Richard B. Hoppe posted Entry 2017 on February 14, 2006 06:33 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2012

UPDATE 2: MP3 of Board debate on the motion

Update: Text of the motion is now below the fold

Ohio is no longer on the Disco Institute’s list of favorite states for pilgrimages. Late this afternoon, by an 11-4 vote, the Ohio State Board of Education stripped out the intelligent-design creationist “critical analysis of evolution” benchmark, indicator, and lesson plan from the 10th Grade Biology curriculum.

I do not yet have the exact text of the resolution – it was amended somewhat in flight, so I have to transcribe the recording to get the precise wording. But the resolution had four main parts: It’s below the fold.

1. Eliminate the “critical analysis of evolution” benchmark and indicator from the Science Standards.

2. Eliminate the “Critical Analysis of Evolution” model lesson plan from the Model Curriculum..

3. Instruct the Achievement Committee (formerly the Standards Committee) to consider whether the benchmark, indicator, and lesson plan should be replaced with something more acceptable.

4. Instruct the Ohio Department of Education to notify every school district in Ohio of these actions.

The press release of Ohio Citizens for Science, distributed immediately after the vote, is below the fold. Later tonight when I have transcribed the final form of the motion from the recording I’ll post that below the fold as well.

Text of the motion:

Resolution to Modify the Ohio State Science Standards and Model Curriculum

Resolved, that the Superintendent of Public Instruction be, and she hereby is, directed to take the following actions immediately:

1) Delete the model lesson plan, Critical Analysis of Evolution, from the state board-approved curriculum and remove its availability from print sources, technology sources, and any other Ohio Board of Education/Ohio Department of Education mechanism that makes it available for use.

2) Delete the following sentences from Grade 10 Life Science Benchmark H: “Describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory. (The intent of this benchmark does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design.)”, and delete Indicator 23 in its entirety, and adjust all print sources, technology sources, and any other Ohio Board of Education/Ohio Department of Education documents to reflect the removal;

3) The Achievement Committee of the Sate Board of Education is charged to consider whether the deleted model lesson, Benchmark H and Indicator 23 shoud be replaced by a different benchmark, lesson, and indicator, and if so, to present any recommendation to the entire State Board for adoption;

4) Communicate the fact of the above actions to all public school superintendents and high school principals in Ohio.

Ohio Citizens for Science Press Release
February 14, 2006
For Immediate Release

The Directors and members of Ohio Citizens for Science applaud the Ohio State Board of Education for removing the creationist material from the State Standards and Model Curriculum.

We are pleased that Members of the Board have affirmed the importance of honest science education in Ohio public schools, and we stand ready to assist the Board however we can in advancing that effort.

We are still vigilant, as are our allies. Efforts to undermine excellent science education will not stop here, and as Kansas learned to its regret, relaxation can be dangerous. We urge the Board, the Ohio Department of Education, and concerned citizens to continue to work to improve Ohio’s public schools

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #79942

Posted by Skip Evans on February 14, 2006 6:55 PM (e)

Good going for Ohio!

It’s pretty obvious that the Dover decision is having its impact, as it rightly should, all over the country.

The DI can whine and pout all they what, but what was bound to happen happened: the courts opened up a king size can of whip ass on them for being the deceitful politicos they’ve been from the start.

They can call Jones an activist judge until they’re blue in the face, but school boards and boards of education all over the country are heeding the warning: ID is creationism, plain and simple.

This is certainly not the end of the anti-evolution movement. As long as there are people who feel an existential threat from science, especially evolutionary biology, we’ll have people like the DI to contend with.

But to quote Flounder from Animal House, watching them get pounded with defeat after defeat, “Oh boy, is this great!”

Comment #79944

Posted by Russell on February 14, 2006 7:02 PM (e)

The Gory Details (for those that are interested):

Colleen Grady was recognized by the Board President Westendorf to offer her “pre-emptive” motion before Martha Wise (who has fought this ID nonsense from Day 1 and deserves the thanks of a grateful nation) was allowed to offer hers. Grady’s was to request legal advice from Atty. General Petro (running for Gov. of course, and probably anxious to prove his religious right bona fides).

Wise offered her motion AS AN AMENDMENT, REPLACING Grady’s motion. After consultation with the Board’s official lawyer to see if that was kosher, it was allowed, over strenuous objections of ID advocate Deborah Owens-Fink.

Then Eric Okerson offered HIS motion as an amendment to Grady’s motion, AS ALREADY AMENDED by replacement with Wise’s motion. His amendment was to remove the lesson plan and the benchmark immediately, but to charge the “Achievement Committee” (previously known as the “Standards Committee, the one that produced the flawed benchmark and lesson plan in the first place) with coming up with replacements. Carl Wick wanted assurances that the committee was free to retain anything “good” about the current lesson plan in their eventual re-do, and was assured that yes, that was OK.
(So don’t relax your guard, folks!)

Are you with me so far?

Cochran and Owens-Fink, of course, voiced their strenuous (and, might I add parenthetically, obnoxious) objections, partly because 3 members who had originally approved the unfortunate lesson last month were absent.

Then there was a nested series of votes: first on the Okerson’s amendment, than on Martha Wise’s amendment, and finally on the whole package.

All were in favor EXCEPT: Owens-Fink, Cochran, Grady and Westendorf.

Comment #79946

Posted by Russell on February 14, 2006 7:07 PM (e)

I should point out that Grady’s motion, to request a legal opinion from the Attorney General, would have left the problematic language in place until such time as he got around to replying - which, given the fact that he’s trying to out-right-wing Kenneth Blackwell - would probably mean either (1) he’d stall as long as possible, or (2) say Intelligent Design (oh, excuse me) “teach the controversy” is hunky-dory, as did Dover’s legal advisor.

Comment #79948

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on February 14, 2006 7:13 PM (e)

Kansas, you’re next.

Comment #79954

Posted by steve s on February 14, 2006 7:29 PM (e)

Weren’t we supposed to get some Waterlii? I can’t recall, all these legal victories keep distracting me.

Comment #79957

Posted by Sir_Toejam on February 14, 2006 7:32 PM (e)

the courts opened up a king size can of whip ass on them for being the deceitful politicos they’ve been from the start…

I believe the correct usage is “whup ass”.

:p

and just to reiterate what I’m sure everyone here is feeling..

WOOT!

Comment #79963

Posted by Cassandra on February 14, 2006 7:43 PM (e)

Excellent, excellent news!!
Great job to all of you!
So, did anyone see the short woman with the baby walk in to the meeting at around 9:30 this morning? That would be me. LOL! I was planning for my son to be asleep by the time I got there so that I could have just held him sleeping for a while, but he had other ideas.

Comment #79967

Posted by steve s on February 14, 2006 7:49 PM (e)

We can do a little victory jig, but we also need a victory song. Okay, I’ll start it, but only a few verses:

(To the tune of Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic)

Everything you do, oh Casey Luskin,
Everything you do just goes so wrong,

okay, somebody take it–

Comment #79973

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on February 14, 2006 8:25 PM (e)

OK, let’s talk possible future scenarios —- my understanding is that the standards will now get sent back to committee (the same committee that wrote them in the first place, yes?) to get re-written. Suppose that this committee replies with “Those are the standards we want, tough luck if you don’t like them”. Then what?

Comment #79975

Posted by Mike Walker on February 14, 2006 8:38 PM (e)

Methinks “The Wedge” got at least 10 years longer :)

Comment #79978

Posted by RBH on February 14, 2006 8:46 PM (e)

Lenny asked

OK, let’s talk possible future scenarios —— my understanding is that the standards will now get sent back to committee (the same committee that wrote them in the first place, yes?) to get re-written. Suppose that this committee replies with “Those are the standards we want, tough luck if you don’t like them”. Then what?

The motion that was passed required that any new benchmark, indicator, and/or standard must come back to the full board for approval. That question was raised in the debate, and it was answered by observing that to do so would be interpreted (parliamentarily) as a motion to reconsider, and would therefore be out of order for a committee to bring. Further, the instruction was not to “send the benchmark, etc., back to committee”, but rather was to charge the committee to see if something new was needed to replace the deleted items. Again, I have to slog through several hours of digital recording to reconstruct the final form of the motion that was finally passed, as amended, but that specific point was discussed and dismissed.

And if the committee did actually try that, I’m certain that the moderate majority on the board would nuke it as a flat insult to their vote today. Several of them stuck their political necks out to deep-six the crap, and if the committee tried to bring it back they’d nuke it. Even Owens-Fink isn’t that politically stupid.

RBH

Comment #79980

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on February 14, 2006 8:58 PM (e)

The motion that was passed required that any new benchmark, indicator, and/or standard must come back to the full board for approval. That question was raised in the debate, and it was answered by observing that to do so would be interpreted (parliamentarily) as a motion to reconsider, and would therefore be out of order for a committee to bring. Further, the instruction was not to “send the benchmark, etc., back to committee”, but rather was to charge the committee to see if something new was needed to replace the deleted items. Again, I have to slog through several hours of digital recording to reconstruct the final form of the motion that was finally passed, as amended, but that specific point was discussed and dismissed.

And if the committee did actually try to bring back the same crap, I’m certain that the moderate middle on the board would regard it as a flat insult to their vote today. Several of them stuck their political necks out to deep-six the crap, and if the committee tried to bring it back essentially unchanged they’d vote to nuke it. Even Owens-Fink isn’t that politically stupid.

Well, then it seems as if “teach the controversy” is pretty much a dead fish.

So, what does DI have left to rally around?

Comment #79983

Posted by Mike Walker on February 14, 2006 9:03 PM (e)

Got to love the evolutionnews.org (IDist) web site:

“Darwinists Bully Ohio School Board into Censoring Teaching of Evolution”

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/02/darwinists_…

Comment #79987

Posted by david gehrig on February 14, 2006 9:13 PM (e)

Sir Toejam wrote:

I believe the correct usage is “whup ass”.

On this topic, I think the phrase is “flagellum ass.”

Comment #79988

Posted by Rick @ shrimp and grits on February 14, 2006 9:15 PM (e)

Lenny says “So, what does DI have left to rally around?”

South Carolina, perhaps?

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/13865980.ht…

I mean, if this ever gets out of the quicksand of the state legislature, I’m sure it’d get the same smackdown in court that it has elsewhere. I’m still pissed off that my state is wasting time on this garbage.

Good for Ohio, though!

Comment #79990

Posted by shiva on February 14, 2006 9:17 PM (e)

“Darwin-only activists are dumbing down the teaching of evolution and stopping science learning,” said Casey Luskin

This coming from a guy who supposedly quit biology! Wonder why the disco guys are fretting over science standards. Who’s preventing them conducting scientific research?

Comment #79991

Posted by R Cunningham on February 14, 2006 9:20 PM (e)

Please accept my heartfelt congratulations and thanks to each of you that worked so hard to make this possible.

Comment #79994

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on February 14, 2006 9:25 PM (e)

Lenny says “So, what does DI have left to rally around?”

South Carolina, perhaps?

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/13865980.ht…

I mean, if this ever gets out of the quicksand of the state legislature, I’m sure it’d get the same smackdown in court that it has elsewhere. I’m still pissed off that my state is wasting time on this garbage.

Well, the Kansas Kooks won’t survive a court challenge either.

But what I meant was, now that ID “theory” is dead, and “teach the controversy” is also dead, what’s left for them? Now that they can’t teach their, uh, “alternative scientific theory”, and can’t teach the, uh, “scientific evidence against evolution”, what’s left for them to present?

Comment #79998

Posted by Steviepinhead on February 14, 2006 9:31 PM (e)

david gehrig:

On this topic, I think the phrase is “flagellum ass.”

Poor li’l wing butts–fresh out of propellors.

That’ll teach them to go ‘round and’round in circles!

Comment #80002

Posted by FL on February 14, 2006 9:46 PM (e)

Well, the Kansas Kooks won’t survive a court challenge either.

Well, we shall see, oh yeah. We shall seeee.

In the meantime, I have a sincere question for Lenny or RBH especially:

Has Ohio’s definition of science specifically been repealed or altered in any way, shape or form, by this board action?

Comment #80005

Posted by Jeremy Mohn on February 14, 2006 9:51 PM (e)

Congrats Ohio! Here’s hoping that a similar resolution can be replicated here in Kansas.

If you’re in the mood to kick back and celebrate, you might want to listen to the song I wrote about ID (before it becomes totally outdated).

Comment #80008

Posted by Rick @ shrimp and grits on February 14, 2006 10:13 PM (e)

But what I meant was, now that ID “theory” is dead, and “teach the controversy” is also dead, what’s left for them? Now that they can’t teach their, uh, “alternative scientific theory”, and can’t teach the, uh, “scientific evidence against evolution”, what’s left for them to present?

The same thing they had before … nothing. :) This doesn’t stop people like SC’s Sen. Fair from trying to push it through anyway.

I just hope SC’s board of education does what Ohio’s did.

Comment #80009

Posted by Flint on February 14, 2006 10:23 PM (e)

FL has a point here. Has anyone read the story in the news section of the latest issue of Science? In Kansas, something like 6 of the 8 creationists are up for re-election this year, and are being opposed by, well, opponents who are being very very careful NOT to make ‘intelligent design’ or indeed anything to do with evolution the issue here. These people are quick to admit that, while they will come out in favor of teaching science in science class if asked, if they made evolution the issue they’d almost surely lose.

