Opening Pandora's Box
by MikeGeneColumnist Rekha Basu has apparently joined in on the attack of Gonzalez. She wants Iowa State University to issue a decree that defines science and then "make sure faculty uphold it."
It would be interesting to see this effort to freeze the definition of science in 2005 and then compare it to the works of philosophers of science and use it in the context of the history of science. Right or wrong, the picture of university professors engaged in this activity will remind many people of clergy defining and enforcing their dogmas.
More importantly, her article contains some illuminating passages that further creates the impression that Guillermo Gonzalez is being targeted for removal.
Basu writes:
They're worried because an ISU astronomy professor, Guillermo Gonzalez, is a national leader in the Intelligent Design movement, and has said publicly he wants to find a graduate student to pursue that line of study.
Notice the Catch22 strategy that is in play. Gonzalez is not allowed to say ID is science because, according to Basu, "it's not provable or researchable." Well, I suppose so. If Gonzalez's attempt to find a graduate student to help him further his research is going to get him kicked out of the University of Iowa, of course ID is "not researchable." Y'see, Gonzalez is supposed to confess that ID is not science and once the confession paper is signed, he would not be allowed to approach ID as a scientist on ISU time. That way, critics of ID can now point to Gonzalez and claim that he has not been able to use ID to produce any research or new findings.
Basu then writes:
He's also been quoted as saying Intelligent Design isn't creationism. But ISU religion professor Hector Avalos says that's exactly what it is, just marketed differently: "I know religion when I see it," said Avalos. "I'm a Biblical scholar."
The Creationist Fabrication at work again. But this time, ID = Creationism because Avalos says so and because he is a "Biblical scholar." Case closed. Is this what academia is coming to?
But here's the key admission that helps to fuel the impression that this is Scientific McCarthyism in a Cheap Tuxedo.
Though he doesn't know if Gonzalez is teaching Intelligent Design in his classes, Avalos notes there's a movement afoot to place advocates of Intelligent Design in universities without revealing their true agenda. "I am afraid this has happened at ISU," he said, referring to Gonzalez.
As you can now see, Avalos looks like a true conspiracy theorist who believes the DI has secretly planted Gonzalez at ISU while hiding his "true agenda." This is the ring leader who is now trying to organize an effort to get Gonzalez to appear before something that is, for all practical purposes, a hostile tribunal.
Gonzalez said he doesn't teach about intelligent design because it's controversial and because he doesn't want to teach about an idea that's not yet accepted.
Of course, this is not good enough for Avalos. He is motivated by a vague and unsupported paranoia concerning one possible future:
"We don't want to be known as the 'Intelligent Design University,' " Avalos said. "We don't think this is science."
It's this type of paranoia that sets the stage for a witch hunt. It doesn't matter if Gonzalez is an established scientist or doesn't teach ID in his classes. All that matters is that people like Avalos have some irrational fear about the reputation of their school. In other words, the critics demand to see ID research, but they are now demanding that it not be done at their schools. "Show me the research!," they exclaim, "but not in my department and not at my school."
Rekha Basu says this isn't an academic-freedom issue, but that is exactly what it is. The whole idea behind academic freedom is to create an environment where controversial and unpopular ideas can be explored. If ISU seeks to cleanse Gonzalez from their ranks simply because they "don't want to be known as the Intelligent Design University," they will set a precedent that goes beyond ISU and ID. It will become clear to the public that "˜academic freedom' is a selectively appreciated value, used to protect some and abandoned to banish others. Do the faculty at ISU really want to open this Pandora's Box? Let's imagine that they do.
More people might begin to reconsider Ward Churchill and whether the University of Colorado, Boulder has chosen to be the University that advocates the 911 victims deserved their fate. They can no longer claim "academic freedom" as ISU would have shown a willingness to abandon it. Oxford University will become the University that advocates it is better to sexually molest children than raise them as Catholics. We could go through all the universities looking for controversial claims and arguments and then define those schools in light of such examples. And ISU? We could define it in the image of Hector Avalos, who has written a book blaming religion for violence. His solution? According to one reviewer: "but he ultimately concludes that eliminating religion from human life is the correct solution."
If Avalos gets his way, he'll sleep better knowing ISU will never be The Intelligent Design University. But he might wake up one morning to find others defining ISU as the University that Wants to Eliminate Religion. ISU will not be able to distance themselves from Avalos' attacks on religion in the name of academic freedom, as they would have demonstrated a previous willingness to walk away from it.
August 27th, 2005 at 10:46 pm
[...] declared elsewhere:
http://telicthoughts.com/?p=237
http://telicthoughts.com/?p=238
http://telicthoughts.com/?p=240
http://www.uncommondesc [...]
Pingback by Teleological » Don’t Let Evil Avalos’ Bashings Against Gonzalez — August 27, 2005 @ 10:46 pm
August 28th, 2005 at 1:24 am
Avalos's statements are truly amazing. This goes beyond even the Sternberg episode. Gonzalez hasn't even taught ID. He just happens to be a somewhat well-known individual who agrees with it (or at least the cosmological version of it). In other words, Avalos is trying to have his head for committing a thought crime and nothing more. There's simply no other way to slice it. And when you consider that ISU, like most universities, no doubt has its share of Marxists and such in the name of academic freedom, it's amazing that they'd try to excommunicate a guy just for believing the universe was designed.
As for this:
I don't know how to describe that except as self-parody. Gomez could, with equal logical authority, respond with "I know science when I see it. I'm a scientist!"
Comment by Deuce — August 28, 2005 @ 1:24 am
August 28th, 2005 at 8:16 am
How does one "place" a person in a university? Should whoever hired Gonzalez be investigated to see if the decision was based on something other than Gonzalez' credentials?
Comment by Krauze — August 28, 2005 @ 8:16 am
August 28th, 2005 at 9:04 am
Interesting. Even though Gonzalez denies that ID is creationism, Avalos seems to think he can detect religion in something even in the absence of evidence.
But what would Avalos say if I looked at the flagellum and claimed:
"I know design when I see it. I'm a design engineer."
Before I could even finish he would dismiss my claim as religious and demand independent evidence.
Comment by Steve Petermann — August 28, 2005 @ 9:04 am
August 28th, 2005 at 9:07 am
The savvy witch hunter will argue this is not about "thought crime" and instead express a "concern" for the way Gonzalez's public promotion of ID is hurting the "reputation" of their school. He may actually [gasp!] get a graduate student!!!! Of course, this would just mean that the savvy witch hunter is willing to tear down academic freedom to get their brass knuckles and steel-toed boots on Gonzalez. Since they are motivated by paranoia, they will use whatever means to get to their end.
The silver lining with these recent witch hunts is that everyone gets to see the peer reviewers in action where they doors are open. The critics who demand to see ID research also want to run Gonzalez out of town because he might do research.
Comment by MikeGene — August 28, 2005 @ 9:07 am
August 28th, 2005 at 9:37 am
Yes, and of course that's what Avalos is doing here. However, that's not a denial of thought-crime persecution, but rather an attempted justification of it. In this case, the reason given is a paranoia that Gonzales's impure thoughts will shame the school.
Comment by Deuce — August 28, 2005 @ 9:37 am
August 28th, 2005 at 10:18 am
I think you may be right. The peer reviewers at ISU might argue that Gonzalez is allowed to keep his thoughts as long as he keeps them to himself. But by keeping them to himself, he would be hiding his "true agenda" and thus feed their paranoia. So ultimately, the objective critics may be working their way toward banning thought crimes. One way to get at the thought crime is to force all faculty to sign a decree that declares ID is not science. I think this is a practice that has been used in totalitarian regimes.
Comment by MikeGene — August 28, 2005 @ 10:18 am
August 28th, 2005 at 10:25 am
The problem is that there are elements within the ID movement that are indeed unscientific. This is a PR issue more than a scientific one. ID needs to define itself more precisely and scientifically, and separate itself from the non-scientific elements, to establish its rightful legitimacy as a scientific discipline.
Any "loyalty oath" at ISU requiring faculty members to pledge not to teach ID as science would be an unjustified infringement on academic freedom, and ought to provoke a rebellion on the part of the faculty. It would be too vague to enforce anyway. What would the engineering and computer science departments do?
Comment by Mark Nutter — August 28, 2005 @ 10:25 am
August 28th, 2005 at 11:11 am
I might be leaving this post in the wrong thread. Forgive me if it belongs in one of the others, but here is another glance at the statement itself:
"We, the undersigned faculty members at Iowa State, reject all attempts to represent Intelligent Design as a scientific endeavor.
((( all attempts are rejected, not just questionable ones by questionable proponents.)))
Advocates of Intelligent Design claim the position of our planet and the complexity of particular life forms and processes are such that they may only be explained by the existence of a creator or designer of the universe.
((( the word "or" is a powerful qualifier, but allows unnecessarily, and prejudicially, the word "creator" here. The statement would be more accurate if "creator" were eliminated and only "designer" left. Interestingly, it would be only a little less accurate to say
"can only be explained by the existence of Hitler's ghost, a creator, or designer" – since the right answer, "designer" is one of the choices.)))
Such claims, however, are premised on 1) the arbitrary selection of features claimed to be engineered by a designer;
((( I saw a detective show where they 'arbitrarily' gathered fingerprint evidence, as well as blood and hair samples to determine whether or not to claim that a crime had been committed )))
2) unverifiable conclusions about the wishes and desires of that designer;
((( this might refer to a falsifiable prediction of the Privileged Planet hypotheses – that the planet Earth is in the unique position from which to observe the universe, and is the only planet known to have inhabitants who can make such observations. They propose that this could be one of the purposes of the design. If one were to try to falsify this prediction, one would look for observers on a planet without such conditions for observation, or for unique conditions for observing without observers.)))
and 3) an abandonment by science of methodological naturalism.
Methodological naturalism, the view that natural phenomena can be explained without reference to supernatural beings or events, is the foundation of the natural sciences. The history of science contains many instances where complex natural phenomena were eventually understood only by adherence to methodological naturalism.
(((note the repeated conflation of 'designer' with 'supernatural'.
Note the lack of concern that we encounter phenomena for which methodological naturalism is contentedly at a loss to explain – the four 'natural' force of the universe, for instance.)))
Whether one believes in a creator or not, views regarding a supernatural creator are, by their very nature, claims of religious faith, and not within the scope or abilities of science. We, therefore, urge all faculty members to uphold the integrity of our university of science and technology, and convey to students and the general public the importance of methodological naturalism in science and reject efforts to portray Intelligent Design as science."
((( but are views regarding evidence of design also claims of a religious faith? Are the indicators of design beyond the scope or the abilities of science?)))
Comment by Pez — August 28, 2005 @ 11:11 am
August 28th, 2005 at 4:45 pm
From the article:
Wow. At least they could try to be more subtle in their desperate attempt to turn Darwinism into unquestionable dogma. Darwinism equals science despite the mountains of evidence AGAINST it that ID theorists and others have uncovered, evidence that they haven't come close to disproving, merely offering speculations and saying that you need to be more "imaginiative" (sounds like a fairy tale to me).
ID, a design detection theory that allows for both design and natural mechanisms however is dismissed for promoting religion. Maybe they should look at themselves in the mirror; hopefully the public will have none of this academic suppression.
Those who believe that ID=religion will see ISU as the University that Wants to Eliminate Religion, further fueled by statements like those by Avalos. Those who believe ID=good science will see ISU as the University that Wants to Suppress Academic Freedom, a well established member of the Church of Darwin.
Either way, they can't win. Oh well…
Comment by jasonng — August 28, 2005 @ 4:45 pm
August 29th, 2005 at 4:37 am
I think you guys are over-reacting a little bit. And in view of what happened to Richard Sternberg, it is understandable.
Comment by inunison — August 29, 2005 @ 4:37 am
August 29th, 2005 at 12:36 pm
Has anyone commented yet on the fact that Gonzalez hasn't even published anything on biological ID. Privileged Planet was taking well known data about fine-tuning and the like, and pushing it one step further. It would seem he is guilty by association, at least in Avalos's eyes.
This isn't the first time this has happened. Has anyone here heard of the campaign, a lot less subtle than this one if memory serves, carried out a number of years ago against chemist Henry "Fritz" Schaeffer when he moved from UC Berkeley to the University of Georgia. Schaeffer was at one point the third most cited chemist in the world and has been nominated, several times I think, for the Nobel. But he is also an ID advocate (one of the DI's 400) and an openly evangelical Christian. When he started inviting students to after-class talks on faith and science and this UGA linguistics prof. started a campaign to get him kicked out. The difference between Gonzalez and Schaeffer is that the latter is a world-renowned scientist and I'm sure UGA spent some dough to get him away from Berkeley. They even gave him something called the "Center for Quantum Computational Chemistry" to play with so they weren't about to turn him out.
The bottom line: this isn't the first time this has happened and it probably won't be the last.
Comment by roy w. — August 29, 2005 @ 12:36 pm
August 29th, 2005 at 5:11 pm
We just don't think people's career prospects should be threatened based on what theory of origins they adhere to just because the scientific establishment thinks "it's not science" due to their dogmatic devotion to Darwinism.
As roy w. has pointed out, this isn't the first time this has happened. This statement may just be the beginning of Avalos' efforts to hinder Gonzalez's career.
Comment by jasonng — August 29, 2005 @ 5:11 pm
August 29th, 2005 at 9:38 pm
And now Lehigh University's department of Biological Sciences is also making a statement repudiating Behe and ID. When will the paranoia and persecution end?
Comment by passerby — August 29, 2005 @ 9:38 pm