December 2, 2007

Concern Over Scientist's Support for Intelligent Design Surfaced Before Tenure Vote

Public support for the idea of intelligent design damaged an Iowa State University astronomer’s prospects for tenure long before his peers voted against his application, The Des Moines Register reported, citing e-mail messages it obtained.

The university denied tenure to Guillermo Gonzalez, an assistant professor of physics and astronomy, last spring, after a vote in November 2006 by his departmental colleagues. Officials stressed at the time that the decision was based on his scientific activity and publication record, which had trailed off after a promising start during his postdoctoral years at other institutions. But in the e-mail messages obtained by the newspaper, professors were expressing concerns at least a year before the departmental vote about Mr. Gonzalez’s advocacy of intelligent design, which holds that some form of intelligence helped shape the universe.

The Register quoted Iowa State officials as saying last week that Mr. Gonzalez’s high-profile support for intelligent design was discussed among his colleagues, but played only a secondary role in the tenure decision. In 2005, more than 120 faculty members at Iowa State signed a statement, started outside the department of physics and astronomy, that denounced intelligent design and urged professors not to portray the idea as science. —Charles Huckabee

Comments

1. Wow! So much for the tolerance promoting libs who support the “theory” of evolution. Looks like the cry babies in the department of physics and astronomy decided it was easier to bully their opposition out than to stand up and take a few blows to the head. What wimps!

   — Scott Tatum    Dec 2, 09:40 PM    #

2. Perhaps Mr Gonzalez should consider switching to the pulpit instead of the classroom if he wishes to preach religion instead of science. Real science is difficult enough to find in this society. Sunday morning tv is flooded with preachers and there are churches on every street corner if students want religion. Universities should at least be one place a student should be able to find REAL science.

   — George Stevens    Dec 2, 10:25 PM    #

3. The study of astronomy relies either on the strict adherence to known physical laws (e.g. gravity) or the careful description of phenomena not adhering to the conventional model (e.g. dark matter). I can’t believe an astronomer who falls back on ‘God did it’ will have much to contribute to the scientific development of his or her department or to the discipline.

   — Chuck Levitan    Dec 3, 05:34 AM    #

4. It is interesting, but not surprising, to see how quickly a commentor leaps to ridicule science and evolution, equating them, of course, with liberal politics. Actually, it isn’t interesting, just more of the same old fluff. As a scientist, I care whether knowledge is acquired using the objective and empirical process of science—not what someone believes might have begun the process. It would not bother me to have a physician who believes in God or creation, as long as he understands medicine. I would rather that s/he understand something of evolutionary biology and humans in their context as primates and mammals, but s/he does not have to. I do not mind if a physicist or astronomer believes in God or intelligent design or is gay or has had an abortion (or wouldn’t) if that does not get in the way of how s/he teaches science or astronomy, and if s/he is a productive scientist and scholar and teacher. But, if any of those issues do interfere, that becomes a problem.

   — Joe Erwin    Dec 3, 07:15 AM    #

5. “ Real science is difficult enough to find in this society. “ – George Stevens

   George, I can’t agree with you more. What happened to ‘follow the evidence where it leads?’, and ‘let’s leave no stone un-turned in our quest for truth in science’, or ‘a fact is a fact… if the theory suffers, discard it’. Instead we have scientists distorting evidence, leaving out factual data, looking only where the data supports their precious theory and no-where else.

   When scientists are hand-cuffed to a theory and must make all their research fit or else, you can expect wondrous things, but unfortunately you can’t expect any science.

   — Ray Thompson    Dec 3, 07:27 AM    #

6. Zeus did it.

   — Joe    Dec 3, 07:38 AM    #

7. This is the politicization of science, and so no idea can be allowed to challenge established thinking. Funny how I read in these Chronicle pages a few days ago that some prof spouting racial bigotry in a class was found by the school’s faculty council to have had his academic freedom impinged when a student complained to the administration which took the complaint seriously. So what about this profs academic freedom to believe in creation?

   — Bill    Dec 3, 08:49 AM    #

8. No. Ray, we are not handcuffed by the theory of evolution. We are scientists. We are not likely to dabble long in untestable ideas. All of the theory of evolution is testable and has been subject to extensive testing. The core “theory” of Creationism (AKA Intelligent Design) is not testable and thus not science.

   When a member of a science department declares they are both a scientist and a believer in intelligent design (AKA Creationism) that strikes us an an intellectual conflict, not one of science and religious beliefs. I can be an evolutionary biologist and believe in God as creator of natural laws or the process of evolution. I cannot be an evolutionary biologist and believe in creationism.

   Besides, how does a physicist teach his class that the universe in only 10,000 plus years old?

