Posted on 12/01/2007 12:39:07 PM PST by Alter Kaker
AUSTIN, Tex., Nov. 29 (AP) — The state’s director of science curriculum said she resigned this month under pressure from officials who said she had given the appearance of criticizing the teaching of intelligent design.
The Texas Education Agency put the director, Chris Comer, on 30 days’ paid administrative leave in late October, resulting in what Ms. Comer called a forced resignation.
The move came shortly after she forwarded an e-mail message announcing a presentation by Barbara Forrest, an author of “Creationism’s Trojan Horse.” The book argues that creationist politics are behind the movement to get intelligent design theory taught in public schools. Ms. Comer sent the message to several people and a few online communities.
Ms. Comer, who held her position for nine years, said she believed evolution politics were behind her ousting. “None of the other reasons they gave are, in and of themselves, firing offenses,” she said.
Education agency officials declined to comment Wednesday on the matter. But they explained their recommendation to fire Ms. Comer in documents obtained by The Austin American-Statesman through the Texas Public Information Act.
“Ms. Comer’s e-mail implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that T.E.A. endorses the speaker’s position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral,” the officials said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
It bespeaks the inferiority complex of Evolutionists that they must resort to attempts to link scientific Intelligent Design with religious Creationism.
Mass email your entire department with such fluff?!
Get a new job.
You’re not fooling anyone.
Here is a link to a web thread which is pertinent:
The Evolution of the Discovery Institute's Website RhetoricOver the last 11 years, the Discovery Institute (DI) has been diligently scrubbing their website of any embarrassing hints about what their true motivation has been for opposing evolution and replacing it with "intelligent design." But thanks to the Wayback Machine, we can still see the confident, brash proclamations of the earlier DI in all their glory.
“It bespeaks the inferiority complex of Evolutionists that they must resort to attempts to link scientific Intelligent Design with religious Creationism.”
I don’t think if I would use the words “inferiority complex”, but I agree with your basic premise that religious creationism and intelligent design are not synonymous. It’s a very important distinction. Most people, in my opinion, will not balk at the concept that there is a reason all things exist. Consistent with agnosticism they may say that they have no idea what the details of that ‘reason’ are, but they will nonetheless not reject the concept that there is a reason for our existence. That, to me, is a start, and very, very different than outright atheism which is somewhat ‘faith based’ in and of itself. The concept of an ever changing dynamic unfolding universe created by God is consistent with both evolutionary theory and intelligent design. Anyway, you make an outstanding point.
The Discovery Institute is trivial, and doesn’t speak for most Intelligent Design proponents.
...that you feel so insecure as to trace old DI web pages in hopes of something that might vaguely aid your own tired agenda bespeaks of precisely the inferiority complex of which all Darwinists seem to exhibit in public, however.
The intelligent design crowd, creationists, postulate the a priori that a God set everything in motion. Marxists postulate a material universe evolving without a god with life originating as an accident of chemistry. Thereafter both carry on their arguments without any proof to confirm their beliefs. They are both arguing the same way, on the simple faith that their a priories are in fact true. Both claim science but show no experimental evidence or offer a valid theory with relevant associations and inferences. The Marxists and Creationists are one and the same in their way of thinking.
That's incorrect.
An Intelligent Design proponent can cite transgenic lab animals and note that they were created by intelligent intervention (e.g. Man).
That has nothing to do with God.
Comments like this demonstrate why our young people should at least be exposed to the basics of this theory in school, so that they could discern truth from fiction in this debate. First, intelligent design cannot be lumped together with creationism. Whereas creationism is religious, intelligent design does not at all “postulate that a God set everything in motion.” It does not even postulate a God. Several intelligent design theorists do not believe in God at all. Likewise, one does not need to belong to any certain religion to refute evolution using current scientific and archaeological evidence.
Much has been learned since 1859.
Ouch! I think you got me. Could you give me an alternative to the two approaches you cite, without falling into the same error you saw in my view?
What is useful here is that the scientists post references, links and data (like the Wedge document which counter your argument quite nicely).
The cr/id folk post only apologetics and propagandistic statements.
This is just what we need.
I thoroughly enjoy watching educational TV as the show producers take a run at explaining existence as well as they can. As far as I know, each of these shows says to me that the Universe has boundaries. If so there is a "this side" of the boundary and a "that side." I wish one of these scientists could explain to me what is on "that side."
They tell me the Universe was once a miniscule, tiny, microscopic, pre-elemental pin prick if pure energy. It seems to me that energy can be measured. I wonder where this measurable thing was. What, exactly, was it in?
They tell me that Einstein was so uncomfortable with the idea of an expanding universe that he interjected a mathematical constant in his calculations to eliminate the thought. He came eventually to think that was a mistake in his life. Yet, I suspect he did what he did because the questions raised by an expanding universe were terrifying to a scientist.
I can't understand why the theory of ID is so horrible to scientists who talk matter-of-factly about a bounded universe. Maybe infinity is just too rough a subject for mere humans.
The Discovery Institute already did that for them; their ID textbook is just a creationist textbook that merely replaced the words like "creation," "creator", and "God" with "design" and "designer."
Apologies (rather than apologetics) may be in order. Do the postings of the scientists you refer to establish without question Common Descent as the origin of all life?
Then why is every prominent ID proponent affiliated with them?
Marxists do not follow the Christian principle of absolute good or evil. I would say morality is a groundwork concept, thus illustrating a very important difference between Marxist and Creationist thinking.
“transgenic lab animals” LOL
Looking at your "about" Free Republic page, it appears you are firmly planted in the God camp. You just may have a bias.
The threads I usually see from the Intelligent Design proponents nearly always knock Darwin. The little I know about Darwin is he advanced the idea of natural selection. As part of his evidence, he made many references to changes brought about by animals through breeding by man. He also presented evidence from his experiments and field observations and those of his contemporaries. I would accept his work as science. For some reason Darwin sends the ID people into a tizzy. The ID people should really be directing their ire at Marx who insisted upon a material cause for life. He invoked Darwin, true, but for his own purposes.
Back to ID. Einstein was able to pare his Theory of Special Relativity down to two a priories, that the speed of light is constant and that relative motion is true. Darwin was able to sum up his Theory of natural selection in one sentence. Can you sum up intelligent design in no more than several sentences? I just don't have the time to wade through all the complaints about Darwin to understand what the ID people would like us to believe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.