This story has been rumbling around the web for a while, in fact the DiscoveryInstitute talking heads have had a great deal to say about it. Before you read it, you might need to understand that Wikipedia has standards, one of the set of standards is academic notability. While nearly anyone can create a page on Wikipedia, it's contributors can easily remove pages that fail to meet those standards.
That's what happened to Dr. Günter Bechly, there was a Wikipedia page for him and Wikipedia took it down because it failed to meet their standards for academic notability. Of course the DI immediately declared it an outrage, claiming all sorts of collusion, discrimination, and cover-ups -- much like their defense of Guillermo Gonzalez. If you remember Gonzalez was denied tenure after failing to achieve the requirements for tenure. The DI claimed the denial was based on him being a Creationist, but they never addressed several issues like:
- The Chronicle [Chronicle of High Education] observed that Gonzalez . . . had published no significant research during that time
- . . .had only one graduate student finish a dissertation.
- According to the Des Moines Register, "Iowa State has sponsored $22,661 in outside grant money for Gonzalez since July 2001, records show. In that same time period, Gonzalez's peers in physics and astronomy secured an average of $1.3 million by the time they were granted tenure.
Doesn't that sounds exactly like the whining and crying they are now doing over Günter Bechly. According to Wikipedia, his academic achievements do not merit a Wikipedia page. So instead of showing Wikipedia a list of notable achievements -- related to actual science, they whine and cry about imaginary discrimination. Where is his Curriculum Vitae (CV)? CV's normally include information on academic background, including experience, degrees, research, awards, publications, presentations, and other achievements. Like Gonzalez, why isn't the DI publicizing Günter's?
The real question is -- is he truly notable? According to WikiSpecies, he's been part of only 4 publications -- and he wasn't the lead on any of them. Not particularly notable. He is still listed in the German version of Wikipedia, which made me think a bit, what about his contemporaries?
Günter used to work at the he State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart, so I found their website and staff listing. I randomly selected a dozen members and have not found a single US Wikipedia page for any of them, in spite of several showing larger publications lists on the German version of Wikipedia. Interesting, so Günter had a US Wikipedia page for some reason. So that leads to my next question, what differentiates Günter from the rest of the staff?
There only seems to be one thing that separates Günter from the ones who still work there, his support for Intelligent Design. So . . . why did he have a Wikipedia page in the first place? Apparently his old co-workers didn't merit one? Could it be his notoriety as one of the few scientists who support ID? I don't know, but that seems to be the only distinction between Günter and his associates.
So, let's check a few other Wikipedia pages and see if the other members of the DI Religious Ministry have had their pages deleted. Of course if Günter was deleted because of some form of discrimination, logic says others will also have been deleted!
- Michael Behe -- page still there
- Wild Bill Dembski -- still there
- Phillip E. Johnson - still there
- Paul Nelson -- still there
I was pretty much laughing about the whole thing and had no intention of even addressing it until I saw this headline:
"Pro-Darwinists Destroy Scientist’s Career After He Turns to God-Based Evolution Theory"Is his career ruined? Currently he's working at the Biologic Institute (which is owned and operated by the very people who are raising the fuss -- the Discovery Institute. Now since this job aligns well with his religious beliefs, you would think it would be a dream job for him. Apparently he's still employed, so I have to ask, did the removal of his Wikipedia page really ruin his career?
Much like Gonzalez, the removal of the Wikipedia hasn't ended his career, so what might have had a negative impact? Perhaps his time and energy and efforts promoting a non-scientific concepts may have played a role? You get hired for a job and you spend most of your time doing a different job -- and then you find yourself working in a pseudo-lab instead of an actual lab? Think about it, would you keep on a butcher who spend only part of his work time actually butchering meat? How about a rocket scientist who spend hours a day preaching to co-workers?
No, if Günter's career is ruined, he cannot blame Wikipedia for enforcing their standards. Günter, you have to look a bit closer to home and wonder if maybe you should have really kept your religion out of your workplace? Spending your time and resources on your religious beliefs and not on actual science may have played a larger part -- not because of discrimination, but because you aren't doing your job. You might look up Nathaniel Abraham, David Coppedge, Catherine Croker, or John Freshwater. They also damaged their own careers because they put their personal religious beliefs ahead of their careers, and then seemed surprised when they were held accountable by their employers!
So now you are in the DI pet laboratory, the Biologics Institute. Now you have a choice. You can continue to whine and cry -- or you can do what no one else at the DI seems to be able or willing to do. Get out of marketing and support your religious ideas with actual science -- not pseudo-science but actual science, following scientific methodology. If you can do that, you might notice a significant career boost. But if you fail at that, or simply keep whining and crying -- then you might one day realize your career was always in your own hands, not Wikipedia's.
No comments:
Post a Comment