| How To Create a National Controversy: Evolution vs. Creationism |
|
|
|
| by Donna Garner | Thu, Dec 13, 2007, 12:21 PM |
|
For the Texas Freedom Network and the liberal press (i.e., the "Sisterhood") to create a national controversy which is meant to tear down the influence of pro-family conservatives, the first thing the Sisterhood has to find is a "victim." That person has been found -- Chris Comer, the Texas Education Agency's science curriculum director whom the Sisterhood deliberately represents as a noble and courageous evolutionist who was unjustly fired by the mean, old TEA managers. Hidden in the small print of the Austin American-Statesman's article on Tuesday are some clues which indicate that there was indeed more than meets the eye regarding Chris Comer's resignation from the Texas Education Agency. "Personnel documents released Monday under the Texas Public Information Act offer further insight into her career at the agency. In 2003, Comer was put on disciplinary probation for one year after she accepted travel reimbursement from grants that she was responsible for administering. The issue was not brought up in the termination memorandum...Although Comer's failure to consistently follow professional standards has been cited as an issue, Scott [Texas Commissioner of Education] and other officials declined to be specific, saying they fear being sued. "I am really frustrated with the issue, knowing the truth and not being able to talk about it," Scott said. In the coming weeks, I foresee more information will surface, showing that Comer was a TEA staffer who demonstrated a pattern of insubordination, unethical behavior, and perhaps even illegal activities. When and if that information surfaces, undoubtedly it will be relegated to the back pages of the newspapers. In an effort to try to counter some of the controversy and misinformation over the evolution vs. creationism hype in Texas, let me state the facts: The Texas Administrative Code in conjunction with the Texas Education Code require public school teachers to teach students the pros and cons of scientific hypotheses and theories. To put it another way, this means that teachers are to teach their students to analyze, review, and critique the naturalistic strengths and weaknesses of naturalistic hypotheses and theories. That's it. No more, no less. Done. El Fin. No controversy. Finished. The Texas State Board of Education, the Texas Education Agency, Texas public school/P-12 teachers, and textbook publishers who provide textbooks for
Bookmark
Email This
Comments (11)
...
written by Paul Barnes , December 13, 2007 Donna, So what is your point? Do you believe that creationism should be taught as science in Texas schools?
...
written by J. Smithe , December 13, 2007 Yeah, I had a hard time getting anything of use from this article. I don't see a side here. In fact, I felt as if I walked into the middle of a conversation where I missed a lot of information needed to really inderstand what the point was. Not to be rude, it's just I read this information about this guy, and I do not really see how he pertains to the discussion at hand. I don;t know his particulars or really why I should care much about him. I would call this article an "insider" where the only people who get it are people who are intimately familiar with the major players. I feel both creationism and evolution can be taught side by side with no problem as long as both are taught with respect and as theories of how the Universe was created. Even the Catholic schools of Dallas teach evolution, but only as it pertains to science as a theory. Creationism is also discussed as a theory. The problem here is when the scientists demand that evolution is fact and the religious groups demand that Creationism is fact. Both sides can be discussed and taught side by side, if done with respect and with an open mind. Let the children come up with their own "truths". That is what school is for. If parents are that concerned that creationism be taught, then they should be teaching it to their kids. Everyone knows that parents have the most influence of the thoughts and beliefs of children. I think many intillegent people believe in both. It's not a concept that makes sense, but many are able to put the two ideas in separate parts of their belief system.
...
written by Ed Darrell , December 14, 2007 I see a poison campaign from politicos now in charge of the education agency to try to cover illegal actions on their part, by slowly releasing details from personnel files (in violation of the law) in order to distract from the overall plan, to try to gut science standards in Texas schools. This blog post looks to be a part of that. If the firing were justified, justify it on those grounds -- don't state the illegal grounds up front, the grounds that will be lightning rods for every science organization in the nation. If it's not part of the plan to cut out evolution, make it clear: Vote now to leave evolution alone and strengthen the standards. TEA's actions speak louder than any words. So far, there is nothing honorable from TEA to convince me that there is not skullduggery afoot.
...
written by Ed Darrell , December 14, 2007 Let's also be clear: The Texas standards for biology require that evolution be learned by the kids -- not strengths and weaknesses, but the theory itself, in order to keep up with the rest of the states. It is pedagogical disaster to teach the wrong stuff in order to get to the right stuff. There is no other area where we would not teach the best material we have, BEFORE getting to disputes and controversies. "Strengths and weaknesses" appeals to our natural, American sense of fair play. But as it is completely unsupported by any research in education, it's highly questionable ethically, and it's contrary to the federal No Child Left Behind Act. Are we discussing code? Comer's firing, as stated in the e-mails we have, is probably illegal, too. Texas has laws protecting workers from political vendettas, and from being forced into political actions. I see this scandal widening in the coming weeks, too, unless Robert Scott acts quickly to amend things. But it won't be at Mrs. Comer's expense. Intelligent design is religious dogma, and has no place in science classes. WE can waste a few million dollars in litigation, and we can make Texas a butt of jokes, and we can discourage researchers and high-tech companies from coming to Texas. But standing for ignorance will not be cost free, and it will not look noble in the end.
...
written by Byron George , December 14, 2007 Ed, I enjoyed your last post until the last paragraph. Just a couple of questions if you dont mind. Why would teaching Intellegent Design cause Texas to be a butt of jokes? Why would Intelligent design discourage reasearchers and high-tech companies from coming to Texas? Creationism should be taught in Texas schools. Then the children could have a choice.