Fact is, a solid majority of Kansas citizens WANT Jeezus in science class, and everywhere else. There is noplace Jeezus doesn’t belong front and center, in the opinion of enough voters to elect any state-wide candidate. Yes, of course most Kansans want science taught in science class. But they agree with Dembski - anything that denies Jeezus can’t be good, not good science, not good hygiene, not good auto mechanics.

It’s clearly not a matter of rousing the non-fanatical sleeping majority and getting them to the polls to throw out the zealots. It’s a tricky political tapdance, and the pro-science candidates are carefully targeting other issues like spending, scheduling, and whatever. On a straight up-or-down vote, evolution would get slaughtered in Kansas by anything close to a cross-section of voters.

Comment #80010

Posted by mplavcan on February 14, 2006 10:29 PM (e)

I always thought it was “whoop ass.” The OED lists both whup and whoop as slang derivatives of whip, therefore I think we have to concede that “whip ass” is at least a proper form.

Regardless, looks like the Wedge has turned into a Wedgie.

Comment #80013

Posted by 386sx on February 14, 2006 11:13 PM (e)

Everything you do, oh Casey Luskin,
Everything you do just goes so wrong,

A Casey whose hungry mouth is prest
Against the DI’s flowing breast;

Who intimately lives without a brain;
Dude, you give me a big migrane.

But only God can make a tree…

Comment #80014

Posted by RBH on February 14, 2006 11:23 PM (e)

Rather than screw around figuring out how to toss off-topic comments to the Bathroom Wall, I’m merely going to delete them, as I just have three in a derail generated by Andy H/Larry Fafa. Sorry, RGD and ST_J, but they’re gone. I doubt that you’ll miss them. [chuckle]

RBH

Comment #80016

Posted by 386sx on February 14, 2006 11:31 PM (e)

Hey Mr. RBH you can delete my posts any time you feel like it buddy. Because you rock, Cleveland rocks, and the whole freaking state of Ohio rocks too. By the way, some of the radio stations around here are reporting that Intelligent Design is “a form of creationism”, as well they should.

Thanks Mr. RBH!

Comment #80023

Posted by Anton Mates on February 15, 2006 12:26 AM (e)

RBH wrote:

And if the committee did actually try that, I’m certain that the moderate majority on the board would nuke it as a flat insult to their vote today. Several of them stuck their political necks out to deep-six the crap, and if the committee tried to bring it back they’d nuke it. Even Owens-Fink isn’t that politically stupid.

Moreover, while Cochran’s one of the co-chairs on the committee, the other co-chair is Jim Craig, who was one of the ones voting to kill the lesson plan this time (though he’s been for it in the past.) Wise is on it too, so hopefully they can leaven any new attempts at insanity.

It seemed that one of the big lessons most Board members had learned was, “Next time, check and see what the scientists you consulted with actually think.” Many of them stated that before this whole flap they had no idea how strong the opposition was to this plan within their science advisory committee and the DoE’s science staff. Hopefully they’ll be working harder to listen for that next time…I think they’ve learned that they can’t really trust Cochran and Fink to do that for them!

Amusing moment in the closing period when members of the public were speaking–a history/philosophy student got up to explain that linking ID with religion and particularly (he said) Christianity was a “red herring.” ID and evolution(!) were both well-established philosophies long before Darwin and we should judge them on philosophical merit, and not assume people push ID just because they’re religious. The next speaker up began by saying (paraphrased), “This is really all about trust in the Bible.” She continued to talk about how she used to live a life of sin before coming to Jesus, and how evolution caused people to reject God and set themselves up as gods, etc., and basically demolished the previous speaker’s claim. As Lenny says, fundamentalists are really really bad at pretending it’s not a religious issue.

Oh, there was also an old gentleman who spoke on human/dinosaur coexistence and handed out a paper showing stegosaurs on Cambodian temple walls and styracosaurs on Hebrew temple walls. No one on the board seemed to want to discuss this with him.

Comment #80025

Posted by Patricia on February 15, 2006 12:42 AM (e)

natural world

Comment #80026

Posted by hugechavz on February 15, 2006 12:49 AM (e)

I’m sure you guys have discussed this ad nauseum, and stick by your conclusion, but I’m not so clear on how eliminating ID from the curriculum is a good thing. Isn’t this what public education is for? If people don’t hear it from science teachers, can we expect they’ll learn it from their parents?

I guess you can’t really trust science teachers to get the nuance of ID’s failure, or trust them all to follow the guidelines. Yet, ID is one of the biggest boondoggles peddled to God-fearing citizens in quite a while–is it not better to illuminate this, the proximate source of this deception, and arm kids with the material to at least be skeptical?

Maybe teaching evolution is enough, and you realy do leave the rest to parents. I sympathize with you guys, but when I hear that we fought to remove “critical analysis of evolution” (even though the title could be a misleading lie), it makes me a little worried–like we’re giving up a great opportunity.

Comment #80028

Posted by Patricia on February 15, 2006 12:53 AM (e)

Definition of science as found in Scientific Ways of Knowing section, Benchmark A:

“Scientific knowledge must be based on evidence, be predictive, logical, subject to modification, and limited to the natural world.”

Comment #80029

Posted by Patricia on February 15, 2006 1:00 AM (e)

Definition of science further elaborated under Benchmark A, Indicator 3”

“Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, based on observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation and theory building, which leads to more adequate explanation of natural phenomena.”

This part of the definition was adopted by Kansas without the associated Benchmark A language that limits science (as a way of knowing) to natural explanations.

Comment #80031

Posted by RBH on February 15, 2006 1:44 AM (e)

hughchavez wrote

I’m sure you guys have discussed this ad nauseum, and stick by your conclusion, but I’m not so clear on how eliminating ID from the curriculum is a good thing. Isn’t this what public education is for? If people don’t hear it from science teachers, can we expect they’ll learn it from their parents?

The presupposition of that remark is that there is such a thing as “ID” to teach in public education. There isn’t. ID has nothing at all to offer except fake claims about evolution – a litany of old-time creationist distortions, misrepresentations and flat lies about the evidence masquerading as “controversies”. That is literally all there is to it. What would one teach? I’ve read a slew of ID glop, from Morris and Gish (old time creationists) to Dembski, Behe, Wells, and Meyer. Here is the complete content of ID “theory”:

Sometime or other, something or other designed some biological thing or other, and then somehow or other manufactured that biological thing (whatever it was) in matter and energy, while leaving no traces of the design process, the manufacturing process, or the existence of whatever it was that did the designing and/or manufacturing.

Now you tell me why one should teach that in a science class.

RBH

Comment #80032

Posted by whoever on February 15, 2006 1:48 AM (e)

So without critical analysis this essentially means that evolution will be taught as dogma.

Perfect. Good victory. Censoring criticism IS the only way you can keep your NDEist balloon afloat.

Congratulations!

Comment #80033

Posted by AD on February 15, 2006 1:54 AM (e)

Right, because obviously, there’s no critical analysis at all going on in the science world. None! They just all dream stuff up without testing it and accept it as God-given fact.

Wait.

I seem to have confused ID with science momentarily.

Whoever… have you ever worked in a laboratory? Do you even know what a laboratory is? Your ignorance of the critical analysis process doesn’t mean it fails to exist, it just means you fail to know what is going on.

Better luck next time.

Comment #80034

Posted by PvM on February 15, 2006 1:56 AM (e)

Life’s tough isn’t it davescot eh whoever.
The sham is over… Science once again won over the forces of darkness :-)

Comment #80035

Posted by whoever on February 15, 2006 1:56 AM (e)

Censoring criticism will not succeed in the long run, of course. You people remind me of China trying to give its people internet access for obvious good of the Chinese people but censoring the parts of it that don’t follow the communist party line for the good of the Chinese gov’t.

Pathetic and doomed.

Comment #80037

Posted by whoever on February 15, 2006 2:03 AM (e)

By the way, your trackback URLs don’t work. Try cutting and pasting one into a browser and see what happens. Or just ask yourself why there are ZERO trackbacks on every individual article here.

Is the trackback URL there but broken just to further the sham that this is an open forum?

Why don’t you censorship soldiers at least be honest about it? I could respect you if you were at least honest about it.

Comment #80038

Posted by PvM on February 15, 2006 2:04 AM (e)

Hi Davescot, why not whine about it on Dembski’s blog? Or have your ‘powers’ been severely limited after your last faux pas?

Comment #80040

Posted by PvM on February 15, 2006 2:06 AM (e)

You’re are wrong, there are trackbacks on articles here. Even recent ones, Checkout Ohio Win for instance.
Don’t blame others for your inability to use the internet.

Comment #80041

Posted by Sir_Toejam on February 15, 2006 2:10 AM (e)

Sorry, RGD and ST_J, but they’re gone. I doubt that you’ll miss them.

not a bit.

Comment #80042

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on February 15, 2006 2:47 AM (e)

Looks like all the usual suspects and trolls are upset that once again ID loses. You’d think after losing so often they’d be rather used to the whole affair by now.

Comment #80045

Posted by speck on February 15, 2006 4:39 AM (e)

“Whoever”, you’re absolutely right. Censorship doesn’t prevent the truth from getting out.

Theocrats like you held the reins of “science” for centuries, even using torture to subdue contrary view points… But true science still managed to propagate forth and the world is a better place for it…

Thanks just the same. You’ve reminded me to pick up some cheese at the grocery store.

Comment #80046

Posted by Stephen Elliott on February 15, 2006 4:56 AM (e)

Posted by whoever on February 15, 2006 01:48 AM (e)

So without critical analysis this essentially means that evolution will be taught as dogma.

Perfect. Good victory. Censoring criticism IS the only way you can keep your NDEist balloon afloat.

Congratulations!

You are silly.

Do you think that scientists are not questioning evolution?

Or is it that you consider High School the correct place for cutting edge scientific research?

Comment #80047

Posted by Sir_Toejam on February 15, 2006 5:05 AM (e)

…why there are ZERO trackbacks on every individual article here.

more lies from Dave Scott. the thread just below this one has 2.

true there haven’t been many trackbacks lately, but there have been some.

better get your eyes checked there, Davey…

oh wait, too late; you’ve already made a fool of yourself over on UD yet again by making an entire thread about your own inability to post a trackback, and saying there aren’t any trackbacks on PT.

gees dave, all you had to do was look ONE thread below this one.

sad.

I truly think you are losing what’s left of your mind.

Is that the endpoint of all those years of psychological schism you’ve inflicted on yourself??

Comment #80049

Posted by Tim Hague on February 15, 2006 5:14 AM (e)

Jeremy Mohn,

your song is great, loved it!

You should send it to some record labels, seriously.

Comment #80051

Posted by Andy H. on February 15, 2006 5:37 AM (e)

Comment #80041
Posted by Sir_Toejam on February 15, 2006 02:10 AM

“Sorry, RGD and ST_J, but they’re gone. I doubt that you’ll miss them.”

not a bit.

I won’t miss them either. Go ahead, continue to screw up Panda’s Thumb with unnecessary duplicate threads. See if I care.

Comment #80053

Posted by Stephen Elliott on February 15, 2006 6:12 AM (e)

Posted by Andy H. on February 15, 2006 05:37 AM (e)

I won’t miss them either. Go ahead, continue to screw up Panda’s Thumb with unnecessary duplicate threads. See if I care.

LOL. Was you stamping your foot while typing that comment?

Larry, why don’t you go over to UD? You could offer them free legal advice. ID has a legal track-record that you could not possibly make any worse.

Comment #80056

Posted by tiredofit on February 15, 2006 6:43 AM (e)

Patricia, earlier you stated:
Definition of science as found in Scientific Ways of Knowing section, Benchmark A:

“Scientific knowledge must be based on evidence, be predictive, logical, subject to modification, and limited to the natural world.”

Was this sentence changed yesterday?

It’s interesting that the KS IDers point to Ohio when they try to justify changing the KS definition of science.

Funny how they don’t mention this little bit that Kansas most definitely excluded …

Comment #80061

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on February 15, 2006 7:59 AM (e)

Well, the Kansas Kooks won’t survive a court challenge either.

Well, we shall see, oh yeah. We shall seeee.

“Waterloo!!! Waterloo!!! Waterloo!!!!”

(yawn)

Has Ohio’s definition of science specifically been repealed or altered in any way, shape or form, by this board action?

I’d expect so, since it was part of the re-written crap standards.

But now I have a question for FL —– if ID is science, then why would IDers *need* to rewrite the definition of “science” to include ID?

Comment #80062

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on February 15, 2006 8:03 AM (e)

Why don’t you censorship soldiers at least be honest about it? I could respect you if you were at least honest about it.

(sniffle) (sob) Boo hoo hoo.

Go cry in your beer. (shrug)

Comment #80063

Posted by Andy H. on February 15, 2006 8:09 AM (e)

Comment #79938 posted on Ohio News thread (another thread) by RBH on February 14, 2006 06:50 PM

Ohio Citizens for Science also decided not to speak, since the period for comment was after the vote and would have no effect except to aggravate board members who would have to stay late. Some ID creationism supporters (many fewer than I expected) were there and some spoke during the public comment period after the vote, but it was too little too late.

WHAT ??? The excuse given for hearing public comments after the vote on the lesson plan at the January meeting was that it was a so-called “emergency” vote because of the alleged threat of a lawsuit in the wake of the Dover decision ( of course there was no emergency ). What was the excuse this time ? I checked the February meeting agenda and found that the evolution lesson plan was unlisted again ! What in hell is going on here ? I cannot believe this.

These shenanigans would be illegal under the Brown Act of California. Under this act, an “emergency situation” is defined as (1) a work stoppage, crippling activity, or other activity that severely impairs public health, safety, or both, or (2) a crippling disaster, mass destruction, terrorist act, or threatened terrorist activity. Also, the Brown Act requires that public comments be heard before a vote, and there is no exception given for “emergency” votes. The Brown Act should be considered to be a model “open-meetings” law for adoption by other states.

I think that the Ohio Board of Education is just playing political games. The board members are well aware of public opinion poll results showing that 69 percent of Ohioans want the public schools to teach criticisms of evolution theory. The decision to ask the committee that wrote the lesson plan to rewrite it is essentially the same as deciding to keep the plan – why would that committee substantially change the plan ? And the motion to get a legal opinion from the state attorney-general was another evasion— anyone can see that if the opponents of the lesson plan had a reasonable legal case, they would have sued by now.

Anyway, I think that state standards for education should be abolished. There is no good reason for them.

Comment #80065

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on February 15, 2006 8:14 AM (e)

Nobody cares what you think, Crank. (shrug)

Comment #80069

Posted by Russell on February 15, 2006 8:35 AM (e)

FL wrote:

>Well, we shall see, oh yeah. We shall seeee.

Oh, hey. That reminds me. The testimony in the Kansas Kangaroo Kourt proceedings also figured prominently in the Ohio Board discussions, quoted at some considerable length by the anti-ID board members (and studiously avoided by the pro-ID members). So a big shout-out is due to FL and the Kansans who helped Ohioans see the way! Thanks FL!

Comment #80070

Posted by hehe on February 15, 2006 8:46 AM (e)

Hey, DaveScot, censorship is practiced by fascists like you. Kicking bullsh-t out of the classroom is not censorship - or maybe you’d want Holocaust denial to be taught too?

Comment #80071

Posted by Patricia on February 15, 2006 8:47 AM (e)

You asked:

...Patricia, earlier you stated: ... Benchmark A: 'Scientific knowledge must be based on evidence, be predictive, logical, subject to modification, and limited to the natural world.'

Was this sentence changed yesterday? wrote:

No, it was not.

But it was quoted by Dr Owens Fink, I think by way of suggesting that ID/creationism could not possibly be in the lesson plan as that would violate the standards.

Nevertheless, the ex-lesson did make thinly-veiled appeals to supernatural special creation and divine providence.

-Patricia

Comment #80075

Posted by steve s on February 15, 2006 8:55 AM (e)

If DaveScot wants to say turned-off trackbacks are “censorship” maybe he can explain to us why trackbacks on the Discovery Institute website Evolution News and Views have been turned off for weeks at a time.

Comment #80078

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on February 15, 2006 9:05 AM (e)

Oh, hey. That reminds me. The testimony in the Kansas Kangaroo Kourt proceedings also figured prominently in the Ohio Board discussions, quoted at some considerable length by the anti-ID board members (and studiously avoided by the pro-ID members). So a big shout-out is due to FL and the Kansans who helped Ohioans see the way! Thanks FL!

As I recall, in Kansas John Calvert used the Ohio adoption of the ID lesson plan (which he took part in promoting) to support the Kansas ID case. Perhaps there will be a ‘domino effect’ now that Ohio has reversed.

Comment #80079

Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter on February 15, 2006 9:16 AM (e)

RBH wrote:

Sorry, RGD and ST_J, but they’re gone. I doubt that you’ll miss them.

Not one bit.

What is interesting is the general impression held by the various ‘ID-friendly’ parties posting here is that not teaching ID somehow means that evolution is not questioned or examined critically. It’s fascinating. It’s also beside the point in a high school science class.

At the level of grade and high school, the most that there is time for is to teach the best current explanation for various observations of the universe, along with a healthy dose of ‘remember that this is the best current explanation. Science is continually challenging its own explanations and trying to improve them.

Why is it that ID advocates never accept that? Is it their ignorance of science? Their conviction that unless their ‘pet theory’ is taught that questioning isn’t going on?

Or is it sheer rhetoric? I’d really like to know.

Comment #80080

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on February 15, 2006 9:22 AM (e)

Login and Password available at www.bugmenot.com:

Kansas looks to Ohio standards

Published Sunday, November 6, 2005
By Barbara Hollingsworth
The Capital-Journal

Whether you see it as a war about science, religion or politics, Kansas isn’t the only battleground over the theory of evolution….

Then there is Ohio.

In 2002, the Ohio State Board of Education approved science standards that encourage students to learn criticisms about biological evolution. Despite swirling controversy, a last-minute compromise saying the standards didn’t mandate teaching intelligent design helped the document win unanimous approval.

Similar language – pushed for by some of the same people – is used in the Kansas standards that are expected to be approved this week.

“Shame on them for following us,” said Sam Schloemer, an Ohio state board member from Cincinnati. “What happened out here is not very honorable in my opinion.”

John Calvert, a lawyer who has played a role in debates in both states, said evolution critics aren’t trying to put religion into the classroom but says religion makes the debate important.

“That’s why you and I are talking, because of the impact on religion and ethics and a whole lot of other things,” said Calvert, managing director of the Overland Park-based Intelligent Design Network….

Calvert said he hopes for continuity on the Kansas state board, which would allow evolution critics another state to hold up as an example. Kansas’ standards, he noted, would be more specific than Ohio’s standards in outlining criticisms of evolution.

“I think Kansas could wind up being a significant influence in other jurisdictions,” he said.

Here’s hoping the influence spreads in the opposite direction.

Comment #80082

Posted by ogl3 on February 15, 2006 9:36 AM (e)

Given that proponents of ID and other faith-based notions will always be with us, playing “defense” against intrusions into the science curriculum will be never-ending. A more assertive approach appeals to me. ID provides a great example of not-science that could be incorporated into introductory lessons about science and the scientific method. There is no need to look to medieval history to contrast faith and science, with such good contemporary material at hand.

Comment #80085

Posted by AD on February 15, 2006 9:50 AM (e)

What is interesting is the general impression held by the various ‘ID-friendly’ parties posting here is that not teaching ID somehow means that evolution is not questioned or examined critically. It’s fascinating.

Why is it that ID advocates never accept that? Is it their ignorance of science? Their conviction that unless their ‘pet theory’ is taught that questioning isn’t going on?

Some very good points… first and foremost, I would have to say there is obviously either a basic misconception about the nature of science, or a deliberate obfuscation of truth on that side. I think that you have to judge it on a case by case basis, really. However, I think both are related to the answer to your second quote:

It’s a combination of ignorance and dogma. By avoiding learning about that which they oppose (so they can construct anything in their minds, rather than being hemmed in by actual fact), and then cognitive defense mechanisms causing all sorts of wild mental gymnastics, you end up with a highly twisted world view. I would say, ultimately, that faith-based thinking is the problem here.

Which is not to say faith-based thinking is inherently bad - it’s just completely inappropriate to apply to science, in much the same way that science should not be applied to faith.

Ultimately, the catch-22 here is that if the ID side succeeds, they are only going to (expletive deleted) themselves. Radical protestant christianity will not always be a political majority or driving force in this nation (one could argue it’s not the former right now), but more so, when some other religion did take firm hold and we’d established a legal precedent of allowing religion in school, they will have paved the way for someone else to oppress their own religion.

Highly ironic. Separation of church and state does more to protect the church from the state than vice-versa.

Comment #80086

Posted by RBH on February 15, 2006 9:51 AM (e)

Andy H/Larry FaFa wrote

WHAT ??? The excuse given for hearing public comments after the vote on the lesson plan at the January meeting was that it was a so-called “emergency” vote because of the alleged threat of a lawsuit in the wake of the Dover decision ( of course there was no emergency ). What was the excuse this time ? I checked the February meeting agenda and found that the evolution lesson plan was unlisted again ! What in hell is going on here ? I cannot believe this.

Ask the creationist President of the Ohio Board of Education, Sue Westendorf, why she made that ruling.

RBH

Comment #80090

Posted by JONBOY on February 15, 2006 10:08 AM (e)

The latest tatic of the supporters of “Intelligent” Design is to argue that it is wrong to “censor” their ideas in public schools. They think, with some justification, that this change in rhetoric will win support and sympathy. The fact that this rhetoric is at best hypocritical, and largely dishonest, doesn’t seem to bother them. This should tell you something about the quality of their “science.”.
Steve Reuland wrote a great article on this,the best part being this :
“ What we have here is someone who is arguing that it’s “censorship” not to teach criticisms that are laughably wrong while omitting crucial information. Why should we let someone completely ignorant of evolution dictate how we teach it? We wouldn’t let someone who couldn’t count tell us how to teach math. And if such a person screamed censorship, we’d immediately call them an idiot.”

Comment #80096

Posted by Raging Bee on February 15, 2006 10:38 AM (e)

Larry The Crybaby Subjectivist Who Can’t Even Stand By His Own Name Farfoofutshisface is now saying that education standards should be “abolished;” which is, at the very least, an honest indicator of what creationists really want.

I believe I speak for all of us when I say “HAWHAWHAWHAWHAW!!”

Comment #80099

Posted by RBH on February 15, 2006 10:46 AM (e)

Steve Reuland’s post. It seems particularly apropos in light of the Disco Institute’s reaction to the Ohio win.

RBH

Comment #80103

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on February 15, 2006 11:04 AM (e)

I just put in a trackback. I see it listed now. Not sure what may be up with others not getting trackbacks through, but it seems clear that at least PT and my weblog are correctly configured to accomplish this.

Comment #80104

Posted by yellow fatty bean on February 15, 2006 11:14 AM (e)

I think the Cobb Co. sticker thing is on-going, and there is a flare-up in progress in South Carolina. Even with the certainty of defeat, there is still a political advantage to be gained in some places from getting ink in an evolution fight – so we will continue to see more incidents like this in the future.

What cracks me up is that always and without exception, there is a YECster fundie parent, politician or school board member behind the ID machinations….and yet assorted assclowns still come here and claim that it’s about preserving the integrity of sceintific inquiry.

Comment #80105

Posted by rdog29 on February 15, 2006 11:14 AM (e)

Here’s a quick little science lesson for FL:

Evolutionary theory is critically evaluated every day around the globe. Every time a fossil is dug up out of the ground, every time a biochemical reaction pathway is elucidated, every time a protein structure is determined, every time organisms are observed in the field.

Every day new evidence is discovered and every day that evidence challenges the correctness of evolution. And guess what? No evidence in contradiction to evolution has yet been found.

Professionals are the ones doing the critical evaluation - not the PR hucksters at the DI or ignorant, creationist school board members.

So, to try to keep this on topic, the point is: since when is a public school subject taught by presenting arguments for and against? How about we present arguments for and against the occurrence of the Holocaust? How about we present arguments for and against “squaring the circle”?

If you are really interested in fostering critical thinking, why not require it as part of a logic class? What are you afraid of? Could it be that critical thinking would be the death of ID?

Comment #80108

Posted by AC on February 15, 2006 11:24 AM (e)

whoever wrote:

So without critical analysis this essentially means that evolution will be taught as dogma.

Deborah Owens-Fink, is that you? A sound bite of her was on NPR this morning. She was sticking to this same devious claim, that “critical analysis of evolution” isn’t really just a codephrase for “denying and disparaging evolution on religious grounds”. Perhaps such ruses would be more convincing if the wolves in sheeps’ clothing could keep from snarling.

AD wrote:

It’s a combination of ignorance and dogma. By avoiding learning about that which they oppose (so they can construct anything in their minds, rather than being hemmed in by actual fact), and then cognitive defense mechanisms causing all sorts of wild mental gymnastics, you end up with a highly twisted world view. I would say, ultimately, that faith-based thinking is the problem here.

Whatever it is, it also leads them to either never ask or consider absurd the question: “How can I honestly oppose something about which I know nothing?”

Comment #80109

Posted by BWE on February 15, 2006 11:25 AM (e)

Everything you do, oh Casey Luskin,
Everything you do just goes so wrong,

All those science guys who laugh at you
you know they must be hiting on a bong

-I don’t know why but I love to use the word bong.

Comment #80113

Posted by Peter Henderson on February 15, 2006 11:37 AM (e)

I see that AIG seem a bit peeved at this according to their website today.

I also notice that Ham has a bit on his blog today about their own so-called science curriculum.

Comment #80115

Posted by Dan on February 15, 2006 12:01 PM (e)

Uh, Guys, I think that we’re going to need a bigger boat.
Over at the Disco Inn:
“Darwin-only activists are dumbing down the teaching of evolution and stopping science learning,” said Casey Luskin, program officer for public policy and legal affairs at Discovery Institute. “This is nothing more than a gag order on science, a dogmatic approach to education that restricts students from learning about evolution.”
This is a made-for-TV quote which I expect to see used often as a fund-raising ploy.
This is going to get louder and louder, I agree that there is no penalty for right-wing politicos to martyr themselves for the cause if the issue plays well to the vast majority.
Perhaps that is why I enjoy being a martyr for science.

