Casey Luskin "Explains" Intelligent Design Creationism

Casey Luskin is upset with a philosopher named Christopher Pynes. Paynes had the audacity to suggest that one of the key features of Intelligent Design Creationism is ... creationism. According to Paynes, "supernaturalism is a necessary component of ID: there must be a designer" [AD HOMINEM ARGUMENTS AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN: REPLY TO KOPERSKI].

Luskin wants to remind everyone that Intelligent Design Creationism has nothing to do with a creator/designer [Professor Pynes Rails Against the "Straw-Man Fallacy" while Attacking a Straw-Man Version of Intelligent Design]. According to Luskin (a lawyer), Intelligent Design Creationism is a purely scientific theory that relies on: (a) proving that evolution is wrong, (b) detecting the creator/designer by examining nature.

On the primary¹ grounds that it's always good to know your enemy, I present to you the best scientific grounds for Intelligent Design Creationism.

• Studies of physics and cosmology continue to uncover deeper and deeper levels of fine-tuning. Many examples could be given, but this one is striking: the initial entropy of the universe must have been fine-tuned to within 1 part in 10(10^123) to render the universe life-friendly. That blows other fine-tuning constants away. New cosmological theories like string theory or multiverse theories just push back questions about fine-tuning, and would, if true, simply exacerbate the need for fine-tuning. This points to high levels of complex and specified information (CSI) in the cosmid architecture of the universe--information which in our experieince only comes from intelligence.
• Mutational sensitivity tests increasingly show that DNA sequences are highly fine-tuned to generate functional proteins and perform other biological functions. Again, this is high CSI--which in our experience only comes from intelligence.
• Studies of epigenetics and systems biology are revealing more and more how integrated organisms are, from biochemistry to macrobiology, and showing incredible fine-tuned basic cellular functions. The integrated nature of organismal body plans shows CSI throughout biological systems--in our experience, only intelligence can generate tightly intregrated multi-component blueprints.
• Genetic knockout experiments are showing irreducible complexity, such as in the flagellum, or multi-mutation features where many simultaneous mutations would be necessary to gain an advantage. This is more fine-tuning--and in our experience, irreducibly complex machines arise only from intelligence.
• The fossil record shows that species often appear abruptly without similar precursors, which represents mass-explosions of high CSI--something which requires an intelligent cause.
• There have been numerous discoveries of functionality for "junk DNA." Examples include recently discovered functionality in some pseudogenes, microRNAs, introns, LINE and ALU elements. Intelligent design predicted this data.

If all of these things were true, then you'd predict that scientists would be flocking to church on Sundays. You'd also expect that the scientific literature would be full of papers proving the existence of God. It would be the most remarkable discovery in the history of humans.

A key part of Intelligent Design Creationism—the part that Casey Luskin is leaving out—is to explain why it has been so remarkably unsuccessful after 200 years of trying. That part has to do with the huge Darwinist conspiracy that forces scientists to tow the line and stick with atheistic Darwinism in spite of all the scientific evidence against it. If you read the blogs, you'll see that attacking scientists and Darwinism is the dominant theme. The "scientific" "evidence" for Intelligent Design Creationism is almost never mentioned.

Most of us scientists don't realize that we are part of such a conspiracy because we have been brainwashed into believing in evolution. However, a few god-fearing souls have seen the truth. Some of them are lawyers (Casey Luskin, Philip Johnson), some of them are philosophers, some of them claim to be mathematicians, and a few think they are scientists (Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells). The one thing they all have in common is that they are all IDiots.

---

1. The secondary grounds are to keep a record of the June 2012 "facts" because they will change soon enough.

Graduation Day

June is graduation month at the University of Toronto. There are various classes graduating every morning and afternoon for several weeks. (We have more than 70,000 students on three campuses, counting undergraduates, graduates, and enrollment in professional faculties.)

Today it's the turn of medical students. About 215 students just received their M.D. degrees. I'll be glad when it's all over 'cause the lineups at Tim Horton's¹ are horrible.

---

Starbucks too, but I don't care about them.

A Platypus Describes Humans

Ryan Gregory invents The Platypus Fallacy to illustrate an important concept in evolution. Here's how a platypus describes humans. See if you can spot the problem.

