Texas Education Agency and Chris Comer, Part 19

Glenn Branch is the author of the email that Chris Comer forwarded, which in turn precipitated her forced resignation. He comments on the situation. To nobody's surprise, he is not impressed.

It’s absurd, of course, to regard Comer’s forwarding of my announcement of Forrest’s talk as endorsing Forrest’s view (ask a linguist). But that absurdity pales in comparison to the absurdity of the Texas Education Agency trying to adopt a position of “neutrality” on evolution, when (as the National Academy of Sciences observes) “The scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming.”

The future of seafood

When I saw Long John Silver's ads for Langostino lobster on television, I had a flash of recognition. Because they showed a picture of the Langostino lobster tail, and I thought, "Those are squat lobsters."

I recognized them because I published a paper on squat lobster motor neurons (Faulkes & Paul, 1997. A map of the distal leg motor neurons in the thoracic ganglia of four decapod crustacean species. Brain, Behavior and Evolution 49(3): 162-178).

I was surprised, because squat lobsters get their name from the fact that their tails are small, and they sit with them normally tucked underneath the rest of their body. They are crunchy little animals with a small tail, slender (though often long) claws -- and there's just not much meat on them. When I was working with them, we would sometimes go out trawling for animals and we'd throw some prawns on the boil for lunch, but nobody ever considered throwing a squat lobster into the pot.

Yet there they were, being advertised and sold on the mass market.

I was reminded of a study of seafood menus that showed how clawed lobster used to be considered trash food rather than a delicacy. Lobster meat moved up in prestige as the preferred fish stocks were depleted.

Now, lobster is too expensive for mass consumption, so squat lobsters are being fished and sold. I don't like the trend. We're just going down and down the food chain as one fishery is depleted after another. What's next? Krill?

"Eat like a whale at Long John Silver's! If krill can feed the largest animals on earth, it can feed you!"

Texas Higher Education and Creation Research, Part 3

The New York Times has an article on the THECB's panel's recommendation to allow the Institute for Creation Research to grant Master's degrees in science education in Texas.

Asked how the institute could educate students to teach science, Dr. Paredes, who holds a doctorate in American civilization from the University of Texas and served 10 years as vice chancellor for academic development at the University of California, said, "I don't know. I'm not a scientist."

You could ask some scientists, you know, We're nice. We'd help.

The article clarifies how the Institute for Creation Research has been accredited, and it's partly through legal muscle:

In California, the only other state where Mr. Morris said the institute was offering degrees, it won recognition from the state superintendent of public instruction in 1981 but was denied license renewal in 1988. The institute sued and in 1992 won a $225,000 settlement that allowed it to continue offering degrees; it now operates under the California Department of Consumer Affairs. Dr. Morris said his program was accredited by the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, which is not recognized by Texas.

Texas Citizens for Science, however, claims that the Institute no longer has TRACS accreditation.

The Houston Chronicle also has a news article on this, as does the Austin American-Statesman, here. Patricia Nason is quoted as saying:

"The bottom line is we're teaching science and we're teaching teachers how to teach science(.)"

You're not teaching science when you require students to follow a literal biblical interpretation, which is ICR's avowed mandate.

I'm expecting now that this story has made it into a national newspaper, we're probably going to start seeing editorials around the country about this. Bringing Texas into more disrepute.

This is way, way more worrying than what happened to Chris Comer, frankly.

New article: E4D Commentary

A short commentary on the book Evolution in Four Dimensions by my colleague Anita and myself has just been published. Yes, the cover date on the journal says August, but the article was published online on 17 December (yesterday). Probably lots of libraries won't see print copies until early 2008.

The doi is 10.1017/S0140525X07002270. Accept no substitutes.

Faulkes Z, Davelos Baines A. 2007. Evolutionary string theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 30(4): 369-370.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?aid=1475888

Here's the abstract:

Evolution in Four Dimensions claims that epigenetic, behavioral, and symbolic inheritance systems should be considered equal partners to genetics in evolutionary biology. The evidence for, and applicable scope of, these additional inheritance systems is limited, particularly with regard to areas involving learning. It is unclear how including these extra dimensions in mainstream evolutionary thinking translates into testable hypotheses for a productive research program.

You can check out other responses to the book in this issue here.

The Zen of Presentations, Part 13: The worst mistake

Never go over your alloted time when you're giving a talk.

This is particularly an issue for people giving presentations at conferences, where your talk is just one small part of a much larger parade of presentations. If you go too long, you make everyone else late for the rest of the day.

If there are multiple tracks of presentations, the imperative to stay on time gets even greater. People will often move from one room to another, popping in to see one talk and then leaving to see another talk. If the schedule goes out of whack, you do a great disservice to the audience.

My general rule of thumb is aim for your talk to be about 80% of alloted time. Given a 15 minute talk? Aim for 12. Got a 50 minute talk? Aim for 40. That way, if you are delayed a little, you can still finish on time.

And how do you know how long your talk is? Rehearse, rehearse, rehearse.

Nobody ever criticizes a talk for being too short. But having a talk that goes on too long -- not knowing when to shut up -- is really the height of rudeness.

Then as now

One of my students asked me today what high school was like for me. I said, "Nothing's changed."

"You were a geek?"

Yup.

Frighteningly, there's not much difference between my Grade 12 high school yearbook entry and my Facebook page.

Texas Higher Education and Creation Research, Part 2

An advisory committee to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board has, to my shock, actually recommended the Institute for Creation Research be allowed to award Master's degrees in science education in Texas.

My surprise was slightly mitigated by this information:

(T)he Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board will be taking up the issue in the wake of an August ruling by the Texas Supreme Court questioning the grounds on which the board had evaluated seminaries and warning the board not to impose secular values on seminaries.

But the surprise factor went back up when I read this familiar sounding quote:

“A lot of people believe creationism is a legitimate point of view. I respect them,” (Raymund A. Paredes, commissioner of higher education for Texas) said. “I’m an advocate of the principle that when there is a controversy and there are legitimate arguments on both sides of the conflict, my pedagogical principle is ‘teach the conflict.’ Maybe that’s a possibility here.”

Ah, yes. "Teach the conflict." I refer you back to the letter to the Texas Education Agency signed by many biology professors in the state, which surveyed journals to find 29,639 peer-reviewed scientific papers on evolution in 12 journals to 0 on intelligent design. I expect "creation science" would yield a similar total.

From a scientific point of view, that's not a conflict. That's a massacre.

In some sense, however, although surprising, the advisory report is almost meaningless, since the major accrediting agency is the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (universally known in the area as SACS). I can't imagine SACS would accredit them, since the Institute for Creation Research has never had mainstream accreditation, by all accounts. They had accreditation from the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools (TRACS), but apparently have no longer, according to Texas Citizens for Science. Texas Citizens for Science is turning out to be a very active ad interesting source of information on this matter.

Silver lining

That my computer has been taken away from my desk and is not likely to return from being repaired until well into the new year has an unexpected up side. Moving to a new computer, I was forced to look at how I was going to handle email and such, and in so doing, I figured out several good things about working with Thunderbird so that I wasn't continually forced to use webmail. I upgraded some Bluetooth software and found it works much better than the old stuff I was using.

Now, if I can just get my computer back before the start of classes next year, I'll be happy.

Texas Higher Education and Creation Research, Part 1

The Institute for Creation Research is asking the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board for permission to offer graduate degrees in science education.

The article describes the institute's contentious history of offering degrees in California. Apparently, they did offer accredited degrees, lost that right in 1988, sued and won money but didn't get the right to offer accredited Master's degrees back.

Opinion: Avowed creationist institutes should not offer Master's degrees with science in the title.

And I thought the Texas Education Agency and Chris Comer situation was giving me lots to write about.

Texas Education Agency and Chris Comer, Part 18

The Austin American-Statesman continues to do a fine job of investigating the forced resignation of Chris Comer. Now, they have an interview with key player Lizzette Reynolds. She was the one who first responded to Comer's forwarded email.

Knowing what you know now, what would you do differently?

I would have alerted the proper people that something was being sent on the state e-mail. I would have said, “Let’s discuss this,” instead of giving my opinion in the e-mail. … Should I have used the words “termination” or “reassignment”? I don’t know.

Interestingly, although she was the first to send a very strong opinion to Comer's supervisors, she said she did not know Comer was forced to resign.

Were you aware of the significance of evolution?

I didn’t recognize the importance of the subject in terms of it being tagged “evolution.” I know now that it has very real importance in modern science and research. I know that it is in our TEKS, and I’ve no reason to believe it won’t continue that way. What I didn’t think about was evolution in terms of a political struggle. That took me by surprise because the science is being utilized in all our schools.

I have to say that I'm not surprised that an administrator wouldn't really appreciate the science. Unfortunate, but not surprising.

All told, I think Ms. Reynolds comes across as someone who's honestly given thought about what's happened to Chris Comer. She sure does not give anywhere near the same vibe as statements from Robert Scott or Don McLeroy, who really give the impression that they have an agenda to push.

Meanwhile, William Lutz, writing in the East Texas Review takes an unabashedly conservative point of view and spells out why conservatives have to take political note of evolution.

Even discussing the pros and cons of evolution can cause political problems. Many Americans view it either as a government imposition of religion or political tampering with science or both.

Could it be because it, you know, actually is? That, in fact, the repeated defeats for creationism and such in multiple court challenges are because it truly does violate the first amendment of the American constitution by showing favouritism to one particular religious point of view?

It's unfortunate that this is seen purely as political positioning, instead of empirical fact.

Even people who make well-thought-out critiques of Darwin are accused of trying to cram their religious views down others’ throats.

What "well-thought-out critiques"? That is a sincere question, not rhetoric. Where are they? Because I keep looking, and I keep seeing the same arguments and no actual new data.

I say again: Make predictions. Do experiments. Analyze data. Do real science. There are lots of armchair critics capable of composing "well-thought-out critiques" that don't stand up to serious experimentation.

Lower molars

In a recent post, I quoted one Mark Ramsey, who wants "weaknesses" in evolution taught in K-12 public schools, who asked, "What are the Darwinists afraid of?"

I said those were fighting words. It's a taunt. And it's an effective taunt, too, judging how bloody irritated I got upon reading it.

The implication is that biologists don't want a "fair hearing" because it will reveal that evolution is somehow lacking. In fact, it has much more to do with the futility of engaging in intellectual debate with people who will never, ever change their minds.

Normally, I would try to express my frustration over the pattern of discussion, but someone beat me to it, albeit in a totally different context. The following are excerpts from a post made by Joe Straczynski, writer of many things including Babylon 5, to the usenet newsgroup rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated back in 19 May 1998. It perfectly expresses the tremendous frustration that arises when dealing with a small number of unreasonable people.

Let’s play a game for a moment. Let’s say there are 30 people out there who don’t like you. For whatever reason. They don’t like your work, your face, whatever. 30 people out of a much larger universe of people.

Now, those 30 people go online, where you hang out, and they leave dozens -- literally dozens -- of messages attacking you, every day. They put out absolute and downright lies, total fabrications... they cite contracts that don’t exist, they put out the word that you’ve had a heart attack just so the switchboards at your office get flooded and people get upset, they send you trojan horses and viruses, and impugn your ability, your credibility, your honesty, your relationships with your co-workers.

And they do this day after day, week after week, month after month... for six years. Unflaggingly, untiringly, just one nonstop series of attacks. Yeah, it’s 30 people out of a much larger universe, but over time, even a whole human being can be eaten by ants. They have an impact substantially greater than their numbers or real influence would warrant.

And you cannot hit them, you cannot strike back (it’s okay for THEM to say whatever they want about you, but if you do it back somehow that’s wrong), so your hands are tied unless you want to spend several hundred thousand dollars suing them (which mind you, you’re not entirely ruling out), all you can do is take it, and take it, and take it.

And then one of these jokers will come up with “Well, if you can’t stand the heat...” and you vow you will make them eat their lower molars. It’s not heat, it’s pathology.

...

If you were standing in the street, and someone walked up to you discheveled, with madness in his eyes, clearly deranged, and began shouting at you two inches from your face, would you stand there and say, “No, it’s okay, it’s his free speech.” No, you would walk away, or help someone who was being assaulted verbally by this person. (And before somebody says “it’s just words,” the Supreme Court and every court in the land has found that words have power to hurt, to defame, to abuse, and to incite.)

...

Sure, I could keep on going toe-to-toe with them for the *next* five years, day in and day out... but to what end? For what purpose? To explain myself to them? They have no interest in explanations. If you counterattack, you just feed them; if you ignore them, they take it as permission to continue doing so, and others take it as implicit endorsement of what they said.

Joe became a much less public figure after completing Babylon 5.
Ultimately, those people who didn't like Joe's work on Babylon 5 and elsewhere didn't really have much in the way in the ability to impact his ability to write.

Biologists don't have that luxury of withdrawing. A small, dedicated group of people can have huge impacts on science education.

So biologists keep working.

We do research. We keep trying to increase our knowledge of the natural world. We teach classes to students to try to give them the best possible education. We write articles for our peers, we write books and blogs for the public. We say again that yes, there are transitional fossils. We provide detailed answers to claims against evolution that go on for pages and pages. And for all that effort, we are usually rewarded with the same one-line dismissals ("Only a theory!" "Gaps in the fossil record!" "Nobody was there!") over and over and over again.

And then one of these jokers will come up with “What are the Darwinists afraid of?” and you almost wish you could vow you will make them eat their lower molars.

Almost. But that's not the scientific way. So you don't.

Texas Education Agency and Chris Comer, Part 17

Looking for work? The Texas Education Agency is hiring. Yes, that used to be Chris Comer's position.

Note that you even get:

(C)onsiderable latitude for the use of initiative and independent judgment.

Uh-huh. I suggest applicants take that with a grain of salt.

I seriously wonder how many applications they will get. It's pretty clear that you're basically asking for a job that will require you to walk straight into a political minefield.

Texas Education Agency and Chris Comer, Part 16

Now that the Chris Comer's resignation from the Texas Education Agency is a couple of weeks old, it's no longer news, and so reports are slowing down. But this story is going to be flaring up for a long time.

This article in the Dallas Morning News does a good job of looking at the long term issues at stake in Texas, namely the upcoming review of science standards that begins in 2008. It contains some blunt language.

Don McLeroy is crystal clear about his intentions:

"I'm a Christian, and I think about how this impacts everything," Dr. McLeroy said. "Religion is not just something you put on the side. It's everything. I see us all created in the image of God. I don't believe nature is all there is."

So there you go. McLeroy and company are bound and determined to promote a particular religious point of view. (And it's important to realize it is a very particular religious view, not a religious view generally.)

Likewise, Chris Comer is quoted:

"Any science teacher worth their salt that has any background in biology will tell you there is no controversy," said Ms. Comer, a mother of two grown children. "It is time for America to grow up." ...

"The way things are being done these days I don't think rational minds have a chance," she said.

The article also notes that Comer is a Christian.

Now here's the real fighting words:

"Emphatically, we are not trying to 'take evolution out of the schools,'" said Mark Ramsey of Texans for Better Science Education, which wants schools to teach about weaknesses in evolution. "All good educators know that when students are taught both sides of an issue such as biologic evolution, they understand each side better. What are the Darwinists afraid of?"

I'm afraid of willful ignorance.

I'm afraid of people subverting scientific process.

I'm afraid of people breaking the law. (See U.S. Supreme Court decision Edwards vs. Aguillard, 1987, among others.)

I'm afraid of people lying. (For example, the Kitzmiller v. Dover people revealed, unfortunately, a lot of dishonesty on the part of those opposing the teaching of evolution.)

I'm not afraid of honest intellectual debate about science. The problem is, there is no "other side," scientifically speaking. There's "another side" in the social debate, in the political debate, but there just isn't decent science. It's like the old joke about no entering a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

Make some predictions, run some experiments, analyze some data -- in other words, do some actual science -- and we'll talk.

Suggesting that scientists are avoiding the issue is absolutely mad. I will probably write much more about this later.

And another thing.

"Darwinists."

Clever.

Makes it seems like a little cult of personality instead of a scientific discipline.

Makes it seem like there hasn't been an original idea since the publication of On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life nearly 150 years ago.

I prefer, "biologist."

KXAN has video related to the ongoing Chris Comer story. One of the titles they gave a piece is... underwhelming: "Some TX Biology Professors Support Evolution Education."

Was the "some" qualifier necessary?

Text version here.

And, in my quest to find alternative views, I actually did find a blogger who supports the Texas Education Agency's forcing Comer's resignation. Be warned before you click the link: It's shrill.

A good time or a bad time?

The good news: I was able to get my office computer functioning long enough to back up most of the stuff I needed onto my external hard drive. Thank goodness I actually had the presence of mind to buy one a couple of months back.

The biggest nuisance is that email and address book settings aren't quick or easy to back up. I'm stuck with clunky webmail and no easy contact list for the duration.

The bad news: I wasn't able to get it running after that. Which meant I had to contact our Helpdesk.

May god have mercy on my soul.

Okay, maybe it wasn't that bad. Yet. I actually managed to get someone in my office within a couple of hours. The computer went away for repair, and given the time of year, it's unlikely that I'll get it back until early next year. Bothersome, when I'm trying to prepare conference trips, revise manuscripts, submit grant proposals, etc., but still... better than having it taken away when it's all that plus classes going full bore.

But I know that when the computer comes back, I'm going to have to spend a day fixing all the helpful "adjustments" to my OS that tech services feel compelled to make.

Perversity of the universe tends to maximum

My office computer is malfunctioning. So I'm writing this on my lab computer.

It looks like something has gone awry with the video display, which is good, because that means actual stored data is unaffected.

Not sure if I'm going to be able to get anything useful out of it for a while, though.

It's not a good time for my major workhorse to be out of commission, though. I really wanted to use it to work on conference posters, which I was hoping to finish this week.

Texas Education Agency and Chris Comer, Part 15

The Dallas Star-Telegram has an op-ed piece from Alan Leshner, the CEO of American Association for the Advancement of Science commenting on the Texas Education Agency's policy of "neutrality":

These comments -- suggesting that scientific facts based on indisputable physical evidence are somehow subject to debate on nonscientific grounds -- are especially troubling in a state known for its innovation and filled with high-quality research universities. ...

But, the more important question is this: Should anyone in charge of science curriculum be expected to remain neutral regarding efforts to insert religious viewpoints into science classrooms? The answer is "no."

Wired also has an interesting blog entry focused on the more general battle over state education standards, textbooks, and why Texas plays such an important role. It quotes Lawrence Lerner:

Florida and Texas represent two chances to get a Federal district court opinion that contradicts the Pennsylvania one (Kitzmiller v. Dover - ZF), and the present and possible future makeup of the Supreme Court gives the creationists considerable encouragement to give it their best try.

Texas Education Agency and Chris Comer, Part 14

Where do I sign?

The Austin American-Statesman is reporting that over 100 of my colleagues sent a letter to commissioner Robert Scott (pictured). The letter (Word document -- easy to miss on the American-Statesman page) argues that the Texas Education Agency should abandon its posture of staying "neutral" on intelligent design, the non-science idea that was tried in court and found wanting in Kitzmiller v. Dover.

You can tell scientists wrote the letter: they have data!

A quick database search of scientific publications since 1975 shows 29,639 peer-reviewed scientific papers on evolution in twelve leading journals alone. To put this in perspective, if you read 5 papers a day, every day, it would take you 16 years to read this body of original research. These tens of thousands of research papers on evolution provide overwhelming support for the common ancestry of living organisms and for the mechanisms of evolution including natural selection. In contrast, a search of the same database for “Intelligent Design” finds a mere 24 articles, every one of which is critical of intelligent design. Given that evolution currently has a score of 29,639 -- while "intelligent design" has a score of exactly zero -- it is absurd to expect the TEA’s director of science curriculum to “remain neutral” on this subject.

Boom!

In the American-Statesman article, biologist Daniel Bolnick is quoted as saying:

As educators, we simply feel strongly that scientifically sound information be taught in public schools, and certainly having people sympathetic to quality evolution education at the TEA is important.

Incidentally, the American-Statesmanheadline is now referring to Comer's forced resignation as a "scandal."

Meanwhile, in my quest for points of view other than "You have got to be kidding,", I was lead to the blog Telic Thoughts, well known for its support of intelligent design. Some legitimate points are raised in this post:

How is the teaching of evolution compromised by Comer's departure? The answer. It is not.

Which is true. The science standards today are the same as the day before Ms. Comer was forced to resign. But this incident speaks to a pattern that is worrying. When you put together Don McLeroy's on the record support of intelligent design because it is compatible with certain religious views, Ms. Comer's revealing how a presentation by NCSE's Eugenie Scott was put off until 2:00 a.m., and so on... Forgive people for being concerned.

The post continues:

The agency should remain neutral on the issue of intellligent (sic) design. Why? Because it lies outside what should be the real focus of science educators namely, furthering the education of students in Texas.

As many have realized and pointed out, the prospect of weakening teaching on evolution is not compatible with furthering science education. Not saying it's happened yet -- but there is very good reason to be concerned and watchful.

The letter from the biology professors quoted above is very clear why the TEA should not be neutral: intelligent design isn't science.

Moving on:

There is no point to devoting time and resources to a struggle against intelligent design. Taxpayers are not funding that.

Taxpayers are funding the upcoming curriculum review. Periodic review is normal and desirable. There has been no suggestion that the agency should "invest resources" into fighting intelligent design -- but there is a very high probability that various interested parties will either bring intelligent design to the table, or, more likely, try to weaken or remove the bits of the state science curriculum that concern evolution. And it is certainly is within the scope of the Agency's mandate to assess what the state of science is, and what concepts students need to learn to be ready to understand the current state of science.

Texas Education Agency and Chris Comer, Part 13

There's a local prediction that "south Texas is the new Florida." The idea is that retirees looking for a warm place to move to will start moving to south Texas, because Florida is full. But here's another interesting comparison to make between Florida and Texas. Someone from a state education agency emails people about upcoming reviews to the state K-12 science curriculum.

In Florida, an email that says:

(I)work for the Florida Department of Education as the Director of the Office of Instructional Materials... I say all of this, obviously, to give this e-mail credibility. ...

Districts will not have a choice in teaching evolution as a theory... Whose agenda is this and will the Christians in Florida care enough to do something about it? ...

The least we can do is make sure evolution is presented to our children and grandchildren as a theory as it has been in the past. Hopefully, though, we can do better than that.

gets a reprimand.

In Texas, a forwarded email with "FYI" gets a forced resignation.

The Florida situation appears to have occurred after news of Chris Comer's resignation broke, so perhaps those in the Florida Department of Education took note at how much attention the Comer situation has received nationally.

Meanwhile, let's see what the Texas Education Agency's education commissioner, Robert Scott, has to say in Dallas News interview:

I'm aware of the reports and a bit disturbed by them because they're not based in reality or fact.

If that's the case, it might have been handy for the Agency to have been communicative. Mr. Scott goes on to say:

The really frustrating part about this is, if I start talking about activities and things that happened, I get sued.

Nevertheless, since the Austin American-Statesman published a TEA memo on proposed disciplinary action, it seems a little coy to say that he can't talk about things that happened. Indeed, the memo absolutely supports Mr. Scott's contention that Ms. Comer was not forced to resign over one thing (i.e., the forwarded email about Barbara Forrest's presentation).

Nevertheless, I think that many reasonable people have looked at that memo. I admit that memos like that don't give the whole story and don't capture workplace dynamics. Unless there was something else really major that was not written down in print there, a lot of people have concluded that the matters in question are not something you normally fire someone over. Ooops... I mean, "not something you normally ask for someone's resignation over."

Regarding whether Ms. Comer advocated evolution, Mr. Scott says:

But she may have given the impression that ... we were taking a position as an agency – not as an individual but as an agency – on a matter.

"May have." So the problem is, as I've said before, is just the possibility of the appearance of a conflict of interest.

You know, the memo published by the Austin American-Statesman has been read by a lot of people. The vast majority (I am being measured here, because I am tempted to say "all") who've looked at this don't see Ms. Comer advocating any position on the subject, much less one that could be confused as a Texas Education Agency position. This is simply not how reasonable people are viewing the situation.

And when the paper calls the bluff of neutrality directly and asks, "Why shouldn't the agency advocate the science of evolution?", you get a very telling remark:

But you can be in favor of a science without bashing people's faith, too.

When did anyone's faith get "bashed"? What kind of "bashing" is he worried will occur?

I'm having a hard time finding sympathy for the TEA at this point. A lot of statements that have been made by people associated with the Agency give the impression that it is run by a lot of people who are very thin-skinned and very, very worried about what one particular group of religious people might say.

Another editorial over the weekend, this one from the San Antonio Express-News.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development recently released the results of a test that assesses science and math skills of students in 30 industrialized countries. The results showed American students scored in the bottom half — worse than their peers from 16 other countries, and better than only those from Italy, Portugal, Greece, Turkey and Mexico. ...

Do Texans truly want their educators to be neutral on the teaching of religious faith versus science in schools? If so, then the State Board of Education and the Texas Education Agency are well on their way to making students in Italy, Portugal, Greece, Turkey and Mexico feel proud.

Outside of the state of Texas, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution is also concerned about America's standing in science education rankings:

Some politicians don't seem to grasp the difference between science and faith, so it's no wonder scientific theory befuddles U.S. high school students.

Over in Utah, Salt Lake Tribune writer Robyn Blumner says:

Really folks, in this information age, when scientific innovation is the key to our nation's future, we don't have the time to be mucking around in this tired debate. You don't produce doctors and scientists by teaching science from the Bible. Period.

He talks a little about Comer, but is more concerned with George W. Bush's track record in science and prospects for the next presidency.

Texas Education Agency and Chris Comer, Part 12

The Austin American-Statesman has just published its second editorial on the Chris Comer resignation.

The firing of Comer already has done real damage to Texas’ reputation as it competes with California and New York for research and development projects, grants, biomedical industries and the nation’s best scientists.

Yup. They got it. You can't expect to benefit from knowledge while promoting ignorance.

Blogs by researchers have cast Texas as a backwater state that puts religious ideology on par with science.

You're welcome. Go me.

Something that has been missing in the editorials, though, is that Texas has a plan in place called "Closing the Gaps," which aims to increase university participation and student success across the state. Biology is a very popular major, and many non-science majors take some biology to fulfill biology requirements.

Weaken teaching on evolution, put in any language that waffles or sows doubt, and students are going to be in for a shock. They'll be left playing catch-up as they find that, say, intelligent design is not taught in science classes (except, perhaps, in a historical context under its original name of natural theology, or as an example of how to do science wrong). They'll be in for a rude awakening that all those alleged "weaknesses" probably have solutions that have been known for decades.

Students would be less ready for a university education, and less likely to succeed.

Texas Education Agency and Chris Comer, Part 11

Even some of the major intelligent design guys are stepping back from the Texas Education Agency's treatment of Chris Comer. William Dembski, on the Uncommon Descent blog (which I earlier characterized as "strangely quiet") wrote:

I’m still not clear about the details of the case, but if Comer’s firing were solely for supporting Forrest, this ought not to be.

Dembski seems very reserved in saying he doesn't know the details. They've been up for a week (including PDF from the Texas Education Agency) and there has not yet been any factual challenge as to what happened -- only why.

Anyway. Chris Comer's interview on Science Friday was only about 20 minutes, and largely consisted of a narrative of the events leading to her resignation. Not a lot of the information is new, although a few things are worth emphasizing. She did not send the email in question through her work account. The person who pushed for her resignation was not a recipient of the email, but found out about it and lodged a complaint within hours. And the ultimatum of resign or be fired was rather abrupt.

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.

"I don't want the broader picture"

This article in The Age is about youth and new media, but I sure as heck don't think the issues being raised are confined to youth. In particular:

The promise of creating your own news world — "The Daily Me" — reduces the likelihood of encountering "unexpected ideas and unpopular opinions, a necessary ingredient in any democracy". ...

At the 2006 Online News Association conference in the US a panel of young people was asked by a journalist in the audience whether "reading RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feeds exclusively would stifle discovery of the broader picture". One 15-year-old panellist replied, "I'm not trying to get a broader picture, I'm trying to get what I want."

The difficulty of listening to views contrary to your own seems to be the theme for today. As I was walking over to work, I was listening to a fascinating interview (streaming audio) with William Rees (who coined the term "ecological footprint") on Sounds Like Canada, who argued we are neurologically predisposed to filter out bad news and ideas that don't agree with our own.

I've talked about this phenomenon at least once before, if not more often (just can't find the posts). It worries me terribly. From home schooling to higher education, it becomes possible to spend your entire educational career with people who agree with you.

I'm wondering a lot if scientists are better at making these serendipitous discoveries and compiling the broader picture or not. My initial expectation is not as much as it used to be, since more and more research is being guided by directed searches through Google Scholar and PubMed rather than thumbing through printed journals in library stacks, as I did through most of my undergraduate career.

On the other hand, I suspect that researchers, by the nature of their training to seek out alternative explanations and to look at evidence, may have slightly -- ever so slightly -- wider filters than the general population. A scientist should be less likely to discount an idea because of its source. But there's no doubt it's a hard task to do.