Texas School Board Chairman McLeroy Loses Leadership Post

ICR ^ | May 29, 2009 | Christine Dao

[GodGunsGuts]

Texas School Board Chairman McLeroy Loses Leadership Post

by Christine Dao*

Texas State Representative Don McLeroy (R-College Station) narrowly lost his bid on May 28 to retain his position as chairman of the State Board of Education. The 19-11 vote, which ran strictly along party lines, failed the two-thirds majority required for the nomination to pass.

Opponents of McLeroy cited his creationist viewpoint as a leading factor in the vote, while defenders, such as Senator Steve Ogden (R-Bryan) stated, “It is not fair to say that if you don’t believe Darwin’s theory of evolution or accept the argument that global warming is occurring, that you should not be on the State Board of Education.”[1]

McLeroy had pushed to keep...

[Caramelgal]

And if that's not enough, the Wall Street Journal recently reported on a Gallop Poll that shows liberal Christian denominations and Evo-atheists are far more likely to be superstitious than conservative, evangelical Christian, church attenders: Look Who's Irrational Now

I read that article previously and it is an opinion piece on the results of the Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion:

Mission:

ISR exists to initiate, support, and conduct research on religion, involving scholars and projects spanning the intellectual spectrum: history, psychology, sociology, economics, anthropology, political science, theology, and religious studies. Our mandate extends to all religions, everywhere, and throughout history. It also embraces the study of religious effects on such things as prosocial behavior, family life, economic development, and social conflict. While always striving for appropriate scientific objectivity, our scholars treat religion with the respect that sacred matters require and deserve.

About ISR:

Baylor University's Institute for Studies of Religion (Baylor ISR) exists to involve scholars having many different interests and approaches in creative efforts to grasp the complexities and interconnections of religion in the life of individuals and societies. The aim is to combine the highest standards of scholarship with a serious commitment to faith, resulting in studies that not only plumb basic questions, but produce results that are relevant to religious organizations, address moral controversies, and contribute to social health.

No bias there. (sarcasm)

It should also be mentioned that Baylor is a private Baptist university. Without knowing how their data was collected, the sampling size was, etc., it’s rather hard to judge the validity of the study but I’m somewhat skeptical that the Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion would not have some biases built into their survey. I’m skeptical about a lot of public opinion polls no matter the source and or agenda of the organization conducting it for the same reasons. Opinion polls are easily skewed and often misleading.

I would also point out that no where in the study did it address evolution or any attempt to equate that people who believe in evolution are more likely to believe in superstitions.

Furthermore, let us not cofuse people of liberal Christian denominations and people who embrace other religions, especially Eastern and Neo-Pagan religions with Atheists.

Atheists reject all forms of supernaturalism. That includes astrology, faith healing, ghosts, clairvoyance, UFO abductions, etc.

[tpanther]

I don’t know any evolutionists who are scientists who subscribe to the pseudoscience of astrology and the crypto science of UFO’s and Big Foot.

Well that's OK, I don't know of any Christians that subscribe to: "In health class, let’s teach all about the “sin nature” of disease and tell little Johnny his grandmother died from cancer because she wasn’t right with the Lord and is probably roasting in Hell. Tell him that a “natural” and Biblical diet along with come coffee enemas and lot’s of prayer will save him from the same fate."

either.

[tpanther]

All I see from your link is a bunch of quotes mined from Don Mcleroy (R), ripped away from their original context. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

So what are we to take away from this, Ira? That whenever a conservative happens to be a creationist, you are happy when they lose their position of power?

Yup, pretty much. As well as linking liberal websites in silly efforts to prove he's not a liberal! :0

[tpanther]

And wouldn’t ya know it, your fellow travelers over at the Huffington Post are in full agreement with you too!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-mapes/the-evolution-of-texas_b_178544.html

---

and algore, and hissy fit matthews, and herr olbermeister, and rachel madcow...the zero...

[Caramelgal]

There are evolutionists who are scientists who say that there has to be a lot of civilizations out there in the universe because if we “evolved” here, the way evolution says, then it has to have happened elsewhere with great frequency, over the proposed billions of years that the universe has been around (according to them).

