11 September 2007
So where ARE the Friends of Robert Marks? Of intellectual freedom at Baylor?
O'Leary
by Denyse O’Leary
The latest Baylor explanation of why Prof. Robert Marks’ evolutionary informatics website was taken down is that he wasn’t doing “approved research.”
There is no precedent for this notion of “approved research” at Baylor — which is most likely why the Baylor administration did not cite it earlier. They have just thought the idea up and are taking it out for a spin.
This is the latest in a variety of explanations. The original one turned on anonymous complaints. Another cited proprietary “Baylor branding.” Till now, none cited a doctrine of “approval.”
Actually, if the Baylor administration were being honest, only one good explanation would be necessary. The story wouldn’t keep changing.
The “approved research” slogan may have resulted from careful thought among the Baylor PR staff. It’s pretty good because most of us know what we would DISapprove. (Porn, racism, medical quackery, et cetera.) So Prof. Marks becomes associated with distasteful stuff.
And, all is well, right?
No, it isn’t. In the first place, the idea only arose when Prof. Marks was subjecting Darwin’s theory to rigorous testing, as opposed to the ace-up-the-sleeve tests that professional Darwinists use.
The Darwinist builds assumptions that favour his view into his model — and lo and behold, gets the results he needs. It was time for someone to clean up this game, … but not at Baylor!
What the Baylorites are saying when they mutter to the media about “approved” research is that, had they known what Marks was doing, they would not have approved. They would have found a way to stop him. That’s all.
This has nothing to do with an alleged standard. For one thing, if there were such a standard, it would be administered by research peers — not administrators scared witless by orchestrated bad publicity from the Darwinists (who, it must be admitted, are experts). Checks, balances, and the right of appeal would be built in. And Marks, who is a veteran at getting money from systems that DO have such standards, would certainly know about it.
The Baylor administration cannot simply admit that they do not want design studied at Baylor, and they will do whatever it takes to prevent that. That’s the reason they are caught in so many unworthy antics and shifting stories.
In fairness, their position may actually be valid — for them. If Baylor wants to commend the American Baptist culture by showing that it offers no challenge to the current materialist establishment, they are doing all the right things, and they have been right all along to do them.
Many donors probably want Baylor to go down that path — it’s the path of least resistance. Others don’t, but they can take their business elsewhere.
The problem all along has been that the Baylor administration doesn’t want to ADMIT that. They have not yet discovered an honorable-sounding way of putting it. Perhaps they are working on that.
Meanwhile, they are compelled to detract Robert Marks (”If only he were yada yada instead of yooda yooda, … )
And let’s face it: Where IS the Friends of Robert Marks Group that should now be preparing for a showdown over academic freedom at Baylor?
Email This Post
Print This Post
1
rrf
09/11/2007
9:57 am
eI can’t help but be reminded of the prescient quote by Rob Crowther in the Baptist News article from last week where he said that something is going on in science related to ID that is causing alot of questions from most of the scientists.
Maybe it is time for this silent majority to stand up for what is right. Will they, like Peter, deny the obvious three times before the gain their courage?
2
StephenB
09/11/2007
12:30 pm
eBaylor has learned the age-old strategy of having it both ways—appear Christian but be secular; fly the religion banner for the faithful and pull out the secular flag for the faithless; fawn over the powerful and oppress the productive.
When an organization loses its sense of mission, survival becomes the dominating principle. The real question is this: do they care more about Darwinian evolution or money?—it’s a close call.
3
Jason Rennie
09/11/2007
3:13 pm
e“t’s pretty good because most of us know what we would DISapprove. (Porn, racism, medical quackery, et cetera.) ”
Porn and Racism ? They are staple topics on many a university campus it seems.
4
GilDodgen
09/11/2007
3:20 pm
e“Shifting stories” sounds to me like making stuff up that isn’t true. Isn’t making stuff up that isn’t true one of those Thou-shalt-nots that good Baptists are supposed to shun?
5
Smidlee
09/11/2007
5:40 pm
eSurprise: Not all Baptists are Christians.
6
bornagain77
09/11/2007
6:43 pm
eVery Off Topic;
O’Leary, you have probably already heard about this. but A scientist has discovered a way to burn salt water using radio frequencies to liberate the hydrogen!
here is the site:
http://green.yahoo.com/index.php?q=node/1570
If this can be made feasible it could revolutionize the world as far as energy is concerned.
Does anybody know anything about the actual feasibility or maybe a site to get more information?
7
Chemfarmer
09/11/2007
7:09 pm
eBornagain77: I don’t mean to be discouraging, but thermodynamics says that the radio energy in would have to exceed the energy from the burning hydrogen. But Rustum Roy is a respected chemist, so maybe there is something I am missing. Water (esp salt water) is a very low-energy molecule, and barring nuclear events it can only at best give back whatever energy you put in, so I am quite skeptical.
8
DaveScot
09/11/2007
10:04 pm
echemfarmer
Radio waves hitting a conductor cause electron flow. That’s how radio antennas work. Put a ceramic cup with gold leaf decoration in a microwave and watch the electrical sparks fly for an easy demonstration.
It would thus seem to be (but not neccessarily correct) that it is electrolysis that’s producing the free hydrogen and a simple matter to determine if the energy used to break the hydrogen bonds in the water is less than the energy produced by recombining them.
The odd part of this is that saltwater is somehow an efficient enough antenna to produce an electron flow. In normal circumstances the antenna has to be a quarter wavelength or greater to be very efficient but RF is weird enough and less than fully understood enough so that surprises still happen even today (such as this one). One would expect, as the original researcher did, that the RF energy would simply become heat energy - heating the water instead of electrolyzing it.
The researcher was principally investigating nanometer scale structures that absorb RF energy efficiently. His research was primarily aimed at delivering these nanostructures preferentially to cancer cells and then killing the cancer cells by irradiating them with RF energy. These nanometer scale structures were not said to be in the saltwater in the “burning saltwater” press coverage but I’m presuming they are. Not knowing the nature of these structures or even their presence limits how much we can say about it but it’s possible they are what are somehow working as antennas to produce the electrolysis effect.
9
MEDIA COVERAGE: Baylor, Robert Marks, and the Evolutionary Informatics Lab | Uncommon Descent
09/12/2007
8:30 am
e[…] Recent Comments Daniel King: Phinehas #209: I am pleasantly surprised to learn that we are not far apart in understanding that our… russ: Do they teach Christian Ethics or any kind of ethics at Baylor? This might be an interesting case study for the… tribune7: Gil, thanks for the music! bornagain77: Bob O’H If you haven’t read it, I suggest you read Dr. J.C.Sanford’s book… Joseph: Genetic Entropy IS THE LOSS OF INFORMATION!!!!! OH REALLY????!!!1??? So, does genetic entropy have nothing to… Bob O’H: bornagain77 - can you give me a direct answer. Are you saying that genetic entropy has nothing to do with… Jehu: Well said. Chemfarmer: So true! or What shall it profit a (university) if it gain the whole world and lose its own soul? DaveScot: chemfarmer Radio waves hitting a conductor cause electron flow. That’s how radio antennas work. Put a… Chemfarmer: Bornagain77: I don’t mean to be discouraging, but thermodynamics says that the radio energy in… bornagain77: Very Off Topic; O’Leary, you have probably already heard about this. but A scientist has… Smidlee: Surprise: Not all Baptists are Christians. Phinehas: By the way, thank you very much for what I believe was an honest attempt to address the issue at hand. I… Phinehas: DK: I agree completely. The “concept” of truth obviously transcends perception, inasmuch as concepts… bornagain77: Bob O’H Ditto to Jehu’s comment! […]
10
Baylor closes ranks, defends Darwin against all lines of evidence | Uncommon Descent
09/14/2007
6:12 pm
e[…] Baylor’s move to shut down Prof. Robert Marks’s exposure of Darwinism as the Enron of biology is a harder line than the institution took seven years ago. […]