Posted on 05/13/2007 11:07:52 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Proponent of intelligent design denied tenure by ISU
By: William Dillon
05/12/2007
Guillermo Gonzalez, an assistant professor of astronomy and physics who argues for the theory of intelligent design, was denied tenure this semester by Iowa State University.
"I was surprised to hear that my tenure was denied at any level, but I was disappointed that the president at the end denied me," Gonzalez said during a telephone interview with The Tribune Friday.
Gonzalez filed an appeal with ISU President Greg Geoffroy on Tuesday, May 8. Geoffroy has 20 days to respond.
While his work is heralded as "path-breaking" by supporters of intelligent design as a way of offering a new theory supporting design in the universe, Gonzalez has come under criticism by the mainstream science community for incorporating the theory of intelligent design into his work.
Opponents maintain that proving intelligent causes or agents is not science but rather the study of theology and philosophy. Some also have accused Gonzalez, an openly non-denominational Protestant, of thrusting religion into science.
In the summer of 2005, three faculty members at ISU drafted a statement against the use of intelligent design in science. One of those authors, Hector Avalos, told The Tribune at the time he was concerned the growing prominence of Gonzalez's work was beginning to market ISU as an "intelligent design school."
The statement collected signatures of support from more than 120 ISU faculty members before similar statements surfaced at the University of Iowa and the University of Northern Iowa.
According to ISU's policy on promotion and tenure, evaluation is based "primarily on evidence of scholarship in the faculty member's teaching, research/creative activities, and/or extension/professional practice."
In addition to that criteria, Gonzalez's department of astronomy and physics sets a benchmark for tenure candidates to author at least 15 peer-reviewed journal articles of quality. Gonzalez said he submitted 68, of which 25 have been written since he arrived at ISU in 2001.
"I believe that I fully met the requirements for tenure at ISU," he said.
Gonzalez said he would rather not comment on why he believes he was denied tenure.
On Friday, Geoffroy declined comment on why Gonzalez was denied tenure.
"Since an appeal is on my desk that I will have to pass judgment on, it is not appropriate for me to offer any comment," he wrote in an e-mail to The Tribune.
In addition to his research and teaching at ISU, Gonzalez is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, a conservative Seattle think tank leading the intelligent design movement.
John G. West, associate director of the Center for Science and Culture at the institute, said he sees this as a clear case of "ideological discrimination" by ISU against Gonzalez. He said he thinks the statement against intelligent design drafted at ISU played a large part in the eventual denial of Gonzalez's tenure.
"What happens to the lone faculty member who doesn't agree and happens to be untenured," he asked. "That is practically, with a wink and a nod, a call to deny him tenure."
Faculty members typically leave a university if they are denied tenure.
ISU considered 66 faculty cases for promotion and tenure during the past academic year. Only three, including Gonzalez, were denied tenure.
William Dillon can be reached at 232-2161, Ext. 361, or William.Dillon@amestrib.com.
“Call me crazy but I think that the Department of Astronomy and Physics are more qualified to decide who gets tenure at the university than a you or I.”
Okay, you’re crazy, and here’s why. They are apparently making their decision not on the basis of science, in which field they are more qualified than I, but on the basis of religious bigotry, in which area anyone is entitled to speak—and in which I assert greater qualification than they to reason correctly.
So what? Evolutionists have similar documents. Ever read Dawkins and his crowd? Ever read the documents contained on the National Center for Science Education website? American Humanist Association? Skeptics Society? Infidels.org? Please! Either life is the result of chance or design. Science has a duty to explore both possibilities. And as the “Wedge” document points out, IDers seek to “provide a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories.” This is precisely what they should be doing, and science should be content with letting the chips fall where they may—as opposed to using government issued jackboots to crush all dissent.
This just in —
Brown University’s school of Black Heritage has denied tenure to David Duke.
In other news —
Holocaust Foundation puts Iran on ‘watch list.’
St Mary Academy gives atheist professor of catechism low marks.
Armed Forces Radio fails to renew Air America contract.
President Bush nominates Mike Nifong attorney general.
The university is free to grant of deny tenure to anyone they wish.
However, you can build DSC University and hire Dr. Gonzalez as a professor and even grant him tenure.
Hector is piece of work. He is a religious studies professor at Iowa State who is an avowed atheist. Hector frequently debates the merits of atheism.
There is freedom of thought at a modern university; only if you think like all the others there.
Some if the most narrow minded group think anywhere is on the faculty at most public universities.
What a stupid statement. Just because I happen to think tenure is an entitlement you make an asinine statement like that proves you have no argument for what they did.
Are you just mentally challenged or playing stupid? What kind of idiot question is that. What ever made you think that those who believe in intelligent design also believe in a young earth?
There doesn’t have to be a programmer. The arrangement of atoms into molecules that happens to make copies of itself becomes more common. Then, the arrangement that makes copies of itself better, becomes more common. Then, the arrangement that makes copies of itself together with a protective cover, so it doesn’t get eaten by other copying arrangements, becomes more common. And so it goes. No need for any intelligent intervention once you’ve got a reality with the right kind of physical laws. No mean feat that, and you could argue intelligent design. But none of the rest of it required any further intervention. Looked at honestly, it takes more intelligence to make a system that works on its own for billions of years and produces everything from stars to starfish, than to have to constantly go back in and put the thing back on course.
You owe me a new keyboard!
Every time I read that lately, my mind first reads the words as "Wedgie Document".
Visions of Dilbert's Bob the Dinosaur dancing in my head.
Cheers!
I would not expect a Divinity school to grant tenure to an Atheist. However, if they did I would have no problem with their decision. I would also not expect a Department of History to grant tenure to a Holocaust Denier.
==Brown University...denied tenure to David Duke.
Seeing how Darwinian evolution has captured the halls of science in our major universities, and seeing how Darwinian evolution constitutes one of the main pillars of Nazi racism, wouldn’t that be the equivalent of a house divided against itself?
That’s exactly what this amounts to...an inquisition...complete with suppression and punishment. BTW, IDers tend to cast doubt on man-made global warming. Unfortunately, the scientists who challenge man-made global warming are suffering the same fate as the IDers. Could it be that they are all attacking various aspects of the same secular religion?
Its true that Tenure is not a “entitlement program.” However, once a university has established standards for determining who gets Tenure they cannot arbitrarily deny Tenure to a professor who exceeds the standards that they have set. The typical standard for getting Tenure is to have “published at least 15 papers of good quality in refereed journals.” Dr. Gonzalez has published 68 papers in peer reviewed Journals. He has clearly met their own standards for Tenure. To deny him tenure on the basis of his ID views is nothing more than censorship. Its ironic how defenders of Evolution feel that they have to censor their opponents in order to protect their theory - what are they scared of?
Science has the ability and duty to work within the realm of nature.
Intelligent design is a religious concept being promoted as science by the Discovery Institute and others in a dishonest attempt to get religion taught in science classes.
Their wedge document states,
Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."That reminds me of the kind of "science" promoted by the Creation Research Society, but at least the CRS is more honest in what they are promoting.
The Creation Research Society has the following on their website:
The Creation Research Society is a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation. The Society was organized in 1963 by a committee of ten like-minded scientists, and has grown into an organization with an international membership.
CRS Statement of Belief All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:
1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.
4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.
This is what is bring promoted, I believe, as "science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
It is theology, not science.
And if this is what Dr. Gonzalez is supporting, through being a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute, then his ability to do science is rightly being questioned. The reason I say this is that science is more than qualifications--it is adherence to the scientific method. To introduce miracles into the scientific method is to cease to do science.
One last quote from the Wedge Document:
We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence's that support the faith, as well as to "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture.
Once again, apologetics is defense of religion, and has nothing to do with scientific research.
Wagnerian opera supposedly was another pillar of Nazism.
They only very recently allowed it to be performed in Israel.
Much as the stock market predicted ten out of the last three recessions, the purported wellsprings of Nazism exceed the amount of water available.
IOW, science follows the evidence, usually offending someone at every turn.
That’s OK. But I disagree. His articles sound scientific enough. Belonging to the Discovery Institute is nobody’s business but his own, as long as he does real research, which he appears to be doing.
No one would raise an eyebrow if a professor belonged to something a lot sillier, like the Church of Wicca or PETA or Gaians for Peace.
If he faked his research or massaged the numbers, that would be something else, but no one seems to be charging anything like that.
I notice that his work suggests that there are anomalies in the chemical components of stars that have been discovered to have planets. I suppose you could take that as evidence of intelligent design—or not. The real question would seem to be if it’s true. Then you can argue about what it might mean.
“The university is free to grant of deny tenure to anyone they wish.”
No, they are not.
A university is a social institution, a key component of civilization, and they have a duty and a responsibility—to the human race, to civilization, and to truth itself—to grant tenure in accordance with certain principles. These include scientific and intellectual freedom and integrity.
They are not free to ignore those principles and give reign to religious bigotry in granting tenure, and I’m hard put to see what wrong would be done if they were dragged from their offices, tarred and feathered, and ridden off university grounds on a rail.
“but I do it by myself, where no one can see me.”
Shades of 1984.
You shouldn’t have to keep it a secret.
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.