[_ Old Earth _] Be Afriad Evolutionists.

[jwu]

Put this in an own thread and i'll respond. I won't let this one be derailed.

In that space you COULD have posted "I approve of those statements - start a thread on it if I am wrong".

Again - "instructive" that you are not coming out on it.

You're taking quite a cheap shot here...

I actually do prefer to read up on things before i make any such statements, so it would be efficient if in the meantime you prepare the thread about the topic. Is there anything wrong with that?

 

[BobRyan]

You're taking quite a cheap shot here...

I actually do prefer to read up on things before i make any such statements, so it would be efficient if in the meantime you prepare the thread about the topic. Is there anything wrong with that?

I am fine with your taking some time to look into it.

If after doing that you believe my "Simpson's Horse Series is a perfect example of the kind of fraud that a junk-science religion like atheist darwinism is perfectly tailored to produce" is a false statement because you think that Simpsons Horse Series was legit -- fine I will start the thread. Happy to do it.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan wrote:
Is it your claim that when you say "I do acknowledge" means "I never brought any of his success up until you posted the facts and forced me to admit to it"??
IS that filtering of the data your defintion of the "balance" that you put into your diatribe against Gonzalez???

That would be those "little pesky details" like the fact that Gonzalez has published FOUR TIMES the volume of papers required for tenure at ISU.

Pesky details like this guy has written four books with one of them published by PBS nation wide "the Privileged Planet".

Pesky details like this guys books are endorsed by well respected independant science reviewers.

Pesky details like NO OTHER associate prof at ISU has been mentioned as having that level of accomplishment.

jwu said
I didn't bring them up because they don't matter.

Game over. Thanks for playing.

As I said -- I also appreciate your willingness to be so transparent.

Bob

 

[jwu]

Nice assertion, but a bit overly eager.

That would be those "little pesky details" like the fact that Gonzalez has published FOUR TIMES the volume of papers required for tenure at ISU.

Note that the volume of papers required for tenure merely indicate the minimum standard below which one does not even need to apply. Meeting this standard does not guarantee tenure in any way.

You still didn't answer my question:
What is the minimum standard of ongoing productivity that Gonzalez would have to fall below to not deserve tenure, according to your opinion? Past laurels don't warrant a lifetime employment, do they? Or are you going to say that he should have been given tenure, no matter how little work he might get done in the future?

The ISU president has this to say about giving tenure:

The tenure review process at a university like Iowa State must be handled with great care, because granting tenure guarantees a lifetime appointment to the faculty member who receives it. That's why the standards for tenure are very high. Before tenure is awarded, the university must be extremely confident that the faculty member will continue to achieve at a high level of excellence and with significant impact in his/her research specialty. In conducting that evaluation, we carefully examine the candidate's record of accomplishment, with a primary focus on what the candidate has accomplished during his/her appointment as an independent faculty member at Iowa State, since that gives the best indication of the candidate's future success. Over the past 10 years, four of the 12 candidates who came up for review in the physics and astronomy department were not granted tenure.

http://www.public.iastate.edu/~nscentra ... ment.shtml
That quite clearly says that ongoing productivity is required, doesn't it?

 

[BobRyan]

4 of 12 ... hmm so 8 of 12 associate professors had 64 refereed papers published, had 4 books written, had nationwide publication of one of their books done by PBS in movie form...

Sad to say it -- but it is "obvious to all" that the guy who slammed the door on Gonzalez after the advisor for the Atheist and Agnostic club began his campaign against Gonzalez -- has "some incentive" not to "get exposed" as having participated in the pogram against Gonzalez.

It would have been far more "objective" to find an academic source not biased against I.D at ISU one way or the other who could say that at HIS university tenure would also not be granted to someone with such an outsanding academic achievement record -- OR if the president of ISU could point to those 8 other cases showing just how they EXCEEDED the number of publications completed, books, movies, acknowledgements -- as compared to Gonzalez.

