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.
The irony is too delicious to pass up. If there is any censorship going on here it is clearly censorship of ID. You say they have published no peer reviewed papers but when someone does publish in a scientific journal they are immediately ostracized.
Further, you have a fixation w/ the so-called 'wedge" document but frankly I don't see it as a challenge to the regular practice of science at all. There is no call for outlawing "materialistic science" its merely a call for an alternative approach to science that could compete, possibly, in the world of ideas.
If the theories that come out of a science "consonant w/ Christian theology" don't hold water scientifically, by any measure, then they should be discarded, but to reject the concept out of hand is simply intellectual bias.
Afterall, if God did create the universe and everything, then a science that purposely looks the other way could be missing a lot.
Uh, read on what they say is their goal.
Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
Science does not operate that way. Science is open to all possibilities.
You and Discovery.org, OTOH, close your eyes to all evidence that conflicts with your personal beliefs.
Are you naive or dishonest?
Governing Goals
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
Five Year Goals
To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.
Twenty Year Goals
To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.
If you want to find out the potential for censorship, just look at the various creation "science" organizations on the web, and see what their approach to science is. Here is a typical one:
Tenets of Scientific Creationism of the Institute for Creation ResearchIf this group, or those who believe as they do, were to be put in charge of science, I do believe censorship would be the result.
- The physical universe of space, time, matter, and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.
- The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator.
- Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variations) within the kinds, or "downward' changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).
- The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the "spiritual" nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life.
- The record of earth history, as preserved in the earth's crust, especially in the rocks and fossil deposits, is primarily a record of catastrophic intensities of natural processes, operating largely within uniform natural laws, rather than one of gradualism and relatively uniform process rates. There are many scientific evidences for a relatively recent creation of the earth and the universe, in addition to strong scientific evidence that most of the earth's fossiliferous sedimentary rocks were formed in an even more recent global hydraulic cataclysm.
- Processes today operate primarily within fixed natural laws and relatively uniform process rates, but since these were themselves originally created and are daily maintained by their Creator, there is always the possibility of miraculous intervention in these laws or processes by their Creator. Evidences for such intervention should be scrutinized critically, however, because there must be clear and adequate reason for any such action on the part of the Creator.
- The universe and life have somehow been impaired since the completion of creation, so that imperfections in structure, disease, aging, extinctions, and other such phenomena are the result of "negative" changes in properties and processes occurring in an originally-perfect created order.
- Since the universe and its primary components were created perfect for their purposes in the beginning by a competent and volitional Creator, and since the Creator does remain active in this now-decaying creation, there do exist ultimate purposes and meanings in the universe. Teleological considerations, therefore, are appropriate in scientific studies whenever they are consistent with the actual data of observation. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that the creation presently awaits the consummation of the Creator's purpose.
- Although people are finite and scientific data concerning origins are always circumstantial and incomplete, the human mind (if open to possibility of creation) is able to explore the manifestations of that Creator rationally, scientifically, and teleologically.
The Discovery Institute's "Wedge Strategy" outlines the way they intend to replace materialistic science with theistic science. (And it isn't through scientific research.)
Your scientific creationism theory of a young earth doesn't hold water scientifically. You should discard it.
“The Bible says God made it. That gives me the why.
It does?”
Yep, because he wanted to.
“Physics books go into great detail on the equations used to model gravity but all you need to go about your daily life is to think “God made it”. Congratulations.”
The books go into great detail how gravity impacts the universe down to a atomic level. They don’t explain why or how.
Of which we would have no knowledge if we had taken your course of stopping with "God did it".
Perhaps you should do a little reading on Einstein's theories.
“Further that those people who profess that science is the end all to be all are not only dangerously arrogant but are also significantly less wise then they think.”
Exactly the point I was trying to make.
Knowledge does not mean understanding. Observation does not mean knowledge. Science does not mean truth. It only offers *a* conception of reality.
A, FWIW, poking myself in the eye would only scientifically “prove” that I had a sensation of pain that followed a brief outline of a finger rapidly approaching. It would neither prove the act itself, nor the resulting sensation. Only that I had the sensation.
Anyway, I'm sorry but what those guys are proposing is first research and real science. If there's no real science behind their theory then its a dead issue. Their goals of replacing "materialistic" science w/ an alternative can only happen if the science they uncover is actual science. There ultimate goal is a debate; not a new inquisition.
Their disdain of the current "materialistic" science stems, I think, from the aggressive nature of some to use that philosophy of science as a bludgeon against religion. The Discovery Institute, imo, is a direct response to Richard Dawkins et al that would outlaw religion tomorrow if they had the chance. Personally, I don't see science as a threat to religion, sadly however, many in the scientific community see religion as a threat to science which is, I think, unfounded. Remember that in past generations, when religion in the US was every bit as prevelent as it is today, we as a nation led the way in scientific discoveries.
Finally, concerning the "Creation Science" thing in your post; in the first place those folks have no chance of being anything other than a fringe goup and secondly, if in some small rural community they happened to get a member voted on to the school board, even there, they could not stop the teaching of classic science ie evolution, physics, chemistry etc, etc. the most they could do is have a sticker placed on a biology book. You give these people far more credence than they deserve.
Anyway, I'm sorry but what those guys are proposing is first research and real science. If there's no real science behind their theory then its a dead issue. Their goals of replacing "materialistic" science w/ an alternative can only happen if the science they uncover is actual science. There ultimate goal is a debate; not a new inquisition.
Their disdain of the current "materialistic" science stems, I think, from the aggressive nature of some to use that philosophy of science as a bludgeon against religion. The Discovery Institute, imo, is a direct response to Richard Dawkins et al that would outlaw religion tomorrow if they had the chance.
I think the problem here is that the Discovery Institute is not doing science. It is using PR tactics to push ID. ID is not science; it is a direct response to creation "science" being disallowed by the Supreme Court in 1987. While the concept of ID has existed for many years, the current push for ID can be tied directly to the Discovery Institute, and is being promoted using the tactics spelled out in the Wedge Strategy.
You write, "If there's no real science behind their theory then its a dead issue." That would be the case if ID was a science. Because it is a religiously-based belief, no amount of scientific disproof will serve to change the minds of those promoting it. They see themselves as battling the evils of materialism, not discovering how nature works.
And I fully believe that if somehow these folks found themselves in charge, free scientific inquiry as we know it would soon cease to exist. Just look at the "tolerance" for science from some of the posters on this website.
Since I have already posted their governing goals to you, you can no longer declare ignorance. That only leaves dishonesty. Nothing here about debate being their goal.
Governing Goals
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
Gee, that's a tough choice.
How 'bout this? I'm opened minded because I don't have a dog in this fight, how about I'm just pointing out blantant hypocracy when I see it?
Let's return to the point of this thread, Dr. Gonzales. Dr. G. was denied tenure despite stellar, pardon the pun, credentials. He was denied tenure based soley on his association w/ a group that is in disfavor in academic circles.
And the cry from academia's supporters here is "the Christians are trying to censure us". The true censureship here is right in front of your face.
"Nothing here about debate being their goal."
I guess reading ain't your strong suit.
Stellar?
Gonzalez had no major grants during his seven years at ISU, had published no significant research during that time and had only one graduate student finish a dissertation.
I see selective extraction of another’s post for the point of ridicule is your strong point.
Why would you think that all ideas have the same weight as a scientific theory? Until ID goes through the same selection process as the many fields of science it is simply not up to snuff.
If we were to equally consider all ideas then we would have to give equal weight to Astrology, Homeopathy, Crystal power, Pyramid power, and every kook who thinks he has developed free energy from Rice Crispies. There is an idea 'filter' which eliminates junk from science to keep bad ideas from taking up valuable time and effort. ID may become, sometime in the future, a science on par with chemistry (or others) but it hasn't made it there yet.
I believe in Jesus Christ. I believe that the search for Christ, which is every Christian's goal, is a search for truth. I believe that science is a search for truth. Therefore, I see no dissonance between science and Christianity.
As I stated before, if DI cannot produce science then they are wasting their time, however, it's unfair to deny them the opportunity to publish and teach and research and then say "but they've produced no science". When a stated prediliction for ID is a one way ticket to outer slobovia how can we be surprised that so few step up to it.
Science is one thing and politics are another; the mixture of the two is every bit as dangerous as the mixture of politics and religion.
Were I convinced that politics played no role in Dr. G's denial I'd have nothing to say on this thread, but I think that's far from the case.
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.