Posted on 05/13/2007 11:07:52 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
>>ID needs to correctly predict something not predicted by other theories before it can begin to be introduced as science.
If they want ID to be taught as science it would need to meet science standards.
>>Yup, sounds like a real drag on Iowa States Astropysicists. I’ve got news for you. They can deny him tenure for any number of reasons but if it is shown that he has been denied tenure for his religious beliefs Iowa State is in deep kimshi.
<<
He’s a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute. That, by itself, is enough to damage any science institution that associates with him.
He could, as I do, believe ID, no problem. But the Discovery Institute is about forcing the teaching of things without scientific basis and pushing these into science class. Nobody legitimate in science wants to be associated with that.
Climatology doesn't like the competition, do they?
Bttt - For those interested, you may Support Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez here
Should an administration be able to deny tenure to a professor who is a member of CPUSA? Or, more likely, the LDS church?
Not a born-again Christian are ya?
... and we all know thats how the founders envisioned it ...
>>Fine. ID is not science. It is appropriate as a part of the humanities or social sciences, is it not?
Should an administration be able to deny tenure to a professor who is a member of CPUSA? Or, more likely, the LDS church?<<
I don’t know what CPUSA is....
I don’t see a problem with discussing ID in school, just not as science.
Tenure has a lot to do with professional reputation so what church you attend would not normally figure into it. Being active in professional organizations that the school feels would damage the reputation of the school could effect tenure whether religion was involved or not.
For example, I doubt there would be a problem with a Medical prof who was a scientologist. But if he was a frequent speaker and writer about non-scientific Scientology based medical treatments that might be a problem depending on how high profile he was. If he was using his assistant professor status to promote Scientology healing that might prevent him from getting full professor status.
That’s pretty much the situation here. Gonzales uses his assistant professor status to further an organization that works against science education. The university doesn’t want to give him more status to do use that way because it reflects on the university.
>>A giant step for education. We need to work together to get and keep all of these special interest “intelligent design” whako’s out of out nations schools.<<
You know, intelligent design is not contradicted by any known science.
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?
For that matter, I’ve been a science teacher and have recently been asked back in some capacity. If kids ask about ID I see no problem in discussing that or whatever else they ask about that is at least marginally curriculum related.
But my answer would be that right now there isn’t scientific evidence for ID but then I’d go over what would be required. ID (or any other new theory) would need to either be testable in experiments or it would need to correctly predict real world events that can’t be predicted by other means.
I can see that leading into a discussion of how can you test theories like whether global warming will be a problem in the future - I’m in favor of anything that gets kids asking questions about science.
Why doesn't evolution have to meet that criteria?
And since when are unproven theories of any kind considered science?
Both ID and evolution are religion, or faith based. You need to have a ton of faith to believe either. Much more faith, I would say, to believe in evolution than a Creator.
if i make a wooden chair out of a 200 year old tree... carbon dating would age the chair as an antique.
teeman
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.
Good enough to satisfy most scientists.
So basically, you’re saying that, after you saw he was affiliated with the Discovery Institute, you tuned everything else, all his accomplishments, anything he’s actually said or written, out.
I’m sorry, that’s an intellectually lazy approach that doesn’t befit you-— I know this sounds smarmy, but I seriously know you can do better than that.
Should I disregard Wesley Smith’s work on the ethics of cloning simply because he’s affilated with DI?
Besides, tenure does not generally work the way you have described.
Generally, when a man’s peers i.e. the department he is in, decide to grant him tenure, the president’s sign off is a usually a rubber stamp-— read amishdude’s posts.
The fact is, Gonzalez’s record of scholarship is undeniable. Is there anything either of you can think of to criticize that record?
Archaeologists (of which I am one) know a lot about relic carbon--from a variety of sources.
See my FR homepage for some links pertaining to radiocarbon dating.
And in this case the Department of Astronomy and Physics decided he should get tenure, but the president of the University reversed the decision.
His scientific work is on the life-cycle of stars. I cannot comment on its worthiness or unworthiness. His collegeagues in his field voted to tenure him. A chemist, who gave up science for univesity administration, denied him tenure.
To deny him tenure because he holds views on matters unrelated to his scientific work, which are offensive to the Department of Biology is absurd. Next year, will we see solar scientists in departments of Astronomy denied tenure because their work offends the anthropogenic global warming crowd in the Meteorology Department? Or Shakespeare scholars denied tenure because they have expressed views on politics frowned on by the Women’s Studies faculty?
The issue closest to his own field which has any bearing on philosophical and scientific issues related to the questions of design in the universe is one in which the pro-design position is perfectly respectable: anthropic cosmology, the observation that numerous physical constants appear to be fine-tuned to make our cosmos hospitable to life. Neither theistic nor atheistic explanations of the fine-tuning manage to stay within the bounds of empirical science, and the theistic explanation manages to win against the most popular atheistic explanation—Smolin’s ‘Darwinian cosmology’—on the grounds of Occam’s Razor.
Come on, Coyoteman.
Statements by DI are not the issue here, but no, your interpretation of the statement “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” does not in any way imply that “scripture overrules science, and its methods (apologetics), overrule the scientific method.”
“Consonant with Christian and theistic convictions” simply means “consistent with...”-— that’s it. In other words, the DI thinks that science shouldn’t take metaphysical naturalism as its premise. I understand that one may reasonably take issue with that and see metaphysical naturalism as essential to science. But the history of science shows otherwise-— again, read “Human Achievement”.
Still, all of that is beside the point. He didn’t write that statement and he’s not responsible for it. Can’t you do better than guilt by association?
Why is it so hard for you to accept that Gonzalez’s research doesn’t attempt to challenge natural selection, common descent, or any of the other tenets of Darwinism you’ve mentioned?
There’s no need to speculate about the man’s future as a scientist-— he’s already an accomplished one. The guy’s been published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society-— it doesn’t get more prestigious than that in his field.
Support academic freedom!
Support Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez!
Support oppressed ID scientists!
http://www.elearningstreams.com/origins/Gonzalez.html
The book “The Privileged Planet”:
http://www.elearningstreams.com/origins/Gonzalez.html
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.