Comment #80116

Posted by Arden Chatfield on February 15, 2006 12:11 PM (e)

Hmmm… I’ve noticed that the overall level of trollage here goes way down whenever ID suffers a legal setback. Aside from some surly whining about ‘censorship’, even Davison is more muted today.

I guess the phrase is ‘licking their wounds’.

Comment #80117

Posted by BWE on February 15, 2006 12:13 PM (e)

Ohio is no longer on the Disco Institute’s list of favorite states for pilgrimages.

South Carolina I heard?

Comment #80119

Posted by PvM on February 15, 2006 12:21 PM (e)

Whoever/Davescot whines about ‘censorship of trackbacks’ so I suggested that he post on uncommon descent.

PvM wrote:

Hi Davescot, why not whine about it on Dembski’s blog? Or have your ‘powers’ been severely limited after your last faux pas?

Guess what? Seems that I can remotely control the Davescot entity… A post on the topic appeared soon thereafter.

However Davescot showed his unfamiliarity with the internet and is now blaming such people as Wesley Elsberry, whose only ‘crime’ is that he more than once has embarassed Davescot with facts, for his own inability to add a trackback.

Irony alert: Seems that austringer (Wes) managed to add a trackback to this posting. How hard could it really be?

Question for the day: Is it time for Dembski to take back control over his blog or is the replacement more entertaining?

Comment #80120

Posted by JONBOY on February 15, 2006 12:29 PM (e)

It would seem to me there are only two categories of reasons which can exist for wanting Balanced Treatment: genuine scientific reasons and non-scientific reasons (political, religious, social, etc.). Genuine scientific reasons would involve the goal of improving the quality and accuracy of science education in public schools over and above what science texts currently offer with their focus on evolution to the exclusion of other ideas. This leaves non-scientific reasons to push for Balanced Treatment programs and legislation: pursuit of social, political, and/or religious goals. Such goals are made evident by the fact that even creationists who call for Balanced Treatment programs often don’t really believe in the value of Balanced Treatment. Their actual purpose is to end the teaching of evolution entirely and, if possible, replace it with teaching about creationism. They don’t want Balanced Treatment, they want only the teaching of creationism - Balanced Treatment is merely one step in the path towards that end

Comment #80121

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on February 15, 2006 12:30 PM (e)

from the AP article currently running on CNN

Board member Deborah Owens Fink, who voted against eliminating the lesson plan, said it was unfair to deny students the chance to use logic to question a scientific theory.

“We respect diversity of opinion in every other arena,” said Owens Fink, from Akron.

Sure. That’s why we teach our students that the Holocaust might not have happened, and that the Earth might be flat, and that 1 + 1 = 3 if you really really want it to be.

Comment #80122

Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter on February 15, 2006 12:30 PM (e)

PvM wrote:

Question for the day: Is it time for Dembski to take back control over his blog or is the replacement more entertaining?

The replacement is clearly more entertaining. The dynamic (though mostly unseen) interplay between DaveScot’s bizarre notions, overwhelming ego, and general cluelessness with Dembski’s passionate ignorance of biology and concealed religious position make for excellent theatre.

Comment #80123

Posted by BWE on February 15, 2006 12:34 PM (e)

Ohio is no longer on the Disco Institute’s list of favorite states for pilgrimages.

South Carolina I heard?

Comment #80125

Posted by shenda on February 15, 2006 12:49 PM (e)

Rilke’s Granddaughter:

“Why is it that ID advocates never accept that? Is it their ignorance of science? Their conviction that unless their ‘pet theory’ is taught that questioning isn’t going on?
Or is it sheer rhetoric? I’d really like to know.”

I think that many ID advocates are running on empty – their pet ideas have been rather badly defeated in court and are rapidly losing ground in the PR battles. However, due to the peculiar mental makeup of some IDers, they simply cannot admit any of this to themselves. Therefore they revert to strident whining about how their brilliant and irrefutable ideas are being oppressed by the big meanies of The Darwinian Pressure Groups. Quite sad and pathetic.

Comment #80129

Posted by Raging Bee on February 15, 2006 1:02 PM (e)

I notice that all these complaints about non-functional or non-existent trackbacks only started appearaing AFTER this latest defeat in Ohio. This could be why the two words “freeper” and “meltdown” are ringing in my head today.

Yeah, yeah, I know, voices in my head don’t constitute scientific evidence…

Comment #80131

Posted by steve s on February 15, 2006 1:12 PM (e)

Comment #80119

Posted by PvM on February 15, 2006 12:21 PM (e)

Question for the day: Is it time for Dembski to take back control over his blog or is the replacement more entertaining?

It’s much better to have DaveScot running things. To quote ID supporterJosh Bozeman, “DaveScot is ruining Dembski’s weblog.”

Comment #80132

Posted by PvM on February 15, 2006 1:20 PM (e)

From the trackback it appears that Davescot finally got trackbacks to work.

Comment #80137

Posted by Moses on February 15, 2006 1:40 PM (e)

Comment #80026

Posted by hugechavz on February 15, 2006 12:49 AM (e)

I’m sure you guys have discussed this ad nauseum, and stick by your conclusion, but I’m not so clear on how eliminating ID from the curriculum is a good thing. Isn’t this what public education is for? If people don’t hear it from science teachers, can we expect they’ll learn it from their parents?

When was the last time a high school listened to anything his/her parents had to say beyond figuring out the right grunt (yeah, no, unnh) to use? And when was the last time deliberately teaching children something wrong became a “good thing?”

Comment #80139

Posted by Anton Mates on February 15, 2006 1:52 PM (e)

LarAndy FHafarman wrote:

WHAT ??? The excuse given for hearing public comments after the vote on the lesson plan at the January meeting was that it was a so-called “emergency” vote because of the alleged threat of a lawsuit in the wake of the Dover decision ( of course there was no emergency ). What was the excuse this time ? I checked the February meeting agenda and found that the evolution lesson plan was unlisted again ! What in hell is going on here ? I cannot believe this.

Not sure what you’re enraged about…the Board meetings always have public comments on agenda items, then voting, then comments on non-action items. Check back through the meetings of the last few years and see.

I can tell you that it was all very by-the-book; Board president Westendorf (who voted against scrapping the plan, so obviously she has no motivation to bend the rules to do so!) dispatched the parliamentarian to check Roberts’ Rules of Order several times, and the Board members discussed the germaneness of an amendment.

If you’re wondering why Board members felt it necessary to bring up the matter when it wasn’t on the agenda: well, several of them spoke about learning–only in the time since the last meeting–just how much scientific opposition there was to the lesson plan, particularly among their own advisory committee and the DoE staff. They repeatedly mentioned the critical letter written to Gov. Taft and signed by the 75% of the committee which could be contacted. This wasn’t fear on the part of the Board, I think–this was surprise and resentment that internal processes had been blocked to prevent them from hearing about this opposition before recently.

There was also, of course, the legal concern; some Board members felt it would take too long to get a legal opinion and/or revise the lesson while the current version was still on school shelves with their seal of approval. Remember, the vote to scrap it was 11-4, and of the 4 against, at least 2 favored an unamended version of the motion which would have asked for a legal opinion from the Attorney General. Virtually everybody on the Board wanted to do something about the lesson plan at this meeting.

Comment #80140

Posted by Glen Davidson on February 15, 2006 1:55 PM (e)

I think that the New York Times gives a pretty good overview of the entire Ohio fiasco and redemption:

http://tinyurl.com/apnt8

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #80141

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on February 15, 2006 1:59 PM (e)

DaveScot wrote:

By the way, your trackback URLs don’t work. Try cutting and pasting one into a browser and see what happens. Or just ask yourself why there are ZERO trackbacks on every individual article here.

Is the trackback URL there but broken just to further the sham that this is an open forum?

Why don’t you censorship soldiers at least be honest about it? I could respect you if you were at least honest about it.

Haha, try reading the trackback specification. You can’t simply paste a trackback url into a browser and expect it to work.

Comment #80144

Posted by Lynn Fancher on February 15, 2006 2:05 PM (e)

ogl3 said: “Given that proponents of ID and other faith-based notions will always be with us, playing “defense” against intrusions into the science curriculum will be never-ending. A more assertive approach appeals to me. ID provides a great example of not-science that could be incorporated into introductory lessons about science and the scientific method. There is no need to look to medieval history to contrast faith and science, with such good contemporary material at hand.”

I use ID rhetoric as a tool to demonstrate critical thinking and argument assessment in my introductory bio classes.

I use an on-line debate between Kenneth Miller and Phillip Johnson, prefaced by a class unit on recognizing sleazy debate tricks like arguments from ignorance, straw man arguments, etc. (and coupled with evidence comparisons between the offerings of the two men). Even the die-hard creationists among my student find themselves forced to admit that Johnson makes an extremely poor showing.

They can leave the class believing that this was a one-time failure, but the chink is there ;^)

My own private “wedge.”

Comment #80145

Posted by Moses on February 15, 2006 2:07 PM (e)

I left this. We’ll see if it shows up or I get a one-post banning:

Someone using a psudonym left this comment at Panda’s Thumb:

Comment #80037

Posted by whoever on February 15, 2006 02:03 AM (e)

By the way, your trackback URLs don’t work. Try cutting and pasting one into a browser and see what happens. Or just ask yourself why there are ZERO trackbacks on every individual article here.

Is the trackback URL there but broken just to further the sham that this is an open forum?

Why don’t you censorship soldiers at least be honest about it? I could respect you if you were at least honest about it.

However, a brief perusal of trackbacks indicates that trackbacks were on prior and after the comment was made. Time stamps on various trackbacks linked to threads include:

Posted by Aetiology on February 14, 2006 03:33 PM
Posted by Law Evolution Science and Junk Science on February 14, 2006 05:00 PM
Posted by Newton’s Binomium on February 14, 2006 10:41 PM
Posted by The Atheist Mama on February 14, 2006 05:23 PM
Posted by Immunoblogging on February 15, 2006 04:23 AM
Posted by Newton’s Binomium on February 15, 2006 08:33 AM
Posted by Newton’s Binomium on February 15, 2006 10:18 AM
Posted by The Austringer on February 15, 2006 10:52 AM
Posted by Uncommon Descent on February 15, 2006 12:35 PM
Posted by The Atheist Mama on February 15, 2006 12:39 PM

I think this thread was started by DaveScot who, after making a simple error, deliberately and willfully jumped to the worst possible conclusion to prove his his point. Which, of course, has made its own, unintended, point.

Comment #80147

Posted by Anton Mates on February 15, 2006 2:20 PM (e)

hugechavz wrote:

I’m sure you guys have discussed this ad nauseum, and stick by your conclusion, but I’m not so clear on how eliminating ID from the curriculum is a good thing. Isn’t this what public education is for? If people don’t hear it from science teachers, can we expect they’ll learn it from their parents?

I guess you can’t really trust science teachers to get the nuance of ID’s failure, or trust them all to follow the guidelines. Yet, ID is one of the biggest boondoggles peddled to God-fearing citizens in quite a while—is it not better to illuminate this, the proximate source of this deception, and arm kids with the material to at least be skeptical?

If I understand you correctly, you’re asking why the Board couldn’t simply update the lesson plan–keep the same subjects, even, with discussions of homology and the peppered moth and so forth–but improve the references, websites and model arguments to show how to correctly critically analyze a scientific question, and to show how ID and Creationism fail to do so.

I fully agree that such a lesson plan would be very valuable to kids–the equivalent of bringing a resource like talkorigins.org into the classroom. Training to recognize pseudoscience and nonscience is always a good thing. However, there are to my mind three reasons why the Board wouldn’t just revise this lesson plan on the spot to do that.

The first, and simplest, is that the Board as a group doesn’t write lesson plans, nor do they think they should. It’s the Achievement Committee (a subgroup of Board members) that’s supposed to come up with lesson plans, and they in turn are supposed to have it written by actual educators and experts on the subject. The Board simply oversees the process and makes sure the final product is satisfactory. (Obviously certain Board members like Owens-Fink and Cochran were heavily influencing the final product in this case, over the objections of the experts, but they’re not exactly good role models here). So by moving to take the lesson plan off the shelves and send it back to the Achievement Committee, possibly to be re-issued in a new form, the Board is coming as close to directly rewriting it as they think is acceptable.

The second reason is that such a lesson would almost certainly never get approval. You can see how difficult it was to rein in the Board members who were trying to attack evolution and promote creationism/ID…can you imagine them letting a lesson plan which actually identifies and attacks the latter get through? Some of the moderates on the Board, such as Wise, are self-styled creationists (though not YECs, I believe.) They may not think it’s appropriate to introduce and plug their beliefs in science class, but they equally wouldn’t stand for having them bashed in there.

And the third reason is that of Constitutionality…I suspect it would be as severe a 1st-Amendment violation to single out and refute the claims of certain religious groups in science class, as to promote them. I could see plenty of devout Christian parents bringing lawsuits–justified ones–if their kid’s science teacher started spontaneously talking about why a literal interpretation of the Bible is unscientific. After all, how could you do a balanced treatment? You’d have to do the same job on Vedic literalists, Quranic literalists, Poetic/Prose Edda literalists (I’m sure there’s at least one of them out there!)…

Of course it’s an objective fact that certain religious groups in particular are attacking American science education–there weren’t any Aesir-worshippers at the Board meeting–and that would justify focusing on their claims in some class. But that justification is a sociological one, and so I think such discussion is best kept in sociology classes. Or classes on politics, history, philosophy, comparative religion, etc. Not science class, IMO.

Comment #80148

Posted by arden chatfield on February 15, 2006 2:22 PM (e)

Yeah, yeah, I know, voices in my head don’t constitute scientific evidence…

They would if you’d lived in the Middle East 2-3 millenia ago…

(snark)

Comment #80149

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on February 15, 2006 2:23 PM (e)

Note that the time stamp on a trackback is the time that it was received, not the time it appeared. Some valid trackbacks get sent to our junk bin because they come for an IP different than the website the TB refers to. (If someone uses a trackback service that is distinct from their blog.) These trackbacks can get delayed because someone has to rummage through the junk bin looking for them.

Comment #80150

Posted by steve s on February 15, 2006 2:32 PM (e)

This one event encapsulates all that Uncommon Pissant has become.

1 Despite the fact that 4 trackbacks had been made in the previous 24 hours, DaveScot, who deletes trackbacks he doesn’t like, accuses PTers, who don’t, of censorship, apparently because he didn’t know how the trackbacks worked.
2 He then makes the accusation here, under a pseudonym, in a rude manner.
3 Less than an hour later, PvM corrects him, to no avail.
4 for about ten hours, he deletes comments which aim to correct him on the Uncommon Descent thread.
5 knowing if he just deletes his whole thread, he’ll get burned again like he did on Thread 744, he erases his accusation, and replaces it with an accusation that Wesley made unnamed surreptitious changes.

Comment #80154

Posted by steve s on February 15, 2006 2:50 PM (e)

From that NYT story about Ohio, have you ever heard anything more ironic than this?

“The effort to try to suppress ideas that you dislike, to use the government to suppress ideas you dislike, has a failed history,” Mr. West said. “Do they really want to be on the side of the people who didn’t want to let John Scopes talk or who tried to censor Galileo?”

Comment #80158

Posted by Andy H. on February 15, 2006 3:00 PM (e)

Comment #80086 posted by RBH on February 15, 2006 09:51 AM

Andy H. wrote –

“WHAT ??? The excuse given for hearing public comments after the vote on the lesson plan at the January meeting was that it was a so-called “emergency” vote because of the alleged threat of a lawsuit in the wake of the Dover decision ( of course there was no emergency ). What was the excuse this time ? “

Ask the creationist President of the Ohio Board of Education, Sue Westendorf, why she made that ruling.

Well, why don’t you ask her, right out in front of everybody at a board meeting ? That is, unless you and others don’t mind having your comments heard only after you have been presented with a fait accompli. With all the commenters who have attended these meetings, no one has complained about this?

Comment #80139 posted by Anton Mates on February 15, 2006 01:52 PM
I can tell you that it was all very by-the-book; Board president Westendorf (who voted against scrapping the plan, so obviously she has no motivation to bend the rules to do so!) dispatched the parliamentarian to check Roberts’ Rules of Order several times, and the Board members discussed the germaneness of an amendment.

The board not only has to follow Roberts’ Rules of Order, but must also follow Ohio state law. I found nothing in the Ohio laws that is comparable in detail to California’s Brown Act, but I did find the following, in Ohio Revised Code Sec. 121.22, “Meetings of public bodies to be public, exceptions “ –

(F) Every public body, by rule, shall establish a reasonable method whereby any person may determine the time and place of all regularly scheduled meetings and the time, place, and purpose of all special meetings …….

The rule shall provide that any person, upon request and payment of a reasonable fee, may obtain reasonable advance notification of all meetings at which any specific type of public business is to be discussed. Provisions for advance notification may include, but are not limited to, mailing the agenda of meetings to all subscribers on a mailing list or mailing notices in self-addressed, stamped envelopes provided by the person……

(I) (1) Any person may bring an action to enforce this section. An action under division (I)(1) of this section shall be brought within two years after the date of the alleged violation or threatened violation. Upon proof of a violation or threatened violation of this section in an action brought by any person, the court of common pleas shall issue an injunction to compel the members of the public body to comply with its provisions.

(2) (a) If the court of common pleas issues an injunction pursuant to division (I)(1) of this section, the court shall order the public body that it enjoins to pay a civil forfeiture of five hundred dollars to the party that sought the injunction and shall award to that party all court costs and, subject to reduction as described in division (I)(2) of this section, reasonable attorney’s fees.

So here is what I would do – (1) pay the fee to have the board agenda mailed to me; (2) point out that if the evolution lesson plan is discussed or voted on when it is not on the agenda, then I have not received “reasonable advance notification” of discussion of a “specific type of public business,” i.e., the evolution lesson plan; and (3) tell the board that I will sue under the above provisions if that happens. On the board agendas, public commentary on agenda items is always scheduled to be heard before consideration of the agenda items. There has already been a violation and a threat of future violations, so technically speaking there are grounds for a lawsuit now, but I think that the board should still get a fair warning. I would also point out that the lesson plan cannot possibly ever be an emergency item — the board must always be allowed a fair amount of time to respond to a new issue concerning the plan. Suppose, for example, that the board is sued, loses in court, has only 30 days to decide on whether to file an appeal, and there is not enough time to put the item on the agenda. The board can simply file a tentative appeal and then decide at the next meeting whether to continue the appeal.

All of this stuff can be presented to the board by certified mail – you don’t even have to wait for a board meeting – but I think it would have greater impact if it were also presented at a board meeting. The issue of the lesson plan is certain to come up in future meetings ( the board asked the writing committee to report back), so it is a good idea to settle this issue now.

I should have been an attorney – just think, they get paid $300/hr. for giving this kind of advice.

Also, as I have pointed out previously, saying that the lesson plan is “highly religious” or that it is just “intelligent design,” that sort of thing, is probably not taken seriously. I would say stuff like (1) supplemental material that conflicts with the textbooks could confuse the students, (2) the references are out-of-print, outdated or too advanced, (3) spoonfeeding answers to the students is wrong, and (4) including the lesson plan’s material in statewide tests would be unfair to some students from out of state, that sort of thing.

Comment #80162

Posted by Sir_Toejam on February 15, 2006 3:11 PM (e)

I should have been an attorney — just think, they get paid $300/hr. for giving this kind of advice.

*pssst* hey Larry! your insanity is showing… better put a hat on or something.

you rather should ask folks for money NOT to hear your “advice”.

Comment #80174

Posted by Arden Chatfield on February 15, 2006 4:00 PM (e)

I guess we should expect this. After Dover, Larry/Andy spent the next 3 weeks regaling us with completely clueless arguments about how illegitimate the whole trial was. Now we’ll be hearing his uninformed armchair quarterbacking on Ohio well into March.

Comment #80190

Posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on February 15, 2006 4:54 PM (e)

(I)(2)(b) If the court of common pleas does not issue an injunction pursuant to division (I)(1) of this section and the court determines at that time that the bringing of the action was frivolous conduct, as defined in division (A) of section 2323.51 of the Revised Code, the court shall award to the public body all court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, as determined by the court.

Maybe we should let Larry go ahead with his plan…

Comment #80236

Posted by Moses on February 15, 2006 7:08 PM (e)

Comment #80149

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on February 15, 2006 02:23 PM (e)

Note that the time stamp on a trackback is the time that it was received, not the time it appeared. Some valid trackbacks get sent to our junk bin because they come for an IP different than the website the TB refers to. (If someone uses a trackback service that is distinct from their blog.) These trackbacks can get delayed because someone has to rummage through the junk bin looking for them.

I’m not trying to prove times. If there was a problem, there was a problem. But considering the Panda’s Thumb denials of censorship coupled with the lame presentation of the issue by whoever/davescot and the paraniod, non-dissent allowed censorship of Uncommon Dissent…

I’m just point out that there doesn’t appear to be any “evil Darwinist/atheist” conspiracy evidence as prior and subsequent to the allegations of malfeasance there were multiple track-backs initiated and accepted by Panda’s Thumb.

Which means it’s more of an “honesty test” that I expect DS/whoever to fail.

Comment #80241

Posted by Bill Keely on February 15, 2006 7:51 PM (e)

Comment #80190
Posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on February 15, 2006 04:54 PM

(I)(2)(b) If the court of common pleas does not issue an injunction pursuant to division (I)(1) of this section and the court determines at that time that the bringing of the action was frivolous conduct, as defined in division (A) of section 2323.51 of the Revised Code, the court shall award to the public body all court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, as determined by the court.

Maybe we should let Andy H. go ahead with his plan…

A lot of bags of hot air have been huffing and puffing about suing Ohio and Kansas over the evolution standards, and nothing has happened or is going to happen under the present circumstances. The lawsuit that Andy H. proposed would at least have some chance of succeeding. You know the saying – “nothing ventured, nothing gained.”

If you are happy with the present situation, where you can speak at the board meetings only after being presented with a fait accompli and then have some board members read newspapers while you are speaking, then just keep doing what you are doing.

Also, you obviously don’t know enough about the law to know that there is a big difference between a losing lawsuit and a frivolous lawsuit. Here are the applicable parts of Sec. 2323.51 –

”Conduct” means … the filing of a civil action…..”Frivolous conduct” means ….

It is not warranted under existing law, cannot be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, or cannot be supported by a good faith argument for the establishment of new law.

Note that the above provision is so incredibly generous that to be ruled non-frivolous, a lawsuit does not even need to be warranted under existing law – the lawsuit only need be supported by a “good faith” argument for changes or additions to the law !!! Imagine expecting that the Board stick to the agenda except in genuine emergencies !! Imagine expecting the Board to hear public comments on a topic before voting on that topic !! What outrageous expectations !!

All that would be necessary to avoid a finding of frivolity would be to wave a copy of California’s Brown Act under the noses of the judges.

Comment #80254

Posted by ben on February 15, 2006 8:39 PM (e)

Larry Fafarman, when are you going to admit that you’re posting under multiple user names (Andy H., Bill Keely) in violation of comment integrity policy item #6, and explain how you doing it doesn’t rob you and your arguments of even the slightest tinge of integrity? Why do you participate in a forum that you exhibit no respect for the standards of? My guess is you’re a lonely, bitter loser with nothing better to do, who doesn’t care about evolution vs. ID one way or the other, but who finds amusement in imagining that he’s yanking the chains of people who in reality don’t really care what he has to say.

Comment #80256

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on February 15, 2006 8:57 PM (e)

Posted by Bill Keely

The lawsuit that Andy H. proposed

Talking to yourself, Larry?

How goddamn many names do you plan on posting under, Larry?

Comment #80265

Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter on February 15, 2006 9:51 PM (e)

It occurs to me that Larry’s continual violation of rule six is merely another of his desperate attempts to get attention. It’s kind of sad, in a way, that since he’s demolished his credibility in actual argument he has to resort to this to have anyone notice him.

Feel free to “Flush” this, RBH - now that I realize that Larry’s simply lonely, there’s no need to respond to him anymore.

Though it really is quite sad.

Comment #80269

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on February 15, 2006 10:25 PM (e)

Well, the Waterloo in Ohio gear is now available. Have fun.

Comment #80271

Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter on February 15, 2006 10:43 PM (e)

Oh! The teddy bear (sorry, true self coming to surface) is pretty much too darn adorable for words.

Comment #80273

Posted by Anton Mates on February 15, 2006 11:30 PM (e)

Bill Keeley who is also Andy H. and Larry Fafarman and God knows who else wrote:

OK, this is just stupid. Can we start deleting this guy’s stuff on sight, please?

Comment #80276

Posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on February 16, 2006 12:06 AM (e)

Once again, the Gasmaster manages to misrepresent the legal situation. The full relevant portions of 2323.51:

(2) “Frivolous conduct” means either of the following:

(a) Conduct of an inmate or other party to a civil action, of an inmate who has filed an appeal of the type described in division (A)(1)(b) of this section, or of the inmate’s or other party’s counsel of record that satisfies any of the following:

(i) It obviously serves merely to harass or maliciously injure another party to the civil action or appeal or is for another improper purpose, including, but not limited to, causing unnecessary delay or a needless increase in the cost of litigation.

(ii) It is not warranted under existing law, cannot be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, or cannot be supported by a good faith argument for the establishment of new law.

(iii) The conduct consists of allegations or other factual contentions that have no evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are not likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.

(iv) The conduct consists of denials or factual contentions that are not warranted by the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are not reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.

(b) An inmate’s commencement of a civil action or appeal against a government entity or employee when any of the following applies:

(i) The claim that is the basis of the civil action fails to state a claim or the issues of law that are the basis of the appeal fail to state any issues of law.

(ii) It is clear that the inmate cannot prove material facts in support of the claim that is the basis of the civil action or in support of the issues of law that are the basis of the appeal.

(iii) The claim that is the basis of the civil action is substantially similar to a claim in a previous civil action commenced by the inmate or the issues of law that are the basis of the appeal are substantially similar to issues of law raised in a previous appeal commenced by the inmate, in that the claim that is the basis of the current civil action or the issues of law that are the basis of the current appeal involve the same parties or arise from the same operative facts as the claim or issues of law in the previous civil action or appeal.

Larry’s/Andy’s/Bill’s proposed lawsuit would fall under (2)(a)(i), as it is both harassing and maliciously injurious. The lawsuit would also fall under (2)(a)(ii), as it cannot be supported under existing law and is not a good faith reversal of existing law. Any one of those four reasons is sufficient to find the lawsuit frivolous, and I don’t claim my list to be exhaustive.

Harassment: Larry has no “standing” for the lawsuit. He is not an Ohio citizen, and therefore is not harmed in anyway by the current code. Furthermore, and more importantly, his stated purpose in requesting the notices is to entrap the Board of Education in a situation that he feels is unlawful, despite long-standing practice.

Malicious Injury: Similar to the harassment charge. Larry would intend financial injury to the Board in the form of attorney fees and a $500 award, despite the fact that he would not have been harmed had he not made the request, which we have already established is intended to initiate the lawsuit.

Cannot be Supported Under Existing Law: The Revised Code already allows an exception for emergency. The full text of Division (F) of Section 121.22 follows (emphasis mine):

(F) Every public body, by rule, shall establish a reasonable method whereby any person may determine the time and place of all regularly scheduled meetings and the time, place, and purpose of all special meetings. A public body shall not hold a special meeting unless it gives at least twenty-four hours’ advance notice to the news media that have requested notification, except in the event of an emergency requiring immediate official action. In the event of an emergency, the member or members calling the meeting shall notify the news media that have requested notification immediately of the time, place, and purpose of the meeting.

The rule shall provide that any person, upon request and payment of a reasonable fee, may obtain reasonable advance notification of all meetings at which any specific type of public business is to be discussed. Provisions for advance notification may include, but are not limited to, mailing the agenda of meetings to all subscribers on a mailing list or mailing notices in self-addressed, stamped envelopes provided by the person.

Notice the use of reasonable in those two paragraphs. Reasonable works both ways. It is unreasonable to believe that advance notice by mail could arrive within 24 hours to all requesting persons, particularly one on the other side of the country, yet special meetings only require 24 hours advance notice. And note that that advance notice is only required to be given to news media, despite the general requirement of reasonable advance notice to all subscribers. Here, the specific requirement trumps the general requirement. In addition, contained within the Ohio Administrative Code are rules, amplifying Section 121.22, that specifically address the requirements for emergency additions to the agenda and the notification requirements. For example, Section 4901-3-1 (governing meetings of the Public Utility Commission) stated in Division (D) (emphasis mine:

(D) Agendas.

(1) The agenda for commission meetings in which specific cases are to be considered shall include the case number and a brief description of the case name. If a meeting is scheduled to consider a specific or general topic or subject matter, the agenda will only give the topic or subject matter to be discussed.

(2) If a case, topic, or subject matter needs to be added to an agenda after the agenda has been issued, the additions shall be noticed in the same manner as if an emergency meeting were scheduled, i.e., if time permits, the additions will be available in the information racks and on the commission’s web site and distributed by e-mail and fax as early as possible prior to the start of the meeting.

This must, by law, conform to the requirements of “reasonable advanced notice” in 121.22. Therefore, the practice is permissible under existing law.

Not a Good Faith…: Obviously this is the hardest to establish. The attempt is not being made in good faith (see Harassment and Malicious Injury), but certain presentations of the argument could make a case for revision. However, the argument as presented would essentially prohibit legitimate emergencies from being dealt with in a proper manner. Frankly, I think this point is rather weak - the other three are more than sufficient, so I’d rather not waste any more time on it.

This is the point where I make a disclaimer. I feel that these antics by the ID proponents expose a loophole in the current system that needs patching. As an outside observer, I would very much like to see an amendment to the Revised Code that explicitly states that any emergency agenda item must be open to public comments before being voted on (exception - executive meeting items). However, the method proposed by Larry is both illegal and will not accomplish this goal.

BTW, while we’re talking about reasonable attorney fees, does anyone know the details of the Dover damages? Plaintiffs were supposed to file their itemized list by Feb 15th.

Jackass, you may begin braying.

Comment #80312

Posted by Raging Bee on February 16, 2006 8:38 AM (e)

So now Larry’s crybaby subjectivism has progressed to the point where he has his various names talking to/about each other? And he never even addressed, in any way, the questions put to him about the use of multiple names? Does he have any clue how ridiculous he looks?

That’s the saddest joke I’ve ever heard. Disgraceful, pathetic, and pitiable, all at the same time.

Comment #80315

Posted by S.P. on February 16, 2006 9:02 AM (e)

Comment #80276
Posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on February 16, 2006 12:06 AM

Harassment: Larry has no “standing” for the lawsuit. He is not an Ohio citizen, and therefore is not harmed in anyway by the current code.

How do you know who is and who is not an Ohio citizen ? Anyway, Ohio Revised Code Sec. 121.22 says that “any person may bring an action to enforce this section” — you don’t have to be an Ohio citizen or resident. Also, commenters who come in from out-of-state have been especially harmed by the Board’s action of voting before the public comments, because these commenters often expend more time and money to attend than state residents do. Also, though the federal courts generally – but not always – require that the plaintiff be “injured-in-fact” because of the “cases” and “controversies” provisions of Article III of the US Constitution, the states do not necessarily have this requirement.

Furthermore, and more importantly, his stated purpose in requesting the notices is to entrap the Board of Education in a situation that he feels is unlawful, despite long-standing practice.

It is hardly harassment to expect the board to (1) stick to the agenda except in genuine emergencies and (2) hear public comments before voting (even you admitted that this should be required). As for “long-standing practice,” the board’s shenanigans in dealing with the evolution lesson plan are becoming a tradition.

Malicious Injury: Similar to the harassment charge. Larry would intend financial injury to the Board in the form of attorney fees and a $500 award, despite the fact that he would not have been harmed had he not made the request, which we have already established is intended to initiate the lawsuit.

Statutory awards are hardly a “malicious injury” within the meaning of ORC Sec. 2323.51, but if this is a big problem, the awards could be waived. Also, there would be no attorney fees if the plaintiff is pro se .

Cannot be Supported Under Existing Law: The Revised Code already allows an exception for emergency.

The exception for an emergency specifically applies only to “special meetings.” We are talking here about regular scheduled meetings of the Board of Education.

In addition, contained within the Ohio Administrative Code are rules, amplifying Section 121.22, that specifically address the requirements for emergency additions to the agenda and the notification requirements.

The Ohio Administrative Code must be consistent with the statutory Ohio Revised Code. The ORC does allow for emergencies (at least in “special meetings” – there are no specific provisions for dealing with emergencies at regular scheduled meetings, though emergency action should be allowed there too), but the Board of Education is clearly abusing its power to take “emergency” action. Something like the evolution lesson plan cannot ever be a true emergency.

This is the point where I make a disclaimer. I feel that these antics by the ID proponents expose a loophole in the current system that needs patching.

I disagree that the issue here is “ID.” Anyway, we don’t know which board members are particularly responsible for the “antics,” and these members could be on just one side or both sides of the issue.

I would very much like to see an amendment to the Revised Code that explicitly states that any emergency agenda item must be open to public comments before being voted on.

I agree (BTW, “emergency agenda item” is a contradiction in terms – if it is an emergency, then it is not on the agenda). However, it is unfair that those who are absent because they did not get adequate advance notice would not have a chance to comment – that is one of the reasons why emergency actions should be avoided where possible.

However, the method proposed by Larry is both illegal and will not accomplish this goal.

I disagree.

BTW, while we’re talking about reasonable attorney fees, does anyone know the details of the Dover damages? Plaintiffs were supposed to file their itemized list by Feb 15th.

The Dover fees are not reasonable – the plaintiffs had 9-10 attorneys of record, which was overkill.

Jackass, you may begin braying.

I do not need to resort to insults, because my sensible arguments speak for themselves.

Comment #80316

Posted by ben on February 16, 2006 9:10 AM (e)

Larry has no “standing” for the lawsuit. He is not an Ohio citizen, and therefore is not harmed in anyway by the current code.

How do you know who is and who is not an Ohio citizen ?

We know this, “S.P.”, because Bill Keely = Andy H = Larry Fafarman = you, you jackass, and you’re a retired engineer who lives in Los Angeles, apparently has no life, and deceitfully and maliciously posts to PT under various screen names to create the entirely fraudulent impression that there is a base of support for your viewpoints that exists outside your own head.

It’s hard to decide which is more pathetic, that Fafafooey posts under all these names and won’t admit it, or that he exhibits absolutely no ability to keep this practice from being instantly obvious. Even davescot as “whoever” took a few posts to figure out. Larry’s so one-dimensional he cannot even flesh out his lies that much.

Comment #80331

Posted by steve s on February 16, 2006 10:26 AM (e)

Everybody see the Trackback link DaveScot posted at the bottom of this page? It used to go to post 817 on Uncommon Descent, where DaveScot made erroneous comments about how trackbacks worked, and blamed us for his ignorance? Click on the link. That thread is no more.

Comment #80334

Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter on February 16, 2006 10:33 AM (e)

Steve s wrote:

Everybody see the Trackback link DaveScot posted at the bottom of this page? It used to go to post 817 on Uncommon Descent, where DaveScot made erroneous comments about how trackbacks worked, and blamed us for his ignorance? Click on the link. That thread is no more.

Are you surprised? That Dave Scot would remove yet another of the many, many, many posts/threads that demonstrate how remarkably idiotic he is?

What’s hilarious (to me) is that he also appears to be ignorant of the fact that his threads/posts etc. can be saved: he essentially can’t cover up being a fool.

Comment #80365

Posted by Moses on February 16, 2006 1:04 PM (e)

Comment #80315

Posted by S.P. on February 16, 2006 09:02 AM (e)

Comment #80276
Posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on February 16, 2006 12:06 AM

Harassment: Larry has no “standing” for the lawsuit. He is not an Ohio citizen, and therefore is not harmed in anyway by the current code.

How do you know who is and who is not an Ohio citizen ? Anyway, Ohio Revised Code Sec. 121.22 says that “any person may bring an action to enforce this section” —- you don’t have to be an Ohio citizen or resident. Also, commenters who come in from out-of-state have been especially harmed by the Board’s action of voting before the public comments, because these commenters often expend more time and money to attend than state residents do. Also, though the federal courts generally — but not always — require that the plaintiff be “injured-in-fact” because of the “cases” and “controversies” provisions of Article III of the US Constitution, the states do not necessarily have this requirement.

Larry is a retired engineer and lives in LA. He’s into bike riding, political activism and is a holocust denier and a supporter of racist Confederate flag issues.

Comment #80381

Posted by Tyrannosaurus on February 16, 2006 2:20 PM (e)

Boohoo boohoo boohoo!!!!! poor IDiots got another swift kick in the rear end (aka ass). All they have to show for their years of effort are a string of misguided lost souls and a bunch of lunatics crying out loud about those darn-burn-in-hell-evilutionists. IDiots show up the science behind ID or shut up. Oh darn it, they have nothing so we will have to continue to cope with their whining.

Comment #80391

Posted by Tyrannosaurus on February 16, 2006 2:44 PM (e)

Pathetich Whoever posted:
Censoring criticism will not succeed in the long run, of course. You people remind me of China trying to give its people internet access for obvious good of the Chinese people but censoring the parts of it that don’t follow the communist party line for the good of the Chinese gov’t.
Pathetic and doomed
.

Ironic that this pathetic moron did have this China dribble right, well as the IDiot that he is he did inform himself before putting his foot in his mouth. Funny thing that China censor chinese publication but not the same information in other publications. Guess they believe that the majority of the populace are ignorant of other languages more in tune with the IDiots crowd believe’s!!!!!

Comment #80412

Posted by Faidon on February 16, 2006 4:03 PM (e)

I followed the trackback to UD and read the thread about 8 hrs ago. DaveScott had a paragraph at the end at the time, that said the trackback didn’t work and that it was expected from evolutionists to censorship criticism… or something. Anyway, I registered and wrote a reply that said:
“Um, DaveS, I just got here following the PT trackback, so it seems to work fine…”
…And that was it. No other comment, not one word more. Guess what: My comment never appeared. Instead, that last paragraph by Ds was gone when I checked again- without a word of explanation.

Sheesh. Is that guy always like that?

Comment #80413

Posted by steve s (ACLU member since 2001) on February 16, 2006 4:12 PM (e)

Yes, he is always like that. There’s no telling how many comments he blocked on that post, but I’m sure it’s a few. His ridiculous complaint was on Uncommon Pissant from about 1 am to about noon before he modified it, and several hours more before he deleted it, and it’s not possible that there was really only one comment the whole time. (very briefly there was a second one, also not pointing out his error).

Comment #80418

Posted by Faidon on February 16, 2006 4:26 PM (e)

steve s wrote:

Yes, he is always like that. There’s no telling how many comments he blocked on that post, but I’m sure it’s a few. His ridiculous complaint was on Uncommon Pissant from about 1 am to about noon before he modified it, and several hours more before he deleted it, and it’s not possible that there was really only one comment the whole time. (very briefly there was a second one, also not pointing out his error).

Actually, I was talking about the other thread, “Why is evolution suppressed by the scientific community”. I didn’t know he deleted that whole other one (about the URLs)!
Man, UD forums must be a really surreal place.

