Proponent of Intelligent Design Denied Tenure by ISU

The Ames Tribune ^ | May 5, 2007 | William Dillon

[GodGunsGuts]

Proponent of intelligent design denied tenure by ISU

By: William Dillon

05/12/2007

Guillermo Gonzalez, an assistant professor of astronomy and physics who argues for the theory of intelligent design, was denied tenure this semester by Iowa State University.

"I was surprised to hear that my tenure was denied at any level, but I was disappointed that the president at the end denied me," Gonzalez said during a telephone interview with The Tribune Friday.

Gonzalez filed an appeal with ISU President Greg Geoffroy on Tuesday, May 8. Geoffroy has 20 days to respond.

While his work is heralded as "path-breaking" by supporters of intelligent design as a way of offering a new theory supporting design in the universe, Gonzalez has come under criticism by the mainstream science community for incorporating the theory of intelligent design into his work.

Opponents maintain that proving intelligent causes or agents is not science but rather the study of theology and philosophy. Some also have accused Gonzalez, an openly non-denominational Protestant, of thrusting religion into science.

In the summer of 2005, three faculty members at ISU drafted a statement against the use of intelligent design in science. One of those authors, Hector Avalos, told The Tribune at the time he was concerned the growing prominence of Gonzalez's work was beginning to market ISU as an "intelligent design school."

The statement collected signatures of support from more than 120 ISU faculty members before similar statements surfaced at the University of Iowa and the University of Northern Iowa.

According to ISU's policy on promotion and tenure, evaluation is based "primarily on evidence of scholarship in the faculty member's teaching, research/creative activities, and/or extension/professional practice."

In addition to that criteria, Gonzalez's department of astronomy and physics sets a benchmark for tenure candidates to author at least 15 peer-reviewed journal articles of quality. Gonzalez said he submitted 68, of which 25 have been written since he arrived at ISU in 2001.

"I believe that I fully met the requirements for tenure at ISU," he said.

Gonzalez said he would rather not comment on why he believes he was denied tenure.

On Friday, Geoffroy declined comment on why Gonzalez was denied tenure.

"Since an appeal is on my desk that I will have to pass judgment on, it is not appropriate for me to offer any comment," he wrote in an e-mail to The Tribune.

In addition to his research and teaching at ISU, Gonzalez is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, a conservative Seattle think tank leading the intelligent design movement.

John G. West, associate director of the Center for Science and Culture at the institute, said he sees this as a clear case of "ideological discrimination" by ISU against Gonzalez. He said he thinks the statement against intelligent design drafted at ISU played a large part in the eventual denial of Gonzalez's tenure.

"What happens to the lone faculty member who doesn't agree and happens to be untenured," he asked. "That is practically, with a wink and a nod, a call to deny him tenure."

Faculty members typically leave a university if they are denied tenure.

ISU considered 66 faculty cases for promotion and tenure during the past academic year. Only three, including Gonzalez, were denied tenure.

William Dillon can be reached at 232-2161, Ext. 361, or William.Dillon@amestrib.com.

[Coyoteman]

My single most powerful argument for ID is that there is intelligence and design in the universe.

There is no obvious cause and effect relationship. What you are really saying is that you don't know of a scientific explanation for either our intelligence or perceived design in nature, so you are reaching way out and pulling down a supernatural explanation. Does the designer custom make each snowflake? Or is that a natural phenomenon?

BTW, ID does not attempt to explain who the designer is, they only seek to use the scientific method to detect design in nature. In that sense, their program is rather modest, in that they leave the identification of the designer for other disciplines (which, given our current understanding, is where you leave the realm of science and enter the field of metaphysical cosmology, religion, etc).

I don't believe this for a moment. The entire focus of the ID movement is pushing a Christian Deity. Read any of the major ID documents, or follow the threads here on FR. It won't be long before you see Biblical quotations or other scripture/revelation brought into the argument. It generally takes the form, "I don't know how it occurred, so God did it! Whoops, strike that--the designer did it. I'll get back to you with the details."

I have asked on numerous occasions how many IDers there are, and I have asked for some justification for whatever answer may be provided. I have never received an answer to my question. I believe that is because to IDers the answer is clear--the Christian God is the creator, and the justification is the Bible. But--its against the guild rules to admit that, so I receive no answer at all, or only a vague, "We'll get back to you on that." Your answer, "they leave the identification of the designer for other disciplines" is typical.

[GodGunsGuts]

==There is no obvious cause and effect relationship. What you are really saying is that you don’t know of a scientific explanation for either our intelligence or perceived design in nature, so you are reaching way out and pulling down a supernatural explanation.

Our intelligence proves there is intelligence in the universe. We also design things. Therefore, there is design in the universe. That’s my starting point. Since the dawn of recorded history, we have only observed intelligence coming from intelligence, and design coming from designers. And then there is the will. There is nothing in the chemistry of my body that suggests I should be able to type this message at will. I think it and my fingers start typing the way I want them too and when I want them too. It certainly does not originate from the chemicals that constitute my body. Please explain where this impulse comes from. It’s clearly an epiphenomenon that requires a different kind of explanation than the straitjackets of scientific naturalism can provide. And let’s suppose our consciousness and will are indeed an epiphenomenon, do you think the scientific method should be amended to be able to investigate it? Or would you prefer that such a phenomena forever remain a mystery?

==The entire focus of the ID movement is pushing a Christian Deity.

Complete BS. The ID movement consists of agnostics, deists, and theists of all stripes. Creationists can utilize the findings of ID, but ID cannot utilize creationism because it is not a theological enterprise. In the same way, Creationists can utilize the finding of evolutionists, but evolutionists cannot utilize Creationism. In each case, they are two separate projects.

[dsc]

“... and we all know thats how the founders envisioned it ...”

You forgot the sarcasm tag.

[GodGunsGuts]

==DNA is a program. And if there is a program, then there has to be a programmer.

Excellent point!

[GodGunsGuts]

==I would add that it depends what “peer reviewed journals” he published in, and whether he has made original contributions to astronomy.

Iowa State Professor Who Was Denied Tenure Exceeds Department’s Tenure Standard by 350%

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/iowa_state_professor_who_was_d.html

[rusty millet]

“The arrangement of atoms into molecules that happens to make copies of itself”.

Stop right there.

Perhaps you can give an example of atoms arranging into molecules that can make a copy of itself.

Without enzymes.

Thanks.

[tutstar]

I bet this thread ends up being the platform for atheists bashing Christians, God, and creation.

They are like the dems...they are the only ones who matter and who are correct. /sarc

Yet they think they are conservative. ROFL

[Cicero]

Well, again, it depends what journals. Astronomy is not my field, but in my field there are “peer reviewed journals” that are prestigious and others that are pretty much worthless.

I only mention this because we don’t know. Given the brief description of the nature of his work and the number of articles he has published, I think it is highly probable that he was highly qualified for the job.

I think the odds are probably 99-1 that he was fired for reasons of bigotry. Possibly combined with jealousy, since it can be dangerous when a junior professor publishes at ten times the rate of the tenured faculty. When a faculty is not top notch, and if they are more concerned about themselves than the good of the department and the students, then they tend to be leery of hiring younger people who are obviously much better than they are.

[DungeonMaster]

Gonzalez has come under criticism by the mainstream science community

The things that you thought were science turned out to be religion. The mainstream science allows no heretics.

[Cicero]

Yes. As Pope Benedict has recently pointed out, a lot of westerners are ignorant of the basic foundations of knowledge, and it tends to make them cocky about things they are completely ignorant of.

I would guess that the great majority of biologists are ignorant of Darwin in more than a superficial sense, because their fields of research lie elsewhere. And certainly that is likely to be true of astronomers. They assume a basically Darwinian world view but have never really done any genuine thinking about it.

[RobbyS]

Creationism is a theological doctrine. but it is part of the philosophical enterprise. Greek philosphy arose from a criticism of the theogony of the old Greeks, and one development of this was Plato’s natural theology. Christian theology is a blending, so to speak, of later Platonism with the Jewish religioius tradition, as one can see in the Wisdom literature of later Judaism. The Christian apologists of the 2nd century were often Platonists at least in theor departure point, which distinguised them from the mythological thinking of the gnostics in important ways. Modern science also owes a great deal to neo-platonism, as we—or at least I -see in Descartes’ efforts to ground science in the mathematical method. So Christian theology and science have at least that in common that they originated in the merger of Athens and Jerusalem.

[GodGunsGuts]

It’s looking more and more like bigoted persecution all the time.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=4051&program=DI%20Main%20Page%20-%20News&callingPage=discoMainPage

[GodGunsGuts]

Letter from Granville Sewell, Mathematics Dept.,University of Texas El Paso to the President of Iowa State University re: denial of tenure:

---

Gregory Geoffroy
President

Iowa State University

Dear Dr. Geoffroy,

Anyone familiar with the case of Astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez suspects that he was not denied tenure at Iowa State for lack of academic excellence—he has nearly 70 peer-reviewed publications, including an article in Scientific American, and Nature and Science have run articles about his work—but because of his expressed view (expressed only OUTSIDE the classroom) that certain features of the universe can be considered as evidence of design. This is in fact a widely held view among scientists: for example, it is a well-established fact—established through many peer-reviewed scientific articles—that most of the basic physical constants of our universe, such as Planck’s constant, the speed of light, the charge and mass of the electron, and so on, had to have nearly the values that they do have or intelligent life would not have been possible anywhere in the universe. There are only two widely-held interpretations for this so-called “fine tuning.” One is that the fortuitous values of these constants are the result of design, the other is that there are many universes, with varying values for these constants, and that life arose in ours because the values here were favorable to the development of life. Neither view is strictly scientific, because both the alleged designer and the alleged other universes are in principle unobservable. There are quite a number of scientists who prefer the design explanation. Dr. Gonzalez may be in the minority, but it is a very sizable minority, and most members of this minority are free to express this point of view at their respective institutions without fear of academic punishment.

Dr. Gonzalez has in fact, through peer-reviewed publications, added significantly to the list of features in our universe which may suggest design. He has rarely, if ever, spoken publicly in support of the less widely-held view that certain features of biological evolution also suggest design, but apparently his association with the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, which does hold this view, was more than could be tolerated by some faculty members at ISU. He was criticized for his views in a letter drafted by a professor of religion, Hector Avalos, and signed by 120 ISU professors, and we suspect that this letter played an important role in the tenure decision.

Your decision to deny tenure to Guillermo Gonzalez, unless reversed, sends a clear message to the rest of the academic world that only some philosophical points of view are welcome at Iowa State University. Academic freedom is meaningless if it is limited to certain philosophies. Please reconsider your decision.

Sincerely,

Granville Sewell, Mathematics Dept.,University of Texas El Paso

http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/isu.html

[thiscouldbemoreconfusing]

That’s why I don’t have a problem with people who don’t understand something about science. Its only when they try to force teaching based on non-science I have a problem.

Evolution is not science, it meets none of the criteria or definitins of the word science.

[thiscouldbemoreconfusing]

That’s why I don’t have a problem with people who don’t understand something about science. Its only when they try to force teaching based on non-science I have a problem.

Evolution is not science, it meets none of the criteria or definitions of the word science.

[thiscouldbemoreconfusing]

False. The theory of evolution is based on evidence. ID is based on scripture and revelation.

Wrong, what evidence is the theory of evolution based upon?

[Cicero]

he has nearly 70 peer-reviewed publications, including an article in Scientific American, and Nature and Science have run articles about his work

That certainly strengthens the case a great deal. Scientific American is not an academic publication but it is highly respected, and unlikely to publish the work of anyone who has not published a good deal in the profession journals and built a strong reputation.

The same with Nature and Science. Neither is a professional journal, but both are highly reputable, and certainly would not run articles about his work if it were some sort of kooky nonsense.

I don't know why they don't actually post his bibliography on-line, because I'm pretty sure that would make the case. Dry as dust, no doubt, to the unprofessional eye, but if those three science magazines all take an interest in him, then it can't be too dusty or kooky!

Note, too, that he does not proselytize for intelligent design in class. That puts him a step above his leftist peers, who I am sure proselytize all the time about Wicca, Gaia, gay rights, Darwin, or whatever their interests happen to be.

Very strong case for an academic injustice--as usual committed by the leftist establishment against someone more conservative who privately parts from their view of things.

[Coyoteman]

The theory of evolution is based on evidence. ID is based on scripture and revelation.

Wrong, what evidence is the theory of evolution based upon?

What evidence? There are millions of pieces of evidence out there. They are grouped and explained by the theory of evolution. This theory explains the evidence to the degree that it has withstood 150 years of scientific challenges, and it allows predictions to be made. It has been so successful that, within science, there are no competing theories. That is the definition of a powerful theory.

Here is just one of those millions of data points (one of my favorites, too; I studied this skull for hours in grad school):

---

Fossil: Sts 5

Site: Sterkfontein Cave, South Africa (1)

Discovered By: R. Broom & J. Robinson 1947 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 2.5 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, floral & faunal data (1, 4)

Species Name: Australopithecus africanus (1, 2)

Gender: Male (based on CAT scan of wisdom teeth roots) (1, 30) Female (original interpretation) (4)

Cranial Capacity: 485 cc (2, 4)

Information: No tools found in same layer (4)

Interpretation: Erect posture (based on forward facing foramen magnum) (8)

Nickname: Mrs. Ples (1)

See original source for notes:
http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=24

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

The left has infiltrated into higher education, and will do anything at all to keep its power, including being unfair to qualified individuals.

[Cicero]

Coyoteman, have you read ANY of the basic books on intelligent design? Their arguments are entirely scientific and statistical, and do not make use of the Bible as a proof text.

To confuse Creationism with Intelligent Design is just plain ignorant.

Moreover, the professor in question has published 70 professional articles in scientific journals, and does not proselytize for ID in his classes. Which is certainly more than can probably be said for the Darwinists in the department.