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

Science curriculum

[A beautiful mind]

Since ID is not science, it is not an issue she should have remained neutral on, because it has nothing to do with the board.

Re:Science curriculum

[dabadab]

Since ID is not a science but poses as one, it has a lot to do with the board and it was absolutely right that she did not remain neutral.

Re:Science curriculum

[Aglassis]

The fundamental problem is that IDers and creationists are trying to argue their points a priori while evolutionists are trying to argue a posteriori. The IDers and creationists assume their hypothesis is true (that God created the universe as dictated by the Scriptures) and then carry that to its logical conclusion (usually). The evolutionists respond with an inductive argument by saying that scientific evidence indicates that there is a very high probability that the theory of evolution is correct.

In effect, they are both talking past each others heads. The only way to attack the IDers and creationists is to question their central axiom. Of course, that is unquestionable. They in return can hammer at the scientific evidence and pick at gaps and make misinterpretations as long as they want. As far as a creationist is concerned they are solving a math problem when they already have the answer book--the method that they use to get to the conclusion isn't really that important.

But, say that you do fill in all the gaps and correct their misinterpretations--will you convince them?

Of course not. They will then turn to David Hume's classic argument that there is no reason whatsoever that anybody should trust the results of inductive reasoning (i.e. they will say that evolution can never really be proved).

At this time, both parties will leave exasperated that the other doesn't understand their argument.

Beginning of End

[louzer]

I think this is another huge signpost that even in our modern era, ultra-powerful empires fall prey to their own delusional spin and slowly disintegrate into a drooling heap of superstition. This is the dying of the US as a superpower..

Re:how, exactly

[gilesjuk]

I think it goes like this "Oh, I can't explain how life began. I think God must have done it".

Biggest cop-out excuse ever.

Evolution is proven as far as I'm concerned, we see how micro-organisms become resistant to anti-biotics. This can't be god stepping in and changing them just so someone's ageing relative dies.

If god is in control of everything then why is it the most religious countries get hit with major earthquakes, flooding and tsunamis?

Re:how, exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for proving the OPs point: ID supporters don't understand what science is, and they don't understand why ID isn't one.

Cliff notes: you can't have a "science" that studies "the design" without first positing that there is a designer. That's where ID becomes a religion, and non-scientific. This should not be a complex subject for anyone who was awake during High School science.

Re:What the!?!?!?!

[NMerriam]

Why exactly does it require less faith...to believe that the basic rules by which all biological creatures live have not changed?

It doesn't require any faith at all, nobody asks for faith that biology or the rules it follows is constant. That's why we run actual experiments and take actual measurements, to see if they are constant or not. For several thousand years biology has proven remarkably consistent, but if you were to come up with evidence tomorrow that showed biology was different at some point in the past, you'd win the Nobel Prize. No faith required.

Re:What the!?!?!?!

[mha]

Wrong. Established and proven science does NOT change. Newton's laws remained correct long after proven "wrong". The model you use to describe something depends on WHAT you want to show. Newton is sufficient for "every day physics", there's no need to use cannons (theory of relativity, quantum theory) when calculating movements e.g. of an airplane on earth.

Same with everything else incl. evolution. Evolution HAS been proven. Sure, it IS possible (and likely) that other ideas are found in areas where theory of evolution is weak right now, but that won't invalidate already existing experiments and data!

So yes, you always find something new, but if you successfully used a theory to predict something and it reliably works all the time those experiments continue to work even after new stuff is found. It's just that new theories may be better at explaining MORE, but once proven to work - and that means that predictions made using the theory reliably turn out right each time, whoever does the experiment - continue to do so. Even though Newton is "wrong" he's still right, it only depends on if you want to try to explain more stuff with it than originally intended, which is when it fails and relativity and quantum theories may be better suited. When the airplane was invented the arguments of the nay-sayers who said it's impossible were NOT proven wrong. They simply found another way AROUND the issues they had raised. That doesn't invalidate the physics of the scepticts, it merely extends it!

summary wrong, as usual

[1u3hr]

She apparently circulated an e-mail that was critical of ID

Not according to TFA.