In other words "objectivity" would have been useful at that point.

The sad thing is jwu -- the objective unbiased reader is going to see a pattern in your bias so far.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[jwu]

4 of 12 ... hmm so 8 of 12 associate professors had 64 refereed papers published, had 4 books written, had nationwide publication of one of their books done by PBS in movie form...

Sad to say it -- but it is "obvious to all" that the guy who slammed the door on Gonzalez after the advisor for the Atheist and Agnostic club began his campaign against Gonzalez -- has "some incentive" not to "get exposed" as having participated in the pogram against Gonzalez.

It would have been far more "objective" to find an academic source not biased against I.D at ISU one way or the other who could say that at HIS university tenure would also not be granted to someone with such an outsanding academic achievement record -- OR if the president of ISU could point to those 8 other cases showing just how they EXCEEDED the number of publications completed, books, movies, acknowledgements -- as compared to Gonzalez.

In other words "objectivity" would have been useful at that point.

The sad thing is jwu -- the objective unbiased reader is going to see a pattern in your bias so far.

in Christ,

Bob

Still no answer to the question. Do you seriously argue that past laurels remove the need for ongoing productivity when tenure is to be decided about?

 

[jwu]

You're taking quite a cheap shot here...

I actually do prefer to read up on things before i make any such statements, so it would be efficient if in the meantime you prepare the thread about the topic. Is there anything wrong with that?

I am fine with your taking some time to look into it.

If after doing that you believe my "Simpson's Horse Series is a perfect example of the kind of fraud that a junk-science religion like atheist darwinism is perfectly tailored to produce" is a false statement because you think that Simpsons Horse Series was legit -- fine I will start the thread. Happy to do it.

Bob

Just wondering...why not discuss the phylogenic tree of horses as it is currently understood, instead of a 57 years old version? Back when that book was written DNA wasn't even discovered yet, after all...so i expect quite some new information has been found since then.

What i have found out so far is that apparently some artistic impressions were somewhat speculative, but if you can provide evidence that some outright fraud was perpetrated which persists until this day, then i definitely want to know about it (in that seperate thread).

 

[BobRyan]

Just wondering...why not discuss the phylogenic tree of horses as it is currently understood, instead of a 57 years old version? Back when that book was written DNA wasn't even discovered yet, after all...so i expect quite some new information has been found since then.

What i have found out so far is that apparently some artistic impressions were somewhat speculative, but if you can provide evidence that some outright fraud was perpetrated which persists until this day, then i definitely want to know about it (in that seperate thread).

There are two things that are of interest here - 1 IS it true that the junk-science foundation of atheist darwinism DOES lead to fraudulent presentation or a junk-science based presentation that nobody in their right mind should take seriously and yet is promoted as the BEST evidence for the atheiist darwinist claims?

Are these junk-science examples admitted to by both atheist darwinists and Christians as they come up? If so how can the junk-science foundation for atheist darwinism be eliminated?

THE OTHEr question is "forget about the various discoveries along the way -- what is the current level of storty telling in atheist darwinism for the horse series and do christians accept it given the checkered history of that topic?"

My intent is to detail the former, since it tends to have agreement on both sides of the isle and should be glaringly obvious to all. I take that approach since I find that the basics, first principles, are often a struggle for the atheist darwinist groups to master. It is so bad that even when the atheist darwinist masters themselves come around to admitting to the problem -- their followers are often very slow to pick up and agree to the new correction "no matter what the facts".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[jwu]

Well, then i'm looking forward to discuss this in a seperate thread.

 

[BobRyan]

Still no answer to the question. Do you seriously argue that past laurels remove the need for ongoing productivity when tenure is to be decided about?

Still no response to the "try objectivity instead" suggestion? (Compare the volume of Gonzalez's books and published papers to that of the 8 other associate professors )

By "past laurels" you mean "books and papers in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 " should not count NOR the distinguished academic record of peer reviewed papers and books published prior to that.

I find that alone to be a stellar statement for lack of objectivity.

I also find it shocking that your prime argument against "Expelled" is that a man with a stellar record like Gonzalez should be denied tenure no matter what -- even though we can all SEE that his record is superior AND the pogram against Gonzalez BEGINS two years BEFORE his denial of tenure by the RELIGION department's advisor to the ATHEIST and AGNOSTIC group at ISU.

Not sure that the objective unbiased reader will be so willing to turn a blind eye to all those glaring details.

Bob

 

[jwu]

By "past laurels" you mean "books and papers in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 " should not count NOR the distinguished academic record of peer reviewed papers and books published prior to that.

In these four years he published only nine papers, of which he was first author of merely three papers.

While his previous record of the 90ies and up to 2001 is impressive, he apparently couldn't maintain it. Had he, then i'd be all on your side, but his productivity dropped significantly.

I also find it shocking that your prime argument against "Expelled" is that a man with a stellar record like Gonzalez should be denied tenure no matter what -- even though we can all SEE that his record is superior AND the pogram against Gonzalez BEGINS two years BEFORE his denial of tenure by the RELIGION department's advisor to the ATHEIST and AGNOSTIC group at ISU.

Excuse me...where did i say that he should have been denied tenure no matter what? Put up a quote of me or retract that assertion!

His record used to be excellent, but apparently he couldn't live up to the promise of his early career.

Still no answer to my question...

 

[VaultZero4Me]

There are two things that are of interest here - 1 IS it true that the junk-science foundation of atheist darwinism DOES lead to fraudulent presentation or a junk-science based presentation that nobody in their right mind should take seriously and yet is promoted as the BEST evidence for the atheiist darwinist claims?

Are these junk-science examples admitted to by both atheist darwinists and Christians as they come up? If so how can the junk-science foundation for atheist darwinism be eliminated?

THE OTHEr question is "forget about the various discoveries along the way -- what is the current level of storty telling in atheist darwinism for the horse series and do christians accept it given the checkered history of that topic?"

My intent is to detail the former, since it tends to have agreement on both sides of the isle and should be glaringly obvious to all. I take that approach since I find that the basics, first principles, are often a struggle for the atheist darwinist groups to master. It is so bad that even when the atheist darwinist masters themselves come around to admitting to the problem -- their followers are often very slow to pick up and agree to the new correction "no matter what the facts".

in Christ,

Bob

lol junk science.

Why don't you try to actually debate first? If your argument is so strong, why not leave out the crud that makes anyone on here for actual discussion want to stop reading? You've established that you feel it is junk science, atheistic, and God hating. Lets move on from that and actually discuss something. I will follow this debate and try to give my (although be it at times uninformed) 2 cents, if these tactics can be avoided. What do you say?

 

[jwu]

I also find it shocking that your prime argument against "Expelled" is that a man with a stellar record like Gonzalez should be denied tenure no matter what -- even though we can all SEE that his record is superior AND the pogram against Gonzalez BEGINS two years BEFORE his denial of tenure by the RELIGION department's advisor to the ATHEIST and AGNOSTIC group at ISU.

Excuse me...where did i say that he should have been denied tenure no matter what? Put up a quote of me or retract that assertion!

Bump for BobRyan to either produce evidence of me saying the words that he put into my mouth, or to retract this falsehood.

 

[Quasarsphere]

I also find it shocking that your prime argument against "Expelled" is that a man with a stellar record like Gonzalez should be denied tenure no matter what -- even though we can all SEE that his record is superior AND the pogram against Gonzalez BEGINS two years BEFORE his denial of tenure by the RELIGION department's advisor to the ATHEIST and AGNOSTIC group at ISU.

Excuse me...where did i say that he should have been denied tenure no matter what? Put up a quote of me or retract that assertion!

Bump for BobRyan to either produce evidence of me saying the words that he put into my mouth, or to retract this falsehood.

Good luck with that one, mate. But here's a hopeful bump anyway.

