Jo Anne, over at Cosmic Variance, writes:

Prof Gonzalez, by all reports, is the author of nearly 70 peer-reviewed scientific papers, co-author of a major college-level astronomy textbook, his work led to the discovery of two new planets, and he has had his research featured in Science, Nature, and on the cover of Scientific American. Recently, he discovered what is known as the Galactic Habitable Zone, which essentially proposes that life forms when there is the right balance of unique conditions. A hypothesis not too different from our own discussions of the anthropic principle here in theoretical high energy physics.

The scientist then explains why Gonzalez should have been denied tenure.

Then there is some unusually insightful commentary at As the Worm Turns:

But what I really think is lost in the overall debate "” not just about tenure, about Intelligent Design, about Guillermo Gonzalez "” is the relationship of science and scientists to society at large. Science isn't just the value-neutral investigation of the natural world, an investigation worth pursuing purely for its own sake. Science plays an ineliminable role in our vision of ourselves as a modern, liberal, clear-thinking society. I want to stress that last part: clear thinking. Scientists "” much like basketball players, movie stars, hotel heiresses "” need to view themselves as role models for society; it is from scientists that we learn to think and reason clearly about issues"¦.. I know it seems like a stretch from an obscure astronomer and tenure to claims about the constructed character of scientific knowledge. I am a philosopher, after all. But I also play the role of citizen-observer in all this. The usual suspects are all involved directly in the issue; after all, the majority of those I've found who justify the outcome of the Gonzalez tenure case are themselves scientists. I, like many others, am a consumer of science, of scientific facts and scientific reasoning. Scientists are supposed to be our exemplars of clear, non-biased thought, reason and judgement. (This is a role for which we philosophers are really not suited "” because, in truth, we are all a bit crazy. That's why we're philosophers.) When scientists act in a biased, unclear manner it only ends up helping those who stand against the objectivity of science.

Finally, Rekha Basu is back.

While she writes, "Gonzalez's department chair acknowledges he didn't teach Intelligent Design in the classroom and had "real scientific publications." So it's conceivable he was penalized for his personal beliefs," she ends her column with this:

But Intelligent Design proponents are wrong to equate the exclusion of their theory from the classroom with academic bias. Professors are entitled to their own beliefs, but not to teach as science something that is not.

Since Gonzalez didn't teach ID in the classroom, why did Basu end her column like this?

The Great Bioethicist, Peter Singer, is going to use Reason to show us the way this week:

Singer does not believe that the difference between humans and animals is fundamental, nor is human life solely sacrosanct. On his fourth lecture scheduled on May 21 at the Press Center, he plans to go through the argument for human embryo research as well as euthanasia of newborn babies with severe disabilities.

Oh, pay no attention to the fact that this fountain of ethics cannot practice what he preaches:

Even Singer cannot live up to all of his own standards. When his mother could no longer speak or think due to advanced Alzheimer's disease — rendering her a "nonperson" by his own criterion — he spent large sums to keep her alive. While he says he gives 20 percent of his income to charity, he admits he lives on far more money than the standards set in his books.

I think we finally know why the ID-friendly astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure at Iowa State University. As an ID critic going by the moniker "Thought Provoker" writes in the comments:

It was either a mistake or a tactical maneuver on Gonzalez's part to list Privileged Planet as part of his tenure request. It sent a clear message that he intended to be controversial. It is the equivalent of a military applicant wearing a "proud to be gay" tee-shirt to the recruiting post.

Greetings Telic Thoughts people. Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Ms. A. Nellie Tentive. I am Chairperson of Concerned Citizens for Great Science. Our organization has learned some interesting information about Mr. "Gene." After some careful negotiations, Mr. "Gene" has graciously agreed to allow me to speak to you people on this blog.

Read the rest of this entry »

According to the hypothesis of front-loaded evolution, evolution itself has been shaped and influenced by the design of the original cells. Yet from the flip-side, this would mean that a very intelligent designer anticipated the inevitability of evolution and may have designed in such a way that the process of evolution itself is a biological function more so than a process that just happens as a consequence of imperfect replication among finite resources. It is thus my contention that our understanding of evolution is significantly incomplete, as it fails to truly appreciate the subtle design that permeates it. But I can make one general prediction here. Concerning the cell and its contents, Bruce Alberts once noted, "But, as it turns out, we can walk and we can talk because the chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had ever considered." I predict that in another few decades, another leading scientist will comment on our understanding of evolution as follows: "But, as it turns out, we exist because evolution has been much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had ever considered."

Researchers at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale are using a $200,000 federal grant to build toilets for wild rabbits.

More

Nick Matzke, who is Public Information Project Director at the NCSE, complains about some problems he may soon face as a teacher:

I do have a rather direct interest in the case myself, since I will be a Ph.D. student at U.C. Berkeley this fall, and will be a teaching assistant in the evolution course. Will the undergraduates that the U.C. admits be prepared, or will they require tedious remedial education to re-do all the biology they were taught incorrectly the first time around?

The crack research team at TT has obtained a copy of Nick's first quiz for his class. We've attached it below the fold:

Read the rest of this entry »

When astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure at Iowa State University, ID critic Ed Brayton was out in full force against those who dared suggest that the decision was influenced by Gonzalez' support of intelligent design, accusing them of suffering from a "persecution complex" (see my initial response to Brayton herew). Turns out Gonzalez' support for intelligent design did play a role in the denial of tenure. From World Magazine (HT: EN&V):

Curtis Struck, a colleague of Gonzalez in the Physics and Astronomy Department and professor at ISU for 24 years, told WORLD he was not surprised by the decision to deny tenure. "Some of Guillermo's papers any astronomer would be proud to have written. Some others that is not the case," Struck said. "He includes some things in his astronomy resumé that other people regard as taking a coincidence too far."

Specifically, Gonzalez listed The Privileged Planet on his resumé when applying for tenure. Rosenberg admitted that the presence of that text played into the decision-making process. He also explained that the reputation of a professor among others in his field is a significant factor.

The fact that Gonzalez by all accounts was an excelent astronomer was discounted because he had written a book supporting intelligent design. As for his reputation among others, I suspect that suffered quite a blow when a colleague of his publically accused him of working to overthrow democracy and institute a theocracy in the US.

Arabidopsis thaliana is a plant that underwent a duplication of its entire genome about 20-40 million years ago. Researchers from the University of Texas recently tested the rate of expression divergence between these duplicated genes.

More