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 ...
Because that is the way all liberals abuse the law and live their lives.
This includes liberals of any kind, moral, social or fiscal. They almost all lie all the time. This is their only method of change. Lawlessness based upon lies and propaganda.
==Nope. Evolution requires more than Natural Selection. After all, Natural Selection creates no new genes...Nor is Evolution a “fact.”...It’s fiction...Easily disproved with even a rudimentary understanding of Information Theory==
I completely agree with you...even the Evos are starting to catch on (although, they are behind the curve as per usual):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1925867/posts
Creationism vs. Evolution
God created the heavens and the Earth
Everything after that was Evolution.
==God created the heavens and the Earth
Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein
—Isaiah 42:5
—Isaiah 42:5
Why do you even pretend to be advocating science?
You are advocating religion, and a particular narrow version of religion; your method is apologetics. You are not doing science and seem to have contempt for the scientific method.
Why do you keep pretending? Are you trying to fool someone?
Or do you truly not know the difference?
Wiley, you really crack me up. I quote the Bible and then you “accuse” me of advocating religion. What’s next? Are you going to up the ante and accuse me of writing this reply?...LOL!
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
—Romans 1:20
You pretend to advocate science, but you are really preaching.
Remember this when you try to lecture scientists, who have studied their fields for several decades, on how to practice their craft.
(See tagline.)
==Remember this when you try to lecture scientists, who have studied their fields for several decades, on how to practice their craft.
I don’t lecture all scientists...just the ones who believe in Darwin’s natural selection god.
It seems fairly clear in my experience that atheists are largely evolutionists.
A fairly recent CBS poll showed that only 13% of people believed in naturalistic evolution.
Believing that God somehow guided some unnamed process is not naturalistic evolution. In fact, it isn’t really evolution at all if we say that some smart guy jumps in the pit and changes things every X period of time or so.
Sounds more like a cook tending to the cooking.
So? Evolution was still true 200 years ago, when the theory hadn't been derived yet and nobody "believed" in naturalistic evolution. Is this a popularity contest? Facts are facts. We've got them and you don't.
It seems fairly clear in my experience that atheists are largely bipedal, largely breathe oxygen, largely have two eyes...
Responding about an earlier poll cited in a previous post.
I’m glad that you agree about atheists being largely evolutionists.
Why do you think that they go in that direction?
It bespeaks the dishonesty of creationists that they must resort to lying in attempts to cover up the link between unscientific ID and creationism.
I have no idea. I've never polled atheists. My guess is that atheists would probably not be receptive to God-based explanations for ordinary phenomena, but that doesn't mean they accept Darwinian evolution either.
Trofim Lysenko was a famous atheist "scientist" who ran all biological research in the Soviet Union. Not only did he reject Darwinian evolution, he sent supporters of Darwinian evolution to the GULAG system of concentration camps. So it isn't that clear cut.
Yet you agreed that atheists are largely evolutionists.
Do you think it might be the only other choice?
Please show me an example of reproducing gravity.
Or a nova.
Now that that is out of the way, this link gives a good analysis of the history of “trees of life” ...we’re basically down to a shrub now (yes, he uses the term “tree” of life, but most non-lay folk really don’t, we tend to talk about clades and dendrogram means tree-like diagram, not tree):
It gives a nice accessible overview of the evolution of evolutionary thought.
And the first formation of life is still not a part of how speciation occurs. Different subject, different mechanisms, different qualifications needed to study.
I’ve included a couple of courtesy pings to others who might enjoy the presentation.
Not had an opportunity to check out your link, but to the first request.
In an attempt to insure the edges are not smeared in this discussion, “reproducing gravity” was not what I was referring to. If I want to say that gravity and Common Descent exist, occur or are true scientifically, I should be saying that there exists reproducable experimentation which demonstrates that these phenomena happen reliably. With gravity, I can obviously say, “Watch me drop this egg and you will notice that there is an inherent attraction between masses.” But, with Common Descent, there is no experiment that says, “Watch this X & Y and you will notice that they prove that all other life forms in the world came from one original form of life.” That is deductive reasoning that I infer from structure, DNA, behavior, etc. It is not the same as seeing the thing occur in experiemtation. So, if you mean, “Make another thing like gravity.” I cannot. But, I can reproduce it effecting and affecting the result. Not so with CD. It is the description of what folks infer from data. And, they vehemently disagree with other folks who do the same thing, but come to different conclusions. So much so, that they claim the latter have no business even speaking. This seems slightly hypocritical.
Regards,
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.