   — JKW    Dec 3, 08:53 AM    #

9. In private moments I sometimes wish that those who prefer intelligent design could have their surgeon be a faith healer. Not really, I don’t wish anyone harm, but if intelligent design trumps everything, then ante up, my friends. Put yourself to the test rather than asking me to accept what is only supported by words.

   — Dave    Dec 3, 09:20 AM    #

10. I believe in a type of Intelligent Design. But I believe God had to design the laws of gravity, light travel, etc. He decides what causes DNA to mutate. He designed evolution. God works miracles…not magic. The problem is intellectuals try to out think FAITH.

    — Karlton    Dec 3, 09:40 AM    #

11. Intelligent design is not science. It is religion attempting to pass in scientific garb. Science seeks to explain nature by means of nature — not by reference to that which transcends nature. Intelligent design seeks to explain nature by means of something that transcends nature itself. That’s not science.

    — Sally    Dec 3, 09:43 AM    #

12. If they penalized him for being an advocate of Intelligent Design, what a shame!

    — M.A.R.    Dec 3, 09:48 AM    #

13. The young earth creationists and intelligent design advocates portray evolution as “mere” theory and like to refer to those who view evolution as fact as “Darwinists,” as if we were desciples of Darwin. All of us should be aware that the concept of natural selection, as set forth by Wallace and Darwin was not a complete explanation of the process of evolution. In fact, Darwin knew very little about genetics and inheritance. There was considerable debate, some quite heated, between the Mendelian geneticists and the Darwinian selectionists until Fisher’s “genetical theory of natural selection” introduced the “modern synthesis.” But even then, the structure of DNA was not known, and modern molecular genetics and genomics led to tremendous advances in the understanding of inheritance and development. Even then, the role of the parts of the genome other than the templates for making proteins was not appreciated. Now we are more aware of the role of mobile elements in modulating gene function and promoting insertions, deletions, and rearrangements. And much remains to be discovered. Perhaps some people’s faith in evolution is as uninformed as anti-evolutionists claim, but there are many scientists who continue to investigate without believing for a minute that Darwin had all the answers. Those are the people who “do real science” with an open mind.

    — Joe Erwin    Dec 3, 10:12 AM    #

14. Is there anyone out there old enough to remember “Red baiting”? Or, at least able to remember to concept of “spin”? As I read this report I was taken by what appears to be journalistic “spin.” I am willing to take at face value the allegation of that Mr. Gonzalez was denied tenure because he failed to meet the academic standards of his department.

    If that statement is correct, one can then wonder if his publication recorded tapered off as a result of his adherence to a belief in ID, thereby making publishable research difficult. If this be the case, then arguing that he was denied tenure because of his belief in ID has merit since that belief could have effected his ability to meet the academic standards of his department. However, the argument I have seen so far has failed to take into account the performance standards of Mr. Gonzalez’ department and any consideration of whether or not the faculty acted in good faith in denying him tenure. As someone who has served on tenure review committees, I am willing to accept that, in spite of concerns about Mr. Gonzalez’ beliefs, the department faculty acted on established performance standards and not capriciously.

    — Bob Harris    Dec 3, 10:20 AM    #

15. Why are we still debating this? As reported in the Onion, a peer-reviewed online journal, the widespread repression of the theory of Intelligent Falling demonstrates beyond question that Isaac Newton, with his “law” of gravity, has enshrined scientific intolerance. The Newtonians have so effectively stifled scientific inquiry that unbiased academics, simply for pointing out that gravity is only a theory, have been denied tenure!

    — BertW    Dec 3, 10:29 AM    #

16. Without wishing to intrude in what is shaping up to be a perfectly good food fight over evolution—the latest in the dozens, if not hundreds, of these to be waged in this forum over the past couple of years—I’d like to refocus attention on the fact that Prof. Gonzalez’ field is physics and astronomy, not biology. Unless I’m mistaken (and if I am, someone will no doubt contradict me), none of the research Prof. Gonzalez presented in his tenure dossier was on the subject of “intelligent design,” nor did he raise it in his physics classes. That being so, this revelation is disturbing indeed. My extracurricular beliefs may be odd, if not positively unhinged—I may be a British Israelite, or a Maoist, or the reincarnation of Queen Marie of Romania—but none of that should have the slightest bearing on my tenure application so long as they remain extracurricular. I don’t know what the faculty handbook at Iowa State says, but at my own institution, the deeply unprofessional behaviour to which members of the P & A department have now confessed to the Des Moines Register—that a colleague’s tenure application should suffer because of the “dangerous” nature of his personal views expressed in his non-academic publications—would be grounds for throwing out the original review and starting again, before the courts made us do so.

