Texas Eduation Agency and Chris Comer, Part 10

In addition to speaking on Science Friday, Chris Comer is interviewed by an Austin TV station, News 8 Austin. The video link is incorrect, but may be fixed in the future. An accompanying text article says:

Unemployable is how Castillo-Comer describes herself now.

Castillo-Comer has not decided whether she will file a lawsuit against the state.

Frankly, if she does, I think she would have a lot of people behind her. Not least of which is the American Institute of Biological Sciences, who have issued a position paper:

Biologists and evolution education advocates across the United States are outraged that the TEA requires, as agency policy, neutrality when talking about evolution and creationism.

As much as I try to be a level-headed guy, yeah, I would have to agree that I'm stepping towards outrage on this.

Update: The video link in the News 8 Austin page now works and actually shows Comer and not sports.

Texas Education Agency and Chris Comer, Part 9

Today (Friday, 7 December), Chris Comer is scheduled to appear on Science Friday on America's National Public Radio (NPR). It's slated for 1:00 pm Central Standard Time. If this is as usual for the show, they will have a "Listen again" feature on the Internet for those outside the county.

Meanwhile, I've been looking in blogs for anyone who is willing to defend the Texas Education Agency on this.

About the only one I can find is an argument that certain people have double standards, drawing parallels between Comer and one Guillermo Gonzalez, an astronomer who supported intelligent design, and was recently denied tenure. As these are unrelated cases, each case has to be looked at upon its own merits. I'm not getting into the Gonzalez case, as others are doing that. Much is getting written on Panda's Thumb.

Even Uncommon Descent, arguably the most famous intelligent design blog, is strangely quiet, asking if Texas can or should remain neutral. It posts several questions, mentions the Gonzalez situation, and posts two news stories from the Austin American-Statesman.

I also found this piece, which affirms that many Christians also smell something rotten in the TEA's actions. And even a post that starts "I'm a creationist," admits:

How can the Texas Education Agency justify her firing her for endorsing a view which is taught at every Texas public school? ... I’m still confused as to why Comer was let go.

Finally, a more personal perspective is taken by someone who is familiar with one of the key players involved, Lizette Reynolds, and is boggled. "But she seemed so smart..."

More newspaper editorials today. In keeping with my quest for alternative views, the University of Texas at Austin Daily Texas is more forgiving than most to intelligent design:

Darwin's theory of evolution may be just that - a theory, and as much of one as intelligent design - but scientifically, a theory is a call for questioning and synthesis, and a path toward tangible fact.

But that's as far as they'll go, still not supporting TEA's actions:

There are facts and there are suppositions, and as the TEA has proven, the former does not belong in the realm of political politesse. But the latter does not belong in our schools.

One in the International Herald-Tribune:

Surely the agency should not remain neutral on the central struggle between science and religion in the public schools. It should take a stand in favor of evolution as a central theory in modern biology.

Another in the Dallas Morning News:

Professional educators need assurance that no one aims to impose a religious agenda on students and require the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in science classes.

If Ms. Comer was incompetent, it's certainly not reflected by her 27-year career as a teacher and nine years of service as director of science. The impression we get is that her bosses were gunning for her, and the forwarded e-mail was the most expedient excuse they could find.

This action could not have sent a worse message to our state's educators, when we should be doing everything possible to encourage people to choose teaching as a career, not frightening or bullying them into leaving.

Incidentally, since all of this was set off by a presentation by Barbara Forrest, the website for Creationism's Trojan Horse, the book she co-authored has lots of resources and may be of interest.

Texas Education Agency and Chris Comer, Part 8

The Austin American-Statesman, the paper that broke the story on Chris Comer's resignation from the Texas Education agency, has an important follow-up story:

"We were actually told in a meeting in September that if creationism is the party line, we have to abide by it," Comer said(.)

Holy shit.

If true, we (Texas, biologists, educators) are in much, much more trouble that I thought.

More importantly, the paper has finally got comment from an agency spokesperson, Debbie Ratcliffe:

She said charges of misconduct against Comer were prompted by a lack of professionalism(.)

"An employee shouldn't say something that's contrary to the curriculum, and they shouldn't look like they are siding with one camp over another," Ratcliffe said. "It's no secret that there are political differences on the State Board of Education. ... And employees have to be able to work with all the members in a fair way without the perception that they are siding with one group or another. That's why it's important for us to be neutral on issues and just to say what the policy is and not to create it ourselves."

This seems to me to be a 100% admission that the Texas Education Agency wanted Comer to resign for political reasons.

By the sounds of it, it would not be "neutral" to point out that there are mountains of peer-reviewed papers on evolution, and rather fewer on intelligent design. It would not be "neutral" to point out the outcome of the Kitzmiller v. Dover case. In other words, according to the Texas Education Agency, correct and factual information is not "neutral" when evolution is involved.

"Obviously, there was a concern about the forwarding of that e-mail ... that she was supporting that particular speaker and (how) that could be construed ... as taking a position that could be misinterpreted by some people," Ratcliffe said.

So Comer was getting pressured for the mere possibility of the appearance of bias.

Board Chairman Don McLeroy said that he does expect evolution to be a hot topic during the upcoming review(.)

Well, yeah, it sure as heck is going to be now, given the provocative actions the agency has taken, and the clear alignment with the point of view that evolution, alone among scientific disciplines, should be singled out for criticism.

McLeroy said he would support changes that further spell out what evolution's strengths and weaknesses are.

You're not fooling anyone, Mr. McLeroy. You'd support spelling out alleged weaknesses because it's an opportunity to attack evolution and thereby make religious views look better by making evolution look bad.

Meanwhile, there are more editorials in the Waco Tribune-Herald, which notes:

Texas parents, teachers and lawmakers should be on guard that the state avoids the mistakes that led to the 2005 Dover, Pa., lawsuit.

And in Kansas, on the idea that Comer should remain neutral on intelligent design, the Wichita Eagle asks:

Why should she be?

Indeed.

The Eugene, Oregon Register-Guard says:

Comer’s ouster already is a tragedy.

Texas Education Agency and Chris Comer, Part 7

One of the triggers for the resignation of Chris Comer from the Texas Education Agency was that she forwarded an email about a presentation by Barbara Forrest. Now, Barbara Forrest comments on the situation she was tangentially involved in:

If anyone had any doubts about how mean-spirited ID politics is, this episode should erase them.

War on fools

An anonymous author at Slant Six Creative argues:

Always let a fool have the last word.

I was reminded of the first rule of arguing with a fanatic: Don't.

I left a comment, upon which I will expound slightly further.

Unfortunately, fools are often numerous, persistent, and influential. Worse, errors left unchallenged gain the perception of truth. So it’s often the case one must continually confront fools, because the consequences of not doing so are grave.

The sad fact is, not all fools drool. Many fools have expensive watches, large incomes, stable home lives, and can be excellent conversationalists at social functions. But they can be badly, badly wrong. They can hold strong beliefs about impossible things.

To paraphrase an expression written on some buildings in Washington, D.C., "Eternal vigilance is the price of intelligence."

Last lecture of semester

...is now done.

Hooray.

Now, to catch up on proposals, marking, manuscripts, grant management...

Research is hard

Errol Morris investigates what appears to be a simple question: Which of those two photos was taken first?

Finding the answer is long and hard, and is an excellent demonstration of how even simple propositions require major efforts to yield a definitive answer.

Texas Education Agency and Chris Comer, Part 6

More editorials today. Houston State Chronicle:

It will be more than sad if the Texas Education Agency is leaning toward taking an anti-evolutionary stance and allowing religious doctrine to be taught side by side with valid science in the state's classrooms.

Rick Casey, also writing in the Houston State Chronicle:

The doctrine of separation of church and state is not found in the Constitution. It evolved through the courts and through public consensus based on painful experience.

Casey lists several egregious examples of religious intolerance, several between Catholics and Protestants.

Outside of Texas, Bill Wineke writes in the Wisconsin State Journal is blunt:

I suppose you don 't really need another reason to be happy you live in Wisconsin and don 't live in Texas.

Ouch.

If proponents of this scientific quackery can terrorize a state education agency and force the resignation of a veteran science teacher, they will establish a precedent that will cripple serious science education not only in Texas but around the country. That's the last thing this country needs.

One wonders if any amount of negative press and criticism would make the Texas Education Agency do something like apologize. Admit a mistake. Ask Comer back.

Texas Education Agency and Chris Comer, Part 5

The Comer situation continues to attract attention since the story broke at the end of last week. Today sees multiple newspaper editorials about the situation, both nationally and within Texas.

The New York Times has an editorial on the resignation of Chris Comer. In part:

Ms. Comer’s dismissal and comments in favor of intelligent design by the chairman of the state board of education do not augur well for that review. We can only hope that adherents of a sound science education can save Texas from a retreat into the darker ages.

Today also brings an editorial in the Waco Tribune. In part:

We can only hope that the state school board is not so inclined as to turn discussions of evolution, as with the greenhouse effect, into the picking of nits that completely undermines and ignores the immense science backing both biological facts.

Then there's the Corpus Christi Caller-Times editorial, which might have the best title: "Official forced out for telling the truth on intelligent design." It reads in part:

Education officials say that Comer should have been neutral on evolution. What a shame. Instead of supporting teachers as defenders of truth and scientific inquiry, apparently state education officials want educators to perpetuate an academic scam on the state's schoolchildren in service to special interests.

And I would be remiss if I didn't mention the paper that broke the story, the Austin American-Statesman, was the first to have an opinion:

Whether one accepts the theory of intelligent design or not, discussion encourages scientific exploration, which is what a science curriculum director should do. Forcing Comer out of her job because she passed on an e-mail about the critic’s presentation is egregiously wrong.

I've been hard-pressed to find anyone who is seeing anything in this situation besides dodgy politics meddling in education for religious reasons.

Oh, now this is a great news story to start the week with.

A mummified dinosaur with skin and maybe some soft tissue preserved. Wonderful!

I can't wait to see some pictures.

Texas Education Agency and Chris Comer, Part 4

Chris Comer has now given the first interviews since the story broke about her resignation from the Texas Education Agency. Of particular note:

Ms. Comer said state education officials seemed uneasy lately over the required evolution curriculum. It had always been part of her job to answer letter-writers inquiring about evolution instruction, she said, and she always replied that the State Board of Education supported the teaching of evolution in Texas schools.

But several months ago, in response to an inquiry letter, Ms. Comer said she was instructed to strike her usual statement about the board’s support for teaching evolution and to quote instead the exact language of the high school biology standards as formulated for the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills test.

My worries are not being assuaged here. The Texas Education Agency better speak up. Not about Chris Comer, since they've consistently said it's a personnel issue, which I can live with. They'd better speak up about the state standards on evolution and what we can really expect in the revisions.

Texas Education Agency and Chris Comer, Part 3

The Texas Freedom Network has a clear political bent. Their logo on their webpage announces, "A mainstream voice to counter the religious right." Nevertheless, there seems no reason to think that their transcript of Don McLeroy's talk is at all suspect, particularly as there's also an audio file of Mr. McLeroy speaking.

Don McLeroy is the chair of the Texas State Board of Education, an agency that has supervisory ties to the Texas Education Agency, which is under scrutiny for its treatment of Chris Comer.

McLeroy's talk makes it perfectly clear that he favors teaching intelligent design because it is in line with religious views:

Why is intelligent design the big tent? It’s because we’re all lined up against the fact that naturalism, that nature is all there is. Whether you’re a progressive creationist, recent creationist, young earth, old earth, it’s all in the tent of intelligent design. And intelligent design here at Grace Bible Church actually is a smaller, uh, tent than you would have in the intelligent design movement as a whole. Because we are all Biblical literalists, we all believe the Bible to be inerrant, and it’s good to remember, though, that the entire intelligent design movement as a whole is a bigger tent. So because it’s a bigger tent, just don’t waste our time arguing with each other about some of the, all of the side issues.

Perhaps McLeroy's views have changed in the last two years. After all, he probably said that before Judge John Jones emphatically ruled in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case that teaching intelligent design was illegal.

Perhaps McLeroy's views have changed since 2005. But this seems unlikely.

While there is no evidence I'm aware of that links McLeroy to Comer's situation, it speaks to the some of the ideas circulating among those in charge of K-12 education in Texas.

Abbreviations

Some of colleagues might know what JEB is.^* Many would not.

Many publishers, to save space, abbreviate journal titles in scientific articles. I've ranted about this before. Earlier this week, I read this bon mot:

Unlike women's skirts, the more abbreviated a journal citation, the less it reveals.

- C.W. Hart, Jr. & Betty Ursomarso, 1964.

^* It's short for The Journal of Experimental Biology.

Sesame Street ruined my life

It must have. Because I watched it a lot as a kid,learning the alphabet and numbers. And some of those early episodes of Sesame Street are now out on DVD.

With an "Adults Only" label.

I kid you not.

These early Sesame Street episodes are intended for grown-ups and may not suit the needs of today's preschool child.

First, they came for Bugs Bunny. And I said nothing, because I was not a bunny.

Next, they came for Big Bird. And I said nothing, because I was not a bird.

When they come for Biology Boy, will there be anyone to say anything for me?

The Texas Education Agency and Chris Comer, continued

Political narratives become established quickly.

I mentioned yesterday's worrying new story about Chris Comer, a member of the Texas Education Agency.

Here's how it's being pitched elsewhere.

• "Evolution Debate Led to Ouster, Official Says" - Associated Press
  
• "McCarthyist-like witch hunt" - Email from Tom Johnson, Texas Faculty Association
  
• "I did assume that the Texas Education Agency would support science education. I guess I was wrong. The situation is really bad, though, if learning about science is a subject that gets the Texas Legislature upset." - PZ Myers on Pharyngula
  
• "Apparently, not being a team player in the The Republican War on Science is a firing offense at the TEA." - Wesley R. Elsberry on Panda's Thumb
  

The narrative being told by many is real clear: This is an attempt by religious people to get rid of someone who would oppose the weakening of biology teaching so that concepts friendly to biblical literalism can be introduced into the public school curriculum.

Now, just because such shenanigans have happened before -- repeatedly -- doesn't mean they happened this time.

Good for the Austin American-Statesman to have the actual copy of the memo in question (PDF format). I looked at this and tried read it as objectively as I could.

My impression was that this was perhaps not as clear cut as many would like it to be. This whole thing isn't about one forwarded email. There's a series of events, and it looks like there had been warnings delivered before about how her employers wanted things done.

But I have to say these do not look like the sort of issues that people lose their job over. I wouldn't quite call them trumped up charges yet. The whole things reeks of a bad (maybe hostile) working relationship. But the situation may be more complex than a one-note summary termination that some are saying this is.

And yes, there's enough there that I still have the nagging suspicion that this could be part of a bigger trend to reduce opposition to introducing pointless language about evolution into the Texas education standards.

The Texas Education Agency should expect a lot of very careful scrutiny in the next little while. Because if there is any further hints of "criticism" of evolution, they can expect a huge fight on their hands.

Disturbing news story in Texas

In today's Austin American-Statesman, "State science curriculum director resigns -- Move comes months before comprehensive curriculum review."

Forwarding an email about a presentation is communicating about a science curriculum review? And you can be fired for that? Watch this story closely.

(Spotted at Panda's Thumb)

The Zen of Presentations, Part 12: Being a good audience

When scientists give talks, we usually do it in flocks. Conferences. Where you’re one of several talks in a row. A few conferences can yield huge audiences (like the recent Neuroscience meeting)... but most do not. And in those small audiences, you have a chance to be noticed. Not to the degree as when you’re up front talking, but noticed nevertheless.

If you one of several presenters, you have responsibilities when you are not talking.

Nominally, you’re supposed to stay quiet. Make sure your mobile phone is off. Maybe clap politely at the end.

But if a speaker is good, he is looking out at the audience. And there is a big difference between looking out and seeing someone who is smiling, nodding, tracking you as you move around the room... and seeing someone with their eyes closed. Scribbling a note. Or, heaven forbid, with a laptop in front of them looking at the screen.

I once went to a play, and in a reception afterwards, one of the actors said, “You were on the edge of your seat!” In a darkened theatre, with lots of audience members, I got noticed. People take it as a huge compliment when you’re actively listening.

If you don’t want to sit through a bad presentation, for goodness sake, give the speaker some encouragement to do better.

Seth Godin puts it well in a recent post, and I've talked a little about this before.

Abandoning evidence

The National Center for Science Education links to Hanna Rosin's article on creation geology. This quote on page 4 by young Earth creationist Kurt Wise is very revealing:

If all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.

Now there is a prime example of the different degrees of faith I wrote about yesterday. All the evidence in the universe – not just the world, the universe – isn’t enough to change someone's mind. That’s faith with a capital F – and capital A, I, T, and H, underlined, in a gold box, and flashing neon lights. That's not the small f faith that scientists operate with.

Degrees of faith

Paul Davies wrote in an editorial for the New York Times over the weekend:

But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.

Putting aside the question of how a method for understanding the natural world "claims" anything...

The piece leans towards a very well-worn argument: Science is just like religion. It's particularly threadbare in the U.S. because it's a common ploy used to argue that creationism should get equal time in classrooms as evolution.

But to say science operates on faith is a little bit like claiming that lighting a match is an explosion. There's a difference.

The faith that you're required to have in science is roughly, "The natural world is lawful and understandable." That it a fairly sparse set of assumptions that you're asked to take on "faith," first of all, and second of all, it's the same kind of "faith" that your car will start in the morning. Why do you expect that? Because it did the almost all previous mornings and the car is in good working order. It's really inductive reasoning, not faith.

In contrast, when faith is used outside of a scientific context, it is usually referring to a long litany of very specific propositions that are backed by less evidence than a inductive reasoning. A list of propositions like the time and manner of the creation of the universe, the nature of the creator, a specific long set of historical events, that a particular collection of writings are true by definition, and so on.

I'm not saying that's bad... just pointing out a difference. A difference between a minimal set of assumptions backed by induction versus a long, long set of assumptions that are often held to be true despite large amounts on contradictory evidence.

Those are not the same thing, and to say they are is pure sophistry.

There ought to be a parade

In Carolyn Porco's Ted talk (below), she talks about the landing of the space probe Huygens probe on Saturn's moon Titan. I recommend watching it, because her delivery is so much more powerful than reading the quote I took from it.



About 9 minutes in, she says:

And I just want to emphasize how significant an event this is. This is a device of human making and it landed in the outer solar system for the first time in human history. It is so significant, that in my mind, this was an event should have been celebrated with ticker tape parades in every city across the U.S. and Europe, and sadly, this wasn't the case.

I was also thinking over the weekend about the recent publication that two research teams had created human pluripotent stem cells from adult tissue. (Here's one and here's the other.) I heard about this, and thought nothing much more than, "That's good news" or some such.

But I got wondering why every biologist in the department wasn't high fiving each other. I haven't had a single conversation about this research since the announcement.

Is it because it hasn't yet impacted us?

Is it because, being in the field, we sort of knew this would be possible and that it would probably happen sooner or later?

Or are we just so accustomed to change that the wondrous has become mundane?

Because make no mistake: We are living in a wonderful time of scientific achievement and discovery.