More Commentary on Guillermo Gonzalez

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?

This entry was posted on Monday, May 21st, 2007 at 9:39 pm and is filed under The Critics, The Debate. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

31 Responses to “More Commentary on Guillermo Gonzalez”

Thought Provoker Says:
May 21st, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Hi Mike,

Are you just counting on me to provide balance now?

Here is what Jo Anne provided as the reason for denying tenure…

At first, I thought this is a difficult case. I could never condone the preaching of ID in the classroom. But Gonzalez claims that he had never introduced Intelligent Design into the classroom … He claims it is a private belief and he wrote the book on his own time… IF his claims are true, it's kinda like writing a blog"¦. And wouldn't we be hypocritical if we thought he didn't deserve tenure because he shared his private views in public and we didn't share his views? Is this worse than the guy with the bible meetings in his office?

But yet, he wrote a popular book, very much in the public arena, advocating an anti-scientific idealogy. This shows a clear lack of scientific judgement, and damages the public's perception of science. However, after a simple google search, I found the clincher: he gave invited lectures at other academic institutions, billed as an ISU professor, promoting Intelligent Design. OK – now he crossed the line and used his professional position to promote ID. So the faculty does have a basis in denying him tenure in my book.

Comment by Thought Provoker — May 21, 2007 @ 10:30 pm

MikeGene Says:
May 21st, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Hi TP,

Yep. I told you she would explain why tenure should have been denied.

"Anti-science idealogy?" Sounds like something Nellie would say.

Lack of scientific judgment? How do we measure a "lack of scientific judgment?" According to objective criteria:

Gonzalez 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.

How does one without "scientific judgment" accomplish this?

Damages the public's perception of science? Is there any evidence for this? Or does it just feel like it? Do you think the decision to deny tenure to someone featured by Scientific American and co-author of a major college-level astronomy textbook might "damage the public's perception of science?" Please read the second blog I linked to.

An invited lecture? Quick, call Nellie! He dared to give an invited Sigma Xi lecture to many already devoutly critical of the theory.

And check this out:

In August, Avalos co-authored a statement signed by more than 120 faculty at ISU denouncing intelligent design as a science. Earlier this week, nearly 120 UNI faculty signed a similar statement. Neither groups say the statement was directed at Gonzalez.

"It wasn't supposed to be a deliberate undermining, it wasn't meant to be an attack and the statement has nothing to do with him," said Wendy Olson, a UNI faculty member who led the organizing of signatures in Cedar Falls.

A poster-size copy of the statement hung on a wall outside the lecture hall during Gonzalez's program. A table was also set up with stacks of free informative handouts denouncing intelligent design as a science and a clipboard for faculty who still wanted to sign the statement.

The petitions had "nothing to do with him." Does that sound honest to you? And what's this?

"We were not trying to predispose people against him," Olson said. "I told my entire class to come and make up their own minds."

A scientist had her class come to something that is supposed to disqualify people from tenure?

Comment by MikeGene — May 21, 2007 @ 10:59 pm

onething Says:
May 21st, 2007 at 11:33 pm

When scientists act in a biased, unclear manner it only ends up helping those who stand against the objectivity of science.

But yet, he wrote a popular book, very much in the public arena, advocating an anti-scientific idealogy.

Geez, how can she speak of objectivity in science if there are certain hypotheses that cannot be arrived at? The bias here is mind-boggling. This person is SO SURE that materialism is true that any scientific evidence that could lead to even a tentative conclusion that there is something more, is a priori anti-scientific.

The hubris!

Comment by onething — May 21, 2007 @ 11:33 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
May 21st, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Hi Mike,

You asked…

The petitions had "nothing to do with him." Does that sound honest to you?

No. It sounds unethical to me.

I will make it clear. I do not agree with the choice ISU made. I think I understand why they did what they did. It was within there stated policies and procedures.

I also think Guillermo Gonzalez knew what he was doing when he proudly listed his book, The Privileged Planet, on his tenure request. I equated it to a wearing a "proud to be gay" tee shirt to a recruiting post. Guess what, if I was gay I would probably do something like that. It would be a tactical maneuver on my part, but that doesn't make it the wrong thing to do.

Do you think Gonzalez thought he was increasing his chances for being granted tenure by listing that book?

Do you think the professors in this small department didn't wish this whole businesses would quietly go away?

You can call the ISU professors cowards, but I doubt they are active conspirators in trying to suppress ID.

Regards,
TP

Comment by Thought Provoker — May 21, 2007 @ 11:35 pm

MikeGene Says:
May 21st, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Hi TP,

You can call the ISU professors cowards, but I doubt they are active conspirators in trying to suppress ID.

I've never called the ISU professors cowards nor do I think they are active conspirators in trying to suppress ID. I'm primarily focused on how the academics in the blogosphere are reacting.

BTW, the DI provides a quote from the Chronicle of Higher Education :

Mr. Gonzalez's publication record, however, does list 21 papers since 2002, many in top journals. "It looks to me like discrimination," said one astronomer, who did not want to be named, fearing a backlash for speaking up in favor of an intelligent-design proponent. "They can't say that he doesn't have a decent publication record, because he absolutely does," said the astronomer of Mr. Gonzalez's scholarship.

Since this is from the CHE, get over the fact that the DI is quoting it. Instead, think about it. What does it tell you when a CHE reporter can't cite the name of this non-ID astronomer because he fears a "backlash for speaking up in favor of an intelligent-design proponent?"

Comment by MikeGene — May 21, 2007 @ 11:48 pm

onething Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:04 am
Yikes, in the above post I put my words in the quote box, and not the stuff I was quoting.

Comment by onething — May 22, 2007 @ 12:04 am

onething Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:06 am
A good question to look into is what was the publication record of the two other people who were denied tenure? Did they have much weaker cases than Gonzales did?

Comment by onething — May 22, 2007 @ 12:06 am

Aagcobb Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:24 am
Hi MikeGene,

As I mentioned in another thread, I have heard that the article in the Chronicle of Higher education also said Gonzalez didn't have any research grants from NASA or the NSF. Not bringing home the bacon would seem to me to provide ample reason to deny Gonzalez tenure, high profile IDist or not.

Comment by Aagcobb — May 22, 2007 @ 12:24 am

chunkdz Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:32 am
You can support Guillermo's appeal by contacting the university president here.

Comment by chunkdz — May 22, 2007 @ 12:32 am

chunkdz Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:33 am
Aagcobb,

As I mentioned in another thread, I have heard that the article in the Chronicle of Higher education also said Gonzalez didn't have any research grants from NASA or the NSF. Not bringing home the bacon would seem to me to provide ample reason to deny Gonzalez tenure, high profile IDist or not.

I understand that research grants are not a requirement under his department's tenure guidelines.

Comment by chunkdz — May 22, 2007 @ 12:33 am

chunkdz Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:35 am
TP

Do you think the professors in this small department didn't wish this whole businesses would quietly go away?

Circulating an anti-ID petition is a funny way to make the issue quietly go away.

Comment by chunkdz — May 22, 2007 @ 12:35 am

MikeGene Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:11 am
Hi Aagcobb,

Hi MikeGene,

As I mentioned in another thread, I have heard that the article in the Chronicle of Higher education also said Gonzalez didn't have any research grants from NASA or the NSF. Not bringing home the bacon would seem to me to provide ample reason to deny Gonzalez tenure, high profile IDist or not.

Yes, and I already mentioned that if such grants are required by this department, the requirement should be written down as part of the policy. I think junior faculty have a right to know the benchmarks they are required to achieve. Anyway, we'll have to wait-and-see if this is the official explanation. From there, if the other 8/12 faculty who were granted tenure over the last 10 years all had research grants from NASA or the NSF, ISU will have something solid (if just one was granted tenure without such a grant, the argument collapses). But that doesn't detract from what we have already seen in the academics in the blogosphere (in spades) "“ a) an admission that the tenure decision is subjective and b) many coming up with all sort of ID-related, non-grant related reasons to deny tenure.

Comment by MikeGene — May 22, 2007 @ 1:11 am

keiths Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:10 am
Aagcobb wrote:

As I mentioned in another thread, I have heard that the article in the Chronicle of Higher education also said Gonzalez didn't have any research grants from NASA or the NSF. Not bringing home the bacon would seem to me to provide ample reason to deny Gonzalez tenure, high profile IDist or not.

Hi Aagcobb,

My fear is that you're right, and that Gonzalez got the axe for his poor rainmaking skills.

If that's the case, we can look forward to months of squealing from the DI about how government agencies are systematically denying grants to ID sympathizers, making them look bad on their tenure applications.

Comment by keiths — May 22, 2007 @ 2:10 am

MikeGene Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:16 am
Hi TP,

You write:

I also think Guillermo Gonzalez knew what he was doing when he proudly listed his book, The Privileged Planet, on his tenure request. I equated it to a wearing a "proud to be gay" tee shirt to a recruiting post. Guess what, if I was gay I would probably do something like that. It would be a tactical maneuver on my part, but that doesn't make it the wrong thing to do.

Yes, I know this is your opinion. But if you'll remember, I asked you a question about this. If you wrote a book that was endorsed by someone like Owen Gingerich and Simon Conway Morris, would you really want to hide it?

Anyway, it looks like the book excuse has become much more complicated. From the CHE:

Mr. Gonzalez said that none of his scientific publications mention intelligent design, aside from The Privileged Planet. He co-wrote the book with a $58,000 grant from the John Templeton Foundation, which paid 25 percent of his salary for three years. The Templeton Foundation, a philanthropy devoted to forging links between science and religion, is perhaps best known for an annual $1.5-million prize that is awarded "for progress toward research or discoveries about spiritual realities."

"Iowa was, in a way, endorsing the project through administering the grant," Mr. Gonzalez said. His book carries publicity blurbs from Owen Gingerich, a noted astronomer at Harvard University, and Simon Conway Morris, an influential paleontologist at the University of Cambridge.

Hmmm. Money is a two-edged sword. If Gonzalez got the grant to write PP, and ISU used the grant to pay part of his salary for three years, would it be ethical to keep the PP off his CV?

Comment by MikeGene — May 22, 2007 @ 7:16 am

Thought Provoker Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:24 am
Hi Mike,

You asked…

If you wrote a book that was endorsed by someone like Owen Gingerich and Simon Conway Morris, would you really want to hide it?

No, but then again I would be looking to go somewhere where my provocative ways would be more acceptable.

ISU used the grant to pay part of his salary for three years, would it be ethical to keep the PP off his CV?

What does "CV" stand for?

IMO, It would be unethical for Gonzalez to keep something off his tenure request that he was proud of and indicative of future intent.

Would he still be ethically bound to list it even if he was embarrassed by it? I doubt it. It wouldn't be like he was trying to hide something no one knew about. But I don't know all the norms of tenure requests. I am assuming Gonzalez had a choice in what he wanted to highlight. And from what I understand, he had ample examples from which to choose.

Regards,
TP

Comment by Thought Provoker — May 22, 2007 @ 10:24 am

chunkdz Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:11 pm
TP

No, but then again I would be looking to go somewhere where my provocative ways would be more acceptable.

What in the world is so unacceptably provocative about the anthropic principle? Nobody suggested that Brandon Carter leave Cambridge and go somewhere where his idea would be more acceptable.
Why should Gonzalez have to leave simply because he attempts to empirically evaluate the idea in his spare time?

Comment by chunkdz — May 22, 2007 @ 1:11 pm

Rob R. Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Thought Provoker:
What does "CV" stand for?

Curriculum vitae (rÃ©sumÃ©)

Although it looks like Gonzalez' ID ideas were certainly an issue, I think this is more complicated. I'm still wait-n-see'n on this one. Has Gonzalez commented on this yet?

Comment by Rob R. — May 22, 2007 @ 1:31 pm

edarrell Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:17 pm
How does one without "scientific judgment" accomplish this?

The same way Newton went off on his alchemy chase.

Of course, Newton already had tenure when he did that.

Comment by edarrell — May 22, 2007 @ 6:17 pm

edarrell Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:19 pm
From the story on the Sigma Xi lecture in 2005:

CEDAR FALLS – Iowa State University Assistant Professor Guillermo Gonzalez was welcomed by a standing room-only crowd in Cedar Falls Wednesday, but his lecture on intelligent design in science was delivered to many already devoutly critical of the theory.
Gonzalez used the first 45 minutes of the Sigma Xi lecture to explain the theory of intelligent design, as well as his own theory that says the link between the conditions required for life and the conditions required for doing science on earth are inference for design.
While the crowd of students, faculty and local residents had differing views on intelligent design, Gonzalez spent much of the 45 minute-question-and-answer session defending the use of intelligent design in science and arguing for the validity of the theory.
"If you eliminate intelligent design as a possibility, if you claim that the universe does not contain objective evidence of design because that is your prior commitment, then you are never going to discover some things," he said. "Some discoveries may be made more quickly when the scientist is open to the universe being designed for scientific discovery."
While many believe the intelligent designer to be God, Gonzalez argued that studying the intelligent designer itself goes beyond the purview of intelligent design as science.

What I can't figure is this: Why can't Gonzalez turn that into real research? What is it about intelligent design that defies hypothesis formation and experimentation to confirm or deny?

Comment by edarrell — May 22, 2007 @ 6:19 pm

chunkdz Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Hi edarrell

What I can't figure is this: Why can't Gonzalez turn that into real research?

Do you consider habitable zone research to be real research? Is spectroscopy of stars real research? How about a study on the frequency of solar/planetary systems – would you consider that to be real research?

Comment by chunkdz — May 22, 2007 @ 6:40 pm

salimfadhley Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:05 pm
I will make it clear. I do not agree with the choice ISU made. I think I understand why they did what they did. It was within there stated policies and procedures.

If I were a member of that board, after reading a discussion like this I would be pretty confident that I had made the right decision. I'd be thinking that Guillermo is an OK and honest guy, but his friends at the DI are real trouble-makers.

I think they made the right choice.

I also think Guillermo Gonzalez knew what he was doing when he proudly listed his book, The Privileged Planet, on his tenure request. I equated it to a wearing a "proud to be gay" tee shirt to a recruiting post. Guess what, if I was gay I would probably do something like that. It would be a tactical maneuver on my part, but that doesn't make it the wrong thing to do.

Yes, had things gone the other way it would have set a major precident. Just imagine a radical, pro-ID scientist being accepted amongst a very conservative scence faculty. It would be seen as an endorsement (regardless of Guillermo's and ISU's actual intent).

Do you think Gonzalez thought he was increasing his chances for being granted tenure by listing that book?

Or perhaps he had ample reason to suspect that he was going to be denied anyway, and figured that he had something else to gain by making a dramatic exit?

Do you think the professors in this small department didn't wish this whole businesses would quietly go away?

At the time, I bet they figured that it was like any other routine tenure application, to be considered on it's mertits as usual. Now this whole thing has blown up I bet they are really keen for it to quet-down. But they probably know that they cannot give in to pressure because then the rest of the research community really would think they are cowards.

You can call the ISU professors cowards, but I doubt they are active conspirators in trying to suppress ID.

It's just so easy to call somebody with whom you dissagree a coward. I do not think it's a line of debate that leads to any real understanding of ISU's actual motives.

Comment by salimfadhley — May 22, 2007 @ 7:05 pm

Bradford Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:36 pm
If I were a member of that board, after reading a discussion like this I would be pretty confident that I had made the right decision. I'd be thinking that Guillermo is an OK and honest guy, but his friends at the DI are real trouble-makers.

This is asinine reasoning but unsurprising. Acknowledging that the candidate for tenure "is an OK and honest guy" but voting against him based on his "friends" at the DI being real trouble-makers. There must have been a few at the Inquisition with that guilt by association outlook too.

