May 15, 2007

Leading Advocate of Intelligent Design Is Denied Tenure at Iowa State U.

Iowa State University has denied tenure to Guillermo Gonzalez, an assistant professor of physics and astronomy who has been a prominent supporter of the idea of intelligent design. Mr. Gonzalez is appealing the university’s decision, according to an unusual news release issued by the university to explain its action. The release states that every level of review, from the departmental committee to the provost, determined that Mr. Gonzalez should not be awarded tenure.

In August 2005, 120 faculty members at Iowa State issued a statement denouncing intelligent design, in part as a reaction to Mr. Gonzalez’s work in the area. Intelligent-design advocates believe that some biological systems are so complex that they could have arisen only through the action of an intelligent force and not simply through Darwinian evolution, the theory of life that has overwhelming support from scientists.

The Discovery Institute, a leading backer of the intelligent-design movement, issued a news release on Monday that denounced the decision, saying that Mr. Gonzalez had written 68 peer-reviewed publications, far more than his department requires for tenure. But some comments on science blogs have questioned the worth of many of those publications and of Mr. Gonzalez’s scholarship in general. —Richard Monastersky

Comments

1. I just wanted to make clear, since you link to my blog, that it was not me but a couple of commenters who remarked on the worth or quality of Gonzalez’ scholarship; I did not, as I’m not in a position to evaluate that question. For all I know, Gonzalez may have written a set of brilliant papers. The point I was making myself was that tenure is a crapshoot in general, a process that is highly subjective and for which there is no objective set of criteria (no matter how much a university may want to pretend so). If you have someone in a department advocating a fringe idea that 99% of those in his field reject, it should never be a surprise when his colleagues don’t want him representing their department or university. That’s not persecution, it’s just human nature.

   — Ed Brayton    May 15, 12:47 PM    #

2. The article indicates that the Darwinian theory has overwhelming support from scientists. This is mere supposition, and without some authority to back the statement, then the statement is merely an opinion.

   — Shaun Gaskell    May 15, 06:09 PM    #

3. No Ed, its not just human nature. It is the ISU scientific materialists’ way of dealing with someone smart who inferred that design and not random chance lead to life. The only thing they can do to silence someone like Gonzalez is to excommunicate him.

   — Angus Glenn    May 15, 07:02 PM    #

4. No, Shaun, you’re wrong.

   Evolution is taught in every biology department on the planet.

   Intelligent design is taught in none.

   — Doc Bill    May 15, 08:50 PM    #

5. So much for “diversity” at ISU.

   Or, more accurately, ISU loves diversity of thought so long as you agree with them.

   — Robert Sarbane    May 16, 05:22 AM    #

6. I’m a non-academic, and after reading this, I don’t understand how tenure protects academic freedom. Isn’t tenure supposed to protect academicians who dissent from the prevailing opinion, disagree with authorities of any sort, or spend time on unfashionable topics? It appears one must toe the party line until tenure is granted.

   — Tom McCool    May 16, 07:59 AM    #

7. Maybe Gonzalez should go to work for the new “Creation Museum” – they may have room for another fanciful thinker.

   — Joni Swanson    May 16, 08:27 AM    #

8. Hmm, more diverse thought, as Sarbane asks? Terrific idea. Why should ISU or any other academic institution be held hostage to such pervasive and arrogant theories as gravity, the germ theory of disease, relativity, or the wave theory of light? Come to think of it, let’s teach alchemy, magic, astrology, and a flat earth in the interest of diverse thought. Mind boggling.

   — Ralph Protsik    May 16, 08:48 AM    #

9. In Dr. Ben C. DeSpain’s book titled REVITALING THE PROFESSORATE: The Guide to Promotion, Tenure, Merit Pay, and Faculty Workload – he says that perhaps the most burning question related to the professorate is: Why are there so many surprises (failures) each year among those professors seeking promotion an/or tenure? Upon submitting their professional performance documents for review, a large number of professionals are rejected for career advancement and professional security. According to Dr. DeSpain, the standards by which these professional are judged, the measures by which they are rejected, and the evaluations upon which “the powers that be” base their professional decisions for promotion or tenure frequently are not consistent, fair, clearly definded, relevant, or even understood. Often the whole process appears unprofessional.

   William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
   Professor
   PhD Program in Educational Leadership
   Prairie View A&M University
   Member of the Texas A&M University System

   www.nationalforum.com

   — William Allan Kritsonis, PhD    May 16, 09:55 AM    #

10. If Mr. Gonzalez was teaching in a Humanities department such as Religious Studies, this discussion would not be happening. Instead, he teaches in a science department wherein his ideas are unacceptable. Let us not forget that diversity of opinion is fine for the opinion section of a newspaper but the academy requires more than just personal conviction based on myth.

    — Dr. Bob Harris    May 16, 10:22 AM    #

11. Doc Bill, just because it’s taught in the classroom doesn’t mean it’s supported by those who teach it. Sometimes you do what you have to do as an employee. Most of the history books in America fail to “teach” about the contributions of people of color and women from engineering to literature…does that mean that these contributions never existed?! Often, “support” of an idea or construct is dependent upon who is in a position of power and what THEY believe is valid!

    — WJH    May 16, 10:41 AM    #

12. Maybe Dr. Gonzalez can go work for the philosophy department at ISU. To me it seems the best place for such non-scientific, “what if”, discussions to take place. Just because we don’t understand the complex underpinnings of biological systems, doesn’t mean that we never will. Pushing something into the realm of “intelligent design” just because we don’t yet understand it doesn’t give it any more credibility. It only gives us an excuse to not be curious anymore.

    — MNF    May 16, 01:23 PM    #

13. Teaching something that is in disagreement with your entire field of study has never been a path to tenure or promotion, especially if the premise is based on faith or assumption rather than hard evidence. This should have been no surprise to Mr. Gonzalez. His chances of acceptance would be greater at a university where faith and assumption are part of the basic value set.

    — Al Powell    May 16, 01:24 PM    #

14. I should not be surprised – yet I am – at the narrow-mindedness of the supposedly “learned” ones of the population. First of all, evolution is a theory, not a fact. It is a theory that has often been refuted by archaelogical facts. Intelligent design is also a theory. However, there are no archaelogical fact that refute its truth. Who among us has the right to pick and choose those theories that students should learn, and those that we should hide? I thought college was a place to look at and examine ideas objectively? As far as the comment about teaching “a flat earth,” it seems to me that the person who first stated that it was round was regarded as a fool and persecuted by his peers. Hmm… maybe you should consider that. The most correct piece of information here is that tenure is not given fairly. It is most definitely a ‘popularity contest.’ And, if you hold an unpopular view, you may as well give up any hope of gaining tenure. We are not in the business of creating equality, independence or free thinking. We are in the business of teaching students that everyone and every idea should be treated fairly, as long as everyone and every idea fits into the nice little boxes created by the majority. Pity the next Einstein or Edison.

    — Carrie Harrison    May 16, 03:37 PM    #

15. The sad part of all of this is that many colleges, universities, institutions, and organizations will denounce you if you think differenlty then the majority. I have seen it happen in many situations. Yes, diversity is important but many who claim they want it only do it to look the part. They are not actively engaging in the creation of a diverse organization. This and many other situations like this are occurring daily on college campuses.

    — G. Banks    May 17, 10:15 AM    #

16. So much for “diversity” at ISU. Or, more accurately, ISU loves diversity of thought so long as you agree with them. I’ll even bet that they would refuse to grant tenure to some one who went around advocating that the Universe was created 7,000 years ago, or who went around advocating that the Sun orbited the Earth. It’s absolutely horrendous that ISU would value science over diversity in promoting of religious ideology, and would attempt to maintain academic standards. I mean, that’s just sick.

    — Steve Greene    May 18, 05:32 AM    #

17. What nobody seems to want to mention is that there are enough sufficiently large holes in the “theory” of evolution these days that an aircraft carrier could easily navigate them. That’s the elephant in the living room that nobody in the evolutionary community seems to want to acknowledge. Scientifically valid evidence such as the mammal fossil found with a dinosaur skeleton in its stomach, or the work on polonium halos done by Robert Gentry, is just quietly swept under the rug. Michael Behe’s exceedingly valid concept of ‘irreducible complexity’ is all but ignored by the prophets of Darwin and Huxley.

    Darwinian theory isn’t even science, if we are to adhere strictly to the scientific method, which requires that a postulated process be reproducible in the laboratory. A belief in evolution requires as much faith as a belief in creation/intelligent design, if not more.

    — JH    May 18, 12:29 PM    #

18. Those who would deny tenure to a distinguished scholar like Dr. Gonzalez are narrow-minded bigots who are desperately clinging to the discredited and unsupportable theory of Darwinian evolution, which is not a science but rather a non-theistic religion. The decision to deny tenure to Dr. Gonzalez is the worst form of discrimination and censorship.

    — Dr. Paul J. Broyles    May 18, 06:47 PM    #

19. I thought we went thru all of this in the monkey trials. This place isn’t Boston; it is the heart of the nation with those who work and live with creation…SOME DAY those that oppose creation will know!!

    — Daryle Getting    May 18, 07:08 PM    #

20. Professors in general seem to be idiots for the most part, just having students regugitate thier own personl views and agenda, if one Professor does not fit in this category, he/she is not going to get tenure because they are truly independant thinkers and perhaps not just mere followers…

    — George Merritt    May 18, 07:44 PM    #

21. I think the best way to deal with this situation is for the president of Iowa State to offer him a special tenure, and encourage him begin teaching “intelligent design” courses as an extension of religion classes.

    His syllabus would require him to state that he’s teaching intelligent design, and intelligent design isn’t reality-based science, and students interested in proven science can consult the science department.

    Dumb children of Republicans will love the classes because it’ll be an automatic A.

    It’s a win-win.

    — DG    May 18, 08:36 PM    #

22. When my father, Dr. Houston B. Couch, passed away in 2004 he was considered one of the foremost scientists in the field of Turfgrass Pathology. In fact he was credited by many as one of the “founding fathers” of the modern day scientific study of turfgrass disease. Although he was a tenured professor at Va Tech, he often spoke in seminars and lectures presented at the University of Iowa. He also firmly held to the belief of intelligent design. This wasn’t a new revelation to him. In fact as he defended his doctoral thesis in 1954 at UC Davis he was asked about “transitional forms” in the tables of genus and species. To his committee he would respond “and you say…” as he then presented the material he had been taught. He would go on to spend the rest of his career (and life) exploring how his scientific observations consistently confirmed what most people know in their heart: Mankind is not an accident; the planet we inhabit did not just fall out of nowhere. Now both my father and Darwin know the truth with absolute clarity. One day we will all know that truth. As much of a scientist as my father was, he never missed an opportunity to encourage everyone he met to make sure they were prepared when that day came. I would encourage you likewise.

    — Jon Couch    May 18, 08:40 PM    #

23. “Intelligent Design” is not science; it’s religion.

    — An Incredulous Reader    May 18, 09:45 PM    #

24. Guillermo Gonzalez deserves a Nobel Prize. Yes, and not only Gonzalez, but anyone with enough brains to defend Science, and enough courage to defend logic.
    If you doubt Evolution is an idiocy… Visit my blog!
    www.trashtotrashcan.blogspot.com

    — Luis G. Osio    May 18, 11:02 PM    #

25. Intelligent design is all about “following the scientific evidence where it leads you”.

    Opponents of ID quickly resort to character assasination, name calling, and labeling. This is done to shift the debate AWAY from the real scientific evidence which increasingly contradicts evolutionary dogma. Evolution is a religion; and those who do not bend the knee at it’s altar will be labeled as heretics by the Darwinian faithful.

    I respectfully submit that we should focus on the weight of hard evidence which supports ID.

    — john mcdermid    May 19, 11:27 AM    #

26. In this thread of discussion, someone stated that, “ ‘Intelligent Design’ is not science; it’s religion.” I do not mean to pick on this person, but this statement typifies a categorical error being made by many involved in this discussion.
    Keep in mind that the underpinnings of the scientific method are all metaphysical in nature. Therefore, with regard to truth and knowledge, there is no dichotomy between “physics” and “metaphysics”. All truth is metaphysical at the root and science is just a narrow branch of metaphysics that plays according to a set of rules founded upon metaphysical presuppositions. Failure to acknowledge this leads many people to an incoherent worldview which, when they try to live it out, leads to condemnation of people, such as Professor Gonzalez — a person who does not hold to that false epistemological dichotomy.

    — Harry Wegley    May 19, 11:41 AM    #

27. If ID is religion than so are archeology and forensics, both of which try to determine whether something was accidental or caused.

    In the case of archeology, and this is a simple case, I can go out into the woods behind my house and find rocks, that look surprisingly like arrow heads, serrated ends, a notch to hold it to a shaft, amazing what chance can produce. Or, a result of intelligent action on the behave of the Native Americans that used to live in this area.

    In the case of forensics, trying to determine what caused an event to happen: Was the death of Ms. Jones caused by an intelligent being (i.e. was she murdered) or did she accidentally back into a knife on her kitchen counter that managed to drive into her all the way up to the handle.

    So if determining if something (flagella, blood clotting, etc.) was caused, which is EXACTLY and ONLY what ID tries to do, is religion then there are a LOT more people of faith out there then I thought.

    -ken

    — Ken    May 19, 12:25 PM    #

28. Did no one read this article? Dr. Gonzalez is being denied tenure for having beliefs, not for teaching them. That is blatantly unethical, no matter one’s beliefs; hence the “unusual press release.” Where were these objections prior to his qualifying for tenure?

    As for this piece of journalism, the reporter failed to mention four things: (1) The subject is Doctor Gonzalez, not Mister. (2) Dr. Gonzalez remains silent about his beliefs in the classroom. (3) The university touts having one of the foremost astronomy professors in him, yet he is denied tenure. (4) He meets the university’s tenure qualifications over four times.

    This is not a matter of “evolution versus creation.” This is a matter of professional abuse and might-makes-right in a university, excused (or ignored) by an age-old argument within academia over origins.

    — Terry D.    May 19, 12:40 PM    #

29. Someone commented that most scientists and academics believe in Darwinist theory. As someone who works in academica I can say, what academics tell their peers what they believe and what they really believe are not the same. They all know the professional consequences of having unpopular beliefs… that’s why many don’t pick up primary ballots anymore.

    -John Bambenek

    — John Bambenek    May 19, 01:13 PM    #

30. Its amazing that the more education people in America have the less they want diversity.

    Evolution is taughtt in all public Universities without any proof that people evolved through a long process. If this were true, why can’‘t any proof be found that this evolution happened. Evolution is a theory withou proof. Therefore, we need proof for everything else why not Evolution?

    — Noah Flueckiger`    May 19, 06:35 PM    #

31. Michael Behe’s argument for “irreducible complexity” is the best I’ve seen to blow macro-evolution completely out of the water. There would be very little science today if the early scientists had not believed in an ordered universe with natural laws that could be studied by people with brains. Now we have only one side of the story told to us by the “scientific” community and the findings which dispute evolution are ignored because scientists are fearful of the very thing that has happened to Dr. Gonzales. It’s more than a shame. It’s a crime.

    — Sally Noran    May 19, 09:03 PM    #

32. Join us in urging ISU President Gregory Geoffroy to reconsider Dr. Gonzalez’s value both to the university—and to the scientific field. E-mail president@iastate.edu and ask him to honor academic excellence and not political correctness. On a macro-scale, the theory of intelligent design is quite compatible with the big bang theory and the theory of evolution.

    — Dennis Trepanier    May 19, 11:13 PM    #

33. Your support of the gifted Dr. Gonzalez is imperative. Anything else contributes to the “closing of the American mind”!

    — Carol J Wright    May 20, 11:53 PM    #

34. I wonder if Albert Einstein would have received tenure, since he wrote: “My religion consits of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our feeble minds. That deepy emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.” Another time he wrote: “The most beautiful and most profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms – this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.” Another time Albert Einstein stated: “The cosmic religious experience is the strongest and noblest mainspring of scientific research.”

    Many of the most brilliant scholars and scientists have been, and are at present, holders of the theory of intelligent design, and usually for reasons of logic and rules of probability, which point toward intelligent design, and against highly develdoped organistation as purely random events.

    — Barbara Vittucci    May 21, 09:23 AM    #

35. Just when it appeared that God may have delayed his response to evolutionists, enter THE QUEST FOR RIGHT, a masterful work on creationism.

    The great gulf of ambiguity that once separated Intelligent Design from legitimate scientific discourse has been abolished. It is a fact: The Quest for Right has accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between forces advocating creationism and those promoting evolution. A review:

    The Lord has heard the cries of His people and responded with a scientific resource on creationism that will stop these onslaughts against Christianity. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena that will ultimately replace the Darwinian view.
    For example, the investigation dismantles the hocus pocus responsible for the various absolute radioisometric dating techniques by which rocks and other materials are supposedly dated. Absolute-“perfect, complete, definite; without a prospect of being incorrect.” On these incalculable formulae – and they are incalculable – rest the science council’s claim that the earth is of great age, accreting some 4.6 billion years B.C. Upon publication of The Quest for Right, the council’s choice of the superlative absolute will be assessed to be a scurrilous invective, an “abusive, offensive, even vulgar, connotation.” After all, who would question an absolute? It is a matter of record that these dating systems are the tools by which evolutionists have attempted to rip apart the validity of historical documentations, specifically, that the account of creation as recorded in the Bible is mythology. The Quest for Right has changed all of that: the scientific record of creation has stood undaunted against these attacks and has proven to be an invaluable asset to the in-depth investigation.

    The first three volumes of the seven volume set will be published early fall ’07. The Quest for Right is all new from the get go and is destined to make headlines that will reverberate within the halls of academia throughout the world. Coming soon to bookstores and online merchants such as Amazone.com, Barnes and Nobel.com, and Walmart.com. Author, C. David Parsons, biblical scholar and scientist extraordinare.

    — Linda Parsons    May 21, 01:09 PM    #

36. There is absolutely no way to reconcile Darwin and the Bible Ms. Parsons. While transformism (the correct, non misleading name for Darwinism) postulates ascent, the Bible establishes the descent of man due to original sin. You will reconcile them the moment white be black, and up be down. ― Secondly: Following on the comments presented, and specially on Sally Noran’s “Michael Behe’s argument for Irreducible Complexity is the best I’ve seen to blow macro-evolution completely out of the water”, you do not need irreducible complexity to find Evolution (as Transformism is nowadays called) totally flawed, but mere common sense logic —as demonstrated in http://darwinasinusest.blogspot.com/—“... to blow macro-evolution completely out of the water”.

    In other words, it’s not because a maximum cannot be fulfilled by theory, but because a minimum requirement (getting more out than you put in) can’t be logically true ―which is a far stronger objection to Darwinism― that Evolution has to be kicked out of the classroom.

    There is a world of difference between not achieving a minimum, and simply falling short of a maximum!

    If you are interested in the more comprehensive problem of Darwin’s theory being not so much a problem of origins, as of the origin of modern dementia, and the proof thereof, giving a solid example in the pro-abortion movements and presenting “abortion as legislative dementia”, visit my new:
    http://darwinasinusest.blogspot.com/

    Luis G. Osio

    — luisosio    May 21, 03:07 PM    #

37. Please reconsider Dr. Gonzales value to the University and to the accedemic field…..

    — Margaret Jackson    May 21, 07:21 PM    #

38. Finding order in nature is a quest for an intelligent design in the Universe. What irks the atheists and the skeptics is the belief that there is an Intelligent Designer. A belief in such a Being should never be a basis for denying tenure.

    — poikilos    May 21, 08:11 PM    #

39. One-stop shopping for refuting claims like:

    * “ID is not religious/creationism”

    * “ID is science like archaeology”

    * “Evolution can’t explain complex adaptations in biology”

    ...etc.

    Scott, E. C., and Matzke, N. (2007). “Biological design in science classrooms.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 104(suppl. 1), 8669-8676. May 15, 2007. Published online before print May 9, 2007. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/suppl_1/8669

    — Nick Matzke    May 21, 09:02 PM    #

40. 1) Entropy … scientific law which has not been mentioned in this discussion and states, in a nutshell, “things fall apart”. 2) Darwin is dead, and has evolved into dust, hence he is respected hands down as a prophet? 3) Blaise Pascal: I would rather not be on the wrong side of his faith equation. So why shouldn’t one who understands that the 1st law of thermodynamics cannot cause order, and chooses to be on the right side of Pascal’s equation be granted tenure? Violation of the U.S. Constitution, over and over against people of faith every minute in this country, that’s why!

    — paulo    May 22, 12:41 AM    #

41. Much damage is mentioned as the result of preaching or accepting Evolution. And it is easy to see where the damage is made, and which results can be further expected. We can recognize the most serious assault on human reason, and an open imposition by political and financial power to impair thinking. Logical cause to effect is abolished, proportions loose all relevance, and unfounded optimism is presented as omnipotence. Everything good can be expected without effort or merit. Only rights and no duties rule for progress, and progress and blind optimism are one. The only needed force is sex, and singly exalted, responsibility for offspring can be better waylaid to natural selection. The laws of the jungle function optimally above human law. Bestiality can have no substitute in evolutionary thinking, if it got us here, evolutionists seem to say, why not only bestiality? Why not proclaim it king? The apocalyptic beast has been unleashed! (taken from http://darwinasinusest.blogspot.com/)

    — luisosio    May 22, 10:13 AM    #

42. “If Mr. Gonzalez was teaching in a Humanities department such as Religious Studies, this discussion would not be happening. Instead, he teaches in a science department wherein his ideas are unacceptable. Let us not forget that diversity of opinion is fine for the opinion section of a newspaper but the academy requires more than just personal conviction based on myth.

    — Dr. Bob Harris May 16, 10:22 AM #”

    So what about Darwanism is “proven” and not supposition? Your argument smacks of “opinion”.
    I would put Dr. Michael Behey’s “opinions” up against yours as an argument that Intelligent Design should be an honest basis for intellectual pursuit.
    To deny this professor’s tenure based on his pursuit of the “intelligent designer” theory is counterproductive to science and learning. We are supposed to be searching and curious. How about some intellectual honesty for a change?

    Dennis Laman

    — Dennis Laman    May 22, 11:29 AM    #

43. Is Evolution sanity or insanity? “There is always logic, and you can’t beat it. If you empty a pocket or a purse in order to put in ten dollars, you can’t bring out eleven dollars without creating a dollar out of nothing! Impossible! If it’s a savings account paying a dollar interest you are still taking out less than was put in, for what was put in to generate that extra dollar was not only ten dollars, but also the bank, the bank’s activities, the market, risk and time. A lot more than your savings plus a dollar was put in! No way for Darwinian Mechanics on that basis to be right, but rather worse as bankruptcies often add in cruel remembrances. When all’s considered even Central Banking humbled lies. “… we can always be certain of the difference between the possible and the impossible. We know only too well that it is as easy to take less from more as it is impossible to take more from less. The Theory of Evolution, however, demands the opposite. And not as a single happenstance but as a natural law, and in an unending flow of new living species always better than their ancestors, leaving us undecided as to what to admire more if the unrestricted optimism or the sheer folly, for greater optimism had never been seen, and a more monumental stupidity has never been thought! If you like to dream every night of putting ten dollars into your pockets to awaken with the gross national product as the fruits thereof, believe me you’re not beating Darwin’s optimism, or his idiocy. And no matter how you wish to put it, how you wish to embellish, adorn it or reinvent it, it boils down to just that! Taken from: http://darwinasinusest.blogspot.com/

    — luisosio    May 22, 12:22 PM    #

44. So Darwin had ideas! Did his ideas create all things? Or were ‘All Things’ he sought to structure, by some one else as structures made? The mechanism he sought to explain, who invented, created, and put to work such thing? When you get down to Darwin, his crazy clones et al; you must depart from origins, to fantasize on mechanisms lacking a previous plan. For plans come from ideas, and whose idea was that? Must you believe in an unplanned mechanism, from no previous idea, and from no previous mind? No matter how you embellish it, or how you wish to prove it, it all boils down to that! (Taken from: http://darwinasinusest.blogspot.com/)

    — luisosio    May 22, 12:46 PM    #

45. Mr. Osio, While I agree with much of what you say. I think that continuing to quote from one source, especially a blog, is not the best support for your argument. The bottom line is not whether Intelligent Design or Evolution Theory is correct. The bottom line is that in this country, which is founded on freedom, no one should be denied tenure due to personal beliefs which do not infringe on anyone else’s rights.

    — Carrie Harrison    May 22, 02:38 PM    #

46. Dear Carrie Harrison, it’s not only the bottom line to begin with. Before infringing on Dr. Gonzalez’s rights to tenure, there is: 1) Infringement of his rights to have a personal opinion on the subject. 2) His rights to express and defend it. 3) The above two points are worthless unless he happens to be right! In other words: The Scientific and Academic community do not hinge on personal beliefs or individual rights alone. Nor do they hinge on special rights to a personal faith. They MUST hinge ONLY on objective scientific truth. Therefore, it is objective truth that is on trial in the case of Guillermo Gonzalez. That’s the bottom line. And quoting a blog is a necessary shortcut to the point, as otherwise it would be an unending discussion. Look at it this way: The blog presents a thesis so that the scientific community may have fun tearing it apart. But if it can’t, if I happen to be right, not only Dr. Gonzalez will benefit, but also the whole Scientific Community.

    — luisosio    May 22, 04:04 PM    #

47. Mr Osio, if a scientist’s right to tenure hinges on him subscribing to “objective scientific truth” (whatever that means to you) AND that “he must be right”, universities have to start denying tenure to scientists who dare to bring up theories like multiverses, dinosaur-to-bird evolution, string theory, etc. Where is the objective evidence that these theories can already be regarded as TRUTH? How can we assume that these scientists “must already be RIGHT”? One cannot tell whether these scientists are right or wrong at this stage. Universities should not have one rule for one group of scientists and a different rule for another group.

    — J Angelo    May 23, 07:32 AM    #

48. Touche! As far as theories are concerned you are absolutely right, J Angelo! But please realize Iowa State is denying all credibility to YOUR arguments. By denying tenure to Dr. Gonzalez, Iowa State is stating Evolution to be Scientific Objective Truth! They deny it is mere theory! They are reinforcing this absurdity with Dr. Gonzalez’s case, and they must be countered, thus, on the basis of objective scientific reality. Therefore, it is objective truth that is on trial in the case of Guillermo Gonzalez. Secondly, Iowa State dares to compare ID ―long ago proven beyond doubt as irrefutable by Charles-Eugène Guye― to evolutionary idiocy! I have left Guye out of my blog for the moment, because it’s delightful to tackle idiotic Evolution head on on the basis of its childish underpinnings, but mainly due to its catastrophic results on our human minds.

    — luisosio    May 23, 11:05 AM    #

49. Paulo, I think people of faith in this country have PLENTY of protection in their constitutional rights under the current administration!!

    — kdw    May 25, 12:17 PM    #

50. Interest seems to be dying down on a subject too important to be left as is. Take Michel Behe and compare his thesis ―a very sensible opinion― to Guye’s achievement. Guye’s stroke of genius permitted him to prove mathematically the impossibility of the MOST ELEMENTARY ORDER ARISING BY CHANCE. A French mathematician and biophysicist, Pierre Lecomte du Noüy more than 15 years later took up his work in a national Bestseller “Human Destiny”, and evolutionist Julian Huxley in 1953 published “Evolution in Action”. The improbability for a single protein molecule materially arising by natural means went up in orders of magnitude from 160 with Guye, to 321 for a protein molecule with a degree of dissymmetry of 0.9 calculated by Lecomte du Noüy, to Huxley’s odds: “The figure 1 with three million naughts after it: and that would take three large volumes of about 500 pages each, just to print!...No one would bet on anything so improbable happening; and yet it has happened.” p. 46. In other words, this is “objective scientific truth” unchallenged (though pathologically denied by Huxley). The problem lies as is immediately evident with ignorance so staggering as to pretend human understanding taking in 500 pages per volume, times 3 volumes, filled with zeros. The largest astronomical number I’ve seen in print is 10^89 , that’s a 1 with 89 zeros corresponding to the number of atoms in the Universe. Taking the smaller Guye 160 orders of magnitude, we would see 1:1 certainty the size of the Universe diminished to a single atom with just 160^ – 89 = 71 orders of reductive magnitude remaining. The same way an increase of one order of magnitude to 10^90 would blow the whole Universe to ten times its size, leaving only 70 orders of reductive magnitude remaining means having to start reducing from a tenth of an atom on, for the remaining 70 orders of magnitude. Let’s get down to 50 remaining orders of magnitude, is there anything there left as a recognizable part of the material Universe? What meaning is there left to improbabilities beyond 100 orders of magnitude? Guye’s genius left us with an achievement on this point which, as an inheritance goes much further and is much greater than mere ID, but of course that is another matter to be explored further on. Suffice it to say for the moment that he gave us an idea of God beyond theology’s wildest dreams for science this side of Heaven.

    — luisosio    May 25, 12:48 PM    #

51. I am sorry, but I am having incredible difficulty seeing where anyone could argue that God, an inherently unquantifiable force, can be quantified as part of the scientific theory.

    — Andrew Getting    May 26, 05:27 PM    #

52. One thing stands out clearly alter 10 days and 50 registered comments: No one, within Higher Education believes in “Evolution”. Not enough to present a single serious argument against its debunking from a valid scientific standpoint; or a single disclaimer against its being the origin of the worst perils to our collective sanity. The many pleas for Dr. Gonzalez underline thus the fact of a tyrannical dictatorship handling higher education to everyone’s detriment.

    — luisosio    May 27, 12:17 PM    #

53. It is not God being quatified. It is probabilities for the structure of a single protein molecule arising by chance. you will find a fuller explanation at www.darwinasinusest.blogspot.com

    — luisosio    May 27, 05:55 PM    #

54. Mr. Getting, there are some problems with your quantified as part of a scientific theory needs: First: God is not a part of anything, least of all of a scientific theory. Secondly: What is presented as theory, and as above quantified as infinitely absurd is Evolution as God’s only contender in a debate on origins. Third: That leaves only one contender in the field without the absurdity of having to quantify the First Cause in order to try to fit HIM into a scientific theory.

    — luisosio    May 28, 09:50 AM    #

Previous: Hazing Victim Sues U. of South Carolina, Fraternity, and 8 Members
Next: State Will Waive Tuition for Family of Troops Killed, Disabled, or Missing in Action