Texas science educator pushed out for advocating science

"Intelligent design" (i.e., creationism; let's call it what it is) is a very bad idea. It's not a scientific theory; it's transparently religion masquerading (very badly) as science.

But, despite the awesomely-bad science that intelligent design represents, this doesn't mean that political pressures can't generate even greater levels of stupidity, and quite probably illegal behavior.

The Texas science curriculum director, Chris Comer, recently was all but forced to resign from her position after she forwarded an e-mail about a talk by the co-author (Barbara Forrest) of a book entitled Inside Creationism's Trojan Horse. According to a November 29 article in the Austin American-Statesman, Comer was put on adminstrative leave in October shortly after she forwarded an e-mail about Forrest's talk to "several individuals and a few online communities." This apparently was a violation of a directive (see the disciplinary memo sent re: Comer; it reeks of weaselly legalese) given to Comer that stated that she was not to "communicate in writing or otherwise with anyone outside the [Texas Education A]gency in any way that might compromise the integrity of the [Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills] development and revision process." The TEKS revision is apparently an overhaul of the Texas school system curriculum that's ongoing. And Comer's mistake was to intentionally or accidentally endorse the idea that creationism in the guise of intelligent design is horseshit; her position within the TEA requires that she, as a representative of the agency, remain neutral about creationism and not provide (back to the memo here) "guidance or opinions about instructional methodology."

There were other dressed-up complaints in the memo about Comer's "insubordination", but these too smell like they came from lawyers who were trying to protect the TEA from a wrongful termination lawsuit. But it's clear what happened here: Comer was fired because she incidentally endorsed the (truthful) equation "creationism = not science" and this is not popular or acceptable in a conservative state like Texas.

Besides the witch-huntery aspect of this, what's most disturbing about this (although hardly surprising) is that some politicos in Texas believe that neutrality in the realm of science means that creationism is to be taken seriously as science. But it is not neutral to have creationism being taught in a science class; it is an positive endorsement of its scientific status, which is woefully lacking, and always will be.

UPDATE: The NY Times published an op-ed piece about this story this morning (Dec. 4). The conclusion: "We can only hope that adherents of a sound science education can save Texas from a retreat into the darker ages."

Bookmark with Del.icio.us!