As early as turn of last century.
Posted on 12/13/2010 11:18:17 AM PST by SeekAndFind
ID supports evolution over billions of years except that the ID (no reference to God) jumps in every now and then to get over the hard parts in the development of man from pond scum and fundamental Christians are happy to hold hands with them. go figure.
I fail to see how any result of the Kitzmiller case could “subvert” something s broad as “modern science.” We are, after all, talking about the opinion of a judge and jury on a matter of which they have small knowledge. The case in point was the right of a school board to prescribe what is taught. Schoolboards have done far more to subvert science by choosing to hire teachers who know more about football than chemistry and yet have installed them in chemistry labs.
Many people, including many religious people, have in their minds the idea that science is the only form of objective knowledge, and sense science deals only with “things” that everything is subject to its scrutiny.
I see a lot of religion card still. #4 is especially funny, since that information should have been part of his application for tenure if he thought it would help his chances.
, but he did have a lot going for him: he was author or co-author of dozens of peer-reviewed papers, he co-authored an astronomy textbook that is used by his own department.
"Did" being the operative word. His output dropped considerably soon after he joined the faculty. When making a tenure decision, they look at the trend. What the trend clearly showed was a once-promising scientist who lost it.
Imagine you were considering a promotion for an employee. You confirmed his work was outstanding at his previous employer, and even in the beginning with you. But in the last several years his work output has been far lower than previous, he brings in almost no new revenue-generating accounts compared to his coworkers, and he has only managed to train one subordinate in years.
Would you promote him? I doubt you would. But even better, he's black, and now he starts claiming he wasn't promoted because he's black, which makes you a racist. What's your opinion of him now?
The result is irrelevant. It is only one example where the DI tries to push ID far outside the scope of any scientific merit. They claim ID is purely scientific, but in truth it can't stand on scientific merits so they have a large PR and legislative campaign to support it. Yes, they actually have what is essentially a PR/lobbying arm that contacts legislators, school boards, teachers and parents.
I have a HUGE distrust for a "science" that got popular due to political, social and/or religious motives. Case in point: Global Warming.
Schoolboards have done far more to subvert science by choosing to hire teachers who know more about football than chemistry and yet have installed them in chemistry labs.
That's another issue. A very valid one for sure, but still another issue.
Back to the beginning. The problem is that the "no reference to God" is for the most part a sophism. You know it refers to God. The people who developed and lead the modern Intelligent Design movement flat-out admit that it refers to God. The Dover school board lost in large part because they admitted it referred to God.
I am sure that if the employee involved was not a Christian then what was in the performance reviews won't matter.
Personally, I´ve enjoyed Gonzalez´ writing, and dont´t have anywhere near the faith you seem to have in the university system.
Best....
He is not a Christian. He is an IDer that denies God's creation.
About the school boards. A court is no more competent to decide a scientific issue than a school board is. And scientists are as prone to lobby as anyone. Look at the huge lobbying effort for embryonic stem cell research, even though it raised difficult moral issues. What they were looking at was funding that would keep them employed for a decade or more.
Having worked at a university, I really don't have that much faith in them, which makes it even worse for him. At my most cynical towards universities I'd say these departments require two things: publication and grants. Publication brings prestige and grants bring money, and departments live on prestige and money. Note this equation is entirely separate from any actual academic quest for knowledge or advancement of science. It's simply about prestige and money.
He completely blew it on both fronts while at the university. Cold, hard facts. If he can keep up a high refereed publication rate and keep the grant money rolling in, they don't care if he's personally a young-earth creationist. He would be a cog in the machine that's producing, and that's what they want.
What they were looking at was funding that would keep them employed for a decade or more.
They all go for funding. The Wedge Strategy is quite different. It's a propaganda and lobbying front to put the cart before the horse, put support before any science.
RE: #4 is especially funny, since that information should have been part of his application for tenure if he thought it would help his chances.
What makes you think it was not part of his application for tenure? IT WAS. And it was not even made a major consideration. It was in effect, IGNORED.
RE: His output dropped considerably soon after he joined the faculty. When making a tenure decision, they look at the trend. What the trend clearly showed was a once-promising scientist who lost it.
NOPE. His work was ONGOING and parallel and simulataneous with is work on the Privileged Planet.
This denial of tenure had little to do with his ability as a researcher and teacher. Many of his students attested to his ability to teach and impart knowledge. Theire input were never taken into consideration at all.
RE: Did you miss the PR campaign part of it? It’s not about science, it’s about a religious movement. Note “teach the controversy.” There was no scientific controversy over natural selection in general before, but through PR they created the perception of one, then tell people it should be taught.
Let’s say there was a PR campaign, SO?
If you have something you feel is significant to share, why not advertise it or share it ?
Richard Dawkins and his cohorts support the atheistic campaign to “educate” people regarding the “falsity” of the story behind Christmas. Heck , there are posters being put up right now even as we speak. That’s Dawkins’ right. What he does with his own extra-academic time is his business.
SEE HERE FOR INSTANCE :
Should we demand that he or his cohorts (many in academia) be fired because of it ? When he calls all people who believe in God delusional, should we demand that his position be terminated ? NOPE.
I want MORE DEBATE, MORE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS, MORE OPEN INQUIRY, NOT SILENCING OF PEOPLE I DISAGREE WITH.
if you or anybody else do not share their conviction, you don’t have to adopt it.
And what does that have to do with one’s work in the academy ? Is he forcing his students or colleague to his belief ? If he is, then there is a case for dismissal, but not until.
One’s extra-currciular activities should be one’s business.
RE: The Wedge Document was originally supposed to be “top secret” and not for distribution outside the Institute
The Wedge Document was NEVER top secret. I’ve read it as early as when Dr. Philip Johnson authored its first draft and even wrote a book on it.
You can disagree with it, attack it, or debate its merits, but please, spare me your conspiracy theories.
This is exactly the problem. You are mixing a social, political and religious agenda with science, exactly what the Wedge Document does. Such agendas corrupt the science, see Global Warming.
I want MORE DEBATE, MORE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS, MORE OPEN INQUIRY, NOT SILENCING OF PEOPLE I DISAGREE WITH.
I agree, and that's going on as we speak. The problem is that since creationism and ID have not succeeded in the scientific community on their merits as ideas, their proponents have changed to non-scientific tactics while still pushing them as science.
The Wedge Document was NEVER top secret. I’ve read it as early as when Dr. Philip Johnson authored its first draft and even wrote a book on it.
When was that?
RE: This is exactly the problem. You are mixing a social, political and religious agenda with science, exactly what the Wedge Document does. Such agendas corrupt the science, see Global Warming.
And again I say, if it is NOT DONE USING SCHOOL TIME, there is no basis for firing or dismissing someone.
If you disagree with their agenda, write a tract or column against it, debate them, but please, no academic persecutions.
RE: The problem is that since creationism and ID have not succeeded in the scientific community on their merits as ideas, their proponents have changed to non-scientific tactics while still pushing them as science.
If that’s your opinion, that’s your opinion. Suffice it to say that These people have the freedom to present what they believe and if a lot of people are convinced that they are right, then so be it. I personally have no problems with it at all.
Why try to get it introduced at appeal if it wasn't part of the original application? As far as it being ignored, was it peer-reviewed publication? When seeking tenure, it doesn't help to accomplish things you know aren't going to support an application of tenure.
His work was ONGOING and parallel and simulataneous with is work on the Privileged Planet.
His peer-reviewed publishing was on a steady climb and hit a peak of 10 before he went to ISU, 5 as first author. That was the promising scientist his supporters mention. But then there is 2000-2001, six publications per year, three and two as as first author respectively. Still decent, but his output cut in half, notice first authorship dropping precariously. Well, maybe this is just the transition to the new job. Let's see what he does in subsequent years once he gets comfortable with his new digs and has learned the ropes.
Oops, not good. In 2002 he was down to two publications, neither as first author. In fact, he published as many papers in 1999 alone as he did for 2003-2007 COMBINED. His first authorship was almost double in that one year what it was in those five years. From 2002-2004, prime book time, he had no first authorship at all. First authorship started up again after the book was published, but still far below his previous level (only three in two years).
Such a drop in academic output prior to a tenure decision does not do well for one's chances. His work may have been "ONGOING" as you say, but it was at a severely depressed level.
This denial of tenure had little to do with his ability as a researcher and teacher. Many of his students attested to his ability to teach and impart knowledge.
Yet he mentored only one of them to the completion of a dissertation. That is a checkbox for tenure, another one that he failed. In fact, here's the checklist they used. Note that all of these are cold, hard facts, measurable requirements with numbers behind them.
With all of these measurable failures documented, I figure that only severe, blinding bias can keep a person from seeing the religion card being played here.
The Wedge of Truth was published in 2002. The Wedge Document was created in 1998 and leaked in 1999.
RE: The Wedge of Truth was published in 2002. The Wedge Document was created in 1998 and leaked in 1999.
Publishers Weekly was aware of the book as early as 2000.
Suffice it to say that there is no conspiracy to hide the intent of the Wedge. I’ve personally known all about it as early as the late 90’s without even having to look hard.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.