A Striking Contrast
by MikeGeneIn the minds of many, Hector Avalos and his colleagues have certainly created the impression that they are out to harass Guillermo Gonzalez. Contrast this to the wise words of Michael Behe's boss.
Behe teaches a freshman seminar at Lehigh that includes evolution and intelligent design discussion. The reaction?
Still, even at his own university, Behe is a lone voice.
"I don't know of any colleagues who are in agreement with his ideas," said Behe's boss, Neal Simon, professor and chairman of Lehigh's 22-member biological science department.
"They are his own views. They do not reflect the views of the department nor the views of the university," Simon said carefully.
Lehigh wants free exchange
But Simon is also quick to add that he has no plans to quash intelligent design discussion or the class Behe teaches, which includes "Darwin's Black Box" as required reading.
Professors "have to believe in the free exchange of ideas," Simon said. Academicians who don't, he said, have "lost sight of what a university is supposed to be."
Those are good words for the 120 Strong to consider. In my opinion, the critics of ID hold the moral high ground when it comes to teaching ID in the public school systems. In such cases, we're talking about children attending mandatory classes being taught something as Science that is not recognized as Science by the majority of the scientific community.
But if the critics want to move their agenda into the halls of academia, they will forfeit that high ground as they lose sight of what a university is supposed to be. There are a lot of professors out there teaching all sorts of controversial classes about controversial topics. This is what puts the meat on the bones of academic freedom. If someone harbors the notion of cleansing academia of people like Guillermo Gonzalez for fear that he will taint their reputation, the natural question for many professors to ask will be, "Who's next?"
August 30th, 2005 at 3:30 am
Diference is, that Dr. Avalos position is one of atheist and anti Christian, while Dr. Simon is of scientist with intellectual integrity.
Comment by inunison — August 30, 2005 @ 3:30 am
August 30th, 2005 at 9:33 am
"In the minds of many, Hector Avalos and his colleagues have certainly created the impression that they are out to harass Guillermo Gonzalez."
IDists are certainly working hard to create that impression. IDists appear to be incredibly thin skinned; while other scientists can expect criticism, sometimes quite vicious, of their work by other scientists, IDists are intimidated by any suggestion by their colleagues that they think there may be some flaws in ID arguments. IDists apparently are only comfortable when their colleagues keep their opinions of IDism to themselves; so much for academic freedom!
Comment by Aagcobb — August 30, 2005 @ 9:33 am
August 30th, 2005 at 12:10 pm
Aagcobb,
You are simply wrong. Mike Gene is praising the sort of dissent at Lehigh while castigating the dissent at ISU. The Lehigh scientists think there are flaws in Behe's views.
IDists are not intimidated by the suggestion that there colleagues think there may be flaws in their views. This is standard in Academia. What department doesn't see this kind of stuff? Disagreement is the lifeblood of the Academy.
What bothers us is not disagreement, but bullying and intimidation. That's what is going on at ISU. Why is Gonzalez being picked out? The funny thing is that he doesn't even teach on this stuff.
So, whereas Behe teaches on his stuff, and his colleagues respectfully disagree, Gonzalez has merely published a book, and gets castigated by his entire Academic community (though it doesn't seem that there were many of his direct, astronomy colleagues on the list).
Comment by bipod — August 30, 2005 @ 12:10 pm
August 30th, 2005 at 12:17 pm
Dissent is just fine, as Bipod says just look at how this is handles at Lehigh. On the other hand, Aagcobb seems to conveniently 'forget' about the package in which the dissent was delivered at ISU. Scientific discourse does not regularly take that form.
Comment by Jean — August 30, 2005 @ 12:17 pm
August 30th, 2005 at 5:21 pm
It is one thing to be thin-skinned about one's research. But it should be noted GG's data isn't what is being attacked.
Ya see IDists understand that science is tentative. But a priori rejection of an inference while disregarding the data/ evidence shouldn't be tolerated by anyone. Yet that is the position of anti-IDists- a priori rejection of ID without consideration of the evidence and without a viable scientific alternative.
It is that attitude that riles IDists and in reality should rile anyone interested in science.
ID is scientific
Comment by Joe G — August 30, 2005 @ 5:21 pm
August 30th, 2005 at 5:44 pm
I'm sorry but that's so ridiculous it's not even funny. Whose views are being suppressed here? Avalos and his group want to take Gonzalez 120 on 1 in a forum where they intend on ripping apart his views and threatening his career at ISU if he doesn't fall in line.
Darwinists are the ones being thin-skinned here, they're so worried about maintaining their total dominance in the academic world that they'll remove all those who express dissent. It's happened before and you would be lying if you told me this wouldn't happen again.
IDists are incredibly thick-skinned, they've taken countless attacks over the years from other scientists, atheists who aren't even scientists but love to be heard whenever "religion" is involved, the media, and even uninformed members of the general public. Darwinists meanwhile have been living in a safe haven, coming out once in a while to write or talk about whatever misrepresentation of ID they feel like talking about that day.
Comment by jasonng — August 30, 2005 @ 5:44 pm
August 30th, 2005 at 7:14 pm
"this debate is not about the science" – inunison
Mike Gene is apparently not a ne-creo. Apparently. But meat on the bones, in the name of i+d, can it be true friends? High scholarship being found in controversies taught by partisan professors; what nightly news show has this been on?
Here again, a line has been crossed from 'science' (or armchair scientific philosophy) of i+d to American social-political commentary. Behe may be just seen as harmless by those scientists, theists, non-theists or agnostics, who accept the legitimacy (or legitimacies) of evolution in natural science. Why not let him present his poof in classrooms if it will help students to (learn to) think? I'd let my children discern for themselves his spout (or source) from his sink (if only his E-V colleagues wouldn't push like Bush for theistic science!).
Academic freedom?/! Wow – now, aren't we the champions! Don't people get (higher education) degrees for studying the Simpsons (cartoon), Jessica Simpson or even Eminem in America? This is what freedom is meant for?
Academic freedom and winning the peace (e.g. against the struggle metaphor); are these appropriate logos for the IDM? Missile targeting and defense/offense systems can appear intelligent to some if not to others. Apparently these are such striking contrasts as the IDM would like to make, if following the inferences to their logical or rational conclusions.
Comment by g arago — August 30, 2005 @ 7:14 pm
August 30th, 2005 at 9:28 pm
[...] bsurditism'. My way to do it is through this messages, yeah! More on this story: http://telicthoughts.com/?p=244 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=245 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=248 Atheistic a [...]
Pingback by Teleological » Don’t Let Evil Avalos’ Bashings Against Gonzalez — August 30, 2005 @ 9:28 pm
August 31st, 2005 at 10:35 am
I see that everyone is following the party line that the petition at ISU is a threat to have Gonzalez fired. I'm sorry, but Gonzalez's name wasn't even mentioned in the petition, and it didn't call for anyone being fired.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 31, 2005 @ 10:35 am
September 1st, 2005 at 2:38 am
Ever wonder why neither the Discovery Institute, Dembski's Blog or Telic Thoughts has posted Avalos' petition? Let's take a look at it and see if we can guess:
Not quite like the DI spin, is it. Why is Gonzalez being picked out? Because he's the local ID spin-meister and his ID work is not scientific and they say why it's not. He's not being bullied, having his telescope confiscated or any of the other DI claims. Avalos and 119 other faculty members are reminding people of what science is and saying that Intelligent Design is not science. But I guess that's harassment in the ID playbook.
Comment by DataDoc — September 1, 2005 @ 2:38 am
September 1st, 2005 at 7:09 am
DataDoc:
That's a weird thing to ask. We've linked to it several times now and I even replied to it. Then again, you may be on to something. Perhaps tonight I will collect the Decrees and post them as a blog. These are, after all, the "˜peer reviewers' we often hear about. The more decrees we can get, the better the picture of the peer reviewers we'll have.
Comment by MikeGene — September 1, 2005 @ 7:09 am
September 1st, 2005 at 8:26 am
To DataDoc:
The following essay describes what science is and demonstrates that ID is scientific. It also shows that the petitioners are very wrong in their stance.
Why ID is scientific
I will put my essay up against anything anti-IDists have to offer.
Viva ID's bulldog!
Comment by Joe G — September 1, 2005 @ 8:26 am