Updating Robert Marks and Baylor
by BradfordThis blog entry at Evolution News and Views, Academic Freedom Expelled from Baylor University, updates us on Baylor's policies with regard to Robert Marks. Some adjustments have been made by both sides. The most revealing one, in my view, is shown by this quote from the linked blog:
It should be noted here that Marks had received a grant from an outside organization that was administered through Baylor University to do this research. And that grant had been approved by the President of the University himself. Interestingly, the involvement of William Dembski caused Baylor to return the grant. Researchers familiar with the grant process will appreciate the significance of this. Recipient research centers seldom, almost never, return research grants for any reason. That fact that Baylor did so regarding a program of research related to intelligent design is quite telling about the University’s appreciation of academic freedom. One wonders what sorts of grants Baylor has administered without complaint for other "controversial" research in the past.
Think about that. When Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure what was the most plausible argument put forth by anti-IDists? Remember how Gonzalez's alleged failure to secure grants was cited? It's about money right? Wrong. Sometimes those underlying personal views of the world, that people hold so near and dear, motivate them to take all sorts of anti-academic, anti-science and anti-intellectual actions that are otherwise anethema. Baylor, you are a case study.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:49 pm |
Hi Bradford,
Some interesting aspects to this post. First of all, did you try to verify the circumstances surrounding the grant? I did a little looking into it myself, so I will just ask a few leading questions…
Was the primary purpose for the grant to pay for Dembski's presence at Baylor?
Did it provide significant funds beyond paying for Dembski’s presence?
Is there reason to think there are personal conflicts between Dembski and some people in power at Baylor?
Is it likely there exists enough animosity that some people at power at Baylor would choose to give up a relatively tiny grant to keep Dembski off the campus?
I suggest your attempts to bring the Gonzalez situation into this are forced. Iowa is a long way away from Texas both geographically and politically. I also get the impression that the personalities are different. Somehow I don't picture Guillermo Gonzalez suggesting it is appropriate to apply pepper to boxing gloves for a good cause.
Universities may still indeed still be focused on money, but there are limits. To me, it looks like some people at Baylor would pay rather than have to put up with Dembski and his attitude.
Baylor might be a case study, but it is probably a case study of petty politics that exists in most universities.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 6, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 2:46 pm |
TP, so this is all about "Dembski and his attitude?" Your questions about Dembski evoke an inquisition mindset. If you have facts that justify attempts to short circuit scientific research then out with them. There are larger, more important issues than the pettiness signified by focusing on "Dembski and his attitiude." If Baylor is in the business of returning grant money then maybe alumni contributors should be apprised of the justifying details. We also should know about any controversial projects wherein funds were not returned.
Gonzalez is relevant because if funding is so important then why is money returned when ID stands to benefit? This discredits anti-IDists who wish to portray the idea that the Gonzalez denial was legitimate. The facts are that when IDists are involved an Alice and Wonderland, anything goes attitude, becomes the norm.
Comment by Bradford — September 6, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 3:24 pm |
Bradford,
I would agree that this is a sad, sordid affair. Baylor could have avoided another controversy with a little bit of foresight. I have a few personal comments.
1. Regarding the money—you make a fair point. However, in the realities of research at a research university, money comes in different colors. While in Gonzalez’s case the lack of research money was given by some as the primary reason, it was not just any money, but money from a source that is recognized for funding science. This is easy to see: if Gonzalez had a huge grant from the DI, it would not, I suspect, have helped his cause. He needed to have a grant from the NSF or NASA, etc.
2. If any of the grant money for the informatics lab was going to pay Dembski (I don’t know that it was) then, based on what has been publically revealed, Baylor should not have accepted it. Why? Because Dembski has a full time job. It doesn’t matter if his full time employer "doesn't care." Institutions have a fiduciary responsibility not to be the intermediary in a contractual agreement that commits a researcher beyond 100%. I can give myself as an example. Starting in January I will be teaching as an associate professor. I will also have a grant that pays for me to do research half-time at a nearby national lab. I won’t collect 1.5 paychecks, just one, and my responsibilities at the university will be half the normal requirement. If such an arrangement wasn’t made with Dembski's employer, and if Dembski was to receive any of that grant money as salary (perhaps he was not) then Baylor is right to reject that money, for they should not be a party to double dipping, even if those being double dipped don’t mind.
3. Human nature being what it is, past history cannot be disregarded. Dembski hoisted himself with his own petard in 2000 with his “Waterloo/dogmatic opponents/intolerant assaults” press release. It is not really so surprising that some faculty would not want Baylor providing him with a Baylor tagline. (Not content to learn from that mistake we now have been treated to the Lilley letter parody.)
4. The pretentiousness of the whole endeavor leaves a foul taste in my mouth. I personally know of no “lab” that can be brought to its knees by not permitting its website to be hosted on a particular server. Why, labs even functioned before there was an internet. Presumably this “lab” is the ID friendly research center at a major university that Dembski predicted for 2007. It was also promised that this lab would put its rival Digital Evolution Lab out of business. Why Dembski seems to be compelled to make bold eschatological predictions, ill advised wagers, and self-aggrandizing pronouncements is beyond me. The man needs to learn to produce, not announce. There is an academic analogue of keeping it zipped up.
5. I, for one, am now completely desensitized to claims of ID persecution. I think the strongest case was that of Sternberg. Since then, every blasted thing that goes wrong gets blamed on persecution. Well, you reap what you sow. The ID movement’s tactics have been so hideous that people (such as me) who are sympathetic to ID want nothing to do with the movement, which now , it seems to me, does little more than attempt to obfuscate its own ineptitude behind incessant cries of discrimination. Yes, it now is impossible, I suspect, to create an ID-friendly research center at any university. It would be welcome virtually nowhere. But it is definitely not entirely due to discrimination or persecution. A large part of the resistance, enough to give it critical mass at any institution, is (in my opinion) due to the revulsion felt by previously perhaps unenthusiastic yet not openly antagonistic scientists, including believers, at the hype and deceit the ID movement is now noted for.
In short, Dembski, Wells, et. al. have, for better or worse made the ID bed as it stands today. Now they have to sleep in it. It’s too bad. Dembski, at least, appears to have brains. He should have gotten a position in the math department at a university and incrementally worked out his ideas and tested them. It may have taken a lifetime of work, but that’s the way it is done. Instead he published in the popular press, declared victory, attracted a peculiar following, and pissed off (and embarrassed) many with his writings, proclamations, antics, and the nonsense he allows at UD. And then he cries persecution when the academic world doesn’t want to touch him with ten foot pole.
Comment by David Heddle — September 6, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 4:05 pm |
David Heddle,
Your point #2 is based on bizarre speculation on your part and is in no way accurate. There nothing wrong with Dembski getting paid for research at Baylor while lecturing at a Theological Seminary. Double dipping is not even an issue. You claim to be sympathetic to ID but your post is so absurd and so sadly biased against ID in every detail, even to the point of engaging in rank speculation to make ID look the worse, I have to say I don't believe you at all.
Comment by Jehu — September 6, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 4:16 pm |
Jehu,
I don't really care if you think I am a liar, but I would say I have established my street creds by fighting for ID on Panda's Thumb and on my own blog. You are free to make the common mistake of assuming that if one argues against the leadership and tactics of a movement it means that one is arguing against the ideas behind it. But that's all it is, a common mistake.
Comment by David Heddle — September 6, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 4:34 pm |
Baylor got a black eye from its association with Dembski and now it doesn't want to have anything to do with him. What a shock.
Trying to use an incident at Baylor as proof that Gonzalez was denied tenure at Iowa for IDism is weak. On TT Joy linked to the Blog of an associate professor of astronomy (Gonzalez' field), who gave up on getting tenure and took a job in industry because he was told that without a major research grant he had less than a 1% chance of getting tenure. Let me know when IDism produces something other than fine whines.
Comment by Aagcobb — September 6, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 4:35 pm |
It is that your criticisms are so amazingly trivial, grossly exaggerated, and even made-up, that makes me not believe you.
Your contention that shutting down the Evolutionary Infomatics Lab at Baylor was justifed because Dembski was "double dipping" is completely absurd and is not position of a rational person, much less one who is sympathetic to ID.
Comment by Jehu — September 6, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 4:53 pm |
Aagcobb:
Baylor received a few blows from hypocrites, who get hysterical over a Wedge document that did nothing but symbolize threatiness while cheerleading the sabotage of efforts to support ID with data.
The interesting question about any IDist attempting to secure funding is will the anti-ID movement seek out procedural justifications to return the money if that is what it takes to put the kabosh to ID?
Comment by Bradford — September 6, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 4:57 pm |
Jehu,
And your contention that I justified Baylor's actions for shutting down the “lab” (website, actually) on the sole point of the double dipping is a misrepresentation. I clearly wrote that that would be a valid reason for rejecting the grant. If you don't believe me, try this exercise. Go to a university, if you are not already at one. Obtain a grant in which you promise to devote all your research time to a project. When that comes through, and while it is active, and the money is in the coffers, apply for another grant from a different agency where you also promise to personally devote your full attentions to their project. See if the grant administrator at the university calls you up and asks you how you plan to satisfy both masters.
No, as for shutting the website down, Baylor can justify that by simply stating that it does not want to lend the name of Baylor to a type of research that it does not find legitimate. There are many examples of types of research that we could agree on that Baylor should not permit. And furthermore, we would agree that that rejection in and of itself does not constitute a violation of academic freedom. Indeed, we would agree in these examples that Baylor behaved responsibly in demanding a disassociation. Now we might disagree whether ID falls in that category, but the principle is valid. And who is to blame for making ID a pariah? Why, the usual suspects.
Comment by David Heddle — September 6, 2007 @ 4:57 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 5:14 pm |
David Heddle, I'm not going to address speculations about the "Dembski motivations" behind Baylor decisions. If there is solid evidence for such things then let the linkages be made explicit by the responsible parties.
Evidently Marks has secured a website host that is independent of Baylor but why was that necessary?
Your point about the wisdom of keeping one's mouth shut and relying on action instead is well taken but it applies to some ID critics too.
Our strongest point of disagreement lies with your views of what I'll call the movement issue. ID critics have whined for years about the effects of the Wedge while chalking up incidents like the Baylor one to a persecution complex. Where is the palpable fallout from Wedge? OTOH, I have yet to see one prominent IDist or creationist, for that matter, who was not villified. I've read more than I care to know about Behe's large family and Dembski's autistic child. The comments are unnecessarily personal and cruel. I'm willing to turn this over to the jury of public opinion though. I suspect that will occur next year when Ben Stein's movie comes out. The bad news for anti-IDists is that the vast majority of people are unaware of details about IDist and anti-IDists. But they are familiar with jerks in whatever field they work in. They have experienced unfairness and the impersonal nature of big institutions. And they will recognize a career mugging when they see one.
Comment by Bradford — September 6, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 5:33 pm |
David:
Hey, David, I agree with a pretty good deal of what you said about Dembski screwing himself and others over with his own brashness and triumphalism (though I don't think it goes very far to explain or to justify the various academic cleansings), but this part seems wrong to me. Isn't it more likely that the lab was shut down by having its grant money taken away?
Comment by Deuce — September 6, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 5:51 pm |
Deuce,
As I understand it, the grant money was returned in December of 2006. See this:
http://www.uncommondescent.com...
If that is what effectively shut down the lab, why didn't we hear about it then? It seems to me that it was the recent removal of the web page from Baylor's server that was the pivotal act.
I do have sympathy for Dembski in this regard. Baylor should have said no from the start, or it should have lived with its decision.
Comment by David Heddle — September 6, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 7:29 pm |
David Heddle
What evidence is there that Dembski agreed to give exclusive efforts to one or more grants? None.
If Dembski was a mass murderer, that would be another reason to reject the grant.
Nonsense. If a tenured profesor wants to explore certain areas of research he should be allowed to, even if some don't like the conclusions of the research. That is what academic freedom is about. And to pretend that Dembski has made political statements that justify stopping the research makes your position even worse. Heaven forbid that politically unpopular research should be conducted!
Comment by Jehu — September 6, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 8:27 pm |
Jehu,
Well, I didn't want to give specific examples, but since you claimed it was nonsense I will. If Pete Singer were at Baylor (may it never be!) and he wanted to set up a "lab", would you not agree that Baylor has the right to say "not with our name attached?" If a tenured professor wanted to set up a 9/11 conspiracy center, would you not agree that Baylor has the right to say "not with our name attached?" The principle is valid. It is just a case of whether it applies to ID, and that is a matter of opinion.
Academic freedom does not mean, and has never meant: "do whatever floats your boat."
Comment by David Heddle — September 6, 2007 @ 8:27 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 8:33 pm |
Hi All,
The internet is a wonderful thing. You can usually find whatever information you are looking for. Here is a relevant detail that Dembski and the Discovery Institute chose not to advertise…
http://web.ecs.baylor.edu/facu...
Now I don't know what percentage the Baylor university would get out of this. If it is 25% then we are talking about $3,250 per year. Yes, I can easily see Baylor deciding that paltry sum would just not be worth the aggravation.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 6, 2007 @ 8:33 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 8:58 pm |
TP:
What aggravation? Putting up with bullies and cowards who ask, on the one hand, where's the research while putting obstacles in pathways to it? Baylor had a chance to take the high road and backed off. This is not a referendum on Dembski's character.
Comment by Bradford — September 6, 2007 @ 8:58 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 9:45 pm |
I'm not quite getting your point, TP. At what dollar amount does academic freedom become a valid consideration here? If we were talking $32,500 per year, would Baylor's actions in Marks' case be indefensible?
Comment by Lutepisc — September 6, 2007 @ 9:45 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 10:02 pm |
Hi Bradford,
Let me offer a piece of advice. When people, like those at the Discovery Institute, are telling you something you want to hear, do so fact checking before you embrace it. It saves wear and tear on the backtracking.
You wrote…
Let's answer the questions I asked in my first comment submission.
By Dembski's own admission and as evidenced by a total grant amount of $30K for two years, it looks like the primary intent was to pay for Dembski to be on Baylor's campus.
Since we have a rough idea of how much Dembski charges based on news during the Dover trial and that the total grant amount was $30K for two years. Chances are there would be barely enough funds available to cover the development and maintenance of a basic web presence.
By Dembski's own admission and as evidenced by past documents that made their way into public domain, we have reason to think there exists personal conflicts between Dembski and some people in power at Baylor.
As evidenced by Dembski's general demeanor and past demonstrations visa-vie the Dover trial and parodies of letters supposedly sent by Baylor's President Lilley coupled with the immediate cancellation of Dembski's ID badge and Baylor e-mail account demonstrates probable animosity and provides should be providing a significant message to Dembski that, according to some people it a position to send the message, he is no longer welcome at the Baylor campus.
It is expected that Uncommon Descent and Discovery Institute are going to try and play this up for all it is worth. And guess what? Baylor has decided it isn’t worth it.
The question is. Is it your intent to try and drag Telic Thoughts into the fray further than you have?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 6, 2007 @ 10:02 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 10:16 pm |
Hi Lutepisc,
It isn't my point, it is Bradford's. He was trying to imply that this had to be about something bigger than petty university politics because money was involved. Don't ask me what the theshold is, ask Bradford.
I suspect Dembski and the Discovery Institute would try to make a big deal about a rejection of Dembski offering to work for free. Which is what this situation basically is.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 6, 2007 @ 10:16 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 10:20 pm |
TP:
This is speculation on your part worthy of Joseph McCarthy. It is lowbrow shield bashing. We do not know how much Dembski needed to be physically present at Baylor. If he visited Robert Marks on campus and spent some time on a computer system- so what? This is America. Anti-IDists can stick their unhappiness with Dembski in their Grey Poupon. It would do less damage to scientific integrity.
Play it for all it's worth? It is a research project for goodness sake. Baylor administrators have some chickens in their line of descent.
TT blogs about events affecting ID and this qualifies. What sort of threatiness does a TT blog entry signify?
Comment by Bradford — September 6, 2007 @ 10:20 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 10:27 pm |
Actually that was not my point. Concerning money and motives I wrote:
When ID is mentioned critics think things like God or Dembski or a clergyman who said something that made them cry. ID arouses a visceral hostility in critics that is harmful both to them and to efforts to maintain an atmosphere where ideas can be freely exchanged.
Comment by Bradford — September 6, 2007 @ 10:27 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 11:05 pm |
Don't forget the Judge Jones Flash animation with added farty noises. Not exactly one of the more decorous moments in academic history.
Comment by leo_s — September 6, 2007 @ 11:05 pm
September 7th, 2007 at 1:07 am |
David Heddle
If Baylor gave the Professor tenure then they have no right to stop the research. As for Peter Singer, since he has a nice job at Princeton and the University of Melbourne, I don't see why he would bother with a Southern Baptist university in Waco, Texas.
Comment by Jehu — September 7, 2007 @ 1:07 am
September 7th, 2007 at 9:06 am |
Hi Bradford,
They can't put the kabosh on IDism, Bradford. You are forgetting that there is now a research lab specifically for ID: the Biologic Institute. This notion that IDism would blossom into a productive scientific research field if only it weren't being persecuted is silly; there are IDists with tenure (Behe) and sympathetic places they can work.
Comment by Aagcobb — September 7, 2007 @ 9:06 am
September 7th, 2007 at 10:41 am |
Indeed, there is even a journal dedicated to ID, Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design.
Comment by leo_s — September 7, 2007 @ 10:41 am
September 7th, 2007 at 12:24 pm |
Productive research results take time and money. IDists will have to fund their own.
Comment by Bradford — September 7, 2007 @ 12:24 pm
September 7th, 2007 at 1:28 pm |
The Biologic Institute - that is funded by Discovery Institute isn't it?
Brendan Dixon? Why - he's listed as the President and only employee of The Lifeworks Foundation in Sammamish, WA - just a few miles from the Discovery Institute's home town of Seattle. I wonder what the odds are that Dr. Marks found funding with an organization run out of the home of a researcher in the DI's Biologic Institute?
Comment by JAllen — September 7, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
September 7th, 2007 at 4:02 pm |
Hey, thanks for that info. I've been wondering what the Lifeworks foundation was, and couldn't find much. Definitely an interesting coinkydink.
–
http://paralepsis.blogspot.com
http://pro-science.blogspot.co...
Comment by Hermagoras — September 7, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
September 7th, 2007 at 4:03 pm |
Indeed. Hey, what happened to that, anyway?
Comment by Hermagoras — September 7, 2007 @ 4:03 pm
September 8th, 2007 at 5:05 pm |
When one undertakes to use a university's name, one has an obligation to protect the reputation of that university.
Officers of the university have fiduciary duties to the funders that include making sure there is no funny stuff going on in the school's name. Were I the auditor, and I tried to track down the funding on this grant, I might wonder whether I could make the assurances to the trustees, and to the federal government if there is any federal money on campus, that everything is on the up and up.
Who provided the money? Why wasn't the website set up on the university's web? Who owns the domain? Why? What research was to be done?
Are there any answers for those questions?
Comment by edarrell — September 8, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
September 8th, 2007 at 7:00 pm |
These answers are not a mystery to Baylor's adminstrators. The President of Baylor initially approved the grant and Mark's website was hosted by the university before the anonymous complaints.
Comment by Bradford — September 8, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
September 9th, 2007 at 9:35 am |
But if the Lifeworks foundation was basically a front group for the DI, then Baylor's president may have felt deceived. DI sets up Biologic Institute; Biologic Institute researcher becomes president and sole employee of Lifeworks foundation; LWF gives grant to Marks. Have I got that chronology right? Where does the Lifeworks foundation get its money from, in the end. Who funded the funder?
Comment by Hermagoras — September 9, 2007 @ 9:35 am
September 9th, 2007 at 10:09 am |
If you have evidence of criminality then take it to a prosecutor. If this is the usual tripe about the evil DI empire then find another place for it. Baylor's president did not mention being deceived. Unless he does your comments are speculative. The only reason there is a "concern" about money sourcing is the end purpose to which it was intended. Funds that might advance data favorable to ID are magnets for muckracking.
Comment by Bradford — September 9, 2007 @ 10:09 am
September 9th, 2007 at 10:47 am |
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
This is getting comical. Where is your sense of receprocity?
Your statement is just as applicable to Dembski's, DI's and your allegations against Baylor. If what they did is so wrong "…then take it to a prosecutor."
It turns out this is about a grant that is hardly bigger than those slated to pay for a Research Assistant. Which makes sense, since it is obvious it was for the primary purpose of paying for Dembski. It looks like there isn't a physical lab, just a web site. Now, it looks like the money trail leads to the Discovery Institute and probably back to Dembski himself.
I understand you wish to give Dembski the benefit of the doubt that he wouldn't do something that unethical, or do you? Would you consider Dembski's actions ethical even if it turned out he set the whole thing up? Do you embrace his putting pepper on boxing gloves mentality as long as he has moral justification to do so?
This is the type of thing we have been discussion in my Guest Host thread titled The Ethics of Intelligent Design.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 9, 2007 @ 10:47 am
September 9th, 2007 at 11:18 am |
I didn't say anything about criminality. It just occurred to me when I first read Dembski's chronology over at UD that I'd never heard of the Lifeworks foundation, and I started to wonder who they were. Turns out they're not the Tennessee arts patron one gets from a Google search, but rather something set up by a Biologic Institute employee. The BI was funded by the DI, and the LWF subsequently gave money back to the DI according to Andrea Bottaro at The Panda's Thumb. I don't know if that's criminal, but it does seem designed to hide the trail.
I believe the technical term for mutual funding operations of this sort is a "reach-around."
Comment by Hermagoras — September 9, 2007 @ 11:18 am
September 9th, 2007 at 11:25 am |
Stealth is a survival stategy for IDists at this time. The real deception lies with critics who, as I've previously pointed out, will ask for the goods while at the same time doing what they can to quash funding, tenure and whatever else they can rationalize in the name of responding to the "ID movement."
Comment by Bradford — September 9, 2007 @ 11:25 am
September 9th, 2007 at 11:36 am |
TP:
It is not illegal to deny funding but it is hypocritical for those who do so, and their cheerleaders as well, to complain about research results.
Trails to the DI and Dembski? Horror of horrors. There is the matter of Marks- the principle player in this drama. Money just might have something to do with his role in this.
Presumed innocense should be a quintessentially American approach don't you think?
Is there something wrong with setting up a research effort?
Whatever happened to your admonitions about shield bashing? C'mon TP. Let's do science- even if it is Marks doing it.
Comment by Bradford — September 9, 2007 @ 11:36 am
September 10th, 2007 at 1:41 am |
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
Marks can do the science. Marks can even describe his science on his independent web site. He just can't have Dembski on campus.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 10, 2007 @ 1:41 am