[Stealth]

Edward, you're showing your ignorance here... i wasn't talking about ID being a "new procedure"... i was talking about procedures she needed to follow if she felt ID needed to be criticized.  she could've brought it to the board's attention, or whatever other PROCEDURE was in place for something like this.

she. disobeyed. the. rules... end of story.  doesn't matter how honorable her objective was, it doesn't detract from the fact that she still broke... the... rules...... why is that so hard to understand?

[Edward Bradshaw]

Edward, you're showing your ignorance here... i wasn't talking about ID being a "new procedure"... i was talking about procedures she needed to follow if she felt ID needed to be criticized.  she could've brought it to the board's attention, or whatever other PROCEDURE was in place for something like this.

she. disobeyed. the. rules... end of story.  doesn't matter how honorable her objective was, it doesn't detract from the fact that she still broke... the... rules...... why is that so hard to understand?

And you're giving me bureaucratic policy.  The fact is its ridiculous that a science director cannot give her opinion on whether ID is science. She should be able to say Astrology isnt science either, even though amusingly Prof Behe said ID is science like Astrology is science - and he was arguing FOR Intelligent design!

The state may be supported by a bunch of Creationists which put out that particular piece of arcane legislation or put that rule in place and if she knew about it then she was risking her job by doing what she did, however that does not stop it being a stupid situation. Why should she have to go through the proper channels to say what isnt science? Its not like there is a scientific debate.

[Bobboau]

ok, so her job is to make a good science curriculum for the state of Texas, and the 'all holy rules' say she is not allowed to say that a politically motivated attempt to undermine science is not science, so she forwarded an email about a speech about the subject. the rules are wrong. the rules are contradictory. the rules are broken. she did the right thing by standing up against the rules. if you have a bad rule the worst thing you can possibly do is blindly follow it.

[redsniper]

I don't think Stealth is trying to say they're good rules. Just that if you decide to break the rules, for whatever reason, there will be consequences.

[Bobboau]

she probably didn't think there would be any thing come from what she did.

[Edward Bradshaw]

I don't think Stealth is trying to say they're good rules. Just that if you decide to break the rules, for whatever reason, there will be consequences.

Well Im sure we will all agree she broke the rules and that she got fired becuase she broke the rules, but the point was they are stupid rules.

But Stealth says theres no need to debate anything, and no other points matter. She broke the rule...end of story, as he says.

she broke a rule, and got fired.  end of story...  there's no need for debate on ethics, morals, etc. here. 

[Hazaanko]

I just read the full article from NYT, but I have only just skimmed over everybody's posts here regarding the issue... so I apologize if I'm making an argument that has already been finished.  It sounds to to me like she wasn't "forced to resign" because she was merely critical of ID or creationism, but more that she was getting all political about it.  Its an AP story, so like usual, you have to read between the lines.  Seems like they left a lot of pertinent facts out - an example being who exactly were the people she sent the email to.

According to the article (which takes her side), she was "forced to resign" for...:
"repeated acts of misconduct and insubordination."
"violat(ing) a directive that she not communicate with anyone outside the agency regarding a pending science curriculum review."
"giving a presentation and attending an off-site meeting without approval."

I'm just assuming this, but it really sounds like she was fired for a lot more than just "criticizing Intelligent Design." - and she just uses that excuse because she's out for blood.

Like most other stories like this - we'll probably never really know since we weren't there.  On a different note, if she did get the can for just being critical of intelligent design... I'd say thats fairly outrageous.  But, again, I think that's unlikely.

P.S. I recently found this little gem while cruising around:
http://craptaculus.com/eac/ID/id-faq.shtml
My favorite is the third one down lol

[Bobboau]

I don't know number 13 is fairly awesome

[Stealth]

I don't think Stealth is trying to say they're good rules. Just that if you decide to break the rules, for whatever reason, there will be consequences.

Well Im sure we will all agree she broke the rules and that she got fired becuase she broke the rules, but the point was they are stupid rules.

But Stealth says theres no need to debate anything, and no other points matter. She broke the rule...end of story, as he says.

she broke a rule, and got fired.  end of story...  there's no need for debate on ethics, morals, etc. here. 

