Dan Ely's colleagues take down his Kansas testimony

While I generally dislike posting comments that don't go into some detail for clarity's sake, I hope the PT community will indulge the following:

So. Very. Owned.

Thank you.

How long before the Disco Inst decries the letter from the Akron scientists as vicious attack on Dr. Ely's academic freedom?

I am shocked!, shocked! I say, to discover that an IDC proponent may have misrepresented himself.

When advocating that the Board repeal the Critical Analysis of Evolution Lesson Plan, Board Member Martha K. Wise repeatedly emphasized the claim that authors of the Critical Analysis of Evolution Lesson Plan were creationists. Wise alleged that during the Kansas hearings, Dan Ely testified that he was "struggling with the age of the earth" and stated "He [Ely] thinks the earth is only Five-thousand years old. That's not just ID. That's young earth creationism. Ely's testimony fully rebutted Wise's misrepresentation of Ely's viewpoint. Ely said that in Kansas, many of the witnesses were asked about their views on the age of the earth. "My answer was 'We heard today anywhere from five-thousand years to five million years or five billion years," and everybody laughed, "And most of the evidence looks like it's very old." Ely called Martha Wise's alleged explanation of Ely's views on the age of the earth "totally erroneous."

Wow, they aren't ####ing around. This makes Lehigh's statement on Behe and ID look pretty tame in comparison.

Very brave of him to put his neck out. Another martyr for the cause. If the scientific establishment could tolerate dissent, perhaps he wouldn't have to go through this unreasonable character assassination.

Look at Dr Ely's comment in Ohio
"Daniel Ely, professor of biology at the University of Akron, praised the Ohio plan, saying that when students are presented a subject in the form of a controversy and are permitted to argue one side or the other, they "take ownership" of the subject. "When I was a kid, we learned about Communism," he said. "You have to understand both sides."
Perhaps some one should point out to him that like Communism, intelligent design" is an ideology --- not a science.

Doubtless, Ely is a creationist, and his Kansas testimony was misleading on many levels, but that letter from his bio colleagues, honestly man ... that was harsh.

I wonder whether there isn't something else going on that the letter doesn't spell out.

I wonder whether there isn't something else going on that the letter doesn't spell out.

I wonder whether there isn't something else going on that the letter doesn't spell out.

Most distressing to me: The idea that a physiologist can get a Ph.D. without some graduate-level classroom training in evolutionary biology.

My own Ph.D. program, in a biological-sciences department, had a six-course required core that included two semesters of cell biology (prokaryotic and eukaryotic), two semesters of physiology (animal and plant), and two organismal courses (evolution and population ecology). That requirement has been relaxed, which I think is a shame; while I'm all for more flexibility, I think that all Ph.D. students should have studied at least five out of six at the graduate level.

Of course, taking one course in evolutionary biology doesn't make one an expert in that field, any more than taking two physiology courses made me a physiologist. Also, someone who has a religious or political aversion to a scientific topic can't be forced to accept or understand what he learns. But there's no excuse for not being exposed to that material in a classroom setting. At the very least, a biologist in one subspecialty should be able to understand the basics of a paper written by a researcher in a different subspecialty.

Focusing on one's research in graduate school is fine, but if we don't start out equipped with adequate tools, our work becomes more difficult and entirely too compartmentalized. Molecular, cellular, physiological, ecological, and evolutionary processes are intimately interdependent; we can and should learn how to confine specific research studies to the appropriate scale, but the results are still meaningful at all levels of organization.

MD's are technicians, not scientists. Different education altogether. ANd a good thing too. THey have a lot riding on their ability to be a good technician and almost nothing riding on their understanding of just about anything else.

Julie,

So, from a policy standpoint (forgive me, I'm a state DOE employee), what do you think would be a solution to that issue?

If we're trying to "reform" our standards for biology PhDs and MDs, is that something that accrediting bodies need to do, or is something that should be left to self-regulation by degree-granting universities and medical schools?

I vote for the latter.

while i share Julie's lament at the changes made to the graduate training program in physiology, there's always reasons for that.

One would hope by the time that a biology major reaches grad school, that they themselves will realize the importance of understanding the fundamental theories of biology at a graduate level. If they don't, then one can only hope that their advisors make it clear to them. If both the student and the advisor fail, then the program itself starts to become suspect, and no amount of classwork will fix it.

The only thing i wonder is what kind of orals exams are these candidates given?

Seriously don't you think that over pandering to postmodernist "equal time for kooky ideas" is why this whole thing is such a big problem.

It is almost as though everyone is treating each other as though they were over emotionally sensitive babies.

There probably is a history behind the letter and there does seem to be a sense of frustration, but their professional reputations are at stake as well.

Daddy what did you do in the culture wars ?

Keep in mind that Howard what's his name at the DI wants to have a Theocracy that would make the Taliban blush.

What makes you think that it is not already in place?

When was the last time a modern western country had to have a priest say a prayer before, probably the foremost authority in the world on High School Biology textbooks, gave a talk on evolution?

When was the last time your religious credentials were called into question?

Why do journalists in the major press have to declare they are church goers.

Not to mention the questioning of a Judges religious convictions or for that matter a Presidents ?

So, from a policy standpoint (forgive me, I'm a state DOE employee), what do you think would be a solution to that issue? If we're trying to "reform" our standards for biology PhDs and MDs, is that something that accrediting bodies need to do, or is something that should be left to self-regulation by degree-granting universities and medical schools?

MD's are technicians, not scientists

actually, they're supposed to be diagnosticians. not quite the same as a technician.

I'm not exactly advocating government intervention in higher ed, although it definitely and justifiably happens (e.g. with state universities and any federal regulations tied to funding).

But we've seen some examples (Ely, Behe) already of people who are supposedly expert scientists putting religion first, science second. You'd hope that whatever system we have would be better at weeding these people out.

Relying on self-regulation works fine most of the time, but it relies of unwritten rules based on collective conscience - unfortunately, some degree-granting institutions don't really *have* much of a conscience where science education is concerned, yet on paper they're accredited and just as "valid" as other institutions.

RBH-

it depends on the level of skill you're talking about.

to be a computer diagnostician doesn't require knowledge of particle level physics, but it does require a good knowledge of general electronics, as you point out.

in the same way, an MD doesn't require knowledge of physical chemistry in order to make diagnoses, but does require a good knowledge of physiology, genetics, developmental biology, etc.

if you say they don't require knowledge of evolutionary biology, then how do you think a GP without such knowledge would deal with bacterial resistance in his patients, for example.

I guess he'd have to use a lifeline, eh?

by the time a student gets to med school, it is assumed the ALREADY have a good background in the relevant fields, so i can understand why evolutionary biology and developmental biology might not be stressed, for example, but that doesn't mean they aren't valuable assets in diagnostics.

From a policy standpoint, I think it is incumbent upon universities to police themselves.

Ultimately, the embarassment that people like Behe bring upon their respective insititutions might be the driving factor. Just imagine how that must influence the decisions of potential bio students going to Lehigh...

Seriously don't you think that over pandering to postmodernist "equal time for kooky ideas" is why this whole thing is such a big problem. It is almost as though everyone is treating each other as though they were over emotionally sensitive babies. There probably is a history behind the letter and there does seem to be a sense of frustration, but their professional reputations are at stake as well. Daddy what did you do in the culture wars ?

S TJ,
Not really, they don't need to know that stuff. They need to know what drugs or treatments work on specific things. They are trained in the list of "specific things". Doesn't mean that most Dr.'s don't know biology but it does mean they don't necessarily have to. My aunt is a MD and she doesn't know squat about hardly anything except the details of pathology. Identifying specific types of things.

BWE, How dare you,EVERYONE knows so-called science is just a big pile of secular lies made up solely to take the credit away from God. There is no other way of putting it! They need to stop calling it Biology, Chemistry, Astronomy, and Physics. Do they think that the people of God are going to stand by like idiots and let them rot this country's education system with the mythology of evolution. Truth can't be found in the light of a Bunson Burner. It can only be seen in the Light of God's Word. And that is only found in the Bible. The Bible will tell you that God did not make man from so-called carbon; He made him with dirt.
Scientist are nothing more than Satanists with spectacles and pockets full of pencils and rulers. In fact, the word "scientist" is actually a Latin translation for "Satanist.

Re "Scientist are nothing more than Satanists with spectacles and pockets full of pencils and rulers."

And slide rules - don't forget the slide rules. ;)

Henry, I did my graduate work over 20 years ago and I never once used a slide rule. I did become a satanist though. It's one of the entrance requirements for graduate work in science @ UW (huskies). I more thought of it as taking Judaism if you marry a Jew though. More like lip service.

In fact, the word "scientist" is actually a Latin translation for "Satanist.

Julie, So, from a policy standpoint (forgive me, I'm a state DOE employee), what do you think would be a solution to that issue? If we're trying to "reform" our standards for biology PhDs and MDs, is that something that accrediting bodies need to do, or is something that should be left to self-regulation by degree-granting universities and medical schools?

Bill C, You may offer some clever scientific statement, but hell is for real,and teaching so called science to our children will send them straight there.
Jesus told us that we need to become like children if we want to get into Heaven. You see, Jesus doesn't want us to get puffed up with so-called education and knowledge,scientists(satanists) would have you believe that salvation can be found in the accumulation of knowledge. They say that "knowledge" will set you free, hogwash,according to our Lord and Savior, we know that all knowledge outside of the Holy Bible is a lie.

It is clear from these statements about his own research that Dr. Ely knows literally nothing about the evolutionary processes that he claims to be competent enough to criticize, which is understandable in that he is a physiologist with no graduate-level training in evolutionary biology whatsoever.

— Richard B. Hoppe

Oops, it was the Akron biologists' letter, not Richard B. Hoppe, that was the source of my quote above.

hell is real, huh .....usually because ignorance is bliss

sorry couldnt resist

frankly i dont think that letter from dr ely's colleagues was harsh at all....he doesnt know sh*t and he shouldnt profess to be an expert
and i hate to type, so sorry,no caps

I don't see any harshness in the letter that isn't apropos to the context. Andrea's suspicion is, AFAICS, without foundation.

Identifying specific types of things

actually, they're supposed to be diagnosticians. not quite the same as a technician.

She is one of the best pathologists in Arizona. She's fabulous at both diagnosis and technical ability. Neither of those require a deep, meaningful understanding of much outside of her bubble. It just so happens that she accepted evolution as real because she wasn't poisoned by a church before medical school. However, plate tectonics is something she has simply never considered. If she would have gone to med school already poisoned by church she would have had no problem denying evo and still being as good as she is.

ToeJam wrote "One would hope by the time that a biology major reaches grad school, that they themselves will realize the importance of understanding the fundamental theories of biology at a graduate level. If they don't, then one can only hope that their advisors make it clear to them. If both the student and the advisor fail, then the program itself starts to become suspect, and no amount of classwork will fix it.

The only thing i wonder is what kind of orals exams are these candidates given?"

Well, some Universities I know have faculty from allied fields as examiners. This is done so that individual departments don't screw the pooch with respect to standards, and to make sure students are well rounded.

Seems like something was either missing from Ely's education or was absent.

"Seems like something was either missing from Ely's education or was absent."

THat should read, either something was missing from Ely's examinations or was absent from his curriculum..

Probably both.

Well, some Universities I know have faculty from allied fields as examiners

I don't think it's constructive to belittle physicians. Clinical medicine, like biological research, requires specific skills. In each field, there are people who are narrowly focused and people who are broad, synthetic thinkers. Some clinicians are also terrific researchers, while others are either mediocre researchers or have no interest in research.

I suspect that creationist physicians, like creationist biochemists, can become good at compartmentalizing their beliefs. It would probably be very easy to follow clinical guidelines that have an evolutionary rationale ("Now remember to take all your amoxicillin, even if you feel better ...") while completely tuning out any thoughts about why this is necessary. The problem isn't so much whether such a physician would be competent to diagnose and treat illness -- it's whether this person is considered, by the public, a credible source on all aspects of science simply by virtue of having an MD.

As for the letter of complaint about Ely: His colleagues were well within their rights to write it, and I applaud them for it. Ely certainly has the freedom to hold a disputed belief, and to speak about it on his own behalf. He had no right, however, to lie about the work and the professional opinions of other faculty members.

I don't think it's constructive to belittle physicians.

As for the letter of complaint about Ely: His colleagues were well within their rights to write it, and I applaud them for it. Ely certainly has the freedom to hold a disputed belief, and to speak about it on his own behalf. He had no right, however, to lie about the work and the professional opinions of other faculty members.

I prefer the term Davetard, named after Dave Springer

I'm sorry. I tried to make it clear that I'm not belittling physicians. It's just that it is pretty easy to compartmentalize in med school. It is more like technical training that requires some biology. Most of the "science" for med school is undergraduate. Not that Dr.'s are stupid but that it's not really "science" that they do. It's more physiology. Very few Dr.'s are involved in research and lots of Dr.'s are specialists. So, thinking that there is something about med school or the medical profession that immunized a med student against creationist drivel is probably mistaken. Other than that you would think that any education at all would do that. Thinking in general ought to do the trick but, as Dr. Ely proves, that is not always the case.

If what you are trying to say is that MD's have no training or background in the skills necessary for diagnostics, either you are mistaken, or it's become even more pathetic than i had imagined. If the latter, combined with the mess HMO's have made of things, you can kiss decent health care goodbye.

— STJ

you can kiss decent health care goodbye

If you haven't kissed decent health care goodbye yet... You're too late.

Well, I'm quite sure it had at least one foot out the door a few years ago. I walked into an ER with a chest injury sustained at work. After some X-Rays and two hours sitting in the ER without having seen a doctor, one stuck his head into my little cubicle and informed me that my ribs were not broken. Which I found rather confusing, since one of them was sticking out of my chest like that little guy from "Alien" just before he broke the skin. I grabbed his hand and stuck it under my shirt (didn't even get a thrill) and asked him to repeat his diagnosis. Then I marched him down the hall to make him show me the X-Rays. They didn't even develop. His response? "Well we don't do anything for broken ribs anyway."

Sorry, didn't mean to hijack the thread.

I'm not a scientist, historian, philosopher, or artist. That's just the view from a Carpenter's son.

While it is clear that Ely is an idiot, claiming that a scientist isn't qualified to speak on a scientific subject because he has no "graduate-level training" in it is pretty bogus. Science doesn't work that way. I study microbial genomes, but I never took a "genomics" course, because in my day (not too long ago) such things didn't exist.

A more useful critique would be that Ely hasn't *published* any papers on the subject of evolution.

Frank J. asked: Why is it so hard for anyone to even mention the possibility that these people understand and privately accept evolution, but misrepresent it for the sake of the big tent?

While it is clear that Ely is an idiot, claiming that a scientist isn't qualified to speak on a scientific subject because he has no "graduate-level training" in it is pretty bogus. Science doesn't work that way.

— Jonathan Badger

Because Dr. Ely has no training in evolutionary biology, and because his publications do not reveal any inclination to apply his results to evolutionary theory, we feel that he has misrepresented himself by agreeing to testify as a type of "expert witness" as to the validity of the statement that there is molecular evidence that "tends to not support the idea of common ancestry."

It is clear from these statements about his own research that Dr. Ely knows literally nothing about the evolutionary processes that he claims to be competent enough to criticize, which is understandable in that he is a physiologist with no graduate-level training in evolutionary biology whatsoever.

A more useful critique would be that Ely hasn't *published* any papers on the subject of evolution.

Quetzal said:
Their problem is that evolution conflicts with the accepted truths of their religion

More like "the problem" is that;
...what they have been told to accept as "truth" about reality from respected elders (foreskin collectors) in their social group during childhood is so contrary to man's actual knowledge of reality and nature that to reject it would cause a crisis in personal identity and rejection from that group.

And that they actually lack the ability to become properly functioning self aware adults but merely non-questioning absolutist robotic clones, slaves to an identity.

Remove their so called "truth" and they loose their mind...literally and that rejection of knowledge is the clever paradox of the cult ....you all know where the word "martyr" comes from?.

Existence and its very meaning of "being" can be manipulated by just a few clever stories and the effect is so powerful that whole societies can share a "reality" that can motivate a nation to go to war seemingly against the "reason" of free will.

It's called "social realism" and YOU ARE living IN IT.

Goebbels was interviewed by an American Journalist just before WWII as was asked [This is from memory so it's anecdotal]
"How hard it was to prepare a country for war" his reply
"Very easy, just create "the other", an enemy, and tell everyone how evil they are"

Man's ability to socialize in very large groups must be an evolutionary beneficial trait so I would suggest we are "hard wired" to accept anything as true and defend it to the death either physically OR the accept the death of the EGO...the conscious identity of self and projected as a persona through an actors mask.

Here is an example *to be read in a subjective manner*.In Buddhism so-called Nirvana is reached after many deaths and rebirths of the ego (in the here and now) THAT is what is meant by re-incarnation NOT an actual physical death, although the experience may be that cathartic that it seems like death with the consequent rebirth of the 'new more knowledgeable/wise' self. Note the parallel with the re-born Christian convert if young JC had lived to ripe old age instead of trying to change the world overnight and ticking off the local oligarchy Christan's may have found out what the next step IS. I know this may seem irrational to some, but show me a rational human.... and don't expect me to stop laughing for ..oh ..a week.

Strangely if one was to look hard enough it may be in the words of some of the Gnostic's in the west and it is hinted at in the Egyptian book of the dead with the final step before death of the person metaphorically eating up all their ego projections through life and absolving themselves at the time of death.

The further one removes oneself from the here and now (viewing the world through the culturally free child's eye Christ kept talking about) the further one puts off the inevitable acceptance of reality. Are you listening Carol ?

Fundamentalists become worm food whether they like it or not and no there isn't a place in the clouds where life is wonderful all the time. They a dangerous and driven
....its called animal survival and when you mess with nature be prepared for a few scratches and that is putting it mildly.

"The U. of Akron letter didn't make that argument."

I take your word that it didn't, but the supposed "money quote" (whatever that is) certainly seems to:

"It is clear from these statements about his own research that Dr. Ely knows literally nothing about the evolutionary processes that he claims to be competent enough to criticize, which is understandable in that he is a physiologist with no graduate-level training in evolutionary biology whatsoever."

My point is that "physiologist with no graduate-level training in evolutionary biology whatsoever" is irrelevant. As you say, had Ely made similar statements even with such a background (as indeed people like Kurt Wise do), they would be equally bogus.

"Well we don't do anything for broken ribs anyway."

KE:

perhaps this is the Goering quote you were thinking of:

http://home.earthlink.net/~tjneal/goering.jpg

you can kiss decent health care goodbye