Home » Eyes Rolling, Intelligent Design » Higher Ed is higher on WHAT, exactly?

Higher Ed is higher on WHAT, exactly?

Prof sues disbelieving students. Apparently, they disputed her theories about science … No, in the famous words of Rush Limbaugh, I am not making this up. If I had that kind of imagination, I would be right up there with J.K. Rowlings (rowling in dough, right?)

Also just up at the Overwhelming Evidence blog

The math prof makes a design inference

British physicist asks, is there no freedom to criticize evolutionary theory? (Well, no, not if you know a good reason why materialist views are wrong.)

Expelled, its critics, and the theatre managers – knock me over with a feather, the legacy media critics didn’t like the film but audiences apparently did

What percentage of scientists support current evolution theory? A better question: In the age of zealous Darwin lobbies, what percentage can afford reasonable dissent?

Who was Ernst Haeckel? Phenomenon? Flawed? Faker? All three, maybe.

Just what IS a design inference? 9-11 provides a clue.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

9 Responses to Higher Ed is higher on WHAT, exactly?

  1. What might the prospects be for a hard cover manifesto challenging teenagers to hard work by two 18 year olds? Astonishingly it reached #5 on Amazon on March 25th.

    Alex Harris and Brett Harris are challenging the status quo with: Do Hard Things: A Teenage Rebellion Against Low Expectations, garnering a Foreward by Chuck Norris, 2008, Multnomah Books ISBN-10: 1601421125.

    They launched TheRebelution.com.
    It has already reached 16 million hits.
    I wonder if those intrepid math students would ever crack it’s covers?

    Perhaps that “professor”, might learn from the proverb:
    As iron sharpens iron,
    so one man sharpens another.
    Proverbs 27:17 (Or does that not apply to postmodern feminist professors?)

  2. Every Friday, my local newspaper (the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel) publishes a “People’s Picks” which gave ‘Expelled’ an 85 score, placing it third overall (the #1 and 2 spots were held by ‘Under the Same Moon’ and ‘Meet the Browns’, respectively).

    The picks are based on exit polls averaging more than 300 filmgoers for each movie. The 88 represents the percentage of the public who gave the film 3.5 to 4 stars.

  3. 4
    Vladimir Krondan

    Haeckel was known to be a fraud as far back as 1890. He was awarded the Darwin Medal in 1900. Peer review.

  4. We need a category called “rolls eyes”. You can’t make up stuff like this.

  5. My Vote:

    Hot sensi, mon!

    GEM of TKI

  6. Great idea, Dave! Can you add such a checkbox, or send me instructions on how to do it?

    As Darwinism – and related collapsing isms – spin on their tails faster and faster, I am finding ever more need of such a checkbox.

    You see, I don’t have the advantage that Prof. Finch enjoys that I can present this stuff as parody.

    I am sure that students who receive writs from the miffed prof’s lawyer (see the top link) cannot afford to assume that she is kidding.

  7. Denyse

    It is done. Look for a new category checkbox “Eyes Rolling” when you post an article. I added the category to this article too.

  8. You gotta love the selection mechanisms we’ve set up for our “professors.”

    Of course, the selection mechanism for science profs is more rigorous insofar as it requires them to at least maintain some link with the world of the observable and testable in order to pass their tests.

    But there’s still no selection mechanism to select for abstract and philosophical reasoning skills.

    Peer review works great with observable and falsifiable claims; but it’s nothing but “rule by bullies” when it comes to the unfalsifiable and philosophical assumptions upon which their darwinism depends …

Leave a Reply