I guess that’s typical of many folks like you who “believe” so many things they read and take it as gospel.

**TRIPLE TAKE**

Did I read that correctly? Am I in some sort of twilight zone?! Pot? Kettle? HELLO?!

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.

How can we ever trust that, when you only tell us this now that you are CAUGHT LYING.

“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.

Well, Ron just did so brilliantly, but quite frankly, I didn’t find anything worthwhile addressing. I’m tired of your quote mining.

Let’s begin with something I should have caught last time. Here’s what I wrote in my article:

Bergman apparently is still convinced that he was discriminated against, or else he wouldn’t have written this book that Kevin Wirth is shilling. [emphasis added]

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:

Bergman apparently is still convinced that he was discriminated against, or else he wouldn’t have written this book that Kevin Wirth is selling [emphasis added]

Good one, Kevin! Here’s a great quote you should mine from your “science” book:

for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

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 god intelligent-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.

…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.… Now that’s what I call slimy reporting of the first caliber. Do you always go to secondary sources when reporting the “facts”?

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.

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.

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!”

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.

Is that what I did? Let’s look at the facts! Surely you can go along with that! I wrote:

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.… 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. …I’m happy to concede that a large chunk of that 700 could be real science. …The guy seems legitimate.

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 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.

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.

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.

Anything else you’d care to throw at us?

Aside from a shoe, not really. Bergman’s a joke and you’re wasting your time defending him.

When Bergman appealed to the university’s Faculty Personnel and Conciliation Committee, they found (in part):

• There was no evidence that plaintiff’s academic freedom had been infringed.
• Concerns expressed by faculty peers about the quality of plaintiff’s teaching and scholarship were real concerns based on appropriate evidence.
• There was no evidence that plaintiff’s religious views or affiliations influenced the overall judgment of the tenured faculty.

When Bergman appealed that decision to the Equal Employment Opportunity and the Ohio Civil Rights Commission:

Both agencies, following investigation, determined that there was no probable cause to conclude that the University or its agents discriminated against the plaintiff on the basis of his religious beliefs.

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:

The court made the legal conclusions that plaintiff had neither been discriminated against nor denied due process.

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?