• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Texas Education Agency's director of science curriculum

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Don't mess with Texas' right to ignore solid science and to promote the welfare of some crony's idiology.

Full Frontal Linkage

The state's director of science curriculum has resigned after being accused of creating the appearance of bias against teaching intelligent design.

Chris Comer, who has been the Texas Education Agency's director of science curriculum for more than nine years, offered her resignation this month.

In documents obtained Wednesday through the Texas Public Information Act, agency officials said they recommended firing Comer for repeated acts of misconduct and insubordination. But Comer said she thinks political concerns about the teaching of creationism in schools were behind what she describes as a forced resignation.

Agency officials declined to comment, saying it was a personnel issue.

Comer was put on 30 days paid administrative leave shortly after she forwarded an e-mail in late October announcing a presentation being given by Barbara Forrest, author of "Inside Creationism's Trojan Horse," a book that says creationist politics are behind the movement to get intelligent design theory taught in public schools. Forrest was also a key witness in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case concerning the introduction of intelligent design in a Pennsylvania school district. Comer sent the e-mail to several individuals and a few online communities, saying, "FYI."

Agency officials cited the e-mail in a memo recommending her termination. They said forwarding the e-mail not only violated a directive for her not to communicate in writing or otherwise with anyone outside the agency regarding an upcoming science curriculum review, "it directly conflicts with her responsibilities as the Director of Science."

The memo adds, "Ms. Comer's e-mail implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that TEA endorses the speaker's position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral."

In addition to the e-mail, the memo lists other reasons for recommending termination, including Comer's failure to get prior approval to give a presentation and attend an off-site meeting after she was told in writing this year that there were concerns about her involvement with work outside the agency.

It also criticized Comer for allegedly saying that then-acting Commissioner Robert Scott was "only acting commissioner and that there was no real leadership at the agency."

Comer, who hadn't spoken about her resignation publicly until Wednesday, said she thinks politics about evolution were behind her firing.

"None of the other reasons they gave are, in and of themselves, firing offenses," she said. Comer said her comments about Scott, who eventually received the commissioner appointment, were misconstrued. "I don't remember saying that. But even if I did, is that so horrible?" she said. "He was, after all, acting commissioner at the time."

Comer said other employees don't report off-site activities and that the presentation mentioned in the memo had been approved previously. Agency officials did not respond to Comer's assertions.

As for the e-mail, Comer said she did pause for a "half second" before sending it, but said she thought that because Forrest was a highly credentialed speaker, it would be OK.

Comer's resignation comes just months before the State Board of Education is to begin reviewing the science portion of the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, the statewide curriculum that will be used to determine what should be taught in Texas classrooms and what textbooks are bought.

Agency spokeswoman Debbie Ratcliffe said the issue of teaching creationism in schools has not been debated by the board in some time.

"There's been a long-standing policy that the pros and cons of scientific theory must be taught. And while we've had a great deal of public comment about evolution and creationism at state board meetings, it's not been a controversial issue with the board."

The call to fire Comer came from Lizzette Reynolds, who previously worked in the U.S. Department of Education. She also served as deputy legislative director for Gov. George W. Bush. She joined the Texas Education Agency as the senior adviser on statewide initiatives in January.

Reynolds, who was out sick the day Comer forwarded the e-mail, received a copy from an unnamed source and forwarded it to Comer's bosses less than two hours after Comer sent it.

"This is highly inappropriate," Reynolds said in an e-mail to Comer's supervisors. "I believe this is an offense that calls for termination or, at the very least, reassignment of responsibilities.

"This is something that the State Board, the Governor's Office and members of the Legislature would be extremely upset to see because it assumes this is a subject that the agency supports."

Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, which sent the original e-mail to Comer announcing the event, said Comer's situation seems to be a warning to agency employees.

"This just underscores the politicization of science education in Texas," Scott said. "In most states, the department of education takes a leadership role in fostering sound science education. Apparently TEA employees are supposed to be kept in the closet and only let out to do the bidding of the board."

Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, an advocacy group that monitors state textbook content, said the group wants to know more about the case. The network has raised questions about past comments made by State Board of Education Chairman Don McLeroy about teaching creationism.

"It's important to know whether politics and ideology are standing in the way of Texas kids getting a 21st century science education," Miller said. "We've already seen a faction of the State Board of Education try to politicize and censor what our schoolchildren learn. It would be even more alarming if the same thing is now happening inside TEA itself."
 
Making the email the issue against her employment is pretty bad.

