11 September 2007
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