Embarrassed to be a Texan

[Fringe]

Don McLeroy's anti-science rhetoric ramblings have received a lot national attention. It’s totally embarrassing. How is it possible we have this retard as the Chairman of the Texas State Board of Education? Please contact your Texas Senators and get this guy out of office.

[sheeats]

Oh, God. I saw that on Digg this morning and wanted to crawl under a rock.

The only thing I can say in our defense as Texans is this: College Station. That is, at least it didn't come out of one of our major cities. And, really, Texas A&M makes its own jokes, so I won't even go there...

[Jax]

This is the kind of thing that makes Canadians laugh at me for being in Texas.

The only thing that makes me feel better about it is knowing that most Texans I've met don't like the idea of people like this being in important positions either.

[TheNiche]

I'm not embarrassed in the least to be a Texan.

This is one guy (of many) in state government that I wish weren't there. That's all. The City of Houston has them, and so does the United States. Yes, even Canada has them. For as long as there are bureaucrats, there will be bad apples among them.

[LTAWACS]

I cannot believe this clown is even allowed to set foot in any government building. What a CLOWN.

[BryanS]

But doesn't he ask legitimate scientific questions, not necessarily related to creationism? If evolution is a gradual change process... how can some evolutionary tracks be vertical in nature, as he claims? Why are there "spontaneous" fossil records that cannot be traced back to other records, as he claims? If we indeed did evolve from monkeys... then why are there still monkeys? (said unknown stand-up comedian). It would be interesting to hear the scientific rebuttal to his arguments vs. just dismissing him as a religious crazy person that believes in nothing but creationism.

[Fringe]

Churches are for preaching. Schools are for teaching.

[gwilson]

But doesn't he ask legitimate scientific questions, not necessarily related to creationism? If evolution is a gradual change process... how can some evolutionary tracks be vertical in nature, as he claims? Why are there "spontaneous" fossil records that cannot be traced back to other records, as he claims? If we indeed did evolve from monkeys... then why are there still monkeys? (said unknown stand-up comedian). It would be interesting to hear the scientific rebuttal to his arguments vs. just dismissing him as a religious crazy person that believes in nothing but creationism.

Those who should be answering that question general just dismiss people who ask that question entirely. They don't know any better than we do. When will these gits (on both sides) realize that creationism and evolution are NOT mutually exclusive. They can coexist just fine. One can address the empirical parts only without ever touching on the divine parts and vice versa and never contradict the other. That said, I don't think creation should be taught in schools simply because different religions have different versions of creation. Teach the bits that are proven, not the bits that are theoretical (which is still an awful lot of it whether people want to admit that or not)

Churches are for preaching. Schools are for teaching.

You're right. Preaching isn't done only by the religious though. Slamming down someone's throat that creation is asinine and cannot possibly be true and that anyone who believes in it (which is the vast majority of the planet mind you) is an idiot is just preaching of a different type. Minds are closed by parties on BOTH sides of this subject, which is ironic since those who are actually scientists, if they truly believe in science, cannot possibly rule out the possibility of divine participation in the creation of life.

Here is another thing to consider. Even if science addresses the questions he asks, which aren't unreasonable to ask in the slightest, it still does not rule out creation nor does it make creation and evolution mutually exclusive.

In my very simplistic explanation of things, evolution is the process of creation.

Edited May 23, 2009 by gwilson

[gwilson]

Add to that, btw, that in varying religions and stories of creation, 85% of the planet's population believes in divinity of some sort and a creation story of some sort. The 15.2% of us who believe in nothing are going to presume to tell the remaining 84.8% that we are nuts?

[sarahiki]

But doesn't he ask legitimate scientific questions, not necessarily related to creationism? If evolution is a gradual change process... how can some evolutionary tracks be vertical in nature, as he claims? Why are there "spontaneous" fossil records that cannot be traced back to other records, as he claims? If we indeed did evolve from monkeys... then why are there still monkeys? (said unknown stand-up comedian). It would be interesting to hear the scientific rebuttal to his arguments vs. just dismissing him as a religious crazy person that believes in nothing but creationism.

There are plenty of scientific "rebuttals" available. Here's one, found by a simple google search:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/futuyma.html

The reason there are still monkeys is that they are different, now, too. There was a common ancestor far in the past, from which various lines emerged, including human, and great apes.

I think it's too bad that people distrust science so much. People refuse to believe in evolution by natural selection, yet don't stop to wonder why, if scientists are so stupid, that we've still been able to put people in space, build flat-screen t.v.s , and develop nano-science. But what do those yo-yos know, after all. I'd rather believe an ignorant politician.

[NenaE]

This is the kind of thing that makes Canadians laugh at me for being in Texas.

The only thing that makes me feel better about it is knowing that most Texans I've met don't like the idea of people like this being in important positions either.

I'm usually surrounded by Canadians. The ones I know like to sometimes point out certain "little" things about our state, but for the most part, they love the warm weather, and the money they are making in our great state of Texas. Many "Texans" are transplants, anyway.

And every place has it's share of "those types of characters", even Canada.

BTW, what is this guy trying to say? Way too much double-talk... he needs to take a speech class.

Edited May 23, 2009 by NenaE

[TheNiche]

I think it's too bad that people distrust science so much. People refuse to believe in evolution by natural selection, yet don't stop to wonder why, if scientists are so stupid, that we've still been able to put people in space, build flat-screen t.v.s , and develop nano-science. But what do those yo-yos know, after all. I'd rather believe an ignorant politician.

One must always rigorously question the theory and the evidence. True scientists distrust their own findings.

[sarahiki]

One must always rigorously question the theory and the evidence. True scientists distrust their own findings.

Rigor is fine. That's what peer review is for. But ignorant, blind distrust of proven science does not impress me.

[IronTiger]

What? You guys are attacking Don McLeroy? I actually know him and met him lots of times (a lot more than all of you combined) and know of his stance on evolutionism/creationism. I know his stance on anti-evolution is pretty extreme, but first keep in mind that "evolution" often means "survival of the fittest". Short-necked giraffes probably existed at one time but died out because they weren't very good, leading to the survival of tall-necked giraffes. Did short-necked giraffes "evolve" into long-necked ones? No.

Should I add that the most of you are acting like jerks right now, or is that just left to be assumed?

Edited May 23, 2009 by IronTiger

[TheNiche]

Rigor is fine. That's what peer review is for. But ignorant, blind distrust of proven science does not impress me.

Scientific findings cannot be proved.

Newton had plenty of peer review and was for a long time considered the final word in physics. What his findings described could be consistently replicated in laboratory and real-world environments. And for most practical applications, they're still valid. But his conception of universal laws of physics eventually proved false.

Had scientists had ignorant and blind trust in Newtonian physics, they would've ceased being scientists and instead been merely preachers of a faith.

[IronTiger]

Actually, I shouldn't be surprised that you people are attacking McLeroy. It's certainly not exclusive to the HAIF, so I shouldn't single you out of the rest of the jerks out there. Yawn.

[inthehotsun]

Unfortunately, the Texas Senate backed down and NOW will vote for the idiot again to be head of the State Board of Education.

On a funny note....check out this link in The Onion about Texas...hilarious....

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/texas...ource=a-section

[sevfiv]

Should I add that the most of you are acting like jerks right now, or is that just left to be assumed?

It's certainly not exclusive to the HAIF, so I shouldn't single you out of the rest of the jerks out there. Yawn.

It's great that you feel passionately about this, and I don't know who you're specifically talking to, but please refrain from name-calling other members of the forum.

[LTAWACS]

I just added 2 more to my ignore list.

[LTAWACS]

Scientific findings cannot be proved.

Wrong.

[Porchman]

I guess we can be encouraged to hear that he acknowledges something that took place 550 million years ago(?)

[crunchtastic]

No offense to Iron Tiger, but am I the only one tripping over the fact that someone with a stuffed-tiger avatar is defending Don McLeroy in a public forum?

[LTAWACS]

No offense to Iron Tiger, but am I the only one tripping over the fact that someone with a stuffed-tiger avatar is defending Don McLeroy in a public forum?

Maybe the stuffing is some kind of iron alloy?

[TheNiche]

Wrong.

Do explain.

[IronTiger]

It's great that you feel passionately about this, and I don't know who you're specifically talking to, but please refrain from name-calling other members of the forum.

OK, I know that personal insults are not nice, but blatant attacks on other people are not nice either. I know McLeroy is unpopular and this forum is no exception, but would we shouldn't have merciless "attack threads". Not on McLeroy, not on anyone. What if someone had a thread called "Embarrassed to be an American" and attacked Obama? Entirely different story.

