More lies from "Stupid Steven" Schafersman
As I have previously noted, "Stupid Steven" Schafersman is a member of the Earth and Space Sciences standards-drafting committee of the Texas Education Agency, president of the Texas Citizens for Science, a blogger on the Houston Chronicle's Evo.Sphere blog, and a habitual liar. He recently wrote on the Evo.Sphere blog,
What does Stupid Steven consider to be "real scientific knowledge"? Here is biographical information about four of the seven "radical religious right" Texas board of education members:
Also, board chairman Don McLeroy, who is also a member of the seven, has a degree in electrical engineering. Engineering students generally take little or no college biology but they do take a lot of the physical sciences and mathematics. A lot of engineering itself consists of the physical sciences.
Also, for at least the third time, Schafersman ignored the ~10-year period that the "strengths and weaknesses" language was in the Texas textbook proclamations. Describing the recommendations he gave to the standards-drafting committees, he said,
.
The "strengths and weaknesses" language was added to the textbook proclamations, which Schafersman called the "de facto" science standards, in the 1980's.
Also, Schafersman has been arbitrarily censoring all of my comments submitted to his posts on the Evo.Sphere blog, not just censoring them on a case-by-case basis. I complained about this to the Houston Chronicle staff, but they falsely claim that Evo.Sphere is an independent blog. On the contrary, the blog has the Houston Chronicle name on it and Houston Chronicle staffer Eric Berger set up the blog, invited Schafersman to be a blogger on it, made the decision to turn on comment moderation, and checks the blog for comments awaiting approval. I am now filing a formal complaint with the Texas Education Agency. Although Schafersman is not a permanent full-time employee of the TEA, he is a member of a TEA standards-drafting committee and in that sense he represents the TEA. I am asking that Schafersman be barred from official positions in the TEA unless the Houston Chronicle prevents him from censoring comments without the approval of an unbiased Houston Chronicle staff member.
.
Not one of the SBOE members has any real scientific knowledge, although several of the radical religious right members think they know quite a bit about science.
What does Stupid Steven consider to be "real scientific knowledge"? Here is biographical information about four of the seven "radical religious right" Texas board of education members:
Ken Mercer --
He earned a bachelor’s in biology from The University of Texas at Austin and a Bachelor of Business Administration from UT-San Antonio.
Barbara Cargill --. . . she taught biology in the Garland and Hurst-Euless-Bedford school districts between 1982 and 1991.
Cynthia Dunbar --Cynthia Noland Dunbar currently teaches anatomy & physiology to high school juniors and seniors.
Dunbar obtained her undergraduate degree in biology and psychology from the University of Missouri, Kansas City.
Gail Lowe --Lowe attended the University of Alabama. She received a Bachelor of Science degree from Louisiana State University in 1978. (the field of science is not specified)
Also, board chairman Don McLeroy, who is also a member of the seven, has a degree in electrical engineering. Engineering students generally take little or no college biology but they do take a lot of the physical sciences and mathematics. A lot of engineering itself consists of the physical sciences.
Also, for at least the third time, Schafersman ignored the ~10-year period that the "strengths and weaknesses" language was in the Texas textbook proclamations. Describing the recommendations he gave to the standards-drafting committees, he said,
.
Except for the bracketed examples of scientific explanations and the extra section for biology KS 7, the evolution section, each discipline got the same analysis and request about TEKS C3A, the controversial scientific method rule that has been "strengths and weaknesses" since 1998.
The "strengths and weaknesses" language was added to the textbook proclamations, which Schafersman called the "de facto" science standards, in the 1980's.
Also, Schafersman has been arbitrarily censoring all of my comments submitted to his posts on the Evo.Sphere blog, not just censoring them on a case-by-case basis. I complained about this to the Houston Chronicle staff, but they falsely claim that Evo.Sphere is an independent blog. On the contrary, the blog has the Houston Chronicle name on it and Houston Chronicle staffer Eric Berger set up the blog, invited Schafersman to be a blogger on it, made the decision to turn on comment moderation, and checks the blog for comments awaiting approval. I am now filing a formal complaint with the Texas Education Agency. Although Schafersman is not a permanent full-time employee of the TEA, he is a member of a TEA standards-drafting committee and in that sense he represents the TEA. I am asking that Schafersman be barred from official positions in the TEA unless the Houston Chronicle prevents him from censoring comments without the approval of an unbiased Houston Chronicle staff member.
.
Labels: Evolution education (new #4), Texas controversy (new #1)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 12/05/2008 02:47:00 AM
14 Comments:
It seems like your blog has died of suicide. Nearly all of the comments you let through are from "Michael" or "Jim Sherwood", neither of whom have posts which are as informative or well supported as many of those such as Kevin Vicklund, who used to post before you began your arbitrary censorship. I guess you decided you couldn't beat their arguments.
