Replies

Last time I checked, Electrical and Computer Engineering Professors is where I MYSELF am sure to go to get the cutting edge ideas in evolutionary biology.

Ok, I really don't. I go here...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

...and then I check out the Journal of Molecular Evolution and see what the many articles have to say.

If the guy wants to be a crank on a subject that he is not educated in or paid to perform or paid to teach- let him do it on his own time and not with the imprimatur of the college that did not hire him based upon his expertise or views upon the subject.

Last time I checked, Electrical and Computer Engineering Professors is where I MYSELF am sure to go to get the cutting edge ideas in evolutionary biology

So many assumptions lie behind this statement that I feel some clarifications have to be made :

1) The above statement assumes that just because someone is an EE and Computing expert, this is all he will ever be and in his lifetime, and no matter how much he learns or researches, he will never learn anything about cutting edge ideas in evolutionary biology. This of course insults the intelligence of Dr. Marks and most other scientist who did not get their PH.D. in biology.

2) The above statement assumes that the lab is going to be filled *only* with electrical engineering and computing experts and no experts in biology, which of course isn't true. COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS have always been the order of the day and that was the intent of the grant.

3) The above statement makes it evident that you haven't read any of the papers produced by the Evolutionary Informatics Lab. If you had, you would realize that they fall squarely within the field of evolutionary computing, WHICH IS PROF. MARKS’S AREA OF EXPERTISE.

4) The use of the word "crank" shows your bias. Without even so much as critquing the work thus far produced, you simply throw in a loaded word as if this means something.

It is true that Baylor's administration has the right to pull the plug on any lab or study it does not deem fit... but if Dembski's description of the strange circumstances behind the withdrawal of support is true ( and I have no reason to believe it is false ), I am inclined to believe that the reason is more "political" than science related.