६ सप्टेंबर, २०१४
Bill Gates, running on his treadmill, just loved the DVD of the Teaching Company course "Big History."
And he arrived at the notion that "Big History" should be a regular high school course all over the country. Since Gates is a billionaire, he can think things like that and proceed to cause them to happen... like he caused Common Core.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१५० टिप्पण्या:
The stupidity mendacity and gullibility of the educrat establishment made it happen. Gates provided the bribes.
Teaching and learning should be fascinating. This sounds like a good starting place.
OT, but I know that the current high school chemistry curriculum is pretty useless for what employers want and what people ultimately do. It badly needs a revamp.
Gates is a total thinker who has little or no human soul. The man always looks for one answer that he can use to change everything whether anyone wants everything changed or not.
Emotional Intelligence is beyond his pay grade. So now he tries to buy that too.
More and more Bill Gates is beginning to sound like the 'I like to watch' Chauncey Gardiner character from the old Peter Sellers movie 'Being There'...
Bill Gates should immediately donate 3/4ths of his wealth to Elon Musk.
The NYT article is a discouraging read. Nearly everyone is looking at the problems the course creates and very few focused on its potential. Is it perfect? No. Might perhaps more emphasis be given to the robber barons? Yes. But instead of accepting the gift of something quite wonderful and building on it, nearly everyone gets crabby because it does not advance the narrow interest they hold most dear.
Gates approach to reforming education reminds me of Romney going after the Republican nomination. They both eschewed grassroots involvement while cultivating the upper echelons and power brokers. I'm thinking it's a business thing.
It seems that this time around,
Bill Gates has gone after the soft middle, which is an improvement, but I think the idea of homeschooling and school choice still escapes him.
As to the course itself, it sounds entertaining, but covering such a large scope would, I think, tend to make it too fluffy to serve as a foundation for historical understanding. I'd like students to be able to place the American Civil War and WWII on a timeline, for instance, and while it is nice to know a little cosmology and paleontology, geography is probably more useful.
Gates is not the smartest or wisest person in America. There is a lot he does not know about history, or education or biology for that matter. But he is a man who has a talent for getting things done, and he has the means to get things done. So he brings tremendous value just for those attributes, if the value is allowed to develop.
Unfortunately a man whose specialty is getting things done has wandered into an apparatus which is designed to prevent things from being done. Perhaps Gates will realize that the true crisis is a set of systems organized to extinguish accountability. How will we ever return accountability to the educational system? That's the issue.
Other than buying DOS and getting a sweetheart deal through connections with IBM early on and actually assisting in the BASIC intepreter, he conducted fairly ruthless business practices, so that qualifies him to determine what we teach our children...
The most important course that needs to be added to the curriculum is "History and Moral Philosophy" as taught in Starship Troopers
David said...
The NYT article is a discouraging read. Nearly everyone is looking at the problems the course creates and very few focused on its potential. Is it perfect? No. Might perhaps more emphasis be given to the robber barons? Yes.
You see, there's the problem right there. A hypothesis dressed up as a casual assertion.
There is another way of looking at it. One many believe is much closer to the truth.
You say 'robber barons' (and what a biased and possibly slanderous name! I wonder who came up with it, and why?) as if it is an incontestable fact, and I'm guessing that you probably also mean it as an indictment of the inevitable ends of capitalism.
But my and others readings of those times is that, to the extent 'robber barons' existed, they were an indictment of the market crushing partnership of government and corrupt persons in business - the only monopoly-makers that can be, under our system.
A free market would have rapidly taken care of any so-called 'robber barons'. But government sanctioned cronyism, subverted that vital function, then spun the history books to hide their tracks.
I wonder if "Big History" teaches that version.
The author of the linked NYT article, Adam Ross Sorkin, wrote:
"The American high school experience, at least as we now know it, is a relatively recent invention. Attendance did not start to become mandatory until the 1850s, and the notion of a nationwide standardized curriculum didn’t emerge until the turn of the century."
This is wrong. The first high school for average people may have been established in the 1850s, but attendance did not become expected until, I would guess, after the turn of the 20th century.
A set of DVDs is not a course. It's a TV show. Might be a good one, and this one sounds like one. (I loved James Burke's Connections.) But it's nothing more than that until you specify how it is going to be evaluated - what the student has to DO. Gates liked the course, but he didn't have to do anything more than run on a treadmill.
The central question in all education is evaluation. Get that right and you will have good outcomes. Get it wrong and education is worse than useless.
I lean toward tradguy's assessment of Gates.
Christian's appeal to "big thinkers" is similar to Al Gore's, but with heart. He has more credence.
His TED talk in 2011 (introduced by Gates) is worth a look.
https://www.ted.com/talks/david_christian_big_history
For a didact in the sciences, Christian teaches a lot of science. He also professes faith in Newton's Second Law, but then casually dismisses it ("the world can achieve complexity with great effort").
Be careful.
"Bill Gates should immediately donate 3/4ths of his wealth to Elon Musk."
Just what the world needs. Unreliable electric cars and electric space travel for the really, really elite betters.
It was a joke right?
They are going to get into Big Trouble about evolution. I once posted a comment on Ricochet, which is supposed to be for enlightened conservatives, that I would not write a letter of recommendation for a kid to medical school if the kid did not believe in evolution. It got a big hostile response so I expanded it into a post. That really took off with nasty comments from YECers. I didn't know what that meant but it is "Young Earth Creationists."
The comments went on and on for months. Very very few were positive. A couple of science teachers posted thanks but it was mostly an attack on me for trying to say that doctors should believe in evolution, at least those in specialties.
I did not renew my subscription to Ricochet.
Someonehastosayit: "You say 'robber barons' (and what a biased and possibly slanderous name! I wonder who came up with it, and why?) as if it is an incontestable fact, and I'm guessing that you probably also mean it as an indictment of the inevitable ends of capitalism."
The term "robber barons" has been in use as a pejorative since at least the 1870's and was a widely discussed concept at the beginning of the 20th century in American politics. It is a pejorative shorthand, but well understood to refer to a broad group of successful capitalists and industrialists. Examples include Carnegie, Rockefeller, Flagler, Gould, Frick, Mellon, Scwab, Stanford, Vanderbilt.
It's a shorthand to refer to this group, used even by people who do not entirely accept the concept. It was a brilliant political pejorative shorthand, which still sends some people (you are an example) right up the wall.
Your guess about how I meant it is completely incorrect, and reveals your ignorance, not mine.
Unlike the supposed enlightened conservatives over at Richochet, you Mr. K sound like a very open-minded and tolerant man.
Michael K, keeping medicine safe from the bitter clingers! God forbid a brilliant young person go into medicine if he disagrees with Mr. Michael K.
Rich people doing good is a major waste.
Leave the money in a bank where clever people can borrow it for something that will perhaps work.
No one will dispute that the American education system needed to be revamped. Too many uneducated just getting passed on to the next grade. Gates big error is going through the same establishment that dumbed down education in the first place...Washington DC.
Bill Gates showing up in DC waving large amounts of cash around would have been just as popular showing up at the strip club making it rain. He's the greatest guy in the world, until the money runs out. Then he's just another loser going home alone, smelling of cheap perfume, and a lot poorer.
"Michael K, keeping medicine safe from the bitter clingers! God forbid a brilliant young person go into medicine if he disagrees with Mr. Michael K."
What an odd comment.
Contrary to the YEC element at Ricochet (and you ?), I do not decide who gets into medical school. Sometimes I am asked to write a letter and I am happy to do so for kids interested in science and medicine. That includes evolution as we are entering an era when most treatment will be based on genetics.
I added at Ricochet that GPs, and I have known some, are OK without believing in evolution but they are a declining element.
Do you disagree ?
It's both a less ambitious prescription and a much better one.
I once posted a comment on Ricochet, which is supposed to be for enlightened conservatives, that I would not write a letter of recommendation for a kid to medical school if the kid did not believe in evolution. It got a big hostile response so I expanded it into a post.
Why? The Big Agra-Pharma running FDA doesn't believe in evolution either. They believe that antibiotic-laced feed resistance either doesn't happen or shouldn't concern a society with ever increasing infectious disease-related deaths each year.
It's interesting how the discussion always devolves into a lashing out against "good intentions" or "ambitious prescriptions". But it's a shame no one really seems to understand or address the focus of the point here. It's to stop fixating on tiny dates in history and start drawing together the entire sweep of its context from the Big Bang to today. It's a look at how major events of history are related, and the importance of geographical, biological and technological change and as much as the role of Big Men and individual, eye-catching revolutions. And it's an important development in how we perceive history, regardless of whether you think Gates is wrong or overweening or naive to recommend it as a curricular standard. (He's not).
It's the kind of history an influential entrepreneur would appreciate, and I never hear enough of how this country needs more of those.
Mr. K,
GP's are a declining element?
What an odd comment.
Are GP's not "real" doctors? They just do the day to day grunt work, right? I would wager that most people very rarely see a doctor that is not a GP. Doesn't Obamacare require more GP's?
My GP's is God-fearing liberal Obama voter. I don't care who he voted for or whether he believes in evolution. He is a Saint.
I wonder how many evolution deniers are risking their lives in Africa treating Ebola and AIDs.
Your post indicated that you will only recommend kids that believe in science, medicine and EVOLUTION. Would you interview said students and give them the evolution litmus test?
Should climate-deniers be excluded from graduate schools?
Should Constitution-deniers be excluded from law school?
If the readers of the NYT and the President of AFT hate it, then it's good enough for me.
Seriously though, I agree with what Rhythm and Balls wrote: It's to stop fixating on tiny dates in history and start drawing together the entire sweep of its context from the Big Bang to today. It's a look at how major events of history are related, and the importance of geographical, biological and technological change and as much as the role of Big Men and individual, eye-catching revolutions.
I'd favor making "Band of Brothers" mandatory viewing first.
"Your post indicated that you will only recommend kids that believe in science, medicine and EVOLUTION. Would you interview said students and give them the evolution litmus test?"
No, it doesn't take long to learn if they are interested in science. Evolution is science. Denying evolution is religion. We have freedom of religion but I don't choose to recommend people who deny basic biological science for medicine.
"Should climate-deniers be excluded from graduate schools?"
Your question is tendentious and indicates you are an evolution disbeliever. Fine for you.
"Are GP's not "real" doctors? They just do the day to day grunt work, right? I would wager that most people very rarely see a doctor that is not a GP. Doesn't Obamacare require more GP's?"
The GP is a declining role in medicine and those who do not believe in evolution are an older and declining share.
You would lose your wager unless you live in a small rural community.
It's to stop fixating on tiny dates in history and start drawing together the entire sweep of its context from the Big Bang to today.
Sure, everyone likes epic movies: great costumes, lots of wide screen action. I don't think they are much use for education, though. That said, I'd have to see the course material to judge what the course is like.
Michael K:
It's ironic that people who believe in evolution as a "scientific" theory, are the most likely to deny evolutionary principles, or consider them to be negotiable. Most notably, the evolution of human life from conception to death is both observable and reproducible. Whereas evolution as a description of origin and development is supported by a permanent set of discontinuous, circumstantial evidence. The former is legitimately within the scientific domain (i.e. limited frame in both time and space). While the latter is more correctly an article of faith or philosophy.
Also, there are other credible and evidenced scenarios to describe human origin than "evolutionary theory" and creation. Both extremes: divine creation and spontaneous generation, are artificially limiting people's perspective. Neither are scientific theories or can be legitimately included in the scientific domain. Both are articles of faith or, more generously, philosophies.
Finally, it is necessary to separate and distinguish between "evolutionary theory" and an evolutionary process. The latter is a chaotic process which is both observable and reproducible. It describes not only generational development but intragenerational development, from conception to a natural, accidental, or premeditated death.
Mr. K,
"Your question is tendentious and indicates you are an evolution disbeliever."
But climate change is settled science, right? Your assumption about me is wrong. Evolution is a very complicated topic. Your faith in science is duly noted.
"You would lose your wager unless you live in a small rural community."
Do you happen to have data, or are you assuming again? It is not very scientific to simply state, "you're wrong". You seem to have some authority on the subject, based on the certainy of you responses, so I'm very open to being informed.
The most ignorant amongst deride faith and abort future children.
Many cults do not believe in evolution, as the Catholic Church defines it (so not Darwinism), and there may be a point the Catholics are missing, but I doubt it. So the cultists who don't believe the Church are ignorant, but speaking from a profoundly truthful base of knowledge if they speak of distrust of Darwinists, of which they are purposefully driven to misunderstand the arguments because their I.Q. doesn't have rhetoric as an ability highlighted through necessity.
If it weren't for the Catholics with faith, there would be no Western Civilization, even the dumbest atheists have to acknowledge this basic argument.
If Bill really wants to improve the condition of humanity, he could take a billion or two, hire some competent programmers for a change, and get them to make Windows a tad less buggy, clunky, ugly, and slow. Those of us who, through no fault of our own, are forced on occasion to use Microsoft's shitware would be very grateful, and he might even get some time off his sentence in Hell.
Sure, everyone likes epic movies: great costumes, lots of wide screen action. I don't think they are much use for education, though. That said, I'd have to see the course material to judge what the course is like.
I'm not sure how common the methodology is so I don't know where to find "course materials". But if you go to Christian's YouTube page he's got some very interesting videos that focus on an explanation of developments as a series of "hinges", such as writing systems, agriculture, and how one thing led to another. Of course, this isn't unknown to traditional historical approaches; it's just gaining momentum as we see how importantly generalized context applies to predictable developments regardless of the particular historical time, place, or leader.
"While the latter is more correctly an article of faith or philosophy."
Are you aware of much of the recent work in genetics ? I started to read a huge genetics text book 10 years ago and realized I didn't know enough molecular biology. I was going to have to catch up to my students in basic biology which was primitive when I was a medical student. I read an earlier edition of this book . It took a year as it is 1500 pages and lots of information. Even though I was an engineer it was a task.
Finally, I finished that book and went back to the genetics book. I quickly learned that, not only was the earlier one I had begin out of date, but some of the information in it was wrong. Craig Venter had worked out the human genome in the meantime, so I bought the new edition but now it is out of date with two newer editions that I need to read . The work is going so rapidly that I have trouble keeping up. My students are way ahead of me in that area. I am teaching them traditional physical diagnosis and methods of working out a diagnosis decision tree. Their knowledge of genetics is far ahead of me.
I'm sorry but evolution is the basis of all genetics.
And it is science.
And medicine is going very quickly into genetic medicine. I will never be able to keep up but I don't have to as I am mostly retired.
I don't want to get into politics on this topic as that is where the social conservative are. Do some reading on Archea . If your mind is open, of course.
The quality of thinking that goes into "educational reform" is usually only a little this side of stupid. In the land of the shoeless, the man with shoes is king. And he says, I wear a size 8 shoe, so I decree that everyone in the land shall be given a pair of size 8 shoes. Think about all the ideas to reform education. Why are those ideas are any different from giving all children the same size shoes? Dating back to the Sputnik hysteria of the fifties, every one of these educational reform movements in the public schools has failed because of that.
This series is probably enjoyable to watch, and some students might learn something from it. In my childhood the technology was filmstrips not videos, and the big bang was still a theory (like continental drift) about which the text books were divided. But that really wasn't education (it was closer to recess, except you got less exercise).
The education problem in this country will not be solved, it will not even be addressed, by this series. The real problem is kids, mostly but not exclusively in inner cities, often but not always Black and Latino/a, from uneducated and undisciplined home environments. Some individual teachers and individual schools have had some success with some of these kids, but overall our system doesn't know how to teach and reach them.
Maybe Gates can digitize that.
From the moment I saw "Goldilocks Theory" - without an explanation of what it is - I knew this was useless as a teaching tool for most Americans.
An example of how smart people are stupid,...
"Do you happen to have data, or are you assuming again? It is not very scientific to simply state, "you're wrong". You seem to have some authority on the subject, based on the certainy of you responses, so I'm very open to being informed."
I doubt you are going to read The Cell or Gene XI but you could do some reading about Archea and Craig Venter.
Here is something from my own blog 7 years ago .
It's a bit like talking about terrorism and ISIS having not read The Looming Tower . I'm trying not to appeal to authority but it does take some basic biology to get these arguments.
Among other things, Darwin did not understand evolution as he knew nothing of genes and genetics. That came later.
As someone pointed out already...microevolution and Darwinism are two different things. I think most everybody agrees with microevolution (even Creationists) --- it's the Darwinism that gives religious people hang ups.
David said...
Someonehastosayit: "You say 'robber barons' (and what a biased and possibly slanderous name! I wonder who came up with it, and why?) as if it is an incontestable fact, and I'm guessing that you probably also mean it as an indictment of the inevitable ends of capitalism."
The term "robber barons" has been in use as a pejorative since at least the 1870's and was a widely discussed concept at the beginning of the 20th century in American politics. It is a pejorative shorthand, but well understood to refer to a broad group of successful capitalists and industrialists. Examples include Carnegie, Rockefeller, Flagler, Gould, Frick, Mellon, Scwab, Stanford, Vanderbilt.
Yeah, wise guy, I know. My question was rhetorical, and you failed to discern that.
It's a shorthand to refer to this group, used even by people who do not entirely accept the concept. It was a brilliant political pejorative shorthand, which still sends some people (you are an example) right up the wall.
'Some people'? You mean like those who are interested in the truth, rather than the 'brilliant political pejorative'.
Your guess about how I meant it is completely incorrect, and reveals your ignorance, not mine.
Not ignorant, of course. At best, an incorrect guess. But your calling it 'ignorant' reveals your character, not mine.
So fucking enlighten us. Did you express hope for more about 'robber barons' because you wanted to rescue their slandered reputations from brilliant political pejoratives? I'm still guessing not.
So fucking enlighten us. Did you express hope for more about 'robber barons' because you wanted to rescue their slandered reputations from brilliant political pejoratives? I'm still guessing not.
Untwist your panties, big fella.
The "Robber Barons" have mixed legacy, a not unusual thing. Growing up in Pittsburgh, you heard a lot about Carnegie, Frick, Charles Schwab and Andrew Mellon. Fascinating men, especially Carnegie. I've read a lot about them and the history of Pittsburgh. A good history course for American students would benefit from material about them and their era.
You remain a bad guesser.
They are going to get into Big Trouble about evolution.
I think for many people evolution is atheist dogma. It's the atheist creation story. All of life evolved from a single-celled organism.
Atheism needs to explain creation without a creator, and evolution is its answer.
I have no trouble believing in evolution within a species, as we adopt to environments over millions of years. For instance I think dogs, who have thrown in their lot with humanity and communicate with us every day, will become smarter and smarter and smarter.
But there are a lot of problems with evolutionary theory, scientific problems. It seems to me utterly reasonable for somebody to be open-minded on the subject.
Note what the New York Times has to say about Darwin's Black Box...
"this proposition is close to heretical"
Are you sure we should approach science as if it's dogma, and banish the heretics?
Mr. K,
With respect, my response was to your statement that I would lose the wager on GP's. According to CDC data(2010), 55.5% of physicians office visits were to primary care physcians, 23.5% were medical specialty visits and 20.9% were surgical specialty visits. We don't know what Obamacare will bring, I sure doubt the number of PCPs visits will go down. PA's and Nurse Practicioners, working with PCPs will handle the load.
That is what I meant by data.
You sound like Hugh Hewitt on The Looming Tower. For the record, I believe terrorism is real.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ahcd/namcs_summary/2010_namcs_web_tables.pdf
And inevitably the commenters find some useless thing to argue about in this thread...
"Do you happen to have data, or are you assuming again? It is not very scientific to simply state, "you're wrong". "
I would recommend the yellow pages or Google wherever you live. Find a "General Practitioner." Most primary care docs these days are general internists or pediatricians or OB GYNers. Very few states, if any, will license a medical school graduate with one year of post graduate training. That is the definition of "GP."
If the doc has more than one year of post graduate training (There are no "internships" anymore) he/she is not a GP in the classical sense.
Now, doctors may choose to do general practice but they nearly all have additional training. The GP that I knew who did not believe in evolution retired and had never taken the Board exams in "Family Medicine," which has replaced "general practice" almost everywhere.
The primary care docs can get away with no knowledge of evolution or genetics but they are dwindling.
David said...
You remain a bad guesser.
Can't blame the guesser if the evidence is misleading.
If you feel as you claim, then "the so-called robber barons" is what you should have written.
Mr. K,
Should I ask the young specialist that I am refered to by my old God-fearing GP about his views on evolution? Because frankly, I don't care if he has read about Archea and Craig Venter. If he is unfamiliar with the latest in genetics, should I find another specialist? I bet my insurance won't cover either one. Out of network and all.
Mr. K,
Now I'm curious.
Who do you see for a sinus infection or a check-up?
"If he is unfamiliar with the latest in genetics, should I find another specialist? I bet my insurance won't cover either one. Out of network and all."
I really don't care who you see and if he/she believes in evolution. Caveat Emptor.
All I care about is medical students and that they are prepared for the future.
You make a nice example of the intolerant creationist.
Good luck. You should look into Ricochet. You'd find friends there.
Perhaps we all should be more sensitive to the elderly.
Sure sure Buckley was writing coherently until 82, but I certainly don't expect to be myself, nor of that anyone.
I appreciate the lives saved, not lost or killed, by the MD's among us.
God Bless.
"With respect, my response was to your statement that I would lose the wager on GP's. According to CDC data(2010), 55.5% of physicians office visits were to primary care physicians,"
Apples and Oranges. I tried to explain it to you and you seem to ignore that. SC beat Stanford and even a twerp who keeps referring to me as "Mr K" can't piss me off.
Have a great weekend.
St Croix Said
"But there are a lot of problems with evolutionary theory, scientific problems. It seems to me utterly reasonable for somebody to be open-minded on the subject."
The best I have read in support of this statement is "Darwins Doubts" by Stephen Meyer. It takes Darwin's theory to pieces from the evolutionists own findings.
"But there are a lot of problems with evolutionary theory, scientific problems. It seems to me utterly reasonable for somebody to be open-minded on the subject.
Note what the New York Times has to say about Darwin's Black Box..."
I wonder if this is a problem on every conservative site ?
Years ago, I converted a newspaper reporter friend to skepticism on global warming because of the scientific misconduct by its advocates.
Science has several levels. Level one is "observational." We are there with climate.
The next is that of experiment.
Finally we get to the confirmation of theory, just as when Einstein's theory of relativity was confirmed by its ability to predict. One example was that of gravity and its effect on light.
Einstein's theory suggests the stars' orbital periods—the time they take to go around each other—ought to shrink by about eight-millionths of a second per year.
Dr. Freire's and his colleagues used several telescopes to take precise measurements of the two-star system. Their results perfectly matched the Einstein-based prediction.
Evolution is not as far along as Einstein's theory but we do understand such things as why mitochondria, which allow cells to use oxygen, are related to free living organisms like Rickettsiae. They were once free living and were captured by living cells early in evolution . They have their own genes although not enough to be free living now.
I fear those who are not sophisticated in science will not know enough biology to understand the data.
It is a shame if political conservatism and even libertarianism require that one be ignorant of basic science. Meteorology is not basic science.
Mr. Michael K,
Spoken like a real zealot.
Just what the world needs. Unreliable electric cars and electric space travel for the really, really elite betters.
I'm betting that history will record Musk as a combination of Prince Henry the Navigator and Thomas Edison.
Everyone keeps betting against Musk, and he keeps succeeding.
How successful would Musk be if not for the government helping him out?
Electric cars are subsidized, spaceflight is subsidized. Paypal is a financial services company, not exactly a hotbed of innovation.
Musk is a successful rent-seeker. He's entrepreneurial the way the IRS and the post office are entrepreneurial.
"Mr. Michael K,
Spoken like a real zealot."
No, just tired.
Michael K, whatever we say about the past is a metaphor. It is a story. The past does not exist. People who believe in evolution as well as young Earth creationists would be wise to remember this.
You guys are such cocksuckers. I am beginning to feel some sympathy for Michael K.
Darwin did not understand evolution as he knew nothing of genes and genetics.
etbass mentioned Meyer upthread. I haven't read his books but I will be reading this one.
Also mentioned upthread, microevolution and Darwinism are different concepts. Not only are they different, but the scientists who are challenging Darwin are using biochemistry to do it.
Behe talks about irreducible complexity. You can read about his theory here.
To me this sort of question and argument makes science more interesting, not less. The idea that we should shut this discussion down, and not ask these questions, strikes me as barbaric.
To me this sort of question and argument makes science more interesting, not less. The idea that we should shut this discussion down, and not ask these questions, strikes me as barbaric. <-- This
Bill Gates was a year ahead of me at View Ridge elementary in Seattle. We are not acquainted, but we do have mutual friends.
What most people remember was his ability to stand next to, and then jump into a 36 gallon trash can at View Ridge play field.
Other than that, people would take his shoes, and flush them in the toilet.
So, yeah....he's still pickin' that grade school wedgie out of his ass.
I would find it very odd if my doctor did not believe in evolution, but I don't think an excellent doctor who understands developments in genetic medicine and doesn't believe in evolution is beyond imagination. A doctor has to be great at healing people, not necessarily an expert in evolutionary research. And let's face it, most doctors aren't that great at keeping up with research. If you cut them all out of doctoring, we wouldn't have enough doctors.
In fact, I think a big problem in our society is the idea that being really good at one thing means one is really good at things generally. For example, you see in art all the time people who are good at making money, so they think they're good at art. (Yikes!) Or you see an academic, say, a physicist or a biologist, who then assumes he is good at, say, philosophy. This leads to a lot of terrible writing.
What most people remember was his ability to stand next to, and then jump into a 36 gallon trash can at View Ridge play field.
That's actually kind of neat.
There's also the false assumption that every good writer has ideas worth reading.
What most people remember was his ability to stand next to, and then jump into a 36 gallon trash can at View Ridge play field.
That explains the enmity:
Apple lost all claims in the Microsoft suit except for the ruling that the trash can icon and folder icons from Hewlett-Packard's NewWave windows application were infringing. link
"You guys are such cocksuckers. I am beginning to feel some sympathy for Michael K."
Yikes ! I must be doing something wrong !
Just kidding. At the end of the day we are just people.
And SC did beat Stanford.
I know there are windows-critics out there, but the fact remains that Bill Gates did much for humanity while he was making his billions at Microsoft. Since he left to devote his time to helping humanity - crap.\
I went to Dr. K's web site hoping that I would learn some something about the science of cells. But instead of science, all I found was a long chain of assertions qualified with words like "generally accepted", "may", "thought to be", "maybe", "may have been", "probably" and "almost certainly" plied one on top of the other.
To wit:
-"It is generally accepted" that A was "some form" of B and "may have developed out of" C.
-D is "thought to be the precursors of living cells."
-"Maybe the prion" ..."is actually the ancestor of all life."
-"..proteins may have been the original genetic material."
-"The origins of life... may involve self replicating proteins."
-"Archea... may have been able to survive" extreme conditions.
-"Perhaps, they were the first life forms."
-"Mitochondria were probably early eukaryotes in the evolution of life."
-"Mitochondria may have been ingested by early eukaryotes..."
-"...the relationship may have changed from predator to cooperation."
-"It was almost certainly once freeliving..."
This is not science. It's pure speculation. And, except for the subject matter, it's not much different from the speculation you find down at Ernie's Bar and Grill about who will be playing for the National Championship.
The most important comment about Big History is what Sam Wineburg says in the NYTs piece. That no one here seems to have an interest in or clue about that is disappointing. Why the issue of evolution is taking up all the space here is beyond me. Wineburg criticizes Big History as a downplaying of what makes history unique and important as an intellectual discipline with its own unique habits of thought that students ought to learn. They are unlikely to if all they get is Big History.
As to Gates, his support for Common Core is admirable - it is support for a reform he did not himself concoct or initiate. It came from a much wider range of forces. In this case, the idea of billionaire on a treadmill watching a DVD as the basis for transforming world history in the schools is appalling and arrogant on his part in the extreme. When I have run on a treadmill at my local fitness center, they usually have horrid game shows on, or hour long infomercials about cosmetic surgery. I guess I should be grateful Gates never had to watch those.
How successful would Musk be if not for the government helping him out?
Elon Musk is an example of all those government programs working. Not one of his companies have failed, not one of his loans defaulted. He has actually opened factories and provided good, high paying jobs. He has repaid his loans as they came due.
Electric cars are subsidized,
True, because we as a people have decided that we want them to be.
spaceflight is subsidized.
Not so much subsidized, as underwritten. In this case it is going to produce a spaceship capable of taking cargo and seven astronauts to low Earth orbit for about a fifth of what the Russians are charging us.
Paypal is a financial services company, not exactly a hotbed of innovation.
He has no connection to Paypal anymore, and at the time Musk was involved it was extremely innovative.
Musk is a successful rent-seeker. He's entrepreneurial the way the IRS and the post office are entrepreneurial.
Bullshit. Musk is earning a profit, and he has revolutionized four separate industries to this point. (Internet payments, electric cars, rocketry, and solar panels)
I truly don't understand the Musk hate....
"True, because we as a people have decided that we want them to be."
You must be unaware of the sales figures of electric cars.
You must be unaware of the sales figures of electric cars.
As far as I can tell, TESLA, and several competitors, are literally selling them as fast as they can build them. It turns out that China is a huge market for electric cars, so it is even helping our trade balance.
Musk has just committed to building a huge factory in Nevada to produce batteries for electric cars.
"I went to Dr. K's web site..."
I don't read the bios of commenters. Now I understand why Dr. K thought I was trying to piss him off by addressing him as Mr. K. My apologies to Dr. K.
Gahrie, you understand that the government loans money to people like Musk because the private won't, or will charge him more interest? That'll sink a business model like a stone.
"Not so much subsidized, as underwritten."
Subsidized is the correct word. If not for the ISS, Musk's orbital ferry business would disappear. The ISS is sucking the money out of NASA that is used for science. You can make a direct cause-and-effect link between Musk's subsidized ISS transport and SOFIA being canceled a decade early.
Take away the subsidies and what happens to Musk's boutique car business, Gahrie?
Don't make a free-market hero out of a crony capitalist.
Musk's Tesla car weighs 25%-33% more than a comparable gas powered car. So I fail to see how they can be considered energy efficient when they are lugging around an extra 1,000 lbs.
Electric cars seem to appeal to our emotion gene but not to our quantitative logic gene. My proof is that even Instapundit can't stop dreaming about a successful, electric car.
IMO,a practical, economical, electric car has not yet been developed for the mass market without getting substantive taxpayer dollar support.
So, I only give Musk ctedit for his success at Pay Pal - his other ventures' success are yet to be determined especially solar energy farms / panels.
Another Bill Gates favorite is Vaclav Smil. Take a look at his book, Energy Myths and Realities. He has a lot to say about electric cars.
I actually think batteries are the new cell phones. If and when we have a battery break through, it'll change the world more than the internet and cell phones. Energy will become near limitless.
The question is, is a battery breakthrough possible and if so, what sort of breakthrough are we talking?
I'm glad Tesla is doing what its doing, but it should be allowed to fail if that's where this goes.
But I can't help but hold out home that someday we get batteries that store huge amounts of energy. And that we are able to charge batteries like they propose charging the new cell phone batteries, wirelessly. Amazing. I can't imagine having a bunch of electronic devices in my home all wireless and constantly having their batteries charged. Crazy stuff.
Michael K
I hope challenging the current religious dogma known as "Evolution" is challenged on most, if not all, conservative sites. Its become so silly as to be absurd. You can't even have a discussion with such a zealot without them starting with ,"You're an ignoramous and I have to speak to you as though you're three". Always a good start to a conversation.
And then, of course, they use the word evolution to mean several different things. Its become a joke. Hell, King Putt has evolved on his views of gay marriage. Wait, what? That's proof of evolution right there! Right?
I got an idea, show me a picture of something in several different stages, then tell me a story, and call that science. I did that on Facebook once. I showed how the horn on the unicorn sucks in the sunshine, it gets processed in its belly, and comes out its rear as a rainbow. Science!
I'll start listening to these guys when they stop being so defensive and rude and instead treat me like a fellow human.
Imagine if all ideas people had on treadmills were brought to fruition.
Eric- when that day comes and they figure out how to store a lot of energy on a battery, the biggest affect will be the elimination of power lines between homes. They will just deliver a fresh battery to your house every 2-3 months and we won't fret about power lines downed due to storms.
Freeman - doubt you really mean all ideas? Some are just plain dumb and bad and I know that for a fact because Obama uses a treadmill.
On a treadmill I once had an idea for a clear sphere made out of a not-yet-existent space age, shock-absorbing material that a person could stand inside and propel by a sort of elliptical machine. The idea was that you could travel across open places where dangerous animals live or where there aren't roads or trails. You could get it going to exhilarating speeds.
I am not a billionaire, so this does not exist.
Freeman - doubt you really mean all ideas?
Yes, all. All. ALL.
I bet someone has imagined a ham hat while on a treadmill.
Chemical batteries have limits. Lithium ion batteries aren't more advanced than old NiCads, they just have different features. They are lighter for the charge they hold and relatively cheap. Li batteries also have a catastrophic failure mode (internal short) and have memory issues.
What we need is a good, cheap, stable fuel cell.
"And, except for the subject matter, it's not much different from the speculation you find down at Ernie's Bar and Grill about who will be playing for the National Championship."
Read Albert's The Cell and we can talk. Until then you are just another guy who resents experts. Have you read The Looming Tower ? Another basic text.
" Now I understand why Dr. K thought I was trying to piss him off by addressing him as Mr. K. My apologies to Dr. K."
I thought you were doing it to be cute. Sorry for the snark.
"I hope challenging the current religious dogma known as "Evolution" is challenged on most, if not all, conservative sites. Its become so silly as to be absurd. You can't even have a discussion with such a zealot without them starting with ,"You're an ignoramous and I have to speak to you as though you're three". Always a good start to a conversation."
Would you prefer to talk about calculus ? Evolution is NOT "religious dogma." It is bringing cures to diseases every day and you don't know enough to even discuss it, let alone refute articles. Did you notice the links on that page of my blog? Did you read any ?
Do some reading and I would be happy to talk to you. Biology has gotten a lot tougher than it was 50 years ago. There are degrees in computational biology now. I'm trying to be polite but it is not easy.
SC won and UCLA is close to losing. Nobody can piss me off tonight.
Eric, read this and explain why it is religion
fer Goodness sake, Michael K.
If what you believe is true, your remarks about evolution and whatever are just just random bleatings. Do you believe that "reason" is a result of random evolutionary adaption??
ARM,
"You guys are such cocksuckers."
Nope.
"I am beginning to feel some sympathy for Michael K."
Nonsense. Look, every one of us (even me... heck, even you!) as our shortcomings, our blind spots, and our silly hot buttons. This included Michael K., whose blind spot/silly hot button is evolution and the denial thereof. It's not reasonable or logical, it just is. I look at these posts of his on this subject... and just move on. Michael K. is a noted and very valuable contributor on quite a number of blogs that I also frequent, but when it comes to this subject I just go "oh well" and move on.
Note I'm fairly sure I have similar foibles; I just don't know what they are though some of the others here might give you a hint or two...
"Ernie's Bar and Grill"
...
Dude, I was at Ernie's last night when you typed that, and I was talking about the National Championship (and many other things).
It is only natural for anyone who has performed an abortion to become irrational and appeal to authority when challenged on evolution. The Catholic Church has understood this for some time.
Similarly, the idea Hugh Hewitt can't use The Looming Tower's lessons/input to make his case but instead resorts to shaming techniques in order to advance an argument is stunningly anti-Buckley.
Bill would quote others all the time, and drop references more than Dennis Miller on Miller's best day, but it was always within the context of a broader point. He used, as support, other's books/quotes/concepts. He did not use them as as arguments themselves.
Simply, if you have a point worth making, why divert to ad hominem instead? Hucksters and people who know they are wrong do that.
I listened to Thom Hartmann once on the radio.
A caller was making a point and used the broken windows economic lesson, at which point Hartmann interrupted and said he had no clue what the caller was referring to.
WRONG ANSWER: You idiot it's basic economics, what orifice has your head been lodged up?
CORRECT ANSWER: Well Thom, if I go around breaking windows that creates economic activity alright, especially for window manufacturers and installers. However, all the other business' will suffer the losses that were spent on windows instead of their business, plus there will be less investment in all areas including research and development. This means breaking windows isn't an economic gain, even though, yes, it does create economic activity (like paying people to dig holes and fill them up again).
Michael K fails to mention the remarkable results obtained in recent years from high throughput sequencing of the genomes of a large number of species, showing the continuity of DNA sequences across the entirety of the extant species as well as a few extinct ones. It is confirmation of the theory of evolution quite as stunning and definitive as any confirmation of the theory of relativity.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
I'm having a love-hate reaction to Big History.
On the one hand it looks very enjoyable and informative. Who doesn't like learning when it puts things in a neat perspective, doesn't tax the brain too much, and promotes interconnectedness if ideas?
On the other hand, I'm very suspicious of having other people connect dots for me. Even more so, I'm very suspicious of people connecting dots for upcoming generations of school kids. Seems like an attempt to make history into a freight train moving ever onward to Progress. Stop debating history and science, deniers! We already demonstrated how all of these ideas have led inevitably to the future. Don't be on the wrong side of Big History!
Gates is a doer, but not a (fundamental) thinker. He has a positive "sense of life" without the required philosophical foundation to really change social systems. His skills were obviously well suited for a software enterprise, and, despite Microsoft's flaws, it is undeniable that, through that venture, Bill Gates improved more lives than all of the Saints in history combined.
As for education (and politics, and healthcare, etc.), others here have accurately analyzed his blind spots, and why this idea will have almost no impact on the system.
While integrating knowledge across disciplines is crucial, and showing how knowledge develops over time is extremely useful, this series does not do that in a way that would be accessible to all but the most well-formed minds. And, unfortunately, American education is not producing well-formed minds. Children need to have their conceptual faculty nurtured from the start, learning how to build a knowledge hierarchy by integrating observations. Instead, they are taught look-say reading, heuristic-based math, and such useless ideas as environmental "sustainability" and "sharing" the art supplies (which they don't own).
The "broad sweep of ideas and history" approach described in this course would possibly be entertaining to some of these products of the comprachicos, but it would actually make sense to very few of them.
ARM,
"Michael K fails to mention the remarkable results obtained in recent years from high throughput sequencing of the genomes of a large number of species, showing the continuity of DNA sequences across the entirety of the extant species as well as a few extinct ones."
Which has nothing to do with whether one could become a successful medical practitioner.
A mechanism to quickly gauge someone's intelligence and commitment to reason, can be very useful in determining if they are worth listening to further.
The answer to "Does the best current evidence show that eating too much fat in the diet is the main cause of obesity and heart disease?" is a great question to ask someone who you intend to rely on for nutrition advice. If they say "yes", then run!
The answer to "Does the best evidence show that life evolved on this planet based on random genetic mutation, with 'successful' mutations for better fitness guided by the environmental pressures and principles of Natural Selection?" is a great question to ask someone who you intend to rely on their science advice. If they say "no", then run!
That nerdy ectomorph should get off the treadmill and get on a resistance program.
On the one hand, he is pissing off Diane Ravitch and Randi Weingarten, which is nice. On the other, this effort is of a piece by the College Board (who administer the SAT and AP programs) to politicize U.S. History education and testing.
Students will now be expected to learn how "have gender, class, ethnic, religious, regional and other group identities changed in different eras."
The answer to "Does the best evidence show that life evolved on this planet based on random genetic mutation, with 'successful' mutations for better fitness guided by the environmental pressures and principles of Natural Selection?" is a great question to ask someone who you intend to rely on their science advice.
No, it isn't. It's become too much of a tribal affirmation. I know scads of people who are almost wholly ignorant of science who would say they agreed with that statement.
Freeman Hunt said...
The answer to "Does the best evidence show that life evolved on this planet based on random genetic mutation, with 'successful' mutations for better fitness guided by the environmental pressures and principles of Natural Selection?" is a great question to ask someone who you intend to rely on their science advice.
No, it isn't. It's become too much of a tribal affirmation. I know scads of people who are almost wholly ignorant of science who would say they agreed with that statement.
But I didn't say you should automatically trust them if they say 'yes'. I said you should RUN if they say 'no'. See?
If they pass the first test, you can continue on with more questions. But if they fail that first questions, they are done.
"fer Goodness sake, Michael K.
If what you believe is true,"
You might recall that I brought this subject up, not to argue with people about whether evolution is a fact but whether it would be a problem for a national standard for education.
"They are going to get into Big Trouble about evolution."
Thank you all for proving the accuracy of that statement.
Conservatism has an Achilles Heel and that is the loud vocal role played by social conservatives. We see it here. That loud voice pushes a lot of science people left. It's not really connected with the role of conservatism which is economics and the regulatory state.
Big "L" Libertarians fail the foreign policy test, as Rand Paul has done so obviously this summer.
I don't know the solution and it is a shame that the only comments here that support science are from a voice from the pretty hard left.
This is a shame and a cause of worry about the future of the country.
I don't care if you believe evolution is a fact or if your doctor does. I do believe that the future of medicine is in genetics. I say that as a surgeon who did not use genetics in my practice but I am now retired and work with medical students who are far ahead of me in understanding and using genetics.
The present group of students I have are all engineers who are in a program which includes a PhD in bioengineering from CalTech with the MD from USC.
I would hate them to see this argument as they would wonder who I associate with. Too many young people assume Republicans are ignoramuses.
If they pass the first test, you can continue on with more questions. But if they fail that first questions, they are done.
I like to know if they're into homeopathy first. (A doctor once suggested a homeopathic teething remedy for my son. "Did you just tell me to try something homeopathic?" I laughed. He didn't think it was funny.)
I don't know the solution and it is a shame that the only comments here that support science are from a voice from the pretty hard left.
The only comments that support science? How is uncertainty that assent to evolutionary theory makes a good litmus test for future doctors synonymous with not supporting science? That not the same as rejecting evolutionary theory.
Another way to test the doctor:
Ask him about something rare, something he probably has to look up to speak precisely about. Does he shoot off his mouth and make a bunch of factually incorrect statements or does he look it up? Nothing worse than a mouthy, imprecise, incurious doctor.
I actually agree with Michael K-for the most part-about physicians needing to accept the premise of evolution, even though I'm much more sympathetic to creationists in general than he seems to be.
And I think he's right about the likelihood of opposition to Big History on the basis of its heavy handed treatment of the subject. For instance, they cover the Big Bang theory by listing it as the final word among various creation myths, including Genesis. There's simply no reason to treat a scientific theory in contrast to myth (which belongs in the categories of literature and philosophy where their value can be examined and treated respectfully instead of dismissively.)
"How is uncertainty that assent to evolutionary theory makes a good litmus test for future doctors synonymous with not supporting science?"
Read the hostile comments again. Not much uncertainty there.
Once again, I did not post a comment to pick a fight with those who do not believe in evolution. I suspect they see it as weakening religion. Someone even equated it to atheism. I have no problem with 'Intelligent Design" and think many scientists have something like that attitude.
The role of prions in disease was a rude shock to traditional thinking about microorganisms. But it was a shock in the evolutionary direction. For some reading on prions as a disease cause here is some reading .
Well, I should have said, there is exactly one reason to teach myth alongside science, and that is if your goal is to dispense of the myth.
Freeman Hunt said...
No, it isn't. It's become too much of a tribal affirmation.
Tribal affiliations are tricky things. A friend complained to me that her friend was not getting into the medical schools consistent with her scores. Both women were Muslims. My friend did not wear a scarf but her friend did. My friend got into Yale medical school, her friend just barely into SUNY downstate.
Not completely unreasonably the people responsible for med school admission were leery of someone bearing markers of religious fundamentalism. They apply that thinking more broadly.
AReasonableMan wrote (double negative removed for clarity):
[R]easonably the people responsible for med school admission were leery of someone bearing markers of religious fundamentalism. They apply that thinking more broadly.
There is also the issue of Muslim students and nurses in Britain refusing to observe basic cleanliness practices like scrubbing their arms before surgery. Hospital infections in Britain have spiked and this may be some of it.
Dr. K implies that intelligent design is not necessarily inconsistent with evolutionary theory. And he is entirely correct on this.
Whether the principal and necessary cause behind evolutionary change is intelligent design or random chance is not a scientific question. It is a philosophical question that cannot be answered by the scientific method.
Once again, I did not post a comment to pick a fight with those who do not believe in evolution. I suspect they see it as weakening religion. Someone even equated it to atheism. I have no problem with 'Intelligent Design" and think many scientists have something like that attitude.
Oh brother, why didn't you say that at the beginning then? You truly understand that most of the people here calling you out were calling you out because they thought you declared that a faithful Catholic was not fit to be a doctor, right?
"It is a philosophical question that cannot be answered by the scientific method."
I agree and the concept that I find quite reasonable is that God drew up the rules and left it there. That is the "clockwork model of the Universe," but is not a problem for science. Atheists are just advocates of another religion and demonstrate all the pathology of religious zealots.
When Herman Wouk was writing his novels on World War II, he interviewed Richard Feynman at Cal Tech . As he was leaving, Feynman asked him if he knew Calculus.
This formidable fellow walked out of the building with me, and said as we were parting: “Do you know calculus?” I admitted that I didn’t. “You had better learn it,” he said. “It’s the language God talks.”
"you declared that a faithful Catholic was not fit to be a doctor, right?"
Two answers. A) Most fundamentalist Christians I know of are not Catholic.
B) Catholics, of which I am one, show much more understanding of the nuances of evolution than most Protestants I have discussed this with.
You need to get out more.
You need to get out more.
Michael K, I'm merely showing how your comments on this subject were being taken. Perhaps you should take a look back at your own comments and the others responding to you and see how this misunderstanding could have happened. A number of people brought up differences between evolution and Darwinism, some even wrote about Catholic belief specifically. You never responded to any of them, but continued to rail against those who didn't believe in evolution as the worst sort.
I'm not even sure anyone arguing with you believes any different than you, but your attitude has certainly provoked some pushback. Perhaps its the attitude and not the belief that is the problem.
Wow Freeman. A physician whose understanding of biology is so poor as to reject evolution is about as unwelcome and ridiculous as a physician whose understanding of chemistry is so poor as to reject the atomic theory of matter. Both equally nonsensical to the required courses of study.
Mr. K comes off as a pompous prick. Douchebags in the medical industry like you make the legal profession to be a joy at times.
Also the super classy AReasonableMan calling people "cocksuckers." Did Ann's son give you a dispensation to throw around homophobic slurs, as long as you only use them against those to the right of Pol Pot?
"continued to rail against those who didn't believe in evolution as the worst sort. "
I don't think so. I understand why the religious may reject evolution as contrary to religious beliefs. What I have a problem with is people applying to medical school who do not accept the current state of knowledge about genetics and, necessarily, about evolution.
Your doctor may not believe in evolution and and even the germ theory but you have the right to choose what you want. I've had patients with weird health beliefs and we even teach medical students how to talk to those patients.
I once had a patient who tried to treat his cancer of the rectum with celery juice. He was convinced that the failure was because he hadn't used enough celery juice. He had been a candidate for County Supervisor and got quite a few votes the last election.
I used to get referrals from quacks because I had learned that you cannot talk people out of these beliefs. I would operate on them and send them back to the quack.
The hostility here was similar to that at Ricochet. I am getting used to it but worry that this sort of zealotry will harm Republicans at the polls as they look silly to young intelligent voters who know better.
I disagree with ARM on economics and government but I do wonder how many people in science go left because people like Todd Akin make fools of themselves about evolution.
"Mr. K comes off as a pompous prick. Douchebags in the medical industry like you make the legal profession to be a joy at times."
I'm sure you find it remunerative.
"I disagree with ARM on economics and government"
Do you agree with him on calling people homophobic slurs?
"Do you agree with him on calling people homophobic slurs?"
You mean "cocksuckers ?" I've never had a homosexual do that to me. I never thought of it that way. I have had some fun with members of the opposite sex (that's girls to you ).
Sheesh ! Angry vibes around here. Not much love in your religion.
The hostility here was similar to that at Ricochet. I am getting used to it but worry that this sort of zealotry will harm Republicans at the polls as they look silly to young intelligent voters who know better.
I'll repeat it again: I'm not even sure anyone arguing with you believes any different than you, but your attitude has certainly provoked some pushback. Perhaps its the attitude and not the belief that is the problem.
Who gave you a hard time? Jacksonjay, and now PMJ, out of at least a dozen commenters. Originally, we were taken aback about the idea that there was some sort of litmus test for medical school. And here's why:
I've got a friend from church that's an ER Doc, there's also an anesthesiologist in our congregation (I know another one besides that one too). I went to school with a kid that is now a radiologist, two more of my college friends are doctors, one of my very good friends is finishing up a sports medicine fellowship after his residency. One of the leaders of our church is a renowned heart surgeon. I've never asked any of them about their beliefs on evolution, but I'm pretty sure they don't think that Adam and Eve were half monkeys.
And yet they are very good at what they do. They wouldn't have had the fellowships they had or gotten into the med schools they did without it. So yeah, you're going to get some push back for saying they don't belong where they are if you think someone has to believe in Darwinism to make it as a doctor.
"B) Catholics, of which I am one, show much more understanding of the nuances of evolution than most Protestants I have discussed this with."
What an odd thing to say. It's like a Mormon who insists they are also Christian while rejecting Christian teaching.
I seriously doubt you believe the Pope is the infallible word of God. Or that you believe Christ is God made man. Or that you believe God created Adam and Eve, not a single celled creature that later become a monkey that later become Adam and Eve.
Why call yourself something you clearly are not? It's as ridiculous as me saying I'm an evolutionist, or a Darwinist, but, I reject everything they preach.
Someonehastosayit wrote;
"The answer to "Does the best evidence show that life evolved on this planet based on random genetic mutation, with 'successful' mutations for better fitness guided by the environmental pressures and principles of Natural Selection?" is a great question to ask someone who you intend to rely on their science advice. If they say "no", then run!"
If they say yes, then run away really, really fast.
Because if they say yes, then they won't listen to a thing you say, aren't capable of intelligent thought or argument, and will insist on things being whatever they say they are, without discussion.
The best you'll get out of them is "Shut up!" but usually, you won't be so lucky. They'll just insult you, repeatedly, because they don't want to have to think about the lack of evidence to support their position.
Michael K.,
" the current state of knowledge about genetics and, necessarily, about evolution."
The bolded part is where you go wrong. As I said a bit earlier, even Behe does not deny anything about genetics in current generations. The argument is only about how all this life bootstrapped itself (not not.)
I am certain, however, that all of my friends believe in natural selection, as do I.
"Or that you believe God created Adam and Eve,"
Was that 6000 years ago ?
"there was some sort of litmus test for medical school. And here's why:"
Can you people get it out of your heads that I am not the Czar of medical school admissions ?
"It's as ridiculous as me saying I'm an evolutionist, or a Darwinist, but, I reject everything they preach."
I can see that and you help to defeat Republicans in elections when you say so. I hope you are happy with what you get.
" I've never asked any of them about their beliefs on evolution, but I'm pretty sure they don't think that Adam and Eve were half monkeys. "
Maybe you should ask them but they would probably see what a zealot you are and avoid telling you truth you would feel hurt to hear.
Was that 6000 years ago ?
No
Maybe you should ask them but they would probably see what a zealot you are and avoid telling you truth you would feel hurt to hear.
Maybe you should give some of that nuance and understanding that you ascribe to the Catholic Church to some other people and faiths.
Once again, it's your attitude.
I can't believe I am saying this, but on this topic Michael K represents the mainstream.
Birches said...
I've got a friend from church that's an ER Doc, there's also an anesthesiologist in our congregation (I know another one besides that one too). I went to school with a kid that is now a radiologist, two more of my college friends are doctors, one of my very good friends is finishing up a sports medicine fellowship after his residency. One of the leaders of our church is a renowned heart surgeon. I've never asked any of them about their beliefs on evolution, but I'm pretty sure they don't think that Adam and Eve were half monkeys.
I have to agree with Michael K on this one also. People join churches for a lot of different reasons. I doubt that the people in question joined looking for answers about the origin of the natural world.
I have known deeply religious people who have no problem with the theory of evolution or with geology, where this all started. I am always amazed that geologists get a pass on this and everyone picks on the biologists. The geologists started this whole fuss by pointing out how incredibly old the earth really is. People, myself included, are very poor at understanding the immense times involved in these processes. Our brief lives make rational thought about geological time scales very difficult.
President-Mom-Jeans said...
Mr. K comes off as a pompous prick. Douchebags in the medical industry like you make the legal profession to be a joy at times.
While I very much doubt that you are an actual lawyer you do conform to some very old stereotypes.
As a wise man once said, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
"While I very much doubt that you are an actual lawyer you do conform to some very old stereotypes."
And you, ARM, are conforming to a very new stereotype. That of the leftwing hypocrite who feels comfortable throwing around homosexual slurs while at the same time feigning outrage about sports teams like the Redskins.
Haven't you heard, bigot? The new slogan First, let's kill all the homophobes.
"First, let's kill all the homophobes."
Pretty lame.
This thread is long enough. I certainly see why Republicans and conservatives have trouble with science people. It scares me.
ARM and I are strange allies on this but you have to say what you believe.
Michael K said...
I certainly see why Republicans and conservatives have trouble with science people. It scares me.
BOO!
Is anyone here arguing that the Earth is 6000 years old?
I can't believe I am saying this, but on this topic Michael K represents the mainstream.
I always thought that too. But then look at this. Look at how many people answered that "God created humans in present form within last 10,000 years." Nearly fifty percent of college graduates!
There are lots of seemingly strange views out there that are incredibly common.
This poll says 42% of Americans believe in ghosts!
Go figure.
A quarter of Americans believe in witches.
Freeman Hunt said...
I always thought that too. But then look at this. Look at how many people answered that "God created humans in present form within last 10,000 years." Nearly fifty percent of college graduates!
Yes. I thought after I wrote that phrase that I should have qualified it more carefully - Michael K represents the mainstream of people who have any say in who gets into medical school.
Freeman Hunt said...
Is anyone here arguing that the Earth is 6000 years old?
This is where I find some of the religious arguments hypocritical. It is cafeteria religion. I will accept the parts of the bible that refer to biology but ignore its implications regarding geology.
Modern geology is just as at odds with fundamentalism as biology.
Freeman,
"A quarter of Americans believe in witches. "
The rest are obviously under some kind of spell.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
j/k!!!
I will accept the parts of the bible that refer to biology but ignore its implications regarding geology.
Modern geology is just as at odds with fundamentalism as biology.
Fundamentalists don't accept the geology either.
But let's differentiate between the Christians who believe the Earth is 6000 years old and the ones who accept the findings of modern geology and biology and believe that these are as God designed them. The second group would include those who are into intelligent design as I understand it. (And others too.)
Dr K, - is that how you prefer to be addressed? Mike? - does a surgeon, a cutter, need to know deeply genetics? Yes you you need to know applied genetics, the germ theory of disease, antibiotic resistance and so forth but to perform a laminectomy, replace a heart valve, correct strabismus?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा