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 fact is evolution has a mountain of data and previous predictions (regarding what would be found in different, at the time unexplored, strata of rock) to its credit.
Additional data from DNA comparisons (which was unknown at the time the hypothesis of Evolution was formulated) support evolution.
Evolution could be disproven with one real example of irreducible complexity. Good luck on your search.
What test can you propose that would disprove your hypothesis to your satisfaction?
Yes, many scientists have and do believe that 'God-did-it'. However all of those scientists, including Newton, was very careful to follow what is now known as methodological naturalism because they understood that the processes of science work best without considering the supernatural. The ability to compartmentalize the belief system and the methodology used to practice science is a hallmark of most scientists and for those that cannot, the methods used by science, including peer review, free availability of the data and methods, as well as any math or computer program used for analysis puts each and every scientist on the spot to be correct to the best of his/her ability. Scientists are adversarial, they fight over interpretations all the time and do not fear to tell others that they are incorrect.
Newton understood this and was instrumental in developing the objective processes used today. He believed that ultimately God was responsible for creating the laws of Gravitation but he did not believe that God personally guided the planets in their orbits. He knew that the force of gravity was responsible. There were areas that he did not understand, such as the consistency of orbits when his calculations told him that orbits should degrade. Because he did not understand this, he assumed that God occasionally nudged the planets back into orbit. Had he not assumed this and given up he may have discovered general relativity well before Einstein.
The many scientists who are religious believe as Newton did, that God is the ultimate creator but that the areas we now understand as being part of the natural world are functioning on their own. It's as if God started them up and then let them proceed on their own. Did he not do similar with humans?
You cannot claim that because a scientist is a Christian, or of some other religion, that his/her science is religiously based. It simply isn't true.
BTW, it appears to me that you are conflating Methodological Naturalism with Philosophical Naturalism. They aren't the same.
"So what's wrong with that? Why is the explanation in the Physics book any better?"
Because when asking proximate questions, proximate answers are more valuable than ultimate answers.
Answering any question about nature with 'God-did-it' tells us nothing about the physical processes which lead up to those questions. It tells us nothing to use 'God-did-it' as an explanation for why a rock tumbles down a hillside and eventually stops. If we ignore God for a moment and investigate non-supernatural causes we see that gravity, friction, potential energy and kinetic energy can give us a much more precise answer. If you want you can claim that God created those forces, but you do not have to claim he/she/it personally sent the rock down, determined its speed and stopped it at the bottom.
Fine, let’s say that there is a political agenda to id and ignore the actual id hypothesis that has existed now for over two millennia (before any political agenda) which allowed science to progress in our western civilization to its current stage. If we choose to look only at political agendas within science then we must also look at what caused the current stance that science now takes due to Darwin and his supporters due to the politics of Darwin‘s day.
According to historian James Moore (1982), however, around 1840 a new movement of young middle-class reformers calling themselves "Naturalists" appeared. This group as young adults typically changed their creed from Christianity (which they felt was morally bankrupt) to one based on "Nature." They were "poets and lawyers, doctors and manufacturers, novelists and naturalists, engineers and politicians." The group included such well-known individuals as George Eliot, Herbert Spencer, Matthew Arnold, Francis Galton, J. A. Froude, G. H. Lewes, Charles Bray, Alfred Lord Tennyson, John Tyndall, F. W. Newman, A. H. Clough, Harriet Martineau, F. P. Cobbe, and, of course, T. H. Huxley. Moore shows that the central feature of this new creed was the redefinition of human nature, society, order, law, evil, progress, purpose, authority, and nature itself in terms of the Naturalists' particular view of Nature, as opposed to the Christian Scriptures. In fact, they tended to attack the Christian Scriptures as the true source of societal evil. God, if he existed, was to be known only through the Nature which he made. Thus, according to Moore (1982) and Young (1980), "positivism" was not primarily a methodology for science, but a religious movement that sought to replace the cultural dominance of the Established Church.Charles Darwin launched his theory of biological change in this context. He proposed a mechanism for the appearance of new forms that did not depend on any pre-existing or exterior shaping forces. The environment became the only needed constraint. It was a theory of strategic importance for the Naturalists, particularly for the "X" club, Huxley's "Young Guard" party in science.
The significance of a mechanism can be understood only within the world views of its proponents. The "Naturalism" that initially proposed and supported Darwin's mechanism was both a world view and a social movement. These individuals viewed the world as autonomous, and the Darwinian mechanism as autonomous creator. The scientific members of this movement, Huxley's "X" club, were engaged in a successful campaign to wrest the university chairs in the sciences from the clergymen/naturalists of the Established Church. The ability of Darwinism to replace the divine with a natural process was a critical support.
- David L. Wilcox
I can just picture the people that disagreed with this new naturalistic philosophy without the forum of the internet and without the belief in this new naturalism that must now exist only in “peer reviewed” papers. I do not claim a ‘conspiracy theory’ but I do recognize the ramifications of this new theory. It is obvious - it is put out for us to view daily and not just on Darwin Day.
