Special Blog Post:
The Message and the Message

So, is there a problem with the e-mail solicitation above? Not really.
Except that it came to me at my college e-mail address, a public school with excellent spam blockers on the servers. It is a near certainty that the school directly provided this church with the e-mail addresses of faculty members and then ensured that the spam blockers would not touch e-mail messages from this sender. What would otherwise be easy pickings for a good institutional system of policy filters slid through unmolested.
In other words, elements of a database of employees of a public institution were provided to a religious organization, and then the servers of the public institution were set to permit solicitations from that religious organization to pass through to those employees.
That might be appalling to some, but I'm used to such things. Last year, the weakling union was not just given the names and e-mail addresses of faculty members, but it also was given their home addresses. I received a solicitation in the mail to join the union. It was couched in the form of a "survey," but the message was clear, at least to me. The union that I was considering working to decertify because of its let's-not-cause-trouble negotiating styleleading as it has to an hourly equivalent wage for me of just about $10knows exactly where I live. If I were the paranoid sort, I'd think the administration knew exactly what it was doing giving that database to the union.
This is obviously all petty stuff. To many, academia is still the last bastion of enlightenmentthe repository where stands all the great knowledge that continues to be available even in the worst of this degraded but temporary time of ignorance and mendacity. The supporters of academia must certainly see it as the bulwark of the Age of Reason, the institutional setting where the irrationality of religious superstitions and cultural ignorance are set aside in favor of disciplined thought, processual integrity, and objective analysis.
Not that it matters, but I no longer believe that. You see, awhile back, I was in the common faculty area describing to an adjunct professor some trouble I'd gotten from a Christian student who didn't like me talking about evolution. The particulars of the incident with the kid had to do with my description of a computer program that autonomously designs self-replicating circuits. It seems that, as these circuits evolve generation over generation, they tend not to eliminate unused architecture from previous generations; instead, these evolving circuits retain "junk" they no longer find useful, and this is very much how DNA works: genetic-level structures that organisms no longer need, use, or express in traits don't vanish, even over millions and millions of years. Apparently, evolutionary processes have a principle of conservation, something that probably (among other uses) allows for rapid adaptation to environmental changes.
My conversation with the adjunct was in the presence of no fewer than three biology teachers at the college, who began to talk very loudly among themselves about how terrible it was that evolution was "still" believed by so many otherwise educated people. The conversation was specifically intended for my attention and consumption. I left quickly enough since I wasn't in the mood to try to overcome the certainty with which no fewer than three educators (all middle-aged) were declaring their position and affirming one another's belief system.
A few days later, my mention of the incident to a full-time, tenured faculty member who teaches biology was met with a polite, diplomatic, and altogether condescending rejoinder that I don't know about "everything that's going on" in the field of biology these days.
She was right, of course; but I surely know more now than I did when I thought academia would be the salvation of the Age of Reason.
The Dark Wraith watches the tide ebb.
<< 24 Comments Total
I am thoroughly disgusted Dark Wraith.
And there is no such thing as "junk DNA" anymore. This concept has been debunked. In fact, it is looking more and more that the "junk DNA" is what distinguishes a human from a mouse from a chimp. The junk regualtes the parts.
I am not talking out my ass. My field happens to be biochemistry/molecular biology. I have been doing research for almost 9 years.
It sounds to me Dark Wraith that where ever you live, it is one of those states that wants to make Christianity the State Religion. It sounds like the Christian Taliban wants to establish their equivalent of Sharia Law on the citizens of where you live.
If I were you, I would seriously consider moving. Seriously. It is not going to get any better. You are fighting an uphill battle.
This is a growing dilema we are facing in this country.
So much so that in the coming weeks you will see me supporting revolution by succession.
I see no resolution to this conflict except to let those who have similar beliefs congregate together and govern themselves.
If people want to reject science then let them. Only let them remain in State X and let all those who feel the same move to State X.
I am going to laugh my ass off watching China, India, and Europe surpass us in innovation, science, and technology.
Let them who reject science go live like the Amish if they wish to not be viewed as hypocrites.
Good evening, PoliShifter.
