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.

Sunday, June 29, 2008

"Stop creationists undermining school science"

A New Scientist magazine opinion piece titled "Stop creationists undermining school science" says,

Say that you are in charge of developing a state-wide high-school curriculum in French-language studies, and that you need the advice of a group of experts on how to put together the ideal programme. Is it better for officials to appoint these people, or for the public to vote on who they regard as the most attractive candidates for the job?

To put it another way, should you need minimum qualifications to be eligible to serve? Should you be required to know some French? Should you be disqualified if you openly profess that French is not a useful language, and that the curriculum should focus on Italian instead?

"Yes" is surely the sensible answer to the last three questions. Yet in the US, we are taking exactly the opposite approach in allowing elected officials who are both ignorant and biased to define the science curricula for public-school students.

I greatly prefer the fundies of the former Dover school board to the stupid scientists and science educators who put the statement "evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology" in the new Florida state science standards.

Labels:

20 Comments:

Blogger Phae said...

I greatly prefer the fundies of the former Dover school board to the stupid scientists and science educators who put the statement "evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology" in the new Florida state science standards.

Even though that statement happens to be the truth? You want to start writing out Cubism from the modernist art movement, too, if we get some people with an ideological vendetta against it on the school board?

Sunday, June 29, 2008 11:12:00 AM  
Blogger Phae said...

Larry might be too busy to answer, since I see he's off repeating his same idiotic accusations at Conservapedia's page on the Lenski dialog. Luckily, there he doesn't have to worry about many people disagreeing with him... since if you disagree too strongly on CP, you get blocked. So his preference for a place without free debate makes sense.

Sunday, June 29, 2008 1:03:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Phae moans,
>>>>>> there he doesn't have to worry about many people disagreeing with him <<<<<

Wrong, dunghill. People are disagreeing with me there and are not being censored.

>>>>>> if you disagree too strongly on CP, you get blocked. <<<<<<

Fatheaded Ed Brayton kicked me off his blog permanently because he disagreed with my interpretation of a federal court rule, and did not even give me a single chance to respond to his disagreement. The Florida Citizens for Science blog barred me from discussing co-evolution there. I have been kicked off of Panda's Thumb, Sleazy PZ's Pharyngula blog, Wesley "Ding" Elsberry's Austringer blog, Jackass Jason Rosenhouse's Evolution Blog, and the Law X.0 blog, just for disagreeing with the bloggers. Even Uncommon Descent censored one of my comments, apparently for calling Judge Jones -- who is detested by the bloggers there -- a "jackass." So don't give that crap about CP.

>>>>>> So his preference for a place without free debate makes sense. <<<<<<

I don't go there just for the free debate (as you say, it is not really completely free, and CP, like Wikipedia, has some really stupid rules) -- I also go there for the much greater exposure. That CP talk page gets hundreds -- even thousands -- of visitors per day. This blog averages only about 50 per day (though the number has been rising a little because of this controversy).

Sunday, June 29, 2008 2:15:00 PM  
Blogger Jim Sherwood said...

Of course it's true that (The Darwinite version of) evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology! Thus, it was impossible to for biologists to study the structure or habits of any critter until the Darwin-dogma was formulated by old Chuck. Similarly, a chemist cannot analyze any substance without having some doctrine, fantasy or dogma available concerning where it came from and why...or... duh...duh...is that really so?!?

A professor cried, "I've preferred
To study the wings of this bird,
But I simply can't try
Unless I'm told why
It appeared! By Darwin, I've heard?"

Sunday, June 29, 2008 2:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Phoo said...

In Tampa I've lost all my brains,
So I'm singing that PZ's refrains!
I'm beguiled by a flick
That's phoney and sick:
I'll "Inherit the Wind" for my pains.

(My ignorant friend Phoo, who lives in Tampa, Florida, lists the absurdly false and distorted Darwinist propaganda-movie "Inherit the Wind" as one of his favorites. It's rumored that he's also taken in by the old Nazi propaganda-movie, "Triumph of the Will." --Jim Sherwood.)

Sunday, June 29, 2008 3:48:00 PM  
Blogger Phae said...

Larry:
Wrong, dunghill. People are disagreeing with me there and are not being censored.

Note I said "too strongly." As long as you bow and scrape before creationism, you're permitted to disagree. Of course, if you do so too long you get blocked. A great list that is kept up to date of the various lies and blockings of that sort can be found here.

Fatheaded Ed Brayton kicked me off his blog permanently because he disagreed with my interpretation of a federal court rule, and did not even give me a single chance to respond to his disagreement. The Florida Citizens for Science blog barred me from discussing co-evolution there. I have been kicked off of Panda's Thumb, Sleazy PZ's Pharyngula blog, Wesley "Ding" Elsberry's Austringer blog, Jackass Jason Rosenhouse's Evolution Blog, and the Law X.0 blog, just for disagreeing with the bloggers. Even Uncommon Descent censored one of my comments, apparently for calling Judge Jones -- who is detested by the bloggers there -- a "jackass." So don't give that crap about CP.

So you're upset that UD doesn't allow profanities or something? Shucks, that sure is mean of them.

I don't go there just for the free debate (as you say, it is not really completely free, and CP, like Wikipedia, has some really stupid rules) -- I also go there for the much greater exposure. That CP talk page gets hundreds -- even thousands -- of visitors per day. This blog averages only about 50 per day (though the number has been rising a little because of this controversy).

Haha, yes, have to get the word out! You busily uncovered the Nazi connection with Lenksi's lab with your brilliant insight into their terminology, and revealed how they are trying to hide the paper they published in a world-renowned journal.... have to tell the public!

Jim:
Of course it's true that (The Darwinite version of) evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology! Thus, it was impossible to for biologists to study the structure or habits of any critter until the Darwin-dogma was formulated by old Chuck. Similarly, a chemist cannot analyze any substance without having some doctrine, fantasy or dogma available concerning where it came from and why...or... duh...duh...is that really so?!?

All of modern biological theory is founded on the concept of evolution. Explaining the features or behaviors of various species depend entirely upon the mechanism that favors them. Certainly Carollus Linaeas got a lot of work done before Darwin, but nonetheless all of modern biological work - as opposed to taxonomy - depends on evolutionary theory.

A professor cried, "I've preferred
To study the wings of this bird,
But I simply can't try
Unless I'm told why
It appeared! By Darwin, I've heard?"


"Drawing a mantis is really quite fun,
And of observations, I have a ton.
I'd like to know how
It learned how to bow
But JesusDidIt, so my work is done."

Phoo
In Tampa I've lost all my brains,
So I'm singing that PZ's refrains!
I'm beguiled by a flick
That's phoney and sick:
I'll "Inherit the Wind" for my pains.


Some people don't quite understand,
When watching Darrow get fanned,
It wasn't creation
In that Florida station,
But an allegory for McCarthy's crude bans.

(My ignorant friend Phoo, who lives in Tampa, Florida, lists the absurdly false and distorted Darwinist propaganda-movie "Inherit the Wind" as one of his favorites. It's rumored that he's also taken in by the old Nazi propaganda-movie, "Triumph of the Will." --Jim Sherwood.)

I think the closest link to Nazism on this page you will find will be Larry, who has two sections on Holocaust revisionism among his posts including one in which he declares that there couldn't possibly have been so many Jews accounted for and killed.

WHOOPS

Sunday, June 29, 2008 4:38:00 PM  
Anonymous 'Nonymous said...

If anyone has not read the original exchange of messages between Schlafly and Lenski, I strongly urge you to do so. Lenski's second message particularly neatly encapsulates the whole issue and is a good read -- especially after having your head spun by Larry.

Sunday, June 29, 2008 5:49:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

For the record: I do not support Schlafly's request for the raw data. And I have not been spinning anyone's head -- I have just been trying to get straight answers to simple, basic questions about the experiment.

Sunday, June 29, 2008 6:32:00 PM  
Blogger Phae said...

And I have not been spinning anyone's head -- I have just been trying to get straight answers to simple, basic questions about the experiment.

You got those answers. Blount directed you to them, and then I personally specified them out for you. Yet you think that Blount wasn't specific enough, even though it makes much more sense for him to point you to the words of the progenitor of the experiment rather than attempt to answer from his own more recent experience with a twenty-year experiment. And you're trying to imply thereafter that it must mean that they're hiding something, which is absurd.

You'll fit right in at CP.

Sunday, June 29, 2008 7:12:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>> You got those answers. Blount directed you to them <<<<<<

For the umpteenth time, he did not, you lousy dunghill.

>>>>> and then I personally specified them out for you. <<<<<

-- in unintelligible gobbledygook.

If I were a peer-reviewer of the paper, would Blount be dodging my questions?

Sunday, June 29, 2008 7:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> in unintelligible gobbledygook. <

If that looks like unintelligible gobbledygook to you it is no surprise why you make such ridiculous interpretations of simple things.

> If I were a peer-reviewer of the paper, would Blount be dodging my questions? <

If you were a peer-reviewer, you would have the knowledge and education to understand what you are reading.

Sunday, June 29, 2008 7:58:00 PM  
Blogger Phae said...

For the umpteenth time, he did not, you lousy dunghill.

Looks to me like he did. Looks to EVERYONE ELSE like he did. Do you really think that every other person involved is pretending to understand something, or is it perhaps more probably that the error lies in you?

-- in unintelligible gobbledygook.

I have only marginal formal training in science, aided by my independent reading. Accordingly, I assure you that I am thoroughly a layperson. So I have great sympathy for you. Please, tell me which words you didn't understand? We can make up a vocabulary list for you.

If I were a peer-reviewer of the paper, would Blount be dodging my questions?

If you were a peer-reviewer, it is highly likely that (a) you would not be Some Random Internet Guy demanding answers and would be answered much more thoroughly, and (b) you would be able to understand the answers you were given.

I wrote a letter to President Bush demanding documents about the minor Gitmo detainees, but he DODGED MY QUESTIONS! Clearly he HAS NO ANSWERS... if I were a UN INSPECTOR would he be dodging my questions! I THINK NOT!

Sunday, June 29, 2008 8:36:00 PM  
Anonymous 'Nonymous said...

"in unintelligible gobbledygook."

"If I were a peer-reviewer of the paper ..."

What part of "peer" do you not understand?

I have never had a course in biology at any level, not even high school (how did I escape anyway?), and yet I found the writing to be reasonably clear. Admittedly, the longer piece (talking about multiple optimization peaks -- a difficult subject) could stand a little improvement.

"I wrote a letter to President Bush demanding documents about the minor Gitmo detainees ..."

Hmm. It appears that you may be a candidate for extinction via Political Correctness, which is slightly less deadly than the Chicxulub asteroid but much more probable. 'Twould be a pity.

Sunday, June 29, 2008 9:38:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

ViU driveled,
>>>>>> If I were a peer-reviewer of the paper, would Blount be dodging my questions? <

If you were a peer-reviewer, you would have the knowledge and education to understand what you are reading. <<<<<<

You disgusting dunghill, you can't always get all the answers by reading -- that's why questions are asked! For example, the paper might not answer the questions of whether Cit+ evolution was an original goal or whether a purpose of the glucose cycling (alternating glucose feeding and starvation) was to favor Cit+ evolution. And what if I am in an audience at a scientific conference where the paper is presented and I haven't read the paper and I want to ask a question about it? You are so beetlebrained stupid.

Phae driveled,
>>>>>> Looks to EVERYONE ELSE like he did. <<<<<

Like the Marlboro Filters Man ads used to say, "almost everyone." Anyway, how do you know what others in general think -- there has been no opinion poll.

>>>>> I have only marginal formal training in science, aided by my independent reading. <<<<<

All the more reason to use plain English, idiot.

