To Hire or Not to Hire, That is the Question
by MikeGeneBack in 2002, I was posting on the ARN forum and came up with an idea. Since many critics of ID posting on ARN were members of academia, I decided to inquire about their views regarding hiring a colleague who also happened to be associated with ID. Instead of simply asking questions, I used the classroom method where short stories are used to spark small-group discussions.
Here is what I wrote:
In this thread alone, we have ID critics from academia (most are tame compared to some others out there). Let's give them some exercises to hash out on ARN for us to see.
First, let's start with a fact. They are more applicants for research positions in academia than there are positions.
Now, imagine you folks are all in the same university biology department. You are going to fill a tenure-track position in your department. Your department is big, where many different research interests are represented. But you are bringing another person aboard your ship. Here are the scenarios.
Case A: You receive 200 applications for the position. You meet behind closed doors to create a short list. But one day prior to this meeting, someone e-mails you to inform you that Bob Jones, one of your applicants, is an "ID Creationist." They link to the infamous "Wedge strategy" and say little else.
Do you ignore this or follow it up?
Even if you don't follow it up, would you bring this up in the meeting if someone else tried to put Jones on the short list?Case B: You find out that one of the 200 applicants, James Smith, is an ID proponent (Smith did not disclose this on his CV). Yet his only involvement with "ID" is to have a basic agreement with Dembski et al.'s conceptual work about ID (i.e., no political involvement) and he has presented at a few ID conferences. Other than this, Smith's CV looks very good (as do another dozen or so CVs).
Is this discovery sufficient to keep Smith off the short list? Why or why not?
Case C : You are in the final stages of your decision. You narrowed it down to two applicants, Steve and Sam. Both have essentially equivalent experience, the quality of both's research was essentially the same, both speak well, and both are liked. Then, you find out that one applicant, Steve, is an ID proponent the same way James was (in Case B).
Does this tip the decision in favor of Sam? What if it also turns out that Sam is a member of the NCSE?
Okay, so let's see some interesting discussion among you guys.
And here were the replies from people who, at some point before, made it clear they were part of academia:
A situation like that MG proposes would have to be decided on details, e.g. the specific subfield involved, the specific ID claims made (if made in a public setting), and the supportability of those claims. Here's a question for you, Mike: certainly at some point in the creationism-ID continuum you would agree that it would be legitimate to decide against someone. Where is that line? Everyone's got to have a "looney-line" somewhere…where is it for you?
Well, my department has a trap door on the floor behind the conference room lectern, just for "ID creationists". It leads to our alligator moat. We also have IDist-sniffing beagles on staff, for closet cases. For cryin' out loud, Mike, don't start with the vast darwinist conspiracy again.
Mike G. — I think that the answer would actually be quite simple. In most if not all cases the credibility of this person as a scientist would be placed in doubt. This may be sufficient not to consider him/her as a suitable candidate.
But MG's hypotheticals, while perhaps appropriate for an introductory bioethics course, are impoverished caricatures of the real thing.
If I were on the committee, I would strongly argue that anyone advocating ID, or YEC, or any other anti-science/pseudoscience is not a competent biologist.
Don't you love to see Mike Gene spend so much effort of a strawman?
As you can see, the scholars either declared the candidates incompetent as a function of their association with ID or came up with excuses not to publicly address the examples.
August 11th, 2005 at 3:58 pm
What I liked in the responses was that some of the critics poo-poohed the whole idea, accusing you of going after red herrings, while the rest contradicted them by forthrightly saying they would discriminate (meanwhile, nobody actually came out and directly said that they wouldn't).
Comment by Deuce — August 11, 2005 @ 3:58 pm
August 11th, 2005 at 4:16 pm
Well since many critics equate ID=religion, this would be discrimination based on religion or, as in Sternberg's case, perceived religion.
If an zealous applicant got ticked off sufficiently, and a bunch of zealous lawyers participated, they could make life hard for the academics. "Would you knowingly discriminate against an applicant for the religious views? Do you consider ID a religion? Will you therefore discriminate against them based on their religious views?"
Sternberg's case could have indirect bearing on this.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 11, 2005 @ 4:16 pm
August 11th, 2005 at 7:56 pm
If the candidates were, indeed, putting their efforts into church work and political work instead of into research, then yes, it's quite relevant to the research requirements of the department. The failure to do research is not only a "not hire" issue, it's a tenure killer at most institutions.
Now, that entire scenario changes if the candidate does research. You'll notice that Michael Behe, for example, had plenty of research to do right up to the moment he caught the ID virus.
You'd hire a research-failure for a research-required position? That would be malfeasance or misfeasance at a public institution.
Comment by edarrell — August 11, 2005 @ 7:56 pm
August 11th, 2005 at 8:00 pm
And no, it's not religious discrimination — if either, intelligent design isn't religiously related (I guess Salvador is smoked out on that one!), or if the academic post requires research.
I know of no non-theology school related positions that require church work. The replacing research with church work is completely inappropriate, regardless the faith of the offender.
Comment by edarrell — August 11, 2005 @ 8:00 pm
August 11th, 2005 at 10:20 pm
Hmm…
Case A is a figment of an overly-paranoid imagination, I'm afraid. And case C never happens. As we see:
What about case B? So we have a Dr. Smith who has "a basic agreement with Dembski et al.'s conceptual work about ID". This means that Smith might be a cell biologist who agrees with Dembski's idea that a cell is a diffusion-free block of diamond (or some other similar highly-restrictive zone). After all, this model was a central part of Dembski's estimate in NFL for the information content of the flagellum. IOW, it isn't peripheral, but a core feature of Dembski's "conceptual work".
Or Smith might be a protein chemist who agrees with Dembski that proteins are wont to sticky willy-nilly to any old protein in a cell. Randomly and irreversibly. Once again, this model for protein-protein interactions lies at the very core of Dembski's calculation in NFL, a calculation that is trumpeted far and wide as a seminal ID achievement. It's not peripheral, and one who is in "basic agreement with Dembski et al.'s conceptual work about ID" surely must buy into it.
Or maybe Smith is a population biologist who agrees with Dembski and his claim (again, in NFL) that populations with non-zero fractions of individuals of different sexes are inherently unfit and unstable. This was, after all, Dembski's way of rescuing the assertion of CSI in biology from the insult that the random appearance of functional proteins in nature does to it.
The question has to be – can any biologist who is in "basic agreement with Dembski et al.'s conceptual work about ID" be regarded as more able than a biologist who disagrees with Dembski on these (and most all of Dembski's pronouncements on things biological) matters? If all that a search committee has to go on is a "basic agreement with Dembski et al.'s conceptual work about ID" (all other things being roughly equal), then what else can they conclude? And why?
Comment by Art — August 11, 2005 @ 10:20 pm
August 11th, 2005 at 11:36 pm
Hi Art,
Welcome to our humble blog.
