| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"David" |
| Date: |
13 May 2004 10:20:44 PM |
| Object: |
Re: B.S. in biochemistry |
+Church of The Painful Truth+ <Atheistsare@fools.com> wrote:
The Center for Creation Education and this section of the web site
result primarily from the creative efforts of two people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David A. DeWitt, Ph.D.
Director of Creation Education
Dr. DeWitt received a B.S. in biochemistry from Michigan State
University and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Case Western Reserve University.
Currently an associate professor of biology at Liberty University, he is
active in teaching and research.
I wonder how many other people with similar qualifications believe in
creation?
David
.
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: B.S. in biochemistry |
14 May 2004 01:21:09 AM |
|
|
"David" <NOdaycdSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1gdqww7.edvtp510tjyo0N%NOdaycdSPAM@hotmail.com...
+Church of The Painful Truth+ <Atheistsare@fools.com> wrote:
The Center for Creation Education and this section of the web site
result primarily from the creative efforts of two people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David A. DeWitt, Ph.D.
Director of Creation Education
Dr. DeWitt received a B.S. in biochemistry from Michigan State
University and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Case Western Reserve
University.
Currently an associate professor of biology at Liberty University, he is
active in teaching and research.
I wonder how many other people with similar qualifications believe in
creation?
A small set. Notice his award came from Liberty U.
Here's what they say about their math department:
"In the Department you will find a faculty of dedicated Christians who are
excited about their disciplines and enjoy communicating their knowledge and
enthusiasm to students.
The Department offers courses not only in mathematics but also in physics
and other physical sciences such as earth science and astronomy.
Students are able to develop their God-given abilities in mathematics and
science and learn to use those abilities in unique ways and in various
careers.
A degree in Mathematics from Liberty University can take you anywhere you
want to go. Whether you want to do graduate work in mathematics, teach
mathematics, pursue an actuarial career, or enter most any other sector of
the job market, a degree in mathematics can open the door for you. "
Math and physicals sciences under one roof! They also do the computer
Science along with the business department. (Where I went to school the
business department rolled their own courses in math and computers because
the other departments wanted to teach the real stuff.)
Their catalog has what is required for the math degree.
They probably don't even have to pray for good grades.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark VandeWettering" |
|
| Title: Re: B.S. in biochemistry |
14 May 2004 10:27:19 AM |
|
|
In article <zFZoc.55245$Ut1.1486734@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Mike Painter wrote:
"David" <NOdaycdSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1gdqww7.edvtp510tjyo0N%NOdaycdSPAM@hotmail.com...
+Church of The Painful Truth+ <Atheistsare@fools.com> wrote:
The Center for Creation Education and this section of the web site
result primarily from the creative efforts of two people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David A. DeWitt, Ph.D.
Director of Creation Education
Dr. DeWitt received a B.S. in biochemistry from Michigan State
University and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Case Western Reserve
University.
Currently an associate professor of biology at Liberty University, he is
active in teaching and research.
I wonder how many other people with similar qualifications believe in
creation?
A small set. Notice his award came from Liberty U.
Here's what they say about their math department:
"In the Department you will find a faculty of dedicated Christians who are
excited about their disciplines and enjoy communicating their knowledge and
enthusiasm to students.
The Department offers courses not only in mathematics but also in physics
and other physical sciences such as earth science and astronomy.
Students are able to develop their God-given abilities in mathematics and
science and learn to use those abilities in unique ways and in various
careers.
A degree in Mathematics from Liberty University can take you anywhere you
want to go. Whether you want to do graduate work in mathematics, teach
mathematics, pursue an actuarial career, or enter most any other sector of
the job market, a degree in mathematics can open the door for you. "
Math and physicals sciences under one roof! They also do the computer
Science along with the business department. (Where I went to school the
business department rolled their own courses in math and computers because
the other departments wanted to teach the real stuff.)
Their catalog has what is required for the math degree.
They probably don't even have to pray for good grades.
It doesn't appear that they are accredited in any meaningful sense of the
word.
Mark
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hank" |
|
| Title: Re: B.S. in biochemistry |
14 May 2004 01:20:58 PM |
|
|
Mike Painter wrote:
"David" <NOdaycdSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1gdqww7.edvtp510tjyo0N%NOdaycdSPAM@hotmail.com...
+Church of The Painful Truth+ <Atheistsare@fools.com> wrote:
The Center for Creation Education and this section of the web site
result primarily from the creative efforts of two people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David A. DeWitt, Ph.D.
Director of Creation Education
Dr. DeWitt received a B.S. in biochemistry from Michigan State
University and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Case Western Reserve
University.
Currently an associate professor of biology at Liberty University, he is
active in teaching and research.
I wonder how many other people with similar qualifications believe in
creation?
A small set. Notice his award came from Liberty U.
Here's what they say about their math department:
"In the Department you will find a faculty of dedicated Christians who are
excited about their disciplines and enjoy communicating their knowledge and
enthusiasm to students.
The Department offers courses not only in mathematics but also in physics
and other physical sciences such as earth science and astronomy.
Students are able to develop their God-given abilities in mathematics and
science and learn to use those abilities in unique ways and in various
careers.
A degree in Mathematics from Liberty University can take you anywhere you
want to go. Whether you want to do graduate work in mathematics, teach
mathematics, pursue an actuarial career, or enter most any other sector of
the job market, a degree in mathematics can open the door for you. "
Math and physicals sciences under one roof! They also do the computer
Science along with the business department. (Where I went to school the
business department rolled their own courses in math and computers because
the other departments wanted to teach the real stuff.)
Their catalog has what is required for the math degree.
They probably don't even have to pray for good grades.
I live in Virginia and I've never heard of this place, and I've
certainly never met anyone who went there. The place sounds like a
diploma mill for fundies.
--
Assimilate a pitiful little species like you? I think not! - Q of Borg
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Schaffner" |
|
| Title: Re: B.S. in biochemistry |
14 May 2004 01:38:31 PM |
|
|
Hank <Hank@Company.com> writes:
Mike Painter wrote:
"David" <NOdaycdSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1gdqww7.edvtp510tjyo0N%NOdaycdSPAM@hotmail.com...
+Church of The Painful Truth+ <Atheistsare@fools.com> wrote:
The Center for Creation Education and this section of the web site
result primarily from the creative efforts of two people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David A. DeWitt, Ph.D.
Director of Creation Education
Dr. DeWitt received a B.S. in biochemistry from Michigan State
University and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Case Western Reserve
University.
Currently an associate professor of biology at Liberty University, he is
active in teaching and research.
I wonder how many other people with similar qualifications believe in
creation?
A small set. Notice his award came from Liberty U.
Here's what they say about their math department:
"In the Department you will find a faculty of dedicated Christians who are
excited about their disciplines and enjoy communicating their knowledge and
enthusiasm to students.
The Department offers courses not only in mathematics but also in physics
and other physical sciences such as earth science and astronomy.
Students are able to develop their God-given abilities in mathematics and
science and learn to use those abilities in unique ways and in various
careers.
A degree in Mathematics from Liberty University can take you anywhere you
want to go. Whether you want to do graduate work in mathematics, teach
mathematics, pursue an actuarial career, or enter most any other sector of
the job market, a degree in mathematics can open the door for you. "
Math and physicals sciences under one roof! They also do the computer
Science along with the business department. (Where I went to school the
business department rolled their own courses in math and computers because
the other departments wanted to teach the real stuff.)
Their catalog has what is required for the math degree.
They probably don't even have to pray for good grades.
I live in Virginia and I've never heard of this place, and I've
certainly never met anyone who went there. The place sounds like a
diploma mill for fundies.
You should get out more. Liberty University is Jerry Falwell's
school. It's not a diploma mill for fundies, it's a university for
them.
--
Steve Schaffner
Immediate assurance is an excellent sign of probable lack of
insight into the topic. Josiah Royce
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hank" |
|
| Title: Re: B.S. in biochemistry |
14 May 2004 01:53:45 PM |
|
|
Steve Schaffner wrote:
Hank <Hank@Company.com> writes:
Mike Painter wrote:
"David" <NOdaycdSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1gdqww7.edvtp510tjyo0N%NOdaycdSPAM@hotmail.com...
+Church of The Painful Truth+ <Atheistsare@fools.com> wrote:
The Center for Creation Education and this section of the web site
result primarily from the creative efforts of two people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David A. DeWitt, Ph.D.
Director of Creation Education
Dr. DeWitt received a B.S. in biochemistry from Michigan State
University and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Case Western Reserve
University.
Currently an associate professor of biology at Liberty University, he is
active in teaching and research.
I wonder how many other people with similar qualifications believe in
creation?
A small set. Notice his award came from Liberty U.
Here's what they say about their math department:
"In the Department you will find a faculty of dedicated Christians who are
excited about their disciplines and enjoy communicating their knowledge and
enthusiasm to students.
The Department offers courses not only in mathematics but also in physics
and other physical sciences such as earth science and astronomy.
Students are able to develop their God-given abilities in mathematics and
science and learn to use those abilities in unique ways and in various
careers.
A degree in Mathematics from Liberty University can take you anywhere you
want to go. Whether you want to do graduate work in mathematics, teach
mathematics, pursue an actuarial career, or enter most any other sector of
the job market, a degree in mathematics can open the door for you. "
Math and physicals sciences under one roof! They also do the computer
Science along with the business department. (Where I went to school the
business department rolled their own courses in math and computers because
the other departments wanted to teach the real stuff.)
Their catalog has what is required for the math degree.
They probably don't even have to pray for good grades.
I live in Virginia and I've never heard of this place, and I've
certainly never met anyone who went there. The place sounds like a
diploma mill for fundies.
You should get out more. Liberty University is Jerry Falwell's
school. It's not a diploma mill for fundies, it's a university for
them.
EEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwww! Not *that* group?!? Yuck!
--
Assimilate a pitiful little species like you? I think not! - Q of Borg
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "r norman" |
|
| Title: Re: B.S. in biochemistry |
14 May 2004 07:18:49 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 May 2004 06:21:09 +0000 (UTC), "Mike Painter"
<mdotpainter@att.net> wrote:
<snip>
Notice his [David DeWitt] award came from Liberty U.
Here's what they say about their math department:
< ...>
The Department offers courses not only in mathematics but also in physics
and other physical sciences such as earth science and astronomy.
< .... >
Math and physicals sciences under one roof! They also do the computer
Science along with the business department. (Where I went to school the
business department rolled their own courses in math and computers because
the other departments wanted to teach the real stuff.)
Don't criticize an institution for the way it is organized
administratively. My undergraduate work was at one institution that
seems generally respected in academia (Cal Tech) in an academic
division combining Physics, Astronomy, and Mathematics. I am now
employed at another (U. Mich-Dearborn) where all the "Natural
Sciences" (Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Earth Sciences, not to mention
Biochemistry, Microbiology, and Environmental Sciences) are in one
department . Originally, Mathematics and the Natural Sciences were in
the same department. By the same token, History, Political Science,and
Economics are in one department -- the entire liberal arts college
only has five departments.
It could well be the case that Liberty U has many fine academicians
teaching and researching in their respective fields but simultaneously
having sincere and deeply held religious beliefs. It could also well
be the case that Liberty U has other fine academicians teaching and
researching in their respective fields and desperate enough for
employment that they accepted a position at that institution.
Evaluate the individual and his specific publications and
pronouncements for their validity, not his institutional affiliation!
.
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: B.S. in biochemistry |
14 May 2004 11:30:18 AM |
|
|
r norman <rsn_@_comcast.net> wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2004 06:21:09 +0000 (UTC), "Mike Painter"
<mdotpainter@att.net> wrote:
<snip>
Notice his [David DeWitt] award came from Liberty U.
Here's what they say about their math department:
< ...>
The Department offers courses not only in mathematics but also in physics
and other physical sciences such as earth science and astronomy.
< .... >
Math and physicals sciences under one roof! They also do the computer
Science along with the business department. (Where I went to school the
business department rolled their own courses in math and computers because
the other departments wanted to teach the real stuff.)
Don't criticize an institution for the way it is organized
administratively. My undergraduate work was at one institution that
seems generally respected in academia (Cal Tech) in an academic
division combining Physics, Astronomy, and Mathematics. I am now
employed at another (U. Mich-Dearborn) where all the "Natural
Sciences" (Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Earth Sciences, not to mention
Biochemistry, Microbiology, and Environmental Sciences) are in one
department . Originally, Mathematics and the Natural Sciences were in
the same department. By the same token, History, Political Science,and
Economics are in one department -- the entire liberal arts college
only has five departments.
It could well be the case that Liberty U has many fine academicians
teaching and researching in their respective fields but simultaneously
having sincere and deeply held religious beliefs. It could also well
be the case that Liberty U has other fine academicians teaching and
researching in their respective fields and desperate enough for
employment that they accepted a position at that institution.
I agree. Liberty University may not have accreditation from the usual
sources but in no way is it a degree mill-like operation. I'm sure
their education in biology is up to sctrach even if they do teach
creation and evolution side by side.
For example, Todd Wood is a graduate from Liberty and went on to do
gradute research at University of Virgina and a post doc at Clemson.
His published papers are pretty good (ironically on genome evolution)
and he has even been a lecturer at a bioinformatics course held in CSHL.
http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/biologicalscientists.html
I doubt Todd Wood had could have achieved this without a solid
background in biology.
David
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Clayton Cant Find His Left Sock" |
|
| Title: Re: B.S. in biochemistry |
14 May 2004 02:28:27 AM |
|
|
"David" <NOdaycdSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1gdqww7.edvtp510tjyo0N%NOdaycdSPAM@hotmail.com...
+Church of The Painful Truth+ <Atheistsare@fools.com> wrote:
The Center for Creation Education and this section of the web site
result primarily from the creative efforts of two people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David A. DeWitt, Ph.D.
Director of Creation Education
Dr. DeWitt received a B.S. in biochemistry from Michigan State
University and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Case Western Reserve
University.
Currently an associate professor of biology at Liberty University, he is
active in teaching and research.
I wonder how many other people with similar qualifications believe in
creation?
He sure as hell wouldn't have gotten his B.S. if he had put down on the exam
what he "believes" to be true instead of what he knows is actually true.
Funny that, how they can get a degree even though they can only get it by
proving their religious beliefs are lies, but still delude themselves
afterwards that lies are truth. There's a geologist in Australia who
actually teaches classes, totally dependant on billions of years of history,
but then at night preaches about an 8000 year old Earth, which he can't
possibly not know is a total lie. They believe in creationism IN SPITE of
their education...not because of it...which makes their qualifications
totally irrelevant to their viewpoint.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Howard Hershey" |
|
| Title: Re: B.S. in biochemistry |
15 May 2004 09:48:57 AM |
|
|
David wrote:
+Church of The Painful Truth+ <Atheistsare@fools.com> wrote:
The Center for Creation Education and this section of the web site
result primarily from the creative efforts of two people.
I fully agree that it involved "creative efforts". Any work of fiction does.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David A. DeWitt, Ph.D.
Director of Creation Education
Dr. DeWitt received a B.S. in biochemistry from Michigan State
University and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Case Western Reserve University.
Currently an associate professor of biology at Liberty University, he is
active in teaching and research.
I wonder how many other people with similar qualifications believe in
creation?
David
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: B.S. in biochemistry |
14 May 2004 12:51:42 AM |
|
|
In article <1gdqww7.edvtp510tjyo0N%>,
(David) wrote:
+Church of The Painful Truth+ <Atheistsare@fools.com> wrote:
The Center for Creation Education and this section of the web site
result primarily from the creative efforts of two people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David A. DeWitt, Ph.D.
Director of Creation Education
Dr. DeWitt received a B.S. in biochemistry from Michigan State
University and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Case Western Reserve University.
Currently an associate professor of biology at Liberty University, he is
active in teaching and research.
I wonder how many other people with similar qualifications believe in
creation?
Having worked in science for over 35 years, I would say very few. Even
those who profess to have religious faith still accept evolution. These
creationists would have us believe that there is a big controversy in
mainstream science, but there is none.
Doing a quick PubMed search I came up with 10 references for Dewitt da:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed
(you need to type in the name)
None have to do with creationism or evolution.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Men become civilized not in their willingness to believe, but in
proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Holly the Heretic" |
|
| Title: Re: B.S. in biochemistry |
14 May 2004 05:54:37 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 May 2004 03:20:44 +0000 (UTC),
(David) wrote:
+Church of The Painful Truth+ <Atheistsare@fools.com> wrote:
The Center for Creation Education and this section of the web site
result primarily from the creative efforts of two people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David A. DeWitt, Ph.D.
Director of Creation Education
Dr. DeWitt received a B.S. in biochemistry from Michigan State
University and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Case Western Reserve University.
Currently an associate professor of biology at Liberty University, he is
active in teaching and research.
I wonder how many other people with similar qualifications believe in
creation?
Liberty University is a joke. The Biology degree they run includes
courses in 'New Testament Life and Literature' and 'Evangelism and
Christian Life'. Their postgraduate programme is theological and does
not include biology at all.
Any biology degree that excludes evolution is absolutely worthless for
anyone who actually wants to be a professional biologist (rather than
work for an organization that pushes a particular set of religious
beliefs).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank F. Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: B.S. in biochemistry |
14 May 2004 08:40:04 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 May 2004 10:54:37 +0000 (UTC), Holly the Heretic
<nowhere@nowhere.org> wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2004 03:20:44 +0000 (UTC),
(David) wrote:
<snip>
David A. DeWitt, Ph.D.
Director of Creation Education
Dr. DeWitt received a B.S. in biochemistry from Michigan State
University and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Case Western Reserve University.
Currently an associate professor of biology at Liberty University, he is
active in teaching and research.
I wonder how many other people with similar qualifications believe in
creation?
Liberty University is a joke.
Maybe so. It might be possible to dispute the quality of education
their students receive. LU isn't nearly as funny, IMO, as Shepard's
Bible College, though. (I'll admit I have not investigated LU closely,
so I have no firm opinion on the institution's status.)
The Biology degree they run includes
courses in 'New Testament Life and Literature' and 'Evangelism and
Christian Life'.
To be fair: AFAICT the courses in 'New Testament Life and Literature'
and 'Evangelism and Christian Life' are not offered by the Biology
department but are merely mentioned in the "Suggested Course
Sequence", along with English Grammar and Composition. Perhaps they
are required courses at the university?
Their postgraduate programme is theological and does
not include biology at all.
Not purely theological -- they apparently also offer an MBA, an MS in
Nursing, and a few others. Religious studies do appear to predominate,
however. So? Not all colleges/universities offer advanced degrees in
all subjects.
One might argue that the quality of undergraduate education in science
is better at a university that has an emphasis on research and that
such institutions typically offer graduate programs in the sciences.
But LU does not appear substantially different _in that respect_ from
other, wholly secular, colleges with no graduate programs in science.
Any biology degree that excludes evolution is absolutely worthless for
anyone who actually wants to be a professional biologist (rather than
work for an organization that pushes a particular set of religious
beliefs).
Two points:
(1) To what extent is understanding evolutionary biology really
essential for the work done by a someone with only a BS in biology? It
depends, I imagine, on the specifics of the job, but do you really
need a background in evolutionary biology to do HPLC, for example?
(2) I do not recall taking a course in evolutionary biology _per se_
as either an undergraduate or graduate student. However, evolution is
a vital organizing concept in biology; I find it hard to imagine a
biology education that excludes evolution entirely.
--
Frank F. Smith
email: frankf at zoom hyphen dsl dot com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Holly the Heretic" |
|
| Title: Re: B.S. in biochemistry |
17 May 2004 10:46:58 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 May 2004 13:40:04 +0000 (UTC), "Frank F. Smith"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2004 10:54:37 +0000 (UTC), Holly the Heretic
<nowhere@nowhere.org> wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2004 03:20:44 +0000 (UTC),
(David) wrote:
<snip>
David A. DeWitt, Ph.D.
Director of Creation Education
Dr. DeWitt received a B.S. in biochemistry from Michigan State
University and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Case Western Reserve University.
Currently an associate professor of biology at Liberty University, he is
active in teaching and research.
I wonder how many other people with similar qualifications believe in
creation?
Liberty University is a joke.
Maybe so. It might be possible to dispute the quality of education
their students receive. LU isn't nearly as funny, IMO, as Shepard's
Bible College, though. (I'll admit I have not investigated LU closely,
so I have no firm opinion on the institution's status.)
I'm just going on what's on their website. Looks pretty bad.
The Biology degree they run includes
courses in 'New Testament Life and Literature' and 'Evangelism and
Christian Life'.
To be fair: AFAICT the courses in 'New Testament Life and Literature'
and 'Evangelism and Christian Life' are not offered by the Biology
department but are merely mentioned in the "Suggested Course
Sequence", along with English Grammar and Composition. Perhaps they
are required courses at the university?
Seems likely. Biology and theology are not related in any way, so to
even suggest those courses as part of a biology degree (and not offer
evolution) seems pretty fucked up. English grammar, on the other hand,
is pretty useful for writing research papers... and judging by the
level of English demonstrated by most of the Christian folk who post
to alt.atheism, perhaps they should make that part of the programme
obligatory.
Their postgraduate programme is theological and does
not include biology at all.
Not purely theological -- they apparently also offer an MBA,
Another joke qualification but point taken :-)
an MS in
Nursing, and a few others. Religious studies do appear to predominate,
however. So? Not all colleges/universities offer advanced degrees in
all subjects.
The original post said that the guy was involved in biological
research, I think. Personally, I would never consider doing a degree
at a uni which did not have *any* postgraduate qualifications in a
subject. It's just not a good sign that they have quality faculty
available to teach.
It also means that there is less likely to be a reasonable standard of
research in the undergraduate degrees. Most good biology degrees
include at least one research thesis.
One might argue that the quality of undergraduate education in science
is better at a university that has an emphasis on research and that
such institutions typically offer graduate programs in the sciences.
But LU does not appear substantially different _in that respect_ from
other, wholly secular, colleges with no graduate programs in science.
I'd avoid them too, but most of them don't leave out fundamental
chunks of biology (evolution), or encourage people to waste time which
should be spent learning the subject they signed up to learn, rather
than studying religion.
Any biology degree that excludes evolution is absolutely worthless for
anyone who actually wants to be a professional biologist (rather than
work for an organization that pushes a particular set of religious
beliefs).
Two points:
(1) To what extent is understanding evolutionary biology really
essential for the work done by a someone with only a BS in biology? It
depends, I imagine, on the specifics of the job, but do you really
need a background in evolutionary biology to do HPLC, for example?
My point is that it is absolutely fundamental to an understanding of
biology, and I think that is true at any level. It underpins
everything, and is one of the most important discoveries ever made in
the science. If you do not understand evolution, you can not
understand species classification, ethology, physiology...
The job someone gets at the end of it is irrelevant, as a degree is
supposed to be a broad grounding in the subject. There are diplomas
and stuff available to people who do not wish to go into the depth of
a full degree.
(2) I do not recall taking a course in evolutionary biology _per se_
as either an undergraduate or graduate student. However, evolution is
a vital organizing concept in biology; I find it hard to imagine a
biology education that excludes evolution entirely.
I'm surprised that you didn't study evolution in either of your
courses. It was a vital part of my first degree, and formed the core
of the second one. I would not have been able to complete the second
one if I hadn't had such a good grounding.
.
|
|
|
| User: "r norman" |
|
| Title: Re: B.S. in biochemistry |
17 May 2004 12:38:05 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 May 2004 15:46:58 +0000 (UTC), Holly the Heretic
<nowhere@nowhere.org> wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2004 13:40:04 +0000 (UTC), "Frank F. Smith"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2004 10:54:37 +0000 (UTC), Holly the Heretic
<nowhere@nowhere.org> wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2004 03:20:44 +0000 (UTC),
(David) wrote:
<snip>
David A. DeWitt, Ph.D.
Director of Creation Education
Dr. DeWitt received a B.S. in biochemistry from Michigan State
University and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Case Western Reserve University.
Currently an associate professor of biology at Liberty University, he is
active in teaching and research.
I wonder how many other people with similar qualifications believe in
creation?
Liberty University is a joke.
Maybe so. It might be possible to dispute the quality of education
their students receive. LU isn't nearly as funny, IMO, as Shepard's
Bible College, though. (I'll admit I have not investigated LU closely,
so I have no firm opinion on the institution's status.)
I'm just going on what's on their website. Looks pretty bad.
The Biology degree they run includes
courses in 'New Testament Life and Literature' and 'Evangelism and
Christian Life'.
To be fair: AFAICT the courses in 'New Testament Life and Literature'
and 'Evangelism and Christian Life' are not offered by the Biology
department but are merely mentioned in the "Suggested Course
Sequence", along with English Grammar and Composition. Perhaps they
are required courses at the university?
Seems likely. Biology and theology are not related in any way, so to
even suggest those courses as part of a biology degree (and not offer
evolution) seems pretty fucked up. English grammar, on the other hand,
is pretty useful for writing research papers... and judging by the
level of English demonstrated by most of the Christian folk who post
to alt.atheism, perhaps they should make that part of the programme
obligatory.
Their postgraduate programme is theological and does
not include biology at all.
Not purely theological -- they apparently also offer an MBA,
Another joke qualification but point taken :-)
an MS in
Nursing, and a few others. Religious studies do appear to predominate,
however. So? Not all colleges/universities offer advanced degrees in
all subjects.
The original post said that the guy was involved in biological
research, I think. Personally, I would never consider doing a degree
at a uni which did not have *any* postgraduate qualifications in a
subject. It's just not a good sign that they have quality faculty
available to teach.
It also means that there is less likely to be a reasonable standard of
research in the undergraduate degrees. Most good biology degrees
include at least one research thesis.
One might argue that the quality of undergraduate education in science
is better at a university that has an emphasis on research and that
such institutions typically offer graduate programs in the sciences.
But LU does not appear substantially different _in that respect_ from
other, wholly secular, colleges with no graduate programs in science.
I'd avoid them too, but most of them don't leave out fundamental
chunks of biology (evolution), or encourage people to waste time which
should be spent learning the subject they signed up to learn, rather
than studying religion.
Any biology degree that excludes evolution is absolutely worthless for
anyone who actually wants to be a professional biologist (rather than
work for an organization that pushes a particular set of religious
beliefs).
Two points:
(1) To what extent is understanding evolutionary biology really
essential for the work done by a someone with only a BS in biology? It
depends, I imagine, on the specifics of the job, but do you really
need a background in evolutionary biology to do HPLC, for example?
My point is that it is absolutely fundamental to an understanding of
biology, and I think that is true at any level. It underpins
everything, and is one of the most important discoveries ever made in
the science. If you do not understand evolution, you can not
understand species classification, ethology, physiology...
The job someone gets at the end of it is irrelevant, as a degree is
supposed to be a broad grounding in the subject. There are diplomas
and stuff available to people who do not wish to go into the depth of
a full degree.
(2) I do not recall taking a course in evolutionary biology _per se_
as either an undergraduate or graduate student. However, evolution is
a vital organizing concept in biology; I find it hard to imagine a
biology education that excludes evolution entirely.
I'm surprised that you didn't study evolution in either of your
courses. It was a vital part of my first degree, and formed the core
of the second one. I would not have been able to complete the second
one if I hadn't had such a good grounding.
There is an alarming amount of misinformation here about what
constitutes a "good" education at a "good" institution.
There are innumerable undergraduate colleges that offer truly
outstanding education without having any postgraduate courses or
programs whatsoever. If someone is interested in a career in science,
it is necessary to have an advanced degree, ordinarily a PhD. Whether
the undergraduate degree was taken at an institution with graduate
programs or not is quite irrelevant. These institutions are all
staffed with faculty possessing PhD's well developed research
programs, a criterion for continued employment and advancement.
It is common for biology departments to include, in their list of
degree requirements, not only courses in the major and which
contribute to work in biology, but also all the requirements of the
college. Our own department does mention that students must take
courses in history and philosophy and arts and literature because
those are requirements to obtain a degree. They are also requirements
to be a well-educated person!
It is also common for students to graduate with a BA or BS degree in
biology without ever having taken a formal upper-division course
specifically in evolution. In our department, students must take two
courses (including one laboratory course) in each of three areas:
cellular and molecular biology, organismal biology, and population and
environmental biology. In the third category, most students do take
one course in ecology and one in population genetics/evolution, but a
wide variety select an alternate pair of courses. Of course,
evolution is an important component of our introductory biology
course. And evolutionary arguments and patterns and modes of thinking
form an important basis for virtually all of our courses. Still it is
quite possible for biologists to never have taken a formal course in
the subject. It is also quite common for chemists or physicists or
mathematicians to go into biology as graduate students and never to
take many of the "general biology" type courses. Similarly
biochemistry and microbiology departments often do not offer courses
specifically in evolution. A person with degrees in biochemistry and
neurobiology is very likely to never have taken a course in evolution,
per se. That has absolutely no bearing on whether that person is a
capable and competent biologist. The fact is, a student at Liberty
University could take courses in Genetics, Microbiology, Plant
Physiology, Comparative Animal Physiology, Ecology, and Environmental
Biology, to select just some of the offerings. Those (plus GChem,
Organic Chem, Calculus, and Physics) would satisfy our own BS
requirements.
I have no idea whatsoever whether David DeWitt is a knowledgeable
biologist or not. I have no idea whatsoever whether Liberty
University offers a quality education or not. But I do resent people
trying to base the quality of an education on whether a department may
combine biology with other sciences (as was done in a previous
posting), on whether or not a department offers graduate programs, or
whether a department may mention other college requirements in their
descriptive literature.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Holly the Heretic" |
|
| Title: Re: B.S. in biochemistry |
19 May 2004 02:04:21 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 May 2004 17:38:05 +0000 (UTC), r norman <rsn_@_comcast.net>
wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2004 15:46:58 +0000 (UTC), Holly the Heretic
<nowhere@nowhere.org> wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2004 13:40:04 +0000 (UTC), "Frank F. Smith"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2004 10:54:37 +0000 (UTC), Holly the Heretic
<nowhere@nowhere.org> wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2004 03:20:44 +0000 (UTC),
(David) wrote:
<snip>
David A. DeWitt, Ph.D.
Director of Creation Education
Dr. DeWitt received a B.S. in biochemistry from Michigan State
University and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Case Western Reserve University.
Currently an associate professor of biology at Liberty University, he is
active in teaching and research.
I wonder how many other people with similar qualifications believe in
creation?
Liberty University is a joke.
Maybe so. It might be possible to dispute the quality of education
their students receive. LU isn't nearly as funny, IMO, as Shepard's
Bible College, though. (I'll admit I have not investigated LU closely,
so I have no firm opinion on the institution's status.)
I'm just going on what's on their website. Looks pretty bad.
The Biology degree they run includes
courses in 'New Testament Life and Literature' and 'Evangelism and
Christian Life'.
To be fair: AFAICT the courses in 'New Testament Life and Literature'
and 'Evangelism and Christian Life' are not offered by the Biology
department but are merely mentioned in the "Suggested Course
Sequence", along with English Grammar and Composition. Perhaps they
are required courses at the university?
Seems likely. Biology and theology are not related in any way, so to
even suggest those courses as part of a biology degree (and not offer
evolution) seems pretty fucked up. English grammar, on the other hand,
is pretty useful for writing research papers... and judging by the
level of English demonstrated by most of the Christian folk who post
to alt.atheism, perhaps they should make that part of the programme
obligatory.
Their postgraduate programme is theological and does
not include biology at all.
Not purely theological -- they apparently also offer an MBA,
Another joke qualification but point taken :-)
an MS in
Nursing, and a few others. Religious studies do appear to predominate,
however. So? Not all colleges/universities offer advanced degrees in
all subjects.
The original post said that the guy was involved in biological
research, I think. Personally, I would never consider doing a degree
at a uni which did not have *any* postgraduate qualifications in a
subject. It's just not a good sign that they have quality faculty
available to teach.
It also means that there is less likely to be a reasonable standard of
research in the undergraduate degrees. Most good biology degrees
include at least one research thesis.
One might argue that the quality of undergraduate education in science
is better at a university that has an emphasis on research and that
such institutions typically offer graduate programs in the sciences.
But LU does not appear substantially different _in that respect_ from
other, wholly secular, colleges with no graduate programs in science.
I'd avoid them too, but most of them don't leave out fundamental
chunks of biology (evolution), or encourage people to waste time which
should be spent learning the subject they signed up to learn, rather
than studying religion.
Any biology degree that excludes evolution is absolutely worthless for
anyone who actually wants to be a professional biologist (rather than
work for an organization that pushes a particular set of religious
beliefs).
Two points:
(1) To what extent is understanding evolutionary biology really
essential for the work done by a someone with only a BS in biology? It
depends, I imagine, on the specifics of the job, but do you really
need a background in evolutionary biology to do HPLC, for example?
My point is that it is absolutely fundamental to an understanding of
biology, and I think that is true at any level. It underpins
everything, and is one of the most important discoveries ever made in
the science. If you do not understand evolution, you can not
understand species classification, ethology, physiology...
The job someone gets at the end of it is irrelevant, as a degree is
supposed to be a broad grounding in the subject. There are diplomas
and stuff available to people who do not wish to go into the depth of
a full degree.
(2) I do not recall taking a course in evolutionary biology _per se_
as either an undergraduate or graduate student. However, evolution is
a vital organizing concept in biology; I find it hard to imagine a
biology education that excludes evolution entirely.
I'm surprised that you didn't study evolution in either of your
courses. It was a vital part of my first degree, and formed the core
of the second one. I would not have been able to complete the second
one if I hadn't had such a good grounding.
There is an alarming amount of misinformation here about what
constitutes a "good" education at a "good" institution.
There are innumerable undergraduate colleges that offer truly
outstanding education without having any postgraduate courses or
programs whatsoever. If someone is interested in a career in science,
it is necessary to have an advanced degree, ordinarily a PhD. Whether
the undergraduate degree was taken at an institution with graduate
programs or not is quite irrelevant. These institutions are all
staffed with faculty possessing PhD's well developed research
programs, a criterion for continued employment and advancement.
That may be true... but the fact remains that if I can choose which
university to attend, I may as well choose one which provides the best
teaching standards *and* the best facilities available. In my opinion,
a university with a thriving biological research department is more
likely to have access to better research facilities. It is also more
likely to attract the best researchers. I'm not saying that academics
at unis with no research programme are *bad*, but if you want the
opportunity to learn from the top people, you try and choose one of
the top universities.
It is common for biology departments to include, in their list of
degree requirements, not only courses in the major and which
contribute to work in biology, but also all the requirements of the
college. Our own department does mention that students must take
courses in history and philosophy and arts and literature because
those are requirements to obtain a degree. They are also requirements
to be a well-educated person!
Presumably they do at least offer evolution as an option on their
biology courses? Personally I think a student should be allowed the
option to study a few courses outside their chosen subject area, but
it should not be obligatory. If someone intends to do a PhD in
biology, a history course may help them to answer more questions on TV
quizzes but it is unlikely to help them in their area of research.
It is also common for students to graduate with a BA or BS degree in
biology without ever having taken a formal upper-division course
specifically in evolution. In our department, students must take two
courses (including one laboratory course) in each of three areas:
cellular and molecular biology, organismal biology, and population and
environmental biology. In the third category, most students do take
one course in ecology and one in population genetics/evolution, but a
wide variety select an alternate pair of courses.
I suspect evolution crops up in most of those courses?
Of course,
evolution is an important component of our introductory biology
course. And evolutionary arguments and patterns and modes of thinking
form an important basis for virtually all of our courses. Still it is
quite possible for biologists to never have taken a formal course in
the subject. It is also quite common for chemists or physicists or
mathematicians to go into biology as graduate students and never to
take many of the "general biology" type courses. Similarly
biochemistry and microbiology departments often do not offer courses
specifically in evolution. A person with degrees in biochemistry and
neurobiology is very likely to never have taken a course in evolution,
per se. That has absolutely no bearing on whether that person is a
capable and competent biologist. The fact is, a student at Liberty
University could take courses in Genetics, Microbiology, Plant
Physiology, Comparative Animal Physiology, Ecology, and Environmental
Biology, to select just some of the offerings. Those (plus GChem,
Organic Chem, Calculus, and Physics) would satisfy our own BS
requirements.
I have no idea whatsoever whether David DeWitt is a knowledgeable
biologist or not. I have no idea whatsoever whether Liberty
University offers a quality education or not. But I do resent people
trying to base the quality of an education on whether a department may
combine biology with other sciences (as was done in a previous
posting), on whether or not a department offers graduate programs, or
whether a department may mention other college requirements in their
descriptive literature.
My main objection was to the fact that religious universities can
offer a degree in biology with *no* teaching of evolution included. As
you said yourself, 'evolutionary arguments and patterns and modes of
thinking form an important basis for virtually all of our courses'.
How good are those courses when you completely remove all reference to
evolution by natural selection? Schools and universities in the US are
churning out biologists who have an incomplete (at best) understanding
of their subject (and standards of US graduates were already
recognized as being lower than in Europe). Take one of those people
and send them to a PhD course in Biology at one of the top
universities and watch them flounder! The poor kids are having a
future taken away from them by ignorant people who refuse to povide
them with a proper education.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Schaffner" |
|
| Title: Re: B.S. in biochemistry |
19 May 2004 10:12:53 PM |
|
|
Holly the Heretic <nowhere@nowhere.org> writes:
On Mon, 17 May 2004 17:38:05 +0000 (UTC), r norman <rsn_@_comcast.net>
wrote:
There are innumerable undergraduate colleges that offer truly
outstanding education without having any postgraduate courses or
programs whatsoever. If someone is interested in a career in science,
it is necessary to have an advanced degree, ordinarily a PhD. Whether
the undergraduate degree was taken at an institution with graduate
programs or not is quite irrelevant. These institutions are all
staffed with faculty possessing PhD's well developed research
programs, a criterion for continued employment and advancement.
That may be true... but the fact remains that if I can choose which
university to attend, I may as well choose one which provides the best
teaching standards *and* the best facilities available. In my opinion,
a university with a thriving biological research department is more
likely to have access to better research facilities. It is also more
likely to attract the best researchers.
It is also less likely to attract the best teachers. It is often the
case that smaller colleges place more emphasis on teaching than large
research universities.
I'm not saying that academics
at unis with no research programme are *bad*, but if you want the
opportunity to learn from the top people, you try and choose one of
the top universities.
There are top people who interact a lot with undergraduates, but most
don't.
It is common for biology departments to include, in their list of
degree requirements, not only courses in the major and which
contribute to work in biology, but also all the requirements of the
college. Our own department does mention that students must take
courses in history and philosophy and arts and literature because
those are requirements to obtain a degree. They are also requirements
to be a well-educated person!
Presumably they do at least offer evolution as an option on their
biology courses? Personally I think a student should be allowed the
option to study a few courses outside their chosen subject area, but
it should not be obligatory. If someone intends to do a PhD in
biology, a history course may help them to answer more questions on TV
quizzes but it is unlikely to help them in their area of research.
Many people (including me) think of undergraduate education as being
more than just vocational training. If the only thing you're
interested in in life is biology, then by all means study just
biology. Not everyone has such a narrow focus, however. (Besides,
how much good does undergraduate biology actually do you? You might
be better off studying chemistry or math or computer science or even
electrical engineering, and learning most of the biology later.)
Admittedly, I have an unusual perspective, since I am surrounded by
biologists who don't have undergraduate, or in most cases graduate,
degrees in biology (and one who hasn't got an advanced degree at all).
--
Steve Schaffner
Immediate assurance is an excellent sign of probable lack of
insight into the topic. Josiah Royce
.
|
|
|
| User: "Holly the Heretic" |
|
| Title: Re: B.S. in biochemistry |
20 May 2004 09:15:10 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 May 2004 03:12:53 +0000 (UTC), Steve Schaffner
<sfs@iron.broad.mit.edu> wrote:
It is also less likely to attract the best teachers. It is often the
case that smaller colleges place more emphasis on teaching than large
research universities.
That's not been my experience. The best teachers I have been people
who really managed to *inspire* me, and those are the people on the
cutting edge. They're not just repeating what's in the syllabus. They
know new and *cool* stuff.
I don't think you can really get away from the fact that the best
biologists will try and get jobs at the best universities.
There are top people who interact a lot with undergraduates, but most
don't.
That depends on the university, perhaps. In both of the ones I've
studied at, the top dogs have always been involved in lecturing
undergrads. It's a standard part of the job in the UK. You do
research, you also do a certain number of hours lecturing. The same
applies to many PhD posts.
Many people (including me) think of undergraduate education as being
more than just vocational training. If the only thing you're
interested in in life is biology, then by all means study just
biology. Not everyone has such a narrow focus, however. (Besides,
how much good does undergraduate biology actually do you? You might
be better off studying chemistry or math or computer science or even
electrical engineering, and learning most of the biology later.)
That's why I think the non-biology courses should be optional.
Admittedly, I have an unusual perspective, since I am surrounded by
biologists who don't have undergraduate, or in most cases graduate,
degrees in biology (and one who hasn't got an advanced degree at all).
It does of course depend what they want to do with it. I was thinking
more of research than vocational stuff, and it's nigh on impossible to
get a research place in a top ethology group without a postgraduate
degree. Even then, they'll look very carefully at where that degree
came from.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Schaffner" |
|
| Title: Re: B.S. in biochemistry |
20 May 2004 08:59:24 PM |
|
|
Holly the Heretic <nowhere@nowhere.org> writes:
On Thu, 20 May 2004 03:12:53 +0000 (UTC), Steve Schaffner
<sfs@iron.broad.mit.edu> wrote:
It is also less likely to attract the best teachers. It is often the
case that smaller colleges place more emphasis on teaching than large
research universities.
That's not been my experience. The best teachers I have been people
who really managed to *inspire* me, and those are the people on the
cutting edge. They're not just repeating what's in the syllabus. They
know new and *cool* stuff.
The skills required to be an excellent researcher have some overlap
with the skills needed to be an inspiring teacher, but not a lot.
(The same is true of research and administration.) I see no
particular reason to expect top researchers to be great teachers.
Sure, some are great lecturers: the director of the institute I work
at is a superb public speaker, and I'm sure his undergraduate lectures
are good. (Hey, this is a guy who's lectured both Bill Clinton and
the Dalai Lama about genetics.) But many big names aren't good
teachers, or simply don't lecture undergraduates.
Since the discussion started about an American school, it's also
important to note that in the U.S. there are usually structural
obstacles that make it unlikely for the best researchers to be good
teachers. Major research universities (and even many minor ones)
value research prowess a lot, and value teaching skill and effort
hardly at all. I know of several institutions where the Teacher of
the Year award is known unofficially as the "Kiss of Death Award",
since it pretty much guarantees that the recipient won't get tenure.
This is a chronic problem, often recognized and bemoaned by all
concerned, but very little is actually done to address it.
If you attend a major research university in the U.S., you stand a
good chance that much of the teaching during your first couple of
years will be done by graduate students. You may get some good
lectures from a big name, but the chances of working with him or her
in the lab are practically nonexistent.
I don't think you can really get away from the fact that the best
biologists will try and get jobs at the best universities.
I don't intend to get away from that fact. I just don't see any
necessary connection between that fact and whether the best
universities are also the best place to *learn* biology; I also don't
see learning biology as the only reason for attending school.
Many people (including me) think of undergraduate education as being
more than just vocational training. If the only thing you're
interested in in life is biology, then by all means study just
biology. Not everyone has such a narrow focus, however. (Besides,
how much good does undergraduate biology actually do you? You might
be better off studying chemistry or math or computer science or even
electrical engineering, and learning most of the biology later.)
That's why I think the non-biology courses should be optional.
Admittedly, I have an unusual perspective, since I am surrounded by
biologists who don't have undergraduate, or in most cases graduate,
degrees in biology (and one who hasn't got an advanced degree at all).
It does of course depend what they want to do with it. I was thinking
more of research than vocational stuff,
Research is the vocation I'm talking about -- all of the people I was
referring to are researchers. I don't (and didn't) view college just
as training so I could do research.
and it's nigh on impossible to
get a research place in a top ethology group without a postgraduate
degree. Even then, they'll look very carefully at where that degree
came from.
It's extremely unusual to become an academic scientist without a
postgraduate degree, but it can happen. Useful or not, they're
expected. The one researcher I know who doesn't have a PhD is
bundling some of his papers together into a thesis and getting a PhD,
since so many people expect him to have one; the degree isn't
going to improve his work any, but it will improve his employability
at other institutions.
--
Steve Schaffner
Immediate assurance is an excellent sign of probable lack of
insight into the topic. Josiah Royce
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: B.S. in biochemistry |
20 May 2004 10:36:13 AM |
|
|
Steve Schaffner <sfs@iron.broad.mit.edu> wrote:
Holly the Heretic <nowhere@nowhere.org> writes:
On Mon, 17 May 2004 17:38:05 +0000 (UTC), r norman <rsn_@_comcast.net>
wrote:
There are innumerable undergraduate colleges that offer truly
outstanding education without having any postgraduate courses or
programs whatsoever. If someone is interested in a career in science,
it is necessary to have an advanced degree, ordinarily a PhD. Whether
the undergraduate degree was taken at an institution with graduate
programs or not is quite irrelevant. These institutions are all
staffed with faculty possessing PhD's well developed research
programs, a criterion for continued employment and advancement.
That may be true... but the fact remains that if I can choose which
university to attend, I may as well choose one which provides the best
teaching standards *and* the best facilities available. In my opinion,
a university with a thriving biological research department is more
likely to have access to better research facilities. It is also more
likely to attract the best researchers.
It is also less likely to attract the best teachers. It is often the
case that smaller colleges place more emphasis on teaching than large
research universities.
I'm not saying that academics
at unis with no research programme are *bad*, but if you want the
opportunity to learn from the top people, you try and choose one of
the top universities.
There are top people who interact a lot with undergraduates, but most
don't.
It is common for biology departments to include, in their list of
degree requirements, not only courses in the major and which
contribute to work in biology, but also all the requirements of the
college. Our own department does mention that students must take
courses in history and philosophy and arts and literature because
those are requirements to obtain a degree. They are also requirements
to be a well-educated person!
Presumably they do at least offer evolution as an option on their
biology courses? Personally I think a student should be allowed the
option to study a few courses outside their chosen subject area, but
it should not be obligatory. If someone intends to do a PhD in
biology, a history course may help them to answer more questions on TV
quizzes but it is unlikely to help them in their area of research.
Many people (including me) think of undergraduate education as being
more than just vocational training. If the only thing you're
interested in in life is biology, then by all means study just
biology. Not everyone has such a narrow focus, however. (Besides,
how much good does undergraduate biology actually do you? You might
be better off studying chemistry or math or computer science or even
electrical engineering, and learning most of the biology later.)
Great post Steve, this is really true. The important thing is to teach
critical thinking. Once you have that ability anyone can go and
research a topic of interest. The fact is that undergraduate teaching
can never cover everything and so teaching the students to be
intellectually independant is the key.
It is noticable that Howard Huges and NRC are pushing for undergraduate
course in the R1 reseach universities that utilize active learning. For
examle, using case studies is a major part of this and interacting with
the students is another big factor that initially that takes a lot of
time. But the payoff can be huge as the students start to teach
themselves and thus allows the pace of the class to increase.
At the end of the day the first thing any graduate student has to do is
learn about the area of research s/he is about to start. Few
undergrqaduate lectures will prepare them for the amount of information
they will have to learn (on their own!).
David
Admittedly, I have an unusual perspective, since I am surrounded by
biologists who don't have undergraduate, or in most cases graduate,
degrees in biology (and one who hasn't got an advanced degree at all).
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "r norman" |
|
| Title: Undergraduate Education [was Re: B.S. in biochemistry] |
20 May 2004 08:21:58 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 May 2004 19:04:21 +0000 (UTC), Holly the Heretic
<nowhere@nowhere.org> wrote:
<snip everything except what pertains to the value of education
at purely undergraduate institutions>
On Mon, 17 May 2004 17:38:05 +0000 (UTC), r norman <rsn_@_comcast.net>
wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2004 15:46:58 +0000 (UTC), Holly the Heretic
<nowhere@nowhere.org> wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2004 13:40:04 +0000 (UTC), "Frank F. Smith"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
One might argue that the quality of undergraduate education in science
is better at a university that has an emphasis on research and that
such institutions typically offer graduate programs in the sciences.
But LU does not appear substantially different _in that respect_ from
other, wholly secular, colleges with no graduate programs in science.
I'd avoid them too, but most of them don't leave out fundamental
chunks of biology (evolution), or encourage people to waste time which
should be spent learning the subject they signed up to learn
There are innumerable undergraduate colleges that offer truly
outstanding education without having any postgraduate courses or
programs whatsoever. If someone is interested in a career in science,
it is necessary to have an advanced degree, ordinarily a PhD. Whether
the undergraduate degree was taken at an institution with graduate
programs or not is quite irrelevant. These institutions are all
staffed with faculty possessing PhD's well developed research
programs, a criterion for continued employment and advancement.
That may be true... but the fact remains that if I can choose which
university to attend, I may as well choose one which provides the best
teaching standards *and* the best facilities available. In my opinion,
a university with a thriving biological research department is more
likely to have access to better research facilities. It is also more
likely to attract the best researchers. I'm not saying that academics
at unis with no research programme are *bad*, but if you want the
opportunity to learn from the top people, you try and choose one of
the top universities.
Steve Schaffner already responded (from MIT, generally considered one
of the prime research institutions) about the fallacy of this
argument. You should also check into organizations like CUR, the
Council on Undergraduate Research. "The mission of the Council on
Undergraduate Research is to support and promote high-quality
undergraduate student-faculty collaborative research and scholarship.
..... Serving faculty and administrators at primarily undergraduate
institutions, CUR has 3,000 members representing over 870 institutions
in eight academic divisions. " (http://www.cur.org/). Some of those
institutions are listed at http://www.cur.org/instmemf.asp.
In my opinion, an undergraduate student has a far better chance of
working closely with faculty, working on real research programs, and
getting published in peer-reviewed journals by studying at a high
quality undergraduate college like one of those belonging to CUR.
There is a strong tradition at many of these institutions to include
the undergraduates as first authors. At a large research institution,
where the research programs are publication mills ground out by
post-docs and graduate students and with undergraduates largely
confined to lab technician roles, the undergraduates seldom get
coauthorship and virtually never get first authorship.
Steve Schaffner also emphasized that the undergraduate education is
certainly not the place to "learn a trade". It is to become well
educated about a wide variety of things. The graduate and post-doc
experience is the apprenticeship program to provide all the real
professional training.
A few years ago, I ran a seminar course where the students presented
synopses of the work of Nobel Prize winners in Physiology and
Medicine. They reviewed, not only the prize winning work, but the
whole career of the nobelist. A surprising number came from
backgrounds other than biology or even science and from a tremendous
diversity of undergraduate institutions.
If there are any high school students out there who are reading this
while thinking of what college or university to attend, I urge you to
visit the campus and meet with students. Find out about courses,
especially about the laboratory courses where you really get your
science education. And find out about the opportunities to interact
with faculty and to work in faculty research labs. Find out about the
record of the institution in getting students placed in graduate or
professional schools. Look into smaller colleges where you may get
treated and recognized as an individual as well as the large research
institutions which, admittedly, do have more opportunities but where
you may have a harder time finding your niche. It is your future, so
take some time and care about it!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "r norman" |
|
| Title: Re: B.S. in biochemistry |
18 May 2004 08:34:16 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 May 2004 15:46:58 +0000 (UTC), Holly the Heretic
<nowhere@nowhere.org> wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2004 13:40:04 +0000 (UTC), "Frank F. Smith"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2004 10:54:37 +0000 (UTC), Holly the Heretic
<nowhere@nowhere.org> wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2004 03:20:44 +0000 (UTC),
(David) wrote:
<snip>
David A. DeWitt, Ph.D.
Director of Creation Education
Dr. DeWitt received a B.S. in biochemistry from Michigan State
University and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Case Western Reserve University.
Currently an associate professor of biology at Liberty University, he is
active in teaching and research.
I wonder how many other people with similar qualifications believe in
creation?
Liberty University is a joke.
Maybe so. It might be possible to dispute the quality of education
their students receive. LU isn't nearly as funny, IMO, as Shepard's
Bible College, though. (I'll admit I have not investigated LU closely,
so I have no firm opinion on the institution's status.)
I'm just going on what's on their website. Looks pretty bad.
The Biology degree they run includes
courses in 'New Testament Life and Literature' and 'Evangelism and
Christian Life'.
To be fair: AFAICT the courses in 'New Testament Life and Literature'
and 'Evangelism and Christian Life' are not offered by the Biology
department but are merely mentioned in the "Suggested Course
Sequence", along with English Grammar and Composition. Perhaps they
are required courses at the university?
Seems likely. Biology and theology are not related in any way, so to
even suggest those courses as part of a biology degree (and not offer
evolution) seems pretty fucked up. English grammar, on the other hand,
is pretty useful for writing research papers... and judging by the
level of English demonstrated by most of the Christian folk who post
to alt.atheism, perhaps they should make that part of the programme
obligatory.
Their postgraduate programme is theological and does
not include biology at all.
Not purely theological -- they apparently also offer an MBA,
Another joke qualification but point taken :-)
an MS in
Nursing, and a few others. Religious studies do appear to predominate,
however. So? Not all colleges/universities offer advanced degrees in
all subjects.
The original post said that the guy was involved in biological
research, I think. Personally, I would never consider doing a degree
at a uni which did not have *any* postgraduate qualifications in a
subject. It's just not a good sign that they have quality faculty
available to teach.
It also means that there is less likely to be a reasonable standard of
research in the undergraduate degrees. Most good biology degrees
include at least one research thesis.
One might argue that the quality of undergraduate education in science
is better at a university that has an emphasis on research and that
such institutions typically offer graduate programs in the sciences.
But LU does not appear substantially different _in that respect_ from
other, wholly secular, colleges with no graduate programs in science.
I'd avoid them too, but most of them don't leave out fundamental
chunks of biology (evolution), or encourage people to waste time which
should be spent learning the subject they signed up to learn, rather
than studying religion.
Any biology degree that excludes evolution is absolutely worthless for
anyone who actually wants to be a professional biologist (rather than
work for an organization that pushes a particular set of religious
beliefs).
Two points:
(1) To what extent is understanding evolutionary biology really
essential for the work done by a someone with only a BS in biology? It
depends, I imagine, on the specifics of the job, but do you really
need a background in evolutionary biology to do HPLC, for example?
My point is that it is absolutely fundamental to an understanding of
biology, and I think that is true at any level. It underpins
everything, and is one of the most important discoveries ever made in
the science. If you do not understand evolution, you can not
understand species classification, ethology, physiology...
The job someone gets at the end of it is irrelevant, as a degree is
supposed to be a broad grounding in the subject. There are diplomas
and stuff available to people who do not wish to go into the depth of
a full degree.
(2) I do not recall taking a course in evolutionary biology _per se_
as either an undergraduate or graduate student. However, evolution is
a vital organizing concept in biology; I find it hard to imagine a
biology education that excludes evolution entirely.
I'm surprised that you didn't study evolution in either of your
courses. It was a vital part of my first degree, and formed the core
of the second one. I would not have been able to complete the second
one if I hadn't had such a good grounding.
There is an alarming amount of misinformation here about what
constitutes a "good" education at a "good" institution.
There are innumerable undergraduate colleges that offer truly
outstanding education without having any postgraduate courses or
programs whatsoever. If someone is interested in a career in science,
it is necessary to have an advanced degree, ordinarily a PhD. Whether
the undergraduate degree was taken at an institution with graduate
programs or not is quite irrelevant. These institutions are all
staffed with faculty possessing PhD's well developed research
programs, a criterion for continued employment and advancement.
It is common for biology departments to include, in their list of
degree requirements, not only courses in the major and which
contribute to work in biology, but also all the requirements of the
college. Our own department does mention that students must take
courses in history and philosophy and arts and literature because
those are requirements to obtain a degree. They are also requirements
to be a well-educated person!
It is also common for students to graduate with a BA or BS degree in
biology without ever having taken a formal upper-division course
specifically in evolution. In our department, students must take two
courses (including one laboratory course) in each of three areas:
cellular and molecular biology, organismal biology, and population and
environmental biology. In the third category, most students do take
one course in ecology and one in population genetics/evolution, but a
wide variety select an alternate pair of courses. Of course,
evolution is an important component of our introductory biology
course. And evolutionary arguments and patterns and modes of thinking
form an important basis for virtually all of our courses. Still it is
quite possible for biologists to never have taken a formal course in
the subject. It is also quite common for chemists or physicists or
mathematicians to go into biology as graduate students and never to
take many of the "general biology" type courses. Similarly
biochemistry and microbiology departments often do not offer courses
specifically in evolution. A person with degrees in biochemistry and
neurobiology is very likely to never have taken a course in evolution,
per se. That has absolutely no bearing on whether that person is a
capable and competent biologist. The fact is, a student at Liberty
University could take courses in Genetics, Microbiology, Plant
Physiology, Comparative Animal Physiology, Ecology, and Environmental
Biology, to select just some of the offerings. Those (plus GChem,
Organic Chem, Calculus, and Physics) would satisfy our own BS
requirements.
I have no idea whatsoever whether David DeWitt is a knowledgeable
biologist or not. I have no idea whatsoever whether Liberty
University offers a quality education or not. But I do resent people
trying to base the quality of an education on whether a department may
combine biology with other sciences (as was done in a previous
posting), on whether or not a department offers graduate programs, or
whether a department may mention other college requirements in their
descriptive literature.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: B.S. in biochemistry |
14 May 2004 06:19:46 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 May 2004 10:54:37 +0000 (UTC), Holly the Heretic
<nowhere@nowhere.org> wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2004 03:20:44 +0000 (UTC),
(David) wrote:
+Church of The Painful Truth+ <Atheistsare@fools.com> wrote:
The Center for Creation Education and this section of the web site
result primarily from the creative efforts of two people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David A. DeWitt, Ph.D.
Director of Creation Education
Dr. DeWitt received a B.S. in biochemistry from Michigan State
University and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Case Western Reserve University.
Currently an associate professor of biology at Liberty University, he is
active in teaching and research.
I wonder how many other people with similar qualifications believe in
creation?
Liberty University is a joke. The Biology degree they run includes
courses in 'New Testament Life and Literature' and 'Evangelism and
Christian Life'. Their postgraduate programme is theological and does
not include biology at all.
Any biology degree that excludes evolution is absolutely worthless for
anyone who actually wants to be a professional biologist (rather than
work for an organization that pushes a particular set of religious
beliefs).
Isn't it misrepresentation to call it a biology degree?
Who lets them get away with it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Klaus Hellnick" |
|
| Title: Re: B.S. in biochemistry |
14 May 2004 07:02:50 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:i5b9a0tn519k9msi4kq3gf9nc36clh63f1@4ax.com...
On Fri, 14 May 2004 10:54:37 +0000 (UTC), Holly the Heretic
<nowhere@nowhere.org> wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2004 03:20:44 +0000 (UTC),
(David) wrote:
+Church of The Painful Truth+ <Atheistsare@fools.com> wrote:
The Center for Creation Education and this section of the web
site
result primarily from the creative efforts of two people.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
David A. DeWitt, Ph.D.
Director of Creation Education
Dr. DeWitt received a B.S. in biochemistry from Michigan State
University and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Case Western Reserve
University.
Currently an associate professor of biology at Liberty University, he
is
active in teaching and research.
I wonder how many other people with similar qualifications believe in
creation?
Liberty University is a joke. The Biology degree they run includes
courses in 'New Testament Life and Literature' and 'Evangelism and
Christian Life'. Their postgraduate programme is theological and does
not include biology at all.
Any biology degree that excludes evolution is absolutely worthless for
anyone who actually wants to be a professional biologist (rather than
work for an organization that pushes a particular set of religious
beliefs).
Isn't it misrepresentation to call it a biology degree?
Who lets them get away with it?
They don't; the school is not accredited.
Klaus
.
|
|
| | |
