Comer Update - Suit Published

| 259 Comments | 1 TrackBack

The lawsuit filed by Texas science educator Chris Comer (see Chris Comer Sues Texas Agency: ‘Neutrality’ is Endorsement of Religion) has been posted by the National Center for Science Education.

A juicy tidbit from the lawsuit:

… the Agency’s firing of its Director of Science for not remaining “neutral” on the subject violates the Establishment Clause, because it employs the symbolic and financial support of the State of Texas to achieve a religious purpose, and so has the purpose or effect of endorsing religion. By professing “neutrality,” the Agency credits creationism as a valid scientific theory. Finally, the Agency fired Director Comer without according her due process as required by the 14th Amendment — a protection especially important here because Director Comer was fired for contravening and unconstitutional policy.

Oh yeah - Watch NCSE’s video about Chris Comer.

NOTE TO COMMENTERS: The topic of this thread is Chris Comer’s lawsuit against the Texas Education Agency. Do not clutter this thread with unrelated topics like evidence of Christ’s resurrection, evidence for the Origin Of Life (OOL), etc. I won’t be as lenient as I was in the last thread on this topic.

1 TrackBack

When Neutrality isn’t Neutral from Threads from Henry's Web on July 8, 2008 4:51 PM

The news of Chris Comer’s suit against the Texas Education Administration claiming she was forced out illegally should come as no surprise to anyone. The reasoning behind the dismissal clearly silly, and the explanations did not ring true as th... Read More

259 Comments

You have to love the Texans! No mealy-mouthing around with ID language (even though Forrest’s talk was about ID and they could have referred to “ID” in firing her, instead of “Creationism”).

By calling a spade a spade, the TEA let everyone know just where they stand and why.

When it is couched in these terms, one can’t help but to think that this will not only be a slam-dunk for Comer, but that it will practically ensure that the science standards will not be watered down–the state of Texas would just lose too much face otherwise.

NOTE TO COMMENTERS: The topic of this thread is Chris Comer’s lawsuit against the Texas Education Agency. Do not clutter this thread with unrelated topics like evidence of Christ’s resurrection, evidence for the Origin Of Life (OOL), etc. I won’t be as lenient as I was in the last thread on this topic.

Well said! We will look to you to prevent threadjacking! Thanks.

dpr

It looks like a strong case but it all depends on getting a decent judge which is definitely problematic in a Texas federal court. Not to mention that the federal court of appeals will be a total crapshoot.

“The point, doofus, is that Forrest’s lecture expressed disapproval of religion, so announcing her lecture expressed disapproval of religion.”

No she does not express disapproval of religion, she points out that ID is a sham.

She says absolutely nothing about “disapproval of religion”, read her book and see, don’t project your opinions into it, leave that to DI!

Bad as YECism is in Northern Ireland I actually think that this situation could not arise here. Fair employment legislation is so stringent in the province it would be impossible for an employer to take such a line. If they did they would lose any impending court case/tribunal. Mz. Comer would receive extensive compensation/damages.

What is fair employment law like in Texas ?

I am obviously the most knowledgeable commenter here.

I wonder if your brother would agree?

Aside from the point about the absurdity about Forrest pushing some kind of anti-religious agenda. There is another point it is completely ridiculous to assert that forwarding a notice about an educational talk is some how inappropriate. Similar logic would dictate that she could have been fired for forwarding info on the Evolution 2008 conference since there were some talks about how it is in fact illegal to teach creationism. The fact that teachers were awarded continuing education credits for part of the conference completes the argument that she was fired for doing her job.

In Northern Ireland this action by her employers would definitely fall under this:

http://www.equalityni.org/sections/[…]&secid=2

I would imagine her sacking would fall under the victamisation or harrisment sections. Surely Texas nust have something similar ? :

4. Harassment is defined as unwanted conduct which has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for a person.

I was confused at the outset of this case over whether this was an Establishment Clause case or a “wrongful termination” case. Looks like it’s mostly the first with a bit of the second iced on top.

Oh, the Darwin-bashers are back. Sigh, they’re not even fun to tease any more. There’s only so much “deja moo” a man can stand before his eyes glaze over.

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.html/tadarwin.html

James said:

If ID is a religious idea, then it is unconstitutional to teach it as science in a science classroom.

Yeah, I was sitting there with my face screwed up in a degree of confusion wondering: “I thought these guys always claimed: ‘We’re like scientists, man.’”

But on reading this, I thought: “Oh yeah, that’s right, if it’s really about religion, then they can’t teach it in science class.”

TWO levels of confusion. Sigh, it takes a surgical operation to get the comprehension of a contradiction into the brain of a lunatic fringer.

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

D P Robin said:

You have to love the Texans! No mealy-mouthing around with ID language (even though Forrest’s talk was about ID and they could have referred to “ID” in firing her, instead of “Creationism”).

By calling a spade a spade, the TEA let everyone know just where they stand and why.

When it is couched in these terms, one can’t help but to think that this will not only be a slam-dunk for Comer, but that it will practically ensure that the science standards will not be watered down–the state of Texas would just lose too much face otherwise.

dpr

Let’s just say that creationism was mention at the firing meeting. How will Comer demonstrate that this is the case? The Dover board lied about what they talked about and said. They even claimed that the reporters that quoted them were wrong.

If all the board lie about it, Comer’s case would be much weaker. The fact that creationism was brought up and it has repeatedly been found to be not an appropriate science topic, would put a big dent in their neutrality argument. Any minutes or recording of the meeting?

It would be obvious to any judge that you can’t be neutral in teaching a religious topic in the science class. There is just too many court rulings on the issue.

Ron Okimoto

Eric said:

Now, the only way a talk bashing ID could be considered anti-religious is if you consider ID to be religious.

“Surgical operation.” “Lunatic fringer.” See above.

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

stevaroni said:

Barbara Forrest’s lectures send a message of disapproval of religion masquerading as science.

And there’s a third level of confusion here: Darwin-bashing is just that, a package of attacks on evolutionary science with nothing else to offer, and as such somewhat difficult to fit into any framework of “neutrality”.

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

I’ve posted a text version (OCR, with glitches) here:

http://blog.darwincentral.org/wp-co[…]07/comer.pdf

You folks were also sure that Yoko Ono was going to win her “Imagine” copyright infringement suit against the producers of “Expelled.”

I understand it’s been removed. I bet it doesn’t appear in the DVD.

Your learnedness should take a look at how “neutrality” laws have fared in past court cases, say in Arkansas and Louisiana.

Peter Henderson said:

What is fair employment law like in Texas ?

I can only paraphrase, but I believe Texas fair employment law reads something like: “Shut up insect. And if you don’t like it then go starve in the street.” Or words to that effect.

Luckily, this is a federal lawsuit.

PS, if someone knows differently, I’d be glad to hear.

So let me see if I have this right. Comer announced an upcoming lecture by Forrest. This lecture (based on Forrest’s book and testimonies) would cast ID in a negative light. Everyone knows ID is creationism rephrased in the hopes of pretending it’s not religion for legal purposes, while actually BEING religion for instruction and preaching purposes. And indeed, Forrest’s primary talking point is exactly that: the deliberately dual nature of ID as straight creationism with “science” stenciled across its forehead to “fool” creationist judges.

Because Forrest is known to oppose this stunt, and since we agree that for selected purposes ID is religious, we can assume by implication that Forrest was preparing to attack religion. Not necessarily ALL religion, of course, just the TEA’s (and Larry’s) preferred religion. Worse yet, Forrest presents a stone cold slam dunk case that the TEA’s understood (but unstated) goal of preaching creationism in science class is unconstitutional, and that ID was constructed for exactly that purpose.

Moving right along, it seems clear that by publicizing Forrest’s lecture, Comer was making a strong statement disapproving of the TEA’s goals and methods. She was, and KNEW she was, drawing battle lines between the forces of good science instruction and the forces of creationist duplicity. The TEA knew perfectly well what she was doing, and being nominally her boss, they fired her. Nor is it any secret to anyone that “neutrality” is an Orwellian term which in practice means not teaching any science that conflict’s with the TEA’s religious preferences.

I would think a court would primarily need to disentangle the interpretation of “neutrality” to demonstrate that it means, and is intended for the purpose of, protecting and abetting one particular religious view. The term itself rests entirely on the presumption that science and creationism are equally religious faiths, on which the TEA and its employees cannot take sides! Within the world of science itself, “neutrality” is a meaningless idea. Evidence rules.

Ron Okimoto said:

D P Robin said:

You have to love the Texans! No mealy-mouthing around with ID language (even though Forrest’s talk was about ID and they could have referred to “ID” in firing her, instead of “Creationism”).

By calling a spade a spade, the TEA let everyone know just where they stand and why.

When it is couched in these terms, one can’t help but to think that this will not only be a slam-dunk for Comer, but that it will practically ensure that the science standards will not be watered down–the state of Texas would just lose too much face otherwise.

dpr

Let’s just say that creationism was mention at the firing meeting. How will Comer demonstrate that this is the case? The Dover board lied about what they talked about and said. They even claimed that the reporters that quoted them were wrong.

If all the board lie about it, Comer’s case would be much weaker. The fact that creationism was brought up and it has repeatedly been found to be not an appropriate science topic, would put a big dent in their neutrality argument. Any minutes or recording of the meeting?

It would be obvious to any judge that you can’t be neutral in teaching a religious topic in the science class. There is just too many court rulings on the issue.

Ron Okimoto

I based my comment on #3 of the Introduction to Comer’s complaint, as found in the link Dave Thomas gave us:

3. On November 8, 2007, the Agency fired Director Comer for contravening the Agency’s “neutrality” policy by forwarding an email to other science educators annoncing an wpcoming lecture about evolution and creationism. According to the Agency’s memorandum recommending that director Comer be fired:

On October 26, 2007, Ms Comer forwarded an email from her TEA email account to a grouop of people, including two external email groups, that annouced a presentation on creationism and intelligent design entitled “Inside Creation’s Trojan Horse.” The email states that the specker [Barbara Forrest] is a board member of a science education organization, and the email clearly indicates that the group opposes teaching creationism in public education.

When Dr. Jackson asked Ms Comer about this situation, she replied that she was only forwarding information. However, the forwarding of this event announcment by Ms Comer, as Director of Science, from her TEA email account constitutes much more than just sharing information. Ms Comer’s email implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that TEA endorses the speaker’s position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral. Thus, sending this email compromises the agency’s role in the TEKS revision process by crerating the perception that TEA has a biased position on a subject directly related to the science education TEKS.

(Ex. B) (emphasis added)

This is repeated later in the complaint, and in the exhibits. It is well worth reading. Although I still have some questions, I think it is a very strong case.

I should note that I had to type out the above, as I could not cut and paste from a pdf doc on this computer. Any types, therefore can be assumed mine.

dpr

Ron Okimoto said:

If all the board lie about it, Comer’s case would be much weaker. The fact that creationism was brought up and it has repeatedly been found to be not an appropriate science topic, would put a big dent in their neutrality argument. Any minutes or recording of the meeting?

True, which is why perjury is a criminal offense. Lie about you go to jail for five years. That should hopefully help keep the people somewhat honest.

-Topic Change-

I think Comer has a case and wish her well in the good fight (Of course, I have very few facts on which to base that opinion) but I wonder if the lawsuit might be more broadly worded than necessary. The enforcement of the ‘neutrality’ policy is possibly a violation of the establishment clause, (though I hope there are other laws which are more relevant), but the argument outlined very early in the brief that the neutrality policy itself violates the establishment clause, regardless of the way in which it is implemented, seems much more tenuous.

Certainly teaching religion in the science class room is unconstitutional, but is it unconstitutional for a government agency to have a policy stating that they take no stance on the constitutionality of teaching religion in the science class room?

Again, take note that this is a separate issue from firring Dr. Comer over her entirely reasonable e-mail, and I am not asking if the actions of the board were appropriate, but whether the first claim made in the suit:

“By professing ‘neutrality,’ the Agency credits creationism as a valid scientific theory”

and

“The Agency’s policy is not neutral at all, because it has the purpose or effect of inviting dispute about an issue … that is forbidden by the Establishment Clause.”

is really a reasonable interpretation of the law. Is it really within the courts power to assert that government agencies are legally obligated to take specific positions on certain public policy issues? This seems to be a part of the plaintiff’s argument. Discuss.

Larry Boy said: … is really a reasonable interpretation of the law. Is it really within the courts power to assert that government agencies are legally obligated to take specific positions on certain public policy issues? …

Maybe not, but it is perfectly reasonable that a court could assert that there are positions that government agencies CAN’T take. That is exactly what happened in Kitzmiller.

Larry Boy said: … is really a reasonable interpretation of the law. Is it really within the courts power to assert that government agencies are legally obligated to take specific positions on certain public policy issues? …

Maybe not, but it is perfectly reasonable that a court could assert that there are positions that government agencies CAN’T take. That is exactly what happened in Kitzmiller.

I should note that I had to type out the above, as I could not cut and paste from a pdf doc on this computer. Any types, therefore can be assumed mine.

dpr

Try this OCR pdf. It isn’t perfect, but the occasional erors are fairly obvious.

http://blog.darwincentral.org/wp-co[…]07/comer.pdf

I should note that I had to type out the above, as I could not cut and paste from a pdf doc on this computer. Any types, therefore can be assumed mine.

dpr

Try this OCR pdf. It isn’t perfect, but the occasional erors are fairly obvious.

http://blog.darwincentral.org/wp-co[…]07/comer.pdf

Is it really within the courts power to assert that government agencies are legally obligated to take specific positions on certain public policy issues?

Only on Planet Texas could the state science director be fired for insisting on teaching only good science.

Nitpick:

… Director Comer was fired for contravening and (sic) unconstitutional policy.

Should be

Director Comer was fired for contravening an unconstitutional policy.

Or is the mistake in the original?

The problem is that you people expect the TEA to prematurely take a position on an issue that is a topic of upcoming public hearings.

Yes. I expect the Texas Education Association to take positions on issues related to good education.

Only on Planet Texas could the state director of science education be fired for insisting on teaching only good science.

Larry Boy said:

Certainly teaching religion in the science class room is unconstitutional, but is it unconstitutional for a government agency to have a policy stating that they take no stance on the constitutionality of teaching religion in the science class room?

Again, take note that this is a separate issue from firring Dr. Comer over her entirely reasonable e-mail, and I am not asking if the actions of the board were appropriate, but whether the first claim made in the suit:

“By professing ‘neutrality,’ the Agency credits creationism as a valid scientific theory”

and

“The Agency’s policy is not neutral at all, because it has the purpose or effect of inviting dispute about an issue … that is forbidden by the Establishment Clause.”

is really a reasonable interpretation of the law. Is it really within the courts power to assert that government agencies are legally obligated to take specific positions on certain public policy issues? This seems to be a part of the plaintiff’s argument. Discuss.

I do not think a court has any jurisdiction over whether a government agency has a policy of neutrality wrt public policy issues. The question the court may (likely will) address in the lawsuit is whether Comer’s aciton violated such a policy however. Being neutral with regard to public policy does not entail that one ignore extracurricular eduction events that detail problems with public policy issues, particularly if said education events directly relate to one’s government position and mandate. Thus, Comer, as the former Director of Science was well within her job domain AND adherence to the neutrality wrt public policy in sending out email notification on the talks given by Barbara Forest.

Robin said:

I do not think a court has any jurisdiction over whether a government agency has a policy of neutrality wrt public policy issues.

Having no standing in legal matters I have no idea how good or bad this case is, and can do no more than sit quietly and watch the circus come to town.

But I am certainly amused at the idea of getting Darwin-bashers into the witness box.

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

The problem is that you people expect the TEA to prematurely take a position on an issue that is a topic of upcoming public hearings.

By the way, those “public hearings” you want are over. At least the ones that mattered. Too bad for the creobots that they took place under oath.

“Arkansas’s law cannot be defended as an act of religious neutrality. … Plainly, the law is contrary to the mandate of the First, and in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.” - Epperson V Arkansas (1968)

“ ‘creation science’ is religion and is simply not science .… Act 590 is a religious crusade, coupled with a desire to conceal this fact”, - Mclean V Arkansas (1982)

“The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.” - Kitzmiller V Dover (2005)

Not being a lawyer I can’t comment on the legal case, except to say that the chances of comer returning to her job seem slim.

I believe the point of the lawsuit is that TEA’s policy directly fails the Lemon Test:

1. The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose; 2. The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; 3. The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.

The TEA policy promotes religion, and a particular subspecies of Protestant Fundamentalism, namely creationism. Exactly what secular purpose is advanced by being neutral in science class to a religious doctrine that denies the validity of the subject being taught?

Additionally, the law is not neutral toward creationism. The law singles out creationism as something that may not be taught. That interpretation is not just a local Dover finding: it is the finding of the Supreme Court.

Do not feed the Larry

Larry Fafarman managed to slip in some comments, despite his being banned for more than sufficient cause. His comments have been redacted, as have been those made in reply.

If you’re wondering where your comments went, that’s where. If I get time, maybe I’ll dump them all to the bathroom wall. If I get time.

DNFTT!!!

Dave

stevaroni said:

We’re starting to drift off of Chris Comer and the TEA…

Which, I assume, is the entire idea as Keith works hard to derail another thread.

Speaking of which, why should Chris Comer be regarded as a “loose cannon” if all she wanted to do was to make sure that good science was to be taught in Texas classrooms?

Ah, yes, keith invokes Forrest Mims III. He certainly wasn’t barred from Popular Electronics in January 1975. At the time my kids were high on model rocketry, and I was involved with IBM’s first attempt at a personal computer, the IBM 5100.[1] So we all knew about Maj. Forrest Mims, USAF, the college government major who designed cool electronics projects you could build inexpensively. Now, of course, he has worked his way up to Fellow of the Discovery Institute and of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design, where in 2001 he wrote an article for their captive journal on “Spectral Absorption and Response.”[2]

And here’s a good anecdote for Keith to tell. Mims alleged that Scientific American refused to hire him to take over the Amateur Scientist column in 1988 because of his creationist beliefs. So guess what happened, Keith? The ACLU offered to take his case.[3]

For the present, Mims spends his time denying global warming, and contending that a scientist had advocated genocide to his students..

====

[1] I built one of the first 500 Altairs. I sold it 2 years later, thinking myself lucky to recoup the entire cost. Now, of course, you can’t touch one on eBay for less than.…

[2] Subtitled: “Does the association of spectral absorption bands in sunlight with the spectral response of photoreceptors in plants imply coincidence, adaptation, or design?” (I think I know the answer without reading the article.)

[3] But Mims refused their help. The record does not say why.

keith said:

PvM,

After you read and watch A. E. Wildersmith as I recommended get back to me and explain your disagreements ..that is if a world class scientist’s writings have any impact on your clouded mind…you can skip the parts about Christianity if you find those distasteful as he was a powerful witness as well as scientist.

But I’m sure your committment to Myers, Dawkins, Harris, and the other Christ haters has pretty well blocked your mind at this point.

Be thankful for Grace,

Keith

World class scientist?

He was a world class druggist.

His book on information theory was downright hilarious.

“ The Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory: Informations Source and Structures”

Especially the first couple of chapters where he attempted to stroke his ego by commenting on a wide range of topics like General Relativity. Most hilarious was when he explained the gravitational deflection of starlight on the basis of Newtonian principles. Certainly you can try that. But then you’re not talking about GR.

Is this your hero? LOL

Because it was the wrong kind of science, obviously. Just ask the nutbar a few comments back.

Steveroni,

Your post is an absolutely crystal example of the total dishonesty that permeates this cult.

I never said Mims was forced to stop publishing in the sense you wish to erroneously convey, but only that he was blacklisted from ever publishing in Mechanix Illustrated after that period, theretofore he was a regular in that publication.

I remain convinced and believe your faction is incapable of intellectually honest dialogue.

Finding one extremist statement by an individual who professes to be a Creationist and coloring all of your opponents in the discussion is another typical Neo-Nazi tactic that is utterly frightening.

If you can find Miller, Collins, or Dobzhansky being denigrated in my posts please illustrate. Most of their writing is elegant, courteous, reasoned, scholarly, intellectually honest and they uniformly condemn the religious hatred ingrained in the depraved, neo-nazi element rhetoric and actions so prominent on the evo post sites.

There is the majority science community who go to work, do their job, perform admirably and never even consider the thoughts and acts of the radical minority that happen to be activist in their neo-nazi persecution of all ideas contrary to their own and to the destruction of individuals so associated.

I have read Collins book on the subject and have complete respect for his position though I cannot adopt it in complete detail. He is an honorable and supremely accomplished individual. He is undoubtedly hated and despised by those on this forum as a practicing Christian.

Stuart is another example of a despicable, lying sewer pig.

I referred specifically to the book Origin of Life and if you can call his three earned PhD’s as qualifying him as a druggist that is further proof of your deranged hatred.

I personally checked out the facts of his education, teaching credentials, his debate with Dawkins, and such in 1988 and found them impeccable.

See PvM, another lying pig compatriot attacking an honest and accomplished scientist because of his Christianity and opposing views.

Let’s give credit where credit where credit is due. Not only has keith once again derailed a thread, he has people talking to him about who hates Christ the most among other irrelevancies. Say what you will about keith, the man is a master at what he does.

All I see a Christian compatriot making a fool of himself unnecessarily using ad hominems and insults.

Sad really.

keith said:

Stuart is another example of a despicable, lying sewer pig.

I referred specifically to the book Origin of Life and if you can call his three earned PhD’s as qualifying him as a druggist that is further proof of your deranged hatred.

I personally checked out the facts of his education, teaching credentials, his debate with Dawkins, and such in 1988 and found them impeccable.

See PvM, another lying pig compatriot attacking an honest and accomplished scientist because of his Christianity and opposing views.

keith said:I have read Collins book on the subject and have complete respect for his position though I cannot adopt it in complete detail. He is an honorable and supremely accomplished individual. He is undoubtedly hated and despised by those on this forum as a practicing Christian.

On the contrary, his Christian faith has nothing to do with the solid work he has done in science. Sure people may disagree about his angle both from a scientific and theological perspective but he like countless other Christians manage to keep the discussion at a mature level without name calling, ad hominems. In fact, contrary to what I have seen here recently, he at least understands the sciences.

Thread Closure Imminent

Since it’s drifting far from Comer’s suit, and newer posts have finally appeared (hurrah), it’s time to shut ‘er down. Get your final licks in if you can. -Dave

PvM said:

In fact, contrary to what I have seen here recently, he at least understands the sciences.

And therein lies the problem, in that, either creationists can not comprehend the idea of understanding, or even wanting to understand science (thus their conflating it with paganism/atheism/witchcraft/devil-worship), or they actually do understand the idea of wanting to understand science, but, find it politically more profitable to promote ignorance and bigotry among their minions and brethren.

And, sadly, such was/is the sad circumstance of Chris Comer in Texas.

Since it’s shutting down, might as well add to the off-topic fun!

he has people talking to him about who hates Christ the most among other irrelevancies…

Actually … i think it’s a fascinating question for another thread somewhere (not PT):

Who, among Christians, hate Christ the most?

That seems to be the basic theological question raised by Keith. It’s not about Christians loving Jesus, it’s about proving that Christians hate Jesus!

No wonder their minds crack under the stress …

keith said:

PvM (imposter)

When I’m dealing with totally untruthful people, abysmally ignorant outside their narrow sub-subject of science, malicious, mentally deranged true believers it is best to check out the facts independent of anything they have posted.

This is particularly true of people who compartmentalize their world view and their faith, and their vocation in to little logic tight boxes for gain, prestigue, career, lucre and approval.

Lets see multiple documented cases of policy violations, counseling sessions, and documentation on file for a one year period at least, continuing violations, ignoring policies in general.hmmmmmmm!

All of which are included in the letter.

Projection is the classic tactic of the hypocrite. Enough said!

keith said:

Stuart is another example of a despicable, lying sewer pig.

I referred specifically to the book Origin of Life and if you can call his three earned PhD’s as qualifying him as a druggist that is further proof of your deranged hatred.

I personally checked out the facts of his education, teaching credentials, his debate with Dawkins, and such in 1988 and found them impeccable.

See PvM, another lying pig compatriot attacking an honest and accomplished scientist because of his Christianity and opposing views.

You are so full of it that I wonder if you profess any real religion at all. Just because someone claims to have scientific credentials doesn’t prevent him from being a idiot. And if you, an idiot, admire him, that gives me no confidence in his judgement.

keith said:

Stuart is another example of a despicable, lying sewer pig.

I referred specifically to the book Origin of Life and if you can call his three earned PhD’s as qualifying him as a druggist that is further proof of your deranged hatred.

I personally checked out the facts of his education, teaching credentials, his debate with Dawkins, and such in 1988 and found them impeccable.

See PvM, another lying pig compatriot attacking an honest and accomplished scientist because of his Christianity and opposing views.

Well, I’ve been called worse by better people than you.

Lets see, a PH.D. in pharmocology, Organic Chemistry.. and I forgot what the other one was in.. Hmm. sounds like an evolutionary biologist to me..

I could care less about his religion, silly.

However, when one tries to give a brief primer on GR, and computes the deflection of light by the sun, using Newtonian gravity acting on the relativistic mass, I’m sorry but I have to laugh.

He may be accomplished in the field of Pharmocology, but he didn’t know squat about physics, nor much else, what he wrote about in that book.

Sorry if that pains you. But his book “The Scientific Alternative… “ was a laugh riot. Sometimes scientists make fools of themselves when they write on subjects outside of their chosen fields and they didn’t do their homework. Or when they have another agenda thats not quite scientific.

If you don’t believe what I wrote is true, then read the book yourself.

Olorin said:

Mims alleged that Scientific American refused to hire him to take over the Amateur Scientist column in 1988 because of his creationist beliefs. So guess what happened, Keith? The ACLU offered to take his case.

What, are you serious? Why on earth would they do that? On what grounds? Assuming for the sake of argument that his allegation is correct, it would seem to me that “applicant misunderstands and/or lies about fundamental scientific matters” is entirely sufficient reason for a high-profile science publication to refuse to take someone on as a regular commentator. What principle did the ACLU think it was defending here?

ultimately, the truth will win.

On this point you are 100% correct. Truth cannot be suppressed completely forever. It always remains a constant and there will always be some who seek truth. “You shall KNOW the truth…” That day is coming.

Abraham Lincoln had some remarkable things to say about truth.

Abraham Lincoln: How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg. Truth is generally the best vindication against slander.

“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.” -R. Feynman.

Challenge to FL, Observer, and Keith - identify one successful technology DI has produced through its research.

observer said:

ultimately, the truth will win.

On this point you are 100% correct. Truth cannot be suppressed completely forever. It always remains a constant and there will always be some who seek truth. “You shall KNOW the truth…” That day is coming.

Abraham Lincoln had some remarkable things to say about truth.

Abraham Lincoln: How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg. Truth is generally the best vindication against slander.

THE FAT LADY HAS SUNG … and the thread is closed. At least it was reasonably well-behaved until the wrap up.

Stay tuned to the Thumb for developments on the Comer/Texas suit.

Cheers, Dave

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Dave Thomas published on July 8, 2008 12:46 AM.

Chris Comer Sues Texas Agency: ‘Neutrality’ is Endorsement of Religion was the previous entry in this blog.

Tangled Bank #109 is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter