Could there be any clearer evidence that becoming a fundamentalist Christian destroys one's sense of ethics?

Leonard was attempting to bypass the university's regulations about the makeup of the committee. But standards of the university mean nothing to fundies.

I wonder if there is a single fundamentalist Christian in the country who is willing to stand up and admit that Leonard and his adviser tried to scam the system.
Ralph Kramden | 06.15.05 - 9:41 pm | #

Ralph,

Did you read what I wrote? I wrote that he broke the rules.

Now will you admit that he was faced with the unthinkable prospect of a committee that failed him before even reading his thesis?

Anyone who has done a Ph.D. thesis, if they think about having to face what Leonard would face, can understand temptation to find a fair committee.

The point of my post is that he didn't do it in search of a rubber-stamp committee, but to avoid one.
David Heddle | Homepage | 06.16.05 - 6:02 am | #

Ralph, lying in service to god is always justified, right David?
GCT | 06.16.05 - 3:17 pm | #

Are you referring to the concept of "necessary lies"? I have often stated that that was one of Martin Luther's mistakes.
David Heddle | Homepage | 06.16.05 - 3:34 pm | #

I think you know what I mean. Is it a necessary lie for Leonard to chuck the rules of the university?

How about this? Who actually postponed the dissertation defense David?
GCT | 06.16.05 - 3:47 pm | #

Is it a necessary lie for faculty to prejudge his thesis because of its content?

His advisor, by all accounts, cancelled the defense. You find that, somehow, relevant?
David Heddle | Homepage | 06.16.05 - 3:58 pm | #

You don't find that relevant? When and why did the advisor cancel?

Also, if his thesis contains information about "teaching the controversy" over evolution, would you be so nice as to fill us all in on what exactly that controversy is?
GCT | 06.16.05 - 4:22 pm | #

Why did he cancel? I'm guessing that he saw the writing on the wall.

I don't know what his thesis contains. And if you want to know what I think should be taught in biology class, you can find it on PT, where many times I said that evolution should be taught.
David Heddle | Homepage | 06.16.05 - 5:34 pm | #

The writing on the wall that they had been found out maybe? The facts as we know them are that the committee was improperly composed. A letter was sent by three professors protesting the composition of the committee, and on the same day the student's advisor asked to postpone the defense. We also know that the DI is screaming that OSU is censoring Leonard as well as those three scientists that sent the letter, yet the defense would have proceeded if not for the student's advisor. Hmmmm.

Also, the three professor object to the immoral testing done by Leonard. He taught the "criticisms of evolution" to students. That's why I asked you about the "teach the controversy" idea. Can you, or anyone, tell what the controversy is? Can you, or anyone, tell what the scientific criticisms of evolution are? I mean, seriously. What do IDers think the scientific criticisms of evolution really are? The problem is that they really don't have any, and the criticisms that they cite are nothing more than warmed-over Creationist arguments that have been long debunked. So, if he was passing off Creationist arguments as science, then he did act unethically, and he deserves what he gets, besides the fact that he acted unethically by setting up his committee the way he did. Do you really want to contend, David, that he could not find teachers in his whole entire department that would give him a fair shake?
GCT | 06.16.05 - 8:38 pm | #

GCT,

I'll yield to you that last word.
David Heddle | Homepage | 06.17.05 - 8:35 am | #

David wrote:

"In other words, the integrity of a professor who agrees with Leonard is automatically suspect. Leonard must obey the rules even if it means populating his committee with faculty who, like Myers, have prejudged his work, sight unseen, as substandard."

But David's not above doing the converse:

"It's no wonder. Leonard was between a rock and a hard place. Follow the rules and face certain failure (regardless of the quality of his work) or break the rules in an attempt to achieve a fair reading of his dissertation.

The spin is that Leonard was stacking the deck. The reality is that this was his only chance to receive a scholarly evaluation."

This is argued without any evidence of the views of those who would have been on his committee legitimately. I think the words pot, kettle, and black are apt.
Dene Bebbington | 06.17.05 - 3:44 pm | #

If the research were solid, the makeup of the committee would not matter much. If the research were within the bounds of the department, the department should have been better represented on the committee. If the research were outside the department's purview, the committee -- and student -- should have come from a different area.

It is not that anti-evolution arguments are taboo. Darwin himself proposed a couple dozen, good anti-evolution arguments (which anyone familiar with Darwin would know, but the committee and the student apparently did not, which of course demonstrates the wisdom of cancelling the defense). It is that teaching buncomb to kids as good information is unethical.
Ed Darrell | 06.20.05 - 2:56 pm | #

buncomb, you mean like fish to mammal back to the sea-mammal again? Can you test it? No. Prove it beyond a doubt? beyond wild speculation?

Or, how about a pigs tooth...

maybe we should do more artist renditions of what something will look like from a toenail?

Please explain to me the
'artistic concept theory" from a tooth.

I do not know the full details of this topic but the more I read of sites like Panda, the less I am impressed by the scientific community as a whole. You certainly do not have a lock on ethics.

Can someone recommend a book or website which shows all the transitional fossils in one place?
Please show me the evolution from one cell, to fish, to quadraped, bear, back to sea again as a whale. Please explain to me why we have polar bears and whales at the same time. Why didn't the polar bear turn back into a whale? Truth is you haven't a clue, you don't know why once species stayed the same and another 'supposedly' lept back into the water, lost its feet, claws, hair, its nose moved back above its head, etc., talk about Faith, how bout a ride at Disney Land? You can only throw out token statements about randomness, selection and the environmental pressures.

Transitional fossils that are not painted by artist? Or sculpted by artist? If the theory is true, fact, and not questionable, then line up the evidence all in one place for people to see and skeptics to challenge. Maybe New York, Chicago, in fact make it a rolling exhibit. Evolutionist put out all the info in one place. Artist Renditions NOT ALLOWED, just the bones, just the evidence and let everyone see for themselves what some people call transitions. Lets see it stand up to scrutiny under the lime light.

Obviously your so confident, this should not be a problem. And the exhibit should be open to all sides for viewing critically before and after. If you have nothing to be ashamed of and the theory is more than a theory, but a fact - then prove it.

Show the Tree fully in one place and put all voices silent.

I've seen talk.origin and there is more buncomb there too, as in, it might be, or in time one would think it could become buncomb since one can imagine over time that buncomb does exist and the bones grew into buncomb, yet at other times, the buncomb fell off limb by limb.

These are the words of science?
Michael | 07.03.05 - 11:26 pm | #

Michael, just check the biological journals. There is over 150 years worth of research that you can read.
GCT | 07.05.05 - 6:58 am | #