The issue here is one man and what he specifically brings to the table.
Fine-tuning arguments do seem to be the design arguments most accepted by the scientific mainstream, even to the point that string theorists like Lawrence Krauss claim that if M-theory or some adaptation of it is wrong, design is the strongest alternative left. What is pretty clear is that physics departments are much more accepting of design arguments than biology departments. Maybe that’s because of a Platonist bias against materialism in the more mathematically elegant sciences and positivist bias for it in the more empirically based, messier ones, or maybe that’s because arguments based on the anthropic coincidences are are simply better than the ones based on irreducible complexity, specified complexity and the like.
Really, though that’s neither here nor there. The question is, should Gonzalez, who has proven himself to be more than able in his field, be denied tenure when his peers had already decided to award him it?
Read my post.
Are you actually claiming that research into these coincidences does not constitute scientific inquiry? Stephen Hawking certainly thinks it does.
Coincidences? What coincidences? My criterion for what is and what is not scientific inquiry is whether it follows the scientific method. I do not think that ID follows the scientific method.
Have you or Shuckmaster actually looked at what Gonzalez does or any of his publications? Do you have any criticisms at all that pertain to him and not to some sort of amalgamation of every conclusion or statement made by the Discovery Institute or Young Earth Creationists that you’ve disagreed with?
I have no idea about Schuckmaster. Ask him yourself. I have not looked at any of Dr. Gonzalez's publications. But for him to affiliate himself (Senior Fellow) with an anti-science, religous-based, PR organization does not bode well for his future in the world of science.
The issue here is one man and what he specifically brings to the table.
Yes. And if he is pushing ID before he has tenure, what will he do after?
Fine-tuning arguments do seem to be the design arguments most accepted by the scientific mainstream, even to the point that string theorists like Lawrence Krauss claim that if M-theory or some adaptation of it is wrong, design is the strongest alternative left. What is pretty clear is that physics departments are much more accepting of design arguments than biology departments. Maybe that’s because of a Platonist bias against materialism in the more mathematically elegant sciences and positivist bias for it in the more empirically based, messier ones, or maybe that’s because arguments based on the anthropic coincidences are are simply better than the ones based on irreducible complexity, specified complexity and the like.
Not sure about what the physics folks are doing. My field includes evolution and fossil man, among other related topics.
Really, though that’s neither here nor there. The question is, should Gonzalez, who has proven himself to be more than able in his field, be denied tenure when his peers had already decided to award him it?
He has chosen to align himself with an organization that is clearly anti-science. The Discovery Institute has chosen to follow a different path:
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 means, to me, that scripture overrules science, and that apologetics, and its methods (apologetics), overrule the scientific method.
What are we going to be asked to teach in science classes next, flood geology? The tower of Babel? Young earth? Some of the other "science" on AnswersInGenesis?
Sorry, I can't support teaching what is clearly religious belief in science and science classes.