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 ...
Have you ever stopped to quantify this assertion? You realize, of course, that nearly all differences between a wolf and a teacup poodle are covered by your "limited number of forms."
Not to mention the difference between you and Einstein, which may be even greater.
Most of evolution is variation at the level of allele variation. In the years after the evolutionary synthesis, evolution was defined as a change in allele frequency in populations.
Most of Evolution is a pretty theory that sounds good if you are drinking heavily in college, but hardly the stuff of the next generation of science.
That the same genes can be considered to be mutated when they simply perform a function in a different manner based upon a changed local environment...just goes to show that even Darwinists are beginning to realize that the DNA programming song remains the same (little Led Zep allusion for ya).
Same gene...no evolution.
Darwinists need to study more computer science. Data processing and coding (genetic or otherwise) is already aptly understood in *that* branch of science.
Computer "scientists" should study some genetics and evolution before they shoot their mouths off on a subject about which they know little.
Four or five years at the grad level should be sufficient.
Directed mutation is anathema to Darwinian's. Get with the program.
Genetics is programming. Genetics is data processing. Genetics is data storage.
Denying the obvious is why geneticists will be the last ones to realize the obvious: genetics is designed.
A bit of good news however, evidently Chavez lost the referundum and Venezuelans said NO to totalitarianism.
That is, you are equating evolution with change of any kind.
The definition didn't quite start out that way ~ and we've gone over this before, but our good buddy Darwin was concerned with the "Origin of Species", not "variations in DNA".
BTW, we already know that even massive changes in your DNA may not have an effect if the RNA "decides" there are other pathways for constructing the same old lebenteenzillion proteins and enzymes the critter needs to work.
I kind of like the old fashioned definition that looks at the macro-critter and its breeding habits. BTW, I also oppose the use of the word species to describe each little group of Pacific salmon who swim to a specific crick. Or, more recently, the little group of grizzly bears who scratch tree trunks on the sides of specific mountains.
Not hard at all to do.
He's just tracing the evolution of the Intelligent Design movement.
I'm beginning to see where you diverge from every other thinker on the subject. It's truly sad that the Dover school board didn't have the foresight to hire you and GGG to defend them. That would have been quite a show.
You might even have gotten to mention code skipping under oath. And GGG could have told them about degeneration.
Contribute or get off the thread.
Pointing out that we have someone right on FR who is smarter than all the scientists who have lived for the past 200 years IS contributing. Southhack should be nominated for a Nobel prize in every category.
BTW, I also oppose the use of the word species to describe each little group of Pacific salmon who swim to a specific crick.
I'm very impressed!
Our kids will mock the biologists of today for failing to grasp even the most rudimentary implications of Information Theory.
Such data ignorance has Darwinists claiming that “information just magically appears in the gene.”
Information from magic. That’s Evolutionary Theory.
Ah, so you are smarter than Hubert Yockey also.
How many posts are you going to make that offer nothing but attacks on me personally?
Are you really so intellectually defeated that you can’t even discuss or differentiate the points that I make from me, personally?!
Yet again you attack *me* rather than dare deal with the arguments that I make.
Gee, it's all about me!
Sad.
That's like insulting your prof because you can't understand calculus.
Ah, yet another "I've got to attack Southack personally because I can't touch his arguments" post.
It would be flattering if it wasn't so pathetically sad for you. It's certainly not a one-time post. You have a pattern of this sort of mis-behavior (as illustrated above)...
Wait. Let me guess. Once again poor js1138 has to resort to attacking Southack personally rather than dealing with actual substance.
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.