While surfing the Web I noticed DonaldM providing links pointing to talk.origins FAQ on speciation and asking for help understanding how this squares with ID.

Way to go, Donald!

To provoke thinking.

In this case, to provoke thinking about what we are saying before we say it.

To me, its beginning to look like you want to provoke just to provoke. Are you seriously implying that we aren't thinking about what we're saying?

What's your point, TP?

To provoke thinking.

In this case, to provoke thinking about what we are saying before we say it.

DonaldM just said the wrong thing at the wrong time (while only slightly off center from reality, it was still "pushing the facts").

What's your point, TP? Frankly, I don't see it. Are you here just to play mind games, because it sure is beginning to look like it!

This is when group-think takes over with each person trying to outdo the other in explaining how bad it was. When Bradford said "twice", my internal thoughts were "I didn't know that", and went to confirm it. What I found was Francis Beckwith himself correcting Denyse O'Leary on how the appeal was still in process and he had not been denied. My opinion of Beckwith shot up 1000%.

While I probably should have just relayed that information in the first place, I was still a little taken aback some hoop-jumping Bradford put me through, so I challenged him. I said it once, I will say it again. Bradford responded very well to that challenge.

DonaldM just said the wrong thing at the wrong time (while only slightly off center from reality, it was still "pushing the facts").

The facts are only the Provost and the President can reverse a previously denied Tenure. Only the Provost or the President can deny a Tenure appeal.

Here is a link to the Baylor's Faculty Promotion Policy…
http://www.baylor.edu/provost/...

[Beckwith] was denied tenure several months ago but appealed that denial. The committee reconsidered and took a second vote, which was apparently 6-5 against giving him tenure, much closer than the first vote. And now Lilley has overruled that vote and decided to give him tenure after all.

And here's something edarell should pay attention to:

Frankly, I don't think any of this really had much to do with either [Beckwith's] abilities as a teacher or his work as a scholar. He is caught up in an ongoing political and religious battle over the direction of Baylor University, and he represents the more orthodox religious side of things. It's a battle that has been going on for many years at Baylor, and will likely go on for many more. I don't know anything about his teaching skills, but my understanding is that is generally very highly rated by his students as a teacher. But I've read a good deal of his scholarship and, while I disagree with almost all of it, I think it's important to bear in mind that the standards by which legal scholarship is judged are quite different from how, say, scientific publications are judged.

There are plenty of legal scholars that I disagree with completely that I cannot imagine being denied tenure at any university (Robert Bork, Robert George, etc). It's not enough to say "I think they're wrong, therefore they don't deserve tenure"; by that standard, no one would ever get tenure. Like those men, Beckwith is a prominent advocate for his position and regardless of whether I agree with that position, by the standards of legal scholarship, they would generally be granted tenure on the basis of their scholarship. And I fear for academic freedom if we're going to make disagreement the standard for deciding who can and can't be fired.

Bradford responded with…

Looks like you are right. Beckwith was apparently twice reviewed but only denied the first time. Here are two takes on the matter:

http://reformclub.blogspot.com...

http://www.pearceyreport.com/a...

Bradford, you surprised me (in a good way).
This was the perfect response to my baiting you.

DonaldM, on the other hand, just had to push the facts with…

The second vote was, for all intents and purposes, an even split. That put the ball in the court of the PResident and the PRovost.

Donald, are you sure the Tenure appeal wasn't always up to the Provost and then the President regardless of what the committee recommended?

DonaldM: Then there are others that I personally know, who choose to remain anonymous to avoid further problems, who have been singled out precisely because they question Dariwinism.

Maybe they've been singled out because they weren't producing any new data in the process of testing THEIR OWN hypotheses.

That's the way science is evaluated. The gold standard is producing new knowledge, not essays critiquing others.

Looks like you are right. Beckwith was apparently twice reviewed but only denied the first time. Here are two takes on the matter:

It's a little more complicated than that. In the first review, he was denied tenure by the tenure review committee. He appealed. The second vote was, for all intents and purposes, an even split. That put the ball in the court of the PResident and the PRovost. The result being, they decided to award tenure after reviewing all the facts of the review process.

By my count, that leaves it at 0 for those persecuted for their ID views.

Look at the way Baylor treated Dembski, for starters. Then there are others that I personally know, who choose to remain anonymous to avoid further problems, who have been singled out precisely because they question Dariwinism. You speak in ignorance on this subject.