<p>Yes, this guy does have a mental problem, its called "compulsive lying."</p>
<p>Is the "calming voice of reason and moderation in a storm of neagtive emotions, irrationality, and incredible hostility?"</p>
<p>
[quote]
Orginially posted by Gutrade:</p>
<p>"Either you support the crackpot Berkeley professor and applaud his anti-intellectual stance, or you condemn him and admit that Berkeley isn't as universally progressive as you claim."</p>
<p>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How is it the voice of reason that provides only two options--both of them extreme options? It only adds to the "storm of negative emotions," rather than provide a detailed analysis of the professor's and others argument.</p>
<p>Gutrade writes more eloquently than any of the people in this thread. If he doesn't go to Yale and really IS a complusive liar, that would make all you people look bad. Getting schooled by a nobody.</p>
<p>There is a fine line between eloquence and grandiloquence; the latter occurs more often than the former.</p>
<p>Isn't that sweet, ubermensch coming to the aid of his boyfriend.</p>
<p>You guys are just avoiding the topic that is a thorn in your side. There is a Berkeley professor who is attacking the fundamentals of the scientific method. How can a person like that teach at a school? I know Berkeley isn't a Duke or Dartmouth or even a WUSTL, but surely Berkeley must have some standards for hiring teachers that are true to science. I mean it isn't Bob Jones University. Something must be going wrong.</p>
<p>First and foremost, before anything, this professor is an individual who subscribes to creationsim; he is entitled to that belief and to express that by the first amendment. If Berkeley chooses to fire him simply because of his creationist belief, the university would be found guilty of wrongful termination. </p>
<p>When hiring a law professor, "Do you subscribe to evolution and Darwinian concepts of it?" is question not asked often I think; most likely, Berkeley did not know of his beliefs until now and to terminate his position would be wrongful termination under the given circumstances (stipulating that the professor has never failed to meet his duties).</p>
<p>I dont think Duke, Dartmouth faculty would have much say in this matter in a conference of academics. </p>
<p>You see collegeperson, one thing is that one's opinion on a matter tends to serve their own interests. This is why Berkeley tends to respect differing opinions, and this is one of the many reasons that Berkeley's faculty is the best in the entire world.</p>
<p>Harvard University President Lawrence Summers made the comment that men may have more "intrisinc aptitude" in sciences in an attempt to explain the gender gap in science professors and the science preofession. His hope was provocation to research the disparity of that; that comment was out-of-line as well. Yet despite a no-confidence vote by the faculty, the Harvard Corporation--the governing body--has expressed support and President Summers still keeps his job.</p>
<p>Shouldn't the governing body have fired him as well? Though the case is not the same (not point by point by all means), it still has parallels.</p>
<p>It is different. The Harvard President was making a scientific inquiry. He wanted to test the hypothesis that there MAY be an intrinsic difference between males and females based upon the EMPIRICAL evidence that there are more males in science. Now, if you conduct research and find out that there are no intrinsic differences and that everything is caused by social discrimination, then what's the problem? There is a difference between proposing a scientific question based on empirical evidence and proposing a question based on bally hooey. For example, it is a different matter if Lawrence Summers said "there seems to be intrinsic differences between men and women that cannot be explained, and we need to study scripture and find out if women were created by Adam's rib bone." That would be along the lines of the creationist debate, and it isn't logical at all. </p>
<p>P.S. There is nothing wrong with asking the question if men and women evolved differently. Women seem to be more nurturing than men because they have evolved to take care of their young. While women and men are definitely equal, they may have different tendencies based upon natural history.</p>
<p>^ Harvard's sciences are rather low ranking. This statement he made shows why. You will never see Berkeley, MIT, Stanfurd, Cal Tech making the same claim as he did. Especially publically. </p>
<p>Collegeperson seems to have grown up in an archaic setting with cavemen and cavewomen. I think Berkeley does a good job of weeding out undesireables. No offense, thats just my hypothesis.</p>
<p>you do know, i guess not that the admit rate is only 26%, not sure if that includes spring, if it doesn't whats the worst case? maybe 30% or even say 35%, yah that is everybody....</p>
<p>it seems collegeperson12 that u are one of the "sub-par kids with low intelligence"</p>
<p>I won't reveal my college decisions to you people, but suffice it to say that I have gotten into a school that is ranked significantly higher than Berkeley. (i.e. 15 or so spots above on US News). You do the math.</p>
<p>1) duke, correct?
2) where is duke on THES world rankings? 52
3) where is berkeley? 2
4) apparently ur going to duke, then WHY are you on the brekeley forum?
(you've stopped discussing the law professor, now u r attacking berkeley) GET LOST</p>
<p>btw, i got into duke as well, im choosing berkeley (& im not a CA resident)</p>
<p>not that im saying duke is a bad school, its great,</p>
<p>What makes you think it is Duke? And sure, the THES ranking is SO definitive. Nobody who should be taken seriously quotes that piece of garbage that isn't worth the very paper it is written on. Berkeley higher than Yale, Stanford, Princeton, and MIT? Ha! Maybe in Bizarro World, but I highly doubt even that.</p>
<p>as are the U.S. news rankings, SO difinitive,</p>
<p>y don't you discuss the LAW professor instead of attacking berkeley, no one here wants to hear it</p>
<p>Collegeperson makes a good argument, basically saying everyone should say the same things as eveyone else and differing opinions should be punished with ridicule. Very wise Collegeperson, you'll have a successfull acedemic life in front of you. Good luck at Duke (great basketball team!)</p>
<p>Collegeperson12: </p>
<p>True, that Harvard's President was attempting to spark research into the differences between men and women.</p>
<p>But I haven't heard a response in terms of wrongful termination. Let me refresh your memory:</p>
<p>
[quote]
First and foremost, before anything, this professor is an individual who subscribes to creationsim; he is entitled to that belief and to express that by the first amendment. If Berkeley chooses to fire him simply because of his creationist belief, the university would be found guilty of wrongful termination. </p>
<p>When hiring a law professor, "Do you subscribe to evolution and Darwinian concepts of it?" is question not asked often I think; most likely, Berkeley did not know of his beliefs until now and to terminate his position would be wrongful termination under the given circumstances (stipulating that the professor has never failed to meet his duties).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What can Berkeley do legally?</p>
<p>Ignorance, ignorance, ignorance. What's with the hatred of religion? You're turning Evolutionism into a religion.</p>
<p>"There is a Berkeley professor who is attacking the fundamentals of the scientific method."
She is not attacking the fundamentals of the scientific method (which is to form hypotheses and then test them), but rather certain premises of Darwinism. Namely, these are the ideas of macroevolution and the idea that every organism is descended from a single primitive cell. The Berkeley professor is not Creationist, she is espousing the theory of Intelligent Design. There is a big difference.</p>
<p>There is no proof that there was ever one single primitive cell that rose out of pure chaos. There are gaps in the scientific evidence for evolution that remain unexplained, such as the formation of certain biological structures. If you actually read the article that was cited, you would think about the structure of the eye. In what likelihood could the eye have evolved so perfectly to provide us with lenses of perfect focus, and then two eyes coordinated by the brain to give us perception of depth. This theory does not state that the world was created 6,000 years ago, but that something else helped structures such as eyes come along.</p>
<p>Personally, I do not believe in Creationism, that is a bunch of hooey. The Bible, as explained by the Church time and time again, is not meant to be taken literally. Right now, there is more scientific evidence to support evolution, so I choose to accept evolution. If hard evidence comes out to support the theory of Intelligent Design, what's so scary about it? It's an idea that does have some merits.</p>
<p>(And can we please stop this unintellectual argument about why Berkeley sucks or why someone isn't going to Yale.)</p>
<p>"overhype your own school for no reason. Anyway, the hostility here is so overwhelming. I just hope I can somehow be the calming voice of reason and moderation in a storm of neagtive emotions, irrationality, and incredible hostility."</p>
<p>Gutrade, what forum is this? Your comments might be appropiate on an anti Berkeley forum, or even the general discussion forum. This is the Berkeley forum for a reason. You're about as insane as a communist waving the hammer and sickle flag at a rally for capitalism. Or a Nazi waving the swatstika at a synagogue. </p>
<p>And the voice of moderation? No, you've arrogantly incited numerous board members for no other reason than to flaunt your "Yale likely letter". </p>
<p>I suggest you go get an MRI and see what's in your brain.</p>