Comment by Bradford — May 22, 2007 @ 9:36 pm

edarrell Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Hi edarrell

What I can't figure is this: Why can't Gonzalez turn that into real research?

Do you consider habitable zone research to be real research? Is spectroscopy of stars real research? How about a study on the frequency of solar/planetary systems – would you consider that to be real research?

Not ID research, no. None of it promotes any way to distinguish ID as a hypothesis. All of it is based on the same hypothesis that abiogenesis uses: When conditions are right, life happens.

Has Gonzales done anything that would say, "Here is a unique prediction from an ID perspective, let's test it and see what happens?"

I'm not sure that Gonzales has said anything that William Paley didn't say in 1802. Yeah, the world looks amazing, as if someone or something designed it just so. Just so stories don't cut it in science (ask Dembski). Darwin's great insight was that so much of what Paley used as evidence for design was instead just natural function of living things. So far as I can see, nothing Gonzalez has found goes beyond that — amazing if coincidence, but that's not evidence for design, especially when we observe it happening over and over in the universe, without the finger of the Wilber Force (or whatever you want to call the Intelligent Designer).

So my question remains: Gonzalez has one body of research in publications, and the other stuff he does for the Discovery Institute. Why can't he marry the two? Why can't he find a hypothesis to test that actually advances the idea of a designer?

I don't really expect an answer. Behe is in exactly the same boat. Were they not so wrapped up in trying to see what they so badly want to see, they'd see that it appears that their failure to find ID is a result of some divine plan. That's not what they set out to find at all, is it?

Comment by edarrell — May 22, 2007 @ 9:37 pm

Bradford Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:46 pm
I'm not sure that Gonzales has said anything that William Paley didn't say in 1802. Yeah, the world looks amazing, as if someone or something designed it just so. Just so stories don't cut it in science (ask Dembski). Darwin's great insight was that so much of what Paley used as evidence for design was instead just natural function of living things.

Actually Darwin contended that it was the natural selection concept that obviated a design explanation once life exists. He was at a loss to explain life's origin and the attempted application of NS since Darwin has not answered the question of origins.

So far as I can see, nothing Gonzalez has found goes beyond that "” amazing if coincidence, but that's not evidence for design, especially when we observe it happening over and over in the universe, without the finger of the Wilber Force (or whatever you want to call the Intelligent Designer).

Those "amazing coincidences" extend to multiple constants. The term coincidence infers a basis on which to conclude that anamolies are indeed coincidental as opposed to indicating a cause contrary to norm. In any case, observing an unspecified something occur repeatedly does not confer evidence for or against design in and of itself.

Comment by Bradford — May 22, 2007 @ 9:46 pm

salimfadhley Says:
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:21 am
If I were a member of that board, after reading a discussion like this I would be pretty confident that I had made the right decision. I'd be thinking that Guillermo is an OK and honest guy, but his friends at the DI are real trouble-makers.

This is asinine reasoning but unsurprising. Acknowledging that the candidate for tenure "is an OK and honest guy" but voting against him based on his "friends" at the DI being real trouble-makers. There must have been a few at the Inquisition with that guilt by association outlook too.

Read again please: My comment was about how people feel AFTER their vote tenure vote. This conversation did not even exist before Guillermo's tenure was denied, so I do not think it's me who is being asinine!

I'm sure ISU's scince faculty find the whole thing profoundly uncomfortable, and they probably want to distance themselves from this whole issue. Tenure applications are normally done in the strictest confidence, and privacy.

Unfortunately for Guillermo, the ID community seem to be keen to portray him as a martyr, or at least a victim who has been persecuted by members of his department. I do not think this is a good platform on which to make an appeal based on his suitability to work for that same department.

If you actually cared about Guillermo, you would probably want to keep this whole thing quiet until after his tenure appeal is over. If he looses, then do what you want, but you must understand that as a consequence of this debate he is now more famous for his controversial works than his many years of mainstream science research. After this much noise has been made, how can the faculty appeals board fail to notice and be affected by all this raging debate?

Comment by salimfadhley — May 23, 2007 @ 4:21 am

salimfadhley Says:
May 23rd, 2007 at 5:42 am
I don't really expect an answer. Behe is in exactly the same boat. Were they not so wrapped up in trying to see what they so badly want to see, they'd see that it appears that their failure to find ID is a result of some divine plan. That's not what they set out to find at all, is it?

That's pretty much the way most scientists (who bother to hold an opinion) feel about ID. As Joy correctly said, most scientists do not care to hold an opinion about ID because it is not seen as legitimate field of scientific enquiry, being more akin to theology than fundamental science research.

The great thing about science is that even though most scientists consider ID to be uninteresting, all this could change if it's proponents began publishing rigorous experimentation that directly addresses ID's core claims. I do not think it will ever happen, but I cannot prove that it will never happen!

Comment by salimfadhley — May 23, 2007 @ 5:42 am

Bradford Says:
May 23rd, 2007 at 6:57 am
Read again please: My comment was about how people feel AFTER their vote tenure vote. This conversation did not even exist before Guillermo's tenure was denied, so I do not think it's me who is being asinine!

I'm sure ISU's scince faculty find the whole thing profoundly uncomfortable, and they probably want to distance themselves from this whole issue. Tenure applications are normally done in the strictest confidence, and privacy.

Unfortunately for Guillermo, the ID community seem to be keen to portray him as a martyr, or at least a victim who has been persecuted by members of his department. I do not think this is a good platform on which to make an appeal based on his suitability to work for that same department.

If you actually cared about Guillermo, you would probably want to keep this whole thing quiet until after his tenure appeal is over. If he looses, then do what you want, but you must understand that as a consequence of this debate he is now more famous for his controversial works than his many years of mainstream science research. After this much noise has been made, how can the faculty appeals board fail to notice and be affected by all this raging debate?

Your comment indicates an incredible lack of guts on the part of the establishment. Mention those DI boys and ya all feel compelled to wear your disdain on your sleeves. The reaction to Guillermo's plight has no excuse value. If the powers that be allow reactions to influence them rather than simply doing what they should do, then they are not worthy of tenure decision responsibility.

Comment by Bradford — May 23, 2007 @ 6:57 am

stunney Says:
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:09 am
edarrell wrote:

Darwin's great insight was that so much of what Paley used as evidence for design was instead just natural function of living things.

I didn't know Darwin had any great insight about the origin of the laws of nature, the cosmological fine-tuning data, the origin of the genetic code, the hard problem of consciousness, the nature of reason (including the nature of the mathematical knowledge and abstract understanding upon which science depends), or the nature of value.

But as I've said before, it's amazing what one learns at TT on a daily basis.

Comment by stunney — May 23, 2007 @ 9:09 am

chunkdz Says:
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:19 pm
There is an old saying that goes:
"If you want to get rid of a dog, just say that he has rabies."

Comment by chunkdz — May 23, 2007 @ 12:19 pm

Aagcobb Says:
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Hi MikeGene,

I already mentioned that if such grants are required by this department, the requirement should be written down as part of the policy. I think junior faculty have a right to know the benchmarks they are required to achieve.

You say that as though winning research grants is an unusual requirement, whereas I get the impression elsewhere that in order to get tenure just about anywhere grant money is important. Is it really possible that a professor would be surprised to find out that the research grants he obtains are a factor in tenure decisions?

Comment by Aagcobb — May 23, 2007 @ 3:27 pm

Raevmo Says:
May 23rd, 2007 at 5:03 pm
This just out in Nature (sorry for the sloppy formatting)

