tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776587.post6674551175364756519..comments2023-11-03T04:00:24.785-04:00Comments on Kentucky School News and Commentary: Science Standards Advance, Cothran Whines Richard Dayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14586435007687942849noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776587.post-65885233268258954232013-10-09T13:11:13.912-04:002013-10-09T13:11:13.912-04:00I suggested that you choose arguments that produce...I suggested that you choose arguments that produce the most movement on an issue, and you take offense? Somebody’s grumpy today.<br /><br />I commented directly on the main issue regarding science standards – saying that the method you used to make your determinations is OK, but too half-assed to draw conclusions from. KDE reviewers thought so too when they did a more thorough review of the standards.<br /><br />However, you get full marks for the mountain-top removal comment. My suspicion is decimated, but it’s hardly a smear - unless you find coal producers in Kentucky to be so onerous that mere association with coal defames a person somehow. Still, I stand corrected.<br /><br />Let me defend myself against your false assertion that I packed “a lot of falsehoods” into my comment that you "roused up church folks."<br />Here’s what your church bulletin insert said (a copy here: http://theprincipal.blogspot.com/2013/07/mystery-science-theater-2013.html)<br /><br /><i>“Important Notice from the Family Foundation of Kentucky. Do you want your children and grandchildren to be taught more evolution in the public schools?<br />We know that evolution is in conflict with many faith based communities…<br />Mak[e] your position known BEFORE the new standards are implemented…<br />If you do nothing, evolution instruction will increase…<br />Go online…<br />Fill out the petition…<br />Take extra sheets and tell others…”</i><br /><br />If I wanted to rouse up folks, you have provided a pretty good model for doing it.<br /><br />Now, Martin, the problem with you is that you can't seem to defend your own arguments. Specifically, how is gay marriage a threat to religious freedom?<br /><br />You brought it up. I didn’t.<br /><br />You wrote (above at August 10, 2013 at 11:11 PM): “In terms of gay marriage, there are a lot of objections to it, religious and otherwise. Many of them are simply sociological. There's also the threat it poses to religious freedom, a concern which is not itself religious.”<br /><br />I said I didn’t understand your position and asked you to defend the assertion. You went silent…for two months now.<br /><br />Still waiting….. <br /><br />Perhaps the best thing for you to do is to stop trying to discern my private thoughts just because you can’t defend your own public argument. <br />Richard Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14586435007687942849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776587.post-22428137729600572172013-10-08T13:17:42.858-04:002013-10-08T13:17:42.858-04:00Anonymous,
I'm not sure quite what Richard me...Anonymous,<br /><br />I'm not sure quite what Richard means when he says that I will "go with whatever argument gets [me] movement." Is he saying that I try to use the best arguments for my position? If so, I'm fail to understand what the problem with that is. Is he implying that I use arguments that I don't believe in myself? If so, he's questioning my motives. <br /><br />When you start questioning people's motives, it usually means you don't have much in the way of arguments. You owe it to your opponent in an argument to refute his best arguments, not his worst motives.<br /><br />The problem with Richard and some of his readers is that they can't seem to answer the main argument I presented, which is that the standards are weak on content knowledge (which they are). Instead, they launch off into speculation about my being a closet creationist (which I'm not) and go off into spinning conspiracy theories about me wanting to foist my religion on everyone.<br /><br />Richard and his followers don't have a shred of evidence for this, so they have to manufacture things.<br /><br />For example: that The Family Foundation of Kentucky's "new interest" in the climate change issue (the only comment in regard to which I can even remember being the two or three paragraphs in that one op ed) is due to "donations from pro-coal interests."<br /><br />This is absolutely false. In fact, it's pretty close to a smear. But that was conspiracy theorists do: they charge their opponents with things that they don't have a shred of proof for that make them feel comfortable in their own ignorance. Charges like this are not only reckless, they are ethically questionable and they don't belong in a civilized exchange of beliefs.<br /><br />And besides, how does this charge square with my publicly-stated opposition to mountain-top removal?<br /><br />One thing you can say for Richard, he can pack a lot of falsehoods into one pretty brief comment. He claims that I "roused up church folks to go testify." I presume he means at the recent Administrative Regulations Review Subcommittee meeting in which the science standards were rejected. <br /><br />In fact, although The Family Foundation urged people to call legislators (because of the content issue), no one in that organization, including myself, ever asked anyone to go to the meeting to testify. In fact, when the chairman asked for the seventeen people who had signed up to testify against the regulation to decide among themselves which one would speak for them, Richard Innes of the Bluegrass Institute and I went to the table and told the chairman that we had no idea who the other 15 people even were, so it was hard for us to "decide." It was then he allowed both of us to speak briefly--in a smaller space of time than the advocates got to give their case.<br /><br />But even if it were true we were "rousing up church folks" to testify at the meeting, how would that act be "specifically anti-evolution"?<br /><br />I think the real answer is for Richard and his friends to get out more. Maybe actually acquainting himself with religious people would help him realize that they don't go around thinking anti-evolution thoughts all day. It also might diminish the necessity of him having to lay awake nights worrying that someone, somewhere might be thinking creationist thoughts if he realized that not all people who take their religion seriously are creationists.<br /><br />But the best thing to do is to stop trying to discern people's private thoughts just because they can't answer their public arguments.Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776587.post-64598678929866541502013-10-08T10:28:41.662-04:002013-10-08T10:28:41.662-04:00October 7, 2013 at 1:32 PM: Well, first, Martin wi...October 7, 2013 at 1:32 PM: Well, first, Martin will go with whatever argument gets him some movement. If he thought he could get traction with other arguments he would pose them. <br /><br />Second, sure, it could be a lot clearer, but then, I am not limiting myself to the context of this one specific piece. There is no fundamental absence of substance. <br /><br />I suspect (but do not know) that the Family Foundation's recent interest in climate change issues is related to donations from pro-coal interests in the state. <br /><br />A better example...He complained about the introduction of religion into the NGSS discussion while encouraging others to do just that. If Martin had not roused up church folks to go testify, he would not be suspected of being disingenuous. That act was specifically anti-evolution. But above, he accurately states that he made no scriptural arguments. He sent flyers to others in hopes they would do that.<br /><br />One would not necessarily know that from reading any single article. <br /><br />Finally, SB 1 required a slimmed down curriculum, so I expected a lot of specific things to be left out. I assume teachers will routinely bring into the study of the various scientific processes specific examples from their own locations. But I'm not the best person to speak to the specifics of how this will be done. Richard Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14586435007687942849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776587.post-75759035211172911282013-10-07T13:32:36.800-04:002013-10-07T13:32:36.800-04:00"Although much of the debate has been over co..."Although much of the debate has been over controversial issues such as whether the standards place too much emphasis on evolution and global warming, there is a more basic problem.<br /><br />One of the primary goals of science education is the knowledge and understanding of nature. So one would expect to see, in national science standards, some focus on the things nature is actually made up of. Unfortunately, these new national standards almost entirely ignore the very things of which nature consists.<br /><br />The Next Generation Science Standards attempt to teach science without nature.<br /><br />While the standards mention the terms “climate,” “weather” and “global warming” more than 130 times — and “evolution” 24 times — the terms “mammal,” “bird,” “reptile” and “amphibian” are completely absent."<br /><br /><br />Richard,<br />Can it be clearer in the context of what Cothran said in his article that the issue is NOT one of global warming or climate change. Rather it is one of fundamental absence of anything substantive at all? From what I read of the article, I see no opposition to evolution or climate change, but an opposition to ignoring the basics like plants, trees, and animals. Just a thought. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776587.post-42771258842555343062013-08-28T00:08:15.269-04:002013-08-28T00:08:15.269-04:00Anonymous,
