…and this is a 
Chris Comer strikes back
Category: Creationism
Posted on: July 3, 2008 8:50 AM, by PZ Myers
Chris Comer, who was fired for whispering "Barbara Forrest", is fighting back. This could get interesting.
Christina Comer, who lost her job at the TEA last fall, said in a suit filed in federal court in Austin that she was terminated for contravening an "unconstitutional" policy at the agency. The policy required employees to be neutral on the subject of creationism - the biblical interpretation of the origin of humans, she said.
The policy was in force, according to the suit, even though the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that teaching creationism as science in public schools is illegal.
"The agency's 'neutrality' policy has the purpose or effect of endorsing religion, and thus violates the Establishment Clause" of the U.S. Constitution, the lawsuit said.
Although…every time the evolution issue goes to court, I feel like we're sailing off into a dangerous fantasy land where decisions will be made on the basis of something other than their correspondence to reality.
Politics
Comments
Well, she's right. It's true it's a bit dangerous but that must be done and she's righteous.
Posted by: Michelle | July 3, 2008 8:56 AM
Frankly, it's frustrating that options for people like Comer come down to church/state issues, instead of the blatant disregard for competence that is displayed by organizations like the TEA.
That having been said, let's hope the TEA is held accountable.
Posted by: Art | July 3, 2008 9:03 AM
Religious discrimination!!!
I said many times at the beginning that Chris Comer was a victim of religious discrimination. Her constitutional rights were being violated by Death Cult fanatics. And that she should go to court on this basis.
Creationism and its camoflagued version ID, aren't even xian dogmas. They are narrow sectarian inventions of fundie cults mostly from the south central USA.
Worldwide, most xian denominations don't have a problem with evolution, mainline protestants, Catholics, Mormons. What is rarely said, some evangelical, fundie, and pentocostal sects don't either. Creationism is as much a loser position to defend as geocentrism and eventually all but the most hardcore cults move on. Pope Pius said it decades ago, "One Galileo in 2,000 years is enough."
Posted by: raven | July 3, 2008 9:08 AM
Chris will win; here's why. State employees can't be fired for taking a position on an issue in their own time (recall the email was sent from her personal account), and especially she can't be retaliated against for doing her job by learning about an unconstitutional policy. If she loses, I'll eat my own hat. Yes, the big one.
Posted by: Ames | July 3, 2008 9:18 AM
Relying on the courts is a second best strategy. They are the last line of defense between dictatorial cultist fanatics and the rest of us. And it isn't much of a line especially if they take control of the judiciary which they are well aware of. At the end of the day, the US constitution really is just a piece of paper.
OTOH, if the courts get corrupted we might as well find out sooner rather than later. Reality is what it is, and playing ostrich never works well or for long.
If we are going to end up living in a theocratic hellhole banana republic, that knowledge can be useful for making plans.
Posted by: raven | July 3, 2008 9:22 AM
From the article:
Ugh. It's so annoying when, for the sake of "balance", they throw in these obligatory descriptions of ID that make it sound as if it were a real theory. The descriptions are almost always the same (as if there's some agreement between all journalists on how to describe ID), and they always make it sound as if ID actually has something like a theory, rather than just some bogus attacks on evolution that were long ago refuted.
Why can't they just be honest? What's wrong with saying something like, "ID consists of a series of arguments aimed at discrediting evolution. Scientists almost unanimously agree, however, that these attacks have been sufficiently refuted, and that the real goal of the movement is to promote religion in the guise of science. In that regard, ID also proposes that there is an intelligent force involved in the formation of life on Earth, but no experimental evidence or theoretical explanation of this force's existence or methods have been produced"?
That's about as balanced as one can get in describing ID without being dishonest or making it out to be more than it is.
Posted by: Wes | July 3, 2008 9:23 AM
Just in case anyone would like a text version of the lawsuit pdf.
http://blog.darwincentral.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/comer.pdf
It's OCR and has some errors.
Posted by: midwifetoad | July 3, 2008 9:23 AM
#3, we don't want to make this a religious discrim case. Potential for ba precedent re: atheism is a religion. Let's stick to plain old public employee speech rights.
Posted by: Ames | July 3, 2008 9:27 AM
#3, we don't want to make this a religious discrim case. Potential for ba precedent re: atheism is a religion. Let's stick to plain old public employee speech rights.
Posted by: Ames | July 3, 2008 9:29 AM
Yah, especially considering the current trends in the SCOTUS. I started to say we could only hope this case wouldn't make it to the Supreme's 'til after President Obama has made an appointment or two... but then it occurred to me that the first several appointments he's likely to make will only replace people who are likely to vote the correct way anyway. Given the relative youth and vigor of the current 4-vote hard-right bloc, it'll probably be decades before any president has a chance to move the court to the left even a little bit.
OTOH, a Republican president would almost certainly have the opportunity to move the court way to the right within a single term, and then the Chris Comers of the world (and all of us who cheer them on) would be utterly, totally screwed for all of the foreseeable future.
Just one more reason not to cynically opt out of the upcoming election.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | July 3, 2008 9:31 AM
#3, we don't want to make this a religious discrim case. Potential for bad precedent re: atheism is a religion. Let's stick to plain old public employee speech rights.
Posted by: Ames | July 3, 2008 9:31 AM
Two things come to mind.
The first is that at the time of Comer's firing, The TEA indicated that the e-mail was not the only factor. To date, I haven't been made aware of the other factors involved in the firing, but I'm confident that the TEA has some other stuff to cover their asses.
The other thought that comes to mind is Chris Comer being held down on the floor while Don McElroy annoints her with oil, and pulls her teeth which he feels are posessed by demons caused by heresy and poor flossing.
Better get your teeth right with God Chris, and good luck with your lawsuit.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | July 3, 2008 9:32 AM
Chris will win; here's why. State employees can't be fired for taking a position on an issue in their own time (recall the email was sent from her personal account), and especially she can't be retaliated against for doing her job by learning about an unconstitutional policy. If she loses, I'll eat my own hat. Yes, the big one.
I wouldn't assume anything when it comes to discrimination cases. I dealt with a case where the plaintiff lost based on the most solid of defenses, they said they didn't discriminate. In the pre-trial discovery interviews both people responsible for the discriminatory action made statements that confirmed that their actioned were based on discriminatory practices, but the judge just "felt" that their statement that they didn't discriminate was proof enough.
I agree Ames, keeping it as a 1st amendment free speech case is far better. The religious right already trots out the tired old claim that atheism was classified as a religion by the Supreme Court and that is based on a single dissenting statement made by one justice.
Posted by: dogmeatib | July 3, 2008 9:34 AM
That's for agreeing Dogmeatib! And ugh. That's sad about the loss. I have my fingers crossed. Also, we never know what Tx will do; look at the exorcism & abuse case their Supreme Court just handed down (although this would be a federal case).
PS, I'm very sorry for posting three times in a row by accident. Goddamn iPhone.
Posted by: Ames | July 3, 2008 9:35 AM
I recommend looking at the text of the lawsuit before judging its merits.
Posted by: midwifetoad | July 3, 2008 9:40 AM
I started to say we could only hope this case wouldn't make it to the Supreme's 'til after President Obama has made an appointment or two... but then it occurred to me that the first several appointments he's likely to make will only replace people who are likely to vote the correct way anyway. Given the relative youth and vigor of the current 4-vote hard-right bloc, it'll probably be decades before any president has a chance to move the court to the left even a little bit.
Indeed, it is bizarre to read counterfactual fantasies about how Obama will turn the court around ... that ship sailed when GWB was elected. All Obama can do now is prevent further disaster ... replacing Stevens for sure, and Souter unless he stops hating his job. That's it for the first term, but Ginsberg, Scalia, and Kennedy might be up in a second Obama term. We'll have Alito, Roberts, and Thomas for another three decades (Thomas actually said when he joined the court that he was going to stick around as long as possible to stick it to "them").
Posted by: truth machine | July 3, 2008 9:45 AM
I'm sure they made up some bogus cover your ass claims against Comer to hide their religious and free speech discrimination. OTOH, if one can prove in court that they made up stuff after the fact or invented it, that weakens their case not strengthens it.
