Caroline Crocker was a professor at a community college a few years ago. She taught Intelligent Design in her biology class. Subsequently, she didn’t have her contract renewed. Not surprisingly, she showed up in the movie Expelled. The IDists have been trying their best to make her look respectable and victimized. Well, recently, some of her powerpoint slides got leaked onto the internet, making her claims to innocence and respectability seem pretty hollow. Here’s a nice little mash-up of the information about Crocker. (The images are from Crocker’s talk.)
IDEA Center Press Release: “Dr. Crocker has top academic credentials, and she received rave reviews as a professor working with students at George Mason University before the university ousted her because she mentioned intelligent design in a class.”
Right – she got ousted because she “mentioned” intelligent design in class. (roll eyes) See slides below.
Former Student: “I ended up having to drop her class just because of her attitude and her teaching methods. She has this pompous I’m-right-you’re-wrong type of personality and she seems to play favorites. I learned later from someone in the class that I had dropped that not one person got an A. Pick another teacher if you can.”
Idea Center Press Release: “Caroline Crocker is the ideal person to come on board as the first Executive Director of the IDEA Center,” said Casey Luskin, co-founder of the IDEA Center.
Former Student: “She doesn’t know the material she teaches. She is unclear and changes her mind often. She doesn’t know how to answer students’ questions. Grading scale is out of wack; watch out for her subtracting points out of nowhere! Most exam questions are not on the material she lectures on. She uses a different textbook and not the assigned book.”
Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture: First there was the monkey. He sat on the left side of the picture, it was a happy chimpanzee, and to the right sat a brooding person. And between the monkey and the person was an arrow with the point aimed at the person, with a question mark over the arrow. This is how Caroline Crocker began her lecture in “Introduction to Biology” course 101 at the George Mason University … By the end of the first hour the nice, secure world of the students was thoroughly messed up, since they had now learned something entirely new: no, wrong, humans did not descend from apes. Most of the students even found that convincing. The university administration quickly sent Caroline Crocker the pink sheet.
She wasn’t “quickly sent … the pink sheet”. She didn’t have her contract renewed. And I highly doubt that “Most of the students even found that convincing.”, rather, I’m sure most students either had their theistic worldviews strengthened or realized they were dealing with a professor on an ideological crusade.
Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture: Without her one could discard the whole controversy as the latest episode of the American freak show: the Americans are nuts, that’s nothing new, there are all kinds of crazy people there … they are all sort of fat, dumb and Bible-believing … With Caroline Crocker the story gets more complicated. She is neither fat nor dumb, she has a PhD in biology, has written books in pharmacology and taught at excellent universities. One cannot simply shrug her off as crazy, one must take her seriously, one must hear her out, one must think things through with her. That is unpleasant, strenuous and confusing.
It is, indeed confusing – obviously, she has no ideological axe to grind. Take this next slide from her lecture as an example. Obviously, it’s the Darwinists who are involved in spin.
Just the facts. For example, it’s important for students to know the “fact” that Darwin was a “rich kid who enjoyed partying, drinking, and gambling.” (What, she left off the part about killing babies and being a pimp?)
Coral Ridge Ministries: I was so careful when I wrote that lecture not to be partial in any way. I was very careful to make sure that I would talk about point by point the evidence that the book would put forward for evolution and then talk about point by point the experiments and say “Well, you know, there’s a problem here.”
Nature: “Caroline Crocker says that she hadn’t meant to start a controversy when she mentioned intelligent design while teaching her second-year cell-biology course at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, last semester…. Crocker tells how she has been barred by her department from teaching both evolution and intelligent design. “It’s an infringement of academic freedom,” she says…. She maintains that the talks help students to think independently about ideas such as evolution. “My goal is to teach students to think for themselves,” she says.”
Right – think for themselves. She presents a lot of bad information, and holds control over their grades. It’s odd that Crocker would even try to present an image of even-handedness. Oh right – that’s the IDist way: lie to the press to make yourself appear more sympathetic.
Here’s a quote from Caroline Crocker’s website (inappropriately named “IntellectualHonesty.info”):
Caroline Crocker’s website, “IntellectualHonesty.info”: “[Caroline Crocker] believes that we must be courageous enough to look the scientific evidence in the face and assess it in as impartial a manner as possible even if it means giving up dearly-held philosophical viewpoints… She promotes logic and right thinking, rather than emotion and knee-jerk reactions, when assessing the information gathered… It is a fact that ad hominem attacks and the banning of certain thoughts stand in the way of the advancement of science.”
Oh, the hypocrisy. She describes Darwin as a “rich kid who enjoyed partying, drinking, and gambling” and “failed at medical school” and then condemns ad hominem attacks.
If it’s all about the evidence, then why does she promote such obvious falsehoods as:
Christianpost: Crocker denies teaching creationism at George Mason University. Rather, she contends that she taught only one lecture on the evidence for and against evolution and did not even mention creationism.
“What I really wanted to do was in an intellectually honest manner give the evidence for evolution, but also the question about evolution – the scientific critiques – that’s all I did,” Crocker said.
See – she did it in an intellectually honest manner. She taught both sides – the “evidence for and against evolution”. By the way, what is this “evidence for” evolution that she teaches?
Washington Post: “There really is not a lot of evidence for evolution,” Crocker said. Besides, she added, she saw her role as trying to balance the “ad nauseum” pro-evolution accounts that students had long been force-fed.
Oh right – she doesn’t teach anything that supports evolution. She merely claims that she does because it makes her look more fair and sympathetic.
I especially like the quote at the end of this slide. It quotes Werner Von Braun, a rocket scientist. And we all know rocket scientists are the smartest people in the world – they know about everything:
Washington Post: “Crocker said, [microevolution is] quite different from macroevolution. No one has ever seen a dog turn into a cat in a laboratory.”
That’s an “intellectually honest” critique, isn’t it? Nevermind the fact that turning a dog into a cat in a laboratory would be indicative of magic or a divine miracle, and would never be predicted by evolution. But, we’re supposed to believe that she just presents “the scientific critiques”?
One has to wonder: as a microbiologist, did Crocker get all of her information about paleontology and larger lifeforms from creationists?
WashingtonPost: The theory of intelligent design holds that while the evolutionary forces of random genetic mutation and natural selection may shape species on a small scale, they cannot account for the kind of large-scale differences between, say, chimpanzees and humans.
In other words, they hold that a few beneficial mutations can occur and spread through the population over a small amount of time, but that many beneficial mutations cannot accumulate over a large amount of time.
Does she even know what the evidence for macroevolution is? Does she attempt to answer the question of why we find identical genetic errors in humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas – assuming we don’t have a common ancestor?
WashingtonPost: [Crocker’s husband, Richard believes] she has become the victim of scientific authoritarianism. It is one thing to believe his wife is wrong, Richard Crocker told me, and quite another to deprive her of her right to speak.
It’s unclear why this amounts to “[depriving] her of her right to speak”. She works for the IDEA center – a pro-IDist group. She gets paid to speak. If anything, she has been “deprived” of her “right” to get paid by a college while teaching students in their classrooms poor criticisms of evolution. I think that’s censorship because everyone should have the right to get paid by colleges to teach kids whatever they want. (It should be added that the college denies not renewing her contract because of ID.) So remember: if you ever sign a contract to teach at a university and you teach ID, then the university will be required to renew your contract forever – or else be accused of attacking free speech.
So yeah, the Darwinists have “[deprived] her of her right to speak”. (Please ignore the fact that she lists speaking fees on her website as $1000, $1,500, or $5000 for four talks.) The evil Darwinists have taken away her constitutionally protected rights! (Fees do not cover travel expenses, which must be covered by the client.)