I thought you were scared of being att...Anonymous,<br /><br />I thought you were scared of being attacked by <i>my</i> minions? Now you're saying you're scared of being attacked by the school district's minions?<br /><br />There are an awful lot of minions out there, aren't there?<br /><br />And what about all those scriptural arguments I was making? I'm still wondering when I did that.Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776587.post-89834081869642585022013-08-26T19:38:09.487-04:002013-08-26T19:38:09.487-04:00I will publicly criticize you when I retire, Mr. C...I will publicly criticize you when I retire, Mr. Cothran. Many of us in the school district are afraid to voice our opinions as educators. I have ten years to go....<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776587.post-33129309667586784242013-08-26T14:35:40.002-04:002013-08-26T14:35:40.002-04:00Attacked by my "minions"? Are you seriou...Attacked by my "minions"? Are you serious? Do you really think that is a convincing excuse for not identifying yourself while publicly criticizing another person?<br /><br />Also, on what basis do you say that my objections "appear to be based on [my] 'interpretation' of Scripture."?Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776587.post-37390204223903684472013-08-25T13:54:17.497-04:002013-08-25T13:54:17.497-04:00I am still amazed that Cothran is so opposed to th...I am still amazed that Cothran is so opposed to the science standards. <br /><br />Cothran is affiliated with private schools and his objections appear to be based on his "interepretation" of Scripture. That he is a taxpayer and has a right to question is not disputed, but he offers absolutely no compelling evidence that standards are incorrect or flawed or that the recent adavances in gay rights poses a threat to our democracy. <br /><br />I'm a teacher in the public schools, Richard, and will not write my name for fear of being attacked by his minions. As an atheist in a very Christian state, I am frankly very frightened by the activities of Martin Cothran, but his audience seems lack the political power to create a theocracy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776587.post-82948738810184904882013-08-16T17:38:13.740-04:002013-08-16T17:38:13.740-04:00Richard,
I don't remember you "fussing&q...Richard,<br /><br />I don't remember you "fussing" at me for remaining anonymous. It would have been odd if you had: the front page of Vital Remnants lists me as a contributor, gives my full name, and links to a video of an appearance on television and information about where I work.Thomas M. Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07824873424225826685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776587.post-37196997388447441702013-08-15T23:11:53.782-04:002013-08-15T23:11:53.782-04:00Anonymous,
What does that have to do with the sci...Anonymous,<br /><br />What does that have to do with the science standards?Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776587.post-86956573449605454382013-08-15T11:22:41.135-04:002013-08-15T11:22:41.135-04:00Richard,
No problem.Richard,<br /><br />No problem.Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776587.post-25336443153753551602013-08-15T07:01:19.058-04:002013-08-15T07:01:19.058-04:00Dear Mr. Cothran,
I do hope you will explain your...Dear Mr. Cothran,<br /><br />I do hope you will explain your position on gay marriage and the threat it poses to religious freedom.<br /><br />I think many of us would find it enlightening. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776587.post-59458429797612770772013-08-15T05:35:47.974-04:002013-08-15T05:35:47.974-04:00Martin,
No, I was...
I did not know Thomas was...Martin,<br /><br />No, I was... <br /><br />I did not know Thomas was your son....being an occasional reader.<br /><br />Richard<br />Richard Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14586435007687942849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776587.post-69425574447792060552013-08-14T22:23:45.405-04:002013-08-14T22:23:45.405-04:00Anonymous,
I see, after having been out of pocket...Anonymous,<br /><br />I see, after having been out of pocket for a few days, that it is Wednesday and you are still hiding your identity.<br /><br />Very bad form, publicly criticizing another person without having the integrity to say who you are. But don't worry, you're safe here. It's apparently okay with Richard.<br /><br />But at the risk of being criticized myself by Richard for spending time responding to you (and doing it in full disclosure of my identity), let me say that I was very curious what your response would be to my remark. In fact, it was written to see what your response would be.<br /><br />I put the bait out and you bit.<br /><br />As I anticipated, you seem to be of the view that <i>any</i> distinctions between men and women (I actually complemented women in the post) are somehow inappropriate. Are you one of those people pushing for unisex bathrooms in schools?<br /><br />And are you really shocked that someone from a "conservative think tank" would make distinctions between men and women? Have you bothered to read anything published by "conservative think tanks"? Ever noticed how they make distinctions between men and women?<br /><br />In fact, have you ever noticed how just about everybody makes distinctions between men and women (even college graduates)?<br /><br />I think you need to get out more.Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776587.post-64146073255762973742013-08-14T22:03:16.091-04:002013-08-14T22:03:16.091-04:00Richard,
So far as I know, I haven't spent a ...Richard,<br /><br />So far as I know, I haven't spent a split second defending the tongue-in-cheek point I made in regard to the anonymous person who is criticizing me on your blog but doesn't have the integrity to say what his (that's the old-fashioned, generic "his") name is.<br /><br />I haven't even seen his response until a few minutes ago because I have been out of town. So now I am sitting here spending time defending myself against you who say I have been defending a point which I haven't yet even tried to defend because you are spending time accusing me of defending it.<br /><br />So why did you spend time doing <i>that</i>?<br /><br />Maybe we both have too much time on our hands.Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776587.post-64553713070673933772013-08-14T21:45:59.538-04:002013-08-14T21:45:59.538-04:00Richard,
I don't remember you fussing at Thom...Richard,<br /><br />I don't remember you fussing at Thomas, but I'll take your word for it. But for anonymity? Really?<br /><br />Anyone who reads my blog on a regular basis knows he's my son. That's his name: Thomas. <br /><br />Now in my family what we do is give the children the father's last name. I realize that may be considered scandalous now in the rarefied world of Higher Silliness, but that's how we do it.<br /><br />In any case, it's not a particularly sophisticated inference to the conclusion that it his full name is Thomas Cothran.<br /><br />Am I missing something here?Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776587.post-14853644022179665392013-08-13T21:10:58.181-04:002013-08-13T21:10:58.181-04:00And on Tuesday he rested...And on Tuesday he rested...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776587.post-15321297989221156922013-08-12T21:06:38.984-04:002013-08-12T21:06:38.984-04:00And On Monday he rested....And On Monday he rested....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776587.post-86346659426399725082013-08-12T08:30:07.239-04:002013-08-12T08:30:07.239-04:00Martin,
I suspect we agree on anonymity in public...Martin,<br /><br />I suspect we agree on anonymity in public policy debates. We don't like it. But in some cases we understand it...and it may even be necessary for some.<br /><br />I believe I recently fussed at "Thomas" who writes at Vital Remnants for the same thing. But it's hard for me to be certain that Thomas was really Thomas.<br /><br />But this? <br /><br />"I find it is almost always men who question people's motives, jump to conclusions--and do it without having the integrity to identify themselves--than women."<br /><br />Do you really want to waste time defending this point?<br /><br />If the set of commenters are anonymous - how could you form any valid opinions about who they are? ...what gender? ...tendencies? ...frequency?<br /><br />Y'all can argue about whatever you want, but it seems to me that arguing over trivial issues without foundation only serves to weaken folk's opinions about the quality of one's judgment on other, more important issues.<br /><br />Wouldn't it be more helpful if you explored, for me and perhaps others, how gay marriage poses a threat to religious freedom?<br /><br />RichardRichard Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14586435007687942849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776587.post-86245356977372679542013-08-12T07:32:51.330-04:002013-08-12T07:32:51.330-04:00Dear Richard,
I am shocked that Martin Cothran, t...Dear Richard,<br /><br />I am shocked that Martin Cothran, the leader of a major conservative thinktank and a college graduate, would generalize about men and women in this way.<br /><br />Once again, it his right to do so, but it is no less shocking.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776587.post-34809493072255094952013-08-12T01:21:52.496-04:002013-08-12T01:21:52.496-04:00Who was that Eve person? Didn't she jump to so...Who was that Eve person? Didn't she jump to some conclusion or did something related to integrity? I even think she and her man tried to hide their identities and deeds from the creator at one point. Secular or religious we are each capable of great acts and truths as well as transgressions and deceptions - gender has nothing to do it or LBGT/straight.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776587.post-54356388972498097532013-08-11T20:47:37.701-04:002013-08-11T20:47:37.701-04:002nd Anonymous,
