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.

.