Ben Stein Exposes Richard Dawkins (Dawkins admits possibility of ID, Just Not God).

Townhall ^ | April 21, 2008 | Dinesh D'Souza

[SeekAndFind]

In Ben Stein's new film "Expelled," there is a great scene where Richard Dawkins is going on about how evolution explains everything. This is part of Dawkins' grand claim, which echoes through several of his books, that evolution by itself has refuted the argument from design. The argument from design hold that the design of the universe and of life are most likely the product of an intelligent designer. Dawkins thinks that Darwin has disproven this argument.

So Stein puts to Dawkins a simple question, "How did life begin?" One would think that this is a question that could be easily answered. Dawkins, however, frankly admits that he has no idea. One might expect Dawkins to invoke evolution as the all-purpose explanation. Evolution, however, only explains transitions from one life form to another. Evolution has no explanation for how life got started in the first place. Darwin was very clear about this.

In order for evolution to take place, there had to be a living cell. The difficulty for atheists is that even this original cell is a work of labyrinthine complexity. Franklin Harold writes in The Way of the Cell that even the simplest cells are more ingeniously complicated than man's most elaborate inventions: the factory system or the computer. Moreover, Harold writes that the various components of the cell do not function like random widgets; rather, they work purposefully together, as if cooperating in a planned organized venture. Dawkins himself has described the cell as the kind of supercomputer, noting that it functions through an information system that resembles the software code.

Is it possible that living cells somehow assembled themselves from nonliving things by chance? The probabilities here are so infinitesimal that they approach zero. Moreover, the earth has been around for some 4.5 billion years and the first traces of life have already been found at some 3.5 billion years ago. This is just what we have discovered: it's quite possible that life existed on earth even earlier. What this means is that, within the scope of evolutionary time, life appeared on earth very quickly after the earth itself was formed. Is it reasonable to posit that a chance combination of atoms and molecules, under those conditions, somehow generated a living thing? Could the random collision of molecules somehow produce a computer?

It is ridiculously implausible to think so. And the absurdity was recognized more than a decade ago by Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the DNA double helix. Yet Crick is a committed atheist. Unwilling to consider the possibility of divine or supernatural creation, Crick suggested that maybe aliens brought life to earth from another planet. And this is precisely the suggestion that Richard Dawkins makes in his response to Ben Stein. Perhaps, he notes, life was delivered to our planet by highly-evolved aliens. Let's call this the "ET" explanation.

Stein brilliantly responds that he had no idea Richard Dawkins believes in intelligent design! And indeed Dawkins does seem to be saying that alien intelligence is responsible for life arriving on earth. What are we to make of this? Basically Dawkins is surrendering on the claim that evolution can account for the origins of life. It can't. The issue now is simply whether a natural intelligence (ET) or a supernatural intelligence (God) created life. Dawkins can't bear the supernatural explanation and so he opts for ET. But doesn't it take as much, or more, faith to believe in extraterrestrial biology majors depositing life on earth than it does to believe in a transcendent creator?

[js1138]

I’m not trying to make light of your work, but I intend to import all of the information from the pdf. I want the degrees and the occupation at the time of signing, so I can do some analysis. To avoid wasted effort, let me know what you intend to do before spending time on it.

If you can get the entire table delimited at the places where the pdf table is separated by columns, it will save me quite a bit of work.

[AndrewC]

Another concern of the Baylor arts and science faculty are the alternative science links, such as the Creationism Connection and Discovery Institute, that now appear on or connect to the Polanyi web site

As I said, you have your opinion. I have mine. I also stated that Dembski and the center did not hide their association with Discovery.

This site contains your story and more, http://www.texscience.org/files/dembski-baylor.htm

From that site.

The Discovery Institute, where Polanyi director William Dembski is a senior fellow, studies the theory they call intelligent design.