Suppose McLeroy was a member on the HAIF (he isn't). Wouldn't people feel ashamed that they were attacking a fellow HAIFer? And sheeats, attacking a city with several decent people on this forum?

And Crunch, avatars typically don't mean anything. You were the one with the dog, right?

So fine, I'll change my avatar, all right?

Also, here is a webcomic that kind of shows how a lot of science and paranoia work together:

Edited May 24, 2009 by IronTiger

[Fringe]

Scientific findings cannot be proved.

And the bible can?

Suppose McLeroy was a member on the HAIF (he isn't). Wouldn't people feel ashamed that they were attacking a fellow HAIFer?

Not if your a bozo in public office.

Glad your in love with the guy irontiger but all your doing is reinforcing my belief that most hard core christiians are hypocrites.

[TheNiche]

OK, I know that personal insults are not nice, but blatant attacks on other people are not nice either. I know McLeroy is unpopular and this forum is no exception, but would we shouldn't have merciless "attack threads". Not on McLeroy, not on anyone. What if someone had a thread called "Embarrassed to be an American" and attacked Obama? Entirely different story.

Suppose McLeroy was a member on the HAIF (he isn't). Wouldn't people feel ashamed that they were attacking a fellow HAIFer? And sheeats, attacking a city with several decent people on this forum?

And Crunch, avatars typically don't mean anything. You were the one with the dog, right?

So fine, I'll change my avatar, all right?

Also, here is a webcomic that kind of shows how a lot of science and paranoia work together:

I like the avatar. And the comic you posted actually is pretty good.

I think that you'd probably get a better response if you could articulate why creationist theology is both plausible and likely. I know that you've met McLeroy (apparently more than once), and I'm sure that you have listened to more of his arguments to this effect than most folks in the world. You're right that this news story is very clearly one-sided...so make McLeroy's case, make it dispassionately, and engage in intellectually honest appraisal of its strengths and weaknesses.

One way or the other, though, don't let other peoples' incivility incite incivility from yourself.

[TheNiche]

And the bible can?

No. Furthermore, I did not mean to imply that. I am not Christian. I merely have an interest in philosophy and a tendency for classical sophistry. It disappoints me to no end that the philosophy of science is not taught in conjunction with and as a fundamental precept of the academic study of scientific fields.

[IronTiger]

And the bible can?

Not if your a bozo in public office.

Glad your in love with the guy irontiger but all your doing is reinforcing my belief that most hard core christiians are hypocrites.

First off, "Lunatic", those sayings are completely untrue. McLeroy isn't a "bozo", I'm not "in love", and I didn't "reinforce" your belief.

Edited May 24, 2009 by IronTiger

[sevfiv]

Also, some of us read information before it is filtered through the newswire/press release...

[IronTiger]

You're right that this news story is very clearly one-sided...so make McLeroy's case, make it dispassionately, and engage in intellectually honest appraisal of its strengths and weaknesses.

Even if I made a brilliant defense, most of your minds wouldn't be swayed in my direction. Is that not true?

Seriously, this thread...it's pointless bashing and one-sided bigotry. Someone sensible should lock it and let it die a slow, watery death. That would be the best ending for this.

[RedScare]

Even if I made a brilliant defense, most of your minds wouldn't be swayed in my direction. Is that not true?

Seriously, this thread...it's pointless bashing and one-sided bigotry. Someone sensible should lock it and let it die a slow, watery death. That would be the best ending for this.

I note that every thread that disagrees with your opinion is bashing and bigotry and should be locked. Apparently, you find it impossible to believe that reasonable people can have opinions that differ from yours without being pointless. Should you ever grow up and move from Bryan/College Station, I believe you will find a huge bashing, bigoted, pointless world out there.

I wish you luck.

[IronTiger]

I note that every thread that disagrees with your opinion is bashing and bigotry and should be locked. Apparently, you find it impossible to believe that reasonable people can have opinions that differ from yours without being pointless. Should you ever grow up and move from Bryan/College Station, I believe you will find a huge bashing, bigoted, pointless world out there.

I wish you luck.

