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, November 08, 2008

Arbitrary Censorship on a Houston Chronicle blog

This article shows a comment I submitted in response to an article posted by Steven Schafersman on the Houston Chronicle's Evo.Sphere blog. Schafersman rejected the comment, claiming that the comment contains falsehoods. I showed here that those alleged falsehoods are in fact substantially true.

The Evo.Sphere blog is not Schafersman's personal blog but is an official blog of the Houston Chronicle, and therefore Steven Schafersman should not be permitted to arbitrarily censor comments submitted to the Evo.Sphere blog. I am complaining to the Houston Chronicle staff about this.

Labels:

8 Comments:

Blogger Jim Sherwood said...

I get the impression that the Houston Chronicle is a longtime Darwin-Line outfit, from their editorials, etc. Their editors are apparently so clueless, conformist, and ignorant that they think that the conventional theory of evolution is some sort of reliable, verifiable science. Questioning The Official Scientific Establishment in any way appears to be far beyond their intellectual powers. But that's hardly unusual among American journalists. Tom Brokaw, for instance, is an example of an unreflective Darwin-fan.

As for Schafersman, his religions appear to be philosophical materialism and Darwinism. He's evidently a fairly typical religious zealot of that variety, so it's no suprise if he wants to have his religions preached as alleged science, in public schools.

Saturday, November 08, 2008 4:05:00 PM  
Blogger Jim Sherwood said...

As for Brokaw, The New York Daily News, Nov.18, 2005, reported on his speech at a fundraiser for the American Museum of Natural History:

"This is a time when those of us who care about science and Darwin have to take a stand," museum patron Tom Brokaw told the black-tied, bejeweled species..."

The 'bejeweled' ones were "aware that Bush favors teaching creationism alongside evolution in science classes," according to the paper.

Of course, Bush actually spoke about intelligent design, which is hardly "creationism." And he said nothing about "science classes."

With characters like Brokaw feeding the public the supposed "news," it's no marvel that the public is so misinformed about the controversy.

Saturday, November 08, 2008 5:28:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> Questioning The Official Scientific Establishment in any way appears to be far beyond their intellectual powers. But that's hardly unusual among American journalists. <<<<<<<

Yes -- for example, I cannot recall seeing any mainstream media editorial that opposes censorship of criticisms of Darwinism.

>>>>>> As for Schafersman, his religions appear to be philosophical materialism and Darwinism. He's evidently a fairly typical religious zealot of that variety, so it's no suprise if he wants to have his religions preached as alleged science, in public schools. <<<<<<<

Yes -- he shamelessly made the following statement in the comments that he submitted to the Texas Education Agency on the proposed Texas science standards:

KS(7) Please add "SE(F) identify several primate and hominid fossils, their relationship to modern humans, and features that humans have obtained through evolution from them such as stereo vision, long limbs, fingernails rather than claws, a vestigial vermiform appendix, bipedal locomotion, and a larger brain." In the 21st Century, it is necessary that students learn the scientific explanation for human origins, and it is impermissible to keep maintaining the pretense that humans are qualitatively different from other animals (we are quantitatively different, of course, in several respects). If you really wanted to make sure evolution is presented comprehensively, you could require that students know the features that humans inherited from fish (see Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish). (emphasis added)

So it is clear that he is trying to use science education to indoctrinate students with his philosophical and religious views. He makes no attempt to hide the fact that this is at least one of his purposes.

Saturday, November 08, 2008 8:09:00 PM  
Blogger Tor Hershman said...

Here's a wee 'one god' thingy to debate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7iQRFP_e90


.

Sunday, November 09, 2008 10:08:00 AM  
Anonymous Michael said...

Larry,

You act too much like a cowboy, telling someone to ban you to make your day...lol...

It's obvious the Houston Chronicle and like others use the term "strength and weakness" of science theories as single creationist idea.

Just like they tried to use Sarah Palin. They accused her of trying to put creationism in the public classrooms, but as governor there was no such agenda, if there was, professors at Alaska University would have been complaining.

While it was true Sarah Palin is a creationist and endorses the idea of intelligent design being discuss in class, that didn't mean she was trying to put creationism in the public schools.

I've read in various publications, evolutionists debating the strengths and weaknesses of their pet theories. Now if they can do it, why can't students do the same thing?

Sunday, November 09, 2008 12:53:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Michael said,
>>>>>> It's obvious the Houston Chronicle and like others use the term "strength and weakness" of science theories as single creationist idea.

Just like they tried to use Sarah Palin. They accused her of trying to put creationism in the public classrooms, but as governor there was no such agenda, if there was, professors at Alaska University would have been complaining. <<<<<<

OK, but those things have nothing to do with Schafersman's stated reasons for blocking my comment.

>>>>>I've read in various publications, evolutionists debating the strengths and weaknesses of their pet theories. Now if they can do it, why can't students do the same thing? <<<<<<

I agree.

Sunday, November 09, 2008 1:08:00 PM  
Blogger Voice in the Urbanness said...

> OK, but those things have nothing to do with Schafersman's stated reasons for blocking my comment. <

Perhaps your comment contained something that he redefined as personal gossip or held to be factually false?

Sunday, November 09, 2008 9:35:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Originally I was not going to publish the preceding comment, but I decided to publish it as an example of the hundreds of breathtakingly inane comments that clutter up this blog.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 8:33:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home