Talk:Science curriculum director resigns from Texas Education Agency

NPOV Issue

Hello Reetweert. The sentence, "There is widespread scientific support for evolution and creationism is considered pseudoscience," just seems a bit POV, out of place, and weasely. Where is it sourced from? Maybe I am wrong... Cheers, Jcart1534 05:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I also don't like "forced" in quotes. It's too tabloid. The headline needs a POV revamp. TheCustomOfLife 06:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The sentence seems NPOV to me at least. The scientific consensus is that creationism in most forms is pseudoscience. See here and here. JoshuaZ 16:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I reworded the sentence and moved it to a more relevant paragraph. Jcart1534 16:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What's with the massive quote from Texas Citizens for Science and why is it in italics? --SVTCobra 06:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I had a go at more c/e and renamed the article. Jcart1534 14:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguously written

The article seems to suggest she was encouraging creationism by forwarding said email, but then at the end intimates she is an upholder of science. Perhaps this could be made clearer - what about the email has "forced" this resignation? 194.176.105.39 08:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I modified it slightly to specify that Barbara Forrest is in fact a critic of creationism. At first it said a "scholar of ID/creationism", which was rather ambiguous and could very well mean she's in support of it. That's how I understood it when I first that paragraph anyway. 207.134.103.122 13:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it clear to the reader ...

Is it clear to the reader that this person lost their job because she attended an anti-intelligent-design conference without telling the board and they felt it impaired her judgement? I "get" that after reading the sources, but I didn't "get" that after reading our article. --SVTCobra 17:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

We should probably add that the TEA says that that was one of the primary issues. My impression from the sourcing is that there's conflict about what actually led to the job loss. JoshuaZ 18:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

From outside the US, the conflict appears clearer than the article makes out: Comer did not support ID. Since the TEA in its current form (illegitimately) supports creationism (its policy to remain "neutral" on the issue is not a scientific position at all), Comer had to go, and the TEA is saying several things trying to justify the unjustifiable. Every statement that the TEA makes regarding Comer boils down to evidence that Comer did not support ID, and by her activities was actively trying to prevent ID from making inroads into Texas education. The TEA did not support those activites. Of course attending the anti-ID conference made them angry. The primary trigger for the ouster remains the email. I think this added to the article might help:

Lizzette Reynolds, formerly of the U.S. Department of Education and also deputy legislative director for to Governor George W. Bush, emailed Comer's supervisor: "This is highly inappropriate," Reynolds said. "I believe this is an offense that calls for termination or, at the very least, reassignment of responsibilities.

Quote from www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/11/29/1129science.html

What do you think? Mozzie 22:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)