i-f337505870c19ec91c08c54385ef8425-Cdesign proponentsISTS.jpg want us to believe that their “theory” is part of science, but of course, it is really a form of creationism, and has no place in Texas schools. This position is shared by more than 100 professors in Texas, who have weighted in on this debate:

“Intelligent design is a religious idea that deserves no place in the science classroom,” said assistant professor Daniel Bolnick from his lab on the University of Texas campus. “I really just want to communicate to the state board that we’re keeping an eye on the quality of evolution education, and that there’s no justification for watering it down.”

[source]


Following the forced resignation of Texas Education Agency’s head, Christina Castillo-Comer, these professors sent the agency a letter expressing their position.

Castillo-Comer was forced out after she sent an email providing information about an upcoming talk about creationism. She was accused of having been less than impartial by sending this email. You know the story, it’s been all over the internet.

What bothers me about this is that people are arguing over whether Castillo-Comer was being impartial, when in fact, her job really should not have been to be impartial. It is not her job to stand back while creationists insinuate themselves into the discussion of science standards or classroom practices. Her job as education chief is to be on the front line fighting creationism, keeping it out of our schools in all subject areas, especially science.

Castillo-Comer is considering a law suit. I think that would be appropriate, and I would guess that some of these nuances would emerge in such a suit.

Comments

  1. #1 Chris Harrison
    December 12, 2007

    I’ve been to a few of Bolnick’s presentations here on campus, and along with him we have Dr. Sarkar and Dr. Hillis who aren’t going to stay quiet if attempts to hinder science education are brought before the TEA.

  2. #2 Toby
    December 12, 2007

    Given the Dover judgement, surely Castillo-Comer has grounds for an action for unfair dismissal? As a guardian of standards in science education, surely her job was to ensure no dilution in standards by the introduction of religion into the biology classroom.

    I hope she has the courage, and the moral and financial support she needs, to see this through. It could be the next Dover.

  3. #3 Ex-drone
    December 12, 2007

    Ratcliffe states:

    We’re not the policymaker, we’re the facilitator, we carry it out

    Really? So, if told to teach only evolutionary biology, Ratcliffe is not going to have a problem with this? Everything will be grins and giggles?

  4. #4 Skeptic8
    December 12, 2007

    The Perry sycophants & appointees claimed an Official Neutrality for the TEA. This is already a sellout to the creo ‘wedge’ strategy of ‘teaching the controversy’ (to good effect). It’s happenin’ in my front yard here in Austin. We appreciate any support & noisemaking too. I use Texas Freedom Network (www.tfn.org) as my check-in place. Austin (TX, not MN)bathes in the Edwards aquifer and it doesn’t extend to Kansas.

Current ye@r *