Unlike the other threads (I believe this is the second one where I voted should be locked), this IS one-sided bashing, and unless you suddenly jumped in from the next-to-last point, I suggest you stop. You're right that the world is bashing, bigoted, and pointless, and I guess this is an example. No doubt would you agree the world is an evil place, I've seen it, in Texas, on the HAIF, but also the world is full of idiots. Now, I'm not implying that either of us are idiots...I'm sure that in the "real world", you're an intelligent person with rational thoughts.

Just because something happens in the world doesn't mean it has to happen on the HAIF.

[RedScare]

Thanks for the offer, but I do not take suggestions from irritable high schoolers. That's just how I roll. But, I would be remiss if I did not point out that your repeated temper tantrums are causing the bashing, bigotry and general incivility that you protest against. Since we're making suggestions here, I suggest, as TheNiche did, that you make your opinions and arguments known in an adult and civil manner. In that way, you will not tempt us adults to make annoying posts calculated to cause you a hissy fit.

[IronTiger]

Thanks for the offer, but I do not take suggestions from irritable high schoolers. That's just how I roll. But, I would be remiss if I did not point out that your repeated temper tantrums are causing the bashing, bigotry and general incivility that you protest against. Since we're making suggestions here, I suggest, as TheNiche did, that you make your opinions and arguments known in an adult and civil manner. In that way, you will not tempt us adults to make annoying posts calculated to cause you a hissy fit.

First off, there was the "bashing, bigotry, and general incivility" long before I was involved, so you can't blame me for that.

I'm not trying to tempt "you adults" to make "annoying posts". It seems to me that because I'm on McLeroy's side, you attack me as well as McLeroy.

McLeroy aside, I'm getting really sick of your mean-spirited, antagonistic, and condescending posts here.

Edited May 25, 2009 by IronTiger

[RedScare]

McLeroy aside, I'm getting really sick of your mean-spirited, antagonistic, and condescending posts here.

Well then we need to get back on topic. For the record, I find McLeroy to be an embarrassment as well, but after 32 years in Texas, I am used to people like him. I simply ignore them these days, especially since I am out of school and don't have any kids in school.

[IronTiger]

Well then we need to get back on topic.

Right, one-sided bashing of McLeroy.

Isn't this what the Off-Topic forum of the HAIF is for?

[TheNiche]

Even if I made a brilliant defense, most of your minds wouldn't be swayed in my direction. Is that not true?

Seriously, this thread...it's pointless bashing and one-sided bigotry. Someone sensible should lock it and let it die a slow, watery death. That would be the best ending for this.

Most of us, probably not. I take up very unpopular stances with great frequency. The point of bothering to argue is not that more people will agree with you, but to enjoy the experience of working out a cogent position based in reason and logic. TheHAIF is my sounding board. I've usually taken the time to think through my stance enough to anticipate counter-arguments and already have a response, but sometimes the feedback allows me to refine my position for use in the real world or in conversation, situations where I don't have the time to craft a reasoned position.

As for disrespect, there's not a group of people that you will ever meet that are incapable of it. Get used to it, and understand that if they have to resort to such measures, then they are not approaching the subject from a position of reason. My advice to you is to take the high ground. Use reason against those that are unwilling or unable and whether they are defeated or you prompt them to reasoned thought, you will have brought about an improvement of which you can be proud.

Edited May 25, 2009 by TheNiche

[RedScare]

Oops!

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6440787.html

[ihop]

Right, one-sided bashing of McLeroy.

It wouldn't be one-sided if you could make a reasoned defense of his statements.

And I don't correspond bashing to being embarrassed by the fact that a person who strongly influences Texas education policy (and national textbook policies as a result) is seen making an easily refuted, incoherent rant that looks as if it were ripped from a creationist web site.

I think if his statements were easily defensible, you or someone else would have defended them instead of just decrying the injustice of the one-sided bashing

[TheNiche]

And I don't correspond bashing to being embarrassed by the fact that a person who strongly influences Texas education policy (and national textbook policies as a result) is seen making an easily refuted, incoherent rant that looks as if it were ripped from a creationist web site.

I think if his statements were easily defensible, you or someone else would have defended them instead of just decrying the injustice of the one-sided bashing

I'm definitely playing the devil's advocate role on this one, but is it possible that McLeroy's statement as stated in the Chronicle article that his own personal opinions do not impact policy decisions is accurate? And if so, then is it possible that he is in fact an effective administrator, and that his own personal opinions have been completely overblown?

This goes back to a theme that I raised in a different thread concerning politicians' personal beliefs as not necessarily relevant insofar as they they act in the interests of their constituents.

