College professor: "Flunk the IDiots"
by Krauze
Following Casey Luskin's discovery that the University of California, San Diego requires freshmen to attend an anti-ID lecture, professor of biochemistry Larry Moran thinks that the university should "flunk the IDiots":
I agree with the Dembski sycophants that UCSD should not have required their uneducated students to attend remedial classes. Instead, they should never have admitted them in the first place. Having made that mistake, it's hopeless to expect that a single lecture"”even one by a distinguished scholar like Robert Pennock"”will have any effect. The University should just flunk the lot of them and make room for smart students who have a chance of benefiting from a high quality education.
Larry Moran teaches at the University of Toronto, is co-author of the textbook Principles of Biochemistry, and has several articles on the anti-ID Talk.Origins Archive. I've sent him an e-mail, asking him if this is a policy he himself practices in his classroom.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
1. Suppose you're talking about GMOs in class, and a question on an exam deals with biocontainment and chloroplast transformation. You (the instructor) have discussed the work of Ralph Bock and co-workers (PNAS 100, 8828-33, 2003; Plant Cell Nov 2006 ) and how these results impact on the issue. On the exam, though, an ID proponent in class, citing Timothy Standish, claims that the results of Bock's group cannot possibly be correct, because, as Standish insists, "(n)o plausible mechanism for movement of genes from the mitochondira to the nucleus exists" (slide #30 in this presentation). The question for Krauze (and others here) "“ does the ID proponent get a free ride here, does (s)he get credit for an obviously incorrect answer because the correct answer contradicts the claims of a prominent ID proponent? In this specific instance, is there a right as well as a wrong answer? Or does "it looks this way to me", the SOP for IDists in the Post-Wedge World, trump observation and HTR?
2. Suppose you ask your class to calculate some biochemical parameters for an enzyme-catalyzed reaction, and an ID proponent insists that the exercise cannot be completed, because, as Robert Laughlin is quoted in ID articles, proteins defy the law of mass action (and thus actually do alter the poise of chemical equilibria of the reactions they catalyze). Does the IDist get a free ride here (and thus support for an answer that is ludicrously wrong), or does the instructor hold him/her to the same standards that are expected of the rest of the class?
3. In cell biology class, an exam question deals with the diffusion of macromolecules in the cell. An ID proponent, citing Dembski in No Free Lunch, insists that diffusion is not possible inside of living cells. (Yes, people, Dembski implies exactly this in his calculation of "p localization".) Even in the face of abundant direct observation as well as nifty physical measurements that clearly refute Dembski, does the instructor give the IDist a free ride here? Does the ID proponent get marked correct even though (s)he has avoided the issue altogether and given a blatantly incorrect answer?
4. In the opinions of TTers here, should the ACLJ sue the makers of standardized tests like the SAT, ACT, GRE, and MCAT to compel them to include, and mark correct (provided the test taker swears a suitable oath of allegiance to an acceptable creed), the answer "God knows, so I don't have to" in the list of possible answers for all science and math questions?
(OK, so #4 is sort of over the top. But this is the direction that the objections to Moran will likely go.)
Krauze, in yer reflexive, YEC-like, literal reading of Moran's post, you both miss the bigger point and convey a rather interesting message. The former should be obvious; heck, even the latter is, but I'll repeat it here: IDists should not be held to the same standards as others. Rather, the simple fact that they are IDists should be enough to give them full credit for any answer to any exam question, no matter how ludicrous. It should entitle them to any position, at any level, with no regard whatsoever for things like competence, achievement, or promise. It should suffice to be awarded any sum of funding for their activities, again with complete disregard for quality, ability, and prospects for success.
Ya gotta love that Post-Wedge World, the place where there is no right or wrong, correct or incorrect, true or false, the place where the "YES" checkbox next to the question "Are you an ID proponent" is the door-opener to everything that the rest of us have to actually work for.
For the record, I am against the introduction of the ID-friendly post-modern philosophies that TTers and other IDists so want to shove down the throats of science instructors. In my classes, there are correct and incorrect answers. Period. It goes without saying that if an ID-friendly student is up to the same standards as others in a pool of applicants, or a class of students, then all's fine and well and the student has earned admission, good grades, and the like. But if (s)he is not up to snuff owing to his/her ID indoctrination, and if (s)he is not willing or able to actually correct the many erroneous ideas that ID indoctrination places in one's head, well that's too bad.
Comment by Art — November 19, 2006 @ 12:24 pm
November 19th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
The answer to all of Art's questions is simple: If the answer to a test question is incorrect, the student doesn't receive full credits for that question. It doesn't matter whether the wrong answer was caused by the student's acceptance of ID or by something else.
Of course, Moran isn't standing up for fair grades. Instead, he's criticizing the University of California, San Diego for admitting pro-ID students in the first place, and demanding them flunked, regardless of what grades they've received.
So here's a question for Art: As the instructor, you have a student in your class whose test results, lab reports, etc. merit a passing grade. The day before assigning grades, you learn that the student is sympathetic towards intelligent design. Do you let her pass?
Comment by Krauze — November 19, 2006 @ 12:53 pm
November 19th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
I already answered your question, Krauze.
Comment by Art — November 19, 2006 @ 1:05 pm
November 19th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
Hi Art,
So you disagree with Moran's cry to "flunk the IDiots"
Comment by Krauze — November 19, 2006 @ 1:13 pm
November 19th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
Here's the problem for Moran, I suspect. (But this is my take on Moran's statements.)
I haven't seen any of these "ID-friendly" masses that the ID vanguard claims is swarming on our campuses. My only real experience is the ID-friendly sorts that inhabit boards and blogs. And, almost to a person, and especially for those who pass themselves off a younger student types, the ID proponents would defend the positions of the ID vanguard in the three examples I gave in my first comment. As well as countless other examples of truly awful biology. Basically, the concept of an ID-friendly student who is competent in the area of biology (and probably science in general) is nothing more than hypothetical conjecture. ID is associated with incompetence "“ not because of religion, politics, or philosophy, but out of direct and abundant experience with ID supporters.
These are the data points that Moran has to work with "“ the many participants who deny any and all facts that contradict the edicts of Wells, Dembski, Behe, et al. Like Moran, I have problems with reserving for those sorts, at the expense of others who are not inherently pre-disposed to cling to inaccuracy or error (or worse), spots at highly-selective institutions. And I most certainly would flunk them in a second for adhering to positions such as I mention in my first comment.
What gets me to soften my stance? Show me some ID friendly student types who can, for example, read Stegemann and Bock's latest paper and admit that Standish is wrong, that perhaps the ID party line needs to be modified.
I am skeptical that such ID-friendly students actually exist. But I would welcome being proven wrong.
Comment by Art — November 19, 2006 @ 1:58 pm
November 19th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
I am skeptical of the reported percentages of ID favoring students in public universities. At best these numbers could represent the percentage of incoming freshman who are interested in ID as an apologetic to buttress religious beliefs that have been held for some time. As to the numbers of students who are actually familar with ID concepts and would apply them to biology in the manner described by Art in his initial post, I suspect they are very small. Just my opinion.
Comment by bj — November 19, 2006 @ 2:32 pm
November 19th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
I recognize that it will be difficult for Professor Moran to institute his new college admissions policy. Accordingly, I've adapted this helpful guide for his use:
"How to Tell [an IDer]
One can most easily tell [an IDer] by his nose. The [ID] nose is bent at its point"¦ One can also recognize [an IDer] by his lips. His lips are usually puffy. The lower lip often protrudes. The eyes are different too. The eyelids are mostly thicker and more fleshy than ours. The [ID] look is wary and piercing. One can tell from his eyes that he is a deceitful person"¦ [IDers] are usually small to mid-sized. They have short legs. Their arms are often very short too. Many [IDers] are bow-legged and flat-footed. They often have a low, slanting forehead, a receding forehead. Many criminals have such a receding forehead. The [IDers] are criminals too. Their hair is usually dark and often curly like a Negro's. Their ears are very large, and they look like the handles of a coffee cup"¦ Every [IDer]does not have these characteristics. Some do not have a proper [ID] nose, but real [ID] ears. Some do not have flat feet, but real [ID] eyes. Some [ID] cannot be recognized at first glance. There are even some [IDers] with blond hair. If we want to be sure to recognize [IDers], we must look carefully. But when one looks carefully, one can always tell it is [an IDer]… One can recognize a [an IDer] from his movements and behavior. The [IDer] moves his head back and forth. His gait is shuffling and unsteady. The [IDer] moves his hands when he talks. He "jabbers." His voice is often odd. He talks through his nose. [IDers] often have an unpleasant sweetish odor. If you have a good nose, you can smell the [IDer]"¦ That how it is, kids. You have paid attention! If you pay attention outside school and keep your eyes open, you won't be fooled by the [IDers]."
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/story3.htm
Comment by Rock — November 19, 2006 @ 3:08 pm
November 19th, 2006 at 5:17 pm
Art,
A student is given no empirical evidence that random mutation plus natural selection is capable of explaining the vast biological diversity that we see on earth. Should that student give Darwinian Evolution a free ride?
Comment by endoplasmicMessenger — November 19, 2006 @ 5:17 pm
November 19th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
Hi Art,
"These are the data points that Moran has to work with "“ the many participants who deny any and all facts that contradict the edicts of Wells, Dembski, Behe, et al."
What are you talking about? Moran has far more data points to work with: Answers to tests, returned assignments, lab reports, etc. Isn't all of this sufficient to determine the grade of a student, regardless of his or her opinion about Wells, Dembski, or Behe?
"What gets me to soften my stance?"
What stance? That incompetent students should be flunked? If not, which stance is it you're willing to soften?
Comment by Krauze — November 19, 2006 @ 5:26 pm
November 19th, 2006 at 6:17 pm
Art, If I, as a student in your class, can articulate your point of view on issues such as you listed. The student knows the material you presented, as well as the scientific case that you provided in support of your view. If the student clearly grasps this material, yet remains unconvinced of the error of ID in the matter, whose weakness is that? Is it the student's weakness, or the teacher's? If the student thoroughly knows the material you taught, should (s)he not get full credit for having learned it? If (s)he is capable of fully understanding your case, would you not expect that (s)he is also capable of the critical thinking necessary to separate out truth from error?
I always thought that universities were beyond trying to make puppets out of students; that universities were about giving people a rich base of knowledge so that they could be honest free thinkers.
Comment by bFast — November 19, 2006 @ 6:17 pm
November 19th, 2006 at 6:28 pm
Regarding Art's impression of ID "student types", remember that in his very first post in this thread, he saw me as demanding special standards for pro-ID students, an impression that was thoroughly misguided. Grandstanding on there being "correct and incorrect answers" may have felt satisfying as he did it, but as we can see now, he only squandered whatever little credibility he had with me. If I can't trust Art to accurately portray my own posts, why should I trust him with characterizing those people he's met in discussions?
Comment by Krauze — November 19, 2006 @ 6:28 pm
November 19th, 2006 at 7:29 pm
I'd say it's more likely that Moran and Art are simply trolling. Moran is just fishing for traffic for his new blog and, as we know around here, Art likes to say stupid things to "get a rise" out of people. So why think they are trolling? Note that neither professor is telling us about the IDiots he has flunked for being IDiots. Their chest-thumping resides only in the realm of their fantasies. If they really bought into their authoritarian-type rhetoric, they'd a) flunk some IDiots for being IDiots and then b) publicly brag about it on the Internet.
Comment by MikeGene — November 19, 2006 @ 7:29 pm
November 19th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
Yea know, this thread reminds me of a post I read a few months ago on one of these websites, DI I think. On this post, a doctoral student went into the field of biology a fully content athiest. He finished his primary course of studies with his faith basically intact. When he did his thesis work on ATP synthase, however, he was forced to conclude that nothing in his training was adequate to explain it — that the best explanation for ATP synthase was that life was, well, engineered. What do Art and Luskin do about people like him.
Oh, by the way, he was bright enough to know that admitting to ID was a death sentance for his career, so he snuck past the Art's and the Luskin's.
I suspect that it is for similar reasons that Mike Gene also feels it necessary to use a pseudonym. A resonable position to take in light of the cultural milieu of the biological sciences.
Comment by bFast — November 19, 2006 @ 7:42 pm
November 19th, 2006 at 11:58 pm
A few random comments (hey, whatcha expect from a Darwinianist?):
bFast said:
A good question. Just so we're clear about things, I'm talking about concepts that are really beyond reproach, and are easily conveyed by even the most sleep-inducing of teachers or TAs. Thus, I would say that if an ID proponent has the fluorescence bleaching method explained adequately (not really a difficult task), reads this paper or looks at this image, and remains unconvinced that GFP can diffuse inside a living cell, because and only because Dembski in NFL demands that no such thing occur lest his calculation of p local be refuted, then it is the student's weakness.
Again, I am speaking about things that are beyond reproach, but still denied by the ID vanguard. I have given three examples in my first comment. The blogosphere is littered with many more.
It's not critical thinking to deny reality.
In this case, the puppets are the ID proponents, and the puppetmasters the ID vanguard who demand that simple, straightforward observations be denied.
What I don't get, bFast, is the point of your plotting. IMO, if you regurgitate some statements to get a grade, but refuse to really learn the concepts, you are cheating. Yourself, to be sure, but also the school. I'm pretty sure that I could not trust this mindset in the lab or the class. And I am more sure that I don't understand why one would play this charade in the first place.
bj said:
So the scope of the "IDiot" problem is really pretty small, much smaller than the DI would have us believe.
Yeah, I think I agree with this. Moran may be railing about an invisible, almost nonexistent population.
endoplasmicMessenger:
The student should do him/herself a favor and listen to his/her professors when they discuss the subjects. Rather than plug their ears, close their eyes, and chant "EVOLUTION NO, EVOLUTION NO".
Krauze, I'm afraid your comments are undecipherable. They don't seem to pertain to my remarks or your blog entry. Maybe you can elaborate.
Rock, I believe you mixed up "IDer" and "Bright".:razz:
Comment by Art — November 19, 2006 @ 11:58 pm
November 20th, 2006 at 9:05 am
1. It's interesting that Luskin's newest error is billed here as a discovery. Emblematic of ID, to the core.
2. Why not just give these kids remedial biology and history, as we do with kids who are deficient in math or English? Certainly, if they can't cut those courses, they go. But if the deficiency of knowledge can be remediated, what's the problem? And isn't that all Moran proposes, to remediate and flunk out those who can't be remediated?
Comment by edarrell — November 20, 2006 @ 9:05 am
November 20th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
I was trying to involve myself in a discussion over at ARN and I drug up my "Neuroscience" file. (Which fascinates me to no end, quite apart from these discussions.) I found
THE BRAIN'S CONCEPTS: THE ROLE OF THE SENSORY-MOTOR SYSTEM
IN CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE
Vittorio Gallese
George Lakoff
COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 2005, 22 (3/4), 455"“479
"During the last two decades, an impressive
amount of clinical data has accumulated, describing
patients whose peculiarly localised brain lesions
have determined selective impairments of their conceptual
knowledge. Basically, most of these deficits
encompass the loss of some specific categories of conceptual
knowledge, such as living things, or nonliving
objects (mainly tools and artifacts). An excellent
and thorough survey of this literature can be found
in the recent special issue of Cognitive Neuropsychology
(Vol. 20, no. 3"“6, 2003)."
Some syndromes are identified in the literature, more or less clinically warranted, such apraxia, autism, and even "semantic dementia"! GG! What is that! That sounds awful.
I don't mean to jest when lesions and tumors, excisions, and major trauma are involved, but is there some significant brain deficiencies or dysfunctions involved when people make statements like Moran did?
Do people like Moran (college professor, scientists, philosophers, the media, the "intelligentsia," even "bloggers," the "movers-and-shakers" of public opinion) really have a"¦. what would you call it while trying to pretend your "polite" and "diplomatic" (and not "clinical")?
Are they nuts? Have tumor? Brain injury? Mutation? Uh, am I being way out of line here"”as compared to Moran?
Obviously, people (other than Art) were a little diffident with my "How to Tell [an IDer]? Maybe it's a lot easier to understand ignorant bigotry and its institutional effects than it is… disease (?).
Comment by Rock — November 20, 2006 @ 2:52 pm
November 20th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Pretty much all high schoolers are taught RM-NS in school these days (it was college prep, thus elective, when I was in high school). I've been told many times by critics that real evolution is just way too "complicated" for anything more than that until uppergrad or postgrad courses in college.
Yet when ~77% of the students who can pass a statewide test on the RM-NS pablum they've been taught say they don't buy it, they've got some sort of brain disease that prevents them from being cognitively pliable enough for proper brainwashing?
Gee. The contradictions are so thick you can cut 'em with a butter knife. They want us taught "critical thinking" except that they will tolerate NO critical thinking about the pablum they use to brainwash the supposed-to-be uncritical, brain-damaged masses.
Doesn't look to me like it's the masses who are brain damaged. I think it's institutional bigotry at work here, Rock. Not anything so polite as mere ignorance in those the institution wants to institutionalize.
Comment by Joy — November 20, 2006 @ 3:20 pm
November 20th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
I'm not so sure I agree, joy, that its nothing more or less than ignorant bigotry institutionalized. I was speculating on some biological basis. E.g., Moran recently was in a car accident and his head went through the windshield. Or maybe his parents were siblings. Or he ate paint ships off his crib. Ya know, something like that to explain his statements that I otherwise"¦ can't explain!
I expect college professors to say something smart. Not appallingly stupid. Maybe it is just stupidity. Still, that requires an explanation. I don't necessarily expect an explanation of stupidity itself. That would be difficult obviously.
I do expect an explanation of stupid statements made by college professors, however.
(You can tell that I was a very difficult student. But I was a student. Admitted to college. Passed my tests. And even graduated! Kiss my ass, IDers! LOL)
Comment by Rock — November 20, 2006 @ 3:38 pm
November 20th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
I see that my post which absolutely devastated Professor Moran's position has not been posted. Ah, well – some things are not meant to be seen by those of impure sight.
Comment by Douglas — November 20, 2006 @ 4:08 pm
November 20th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
No, wait – that devastating post of mine wasn't made here, it was made at Uncommon Descent. Never mind.
Comment by Douglas — November 20, 2006 @ 4:09 pm
November 20th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
Rock – YOU were difficult? Ha! If they gave out sheepskins for rousing rabble, I'd be undisputed queen! Still, most of the college professors I knew back then were very specific about challenging our preconceptions. It was a period of sociopolitical 'revolution', and they saw it as their job. Reflecting the general reactionary backlash of that era, professors these days demand a lot more blind faith from students than critical thinking. Our institutions mirror our sociological state of being. Higher educational institutions reflect in an adversarial manner more often than not.
Hatred, however, is a personal point of emotional view. Mere unthinking prejudice can be earned anywhere along the line by rote, but the adversarial encounter that is higher education is supposed to make students examine such things critically, the better to challenge status quo worldviews, my dear.
But that's social sciences, not science science (something maybe Gregory will address clearly one of these days). Thus we may suppose that Moran's macho display is itself personally emotional, not academic in the least. Criticism in science is an institution all by itself, always has been. There is real fear here that's not really coming from "ignorant" students who can pass the tests but simply don't buy the pablum. It's coming from already-certified researchers out there working every day in the fields discovering that the pablum is garbage.
Moran believes he can stop the evolution of evolution by preventing critical thoughts at the level of his own classroom (and convincing other professors that they can do it too). It obviously isn't going to work, but it is very revealing of the sociopolitical state of evolutionary science these days…
Fear leads to anger.
Anger leads to hatred.
Hatred leads to suffering.
- Master Yoda
Comment by Joy — November 20, 2006 @ 4:26 pm
November 20th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
I'm not buyin' it, joy. Like some dogs I can smell a tumor, and Moran needs to have his head examined. (By a non-ID doctor"”which according to what I've heard around here, maybe difficult to find.) I am sincerely concerned (Cancha tell?) with his health. Universities have some really cushy health plans. Maybe that's a way to ease Professor Moran out of his current position, And into a hospital.
I hate to sound all "NAZI-like," ya know, moving "inconvenient" people (Nuts or other undesirables.) into hospitals before they just (conveniently) disappear.
But let's call it the "Moran Health Plan."
The Moran Health Plan for Higher Education! ("MOran" in memorium.)
Comment by Rock — November 20, 2006 @ 5:05 pm
November 20th, 2006 at 5:18 pm
LOL! Was it Freud or Adler who first surmised that the hopelessly egotistical are in fact suffering from an "inferiority complex?" THAT's where I see fear here, Rock. They are truly afraid that their dearly-held beliefs are in trouble as we (human science in general) learn more, enabled by new technologies that allow us to "look harder" (as Rafiki said to Simba).
I don't think that requires hospitalization. It might be amenable to Prozac, or lithium…
Comment by Joy — November 20, 2006 @ 5:18 pm
November 20th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
Fear is a terrible thing and I don't know how much I relate to it. (I sincerely try. I do!) One of my terrible "life's-lessons" was to learn (to my astonishment) how much the women I loved feared men! (Terrible terrible life lesson, to learn how much fear controls people.)
What I did was teach them self-defense.
What I taught them had noting to do with their attackers "medical" diagnosis. Which is something women always want to do first"”figure out why this guy is attacking me. LOL What did I do wrong and all that…
What I told them is to forget about all that useless psychoanalytic (Freud & Adler) bullshit"¦ Defend yourself. Act instinctually to defend your very life.
Kick "˜em in the balls! LOL
Comment by Rock — November 20, 2006 @ 5:55 pm
November 20th, 2006 at 6:07 pm
Hehehehe… I never understood the tendency to fall for abusive men over and over and over again. I ended up with three kids from a friend with this very problem, who kept doing it even after we'd counseled her again and again to give up men and get a woman roomie! She killed herself instead, when she got old enough where looks weren't going to get her by anymore.
As well as a sister-in-law with the same M-O. All these kids were abused by boyfriends, just like their mothers. Why the heck would a woman worth her salt allow THAT!!??? I never did get it.
But then, Daddy showed me how to use those pearl handled six-shooters when I was only 9. Now I've got grandpa's shotgun, and it works really, really well to dispel wayward hunters and assorted other drunks and lowlifes… §;o)
Comment by Joy — November 20, 2006 @ 6:07 pm
November 20th, 2006 at 6:35 pm
Use those pearl-handles when ya got 'em.
The point being, IDers should do more (in my estimation) to defned themselves. They have a basically good argument, one that's been around for a long time. And I am very disappointed with the "scientific" arguments against ID.
I mean, Moran's argument, such as it is, is to keep IDers out of college. Etc. (Etc?) The academically easy way out of an argument. Set admissions policy!
That's the best ya got?!
Balls. Remember to kick 'em in the balls… If you don't have those pearly-handled six-shooters, like joy.
(Which I would recommend, joy, But as you know, I'm a "gun-control" nut. LOL
Comment by Rock — November 20, 2006 @ 6:35 pm
November 20th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
Art:
Art, you sure look funny is those big rose-colored glasses! It seems that after all these years, you haven't figured out that most students do indeed "regurgitate some statements to get a grade." It's called cramming for an exam. Millions do it every year and have done it since the invention of the chalkboard. Yet for some reason, you want to single out one group of students who might do this. Would you care to explain why you have singled out one group?
As for actually learning concepts, do you think Dawkins and his "science/evolution=atheism" message helps you to reach students who might be resistant to learning evolution? Explain how people like Dawkins, Moran, and Myers help you get resistant students to "learn the concepts" of evolution.
Finally, you are still stuck in the land of fantasy. Perhaps you can explain how it is that you would "catch" such cheating. You know it when you see it?
Comment by MikeGene — November 20, 2006 @ 7:10 pm
November 20th, 2006 at 7:13 pm
Oh, I can do that easily enough. That's the point – it's too easy. I could gouge out their eyeballs too, crush their windpipe, or just roundhouse 'em like Chuck Norris and then they HAVE to die (according to grandson's Chuck Norris "ism" site). My kids all got their black belts.
Ever so violent! Mostly I'm just Mama Elf, and have the red-and-white striped thigh socks to prove it! They come here for babysitting, TLC, exercise, fresh air, good vittles and target practice. It's the confidence that makes a difference. Bad things happen when fear asserts itself, not when real confidence is asserted.
Comment by Joy — November 20, 2006 @ 7:13 pm
November 20th, 2006 at 10:39 pm
The issue on slide #30 by Standish was with respect to the Eukaryotic pre-cursors that might not yet have the ability to transfer mitochondrial DNA to the nucleus. Standish was referring to the ancestral Eukaryotes (or whatever they were) not the Eukaryotes we have today. And if the ancestor had such abilities, then that raises the issue of where such capabilities originated iin the first place.
Bock assumes the capacities we see today (in evolved Eukaryotes) existed in the less evolved Eukaryotes. That has never been established, and one has to wonder if Bock and company can just presume such abilities existed back then.
Therefore, Art is inaccurate to claim that Standish would say, "the results of Bock's group cannot possibly be correct" because the sense of Standish's statement is described below in Standish's own words, meaning the state of the ancestral cell, not the cell today.
To get a sense of what Standish was claiming, consider the observation of gene transcription today and using it as an argument gene transcription was evolvable without design when it didn't exist before hand.
Furthermore, that slide in 1999 by Standish was consistent with a predominant view in 1999 which even Bock alluded to. Bock even says in his paper the mechansim was "enigmaatic".
Art cites an uncorrected draft 7 years ago by Standish, and argues an pro-ID student would treat this uncorrected seven-year-old draft as immutable. That is not true, but Art's strawman. Art therefore portrays a scenario few if any pro-ID students would be willing to ascent to, not even somene like Standish himself.
Standish briefly appeared in the discussion of his power point at ARN and said a few corrections were in order. In any case, let the reader appreciate how Art bailed out of the discussion between him, myself, and Standish: here
What Art convenently left out was Standish's own comments on his power point presentation:
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 20, 2006 @ 10:39 pm
November 20th, 2006 at 11:09 pm
Art, I want to pin you down tight.
You said, "Suppose you ask your class to calculate some biochemical parameters for an enzyme-catalyzed reaction, and an ID proponent insists that the exercise cannot be completed, because, as Robert Laughlin is quoted in ID articles, proteins defy the law of mass action (and thus actually do alter the poise of chemical equilibria of the reactions they catalyze). "
If you present on your exam paper a question asking that some biochemical parameters for an enzyme-catalyzed reaction be calculated, and the student, using what you taught him/her, does the calculation, the student deserves full points, yes? Further, the student has shown that (s)he has internalized what you taught, yes?
If the student renders this respose on an exam, then points out why Robert Laughlin would see the calculations as invalid, would you give the student a failing mark for their work?
I would fully agree that a student has a responsibility to genuinely learn what you have taught in order to get a good grade from you. I only question whether they have the obligation to un-learn that which Robert Laughlin, or anybody else, has taught them.
Comment by bFast — November 20, 2006 @ 11:09 pm
November 21st, 2006 at 1:03 am
bFast, the claim that proteins change the poise of equilibria of chemical reactions they catalyze is wrong. Period. If a student tries to claim otherwise on an exam or in a paper or anywhere and uses Laughlin as his/her source, then the student's grade will suffer. On any exam, if you pepper an otherwise correct answer with errors, you don't get full credit, and you shouldn't expect to. (In this particular case, that the student would argue on Laughlin's behalf means that (s)he hasn't really listened to or learned the material, and a failing grade may well be warranted.)
As for un-learning, yes, they are obliged to un-learn the bad biology that permeates the ID movement. If they cannot, find another school, one more tolerant of error. I don't have to accept bad biology just because a student's philosophy demands that (s)he accept it. Once again – in my class there are correct and incorrect answers, and their status is dictated by reality, not one's philosophical or theological commitments. Unlike IDists, I'm not into postmodernism, and the sort of relativism that they espouse doesn't find its way into my class.
Comment by Art — November 21, 2006 @ 1:03 am
November 21st, 2006 at 1:18 am
MikeGene:
That's not what I said now, is it?
To reiterate:
"if you regurgitate some statements to get a grade, but refuse to really learn the concepts, you are cheating."
LOL.
Apparently, MikeGene thinks that IDists shouldn't be expected to learn the concepts. It's OK to him that, for example, they would read Stegemann et al. (2003), scribble down what they are hoping is the correct answer, and then turn around and proclaim that there is no evidence that DNA can move from organelle to nucleus.
I can't say that I'm impressed with the expectations you have of students, Mike.
I use my own words and ideas. And I'm not afraid to point out that ID=bad biology.
Who cares. This is a case where the cheaters hurt themselves. Maybe not today, but somewhere down the road.
I like how Mike considers high expectations and ethical behavior to be "fantasyland". I can see the sign on his door:
"This is MikeGene's office. I teach ID101. Since I wholly expect you to do nothing more than regurgitate the stuff in the textbook, and since I expect that you won't bother to actually learn the material, I don't see any point in preparing for lectures or holding office hours or otherwise dealing with you. I'll see you in class at 8AM sharp. Otherwise, don't bother me. I have a standing tee time."
Really, Mike, you should perform a tiny bit of public service and tell us where you teach. There may be parents of potential college students reading this who might appreciate knowing which schools take such a cavalier and disinterested approach to teaching.
Comment by Art — November 21, 2006 @ 1:18 am
November 21st, 2006 at 1:35 am
Sal, as usual, you completely miss the point (and in so doing help me make mine).
It's not whether or not Standish is wrong (even though he is, and your misdirection doesn't change that), it's that ID-friendly students will never, ever, ever admit that anything they read in the ID literature is wrong. You show this here, when you refuse to bring yourself to plainly admit that there is in fact excellent evidence that shows that DNA does move from organelle to nucleus. And that, contrary to Standish's claims, there is evidence that speaks to the mechanisms by which organellar genes might become "activated" once in the nucleus. The Plant Cell paper I mentioned provides evidence that contradicts slide 57, for example. But you, as well as all the ID-friendly types I have ever seen, cannot bring yourselves to admit this.
IMO you are the sort of student Moran would fail, and I daresay you are representative of all ID-friendly students. I don't expect any of the lot, here or anywhere, to ever correct any of the numerous mistaken notions that pass as biology in the ID camp. I've given three crystal clear examples here, and there are numerous others I could offer for discussion. I doubt if anyone here can mount a reasoned defense of these students, and why scholarships and admission slots should be given to them, rather than others who actually are capable of learning and critical thought.
One aside, Sal – you should not be putting words in Standish's mouth. One could read your post and conclude that Standish is even more ignorant than he may be.
Comment by Art — November 21, 2006 @ 1:35 am
November 21st, 2006 at 1:42 am
Art:
No difference. Let's use your reiteration:
So what makes you think only IDiot students are guilty of this? Again, you have chosen to single out one group of students, as if they, and they alone, "regurgitate some statements to get a grade, but refuse to really learn the concepts." Why did you single out one group?
I am pleased that you have tipped your hat to post-modernism and acknowledged you are relying on your perceptions. But the correct answer here is that I did not say (nor do I think) "that IDists shouldn't be expected to learn the concepts." That is why you had to "paraphrase" instead of quote.
Did I say this is OK? Of course not, as Art is again putting words in my mouth. Again, you spoke of students who "regurgitate some statements to get a grade, but refuse to really learn the concepts." Provide evidence that only "IDiot" students do this or explain why you singled them out for flunking.
I can't say that I'm impressed with the selective expectations you have of certain students, Art.
Comment by MikeGene — November 21, 2006 @ 1:42 am
November 21st, 2006 at 2:04 am
A good question. With an easy answer.
ID-friendly students are the only group I have ever encountered who, without fail, refuse to learn the facts about the biology of which they are so opiniated.
Most students are glad to learn when their preconceptions are in error. As we're seeing in this thread, and as I have seen in more than ten years of interactions on the web, ID-friendly students for the most part simply cannot do this.
Comment by Art — November 21, 2006 @ 2:04 am
November 21st, 2006 at 2:18 am
People on the Internet are not your students, Art. If you want to present the facts of biology in such a way that you elicit opinion-changes, you need to earn trust. Why should people on the Internet trust you? And even if you gain such trust, in this environment, facts don't bring about immediate changes. Don't you understand human nature? On the internet, facts function, at best, as seeds and if you are lucky, you might get a chance to see one bear fruit after a long germination.
Comment by MikeGene — November 21, 2006 @ 2:18 am
November 21st, 2006 at 9:44 pm
How the heck would you know that Art.
Three of my former professors are staunch Old Earth Darwinists. 2 of them debated major ID proponents. Robert Ehrlich debated Behe and James Trefil debated William Dembski. A third, Robert Oerter is an outspoken anti-IDist. Yet I got A's in their classes. I do however, to this day respect and admire them, which is more than I can say for some other professors I know.
I encourage pro-ID students to answer the test questions without argument much like they would answer questions about Greek mythology. Just tell the professor what he wants to hear. It's not worth the trouble of dealing with guys like you and Moran. Such students have everything to lose and nothing to gain by arguing in a classroom setting.
If I took a class and the professor said, Eukaryotes evolved from Prokaryotes, that birds are dinosaurs (ala Pandian) , I regurgitate that on an exam if it will get me an A. An exam is not a profession of faith nor profession of whether I think those are really the facts.
Heck, some honors biology students who were creationists whom I know were so adept they could make molecular sequences and fabricate phylogenies just like the pros fabricate them. One that I know got paid to do so and her work will be published, but she knows it's utterly bogus (just like most published peer-reviewed phylogenies), but that's what the principal investigator wanted and what the peer-reviewers wanted to hear. She gave em' what they wanted, and she got her diploma plus some lab experience and money.
If these professors want to remain in their self-delusions, it's in the students best interest to not get in the way of it, and get through the class without making waves. The professor's self-delusion is not the students problem. The most they can do is try to survive school rather than correct those who are unwilling to come to terms with difficult truths.
How do you think these IDers have been getting their degrees? They were just as well schooled and knowledgeable in evolution as their peers. Doesn't mean the accepted it as true, any more than a professor knoweledgeable in Greek mythology would necessarily pray to Athena.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 21, 2006 @ 9:44 pm
November 22nd, 2006 at 5:42 pm
IDers are often accused of having no scientific research program. (Or even much if any knowledge of science!)
I have (as in the past) suggested here a possible scientific research program:
Critics of ID are mentally deficient, suffer from some brain lesion or trauma, or maybe a genetic mutation, dietary deficiency, behavioral maladjustment (say alcoholism or other drug abuse), or something anything that can be grounded biologically, scientifically.
This would obviously involve ID-critics volunteering to make themselves subject to ID-science researchers.
In order to show that ID really has no "scientific" basis I would expect that such critics as Myers, Pennock, Dawkins, etc., would fight amongst themselves to be first in line. (I know I ain't gettin' in line!)
Put yourself to the test.
Comment by Rock — November 22, 2006 @ 5:42 pm
November 22nd, 2006 at 6:33 pm
[offtopic]
Happy Thanksgiving Rock!
Sal
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 22, 2006 @ 6:33 pm
November 23rd, 2006 at 11:59 am
Hello Art,
Last time we talked about this, it was late at night and I had to force myself off to bed. So let me return to your point.
You write:
Are you talking from experience, referring to students in your classroom? Or are you just talking about people on the web and pretending they are your students? I suspect it's the latter. Well, as I pointed out, the people on the web are not your students. So you are flustered because you can't change the opinions of opinionated people. Welcome to human nature.
But if it is simply your personal experience that is used to justify the singling out of one group, have you also sampled from other groups on the internet? For example, are people who support animal rights willing to learn about the importance of primate research in science?
Anyway, what's interesting is the way you conflate learning with believing. Tell me, does this mean that if someone were to take a class on religion, that in order to learn about the religion, they had to also believe what they learned?
First, do you have any scientific data to support your contention that "Most students are glad to learn when their preconceptions are in error?" Where are your studies?
Second, since you are not glad to learn when your preconceptions are in error, why do you forcefully demand this from others? I've interacted with you for years and can't recall a single example of your admitting your mistake and thus modifying your views. Consider the truth claim you assert in this thread:
Of course, it is not true that "TTers" want to shove anything down the throats of science instructors. We have pointed this out many times and Art has no evidence to back up his claim. He is simply repeating his "preconception" while refusing to learn. So here we have a guy cherry picking one group of students for refusing to learn, while he himself refuses to live up to his own standard.
Comment by MikeGene — November 23, 2006 @ 11:59 am
November 23rd, 2006 at 4:08 pm
[...] Oh, what the heck — here's the first salvo at Telic Thoughts, too. You're a smart reader, you won't be suckered in. Will Telic Thoughts bloggers defend Yahya's work as "academic freedom," or will they see it for the voodoo science and history that it is? Explore posts in the same categories: General, Creationism, Darwin, Charles Darwin, Accuracy, History Revisionism, Voodoo history, Bogus history, Science and faith [...]
Pingback by Voodoo historian: Harun Yahya and anti-evolution in Turkey « Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub — November 23, 2006 @ 4:08 pm
November 23rd, 2006 at 5:18 pm
Thanks, Salvador T. Cordova. Same to you and everyone else. Happy Thanksgiving!
Comment by Rock — November 23, 2006 @ 5:18 pm