LOL.

Are you laughing because you do not think the ID community will ever publish research that seems credible to the tenured staff of mainstream faculties (i.e. not the Discovery Institute or Bob Jones)?

ISU's Science faculty, for example is not (as somebody here suggested) a "whackjob" faculty full of anti-theism extremists.

It might be fairer to describe them as scientific conservatives who do not particularly want to be associated with a field of research that at best is considered highly radical and speculative, and at worst may be considered my many researchers to be utter nonsense.

I'm sure that even you do not doubt that the scientific consensus is very strongly anti-ID and has not substantially shifted towards ID in the last 10 years.

When(If), ID scientists start publishing credible research that starts to directly address the core-claims made by proponents of ID, there are faculties that might want to host this kind of research.

LOL.

Given the crucial role that tenure plays in shaping science, the newly admitted subjective nature of such decisions brings a fresh focus on this criticism of ID. That, and something else you wrote:

The subjective nature of a ISU's appointments system says nothing at all about the fundamental claims and quality of ID research. BJU probably has a comparable system.

The fact that there are very few tenured pro-ID researchers should confirm that most science faculties do not consider ID to be an interesting field of inquiry. There are more then enough job opportunities for Christian biologists in the few faculties that are actively involved in ID research. BJU (for example) is currently advertising for exclusively Christian biologists to come and join their faculty.

As things stand, most scientists I know (and I believe the majority of science researchers world-wide) do not accept ID. The consensus (as correctly reported in Dover) is that ID is not science.

When(If), ID scientists start publishing credible research that starts to directly address the core-claims made by proponents of ID, there are faculties that might want to host this kind of research.

ISU science faculty is typical of conservative faculties that would no more wish to associate it'self with ID as it would with other extreme outsider sciences such as UFOlogy and parasychology.

Like I said, tenure is a pretty subjective thing by design. Do not complain that it is subjective"¦ that is how it is supposed to be.

I'm not complaining. I'm observing. And it seems fairly clear that your position is something of a consensus view.

Given these new data, in due time we'll have to revisit one of the most powerful anti-ID arguments that even made its way into the Dover decision:

it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.

Given the crucial role that tenure plays in shaping science, the newly admitted subjective nature of such decisions brings a fresh focus on this criticism of ID. That, and something else you wrote:

It will probably hard for this guy to get funding no matter how good his research was because a simple Google search for his name would find plenty of references to ID. I'm sure many of you here consider it to be a valid and important scientific theory, but many people in professional science consider it to be an absurd embarrassment.

Indeed.

I have already debunked this type of excuse.

Like I said, tenure is a pretty subjective thing by design. Do not complain that it is subjective… that is how it is supposed to be.

To draw an analogy, not loving or respecting somebody is a pretty good excuse not to get married to somebody. Not respecting somebody's value as a scientist is a pretty good reason for not wanting to spend the rest of your working life with them.

The DI are currently linking to a page where over 100 members of Gonzales faculty publicly criticized him. It does not seem to me that he was a particularly liked or respected scientist at ISU.

I like Wikipedia's summary:

The [Discovery] institute's public relations campaign also makes the same claims of discrimination as the campaign it conducted on behalf of institute Fellow Francis J. Beckwith when he was initially denied tenure at Baylor University. "I believe that I fully met the requirements for tenure at ISU," said Gonzalez,[4] to which intelligent design critic PZ Myers said "Complaining that one met all the requirements is like proposing marriage, getting turned down, and then protesting that one has a good job, a nice apartment, and excellent personal hygiene. That may be true, but it's irrelevant."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...(astronomer)

The comparison to marriage seems appropriate. Gonzales is complaining that it's really unfair that ISU does not love him enough in the hope that they will change their mind and accept his marriage proposal.

The sad fact is that many really good scientists get denied tenure all the time. Lots of people fail to marry their sweet-hearts. This is not new, nor is it controversial.

