Where in the world is Cheri Yecke?

When we last checked in with Cheri Yecke, she had just announced her resignation as Florida's K-12 chancellor and was negotiating for a job at one of two universities in a state she wouldn't name, except to rule out Florida. (Yecke suffered four bouts of serious pneumonia while in Tallahassee, and was seeking a healthier climate.) She expected to make an announcement within weeks.

That was back in January.

Yecke now has contacted the Gradebook to let us know where she has landed. That would be Harding University, a private Christian school in Searcy, Ark. She'll be the dean of graduate programs and an associate professor of education.

"For some time I have felt called to work in a Christian environment," Yecke told the Gradebook. "This position gives me that opportunity, as well as the chance to get back into the classroom, which is something I have really missed. Several opportunities came my way, but Harding was by far the best fit. It feels good to be able to follow my heart."

Comments

[Azazel]

I vote that Michael is a troll. And a stupid one at that.

[Chris W]

Doctor - Michael is either a troll or someone who read something in a creationist magazine and didn't understand it but decided it was his Doomsday Weapon against evolution.

[The Good Doctor]

Wow, Michael is wrong with almost everything he says.

1. The Hubble Deep Field revealed a vast amount of young and very young galaxies, in fact the smallest and furthest away ones were almost uniformly very young confirming current cosmological speculation.

2. IDK what he's smoking about Mars, yes it has a magnetosphere but it's readily explained by dynamo and MESSENGER did not return any data that would call any current cosmological theories into question.

3. Confusing the evolution of the universe with biological evolution REPEATEDLY. Enough said.

[Chris W]

Michael:

"No Chris, if you believe the evolutionist model is so successful, you know the dynamo theory is the only hypothesis used in explaining a magnetic field.

Mercury by the model of evolution should not have a magnetic field because it should have cooled off and solidified a long time ago."

You know, the *earth* cooled off and solidified a long time ago and *it* has a magnetic field. You're going to have to do a lot better than that.

"According to the dynamo hypothesis the core must be liquid. So with the influence of the dynamo label, evolutionists try to explain the core might have had "sulfur.""

Sources? Who, actually, has said this? Come up with a name, or a link. You're writing this on a blog, which means you can get to Google and look it up.

"Remnant magnetism is not considered because it would not be in agreement with the overall evolutionist hypothesis."

Again - sources?

Michael, I am more than happy to argue with you on the merits of your thoughts (such as they are) but you're going to have to do some basic science-type things. First, you're going to have to spell out your logic a bit more explicitly. Not doing that only gives you wiggle room to play "gotcha", and if that's all you want then go somewhere else. Second, you're going to have to cite your sources. It isn't difficult - just go on the web, find your supporting documentation, and put it in a post. That way everything is up front and in public and we don't have to take your word for it. (In science, nobody takes anyone's word for anything; it all has to be in the work, and the experiment has to work no matter who does it.)

Rather than evading your observation, I am asking you to take the trouble to spell out your observation and what you think it means. Let's make sure we're arguing about the same thing so we're not just barking at each other like two witless dogs at 2am.

[Drew Smith]

Michael wrote: "I know the meaning of science, it's knowledge."

No, it isn't. Science is a process by which we obtain knowledge about the observable universe incorporating facts and theories involving only natural processes.

***

Michael wrote: "In the type of science your trying to describe only allows interpretation only in a model of the naturalistic way, which is subjective not objective."

There is nothing intrinsically subjective about science. Science offers only explanations involving natural processes, because there is no method available that can test a supernatural process.

***

Michael wrote: "For example, the hypothesis of the big bang which has said to have 'sprang into existence' as a singularity."

The Big Bang model begins with the singularity, but makes no claim as to how the singularity came into existence.

***

Michael wrote: "what is the difference between an intelligent designer making something out of nothing or something popping out of nowhere to become something by itself?"

The Big Bang model doesn't claim that something popped out of nowhere. It makes no claim for the origin of the singularity.

***

Michael wrote: "Messenger arrives with two flyby's and the magnetosphere is acting differently than it did when Mariner 10 flew by."

Messenger has flown by Mercury only once, in January 2008. Where did you get the idea that there were two fly-bys of Mercury by Messenger?

***

Michael wrote: "To come up with an theory which states that the planet could be young, would imply evolution is wrong."

The age of the Earth isn't dependent upon measurements taken of Mercury's magnetosphere.

[Mike]

Here's the problem, guy. You're living in a shallow reality where you think the laws of time and space are locked in place. The reference to the relationships or patterns described in laws are only based on every piece of collected data. If data comes up that challenges any said "natural law" then does that mean that the observation didn't happen, or that the law itself only applied in every circumstance before said event? Laws are just descriptions of repeated observations, they have nothing to do with rules of the universe that cannot be broken, just that have never show evidence that they have been broken.

As well, those evolutionists that are testing and hypothesizing in astrophysics really are stretching themselves, since they're two entirely different sciences. It's interesting that you care so much about the work scientists do when you already know god did it and they're just wasting their time.

[Michael]

I noticed your avoiding my observation about the origin.

No Chris, if you believe the evolutionist model is so successful, you know the dynamo theory is the only hypothesis used in explaining a magnetic field.

Mercury by the model of evolution should not have a magnetic field because it should have cooled off and solidified a long time ago. According to the dynamo hypothesis the core must be liquid. So with the influence of the dynamo label, evolutionists try to explain the core might have had "sulfur."

However, this assumption conflicts with the Nebula hypothesis in evolution where light elements condensed relatively far from the sun. The remaining hypothesis and I'm just simplifying it, basically states a huge rock hit Mercury. No real observational evidence for a rock hitting Mercury as the cause for it's magnetic field under the dynamo hypothesis.

Remnant magnetism is not considered because it would not be in agreement with the overall evolutionist hypothesis.

The United States went to the moon in order to prove or at least try to prove 3 different hypothesis on the origin of the moon. None of them tested out, and to this day, the evolutionist model has no clue on how the moon got to where it's placed now, and the critical impact it has on the Earth. The old huge rock hitting the moon (sounds similar to another hypothesis...lol)is one of a few remaining hypothesis.

But you are correct in the dogma; "only allows interpretation only in a model of the naturalistic way" and again that is not an objective concept...

One more thing before I go, there was math formula which claimed the earth was the center of the Universe. For 1,000 years many believed the Earth was physically at the center till the telescope was invented. However, outside of the nature law model reveals no such hypothesis. The Bible never said the Earth was physically at the center of the Universe. The Bible does say, natural laws cannot be broken...

There is no possible way something natural can cause to make something leap into existence and start the big bang by defying this law...

Newton's first law of motion - sometimes referred to as the law of inertia

The property of matter by which it retains its state of rest or its velocity along a straight line so long as it is not acted upon by an external force.

[Chris W]

Michael:

"I know the meaning of science, it's knowledge. Your belief on how the data should be interpret is not based on being "objective." Being objective is having a "open mind". In the type of science your trying to describe only allows interpretation only in a model of the naturalistic way, which is subjective not objective."

Science isn't knowledge; it's a process for accumulating knowledge in a way that minimizes errors. The reason that naturalistic science is so much more successful than its competitors is that it has strict rules to follow and can't use a supernatural entity as a crutch.

As for your characterization of "all planets in the Universe is old", that's nonsense and you should know it. You'll have to give out some more details on what you mean by "a certain type of magnetism" and why you think that makes Mercury look younger, and then you'll have to give out more than just the one alternative theory. In short, you're going to have do some more work if you want to be taken seriously and not just dismissed as a crank.

[Michael]

Chris,

I know the meaning of science, it's knowledge. Your belief on how the data should be interpret is not based on being "objective." Being objective is having a "open mind". In the type of science your trying to describe only allows interpretation only in a model of the naturalistic way, which is subjective not objective.

For example, the hypothesis of the big bang which has said to have "sprang into existence" as a singularity. We know this doesn't agree with the laws of physics. I do believe the concept fits your into your "uncharacterizable" description. If it doesn't, tell me what is the difference between an intelligent designer making something out of nothing or something popping out of nowhere to become something by itself?

When Mariner 10 brought back data, it surprised many evolutionists. It inspired a debate that's been going on for 30 years. The reason being, Mercury had a magnetosphere and was pretty dense for a small planet close to the sun. Messenger arrives with two flyby's and the magnetosphere is acting differently than it did when Mariner 10 flew by.

Now there is an alternative explanation on what Mercury would have a magnetosphere in the first place which would be a certain type of magnetism. However, this would make it look younger. And if you can only interpret the data in the basic naturalistic model, you have to look more towards the dynamo theory because that is the only explanation which would fit the overall model which states all planets in the Universe is old. To come up with an theory which states that the planet could be young, would imply evolution is wrong. And to imply evolution is wrong would bring an your description of "uncharacterizable" variable into the model which would imply intelligent design as the conclusion. It's quite possible the scientist can propose it even without believing in ID as a conclusion, only the fact what he has seen of the data showing a possible young planet. But this would not go well with your little science community there.

Again, not objective, but rather subjective. You see there is no "alternative" to what you are saying, only variants.

[Chris W]

Michael:

I don't think you really understand how science works at all. *Of course* theories have holes in them. They are our human attempt to describe and understand vast and complicated things in the world. That's why we bother to subject them to so much testing and debate and scrutiny; we know we'll get things wrong, so we set up a process by which we correct the things we get wrong as we find facts and evidence that warrants those corrections.

The difference between scientific theories like evolution and nonscientific "theories" like creationism or "intelligent design" is that in scientific theories there are no sacred cows. You can attack theories that have been settled for hundreds of years, but you had better bring your 'A' game and provide lots of cases that the settled theories can't account for. If all you're doing is pointing out holes in current theories, those theories will change to fill the holes or be discarded if they can't.

(BTW - another difference between scientific and nonscientific theories is that you have to say up front what would convince you that theory A does, in fact, cover bases you thought it didn't. None of this "well, it didn't convince *me* so it isn't true" nonsense we see from creationists, since it's so often followed by a symbolic sticking of the fingers in the ears.)

If you're pushing an alternate theory, the bar gets much higher. You have to show that your theory (call it theory B) explains all the same cases or evidence that theory A does, *plus* it explains the ones that theory A does not. You also have to do it without dragging in supernatural causes; the reason for that is that supernatural causes are uncharacterizable, hence there is no way to describe them objectively. You wind up having to take someone's word for how they work and what they do, and saying "take my word for it" is the quickest way I know of to get laughed out of a scientific meeting. Either your theory works based on the logic and the evidence, or it doesn't. And it's on you to show *how* it works.

[Michael]

Here is one more quote for you as George Wald continues with origins hypothesis...Before I unfold the drama, in creationism God creates miracles...According to Wald, it's "time" which creates the miracles making the impossible, possible...lol The miracles of time which defies the laws of physics. And one wonders why some considers evolution a faith based "religion" rather than what atheists call science.

"Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles. "The origin of life" Scientific American August 1954 p.48

Remember this and remember it well, as science grows, so does the holes in Evolution.

[Michael]

"OH SNAP, you're a liar or a misquoter. At least there are a few people willing to actually find references and make the full texts available instead of forming a tiny conclusion on select words."

Here is what the website of yours didn't tell you...

"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. "The origin of life" Scientific American August 1954 p.46"

And...

"Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. "The origin of life" Scientific American August 1954 p.46

I think that is basically what was said in 1978 not 1958 as your website suggests.

[SMan]

Can any of you left-wing ignoramuses point to one quote or instance where Yecke tried to put Creationism or ID into the Florida Science curriculum? Can you?

No, because she never tried. She wasn't even controlling the writing process you mindless idiots!

This all only proves a simple fact that unbelievers are really believers; in themselves and anything else that can testify that they, in fact, are the highest of powers. They have a religion, and it is evolution. And if you disagree with this religious belief, you are attacked endlessly and without pause.

Closet bigots; rejoice! You're cause is here!

[Jinx McHue]

"Posted by: onein6billion"

Wow. That was a wordy bit of saying absolutely nothing.

[Jinx McHue]

"Creation is quoting the infallible Scriptures"

Thank you for proving that ID is not Creationism.

[Jinx McHue]

You know, it's funny there isn't one teeny tiny mention of Darwin, evolution, or survival of the fittest in Mein Kampf, or any other Nazi writings. Hitler's personal library was captured intact - no Darwin. Anti-semitism was a tasty creation of Christianity

ROFLMAO!!! Hypocritical much? Christianity takes its teachings from the Bible. Show me where there is even one teeny tiny mention of anti-Semitism in the Bible.

[onein6billion]

"Looks like Gradebook is being invaded by PZ Myers' Pzombies intent on mindlessly smearing Yecke and Christians in general with their hate-filled rhetoric."

I resemble that. Except the problem with that statement is that the "smear" is the truth. And the truth can't be all that mindless. And the truth really shouldn't be considered "hate". And "rhetoric" would seem to imply "logic", but there's no logic involved if it's the simple truth. And it's really seems to be a pretty small "invasion". And the "intent" of the truth is to set the record straight. So maybe I don't resemble that at all.

[James W.]

If a Connecticut Yankee may say something... If 'Darwinism' had anything to do with the Nazis, it would be the perverted form called 'Social Darwinism'; a nineteenth-century misappropriation used to 'prove' that the 'weak' and' unfit' must be weeded out of of the herd. And anyway, Hitler would use any philosophy or movement available to achieve his ends.

[Chris W]

Michael:

You're mixing cosmology with evolution again, and that's a mistake; you're just going to wake up with a headache and maybe an ugly TV preacher or two in bed with you.

Doesn't it upset you to get your information from people willing to tell you outright lies to support your beliefs? "Intelligent design" supporters come in three basic "kinds" (sorry, I couldn't resist):

1. ID "theorists" - tend to be second-rate non-biologists or third-rate semi-biologists who know enough to build a rickety scaffold to prop up (eventually) a literal reading of Genesis in hopes of someday not needing to continually persuade people to Believe. Can also include lawyers who think they're philosophers, or lawyers who think they're paleontologists, or theologians who think they're geologists, or engineers who think they're field scientists. Examples include Michael Behe, Henry Morris, and Philip Johnson.

2. ID activists - These are not as scientifically literate as the ID theorists. They tend to be lawyers or preachers, with the occasional investment banker or pizza magnate. They run diploma mills like the Institute for Creation Research or "think tanks" like the Discovery Institute publish the drivel that ID believers quote from.

3. ID believers - These tend to be the people who quote from the drivel published by the ID activists. Almost none of them seem to have proper scientific training (which doesn't have to include evolutionary science, just a proper understanding of the need for scientific naturalism and skepticism and grounding your theories in actual data and testing it with predictions), which is why they are prey to the bovine ca-ca that seems to support a belief they love.

Of the three, the only ones I have any sympathy for are the ID believers. They have been led to believe something that is palpable nonsense, and they've been told false things by people they trusted.

[Egaeus]

John, there's not a thing wrong with it, as long as you accept that your belief is faith, that it is not based on empirical evidence (it wouldn't have to be faith otherwise), it is not science, and you don't try to teach that faith in science class.

Now, if you start on about talking animals and such, I might think you're crazy, but as long as you don't make it everyone's problem by trying to teach it in science class, then you're free to believe anything you want.

[John]

Since a number of people are using this blog to express themselves, I will too. What is wrong with a "belief" that God wrote the rules for the universe and that it is our responsibility to describe the rules based on evidence. I cannot "prove or disprove" the existence of God. It is impossible to develop a controlled experiment with a universe that both has and does not have God in it. I can "believe" in God. I can, however, recognize the order that God used to put the universe together and use the scientific method to describe this order. Sometime we get the patterns wrong and sometimes we get them right. The "Law of Gravity" seems to be fairly well "proven." The theory of evolution does not preclude the existence of God, it supports the beauty of the order that God used to "create" the universe.

[Mike]

Michael...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html#quote57

OH SNAP, you're a liar or a misquoter. At least there are a few people willing to actually find references and make the full texts available instead of forming a tiny conclusion on select words.

I'd also like to point out that evolution does not have anything to do with matters outside of the development of life on this planet. I'm sure this sounds familiar, probably because its something you've ignored in the past, but it does not delve into the realm of physics or astronomy, and has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

But I digress, this blog is about where this lady that was pushing creationism in schools before has gone. And its out of Florida.

Now please, stop giving Michaels in this state a bad name and start making your own observations in life.

[Michael]

Assumptions Jimmy is not observational science. That's a no no, Jimmy

Take the Hubble for example, Jimmy... It's gathers data used for observational science. For 11 days, Jimmy, 11 days it keep it shutter open to see the furthest out in space by pointing out in open area. As these images where blown up, they eventually showed something amazing and wonderful, Christian rejoice in the findings...

It revealed many mature galaxies pretty far into space. Do you know what that means? Jimmy...Do you actually comprehend the significance of such a discovery?

Well it means, it's not fitting the evolutionist model which says as you look further into space you should see more early forming galaxies, right Jimmy? Since I don't believe in alien life forms, perhaps you do, but aliens I don't believe created life in the Universe...I mean the alien hypothesis would be another assumption to attempt to help your belief in all these evolutionist assumptions. What you try to fight is the conclusion of the data, God as the intelligent designer...

Reminds me of this man...

"There is only two possible explanations as to how life arose: Spontaneous generation arising to evolution or a supernatural creative act of God...There is no other possibility. Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others, but that just leaves us only once other possibility...that life came as a supernatural act of creation by God, but I can't accept this philosophy, because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution."

Dr. George Wald. He was a professor of biology at Harvard and former Nobel Prize winner in biology in 1971. No Jimmy, he did not use the Scriptures to prove that evolution spontaneous generation was wrong. He did even believe in God...

Science confirms what the Bible said...

[Jim]

No Michael, Creation is quoting the infallible Scriptures on how many moons Pluto has and whether or not it is a planet. Oops no reference in the Scriptures... Creation is quoting what Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts Jr., and Ben Stein say that the Scriptures say. Oops, dead, buried, or gone insane... Debating science or evolution with Creation "Scientists" is like playing chess with pigeons. They kick over the pieces, poo all over the board, fly away and crow about their victory.

[Paul Johnson]

"Since you atheists who have been picking on Cheri Yecke have a lot of energy, I suggest you start inventing a real alternative fuel that is not going to affect the food supply of millions of people."

Evolution and genetics is allowing us to solve this problem with ethanol producing algae and such. Did you know you can patent a species? Corn land debacle solved!

But you know, if you don't want to believe in evolution you could throw all this progress down the drain and ruin the earth some more.

[Michael]

Cheri Yecke is not the producer of Expelled the movie, so some of you atheists trying to taunt her in a blog that she may never read, like some little kid is outrageous.

Creationism is a science. For example, creationism would wait till the first spacecraft to visit Pluto arrives there, and collect data before making a decision if it's a planet with two moons or not...

Since you atheists who have been picking on Cheri Yecke have a lot of energy, I suggest you start inventing a real alternative fuel that is not going to affect the food supply of millions of people.

As a creationist, I say the alternative energy is on the moon or somewhere else in space. You heat the moon dust up 800 degrees to collect the gas which is Helium-3. Invent a reactor for it, and there you have energy that is very friendly towards the climate and it doesn't affect the food supply. Perhaps cars could run on it someday.

[PrincessTickles]

Good riddance. Cheri = a creation retar, strong evidence that her parents dropped her on the left prefrontal cortex as a baby. She doesn't belong influencing normal children.

[Egaeus]

Okay, let's break it down to make it simple for you:

Either the producers say evolution was necessary for the holocaust, or it wasn't.

If they say it was necessary, which they have been quoted saying, that's a lie, as was shown earlier. Not only a lie, it's a form of holocaust denial. I mean, if you want to play semantics instead of addressing the point, then in my previous post, replace anti-semitism with holocaust, and append ",Hitler just put it into practice." at the end. Happy now?

If they say it wasn't necessary, then it's inclusion in the movie, and indeed one of it's main points, is pointless.

Not only that, but what Hitler did is not evolution, not even in a warped sense. It's artificial selection, the same thing that humans have been doing to animals for thousands of years.

All Darwin did was to take the already proven concept of selective breeding, looked at the evidence, and hypothesized a natural way for that selection to take place based on that evidence. He thereby explained why species are different from each other in varying degrees.

That has absolutely zero to do with what Hitler did. He rounded up what he considered the weak members of the herd, and killed them. That isn't natural selection, I don't care what kind of crack you're smoking.

As far as the insults, let's see:

Bigot (implied): they're crazy
Disaster: not as bad as crazy
Crackpot: crazy
Fundamentalist: crazy
Crazy: crazy
Right-wing: crazy
Blight: not as bad as crazy

Did I miss any? I'm sorry if I offended you, since from your limited comments you do come off as a right-wing fundamentalist, by including those as epithets.

[Rayjay]

You know, it's funny there isn't one teeny tiny mention of Darwin, evolution, or survival of the fittest in Mein Kampf, or any other Nazi writings. Hitler's personal library was captured intact - no Darwin. Anti-semitism was a tasty creation of Christianity, not Darwin. Or do you also maintain that evolution was a necessary condition for the Pogrom of 1096, the massacres of Jews in London and York in 1189-1190, the massacres in 1348, the massacres of Jews by the Cossacks in 1648-1654, and the anti-Jewish riots in Odessa in 1821? If not, then what made the Holocaust different?

As for ID/Creationism, it is simply not a science since it relies on supernatural causation and philosophical or theological concepts. As such it can make no predictions that can be validated by testing, which is how science works.

[Jinx McHue]

If the worst smear you see here is calling her crazy, YOU'RE crazy.

And boy, howdy, how the lies about Expelled evolve (*snicker*) with each telling. Now you guys are claiming the movie argues that antisemitism didn't exist before Darwin! It's like the old "telephone game." The movie's argument that Hitler used Darwinism (like he used everything else) to advance his genocidal agenda is passed down through various people and winds up being "Expelled says Darwinism caused antisemitism!" lol!

As far as who was expelled for what, I'll take news articles over the falsehoods of NCSE any day.

[Rodney Strong]

HA! HA! HA! HA!

She's a g d creationist. What a joke!

Well, at least she'll be less harmful at a college.

HA! HA! HA! HA!

[Azazel]

Well done Egaeus! I couldn't have said it better myself!

[Egaeus]

Bob, think of it as doing Florida a favor. She'll do a lot less harm in Searcy than she was trying to do in Tallahassee.

Unfortunately, now that Yecke is gone and we have some decent science standards in Florida, we have a legislature trying its best to undermine those standards. Hopefully they won't get it done in time for the bill to be approved in both houses before the end of session next week.

Jinx, about the worst "smear" I see is calling her crazy, which is probably demonstrable. I know that I consider anyone who believes in talking snakes and donkeys, and regularly participates in a symbolic cannibalistic ritual to be a few atoms short of a molecule.

Expelled? It tries to blame Darwin for anti-semitism, like that never existed before 1859. Try reading what Martin Luther, the leader of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, had to say about Jews.

And they try to blame professors being denied tenure on their beliefs? No, it's because they weren't doing good science. The stuff you read in the Answers Research Journal isn't science. Intelligent Design isn't science. If you can't or won't do science, you have no business being a scientist, no matter what the reason.

No, Expelled is on a whole different level of bad than calling someone who wants to teach religion as science "crazy."

[Bryson Brown]

That 'Expelled' is full of lies you can find out for yourself, if you care to. If you don't, it's hardly fair to blame others for the criticism you receive.

[Jinx McHue]

See what I mean? And to think these people find "Expelled" to be a bunch of lies. They prove it to be absolute fact with every smear they post!

Right Jinx. It's ALL a lie. Yecke didn't try to foist Creationism... I mean, "Intelligent Design" on Minnesota schools when she served as the state education commissioner. It's all just a illusion generated by the evil, atheist, "libruls" and "Darwinists" out to destroy America and Christianity.

As for Dr. Myers: Don't shoot the messenger.

[Rayjay]

She was a crazy right-wing blight in both Florida and Minnesota - she should finally feel right at home. Harding is so proper their internet connections block out any dating sites but Shawn Hannity's Hannidate. Gotta protect those impressionable minds from any evilutionist types.

[Jinx McHue]

Looks like Gradebook is being invaded by PZ Myers' Pzombies intent on mindlessly smearing Yecke and Christians in general with their hate-filled rhetoric.

[Phil Doubet]

Arkansas...that's where these iron-age thinkers need to go.Praise the friggin lord.

[Bob]

We have been trying very hard to make Arkansas a progressive state. Don't ruin it for us! Please take her back !

[Ralph]

Good riddance to Yecke, a disaster as an educator and a crackpot fundamentalist who denies evolution.

[ice9]

Yecke: a disaster wherever she goes. Quarantined in a Christian environment so she can do comparatively little damage. Her book is tripe, her policies thinly veiled political and religious bigotry.

ice

[Diane]

The War Against Excellence is/was a great book. Dr. Yecke's concern for the waste of our gifted minds in a place called school is hard to find in education leaders. I wish Florida would stop waging the war on excellence and look beyond mediocrity.
The future of our students depends on it.

[William Carrey]

The institution she is going to is simply one of the finest universities in the south. I believe that Harding may indeed be one of the most outstanding Chrisitan colleges in our country. I took my son to visit this university and was overwhelmed with the excellence that permeated every area of the institution.

[Henry Cate]

I greatly enjoyed her book "The War Against Excellence."

I wonder if she'll write any more.

[Former FDOE Employee]

The loss of Cheri Yecke at the FDOE was just one event in a long chain of evidence that the department views politics as more important than children. The "Tower of Terror" will continue to bleed good, smart, caring people like Yecke until it changes its priorities and fundamentally re-examines its task: to serve schools and districts in their work of educating students.