Expelled: Texas Education Agency Fires Staffer for Announcing Talk by Barbara Forrest

Hey, I have a great idea! When 'Expelled' comes out, someone should get a copy, add a segment about this, re-do the voiceover with something like a recording of Dawkins played backwards, and circulate copies to all paid-up members of the Great Baby-Eating Satanist Darwinian Conspiracy (you know who you are).

Honest, the Discovery Institute etc won't mind...

I heard about this on the radio this morning (I live in Austin), and couldn't make heads or tails of it. I'm still not clear about what was going on.

I'm scared. Someone hold me.

Well, we saw in the Dover Trial how the ID people tried to prevent Forrest from being able to be a witness, I guess their fear of her runs more deeply than we originally thought.

It does show where the sympathies of the Texan BOE people lie. Not good. One would think that having Dr. Forrest speak would be a part of her actual job description!

I don't know the full story yet, but this sounds like the kind of serious, aggressive, rights-violating action by creationists that we should be actively fighting.

Unless there's a very strange back story, a lawsuit is clearly in order.

Chris Comer ought to sue the Texas Death Cultists who pressured her into resigning. This is religious discrimination pure and simple. In general, I'm not a fan of grabbing the lawyers and suing everytime McDonalds gets your order wrong. But this is a matter of principle. Freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of speech. When accepting the fact of evolution is a crime in the 21st century, something is wrong. At least she hasn't been burnt at the stake. Yet. She would probably win. Even if she didn't, Texas would have to admit it is a theocracy run by religious extremists who would just love to bring back the Dark Ages. These people are cockroaches who fear the light of day or the truth. They would probably pay her off just so they can hide under their rocks. The toll this year for Death cultist persecution of normal people. One professor at Olivet harrassed unmercifully for teaching evolution, one fired in Iowa, and now Texas claims a scalp. While we call this medieval nonsense, I'm sure the creos call it a good start.

I saw a case similar to this years ago. A group of religious extremists gained control of the county government. They then started persecuting a middle aged female librarian for carrying books they didn't approve of and not carrying books they demanded. None of the books BTW, were particularly controversial. They fired her. She sued. I contributed a small amount to her defense fund, among many others. The ACLU stood up. Short trial with a conservative, religious judge. She got her job back, county was assessed for her legal fees. Next election the fascists got tossed by the voters. I'm afraid these days it might well be different. Probably her house would be firebombed by Xian terrorists who would also assassinate her cat. It is a Death Cult Xian thing, you wouldn't understand.

So it's perfect ok for Don McLeroy, Chairman of the Texas State Board of Education to say something like....

"Second thing I would like to clarify for a talk is, now we are going to be using the word “evolution,” and that brings up all sorts of definitions. We will give you a handout but not today, but let me explain some of the use of the words that I will be using today. Intelligent design I will define in the talk, but evolution itself people will say Darwinism or evolution. A lot of the quotes I will be using are going to be from Phillip Johnson, who, Phillip Johnson is one of the leaders in the intelligent design movement. He uses the word Darwinism and I will be giving quotes from him, so when you hear the word Darwinism or if I accidentally refer to the word Darwinism, it means the theory of common descent. That we share common ancestor with that tree out there. I mean that is basically what we have in our high school textbooks. If you open a high school textbook, they basically state as a fact that we share common ancestry with life that first got started and some went to be plants and eventually trees and some became us. And that is what I mean by Darwinism. Yes, there is macro-evolution and micro-evolution, we’d prefer the term adaptive variation for micro-evolution. We know that no one argues against what is considered micro-evolution, but if you hear the term evolution in this talk, today, you’ll also realize that it’s mainly referring to the common descent. That the theory that all life has descended from a common ancestor."

....that's ok right???...introducing the idea of something that was ruled unconstitutional to teach in the public school systems.

No dishonesty there!

Texas is the new Kansas?

Texas science education – being neutral or being neutered?

Thanks for posting this Wes. Most of you are probably aware the Texas science standards are about to be revised. Was this move choreographed?? It will be a battle. Friends at PT, when the creos bring their false statements forward, if we don't know the rebuttal, your help would be appreciated!!! We don't want to become the new Kansas, especially in light of how Texas influences textbooks, etc. for the rest of the country.

No dishonesty there!

— Steverino

So naturally, those hard-fighting champions of academic freedom and free speech at the Discovery Institute will come riding to Chris Comer's defense, right?

I mean, they've always* supported Teaching the Controversy, which it seems that the Texas Education Agency is vehemently against, so they'll fight tooth-and-nail against such injustice.

But in all seriousness, I want to know more about this. If it does serve as a good example of the hypocrisies of the anti-evolution movement, then we need to know all of the facts. What's the official policy of the Texas Education Agency on evolutionary theory? What's the unofficial one that it seems like the higher-ups held? What else has Chris Comer done (since this doesn't sound like a Great Employee Got Canned Out of the Blue for disagreeing with the boss, but someone who had been on the outs for awhile finally gave them the excuse)? If there's a record of Chris Comer going against a creationist agenda, so much the better.

*By which I mean the split-second that they knew that ID was kaput at Dover, they claimed they'd just wanted to Teach the Controversy, not Intelligent Design, from the beginning.

I don’t know the full story yet, but this sounds like the kind of serious, aggressive, rights-violating action by creationists that we should be actively fighting.

— harold

Does anyone else see a similarity with the case of Gillian Gibbons, the teacher in Sudan who is facing a year in jail for naming a teddy bear "Mohammed"? Religious intolerance can never abide the slightest variance from the path decreed by the dictator-priests. At least Chris Comer is not facing prison or torture. Yet. But that is the world which the creationists want.

You guys should read the Texas Reublican platform. It's frightening.

read the education/therories of origin blurb (they specify teaching IDc)

http://www.texasgop.org/site/DocServer/Platform_Updated.pdf?docID=2001

read it all, they are a very sick group of people.

Of course, half the folks in the TEA would love for it to be sued into non-existence so that public education in Texas could be completely privatized. Then in addition to intelligent design, every Texas schoolkid could learn about how slavery was sometimes fun for blacks (who are genetically less intelligent anyway) and how the United States Constitution establishes a Christian nation etc etc.

As the reins of power slip away from the fundies for a good long time, we can expect a lot more desperate nuttiness like this.

I was just reading over the DI's Nota Bene from this week. In the section on Academic Freedom, along with the mention of Robert Marks at Baylor, this little gem caught my eye:

"Next week, Discovery Institute will release a record of secret emails exchanged among faculty at Iowa State University and other internal documents about ISU astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez obtained under the Iowa Open Records Act. These newly revealed emailsdocuments demonstrate that a conspiracy was conducted privately against Gonzalez by his colleagues who intended to deny Gonzalez tenure because of views he holds on the intelligent design of the universe, expressed in his 2004 book Privileged Planet. A clear violation of Gonzalez’s contractural right to academic freedom as well as his constitutional right to free speechFirst Amendment freedoms, Gonzalez’s persecution demonstrates the sharp limits ofon academic freedom at ISU and similar institutions for scientists who support intelligent design. Stay tuned to Evolution News & Views for more information about this next week."

Nope. No mention if Chris Comer. Odd. But one must wonder if the DI word "secret" in reference to emails is what the rest of the world usually thinks of as "private". I.E. the nature of email. I understand that the DI got these through an Open Secrets Act, so it's legal, although not necessarily ethical. But the language, of course, is loaded- with the implication that there was something salacious about emails that only the sender and reader could read.

(Sorry about using the words "DI" and "ethical" in the same sentence.)

I'd love though to hear someone with more expertise comment on the newest DI salvo on the Gonzalez issue.

Probably more to this story than we know. Chris Comer was the state Director of Science Curriculum. This is not, as pointed out, a midlevel paper pushing drone. She was probably a known reality supporter. An Evolutionist. A round earther. A heliocentrist. Why, she probably believes the earth is more than 6,000 years old. My guess. She was on a hit list by True Believers in the flat, geocentric, young earth creation who are just doing god's work. The email seems more like a pretext than anything. What is the chance that the next Texas Director of Science Curriculum is a bible carrying, hell fire and damnation YEC? About 99.99%. "Have you ever been and are you now an acceptor of evolution?" If so, don't let the sun set on you in the Texas state government. For the creos this is just one down, a few million to go. Glad I don't live in Theoexas.

But one must wonder if the DI word “secret” in reference to emails is what the rest of the world usually thinks of as “private”.

And one that the DI itself should be fighting, if they wish to salvage any pretense at fairness and objectivity with anyone but their most hard-core fans.

“Next week, Discovery Institute will release a record of secret emails exchanged among faculty at Iowa State University and other internal documents about ISU astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez obtained under the Iowa Open Records Act. These newly revealed emailsdocuments demonstrate that a conspiracy was conducted privately against Gonzalez by his colleagues who intended to deny Gonzalez tenure because of views he holds on the intelligent design of the universe, expressed in his 2004 book Privileged Planet. A clear violation of Gonzalez’s contractural right to academic freedom as well as his constitutional right to free speechFirst Amendment freedoms, Gonzalez’s persecution demonstrates the sharp limits ofon academic freedom at ISU and similar institutions for scientists who support intelligent design. Stay tuned to Evolution News & Views for more information about this next week.”

