At best, the jury’s out till there’s some solid evidence in support of ID.

LOL!

“Halt! Who goes there?”

“John Johnson. Please let me in the gate, I’m a villager here.”

“Nope, sorry, I can’t let you past this gate unless you have proof that you’re a villager.”

“I’ve been off trading village goods elsewhere. See my cart? I still have unsold village goods in it…”

“That’s not proof.”

“I’m wearing village-made clothes…”

“Not good enough.”

“(Sigh) How do I prove that I’m a villager?”

“Simple. You must be confirmed as a villager by the village elders.”

“But the village elders are in the village, which is past the gate!”

“Yes, you are correct.”

“Well then how do I prove I’m a villager without going through the gate to get proof?”

“Look, I don’t make the village rules. Besides, you didn’t sell all of the goods in your cart, so you’re not productive enough to be a good villager, and we only want good villagers. Now move along.”

Prior to my tenure review, a few colleagues expressed concern to me privately, and probably among themselves in emails that I didn’t see, that some of MY scholarly activities may not be viewed favorably when it came time for a tenure decision.

What was my transgression? Wrong question. The issue was never whether my activities were inappropriate per se. The concern in my case had to do with the fact that I had set up a spin-off company to commercialize some of my research. That work did take me away from campus, and shifted the focus on that particular research away from basic research. For my colleagues, who are interested (mostly) in pursuing basic science, and being seen internationally as a department that excels at that work, my commercial activity was not seen as a solid contribution.

This is parallel in some ways to what GG apparently heard from colleagues. That is not a sign of some conspiracy. On the contrary, I’d be concerned if nobody bothered to mention what they perceive as a potential block to tenure. It was meant as advice, not a threat. It certainly helped me to shift my focus.

There is no formula for tenure. Each case is treated individually. In my case, my outside reviews (5 self-nominated (“friendlies”) and 5 invited (“independents”) all voted strongly in my favor.

I note that GG did not receive unanimous support from the outside reviewers (3 of 10 against; and we cannot tell from that whether any of the positive ones were lukewarm, which is common). Those aren’t votes, they are input to help the tenure review committee get an outside perspective. In most departments, anything less than strongly unanimous is the kiss of academic death.

Judging by the comments on this and other threads regarding GG’s tenure case, it seems clear that there is very little understanding or familiarity with the tenure process. It ain’t perfect, but I don’t recognize it from O’Leary’s broadsides.

Remember things like this next time someone says that no scientist ever brought evidence against impersonal evolution.

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/12/04/0333252.shtml

With a teenage boy going into college soon, my advice to my son is think critically and logically. But, alas, he seems more interested in girls right now – hopefully he absorbs some advice through osmosis.