Can the politically appointed and self-imposed establishment tolerate scientists who doubt various theories in evolution? It became a hot topic in 2008, when a documentary with a well-known movie star (Bein Stein) called, “Expelled” became the number one topic in the blogosphere before its release and then many months thereafter when it was released to the public. Nick Matzke is a cult follower of evolution.
Who is Nick Matzke? For those who are not familiar with him, he worked for the NCSE (National Center For Science which is a special interest group) as a Public Information Project Director while playing an important role in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial.
Thus, Matzke often times likes to use the bumper sticker phrase or word when one doubts evolution as “anti-science” but this of course is an over simplification on the matter which is nothing more than inventing a straw man. No skeptic of evolution is against things like computer science or rocket science or adult stem cell research which is only part of many great things in science!
Nick Matzke goes after Caroline in a cult-like way using a quote from another website, in UC he writes and then quotes in the comment section…
Following the evidence wherever it leads, eh? Caroline Crocker’s record does not suggest that she is any good at doing this. Instead she just brazenly repeats the crudest creationist arguments. Documentation:
“In the above-mentioned article in the Washington Post, Crocker is described teaching her students a laundry list of discredited Creationist arguments. In a video on the Coral Ridge Ministries site, several of Crocker’s slides are shown. Though it’s not known whether Crocker used the same slides while teaching at George Mason, the Washington Post article provides evidence that they were part of her Northern Virginia Community College lectures. Her use of these slides suggests that Crocker shows either a shocking ignorance of evolutionary science, or a rather shameless willingness to distort the evidence.”
The following are just a small sample of her erroneous and clearly creationist claims:
* Archeopteryx [sic] is a bird (like an Ostrich), not a reptobird
* Only one complete fossil, and has been questioned as a fraud
One can tell Caroline Crocker wasn’t teaching creationism at a government University, all this accusation is implying is that she is a creationist because she is skeptical about Archeopteryx. Then the accusation uses the typical argument about consensus among scientists which somehow helps proves that Archeopteryx is a transitional form. Let’s use a more certainty in science and that is physics. Nothing is more absolute than physics, right? It holds the most certainty in science, right? Many things in the physical world relies on the constancy of this value. Yet, Einstein’s theory of relativity, nothing can exceed the speed of light as measured in a vacuum is being challenged. Experiments are being conducted in order to make an attempt to overturn it!
CERN researchers have claimed that have done just that, Neutrinos which are a subatomic particle that has the least resistance of any particle known to man because it has very little mass was claimed to have gone faster than the speed of light! Now let’s take Nick’s argument and ask, how can one question a well-establish fact like Einstein’s theory of relativity and not be labeled as “anti-science” or a “creationist”? Why can physics be questioned or challenged and not theories within Darwinian evolution? These things only happen in cults. They have some sort of dogma that they believe in and in order to rescue it from criticism that might result in a conversion against them, they guard it like a holy grail.
Scientists have never observed a living Archeopteryx and therefore have used massive amounts of inferences due to their own bias or a particular framework which thus opens it up to more criticism as a result of using speculation than with the certainty of physics. Caroline Crocker responded to the accusations by saying…
“Dr. Crocker was summoned by her department head, accused of teaching creationism despite a singular lack of written even one complaint, and told she had to be disciplined. He immediately removed her from lecturing, even though this was against policy listed in the Faculty Handbook. In fact, she was told to sign up to teach extra lab classes without delay. Many students complained because they had signed up specifically for her lecture class. The short-notice replacement teacher was struggling and not covering the material that was necessary for them to do well in the lab and in future classes.
“The sole reason for Dr. Crocker’s removal from the classroom was a single lecture that was not even delivered that semester, where she suggested that the theory of evolution may not have all the answers and may, in fact, have been rendered out-of-date by current scientific knowledge. Faculty and staff members confirmed that this was the only issue.”
“Finally, the writer of this article complains that many of Dr. Crocker’s arguments were “creationist.” Perhaps he does not appreciate what the word “creationist” means. It is someone who considers a religious book to have scientific authority. It is not someone who sees scientific problems with scientific theories! Her questions about the theory of evolution were as a result of seeing that science has advanced beyond the explanatory reach of this theory. In addition, the writer should be aware that calling scientific arguments “creationist” does not address the validity of the arguments. It is merely an ad hominem attack that does not require response.”
How something relativity simple can change a person’s life! In this case, Caroline’s life. Those like Nick Matzke are cult followers of evolution, which is why they treat certain scientists as prophets, which is why evolution is reverend to them like a religion rather than a scientific prospective or theory which in turn is why a requirement of membership is involved, nowhere in any other area of science does this happen as physics was a great example of that!