Proponent of Intelligent Design Denied Tenure by ISU

The Ames Tribune ^ | May 5, 2007 | William Dillon

[ChessExpert]

“Should an administration be able to deny tenure to a professor who is a member of CPUSA? Or, more likely, the LDS church?”

I’m not a fan of the communist party of the USA. I suspect there has been a wide range of responses form academic administrations, from expulsion, to hero status. CPUSA is/was a political movement.

As far as the church of Latter Day Saints goes, membership should be totally irrelevant. I consider this to be a first amendment (freedom of religion) issue.

“Fine. ID is not science. It is appropriate as a part of the humanities or social sciences, is it not?”

I think ID, like evolution, can be understood narrowly or broadly. Different individual thinkers will take different approaches. Even one thinker might take different approaches at different times.

Here is a simple example with a narrow focus. Imagine a couple walks along a beach and spots markings in the sand. The markings look like a heart with cupid’s arrow, cupid nearby with a bow, and the words "Bob loves Sue." No one is around to query. A debate ensues. Did someone create this design? Or did the surf roll in and roll out leaving the design through chance? What is the answer? How would one know? To me, this is a valid topic. I find the topic more interesting than the effort to categorize the topic.

[GodGunsGuts]

==That is now two quotes I have refuted from your paragraph a few posts above.

You haven’t refuted anything. Everybody who knows anything about the debate between the Church of Darwin and ID scientists knows that Dobzhansky is an evolutionist. The point is, Dobzhansky has admitted that even when evolutionary changes do occur, they are "unique" and "unrepeatable." In short, by your own definition Darwinian evolution is unscientific.

[Coyoteman]

The point is, Dobzhansky has admitted that even when evolutionary changes do occur, they are "unique" and "unrepeatable." In short, by your own definition Darwinian evolution is unscientific.

Still quote mining!

Perhaps this is the original quotation which is being mined:

It is manifestly impossible to reproduce in the laboratory the evolution of man from the australopithecine, or of the modern horse from an Eohippus, or of a land vertebrate from a fishlike ancestor. These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible” (Theodosius Dobzhansky, American Scientist, December 1957).

In typical quote mine fashion, creationists jumped on this like flies on... well, you know. But they couldn't live with the whole quote. They had to "doctor" it a bit.

Here is what one creationist website makes that quote into:

"The evolutionary happenings . . [of paleontology and paleobiology are] unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible."—*T. Dobzhansky, "On Methods of Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology," in American Scientist, 45 (1957), p. 388.

Another creationist website notes:

According to the evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky, even when evolutionary changes do occur, they are by nature "unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible." Dobzhansky tells us that the "applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted." The well-known evolutionist Paul Ehrlich says the theory of evolution "cannot be refuted by any possible observations" and thus is "outside of empirical science."

I think this is the one you got your quote from about 10 posts back, which I have been challenging.

Do you see how the meaning of that quote has been changed? Can you really claim that this is honest?

You quoted Theodosius Dobzhansky in such a way as to make it appear that he did not support the theory of evolution.

Wikipedia's article on quote mining notes that:

Although the phrase itself is new, complaints about the practice are not. Theodosius Dobzhansky's famous 1973 essay Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution:

Their [Creationists'] favorite sport is stringing together quotations, carefully and sometimes expertly taken out of context, to show that nothing is really established or agreed upon among evolutionists. Some of my colleagues and myself have been amused and amazed to read ourselves quoted in a way showing that we are really antievolutionists under the skin.

The quote above, which you are misquoting, is very likely the misquote Dobzhansky is writing about (the dates fit).

It still looks like creationists are willing to go to any lengths to make an evolutionist's writings seem like they do not support evolution--even if they have to dishonestly doctor the quotes to make it come out the way they want.

You fell for the doctored quotes, and seem to be supporting them in spite of evidence of how they were doctored. Are you that desperate to prop up creationism?

[SirLinksalot]

According to Iowa State U’s own standards, to be promoted to associate professor (with tenure), you must show :

“...excellence sufficient to lead to a national or international reputation is required and would ordinarily be shown by the publication of approximately fifteen papers of good quality in refereed journals.”

Guillermo Gonzales has published 68 articles in peer refereed journals.

This far exceeds the university’s own stated requirement.

Gonzalez’s work is that of trying to make sense of raw astronomical and cosmological observations obtained by others. The proof of his worthiness in receiving tenure is not whether he can obtain big time funding to pay for big projects but rather whether his research results are found worthy by his peers for publishing ( REGARDLESS OF HIS PERSONAL CONCLUSIONS). By the this measure Gonzalez has far exceeded the university’s requirements.

So, the obvious reason for denial of tenure is not based on scientific standards or ability to do good science but
simply IDEOLOGICAL BIAS against intelligent design.

[SirLinksalot]

Here is a letter of support from University of Texas El Paso Mathematics professor — Granville Sewell.

This is his background :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granville_Sewell

---

LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR PROF. GUILLERMO GONZALES :

http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/isu.html

Gregory Geoffroy

President

Iowa State University

Dear Dr. Geoffroy,

Anyone familiar with the case of Astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez suspects that he was not denied tenure at Iowa State for lack of academic excellence—he has nearly 70 peer-reviewed publications, including an article in Scientific American, and Nature and Science have run articles about his work—but because of his expressed view (expressed only OUTSIDE the classroom) that certain features of the universe can be considered as evidence of design. This is in fact a widely held view among scientists: for example, it is a well-established fact—established through many peer-reviewed scientific articles—that most of the basic physical constants of our universe, such as Planck’s constant, the speed of light, the charge and mass of the electron, and so on, had to have nearly the values that they do have or intelligent life would not have been possible anywhere in the universe. There are only two widely-held interpretations for this so-called “fine tuning.” One is that the fortuitous values of these constants are the result of design, the other is that there are many universes, with varying values for these constants, and that life arose in ours because the values here were favorable to the development of life. Neither view is strictly scientific, because both the alleged designer and the alleged other universes are in principle unobservable. There are quite a number of scientists who prefer the design explanation. Dr. Gonzalez may be in the minority, but it is a very sizable minority, and most members of this minority are free to express this point of view at their respective institutions without fear of academic punishment.

Dr. Gonzalez has in fact, through peer-reviewed publications, added significantly to the list of features in our universe which may suggest design. He has rarely, if ever, spoken publicly in support of the less widely-held view that certain features of biological evolution also suggest design, but apparently his association with the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, which does hold this view, was more than could be tolerated by some faculty members at ISU. He was criticized for his views in a letter drafted by a professor of religion, Hector Avalos, and signed by 120 ISU professors, and we suspect that this letter played an important role in the tenure decision.

Your decision to deny tenure to Guillermo Gonzalez, unless reversed, sends a clear message to the rest of the academic world that only some philosophical points of view are welcome at Iowa State University. Academic freedom is meaningless if it is limited to certain philosophies. Please reconsider your decision.

Sincerely,

Granville Sewell, Mathematics Dept.,University of Texas El Paso

[GodGunsGuts]

==You fell for the doctored quotes, and seem to be supporting them in spite of evidence of how they were doctored. Are you that desperate to prop up creationism?

I didn’t fall for anything. In the first quote, the Church of Darwin got their panties in a twist because they thought another sentence should have been added. So I added the sentence and reposted the quote. It hardly changed a thing. It still showed Dobzhansky lamenting that Darwinism is unscientific (that is, the supposed evidence for evolution is both “unique” and “unrepeatable”). And your attempt to find the original quote only further proves my point because in that quote Dobzhansky goes on to admit that macro-evolution is “manifestly impossible to reproduce in the laboratory.”

I think it is you who are getting desperate. So desperate, in fact, that you don’t even realize when your hurting your own case...very typical of Church of Darwin devotees.

[SirLinksalot]

Also see here :

WorldNetdaily has picked up the story. It remains to be seen whether the mainstream press will do the same. I’m not holding my breath :

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55667

This brouhaha has a long history. Two years ago, the Smithsonian Museum in Washington, D.C. reneged on an agreement to co-sponsor the premier of Gonzales’ work : Privileged Planet after coming under pressure from The Washington Post and James Randi (AKA “the Amazing Randi” ), who is a magician and long-time debunker of psychic and paranormal claims.

[GodGunsGuts]

Thanks for the post. You might also be interested in post #187

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1832899/posts?page=187#187

[MatthewTan]

ID predicts that most DNA are not junk.

ID predicts that the Earth is designed for life, esp. human life, and is so situated in Galaxy for scientific Discovery Support Gonzalez. Buy copies of The Privileged Planet and give to your friends to strengthen their faith in God, and to win over the materialistic-minded.

ID predicts that the so-called bad designs in Biology are actually superb designs, eg. the human eye.

ID predicts there will built-in redundancy in the genes and DNA for contingency

ID predicts that IC parts never evolve into IC bio-system

Learn more about ID Support Gonzalez

[MatthewTan]

ID is science just as materialism is science. If ID is not science, then materialism is not science and has to be banished from science classrooms. ID theorists have been discriminated and denied tenure. Support Gonzalez. Buy copies of The Privileged Planet read and give to your friends to combat rampant materialism. Read more on ID

[MatthewTan]

Darwinism is indeed a laughing stock. If cat is selected, natural selection wins. If mouse is selected, NS wins. If dog is selected, NS wins. If cat and mouse and dog are not selected, NS also wins. NS has no prediction value and is not Science. Dr Gonzalez is not about biological evolution but about Planet Earth. Support Gonzalez. Buy copies of The Privileged Planet read and give to your friends to combat rampant materialism. Read more on ID

[MatthewTan]

A search on "Guillermo Gonzalez astro" at Google Scholars show up 460 articles. Many of Dr. Gonzalez's articles are published in prestigious scientific journals. Dr Gonzalez is not about biological evolution but about Planet Earth. Support Gonzalez. Buy copies of The Privileged Planet read and give to your friends to combat rampant materialism. Read more on ID

[capitalist229]

DNA is a program. And if there is a program, then there has to be a programmer.

With the inefficient and dead code inherent in DNA, God must be a hacker.

BUMP

[gondramB]

Thanks for that - let’s see if we can get someone to translate since I don’t recognize some of things they are talking about.

[gondramB]

Also, when you found that, did you find any response from biology and/or science groups to these claims of prediction?

My first reaction is they don’t sound very specific but my education in this field is lacking.

[GodGunsGuts]

Very well put. It’s an untestable theory that is destined for the ash heap of history—GGG

[ChessExpert]

“With the inefficient and dead code inherent in DNA, God must be a hacker.”

LOL. I’d like to see you do better, even with all the examples provided.

[gondramB]

>>Very well put. It’s an untestable theory that is destined for the ash heap of history—GGG<<

Did you see the list of successful testing/predictions over 120 listed above? Evolution, in general, has been demonstrated over and over - i.e. that life on this planet start long ago as tiny simple life and evolved over time to include todays larger complex life. There are tests and they have been successful.

I don’t really get why it seems so important to claim otherwise. If this is the way God worked then why would we deny his work?

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

“With the inefficient and dead code inherent in DNA, God must be a hacker.”

LOL. I’d like to see you do better, even with all the examples provided.

Indeed!

Scientists Discover Parallel Codes In Genes

Link

Science Daily — Researchers from The Weizmann Institute of Science report the discovery of two new properties of the genetic code. Their work, which appears online in Genome Research, shows that the genetic code -- used by organisms as diverse as reef coral, termites, and humans -- is nearly optimal for encoding signals of any length in parallel to sequences that code for proteins. In addition, they report that the genetic code is organized so efficiently that when the cellular machinery misses a beat during protein synthesis, the process is promptly halted before energy and resources are wasted.

"Our findings open the possibility that genes can carry additional, currently unknown codes," explains Dr. Uri Alon, principal investigator on the project."

[gondramB]

Since we are not getting any volunteers, can you tell me in simple language what those predictions mean.

For example “most DNA is not junk” didn’t we already know that before ID?

For “ID predicts that the so-called bad designs in Biology are actually superb designs, eg. the human eye. “ - I’m having trouble finding non ID sources that describe the human eye is a bad design or how ID changed that opinion.

For redundancy in genes, the sources I see say this falls under reliability theory and the work started before ID

For “ID predicts that IC parts never evolve into IC bio-system” I don’t know what that means - do you know what IC stands for?