Several years back, I took an evolutionary biology class as part of getting in an ecology phd. I had some very serious issues with the class. Now, understand, I believe in evolution explicitly and have no use for creationism.

My issue was how the culture of the science is taking on religious traits, like the Darwin Messiah bit. I did a little analysis on the required reading - it mentioned Darwin more often than the Old Testament mentions God. I took three semesters of calculus and never once was Newton mentioned, because Newton is irrelevant to the science of calculus. So why did the final have a question about Darwin's exercise habits? "If you see the Buddha walking down the road, hit him with a stick" = hero worship only interferes with learning a subject.

I believe that the explanation of the origin of life on earth will always be speculation. My prof dismissed panspermia with creationism, but I don't see that. We've been testing it for decades, throwing lumps of metal covered with bacteria at dead worlds. No dice yet, but we're not dealing with good candidates either. He also used the fact that rabbits eat their feces as an argument against the existence of God, meaning I had to argue it, as the proposition is mindless (so, are nice smelling flowers an argument for God?), and was henceforth labelled a creationist (because, apparently, there are only Rational Scientists and Bible Thumpers in the world). In any case, that doesn't belong in the class. It's like taking embryology and getting pro-abortion lectures. The only way to describe the lectures is 'dogmatic'. If fact, I answered an exam question correctly and got no credit because it wasn't the answer mentioned in the lecture.

The whole experience bothered me a lot. I consider science to be a method for forming and testing hypotheses, and, secondarily, the body of data so collected. There seems to be a process whereby people who are persecuted become like their tormentors (copying a prosurvival trait), and I think it's happening to evo bio. Or maybe it was just one nut case.

Lysenko had far more of a 'personality cult' (if that is what you're getting at about Darwin) in the Soviet Union, and it was to their detriment; that had they picked Darwin over Lysenko, they'd be FAR better off today.

Evolution favors Darwinism over Lysenkoism, in other words.

(December 27, 2014 at 12:42 am)tantric Wrote: Several years back, I took an evolutionary biology class as part of getting in an ecology phd. I had some very serious issues with the class. Now, understand, I believe in evolution explicitly and have no use for creationism.

Agreeing with the factually correct position isn't going to save you, if you say stupid things.

Quote:My issue was how the culture of the science is taking on religious traits, like the Darwin Messiah bit. I did a little analysis on the required reading - it mentioned Darwin more often than the Old Testament mentions God.

The novel I'm currently working on uses the word "the" more times than the Old Testament mentions god too, I'm sure. Does that mean, therefore, that my kinky romance novel is religious toward the word "the"? Or can we all just acknowledge that word usage is not a reliable indicator of the contents of the book, over... the contents of the book?

Quote: I took three semesters of calculus and never once was Newton mentioned, because Newton is irrelevant to the science of calculus.

Newton may be, but Newton's ideas might not be. And if the book happened to use Newton's name a lot in reference to his ideas, would that too mean religious fervor to you? Or would you use Occam's Razor and just conclude that, perhaps, the writer was kinda bad at his job?

Quote: So why did the final have a question about Darwin's exercise habits? "If you see the Buddha walking down the road, hit him with a stick" = hero worship only interferes with learning a subject.

Would a question on Darwin's exercise habits exclusively lead you to the conclusion of hero worship, or would you allow yourself to think other, perhaps less intellectually vapid thoughts on the subject? Based on the information I have now I agree that it's weird, but could it be, maybe, a tongue in cheek question to lighten the mood? Did it have some relevance to the subject at hand?

More broadly, do you always think "hero worship" when you see a single mention of a person in a test?

Quote:I believe that the explanation of the origin of life on earth will always be speculation.

The origin of life is an entirely unconnected field of study to what you came here to discuss. Did you pay much attention, in your class?

Quote: My prof dismissed panspermia with creationism, but I don't see that. We've been testing it for decades, throwing lumps of metal covered with bacteria at dead worlds. No dice yet, but we're not dealing with good candidates either.

Or possibly with the correct environments, or time scales...

Quote: He also used the fact that rabbits eat their feces as an argument against the existence of God, meaning I had to argue it, as the proposition is mindless (so, are nice smelling flowers an argument for God?), and was henceforth labelled a creationist (because, apparently, there are only Rational Scientists and Bible Thumpers in the world).

You may have had a lousy teacher, there.

Quote:In any case, that doesn't belong in the class. It's like taking embryology and getting pro-abortion lectures. The only way to describe the lectures is 'dogmatic'. If fact, I answered an exam question correctly and got no credit because it wasn't the answer mentioned in the lecture.

The whole experience bothered me a lot. I consider science to be a method for forming and testing hypotheses, and, secondarily, the body of data so collected. There seems to be a process whereby people who are persecuted become like their tormentors (copying a prosurvival trait), and I think it's happening to evo bio. Or maybe it was just one nut case.

So... you claim to know how the scientific method works, but you're gonna draw the conclusions you do from a sample size of one? Not only that, one college course?

Okay...

Darwin is not important to the current state of evolutionary science except for gaining an historical insight in its early development. If your college course gave you that impression, it either wasn't a very good course, or you mistook the historical exposition for a presentation of the state of the art. To claim that darwin plays the role of a messiah is silly, every biology high school student should be able to point out misconceptions in his writings. He didn't know a bunch of stuff he would have needed to properly understand inheritance. But everyone is aware of that. That's not how messiahs usually work, is it...

Quote:He also used the fact that rabbits eat their feces as an argument against the existence of God,

Did you do your PhD in bad creationist caricature University??? Your crappy college course may be the only exposure you had to evolution, but it is not representative of the work done in the field, obviously...

I am confused by the buddhism title. It does not seem to fit the person who posted.

(December 27, 2014 at 1:07 am)Esquilax Wrote: Agreeing with the factually correct position isn't going to save you, if you say stupid things.

His arguments were idiotic. There are logical means of countering God, though none of them work absolutely. "Rabbits eats their poo, yuck, no God" isn't one of them.

Quote:The novel I'm currently working on uses the word "the" more times than the Old Testament mentions god too, I'm sure. Does that mean, therefore, that my kinky romance novel is religious toward the word "the"? Or can we all just acknowledge that word usage is not a reliable indicator of the contents of the book, over... the contents of the book?

Reading Darwin's biography is a bit much. Your argument is snark - I don't do that (online).

Quote:
Newton may be, but Newton's ideas might not be. And if the book happened to use Newton's name a lot in reference to his ideas, would that too mean religious fervor to you? Or would you use Occam's Razor and just conclude that, perhaps, the writer was kinda bad at his job?
.

The author of Darwin's biography was bad at his job by mentioning the subject? A book on Galapagos spends more time talking about the Beagle than the animals? It's very deliberate.
So why did the final have a question about Darwin's exercise habits? "If you see the Buddha walking down the road, hit him with a stick" = hero worship only interferes with learning a subject.

Quote:
Would a question on Darwin's exercise habits exclusively lead you to the conclusion of hero worship, or would you allow yourself to think other, perhaps less intellectually vapid thoughts on the subject? Based on the information I have now I agree that it's weird, but could it be, maybe, a tongue in cheek question to lighten the mood? Did it have some relevance to the subject at hand?

More broadly, do you always think "hero worship" when you see a single mention of a person in a test?

Usually I think 'hero worship' when a see a historical figure being put on a pedestal and given accolades.

Quote:The origin of life is an entirely unconnected field of study to what you came here to discuss. Did you pay much attention, in your class?

The origin of life was spoken of extensively, as it is part of the refutation of God. This isn't a class about evolutionary biology, it's "Darwin was Right, Bitches".

Quote:You may have had a lousy teacher, there.


So... you claim to know how the scientific method works, but you're gonna draw the conclusions you do from a sample size of one? Not only that, one college course?

Okay...

No, I'm going to relate an anecdote. If I were working on a theory, I'd write a paper proposal, not waste my time answering snark.

Okay, about snark. Communication is when two people exchange information, making a deliberate attempt to understand each other, in order to grow and learn. Snark is when people use language in an attempt to demonstrate intellectual superiority. They problem therein is that snark is inherently emotionally immature - even if you're right, you still look like an ass.

I agree with the replies so far. You may have had a bad teacher, and possibly some weird exam questions. That's a strange and possibly bad experience.

But it's completely not representative of reality. No one (sane) worships Darwin. He's a historical figure of significance, nothing more.

I think the best course of a action is to lodge complaints about your experience to the university, if you consider them out of order.

(December 27, 2014 at 12:42 am)tantric Wrote: Several years back, I took an evolutionary biology class as part of getting in an ecology phd. I had some very serious issues with the class. Now, understand, I believe in evolution explicitly and have no use for creationism.

My issue was how the culture of the science is taking on religious traits, like the Darwin Messiah bit. I did a little analysis on the required reading - it mentioned Darwin more often than the Old Testament mentions God. I took three semesters of calculus and never once was Newton mentioned, because Newton is irrelevant to the science of calculus. So why did the final have a question about Darwin's exercise habits? "If you see the Buddha walking down the road, hit him with a stick" = hero worship only interferes with learning a subject.

I believe that the explanation of the origin of life on earth will always be speculation. My prof dismissed panspermia with creationism, but I don't see that. We've been testing it for decades, throwing lumps of metal covered with bacteria at dead worlds. No dice yet, but we're not dealing with good candidates either. He also used the fact that rabbits eat their feces as an argument against the existence of God, meaning I had to argue it, as the proposition is mindless (so, are nice smelling flowers an argument for God?), and was henceforth labelled a creationist (because, apparently, there are only Rational Scientists and Bible Thumpers in the world). In any case, that doesn't belong in the class. It's like taking embryology and getting pro-abortion lectures. The only way to describe the lectures is 'dogmatic'. If fact, I answered an exam question correctly and got no credit because it wasn't the answer mentioned in the lecture.

The whole experience bothered me a lot. I consider science to be a method for forming and testing hypotheses, and, secondarily, the body of data so collected. There seems to be a process whereby people who are persecuted become like their tormentors (copying a prosurvival trait), and I think it's happening to evo bio. Or maybe it was just one nut case.

Did you report the professor?

I'd like to see evidence for your claims: your calculations of the frequency of the mention of Darwin vs God, a picture of your final, too. This thread doesn't pass the smell test without some support -- it's looks like a windup from here.

---

(December 27, 2014 at 2:42 am)tantric Wrote: Okay, about snark. Communication is when two people exchange information, making a deliberate attempt to understand each other, in order to grow and learn. Snark is when people use language in an attempt to demonstrate intellectual superiority. They problem therein is that snark is inherently emotionally immature - even if you're right, you still look like an ass.

I look forward to your exposition on condescension.

That was six years ago. I had two meetings with the prof, although one was about something else. His defense is that he wanted to make the class 'relevant' and interesting to young students. That's probably it there - I was 36 and doing post-bacc work to translate a BA in Japanese into a ticket to the ecology and epidemiology phd program (which I did, mostly due to the GRE).

How's this - in the lecture on inbreeding, he showed famous people who married their cousins. One of the pictures was in a Hellenic style, and labeled "Mohammad". The man had issues.

The other meeting was about a test question: how do you prove that Roundup didn't cause mutations in weeds leading to resistance. The answer was 'show the genes are pre-existing'. That didn't work for me - scientifically speaking, you've only proven the genes were pre-existing, but you haven't disproven that the poison caused an identical mutation. You needs stats and a p value, too.

Have you continued to experience science worshipping darwin since then?