He's a young astronomer with dozens of articles
in top journals; he has made an important
discovery in the field of extrasolar planets;
and he is a proponent of intelligent design,
the idea that an intelligent force has shaped
the Universe. It's that last fact that Guillermo
Gonzalez thinks has cost him his tenure at
Iowa State University.
Gonzalez, who has been at Iowa State
in Ames since 2001, was denied tenure on
9 March. He is now appealing the decision on
the grounds that his religious belief, not the
quality of his science, was the basis for turning
down his application. "I'm concerned my views
on intelligent design were a factor," he says.
Advocates of intelligent design are rallying
behind Gonzalez in the latest example of what
they say is blatant academic discrimination.
"Academia seems to be in a rage about anything
that points to any purpose," says Michael
Behe, a biochemist and prominent advocate of
intelligent design at Lehigh University in Bethlehem,
Pennsylvania. "They are penalizing an
associate professor who's doing his job because
he has views they disagree with."
But other researchers think that the department's
decision was entirely justified. "I would
have voted to deny him tenure," says Robert
Park, a physicist at the University of Maryland
in College Park. "He has established that he
does not understand the scientific process."
Gonzalez's early career was far from controversial.
He graduated with a PhD from the
University of Washington, Seattle, in 1993
and did a postdoc at the University of Texas
in Austin. "He proved himself very quickly,"
says David Lambert, director
of the university's MacDonald
Observatory. He and Gonzalez
co-authored several papers on
variable stars, and Lambert
says that while there, the young Cuban immigrant
was an impressive scientist. "He is one of
the best postdocs I have had," he says.
In 1996, Gonzalez returned to the University
of Washington to do his second postdoc,
and again distinguished himself "” producing
two papers1,2 that linked a star's metal content
to the presence of extrasolar planets around
it. The papers are still highly cited, and they
have encouraged other researchers to search
for planets around metal-rich stars.
The 43-year-old astronomer is also a deeply
religious evangelical Christian, and his faith
has shaped his views on science. He considers
himself a "sceptic" of Darwin, and says that his
Christianity helps him to understand Earth's
position in the Universe. "Our location in the
Galaxy, which is optimized for habitability, is
also the best place for doing cosmology and
stellar astrophysics in the Galaxy," he says. In
other words: "The Universe is designed for
scientific discovery."
Gonzalez refrained from mentioning his
beliefs in his teaching and peer-reviewed
works, but in 2004, he co-authored a book
entitled The Privileged Planet, which included
many of his pro-design arguments3. He has
since travelled the country delivering talks
that support the thesis of his book.
His work did not go unnoticed
at Iowa State. In 2005,
Gonzalez's rising profile led a
group of 131 faculty members
to sign a petition disavowing
intelligent design. "We were starting to
see Iowa State mentioned as a place where
intelligent-design research was happening,"
says Hector Avalos, a religious-studies professor
who helped lead the signature drive.
"We wanted to make sure that people knew
the university does not support intelligent
design." Avalos adds that they did not name
Gonzalez directly, and he takes no position on
the astronomer's tenure.
Nevertheless, proponents of intelligent
design point to the signature drive as evidence
of a widespread academic hostility to
those who support the idea. "There is a pattern
happening to everybody who's pro intelligent
design," says one pro-design biologist, who
declined to be named because his own tenure
process has just begun. "The same thing could
happen to me," he says. "I don't want to get
into trouble."
But Park says that a researcher's views on
intelligent design cannot be divorced from the
tenure decision. Anyone who believes that an
intelligent force set the Earth's location doesn't
understand probability's role in the Universe,
Park argues. Such a person is hardly qualified
to teach others about the scientific method.
"We're entrusting the minds of our students
to this person," he says.
But not all scientists agree. "Nothing I have
seen in his refereed papers leads me to believe
his beliefs are impinging on his science," says
David Lambert. "I would have said he was a
serious tenure candidate."
Eli Rosenberg, who chairs Iowa State's physics
department, concedes that Gonzalez's belief
in intelligent design did come up during the
tenure process. "I'd be a fool if I said it was not
[discussed]," he says. But, he adds, "intelligent
design was not a major or even a big factor in
this decision." Four of twelve tenure candidates
have been turned down in the past decade, he
says. "We are a fairly hard-nosed department."
Iowa State's president Gregory Geoffroy is
now reviewing Gonzalez's appeal. He has until
6 June to make his final decision.

Comment by Raevmo — May 23, 2007 @ 5:03 pm

More Commentary on Guillermo Gonzalez

31 Responses to “More Commentary on Guillermo Gonzalez”

Featured Books