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.

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.

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Double standard: Judge Jones and the Texas board of education

There are now efforts in the Texas state legislature to do the following:

(1) -- remove the Texas board of education's powers to approve textbooks and state standards for education, and give those powers to appointed officials, e.g., the Texas Commissioner of Education.

(2) -- deny Don McLeroy the state senate's confirmation of his current position of board chairman.

The best source of information on these efforts is the blog of the Texas Freedom Network. I have posted a lot of comments on that blog.

The Darwinists just wanted the Texas board of education to rubber stamp the standards-drafting committees' proposed new state science standards without making any changes. If Judge John E. Jones III, who has no scientific background (he has a bachelor's degree in political science and a law degree), could rule on the scientific merits of intelligent design after hearing testimony from experts, then why can’t the Texas BOE — which has some members with science degrees and/or science teaching experience — also make decisions about questions requiring scientific knowledge? And the Darwinists don't even consider the Texas board of education qualified to make decisions on issues that do not require any expertise, e.g., the issue of whether to retain the "strengths and weaknesses" language in the state science standards.



Blogger Jim Sherwood said...

A lot of this depends upon politics. It seems that the Republican margin in the Texas House of Representatives was cut from 79-71 to only 76-74 in the 2008 election. But Republicans still enjoy a sizable 19-12 majority in the Texas Senate, down only slightly from 20-11.

Democrats in general are much more favorable to the archaic Darwin-is-the-sacred-faith line than are Republicans, although there are a significant number of Republican Darwin-addicts. Texas also has a Republican governor.

So it would probably be hard for the old-fashioned Darwin-liners to prevail in the legislature, given the substantial support among Republicans for academic freedom and for questioning obsolete and easy-to-question Darwinist doctrines in the public schools.

It's too bad so many Democratic politicians are still cluelessly wedded to ancient Darwinist dogma, a situation which is especially obvious here in San Francisco. But any political party or other group which remains entranced by Darwinism seems to be likely to suffer in the long run, as Darwinism continues to decline and to disintegrate. Liberal Democrats aren't very liberal at all when they remain stupidly bound to Darwinist pseudoscience.

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:41:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Jim Sherwood said,
>>>>>>So it would probably be hard for the old-fashioned Darwin-liners to prevail in the legislature <<<<<<

Chairman McLeroy needs at least two-thirds of the state senate, or 21 votes, for confirmation, so even if he gets every one of the 19 Republican senators' votes, he would need at least two votes from the 12 Democrats.

Thursday, April 23, 2009 6:00:00 PM  
Blogger Jim Sherwood said...

McLeroy is very probably in trouble if he needs a two-thirds majority for confirmation. I wasn't aware of that.

That's too bad. I don't agree with his creationist views; but he deserves great credit for standing up for freedom and for the rights of the people, against arbitrary and autocratic "experts."

At least it's likely that the Darwin-dogma crowd will have trouble in their efforts to curtail the BOE's powers.

Thursday, April 23, 2009 6:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Michael said...

McLeroy was appointed back in 2007 for this job. And no doubt if there was a vote, he would have been under political heat from militant Darwinists back then as he is now.

It's not only what you do in a position of authority (how much bowing down to special interests) but also who you are and how strong your convictions are in public.

Yes, McLeroy confirmation is in trouble, but there is still hope he gets back in. There is no doubt, Dems are threatening other Dems not to defect otherwise they will face consequences from their own party and special interest groups who might not support them for re-election.

Friday, April 24, 2009 12:21:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home