It’s fairly difficult to do research without a financial grant…

But for what Dr. Marks was researching, read this:

http://www.uncommondescent.com.....atics-lab/

“There has been a struggle for the very heart and soul of Baylor for many years now, but so many battles have been won that it is wrong to drag Baylor’s name through the mud when unfortunate episodes such as this one occurs.”

What kind of battles have been won, would you say? That is, what battles for Christian identity (or related to it) at the risk of losing some secular respectability have there been? I ask as a long-term insider, so specifics would be appreciated. I can think of some examples to the contrary (like this one) but am having trouble coming up with ones that fit your statement.

*It has been known since the 1960s that the evidence from mathematical probability will not sustain Darwinism. Mike Behe’s Edge of Evolution follows up on that, using the evidence from biochemistry.

Yes Denyse, and this is trivially easy to figure out if one has even the most superficial acquaintance with the power of combinatorics. It’s junior high school mathematics.

As Archie Bunker famously said, “my sediments exactly”.

Kairos, in my experience, that almost never happens without rock solid guarantees from people who are consistent in their behaviour.

What if Marks sneaks a paper into a journal, pointing out some of the difficulties with the ol’ Darwinian magic – and a huge Smithsonian-style controversy erupts?

Won’t Christian Darwinbots point to that as evidence that Marks should never have been allowed in anyway? And if they can’t get rid of him, they can at least do their very best to suppress his research.

It is very difficult for many people to accept that a contemporary truism* may not in fact be true, especially if accommodating it – in the teeth of their own culture! – has turned out to be a waste of time.

That said, it’s possible that wiser heads will prevail, but perhaps not by a head count.

*It has been known since the 1960s that the evidence from mathematical probability will not sustain Darwinism. Mike Behe’s Edge of Evolution follows up on that, using the evidence from biochemistry.

Darwinism has always been a materialist faith commitment. Those of us who already have a religion do not need it and could dispense with it with no trouble. Granted that biology does not have a grand unifying theory, well, neither does physics. So? Pretending and suppressing will not help.