Posted on 05/28/2007 5:44:20 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
There is evidence for intelligent design in the universe." This does not seem like an especially radical statement; many people believe that God has revealed himself through creation. Such beliefs, however, do not conform to politically correct notions in academia, as Professor Guillermo Gonzalez is learning the hard way. An astronomer at Iowa State University, Professor Gonzalez was recently denied tenure—despite his stellar academic record—and it is increasingly clear he was rejected for one reason: He wrote a book entitled The Privileged Planet which showed that there is evidence for design in the universe.& nbsp; Dr. Gonzalez's case has truly distressing implications for academic freedom in colleges and universities across the country, especially in science departments.
Dr. Gonzalez, who fled from Cuba to America as a child, earned his PhD in astronomy from the University of Washington. By academic standards, Dr. Gonzalez has had a remarkable career. Though still a young man, he has already authored sixty-eight peer-reviewed scientific papers. These papers have been featured in some of the world's most respected scientific journals, including Science and Nature. Dr. Gonzalez has also co-authored a college-level text book entitled Observational Astronomy, which was published by Cambridge Press.
According to the written requirements for tenure at the Iowa State University, a prospective candidate is required to have published at least fifteen peer-reviewed scientific papers. With sixty-eight papers to his name, Dr. Gonzalez has already exceeded that requirement by 350%. Ninety-one percent of professors who applied for tenure at Iowa State University this year were successful, implying that there has to be something seriously wrong with a candidate before they are rejected.
What's wrong with Dr. Gonzalez? So far as anyone can tell, this rejection had little to do with his scientific research, and everything to do with the fact that Dr. Gonzalez believes the scientific evidence points to the idea of an intelligent designer. In fact, as World Magazine has reported, at least two scientists in the Physics and Astronomy Department at the Iowa State University have admitted that intelligent design played a role in their decision. This despite the fact that Dr. Gonzalez does not teach intelligent design in any of his classes, and that none of his peer-reviewed papers deal with the subject. Nevertheless, simply because Gonzalez holds the view that there is intelligence behind the universe, and has written a book presenting scientific evidence for this fact, he is considered unsuitable at Iowa State.
What is the state of academic freedom when well qualified candidates are rejected simply because they see God's fingerprints on the cosmos? Isn't the Academy supposed to be a venue for diverse views? Aren't universities supposed to foster an atmosphere that allows for robust discussion and freedom of thought? Dr. Gonzalez's fate suggests that anyone who deigns to challenge conventional orthodoxy is not welcome in the club.
In the future, will scientists who are up for tenure be forced to deny that God could have played any role in the creation or design of the universe? Will Bible-believing astronomers be forced to repudiate Psalm 19, which begins, "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands"? Will faithful Catholics be required to reject the teaching of Vatican I, which said that God "can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason..." Just where will this witch hunt lead?
The amazing fact is that, even as many science departments are working overtime to forbid professors from positing that there is evidence for intelligent design in the universe, more and more scientists are coming to this conclusion. The Discovery Institute has compiled a list of over seven-hundred scientists who signed the following statement: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." The list of scientists who find good reason to doubt the strictly materialistic Darwinism that is currently scientific orthodoxy is growing every day.
It seems that many scientists and academicians who hold views contrary to Dr. Gonzalez have concluded that the best way to avoid debate about the evidence for intelligent design is to simply deny jobs to those who will not affirm their atheistic worldview. The fact that these scientists, who are supposedly open to following the evidence wherever it leads, have resorted to blatant discrimination to avoid having this conversation speaks volumes about the weakness of their position. They realize their arguments are not sufficient to defeat the intelligent design movement and they must, therefore, shut their opponents out of the conversation. All the evidence suggests that it is unjust that Dr. Gonzalez was denied tenure and that this ruling should be overturned on appeal. Nevertheless, what happened to Dr. Gonzalez is a reflection of the growing strength of the intelligent design movement, not its weakness.
--------------------------------------------
Ken Connor is Chairman of the Center for a Just Society in Washington, DC and a nationally recognized trial lawyer who represented Governor Jeb Bush in the Terri Schiavo case.
Too late for rebuttal...back at you tomorrow.
The problem is that the "original version" and not a perversion of it, is what led to eugenics. The notion that any variation is inheritable (Darwin) is precisely that notion which makes pathological science like eugenics and evolutionary psychology possible. Despite Mendel and all the advances in genetics, Darwinians still think in terms of Darwinian heredity, even today.
What the F is "Darwinian heredity?"
Even today, even?
The notion that any variation is inheritable.
I never heard of that notion. G’night.
It's best if you remain in your happy little bubble.
I understand the difference between a statistical inference and "evidence." What I object to in this debate is the heated assertion that a statistical inference -- in this and apparently only this -- case cannot be admitted into the discussion.
That sounds a lot like your assertion: Darwinism isn't about truth, and truth is a word best avoided entirely in Darwinism. On this point you are in full agreement with many non-Darwinians here. Why complain about it?
Science is not about TRUTH - Coyoteman
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] - Coyoteman Cut & Paste
How about a different intelligent design for each dimension of space/time, or each “universe”? (Just exploring the unknown here.)
“If you don’t buy into the group’s beliefs, don’t expect the group to give you a lifetime guarantee of employment, is all I’m saying.”
So Christians should be excluded from tenured public university positions?
This is hardly a scientific critique of Behe’s work.
I was looking for something specific, like why the following statements are not “scientific.” I’ve studies much science at the undergraduate and graduate level. Much of what passes for science in universities does not even approach Behe’s level of discourse.
Here’s an example-
“To Darwin vision was a black box, but today, after the hard, cumulative work of many biochemists, we are approaching answers to the question of sight. Here is a brief overview of the biochemistry of vision. When light first strikes the retina, a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. The change in the shape of retinal forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein’s metamorphosis alters its behavior, making it stick to another protein called transducin. Before bumping into activated rhodopsin, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with activated rhodopsin, the GDP falls off and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. (GTP is closely related to, but critically different from, GDP.)
GTP-transducin-activated rhodopsin now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to activated rhodopsin and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the ability to chemically cut a molecule called cGMP (a chemical relative of both GDP and GTP). Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers its concentration, like a pulled plug lowers the water level in a bathtub.
Another membrane protein that binds cGMP is called an ion channel. It acts as a gateway that regulates the number of sodium ions in the cell. Normally the ion channel allows sodium ions to flow into the cell, while a separate protein actively pumps them out again. The dual action of the ion channel and pump keeps the level of sodium ions in the cell within a narrow range. When the amount of cGMP is reduced because of cleavage by the phosphodiesterase, the ion channel closes, causing the cellular concentration of positively charged sodium ions to be reduced. This causes an imbalance of charge across the cell membrane which, finally, causes a current to be transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain. The result, when interpreted by the brain, is vision.
My explanation is just a sketchy overview of the biochemistry of vision. Ultimately, though, this is what it means to “explain” vision. This is the level of explanation for which biological science must aim. In order to truly understand a function, one must understand in detail every relevant step in the process. The relevant steps in biological processes occur ultimately at the molecular level, so a satisfactory explanation of a biological phenomenon such as vision, or digestion, or immunity must include its molecular explanation.
Now that the black box of vision has been opened it is no longer enough for an “evolutionary explanation” of that power to consider only the anatomical structures of whole eyes, as Darwin did in the nineteenth century, and as popularizers of evolution continue to do today. Each of the anatomical steps and structures that Darwin thought were so simple actually involves staggeringly complicated biochemical processes that cannot be papered over with rhetoric. Darwin’s simple steps are now revealed to be huge leaps between carefully tailored machines. Thus biochemistry offers a Lilliputian challenge to Darwin. Now the black box of the cell has been opened and a Lilliputian world of staggering complexity stands revealed. It must be explained.”
So, to paraphrase your own words, for evolution to rise to the level of science, scientists would need to repeatedly replicate random evolutionary changes from one species to another?
How exactly does one ensure pure randomness in a clinically controlled setting? There mere fact that a study is underway implies intelligent design.
I don't need to. I believe the same thing. Are you sure you're responding to the right post? I also believe in the fallability of mankind.
I should have pinged the other poster. I was just supporting your comment.
You quoted me as saying:
Let me get your argument straight... Darwin's theory of evolution... is hogwash.
When my original post was:
[Marx] can justly be compared with contemporaries like Faraday, Darwin, and Pasteur, who are still influencing our lives and thoughts, because their ideas were important not only for their own time, but for many generations to come. These men applied scientific method to new fields. So did Marx -- J.B.S Haldane.Let me get your argument straight. Because Darwin's ideas are still influencing our lives and thoughts, as are Faraday's, Pasters', and Marx's, that is proof that Darwin's theory of evolution, as modified by 150 years of scientific advances by tens of thousands of scientists, is hogwash.
Is that what you were trying to peddle?
Pretty dishonest.
Then you misquote me again on the roll of truth in science. Here is a definition from my FR homepage:
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.A little different from what you are claiming I said, eh?
BTW, to those who think that Guillermo Gonzalez does not deserve tenure because he believes the fine-tuning of the universe and the conditions that create life on our privileged planet are better explained by intelligent design, you might want to ask yourselves why the following professors who endorsed his work are TENURED :
1) Owen Gingerich
Research Professor of Astronomy and of the History of Science at Harvard University and a senior astronomer emeritus at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Author of The Book Nobody Read: Chasing the Revolutions of Nicolaus Copernicus
2)Michael J. Crowe
Cavanaugh Professor Emeritus at the University of Notre Dame
3) Philip Skell
Evan Pugh Professor Emeritus of Physics, Pennsylvania State University
Member, National Academy of Sciences
4) Henry F. Schaefer III
Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry
Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry, University of Georgia
Five-Time Nobel Prize Nominee
5) Simon Conway Morris FRS is a British paleontologist. He made his reputation with a very detailed and careful study of the Burgess Shale fossils, an exploit celebrated in Stephen Jay Gould’s Wonderful Life. Professor of Evolutionary Palaeobiology in the Department of Earth Sciences at Cambridge University.
Just to name a few...
Are these respected scientists loonies too ? Are they people who don’t know what they’re talking about when they endorse Gonzalez’s work ?
Yes, we adapt. We adapt to the environment we live in and the universe as it is. If we didn’t we wouldn’t be here. The universe does not adapt to us.
Which leads to you previous post. If various physical constants were different, the universe would not form as it did and we would not be here. We would be in a different universe, one that allows life to form. The anthropic principle most explicitly does not say the universe was made to suit us. We just happen to be living at a time a place where it does.
I just can’t see how the evidence for the anthropic principle exists anywhere except for pure conjecture. If Krauss can’t get his view of string theory to work, maybe it’s because it doesn’t. I don’t see how it follows that if a theory doesn’t work then the alternative must be the anthropic principle-—now that’s a leap of faith. It could also be that string theory and other, related theories are not my bailiwick. But, as a life scientist of 47 years’ practice, I see strong (a gross understatement) evidence that life forms adapt to the universe, or die, and that the universe did not or does not adapt to us.
But anthropic principle researchers are generally not examining the adaptation of life forms to the universe, or the universe to life forms, but rather asking what kind of universe would have been necessary for there to be life at all-— the same sort of question Stephen Wolfram and Stuart Kauffman have asked. And the design inference is not, "these theories don't work, therefore, magic explanation x must be true" but rather an inference to the best explantion based upon markers of design., connecting the dots much as a data mining program searching for terrorist activity does.
What Gonzalez does on his own (not the university’s) time is a subset of that work that provides empirical evidence from astronomy, chemistry and biology that the principle of mediocrity that Carl Sagan popularized was false.
Your comments about purpose making man superior to an indifferent universe are interesting. While you find purpose as something that exists in the mind of man, according to Daniel Dennett, this means you are shirking from the logic of “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea” which, according to him, is like a universal acid, eating away at our notions of purpose all the way up in regards to the universe and all the way down in regards to notions of personal identity, consciousness and intentionality. In other words, wherever there appears to be “purpose”, Darwin’s dangerous idea gives us every reason to think that science, perhaps on the part of you or one of your fellow neuroscientists, will show that purpose to have been merely epiphenomenal i.e. an illusion. Now, some would say Dennett and those like Dawkins who follow him are extremists, but he would say that people who say that, whether Stephen Jay Gould or Noam Chomsky, or perhaps you, are simply refusing to accept the full force of Darwin’s discovery.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.