Over on the ARN forum, Salvador poses a good question for Hector Avalos and his 120 colleagues:
Is Guillermo Gonzalez's position on ID reason to deny him tenure?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
| The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene |
 |
| Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body |
 |
| Catalyzing Inquiry at the Interface of Computing and Biology |
 |
| System Modeling in Cellular Biology: From Concepts to Nuts and Bolts |
 |
| The Plausibility of Life By Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart |
 |
| Agents Under Fire by Angus Menuge |
 |
| Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris |
 |
| Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P. Yockey |
 |
| The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies |
 |
| Nature, Design, and Science by Del Ratzsch |
 |
| Origination of Organismal Form by Muller & Newman |
 |
| Biased Embryos and Evolution by Wallace Arthur |
 |
| Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee |
 |
| The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards |
 |
| The Way of the Cell by Franklin Harold |
 |
| The Volitional Brain by Benjamin Libet |
 |
| Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka & Marion Lamb |
 |
| The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse |
September 1st, 2005 at 8:46 am
Thank you, Mike. I'm seriously wondering how we can get reporters or students over yonder at Iowa State to serve that question up to Avalos and the 120.
1. Will they be evasive and not answer the question
2. Will they say yes
3. Will they say no
What would RBH, Art, PZ Myers, etc. say?
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 1, 2005 @ 8:46 am
September 2nd, 2005 at 12:43 am
This makes me wonder how many IDists and/ or Creationists have stayed away from the scientific fields because of this type of persecution?
It sure makes me glad that I shed my zoology/ marine biology "future" for my electronics degree…
Comment by Joe G — September 2, 2005 @ 12:43 am
September 2nd, 2005 at 8:02 am
A question for Salvador: Please name one person outside of the ID community who has said or implied anything about Gonzalez' tenure.
Is this the new ID trend? Have you given up trying to find evidence for ID and trying to find evidence disproving evolution? Is the game plan now to spin every criticism of ID as "discrimination"
Comment by DataDoc — September 2, 2005 @ 8:02 am
September 2nd, 2005 at 8:11 am
DataDoc, you can also choose to ignore this
Comment by inunison — September 2, 2005 @ 8:11 am
September 2nd, 2005 at 8:18 am
It looks like DataDoc has chosen answer #1.
Comment by MikeGene — September 2, 2005 @ 8:18 am
September 2nd, 2005 at 12:13 pm
Dr. Avalos upon seeing my postings at Iowa State daily decided to e-mail me! I told him I would like to dialogue pulicly with him.
I posted two times on this front page article at iowa state daily article. The second post brings up the tenure issue, and I speculate on the real reason they want a faculty forum: "smoke out the IDists on campus, identify the other heretics so they can be burned."
ID the Debate Lingers
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 2, 2005 @ 12:13 pm
September 2nd, 2005 at 12:19 pm
I can't make a good case yet, that's why I'm giving them the opportunity to make a public profession of closed mindedness or bigotry. Patterson would be a good candidate to make such statement. Why don't you ask him?
Patterson could say,
"I think Dr. Gonzalez is fine professor. His position on Intelligent Design should not have any bearing on his tenure case."
Heck, we ought to serve that question up to all the faculty.
"I affirm that a professors stand on Intelligent Design should have no bearing on his continued employment nor his tenure case. My earlier assent to Avalos letter had nothing to do with Gonzalez tenure case."
Or they could do a PZ Myers:
"I call for firing and public humilation and torture via steel-toed boots and brass knuckles".
Let's see how many of those 120 would sign that.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 2, 2005 @ 12:19 pm
September 2nd, 2005 at 1:28 pm
"Is Guillermo Gonzalez's position on ID reason to deny him tenure?"
"1. Will they be evasive and not answer the question
2. Will they say yes
3. Will they say no"
Let's dispense with games and spell the options out in explicit terms.