 

[BobRyan]

4 of 12 ... hmm so 8 of 12 associate professors had 64 refereed papers published, had 4 books written, had nationwide publication of one of their books done by PBS in movie form...

Sad to say it -- but it is "obvious to all" that the guy who slammed the door on Gonzalez after the advisor for the Atheist and Agnostic club began his campaign against Gonzalez -- has "some incentive" not to "get exposed" as having participated in the pogram against Gonzalez.

It would have been far more "objective" to find an academic source not biased against I.D at ISU one way or the other who could say that at HIS university tenure would also not be granted to someone with such an outsanding academic achievement record -- OR if the president of ISU could point to those 8 other cases showing just how they EXCEEDED the number of publications completed, books, movies, acknowledgements -- as compared to Gonzalez.

In other words "objectivity" would have been useful at that point.

The sad thing is jwu -- the objective unbiased reader is going to see a pattern in your bias so far.

in Christ,

Bob

Exceeding the average for Tenure by 350% is "enough evidence" that he was a valid Tenure candidate.

Having 4 books and a movie made out of one of those books -- The Privileged Planet -- was "over the top" by comparison to ALL other assoc professors at ISU.

So bringing up that stellar record as your EXAMPLE of "UNDER ACHIEVING" and the prime reason to not "allow yourself to SEE" the movie Expelled (that highlights the problem of censoring a stellar scientist like Gonzolez" simply exposes the lack of objectivity in your diatribes against that scientist and against ANY scientist that dares to challenge the doctrines and dogmas of atheist darwinism (thread started on that) the home of "Junk-Science" (thread started on that).

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Well each time I BROUGHT up things like the fact that he has published almost 4 times the amount of research as the TENURE process at IOWA state requires "on average" (and you conveniently never did post any such balancing data) or the books and papers since 2001

And for the X-th time, i do acknowledge his successful past.

Bob said
Is it your claim that "I do acknowledge" means "I never brought any of his success up until you posted the facts and forced me to admit to it"??

IS that filtering of the data your defintion of the "balance" that you put into your diatribe against Gonzalez???

When I point out that his publication of papers is about FOUR TIMES the average for tenure at ISU you come back with the non-answer " Meeting one minimum standard however does not warrant to slack off afterwards.

AS if FOUR TIMES what ISU accepts is "THE MINIMUM"????

Again - this is not even "filtering of data" it is total misrepresentation and spin - AS IF the reader will not "notice" that exceeding the average for AWARD of Tenure by 350% is conveniently recast as "MINIMUM STANDARD" for those bent on a diatribe against Gonzalez.

How many ISU associate professors on their way to Tenure -- published books that got national notice PBS publication and stelllar independant endorsement as in the "Priviledged Planet"??

NONE?

jwu
From 9 papers per year down to 2 papers per year is a significant drop, isn't it?

Here we can not help but notice that your rant against Gonzalez faithfully calls EXCEEDING the ISU average for TENURE AWARD by 350% to be "under performing".

Your methods here speak for themselves and are living proof of the fact of filtered data and skewed reporting done by the pro-atheist darwinist political lobby against any proposal that is not totally compatible with atheist "needs" in science.

jwu

Answer me this: To which level would have his publication record need to have dropped so that even you would say that the tenure had been rightly denied?

Let me "guess" you would like to just 'make something up here' as well!!

Bob said
Answer me this -- why are you "making stuff up" as IF there was an ISU "yearly RATE for papers and books and movies" that Gonzalez did not meet??

Get a grip on objective facts sir. The fact is clear - you have taken someone with a stellar record and SELECTED HIM as your "model case" for "under acheiving" and "proof" that the movie "Expelled got it all wrong".

So far your slanted presentation filtering out inconvenient facts - and relying on ME to present the balancing data - speaks for itself. Then "making stuff up" like "the rate of papers in the last 12 months regardless of the total volume of papers and books and movies" is just totally transparent to the objective unbiased reader capable of independant thought.

I thank you once again for making it so clear to the reader.

Bob

Kinda makes me wonder where the "objectivity" is on the side of those who mistakenly attack the I.D scientists EVEN when those ID scientists have stellar records.

I also have to wonder about the endless game of "make stuff up" that gets practiced by believers in atheist darwinism -- does it ever stop?

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

"I made a movie" isn't really a very good answer to "what contributions to knowledge have you produced since you've been at ISU?"

What counts is the articles actually published in peer-reviews journals. What counts is how much grant money he can bring in to support his graduate students and give them work to do. What counts is scholarship.

And on that, he's simply come to a halt.

And that is what they hired him to do. Like others who didn't produce, he didn't get tenure. That's how it goes.

BTW, no one yet has explain to me why, if ID is not a religion, IDers are claiming his religious freedom was violated.

I suspect the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing at the Discovery Institute, much of the time.

 

[BobRyan]

"I made a movie" isn't really a very good answer to "what contributions to knowledge have you produced since you've been at ISU?"

.

good "filtering" to completely ignore the fact that this guy has done 350% ABOVE the average AT ISU for tenure by way of peer-reviewed papers -- with FOUR books published he has outdistanced the other assoc professors AND had a movie made from one of his books.

But yeah -- you could just filter it down to " a movie made" if you were interested in "spin over substance".

Bob

 

[jwu]

Exceeding the average for Tenure by 350% is "enough evidence" that he was a valid Tenure candidate.

Where did you get the "average" part from? As i recall, it was the "minimum".

So bringing up that stellar record as your EXAMPLE of "UNDER ACHIEVING" and the prime reason to not "allow yourself to SEE" the movie Expelled (that highlights the problem of censoring a stellar scientist like Gonzolez" simply exposes the lack of objectivity in your diatribes against that scientist and against ANY scientist that dares to challenge the doctrines and dogmas of atheist darwinism (thread started on that) the home of "Junk-Science" (thread started on that).

Repeating that straw man won't make it any better. I'm not saying that he was underachieving ten years ago. He however has been underachieving in the past four years, which were his tenure probation period. Had he continued to participate in four to six papers per year and been first author of one or two per year, then i'd be on your side - but that's not what he did.

Again - this is not even "filtering of data" it is total misrepresentation and spin - AS IF the reader will not "notice" that exceeding the average for AWARD of Tenure by 350% is conveniently recast as "MINIMUM STANDARD" for those bent on a diatribe against Gonzalez.

Tenure basically is a lifetime employment - one ought not only to have past laurels, but one is supposed to continue to do great work.

How many ISU associate professors on their way to Tenure -- published books that got national notice PBS publication and stelllar independant endorsement as in the "Priviledged Planet"??

NONE?

HAving reaching a large layman audience with one book does not entitle one to tenure, it does not contribute to the body of knowledge of science.

Answer me this: To which level would have his publication record need to have dropped so that even you would say that the tenure had been rightly denied?

Let me "guess" you would like to just 'make something up here' as well!!

No, i just suppose that you're not argueing that Gonzalez should have been given tenure "no matter what". So unless you're actually saying that, i only want to know what minimum standard of productivity he needs to maintain in order to deserve tenure, according to your opinion? Or are you saying that he should have been given tenure even if he had spent the past four years doing nothing but relaxing at the pool?

I also note that you haven't given any evidence of me argueing that Gonzalez should have been denied tenure "no matter what". Put up or retract the assertion that i said any such thing.

 

[Barbarian]

No one argues that Gonzales didn't do good work prior to coming to ISU. What happened was that his work declined markedly, and worse yet, he wasn't getting any grants on which universities depend to do research.

If you could show that other people in the sciences with similar records were normally given tenure, at ISU, you might have a case. But I've talked with people there recently, and that's not the case. You're pretty much asking for affirmative action because of his religious beliefs.

And that's not how it works.