Re: General Response

Steve Clark (ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu)
Tue, 01 Jun 1999 17:03:57 -0500

At 03:42 PM 5/31/99 -0400, paracelcus@email.com wrote:
>Steve Clark wrote:
>Since my PhD is in immunogenetics, and I am interested in the regulation
of immunoglobulin gene rearrangment during lymphocyte development, I find
this observation intriguing. Also intriguing is the fact that I have not
encountered this research before. Do you have citations I can look up? If
that is too much trouble, perhaps you can pass along the fellow'sname and I
could do a medline search and dig his/her research up.
>
>My comments:
>Since he work was kept from being published, there are no citations I can
give you. None of his earlier work touches on that subject, so knowing his
name would do you no good.
>
>I am also suspicious of your true motives, considering how you dismissed
my previous comments. You should know (assuming you are a college
professor as your e-mail address implies, and not just some research tech
full of himself) that what I have said is true, yet you pretend otherwise.
Perhaps if you started being more honest about the flaws of evolutionary
theory, I may decide to take the risk and send you my colleague's
unpublished manuscript.
>Paracelcus

Paracelcus,

How did I dismiss your previous comments? I simply disagreed with your
assessment of Mike Behe and his book. I wrote:

"Someone, I believe Paraclesus, claimed that Behe is an eminent scientist.
However, his publication record (listed in part above) suggests that he is
adequate but mediocre. Most of the citations listed above are not
peer-reviewed research papers. He has published a bit on DNA
structure/function, mostly in secondary journals, but his record would not
likely be sufficient for tenure at the University of Wisconsin. I haven't
looked at his CV in a year or two, but when I did, he had not published
research papers on evolution. Finally, his book should not be taken as a
research contribution. And for Paraclesus to call it brilliant is, I
believe, an overstatement. It seems to simply reiterate the old Watchmaker
Hypothesis and only criticizes a very basic Darwinian paradigm. Other
paradigms that are consistent with a selection-driven evolution are really
not excluded from Mike's critique."

In your reply to me, you complain that this is a dismissal of you, but then
you go on to impugn my integrity and motives, apparently only based on my
comment above. I don't have the time or interest to play these sorts of
games with you or anyone else. However, I am willing to engage in an open
and honest discussion with you, but only if you are willing to do likewise.
Similarly, I would be happy to look at your colleague's unpublished
manuscript, but only if you expect from me a candid, honest opinion of it.
If you require me to pass some sort of a dogmatic litmus test prior to
sending the manuscript, then don't bother me with it.

For your information, I am a university professor, and my experience on the
evolution/creation front has been much different than yours. I just
finished teaching a course on philosophy of science and research ethics for
our graduate students and students in the UW MD/PhD program. In the
philosophy of science part of the class, I focused a great deal on the
creation/evolution debate because I think it is an excellent way to
challenge students to consider what science is. The students even read
some of Behe's book in addition to other material from Del RAtsch, Fred
Grinnell, Phil Johnson and myself. In the class, I spent a good deal of
time critiquing the philosophy behind both sides of this debate. For one
class assignment, the students wrote a letter to a hypothetical school
board in which they argued their position on teaching creation science. To
my surprise, three-fourths of the class supported teaching creation science
as well as evolution because they thought that the different viewpoints
should be taught. Only one student was adamantly opposed to teaching any
creation science and she had some difficulty with my position on the issue.

I have written articles in the local press about the problems with creation
science as well as about problems with claims made by evolutionists (I
began doing this before I got tenure).

A couple of years ago, I sat in on a philosophy of biology seminar for
philosophy graduate students that was taught by Eliot Sobor, who chairs the
UW philosophy department. Eliot's speciality is the philosophy of
evolution. In the course, he covered the creationist philosophy of science
and did a very credible job with it. In fact, in the class there were two
students who were openly creationist and who engaged Sobor and the rest of
the class in a very good discussion. There was zero hostility. In sum, I
do not find the antipathy of creation science to be as wide spread and
conspiratorial as you do.

Finally, I encourage you to enter into the debate on this reflector without
the secrecy you have shrouded yourself with. IHowever, if you really feel
that is not possible, then I encourage you to wait to participate here
until you feel that you could be more candid in your comments. This is
only fair to the rest of us.

Cheers,

Steve
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. Ph: 608-263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: 263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin
School of Medicine
600 Highland Ave
Madison, WI 53792

http://www1.bocklabs.wisc.edu/profiles/Clark,Steven.html