Glenn Branch of the NCSE — the organization that you should thank profusely for tirelessly fighting creationists trying to subvert our children, reality, and the First Amendment — has written about the email he sent out that led to Chris Comer in Texas being fired forced to resign.
I love what he wrote, especially this bit:
It’s absurd, of course, to regard Comer’s forwarding of my announcement of Forrest’s talk as endorsing Forrest’s view (ask a linguist). But that absurdity pales in comparison to the absurdity of the Texas Education Agency trying to adopt a position of “neutrality” on evolution, when (as the National Academy of Sciences observes) “The scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming.” As Forrest commented, “Maybe the TEA can’t afford to take a position on what constitutes good science education—maybe it must remain neutral on whether or not to lie to students about evolution—but if so, that’s just sad.”
Go Glenn!
Hat tip to PZ.
December 19th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Just thinking…
1. Is it the job of people in charge of the science curriculum to determine scientific truth, or is it their responsibility to communicate the current scientific consensus to students as clearly as possible?
2. Is there anything in a grade school biology curriculum that even talks about “the theory of the origin of all life on Earth?” This seems to be the point of contention, but that particular point has little to do with genetics, species, inheritance or reproduction, all of which are vastly more concrete, verifiable and suitable for a high school biology class, but still get attacked under the label of evolution.
December 19th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
This clearly demonically ispired emale is cleerly wroten by the hand of Satan hiself. beleeverz, we simply have to be wory of the tak…tacic… things the enemi duz to destroy usss. I myselk waz a sience teecher for 15 yeers. I tawt the trooth of God (KJB 1611 Authorized). Urth waz kreeated in 6 dys. Wee shuld teech that in skoolz.
December 19th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
inverse,
Not sure I see your point. The TEA’s job should be to communicate SCIENCE, The overwhelming CONSENSUS of the scientific community is evolution by natural selection is TRUTH, so that’s what they should teach. And evolution by natural selection is just as concrete as genetics, inheritance, et. al., and explains HOW life evolved on earth.
December 19th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Tom,
My point was, those are the questions that should be being asked, precisely because the answers you gave are both correct and obvious.
December 20th, 2007 at 8:16 am
Until someone invents a time machine, all theories on the origin of man are THEORIES. Why is there a problem with presenting all the theories available? Are some of you so anti-religious that you can’t stand the possibility of biblical origins? And why can’t science be applied to explain the processes described in the Bible?
December 20th, 2007 at 8:25 am
inverse,
sorry, I was a bit in a fog when I read your post. Glad I was correct, tho
uhhh, CMartin… no time machine necessary… just read this
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/07/19/just-a-theory/
December 20th, 2007 at 8:34 am
It’s such a bummer to be reminded of what other human waste comes from Texas. And they say all of the country’s garbage ends up in Florida if you tip the country downward…oh, wait a minute, Florida is this stupid, too. Never mind.
December 20th, 2007 at 9:33 am
Religion isn’t science, and should not be taught as such.
You want equal time? Then preach evolution and chaos theory and biology while we’re at it from the church pulpit every Sunday morning. And don’t just bring it up to point out “it’s only a theory” or to tear it down; preach it as though it is a viable alternative to Biblical origins.
What? No? Hmm…
December 20th, 2007 at 9:55 am
As one who has studied the bible in my former life as a pastor, i can state with a fair amount of confidence that the Bible is NOT, does NOT, has NEVER claimed to be a science book. It hardly stands up to scrutiny as a “manual” for faith and morality, given the schizophrenic nature of God presented within it’s pages. (OT God = a wrathful, hateful, vindictive, jealous, unmerciful murderer; NT = God is love). Anyone with the intellect of an 8 year old can see the obvious problems with the creation accounts (plural) presented within Genesis. Ask your pastor why there are 2 accounts, both different within the opening pages of a book that God Himself supposedly wrote. (Yes, i do know the arguments for getting around this inconsistency, however, they do not hold water.)
Creationism is NOT science. ID is not science. I admire the scientists that are believers who can balance their belief in God, while holding to a belief in science as well. The two are not mutually incompatible. Doesn’t the US educational system lag behind many countries of the world already. (29th spot I believe; Canada, my country 3rd). Please close your eyes for a moment and imagine a nation of children indoctrinated with a “Hovindesque” mentality. That is truly a nightmare I would not want to face.
December 20th, 2007 at 10:06 am
CMartin said, “Why is there a problem with presenting all the theories available? Are some of you so anti-religious that you can’t stand the possibility of biblical origins? And why can’t science be applied to explain the processes described in the Bible?”
Those exact questions have been asked here many times. A scientific Theory is completely different than a non-scientific theory. Examples of Scientific Theories are Gravity, Electromagnetism, and Evolution. They are tested over and over, and are the best explanation for how things work, based on the evidence we have available. If new evidence comes along that shows something new, then those Theories will be adjusted accordingly.
Nobody before your post said anything about being anti-religious. I don’t think Phil has ever said he is anti-religious.
Science has been applied to the processes described in the Bible, and invariably, science shows that the Bible is either wrong, or should not be taken literally. That does not mean you can’t believe the Bible is a book of faith, it just means you can’t teach the Bible as scientific fact. Also, the constitution says the government cannot force the people to follow any specific religion, so you can’t teach only Christianity in a public school. Even if you did want to teach Biblical History as part of a “World Religions” class in a public school (which I have no problem with), it still would not belong in a science class. Just like we wouldn’t use the bible to teach Calculus or Java Programming, we wouldn’t use it to teach Biology either.
B-)
December 20th, 2007 at 10:10 am
Oh, and I didn’t mean to include that link in my name on my last post. Leftover from a previous rant. Please ignore.
December 20th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
CMartin,
It’s a problem for precisely the two reasons I attempted to outline:
1. It is not the job of science educators to determine the accuracy of scientific consensus. If you think that is not the case, then can you tell me what sort of filter, if any at all, should be applied to what is taught in a science class?
2. “Only” and “a theory” do not really mean what you think they mean in a scientific frame of reference. See http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html
December 20th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Michael Lonergan types:
[[(OT God = a wrathful, hateful, vindictive, jealous, unmerciful murderer; NT = God is love).]]
Been reading William Blake? Go read Micah 6:8.
[[ Anyone with the intellect of an 8 year old can see the obvious problems with the creation accounts (plural) presented within Genesis. Ask your pastor why there are 2 accounts, both different within the opening pages of a book that God Himself supposedly wrote. (Yes, i do know the arguments for getting around this inconsistency, however, they do not hold water.)]]
I agree, this is how it would look to an 8-year-old. A textual critic, on the other hand, would note that the Genesis creation narrative (singular) was produced thousands of years ago in an entirely different culture than ours, and would ask what the literary standards and tropes of that culture were, rather than assuming they had to match ours.
The chief mode of ancient Hebrew narrative is parallelism. You say something twice, first in broad detail, then again in specifics. It was a widespread practice at the time, which is why similar “dual” creation stories are found in Akkadian and Ugaritic creation stories. For some nice brief examples, read the psalms. Parallelism is used constantly in those.
December 20th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
CMartin writes:
[[Until someone invents a time machine, all theories on the origin of man are THEORIES.]]
In science, theory doesn’t mean “guess.” A theory is the highest level a scientific idea can attain — thus theory of gravitation, theory of relativity, atomic theory.
[[ Why is there a problem with presenting all the theories available? ]]
Because they’re not all equally likely.
[[Are some of you so anti-religious that you can’t stand the possibility of biblical origins?]]
Not me. I’m a born-again Christian.
[[ And why can’t science be applied to explain the processes described in the Bible?]]
Because the Bible wasn’t taling about natural processes in the first place. I believe the creation account in Genesis is true, but I think it uses symbolic language because that gets the point across better. God is a master storyteller, he is free to use all the tricks of the literary trade, including parable, metaphor, simile, allegory, and general symbolism.
December 20th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Barton: I agree with you. Many reputable scholars do not hold to a literalism/infallible interpretation of Scripture, as I once did. I am well aware of the cultural differences of Biblical society. My point was, and is, that the Bible, even based on these differing accounts in Genesis cannot be regarded as a reputable scientific account. Unfortunately the average christian, and the likes of Ham and Hovind disregard not only rational science, but also textual criticism.
Also I fail to see the relevance of Micah 6:8. So, God requires me to do justice, love kindness and walk humbly before your God. Your point?
Your God also requires the death of adulterers, disobedient children, idolaters, homosexuals, and ultimately anyone that rejects the claims of the Bible.
BTW if I was born again, how come I never got a second Belly Button?
December 21st, 2007 at 10:24 am
Mike Lonergan writes:
[[Unfortunately the average christian, and the likes of Ham and Hovind disregard not only rational science, but also textual criticism.]]
I don’t think “the average Christian” does anything of the sort. You’re mistaking creationists for Christians in general. As far as I know, most Christians have no problem with science, including evolutionary biology.
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:14 pm
I stand corrected, average Christians are comfortable with the sciences. That was my evangelical/fundamentalist residual bias kicking in. I should have stated the average fundamentalist Christian. An experience I had with a lady in the last church I attended illustrates this. She was homeschooling her 4 kids, and came to an Astronomy section. She knew I had a telescope and asked if I would come and let her kids look at the stars. I offered to do a little spiel on the basics of Astronomy. However, before embarking on this, I had to ask one question: “Do you believe in a Young Earth, or Old Earth?” Her response: “Why a young Earth! Don’t all Christians believe what the Bible teaches? Don’t you believe that?” I had to tell her, no, I did not believe that, and in fact, the Bible does not actually make such a claim, which is a “thorn in my side” when Atheists use that argument to discredit the Bible.
I used a very simple illustration, by explaining what a Light Year was, and that it was the distance light travels in one year…blah, blah, blah… I explained, if I show your children an object that is tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of light years away it will conflict with your young earth creationism beliefs. This otherwise extremely intelligent and gifted young woman had never thought of this, and it led to an interesting series of conversations, that hopefully opened her mind to scientific truth.
Most churches that I attended were of a Baptist or charismatic bent, and most of the individuals I know hold similar beliefs as this lady. Incidentally, she was quite enthusiastic about me coming to teach that section on Astronomy, and sincerely appreciated my point of view.
December 22nd, 2007 at 6:45 pm
I’m guessing CMartin’s post was made by the same dude who wrote the “DR Kent Hovind” post, since nobody is that dumb in real life, right? Surely. I mean, CMartin IS having a laugh with us… right?
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Darth, I can assure you that the Cmartin post was NOT written by the guy that wrote the Dr. Hovind post… Giggle giggle.
December 23rd, 2007 at 5:49 am
Barton Paul Levenson said:
“I don’t think “the average Christian” does anything of the sort. You’re mistaking creationists for Christians in general. As far as I know, most Christians have no problem with science, including evolutionary biology.”
Sadly, I am compelled to disagree. I think that, in the USA, the vast majority of Christians (like most other citizens of the US) are largely ignorant of science. IMO, they consider it vaguely useful but are ignorant concerning how it works, what it is for and what it tells us.
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:46 pm
[…] A while back, Chris Comer, who worked for the Texas Education Agency, was fired for sending out an email about an upcoming […]