Sadly, my friend, I live in a blue state. As with a number of such states, the only reason it's blue is because of the voting power of one or several massive urban areas.
And as far as "junk DNA" is concerned, this is one of the troubling issues facing science right now: the way the media is portraying the issues of genetics, the whole danged puzzle is going to be answered once that "human genome" project nonsense is completed, and that's just plain bunk. First, the project for the most part simply walked right around those knots of DNA, treating what was in there as completely irrelevant. Second, the DNA material that's extra-chromosomal is now being demonstrated as startlingly important in trait expression, and the institutional/industrial obsession with what's there in the cellular nucleus has left a gaping hole in the understanding of the entirety of the mechanism by which information is retained, expressed, and transmitted both intergenerationally and possibly intragenerationally.
And this, by the way, is my principal theoretical concern with genetically modified organisms: we're acting like we know enough to predict outcomes, when we haven't a fraction of the knowledge about what's really being affected in the information system as a whole by our little tweaks here and there and there on the helices.
Good God, PoliShifter, there are even a few geneticists hanging out with knot theory mathematicians, the cats who used to stand as the most brilliantly useless folks in all of mathematics. It seems that many viruses turn strands of DNA into knots of various kinds; and since we can't see the actual process by which the viruses attack and knot up the DNA, we now have knot theorists explaining exactly what would have to happen for a straight strand to become this or that knot.
It's sort of like being unable to see a building being blown up and having rubble experts look at the debris to figure out how the building came apart, then from there inducing what explosive was set and where it was set in the building.
Cripe.
Economics is complicated enough. Mathematics is worse. Genetics is w-a-a-a-y too much like work.
The Dark Wraith sees the advantages in willful, lifelong ignorance.
Hi Dark Wraith,
I assure you that the "junk DNA" is not one of the more troubling issues facing science these days.
The Human Genome has been sequenced for quite a few years now and unfortunately it did not yield as many Eureka momments as was hoped.
Scientists have moved on these days to the Proteome, Metabalome, Proteasome, and Trascriptome. As if there were not enough "omes" in the world.
What is all the rage these days are micro RNA's, small pieces of RNA that appear to play a huge role in development, protein translation, and gene regulation.
I will not argue with you that mitochondrial DNA or other unidentified extra-chromosoma DNA are very important.
And no, we cannot act like we can predict outcomes. Who at your school is acting like they can predict genetic outcomes?
We are far away from being able to clone successfully. We have many lessons to learn from Dolly including as you spoke of, the traits that are inherited extrachromosomally as well as telomere length consideration.
As far as your blown up building example goes, this is exactly the problem we face though it is often explained as the shooting the radio approach.
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/biologistsnewapproach022603.htm
Molecular Biologists are often accused of shooting the radio in order to figure out how it works. And while much knowledge was gained from looking at the parts, we will only attain more knowledge if we begin looking at systems rather than parts.
This is the trend that is beging to take place now. There is more focus on interdisciplinary cooperation and synerigies between fields which is making it possible for us to undertand how a system works as opposed to understanding just a few working parts.
As far as DNA,Knots, and Math are concerned, http://www.popmath.org.uk/rpamaths/rpampages/knotsvirus.html
the perhaps unfortunate side of life many don't want to accept is that all life and the entire universe can be boiled down to mathematics.
As Galileo said:
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe."
All life is Maya, an illusion, or light that has properties of both particles and waves with an uncertainty of existence.
Life both exists and does not exist simultaneouusly.
But I digress....
Anyway, if any biologists are still preaching to you about junk DNA and the cunundrum it presents, tell them to pick up some of the latest copies of Nature and Sciece.
Junk DNA no longer exists and in fact never existed. The fact that students were once taught that junk DNA existed is a travisty.
I should know...I was once one of those students in the early 90's who were taught that most DNA was "junk". It's just not true.
I am half black and half white. Mom has every recessive gene known to man. When I took high school, I figured out my genetic makeup pretty quickly. It wasn't rocket science. Every time I have to take a sickle cell test I go ballistic. Nobody in my dad's family has ever had the trait much less the disease. My mom is from northern Germany of Jewish descent. Tay Sachs test. NEVER. Sickle cell almost everytime I get a blood test. I'm going to be 50, don't you think it would have shown up by now? Maybe if they test a little more.
Medicine and biology have changed. Critical thinking is gone, in twenty years we will be a fourth world country that prays they get better.
I'm going to have to on antidepressants because I can't take the stupidity around me and alcohol by oneself isn't as much fun.
Good morning, Debra.
Just last month in a statistics class, I was demonstrating the mathematics of "conditional probabilities," showing the rather stunningly high probabilities with which so-called "reliable" tests will generate undesirable indications simply as a result of mathematical mechanics. I then showed them how outcomes of treatments can be touted as quite favorable when they're really not at all.
One of the students, a National Guard fellow who works in law enforcement of some kind, assured me that tests are done "several times" to make sure the results generated reflect the "true" situation. That gave me the opportunity to show what happens in repeated tests when the methods themselves are not entirely independent and when the execution of a second screening depends upon the outcome of the first screening.
He's a bright guy, and he saw the mathematics unfolding, but he was a little under-impressed. He said something to the effect, "So, you're saying we shouldn't be testing people for drugs and alcohol and all that?" to which I replied, "I'm certainly not saying that. What I'm saying is that jurors and judges should take my stats class before they're allowed to consider evidence from these tests." He made some good-natured comment back, and the whole class got into an excellent discussion of how the idea of the so-called "Baysian" statistics is never explained when results of polls and experiments are described in the media. We also talked about television shows like CSI and how they give the really wrong impression that forensics science has a sure answer for just about everything found at a crime scene.
One African-American girl, who is usually quiet as church mouse, piped up, "Shit. They just show that on TV to make people scared of doing anything wrong."
The Dark Wraith was most impressed.
DW,
A friend of mine suffered a home invasion with some violent consequences (If I thought I could get away with it I would submit them for honary Darwin stupid awards). As I was working, the the Detective laughed because I was so fanatical about everything being replaced in exactly the right place. Told him I watched it on CSI (what's with the flashlights?) but as kids we had figured out the Christmas presents and rewrapped them. He snickered. I told him the only think I ever learned from CSI was not to do anything wrong. Something about tyinng shoelaces.
It's like looking at Preznit's stats. 34% approve. Doesnt that mean that 66% don't approve, isn't that a majority and in congress it used to override a veto with one more vote.
Critical thinking is completely gone.
Dark One,
My son swears that his university is pretty conservative... the students are anyway, but not the profs. (Hofstra) His profs get away with telling the young Rethuglicans in poli-sci classes that if they support the president and his war so much, why haven't they put off college and served their country first. heh.
My son appears to be majoring in archeology/anthropology/poli-sci at the moment. He and his friends are all into evolution and bones/fossils. They are taking an honors seminar called "debating Darwin" and went to the museum of natural history in Manhattan yesterday just for the hell of it. Well I guess a lot of students are from out of town and they don't have world class museums at their disposal. We NYers are kind of jaded and take a lot for granted. I think being that we grew up a short train ride from so many museums and had so many school field trips to these museums, I rarely, if ever come across anyone who has a problem with evolution. We have all seen it in the museum. People around here go to church too.
My son said that there was a crayon picture drawn by Darwin's son on the back of one of the pages of "Origin of the Species". Isn't that cool? (Charles didn't like to waste paper but didn't want to discuss his child's creative expression)
anyway, where my husband works, the owner walked around speaking loudly to all the employees reminding them that they ought to vote for Bush or shouldn't work there. Unfortunately the man was struck dead suddenly and the place is now going out of business.
A guy I met in a bar who is in the teachers union and he said that they were told to vote for Bush by the district and so he did. What a fucking moron. I asked him why he did that and he said so he wouldn't get in trouble. I explained to him that his vote is (supposed to be) confidential and he said he didn't know that. He also didn't understand how very anti-union this government is- that teacher's unions are likened to terrorist organizations. He's not the only union man who voted for bush.
You just stick to your guns and hold your head up. I just can't believe there are bio teachers who don't believe in evolution. What the hell do they believe in?
Liz
As a graduate student in Plant Pathology at the Ohio State University in the 1980's, there was only one Professor who didn't accept evolutionary theory (he was from West Virginia, I recall); his views were marginalized within the department, and he kept them largely to himself. My question regarding the alleged academics at your college is, have any of these people attempted to publish a scholarly paper based on their beliefs in a reputable scientific journal? Who are these clowns kidding? This isn't just about biology here; we're talking about the entire field of modern geology as well (and astrophysics, if these twits think that the Earth is only 6000 years old).
Even Pope John Paul II didn't have a problem with evolution- why should they?
She was right, of course; but I surely know more now than I did when I thought academia would be the salvation of the Age of Reason.
I may be ill.....
- oddjob
Apparently said dipshits have never seriously studied entomology.
Evolution is the only theory that puts that much plainly ovservable diversity, with both its dissimilarities and also its similarities, into a context that makes any sense (beyond the hand waving of "God did it").
Such people should never have received tenure.....
- oddjob
good morning dw
i'll let the science geeks among your commenters educate me on the current state of biology, and thank you all very much. i will say that i'm kinda surprised that your students haven't found this blog. you don't look like the usual college instructor to me, at least in the picture here (say, is that really you?). i would think someone would see this and recognize you. maybe you require so much work in your classes that no one has time to surf the net.
This is a worthwhile article on the matter of evolution and the disagreement of those who don't like it. It's very easily read by an interested layman.
- oddjob
Thanks, Oddjob, for the great link.
I'm still curious, though, how it can be that members of the scientific community in academia can still promote ID yet not suffer apparent consequences in the modern "publish or perish" atmosphere. If someone's field is in the Arts or Humanities, that's one thing- but Biology? Geology? I occasionally saw graduate students like this in the eighties, but figured that they would go quietly into some private research tank and never promote their ideas to anyone but a few like-minded students again. Where do these guys find "safe havens" for their lunacy?
Do major league universities still shun these guys, or do they sneak in "under the radar"?
DW will be able to answer more accurately, but I suspect the biology department he refers to is not in an institution where research is a significant part of the employment requirements. Between being primarily, or exclusively, a college where professors mostly (or exclusively) teach and tenure, I can easily imagine such fools existing and getting away with it.
- oddjob
Earlier comments were not working on blogger (many blogs were down) but I wanted to express some kind of empathy or support or outrage or disgust- something. What you describe flies in the face of education. The spirits of such asswipe quips are misguided.
I'm betting there's a privacy policy regarding the personal details of employees. Or should be. I use a PO box for everything as a general rule because work is work, home is home.
Please don't tell me that a publically funded school behaves this way, then all that I have read about the influx of theocrademics will be further confirmed.
Like we need confirmation. Another day in wingnut land.
Good afternoon, LindiBee.
To some extent, OddJob is correct in that different colleges have place greater or lesser emphasis on publishing. The meat grinder of the publish or perish environment had come under some degree of severe (if carefully muted) criticism as early as the 1990s because it de-emphasized teaching so much. At least, that was the accusation. On another level, the publish or perish standard has produced a massive amount of field literature of highly variable quality and has led in some instances to less-than-sterling research methods. That has been of great concern to me because there are many whose training in probability theory, statistics, econometrics, and related fields is far from adequate, and their research shows this. And while the referees of the journals are wetting their pants about the genuinely trivial in rejecting or demanding heavy modifications to submitted articles, the gaping holes are being allowed to pass straight through to publication.
In the head-cracking course work I took, professors literally threatened our very careers if we used certain statistical methods and tools. Big on the no-no list were step-wise regression and residuals analysis, among others (including any statistical method that poses to address causality rather than mere correlation); yet, there they are, all over the place in allegedly high-quality, published work. This bodes ill for issues involving far subtler or more complicated flaws in analysis. In the field of evolutionary biology, to this day I don't even want to think about the gawd-awful way mitochondrial DNA is used to track back to original species: the statistical methodology that was employed in tracing back to a date and location for the "mother of all humans" nearly makes me want to scream. (And what's more, the hard, open criticism of what was done not only left the authors of the study unfazed, but also left the critics being accused in some corners of unspeakable motivations.)