Comment #80420

Posted by steve s (ACLU member since 2001) on February 16, 2006 4:33 PM (e)

Oh, I didn’t know he deleted his trackback complaints from multiple threads. I didn’t read that other thread. He would also delete what he said here, if he could, such as

“By the way, your trackback URLs don’t work. Try cutting and pasting one into a browser and see what happens. Or just ask yourself why there are ZERO trackbacks on every individual article here.

Is the trackback URL there but broken just to further the sham that this is an open forum?

Why don’t you censorship soldiers at least be honest about it? I could respect you if you were at least honest about it.”

Comment #80424

Posted by Dene Bebbington on February 16, 2006 5:02 PM (e)

Faidon said:

“Sheesh. Is that guy always like that?”

Yes. DaveScot runs UD like minitrue after taking his cue from Dembski who deletes threads that are embarrassing to him. In this case DaveScot thought he had something on PT and boasted about his computing knowledge compared to Wesley’s. It seems that when he was shown to be clueless about trackbacks that the blog was purged accordingly.

Comment #80469

Posted by Henry J on February 16, 2006 9:20 PM (e)

The title at the top of this article has an extra b > tag following it, that’s causing the text below that to be bold fonted clear to the end of the page. (It’s also affecting the main index page.)

Comment #80477

Posted by RBH on February 16, 2006 10:15 PM (e)

Henry J wrote

The title at the top of this article has an extra b > tag following it, that’s causing the text below that to be bold fonted clear to the end of the page. (It’s also affecting the main index page.)

Oops. Fixed. Thanks.

Comment #80478

Posted by Sir_Toejam on February 16, 2006 10:18 PM (e)

Henry J wrote

The title at the top of this article has an extra b > tag following it, that’s causing the text below that to be bold fonted clear to the end of the page. (It’s also affecting the main index page.)

Oops. Fixed. Thanks.

no doubt Dave Scott will think this a miracle too.

(He’s easily impressed, after all).

*snicker*

Comment #80577

Posted by PvM on February 17, 2006 1:57 PM (e)

Andy H is trying to give some free legal advice and as Dover found out, there is no free lunch :-)

A member of the board called for an emergency motion. The chair of the board has the power to rule on admitting such a motion or not. Since the press had been alerted to the possibility of an emergency motion, the board’s actions meet the state of Ohio’s requirement for public meetings.

Check out the rules and regulations Andy. Always a good place to start. Read what it says about emergency motions and emergency meetings and requirements of public meetings to be announced to the public.

Comment #80942

Posted by Andy H on February 19, 2006 8:23 PM (e)

Comment #80577
Posted by PvM on February 17, 2006 01:57 PM

Andy H is trying to give some free legal advice and as Dover found out, there is no free lunch :-)

A member of the board called for an emergency motion. The chair of the board has the power to rule on admitting such a motion or not. Since the press had been alerted to the possibility of an emergency motion, the board’s actions meet the state of Ohio’s requirement for public meetings.

Check out the rules and regulations Andy. Always a good place to start. Read what it says about emergency motions and emergency meetings and requirements of public meetings to be announced to the public.

OK, I will go over this again. Here is the relevant statute, Ohio Revised Code Section 121.22 (F) –

(F) Every public body, by rule, shall establish a reasonable method whereby any person may determine the time and place of all regularly scheduled meetings and the time, place, and purpose of all special meetings. A public body shall not hold a special meeting unless it gives at least twenty-four hours’ advance notice to the news media that have requested notification, except in the event of an emergency requiring immediate official action. In the event of an emergency, the member or members calling the meeting shall notify the news media that have requested notification immediately of the time, place, and purpose of the meeting.

The rule shall provide that any person, upon request and payment of a reasonable fee, may obtain reasonable advance notification of all meetings at which any specific type of public business is to be discussed. Provisions for advance notification may include, but are not limited to, mailing the agenda of meetings to all subscribers on a mailing list or mailing notices in self-addressed, stamped envelopes provided by the person.

The “emergency” provisions above expressly apply only to “special” meetings, whereas these board of education meetings are regularly scheduled meetings, though it is reasonable to allow for emergencies at regularly scheduled meetings too.

ORC 121.22(F) above provides that “any person….may obtain reasonable advance notification,” as opposed to the 24-hour notification – or less in an emergency – given to the media in the case of special meetings (by reasonable extension, this notification rule for emergencies that call for special meetings should also apply to emergency motions at regularly scheduled meetings ). In the case of the evolution lesson plan, the board of education is clearly abusing its power to take emergency action. At the January meeting, the lame excuse given for the emergency vote on the lesson plan was the alleged threat of a lawsuit following the Dover decision. No excuse at all was given for the emergency vote at the February meeting. The Board is abusing its emergency action power to (1) avoid giving reasonable advance public notice of discussion and voting on the evolution lesson plan and (2) avoid hearing public comments on the lesson plan until after the vote. This is an “abuse of discretion” kind of thing. Under the Brown Act of California, it takes almost a veritable disaster to qualify as an “emergency.” I don’t understand why the interested parties in Ohio put up with this kind of crap. Are they going to read the riot act to the Board now, or just sit back and wait for the Board to take another “emergency action” on the lesson plan (as may very well happen if the writing committee submits a revised plan) ? I would just seek an injunction prohibiting the board from ever again treating the lesson plan as an “emergency” and from ever again voting on the lesson plan before hearing public comments.

There is no scenario under which the lesson plan could be an emergency issue. Suppose, for example, that the Board is sued over the lesson plan, loses in court, and then has only 30 days to decide whether to appeal. Instead of treating the situation as an emergency, the board could just tentatively file an appeal and then decide at a future meeting whether to continue it. This would also buy the board time to consider any complex issues. Are you beginning to get the idea ?

Also, lawsuits are great publicity generators ! People should be taught in high school and college how to sue the government on their own so that they do not have to pay the exorbitant fees that attorneys demand.

As for Dover – I think that it is wrong to conclude that the Dover defendants’ legal representation was bad just because it was free and the defendants lost. The Dover defendants screwed up so badly that there was no dream team that could have saved them.

Comment #80944

Posted by PvM on February 19, 2006 8:45 PM (e)

Andy H wrote:

There is no scenario under which the lesson plan could be an emergency issue. Suppose, for example, that the Board is sued over the lesson plan, loses in court, and then has only 30 days to decide whether to appeal. Instead of treating the situation as an emergency, the board could just tentatively file an appeal and then decide at a future meeting whether to continue it. This would also buy the board time to consider any complex issues. Are you beginning to get the idea ?

The board disagreed and found that the issue could be considered as an emergency motion, despite Larry’s ‘objections’.
The issue was hardly that complex, it’s ‘teach the controversy’ had brought in the teaching of Intelligent Design through the backdoor. Given the ruling in Dover it was wise to avoid the ‘Dover trap’. Larry seems to suggest that the board should have waited for it to be sued and lose before taking these steps? Why not save the millions of dollars and apply them to good education.

“All of that adds up to a sense of urgency and a sense of now is the time to clean up our act,” said Robin C. Hovis, a stockbroker from Millersburg who is one of two board members pushing an emergency motion on Tuesday to delete the “critical analysis” language and the lesson plan. “There is an atmosphere among the board, at least a growing atmosphere, that this is a misguided policy and we better get rid of it.”

Link

Comment #80945

Posted by PvM on February 19, 2006 8:50 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'url'

Comment #80946

Posted by PvM on February 19, 2006 8:52 PM (e)

“This lesson is bad news, the ‘critically analyze’ wording is bad news,” said Martha W. Wise, the board member behind the emergency motion. “It is deeply unfair to the children of this state to mislead them about the nature of science.” Wise, a 28-year veteran of the board who led the fight to delete the anti-evolution language from the science standards and accompanying lesson plan, is a creationist who has taken heat from other creationists for her stance, according to the Chicago Tribune.

link

Indeed, critically analyze is merely an invitation for creationist arguments. There are better ways to deal with controversies about the mechanisms of evolutionary theory than misleading them about the nature of science. The lesson plan was just plain aweful. I cannot believe why anyone would support the lesson plan, especially those interested in teaching the controversy or critically analyze…

Comment #80947

Posted by PvM on February 19, 2006 8:55 PM (e)

As for Dover — I think that it is wrong to conclude that the Dover defendants’ legal representation was bad just because it was free and the defendants lost. The Dover defendants screwed up so badly that there was no dream team that could have saved them.

The defendants could have made an attempt to show that ID serves a valid secular purpose, being scientifically relevant…

Of course they tried and with various key ID activists withdrawn, they faced an uphill battle. But you are right, the lack of a valid secular purpose makes ID likely to fail the establishment clause, given it’s creationist history and entanglements

Comment #80955

Posted by Jon Fleming on February 19, 2006 9:51 PM (e)

PvM wrote:

The board disagreed and found that the issue could be considered as an emergency motion, despite Larry’s ‘objections’.

I’m no expert in these matters … but even I am aware that “emergency” is so difficult to define, and so ill-defined in the relevant statutes, that declaring an emergency is ridiculously common. That allows avoiding all sorts of time limits, e.g applying new laws immediately.

Comment #80979

Posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on February 20, 2006 2:36 AM (e)

Jon Fleming wrote:

I’m no expert in these matters … but even I am aware that “emergency” is so difficult to define, and so ill-defined in the relevant statutes, that declaring an emergency is ridiculously common. That allows avoiding all sorts of time limits, e.g applying new laws immediately.

Ah, but in order to enact a new law or rule on an emergency basis (or otherwise amend or remove), the Code states that the Governor must give approval and that within 30 days the appropriate body must affirm it, otherwise it becomes null. Note: this does not apply to policies as these are at a lower level than a rule. I can search that rule again if someone wants the details.

As it is, I think a notification less than 24 hours prior to the meeting of an imminent intent to sue unless an activity enabled by a certain policy is stopped, plus the recent revealing of documentation that showed the policy’s history was similar to a recent court case, might justifiably be considered an emergency.

Given the demand of the ACLU published that very morning, combined with the damning content found in the FOIA documents released since the previous meeting, I think it could be considered an actual emergency. My beef is that no public comment was permitted before the decision was made.

Side note to the speculators - Jon Fleming has been posting here since mid 2004. No Whacko-Troll without further evidence. ;)

Comment #80998

Posted by Andy H on February 20, 2006 7:36 AM (e)

Comment #80944
Posted by PvM on February 19, 2006 08:45 PM

The board disagreed and found that the issue could be considered as an emergency motion, despite Larry’s ‘objections’.

The idea is to find a judge who disagrees with the board and rules that the board abused its discretion in treating the evolution lesson plan as an emergency issue not just once, but twice.

In January, the excuse was that there was a threat of a lawsuit because of the Dover decision. However, consider the following –

(1) The decision was released about 3 weeks before the board meeting, allowing plenty of time to put the lesson plan on the agenda.

(2) An announcement of an intention to vote on the plan in February probably would have forestalled any lawsuit.

(3) Even if a lawsuit had been filed before the February meeting, it would not have been the end of the world.

At the February meeting, the supposed excuse was that the pressure to eliminate the lesson plan had been building. But some of the events that generated that pressure occurred a long time before the meeting. Under the Brown Act of California, only 72 hours advance notice is required for agenda items. And even if the board did not get enough warning of reasons to put the lesson plan on the agenda, my above arguments #2 and #3 concerning the January meeting would apply.

Why are you siding with the Board on this issue ? Are you happy that the board does not give adequate advance notice of consideration of the lesson plan and votes before hearing public comments on the issue ?

The issue was hardly that complex, it’s ‘teach the controversy’ had brought in the teaching of Intelligent Design through the backdoor.

The Ohio lesson plan is not “ID.” ID has become a code term for all criticism of evolution theory. My arguments against co-evolution in Comment #79655 on your “False Fear” thread do not concern “design” (and incidentally, no one on PT has even attempted to refute my core arguments against co-evolution ).

Given the ruling in Dover it was wise to avoid the ‘Dover trap’.

This “Dover trap” is a figment of the imaginations of those who seek censorship of criticism of evolution theory in the public-school science classrooms.

Larry seems to suggest that the board should have waited for it to be sued and lose before taking these steps?

I suggested nothing of the kind. I was trying to think up a scenario where the board supposedly would have to make an emergency decision concerning the lesson plan. I supposed that the announcement of an adverse court decision is received without enough time to put the matter on the agenda and that the board has only 30 days (the normal time limit in federal courts) to decide whether to appeal. I showed that even here, it would not be necessary for the board to make an immediate decision – the board could just tentatively file an appeal and decide at a future meeting whether to continue it.

Why not save the millions of dollars and apply them to good education.

It is hard to imagine a trial on the issue that would be bigger than the Dover trial, and that trial is expected to cost the defendants only something over a million dollars. That is a lot of money for the Dover Area school district but is peanuts for a big state like Ohio.

Comment #81000

Posted by k.e. on February 20, 2006 8:10 AM (e)

Well that was a quick name change Andy H. or should I say B.F? Who is really “super activist” Lawrence Fafarman
bitches and wheezes AGAIN
Lawrence Fafarman
you are nothing but a tiresome boring old fart go away and die.

But before you do have a look at this

http://afr.com/articles/2006/02/16/1140064199920…

here are some quotes NOTE THAT Lawrence Fafarman is a Holocausts revisionist!


When George Bush recently said that evolution and intelligent design should be taught side by side, so that students “can understand what the debate is about”, he probably didn’t know that he was subscribing to the wisdom of Gerald Graff, a professor of English at the University of Illinois, Chicago, and a founder of Teachers for a Democratic Culture, an organisation dedicated to “combating conservative misrepresentations” of what goes on in college classrooms.



Intelligent designers are not the first denizens of the right to borrow arguments and strategies from the liberal and postmodern left. In the early 1990s, the Holocaust denier Bradley Smith was able to place an ad - actually an essay - in college student newspapers in part because he presented his ideas under the heading “The Holocaust Controversy: The Case for Open Debate”. Not the case for why there was no campaign to exterminate the Jews, or for why the Nazis were innocent of genocidal thoughts, or for why Holocaust-promoting Jews are just trying to drum up “financial support for Jewish causes” - though all these things were asserted in the body of the ad - but the case for open debate, and how could anyone; especially an academic, be against that? Ours is not a “radical point of view”, Smith asserts. We are just acting on premises that “were worked out some time ago during a little something called the Enlightenment”. In short, we are the true liberals, and it is the scholars who have become “Thought Police”.


Whether this has ever been true of the right’s targets, it is now demonstrably true of the right itself, whose members recite the mantras of “teach the controversy” or “keep the debate open” whenever they find it convenient. They do so not out of a commitment to scrupulous scholarship but in an effort to accomplish through misdirection and displacement what they cannot accomplish through evidence and argument

Comment #81012

Posted by steve s on February 20, 2006 9:33 AM (e)

On behalf of those who want a comment system which enforces better behavior, let me just say thanks, Larry. You’re helping us get there.

Comment #81020

Posted by Russell on February 20, 2006 10:37 AM (e)

If Larry Andy will indulge me, I’d like to shift the focus for just a moment to the subject of the original post. While I’m encouraged that ID is reeling, I’m not sure the death certificate has been signed yet.

From today’s Columbus Dispatch:

Curriculum guidelines on evolution sent to panel for review
Monday, February 20, 2006
Catherine Candisky
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Meet the new committee, same as the old committee.

Last week, the State Board of Education scrapped curriculum guidelines that would have opened the schoolhouse door to the teaching of intelligent design. Now the guidelines will be reviewed by the same panel that singled out Darwin’s theory of evolution for additional scrutiny in the first place….

Several state board members who voted to delete controversial provisions of the standard and lesson plan said they were concerned about singling out evolution for critical analysis and suggested all scientific theories should be subject to such scrutiny.

“Those of us who support critical analysis never meant to single out evolution,” Cochran said. “It’s something we overlooked.”

(emphasis mine; I just thought that, if anyone is interested, I believe Rev. Cochran has a bridge in the New York metropolitan area he’s looking to sell for a very reasonable price.)

Now, back to your regularly scheduled Larry Andy H.

Comment #81021

Posted by PvM on February 20, 2006 10:42 AM (e)

Larry wrote:

Why are you siding with the Board on this issue ? Are you happy that the board does not give adequate advance notice of consideration of the lesson plan and votes before hearing public comments on the issue ?

Lovely a ‘have you stopped beating your wife’ ‘argument’

Larry wrote:

The Ohio lesson plan is not “ID.” ID has become a code term for all criticism of evolution theory.

The Ohio lesson plan clearly implements ID. Worse, it presents severely flawed arguments. The board had not choice once it heard from its scientific advisors to reject the plan.

Larry wrote:

My arguments against co-evolution in Comment #79655 on your “False Fear” thread do not concern “design” (and incidentally, no one on PT has even attempted to refute my core arguments against co-evolution ).

Yawn… still ignoring the postings that have shown your comments about co-evolution to be without much merrit?

Larry wrote:

This “Dover trap” is a figment of the imaginations of those who seek censorship of criticism of evolution theory in the public-school science classrooms.

On the contrary, the Dover trap has shown that the approach if teaching the controversy is nothing but a sham. It makes for nice rethoric but Ohio has shown what “teach the controversy” results, it opens the back door to flawed intelligent design arguments.

The board has a responsibility to not only rectify its errors when it is informed of the legal case in Dover as well as when it is informed that the lesson plan it approved, was fundamentally flawed.
The Dover trap, is very real and costly. All because some insist on teaching poor arguments against something they believe conflicts with their religious faith.

Stanley Fish explained all this in his excellent essay

Whether this has ever been true ofthe right’s targets, it is now demonstrably true of the right itself, whose members recite the mantras of “teach the controversy” or “keep the debate open” whenever they find it convenient. They do so not out of a commitment to scrupulous scholarship but in an effort to accomplish through misdirection and displacement what they cannot accomplish through evidence and argument.

He also gives a good overview of the similarities and differences between ID and holocaust deniers

There is, however, an equivalence of strategy that makes linking the two inevitable: in both cases, issues that have been settled in the relevant academic departments - history and biology, respectively - are reopened by refraining them as abstract questions about the value of debate as a moral good. When John West of the Discovery Institute (the intelligent design think tank) declares that “All Americans who cherish free speech” should reject any effort to exclude intelligent design from the classroom and invokes “the free market place of ideas” to clinch his case, his words could be incorporated wholesale into Bradley Smith’s ad. Intelligent designers and Holocaust deniers, despite the great differences between them, play the same shell game; they both say: Look here, in the highest reaches of speculation about inquiry in general, and not there, in the places where the particular, nitty-gritty work of inquiry is actually being done.

“Teach the controversy” or “critically analyze” are clearly seen as sham approaches not just because of the strong religious motivations but also because they are about issues which have since long been settled in science. If ID were interested in teaching good science then it should start with cleaning up its own closet of skeletons.

Comment #81025

Posted by PvM on February 20, 2006 11:09 AM (e)

Cochran wrote:

Cochran replied: “If I heard your testimony correctly, those who agree with your point of view are honest and those who disagree are dishonest. Is that what you said?”

“Yes, as far as passing off (intelligent design) as science,” Morris said.

“So half the board is dishonest? How do you square your comments with the ratings from (Thomas B.) Fordham Foundation and Education Weekly which gave us an A- and a B?”

“You’ve never heard me argue for intelligent design, because I don’t want it in there,” said board member Michael Cochran. “But I don’t see it in there.”

He also criticized opponents’ assertions that controversies surrounding evolution are fictional, and took exception to one biologist’s characterization of evolution critics as “cartoons.”

“It’s clear, after today, the scientific community is not all of one mind on this,” he said.

Wise, a 27-year veteran of the board, got things rolling with her assertion that a lesson plan written for Ohio schools had been lifted directly from a seminal book on intelligent design. The lesson, Wise said, was a thinly veiled version of intelligent design. And, she added, those who supported the lesson knew it.

“You’re calling me a liar!” thundered board member Michael Cochran. “Where have I every been thinly veiled about anything? It shows how foolish and stupid that comment was.” Cochran, a supporter of the lesson plan, is a lawyer and a rector at Christ Church Anglican

Link

“There are credentialed scientists who support intelligent design,” Cochran said.

Link

Yesterday, Michael Cochran, a board member from Blacklick, noted that 12,000 of the 17,000 responses the Education Department has received on the science standards are from people who support teaching evolution, intelligent design, creationism and any other competing concept.

“That’s 3-to-1. How are we to react to that beside what we are doing – ignoring it?” Cochran said, looking to his colleagues for a response.

“I guess your silence is the answer.”

Link

Comment #81055

Posted by Andy H on February 20, 2006 2:05 PM (e)

Comment #80979
Posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on February 20, 2006 02:36 AM

As it is, I think a notification less than 24 hours prior to the meeting of an imminent intent to sue unless an activity enabled by a certain policy is stopped, plus the recent revealing of documentation that showed the policy’s history was similar to a recent court case, might justifiably be considered an emergency.

Given the demand of the ACLU published that very morning, combined with the damning content found in the FOIA documents released since the previous meeting, I think it could be considered an actual emergency. My beef is that no public comment was permitted before the decision was made.

The “ACLU demand” was just a letter to the Toledo public school system. This letter did not even directly mention the Ohio evolution lesson plan. And the letter was not a notification of an “imminent intent to sue” but just carried a veiled threat to sue. Also, no government body should allow itself to be stampeded into taking emergency action because of a lawsuit threat made so close to a meeting that there is not enough time to put the matter on the agenda. The ACLU letter is on –
http://www.acluohio.org/issues/intelligent_desig…

Also, for your information – Under California Code Section 54956.5, from the Brown Act, which governs meetings of govenmental bodies, an “emergency situation” is defined as (1) a work stoppage, crippling activity, or other activity that severely impairs public health, safety, or both, or (2) a crippling disaster, mass destruction, terrorist act, or threatened terrorist activity. Says nothing about lawsuit threats.

Comment #81058

Posted by Shirley Knott on February 20, 2006 2:19 PM (e)

Larry, you *DO* know that Ohio is not part of California, don’t’ you?
Surely anyone with your vast knowledge of the law and its proper application must be aware that Ohio is no bound by California statutes.

So why should any of us care about your bloviating, you old fool?

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Comment #81093

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on February 20, 2006 5:00 PM (e)

Larry, you *DO* know that Ohio is not part of California, don’t’ you?

Larry doesn’t even know his own name.

Larry is seriously screwed in the head.

Comment #81101

Posted by Sir_Toejam on February 20, 2006 5:43 PM (e)

Side note to the speculators - Jon Fleming has been posting here since mid 2004. No Whacko-Troll without further evidence. ;)

no worries, Larry Fubar would never start off one of his rambling, incoherent missives with:

I’m no expert in these matters

Larry is a self-confirmed (he cites his alternative persona as proof) expert on all matters that he chooses to slaver about.

Comment #81148

Posted by Andy H on February 20, 2006 7:53 PM (e)

Comment #81021
Posted by PvM on February 20, 2006 10:42 AM

“Why are you siding with the Board on this issue ? Are you happy that the board does not give adequate advance notice of consideration of the lesson plan and votes before hearing public comments on the issue ?”

Lovely a ‘have you stopped beating your wife’ ‘argument’

It is actually a “has your wife stopped beating you” kind of argument.

The Ohio lesson plan clearly implements ID.

That statement shows that you don’t have any idea what ID is.

“My arguments against co-evolution in Comment #79655 on your “False Fear” thread do not concern “design” (and incidentally, no one on PT has even attempted to refute my core arguments against co-evolution ).”

Yawn… still ignoring the postings that have shown your comments about co-evolution to be without much merrit?

They don’t have “much merit” ? Does that mean that they have at least a little merit ? Anyway, those postings did not address my core arguments against co-evolution in Comment #79655 on your “False Fear” thread.

He also gives a good overview of the similarities and differences between ID and holocaust deniers

I am not a holocaust denier – I am a holocaust revisionist. Anyway, that is just an ad hominem attack.

I have been condemned so many times here in regard to my holocaust views that I feel I am entitled to say something in my defense on this issue, even though it is off-topic. Here are some of my reasons for doubting official holocaust history –

(1) Despite claims of “meticulous” Nazi records, the official figure for the number of Auschwitz deaths, accepted as 3-4 million for decades, has been revised sharply downward to 1-1.5 million.

(2) The Nazis had no reliable ways of distinguishing Jews from non-Jews. The Nazis just rounded up people en masse and could not do genealogical checks on individuals. A recent book, “IBM and the Holocaust,” makes the absurd claim that the Nazis identified all the Jews of Europe by using primitive IBM Hollerith card-reading and card-sorting machines to correlate data stored on billions of punched cards !

So you see, even when a case appears airtight, there may be holes in it.

“Teach the controversy” or “critically analyze” are clearly seen as sham approaches not just because of the strong religious motivations but also because they are about issues which have since long been settled in science.

The issues are never settled. For example, so far as I can find, the arguments I have raised against co-evolution have not been raised before.

Comment #81149

Posted by Steviepinhead on February 20, 2006 7:59 PM (e)

For those who haven’t tracked “Andy H” the unethical poster back to his original Larry FaFalutin puppet, the above post should serve as an update on what a complete maroon he really is.

Bleh!

Comment #81152

Posted by Sir_Toejam on February 20, 2006 8:02 PM (e)

I still don’t get why PvM is letting larry blatantly violate the rules of this board in this particular thread.

gees, Pim, at least give him a warning or something.

what good are rules if you don’t enforce them?

I know his real name is Larry Fafarman, and i suspected long ago he would pull something like this crap, that’s why I asked him to verify his identity weeks ago.

He had no problem with that at the time.

now he seems to de-facto deny his own existence on a regular basis.

It’s gone far beyond humorous in my book.

so, If you aren’t going to even warn him for his abuse of the rules, can you at least explain the reasoning behind it?

Comment #81153

Posted by Sir_Toejam on February 20, 2006 8:04 PM (e)

of course, i said all that and then suddenly realized i posted it in the wrong thread!

ack.

whatever…

same question directed at Richard then.

Comment #81158

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on February 20, 2006 8:39 PM (e)

Shut up, Larry.

Comment #81161

Posted by RBH on February 20, 2006 8:49 PM (e)

And this thread has run its course as far as I can see. Comments closed. Thanks, folks!

RBH