T(h)resholds on Comer


Thresholds’ host George Reiter will be interviewing Steven Schafersman, President of Texas Citizens for Science, and Dan Quinn, communications director for the Texas Freedom network, on the politics in Texas that led up firing of Chris Comer, director of science at the Texas Education Agency for ‘misconduct and insubordination’ and of ‘siding against creationism and the doctrine that life is the product of ‘intelligent design.’ The show is on KPFT, Houston, 90.1 FM, from 11am-12noon this Thursday, Jan 3, 2008. It can be picked up live on the website, http://www.KPFT.org.

The recording can be found in the Archives section. After a ‘false start’ the interview starts at 5:20

HT: PZ Myers


I think the heading should be “Thresholds”

Not to worry. I’m sure the DI will come to her rescue, charging on a white horse, in the name of freedom of speech!

The last caller Yam (sp) summed up one reaction us foreigners have watching these discussions develop around the States.

I moved here to the U.S. about 11, 12 years ago. I’m from the Netherlands.

I’m just absolutely amazed that we’re having discussions like this. As for me, it’s just ridiculous that people even think about teaching I.D. or creationism in a classroom. (little laugh)It’s… I thought I’d give you the foreign perspective on this. It makes me feel like people outside the U.S. are just laughing about people here, you know what I mean?

Myself, I‘m a resident of Canada that really isn’t laughing. This is one form of fatalistic dogma that can negatively effect societal development in oh so many ways over the long haul and has been shown to spread to other countries. Fundamentalists pushing this crap have little to no concept of the wider implications, some of which were skimmed over on the program.

I’ll be posting this comment on PZ’s article as well.

Forrest’s lecture was not even about scientific issues but was about political, legal, and social issues.

Very important things to understand when your organization’s actions may lead to your getting sued and costing taxpayers a million or more smackeroos.

Did Forrest’s lecture present any strategies for winning a court case? No.

Unless you count avoiding doing things that are illegal, of course.

the Supreme Court said that there are “uncertainties” about global warming theory.

But there aren’t any such uncertainties about evolutionary theory, so what’s your point? Forrest is trying to warn people about how the inmates are trying to take over the asylum. The inmates clearly HAVE taken over the TEA, which is why they’re trying to keep the rank and file from listening to Forrest.

Hey ABC/Larry, Please explain how fore wording an email about an upcoming event is breaking neutrality. No other comment was given. At the Panda’s Thumb, Creation Lectures as well as Evolution Lectures are announced all the time. So your claim that Comer broke neutrality has no basis in fact. You just revealed your own bias. There are also no facts behind the Darwin To Hitler charge. Yet you mention this in your post. People like you give me the willies. Please stick to the facts, Larry.

ABC/Larry says: A million “smackeroos” is petty cash for a big state like Texas.

Yeah, but the million was what a single school district in Pennsylvania had to shell out. How many school districts are there in Texas?

And the Dover school district got off light. As I recall, the real costs would have been more like 2 million. I can’t imagine such indulgence when the anti-science side has a lot of money. And they’ve been warned, while the folks in Dover may be more excused for their lack of awareness.


Links to Dr. Forrest’s You Tube Videos entitled,

“Barbara Forrest: The Woman Texas Creationists Really Don’t Want You to Hear”

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cwvE0owTmk 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_OLlAfmrQs 3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m-AT4unW4Q 4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSXxB7JEOOI 5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E97GFmYNaFI

You Darwinists can’t win arguments, so you are resorting to arbitrarily censoring comments.

You creationists never admit to losing an argument; the best you can do is to badger us repeatedly until someone retaliates, then you cry foul.

Congratulations, your tactic has been successful.


[Moved to the AE BB Bathroom Wall]


His thread, his rules. Rejoice in the momentary wonder of having your stuff show up in both places, to the wonder and approbation of all.

Panda’s Thumb is hardly deserving of the blogging awards that it has received.

Note Larry’s delusion of grandeur on display here (common among cranks, I guess).

He knows more about law than a US District Judge (or any number of lawyers who respond to his posts on various blogs around the ‘net).

He knows more about biology than professional biologists (look at his “co-evolution is a dilemma for evolution” crap).

And now, he knows more about what blogs deserve a particular award than the group who gives the award does.

It’s never ending.

You can’t argue with the smartest person in the history of humanity, face it!

You Darwinists can’t win arguments

We’ve won the legal ones. As for the logical sort of argument, they are either sound or not, and yours are not.

Hey, I never noticed those awards. Wow. Impressive. I’ll have to pay more attention to this place. Thanks for the heads up, Larry.

Larry’s musings can still be read on the Bathroom wall where they belong.

ABC/Larry said:

He is severely damaging the blog’s reputation by his arbitrary censorship of comments.

It’s not arbitrary at all you crazy fuck. It is a mark of tolerance, to a fault, that they let you babble irrationally on as long as you did. The only damage to this blog’s reputation is in your head, and we all know how relevant that is. Good riddence.

Comer Was Just the First Casualty: This Culture War will Bring Many More

“Before the war (1919 - 1939) the Nazi propaganda strategy consisted of several focus points for the German audiences. Their ideas were to create external enemies (countries which signed and were looking to enforce the Treaty of Versailles) and internal enemies (Jews).”[1] The neo-conservatives of America are implementing a parallel strategy now. Led by George W. Bush, they have designated “Islamo-fascists” as the external enemies of America. And, under the leadership of Jonathan Wells[2] and John G. West[3], Darwinists have been put into the role of internal enemies.

Jonathan Wells wrote, “Father’s [Sun Myung Moon’s] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism.[4] John G. West is the author of “Darwin Day In America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science.” Wells and West are both associated with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.[5] They are both proponents of intelligent design, “the concept that the order and complexity seen in nature must be the result of a rational design, as by God, and that natural processes such as evolution are insufficient to account for them entirely.”[6]

In accordance with Discovery Institute’s “Wedge Strategy,”[7] intelligent designists are asserting that an intelligent agent, such as God, created the universe and that living things are not the products of evolution by means of natural selection. Ultimately, they want public policies to be based on the premise that each human is inhabited and controlled by a supernatural soul that has a characteristic called free will. This premise stands in opposition to the scientific theory that the behavior of a complex organism, such as an eagle, human, whale, etc., is a function of its physiology, its history of reinforcement and punishment, and its current environment.

In order to accomplish their ultimate goal, the intelligent designists must redefine science so that it is permissible to put supernatural premises into scientific theories. Science is currently regarded as the search for natural explanations for natural phenomena. The intelligent designists want science to be the search for natural and supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. If science were redefined in this manner then the soul could be regarded as a scientific explanation for human behavior.

The neo-conservatives are using the same propaganda strategy that the Nazi’s used. They have designating an internal enemy(Darwinists) and an external enemy (Islamo-fascists). The neo-conservateves have commenced wars against two Islamic countries, Afghanistan and Iraq, and they are threatening to attack Iran, also a Islamic country. And, like the Nazi’s, the neo-conservatives have used the specter of an external enemy to curtail civil liberties and build a national security state.

In pre-war Germany, the Nazis forced Jewish professors out of their university teaching positions. Given the way that the Nazi’s proceeded in Germany, we should next expect the neo-conservatives in America to force Darwinists out of their educational positions. A recent example is the forced resignation of Christine Comer from the position of Texas Director of Science.[8] As neo-fascism creeps further and further over America, professors of evolutionary biology and other Darwinists may be designated “enemies of the state” and then dismissed from their positions.

Naomi Wolf is the author of The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot.[9] She has noted the similarity between how Nazi fascism gradually overtook Germany and how neo-conservatism is gradually destroying liberty in America. You can watch an interview of her at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW9PulYpjGs

Will Americans allow their country to become a fascist police state? Will you allow it?

“There is a story, often told, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: “A republic, if you can keep it.” The brevity of that response should not cause us to under-value its essential meaning: democratic republics are not merely founded upon the consent of the people, they are also absolutely dependent upon the active and informed involvement of the people for their continued good health.”[10] – Dr. Richard Beeman, Professor of History

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_propaganda [2] http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi[…]sFellow=true [3] http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi[…]sFellow=true [4] http://www.tparents.org/library/uni[…]s/DARWIN.htm [5] http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php [6] http://www.yourdictionary.com/intelligent-design [7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy [8] http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/ne[…]2_5_2007.asp [9] http://www.amazon.com/End-America-L[…]p/1933392797 [10] http://www.constitutioncenter.org/e[…]KeepIt.shtml


Not to worry. I’m sure the DI will come to her rescue, charging on a white horse, in the name of freedom of speech!


Did Forrest’s lecture present any strategies for winning a court case? No.

Unless you count avoiding doing things that are illegal, of course.

the Supreme Court said that there are “uncertainties” about global warming theory.

But there aren’t any such uncertainties about evolutionary theory, so what’s your point? Forrest is trying to warn people about how the inmates are trying to take over the asylum. The inmates clearly HAVE taken over the TEA, which is why they’re trying to keep the rank and file from listening to Forrest.


[Moved to the AE BB Bathroom Wall]

Dammit, PvM, I am a sitting duck for potshots because you keep censoring my responses. I am consistently posting my comments under the same name. What more do you want?

Don’t blame me for being such an easy target. As far as your postings are concerned, I was informed that you already had been banned and then returned under yet another assumed name ABC which then evolved into XYZ. I do not have time for you silly games Larry.

A recap of why Larry is banned:

In January 2006, Larry started commenting regularly on PT in the wake of the Dover decision. During the course of that month, he experienced a number of run-ins with the PT spam filter (as I’m sure most of us who comment regularly have). He took it as if he were being deliberately censored, and made several false accusations of banning. A couple of times, he posted under an assumed name, pretending to be a friend of his, to complain about being banned. His false assumption was corrected, and he was warned that posting under multiple names was one of the few ways to get banned at PT (Rule 6). He also had some comments moved to the Bathroom Wall (resurrected just for him) because of incessant off-topic commenting in violation of another Rule.

One of the features of the spam filter is that it detects when multiple names are being used by a single IP address. Normally, this is an indication of a Rule 6 violation, espicially if the name changes multiple times in a short period of time. In late January 2006, Larry and another poster calling himself M posted alternating comments, 11 in the course of 45 minutes. Due to a quirk of AOL, they were both using the same IP address. The address was flagged, the admin saw that two other names had used the same IP address in the past 24 hours, so the address was banned under Rule 6. An announcement was posted on PT noting the address and the ban, and explained that the ban didn’t apply to the names if they were different people. It was quickly established that the names were different people and how it was that they all managed to post from the same IP address (short explanation, AOL is cheap and lazy).

Unfortunately, before the situation was resolved, Larry tried to comment, discovered that his IP address was banned, and started using aliases. Despite being told several times that he wasn’t banned, he continued to use and change aliases for the next two months. He did this despite the warnings that he would be banned for doing so - I even offered to provide some information he was seeking if he would simply resume posting under his original name. Finally, in late March 2006, he crossed the line and began posting under other regulars’ names, including mine. This brought an immediate and permanent ban, just as it would on every major forum on the net.

Side note: the last person banned before Larry was for Rule 6 violations, even though he was pro-evolution. The first person banned after Larry was for plagiarism, even though he was pro-evolution. Banning is very rare at PT, and it is applied regardless of credo.

Apologies for the long, off-topic comment.

No need for apologies, Kevin, it was valuable.

Thanks to Larry I now appreciate why bans should be permanent, and now I know it applies here. Next time the Larryman resurfaces, we can yell ‘fore a year and a day passes.

Darwinists can’t win an argument because creationists won’t let them say anything and let’s face it the creationists are wrong on every account. There was nothing wrong with her using her right to free speech and using it to go and speak out against ID, but the creationists see everything wrong with that. The thing is creationists think that ID is a legitimate science that should be taught in school. I am here to say it is not a science it is part of the lie that is God, or as I like to call it The Greatest Scam In The History Of The World.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on January 3, 2008 12:19 PM.

Information in biology was the previous entry in this blog.

New NAS book on Evolution & Creationism is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.



Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter