Live Blogging the McLeroy Hearing

by

The Senate Nominations Committee is considering Don McLeroy’s appointment as chairman of the Texas State Board of Education. Gov. Rick Perry appointed McLeroy as chairman in July 2007, after the last legislative session. The Senate now has the chance to confirm or reject McLeroy’s appointment.

4:55 – Dr. McLeroy, a Bryan dentist, is now before the Senate Nominations Committee. The committee will ask him questions about his role as Texas State Board of Education chairman and then take testimony from others wanting to speak out his appointment.

5:01 – Dr. McLeroy is defending the state board’s role in the curriculum and textbook adoption process. The Legislature is considering a slew of bills — including Senate Bill 2275 — that would strip the board of that authority. Dr. McLeroy argues that the state board has ensured that Texas has better curriculum standards.

5:05 – “We have much better textbooks because of the process of going through the State Board of Education.” Really, Dr. McLeroy? Will we have better science textbooks if they teach junk science because you reject evolution and want publishers to do the same?

5:07 – Dr. McLeroy calls the science curriculum revision “phenomenal” and praises the “compromise” standards adopted.

5:16 – Dr. McLeroy is crowing about the state board’s rejection of a mathematics textbook in 2007. The board, in fact, violated state law in rejecting the textbook. The law requires the board to approve textbooks that meet curriculum standards, are free of factual errors and meet manufacturing standards. The textbook met all of those, but the McLeroy majority rejected it without giving a reason. Dr. McLeroy later said the vote “set a precedent” for how the board could pressure publishers on other textbooks.

5:31 – Sen. Eliot Shapleigh, D-El Paso, is now asking Dr. McLeroy questions. “Is it your mission on this board to take all students in the state of Texas down the path of your religious beliefs?”

5:33 – McLeroy: My purpose has never been religious indoctrination.

5:34 – Sen. Shapleigh asks about a previous statement by McLeroy that only “orthodox” Christians — like him — on the state board had opposed biology textbooks that didn’t challenge evolution.

5:34 – McLeroy: I also complimented other board members as fine Christians. He’s missing the point of the question: if McLeroy’s opposition to evolution in science classrooms has nothing to do with religion, then why would he say only “orthodox” Christians oppose biology textbooks that challenge evolution?

5:36 – Sen. Shapleigh asks about McLeroy’s beliefs about evolution. McLeroy acknowledges that is is his personal belief that Earth is only 6,000 years old.

5:37 -McLeroy says almost everyone in his church rejects evolution and supports creationism. He describes himself as a young Earth creationist. He says he tells reporters that he wants to be up front and honest about his beliefs. “I think it’s a pretty rational view.”

5:39 – Sen. Shapleigh: Educators and experts worked for months to revise the science curriculum. “You decided to ignore those experts and pushed for changes in those documents that scientists said were entirely unscientific.” He asks why McLeroy did so.

5:40 – Dr. McLeroy says board rules didn’t allow further testimony from science experts. That’s very misleading. Dr. McLeroy has asked board members in the past to allow testimony at any time.

5:41 – Sen. Shapleigh: What about your statements that scientific consensus means nothing? That someone needs to challenge experts?

5:42 – McLeroy suggests that consensus is overrated — it takes only one fact to overturn something: “People come to a consensus and then seem to hold on to it.”

5:43 – Sen. Shapleigh: Why did you reject the opinions and advice from the country’s science organizations — which collectively included Nobel laureates.

5:44 – McLeroy: I looked at the scientific evidence. He says evidence in the fossil record argues against the concept of common ancestry. “I quoted from scientists!”

5:45 – McLeroy: “I think what we’re doing is destroying America’s soul in science.” He’s talking about why evolution should be challenged in science classrooms.

5:46 – Sen. Shapleigh: The state’s best scientists say McLeroy is promoting religion, not science. What do you tell them?

5:47 – Dr. McLeroy: “I have to say there was nothing religious about” my amendments during the debate over new science standards.

5:48 – Sen. Shapleigh: Goes after McLeroy’s statement last year language arts students don’t need to be learning books with “a bunch of crazy Chinese words in them.” He asks what that says about his cultural sensitivity.

5:49 – McLeroy says he’s embarrassed that he said it and that it came across the wrong way.

