Don McLeroy Looses and Gets Viciously Attacked

Senate rejects McLeroy by only a couple of votes, the majority was needed for his confirmation, but still 19 out of 3o who voted wasn’t bad. To no surprise the vote went down party lines.

McLeroy stirred up a hornet’s nest from militant defenders of evolution. Excitement, name calling, insulting people’s intelligence transpired in the reaction towards the result of the Senate rejecting McLeroy’s confirmation.

Taking a brief survey of the blog community, here are some of them, take a look…

One blogger writes, Let me set you straight…Anyone with intelligence does not agree with Dr McLeroy. Just because he is a dentist, doesn’t make him intelligent.”

Another blogger writes, McLeroy going down like this is punishment for licking Phillip Johnson’s boot. You silly little anti-science liars…who soil true religion with your lies… can pack up your stealth creationism pamphlets and head on back to Seattle now.”

“And don’t think you are doing the Lord’s work. There isn’t a God or Christ in heaven who approves of your lies. You are dishonest about your origin, dishonest about your intent, and dishonest about the science. Jesus certainly does not approve. To hell with Discovery Institute and intelligent design creationism. To hell with you trying to brainwash our children. Don’t mess with Texas.”

And one more blogger writes, Good riddance to bad rubbish! McLeroy was an embarrassment to education in our state. Now…if we can just get rid of other religious nut-jobs like Senators Ogden & Patrick, we’d be in even better shape. So many right-wing Christians…so few lions!”

So what was upsetting these people so much which they thought they needed to comment in such an uncivil way? The new Science Standards which will soon go into effect in Texas which state and I quote…

“analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental observation and testing, including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those explanations.”

The angry pro-evolutionist crowd cried out, “code words” for creationism…lol…Here we go with the freemasonary conspiracy theory again only it’s a worldview in this case. Indeed, creationism uses this scientific method but it’s not inclusive for creationism. It can be also used while being taught evolution.

PZ Meyers encourages vicious attacks, mainly I believe to intimate those who he disagrees with, thinking it will help keep them quiet…One of his loyal commentators who’s number is #65 states the following…

“Maybe most of us atheists are calm rational people, but there is a line you cross, and deserve a violent response. The only thing keeping us going apeshit and smashing your skull through is recognizing the evolutionary changes that have allowed us to rationalize our thoughts, reason through violent urges, and actually empathize with even the most disgusting examples of human waste.”

What is really interesting, those who are trying to trap people in their black box have very pathetic results, one of which is very embarrassing considering how much money is spent on a student to education them in evolution.

Reported in a pro-evolutionist University blog…“On average, only 28% of the high school students taking the ACT , which is a national standardized test for college admission , reached a score indicating college readiness for biology and no state reached even 50%.”

This shows so plainly the public education dominated by the dictates of the liberal scientific establishment with more money than any other country in the world being spent has been failing.

It’s highly possible the Governor of Texas will appoint someone who will make militant special interest groups very angry, but who cares. We need strong leaders in government.  McLeroy helped improved the teaching method for science and we are certainly thankful for his efforts, students need to be taught how to ““analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental observation and testing…”

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Don McLeroy Looses and Gets Viciously Attacked

  1. I’m not going to debate you on whether McLeroy should or should not have been approved. I think you know from my previous comments where I stand, and I obviously know where you stand, so a debate is pointless.

    However, in your last paragraph you state: “It’s highly possible the Governor of Texas will appoint someone who will make militant special interest groups very angry, but who cares.”

    I am fairly certain that by the term “militant special interest groups” you mean scientists, atheists, and pretty much educators and anyone who is opposed to a YEC view getting mandated into law or curriculum. But I ask you to take a step back and ask yourself, is the YEC group any less “militant?” In general, is the far right any less militant than the left or far left?

  2. Michael, your ‘special interest groups’ is getting very, very, very tedious now. Just name whoever you mean here. That keeps things clear for all.

  3. I thought the article suggested that McLeroy was attacked with a knife or a gun. Someone wrote something rude about him on the Internet? That’s it? That constitutes a vicious attack? We are stretching a little here, aren’t we?

  4. Peter,

    Not “stretching” at all, just amused by your red herring disagreement…People get “vicious” when want to control others.

  5. I’m amused that you are amused. I am still trying to make some sense of your statement ‘People get “vicious” when want to control others.’ Are you sure you know what the word ‘vicious’ actually means?

  6. Pro-evolution? What is that supposed to mean? This is not a case of pro-lifers versus “baby-killers”. Evolution is a well researched and sound scientific theory. The study of biology has nothing to do with the study of religion. Biologists, or physicists or chemists, for that matter, choose that field of study not because they want to disprove that God exists, but because they enjoy the science of biology (or physics or chemistry, etc).

    “True Science which Verifies God’s Word”? Scientists do not take into account whether or not their analysis and conclusions agree with God’s word, instead they are trying to come up with the best explanation for their methodical observations. To base my conclusions on my interpretation of the Bible, or to discount other scientists conclusions for the same reason, is not science, it is religious prejudice, and it has no business interfering with the teaching and study of science.

    Intelligent design was introduced by people who took offense with evolution’s implication that the book of Genesis is not entirely factual, and it is not based on methodical observation and analysis. It is, simply put, a faith based argument against evolution, not a scientific theory, and it is wrong to impose it on educators who are trying to teach biology.

  7. Hey there, simon

    You say, “Evolution is a well researched and sound scientific theory.”

    It’s far from being sound, it has been invented to tell a complex story in order to counter an intelligent creator. It is the only ‘theory’ based on naturalism to explain nature, in other words there is no alternative based in naturalism (nothing else) other than evolution. There is an old saying, “Don’t respect scientists merely because they are scientists; respect evidence. Don’t follow paradigms; follow evidence. And don’t follow your perceptions of what constitutes evidence. Follow evidence that is evidence indeed.”

    You say, “Intelligent design was introduced by people who took offense with evolution’s implication that the book of Genesis is not entirely factual, and it is not based on methodical observation and analysis.”

    No, actually the modern intelligent design movement does not take Genesis in context and doesn’t consider it at all with their observations. It also doesn’t address who the “intelligent agents” are that provides information. God is not “intelligent agents” and there is nothing in the Bible about “intelligent agents”. The modern intelligent design movement has more in common with theistic evolution than with creationism. However, there are some agreements, it looks at nature from an engineer prospective and does have valid criticisms about evolution.

    And you say, “it is wrong to impose it on educators who are trying to teach biology.” You can teach biology without evolution, by focusing in on how nature works and leave where it came from to personal beliefs. Evolution is just an interpretation of what evolutionary scientists think happened in the unobserved past. What religions beliefs did McLeroy impose on the science standards in Texas?

  8. “It’s far from being sound, it has been invented to tell a complex story in order to counter an intelligent creator. ”

    That is utter nonsense. It has been ‘invented’ (contructed, I would say) on its own merit. Nothing to do with religion.
    And it is sound, despite the remaining unsolved problems.

    “No, actually the modern intelligent design movement does not take Genesis in context and doesn’t consider it at all with their observations.”

    Of course it does – it is creationism in disguise. This is well-documented (remember this book where a ‘replace-all’ was done to insert ID wherever creationism was mentioned ?), and pretty obvious to anyone.

  9. Eelco,

    You say, “That is utter nonsense. It has been ‘invented’ (contructed, I would say) on its own merit. Nothing to do with religion. And it is sound, despite the remaining unsolved problems.”It has an enormous array of hypothetical possibilities which it heavily relies upon. The soft tissue discovered in fossils which was denied it at first, claiming contaminants altered the findings back in 2005, with T-Rex. So what has been the explanation since the acceptance of soft tissue being discovered in fossils? Tiny areas on the fibrils could have adhered to a mineral surface. How did they come up with that? There was no experiment conducted that showed any of that, yet this was just an “idea” tossed out there and then published by a peer-review science journal called, PLoS ONE.

    There have been lab-tested studies on decay which are observable which do not agree with that study. This is hardly one would call, “sound” but I would call it the first stage of a pattern of hypothetical possibilities that is never verified through experiments. And lastly, the authors of the paper could not come to grips by saying that the original tissues are known to last for only “thousands” of years rather than say, “well under a million years.”Because for them, it would sound too much in the Biblical time frame rather than within the evolutionary time frame.

  10. Michael, any scientific theory is build on a set of hypothesis. That is perfectly normal. The hypothesis on which the theory of evolution are build are sound and well-tested.

    Your examples are unfamiliar to me, but you’re not providing references. Not even links. So I can’t check any of this.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s