm trying to catch the damn thing."

Are you blind? Need glasses? Maybe you would know the difference if you read a real biology book instead of what you think passes for biology (known as ID, creationism, or just philosophical garbage).

Jim also wrote, "It's true that my game
Is repeating the lies
That Eugenie S. cries"

Relevance? I'm not aware of any lies of Eugenie S., nor have you suggested anything in previous posts that could be construed as a lie.

Monday, June 23, 2008 3:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymouse said...

It's true that I'm truly a rat,
But so young that I hardly seem that:
I may look like a mouse,
But I act like a louse
When my Darwinist lies are too fat.

(O.K., the one who calls himself "Anonymouse" now admits that he's a juvenile member of the genus Rattus. Since I'm not a specialist on the order Rodentia, he could have fooled me. But as young and unsophisticated as he is, at least he knows that Eugenie is a liar. And he doesn't care! Wait until I catch his ass.--Jim Sherwood.)

Monday, June 23, 2008 4:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim Sherwood
dump as a stick of wood
couldn't reply
so he just made up a lie
still doesn't say what were the lies

Jim doesn't have a suitable response so he replies in poetry, unable to answer. He thinks I admitted being a rat, or admitting that I know that Eugenie lied, when I have done none of the above. I am still unaware of any lie that Eugenie has ever said (though no one is perfect, she probably has told a whopper or two in her life, but none that I know of), and Jim is unable to mention any -- making him the real rat (and an abysmal poet, as we already knew).

Monday, June 23, 2008 8:53:00 PM  
Blogger Jim Sherwood said...

Anonymouse, a Darwin-apostle who is really a rat (although not a very big one,) has been hiding in his hole: while I've been setting traps for him. If he pokes his nose out, I'll post his comments. And since he's a poet, he speaks only in verse: thus shall ye know the true sayings of Anonymouse.

Tuesday, June 24, 2008 11:45:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymouse said...

Eugenie claims that ID
Is creationism! Lying, you see.
But she simply must lie
Or Behe, that guy,
Will clobber OUR DARWIN, by gee.

(Eugenie seems to have been rather clearly lying, at least for all practical purposes, in the way in which she misrepresents ID as creationism or as a creationist plot or implies something of the sort: unless she is quite stupid or deluded, of course, which seems unlikely. As a hypothesis or as an analysis of established scientific data, ID is not at all the same as creationism. Anyway Anonymouse, who may have previously been a dirty little rat or at least a deluded one, seems to be coming clean.--Jim Sherwood.)

Tuesday, June 24, 2008 2:59:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim has completely changed the subject since I trashed his statement about the case at hand. Instead of defending his thesis that there may be a logical connection between the Dover decision and Freshwater's actions. Note his recent comment:

>>>Eugenie seems to have been rather clearly lying, at least for all practical purposes, in the way in which she misrepresents ID as creationism or as a creationist plot or implies something of the sort

Besides being off the original topic, he is mistaken. ID is not science because there are zero (0) peer-reviewed publications supporting ID. Zero. None. Nothing that ID has proposed has warranted further scientific study. In an effort to fight the culture war, scientists are now pointing out ways in which their research debunks whatever claims that ID has against contemporary evolutionary theory. Also note that ID does not qualify as a theory in the scientific sense of the term. ID consists solely of criticism of evolutionary theory, or "Darwinism" as they like to call it.

Also note, the ID has given us: Of Pandas and Peoples and the Wedge Document. Every significant ID supporter is supported by the Discovery Institute, the place that formulated the Wedge Document. Also note that many IDiots give talks to church and other religious groups. Also note that the box office failure Expelled was marketed to religious groups and churches. Also note that the IDiots have yet to produce any scientific research, but spend their time claiming about their exclusion from Academia. How do scientists work when their theories are rejected -- or even scoffed at as being a form of creationism? Let's see the case of the Big Bang. First derided, those in favor of the theory kept working, trying to find evidence for their claims. For us younger folk, (anyone under 60, probably), the Big Bang theory has been the theory to explain the beginning of time and space in the universe -- hard to believe that it wasn't accepted. For other debates, see the debates in string theory, whereby they argue for a nine- or ten- (or eleven-?) dimension universe. My understanding is that there is a lot of resistance to these ideas.

To return briefly to the subject at hand, given the strategy of ID and its association with religious groups (not to mention Behe's statement -- in court no less -- that one would be more likely to accept ID the more one believe in some form of personal God), it would be easy to see it as a form of creationism. Surely Jim knows that creationists tried to posit their beliefs as creation science at one point, before being dealt a death blow by SCOTUS.

Tuesday, June 24, 2008 7:43:00 PM  
Blogger Anonymouse said...

That Sherwood? So I've understood,
He must be a FUNDIE, for good!
He must wobble and shake
As he handles a snake,
Or he'd swallow our doctrine. He would!

(Anonymouse has registered as a blogger user: he's actually a rat, but a very young one, so I don't mind the fact that he's a Darwin-boosting rat who believes all the doctrines of the old-fashioned, conventional "evolutionary biologists." He has employed me as his ghostwriter: but says he'll fire me if I say anything inaccurate about his hero, old Darwin, or about other Darwin-apostles.--Jim Sherwood.)

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:34:00 PM  
Blogger Anonymouse said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:34:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home