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.
Sorry, I don't visit those places.
What are they like?
My original statement was (what I thought) clarification as to what sirchtruth was stating.
Namely, that he was arguing for the “introduction of information into DNA chain.” You made a comment stating continuation and mutation of DNA. I stated a rebuttal.
And then one of us got hammered :)
Where-abouts is your son?
Of course. Who wouldn't be skeptical of, say, the following "method" of teaching science to kids, recommended by the great Darwinian eugenist Julian Huxley?
Every child must be taught something about science. And the must not be a mere collection of facts and laws... the spirit of science is best brought home to the child's mind by some account of scientific history. The story of Galileo confounding authority by his famous but simple weight-dropping experiments... how the early anatomists persisted in satisfying their thirst for knowledge, in spite of ecclesiastical prohibitions... the Middle Age's ignorance of the very idea of a gas, or of the fact that the heart pumps the blood round the body... in these and a hundred other ways a realization can be built up of the slow invasion of science into fields where previously blank ignorance or misconception had been masters. If religious bodies should set themselves up to oppose such treatment of science in schools, they will be mistaking their rightful sphere, and their opposition must at all costs be overcome.Julian Huxley, Science and Human nature. 1931
I'm sure you do. You said: "the left is fond of saying conservatives are anti-science" and that is precisely what you say about Freepers all the time.
St. Augustine?
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and the moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to be certain from reason and experience. Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and they hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make confident assertions [quoting 1Ti. 1:7].St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 1:42-43.
I'm sure you do.
False. You are just blowing smoke.
You said: "the left is fond of saying conservatives are anti-science" and that is precisely what you say about Freepers all the time.
I may be saying that about some of our posters here, but the fact that they are anti-science does not necessarily make them conservatives.
Ignoring facts, logic, and reason is more of a leftie trait than a conservative trait.
I really don't know. How would someone with a belief in Astrology be received by the Astronomy department?
I am really tired of special interest groups yelling rape every time someone looks under their skirt. Sometimes they have a point, other times they are crying wolf. Without a transcript of the decision making process we will never know but I believe it is premature to assume that bias against ID caused the failure to gain tenure (or was the main reason). What criteria were used to accept and deny others? Are those criteria in line with Gonzalez's qualifications or lack thereof? So far the information from other professors looks to be against Gonzalez, but I do not know what the real world conditions for tenure are at ISU. So far all we see from the ID side are the official minimums and from my side the ideals. Where does ISU sit practically?
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Multiple trials in a trial and error process.
Then why don't they fund research and real science?
You have provided no evidence to support this claim.
You cited three opportunities, but in the wrong order...
First comes the research. Then the publishing. Then the teaching.
Problem is...the DI does not do any research, nor do they fund any. Without the research, there's nothing to publish and nothing to teach.
Depends on whom you are including in your "We".
Many understand the compatability. A lot do not.
So, according to you, a lot of Freepers think that science is incompatible with conservatism. As Coyoteman pointed out, that is precisely what leftists say about Freepers. What about Jim Robinson? Do you think he understands the compatibility of science and conservatism or not?
Oh, but you do inhabit dens of anti-Freeping:
"I run five websites... But if you mean Darwin Central, I do not run that site. I am a guest there and, for reasons unknown to me, a moderator there" [Coyoteman]As everyone knows, Dem Central is a premiere anti-Freeping site. Freeper Michael_Michaelangelo describes it thus: "I decided to have a look at the DarwinCentral site last night. The first thread I found was a rather large one trashing FR and Jim Rob. Nice. You must be proud to be a member."
I may be saying that about some of our posters here,
No, this piece of shoddy apologetics won't do. For as will be presently shown, your involvement in accusations of "anti-science" extends to more than just a few individual Freepers.
As you have said: "The left is fond of saying conservatives are anti-science" and we shall see that you are extremely fond of this leftist tactic.
First let's start with the small stuff. To the following Freepers you have hurled general epithets and imputations tarring them as anti-science: Theo, Sopater, GodGunsGuts, Andrew Byler, Wakeup Sleeper, dsc, RobbyS, editor-surveyor. But that's gathered from just a small sampling of your countless posts. You have also done so with the following Freepers: DaveLoneRanger, NewLand, Creationist, metmom, Ethan Clive Osgoode, rbmillerjr, CottShop, Sola Veritas, and even Ann Coulter. Let us tabulate some of your remarks to and about these latter Freepers:
Creationist. "You have shown yourself to be a true science-denier."Not only are all these freepers tarred as "anti-science" by you, but also, if you will note, every Freeper on DaveLoneRanger's ping list is called, by you, a "science-denier". And this would include SirLinksalot, gobucks, mikeus_maximus, JudyB1938, isaiah55version11_0, Elsie, LiteKeeper, and a lot of others. Then there are your broad generalizations like this one: "Many on this thread appear to be science-deniers." Now, all this adds up to more than a few Freepers. But there's much more.CottShop. "I am one of those scientist types you disparage so much."
Sola Veritas. "You should not try to discredit scientists for adhering to the methods of science."
DaveLoneRanger. "As a religiously-motivated science-denier... your opinions on science are not worth much." "Why can't you admit you hate science as well?" "Your hatred for science is clear for others to see." "You ping your list of science-deniers to nice science threads so they can come and trash them, then you claim you are not anti-science?" ""A nice science thread and you ping your list of science-deniers to it." "You yourself trash science every chance you get, then you claim you are not anti-science?"
NewLand. "I challenge your "we're not anti-science" claim. You are anti-science."
Ethan Clive Osgoode. "are you just anti-science?"
metmom. "Do you hate science, and the results of science, so much that you are willing to spread falsehoods in an attempt to discredit them, when the actual facts can be easily learned? It sure seems so."
rbmillerjr. "Sorry you found Darwin Central boring. Those of us who enjoy science and science literacy appreciate the level of discourse which we find there."
Ann Coulter. "...loaded with anti-science propaganda"
With this comment...
"Evangelicals typically deny much of science." [Coyoteman]you throw a very big chunk of FR members into the "science-denier", "science-hater" bucket, most of whom don't even bother with the crevo threads. But your accusations don't even stop there. According to you, the management of FreeRepublic is anti-science:
"Then, a year or so ago when the admins and management started playing games and banning pro-science posters, many others took the hint and left. That is when Darwin Central was formed -- as a refuge." [Coyoteman]And, according to you, FreeRepublic itself is an anti-science forum:
"Scientists have been told that they are not wanted here" [Coyoteman]In fact, you see yourself as one of the few Freepers who are not science-hating "science deniers":"FR in the last year or so has taken a decided anti-science stance" [Coyoteman]
"FR has turned anti-science in the last year or so" [Coyoteman]
"The reception scientific research receives at FR is dismal, based more on ignorance and superstition than scientific knowledge." [Coyoteman]
"It leaves me still advocating for science and the scientific method. (But its getting pretty lonely in these here parts lately!)" [Coyoteman]Your FR career has been a massive exercise in the leftist tactic of tarring conservatives as "anti-science", "science-deniers", and "science-haters".
Ignoring facts, logic, and reason is more of a leftie trait than a conservative trait.
Your philosophy of science (Kuhn) is a typically leftist one - you know, the kind that says we shouldn't use the word "truth" and so on. As Jim Robinson said to Ichneumon: "some of you are absolutely worthless to the cause of conservatism."
Not what I said. I did not say that they "think that science is incompatible". I said that "Many understand the compatability. A lot do not." There's a difference between thinking and understanding. And I stand by my earlier statement.
As Coyoteman pointed out, that is precisely what leftists say about Freepers.
I'm sure leftists say a lot of things about Freepers...so what?
What about Jim Robinson?
I do not believe he is a leftist.
Do you think he understands the compatibility of science and conservatism or not?
I do not recall any specific posts of his that would enable me to answer this one way or the other.
You said what I’ve been trying to say for some time now- onl;y you’ve done a much better job of it- Kudos The poo was out there, and you’ve pooper-scoopered it and thrown it in the trash where it belongs. Your following statement sums up perfectly what some on this site have been doing for quite some time now, and it warrants repeating incase those who are guilty missed it the first time:
Your FR career has been a massive exercise in the leftist tactic of tarring conservatives as anti-science, science-deniers, and science-haters.
I have, over the last year or so, pointed out that some FR posters are "anti-science", "science-deniers", and "science-haters." You didn't even attempt to refute those claims.
Rather, you posted your reply to JR in an attempt to get me banned. I guess its easier to get someone banned than deal with the truth of their statements.
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.
were those thew actual tenure requirements, or do you just like repeating that?
It shows that he did not meet normal tenure requirements. Basically, he was a no-show as far as his participation in the department. Why on earth would anyone expect tenure when he is a non-participant in the department.
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.