Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

When you want the approval of people whose approval you should NOT want …

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

On Sunday, Bob Marks’s lawyer John Hugh Gilmore wrote an op-ed in the Waco Tribune expressing astonishment at the sheer, manifest vulgarity of the attempt to suppress the Evolutionary Informatics Lab:

As counsel for Baylor Distinguished Professor Robert J. Marks II, I was amazed and discouraged by the controversy surrounding his rather routine yet scientifically exacting Web site that was shut down by the dean of his Engineering Department. This action came after anonymous complaints, but without an opportunity for him to respond beforehand.

The crime? His research might implicate intelligent design.

This is how a serious university should behave?

John, you and I both know what is going on: Baylor does not want a Baylor prof who is not a proponent of Darwin’s theory of evolution to be in a position to provide evidence against it. They fear he has such evidence. Who knows? He might …

In short, they do not want the books balanced.

I have myself called Darwinism the Enron of Biology – for a reason. I’m told that Enron accounted for its operating expenses as capital assets. In the same way, whenever Darwinists encounter a check to their theory, they declare how great a theory Darwinism must be, to overcome so much contrary evidence ….

John asks, naturally, is this how a serious university should behave?

Well, let’s refine the question: By whom does Baylor want to be considered a serious university? How about, for example, the academics who – to this day – hound former Harvard prez Larry Summers merely for the crime of saying, correctly, that the preponderance of men over women in maths and hard sciences is based in nature, not social injustice?

Or the academics who formed a literate lynch mob in the Duke lacrosse case, smearing innocent students. As Abigail Thernstrom writes, introducing a book on the affair,

“Until Proven Innocent” is a stunning book. It recounts the Duke lacrosse case in fascinating detail and offers, along the way, a damning portrait of the institutions–legal, educational and journalistic–that do so much to shape contemporary American culture. Messrs. Taylor and Johnson make it clear that the Duke affair–the rabid prosecution, the skewed commentary, the distorted media storyline–was not some odd, outlier incident but the product of an elite culture’s most treasured assumptions about American life,  …

And John writes, regarding his own client’s struggle,

Having represented academics sympathetic to ID for almost a decade, I would call their foes on campus intellectual fascists.

Well, if the Baylorites make it to the top, they won’t be lonely, will they?

Here is your client’s problem in a nutshell, John: Baylorites want the approval of people whose approval no decent human being could want. And Baylor is institutionally willing to act in such a way as to merit it.

What that has to do with the Baptist heritage, I just don’t know, but this column offers some observations that might shed some light on the general cultural situation in which it is happening.

I wish you luck defending Prof. Marks. If you succeed, Larry Summers and a few other people should look you up.
____________________________
P.S. The Waco Tribune-Herald altered John Gilmore’s op-ed without his permission. For the original, titled “Intelligent Design & Academic Freedom,” go here.

