Texas official resigns, cites creationism conflict – USATODAY.com
The state’s director of science curriculum said she resigned this month under pressure from officials who felt she gave the appearance of criticizing the instruction of intelligent design.
The Texas Education Agency put Chris Comer on 30 days paid administrative leave in late October, resulting in what she described as a forced resignation.
The move came shortly after Comer forwarded an e-mail announcing a presentation being given by the author of Inside Creationism’s Trojan Horse. In the book, author Barbara Forrest says creationist politics are behind the movement to get intelligent design theory taught in public schools. Comer sent the e-mail to several individuals and a few online communities.
It was just a matter of time before Texas took the reins of creationism to foist it on the students. And you might want to look for the term “Scientific Creation” as code words.
we can only teach creationism if we also teach the creation myths of every religion.
you creationists okay with that?
IF I have a kid she/he’s going to an artsy charter school; Kudos to #26
@29 – “the only problem creationists have with the theory of evolution is doesn’t fit with the Book of Genesis”
No, the primary problem is that it doesn’t fit with the fossil record.
#33-“No, the primary problem is that it doesn’t fit with the fossil record.”
How so? I would love to see your back up for this claim that current knowledge of Evolution does not fit with the fossil record. As far as I know, the fossil record supports the theory of evolution.
For example, the Tiktaalik roseae is a transitional fossil from fish to amphibian. The amazing part about this fossil is that the paleontologists knew where in the earth’s strata and time period it should be and went to Canada where rocks from that time period still exist and found it. Now it seems to me that the scientific method was used to predict a result and the result was found. If that result was not found then the theory would have been changed to predict a new result and then tested for that result, ad infinitum. So again what part of the fossil record does not fit?
Check out http://www.expelledthemovie.com/blog/ if you want to see Creationists making fools (or bigger fools) of themselves.
20 THC. “Thereby you prove beyond any doubt that you have no idea of what science is.”
Meaning you do, or do not, believe scientific research conclusions can be manipulated by “political motivation” and “propaganda”?
Or is “science” simply whatever you, personally, want to be true?
RBG
As a qualified scientist, I possess the unremarkable ability of any person meeting that description to discern the difference between credible, peer-reviewed science and ideologically-motivated propaganda.
#15,
“That’s pretty simple to explain actually; Christians LIVE to force down their beliefs onto others…”
Agreed. Furthermore, replace ‘Christians’ with ‘Liberals’ and you still have an accurate statement.
>>Agreed. Furthermore, replace ‘Christians’
>>with ‘Liberals’ and you still have an
>>accurate statement.
Incorrectemundo, pie del conejito. No liberals that I know EVER force their beliefs onto others. Anyone who tries to force his or her beliefs onto other is an evangelizing, proselytizing flake. As it turns out, most of them are Republicans, holy rollers, Bible thumpers, neocons, and fanbois of the Chimperor in Chief. Liberals are, by definition, liberal (not enforcers of the radical left), and adopt a laissez-faire approach to other people’s beliefs as long as they do not affect the liberals’ ability to live their own lives as they wish.
THAT is what is offensive to the self-proclaimed “Christians” who seek to control not only their own lives, but everyone else’s as well.
#38 – Dr. Rabbitfoot
““That’s pretty simple to explain actually; Christians LIVE to force down their beliefs onto others…”
Agreed. Furthermore, replace ‘Christians’ with ‘Liberals’ and you still have an accurate statement.”
Well, if you replace ‘Christians’ with ‘Politically-Correct liberal extremists‘, then you’re 100% correct.
Ideologues are ideoligues, not matter what flavor the particulars that they espouse; they simply know that they’re right.
It’s not, and it never has been, about liberal versus conservative or Christian versus atheist – it’s about people emotionally bound to dogma and ideology who cling to magical thinking and resist anything which threatens their denial of reality, versus rational people.
AND – what I wanna know is, why does that cartoon feature Ewan McGregor-as-young-Obi-Wan?
37 THC. “Ideologically-motivated propaganda” being the peer-reviewed (ie: by people meeting the description of scientist) science you can choose to define as not credible… say, like drug abuse studies. How precious that you alone knows what science is. My grandmother can do that too.
RBG
@23
I am all for teaching the truth in science.
So offer up some proof for your creation model or perhaps a test of some sort.
Oh thats right you cant.
Evolution has been tested and making accurate predictions for over 130 years. The amount of evidence that vindicates evolution is overwhelming.
Creationism and ID has nothing but god of the gaps notions which get shot down left and right.
And are intellectually dishonest because they keep using old ones that have already been defeated.
How what is it we call someone who is keeping the faith in a belief despite a overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary? “Delusional”
So keep your untestable delusion to yourself
Teach creation in mythology class or something.
And its not about teaching both sides.
If it was then why not teach evolution in church
No, RBG, despite your transparent attempt to put words in my mouth, my assertion was, and remains, that scientists, know what science is. Laymen such as yourself think you know what constitutes good science. The poll statistics enumeratinging the idiotic, unscientific and superstitous beliefs of large portions of the American populace prove this.
To take that point a wee bit farther: knowing what science is, which is to say, understanding the scientific method, is the essential prerequisite for actually being a scientist. Once you grasp the ‘how’ and the ‘why’ of the scientific method, and put it to use – then, in a sense, you are a scientist! Contrariwise, if you can not – or will not – utilize the scientific method in the process of inquiry, then no matter what else you may do or be, you are absolutely NOT a scientist.
Sussing out ideologically motivated propaganda is not that difficult. When encountering a research controversy that features opposed and (roughly) evenly divided camps of adherents and champions, the side, if one exists, which has a possible ideoogical motive is naturally to come under greater suspicion than the side with no axe to grind. And when one side is powerfully outnumbered, AND has a dog in the fight, the probability of that side being motivated by other than pure, disinterested science skyrockets.
If you had any sort of learning in how to judge whether things are likely or unlikely, to what degree, and most importantly, why – none of this would have to be explained to you. Of course, you would have to let go of many of the ideological misconceptions you cling to for intellectual stability, but that’s the price you have to pay, giving up what you fervently wish were true in exchange for knowledge of what is actually true.
Word to ya grandmotha.
Even in repeatable double-blind experiments. Amazing.
Funny no one mentioned any of your theories in the Science degree I received from one of the largest universities.
Your home-made, self-serving explanation of how science works is as goofy as any creationist theory. “(roughly) evenly divided camps…possible ideological motive…” Sheesh.
RBG
Try as I might to dumb it down to a level which would render certain abstract concepts comprehensible to a layman not versed in the jargon of certain disciplines, even I have my limits. Either you can’t grasp my point or you won’t. So, instead, let’s continue to your scathingly brilliant refutation of my poorly expressed and ill-conceived hypotheses, right?
“Even in repeatable double-blind experiments. Amazing.”
Gawrsh! Is that all it takes to do down a scientific consensus supported by truckloads of original, replicated, confirmed research, spanning many years, led by the acknowledged authorities in the field? A paper or two by some nobodies at the University of BFE, working outside of their field, made possible, as they say on public television, by a grant from some obscure front for some shady partisan (i.e., Republican) group with an axe to grind? That what you talkin’ ’bout, Willis?
Thanks, RBG. I needed a laugh. But let’s move on, shall we?
“Funny no one mentioned any of your theories in the Science degree I received from one of the largest universities.”
Ooh. You received a ‘Science degree’, did you? Oooooh. From ‘one of the largest universities’, no less! OOOOoooooh!
WELL, then. I certainly can’t doubt THAT, even in light of your doctrinaire adherence to familiar, distinctly un- and non-scientific morsels of right-wing propaganda. The consensus of scientific authorities is wrong, and the positions of the Republican Party are correct, and you have a curiously unspecified degree from some equally vague and nebulous institution of higher learning to prove it! Color me impressed!
It wouldn’t by any odd chance be that this alleged ‘degree’ and the similarly dubious institution which conferred it upon your learned self are not more clearly identified in order that you might avoid claiming specifics that you would instantly called out on and proven a fraud thereby, would it?
I’m sorry, I forgot you have issues in parsing freshman-level English. What I mean is, are you sure you didn’t avoid claiming a, let’s say, MS in Microbiology from Berkeley, or maybe a PhD in Communications Theory from MIT, since if you did, someone who actually HAS such a degree, and/or attended the school specified, would call your bluff?
It’s OK. No need to answer. 😉
…and BTW, I wasn’t offering an ‘explanation of how science works’ but rather, a very much oversimplified rendition of the steps involved in estimating the likely veracity of some of what is offered as ‘science’, based on the differing motives, political vs. scientific, greed vs. the search for truth, of the parties putting forth said ‘science’. Went over your head like the proverbial F-16 over a rice paddy, it would appear.
I’m starting to be “torn” just a bit. The libertarian in me wants to let people be as stupid as they wish. Let them be stupid for as long as they wish, and when they pull their head up from the muck, let them choose again.
Legalized Drugs, prostitution, creationism, spanking kiddies, Fast Food, —- whatever the issue is as long as it is not forced on the opposing camp.
Love to see two schools in every location. One for science, one for not science and let the masses decide which school to go to. Probably too expensive.==OK==science curriculum vs religious curriculum. Seems I went thru something like that with the X courses (X for accelerated, or college bound).
Yes, then one group could live on the surface of the planet and the other could go underground.
How many versions of “being free” can any one society actually accommodate?
46 THC. “Try as I might to dumb it down to a level which would render certain abstract concepts comprehensible to a layman not versed in the jargon of certain disciplines”
…And I’m the pretentious one here? Uh-huh.
How quickly and easily we can run down your lofty definition of your “qualified scientist” in #37.
Science from nobodies is fine especially when a double-blind experiment can be repeated and verified by any other scientist. Garrett Lisi is an apt example. But as some kind of “scientist,” you would know that.
Re degree: At least I’ve stated something you only have the courage to insinuate with your BS, or is it Piled higher and Deeper? If you want to call my bluff, you better have lots on the table.
Yes, I believe you were trying to explain about something that is not science but more akin to your personal hocus pocus.
Next time try better to promulgate your esoteric cogitations and articulate your superficial sentimentalities. Oh look at me, I’m an erudite scientist too.
RBG
Forgive me if my lack of illiteracy is an embarassment to you, but if I make a concession to you and limit myself to words of two syllables or less, then I’d have to do the same for everyone.
BTW, don’t look now, but your traditional American blue-collar, right-wing anti-intellectual resentment is showing…
49 THC. You know, I think I’m beginning to understand what you mean by “ideologically-motivated propaganda.”
And how could you function without “Deux Ex Machina,” “zeitgeist,” “realpolitik,” and “hegemonic” in your sentences?
Now, as a soi-disant “intellectual,” go waffle about Rachmaninov in your ascot and Guia La Bruna and have a sip of something that tastes like Alexis de Tocqueville with a soupçon of Benson & Hedges.
BTW, today’s word is “pleonasm.”
RBG
1. “You know, I think I’m beginning to understand what you mean by “ideologically-motivated propaganda.””
Good. It’s about time.
2. “And how could you function without “Deux Ex Machina,” “zeitgeist,” “realpolitik,” and “hegemonic” in your sentences?”
You forgot “memes,” and offhand references to Derrida and Deepak Chopra.
3. “Now, as a soi-disant “intellectual,” go waffle about Rachmaninov in your ascot and Guia La Bruna and have a sip of something that tastes like Alexis de Tocqueville with a soupçon of Benson & Hedges.”
I wouldn’t listen to Rachmaninov with your ears. And no waffles, for me, thanks. I prefer Eggs Benedict and Mimosas.
Is that before or after you ask someone to pull your finger?
I’m a possum & corn squeezins guy myself.
See ya ’round.
RBG
Girls… you are both pretty 🙂
That is so 80’s retro. Following several defeats of “creation science” in the courts, the new code words are :
academic freedom (as in the “academic freedom” to teach creationism in science class),
Teach the Controversy (as if there was a real controversy in science over evolution, as opposed to a political/religious controversy manufactured by, guess who, creationists)
and
“Teach evidence both For and Against evolution (as if the “evidence against” wasn’t the same old pseudoscientific creationist canards that have been refuted again (and again) (and again) for years.
Look for these code words in school board pronouncements, textbooks, etc.