    Whatever one’s views on intelligent design (for my part, I’m a sceptic) all of us have a stake in academic freedom and uncorrupted process, concepts that seems to be unknown to ISU. If Prof. Gonzalez can be denied tenure because his non-academic writings are deemed “dangerous” to science, what are we to do when our non-academic writings, perhaps in the correspondence columns of the local newspaper, are declared “dangerous” by our employers to the arts and humanities?

    — Gustave    Dec 3, 10:35 AM    #

17. The 2005 Kitzmiller v Dover case against the school board members who advocated a discussion of intelligent design in their district’s classrooms was based on a “straw man” argument against intelligent design because it was proven that those board members and the literature that they used REALLY DID embrace biblical creationism. That was a sad day for intelligent design because it seems that forever more, through generalizing from the specific, it will always be equated as a mask for a childlike, bible-thumping, literal interpretation of Genesis, which is not always the correct way it should be seen. I say sad because there are thoughtful people, including myself, who see that science has yet to discover the actual source of the universe and, more importantly, its laws, gravity, magnetism, etc., and while it pursues that truth I am happy to look around and say that whatever or whoever started the process of creating this universe (which may have involved the creation of billions of other universes) must have had some intelligence, some ability to reason, to plan, to predict, even if the only thing that these features entail is the random nature of different systems and even the chaos that it produced. I believe that chaos and randomness are part of the genius of this creation and when I see genius I see some organizing principle behind it which is worthy of our continued exploration, scientific or otherwise. So for me to say that I recognize that an intelligent design must have preceded this universe is not to say that I believe in fairies or monsters or even God as presented in the Old Testament. It means I believe in an organizing principle that needs further explanation which is very close to what scientists would agree to if they don’t, in the most ignorant and yet prideful way, jump to the conclusion that I’m holding my bible behind my back. So in the future, now that you have been exposed to at least one person who accepts intelligent design as a likely explanation of the source of the universe but who also believes in evolution, natural selection, and recognizes the value of chaos and randomness — do not automatically presume that intelligent design is “A.K.A” biblical creationism in everyone’s mind. It is not. Paul A

    — Paul    Dec 3, 10:48 AM    #

18. Intelligent design does not mandate creationism or any particular age to the earth. There are different groups with different uses of the term intelligent design. Nor does Darwininan evolution absolutely make any statement about creation of life. There are many mergings of ideas that can be compatible. Dogmatic thoughts serve little purpose, on either side of the dicsussion.

    — B. Martin    Dec 3, 10:51 AM    #

19. This is an interesting discussion and in some respects an old tired discussion. Does anyone remember the events of Copernicus and Galileo? A thousand or so years passed before two brave souls decided to challenge the dominate discourse of the time (the religious community) “The earth was the center of the universe.” Obviously, it was clear that wasn’t the case – it was proven through scientific means that it was not and it changed the course of the planets history forever. What happened following those events, the religious community went on the defensive to exert it dominates. These men were censured and convicted of heresy. It wasn’t until 1992 when Galileo was vindicated by the religious institution that convicted him three hundred or so year’s prior. People believed this false assumption for over a thousand years, why because of the dominate discourse.

    These event speak volumes to what this outdated discussion speaks of.

    Theories are up for scientific debate through a means on non biased empirical investigation. A person can believe in or live for God and teach science, but when ones personal beliefs distort and influences what is being taught there have a problem, especially when tries to develop and implement policy based on what they believe with no empirical evidence.

    We need to decide in this country if we are going to teach science and rational/critical thinking, or teach intelligent design. This is the problem with this country, people lack critical thinking and rationalization skills and thus employers suffer from an underprepared workforce. If that is the case, and we teach intelligent design or whatever name their community decides to come up with tomorrow, we need to teach all forms of pseudo science (voodoo, mysticism, alchemy, astrology, etc) and not the assumptions from western thought, then we can see how the future turns out.

    I say stop straddling the fence and pick a side. Don’t hide one’s true intentions/motives. If you want to preach do it on Sunday in your place of worship and or outside of the educational classroom. If you want to teach science, do it at your respected place of employment. Intelligent design supporters will find it mighty strange if the pastor of their respected places of worship would teach mathematics and sciences on Sunday instead of preaching. Final note, if this country really believes in God as it so claims, then why do we have the highest levels of social ills, violence and racism toward people of color. Why do we have high levels of white collard crimes in this country? Why is the divorce rate so high? Someone is not paying attention to their Pastor and for that matter God. Instead of this ridiculous and vacuous debate, we should be concentrating our efforts of finding cures for cancer, AIDS, Alzheimer’s, and other terminal illness that affects thousands of people a year in addition to helping provide support networks for the less fortunate, the elderly, the orphan, the poor and homeless and for people who have suffered extreme forms of tragedy.

