The Other Movement
by BradfordA New York Times editorial entitled Evolution and Texas is a practical illustration of a teflon movement that avoids labels indicating existing political and financial motives. The ousting of Christine Comer sparked the editorial response. Comer's departure is not applauded but neither is the spin attached to the incident. From the linked article:
Is Texas about to become the next state to undermine the teaching of evolution? That is the scary implication of the abrupt ousting of Christine Comer, the state's top expert on science education. Her transgression: forwarding an e-mail message about a talk by a distinguished professor who debunks "intelligent design" and creationism as legitimate alternatives to evolution in the science curriculum.
The first sentence initiates the spin. Cromer's firing is cited as undermining the teaching of evolution. How is the teaching of evolution compromised by Comer's departure? The answer. It is not.
The distinguished professor referred to is Barbara Forrest. Barbara Forrest has gained fame and income as a result of her high profile opposition to intelligent design.
The legitimate alternative to evolution phrase is a scare strategy that is at the core of the anti-ID movement. There is no threat to the inclusion of evolution within science curriculums. But it is a useful hobgoblin. More from the article:
It was especially disturbing that the agency accused Ms. Comer Âby forwarding the e-mail message  of taking a position on "a subject on which the agency must remain neutral." Surely the agency should not remain neutral on the central struggle between science and religion in the public schools. It should take a stand in favor of evolution as a central theory in modern biology. Texas's own education standards require the teaching of evolution.
The agency should remain neutral on the issue of intellligent design. Why? Because it lies outside what should be the real focus of science educators namely, furthering the education of students in Texas. There is no point to devoting time and resources to a struggle against intelligent design. Taxpayers are not funding that. Educational curriculums are not threatened. Anti-IDism should be done on one's own time and not at the expense of the government.
There is no struggle between science and religion in public schools. But it is a useful propaganda ploy to pretend such a struggle exists. Indeed Texas does require the teaching of evolution. That curriculum is not threatened; hysteria notwithstanding.
December 4th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Bradford, I am feeling some confusion here about the role of ID and evolution in education in Texas. You say "There is no threat to the inclusion of evolution within science curriculums." Is there a threat to include ID within science curriculums? You kind of imply not.
And yet, here we have someone forced to resign for not being neutral on this issue. Surely if the Texas education agency is neutral on ID and evolution then it will promote them equally. To do otherwise would hardly be neutral. Here we have a well-established scientific theory, supported by the vast majority of biologists, and then we have ID, which could perhaps be called a framework, rather than a hypothesis even (okay, Mike has a hypthesis, but realistically are they talking about front–loading of DI ID?), with (as yet, perhaps) scant support from the scientific community. Any education agency should be just as neutral on this as it is on astronomy versus astrology - i.e., not at all.
There seems a real threat here that an agengy that claims to be neutral will include ID in the curriculum or will drop evolution. Either way, there is your undermining of evolution.
Comment by The Pixie — December 4, 2007 @ 10:37 am
December 4th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Where is the evidence of an intent to include ID in the curriculum? Where is the evidence of an intent to drop evolution? You are proving my point about a hysterical overreaction.
Comment by Bradford — December 4, 2007 @ 10:44 am
December 4th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Bradford,
If you were to plot this event on a continuum, where one end is "threat to include ID" and the othe "no threat", do you believe it would rest squarely between the two extremes, or do you maybe, just maybe, think it might be somewhere on the side pointing to threat.
We can argue how close it is to the threat end, but to argue that it doesn't point in that direction is a bit obtuse, don't you think?
Sure, it's not an imminent threat, like say mushroon clouds from Saddam, bit it's clearly leaning in that direction.
Comment by trittico — December 4, 2007 @ 12:24 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
My understanding is that the Texas agency has a new policy to be "neutral" on the subject of origins; from the Times article:
To be neutral, the TEA has to support ID as much or as little as it supports modern evolutionary theory (MET). That would seem to mean that if it supports teaching MET, then it must also support teaching ID. Or it opposes the teaching of both. I said that before; I am not sure how to make it any clearer.
Maybe I am missing something here. I live in the UK, but I get the impression that this is the organisation that determines how science is taught to a huge number of children. If that orgaisation has a stated aim of being neutral on MET versus ID, well that is undermining science education when science and scientists so clearly stand on the MET side. I believe the organisation determines what textbooks are used. If the TEA is to remain neutral, will they buy or recommend as many pro-ID books as pro-evolution books? Do they decide the curriculum? If they are neutral, surely they will require equal time for MET and ID.
If the chair of the organisation forces the resignation of someone for publising a talk that puts forward the mainstream science side of the story, well that undermines science education. I am sorry, but I am having difficulty imagining how you can claim otherwise.
Comment by The Pixie — December 4, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Your conception of neutrality is skewed. Switzerland has been historically neutral. It did not support both Nazi Germany and the UK equally. It ignored the conflict. That was what Ms. Comer was supposed to do. Ignore the conflict while on government time. Texas does support the teaching of evolution. ID is not taught. If there is a perceived bias against neutrality it is against, not favoring ID. That much is fine. Campaigning for issues on government time is not OK.
Comment by Bradford — December 4, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Hi The Pixie,
you wrote:
School boards are often keenly sensitive to litigious issues. In this respect, Texas has made it clear that they wish to not give the appearance of institutionally supporting the most litigious factions in the controversy (in this case the NCSE).
In short, your assertion that Comer was forced out because she was "publicising a talk" only tells the superficial story. Follow the money…
Comment by chunkdz — December 4, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Why do people persist in thinking that ID is a position that denies evolution? I understand this posture when duplicity or scare headlines are the reasons. But people who are honestly trying to grasp what ID is??? Stop listing to the critics! Stop listening to ID's special interest groups! THINK!!!
ID, when all of the special interests are factored out of it, simply represents a viewpoint that life is NOT the result of a fortituitous accident. A design assumption lies at the heart of ID. This assumption is the antipode of what is currently presented in the biology books. The biology textbooks would have us believe that, in among our organs and cells, as in the organs and cells of other creatures, there are purposeless, and, therefore, meaningless dead ends. This permits thinking such as If I don't know what it is for, then it is for nothing. to creep into science, because such a view is perfectly logical when an assumption of luck stands as the prime mover for the source of life.
ID simply takes the position that everything in the organs and cells was designed and has a purpose. Evolution is not at issue.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 4, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
AnaxagorasRules:
The duplicity and scare tactics are evidence of the movement. There is a widespread effort to falsely depict ID. ID critics share common goals and tactics as well. It is evidence of the not discussed, but very real, other movement.
Comment by Bradford — December 4, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Bradford
It is the task of the education agency to promote good education; that means good science education; that means mainstream science; and that means modern evolutionary theory. I am objecting to an education agency that at best is shirking its responsibility and and at worst is abusing its position to promote ID at the expense of mainstream science.
chunkdz
What a sorry situation if education is dictated by who can sue the most! I really hope you are wrong.
I suspect the underlying reason is that the chair of the TEA is an IDist or creationist, and Comer is an evolutionist. What do you mean by "Follow the money"
AnaxagorasRules
1. Because it is so strongly (if not entirely accurately) linked to creationism
2. Because some of the most trumpeted ID arguments are actually (or at least come across as) anti-evolution arguments (EF, CSI, IC come to mind)
3. They do not, but use "evolution" as a sort hand to indicate the modern theory of evolution (as I admit I sometimes do)
Right, so we all agree that ID is a positon that denies the modern theory of evolution.
Hey yeah! So lets replace that with If I don't know what it is for, then surely has some purpose. That is much better science, right?
Comment by The Pixie — December 4, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Hi, Pixie,
No. This is how it would work:
If I don't know what it is for, then let's find out what it is for.
The assumption that "it" has a purpose is an antecedant premise which does not need to be mentioned specifically. But it could be:
If I don't know what it is for, then let's find out what it is for, because it has a purpose.
Such an assumption is at least as valid as the assignation of purposelessness when functions cannot be gleaned, which is a conclusion that the "fortuitous accident" premise allows. And yes, to assume that the various components of cells have a purpose [edit: an assumption which the design premise forces] is better science, in my opinion.
I won't argue with your other items. I believe that ID needs to prune off some of its leaves, and that it needs to do so quite vocally. I have no idea who can do this. But that does not mean that I will adopt a counter view that seems intuitively idiotic (and no, I'm not talking about evolution).
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 4, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
This is a phoney charge Pixie and further evidence of the tactics of the movement. You are a faithful foot soldier. Educational government agencies are not charged with the responsibility to advertise Barbara Forrest's paid speech appearances. They shirk their responsibility by playing war games with IDists instead of doing their work. You are simply lying by claiming that the relevant agency was promoting ID. I've already challenged you to produce evidence and you come up with nothing but empty claims. Texas already teaches evolution and your continual whining on that score is pointless.
Comment by Bradford — December 4, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
I really don't get this at all. She was fired for forwarding an email about a talk? There had better be more to this story that just that. For crying out loud, if I were the most rabid IDist on the planet I'd be extremely interested in receiving an email about a Barbara Forrest talk"”I'd surely want to attend. If I became aware of a Barbara Forrest talk, or a William Dembski talk, or a Mike Gene talk, or a PZ Myers talk in my vicinity, I'd certainly pass it along and post it on my blog.
It doesn't even read as if she is taking a position on Forrest's talk. When forwarding, did she add editorial comments? Hey, let's watch Babs kick some fundy butt!! LOL!! If not, how can merely forwarding information be construed as taking a position? Madness.
And it is not a resources issue. If people were routinely dismissed because of emails that, while not offensive, are not strictly job related, they'd be nobody left to turn out the lights.
Based on the information available, this seems totally ludicrous. I hope she is reinstated.
Methinks that ID Incorporated would be beatifying Comer if she had been dismissed, just as nonsensically, for forwarding an email announcing a Jonathan Wells talk.
Comment by David Heddle — December 4, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
I don't disagree David. I would not have fired her or anyone else for an e-mail. However, anti-IDists are attempting to make something more out of this than is evidenced by the known facts. The inclusion of evolution in currriculums is not compromised by Comer's departure.
Comment by Bradford — December 4, 2007 @ 6:10 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Agreeing with Bradford, with the caveat that, as always, I never completely trust journalism and would like more facts to go on. The only context I can see so far is "fired for forwarding an email". The article itself is light on details.
That said, I'm not taken with the Times' illustration of things. I question whether Barbara Forrest's concerns with ID are limited to 'the science curriculum', I think the ID topic is far more complicated than 'ID versus evolution', and find their attitude that ID as a topic is not one that the state can remain neutral about to be strange at best. Maybe more details will come out, though.
Comment by nullasalus — December 4, 2007 @ 6:49 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
AnaxagorasRules
Going back to your earlier post:
Thinking about what you said a little more, I think you have this wrong. Biologists already approach biology in this way; they assume the cells, the components of the cells, the organs, etc. have a function. See for example this web site: Cells Structures and Functions. Quite the reverse to your claim, biologists assume there is function, and then go and fnd it. The whole deal about "junk DNA" is how surprising it was to find something with aparently no function. And still biologists are looking for function in it!
Bradford
Educational government agencies are charged with promoting good education. I feel, and it sounds as though Comer does to, that part of that remit is taking a stand against ID. So I would say that forwarding an e-mail about Barbara Forrest's paid speech appearances falls under that remit. Howwver, I can appreciate why you would not!
All I can do is say how it appears to me. We have a new chair who, according to the article, is sympathetic to ID. We have an employee sympathetic to evolution. The employee is forced to resign over a pretty inconsequential issue. I may be jumping to conclusions, I accept (kind of like you jumping to the conclusion that I am lying, because I am on the opposite side of the debate).
I am not too sure what counts as "continual" whining on a blog, but I guess you need your hyperbole.
Texas currently teaches evolution. There is a new chair in the TEA, apparently sympathetic to ID, who has already sacked one evolutionist for forwarding a pro-evolution e-mil, and has introduced a new policy to be neutral on this issue, when before the policy was pro-evolution. Which of these are empty claims?
Comment by The Pixie — December 4, 2007 @ 7:02 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Providing students with a good education has nothing to do with Barbara Forrest's speech. The e-mail itself is inconsequential but fighting ID on company time is out of line.
A policy opposed to on the job activism is a wise one. Comer et. al. are free to do whatever they wish after leaving work.
Comment by Bradford — December 4, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Bradford:
How do you know it's "on company time"
And even if it were on company time, it's simply outrageous that someone should get fired over forwarding an email announcing a talk. Talk about moral bankruptcy. Do you feel this is more justified than denying tenure to GG?
Comment by Raevmo — December 4, 2007 @ 7:53 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Hi The Pixie,
You wrote:
What planet have you been on for the last century?
Absolutely. Just look at him. Typical IDiot creationist haircut.
You couldn't be more right. Just
look at that scowling bloated evilutionist face.
Oh never mind.
Comment by chunkdz — December 4, 2007 @ 7:54 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
It is inferred. But the exchange with Pixie makes it evident Pixie advocates activism as an employee obligation. I do not favor the firing.
Comment by Bradford — December 4, 2007 @ 8:08 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Bradford, you're really not helping your case by claiming there is no threat. The TEA is headed up by openly admitted creationists who in the coming year will be undertaking a major review of the state's science standards. The fact that they found a ridiculous premise to fire one of the few pro-mainstream science advocates still around isn't dangerous? That the head is saying things like that textbooks should start including arguments against evolution (i.e. what most scientists see as the exact same creationist arguments that we've heard for decades).
You may not think any of that is a bad thing to have happen, but it's just flatly silly to say its not a threat to those of us who think that ID has little scientific merit, and creationists should not be determining what's taught in biology classes.
"Why do people persist in thinking that ID is a position that denies evolution?"
Because the vast majority of people calling themselves ID proponents spend most of their time cheering on virtually anything that's anti-evolution, or scoffing over every bit of new evidence that more solidly establishes common descent, despite the fact that many ID proponents say that they think common descent is sound?
Come on.
"ID, when all of the special interests are factored out of it, simply represents a viewpoint that life is NOT the result of a fortituitous accident. A design assumption lies at the heart of ID. This assumption is the antipode of what is currently presented in the biology books."
You mean biology books written by people who believe that God created everything like Ken Miller, one of the most outspoken opponents of ID?
Things like that make your narrative very troubled. If what you are saying is true, people like Ken Miller should have no problem at all with ID, since it supposedly merely says what they already believe.
Furthermore, I'm not sure how you can factor the "special interests" out of ID. The general philosophical ID might fit your picture of things, but virtually every ID organization and major proponent of ID around today in the ID movement fits into what I would call the "special interests" side of things.
Comment by Bad — December 4, 2007 @ 8:13 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Bad:
Excuse me? If Texas is looking for textbooks that mention the shortcomings of NDS for explaining new empirical observations incoming over the past couple of decades, there are some out there. My grandson has had two of them in the last two years (Bio-I and II, Jr. and Sr. level) here in NC. Last year's was a consortium effort put together by NGS, had some nice material on the accompanying website. This year's offering is All Evolution All the Time, but does introduce some of the recent non-NDS hypotheses when it gets to those shortcomings.
If other states can find textbooks that introduce evolution but don't lie about the insufficiencies of current theory to explain evidence (and don't contain past textbooks' emphasis on anti-theistic arguments), Texas can too. If TEA is to evaluate the pretty good new textbook offerings, they don't need someone gumming up the works who believes NDS is sacrosanct - and lobbies for that ridiculous position on the public dime.
I wouldn't have fired her. I'd have revoked her access to the wider web and public email via her work computer.
Comment by Joy — December 4, 2007 @ 9:28 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Hi, Pixie,
No doubt it is ironic that scientists presume function in their work and yet deny design as a core premise. This implicit presumption is even more of a paradigm now, largely for reasons like the Junk DNA debacle.
Junk DNA
That little fiasco never would have occurred with a design premise.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 4, 2007 @ 9:57 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
I am an ID'er and given the one email that I have seen, I would support a lobby to get Cromer her job back. I can see no problem with it. However, more is claimed to have been going on…
In documents obtained Wednesday through the Texas Public Information Act, agency officials said they recommended firing Comer for repeated acts of misconduct and insubordination.
Unfortunately, I am unable to make a determination as to what is fair in this case.
Wrt Darwinism, it is a theory of selective filtration. ID is a theory of origination. Because microevolutionary "filtration" and macroevolutionary "origination" are different functions, conflict between the two theories is impossible… Except on this particular planet where war is valued and gladiators are glorified.
Comment by William Brookfield — December 4, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Some critical reading skills are called for. You state I'm not helping my case by claiming there is no threat but what is my case? The central theme of the blog entry is what? I cited an editorial as evidence of an often repeated tactic used by anti-IDists. That being spinning a story to create scary hobgoblins which will alllegedly materialize due to a cited incident. The scary hobgoblins are the removal of evolution from school curriculums and a replacement with ID material whatever that is. The departure of Ms. Comer is a call to arms to defend the teaching of evolution? You can do better than that.
I suspect chunkdz might be right in stating:
but even if not I need to see something more substantial than might happen, could have beens and admitted creationists weighing in with their views.
Comment by Bradford — December 4, 2007 @ 10:07 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
The Darwinist true believers who are wailing about the TEA's conspiratorial "anti-science" agenda, and that poor victim that the TEA's "creationist" meanies "fired," might just do a little homework.
In the first place, Comer was NOT fired.
In the second, Comer was _asked_ to - and did - resign[ed] because she had, according to TEA officials, committed "repeated acts of misconduct and insubordination."
Thirdly, the email that Comer forwarded on company time was an NCSE announcement "selling" a Forrest lecture: "Inside Creationism's Trojan Horse" / Barbara Forrest, that addressed the "ties between ID and earlier generations of creationism," "focused on her work in the Dover trial and her book _Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design_."
Now, do, please, explain what relevance Forrest's polemical propaganda has to primary / secondary public-schoolchildren's "science" education?
It isn't Bradford's case that desperately needs "help."
Comment by turandot — December 4, 2007 @ 10:09 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
William Brookfield wrote:
I agree with Heddle that the story, as depicted in the editorial, makes little sense. Either there was a gross overreaction or there is more to the story. It could be a straw that broke the back situation or something else but hysterical fears are not justified by the evidence so far available.
Comment by Bradford — December 4, 2007 @ 10:21 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
turandot wrote:
Thanks turandot. It's good to witness data substituting for fear rather than the reverse.
Comment by Bradford — December 4, 2007 @ 10:26 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Joy wrote:
Good point Joy. Merely containing an exposition of evolution is not a complete standard by which to assess a textbook. The inclusion of superfluous side arguments cuts both ways. If the inclusion of references to a creator are deemed inappropriate then why would endorsements of philosophical materialism be any less so?
Comment by Bradford — December 4, 2007 @ 10:35 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Bradford:
Welcome.
I do hope that the Darwinists who have been so awfully busy indignantly defending Comer and the institution of "science" from the barbarians at the gate will explain, first, what on earth Forrest's "philosophizing" has to do with science education, and second, why Darwinism is so critical to science education. After all, as Jerry Coyne honestly pointed out last year:
"In the end, the true value of evolutionary biology is not practical but explanatory. It answers, in the most exquisitely simple and parsimonious way, the age-old question: "How did we get here?" It gives us our family history writ large, connecting us with every other species, living or extinct, on Earth. It shows how everything from frogs to fleas got here via a few easily grasped biological processes. And that, after all, is quite an accomplishment."
I'll add that until it's _known_ - certainly - exactly what Comer's "repeated acts of misconduct and insubordination" constitute besides vague references to "a series of unauthorized presentations at professional meetings and other reported transgressions," Darwinist fundamentalists would do well to spare us their indignant, accusatory outrage….
Comment by turandot — December 4, 2007 @ 10:48 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
turandot wrote:
Yes indeed. The outrage is just awaiting an excuse to bubble forth. I'm willing to go where future new incoming data leads us on this story. If previous indiscretions by Comer are substantial and spelled out I'll withdraw my benefit of the doubt.
Comment by Bradford — December 4, 2007 @ 10:55 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Bradford:
Actually, grandson's textbook [NGS] last year did cite theistic beliefs as "what some people believe" about the origin of life and evolution. It also made some intriguing references to 'directed evolution' via a sort of endogenous adaptive mutagenesis, explaining that current theory's reliance on random mutations doesn't account for the many different mechanisms of genomic change currently known and under study. Just basic "this is where current theory falls short, these are ideas out there, nobody knows yet, lots of biologists are working on it." Nothing to write home about - a little like the situation in physics over the past few decades. Only a physics student doesn't get that until college.
The past 'standard' textbooks were seriously edited some years ago to get rid of the superfluous and prejudicial anti-theistic arguments. That is also a result of the public's disgust with the way evolution has been taught - yes, some parents DO check out their kids' textbooks. So now Haekel's drawings are usually left out, the Bishop Ussher nonsense is gone, and lengthy discussions of genetics and genomics are becoming common. These are where NDS insufficiencies are most evident, and where other hypotheses are most welcome. Heck, this year's textbook has a whole chapter on the systems approach, and that approach is echoed in the latter chapters that suggest modern evolutionary theory is in the process of morphing into something quite non-NDS.
But that's basically a college-level textbook, it's not the one used to teach all the students how to pass the state test. Still, I see it as a hopeful trend.
Comment by Joy — December 4, 2007 @ 11:08 pm
December 5th, 2007 at 6:21 am
There is a copy of the memorandum that recommends the termination of Comer's employment at TEA here (though I had problems getting it to load properly):
http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/stat...
Bradford
Well I guess we must agree to disagree. A talk that helps prevent creationism getting into science education is good for science education in my opinion.
Here is an interesting quote from the above memorandum: "the email clearly indicates that the group opposes teaching creationism in public education. Sending this e-mail not only demonstrates a serious lack of good judgement, it also violates the directive Ms Comer was given not to communicate in writing or otherwise with anyone outside te agency in any way that might compromise the integrity of the TEKS development and revision process." I think it is shocking that an education agency does not oppose teach creationism in public education. I thought you even had laws about that in the US. Again, we will have to agree to disagree on that.
turandot
A quick search for the word "fired" on this thread reveals that some IDists also used that word. Why are you not insisting that those on your side of the culture war do their homework too?
Let us all be quite clear: This was a forced resignation.
Kind of like those IDists, "awfully busy indignantly defending" Gonzalez from the Darwinist conspiracy? You really like your hyperbole, turandot.
Forrest is making an effort to keep creationism out of science education. Creationism in science education is a bad thing, so keeping it out of science education is a good thing.
That is easy. As Jerry Coyne honestly pointed out last year: "In the end, the true value of evolutionary biology is not practical but explanatory. It answers, in the most exquisitely simple and parsimonious way, the age-old question: "How did we get here?" It gives us our family history writ large, connecting us with every other species, living or extinct, on Earth. It shows how everything from frogs to fleas got here via a few easily grasped biological processes. And that, after all, is quite an accomplishment."
Sure. And I am confident you will agree with me that until it's _known_ - certainly - exactly why Gonzalez was denied tenureID fundamentalists would do well to spare us their indignant, accusatory outrage"¦.
Comment by The Pixie — December 5, 2007 @ 6:21 am
December 5th, 2007 at 7:37 am
Some more information:
Austin American Statesman article about the forced resignation:
http://www.statesman.com/news/...
See also more details here (warning: anti-ID site):
http://www.texscience.org/revi...
A newspaper article about the appointment of Don McLeroy as chair of SBOE:
http://www.dallasnews.com/shar...
What Wiki says of Dr. Don McLeroy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
Finally, this (anti-ID) blog has a copy of that email:
http://austringer.net/wp/index...
Next summer the TEA will be looking at science education. Can anyone here say they feel confident that the position of modern evolutionary theory in that science education is not threatened? Anyone want to go on record as saying that Texas will not change the curriculum to play down evolution, and/or to magnify the perceived flaws?
Comment by The Pixie — December 5, 2007 @ 7:37 am
December 5th, 2007 at 8:27 am
Yes, let's. Comer was given the option of tendering her resignation or being terminated - because she had made a series of unauthorized presentations at professional meetings and committed other serial acts of misconduct and insubordination, for which she has no-one to blame but herself.
Tu quoque!
Aside from the fact that ISU's decision to deny Gonzalez tenure and the TEA's decision to demand Comer's resignation are not analogous by any stretch of the imagination, it seems to me that your criticism reflects a double standard. Darwinists are quite willing to instigate discrimination against those they suspect are "enemies" and then if those "enemies" complain, retort "Get a backbone!," but when one of their own is targeted, legitimately or not, then cries of "Unfair!" are heard 'round the world….
The TEA is a taxpayer-funded state institution, not a political action organization that takes its marching orders from self-appointed busybody ideologues.
Darwinism does _not_ answer "how did we get here?" or how "everything from frogs to fleas got here via a few easily grasped biological processes." That's the point.
Since when is teaching Darwin's theory of evolution, warts and all, "playing down evolution / magnify[ing] the perceived flaws?" It's not as if honest evolutionary biologists don't themselves admit that the theory's got its "flaws," and it's not as if promissory notes are falsifiable….
Comment by turandot — December 5, 2007 @ 8:27 am
December 5th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Bradford,
Its fine that you don't want to connect the dots of pro-ID governor who appoints a creationist to head the SBOE who finds a reason to fire TEA's science curriculum director just before Texas' science standards come up for review; we don't need you to do that for us. Maybe McLeroy really isn't planning to introduce creationist anti-evolutionary arguments into Texas science classrooms; we'll see soon enough. If you want to put your money where your mouth is though, I'd be happy to take that bet and give you odds that we'll see a major effort to insert "critical analysis" of evolution or whatever it is the DI is pushing right now into the Texas science curriculum. Remember your version of ID may not be at odds with evolution; but for a creationist like McLeroy, its all about getting kids to doubt common descent, especially in regards to humans.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 5, 2007 @ 11:52 am
December 5th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
David:
Agreed. If all she did was forward an email, then her getting canned for it is completely unjust, and any IDer who defends it undermines their defense of Gonzalez, Sternberg, etc.
Comment by Deuce — December 5, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
December 5th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Aagcobb wrote:
That's the whole point. We will see what unfolds but have not yet arrived there. Where have you been? Did you start reading The Design Matrix? If not get going on your homework assignment. It could become a reference source for IDists and an educational resource for the rest of humanity.
Comment by Bradford — December 5, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
December 5th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Hi Bradford,
I got to the point where I found the whole ID debate tedious, since its not really going anywhere except around in circles. Texas could get very interesting, though.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 5, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
December 5th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
turandot
There seem to be some similarities to me, but perhaps that is just me. Both people feeling they have been dealt harsh blows to their careers because of their standing in the evolution vs ID debate. Both have people on their side of the debate saying it was not fair, and people on the opposite side saying get a backbone. Take a step back, you might be surprised.
I would like to believe that. we will have to see what (else) McLeroy does.
You quoted it; I assumed you agreed with.
Comment by The Pixie — December 5, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
December 5th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
The Coyne quote I posted makes two points. The first is that "evolutionary biology is not practical but explanatory." The second is that evolutionary biology "answers, in the most exquisitely simple and parsimonious way, the age-old question: How did we get here? It gives us our family history writ large, connecting us with every other species, living or extinct, on Earth. It shows how everything from frogs to fleas got here via a few easily grasped biological processes."
Evolutionary biology is _practically_ useless and does not answer the age-old question, ""how did we get here?" Darwinism is, by its author's description, "a whole metaphysics" that postulates [in a nutshell] that life unfolds on its own in conformity to the laws of nature. That postulation is only as persuasive as the _assumption_ it's predicated on - and that postulation ignores two questions , the answers to which are central to how we got here: the origin of the physical laws that cause[d] and govern[ed] the unfolding of life / living organisms and the origin of life itself.
The creation vs evolution war is philosophical and the casualty is American public school education. I don't care whether American children have the vaguest conception of "evolution." I do care, awfully much, that American children are literate, able to think critically, and mathematically competent.
"Creationists" have made an ENORMOUS contribution to science. Two modern examples: Dr. Damadian's MRI technology and Dr. Sanford's bioengineering and gene-gun technology. What has "evolutionary biology" ever contributed to the march of science or "the relief of man's estate?" Zilch.
The Darwinist fundamentalist crusaders' sky-is-falling hysteria, incessant meddling and litigiousness is fueled by socio-political activism, not bettering science education. Indoctrination is antithetical to education….
So, _why_ must American public-school children be spoonfed Darwinian orthodoxy?
Comment by turandot — December 5, 2007 @ 8:18 pm
December 5th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Those are awfully superficial similarities, it seems to me.
There hasn't been so much as a whisper that Gonzalez was insubordinate or engaged in misconduct. On the other hand, there is quite a body of evidence that Gonzalez is a very bright, high-achieving scientist and a good teacher and that ISU's tenure denial was discriminatory. Zoiks, even the Iowa ACLU is quite suspicious.
ISU will not neither forthrightly discuss the reasons Gonzalez was denied tenure nor publish even a page of the pertinent paper trail. The TEA, on the other hand, has published the document[s] relevant to Comer's "forced resignation" and explained why Comer was asked to resign. Any private-sector employee who pulled just one of the stunts Comer did would've been canned faster than you can blink. State employees are all but immune to dismissal - unless and until they've well and truly screwed the pooch by even the most "progressive" judge's standards.
Comment by turandot — December 5, 2007 @ 8:39 pm
December 6th, 2007 at 7:23 am
turandot
Well, okay. I do not think anyone is claiming you can use evolutionary biology to build a bridge, or a computer or even create a new species, so certainly it is not practical in the sense that we cannot harness it technologically.
And it is grerat that we both recognise the explanatory power of evolutionary biology.
And I agree there too. So what was the problem?
But the quote says otherwise. The quote says it does answer that question. I am confused. How can you honestly quote Coyne (telling us that he was honest) saying the evolution answers the question to support your claim that evolution does not answer the question?
This seems to be some bizarre use of quote-mining I have not come across before where the carefully selected quote clearkly disagrees with your claim, and you just pretend otherwise. I admire your nerve.
The first question is a problem for all science. Shall we abandon relativity because it ignores the question of where the laws of nature come from? I think not. I think it is enough that we have good evidence (but not proof of course) that those laws exist; where they came from would be nice to know, but not required for us to accept relativity as a good, well-supported model.
The second question is analogous to the first. Again, I think it is enough that we have good evidence that organisms exist; where life originally came from would be nice to know, but not required for us to accept modern evolution theory as a good, well-supported model of how they evolved.
Very true, and sadly it threatens UK education too.
Of course not. You are on the creation/ID side, which flourishes in ignorance.
This is bordering n the dishonest, but I suspect you lack the objectivity to see it.
An honest comparison would be between the contribution to modern science by "creationists" compared to the contribution by "evolutionists". The vast majority of scientists accept evolution, so I feel safe claiming that "evolutionists" have contributed rather more in the last 100 years than "creationists".
Or you could compare what "creation biology" has ever contributed to the march of science compared to "evolutionary biology". Again, I feel safe claiming the latter has given us rather more than the latter.
Can you see how comparing the contribution of "creationists" to the "evolutionary biology" does not make sense?
Exactly the same reason they must be spoon fed the periodic table "orthodoxy". It is basic mainstream science. I know that is tough on people who would find evolution contradicts their religious beliefs, but that is just the way it is.
A fair few people are claiming Gonzalez failed to get tenure because of his ID activities. It would seem Comer was forced to resign because of her anti-ID activities. Gonzalez seems to have a good career record otherwise. So does Comer. Even the anti-ID ACLU is - you say - perhaps on Gonzalez side. Even some IDists on this thread are on Comer's side. Of course the two cases are not exactly equivalent, but the similarities are there if you care to look.
Comment by The Pixie — December 6, 2007 @ 7:23 am
December 6th, 2007 at 7:59 am
turandot:
The Pixie:
Pixie, I believe you missed the point which is the assumption that underlying forces of nature are sufficient to explain a causal pathway to life, in the absence of an additional telic or guided intelligence component, is on weak empirical grounds. The usual response by your side has been to argue that the absence of empirical support for causal pathways to life is a function of contemporary ignorance. But that in itself is a claim that places its advocates squarely in the faith camp.
But an answer is required of one who states in the same comment: "You are on the creation/ID side, which flourishes in ignorance." If you acknowledge that a very basic question, relevant to the cause of life itself, is unknown then you are hardly in a position to impute ignorance to your opponents. At the very least some humility from you is in order or a plausible explanation answering the basic question. When neither is forthcoming then neither is a refutation of intelligent design which does not artificially restrict itself to what occurred after a cell came into existence.
Comment by Bradford — December 6, 2007 @ 7:59 am
December 6th, 2007 at 8:59 am
There is a transcript of a talk from 2003 by McLeroy here:
http://www.tfn.org/publiceduca...
There is audio available too, though I have not listened to it.
I guess that wold make Mike Gene a Darwinist!
Sounds to me like the most important evidence for McLeroy is scripture. It does not matter what we see in the fossil record, or in the DNA, it is what the Bible says that is all important. Such a position is antithetical to science.
This guy is a million miles from Mike Gene's ID; why does Telic Thoughts want to support his efforts to trash science education?
Science is based on methodological naturalism (at least he says naturalism and not materialism), i.e., the belief that science can only study what science can study. If creationists want to study things science is incapable of studying, they are free to do just that. Just do not expect any scientific results…
How does McLeroy handle scientists who are also Christians, theistic evolutionists:
So evolution is wrong because it is based on philosophical naturalism, and if you are a Christian who accepts evolution, you are just wrong anyway.
Many evolutionists have pointed out that the usual ID arguments are the same ones the creationists have been using for decades.
Here is the most damning part, with respect to this thread.
This guy is chair of an education agency. Does anyone here want to go on record stating that McLeroy will not be doing the same in his new position? Bradford, are you still claiming evolution is not under threat?
Comment by The Pixie — December 6, 2007 @ 8:59 am
December 6th, 2007 at 9:14 am
Barbaba Forrest's take can be read here (where I got the above link from):
http://www.ncseweb.org/resourc...
Bradford
I am not sure I get you. Are you talking about abiogenesis? "causal pathways to life" sounds like you are. Evolution assumes that life started; it makes no claims about how it started, or what those causal pathways might be. The simple answer is that we do not know how it happened, though some people have proposed possible solutions (at least to various parts of the problem). Is that a "faith" claim? I do not think so.
I support a side that promotes knowledge, education and understanding. I would dearly love for all concerned to understand what the theory of evolution really means. I would dearly love to know how life began. Sadly, neither are possible. I not understand why our ignorance of the origins of life invalids anything I have said.
I have no idea what humility has to do with the discussion. You think my argument is weak because I come across as arrogant (sorry if I do)? An argument stands or falls on its logic, not its presentation, Bradford.
Ah, there is that ignorance I would love to banish. Evolution is a process that occurs in living things. Natural selection is about organisms competing. Random mutation is about changes in the genetics from one generation to the next. Therefore, you need at least two things capable of reproducing. Therefore evolution cannot occur until living things have appeared. There is nothing artifical about the restriction (compared to the ID restriction not to consider the designer).
Comment by The Pixie — December 6, 2007 @ 9:14 am
December 6th, 2007 at 9:19 am
The Pixie:
In support of your position you used this quote:
Getting the Bible out of a discussion of empirical data is advisable is it not Pixie?
Keeping the discussion focused on scientific evidence and philosophical assumptions- that's sensible too.
The relevant question is what is meant by the word weakness? If weakness is linked to poor supporting empirical data then it is not a problem If it is linked to strong supporting data then McLeroy will have a problem. Recently Albert de Roos posted a guest blog entry about endosymbiosis. He has criticized the notion in the past but that does not mean he either has no basis for his criticism or that he debunks all mainstream theories. He clearly does not. I don't react to possibilities. There are enough real problems. If McLeroy acts inappropriately he will be criticized here and elsewhere.
Comment by Bradford — December 6, 2007 @ 9:19 am
December 6th, 2007 at 9:29 am
When neither is forthcoming then neither is a refutation of intelligent design which does not artificially restrict itself to what occured after a cell came into existence
Irrelevant to my point about the origin of life.
Obviously.
There is something artificial about an argument that criticizes a notion that encompasses both abiogenesis and evolution but acknowledges that it has no plausible explanation for the former so let's talk about the latter. I'm willing to endorse anything for which data is supportive. That includes much about the properties of nucleic acids and ID inferences drawn from that. Consider a designer? Not a problem.
Comment by Bradford — December 6, 2007 @ 9:29 am
December 6th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Bradford, getting back to your post topic that the firing of Ms. Cromer doesn't threaten the teaching of evolution in Texas, the statement made by the agency at the time of her firing directly refutes your point. The agency's spokesperson stated,
TEA directly linked the email, which publicized an out-spoken ID critic, to the upcoming standards revision process. The statement makes it clear that employees cannot make statements in favor of the current science standards as opposed to McLeroy's preference for teaching creationist anti-evolutionary arguments. That wouldn't be a problem unless TEA was contemplating inserting anti-evolutionary arguments into the science curriculum.
p.s. If you really believe McLeroy isn't planning to add the "weaknesses" of evolutionary theory to Texas science standards, my offer to put a bet on it still stands.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 6, 2007 @ 10:30 am
December 6th, 2007 at 10:41 am
I'm quite happy to state on the record that "'evolution'" is not "under threat" - because the Chair of the Texas State Board of Education, an _elected_ representative since 11-98 [and re-elected in 2002 and 2006], advocates that "dissenting opinions get a fair hearing." Furthermore, I am aware that Texas public school curricula decision-making is the most democratic in America. The Texas State Board of Education _proposes_, and the state legislature _disposes_. Texas public school texts are chosen by school districts, not the TSBE / TEA.
McLeroy's point, which you've ignored, is that the assertion many Darwinian evolutionists make, that "evolution" refutes the "God hypothesis," is a lie. And I think most people, whatever their metaphysical beliefs, would agree that philosophical naturalism [physicalism] and Christianity are antithetic.
Comment by turandot — December 6, 2007 @ 10:41 am
December 6th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Aagcobb:
If you have an example of an employee making statements favoring creationist positions and not getting disciplined then you would have supporting evidence. I'd feel more comfortable if current science standards were linked to current research results published in respected journals rather than paid speeches delivered by advocate Barbara Forrest.
One of the reasons I mentioned Roos, endosymbiosis and OOL was to illustrate that critiques can be both legitimate and consistent with the general themes of standard theories.
I believe that if McLeroy takes on widely supported ideas he will lose out in the end but based on my experience when the fears of critics do not pan out we are not treated to apologies for jumping the gun.
Comment by Bradford — December 6, 2007 @ 10:55 am
December 6th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Pixie:
I think this is not a good example of what you wish to communicate, Pixie. First, we don't really know WHAT the "laws of nature" are, so where they come from is irrelevant to the faith that there ARE "laws of nature." If life springs from not-life by natural law, we would see life springing into existence all around us all the time. We never observe this (Pasteur scientifically demonstrated this nearly 150 years ago). Thus the claim that life springs from not-life by natural law is scientifically vacuous. Natural law appears (by ALL our observations) to forbid life springing from not-life spontaneously. Asserting otherwise is an unsupported avowal of faith.
Per your example - for all its successes, relativity has been known for several decades to be incomplete (or just plain wrong). It still serves for explaining what it does explain until something better comes along. The model is applied FAPP where it serves well enough descriptively. FAPP, in physics. It has no descriptive or explanatory power in biology.
Evolutionary theory - NDS at the current time - has not been taught as merely FAPP useful even though it is known to be incomplete (or just plain wrong). It has been taught as 'fact' and 'truth' and is held sacrosanct and above all criticism by its worshippers. We see these qualities asserted regularly in these debates by DarwinDefendersTM.
Your fear is that Texas school children may join other states in using textbooks that treat current NDS merely FAPP useful until something better comes along. The real threat to NDS worshippers is coming from within biology. They are desperate to prevent the public from being told that it is now known to be incomplete (or just plain wrong). As if keeping the public ignorant could somehow save it from the forward march of science itself.
Comment by Joy — December 6, 2007 @ 11:19 am
December 6th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Why the silly red herring? Do I need to list the many practical non-evolutionary microbiological / biochemical / physiological, etc., etc., hypotheses that _have_ contributed to the march of science and "the relief of man's estate?"
What does explanatory power have to do with the truth? Alchemy has explanatory power….
Quote-mining? Why the cheap shot?
First, you note that we agree that "evolution" has explanatory power, then you accuse me of pretending that the quote agrees with my claim….
I don't dispute that "evolution" _explains_ the questions. I dispute the truth of the explanation.
Physicists don't use the theory of relativity to lend the air of authority to their metaphysical claims. The theory of relativity makes testable predictions. And so forth.
Then how do you explain that your responses to me are either cheap shots or logical fallacies?
You're on a roll.
Which is exactly the comparison I was making. After all, it is evolutionary biologists that practice evolutionary biology, isn't it?
If you feel so safe claiming that "'evolutionists' have contributed rather more in the last 100 years than 'creationists,' then why didn't you cite, oh, two of those contributions?
The periodic table is a lovely example of fruitful _experimental_ science. The chemical elements aren't abstractions., not historical, science.
It would seem that Comer was asked, not forced, to resign because she committed serial acts of misconduct and insubordination.
Back to "flourishing in ignorance."
Comment by turandot — December 6, 2007 @ 11:35 am
December 6th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Joy,
Excellent points. Here is probably the very best plan we have right now to create life from non-life. There is nothing even remotely spontaneous about it.
Comment by Anton — December 6, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
December 6th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Bradford
It is also vital if you want to sneak creationism into schools under the Trojan horse of ID (or the new Trojan horse; teach the controversy). He said "we are all Biblical literalists, we all believe the Bible to be inerrant" If the empirical evidence disagrees with scripture, which do you think he will go with? I kind of think it will be the Bible, but I would be interested to see how you spin it.
Roos is arguing about a small part of evolutionary theory. If he is right, evolutionary theory will change. Afterall, endosymbiosis was not in Darwin's theory originally, so it is hardly the end of the theory if it gets excluded again. This is just part of the detail.
There are plenty of issues in evolution, but the broad theory is well established. Common descent, selection and variation are not about to be rejected now. Even if Mike Gene is right about front-loading, modern evolutionary theory will survive just fine, albeit in a new version. Common descent, selection and variation will still be there.
I would like to believe that, but…
turandot
There is that "dissenting opinions get a fair hearing." Do you advocate the same for astrology and homeopathy as you do for ID/creationism? Let us give dissenting opinions in physics a fair hearing, and teach astrology. Or do you only want "dissenting opinions get a fair hearing" when it is your opinion that dissents? Let us be honest, we all know the answer there.
I agree. The existence of theistic evolutionists shows it to be untrue. But I really do not think that is McLeroy's point.