Wrong, bozo, Kevin Vicklund has not submitted a comment in a long time and the other trolls have virtually stopped submitting comments because they know that I won't post their crap anymore.
Lazarus,
Your posts are not exactly informative, no wonder you didn't mention yourself as having a such an informative post that has massive support...lol...
I think you rather post the typical demeaning responses. It's like when a conservative speaker is giving a presentation, and a bunch a liberals are heckling so loud, the person has to pause for a moment. The objective is to try and frustrate speech! Larry is not conservative, but it's the same principle.
And your buddy Steven Schafersman is doing the same thing with his blog.
Jim barfed,
>>>>> I'll bet you don't post this. <<<<<<
You win your bet, dunghill. I have no reason to post your stupid comment. It has no redeeming social value. It is just an unsupported personal attack against me.
> Your posts are not exactly informative <
Perhaps because I have never posted before?
> And your buddy Steven Schafersman is doing the same thing with his blog. <
My "buddy"? I had never heard of him except for the title on Larry's article. You creationists certainly make a lot out of nothing. Of course that is the basic principle of creationism.
@ Lazarus
I've mentioned this to Larry SEVERAL times, he doesn't seem to care. What he seems to want is a blog where he can feel accepted and loved by people who share similar ideas, rather than one where intelligent (or unintelligent) debate takes place.
It's kind of discouraging because this used to be a place where i could enjoy debate. (Albeit sometimes only with Larry's grand opinion of himself, but nonetheless debate.)
In his 12/3 blog, Schafersman blathers on about the menace supposedly posed by "Discovery Institute Creationists." The Discovery Institute, which isn't "creationist," has a wide variety of Senior Fellows, including David Berlinski. He's a secular Jew and an agnostic; and also for many years one of the leading critics of the conventional "evolutionary biologists," with their archaic, dogmatic and irrational posturing.
There's no sign of "creationism" in Berlinski; but he is good at demolishing old Darwinist evolutionary dogmas. I'm now reading his latest book, The Devil's Delusion, which makes a lot of excellent points.
Those who are tired of the fanatical and unsupported Darwinist notion that all species must have somehow cropped up by wholly mindless, mechanical processes, may wish to check out some of Berlinski's videos. I've put a lot of them in my "channel" or page at YouTube, which can be reached via my Blogger profile.
Incidentally, I'm not in all respects a fan of the Discovery Institute, which is politically conservative. But they've done a great job of bringing modern criticisms of the notions, fanciful speculations, and dogmas of the conventional "evolutionary biologists" to public attention: and it seems that discussion, criticism, and rational analysis are precisely what our bitterly entrenched Darwinists fear the most.
Jim Sherwood said,
>>>>>> There's no sign of "creationism" in Berlinski; but he is good at demolishing old Darwinist evolutionary dogmas. I'm now reading his latest book, The Devil's Delusion, which makes a lot of excellent points. <<<<<<<
Yes, even many Darwinists consider David Berlinski to be a good philosopher of science. A major exception is Paul R. Gross, but Gross has no credibility with me. I was going to post a little article about Gross's negative review of the "The Devil's Delusion," and I will probably do that soon.
Erin barfed,
>>>>>> What he seems to want is a blog where he can feel accepted and loved by people who share similar ideas, rather than one where intelligent (or unintelligent) debate takes place. <<<<<<
You are so full of living crap that it is coming out your ears. Compare this blog to Fatheaded Ed Brayton's Dispatches from the Culture Wars blog -- he kicked me off his blog permanently because my literal interpretation of a federal court rule was different from his preconceived notion of the purpose of the rule. I am not allowed to discuss co-evolution on the Florida Citizens for Science blog (I have several articles about co-evolution in the two "Non-ID criticisms of evolution" post-label groups listed in the sidebar of the home page). I could go on and on with other examples.
How does calling someone "stupid", or bozo, any of the epithets you hurl at people an actual form of intellectual discourse?
I like to make up nicknames that rhyme, alliterate, play on words, etc. -- e.g., Judge "Jackass" Jones, Sleazy PZ Myers, Fatheaded Ed Brayton, "Stupid Steven" Schafersman, Wesley "Ding" Elsberry, Loco Bozo Yoko Oh-no-no, etc..
So, rather than address an argument, you'd rather just call people names, eh? How is that even a remotely Christian attitude?
I don't just call people names, bozo, I also address the arguments. And I am not Christian.
And you consider an insult an appropriate response to an honest question? Why call someone a "bozo" you have never even met?
Well, it wasn't an honest question, because -- contrary to what the question stated -- I do not use name-calling as an alternative to addressing arguments. I consider name-calling to be sometimes OK when accompanied by serious arguments or points.
Post a Comment
<< Home