Jerry Bergman Phd?

[kiwimac]

Acts & Facts
Vol. 33 No. 1 January 2004 Online Issue No. 41

Impact #367 (http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-367.htm)
Was Charles Darwin Psychotic? A Study of His Mental Health
Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.*

Introduction
Darwin's many lifelong and serious illnesses have been the subject of much speculation and study for over a century. Darwin stated that his health problems began as early as 1825 when he was only six years old, and became incapacitating around age 28 (Barloon and Noyes, 1997, p. 138). Horan (1979, p. ix) concluded that Darwin was "ill and reclusively confined to his home in Kent for forty years." Darwinian scholar Michael Ruse even concluded that "Darwin himself was an invalid from the age of 30" (2003, p. 1523). And medical doctor George Pickering, in an extensive study of Darwin's illness, concluded that in his early thirties, Darwin became an "invalid recluse" (1974, p. 34). UCLA School of Medicine Professor Dr. Robert Pasnau (1990, p. 123) noted that Darwin also "remained ill almost continually" for the entire five years that he was on his HMS Beagle trip.

Dozens of scholarly articles and at least three books have been penned on the question of Darwin's illness. The current conclusion is that Darwin suffered from several serious and incapacitating psychiatric disorders, including agoraphobia. Agoraphobia is characterized by fear of panic attacks (or actual panic attacks) when not in a psychologically safe environment, such as at home. Darwin, as is common among agoraphobiacs, also developed many additional phobias—being in crowds, being alone, or leaving home unless accompanied by his wife (Kaplan and Sadock, 1990, pp. 958-959).

Agoraphobia is also frequently associated with depersonalization (a feeling of being detached from, and outside of, one's own body), a malady that Darwin also suffered (Barloon and Noyes, 1997, p. 138). A study of Darwin's mental condition by Barloon and Noyes concluded that Darwin suffered from anxiety disorders that so severely impaired his functioning that it limited his ability to leave his home, even just to meet with colleagues or other friends. This diagnosis likely explains his very secluded, hermit-like lifestyle (1997, p. 138). It also helps to explain the title of Desmond and Moore's 1991 biography of Darwin: Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist.

[snip]

*Dr. Bergman is on the Biology faculty at Northwest State College in Ohio.

Comments please?

What is known about Jerry Bergman & his Phd?

Kiwimac

Mod Note: Quoted material shortened and link added. -Rufus

[Jesse]

Well, if you couldn't guess, Jerry Bergman is a creationist, as this (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/j_bergman.asp) answersingenesis page shows. And "Northwest State College" is actually Northwest State Community College (http://www.nscc.cc.oh.us/)...why did they leave "Community" out of the title? Because it doesn't sound as prestigous, I suppose?

By the way, since this is a topic about Darwin and a creationist critic, I think it'd be better off in the evolution & creation forum.

[anthrosciguy]

Also, Talk Origins notes that Bergman's "Ph.D." comes from a diploma mill.

From Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bergman-and-racism.html)

Notice that his degree in "human biology" is from Columbia Pacific University which as discussed in the Some Questionable Creationist Credentials FAQ is a diploma mill. Quackwatch documents that it has been shut down.

[Jackalope]

A whole lot of things in that article pegged my bullshit meter. But the bit about being excited about hunting (a normal occupation for his social class at that time) being evidence of sadistic impulses is what really got me. That, and the fact that he mentions twice the theory that Darwin's symptoms were born of guilt and fear that there was a real divine creator. Let's see, what else smells like BS to me:
his definition of agoraphobia is off (in fact, the way it's worded it doesn't make sense)
"treading on air and vision" WTF? I'm not sure what the author even meant here. It's certainly not part of any commonly-used clinical descriptions.

The physical symptoms included headaches, cardiac palpitations, ringing in ears (possibly tinnitus), painful flatulence, and gastric upsets—all of which commonly have a psychological origin (Pasnau, 1990).
Which is a nice theory, but we're finding more and more that panic attacks and a number of GI disturbances have real, physical causes. Bergman is trying to set Darwin up to look like a hypochondriac. What many non-clinicians misss is that seriously ill people have a heightened body awareness for good reason. Among other things, a health diary is exactly what many doctors ask their patients to do these days in an attempt to document what's going on outside the doctor's office.

Anonther thing non-clinicians often don't understand is that depression is often caused by chronic illness, not the other way around. And most especially during a period when men were expected to be stoic and uncomplaining, being ill all the time would have had the potential to cause extreme depression.

I notice that Bergman's PhD is not in psychology (what a suprise) and he appears to have very little clinical experience in the field. Not the person I'd think was terribly qualified to diagnose case studies. Most especially since his diagnoses are...somewhat eccentric. The point of having a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual was to make sure everyone defines disorders the same way. Bergman has pulled the typical creationist tricks of redefining terms and confusing effects for causes.

edited to add:
For all we know, Darwin could have had Chron's Disease or peptic ulcers, both of which are made worse by stress. Which very well could have caused some of the later disturbances, including agoraphobia. Many people with chronic illnesses become afraid to venture away from home, where they can at least manage their symptoms in a fairly controlled manner.

[Happy Wonderer]

Of course the appropriate response to this is "so what?" Although it may make creationists feel better to think of Darwin as a tortured soul (on earth) it has absolutely no relevance to the power of his theory. He happened to have the right idea long before there was the kind of experimental evidence that we have today. It is not necessary for him to be some sort of superman; there were lots of equally smart guys with theories that didn't work out. This is one of the silliest counter-arguments, essentially "Darwin was not God." If Jesus suffered from chronic diarrhea that would be one thing, but nobody makes the claim of divinity for Darwin.

Lots of very smart people who have advanced humanity's knowledge have suffered from both physical and mental problems. It is called being human, and I hate to break it to the young'uns but youall are incredibly unlikely to get out of this life without suffering some major defect (unless you leave early.)

Note also that a sufferer of diarrhea may reasonably not want to travel very far...

hw

[Jackalope]

Actually, the point of the article was to try and insinuate that Darwin was a tortured soul because he secretly feared that he'd dethroned a real, divine creator. Not even a very subtle attempt, actually. But most non-wary readers would get distracted by all the superflous details Bergman has put in there.

[Albion]

I think it's to Darwin's credit that he could get so much good work done while being ill all the time. Rather him than me, that's for sure!

Gwen Raverat's autobiography, "Period Piece," seems to describe most of the Darwin family as making quite a hobby out of illness (she was one of Charles Darwin's granddaughters), so either it ran in the family or physical weakness was just a lot more common then, what with the arsenic-laced wallpaper and lead-based paint that all the houses were full of. Whatever the cause, I doubt that Darwin's whole family were tormented agnostic evolutionists, so it seems strange to single him out from among a family full of ill people. And considering the length of time he'd spent in remote parts of the world handling dead animals, it wouldn't be beyond the realms of the possible for him to have picked up some sort of chronic parasitic or viral illness, unlike all the sick aunts and uncles.

[RufusAtticus]

I don't know about Darwin, but Bergman definately seems rather paranoid with his acussations that the "evolutionists" were out to get him because he didn't join their conspiracy. He sued Bowling Green University for not granting him tenure, claim his creationist religious beliefs were discriminated by the mean evolutionists.

[theyeti]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember hearing that Darwin probably picked up a number of endoparasites while touring around in South America. Many of the symptoms he has sound like what you'd expect from ameobiasis or any one of a number of nematode infections.

As for what Bergman is trying to make out of it.... typical creationist. What would these people do if ad hominems were suddenly rendered impermissable? What would they have left?

theyeti

[pangloss]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
I don't know about Darwin, but Bergman definately seems rather paranoid with his acussations that the "evolutionists" were out to get him because he didn't join their conspiracy. He sued Bowling Green University for not granting him tenure, claim his creationist religious beliefs were discriminated by the mean evolutionists.

Which is odd, considering that he taught math there. Of course, he told David Duke's organization that it was reverse discrimination because he is white. I remember reading somewhere - so it is all hearsay, of course - that one of the factors was the fact that he was gone so often attending creationist meetings and such and his pu8blications were all in creationist magazines.

Though, pertaining to earlier questions, he does have at least one legit PhD from my alma mater, Wayne State University, in something called 'testing and evaluation' or something like that. I assume it was from the math department of maybe education?

[Godot]

Originally posted by Jackalope
Actually, the point of the article was to try and insinuate that Darwin was a tortured soul because he secretly feared that he'd dethroned a real, divine creator. Not even a very subtle attempt, actually. But most non-wary readers would get distracted by all the superflous details Bergman has put in there. But such wholesale character assassination is ludricrous! It in no way affects the ToE and only serves to place creationists in an even worse light.

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by pangloss
Though, pertaining to earlier questions, he does have at least one legit PhD from my alma mater, Wayne State University, in something called 'testing and evaluation' or something like that. I assume it was from the math department of maybe education?

I looked it up one time and his degree was from the Education School.

[Steve_F]

To play devils advocate, it seems a little hypocritical to question the credentials of creationists when we spend so much time refuting the allegation that Darwin 'recanted' the theory of evolution on his death bed.

It doesn't matter what a persons qualifications are as long as the theory they put forth is sound. Unfortunately for creationists it, er, isn't.

[NialScorva]

Originally posted by Steve Forden
To play devils advocate, it seems a little hypocritical to question the credentials of creationists when we spend so much time refuting the allegation that Darwin 'recanted' the theory of evolution on his death bed.

It doesn't matter what a persons qualifications are as long as the theory they put forth is sound. Unfortunately for creationists it, er, isn't.


Well, Creationists make qualifications an issue. I don't think most of us really care what the creationist's credentials are, but if they're going to attack the qualifications of others or wave a store-bought peice of paper around like a battle flag, then a refutation is in order.

It's not that a fake degree makes their arguments bad, it's that it shows a wanton disregard for academic integrity that can't help but color their arguments.

[anthrosciguy]

Originally posted by Steve Forden
To play devils advocate, it seems a little hypocritical to question the credentials of creationists when we spend so much time refuting the allegation that Darwin 'recanted' the theory of evolution on his death bed.

It doesn't matter what a persons qualifications are as long as the theory they put forth is sound. Unfortunately for creationists it, er, isn't.

Your first paragraph -- one thing doesn't follow from the other -- it isn't hypocritical to question their credentials because we spend that time; it might be considered to be a waste of time, but not hypocrisy.

It is true that credentials are unimportant compared to whether or not the argument is sound, but that's not really quite the issue either. It's whether or not they are being deliberately deceptive, which is relevant. I would say that if someone prominently displays credentials that don't apply in a field (like engineering credentials when the question is biology) that is somewhat but not horribly deceptive. But when they prominently display credentials that come from a diploma mill, that is being deliberately and extremely deceptive, and so is apropos (and important) since it is part of demonstrating their dishonest methods.

[pangloss]

Originally posted by Steve Forden
To play devils advocate, it seems a little hypocritical to question the credentials of creationists when we spend so much time refuting the allegation that Darwin 'recanted' the theory of evolution on his death bed.

It doesn't matter what a persons qualifications are as long as the theory they put forth is sound. Unfortunately for creationists it, er, isn't.

Well, yes and no.

If credentials were so unimportant, we should wonder why creationists expend so much time and energey embellishing and inventing their own. Look at Sarfati.

Of course, I like to use credentials as a filter of sorts. I see little reason to give much weight to the musings of an electrical engineer when I could be dissecting the claims of an actual biologist. The fallacy of the outsider is relied too heavily upon by creationists. They want everyone to think that 'outsiders' can make major 'discoveries'/analyses of data/evidence that 'insiders' can't because of their 'paradigm.'

The tiome when an outsider could make contributions to a technical science are pretty much over.

[Sr. Zonules]

well, you know what they call someone who graduates from med school at the bottom of the class....



...doctor. :D

sorry, I just thought that seems like an appropriate joke

-Z

[Roland98]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Bowling Green University

That's the one that should have "State" inserted in the title. Maybe he was just confused...


[Edit: and pangloss, you probably remember when this guy was discussed here (http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum11/HTML/000068-2.html#21) on EvC forum--where he also put "Northwest State College" as his institution.]

[Skydancer]

Originally posted by Steve Forden
To play devils advocate, it seems a little hypocritical to question the credentials of creationists when we spend so much time refuting the allegation that Darwin 'recanted' the theory of evolution on his death bed.

It doesn't matter what a persons qualifications are as long as the theory they put forth is sound. Unfortunately for creationists it, er, isn't.

Point of semantics, here. It does matter what your qualifications are - it doesn't matter what your credentials are. Qualifications can be demonstrated by showing that you have a grasp of the subject and can construct logical, well-reasoned, and well-supported arguments. Waving faked credentials around in lieu of demonstrating qualification is both arrogant and fraudulent. Guess which side of the discussion does that most often?