Fundies keep Texas board of education seats!
Hallelujah! As I pointed out, there were two critical races in which Texas board of education members who support keeping the "strengths and weaknesses" language were seriously challenged in the elections, and both members kept their seats! These races were very important because support for the "strengths and weaknesses" language is very precarious on the 15 member board of education: 7 support the language, 6 are opposed, and 2 are undecided. These election victories also help assure that the balance of 3 Darwin dogmatists and 3 Darwin doubters on a science standards review panel appointed by the board will be maintained. The election results are here and here. Also, these election results may help persuade the board's two swing voters to support the "strengths and weaknesses" language. Another thing in favor of this language is that both the chemistry and astronomy standards-drafting committees decided to retain it.
The Darwinists are fond of bragging about how the Dover school board members who supported the ID policy were voted off the board. But one of the factors in that election was taxpayer concern about the potential costs of the lawsuit.
The Darwinists are fond of bragging about how the Dover school board members who supported the ID policy were voted off the board. But one of the factors in that election was taxpayer concern about the potential costs of the lawsuit.
posted by Larry Fafarman | 11/05/2008 01:51:00 AM
2 Comments:
Maybe this will get your attention. Because you are a troll, you are on a short leash on my blog. I deleted your long comment--twice. My blog is not like yours--my blog has standards. I moderate comments and won't allow ad hominem remarks or untrue statements about me or anyone else. This is the case whether the name-calling or untrue statements are explicit or are the premise of a comment that you sneakily get in. Unlike you, I don't tolerate hate-talk against me or others.
This is the last warning you will get. I can't ban you myself but I will request that you are banned if you keep abusing my blog's rules. If I request, you will be banned, just as you have from every other evolution blog in the United States except for your own--and you should ban yourself from that one, too, for abusive language against your commenters. They have more tolerance than I do.
You need to remove these sentences to get your comment published:
"This is the first time that your opening post said that the "strengths and weaknesses" language is 20 years old (or thereabouts) instead of only 10 years old -- I had to correct you twice about that (and the first time you were very rude about my even bringing up the issue).
Your claims are untrue. Whether you know it or not is irrelevant to me.
"There you go again with name-calling and stereotyping."
Untrue and ad hominem (i.e. name-calling). Unlike your statement, my statement is true and backed up with evidence.
Don't try to argue with me. You need to start following the rules or leave my blog. I won't tolerate any more of your crap.
>>>>>> You need to remove these sentences to get your comment published:
"This is the first time that your opening post said that the "strengths and weaknesses" language is 20 years old (or thereabouts) instead of only 10 years old -- I had to correct you twice about that (and the first time you were very rude about my even bringing up the issue)." <<<<<<<
The fact is that your previous statements about the "weaknesses" language were false or very misleading. The first time I had to correct you, your original post said that the "weaknesses" language was about 20 years old but was in a textbook proclamation for about the first 10 years. When I pointed out that you implied that the "weaknesses" language was first added to the state science standards in 1997, your following rude response explained that "the textbook proclamations in the 1980s were the de facto state science standards in Texas" (from your comment of 9/26/2008 12:18 PM CDT in this thread on your blog):
LF's pickiness is unbelievably stupid and is the typical work of a troll, as is his stupid parsing of the word "evolution." The textbook proclamations in the 1980s were the defacto state science standards in Texas. The "strengths and weaknesses" language was the same then, in 1997, and today.
The second time I had to correct you, you made no mention at all of the ~10-year period that the "weaknesses" language was in the textbook proclamation --- you said,
The revised rule 3A is much superior because it removes some anti-science phrases that had been in the rule for many years, specifically "strengths and weaknesses." This language was added by Creationists in 1997 and has been used by them to attempt to damage science textbooks during their adoption process.
>>>>>>"There you go again with name-calling and stereotyping."
Untrue and ad hominem (i.e. name-calling). Unlike your statement, my statement is true and backed up with evidence. <<<<<<<<
Here is what your original post said:
Seven radical religious right and Creationist members of the SBOE want to keep the "strengths and weaknesses" language in,
Here was my full response:
There you go again with name-calling and stereotyping. Do you really know the motives of all the board members who want to retain the "strengths and weaknesses" language?
Your statement that all seven members who want to retain the "weaknesses" language are "radical religious right and Creationist" was not backed up by evidence.
No, I am not going to remove these sentences (though I am willing to say in the first sentence that the first of your two statements about the age of the "weaknesses" language was misleading but not false). I am instead going to complain to the Houston Chronicle staff.
>>>>> If I request, you will be banned <<<<<
Go ahead, make my day, you lousy crackpot.
Post a Comment
<< Home