...
written by RelicMM , December 14, 2007 We seem to have a confict with dogma. The dogma of the evolutionists is as much a dogma as is the dogma of the creationists. One believes that creation was a product of pure chance. The other believes in an omniscient creator. What is wrong with discussing both concepts in an academic environment and letting the students decide for themselves? Evolution is only a theory that lacks a link between animal and man. Creationists provide the missing link as a result of reason instead of a product of chance. Religion and Science are not intended to be enemies. Without religion, this is no logical reason for the existence of man. God has made his point that man was created to worship him with free will to accept or reject his counsel. His Son even died a horrible death to give sinful humanity a chance to overcome the disobedience of Adam and Eve. He has promised that those who believe and are baptised will be saved in a place of refreshment and light. But justice demands that those who do not believe him merit judgment in a pit of eternal fire. It shouldn't take much intelligence to determine the better path. Just because anyone does not believe in Hell, does not mean that it doesn't exist. Only a foolish gambler would ignore the possibility.
...
written by Paul Barnes , December 14, 2007 Great posts, Ed. Science should be taught in school and religion should be taught in church. The Texas Textbook Taliban would have you believe that Adam and Eve rode to Sunday School on dinosaurs. Intelligent Design is to the Theory of Evolution what Intelligent Falling is to the Theory of Gravity.
...
written by Timmy , December 14, 2007 I think the point of Ms. Garner's article is pretty clear. A TEA employee with an employment history of violations of policy resigned instead of defending her actions and blamed the "creationists" knowing that TEA officials could not refer to her employment record. If she was wrongfully accused why not stay and defend herself. It was much easier to make allegations against the TEA and give the "sisterhood" of the driveby media and the Texas Freedom Network a victim to use to attack a conservative administration appointee at the TEA.
...
written by Ed Darrell , December 14, 2007 Byron, Intelligent design is scientifically sterile. It offers no advance in science, and it has worked out in the lab as something significantly less useful than cold fusion. We just passed a bond to spend a couple of billion fighting cancer. If you check out the cancer researchers in Texas, at M. D. Anderson, at UT Southwest Medical, you'll find people working with evolution theory to cure disease. They depend on graduate students and post-docs from the best institutions. Those researchers will avoid a place where government policies suggest there will be interference, or even a lack of support, for the work to be done. Kansas suffered significant loss of business and research dollars when they went creationist for a few months in the last decade. Texas already has a reputation as being a state of hayseeds around clusters of real culture -- researchers don't like those odds. Evolution is 25% of the AP biology exam. Texas high schools are behind in graduates, let alone AP courses. Teaching dogma as science is unlikely to produce anything but worse performance on the tests that are used to gauge educational progress. Judge Overton spelled out exacty how to get intelligent design or any other creationism into the textbooks without a legal fight, in 1982. He said go do some research, write it up and publish it. In that hearing, in Arkansas, it was determined that there is no bias against legitimate research in creationism. Every creationism article ever written seriously has been published in science journals (several later retracted). The problem for creationists is they do no research, and so they have nothing to submit. Intelligent design is just the latest politically-correct-to-Christian-cultists idea. It has no research agenda. It offers no benefits to science. It offers to make kids dumber and scare them from high tech research jobs in biology. Yes, India and China are graduating enough scientists to take up the slack. I don't want to see America in fifth place in that race.
...
written by Shawn Studer , December 18, 2007 Well...Ms. Garner, you pretty much gave yourself away there as to which side you are on. Science seeks to understand and explain the natural world, Religion seeks to understand and explain the supernatural (that's the theory anyway). Science creates theories, not facts, about their understandings. They continually question and test their theories to see if they will stand up to their tests and questioning. They call them theories because they know that someday each theory will be disproved by the discovery (through rigorous questioning) of new facts. Creationism is not based on theories but on religious dogma trying to pass as science. There is no room for testing or questioning (i.e. the belief the earth is only 6000 years old). We don't have to look to far back in history to see what happens when religion controls or influences science - Galileo. Galileo proved the earth and planets rotate around the sun and not the earth as the center of the universe as religion taught. And in the face of all of Galileo's evidence, the church threatened him with imprisonment if he didn't recant. Science does not seek to teach evolution in church's, so why is it religion seeks to teach its dogma (disguised as creationism) in science classes? Creationists want science to say there are "strengths and weaknesses" to the theory (not fact) of evolution, but what about the strengths and weaknesses of Creationism? What testing have they done? What questions do they ask? Are questions allowed?? Unfortunately, reason and reasonable thinking is usually not allowed in religious beliefs (see RelicMM's comment above). Maybe we were given science by God as a faculty of reason to free mankind from myths that are taught as truths. Oh...maybe that's why religion is so scared of science!
...
written by jb , December 20, 2007 Shawn; As I read your response yet again, in a vain attempt to understand how it is a response to the actual post, I am struck by the degree to which you miss the point. Comer's dismissal has been painted as a jihad against science when the facts clearly demonstrte that her dismissal is the result of a pattern of insubordination. In fact, she appears to have been treated with kid gloves over the years. It never ceases to amaze me how those who tout their "adherence to science and love of truth" are so facile about distorting or dismissing the facts. Write comment
|
|
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