There “has to be a lot of civilizations out there”, with “great frequency”? No. You really need to do some more research on what actual scientists are saying. While it is theoretically possible that other Earth like planets in distant solar systems may have evolved life, or even intelligent life, or even conjecture that interstellar space travel is hypothetically not impossible that doesn’t equate with believing that those UFO’s sightings and crop circles (hoaxes) are proof of such. No legitimate scientist buys into this.

The very first thing that came to my mind, when I read what you said, was the “Drake Equation”...

If you are going to site “Drake Equation” from Wiki as proof for your argument, you might do well to also read this part:

Criticism

Criticism of the Drake equation follows mostly from the observation that several terms in the equation are largely or entirely based on conjecture. Thus the equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions of any kind. As T.J. Watson states:[14]

The Drake equation consists of a large number of probabilities multiplied together. Since each factor is guaranteed to be somewhere between 0 and 1, the result is also guaranteed to be a reasonable-looking number between 0 and 1. Unfortunately, all the probabilities are completely unknown, making the result worse than useless.

Likewise, in a 2003 lecture at Caltech, Michael Crichton, a science fiction author, stated:[15]

The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. [...] As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless...

One reply to such criticism is that experiments by SETI scientists do not attempt to address the Drake equation for the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations anywhere in the universe, but are focused on specific, testable hypotheses (i.e., "do extraterrestrial civilizations communicating in the radio spectrum exist near sun-like stars within 50 light years of the Earth?").

Another reply to such criticism[16] is that even though the Drake equation currently involves speculation about unmeasured parameters, it stimulates dialog on these topics. Then the focus becomes how to proceed experimentally.

A deeper objection is that the very form of the Drake equation assumes that civilizations arise and then die out within their original solar systems. If interstellar colonization is possible, then this assumption is invalid, and the equations of population dynamics would apply instead.

So, here we see a bunch of scientists saying that they’ve got an “equation” that shows how many “extra-terrestrial civilizations” there are out there.

No, not a bunch of scientists – just one who wrote something in 1960.

Along with that, you’ve got a bunch of other scientists trying to establish communications with these extra-terrestrial civilizations that are out there (at least that they are sure are out there, or else they wouldn’t be spending the time looking for them or trying to communicate with them... LOL...)

As a further example of the science community believing in extra-terrestrial life, as a result of “evolution”... see SETI...

“The United States Government contributed to SETI early on, but recent work has been primarily funded by private sources.”

SETI was defunded by NASA in the early 1990’s. It is now funded privately, predominately by UFO enthusiasts. The project, while once interesting, is no longer science but psdeoscience.

I would say that there probably is an large majority of the scientists convinced that there are extra-terrestrials out there,…. ….

I can think of one right off the top of my head, Stanton Friedman...

LOL! He’s a nut case.

It would appear that the entire scientific community is sold on extra-terrestrial life in the universe, and with communicating with that extra-terrestrial life, and also with *working directly* with the phenomenon of UFOs (those who make it their specialty of work in science) and finding the ones that *do represent* actual UFOs from other extra-terrestrial civilizations.

It would appear to me, that the theory of evolution works quite well in outer space, too... LOL...

You sure are big on making assumptions based on how things “appear” to you without backing them up with any facts in evidence. Naming a defunded NASA program – SETI and bring up the name of Stanton Friedman hardly makes the case that the “entire scientific community is sold on extra-terrestrial life in the universe, and with communicating with that extra-terrestrial life, and also with *working directly* with the phenomenon of UFOs”.

[Caramelgal]

Well that's OK, I don't know of any Christians that subscribe to: "In health class, let’s teach all about the “sin nature” of disease and tell little Johnny his grandmother died from cancer because she wasn’t right with the Lord and is probably roasting in Hell. Tell him that a “natural” and Biblical diet along with come coffee enemas and lot’s of prayer will save him from the same fate."

either.

OK. That’s fair. But when one of your own makes more of such statements on these threads in the future, can I presume you will call him out for it next time?

[tpanther]

“One of my own”? I refer to NT scripture to identify “one of my own”...if someone’s off the rails like that I’d hardly consider them one of my own, no more so than perhaps you’d consider hissy fit matthews one of your own, to say nothing of your ability to control him.

You’d be one busy gal if you pointed out the leftist lunacy that goes on that subscribes to evolution!

That having been said, in the past I have pointed out that NT scripture is a good guide to discern true Christian faith/creation beliefs vs. flying purple spaghetti monster cults.

[goodusername]

“I’m sure that people throughout history, in their normal state of fallen humankind were always thinking of ways to have an advantage for themselves over others, and to eliminate what they considered to be a drag on themselves and/or society and to maximize their resources at the expense of others. That is true.”

-THAT’s what you meant by “finding better ways of doing things”? You gave no indication of that. I thought you meant it in the sense that someone buys a car to have a better way of getting around. So what has any of that got to do with Darwin or Darwinism?

“However as far as *better ways*— what is “better” to the philosophy that stems from Darwin and evolution — is not a “better way” to the teachings and moral framework that comes from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. “

—Darwin and evolution give no indication at all of what is “better”, whatever that means. Darwinism says that due to differential reproductive success and random mutations in a population that certain characteristics of a population will change over time as it adapts to its environment. That’s no more an indication that we should “eliminate” anyone than Newton’s theory is an indication that I should knock my monitor to the floor because that’s somehow “better”.

“you’ll find that when it comes to the philosophy that stems from Darwin and is an outgrowth of his, the Christian Church’s teachings in its morals and conduct and how it plays out in society is *radically opposed* to that which comes out of those teachings stemming from Darwin and Evolution.”

— In what way is it different? You never actually explain.

“You’ll find that worldviews that have promoted these evil practices (as Weikart is talking about in his book in regards to Hitler’s regime) have not come about in their final form and full-blown when first introduced. They “grow” like anything else grows and gains a following. Darwin and the “evolutionary model” (of thought, and how things supposedly worked in the world) came out in a world which was totally against what would come to be the eventual outcome of that thought. It couldn’t be promoted or be known (at that time) — in the form that it logically developed into, from its beginnings. These people, in the beginning, were the product of their times, and they would have never allowed themselves to fully pursue the full logic of their positions...”

—Completely ad-hoc and completely wrong. Eugenics was very unpopular until around 1920 when it suddenly flourished. What happened? Mendelism became popular. So if you’re looking for someone to blame, don’t forget him.
Throughout history, if a source of a disease was found, we’d try to stop it. If someone has a plague, his travel is restricted, or even quarantined. We do not allow him to spread the plague. With the discovery that many diseases are spread through genes, it seemed a logical step to stop the spread of the genes, and thus the disease. Darwinism was completely unnecessary for why and when eugenics became popular.
In fact many Darwinists were against eugenics, while many non-Darwinists were pro-eugenics. Early mendelians were among the biggest proponents of eugenics, and yet were typically not Darwinists.
Charles Davenport, for instance, is often cited as the most important advocate of eugenics, and his arguments were based on Mendelism: “Formerly, when we believed that factors blend, a characteristic in the germ plasm of a single individual among thousands seemed not worth considering: it would soon be lost in the melting pot. But now we know that unit characters do not blend; that after a score of generations the given characteristic may still appear, unaffected by repeated unions…. So the individual, as the bearer of a potentially immortal germ plasm with innumerable traits, becomes of the greatest interest.”
Many church leaders and leading Creationists were also enthusiastic supportors of eugenics. For instance, a couple of the founders of the Creation Research Society were eugenicists, such as Tinkle and Marsh.
When Hitler argued for eugenics, he also didn’t cite Darwinism - but he did cite Sparta.

“And then you said — I don’t think there are too many Christians that would agree. Christians, too, strive to “find better ways of doing things” and to improve humanity.
As I said, this is *not* the philosophy of the Christian church. The Christian church does not teach any such philosophy that gains and/or progress should be made by evil means or procedures, such as (for one example) by eliminating “useless eaters” from society.”

—Who said anything about “evil means or procedures”? You’re being extremely vague and keep changing your arguments - it makes it very difficult to follow what you’re trying to say.

“But, as to whether the philosophy that stems from Darwin and evolution does teach that things do progress and get better in and of itself, in this kind of “philosophy” or worldview of how things are — you might find those (in that camp) who say that things (perhaps as you say) simply change and that it’s not “better” one way or the other, but simply changes.”

— It looks like you are engaging in some really bizarre off-the-wall equivocation. The equivalent of using Newton’s theory for “why things fall” to explain the “fall of Rome”. Perhaps another reason why I’m having trouble following your posts.
Darwinism is not a theory about “things”. It’s a theory about how populations change due to the differential reproduction of members of those populations. I would have thought that when I mentioned that Darwin argued that there is no natural tendency to “progression” that I (and Darwin) were talking about biology, and not culture or technology or anything else. Just as Newton wasn’t talking about the rise and fall of civilizations.

Did you read Weikart’s book? Just curious, cause I went into the convo having thought that you read the book. If you did read it, is this the kind of stuff he actually talks about? I would have expected that a book called “From Darwin to Hitler” talked about Darwin and Hitler. :-)

[Ira_Louvin]

You must have missed post #45

[tpanther]

You must have missed post #45

No but it's plain to see you missed #40.

[Ira_Louvin]

Well obviously you did not review the links with post number 45 since it shows post number 40 to be incorrect in all of is assertions. There was a link to the handout that Mr. McElroy passed out with his dishonest quite mine’s, and then they show the quotes in their correct context.

[tpanther]

Well obviously you did not review the links with post number 45 since it shows post number 40 to be incorrect in all of is assertions. ,

...based on your liberal/establishment references.

And you still don't see it either.

A cult deprogrammer is in order!

[Ira_Louvin]

It was a pdf doc. of the Hand out the Mr Mcleroy passed out and read into the public record.

And then the quote in the correct context.

Face it the man was caught with his hand in the cookie jar

But lets not let a silly little thing like facts get in the way

[tpanther]

Liberal fascism is nothing to defend.

As I said before hooray for this man standing up to a cult.

What a brilliant system you libs have developed, anytime someone challenges the cult, just smear them as a liar, then with a straight face babble endless nonsense about peer review.

Too bad non-cultists see right through it though, huh?

[Quix]

Thanks for your integrity.

My relative did NOT

work around

—swamp gas
—fuzzy weather balloons
—lenticular clouds
—. . . . etc. etc. yada yada yada

And Jesse Marcel Jr MD specialist Iraq battlefield MD; wouned in action . . . Patriot true hero

did not lie about what he saw whe 11 years old and his father wasn’t lying about it being part of a crashed saucer.

[Quix]

Thanks.

[Quix]

INDEED. Rather unsurprisingly to those of us who’ve had to work around the clueless idiots.

[Quix]

Not sure what point you’d like my honest response to.

Yes, I believe in Creation.

No, I don’t believe the earth is only ~6,000 years old.

Yes, I believe flying saucers/UFO’s really exist.

Yes, I believe we built our own fleet of them as my relative said.

Yes, I believe we ‘back engineered’ some such as my relative said.

Yes, I believe the evil critters taught the globalist black ops specialists how to build our own fleet as my relative essentially said.

Yes, I believe that most naysayers hereon are utterly low life clueless idiots with virtually no integrity to themselves nor to the facts.

[Quix]

Friedman is a solid man I’ve talked with several times.

I think he’s, however, a globalist . . . hoodwinked or employed by the powers that be into thinking that the critters are benign or beneficial . . .

He did shred the idiotic Drake equation quite humorously and handily.

The Drake equation is fantasy built on fantasy built on conjecture built on hogwash dressed up in a pseudo-science suit.

[Quix]

Most atheists I know also

reject long lists of facts;
reject a lot of basic facts about themselves, personally;
reject a lot of basic logic and reason about a lot of topics

are typically narrow, rigid, arrogant, brittle, clueless fools.