The Chris Comer Mess

I’m a creationist. I believe that God created the heavens and the earth, as to the time frame in which he did it, as a friend of mine likes to say, “it depends on what day of the week you ask me.”

To be sure I tend to lean towards the literal interpretation of Genesis since that is what Scripture seems to indicate, but I don’t consider a literal view a litmus test for orthodoxy.

I thank Paleontologist Kurt Wise for summing things up,

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns 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. Here I must stand.

I’m not a big fan of the Intelligent Design movement mainly due to their ambiguity as to who this Designer is. God has revealed Himself through Scripture, one can be repulsed by that but it doesn’t change the fact.

I do not believe that this point of view should be taught at public schools. For reasons which Romans 1 talks about the scientific establishment has stood its ground on the modern synthesis.

It would be an injustice for Christian students wishing to go into the scientific field not to be taught evolutionary theory for they will have to know what its claims are to be able to get any sort of scientific degree. They don’t have to agree with it but I do believe they should know what it’s about.

That being said, Chris Comer, the Texas Director of Science, was forced to step down. The reason? According to the story,“Hey Science, Don’t Mess with Texas” (I like the misleading title),

We begin our story on October 26 when Comer forwarded an e-mail announcing a presentation titled, “Inside Creationism’s Trojan Horse,” by Barbara Forrest. Forrest co-authored a book arguing that creationist politics are advancing the movement to get intelligent design theory taught in public schools, and are doing so through public relations rather than through scientific research. Shortly after forwarding the e-mail, Comer was put on administrative leave.

“Ms. Comer’s e-mail implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that TEA endorses the speaker’s position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral,” according to the author of a TEA memo calling for Comer’s firing.

How can the Texas Education Agency justify her firing her for endorsing a view which is taught at every Texas public school?

How can you blame Comer for holding a view which public school biology teachers throughout Texas are forced to teach?

Is TEA going to fire every biology teacher who teaches evolutionary theory? There’d be no bio teachers left!

Now Barbara Forrest (the fact that she is a philosopher speaks volumes) has replied to this unfortunate incident by writing a statement,

Barbara Forrest on Chris Comer’s forced resignation”

I don’t blame Forrest for her dismay at what happened, if I shared her viewpoint I’d be similarly outraged, heck I don’t but I’m still confused as to why Comer was let go.

Something which Forrest said in her statement grabbed my attention however for its naked irony,

Has the process of administering the public education system in Texas become so politicized that even the truth is a threat to people’s jobs? One can only conclude that it has.

This cuts both ways for scientists who are creationists and find themselves in the situation which Forrest laments. Their commitment to the inerrancy of the Bible whose author is Truth Himself is a threat to their jobs. I wouldn’t even go as far as creationists I would say anyone who questions evolutionary dogma, as Ben Stein will allegedly make clear in his upcoming movie, “Expelled”.

I don’t expect those who hold Forrest’s worldview to agree, how can they when their minds are still in the dark?

Advertisements

42 Responses to The Chris Comer Mess

  1. hokku says:

    If people really paid attention to “scripture” they would simply admit that Genesis depicts a flat, motionless earth with a solid firmament above it, with sun, moon and stars set in that firmament like lamps, and above that a vast reservoir of waters and the dwelling place of God.

    Completely unreal, completely imaginary, and also completely biblical and pre-scientific.

  2. Here’s my question about the time frame.

    It says that God created everything in six days and then took a day off.

    On the first day, he created the heavens and the earth. So from what we have observered today. On the first day, God created more than 300 million galaxies with more than 100 billion stars in each. One of these galaxies like the milky way is approximately 600,000 trillion miles across.

    Then in the next five days God created everything else. In relative size and complexity, God did relatively little. So I’d say, God worked one day and probably took the next 6 off.

  3. Laz says:

    Hokku,
    Do you believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God?

    Steve,
    What you do think about Genesis 1:14-19 in the context of your question?

  4. hokku says:

    I think Genesis (as well as the rest of the Bible) makes it abundantly clear that the Bible is not the “inspired word of God.”

    You asked what I think about Genesis 1:14-19:

    Genesis 14 describes creation of “lights in the firmament of heaven to divide day from night” and for signs, seasons, days and years.” This describes creation of the sun, moon, and stars, and is completely unscientific, with the heavenly bodies being set in the solid sky. The lights are set in the solid firmament, not, of course, beyond or above it, where the vast reservoir of biblical waters lies, and also the dwelling of God. All quite incorrect and having nothing to do with the real universe, but of course it is pre-scientific and is just an attempt to explain the origin of things, though it is done completely inadequately. It does, however, demonstrate that there is nothing infallible or divinely inspired Genesis.

  5. Laz says:

    Hokku, well of course you would say that since you are already presupposing that it isn’t the inspired Word of God. Nothing I say will convince you, just as nothing that was said to me prior to conversion convinced me.

    Nothing short of God’s illumination will convince you otherwise.

    As for Genesis 1:14-19 I was asking Steve not you but thanks for the feedback.

  6. Take a look at this from your Genesis passage

    16God made the two great lights, the (E)greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made (F)the stars also.

    I guess all I’m saying is that this reflects the very limited knowledge of the universe at the time this passage was written. In the first part it reflects a belief that the Sun is a great light, eventhough it is a small to mid-sized star.

    What if the second part was worded to say…He made six billion trillion stars also not to mention all the other planets around those stars.

    It also leaves out a lot of stuff that they didn’t know existed. For example, all the black holes and supermassive black holes, not to mention all the dark energy and dark matter which make up most of the universe.

    Who knows maybe they were given all the other details but simply didn’t understand what it was about or simply forgot.

    Nevertheless, the through away point about the stars is the big complex thing to create and everything on earth is relatively minor in comparisson.

  7. Laz says:

    Steve,
    Don’t you think the sun is called “greater” because in comparison to the moon it is? I think we can agree that sunlight is far brighter than moonlight.

    Forget the fact that the moon can only reflect the sun’s light, this might also be why the sun is called the “greater light”.

    Some creationists believe that the stars/sun/moon were created first and that the reference to their “creation” on the 4th day is to their visibility from earth.

    Agreed, whoever was inspired to pen Genesis 1 did not have the knowledge we have acquired, and a lot of stuff was left out but the Bible is not an astronomy textbook.

    I think we can both agree to that.

    However just because it isn’t a science (pick your discipline) textbook it does not mean that it was not inspired by God and thus true in the realms it makes statements about. Like Dr. Wise, the Bible is where I must take my stand.

    Nevertheless, the through away point about the stars is the big complex thing to create and everything on earth is relatively minor in comparisson.

    If God is all knowing and all powerful what is difference between creating “big complex” things and smaller things?

    The difference is in our minds because we are not God.

  8. My point is that you have very primative people with almost zero knowledge of anything writing the bible. Even the words available in that day can’t describe very much. So everything has to be very simplitics.

    On the other hand, if you believe in an all knowing and all powerful God than anything is possible. For example, everything could have been create just as it is sometime last week. You’d have no way to know.

    This all knowing and all powerful God could also have create a trillion other earths either in this universe or in others. In fact it would only make sense that a God that powerful would want to do more than earth.

    This God could also be controlling everything you think and say, even to believe otherwise.

    Also since the nearest star is 6000 lightyears away, you’re only seeing an the light it emitted 6,000 years ago. Everything else out there my have already dissappeared. And if you believe in a literal version of the bible, everything passed that star never existed because it would all be too old. We aren’t actually seeing a star a million light years away because it would have had to exist a million years ago for you to see it.

    Finally, if God wasn’t all knowing and powerful but just believed that. It’s certainly possible that other beings were even more powerful and able to keep their existance from God.

    Anyway, we’re talking about faith and believe. People will live their lives bases on this faith and belief wether it’s true or not. In a few million years, I’d bet a lot of these mysteries start to clear up.

  9. Laz says:

    Steve,
    Primitive people they might have been but what does “knowledge” or the lack there of have to do with receiving God’s revelation?

    The words of the Apostle to the Corinthians (1:26-29)are appropriate here,

    For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble;

    but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong,

    and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are,

    so that no man may boast before God.

    I thought it ironic that you wrote this,

    On the other hand, if you believe in an all knowing and all powerful God than anything is possible.

    because in fact that is what Jesus tells his befuddled disciples,

    And looking at them Jesus said to them, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

    Steve, I’m not so much concerned with what God “could have” done and your fascination with that is revealing. As is this,

    In fact it would only make sense that a God that powerful would want to do more than earth.

    Makes sense to whom, you? So in other words are you going to sit there and pretend that you know what God would do? Isn’t that a bit like putting yourself in His shoes?

    God is sovereign over Creation that much is clear from the Bible.

    YECs (young-earth creationists) give explanations for the starlight issue (old earthers, of course, need not), whether you even think these credible will depend on whatever presuppositions about the universe you bring to the table.

    I’m glad you said this,

    Anyway, we’re talking about faith and believe. People will live their lives bases on this faith and belief wether it’s true or not. In a few million years, I’d bet a lot of these mysteries start to clear up.

    because it cuts both ways. Whether the faith in question is that of the supernaturalist or the naturalist.

    Even the faith you seem to have that we will still be around in a million years.

  10. Your beliefs can easily be 100% right and 100% wrong. Primative people could be getting the revalations of God or the rantings of a psychotic. I don’t think they had much ability to tell the difference. If you took them to Vegas to see Siegfried and Roy do you think they’d believe the Tiger disappeared or not? I’m sure they’d think the waterfall out front was real.

    By the way, you’re translations of the bible from the original Arameic stretch things. They’ve added a lot of words that didn’t exist and the translations are one for one. It’s hard to believe a literal bible without the actual words.

  11. Jason says:

    Why didn’t Moses write a disseration on the creation, also create the internet and then post it on Wiki? If that had happened, then I would believe…..

    Steve, curious, what words have been added to the Aramaic?

  12. I can’t tell you the exact words, but language changes and grows a lot over time. In Shakespere’s day there were about 30,000 words in the English Language. Today there are close to one million. The new words describe all the new concepts, ideas and inventions. There’s a lot more slang. Words also change meanings. So when you go from an ancient language to something like the King James Bible, there can be lots of language issues.

  13. Jason says:

    I am trying to understand your point….are you saying that there are major problems going from Hebrew to Greek, Hebrew to Old English, or Greek to the Modern English? I honestly had never heard the argument that it was too difficult to translate the older languages because of all the new words today. I really would like to see an example.

    One fact remains….Jesus impacted the world. But every man has to deal with that question….what do I make of Jesus?

  14. No the point is, that the descriptions in the original Aramaic aren’t very good becuase they lack to knowledge and the words to describe what was happening. For example, there language included almost nothing about the internal workings of the human body. They saw the sky in two dimensions and therefor had no concepts to describe much about the night sky. No, as this gets translated let’s say into Greek they start to fill in some of the language gaps. But that filling in is an intrepretation of what they though the Aramaic meant. This goes on over the centuries and what you read today is most likely very different than what was written and certainly what we meant.

    Here’s another way to look at it going in reverse. If you have two people translate a paragraph or a page from English into French, you’re going to get different translations. Part of it is intrepretation and the other part is that there are a lot more words and expression in English so to translate them into French you need to make up a new construction.

    So let’s assume that the first person 2000 years ago, gets a revelation from God or even better hears Jesus speak. He then quickly write is done. Is it word for word or just close? Does he try to add something to clarify the meaning? When you hear something the meaning is often different than if you see the same words in writing. Research tells us that about 70% of communication is non-verbal. Maybe the vocabulary of the day isn’t sufficient to get the meaning so some new slang starts to enter.

    Now this revelation is copied over and over by hand. We know this has the potential for the document to change. People aren’t Xeroxes. Then each time it gets translated and retranslated it changes even more. You also got noone left who speaks the original language so you can’t go back and double check. It’s like a big game of verbal telephone. So what you end up with after a few thousand years is very different than the original. Scholars who go back to compare these documents see this all the time.

    So I’m not questioning your belief in Jesus only that the scriptures aren’t a very good record of what actually happened and what was said. In cases like this, what you need are multiple sources that support one another. For example, if you have a story about a city being destroyed on a certain date, you can look for archeological evidence that the city was were it was supposed to be and dates to the appropriate time period. So far in the research some of the stories of the bible hold up and others don’t.

  15. Laz says:

    I thought the OT was written in Hebrew (save for a few parts in Aramaic found in the Book of Daniel).

    Steve, do you believe that the material is all that exists?

  16. The bible was in both Hebrew and Aramaic beyond just Daniel. A simple google search gives all the places where each language was used. There are certainly other manuscripts and documents but few are actually real time accounts by people who were actually there. Some parts are actually centuries later.

    However, as any judge or lawyer will tell you eye witness accounts are usually the most unreliable evidence. Put 50 people at the sight of an auto crash and you’ll get 50 different accounts. You can even see a video tape that gives a misleading version of what really happened.

    To believe that the bible is accurate and hasn’t changed in 2000 years requires a leap of faith. “God is my proofreader.” Once you get into the realm of faith discussion ends.

    Perhaps living in the age of CSI, the standard for evidence has risen. We could probably prove a lot of things with a little DNA evidence.

  17. Laz says:

    Steve,
    What I meant by the question is: Do you believe that the natural world is all that exists?

  18. As I’ve always said, I not only don’t know the extent of the natural world, I have not clue about anything beyond that. I know that in order for “string theory” to work you need 11 dimensions. I have no experience with more than 4.

    I know of scientist attempting to create a new universe in their labs. I know it’s theoricially possible.

    There’s also speculation that there are more universes with completely different natural laws.

    My hunch is that there is a lot more going on then we can even imagine. I’d give you odds that it’s well beyond a single all powerful creator.

    Here’s my question for you. What do you think are the limits of what is going on beyond the natural world? Could your current beliefs only be scratching the surface?

  19. Laz says:

    I was not referring to another universe or “dimension”. For these things would still be contained within Nature.

    Forgive me for not making this clear. What I was asking is do you believe in the supernatural, that is, in the existence of something outside Nature?

    What do you think are the limits of what is going on beyond the natural world? Could your current beliefs only be scratching the surface?

    There is no question that what God has revealed through Scripture only scratches the surface. After all it was the Apostle who wrote (2Corinthians 12:2-4),

    I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago–whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows–such a man was caught up to the third heaven.

    And I know how such a man–whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows–was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak.

    Whatever Paul saw, I reckon, could not have been expressed even if he had the body of knowledge that has been gathered in the almost 2000 years since.

    An oft cited quote is pertinent here,

    if you think you understand God, then it’s not God.

    While I believe He has given us enough of a peek into His things, or at least enough to grow spiritually in Christ, it is arrogant or misguided for a human being to say that he’s got it all figured out.

    So to answer your question, what God has revealed through His Word only scratches the surface, I gather we’ll understand a bit more at the consummation of all things.

  20. You missed my point. If you believe in something other than the natural world, it’s easy to believe that there are millions of things other than the natural world. It’s very possible that God believes he’s all powerful but there is something even greater that has God thinking that way.

    I’m saying that if you took a more open, expansive view you might find other answers or no answers at all. It may just be more comforting not to have to deal with the fact that the mystery is well beyond our understanding and might even be beyond God’s understanding.

    Believe what you want. It just doesn’t mean that believe something is true makes it true. It’s faith not fact.

  21. Laz says:

    So Steve, how do you define “fact”?

  22. While it’s hard to prove anything, the best definition I’ve heard about a fact is…anything that is so obvious and universally accepted that it serves no point to discuss whether it’s true or not. For example, if I said the oak table is made of wood..some people might argue that but it’s really a silly agrument. The earth has 1 moon, the sun is 93 million miles away..not much agrument and any agrument is probably a waste of time. Christ is the son of God…not a fact but a belief because the evidence is not so solid that people won’t disagree in a reasonable way even if you don’t think it’s reasonable.

    Try arguing that the earth is round and not flat.. not many takers. Evidence is much stronger than any religious belief. The photos from space are fairly convincing.

  23. Laz says:

    But what if Christ is the Son of God? What if what is now in this life dismissed as merely belief also fact?

    Evidence is much stronger than any religious belief.

    I agree but evidence must interpreted by the presuppositions we bring to the table.

  24. Might be stronger but there is enough reasonable doubt to make it a belief.

    Everything I suggested as a fact is something that you can directly observe or measure.

    It doesn’t rise the the level of beyond a reasonable doubt. Even that level isn’t 100% true all the time.

    If you read something in the paper, can you be sure it’s true and accurate even if they have a picture.

    What you’re saying is that it’s true because you believe it’s true. That’s what faith is.

    Take a look at your hand. Do you belief you have fingers or do you actually know you have fingers? That’s the difference between a belief and a fact.

    In addition, you have about 5 billion people on this planet who believe you’re wrong. That’s enough disagreement to make me believe it’s not a fact. Might be right might be wrong but it’s not a metaphysical certaintude.

  25. Laz says:

    Steve,
    So if you didn’t directly observe an event how do you know it happened? Doesn’t faith play a part in that?

    What you’re saying is that it’s true because you believe it’s true. That’s what faith is.

    No, actually faith is this,

    Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

    Most assuredly the hope which Christ gives didn’t start with my belief. The hope of His Resurrection is real whether or not I had come to belief in it.

    The 11th chapter of the book of Hebrews (the beginning of which I quoted above) is a treatise on faith.

    Again, we’re going to interpret certain evidence based on what philosophical assumptions we bring to the table. This is particularly true in past events which we did not observe though it is not limited to these.

    For someone who witnesses a miracle will not necessarily interpret it as an act of God if he/she does not believe in the existence of God and/or that He is so involved as to perform miracles.

  26. First, even if you witnessed something it doesn’t mean it happened. Eye witness testimony is very unrealiable. So what you need is supporting evidence from multiple sources. In almost every case, except for Irish history, history was written by the winners so it always has to be taken with a skeptical view. The first war we actually know a lot about is the US Civil War because there is such a large collection of letters from all the soldiers. Even today, there is a lot of despute about what you actually see on the evening news. So something written 2000 years ago probably isn’t at that level of evidence. (You probably don’t remember a cartoon character Baron Munchusen. He was famous for the say, “Vas You Dare Charlie?”

    This is different than a law of physics which you can demonstrate and measure over and over again. You can measure the speed of light and every time you measure it, it’s the same. There really is no dispute that two parts Hydrogen and one part Oxygen gives you water.

    Otherwise, The logical extension of your argument is that there are no facts and everything is on faith. I know a lot of people who operate that way.

    Let’s just agree on a test that would prove the God exists that no one would question. Here’s what I would accept. God comes to earth and says “to prove I’m the real deal I going to put another moon in orbit with the Earth. Presto, moon number 2.”

    It’s important that whatever you choose can’t be faked. Most of what I’ve read of miracles in the bible could easily be faked. So it’s got to be really big and God has to claim credit.

    There’s actually a great scene in the last years South Park where we see how the loaves and fishes was done.

    I never said there was anything wrong with faith or belief but it doesn’t mean it’s real or true.

  27. Laz says:

    The logical extension of your argument is that there are no facts and everything is on faith. I know a lot of people who operate that way.

    No. There are facts but things which we do not witness have to be believed on some sort of faith. Like the aforementioned letters from soldiers and other such things.

    Well actually God did come to earth.

    So do you think miracles occur? By miracles I mean an interference with Nature by a supernatural power.

    Of course in all of this, we both are making a big assumption: that human reasoning is valid.

  28. I guess I couldn’t tell when nature is affected by a supernatural power, a natural power, some type of trickery or some other force we don’t know or understand. I certainly haven’t seen anything in the last 50 years that would fit that description. I certainly have witnesses some awesome discoveries that explain a lot.

    There are also a lot of things people used to believe in that have been debunked such as astrology, homeopathy, dowsing, spoon bending, the Bermuda triangle, remote viewing, ESP, telekensis and more.

  29. Laz says:

    No trickery Steve, but your agnosticism to such things is noted.

    Though to be sure, if one doesn’t believe in the supernatural, even if one does witness a supernatural act, one will not believe one’s eyes for the philosophical assumption that such things are impossible will color one’s interpretation of the “evidence”.

    As for your list of phenomena you forgot abiogenesis, oh wait a minute we still believe in that one…

  30. Take a look at the work of James Randi at http://www.randi.org. It’s a great resource for how to set up a test for determining if something is for real or whether it’s being faked. In fact, he’s had a million dollar prize for more than 30 years for anyone who can demonstrate any paranormal or supernatural phenomina.

  31. Laz says:

    That’s good Steve but it speaks nothing as to whether or not miracles occur.

    As for his prize, I hope he’s adjusted for inflation.

    To be sure, Biblically speaking, God intervenes directly for a specific purpose not so humans can clap with seal-like approval. In fact, human manipulation of the spiritual world is strictly forbidden because at the root of such work is the glorification of man and not of God.

    Truth be told, how God has transformed my life is a miracle (as well as the lives of people that I know). But like I said, if one doesn’t believe in miracles to begin with, one will conjure up all sorts of naturalistic explanations from well pick your field.

    We cannot discuss the existence of miracles without first addressing our philosophical baggage, so to speak.

  32. Guna says:

    The bible was not written to prove God exists or not. It was written to reveal himself to a mankind that has gone astray.

    And, even from scientific point of view, don’t you find it ridiculous to expect physical proof of something spiritual?

    I’m saying that if you took a more open, expansive view you might find other answers or no answers at all

    exactly. From this thread i can’t help but notice that Laz has a more ‘open’, ‘expansive’ look than Steve, who’s limiting his belief to what can be proven using scientific means. Of course, Laz’s open and expansive view, is not his own wisdom, but because of the understanding given by God.

  33. Guna, you misread my comments. I think all sorts of things are possible.

    If the lack of proof is proof, then really everything is possible.

    With discoveries this year that the universe is not curved as Einstein said but rather flat, it opens up the possibility that everything is possible and probable. This includes parallel universes. We even can prove that something can actually be in two places at the same time.

    I’m just trying to be patient and adopt a wait and see attitude. I’m not drawing any conclusions while everything is still in motion.

  34. Guna says:

    Steve,
    sorry if you think i have misread your comments. Really, it was just an honest observation.

    So your take is that if God wants you to believe in Him, He has to prove to you that He exists? can you give an example of how He would do this is a non-supernatural way?

    I’m just trying to be patient and adopt a wait and see attitude.

    Your ‘wait and see attitude’ interests me. How long will you wait? What do you expect (or hope) to see?

    I’m not drawing any conclusions while everything is still in motion.

    Do you expect it to stop in your lifetime?

  35. I’m not looking for big scientific proof, just something simple like God shows up and creates something. An all powerful God should be easily able to make it crystal clear to everyone that he or she exists. If you think that was done 2000 years ago, that’s were we disagree. There reason is that it was immediately accepted in fact it took many hundreds of years. All it did was enhance the mystery.

    How long will I wait? I guess as long as it takes. Rushing it doesn’t make it happen sooner. We’re still very primative people. We have a tough time distinguish between fact, faction, myth, folklore, inspiration and the rantings of a psychotic. Believing doesn’t make anything true or real.

  36. Guna says:

    Steve,
    My bad again. I didn’t ask my first question correctly.

    I meant to ask if you’re saying that if there is a Sovereign, All Powerful, Almighty God who created us and will judge us after we die and has the power to send us to eternal damnation… He is obliged to prove to you that He exists, and that if He didn’t, it would be unfair?

  37. An all powerful God makes up all the rules and even created the concept of fair or unfair. We couldn’t oblige this God to do anything. We don’t have the power. Let’s say it would just be considerate. I would be nice if everything was crystal clear, easily understood, written (not translated) into current every day English so that there was a least universal agreement on the rules.

    In everyday life it’s really unfair to store up judgement until the end. Would you want your boss to wait two years to tell you what you did wrong and then fire you? I think you’d rather get that feedback on a timely basis and be aloud to make changes. The result of a “judgement day” is that it creates fear and anxiety which is a poor way to motivate anyone.

    So does God have to provide his existence to me? It sure would be more fair, considerate and useful.

  38. Guna says:

    In everyday life it’s really unfair to store up judgement until the end. Would you want your boss to wait two years to tell you what you did wrong and then fire you? I think you’d rather get that feedback on a timely basis and be aloud to make changes.

    What if the boss sent you a memo telling you that what you’re doing is wrong and if you continue like that, he’ll have to fire you sooner or later? Would that be unfair?

  39. I don’t know if it’s fair but it certainly is bad management. When you see management by memo, you see an environment were most people are looking for their next job. They are also confused because since almost 70% of communication is non-verbal, you usually don’t get the true meaning.

    A good base will sit down with you and explain what you’ve done wrong and how to correct it. Only aftert this is done and performance doesn’t improve does it get escallated to the or else stage.

  40. onein6billion says:

    “It would be an injustice for Christian students wishing to go into the scientific field not to be taught evolutionary theory for they will have to know what its claims are to be able to get any sort of scientific degree.”

    What if they got their degree, obtained a job, admitted that they didn’t really “believe” in evolution and were then summarily fired? After 3 years? they would sue.

    http://chronicle.com/news/article/3580/anti-evolution-biologist-sues-woods-hole

  41. Laz says:

    Yeah I heard about this case. If that is the sole reason this person is being fired, then there’s no reason why a lawsuit isn’t in order. This man’s situation is akin to a New Testament prof being fired from Rice University for not being a Christian.

    My conversion came 4 years after obtaining my degree. In fact the Lord did His work during the time I worked in a research lab, the one I still work at.

    Needless to say, this had produced many a colorful discussion at work.

  42. onein6billion says:

    The lawsuit failed of course. When your employer claims you are not properly qualified to do the job, it’s very difficult to win a lawsuit. So someone who does not accept evolution was fired because a proper understanding how evolution played a part in this particular research was fundamental to the job.

    There is a difference between understanding “evolution” and buying into it and the conclusions that it leads one into.

    Again, one can have an intellectual understanding of Christianity without being born again. So a New Testament prof at Rice University can be fired for not being a Christian? If our hypothetical prof. sued then would you support the lawsuit?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: