"Expelled", an example of dishonesty among creationists

[StanJ]

Obviously you've not bothered to look at any of the material. She said she was fired, when in reality she was allowed to serve out the end of her contract. She said she was blacklisted, when in reality she continued to teach. She said she didn't teach creationism, when in reality her own slides show she taught creationism.

Wrong. Listen to her own words. And if you can prove that she's lying then do so. That does not mean putting a biased article from a nondescript organization into this thread.

Those are all documented facts. If you have a problem with them, then your problem is with reality.

They are documented okay but they're not facts and they're not true. I believe her not you or your so-called documented facts.

What exactly are you disputing? Are you saying she was fired? Are you saying she didn't teach at NVCC? Are you saying she didn't teach creationism?

I'm not saying anything, she said it. Apparently you would rather believe the heresay links you posted rather than a fellow Christian.
Which is it?

 

[River Jordan]

Stan, it looks like you're just desperately trying to save face on this one, but since you can't cite any actual facts, all you are able to muster is "No it isn't". I mean...

They are documented okay but they're not facts and they're not true. I believe her not you or your so-called documented facts.

That's not really any sort of meaningful rebuttal. All you've done is say "Nuh uh".

If that's all you have, I'll let it speak for itself.

 

[StanJ]

Stan, it looks like you're just desperately trying to save face on this one, but since you can't cite any actual facts, all you are able to muster is "No it isn't". I mean...
That's not really any sort of meaningful rebuttal. All you've done is say "Nuh uh".
If that's all you have, I'll let it speak for itself.

I've given you personal observations from the person you accuse of lying without any real evidence that they did lie so I would say the only one trying to save face here is you for whatever reason I don't know but you seem to be really susceptible to Scientific opinion rather than a Christian telling you the truth. That is sad. Yes I do wish you would just let it speak for itself and stop this spreading of gossip and rumors.

 

[River Jordan]

I've given you personal observations from the person you accuse of lying without any real evidence that they did lie

I can't tell if you aren't paying attention, or if you are just in reflexive denial mode. It's simply a matter of record that she was not fired and continued to teach at NVCC, despite her claims of being fired and blacklisted to the point of not being able to work anywhere. I mean...if she was blacklisted and unable to work anywhere, how then do you explain the fact that she continued to teach at NVCC?

so I would say the only one trying to save face here is you for whatever reason I don't know but you seem to be really susceptible to Scientific opinion rather than a Christian telling you the truth. That is sad. Yes I do wish you would just let it speak for itself and stop this spreading of gossip and rumors.

Ah....I see. "She's a Christian, so we should believe whatever she says". Your blind tribalism is noted.

 

[StanJ]

I can't tell if you aren't paying attention, or if you are just in reflexive denial mode. It's simply a matter of record that she was not fired and continued to teach at NVCC, despite her claims of being fired and blacklisted to the point of not being able to work anywhere. I mean...if she was blacklisted and unable to work anywhere, how then do you explain the fact that she continued to teach at NVCC?


Ah....I see. "She's a Christian, so we should believe whatever she says". Your blind tribalism is noted.

What is a matter of record is her statement that you hopefully listened to? That I understand what God's word is and know what goes against it you may consider to be reflexive and denial but it doesn't mean I'm wrong it only means you have no ability to show I am. You rely on any window and misleading secular arguments which is rather sad seeing as though you purport to be a Christian.
Call your queries indicate that you didn't listen to the link I posted with her testimony. So maybe you should try doing that first and if you have any other questions contact her.
Yes we should believe whatever she says in the absence of any truth, which you have not presented. Sad that you consider honoring one another's word as Christians is tribalism? Apparently you don't consider yourself part of the Christian tribe? It forces me to question what you are actually doing here on CB? Are you simply here to propagate false teaching under the guise of a Bible believing true Christian?

 

[River Jordan]

You didn't answer the question Stan.

If she was blacklisted and unable to work anywhere, how then do you explain the fact that she continued to teach at NVCC?

 

[StanJ]

You didn't answer the question Stan.
If she was blacklisted and unable to work anywhere, how then do you explain the fact that she continued to teach at NVCC?

Did you listen to her video testimony? It's definitely not me avoiding the issues, while making equivocal comments.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Lol. She wasn't fired, her contract just wasn't renewed.

Rofl. You don't have a brain tumor, there's just a cancerous growth on your brain.

Smh. I'm not breaking up with you, I just think we should see other people.

"But she was allowed to keep her part-time job. That's a career isn't it?"----RJ

Quite the smoking gun you've got there.

 

[Wormwood]

Pretty much all academia work under contracts. When you have been tenured at a place and have taught there many years, and they choose not to renew your contract...especially for "disciplinary" reasons, it's pretty much the same as being fired. I have worked at a university and I know how the system works. If they cease renewing your contract, you are getting fired..for all practical purposes. Acting like they just didn't renew her contract as if this is just normal and saves face for the university is more of a distortion of the truth than saying she was fired. The point is very simple. They didn't like her content so they stopped paying her.

Moreover, the quote you cited said that her career at the school "came to an abrupt end." That is not a lie. Clearly it did, and it happened for disciplinary reasons over the content of her teaching. I don't know anything about the blacklisting stuff as it sounds like two differing sides with differing opinions. Let's just do away with the act that this lady is just a big fat liar who is trying to make some decent university faculty, who did a very nomal thing by not renewing her contract, look bad. That's clearly not what happened here. They didn't like her approach to the content, they called her on it and then they made her go away. Call it fired, dismissed, not renewed, or her career there came to an "abrupt end." The point remains valid. Certainly the university had the right to do this, but the point of the movie is well taken. If you don't tow the evolutionary line, you will likely find it difficult to get paid for teaching science.

I know it's easy just to slander people you don't like River, so you don't have to hear what they have to say, but I just find it shamefully disingenuous....especially from a person who claims to be so objective and scientific.

 

[River Jordan]

Did you listen to her video testimony? It's definitely not me avoiding the issues, while making equivocal comments.

So you're just not going to answer. That says a lot.

 

[River Jordan]

Lol. She wasn't fired, her contract just wasn't renewed.

Rofl. You don't have a brain tumor, there's just a cancerous growth on your brain.

Smh. I'm not breaking up with you, I just think we should see other people.

"But she was allowed to keep her part-time job. That's a career isn't it?"----RJ

Quite the smoking gun you've got there.

Then maybe you can answer the question. If she was blacklisted and unable to work anywhere, how then do you explain the fact that she continued to teach at NVCC?

 

[River Jordan]

Pretty much all academia work under contracts. When you have been tenured at a place and have taught there many years, and they choose not to renew your contract...especially for "disciplinary" reasons, it's pretty much the same as being fired. I have worked at a university and I know how the system works. If they cease renewing your contract, you are getting fired..for all practical purposes. Acting like they just didn't renew her contract as if this is just normal and saves face for the university is more of a distortion of the truth than saying she was fired. The point is very simple. They didn't like her content so they stopped paying her.

So I should let everyone around my workplace know that if their contract isn't renewed, they've been fired?

Moreover, the quote you cited said that her career at the school "came to an abrupt end." That is not a lie.

How can it be "abrupt" if it ended at the same time as the term of the contract? Are you saying she was like "Gosh, I had no idea the end of my contract might mean the end of my time here"?

I don't know anything about the blacklisting stuff as it sounds like two differing sides with differing opinions.

The film claimed she was blacklisted to the point of being unable to work, yet she continued to teach at NVCC. How can both of those be true?

Let's just do away with the act that this lady is just a big fat liar who is trying to make some decent university faculty, who did a very nomal thing by not renewing her contract, look bad. That's clearly not what happened here. They didn't like her approach to the content, they called her on it and then they made her go away. Call it fired, dismissed, not renewed, or her career there came to an "abrupt end." The point remains valid. Certainly the university had the right to do this, but the point of the movie is well taken. If you don't tow the evolutionary line, you will likely find it difficult to get paid for teaching science.

If she isn't lying, how can she be simultaneously blacklisted to the point of not being able to work, and continue to teach at NVCC?

And yes, when you're hired to teach a biology course you're expected to teach it generally according to the long-standing consensus. If you think you have revolutionary ideas then you need to write them up and get them published in a relevant journal. You don't just automatically start teaching your unvetted personal agenda to incoming freshmen (and we're ignoring the fact that much of what she taught is factually wrong). So really, the university had every right to fire her on the spot, in the midst of her contract. Yet they didn't and allowed her to finish.

I know it's easy just to slander people you don't like River, so you don't have to hear what they have to say, but I just find it shamefully disingenuous....especially from a person who claims to be so objective and scientific.

In order for me to be slandering, I would have to say something that isn't true. What have I said that isn't true?

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

River,

What exactly are you arguing? Pick a side please. Either she was fired/not renewed for teaching ID or she was simply not renewed for some obscure reason, let's say budget cuts.

According to you she was teaching lies and should have been terminated for content but wasn't. Or maybe she was???

Which is it? If she was not going to be allowed to teach the controversy, then she was blacklisted for teaching ID. You can't have your cake and......

 

[River Jordan]

What exactly are you arguing? Pick a side please. Either she was fired/not renewed for teaching ID

She wasn't fired. There is a big difference between being fired and finishing out your contract and it not being renewed. Another question: What was she hired by GMU to do? (and remember, she also claimed she didn't teach creationism)

or she was simply not renewed for some obscure reason, let's say budget cuts.

Universities are notorious for using adjuncts on short contracts to teach basic courses. An adjunct not getting their contract renewed is unfortunately extremely common.

According to you she was teaching lies and should have been terminated for content but wasn't. Or maybe she was???

They had every right to fire her before her contract was up, but they didn't.

And you didn't answer the question: If she was blacklisted and unable to work anywhere, how then do you explain the fact that she continued to teach at NVCC?

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Lol,

So, your arguing the premise of the movie is wrong---people are not terminated/not renewed due to teaching ID.

You then claim that people who teach ID SHOULD be fired.

Every person in the world can see this contradiction but you.

Pathetic.

 

[River Jordan]

So, your arguing the premise of the movie is wrong---people are not terminated/not renewed due to teaching ID.

No, I'm arguing that the movie dishonestly portrays various events. This is evidenced in the Crocker case by the one question that no one here will answer: If she was blacklisted and unable to work anywhere, how then do you explain the fact that she continued to teach at NVCC?

The fact that I've asked that question several times and it's been avoided every single time is a good indication of the denialism and dishonesty on the creationist side.

You then claim that people who teach ID SHOULD be fired.

If they were hired to teach biology and started teaching ID creationism instead, yes they should be fired. It's no different than if a person was hired to teach cosmology and instead started teaching flat-earth geocentrism....they too should be fired for the same reason, i.e., not doing the job they were being paid to do.

Except in the case of C. Crocker, she wasn't fired. She was allowed to fulfill the full term of her contract and even continued to teach at NVCC. Now compare that to the claims in the movie...

"After she simply mentioned Intelligent Design in her cell biology class at George Mason University, Caroline Crocker’s sterling academic career came to an abrupt end". How can that be true if she finished her contract and continued to teach at NVCC?

The movie also claims that she was "blacklisted and unable to find a job anywhere". How can that be true if she continued to teach at NVCC?

If you ignore these questions yet again then the only conclusion one can reach is that you simply cannot face reality and prefer to live in denial.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

I'm not going to argue semantics with you (no doubt you're an expert on that too). I'm also not going to let you off the hook either.

Look up the definition of abrupt. It has several meanings. Calling someone a filthy liar over your interpretation of their words should be beneath a Christian.

She resigned from NVCC because they were not going to renew her contract either---because of ID.

Abrupt end---"unceremonious" "discourteous"

Now, your turn. Should people who believe in ID and mention problems with Darwinism (i.e. Teach the Controversy) be fired from teaching positions at Universities? Yes? Or No?

 

[River Jordan]

I'm not going to argue semantics with you

And you're not going to answer the questions either, which is a clear indication that your position is little more than blind denialism.

Look up the definition of abrupt. It has several meanings. Calling someone a filthy liar over your interpretation of their words should be beneath a Christian.

So you see no difference between "After she simply mentioned Intelligent Design in her cell biology class at George Mason University, Caroline Crocker’s sterling academic career came to an abrupt end" and "Even though she was hired to teach biology and taught creationism instead, she was allowed to complete the term of her contract at GMU and continued to teach at NVCC"?

She resigned from NVCC because they were not going to renew her contract either---because of ID.

IOW, she quit and is now citing her quitting as evidence of persecution? Man but you creationists live in a bizarro world. :wacko:

Now, your turn. Should people who believe in ID and mention problems with Darwinism (i.e. Teach the Controversy) be fired from teaching positions at Universities? Yes? Or No?

First, I'll note your complete hypocrisy in refusing to answer my questions while demanding I answer yours. But to demonstrate which of us is actually dealing with reality and which of us is just closing their eyes and denying reality, I'll show you how to answer a question....

If the person is hired to teach biology and then starts teaching creationism and/or creationist talking points, yes they should be fired. They should be fired just the same as someone who was hired to teach civics but actually starts teaching conspiracy theories about reptilian aliens secretly running world governments., or someone who's hired to teach math but actually teaches that there is no such thing as math.

In all those cases they should be fired for one simple reason....not doing the job they were hired to do. Do you see that as unreasonable?

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

For millennials, like River, the real world doesn't exist unless it meets the specific criteria by which they define it. Something as basic as the truth therefore, becomes a micro aggression.

The truth is (and if they actually get a job teaching, they will experience this) that any contract teaching position application asks you the question, Have you ever been terminated from a contract position or failed to have your contract renewed?

Yes, in big people land, it's the same thing.

In let me go to my safe zone 'burg, the two are not only different but the word "abrupt" also has only one meaning.

In the delusional world of the pacific north west, a Christian can call someone a filthy liar as long as it is not technically slander.

By the way, you're still taking both positions.

1. She wasn't fired for teaching the controversy.
2. She not only was but should be.

You have not answered any of my arguments against your position.

 

[Wormwood]

So I should let everyone around my workplace know that if their contract isn't renewed, they've been fired?

Well, when someone has been under multiple successive contracts for a long time, and then they are reprimanded about the content of their course and find their contract not renewed...yes, you can tell them they have been fired.

How can it be "abrupt" if it ended at the same time as the term of the contract? Are you saying she was like "Gosh, I had no idea the end of my contract might mean the end of my time here"?

I know a professor who was under successive contracts by the same university for 30 years and had his contract not renewed due to massive budget cuts by the university. Yes, it was a complete shock to the professor. Most academic professionals assume their contracts will be renewed. They arent looking for a new job every time their current contract is coming to a close. That is not how the system works.

The film claimed she was blacklisted to the point of being unable to work, yet she continued to teach at NVCC. How can both of those be true?

I assume the point was that the word got out from the university that fired/didnt renew her and she was unable to get any new work when that had never been a problem before. Part time work at a community college isnt exactly a career or a place to hang your hat as an academic. I think the point was that she had a lot of experience and extensive education and qualifications and suddenly after being "reprimanded" no other university would consider hiring her from that point forward. I mean, Im sure she could find "work" at the local pump n' dump gas station, but I think that is missing the point the documentary is trying to make.

And yes, when you're hired to teach a biology course you're expected to teach it generally according to the long-standing consensus. If you think you have revolutionary ideas then you need to write them up and get them published in a relevant journal.

Yes, thats the point of the documentary. You cannot have a different opinion from Darwinian evolution and teach in a college classroom anymore. I mean, a PhD is supposed to mean you are an expert in a field and are qualified to form your own opinions on such matters. However, I guess that doesnt matter when it comes to this topic. You have to fit the "consensus" or you get labeled and rejected. Its not "revolutionary ideas" but just a view that does not accept the idea that Darwinian evolution from a pool of goo adequately explains what we understand about biology, life and the origin of species. The theory is now mandated if you are to teach. You are not allowed to have or promote an alternate opinion. Something is wrong with that picture. Its not like the lady is claiming pigs can fly. She's not rejecting the basics of biology, cellular reproduction, the functioning of the cell walls, etc...She's saying she disagrees with a textbooks position on a past theory of biological development. What? We cannot allow that? Give me a break. I have had tons of professors go on about politics and religion in their classes (when that isnt even the subject that is supposed to be taught) and no one blinks an eye. But disagree with Darwin? Not allowed. Its troubling. Every professor I have ever known has personal opinions that dont fit the status quo, but for some reason this particular status quo is not allowed to be questioned. That is not how science is supposed to work..and that is the point of the film. If we always followed the "consensus" we'd all still be flat-earth geocentrists, so your argument is kinda backwards in my mind. You keep comparing a rejection of Darwinian evolution with flat-earth geocentrism. Its nothing but a straw man argument. That is the problem. You are comparing a theory that has some major question marks with something we have proven by photographic evidence which is also central to all astronomy and physics. Darwinian evolutionary theories do not equal modern day physics and intellident design theories do not equal cave men grunting and claiming the big ball of fire in the sky is a god playing peek-a-boo. These conversations are always so pointless because your propensity to over-exaggerate your position and mock others (or dismiss them as evil liars that are hell-bent on sending us back to the stone ages).

In order for me to be slandering, I would have to say something that isn't true. What have I said that isn't true?

Lol. Yeah, well I guess you are a big fat liar too. I mean, we all have lied, right? Does that give me the right to go make everyone I know think ill about you and your character?