Excerpt:
One of those incidents took place at George Mason University (GMU), where Caroline Crocker was ousted from teaching biology because she challenged to neo-Darwinian evolution and favorably mentioned ID in the classroom. Dr. Crocker later appeared in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, but now many more details about Caroline Crocker’s story are revealed in her new autobiographical book, Free to Think: Why Scientific Integrity Matters.
Free to Think tells the story of a biology professor who cares deeply about students, received glowing student reviews, wouldn’t compromise her integrity when challenged to disregard anti-cheating rules, and produced high quality curricular tools. But Crocker had one fatal flaw: she would not capitulate to the Darwinian consensus in the classroom. When some GMU administrators learned that she’d challenged evolution, they told her that she had to be “disciplined” because she taught “creationism.” While GMU now denies that Crocker’s dismissal had anything to do with evolution, her book explains that this is most definitely not what she was told behind closed doors.
But Free to Think is not some sob story. It contains heartwarming and amusing accounts of Crocker’s interaction with students. What struck me were the lengths to which Crocker would go to accommodate and help students facing difficult life circumstances. It is saddening (though not surprising) that she has received many attacks on her character from evolutionists who know neither Crocker nor her story.
[…]At the very time Crocker was told by her Department Head that she would be disciplined for challenging Darwin, she received a performance review from her Provost that called her teaching “outstanding” as “evidenced by unusually high student rankings”! The Provost even praised her, saying, “This kind of teaching quality is essential for this vital educational program, and we’re very grateful for your successful efforts.”
Such statements hardly describe a teacher who would otherwise be expected to soon lose her job. Yet Crocker did subsequently lose her job, and we know exactly why. As Crocker documents in her book, her administrators didn’t want her challenging Darwin.
And you can even listen to an interview she did with Casey Luskin about her new book.
I like Caroline Crocker a lot. I don’t talk about her as much as I do about Michele Bachmann or Jennifer Roback Morse, but she’s one of my heroes. I was disgusted with George Mason University for doing this to her. I remember Walter Williams saying at some point (maybe when he was guest hosting for Rush Limbaugh) that GMU is a normal liberal university with conservative departments of law and economics. That explains it.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
Here is a link to an interesting article which had a slightly different perspective than Caroline’s new book… http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/crocker
LikeLike
Yeah, and this link is pretty worthless because it’s heavily based on (negative, of course) speculation. The book offers a long-awaited response to much of the baloney being promoted at this site.
LikeLike
Someone is lying. I heard Caroline Crocker present her side of the story at Biola a couple of weeks ago and her version (as recounted in her book)is very different from what is claimed at expelledexposed.
Moo suggested that the site offered a different perspective. Well, perspective is one thing, but irreconcilable, outright contradictions are another. (Hey, this is starting to sound like a debate on the reliability of the Gospels : )
The differences between the two accounts are so great that someone has to be lying. Hey Moo, I’m not questioning your honesty, just so you know. The point is simply that either Crocker or ExpelledExposed is lying. Now rats! How to sort the facts from the fiction?
LikeLike
Thanks Stephen! I believe Caroline Crocker, not the NCSE.
Here’s why:
http://telicthoughts.com/eugenie-scott-director-of-ncse-spreading-misinformation/
LikeLike
I think that peoples natural confirmation bias will come into play here. If you support ID then you will probably support Crocker, or vice versa. I wish that people were more objective, however when people have agendas it cloads their judgements.
I tend to believe Eugene Scott as everytime I her her speak she is rational, to the point and does not get into adhominem attacks on people. Eugene has done a great job of preserving science in the classroom. If it were not for people like her, Europe and Asia would be even further ahead with their science teaching and understanding.
LikeLike
Crocker and a few people involved intimately with the case are the only ones to really know what the facts are. We can only guess. You seem to distrust the NCSE for some reason, however the article you link to do not support your case.
Self-correction is a sign of evidence based thinking. Sometimes people made a poor inference, however Scott went out of her way to correct the situation…
“Update: It appears that Eugenie Scott did in fact notify someone at the Smithsonian about the statement from BSG a month later, when it was first released. Of course, it would have been better if she hadn’t spread the rumour about Sternberg being a YEC to with, but she can’t be faulted for not correcting it soon enough.”
Would you change your views on ID if the evidence became too overwhelming? What level of evidence would convince you? Why do you support ID, instead of YEC or Evolution by Natural Selection? Why do almost all biologists support Evolution? Do you think that ID can move from a hypostasis to a theory?
LikeLike
It is a theory. Read Signature in the Cell.
LikeLike
My understanding of the word theory in a scientific context is “a scientific theory describes facts by observation, experimentation, and reasoning.”
Is it a fact that an intelligent designer exists? Answer is no. Is Evolution is a fact. The answer is yes. This is observable, backed up by experimentation and reasoning.
There is still some debate around the mechanism of the observed evolution, one of most popular and well regarded is “By Natural Selection”. Reading the On the Origin of Species is a good start, however some new areas of science did not exist in Darwin’s day. I particularly like the book “Almost like a Whale” by Steve Jones. This is written with the same chapters as Darwin, but expands his work into the areas that Darwin could only have dreamed about, such as genetics. It’s a great read.
LikeLike
This post is about the argument from biological information in the simplest living cell. Please stay on topic.
Why don’t you start by explaining to me what you think intelligent design is with respect to this argument? Them continue by making me a list of all the books and debates that you’ve seen on this argument? Who makes this argument, where has it been made in academic literature and where have you seen it presented in a public debate?
LikeLike
Since you haven’t read the book Signature in the Cell, I’ll sum it for you. Reason, observation and experimentation have proven that intelligent design is the only known source of specified information.
Your sentences about the existence of an intelligent designer are incoherent. I am an intelligent designer. Or did you think that these letters jumbled themselves into recognized non-regular patterns that only make sense in the modern form of the English language? Do I exist? What reasons do you have to infer my existence?
You infer the existence of me as an intelligent designer because intelligence is the only known source of specified information.
LikeLike
The NCSE did not have any intimate knowledge of the facts about the Caroline Crocker incident. Crocker’s book FREE TO THINK finally lets us in on what really happened, so the “we can only guess” notion is no longer valid.
LikeLike