And once flawed studies get into print, even the repudiation of some of the authors does nothing. The "meta-study" of second-hand smoke was so wretched that a number of the authors actually publicly condemned it in subsequent years; yet, again, there that study is, being waved at every municipal meeting for a blanket ban on public smoking.
This, of course, leads to the issue of being accused of supporting something contrary to public interest, which is an entirely separate matter from the quality of research that's used to support the calls for enactment of or changes in statutes.
Now, I drifted way off course in my answer here, but the point I was trying to make is that some institutions of higher learning have moved away from publish or perish and found a balance between quality of contributions to the research literature and the value of contributions to the teaching quality of the institution.
Being one who worked hard to be a good teacher in my early days, I suffered great harm to my career, even though I could walk circles around just about anybody (at least the other American students and faculty) when it came to quantitative methods and understanding. Were I to have begun my career today, I could have done at least a little bit better having a reputation as a good (if rather unorthodox) teacher.
But setting all of that aside for a more precise point, one I made in a comment over at Night Bird's Fountain, one does not have to accept the theory of evolution either to teach or to publish literature. In fact (and although I struggle with this thought), to bring up evolution in some courses is to be open to an accusation of "fanning the flames" of dispute.
When I teach economics courses, many are the opportunities I have to slam, cut down, repudiate, and denigrate various Right-wing (and a few Left-wing) points of view, theories, and claims. However, in many cases, I need not make those attacks to get the lecture content completed fully; in fact, to raise these issues is at least in some cases to specifically cut class time from far more topic-specific matters.
For me, the ethical issue in the lecture hall is this: when am I obligated as a matter of academic integrity to bring up a hot topic, as opposed to when am I bringing it up only to stir controversy?
Most of you know me here to the extent that you understand that I am not persistent in merely causing trouble because it's cool or hip or because it shows that I'm in control. I'll do my best to be unfair, insolent, and mean to the Right-wingers at my leisure, but it's not productive to do it as my sole or even primary means of communication. There is a broad and good place for sarcasm, irony, and all that, but is my classroom an open field where I have the obligation to start an argument and then bully down those who disagree with me on every last day, or even on most?
Don't get me wrong: I'll confront issues as they arise. Finding some "balance" in presenting the economic record of President George W. Bush versus previous Presidents is no small task; but Lord knows, I try. I really do. However, if I craft my lectures well, prosecuting an agenda of laying broad and deep frameworks of basic knowledge of principles, as well as the basic ability to read data and graphs well, I don't have a "controversy," per se, when it comes time to confront relative performance records of Presidential Administrations. In other words, if I want students to see the truth, and if I want to mitigate ideological arguments, it is in my own hands to ensure that my students are deeply informed and furiously encouraged to use their minds and their own eyes.
The flaw in this pedagogy is that it can be used equally well, if wholly falsely, by those of other stripes, as well. I know several attorneys who went to a law school rather well-known for several radical Right-wing professors. The influence on the thinking of the attorneys from that school is quite obvious; but what is frustrating is that those people are as certain as could be of the rightness of their radical positions on matters of constitutional law. Those professors used the precise and unavoidably perfect logic that is the hallmark of training lawyers to infuse in those attorneys absolute certainty that there's no other way to see things. And God forbid a non-lawyer should take exception: most good law schools teach their students early on that no one—but no one—who isn't a lawyer has any business talking about law. In fact, I have more than once been threatened with the statutes (and such statutes exist in every state) about practicing law without a license. (Those laws, which I taught to paralegals lest they get in serious trouble working in the field, would make your hair stand on end if you knew what you were forbidden from doing.)
Good methods of teaching can lead to good ends, but they don't have to. This is one of those areas where ethics shades quite unnoticed into something vaguely like morality, and it's a place where I try my best to use the mechanics of good teaching and good teaching methodology to stay away from the hazy area where I would have to ask myself if what I am doing is right or wrong in some quasi-universal sense.
That, by the way, is why I do dearly love this blogging lifestyle: I don't always have to be circumspect, balanced in approach, and caring about the feelings of those who might disagree with me when I teach or talk subject matter.
Of course, I still ought to be good at what I do, though.
The Dark Wraith will let this comment end on that note.
I know several attorneys who went to a law school rather well-known for several radical Right-wing professors
That institution of higher learning wouldn't happen to be a notable one in a midwestern city on a body of water, would it?
- oddjob
And by the way, LindiBee, I am now seeing rather more new full-time faculty members at both the community college and at the public university who are most decidedly and vocally religious in the quite neo-Christian waythe way that rather scares me. The ranks of the existing adjunct faculty are already filled with evangelicals and assorted others of the kind. At the community college, one young math teacher goes to class with his Bible atop his textbook and lecture notes; and according to students, he stands at the lectern before class time and reads from his Bible until the very last second before class is supposed to begin.
Rather subtle.
For a while, we had those little green mini-Bibles showing up like mushrooms all the time in the adjunct area, and often they were tied open to some highlighted passage. I started bitching my head off about this, hinting at one point that I was going to bring in The Canterbury Tales and prop it open to "The Miller's Tale." (That threat didn't impress anyone; I should have threatened to bring in the Kama Sutra, but I don't have a copy of it, and the thing is too darned expensive to buy just to make a point.)
Common areas are forever being peppered with full-time and adjunct faculty talking about this Bible study group or that church meeting and discussing times, topics, reading assignments, et cetera. Although I've tried on numerous occasions to get more scholarly discussions going in the common areas, there's a palpable unwillingness on the part of faculty to go there, almost the opposite of the excited willingness to start talking about religious matters (or one of their daughter's latest children born out of wedlock, or one of their boys' arrests, or one of their husband's or wife's recent layoff from one of the dying factories on the outskirts of town).
Okay, now I'm being mean, even as I'm being accurate.
(Stupid parenthetical opportunities to be catty.)
The Dark Wraith should know when to quit.
Good evening, OddJob.
My answer to your probative question is, "Could be, Wabbit."
The Dark Wraith elects to provide the obtuse response.
Okay, now I'm being mean, even as I'm being accurate.
The satisfaction of recognizing when they betray the inferiority of their supposed superior way of living......
- oddjob (who recognizes that Christianity has more than one form, not all of which necessarily fall under the above broad brushstroke - but one sure does!)
Okay, OT, and I know this isn't an open thread, but I've been meaning to bring this guy to the attention of readers here for a while.
So before I forget (again):
Bill Gross' Investment Outlook
This month's installment will, I think, bring warmth to an old Wraith's heart.
Good evening, Mr. Shakes.
The fellow writing that article is preaching my tune right down to the last word. He even touches upon the fact that a current account deficit is matched by a capital account surplus. I hadn't even had a chance to look at Bernanke's burp, but now that the fellow writing that article pointed it out, I went to look for myself. My God, that SOB Bernanke showed the capital account surplus, which is—as the author of the article accurately notes—the mirror image of the current account deficit!
That's like a chart about a man who's bleeding to death, but instead of showing the life-threatening loss of blood from the man's body, the graph exhibits the gain in blood to the soil around him.
God Almighty.
The Fed was supposed to be independent, but this new Fed Chairman isn't even trying to pretend. At least Greenspan put on a phony look of objectivity that bluffed Congress into thinking he really didn't hate Clinton and love Bush.
This new bitch isn't even trying to cover the fact that he's the neo-cons' bitch.
Aaargh.
Grr.
Damn.
The Dark Wraith needs to quit before he completely loses his cool.
ShrubCo. - all and only politics, all the time.
- oddjob
Hi Dark Wraith.
What interesting Email to receive at your work Email address. I guess it's alright to push religion on folks, huh? At a past employment, I had a deeply religious co-worker. She ended up divorcing hubby and marrying the minister of her church. It's been sometime back so I can't remember all the details, but she tried to push religion on her co-workers. I guess her boss finally told her to back off. I liked her, a lot, except for the religion pushing. I remember her showing me a picture of her baby, however, she said she would not put the picture in a frame on her desk, because she didn't want evil eyes to look at it. Ah, good times...
What I find interesting, most of all, are the different religions and the breakdown of co-workers attending different churches. At one former employment, there were many Baptists and Methodists. At another, there were far more Catholics. Another had more non-religious (or maybe they were less pushy about their beliefs).