Skip to comments.Academia's Assault on Intelligent Design
Posted on 05/28/2007 5:44:20 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
click here to read article
“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.”
And it scares the heck out of the those that hope like heck there ain’t no God.
For those who want to look at Prof. Guillermo Gonzalez’s Scientific qualifications, see here for his citation record among peer reviewed journals and other magazines :
That's the crux of the professor's problem: There isn't any scientific evidence supportive of ID.
Never challenge a well-established orthodoxy that is not sure of its ground. If Galileo were alive he would be on the side of Dr. Gonzalez, because he shared his views.
There could be more than one intelligent designer.
To state for the 98th time, Prof Gonzalez was not teaching ID in the classroom.
Not to be rude, but you may want to read on the facts of the case before commenting.
Gonzalez is being persecuted for his beliefs; mainly by a atheist “religious studies” studies professor named Hector Avalos.
Occam’s razor. No.
>>Whats 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.<<
I’ve read a lot about this and I don’t think that is true.
His beliefs and credentials don’t seem to be in question. It is his position as a senior fellow in a group that works against science education. No science based department is going to want that association.
Now, we can discuss whether science related activities outside the classroom should be considered for tenure but if such activities can be considered, his are really big red flag.
What about the digital design of DNA? What about ORDER in general?
This is the problem I have with Intelligent Design as science.
I believe in God and that Jesus Christ is the son and the way to the father, however, any assertions that of a Supreme Being created the universe must backed up with scientific fact. It is not, it is religion not science.
I expect the Evolution Worshippers to show up on this thread anytime now.....
Galileo would be denied tenure also.
Well, in effect, he was.
Well, let’s say for the sake of the argument that he is wrong.
A lot of scientists propose theories that turn out to be wrong. As long as they don’t fake or fudge their evidence, what’s so bad about that? If he can be proved wrong, then presumably it weakens the case for ID and indirectly helps to advance the science of astromy by eliminating one possible theory.
What is simply intolerable in this and similar cases is that he is being kicked out of his job like a criminal for proposing a politically incorrect thesis. That isn’t the way science is supposed to work. Various people propose various theories, and the better theories work their way to the top and the others are discarded. Or, alternatively, the book is simply ignored.
There is a kind of hysterical bigotry and intolerance on the part of the anti-ID people that is truly frightening, because it suggests that our scientific establishment has really gone onto ideological steroids and is unwilling to adhere to the normal rules of scientific discourse. Instead they turn to bullying, persecution, and activist judges to enforce their beliefs, and will tolerate no questions whatever of their views.
is no tenure because of of beliefs a litmus tests ?
Could this go to the SCOTUS ?
< sarcasm > That cannot be true - people who claim to follow science are always totally objective and never let their personal fears or bias enter into the argument. < / sarcasm >
Long story short, Gonzales is just another target and victim of the Godless left. We will see much more of this as the left continues its war on the core substance and beliefs of America.
Evolution worshipers? That’s projection. Believers in ID are the worshipers trying to insert religion into science.
So, who or what is the designer?
What is the difference between order and chaos?
What is number?
the time is gonna come when lots of the ID folks are
gonna build their own university, and do their
own research with own suppositions......I mean 1,000 or so
Ph.D.’s would make a formidable faculty....
The state run colleges/universities can’t stop them
from doing that.....
What is the frequency, Kenneth?
You do know the difference, in science, between a hunch, a guess, a hypothesis and a theory, don't you?
Got any scientific data supporting your suggestion?
I have news for you pal. God created physics, fluid dynamics, statics, chemistry, biology, and anything else the little mind can try to comprehend.
We were created to worship God. If you don't worship God - you will attempt to replace Him with something else - like His creation.
That’s not proof.
Again, there are no scientific data supporting such a notion.
What about it? Even random events have statistical probabilities and their frequency distributions generate a standard normal curve--if that ain't order, I don't know what is.
"Digital design of DNA:" Talk about begging the question...
He is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute. That is the group famous for their Wedge Strategy, which was leaked and posted on the internet.
Now, one passage from the Wedge Strategy reads,
We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). 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.What does "science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" mean? It sounds like somebody wants to censor scientific research where it does not agree with a particular religious belief.
I don't think that type of "science" or that type of censorship are good things, and I can imagine that the scientific community feels the same way.
Anyone who is a Senior Fellow in an anti-science group holding such a stated goal can't legitimately complain when the scientific community does not accept him with open arms. (Duh!)
Bingo! ID better belongs in social studies, religious studies or political sciences, not the hard sciences.
I see you use the base 10, hindu-arabic system. Obviously, God loves you.
Of course, design is a difficult word/definition to pin down without an opposite - much like symbolic versus diabolic.
LOL! The argument to end all arguments eh? Shut up, I’m right and you’re going to hell.
Intelligent design is repeatedly attempting to play chess using checkers rules. If you want to play chess, you play by the rules of chess, or you aren’t playing chess, no matter how much you want others to think you are playing chess.
Science is the same way. It has very exact rules, and if you perform scientific experiments by those rules, you have performed a scientific experiment. Nothing more. It is a closed system. The problem comes when you either interpolate or extrapolate something else from a scientific experiment that is outside of the parameters of the experiment.
The only distinction science has over other studies is that if you follow the recipe of an experiment, anyone should be able to duplicate that same result, anywhere, if they follow the recipe, exactly. Adding nothing extra and taking nothing away.
And that is science. It intentionally ignores variables that might incidentally change the outcome of the experiment. This is because the vast majority of times, that strange variable won’t happen, so is not part of the recipe. If it does happen, then it is ignored, and the experiment is tried again until it makes the same predicted result that it is supposed to.
So why try to subvert the rules of chess, or science, except that you resent the clarity that both have. If you are a novice, you cannot beat a chess master if you play by the rules, so you try to change the rules. You cannot defy a scientifically conducted experiment, unless you try and alter or interfere with the recipe.
And this is why that professor was denied tenure. Because he was hired to teach and practice the very exacting rules of science. By advocating intelligent design, he as much as said that he does not follow the rules, or believe that in following the rules a scientific result will follow from a scientific experiment.
In a way, that is like a master chess player who tries to play by different rules against other chess players, because he believes in other rules. How can that be seen as other than cheating? If he does it so much as once in a formal setting, I could imagine him being stripped of his title.
Even if he is a master, he is not playing chess.
Another scholar, Dr. Michael S. Adams at UNCW, who was also denied tenor, is doing just that. PDF.file
For what you said-—”A lot of scientists propose theories that turn out to be wrong.”-—to be accurate, the professor would have to have abundant scientific data that have been repeatedly tested by himself and others before he could put forth a theory. And, as I said, there are no scientific data supportive of ID.
Not true! Absolutely not true!
What’s not true?
His group does not work against science education!
i predict his detractors will end up in a large black hole that is very hot!
>>His group does not work against science education!<<
I’ve read a great deal about the discovery Institute. They advocate teaching things in science class not based on science. That meets my definition of working against science education.
The new First Law of the Scientific Method seems to be "acceptance of authority."
You can submit unto your own counsel if you like.
I prefer to keep doing my homework before I'll consider taking the word of folks who seem to have at the top of their agenda, the undermining of alternative thinking, and the proselytizing of our youth.
There isn’t ANY scientific evidence for design?
So Richard Dawkins is incorrect when he says nature gives the appearance of design?
The vast majority of cosmologists, whether working astronomy or other fields, are wrong when they study the anthropic coincidences— those coincidences are just in their head?
Remember, what you’re saying is that there is NO scientific evidence for design in nature. That’s the sort of needlessly strong statement that bespeaks of a level of certainty that is rather unscientific itself, unless one is talking only about mathematics.
The fact is, there are very few hypotheses as venerable as that of design in nature that have NO evidence for them. I realize hyperbole is inevitable in a forum devoted mostly to political issues, but such sweeping statements are generally out of place when talking about science-— see “the Black Swan” by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
Scientists just don't put forth theories that have not been well-researched and documented and that have not withstood the test of time and replication. if you had used the words, "hunch" or "guess," your statement could be accurate.
I thought you understood the scientific method, but now you have violated it.