The lineage of which humans are a part is a very ancient offshoot of our mammalian family tree, so it was 166 million years ago that we last shared a common ancestor with humans, and that puts them somewhere between mammals and reptiles, because they lack a lot of specialized characters that we have gained but the ancestral amniote also lacked; for instance, they have no electroreception, no bills, no webbed feet, and no venom. So we can use them to trace the changes that have occurred as we went from being a reptile, to having fur to making milk to having our specialized features.

---

Bruce Alberts Talks About Science Literacy

Bruce Alberts was president of the National Academy of Sciences (1993-2005), author of The Molecular Biology of the Cell, and winner of the Gairdner Award for his work on DNA replication. He was my Ph.D. supervisor. He is currently editor-in-chief of Science magazine. He has been interested in science education and science literacy for many decades so when he makes a comment about science education, it's worth listening to.

Here's a quote from a recent interview in PLoS Genetics [Scientist Citizen: An Interview with Bruce Alberts].

You look at the current political system in the US. It's incredibly depressing. These kinds of statements that “scientists only believe in climate change so that they can get a grant.” This kind of stuff couldn't be said if we actually had a population that understood what science is. We have a fantastic scientific community, and if we don't unleash them and give them credit for working on these things, then I don't think our country is going to prosper.

Every ten years the Academy publishes a booklet called “Science, Evolution and Creationism” [available online], and before the last one in 2008, the Academy hired one of the companies that put people behind a one-way mirror and interview them to see what they think about some new product. But this question was, “How do they think about science and creationism?”

And the staggering message from these college-educated adults is that they don't see any difference between science as a belief system and religion as a belief system. So basically, the preacher tells them what religious people believe, the scientists tell them what scientists believe, and [they think] “I can choose either one.” And the reason they can say that is that they don't understand what we call “science as a way of knowing”. That it is not a belief system, that it is an evidence-based community process.

This is just unbelievable, that our American public can determine our future without understanding the fundamental issues about scientific facts. If the population isn't prepared to deal with these kinds of issues, to think rationally and respect evidence, then I think the country is really in danger.

Like I say, science is a way of knowing that involves evidence and rationality. Now you know where I got that from.

---

The photo was taken at Bruce's 70th birthday party. It shows him with his first three graduate students: Keith Yamamoto (left), me (second from right), and Glenn Herrick (right).

Monday's Molecule #173

This is an easy one. We talked about this molecule in our lunch time seminar just a few minutes ago. It binds to lots of proteins.

Post your answer as a comment. I'll hold off releasing any comments for 24 hours. The first one with the correct answer wins. I will only post mostly correct answers to avoid embarrassment. The winner will be treated to a free lunch with a very famous person, or me.

There could be two winners. If the first correct answer isn't from an undergraduate student then I'll select a second winner from those undergraduates who post the correct answer. You will need to identify yourself as an undergraduate in order to win. (Put "undergraduate" at the bottom of your comment.)

Some past winners are from distant lands so their chances of taking up my offer of a free lunch are slim. (That's why I can afford to do this!)

In order to win you must post your correct name. Anonymous and pseudoanonymous commenters can't win the free lunch.

Winners will have to contact me by email to arrange a lunch date.

Comments are invisible for 24 hours. Comments are now open.

UPDATE: The molecule is malonyl-ACP where ACP stands for acyl carrier protein. The winners are Bill Chaney and Matt McFarlane. One other person got it right but didn't specify what "ACP" stood for. The most common error among those who came close was to call it malonyl-CoA.

Winners
Nov. 2009: Jason Oakley, Alex Ling
Oct. 17: Bill Chaney, Roger Fan
Oct. 24: DK
Oct. 31: Joseph C. Somody
Nov. 7: Jason Oakley
Nov. 15: Thomas Ferraro, Vipulan Vigneswaran
Nov. 21: Vipulan Vigneswaran (honorary mention to Raul A. Félix de Sousa)
Nov. 28: Philip Rodger
Dec. 5: 凌嘉誠 (Alex Ling)
Dec. 12: Bill Chaney
Dec. 19: Joseph C. Somody
Jan. 9: Dima Klenchin
Jan. 23: David Schuller
Jan. 30: Peter Monaghan
Feb. 7: Thomas Ferraro, Charles Motraghi
Feb. 13: Joseph C. Somody
March 5: Albi Celaj
March 12: Bill Chaney, Raul A. Félix de Sousa
March 19: no winner
March 26: John Runnels, Raul A. Félix de Sousa
April 2: Sean Ridout
April 9: no winner
April 16: Raul A. Félix de Sousa
April 23: Dima Klenchin, Deena Allan
April 30: Sean Ridout
May 7: Matt McFarlane
May 14: no winner
May 21: no winner
May 29: Mike Hamilton, Dmitri Tchigvintsev
June 4: Bill Chaney, Matt McFarlane

---

Cornelius, Meet Johnnyb

Cornelius Hunter doesn't like anything about evolution. He especially doesn't like us to say that Evolution Is a Fact.

Here's the latest from Cornelius [When I Pointed Out the Evolutionary Tree Has Failed Two Professors Gave Me Pushback ].

If you are new to the evolution debate you might wonder why evolutionists do not simply acknowledge the painfully obvious fact that evolution is not a fact. It is not as sure gravity and in fact there are significant questions and problems with evolution. Why don’t evolutionists admit to the truth of how the science bears on their theory?

The answer is that evolution is not about the science. At issue here is not merely the status of another scientific theory. Evolutionists won’t be swayed by the evidence because doing so—and confessing that evolution is not overwhelmingly supported by the evidence—would immediately expose evolutionists to all kinds of possibilities which they simply cannot accept. An evolutionist can no more change his mind than could a cultist. Evolution is underwritten by a religious worldview—it is a metaphysical theory, not at scientific theory. As such it may lose every battle, but it cannot lose the war.

Contrast this with what Johnnyb said a few weeks ago on Uncommon Descent [see All IDiots Believe in Evolution! ].

So what is one to do? Well, thankfully, our friends the evolutionists have given us a way out. In their zeal to claim consensus on the “fact of evolution,” they have had to steamroll together such a large diversity of opinion into the single term “evolution”, that the word “evolution” no longer has the grand meaning it used to. The only real meaning everyone can agree on is “change in allele frequency over time” – and that is a definition that literally everyone can agree with.

In other words, even if you are a young earth creationist, if your professor asks if you believe in evolution, the legitimate answer is “yes”. Given the common definition of “evolution,” the only thing they are really asking with that question is, “do you believe in genetics?”

Cornelius Hunter and Johnnyb really should get together and agree on the facts.

---

Turn Right! Turn Left!

If you're driving on a two lane highway and a head-on collision seems imminent, you should turn right. This probably doesn't work in England.

Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy tells us that the Andromeda Galaxy is on a collision course with our Milky Way Galaxy [Hold on tight: in 4 billion years, we’re due for a galactic collision!]. What should we do? We don't know whether the Andromedons drive on the right side of the road or the left. Which way should we turn to avoid the collision?

---

Why Mothers Prefer Boys

Phil Kitcher is a philosopher who is interested in the philosophy of science and he's also very interested in evolution. In his recent article on The Trouble with Scientism he gives and example of .... well, I'm not exactly sure what.

The emphasis on generality inspires scientific imperialism, conjuring a vision of a completely unified future science, encapsulated in a “theory of everything.” Organisms are aggregates of cells, cells are dynamic molecular systems, the molecules are composed of atoms, which in their turn decompose into fermions and bosons (or maybe into quarks or even strings). From these facts it is tempting to infer that all phenomena—including human actions and interaction—can “in principle” be understood ultimately in the language of physics, although for the moment we might settle for biology or neuroscience. This is a great temptation. We should resist it. Even if a process is constituted by the movements of a large number of constituent parts, this does not mean that it can be adequately explained by tracing those motions.

A tale from the history of human biology brings out the point. John Arbuthnot, an eighteenth-century British physician, noted a fact that greatly surprised him. Studying the registry of births in London between 1629 and 1710, he found that all of the years he reviewed showed a preponderance of male births: in his terms, each year was a “male year.” If you were a mad devotee of mechanistic analysis, you might think of explaining this—“in principle”—by tracing the motions of individual cells, first sperm and eggs, then parts of growing embryos, and showing how the maleness of each year was produced. But there is a better explanation, one that shows the record to be no accident. Evolutionary theory predicts that for many, but not all, species, the equilibrium sex-ratio will be 1:1 at sexual maturity. If it deviates, natural selection will favor the underrepresented sex: if boys are less common, invest in sons and you are likely to have more grandchildren. This means that if one sex is more likely to die before reaching reproductive age, more of that sex will have to be produced to start with. Since human males are the weaker sex—that is, they are more likely to die between birth and puberty—reproduction is biased in their favor.

In humans, the average sex ratio at birth is about 105 boys to every 100 girls but this ratio varies a lot from country to country and it depends on environmental conditions. There are many factors that affect fertilization and the survival of embryos and fetuses.

Is it reasonable to believe that the observed sex ratio (1.05) is the product of natural selection? You can't really answer that question until you know the mechanism of altered sex ratios. What is being selected? Is it the probability that a male sperm will reach the egg before a female sperm? If so, what kind of selective advantage would have to apply to change that probability from from 50% to 51% or 52%? How is it done? What alleles are involved?

Why does Philip Kitcher, a philosopher of science, think that a postulated adaptive explanation is a "better explanation" than a mechanistic one? Don't you actually have to "prove" your adaptive model at the level of genes, cells, and developing embryos before it can be accepted?

---

The Trouble with Scientism?

Philip Kitcher is a philosopher who specializes in the philsophy of science. He is a professor at Columbia University in New York, USA. He's well known in the atheist, skeptical community and he's an outspoken critic of creationism.

He just published an article in The New Republic entitled: The Trouble with Scientism: Why history and the humanities are also a form of knowledge.

Many of the debates on the issue of "scientism" depend on how you define "science." As you can see from the subtitle of his essay, it's about the two cultures. Kitcher separate the search for knowledge in the humanities from the search for knowledge in the natural sciences. Here's what he says ...

It is so easy to underrate the impact of the humanities and of the arts. Too many people, some of whom should know better, do it all the time. But understanding why the natural sciences are regarded as the gold standard for human knowledge is not hard. When molecular biologists are able to insert fragments of DNA into bacteria and turn the organisms into factories for churning out medically valuable substances, and when fundamental physics can predict the results of experiments with a precision comparable to measuring the distance across North America to within the thickness of a human hair, their achievements compel respect, and even awe. To derive one’s notion of human knowledge from the most striking accomplishments of the natural sciences easily generates a conviction that other forms of inquiry simply do not measure up. Their accomplishments can come to seem inferior, even worthless, at least until the day when these domains are absorbed within the scope of “real science.”

It's clear the he thinks of "science" as something that only natural scientists do. This is a different definition that the one I prefer. I think of "science" as a way of knowing that involves evidence, skepticism, and rationalism. I agree with Rush Holt [Rush Holt on Science and Critical Thinking] that critical thinking is an important part of science as a way of knowing and I agree with him that the scientific approach can be used everywhere—even in philosophy departments.

Kitcher's view is different. That leads him to define scientism as ...

The problem with scientism—which is of course not the same thing as science—is owed to a number of sources, and they deserve critical scrutiny. The enthusiasm for natural scientific imperialism rests on five observations. First, there is the sense that the humanities and social sciences are doomed to deliver a seemingly directionless sequence of theories and explanations, with no promise of additive progress. Second, there is the contrasting record of extraordinary success in some areas of natural science. Third, there is the explicit articulation of technique and method in the natural sciences, which fosters the conviction that natural scientists are able to acquire and combine evidence in particularly rigorous ways. Fourth, there is the perception that humanists and social scientists are only able to reason cogently when they confine themselves to conclusions of limited generality: insofar as they aim at significant—general—conclusions, their methods and their evidence are unrigorous. Finally, there is the commonplace perception that the humanities and social sciences have been dominated, for long periods of their histories, by spectacularly false theories, grand doctrines that enjoy enormous popularity until fashion changes, as their glaring shortcomings are disclosed.

That's a really stupid definition of scientism. I don't know anyone who actually thinks like that. Do you know any "natural science imperialists" who dismiss the humanities and the social sciences?¹

I believe that people in the humanities and social sciences use the same approach as those in the natural sciences. I call that way of knowing "science" but if someone wants to come up with a better name, I'm all ears. As far as I'm concerned, science (as I define it) is the ONLY way of knowing that has actually been successful in discovering true knowledge. I guess that makes me guilty of "scientism."

It's very easy to refute scientism as I define it. All you have to do is show that there's some other way of knowing that produces universal truths or true knowledge. Perhaps philosophers have discovered truths using some other way of knowing?

---

1. I criticize evolutionary psychology. The reason why I'm so critical is precisely because they don't conform to the scientific way of knowing. They are not doing "good science" by any definition of the word "science."

Rush Holt on Science and Critical Thinking

I don't know Rush Holt from Adam. I'm told that he's a US Congressman from New Jersey but I find that difficult to believe. :-)

Here's an interview he gave with The Humanist: Thinking Like a Scientist.

The Humanist: How do you define critical thinking?

Rush Holt: Let me define instead what I like to call “thinking like a scientist.” It’s asking questions that can be answered based on evidence; it’s expressing questions in a way that allows someone to check your work. If you don’t have both of those elements, it’s too easy to fool yourself or to get lazy in your thinking. I wouldn’t say that critical thinking is hard thinking, because I don’t want to discourage people from doing it, but like anything else, it’s easier if you practice.

Third graders, for example, are often very good at thinking like scientists. Like scientists, they know that if you ask how something works, what something means, or how something happens, you should do it in a way that allows for more than just pure thinking. There should be some evidence, something empirical. You should form your question so that it allows someone else to ask that same question and observe the evidence to see if they get the same answer as you do. And that’s the essential part of critical thinking. If you say, “I’ve been thinking about this deeply and, by golly, now I understand it,” but then you try to explain it to someone else and can’t, then you probably don’t understand it … or it’s not very reliable knowledge.

I keep trying to get science taught in a way that, even if you can’t remember a single Latin term or are a klutz at solving equations, you’ve learned how to frame questions and sift evidence. I talk about verification but another way of putting it is: be ready for the cross-examination. Prepare to explain yourself.

The Humanist: How valuable is critical thinking to everyday life?

Holt: It’s invaluable, whether you’re making a consumer decision like which laundry detergent to buy or whether you’re trying to decide what career you want to pursue. There are ways to ask yourself both what you’re trying to accomplish and how to measure whether you’ve accomplished it. If you’re able to express it that way, then you’re thinking critically.

This is important on every level, not just on a personal level, not just in regards to consumer decisions or life choices. I think it’s quite likely we wouldn’t have invaded Iraq if more people in the CIA or in Congress had been thinking critically and asking, “What’s the evidence? You say Saddam Hussein is doing things that will hurt our national interests. Now tell me exactly: what is he doing? Does he have chemical weapons, nuclear weapons? Where’s the evidence?” Of course, there wasn’t any.

This is important stuff. I think of "science" as a way of knowing but it can also be thought of as a way of thinking. It's intimately associated with critical thinking.

In this sense, "science" is not confined to the so-called "natural sciences" but it can be applied to everything that requires a search for reliable truth. Everybody should be thinking like a scientist and that includes politicians and philosophers. In my experience, there is no other way of knowing that has a proven track record.

---

[Hat Tip: RichardDawkins.net]

Watch Jonathan Wells Screw Up

Here's Jonathan Wells attacking the concept of junk DNA during a lecture at Biola University in October 2010. It's remarkable because he repeats a false history that he knows is untrue because many people have corrected him. Pay attention to what he says about four minutes into the presentation.


Wells is talking about the history of junk DNA. He begins by falsely describing the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology, which, he says, is "DNA makes RNA, makes protein, makes us." He then quotes Jacques Monod as a supporter of this concept (4 minutes, 23 seconds).

With that, and the understanding of the random physical basis of mutation that molecular biology has provided, the mechanism of Darwinism is at last securely founded, and man has to understand that he is a mere accident.
Jacque Monod (1970) quoted in "The Eight Day of Creation" by Horace Freeland Judson (p. 192)

I looked up this passage and guess what I found? I discovered that when Monod said "with that" he was referring to the real Central Dogma—the one that Crick actually formulated. Only a few sentences earlier Monod is quoted as saying ...

This was what Francis Crick called the Central Dogma: no information goes from protein to DNA.

This is followed by a brief description of Lamarckism and why it conflicts with the Central Dogma. So Monod has it exactly right, the Central Dogma says that information can only flow from nucleic acid to protein and not vice versa. That rules out the inheritance of applied characteristics and makes "the mechanism of Darwinism ... securely founded."

Why is this important? Because Wells immediately follows this by claiming that ...

... biologists discovered that most human DNA does not code for proteins. Based on the Central Dogma that "DNA makes RNA makes protein makes us," this non-protein-coding DNA was dubbed "junk."

This is nonsense. Not only did the concept of junk DNA have nothing to do with the Central Dogma, it also had nothing to do with "non-coding DNA." By 1970, all knowledgeable molecular biologists knew that there was lots of perfectly functional DNA that did not encode protein. It's simply not true that the consensus opinion among the experts at the time was that all noncoding DNA was junk [Junk & Jonathan: Part 3—The Preface].

There are legitimate debates about the quantity of junk DNA in our genome. What I just don't understand is why IDiots feel they have to distort history in order to make their point. Wouldn't they be a lot more credible if they at least got the simple things right?

Are they pathological liars?

---

Three Big Questions

Here's John West at Biola University in October 2010. He's asking three big questions.

1. Did God specifically direct the history of life?
2. Did God create humans originally good?
3. Can we see evidence of God's design in nature?

The answers, by the way, are no, no, and no. But you already knew that, didn't you?

John G. West is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute. He is also Associate Director of Discovery's Center for Science & Culture and Vice President for Public Policy and Legal Affairs. In other words, he's one of the prime IDiots.

While watching the video, try and remember that Intelligent Design Creationism is not about God and criticism of "Darwinism" should be taught in the schools because it's part of science, not religion.

---

A troglodyte discovers a car ...

From GilDodgen at Uncommon Descent: Even IF the Genome is Full of “Junk”.

I enjoyed Jonathan’s presentation about junk DNA at the link provided above. Let us presume that the genome does include junk. What does this have to do with the evidence for design found elsewhere, such as in the highly sophisticated, functionally integrated, information-processing machinery about which we know a great deal?

I’m sure that Francis Collins is a very fine fellow. I have no doubt about his Christian conversion. (I underwent a similar one.) I have no doubt about his intellect or problem-solving IQ.

However, there is something missing in his reasoning, which basically goes like this:

A troglodyte discovers a car in a junkyard. The engine runs. The transmission works, and the car can be driven. But wait: The headlights don’t work and do nothing (of course, the troglodyte has no idea what a headlight is, but he sees such structures and assumes that they have no purpose).

Even if (and that’s a BIG if) the genome is full of junk (that is, degenerate stuff that provides no function), the existence of that junk has nothing to do with an inference to design from the stuff that is obviously not junk, but highly sophisticated technology.

Based upon my experience, design theorists are not the troglodytes who refuse to follow the evidence where it leads — Darwinists are.

You just can't make this stuff up.

There's an important point here. Up until now the IDiots have been drawing a line in the sand by claiming that junk DNA is inconsistent with Intelligent Design Creationism. Do I detect a bit of backpeddling?

---

[Image Credit: Troglodyte]

Searching for a Chair

Universities are very complex institutions. I'm sure the average person doesn't understand how they are run. The reason I'm so sure of this is because the average professor doesn't know either! In fact, I'm not sure anyone knows.

A typical large university is divided into several faculties like law, medicine, engineering, arts & humanities, science etc. Each faculty has a Dean who is head of the faculty. Large faculties contain many departments; for example, a faculty of science might have departments of physics, geology, chemistry, and biology. Each department has a chair who is responsible for the administration of the department and for making decisions about hiring, firing, promotions, salary increases etc.

My department is the Department of Biochemistry in the Faculty of Medicine. The position of departmental chair is a five year appointment that is renewable once for a total of ten years. The ten years are up for our current chair so we have to find a new one. This is always a traumatic time for a university department.

The process begins with an addvertisment that's placed in prominent science journals and distributed to various other departments in Canada.

Chair, Department of Biochemistry
University of Toronto, Faculty of Medicine
Toronto, ON
Posted: December 5th, 2011

Applications are invited for the position of Chair, Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, for a 5-year term on or before January 1, 2013.

The Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto is a diverse and highly-productive department with a broad range of research areas including protein structure and folding, cell biology, computational biology, and genomics/proteomics. The department has 60 faculty members located at the university’s St. George campus, The Hospital for Sick Children, Princess Margaret Hospital, Mount Sinai Hospital, and other sites in the University of Toronto community. The department is an important component of the University of Toronto academic health science complex, which is among the largest in North America. The department offers programs leading to MSc and PhD degrees, as well as a strong undergraduate program in biochemistry.

The University of Toronto academic health science complex is among the largest in North America. The Faculty of Medicine (http://www.facmed.utoronto.ca) and its nine fully-affiliated hospitals receive over CAN $700 million per annum in research funds.

In addition to a record of academic excellence, the successful candidate will possess outstanding leadership, administrative management, and communication skills to direct a geographically-dispersed department. The individual will bring entrepreneurial vision and execute strategies to enable the Department to build and to sustain effective partnerships. Candidates should have a track record of successful and innovative leadership in education and research. The successful candidate should be eligible for tenured academic appointment at the rank of full professor in the Department of Biochemistry. The next Chair must have the vision and ability to take the Department of Biochemistry to a new level of international recognition and achievement.

Applications consisting of a letter of interest and CV may be submitted online at www.jobs.utoronto.ca/faculty (Job # 1101059) or by sending to:

Prof. Catharine Whiteside, Dean
c/o Anastasia Meletopoulos, Academic Affairs Specialist
Office of the Dean, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto
Room 2109, Medical Sciences Building
1 King's College Circle
Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A8, CANADA
Fax: 416 978 1774
anastasia.meletopoulos@utoronto.ca

The closing date for this position is January 31, 2012, or until filled.

For detailed information on the department, visit its Web site at http://www.biochemistry.utoronto.ca.

The University of Toronto is strongly committed to diversity within its community and especially welcomes applications from visible minority group members, women, Aboriginal persons, persons with disabilities, members of sexual minority groups, and others who may contribute to the further diversification of ideas. All qualified candidates are encouraged to apply; however, Canadians and permanent residents will be given priority.

The applications are reviewed by a search committee chaired by the Dean. Other ex officio members are; a Vice-Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, a representative of the Graduate School, and the chair of a cognate department. The committee has an undergraduate from our department and a graduate student in the department. In addition, there are seven professors from our department on the committee. The departmental representatives are split between those in the academic core (on campus) and those who are employed by hospital research institutes but have an academic appointment in our department.

After reviewing all the applications, the search committee draws up a short list of suitable candidates. These candidates are then invited to visit the department and give a seminar on their work. After the seminar they meet with members of the department, faculty, staff, and students in a 45 minute forum where we can ask questions.

This is the stage we're at right now. The candidates will be arriving in a couple of weeks. We have two from Toronto and two from other cities in Canada.

During their visit, the candidates meet with the search committee where they will be asked a series of prepared questions. Each candidate will be asked the same questions. After all four candidates have been interviewed, the search committee will make a recommendation to the Dean. The Dean is not obliged to offer the job to the recommended candidate but it would be highly unusual if she were to ignore the recommendation by the search committee. The committee may decide that none of the candidates are suitable for the job.

Once a candidate has been recommended, the Dean negotiates a deal that the candidate is willing to accept. (Salary, research space, and various benefits to the department are usually on the table.) Negotiations can fail if the demands of the candidate aren't met. In this case, the offer will go to the second choice of the search committee, if there is one.

How does this process compare to other departments and universities?

---

Online Courses: The Great Courses

John Hawks has recently blogged about My foray into online education. He's posted videotapes of the lectures in his anthropology course: Principles of Biological Anthropology.

It's interesting to watch his lectures but I think he's avoiding the key question that concerns me about online courses. The question is, should we be delivering traditional "lectures" to students in our classrooms?

I would never allow anyone to videotape my classroom time and post it on the web. That's because my goal is to involve the students in the class and generate discussion. I don't want them to be intimidated by a camera and I certainly don't want the camera to record for posterity the interactions between students as they discuss the basic concepts and principles that come up in class. Sometimes I have to tell a student that there question was interesting but not on topic or, even worse, that it revealed a serious misunderstanding. Do we really want that posted on the course website?

Sometimes (often?) I say something really stupid. It's part of the risk we take when we have a course like the one I'm describing. These are not prepared and rehearsed lectures.