Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

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

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

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.”

Comments
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..KRock
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
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,,,KRock
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
No kidding... IKRock
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT
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.Joseph
November 5, 2011
November
11
Nov
5
05
2011
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT
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.Joseph
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
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 answerGinoB
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
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?
Joseph
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
DrREC- Your position doesn't have any details nor a hypothesis. Why the double-standard?Joseph
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
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)PaV
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
16.1.1.3.4 PaV I should have said "some." Or maybe one.DrREC
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
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.GinoB
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
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.PaV
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
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.DrREC
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
"“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.DrREC
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT
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?PaV
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
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.Joseph
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
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.Joseph
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
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.DrREC
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
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.PaV
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
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.DrREC
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT
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.DrREC
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT
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.Joseph
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
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! ----Eocene
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT
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.Joseph
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
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 EveJoseph
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
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.GinoB
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
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?GinoB
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT
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.DrREC
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
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.Joseph
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT
@ 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.”DrREC
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply