Darwinism Intelligent Design News science education

From the indoctrinate u files: Turns out, “teaching creationism” means teaching students to think

Spread the love

But then what did you really expect? Honestly?

Caroline Crocker at AITSE is interviewed at BestSchools.org:

I began to entertain “politically incorrect views” while I was studying for my PhD. Basically, I did not see how evolution by random mutation and natural selection could lead to the kind of intricate nanotechnology that I was seeing inside a cell. Aspects of evolutionary theory conflicted with what I knew of science. I’ve heard people say that eventually we will figure out how mistakes in copying lead to increased information, but that belief takes more faith than I have. I think that it might make more sense to just evaluate the scientific evidence and follow where it leads rather than try to fit the new evidence about the copious amounts of information found in cells into a theory that was suggested over 150 years ago when cells were thought to be simple blobs of protoplasm.

When I began to teach, I noticed that the assigned textbooks were written in a way so as to encourage students to memorize, rather than critically assess, some of the information. I did not think this practice would lead to their success in future biology classes nor in their chosen careers in science. Therefore, in keeping with Yale recommendations on teaching controversial subjects, my habit was to teach students “not to argue from authority and to link their claims and assertions to appropriate evidence whenever possible.”

For example, when teaching about the function of steroids in cellular communication, I had the students go beyond the text and encouraged them to speculate on the possible side effects of hydrocortisone. In the same way, in the single cell biology lecture where I presented the information the textbook provided on evolution and the origin of life, I suggested that the students critically assess the claims made. I asked questions like, “Is microevolution is a legitimate ‘proof’ of macroevolution?” or “How much does the synthesis of a racemic mixture of individual amino acids in a closed system add to a discussion of the origin of life?” I encouraged them to think about what they were being taught, making it clear that disagreeing with the professor was okay—provided they backed their opinions up with science. The students enjoyed this method of teaching and clamored to get into my classes. Their letters can be found in my book Free to Think: Why Scientific Integrity Matters.

My first inkling of trouble was the day that my supervisor called me into his office and told me that I was going to be disciplined for allegedly “teaching creationism.”

82 Replies to “From the indoctrinate u files: Turns out, “teaching creationism” means teaching students to think

  1. 1
    kellyhomes says:

    Given that Caroline is a self admitted creationist (and presumably YEC) fundamentalist

    Therefore, I think I am justified in pointing out that is important to remember that for Christians nothing trumps the Bible, not even science.

    Link

    Is it really that much of a stretch to think that creationist ideas wereever very far away in any topic? Perhaps a recurring subtext?

    After all if the Bible trumps science, each and every time, how can you teach science?

    News, presumably you don’t go in for the investigative side of Journalism as it seems to me that you are only reporting on one side of the story here.

    While it might be the case that there is sometimes smoke without fire it’s possible to “teach” people via questions like “Is microevolution is a legitimate ‘proof’ of macroevolution?” but it’s also possible to manipulate people. Perhaps the kid who answers “yes, pennies add up into dollars so where is the barrier in either case?” get’s shunned at lunchtime. Or the teacher winks to the rest of the class.

    I don’t know that any of that happened. But until you know perhaps you could steer clear of words like “indoctrinate” when there may well be a legitimate reason for the complaint!

    So after the supervisor called her into the room…

    My first inkling of trouble was the day that my supervisor called me into his office and told me that I was going to be disciplined for allegedly “teaching creationism.” That was not true. In fact, I had not even given the offending lecture during the previous semester. My supervisor was acting on a report from one student who refused to put the complaint in writing. A copy of the document where he admits this fact is in my book. A week after Free to Think was published I found out that the student who made the false allegations about me had been previously suspended from GMU for intimidating other students and for cheating—perhaps this is why she did not put anything in writing. Nonetheless, the grievance procedure, which is fully documented in my book, was a farce, my three-year contract was switched for a one-year, and my job at GMU was over.

    Seems to me this is the money shot:

    I had not even given the offending lecture during the previous semester.

    I suppose as it was a lecture format it would be interesting to know what Caroline said in answer to herself when she asked herself if “Is microevolution is a legitimate ‘proof’ of macroevolution?” Perhaps that’s where the problem comes from. Do you know the answer News? Perhaps you can ask, for me, as a favor?

    Oh, to be a fly on the wall. But I guess it’s all in the book.

    Or not….

  2. 2
    GinoB says:

    Sorry to be so harsh, but PhD or no that woman is a full fledged idiot. Anyone whose understanding of modern evolutionary theory is represented by statements like “eventually we will figure out how mistakes in copying lead to increased information”, and who thinks the theory first proposed 150 years ago is the state of knowledge of the theory today deserves to be fired from a teaching position.

    Academic freedom doesn’t mean the freedom to teach the Earth is flat, or that leprechauns are real, or that the stork brings the babies.

  3. 3
    Fossfur says:

    According to Crocker,

    Human experience suggests that, if we see evidence of engineering, there was an engineer, if we see a painting, there was a painter. To me, this is simple logic.

    That sounds familiar!

    Do you know of any building that didn’t have a builder?
    ___ YES ___ NO

    B. Do you know of any painting that didn’t have a painter?
    ___ YES ___ NO

    C. Do you know of any car that didn’t have a maker?
    ___ YES ___ NO
    If you answered “YES” for any of the above, give details:

    RAY COMFORT.

    http://ecclesia.org/truth/atheist.html

  4. 4
    Fossfur says:

    Crocker’s interview mentions Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, the documentary that claimed a bunch of people had been fired from their posts when in fact nothing of the sort happened.

    Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed was, let us not forget the movie that prompted William Dembski to predict that 2008 would be a “bang up year for ID”.

    Let’s pop over to the movie review site ‘Rotten Tomatoes’ and see what the consensus is….

    10%
    Full of patronizing, poorly structured arguments, Expelled is a cynical political stunt in the guise of a documentary.

    Ouch!

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    GinoB, excuse me but could you please show me that neo-Darwinism is true. I’ve looked at the evidence and it is severely wanting of anything that could be construed as substantiating evidence:

    i.e. Where’s the substantiating evidence for Darwinism?

    Many of these researchers also raise the question (among others), why — even after inducing literally billions of induced mutations and (further) chromosome rearrangements — all the important mutation breeding programs have come to an end in the Western World instead of eliciting a revolution in plant breeding, either by successive rounds of selective “micromutations” (cumulative selection in the sense of the modern synthesis), or by “larger mutations” … and why the law of recurrent variation is endlessly corroborated by the almost infinite repetition of the spectra of mutant phenotypes in each and any new extensive mutagenesis experiment (as predicted) instead of regularly producing a range of new systematic species…
    (Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some Further Research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,” Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology Vol. 4 (Special Issue 1): 1-21 (December 2010).)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....42191.html

    Four decades worth of lab work is surveyed here:

    “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010
    Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.
    http://behe.uncommondescent.co.....evolution/

    Michael Behe talks about the preceding paper in this following podcast:

    Michael Behe: Challenging Darwin, One Peer-Reviewed Paper at a Time – December 2010
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....3_46-08_00

    How about the oft cited example for neo-Darwinism of antibiotic resistance?

    List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria:
    Excerpt: Resistance to antibiotics and other antimicrobials is often claimed to be a clear demonstration of “evolution in a Petri dish.” ,,, all known examples of antibiotic resistance via mutation are inconsistent with the genetic requirements of evolution. These mutations result in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems/activities, such as porins and other transport systems, regulatory systems, enzyme activity, and protein binding.
    http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

    That doesn’t seem to be helping! How about we look really, really, close at very sensitive growth rates and see if we can catch almighty evolution in action???

    Unexpectedly small effects of mutations in bacteria bring new perspectives – November 2010
    Excerpt: Most mutations in the genes of the Salmonella bacterium have a surprisingly small negative impact on bacterial fitness. And this is the case regardless whether they lead to changes in the bacterial proteins or not.,,, using extremely sensitive growth measurements, doctoral candidate Peter Lind showed that most mutations reduced the rate of growth of bacteria by only 0.500 percent. No mutations completely disabled the function of the proteins, and very few had no impact at all. Even more surprising was the fact that mutations that do not change the protein sequence had negative effects similar to those of mutations that led to substitution of amino acids. A possible explanation is that most mutations may have their negative effect by altering mRNA structure, not proteins, as is commonly assumed.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....teria.html

    Shoot that doesn’t seem to be helping either! Perhaps we just got to give the almighty power of neo-Darwinism ‘room to breathe’? How about we ‘open the floodgates’ to the almighty power of Darwinian Evolution and look at Lenski’s Long Term Evolution Experiment and see what we can find after 50,000 generations, which is equivalent to somewhere around 1,000,000 years of human evolution???

    Richard Lenski’s Long-Term Evolution Experiments with E. coli and the Origin of New Biological Information – September 2011
    Excerpt: The results of future work aside, so far, during the course of the longest, most open-ended, and most extensive laboratory investigation of bacterial evolution, a number of adaptive mutations have been identified that endow the bacterial strain with greater fitness compared to that of the ancestral strain in the particular growth medium. The goal of Lenski’s research was not to analyze adaptive mutations in terms of gain or loss of function, as is the focus here, but rather to address other longstanding evolutionary questions. Nonetheless, all of the mutations identified to date can readily be classified as either modification-of-function or loss-of-FCT.
    (Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution’,” Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4) (December, 2010).)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....51051.html

    Now that just can’t be right!! Man we should really start to be seeing some neo-Darwinian fireworks by 50,000 generations!?! Hey I know what we can do! How about we see what happened when the ‘top five’ mutations from Lenski’s experiment were combined??? Surely now the Darwinian magic will start flowing!!!

    Mutations : when benefits level off – June 2011 – (Lenski’s e-coli after 50,000 generations)
    Excerpt: After having identified the first five beneficial mutations combined successively and spontaneously in the bacterial population, the scientists generated, from the ancestral bacterial strain, 32 mutant strains exhibiting all of the possible combinations of each of these five mutations. They then noted that the benefit linked to the simultaneous presence of five mutations was less than the sum of the individual benefits conferred by each mutation individually.
    http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1867.htm?theme1=7

    Now something is going terribly wrong here!!! Tell you what, let’s just forget trying to observe evolution in the lab, I mean it really is kind of cramped in the lab you know, and now let’s REALLY open the floodgates and let’s see what the almighty power of neo-Darwinian evolution can do with the ENTIRE WORLD at its disposal??? Surely now almighty neo-Darwinian evolution will flex its awesomely powerful muscles and forever make those IDiots, who believe in Intelligent Design, cower in terror!!!

    A review of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism
    The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have “invented” little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155).
    http://creation.com/review-mic.....-evolution

    Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pg. 162 Swine Flu, Viruses, and the Edge of Evolution
    “Indeed, the work on malaria and AIDS demonstrates that after all possible unintelligent processes in the cell–both ones we’ve discovered so far and ones we haven’t–at best extremely limited benefit, since no such process was able to do much of anything. It’s critical to notice that no artificial limitations were placed on the kinds of mutations or processes the microorganisms could undergo in nature. Nothing–neither point mutation, deletion, insertion, gene duplication, transposition, genome duplication, self-organization nor any other process yet undiscovered–was of much use.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....20071.html

    Now, there is something terribly wrong here! After looking high and low and everywhere in between, we can’t seem to find the almighty power of neo-Darwinism anywhere!! Shoot we can’t even find ANY power of neo-Darwinism whatsoever!!! It is as if the whole neo-Darwinian theory, relentlessly sold to the general public as it was the gospel truth, is nothing but a big fat lie!!!

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    Hmmm, ???, well thanks to whomever cleaned those posts out.

  7. 7
    News says:

    trollwave.

  8. 8
    GinoB says:

    bornagain77

    GinoB, excuse me but could you please show me that neo-Darwinism is true.

    Yes, I could. But you wouldn’t understand it.

    The rest of the Praise Jesus! videos skipped without comment.

  9. 9
    GinoB says:

    News, why did you delete my post? It wasn’t a troll, it was an honest opinion supported with evidence.

    Is that your idea of fair and balanced journalism?

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    Yes, I could. But you wouldn’t understand it.

    I guess it takes a really sophisticated mind, such as yours of course, to defend a ‘scientific’ theory by viciously demeaning anyone who questions it rather than showing any actual empirical evidence that demonstrates it is true. In grade school we called such people, who tried to intimidate other people like that, bullies.

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    Fossfur, I’ve addressed you a couple of times on the evidence issue as well and you simply ignore falsification, and it seems you also have a severe issue with honesty and bullying just as GinoB does. Does it not matter to you one iota that you cannot back up your claims for neo-Darwinism with actual evidence?

  12. 12
    News says:

    “Perhaps we all should just spam the comments with Youtube links and Christian music? That’s about the only thing left here.”

    Fossfur is no longer with us.

  13. 13
    GinoB says:

    This new trend of having posts deleted without comment is both very disturbing and very telling

    But then what did you really expect? Honestly?

    We expected better than this treatment for sure.

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    GinoB,

    We expected better than this treatment for sure.

    But don’t you understand that respect breeds respect? Or is that something that only unsophisticated minds, who question neo-Darwinism, understand?

  15. 15
    GinoB says:

    Tell me how deleting without comment polite posts that oppose your position is respectful.

  16. 16
    News says:

    Fossfur got deleted because we chose to take his comments about spamming the site seriously.

    It’s the same as, if you started making jokes in the boarding pass line about being wired to blow up, you would get deleted from an air flight.

    You could always say you were joking, but who would really care?

    We strongly doubt the veracity of your and his attacks on Caroline Crocker, so deleted some of them.

    Your manifest inability to imagine that ID folk could be subjects of discrimination is a poor reflection on your intelligence, but in general if you can stay civil you will stay here. For now.

  17. 17
    GinoB says:

    We strongly doubt the veracity of your and his attacks on Caroline Crocker, so deleted some of them.

    What possible basis do you have for calling my opinions on Crocker to be ‘lacking veracity’ except that they disagree with yours? A doctor who prescribed burning incense and chanting to cure a case of appendicitis would be fired on the spot. Crocker demonstrated that she didn’t understand the very basics of the subject she was suppose to teach and decided to inject her religious beliefs instead, so she got rightfully canned.

    Your manifest inability to imagine that ID folk could be subjects of discrimination is a poor reflection on your intelligence, but in general if you can stay civil you will stay here. For now.

    And your manifest inability to allow honest commentary by someone who holds an alternate viewpoint is a poor reflection on your journalistic integrity. You are being exceptionally hypocritical in doing exactly to others what you claim is being done to Crocker. As if the scientific community needed another reason to not take ID complaints seriously.

  18. 18
    ScottAndrews2 says:

    GinoB,

    This site is pro-ID, but it would be useless and boring if opposing viewpoints did not participate. Dull arguments are sharpened, and whoever cares to gains a better understanding of what they do or do not agree with. There must be some reason why so many of them continue discussions here.

    Oddly, only your comments got deleted, while other opposing viewpoints flow freely. I wonder why that is? I’m guessing that those posts contained, at last, a description of significant evolutionary changes in terms of evolutionary mechanisms, validating your assertion that ‘there is no barrier to stop the changes.’

    Of course that had to covered up. That must be it.

  19. 19
    GinoB says:

    ScottAndrews2

    Oddly, only your comments got deleted, while other opposing viewpoints flow freely.

    That is not true. Three posts were deleted, one from me and two from Fossfur. All were polite but very critical of Crocker.

    UD has become much better recently in not being the “silently delete posts and ban every opposing poster” echo chamber it was for years, but censorship incidents like this one still show the true mind set of the ID proponents.

  20. 20
    News says:

    ScottAndrews2, only Fossfur got deleted as a commenter:

    Fossfur got deleted because we chose to take his comments about spamming the site seriously.

    It’s the same as, if you started making jokes in the boarding pass line about being wired to blow up, you would get deleted from an air flight.

    You could always say you were joking, but who would really care?

    One of GinoB’s comments was toasted but he’s been going on since if he remains civil and refrains from vulgar attacks on third parties.

    You can be pretty sure that GinoB hasn’t come up with the definitive proof of Darwin, otherwise, why on earth would he bother with us?

  21. 21
    DrREC says:

    There are other accounts that suggest Crocker didn’t so much “teach the controversy” as teach what she wanted:

    “Before the class, Crocker had told me that she was going to teach “the strengths and weaknesses of evolution.” Afterward, I asked her whether she was going to discuss the evidence for evolution in another class. She said no.

    “There really is not a lot of evidence for evolution,” Crocker said. Besides, she added, she saw her role as trying to balance the “ad nauseum” pro-evolution accounts that students had long been force-fed.”

    She said no….to teaching what she was hired to teach.

  22. 22
  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    Nothing biased in that reporting eh DrRec??? ,,, Lead off quote to the article being a theologically based ‘bad design’ quote;:

    What a book a Devil’s Chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low and horridly cruel works of nature.
    — Charles Darwin

    I suppose one of these days they will get to actual evidence! 🙂

  24. 24
    DrREC says:

    I didn’t see bias in the reporting.

    And the lead quote, the one that precedes Darwin’s, is from the book of Isaiah.

    Did you miss that, or choose to lie?

  25. 25
    bornagain77 says:

    DrREC, for once you are right, the reporting is fairly even handed. I skipped the scripture, saw the theologically based ‘bad design’ quote, and mistakenly thought the entire article was going to be ‘hit piece’.

  26. 26
    junkdnaforlife says:

    GinoB, the best thing for a site is to have robust debate. The posters that contribute the highest quality anti-ID arguments (DrRec, drbot, e liddle, petrushka, Nick matzke etc) as far as I know, have never had posts deleted. At least I have never heard them complain. And I believe one of the last people to get banned from the site was actually pro-id.

  27. 27
    GinoB says:

    junkdnaforlife

    GinoB, the best thing for a site is to have robust debate. The posters that contribute the highest quality anti-ID arguments (DrRec, drbot, e liddle, petrushka, Nick matzke etc) as far as I know, have never had posts deleted. At least I have never heard them complain. And I believe one of the last people to get banned from the site was actually pro-id.

    You need to get with the program. News banned Dr. Bot from the site just this afternoon for the terrible crime of making a tongue-in-cheek comment (complete with smiley face) about having his barrister check libel laws against KF. This was after KF had spent the last two days screaming about libel.

    Fossfur was banned for making an equally harmless comment that we all should post YouTube Links and Christian music, as a way of emulating BA77’s annoying but acceptable penchant for flooding the board with YouTube links and Christian music.

    Here is my ‘vulgar attack’ cleaned up the way News wants everything spun.

    Sorry to be so harsh, but PhD or no that woman is a full fledged idiot genius of a Creationist. Anyone whose understanding of modern evolutionary theory is represented by statements like “eventually we will figure out how mistakes in copying lead to increased information”, and who thinks the theory first proposed 150 years ago is the state of knowledge of the theory today deserves to be fired given a big bonus by the DI from a teaching position.

    Academic freedom doesn’t for Creationists should certainly mean the freedom to teach the Earth is flat, or that leprechauns are real, or that the stork brings the babies.

    Censorship worthy or no? A complaint about ‘vulgar attacks on third parties’ from the same person who has called Richard Dawkins every name imaginable except maybe a kitten-eating Devil worshiper.

    You’d need a backhoe to remove the hypocrisy from this room.

  28. 28
    junkdnaforlife says:

    GinoB, right I didn’t now Bot was gone, I hope they let him back however, I think with him in the discussions there is an overall net gain. But your talking to someone who comes from the trench warfare of debating religion in the open forums of craigslist so nothing bothers me. But that is the point, this is not my (nor your) venue, so we don’t make the calls. A good rule of thumb is just never attack the person and from what I understand there should be no issue. It is tough for many at first because most other forums end up as feces fights as all is permitted. But your arguments will actually get tighter in the long run by exercising this.

  29. 29
    News says:

    junkdnaforlife, fossfur is no longer with us for making what sounded like a thinly veiled threat to start a spamwave.

    Someone else is NLWU for making noises about legal action (on another thread). In either case, what would they expect?

    We share your distaste for feces fights, but they are not the only form of uncivil behaviour, unfortunately.

  30. 30
    kairosfocus says:

    Onlookers, the record on the Dawkins et al blood libel issue — and that has a very specific history of issues context, which is not legal — is here. A note for record, as this thread is not one I was engaging. KF

  31. 31
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Webmaster some comments seem to be appearing without numbers. Any ideas why?

  32. 32
    arkady967 says:

    If she were teaching the earth were flat, there wouldn’t be a controversey; that’s obviously false. It would have been humorous to the adults in her class, and would have genuinely disqualified her as a scientist and an educator. No one would disagree – not even a Young Earth Creationsist, some of whom are quite competent geologists.

    What she did is point up real issues, major problems in current Darwian theory, ones that are glossed over, and ones that indicate it’s either incomplete, or incorrect. To equivocate that with teaching that the earth is flat, or that the stork brings babies, is to take a position more similar to that taken in show trials conducted by bad regimes, than to honestly assess the issue at hand.

  33. 33
    dmullenix says:

    Whoa! If you banned Fossfur for humorously suggesting that we should emulate Bornagain 77, what are you going to do with BA77? He really does spam threads with Youtube links and Christian music. Are you going to disappear him too?

  34. 34
    dmullenix says:

    Wow! If you’re going to disappear Fossfur for humorously suggesting we should emulate Bornagain 77, what are you going to do with BA77? He really does bomb the comments with Youtube links and Christian music.

  35. 35
    dmullenix says:

    Are comments closed? My last two entries have vanished.

  36. 36
    dmullenix says:

    Never mind, found them.

  37. 37
    bornagain77 says:

    dmullenix, what are you REALLY trying to say??? you don’t like videos or Christian music??? 🙂 But on this thread I was looking for where I ‘spammed’ videos and Christian music and I found this comment:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-407391

    As far as I can tell there are no videos or Christian music in the link, only scientific evidence, (I’ll try to put videos and music in later especially for you If I think of any 🙂 ), and furthermore no neo-Darwinian atheist has even attempted to answer the fact presented in the post I posted that they have ZERO substantiating evidence!!! Perhaps you feel ‘science’ is belittling others who disagree, and ignoring evidence that disagrees with atheism, but I think you are severely mistaken in this!!!

  38. 38
    Joseph says:

    DrREC,

    WHAT is there to teach- with respect to evolution?

    We don’t have any idea what mutations are responsible for what changes so the best that can be taught would be baraminology- ie slight changes and a wobbling stabity.

  39. 39
    Joseph says:

    ginob:

    Crocker’s interview mentions Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, the documentary that claimed a bunch of people had been fired from their posts when in fact nothing of the sort happened.

    And your evidence is?

    Let’s pop over to the movie review site ‘Rotten Tomatoes’ and see what the consensus is….

    Yeah their opinion matters- not…

  40. 40
    bornagain77 says:

    Here you go dmullenix I found some. First a video that merely points out the severe empirical deficiencies of neo-Darwinism, that you, of course, will not watch, but that you will complain about none-the-less:

    Programming of Life – entire video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s

    Programming of Life – video playlist:
    http://www.youtube.com/playlis.....F11E2FB840

    as well dmullenix, here is some ‘Christian Music’ for you to not listen to, but to complain about none-the-less:

    Hillsong – Mighty to Save – With Subtitles/Lyrics
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-08YZF87OBQ

  41. 41
    Joseph says:

    Hi Kelly,

    The Bible doesn’t trump science but your position doesn’t have anything to do with science.

  42. 42
    Joseph says:

    ginob:

    Sorry to be so harsh, but PhD or no that woman is a full fledged idiot. Anyone whose understanding of modern evolutionary theory is represented by statements like “eventually we will figure out how mistakes in copying lead to increased information”,…

    That just happens to be what the theory posists- are you that stupid taht you don’t know that?

  43. 43
    englishmaninistanbul says:

    I encouraged them to think about what they were being taught, making it clear that disagreeing with the professor was okay—provided they backed their opinions up with science.

    I’d say that was academic freedom in a nutshell.

    But of course, if she weighs the same as a duck…

  44. 44
    ScottAndrews2 says:

    GinoB,

    Academic freedom doesn’t mean the freedom to teach the Earth is flat, or that leprechauns are real, or that the stork brings the babies.

    If you disagree with something she said, state what it was and why you disagree with it. Then other people can weigh your statements and determine whether they agree with you or not, and why, and perhaps respond. That is a discussion.

    What are we supposed to do with the above statement? It doesn’t derive from anything we’re discussing. It’s pointlessly inflammatory. This is an excellent opportunity for you to demonstrate whether you wish to discuss or merely provoke.

  45. 45
    GinoB says:

    ScottAndrews2

    GinoB: “Academic freedom doesn’t mean the freedom to teach the Earth is flat, or that leprechauns are real, or that the stork brings the babies.”

    If you disagree with something she said, state what it was and why you disagree with it.

    I already did. Crocker gave this as her understanding of evolution: “eventually we will figure out how mistakes in copying lead to increased information.”

    Which is the same stupid misunderstanding put forward by so many here at UD. It’s not JUST random genetic changes (that she calls ‘mistakes’) that create new ‘information’ (how ever you wish to define it), it’s the iterative process of variation filtered by selection with individuals retaining heritable traits.

    Science has known that this naturally occurring process can and does increase the complexity and ‘information’ of a genome and resultant phenotype for over 70 years now.

    If Crocker can screw up so badly on one of the most basic aspects of science she has no business teaching it.

  46. 46
    Eugene S says:

    “PhD or no that woman is a full fledged idiot” –

    Scientific rigour and succinctness themselves.

  47. 47
    ScottAndrews2 says:

    GinoB,

    If you wish to debate productively rather than just nitpicking, employ “generous reading.” That means that when Crocker says, “mistakes in copying lead to increased information,” you do not interpret that as her full understanding of evolutionary theory. It’s just a sentence she used.

    If you asked her for a full explanation of evolutionary theory, it’s reasonable to think that she could explain it in detail, even while disagreeing with it.

    So you’re not really addressing her position. What exactly did she teach students that you disagree with? That they should evaluate what they learn critically? That they should consider for themselves whether the interpretation of evidence they were shown was valid?

    That is quote-mining. It is not the same thing as quoting a sentence or two from the introduction to a research paper, when those sentences were deliberately written to express the authors’ understanding, and do so in or out of context.

    Try again to address exactly what Crocker taught her students that you disagree with, or that amount to teaching creationism.

  48. 48
    DrREC says:

    I don’t think I can have a serious discussion with someone who advocates teaching baraminology, which is held only by creationists, and is totally unscientific.

    You are puzzling Joe. Here you advocate baraminology, but on your site (WARNING: disturbing language!) you go to great lengths to describe how ID is not anti-evolution or common descent.

    http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/
    (again, warning-curse words and character assaults)

    I can’t square the two.

  49. 49
    GinoB says:

    ScottAndrews2

    If you wish to debate productively rather than just nitpicking, employ “generous reading.” That means that when Crocker says, “mistakes in copying lead to increased information,” you do not interpret that as her full understanding of evolutionary theory. It’s just a sentence she used

    That one instance is more than damning enough to make my case. There are many more examples listed in the article and the links provided on the other thread about her misdeeds. Would you approve of a medical college professor telling med students “one day medicine may understand how this red stuff called blood circulates in our bodies, so we can’t rule out that magic pixies do it!”? Does the pixie theory of blood circulation deserve equal time in a classroom?

    Bottom line still is, she got caught pushing her non-scientific Creationist claptrap in a class she was hired to teach science in. She deserved to get fired.

  50. 50
    Joseph says:

    How is baraminology totally unscientific when it is supported by evidence?

    How is baraminology anti-evolution?

    BTW just because there isn’t any scientific evidence for unioversal common descent- it looks like UCD to me isn’t scientific- does not mean ID is anti-evolution.

    And I don’t advocate baraminology I advocate EVIDENCE- so don’t blame me just because the EVIDENCE suports baraminology.

  51. 51
    DrREC says:

    “How is baraminology anti-evolution?”

    Wow. A evolution supporting baraminologist. Common descent plus a young-earth creationist taxonomic system. Creative. I guess it depends how you define the two.

    From the baraminology study group:
    “what basis does the creationist have for assuming that the refined baramin concept is an accurate description of living things? A number of other Biblical considerations can help to clarify biological creations. The creation account itself can be used to argue for discontinuity among living things, but we must use it carefully. The creation of plants on Day Three, flying and swimming things on Day Five, and land animals on Day Six implies a fundamental
    discontinuity between these four (or three?) groups of creatures. At the very least, we may reject an evolutionary origin of these groups.”

    So, you start with the Biblical story of genesis, and conclude flying things, swimming things, and land things cannot share evolutionary origins.

    Are bats, mice and whales unrelated? Mammalian physiology, morphology, genetics and the fossil record suggest otherwise.

    So baraminology and evolutionary biology are totally compatible?

  52. 52
    Joseph says:

    Dude,

    TRY to stay focused.

    A change in allele frequency over time, within a population is evolution.

    If you have differential reproduction due to heritable variation, you have evolution.

    “Evolution” is NOT limited to universal common descent via blind, undirected chemical processes.

    Baraminology states that the diversity we observe today evolved via descent with modification from the originally Created Kinds.

  53. 53
    DrREC says:

    @ 9.2.1.1.2 Joseph

    I was quite specific in my examples. You can twist in the wind if you must, redefining evolutionary biology and baraminology to be compatible-but you must be the only person on earth who believes this.

    Actually, it is hard to believe even you really believe it. I think you’re just trolling.

    But anyway, my specific example highlights the issue. Strictly speaking, swimming things* (fish and whales) should be more related than land things. Are dolphins more like fish or humans? What was “the originally Created Kind” that in your words they “evolved via descent with modification from.” Be specific, and how this squares with known comparative anatomy, the fossil record, and genetics.

    *This is highlighted in the quote I gave you: The creation of….”flying and swimming things on Day Five, and land animals on Day Six implies a fundamental discontinuity between these … groups of creatures. At the very least, we may reject an evolutionary origin of these groups.”

  54. 54
    Joseph says:

    DrREC,

    Sorry but I was talking about EVOLUTION- baraminology is compatible with evolution as in a change in allele frequency over time and differential reproduction due to heritable variation.

    Look at what I said:

    WHAT is there to teach- with respect to evolution?

    We don’t have any idea what mutations are responsible for what changes so the best that can be taught would be baraminology- ie slight changes and a wobbling stabity.

    That means if “evolutionary biology” teaches more than that the they do so without evidentiary support.

    As for what was the Created Kinds- well guess what? THAT is what the whole thing is about- trying to make tat determination.

    As for genetics baraminology squares just fine as there isn;t any genetic data that squares with teh changes your position requires.

    Comparative anatomy- well that was the basis for the nested hierarchies observed by Creationsts and attributed to a common design.

    Fossil record- not sure how you square taht with your position.

  55. 55
    DrREC says:

    Are dolphins more like fish or humans?

    Hypothesize what “the originally Created Kind” that in your words they “evolved via descent with modification from” is.

  56. 56
    GinoB says:

    Joseph

    THAR AIN’T ANY DARN EVIDENCE!!

    …except for Noah’s Flood, and baraminology, and Adam & Eve!

    But you’re not a Creationist, right Joseph?

  57. 57
    GinoB says:

    Joseph already told us that whales were created with hind fins that then evolved away. But he won’t tell us when that original whale lived, or how long it took to lose its rear limbs, or why there are no record of these four fin whales in the fossil record.

    It’s almost like he’s making it up as he goes along.

  58. 58
    Joseph says:

    1- The evidence does support baraminology and your whining doesn’t change that

    2- The evidence for a snowball earth = evidence for a global flood

    3- I never said there was any evidence for Adam and Eve

  59. 59
    Joseph says:

    DrREC:

    Are dolphins more like fish or humans?

    Well there is a dolphin fish. I don’t understand your point.

    Hypothesize what “the originally Created Kind” that in your words they “evolved via descent with modification from” is.

    Tat is what Linneaus was up to when he came up with taxonomy/ binomial nomenclature.

  60. 60
    Eocene says:

    DocRec:

    “Are dolphins more like fish or humans?”
    ====

    You pulled this same stunt of a game over on Cornelius blog countless times and no one would bite. You must be working on your fifth merit badge over here once again to pin up in your signature over at the Swamp:

    ‘Thrice Four Five times banned by Uncommon Descent’

    Sometimes these games go way too far on the pathetic side. And these are supposed to be the Intellectually Elites of Society!

    —-

  61. 61
    Joseph says:

    GinoB:

    Joseph already told us that whales were created with hind fins that then evolved away.

    That is what the evidence says- whales hind fins evolved away.

    But he won’t tell us when that original whale lived, or how long it took to lose its rear limbs, or why there are no record of these four fin whales in the fossil record.

    There is quite a bit missing from the fossil record.

    And people can be born without a limb in as little as one generation.

  62. 62
    DrREC says:

    Joseph,

    “Well there is a dolphin fish.”

    You know damn well what I meant. Don’t childishly try to dodge the question.

    IF we must, Tursiops truncatus more like Homo sapiens or Centropristis striata in genetics and physiology.

    “Tat is what Linneaus was up to when he came up with taxonomy/ binomial nomenclature.”

    Extend on his findings, and your scientific knowledge, and hypothesize what “the originally Created Kind” (on a single day?) that in your words they “evolved via descent with modification from” is.

  63. 63
    DrREC says:

    This question stemmed directly from a discussion with Joe. He brought it up at 9.2, not me.

    I don’t think I should be banned by UD for discussing what other patrons bring up in discussion.

    If you can’t handle that UD supporters are baraminological creationists, that is your problem, not mine.

  64. 64
    PaV says:

    Gino B

    Crocker demonstrated that she didn’t understand the very basics of the subject she was suppose to teach . . .

    Dr. Crocker has one PhD. already, and, I believe, is working on another. Do you have a PhD?

    . . . and decided to inject her religious beliefs instead, so she got rightfully canned.

    Maybe you could have gone to the interview and read it first.

    From the interview:

    As to whether my views are religiously motivated, I can only point out that I made a personal commitment to Jesus when I was 18, but did not begin to question evolution until over 20 years later. This was when I was studying for my doctorate—the questioning was because of the science. I do not have a problem with the idea that God could have created the diversity of life through the evolutionary processes of random mutation and natural selection, but my question remains whether He did. That is a scientific question with a scientific answer.

    Your reaction is a knee-jerk reaction. That isn’t science. That’s closed-mindedness.

    Carol Crocker followed where the evidence led. You’re content, OTOH, with reading books, and believing everything you read as if they represent unchanging truths. Scientific hypotheses and theories are always tentative.

  65. 65
    DrREC says:

    By the way, Eocene, could you provide a link where I “pulled this same stunt of a game” at Darwins God?

    I simply don’t recall it. I debated many things there, but never brought up baramins.
    I think your charge is unsubstantiated. I think you like to silence dissent.

  66. 66
    Joseph says:

    DrREC,

    I will ask you again- what is the point of your question about dolphins and fish? Dolphins are mammals so i would expect them to be more like humans- that would be part of the mammalian common design.

    And science DrREC tat is what science os for- to help us determine what those Created Kinds were- THAT is what baraminology is all about.

    But anyway you wouldn’t have to worry about baraminology if you could just support your lame position.

  67. 67
    Joseph says:

    And BTW I just said that narminology is OK with evolution and that thej evidence supports it.

    Take it out on the evidence if you don’t like it.

  68. 68
    PaV says:

    DrREC:

    She said no….to teaching what she was hired to teach.

    Was she hired to help them to learn to think for themselves, or to memorize the contents of evolutionary texts? Is science now like a religion class, with What Evolution Is substituting for the Baltimore Catechism?

    Isn’t this really what is at issue?

  69. 69
    DrREC says:

    ““Before the class, Crocker had told me that she was going to teach “the strengths and weaknesses of evolution.” Afterward, I asked her whether she was going to discuss the evidence for evolution in another class. She said no.”‘

    Yeah, Pav, that’s teaching someone to think for themselves.

  70. 70
    DrREC says:

    Joe,

    Maybe at some point you will add some detail to this baraminological model with created kinds descending with modification.

    Until you offer at least some details or hypotheses, I’m not particularly interested.

    Just another non-scientific post-hoc explanation that cherry-picks data.
    And one that probably only you hold.

  71. 71
    PaV says:

    DrREC:

    If you can’t handle that UD supporters are baraminological creationists, that is your problem, not mine.

    Many who support ID are not “baraminological creationists”. I, for one, would have to look up what that even means. Michael Behe is Catholic (as am I). Wm. Dembski is not a creationist. Dr. David Berlinski is an atheist, and, I presume, of Jewish ancestry.

    While I find it hard to understand why Creationists are Creationists (there’s no need to take Genesis literally, except as a tool to defeat Darwinism; and that can be done using other means), this doesn’t bother me. Nor does it bother me that an atheist (self-avowed) is on our “team”, so to speak.

    I’m saying this just so you know that there are people from all kinds of backgrounds, and even with dissimilar views about some specifics, who are represented here.

  72. 72
    GinoB says:

    Joseph

    That is what the evidence says- whales hind fins evolved away.

    No, but it’s not unusual for you to lie about the evidence when cornered. Still waiting for you to explain the occasionally seen atavistic tails on humans too.

    There is quite a bit missing from the fossil record.

    Funny that there’s hundreds of specimens of proto-whales in the transition of losing hind legs, but not a single one of a proto-whale with hind fins.

    And people can be born without a limb in as little as one generation.

    Whole species can’t lose a limb in one generation.

    Like I said – he’s making it up as he goes along. Reality isn’t Joseph’s strong suit.

  73. 73
    DrREC says:

    16.1.1.3.4 PaV

    I should have said “some.” Or maybe one.

  74. 74
    PaV says:

    This comes to us from the blog “Not Even Wrong”, by Peter Woit. Posted yesterday.

    “His comments about the Witten and string theory bring back memories of the late eighties, when several people told me of similar experiences. Haag writes:

    “I had been asked to give a physics colloquium talk about my views on quantum gravity and hoped to have some discussion with Ed Witten. Next morning he greeted me by saying: “Your talk was very interesting but I would really advise you to work on string theory”. When he saw the somewhat incredulous look on my face he added “I really mean it. I shall send you the manuscript of the first chapters of our book”. This ended our discussion. Back in Hamburg I received the manuscript but it did not convert me to string theory. I remained a heathen to this day and regret that meanwhile most physics departments believe that they must have a string theory group and have filled their vacant positions with string theorists. To be precise: It is good that people with vision like Ed Witten spend time trying to develop a revolutionary theory. But it is not healthy if a whole generation of young theorists is engaged in speculative work with only superficial grounding in traditional knowledge. In many popularised presentations the starting point of string theory is explained as the replacement of the fundamental notion of “particles” with its classical picture of a point in space or a world line in space-time by a string in space respectively a two-dimensional worldsheet in space-time. This, I think, is a misunderstanding of existing wisdom. First of all, paraphrasing Heisenberg, one may say ‘Particles are the roof of the theory, not its foundation’.”

    Lee Smolin, in his “The Problem With Physics”, says that his disenchantment with superstring theory was exactly this kind of ungroundedness that Haag speaks of. Sophisticated lab techniques have raised questions that neo-Darwinism/ModernSynthesis/evolutionary biology are hard pressed to, if not completely incapable of, answering. ID is interested in “grounding” theory in these facts; not in conveniently perpetuating a (formerly) revolutionary theory.

    That’s why I say time and again:

    Another day; another bad day for Darwism.

    (The difficult questions mount with each passing day. It’s collapse, IMO, is but a matter of time)

  75. 75
    Joseph says:

    DrREC-

    Your position doesn’t have any details nor a hypothesis.

    Why the double-standard?

  76. 76
    Joseph says:


    That is what the evidence says- whales hind fins evolved away.

    No,…

    Yes, I provided the evidence- evidence of atavistic hind fins- actual hind fins on a dolphin (cetacean).


    There is quite a bit missing from the fossil record.

    Funny that there’s hundreds of specimens of proto-whales in the transition of losing hind legs, but not a single one of a proto-whale with hind fins.

    Hind legs? How can one tell that they were legs and not flippers?


    And people can be born without a limb in as little as one generation.

    Whole species can’t lose a limb in one generation.

    Why not? And why is that required?

  77. 77
    GinoB says:

    Joseph

    Hind legs? How can one tell that they were legs and not flippers?

    Because of the structure of the ankle joint, along with the presence of feet and toes. The fossil record shows the transition from fully terrestrial hind limbs with ankles and feet, through many partial stages, to the current fixed fin.

    GB: “Whole species can’t lose a limb in one generation.”

    Why not? And why is that required?

    Even by your microscopic standards that is too stupid a question to warrant an answer

  78. 78
    Joseph says:

    Wait- the fin/ flipper of a cetacean resembles that of an arm and hand/ leg and foot. Common design and all

    The fossil record does not support a gradual change.

    As for the second- well it goes to the level of your questions so have at it.

  79. 79
    Joseph says:

    GinoB:

    Science has known that this naturally occurring process can and does increase the complexity and ‘information’ of a genome and resultant phenotype for over 70 years now.

    No, no one knows any such thing and design is a natural process.

    It’s not JUST random genetic changes (that she calls ‘mistakes’) that create new ‘information’ (how ever you wish to define it), it’s the iterative process of variation filtered by selection with individuals retaining heritable traits.

    Look, whatever survives to reproduce, survives to reproduce. NS just weeds out those who cannot make it.

    The iteerative process you speak of has never been observed to produce anything beyond a wobbling stability-> no progress at all.

  80. 80
    KRock says:

    No kidding… I

  81. 81
    KRock says:

    Good… He never posted anything relevant anyway… Quite honestly, I look forward to checking out the links BB77 posts.. They’re a lot more informative than many of the comments I see posted on here,,,

  82. 82
    KRock says:

    I long for the day science can finely walk Neo-Darwinsim to the curb for garbage pick up..

    I’m excited that more and more ID websites are popping up and that more and more people are growing interested in ID..

Leave a Reply