5:50 – Obviously, Sen. Shapleigh has McLeroy very much on the defensive. Thank goodness someone is finally holding Dr. McLeroy accountable for his own statements.

5:51 – Sen. Shapleigh: “You’ve created a hornets’ nest like I’ve never seen before” over the state board.

5:52 – McLeroy: We have to stand up to the education establishment to make sure our children learn. I’m glad if that means I have to stir up a hornets’ nest.

5:54 – McLeroy: “I don’t see any way I’m imposing my religious views in anything I’ve done on the State Board of Education.”

5:55 – Sen. Kirk Watson, D-Austin, is now asking questions. He says the appearance is that he is pursuing a narrow personal agenda and not listening to expert and scientific opinion.

5:57 – McLeroy: He rejects the suggestion that evolution is the foundation for studying all the biological sciences. “Genetics is the foundation. . . for studying biology. . . . Genetics is good solid science.”

6:00 – Sen. Watson: “Do you at least perceive that your role as chair of the State Board of Education has created controversy and questions about the role you’re playing in the education of our children?” “Do you at least get that you’re a point of significant controversy in the state of Texas?”

6:02 – Sen. Watson asks about McLeroy’s endorsement of Sowing Atheism, a book that characterizes clergy as morons if they believe faith and science aren’t in conflict and argues that parents who want to teach their children about evolution are monsters.

6:03 – McLeroy: I didn’t say that stuff. “I didn’t recommend it (the book) for that. I wish I hadn’t recommended it.”

6:05 – Sen. Watson’s sharp and incisive questions are clearly frustrating McLeroy.

6:08 – Sen. Watson: I want people making education decisions who are experts, not just people pushing a point of view. He criticizes McLeroy for refusing to allow science experts to speak to the full board when he was offering anti-evolution amendments to the science standards.

6:10 – Sen. Watson asks about the state board’s rejection of the mathematics textbook in 2007 and whether the board violated state law by rejecting a textbook that met all requirements established by statute. He wants to know why McLeroy refused to allow board members to put their objections to that decision in the official minutes.

6:12 – McLeroy: The Texas Education Agency attorney was in attendance and would have let us know if we were violating state law. “We followed state law.”

6:15 – Sen. Watson now moves into the language arts curriculum revision, which was in progress when McLeroy became board chairman. He asks McLeroy about how he interfered with that process, disrupting the work of teachers and education specialists. (See a TFN press release from that time.) The board ultimately threw out their work and adopted a curriculum McLeroy’s board allies patched together the night before the final vote. In fact, that revised document was slipped under hotel room doors of some board members just an hour before the final meeting.

6:21 – McLeroy disputes that a few board members reworked the final draft the night before the vote. Wow. That is a blatant falsehood. That’s precisely what happened — and it was reported extensively in the press. McLeroy: “Two board members took major sections out of the other document being proposed and put it in the document that” we were going to pass. He just contradicted himself. Good grief.

6:26 – Sen. Watson: Looking back, would you change anything that’s put you in the middle of the hornets’ nest?

6:26 – McLeroy suggests that’s the nature of the job.

6:27 – Sen. Watson: Newspapers across the country are writing in a negative light about what you’re doing at the state board.

6:28 – McLeroy: The social studies curriculum revision (currently in progress) is potentially even more divisive than what has happened at the state board up to now.

6:30 – Sen. Watson: The people of Texas have a right to believe that their elected officials are acting in the best interests of their children and their education. Many people believe that’s not the case with the state board.

6:37 – Questions for McLeroy have ended. Now the committee is hearing testimony from others. First up is Dr. Ron Wetherington, a professor of anthropology from Southern Methodist University in Dallas. Wetherington served on the state board’s panel of “expert reviewers” for the science standards revision. He objects to McLeroy’s attempts to promote challenges to mainstream science because his religious beliefs are in opposition to evolution: “It is an embarrassment to have such a partisan religious bias, fundamentally anti-scientific, promoted by an appointed chair of the SBOE, and I urge you not to confirm this appointment.”

6:48 – Sen. Shapleigh says he will move to oppose McLeroy’s Senate confirmation.

6:57 – Prof. Arturo De Lozanne, a biologist at the University of Texas at Austin, is now testifying against McLeroy’s confirmation. He strongly rejects McLeroy’s contention that understanding evolution isn’t important to the study of the biological sciences. He is walking the committee through an example about the important of understanding evolution when studying causes and cures of disease.

7:06 – TFN President Kathy Miller speaks against McLeroy’s confirmation. “Nearly every meeting meeting of the SBOE since Dr. McLeroy became acting chair has disintegrated into controversy and hurt the reputation of our state regarding the manner in which education policy has been made.” Kathy is followed by Laura Ewing, a longtime social studies educator who challenged SBOE member David Bradley in the 2008 election. Laura joins in opposition to McLeroy’s confirmation.

7:25 – As testimony winds down, we have released the following statement from TFN President Kathy Miller:

We believe it’s time for the Senate to take an important step toward ending the culture wars that are bogging down the important business of the state board. Under McLeroy’s chairmanship, the board has put politics ahead of the education of our kids and made the state a national laughingstock. There’s been too much chaos, controversy and craziness. Our kids deserve much better.
7:27 SBOE Member Ken Mercer, R-San Antonio, is a last-minute addition to the testimony list. Nothing new here – he’s trotting out the same stuff he’s been peddling at the state board for the last year: without “weaknesses” in the science standards, students won’t be able to raise their hands in the classroom and ask a question…”I thought we were still living in the United States of America.” Blah, blah, blah. But since only the chair of the Nominations Committee is still here, we’re not sure whom Mercer is trying to convince.
7:35 Heee-eere’s Johny! Jonathan Saenz of Focus on the Family is up now. Isn’t “thou shalt not bear false witness” one of the Ten commandments? Jonathan needs to read his Bible a little more closely. He claims that TFN opposed the Bible bill (HB 1287) at the legislature. Wrong! TFN opposed the original version of the bill that would have forced every high school in the state to have a Bible course, but we supported the changes made to the bill in the House Public Education committee. One more time for the record, Jonathan – TFN does not oppose public school Bible courses; just Bible courses that favor one faith over everyone else’s!
7:40 That’s it. The committee is adjourned with Sen. McLeroy’s nomination pending. Looks like the Senate is headed for a showdown over Chairman McLeroy. Stay tuned to TFN Insider as the situation unfolds.
About these ads

33 Responses to “Live Blogging the McLeroy Hearing”

  1. Joe Lapp Says:

    TFN: Just wanted you to know that someone’s following and appreciating your live blogging, hoping that the Senators make this McLeroy’s day of reckoning and do something to help put Texas’ education on more solid footing.

  2. Doc Bill Says:

    What McLeroy seriously dosen’t GET is that he’s proposing his personal, religious, creationist beliefs AS science, not his private opinion.

    That’s the difference. He can be a Pastafarian for all I care, but to say that “somebody” has to stand up to the National Academy of Sciences based on an opinion is lunacy of the highest degree.

    Clearly, McLeroy is not in the driver’s seat today.

  3. PHarvey Says:

    After all the damage he has done, its now his turn to squirm. Keep the pressure on.

  4. Doc Bill Says:

    Oh, I’m sure the Social Studies curricula will be more divisive if McLeroy has his way. After all, Social Studies (let’s see, history and government?) is so controversial.

    Unless, of course, you “believe” the US is a Christian nation based on the Bible and that the separation of church and state is a myth and that morality needs to be legislated. Yeah, I can see some controversy there, especially since Social Studies should be a non-fiction topic.

    So, is McLeroy proud of being an ignoramus?

  5. Coragyps Says:

    “The social studies curriculum revision (currently in progress) is potentially even more divisive than what has happened at the state board up to now.”

    Eek. What on earth are we up to here? That the Bill of Rights is an alternate statement of the Ten Commandments?

  6. John Says:

    So, is McLeroy proud of being an ignoramus?

    From what he has said before I would say Yes, But he has lots of friends proud with him

  7. PHarvey Says:

    I can only imagine with horror what McLeroy has planned for social studies.

    How much will he rewrite history to be in accordance with his world view? How much will he ignore the experts (which we know he despises) and come up with his own revisionist brand of shistory and social studies. I hope we don’t get a chance to see the level of damage he wants to do.

    I emplore the Legislature to act and remove him and then to pass legislation to strip the SBOE of their ability to dictate curiculum and pick text books. McLeroy is not the only problem, it’s half the Board.

  8. Suzy Allison Says:

    Cheers for Watson & Shapleigh. Cheers for Laura Ewing and for TFN.

  9. formerlyanonymous Says:

    Possible social studies controversies:

    Texas’s right to secede, The 10th Amendment meaning the US government having no say, The South winning the War of Northern Aggression, America being a Christian nation because it says so in the Declaration, The Constitution is a document not to be interpreted…

    Judging by his treatment of science, I wouldn’t be surprised if social studies had any one of those included for debate.

  10. Charles Says:

    15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

    16 But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

    17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church[or at least all the sensible churches]: but if he neglect to hear the church [which McLeroy has], let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

    (Matthew 18: 15-17)

  11. Curly Says:

    Does anybody want to start a pool on how long Larry will take to trot out his idiocy with respect to the McLeroy Confirmation hearings?

  12. Charles Says:

    Let’s see. It is 10:31 pm EDT. I say the post will be up around 11:24 pm EDT.

    It will be filled with legal mumbo jumbo too. They have some sort of legal “look it up” service out in California. Best I can tell, this service operates like the reference room in a public library (except you probably have to pay a fee), and Larry uses them to get some of his legal mumbo jumbo. Some of his past requests are up on the web where anyone can pull them up with a few key strokes—if you know how to do deep research on the net. What is the name of that service Larry? I might like to use them sometime for some of my own work? Thanks!!!

  13. Larry Fafarman Says:

    TFN said,
    –5:34 – McLeroy: I also complimented other board members as fine Christians. He’s missing the point of the question: if McLeroy’s opposition to evolution in science classrooms has nothing to do with religion, then why would he say only “orthodox” Christians oppose biology textbooks that challenge evolution?–

    What? “Only orthodox Christians oppose biology textbooks that challenge evolution”? You mean textbooks that don’t challenge evolution. Anyway, McLeroy’s statement about orthodox Christians was probably not a general statement — it was probably just a statement about the board members.

    –5:39 – Sen. Shapleigh: Educators and experts worked for months to revise the science curriculum. “You decided to ignore those experts and pushed for changes in those documents that scientists said were entirely unscientific.” —

    As I have said many times, there is no reason to defer to experts’ opinions on issues that do not require expertise, e.g., the “strengths and weaknesses” language. And if Judge John E. Jones III, who has no scientific background, could rule on the scientific merits of intelligent design after hearing testimony from experts, then why can’t the Texas SBOE — which has some members with science degrees and/or science teaching experience — also make decisions about questions requiring scientific knowledge?

    –5:40 – Dr. McLeroy says board rules didn’t allow further testimony from science experts. —

    Six board-appointed experts were given a whole afternoon to testify before the board and also submitted expert reports. It is true that the experts — along with the general public — were not given opportunities to comment on some of the proposed amendments.

    –5:41 – Sen. Shapleigh: What about your statements that scientific consensus means nothing? —

    I would have said that scientific consensus should be taken with a grain of salt, but I am not going to fault McLeroy for the way he put it.

    –That someone needs to challenge experts?–

    That’s sometimes true. The little boy who said that the emperor had no clothes challenged the experts.

    –5:43 – Sen. Shapleigh: Why did you reject the opinions and advice from the country’s science organizations — which collectively included Nobel laureates.–

    Sen. Shapleigh just wants the SBOE to be a rubber-stamp, even on issues that do not require scientific expertise, e.g., the “strengths and weaknesses” language.

    –5:48 – Sen. Shapleigh: Goes after McLeroy’s statement last year language arts students don’t need to be learning books with “a bunch of crazy Chinese words in them.” He asks what that says about his cultural sensitivity.

    5:49 – McLeroy says he’s embarrassed that he said it and that it came across the wrong way.–

    Seems to me like a reasonable apology.

    –6:08 – Sen. Watson: I want people making education decisions who are experts, not just people pushing a point of view. He criticizes McLeroy for refusing to allow science experts to speak to the full board when he was offering anti-evolution amendments to the science standards.–

    The general public should also have been given a chance to comment on the amendments, but allowing only science experts to comment to the full board would have been discriminatory.

    –6:27 – Sen. Watson: Newspapers across the country are writing in a negative light about what you’re doing at the state board. —

    The newspapers are just reporting the news, hopefully objectively.

    My overall impression is that these senators are telling McLeroy that he is not entitled to his opinions.

    –7:27 SBOE But since only the chair of the Nominations Committee is still here, we’re not sure whom Mercer is trying to convince.
    7:35 Heee-eere’s Johny! Jonathan Saenz of Focus on the Family is up now. —

    It is really unfair that most of the committee members left before McLeroy’s supporters testified.

    If debate in the SBOE is bad, then debate in the legislature and political campaigns is also bad. Maybe the legislature and the governorship should be abolished and a dictator should be appointed for life.

    A two-thirds vote is needed for confirmation and the Republicans have almost enough votes to confirm McLeroy — there are 19 Republicans and 12 Democrats in the Texas Senate.

    Rejecting McLeroy as SBOE chairman would just make a martyr out of him. And he would probably just be replaced by some other fundy on the board.

  14. Steven Schafersman Says:

    I have written a blog column about this at http://bit.ly/19Lv4a. I’m glad TFN live blogged the confirmation hearing which I will use in a longer article for TCS. Thank you.

  15. Ed Darrell Says:

    What’s going on in social studies? I understand McLeroy is objecting to the use of the word “capitalism” to describe the U.S. economic system.

    Seriously.

    No, really.

  16. flawedplan Says:

    Another fan, grateful for this coverage.

  17. Larry Fafarman Says:

    Steven Schafersman reported on the Houston Chronicle Evo.Sphere blog that the outside commenters at the committee meeting consisted of five opponents of McLeroy and only two supporters:
    Several witnesses were on hand Wednesday to speak against McLeroy’s nomination. These included Professor Arturo De Lozanne of UT Austin, former SBOE candidate Laura Ewing, Center for Inquiry-Austin supporter John Kingman, TFN President Kathy Miller, and Professor Ronald Wetherington of SMU. Speaking on McLeroy’s behalf was radical religious right/Young Earth Creationist SBOE member Ken Mercer and Jonathan Saenz of the religious right-wing Free Market Foundation.
    http://www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/evosphere.html?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3af12fd84e-253f-46cf-9408-ee579f9a3a0bPost%3ab1429a6b-865f-4a34-85bb-c266aa2f4942

    Furthermore, TFN reported that all the committee members except the chairman left before McLeroy’s supporters testified.

    Ed Darrell Says (April 23, 2009 at 5:08 am ) —
    –What’s going on in social studies? I understand McLeroy is objecting to the use of the word “capitalism” to describe the U.S. economic system. —

    It was reported that McLeroy thinks that the term “free enterprise” is preferable to the term “capitalism” — a silly quibble, IMO. Maybe he thinks that the term “capitalism” has negative connotations. McLeroy does a lot of things that I don’t like but I feel that I have no choice but to support him.

  18. cathy Says:

    Thanks so much for providing this for all of us he wanted to but couldn’t be there. I wish we could do more to help this situation. McLeroy is a teacher hater, and he does not have the best interests of our schools or our children at heart.

  19. PHarvey Says:

    Oh, no.

    Don’t think McLeroy doesn’t have a hidden agenda for choosing the term “free enterprise”. “Free Enterprise” is an ideological buzzword with an agenda just like “strengths and weaknesses”.

    Read the following link.

    On Capitalism – James K. Galbraith
    [James K. Galbraith is professor of government at the LBJ School at the University of Texas, Austin.]

    http://mythandhope.blogspot.com/2008/10/on-capitalism-james-k-galbraith.html

    “The problem is not how to save capitalism but how to save the unique and successful mixed economy built in the United States over the eighty-five years since the New Deal. Our system is not capitalism. Our economy has a large public sector, which at its best was competently concerned with research, defense, financial stability, environmental safety, social security, and large measures of education, health care, and housing. Today, after thirty years of attack on government [since Reagan?], all these functions are damaged and in peril.

    “The rot comes from predators posing as conservatives and mouthing the rhetoric of ‘free markets.’ They are not actually interested in free markets. Their goal is to use the government to build monopolies, to control resources, to block regulation, to crush unions, to divert as much as possible from taxpayers into private pockets. They have a reckless attitude toward war-making and they put the financial system in peril by failing to enforce standards of ethics and transparency. As a result, they imperil the country’s credit in the world. True conservatives recognize this, which is why they defected from Bush and McCain long ago.

  20. eoAustin Says:

    It boggles the mind that anyone can take this bozo McLeroy seriously. I talking to my pre teen son about his Creationist beliefs and he was absolutely incredulous! He wondered if McLeroy couldn’t read or wasn’t able to catch a few episodes the Discovery channel. He then launched into a long discussion of the formation of the universe and supernova’s etc… I am satisfied that my kids are safe from the insane rantings of those wanting to replace science and scientific consensus with Mythology and fantasy that has no scientific evidence to support it. I am hopeful that McLeroy gets booted and then I will be rooting for candidate other than Rick Perry who is just as nuts as McLeroy.

  21. Charles Says:

    Yeah. You guys gotta do something about Perry. He is not just a threat to Texas. He is a threat to the whole course of western civilization.

  22. PHarvey Says:

    My 7th grade daughter also said that McLeroy doesn’t know the difference between science and religion.

    So we see that kids can’t be fooled by the fools on the Board.

  23. Larry Fafarman Says:

    PHarvey Says (April 23, 2009 at 11:22 am) —
    –Don’t think McLeroy doesn’t have a hidden agenda for choosing the term “free enterprise”. “Free Enterprise” is an ideological buzzword with an agenda just like “strengths and weaknesses”.–

    This idea that some words or phrases are “code words” with hidden meanings is stupid and destructive of the English language. For example, Darwinists claim that the term “strengths and weaknesses” is a code word for teaching creationism. At least I have a legitimate reason for opposing the “strengths and weaknesses” language, and that reason is that invalid criticisms are not real weaknesses. So I proposed “strengths and criticisms” as a replacement.

    Also, many people do not regard “intelligent design” as a “code word” for creationism, so Darwinists coined the term “intelligent design creationism.” Maybe Darwinism should be called “Darwinian atheism” or “Darwinian materialism.” LOL

    PHarvey Says (April 23, 2009 at 3:54 pm) —
    –My 7th grade daughter also said that McLeroy doesn’t know the difference between science and religion. —

    Do you think that your 7th grade daughter can debate McLeroy?

  24. PHarvey Says:

    Larry Fafarman Says:

    April 23, 2009 at 8:15 pm

    –This idea that some words or phrases are “code words” with hidden meanings is stupid and destructive of the English language. For example, Darwinists claim that the term “strengths and weaknesses” is a code word for teaching creationism.

    It is.

    –Do you think that your 7th grade daughter can debate McLeroy?

    My 7th grade daughter says “Never argue with a fool, people may not be able to tell the difference”. And that is as much of a debate as you and I will ever have, for the same reason.

  25. Curly Says:

    Also, many people do not regard “intelligent design” as a “code word” for creationism, so Darwinists coined the term “intelligent design creationism.” Maybe Darwinism should be called “Darwinian atheism” or “Darwinian materialism.” LOL

    A. What statistical sampling did you use to come to the conclusion that “many people do not regard “intelligent design” as a “code word” for creationism”?

    B. You are not funny

    C. You are the definition of a willfully ignorant person

  26. b. j. edwards Says:

    Don McLeroy’s sidekick, Larry Fafarman, is getting all out of joint at the prospect that reason may prevail and McLeroy may get the boot he deserves.

  27. Larry Fafarman Says:

    The board chairmanship is no big deal. This is just petty revenge against McLeroy.

    It’s over. You Darwinists lost. Get over it.

    Sound familiar?

    Curly Says:
    –What statistical sampling did you use to come to the conclusion that “many people do not regard “intelligent design” as a “code word” for creationism”?–

    I don’t need a statistical sample, because “many” is an indefinite number.

  28. James F Says:

    Larry, you still haven’t defined “Darwinism.”

  29. Curly Says:

    Hey TFN, after we enter our name, we should be forced to answer a question to authenticate the post. In Larry’s case, it should be “Define Darwinism” as James F has constantly stated. Larry likes to hit and run with his idiocy and never engages in thoughtful debate.

  30. Larry Fafarman Says:

    Even though I don’t see anything wrong with using the words “Darwinism” and “Darwinist,” I will stop using these words when Darwinists stop using the term “intelligent design creationism.”

  31. Curly Says:

    Larry:

    I will agree with your deal. I will just call them “cdesign proponentist “. So do you want to shake on it?

  32. Charles Says:

    Never sell out Curly. Never sell out.

  33. Curly Says:

    Charles:
    :) I think Larry will renege on the deal anyhow. Hey Larry, how is that “Darwinist” definition coming?

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


%d bloggers like this: