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, November 02, 2008

Stupid Steve's comments on proposed Texas science standards

I have previous posts about Stupid Steven Schafersman, one of the zaniest crackpot Darwinists to come down the pike [1] [2] [3]. He is president of the Texas Citizens for Science and a blogger on the Houston Chronicle's Evo.Sphere blog. In an Evo.Sphere blog article titled "My Comments to the Texas Education Agency About the Proposed Revised Science Standards," he said,

To Biology:

KS(7) I request that you change "The student knows evolutionary theory is an explanation for the diversity of life" to "...evolution is an explanation...." or "...biological evolution is an explanation...." No where else in your standards do you use the term "theory," not for cell theory, genetic theory, ecological theory, developmental theory, etc. Your wording suggests that evolution is a theory in the popular sense while other biological knowledge is more reliable. As you must be aware, science opponents constantly misrepresent the term "theory" and claim that it means its content is less reliable and accurate than it really is. I strongly suggest you avoid the term "theory" completely, or at the very least preface it with the word "scientific," such as "...the scientific theory of evolution is an explanation...." Also, if you insist on using the term "theory," you should define it correctly.

Definition of "process server": Someone who serves process on a state board of education in a lawsuit charging that state science standards call evolution a "theory" without noting that the scientific meaning of the word "theory" is different from the everyday meaning of the word.

Stupid Steve then outdoes himself:
.
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)

And this hypocrite complains that the fundies are trying to indoctrinate public-school students with philosophical or religious beliefs.

What is especially sad is that this jerk is a member of the committee that drafted the Texas Earth and Space Science standards.

Another Evo.Sphere blogger posted this gem:

Sarah Palin would probably approve of Mengele’s methodology; after all Darwinian evolution did not serve as a guiding principle in his studies, nor were federal Dollars (or Reichsmarks) spent on fruit flies.

.

Labels:

7 Comments:

Anonymous Michael said...

Mr Schafersman, is trying to enhance evolution to dogma in Texas. And uses the religious argument because it's easier (as the courts ruled about church and state) than allowing critical thinking of evolution. Special interest groups are a problem when it comes to public education.

An interesting side note, old Texas science standards to my knowledge has never even gone to court, for teaching creationism or intelligent design.

Monday, November 03, 2008 12:05:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This from the one who always redefines words.

Monday, November 03, 2008 7:00:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

"Always"? When have I ever redefined a word, dunghill?

Monday, November 03, 2008 8:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A few examples:

goal
intent
systematic
declaratory judgment

Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:18:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Wrong, idiot -- I have always used standard dictionaries' definitions of those terms.

You lose.

Wednesday, November 05, 2008 9:32:00 AM  
Anonymous Anon said...

A few examples:

goal
intent
systematic
declaratory judgment

lose

Friday, November 07, 2008 1:02:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

A word you have redefined, dunghill:

example

Friday, November 07, 2008 11:15:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home