In a message dated 10/19/2000 8:37:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
sejones@iinet.net.au writes:
<< Subject: Re: Jonathan Wells' new book Icons of Evolution: The Cambrian
Explosion
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 07:06:59 EDT, Huxter4441@aol.com wrote:
SJ>This fall, there has appeared a scientifically authoritative book casting
>>grave doubt on the whole basis of these confident illustrations. Dr.
>>Jonathan Wells, a molecular and cell biologist from the University of
>>California at Berkeley who is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute,
>>in his Icons of Evolution does more than cast doubt. >>
HX>Speaking of icons....
>
>Tell us Steve - have you read any of Wells' technical/original research?
No?
>Well, it is actually not that hard to find. And you could read all of it
in
>30 minutes or so. 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
What is Huxter's point here? It says "a molecular and cell biologist *from*
[not at] the University of California at Berkeley".
=============================
'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.
=============================
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.
============================
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? 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?
=============================
HX> - has published a whopping THREE scientific publications.
"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.
============================
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. I had 4 publications BEFORE I had my Ph.D. I guess
you should be mighty impressed.... right?
===========================
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.
=========================
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. 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. Why doesn't he list his affiliation
with the DI instead? he is THERE now, is he not? Who else - besides
creationists - hawk their former affiliations more than their present ones?
2) What 'bigger fish' does a 'cutting edge researcher' have to fry?
Literature reviews? Text book 'grading'? Making presentations at ID
meetings and writing letters to the editor?
3) Yes, Wells is a Ph.D. for life, but he is not affiliated with UCB for life
- or after getting his degree there and then leaving. This is reminiscent of
Sewell's claim to fame about being at Los Alamos during WWII.
=========================
BTW how many scientific publications has *Huxter* published, when, and
what are *their* titles?
====================
Posted in another message. I'm sure that they are not quite as impressive as
Wells' 3 pubs on xenopus development...
=====================
HX>I guess he must be an expert on all aspects of evolution, what with such
an
>impressive scientific background.
Wells does not claim to be "an expert on all aspects of evolution."
===========================
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.
==============================
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".
=============================
When a Ph.D. working for the religio-political Discovery Institute writes
biased diatribes about evolution, it irks those in the know. It is not
that it is hard ot understand the basics. It is that there are areas of
science that are so technical that unless one has the appropriate background
and training it is, indeed, over their heads. 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!
=======================================
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.
So Wells has *two* Ph.D's? What is Huxter's qualifications?
=================
I posted that already. 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.
=====================
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!
====================
Also explained this. I, of course, am not getting paid by an 'institute' to
'spread' my message and instill the culture with my 'worldview'.
====================
HX>Yeah, I'd hang my hat on his every word. Ad hom, right? Not really.
Who would?
=========================
Well, it seems many do.....
========================
HX>In
>addition to the rebuttals mentioned by others, wherein Wells tends to ...
>shall we say, exaggerate a bit,
Doesn't *everyone*? Including Huxter?
==============================
I don't know - have I? It is your claim, please support or retract it.
============================
HX>it is hardly ad hominem to take the words of
>one with a grain of salt
I am sure that Wells would be quite happy with people not uncritically
accepting what he said but checking it up for themselves.
===============================
You are? What makes you so sure?
===============================
HX>who has in the past demonstrated a distinct lack of
>expertise on the very area he writes about.
Wells has a Ph.D in biology from Berkeley and another in theology (from
Princeton?) so I presume to ost fair-minded people would qualify as
having "expertise on the very area" namely creation/evoution "he writes
about."
=============================
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.
============================
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.
==============================
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.
Have you? An internet discussion is not quite the same thing as a published
book claiming to have all the answers, is it?
=================================
HX>But I'm sure his book or pamphlet or whatever it is will be gobbled up by
>folks like DNAunion....
I understand it is being "gobbled up by" a *lot* of "folks"!
================================
Lay folks like you, I don't doubt it. Lay folk want the easy answers.
ID/creationism gives it to them.
Steve >>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 23 2000 - 13:31:06 EDT