The move came shortly after she forwarded an e-mail message announcing a presentation by Barbara Forrest, an author of Creationisms Trojan Horse. The book argues that creationist politics are behind the movement to get intelligent design theory taught in public schools. Ms. Comer sent the message to several people and a few online communities.

Now one might certainly deduce that she wasn't enamoured with ID, but she did not "apparently" criticise ID. She announced a talk by someone who probably does, though. Which is not the same thing as stating it was her opinion.

How anyone can argue with a straight face that ID is anything but "Creationism in a new suit" is beyond me. Every single ID proponent was, and I'm sure still is, a Creationist. Their literature has been shown to be creationist tracts with a search-and-replace applied.

Please explain

[Cannelloni]

Can somebody please explain what the heck is going on? I do NOT mean to offend any Americans, far from it (and if I offend someone, I offer my sincere apologies), but something lite this could only happen in the US, or some other country where religious fundamentalism is prevalent . It would be nice if the human species could mature enough to finally cast away superstition and belief and embrace empirical proof and verifiable knowledge. We are not little children. We are grown-ups who have functional and rational brains. And we are naturally tolerant. At least most of us. "Intelligent Design" is a belief, or a rejection of the legitimacy of logical thought, not a science, and not verifiable in any way. In my opinion it should therefore NOT be sponsored by any government body or public institution or policy.

Re:Please explain

[Smidge204]

The problem is this:

There is a very active, vocal, influential and dedicated group of people who honestly, truly, 100% believe that the word of the Bible and faith in the Christian God will solve ALL of society's problems. In their view, society as a whole is morally corrupt and the only way to fix it is to push their own "superior" morals onto society and "save" them. Nothing is sacred in their pursuit of their agendas.

These people are called Neo-Conservatives.

Anything that gets in their way must be discredited, marginalized or outright destroyed. Science poses the single greatest threat to their core agenda (enforcing Christianity) because it erodes the ignorance required to maintain such strong convictions. Evolution is a direct threat to what makes God so influential - it explains life itself, something only God is "qualified" to deal with. Other hot-button issues include drugs, sex education and abortion... all of these have perfectly sensible, empirical solutions that the "Moral Right" refuse to entertain purely on principle. (And anyone who says otherwise gets labeled a "Liberal" - the Neocon's personal swear-word)

This is not to say it's some big huge conspiracy. Some, even most, of the ID proponents are otherwise good people who just believe in ID more out of ignorance than deliberately attempting to squash science. They are stuck in a "us verses them" mentality, so they side with the people who align more closely to their own beliefs rather than find a middle ground. However, it's no accident that there's a lot of politics behind what should otherwise be a purely science vs. superstition issue.

To be perfectly blunt, Neo-conservatism is the all American version of Islamic fascism. The only real difference is Neocons use immense political and economic influence to push their agenda while the Islamic fascists use direct violence. Neocons have also been a lot more successful at it.
=Smidge=

Form a hypothesis ...

[taniwha]

test it, if it succeeds publish, peer review the results, repeat the experiments, if it fails maybe form another hypothesis

There's a scientific method - you can apply it to religion - if it doesn't work you get to call religion 'bunk'

ID may be a hypothesis - it's allowed to be that - but the people who put it up need to come up with some experiments to prove their hypothesis if they want respect of other scientists and if they want their hypothesis to be taught as 'science' - otherwise it's just an idea that hasn't been proven

The problem of course is that approaching religion like this upsets a lot of religious people - largely I think because this sort of approach has tended to upset apple carts over the centuries - doesn't mean you should stop doing it though

Re:Intolerance

[Cyberllama]

Intolerance?

Any person not believing in the basic scientific principles which are the underpinnings of evolution is simply NOT QUALIFIED to hold any position which is in charge of establishing the curriculum to teach said principles.

In your example, the person in question most certainly should be fired as they are not qualified to hold the position -- just as you would fire a salesman for disparaging the product he's been hired to sell. If you believe science is a bunch of hooey, you shouldn't be in charge of how children are taught science. That's just common sense.

In the REAL situation, however,someone is being fired who is perfectly fired -- even suited -- to the job in question.

