Posted on 05/28/2007 5:44:20 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
There is evidence for intelligent design in the universe." This does not seem like an especially radical statement; many people believe that God has revealed himself through creation. Such beliefs, however, do not conform to politically correct notions in academia, as Professor Guillermo Gonzalez is learning the hard way. An astronomer at Iowa State University, Professor Gonzalez was recently denied tenure—despite his stellar academic record—and it is increasingly clear he was rejected for one reason: He wrote a book entitled The Privileged Planet which showed that there is evidence for design in the universe.& nbsp; Dr. Gonzalez's case has truly distressing implications for academic freedom in colleges and universities across the country, especially in science departments.
Dr. Gonzalez, who fled from Cuba to America as a child, earned his PhD in astronomy from the University of Washington. By academic standards, Dr. Gonzalez has had a remarkable career. Though still a young man, he has already authored sixty-eight peer-reviewed scientific papers. These papers have been featured in some of the world's most respected scientific journals, including Science and Nature. Dr. Gonzalez has also co-authored a college-level text book entitled Observational Astronomy, which was published by Cambridge Press.
According to the written requirements for tenure at the Iowa State University, a prospective candidate is required to have published at least fifteen peer-reviewed scientific papers. With sixty-eight papers to his name, Dr. Gonzalez has already exceeded that requirement by 350%. Ninety-one percent of professors who applied for tenure at Iowa State University this year were successful, implying that there has to be something seriously wrong with a candidate before they are rejected.
What's wrong with Dr. Gonzalez? So far as anyone can tell, this rejection had little to do with his scientific research, and everything to do with the fact that Dr. Gonzalez believes the scientific evidence points to the idea of an intelligent designer. In fact, as World Magazine has reported, at least two scientists in the Physics and Astronomy Department at the Iowa State University have admitted that intelligent design played a role in their decision. This despite the fact that Dr. Gonzalez does not teach intelligent design in any of his classes, and that none of his peer-reviewed papers deal with the subject. Nevertheless, simply because Gonzalez holds the view that there is intelligence behind the universe, and has written a book presenting scientific evidence for this fact, he is considered unsuitable at Iowa State.
What is the state of academic freedom when well qualified candidates are rejected simply because they see God's fingerprints on the cosmos? Isn't the Academy supposed to be a venue for diverse views? Aren't universities supposed to foster an atmosphere that allows for robust discussion and freedom of thought? Dr. Gonzalez's fate suggests that anyone who deigns to challenge conventional orthodoxy is not welcome in the club.
In the future, will scientists who are up for tenure be forced to deny that God could have played any role in the creation or design of the universe? Will Bible-believing astronomers be forced to repudiate Psalm 19, which begins, "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands"? Will faithful Catholics be required to reject the teaching of Vatican I, which said that God "can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason..." Just where will this witch hunt lead?
The amazing fact is that, even as many science departments are working overtime to forbid professors from positing that there is evidence for intelligent design in the universe, more and more scientists are coming to this conclusion. The Discovery Institute has compiled a list of over seven-hundred scientists who signed the following statement: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." The list of scientists who find good reason to doubt the strictly materialistic Darwinism that is currently scientific orthodoxy is growing every day.
It seems that many scientists and academicians who hold views contrary to Dr. Gonzalez have concluded that the best way to avoid debate about the evidence for intelligent design is to simply deny jobs to those who will not affirm their atheistic worldview. The fact that these scientists, who are supposedly open to following the evidence wherever it leads, have resorted to blatant discrimination to avoid having this conversation speaks volumes about the weakness of their position. They realize their arguments are not sufficient to defeat the intelligent design movement and they must, therefore, shut their opponents out of the conversation. All the evidence suggests that it is unjust that Dr. Gonzalez was denied tenure and that this ruling should be overturned on appeal. Nevertheless, what happened to Dr. Gonzalez is a reflection of the growing strength of the intelligent design movement, not its weakness.
--------------------------------------------
Ken Connor is Chairman of the Center for a Just Society in Washington, DC and a nationally recognized trial lawyer who represented Governor Jeb Bush in the Terri Schiavo case.
Which leads one to wonder what all the fuss is about.
The cell responds to "stressors." The stressors may be random, but the cell's response is not. For example, cosmic radiation is presumed to strike cells randomly, some mutate as a result and most of the mutations are lethal, but some are not. Those that survive, reproduce and they in turn may also mutate and survive to reproduce, and so it goes on and on. Eventually, the end result may somewhat removed from the original progenitor cell. And that's just in response to one of a whole slew of stressors in the cell's environment.
From the cell's point of view it is to adapt to the stressors in the environment and those which survive are accomplishing that goal by using the information derived from the stressors.
Hardly. We are a result of natural processes yet we at times show indications of intelligence.
Have I denied that the natural processes we see around us are the result of an intelligent agent? Absolutely.
"For two millennia, the design argument provided an intellectual foundation for much of Western thought and was only recently replaced in science by the politics of the ‘young guard’ and the ‘x-club’ that embraced Darwin’s theory as a avenue towards their beliefs.
The process we now call Methodological Naturalism is a direct offshoot of Newton and other religious scientists who realized that because God is not capricious and would not interfere with the regularity and constancy of nature in such a way as to invalidate their examination of nature God can be ignored within the methods used. Despite what you believe to be the philosophical underpinnings of much of Western thought, the methodology of science was designed, by an intelligence, to minimize the influence of an individual's belief system on the results of his/her science.
Your whining about the putative abandonment of the 'Intelligent Designer (God)' within the practice of science does not invalidate the fact that scientists, even religious scientists, recognize that the Intelligent Designer needs to be removed from the process of examining nature. However if you want to put your Intelligent Designer under the microscope, then the physical evidence of its work can be examined by science. That evidence must be better explained by an intelligence than by non-intelligence for it to be followed. So far we haven't seen such evidence.
Come up with some good evidence for your ID's existence and science will consider design in nature.
[First you claim that complexity equals intelligence. No reason, just an assertion that because something can be considered complex it must be intelligent]
Technically he’sa asserting what other scientific minds have asserted that observable complexity and design means there is an intelligent design (Which upon close examination does indeed appear to be the case), and that some sort of designer must be present. All machines have a design and involve a designer, and for al lintents and purposes, species are basically machines. Our machiens of course are much more sophisticated than man made machines, and have built in adaption codes that can be influenced by environmental pressures, but all designs have limitations- which is basically what I’ve been trying to opine about. These limitations prevent manipulations beyond species specific limitations- go beyond them and hte design breaks down- this is evidneced by the extreme selective breedings that cause offspring that are much less than the original optimums.
[Those that support ID at the level seen on these threads are considered anti-science because, in their recognition that ID is so far not science, and that a change in how science is performed would be necessary for it to be considered science, are proposing that Methodological Naturalism, which is the foundation of science, be scrapped.]
We’re proposing that methodological naturalism be abandoned? Noone here was stating that, nor are we suggesting that anyone change anythign about science- Tell me, is it a change in science to observe design, carry out experiments that show how manipulating design renders somethign innoperable? Design can be observed and tested on many many levels, from the smallest systems to the most complex. Is it so terrible to have several hypothesis at work in science? The accusation that ID doesn’t perfom science is well, anti science to tell you the truth
[The cell responds to “stressors.” The stressors may be random, but the cell’s response is not.]
Granted, some cells are coded to indeed respond to stressors, and infact to switch functions sometimes, however, it’s clear that many cels don’t- cells which would have been necessary to change in order for hte next higher form of life to evolve. As well, I again must point out that the coding that allows cells to adapt and survive, must have coem from somwhere, and one should ask where? If a cell doesn’t have the necessary info to begin with, it will not be able to adjust and survive- One must also take into concideration that the amount of changes in higher in higher lifeforms is simply staggering- simply too much to account for the cause being random mutations and environmental stresses. Most of the cells present in differing species don’t change according to stressors.
I can see where you’re going with htis, and yes, it’s a hypothesis that does make soem sense incertain cases, but I’m afraid I have to dissagree with the premise
As well, I again must point out that the coding that allows cells to adapt and survive, must have coem from somwhere...
The "coding" lies in the cell's response to the stressor, if the response allows the cell to survive then it survives and reproduces its attributes, including the "coding."
I don't see the need to add the concept, 'that the coding must have come from somewhere.' The cell cannot foresee all possible stressors, (in fact it foresees none) and many cells' responses are not sufficient for survival---but those that are, do survive. You might call that process, "accidental." I would call it incidental to being alive.
-authored nearly 70 peer-reviewed papers (21 papers since 2002),
How many of the 21 was he NOT the primary author. How many were in sub-tier publications? How many were really short letters rather than scientific papers?
co-authored a major college level astronomy textbook, his work led to the discovery of two new planets, his research was featured in Science, Nature, and the cover of Scientific American.
Co-authoring a textbook is NOT research. What new research did he accomplish at ISU?
BTW, the amount of grants pulled in by Dr. G was a factor of more than 100 less than the average of the rest of the staff during his time at ISU.
I asked, "So what happens now?"
"I don't get a paycheck," he replied.
[The “coding” lies in the cell’s response to the stressor, if the response allows the cell to survive then it survives and reproduces its attributes, including the “coding.”]
The concept you’re suggesting is that all advancements to higher forms (although there could also be lower degredation as well) come from stressors increasing information in cells, and if that were the case, then we would be able to demonstrate evolution from one species to another through experiments. Also the problem comes in that only species specific changes can happen to gene coding for which the species has been already coded to accept- if evolution through gene changes through stressors to cells were a reality, then we certainly would be able to demonstrate this process today- but the fact is that we can not demonstrate any addition of NEW non species specific changes that would result in new organs and systems that are unique to other species only.
Again I must point out that not all advancement in evolution hypothesis is based on stressors- those who beleive in evolution contend that environmental pressures necessitate adaption that leads to evolution- this need isn’t a direct stressor on the suppsoed systems that some say evolved such as first feathers then wings (although I’m not sure what the pressing need to fly was when so much food is available on the ground- but that’s another story). So supposedly, added information comes from environmental induced needs that urge a species to only accept mutational mistakes that would advantage them- although one really needs to ask- since evolution supposedly takes millions of years, wouldn’t those ‘needs’ be changing in all that time while a species awaited their feathered wings? If the need to evolve is so great at a given time, and it takes millions of years to evolve something like wings, then it would seem that those individuals that could overcome the fact that they didn’t their required wings in time would have no logner needed wings because they would have found other resources to survive.
You might find it it interesting to read Hans Selye's works: General Adaptation Syndrome; Stress, Distress and Eustress (I think that's the order in the title.); The Stress of Life (His most famous work.)
Environmental pressures are stressors.
Consider Walter B. Cannon's concept of Homeostasis, an idealized steady state of a given organism's physiology where all is stress-free: no hunger, no cold, no thirst, no distress, etc., etc. The fact is the organism, in maintaining its own life in an ever-changing environment is constantly working toward homeostasis but, of course, never achieves it because of the rapid flux of changing conditions, both internal and external.
but the fact is that we can not demonstrate any addition of NEW non species specific changes that would result in new organs and systems that are unique to other species only.
Say what?
No I do not!! I claim complexity is evidence of intellegence.
Odell was showing that complex, highly robust systems can develop(e) through random, 'undesigned' processes.
You're totally missing my point! Odell has an "opinion" which I do not agree with. I believe intellegent information is introduced and nothing in his mathematics refutes my claim. I might not have been as clear as I should have been. Odell was pointing out the Complexity of these sytems, but didn't ever resolve the question of "how" they become so complex. All he does in his "Abstract Mathematics" is push a conjectural notion, "that complex, highly robust systems can develope through random, 'undesigned' processes." Which I will admit, I do not understand how he showed this...or if he really ever did. His evidence for showing "random undesigned processes" must have flown completely over my head. If you know what evidence he presented, please tell me.
My point simply is by his investigation he just showed even more how complex these processes and systems to be.
And again (and again, and again) you are wrong.
Whining? Do you deny that an intelligent cause ‘was’ a given within science for two millennia and proceeded Christianity? Are you so naive to think that modern scientists do not see any intelligence or any design in our existence (or would you prefer all to focus only on those who do not)? Even agnostic Greek philosophers made reference to a ’prime mover’ at the beginning.
Beyond this, what are we to do with those who believe in human consciousness within the recently imposed Methodological Naturalism constraints? Are those who ‘believe’ human consciousness the next in line for the ‘anti-science’ label? Surely you realize that human consciousness under the current paradigm must merely be an "emergent property" of the complexity of the processes and structures underlying its expression. IOW our intelligence (morality, love, altruism, etc..) must ultimately come from this unintelligent and un-designed universe. Obviously those who believe otherwise must believe in a soul or some sort of dualism that cannot exist in Methodological Naturalism and must therefore be labeled as anti-science.
Heck, let’s just take a look at how ‘current’ science defines our human consciousness as qualitative piece parts:
DAWKINS: (snip)"…But yet we have this gathering together of genes into individual organisms. And that reminds me of the illusion of one mind, when actually there are lots of little mindlets in there, and the illusion of the soul of the white ant in the termite mound, where you have lots of little entities all pulling together to create an illusion of one. Am I right to think that the feeling that I have that I'm a single entity, who makes decisions, and loves and hates and has political views and things, that this is a kind of illusion that has come about because Darwinian selection found it expedient to create that illusion of unitariness rather than let us be a kind of society of mind?"This is what you are left with… Human consciousness; it’s all an illusion that exists for no ultimate reason. We, as humans, ‘think/believe’ we fortuitously stumbled accidentally upon this via science. To ‘believe’ that our morals, the beauty that we see, art, literature, and science itself came from something other than a mindless cause is heresy within this ‘current’ paradigm of science.PINKER: "It's a very interesting question. Yes, there is a sense in which the whole brain has interests in common in the way that say a whole body composed of genes with their own selfish motives has a single agenda. In the case of the genes the fact that their fates all depend on the survival of the body forces them to cooperate. In the case of the different parts of the brain, the fact that the brain ultimately controls a body that has to be in one place at one time may impose the need for some kind of circuit, presumably in the frontal lobes, that coordinates the different agendas of the different parts of the brain to ensure that the whole body goes in one direction. In How the Mind Works I alluded to a scene in the comedy movie All of Me in which Lily Tomlin's soul inhabits the left half of Steve Martin's body and he takes a few steps in one direction under his own control and then lurches in another direction with his pinkie extended while under the control of Lily Tomlin's spirit. That is what would happen if you had nothing but completely autonomous modules of the brain, each with its own goal. Since the body has to be in one place at one time, there might be a circuit that suppresses the conflicting motives…"(end snip)
Come up with some good evidence for your ID's existence and science will consider design in nature.
No… This is ‘current’ science and 'your' philosophy - so you must tell us all how we evolved our morality and how it is actually an illusion because morality does not actually exist in the universe we live in… The ownness is with you.
morality consists of a universal moral code- some might argue “Well there are cultures that don’t concider murder/rape etc wrong, so morality is a subjective ideal, however, this is a false argument as those who have come out of such cultural practices have testified that even though it was an accepted norm to commit these attrocities, and everyone encouraged it, something deep inside them told them it was wrong and that they never felt right about it. Philosophers have argued about whether morality was a subjective or objective truth for a long time now, and there is more evidence indicating that it is indeed an objective unioversal moral code and not some drummed up evolutionary process- Dawkins has tried desperately to argue that emotions have ‘evolved’ and that there are genes that control things like selfishenss and morality- however, this simply isn’t the case- Some have also argued that folks with frontal lobe damage aren’t capable of morality, however this is also false, and they know right from wrong still, but choose not to take part in a morally driven society anymore.
I won’t be commenting much further on this, but I wanted to address the accusations that ID isn’t a estifiable science, and to show that the accepted Methodological Naturalism, somethign some suggest is the golden goose of science, is such a narrow tunnel vision that it doesn’t result in objective science.
If an investigator were to try to discover a designer of say a watch, but instead of objectively looking for the designer, were to exclude all people of color, and only look for a white designer thinking that only suc a person could design the watch, then this would not be concidered an objective search, but rather a priori belief that quite frankly blinds the investigator to all evidences along the way that might point to the designer as being someone of a different race.
The same thing holds true for discovering where we came from. If you are going to immediately exclude the possibility that the designer of all the designs we see in nature might be something other than methedological naturalism, then you’ve set yourself up in a position of subjectivity instead of practicing a completely honest system of objective science.
Now, to state that it’s impossible to investigate a supernatural creator is quite frankly reiculous. We have the modern technology to replicate and investigate occurances such as creation by following evidences such as radiation that would be left over from a massive energy utilizing/consuming event, we can study the after effects, calculate and measure the results, and even predict what we should find for evidences. As I mentioned in a post several pages ago, a student has written a thesis on how light wasa produced through a massive event that caused somnolumenscence (sp?). This has been reproduced in labs, and has shown how massive pressure on water can cause the bubbles to produce luminescence.
While God worked outside of the natural laws in some instances, He did utilize natural laws, and we can investigate and conclude with a reasonable amount of credibility, that what we know today can be explained by creation through design.
You might find this astonishing, but science has been investigating the world of science going on the premise that design is present, and they have made many important discoveries going on this premise. Mathemeticians have known for a very long time that there is a mathematical design in nature, and bioscience has known this as well. One doesn’t have to believe their is a spiritual premise to the design in order to investigate the design and come to reasonable and intelligent conclusions.
Being objective means not excluding a reasonable hypothesis simply because one believes in a priori conclusion, but rather investigating ALL angles, exploring ALL plausible leads, and using the science to investigate the very fingerprints of origins. Adopting the idea that a person of color simply couldn’t produce a watch leaves one blind and non objective, and opens them up to practicing a biased 1/2 science that simply isn’t up to the acedemic standards of true objective investigation.
The role of objective science is to concider and scientifically investigate all probable explanations/hypothesis, and to conceed when an hypothesis is problematic enough that another hypothesis is a real enough alternative as to warrent at least an investigation. That’s simply not what we see in regards to ID.
Admittedly, there are many problems with Evolution hypothesis, and not just some podunk minor problems that are of little consequence.
Evolutions god, being nature itself, has some evidences that are indeed tantilizing, but far far from conclusive.
ID’s God, Being God Hismelf, has soem evidences that are indeed tantilizing, but far from conclusive.
Both sicneces will have both weak and strong scientific evidneces which support their hypothesis, and prop up their models, but neither will have conclusive irrefutable evidence presicesly because they both are investigating the inner workings of phenomena. The hypothesis of descent from common ancestry is a weak proposal based on anectdotal evidences that are subjectively interpreted- ID’s hypothesis the same. There is a mathematical element to everythign we see, and Darwinism simply doesn’t account for the fact that mathematics can’t be accounted for by natural means. It can be argued of course that nature can randomly create mathematically designed systems, however, Darwinism offers no reasonable falsifiable tests to test for this known fact, thereby rendering their hypothesis weakly supported by anectdotal evidences which are subject to subjective interpretations which objiosly vary from one scientist to another. I say ‘weak’ because there are no obvious scientific facts that can concretely and decisively define the phenomena of life origins.
It has been said that evolution provides the best predictabilities, however, while some predictions have been discovered, so have predictions for ID, and even for creation. The predictabilities don’t offer proof of origins for evolution, they simply offer predictabilities for natural selection- not macroevolution. The predictabilities are common sense sinsibilities in regards to natural selection, which as we all know, is a scientific fact that has been verified beyond reasonable doubt.
Design, as we are finding out more and more through careful scinetific analysis, is intelligent in nature, and is a reality, and science is going to be forced to explain or at least give their opinion as to how random mutations can account for it’s presence. Hopefully, they will do this objectively in the future, but so far, all they are offering is a biased and subjectively motivated antagonism to a ligitimate competing hypothsis, and they are using a method that does not have a true objective scientific basis.
Methodological Naturalism is a practice of science that seeks to promote only one way of interpreting the evidences, and seeks to exclude any other hypothesis from any sort of concideration. This practice isn’t science, it is a form of dogmatic religious reasoning.
You should check out the review of Behe's new book in Science.
Great link. It shows that the average professor brings in 1.3 million while Dr. G brings in less than 1/10 as much! No someone that is performing up to the standard of his peers. Don’t you believe in hiring the most qualified?
Stick to your day job; don't count on a career in science.
Perhaps you should discount a job as an editor/proofreader/technical writer as well.
Seriously, the understanding you exhibit of science, and how science works, is minimal. You have apparently settled on a particular religious belief, and you twist and bend scientific evidence until it agrees with your preordained conclusions. In the process it ceases to be science and becomes pure apologetics.
Believe what you want, but don't try to pretend it is science.
Gee- insults- Gosh- those refute the issues being discussed so brilliantly coyote- thanks for dropping by and contributing so much intellectual prowess- now run along back to DC- the back-slap-fest going on over there misses your kiddie rhetoric
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.