Many intelligent-design researchers have been funded by the institute's Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture. They say they rely on such private funding because the National Science Foundation and most universities won't sponsor the work. William Dembski, director of the Polanyi Center, is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute's center, and Bruce Gordon, assistant director of the Polanyi Center, is a fellow at the Seattle organization. Dembski has received fellowships of $40,000 to $50,000 from the Seattle institute, and his salary at the Polanyi Center is paid from a $75,000 grant from the John Templeton Fund, which the institute distributes. Brumley said the university will pick up Dembski's salary after the grant expires next year. Sloan has said Dembski and Gordon answer to Baylor and not the Discovery Institute. Dembski could not be reached for comment Tuesday, but Gordon said he believes intelligent design should be taught in public schools only once it gains widespread scientific credibility.

---

The Polanyi Center was established quietly in October 1999. Dembski and his like-minded colleague Bruce Gordon were hired outside the traditional academic channels of a search committee and departmental consultation. Dembski says that he did meet with some faculty, both before and after Baylor hired him. But the vast majority of them were unaware of the existence of the center until its Web site went online and scientists outside the university began sending incredulous e-mails to their colleagues at Baylor. What, they asked, was this? Had Baylor gone fundamentalist? Would they be teaching creation science instead of evolution in their biology classrooms? The Baylor scientists, already sensitive to their university's religious mission, were now the laughingstock of the scientific community, and they didn't like it.

"When you say Baylor now, people are going to go, 'Oh, yeah, they have that creationist center,'" says Charles Weaver, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at Baylor and one of the most outspoken critics of the Polanyi Center. "We fought that as a city for a long time: 'Waco. Oh, you guys are the crazy ones with Koresh.'" He worries that the Polanyi Center and Dembski's association with the intelligent-design movement will discourage promising premed students and respected faculty from coming to Baylor.

Baylor Provost Donald Schmeltekopf defends the university's actions by pointing out that there are more and more people in academia interested in questioning the naturalistic assumptions of the scientific establishment and that Dembski is one of the most visible among them. "We thought it would be an interesting thing for Baylor to get into the conversation and to be a participant," he says.

But Weaver says Baylor faculty members have been asking these questions about the relationship between science and religion for years in the school's interdisciplinary Institute for Faith and Learning. "The inference that some of us have drawn is that...we must have come up with answers that aren't those we were expected to come up with," says Weaver, who is a Presbyterian elder. "My faith background is one of asking lots of questions and living with a lot of doubts, and those may not be qualities that are valued at Baylor anymore. It may be that those of us with certainties are better adapted for the environment."

In any case, Schmeltekopf's conversation was about to turn into an argument, and a nasty one at that. In April, Dembski's Polanyi Center hosted a conference on naturalism sponsored by the Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank where Dembski is a fellow, and the Templeton Foundation, whose moneys have gone a long way to bankroll the intelligent-design movement. The conference sought to answer a very unusual question: Is there anything beyond nature? An impressive collection of scientists from all over the world attended the conference, among them Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg. Of course, Weinberg titled his presentation "No," a straightforward answer to the conference's central question. And other speakers announced that they were going to give their honoraria to organizations that promote the study of evolution in schools.

Baylor faculty, by and large, boycotted the conference altogether. But that wasn't all. Just days after the naturalism conference, the faculty senate voted 27-2 to dismantle Dembski's center. If there was to be a center studying the intersection of science and religion at Baylor, they held, it should be rebuilt from the ground up--with faculty input. In an editorial published in the Houston Chronicle, President Sloan charged that this uproar over faculty input was a cover for the real issue: the substance of the work being done by the center. "In my experience," he wrote, "people often object to 'the way things were done' as a rhetorical substitute for what was done." Sloan refused to dissolve the Polanyi Center, citing issues of censorship and academic integrity.

[AndrewC]

Nice whitewash. Follow:

It's not a whitewash. The Smithsonian is not allowed to limit a person's off site activity unless the person ties the Smithsonian into the activity. It can do nothing about what Sternberg did as long as it did not involve the Smitsonian. Read the emails. They knew nothing at the time about the process involved at the PBSW. It appears the entire episode was initiated by NCSE complaints in August 2004 to SI and due to the fact that a paper mentioning ID had been published.

This is senseless discussion. I am certain nothing exists which can change your mind about the situation and you have not provided me with anything that would change my mind about the events that are categorized in the emails. So let's just end this on a friendly note. You believe what you believe, I believe that Sternberg was singled out at SI due to his offsite activity which SI admits is no factor in any treatment of their personnel to include RA's and RC's or visiting scientists.

[antiRepublicrat]

As I said, you have your opinion.

No, it's not opinion. They tried to disassociate themselves from the DI at the same time they were associating with the DI. This is normal for these people, all about politics, scheming and secret plans, not much about science.

I notice earlier you seemed to try to say there was no association with the DI by questioning Dembski's employment there. Now that you know there is an association you try to say it means nothing.

[AndrewC]

I’m not trying to make light of your work,

No offense taken. Don't work too hard on the PDF. Give me a day or so.

[antiRepublicrat]

due to the fact that a paper mentioning ID had been published.

Keep going "... after Sternberg purposely bypassed the normal peer review process." You seem to always forget that bit.

You believe what you believe, I believe that Sternberg was singled out at SI due to his offsite activity which SI admits is no factor in any treatment of their personnel to include RA's and RC's or visiting scientists.

You can believe that, I will follow the evidence, which says all of these claims of persecution are unfounded. I notice you didn't say anything about his blatantly false claims of persecution over turning in the keys and moving offices. We know for a fact that was a LIE. Yet you believe everything else.

You believe what you believe because you want to believe. If the ID movement can't get scientific credibility, it can't possibly be the fault of the IDers themselves, there must be persecution. Meanwhile, I wouldn't shed a tear if all of evolutionary theory were overturned tomorrow. As I've said before, I'd love to be the person to do it.

[Fester Chugabrew]

The Smithsonian has not been honest enough to hang a sign that says, “No intelligence allowed.” Had they done so, Sternberg may have known better and stayed away. As it stands, we would like to think free inquiry is part and parcel of the game. But the game is, and always will be, stacked when certain world views refuse to lend credence to others.

The bottom line is, we need to get along to some degree. All it requires is tentative expression as opposed to positive. Materialists do not have a completely untenable position. Just as miracles, which are nothing more than temporary physical anomalies, have a .0000001 chance of occurring (as if miracles are somehow “unnatural”), unguided processes have .0000001 chance of producing an intelligible result.

The issue of evolution vs. intelligent design is worthy of open discussion in an academic context. Both have merit. Ben Stein has just tweaked the side who happens to have the upper hand in the courts and universities these days.

[AndrewC]

Needs cleaning up and a few corrections, but is this sample what you want?

	Philip Skell	Emeritus, Evan Pugh Prof. of Chemistry, Pennsylvania State University	Member of the National Academy of Sciences
	Lyle H. Jensen	Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Biological Structure & Dept. of Biochemist	ry  University of Washington, Fellow AAAS
	Maciej Giertych	Full Professor, Institute of Dendrology	Polish Academy of Sciences
	Lev Beloussov	Prof. of Embryology, Honorary Prof., Moscow State University	Member, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences
	Eugene Buff	Ph.D. Genetics	Institute of Developmental Biology,
			Russian Academy of Sciences
	Emil Palecek	Prof. of Molecular Biology, Masaryk University; Leading Scientist	Inst. of Biophysics, Academy of Sci., Czech
	Republic
	K. Mosto Onuoha	Shell Professor of Geology & Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Univ. of Nigeria	Fellow, Nigerian Academy of Science
	Ferenc Jeszenszky	Former Head of the Center of Research Groups	Hungarian Academy of Sciences
	M.M. Ninan	Former President	Hindustan Academy of Science,
			Bangalore University (India)
	Denis Fesenko	Junior Research Fellow, Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology	Russian Academy of Sciences (Russia)
	Sergey I. Vdovenko	Senior Research Assistant, Department of Fine Organic Synthesis	Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry and Petrochemistry
			Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences (Ukraine)
	Henry Schaefer	Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry University
			of
			Georgia
	Paul Ashby	Ph.D. Chemistry	Harvard University
	Israel Hanukoglu	Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Chairman	The College of Judea and Samaria (Israel)
	Alan Linton	Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology	University of Bristol (UK)
	Dean Kenyon	Emeritus Professor of Biology	San Francisco State University
	David W. Forslund	Ph.D. Astrophysics, Princeton University	Fellow of American Physical Society
	Robert W. Bass	Ph.D. Mathematics (also: Rhodes Scholar; Post-Doc at Princeton)	Johns Hopkins University
	John Hey	Associate Clinical Prof. (also: Fellow, American Geriatrics Society)	Dept. of Family Medicine, Univ. of Mississippi
	Daniel W. Heinze	Ph.D.  Geophysics (also: Post-Doc Fellow, Carnegie Inst. of Washington)	Texas A&M University
	Richard Anderson	Assistant Professor of Environmental Science and Policy	Duke University
	David Chapman*	Senior Scientist	Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
	Giuseppe Sermonti	Professor of Genetics, Ret. (Editor, Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum)	University of Perugia (Italy)
	Stanley Salthe	Emeritus Professor Biological Sciences	Brooklyn College of the City University of New
	York
	Marcos N. Eberlin	Professor, The State University of Campinas (Brazil)	Member, Brazilian Academy of Science
	Bernard d'Abrera	Visiting Scholar, Department of Entomology	British Museum (Natural History)
	Mae-Wan Ho	Ph.D. Biochemistry	The University of Hong Kong

[Sun]

Bump

[Sun]

TWO sides to every story; let’s start with Gonzalez:

“Stellar Astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez Denied Fair Hearing by Iowa State Board of Regents
By: Discovery Staff
Discovery Institute
February 7, 2008

The Board of Regents of the State of Iowa has denied the tenure appeal of Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, Assistant Professor of Astronomy at Iowa State University (ISU). Dr. Gonzalez’s appeal has been ongoing since the summer of 2007, when he was first denied tenure by ISU.

“We are extremely disappointed that the Board of Regents refused to give Dr. Gonzalez a fair hearing in his appeal,” said Gonzalez’s attorney Chuck Hurley. “They say in Iowa that academic freedom is supposed to be the ‘foundation of the university.’ That foundation is cracked.”

ISU has consistently maintained that Dr. Gonzalez’s tenure denial has nothing to do with intelligent design (ID). But secret e-mails exchanged by ISU faculty who voted against his tenure and statements in Dr. Gonzalez’s tenure file showed that intelligent design was the overriding factor in his tenure denial. The Board of Regents refused to admit much of this evidence into the record in Dr. Gonzalez’s appeal.

“The Board of Regents would not allow into the record extensive e-mail documentation showing that Dr. Gonzalez was denied tenure not due to his academic record, but because he supports intelligent design,” said Casey Luskin, Program Officer in Public Policy and Legal Affairs at Discovery Institute, where Gonzalez is a senior fellow. “Then the Board refused to grant Dr. Gonzalez the right to be heard through oral arguments. Does it come as any surprise that now they denied his appeal?”’

excerpt http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=4458&program=CSC%20-%20Views%20and%20News&printerFriendly=true

[antiRepublicrat]

I want to see the emails. Until then all I see is someone who clearly did not do the work necessary to get tenure and then pulled the ID card when denied it. Since getting to the university his publication rate went in a free fall, he got almost nothing for grants, none of his grad students got their doctorates, and he did almost no collaboration with other scientists at the university. These are the main factors in getting tenure, and he failed miserably on all counts.

Nobody here would be supporting him if he weren’t an ID proponent. If he were black we’d be saying he’s pulling the race card to get something he didn’t deserve. Stay on principle, which shouldn’t change by subject.

[AndrewC]

I want to see the emails. Until then all I see is someone who clearly did not do the work necessary to get tenure and then pulled the ID card when denied it.

Here,Public document requests under Iowa’s Open Records Act obtained correspondence of key faculty members within ISU’s Department of Physics and Astronomy.

And here is the work aspect.

If you want to do your own research for the raw numbers go here http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html

and put in the names of the individuals. Here are the results for a search from that site covering the period that Gonzalez was at ISU

Selected and retrieved 44 abstracts. Total normalized citations: 42
Stephen D. Kawaler Full Professor (Current Program Coordinator), Tenured Astronomer in ISU Dept. of Physics and Astronomy.

Selected and retrieved 78 abstracts. Total normalized citations: 210
Guillermo Gonzalez.

[antiRepublicrat]

Look at the trends that can show what kind of performance to expect from the tenure applicant:

The trend says "Don't expect much more from this guy, he did his best work before he got here." And notice how few he was first author for during his stay at ISU.

[AndrewC]

Look at the trends that can show what kind of performance to expect from the tenure applicant:

Why don't you look at the raw data instead of someone else's attempt at discrediting a scientist? On your chart from 2001 to 2007 there are a total of 20 publications on the chart for Gonzalez. The query I cited in post 672 showed 78 abstracts for Gonzalez during that period. Your chart is bogus. Run the query yourself if you don't believe me.

PS if you do run the query, be advised that there is another Guillermo Gonzalez, but he is Guillermo A. Gonzalez from Mexico. I think he only has 2 publications over that period. So your number may be a little different depending on how you structure the query.

Bottom line. Gonzalez outperformed just about everyone in his department at Iowa State during 2001-2007.

[antiRepublicrat]

The query I cited in post 672 showed 78 abstracts for Gonzalez during that period. Your chart is bogus. Run the query yourself if you don't believe me.

I get 34 from 2001-2007. This is different from both of your numbers, but closer to theirs. I'll need to do some more research.

As for the emails I await full release of them, not just carefully selected snippets, since I know the DI's history of dishonesty.

[AndrewC]

I get 34 from 2001-2007. This is different from both of your numbers, but closer to theirs. I'll need to do some more research.

You did an exact name search. He is also listed under gonzalez, g.(but so are a few others so you must extract those).

Here is the list of first author articles. There are 15, but the first appears to be just a catalog entry. So he has 14 papers where he is the sole author or first author. You chart shows five.

No one says you have to believe what people wrote. But it is easy enough for you to do what they did and use the Iowa open records act to get your own copy.

#	Bibcode		Score	Date	List of Links
	Authors		Title		Access Control Help
1	2007yCat..83781141G		1.000	10/2007	A                                  D                                  O  U
	Gonzalez, G.; Laws, C.		Chemical abundances in 31 stars with planet (Gonzalez+, 2007)
2	2007MNRAS.378.1141G		1.000	07/2007	A      E  F          X          D          R  C      S          O  U
	Gonzalez, Guillermo; Laws, Chris		Parent stars of extrasolar planets - VIII. Chemical abundances for 18 elements in 31 stars
3	2006PASP..118.1494G		1.000	11/2006	A      E  F          X                      R  C      S              U
	Gonzalez, Guillermo		The Chemical Compositions of Stars with Planets: A Review
4	2006MNRAS.371..781G		1.000	09/2006	A      E  F                                  R  C      S              U
	Gonzalez, Guillermo		Indium abundance trends among sun-like stars
5	2006MNRAS.370L..90G		1.000	07/2006	A      E  F          X                      R  C                      U
	Gonzalez, Guillermo		The Sun's interior metallicity constrained by neutrinos
6	2006MNRAS.367L..37G		1.000	03/2006	A      E  F          X                      R  C      S              U
	Gonzalez, Guillermo		Condensation temperature trends among stars with planets
7	2005OLEB...35..555G		1.000	12/2005	A      E              X                      R  C                      U
	Gonzalez, Guillermo		Habitable Zones in the Universe
8	2005Obs...125..113H		1.000	04/2005	F  G                                                          U
	Gonzalez, G.; Richards, J. W.; Hughes, David W.		Book Review: THE PRIVILEGED PLANET: HOW OUR PLACE IN THE COSMOS IN DESIGNED FOR DISCOVERY / Regency Publishing, 2004
9	2005asli.symp...89G		1.000	00/2005	A                                      T      R  C                      U
	Gonzalez, Guillermo		The Galactic Habitable Zone
10	2003RvMP...75..101G		1.000	01/2003	A      E                                      R  C      S              U
	Gonzalez, Guillermo		Colloquium: Stars, planets, and metals
11	2003ASPC..294..135G		1.000	00/2003	A          F  G                      T                  S              U
	Gonzalez, G.		A Search for Lithium-6 in Stars with Planets
12	2003ASPC..294..129G		1.000	00/2003	A          F  G                      T                  S              U
	Gonzalez, G.; Laws, C.		Metallicity Trends Among Stars With Planets - 2002
13	2002APS..APR.D3001G		1.000	04/2002	A      E                                                                  U
	Gonzalez, Guillermo		Extra-Solar-System Planets
14	2001Icar..152..185G		1.000	07/2001	A      E              X                      R  C      S              U
	Gonzalez, Guillermo; Brownlee, Donald; Ward, Peter		The Galactic Habitable Zone: Galactic Chemical Evolution
15	2001AJ....121..432G		1.000	01/2001	A      E  F          X                      R  C      S          O  U
	Gonzalez, Guillermo; Laws, Chris; Tyagi, Sudhi; Reddy, B. E.		Parent Stars of Extrasolar Planets. VI. Abundance Analyses of 20 New Systems

[antiRepublicrat]

I’m not interested in this enough to get the records. For all I know he’s a fine teacher and a good person, but I hate people whining and claiming persecution when they fail at their tasks.

While we get this sorted out, have you checked his grant money, a major reason cited for denial of tenure?

BTW, I was apparently wrong, as one of his students got his doctorate. That’s still pretty bad though.

[AndrewC]

I’m not interested in this enough to get the records. For all I know he’s a fine teacher and a good person, but I hate people whining and claiming persecution when they fail at their tasks.

Well, that is what this is all about isn't it? The evidence is clear, Gonzalez published enough such that he blew away the written requirements for tenure. Now is the business of the Science department science? Or is it making money? Evidently, money making is not a criteria listed in the tenure requirements.

Anyway, Guillermo's scholarship is top notch compared to the rest of his department. Moneywise, I don't know, but show me the trade-off that is expected from Iowa State. Whining is nothing compared to making up sh*t to cover up underhandedness.

[antiRepublicrat]

Well, that is what this is all about isn't it?

You would think, but universities these days are about far more than just teaching the student.

The evidence is clear, Gonzalez published enough such that he blew away the written requirements for tenure.

I see a rising star who turned his attention to ID and let his scientific work lapse. This is all about "What have you done for me lately?"

Now is the business of the Science department science? Or is it making money?

It's the truth of the situation. Bringing home the bacon is practically the first check mark on the list for an astronomer. Grant money makes research (expensive telescope time, etc.), research makes prestige. Prestige is paramount. Given the situation I can even see pushing ID as science as a legitimate reason (not absolute, just under the current tenure system) to deny tenure, since it would harm the university's prestige.

I read some years back that a bunch of people were trying to change the tenure requirements at several colleges, saying the current system reflects greed and an ivory-tower mentality that is not in the real world. I don't know what kind of success they've had.

I guess the morals of the story are: 1) Don't let your ID work interfere with your regular science work, and 2) Keep it secret until you have tenure.

[AndrewC]

I see a rising star who turned his attention to ID and let his scientific work lapse. This is all about "What have you done for me lately?"

What you see is a chart from NCSE which shows bogus information. You yourself produced 14 more entries than the chart shows and your query was incomplete. And if money is a consideration put the numbers on the table, for everyone at Iowa State. It is not. The money angle is an ad hoc argument produced as an attempt to justify the denial of tenure.

Prestige? How much "prestige" does Dr. Hector Avalos provide Iowa State?