Sunday, June 29, 2008 9:44:00 PM  
Blogger Phae said...

Anyway, how do you know what others in general think -- there has been no opinion poll.

"Almost everyone" also includes the literate, another population among which we won't find you. Along with "people who think the Holocaust was real," apparently.

All the more reason to use plain English, idiot.

"Plain" is rather a subjective term. To most people, "plain" would include rather ordinary terms strung together in a manner not at all esoteric. To you, though, "plain" seems to mean "written in a manner most becoming to a primary school."

Sunday, June 29, 2008 10:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Zmidponk said...

Larry farted...

>>>>>>You disgusting dunghill, you can't always get all the answers by reading -- that's why questions are asked! For example, the paper might not answer the questions of whether Cit+ evolution was an original goal or whether a purpose of the glucose cycling (alternating glucose feeding and starvation) was to favor Cit+ evolution.<<<<<<

On the other hand, it might. Alternatively, when you ask the question of someone who worked on the project, and he directs you to another publication that answers your questions, you might get an answer to your question by reading that publication. Alternatively, that self-same person may also actually answer your question himself.

>>>>>>Like the Marlboro Filters Man ads used to say, "almost everyone." Anyway, how do you know what others in general think -- there has been no opinion poll.<<<<<<

Well, let's put it this way, even amongst pro-Creationism, anti-evolution fundies, you seem to be in the minority. Most others, with only the notable exception of Andy Schlafly (if that's not an incorrect usage of the word 'notable'), are simply trying to argue that a strain of E. coli evolving to have an ability that E.coli does not normally have is not down to evolution. Only you and he seem to be trying to argue that there is something dodgy going on (and, in fact, that's as precise as you're being - that something dodgy is going on), based entirely on what seems to be a total lack of comprehension on your part, or, in the case of Schlafly, a simple, stubborn unwillingness to accept any evidence, no matter how solid, that suggests evolution is true and an equally simple,stubborn unwillingness to admit he was wrong.


As to addressing the subject of this blog post, what you seem to be advocating, really, to use the analogy in the article is accepting input from someone who says that what we're teaching as French isn't actually French and offers as his 'proof' a collection of stories originally written somewhere between 1,500 and 5,000 years ago by a random collection of people, some of which are relating what the voices in their head are saying.

Monday, June 30, 2008 6:37:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>On the other hand, it might <<<<<

But it doesn't, doofus. Blount didn't want to answer the questions -- that's why he tried to send me off on a wild goose chase through the literature. It's called "bibliography bluffing."

>>>>> Only you and he seem to be trying to argue that there is something dodgy going on <<<<<

Not giving straight answers to simple, basic questions is "dodgy" by definition. As for Schlafly, I do not support his request for the raw data.

Monday, June 30, 2008 7:07:00 AM  
Anonymous Zmidponk said...

Larry screeched...

>>>>>>But it doesn't, doofus. Blount didn't want to answer the questions -- that's why he tried to send me off on a wild goose chase through the literature. It's called "bibliography bluffing."<<<<<<

I suggest you go back and reread what he said, and the comments on your blog post you already made about that. As has been made abundantly clear, he did answer you, then told you where to get a full and complete answer in precise detail. You just refuse to actually read it.

>>>>>>Not giving straight answers to simple, basic questions is "dodgy" by definition.<<<<<<

However, when somebody is asked a question, gives an answer, then gets gets accused of 'dodging the question' and 'posting bullshit', due to the questioner seemingly not understanding the answer, that's just the questioner being both rude and stupid.

Monday, June 30, 2008 11:32:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm away for a few days, there are several newbies (I think) handing Larry's ass to him (phae in particular, though I hesitate to write this leaving others out), and phae in particular has managed to shut up the ignorant and insipid poetry that "Jim Sherwood" is. He hasn't posted once in the most recent (and highly commented thread)! Good job all!

Tuesday, July 01, 2008 8:58:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

OK, you lousy dunghills, show me the places in the literature where my questions are answered.

Tuesday, July 01, 2008 9:17:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home