Texas Science Director Forced To Resign Over ID Statements 984
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.'"
how, exactly (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What the!?!?!?! (Score:3, Informative)
So yes, right now we think certain things are true, but with new evidence tomorrow it might be something totally different. You don't hear religious people talking like that.
Re:A scientific opinion on a religious myth? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Intolerance (Score:5, Informative)
If you wanted to rail on slashdot posters about this story you could have nit picked and pointed out she was fired for not following policy and that said firing is not really about her favoring evolution over ID, at least at the outermost level.
Re:how, exactly (Score:5, Informative)
A simple understanding of Darwinism makes it clear that the latter definition of evolution is critical to Darwin's theories. You can't simply point to changes in a specific population from the greater species - you need to show evidence that that population has become a distinct species "evolves" separately.
The email in question: (Score:5, Informative)
From: Glenn Branch
Subject: Barbara Forrest in Austin 11/2
Cc:
Bcc: [redacted]
Dear Austin-area friends of NCSE,
I thought that you might like to know that Barbara Forrest will be speaking on "Inside Creationism's Trojan Horse" in Austin on November 2, 2007. Her talk, sponsored by the Center for Inquiry Austin, begins at 7:00 p.m. in the Monarch Event Center, Suite 3100, 6406 North IH-35 in Austin. The cost is $6; free to friends of the Center.
In her talk, Forrest will provide a detailed report on her expert testimony in the Kitzmiller v. Dover School Board trial as well as an overview of the history of the "intelligent design" movement. Forrest is a Professor of Philosophy in the Department of History and Political Science at Southeastern Louisiana University; she is also a member of NCSE's board of directors.
For further details, visit: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/austin/events/barbara_forrest_inside_creationisms_trojan_horse_lecture/ [centerforinquiry.net]
Sincerely,
Glenn Branch
Deputy Director
National Center for Science Education, Inc.
420 40th Street, Suite 2
Oakland, CA 94609-2509
Re:how, exactly (Score:2, Informative)
Re:how, exactly (Score:1, Informative)
Why This Happened (Score:1, Informative)
Re:how, exactly (Score:5, Informative)
Re:how, exactly (Score:5, Informative)
Re:how, exactly (Score:5, Informative)
Their generations are so short you can WATCH them change in response to stimuli.
Re:how, exactly (Score:4, Informative)
Lab results disputing natural selection would also be a blow, since natural selection is the primary mechanism through which evolution is presumed to act.
Re:What the!?!?!?! (Score:3, Informative)
This is exactly what happened with radiocarbon dating, for example. When Willard Libby developed the technique, his hypothesis was that 12C/14C isotope ratios in Earth's atmosphere had been constant over time. That turned out not to be the case, as was proven by dating of items (historical wood, tree rings) of precise known age. The "faith" that isotope ratios were constant was promptly abandoned, and 14C dating protocols were revised to include calibrations taking known variations into account.
Re:summary wrong, as usual (Score:3, Informative)
OK, I just came across a copy of the email at scienceblog [scienceblogs.com]:
To which Ms Comer added (spouted?) "FYI".
Nonsense?
Re:how, exactly (Score:4, Informative)
The change in any single individual must necessarily be small enough that it may still interbreed with those around it. But all these small changes can spread through the generations until the population as a whole has changed significantly. If two populations are separated, the changes will not spread between them and they will evolve in different ways.
Re:how, exactly (Score:5, Informative)
But it doesn't really matter, many great scientists were and are religious, many are not. Newton was one of histories biggest geniuses, but he was by today's standards almost fanatically religious. And he had no access to the mountains of biological and geological evidence for the theory of evolution.
1 quibble (Score:3, Informative)
Re:how, exactly (Score:5, Informative)
Re:how, exactly (Score:4, Informative)
Re:how, exactly (Score:5, Informative)
Modern ID/creationism does not make predictions, because a prediction arises from the limitations of a theory. Natural selection is unable to create an organism with a different genetic code from other higher organisms. It is unable to create a gene that is completely different from genes in other similar species. A designer could choose to use similar genetic codes, or similar genes--but it can also do the opposite. For example, you might find two computers, quite similar in function, yet with completely different cpu's running completely different machine codes. Natural selection is unable to do this.
You should probably read some actual Darwin; it sounds as if you are getting your "information" from ID/creationist tracts. Since Darwin did not know about genes--he studied phenotypic variation, not gene expression. So he most certainly did not make any "assumption" about random genetic mutations--in fact, you will not even find the word "random" in Origin of Species. Darwin did propose that there had to be some mechanism for generating diversity, and also some form of granularity to keep the diversity from simply being "diluted out" as would happen if the basis for phenotypic traits was not preserved in some discrete form--because his theory would not work without these features. So the discovery of DNA, genes, and genetic mutation, which fit perfectly the requirements of Darwin's theory, even though Darwin did not know about them when formulating the theory, is one of the most dramatic confirmations of a theory's predictions in the history of science.
Re:how, exactly (Score:4, Informative)
HGT is a known mechanism. Pure mutation cannot explain how microbes became drug-resistant in such a short amount of time, neither how different bacterial "species" are able to acquire the same resistance genes.
PS: Just to dwell a bit into the micro vs macro pseudo-dichotomy... Part of the confusion I think arises because the definition of species as a set of phenotypic characters is misleading. And rather useless in the microbial world. That's why genotypic characterization has become so powerful. It gives a whole lot more information, even about the role of non-genetic, 'junk' DNA.
Re:how, exactly (Score:1, Informative)
This can be tested by looking at genetics... One would hypothesize that species more closely related would have more similar DNA... Guess what? It's TRUE.
Also, how about whenever archeologists go to dig up fossils, they find fossils from the periods where they expect to find them, and they DON'T find fossils of modern animals mixed with ancient animals. The layering is quite obvious. Evolutionists often say that if people want to disprove their theory, show them a rabbit fossil among dinosaur fossils. Hasn't ever happened.
And then there is Tiktaalik.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik [wikipedia.org]
Scientists went looking for this specific creature that had never been discovered. They went to the rocks where they expected to find it, and THEY FOUND IT. It's the link between Fish and Amphibians.
I've heard multiple times, but can't remember the scientists name, who said that the you can throw away all the fossil evidence, and evolution would still be as strong a theory. The Genetic evidence is overwhelming.
So yes, evolution is testable, and it has passed every test. In spite of what creationists like to spew, it's one of the strongest scientific theories around.
As a funny side note, my CAPTCHA word for this message is "Design"
Re:how, exactly (Score:1, Informative)
Re:how, exactly (Score:5, Informative)
That's a nonsense definition of infinity. Consider this: there are an infinity of numbers from 1 to 2 (1.1, 1.01, 1.001 ... 1.11, 1.101 ... etc). There are an infinity of numbers between 2 and 4 but that second infinity includes none of the numbers in the former infinity. Both series are infinite, both have a definite beginning and a definite end, but both are entirely separate.
Also interesting to note, intuitively the infinity between 2 and 4 ought to be twice the size (whatever "size" means when we are dealing with infinity) of the infinity between 1 and 2. In fact, they are entirely the same size. This can be proven by noting that every number between 2 and 4 can be obtain by multiplying each number between 1 and 2 by 2.
I understand what you are trying to say, but it's important to realise that argument involving concepts like "infinity" are not simple. God may be "infinite" (whatever that means - infinite what??) but that doesn't by neccesity mean God includes everything (that's pantheism).