There was a government whistle blower case recently where they fired someone for disclosing illegal conduct in a government agency. The agency made up a bunch of stuff about incompetence etc. to justify their firing. It came out in court that it was made up after the firing and none of it was true and the judge had some scathing things to say about it. It isn't the crime that nails these people, coverups are as old as The Big Boat episode and everyone knows what they are.
Posted by: raven | July 3, 2008 9:49 AM
Lets sponsor more hunting trips for SCOTUS justices with Dick Chaney.
.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | July 3, 2008 9:51 AM
I still haven't seen that movie but I'm looking forward to seeing the section in it that deals with the Comer incident.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 3, 2008 9:52 AM
All this is covered in the lawsuit.
Posted by: midwifetoad | July 3, 2008 10:00 AM
blood boil
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 3, 2008 10:02 AM
Sadly, I used to work in the Texas school system on the administrative side. As one educator explained to me, the TEA is run by dinosaurs. These are people who don't want to use textbooks in PDF format because they're worried about them there liberal booksellers slipping in information about sex and evolution that they don't want kids to see.
And don't even get me started on the managers who gather folks up to pray and discuss Jesus, and have big wooden crosses mounted on the wall in their office. (Yes, it was more than one manager.) That shit pervades the entire education system in Texas, from the TEA down to the campus level.
ps - i love the blog! :)
Posted by: missn | July 3, 2008 10:20 AM
Of course that is the fatal flaw in their rationalization. Creationism isn't a scientific theory equal to evolutionary biology. It is simply sectarian xian wingnut mythology. It isn't legal to teach it to kids in public schools. It isn't even bought as fact by the majority of xians worldwide.
Posted by: raven | July 3, 2008 10:25 AM
#16, you're right in that the immediate SCOTUS effects of the Obama presidency will be preventing disaster, by replacing liberals (Souter, Stevens) with liberals, but I wouldn't be shocked if we saw Scalia step down, or... uh... be biologically forced off the Court... in the first Obama term. He's a fairly old dude. Ditto for Kennedy, and for Ginsburg (but that's just another disaster prevented, not a gain). Keep in mind that, to get a majority, all we need is 1 net gain in conservative slots, and I do count Justice Kennedy as a conservative.
Posted by: Ames | July 3, 2008 10:31 AM
Yah... but given the potential scope and impact of this particular "further disaster," it's important not to let people think a term like "all [he] can do now..." minimizes the importance of what he can do.
I had forgotten Scalia was that old (72) — time flies when you're having fun, eh? — but he'll still only be 80 when Obama's second term ends. Unless his health fails (and 80 is no guarrantee of that these days), I can't see him quitting unless he believed Obama would appoint someone like him (which would be a whole different disaster, but IMHO extremely unlikely). I think those of us who hope to see the court moving in a different direction need to be not only hoping for 2 Obama terms, but hoping that they're sufficiently successful and popular that we'll be able to elect another progressive (OK, OK, relatively progressive; spare me another thread about how narrow the American political spectrum is) president to follow him.
Of course, we need that result for more reasons than just saving SCOTUS, as well....
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | July 3, 2008 10:34 AM
History says that if people keep trying to cram religion down everyone else's throats, eventually their victims gag and throw up.
A lot of European countries have state supported religions and very apathetic and cynical populations.
Posted by: raven | July 3, 2008 10:41 AM
For all the people commenting on the possible Supreme Court nomineees, please remember: Earl Warren, nominated to the Supreme Court by Eisenhower, and John Jones, nominated to the Circuit Court by George W. Bush.
fusilier
James 2:24
Posted by: fusilier | July 3, 2008 10:56 AM
I'm optimistic about this one, given the recent striking down of evolution, though if this just goes to the Texas Supreme Court (which seems to be composed of fascists, from what I can tell), we may very well lose.
