Letter to Texas Education Commissioner
Letter to Education Commissioner Robert Scott
Re: Opposition to Letter from Texas University Biology Professors Defending Biological Evolution as a Central Pillar of Modern Science Education"
Though I feel that Chris Comer should not have been ousted, I am strongly opposed to the above letter from biology professors.
Comer is certainly not innocent. The Barbara Forrest lecture that Comer announced was not about science but was a false ad hominem attack on all critics of Darwinism, using guilt-by-association to vilify them as allegedly being part of a fundy conspiracy to create a Taliban-type theocracy in the USA. Forrest is a bigot who is trying to shut down discussion of the scientific issues. Forrest cannot stand discussion of the scientific issues because if Intelligent Design or other criticisms of Darwinism have scientific merit, then her conspiracy theory is irrelevant. What Comer did was like a government AIDS agency sending out an "FYI" announcement of a Fred Phelps demonstration. A "Darwin-to-Hitler" lecture might be more neutral, as it would not necessarily be an attempt to shut down discussion of the scientific issues. And I have seen no claim that Comer was even-handed about the "FYI" public-event announcements that she sent out. Finally, Comer violated the Texas Education Agency policy of neutrality on upcoming science standard reviews. There is good reason for the policy of neutrality -- in the future the TEA may have to implement a science curriculum that includes study of the weaknesses of Darwinism. Anyway, right or wrong, neutrality was the policy.
Earlier this year there was a “Darwin v. Design” conference at Southern Methodist University in Dallas — that conference got a lot of publicity because some Darwinist faculty members asked the administration not to hold it. If Chris Comer knew in advance about that conference — and there is a fair chance that she did — did she send out an “FYI” notice about it?
Also, you should forget about what that stupid judge in Pennsylvania said. He did not even write the ID-as-science section of the opinion -- the ACLU did. And he showed extreme prejudice against the defendants -- regardless of whether or not Intelligent Design is a religious concept -- by saying in a Dickinson College commencement speech that his decision was based on his notion that the Founders based the establishment clause on a belief that organized religions are not "true" religions. He said,
". . . this much is very clear. The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry. At bottom then, this core set of beliefs led the Founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things, to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state."
(END OF LETTER)
The Darwinists may be better organized than their opposition, but a large proportion of the public feels that both the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinism should be taught, and I think we are being heard.