    — Aravind Sloan    Dec 3, 10:59 AM    #

20. One more thing, if a faculty member does not performance to the departmental, college, or university tenure guidelines as articulated by their policies, they cannot be award tenure. Now that is what has to be decided.

    Did he follow his department, college, and university guidelines for tenure as articulated by their policies, since coming to his respected university? If not – then no tenure, if so award him tenure.

    That is the question of debate, not so much personal views.

    — Aravind Sloan    Dec 3, 11:06 AM    #

21. The debate Intelligent Design v. Evolution/Darwinism is wrong and stupid. Very briefly:

    Darwin and men after him said that evolution went by small, independent and spontaneous changes – mutations. Now, Intelligent Designers say that these small, independent and spontaneous changes could not have lead to a meaningfully functioning organs, and that proves Intelligent Design. All – wrong.

    Evolution went by changes in the pattern of cell proliferation in the organism. In some cases, may be, it was a mutation that began to show its effect in embryo in some cells-progenitors (stem cells) leading to the change in the specific lineage of their large progeny. But, in other cases, I believe, a change in the pattern cell division affected entire embryo. Therefore, in this process the changes in PROGENY are NOT INDEPENDENT, or small, or spontaneous.

    Furthermore, the patterns of cell proliferation and the shape of the resulting structures are SEVERELY restricted by the intrinsic factor – cells do not move or proliferate independently (except in cancer), but are connected with each other in tissue. Just try to play with these structures and you will see the inevitability of DESIGN and the inevitability of all the well known shapes that we see in multicellular organisms.

    If we accept this, we don’t need to wonder about individual cells mutating independently but forming together meaningfully functioning structures.

    The design was there; it was smarter than some can imagine today.

    .

    — Michael Pyshnov    Dec 3, 11:51 AM    #

22. Fist let me say that I have a devout belief in God and Jesus Christ and believe that this universe was created with a purpose. However, I am also a scientist, and I don’t try to mix the two.

    Science is about what can be seen, observed, measured, proven, etc. Religion is about belief faith, the unseen, etc. Intelligent Design tries to cross the two areas.

    God will not be found when we develop a powerful enough telescope. He reveals himself in spiritual ways to those who seek Him. On the other hand, it is ridiculous to assert that scientists are ignoring truth to support their theories. Believe me, those who say that the theory of evolution has tenuous support are just ignorant of the facts. I am amazed at the evidence for evolution that comes from disparate disciplines such as psychology and geology. That is not to say that we fully understand how it works, but the main idea is really beyond any question for an intelligent person.

    So do I believe that God is the designer of all this? Yes. Is that a scientific belief? NO. At church I am happy to discus the answers to questions such as “Why are we here?”, “Where did we come from?” and “Where are we going?” because I believe that my religion holds the answer to those questions (you’ll notice the use of the word “believe”.) But when I am in the lab, I look at what I can SEE. You can’t prove the existence of a creator, and so Intelligent Design does not belong in science.

    If you had a scientist that said he believed in magic and alchemy and advocated its teaching in school you would be correct in identifying him as someone whose scientific fitness was questionable. Leave religion in church and science in the lab.

    — Jeff    Dec 3, 12:23 PM    #

23. I like what an old religion professor of my said, “Intelligent design, evolution, whatever. God did it.” Personally, I need no more reconciliation between faith and science than that. The problem with ID is that it is antievolution and unabashedly religious teaching; this was proven in the courts and is obvious to anyone who follows this ridiculous debate. This is contrary to the “give every opinion a chance” proponents of ID espouse. A physics professor who is content to simply say, “God did it” to everything he is uncertain about is not worthy of tenure.

    — Derek    Dec 3, 12:47 PM    #

24. I don’t have any problem with a scientist who believes in God, attends religious services, prays, or identifies with a particular religion. But when someone who supposedly has science credentials supports a pseudoscientific movement with a documented goal of inserting supernatural explanations into the process of scientific inquiry, that person is doing something that’s not only not science, but is actively hostile to science.

    Eat all the frosted doughnuts you want, but don’t try to get tenure in a nutrition department after claiming that frosted doughnuts alone constitute a balanced diet, and this is being suppressed by a conspiracy to maintain orthodoxy.

    — Starbug    Dec 3, 01:25 PM    #

25. I find this argument quite amazing. It is amazing that people actually believe that any logic actually begins on anything other than presumptions. If you believe in logic, then you believe in the presumptions upon which it is based. Intelligent design, by its very nature, is looking at the assumptions made by science. It is not examining the methodology of science. Science, by its very method, can say very little about the origin of the world, life, etc., because the statements cannot be tested. What the scientists seem to be upset about is that anyone would have the nerve to question any basic assumptions of science, such as, “This is a closed universe.” This is certainly not the way to truth.

    — Ron Rife    Dec 3, 01:50 PM    #

26. There is no room for creationism when scientifically studying the natural world, but intelligent design should not be ruled out all together. There are aspects of the quantum universe which defy pure randomness and evolution over forward- moving time. There are quantum phenomena that are better explained by the universe acting not by natural law but by intelligent agency, albeit ascribed to its anthropy. Closer to home, the earth itself is thought by many to be “intelligent”; it is known as the Gaiaic Theory. Just as Newtonian physics was relegated to a partially-true but much smaller aspect of the totality of the space-time continuum, so too we can expect that Darwinian evolution will occupy a substrata of a larger multitiered understanding of how the universe evolves. In fact, we may end up realizing that the notion that something is “created” or “evolves” are concepts ultimately as fantastic as the non-Copernican model.

    Suffering at the hand of irony is the cruelest blow.

    — marci    Dec 3, 02:04 PM    #

27. I get the “general” sense (not all) that the scientific community always has an answer- all is taught as factual when clearly there are thousands of unknowns. Where did we come from? A big bang. Next question. “We don’t know” is not a term I hear come from our universities, talking heads, etc very often- For the scores of simple minded people, call me one of them, we’re simply spoon fed answers as facts when in reality, they’re “our best guess” at this time. I love science, I love faith, I guess I’d like to see some humility from both sides- there are many “Christian’s” that don’t have a clue about some of the great scientific strides we’ve made- I’d recommend “Case for Creation” by Lee Strobel as a simple flyover exposure read that addresses both- A very interesting discussion- I’m glad we have so many intelligent (ly-designed ?) minds pressing in….

    — Mark    Dec 3, 02:22 PM    #

28. What is this, Ron? “Science…can say very little…because the statements cannot be tested.” Um, no, it’s creationism that cannot even advance a testable hypothesis. Science has tested the “theory” of evolution via rigorous empirical research replicated many times by many people over many years. Evolution is scientific fact; creationism and ID may be comforting to some, but are based on nothing more than blind faith.

    — Comm Prof    Dec 3, 02:26 PM    #

29. I cannot vouch for creationism, only because it is religion, not science. But I can’t accept that science does not itself rely on many aspects of blind faith. Such are the charges once hurled at non-Euclidean geometers, quantum and particle physicists, chaos theorists, and today’s string theorists. Blind faith is often the the most illuminated path.

    — marci    Dec 3, 02:57 PM    #

30. Mark (#27):
    Your comment is interesting to me, because my experience working in academia is very different. It seems that scientists are constantly taking heat primarily because we won’t take a firm position on anything. All of our statements are qualified by phrases like “We think that”, “the evidence suggests”, and smaller qualifiers like ‘probably’, and ‘it’s highly likely’, in front of most of our announcements. When you look at how few Americans believe in things like evolution, it becomes apparent that scientists are losing the so-called ‘culture wars’, and it has been suggested in some circles that it is because we constantly qualify all of our statements. What we see in the scientific community as appropriate caution, recognizing that new evidence could be found tomorrow and that our current theories don’t answer all of the questions, is taken by many outside of the community as uncertainty or lack of confidence in our positions. This tends to make the scientific arguments look weak when compared to some of the absolutes being shouted by the politically active religious right.

    Where the scientists are not humble, and do speak in terms of absolutes, is when we discuss the fact that ID is not a scientific theory. I don’t know whether there is a designer or not. I can’t observe the designer, I can’t test for the designer’s presence, I can’t prove or disprove the designer’s existence through any scientific means currently available. Therefore, the question of intelligent design falls outside the boundaries of science. When we insist ID should not be taught in the biology class, we are not saying ID is not an interesting question, that it should not be addressed, or that it is incorrect. But it does not fall within the realm of scientific inquiry. Evolutionary theory addresses a process. ID addresses a cause behind the process. Ask us if ID should be taught in the biology class and you get a resounding NO. Ask us if it is a valid scientific theory and you get a resounding NO. Ask us about some of the details of how evolution works, or the age of the earth, or the nature of gravity… and you’ll start seeing a lot of qualifiers and humility. As Einstein said, “God is in the details”, and we’re learning more fascinating things about the details every day.

    — Robert    Dec 3, 03:27 PM    #

31. What Einstein said was “God doen’t play dice
    (with the universe.”) He said that in defiance of Quantum Mechanics, which deals in probabilities and statstical approximations.

