Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Please note this is News in Brief, and so will be a short article.
Published online 9 July 2008 | Nature 454, 150 (2008) | doi:10.1038/454150e
News in Brief
Texas educator sues over job loss and creationism
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Please note this is News in Brief, and so will be a short article.
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email redesign@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
Her sacking was utterly shameful. It would do a lot to bolster confidence in the US justice system if she wins her case.
Many have been waiting for Chris to challenge this arcane move towards theocracy. Texas science education needs those like her whose efforts will keep our state and our country competitive in the twenty-first century. Dr. Timothy Henry Former Director of Judging Texas Science & Engineering Fair
Why is it so difficult for scientist to examine the alternative hypothesis that we were created by God? Is their belief that our existence is due to some cosmic accident based on unequivocal evidence or just faith?
James, the reason is simple. That's not a hypothesis but a just giving the uncertainty (what created the big bang?) another name. Since one then can equally well ask, what created God, which equally has no answer, it opening an infinite regress with no way to put experimental data to decide where to stop. Alternatively, if you want to say that God is continually creating and "tinkers" with what is happening on a daily bases, then you have to propose some mechanism and experiments that can be tested. As a scientist, I am perfectly happy to listen to any hypothesis that I can test empirically. Unfortunately, "proof by I can't figure it out" is not such a hypothesis.
The so-called "alternative hypothesis" that humans were created by God is a matter of belief, not a testable hypothesis in the scientific sense. The fact that creationism is not a system of rational inquiry open to experimental verification places it outside the scope of science, an uncomfortable truth that creationists and their supporters still fail to confront.
James, One should not confuse creation (the big bang) with evolution. There is more scientific evidence for evolution than for many scientific theories such as the theory of gravity. What is interesting is that the religious right which challenges the teaching of evolution in our schools (let's teach the controversy), never seems to want to teach the controversy about gravity or many other scientific theories (as has been pointed out by others - this would require an enormous textbook). Of course that may be because gravity doesn't seem to challenge any religious dogma.
The legal challenge Christina Comer presents Texas is something that needs to be done in any state that is "neutral" on the many verified theories of science. When I retired, to contribute to society I taught chemistry in a public high school in Central Florida, Seminole and Orange Counties, for four years. I found that while some biology teachers were thorough teachers, many biology teachers simply avoided teaching evolution. Some because they didn't "believe" in evolution and some because they feared for their job. Several teachers were more concerned about how they expressed their faith in the science classrooms than their science. And most were completely ignorant that science is based on verifiable processes. Some felt that belief was equivalent or superior to knowledge. The way the fundamentalists get rid of teachers who teach evolution is to not attack them on the grounds that they are teaching science but rather that they are rude to student's beliefs and other trivial complaints. When the principal is a member of a fundamentalist church a science teacher's job is not secure if they are not submissive. We have a long way to go to reform how science is taught in the USA. For too long we have been submissive to nonsense.
Comer's former employer, the Texas Education Agency, has a policy of neutrality towards issues that are topics of upcoming public hearings. One of those issues is whether and how to include criticisms of evolution in the state science curriculum. Comer used her TEA email account to forward an announcement of the lecture "Creationism's Trojan Horse." The lecture is a bigoted one-sided presentation of a conspiracy theory that advocates of Intelligent Design are conspiring to turn the USA into a theocracy. TEA's neutrality policy does not violate the so-called separation of church and state. The Endorsement Test frequently used by the courts prohibits the government from showing either endorsement of religion or disapproval of religion. The lecture "Creationism's Trojan Horse" expresses disapproval of religion.
Is questioning the validity of creationism really disapproving of religion? That sounds very 11th century and ignores the fact than many Christian scientists (in Europe at least) appear to have no problems being religious and agreeing that evolution is the best theory available to explain the living world around them. I wonder if Comer would have been sacked for circulating an email with the point of view of disapproval of evolution......but suspect not.
Larry, I'm guessing the lecture in question didn't "express disapproval of religion" but of teaching religion in a science class. Comer's job description was to oversee the teaching of science, and until someone can show that creationism is in any way scientific, that's exactly what she was doing. Incidentally, I find the idea of gravity as a theory extremely amusing. Reminds me of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, when Arthur Dent discovers that he can fly, by falling down and forgetting about it before he hits the ground.
Matthew Johnson said, --"Larry, I'm guessing the lecture in question didn't 'express disapproval of religion' but of teaching religion in a science class."-- Even if what you say is true, the lecture was still one-sided about the question of whether and how to include criticisms of evolution in the science curriculum. The TEA must remain neutral on that question because it is a topic of upcoming public hearings. --"Incidentally, I find the idea of gravity as a theory extremely amusing. "-- There is a law of gravitation, Newton's universal law of gravitation, which says that gravitational attraction is proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. There are also theories of gravitation, which seek to explain why gravitation exists.
"Creationism," broadly defined, is the view that the universe was made by some kind of designing intelligence. This intelligence (call him God if you want to) is considered to have acted with intention, design and purpose. Many on this list—Kevin O’Connor chief among them—have repeated the standard mantra that this view is unscientific and “not a system of rational inquiry,†primarily based on the claim that it is not testable. But the unstated (but strong) implication of such comments is that naturalism _is_ scientific because it is both “a testable hypothesis†and “open to experiemental verification.†Fine then—let’s hear it. Please demonstrate for us—rationally, scientifically and empirically, of course—that the universe and its contents came into existence, and subsequently developed into its current form, purely by non-intelligent, non-intentional and purposeless means; blind chance and natural law did it all. The challenge is not merely that it happened, but how. And remember, “experimental verification†of the claim is the standard. Easy for such a dedicated group of champions of science—especially since such questions are as settled as gravity. Cheers, -Brian
"The lecture [that Chris Comer publicized] is a bigoted one-sided presentation of a conspiracy theory that advocates of Intelligent Design are conspiring to turn the USA into a theocracy." No conspiracy, but a publicly stated goal: see Philip Johnson's "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds".
The role of a science teacher in a classroom is to teach students the scientific method and relate it to the appropriate scientific subject. The role of a science teacher in a classroom is NOT to interject his or her own beliefs, religious or otherwise, into the teaching of science. Just as a Christian science teacher shouldn't teach that God created the universe and directs the evolution of species, so an atheist science teacher shouldn't teach that science and the scientific method preclude the existence of God. As a matter of principle, God doesn't belong as a topic of discussion in a science classroom at all. Science is all about the scientific method: the rational and logical search for natural law(s) using reproducible, verifiable, and empirical means. Both Creationism and Intelligent Design require faith in the existence of a super-intelligence - i.e. God. Faith is, by definition, belief without proof. All proofs of the existence of God of which I am aware belong in a philosophy classroom, not a science classroom. So until proof of the existence of God can be demonstrated using the scientific method, Creationism, Intelligent Design, or any other a priori "scientific" theory has no place in a science classroom.
James Dodge commented "Why is it so difficult for scientist to examine the alternative hypothesis ...Is their belief that our existence is due to some cosmic accident based on unequivocal evidence or just faith?" I have no problem stipulating, believing, or conceding that the universe was created, or that such a creator still meddles. What is a little difficult to accept is that the earth is only a few thousand years old, that the grand canyon was created rapidly in the great flood, the entire creative process took seven days, or that women are the cause of all grief in the world because some ill translated and understood story says so. To believe those specifics I must leave the realm of science where clever people build models based on carefully collected data, then use those models to predict other things are used to verify the model. Instead I have to create a model from what I believe, and then selectively pick data that will fit this belief based model. To me the real issue, at least in the US, is that most creation, or ID, or similar treatments are intended to push a very narrow Christian Evangelical weltungshaung. Pushing such views in the public school violates the First amendment rights to not be prothelitized by the state. Like school prayer, one has to believe, like the hypocrite, that public prayer is appropriate.
Another giant leap for Mankind, well for Texas anyway. Pity it's in the wrong direction though. Science in the lab/classroom, religion in the church/mosque, isn't that the way it's supposed to be? The longer the scientific community and society at large tolerates the invasion of science classrooms by those with a religious axe to grind, the harder it's going to be to undo the damage. Already the cunfusion has been sown and your kids dont know the difference between dogma and theory. creationism is no more a science than Lysenkoism or any other crackpot pseudoscience. Its not even religion, a trojan horse is exactly what it is. This idiocy is propagated by people who have stated clearly that they are opposed to modernism, individualism, rationalism, they are appalled by what they see as the sickness of relativism, and blame science for eroding morals, undermining their precious religion and corroding the fabric of society. This jihad isnt going to stop in the classroom. It just the beginning, and we have to resist this ridiculousness with the greatest effort before it causes irreperable damage to science and society.
Larry Fafarman said: "The lecture "Creationism's Trojan Horse" expresses disapproval of religion." The problem, Larry, is that creationism -- or rather its latest incarnation, Intelligent Design -- is being touted by its supporters as a scientific theory. You've just let the cat out of the bag, just as the defendants did in Kitzmiller v. Dover: you've admitted that creationism is actually religious, and not scientific, in nature. Students are free to speculate on ultimate origins outside the classroom, or in classes on religion and philosophy, but it's really not the sort of thing that should be covered in science class.
I am not a science educational policy wonk, but I am a life scientist and a science educator. I, for the life of me, cannot figure out what a "neutral" policy on evolution looks like (policy wonks please advise). Could it mean that if Ms Comer announced a Barbara Forrest lecture, she would have to follow with an announcement for a Bill Dembski lecture soon thereafter to keep the balance? Surely it does not mean that she is not to announce any lectures, because that is not neutrality, that is inactivity. Could it possibly mean that any upcoming lectures that might be useful must include a disclaimer? I am having a hard time believing that neutrality means saying nothing about it, but maybe that is what they mean. If so, then it seems as though it was not made clear to Ms. Comer, who almost certainly has a case for wrongful termination. Michael Buratovich
Remaining neutral is what I do. I remain open to both possibilities despite the fact that I believe in one, and not the other. If one attacks the other side, this is not neutral. If one politely suggests what might be wrong with the other side, it might be acceptable. Referring to Creationism as a Trojan horse is an attack, not remaining neutral. She can believe what she like, but I think she could have been more subtle in order to remain more neutral. Based on my experience, I was taught only evolution at school and university, but I made my own decisions based on my personal experience as to what to believe from evolution or not. I did see that some seem valid scientifically, but some were not convincing. As a research scientist, I am aware of theories that does get overturned over time and I am open to being shown to be wrong in future about what I was convinced by before.
The very fact that the Texas educational agency could behave in this way is astounding to anyone outside the U.S.A.. Prereformation thinking by a theocracy when it is a world power is deeply worrying. Patrick Beauchamp