<body>
Hip and Thigh: Smiting Theological Philistines with a Great Slaughter. Judges 15:8

Friday, June 25, 2010

True Colors

See my addendum at the end

At times like this, I think of Kermit the Frog’s song: "It's not that easy being green…When I think it could be nicer being red or yellow or gold / Or something much more colorful like that." - Darrel Falk, Senior Fellow, BioLogos Foundation. On Living in the Middle

Walk on road, hm? Walk left side, safe. Walk right side, safe. Walk middle, sooner or later get squish just like grape - Mr. Miyagi, The Karate Kid, 1984.

No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other.
- Jesus Christ, Our God and Savior, Sovereign Creator, Matthew 6:24

As the BioLogos enterprise chugs along attempting to dispel the myths of biblical creationism, the infallibility of God's Word, and Scripture's sufficiency as a historical document, it was only a matter of time until their true colors were to shine through. I began picking out these atheistic chameleons painted like Christians early on when I would read through the disjointed comments under the blog posts. The BioLogos fans were a mixed bag of theological ineptitude. Commenters took grand delight in renouncing creationists as hill billies, mocking "literalists" and "inerrantists," and explaining how their mediatory views of faith and science is just what the unbelieving scientist needs in order to know the love of Jesus. Yet at the same time they actually took umbrage at anyone who would question their devotion to the Lord and the Bible.

But how can one NOT question the sincerity of BioLogos's commitment to the inspiration of Scripture and Christian orthodoxy when Darrel Falk writes,

There are Christians whose very sense of purpose and meaning in life depend upon the historicity of Adam and Eve.

Huh? The man has read the Bible, right? There is a rather foundational reason why as a Christian my very sense of purpose and meaning in life depends upon the historicity of Adam: Because my sin is dependent upon an historical man, Adam, and my salvation is dependent upon an historical Second Adam, Jesus Christ.

There is a lot I could say, but I wish to save my passion for later articles on my series addresing theistic evolution. However, two articles today by others who are way more articulate than I am are worth highlighting,

Phil Johnson's response to Darrel Falk, Middle of the Road, R.I.P. Kermit
and my friend Travis wrote this for the GTY blog, Dying in the Middle

Post Script (6/26)

Phil added this supplemental post over the weekend. It's a reprint of a comment Dan made as a summary of all the comment exchange that happened under Phil's response to Dr. Falk. What Dan demonstrates, at least as I can see it, is that the folks at BioLogos, who claim to be evangelical and defenders of Christian orthodoxy, are virtually indistinguishable from the atheistic evolutionists they pander to. The "David" commenter in question has posted here under this post and this post. Under the post about Neanderthals, his dismissive comments about the Bible being a "bronze-aged book" reveals the typical heart of a good majority of theistic evolutionists. They reject the sufficiency of scripture as a genuine historical document that tells how and when God created.

Labels: ,

46 Comments:

Blogger Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"I began picking out these atheistic chameleons painted like Christians early on when I would read through the disjointed comments under the blog posts."

Oh man, Fred.

Calling the BioLogos crowd out as "atheistic chameleons painted like Christians" will cause a fury and a backlash.

Ai-yi-yi-yi. If you posted that over at today's Pyro post, you'd get flamed and roasted.

11:35 AM, June 25, 2010  
Blogger Escovado said...

Fred,

Is it OK for me to call the BioLogos people 'stealth atheists' now? ;)

12:32 PM, June 25, 2010  
Blogger Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Dear Escovado,

The theistic evolutionists at BioLogos will go ape-crazy if you commented over at Pyro today and called them "stealth atheists."

12:48 PM, June 25, 2010  
Blogger Escovado said...

Truth,

I was speaking with tougue-in-cheek. Fred deleted one of my posts over at GTY because I used that term.

1:27 PM, June 25, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Well, a buddy deleted it. Not that we disagree with your assessment necessarily, but we want to avoid any entangling accusations of being mean.

Here, you can be more liberal in your accusations. =-)

2:37 PM, June 25, 2010  
Blogger Mesa Mike said...

Crypto-Atheists, let's call them.

3:05 PM, June 25, 2010  
Blogger Garrett said...

Closet atheist accusations aside, I think this debate has remained pretty healthy and respectful (trust me, the talk on gty/teampyro/biologos is nothing compared to most youtube threads; when I was a YEC, I posted a Ken Ham interview, and instantly was flooded with child abuse accusations). At least we are finally getting to the rub; the authority/infallibility/inerrancy of the bible and original sin. Can't wait for you to tackle the latter in more detail. I think my case on your part 1 of HT4TE's was solid inasmuch as I think innerancy doesn't suffer from accepting evolution, but original sin is a trickier subject.

You say "Because my sin is dependent upon an historical man, Adam, and my salvation is dependent upon an historical Second Adam, Jesus Christ."

We are all fallen, right? We are sinners by birth and by choice, right? How Adam's sin (I believe Adam is used both as an archetype and an individual) affected us is what is at issue. My stance (at least where I lean) is that we are not all descended from Adam biologically, but that God treated him as a representative or humankind's federal head (similar to how Abraham is used), and therefore imputed the fallen nature/guilt of him to all else (not merely because we follow his example). I guess what you'd have to demonstrate is why a solid, Augustinian view of original sin and transmission of original sin/imputation/federal headship are impossible unless we all descend from Adam and Eve genetically. Maybe you could interact with Denis Alexander's options at 5:00min here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J87o-c1Br-0 and here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gaidl7Hcaw4&feature=related

This is an area I really need to consider more before I make any position my own.

4:44 PM, June 25, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Garrett,
The historical Adam is a subject for a forth coming post. A maybe a while, but stick around. I'll take your question about genetic ancestry in consideration, but just from where I am sitting, I can't imagine why you don't see your position as problematic.

6:00 PM, June 25, 2010  
Blogger RightWingNut said...

What's so appalling to me is that despite his academic "credentials," Richard Dawkins is a fool. He is in the Biblical sense of the word, because he says there is no God (Psalm 53:1). He is in the intellectual sense, because he does not even see his own naturalistic presuppositions and how his bigotry forms his views, rather than true inquiry. He is in the academic sense of the word, because he rules out that people who are not naturalists have any scholarly credibility at all. Obviously, the most deadly of these is his spiritual foolishness shown by his mockery of Christianity. He even wrote a book to prove how foolish he is. It amazes me that Dr. Falk would genuflect at the altar of a fool and treat Christians with scorn, rather than defend the truth of the Gospel, since we know that "the truth is made evident within them" (Romans 1:19). Dawkins is lashing out in hate at Christians because he is actively suppressing the truth. Why pander to this instead of declaring the Gospel? I fear that Dr. Falk may be fellowshipping with fools rather than the brethren.

7:26 PM, June 27, 2010  
Blogger David said...

He is in the Biblical sense of the word, because he says there is no God."

Er, for the record, Dawkins does not say there is no God. He's says that God...as defined by the Abrahamic religions...almost certainly doesn't exist. He also says that there are certain things that could change his mind about God.

8:17 AM, June 28, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Dawkins has not said any of that stuff with any bit of genuine sincerity. Maybe to placate the sensibilities of interviewers and critics who accuse him of being the closed minded God hating bigot that he is. The "evidence" he is looking for is goofy stuff like God rearranging the stars at Dawkins' command to prove to him His existence.

But when it comes down to it, he would believe aliens created life on this planet, like he admitted to Ben Stein, before he would believe God did it.

8:33 AM, June 28, 2010  
Blogger David said...

"Dawkins has not said any of that stuff with any bit of genuine sincerity."

So, now you have the capacity to judge Dawkins' sincerity. You think Dawkins "placates"? Dawkins? Make up your mind. Either Dawkins is some sort of close-minded, God-hating rabid, atheistic pit bull...or he's a placater.

I suspect that his qualifiers come from his years in science, because it's a rule in science that one must accept the possibility that futher finding will show that they are wrong.


Are you saying that God could not rearrange the stars?

9:01 AM, June 28, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

So, now you have the capacity to judge Dawkins' sincerity.

Seeing that Dawkins has been straightforward as to what he believes, yes.

You think Dawkins "placates"? Dawkins? Make up your mind. Either Dawkins is some sort of close-minded, God-hating rabid, atheistic pit bull...or he's a placater.

Dawkins is clearly a closed minded, God hating bigot fundamentalist, there is no doubt about that. Yet at the same time he wants to put forth this persona that he is a "reasonable" person willing to examine all the evidence, which is really a dishonest play to garnish sympathy as a truth seeker. So it is probably more exact to say he is a hypocrite more than anything else.

I suspect that his qualifiers come from his years in science, because it's a rule in science that one must accept the possibility that futher finding will show that they are wrong.

I have yet to hear of any "scientist" who will accept any further findings that will show they are wrong. If anything, they explain away those "findings" to fit their presuppositions.

Are you saying that God could not rearrange the stars?

He doesn't rearrange them to appease God hating bigots to prove to them what they already know to be true but wish not to submit to the truth.

9:14 AM, June 28, 2010  
Blogger David said...

"Dawkins is clearly a closed minded, God hating bigot fundamentalist, there is no doubt about that."

So, you really do think that you know that mind of Richard Dawkins? You've read all of his books and see all of his interviews, and you know the mind of Dawkins. Wow. I'm impressed. Not going to give him the benefit of the doubt, eh? You know, I'm thinking that there's a lot of hate in your heart, too.

"I have yet to hear of any "scientist" who will accept any further findings that will show they are wrong. If anything, they explain away those "findings" to fit their presuppositions."

Guess you don't know much about the history of science then.


"He doesn't rearrange them to appease God hating bigots to prove to them what they already know to be true but wish not to submit to the truth."

So, God would prefer that they burn in Hell for all eternity? I suspect that it would take a lot less than a rearrangement of the stars to convince Dawkins he's wrong, but then I don't know the mind of Dawkins as well as you do.

9:26 AM, June 28, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

So, you really do think that you know that mind of Richard Dawkins?

Yes. He tells us what is on his mind all the time.

You've read all of his books and see all of his interviews, and you know the mind of Dawkins.

I have read enough and seen enough to know the mind of Dawkins, so yes.

Wow. I'm impressed. Not going to give him the benefit of the doubt, eh?

I am just going by what he tells us.

Guess you don't know much about the history of science then.

I know a lot about it and it confirms my assertion.

I suspect that it would take a lot less than a rearrangement of the stars to convince Dawkins he's wrong,

Dawkins has God's clear revelation as contained in His Word. He also has God's clear revelation as sovereign creator in the natural world. What more could he possible want?

I'll let you have the last word, because I don't really have time to go tit-for-tat with you today.

9:40 AM, June 28, 2010  
Blogger David said...

"Yes. He tells us what is on his mind all the time."

Right, so when Dawkins says that God...as defined by the Abrahamic religions...almost certainly doesn't exist (as opposed to saying "there is no god, period"), and when he also says that there are certain things that could change his mind about God, then you can believe him.

"I know a lot about (the history of science) and it confirms my assertion."

So, scientists never change their views about how the world works? C'mon, you know better than that. Just as one example, look up the history of the idea of plate tectonics. Move on to the history of germ theory. Did you read the "God Delusion", a book in which Dawkins gives an example of a scientist changing his mind about the Golgi Apparatus, right in front of an audience of other scientists? There must be a thousand examples of scientists changing their minds in the face of additional evidence.

9:59 AM, June 28, 2010  
Blogger RightWingNut said...

Scientists will certainly change their theories from time to time, unless a) it threatens their moral autonomy, or b) it threatens their funding. You have the perfect storm, then, in academics who believe in and do research in evolutionary "science." The idea that they would be accountable to an "Abrahamic" God that demands moral accountability is abhorrent to them, so they descend to tyrannical tactics (see Expelled, as Mr. Butler has mentioned) and ad-hominem comments about the mental capacity of people who do recognize the Creator. In addition, they have to maintain an aura of academic credibility and transcendent scientific knowledge to sustain their careers. If you do a survey of the literature (e.g. as http://www.crev.info does), the vast majority of evolution research is glorified storytelling that almost always identifies new avenues of esoteric research that require more funding. The field is very, ahem, Darwinian, so the bigger bombshell with much subsequent research gets the funding. Even so, the presuppositions and world view are never challenged, despite "Golgi apparatus" anecdotes that never threaten the worldview.

9:44 PM, June 28, 2010  
Blogger David said...

"The idea that they would be accountable to an "Abrahamic" God that demands moral accountability is abhorrent to them...

So, all scientists are atheists? How about all evolutionary biologists?

Do you have a degree in science? Do you know any scientists? Ever worked as a scientist? Ever written a grant proposal or gone to a scientific meeting? Ever sent in a paper to a peer-reviewed journal or been involved in peer-review?

I only ask because you appear to know soooo much about how science works.

If you believed what you saw in Expelled, did you also believe what you saw in Farenheit 911?

8:04 AM, June 29, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

I'm not a "scientist" but I happen to know scientists who fall into all of those categories you mention and they have first hand testimony of the bigotry and censorship they have experienced by those who want to maintain the status quo.

So your saying that Ben Stein's research, the testimony of non-Christian scientists, even secular journalists who were censored after even attempting to write on the subject of ID challenging evolutionary contentions, are making it up? They're the same as a couple of college kids spouting conspiracy theories. Talk about the willful blindness. But I guess that is just par for the course with your ilk.

8:15 AM, June 29, 2010  
Blogger David said...

I'm not a "scientist".

Well, there you go then. It always amazes me to see folks prattle on about how science works when they've never been involved in science.

As far as censorship goes, well, some specific examples would be nice. I was not aware that scientists are able to violate the First Amendment.

What I'm saying about Expelled is that if you believe Expelled, then you should also believe Farenheit 911. So, what's your view of F-911? Lots of testimony in F-911, too.

8:28 AM, June 29, 2010  
Blogger David said...

"Talk about the willful blindness. But I guess that is just par for the course with your ilk."

An young earth creationist is going to lecture me about "willful blindness" of my ilk? Wow. Just wow. Pot. Kettle. Black.

8:31 AM, June 29, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

But the testimony of men and women I know personally who fall into your box of what constitute a "scientist" and the blatant censorship they experienced is not reliable?

The comparison with Avery's 911 film is that the testimony he presents was hardly first hand, eye witnesses. Those that were supposedly first hand were countered and debunked by hundreds of other eye witnesses and collaborative hard evidence. The folks in Expelled are first hand eye witnesses and there is collaborative evidence supporting their testimony.

I know personally as of this day a court case against JPL for censoring and demoting an engineer at their facility because he holds to ID. I know the engineer personally, as well as several of his co-workers who say he was wrongfully demoted for his views. JPL will lose their law suit because it is such a clear case of discrimination.

What would help your claim of no censorship is if you could find IDers or Creationists who have been able to present their opposing views who would contradict what is the main theme of Stein's documentary.

8:38 AM, June 29, 2010  
Blogger David said...

"But the testimony of men and women I know personally who fall into your box of what constitute a "scientist" and the blatant censorship they experienced is not reliable?"

Specifics would be useful here.

As far as the JPL engineer is concerned, I'd wait to see how this plays out before drawing conclusions. One has to wonder if he as "demoted" for his "views" or for just being a pain in the behind to co-workers.

Expelled was garbage. I sat through that piece of garbage so that I would know what it said. It was filled with errors too numerous to list. Both Farenheit 911 and Expelled were both propaganda films. They should be treated as such.

You have a lot of faith in "eye witnesses". You should talk to those in the legal profession about the reliability of "eye witnesses".

Define censorship.

8:56 AM, June 29, 2010  
Blogger David said...

Here's the thing you need to do. You need to put yourself in the position of astromers who are badgered by geocentrists who want to be able to present their "opposing views". Now, geocentrists are free to present their views in numerous ways and in numerous forums, just like YECers. Astronomers do not control blogs, newpapers, book publishing, etc., etc.. Like YECer, geocentrists have endless outlets for their point of view. Gecentrists are protected by the First Amendment, although they are not free to be pains in the behind at work.

But astronomers do control their peer-reviewed journals and they do sit on grant review panels. Now, if the astronomers refuse to publish papers by geocentrist, are they censoring bigots? If geocentrists do not receive grant money from the NSF, is this bigotry and censorship?

9:08 AM, June 29, 2010  
Blogger Escovado said...

Expelled was accurate: "Expelled Exposed" Exposed: Your One-Stop Rebuttal to Attacks on the Documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

The book Slaughter of the Dissidents by Jerry Bergman provides extensive documentation regarding the material covered in Expelled as well as other academics.

9:12 AM, June 29, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

can you name any geocentrists who have been denied grant money?

I am thinking more along the lines of a YEC who merely wishes to do examination of various Neanderthal skeletons. Nothing wrong with that, huh?

9:13 AM, June 29, 2010  
Blogger David said...

I saw Expelled. Expelled was propaganda. Expelled was garbage. If you wish to understand the reasons for why scientists respond to ID/Creationism as they do, go read the transcripts from Kitzmiller v. Dover.

Would I be allowed to handle Neanderthal material? No. Guess that means I'm being censored.

9:29 AM, June 29, 2010  
Blogger Escovado said...

"I saw Expelled. Expelled was propaganda. Expelled was garbage. If you wish to understand the reasons for why scientists respond to ID/Creationism as they do, go read the transcripts from Kitzmiller v. Dover."

Repeating yourself doesn't make your wishes come true, Davey. I suppose your next response will be with your fingers in your ears saying, "La, la, la, la, la. I can't hear you! La, la, la, la, la."

Kitzmiller v. Dover is covered in the "Expelled Exposed." Exposed web site.

9:39 AM, June 29, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

If you are an anthropologist why would it be a problem with you submitted a request to handle and examine Neanderthal skeletons?

9:43 AM, June 29, 2010  
Blogger David said...

So, was a PhD antropologist denied access to Neanderthal remains?

9:45 AM, June 29, 2010  
Blogger David said...

"Kitzmiller v. Dover is covered in the "Expelled Exposed." Exposed web site."

Oh, so this counts as having read all of the transcripts? Please.


I'm not sticking my fingers in my ears at all, but I'm not going to waste my time reliving all of the Expelled bull hockey. However, here's one example that I know something about, because I do know something about getting tenure at a research university. Look at the following graph. This is not how you get tenure.

http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/gg2.jpg

http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2007/12/guillermo_gonzalezs_publicatio.php

I repeat. Propaganda. Propanga that plays on the ignorance of the audience with respect to how science works.

9:51 AM, June 29, 2010  
Blogger Escovado said...

*sigh*

Here is the original post from Neurotopia that the Stranger Fruit blog was referring to:

A Handy Graphic/Timeline of Gonzalez's Publication Drop

What's especially amusing is that a commenter by the name of "Stephen Jaros" on that very blog entry calls the Neurotopia blogger's bluff.

Of course, the "Expelled Exposed," Exposed web site also has an article that directly answers and links to the original Neurotopia blog entry:

ISU astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez's stellar publication record outshines colleagues

repeat yourself all you want, David, but it won't change a thing.

I need to get back to work.

10:27 AM, June 29, 2010  
Blogger David said...

Looks at both of your links. You have to get into the details to understand this, and clearly, you don't get it. You just don't understand the basis for awarding for tenure. I've been there. Have you?

10:56 AM, June 29, 2010  
Blogger Escovado said...

The "details" are quite clear: You completely failed to belittle Guillermo Gonzalez's publication history, which was the excuse given for him not receiving tenure. So now you try to change the subject.

I have better things to do than go around and around in circles with you. Give it a rest.

11:12 AM, June 29, 2010  
Blogger David said...

Ever go up for tenure? If not, then you don't know what you're talking about. The Gonzo case was reviewed all the way up to the top. At the top of the appeal process, there are few, if any, scientists. You have to know the game to understand the game.

11:51 AM, June 29, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

I've never been up for tenure but I understand the process just fine and I know what I am talking about. Your last comment speaks volumes and affirms every thing we have been stating: You don't play with the right ball, they won't let you play.

12:42 PM, June 29, 2010  
Blogger David said...

Let me explain. In science, tenure rests on a three legged stool, and all legs are equally important.

(1) Mentoring students to PhD.

(2) Getting grant support. This one REALLY matters to things like Boards of Trustees when they review tenure decisions. A university is a business.

(3) Original, peer-reviewed research publications in which the employee is the primary author and based on work done at the tenure-granting institution. You can publish out of your post-doc research for awhile, but you better be extremely prolific in your third, fourth and fifth years after hire and the research had better be done at the institution in question. Review articles are nice, but are not counted the same as original research. The quality or rank of the publishing journal is also critical.

How did GG do?

(a) Total fail.
(2) Total fail.
(3) Mostly fail.

I noticed that the Disco Institute link that was supposed to be a "rebuttal" only talked about "raw publications". That tells us nothing about the quality of the work, the quality fo the journals and/or whether the pub was based on research done at ISU.

Getting tenure is a very difficult. You have to be totally dedicated and single-minded in your pursuit of tenure. You have to everything right, make tremendous sacrifices, and yes, it helps if you don't piss off colleagues. I've seen plenty of good scientists denies tenure. Had GG wasted the same amount of time stamp collecting as he did with ID videos, the result would have been the same. No tenure.

1:05 PM, June 29, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

and yes, it helps if you don't piss off colleagues.

Which is code word for "never refuse to drink the establishment kool-aid."

1:46 PM, June 29, 2010  
Blogger David said...

"Which is code word for "never refuse to drink the establishment kool-aid."

No, it's a code word for don't piss off your colleagues. There are a thousand and one ways to do this. None of these are a good idea.

2:11 PM, June 29, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Oh certainly there is, but dissenting from Darwinian evolution is the number one way and the one that guarantees you never get tenure or promotion. Just what Stein demonstrated.

3:46 PM, June 29, 2010  
Blogger David said...

So, how would "dissenting from Darwinian evolution" result in the denial of tenure for an astronomer? Evolution and astronomy are two different separate and distinct fields of science. In addition, GG's appeal failed at every level, despite the fact that Boards of Trustees usually have few if any scientists on them.

In any event, you're ignoring the numerous ways in which GG failed in order to paint the martyr story you want to paint. That's ok, Expelled ignored all of this data, too. Did Expelled provide any of the information that I provided in my three legged stool post? No. Expelled is propaganda. Nothing more.

4:10 PM, June 29, 2010  
Blogger Escovado said...

David,

You’re grasping at straws.

The Expelled Exposed, Exposed web site provides plenty of documentation that Gonzalez more than exceeded (by 350%) his requirements for peer-reviewed publications. Interestingly enough, the comment exchange that “Stephen Jaros” had with the blogger, whose bogus evaluation of Gonzalez’s work you cited, makes this perfectly clear. Your continued effort to disparage his publication history is just making you look silly.

Regarding grants, Dr. Jerry Bergman writes,

“The most common bogus claim offered as to why Gonzalez was denied tenure was his failure to acquire a sufficient number of grants. To put this claim in perspective, observational astronomers are often not very dependent on grants to support their research. They require primarily telescope time, transportation to and from the facility and computer time to analyze their data. Furthermore, securing external funding was not listed as a tenure qualification in his ISU department guidelines. It is typically not easy for an untenured professor to obtain grant money on his own. Funding is usually a group effort that involves senior professors cooperating with younger professors.” (Slaughter of the Dissidents, p. 315).

More: The Truth about Research Grants, Gonzalez and ISU

The above-mentioned blog commenter articulated this issue as good as anyone:

“Come on. Sure, things like grant money and students matriculated matter, but the publication record is the 800-pound gorilla of the tenure process. That's the bottom line w/regard to intellectual contribution.” You know very well that the publication record is the most important thing in regards to tenure—which is why you attacked that first. Unfortunately, you completely failed.

“Getting tenure is a very difficult.” Apparently it isn’t so difficult at ISU where 91% of tenure applications were accepted in 2007:

Tenure Statistics Contradict Iowa State’s Claim that “many good researchers have failed to satisfy the demands of earning tenure” at ISU

The only mistake Gonzalez made was not keeping his beliefs to himself before he was granted tenure.

4:55 PM, June 29, 2010  
Blogger David said...

"They require primarily telescope time, transportation to and from the facility and computer time to analyze their data."

And how much telescope time did GG get? It's my understanding that he failed here, too.

Grant money also pays for GRAD STUDENTS, and grad students are expensive. No grad students, no research.

"Furthermore, securing external funding was not listed as a tenure qualification in his ISU department guidelines. It is typically not easy for an untenured professor to obtain grant money on his own. Funding is usually a group effort that involves senior professors cooperating with younger professors.”

Everyone knows how critical acquiring funding is in holding a job in science. Everyone. Further, NSF has programs specifically aimed at new facutly. The funding is specifically for non-tenured scientists who are beginning their careers. I know. This is how my wife got tenure. She got funding. She made now excuses.

"Sure, things like grant money and students matriculated matter/"

Yes, yes, YES, because these are the keys to being able to do research in the first place. No money, no student, NO RESEARCH!



As far as pubs go, you've offered nothing more than a disputed count of publications. No analysis of whether or not the research was done at ISU, etc. Look again at the disputed graph. Even if you credit GG with 5 or 6 in his last year, compare his productivity as a post-doc with his productivity as a professor. This is not the way it's supposed to work.


All you have here is more propaganda designed to fool people who don't know how science is done in universities.

So, which science department are you in?

5:15 PM, June 29, 2010  
Blogger David said...

Sorry, sentence above should read..

She made no excuses.

5:16 PM, June 29, 2010  
Blogger David said...

One last point. Your link about tenure stats? Did you notice that the data in the graphs are not specific to science departments at ISU? Wonder why it's not specific to science departments? Yes, there's a note in the text about 70% acceptance in astronomy, but this is in the text and not in the big graphs. This is how propaganda works.

5:20 PM, June 29, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

I guess its propaganda like Dawkins works are propaganda, or Jerry Coyne's, or the stuff presented by Eugenie Scott's misnamed National Center for Science Education. It is better understood as Atheistic Propaganda. But your comment that evolution is irrelevant to astronomy. Oh yeah. Tell that one to Carl Sagan.

I can't be stamping out troll fires so I'll close the comments. I'll have another post against theistic evolution in the future.

5:39 PM, June 29, 2010  

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home