Subjectivity and Tenure
by MikeGeneBiologist PZ Myers wants us to understand why Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure.
The tenured faculty at the university then get together in a big meeting and discuss everything in painful detail. Do the outside reviewers think well of the applicant? Is this person an enthusiastic contributor to university governance? Is there promise of interesting work to come? Do we want to spend the rest of our working lives side by side with this person? The final decision is a subjective evaluation of the compatibility of the individual with the other scholars of the department. (empahsis not added)
Thus, according to Myers, the decision to grant tenure is a subjective judgment that is made behind closed doors. That subjective judgment calls play a key role in tenure decisions is something that has been claimed by several critics of ID from academia.
Consider some examples below the fold:
I guess you could say it sucks that the process of gaining tenure is such a political crap shoot, but since it is (and probably always will be) that way, then being denied tenure on the basis that you have knowingly given aid and succor to the forces of anti-science is as good a reason as any.
Here
Ultimately a tenure decision by one's department, comes down to "do I want to work with this person for the next two decades?" It is never based solely on their research output. Here.
But really, I can't see any committee overlooking things like the publication of a pseudoscientific book with a press like Regnery. I don't think there should be any question that his pro-ID views played a role, as of course they should have in a science department. Here
There are some pretty clear guidelines for AAUP tenure procedures. It isn't supposed to come down to a whim or a personality clash. It's supposed to be abou fair, honest evaluation of a person's scholarly record and teaching record, weighted according to the needs of that particular institution. That's it, end of story.
Again, I don't know about the Gonzales situation. I'm sick of the academic culture that encourages and winks at personal retribution, violations of academic freedom, breach of promises, bad faith actions as being "that's just the way it goes".
All I can say is I'm grateful I have tenure and teach in a unionized environment. Here
I tell junior colleagues that tenure comes down to a decision on "Do I want this person down the hall for the rest of my career?" Here
Whether someone is likely to turn into an embarassment, an annoyance or a distraction to a department or his colleagues is a perfectly valid thing to consider in hiring or tenure decisions. Here
And here's something else they won't say: people get denied for tenure every single day, all over the country, for a million different reasons, some fair and some unfair. Here
May 14th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
I noticed this comment too.
So whatever you do it was because an IDist forced it upon you.
Comment by Bradford — May 14, 2007 @ 9:27 pm
May 14th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
The disclaimer argument is silly. Would we really need to provide the myriad of examples of professors around the country who argue for weird things yet don't have disclaimers on their university pages? For example, here's a kook who thinks the US government was behind 911. Do you see a disclaimer?
Or consider this:
If those in academia want to single out ID for disclaimers, they have established the principle of a willingness to distance themselves from unpopular views. Thus, it becomes fair to associate other unpopular views with schools and departments that lack the will to make disclaimers for those views.
Comment by MikeGene — May 14, 2007 @ 9:57 pm
May 14th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Hi MikeGene,
Mike, if Lehigh University is the only University which has singled out ID for disclaimers, it is fallacious to say that they have created a standard by which all other universities must be judged.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 14, 2007 @ 10:31 pm
May 14th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
You forgot that Gonzalez's school and Minnich's school also issued public statements distancing themselves from ID. Anyway, I don't think universities exist as isolated little islands. They are all part of the "academic community." Thus, if one (or a few) schools are willing to dissociate themselves from an unpopular idea, yet can still be viewed as members of a community that uphold academic freedom, then other members of that community should be associated with unpopular ideas they refuse to distance themselves from.
There are very good reason to place great value on academic freedom, so don't start whining when the fallout occurs as universities begin to chip away at it.
Comment by MikeGene — May 14, 2007 @ 10:43 pm
May 14th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Let me say one more thing, and then I'm done.
I read both Pharyngula and Dispatches regularly, and I consider both Ed and PZ invaluable writers in their own field of expertise, as well as entertaining. However, neither, and let me put this as delicately as I can, neither lets their unfamiliarity with a subject overly inhibit them from expressing a strong opinion about it.
Ed is a businessman, and PZ teaches at a 4 year college. Neither has ever cast a tenure vote at a research university. What they know about tenure decisions, therefore is what they've read, and what people have told them. And the people who write about tenure votes are mostly people who've had negative ones, and are obviously disposed to seek explanations that are not unfavorable to themselves. People who are actually present at tenure discussions are not supposed to talk about them with any specificity, and some of us actually take that injunction seriously.
Frankly, my reaction at reading the Pharyngula and Dispatches posts about this case, and most of the comments on those threads, is 'Save us from our friends!' Contrary to what has been said, and with a couple of exceptions, my colleagues do not allow personal likes or dislikes overly influence their decisions, and they try to objectively weight the file to the best of their abilities. We all of us weigh different parts of the file differently; I tend to read papers carefully and look at funding, and discount recommendation letters; others go entirely on the letters. But overall, I think the process, as far as I have participated in it, has been fair, and it has worked well.
And I have every expectation the same fairness applied to the decision at Iowa State.
Comment by Gerard S Harbison — May 14, 2007 @ 11:11 pm
May 14th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Aagcobb wrote:
What are you blethering about? Who said anything about Lehigh establishing a 'standard'?
A standard and a precedent are not one and the same thing.
Btw, I've always wanted to ask but was afraid to do so: what is an 'EA'?
Comment by stunney — May 14, 2007 @ 11:17 pm
May 14th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Evangelical atheist
Comment by Bradford — May 14, 2007 @ 11:20 pm
May 14th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Hi Gerald,
You speak for yourself and I am quite willing to take you at your word. Furthermore, I'm also willing to accept your impressions about your colleagues. But the problem is that many other members from academia are telling a different story. And don't forget that Myers, who is part of academia, has told us how he would vote for tenure.
BTW, here's another one:
(see comments section)
Comment by MikeGene — May 14, 2007 @ 11:26 pm
May 14th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Mike:
Well, you know what part of the body opinions are like.
Comment by Gerard S Harbison — May 14, 2007 @ 11:32 pm
May 14th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Talking about what degree of wackoheadity merits the refusal of tenure, I frequently marvel at the ludicrousness of the oft-made claim that religious believers are for most part given to far greater degrees of irrational weirdity than are atheists.
Mostly because of this kind of mindbogglingly surreal absurdity:
And they say we're nuts….:roll:
Btw, Bradford, thanks for the heads-up on the meaning of 'EA'. I feel sure it will come in useful in the years ahead.
Comment by stunney — May 14, 2007 @ 11:46 pm
May 15th, 2007 at 12:13 am
Hi MikeGene,
I don't think academic freedom means that academia can't identify utter dreck when they see it. I think you have correctly identified a problem in that political correctness seems to keep acadmia from criticizing certain kinds of dreck. That doesn't mean the solution is to surrender to dreck in every single field, completely abandon all standards and give people peddling dreck tenure precisely because they are peddling dreck.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 15, 2007 @ 12:13 am
May 15th, 2007 at 12:23 am
Hi Aagcobb,
Academia can either stand by academic freedom or pick and choose the dreck it wants to distance itself from. If it chooses the latter, then the dreck that it chooses not to distance itself from becomes the dreck that legitimately defines academia.
Sorry Aagcobb, but if they insist on pissing all over academic freedom, that's the world they bought themselves. Y'can't defend yourself with "academic freedom" when you've shown a willingness, nay eagerness, to abandon it.
Comment by MikeGene — May 15, 2007 @ 12:23 am
May 15th, 2007 at 6:19 am
More:
Comment by MikeGene — May 15, 2007 @ 6:19 am
May 15th, 2007 at 8:30 am
Instead of fighting to get into a department that doesn't want him, Gonzalez should be trying to get into a different position, one that is a better match to his talents and goals. There may be some understandable reluctance to pursue that, since his next step is something like Liberty University or Bob Jones University"”he'd fit in well in those kinds of places, and would probably be a shoo-in for tenure.
PZM's summary seems reasonable: There are quite a few schools around the world that would jump at the chance to employ Mr Gonzalez. Ultimately denying him tenure will probably benefit both Gonzales and his former employer.
Gonzales will most likely find tenure at a university that appreciates his ID research. His former employer no longer has to worry about retaining a researcher of whom the majority of his peers believe is doing bad science.
Comment by salimfadhley — May 15, 2007 @ 8:30 am
May 15th, 2007 at 8:50 am
Hi salim,
Thank you for adding your vote about the subjective nature of tenure decisions. It looks like Gerald is in the minority on this one.
I have already debunked this type of excuse.
Comment by MikeGene — May 15, 2007 @ 8:50 am
May 15th, 2007 at 8:52 am
Hi MikeGene,
Can there be no balance between academic freedom and having standards? Is academic freedom only possible if every associate professor receives automatic lifetime tenure upon hire? How would you solve the problem, Mike?
Comment by Aagcobb — May 15, 2007 @ 8:52 am
May 15th, 2007 at 9:16 am
Hi Aagcobb,
What problem? Academia has been quite successful with academic freedom throughout the years. The problem will come when it begins to walk away from it because then the universities can be viewed as endorsing/supporting all controversial views held by their faculty.
Comment by MikeGene — May 15, 2007 @ 9:16 am
May 15th, 2007 at 9:21 am
Hi MikeGene,
How many universities are there in the US, Mike? You have identified a total of three that have made some kind of statement distancing themselves from the ID beliefs of members of their faculty. Seems a little threaty to me.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 15, 2007 @ 9:21 am
May 15th, 2007 at 9:39 am
Hi Aagcobb,
It doesn't matter; it's called precedent. The academic community has established it is both willing and able to distance itself from the unpopular views of a faculty member. Are you aware, for example, that Hector Avalos has a socio-political agenda and has declared himself part of a movement? Has ISU distanced themselves from this movement and had him put a disclaimer on his university web page?
Comment by MikeGene — May 15, 2007 @ 9:39 am
May 15th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Hi MikeGene,
As an attorney, I know something about precedent. In the law, an opinion is only binding if its published by a superior court. I'm guessing Harvard and CalTech would be surprised to learn that they are bound by the actions of Iowa State.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 15, 2007 @ 10:13 am
May 15th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Hi Aagcobb,
I'm not talking about the law; I'm talking about principle. Academia can either stand by academic freedom or pick and choose the dreck it wants to distance itself from. If it chooses the latter, then the dreck that it chooses not to distance itself from becomes the dreck that legitimately defines academia.
Comment by MikeGene — May 15, 2007 @ 10:20 am
May 15th, 2007 at 11:03 am
At this point, I think one can only come to the conclusion that establishment science is as corrupt and unable to evaluate claims of teleology fairly, as the Catholic Church was corrupt and unable to evaluate the Copernican theory fairly.
It's probably time for teleologists to give up on the hope of getting any kind of fair hearing in academia and create their own institutions of science, just as the scientists of the seventeenth and eighteenth century were forced to give up on any kind of fair hearing from the religious authorities and created independent institutions with which to conduct their affairs.
Let the a-teleologists cling to their dogmas of a random, purposeless, unconscious and blind Cosmos. Let them use their dogmas to control which ideas are allowed to be expressed, and what research results are considered acceptable. Those who see something more than a blind, dead, unconscious, mechanistic, purposeless universe can create their own institutions, grants, schools, publications, research etc. And I think we will find that the public who is less steeped in the dogmas of a-teleology will gradually gravitate to those scientists whose worldview is in consonance with their own experience of life, rather than those whose dogmas preclude any reality to it.
In the end, the prestige will follow those whose worldview is able to explain what people experience. Reductionistic science has done a good job at enabling technology. However it has utterly failed to provide any convincing explanation of our purposiveness, our spirituality, our sense of meaning in life and in the evolutionary story and our very consciousness itself. So let's engage those aspects of reality enthusiastically and wholeheartedly, and leave the naysaying nihilists in their dogmatic asperger's worldviews and institutions, just as the pioneers of scientific inquiry abandoned attempts to conduct their research within the confines of the institutions of the Church.
Comment by mcromer — May 15, 2007 @ 11:03 am
May 15th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
mcromer,
I think this would be an unfortunate event. It would create "us and them" mentality in science and it would ultimately choke the progress of it. Each camp would, I expect, create extremely dogmatic view (mostly with negative argumentation) that would be imposed on research data. Instead of one failed paradigm we would have been locked into two.
I can give example of my denomination that operates over 100 Tertiary Institutions (enrolment over 100 000), over 1400 Secondary Schools and over 5300 Primary Schools. In spite of this network it is still scientifically marginalised (except, perhaps, in Medical Sciences).
Open market of ideas are the best place that all flavours of ID should compete and I have no doubt that it will be accepted, at least in part by, so called, mainstream Universities.
Comment by inunison — May 15, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
May 15th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Hi mcromer,
I wholeheartedly agree, and in fact the teleologists have already started. There are universities, institutes and seminaries aplenty to support them in their work.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 15, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
May 15th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Of course the marketplace of ideas needs to be open.
What I am suggesting is that scientists with telic points of view should be establishing their own journals, seeking financial support from likeminded philanthropists, writing blogs, doing research etc.
You simply aren't going to get a fair hearing among the closeminded people who run most university science departments.
Examples of people doing this already include: the Laboratory for advances in consciousness and health at the university of Arizona, the independent Institute of Noetic Sciences in Petaluma California, independent researchers like Rupert Sheldrake, journals like Explore and JCS and JSE that are open to new ideas.
There is something dishonest about trying to get tenure in an institution that collectively spits in your face. Most university science departments have embraced wholeheartedly a reductionistic, materialistic, atheistic and atelic set of beliefs that allow little or no room for dissent. Those who disagree need to stop giving credibility to these institutions that they no longer deserve. There are new institutions out there, new journals, new ways of doing science that do not rely on medieval forms of organization for their power-base. Yes the money and establishment backing is with the dogmatic, sclerotic old-line institutions, but such was the case in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as well, and in the end those dogmatics were shown up. And so it will be again.
Comment by mcromer — May 15, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
May 15th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Although we differ about the value of ID, I think mcromer is exactly right above. If people can't get their ideas heard in existing institutions they need to go out and build new ones, and that is exactly what's happening (you left out the Templeton Foundation and Discovery Institute, two very well-funded places that support this type of work). If there's any actual scientific value there, you may expect their ideas to be eventually absorbed into the mainstream. Or maybe they'll replace the "dogmatic and sclerotic" institutions of actual science, but personally I won't lose much sleep over the possibility.
Comment by mtraven — May 15, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
May 15th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Aagcobb wrote:
I'm not an attorney, though I do have a law degree (albeit it's from the University of Glasgow, founded in 1451 by Pope Nicholas V of happy memory; thus my law degree was granted, even despite the Protestant Reformation, 'per auctoritatem regiam et apostolicam'. So, er, there).
What you say would be relevant if this was a legal precedent. But it's not a precedent of that type. Obviously.
Legal precedents are not the only type of precedent. Obviously.
Comment by stunney — May 15, 2007 @ 4:03 pm
May 15th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Not sure what you mean by "actual science".
Science is a method of investigation, not a set of positions that people are supposed to swear fealty to. All of the names I listed do perform "actual science", ie they publish papers, do original research, etc.
I agree that Templeton should be on the list, as they actually support scientific inquiry and research. Not sure about the Discovery Institute. I am not aware of any research activities they are funding, versus serving as an advocacy organization, although I certainly could be mistaken about that.
Comment by mcromer — May 15, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
May 15th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Thank you for adding your vote about the subjective nature of tenure decisions. It looks like Gerald is in the minority on this one.
First of all, it's Gerard. How many times can you look at a name and continue to mis-spell it? Sheesh.
Second, I suggest you check the contributions of Larry Gilman and Chip Poirot on Dispatches.
And finally, I'd like to second mcromer's suggestion. ID should indeed get together with Rupert Seldrake and the Institute for Noetic Sciences, found its own institutions, and be free of the tyranny of the materialists.
Comment by Gerard S Harbison — May 15, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
May 15th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Hi Gerard,
My mistake. While you probably view me as some eevil IDiot spelling it that way on purpose, I simply did misread it.
Yep, one was so good I had to share it with the TT community.
Back in the old ARN days, I told people that these teleological questions cannot realistically be processed in the scientific community, largely because of the sociological climate. But, IMO, it's not really a good idea for ID people to withdraw into some secluded "institution."
Comment by MikeGene — May 15, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
May 15th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
I agree Mike but think it would not be a bad idea to have a private institution alternative to the DI which would place a premium on setting up and funding research. The long term hope would be that integration of IDists within a larger community would proceed from a position of strength made possible by progress favorable to ID. This, in turn, would make it easier to not have to go hat in hand before hostile administrations.
Comment by Bradford — May 15, 2007 @ 10:38 pm
May 16th, 2007 at 10:23 am
While you probably view me as some eevil IDiot spelling it that way on purpose, I simply did misread it.
No, I read you as someone who couldn't be bothered to get someone's name right. It's annoying.
FWIW, part of my childhood was spent in Northern Ireland. In NI, 'Gerald' is protestant, 'Gerard' is catholic. A one-letter difference could be hazardous to your health in the wrong circumstances. One of those little problems you don't have to deal with, with eeevil materialists.
Comment by Gerard S Harbison — May 16, 2007 @ 10:23 am
May 16th, 2007 at 10:33 am
If I had a nickel for every time someone spelled my name "Krause"…
Comment by Krauze — May 16, 2007 @ 10:33 am
May 16th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Hi
krauseKrauze,At least you don't have a label that reminds people they have to go to the bathroom.
Regards,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 16, 2007 @ 10:42 am
May 16th, 2007 at 10:53 am
No one suggested "withdrawing" into some secluded "institution".
I'm suggesting that ID theorists stop expecting establishment science institutions to treat them fairly, and instead create their own institutions and work with institutions who are not irrevocably hostile to them.
Begging departments and institutions who are absolutely wedded to a blind / random vision of the Cosmos to throw ID a few scraps from the table is the wrong way to go. . .
Comment by mcromer — May 16, 2007 @ 10:53 am
May 16th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Gerard, you write this with an obvious sneer in your words.
However, have you ever read the scientific studies conducted by Rupert Sheldrake or IONS?
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.
Comment by mcromer — May 16, 2007 @ 11:02 am
May 16th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Hi mcromer,
I'm sorry my PC's sneer detector must be malfunctioning, because I wasn't alerted that
Gerald'sGerard's intent wasn't serious.I also fail to see the logic in asking Gerard to become familiar with an area of research you think he feels is worthless. Are you suggesting that it would be a waste of Guillermo Gonzalez's talent to go where he would be appreciated? Gerard's intent may be less than pure, but that doesn't invalidate the suggestion, IMO.
Provoking
P.S. I am somewhat familiar with Rupert Sheldrake's work because I looked into it when putting together my ID/OMA model (found here).
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 16, 2007 @ 11:38 am
May 16th, 2007 at 11:43 am
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:
Comment by Bradford — May 16, 2007 @ 11:43 am
May 16th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
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?
Comment by Gerard S Harbison — May 16, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
May 16th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Of the two individuals that mentioned the name the views of one are basically mainstream. Do you customarily make inferences on small sample sizes?
Comment by Bradford — May 16, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
May 16th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
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.
Comment by Gerard S Harbison — May 16, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
May 16th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
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.
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.
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.
Comment by Bradford — May 16, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
May 17th, 2007 at 6:35 am
Thank you for adding your vote about the subjective nature of tenure decisions. It looks like Gerald is in the minority on this one.
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:
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
Comment by salimfadhley — May 17, 2007 @ 6:35 am
May 17th, 2007 at 6:49 am
Hi Sal,
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:
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:
Indeed.
Comment by MikeGene — May 17, 2007 @ 6:49 am
May 17th, 2007 at 7:34 am
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.
Comment by salimfadhley — May 17, 2007 @ 7:34 am
May 17th, 2007 at 8:26 am
Hi Sal,
LOL.
Comment by MikeGene — May 17, 2007 @ 8:26 am
May 17th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Hi Sal,
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.
Comment by salimfadhley — May 17, 2007 @ 10:29 am