Looking into the Ouster of Chris Comer
Don Baker Posted: January 1, 2008
In late November 2007, Director of Science Curriculum for the Texas
Educational Agency Chris Comer, was forced to resign for allegedly violating a
dubious policy of “endorsing” a speaker and
therefore appearing to take a side in an upcoming curriculum review. She had forwarded an e-mail about
a then upcoming lecture with the only comment of “FYI.” While other circumstances surrounding her
ouster may have been in play, the fact that the lecture was unfavorable to the Intelligent Design/Creationist
pseudoscience movement was clearly the precipitating event in Comer’s forced resignation. This sad
episode gives us a window into the politics inside the NEA and the ID movement as a whole.
The announcement that Comer forwarded was for a lecture given by
Dr. Barbara Forrest, co-author
of Creationism’s
Trojan Horse and expert witness in the
Dover Pennsylvania school district Intelligent
Design trial. Dr. Forrest has exposed the ID movement for what it is: religion
pretending to be science. She exposed it as fraudulent on many
levels and her testimony proved pivotal in the Dover ruling that was
a deep blow to the movement. No doubt, the very mention of her name struck nerves within TEA ID
promoters. With Comer making her colleagues and the greater community
aware of the threat to science education, their hidden agenda was
probably set back a few steps.
Because Comer’s actions were allegedly “taking a side” in the upcoming
curriculum review, it is likely there is a plan for the ID/creationists to sabotage
the TAKS curriculum standards so as to enable the ID movement
to make inroads. TEA has apparently been stacked by conservative
political appointees. Additionally, State Board of Education Chair Don
McLeroy has himself promoted ID in church lectures, and other SBOE
members are avid supporters of the movement. With the ouster of Chris
Comer, there is one less voice in Texas educational government for
science and reason standing in the way of the ID machine.
The Intelligent Design movement has its origins in the “watchmaker”
teleological argument for the existence of God advanced by William
Paley in 1802. While the design argument is 50 years older than
Darwin’s theory of evolution, it has not borne any fruit in our understanding
of nature, it has not made any scientific predictions, it has not
generated any scientific papers, nor has it been the genesis of any technology
giving benefit to mankind. Because so many people have come
to recognize the modern incarnation of the design argument, ID, as the
latest evolution in Creationism, ID supporters have not gained much
traction in scientific circles. More and more, the supporters have
resorted to gimmicks and trickery to advance their cause in the public
sphere. “Teach the controversy” is one of their gimmicks. Unwritten
policies that attempt to sabotage the promotion of science so as to “not
show favoritism” against pseudoscience, shredded TEA documents that
would expose the perpetrators, and fraudulent ousters are par for the
course. The actions of the promoters serve as an admission that they
know ID is damaged goods.
The lengths that ID supporters seem to be willing to go raises the
question of why they are willing to use deception, hidden agendas,
and defraud the voters that elected some of them to public office. The
answer, of course, is their deeply held religious beliefs. The Intelligent
Design/Creationism movement is almost exclusively Protestant and
is largely promoted by Evangelicals. Darwin’s theory of evolution
explains the complexity and diversity of life without a designer. It also
renders Adam and Eve along with their original sin an obvious fable
and effectively obviates the need for Jesus to suffer on the cross and
die for everyone’s inherited “sin.” While evolution is not essentially
atheistic, it is an elegant and powerful description of biological life that
inadvertently does collateral damage to several core tenets of Christianity.
TEA Commissioner Robert Scott seemed to admit this conflict when
he said, “We teach evolution in public schools. It’s part of our curriculum.
But you can be in favor of a science without bashing people’s
faith, too.” Faith that conflicts with reality is just delusion.
Finally, we can learn a few things about Christianity from this sad
episode. We see that Christianity has within it powerful movements
of individuals who are happy to lie, promote hidden agendas, violate
the US Constitution, and sabotage the education of our children to
advance their cause. Their tactics clearly demonstrate that Christians
have no claim to moral superiority. Religious belief is more likely an
impediment to morality as believers value their god over their fellow
human beings or the laws of their country. The behavior of ID supporters
reminds me of a self-deprecating codependent wife who so adores
her abusive husband that she lies and steals to support his drunken
carousing. Only in the case of the ID-ers, they are lying and cheating
in suppression of our scientific understanding to appease the God
that failed to leave any evidence whatsoever of his existence. They
have spun around in circles to somehow make the universe of their
unjustified faith safe for their God, and He hasn’t even acknowledged
their efforts by even showing up.
Browse all articles.
|