• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Rush Limbaugh Interviews Ben Stein

So she was disciplined for mentioning Intelligent Design? Why

So if you're hired to teach about Democracy, you can't mention Communism in the classroom. Isn't that censorship and hinders a true education and spontaneity in the classroom. This movie was mostly about the freedom of ideas, not putting down evolution.

I see you keep repeating this "mentioned Intelligent Design" and ignore the fact that Crocker did not merely mention Intelligent Design, she taught Intelligent Design, although she was not hired to do that and was explicitly told not to do that.

As I said, you might want to read this:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/crocker

An account of her class is here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/03/AR2006020300822_pf.html
 
Last edited:
DOC

It's also worth noting that the wonderful makers of 'Expelled' who put it forward as a call to arms for free speech, were so committed to the cause of free speech that they banned P.Z. Myers (one of the people interviewed in the film) from a screening

Yay for free speech!

Of course, this was slightly tempered by the fact that they forgot to ban Myers' guest - Richard Dawkins (also interviewed for the film)

Doh!
 
Don't tell that to teacher Carolyn Crocker in the movie because she wouldn't believe you.

Caroline Crocker
Expelled makes it sound as if Crocker was immediately removed (expelled, even) from the George Mason University classroom. On the contrary, she completed teaching the course in the normal fashion, even after student complaints and whatever “discipline” followed that meeting with the supervisor. Crocker’s position at George Mason University (GMU) was a non-tenure track contract position in which the employee teaches on a course-by-course basis for a set length of time, with no guarantee of a renewal.

{snip}

Despite claims of being fired, Crocker was allowed to continue teaching and complete her GMU contract after the Department became aware of her ID instruction through student complaints. She was instructed to not teach about intelligent design and creation science, which was not part of the curriculum of the courses she had been hired to teach. Academic freedom does not mean the freedom to teach about anything you want, regardless of the expected content of your courses. And, far from having her academic career “come to an abrupt end”, after leaving GMU, Crocker taught at NVCC, and additionally acquired in 2006 a postdoctoral position at the Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, MD, working on T-cell signal transduction – an actual scientific investigation – suggesting that her reputation as a scientist was unaffected by the controversy over intelligent design.

{snip}

Indeed, if she were blacklisted, we would not expect her to have had regular employment after leaving GMU. But after her contract at GMU ended and the controversy about her teaching methods surfaced, Dr. Crocker continued in another adjunct faculty position at Northern Virginia Community College (NVCC), where she continued to teach demonstrably false science, as well as creationism, and was even profiled in an article at The Washington Post to which she willingly contributed.

Caroline Crocker was not fired. Both she and GMU completed their contract in full.
 
DOC

It's also worth noting that the wonderful makers of 'Expelled' who put it forward as a call to arms for free speech, were so committed to the cause of free speech that they banned P.Z. Myers (one of the people interviewed in the film) from a screening

Yay for free speech!

Of course, this was slightly tempered by the fact that they forgot to ban Myers' guest - Richard Dawkins (also interviewed for the film)

Doh!
Don't forget that during their press conference call, they claimed "evidence" against evolution that scientists haven't been able to answer. Yet, during that same call, PZ Myers DIRECTLY challenged their points and they were upset that he "intruded" and requested him to leave.

Rather telling, don't you think? In the same breath claiming that "scientist refuse to talk about..." and then blocking a scientist who "wants to talk about..."

http://skepchick.org/blog/?p=1190

I loved how Ben and company completely dodged the question regarding Pogrom.

another good point that has been raised is the fact that Hitler BANNED darwin's writings. How in the world can it be the "source of the holocaust" if Hitler considered it false science???

translation of guidelines for banned books said:
6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel).
http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm#guidelines

Futher, it is clear that Hitler supported the more religious writings and views:
translation of Blacklist for Public Libraries and Commercial Lending Libraries said:
c) All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk.
These three points together show conclusively that evolutionary theory was NOT the cause of the holocaust and any claim that says as such is an obvious and blatant LIE.


Well the good part of expelled is that it has resulted in the complete public denouncement of the "Holocaust was a result of evolutionary theory" lie.

the antidefamation league http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5277_52.htm

ADL said:
The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory.
Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler's genocidal madness.
Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.

It is clear to me that, after this information has been released, anyone who continues to make the claim of the Hitler-holocaust-evolution link is a blatant liar with no ethical standards what so ever.
 
Last edited:
I see you keep repeating this "mentioned Intelligent Design" and ignore the fact that Crocker did not merely mention Intelligent Design, she taught Intelligent Design, although she was not hired to do that and was explicitly told not to do that.
Worse, it was the students who were complaining that Crocker teaching material other than what they had paid to be taught. That isn't being censored. It's breach of contract.

Heck, if I sat around posting on an internet forum board when I should be working, I'd be fired.

um... gotta go.
 
Well, I never said Gonzalez was let go, but speaking of Gonzalez should a guy with these credentials be denied tenure and subjected to the harassment that he received?

Yes, and, given the extent that he has whined, yes.

Tell me, darling, how many tenure cases have you voted on in your life? I've been in on a few and already I have seen much stronger packages get denied.

I explained the problem in a post above, which I'm sure you ignored. Short answer: an astronomer who does not have access to a telescope is never going to have a successful career in astronomy research. People voting on his promotion can see that, and therefore don't want to give tenure to a guy who is not going to do anything productive in his career.
 
Does this post mean I can appeal to popularity from now on?


No, you merely seem to confuse fantasy with reality. You claimed the movie was "doing relatively well", but even by the standards of the very people who released it, it's a dud.

Here, the math is very simple...

"Expelled" producers' claim (before release): this movie will be a success if it makes $12 million in its first weekend!

Reality (four weeks after release): total amount grossed = $7.2 million

Oops. :rolleyes:
 
I see you keep repeating this "mentioned Intelligent Design" and ignore the fact that Crocker did not merely mention Intelligent Design, she taught Intelligent Design, although she was not hired to do that and was explicitly told not to do that.

So if your teaching a course about Democracy and American Gov't and the word Communism comes up in the discussion, and a student asks what exactly is Communism. You as a teacher will have to say, sorry, I can't tell you that because that would be teaching off topic and I'm only paid to teach about American Gov't and I will get in serious trouble if I vere off into other types of government.

And do you have any evidence at all that she was told not to teach ID "before" and not after the incident.
 
Last edited:
Yes, and, given the extent that he has whined, yes.

Tell me, darling, how many tenure cases have you voted on in your life? I've been in on a few and already I have seen much stronger packages get denied.

I explained the problem in a post above, which I'm sure you ignored. Short answer: an astronomer who does not have access to a telescope is never going to have a successful career in astronomy research. People voting on his promotion can see that, and therefore don't want to give tenure to a guy who is not going to do anything productive in his career.

If he had never mentioned ID would he of had access to a telescope. Guys whose work leads to the discovery of 2 planets should have access to a telescope, don't you think.
 
Worse, it was the students who were complaining that Crocker teaching material other than what they had paid to be taught. That isn't being censored. It's breach of contract.

The PhD. Crocker did teach evolution in the class.
 
Last edited:
So if your teaching a course about Democracy and American Gov't and the word Communism comes up in the discussion, and a student asks what exactly is Communism. You as a teacher will have to say, sorry, I can't tell you that because that would be teaching off topic and I'm only paid to teach about American Gov't and I will get in serious trouble if I vere off into other types of government.
Except that does appear to be the situation here. The students were complaining about her off topic moves into ID. That's how the school administration found out about it.


And do you have any evidence at all that she was told not to teach ID "before" and not after the incident.
They had a contract for her to teach a certain topic. ID was not that topic. She taught ID when she was supposed to be teaching something else.

When you are at work, do you need to be told to do the job you are paid to do rather than something else entirely?
 
Because intelligent design is "just a theory" :rolleyes:

So the Big Bang theory should never be taught in schools. And the theory of Evolution should not have been taught in universities in Darwin's day. Or even today for that matter.
 
So if your teaching a course about Democracy and American Gov't and the word Communism comes up in the discussion, and a student asks what exactly is Communism. You as a teacher will have to say, sorry, I can't tell you that because that would be teaching off topic and I'm only paid to teach about American Gov't and I will get in serious trouble if I vere off into other types of government.


And once again, DOC proves that he either cannot or will not read the links (or even the summaries) people provide. Oh, the dishonesty!
 
Except that does appear to be the situation here. The students were complaining about her off topic moves into ID. That's how the school administration found out about it.

Your implying there were many students, do you know how many complained.

They had a contract for her to teach a certain topic. ID was not that topic. She taught ID when she was supposed to be teaching something else.

How do you know she taught it and did not just mention it as an alternative theory. And you imply that this PhD. did not also teach evolution, which would be false.

When you are at work, do you need to be told to do the job you are paid to do rather than something else entirely?

So if I pay to send a kid the Seminary School and the teacher gives the definition of Atheism during the class then I should expect the teacher to be disciplined.
 
Last edited:
And once again, DOC proves that he either cannot or will not read the links (or even the summaries) people provide. Oh, the dishonesty!

Another generalized statement that doesn't address the specific point made in the post.
 
Last edited:
So if your teaching a course about Democracy and American Gov't and the word Communism comes up in the discussion, and a student asks what exactly is Communism. You as a teacher will have to say, sorry, I can't tell you that because that would be teaching off topic and I'm only paid to teach about American Gov't and I will get in serious trouble if I vere off into other types of government.

No, there is no problem with that and there would be no problem with mentioning ID in biology class. But as you were told before - this was not the case with Crocker.
Read here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/03/AR2006020300822_pf.html

How do you know she taught it and did not just mention it as an alternative theory. And you imply that this PhD. did not also teach evolution, which would be false.

You should really pay attention to what people tell you.

An account of her class is here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/03/AR2006020300822_pf.html

Here is a nice quote for you:
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.
 
The PhD. Crocker did teach evolution in the class.
Her title is Dr. Crocker not Phd. Crocker. Earning a Phd bestows the Title Dr. not Phd.
And, neither the PhD or the title is a shield against being completely and totally wrong.
 
How do you know she taught it and did not just mention it as an alternative theory. And you imply that this PhD. did not also teach evolution, which would be false.
According to Soikins reference, this is a false statement.

So if I pay to send a kid the Seminary School and the teacher gives the definition of Atheism during the class then I should expect the teacher to be disciplined.
Based upon the reality of the case, your analogy is wrong. A better analogy would be:
a Teacher in seminary school says he will give the pros and cons of christianity, teaches only the anti-christian info and then says "I will not give you the pro-christian viewpoint because you are inundated with the pro-christian nonsense. "


But not even that is a good example because pro/cons of christianity are theological and are beyond evidentiary proof.

The best example would be a person giving a bible lessons course and teaching the "the bible came from martians" theory as opposed to the historical context of the bible.
 
If he had never mentioned ID would he of had access to a telescope. Guys whose work leads to the discovery of 2 planets should have access to a telescope, don't you think.

Do you think that he should just be given telescope time?

There are a limited number of decent telescopes in the world. Astronomers all over the world (including those who actually DID discover 2 planets, not just "whose work [led] to the discovery of 2 planets") try to get time to look through those telescopes. They do that through competitive processes wherein they describe the observations they plan to make. Then other astronomers evaluate those proposals and the best ones are awarded telescope time. This is what astronomers need to do to be successful astronomers.

As far as I can tell, the only telescope time he got was through his old scope at the Univ of Washington, apparently through some connections with his old post-doc adviser. That is not considered to be evidence of showing independent work and doesn't help a tenure decision.

Now, in terms of his being an ID supporter hurting his chances of getting telescope time, that is baseless. As long as his proposals are good scientifically, they would get funded. There are plenty of creationists, for example, who have funding in chemistry, for example, including very famous ones. They aren't being "expelled" from science, because they don't let their creationist beliefs influence their science. Now, if they start putting creationist nonsense into proposals, then they most certainly ARE going to not get funded, because it's bad science. So if Gonzalez is putting ID nonsense in scientific proposals, he certainly would not be getting instrument time.

Then again, even if he WERE denied funding and instrument time because he was a creationist, how does that affect the ISU tenure decision? They don't give tenure to people working in areas that can't get funded, regardless of why. A particle physicist who can't get funding or any time on a collider and doesn't graduate any students is not going to get tenured, either.
 

Back
Top Bottom