Evolution Debate Led to Ouster, Official Says

Associated Press ^ | November 30, 2007 | The Associated Press

[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.

[From many - one.]

Have you looked at the link yet?

[Coyoteman]

OK, I'll do one more response just for the halibut, although I see no purpose in it.

"Something smells fishy to me," said Tom with baited breath.

[From many - one.]

You beat me, I’m no good at swifties.

Maybe I should see a dock about it, but it’s a full moon and the docks are all tide up.

[Southack]

"... There are multiple problems with southhack’s code skipping, the most obvious of which is he is claiming that modern fish are ancestors to humans (not to mention modern coral)." - js1138

Nope. It's Evolutionists who claim that Fishes are intermediaries to Mammals, and it's *you* who wants to repetitiously claim that there is a secret immune system difference or unseen branch between ancient and "modern" Fish.

Your "modern" disclaimer doesn't save Evolutionary Theory from its crushing defeat. ET may phone home, but ET can't show how a trait evident in coral DNA in hand (ancient or "modern") appears in humans but can't be found in any Fish (or found in some other intermediary species, by the way).

Which is to say, you can and will insult me (easily ten times in this thread alone), but you can't show an evolutionary path based upon the evidence in hand.

Like the Black Night, you can't admit defeat even when DNA evidence fails to support your claims...yet while chopped up and bleeding on the ground you can do little more than cry (sheesh, again and again with your nonsensical "modern Fish" and insult posts) that you will "bite my ankles!"

[js1138]

I think SH got his tree of life at the local codshop.

[UCANSEE2]

What I want to know, is just what country is this OUSTER in?

What led the debate there?

[From many - one.]

Interesting that you continue this but have not read, or fail to acknowlede having read, my link that specifically addresses your misconception.

Leads one to wonder.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

I think SH got his tree of life at the local codshop.

I went to college in New England, and the day I got there, I asked in a local store if they had a map of the town. They replied no, but I should try the "cod shop" down the street. I was baffled but went looking for a fish store, until I found the greeting card outlet a few doors down.

[muawiyah]

When you eqate "evolution"with ay and all change tou lose control of the word as well as any understanding of the process it describes.

In fact you reduce your argument to little more than amantra chanted to a demigod.

[xzins]

Consider the following.

1. God created by establishing the law of evolution. (Theistic evolution)

2. God has revealed himself to his people through the Holy Bible. (Surely the Lord God will do nothing unless He reveals it to His servants the prophets.)

3. God clearly discusses origins of life and of species in the Bible.

4. Therefore, God has placed clear indicators of His law of evolution in the Holy Bible.

Unfortunately, #4 is not true. It is not there. Even though the subject is discussed, there is no revelation of the Law of Evolution in the Holy Bible.

It makes me suspicious of theistic evolution.

[muawiyah]

The reason we need new paradigms mnds frozen i orthodoxy.

[muawiyah]

Oblivion.

[js1138]

Your "modern" disclaimer doesn't save Evolutionary Theory from its crushing defeat. ET may phone home, but ET can't show how a trait evident in coral DNA in hand (ancient or "modern") appears in humans but can't be found in any Fish (or found in some other intermediary species, by the way).

I notice you have stopped claiming that fish are ancestors to humans. Wise move.

[js1138]

[Southack]

"I notice you have stopped claiming that fish are ancestors to humans. Wise move." - js1138

You make bizarre, unfounded assumptions.

For one thing, it's not *my* contention that Fishes are intermediate to humans. Fishes (of whatever Age suits your fancy) are intermediaries to mammals/humans on Evolutionary Theory tree of life's, not mine.

For another thing, it hurts the Evolutionist argument, not mine, if there is no genetic path from coral to humans (e.g. via Fishes or any other species) because lack of a genetic path means code skipping...

And genetic code skipping is a death-blow to Evolutionary Theory.

(that being said, I dig your "Skippy" graphic!)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!

[Virginia-American]

... The issue is that coral have a trait that humans have, but that trait doesn't appear in intermediary species (like Fish). That's *not* evolution. That's genetic code skipping. ...

This is all a bit vague.

Exactly what "trait" are you talking about?

Where, exactly, is it found in the tree of life?

Evo prediction: It will be resricted to certain subtrees, not scattered randomly thoughout the tree.

Crider prediction: It could be restricted to subtrees, if that's the way the designer designed it, or it could occur randomly, if that's the way the designer designed it.

After you have provided more detailed data it may be possible to decide whether the alleged phenomenon is contrary to the predictions of normal biology.

Of course, it will be in agreement with creationist or ID "predictions", see above.

[mnehring]

there is no revelation of the Law of Evolution in the Holy Bible.

Actually, there are several places if one knows where to look. In the creation account, most verses in the original language say how 'God set a system in place and the earth brought forth'. In the original language it doesn't say God spoke and poof it happened. A literal translation is closer to a decree or a law was put in to place and those actions unfolded.

Although the Bible wasn't written as a scientific text, if you look at the order of creation, it fits what scientists basically agree as a logical evolutionary progression, coincidence?
Also, the word Day- 'Yom' YM has multiple meanings throughout its use in the Bible, not only does it refer to a 12 or 24 hour day, but it also is used for the word 'age', an indeterminate amount of time, such as The day (yom) of the Lord or in the day (yom) of xx king. The common practice of literally translating that (Genesis 1) into one human defined 24 hour day, is a fairly modern occurrence (last 500 years primely when James Ussher calculated the age back in the 1500s- most of modern Young-Earth Creationism is based on his work.)

I don't believe in a God that created the universe to trick us. The more knowledge expands, the more about Creation is revealed, not the opposite.

[js1138]

You make bizarre, unfounded assumptions.

Oh, please. You stumble onto the scene babbling about something you call "code skipping" -- a claim so utterly devoid of support that, except for yourself, it has no adherents in mainstream science, Intelligent Design or creationism -- and proceed to post black knight graphics as your primary line of argument.

There is a reason, of course, why your crank theory is ignored by people who might otherwise be on your side. That reason is that even creationists have the capacity to be embarrassed. They would not like to find themselves on a witness stand, under oath, asserting that mainstream science says modern fish are ancestors to humans.

[Southack]

"Oh, please. You stumble onto the scene babbling about something you call "code skipping" - js1138

Nope. It's not "babbling" to cite DNA evidence. You should try it.

Instead, you simply raise the flag of surrender by showing that you can only insult.