Remember Christina Comer, the woman who was expelled from her job at the Texas Education Agency for merely forwarding an e-mail about a talk by Barbara Forrest? According to reports released yesterday she is suing the TEA and Education Commissioner Robert Scott for illegally and unconstitutionally firing her from her position. What is most pleasing to see, though, is that the suit is specifically fashioned to instigate change; to overturn the absurd "neutrality" requirement the TEA imposed on creationism and to get Comer her job back. This isn't about getting compensation for damages and running. The action gives every indication that Comer wants to get back into the fight and rescue science education in Texas. (You can see the paperwork for yourself here.)
There is one thing that did make me wince when I read the suit, however. Quoting the famous Edwards v Aguillard case of 1987 (which, in turn, quotes the 1981 edition of Webster's) the document provides this definition of evolution;
"Evolution is defined as 'the theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types, the distinguishable differences being due to modifications during successive generations.'"
If you want a good definition of what evolution is the last place you should look is the dictionary. The definition leaves the door wide open to creationism (who or what did the modifying over those generations?) and using it is a mistake. I wasn't expecting a technical definition but the Webster's blurb is entirely inadequate. A blurb from the National Academy of Sciences is thrown in, as well, but it too falls short of the mark. As always, I refer anyone who wants to know more about how to concisely define evolution to Larry Moran's post on the subject.
- Log in to post comments
You gotta love it -- the current policy at the TEA says, in effect, "Stay neutral on the subject of whether or not you should do your job." This is analogous to a restaurant being neutral on the subject of whether the food served there should taste good, a bank being neutral on whether its investments make any sense, or the staff of a clothing store not being allowed to suggest whether a customer's suit needs tailoring. Good thing the Comer case has an Establishment Clause aspect, though, because, unfortunately, it's probably not easy to address "gross stupidity" directly in a court of law.
As Zapp Brannigan once said, "What makes a man turn neutral?"
The idea that Creationism has no place in Public Schools is a religious belief of Atheists and, as such, has no place in Public Schools.
The argument that "by professing neutrality the agency credits creationism as a valid scientific theory" is as senseless as "bombing Baghdad to promote peace".
In fact, they have promoted it as something their Science Department is not qualified for.
Joeseph; Do you have any reference for that last statement, or only rhetoric?
Comer sent an e-mail about an upcoming talk revealing how bankrupt creationism is and was fired because of it. That hardly sounds like the actions of a sensible science group that actually cares about "neutrality." The demand that educators be "neutral" stifles science education, and while creationism might not be actively taught it limits good science and leaves the door open to nonsense. Taking a demand for neutrality at face value would be a mistake, especially in light of all the recent "academic freedom" bills.
The battle will continue until school administrators recognize ALL religions equally, not as SCIENCE, but as HISTORY, and as PHILOSOPHY, for students to make up their own minds about. Until then, the First Amendment will never apply to teachers.