9 Responses to “Teaching Evolution (Or How To Keep the Bad Guys Out)”

1. TomG Says:
   April 25th, 2006 at 4:57 pm

   Isn't there a broader application here to any academic discipline? Try to avoid training anyone who may disagree with you and your buddies later on. After all, you're giving them the weapons to do it more effectively.

Comment by TomG — April 25, 2006 @ 4:57 pm

2. ethel_merganser Says:
   April 25th, 2006 at 5:13 pm

   During the course of their graduate career a student is examined at various points on his or her knowledge of the field as well as related fields. This may be in the form of cumulative examinations, oral examinations and, finally, a defense of their PhD dissertation.

   It is perfectly legitimate to fail a student who, in such circumstances, insists, e.g., that the Earth is flat or that the Earth revolves around the Sun. A student who denied quantum mechanics wouldn't get very far in a physics department. A student who couldn't write well enough to produce a dissertation of sufficient quality could be failed. Equally, if a student rejects evolution and/or argues their results in the context of creationism or ID then they could legitimately be ejected from a Biology program. If they demonstrated a sufficient understanding of evolutionary theory but privately didn't believe it then they could probably survive. But that would involve a certain level of disingenuousness on their part.

   Ethel

Comment by ethel_merganser — April 25, 2006 @ 5:13 pm

3. Eric Anderson Says:
   April 25th, 2006 at 9:37 pm

   "It is perfectly legitimate to fail a student who, in such circumstances, insists, e.g., that the Earth is flat or that the Earth revolves around the Sun. A student who denied quantum mechanics wouldn't get very far in a physics department."

   Ah, yes. The tired ol' nonsense about evolution being as central to all things biology-related as the Earth revolving around the Sun is to astronomy. Except that no-one can say for sure just how evolution works . . . or when . . . or even if it does . . . or if it does, what kind of evolutionary principles are involved . . .

   These astronomy and physics analogies are self-serving justifications for one's personal incapacity to conceive that any intelligent person could possibly disbelieve what all proper materialists know in their heart of hearts just has to be the true nature of things as they really are.

   As par for the course, Branch preaches, even evangelizes: We possess the true knowledge of critical truth and it must be disseminated and protected. First by conversion; and then if a wolf somehow enters the flock, by excommunication.

Comment by Eric Anderson — April 25, 2006 @ 9:37 pm

4. The Design Paradigm :: Declaration of War? :: April :: 2006 Says:
   April 25th, 2006 at 10:41 pm

   [...] e training of someone who is ultimately going to actively harm the field. Our friends at Telic Thoughts ponder over the questions of which standard and criteria are used to defi [...]

Pingback by The Design Paradigm :: Declaration of War? :: April :: 2006 — April 25, 2006 @ 10:41 pm

5. chunkdz Says:
   April 25th, 2006 at 11:33 pm

   To Dr. Kenneth R. Miller PhD
   From the Board of Regents, Brown University

   Dear Dr. Miller,
   Recent egregious and dangerous statements that you have been making publicly have reached our attention, and this has caused us to pursue a course of action towards the revoking of your tenure at Brown. Since Brown University adopted the tenure standards set forth by the University of Minnesota, we must ask ourselves if you are fit, or even sane enough, to not be a danger to science. This letter will outline the dangerous offenses and the course of action that you may take to prevent the revocation process.

   1. In your book "Finding Darwin's God", you publicly claim to believe in some sort of supernatural "god". This belief in some kind of a fairy story about a supernatural "man in the sky with super powers" puts you on shaky and unscientific ground to say the least.

   2.You also state in "Finding Darwin's God" that this god "allows" evolution to take place. The belief that evolution only happens because the god "allows" it threatens to embarrass this fine institution's credibility.

   3. In "Finding Darwin's God", you admit that you openly tell students about your belief in the supernatural god, and that it influences your biology research. We find this to be dangerous to the future of science and the good name of Brown University.

   4. On national television, you proclaimed to be a member in good standing of the Roman Catholic Church, an organization dedicated to spreading lies and unscientific propoganda that refutes biological truth.

   5. There have been substantiated rumors that you actually participate in some kind of festival that celebrates a "raising of the dead" – the so called "easter" fairytale.

   The regents have prescribed a course of action that may allow you to retain your tenure. Since we would normally deny tenure to anyone who thinks that the earth is flat, or that the sun revolves around the earth, or that some big supernatural "super-sky-daddy" made everything, we must hold the same standard for our tenured professors in order to preserve the dignity and stature of Brown University. Since you have already gone public with your questionable beliefs, we must require that you recant.

   1. You must deny your belief in the supernatural publicly, and in writing, even if this involves a certain level of disingenuousness on your part. This supernatural belief that god "allows" evolution seems to the board to be thinly veiled creationism. The board doesn't see how you can teach evolution if your foundation of evolution rests upon nature somehow getting "permission" from some unknown entity. Embarrassing.

   2. You must explain your membership in an organization that espouses "raising of the dead", "prayer", "human virgin birth", "miraculous healing", and other medically and biologically disproven myths.
   We would similarly reject any professor who claimed to be a witch doctor or a handler of snakes.

   3. You must publicly state that while you DO go to church (we can't stop you from doing that), you merely do it as a sterile ritual, and of course you don't believe in such unscientific nonsense as the "xmas fairytale" and the "jesus story". The board feels that no one in academia would take any of your published works seriously if it were known that you were a believer of mythical imaginary characters.

   Please understand that while the board recognizes your right to believe whatever wacky, aberrant, insane, or destructive ideas you may have, the fact that you have put these ideas in your published writings, and said them publicly on national television has left us no choice but to take action to prevent further embarrassment to the good name of Brown University.

   Sincerely,

   Board of Regents, Brown University

Comment by chunkdz — April 25, 2006 @ 11:33 pm

6. Douglas Says:
   April 26th, 2006 at 6:20 am

   chunkdz,

   Beautiful.

Comment by Douglas — April 26, 2006 @ 6:20 am

7. Krauze Says:
   April 26th, 2006 at 7:36 am

   Hi Chunk,

   Don't forget that Miller also advocates the fine-tuning of cosmological constants, and claims that fine science popularizers like Dawkins and Gould are a big part of the problem when it comes to fighting attacks on science education.

Comment by Krauze — April 26, 2006 @ 7:36 am

8. Andrea Says:
   April 26th, 2006 at 2:01 pm

   Chunk, you may be up to something. That may be quite possibly the next logical step of ID's strategy.

   So far, all of the ID advocates' "scientific" work has pretty much consisted of taking the results of the work of real scientists, and twisting its interpretation to claim support for ID. This is inefficient and lends itself to embarassment, when the scientists in question object that the interpretation is erroneous, such as in the Ohio literature debacle.

   Much more efficient, obviously, is to take actual scientists, and just say they are, unknowingly, ID advocates. That way, the DI PR folks can claim to have entire departments and research centers hard at work in academia already (forget about the "BioLogic Institute", which only exists in the NYT pages).
   BRILLIANT.

Comment by Andrea — April 26, 2006 @ 2:01 pm

9. Eric Anderson Says:
   April 27th, 2006 at 2:01 pm

   Andrea, you are truly amazing. Are you intellectually capable of even exploring the issues, or will your posts continue to be limited to conspiritorial assertions borne of your own paranoia?

   People feel strongly about the issues, no doubt, but for the most part nobody is up to anything nefarious. Get over it.

Comment by Eric Anderson — April 27, 2006 @ 2:01 pm