RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Deep Topics Darwin challenged, research censored

Baylor University Professor Bob Marks, whose research could be the foundation for a major challenge to Darwin's theory of evolution, is at odds with his historically Christian employer, which ordered that his work be taken off the Internet.

Maybe it's because for so many years the logical alternative to evolution, which is grounded on principles such as random selection and survival of the fittest, has been disregarded and ridiculed by the scientific community. And intelligent design, as it is called, presumes the existence of an outside intelligence influencing life, according to a critic of the university.

Walt Ruloff, the executive producer of Premise Media, who worked with actor Ben Stein on a new project called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," about the monopoly Darwinian beliefs hold in academia, wrote in the Baylor student newspaper about his concerns.

"As many of you have heard, Marks, a distinguished professor of electrical and computer engineering, has been conducting research that ultimately may challenge the foundation of Darwinian theory. In layman's terms, Marks is using highly sophisticated mathematical and computational techniques to determine if there are limits to what natural selection can do," he wrote. "At Baylor, a Christian institution, this should be pretty unremarkable stuff. I'm assuming most of the faculty, students and alumni believe in God, so wouldn't it also be safe to assume you have no problem with a professor trying to scientifically quantify the limits of a blind, undirected cause of the origin and subsequent history of life?

"But the dirty little secret is university administrators are much more fearful of the Darwinian Machine than they are of you," he said.

"Here's what's going on: Somebody within the scientific community let [Baylor dean Ben] Kelley know that Marks was running a website that was friendly to intelligent design. Such a thing is completely unacceptable in today's university system – even at a Christian institution. Kelley was probably told to have the site shut down immediately or suffer the consequences," Ruloff said.

"What are those consequences? The ultimate penalty is to have Baylor marginalized by being designated as not a 'legitimate institution of higher learning.' So designated merely for the 'crime' of allowing Neo-Darwinism to be questioned, since conventional elitist wisdom holds it's no longer a theory but an inviolable truth."

Prof. Marks told WND he could not comment since his lawyer and the university are in negotiations over the situation. And Baylor spokeswoman Lori Fogleman said there are "ongoing legal discussions that we hope will be resolved to both party's mutual satisfaction."

"What I can tell you is we're optimistic that it will be resolved satisfactorily to all parties," she told WND. "This has to do with the policies and procedures here at the university, as far as posting research on a website, and the use of the university's name. We're not talking about a content issue, we're talking policy and procedure."

However, she told WND she was unaware of a single other instance in which any research posting by any Baylor professor had been treated in a similar fashion.

Ruloff, however, has. "Google the names of Richard Sternberg, Caroline Crocker, Guillermo Gonzalez, Dean Kenyon and Bill Dembski and see what you find," he said. "These distinguished scientists have suffered severe consequences for questioning Darwinian theory…"

WND has reported in the case involving Gonzalez.


Guillermo Gonzalez

The scientist at Iowa State University is appealing to state officials after his tenure was rejected by department managers because of his "personal religious and ideological beliefs."

Gonzalez was not given tenure, even though his performance reviews had been exemplary, according to a story in World Magazine, after physics department chairman Eli Rosenberg admitted Gonzalez' research into intelligent design "played into" the decision-making process.

Proponents of intelligent design say it draws on recent discoveries in physics, biochemistry and related disciplines that indicate some features of the natural world are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection – a key foundation of belief in Darwinian theory. Advocates include scientists at numerous universities and science organizations worldwide.

John West, associate director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture, where Gonzalez is a senior fellow, said the tenure denial is "clearly a result of the vicious attacks he's had to endure from Darwinists and various atheists for presenting a scientific argument for the intelligent design of the universe based on the empirical evidence from physics and astronomy."

Gonzalez, who will be out of his job at ISU after the 2007-2008 year if the decision is not changed, was rejected by officials despite his publication of 68 peer-reviewed scientific articles, nearly four times what his own department suggests as a standard for "excellence."

Casey Luskin, a spokesman for the Discovery Institute, told WND that his organization hasn't been involved directly in the Marks case, as it is with Gonzalez. But he said it's a situation that appears to be developing more and more as science investigates realms of information that even a decade ago were unsearchable.

He said Baylor summarily ordered Marks' research taken down, then came up with some "ridiculous requirements" regarding disclaimers, then ultimately said even that wasn't enough.

But the research has been unavailable for more than a month, and continuing, he said.

"This is very serious research. It's very common among evolutionary biologists to do computer simulations. Results are published in some of the most prestigious journals," he said, citing the Journal of Nature.

He said the scientists essentially are looking at the ability of random search engines to come up with the type of information that would be necessary for evolution to exist.

Luskin said Marks essentially showed "you can't just produce enough information through random searches."

Baylor, which has been a university since it was chartered by the Republic of Texas, is affiliated with the Baptist General Convention of Texas. It has about 14,000 students on its Waco campus.

But in a recent guest column, Mark Ramsey, the founder of Texans for Better Science Education, called the dispute "a giant leap backward" for Baylor.

"This censorship is based not on poor scholarship or bad data but on a disagreement about the research's conclusions. The conclusions were not deemed to be particularly favorable to the notion that Darwin was right and no intelligence was required in the creation of the world and everything in it," he wrote.

"One would think that scholarship consistent with the beliefs of the vast majority of both Americans in general and Baptists in particular would be something Baylor would cultivate, not censor," he continued. "The geology department's Web page on evolution is instructive. It recommends several sources whose work are in direct conflict with clear teaching of most Baylor parents’ and students' beliefs."

He cited a "suggested reading" list including Richard Dawkins, "The most vocal living atheist on the planet who openly mocks all religion."

Marks' site was called Evolutionary Informatics, and said its goal was to investigate how information makes evolution possible. Attorney John Gilmore, who is representing Marks, told local reporters it began when the professor gave a podcast interview with the Discovery Institute.

"A week later, it was removed," Gilmore said of the website.

Gilmore said the university earlier agreed that the site would add a disclaimer saying it was unaffiliated with Baylor. But then the school changed positions, seeking provisions that would allow it to control the site content, he said.

It's not Baylor's first brush with the same issues.

Several years ago, according to the university newspaper, the faculty senate requested that the university shut down the Michael Polanyi Center, labeling the studies on which director William Dembski and assistant director Bruce Gordon were working as "creationist."

"Expelled," being marketed by Motive Entertainment, which has spearheaded major previous Hollywood blockbusters, including "The Passion of the Christ," "Polar Express" and "The Chronicles of Narnia," addresses the issues Baylor is confronting directly.

"Expelled" documents how teachers and scientists alike are being ridiculed daily, denied tenure and even fired believing there is evidence of "design" in nature and challenging the current orthodoxy that life is entirely a result of random chance.

For example, Stein meets Richard Sternberg, a double Ph.D. biologist who allowed a peer-reviewed research paper describing the evidence for intelligence in the universe to be published in the scientific journal Proceedings. Shortly after publication, officials from the National Center for Science Education and the Smithsonian Institution, where Sternberg was a research fellow, began a coordinated smear-and-intimidation campaign to get the promising young scientist fired. The attack on scientific freedom was so egregious that it prompted a congressional investigation.

Also Caroline Crocker, a brilliant biology teacher at George Mason University who was forced out of the university for briefly discussing problems with Darwinian theory and for telling the students that some scientists believe there is evidence of design in the universe.

Science however is based on empirical proof. Faith and science are different realms.

Intelligent design is a crock of shit.

If people have faith, let them exercise it. I have absolute respect for religious faith, as a fundamental cornerstone of ethics, decency, and human culture.

Science however is based on empirical proof.

Science however is based on empirical proof.

but your wrong, the big bang has not been proven, it is taught on faith. some people believe it yet they have no proof. all this "proof" is constantly disproved, yet people go on believing the current "proof", becasue it is the religion you prescribe to Dave, don't give it greater weight.

Unless the subject is global warming. Then science is based on political "consensus."

bsams, lots of theories get constantly disproved. That's the nature of science; to seek out empirical truth. As theories get measurably disproved, we narrow down the scope of what is scientific truth.

Faith isn't like that (or shouldn't be). If someone chooses to believe in an altruistic god, or more specifically that Jesus died for our sins, then science shouldn't interfere in that decision of faith. Faith is all about belief, not proof.

Intelligent design has been disproved. From a scientifc perspective, its time to move on. From a faith perspective, why should the fact that intelligent design has been disproved interfere in faith and belief? Faith should be stronger than that.