A further question: Are there any avowed dawkinsesque atheists who have tenure at Bob Jones university? I'm not familiar with their tenure process, but I would expect that BJU offer tenure to the sort of people who accept BJU's mainly Christian world-view. BJU are not obliged to offer tenure to anybody that does not fit in with the university's guiding principles and ethos. Somebody like Richard Dawkins could never get tenure at Bob Jones (they DO have a Biology department!)

http://www.bju.edu/academics/c...

Sal

I've long observed that people who espouse one view that is outside the scientific mainstream are often loathe to criticize other views outside the scientific mainstream, even though they themselves might reject those views. I suppose the mentality is 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', but conversely, it does tend to reinforce the idea that one's view really is on the fringe.

In this case the reference was unknown to me and most others I suspect. It's a fringe concern and I'm long past the age when I felt the need to impress others by pointing out every misconception that comes down the pike. I did notice though that MG's citation of Dembski's question was ignored in favor of more petty concerns.

I don't think I've ever heard Behe, for example, criticize Young Earth Creationism, even though his own avowed views on evolution are far closer to PZ Myers than Ken Ham.

That brings up the question as to why Behe is villified despite having acknowledged common descent. It indicates too many on your side of the fence are primarily concerned with excluding an inference which amounts to an interpretation not contradicting any actual data. PZ is every bit as ideological as Ken Ham and more so than Behe.

As a matter of fact, Behe is now acting as a paid expert in a case trying to get YEC textbooks accepted by the UC system. It doesn't help his credibility.

The love of money huh. I notice it when I visit Barnes and Noble and see best sellers in the science section that are as much sociological commentary as actual science.

Of the two individuals that mentioned the name the views of one are basically mainstream. Do you customarily make inferences on small sample sizes?

Ah, but you don't knoww how large my sample is.

I've long observed that people who espouse one view that is outside the scientific mainstream are often loathe to criticize other views outside the scientific mainstream, even though they themselves might reject those views. I suppose the mentality is 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', but conversely, it does tend to reinforce the idea that one's view really is on the fringe.

I don't think I've ever heard Behe, for example, criticize Young Earth Creationism, even though his own avowed views on evolution are far closer to PZ Myers than Ken Ham. As a matter of fact, Behe is now acting as a paid expert in a case trying to get YEC textbooks accepted by the UC system. It doesn't help his credibility.

What I do find interesting is that Sheldrake's ideas can be promoted on this site, apparently without challenge. Why is that?

Of the two individuals that mentioned the name the views of one are basically mainstream. Do you customarily make inferences on small sample sizes?

Attacking research you haven't bothered to familiarize yourself is a sign of dogmatism and bigotry, and is the opposite of a scientific approach. A far worse sin than simply misspelling someone's name.

If there were one thing I wish most advocates of crank research understood about science, it is this: in science, there is a large category of possible phenomena one can exclude on principle, based on our existing understanding of the universe. One doesn't have to do the experiment, which is fortunate, because if we had to start from a tabula rasa on every experiment, we'd get nowhere.

I can reject homeopathy, for example, because of what I know about the atomic and molecular structure of matter. I know that statistically, a solution of 1 mM atropine in a liter of water diluted 25 times, each time with an 10 fold excess of water is just water, that might, conceivably, contain one molecule of atropine. And I know, contrary to the homeopaths, that the configuration of the water molecules has a 'memory' that lasts a fraction of a nanosecond, and so there is now way the past presence of atropine could possibly influence the present water.

What I do find interesting is that Sheldrake's ideas can be promoted on this site, apparently without challenge. Why is that?

Attacking research you haven't bothered to familiarize yourself is a sign of dogmatism and bigotry, and is the opposite of a scientific approach. A far worse sin than simply misspelling someone's name.

mcromer, bear in mind there is no such thing as sin. You improvise right and wrong as you go along. So a little sarcasm is OK when you arrogate the right to determine what merits respect and what does not. OTOH, unintentionally screwing up consonants in a name- now that's just cause for rightous indignation.:wink: