Reflectorites
On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:30:28 EDT, Huxter4441@aol.com wrote:
[...]
>HX>...This 'molecular and cell biologist' - whom, by the way,
>>got his degree from Berekely then split but continues to use the affiliation
>>for obvious reasons
SJ>What is Huxter's point here? It says "a molecular and cell biologist *from*
>[not at] the University of California at Berkeley".
[...]
HX>'It' may very well say that, yet Wells often 'signs' his letters to the
>editor as "Jon Wells, Ph.D. Dept. of Molecular and Cell Biology, UC
>Berkeley" or words to that effect. The impression he hopes to leave is - or
>at least should be - clear.
I would be interested in seeing an example. In the current mail that I have
seen Wells signs his name as:
"Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.
Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture
Discovery Institute, Seattle"
See for example his recent letter on his web page at:
http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_significancepm.htm
[...]
SJ>Wells is not obliged to remain at Berkeley for the rest of his career, and
>he is perfectly entitled to mention where he got his Ph.D.
[...]
HX>Sure. But who else do you know that, despite no longer being at a certain
>university, still refer to themselves as being affiliated with that
>university?
First I would like to see Huxter's *evidence* that Wells still signs his name
as "`Jon Wells, Ph.D. Dept. of Molecular and Cell Biology, UC Berkeley
or words to that effect".
HX>He may be entitled to say where he got his degree, but is he
>entitled to make it appear as though he is still there?
See above.
>HX>- has published a whopping THREE scientific publications.
SJ>"THREE scientific publications" doesn't sound bad at all to me, considering
>Wells has only recently (i.e. in the last few years) got his Ph.D.
[...]
HX>No, it isn't bad if indeed he recently graduated. But he is often referred
>to as a 'researcher' - I once even read a newspaper article where he was
>referred to as a 'cutting edge researcher' - yet he no longer does research
>and in order to be 'cutting edge', one actually has to do something...
>well... cutting edge.
If Huxter had had any experience with journalists he would know that they
(and their editors) frequently change things to make them sound better for
their target audience.
HX>I had 4 publications BEFORE I had my Ph.D. I guess
>you should be mighty impressed.... right?
I am not even "mighty impressed" by Well's Ph.D (or his publications) but I
am "impressed" by *any* Ph.D, including both Well's and Huxter's.
SJ>But anyway, so what? This might seem important to Huxter if he is a
>research scientist, but I doubt that it would be important to the other
>99.9% of the population. If Wells was continuing in research that might be
>a valid point but he isn't. He has bigger fish to fry. Besides, Wells, like
>every other Ph.D has it for *life*, regardless if they never publish another
>paper in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
[...]
HX>1) You got it exactly backwards. 99.9% of the population (actually, I'd drop
>the number a bit...) is impressed by the fact that he seems to be affiliated
>with UC Berkeley.
See above. I doubt it.
HX>It is 'important' to research scientists in that they know
>what he is doing, i.e., trying to gain/maintain credibility for his ID claims
>by maintaining an affiliation with UCB.
See above.
HX>Why doesn't he list his affiliation
>with the DI instead? he is THERE now, is he not?
He does. See above.
HX>Who else - besides
>creationists - hawk their former affiliations more than their present ones?
Wells can't be a "creationist" then, because he does not (AFAIK) "hawk"
his "former affiliations more than their present ones".
HX>2) What 'bigger fish' does a 'cutting edge researcher' have to fry?
See above on "cutting edge researcher".
His new book for starters.
HX>Literature reviews? Text book 'grading'? Making presentations at ID
>meetings and writing letters to the editor?
That also.
HX>3) Yes, Wells is a Ph.D. for life, but he is not affiliated with UCB for life
Actually he probably is. I did my Bachelor of Health with the University of
New South Wales in the 1970's and they are always sending me stuff, even
though I never reciprocate.
Huxter might be surprised that UCB might be *proud* for Wells to remain
affiliated with them.
Johnson has continued to be promoted at UCB and part of their merit
system is the number of books sold, and Johnson is probably easily their
best-selling author. The Biology Dept mightn't like it but there is more to a
university than the Biology Dept.
HX>- or after getting his degree there and then leaving.
See above.
HX>This is reminiscent of
>Sewell's claim to fame about being at Los Alamos during WWII.
Who is Sewell?
Besides Wells *was* at UCB and *did* get one of his Ph.Ds there.
[...]
SJ>BTW how many scientific publications has *Huxter* published, when, and
>what are *their* titles?
[...]
HX>Posted in another message. I'm sure that they are not quite as impressive as
>Wells' 3 pubs on xenopus development...
They are impressive. However, I don't like to be picky but none of these
were by you alone and only two list your name first. Were Wells' "3 pubs
on xenopus development" by him alone?
>HX>I guess he must be an expert on all aspects of evolution, what with such
>>an impressive scientific background.
SJ>Wells does not claim to be "an expert on all aspects of evolution."
[...]
HX>You are correct... I guess writing about anatomy... fossils... development...
>homology.... and so on is fine - they must all be covered in the Molecular
>and cell biology graduate course work at UCB.
Huxter forgets that macroevolution is supposed to be so simple that school
kids in Kansas *must* be taught it, and that anyone who doesn't believe it
must be "...ignorant, stupid or insane ... or wicked..." (Dawkins R., New
York Times, April 9, 1989)
Wells has a Ph.D in Theology (Yale) and Biology (Berkeley), so that
makes him *better* qualified to write on creation/evolution than most.
[...]
SJ>But the interesting thing here is the double-standard that evolutionists
>claim that their theory is so simple to understand that even school kids in Kansas
>can (and indeed *must*) be taught it. Yet when a Ph.D in biology from
>Berkeley criticized it, it suddenly becomes so hard to understand that one
>must be "an expert on all aspects of evolution".
[...]
HX>When a Ph.D. working for the religio-political Discovery Institute writes
>biased diatribes about evolution, it irks those in the know.
And of course Huxter does not write "biased diatribes about" creation and
ID!
HX>It is not
>that it is hard ot understand the basics. It is that there are areas of
>science
We are not talking of "science" (which includes Quantum Physics) but
Evolutionary Biology.
HX>that are so technical that unless one has the appropriate background
>and training it is, indeed, over their heads.
No doubt there is "technical" aspects of Evolutionary Biology but Gould
and Dawkins and all the other popular book writers have never said that
the main things are not understandable by the intelligent layman.
HX>I am not necessarily referring
>to Wells or anyone in particular, but in general. What I find interesting is
>that folks like you - admitted laymen - tend to 'side with'
>anti-evolutionists on technical matters despite admitting to be unable to
>understand the issues!
Where did I say I was "unable to understand the issues" period? Besides, as
I posted to Chris, I did get a High Distinction (92%) in my first Semester
unit entitled "Origins and the Evolution of Life". This is the main Evolution
unit in the whole degree. While this is admittedly only a first step, it is
incorrect to say that I am "unable to understand the issues".
[...]
>HX>Of course, he also has a Ph.D. in some
>>aspect of religion, wherein his thesis was on how bad the teaching of
>>evolution is to the minds of youngsters.
SJ>So Wells has *two* Ph.D's? What is Huxter's qualifications?
[...]
HX>I posted that already.
Yes. Thanks.
HX>Yes, he has *two* Ph.D.s. I wonder who - or what
>organizations - footed the bills for that? Maybe the Unification Church?
>ANyway, it is pretty clear why he got the second.
Who cares who paid for it/then or why he got it/them? The fact is Well
*has* got a Ph.D in Theology and one in Biology.
SJ>Also Well's doesn't hide behind a pseudonym. Why does Huxter? I can
>understand someone who is a creationist or anti evolutionist scientist at a
>secular university being worried that if his name became known, he might
>be discriminated against by his evolutionist superiors. But that presumably
>doesn't apply to Huxter unless he is secretly on the staff of the ICR!
[...]
HX>Also explained this.
Thanks to Huxter, I mean Scott! :-)
HX>I, of course, am not getting paid by an 'institute' to
>'spread' my message and instill the culture with my 'worldview'.
Yes Huxter is, although he might not realise it.
>HX>Yeah, I'd hang my hat on his every word. Ad hom, right? Not really.
SJ>Who would?
[...]
HX>Well, it seems many do.....
Do they?
[...]
>HX>In
>>addition to the rebuttals mentioned by others, wherein Wells tends to ...
>>shall we say, exaggerate a bit,
SJ>Doesn't *everyone*? Including Huxter?
[...]
HX>I don't know - have I? It is your claim, please support or retract it.
It was a question, not a "claim".
[...]
>HX>it is hardly ad hominem to take the words of
>>one with a grain of salt
SJ>I am sure that Wells would be quite happy with people not uncritically
>accepting what he said but checking it up for themselves.
[...]
HX>You are? What makes you so sure?
I know Wells better than Huxter.
But in answer to Huxter's next question, unfortunately I am unable to
elaborate.
[...]
>HX>who has in the past demonstrated a distinct lack of
>>expertise on the very area he writes about.
SJ>Wells has a Ph.D in biology from Berkeley and another in theology (from
>Princeton?) so I presume to most fair-minded people would qualify as
>having "expertise on the very area" namely creation/evolution "he writes
>about."
[...]
HX>I see... Well, I was referring to an email from him that was posted on an
>evolution/creation discussion board some time ago in which he described the
>pharyngeal pouches in an embryo as 'tiny ridges.' They are not tiny ridges,
>as even their name implies.
If Huxter wants to produce the post I will comment on it.
[...]
SJ>But see above on the evolutionist double standard. I haven't noticed
>Huxter remonstrating with evolutionists on this List who have no formal
>"expertise on the very area", namely creation/evolution that *they* write
>about.
[...]
HX>I haven't seen any of their 'popular' books on the subject. I haven't seen
>the itineraries for their cross-country speaking tours. I have not heard
>their radio interviews or seen them on Nightline. I have yet to see any of
>them be given a 'no rebuttals, please' audience before Congress. Heck, I
>have not even seen any of their "Look, I have disproved ID" websites.
I was talking about this discussions on this List.
With Ph.Ds in Theology and Biology Wells is eminently well qualified to
do all the above things.
[...]
HX>Have you? An internet discussion is not quite the same thing as a published
>book claiming to have all the answers, is it?
Have I what?
And where does Wells claim his book has "all the answers"?
[...]
>HX>But I'm sure his book or pamphlet or whatever it is will be gobbled up by
>>folks like DNAunion....
SJ>I understand it is being "gobbled up by" a *lot* of "folks"!
[...]
HX>Lay folks like you, I don't doubt it. Lay folk want the easy answers.
>ID/creationism gives it to them.
I would have thought that if anything the "easy answers" have been
peddled by evolutionists for years.
I myself just accepted evolution's "easy answers" for about 10-15 years
because I was too lazy to check things out for myself. It is only when I
became dissatisfied with evolution's "easy answers" and started looking at
the evidence that I took up "ID/creationism".
Besides, Huxter himself believes the "easy answers" that evolutionists have
peddled about "ID/creationism", if his simplistic statements on those topics
is anything to go by.
The problem for Huxter and his ilk is that "Lay folk" are the *voters* who
ultimately pay for science. The evidence is that they are becoming
increasingly dissatisfied with the "easy answers" that the evolutionists have
been telling them all these years.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of
having been designed for a purpose." (Dawkins R., "The Blind
Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.1)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 24 2000 - 19:07:47 EDT