Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Yes, it’s true! The ID Taliban brought about Baylor Prez Lilley’s downfall …


Apparently, some fans of the ruins of neo-Darwinism think that President John Lilley’s departure from Baylor relates to intelligent design. So Rack Jite:

Though matters of tenure and logo design (believe it or not) are reported as the reasons, it was about no such thing. Rather it is the revenge of Baptist fundamentalists over encroaching secularism regards Intelligent Design. Ever since ID guru William Dembski resigned in 2000 because Baylor closed the door on his Intelligent Design department room (as it had became the laughing stock of World academia) the Taliban wing at Baylor has been festering to make its move.

and the  Prophet likewise preaches on Rack Jite’s text.

It gives one pause for thought that anyone could believe such foolishness, in view of the fact that

1. Lilley fell out with a number of his academic deans by rejecting an unusual number of tenure causes – essentially slapping the deans in the face and undermining their credibility with their peers. The response was an overwhelming no-confidence vote, and in the wake of that, well, he should have started the job hunt the morning after. Were I a friend, I would give him precisely that urgent advice.

2. I have not heard any evidence cited that the deans who voted against Lilley did so because they supported ID. Indeed, from monitoring a good part of the discussion here, I would say that you couldn’t necessarily predict a person’s support for ID by how they felt about Lilley’s governance or vice versa.

3. I hope that a person who thinks logos and branding are not important has the good sense never to blunder into a fight with Disney, Inc.

An ID sympathizer writes to say, “What struck me about these posts is how deluded and obsessed these people are. The world does not revolve around ID politics, and yet they blame Lilley’s downfall on us!”

Yes, but remember, the whole world is a vast right-wing conspiracy so everything really does revolve around ID politics – it just doesn’t look that way because the ID Taliban has immense power via the Chimpy McBushitler Conspiracy and is so very clever at disguising it.

Also, Just up at Colliding Universes:

Increase in UFO sightings in Canada – what’s behind that?

All existence is the expression of wisdom

So what if fossil bacteria are found on Mars? Polls show many Americans expect Star Trek!

Talking to origin of life scientists: Like giving a bobcat a prostate exam?

Agnostic mathematician: God is in the discoveries, not in the gaps (assuming he exists)

Carl Sagan and celebrity cosmology: Was he the best cosmology could do? Or the best celebrity could do?

I know this may be out of line (I've only posted a few comments, so I'm not a major contributor), but I'll miss Bob O'H's comments. I want to be clear about my perspective. I completely disagree with the point he's trying to make. I think he's ignoring the facts (deliberately or not, I'm not sure) because he doesn't like the conclusion. I also disagree with his views on the subject of ID in general. On the positive side, I think his comments are usually sincere and respectful. His perspective gives the forum some credibility in the eyes of people who don't have their mind made up one way or the other. I would like to think that Bob OHs contributions would earn him a little bit of leeway. On the other hand, its not my forum, and I hope I'm not being presumptuous. dl
Bob O’H is no longer with this forum.
It will indeed help the discussion of biology that the last biologist has been banninated from this "forum". E.g., PAV discussing a paper
without having access to the entire paper
"Bob O’H is no longer with this forum." That is a shame. I rather liked reading Bobs challenges and how they were handled. I am also not so sure he was ever "with" this forum, but I get the meaning. -DU- utidjian
Bob O'H is no longer with this forum. William Dembski
Anyone interested in ID was able to read the message clearly enough, inside or outside of Baylor. But I have no reason to think that most deans or ball fans at Baylor were thinking about ID, consciously or otherwise. They were thinking about how they themselves had been dissed (disempowered or disrespected) by Lilley's decisions. And they must have wondered what other changes would follow ... The official account of the decisions that resulted in Lilley being on the headhunter's rolodex once again is probably accurate. Of course, conspirazoids like the one I quoted could find a plot in an empty coke can. ("But it should have been an empty Dr. Pepper can ... and therefore ... ) O'Leary
So, when you wrote that the EiL affair sent a message, you meant to the outside world, but not to anyone in Baylor (as it didn't create a signal)? What sort of person was able to read the message? Bob O'H
Bob, you are so determined to find holes in arguments that you don't read carefully. Careful reading is what you are missing (or careful thinking?). For the record, let me spell it out: Obviously, I think Lilley's firing related to his behaviour. The question is, what instance of his behaviour precipitated the firing? And does that instance involve ID (as at least one conspirazoid seems to believe)? I think not, because Lilley essentially dissed all the academic deans when he spiked the tenure denial rate fourfold. Even those whose candidate survived Lilley-fication were probably mad as hell, and not going to take it any more - as the subsequent vote signalled. Were I the Dean of English, for example, my candidate might survive this time, but - what about next time? Do I want to live with the (cough!) admin as judge of my professional judgement in my own scholarly field for the rest of my career? Whatever message shutting down EiL sent probably had little to do with Lilley's firing because it may have predisposed some ID sympaticos to vote against Lilley but it could just as easily have predisposed anti-ID folk (or people who just want that particular uproar to go away) to vote FOR him. Basied on the current TE vs. ID wars, that latter effect could be powerful. But, as it happens, Lilley had made himself too unpopular by his more widely known actions for such an effect to create any signal. It's quite possible that most deans never thought much about Bob Marks or ID. So the message the EiL shutdown sent would certainly be read by me - but not by the people who voted. If that is really SO hard for you to understand, it shows what is wrong with a Darwinist worldview. It narrows the mind and prevents complex thinking tasks. O'Leary
I don't understand your arguments. Three days ago you were linking Lilley's sacking to his behaviour, and in particular to his actions over the EiL webpages, and making an explicit link to evolution:
Well, choosing to shut Marks down just months before that event sends a message that Baylor would purchase its acceptance into the elite at the price of not contributing to the ongoing meltdown over “evolution”, but only to the spin that no meltdown is happening.
Now you seem to be denying such a link. Can you explain what I'm missing? Bob O'H

Leave a Reply