Caroline Crocker’s website: Caroline Crocker is the Executive Director of the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center, as well as being self-employed in the Washington DC area as an author, speaker, and private tutor. She is working on her first non-academic book, Science Censored, on her experiences as a full time university lecturer who strove to present Darwinian evolution from an intellectually honest viewpoint.
Caroline Crocker’s website: “[Caroline Crocker] is a popular speaker on issues of science and faith, addressing school, church, and other audiences. Dr. Crocker has also written magazine articles and been extensively interviewed for media, such as books, newspapers, T.V. and movies.”
“Deprived of her of her right to speak” just ain’t what it used to be. But, then neither is honesty, apparently.
IDEA Center Press Release: I am excited about helping students in IDEA Clubs to investigate intelligent design in an intellectually honest manner,” said Dr. Crocker.
Right.
That’s one of the things I love about this blog. You always dig to get to the truth and research out any topic very well indeed.
Nice work!
I have not had time to fully digezst, this website, BUT
fully intend to reVisit. I am a Polio case, since 1949,
I have some thoughts about INTELLIGENT DESIGN, …
Do I Ever,
JAMES CROCKER My immigrant ancestor to MAssachussetts
left England bvefore the Civil War, (from Devons.), “mite”
we be related …………………………..
Of course, I’m no believer
XCuse the KatZ’jammeR
“The theory of intelligent design holds that while the evolutionary forces of random genetic mutation and natural selection may shape species on a small scale, they cannot account for the kind of large-scale differences between, say, chimpanzees and humans.”
If they have to resort to an argument from ignorance, they could at least have the intellectual honesty to find an area where there actually is some ignorance: turning a semi-bipedal somewhat intelligent primate into a fully bipedal highly intelligent primate is one of the least impressive of evolution’s accomplishments (and a very well documented accomplishment at that).
Don’t they realize, or care, that focusing on human evolution places them squarely in the creationist I-ain’t-descended-from-no-goddamn-monkey crowd? Even Behe is smart enough to leave common ancestry and macroevolution alone, and focus on areas where there’s still some ignorance to exploit.
[…] Caroline Crocker’s Intelligent Design Persecution Story is a Crock: Expelled! “Martyr” Exposed I have no idea what I was doing in the meantime, but I somehow missed a great post over at Tiny Frog which reveals some of the Powerpoint slides that celebrity creationist Caroline Crocker used in her biology classe…. […]
[…] but it soon became apparent that she was fired for just plain gross incompetence. TinyFrog found examples of her work and you can clearly see that anybody that produced/used such materials and presented them in a class […]
Beautiful Fisking! I would fire her ass for making bad power point slides, but maybe that’s just me.
Excellent post. Just wanted to point out that GMU, where Crocker taught, is not a community college, but a full university.
Tim, BS 89, MS 99 GMU
I’ll have to go back and check, but I thought she had taught at two different places (one of them being a community college). Ah – here’s a link: George Mason University and Northern Virginia Community College
As a past university instructor I can’t believe someone like this would be allowed to teach such gibberish! These slides are an incredible amount of trash. Anyone who had signed up for the course should have immediately withdrawn and registered a complaint. There is no issue here about free speech, that’s the DI’s red-herring argument. This has to do with teaching the subject one was hired to teach, and clearly Crocker had 1) no intention of doing that, and 2) from the illustrated slides she apparently was not even capable of doing so. GMU rightly let her go.
[…] did not bother to check the facts or do any actual independent research into the case. TinyFrog has examples of Crocker’s work available for everyone to see which should make it clear that she is, if nothing else, either […]
Microevolution is a misnomer as I see it. Adaptations that occur in species are clearly predefined in the DNA and RNA. Antibiotic resistant bacteria are still bacteria, vaccine resistant viruses are still viruses and poison resistant rats are still rats. We have yet to observe a macro level change occur in any living organism. All three of these examples have the ability to adapt back to their original forms in a number of generations with some exposure to the proper stimulation.
The concept of a gradual migration into a new and unique species appears to make sense on the surface but the observable examples do not support the assumption. The sterile mule and the tigon come to mind. The Purdue study of watercress shows that sometime genetic code will repair itself to negate any random gene variation. This is similar to mentally retarded having normal children in the human species. In all cases to date all living organism tend to retain the purity of their genetic code and resist change.
Even in the most extreme case of species making a macro evolutionary leap, I am wondering with whom it will breed.
You do realize that in most instances, to see a total phenotypic (physical) change you would have to wait hundreds and hundreds of years, right? Few have noted it, at least in large animals, because in large animals it takes a long time.
Not to mention that there have been perfect example of drastic physical changes happening with enough breeding of quickly growing organisms, e.g. fruit-flies. There is a famous series of genetic experiments involving fruit flies. Thomas Morgan was experimenting with Mendelian genetics using fruit flies, and after generations of true-breeding (i.e. breeding with ones self or within a selective group, in-breeding) he found one phenotypic mutant. In fact, he was the one who coined the term “mutation.” The first mutant, born of a long line of red eyed flies had white eyes. I would call that a serious genetic change. Morgan kept breeding and was able to come up with black fruit flies with small wings, as opposed the long winged brown flies. Black short winged flies is a definite and large contrast with the brown long winged flies. In fact, one might consider this enough to classify this as a completely different species. So I debunk your challenge by example. Macro-evolution has been observed.
Also, in theory, to say mirco-evolution can happen by macro can’t is idiocy. Since all life starts from a single cells, if there is a change in that single cell, the entire organism is changed. Remember, all cells have the same genetic code. They all play from the same rulebook. The change may not be a meaningful one, but it has happened. Otherwise, explain genetic disorders. Not all mutation is a good thing.
Thus I refute you in reality and in theory. I suggest reading a basic college level biology textbook before you open your mouth next time. You might learn something
Microevolution is a misnomer as I see it. Adaptations that occur in species are clearly predefined in the DNA and RNA. Antibiotic resistant bacteria are still bacteria, vaccine resistant viruses are still viruses and poison resistant rats are still rats. We have yet to observe a macro level change occur in any living organism.
I see this argument a lot. The problem is that your mind organizes animals into groups. Then, you believe that these groups are somehow immutable. The problem is that when you get down to the genetic level, track the changes between animals at a DNA level, you quickly realize there is no “barrier” – there is only a conceptual problem that exists purely in a person’s mind.
The concept of a gradual migration into a new and unique species appears to make sense on the surface but the observable examples do not support the assumption. The sterile mule and the tigon come to mind.
I’m not sure why you’re bringing up examples of cross-breeding species. In fact, horses and donkeys used to be a single species, just as tigers and lions used to be. They have accumulated enough changes in their own gene pools that having fertile children across that barrier is difficult. What you are seeing, then, with the mule and tigon is an example of species diverging into separate species which will (in the future) be completely incapable of interbreeding.
The Purdue study of watercress shows that sometime genetic code will repair itself to negate any random gene variation… In all cases to date all living organism tend to retain the purity of their genetic code and resist change.
You believe that genetic mutations don’t happen? Genomes can do a limited amount of repair, but the only thing they have to reference is their other DNA copies. They don’t have a cosmic reference book in the sky where they can always correct their errors. Besides, didn’t you mention antibiotic-resistant bacteria and viruses that are resistant to anti-viral treatment? Do you think that there are no harmful genetic disorders in the human species? If all genomes reversed all mutations, then how did all those genetic disorders come about?
Even in the most extreme case of species making a macro evolutionary leap, I am wondering with whom it will breed.
You seem to think that individual organisms make large evolutionary leaps in a single generation — that’s the only way your “with whom it will breed” question makes much sense to me. But, I think you have some misconceptions about evolution. Evolution happens slowly in a per-generation scale, but in geological time, even small changes can add up to a lot.
Here’s some information about that:
Prediction 5.7: Morphological rates of change
Prediction 5.8: Genetic rates of change
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html
[…] how she flat out lied about not teaching Creationism in classes. Just take a look at the slides and comments by students. Marks – was not fired. He had his website removed temporarily, but refused to put a standard […]
Well done. This is an example of how to talk back to the fundies. Forget the science, the the fundies operate on faith only and it will just be one frustrating circular argument. The best way is to simply shake their faith. Those slides compared to her words (and her enablers) speak volumes. Also, it is important to mention how these people are enriching themselves at the expense of the ignorant.
Those slides need to get posted on any forum where this woman is mentioned and supported.
Aside from the first picture, the rest do not load for me. The links are over bandwidth.
Why use imageshack anyway? They delete files constantly. Please use photobucket or host them on the site.
I’d like to be able to use these, but it’s a little difficult like this.
Aside from the first picture, the rest do not load for me. The links are over bandwidth. Why use imageshack anyway? They delete files constantly. Please use photobucket or host them on the site. I’d like to be able to use these, but it’s a little difficult like this.
Sorry about that. I was deep-linking to the images – I hadn’t personally uploaded the images. I went ahead and uploaded the images to wordpress, so it shouldn’t be a problem in the future.
[…] Examples of Crocker’s Work made their way onto the Internet where is soon became readily apparent why Crocker’s contract was not renewed. That combined with complaints from students and deviation from the course she was hired to teach … well, I think everyone could agree that anyone would have been fired with that sort of performance. Again, the evidence does not lie. NASA-honored engineering professor Robert J. Marks II, forced by Baylor to remove an ID-friendly website from the university’s servers. […]
I laughed out loud when I read that ‘eohippus is the same as a modern-day hyrax.’ They don’t even have the same number of teeth — Eohippus had 3 pairs of upper incisors and 1 pair of upper canines, while a modern hyrax has one pair of upper incisors and no canines. Crocker obviously is no palaeontologist but, good grief, can’t she even COUNT?
I’m reminded, when I review this philosophical masturbation, of what a man once told me – “Don’t believe anything you hear and only half of what you see”. In my career as an attorney, I have found that in searching and testing for “the truth”, that this is wise counsel. For those that are opposed to intelligent design (or, alternatively, are convinced that evolution is a “fact”), I would ask one question: If your position is so correct, then what do you have to fear from someone questioning it?
@J. Michael Sherrod
> “If your position is so correct, then what do you have to fear from someone questioning it?”
Nothing at all: that’s what the scientific method demands and peer review does. If facts come to light that call presently-held aspects of *any* theory into question then that theory is modified or discarded as they – the facts – demand.
The problem here is that a teacher was either abusing a position of trust by lying about what the evidence suggests and scientists actually say or simply incompetent in getting it wrong.
Creationism is not a valid alternative to observed fact and tested principle, just as astrology is not a valid alternative to astronomy.
Are you kidding me? Where is your proof that these slides are from her? Where is your proof that these are real slides? I am not saying one way or another, but come on! People are so easily swayed by information that supports their side whether or not that information is even real! And even more so, what in her slides are actually even bad? Why would that cause any teacher on a pursuit of higher learning to be denied a renewal of contract? Show me the counter arguments to what she said. It seems everyone is out on a scientific crusade, one way or the other. I only see a theory or evolution and not a law of evolution. I guess it could be that every few years the biology books change because this “theory” is constantly swaying and changing to the problems that keep arising to this idea. Yet people take it as a fact. I’m sorry but stop being so close minded. Study evolution, study intelligent design, don’t just pick one. Find yourself exploring both. Be a real scientist not just someone who picks the side that they like. Explore all sides to an idea and not allow yourself to be so close minded that you find the “other side to be a farse” so much that you don’t even look at it. Please challenge everything. Challenge your own side, Challenge the other side. Don’t let an idea persuade you against something you never even research. This is the great downfall of science all around us. Science should research everything not just one side of the ideas, this goes for evolution and intelligent design alike.
And even more so, what in her slides are actually even bad?
Did you actually look at the slides? The actual contents? The examples of false information she’s attempting to present as true were too numerous to mention.
Why would that cause any teacher on a pursuit of higher learning to be denied a renewal of contract?
Any teacher (and I should know, I am one) who purposefully teaches outside their set curriculum, presents falsehoods as truth and generally indicates they don’t understand the area/field they’re meant to be teaching in will and should get shown the door.
Show me the counter arguments to what she said.
You just have to look in any recognised biology text book. If you don’t have one at hand, I recommend talkorigins.org which is an excellent scientific resources which thoroughly references everything it says – it’s highly regarded.
I only see a theory or evolution and not a law of evolution.
Laws are not better than theories, theories do not grow up to be laws. You demonstrate a distinct lack of knowledge about science.
As for the rest of your near incoherent rant; ID is not science, just like creationism and astrology is not science. No one, as of yet, has been able to produce one piece of evidence which stands up to any sort of scrutiny for ID – and until someone does, it simply does not matter in the least.
Are you kidding me? Where is your proof that these slides are from her? Where is your proof that these are real slides?
Actually, if you go back to the news stories, they describe the slides – and the slides shown in this post match the slides described in the news stories. For example, this article (http://www.discovery.org/a/3516) by the Discovery Institute (her allies) accurately describes one of the slides above.
Challenge your own side, Challenge the other side. Don’t let an idea persuade you against something you never even research. This is the great downfall of science all around us. Science should research everything not just one side of the ideas, this goes for evolution and intelligent design alike.
I agree with that idea. However, there comes a point when you have a pretty good idea what the facts are. There are still people claiming that the sun goes around the earth (because the Bible says so). And there are still people claiming that the holocaust didn’t happen (because they have a desire to elevate the status of the White Supremacist movement). You have to separate out what facts are on solid ground, and what ideas are perpetually resurrected because someone has another motivation behind that belief.
Coral Ridge ministries hawks a video featuring her, and if you go to their website and click to see a preview of the video, you can see those slides being presented by her.
http://www.coralridge.org/equip/l2d-new/learn_2_discern.aspx?mediaID=2799&id=L2D081621&mediaID=L2D081621&title=Ben%E2%80%99s+Bad+Scientists
See for yourself.
Before they remove them
[…] but not macro-evolution, or evolution in large plants and animals with long lifetimes. Therefore, the faulty argument goes, since we haven’t observed it directly, there’s no evidence for it. Let’s […]
it is so interesting how emotionally charged the attacks are on crocker as well as her defenders. There seems to be a genuine lack of intellectual honesty when it comes to truth in science. While Crocker’s slides may be easy to slam based on a lack of hard facts behind them, that doesn’t mean that hard facts don’t exist on the topic. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. read ‘Genesis and the Big Bang” by Gerald Schroder, phd from M.I.T. there are plenty of facts in there for those willing to honestly explore the consistancy between hard science and intelligent design.
Crocker is ‘attacked’ because she is a bald faced liar who spreads disinformation to prop up her religious fantasies, and hides behind ‘academic freedom’ and claims of discrimination.
Schroeder’s book is pure apologetics and not worth the effort for a person actually interested in the facts.
Okay I am not going to defend/argue crocker’s lectures on Evolution but I will tell you the reviews by ‘former students’ are unqualified fabrications. I was a TA under Dr. Crocker in the GMU Cell Biol class and her grading was fair and there was NEVER a class where no one earned an A – she graded on a curve.
There were many many lazy students that thought they deserved a passing grade when they had no idea what was going on. This is a serious class where the Evolution portion was a very very small part of the material covered. Again, I am not an ID advocate and I basically just listened with interest to that one lecture (out of ~25) but there was a huge amount of material that she taught and taught very well in my opinion.
So, so if she only lied to prop up her religious fantasies once in a while, it is OK…
z