You assert that, "Case A is a figment of an overly-paranoid imagination, I'm afraid. And case C never happens." But you might want to consider that these come across as just more excuses. Surely you must realize that these example are intended as hypotheticals. Consider the way that Peter Singer, and other bioethicists, have effectively built careers around such stories "“ an obvious example is lifeboat ethics. Imagine someone dismissing a lifeboat story as "phobia" or "something that never happens." It misses the whole point. In fact, some would naturally begin to wonder why the person is reluctant to play along.
You do, however, discuss B, even though many of your colleagues came up with excuses not to address that one either. And I'm glad that you did. Notice how you chose to interpret Smith's basic agreement with Dembski's conceptual work about ID in a purely uncharitable fashion. "Basic agreement" and "conceptual work" can mean many things. For example, it could simply mean that Smith agrees with the basic question at the foundation of Dembski's work and agrees that detecting CSI is the way to go. After all, even you yourself have said, "meeting Dembski's criteria regarding probability would be good evidence for design." It doesn't have to mean that Smith agrees with every conclusion Dembski has reached. But that's how you chose to interpret it.
So let's get to your final paragraph:
Oh, but this leads to an even deeper question. If Smith's basic agreement with Dembski renders him less able, then why are "all other things roughly equal?" How could this be? This then leads to another – why didn't you use the "never happens" excuse for Case B?
Comment by MikeGene — August 11, 2005 @ 11:36 pm
August 12th, 2005 at 12:15 am
Mike,
At the outset of Stage B, "all things being equal" pretty much means all 200 applicants checked the correct boxes on the EO form and that none of them are convicted felons.
As for the charity of my opinions regarding Dembski, let's imagine that instead of a search for a faculty position, we're discussing a political campaign in NH. Suppose Candidate R is a Republican who professes to be a supporter of GW Bush. Except that he supports stem cell research.
Now, suppose he loses his election. And polling shows that this is because he was linked with lots of things that NH residents don't like about Bush – the war, closing Portsmouth, etc… Undoubtedly, being a politician, he'll whine that he really didn't support all of these things either. But, like it or not, all of this implicit support comes with the "I'm a W supporter" territory.
Same thing here. If you're going to avow "a basic agreement with Dembski et al.'s conceptual work about ID", you're going to have a lot of baggage. And a litany of explicit disavowals of bits and pieces, sort of pre-emptively trying to address the issues I raise, actually does more harm than good. ("I'm a Dembski supporter, I just don't agree with him" is no way to impress a search committee. I see a statement like that and I mutter a mild expletive for having wasted my time with an addle-brained applicant.)
If you're an ID sympathizer, and especially if you mention Dembski et al. in your application, you're necessarily buying into all of the bogus biology that the ID vanguard peddles. If you don't buy the ID biology party line, you should find another tent to hang out under. And it probably ought not to have "ID" painted on its top.
Comment by Art — August 12, 2005 @ 12:15 am
August 12th, 2005 at 1:01 am
Art,
Case B provided information that would have come after this very initial phase of the search "“ they knew of his association with Dembski and also had his CV before them. Are you now agreeing that someone who was in basic agreement with Dembski's conceptual work could not possibly be "roughly equal" in terms of their CV (and letters of recommendation)?
As for the rest, can we simply score your reply as a declaration that Smith would be incompetent? Or is it "incompetence by a perceived association"?
Comment by MikeGene — August 12, 2005 @ 1:01 am
August 12th, 2005 at 10:19 am
How has Smith demonstrated any competence? You're assuming this is a philosophical discussion. It appears that Smith has no ability to operate in a lab, or in the field, and consequently is a complete dub as a researcher.
Why do you assume incompetence should be rewarded if it is mistakenly based in philosophy?
Comment by edarrell — August 12, 2005 @ 10:19 am
August 12th, 2005 at 11:25 am
One of our IDEA members wrote several faculty members of a university seeking a faculty advisor sympathetic to ID. A department head wrote back,
"any "faculty advisors" you manage to attract with this letter would have questionable professional credentials in biology. "
He added a few inflammatory and condescending remarks too. Nice way to just stiffen the resolve of ID leaning students. In any case, such is the level of prejudice and discrimination in academia.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 12, 2005 @ 11:25 am
August 12th, 2005 at 12:34 pm
First, a thought experiment is different than an actual case. Philosophers may dream and muse, while scientists just don't feel the need. Perhaps this is why no one answered, not due to US education conspiracy theory 101.
Second, defending the position here is S.T. Cordova, who, 'when teaching Creation Science, starts with teaching ID.' Isn't there an irony here somewhere for Mike's argument? Plus, it has been made clear that 'ID is not science.' So how would Cases A (ID-Creationist), B (ID involvement) or C (ID proponent) be affected by the fact that non-scientific or un-scientific ID is somehow deemed relevant for an applicant to a tenure-track research position in a biological department?
Third, ID(EA) is looking more and more like a club than a scientific movement. Just look above at the 'ours' and 'we's' that are being used.
Ha! 'Stiffen the resolve' (aside: who does that sound like?); narrow the agenda and the ability to consider the facts with an even hand. They'll be getting it, step by gradual step from actual biologists, not from unprofessional apologetic-evangelical biological wannabes. Christians and other religious persons can accept biological evolution without giving up their faith in 'our' Creator. There are many examples that show this honestly, legitimately and without spinning the truth of research science.
Why not get involved in biology or physics at the level of higher academia if you want to influence the discipline instead of speaking armchair politics? Zealous lawyers and zealous cases are what the IDM really wants to promote. Not science; but ideology. Not religion; but pseudo-religious inferences.
Mike Gene may be onto something, telic-ally speaking. But the extremists who want to parade as ID-academics certainly aren't doing his position any favours. Was this earlier thread actually an example signalling that Mike is planning to apply for a research position?
Hmmm…that would be more interesting than the thought experiment!
g. arago
Comment by g arago — August 12, 2005 @ 12:34 pm
August 12th, 2005 at 12:43 pm
"Philosophers may dream and muse, while scientists just don't feel the need."
Comment by bipod — August 12, 2005 @ 12:43 pm
August 12th, 2005 at 1:00 pm
Mike,
All you really need is this sort of scenario:
Biologist A has made it through an excellent graduate program with very fine credentials, recommendations from labratory scientists, several published papers (second or third author) and is one of a few final candidates for a job in department X. Biologist A is actually the preferred candidate, but only by a slim margin. However, before the decision is made, a picture appears at an internet blogging site of Biologist A shaking hands with Dembski. It turns out that Biologist A was only minimally aware of Dembski's work and thought, along the lines of Stuart Kauffman and James Shapiro, that it was probably wrong but that Dembski was asking worthwhile questions. Biologist A shares with Dembski some ideas that he's had for doing some lab work that challenges Dembski ideas, but not because he wants to pound Dembski down with a hammer but because he finds the research interesting. Anyway, the picture has shown up on the internet and word quickly spreads that Biologist A is an undercover ID advocate (using Elsberry's criteria that you can tell more about a person by the way they use their time then by what they say about themselves). Various members of department x are notifed and call Biologist A to an emergency meeting. He is then asked on the spot about the picture and what he thinks about Dembski and ID. The biologist says the truth. He is further pressed to renounce Dembski and ID as ludicrous, but refuses to do so, only saying that while he disagrees with their conclusions, he can't dismiss their work.
Does the fact that he simply will not renounce Dembski and ID, count against Biologist A, given that the committee, prior to seeing this picture, was leaning towards Biologist A as the next member of their team? Is this enough to dislodge Biologist A as the committee's choice?
Comment by bipod — August 12, 2005 @ 1:00 pm
August 13th, 2005 at 12:37 am
Were your referring to me with those derogatory comments arago? Taking an unprovoked swipe at other blog participant, eh?
I've never pretended nor aspired to be a biologist, hence the term "wannabe" is not accurate. Plus it conveys the idea that you think I'm insufficiently capable to understand biology. Not exactly protocol to be commenting on someone's intelligence level.
As far as being a professional in science, some of my work orbits this planet, some of the air-trafic controls systems which thousands of airplanes depend have software that I've written, and there are automatic Target Recgonition (ID recognition) systems that have my work in them, flight simulators around the world with my software,etc. ID arguments relate strongly to kinds of systems I work on since they deal with information theory, physics, and mathematics. I am reasonably qualified to help biology students understand ID in an extra-curricular context regarding these issues. Several of them go out of their way to attend my talks.
And what of the plight of biology students that might be "hired or fired" either as professors or grad students seeking research positions. I do see them having a some fear. Some must go undercover for fear of being denied degrees or jobs. Then we see on the internet people like PZ Myers encouraging public humiliation and firing of IDists.
At my university, a very qualified professor of cellular biology was banned from teaching ID and then let go by the university. You saw the attitude of one of her fellow professors, saying such people are not qualified, just because they believe in ID.
The persecuted students and faculty are decent and bright, yet you seem to have little remorse for their freedom of thought and little remorse that some of their years of work toward a career gets sunk. You're quick to label me an extremist for defending their rights.
Professor Caroline Crocker at my school believed in Darwinian evolution most of her life, but like Behe, changed her mind 5 years ago in favor of Intelligent Design. The Darwinian thougth police punished her for her change of mind. Is that an environment that is healthy for open minded scientific inquiry?
But since you alluded to me as a wannabe, what have you done lately in the world of real science? I will let Richard Dawkins speak about your "science":
Dawkin's Talks Up Atheism with Messianic Zeal
Dawkins' Law of the Conservation of Difficulty states that academic obscurantism expands to fill the vacuum of simplicity. Physics, being genuinely difficult and profound, struggles to make its language as simple as possible, but other academics cloak their relatively simple notions in complex language. Social scientists suffer, he believes, from Physics Envy."They want to be thought profound, but their subject is actually rather easy and shallow , so they have to language it up to redress the balance."
There arago, you heard one of your Darwinist hero's describing your "science". How does it feel.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 13, 2005 @ 12:37 am
August 13th, 2005 at 8:12 am
Salvador,
This is not the place to get personal. I was actually speaking on topic and you've just gone on a tangent. If you want to send me an e-mail, then please do so. I was banned from ARN because of my frustration with your politicking and evangelizing in the name of ID-Creation Science. I tried to alert the management that your tactics were dismissive, arrogant and counter-productive, especially since you are a Young Earth Creationist and ID leadership has tried desperately to distance itself from Creation Science. However, since you so strongly support their mission (ARN's), I got the boot and you sail on. Still, it doesn't mean your ship isn't full of holes.
I don't intend to have the same thing happen here and I expect you should either apologize for flippancy or just drop the rivalry issue. We speak in such different areas, from such different backgrounds (e.g. I was born in Canada, how about you?) that the communication factor as significant as the supposed 'science'. Why do you gather what I wrote was directed at you? There are others in the IDM who demonstrate such qualities that I mentioned. Neither do you have supporters here the same as you do at ARN, with a mission to promote ID theories as if they are scientific, belong in schools and universities and which provide an inference to theology which Darwinism (in your comrades' mentalities) completely ignores. You could instead address the things I say that really challenge you (see below, re: Christian evolutionists) instead of ignoring them and pretending all is well and on course with the ID-Mission, but you don't.
As for your pseudo-content/jibes, no, I don't suffer from physics envy and Dawkins certainly doesn't speak for me. This is a figment of your imagination and his scientism speaking loud and clear. Neither do you have a thread of legitimacy or even any sense trying to belittle social science. If you think social science is 'rather easy and shallow' then that is your loss and misguided understanding of our world and the people who live in it. It is your insistence upon a hierarchy of the disciplines and not in the spirit of equality and comeraderie in which you say such things. Apparently you are seeking some sort of validation and figure that pushing me down will help you up. Sorry, not gonna play such a game.
Send your technology into orbit (target recognition = destruction machine), call it Star Wars, claim it is 'intelligently designed' if that's the concept duo you think most expressive of your worldview. All you're really saying is 'look how intelligent I am!' But don't expect scholars and scientists who are not contained by your specialist education and information-rich research to bow at the ideology that you wave to them. This is a misunderstanding that the IDM has yet to confront. There are insightful, rigorous and even religiously faithful biologists who are ignored by the IDM because they accept both evolution and creation and think 'ID' is an abuse of (their) theology. PJ says woefully ever perniciously confused, but is a Berkely radical, self-understood.
What's the difference between human-made and non-human-made 'intelligent design'? … Silence (Behe sighs)
At least you refer to ID as a 'belief.' And then in the next situation you insist it is SCIENCE. But at other times, it's o.k. for ID to be used in a Religion or Philosophy (pejoratively spoken) class. Well then, if not there, then as long as someone speaks about alternatives to evolution in biology, 'the controversy'. Or at least they (teachers) could address naturalism, secularism and anti-theism, etc. The story has been repeated ad nauseum, though there are still many who haven't heard the narrative as-taught-by-IDists. So sing on Salvador. I'd rather listen to those at Telic Thoughts than what ID fanatics sing any day of the week.
It is obvious to anyone who has really listened to (i.e. heard) what I've been saying that 'Darwinist hero' is quite far from the truth. And yet Salvador continues to spin on. He has no idea how it feels.
Comment by g arago — August 13, 2005 @ 8:12 am
August 13th, 2005 at 8:24 am
Thanks biopod. I agree with your thought experiment/scenario. Though not renouncing Dembski is not the same as agreeing with him. One might simply ask the candidate if he or she thinks ID is scientifically sound or a potentially useful biological concept-duo and on what grounds they think so. If they can't explain without reference to poofs or inferences based on probability theory, then likely they won't be an acceptable candidate for the position. If ID is not science, then an ID pseudo-scientist should not receive a tenure-track position. If they want to do research in biology, and simply have a pet-hobby on the side, that's another story.
Arago
Comment by g arago — August 13, 2005 @ 8:24 am
August 13th, 2005 at 8:35 am
g arago…but the guy obviously thought that ID was a potentially useful biological concept because he came to talk to Dembski about some research he had been wanting to do that would test some of the ID intuitions. He didn't think ID was true, but he thought it was a biologically useful concept for narrowing down and focusing what one would expect from a Darwinian account.
Anyway, I'm more interested in why you said the following: "Philosophers may dream and muse, while scientists just don't feel the need."
The scientists I know and have read about have often dreamed about their labratory work. Some have even worked through problems in their dreams or even while they're holding a conversation on politics or movies (muse).
Comment by bipod — August 13, 2005 @ 8:35 am
August 13th, 2005 at 9:15 am
So, jumping to the chase…
As I read between the lines, I see sentiments that a professing of sympathy for ID on the part of an applicant may unfairly prejudice a search committee. But it is not a prejudice to closely examine ID as a science, and explore the ramifications. Indeed, in crying "prejudice", ID supporters are asking to grant to ID a status that other parts of a file are not accorded – namely, we are not to scrutinize ID in a scientific or professional sense, nor are we to ask hard questions about the implications of the status of ID as a scientific endeavour.
If one brings up the subject in an application, and one expects that ID should not be questioned or scrutinized, then one is moving ever closer to the day where IDists are provided with entitlements – positions or rewards that are not merit-based, not earned, but granted solely because one is an ID supporter.
Comment by Art — August 13, 2005 @ 9:15 am
August 13th, 2005 at 10:25 am
But Art, in my example, Biologist A did not bring anything about ID up in his application. A picture was posted on the internet of Mr. A shaking hands with Mr. Dembski. So the first question is this: should the committee inquire further about this picture? I think that they are perfectly entitled to do so, if only to provide some clarification on research interests, how Mr. A will use his position, etc. (of course, it would be interesting to know whether a picture of Mr. A shaking hands with Mr. Dawkins at a Secular Humanist conference would cause similar concern). Regardless, Mr. A's meeting with Dembski was harmless. Mr. A is sitting on the periphery and has no vested interest in ID or Dembski's success. Yet, he's not willing to dismiss Dembski as a creationist or a member of the loony bin.
So here are the facts:
1. Biologist A has met with Dembski on friendly terms
2. Biologist A disagrees with Dembski
3. Biologist A will not renounce Dembski as an enemy of science
4. The hiring committee is concerned about Mr. A's association with Dembski as revealed in an internet picture and ask Mr. A to explain
5. Mr. A explains the truth
Should this weigh negatively in the committee's decision whether to hire Mr. A
Comment by bipod — August 13, 2005 @ 10:25 am
August 13th, 2005 at 10:57 am
I do appreciate the openness by some who are Darwinists on this blog and at ARN who will confess they would consider sympathy for ID as a mark against an applicant.
As I pointed out I have first hand evidence of this from a department head who said an ID sympathizer would automatically have "questionable professional credentials in biology". Further, many ID sympathetic untenured biology professors consider it career suicide to come out in support of ID.
What astonsihed me is I asked a TENURED chemistry professor whether he would consider teaching ID, and he said, "are you asking me to commit career suicide?" So even relatively young TENURED professors, in fields marginally peripheral to biology have career concerns. A tenured professor hoping to become a department head, or secure grants, get his papers published, his ideas championed has worries as well. If that is the case, then how much more so will a yet-to-be employed biology applicant worry.
I have recommended ID sympathetic biology students and applicants conceal their leanings. I told them there is nothing wrong with doing research on the "working hypothesis" of Darwinian evolution. They will understand it better, and they'll be in a better position to make informed evaluations by giving Darwinism a fair shot. That after all is the scientific method to leave no stone unturned.
I knew one creationist (who obviously does not believe in Darwin's tree of life), who did work on molecular phylogenies which is research that tries to establish evolutionary relationships. She was certainly able to construct a maximum parsimony tree that supposedly picks out the common ancestors based on the working assumption of Darwinian evolution. She was not the principal investigator, but she got paid as a laboratory researcher.
One would almost think, having studied the molecular phylogenies she would be a slam dunk to believe Darwinian evolution. Did she? No.
It was easy to see why. I posed the question, "did you see convergences in the polymers?"
She rolled her eyes, "EVERYWHERE!". Everywhere there was evidence of similar design not attributable to common ancestry. She was equally skeptical of the molecular clock hypothesis that supposedly explained the equidistances in the phylogentic trees. She was thankfully not questioned about her ID sympathies before getting employed.
I point this example out to say, they way for IDists to survive is to get as far into their career with an appropriate level of job security before coming out of the closet. The bio-tech, corporate, and medicial community will be more friendly to IDists, not academia.
For ID to advance, industry, not academia will have to lead the way. There are some ID theories related to protein and gene engineering which hold some promise. And that is related to Dembski's steganography. It is those ideas which actually might get one hired by a biotech company because one is an IDist.
Already systems biologists must come to the engineers to help do system identification. That's right, they must come to engineers who have a catalogue of canned engineering constructs and ask the engineers, "what kind of system do we see in that organism, help us identify it." The engineers then essentially do a lookup. It is a defacto applicaton of ID in practice, though not in words.
Further, it is the fields outside of biology where IDists are occasionally welcome such as physics and engineering. Jed Macosko is a happy exception of an IDists who got recruited by a physics department to do bio-physics research. He had stellar credentials, so he got a job despite being a star in the ID movie Unlocking the Mystery of Life
Jed is doing wonderful work on "molecular machines" in biology. So if one wishes to be an IDist that is visibly an IDist and remain employable, choose a field outside of biology, but even then, one must still be careful if one applies for jobs in academia.
Indeed, public proponents ID and creation science have been dominated by non biologists: engineers (Bradley, Morris, ReMine, Brown,etc.) , physicians (Denton, Wieland), mathematicians (Dembski, Berlinski), physcisits (Tipler, Barrow, Davies, Gonzalez), chemists (Kenyon, Thaxton, Behe, Sarfati).
The prevailing view seems to be that being an IDist will be a mark against a job applicant. Richard B. Hoppe has publicly declared he won't accept anyone into his company who does not subscribe to Darwinian evolution. Further they seem to be making no bones about their prejudices. Recall, it was PZ Myers who called for the public firing and humiliation of IDists. He only seemed to get cheers from his comrades for championing witch hunts.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 13, 2005 @ 10:57 am
August 13th, 2005 at 11:08 am
Art,
That's a chase that exists in your mind as a function of reading between the lines instead of reading the lines. No one is suggesting some "slippery slope" to an entitlement program for ID supporters. Instead, what we see is that although you yourself have stated, "meeting Dembski's criteria regarding probability would be good evidence for design," you would be opposed to hiring anyone because they were associated with the man who came up with the criteria that may someday churn out "good evidence for design."
Aren't you aware of the impression you are creating out there? It looks like you have a litmus test that is divorced from objective measurements of competency. If we take bipod's example, even if someone has made it through an excellent graduate program with very fine credentials, recommendations from laboratory scientists, and has several published papers (second or third author), you are bothered by a picture.