Does id control academia and does it decide what should be taught? No!!! Why is id a threat to academia if no ‘peer reviewed‘ article or Professor can be accepted who accepts anything associated with id? It seems to me that science has created a ‘boogieman’ that really does not exist. If you actually believe anything that might be associated with id than you are labeled anti-science by academia.
I see id existing in my life and in the world. Does this make me anti-science or does this make the rest of the world anti-intelligent?
I agree, as do most scientists. Science should be as apolitical as possible.
However, the question of Evolution does not concern just one theory in one branch of science nor do IDists and YECs limit their objections to one field of science. Evolution draws on a a wide variety of disciplines from Astronomy, Astrophysics, Geology, Geophysics, Chemistry, Biochemistry, and a number of others on top of the expected Biology, Genomics, Archeology, Anthropology, Paleontology and so on.
If you believe in a 6000 year old Earth then you deny the basis for much of those mentioned sciences. Just examine what a change in radiometrics would do to Astronomy, Astrophysics, Geology and Geophysics. Then consider what those changes, in turn, would do to Chemistry and Biochemistry.
Believing in a 6000 year old Earth does not just affect Philosophical Naturalism but the results of Methodological Naturalism in many arenas. This sounds like most of science, as well as the methods used, are being rejected.
How do you define speciation? If you use the definition used by science, depending on the field of course, then speciation has happened, both in the wild and in the lab.
"For all the efforts man has made for thousands of years in manipulating genetics, through selective breeding or, more recently through actual DNA manipulation, I have yet to see any evidence of the kind of speciation that evolutionists claim happened *naturally*, through random mutations and selective pressure.
Human selection not only looks to create differences, but to constrain those differences. Humans have never looked to breed new species and in fact eliminate those which vary in ways they do not want. Selection, whether done by humans or by nature, is a limiting function where those outside a fitness function are removed. It is only when the fitness function is changed do we see large changes. In nature, the organisms being selected also affect their environment, including every other organism proximate enough to have an effect, which in turn affects their own fitness function. Humans do their best to eliminate all other environments but their own desires.
Using dogs, horses, cows, chickens, and any other domestic animal as an example of natural selection is a poor choice because human selection is focused on a specific trait not a new species.
"Why do they expect us to believe something can happen by accident that scientists can't make happen on purpose?
If human selection is not accidental then neither is natural selection. No matter our intent, the effect of our selection is identical to natural selection, both select and remove traits based on criteria external to the organism. The main difference, and the reason they are not comparable when asking why no new species are produced is in the number of dimensions in the fitness function.
If you have problems with the idea that micro evolution can lead to macro evolution, consider the differences between a bear, a dog and a raccoon and look for a feature or two where gradual changes run into a gap that cannot be crossed by consecutive small changes. If you cannot find any , unless you consider those three to be in the same species, then logically micro can accumulate to become macro.
Disclaimer: Christian
[Using dogs, horses, cows, chickens, and any other domestic animal as an example of natural selection is a poor choice because human selection is focused on a specific trait not a new species.]
Noone used any specific trait manipulation when doing the experiments on fruit flies- the experiments also mimicked millions of years due to the intensity of testing, and random mutations were allowed to run their course through the experiments- all they produced were more fruitflies with altered information that was already present- the gene mistakes resulted in more legs, antenae where they weren’t suppsoed to be, shorter wings etc. but in the end, they were still fruitflies with mutations.
As for speciation noone is arguing that a particular species can lose information to hte point where they can no longer breed with any others except for those within their own sub species- speciation is not macroevolution- sparrow subspecies will always be sparrows, and never bats or whatever other species evolution says sparrows evolved from or into.
[It is only when the fitness function is changed do we see large changes.]
Large species specific natural selection changes that HAVe to work on the information that is already present, and has never occured in new organs, new systems, that we can show.
[No matter our intent, the effect of our selection is identical to natural selection, both select and remove traits based on criteria external to the organism.]
What governs naturalism when ‘deciding’ (for lack of a better word) which mutations it will hand onto and which it will dump? How come all the scientific experiments have never produced anything close to an evolving macroevolutionary new organ or system in a species?
[The eye is one of the best examples of the development of complex systems from simple beginnings through incremental changes.]
You have your opinion on the matter of course, but we’re finding out through more careful study, that there were no ‘simple beginnings in so called primitive species, and we’re finding out that what was once thought to be ‘primitive eyes’ are turning out to be very complex, and we see NO lead up to even these primitive eyes- I didn’t design my wquestion to be unanswerable, we simply do not have evidneces that show an evolving eye. What we do have are expamples of eyes of unique species that were fully formed and functional- what we don’t have, are examples of eyes that were not functional while they waited around for assembly some million years or so. Pointing out eyes that show loss of information and became uselss through ‘natural pressures, and claiming, based on personal opinion, that it was an evolving eye, does nothign to advance the eye evolution theory- Again The earliest eyes in the fossil records are proving to be quite advanced, fully formed, and quite useful- opining about ‘light sensitive patches’ in later species is really nothing more than an opinion with nothing to back it up.
