Comments on: Texas: so, so doomed

By: Alex

Alex — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:41:19 +0000

Evolution is just as much a religion as creationism. Its a lot like islam; its full of holes. I for one don’t want my kids to be influenced by a concept as stupid as evolution. I have seen far too many things that would lead me to believe that evolution is the only thing out there.

Also, I don’t believe that our education system works. It hasn’t in many years. Oh sure, kids will still graduate from high school (thanks to the great “no child left behind” cluster F).

And finally, if Texas is so, so doomed, get the hell out of my state.

By: Laurie Mann

Laurie Mann — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:46:30 +0000

But science and mythology ARE NOT EQUIVALENT!!!! Evolution is based on scientific observation, and creationism is based soley on myth. ID is based on myth with politics thrown in.

A blogger made a great Venn diagram about ID:

http://community.livejournal.com/atheism/1541863.html

By: Texas: so, so doomed

Texas: so, so doomed — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 12:11:20 +0000

[…] The Bad Astronomer put an intriguing blog post on Texas: so, so doomed […]

By: Darth Robo

Darth Robo — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 23:43:01 +0000

Then he will be getting a lump of coal this Xmas. What about you Larry, have you been a good little boy this year?

:-p

By: Larry Fafarman

Larry Fafarman — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 04:13:39 +0000

I might add that he might have felt that he was showing “real leadership” by getting rid of her.

By: Larry Fafarman

Larry Fafarman — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 04:07:39 +0000

The opening post said,
“Itâ€™s very clear that at most she might have deserved to be reprimanded for sending out the email, even if the TEA policy about neutrality is really stupid.”

She also insulted her boss by saying that her agency lacked “real leadership” while he was acting commissioner, so I think that he was not inclined to just give her a slap on the wrist.

By: Frank Lacey

Frank Lacey — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 03:49:33 +0000

Okay, I’ll wade into this….

I’m an elementary school science teacher in Texas. (Just opened myself up to all kinds of flames with that statement, didn’t I?)

After looking into the background of our Director of the State Board of Education, Don McLeroy, an avowed creationist, it became clear to me that what these people really want (and by “these people” I mean those who are seeking to include language in the textbooks that questions evolution) is a new definition of science, one that includes supernatural possibilities.

I wonder what would happen if we proposed to leave science alone (it’s proven to be quite fruitful as it is, thanks) but allow an optional, elective course on “Current Controversies in Science and Religion”? Do you suppose that would keep everybody happy, or would it make things worse? I dunno. It’d be pretty damn difficult to monitor the teaching of a course like that and keep it “neutral”, which is what the TEA says they want.

It does sadden me that we’re still having these fights, but rather than flee the state (as my wife and I have considered for years) we figure we’d better serve our fellow beings by remaining where we are and doing our best to serve as an example of what it looks like to keep thinking.

Wish me luck. (I’m pausing for a moment before I hit the SUBMIT COMMENT button….)