    “God is in the Details” is applicable to literature, where significant details can illustrate the setting, the ambiance of the narrative.Who coined that aphorism is obscured by the fog of history.

    — Abbie Lipschutz    Dec 3, 09:19 PM    #

32. Whoa! There is some confusion here regarding how science approaches reality. First we have observations (and measurements). Then we have hypotheses. Then we do more observations, often structured within controlled situations, with independent variables manipulated and dependent variables measured (but not always experiments, sometimes just detailed measures of multiple variables). So, we get results (data). We then spend some time and effort wondering about and discussing what those results mean. The discussion can get pretty creative (or not). Eventually, some new hypotheses are set forth (sometimes as “conclusions”). Eventually the refined hypotheses build into what can be called theory. Even scientific “laws” remain a little tentative, in that they are always subject to revision on the basis of new evidence. In science we are always in the position of not quite nailing down ultimate truth. We know that we cannot just make up the answers and have confidence that these made up answers accurately reflect reality. That is where probability comes into play. That is where mathematical models come from—they are abstractions. They do not even PRETEND to be real or to be ultimate truth. And the use of “random” is like the use of a “constant.” Both are abstractions that are used as a convenience to help us think about things. Mutations are not really random. Effects have causes. But when things are too complicated to describe, and the consequences are difficult to predict, sometimes it is useful to proceed as if they are random or constant. Without claiming that there is intelligent design imposed from some creative force, it is quite clear that some structures or molecules are more likely than others to give rise to other structures or molecules. Some genetic patterns are more vulnerable to replication errors than others. Some mobile elements are more likely to cleave DNA at some sites than at others. These are not just wildly random changes. They are somewhat orderly and somewhat predictable. But to say that any systematically organized entity suggests a “designer” is absurd and unnecessary. It may well suggest that it was preceded by something nonrandom, something that promoted systematic organization, and one can in some sense think of those as “creative” forces, although that is a stretch. We must not confuse theory generated by the scientific process with assertions that they represent ultimate truth. Science is dynamic. Understanding is emergent.

    — Joe Erwin    Dec 3, 10:46 PM    #

33. I would have to agree with the ousting of Gonzalez from his tenure. Believing in intelligent design is a dangerous thing because once you accept that God had a part to play in creation of the universe or other things you would then have to accpet that all Gods had a part to play in the creation. No God could be excluded from the answer just because it isn’t the major religion of a country or not an accepted religion. Allowing intelligent design in science just complicates things more than it helps.

    — Justin Wanks    Dec 4, 12:38 AM    #

34. Someone said:

    “The core “theory” of Creationism (AKA Intelligent Design) is not testable and thus not science.”

    Funny, macroevolution totally fails as scientific then as it has never been seen and is not testable.

    People throughout history have believed in intelligent design. Why? For the simple fact that it is observable all around us and always has been. Logic and common sense will always lead you to believe that design is evident in all life. There are millions of examples of design.

    To deny this you have to completely ignore this. That is what people such as yourself do. To say that science has found the answer to life’s origin is crazy. Even a cursory look at the so called evidence for evolution shows that science has no answer at all. Just theory. So why is it called fact and ID a fairy tale when logic, scientific evidence, and observable evidence say otherwise? I’ll tell you why, because many in the scientific community rule out ID in advance no matter what the evidence shows. This is not science. Science should be a search for truth no matter where it leads but this is not the case.

    Why is evolution called science and ID cannot be considered scientific?

    Darwinian evolution has never been shown to be true. Microevolution (change or adaptation within a species) was known before Darwin and is not disputed. This does not mean that Macroevolution (life forms changing into a new species) has ever occurred. In fact, there is no evidence to show that macroevolution has ever happened in the past or in the present. To say that Macroevolution is a proven fact is a total lie and misrepresentation of the facts. There is NO EVIDENCE for it in the fossil record, molecular biology, and many of the sciences. In fact. if you would look at the evidence openly without your bias, the complete opposite is actually true. The fossil record for example rather than supporting evolution actually cries loudly against it and for ID.

    If anyone would look critically at evolution and honestly at Intelligent Design, they will come away realizing that the weight of evidence is not on the side of evolution but on the side of design.

    To embrace Darwinism and its underlying premise of naturalism, you would have to believe that:

    • Nothing produces everything
    • Non-life produces life
    • Randomness produces fine-tuning
    • Chaos produces information
    • Unconsciousness produces consciousness
    • Non-reason produces reason

    I don’t have enough faith to believe this fairy tale.

    — Scott Lindsay    Dec 4, 06:46 AM    #

35. It was sad day for academic freedom in America when Professor Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure by Iowa State University. His extraordinary work, “The Privileged Planet,” is a serious and credible academic effort that has been praised, even by a number of noted Darwinists. Professor Gonzalez has been a prolific researcher and writer. He has 68 refereed publications, 350% of the ISU requirement for tenure.

    Intelligent Design and its growing challenge to Darwinism merit a major presence at ISU. The intellectual clash between Darwinism and Intelligent Design relating to the origin of life is one of the most important questions today in science. Professor Gonzalez’ work has contributed in a distinctive and important way to that debate. ISU had the opportunity to lead America—and the world—with the powerful symbol of granting tenure to Professor Gonzalez, but sadly that opportunity was lost.

    Does the 19th-century claim of Charles Darwin—essentially that time and chance alone explain the origin of all life on Earth, and its astonishing diversity, information content and complexity—still make sense in light of the knowledge of 21st century science? It does not. Darwinism is very much under siege today. The scientific validity of the field of Intelligent Design, and the work of its brilliant and growing intellectual community—obviously including Professor Gonzalez—can no longer be ignored.

    Consider the accomplishment of the decoding of the human X chromosome. Modern science has now determined to a 99.99 percent certainty its information content. It contains 155,000,000 letters of information—in just one X chromosome, out of 23 pairs, in each cell, of the billions of cells, in one human being. Thus the information content in this one X chromosome exceeds that of a book with 138,000 pages. Yet Darwinists would argue that time and chance alone created this astonishingly large and complex amount of information. Is that really plausible, without intelligent causation? Remember that Darwin thought that cells were composed of “mush.”

    Intelligent Design is not creationism. ID simply claims that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable. ID relies on no religious text whatsoever. It uses scientific principles to distinguish between events that occur by design, from those that occur by chance. Such principles are in use in science all the time now, for example in forensic investigations, and in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.

    Science is the search for truth. Science must follow the evidence, wherever it goes. Scientific paradigms routinely collapse in light of new information. Darwinism—which is 19th-century alchemy—is the next major scientific theory bound for extinction. The Intelligent Design movement brings progress to science. And Professor Gonzalez has shown the courage to follow that path. He should have been rewarded with tenure, which he brilliantly earned in full. ISU’s decision in this case is a record of infamy.

    — Brad Dobeck    Dec 4, 09:27 AM    #

36. Aravind wrote:
    This is an interesting discussion and in some respects an old tired discussion. Does anyone remember the events of Copernicus and Galileo?

    We have a Gallileo quotient of 19, ladies and gentlemen! Cue the SLOT argument!

    — Chuck C    Dec 4, 09:56 AM    #

37. Someone said—
    “Instead of this ridiculous and vacuous debate, we should be concentrating our efforts of finding cures for cancer, AIDS...”
    Unfortunately curing those diseases requires an understanding of evolution. I am researching both HIV infection and numerous cancers— my research is impossible using ‘an ID paradigm.’ Proof of this is my recent exchange with Michael Behe, who makes idiotic proclamations about HIV evolution in his latest book.

    shrug If you want to cure these diseases, you had better care about the activities of Creationists.

    — Abbie Smith    Dec 4, 09:59 AM    #

38. If I understand their arguments, several of the commenters here make it clear that holding fringe ideas is actually the best way to ensure one will earn tenure. If those ideas are brought up in the tenure discussion, even tangentially, then the person can make the case that tenure was denied because of those (extra-curricular) beliefs. That way, the tenure decision can automatically be turned into a public referendum on a philosophical debate. The wackier the better, because if the beliefs are only a little bit fringe, they might not actually come up for discussion!

    — L. Hoyt    Dec 4, 10:31 AM    #

39. If a professor of astronomy (not astrology now) began to teach that green goblins were holding the stars in place should his peers and colleagues disqualify him from teaching? It is ok for him to believe in a green goblin “theory”, (which is the same kind of “theory” as ID “theory”), but because it hasn’t been confirmed and can’t be confirmed by scientific methods, he should not be allowed to teach it as science. He has violated his contract.

    — Bill Rohan    Dec 4, 12:08 PM    #

40. Okay, all you ID fans, let me repeat that many of us (maybe most of us) who appreciate that evolution is a fact that requires explanation at many levels, do not consider ourselves to be “Darwinists.” You act as if we think Darwin discovered and revealed a great truth that explains everything. Charles Darwin was a scholar and a traveler. Alfred Russel Wallace, was a naturalist, collector, and traveller. Both of them were aware that people were practicing selective breeding with plants and animals. Wallace had the insight that selection could also occur naturally. He contacted Darwin and informed him of this insight. Darwin claimed that he had arrived at the same conclusion. They presented a paper on the topic jointly. Darwin wrote massive books that were widely read. Wallace also wrote, and beautifully, I should add. His book The Malay Archepelago is just terrific. So I, and many of my colleagues give credit to Wallace as much as Darwin for coming up with the concept of natural selection. They had other ideas too—some of them have been falsified and are no longer accepted by anyone who is aware of the evidence. There are no credible claims that Darwin was infalible. We do not worship Darwin. And we don’t believe anything he said that has not been demonstrated. We do not, for example, believe much of what Scott (above) attributes to us. Why does it take any faith at all to recognize that physical particles interact with each other in various ways, some more organized than others? Why is it so difficult to recognize that chemical and physical reactions occur, and that complexity can be spontaneously emergent without the deliberate assistance of a planner?

    I’m not convinced that we should be branding ideas as “dangerous,” though. I think there is some merit in challenging the status quo. I think it is healthy for scientists to examine what they do and why they believe what they believe. It is also pretty important for people who accept too blindly the explanations scientists give to also engage in some critical thinking. We must learn, I think, to consider the merits of ideas and evidence without necessarily accepting or rejecting them. We probably all need to be a little more tolerant of ambiguity. But, from the ID side of things, how can one expect critical thinkers to just accept ID as self evident? And how can a public institution promote the promulgation of such a claim? Of course, the right place for people who wish to argue for ID, is in institutions that are committed to teaching that faith is a legitimate epistemological source. If Iowa State is committed to objectivity, science, and critical thinking, why should they allow themselves to be used as a forum for what could be aptly called “ truth by assertion?”

    — Joe Erwin    Dec 4, 01:46 PM    #

41. Brad Dobeck said “Intelligent Design is not creationism.”

    You’re a liar Dobeck. Everyone knows the designer is god. Everyone knows ID is just another version of god-did-it creationism. Everyone knows only an idiot could believe in it. You can believe any stupidity you want, but your lying about ID is disgusting. It’s bad enough you are dumber than a dog, do you have to be a liar too?

    The morons here who think ID is anything more than childish stupidity should read this quote from Charles Darwin: “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”

    — BobC    Dec 4, 08:15 PM    #

42. Hmmmm. Just one more point, in passing. People probably are not reading this thread anymore, but if they are, this might ruffle a few feathers. Why is should this guy (or anyone else) be rewarded with tenure? Why cannot peoples’ work stand or fall on its own merit? During my 20 year scientific career outside academia, I did not have tenure or job security. I survived and produced without even having a contract during all that time. As soon as I returned to academia, the problems began. I did not require tenure and I did not require appointment as a full professor, but I became a political football over such issues. Then I was given a contract and pressed to sign it. I finally did, but without paying sufficient attention. The medical school that employed me (with NIH grant funds) eventually refused to honor the contract (due to their political disagreements with the PI—not anything having to do with my performance). It seems that they had urged me to sign the contract, but had not signed it themselves! Amazing! I was so naive. So, anyway, cool that so many of you folks out there in academia have tenure and academic freedom. Maybe this is just “sour grapes,” but I’m not so sure selective pressure should be relaxed. How many ID advocates are there out there in public universities who already HAVE tenure? What if someone gets tenure and then changes his/her mind? Are you only allowed to have “dangerous ideas” after you are tenured? Do you only get tenured if the “deciders” are pretty confident you will never again have an unconventional thought?

    — Joe Erwin    Dec 5, 08:18 AM    #

43. Nice quotation, BobC. See folks, even though I do not WORSHIP Darwin, or uncritically accept every word he wrote, I do recognize and celebrate his wisdom and courage. But, BobC, please don’t insult dogs like that! But seriously, BobC, people who are smart (but ignorant) can accept ID. Not everyone with a brain makes optimal use of it, and just because evidence exists doesn’t mean people will examine it openmindedly. People who are inexperienced in the art of science have difficulty appreciating what science can address and what it can’t.

    — Joe Erwin    Dec 5, 08:30 AM    #

44. Bill Rohan— You have no idea how applicable your analogy is. At William Dembski’s appearance at OU this September, he likened the ‘probability’ of ID Creationism being true with the ‘probability’ that a noise in your attic was caused by ‘gremlins bowling.’

    Not kidding.

    Google it :)

    — Abbie Smith    Dec 5, 10:24 AM    #

45. Real science is atheist science (even if it’s say-so science!) Nothing shall defy the new state religion of Amerika!
    Seig heil, thought Nazis!

    — Quentin L F Patch    Dec 6, 04:32 PM    #

Previous: Clint Westwood, Not Exactly Making Santa's Day
Next: Accident on Icy Indiana Road Kills Purdue Hockey Player, Injures 7