You guys should read the Texas Reublican platform. It’s frightening.

Some members of our state board in Texas have probably been very well coached by di on what to say regarding the upcoming science standards revision in Texas. I am sure they are looking upon this with interest. They probably didn't want this to become public knowledge.

As a resident of Texas, I will be watching this closely. Thank you, Panda's Thumb, for this notice!

"These newly revealed emailsdocuments demonstrate that a conspiracy was conducted privately against Gonzalez by his colleagues who intended to deny Gonzalez tenure because of views he holds on the intelligent design of the universe, expressed in his 2004 book Privileged Planet."

This smells like a law suit against the TEA. You cannot restrict non controversial speaking simply because a person works for you.

They said forwarding the e-mail not only violated a directive for her not to communicate in writing or otherwise with anyone outside the agency regarding an upcoming science curriculum review...

Well, PZ Myers now has the letter that started this mess.

PZ and I each posted the email at issue about as soon as we got it in our email. As the parenthetic comment notes in the opening post, the text is in the Austringer post.

I call it today's Republicans "Soviet Conservatives" for how they toe the party line in the face of reality in a manner that reminds me of the stories I've read about Soviet apparatchiks. Iraq had WMDs like collectivized farming boosted the Ukraine's agricultural productivity. Just ask Pravda.

I can't wait for the subpoenas of the emails from the other TEA staffers that show communication to/from the DI.

This all could be a good thing. If the whole state organization is involved, this would bring it to the Supreme Court and snuff this garbage out at the National level.

Well, PZ Myers did say that Don McLeroy, the new head of the Texas State Board of Education would be trouble, and it looks like he was right.

MememicBottleneck: I can't wait for the subpoenas of the emails from the other TEA staffers that show communication to/from the DI. This all could be a good thing. If the whole state organization is involved, this would bring it to the Supreme Court and snuff this garbage out at the National level.

But in all seriousness, I want to know more about this.

Agency officials cited the e-mail in a memo recommending her termination. They said forwarding the e-mail not only violated a directive for her not to communicate in writing or otherwise with anyone outside the agency regarding an upcoming science curriculum review, "it directly conflicts with her responsibilities as the Director of Science." The memo adds, "Ms. Comer's e-mail implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that TEA endorses the speaker's position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral." In addition to the e-mail, the memo lists other reasons for recommending termination, including Comer's failure to get prior approval to give a presentation and attend an off-site meeting after she was told **in writing** this year that there were concerns about her involvement with work outside the agency. It also criticized Comer for allegedly saying that then-acting Commissioner Robert Scott was "only acting commissioner and that there was no real leadership at the agency." Comer, who hadn't spoken about her resignation publicly until Wednesday, said she thinks politics about evolution were behind her firing. "None of the other reasons they gave are, in and of themselves, firing offenses," she said. Comer said her comments about Scott, who eventually received the commissioner appointment, were misconstrued. "I don't remember saying that. But even if I did, is that so horrible?" she said. "He was, after all, acting commissioner at the time."

Comer said other employees don't report off-site activities and that the presentation mentioned in the memo had been approved previously. Agency officials did not respond to Comer's assertions. As for the e-mail, Comer said she did pause for a "half second" before sending it, but said she thought that because Forrest was a highly credentialed speaker, it would be OK.

Jeez FL, you don't get it. Of course Comer is biased against ID -- no good science educator could help but be biased against it. What's egregious is that the SBOE thinks that they should be neutral when time and again, ID has shown itself to not be science.

Sorry, FL, it looks like you are just knee-jerking for the Discovery Institute.

FL:

But in all seriousness, I want to know more about this.

I think we all do, honestly. But having said that, it DOES look like Comer messed her own self up substantially. Even from the initial news reports, she clearly does NOT come out of this gig smelling unbiased and innocent.

Agency officials cited the e-mail in a memo recommending her termination. They said forwarding the e-mail not only violated a directive for her not to communicate in writing or otherwise with anyone outside the agency regarding an upcoming science curriculum review, "it directly conflicts with her responsibilities as the Director of Science." The memo adds, "Ms. Comer's e-mail implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that TEA endorses the speaker's position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral." In addition to the e-mail, the memo lists other reasons for recommending termination, including Comer's failure to get prior approval to give a presentation and attend an off-site meeting after she was told **in writing** this year that there were concerns about her involvement with work outside the agency. It also criticized Comer for allegedly saying that then-acting Commissioner Robert Scott was "only acting commissioner and that there was no real leadership at the agency." Comer, who hadn't spoken about her resignation publicly until Wednesday, said she thinks politics about evolution were behind her firing. "None of the other reasons they gave are, in and of themselves, firing offenses," she said. Comer said her comments about Scott, who eventually received the commissioner appointment, were misconstrued. "I don't remember saying that. But even if I did, is that so horrible?" she said. "He was, after all, acting commissioner at the time."

(Side note #1: At my workplace, such a response is much like saying "Fire my silly patootie pronto please." Doesn't matter what the topic is or isn't, most employees with a functional brain know that if you want to keep your job you WILL be circumspect regarding what you say to the media about your boss or potential boss, no matter how high up you are on the ladder. And notice something important: Even Comer herself acknowledged that, if nothing else, her insult against Commissioner Scott surely DID fall under the firing-offense category.)

Comer said other employees don't report off-site activities and that the presentation mentioned in the memo had been approved previously. Agency officials did not respond to Comer's assertions. As for the e-mail, Comer said she did pause for a "half second" before sending it, but said she thought that because Forrest was a highly credentialed speaker, it would be OK.

(Side Note #2: "Half a second"?? She paused for half a second before violating an explicit agency directive?? And now she wants to complain??) ****** Okay. If nothing else, there are clearly two sides to this story, and one of those sides is **very plausibly** that Comer's resignation is what she, not creationism, not ID, deservedly brought down on her own sorry biased fanny via repeated, less-than-professional acts of misconduct and insubordination. Wouldn't you agree? FL :)

It is obvious that the Texas Thought Police had this woman on their hit list. Director of Science Curriculum. Known evolutionist. The email is innocuous and just a pretext. They would have nailed her for breathing or feeding stray cats or just made something up. It is also quite clear that she will be replaced by a creationist. Count on it. This is just politics, she was in the way of a complete creo takeover of the Texas State school system. Is anyone keeping score of who and how many have lost their job for teaching evolution? 1. Richard Colling at Olivet was being persecuted for teaching evolution 2. The guy at the Iowa community college was fired, for being unable to keep a straight face when a student said the earth was 6,000 years old. 3. This woman, Chris Comer. 4. I’ve heard of a case of a woman prof at Permian college Texas whose job was teaching evolution. She left after being harrassed and beaten up by a student. Not really my field, so there must be many more I’m not aware of. This is pure McCarthyism or Galileoism. “Are you now or have you ever been an acceptor of the fact of evolution.”

fl.....is that the best spin di can put on this....we all know the trail is going to lead from the state agencies straight back to di....

Texas Citizens for Science page giving more details on the Comer case and internal politics at the TEA.

"is what she, not creationism, not ID, deservedly brought down on her own sorry biased fanny via repeated, less-than-professional acts of misconduct and insubordination."

Insubordination in the defense of science standards is no vice and moderation in the pursuit of truth is no virtue.

If she was not fired now, she would have been fired the first time she stood up to McLeroy in defense of science standards--likely for "insubordination."

Just one more skirmish in a very long battle. For the religious right, this culture war is now pure guerilla warfare. Expect things to get nastier as they lose their grip on secular power.

Well to belabor an obvious point, in case some brain dead creos are reading.

Chris Comers crimes were twofold.

1. Like 99% of relevant scientists in the USA, she accepted the fact of evolution.

2. She occupied an important position in the Texas school system, Director of Science Curriculum.

She was in the way of religious fanatics hell bent on violating the US constitution again.

The email is innocuous and just a pretext. You can bet that the next Texas Director of Science Curriculum will be a fundie Death Cultist who believes 2 pages of 4,000 year old mythology describe the universe.

Just gutter level politics from evil people who have twisted a religion into its opposite.

I think we all do, honestly. But having said that, it DOES look like Comer messed her own self up substantially. Even from the initial news reports, she clearly does NOT come out of this gig smelling unbiased and innocent.

— FL

Nigel D:

I think we all do, honestly. But having said that, it DOES look like Comer messed her own self up substantially. Even from the initial news reports, she clearly does NOT come out of this gig smelling unbiased and innocent.

— FL

OK, FL, I note that you have highlighted several points where Comer appears to have acted against the directions of her superiors. Now, tell me: do you think it was appropriate and constitutional for her superiors to give her those directives, or do you think that those directives were actually tailored to limit her freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression?

A day is not far off, when one of the routine questions asked to every one applying to immigrate would be Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the Texas Republican Party?.
In fact the Texas Republican Party is more evil than the communists have ever been. Gerrymandering districts, creating a fascistic party machine...

To put it another way, child, please stop posting here.

You can bet that the next Texas Director of Science Curriculum will be a fundie Death Cultist who believes 2 pages of 4,000 year old mythology describe the universe.

OK, FL, I note that you have highlighted several points where Comer appears to have acted against the directions of her superiors. Now, tell me: do you think it was appropriate and constitutional for her superiors to give her those directives, or do you think that those directives were actually tailored to limit her freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression?

This is the complete text of a letter about this issue sent to the mailing list of Texas Citizens for Science (www.texscience.org) by its President, Dr. Steven Schafersman:

*****
I have known about the forced resignation of Texas Education Agency Director of Science Chris Comer since November 6, but was keeping my knowledge private until Chris's administrative leave was over (she was given that to complete one more month of service to complete a full year's employment). She was forced to agree to a public non-disclosure or no-comment policy regarding her termination from TEA. I cam attest that Chris has said nothing publicly, although dozens of people knew about this from the beginning from many friends within the TEA, and reporters were holding back stories until the administrative leave was over (Dec 9). The Austin American-Statesman got around this policy by FOIAing the TEA and obtaining the relevant documents to write their story.

Chris has always been an advocate for science, including the integrity, accuracy, and reliability of science. For her entire employment history at TEA, she was asked almost monthly to write letters to parents complaining about the teaching of evolution in their child's science class. She always referred the parents to the science TEKS which requires evolution (although about half of the biology classes in Texas don't teach it). She also was forced many times to speak to "concerned" Creationist parents about evolution instruction in their local school district to which they disapproved. She always patiently defended the accuracy and reliability of evolutionary biology. In addition, she frequently forwarded information about upcoming science conferences and presentations to individuals and email lists. It was part of her job.

However, TEA has a new policy, one of neutrality between biological evolution and Intelligent Design Creationism. This new policy was put in place when Dr. Don McLeoy--an outspoken Creationist and activist for Intelligent Design Creationism and its marketing program--was appointed the new Chair of the State Board of Education (SBOE). By continuing to support evolution in Texas science, as required by the state's science standards, she ran afoul of the new policy and was asked to resign or be fired immediately. The memo to her from the TEA continued several other excuses, all of which were bogus or common among employees. For instance, she prepared for and attended a science conference mentioned in the memo on her own time that she did not have official permission to attend on TEA time. TEA has no legal or administrative authority to govern her use of her own time.

The real reason she was forced to resign is because the top TEA administrators and some SBOE members wanted her out of the picture before the state science standards--the science TEKS--were reviewed, revised, and rewritten next year. Plans are under way by some SBOE members and TEA administrators to diminish the requirement to teach about evolutionary biology in the Biology TEKS and to require instead that biology instructors "Teach the Controversy" about the weaknesses, gaps, and problems of evolution, that is, teach the Creationist-inspired and created bogus controversy about evolution that doesn't exist within legitimate science. There are no scientific weaknesses, gaps, or problems with biological evolution at the level it is presented in high school biology.

The bogus "controversy" is an ingenious and mendacious marketing ploy invented by Intelligent Design Creationists to weaken evolution instruction and allow the informal input of Creationism, without actually requiring that Creationism be presented (because to do so is against the law, since Creationists have lost several major Federal court cases when they tried to do so). The quoted statement from the TEA that there is "a long-standing policy that the pros and cons of scientific theory must be taught" is a clear indication of the problem and deceit among TEA officials and SBOE members. The statement makes no sense within either a scientific or science education context, but makes perfect sense in the context of the duplicitous "teach the controversy" and "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution marketing campaign of Intelligent Design Creationists. Some members of the SBOE plan to attempt to use this campaign--created by the ID Creationists of the Discovery Institute--to damage science education in Texas.

As Director of Curriculum for Science, Chris Comer would have hands-on direction and influence--although with no direct writing authority--over the content of the revised science standards. Since she is a well-known advocate for accurate and reliable science, including evolutionary biology, she would be a problem within the TEA for plans of the SB members and TEA staff to damage and diminish evolution instruction in Texas public school biology classes. The plan, once again, is not to eliminate evolution instruction or require instruction in ID Creationism, both of which would be illegal, but to distort and minimize evolution instruction by requiring that bogus "weaknesses" and Creationist-identified "controversies" of evolution be taught. This would have the effect of distorting evolution and making students think that evolutionary biology is not as reliable as scientist actually believe. This then would suggest to students that alternatives exist for the origins questions, such as Intelligent Design Creationism.

It remains to be seen to what extent the TEA and SBOE will formally push the idea in the biology standards that "alternatives to evolution" exist and should be presented. Since no scientific alternatives to evolution actually exist, and court decisions have stated that ID Creationism is religious, officially requiring that alternatives to evolution be presented would open the SBOE and TEA to a federal law suit. But considerable damage to science instruction could be accomplished by ideologically misguided public education officials short of this simply by requiring that "weaknesses" and "controversies" of evolution must be presented.

So the wrongful forced resignation/termination of Chris Comer on trumped-up charges is just the first step in a program to politicize and damage science education in Texas. Texas citizens--especially those who care about high-quality 21st Century science education--should be concerned about this episode. Chris Comer has now honorably joined the ranks of official martyrs of science, much like Galileo and Nikolai Vavilov. But she is not a victim, because too many scientists and science teachers in Texas are outraged by the treatment of her by a state agency that is now publicly and officially forgoing accurate and reliable science to serve the ideological and religious biases of a small minority of state public education officials. These scientists and science teachers will act. This episode should serve as a warning to individuals who care about science, science education, and fair treatment of individuals who share those concerns.

Texas Citizens for Science will redouble its efforts to ensure that the Texas biology standards are not censored or damaged in ways that distort accurate and reliable scientific knowledge and instruction. We will continue to safeguard the integrity of science in Texas.

Second, why do an email that implies and gives public appearance that the state educational association itself (not merely her own self) is actively taking ONE side and publicly advertising only speakers on ONE side of the issue, prior to upcoming state science standard reviews? Why should the state educational association EVER put up with being made to look biased like that?

FL -

You're missing the fundamental point.

If Comer had a history of minor infractions, those should have been documented (if they were serious enough) and some sort of plan for improvement should have been set up (if they were really, really, serious enough).

But that's irrelevant, because the e-mail was the immediate cause of the firing. If the email itself was harmless, it is not related to any issue of accumulating infractions.

And the email is not only harmless, but professionally appropriate. Texas is debating science standards, and Barbara Forrest is a highly recognized local (neighboring state) expert, who has even served as a pivotal expert witness in a recent, highly publicized law suit about a public school district's science curriculum.

Even if Comer were a card-carrying creationist, one would expect that she would consider a talk by Forrest to be of professional relevance.

FL: Second, why do an email that implies and gives public appearance that the state educational association itself (not merely her own self) is actively taking ONE side and publicly advertising only speakers on ONE side of the issue, prior to upcoming state science standard reviews? Why should the state educational association EVER put up with being made to look biased like that? FL

FL,

I have another simple question for you. I hope that this time it won't take as many attempts to get a simple answer.

First, a little background on me: I often come to the defense of rank-and-file creationists, and even YEC and OEC leaders who have the courage to debate each other and/or denounce the evasion tactics of the DI. And I never hold back from criticizing a fellow “evolutionist”, as you can see from my many comments here and on Talk.Origins.

So the question is: Have you ever come to the defense, even just publicly giving the benefit of the doubt, to any “evolutionist” who is challenged by a classic creationist or IDer?

Second, why do an email that implies and gives public appearance that the state educational association itself (not merely her own self) is actively taking ONE side and publicly advertising only speakers on ONE side of the issue, prior to upcoming state science standard reviews? Why should the state educational association EVER put up with being made to look biased like that?

Except for the small fact that there has been nothing reported that corresponds to that.

The memo adds, “Ms. Comer’s e-mail implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that TEA endorses the speaker’s position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral.”

- I wonder how much harrassment she had to endure, what threats were made - that she accepted resigning vs. forcing the TEA to fire her. IANAL - but there is such a thing as damages from wrongful termination, and isn't there a national statute about religious descrimination?

FL,

The state education association is supposed to be biased in favor of the side of teaching children science and not pseudo-science. Duh.

FL seems to have some perceptual difficulty distinguishing between an argument and a fact.

"However, TEA has a new policy, one of neutrality between biological evolution and Intelligent Design Creationism. This new policy was put in place when Dr. Don McLeoy"

when this comes to court - wouldn't this policy fail the Lemon Test?

Harold and ScienceNut:

Here's the deal: the email is NOT harmless.
Well, why not? Because with that email, Comer is effectively doing PR advertising on Barbara Forrest's behalf (advertising Forrest's upcoming talk), and that's NOT what she's supposed to be doing as Director of Science Education for Texas. She's in a position of responsibiity where objectivity does matter.

(I said "objectivity", I didn't say non-partisanship--it's clear that some folks favor one side and other folks favor the other side--but yeah, when you start doing PR advertising e- mails for one side only, you really HAVE crossed a line somewhere if you're supposed to be the state board's official science director and such.)

(And especially when there's an upcoming science standards review in which the state agency has a public trust to be as objective as possible.)

FL

FL seems to have some perceptual difficulty distinguishing between an argument and a fact.

FL will always look at situations through his fundamentalist glasses because he has been brainwashed to think Creationism is true, no matter what the facts say, and thus all attempts to punish those who support real science are justified, no matter how dishonorable.

Some people are beyond help, it seems.

JM: but there is such a thing as damages from wrongful termination, and isn’t there a national statute about religious descrimination?

but yeah, when you start doing PR advertising e- mails for one side only, you really HAVE crossed a line somewhere if you’re supposed to be the state board’s official science director and such

FL said:
(I said “objectivity”, I didn’t say non-partisanship–it’s clear that some folks favor one side and other folks favor the other side–but yeah, when you start doing PR advertising e- mails for one side only, you really HAVE crossed a line somewhere if you’re supposed to be the state board’s official science director and such.)

your argument only makes sense if there is "another side" that is also "science"

McLeoy's policy of "neutrality", I am confident, will be shown to be religiously motivated, and not in the best interests of Texas' students - Comer defied her boss's unjust policy and was fired/forced to resign for it. Your comments (which boil down to "she deserved it, she was insubbordinate, she broke the rules") ingore that the policy she allegedly violated is illegal, unjust, unfair, immoral and unconstitutional.

It is an noble act to oppose such a policy

Don McLeroy, Comers boss, head of the elected Texas State Board of Education: In a nutshell, that’s the strategy. So what do we do about our Bible in the intelligent design movement? According to Johnson, the first thing to do is to get the Bible out of the discussion. Remember, even if you don’t bring the Bible into the discussion, the naturalist has already put it into the discussion. And Johnson states “it’s vital not to give any encouragement to this prejudice and to keep the discussion strictly on the scientific evidence and the philosophical assumptions. This is not to say that the Biblical issues aren’t important, the point is the time to address them will be after we have separated materialistic prejudice from scientific fact.”

Second, why do an email that implies and gives public appearance that the state educational association itself (not merely her own self) is actively taking ONE side and publicly advertising only speakers on ONE side of the issue, prior to upcoming state science standard reviews? Why should the state educational association EVER put up with being made to look biased like that?

— FL

Wesley replied, Except for the small fact that there has been nothing reported that corresponds to that.

The memo adds, “Ms. Comer’s e-mail implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that TEA endorses the speaker’s position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral.”

wikipedia Don McLeroy: Since his election, McLeroy has dragged the Texas State Board of Education into a series of, in her words, "divisive and unnecessary culture-war battles": He voted in 2001 to reject the only advanced placement environmental science textbook proposed for Texas high schools even though panels of experts – including one panel from Texas A&M – found the textbook free of errors. Baylor University in Waco used the same textbook. In 2003 McLeroy led efforts by proponents of creationism and intelligent design to de-emphasize discussion of evolution in proposed new biology textbooks. He was one of only four board members who voted against biology textbooks that year that included a full account of evolution. In 2004, McLeroy voted to approve health textbooks that stress "abstinence-only" in regard to instruction about pregnancy and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases.

Simply stated, that particular email was a move she DIDN’T have to make, and in her specific position as Director of Science Education most likely should NOT have made in the first place, (even if there had been no written directives on the table already.) Just looks biased.

— FL

And the best she can publicly say so far is “I paused for a half second” before writing it? Doesn’t sound like she really spent any time seriously researching any compelling reasons (if any) why the directive should not be obeyed. People do have their rights, including freedom of speech, but people ALSO have a right to be fired for insubordination and misconduct as well as some amazingly poor judgment, when they are working in positions of responsibility like the one she held.

PR from Texas Freedom Network, www.tfn.org: Press Release View regular version View printable version Recorded Lecture Reveals New Texas Education Board Chair's Hostility To Science, Religious Tolerance McLeroy characterizes evolution-'intelligent design' debate as clash between ‘orthodox Christians' and all others August 7, 2007 AUSTIN – A recorded lecture reveals that the new chairman of the State Board of Education harbors a shocking hostility to both sound science education and religious tolerance, the president of the Texas Freedom Network said today. “This recording makes clear the very real danger that Texas schoolchildren may soon be learning more about the religious beliefs of politicians than about sound science in their biology classes,” TFN President Kathy Miller said today. “Even worse, it appears that Don McLeroy believes anyone who disagrees with him can’t be a true Christian.” Gov. Rick Perry appointed McLeroy, a Bryan dentist, as chairman of the state board in July. McLeroy’s statements during his lecture are particularly insulting to Roman Catholics and millions of other Christians who see no conflict between their religious faith and accepting the science behind evolution, Miller said. “Texas parents should be very concerned that the governor chose an anti-science, religious ideologue to lead the state body that sets policy for our public schools,” she said. “He might as well have put up a sign that said, ‘Only my kind of Christian need apply.’” In an Internet blog post (texasobserver.org/blog/?p=533) on Aug. 3, the Texas Observer – a biweekly publication based in Austin – unearthed the recorded lecture by McLeroy. McLeroy delivered the lecture at Grace Bible Church in Bryan in 2005. A full transcript and an audio file of the lecture are available at www.tfn.org/publiceducation/textbooks/mcleroy/. At one point during the lecture, McLeroy clearly tied “intelligent design” – a religious-based concept billed by supporters as an alternative to the scientific theory of evolution – to Biblical creationism: “Why is ‘intelligent design’ the big tent? Because we’re all lined up against the fact that naturalism, that nature is all there is. Whether you’re a progressive creationist, recent creationist, young earth, old earth, it’s all in the tent of ‘intelligent design.’” (6:10 mark on recording) McLeroy recounted the controversy over teaching evolution during the State Board of Education’s adoption of new biology textbooks in 2003. McLeroy was one of only four members on the 15-member panel who voted to reject the textbooks. Those four members argued that the textbooks failed to discuss what they called the “weaknesses” of evolutionary theory. They were backed by the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based organization that opposes evolution and promotes “intelligent design” as an alternative. McLeroy said: “It was only the four really conservative, orthodox Christians on the board [who] were willing to stand up to the textbooks and say they don’t present the weaknesses of evolution. Amazing.” (8:15 mark on recording) In the 2006 elections, religious conservatives increased their numbers on the state board to eight – a majority. The board is currently overhauling all public school curriculum standards. The board is scheduled to take up revisions to science standards – including standards dealing with evolution – in 2007-08.

So….what is so “biased” in presenting the good science that 99% of scientists support?

— Science Nut

Here’s the deal: the email is NOT harmless.

— FL

Well, why not? Because with that email, Comer is effectively doing PR advertising on Barbara Forrest’s behalf (advertising Forrest’s upcoming talk), and that’s NOT what she’s supposed to be doing as Director of Science Education for Texas. She’s in a position of responsibiity where objectivity does matter.

You said that something was not reported. It was in fact, clearly reported.

— FL

As someone involved in public science education she has a responsibility to make people aware of the possible legal complications stemming from teaching IDc in public schools in Texas. Telling people about a lecture by one of the key Dover witnesses and expert on IDc is not advertising, it's a responsible and sensible attempt to educate and protect the science curriculum.

IDc is not science.
IDc is religion masquerading as science. Teach the controversy!

Here’s the deal: the email is NOT harmless. Well, why not? Because with that email, Comer is effectively doing PR advertising on Barbara Forrest’s behalf (advertising Forrest’s upcoming talk), and that’s NOT what she’s supposed to be doing as Director of Science Education for Texas. She’s in a position of responsibiity where objectivity does matter.

However, the case is not even that complicated. All she did was alert colleagues to a relevant speaker, and for that alone she was fired.

From the Austin Press article (also presented by FL)"The memo adds, "Ms. Comer's e-mail implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that TEA endorses the speaker's position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral."

I have to ask (as does Science Nut): "Why? Why must the agency remain neutral on such a position?" Is the board 'neutral' with respect to the germ theory of disease? HIV as a causal agent in AIDS? The inverse-square law of gravitational attraction?

FL gives lip service to 'objectivity'. Give me a break; the objective consensus was established long ago.

From the Austin Press article (also presented by FL)"The memo adds, "Ms. Comer's e-mail implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that TEA endorses the speaker's position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral."

I have to ask (as does Science Nut): "Why? Why must the agency remain neutral on such a position?" Is the board 'neutral' with respect to the germ theory of disease? HIV as a causal agent in AIDS? The inverse-square law of gravitational attraction?

FL gives lip service to 'objectivity'. Give me a break; the objective concensus was established long ago.

Eugenie Scott: "Life is not fair"

Um, Tony, Sternberg was simply treated by other scientists like the pusher of pseudoscience that he is. He didn't lose his job, though it is not likely that he'll be welcomed by most scientists any more than a necromancer would be in the future (try to understand, Tony, that shepherding pseudoscience through a process which exists to weed it out is unethical. Wrong. What you'd call a "sin," were you honest about the matter).

So no, if she were Sternberged, despite being pro-science instead of pushing anti-science, she'd still have her job. Try to keep track of the details, even though we know how very detail- and causation-challenged your sort is.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

"Sounds like she was “Richard Sternberged.”"

Except for this part of the linked story:

"He didn't lose his job, he didn't get his pay cut, he still has his research privileges, he still has his office"

Case Western Reserve University Professor Patricia Princehouse and I recently taped an episode of the program "Close Up at the Newseum", where we discussed intelligent design, Darwinism, The Edge of Evolution, and other topics with an audience of about 40 high school students. The purpose of Close Up is to get students interested in issues of the day, and to become active participants in our democracy. The show will air this Friday, November 30th, at 7:00 p.m. Eastern time, on C-SPAN 2.

Nomad:

TonyTheTiger: Sounds like she was "Richard Sternberged".

Except for this part of the linked story: "He didn't lose his job, he didn't get his pay cut, he still has his research privileges, he still has his office"

TonyTheTiger,
The TEA probably "Offered her a deal she couldn't refuse" (spoken in Marlon Brando's voice), something like "Go quietly, and you get much severance pay for your 9 years, and some healthcare coverage too; otherwise you're out on the street with no benefits. And if you breath a word of this agreement, you must pay us back all that severance and health coverage, or we go after you with lawyers."
These things happen.

PG said: Her willingness to risk the consequences of violating the gag order in order to send out the email was a ringing endorsement of Forrest’s lecture.

Two serious problems in as explicit a language as possible.

1) The attempted "neutrality" stance would appear completely at odds with the existing case law on the issue. At has been determined that ID is illegal to include in the science curriculum already. Neutrality through some twist of logic acts as if this were not present.

2) The logic of the application of the rule is also absurd. By similar reasoning any e-mail she may have sent saying anything about any textbook that did not present a creationist perspective would similarly be an "endorsement" and violation of the neutrality principle.

The premise of the rule is unconstitutional and illogical, and the application of said rule leads to a wide variety of absurdities as well.

Bruce: TonyTheTiger, The TEA probably "Offered her a deal she couldn't refuse" (spoken in Marlon Brando's voice), something like "Go quietly, and you get much severance pay for your 9 years, and some healthcare coverage too; otherwise you're out on the street with no benefits. And if you breath a word of this agreement, you must pay us back all that severance and health coverage, or we go after you with lawyers." These things happen.

TonyTheTiger: She breathed a word.

The antievolution advocates cannot admit that they've gone after people's jobs over those people's pro-science stance. Doing so loses them the PR talking point that somehow they have an interest in "discussion". It will also undercut any hope they have to sell their collected persecution stories to the masses; the masses want to root for the guy strapped to the rack, not for Torquemada. So rather than own up to their bad behavior, they play "blame the victim". It's all they've got.

We have a Rule 6 violator. The IP address comes up the same for "QuestionAndBeSkeptical", "Mary Mallon's Ghost", "HeartOfGold", and "TonyTheTiger".

Goodbye, troll.

Nice to see “QuestionAndBeSkeptical”, “Mary Mallon’s Ghost”, “HeartOfGold”, and “TonyTheTiger” exhibiting the morals of Jesus.

Wesley Elsberry: The antievolution advocates cannot admit that they’ve gone after people’s jobs over those people’s pro-science stance.

However, that part WAS reported. Behold: The memo adds, “Ms. Comer’s e-mail implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that TEA endorses the speaker’s position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral.”

Her willingness to risk the consequences of violating the gag order in order to send out the email was a ringing endorsement of Forrest’s lecture.

— PG

Lurkers, make of this what you will:

In comment 136793 above I asked FL a simple question that could demonstrate how fair and balanced he was. He posted 3 comments afterwards, none of which acknowledged the question, but addressed other comments on the thread. The first one immediately followed my question, an hour later, so he could not have missed it.

But not to worry. In the internet age, what is on the net stays on the net.

— raven

I tend to think that the only big question now is whether the TEA creationists' plans fall apart in the curriculum review process, or go all the way to court and get demolished there. Any bets? McLeroy's creationist-religious agenda is out in the open for all to see, as the numerous (delightfully amusing) excerpts quoted above demonstrate. The recent attempt to cover that up with the gag order on staffers and the official position of "neutrality" has no more finesse or credibility than the Dover board's late switch to ID talking points did. That metallic creaking sound you hear is a Dover trap straining at its spring.

Like a lot of people, I have some concern about what the current makeup of the Supreme Court would do with an ID vs. evolution case, but I doubt this will be the one. The creos have been too clumsy in this instance, and the religious entanglement issues are too cut and dried. Or am I just being naive?

"Unlike some of the cruder anti-evolution sites, the DI is usually smart enough to post links to avoid accusations of quote mining, but they are confident that most sympathetic readers will not take the time to read the links, and the context that shoots down the mined sound bites....

"In contrast, the Talk.Origins archive has links to every major anti-evolution activist site. With minimal effort, any lurker at TO can see how many mutually contradictory claims are made at the various sites...."

Frank J (136848), what makes you think that ID lurkers will read and analyze TO's links if they won't read and analyze DI's links? What makes you think they will read TO at all? I keep remembering an account of a creationist presentation in California a couple years ago. Afterwards, a young woman stood up and announced that she had wanted to go to college, but decided not to because her faith might be challenged. The audience applauded her. Dismal.

To summarize. The Texas Thought Police from the State Board of Education led by creationist-religous bigot Comrade McLeroy are purging the TEA of any known evolutionists and/or scienceists. They will of course be replaced by religously reliable aparatchniks. The witches bureaucrats, will be discredited any way they can and may be exiled to the United States.

They will also run with the DI-IDists as far as they can. They aren't hiding anything anymore. There will be a court case if they can engineer one. It's inevitable and it is obviously what they want. The forces of light might as well start preparing now.

I've read some of McLeroy's presentations. IMO, he is a religious bigot, doesn't know much biology, and (being polite), might not be the brightest bulb on the tree.

Olorin,

You're right of course that someone who will not take the time to read DI's links will not take the time to read TO's links either. And those who are not just "honestly curious," but actively committed to defending the activists, are unlikely to read TO at all, even though, ironically it has more easily accessible anti-evolution material than anti-evolution sites. And if they do read it, it would be only to find more evidence to cherry pick or quotes to mine.

I was actually complementing the DI for doing the right thing compared to other anti-evolution sites. Although it could be argued that they're just doing the right thing for the wrong reason, namely to avoid getting caught. When TO does quote an anti-evolution sound bite, they try hard to list as much of the context up front, not just in the link. I doubt that any TO author would dare insert a period in a quote, as this ID fellow did.

I just sent the following letter (below) to the Texas Statesman. We should all consider writing letters; use this link

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/feedback/lettersubmit.html

Cheers,

Matt Lowry
Organizer, Darwin's Bulldogs
Illinois
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/darwins_bulldogs/

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

TEA Assault on Science Education

I’m a science teacher in Illinois, and I was stunned
to learn of the firing of Chris Comer, the TEA's
Director of Science Curriculum.

Apparently, the TEA thinks that it shouldn't advocate
the teaching of evolution, the cornerstone of modern
biology, in Texas public school science classes. And
anyone who does stand up for good science education is
fired – ironic for an organization whose mandate is to
actually promote good science education.

Not only that, but Gov. Perry appointed Lizzette
Reynolds, a known proponent of creationism – a
non-scientific concept based on religious
fundamentalism – to advise the TEA. So I guess the
message is that science is out of Texas schools and
religious indoctrination is in. I guess soon kids in
Texas will learn the Earth is flat.

It’s this sort of thing that discourages many
well-qualified people from teaching in Texas. And you
wonder why you have a teacher shortage.

PG said "I sat down and read the offending document and saw that it is as neutral as a Fred Phelps demonstration at a gay wedding. Not only does it announce a lecture about a conspiracy theory, but it bears the name of the National Center for Science Education, an outfit dedicated to promoting dogmatic teaching of Darwinism. "

Phelps never demonstrated at a gay wedding, he demonstrated against gays at funerals of non-gay soldiers. Only an idiot would not know that, and only an idiot would make that stupid "darwinism" comment. You have shown your intellectual ignorance, congratualtions!

Olorin: I keep remembering an account of a creationist presentation in California a couple years ago. Afterwards, a young woman stood up and announced that she had wanted to go to college, but decided not to because her faith might be challenged. The audience applauded her. Dismal.

Neutral, my eye.

hey, PG...

ever wonder about the phrase:

"Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."

?

what if you didn't have any clue who the person was forwarding the email.

where in it could you determine it wasn't from someone who wanted creationists to attend the Forrest lecture in order to be better prepared, or even just to heckle?

please show us - the entire text of the email is available on several sites.

ever heard the word:

projection?

'cause buddy, you're doing it in full measure, likely without even consciously realizing it.

I know from hundreds of previous experiences with folks suffering from your particular pyschological malady that this will fall on deaf ears, but, what the hell.

No one promotes the dogmatic teaching of Darwinism, you lying twit. That your authoritarian brain can't grasp any other sort of teaching is simply a personal problem.

"PG" wrote about the e-mail that Chris Comer forwarded: "Not only does it announce a lecture about a conspiracy..."

PG, just because your side lost in the US Supreme Court in 1987, as well as in the Dover trial in 2005 and in every other trial where creationism has been hauled into court, doesn't meant it lost because of a conspiracy against it. Let's look and see where the conspiracy is.

A conspiracy is defined as an "...unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret..."

Which side has been proven to be unlawful, every time: science, or creationism?

Which side is supported in part by treacherous fanatics bent on turning America into a theocracy: science, or the Discovery Institute, with its known ties to Christian Reconstructionism?

Which side conducts its activities in the open versus surreptitiously: science, with it open peer review system, or the Dishonesty Institute with it infamous Wedge Document?

Scientifically there isn't another side. Creationism/ID is a Xian/Moslem idea derived directly from the bible. A religious idea.

One moveover, that has absolutely no proof except 2 pages of 4,000 year old bronze age mythology. That got everything wrong and consists of 2 myths that contradict each other.

It is blatantly illegal for the Texas state school system to even try to pretend that creationism is a scientific theory. This has been ruled on by the courts over and over, last time was Kitzmiller versus Dover. Separation of church and state, US constitution.

Next court case will be in Texas for sure. Expect the Xian fundies to lose again.

PG most likely knows this. He just wants to lie to kids in their science classes.

It's a good bet that PG is just the same troll that got banned as 'Tony the Tiger' etc.

Zarquon: It's a good bet that PG is just the same troll that got banned as 'Tony the Tiger' etc.

Comment 136,846 above answers PG's fantasy of "Neutral, my eye." And it is conveniently ignored. Just like the context of the quotes that anti-evolution activists love to mine.

So PG - and FL if you're lurking - want to try again telling us which side is advocating censorship?

PG:

where in it could you determine it wasn’t from someone who wanted creationists to attend the Forrest lecture in order to be better prepared, or even just to heckle?

Most creationists wouldn't waste their time attending a Forrest lecture.

Paul Burnett said,

PG, just because your side lost in the US Supreme Court in 1987, as well as in the Dover trial in 2005 and in every other trial where creationism has been hauled into court, doesn’t meant it lost because of a conspiracy against it.

Forrest is talking about a fundy conspiracy, not a Darwinist conspiracy. Anyway, we are learning from our mistakes -- the public schools are mostly avoiding hot-button terms like "creation science" and "intelligent design" and are instead teaching criticisms of Darwinism in the name of teaching more about Darwinism. And one of these days we are going to win a monkey trial -- we actually came close to winning in Selman v. Cobb County and Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish.

Frank J said:

Comment 136,846 above answers PG’s fantasy of “Neutral, my eye.” And it is conveniently ignored.

I "conveniently ignored" Comment 136846 because I did not think it was worth answering. The comment says of the forwarded email, "It’s merely a ringing endorsement that 'both sides' should be heard, because lecture would undoubtedly generate a lot of 'critical analysis' from Forrest’s critics." Generating a lot of critical analysis does not mean that the email is neutral.

PG:

where in it could you determine it wasn’t from someone who wanted creationists to attend the Forrest lecture in order to be better prepared, or even just to heckle?

Most creationists wouldn't waste their time attending a Forrest lecture.

Paul Burnett said,

PG, just because your side lost in the US Supreme Court in 1987, as well as in the Dover trial in 2005 and in every other trial where creationism has been hauled into court, doesn’t meant it lost because of a conspiracy against it.

Forrest is talking about a fundy conspiracy, not a Darwinist conspiracy. Anyway, we are learning from our mistakes -- the public schools are mostly avoiding hot-button terms like "creation science" and "intelligent design" and are instead teaching criticisms of Darwinism in the name of teaching more about Darwinism. And one of these days we are going to win a monkey trial -- we actually came close to winning in Selman v. Cobb County and Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish.

Frank J said:

Comment 136,846 above answers PG’s fantasy of “Neutral, my eye.” And it is conveniently ignored.

I "conveniently ignored" Comment 136846 because I did not think it was worth answering. The comment says of the forwarded email, "It’s merely a ringing endorsement that 'both sides' should be heard, because lecture would undoubtedly generate a lot of 'critical analysis' from Forrest’s critics." Generating a lot of critical analysis does not mean that the email is neutral.

Sounds like talking points from a DI rep being posted by "PG" on this thread or "Larry" in the Statesman comments

The antievolution advocates cannot admit that they’ve gone after people’s jobs over those people’s pro-science stance.

I sat down and read the offending document and saw that it is as neutral as a Fred Phelps demonstration at a gay wedding. Not only does it announce a lecture about a conspiracy theory, but it bears the name of the National Center for Science Education, an outfit dedicated to promoting dogmatic teaching of Darwinism.“

Creationism/ID is a Xian/Moslem idea derived directly from the bible

1. Specified complexity is well-defined and empirically detectable. 2. Undirected natural causes are incapable of explaining specified complexity. 3. Intelligent causation best explains specified complexity. --Dr. William Dembski,Intelligent Design, IVP 1999

In comment 136793 above I asked FL a simple question that could demonstrate how fair and balanced he was.

At one point during the lecture, McLeroy clearly tied “intelligent design” – a religious-based concept billed by supporters as an alternative to the scientific theory of evolution – to Biblical creationism: “Why is ‘intelligent design’ the big tent? Because we’re all lined up against the fact that naturalism, that nature is all there is. Whether you’re a progressive creationist, recent creationist, young earth, old earth, it’s all in the tent of ‘intelligent design.’” (6:10 mark on recording) McLeroy recounted the controversy over teaching evolution during the State Board of Education’s adoption of new biology textbooks in 2003. McLeroy was one of only four members on the 15-member panel who voted to reject the textbooks. Those four members argued that the textbooks failed to discuss what they called the “weaknesses” of evolutionary theory. They were backed by the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based organization that opposes evolution and promotes “intelligent design” as an alternative. McLeroy said: “It was only the four really conservative, orthodox Christians on the board [who] were willing to stand up to the textbooks and say they don’t present the weaknesses of evolution. Amazing.” (8:15 mark on recording)

Texan parents must be jolted awake. Unless some university decides to make all Texas high school grads pass a special examination in evolution alone to be eligible for admission, they won't care about the political meddling by religious fanatics.

I think NCSE should develop and conduct a SAT like examn on evolution to certify that the students know the foundations of biology. May be it can make the test kits available free of cost to university professors teaching undergrad biology courses. Professors could specify "all Taxas high school grads must pass this test to register for Biology 101".

Is there a brave tenured prof in Univ of Texas or Texas A & M who will stand up to these idiots?

Unless a shock like this shakes awake the apathetic and indifferent Taxans they will shrug and let these fanatics continue their witch hunts.

offthekuff.com August 31, 2006: Eighteen percent of Texans, and 25 percent of Texas children, lived below the federally defined poverty level, according to the 2005 American Community Survey. The nationwide percentage below poverty level was 13 percent. [...] Overall poverty rates, locally and nationally, didn't change much between the 2000 census and last year, although levels increased somewhat more significantly among Hispanics and blacks in Harris County. "Generally, the survey reports that the socioeconomic profile of Texas has stayed pretty much the same as it has been for years. It was bad to begin with and has not gotten better," said State Demographer Steve Murdock, with the Texas State Data Center at the University of Texas in San Antonio.

Generating a lot of critical analysis does not mean that the email is neutral.

— PG

I apologize to all for my comment on Phelps, it was an attempt at reverse hyperbole and was meant as satire, sorry it failed, my humor is beyond some. But it sure did make a few trolls happy. A gleeful troll is a sight to behold; they actually smile for days on end.

FL quotes from an eight-year-old popular-press book (not a peer-reviewed actual science publication) by a former scientist to show us the first step of "...the 3-point ID hypothesis: 1. Specified complexity is well-defined and empirically detectable."

"Specified complexity" has no meaning in the world of actual science. It is an intermediate step between the logical fallacy "argument from ignorance" and the ever diminishing "god of the gaps." Dembski writes "Something that is specified and complex is highly improbable with respect to all causal mechanisms currently known." Invoking specificed complexity is nothing more than saying "At my level of ignorance and with my limited technology, this thing sure looks complicated and I can't figure it out, therefore Goddidit - er, excuse me, an "intelligent designer" did it, making it more complicated than I can figure out."

Sure, specified complexity is well-defined and empirically detectable - in Dembski's book, not in actual science - just as planetary motions were "well-defined and empirically detectable" in Immanuel Velikovsky's books, and ship and aircraft disappearances were "well-defined and empirically detectable" in Charles Berlitz' book.

And I'm sure you're proud of Dembski's clear and lucid defense of specified complexity at the Dover trial, aren't you? Maybe he's get another chance in Texas.

And since you are talking as if YOU are somehow fair and balanced, is there some reason why you are not asking everybody in this thread to likewise demonstrate “how fair and balanced” they are?

— FL

I understand Paul Burnett's comments, but here's the question:

Even if you disagree with Dembski's 3-point ID hypothesis from his 1999 book, exactly how is that specific 3-point hypothesis “derived directly from the Bible”?

FL

Banned troll clean-up.

FL: I understand Paul Burnett's comments, but here's the question: Even if you disagree with Dembski's 3-point ID hypothesis from his 1999 book, exactly how is that specific 3-point hypothesis “derived directly from the Bible”? FL

FL: ... Your specfic claim is that this ID hypothesis is "derived directly from the Bible." Now, as for me, I do not know of ANY texts/claims from the Bible nor any other religion's book that are pre-assumed, pre-required, or even stated at all WRT specified complexity or any of these 3 particular planks. (This is why ID is not the same as creationism, btw.) So I need you to tell me exactly how this particular hypothesis is "derived directly from the Bible"

Dr. William Dembski: Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.

So does this mean that FL is a liar, or physically incapable of double-checking his facts?

FL,

"cdesign proponentsists"

You are being dishonest. The simple fact they edited Pandas to read "design proponents" instead of "creationists" WITHOUT changing any supporting arguments proves you either clueless or a liar.

Watching the IDiots/Creationist try to jam their fact less concept into our school systems is like watching a professional wrestling match. The audience can see the tricker, the cheating...the foreign object in the bad guys hand, but the bad guy acts like he never did anything wrong or has no idea what we are accusing him of and then acts incredulous about it.

The people you follow are dishonest.

"FL" commented "I understand Paul Burnett’s comments..."

Excellent. Please discuss Dembski's spirited defense of specified complexity at the Dover trial. Or anywhere else in an actual scientific setting, as opposed to a church.

FL's comment continued: "...how is that specific 3-point hypothesis “derived directly from the Bible”?

Not exactly directly, but here's another clue in another quote from Dembski: "Christ is never an addendum to a scientific theory but always a completion." - from his book, Intelligent Design, page 207.) Does this sound more like science or religion?

Here's another quote from Dembski's book: "[A]ny view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient." Does this sound more like science or religion?

Here's another quote from Dembski's book: "[T]he conceptual soundness of a scientific theory cannot be maintained apart from Christ." Here's another quote from Dembski: "...I think God's glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution..."

FL, get a clue: Dembski is not talking about science!

Here's another article which exposes Dembski's cowardice and dishonesty in dodging questions about intelligent design: http://www.talkreason.org/articles/revolution.cfm.

Here's more: http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.04.ID_Orthodoxy_Heresy.htm - A 2004 talk “Intelligent Design: Yesterday’s Orthodoxy, Today’s Heresy” Dr. Dembski gave in a church. That's a peculiar title, given that Godless intelligent design - taking the Creator out of Creation - is now being recognized as heresy by Christian scholars, equivalent to the Gnostic Heresy and even the Manichaean Heresy.

FL: NGL says,

To put it another way, child, please stop posting here.

Interesting response, NGL. But next time a nerve is struck, please just say "Ouch, you nailed it!" and get it over with!

Paul Burnett: FL, get a clue: Dembski is not talking about science!

Since some of you believe that Dembski's 3-point ID hypothesis is "derived directly from the Bible", it should be easy for you to point me to a specific biblical text or texts and show me how to directly derive the specific, previously quoted 3-point ID hypothesis from said texts.

If you have to start off by conceding "Not exactly directly..." as Paul concedes, then you ain't showing the show as your homie Raven specified. Same for trying to talk about Pandas when you've been asked to talk about the Bible. Escape hatches just won't cut it this time, folks.

If the 3-point ID hypothesis is true or at least survives falsification, it indeed could plausibly (at the philosophical or theological level) follow--repeat--FOLLOW, that Dembski's 3-point ID hypotheses could be rationally accepted or viewed as the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.

But as you already know, there is NOT one single word nor line of John's Gospel--not the Logos theology, not even the claim that God exists at all--that is pre-required or pre-assumed or stated, AT ALL, anywhere, within the 3-point ID hypothesis.

Creationism, both YEC and OEC, pre-depends on you accepting theistic textual claims from Scripture as true. ID, no such requirement. None.

There simply exists no way, then, to directly derive the 3-point ID hypothesis from the Bible.

(Those of you who claim to have read Dembski's 1999 book already know that he essentially made this same point within that same book. Of course, it's easy to figure out that some of you have never read his book in the first place--your benightedness is showing.)

***

Raven, these guys are sincerely trying to help you out, but they're only pissing in the water and calling it lemonade. (And trying to sell it at five dollars per Dixie cup!)

So why don't you yourself help me understand your claim, and show me exactly how the 3-point ID hypothesis is directly derived from the Bible? Thanks!

FL

Sure, specified complexity is well-defined and empirically detectable - in Dembski’s book, not in actual science - just as planetary motions were “well-defined and empirically detectable” in Immanuel Velikovsky’s books, and ship and aircraft disappearances were “well-defined and empirically detectable” in Charles Berlitz’ book.

In your particularly snarky comment you were quite wrong FL a number of us had addressed the termination-eligible issue. I quite clearly spelled out that according to the applied definition essentially any kind of e-mail about anything to do with biology would be grounds for termination, because the textbooks that would meet state standards only talk about science and hence cannot be "neutral". So a curriculum specialist has been defined out of communicating by these "rules".

I was quite clear above on this point others had made it as well though not is such stark terms. So yes revel in this great "victory" that you fired someone for insubordination of a rule that directly prevents them from actually doing their job.

FL: Since some of you believe that Dembski's 3-point ID hypothesis is "derived directly from the Bible", it should be easy for you to point me to a specific biblical text or texts and show me how to directly derive the specific, previously quoted 3-point ID hypothesis from said texts. If you have to start off by conceding "Not exactly directly..." as Paul concedes, then you ain't showing the show as your homie Raven specified. Same for trying to talk about Pandas when you've been asked to talk about the Bible. Escape hatches just won't cut it this time, folks. If the 3-point ID hypothesis is true or at least survives falsification, it indeed could plausibly (at the philosophical or theological level) follow--repeat--FOLLOW, that Dembski's 3-point ID hypotheses could be rationally accepted or viewed as the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.

But as you already know, there is NOT one single word nor line of John's Gospel--not the Logos theology, not even the claim that God exists at all--that is pre-required or pre-assumed or stated, AT ALL, anywhere, within the 3-point ID hypothesis. Creationism, both YEC and OEC, pre-depends on you accepting theistic textual claims from Scripture as true. ID, no such requirement. None. There simply exists no way, then, to directly derive the 3-point ID hypothesis from the Bible. (Those of you who claim to have read Dembski's 1999 book already know that he essentially made this same point within that same book. Of course, it's easy to figure out that some of you have never read his book in the first place--your benightedness is showing.)

Raven, these guys are sincerely trying to help you out, but they're only pissing in the water and calling it lemonade. (And trying to sell it at five dollars per Dixie cup!) So why don't you yourself help me understand your claim, and show me exactly how the 3-point ID hypothesis is directly derived from the Bible? Thanks! FL

FL: Since some of you believe that Dembski's 3-point ID hypothesis is "derived directly from the Bible", it should be easy for you to point me to a specific biblical text or texts and show me how to directly derive the specific, previously quoted 3-point ID hypothesis from said texts. If you have to start off by conceding "Not exactly directly..." as Paul concedes, then you ain't showing the show as your homie Raven specified. Same for trying to talk about Pandas when you've been asked to talk about the Bible. Escape hatches just won't cut it this time, folks. If the 3-point ID hypothesis is true or at least survives falsification, it indeed could plausibly (at the philosophical or theological level) follow--repeat--FOLLOW, that Dembski's 3-point ID hypotheses could be rationally accepted or viewed as the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory. But as you already know, there is NOT one single word nor line of John's Gospel--not the Logos theology, not even the claim that God exists at all--that is pre-required or pre-assumed or stated, AT ALL, anywhere, within the 3-point ID hypothesis. Creationism, both YEC and OEC, pre-depends on you accepting theistic textual claims from Scripture as true. ID, no such requirement. None. There simply exists no way, then, to directly derive the 3-point ID hypothesis from the Bible. (Those of you who claim to have read Dembski's 1999 book already know that he essentially made this same point within that same book. Of course, it's easy to figure out that some of you have never read his book in the first place--your benightedness is showing.) *** Raven, these guys are sincerely trying to help you out, but they're only pissing in the water and calling it lemonade. (And trying to sell it at five dollars per Dixie cup!) So why don't you yourself help me understand your claim, and show me exactly how the 3-point ID hypothesis is directly derived from the Bible? Thanks! FL

FL said: Since some of you believe that Dembski’s 3-point ID hypothesis is “derived directly from the Bible”, it should be easy for you to point me to a specific biblical text or texts and show me how to directly derive the specific, previously quoted 3-point ID hypothesis from said texts.

Bill Gascoyne:

But one must wonder if the DI word “secret” in reference to emails is what the rest of the world usually thinks of as “private”.

I'm sorry, but anyone with a lick of sense should know enough to think of e-mails as postcards that don't require a letter-opener to read. If you want envelopes, use encryption.

No Bible, no ID, as evidenced by the 100% (when rounded to the nearest whole number) belief in the god of the Bible among IDers.

— Science Avenger

I think that saying that the three-point ID "hypothesis" is "directly" based on the bible was a bit exaggerated. Better would be to answer that it isn't a hypothesis. It doesn't fulfill the most basic requirement of a hypothesis in that it isn't testable. Being testable is the whole point of a hypothesis, that's why scientists make them.

On the firing of Comer, I'm still trying to figure out what she did wrong. Neutrality isn't ignoring both sides, it's looking at them. (I'm putting aside the fact that only one side is science.) If the TEA isn't paying attention to what either side is saying, they aren't doing their job. How is helping people do their job something that gets one fired?

Yes, we all know the reason behind the firing. I'm just wondering about the reasoning that can be given.

David Fickett-Wilbar: I think that saying that the three-point ID "hypothesis" is "directly" based on the bible was a bit exaggerated. Better would be to answer that it isn't a hypothesis. It doesn't fulfill the most basic requirement of a hypothesis in that it isn't testable. Being testable is the whole point of a hypothesis, that's why scientists make them. On the firing of Comer, I'm still trying to figure out what she did wrong. Neutrality isn't ignoring both sides, it's looking at them. (I'm putting aside the fact that only one side is science.) If the TEA isn't paying attention to what either side is saying, they aren't doing their job. How is helping people do their job something that gets one fired? Yes, we all know the reason behind the firing. I'm just wondering about the reasoning that can be given.

Frank J: And many non-Biblicals, like Raelians, are fans of the ID strategy.

SWT:

Frank J: And many non-Biblicals, like Raelians, are fans of the ID strategy.

I'm curious about this. I understand that the Raelians believe that life on Earth was created/designed (cdesigned?) by an alien race. What do they believe about the origin of that alien race? Inquiring minds want to know ...

Jedidiah Palosaari: You're right Bill. When I need it, I use 128-byte encryption. But that's separate from ethics. One has a reasonable expectation that people should leave your email alone that you send from one party to another- not an expectation that they will, but that they should.

Folks, just a bit of perspective. While it might be entertaining to respond to pre-pubescent trolls like FL it is really rather moot. The fact is, so long as rational teachers, law makers, and courts continue to hold up their collective hands palm out towards the ID nutjobs, and actual scientists continue making discoverings that support evolution while shedding light on hypotheses that need further evaluation, folks like FL will continue to be irrelevant.

Raven says,

Creationism/ID is a Xian/Moslem idea derived directly from the bible

— FL

Creationism? Yes, you're right. ID? No, you're wrong.

In fact, WRT the intelligent design hypothesis, your claim has been specifically disproved in this forum. Quick example. Here's the 3-point ID hypothesis: 1. Specified complexity is well-defined and empirically detectable.

2. Undirected natural causes are incapable of explaining specified complexity.

3. Intelligent causation best explains specified complexity. -Dr. William Dembski,Intelligent Design, IVP 1999.

Okay. Your specfic claim is that this ID hypothesis is "derived directly from the Bible." Now, as for me, I do not know of ANY texts/claims from the Bible nor any other religion's book that are pre-assumed, pre-required, or even stated at all WRT specified complexity or any of these 3 particular planks. (This is why ID is not the same as creationism, btw.)

So I need you to tell me exactly how this particular hypothesis is "derived directly from the Bible"

Now if this hypothesis is demonstrated to be true,

THEN there are philosophical and theological implications that might FOLLOW from the hypothesis (for example, it might lend a measure of philosophical support for the biblical claim that God exists.)

But that's what would FOLLOW the hypothesis.

I need you to show me something else: how the 3-point hypothesis is derived DIRECTLY from the Bible. Folks, please let Raven take the first shot at this!

More importatly, I’m not the Texas Director of Science; Comer is (well, make that “Comer was.”) That position carries a public trust, a public responsibility, to demonstrate a sense of fairness and balance. That’s simply true, period.

— FL

FL,

I assume that you would agree that Dembski, as a mathematician, author, theologian, and philosopher, is adept at using the English language and understands the meanings and logical consequences of his statements.

If one asserts the "Y is a restatement of X," it follows directly that Y and X have the same intended meaning and that X precedes Y (otherwise it could not be a restatement). Thus "Y is a restatement of X" implies "Y follows directly from X."

The "Logos theology of John's Gospel" is directly from the Bible.

Intelligent design thus follows directly from the Bible.

But as you already know, there is NOT one single word nor line of John’s Gospel–not the Logos theology, not even the claim that God exists at all–that is pre-required or pre-assumed or stated, AT ALL, anywhere, within the 3-point ID hypothesis.

— FL

Creationism, both YEC and OEC, pre-depends on you accepting theistic textual claims from Scripture as true. ID, no such requirement. None.

There simply exists no way, then, to directly derive the 3-point ID hypothesis from the Bible.

SWT:

Frank J: And many non-Biblicals, like Raelians, are fans of the ID strategy.

I'm curious about this. I understand that the Raelians believe that life on Earth was created/designed (cdesigned?) by an alien race. What do they believe about the origin of that alien race? Inquiring minds want to know ...

Kids are smarter than many people think they are.

— JAE (looks like the troll found a new name)

Have you ever heard the story about “The Emperor’s New Clothes”? It was a child that first pointed out that the emperor had no clothes.

And there was an Art Linkletter TV show and book series titled, “Kids Say the Darndest Things.”

Also, I’ve noticed that many comments in this thread have been arbitrarily censored. That does not do much good for PT’s credibility.

Anyway, onward to what I want to say.

Maybe the directives that Comer got were vague and maybe she originally deserved no more than a slap on the wrist for sending out the email. However, she made some big mistakes. The Austin American-Statesman article said, “As for the e-mail, Comer said she did pause for a ‘half second’ before sending it, but said she thought that because Forrest was a highly credentialed speaker, it would be OK.” She didn’t say something like, “I didn’t know that they didn’t want me to forward any emails on the subject.” Saying that she paused for a “half second” showed that she was aware that she was doing something wrong, and saying that she thought sending out the email was OK because Forrest was a “highly credentialed speaker” was a “best butter” argument (from the March Hare’s claim – at the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party in Alice in Wonderland – that it is OK to put butter in a watch so long as it is the “best” butter). She also insulted her boss by saying that her agency lacked “real leadership” while he was just the acting commissioner. So maybe he felt that he was showing “real leadership” by going along with the decision to get rid of her.

Yes, the gag order she was given is political.

Because evolution education is so controversial, the powers that be feel that it is politically prudent to have the TEA appear to be neutral on the subject.

This policy of neutrality cuts both ways – it also prohibits the appearance of supporting anti-Darwinism.

I feel that the powers that be acted within their discretion in issuing the gag order.

So far I have not seen any public official or editorial defend her. Also, the more the Darwinists argue that the gag order on the TEA is unnecessary because anti-Darwinism is pseudoscience or religion, the greater the need for the gag order.

It is like arguing in a criminal trial that a change of venue is not necessary because everyone knows that the defendant is guilty.

Also, you hypocritical Darwinists are still persecuting state education administrator Cheri Yecke for things she said about evolution education way back in 2004. She sincerely believed that she was following the recommendations of the Congressional report accompanying the No Child Left Behind Act.

FL lied "...there is NOT one single word nor line of John’s Gospel–not the Logos theology, not even the claim that God exists at all–that is pre-required or pre-assumed or stated, AT ALL, anywhere, within the 3-point ID hypothesis."

Not only are there several duplicated words, but every single letter used in the 3-point ID hypothesis also appears in John's Gospel.

in chemsitry there are some gaps in our knowledge of the Periodic Table (think trans-uranic elements and a theoretical “island of stability”),

Here’s the deal: the email is NOT harmless. Well, why not? Because with that email, Comer is effectively doing PR advertising on Barbara Forrest’s behalf (advertising Forrest’s upcoming talk), and that’s NOT what she’s supposed to be doing as Director of Science Education for Texas

Actually, that's exactly what she's supposed to be doing as Director of Science Education for Texas. It's her job.

Seriously, it's rather sad to compare the way the trolls are defending the TEA's treatment of Ms Comer with the way the DI is still whining about Gonzalez (see a couple of more recent posts on PT).

Comer has been forced to resign for, basically, doing the best job she could of, well, doing her job.

Gonzalez was not awarded tenure - he wasn't denied tenure, as if it were some kind of right that were being violated, it was something that he failed to earn. Why? Because his research track record was not up to scratch, and his understanding of what constitutes good science is in doubt.

Henry J:

in chemsitry there are some gaps in our knowledge of the Periodic Table (think trans-uranic elements and a theoretical “island of stability”),

Yeah, element number 117 is still missing... Henry

J.A.E. = "Jubal A. Early", Confederate general, and "JAE" here is a banned troll.

Holy cow! You’re right, Element 117 hasn’t yet been discovered…

Just look at http://www.webelements.com/

— Henry J

I prefer this one: (The Visual Elements Periodic Table) even if it does only have 111 elements in it.

If Comer were a bible-pounding holy-rolling fundy creationist crackpot, you Darwinists would probably think that the TEA’s gag rule is a good idea.

— JHM, or: BS by any other name would smell as sweet

But their still just moths! :p

Ack - wrong thread; that last comment was intended for the Peppered Moths thread. Sorry about that.