The answer isn’t unanswerable- the answer is “We don’t know for certain how the eye evolved- some folks have personal opinions, others dissagree, but at htis point, nothign concrete is known... oh... and you’re right- it would seem silly for all the seperate highly specific parts and chemicals and protiens of hte eye to sit around waiting for the eye to develop while millions of years rolled by- one would think that if htis were true, then the fossil records would be full of examples of completely eyelss creatures, creatures with half formed eyes, creatures with 3/4 formed eyes and so forth- not just a couple of anectdotal examples here and there that are seperated by millions of years while thousands of examples of fully formed eyes suddenly show up in the earliest fossil records”
See? That wasn’t so hard.
[Lack of good grammar and spelling are viewed as a sign of illiteracy.]
And then there are those of us who know better and couldn’t give a crap about being anal on an informal forum and who concider content the improtant issue- either the content stands on it’s own m,erits or not- becoming obsessive about spelling, and trying to sidetrack a thread’s issues by trying to equate spelling with IQ is a lame DC tactic, one that likes to sidestep issues and attack people’s characters and pretending it means more than a hill of beans. Kids engage in those kinds of accusations and tactics- but I see you and JS are having fun in your little circle jerk-
Whoops- that last paragrapf was dircted at coldwater- forgot to include his name and post number
Don’t even think about using spell check!!!!!!!!
>
>fi yuo cna raed tihs, yuo hvae a sgtrane mnid too. Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny
>55 plepoe out of 100 can.
>i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The
>phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde
>Uinervtisy, it dseno’t mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the
>olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit
>pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a
>pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by
>istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot
>slpeling was ipmorantt! if you can raed tihs forwrad it.
Oh ,and illiterate means you can’t read or write- obviously I can do both- Anal however means you obsess about the importance of spelling thiunking it equates to intelligence.
Boy you ask tough questions, this one being a currently active front in embryology and stem cell research.
Embryonically there are three tissue anlage: Ectoderm-skin, nervous system, hair, some glands; Mesoderm-blood, muscle, bone, tendons, many glands; Endoderm-gut (gastro-intestinal tract) abdominal organs, glands.
In typical embryonic development a zygote divides in to two, then four, then 8, then 16, then 32 cells.
Then cell migration along with differentiation begins: the cell mass (blastula) elongates and cells in one region move to form a pocket (gastrula) and gastrulization progresses until a tube-like shape is formed. In human beings, the tube sits atop an disc of tissue (embryonic disc), with its top ridge (neural tube) destined to form the nervous system.
I know its a condensed version of a small part of embryogensis, but if you want to know the answer to your question, this and related material must be digested first.
You think this answers my question? I didn't ask WHAT happens? I asked, HOW does a cell know? What you're saying is it just happens, which is fine, but the "Sh*t Just Happens" explanation from learned people who are supposed to be intellectually honest is just riduculous.
The possibility exist that information is introduced from an external source which directs the activity. Why can't that be admitted by some supposed scientist?
Because there is no evidence for it.
No, you're wrong. There's plenty of evidence for it, as the cells do formulate organs. The digital code is there to examine. How the code exist is the question and for some scientist to deny "evidence" which shows a possibility of intervention is so dishonest and bias it smacks of incredulity.
Infact the lack of evidence for the supposed scientific explanation should embarrass the community to no end since itself has no plausible explanation other than s**t happens.
No, you're wrong. There's plenty of evidence for it, as the cells do formulate organs.
That is your evidence for "external intervention?"
The digital code is there to examine. How the code exist is the question and for some scientist to deny "evidence" which shows a possibility of intervention is so dishonest and bias it smacks of incredulity.
That is your evidence for "external intervention?"
Infact the lack of evidence for the supposed scientific explanation should embarrass the community to no end since itself has no plausible explanation other than s**t happens.
That is your opinion, but in any case it is not evidence in favor of "external intervention."
You have presented no evidence at all. Care to try again?
The digital code alone is evidence. That's my whole point.
The digital code alone is evidence. That's my whole point.
You have still presented no evidence. Care to try one last time?
I notice you can't deny sirchtruth is trying. Very trying.
If I were you two I wouldn't stand infront of too many buses, the way you see it they might not present enough evidence for you two to get out of the way, ya know, with their rolling wheels and all. I doubt you'd probably be able to make an educated guess they would ever run you over, if ya just stood there. < /sarc>
There's enough evidence in the DNA to suggest a "digital" code. A prearranged code...you know, "One if by land, two if by sea!"
That DNA contains information does not come as a big surprise.
You have failed to present any evidence that this information proves a designer, indicates divine intervention, or anything else.
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.