The scary thing is the claim that they need to remain neutral on the issue. This implies that the official position on teaching creationism/ID as science has merit. That should label someone as unqualified to assess/develop a science curriculum.
 
That argument is one of the most infuriating things that I know of. In fact I think its one of the most dangerous ideas ever devised: the idea that all points of view are equally valid.

People saying that logical conjecture derived from massive amounts of research and overwhelming evidence should be no better then a magic book involving a sky beardo makes me crazy.
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
That argument is one of the most infuriating things that I know of. In fact I think its one of the most dangerous ideas ever devised: the idea that all points of view are equally valid.

People saying that logical conjecture derived from massive amounts of research and overwhelming evidence should be no better then a magic book involving a sky beardo makes me crazy.

:thumbsup:
Civilization going backwards.
 
That would probably also happen in Iran. And is the US government really that different from the Iranian? Especially when you look at backward regions like Texas?



😛
 
Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
That would probably also happen in Iran. And is the US government really that different from the Iranian? Especially when you look at backward regions like Texas?



😛

:roll:
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
That would probably also happen in Iran. And is the US government really that different from the Iranian? Especially when you look at backward regions like Texas?



😛

:roll:

Ditto Pabst. The federal court that acually ruled on the issue (and an awesome opinion it was) was in Pennsylvania. This unfortunately isn't an issue relegated to a few small sections of the country, but seems to pop up everywhere ignorance rears its head.

Does not the original FSM letter to the Kansas school board so accurately state the ideal resolution to this issue?

"I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."
 
So basically the Leftist Regime at the Institution said it is my way or the highway.

Is this how the Left promotes Political Freedom of Expression by academics.


I guess this only applies to the Communisist agenda of the left.
 
Originally posted by: piasabird
So basically the Leftist Regime at the Institution said it is my way or the highway.

Is this how the Left promotes Political Freedom of Expression by academics.


I guess this only applies to the Communisist agenda of the left.

What are you talking about? I have actually done work for the TEA and there is no one there that could be even remotely considered a "leftist".

If they were "leftists", they would put more value on the science part of the equation and less on the faith part when trying to decide whether or not tested theories carried more weight in the science classroom that unprovable beliefs.

I think that you need to re-evaluate your left/right compass.
 
Originally posted by: piasabird
So basically the Leftist Regime at the Institution said it is my way or the highway.

Is this how the Left promotes Political Freedom of Expression by academics.


I guess this only applies to the Communisist agenda of the left.

Freedom of expression? I guess you could express that the Earth is flat and the center of the universe but you shouldn't be teaching this to school children.
 
Originally posted by: piasabird
So basically the Leftist Regime at the Institution said it is my way or the highway.

Is this how the Left promotes Political Freedom of Expression by academics.


I guess this only applies to the Communisist agenda of the left.

Ahhh! There's my hated argument I was looking for. Freedom of expression does not mean that you have to teach non reality along with reality.

As The Onion put it, should we have to teach "Intelligent Falling" along with gravity? Maybe all mass is attracted to all other mass, or maybe God is just pushing everything down.
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: piasabird
So basically the Leftist Regime at the Institution said it is my way or the highway.

Is this how the Left promotes Political Freedom of Expression by academics.


I guess this only applies to the Communisist agenda of the left.

Ahhh! There's my hated argument I was looking for. Freedom of expression does not mean that you have to teach non reality along with reality.

As The Onion put it, should we have to teach "Intelligent Falling" along with gravity? Maybe all mass is attracted to all other mass, or maybe God is just pushing everything down.

Don't go plagiarizing FSM!!! His noodly appendage presses lovingly onto all of us, but apparently Michael Jordan pissed off the FSM, cuz there's no appendage holding him down.
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Ahhh! There's my hated argument I was looking for. Freedom of expression does not mean that you have to teach non reality along with reality.

Problem is, you have to define "reality".

 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Ahhh! There's my hated argument I was looking for. Freedom of expression does not mean that you have to teach non reality along with reality.

Problem is, you have to define "reality".

That's actually not a problem. I mean if you take the stance that reality can never be defined then we shouldn't bother to have schools at all, because nothing is certain. In fact you shouldn't go to work tomorrow either because there's really no way to know that work exists... and chances are good it will be boring.

To use Richard Dawkins' (and probably many other people's) argument, the only thing that any rational person can do is act upon what is most probable. Particularly in the case of creationism/intelligent design against evolution the differences in probability are so overwhelming that it would take a decidedly irrational person to treat them both equally.
 
What a bunch of whiners. Years from now, we're going to be learning about some of these fairy-tales in Mythology class.
 
Originally posted by: manowar821
What a bunch of whiners. Years from now, we're going to be learning about some of these fairy-tales in Mythology class.

"Professor, what was theology like back on Earth all those thousands of years ago?"

"Well, at the dawn of civilization, mankind looked at his world and the skies and developed a complex mythology where various "gods" carried out the tasks of raising the sun each day, and caring for souls in the afterlife, crops in the fields, and such things. People prayed to these individual gods depending on whatever it was that god was supposed to be responsible for. Hundreds of years later, probably because they became tired of remembering all the different gods' names, a belief came to prominence that there was only one supreme god responsible for all of the things previously attributed to the many gods. Of course, though man was somewhat more enlightened when he created this religious architecture, he still had no more evidence of the one supreme god's existence than man's ancestors did for their pantheon of gods. Even so, the later belief so eclipsed the old ways that tales of the old gods became known as "myths" instead of "religions".

"Oh, that's what I thought. At least that's what Infallible Omnicient Supreme Overlord Zornak told us."
 
If you read Julian Jaynes' The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind you will see that his hypothesis for the evolution of consciousness if kind of in line with your account.

Fascinating book for those that would like a completely non-religious look at the human mind and a view of the origins of religion from a totally unique psychological perspective.
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Ahhh! There's my hated argument I was looking for. Freedom of expression does not mean that you have to teach non reality along with reality.

Problem is, you have to define "reality".

I think we've managed to do that pretty well. In fact, look at your reality. Look at the everyday items you take for granted such as cars, clothing, food, televisions, toys, computers, etc. All of those wonderful things that compose our reality were derived from science and from scientific theories that have to predict or understand how our world operates.

Evolution is yet another theory that gives us understanding to how our world operates. In our reality, which is a science-based reality no matter how you slice it, evolution is our explanation for how we got here and just like the gravity, thermodynamics, relativity, etc.
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
That argument is one of the most infuriating things that I know of. In fact I think its one of the most dangerous ideas ever devised: the idea that all points of view are equally valid.

:thumbsup:
 
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: manowar821
What a bunch of whiners. Years from now, we're going to be learning about some of these fairy-tales in Mythology class.

"Professor, what was theology like back on Earth all those thousands of years ago?"

"Well, at the dawn of civilization, mankind looked at his world and the skies and developed a complex mythology where various "gods" carried out the tasks of raising the sun each day, and caring for souls in the afterlife, crops in the fields, and such things. People prayed to these individual gods depending on whatever it was that god was supposed to be responsible for. Hundreds of years later, probably because they became tired of remembering all the different gods' names, a belief came to prominence that there was only one supreme god responsible for all of the things previously attributed to the many gods. Of course, though man was somewhat more enlightened when he created this religious architecture, he still had no more evidence of the one supreme god's existence than man's ancestors did for their pantheon of gods. Even so, the later belief so eclipsed the old ways that tales of the old gods became known as "myths" instead of "religions".

"Oh, that's what I thought. At least that's what Infallible Omnicient Supreme Overlord Zornak told us."

Hehe, I forgot to mention that:
"of-course, then we'll have a whole new slew of gods to fear, but they'll be even MORE sure of themselves".

Honestly though, I'm willing to say that dogmatic religions in general will disappear slowly as time goes on. It seems to me that religion in general is just a primitive human creation, and as we advance, so will our willingness to learn about the universe (as apposed to plugging and covering our eyes and ears while screaming "I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALA").
 
Originally posted by: piasabird
So basically the Leftist Regime at the Institution said it is my way or the highway.

Is this how the Left promotes Political Freedom of Expression by academics.


I guess this only applies to the Communisist agenda of the left.

It's called SCIENCE, slapnuts. If you want to play the science game, bring some fucking science to the table. You can't just make up some bullshit and then piss and moan when scientists won't treat it the same as well researched, peer reviewed work. God damn it, are you people retarded?

And quite frankly, your views are the only thing that's communist around here. You have this bizarre socialist idea that proper science involves everyone getting their turn at playing scientist, whether or not you have a PHD from CalTech or you're the night guy at the 7-11. You're essentially arguing that knowledge and facts have no value, that the only thing of value is your ability to form an opinion. Now call me crazy, but that sounds pretty communist to me.

Edit: And I usually try and be a bit more civil, but there is a point at which enough is enough. You guys aren't amusing, you're not insightful, you're not bringing new and different ideas to the table...you're just being stupid. Stop it.
 
Back
Top