Texas Science Director Forced To Resign Over ID Statements

jeffporcaro writes "Texas' Director of Science Curriculum was 'forced to step down' for favoring evolution over intelligent design (ID). She apparently circulated an e-mail that was critical of ID — although state regulations require her not to have any opinion 'on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral.' 'The agency documents say that officials recommended firing Ms. Comer for repeated acts of misconduct and insubordination. The officials said forwarding the e-mail message conflicted with her job responsibilities and violated a directive that she not communicate with anyone outside the agency regarding a pending science curriculum review.'"

Comments

how, exactly

[PhrostyMcByte]

does one perform a scientific review of religion? either believe or not, there is no science. that's why they call it faith.

Re:how, exactly

[rm999]

While I agree with you 100%, be prepared for anti-evolutionists who talk about micro-evolution vs macro-evolution. They rightfully argue that there is a big difference; micro-evolution is a population changing (e.g. a bacteria becoming resistant to a drug), whereas macro evolution is a species branching off from another.

A simple understanding of Darwinism makes it clear that the latter definition of evolution is critical to Darwin's theories. You can't simply point to changes in a specific population from the greater species - you need to show evidence that that population has become a distinct species "evolves" separately.

Re:how, exactly

[jonatha]

For an example of macro-evolution in action, wiki ring species.

Re:how, exactly

[Aardpig]

Tiktaalik -- a fish that was predicted to exist as an intermediate form. And then found, exactly where it was predicted.

Re:how, exactly

[Adambomb]

Tse Tse flies.

Their generations are so short you can WATCH them change in response to stimuli.

Re:how, exactly

[scotch]

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

- A Einstein

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

- A Einstein

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954, The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press)

- A Einstein

But it doesn't really matter, many great scientists were and are religious, many are not. Newton was one of histories biggest geniuses, but he was by today's standards almost fanatically religious. And he had no access to the mountains of biological and geological evidence for the theory of evolution.

Re:how, exactly

[jstomel]

Speaking as a geneticist, evolution as it applies to modern genetics is characterized by the change in allele frequency in a population over time. It can be observed and tested rather easily by creating a population (usually of flys or mice or some other model system) with a particular allele frequency for a gene. Evolutionary theory makes predictions as to how that populations will change over time given certain environmental conditions (ie a particular fitness and heritability attached to different gene states, with these terms being used in their rigid genetic sense rather than their more common use definitions). This very simple setup has been tested in the lab numerous times. More complicated setups (describing organisims with more complicated mating structures) have also been tested, but are too complicated to describe here. Further, models developed through these lab tests can be taken into the wild and used to predict the change a particular gene locus in natural populations (though it is more difficult, less controlled setting and more variables).

Re:how, exactly

[tgibbs]

Without arguing against Darwinism, I'm pointing out that predictions from Creationist models often overlap with those from Darwinist models. This is one of those cases. Similarity in genetic structure does point to similar or shared origins, which is posited by both evolutionists (shared ancestors) and creationists (same maker / designer).

Modern ID/creationism does not make predictions, because a prediction arises from the limitations of a theory. Natural selection is unable to create an organism with a different genetic code from other higher organisms. It is unable to create a gene that is completely different from genes in other similar species. A designer could choose to use similar genetic codes, or similar genes--but it can also do the opposite. For example, you might find two computers, quite similar in function, yet with completely different cpu's running completely different machine codes. Natural selection is unable to do this.

Darwin was never aware of Mendels' discoveries regarding genetics. When Darwin saw variations in gene expression, he assumed they were caused by random genetic mutations which occurred in each individual. Mandel's work disproved that, showing that differences in genetic structure are caused by mix'n'matching existing genetic data from the parents, with very low granularity (whole chromosomes ata a time).

You should probably read some actual Darwin; it sounds as if you are getting your "information" from ID/creationist tracts. Since Darwin did not know about genes--he studied phenotypic variation, not gene expression. So he most certainly did not make any "assumption" about random genetic mutations--in fact, you will not even find the word "random" in Origin of Species. Darwin did propose that there had to be some mechanism for generating diversity, and also some form of granularity to keep the diversity from simply being "diluted out" as would happen if the basis for phenotypic traits was not preserved in some discrete form--because his theory would not work without these features. So the discovery of DNA, genes, and genetic mutation, which fit perfectly the requirements of Darwin's theory, even though Darwin did not know about them when formulating the theory, is one of the most dramatic confirmations of a theory's predictions in the history of science.

Re:how, exactly

[uglyduckling]

God is infinite, which means by definition that he includes everything...

That's a nonsense definition of infinity. Consider this: there are an infinity of numbers from 1 to 2 (1.1, 1.01, 1.001 ... 1.11, 1.101 ... etc). There are an infinity of numbers between 2 and 4 but that second infinity includes none of the numbers in the former infinity. Both series are infinite, both have a definite beginning and a definite end, but both are entirely separate.

Also interesting to note, intuitively the infinity between 2 and 4 ought to be twice the size (whatever "size" means when we are dealing with infinity) of the infinity between 1 and 2. In fact, they are entirely the same size. This can be proven by noting that every number between 2 and 4 can be obtain by multiplying each number between 1 and 2 by 2.

I understand what you are trying to say, but it's important to realise that argument involving concepts like "infinity" are not simple. God may be "infinite" (whatever that means - infinite what??) but that doesn't by neccesity mean God includes everything (that's pantheism).

Re:Intolerance

[BinaryOpty]

A major difference in scenarios is that if a science director was parading ID around (a most unscientific theory) people would expect them to be fired based on the fact they are in a job they are not qualified for. Firing someone for doing their job and supporting what is theory by science over what is purely faith based is why people are up in arms about this.

If you wanted to rail on slashdot posters about this story you could have nit picked and pointed out she was fired for not following policy and that said firing is not really about her favoring evolution over ID, at least at the outermost level.

The email in question:

[Tatarize]

To: Glenn Branch
From: Glenn Branch
Subject: Barbara Forrest in Austin 11/2
Cc:
Bcc: [redacted]

        Dear Austin-area friends of NCSE,

I thought that you might like to know that Barbara Forrest will be speaking on "Inside Creationism's Trojan Horse" in Austin on November 2, 2007. Her talk, sponsored by the Center for Inquiry Austin, begins at 7:00 p.m. in the Monarch Event Center, Suite 3100, 6406 North IH-35 in Austin. The cost is $6; free to friends of the Center.

In her talk, Forrest will provide a detailed report on her expert testimony in the Kitzmiller v. Dover School Board trial as well as an overview of the history of the "intelligent design" movement. Forrest is a Professor of Philosophy in the Department of History and Political Science at Southeastern Louisiana University; she is also a member of NCSE's board of directors.

For further details, visit: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/austin/events/barbara_forrest_inside_creationisms_trojan_horse_lecture/

Sincerely,

Glenn Branch
Deputy Director
National Center for Science Education, Inc.
420 40th Street, Suite 2
Oakland, CA 94609-2509