Posted on 06/11/2007 6:07:54 AM PDT by LinnKeyes2000
It seems that a prof that sees value in intelligent design theory has been barred from tenure. http://www.iastate.edu/~nscentral/news/2007/jun/statement.shtml
repeal the sixteenth amendment and left wing revolutionaries will be denied the people’s money.
All scientific theories are equal, but some are more equal than others.
These people need to re-read Animal House- or at least the parts that apply to them
a prof that sees value in intelligent design theory has been barred from tenure
Good.
Can’t have anyone who doesn’t believe the secular dogma. Newton, Galileo, Bacon, and many others would not be allowed tenure into today’s narrow politicized world of science. Too many seem to be taking their talking points from T D Lysenko.
Good-why?
Is there not not value in all thought/theory/discussion?
Yea! We wouldn’t want anything to get in the way of the open minded elite would we. What are they afraid of, some one might come up with a theory that doesn’t involve a rock coming to life?
No there isn’t value to all thought and theory. Communism, Nazism, come to mind. Injecting religion (”intelligent design”) into science and claiming it has equal validity has no value.
What you call open mindedness is really an attempt by the religious elite (to turn your phrase back on you) to close the debate about the origins of life and silence any theory that doesn’t agree with the creation myth.
I’ve been called worse. You’ll have to do better than that.
The only people trying to silence anything are the elites on your side.
do you mean that anyone who believes in intelligent design is a part of some movement to squash scientific inquiry?
do you mean that the secular world has the market cornered on any sort of human developement and advancment?
do you mean that anyone who believes in intelligent design is ignorant and devoid of any desire to find the secrets of the universe?
do you mean that mr. pavlov’s work should be applied to the population at large (the masses) but not to your enlightened, superior mind?
This can be a circular argument for sure but my understanding was he was denied tenure because he thought it was an idea that should be discussed.
Even communism and nazism should be discussed in a historical context.
There are many scientist who believe that ID should be discussed as part of a broader picture of our beginnings.
One has to wonder why you are afraid of the discussion.
Was that the reason for his denial of tenure?
>>>a prof that sees value in intelligent design theory has been barred from tenure
There was a time when people thought the earth was flat, and everything in the universe revolved around the earth too. And anyone who challenged those premises were treated like Prof. Gonzales.
Stop living in the past...tyranny has no place in the tenure process.
Leading the call to deny tenure in this case was the avowed atheist who is/was chair of the religious studies program at Ia State. Yeah, an atheist running the religious studies program. I bet that’s OK in your world too.
Why should a university hire a science professor who doesn’t understand science?
What an idiotic statement. There is NOTHING, and I repeat NOTHING about evolution that qualifies it as "science". Evolution is a philosophy, a lens through which empirically-obtained evidences are interpreted, but which is, inand of itself, NOT empirical science. Intelligent design falls into the same category, and hence is just as acceptable, as a means of interpreting data, as is evolution. Anyone who says that evolution is "science", in and of itself, is clueless as to what "science" actually means.
Waiting for evolutionists to invoke a "dissipative structures in the gap" argument in 5....4....3....2....1....
You would be incorrect.
Show me a billion-year-old human fossil.
Show me any empirical evidence to suggest that any fossil is a billion years old, that doesn't rely upon circular argumentation.
The article doesn’t explicitly state that but there was controversy about his beliefs and there was something in the article about how he wouldn’t fit with the scholastics desired.
A closed mind is a terrible thing to waste...
Yeah, but those theories are just what catapults a professor from the swamp to the spotlight! How many times have we all heard stories about a professor somewhere spouting madness like praising the 9/11 killers, or wanting to legalize post-birth infanticide, or some other atrocity? These are the profs that the Liberal Media hoist up upon a marble throne and promote as ideals! If you truly believe that ID is loony, then this prof should be the chair of the science dept at any Ivy League campus.
“why should a university hire a science professor who doesn’t understand science?”
you mean that anyone who is not an atheist does not have an understanding of science which is as complete, as comprehensive and as brilliant as yours and other atheists?
why don’t you just say what you believe; that people of faith are nothing but ignorant, knuckle-dragging pre-historics who have no ability to think and over whom you and your group of “brilliant minds” should exercise power.
stop hiding behind your mommy’s skirts.
You don’t believe in radiometric dating but you think computers are real?
That’s a very idiotic statement.
As is typically the case in such matters, ISU has not revealed specific reasons. But my reading of various blogs about the case suggests that the decision revolved around:
1. Very little external grant money (~$25K in total at ISU).
2. A deceleration of his rate of research output.
3. No evidence of his having moved substantially beyond his pre-ISU, post-doctoral research topics and coauthors.
In a science department at a research university, these three items (especially #1) are usually enough to deny tenure, even if the candidate were an outspoken atheist!
Intelligent design is religion masquerading as science. The method by which it is being pushed by the Discovery Institute is laid out in the Wedge Strategy.
For example:
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. [emphasis added]Under their plan, ID is simply the wedge to get religion into the classrooms and to replace the science we see today with "science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
Sure sounds like censorship to me. And it sure doesn't sound like real science.
I’m a Christian. I have no problem with evolution.
It’s only the folks who make a lot of money selling books to the uninformed that demand that there is a contradiction.
Evolution is still the best explanation of why organisms on this planet exist in the time periods that they do.
Polls show that 75-80% of biologists are Christians. They have no problem understanding that they are attempting to describe God’s creation.
They’re just not willing to spend their time with people who cling to ignorance while taking advantage of what science gives them.
The fact that a simple ststement of fact draws name-calling from you and others shows why they are so reluctant to spend time with you.
I don’t know what denomination you are, that the first thing out of your mouth is name-calling?
I’m guessing Christianity must be something of a hobby for you in your spare time.
That’s a very idiotic statement.
Ever heard of "excess argon"?
So, in other words, it sounds exactly like how evolution has been taught in government schools for the last several decades, then?
Personally, all conspiratorial "wedge issues" fancies aside, I think both ought to be taught in schools, and the merits and demerits of both taught even-handedly. My kids will be homeschooled, and I plan on teaching them both, but will go beyond what they'd get in the public schools in that I will also teach them WHY, scientifically, evolution doesn't make the grade - something which doesn't happen in the public schools, where there is no such thing as separation of humanistic religion and state.
Have you ever heard that there are more than 40 ways to date materials using radioactivity?
I see that no one wants to argue that ID is science. I guess Dr. Behe capsized the canoe when he admitted, under oath, that ID is no different than astrology.
your statement was dripping with name-calling.
you are stating that a belief in evolution and christianity are mutually exclusive. they are not. i believe in evolution within species but i do not believe that all forms of life were derived from a lightning bolt hitting a mass of protoplasm when the chances for continued life were completely favorable. if you are so brilliant then calculate the probabilities for that and apply your scientific mind to an explanation.
in the meantime, please make an attempt to stop denying that you are engaging in name-calling when you are engaging in name-calling.
This can come as no surprise. The Darwin cultists wouldn’t let anyone in who’ll challenge their beliefs.
Many of which also have nothing to do with dating fossils, and the rest of which suffer from similar problems of reliability, similar to those which plague potassium-argon dating.
I see that no one wants to argue that ID is science.
Neither ID nor evolution are "science" as the term is typically understood. Science relies upon observation. By their very nature, both ID and evolution make claims that are not directly observable, hence neither is "science" under the commonly understood definitions of that term. Both rely upon circumstantial evidences which are interpreted on the basis of the philosophical or theological presuppositions of the interpreter.
I guess Dr. Behe capsized the canoe when he admitted, under oath, that ID is no different than astrology.
Two can play that game....
"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.", "Paleoecology and uniformitarianism", R.R. West, The Compass, Vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216
Or how about this,
"Why do geologists and archaeologists still spend their scarce money on costly radiocarbon determinations? They do so because occasional dates appear to be useful. While the method cannot be counted on to give good, unequivocal results, the number do impress people, and save them the trouble of thinking excessively. Expressed in what look like precise calendar years, figures seem somehow better ... 'Absolute' dates determined by a laboratory carry a lot of weight, and are extremely helpful in bolstering weak arguments."No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole bless thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read.", R.E. Lee, Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol.19(3), 1981, p. 29
It’s being discussed continually right here on FR. Nobody bars your right to speak your mind. The Professor has not been fired and he will presumably continue to espouse his ideas as he sees fit. He’s been denied tenure (a decision reserved for the University, not you or me or the Federal govt), far short of silencing him.
You’re suggesting that the argument for intelligent design is the equivelant of arguing the earth is not flat? Sorry, sophistry as transparent as that won’t get you an A in a High School debating class.
Even communism and nazism should be discussed in a historical context.
I agree that they should be discussed, in light of their abysmal failure, to prevent future mistakes. If you’re suggesting we discuss IE in that context, as a way to prevent future mistakes in our understanding of the way life developed, then I agree with you. IE should be exposed for the fraudulent concept that it is.
Show me how the Rubidium-Strontium dating method is circular.
IE should be exposed for the fraudulent concept that it is.
Are you aware of the scientists that support ID?
Are you are aware of the scientist that support a combination (co-mingling of) of ID and the theory of evolution?
Your dismissal of a theory that is supported by many in the scientific community is amusing.
I’m saying that at one point in history, it was conventional belief the earth was flat, and the universe revolved around the earth, and anyone that dared challenge that status quo was treated quite badly, just as Prof. Gonzales is being treated badly for daring to espouse a line of thinking that bucks the system, especially that system esposed by the ultra-lib "edustocracy" at Iowa State.
Many scientists continued to support the idea that the Earth was the center of the universe after it was proven otherwise. What’s your point? Your scientists are right and others are wrong?
Wow what a come back.
(Billions and billions and billions——and that’s just the NASA budget!)
Just noticed your tag line...what you do not like space exploration either.
Besides you are so wrong about billions and billions and billions, NASAs budget is not nearly enough!
Actually he is not promoting intelligent design, rather that the universe was designed for discovery. Here is a paragraph from Gonzales’s co-author.
“No it’s not. We never argue for design based on the rarity of habitable planets. In fact, we spend a great deal of time arguing that that’s a bad argument. Rather, we argue that the overlap of conditions for life and for scientific discovery suggests design, because you would expect such an overlap if the universe were designed for discovery, but not otherwise. Hauptman doesn’t even know our basic premise - which a number of prominent scientists have found persuasive - even though it’s in the subtitle of the book (”How Our Place In the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery”).
om one of the authors”
The manned NASA program is a waste of money. The other productive side of NASA, unmanned exploration (which I support 110%), doesn’t get nearly the money it needs but produces 99% of the results. I support privatising near space exploration. The manned Moon program and Mars program are make work for the defense industry, nothing more.
As you have framed it in this response, I agree.
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.