In a message dated 10/24/2000 7:08:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
sejones@iinet.net.au writes:
<< [...]
>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
==================================
Current, yes. Perhaps that is because of the number of people that have
contacted UCB over the years asking if indeed Wells is a 'researcher' or
post-doc there. Here:
http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_edmontonsun100800.htm
he is referred to as "Dr. Jonathan Wells, a molecular and cell biologist from
the University of California at Berkeley who is a senior fellow of the
Discovery Institute...". Why not just say "Dr.Jon Wells, a senior fellow of
the DI"?
Or here: http://detnews.com/EDITPAGE/9903/14/edit4/edit4.htm
"Jonathan Wells is a University of California, Berkeley post-doctoral
research biologist and a senior fellow at the Seattle-based Discovery
Institute."
You will notice that I put 'signs' in single quotes. I don't know what the
exact convention is, but I meant that to imply that it was not an actual
signature, but how he is referred to. I do not think that journalists simply
throw in any old description - indeed, I was asked how I should be described
when I wrote a letter to the editor once. I would assume that since the
article in the Detroit News mentioned above was an article, not aletter,
that he would have been at least consulted if he had not actually written his
'biosketch' himself (dated 1999, by the way).
===================================
[...]
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>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.
============================
So you are a journalism expert, too?
============================
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.
======================
Well, I guess you're the expert.
=======================
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.
=======================
I did. So? Are you denying that he does not or has not claimed an
affiliation with UCB despite not being there?
=======================
HX>I doesn't he list his affiliation
>with the DI instead? he is THERE now, is he not?
He does. See above.
================
Yes, he does. Now. After several years, I'd say its about time!
================
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".
======================
He certainly used to. And he is most definitely a creationist. A Moonie, as
well.
=======================
HX>2) What 'bigger fish' does a 'cutting edge researcher' have to fry?
See above on "cutting edge researcher".
His new book for starters.
=====================
His new book is doubtless another piece of creationist claptrap. I've read
his online articles on some of the topics he discusses in his book. The
usual... Funny - I was under the impression that one that is referred to as
a 'molecular biologist' or an 'embryologist' might actually do research in
those areas. I think a more suitable 'title' for Wells would be, at best,
creationist author...
=====================
HX>Literature reviews? Text book 'grading'? Making presentations at ID
>meetings and writing letters to the editor?
That also.
==================
Those are the 'bigger fish' that a Berkeley educated molecular and cell
biologist has to fry?
==================
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.
=========================
I would say that you and Wells have, shall we say, original ideas on what an
affiliation entails...
==========================
Huxter might be surprised that UCB might be *proud* for Wells to remain
affiliated with them.
========================
Might be? Actually, I would be very surprised to learn of such a thing.
=========================
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.
=============================
I didn't realize that writing books on issues totally unrelated to one's
academic position would be touted.
==========================
HX>- or after getting his degree there and then leaving.
See above.
==========================
Saw it. So?
=========================
Besides Wells *was* at UCB and *did* get one of his Ph.Ds there.
=======================
Yes. WAS. Why doesn't he use his 'affiliation' with the university from
which he got his religious degree? If you can't see why, then....
========================
[...]
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?
==========================
I see you are quite unfamiliar with how the listed author 'system' operates.
Wells is only the first author on one of his papers, and he is not sole
author on any. You should know that publications by post-docs, graduate
students and so on are rarely - if ever - published as 'single author'
papers, certainly not in my experience. At least the PI of the lab is named
as well. Depending on the attitudes of those involved, the addition of
authors can include lab technicians, individuals from whom
information/materials was received, even 'proof-readers' are named on
occasion. Most single-author papers are from PIs themselves - again, this
depends a great deal on the attitudes of those involved. In my publications
in which there are multiple authors, some of them were simply folks
associated with the lab and whom had generated data that was used in the
current analysis. We are 'gracious' that way...
===================================
>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)
=========================
Funny, I thought I replied to a nearly identical claim of yours previously.
No matter - again, there are areas of any scientific field that are highly
technical, and without an appropriate level of background and training,
writing 'authoritatively' is impossible.
==========================
Wells has a Ph.D in Theology (Yale) and Biology (Berkeley), so that
makes him *better* qualified to write on creation/evolution than most.
====================
It does? I suppose. Of course, again, writing 'authoritatively' on all
areas of science is a bit presumptuous.
====================
[...]
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!
=======================
No, I don't. I don't consider internet email group replies to be
'publications', do you?
And I have not - nor do I intend to - write a book to be published by a
vanity press, without peer-review, in which I claim to have 'disproved'
creation or the like.
======================
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.
======================
And EB is a very broad field as well. Or didn't you know that?
=====================
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.
===========================
Ahhhh - here it is! 'Main things' is the key word. I understand the 'main
things' about creationism, but that does not qualify me to write
authoritatively about the bible.
===========================
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".
=====================
Did you not, in a previous email, claim - exclamation mark and all - that
your knowledge of the topic is indeed limited (as a layman, I recall you
qualified it with...)?
Its nice that you got a 92%. That covered what - a few fossils and maybe the
Miller-Urey experiments and such?
========================
[...]
>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.
========================
If you say so.... Wells is the only Ph.D. I know of that went on the write
books and online articles solely on an area that he did no research on....
Maybe its just me...
==========================
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.
==========================
No, I am not. I do not get paid to write letters to the editor or op-ed
pieces for newspapers. I do not get paid to travel the country giving
'lectures' to church groups and laymen on the 'evidence' for belief X. I do
not even mention evolution in my general biology class. How, exactly, am I
doing what you say I do not even realise?
===========================
>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?
============================
Yes, many do. I have read their posts on internet discussion boards.
==========================
[...]
>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".
============================
It was a implicit claim - let's not get into playing the semantics game. I
have not (yet! :) ) had to exaggerate.
============================
[...]
>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.
==============================
You do? I don't know him at all, so I guess you do. Funny then that , since
you know him so well, you didn't know that he had a previous religious
degree... Maybe he just doesn't publicize that one too much.
=============================
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.
========================
I believe I have it archived on my other computer. I will look for it later.
It occurred over a year ago.
=========================
[...]
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.
==========================
Perhaps, but I thought the discussion was about Wells, arguably a 'nationally
known' individual - at least to those that follow the cre/evo debate.
===========================
With Ph.Ds in Theology and Biology Wells is eminently well qualified to
do all the above things.
============================
Actually, I would say he is 'eminently qualified' to do the above as they
pertain to his doctoral work, not all topics religious and scientific.
=============================
[...]
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?
============================
Seen the comparable 'work' of my 'fellow evolutionists', i.e., their vanity
press publications, 'I disproved creationism' web sites and the like. Maybe
if you did not 'cut up' messages so much you could follow the flow a bit
better. (just a suggestion)
===============================
And where does Wells claim his book has "all the answers"?
==============================
Again with the semantics. I'm sure that he nowhere claims to have all the
answers. But the implicit 'conclusion' in nearly any anti-evolution
article/book is that the author has shown that some aspect of evolution is
false.
==============================
[...]
>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.
===========================
Really? What could be 'easier' than "God did it!"?
=============================
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.
===========================
Which simplistic statements are those? I don't deny that I have probably
made some, but I will need to see your *evidence*. (see - I can use asterisks
too!) I have read many articles on the topic. I have read Denton's EaTiC,
Behe's book, Johnson's DoT, and Cohen's silly diatribe. Sorry if I don't
take the time to post lengthy critiques. I got the gist of those books, and
since all they seemed to offer was simplistic gibberish, I feel that that is
all they deserve in response.
=============================
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.
=============================
My 'ilk'? And I thought we were such pals! I find it interesting that this
voter dissatisfaction seems to correlate with an increasing level of
ignorance of science and an increase in religious affiliation. For example,
a few years ago a Detroit TV station did a poll. They found that something
like 60% of Detroiters believe in a God-only creation. They also reported in
the same poll that a comparable number believed that the sun revolved around
the earth. No, I cannot provide documentation or a link or an article. Just
my memory, but I think more recent polls show similar results. But its
just a coincidence, I'm sure...
=================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 25 2000 - 07:39:11 EDT