How the Fallen Have Fallen. Jerry Bergman Stoops to Kevin Wirth.
Our old buddy, crackpot creatard Kevin Wirth is publishing a book! But don’t worry. He didn’t write it. He’s only the publisher. I don’t need the type of book Kevin could write. I already have several books of quotations.
The book that Kevin is bringing to market is written by some clown named Dr. Jerry Bergman, and it’s called Slaughter of the Dissidents: The Shocking Truth about Killing the Careers of Darwin Doubters. I’m sure it’s a good book. We can rely on Kevin to bring us nothing but the highest caliber of ideas. Kevin is, after all, the guy who told us that Ben Stein is the modern Rosa Parks.
Before checking out Kevin’s book, let’s find out some more about the clown who wrote it. Jerry Bergman’s Wikipedia entry says:
Dr. Bergman is an adjunct associate professor at Medical University of Ohio and also teaches biochemistry, biology, chemistry and physics at Northwest State Community College in Ohio. He has taught at the college level for 35 years including seven years at Bowling Green State University, 6 years at the University of Toledo, and 20 years at Northwest State.
It then goes on to list a buttload of legitimate degrees this guy has. The one blemish is that his Ph.D. comes from the (now defunct) unaccredited Columbia Pacific University. This is the same esteemed pillar of higher learning that gave a Ph.D. to pop-quack John Gray (Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, his Degree is from Neptune). In Bergman’s case, it really doesn’t matter how good the Ph.D. is. He has enough other credentials that we can agree that the guy is a good scholar, even if we disagree with his opinions. In fact, he apparently has a good track record of getting published. Wikipedia says:
He now has over 700 publications in a variety of scientific and popular journals….
That statement doesn’t tell us which publications, the subject matter, and how many were peer-reviewed, but I’m happy to concede that a large chunk of that 700 could be real science.
OK then. The guy seems legitimate. He’s not some drooling ignoramus that Kevin Wirth pulled out of the audience at The 700 Club. Let’s see what else Wikipedia says:
Bergman’s opinions on creationism are often published by Answers In Genesis.
We’ve seen this pattern before. Otherwise-intelligent people are blinded by their religion. Well, if you’re going to be a creationist, you might as well go whole hog. Don’t be one of those wimpy Discovery Institute (“OK, we’ll give you microevolution but not macro!”) Old-Earth Creationists! No siree! You want to be the worst of the worst: An Answers in Genesis (“T-Rex ate coconuts in the Garden of Eden!”) Young-Earth Creationist! Accept no substitutes! (Except for logic. You’ll need to use substitute logic. And evidence. You’ll need to substitute fake evidence for real evidence. And persecution. You won’t really get persecuted, so you’ll just have to pretend you are.)
In the 1990s he was also known for his Usenet postings to the talk.origins newsgroup. Many of his views are highly controversial, such as implying a causal relationship between Darwinism, Nazism, and the Holocaust.
Oh. He’s a Steinist.
Bergman was involved in a tenure controversy early in his career. Wikipedia says that he was originally hired by Bowling Green State University. He did not receive his Ph.D. on the expected timetable, so his employment at BGSU became tenuous. Ultimately:
In 1978 Bergman was denied tenure. Bergman believed this was due to his involvement in the creation movement and his religious beliefs and subsequently filed with both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Ohio Civil Rights Commission on the grounds that he had been discriminated against on the basis of religion, with both agencies ultimately ruling that he was not let go due to his religious beliefs, but because his peers voted to terminate him.
Like the typical creationist who won’t let go of his beliefs even when presented with clear evidence to the contrary, he wouldn’t accept the ruling:
Bergman filed suit against Bowling Green State University in federal district court in 1980, alleging that his due process rights had been violated and that he had been denied tenure on the basis of his religious views.… The case was dismissed in 1985. Bergman appealed but the appeal was turned down in 1987. The court ruled that the reason he was let go was because of ethics, namely that he claimed to have credentials in psychology when, in fact, he “had no psychological credentials.”
Bergman apparently is still convinced that he was discriminated against, or else he wouldn’t have written this book that Kevin Wirth is shilling. Isn’t it interesting that somebody with over 700 publications to his credit couldn’t find a legitimate publisher for his book? The fact that he had to stoop to using the services of somebody as unqualified in logic as Kevin Wirth suggests that Bergman’s book is, like his discrimination lawsuits, wholly without merit.
Tomorrow: Kevin Wirth tries to sell us some tripe.
May 14th, 2008 at 7:54 am
I’m so tired of the persecution complex. Is it the only way for these radical Christians to feel important?! If he’s truly any good at his profession in psychology, he should realize that he is, indeed, not being persecuted, but is instead a fraud who got caught.
May 14th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Yeah, when you can’t come up with logical arguments that make any sense, when you’ve been laughed out of courtrooms all over the country, when you’ve nothing better to do — whine! Piss and moan like a two-year-old in need of a nap. Creationists are being thrown to the lions of science! OMG! Boo-friggity-hoo! Chow down, lions!
May 15th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Sadly, it seems to be. I think the psychological need to feel like a martyr is why some of these people become radical Christians — it’s a kind of validation, and it makes them “special”. God forbid they should just go to work and live their lives like normal people.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
“Bergman apparently is still convinced that he was discriminated against, or else he wouldn’t have written this book that Kevin Wirth is selling… Like the typical creationist who won’t let go of his beliefs even when presented with clear evidence to the contrary, he wouldn’t accept the ruling”
Actually, it’s not just Jerry who was convinced he was discriminated against on the basis of his religious beliefs. There are plenty of depositions from people in the know who stated as much. Take for example his colleage back in the day, Dr. Judith Ann Gusweiller, who offered this comment in a deposition taken on Oct. 18, 1982:
Dr. Jim Davidson, one of Jerry’s colleagues at the time he was denied tenure, discussed with Ms. Gusweiller the reasons why Davidson says Jerry was denied tenure.
“The reasons for Jerry’s not getting tenure was…[among other reasons] that he had written a monograph for Phi Delta Kappa …stating his religious views, and evidently, some of the faculty objected to some of the things that were in the Phi Delta Kappa monograph… I asked Dr. Davidson about his thoughts on Jerry’s religion. He felt Jerry belonged to a crazy religious group…”
She also spoke with another colleague about Jerry, a Dr. Malcolm Campbell.
“We were talking about my own tenure case again, and Jerry’s name came up… I asked Dr. Campbell if there was a religious base at all to Jerry’s being denied tenure. Again, he stated too that he thought Jerry had belonged to a group of religious fanatics; that Jerry himself was a religious fanatic, and he thought that this was part of the reason he was denied tenure, and that was one of the things he had against him…”
Q: Do you know or did you ever overhear any of your colleagues in the College of Education commenting on Jerry Bergman’s religion?
A: Yes. One of our own colleagues, Robert Joint, felt Jerry should be thrown out of the university because of his religion.
This isn’t about being a Martyr, Sharley. And, of course Jerry didn’t like the ruling because he was discriminated against for his religious beliefs. Like it or not, we DO live in a country where it is illegal to discriminate against people for their religious beliefs.
Anything else you’d care to throw at us?
May 19th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
The question arises as to what were the “other reasons”?
I was under the impression that Bergman sued the college because of his denial of tenure and that the courts ultimately ruled that the reason he was let go was because of ethics, namely that he claimed to have credentials in psychology when, in fact, he “had no psychological credentials.”
Transcript to be found here:
http://jehovah.to/gen/freedom/bergman.htm
May 20th, 2008 at 12:29 am
BFD, Kevin. Now all you’re doing is quote mining Bergman’s friends. What counts are the findings of fact. If you follow Bunkie’s link to the decision of the appellate court, you will get an education for once in your life.
When Bergman appealed to the university’s Faculty Personnel and Conciliation Committee, they found (in part):
When Bergman appealed that decision to the Equal Employment Opportunity and the Ohio Civil Rights Commission:
Being the good creationist that he is, Bergman still refused to accept the cold hard facts of reality, so he filed suit in federal district court:
No matter how many times you explain facts to a creationist, it still won’t sink in, so Bergman appealed that decision! The appellate court agreed with the lower court that Bergman’s due process rights had not been infringed and that no religious discrimination occurred.
So, Kevin… Anything else you’d care to throw at us?
May 20th, 2008 at 6:10 am
Kevin – everything you mentioned is just hearsay. That’s fine for a deposition, but when stacked against actual evidence in court, it’s not sufficient to prove your case.
May 20th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Aside from a shoe, not really. Bergman’s a joke and you’re wasting your time defending him.
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:39 am
“Like the typical creationist who won’t let go of his beliefs even when presented with clear evidence to the contrary, he wouldn’t accept the ruling:
Bergman filed suit against Bowling Green State University in federal district court in 1980, alleging that his due process rights had been violated and that he had been denied tenure on the basis of his religious views.… The case was dismissed in 1985. Bergman appealed but the appeal was turned down in 1987. The court ruled that the reason he was let go was because of ethics, namely that he claimed to have credentials in psychology when, in fact, he “had no psychological credentials.”
Wow, with reporting abilities like yours, no WONDER your blog is so popular !!!
And, like many Darwinists who insist that historic evolution is true, you failed to examine the evidence about this ethics claim even a little bit. It you had, you would have discovered that yes, the claim WAS made as you reported, but, you failed to report the rest of the story. Hey – I could claim the moon is made of green cheese, but are you going to accept that? Funny thing – you’ll dig up dirt on us folks for weeks on end without checking, but you’ll accept contrary claims on face value at the drop of a hat and promote them, even if they are untrue.
Now that’s what I call slimy reporting of the first caliber. Do you always go to secondary sources when reporting the “facts”?
Which is a typical approach to the evidence for many believers in evoluition like yourself. You’re eager to believe anything that lines up with your pre-disposed notion of what’s right. You fail to investigate thoroughly. You see what you want to see, and ANY story that lines up with your preconceptions and seems plausible is golden to you. However, you’ve chosen to bite the wrong Tiger’s tail in this instance, because the claim that Jerry Bergman “had no psychological credentials” was simply one of the lying tactics used by some folks at BGSU to discredit Jerry. This simply reveals the extent to which many folks will go in their efforts to discriminate against Darwin Skeptics. All sorts of lies surfaced about Jerry during his denial of tenure episode. Rumors flew faster than you could type them.
Regarding this matter, Jerry’s credentials were examined and verified by BGSU before they hired him, and his Department chair even sent out a letter to that effect before he was hired. So, any claim that he had “no psychological credentials”, is a lie – pure and simple. Jerry’s credentials, had you bothered to dig a little deeper, were (and are) unassailable in the area of psychology. He’s got more credits under his belt than you have words in your vocabulary.
Next time, I suggest you check your facts before you insinuate that someone has a problem. Or, you might prefer to continue with your irresponsible tirades, and gain a well deserved reputation as someone who doesn’t have the time or inclination to fairly represent the facts.
Personally, I think you owe the man a HUGE apology, ’cause your little barb just goes to show how well you didn’t do your homework.
If you HAD bothered to check him out more thoroughly, you might have discovered the following:
After I was forced out of BGSU, I was hired as an associate professor of psychology at Spring Arbor University in Spring Arbor, Michigan. I also have over 50 publications in the area of psychology, including two books. All of this can be checked by consulting my official transcripts, my work history, and the Ohio state license department records. My course work in psychology totals 137 hours, well over that required for a Ph.D. and includes:
PSY 0251, Introduction to Psychology;
PSY 0340, Developmental Psychology;
PSY 0305, Psychology of Perception;
PSY 0335 Theories of Personality;
PSY 0310 Statistical Methods in Psychology;
PSY 0460 Social Psychology,
EDP 3731 Introduction to the Study of the Child,
PSY 0330 Psychology of Adjustment,
PSY 0430 Abnormal Psychology,
PSY 0111 Industrial Psychology,
EDP 5745 Child Psychology,
EDP 7735, The Learning Process,
CP 7830 Environment and Child and Adolescent Psychology;
CP 6831 Introduction to Psychological Testing,
EDP 7741 Human Developmental Psychology;
EDP 5741 Mental Hygiene and Education;
EDP 7731 Advanced Educational Psychology;
EDP 5742 Juvenile Delinquency and Schools,
EDP 5745 Adolescent Psychology;
EGC 7701 Role of the Teacher in Guidance;
EGC 7704 Case Problems in Guidance
EGC 7705 The Counseling Process;
EDP 7749 Terminal Master Dissertation;
PSY 0303 Introduction to Experimental Psychology;
PSY 0562 Psychology of Influence,
PSY 0628 Psychoanalytic Theory;
PSY 0330 Psychophysiology;
PSY 0480 Concept Development in Young Children;
PSY 0508 Behavior Pathology I
PSY 0509 Behavior Pathology II
PSY 0440 Social Issues in Child Development;
PSY 0580 Psychology of Chiliastic Movements,
REH 0567 Community Approach to Counseling;
PSY 0682 Issues in EEOC Compliance;
REH 0558 Psychosocial Aspects of Disability
My course work in the closely related area of Sociology includes
SOC 0251 Introduction to Sociology
SOC 0514 Social Stratification
SOC 0541 Juvenile Delinquency
SOC 0202 Social Problems
SOC 0506 The Family
SOC 0600 Methods in Social Research
SOC 0616 Industrial Sociology
SOC 0508 Race Relations in the U.S.A.
SOC 0550 Marriage & Family Problems
SSC 0151 Foundation of Modern Society I
SSC 0152 Foundation of Modern Society II
EDS 7621 Educational Sociology
EDS 7623 Intergroup Relations in the Community & School
POL 0511 Public Opinion & the Political Process,
POL 0151American Government
SOC 0460 Social Psychology
ECI 0251 Basic Economics
ANT 0210 Introduction to Anthropology
SOC 0612 Community
SOC 0680 Women and Institutions
SOC 0670 The Sociology of Homosexuality
SOC 0540 The Sociology of Education
SOC 0561 Corrections
SOC 0599 Master’s Thesis
SOC 0590 Juvenile Delinquency
SOC 0544 Deviant Behavior
SOC 0682 Issues in Criminology & Corrections
SOC 0570 Studies on Suicide
SOC 0652 Collective Behavior
SOC 0504 Development of Modern Sociology
SOC 0680 Ethnic Groups in America
SOC 0562 Criminal Law
SOC 0523 Sociology of Organization
SOC 0525 Demography
SOC 0535 Proseminar in Social Psychology
SOC 0680 Police and Community
SOC 0580 Social Gerontology;
SOC 0580 World Poverty
SOC 0580 Theories of Social Problems
SOC 0580 Sociology of Sport
SOC 0580 Applied Social Research
SOC 0502 Modern Social Theory
SOC 0460 Family and Sex Roles
SOC 0660 Theories of Criminology
SOC 0670 Male Sex Roles
SOC 0660 Myth and Myth Making.
My hours in Evaluation/Research/Statistics (97 hours) are as follows:
ELE 3315 Methods & Materials in Mathematics
PSY 0310 Statistical Methods
EER 6660 Field Studies in Research
EER 9666 Directed Research
EER 7661 Evaluation and Measurement
EER 7664 Fundamental Research Skills
EER 9668 Advanced Research and Experimental Design
EER 7663 Fundamentals of Statistics
EER 8663 Advanced Problems in Measurement
EER 7665 Computer Use in Research
EER 8664 Variance and Co-Variance Analysis
EER 9666 Research Problems in Statistics
EER 9669 Doctoral Research (Evaluation and Research on the community treatment project)
Much of this information was provided as part of my testimony, dated March 14, 1985 in the case of Gerald Bergman, Plaintiff vs. Bowling Green State University, et. al., Defendants Toledo District Court case No, C80-390.
My degrees are as follows:
2001 to 2004: Master of Science (M.S.) Medical College of Ohio, Toledo, Ohio. Major area of study was in the health and medicine area. June 2004. Thesis title was “Evaluation to Optical Radiation in Medical Diagnostics and Treatment.” 3.8 GPA
1994 to 2000: Graduate student in Molecular Biology Department at the Medical College of Ohio, Toledo, Ohio (102 quarter graduate hours completed; 3.9 GPA).
1998 to 2001: Masters of Public Health (MPH). Northwest Ohio Consortium for Public Health (Medical College of Ohio, Toledo, Ohio; University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio; Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio). (3.9 GPA).
1996-1999: Masters of Science in Biomedical Science (MSBS), Medical College of Ohio, Toledo, Ohio (3.9 GPA). Thesis was on Tumor Markers in Cancer Treatment.
1996 to date: Accepted as a Ph.D. student, department of chemistry Miami University in Oxford Ohio. So far have completed 40 graduate quarter hours in chemistry (4.0 GPA).
1992-1996: Post graduate study. University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. Studied geology, philosophy, nutrition, chemistry, and meteorology (3.6 GPA).
1989-1992: Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) Columbia Pacific University, San Rafael, CA 94901. Major was human biology (4.0 GPA).
1982-1986: Masters of Arts (M.A.) in Sociology with a major in Social Psychology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio (3.5 GPA).
1977-1987: Accepted as a Ph.D. student in the department of sociology at Bowing Green State University and have completed almost all of the course work for this degree (so far completed 60 hours of graduate level course work primarily in the Behavioral Sciences (3.5 GPA).
1971-1976: Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), Wayne State University, Detroit, MI. Majored in Evaluation and Research, minored in Psychology (4.0 GPA).
1970-1971: Master of Education (M.Ed.) Degree, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI. Major area of study was in Psychology, Education, and Counseling (3.71 GPA).
1969-1970: Teaching certification, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI., both at Primary and Secondary levels.
1967-1970: Bachelor of Science (B.S.) Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, 48202. Major areas of study included Psychology, Biology, and Sociology.
1965-1967: Associate of Arts (A.A.), Oakland Community College, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. Major area of study was Biology and the Behavioral Sciences.
Select Honors and Awards: Listed in
Marquis Who’s Who in the Midwest since 1992,
Marquis Who’s Who in America since 2000,
Marquis Who’s Who in Education since the 6th Edition,
Marquis Who’s Who in Science and Engineering since the 8th edition,
Marquis Who’s Who in Medicine and Healthcare since 2005,
Who’s Who in Theology and Science, Winthrop Publishing Company, Framingham, MA, 1992 and 1996 edition (New York, Continuum 1996),
Who’s Who in America 47th edition, New Providence, NJ 07974.
Research Centers Directory edited by Maurice Michelle Watkins, Gale Research Company, Book Tower, Michigan, 1990
Internationales AdreBregister der Sektenarbeet Munchen 1997-1998.
My library is listed in The Directory of Special Libraries and Information Centers (Gale Group, Farmington Hills, MI, 2001).
Teaching Awards: Was selected by my students for the Who’s Who Among America’s Teachers for the years 2000 and 2005.
Member of MENSA, which requires members to be in the top 2 percent of the population intellectually. Scored in 90 percentile for verbal GRE, 68% percentile for quantitative and 98% percentile for subject test. Received the 1998 Edgar Langsdorf award for excellence in writing. Awarded a Public Health Service Grant for graduate school at Medical College of Ohio worth in excess of 20,000 dollars.
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:59 am
Oh, and uh, one more thing.
Not everything in every court ruling is accurate, complete, or just.
Justice was not served in Jerry’s case, but I guess you folks don’t give much consideration to that sort of thing either.
You guys sure have earned the “I believe every bad thing I read about those darn creationists” award.
May 22nd, 2008 at 1:55 pm
YAY! Kevin Wirth Quote Mine! If you can’t win by using facts, just cut’n'paste a lot of BS and hope nobody is looking. Somebody needs to make a “motivational poster” on that point.
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Parrotlover77 Says:
May 22nd, 2008 at 1:55 pm
YAY! Kevin Wirth Quote Mine! If you can’t win by using facts, just cut’n’paste a lot of BS and hope nobody is looking. Somebody needs to make a “motivational poster” on that point.
Your comment doesn’t even address my post.
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:42 am
Kevin:
Let’s begin with something I should have caught last time. Here’s what I wrote in my article:
Now, everybody who is reading this, I want you to scroll up to Kevin’s first comment on this page. Here’s how he quoted me:
Good one, Kevin! Here’s a great quote you should mine from your “science” book:
You’re always throwing quotes around from all sorts of sources, pretending like they somehow prove your points. Then in the very first thing you write on this site, you quote me incorrectly! You’ve just proven to everybody here that you have no integrity! We can’t trust one
godintelligent-designer-damned quote you mine, because you’ve just proven to us that you change the words to fit your case!You expect to sway anybody here with sleazeball tactics like that? You’ve completely discredited yourself. For all we know, you’ve changed every other fact you cite.
I agree that Wikipedia is not an entirely reliable source. I have written about this matter in prior posts, so this readership is aware of its limitations. However, if you’d bother to read my above response to your first comment, you’d see that I did examine this issue further and in much more depth. In fact, I went to the actual decision by the appellate court! That is hardly a “secondary source”. Your description of what I wrote is the first-caliber slimy reporting.
Do you even listen to yourself? Or are you too busy looking through your books for more quotes to mine that you don’t even hear what you’re saying? You’re convinced that evolution isn’t real, so you ignore virtually every scrap of biological research ever done, which all lines up and proves evolution. You look for the merest scrap of evidence that points even one degree off center and scream “See! Evolution doesn’t work!”
Is that what I did? Let’s look at the facts! Surely you can go along with that! I wrote:
The one negative statement in my article about his qualifications was in quoting the court ruling about his psychological credentials.
I do not see anything in what I wrote that suggests I’m not checking my facts or I’m insinuating that someone has a problem. Instead, clearly you are the one going on irresponsible tirades. You’re the one with the well-deserved reputation as someone who doesn’t have the inclination to fairly represent the facts. Personally, I think you owe me a HUGE apology.
May 23rd, 2008 at 6:25 am
Kevin: “Your comment doesn’t even address my post.”
Well, Ron just did so brilliantly, but quite frankly, I didn’t find anything worthwhile addressing. I’m tired of your quote mining.
May 23rd, 2008 at 7:25 am
Hey Ron,
“You’re always throwing quotes around from all sorts of sources, pretending like they somehow prove your points. Then in the very first thing you write on this site, you quote me incorrectly! ”
Thin ice dude. I did this deliberately just to get your goat. Looks like it worked pretty well, too. Unfortunately for your argument, I don’t do the same thing with the quotes I “mine”. I might make some typo errors on those, but not deliberately.
” I did examine this issue further and in much more depth. In fact, I went to the actual decision by the appellate court! That is hardly a “secondary source”. Your description of what I wrote is the first-caliber slimy reporting.”
Dude – you missed the point here. The point is: DO you ALWAYS believe everything you read in the funny papers, in peer reviewed journals, or in court decisions? Investigating means digging into the details to see if a court decision might have had some rough edges. By primary sources I’m referring to other documents that the court decision may not refer to, which proves Jerry’s discrimination. I already cited one such document by a former colleague of his – a Dr. Judith Gusweiler – who recounts her conversations with other colleagues of Jerry’s who admitted that religious discrimination was an issue in his tenure denial.
You know, just because a court says so, doesn’t make it so. But then again, I guess that’s typical of many folks like you who “believe” so many things they read and take it as gospel. An investigative reporter you are not. Do you really think that injustice does not exist? Or fraud? Corruption? Discrimination? Goodness, I gave you credit for understanding that much. No wonder you believe everything you hear and read about evolution. I can see your one track mind at work now… “It’s printed in this book by a reputable publisher and a highly respected author – therefore – it MUST be true!” or how about this one: “I always believe a court decision is reliable and trustworthy, and I don’t need to investigate any further (especially when it favors my perspective)”
Geez, you probably think Horton is a REAL elephant.
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:58 am
How can we ever trust that, when you only tell us this now that you are CAUGHT LYING.
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:00 pm
**TRIPLE TAKE**
Did I read that correctly? Am I in some sort of twilight zone?! Pot? Kettle? HELLO?!
October 28th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Looks like I’m late to the talk, but I would like to give a chance for insight.
Overgeneralizing is foolish. Insulting for the sake of insulting is foolish.
Was Dr. Bergman discriminated against? Absolutely. If not in the loss of tenure, then in the fact that because he claims to have been discriminated against, he is judged for crying wolf about being persecuted for his religious beliefs, although this is completely rediculous logic.
It’s similar to telling a child who is crying, “Be quiet, or I’ll give you something to cry about!”
Basically in the speakers OPINION what the kid cries about isn’t worth crying about, but as we know opinion is not fact. Further mroe, there is a second, supposedly “conclusive” opinion being expressed.
As for the false claim of persecuation accusation, using the accusation as evidence to support the opinion of Dr. Bergmans childishness. This being illogical can not be expressed enough.
To follow-up on the overgeneralization, not everyone is foolish enough to use the lack of argument and substitution of insult and opinion as valid, regardless of personal religion or creed.
I’m not an expert in a field or super-genious, but I know that regardless of opinion of publisher or even of this article, if a person is open-minded, then they could at the very least read Dr. Bergman’s book.
In fact, if you don’t like him or his writing, at least then you’d have first-hand experience to base arguments on, rather than relying on the popularity and therefore strength of mob mentality.
Peace.
October 28th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Tom:
I am not overgeneralizing any more than I have to. There is limited information provided in the original web site, so I base my conclusions off of that.
I don’t insult for the sake of insulting. Insulting is reserved for the completely foolish.
I don’t follow this paragraph at all. Discrimination is a loss of favor or opportunity based on an arbitrary and unrelated fact (or perception of fact). Somebody’s religion, for example, does not necessarily preclude him from having an informed opinion about a subject. However, if his religion interferes with his ability to think logically about that subject, then any negative effects that result from his flawed thinking are not discrimination.
I think you are also trying to say that my opinion of Bergman’s whining is somehow discrimination. I’m entitled to have a negative opinion of him based upon his behavior. My opinion of him has no effect on his life; therefore, even if I were being irrational (and I’m not), it is not discrimination.
Again, this doesn’t make a lot of sense. Bergman and I have conflicting opinions on whether he was discriminated against. His opinion is based upon a misinterpretation of the facts of his case. My opinion is based on much less information, but it flows logically from the information that is available. Opinions are always (or should be) subject to revision based upon the acquisition of new information.
This is something that Bergman himself does not do. When presented with more information about his case in several legal proceedings, it should have been clear to him that he was not discriminated against. Instead, he clings irrationally to the comforting fiction that his problems are caused by other people treating him unfairly, rather than his own incompetence in the field.
I treated Bergman fairly in this article, based upon the information available to me. I think it is enough information to form an opinion upon, but I am willing to reevaluate it if more information becomes available in the future.
You’re going to have to rewrite this paragraph. I can’t follow it. I think you’re saying that Bergman’s childishness is not sufficient grounds to say he is being childish.
Not everyone is foolish enough to deny the conclusive evidence that evolution is fact. Anyone who does, especially without providing any evidence to the contrary, is a blithering idiot and deserves our pity or contempt. Since this form of retardation is self-inflicted, pity is not warranted.
Actually, I did read part of his book. This article is part 1. In part 3, I examine a sample chapter of the book that the publisher was
kindfoolish enough to send to me.As I said, I did read his writing. Nothing here is based on popularity or mob mentality.
October 29th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Although I am no stranger to replying to each point, I would like to appologize for anything I wrote that was confusing. I was not making an attempt to give my opinion of a specific person with my comments on overgeneralizing and being insulting. Perhaps that could mean they didn’t need to be written at all, but not to me.
I see where I miswrote what I was trying to convey. The insults could be considered descriminatory, depending on a personal idea of what is considered a favor. However, my second point had nothing to do with descrimination, but rather one commenter’s post that included the attempted use of insults as points to draw the conclusion that insulting him is logical. To me that’s a whole new level of circular logic.
Sometimes, I seem to run into a basic, social or psychological, problem when communicating. If anyone reading what I write feels that the content doesn’t apply to them, this is because the content doesn’t apply to them, or at least not directly. Opinions on the content are welcome. Also for my opinion specifically on the article, I would have to say I was relieved enough to even enjoy the critique, even though I don’t agree with it. I have more respect for the author, now.
If I missed any points, I’ll try to return once I have more free time. For now, one last part.
So, there’s this evidence from which evolution, through logic and reasoning, can be concluded as fact. If the evidence is pure, unadulterated data, then it supports, without logic and reasoning, nothing. A handful of people, along with a huge number of people whom they influenced, make the claim that through their logic and reasoning, the most likely conclusion for the data to be as it is, is evolution. Since this is what they believe, they will defend by any means necessry to prevent it from being discredited in any way, by preventing even the discussion of any parts of the data that are missing to be indications evolution not being the most likely conclusion drawn from the evidence, through logic and reasoning.
I believe you meant that anyone who disagrees and attempts to convince others to disagree, while having not a shred of evidence, is foolish. If not, oh well, the point I just made is the one I believe in. After that, I agree with this point: A person is responsible for what a person thinks, says, feels, and does. However, there are external influences on people constantly, therefore creating more than one reason the person thinks, says, feels, or does things. So, to conclude that the person should be pittied or held in contempt, then one should be able to look at, and grasp an understanding of each element that influences the action. I don’t know you, so I may not say a thing for my entire life that you’ll ever be able to apply to yourself, but If I don’t say anything, any chance would be lost.
Peace.
May 5th, 2009 at 10:13 am
I want to give each of you a different perspective. I work with Jerry Bergman. True, he is “booksmart”, in that all he does is read. Does he teach? Not really. If students ask him questions he often doesn’t know the answer and decides to make something up instead of saying “I don’t know” (for example, the thyroid is the thymus). In the lab, he is worthless. He doesn’t know what to do in almost every lab, and the students have to teach themselves. He once attempted a yeast fermentation lab using dry yeast, because he didn’t know he had to mix the yeast with the water and corn syrup (as per the instructions given to each of us by the lab coordinator). The students were anxiously watching for bubbles that never came… Long story short, there isn’t a person here on campus that respects this man as an a contributor to academics. Nice guy? Yes. Gifted professor? NOOOOOOOOOO.
June 11th, 2009 at 10:49 am
My response to “I want to give each of you a different perspective. I work with Jerry Bergman. True, he is “booksmart” [sic], in that all he does is read. Does he teach? Not really. If students ask him questions he often doesn’t know the answer and decides to make something up instead of saying “I don’t know” (for example, the thyroid is the thymus).”
I have taught at the college level for 38 years and have my student evaluations for most of the classes that document the fact that this claim is manifestly untrue. A concern is how could she know this without spending considerable time in my classroom and, except to pick up something in the lab, she has never been in my classroom. Secondly, the fact is the vast majority of the time when students ask me a question I am able to answer it and in those rare times when I do not I openly admit that I can not answer it. The only time I can remember this occurring last semester was when a student asked a question about a rare disease of which I was unfamiliar (she noted only a few known cases exist in the world). Furthermore, what in the world does “the thyroid is the thymus” mean? The thyroid is not the thymus and neither is it the stomach. This statement is nonsensical. “In the lab, he is worthless. He doesn’t know what to do in almost every lab, and the students have to teach themselves.” This is an irresponsible undocumented claim. “He once attempted a yeast fermentation lab using dry yeast, because he didn’t know he had to mix the yeast with the water and corn syrup (as per the instructions given to each of us by the lab coordinator). The students were anxiously watching for bubbles that never came… “
Likewise an irresponsible claim about an event that never occurred. A 5 year old knows that all life requires food and water. One who “is ‘booksmart’ [sic], in that all he does is read” would certainly know this. If one has no facts to use to slander and therefore is forced to lie, claims that are at least credible should be cited and this one is not credible. It is like claiming that “Joe, a master mechanic with 38 years of successful experience (and a good record of feedback from costumers) did not know what a Philips screwdriver was.”
“Long story short, there isn’t a person here on campus that respects this man as an a [sic] contributor to academics. Nice guy? Yes. Gifted professor? NOOOOOOOOOO.”
Another demonstrateable lie. She claims “there isn’t a person here on campus that respects this man as an [sic] a contributor to academics.” Not a single one? First of all, she could not know this without surveying every single faculty. I have surveyed many of our faculty and, as far as I know, only three or four are opposed to my work. Conversely, I cannot count how many times facility, administrators and staff have come up to me at the college, noting that they read an article about my work in the Toledo Blade or another paper, or saw me on TV, and added that they found my work helpful and agree with my conclusions. Furthermore, students have done surveys of faculty position on the issue of concern. One student, now at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio (the Harvard of the Midwest) with the goal of earning a PhD in molecular biology, James R. Cole, surveyed NSCC faculty and, of the 64 that responded, all but 14 percent agreed with some form of creationism.
Classical creationism (defined in the survey as the view that all things were created by God) was selected by 58 percent, 16 percent agreed with intelligent design (defined as the theory that biological structures can prove the existence of an intelligent designer), 19 percent agreed with evolutionary theism (intelligence aided the evolutionary process), and only 14 percent with orthodox evolution (life was created by chance, mutations, natural selection, and natural law). He also researched students and found that of the 130 students that replied, all but 14.6 percent agreed with some form of creationism. Fully 67 percent identified themselves as conservative creationists.
Every nursing faculty surveyed accepted creationism, compared to only 42 percent of the social science professors. Research indicates that a high percentage of medical professionals are skeptical of Darwinism. One study of 1,472 medical doctors by the Louis Finkelstein Institute found that 65 percent believed that Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools. Of our science faculty, 33 percent were creationists, 22 percent supported intelligent design, 22 percent were theistic evolutionists, and only 22 percent were evolutionists.
Most Northwest State professors concluded that it was appropriate to teach some form of creationism, and a mere 16 percent felt that only evolution should be taught in college. Of the science faculty, 78 percent supported teaching evolution and 44 percent supported the teaching of some form of creationism. Their comments stressed that faculty should bring democracy to the classroom and let students make up their own minds. I was at Northwest State for 20 years before I had any idea then that so many persons there were creationists or ID supporters.
A MAJOR concern is the lack of professionalism demonstrated by someone posing on a hate website making charges against a co-worker. Even with the controversy over our last president no one as far as I am aware posted their valid, documented compliments, not to mention spurious and irresponsible charges as occurred in this case.
Last, if I did not receive a sufficient flow of warm fuzzes from teaching I would do something else. The fact is, many students regularly relate to me much positive feedback about my teaching, and I can document this in writing.
June 11th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
It took him this long to find someone to write a nice letter for him?
June 11th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Miami University in Oxford, Ohio (the Harvard of the Midwest)
Seriously?
Someone had better inform the good people at the University of Chicago.
As for the rest, I’ll let Ron respond, if he has the time and the patience. I surely haven’t.
June 11th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Jerry:
The first two thirds of your comment is a response to the comment by “Concerned Educator”. That person was expressing an opinion and supporting it with statements that none of us can independently verify. In cases like that, it’s up to the individual readers to decide for themselves how credible the claims are. I have no knowledge one way or the other, so I let the comment stand without commenting on it myself. It’s just one of those things you find on the internet. May or may not be credible. No way to independently verify.
You’re certainly entitled to post a response to it, which you have obviously done.
The other statements in your comment need some scrutiny. You wrote:
This is the Argumentum ad populum fallacy, a.k.a., the “appeal to the majority”. Most people used to think the Earth was flat. That didn’t make it so. Furthermore, the statistic you cited is apparently across all disciplines; therefore, it is intentionally misleading and completely irrelevant. Whether a history professor believes in creationism has no bearing on what should be taught in science classes.
This merely proves how dreadful our K–12 public schools are. Again, you are also invoking Argumentum ad populum.
As well they should be. Darwin’s original theory is incomplete. It has been greatly expanded upon and developed in the 150 years since it was first proposed. Anybody who thinks a 150-year old book explains everything about the origin of species has been grossly miseducated.
Then you guys need to clean house. In the general population of real scientists, only 7% have a God-belief.
This just underscores my last point. Your faculty is clearly unqualified to teach science.
Again, they are grossly unqualified. Science isn’t a democracy. You teach what the data show, not what you want them to show. The last time anybody used democracy to figure out how the world works was the ancient Greek philosophers. They’d sit around and discuss how they thought things worked, then they’d vote on it. The determined that a rock thrown from a slingshot doesn’t travel in an arc. It travels in a straight line at an upward angle for most of the distance, then it drops straight to the ground. Democracy didn’t work in science then; it doesn’t work now.
Now you’re going off into left field. If you’re having trouble with a co-worker posting things on a hate site, you need to take it up with the co-worker and that website. Leave me out of it.
Again, I have no idea what you’re talking about. Maybe this is something described in your book? I don’t have your book. I’ve only read the excerpts I was able to get ahold of on the web.
June 12th, 2009 at 2:29 am
A woman who ran a biology lab in a university in the Netherlands posted a comment in a thread on Pharyngula last year, in which she described her experience with an exchange student, a girl from a Midwestern university who was a creationist. The young woman was given a series of microbiology experiment to run, the results of which she refused to understand from an evolutionary perspective. This older woman, who was supervising her, kept giving her back the report, insisting she redo it. Finally, she grudgingly inserted something non-committal about evolution. It was the end of the semester, and she had to give her a grade. She said that to give her a C would have been generous, but she took into account the abysmal standards of American university education (she told us that their college freshmen are better educated in science than our seniors), and gave her a B (the Dutch seem to be unfailingly nice). Well, this wasn’t good enough for her; she squawked and claimed discrimination due to her religious beliefs. The supervisor later found out that when the girl got back to the states, her advisor changed the grade to an A.
I’m beginning to think the Southern and Midwestern universities, particularly the public ones, may be overrun with Creationists.
June 12th, 2009 at 7:04 am
I’m a bit skeptical about that. Our K-12 pretty much sucks, but our universities (except for the religious ones) are pretty top notch. Anecdotally, we have tons of foreign students attending. If U.S. universities were that bad, I’d have a hard time understanding the rising admissions standards and foreign demand.
All that said, obviously that creationist lady went through the motions without understanding anything.
It can happen.
June 12th, 2009 at 8:11 am
For me, it wasn’t so much about the student, but that the teacher changed her grade.
(That was no lady, that was a creationist… !)
June 12th, 2009 at 8:15 am
Also, PL, I think that when foreign students come here, they’re going to Ivy League and equivalent universities – Chicago, Stanford, etc., and schools that are academically very close, such as NYU, BU, etc. I don’t think they’re going, as a rule, to state universities in the South and Midwest.
But I’m from Boston. We’re terrible academic snobs here.
June 14th, 2009 at 4:23 am
Thanks Ron Britton, you put so much into perspective. Science is not a democracy and those of us outside the US are perplexed at the way creationism hangs on there. We have a few creationist academics here in the UK, not usually qualified in any discipline related to biological evolutionary science. I expect their colleagues find them embarrassing, but tolerate them as eccentrics.
June 15th, 2009 at 7:59 am
Jeff – I went to a state university in the south (go UF!) and we have a pretty damn top notch engineering program. I can’t speak to the other disciplines (although I have heard the physics program is good), but the engineering program was solid. And, yes, we had a ton of foreign students from all over the world.
You snobby northwesterners can overpay if you want…
All that said, there are plenty of schools (some even accredited) that don’t stand up to the muster of the top-notch schools in this country. My point was simply that not all american schools fit the stereotype. And, in addition, not all european schools fit theirs.
June 15th, 2009 at 8:34 am
No, I’m from Boston. We’re MUCH bigger assholes!
June 16th, 2009 at 6:11 am
Oops I typed NW but was thinking NE. I seem to be doing lots of things like that lately. Must be lead in the water or something.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Kevin seems almost in love with Jerry.
But I found this interesting:
Bergman should understand that you do not earn a PhD by taking a bunch of classes.
Well, in real universities, you don’t, anyway.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Tom Custer:
Perhaps, but you may want to look into the fact that Bergman also claimed at one point to have been discriminated against because he is white.
Religion, race – what is next?
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:59 am
@SLPage
Sex. It always comes back to sex in the end … especially with the religious types.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:14 am
Even if assuming when he said “course work” he meant “research and related work” or some such, for a PhD, 137 hours of work sounds very small.
Diploma mills 4evah!
July 7th, 2009 at 11:02 am
[3162 words deleted by admin for violation of comment policy.]
July 7th, 2009 at 11:04 am
[2380 words deleted by admin for violation of comment policy.]
July 7th, 2009 at 11:08 am
[4216 words deleted by admin for violation of comment policy.]
July 7th, 2009 at 11:10 am
[2137 words deleted by admin for violation of comment policy.]
July 7th, 2009 at 11:12 am
[4053 words deleted by admin for violation of comment policy.]
July 7th, 2009 at 11:15 am
[2698 words deleted by admin for violation of comment policy.]
July 7th, 2009 at 11:15 am
[963 words deleted by admin for violation of comment policy.]
July 7th, 2009 at 11:16 am
[2005 words deleted by admin for violation of comment policy.]
July 7th, 2009 at 11:18 am
[7445 words deleted by admin for violation of comment policy.]
July 7th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Could we please forward this post to the judge so he can get this fucktard locked up for libel and slander? Thank you.
July 7th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Jerry Bergman – why not just refer us to http://www.rae.org/BergmanTenure.htm where you have posted your court document appealing “Judge Walinski’s Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law”. It would have been easier and much shorter. You seem to have pulled pretty much ALL of your verbiage in the above posts from there – with minor rewording to make them appear like you just wrote them perhaps?
July 7th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Amazing. He has a PhD, yet he never learned to write an abstract.
July 7th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
As to
“http://www.rae.org/BergmanTenure.htm where you have posted your court document appealing “Judge Walinski’s Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law”. You seem to have pulled pretty much ALL of your verbiage in the above posts from there – with minor rewording to make them appear like you just wrote them perhaps?”
Some is from there but much is not. Also, this is an abstrast of a file cabnet full of documentation.
July 7th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Yes. Some of your copy/pastes also came from
http://www.seanet.com/~raines/Firpo.html
I would have thought that an abstract would have been MUCH shorter. At least all of the abstracts that I have seen, even on very large papers, are.
July 7th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
Note to readers: You’ve no doubt noticed all of the comments I deleted. I’m not censoring Dr. Bergman here. You can read my comment policy here. Dr. Bergman’s 10 comments totalled almost 30,000 words. That’s equivalent to a mid-sized novella. This has the effect of drowning out all other commenters.
While I doubt that this was Dr. Bergman’s intent, that is nonetheless the effect. I think he was merely trying to set the record straight (as he sees it). The majority of the material he posted seems to have been copied wholesale from two websites:
His appeal of Bergman v. BGSU
and
Response to “Dr. Firpo Carr vs. Dr. Jerry Bergman”
I refer you all to those websites to read his statements.
July 7th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Dr. Bergman:
Please be assured that my deletion of your comments is not an attempt to suppress your opinions or hide them from my readers. I occasionally get people posting long tracts that they’ve lifted from other sites, and I always delete them. The comments are for a discussion, not a long reproduction of other web sites.
Now for the issues you brought up. You have certainly provided us with a lot of support for your claims.
When I wrote the article, I was trying to determine two things: Were you discriminated against, and is your claim of rampant academic discrimination credible?
On the issue of widespread discrimination against evolution deniers, you have failed to prove your case, even a little bit. Admittedly, I haven’t read your whole book, just that one chapter. However, people who have studied this matter in more depth have determined that there is no widespread discrimination, and even the well-publicized cases are very weak.
The matter of whether you were discriminated against is far more interesting. Without first-hand knowledge, I had to rely on the court’s judgement. Yes, courts can and do make bad decisions, but they have all the facts; I don’t. I have to defer to their judgement unless I have enough knowledge in a matter to feel comfortable holding a contrary opinion.
On its surface, it looks like you have made a strong case. Unfortunately, without seeing the other side, I can’t come to a conclusion. So for the moment, I have to defer to the courts.
I admit the possibility that you really were discriminated against. People should not be fired for holding fringe beliefs, if those beliefs do not interfere with their job.
However, even if it is true in your case, that does not make it true in all, most, or even a few of the other cases you cite.
July 10th, 2009 at 8:42 am
As I noted in my now removed posts I have 4 file cabinets documenting the cases I included in my book Slaughter of the Dissidents. The evidence is unequivocal. Endorsing Intelligent Design is a career ender in academia. A one-stop shop rebuttal to the NCSE’s “Expelled Exposed” website is at:
http://www.NCSEExposed.org.
July 10th, 2009 at 9:59 am
So is endorsing a flat Earth or gravity being caused by magic pixies. As well it should. I see no problem here!
July 11th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Imagine if you were majoring in Holocaust Studies at one of several schools offering that course of study and discovered that your professor did not believe that the Holocaust ever happened, but was some kind of exaggeration or hoax. You’d think (rightly so) that the assumption that the Holocaust is factual history is almost without exception (Mel Gibson’s dad and possibly Mel himself even while sober comes to mind as known non-believers) and any course taught should be based on that premise.
Science is the same. We assume the study of science is going to be… well, scientific. Fables and fairy tales left out, research and facts left in.
You can believe in a sky god, water walking trinity, and a huge Jewish coverup if you want, but those things deserves a place separate from history and science.
July 11th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Regarding Bergman’s comment #22, where he’s readying himself to launch his PasteBombs (reams of copy-paste) in response to comment #21 ; Uh, Jerry? Why are you calling the writer of comment #21 “She?”
The writer gives no clue that I can see that indicating their sex/gender. Are you projecting?
July 11th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Let us examine Bergman’s academic career. His academic degrees were provided by himself, and are drawn from a post by his publisher. The dates of various hire-fire-lawsuit episodes are drawn from his own testimony and various court filings. Some data were taken from the Wikipedia, but then confirmed by independent (court) sources. My comments are in italics
1965-1967: Associate of Arts (A.A.), Oakland Community College, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. Major area of study was Biology and the Behavioral Sciences.
1967-1970: Bachelor of Science (B.S.) Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, 48202. Major areas of study included Psychology, Biology, and Sociology. {To claim to have a “major” in an area means that you have a degree in that area. Bergman is here claiming to have 3 bachelor degrees. From what school department did he receive as his B.S. (Obvious puns excluded)? What was the degree major?}
1969-1970: Teaching certification, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI., both at Primary and Secondary levels. {Nothing wrong here. Many states give a teaching credential for a few extra courses during your undergraduate years.}
1970-1971: Master of Education (M.Ed.) Degree, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI. Major area of study was in Psychology, Education, and Counseling (3.71 GPA). {A M.Ed. in counseling is a credential to be a high school’s guidance councilor. Some people take additional course work in child development, and are taught how to give IQ tests. They are not psychologists, nor are they eligible for licensure as psychologists in most states. Bergman was hired as a professor of Psychology with the promise to complete an appropriate doctorate prior to tenure. This was fairly standard at the time.}
1971-1976: Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), Wayne State University, Detroit, MI. Majored in Evaluation and Research, minored in Psychology (4.0 GPA). {There are no minors in a doctoral degree. A Ph.D. is granted by the University by approving the nomination by a specific member college, or affiliate. For example, my doctorate degree was in anthropology, nominated by the School of Social Science, and awarded by the University of California. It did not matter that I had more course credits in chemistry than anthropology- I did not have a major or minor. Neither could Bergman have had a “minor” in Psychology. So this raises the question of just what a doctorate in “Evaluation and Research” is, what school or department nominated it, and why would Bergman present this as a degree in Psychology? Obviously, the tenure committee at Bowling Green State University determined that “Evaluation and Research” was not a degree in Psychology. This explains why Bergman would apply to a new Ph.D. program in 1977 when faced with a looming tenure decision.}
1977-1987: Accepted as a Ph.D. student in the department of sociology at Bowing Green State University and have completed almost all of the course work for this degree (so far completed 60 hours of graduate level course work primarily in the Behavioral Sciences (3.5 GPA). {10 years and only 60 units. The minimum graduate load was 36 units per year when I was a graduate student. There is no mention of a thesis proposal, or of advancement to candidacy by Bergman.}
1978 Bergman was denied tenure at Bowling Green State University. He had been an Assistant Professor in Psychology.
Bergman filed suit against Bowling Green SU with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Ohio Civil Rights Commission on the grounds that he had been discriminated against on the basis of religion. His case was dismissed in 1985. Bergman appealed he was again denied in 1987. The court ruled he was denied tenure was that he had claimed to be degreed in psychology when “had no psychological credentials.”
1982-1986: Masters of Arts (M.A.) in Sociology with a major in Social Psychology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio (3.5 GPA). {This is obviously a “terminal masters.” This is a “boobie prize” for graduate students that fail in a doctoral program. I have known students in similar situations to beg not to be given a Masters Degree, as this is an easily recognized flag that they failed. After 5 years in the Ph.D. program 1977 to 1982, Bergman is given a demotion to the M.A. track. He is ultimately dismissed with a “rump” M.A.}
We could stop right here. Bergman started out with a fairly normal path to a high school councilor job. Instead, he was attracted to a university career as a professor of psychology. Other than a masters in education degree in school counseling, Bergman never finished an advanced degree, and none in psychology prior to being dismissed from Bowling Green. His response was to sue anyone he could and to claim religious persecution. This has nearly become a career in itself.
But there are some following events that complete the picture. According to Bergman:
1989-1992: Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) Columbia Pacific University, San Rafael, CA 94901. Major was human biology (4.0 GPA). {Columbia Pacific University was disaccredited: Denial of Application for Approval in December 1995. The administrative court judge ruled against his appeal on June 10, 1997. Among other items, the administrative appeals judge found that CPU:
· awarded excessive credit for prior experiential learning to many students;
· failed to employ duly qualified faculty; and
· failed to meet various requirements for issuing PhD degrees.
The California Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Columbia Pacific University’s Approval to Operate December 1, 2000. It takes years even for the State to file a grievance, or schedule an accreditation review. The review itself takes years. Bergman was never in residence. This was a “matchbook cover” degree, AKA “You Pay the Fee, We Print the Degree.”}
1992-1996: Post graduate study. University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. Studied geology, philosophy, nutrition, chemistry, and meteorology (3.6 GPA). {No mention of school, department, or degree program. I sometimes take a course for fun too. But I never would bother to add them to my CV.}
1996 to date: Accepted as a Ph.D. student, department of chemistry Miami University in Oxford Ohio. So far have completed 40 graduate quarter hours in chemistry (4.0 GPA). {Over 10 years and only 40 credits. Graduate students with about 1 year’s academic work after 10 years have failed.}
1996-1999: Masters of Science in Biomedical Science (MSBS), Medical College of Ohio, Toledo, Ohio (3.9 GPA). Thesis was on Tumor Markers in Cancer Treatment.
1998 to 2001: Masters of Public Health (MPH). Northwest Ohio Consortium for Public Health (Medical College of Ohio, Toledo, Ohio; University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio; Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio). (3.9 GPA).
1994 to 2000: Graduate student in Molecular Biology Department at the Medical College of Ohio, Toledo, Ohio (102 quarter graduate hours completed; 3.9 GPA).
2001 to 2004: Master of Science (M.S.) Medical College of Ohio, Toledo, Ohio. Major area of study was in the health and medicine area. June 2004. Thesis title was “Evaluation to Optical Radiation in Medical Diagnostics and Treatment.” 3.8 GPA
{8 years and 3 very closely related masters degrees out of 4 applied to, all from a single school is very odd. I wonder why Bergman would bother. I wonder why MCO allowed this to happen?}
July 12th, 2009 at 5:07 am
If ID is a career-killer, why is Behe still teaching at a real university (as opposed to a Christian clown college)? They never have an answer for that one.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:45 am
Gary Hurd:
Thank you for that excellent analysis of Bergman’s record. It puts things in perspective.
July 15th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
I am amazed at the inaccuracies in Gary Hurd’s so-called analysis. Three examples. On paper I have proof that I have a major and minor for my Wayne State University PhD. You are also totally wrong about CPU. See their website and see my response on http://www.rae.org. Last, in response to the claim “{Over 10 years and only 40 credits. Graduate students with about 1 year’s academic work after 10 years have failed.}” I worked fill time and attended classes during the summer. I live over 3 hours from Miami (6 hours round trip), could not take classes during the year and had to stay in a hotel during the summer (cost me 70.00$ a day). I have a 4.0 HPA there, so your assessment that I failed is wrong. If I had the money, and was single, I could have finished the degree. As they say, if you cannot attack the arguments, you attack the person. And “If ID is a career-killer, why is Behe still teaching at a real university (as opposed to a Christian clown college)? They never have an answer for that one.” The answer is simple: he has tenure so can teach, but his career as an academic researcher is over.
July 15th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
But he’s still teaching. That’s the point. He hasn’t been fired; he hasn’t been forced to resign. No one is preventing him from printing his nonsense.
As far as his career as an “academic researcher” is concerned – what the hell would he do research in? His answer to the mystery of life is “Goddidit!” What would the research consist of – sitting around waiting for the Almighty to poof something into existence?
Dr. Bergman, I know this will fall on deaf ears, but, on the off-chance that it doesn’t – seriously, get help.
July 16th, 2009 at 6:52 am
I would honestly be very impressed (no, seriously) if ID would present just one research paper that in some way supported their thesis. But they know this is impossible because you can’t prove a negative. And ID is proving a negative. There is simply no way to prove “this did not happen by natural laws.” The only proof of a designer IS the designer. QED. lol. Etc.
February 13th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
To all of you against Dr. Bergman. I would have to say that he is one of the best professors at the college. To call him a clown just shows how intelligent all of you actually are. Thanks for the laughs, I see that noone else had the sack to put thier credentials on here.
February 13th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
NSCC:
We aren’t “against” Dr. Bergman. We have merely investigated his claims and his actions and have formed our opinions on the evidence.
There is no witch hunt here. There wasn’t one this morning, there wasn’t one this evening, and there certainly wasn’t one at “noone”, as you claimed.
February 14th, 2010 at 9:51 am
Fixed that for you.
May 8th, 2010 at 6:32 pm
What kind of research have all of you clowns performed and had published? How many of you have read his book? Are you all to scared to think outside the box?
May 8th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
NSCC:
You’re entitled to ask that question after you learn and comprehend evolution. You clearly don’t yet.
May 9th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Like the ever-knowledgable Mr. Wirth, I’m pretty sure I could self-publish a long list of quote mines too. Internet makes that possible!