In short, your comparison is stupid.

Re:how, exactly

[Animaether]

"If god is in control of everything then why is it the most religious countries get hit with major earthquakes, flooding and tsunamis?"

Easy.. to test their faith.. see if they're truly worthy. Those that aren't religious are going to hell anyway.

That's the fun thing about most religions - you can easily explain everything away as a whim of a/the god(s). Something good happens? Praise God. Something bad happens? Maybe not praise God, but at least accept that it was 'His' will and he moves in mysterious ways for the greater good and all that.

Assume we take evolution as fact - then after discarding the whole Adam&Eve bit, the religious can easily drop back to "but God -designed- evolution". There's your ID right there.

In the end, even if you can explain every single thing except the "why did the big bang happen?" (assuming the big bang theory is the correct one), then the religious can still say "God made it, and therefore everything, happen".

Re:how, exactly

[BakaHoushi]

Science does not work that way. Science begins with an observation, then the creation of a hypothesis, an experiment, and ends with an affirmation, denial, or refinement of the hypothesis.

Intelligent design begins with an affirmation: The universe is complex, therefore, it must have been designed by a sort of intelligent being. You just can't jump to assumptions like that. That is a debasement of all that science is. Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean it cannot be understood with more research. Just because we can't explain something through modern scientific theories does not mean that later theories cannot explain them. And most of all, just because we do not KNOW the answer to a question does not mean the answer defaults to "God."

We do not know for certain what created the universe. We theorize the Big Bang, but as to what lead to that, we don't know. This does NOT mean "God willed it to happen." It just means we don't know for now.
We can explain many properties of gravity, but we do not know WHAT it is, exactly. This is not a sign that God, excuse me, "The Designer" simply said "let's have mass attract each other at a rate proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them." All it means is... we don't know.

This is why ID is not a science. You cannot, under any circumstances, simply declare something "too complex" to occur naturally (which in and of itself is a bit of a joke. Anything that occurs in nature is, by definition, natural, regardless of means.). The only "evidence" we have that suggests God--pardon me, "designer" (and certainly not a thinly-veiled cover for the Judeo-Christian God), created all life is that we don't know for certain what did.

Intelligent Design by its very fundamental nature is not, cannot, and will not ever be a science. It's a debasement of all that is science. It's the lazy man's way out. "Oh, it's too complex for me to understand. It's much easier to just say God did it." If you want to believe that, fine. But keep that thinking, or lack thereof, out of our science classes and don't you dare expect those who actually KNOW what the Scientific Method is to just sit back and ignore the attempts to get rid of it.

Re:how, exactly

[erroneus]

The naivety of the faithful is truly astounding. God cares about the outcome of YOUR football game. God cares if you get that promotion at work or if your business is a success. And God certainly wants you to get that new car. But God didn't create that baby with birth defects (while God creates all people, the defects are somehow our fault). God doesn't heal amputees (though he does cure cancer and other ailments we don't fully understand).

I find that people pray for or about all of these things truly believing that God will listen. I think they are mixing their mythologies up... they have been praying to Goda Claus!

And while I'm on the subject of double-standard beliefs and understandings, we have established that some people have genetic predispositions for violence or impulse controls. We have established that some drugs can even induce violent behavior as a side effect. Why are we always cutting the heads off of people when we're looking at their health? Are the mind and body really as separate as we want to believe? What roles do genetics and chemical balances play in determining the behavior of individuals? We routinely punish and judge others for their behavior, however. Gays, thieves, molesters, even killers might be victims themselves due to defects or the influence of something affecting their brains. We don't want to change our convenient pre-packaged ideas of "good and evil" any more than we have to, though, because changing our understanding of things is bad.

Ambivalence

[mmcuh]

This is both funny and scary at the same time. If it happened anywhere except in the most powerful nation in the world it would only be funny.

I don't see how anyone who thinks it's a good idea to treat christianity as "science" and make policy based on it could complain about states that make policy from other religions, such as sharia law.