I refuse to believe that either yo...2nd Anonymous,<br /><br />I refuse to believe that either you or the first Anonymous is a woman. I find it is almost always men who question people's motives, jump to conclusions--and do it without having the integrity to identify themselves--than women.<br /><br />I have a much higher view of women than that.Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776587.post-76905003836861657622013-08-11T14:21:17.869-04:002013-08-11T14:21:17.869-04:00A friend of mine asked why Mr. Cothran referred to...A friend of mine asked why Mr. Cothran referred to a poster as "Mr Anonymous." She further asked, "How does Cothran know the gender of a poster?" <br /><br />I argued that in Mr. Cothran's world no blogger could possibly be a female because females are expected to have and tend children, obey their husbands, cook the meals, clean the house, and possibly home school her children if evolution is taught in the public schools. <br /><br />A woman could not be expected to have a voice in education policy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776587.post-51178716219766280312013-08-11T08:40:06.264-04:002013-08-11T08:40:06.264-04:00Dear Mr. Cothran,
I am pleased you have stated th...Dear Mr. Cothran,<br /><br />I am pleased you have stated that many of those in the Family Foundation are Christians. There is absolutely no problem with that, but it is helpful to understand that many of those who attend a public school would like to be free of such intellectual chains.<br /><br />As for you outlook on gay marriage which certainly says a good deal about your approach to the treatment of gay Americans in general, I can accept that, while I don't agree with it. I don't feel, however, you make a compelling argument against gay marriage, but I have not been to your website in a few weeks. Perhaps it is articulated there.<br /><br />On the same subject, I genuinely was surprised the Family Foundation did not fight Fayette County Schools when they added sexual orientation to their non-discrimination clause. While I am pleased Fayette County took this important step towards inclusion, I thought for sure this would be an issue that would disturbe you and your conservative base.<br /><br />My major concern with the Family Foundation is that its objections to evolution seem to be motivated by its strict Christian interpretation of the creation of the world. In a religion class, I see no reason to discuss evolution, but I simply see no reason for Christain children not to be conversant with the theory. Your objections to the teaching of climate change baffle me, however, as these are not rooted in scripture.<br /><br />By the way, although I believe if you had your way our Kentucky school textbooks would come from the Bob Jones University Press or the Heritage Foundation, I'm pleased you participate in the conversations on this discussion board.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776587.post-38005550272097784622013-08-11T06:38:10.126-04:002013-08-11T06:38:10.126-04:00Martin,
I meant motivation. Why do a thing? I may...Martin,<br /><br />I meant motivation. Why do a thing? I may feel justified by my beliefs (religious and otherwise) to do any number of things, but am only motivated to act on some of them.<br /><br />Anonymous asked about compulsion - which is a different thing.<br /><br />It seems we agree that in public policy all citizens get to play. Is there a problem with that? No. Aside from the fact that the democratic process is messy - No.<br /><br />But we don't agree that "the arguments for policy positions are based on strictly on non-religious arguments."<br /><br />Yours may be. But the testimony on NGSS produced lots of religious arguments, and there was no referee blowing a whistle and calling fouls. Their arguments may have ultimately been rejected by the Board, but they made their religious arguments and the Board heard them. So did the media. In some other case, religious arguments may carry the day and change public policy.<br /><br />As you may know, Frank Simon's group is pushing for school prayer - a wholly religious public policy argument. <br /><br />It is appropriate to question people's motivations because it provides a clearer picture of where the person is coming from. Sometimes folks hide their true intentions. Our juries question the motivations of witnesses and defendants every day. It's how humans seek some measure of truth. So too, in public policy. I suppose every "slippery slope" argument questions someone's motivations.<br /><br />Shifting gears - your gay marriage example contains an assertion that I simply do not understand. It relates to "the threat [gay marriage] poses to religious freedom."<br /><br />Would you care to explain the threat? In what way does someone else's marriage deny me the right to worship as I choose?<br /><br />When Ellen and Portia married, my wife and I didn't spend one second questioning whether we could carry on together. We didn't even have to go into marriage counseling. We continued to worship according to our beliefs (which aren't exactly the same either). <br /><br />So, I don't get it.<br /><br />RichardRichard Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14586435007687942849noreply@blogger.com