"1. Will they be evasive and not answer the question" = "the question doesn't deserve the dignity of a serious response"
"2. Will they say yes" = " ID does not deserve a free ride, and someone who proposes to study ID should be judged on the merits of ID as a scientific endeavor, and of his/her own ideas of pursuing ID as a hypothesis-driven research enterprise"
"3. Will they say no" = "ID deserves a free ride, and anyone who is an ID proponent is entitled to faculty positions, grants, and the like with no regard whatsoever for qualification, accomplishment, or merit"
Sal is on record as supporting #3, and MG also apparently leans towards this as well. I suspect that MG speaks for the other contributors to this blog. Not surprisingly, the sense of entitlement runs very, very deep.
Here's what is going to happen (I know not when, as I am not privy to the timeline re: Gonzalez' promotion, or even if this is something that is really an issue at this time; also I'm assuming that Gonzalez' appointment is primarily a research one, and all bets are off if his is mainly a teaching assignment):
A duly-appointed promotion and tenure committee will look at Gonzalez record and ask: What is the evidence that Gonzalez has developed a productive and independent research program in his time at Iowa State (past performance got him the job - it's what he has accomplished at ISU that gets him promoted)? How many peer-reviewed research publications in the area of astronomy and astrophysics? How many grants? On how many of these is he the PI or lead investigator? How many invitations to speak at scientific meetings and colloquia series (that are relevant to astronomy and astrophysics)?
Moreover, the committee will try and peer into the future and determine if Gonzalez will grow as an independent scientist, will expand his productivity, will bring distinction to his program and department. These questions will be asked and answered using letters from other members of the department, as well as from colleagues outside the university. These latter letters will include ones from people Gonzalez identifies, as well as people who the committee or department seek out. These questions will also be asked and answered using Gonzalez' own research prospectus as a guide. This is where the matter of ID comes into play - can it support the goals and needs of the department as a scientific enterprise, does Gonzalez show evidence that he can pursue hypothesis-driven research in this area, etc., etc.?
So, basically, if Gonzalez intends to be an ID scientist, he's going to have to put ID on trial, in a sense. No free rides, no entitlements.
Which is how things should be.
Comment by Art — September 2, 2005 @ 1:28 pm
September 2nd, 2005 at 1:57 pm
Once again- G. Gonzalez is a scientist. A scientist, who via scientific research, has come to the design inference. Not coincidently has many great scientists throughout history.
Does he have the evidence to back it up? A read of The Privileged Planet makes it obvious he does.
And in light of the history of anymosity directed to those outside of some "mainstream" view, the question is very relevant but the fact that it has to be asked does indeed reflect on the dignity of those whose actions & words have forced it to be asked.
I would love to put ID on trial side-by-side against the anti-ID position. That is how it should be…
Comment by Joe G — September 2, 2005 @ 1:57 pm
September 2nd, 2005 at 3:54 pm
It would work if the judge and jury were not also the same lawyers for the prosecution. The free rides and entitlements are to professors who made tenure with failed theories (like Darwinian evoluton)and hire those who agree with them. Academia is the one place bad science can be perpetuated for decades.
In the technology industry, bad science tranlates into failed companies, loss of property, and sometimes life. Bad science in those contexts won't be tolerated out of necessity.
In contrast, Darwinist academia is not held to the same high standards, bad science can be perpetuted and promoted for decades…..
The supporters of ID are applied scientists, engineers and physicians. They should have seats among the judge and jury. Then we'll have a fair trial.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 2, 2005 @ 3:54 pm
September 3rd, 2005 at 5:44 pm
Hmmm….
Joe G avoids the issue of accomplishment and merit. And Sal wishes that "applied scientists, engineers, and physicians" be permitted to dictate to an astronomy/astrophysics program the sort of faculty member it should promote. I rather expect outside politically-motivated special interest groups also would be better suited for this task than, say, the actual members of the program, eh, Sal?
Comment by Art — September 3, 2005 @ 5:44 pm
September 3rd, 2005 at 5:54 pm
Art,
First of all, I appreciate your candor in taking time to answer about your position on Gonzalez tenure case. So I express a reluctant, but sincere thank you.