Re:how, exactly

[Temposs]

It's fine to take your assertion as a starting point, but then you need a number of positive falsifiable experiments to test your hypothesis. That is science. What you have now is a philosophical theory. It has not become a scientific hypothesis yet, and this is why it must not be taught in science classes as an equal to evolutionary theory, which does have many falsifiable experiments that have supported it. Even for evolution theory's so-called Achilles' Heel, the fossil records are at least an observational test of organisms of the past, for which people have a reasonable repeatable measure of their age(whether it is ultimately the right measure is not the issue). You cannot create such a falsifiable test for a theory that has an extra-systemic creator as its basis.

All you can do ever with ID theory is try to falsify evolution theory, and then propose ID as the alternative. You can never go further than that. It can never be "science", because you can't repeatably and reliably test a being that exists and acts outside the system of the universe. ID theory is only philosophy. I'm not saying ID is right or wrong. I actually believe in an old Earth ID theory, but that's part of my religious belief. What I'm just saying is that if you have a philosophical theory, then it should be taught in a philosophy class, along with string theory.

Re:But where to draw the line?

[allcar]

It's incredibly easy to draw the line. Their is no place for religion in modern society. Nobody should expect their irrational fantasies to be taken seriously. Dressing up a bunch of myths and calling them religion does not make them valid. To see blind faith as a virtue is insane. Religious faith should be viewed as evidence of an inability to reason.

Re:how, exactly

[ScrewMaster]

Personally, I think the whole thing is a giant, millennia-long intelligence test. God purposely set us up with ZERO evidence of his existence, got some flunkies to write a few Good Books and seed them around the planet, and then waited to see who would take the bait. Anyone that falls for a religion (any religion) is immediately sent to Hell because obviously they are mental defectives who are too stupid to go by the facts. It's the Atheists, the ones who saw through the scam all along, and suffered horribly down the ages at the hands of the True Believers (remember, if you want to go to the Good Place you have to suffer while you're on Earth) who will (to their great and everlasting surprise) be admitted to Heaven. At which point, the Atheists will be believers because, well ... now they'll have some evidence, and they'll be able to believe in God without having to take it on "faith". Yeah, it'll suck that the zealots were right all along, but at least they'll have the satisfaction of having used their brains.

Besides, if were all supposed to be companions to God after we're dead, why the hell would he want to surround himself with stupid people?

But he loves you!

[passthecrackpipe]

Obligatory George Carlin quote:

When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion.
No contest. No contest. Religion.

Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it.

Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man....

an invisible man, living in the sky, who watches everything you do, every minute of every day.

And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do.

And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, and suffering, and burning, and torture, and pain, and burning, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!.........

But He loves you.

He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, but somehow, He just can't handle money!

Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit! ID my ass

Re:how, exactly

[NixLuver]

Probably because the differentiation between "macro-evolution" ("speciation") and "micro-evolution" is an ID foil. *ALL* evolution is microevolution. There's nowhere in evolutionary theory that says a frog must give birth to a mouse for evolution to occur. Micro-evolutionary changes are sufficient to explain speciation over a long enough time frame.

One of the recurring problems in these kinds of discussion is the definition of speciation. If you nail down an ID'er with evidence of speciation, they change the definition ("Oh, well, it's still a bacterium, isn't it?" ) and start talking about an amorphous concept called "kinds". Then you show the feathered dinosaur fossils, and they yell "hoax" (in spite of the fact that there have been many more species of feathered dinos than archeopteryx discovered), and when that doesn't pan out, they say it's not really a transitional species, it's a distinct, god-created animal that is now extinct. This is clearly the avoidance behavior we all sometimes engage in, designed to protect a comfortable delusion.

You can't 'win' this kind of argument. The BEST we can hope for is that it will fall 'out of fashion' over time.

Re:how, exactly

[ajs318]

Believing in micro-evolution but not believing in macro-evolution makes about as much sense as believing in centimetres but not believing in kilometres.

Re:how, exactly

[NoobHunter]

Erroneus....you were giving such a good point..and then you went and said "Gays, Thieves, molesters and even killers." Why are homosexual people bundled in there with what could be considered the scum of our society? It's truly sad that our society has not accepted a behavior that is present in almost all animal species. I have friends of mine that are gay and are extremely productive members of society. Besides if your "God", whoever he is, really didn't like them...I mean REALLY didn't like them...why aren't they all dropping like flies? And please don't give me the "The Devil made them do it!" bit...I'm pagan, to me everyone has good and evil inside.

Re:how, exactly

[samkass]

As for your statement "their god is only the Old Testament God when dealing with homosexuals", I don't completely understand where you got this from considering the main part of the bible that discusses homosexuals is the New Testament.

Actually, most Biblical arguments against homosexuality all come from the old Testament (most often cited are Genesis 1, Genesis 19, various other Genesis passages, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, and various passages from Deuteronomy, Judges, and Kings). And the hypocrisy is that books like Leviticus are also the ones that admonish, for example, wearing wool and cotton at the same time. If a Christian is not going to keep a completely kosher house and lifestyle, it is pretty hypocritical to attack homosexuality from that same reference.

Some references in the New Testament include Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, and 1 Timothy 1. Jesus, however, was notably silent on the issue, despite having a great deal to say about all sorts of other practices in his day. (In fact, Jesus doesn't really have much to say about any of the major "Christian right" hot topics, from homosexuality to abortion, whereas he has a great deal to say about welfare, health care, and the evils of money.)

Re:how, exactly

[Copid]

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).

That's the problem. Anything is consistent with magic performed by an omnipotent entity. Shared genetic defects? Magic. No shared genetic defects? Also magic. The grass is green because The Designer wanted it to be so. Grass isn't green? The Designer wanted it that way. That's why creationism isn't good science. There is no observation that could possibly be inconsistent with it.

I'm sure you've seen evidence supporting creation in other places, but since you haven't been convinced, I won't try again here. But I would like to point out that Darwin's original idea of speciation though natural selection was still inconsistent with "the data," even though he didn't know it at the time. Remember Gregor Mendel? He was contemporary with Darwin, but since he didn't get as much press, 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). Actual genetic mutations are very rare. So, while natural selection can select for beneficial expressions of gene sequences, it weeds out "poor" sequences very slowly (since they are often merely "hidden" by dominant genes).

I'm not sure if you're making stuff up or if you're simply repeating something you pulled off the Internet, but mutations are significantly more common than you seem to think they are. Mendel's work definitely does not prove what you think it does.

Also, natural selection cannot create new data, so some additional model is required to explain where new gentic data comes from.

Well, mutations are a pretty good source of new information.

Re:how, exactly

[Lurker2288]

"You also have to admit that science can describe the "How" but not the "Why"."

I fucking hate this goddamn ignorant argument like poison, as if science is somehow deficient and in need of some faith-based concept like religion to fill in the blanks. Here's a 'why' for you: why is it that people are so fucking childish that they need to cling the idea that things are the way they for some Higher Purpose? If I roll a die and it comes up 5, I don't ask why that happened: I recognize that given certain physical realities and a finite number of possible outcomes, 5 was one possibility that just happened to come up. The question 'why are we here' is no different, except replace 5 with 'everything happens in such a way that it produces the world we live in now' and add about a zillion other possible outcomes to your die. We're here because things happened the way they happened--they could just have easily happened a different way, in which case we might not be here to see it. But some people obviously need the security blanket of believing that existence has some kind of magic meaning.

Re:Post is pretty much right.

[680x0]

Think of it like "natural selection". Someone smart, born in a coal mining town in West Virginia isn't going to stay there. There's no tech sector there, no research labs, no Silicon Valley. So, they move to California, New York, Boston, or even North Carolina's Research Triangle.

Someone who flunked out of high school can either be a janitor in New York city, or a high-school science teacher in East Bumfuck, Arkansas.

To put a personal touch on it, I grew up in WV, but I moved to Baltimore to go to college (and stayed in the Baltimore/DC area ever since).

Re:Post is pretty much right.

[nugneant]

Not the "land of freedom and justice for all" that you southern types love to dribble about.

--in between trying to outlaw homosexuality and persecute Mexican immigrants, of course.

Freedom and justice for all, so long as all are white and Christian.