[coramdeo]

I think the point that has gotten lost in this thread is that she is being punished for simply asking people to think critically about evolution. I'm sorry, but the reaction to her talk smacks of religious zealots who see infidels at the doorstep, not academics who disagree over scientific views.

Why is evolution the only topic in American education not open to criticism? Evolutionists themselves have had to revise their theories almost constantly.

Why are the high priests of evolution so afraid of honest discussion? I think the answer is that for many who want to maintain their devotion to non-theistic naturalism, evolution is a key religious doctrine. So, at the first sign of heresy, bring on the Spanish Inquisition.

[f.Christian]

Natural selection ... survival of the fittest --- evolution ruse --- rules the roost !

[Right Wing Professor]

Why is evolution the only topic in American education not open to criticism

We generally don't ask students to 'think critically' about other established scientific laws either. By and large, we regard them as well-established by a large body of experimental work, to which undergraduate students don't have extensive access; and 'critical thinking' about such laws is not a useful pedagogical technique.

[MattAMiller]

Why is evolution the only topic in American education not open to criticism?

I bet Holocaust denying professors don't last long. Why are the high priests of evolution so afraid of honest discussion?

There's nothing honest about creationism.

[edsheppa]

I think the point that has gotten lost in this thread is that she is being punished for simply asking people to think critically about evolution.

That's what this article says. That's what the title of her talk implies. But I bet not.

[Ichneumon]

I think the point that has gotten lost in this thread is that she is being punished for simply asking people to think critically about evolution.

Highly unlikely. Evolutionary scientists themselves "think critically about evolution" and encourage/expect others to do so as well. That's how science advances. No one gets in trouble for just "thinking critically" about *any* field of science, or asking others to do so.

More likely, as the presentation of "flaws" described in the article implies, she was one of those cranks who shovel loads of long-discredited "disproofs" at people and muddy the discussion with garbage that any truly qualified teacher or scientist would laugh off the stage. If she was presenting some of the silly BS I've seen given as "evidence against evolution" through the years, then that alone serves as strong evidence that the woman is not fit to be a teacher of science, because most decently educated high school students can recognize the flaws in them -- and if she couldn't, well...