Intelligent design was a factor in denial of tenure to astronomer
by KrauzeWhen 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.
May 18th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
It is now clear that the science departments at universities across America are "free-fire zones" where any sort of philosophical musings contrary to nihilistic atheism will get you shot in the back by your "colleagues".
Now is the time for genuine 'free thinkers' who want to investigate the telic aspects of reality to leave behind these wastelands of dogmatism, and for the taxpayers footing the bill for the sinecure-dwellers who spit on their beliefs to defund them.
Comment by mcromer — May 18, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
May 18th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Or maybe just try to make the tenure process more objective.
Comment by Bilbo — May 18, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
May 18th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Flip this around. If instead Gonzalez had authored "The Plebian Planet;" a book of arguments for atheism based on conditions on earth favorable to life and allegedly existing elsewhere, would he have been canned? An answer to that could reveal whether intolerable bias exists.
Comment by Bradford — May 18, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
May 18th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Of course the author of "The Plebian Planet" would not be denied tenure.
The amazing thing is that Gonzalez's theism is of the most timid and mild type. Yet even that is intolerable to the athiests. Why are they so sensitive?
Francis Bacon once noted that athiests are always trying to convince themselves they are right because they do not really believe there is no God.
Comment by Jehu — May 18, 2007 @ 6:54 pm
May 18th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Krauze, I wondered if you were exaggerating when you said
John W. Patterson wrote as a veiled analysis of Gonzalez's motivation:
'Seems that Patterson is attempting subtly to link Gonzalez with 911. Talk about threatiness.
Comment by bFast — May 18, 2007 @ 7:01 pm
May 18th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Bradford,
You might get a chance to see if you are on to something. One of these days, Sam Harris has to finish his PhD. If he obtains a tenure-track position in a neuroscience department, we'll see if his extra-curricular activities prevent him from getting tenure.
Comment by MikeGene — May 18, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
May 19th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Hi Mike,
I was going to adopt a wait-and-see attitude, but since it is obvious you aren't going to, I guess I have to weigh in with my counter balance.
So how do to form my "unbiased" opinion on a issue? Go to the Discovery Institute's web site of course. I can treat just about any information that hurts the ID side of the argument as probably correct. They didn't disappoint. Did you know that over the past few years more than 1 out of 10 people were denied tenure at U.C? I didn't know it was that high. And for the department in question, 1 out of 3 applicants were denied tenure over the last ten years.
The DI also made a big deal over U.C.'s promotion policy and provided a link.
It includes…
…it also includes…
Now I understand how people would say it is "unfair" to discriminate against gays trying to enroll in the military with the would-be-disruptive-to-operations argument, but the argument has merit.
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.
Mike, as you know, I tend to evaluate things as ethical or not based on promises made in things like About Us declarations. U.C. has made clear its priorities and the subjective nature of its promotion policies. While you and I may think it unwise and unfair, it is ethical, IMO.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 19, 2007 @ 8:42 pm
May 19th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Hi TP,
But we don't have to wait-and-see for many critics from academia to express their views. And numerous such critics have made it clear that Gonzalez's ID views should have played a role in denying him tenure. It all goes back to a point I made here.
How can you be so sure about this? Lawrence Selden reminds us that Gonzalez's book picked up two very significant endorsements. Ask yourself "“ if you wrote a book that was endorsed by someone like Owen Gingerich and Simon Conway Morris, would you really want to hide it?
But if Gonzalez's ID views played a role in this subjective decision, does ISU have an obligation to make an announcement that they will not grant tenure to anyone who refuses to reject ID?
Comment by MikeGene — May 19, 2007 @ 10:45 pm
May 19th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Hi Mike,
You asked…
They might have an obligation to admit they are conservative in that they avoid controversy. The link you provided had reviews that included "Gonzalez and Richards have flung down the gauntlet" and "This thoughtful, delightfully contrarian book will rile up those who believe the "˜Copernican principle'…"
Not every institution is a risk taker. I once worked for a company where it was emphatically explained they believed in the philosophy that the pioneers were the ones who got shot full of arrows. It took me five years of constantly working with sunset technology to realize they meant it and to move on.
Can we move on to science now? You have provided several great threads.
Regards,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 19, 2007 @ 11:01 pm
May 19th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Hi TP,
Then how would they explain Hector Avalos's controversial agenda?
Comment by MikeGene — May 19, 2007 @ 11:03 pm
May 20th, 2007 at 12:18 am
Hi Mike,
You asked…
You mean this Professor of Religious Studies teaching in the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Iowa State University?
It looks like Hector is tenured and while the department head of Physics and Astronomy (Eli Rosenberg) may have complained to the department head of Religious Studies (Tony Smith) and they may have both talked to the College Dean (Michael Whiteford) who, in turn, was in contact with the university president (Gregory Geoffroy) there wasn't much any of them could do about it that wouldn't have made matters worse.
Can we talk science now?
Regards,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 20, 2007 @ 12:18 am
May 20th, 2007 at 12:23 am
"It was either a mistake or a tactical maneuver on Gonzalez's part to list Privileged Planet as part of his tenure request."
Of course, we all know what the response would have been if Gonzalez had
left it off his tenure requestdeceptively hidden it inside a Trojan horse.Comment by Krauze — May 20, 2007 @ 12:23 am
May 20th, 2007 at 1:00 am
Before writing The Privileged Planet, Gonzalez had a cover story article in Scientific American promoting the very same thesis as the book, i.e., the incredible anthropomorphic coincidences of the galactic habitable zone, fine tuning, eclipse ratios, etc. The positive reception of that article had, I think, a lot to do with his writing of the subsequent book.
If his ideas are so scandalous now, how come Scientific American published them back then, and how come he wasn't nailed at University of Washington where he taught at that time?
It's interesting that when a well qualified scientist with ID sympathies starts to get some real traction and attention how their colleagues will take notice and bring out the knives on him.
Comment by Stuart Harris — May 20, 2007 @ 1:00 am
May 20th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Hi TP,
Since tenure decisions greatly help to shape science, this is clearly a relevant topic.
Comment by MikeGene — May 20, 2007 @ 8:45 pm