Did OK on the Asvab? SATs? YOU TOO are therefore an uberexpert on all things scientific!

*UPDATED MARCH 26*
Scroll to the bottom


Pooua (aka Richard Alexander) is a creationist. He works with lasers (an AAS degree).

On a forum discussing the creationist propaganda movie, 'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed', he wrote:

"I have seen this play out for 25 years. This is the way that evolutionists behave. When I take standardized tests that show that I am in the top few percent of the nation in scientific literacy, and yet am told constantly that I am scientifically ignorant simply because I dispute evolutionary theory."

I emailed and asked him what tests he was referring to, he replied:

I have been administered several standardized IQ and aptitude tests. The first
such tests that I recall were administered to me when I was in 7th or 8th Grade,
though I don't know the specific results (other than it showed that I tested 3
or 4 years beyond my grade level in a private school). I was tested for and was
admitted to the Gifted and Talented program in high school (which also
established my IQ as 132, just barely high enough to qualify for Mensa, though I
never joined); I still have a photocopy of the results of those tests (I was
administered a battery of standardized IQ tests). I also took the military ASVAB
each year in high school. It routinely placed me above 99% of all the people who
took the test. I also took a standardized aptitude test administered by the NM
employment commission, which showed that I had the aptitude for any job they had
indexed. Of course, I took the SAT and ACT, but my scores on the SAT weren't
fantastic enough to merit any special award; I scored fairly well on the ACT (I
don't remember the specific numbers just now, and I don't have time to look them
up at the moment). So, I have taken more than a half-dozen standardized IQ and
aptitude tests over the years, and almost always scored in the top few percent
of the nation.

See? THAT is why this creationist's opinions on evolution should be taken seriously - he did good on the ASVAB!

Now, none of those standardized tests have any real bearing on one's scientific aptitude - that is just Richard puffing himself up, as these folks often do.
He, of course, insisted that both the ACTs and SATs do in fact test for scientific aptitude, but I suspect that anyone who has taken such tests can tell you that they do no such thing.
Pooua quickly became unhinged and began ranting - it was pretty funny. At one point, after I had mentioned that I went on to earn a doctorate in the sciences, he said it didn't matter much since what it takes to get such a degree is not standardized and measured nationally. He gave me tacit permission to publish our exchange, so, here it is thus far, oldest first (I edited my many typos and changed some formatting to make reading smoother):

*********************************************
2/14/08

Hi there,
Did you write this:

"I have seen this play out for 25 years. This is the way that evolutionists behave. When I take standardized tests that show that I am in the top few percent of the nation in scientific literacy, and yet am told constantly that I am scientifically ignorant simply because I dispute evolutionary theory."

If so, I am curious - what standardized tests are you referring to?

Thanks,Doppelganger

****

2/14/08


Yes, I believe I wrote that several weeks to a few months ago.
I have been administered several standardized IQ and aptitude tests. The first such tests that I recall were administered to me when I was in 7th or 8th Grade, though I don't know the specific results (other than it showed that I tested 3 or 4 years beyond my grade level in a private school). I was tested for and was admitted to the Gifted and Talented program in high school (which also established my IQ as 132, just barely high enough to qualify for Mensa, though I never joined); I still have a photocopy of the results of those tests (I was administered a battery of standardized IQ tests).
I also took the military ASVAB each year in high school. It routinely placed me above 99% of all the people who took the test. I also took a standardized aptitude test administered by the NM employment commission, which showed that I had the aptitude for any job they had indexed.
Of course, I took the SAT and ACT, but my scores on the SAT weren't fantastic enough to merit any special award; I scored fairly well on the ACT (I don't remember the specific numbers just now, and I don't have time to look them up at the moment). So, I have taken more than a half-dozen standardized IQ and aptitude tests over the years, and almost always scored in the top few percent of the nation.

Richard

****

2/15/08

Hi,

Ok, so which of those says anything of your scientific abilities? None of those tests have any particularly specific science content, as best I can recall.
I took the ASVAB also, and ranked in the 99th percentile, and one of the questions I distinctly remember asked what came out of an automobile's tailpipe, and the possible answers were: smoke, broken glass, battery acid, and nails. Not exactly a test that scoring well on would rank one up there with Steve Hawking.
You see, I ask because in addition to doing well on the ACT and the GRE and the ASVAB, I went on to earn a doctorate in Anatomy and Cell Biology at a major research institution where my research was on the molecular evolution of Primates, and the usual arguments against evolution I see are, frankly, garbage, and such arguments are frequently accompanied by claims of superior intellect by the arguer.

So, I was just curious. Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

Doppelganger

****

Richard didn't like that response...

****

2/15/08

The SAT and ACT test for scientific literacy. Others simply test for intelligence.
But, thanks for trying to restart in the middle of a discussion I had months ago. You demonstrate exactly what I expect of an evolutionary scientist: arrogance, contempt for others, an obsessive need to destroy the reputation of anyone who doesn't worship evolutionary theory.
That is the reason that evolutionists tell the lie that Creationists are ignorant or stupid. I guess you are telling me that Stephen Hawking is the lower scientific threshold, that anyone not on his academic plateau is unworthy of holding an opinion about science. In my world--the real world--it does not make any practical difference whether evolution explains our origins or not. Like most honest people, I work a job, pay my bills and go about my business.
But, what does matter a lot are ivory tower jerks who think their years in academia make themselves demi-gods. It's really too bad that you have the attitude you do; I was always an enthusiast of science. Now, I am increasingly of the opinion that science can tell us nothing that is worth having the scientists. Instead, I am increasingly interested in politics.

Don't play this game with me, that "I'm a bigger scientist than you are, so your opinions are all dirt."

Richard
****

2/20/08

Hi Richard,

You seem fairly hostile, and your conclusion jumping says much.

But you say the SATs and ACTs measure scientific literacy - I find that interesting because the ETS - the company that makes them and grades them - website says this about the SATs:

The College Board's SAT® Program consists of the SAT Reasoning TestTM and SAT Subject TestsTM. The SAT Reasoning Test is designed to measure critical reading, math, and writing skills needed for academic success in college. The SAT Subject Tests are designed to measure knowledge and skills in particular subject areas.

No mention of scientific literacy. For basic information on the SATs, you can try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT
Similar information comes from the group that does the ACTs:

The ACT® test assesses high school students' general educational development and their ability to complete college-level work.

Again, nothing about scientific literacy. Sorry.

You then yammer on about MY arrogance and all this, yet YOU are the one that embellished your own abilities in an attempt to make your anti-evolution position seem reasonable from a scientific standpoint.
And as for Steve Hawking - I guess you missed the point, which was sort of a joke. No surprise, really, but I would have thought someone with such a high IQ - like you - would have got it.

Your ending rant about 'jerks' like me smacks of pure envy, jealousy, and contempt - all of which I am also used to from creationists who embellish their intellectual 'credentials'. I plan on writing this up ion my blog at some point. Feel free to check it out.http://all-too-common-dissent.blogspot.com/
Take care, Richard. But please stop trying to puff yourself up so much. It makes jerks like me envious...

****

2/20/08


The SAT and ACT have changed much in the 24 years since I took them. The scores aren't even comparable between the old, old set and the new.
BTW, the tests and evaluations of a single college are not a standardized test, so your degree(s) don't show how you compare nationally, either. One simply assumes that a degree from a reputable college means that you are competently knowledgeable in your field, and the better the school's reputation and your placement in it, the better you are. These are not statistical measures.
When you publish my e-mails in your blog--which I figured you would do, whether you told me or not--be sure to mention that I challenge the average layman to take a test of general scientific literacy, covering all fields of science. I guarantee, I will score better than average for any random group of 1,000 people on this Planet. Of course, I expect MIT, Harvard, Yale and science majors in general to do better (or, at least as well as) me; but, I never claimed they wouldn't.
My claim has always been that I am in the top few percentage points of the nation in scientific literacy.

Richard
****
As determined not from any professional performance or educational goals met, mind you - just from his ASVAB scores and such... But no, I am the arrogant one....
****

2/22/08

Hi Richard,

The SAT and ACT have changed much in the 24 years since I took them. The scores aren't even comparable between the old, old set and the new.

I took them about 25 years ago, myself. And yes, there is another section now, and the scoring is not the same, but the content IS basically the same. I don't remember anything specifically about scientific literacy in them at all.

BTW, the tests and evaluations of a single college are not a standardized test, so your degree(s) don't show how you compare nationally, either. One simply assumes that a degree from a reputable college means that you are competently knowledgeable in your field, and the better the school's reputation and your placement in it, the better you are. These are not statistical measures.

True, and the SATs, ACTs, etc. are really only indicative of how well one does taking standardized tests. I have seen students with stellar SAT scores flunk out of Introductory Biology, and I have seen students with SAT scores that barely met our minimum standards for admission get straight As. I also had to take the GRE, and I did exceptionally well, and just this past year, I was recruited to write and review questions for the Biology major field test, so I guess I must have done OK...

When you publish my e-mails in your blog--which I figured you would do, whether you told me or not--be sure to mention that I challenge the average layman to take a test of general scientific literacy, covering all fields of science.

"Legally" I could have put your emails on my blog without your consent, but I would have paraphrased them had I not informed you, and had you insisted that I do not post them, I would not.
You may score above the average layman on these mythical tests, but so what? It is not the opinions of average layman that determine the 'truth' or 'falsity' of something, any more than the opinions of laymen dictate whether or not evolution occurred.
When I have a clogged sink, I call a plumber. When something is wrong with my car, I take it to my mechanic. When I have a question about evolutionary biology, I ask an evolutionary biologist. What I do NOT do is seek out an average layman who boasts of doing well on standardized tests.
That is not arrogance, that is common sense.

I guarantee, I will score better than average for any random group of 1,000 people on this Planet. Of course, I expect MIT, Harvard, Yale and science majors in general to do better (or, at least as well as) me; but, I never claimed they wouldn't. My claim has always been that I am in the top few percentage points of the nation in scientific literacy.
Richard

Yes, that is your claim, and it seems arrogant and at best specious, based on the 'tests' you referred to and is irrelevant in regards to the "problems" with evolution. What would be more impressive to me is a demonstration of understanding the relevant science at a level necessary to render relevant opinions. For example, on a discussion board I used to frequent, a creationist claiming to possess a doctorate in mathematics once presented what he described as a major problem for evolution, the "no new information" assertion. His entire premise was a quote, a link, and an assertion about how evolution 'can't explain it'.
I asked him to define information in the relevant context. No answer. I asked him to explain why this was a problem. No answer. I asked him to explain how it was he knew that his creationist source's claims had merit. No answer.
There are a multitude of such examples. It is in part why boasts of 'scientific literacy' and the like are irrelevant and pitiful in this so-called debate.
Take care,
Dop
****
2/22/08


"You may score above the average layman on these mythical tests, but so what?"

So, that was essential to the point I was making when I wrote the statements you originally quoted. I wasn't claiming any advanced degrees or super-science or anything like that. I was claiming just what I stated; that, despite proven scientific literacy, evolutionists insist that my rejection of evolutionary origins of humans means that I know nothing about science. But, you are not the first evolutionist to insist that my statement meant that I was assuming false credentials. For reasons that I do not understand, evolutionists have demonstrated a complete incapacity for comprehending the meaning of my statement, even after I explain it to them. That's why I did not try the first few times you wrote. I guess evolutionists really don't care what I say; they want sound bites they can use for their own propaganda.

"It is not the opinions of average layman that determine the 'truth' or 'falsity' of something"

My doctors have been pretty well educated people. From time to time, one of them will give me medicine that makes me ill. It is my job to decide whether to continue taking the meds the docs prescribe or not. And, you know what? Those experts aren't always right. In fact, sometimes--quite often, in fact--they prescribe meds that are inappropriate or even lethal. Biology is an immature field of study. It has been jokingly stated that Biology is a science degree for people who are bad in math. I am not going to get too worked up over what any biologist claims, especially about distant events that he cannot actually witness taking place.

"What would be more impressive to me is a demonstration of understanding the relevant science at a level necessary to render relevant opinions."

You do realize that my quotes were taken from a movie message board, right? I mean, this wasn't a science paper or a debate society or even a science forum, as inadequate as that would be. This was the comment section of a movie website.

You must be a lot of fun at parties.

Richard
****
2/25/08

"You may score above the average layman on these mythical tests, but so what?"

So, that was essential to the point I was making when I wrote the statements you originally quoted. I wasn't claiming any advanced degrees or super-science or anything like that. I was claiming just what I stated; that, despite proven scientific literacy, evolutionists insist that my rejection of evolutionary origins of humans means that I know nothing about science. But, you are not the first evolutionist to insist that my statement meant that I was assuming false credentials. For reasons that I do not understand, evolutionists have demonstrated a complete incapacity for comprehending the meaning of my statement, even after I explain it to them. That's why I did not try the first few times you wrote. I guess evolutionists really don't care what I say; they want sound bites they can use for their own propaganda.

Your statement spoke for itself - it was a means of trying to puff yourself up as if your amazing feats in standardized test taking put you on par with those who have spent years of their lives studying and researchinhg particular subjects. No sense trying to minimize that now. As far as propaganda goes, well, I've been perusing your website, and you seem to have a pretty good lock on that. The exchanges with Dave were very infromative - I'll bet you think you came off pretty well in that exchange, don't you?
I found this statement: "Just because I disagree with your world view does not mean I am ignorant."
Pretty funny, given the context.

"It is not the opinions of average layman that determine the 'truth' or 'falsity' of something"

My doctors have been pretty well educated people. From time to time, one of them will give me medicine that makes me ill. It is my job to decide whether to continue taking the meds the docs prescribe or not. And, you know what? Those experts aren't always right. In fact, sometimes--quite often, in fact--they prescribe meds that are inappropriate or even lethal. I know - I've taught doctors. What does that have to do with a layman's opinions having relevance in technical scientific issues?Biology is an immature field of study. It has been jokingly stated that Biology is a science degree for people who are bad in math. I am not going to get too worked up over what any biologist claims, especially about distant events that he cannot actually witness taking place. Of course. Because only events that can be observed in the here and now are relevant.

Like the Resurrection, or Creation, for example.
As for math, well, our program here requires up through calculus. I did not have to take calculus when I was in school, but I aced statistics and everything up to that.

"What would be more impressive to me is a demonstration of understanding the relevant science at a level necessary to render relevant opinions."

You do realize that my quotes were taken from a movie message board, right? I mean, this wasn't a science paper or a debate society or even a science forum, as inadequate as that would be. This was the comment section of a movie website.


Yes, I do realize that. But a simple search showed me your website. And frankly, the ONLY thing of yours I read from the review site was what I presented to you. But your exchange with Dave has only cemented my initial impression.

You must be a lot of fun at parties.
Richard

Actually, I am, but I fail to see any relevance in writing such a thing.

****
Richard goes full-bore creationist on me:
****

2/25

You confirm what I said the last time; regardless of credentials, education, experience or test scores, you are determined to say whatever you must in an attempt to discredit creationists. But, my statement still stands; I am more scientifically literate than the majority of people (including evolutionists) on this Planet. However, your arrogance and hostility is of the type that I only see from atheists.
Richard
****
3/13/08


Richard,

I am hurt. And confused. The only creationist I discussed at all was... YOU.
You HAVE no credentials of relevance, you HAVE no relevant education or experience, and the test scores you boast of, you misrepresented and they are irrelevant, to boot. I guess you are so mad at me because I was not prone to swooning over your amazing high school standardized test scores - forgive me for not being impressed.

As for arrogance and hostility, well, YOU are the one that seems to think that because you did well on some teenage tests that your opinion is a major blow to evolution; YOU are the one that engaged in unwarranted insults.
So, I guess I'd have to mention the glass houses cliche at this point. I am thinking of delving into your exchange with Dave from Princeton. Your reliance on similarly underqualified professional creationists as your sources of information says much, but it could be fun if I have the time.

Bye.
****

Last exchange thus far.

***************************************************************************

UPDATE

Pooua responded:

You are the one who chose to make a major issue of a simple factual statement that I made on a movie rating forum. You are the one who tried to twist my statement into a proclamation of professional credentials, so that you could then boast of discovering that I had no professional credentials (aka, Strawman Argument).
You are the one who had to hunt me down just so you could tilt at your perceived monsters. For someone who claims to hold advanced science degrees, you are incredibly immature, irrational and clueless. I say again, I know a lot more science than the average, evolution-indoctrinated person does, but so many evolutionists can't handle the fact that someone can be scientifically literate and be a creationist, they try to impugn my intellect. That statement does not mean that I hold a Ph.D. It simply means that evolutionists like to lie a lot about creationists to make themselves feel better.
There are creationists who hold professional credentials, even some in the biological fields. It seems to me that you ought to be writing to them.
Richard

********

Wow. I ask the reader to peruse the previous exchanges and ask yourselves if Richard's hostility and indignation are warranted, and if his interpretation of the exchanges is accurate.

More later.