Many biologists are happy with the fact that they can believe in God and Jesus, and yet work in furthering our understanding of evolutionary biology. Science and faith should not overlap, and its a discredit to the power of faith to muddle the two. Science doesn't care what you believe in as a guide to your ethics of living: science cares about what you can prove.

I'm hardly in a position to preach, but it seems to me that a good Christian can believe that Jesus died for our sins, and yet realised that intelligent design is a debunked theory.

Yeah, I personally am not convinced that industrialisation alone causes global waring, when you consider that Greenland was 800 years ago bereft of ice and that this changed within a 30 year period, and that the Sahara 3000 years ago was a swampy marshland. Temperatures have always bounced up and down, when you take the long view. Its not good enough to say, "Cars an factories caused Katrina." That's too simplistic.

my point exactly. when you're dealing with the origins of life, which are neither observable, nor repeatable, nor mathematically quantifiable, any explanation - no matter how universally 'accepted' - is going to fall within the realm of the theoretical, if not the realm of pure conjecture.

dave how dare you call science a liar!

Science however is based on empirical proof. Faith and science are different realms.

ahh yes, the ever tiresome argument that science is about faith

bsams, lots of theories get constantly disproved. That's the nature of science; to seek out empirical truth. As theories get measurably disproved, we narrow down the scope of what is scientific truth.

My point was not say that they were simply fakes, but rather that, even with strenuous examination, they still managed to corrupt the scientific community with their presence. And Piltdown Man, by the way, is still in some of the biology books. I shit you not.

Additionally, one of the biggest fallacies encountered in these types of discussions is unfair advantage of one explanation’s theory over another through corruption of spectator perception. The public has become so attuned to the idea that evolution is reality, they don’t even bother to observe what evidence they claim exists, because they think it’s that thing that everyone knows but simply doesn’t talk about—and in turn, people start remembering what made it so “credible”. In the end, the only real proof they can think of is the fact that the media buffs have paid homage to the idea of evolution. The popular sci-fis, the teen flicks, cartoons, news—Everyone/Everywhere. Even if there existed such proof, the fact that people reference it and don’t actually understand its dynamics or realize that it’s outdated creates the perception of intellectual dissonance (that is to say, the masses making concessions in logic for the sake of praising the contemporary idea of what constitutes intellectual credibility) and the view that they’re drones eating out of the hands of a corrupt authority. Considering this voice is almost monopolized by people on the left, I find that very humorous.

The real culprit behind this unaccountability goes straight back to the progenitors of the theory in question and their abuse of the nature of the scientific method as something that constantly changes the perception of various theories with improved techniques. Which brings me back to my point: Evolutionists have made intensely desperate efforts to see that the theory, or what still remains of it, survives. When every single one of their “transitions” or “sustainable theories” was debunked, they, very quietly, concurred with these multiple falsifications, but made almost no efforts to inform anyone about it. By such a time, evolution had already taken up residence within the minds of almost everyone on the face of the planet, and thus, they refused to care. Pure bias was the cause for this theory’s survival. Bias is the reason why these “transitions” and “discoveries” weren’t taken out of the biology text-books for multiple decades. And eventually, even with the bulk of them gone, “evolution” was still stuck in everyone’s head and exploited in the media.

So when you walk up to a person on the street and ask them about the subject, they’re more than likely going to recite the exploits of Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal, Lucy, etc. and say that they’re indisputable proof of evolution when they're not. And this is piled onto the fact that while the high ranking scientists of the profession were busy not educating people on the fact that their evidence has been reduced to shambles, the current ones are claiming that evolution has gone through the proper channels of falsifiability. And that’s definitely not true since their theory wasn’t bothered to be refined for a full 80 years onward. You see, from the 1900s+ evolution was hanging on by a thread, because it had yet to gain total popularity at that time. The only thing keeping it from being totally destroyed was a) The more active secularists’ unwillingness to believe in a creator and b) Piltdown Man. PM’s presence was enough to squash any argument due to his believed infallibility. The problem was that scientists lacked anything beyond theoretical application to name him a true transition. However, because he was present and unlike nothing ever seen before, retaining both human and ape characteristics, he was automatically labeled a true transitional fossil without further manipulation of the theory. So Piltdown Man was unofficially-officially a transition due to a violation of procedure. Unwittingly, this also crossed a line that science said it wouldn’t cross due to its anti-religious nature in the face of faith; it proclaimed a theory, backed up by pseudo-science, to be infallible.

Evolution supposedly spear-headed the conclusion that science was more believable than religion because it kept itself open to falsifiability whereas religion had a set doctrine that couldn’t be tampered with. In which case, the idea of “refining” theories based on trial and error (i.e. the numerous theories of evolution) became convenient wordplay and scattered reasoning that would simply allow evolution to survive. Because these theories weren’t actually changed through step by step procedure and remained a type of doctrine, evolution proved itself less credible than religion—not only in the case of faith, but also in its hypocrisy of violating the tenets of “falsifiability” (of course I’m only going off of secular standards when I say “less credible than religion” since I obviously believe in a religion). Religion at least admits to having/had a consistent tune.

Getting back to Piltdown Man, are you aware that it was given a chance to corrupt modern science for close to 60s years and some schools still teach of its existence (the more careful ones use your same argument of 'adapting discovery' to justify its place in school curriculum). Altered? Slightly. Rejected? No.

Do you realize how many pro-evolutionary arguments were assigned merit simply because of Piltdown Man? Can you really tell me that it's right to build the foundation of a theoretical phenomenon on a hoax? Or are you going to try and sing me the 'blessing in disguise' tune?

The Bones were studied and looked at by hundreds of scientists for decades. Even if you feel it appropriate to call the consortium of scientists from the ought years to be incompetent and gullible, that still won't explain why it took all the newer scientists so long to figure out that the teeth were being held in by speriment gum. Yes. You heard correctly: Gum. The scientists were so emboldened by their faith in Piltdown Man, that they didn't bother inspecting it very closely.

Whoever made PM should be congratulated. He did the theory of evolution an invaluable service--which was his goal; the theory was struggling at the turn of the century, so he pulled something out of his ass that would turn everything around through massive public exhibition and would give the idea more popularity and social credibility.

It wasn't just Piltdown Man you know. There's about a dozen others riddling the past few centuries--and this isn't even including the hundreds of groundless conclusions that were made in regards to Australopithecines. It's not an exaggeration to say that the theory of Australopithecines is still in circulation by evolutionists today because of their dependence on Homo habilis’ legitimacy. It was said that Australopithecines are direct ascendants of Handy Man and, as the name suggests, divulges some of the first human characteristics. The problem with this assertion is the completely mirroring factors between Australopithecines and Homo habilis. They are alike in almost every way from the exact shape and size of the cranium to the exact typical height. There's absolutely nothing that would suggest increased efficiency in the form of Homo Habilis from Australopithecine. It is only slight differentials in the bone structure that cause disagreement on the matter of comparability between Australopithecines and Homo habilis. Further trouble trying to prove the transitional weight of Handy Man arose in 1972 in Kenya when, a relatively short distance away from the site of Homo habilis, skull and leg bones were found. The skull was so severely shattered, that any assumed shape made into by the fragments would be seen as highly subjective, but based on the volume of the combined fragments, it is concluded that the size of it would outgrow an Australopithecine’s. The leg bones, however, are unmistakably human. This creates doubt for the evolutionists who still proclaim Handy Man as human-like since the transition site is tainted, if not debunked, by human skeletal fragments being mixed in with ape ones.

To address the "evolutionary faith" applied here: The evolutionary scientists dig up a bone that's buried in a layer, which they assume is from the Mezosaic era. When they test it using C14, they find that the results turn up an age of a mere 10 thousand years. Because this result doesn't integrate with their pre-disposed ideas of what timeframe it originated from, they feel obligated to correct its age. If they have to do such a thing, what's the point of a keeping a dating method when their personal perception is so keen (that's a rhetorical question BTW)?

Before you try telling me that they're educated guesses, please try to understand that the education is supposed to come from the dating method in question. How can it if the scientists re-modulate the results using nothing but their own intuition? I mean, what frame of reference do they have if they concede that they can't trust the results of the C-14 tests????

When the tests they do don’t reveal what they expect or want to see, they erase the conclusion and replace it with their own assumed conclusion—thus my point: Why do a test in the first place if you were just going to pluck a date out of thin air anyway? How exactly would you like it if a fundamentalist decided that the Salem Witch Trials couldn’t have actually occurred since it’s so unlike their views of Christianity?

Every time someone assumes the age of something based solely on expectation (even if it contradicts the dating method they’ve chosen to rest their credibility on), they are re-writing history and abusing the protocols of science so as to give their side of the argument more legitimacy.

The most ironic thing about this are the statements that say how far the scientific community has brought us and how different it's been from fanatical religions that apparently hold back knowledge and civilization.

When I say that I developed because of my mother and father's mingling of genes, I don't say that I "evolved" into what I am today because of it. But at the same time, one is able to reverse that and say that the process of passing down genes evolves species' into something else entirely. It's circular reasoning to use inheritance's micro-mutational nature to reinforce a theory about macro-mutation.

2. science isn't beyond challenge. In fact, its the academic credos of challenge that makes science so good. As I said, its not my area, but I've never seen or heard of evolutionary scientists ducking the ball.

What I have heard of is evolutionary scientists getting sick to death of intelligent design.

The biggest example of this is the whirler bacteria - the e. coli flagellum. "Oooh, look, a baceria with parts which can't be traced back to other animals!" said ID advocates, who then ran around telling everyone they found the Holy Grail of God's fingerprints on genetic material. Only it wasn't even basically true: flagellum bits can be found in earlier animals. When ID kooks used patently untrue and sloppily researched data as their strongest argument, its easy to dismiss them as ID kooks.

1. Why haven't you "evolved"? Inheritence or micro-mutation (a term new to me) works just like that. You might have green eyes from one of your parents, and blue from another. You end up with grey eyes. Not all changes in morphology need to provide the species with an advantage.

so which geological evidence did you look at to come to this conclusion? how much study in astrophysics have you done? i'm assuming your not taking all this in as faith, you've done these calculations and come to these conclusions?

ahh yes, the ever tiresome argument that science is about faith

Ad hominem: Attacking the man, not the argument. You could say that about most things. Unless you're an expert, you have to rely upon experts. By analogy, I've never been into space but I'm reliably informed you can do it. Does that mean I should disbelieve astronauts who claim to have gone there, and engineers who claim to have stuck machines in orbit?

You get different expert opinions on many things. The logical fallacy you and Pariah rely upon is the fallacy of the majority: just because most people think it doesn't make it true.

In the absence of me taking ten years of my life to study the subject, however, I'll risk that fallacy and I'll go with the vast majority of experts. Disprove them, and you'll convince me. And then I'll also start doubting this going into space stuff, to.

Disprove them, and you'll convince me.

When people say, "If you doubt evolution all you have to do is present some actual valid evidence to disprove it," what I'm being presented with is the atheist or evolutionary equivalent of "If God doesn't exist, then prove it."

Pariah: I've re-read your posts. I'm not following your microevolution point. Can you elaborate on what you mean by the lack of logic in evolutionists working backwards?

To be considered a legitimate theory attached to a legitimate science, evolution must build its own evidential support without siphoning off other observable phenomenon. In fact, because inheritance doesn't require evolution to stand as an observable phenomenon on its own, it's outright inappropriate to conjoin it with a less substantive scientific field for the sake of supporting it. As I said before: An observable phenomenon cannot be its own evidence.

Here's what evolutionists are saying, "Evolution must be real. So it's perfectly reasonable to use the laws of genetics to support it and then inject the process of inheritance into every evolutionary conversation." This is an example of circular reasoning. They're only assuming that evolutionary history exists by tracing inherited genealogy. That doesn't actually prove there was any real morphology as a result of a long time line of inherited traits.

Isn't any sort of change evolution?

"Evolved" does mean "changed." That's why it has a very general use in literature. But as a theory, it alludes to a grander scale; that every small change is the piece of a much larger change in all lifeforms. You can't just segment the term and discriminate its overall implications as a theory. Not only is it inappropriate, but it's an unfair way of skirting the issue.

If I start accepting peoples' answers when they use "evolve" in terms of how my genes have mixed and become different from either of my parents' respective genes, I'm tolerating the full meaning of the word and not just the isolated issue of my own biology. Thereby giving them the opportunity to say I'm contradicting myself.

Don't forget: evolution does not equal "improvement".

PS the fossil record backs up the flagellum.

So we agree


this man has NO penis

You don't believe in ID? That's perfectly fine. No one cares. But if you believe in evolution, then you're a fucking idiot.