You write:
That's all fine and dandy, but again, consider the impression you may be creating. This search committee exists in a position of great power compared to the candidate. It may exist as a small group of well-established and well-connected scientists who all know each other and will pass judgment on a stranger's views of "ID" behind closed doors. The public cannot see the "hard questions" or the applicant's responses. They wouldn't even have any reason to think any questions were asked or answered. The public sees a well-qualified candidate who has been singled out because of his/her perceived association with a disliked figure in the ID movement. And when you speak of "ramifications," this looks like wedge-centrism, where the public has seen many scientists equating ID with creationism in a knee-jerk fashion (and other stereotypes), labeling ID an "enemy of science," the treatment of Sternberg at the Smithsonian, the shut down of the Polanyi Institute, the crowd of Dawkins' clones using science to proselytize for atheism, etc.
The way out of this public image problem is to simply do what you are supposed to do "“ judge the candidate on his/her credentials, letters of recommendation, experience/publications, and proposed research programs. If a candidate's ID views render them an incompetent/inferior candidate, this should show up in these other areas. In other words, have faith in your own position "“ if accepting/playing with ID makes someone incompetent, that such acceptance/playing should self-select out your candidates, rendering them incompetent in the other areas. Otherwise, it sure looks like you are trying to keep anyone from establishing a robust ID-related research program. It's "show us the evidence! (but not in my department).;)
Comment by MikeGene — August 13, 2005 @ 11:08 am
August 13th, 2005 at 12:21 pm
Art,
I do appreciate you participation and openness on this topic.
Would you consider a person's position on ID as a factor in hiring them to the biology faculty? If you saw them list on their CV that they served as an IDEA chapter president or IDURC researcher, would you question them about it? Would it influence your decision.
I know one PhD candidate in cellular biology who opted out of being an IDEA officer for these very considerations. Are his fears justified? Or does he have nothing to fear. Can he proudly list these facts on his CV that he does personal research into the origins of life from an ID perspective? Can he comfortably talk about his "ID hobby" before you and not worry it will dampen his chances for being hired?
Conversely, if you discoved the candidate was an active promoter of Darwin Day celebrations, and your google search of his name showed him participating on pro-Darwin blogs attacking IDists, would that score points in your hiring decision?
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 13, 2005 @ 12:21 pm
August 13th, 2005 at 12:32 pm
Hi bipod,
Yes, but this was a thought experiment, not an actual situtation. D. Lamoureux and K. Miller, for example, have actually talked with/to W. Dembski, but it doesn't mean he helps them understand biology. They both agree with 'intelligent design' in a broad sense, just not in the way Dembski and his comrades wish to frame the discussion as 'science.'
Narrowing down and focussing on 'a Darwinian account' is not really the issue here – the applicant's knowledge/practise of biology is what matters. If ID theories would get in the way (as they apparently have somewhat for Behe), then he or she is probably not the right person for the position. I'm ignoring any references to conspiracy theory when writing this and actually support the idea that students conceal their views about ID from their professors or potential employers. If not, it would be a sure sign that they're defending or promoting non-science or anti-science in biology.
As for what you're more interested in, yes, well the comment I made is a play on words and, of course, i was being ironical. I'm glad you liked it. Nonetheless, it may be claimed that 'science' is built on experimentation, while philosophy is often maligned in part because it does not conduct similar empirical experiments. Science trumps philosophy (and theology) either way in such a scenario of academic hierarchy/pragmatic worth.
Except for the 'thought experiment,' those 'what if' questions that philosophers like to pose, Richard Rorty and Charles Taylor included, which do provide interesting and insightful clues to human existence and ways of knowing. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that (natural) scientists are uncreative, or don't dream. Not in the least! Though many are rationally disposed towards their narrow subjects of study (e.g. Tom Cruise's eye's were indeed 'wide shut' and his character was not a doctor without reason or forethought). Still, I wonder if natural scientists would give the same courtesy to philosophers or other humanitarian scholars, instead of riding the wave of scientism or technopoly and claiming those persons are less important in the world of academia?
Here we can understand why IDists, claiming ID IS SCIENCE often refuse to speak philosophically or theologically (G. Murphy's complaint and how Cordova got whooped by D. Lamoureux in a tiny internet discussion at ARN) because they like to appear 'scientific' and thus somehow 'objective.' Of course, the contradiction is that several persons 'in' the IDM who promote their theories of ID, are in fact trained in philosophy or theology. Nancy Pearcey is a fine example of the paradoxical 'nature' of the ID discourse.
Flip the side around and many (natural) scientists may (and actually do, e.g. Cordova above) think that poets can't experiment with method, or even develop theories. Anyone who'd read Poe, Joyce or Baudelaire, however, would recognize this is fallacious. But scientists don't often read poetry in the laboratory, other than the exceptions you or someone else on this blog will likely now cite. :-> Einstein's philosophical training does help make sense of his breadth and precision in physics and throw light on why relativity is used beyond the narrow confines of professional-practical physics. Add that Darwin's theological training helps us make sense of his departure to 'natural selection' and the species mutation question, even to including human beings in his scientific observations.
Then again, according to Salvador (using Dawkins like his friend), people like Freud and Marx are 'rather easy and shallow' and not all that significant or relevant for issues related to information, knowledge and wisdom. Aside from Salvador's dismissiveness, one third of the world's population, probably reaching even to South-East Asia, for example, Vietnam or the Phillippines, have been attracted to (neo)Marxist theory. And also, Mike Gene uses psycho-analysis in his (often successful) rebuts to ID critics. Poets, humanitarians and social scientists have important contributions to make to society too!
And you'll find similar criteria in social science for hiring or not-hiring an applicant to an academic position, based on whether they hold flagellum-brained (i.e. periphery) or mainstream scholarly views.
g. arago
Comment by g arago — August 13, 2005 @ 12:32 pm
August 13th, 2005 at 12:56 pm
Bipod,
I didn't address your thought experiment because it strains credulity way past the breaking point. Interent postings, unsolicited emails from total strangers (example A in Mike's posting), random input from unrelated sources do not factor into the process we are speaking hypothetically of. What a search committee has to go on are the materials supplied by the applicant and his/her references, and their own familiarities with the fields that are relevant to the position. One can let one's imagination run wild with respect to other "scenarios", but they're way too far removed from reality to warrant more than this remark.
Art
Comment by Art — August 13, 2005 @ 12:56 pm
August 13th, 2005 at 1:16 pm
Two remarks for Sal.
First, it may be "professional suicide" for a scientist to profess an affinity for ID. But this is because ID is scientifically a fraud. Not the hobby practiced by some members of this blog, but the ID that has been hijacked by antievolutionist crusaders, the one that tries to pass off as authentic ideas like Dembski's assertion that populations of organisms consisting of mixed sexes are not viable. The term "ID" has been irrevocably tainted with a body of work that can only be termed as "bogus biology". If aligning oneself with ideas like Dembski's that scientists in some murky, mysterious, or dishonest way inject something (CSI, or whatever) into their experiments amounts to professional suicide, I say too bad. The samurai who is commiting suicide thusly shouldn't be surprised, nor should (s)he complain.
Second, as far as the not-to-be head of the IDEA chapter, I'll speak only for myself. If I see this item in a student's application for grad school, this applicant gets an interview (assuming that the GPA isn't Blutarski-esque). If, in the interview, the applicant shows more of a DI-level grasp of biology than the level one needs to succeed, then the application is denied. If, OTOH, there is shown a real grasp of the field, then….
(This is not hypothetical – while I haven't yet seen IDEA members, I have most definitely interviewed and brought on candidates from institutions that make Baylor seem like the Berkeley of the '60's. I'll put my record for impartiality up against anyone's on this blog, and most definitely any of the ID vanguard. Which is one reason why I chose to respond to this particular topic – it carries, along with a hidden pleading for special treatment for IDists, an implicit insult to me as a member of search and admissions committees.)
Comment by Art — August 13, 2005 @ 1:16 pm
August 13th, 2005 at 2:26 pm
So, if an applicant professes an affinity for Dembski's ideas, such a profession is not to be discussed, on its own terms, when the matter of the prospect's future research arises? This sounds an awful lot like giving ID a free ride. More than just a tiny step towards entitlement for IDists.
As for the matter of public perception, it may not be too cynical to view the establishment of this perception by the DI propaganda machine as yet another step towards establishing entitlement for IDists. The best thing a search committee can do is ignore what they perceive to be public perception, and evaluate all of the information that is being made available by the applicants. If a candidate states that (s)he has " a basic agreement with Dembski et al.'s conceptual work ", then this is on the board. It doesn't get a free ride.
(Just so this point doesn't get confused with other scenarios – I'm talking about applicants who provide in their files the affinities with ID. I'm ignoring the "guilt by wispy internet association" scenes that do little but fuel overactive imaginations.)
Comment by Art — August 13, 2005 @ 2:26 pm
August 13th, 2005 at 3:20 pm
I would like to thank Art for his candor.
Thank you for responding. I didn't mean to question your impartiality toward IDists (cough). Your answers assures me that I should be fully confident you wouldn't use their affliation with ID as a mark against them (cough). Your answer assures me if the prosepective applicant believed in intelligent design or even (gasp) special creation, you would still consider hiring them and having them teach biology at your university (cough).
Georgia Purdom for example I think would be qualified at some secular univeristy, perhaps not yours. However, I have a feeling she would not be touched by a ten-foot pole by most secular universities as she is a professed YEC.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 13, 2005 @ 3:20 pm
August 13th, 2005 at 3:21 pm
(G. Murphy's complaint and how Cordova got whooped by D. Lamoureux in a tiny internet discussion at ARN)
Seems g arago likes revisionist history regarding Lamoureux and myself:
Lamoureux and Cordova
Lamoureux and Cordova and ARNies
I leave it to the readers to decide if I got whooped.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 13, 2005 @ 3:21 pm
August 13th, 2005 at 7:23 pm
Revisionist history, no, Salvador. That is obviously your forte, not mine. I'm willing to speak the truth and not hide the fact that you are no match for D. Lamoureux, in biology, natural science or theology (i.e. since he has PhD degrees in these fields and you have nothing of the sort). Information theory, satelite systems and target recognition, perhaps.
However, Lamoureux would wipe the floor with you on the topic of scientific evolution, just like he did with P. Johnson. You are obviously simply in worldview denial against what contemporary science has to offer. Reality check!!
Of course, you will deny this as if you hold the keys to scientific knowledge unlike any other. Denial, it's more than a river in Egypt, friends!
Let's not forget, Salvador is the one saying the earth is thousands, and not millions of years old, and who is willing to stake his religious faith upon it. Salvador believes geologists, botanists, zoologists, taxonomists, archaeologists, anthropologists and sociologists are deluded about the age of the earth when they conclude it is not 'young.' Human origins are attributable to 'special creation,' according to Salvador. Really, this is the logical conclusion of his YEC views. Salvador's is exclusivist pseudo-science to an X-mark.
By the way, this highly spins the actual conversation between you and Denis! I am sure you know this. Likewise, I am well aware of what was said between you and Denis since I alerted him to the Judas accusations you made about him as an evangelical Christian. Word to your brother!
D. Lamoureux flatters you ('brilliant stuff') as anyone you would flatter who would blink an eye in a positive way at ID theories. Yours is a oft heard fundamentalist tune, even if Nature magazine felt it newsworthy to tell the story of your club-building IDEA and claims to rationalist-theistic science. America is indeed a land where interesting stories can be told in the name of freedom and where student groups can be formed around a variety of pseudo-scientific, pseudo-philosophical, pseudo-political beliefs.
So, Salvador, why not become a professional Chair of Science and Religion, the first in an uncommon way before claiming you hold the key to biological progress? Why not update your master's degree(s) to become a decorated scholar?
As it is, you follow Dembski and Behe and others in the IDM, without seeing the broader picture. You dismiss philosophy and social science without realizing what feeds your own ability to survive as an 'ID theorist' or patron. I can't imagine what allows you the time to send 20 plus messages per day to ID happy message boards if not being a on a zealous legalistic mission trying to authenticate ID theories.
If you pay no heed to my advice and suggestions, then by all means, keep peddling ID-Creation Science and see how far it gets you. Likely, until the day when your precious theory is trumped by something more relevant and precise in its formulation. Galileo would mock your pretense to knowledge as a technopolist in an electric age. Even if I knew a solution that would welcome YEC's to the table, I would keep you, S. Cordova, at arms length due to your claims to scientific superiority and obvious tendencies to scientism, hierarchicalism and disciplinary arrogance. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the limits of ID theory. Only those cemented into the IDM seem blind to such an inevitable prospect.
Openness is given to you, Salvador, but apparently you aren't willing to handle it and won't face real criticisms to your perspectives. I'm not your average student from Washington D.C. or (Northern) Virginia. And I am no Darwinist! Can you process this? If I was a biologist, however, I would undoubtedly give my respect to the contribution C. Darwin from Down, England made to biological theory and practise. This is something you apparently refuse to do.
The fact that your discipline differs from Darwin's seems to have no effect on your frivolous attempts to debunk a person who contributed greatly to modern science. The fact that you see it as a challenge to your religious faith is no excuse.
Your concordism is obvious. Your Creation Science and Young Earth beliefs are outdated. The Judicial system in the nation which you now call home betrays your selfish confidence in favour of a theory which insults the leading theologians in the land. Some in the founding Institute (DI) which sponsors ID theory even claim ID has no content. And yet you persist in your personal ID=Science=proof of God's existence crusade.
As much as I am against Nietzsche's modernist proclamation that 'God is dead,' I support your views. To the extent that ID is a misguided repatriation of William Paley's watchmaker, therefore 'design' argument and apologetic, you are entirely against the signs of the times. It is apparent that you, as a specialized scientist not attuned to philosophical-humanitarian views, cannot lead a network of post-evolutionists. However, as a believer in 'technological evolution,' as is Dembski, I realize this is something you will never try.
Don't worry, I expect you to ignore this post and to continue on in your rose-coloured ways. ID or bust. You may appreciate openness, but still don't honestly respect anyone who would accept evolutionary biology, even if they are evolutionary creationists. Salvador, trust me, I've sung the song I'm singing before you entered the picture. What you're going through is just another phase of understanding. Unfortunately, it appears you've taken too extreme a position to be able to change once the 'the evidence speaks for itself.'
Arago
Comment by g arago — August 13, 2005 @ 7:23 pm
August 13th, 2005 at 7:44 pm
g arago,
Be warned. You are on thin ice. Your last post was a rant which will not be tolerated on this moderated blog.
Comment by Steve Petermann — August 13, 2005 @ 7:44 pm
August 13th, 2005 at 9:11 pm
In regards to hiring and firing, I must again, mention, since I am close to the situation, that Caroline Crocker, a professor of 20 years, is facing problems of finding a new job after being released from George Mason University 4 weeks after she appeared with me in the April 28, 2005 edition of Nature.
She had worked at several universities as her husband's career took their family several places. So her ability to get tenured was precluded by considerations outside her job. He salary helped pay for her children's education. She has published 60 peer-reviewed articles and has taught biology for many years. She, like Behe, had a change of heart about ID long after she became a faculty member.
She, like many theistic evolutionists, had no problem reconciling Darwinian evolution with her personal religious views, but it was the scientific evidence that persuaded her 5 years ago to change her mind.
What was her "crime" She gave one lecture where she spent 20 minutes of class discussing problems with Darwinian evolution. Apparently that 20 minutes was all it took to derail a very substantial career. I do not know what will happen to her, but the issue Mike raises is very important to me and the IDEA members here in Virginia.
The university of course will not admit that ID had anything to do with Crocker not getting her professorship renewed. I'm sure officially it will go on record as some sort of purely budgetary decision.
I enourage ID sympathetic biology students to keep their sympathies quiet until they get the degree or job that they want (like being a doctor). It is for those outside of biology, (especially the engineers who face the least persecution) to help keep the fire alive.
It is my hope that the great advances in biology will happen in bio-tech firms that have no use of dogma.
One of our IDEA alumn is doing protein engineering. As in the case of systems biology, there is a degree of defacto application of intelligent design prinicples in reverse engineering to help elucidate protein structure. There does seem to be the suggestion of "rosetta stone" (Dembski's steganography), embedded like a user manual within biology. This IDEA alumn is seeing hints of this "rosetta stone" in her daily work as are the system biologists studying other parts of biology.
That is where the questions of "hire or not to hire" will perhaps one day favor or at least be neutral to IDists. When the application of design principles in reverse engineering biology will be crucial to the bottom lines of corporations, design theorists will be sought out. And maybe, sometime thereafter, academia will admit IDists into their faculty.
I do believe Art is honest, and to his mind impartial. However, his belief that ID is a fraud will likely morally commit him to not hire IDists. If IDists are viewed as accomplices in a fraudulent enterprise, we are thus criminals, not deserving jobs. I don't hold it against Art, he's only following what he believes is the ethical course of action.
I don't believe Art will deny employment to anyone based on their religious beliefs, but there are afterall institutional considerations. What if a bio department was looking for a phylogeny expert, would they consider a creationist competent? A creationist will point out the problems with phylogentic reconstruction methods and be forever suspect that his criticisms originate from religious motivations.
Or how about an IDist population genetecist? If he proposes that there are problems in an evolutionary scenario based on population genetic theories, he will be forever suspect of having done so because of his religious motivations.
The career path for IDists in academia I think is well modelled by Jed Macosko. A degree in physics, and get a job in bio-physics. There will be many jobs in the future in academia for engineers as systems biology advances. Thus a career path for them is a degree in engineering, and then a job in bio-engineering.
The academic community of engieers are traditionally design friendly (heck they have to be, otherwise they won't be engineers!). Beyond that, I don't see the iron curtain melting anytime soon, but there are glimmers of hope.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 13, 2005 @ 9:11 pm
August 14th, 2005 at 9:20 am
Yes, thanks Steve. My last post was a bit excessive. Sorry 'bout that :"Do you ignore this or follow it up? Even if you don't follow it up, would you bring this up in the meeting if someone else tried to put [Salvador] on the short list?"
Sure, I would bring it up. It would undoubtedly affect his ability to 'do physics' if he tried to advance 'intelligent design' theory or theories in his dissertation. As with many here, I've witnessed him plug in equations as 'proofs' of God's existence countless times on the internet. It would give the impression of not being scientific, but rather 'religiously motivated.' This is what the Wedge is mainly about, Cultural Renewal and promoting ID-as-science and as a way to invite theology.
Salvador, of course, would say it is not so, that his science is motivated only by science, just the facts please, and that religion has nothing to do with it. But could this really be true? 'His belief in ID has nothing whatsoever to do with religion?' the committee might ask.
Well, all of this is of course beside the point about whether he knows anything about Physics or enough to prepare him for further studies. Likely he could find a program somewhere that would accept his training in Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, with minors in Mathematics, Music and Physics as meeting the qualifying level for a PhD in Physics. But his motivations for studying Physics, if they are meant purely to advance the cause of ID theories would clearly be a factor in any mainstream University's decision to hire or not to hire him, or in this case, to accept him to their post-graduate program.
Now, most people consider this a type of God-of-the-gaps version of science, though the issue is less answerable regarding "˜origins of life' than mere "˜origins of species'. As our science improves, the gaps are closed and the poofs disappear. Is this something physicists normally invoke in their reasoning? Perhaps it is. Then again, none of this has to do with Biology, which is where IDists (IDM version) claim to challenge Darwinian evolution, thus it presents a different case from what Mike intended above. But it certainly does add to the mix of 'to hire or not to hire' based on one's affiliations with ID.
Mike Gene, otoh, could likely go through an application process without fear of discrimination, even based on his telic thoughts and ID "˜hunches,' due to the fact that he has kept them in semi-hiding, behind a pseudonym. His practical science would not be openly tainted by his connection to the pseudo-science/pseudo-religion that is now known as theories of ID and the American social-political-religious movement that promotes them.
Again, Steve and others, please excuse my earlier rant. My concern is that Salvador would start swamping Telic Thoughts as he did at ARN with his cheerleading for ID-Creation Science. I suggest you put up a posting limit to prevent this. Though he may in fact end up contributing little to discussing or further understanding telic thoughts other than insisting his views are correct, scientifically authoritative and objectively universal (e.g. "Eve was REAL. Deal with it." – STC), his amusing connections to the social-political-religious movement of the IDM will likely make him a welcome voice here for the political interests of this blog.
Comment by g arago — August 14, 2005 @ 9:20 am
August 14th, 2005 at 9:23 am
Yes, thanks Steve. My last post was a bit excessive. Sorry bout that
Salvador brings out the worst in me, as you may be aware. He insults my areas of knowledge/education and then gaily skips off without answering substantial questions that challenge his views of ID based on those areas. Communication is thus a critical issue here, likewise hermeneutics, which Salvador tends to dismiss as irrelevant and unimportant to science.
His is Wedge-illusionism to an extreme degree! He admits this, so it should be no surprise that YEC and teaching ID-Creation has been and is his goal all along. Actually getting into a laboratory to do research or writing a thesis about ID is apparently not in the cards for him. In many ways, his is a most dissimilar approach to the originators of Telic Thoughts.
Perhaps we could return then to the thought experiment at a more practical level. It was not about firing (Salvador's spin), but about hiring.
What if Salvador Cordova walked into a room applying for a PhD in Physics? Would you 'hire' him? He plainly fits the Case A, which is ID-Creationist (Young Earth variety) who is linked to the infamous "Wedge strategy".
Mike asks,
Sure, I would bring it up. It would undoubtedly affect his ability to 'do physics' if he tried to advance 'intelligent design' theory or theories in his dissertation. I've witnessed him plug in equations as 'proofs' of God's existence countless times on the internet. It would give the impression of not being scientific, but rather 'religiously motivated.' This is what the Wedge is mainly about, Cultural Renewal and promoting ID-as-science and as a way to invite theology.
Salvador, of course, would say it is not so, that his science is motivated only by science and that religion has nothing to do with it. But could this really be true? 'His belief in ID has nothing whatsoever to do with religion?' the committee might ask.
Well, all of this is of course beside the point about whether he knows anything about Physics. Likely he could find a program that would accept his training anyway in Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, with minors in Mathematics, Music and Physics as meeting the qualifying level for a PhD in Physics. But his motivations for studying Physics, if they are meant purely to advance the cause of ID theories would clearly be a factor in any mainstream University's decision to hire or not to hire him, or in this case, to accept him to their post-graduate program.
Now, most people consider this a type of God-of-the-gaps version of science, though the issue is less answerable regarding "˜origins of life' than mere "˜origins of species'. As our science improves, the gaps are closed and the poofs disappear. Is this something physicists normally invoke in their reasoning? Perhaps it is. Then again, none of this has to do with Biology, which is where IDists (IDM version) claim to challenge Darwinian evolution, thus it presents a different case from what Mike intended above. But it certainly does add to the mix of 'to hire or not to hire' based on one's affiliations with ID.
Mike Gene, otoh, could likely go through an application process without fear of discrimination based on his ID "˜hunches,' due to the fact that he has kept them in the closet, behind a pseudonym. His practical science would not be openly tainted by his connection to the pseudo-science/pseudo-religion that is now known as theories of ID.
Again, Steve and others, please excuse my earlier rant. My concern is that Salvador would start swamping Telic Thoughts as he did at ARN with his cheerleading for ID-Creation Science. I suggest you put a posting limit to prevent this. Though he may in fact contribute little to discussing or further understanding telic thoughts other than insisting his views are correct, scientific and objectively universal (e.g. "Eve was REAL. Deal with it." – STC), his amusing connections to the social-political movement of the IDM will likely make him a welcome voice here for the political interests of this blog.
Comment by g arago — August 14, 2005 @ 9:23 am
August 14th, 2005 at 11:34 am
It occurs to me that participants and readers of these comments may actually take seriously Mike's Case A or bipod's fictional scenario. I pooh-poohed these, but perhaps without enough explanation for the audience, who are probably likely to be part of the "public" whose perception is being fed. So, to expand (expound?) a bit:
Speaking from my own experience, and from the standards and expectations that have been drummed into me by colleagues and administrators alike, it has invariably been the case that unsolicited comments that are critical or disparaging of any candidate are never brought up for consideration or discussion by search or admissions committees, and instead find the trash (back "in the day", the real trash can; nowadays, more likely the email trash folder). It just doesn't happen. (Such behavior does make an impression, though. Usually, the sender of such unsolicited comments usually finds his/her way onto a sort of "ignore" list.)
So, those of you who are on the outside looking in can rest assured that Case A and bipod's scenario are quite unrealistic. If this is the extent to which you are concerned about the processes under discussion here, you can put the issue to rest in your minds.
Comment by Art — August 14, 2005 @ 11:34 am
August 14th, 2005 at 11:58 am
Art,
All you had to do was answer the questions for Case A:
Do you ignore this or follow it up?
Ignore it.
Even if you don't follow it up, would you bring this up in the meeting if someone else tried to put Jones on the short list?
No.
What was hard about that?
Comment by MikeGene — August 14, 2005 @ 11:58 am
August 14th, 2005 at 12:49 pm
G. arago:
Notice the logic here. An applicant's knowledge/practice of science is not determined by his credentials, research experience, publications, and letters of recommendations from other scientists. It is determined by the applicants opinion of ID. Look, if ID makes you an incompetent biologist, or, it gets in the way, it should show up in the traditional areas that estimate competency – credentials, research experience, publications, and letters of recommendations.
G. arago does give our readers are very illuminating comment:
Note ,that G. arago did not say that someone like me would get through the application process okay because I accept evolution, recognize the weaknesses of ID, oppose teaching ID in schools, and raises interesting ideas. Someone like me gets through because of "a pseudonym" making it impossible to employ "guilt by association." Does this increase anyone's confidence in the objectivity of G. arago's hiring decisions?
Comment by MikeGene — August 14, 2005 @ 12:49 pm
August 14th, 2005 at 1:11 pm
Objectivism smechtivism. The point is to perform one's social role, not to be objective, Mike. C'mon, get with the program;-)
Comment by bipod — August 14, 2005 @ 1:11 pm
August 14th, 2005 at 3:40 pm
Mike,
The "short answer" you propose would, IMO, leave the impression that Case A was a reasonable one, something that is worth exploring. It most definitley is not – it's rather akin to Case D (suppose an angel of the Lord revealed herself to the dean, who then informed the committee…).
The only point I can see to these skits is to promote the stereotype of IDist as persecuted hero. The stereotype is a bunch of garbage, and the skits are insulting.
(Please don't ask me to finish Case D
).
Comment by Art — August 14, 2005 @ 3:40 pm
August 14th, 2005 at 7:20 pm
Art,
Whether Case A belongs in the same category as Case D will boil down to a matter of opinion. What wouldn't be a matter of opinion is if 7/7 respondents replied "Ignore it" and "No."
Comment by MikeGene — August 14, 2005 @ 7:20 pm
August 21st, 2005 at 11:45 am
Art:
Yet a glimpse behind the closed door changes things both slightly and significantly. From the OSC report, we find one scientist writing:
Notice that this scientist not only adovcates Googling candidates to probe connections, but actually blames another scientist for not snooping on the web.
As you can see, Art has no basis for pooh-poohing bipod's scenario. And I of course could easily modify Case A where it is a member of the search committee that gathers the information to make it more realistic.
Comment by MikeGene — August 21, 2005 @ 11:45 am