[RedScare]

I'm definitely playing the devil's advocate role on this one, but is it possible that McLeroy's statement as stated in the Chronicle article that his own personal opinions do not impact policy decisions is accurate?

Is it possible? Absolutely.

Is it likely? Given the actions of Dr. McLeroy and the conservative members of the SBOE over the last several years, not very.

[TheNiche]

Is it possible? Absolutely.

Is it likely? Given the actions of Dr. McLeroy and the conservative members of the SBOE over the last several years, not very.

Is there any evidence to that effect?

[RedScare]

Is there any evidence to that effect?

Plenty. Look at the attempts to change the teaching of evolution, and specifically the attempts to add creation teaching. Only one group is pushing that agenda, and McLeroy agrees with the agenda. It is not a big leap.

[TheNiche]

Plenty. Look at the attempts to change the teaching of evolution, and specifically the attempts to add creation teaching. Only one group is pushing that agenda, and McLeroy agrees with the agenda. It is not a big leap.

Fair enough. I have to agree.

Edited May 26, 2009 by TheNiche

[KinkaidAlum]

Fair enough. I have to agree.

And that right there was some pretty quick evolution!

[TheNiche]

And that right there was some pretty quick evolution!

Not really. I started out post #41 by saying:

I'm definitely playing the devil's advocate role on this one, but...

Most of my contributions prior to that were to the effect of that the majority of folks on here were and are right for the wrong reasons...or perhaps reasons not articulated very precisely.

Edited May 27, 2009 by TheNiche

[LTAWACS]

I think it is clear this person is pushing the ID agenda.

"Someone's gotta stand up to these experts!" lol.

[Reefmonkey]

But doesn't he ask legitimate scientific questions, not necessarily related to creationism? If evolution is a gradual change process... how can some evolutionary tracks be vertical in nature, as he claims? Why are there "spontaneous" fossil records that cannot be traced back to other records, as he claims? If we indeed did evolve from monkeys... then why are there still monkeys? (said unknown stand-up comedian). It would be interesting to hear the scientific rebuttal to his arguments vs. just dismissing him as a religious crazy person that believes in nothing but creationism.

On the idea of evolution being a gradual process - it is and it isn't. It can occur gradually in some instances, and it can occur abruptly. Most researchers in evolution believe that it is a mixture of gradual and abrupt changes over time. Look up "punctuated equillibrium" and "quantum evolution" to get an idea for just a few of the models for evolution. Classic Darwinian gradualism has been left behind long ago.

On the idea of some evolutionary tracks being vertical in nature, as McLeroy claims, "evolutionary track" is an astronomical term, not a biological term, so that should clue you into McLeroy's level of understanding. Secondly, assuming that when McLeroy is talking about speciation when he talks about "vertical evolution"; the various mechanisms of speciation are well-understood: eg: allopatric, parapatric, peripatric (which have all been observed), sympatric.

No, we did not evolve from monkeys. We and monkeys both evolved from a common ancestor. However, it is possible for one species to evolve from another species and both species to remain extant. If McLeroy is asserting that this can't happen, then this exposes his ignorance at a basic level of the body of evolutionary theory he is attacking. A particular population of a species can remain genetically stable if its environment remains stable. Genetic changes which differ from the traits that have already adapted it to that environment provide no advantage, even provide a disadvantage, so are not passed on, and that population of that species remains the same. Now if a group migrates from that population, it may find itself in a different environment that favors different traits, and disfavors original traits. This could cause that migrated population to change so much it becomes a new species.

Science has a far better understanding of the mechanisms of evolution than it does the mechanisms of gravity, yet we don't teach high school physics students the "alternative theory" that the Hand of God pushes us down and keeps us from flying off the earth.

There is a story of Gallileo being called before the Inquisition, who demanded he recant his theory that the earth revolves around the sun - or else. Gallileo did recant his theory, but then supposedly looked down at the earth and muttered "yet it moves." No amount of denial by backward people like McLeroy is going to change the FACT that evolution is real, has been observed, and is quite well understood compared to other natural phenomena. It's just sad that in a state that already has one of the worst educational performance records in the country, the chairman of our board of education is actively trying to further weaken the quality of the education our students get.

Edited May 27, 2009 by Reefmonkey

[Fringe]

Next you will be telling us the earth is not flat.