Rush Limbaugh Interviews Ben Stein

[Upchurch]

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

One is enough.

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.

soikins beat me to it:

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

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.

No, it would be like sending a kid to Seminary School and in a class on Medieval Christian Literature, they were taught nothing but Modern Political Science.

 

[JoeEllison]

And once again, DOC proves that he either cannot or will not read the links (or even the summaries) people provide. Oh, the dishonesty!

Ignoring reality and shifting the goalposts... what else can you expect? DOC is wrong, he's been shown to be wrong, he's been shown that the claims made in Expelled are lies. What is he supposed to do, put his trust in reality?

 

[CurtC]

No, it would be like sending a kid to Seminary School and in a class on Medieval Christian Literature, they were taught nothing but Modern Political Science.

That's not even a good analogy because Modern Political Science is a real field of study. Here's a better example: a teacher of a biology course in reproduction telling her class that there's not much evidence for the Sex Theory of Reproduction and instead wants to spend time on the "Stork Theory of Reproduction."

That would be grounds for taking action, but in the case of Dr. Crocker, the school didn't take action, it just didn't renew her contract.

Waaaaaaaaaahhhhh!

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

That's not even a good analogy because Modern Political Science is a real field of study. Here's a better example: a teacher of a biology course in reproduction telling her class that there's not much evidence for the Sex Theory of Reproduction and instead wants to spend time on the "Stork Theory of Reproduction."

That would be grounds for taking action, but in the case of Dr. Crocker, the school didn't take action, it just didn't renew her contract.

Waaaaaaaaaahhhhh!

Nice analogy: Nominated.

 

[Upchurch]

That's not even a good analogy because Modern Political Science is a real field of study. Here's a better example:

I stand one up'ed.

 

[Tanstaafl]

And lo and behold, DOC is still ignoring that post.

What post?

Trolling for a Pith Award? You'll have to do better than that.

 

[fuelair]

One of the people the movie says has suffered because of his statements about the possibilility of ID was Guillermo Gonzales, a published PHd. The film said he has done some work that led to the discovery of 2 planets. This article describes the hassles and even probable loss of tenure he has had to endure.

http://telicthoughts.com/gonzalez-the-controversy-over-id-at-isu/

Ooops, more lies/misstatements, misimplications: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillermo_Gonzalez_(astronomer) covers the lies of the Discovery Insipitude including their mutilation of actual text of the materials involved. Basically, Gonzalez is a big flop in his field (re: the University's expectations on bringing in grants and doing actual research of value) and has been denied tenure for that.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Because intelligent design is "just a theory"

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.

Oh yeah, and let's not forget gravity - it, too, is "just a theory."

DOC, there's this thing called sarcasm, which the in my original post was meant to convey. You can read all about it here.

Such willful ignorance is just stunning...

 

[chris epic]

Is it me, or did Stein and Rush equivicate Darwinism and Social Darwinism without realizing the HUGE difference between the two???

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Is it me, or did Stein and Rush equivicate Darwinism and Social Darwinism without realizing the HUGE difference between the two???

First part yes. As to the second, Stein seems to know exactly what he's doing (or at least his DI overlords do) while I'm not sure The Comedian realizes there's a difference.

 

[Mashuna]

Is it me, or did Stein and Rush equivicate Darwinism and Social Darwinism without realizing the HUGE difference between the two???

It's like blaming Rutherford and Einstien for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

[DOC]

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

One is enough.

What about those students who enjoyed it, seems like the evidence so far says more enjoyed it then did not, what about the rights of those who approved of it, don't they account for anything:

Excerpt From WashingtionPost.com website

Eden and Evolution
Religious critics of evolution are wrong about its flaws. But are they right that it threatens belief in a loving God?

By Shankar Vedantam
Sunday, February 5, 2006; W08

"As more students began to speak, many expressed what were clearly long-held doubts about evolution. Nguyen said later that Crocker had merely provided evidence for what he had always suspected.
When Lowe finally spoke, it seemed as if the lecture had lifted a load from her shoulders. "I believe in creationism, I believe in intelligent design," she declared to the class. Humans have souls, which make them different from other animals, she told me later. To believe in evolution meant that "after you are dead, you are done." Without the accountability of Judgment Day and Hell, why would people follow the Ten Commandments?
A woman in the back of the class raised her hand. Her voice shook with emotion. "If science is the pursuit of truth, why is evolution not questioned?"
I've heard scientists say people won't understand, so they should be told only one side," Crocker replied.
There was a long moment of silence. Finally the student said, "Isn't that lying to the public?"
Crocker declined to answer the question, but someone else grimly observed, "Won't be the first time."
I went up to this last student after the class. She initially agreed to be identified, but moments later, remembering what Crocker had said about the scientific establishment's intolerance of dissent, she begged me not to publish her name. The fear on her face was palpable. She wanted to be a veterinarian and was convinced that dream would be smashed if powerful scientists learned she had dared to question evolution."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/03/AR2006020300822_pf.html

words bolded by DOC

 

[joobz]

What about those students who enjoyed it, seems like the evidence so far says more enjoyed it then did not, what about the rights of those who approved of it, don't they account for anything:

I know the majority of students would enjoy me teaching video game strategies in my thermodynamics class, but that doesn't make it right. The students who complained that the professor was teaching off topic and wrong material were correct to complain.

Courses are not designed in a vaccuum. They are parts of a whole cirriculum. The students who took her class are at a huge disadvantage when they go into subsequent courses which build upon the knowledge they were supposed to learn in her class but didn't. This means time must be taken from other subjects that students take to get them up to speed on the basics before they can learn that course. In other words, she has created MORE work for all other faculty and handicapped an entire class. Effectively, she single handedly compromised the quality of the educational experience for that department's students. That's the worst thing a teacher could do.

 

[fuelair]

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



What about those students who enjoyed it, seems like the evidence so far says more enjoyed it then did not, what about the rights of those who approved of it, don't they account for anything:

From WashingtionPost.com website

Eden and Evolution
Religious critics of evolution are wrong about its flaws. But are they right that it threatens belief in a loving God?

By Shankar Vedantam
Sunday, February 5, 2006; W08

"As more students began to speak, many expressed what were clearly long-held doubts about evolution. Nguyen said later that Crocker had merely provided evidence for what he had always suspected.
When Lowe finally spoke, it seemed as if the lecture had lifted a load from her shoulders. "I believe in creationism, I believe in intelligent design," she declared to the class. Humans have souls, which make them different from other animals, she told me later. To believe in evolution meant that "after you are dead, you are done." Without the accountability of Judgment Day and Hell, why would people follow the Ten Commandments?
A woman in the back of the class raised her hand. Her voice shook with emotion. "If science is the pursuit of truth, why is evolution not questioned?"
I've heard scientists say people won't understand, so they should be told only one side," Crocker replied.
There was a long moment of silence. Finally the student said, "Isn't that lying to the public?"
Crocker declined to answer the question, but someone else grimly observed, "Won't be the first time."
I went up to this last student after the class. She initially agreed to be identified, but moments later, remembering what Crocker had said about the scientific establishment's intolerance of dissent, she begged me not to publish her name. The fear on her face was palpable. She wanted to be a veterinarian and was convinced that dream would be smashed if powerful scientists learned she had dared to question evolution.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/03/AR2006020300822_pf.html

words bolded by DOC

There is so much pointless about this post I don't really know where to start, BUT: A) This is students - I have Chemistry students who after a year (ca. 9 months) of Chem have doubts that matter is really made up of atoms because their ability to follow the evidence is limited by their ability to internalize knowledge. The fact that STUDENTS have doubts is meaningless - the good ones will get over them as they get deeper into the material and the ones who can't handle it should be getting into a field they can handle where the ability to learn isn't critical. B)Nobody is going to throw them out of a program (most programs anyway) for not understanding evolution immediately - there are still backwards people around who MIGHT have the intelligence to follow it but are afraid of losing their little god (so afraid that they consider it one of it's miracles when one or two people are not killed in a disaster where 10's, hundreds or thousands of others are) and these fools keep their children/students/flock backwards out of that fear (or a desire for control). If the student has the intelligence and strength to break free of that superstition and fear, he/she should still be able to catch up and understand why evolution is real and quite understandable - as well as how we know and can prove that matter (other than subatomic - which makes up the atoms) is made up of atoms and their combinations.
C)The quote about scientists doing only one side because people won't understand is a pure load of feces. ScientistS do research - a scientist or a small group of them may well have a blind spot on some area, but there are always others looking to move themselves up by finding the problems in any field and exploiting the problems. Any field of science that has room for new ideas (that's all of them) is going to have people working on those new ideas so they can get grants/tenure/awards/fame - but to get these, they have to prove what they are doing is done correctly, what they write is as unchallengeable as they can make it, how they interpret is not tasking them down the wrong path, etc. because someone else, looking to move up in the field will be watching for them to make a mistake. That is why IF there was any evidence that could prove exactly how life started (nothing to do with the Theory [that is the Explanation of how it works, not The Guess] of Evolution] and someone proved it, a Nobel Prize would be the least they could expect. If the Law of Gravity has exceptions to it found and PROVED, the finder could write his own ticket at any research location. If Evolution could be proved wrong and ID proved right, ID would be the new Theory of...The trouble is, ID is a belief system with ZERO evidence behind it - there is NO science involved in ID, just philosophy/belief. No experiments, just belief. Hypotheses but no testing of the hypotheses. NO SCIENCE, just almost pitiable faith. I have never seen or heard of faith moving a mountain - though believers have that as one of their phrases - I have heard of science doing so (through chemistry and mechanics).

I have no problem with people having faith - but I do have a problem with them trying to inflict it on education - and especially on science education. You prove (not philosophically - that is just words and words have no bearing on reality though the right ones in the right order may describe it) your conjectures with real experiments and study carried out in ways that can be tested and verified by any reputable scientist/lab and we are fine. You just want them tossed in because you believe them and we are not.

 

[Mashuna]

I went up to this last student after the class. She initially agreed to be identified, but moments later, remembering what Crocker had said about the scientific establishment's intolerance of dissent, she begged me not to publish her name. The fear on her face was palpable. She wanted to be a veterinarian and was convinced that dream would be smashed if powerful scientists learned she had dared to question evolution."

Wow. She seems remarkably ill-informed. Or just stupid.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

What about those students who enjoyed it, seems like the evidence so far says more enjoyed it then did not, what about the rights of those who approved of it, don't they account for anything:

So I'm guessing you feel that the students in Ward Churchill's classes who agreed with him were having their rights abrogated just because other students didn't approve of his comments? And I'll admit up front that that's a weak analogy since we're not talking about Political Science here (one of my two majors), but a hard science class. What if the professor had said geology was bunk or the Apollo landing was a hoax, and there were students who supported this erronious conclusion? Would those who requested that actual science and astronautical history be taught in the appropriate class be having their rights abbrogated if the administration came down on that professor?

Fuelair has already demolished the article, but here's some of my comments...

Religious critics of evolution are wrong about its flaws. But are they right that it threatens belief in a loving God?

I probably should just cut and paste this sentence for the rest of my reply but - not according to TEs.

"To believe in evolution meant that "after you are dead, you are done." Without the accountability of Judgment Day and Hell, why would people follow the Ten Commandments?

Again, not according to TEs.. or any person of any religion that accepts a life after death scenario who accepts evolution and there are billions of them. As to the last part, well, because a number of them are common sense ethical dictates for an orderly society whether they come from a deity or not.

A woman in the back of the class raised her hand. Her voice shook with emotion. "If science is the pursuit of truth, why is evolution not questioned?"

Unless, like me, she's nervous about public speaking - at 3 TAMs I have never asked a question of a speaker or panel - I would suggest the emotion in her voice is because she doesn't know anything about the academic debate over evolution and was effected by her religious beliefs. Science isn't a pursuit of "truth", it's a pursuit of facts from which we can make conclusions about the world we live in.

And evolution has been questioned since Darwin published Origin. The problem with those who claim it cannot be questioned now is that they aren't questioning the issues and basics of the scientific theory (precise taxonomic position for birds for ex.), they're questioning the theory itself with idiotic dribble like "If man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys", "but it's still a bird" and "what about Piltdown Man".

PRATTS aren't questions, their obfuscation and largely a waste of time for people other than laymen like myself who find this issue important. Incredulity isn't "questioning".

I've heard scientists say people won't understand, so they should be told only one side," Crocker replied.
There was a long moment of silence. Finally the student said, "Isn't that lying to the public?"
Crocker declined to answer the question, but someone else grimly observed, "Won't be the first time."

My irony meter explodeth, because Crocker has never heard anyone say "people won't understand, so they should be told only one side" (lie), the student must not be familiar with Kent Hovind, "Lucy's Knee Joint", etc. etc. etc. of the lies Creationists not only tell, but continue to tell after correction and the anonymous observer must not understand the difference between lying and being mistaken. The layer upon layer of irony in that quote makes it a virtual weapon of mass intellectual destruction.

She wanted to be a veterinarian and was convinced that dream would be smashed if powerful scientists learned she had dared to question evolution."

And yet Jonathan Wells was somehow able to get his PhD in biology despite he entire enrollment in the process being a Moonie funded lie. Maybe she never learned how to shut up in class and just pass her exams.

 

[Don At Work]

Posted by DOC

*snip irrelevant parts *

Excerpt From WashingtionPost.com website


"As more students began to speak, many expressed what were clearly long-held doubts about evolution. Nguyen said later that Crocker had merely provided evidence for what he had always suspected."

Lie bolded by Me

 

[DOC]

Wow. She seems remarkably ill-informed. Or just stupid.

I bet the people in the film who claim their life was adversely affected by supporting ID don't think so.

 

[joobz]

I bet the people in the film who claim their life was adversely affected by supporting ID don't think so.

of course not, but it seems many have no problem stretching the truth to justify thier delusions.

Ask a cubs fan if they stand a chance of winning the world series, and see how many honest answers you get.

 

[fuelair]

Wow. She seems remarkably ill-informed. Or just stupid.

Probably just the effect of being around Duc for any length of time. I can only read small amounts of his drivel before I start to feel my IQ dropping.