Posted on 05/13/2007 11:07:52 AM PDT by 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.
==Did you see the list of successful testing/predictions over 120 listed above?
What reply#?
==There are tests and they have been successful.
None of the tests I have seen so far are in the least bit convincing when it comes to macro-evolution. I don’t even think they know what they are talking about when it comes to micro-evolution. Sure, there is the potential of variation within species (in the broad sense), but the Church of Darwin thinks said variations are completely undirected. I think the evidence clearly suggests otherwise.
#177
>>None of the tests I have seen so far are in the least bit convincing when it comes to macro-evolution. I don’t even think they know what they are talking about when it comes to micro-evolution. Sure, there is the potential of variation within species (in the broad sense), but the Church of Darwin thinks said variations are completely undirected. I think the evidence clearly suggests otherwise.<<
The part that is convincing to me as a non-biologist is the way that fossils laid out in the progression based on evolutionary theory are never found in the same strata of rock if evolutionary theory says they are from different eras.
The whale thing is cool too.
I do know from studying physics that the earth is quite old - I’ve tested samples that measure more than 100,000,000 years, if only very simple life is found in the oldest time and the fossils become more complex and developed as we get closer to modern times, evolution seems a good name for that process of simpler life becoming more diverse and complex.
I strongly suggest you brush up on the fossile evidence at the following website. I would give you the exact link, but my employer’s server blocks this site for some reason. Trust me, the experience will be well worth your while. In fact, I find it to be one of the very best sites out there in terms of presenting the ID point of view—GGG
http://www.detectingdesign.com/
Guillermo Gonzales has not only published in peer reviewed scientific journals, he hs also published in POPULAR magazines.
Scientific American in fact asked him to write an article in October 2001 (pages 60-66) entitled : REFUGES FOR LIFE IN A HOSTILE UNIVERSE.
Here’s the article :
http://atropos.as.arizona.edu/aiz/teaching/a204/etlife/SciAm01.pdf
Also, Scientific American sells two of Professor Gonzalez’ books in the Science Bookstore. The first is The Privileged Planet and the second, Observational Astronomy.
See here :
http://store.sciam.com/index.php?k=guillermo+gonzalez+astronomy&c=sciam1
No less a top scientific institution like MIT uses Gonzales’ article as reference for students in courses like :
ONE WORLD, MANY WORLDS : SEARCHING FOR LIFE ON EARTH AND OTHER PLANETS
See here : http://space.mit.edu/EPO/Syllabus.pdf
All in all, based on ability, contributions, scholarship and a host of other criteria, Gonzales DESERVES tenure.
This denial of tenure is intolerance of the highest order and is based mainly on the fact that Gonzales’ work is popular among ID proponents and creationists.
It is interesting to note the similarities between the names — Guillermo Gonzales and Galileo Galilei.
Thanks for the links!
I’m home now. Here’s the link to Dr. Pitman’s commentary on the fossile record.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilrecord.html
No one understands the DNA code. Yet everywhere we have people with the audacity to call the DNA "dead code", junk, or inefficient.
Bill Gates and IBM engineers understand something about DNA. They are not the one to say DNA is dead code, junk code, or inefficient.
The Darwinists need some software design and programming training. My service is available, at $300 /hour.
Dr Gonzalez is not about biological evolution but about The Privileged Planet. The Earth. Dr Gonzalez co-authored a high-level-university astronomy textbook. Support Gonzalez. Buy copies ofThe Privileged Planet;Observational Astronomy for yourself and friends to combat rampant materialism. Read more on ID
“Amazing DNA” Bump
Here’s an interesting satirical interview that illustrates the strategy behind how some universities plan to deny tenure to Christian faculty members ( Gonzales was just one. Francis Beckwith was another ( at Baylor )).
See here :
http://cedros.globat.com/~thebrites.org/News/Iowa.html
There has been recent media attention on the tenure granting policies at Iowa State University. I chatted by phone today with Dr. Ivan A. Conway Moore, Ph.E., Thomas Huxley Professor of Pugilistic Ideology at Iowa State University. Dr. Moore earned his Ph.E. in full contact debate from St. Petersburg (formerly Leningrad) University in 1978.
_______________________________________
Ed Diesel for ENN News
(ED): Good afternoon Professor Moore. Thank you for agreeing to speak to us today.
Professor Moore (CM): Good afternoon.
ED: There is recent controversy concerning the tenure granting policy at Iowa State University. How can a researcher with extraordinary research credentials be denied tenure?
CM: You’re referring to Dr. Gonzalez the Bible thumper?
ED: Does Dr. Gonzalez thump Bibles?
CM: I have no idea. Probably not. There have been rumors, though, he attends church and might even pray.
ED: I’m referring to Dr. Gonzalez who is in an Astronomy professor at ISU.
CM: I know who you mean. Gonzalez interferes with the diversity mission of Iowa State and thus should be denied tenure. We have worked hard to build an environment that celebrates tolerance and diversity, and we will not tolerate dissent to diversity.
ED: How does Dr. Gonzalez dissent from diversity?
CM: He dares to question the methodological naturalism definition of science and has been rumored to talk about God. He dares to question the only allowable definition of science. Science does not allow a discussion of God. Freedom of speech at universities disallows use of the words “God” and “science” in the same sentence unless the sentence promotes mutual exclusivity.
ED: Your position reflects the “Iowa State Petition” against Intelligent Design, doesn’t it?
CM: Yes. All scientists must have faith in methodological naturalism. Over one hundred ISU faculty have signed the petition have said so and, in the twenty first century, consensus defines truth.
ED: Can the claim about methodological naturalism be proved using methodological naturalism?
CM: Probably. Look. If anything can’t be explained by methodological naturalism, it can’t be explained.
ED: Isn’t embracement of methodological naturalism based on faith?
CM: Come on. You’re playing with words. I’m talking about a faith in methodological naturalism. This is the only acceptable philosophy in a university that celebrates tolerance and diversity. Look. Religious whackos who believe in Intelligent Design believe the earth is only 5000 years old because it says so in the Bible in the book of Guinness. By any standard...
ED: Do you mean Genesis ?
CM: Whatever.
ED: Dr. Gonzalez believes the universe is billions of years old and originated at the Big Bang.
CM: Oh. Nevertheless, any insertion of God into science is strictly prohibited in a university dedicated to diversity and tolerance.
ED: So Dr. Gonzalez is being denied tenure because of his religion?
CM: Of course not. As a state institution, ISU cannot deny Dr. Gonzalez tenure because of his religion. We must figure out another reason, like Gonzalez’s inability to contribute to the racial diversity of Iowa State.
ED: But Dr. Gonzalez was born in Havana, Cuba and fled Fidel Castro’s communist rule as a child. He escaped on a boat with his family to the United States and is now an American citizen. He sounds like a classic case of American success. Will not the addition of a Hispanic faculty member who helped his family rise from a penniless status to success enhance both the “racial” and “socioeconomic” diversity of Iowa State?
CM: I didn’t know about the Cuba thing. I had heard he was an illegal alien from Juarez. Anyway, there is also the matter of his research. In order to grant tenure, there must be strong evidence of scholarly activity of the candidate.
ED: But Dr. Gonzalez has a transnational reputation and almost 70 publications in top journals. Isn’t this a lot for an Assistant Professor being considered for tenure?
CM: Okay. But the number of publications is not important. It’s the quality of the publications.
ED: According to the Web of Science, three of Dr. Gonzalez’s papers have been cited by others over 100 times each. The University Professor in astronomy at ISU doesn’t even have one paper cited more than one hundred times. A University Professor is a rank even higher than a full Professor. Aren’t these citation statistics extraordinary for an Assistant Professor like Dr. Gonzalez?
CM: But he hasn’t attracted the funding he needs to support graduate students.
ED: Dr. Gonzalez has attracted funds from NASA and the Templeton Foundation. Doesn’t this count as funds to...
CM: But he has not attracted research funding recently.
ED: Even so, funding isn’t explicitly listed in Iowa State’s criteria for obtaining tenure. The policy ...
CM: Policies do not need to be written. They can be implied, based on historical precedent, or even made up if we want. Vague policy protects us legally.
ED: Is Dr. Gonzalez a good teacher?
CM: His student ratings are fine. But this is a research university where if your teaching isn’t terrible, it’s okay. This is a long and standing tradition.
ED: Dr. Gonzalez’s has made an appeal to the Iowa State University President who will announce his decision in June. What will he decide?
CM: I haven’t talked to him about this, but I see no way that President Geoffroy can support methodological naturalism at ISU and grant Dr. Gonzalez tenure. How can we have academic freedom, diversity and tolerance when there is a biased Christian perspective? The two are incompatible.
ED: Let’s cut the rhetoric and get to the bottom line Professor Moore. With his impressive record, why are you in favor of denying tenure to Dr. Gonzalez? Of over 60 considered for tenure at Iowa State this year, Dr. Gonzalez is one of only three not granted tenure. Most who were granted tenure at ISU pale in comparison to Dr. Gonzalez’s accomplishment. What is happening here?
CM: I’ve already answered this, and answered it succinctly and scientifically. What’s your problem anyway? Do you go to church?
ED: I’d prefer to talk about your opinions of Dr. Gonzalez and the ISU tenure policy .
CM: Yeah, sure. I bet you pray too. I bet you pray every day.
ED: Let’s take a short break.
CM: Whatever.
__________________________________________________________
Professor Moore hung up and subsequently refused to answer our repeated calls to finish the interview
STATEMENT ON INTELLIGENT DESIGN
BY IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY FACULTY
We, the undersigned faculty members at Iowa State University, reject all attempts to represent Intelligent Design as a scientific endeavor.
Advocates of Intelligent Design claim that the position of our planet and the complexity of particular life forms and processes are such that they may only be explained by the existence of a creator or designer of the universe. However, such claims are premised on (1) the arbitrary selection of features claimed to be engineered by a designer; (2) unverifiable conclusions about the wishes and desires of that designer; and (3) an abandonment by science of methodological naturalism.
Methodological naturalism, the view that natural phenomena can be explained without reference to supernatural beings or events, is the foundation of the natural sciences. The history of science contains many instances where complex natural phenomena were eventually understood only by adherence to methodological naturalism.
Whether one believes in a creator or not, views regarding a supernatural creator are, by their very nature, claims of religious faith, and so not within the scope or abilities of science. We, therefore, urge all faculty members to uphold the integrity of our university of “science and technology,” convey to students and the general public the importance of methodological naturalism in science, and reject efforts to portray Intelligent Design as science.
ISU Diversity Policy
“ISU defines diversity as that quality of its physical, social, cultural and intellectual environment which embraces the rich differences within the multiplicity of human expression and characteristics including: Age, Culture, Ethnicity, Gender Identification and Presentation, Language and Linguistic Ability, Physical Ability and Quality, Race, Religion, Sexual Orientation, and Socioeconomic Status.”
That is as anti-science a document as you are likely to find. Two passages read as follows:
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.Governing Goals
.
- To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
- To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
Sorry, this is not science. This is apologetics (defense of religion).
Scientism and materialism are not science either. They are philosophies. The statement is a philosophical rejection of certain world-views. So your evaluation of the above statement as anti-science is absurd. The statement is not anti-science, it is explicitly anti materialist philosophy..
Or are people not allowed to hold to philosophies other than scientism or materialism?
Cordially,
That pretty much fits what they are doing to a “T”. Very sad. Time to fight back, and to keep fighting back until the Church of Darwin is exposed for what it is—a religion.
What part of the petition do you disagree with?
The rejection of Intelligent Design as a scientific endeavor.
And that is how the left makes sure that only leftists get ahead in the university system, so as to assure the proper stalinist indoctrination.
What's wrong with rejecting ID for its lack of scientific rigor?
ID seeks to convince us that it can prove an unnamed supernatural creator based entirely on our current lack of understanding of particular natural phenomena.
That doesn't sound very scientific to me. But it does bring to mind Clarke's Third Law:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
What part of ID poses any questions that science can answer? What kinds of questions does ID pose that can be researched?
What IS the ID research program?
One example of how an Id Research program could work :
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/PBD-molecular-evolution.html
From the article:
“The enzyme synthase was there ready to be evolved, and with our methodology, we were able to rapidly and efficiently evolve it down a pathway of our choice,” Keasling said. “We are recapitulating evolution into intelligent design. In the case of this particular Grand fir enzyme synthase, it naturally makes a soup of small amounts of 52 different products. We were able to focus it instead on making large amounts of one of seven of those products.”
I see this an example of intelligent agencies fiddling with what exists to reach a desired outcome- THAT is what ID is all about- what intelligent agencies can do as compared to what unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes can do.
So, the ID point: if goal-oriented and rigorously forced “directed evolution” under ideal conditions does not actually generate NEW information, “undirected evolution” isn’t going to do it “in the wild” for reasons that have been hashed to death on the 2nd LoT threads here recently.
Where did all of the information come from in the first place?
ID says the existence of information in living (and/or cosmic) systems is BEST explained as the result of an Intelligent Cause.
ID says the existence of information in living (and/or cosmic) systems is BEST explained as the result of a supernatural cause (but they can't openly admit it because that would blow the whole scheme).
Creationists/IDers criticize scientists for minor extrapolations between data and explanation! Then they go from the natural/observable to the supernatural/non-observable and pretend they are doing science.
Gimmi a break!
But evolution is directed. It is directed by the fact that some variations are more successful than others. I will grant that evolution doesn’t explain the first replicator, but after you have a replicating system that makes imperfect copies, the information about what works is provided continuously by differential reproductive success.
Evolution does not necessarily increase the quantity of information. If you think evolution requires an increase in the amount of information, please provide the metric. Gene count, even functional gene count, does not necessarily increase as a result of evolution. Mostly, evolution shuffles parameters; it does not change the program.
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.