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.
And you have succeeded at turning a blind eye to facts which are right infront of your very eyes that provides ample evidence to suggest intelligent design.
The WHAT I offered was (a small sample of basic info you don't have) to let you know you are in over your head. You're debating a process that is beyond your grasp--I suspect because you lack education in the life sciences.
"How does a cell know?"
"Know" (jeez) what?
It sounds like you're trying to grasp embryology in a single sound bite.
I see that you know nothing about physics and reactor safety.
Considering that Mr. G contributed almost zero to the department in six years, he was politely shown the door. I think you would also show the door to an employee if he did not meet your expectations for performance.
Again, how does one’s belief of the age of the earth prevent him from DOING a procedure?
In order to perform reactor safety analysis one has to have faith in physics, particularly the decay rate of isotopes. Since YEC'rs believe that the decay rate of isotopes changes their work would quickly hit the trash can.
Sorry, not wrong.
Take a look at "For Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly, Unintelligent Non-design Suffices," by Garrett Odell. It is a program on the Science Forum of the Research Channel (Dish Network Channel 9400). The original lecture was 2006, at the University of Washington.
The website of the author is www.celldynamics.org.
It would be funny if it were, because Coyoteman is an advocate of Kuhnian irrationalism, which is certainly at odds with anything Newton ever wrote about science. And Newton was not a methodological naturalist (that term was coined in the 1980s) as he believed that God intervenes to adjust the orbits of planets, and other odd non-naturalistic things.
Since you seem to have an intimate knowledge about these subjects have you heard of something I think is called "The Two Slit Experiment?" or maybe Double-Slit experiment?
Of course Einstein took the naturalistic route and devised an explanation for orbital irregularities.
What would be the motive for such an assumption?
It suggests that further research is unnecessary and futile.
The assumption or invisible entities twiddling with things could have been invoked at any time and any place in science, bringing curiosity and research to a halt.
He also suffered a breakdown contributed to mercury used in his alchemy (read making gold from non-gold) experimentsl.
Interesting. Newton could not explain the irregularities so he stopped with "God does it" while LaPlace went on to explain the irregularities. Do you want us to stop with our exploration of or beginnings with "God did it" or should we continue or quest for truth?
[Since YEC’rs believe that the decay rate of isotopes changes their work would quickly hit the trash can.]
Again, Secular science is fully allowed assumptions and presumptions without any proofs whatsoever to back up their claims, yet ID science is ridiculed and maligned because they offer entirely ligitimate hypothesis that decay rates could very well have changed in the past.
Under testimony, Dalrymple could not state with certainty that the decay was constant. He hemmed and Hawed when asked just how certain he was, and attempted to downplay the fact that the consensus belief that the rate of decay is constant is based on nothing more than blind faith and assumptions. When asked about his certainty of a constant decay rate in regards to the supposed Big Bang,, Dalrymple crawled under a rock by stating that he wasn’t an astrophysicist and thusly couldn’t know the answer to that.
Whaaaaat? Dalrymple tries to tell us how certain scientists are that the decay rate has always been constant, implying that dating methods can thusly be trusted, and then he states that he “CAN’T ANSWER the question” about hte decay rate during the big bang?
And people have the gall and temerity to ridicule ID for proposing an entirely ligitimate hypothesis when secular science can’t even produce the evidence for constant decay rate that their whole dating methods hinge on entirely?
Sorry- but asserting YEC’ers hypothesis will ‘fall in the trash’ because they propose a plausible scenario doesn’t cut it here!
http://www.halos.com/book/ctm-09-a.htm
But after reading the above link, I’m sure we’ll see the usual ad hominem attacks on Gentry as though these attacks somehow refute all his contributions to science and his discoveries, and as well, these attacks will refute the fact that science dating methods are not based on knowns, which, as we’re told, scientific investigations must adhereto , lest the science be labelled theistic ponderings, but is rather based on assumption and presumptions. While grand speculations are allowed for secularists, and never called psuedo-science, whenever an ID’er should offer an opinion about something, it’s imediately ridiculed and maligned with the usual petty ‘psuedoscience’ label, and we’re told science deals in knowns, not speculations, but alas- nothing could be furhter from the truth as evidenced by the assumptions upon which dating methods rely heavily.
>>Under testimony, Dalrymple could not state with certainty that the decay was constant. He hemmed and Hawed <<
From you link it doesn’t look like hemming and hawing to me!
Q Is constancy of the rate of radioactive decay a requirement for radiometric dating?
Q To the best of your knowledge, has the rate of radioactive decay always been constant?
A As far as we know from all the evidence we have, it has always been constant. We have no, either empirical or theoretical, reason to believe it is not.
Q So as far as you know, it would have been constant one billion years ago, the same as it is today.
A As far as we know.
Q Five billion years ago?
A As far as we know.
Q Ten billion years ago?
A As far as we know.
He readily admits that he is NOT qualified to anwswer that question. However, he is firm on the last 10 billion years which includes the 4.5 billion years of the earths existence.
“In the above responses my respected colleague now admits that consistent results obtained by different decay schemes do not actually prove constant decay in the past after all. He then attempts to reduce the impact of this admission by noting that varying decay rates would involve changes in physical laws. His only argument against this possibility is plainly stated: scientists “presume they [physical laws] have not” changed. But the [p. 116] presumption that physical laws have not changed over the course of time is just the uniformitarian principle. Thus, his entire testimony concerning constant decay rates and an ancient age of the earth was hinged on his faith in this unproven principle. No proof was given for constant decay rates and an ancient age of the earth because no proof exists.”
Yup- no waffling.
and for htose hwo want the whole truth and rebuttles to the sloppy articles at talkorigin: http://www.trueorigin.org/
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.