What an independent committee is important for is establishing conflict of interest. There is unfortunately little of kind of scrutiny where it is most needed.
Here is a problem which 3 professors of my university. It speaks of the problems caused by conflict of interest where scientific results and papers are biased toward a self-perpetuating end.
http://www.cosmologystatement....
In the applied sciences, where property, profit, and lives count, brute empirical facts count more than peer-reviewed opinions.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 3, 2005 @ 5:54 pm
September 3rd, 2005 at 8:59 pm
Art, you got question upside down. So your spelling the options are meaningless. Maybe question should be spelled to you again.
- GG is respectable scientist with over 60 published papers (not related to ID)
- GG does not teach ID in the classroom
- Is GG's POSITION on ID reason to deny him tenure?
Comment by inunison — September 3, 2005 @ 8:59 pm
September 5th, 2005 at 8:24 am
Excuse me Art but I didn't avoid anything.
But anyway, what has the curreent theory of evolution accomplished? It hasn't helped us find a cure for HIV. Shoot even mild infections can become worse because it hasn't afforded us any real predictive power. All it can predict is change.
What I am saying is that if the two were side-by-each the "merits & accomplishments" would be taken into consideration. However I have yet to read about any merits or accomplishments of the anti-ID position.
Comment by Joe G — September 5, 2005 @ 8:24 am
September 5th, 2005 at 11:13 am
Sal,
The "independent committee" I suspect you have in mind would be more tainted by real conflicts of interest that any you imagine (quite without justification) the committee in the Department of Physics at ISU might have. The department has every right, and responsibility, to decide on the sorts of research and teaching activities that it will be associated with. Outsiders, and especially political lobbyists, have no business trying to sway things.
inunison,
Of course I was working with the hypothetical that GG may actually be intending to pursue ID. It's hard to know what his promotion committee will see, and I suppose it's wise to consider that PP and its ideas won't figure much, if at all, in the dossier.
Be that as it may, I wonder if you consider PP to be an academic work (e.g., something to be weighed as a part of one's research output)? Or is it more akin to a piece of popular writing?
Joe G,
I spelled out the real issues re: GG and his promotion. You remain completely mute on these. This was noted, and nothing more needs to be said.
Except that your remarks about HIV miss the mark so badly that it is scary. You definitely don't want to have ID stand or fall on this particular issue.
(Also, the blatant ID=antievolution tone of your comment is noted. One more data point…)
Comment by Art — September 5, 2005 @ 11:13 am
September 5th, 2005 at 11:51 am
If public money's are commited to the university, I would say the university is accountable to the public.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 5, 2005 @ 11:51 am
September 5th, 2005 at 12:38 pm
One thing to consider is that the physics department at Iowa State obviously thought that Gonzalez has great potential, or they wouldn't have hired him. Work on ID is a concern for a promotion-tenure decision only if it distracts the candidate from doing work, unless there is some showing that it is work itself.
So the deck is stacked in Gonzalez's favor — he's got a department that really liked him, and many ways to succeed.
Joe G: Evolution theory gives us the treatments for HIV, and directed the work to discover the cause. Moreover, evolution theory gave us understanding of diabetes, and the original treatment (insulin from other large mammals), and the current treatment (human insulin grown by engineered bacteria). Evolution theory applied is now the foundation for modern medicine and surgery, and gave us the green revolution (and everything on the menu at McDonalds).
What's it done for you lately? Did your kids die of influenza last winter?
Comment by edarrell — September 5, 2005 @ 12:38 pm
September 5th, 2005 at 12:41 pm
Art:
The department also has a deep responsibility to academic freedom. If some myopic concern about being "associated" with Gonzalez leads them to cut him loose, the long term harm for the rest of the ISU community is potentially great. If departments can rid themselves of people because they don't want to be associated with something, it means the religion department embraced Avalos's idea of eliminating religion. If you tear away at academic freedom, you open the door to all kinds of outsiders whose money makes the department possible.
Comment by MikeGene — September 5, 2005 @ 12:41 pm
September 5th, 2005 at 11:15 pm
I do not see that evolution belief matters at all to the development of any of those things you mention. Nothing about one's opinions as to life's origins was needed for the above. Biology and medical research deals with life systems as we find them now. Part of those findings include mutations in viruses and bacteria. How did Pasteur develop the first vaccine while believing in God?
Comment by onething — September 5, 2005 @ 11:15 pm
September 6th, 2005 at 12:03 am
onething:
if you haven't seen it, you might be interested in Skell's article, Why Do We Invoke Darwin?
Comment by Pez — September 6, 2005 @ 12:03 am
September 6th, 2005 at 4:56 am
inunison said: "DataDoc, you can also choose to ignore this" where "this" is a link to an article about an ossuary that was touted as belonging to Jesus' brother, James. Since we all know how poorly that turned out (it was a forgery and the forger was arrested), I explored the rest of the .pdf file and found that the first three pages concerned a foolish statement made by Professor John Patterson over twenty years ago. Since this statement was universally deplored by the Ohio State University community, including the OSU science community, it's certainly no threat to anybody either then or today, two decades later.
I repeat my question: Can anybody name one person outside of the ID community who has said or implied anything about Gonzalez's tenure.
Since no IDist has responded, I'll answer it myself: No, not a single one. All of the talk about Gonzalez's tenure being in jeopardy is coming from IDists. Specifically, it came originally from Salvador and has now been taken up by his acolytes and nobody else.
Which brings me to my second question: "Is this the new ID trend? Have you given up trying to find evidence for ID and trying to find evidence disproving evolution? Is the game plan now to spin every criticism of ID as 'discrimination'?"
Mike Gene says: "It looks like DataDoc has chosen answer #1."
No, I think the whole idea of asking smacks of McCarthyism and the infamous loyalty oaths, where you force somebody to swear to something they already believe in. It was a neat tactic - just demanding it raised questions about the loyalty of the targeted individuals, it was demeaning to be forced to take the oath and if a targeted individual had enough guts to tell his interrogators to go to hell, then you could really go to town on him. Because of this history, I wanted to make it clear first that nobody has threatened Gonzalez's tenure before answering the actual question.
As Art said, "1. Will they be evasive and not answer the question" = "the question doesn't deserve the dignity of a serious response"
For the record, I don't think that tenure should be denied for believing in ID, creationism, ESP, astrology, alien abduction, Big Foot, the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. I won't bother asking any IDists if they believe that any of the above is grounds for denial of tenure. I will ask this, though: If someone WAS denied tenure because of their belief in ID, would it be religious discrimination? Think carefully about ID's claims to be science and not religion before you answer affirmatively.
Salvador: "I can't make a good case yet…"
But that won't stop you from doing a Mini-McCarthy move, will it.
Salvador: "Or they could do a PZ Myers:
'I call for firing and public humilation and torture via steel-toed boots and brass knuckles'."
Shame on you.
Comment by DataDoc — September 6, 2005 @ 4:56 am
September 6th, 2005 at 5:09 am
Art, I don't consider PP to be an academic work. Its claims are "too wide" if I can put it that way. However it provides fairly good base or bases for truly academic work. That is why I see it as a positive contribution to science. Why should be GG censored for it? And that was in the core of Mike's question. I am also not interested in motives of GG and other ID theorists, just their purpose. In my opinion their purpose is to advance science.
Comment by inunison — September 6, 2005 @ 5:09 am
September 6th, 2005 at 7:43 am
DataDoc said: "it's certainly no threat to anybody either then or today, two decades later." I wonder if you would call Dr. Patterson' stand just foolish if you were the target of that statement. And why do I say GG is the target when this statement does not mention him? Because of the follow up here.
Now again you can choose to ignore or dismiss this as another political ploy by ID theorists.
Questions you are asking, complaining how no one answers them, tell me that you are not familiar with ID theorist's claims or you already made up your mind against ID based on your prior philosophical assumptions (in wich case questions are purely rethorical).
Just in case you still need clarification on the scientific status of intelligent design go here and here for the good introduction into what ID is and is not. Of course you might not like the answers, but thay are given and hence subject to debate.
Comment by inunison — September 6, 2005 @ 7:43 am
September 6th, 2005 at 8:04 am
Excuse me Art but I never said nor implied that ID was anti-evolution. If that is what you infer by my posts then it is evident your inference skills require re-tuning.
Also it should be noted that presuming all of life;s diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population of single-celled organisms has absolutely NOTHING to do with finding cures fir diseases. We could do that if we presumed that allele frequencies change without tying it to that grand sweep.
If GG is withheld tenure because of his stance on ID it would be a travesty to scientific inquiry.
Comment by Joe G — September 6, 2005 @ 8:04 am
September 6th, 2005 at 11:10 am
Pez,
I am confused. The article vindicates what I said. I did not mean that I haven't seen people make that argument before (you can't take aTylenol without Darwin! [Seriously, someone told me that]). I meant that I do not see how Darwin's theory would in any way be necessary to any of that research.
Comment by onething — September 6, 2005 @ 11:10 am
September 6th, 2005 at 1:22 pm
Gee, somehow I assumed that the Smithsonian had been requested to review the merits of the scientific aspects of the film.
What we have here is a human nature problem. It appears that ideas upon which this country is founded, such as freedom of speech, inquiry and academic freedom has not really sunk in to more than a minority as a way to conduct oneself.
Comment by onething — September 6, 2005 @ 1:22 pm
September 6th, 2005 at 1:59 pm
Hi onething,
I was not offering it to refute you.
I was offering the article that you might have additional confrimation of your position.
Comment by Pez — September 6, 2005 @ 1:59 pm
September 6th, 2005 at 2:04 pm
I guess this confirms what I've always suspected - I can't help but appear confrontational.
Comment by Pez — September 6, 2005 @ 2:04 pm
September 6th, 2005 at 8:44 pm
Not at all. I think the misunderstanding happened because I worded my post as "I don't see how Darwinism is needed"
and you said "If you haven't seen it" — meaning the article, not the need for Darwinism.
Comment by onething — September 6, 2005 @ 8:44 pm
September 6th, 2005 at 11:51 pm
I guess Art didn't read this:
Why Do We Invoke Darwin?
Comment by Joe G — September 6, 2005 @ 11:51 pm
September 7th, 2005 at 3:05 pm
Hi onething.
Here's a little bit on junk DNA, a failed prediction, and how thinking like a Darwinist has actually hindered scientific research.
The link is from Answers in Genesis so it will not carry much weight with anti-Creation debaters, but it is interesting nonetheless.
Answers in Genesis
Comment by Pez — September 7, 2005 @ 3:05 pm
September 7th, 2005 at 4:17 pm
'lo Pez,
Also I was listening at the DI site to some radio interviews and someone mentioned that same oversight. But it is not only due to evolutionary thinking, but rather a general tendency toward jumping to unwarranted conclusions that seems to infect the human psyche.
Re the article, I couldn't help but note that some of the functions of the junk DNA could provide evolutionists with very fruitful areas of research with which to answer the question of new body plans as in the Cambrian explosion.
We live in interesting times.
Comment by onething — September 7, 2005 @ 4:17 pm
September 9th, 2005 at 11:51 pm
Let me add, regarding the independent comittee and who is qualified to peer-review Darwinist literature, something Michael Behe said to Allen Orr.
In 1997, Behe really put Orr in his place. Ouch!
Behe Responds to Orr
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 9, 2005 @ 11:51 pm
September 14th, 2005 at 2:04 am
[...] the ARN forum, Salvador poses a good question for Hector Avalos and his 120 colleagues: Is Guillermo Gonzalez's position on ID reason to deny him tenure? Thought Cops On The Beat At Iowa State [...]
Pingback by Teleological Blog » Blog Archive » Don’t Let Evil Avalos’ Bashings Against Gonzalez — September 14, 2005 @ 2:04 am