Here Comes Another Monkey Trial…
July 2nd, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Remember Chris Comer, the science director over at the Texas Education Agency who was fired for emailing folks about an evolution event? Yesterday, she filed suit [large .pdf] against TEA in federal court in Austin. After all the negative publicity, the mocking editorials, the scorn of the education community, and now this - a serious lawsuit - firing Comer looks like the dumbest thing TEA could have done.
The suit alleges that Comer’s termination violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. What’s interesting is how the suit reaches that conclusion:
1) Creationism is a religious belief
2) The Establishment Clause forbids the teaching of religion (read: creationism) in public schools. [The suit makes liberal reference to Kitzmiller v. Dover, the landmark 2005 case in which a conservative Bush-appointed judge rejected the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.]
3) The Texas Education Agency has a tacit policy of “neutrality” on evolution vs. creationism.
4) The”neutrality” policy is in fact an endorsement of creationism - and religion - and is unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause.
5) Comer was fired for violating an unconstitutional policy.
Conclusion: “Comer’s termination… violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution… because it has the purpose or effect of endorsing religion.”
Is this an air-tight argument or a real stretch? I don’t know, but the legal team representing Comer - Patton Boggs LLC - aren’t slouches. At a minimum, the suit could have a welcome salutary effect in Texas at a time when foes of evolution are regrouping.
The State Board of Education - nearly dominated by unreconstructed creationists - will soon revisit the state’s science curriculum. Certain Texas lawmakers may get ideas for the upcoming legislative session from a new law in Louisiana that opens the door to teaching creationism in schools. A high-profile court battle over evolution in Texas could suck all the oxygen out of these other efforts. Or maybe not.
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:45 am
Comer wasn’t fired over creationism. She was fired over her frequent inability to use discretion in her comments to the public as a representative of the education agency, whether the topic was evolution or the deputy commissioner or any other number of topics that are referenced in her prior disciplinary memo.
If you looked through her personnel file, you would see in one disciplinary memo her superiors already had clamped down on Comer, making her turn over all presentations for review and get all speeches/appearances approved in advance before she spoke at conferences. Her attendance records showed she was out days… and sometimes even weeks .. at a time, attending various state science organization events instead of dealing in the day-to-day business of the agency. I don’t have the numbers right in front of me, but I believe it was about 80 days in one year.
Yet they continued to give her good evaluations. Go figure.
This wasn’t a debate about creationism… The agency’s own documents and e-mails indicate they just thought Comer was a loose cannon who didn’t use good judgment. The intelligent design e-mail is simply one example of that. The fact that Comer has focused on this hot-button issue is… interesting… but this is a personnel case.
Comer’s personnel files also indicated she was suspected (rightly or wrongly) of being tied to a key figure in a high-profile embezzlement case out at San Antonio Community College. Comer had offered that same person — a personal friend and mentor and reference on her own application to TEA — contracts out of TEA and had been documented in another disciplinary memo claiming both salary and consultant fees on those contracts. That breaks state law.
Comer claimed ignorance of the agency policies in that instance, and it does not appear the agency pursued further investigation. The fact the agency did not follow through on its suspicions is definitely a problem.
The $64,000 question is whether TEA, which (clearly) ran this disciplinary action and termination through its legal department .. and was way too caution on discipline measures… has shot itself in the foot or will be able to document its concerns… Or if this, as you suggest, is going to turn into a case about evolution/creationism.
TEA probably should be kicked in the butt for doing such a poor job of terminating someone in this case… But maybe the question here is not just what TEA did but also the half-assed reporting that the media did.
IMHO.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:03 am
In spite of Kimmy’s well-written comment above, this was exactly about creationism, and about imposing ideological discipline on the agency. I’m just sad that Lizzette Reynolds and Sharon Jackson were left out of the suit. They were involved in the firing up to their necks.
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:33 pm
This is Texas. One can be any number of different kinds of incompetent, devious, and corrupt and remain employed and well-reviewed - so long as one’s public positions and utterances are suitably Republican and Religious-Right in orientation. There’s nothing in Comer’s record that would get her more than a stern look and POSSIBLY an unsigned nasty note in her personnel jacket… but she didn’t toe the line on the Jeebus stuff, and for that she should count herself lucky she was merely terminated instead of being terminated with prejudice.
July 4th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Bodhisattva,
I could certainly agree that there are shades of creationism/evolution impinging on this decision here, if I’m going to talk about why something like this happened … I’m trying to think of degrees here…
Would I agree that creationism/evolution is a hot topic inside the agency? I think so. Would I say that staff members were especially sensitive to the Far Righters on the SBOE and would want to accommodate their concerns, even to the extent of possibly excluding liberals? I might be able to go there. Will the final decision on curriculum come down to the political/religious views of the Board majority and not staff or teachers? Absolutely. That’s the way it’s structured right now.
(As an aside, I thought the conservative views were sorely misrepresented during the ELAR rewrite in the MSM, because MSM only bothered to talk to the teachers. It was unfair to them.)
Maybe there’s a list of other points I could add here… and potentially get a bit closer to your position.
I do think it’s relevant that agency line staff — who are expected to be experts in their field despite their dire low salaries — were not tapped for their expertise/opinions when it came time to rewrite TEKS. As the expert, are you there to shuffle papers at TEA and do the busy (or grunt) work, or should you be a relevant sounding board/facilitator/participant during the discussions? Right now I think it’s closer to the former.
For instance, if you were the TEA reading expert with a strong opinion on phonics or whole language at the agency, that opinion did not weigh much on the rewrite of the ELAR essential elements. And, as an extension of that, subject area curriculum staff members were not invited to participate in the process of rewriting the TEKS in the past, and media members were not allowed to view the discussions. How do you know how valid the final product is? I wonder.
It’s only been with the latest administration — and that’s Lizzette — that the process has been opened up enough so that lobbyists, et al, were allowed to sit in on the process and view the debate.
I haven’t really asked the agency why the secrecy — okay, I complained about it, but I didn’t ask — but I think it comes down to trying to keep a straight path on TEKS without a whole lot of politics.
Of course, you see where that ended up on ELAR… the teachers going off at the last minute and preparing their own rewrite. I have to agree with the conservatives on this one… If it was my neck on the line at the final vote, I’d have to take that document and review it, too, before I decided I wanted to give it some kind of rubber stamp.
As for Stormkite, I do get where you’re coming from… Republicans like their own. A lot. Regardless of credentials. But in this case, Comer’s replacement is just as pro-evolution as she was, if not more so. So I would say that weakens your argument considerably.
July 4th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
“Comer’s replacement is just as pro-evolution as she was, if not more so”.
Imagine. A science curriculum adviser being “pro-evolution”.
Is the math adviser pro 2+2 =4, I wonder?
July 4th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Dennis,
This is not my big issue. However, I’m amazed how many people — who really don’t give a damn about anything else in our school systems — are stirred by this issue.
And what is YOUR definition of evolution? The Discovery Institute points out that there are shades of gray in this one. They believe in natural selection. They do not believe in one common ancestor. There is a range of beliefs you could have on this one topic, even if you are trained in science.
My mom is a science teacher. I am a journalist. Neither of us find it a crime to put the building blocks of evolution on the table, discuss a variety of viewpoints and let students come to their own conclusions. That’s how we were trained to think…. In science circles I believe they call it … scientific inquiry. Imagine.
But the pro-evolution types seem suspicious of any kind of discussion on this issue… Camel’s nose under the tent and all. As well intentioned as I know they are, they often sound as entrenched as the conservative creationists.
From an objective viewpoint with no particular agenda, however, I think that the best thing we can do is teach our students the facts and give them the tools and the chance to THINK about those facts and learn how to build and defend their own conclusions on this issue.
To oppose a full discussion of evolution, in my mind, contravenes the very cornerstone of science: to gather facts, connect those facts in a logical way and let the conclusions speak for themselves.
I wonder how many people who support evolution — outside of science — are well-versed enough to have a robust argument on the topic.
I could argue the other side, if you like…
July 4th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Kimmy the problem with your argument is Science requires proofs, experiments, peer reviews and changes in doctrine when something is shown as incorrect SCIENTIFICALLY it does not rest on faith, and creationism is based on a book that demands faith not proof.
The “dover trial” should have put the argument that creationism is any kind of science.
I would have NO problem with creationism taught in a philosophy or religion course in schools along with other religious theory which can not be scientifically tested. I would have a big problem with it being taught in any “science class” because the very basis of creationism is NOT open to the scientific method thus it can not be correctly categorized as a scientific discipline.
July 4th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
…as the rest of the world passes us by in renewable energy, the economy, health care, education, technology……..and clearly. SCIENCE. 1925 or 2008???
July 4th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Gotta call B.S. on your definition of scientific inquiry.
As a trained scientist and science educator, I find the following statement troubling;
“Neither of us find it a crime to put the building blocks of evolution on the table, discuss a variety of viewpoints and let students come to their own conclusions”
this doesn’t begin to approach what I would call “scientific inquiry”, it sounds like debate, or something you might have done in journalism school.
Scientific inquiry usually results in at least one experiment. This is the failing of Creationism, it lacks verification via experimentation. The Theory of Evolution is not a VIEWPOINT any more that the Atomic Theory is a VIEWPOINT.
I get the feeling that you might be one of the people that you mention are unable to engage in a “robust argument” on the topic.
July 4th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Well thank you, Kimmy, on behalf of Chris Comer. Unless you can come up with a public source for the information you discussed with what seems to be grounded in a primary source, you’ve just said enough on one page that indicates TEC diciminated their own version of Comer’s firing among employees and to the public. In effect, they’ve poisoned the well using confidential employee records, all the while intimating they never felt her behavior serious enough to proceed with disciplinary documentation. That in itself is grounds to proceed to discovery relating to punitive damages, TEC having destroyed her reputation while we sit here discussing her personal files thanks to you.
Do you have access to these records through your family and friends and/or how did you become such an authoritative source on this person’s confidential employee files?
July 4th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Kimmy, there is a difference between science and journalism. What’s unfortunate is that so many journalists do not understand that good journalism is not simply reporting “both sides” of an issue just because there is another “side.” The Discovery Institute, for instance, is a stealth religious organization who was almost completely funded by a right-wing religious conservative, for this very purpose. Yet you quote them as if they were a legitimate scientific organization. They are not. They are not there to do research, they are there to find ways to change dialog. The fact that you quote them without having taken the time to look into their history, their staffing, or their work shows that you have a lot to learn about real journalism. Oh yeah, you’ve got the “both sides” model down great, but that’s News For Dummies. Sometimes there is no need for both sides, because one side is a fraud or an impostor. Your lack of effort here lets the creationists win, and that’s exactly why they set up DI in the first place.
DI claimes to support “intelligent design.” But that’s not a scientific theory. It doesn’t predict anything, it can’t be tested, it can’t be falsified, and no peer-reviewed paper using it has ever been published. It might look like science, but scientists know it isn’t.
You keep saying evolution isn’t your thing. If that’s the case, I suggest you stop speaking out on the issue until you do a little more research. You don’t ask geography students whether they believe the earth is round or flat and let them come to their own conclusions. Take away evolution, and just about all of biology falls apart. There is no reason to waste children’s time in SCIENCE CLASS arguing over something that’s fully accepted by almost all scientists. And you find me a scientist who rejects it who isn’t doing so on religious grounds. (That said, many believers have no problems with evolution.)
However, there is are classes to bring up creationism and its stepchild, intelligent design. Debate class. History class. Logic class.
But NOT science class. This is settled. The only debate within legitimate discussion are minor details, not whether the theory is acceptable.
Your comment asking whether non-scientists aren’t well-versed enough to argue it speaks volumes on your own prejudices.
July 4th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
I also want to reinforce what Clif has written above. Science is not a matter of spreading the evidence on the table for all the children to examine and “come to their own conclusions” as suggested by Kimmy. Of course, they have the freedom to do just that if they choose. But I don’t know how many folks would recognize such a kangaroo course of jumping silliness “science.”
What I have come to appreciate concerning all this brain dead ignorance coming from the Conservative Movement concerning “natural selection” (it is not known as “evolution”), is that most folks who gravitate to both the Conservative Movement as it is presented today and to the religious right’s Evangelical Movement are people who test out as “right-wing authoritarian followers.”
I am referring to scientific research — not some process of throwing it all out on the table for the children to pick and choose what they want to believe and call it “science.” The researcher Bob Altemeyer discovered that 51% of the American population currently fit this authoritarian follower category describing people who (1)surrender their freedom, responsibility and liberty in decision making as guided by the conventional paradigms proffered by leaders to whom the grant the powers and status of authority (authoritarianism), (2) are not comfortable outside the models presented as received convention (avoidance anxiety caused by cognitive dissonance and reformation of convention), and (3) will enforce the received convention upon others on behalf of their authoritarian figures using peer pressure, ad hominem, threats and even the commission of hate crimes.
Convention, even when it seem absurd to others is to be upheld at all costs. It is not a matter of science or reasoning for these folks; it is a matter of authority.
July 4th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Kimmy is clearly a closet Creationist.
Comer was fired because of her stand against preaching Creationist drivel in Science class, PERIOD!.
As a Marine biologist working for Scripps Inst for 24 years, I can tell you that Evolution is NOT a “viewpoint” nor is it “open for debate”.
Anymore than the Earth is a Sphere and is far older than 6000 years.
Evolution is a Scientific Fact of which all of biology is based on, without it nothing would make sense.
“But the pro-evolution types seem suspicious of any kind of discussion on this issue”
This gives you away as clear a Creationist.
It is impossible to have an intelligent discussion about Evolution with a Creationist, they are incapable of understanding even the most basic science.
July 4th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Kimmy,
The Discovery Institute? Are you kidding? What does “The Discovery Institute” have to do with science or teaching science? If they had their way, their ideas would be the first ones taught in science class where the lack of evidence would be presented as support for a scientific theory. Do you honestly think that is science? Please explain how ANY of their arguments have any place in a science class. Chris Comers termination was clearly over her failure to maintain neutrality on teaching religion in the science class. As much as you try to blame the MSM, the did not make up the e-mail written by Lizzette Reynolds demanding her termination over a sinlge e-mail announcing a lecture on science.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
I remember a couple of years ago it came out that the Ft Worth science museum was not showing films that taught a pro-evolution point of view. The reason was that the PR director of the museum saw too many written comments from previewers that favored creationism. She decided “why upset the people (or some people) that patronize the museum. The result was an absolute firestorm of public outrage by people upset that a SCIENCE MUSEUM Would buckle to a few written comments and avoid films that actually taught science.
This is about as egregious an error as you can get for in terms of not doing your job… yet, though the policy was quickly changed, no one was fired.
There is in the Great State of Texas a “proper” (and always conservative) social view point which, if followed keeps your standing at work and in the community safe, while any “alternative” viewpoint (however valid) puts you on the bubble ready to be dumped at any moment. In a sense it is can be said that this case is not about “creationism” - it’s about social conformity, the subject hardly matters.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
I was born and raised in Texas, and I feel I have the right to say that I’m both ashamed and afraid of what the apathy of my fellow citizens has brought about. I will never tolerate religious extremism in my country. The worst examples that I can think of are not Muslim, they are “Christians” who believe that they should be able to dictate to the rest us how to live and bring up our children. This is something I might expect from the Taliban in Afghanistan or Iran or Saudi Arabia, or any other extremist society, not the United States of America. How far we have fallen. Perhaps we’re in for honor killings next, or beheadings in the public square. My god just look at how we freaked out when someone suggested that Barack Obama might be Muslim! As if that was a horrible crime against humanity and that no Muslim person could be a person of honor! I’m ashamed of us all. What gives us the right to think that Christianity is the “right” religion? Arrogance and stupidity. That’s all. I don’t give a damn what religion anyone is if they can help us get out of this mess of corruption we’re in.
We MUST have separation of church and state. Our founding fathers deliberately made the distinction clear in our Constitution knowing full well the consequences of doing otherwise. NO ONE of any religion has the right to dictate what should be taught in our schools. Religion has no place in our government or schools unless we are willing to address each and every religion of mankind - for no religion should automatically have superiority over another. We as human beings should have evolved enough at this point that we should respect others beliefs. (oh wait this is all about evolution isn’t it?) Unfortunately in my lifetime we seem to be moving backwards and not forwards. What has happened to us? One of the things I remember learning from a philosophy teacher of mine in collegewas that people who really aren’t secure in their own beliefs, who are unable to defend them, are constantly afraid of any other beliefs and therefore are determined to destroy any dissent. They fear that someone else may actually have a better answer, a better idea, a better way of doing things, or god forbid, might place a small doubt in their mind that they might be wrong!
But I digress. Let me go back to the issue of a small group of Baptist zealots who are determined to corrupt the minds of our children in Texas. Shall I go into the farce of who picks out textbooks for Texas schools? No one of intelligence with any kind of educational qualifications. Simply a small group of religious zealots who have managed to weasel their way into the system and have managed to stay there. Great shame upon our Texas legislature for allowing such a thing to happen. But then it’s the apathetic citizens of our great state that allowed it to happen. No wonder the US is falling behind the rest of the world in science and technology.
Religion taught in the guise of science will drag our society down into a black hole of ignorance and intolerance. Apathy and ignorance are the tools that zealots use to attain positions of power and to pass laws that are intended to restrict freedom of thought. Without open debate, unadulterated education and free thought our society is lost. We will become nothing more than a copy of the societies we so revile around the world. The only difference being that Jesus is our messiah rather “their god”. Too few people in the world still remember how Hitler came to power. So innocent at first, so well meaning, until he showed his hand and the full extent of his madness.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. Do you think these men were fools? Do you think they wrote this amendment for no reason? Americans are sorely lacking in the history behind this amendment. We’re too busy trying to find out if Brittany is having another breakdown, or what Paris Hilton is wearing to the gym today. God help us, the mainstream media certainly isn’t. They feed us whatever pap they want us to believe, and no one seems to care. Oh wait! Only about 8 multinational companies own all the media (radio, tv, internet, etc)and they’re all for profit! Wow go figure. Most of the population of the world gets fed whatever information the conglomerates and the governments deem to be acceptable. Too few of us are determined to delve deeper and find out the real truth.
The ideologies that our home grown zealots would have us brainwash our children to believe is no different than any other extremist religion. Shall we go back to the 1500’s when the Catholics and Protestants burned each other at the stake and slaughtered each other by the thousands? Have our citizens become so intolerant and apathetic that they will allow religious beliefs to overcome logic and humanity? I was appalled to read today that Baylor College in Waco is seriously considering allowing creationism (under the guise of intelligent design) to be taught on its campus. It used to be a respected university. If they are seriously thinking of allowing that load of ***** to be taught there, I have lost any modicum of respect for their institution, and I imagine most of the rest of the world will lose respect as well.
I believe we are fighting a war within our own borders and it isn’t against an outside enemy. It’s against our own culture of ignorance and intolerance. The dumbing down of America began years ago. An ignorant population is much more easily controlled. Feed them the information you want them to believe, and they won’t know any better. Control the media, the schools, the churches, and you have control of thought. We should have learned that lesson well from Nazi Germany, China, and all the other totalitarian governments around the world, but somehow we seem to have tossed that lesson aside. No one really seems to care much anymore. Whenever I try to bring up debates of current events, of what is happening in our country, of what is wrong and how we can fix it, people get angry. They don’t want to be bothered. American Idol is on TV, by golly! And isn’t Madonna going to divorce her husband or what?
The downfall of every great society has been corruption and apathy. Let us all remember the quote from the bible: “As ye sew, so shall ye reap.”
July 4th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
My mom is a science teacher. I am a journalist. Neither of us find it a crime to put the building blocks of evolution on the table, discuss a variety of viewpoints and let students come to their own conclusions. That’s how we were trained to think…. In science circles I believe they call it … scientific inquiry. Imagine.
But the pro-evolution types seem suspicious of any kind of discussion on this issue… Camel’s nose under the tent and all. As well intentioned as I know they are, they often sound as entrenched as the conservative creationists.
Maybe that’s because one of the biggest of those blocks is that the relevant researchers had this debate and it came to an end OVER 100 YEARS AGO.
Somehow that particular piece of information is always missing from these curricula.
The only ones with a real problem with this always seem to have a fundamentalist Christian point of view.
This “debate” does indeed need to be taught - in history class where it belongs.
Meanwhile, a responsible science curriculum points out that evolution is the central organizing principle of biology and it’s had zillions of chances to be tested, especially within the last 20 years now that heavy duty molecular science techniques are available to provide a new perspective.
Guess what?
They confirm the validity of the theory.
The “debate”?
It’s the griping of a particular group (albeit a big and influential one) of people who wilfully ignore what contradicts their interpretation of the Bible and get very angry when they’re called on it.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Kimmy, like dsw, I’ve got to call B.S. on you too. I can see now why you were trying to make this case out to be something other than what it is.
Not a day goes by when I am not vindicated in my view that Texas has to be the most regressive state in the Union. How much more evil can you folks give us?
July 4th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
DSW,
Was your insult really necessary? Do you feel like a better person, winning a debate with personal attacks? Is that indicative of the way you would teach science? Does the fact that I acknowledge and appreciate the fact that children will walk into a classroom believing both evolution and creationism theories really bug you?
I don’t care if its science or journalism or English class. We don’t teach our kids critical-thinking skills. And cramming a topic down their throats as rote … without an honest acknowledgement that the general public is split on the subject… is an insult to their intelligence.
I am sure, in the science classroom, I would be all about proofs and experiments and peer reviews and everything else. I don’t discount that at all. But, once more, I point you to the fact that inquiry involves building a case, and you build your best cases when you understand the challenges to your issue. I don’t think an acknowledgement of the challenge of creationism is advocating religion.
Maybe that does mean I’m more debate than science. I might agree with that. But I also know that if you devalue what students believe — ignore it, belittle it, dismiss it — it’s less likely they’re going to hear your scientific arguments when you make them.
July 5th, 2008 at 12:40 am
Kimmy, DSW didn’t insult you. But nice job whining like your ego has been mortally wounded. You can take that as an insult, if you like.
In fact, please do. One of the biggest problems in journalism today is that there is a tendency to treat issues of science as opinion. Evolution is fact. It is happening even now, in your very own gut, as bacteria divide and mutations that give selective advantage are fixed. Details such as how important natural selection is compared to genetic drift or flow, when species arise, is the process gradual or rapid, etc. But there is not debate in the scientific community as to whether evolution is real, yet so many journalists refuse to do their job and instead report on a manufactured controversy.
Creationism and ID aren’t science, and have no place in a science classroom, except possibly as examples as to how critical thinking skills rule out their claims (I have a feeling that isn’t exactly your preferred result). They are religion and wholly lack evidence. Appeals for debate are only called for by those who wish to score political and PR points. Perhaps astronomy classes should discuss geocentrism as an alternate theory. 20% of Americans don’t know that the sun is orbited by the earth, not the other way around, and some religious groups support these claims. Should you report on this controversy?
July 5th, 2008 at 12:46 am
“Neither of us find it a crime to put the building blocks of evolution on the table, discuss a variety of viewpoints and let students come to their own conclusions. That’s how we were trained to think…. In science circles I believe they call it … scientific inquiry. Imagine.”
No it is not scientific inquiry.
After getting a PhD and an MD I think I can comment on the concept of scientific inquiry. It is NOT students coming to their own conclusions. One student doctor does not cut open the leg while another opens the belly when fixing an appendix. The location of the appendix is a fact, not an opinion.
Science is not a debating society, it is based on measurement, observation, theory construction, testing the theory followed by more observation and measurement of the result then remodifying the theory. Then the process is started over again and again.
You are confusing philosophy, which predated empiricism and the scientific method which I described above.
July 5th, 2008 at 6:30 am
Kimmy,
You are missing the point. Creationism IS NOT SCIENCE. It is has no place in the science classroom. The problem with ideas without evidence is that none of them can be shown to have any more merit than any other. I have no problem mentioning creationism or ID in the science class as examples of what is not science and why they are not science, but neither theory have any scientific merits and present no challenge to evolution, as they have NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, so mentioning anything beyond that is inappropriate and is NOT teaching children critical thinking skills. Teaching critical thinking skills doesn’t involve advocating believing in something just because one wants it to be true, even if there is no evidence. Simply saying that “a magic man did it” to fill in the blanks in areas that we don’t understand about life’s origins is counterproductive to teaching critical thinking skills.
July 5th, 2008 at 7:11 am
Kimmy,
You are missing the point entirely. Evolution is not a point of contention within the scientific community. The ways or means may still be debated as different hypothesis come from competing researchers, but the fundamentals remain the same.
The general public may be split on the subject, but that is because the religious community is shoving ideas down the throat of its followers with no real proof of evidence. You wouldn’t listen to these religious leaders when trying to build a nuclear reactor. Why would you listen to them about any other scientific endeavor?
There is no(none, zero, zip) proof for Creationism or Intelligent Design. There is vast proof that demonstrates Evolution, practically all of modern biology is founded on those basics. If you throw out evolution you destroy the basic building blocks of knowledge that comes with it.
You want critical thinking then science is the right place for it. Where else can an idea form a hypothesis and then be turned into a theory with a mound of evidence to support it. The problem is, Creationism had its chance and fell short. Science has moved on. You should as well.
July 5th, 2008 at 7:21 am
here’s the deal: evolution is silent on religion - it makes no claim on whether a creator (or creators) was involved or was necessary and it makes no statement to the opposite effect. As such it is not inconsistent with a belief in G-d or religion (though those of a religious faith that purports their religious dogma is the only truth and their holy text is the complete and inerrant word of a factual G-d make an inaccurate claim that evolution is by default anti G-d/religion because it is not 100% consistent with their bible and beliefs).
“Intelligent Design”, on the other hand, lays a specific claim that, not only was a there a creator but that the creator was absolutely necessary for every little aspect of the development of this world and its inhabitants. While evolution is a scientific theory, ID is most definitely a religious ideology intentionally shrouded so as to appear to be something other than religion.
Public school teachers should not be teaching religion or ways to refute non-religious theories with religious beliefs. However, that is exactly what the ID/anti-evolutionary crowd wants to be done in public schools.
July 5th, 2008 at 7:31 am
[…] Here Comes Another Monkey Trial… […]
July 5th, 2008 at 7:48 am
Kimmy,
I read DSW’s comment. I don’t think he insulted you. He said your definition of scientific inquiry is B.S. That is not the same thing as insulting you.
I also think you have haven’t thought this through from a pedeological perspective. Students may come into class rooms with all kind of different beliefs. I know a guy that thought we never went to the moon, you could run a car on water and that gravity was caused by the rotation of the earth. Would you stop a science class for a respectfuly discussion of those beliefs? You’d never get anything done. Ditto for creationism.
July 5th, 2008 at 8:05 am
I don’t mind teaching both. But if you get a teacher that strongly believes in creationism you will have the problem like the teacher that was burning crosses on childrens harms. Evoluation has been thought all over the world now you want to put our children at a disadvantage with the teaching creationism. Its like teaching children to shoot a rifle in health class. Teach science in class and teach creationism in your churchs that way they will learn both areas of life. We need to keep church and state separate.
July 5th, 2008 at 8:13 am
I doubt Kimmy has access to the personnel file of Ms. Comer. If Kimmy is in a position to have access to the file, then he/she would be in violation of the law to be posting information gleaned from it on this message board.
July 5th, 2008 at 9:05 am
This thread is one of the better discussions that I have encountered. Kimmy makes a good and valid distinction between scientific inquiry and faith. She also points out the need to teach people to do some critical thinking. On this subject, check out George Carlin, another who has bemoaned the lack of critical thinking in the U.S., and some of the consequences of that lack.
I have to say that, from this distance (I live in the Netherlands), the U.S. is not looking good these days. On that topic, see Herbert’s column in the New York Times.
The great gap between faith and reason still exists, despite the best efforts of some of the best thinkers. It always will.
July 5th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Kimmy,
While you make a convincing argument, there would only be an “argument” between people who are about 1000 years behind us in science and education (as, for example, the Catholic Church… or many US state legislatures…).
Also, you can only debate and argue about points of view in common, albeit disparate.
To argue about the merits creationism versus evolution, you would have to have the debate about the apple being an orange.
Its really quite frightening to watch a once great country devolve into this ridiculous state.
Only 28% of the people in America even possess a basic back round in science.
That is the only reason the creationism has been confused with science.
The concepts of evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive. One is science, and one is religious philosophy.
Prayer is the only way to change the apple into an orange. Science can’t do that.
July 5th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Science explains how.
Religion, which ever you happen to choose or not choose, explains why.
If a simple mind can’t grasp this they have no right instructing anyone anything.
This woman has a strong case. Let it go forward and see what the courts decide.
As far as her replacement “being just as pro evolution”
doesn’t mean the discrimination and unlawful termination she suffered matters less. And we know how it works. Her replacement having seen then consequence of being overtly vocal on being “pro evolution” will know not to rock the boat.
July 6th, 2008 at 9:00 am
“Is this an air-tight argument or a real stretch?”
It certainly is not air-tight. It is a real stretch, but not a bad one. Depends upon whether the presiding judge buys into it, and whether it survives appeal if Comer proves victorious.
“The ”neutrality” policy is in fact an endorsement of creationism - and religion….”
It is even more narrow and therefore worse than this. It is an endorsement of creation of a single religious movement: The Judeo-Christian-Moslem religion’s Genesis.
July 6th, 2008 at 10:22 am
“there would only be an “argument” between people who are about 1000 years behind us in science and education (as, for example, the Catholic Church…”
Hate to burst your bubble, William, but your religious bias is showing (or anti-religious bias, in this case).
Regardless of whatever problem you (and I) may have with its theology or bureacracy, the Catholic Church is one of the good guys in this debate. It is fully supportive of the Fact of evolution and the Theory of Natural Selection, and this has been the case for a long time. It is also the host of some of the greatest universities in the world, which themselves sponsor of some of the most important science currently being done. I myself went to Catholic Schools in the 60’s and 70’s, in several areas of the US, and in 12 years it was never once suggested that there is any controversy about the overall scientific consensus.
It would help the side of those of us who fight for scientific accuracy if our fellow advocates took as much care with historic and political accuracy. Just because the Selective Literalists freely indulge their religious prejudices while arguing a point of civics doesn’t mean it’s acceptable.
July 6th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
The same Catholic Church that allowed rapists access to victims? The Church that ran to South American secret police with confessions? The same Church that helped the Nazis Final Solution?
Kimmy, you better get a lawyer. You have no business reading a personnel file.
For those not from the government side of things, the file was written so that the religio-wackies could fire her. 80 days out of about 200 is miniscule for a state official with her tasks. Removing professional discretion from an official at her level is done to make it easier to punish her…god, how the religious love to punish…especially when you have little recourse…torture much? The paper trail will allege that the person is incompetent. Unless you have multitudes of citizens, professional organizations, and other positives to add, you will be fired..with prejudice.
Kimmy, believing in Creationism is pretty much branding you as barely educable. Take a hint from the many scientists that understand science and still worship their god(s).
July 7th, 2008 at 6:12 am
I’m not a closet creationist.
Personnel files of people paid by taxpayer money are public information. I do think they now make exceptions for teachers, per a recent AG decision. I requested Comer’s file to determine whether her claims were valid, ie was there a pattern of discrimination due to Comer speaking out on evolution? Was she fired because of her belief in evolution?
I don’t fear putting creationism on the table and discussing it. I don’t fear putting evolution on the table and criticizing it. Neither diminish science.
I’m not sure how many of you criticize religious zealots and then write, “Believe it. Don’t question it,” with a straight face. You are the same.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:37 am
Sorry… I should add something else… It’s stupid on my part to be lured into a conversation on creationism v evolution. That wasn’t the point of my original post. My post was about the merits of Comer’s case.
Looking at the personnel and talking to a variety of people, it would appear Comer was not fired over her belief in creationism or evolution. (Sorry, conspiracy theorists…. ) She was fired due to a variety of circumstances and situations during her agency tenure that had nothing to do with anyone’s religious agenda.
I do think it is an important, and relevant, discussion to talk about whether staff at any agency should be neutral on controversial issues. That might be an interesting discussion, although I suspect the answer would be the same whether you were at the GLO or the AG or TEA. You keep your mouth shut.
On this point, I certainly have some sympathetic pangs for Comer. It is tough to be told to keep your mouth shut at any job.
So can a case about an employee’s termination turn into a case about creationism? Especially if that case is poorly documented? Is there even a written policy at the agency on neutrality?
I’d be more interested in hearing a response from an employment lawyer than from the scientists in the crowd. It would be more relevant to my original intent and this original post.
July 9th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
For all of you trying to educate Kimmy - I suggest that you not bother - evolution will demonstrate it’s truth when the big-rock comes and we as a species are completely unprepared. Today some of us are discovering that that human beings just aren’t smart enough to survive. No point in being unpleasant about it! The planet itself seems plenty hardy and can surely try again with another form of intelligent life. If indeed our time even counts as an attempt.
July 10th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Terrier,
What I always find fascinating about scientists is that they seem to think — because they work in science — that their logic on all issues is infallible. As if, somehow dipped in the sweet spring of biology or chemisty or physics, they can’t possibly be wrong on non-science topics, too. They are superior to all of us. Bow down and worship.
Science may stand, yes, but the logic of scientists has led to such great accomplishments as the explosion of the Challenger and Columbia; the failure of the Hubble telescope; and a slew of public health assumptions throughout recent decades that have subsequently been proven false with additional research.
Far be it for me to question such tremendous accomplishments, which I assume can be mastered in even better ways by simply never questioning key scientific principles.
Nor do these scientists appear especially expert in either building critical thinking skills among school children or in employee rights under state law. And that’s okay. That’s why the rest of us exist, to explore those issues from all sides in a non-judgmental way and simply sun ourselves in the light of the extreme intelligence of these scientific minds, thrilled we can be in the presence of such stellar and superior intellect that reigns before us.
Roll of the eyes. Many of us are just as bright, capable, logical and educated as the best scientist in town. Hard to believe, I know.
July 11th, 2008 at 9:41 am
It is clear to me as this lawsuit is nothing more than a stunt designed to drag an ‘issue’ into the courts as the legislative session approaches. Great timing right? Nothing fishy there….
Help me understand this…. Ms. Comer used state resources and tax dollars in an inappropriate way, was called on the carpet about it and the SHE QUIT/RESIGNED. Not sure where she thinks the inappropriate termination occured….
Some of us are not fooled, regardless of where we are on the politics of the issue…
July 11th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Kimmy, science is just an earnest attempt to be right or wrong about facts. The facts themselves don’t care. There are not several forms of logic! The big-rock will smash you or your descendants the same as mine so by all means continue to argue about how many angels can dance on a pinhead. It doesn’t matter to me. I gave up believing our species was capable of survival a long time ago. Look at the facts. We kill each other in droves for no good reason and we are so caught up in ego-constructions that we regularly place them ahead of the well-being of even the least among us while at the same time we reward hatred and aggression. You keep answering posts because of your aggression and need to be validated. Say what you want - believe what you want. When you wrote “their logic” you convinced me you had not mastered the basics of thinking (but don’t think I care – I don’t need validation from you and won’t respond further.)
July 11th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Kemmi, after reading your self proclaimed “non judgmental” assessment of science it is hard to determine which is greater — your hatred of scientists or your ignorance of science. If you are, as you assert “bright, capable, logical and educated as the best scientist in town” you might take a moment to consider that others might know more than you concerning some subjects.
This is the fundamental problem with the whole IDcreationism movement; it is not about science as long as it only uses ridicule and vilification of science to make its case.
IM3R
August 13th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
[…] Texas Education Agency and Commissioner Robert Scott have answered the federal lawsuit filed against them by former science curriculum director Chris Comer. (Comer was forced out in […]
December 1st, 2008 at 4:45 am
[…] - bookmarked by 3 members originally found by botany5000 on 2008-10-25 Here Comes Another Monkey Trial… http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/index.php/2008/07/02/here-comes-another-monkey-trial/ - […]