The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

Intelligent-design creationist gets tenure at Ball State University

Posted 10 May 2016 by Matt Young

An article in The Star Press datelined Muncie, Indiana, today proclaimed, 'Intelligent design' professor earns tenure at Ball State. The professor in question is Eric Hedin, a physics professor who, as we reported in 2013, is apparently an intelligent-design creationist and once taught a course called Boundaries of Science. The class has, however, been canceled, and Professor Hedin has presumably been enjoined to not teach creationism in his physics classes. (No, my very dear trolls, that is not a violation of his freedom of speech.) I looked up Professor Hedin and find that his research interests include "Teleology." He has what seems to me a heavy teaching load, primarily General Physics 1 and 2, 5 mornings a week. I followed a link to his publications and find that he has a steady stream of publications in what look like respectable journals and conference proceedings. I did not see any papers that looked like they were concerned with teleology, and I presume that he is not surreptitiously teaching creationism. The physics department at Ball State is blessed with 2 intelligent-design creationists. Panda's Thumb reported, about 1 month before our report on Professor Hedin, that Gonzalez [is] appointed assistant professor at Ball State University, referring to the intelligent-design creationist Guillermo Gonzalez. Professor Gonzalez had famously been denied tenure at Iowa State University, presumably for failure to conduct an original research program and instead writing The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery. A morbid curiosity getting the better of me, I looked up Professor Gonzalez in Google Scholar and also here. I do not know when he became a fellow of the Discovery Institute, but I noted no publications of interest after 2007, though he was a co-author of a book on observational astronomy in 2006. Like almost every other fellow of the DI, Professor Gonzalez appears to have produced virtually nothing since joining that institute. But let us end on a positive note: The same cannot be said for Eric Hedin, and I must assume that his promotion and tenure are well deserved. ______ Thanks to Glenn Branch of the National Center for Science Education for the original link.

54 Comments

Doc Bill · 10 May 2016

Well, it seems that Hedin has done the work and passed the bar, so to speak. Good for him. Hopefully, he won't throw his career away Behe-style.

Gigi, on the other hand, appears to be stagnant. Perhaps he simply enjoys a low-level life teaching Astronomy 101 and has no ambition otherwise. Gigi appears to be following his MO from Iowa State and unless BSU keeps staffers on forever he may find himself in the same position again, but this time without moaning about being dismissed for ideological reasons.

harold · 11 May 2016

Tenure will show his true character and bring out his true motivations and beliefs. If he's just a religious but productive physicist, even one who privately but not professionally expresses total ignorance of other branches of science, and hopefully he isn't the latter, there should be no problem. If he stops publishing good work and takes up being a crackpot creationist, the taxpayers of Indiana are stuck with him. Some very productive scientists subscribe to the anthropic fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle Wikipedia needs to change the title, the whole thing is just a failure to grasp simple conditional probability. Given that an intelligent observer exists, the probability is "1" that an intelligent observer will observe a universe in which an intelligent observer exists. This tells us nothing about the a priori probability that such a universe or such an observer would exist, much less that they were fated to exist in some profound way or some such thing. It's like a speck of mold blown by a random wind onto a random wooden shingle thinking that the shingle was created for its use. Maybe, maybe not, but it's impossible to tell and a useless conjecture. If it is on the shingle now, and the shingle supports its life, the conditional probability is "1" that the shingle supports mold life and that's all we can say about that. I can't recall, but did his "Boundaries" course directly contradict biological evolution, or was it just arm-waving anthropic stuff?
Like almost every other fellow of the DI, Professor Gonzalez appears to have produced virtually nothing since joining that institute.
One form of wingnut welfare is that those few individuals who get a PhD and then tout themselves as proponents of some reality-denying right wing cause are hired as tokens by universities or by right wing think tanks. And no, it doesn't happen "on the left". There are plenty of wacky professors with left wing beliefs. And I don't necessarily mean progressive. But they don't select beliefs that are a pre-established part of the Democratic party platform or propaganda sound bites that are constantly pushed on MSNBC or Rachel Maddow. And they are virtually never rewarded by business interests for their claims. On the right, climate change denial and a number of highly controversial or obviously incorrect economic and social claims that are part of the "conservative movement" ideology can be adopted, and if you adopt them and also get a PhD, you can get a do-nothing job and may even get some money on the side from oil companies or other payers. And do-nothing is a key descriptor here. Either because this career path appeals to lazy individuals who seek some kind of scam, or because they fear that if they do active work they'll merely expose their pet idea to criticism, or both, those who choose this tend to do nothing. ID/creationism isn't a major player in the "conservative intellectual with a six figure do-nothing job" world, but it is a player. It's a very secure way to make a living, if you can stand it. Dembski and Casey Luskin are the only two people I can think of who hit rough times, and Luskin doesn't really count, because he doesn't, if I recall correctly, actually have a PhD.

eric · 11 May 2016

Doc Bill said: Gigi, on the other hand, appears to be stagnant. Perhaps he simply enjoys a low-level life teaching Astronomy 101 and has no ambition otherwise.
I have no problem with competent teachers getting tenure for competent teaching (and "no ambition otherwise"), IF that's the skill the University has advertised the position will focus on. Not every single college or department must be research-focused to be good. But I get your gist and agree with it; no research publications since 2007 generally = doesn't qualify for a tenured researcher position.

DS · 11 May 2016

Well at least this will make it harder for them to whine about being discriminated against. If you do good science and publish a lot and bring in grant money and are a good teacher in your field, your nutty religious ideas should not prevent you from being successful academically. But if you don't do any research, don't being in any grant money and use your teaching position to preach your religion in place of science, you should not be granted tenure at any public institution. If you do not agree with these simple rules, don't seek a tenured position. And don't try to claim religious persecution as an excuse for lack of academic success. The requirements for tenure are clearly spelled out at most institutions, if you don't meet them, don't try to claim you were not treated fairly.

FL · 11 May 2016

:-)

harold · 11 May 2016

FL said: :-)
This professor isn't violating anyone's rights. It would be perfectly legal for him to teach creationism at the university level but he's agreed not to. He does appear to deny biological evolution but isn't YEC and is hellbound by Ken Ham standards. The university overall has issued a strong statement denouncing ID/creationism as science. No-one has ever called for firing him, or any other creationist who simply does their job and doesn't violate someone's rights. Just because Ken Ham uses irrelevant religious tests to discriminate when hiring and firing, rather than employee competence, doesn't mean that the rest of us do. The lesson for creationism here is that Ball State University won't teach it as science. A syllabus for his former course, which he has agreed to stop teaching, is available online. http://cms.bsu.edu/-/media/WWW/DepartmentalContent/Physics/PDFs/MasterSyllabi/Master%20Syllabus_ASTR151.pdf

Doc Bill · 11 May 2016

eric said:
Doc Bill said: Gigi, on the other hand, appears to be stagnant. Perhaps he simply enjoys a low-level life teaching Astronomy 101 and has no ambition otherwise.
I have no problem with competent teachers getting tenure for competent teaching (and "no ambition otherwise"), IF that's the skill the University has advertised the position will focus on. Not every single college or department must be research-focused to be good. But I get your gist and agree with it; no research publications since 2007 generally = doesn't qualify for a tenured researcher position.
I totally agree. I went to a teaching college for my undergraduate degree and the professors settled at that school because they wanted to teach their subject more than do Big Research. Tenure was based on quality of teaching, effectiveness of mentoring and so forth. Dedication to education doesn't mean that one has to dive into research, but diving into research requires a high degree of dedication and commitment. Iowa State was probably the wrong place for Gigi who never showed a capacity or attitude for doing large-scale original research. He just couldn't compete with the other cats who were hungry to do research, and as we all know, ID is a real science stopper.

Matt Young · 11 May 2016

Iowa State was probably the wrong place for Gigi who never showed a capacity or attitude for doing large-scale original research. He just couldn’t compete with the other cats who were hungry to do research, and as we all know, ID is a real science stopper.

I think it may be worse than that. Check the last link in the original article, and you will find dozens of publications in very respectable journals over a ~20-y period. I had the impression at the time that he clearly had the capability but for some reason just checked out, got bogged down in ID creationism, wrote that book, and finally neither earned nor got tenure. He could have competed but chose not to, so he is now a superannuated assistant professor teaching what amounts to Astronomy 101.

Mike Elzinga · 11 May 2016

Doc Bill said:
eric said:
Doc Bill said: Gigi, on the other hand, appears to be stagnant. Perhaps he simply enjoys a low-level life teaching Astronomy 101 and has no ambition otherwise.
I have no problem with competent teachers getting tenure for competent teaching (and "no ambition otherwise"), IF that's the skill the University has advertised the position will focus on. Not every single college or department must be research-focused to be good. But I get your gist and agree with it; no research publications since 2007 generally = doesn't qualify for a tenured researcher position.
I totally agree. I went to a teaching college for my undergraduate degree and the professors settled at that school because they wanted to teach their subject more than do Big Research. Tenure was based on quality of teaching, effectiveness of mentoring and so forth. Dedication to education doesn't mean that one has to dive into research, but diving into research requires a high degree of dedication and commitment. Iowa State was probably the wrong place for Gigi who never showed a capacity or attitude for doing large-scale original research. He just couldn't compete with the other cats who were hungry to do research, and as we all know, ID is a real science stopper.
There are lots of schools that don't do cutting-edge basic research yet have some applied research and development going on with funding from industry, the Department of Energy, and the military. Very little of this research challenges the basic concepts in physics; so a person might still carry blatant misconceptions of concepts like entropy and the second law of thermodynamics that don't interfere with applied development at an engineering level. I have known a number of engineers who even work in areas of thermodynamics but still don't grasp the concept of entropy except in very specialized applications where the misconceptions about disorder have nothing to do with the applications with which they are involved. Creationist crackpot, Walter T. Brown, was one such engineer with a PhD in mechanical engineering from MIT who mangled the concepts of thermodynamics according to the doctrines of his religion and used these misconceptions to bully biologists in public debates. Many physicists at schools such as Ball State are doing what is basically engineering development and device characterization. I see that much of Hedin's work is in applied areas. If he does good work in these areas - I haven't read his papers - I see no problem. If, however, he starts using his credentials to propagate to students the typical misconceptions and misrepresentations of physics concepts we see coming out of the ID/creationist movement, then Ball State will have a problem on its hands; and the physics department may have to post the same type of disclamer that Lehigh's biology department has posted with regard to Behe. If such schools are also placing emphasis on teaching - as Hedin's heavy teaching load suggests - then I would expect that the physics department would be encouraging its instructors to be keeping abreast of the nearly 50 years of formal physics education research that has been going on in the Physics Education Research community. This division of the American Association of Physics Teachers has spent the last 50 years cataloging and documenting what were previously anecdotal accounts of student misconceptions in physics; and they now cover concepts all the way up to the PhD levels. The Physics Education Research community then tries to develop and test instructional methods that have the objective of discovering and rooting out these misconceptions. My guess is that Gonzalez has never heard of such a community; but I don't know what Hedin's experience has been. Many of the Instructors at many of the top research schools are not particularly interested in teaching undergraduates and are often able to "buy their way out of teaching" by their ability to bring in large amounts of research money. If they teach at all, they teach only the top graduate students in specialized courses. Good researchers can also be good teachers; they bring to the classroom the thinking and deep insights of front-line experience in research but also have the oratorial skills to hold the attention of students and inspire them to pursue research themselves. But really busy physicists who are involved in frontier research are often traveling and are too tightly scheduled to teach classes; other than to give an occasional lecture while grad students do all the administrative grunt work of grading homework and papers.

QED · 11 May 2016

RateMyProfessors has a few comments about Hedin constantly pushing religion in introductory astronomy and honors classes at Ball State, mostly from 4-5 years ago. Nothing more recent though. While not illegal, it's very inappropriate, and typical of evangelicals not to have a sense of introspection or self-awareness in inappropriate environments. With elections looming, I'm seeing more and more of this at work, and when visiting business partners. Unable to be embarrassed, they're on a mission from god to elect Republicans - even Trump, whose values betray their own professed "morality". Amazing.

W. H. Heydt · 11 May 2016

As regards teaching beginning courses... When I was at Berkeley in the late 1960s, Nobel Laureate George Pimental was chairman of the Chemistry Department. While I don't think it was all he taught, he chose to teach Chem 1. He also insisted on a department policy that anyone who took a Chem course was a potential Chem major, and--therefore--that department did not hold any "non-major"/survey courses. There was--eventually--one quarter of lecture-demonstration of Chem as part of Contemporary Natural Science (CNS) for those that wouldn't even take a lab course.

Duncan Cairncross · 12 May 2016

As a "Furriner" I find all of this worry about "Tenure" to be amusing

"Tenure" simply means that you cannot be fired at will - the employer needs to have a reason and to have gone through a simple procedure before sacking you

In most countries we all have "tenure" in all jobs right from the start - or sometimes after the first six months

The main difficulty in sacking an unsatisfactory individual with "tenure" is that it requires an HR department with the organization and the stomach to;
Warn him/her about what they are doing unsatisfactorily
Allow reasonable time for this to be fixed (and assistance)
Not fixed? - Goodbye!

In the USA it's just because it's so easy to sack an "at will" employee that your HR people are unable to sack somebody with tenure

harold · 12 May 2016

Duncan Cairncross said: As a "Furriner" I find all of this worry about "Tenure" to be amusing "Tenure" simply means that you cannot be fired at will - the employer needs to have a reason and to have gone through a simple procedure before sacking you In most countries we all have "tenure" in all jobs right from the start - or sometimes after the first six months The main difficulty in sacking an unsatisfactory individual with "tenure" is that it requires an HR department with the organization and the stomach to; Warn him/her about what they are doing unsatisfactorily Allow reasonable time for this to be fixed (and assistance) Not fixed? - Goodbye! In the USA it's just because it's so easy to sack an "at will" employee that your HR people are unable to sack somebody with tenure
This contains elements of truth about US labor conditions but some clarification is needed. Academic tenure is a very strong protection. Of course tenured university faculty can be dismissed, but in general, it would be very difficult to do so for reasons related to the content of their publications or lectures. That's a major rationale for academic tenure. To prevent arbitrary dismissals over things like holding a political opinion that wealthy right wing alumni are offended by, or the like. Tenure abuse is pretty rare but it happens. I'm not even an academic and can think of an example I'm aware of from an institution I was once at. I am not anti-tenure and think that the protection is more important than the potential for abuse, but abuse exists. ID/creationist Behe is a drain on the resources of Lehigh university, for example. An effort to dismiss him for denying evolution would be extremely costly at best and would probably fail. If he could be trusted to just teach mainstream material his private views would be largely irrelevant, but of course he can't and is likely to imbue anything he teaches with his own science denial ideas, at best confusing students. He can't administer because he can't be trusted not to try to recruit and promote other science deniers. Most examples aren't ID/creationists but have created a similar situation. They deliberately or unintentionally create a situation where they can't be trusted with any academic work. But since the situation is not due to something straightforward for which dismissal would be obvious, like assaulting a student, but due to what they can claim is their protected academic speech, it's also incredibly difficult to legally fire them. In the end they usually get rewarded with a nice paycheck and life long pension, for doing nothing, because that is usually the cheapest choice for the university and/or taxpayer to wait them out. Meanwhile, most of the few ID/creationists in science positions probably do fine. No-one here supports requiring statements of private belief, that tactic is preferred by authoritarians like those who run Liberty University. I strongly defend the right of individuals to hold any private views they wish, as long as they obey the law and do their job correctly. However, whenever there is a science denial belief on board, there is a small risk that granting tenure will lead to an abuse situation, in which the now-protected individual can't be trusted to do academic work anymore, and the usual end result of that is that the least costly way to deal with it is to pay them to do nothing. Hopefully that won't happen in this case.

eric · 12 May 2016

Mike Elzinga said: If, however, he starts using his credentials to propagate to students the typical misconceptions and misrepresentations of physics concepts we see coming out of the ID/creationist movement, then Ball State will have a problem on its hands; and the physics department may have to post the same type of disclamer that Lehigh's biology department has posted with regard to Behe.
Given this already blew up on him and he got reprimanded by the Uni's President, my guess is that the tenure committee considered that as a serious possibility. The fact that they granted tenure is probably a sign that they, at least, do not expect backsliding.

eric · 12 May 2016

eric said: The fact that they granted tenure is probably a sign that they, at least, do not expect backsliding.
Another possibility that occurs to me is that, since Hedin is on record as agreeing to the Uni's demands, the university thinks it would be able to fire him for cause if he breaks those agreements. IOW they aren't concerned about him using tenure to teach creationism since a prior legal agreement with him prevents him from doing that.

SLC · 12 May 2016

I may be wrong about this but it is my understanding that Behe's courses are monitored by the administration at Lehigh to insure that he follows the curriculum and does not insert ID references into his lectures.
harold said:
Duncan Cairncross said: As a "Furriner" I find all of this worry about "Tenure" to be amusing "Tenure" simply means that you cannot be fired at will - the employer needs to have a reason and to have gone through a simple procedure before sacking you In most countries we all have "tenure" in all jobs right from the start - or sometimes after the first six months The main difficulty in sacking an unsatisfactory individual with "tenure" is that it requires an HR department with the organization and the stomach to; Warn him/her about what they are doing unsatisfactorily Allow reasonable time for this to be fixed (and assistance) Not fixed? - Goodbye! In the USA it's just because it's so easy to sack an "at will" employee that your HR people are unable to sack somebody with tenure
This contains elements of truth about US labor conditions but some clarification is needed. Academic tenure is a very strong protection. Of course tenured university faculty can be dismissed, but in general, it would be very difficult to do so for reasons related to the content of their publications or lectures. That's a major rationale for academic tenure. To prevent arbitrary dismissals over things like holding a political opinion that wealthy right wing alumni are offended by, or the like. Tenure abuse is pretty rare but it happens. I'm not even an academic and can think of an example I'm aware of from an institution I was once at. I am not anti-tenure and think that the protection is more important than the potential for abuse, but abuse exists. ID/creationist Behe is a drain on the resources of Lehigh university, for example. An effort to dismiss him for denying evolution would be extremely costly at best and would probably fail. If he could be trusted to just teach mainstream material his private views would be largely irrelevant, but of course he can't and is likely to imbue anything he teaches with his own science denial ideas, at best confusing students. He can't administer because he can't be trusted not to try to recruit and promote other science deniers. Most examples aren't ID/creationists but have created a similar situation. They deliberately or unintentionally create a situation where they can't be trusted with any academic work. But since the situation is not due to something straightforward for which dismissal would be obvious, like assaulting a student, but due to what they can claim is their protected academic speech, it's also incredibly difficult to legally fire them. In the end they usually get rewarded with a nice paycheck and life long pension, for doing nothing, because that is usually the cheapest choice for the university and/or taxpayer to wait them out. Meanwhile, most of the few ID/creationists in science positions probably do fine. No-one here supports requiring statements of private belief, that tactic is preferred by authoritarians like those who run Liberty University. I strongly defend the right of individuals to hold any private views they wish, as long as they obey the law and do their job correctly. However, whenever there is a science denial belief on board, there is a small risk that granting tenure will lead to an abuse situation, in which the now-protected individual can't be trusted to do academic work anymore, and the usual end result of that is that the least costly way to deal with it is to pay them to do nothing. Hopefully that won't happen in this case.

SLC · 12 May 2016

The late Prof. Pimental was not a Nobel Prize winner, at least according to Wiki. As an undergraduate at Berkeley, I took what was then called Chemistry 5b from Prof. Pimental and found him to be an indifferent instructor and an unpleasant individual.
W. H. Heydt said: As regards teaching beginning courses... When I was at Berkeley in the late 1960s, Nobel Laureate George Pimental was chairman of the Chemistry Department. While I don't think it was all he taught, he chose to teach Chem 1. He also insisted on a department policy that anyone who took a Chem course was a potential Chem major, and--therefore--that department did not hold any "non-major"/survey courses. There was--eventually--one quarter of lecture-demonstration of Chem as part of Contemporary Natural Science (CNS) for those that wouldn't even take a lab course.

harold · 13 May 2016

ID/creationist Behe is a drain on the resources of Lehigh university, for example. An effort to dismiss him for denying evolution would be extremely costly at best and would probably fail. If he could be trusted to just teach mainstream material his private views would be largely irrelevant, but of course he can’t and is likely to imbue anything he teaches with his own science denial ideas, at best confusing students. He can’t administer because he can’t be trusted not to try to recruit and promote other science deniers.
I may be wrong about this but it is my understanding that Behe’s courses are monitored by the administration at Lehigh to insure that he follows the curriculum and does not insert ID references into his lectures.
Since there is no conflict between these statements I assume the latter was posted to provide additional support for the point I am making.
In the end they usually get rewarded with a nice paycheck and life long pension, for doing nothing, because that is usually the cheapest choice for the university and/or taxpayer to wait them out.
If we take the term "doing nothing" in a very literal and pedantic way, this is an exaggeration. People in Behe's situation typically go to work, go into their office, may be assigned very routine tasks under heavy supervision, and so on. However, within the bounds of accepted informal language, I stand by the statement. And I continue to note a parallel between tenured faculty members who force administration to isolate and/or heavily supervise them, and low productivity "right wing think tank" PhD employees who may do nothing more than issue a "report" that is privately published rather than submitted to peer reviewed literature, and amounts to presentation of the wish list of those who fund the "institution" presented in scholarly-sounding language, from time to time. In both cases scholarly output and prestige are sacrificed, if in fact they were ever desired, in favor of symbolic use of the initial degree to lend false credence to output that actually does not meet rigorous standards, and in both cases a leisurely schedule, again whether or not desired, seems to result.

Scott F · 13 May 2016

FL said: :-)
Don't get cocky and think that this event shows any support for your world view. What this actually shows is that one of your pet conspiracy theories isn't true. What it shows is that merit is rewarded in academia, despite a person's creationist views, not because of them. He was not promoted because he was a creationist. By all indications, he appears to have been promoted because he is a competent lecturer, or because he's otherwise good at his job. He certainly wasn't promoted because anyone thought that his creationist ideas were worth anything. This, in contrast to religious universities, where employees are fired if they do not strictly adhere to a rigid statement of faith; where "academic freedom" is rigidly controlled and strictly prohibited; and where discrimination and retaliation are explicit, institutionalized processes.

Ravi · 15 May 2016

Didn't the New Scientist recently admit that "Information" in the natural world (physics, biology) is real and not just a creationist canard/catchphrase?

https://d1o50x50snmhul.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/uscoverpreview-copy-300x395.jpg

phhht · 15 May 2016

Ravi said: Didn't the New Scientist recently admit that "Information" in the natural world (physics, biology) is real and not just a creationist canard/catchphrase? https://d1o50x50snmhul.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/uscoverpreview-copy-300x395.jpg
Did someone deny the reality of information? I missed that part, I guess. As Wikipedia says, "At its most fundamental, information is any propagation of cause and effect within a system. Information is conveyed either as the content of a message or through direct or indirect observation of some thing. That which is perceived can be construed as a message in its own right, and in that sense, information is always conveyed as the content of a message." Wiki also notes that "Toyabe et al. experimentally showed in nature that information can be converted into work." So information can be perceived, conveyed, contained, converted into work, etc. Sounds real enough to me. But of course there is nothing mystical or supernatural about all that. It's all "just" physics.

harold · 15 May 2016

Ravi said: Didn't the New Scientist recently admit that "Information" in the natural world (physics, biology) is real and not just a creationist canard/catchphrase? https://d1o50x50snmhul.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/uscoverpreview-copy-300x395.jpg
I literally can't understand your comment. Can you elaborate? In particular - 1. Creationists are the ones who say inaccurate things about information theory; is your comment intended as a critique of creationism? 2. Are you advancing an argument against the fact of biological evolution, and if so, could you be more detailed? 3. Are you making a claim that an article in a magazine, about information, proves that right wing political evangelical Protestantism is the one true faith, and if so, could be more detailed? That would be relevant here to the extent that Ted Cruz style political right wing evangelical Protestantism is associated with evolution denial. 4. Are you making some broad neo-Platonic argument against "materialism"? If so could you take that to a philosophy or theology site, since it isn't relevant here? You might want to work on your explanation of why Charles Shannon was an atheist while you're on your way there. 5. Why is your link to a bad picture of a magazine cover instead of to a citation that supports something relevant? I don't want to sound rude, but I find your comment to be glib and deliberately vague. It comes across as an effort to taunt or provoke, rather than an invitation to a mutually respectful discourse. As such, I would have to say that, without further support, it, and any additional similar comments by you, belong on the BW. Of course if you post something reasonable next, I retract all that.

Matt Young · 15 May 2016

Charles Shannon's name was Claude.

Charley Horse · 16 May 2016

A bit off topic....but of interest. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/16/school-teaching-creationism-with-video-from-islamic-sex-cult.html

School Teaching Creationism With Video From Islamic Sex Cult
An Ohio school district is using a video made by a Holocaust-denying Muslim to undermine evolution in science class.

QUOTE A BIT:
A curriculum map recommends teachers in this public school district show a creationist video, Cambrian Fossils and the Creation of Species as part of 10th grade science education. The video claims that the Cambrian Explosion “totally invalidates the theory of evolution.”

.........The district’s curriculum map calls for teaching “an alternative theory called Intelligent Design,” which is another name for creationism. Youngstown suggests teachers show a creationist video, Unlocking the Mystery of Life, produced by the right wing Christian advocacy group, Focus on the Family and by the Discovery Institute, a creationist think tank.....

“Students are reminded how the irreducibly complex system like the flagellum of a bacterial cell could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece and serves as a counter-example to evolution,” says the curriculum, citing another disproven creationist talking point. It also recommends the video Darwin’s Dilemma, also produced by the Discovery Institute. Other materials call evolution a “theory in crisis,” and were created by the All About GOD ministries.

Ravi · 16 May 2016

phhht said: But of course there is nothing mystical or supernatural about all that. It's all "just" physics.
The existence of matter and energy does not imply intelligence or design. But the existence of information strongly implies it. Scientists are beginning to realise that information is as important as matter and energy. Information means there is an "Informer".

TomS · 16 May 2016

Ravi said:
phhht said: But of course there is nothing mystical or supernatural about all that. It's all "just" physics.
The existence of matter and energy does not imply intelligence or design. But the existence of information strongly implies it. Scientists are beginning to realise that information is as important as matter and energy. Information means there is an "Informer".
Does the reduction of information mean that there is a "Disinformer"?

eric · 16 May 2016

Ravi said:
phhht said: But of course there is nothing mystical or supernatural about all that. It's all "just" physics.
The existence of matter and energy does not imply intelligence or design. But the existence of information strongly implies it. Scientists are beginning to realise that information is as important as matter and energy. Information means there is an "Informer".
Before you can make that claim, I want to (1) hear your definition of 'information,' (2) why you think natural processes can't produce it, and (3) see you use that definition to distinguish real genetic sequences from fake ones. How about you start with 1 and 2, and if you can do that, then I'll work out some examples for exercise 3. Also just FYI, if you're talking Shannon entropy, then yes natural processes can produce it and the fake sequences will likely have as much of it (or more!) than the real sequences.

TomS · 16 May 2016

eric said:
Ravi said:
phhht said: But of course there is nothing mystical or supernatural about all that. It's all "just" physics.
The existence of matter and energy does not imply intelligence or design. But the existence of information strongly implies it. Scientists are beginning to realise that information is as important as matter and energy. Information means there is an "Informer".
Before you can make that claim, I want to (1) hear your definition of 'information,' (2) why you think natural processes can't produce it, and (3) see you use that definition to distinguish real genetic sequences from fake ones. How about you start with 1 and 2, and if you can do that, then I'll work out some examples for exercise 3. Also just FYI, if you're talking Shannon entropy, then yes natural processes can produce it and the fake sequences will likely have as much of it (or more!) than the real sequences.
The creationist principle of conservation of information is the only example that I can think of where the only examples that the proponents can point to are those where it is not followed. Most theorists prefer to talk about when their theories operate, not where they fail. Most theorists seem to think that successes are worth more than failures, in making a convincing theory. (a) Information can spontaneously decrease. There is no reason to think that "decrease" needs an explanation. (b) Information can spontaneously increase in "small" amounts. Think of the formation of crystals; or "microevolution". (c) Human activity is not subject to the conservation law. Humans are subject to the laws of thermodynamics or any other natural law. (d) The ordinary processes of life, such as reproduction and development are not subject to the laws of information. And, given the fact that the creationists don't give us enough to calculate the amount of information, we don't have anything else to go on. Nothing other than examples of where it doesn't work.

Michael Fugate · 16 May 2016

Ravi said:
phhht said: But of course there is nothing mystical or supernatural about all that. It's all "just" physics.
The existence of matter and energy does not imply intelligence or design. But the existence of information strongly implies it. Scientists are beginning to realise that information is as important as matter and energy. Information means there is an "Informer".
Nonsense. Intelligence decodes information by pattern detection - it doesn't need to produce it.

Mike Elzinga · 16 May 2016

Ravi said:
phhht said: But of course there is nothing mystical or supernatural about all that. It's all "just" physics.
The existence of matter and energy does not imply intelligence or design. But the existence of information strongly implies it. Scientists are beginning to realise that information is as important as matter and energy. Information means there is an "Informer".
(1) Why can't the existence of matter and energy explain the existence of intelligence and things designed by intelligent beings? Who told you that? (2) Explain what you think scientists mean by "information." (3) How does "information" push atoms and molecules around? (4) How far apart do atoms and molecules have to be before "information" no longer has any effect.

phhht · 16 May 2016

Ravi said:
phhht said: But of course there is nothing mystical or supernatural about all that. It's all "just" physics.
Information means there is an "Informer".
Yeah, right. And thunder means there is a Great Hairy Thunderer.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/TmT6tr96j8I7z.NSXVrs5i9QwNXEtw--#1813f · 16 May 2016

phhht said:
Ravi said:
phhht said: But of course there is nothing mystical or supernatural about all that. It's all "just" physics.
Information means there is an "Informer".
Yeah, right. And thunder means there is a Great Hairy Thunderer.
I do not agree! A thunder means there is a non-intelligent formation of excess electrons and differential(voltage) of load between clouds and "mother earth"...! Say "mother earth" is getting a big whack all around the World and many many times! The source of thunder is the outcome of the big whack of lightning! So there is no reason for something intelligent to initially be the cause! SO PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN BY: "A Great Hairy Thunderer"...? I do not get this stupid explanation! George - Pure Logic and Logic. http://anagrammatt3.blogspot.ca/

phhht · 16 May 2016

https://me.yahoo.com/a/TmT6tr96j8I7z.NSXVrs5i9QwNXEtw--#1813f said: SO PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN BY: "A Great Hairy Thunderer"...? I do not get this stupid explanation!
That's because you're too dumb to get it. You would not get the explanation, either.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/TmT6tr96j8I7z.NSXVrs5i9QwNXEtw--#1813f · 16 May 2016

Too dumb?

Well I think you are a big ass_ole! To think I need your answer, and for you to think you have any real authority!

To not give an answer, simply in this case, denies my rights! What then are your rights?

OH I FORGOT! The "general consensus" of the all intelligent and savvy EVOLUTION NUTS!

HAVE YOUR last say, as always!

Michael Fugate · 16 May 2016

813f - Where does the Bible mention electrons?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/TmT6tr96j8I7z.NSXVrs5i9QwNXEtw--#1813f · 16 May 2016

Michael Fugate said: 813f - Where does the Bible mention electrons?
I do not believe in the Bible! Joe! I am top head of Pure Logic and Logic! The Bible does have some general knowledge to it, with a whack of made up stories of miracles of even resurrections! Really junk! George - http://anagrammatt3.blogspot.ca/

https://me.yahoo.com/a/TmT6tr96j8I7z.NSXVrs5i9QwNXEtw--#1813f · 16 May 2016

But believe me!

I do believe in this Worlds WONDERS!

And wonders, does not mean a MAGIC WAND! But it does mean more than our small minds can logically explain so far! AND that is clear!

To make up stories in SCIENCE about ORIGINS and EVOLUTION, is as bad as the Bible JESUS!

That is to say, in logic and pure(complete) logic.

George. 813f.

phhht · 16 May 2016

https://me.yahoo.com/a/TmT6tr96j8I7z.NSXVrs5i9QwNXEtw--#1813f said: Too dumb? Well I think you are a big ass_ole! To think I need your answer...
Gods you're stupid, George. For one thing, it's "asshole", not "ass_ole". For another thing, you're too dumb to come up with original insults. All you can do is offer tired old kindergarten taunts. For a third thing, stupid, is was YOU who demanded an explanation from ME.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/TmT6tr96j8I7z.NSXVrs5i9QwNXEtw--#1813f · 16 May 2016

In pure logic and logic, THE BIBLE and SCIENCE EVOLUTION, is as good as what we can TERM as MONKEY LOGIC(Ape/gorilla/chimpanzee)! In other words, low end and biased, with not very much intelligence to it!

George - pure logic and logic.
http://anagrammatt3.blogspot.ca/

https://me.yahoo.com/a/TmT6tr96j8I7z.NSXVrs5i9QwNXEtw--#1813f · 16 May 2016

Gods or entities or the un-known! But never IRRATIONAL not reason EVOLUTION "MOTHER NATURE"...!

Your logic is not even of Kindergarten(kind-er-garden of eden)!

Your logic is of a baby, that does not know what is really going on! Only that it has to suck something! JERK ASS!

Matt Young · 16 May 2016

I am going to declare the "debate" between phhht and 813f over. I cannot say with certainty which one has fallen for the other's joke, but further comments along these same lines will be sent to the Bathroom Wall.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/TmT6tr96j8I7z.NSXVrs5i9QwNXEtw--#1813f · 16 May 2016

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Just Bob · 16 May 2016

I think we've attracted another very disturbed individual, whose thoughts and words may make sense to him but are so disjointed that they say "crazy!" to the audience.

And I would suggest that his fondness for CAPSLOCK shows a profound hubris in the COSMIC SIGNIFICANCE of his WORDS.

Mike Elzinga · 16 May 2016

Just Bob said: I think we've attracted another very disturbed individual, whose thoughts and words may make sense to him but are so disjointed that they say "crazy!" to the audience. And I would suggest that his fondness for CAPSLOCK shows a profound hubris in the COSMIC SIGNIFICANCE of his WORDS.
He appears to be an immature, barely pubescent boy who has heard some "philosophy" words and thinks that using them in his trolling makes him look smart. Best to ignore him.

harold · 16 May 2016

Actually, probably a schizophrenic with formerly high premorbid functioning. Better designed web site than some I've seen.

Just Bob · 16 May 2016

harold said: Better designed web site than some I've seen.
Where I live there are IT students begging to do that for you for free, as a class project, and the occasional IT startup company that wants references and samples to show off their expertise.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/TmT6tr96j8I7z.NSXVrs5i9QwNXEtw--#1813f · 16 May 2016

Mike Elzinga said:
Just Bob said: I think we've attracted another very disturbed individual, whose thoughts and words may make sense to him but are so disjointed that they say "crazy!" to the audience. And I would suggest that his fondness for CAPSLOCK shows a profound hubris in the COSMIC SIGNIFICANCE of his WORDS.
He appears to be an immature, barely pubescent boy who has heard some "philosophy" words and thinks that using them in his trolling makes him look smart. Best to ignore him.
Hi. I am glad that you are such a mature man or human for that mater. Smart and to ignore is used also by some animals. I am glad you have developed into such and intelligent un-biased human being with no agenda other than teaching others that do not know how to think, your "junk logic"! George. http://anagrammatt3.blogspot.ca/

Matt Young · 16 May 2016

Considering what was said about him, I guess that 813f is entitled to that remark. Future comments, unless they are substantive, will be sent to the BW. Please do not respond to taunting, meaningless comments.

W. H. Heydt · 17 May 2016

Matt Young said: I am going to declare the "debate" between phhht and 813f over. I cannot say with certainty which one has fallen for the other's joke, but further comments along these same lines will be sent to the Bathroom Wall.
At some risk of getting this comment moved... I think 813f fell for phhht's joke by failing to see the parallel between "information implies informer" and "thunder implies thunderer."

Matt Young · 17 May 2016

I think 813f fell for phhht’s joke by failing to see the parallel between “information implies informer” and “thunder implies thunderer.”

Yes, unless 813f's response was itself a joke; I still cannot decide who was taken in by whom.

Just Bob · 17 May 2016

Perhaps 813f IS the joke.

Red Right Hand · 23 May 2016

Matt Young said: Charles Shannon's name was Claude.
Those Charlies! You gotta watch 'em like a hawk...

Red Right Hand · 23 May 2016

TomS said:
Ravi said: The existence of matter and energy does not imply intelligence or design. But the existence of information strongly implies it. Scientists are beginning to realise that information is as important as matter and energy. Information means there is an "Informer".
Does the reduction of information mean that there is a "Disinformer"?
That's why my photo-copies keep degenerating in quality. Get out of that Xerox Satan! Get thee away!

Red Right Hand · 23 May 2016

Ravi said: The existence of matter and energy does not imply intelligence or design. But the existence of information strongly implies it. Scientists are beginning to realise that information is as important as matter and energy. Information means there is an "Informer".
Please explain the freezing of condensed water vapor on my window last winter into those beautifully intricate and symmetric ice crystals, and their subsequent melting the next morning. Are you implying it was Jack Frost and his evil twin Joe?