Public Understanding of Science – Position Vacant

Phillip Johnson has done more to clarify the public's understanding of science than anyone else. bevets

What would one have to do to send in a nomination. Could we organize and send in a nomination for Mike Behe? *That* would get some public understanding of science. Nochange

If they ask me politely, I think I can manage the job. Can I count on the suport of any of you guys? Mats

I think I'm going to second the nomination of Galapagos Finch. Gerry Rzeppa

Richard Sternberg. Borne

Y'all are overlooking the most obvious choice: Galapagos Finch! Jack Golightly

I agree with previous posters that Paul Davies would be an excellent choice. But the fact that he is being supported here might count against him. benign

Dawkins will just be replaced by some other confused egghead selling scientism as science. To think that Oxford was fed up with him is so naive. Dawkins embodies Oxford, Oxford like all Western universites, elite or not, is wedded to the dogma and cant of scientific materialism. Only evangelical atheists need apply for his vacant position, or should apply for it for that matter. zephyr

sparc, how disappointing. I was hoping that Oxford was fed up with him. I certainly hope that they choose someone who is clearly not a militant athiest the next time around. bFast

bfast:

I hope that he has chosen to leave because Oxford has pressured him.

Why not read the advertisement before commenting?

The University’s normal retirement date for professors is 30 September immediately preceding the 66th birthday, except that for those who can establish vested rights as defined in the University’s statutes (details available on request) in retirement at age 67 or later, the date of retirement will not normally be later than the 30 September immediately preceding the 68th birthday.

Dawkins was born March 26, 1941 and we currently live in 2008. sparc

"First, we must define science." - Gil Dodgen I agree. Let's begin with Theology - the study of God and His works - and put all the other "ologies" in their rightful places under that. But, incidently, what can we really expect from a University Chair that was financed by a third-rate Microsoft programmer who (as evidenced in his infamous "Hungarian Notation") couldn't rightly distinguish between a data name and a data type! Gerry Rzeppa

First, I agree with Timothy V Reeves in post number 7, Paul Davies. He is credible and qualified. P Z Meyers would scream foul; he might claim the post as the de facto next in line. Collins however, as Dr. Dembski suggests, possesses the credentials to fairly represent the scientific community. His commitment to what he can legitimately define as true is respectable even to those who thoroughly disagree with him, either on the ID side or the Darwinist side. toc

First, we must define science. My definition is the search for how things really are. Of course, this search can be very disconcerting, especially when the evidence does not comport with one's expectations. GilDodgen

Second choice: Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Another deep thinker and very fair - he just offends everyone equally. A much needed antidote to the epistemological arrogance of some partisan science pundits who shall remain nameless. Timothy V Reeves

Paul Davies. Fair and deep thinking. Timothy V Reeves

...how about one of the "scientists" from the "Rational Response Squad"?. gleaner63

I used to like Ann Coulter. Then she opened her mouth. Gods iPod

Ann Coulter Why? Hope! DaveScot

How about Francis Collins? He and Dawkins were both interviewed in the Time cover story. He would provide a fitting balance to Dawkins's tenure. William Dembski

I would nominate Prof. Henry F. Schaefer III for his outstanding accomplishments in Chemistry. e.g.,

During the comprehensive period 1981 - 1997 Professor Schaefer was the sixth most highly cited chemist in the world; out of a total of 628,000 chemists whose research was cited. The Science Citation Index reports that by December 31, 2004 his research had been cited more than 35,000 times.

Prof. Schaeffer also has an excellent conciliatory understanding of the issues of both science and religion. See his book: Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence? DLH

This is very pleasing news. It was frustrating to see Dawkins carry with him the authority of Oxford. I hope that he has chosen to leave because Oxford has pressured him. I really would rather not see an IDer like Dembski, or Behe in the position either. I would rather see someone who has not taken a dug-in position on the matter of ID. The closes I can see to an ID positive candidate for the job is Michael Denton. bFast