"the point is they were stupid rules"?

OK... so the way we do things in society, is if we think a rule (or law) is "stupid", we just go break it?

... wow. glad i don't live in the society you clearly support

[karajorma]

I don't know number 13 is fairly awesome

Talk about hedging your bets.

[Bobboau]

"the point is they were stupid rules"?

OK... so the way we do things in society, is if we think a rule (or law) is "stupid", we just go break it?

... wow. glad i don't live in the society you clearly support

yeah, like if the laws state that you are to be taxed even though you have no representation in parliament, or people of color must yield there seats to white passengers on public transportation.

so what society is it you live in again?

[jr2]

So, Bob, tell me... how long did we try to solve things using proper procedure before we started a Revolution?

[Stealth]

"the point is they were stupid rules"?

OK... so the way we do things in society, is if we think a rule (or law) is "stupid", we just go break it?

... wow. glad i don't live in the society you clearly support

yeah, like if the laws state that you are to be taxed even though you have no representation in parliament, or people of color must yield there seats to white passengers on public transportation.

so what society is it you live in again?

we live in a society, where, if you don't think something's right, you don't take the law into your own hands and do what you think is right... you follow procedure to make your case known.

[karajorma]

So, Bob, tell me... how long did we try to solve things using proper procedure before we started a Revolution?

In a similar vein didn't the Dover court case already decide that ID was a bunch of religious unscientific bull**** designed for the sole purpose of sneaking around separation of church and state?

See this already has been settled by proper procedure. Which therefore surely means that this woman was acting correctly and  it was the people pushing ID who were breaking the rules.

[MP-Ryan]

I don't know number 13 is fairly awesome

Talk about hedging your bets.

I liked number 4 myself.

[karajorma]

Like I said on an earlier thread instead of using parody like Flying Spaghetti Monster we should simply hijack ID and explain how it teaches that the world was created by aliens.

Which leaves the ID proponents having to either agree with the arguments that aliens did it or having to tear down their own arguments.

[Edward Bradshaw]

we live in a society, where, if you don't think something's right, you don't take the law into your own hands and do what you think is right... you follow procedure to make your case known.

As has already been pointed out, its already been ruled in a court of law (even though that is not how science operates) that ID is unscientific and illegal to teach. The proper channels to get a science into school are not followed by ID.

Ed

[jr2]

Like I said on an earlier thread instead of using parody like Flying Spaghetti Monster we should simply hijack ID and explain how it teaches that the world was created by aliens.

Which leaves the ID proponents having to either agree with the arguments that aliens did it or having to tear down their own arguments.

  Yes, it could be used to say that.  At least you admit it... to determine the actual creator, you'd have to study the evidence.

[karajorma]

Admit what? That the bull**** theory of ID spits out other solutions just as likely as God did it? I've admitted that from the start. It doesn't mean that ID is correct. Simply that we should point out to proponents of ID who say "ID proves evolution is wrong therefore God did it" and show them that ID says nothing of the sort even if you believe in ID!

There is no evidence within ID that provides any more evidence for God than that extra dimensional aliens did it. Which means unless you start pulling in the bible as evidence (which is something ID can't do and still pass itself off as science) aliens are as likely to be the intelligent designer as God. 

[jr2]

There is no evidence within ID that provides any more evidence for God than that extra dimensional aliens did it. Which means unless you start pulling in the bible as evidence (which is something ID can't do and still pass itself off as science) aliens are as likely to be the intelligent designer as God. 

Hmm... /me smells circular reasoning, perhaps.  ID isn't about proving "God did it".  It's about proving something intelligent did it... from there, we can argue about who/what, without people jumping in and saying it's all nonsense because nothing did it, or it did it itself. 

You want us not to use ID because it doesn't prove "God did it"
You want us to believe atheistic (or non-intelligent-originistic <?> ) Evolution is correct
-If you can prove the second on its own merits, the first is already pwnt.  If the first is however correct, then the ID crowd will be happy that at least you can be searching for whoever/whatever made us, instead of claiming it was a freak occurrence.

Why can't you see that according to the ID crowd, they just don't want bad science taught as fact?