Replies

If I were hired to teach Biology and then set up a Baylor web page expounding upon history I would be a crank.

This assumes that there is no OVERLAP between Biology and the history of biology and this again assumes that a biologist cannot gain expertise in the history of biology. I reject both assumptions. Of course, the assumption that a teacher of biology who expounds on biology is a crank ignores the fact that Zoologist Richard Dawkins presumes to lecture on morality and psychology by calling those who raise their children to believe in God akin to "child abusers" is still a "respected" Oxford professor.

It would hardly matter if I actually had read lots of history and knew a bit of what I was talking about.

Disagree. It MATTERS. Just because one has gaind expertise in one field does not mean he/she cannot gain expertise in another field, not if the fields have some overlap such as engineering and biology.

I would also be stealing the imprimatur of respectability for my views by posting it under Baylor’s banner, when they did not hire me for my views on history.

I do not question the imprimatur of Baylor. They have every right to do what they want as the administrators. I of course question the term -- respectability. This incident does the university little good in the respectability department. Maybe to you, but not to me.

It would also not help my case (of not being a crank)if I was expounding upon a view of history upon the margins of what most historians believe, some sort of historic revisionism mayhap, or a view of history that discounts historic research methods.

And you have discovered that Dr. Marks expounded on the the margins ? How ? Based on what research criteria ? Based on what evidence presented in the papers he wrote ?

Perhaps the actual History Department at Baylor might think I would be a crank, and not want to have Baylor’s name associated with this fringe view of History by someone not hired to teach History.

I would have more respect for Baylor's faculty if someone named X (not an academic historian) presented something about history that is novel and thus far unknown or thus far not recognized and the faculty members actually STUDIED his claims, his papers, his thesis and then made sound arguments based on reason and good arguments to either support or oppose Mr. X

Simply calling Mr. X a crank without so much as providing any sound, scholarly refutation of his work that can be seen and read by all does nothing to impress me, even when you are a Baylor History professor.

No wonder the majority of Americans aren't buying evolutionists. Instead of providing sound arguments to refute people like Dembski and/or Marks, you use high-handed tactics and shut down the work they do. Yeah right -- very convincing.