AUSTIN – A former state science curriculum director on Wednesday sued the Texas Education Agency and Education Commissioner Robert Scott, alleging she was illegally fired for forwarding an e-mail about a lecture critical of the movement to promote intelligent design in science classes.

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.

Ms. Comer also said in her complaint that she was fired without due process after serving as the state science director for nearly 10 years.

Her lawsuit seeks a court order overturning the TEA's neutrality policy on teaching creationism and declaring that her dismissal was illegal under the Constitution. The suit also seeks her reinstatement.

Source: Dallas News

Interesting. Do you think that Richard Dawkins would be interested in starring in "Expelled - No questioning Intelligent Design allowed"?

I am not certain, but aren't creationism and intelligent design two separate things? Isn't creationism the belief that God created the world in six 24 hour days....whereas intelligent design is simply the belief that an intelligent power higher than ourselves set in forth the processes which brought about our existence?

Was she questioning creationism? Or intelligent design? And did the TEA's nuetrality cause apply to creationism, ID, or both? Also, what is their policy for firing people?

That poor teacher, they have to walk a very careful line. I have a best friend who is a middle school science teacher and believe me they have to tread carefully on both sides. It should not be that way in a public school. I have long believed if you want your child taught creationism or intelligent design (creationism wrapped in a sugary coating of pseudo science to be more easily swallowed) then fine, send your child to a religious school. Public schools are for everyone, and it should be that if you want a more spiritual bent to that education, you know where to look.

It isn't surprising that in Texas which is in the bible belt, that a teacher could lose their job, its discrimination but not a huge shocker. I am glad there is a lawsuit. It would be a great constitutional case.

Intelligent Design is the rebadged Creationism. The missing link between the two is the rarely seen beast, Cdesign Proponentsists.

From the OP - she "was illegally fired for forwarding an e-mail about a lecture critical of the movement to promote intelligent design in science classes."

Should be an interesting court case.

I kinda feel bad for the ones that think Aliens had a tenticle in human creation. Would that be like what a Wiccan feels like when told they worship Satan?

What does that have to do with anything?

It's my thoughts on the Original Post in context of the Creationism label being applied to those who may believe in Intelligent Design but may really hate the idea of a Creator God.

Maybe you have something useful or interesting to say on the topic?

I don't Think Richard Dawkins Opinion Matters as Only individual Thought on the matter , Matters. , As in Both should be taught , with all arguments to be heard and learned, then the student can make his or her own mind up instead of having the supreme courtLOL make up their mind for them.

Love Omnaka

Have you ever thought that, given the fact that God is not an empirically observable entity, and given that science can only study the empirical that MAYBE GOD DOESN'T BELONG IN A SCIENCE CLASS?

With regards to the italics, why would someone who might believe in ID hate the idea of a creator God? I don't know of anyone who seriously believes in God who hates God. Thats a very conservative fundee Christian view, that 'everyone believes in God, but some people hate him so they choose to be atheists or whatever'.
Are you, by chance, a fan of Jack Chick?

So you think because some religious zealots don't like something we should ignore science and teach conjecture? It is not about opinion one is a science the other is not, simple as.
ID is a religious based belief not a scientific study, evolution is well founded science.
Uneducated people should not decide what is science and what is not, that is ridiculous.

It is a belief that is has come from a Christian fundamentalist group. What connotations do you think it will have? It certainly has nowt to do with science.

3


This is contradiction on your part. Your saying that public schools are for everyone as long as you aren't religious.

Rubbish. If you want religion you have church, you are promoting stupidity by sticking it in a science class.

If the letter had been against abiogenesis or evolution then you would be demanding her to be fired. The college or what ever has a policy of neutrality so if she had written said letter than she should have been fired for that. Assuming that she did it as part of her job. If she did something private that is a different story.

No Mattshark not rubbish. Either you or cimber has basically stated that if a kid says grace at lunch time he should be sent home. Or, if they sit quietly for a minute at the start of a class.


You statement also proves my point.

If you want to pray at lunch you are welcome, however it is a waste of time that could be used for education to have a quite sit down at the start of class and if you want it in the science class then imo you are promoting stupidity and ignorance. You have church and you own time for religion.

You see I didn't say pray before class starts. By the way most kids play around before class starts. I did I also had my homework done before I left school for the day. Including the 100 or 1000 sentiences I had to write when I got in trouble in English class. Not all the time but enough to make the claim. Oh and I had a b average.

Good for you. I never said pray before a class starts either.

I think this incident in particular shows how the line between religion and state is truly thinning. In public schools religion shouldn't be taught at all, if a parent would like they're child to be taught religious values or beliefs they can send them to a private religious school or teach they're kid themselves. And what's even more ridiculous is that the TEA would even attempt to implement a policy of "neutrality" when it comes to belief or disbelief in Creationism or Intelligent Design. What I see going on is that TEA is basically trying to silently creep religion into the public school system; a place it shouldn't be. Why give Intelligent Design or Creationism any special reverence in a scientific classroom when science can't be given any special reverence in a church!? The only time believers in Creationism give science any acceptance is only if science supports they're belief in God; if science removes God from the equation Creationist will reject it, ...even if they're logically proven wrong. Creationism is a problematic concept to even consider, under any circumstances, especially in a scientific classroom. Believers want you to believe "a god" created everything around you yet have nothing to prove it, while using the "lack of explanation" for everything as they're evidence as prove for they're assertion. It's lunacy! They want people to consider "a god" created everything yet they totally undermine the sorting out of "which god" created everything. Any concept which revolves around or was thought up from religion, shouldn't be taught in any scientific curriculum. I can only hopes intelligence triumphs in this battle against pure d ignorance.

Why should we consider Creationism being taught in classrooms over other theories purported by other religions? Why not consider the Hindu version of creation of how they're god created things? Why not, well because someone within T.E.A is a damn bible belt Christian and has influence. End of story. There is one or more members of the T.E.A. who believes in God and definitely believes Creationism should be taught in a classroom, otherwise we wouldn't have this even happening. I guarantee you, if a Hindu was on TEA and he was a hardcore believer in Hinduism, he too would also be trying to implement a policy of "neutrality" towards Hindu beliefs in a classroom.

Good then it is agreed sitting for one minute is not going to hurt anyone who wants to do so. Instead of putting a thumbtack on the teachers chair. Or asking that pretty girl out to a movie or dance.

No asking for a date of a hot girl is far more important. If you want to you can but you can't tell everyone else too.

I have answered this one several time. Since abiogenesis is as provable as Creationism, then what should be said is the following. Science BELIEVES that life started in a chemical pool. But most religions teach that God or an intellegent being of some sort created life as is except for changes due to evolution. Today we will talk about evolution. Something like that. That is not teaching anything it is providing information. If the kids have questions on creationism the teacher can simple refer them to their preachers or what ever.

No sorry you stated that sitting for one minute was a complete waste of time.

No daniel, you just failed to read the papers. You ignored the evidence it is there, Fluffy even pointed this out to you.
Creationism is only on par with abiogenesis if you ignore facts and unlike creationism, abiogenesis works with real parameters and just because we have not done it in a lab yet it doesn't mean it is impossible.

The line between state and religion is not thinning it is getting thicker. They used to pray in class at the start of everyday. Now they don't.

No we think Abiogenesis works with real parameters. Which science has yet to verify.

Because it unconstitutional and it has nothing to do with education and anyone looking in at the US can see it is getting scarily thin, especially when you have such brain dead moron in the oval office promoting unconstitutional ideas.

If I could describe how you can't seem to grasp the irony of the fact that you think abiogenesis is impossible while simultaneously believing in something (creation) which has even less proof, those two words would be: epic fail.

I think the classes at my local high school are like 45 minutes long each and believe me those kids could use every minute being taught and not sitting around in silence. Do your moment of silence before you go to school, after school, during free periods, at lunch, in between classes, whenever you want as long as it does not take away from the actual class time.

It would be a complete waste of time for me because I do not pray(if I were still in school that is). If the religious kids get a moment of silence do I get a moment of talking? A moment to play on my phone? Shall I go into work tomorrow clock in and ask my boss for a 'moment of silence' before I start my job?

Its not a waste of time, just misspent time. This moment of silence/prayer thing has no academic value.

Oh sorry, you are just simply wrong Daniel mate, we have good evidence which has been verified, you just failed to find (despite a lot of help).

Well yes it is. What is your point, however getting a date of a hot girl is NEVER a waste of time.

Yep, I remember now why I never read these idiotic threads on creationism and evolution. Thanks for reminding me.

A girl doesn't have to be HOT in order for you to want to take her out. But having said that I think almost all women are a 10. When I first meet women I try to treat them that way too. doesn't matter how they look or how much they weigh.

No, I said ,I think They should teach all there is to know on Both subjects and let the indivdual make up his or her mind, Did I stutter?

Love Omnaka


No, I said ,I think They should teach all there is to know on Both subjects and let the indivdual make up his or her mind, Did I stutter?

Love Omnaka

I already know that creation has evolved, and they go Hand in Hand,m But not all sspirits incarnate right now know this and i'ts understandable. The Thread ia about someone lkoosing their Job over teaching sompthing not sanctioned by the supreme court , which Imo, has no buisness limiting our childrens Education.

Love Omnaka

No, it is science don't a popularity contest, evolution is a science ID is a religious idea. ID has no place in science EVER, it would like teaching multiplication in English class or how about churches start teaching from a biology text book!

No, actually this thread is about someone being fired over complaining about attempts to teach something that is not sanctioned by the supreme court because it is psuedo-scientific and breaks the first amendment of the constitution.
If you want to teach ID in science you promoting stupidity and degrading education. It is not science, it has no place in science, anyone who thinks it does clearly is not informed enough to make such ridiculous decision. ID is nothing more than anti-scientific propaganda aimed at the uneducated to help promote religious teaching over biological teaching. It has no basis in science, it is not considered science and it should not be taught as such ever. Before you make such comments, how about learning some biology and what science actually is first?

What if in the future we find that ID was real.

So based on the conjecture that we might find evidence of a creator in the future we should teach it just in case?
What if we find that there is no creator?

That is not a reasoned argument.

Why that is why we are teaching abiogenesis.

No you just don't understand Daniel despite many attempts (and some serious help).

The school fired her because they wanted to stay netural between the two. I assume she made some comment as part of her standing in school. As I said I would expect them to have fired her for saying the same about abiogenesis. Was the firing justified only if she knew how the school stood on the issue.

No it was unconstitutional, the staying neutral was do with them still wanting to attack science by infiltrating it with religion. What they did was unconstitutional.

Really I don't understand that as you yourself have pointed out. We need to teach abiogenesis because it is not religous in nature. In other words if religon wasn't an issue it wouldn't be being taught.

No, either you are deliberately misinterpreting what I am saying or you are on your own planet. Abiogenesis has evidence and is scientifically accepted. It has nothing to do with religion at all.
Id has no evidence at all. Why is this so hard for you too understand?

Sorry mattshark my temper is a little short today I have had less than 2 hours asleep. I no longer have a normal sleep pattern I sleep whenever and rarely get more than 3 hours at a time.

ID and creationism are the same ,they both believe that God created the world but ID tries to introduce a bit of psuedo science as camouflage and to dupe the unwary the same people who pushed creationism are behind ID

fullywired

What is your point Daniel? ID is not science and hence should not be in a science class, simple as. What more do you want?
And yes I do believe a a quiet period before the start of class is a waste of time that could be spent on education. Feel free to pray in your own time, it should not cut into class time.