Posted by: JStein | July 3, 2008 11:05 AM
fusilier (@27):
Your point? Yes, I'm aware that individual judges don't always end up reflecting the ideology of the president who appoints them. Are you suggesting that the ideology of the president makes no difference in the character of the judiciary? In that case, I ask you to review who appointed Justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito, who are the ones giving me agita at the current moment.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | July 3, 2008 11:06 AM
Obviously telling education officials that they have to be neutral regarding teaching science vs. teaching religious apologetic dreck should be considered unconstitutional.
They're really supposed to be neutral on matters already decided by the Supreme Court? I wonder if they're allowed to speak in favor of the Brown v. Board of Education... ruling.
But here's the chance for the DI to try to show that their various "free speech" proposals really are about free speech. They can speak out for Chris Comer in this lawsuit by filing a brief on her behalf.
Sure, I wouldn't believe them if they did, rather I'd see it as a cynical ploy. It would still work, though, since arguing the cynicism behind it would be difficult. I'm not in any danger here, though, since the DI and others of their ilk who claim to care about "free speech" wouldn't dare to help Comer out, since their contributors (like themselves) have no desire at all for freedom, let alone freedom of religion.
Every time you fail to support the freedom of Comer, and others who are expelled for supporting science and freedom from religious control of schools, you show yourselves to be the utter hypocrites that you are, DI. Just think, you get to reveal your hypocrisy yet again, days after the Louisiana sham was signed into law.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 3, 2008 11:17 AM
Can we resolve one discrepancy?
One commenter says email was sent from personal account. Another commenter quotes text which says email was sent from state TEA account.
Posted by: interested | July 3, 2008 12:08 PM
From the lawsuit:
http://blog.darwincentral.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/comer.pdf
Posted by: midwifetoad | July 3, 2008 12:33 PM
I believe it was the State TEA account, for two reasons:
1 - TEA press release states its the TEA account. Said press release is quoted in Comer's complaint, but there is no denial that it was her TEA account in the complaint and I would expect there to be one if a significant fact such as that.
2 (and more important) - While I cannot see the actual from address on the emails included as exhibits in the complaints (only her name is shown), she signed them with her title and the name and address of the TEA, and her TEA email address.
Posted by: Dave | July 3, 2008 12:36 PM
Also, going by memory, I don't believe Comers was fired. She was asked to resign, which she did. I'm not sure what legal ramifications that has vs. straight up termination.
Posted by: H.H. | July 3, 2008 12:42 PM
So Ms. Comer sent an email about an upcoming relevant event, a lecture. Big deal. Millions of emails are sent every day.
This was just a pretext. They were gunning for her and would have found something even if they had to lie. Crossing the street, drinking too much coffee, an office full of demons, an evil eye, she made Jesus cry, the angels are avoiding her, having lunch with an elderly walking, talking snake and so on. For fundies living in a reality free half world, pretexts are a dime a dozen.
She was lucky not to be labeled an "enemy combatant" and "disappeared" to Guantanomo for some severe interrogation. If there is a difference between christofascists and any other fascists, no one has been able to find it.
Posted by: raven | July 3, 2008 1:05 PM
Put judge John E Jones on the bench for a little more hedge for a rational trial.
Posted by: Holbach | July 3, 2008 1:20 PM
Comer may have been the target of KKKristians in Texas government for some time. This incident may have provided the scant cause they needed to remove her. She might have resigned to retain benefits or to keep her record clear so she could enter another state or federal agency.
Government agencies are supposed to be neutral. It's all about being fair. Though I suspect that the KKKristians are pretending to follow the rules until they can return to open malfeasance.
Posted by: Mold | July 3, 2008 1:21 PM
There is nothing neutral about firing someone for not buying into a sectarian cultist dogma that claims that reality is all wrong.
Posted by: raven | July 3, 2008 1:49 PM
It seems like a lot of Americans have the South Park-ish idea that all issues can be solved by some compromise between them, no matter how irreconcilable the two may actually be. Where did this bullshit come from?
In any case, it needs to stop. Agreeing to disagree is not a satisfying conclusion in any circumstances - especially not matters of objective reality. Agnosticism in the face of evidence is almost as bad as rabid, teeth-grinding, shit-hurling creationism.
Posted by: Facehammer | July 3, 2008 1:56 PM
"Potential for bad precedent re: atheism is a religion."
Is Chris Comer even an atheist? I think the religious discrimination case is a good idea: religion running roughshod over scientific/educational policy.
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 3, 2008 1:58 PM
I wouldn't be shocked if we saw Scalia step down, or... uh... be biologically forced off the Court... in the first Obama term. He's a fairly old dude.
He's only 72, and he loves being on the court. There's no way that he would step down voluntarily under Obama. I allowed for the possibility of his being "biologically forced" in 4-8 years, but I think the odds are against it.
Ginsburg (but that's just another disaster prevented, not a gain)
Yes, and she's 12 years Stevens' junior.
Keep in mind that, to get a majority, all we need is 1 net gain in conservative slots, and I do count Justice Kennedy as a conservative.
He's the least conservative of the 5 by far, and only 71 ... a baby by SCOTUS standards. Like I said, that ship sailed when the foolish American electorate selected the greater of two evils twice over. Obama will replace Stevens, probably Souter, in his first term, Ginsberg in his second, with some chance at Scalia and Kennedy, but they're likely to hold out until forgetful Americans elect another Republican.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 3, 2008 2:03 PM
Yah... but given the potential scope and impact of this particular "further disaster," it's important not to let people think a term like "all [he] can do now..." minimizes the importance of what he can do.
Uh, that's why I used the word "disaster".
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 3, 2008 2:05 PM
For all the people commenting on the possible Supreme Court nomineees, please remember: Earl Warren, nominated to the Supreme Court by Eisenhower
That's the Eisenhower who sent federal troops to Little Rock and gave this speech: http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html
and John Jones, nominated to the Circuit Court by George W. Bush
Does "single issue" mean anything to you?
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 3, 2008 2:11 PM
As one educator explained to me, the TEA is run by dinosaurs.
See, it's true! Humans and dinosaurs have lived side by side!
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 3, 2008 2:13 PM
Been hoping a suit like this would come about. If it goes to court, what's the over/under on the number of times "breathtaking inanity" shows up in the transcripts?
--Traffic Demon
Swordchucks, yo
Posted by: Traffic Demon | July 3, 2008 2:20 PM
The people responsible for firing Chris Comer deserve nothing short of a nice extended exile from any power, leisure, or responsibility.
Being shunned by anyone who might give them respect or approval for a while might change their ways.
I'd suggest something like a few months sitting at a bus stop downtown, maybe with their lunch and clean underwear in a Wal-mart bag next to them.
Posted by: Will Von Wizzlepig | July 3, 2008 2:36 PM
PZ, I never thought I would say this, but don't be so pusillanimous!
Since 'scientific creationism', 'creation science' and 'ID' (at least as practiced at Dover) have all been found to be in violation of the Establishment Clause, it seems to me that state educational agencies and their employees would be in deep doo-doo to suggest otherwise. To be 'officially neutral' as to the question of whether or not these notions can be taught in the public schools as science seems almost equally problematic. Clearly, those questions have been settled in court, and pretending that they haven't isn't really 'neutral' if it affects the classroom.
Equally clearly, the Texas state agency that employed Ms. Comer fired her for failing to remain 'neutral' in some fashion. If the effect of that firing is to be neutral with respect to the Establishment Clause (as her suit apparently argues) then I think she's got a case. And, even if she loses, I'd like to see it go forward...because then you could start digging into the sick underbelly of the Texas educational establishment, including the maniacs on the State BOE and the textbook clowns that have for decades held Texas and the rest of the nation back.
So, I say, go get 'em, Chris!
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | July 3, 2008 3:03 PM
That's because the journalists are copying right from a DI press release. That's how "balanced" journalism is done, just quote from each side's press release. If there are more than two "sides", just pick two. You don't want to confuse the readers.
Posted by: ndt | July 3, 2008 3:05 PM
#27 - fusilier - James 2:24, if memory serves - Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Interesting tag.
Posted by: Patricia | July 3, 2008 3:06 PM
Eisenhower was a liberal by today's standards.
Posted by: ndt | July 3, 2008 3:11 PM
Fusilier @ 27 Yes, judge John E Jones was appointed by religionist George W Bush, but it is certainly obvious that the sane judge let reason prevail by ignoring Bush's agenda for irrational decisions.
Posted by: Holbach | July 3, 2008 3:16 PM
Fusilier @ 27 Yes, judge John E Jones was appointed by religionist George W Bush, but it is certainly obvious that the sane judge let reason prevail at Dover, Pennsylvania by ignoring Bush's agenda for irrational decisions. Good man, John Jones; screw Bush!
Posted by: Holbach | July 3, 2008 3:19 PM
Time to abolish the TEA. They obviously do a shitty job administering the schools:
* Texas is #49 in verbal SAT scores in the nation (493) and #46 in average math SAT scores (502).
* Texas is #36 in the nation in high school graduation rates (68%).
* Texas is #33 in the nation in teacher salaries. Teacher salaries in Texas are not keeping pace with the national average. The gains realized from the last state-funded across-the-board pay raise authorized in 1999, which moved the ranking from 33 to as high as 26th in the nation, have disappeared over the last five years.
* Texas was the only state in the nation to cut average per pupil expenditures in fiscal year 2005, resulting in a ranking of #40 nationally; down from #25 in fiscal year 1999.
* Texas is #6 in the nation in student growth. The general student population in Texas public schools grew by 11.1% between school years 1999 and 2005, with the largest percent of growth seen among low income and minority children.
* Between school years 1999 and 2005, the number of central administrators employed by Texas public schools grew by 32.5%, overall staffing in public schools grew by 15.6%, while the number of teachers grew only 13.3%.
http://www.window.state.tx.us/comptrol/wwstand/wws0512ed/
Posted by: CalGeorge | July 3, 2008 3:27 PM
Yup. I didn't mean to be arguing with you; simply emphasizing our point of agreement so nobody could possibly misunderstand.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | July 3, 2008 3:31 PM
Mr. Dauphin - The last seven years should be an educational lesson in what exactly people can willfully misunderstand (the Constitution, their oath of office, etc.). Anyone can misunderstand anything when it is not in their interest to understand it clearly - of course, that also requires others compliant people to support the misunderstanding, but we have a lot of those, too.
Posted by: Hap | July 3, 2008 3:53 PM
The policy required employees to be neutral on the subject of creationism - the biblical interpretation of the origin of humans, she said.
Well, here's a question, which I'm sure Chris Comer's attorneys will also be asking: Did the policy require employees to be "neutral" regarding non-Biblical creation myths?
Honk if you love Nyx!
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | July 3, 2008 4:01 PM
Hap (@55):
Yeah, well I hope you'll forgive me if I try to make them work as hard as possible to misunderstand... like forcing the other team's pitcher to throw more pitches: Hopefully it'll pay off in the end.
Plus which, not all misunderstanding or complacency is willful. Groups of smart, intellectually diligent people (in which category I place most of the regular posters here) often forget that the world is full of folks who are not quite as sharp or diligent; for them, it's not always a bad thing to say stuff more than once, and to try to be as clear as possible.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | July 3, 2008 4:16 PM
ndt: That's because the journalists are copying right from a DI press release. That's how "balanced" journalism is done, just quote from each side's press release. If there are more than two "sides", just pick two. You don't want to confuse the readers.
It's not about confusing the readers. Doing more than stenography takes time, and time == money. Today's media is run for short-term, quarterly profit, therefore stenography is what they do.
Reading the papers is like reading Pravda -- where the political officers have been replaced by PR agents.
Posted by: frog | July 3, 2008 4:19 PM
Yes, it would be really awful if an EDUCATIONAL BUREAUCRACY were actually biased towards true science education.
While I'm no lawyer, I can not imagine how Comer could lose this case short of hiring the prosecution team in the OJ Simpson case.
Posted by: Dr. J | July 3, 2008 4:56 PM
I've been found to be unclear at times, and I suspect (at least once that I can remember) I may have been willfully obtuse (or convening with its next-door neighbor). I have been more prone lately to assuming the worst (well, the not-so-good) of people, but it makes more sense to assume that people want to understand and perhaps cannot, and to make it clearer for them, than to assume that they refuse to understand and damn them.
The caveat is the more creationist arguments I see, the less is my ability to understand exactly how clear something can be shown to be and still be willfully misunderstood. As said by others, there is nothing foolproof, because fools are amazingly ingenious.
Posted by: Hap | July 3, 2008 5:02 PM
I don't understand why the creationists feel the need to try to force public schools to teach their dogma when they have a place for that - it's called a CHURCH! Forcing it into the schools is nothing less than a push toward public funded government mandated prostelyzation of their faith.
Oh yeah, THAT'S why they're doing it!
Posted by: Eric Paulsen | July 3, 2008 10:09 PM
I still don't understand why forwarding notice of a talk isn't neutral; isn't part of their job to gather information (from both sides)? Weren't there announcements of The Other Guys' talks being sent around?
Ms. Comer didn't advocate anything. She just let peoole know what's going on.
Posted by: Monado, FCD | July 3, 2008 10:33 PM
still don't understand why forwarding notice of a talk isn't neutral; isn't part of their job to gather information (from both sides)?
It has nothing to do with neutrality. What is the point of being a christofascist with power if you can't persecute someone or some groups. Might as well believe in democracy or something equally benign otherwise.
It's really simple.
Christofascists=fascists
Posted by: raven | July 3, 2008 10:51 PM
To be neutral was probably put in to stop creationists from expressing their beliefs and it backfired to the mirth of creationism.
If you can say the bible is false on origin subjects then you can say its true.
If you can't say its true then you can't say its not true.
That neutrality. Thats equality. Thats a accurate understanding of the founding fathers of America on this matter. Not the incompetent and silly conclusion of some Judges that say only one side is banned and not the other. Theres separation and theirs separation.
One must remember the constitution was made by a very religious Protestant population. They never would of imagined anything they put in their forms of goverance could be twisted into government policys of oppression and censorship on the truths of christianity. Especiallly protestant christianity.
The same dumb errors on schools and origins has since moved into so many aspects of jurisprudence as to make even children know that the party who wins power decides which judges , read preconceived conclusions on matters, get to decide who gets their way.
Truth on origins and truth on religion should not ever of been a matter for courts to decide. Its absurd.
Let the people be free to decide what is taught or not taught .
EXPELL censorship, thought control, and attacks against religious doctrines.
Creationism is more legitamate in the essence of America then evolutionism.
Let both slug it out before the students of a free intelligent people.
Only the side lacking confidence would be afraid of that.
Posted by: Robert Byers | July 4, 2008 4:00 AM
"One must remember the constitution was made by a very religious Protestant population."
Or by a bunch of post-Enlightenment deists and freethinkers.
"They never would of imagined anything they put in their forms of goverance could be twisted into government policys of oppression and censorship on the truths of christianity."
What truths would those be?
"Especiallly protestant christianity."
Well, naturally. Especially Sun Myung Moon Protestant Christianity. *nods sagely*
"Truth on origins and truth on religion should not ever of been a matter for courts to decide."
Yes. That's for the scientists to decide. The courts can stick to ruling on someone's wrongful firing.
"EXPELL censorship, thought control, and attacks against religious doctrines."
But religious doctrines are thought control. Pretty much by definition.
"Creationism is more legitamate in the essence of America then evolutionism."
The "essence of America" is bollocks.
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 4, 2008 4:25 AM
Posted by: SEF | July 4, 2008 4:41 AM
Byers the facist troll is here again.
This web-seagull just comes here from time to time to post his nonsensical crap and goes away, like the big coward that he is. Because nobody reads his crazy cristofacist blog.
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 4, 2008 5:43 AM
Posted by: SEF | July 4, 2008 6:12 AM
"One must remember the constitution was made by a very religious Protestant population."
Bwahahahaaa. How deluded can one get.
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814.
"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent."
Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789.
"but the Bible is such a book of lies and contradictions there is no knowing which part to believe or whether any..."
Thomas Paine - Age of Reason
"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies."
Benjamin Franklin
"Revealed religion has no weight with me."
Benjamin Franklin
What patriots these revisionists are, knowing nothing about the origin of the country they live in, only a fantasy to desperately cling to.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 4, 2008 6:19 AM
Ah well, it's impossible to guess what goes on in such an irrational and deluded mind !
He signs with his true name, but hides his blog :
http://watchmanswords.blogspot.com/
Probably wants to prevent us Pharyngulites to invade his comments section with the appropriate insults and ridicule that he deserves !
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 4, 2008 6:31 AM
I viewed the NOVA piece on the Dover trial last night. There were a lot of things about it that angered me, both on the creationist side and on the evolutionist side. But what strikes me most broadly is that it just doesn't matter either way. It's all partisan bickering over TRIVIA.
On the creationist side, there is a partisanship which results in disingenuous behavior of all sorts. Including perjury. It's a sneaky business to introduce a banned agenda under an assumed name.
On the evolutionist side there is an even madder partisanship to prove that ID is covert creationism and therefore a forbidden idea. NOVA shows considerable bias towards this view, and takes pains to make the believers in creationism out to be fools. But it's hard to ignore the self-righteousness of the evolutionist partisans! And sadly most of the rabid partisans are scientists. Defending an arcane theory is a shameful waste of their intelligence.
I'm a research scientist. I'm used to empiricism and scientific method. Neither creationism or darwinianism has any bearing on what I have learned, how I think, or what I do for a living as a scientist. These are philosophical topics, which only incidentally bear on science. Neither of these theories is responsible for the development of a vaccine, or better optics/microimaging, or genetic selection and hybridizing, etc. etc. All the scientific advances have gone on regardless of which theory one believes. They proceed from research work by the likes of Mendel and Edison, not from philosophical and religious screeds. As far as science is concerned these theories add nothing. Both of them belong out of the biology and science books, and should be filed next to the books about astrology, Marxism, Technocracy, the collected works of Paul Tillich and Elbert Hubbard, and Danny and the Dinosaur.
By the way, I like Christopher Hitchens writing too. His summary critiques of English literature are always fascinating. And in describing John F. Kennedy as a hooligan I think he gets it exactly right. Very apt word choice.
Posted by: tom quick | July 4, 2008 8:57 AM
Well Tom has settled it, Biology is just philosophy.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 4, 2008 9:11 AM
negentropyeater at #70..
Cripes, are there *two* Robert Byers? Because the site you linked to is RB in Tulsa or some such, and the RB I'm familiar with is a Toronto creationist who regularly spouts 'explanations' based on some alternate reality that only exists in his head.
Posted by: Bee | July 4, 2008 9:23 AM
"I'm a research scientist. I'm used to empiricism and scientific method. Neither creationism or darwinianism has any bearing on what I have learned, how I think, or what I do for a living as a scientist. These are philosophical topics, which only incidentally bear on science."
You have got to be freaking kidding me... Excuse me, but the only way that we can understand the difference between what science is, and what completely bullshit is, is due to clear philosophical arguments. Empiricism is a philosophical movement, which has been adopted for scientific exploration, and for very good reasons.
Besides, evolutionary theory (really, cut the crap about "darwinism"; it just shows a lack of respect) is what basically every freaking scientific endaveour wants: an overarching complete theory that can explain all the phenomena within it. Physics is looking for one, but hasn't found it yet and the same goes for every scientific field, including psychology. Without a grand theory, everything is just a hollow collection of empty facts that lack structure and, indeed, meaning.
Theories are essential, and the theory of evolution is one of the most complete and biggest ones out there due to being proven over and over again in 150 years to explain what it is supposed to explain. It is important and should be defended for all the right reasons.
Posted by: Arno | July 4, 2008 9:26 AM
tom quick @ 71 If I interpret your summary correctly, Darwinism, (I won't even give credence to the other crap by mentioning it) belongs in the realm of philosophy? What the hell was Darwin working with for most of his life, shoe laces and tarot cards? Barnacles, worms, and all the many biological forms he investigated, not to mention animals and the epitomy of Biology, humans, exist because of Biology. Philosophical matters would not arise if it were not for Biology to give it impetus.
Posted by: Holbach | July 4, 2008 9:31 AM