Gonzalez: The controversy over ID at ISU
by KrauzeI haven't been posting as much as I'd like to recently, as real-life commitments are craving for my attention. In situations like this, I have to rely on my ability to get others to write my posts for me, in blog-speak known as "guest posts". So it's without further ado that I present… a post by Guillermo Gonzalez about his experiences at the Iowa State University:
The controversy over ID at ISU
by Guillermo Gonzalez
Krauze asked me to give a brief summary of the recent controversy over ID at ISU for readers of this blog. As I am writing this, things have settled down a bit on campus, though there is still considerable buzz about ID among students and faculty.
Although I've been associated with the Discovery Institute for about 5 years, relatively few people knew about my interest in ID until Regnery published The Privileged Planet in March 2004. Illustra Media followed a few months later with the release of their documentary based on the book. Near the start of the fall 2004 semester at ISU, two local atheist professors, Hector Avalos and John Patterson, began publicly criticizing me and my book. From then on, every time I was interviewed by local media on ID, the reporters went to Avalos and Patterson for the opposing view. The content of their criticisms consists of the usual false charges and personal attacks one finds all over the Internet: "ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo", "Gonzalez has a hidden religious agenda", etc.
Given this, I decided the best course of action was just to ignore the local atheists. Unfortunately, the controversy over the showing of the Privileged Planet documentary at the Smithsonian in June 2005 served as a rallying point for atheists across the country (organized by magician James Randi). Patterson, apparently not wanting to be left out, published a letter in the Ames Tribune, wherein he likened me and the ID movement to the Taliban. I responded, but not in kind. That brought out another atheist ISU professor, Virginia Allan, who repeated Patterson's libelous charge and went on to call me an astrologer. Needless to say, none of these criticisms had anything to do with the content of my book.
Seeing that his atheist friends weren't making any progress in turning the public against me, in early August Avalos turned to a political approach. He began circulating a petition denouncing ID as non-science. I first heard about it on August 3, when an ISU professor who had received an email copy of the petition forwarded it to me. It was a clever approach. Nowhere in the petition statement does he mention me by name, but since I am by far the most prominent ID proponent on campus, it is obvious who it is directed against.
By late August, Avalos had collected over 120 signatures from ISU faculty. He published part of the list in the ISU Daily and submitted the full petition to the administration. This greatly interested the local media; I was being interviewed daily by television, radio and newspaper reporters "“ and so was Avalos.
This has been stressful for me. After a year of lying about me and ID in the local media, Avalos has successfully turned many professors on campus against me. And, I'm sure it has not escaped his notice that I'm not tenured.
I have neither taught nor advocated that ID be taught at ISU. My only "thought crime" was to publish a book presenting evidence of design in the physical sciences.
Things may look pretty bad for me right now, but there have also been some positive developments. In early September, the university president issued a statement reiterating the university's strong stance on academic freedom. He also decided that ID would be handled by individual departments as they saw fit, rather than university-wide. I considered this a victory, as my academic freedom had been my greatest concern.
One professor who signed the petition told me in an email that he was having second thoughts about it. He didn't realize this was going to create such a hostile climate for one of the faculty on campus. An administration official told me that she had received a similar email from another faculty member who had signed the petition.
I have received many emails, phone calls and letters of support from other faculty and from people all over Iowa and across the nation. These have been a great encouragement to me.
I don't know how things will develop over the coming months. I'm sure Avalos, with his newfound political power in the form of the petition signers, will not sit on his hands. I do know that if he didn't think much of my design argument, he wouldn't be resorting to such extreme tactics.
September 27th, 2005 at 10:13 am
Having just read "The Privileged Planet" I might say it's a fairly mild argument to design and not very threatening to any hard nosed athiests. Avalos and Co look to be very frightened and seem not to be at all driven by "rational thought" or "Free thinking". I could understand if the arguments presented were poor and without empirical basis but they're clearly not.
I also find it interesting that a so called professor would consider the belief that design is a real part of the cosmos being on par with belief in astrology. What shallow thinking do we see here? Someone needs to get philosophical on her "ass"!
I personally suspect Avalos and Co smell the beginnings of a power struggle that is attacking the comfortable naturalism that seems to dominate academia and which they exist in. I feel many atheist's (like Avalos) find solace in "academia" where common thought seems to be that science has revelaed a world without design and that if you believe in design it's for "soft" "emotive" "personal" reaons as oppsoed to "hard" "scientific" or "factual" reasons.
Comment by Plump-DJ — September 27, 2005 @ 10:13 am
September 27th, 2005 at 11:00 am
This sort of thing had to be expected. It always seems to happen. Once it is seen that the data is solid they have to go after the person(s) who brought forth the data.
Personally I would love to see someone (attempt to) explain the data gathered by GG et al., via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes.
Wouldn't that be a scientific dead-end? I mean what else can you say once you determined we are the result of cosmic collisions and atomic-level accidents? How does one reconstruct random events? Can science tell me about my "quick-pick" lottery numbers? Except to say they were generated by a random-number-generator with a non-repeating number filter?
Academic freedom only exists if you follow the "mainstream".
"You are free to infer anything you want as long as it agrees with our inference."
Comment by Joe G — September 27, 2005 @ 11:00 am
September 27th, 2005 at 12:07 pm
[...] ed Planet" Filed under: Intelligent Design — fdocc @ 9:07 am Today Guillermo Gonzalez wrote: "Things may look pretty bad for me right now, but there have also been some pos [...]
Pingback by Teleological Blog » The Good Report of Guillermo Gonzalez, author of “The Privileged Planet” — September 27, 2005 @ 12:07 pm
September 27th, 2005 at 1:15 pm
It's nice to see Dr. Gonzalez responding on this site to the criticism he has been receiving.
I've read the book and watched the DVD and I couldn't find anything so inflamatory that would lead Dr. Avalos to go on this crusade. He's obviously entitled to his opinion, but his manner in presenting it is awkward. I've read so much about Dr. Gonzalez's supposed latent agenda it's nauseating. As uninterested as I am in one's personal agenda (whether it is or isn't one that is guided primarily by the evidence they are observing honestly—because how are you going to determine if it's the former or the latter), I'd have to say that I find Dr. Avalos's response(behavior) a bit more peculiar than Dr. Gonzalez.
Comment by Doug — September 27, 2005 @ 1:15 pm
September 27th, 2005 at 3:11 pm
[...] . Et par ateistiske kolleger lancerede en kampagne imod ham for nogle måneder siden. Læs her om hans beretning om, hvad der sker, og her er et nyligt eksempel på den smæde, han bliver udsat f [...]
Pingback by Intelligent Design :: Guillermo Gonzales :: September :: 2005 — September 27, 2005 @ 3:11 pm
September 27th, 2005 at 5:41 pm
I have one disagreement with Gonzalez. He refers to Avalos as an "atheist." This simply means someone who goes about their life "without God." Avalos is clearly obsessed with religion and God, thus religion and God are constantly on his mind. In fact, he nurses this crackpot "theory" that religion is the cause of all violence and thus must be eliminated. Given Avalos' obsession with opposing religion in multiple arenas, it would be more accurate to label him an anti-theist.
Comment by MikeGene — September 27, 2005 @ 5:41 pm
September 27th, 2005 at 5:42 pm
Those who want to get ahead of the game should pay close attention to Avalos and his opposition to Gonzalez. Many people have noted above that Gonzalez's hypothesis is fairly mild. Indeed, only a wingnut would label it as "anti-evolution." Furthermore, as Gonzalez notes, he has "neither taught nor advocated that ID be taught at ISU." Thus, what you can see is that this dispute is NOT about evolution and it is NOT about teaching ID. The critics would like to hypnotize you into thinking those are the Issues, but Avalos helps to break that spell. So what IS it that drives Avalos in his frenzied attacks against Gonzalez?
Comment by MikeGene — September 27, 2005 @ 5:42 pm
September 28th, 2005 at 12:05 pm
I wonder if Avalos et al have considered how this makes the whole scientific/academic community look. One can only hope that some responsible scientists, particularly those who may disagree with Gonzalez, speak out in his defense.
Comment by daveb — September 28, 2005 @ 12:05 pm