Comments
In response to ReligionProf's emergence point... The emergent properties of water (e.g. wetness) are much different conceptually than mental properties allegedly emerging from complex configurations of matter (e.g. consciousness from neural networks). For starters, we can conceive of consciousness without brains. Pick any child on the street, and that child will have no problem conceiving of ghosts, angels, fairies, and even their own soul outside of its body. But can we conceive of non-material wetness? If you can, let me know. Second, how can a complex configuration of matter produce a singular, unfied center of consciousness - the "I"? Where is the "I" located? What unifies all the mental activity, if all we have to work with is matter? How come when large portions of the brain are removed - even more than half the brain - the "I" is still there, unaffected? A material philosopher, Colin McGinn, humorously illustrated the conceptual problem of consciousness through a story of aliens observing humans and marveling at "thinking meat." How can meat think? This is a problem that the resources of "emergence" are not equipped to handle in my opinion. I would love to hear any counterpoints.paraklete
October 10, 2007
October
10
Oct
10
10
2007
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PST
ReligionProf, I have had biology courses. To keep up to date I also have gone through the U. of Cal Berkeley evolution sections of their biology course four times to see what different professors teach. I went through most of the rest of their first year biology course. One does not need anything more to understand the issues and I defy you to find anyone who will say otherwise. I also have been through the evolution sections of the most popular biology text books. I have also read several of the books supporting naturalistic evolution and several books that challenge it. I have a background in science and the scientific process so I know what is supported and what is not. I will challenge any professor at Butler you can get to a discussion of the details of evolution. My guess none will be interested since they may not like the answers. But if they do I hope they will be more respectful of our knowledge than you seem to be.jerry
October 10, 2007
October
10
Oct
10
10
2007
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PST
Carl Sachs, You cannot be serious? You equate the term "emergence" with "design" and these are two very different concepts. Actually they are not because emergence as used in ordinary English is predicated on design but as most in evolutionary biology use it, it is at best a nebulous concept. For example, design involves the interaction of complicated systems for a purpose. Yes, we can find purpose in the design of the universe and life. Both are very straightforward and easy to explain. For example, the universe. The various constants are incredibly fine tuned so that a coherent universe exists. Otherwise just incredibly small changes and the universe would be just a potential amalgam of quarks. If that isn't purpose, I don't know what is. In biology, there are thousands of complex systems that have specific purposes. Within the cells there are hundreds of very complex systems that are also finely tuned for a purpose which biology provides the purpose. There is no lack of purpose in biology. Above the cell level there are thousands of more system that have specific purposes. You confuse an ultimate purpose with the immediate purpose. I think Aristotle made some allusion to this with his analysis of causes. Emergent is a vague term which means exactly nothing where design is a very specific term that nearly always has meaning. In all my experience nearly every time the word emergence is used it refers to an intellectual process and that is usually a process of design despite the fact it often imperfect. In evolutionary biology it has become a pop term that is handwaving away what is not understood. I agree that we have no scientific evidence that show that mental or spiritual phenomena are metaphysically independent of physical systems. However, there is no evidence that it emerged in any sense of the word unless you want to use it in the sense that is suddenly happened. The choice of your response is interesting because it reveals a lack of understanding of the concrete aspects of the debate. ReligionProf admits he does not understand the issues but his bigotry about those who support ID is amazing for a professor or religion. You would think he would try to understand what the basis for our objections are. He also continues to use the fallacy of authority for his sole argument and you, a professor of philosophy, have decided not to point this out.jerry
October 10, 2007
October
10
Oct
10
10
2007
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PST
Carl "I’m not sure that “design” is any less magical thinking — i.e. “something magical happening without having to explain it or how it happened” — than is “emergence.” "Design" can be observed every day. It produces specified complexity readily. It is not magical. The examples of non biological "emergence" that we observed are trivial, and are not able to produce specified complexity.idnet.com.au
October 10, 2007
October
10
Oct
10
10
2007
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PST
Is "emergence" any less of a fudge-factor than "design"? Since ID as a science can tell us that something was designed, but cannot tell us by whom, or for what purpose, it strikes me that talking about 'design' is also talking about "something magical happening without having to explain it or how it happened." Conversely, design theorists and their advocates may have passionately held beliefs about who the designer was and/or the purposes behind design -- but clearly that's part of the implications (theological or otherwise) of design theory, not design theory itself. So taken by itself as science, I'm not sure that "design" is any less magical thinking -- i.e. "something magical happening without having to explain it or how it happened" -- than is "emergence." In any event, ReligionProf is correct when he distinguishes between reductionism and emergentism. So arguments against the former do not, by themselves, show that mental or spiritual phenomena are metaphysically independent of physical systems.Carl Sachs
October 10, 2007
October
10
Oct
10
10
2007
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PST
I do not have a degree in biology - Jerry, please do let us all know what your qualifications are. But the proponents of Intelligent Design seem to feel that well-informed laypeople can and should make decisions about this subject, and I can safely place myself in the latter category. But at any rate, since pretty much all biologists agree on the fact of evolution, if not always on the details of the mechanisms and other aspects, it is really their knowledge and critical thinking skills you are criticizing, so I need not take it personally. :)ReligionProf
October 10, 2007
October
10
Oct
10
10
2007
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PST
A couple points, I do not think that ReligionProf knows much biology so it is likely he will accept their words because he does not have the knowledge for critical thinking. It is interesting that he thinks we do not understand biology either and should likewise accept the current world-view as truth and as allanius pointed out above world-views change like the wind. A part of some Christian thinking is that God would never do anything in the physical world that could be directly attributable to him. Please do not give examples disproving this. All I am saying is that this is part of some Christian intellectual thinking. I do not know whether ReligionProf is part of this thinking or not. I use this as an example of how some theology determines science and is the basis of much of the Theistic Evolutionist's thinking. 2. The term emergent is the new all powerful term for the naturalist. It emasculates Natural Selection which is a weak term. Emergent can explain everything without using the term evolve. Essentially emergent means something magical happening without having to explain it or how it happened. So when someone resorts to the term emergent, they are essentially admitting a weak argument. Yes water is very different from both hydrogen and oxygen and so is nearly every chemical compound known different from it elements. A better example is salt or NaCl which is certainly much different from its elements, one of which is a poison. Someday Chemists and Physicists will be able to predict the properties of compounds directly from its molecular structure and water will no longer be a mystery.jerry
October 10, 2007
October
10
Oct
10
10
2007
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PST
MacT - in fairness to Prof. Marks, some people do put their preprints on the web. Check arXiv.org, or the MCMC preprint service. Other people do put them on their own webpages, but they are in the minority. Also, the manuscripts that were put up there were down as "under review", suggesting that they had been submitted to the normal channels. In this case, I think the benefit of doing this can be seen, with the work having been critically assessed, and at least one error has been identified (see Panda's Thumb for the details). Putting the manuscripts up on the web allows them to receive greater scrutiny, so improving the final published version. BobBob O'H
October 10, 2007
October
10
Oct
10
10
2007
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PST
gpuccio wrote: "But if scientists become fanatic, irratonal and intolerant, that’s a problem for science, because they are completely betraying their chosen role and abusing the cultural authority which society seems to have given them." Exactly. So simple to understand, but it always comes back to "see, look what the Christians are doing" nonsense.shaner74
October 10, 2007
October
10
Oct
10
10
2007
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PST
ReligionProf: As it seems that you have finally answered, although indirectly, some of my comments, let's go on with the discussion. That could be fun, after all. "I am not unaware of social aspects and pressures. What troubles me is that O’Leary seems to only recognize and acknowledge one group’s pressure, but not the pressure to conform in Conservative Christian circles." I can agree with you about the "pressure to conform in Conservative Christian circles", but I can't see your point. I don't see how an analysis of internal cognitive dissonances in some religious circles, interesting as it may be, has any relevance here. I must remind you that here we are talking science, not religion. What religious circles do in their private, or public life, or politically, or ideologically, is not my concern in any way. But here, we are talking about scientists and cultural institutions. We are talking about ideas and reasonable truth. We are talking about people like Marks and Dembski who are working very hard and very intelligently to demonstrate, for instance, that a lot of lies have been circulated in the scientific and general community about evolutionary algorithms which should support darwinian concepts, and which, instead, are an intellectual fraud. You see, scientists have no excuse when they behave as religious fanatics, even if their religion is stupid naturalism (I prefer this form to "methodological naturalism", because any attempt to base one's worldview on a completely undefined concept like "nature" is, in my view, completely stupid by definition). Religious people may be fanatic, irrational and intolerant, or not. If they are, that's a problem, but it's a religious, philosophical, or moral problem. But if scientists become fanatic, irratonal and intolerant, that's a problem for science, because they are completely betraying their chosen role and abusing the cultural authority which society seems to have given them. "You can claim that I’ve not read Dawkins, but I not only have read it but have been as public with my critique of him as I have with my criticisms of ID." No, I have never claimed that you have not read Dawkins. It's your problem if you have or not. I have only said that, when you affirm that no general tendency to “promote secularism and undermine faith” exists in contemporary scientific culture, you "seem" not to have read Dawkins, Hostadter, and all the others, who regularly publish their detailed and authoritative (because of their status as scientists) arguments in favour of strict materialism and against any form of religion on all available media. So, telling us that you have indeed read and criticized Dawkins is not a pertinent answer to my remark. "Since you mention the soul, let me say one more thing about O’Leary’s book... The concept of emergent properties is, alas, ignored." Ah, the soul. Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that you are affirming here that the soul is an "emergent property" of the physical brain. But that's exactly the point of view of reductionist materialists! Any materialist will be very happy with the concept that consciousness and intelligence are just an "emergent property" of neuronal activity, exactly as water is an emergent property of the combination of hydrogen and oxygen. That's exactly the same concept of Hofstadter in "we are a strange loop". So, are you a strict materialist? If so, I have no problem. But if you are not, then what are you? Please take notice that the problem of an independent existence and of a non material origin of consciousness is not so trivial as you seem to think. You see, water does not survive the separation iof its components. Being only an "emergent property", it is no more emerging, or anything else, when its constituents are separated. It just vanishes. So, if consciousness, intelligence, feeling, joy, love, etc, are only "emerging properties" of the particular structure of atoms and molecules which we call neurons and brain, they can't exist independently, and they will be completely lost with the dissolution of the physical body. That's exactly what materialists believe. Now, our problem here is not whether the soul exists or not, and whether materialists or religious people are right. That's another problem, for another place and time. Our problem here is if it's true that modern science strongly supports the materialist view about consciousness, as materialists like Dawkins and Hofstadter certainly believe, or if it's true that modern science strongly supports the opposite view, as Denyse O'Leary and Mario Beauregard are suggesting in their book, as far as I can understand (I am still waiting for it), and as I personally believe, together, I hope, with many other people on this board and elsewhere.gpuccio
October 10, 2007
October
10
Oct
10
10
2007
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PST
How can you be certain that 'throw together neurons (not merely matter) and shazaam, thought' is fundamentally different from 'throw together hydrogen and oxygen and shazaam, water'? I am grateful to the post's author for taking the time to reply. While there are extremes that seem to have may or may not have the capacity to reason with one another because their presuppositions are so different, there are a lot of people in between, who are not persuaded by either the materialist reductionism of the one side, or the excessive readiness to declare something scientifically inexplicable on the other. If you are persuaded that excluding this middle ground from serious consideration, and focusing on labelling the other extreme as fascists, is the best way to bring about change, that is your choice. Personally, I expect those who represent a Christian viewpoint to differ from the other extreme not only in terms of the conclusions they draw, but in the character of their conversation and their attitude. But if defending an immaterial view of the soul is more important to you than loving one's enemies, then perhaps we don't even have the same Bible in common, and thus are going to find meaningful discussion impossible.ReligionProf
October 10, 2007
October
10
Oct
10
10
2007
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PST
O'Leary writes: "All we really know for sure at this point is that desperate measures were undertaken to prevent Marks from working in this area in a normal way. And that speaks volumes." Here's some evidence that speaks volumes too: Marks has 125 publications listed in the "Journal Articles" section on his Baylor webpage: http://web.ecs.baylor.edu/faculty/marks/REPRINTS/Marks-Pubs.htm Of these, three are co-authored with W. Dembski. These, and most of the rest, are freely available for download on the Baylor website. Desperate measures? I don't see any evidence here that Marks is not continuing to work in a normal way.MacT
October 10, 2007
October
10
Oct
10
10
2007
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PST
ReligionProf wrote: “What troubles me is that O’Leary seems to only recognize and acknowledge one group’s pressure, but not the pressure to conform in Conservative Christian circles” I swear there is a gene or meme or something that causes those opposed to ID to attack Christianity whenever they find themselves being challenged. “But we’ve experienced that water has properties that are not the properties of hydrogen and oxygen. Therefore God must have inserted something miraculous and immaterial that accounts for its wetness.” I’ve not read O’Learys book yet. Does she directly attribute the properties of water to God? “The concept of emergent properties is, alas, ignored.” Like, throw some matter together and shazaam, thought? Those kind of emergent properties?shaner74
October 10, 2007
October
10
Oct
10
10
2007
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PST
Off topic,,,Religion Professor: Did you read the conclusive evidences I presented for ID, refuting your suggestive evidences for Darwinism? If not, here is the page. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/design-all-the-way-down/#commentsbornagain77
October 10, 2007
October
10
Oct
10
10
2007
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PST
ReligionProf is all wrong, OK, but the O'Leary's post begins with a "conspiracy theory" indeed. It is saying that Baylor admins "fear he has such evidence" that would prove Darwinism wrong. "Who knows? He might..." No; "what is going on" is that they fear pressure from peers, loss of credibility and possible retaliations.antonio jose
October 10, 2007
October
10
Oct
10
10
2007
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PST
Religion Prof, watch it. I said nothing about any conspiracy. The mindless conformism that currently defaces and debases academic life is no conspiracy. It is right out there in the open. Indeed, the lynch mobs and fascist thugs are proud of themselves and advertise their ability to squelch dissent. William J. Murray: Today, any doubt about Darwin's theory on whatever ground is regularly conflated with creationism. Michael Behe is routinely derided as a creationist, despite his thesis that no creation acts took place because everything was encoded at the time of the Big Bang. What makes Behe a "creationist" as far as the Darwin thugs are concerned is his doubt that natural selection acting on random mutations can do it all. In other words, he doubts THEIR creation story, ... with good reason, I may say. Many more would voice their doubts, had they as much nerve as Behe does. Now, returning to the case of Prof Marks, I suspect that computer simulations of Darwin's theory assume a flock of favourable events for which we have no warrant from nature. So corrected, the simulations would not work. If my hunch is right, the circular thinking in evolution simulation circles goes something like this: Such events must have happened because otherwise Darwinism wouldn't be true. But we know Darwinism is true. Therefore those events happened - and we can assume them in our simulation! If that's what's going on, forget reasoning with them. You might as well try reasoning with the people who appear at the front door, hellfire tracts in hand, damning you to hell if you don't join their sect ... All we really know for sure at this point is that desperate measures were undertaken to prevent Marks from working in this area in a normal way. And that speaks volumes. As does the claim that I suggested anywhere that it was a conspiracy. A person who makes such an accusation in the face of clear evidence to the contrary obviously needs to avoid acknowledging something.O'Leary
October 10, 2007
October
10
Oct
10
10
2007
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PST
We can speculate about institutional snobbishness, right up to a conspiracy, but none of that explains Baylor's behavior in shutting down Marks' website. But that speculation misses one point: Scientists generally do not post unreviewed findings on their websites. Don't take my word for it. Go to any university site and browse for yourself. I fail to see what prevents Marks from exposing his ideas to scientific scrutiny in the usual way. Why would he even want to rely on a website as the chief means of communicating his work, regardless of what institution sponsors it? That approach immediately raises credibility questions, no matter how good the work may be.MacT
October 10, 2007
October
10
Oct
10
10
2007
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PST
ReligionProf! Come, let us reason together. At one time it was universally believed that the sun revolved around the Earth. Was this a "conspiracy"? Dear friend, it was a worldview. Surely you can see the difference. When I was in college, it was a truth universally acknowledged that Hamlet's rage at his mother was a sign of the famous Oedipus Complex. Believe it or not, people actually used to take Freud seriously in those days! (You are probably too young to remember.) Was this benighted consensus the product of a conspiracy? No; it was about identity and thinking that we know what we know. Surely you have heard of Rationalism, Romanticism, Modernism. Were these now-defunct worldviews the product of conspiracies? No, they were the product of human pride. And as you know, pride goeth before a fall.allanius
October 10, 2007
October
10
Oct
10
10
2007
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PST
I am not unaware of social aspects and pressures. What troubles me is that O'Leary seems to only recognize and acknowledge one group's pressure, but not the pressure to conform in Conservative Christian circles. I'm forcing myself to read her book, and I was amazed that she could talk about cognative dissonance and the fact that sometimes people allow what they hear (i.e. are told by a source they consider authoritative) to trump what they see (or experience for themselves). Does the same thing never happen to Christians? One reason I tend to post links to my blog and/or web page is to avoid having people take what I say out of context. You can claim that I've not read Dawkins, but I not only have read it but have been as public with my critique of him as I have with my criticisms of ID. The book review I have posted at http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2007/08/do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do-richard-dawkins.html I also posted on the Dawkins forum, leading to a lively discussion - where my views were dismissed in much the same way they are here! Since you mention the soul, let me say one more thing about O'Leary's book. It suffers from the fallacy of the excluded middle. It is the equivalent of saying "Nasty materialist scientists are claiming that water is nothing more than hydrogen and oxygen. But we've experienced that water has properties that are not the properties of hydrogen and oxygen. Therefore God must have inserted something miraculous and immaterial that accounts for its wetness." The concept of emergent properties is, alas, ignored.ReligionProf
October 10, 2007
October
10
Oct
10
10
2007
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PST
#2: All Marks was doing was running blind mathematical simulations based on known facts to find out the limitations of random mutation and natural selection; I fail to see how actually conducting a test of an aspect of mainstream evolutionary theory can be conflated with advocating creationism.William J. Murray
October 10, 2007
October
10
Oct
10
10
2007
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PST
I completely agreekairos
October 10, 2007
October
10
Oct
10
10
2007
01:44 AM
1
01
44
AM
PST
It is a pity that the best ReligionProf can come up with to say something about phenomena such as this is his old and favourite "conspiracy theory" theory. It is useless to point out to him that "conspiracy" and "widespread prejudice, arrogance and superficilaity" are not the same thing, and that the second thing is much more common than the first, as anybody can easily witness by visiting ReligionProf's blog, whose link he kindly goes on providing in his posts here. It is a pity that ReligionProf himself apparently can't understand the meaning and social and cultural influence of intellectual conformism, while constantly recurring to a completely acritical idealization of scientific conformism as his only argument against ID. It is a pity that we should still debate, with religious people, if a general trend (not a conspiracy) to "promote secularism and undermine faith" exists or not in contemporary scientific culture. Maybe ReligionProf has never read Dawkin's last book, or the many articles of important neurologists on very important mass media declaring without any shame that science has definitely proven that the soul does not exist and that consciousness is an illusion (see also Hofstadter's last book, just to cite the most recent example). No, ReligionProf is happily unaware of all that. And like him, I am afraid, many other amateur religious philosophers.gpuccio
October 10, 2007
October
10
Oct
10
10
2007
12:40 AM
12
12
40
AM
PST
ReligionProf.
It is a pity that the best you can come up with to explain phenomena such as this is that even the faculty and leaders at Baylor are part of the worldwide conspiracy to promote secularism and undermine faith. Seriously?
Where in O'Leary's post does she mention anything about a worldwide conspiracy to promote secularism? How is it even implied that she believes such a conspiracy is behind the lynching of the Duke LaCrosse team or the hounding of Larry Summers? Perhaps you imagined it? Has her post been edited? Is there a conspiracy? Might I suggest that the cause behind the closing of Mark's lab, the hounding of Larry Summers, and the lynching of the Duke LaCrosse team is not a worldwide conspiracy to promote secularism but the snobbish arrogant culture of academia where adherents of the fashionable schools of thought work to delegitimize unpopular views.Jehu
October 10, 2007
October
10
Oct
10
10
2007
12:30 AM
12
12
30
AM
PST
Everything else that ReligionProf wrote is a ridiculous denial of the sociological aspects of science. First the "no international conspiracy, so nothing to worry about" attitude. Did he know that there are powerful and organized movements to promote secularism, and that... ... they are not secret? ... they try to entangle with the scientific establishment? ... they try to label themselves "scientific", "rational", even "enlightened" (as opposed to obscurantists, I guess)? ... they are about fighting a "cultural war", that is, about politics, intimidation by lawsuits, public ridiculing of opponents, careers destruction, ideology-pushing, etc? Secondly, the "clear-cut" argument. ReligionProf "great argument" is a history of Boyle vs Big Bang, conveniently sketched to prove the point (which he had since the beginning) that science is self-correcting because bla-bla-bla therefore no possibility for evidence being ignored bla-bla-bla. He avoids searching the real History of Science, with its good supply of theories being vindicated after decades of ridicule. I understand it: facts of life can hurt, especially if one is in simbiose with preconceived ideas. And, by the way, Science IS self-correcting. The big question is if Intelligent Design is a correction, or if it is false and therefore only a diversion.antonio jose
October 9, 2007
October
10
Oct
9
09
2007
11:18 PM
11
11
18
PM
PST
"Baylor does not want a Baylor prof who is not a proponent of Darwin’s theory of evolution to be in a position to provide evidence against it. They fear he has such evidence." ReligionProf said only one thing right: this above is a conspiracy theory and should be ridiculed because it does not work that way, with people consciously stopping science to advance their fads. Here is the thing: the people at Baylor simply did not want their names or Baylor’s name associated with "crackpot creationists", because of shame and loss of credibility. And this is even more true if the prof does get something in his lab (or thinks that he got something), but only because it would call media attention, shame and dishonour. Of course this mix of intelectual snobbishness and elitist prejudices hurts science the same way a conspiracy would do...antonio jose
October 9, 2007
October
10
Oct
9
09
2007
10:28 PM
10
10
28
PM
PST
It is a pity that the best you can come up with to explain phenomena such as this is that even the faculty and leaders at Baylor are part of the worldwide conspiracy to promote secularism and undermine faith. Seriously? For me, the evidence is clear-cut that there is no such worldwide atheist conspiracy. Fred Hoyle was not alone in being drawn to the steady-state model of cosmology because it fit his atheism better. But the Big Bang won, not because there was a stronger Christian conspiracy, but because of the evidence. http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2007/10/evolutionist-conspiracy.htmlReligionProf
October 9, 2007
October
10
Oct
9
09
2007
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PST
1 2

Leave a Reply