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.
Something regarding your inquiry about how cells know what to do:
In experiments with fish, frogs, and salamanders (chosen because they have great powers of regeneration), Sperry demonstrated that individual nerve fibers (which are actually different cells) behave as if each is chemically different from every other, and these chemical differences are matched in the brain. The result is that in an animal whose optic nerves are severed and then allowed to regenerate, the thousands of individual fibers that make up each optic nerve grow back into the brain and there make the same connections they had before. The animal is then able to see as if the nerves had never been severed. Proof that no adaptive reorganization of the neural circuits is involved in regeneration consisted of showing that if an eye whose optic nerve is severed is also rotated in its socket, the world seen by the eye after regeneration is still upside down and backwards. Furthermore, as in the case of the rat with the crossed nerves, no amount of retraining makes it see correctly: the animal invariably strikes to the left when it sees a worm on its right. The conclusion that the circuitry of the brain is fixed in early development is supported by much more evidence than I can summarize here. It has given rise to a field of research focused on "axonal guidance". Sperry's result concerning the chemical individuality of each nerve fiber has been confirmed by modern molecular methods. It is a result that is loaded with meanings at many levels--from immediate consequences for neurosurgery to large and still not fully explored implications for evolution and development, and even for social-political questions. It raises other fascinating and still unsolved questions. For example, the capacity to learn obviously implies some neural plasticity. But given the basic determinism of the brain that Sperry uncovered, what does learning actually consist of at the cellular and chemical level? These and other questions posed by his findings are now being studied, and no doubt they will continue to be worked on for a long time in the future. ( Work of Roger Sperry)
So then, according to you, Newton was a science-denier.
Rudder- I think the question was deeper about how cells know what to do- excuse me if I’m wrong- but I think he was asking how all this information arose in the first place. You posted some interesting information that I would like to point out only further shows that highly complex system information is present on all levels, and that there is a tremendous amount of highly complex and specificly organized information at work in even just one species- let along a couple hundred thousand species. While it’s true there are some common trans-species systems that operate similarly, it’s also true that there are vast vast species specific syatems at work on all levels from the larger syatems all the way down to the microscopic and furhter that are so highly specialized that they are unique to certain species only.
I don’t know- to me it just begs the question about where all these highly specific and uniquely complex systems originated from- where they go their gene information from etc. And I wonder how the literally billions of complexities could all rapidly accumulate through a random process of gene mistakes to account for all the 100’s of 1000’s of species specific complexities that exist. Some systems even on the molecular levels operate with many smaller system specific processes working quite flawlessly-
We tend to look at the larger examples of species, and point out anectdotal evidences, and think that’s enough, but my gosh, the billions of species specific complexities that are present from the observable with hte naked eye, all the way down to the molecular levels kinda just begs the question of how it was possible for all these to take place through mere gene mistakes when it’s even a bit of a stretch of faith to account for just a few larger ones in a few million years.
I dunno- Folks accuse ID of being nothign but faith and apologetics when infact secular evolution science relies almost extensively on faith when explaining how they think evolution happened. There must have been a time of extremely rapid, organized directional forces at work to get all these systems working- thew amount of mutations must have been absolutely unbelievably massive in number for nature to get it all right and working properly
Just some thoughts- not railing on your post- but just wanted to point out I trhink he was asking a deeper question about how cells would know what to do- I think he meant how did they evolve the instructions in massive numbers to know what their functions was so to speak.
One of the more important recent discoveries in this regard has to do with systemic hormones and local hormones. For example, sharks make massive amounts of progesterone---they use it for internal water balance. Mammals use progesterone as a progestational agent. What evolved was not the chemical but rather the target.
Hormones act by, first, attaching to cellular target sites. Then they are conveyed inside the cell. Then they alter cellular protein synthesis, and the cells do their bidding, so to speak. We scientists know more about the molecular detail than my meager description reveals.
Where did the information come from? It came from life forms that were obliged to follow an utilitarian process. Life is a fluid, ever-changing, phenomenon. Some of which science understands and most of which science is investigating.
The "information" accrues in life forms.
At first, for a pedagogical example, there were light-sensitive chemicals, then aggregations (eg slime molds), then colonies (eg algae) then communication (simple nerve net), etc., etc.
The point being that the information utilized by organisms proceeded from the very simple (eg salinity or temperature changes) to the more complex as life forms--the information came from an ever-changing environment--adapted.
Newton wore a lot of hats. I'd like to see a citation for his statement that God twiddles with orbits.
Every person alive has 'discovered' the "Galactic Habitable Zone". Nothing new here!
and was issued a $58,000 grant from the John Templeton Foundation that paid 25 percent of his salary at Iowa State for three years. I pulled in more than that as a graduate student. No big deal. $58K over six years is less than 10k per year.
You are evidence of an intelligent designer. Our conversation is evidence of an intelligent designer.
You wrote, “You aren’t making sense, which surprises me after reading may of your previous posts.”
You value “sense.” That tells me that “sense” is a virtue, something established by a Designer with sense. If “all this” is merely brought about by chance + time, then why would “sense” be valued?
Mr. Behe, the leading ID proponent, testified under oath that there was NO evidence of the ID in the last few hundred million years of man's evolution and thus it was probable that the ID was dead.
I’m not following you. The leading proponent of ID is against ID? In the words of GW Bush, “That doesn’t make sense.”
He is not against ID. He is the leading proponent of ID.
That’s my point. You’re saying that a leading proponent of ID claims that “ID was dead.” That doesn’t make sense. A “proponent” advocates for something; he doesn’t say it’s dead and worthless.
Coldwater apparently thinks that Behe is the authority on everythign- Behe has his opinions, and he is not against ID but apparently is against hte idea of creation and thinks that evolution can produce intelligent design, yet he offers no proof of such, and just has an opinion on the matter. The fact that Behe opinied on the matter in a manner favorable to Coldwater’s own opinion is apparently enough to convince coldwater that ID must be dead based on nothing more than one man’s opinion.
No. He said "THE ID" was most probably dead since we have no evidence of "THE ID" interacting in man's evolution in the last few hundred million years.
I see from your post you are ignorant on the principles of ID and Mr. Behe’s position in the ID world.
How CNN leads into their interview with Mr. Behe:
“Michael Behe is a major player behind intelligent design, the movement that’s trying to bring the supernatural into science. Behe was a chief witness in a federal trial over a Pennsylvania high school wanting to include intelligent design, or ID, in biology classes.”
Ah. I misunderstood “ID” to mean “Intelligent Designer” in every instance in your post. So apparently the leading advocate for Intelligent Design thinks that the Intelligent Designer is dead? That’s an odd position to have, that God is dead.
And he also advocates teaching that in public school science classes! It totally amazes me that fundamental Christian school board members are pushing this philosophy! Go figure.
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.