Standing Up For Scientists
by bipodMost of us here at telicthoughts would rather there not be a political issue so that we could get on with the fun of exploring scientific questions. With that said, I cannot stand back as a wussy religious instructor leads a religous crusade against a legitimate astrophysicist.
So let's get this straight. Hector Avalos, an atheist at Iowa State University, is leading a crusade of Scientific McCarthyism against Guillermo Gonzalez. The stated reason by Avalos: ""We certainly don't want to give the impression to the public that intelligent design is what we do." Now Avalos and the other 120 signers of the document will deny that they're doing anything inappropriate, but let's be serious. This is Scientific McCarthyism in a cheap tuxedo;-)
"Mr. Avalos said the statement was not intended to silence Mr. Gonzalez, or to get him fired…"
Sure. Then why single him out?
August 26th, 2005 at 1:24 pm
Thanks guys. I know this stuff is not the focus of your blog, but thanks for sticking up for Guillermo. He's an intelligent, sincere, and humble guy. He is worthy of everyone's best wishes.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 26, 2005 @ 1:24 pm
August 26th, 2005 at 2:04 pm
According to the article, "the statement at Iowa State does not single out intelligent-design supporters by name." It says, "Mr. Avalos … had helped to write it partly to counteract the publicity received by Mr. Gonzalez" but the writers were also concerned that this publicity might "give the impression to the public that intelligent design is what we do [at Iowa State]."
If you read the statement itself you will see that besides not mentioning Gonzalez by name, the statement also makes no direct or indirect mention of Gonzalez' abilities as either a scientist or as an educator, nor does it suggest or imply that he is in any way lacking in intelligence, integrity, or suitable qualifications for the position which he now holds. The statement speaks exclusively about what the writers regard as being the definitive characteristics and scientific liabilities of ID itself. It makes no reference to, or recommendations regarding, anyone who might believe in ID.
Under the circumstances, I think it's a bit of an overdrawn conclusion to refer to this statement as "a crusade of Scientific McCarthyism against Guillermo Gonzalez." I can understand how it might be taken as a slap in the face against ID, and maybe even as a biased or distorted polemic against ID. But against Gonzalez personally? How do you get that?
Comment by Mark Nutter — August 26, 2005 @ 2:04 pm
August 26th, 2005 at 2:09 pm
From the link to the articled:
"Mr. Avalos said the statement was not intended to silence Mr. Gonzalez, or to get him fired, but to encourage him to speak on the issues in a "mutually agreed upon forum" where faculty opponents could raise questions. "The most important action we want," said Mr. Avalos, "is not to suppress Dr. Gonzalez but to express our own view."
What's that? Now they DO want to debate. At least *honestly* address the issues that G.Gonzalez puts forth? I strongly doubt that.
Comment by Doug — August 26, 2005 @ 2:09 pm
August 26th, 2005 at 2:11 pm
Mark, they can't get any attention for their scientific research, because they aren't doing any, so they are shreiking at the top of their lungs about how they are being persecuted, even when they aren't. You see, to be fair, we have to treat them like their are legitimate scientists, even though they don't have a theory, don't even think they are capable of formulating a theory, and don't do any actual scientific research. But if you point any of these facts out, you are an "Intellectual McCarthyist".
Comment by Aagcobb — August 26, 2005 @ 2:11 pm
August 26th, 2005 at 2:15 pm
Doug, if Gonzalez is trotting out the usual "issues" IDists come up with, like the Cambrian Explosion, IC, and CSI, those poor horses were beaten to death a long time ago. Has Gonzalez got any fresh ideas that haven't been addressed ad nauseum?
Comment by Aagcobb — August 26, 2005 @ 2:15 pm
August 26th, 2005 at 2:16 pm
I think Avalos clearly had Gonzalez in his gunsights. The statement was directed at him.
The two had sparred before Gonzalez vs Avalos
So the using this statement to get Gonzalez to somehow debate just doesn't seem to hold water.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 26, 2005 @ 2:16 pm
August 26th, 2005 at 2:38 pm
Whether or not ID is legitimate science or is politics is precisely what's at question. Surely you recognize, outside of your own realm of bias, that there can be a legitimate debate over whether or not univerisities should be seen to support something that is not scientific. If a mathematician starts touting power crystals that cure cancer, would it be inappropriate for the medical school at the associated university to issue a strong statement rejecting those claims as being something the school endorses?
And how is openly criticizing a particular ideology tantamount to McCarthyism?
Comment by plunge — August 26, 2005 @ 2:38 pm
August 26th, 2005 at 3:12 pm
"Doug, if Gonzalez is trotting out the usual "issues" IDists come up with, like the Cambrian Explosion, IC, and CSI, those poor horses were beaten to death a long time ago. Has Gonzalez got any fresh ideas that haven't been addressed ad nauseum?"
Aacobb, have you read "The Privledged Planet" His criticisms are not the 'usual' issues that IDists come up with. Alot of people mis-represent Gonzalez position. Go to Panda's Thumb, it's clear alot of the people up in arms about Gonzalez didn't even read his book. I've read many posts from people criticizing Gonzalez for his problems with evolution. I read his book, how much of it even dealt with evolutionary theory?
But in regards to the Cambrian Explosion, IC or CSI; just you saying "they've been beaten to death" doesn't make the issues surrounding them any less poignant. It seems like you're thought process is 'write them off as being old issues and that discredits them'.
So to answer your last question: Yes, Gonzalez has some fresh ideas in regards to ID.
You're posting on this thread, have you read his book?
Comment by Doug — August 26, 2005 @ 3:12 pm
August 26th, 2005 at 3:39 pm
Doug, no I haven't read Gonzalez's book.
Doug said:
"But in regards to the Cambrian Explosion, IC or CSI; just you saying "they've been beaten to death" doesn't make the issues surrounding them any less poignant. It seems like you're thought process is "Ëśwrite them off as being old issues and that discredits them'."
Nope, noone should write anything off on my say so, I'm just a lawyer, what do I know? The point isn't that I say they are old issues, the point is that anyone interested can easily find scientific responses to those issues. Heck, even creationists say that IDism hasn't presented any new issues, but only repackaged arguments creationists have been making for years.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 26, 2005 @ 3:39 pm
August 26th, 2005 at 3:47 pm
And anyone interested can also find scientific responses to the responses. The question is whether or not the "scientific responses" to ID arguments such as IC constitute a "beating", or even if they're plausible. I think not. Too many people make the mistake of thinking that just because those responses exist, that ID arguments have been sufficiently dealt with.
Comment by ultimate175 — August 26, 2005 @ 3:47 pm
August 26th, 2005 at 4:03 pm
Ultimate175, you may think not, but Behe's arguments aren't gaining any traction in the wider scientific community, and I haven't seen any reason to think that IC structures can't evolve other than IDists desperate desire to believe something can't evolve.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 26, 2005 @ 4:03 pm
August 26th, 2005 at 4:07 pm
If 120 profs at Iowa State using their First Amendment privileges to speak out to set the record straight strikes you as "McCarthyism," then what is 400-1 signers of a misrepresented letter at Discovery Institute? The Keystone Cops?
Comment by edarrell — August 26, 2005 @ 4:07 pm
August 26th, 2005 at 4:11 pm
The fact that Behe's arguments aren't gaining any traction in the wider scientific community is a direct result of his inference to design, which obviously breaks from materialistic orthodoxy (interestingly I think they are gaining considerable traction in the younger scientific community, which could be argued is even more important). The responses and proposed evolutionary pathways for IC systems have been marginal at best.
While you "haven't seen any reason to think that IC structures can't evolve", I haven't seen any reason to think they can. Perhaps you can show me the way.
My apologies for taking this off-topic in regards to the original post.
Comment by ultimate175 — August 26, 2005 @ 4:11 pm
August 26th, 2005 at 4:22 pm
The point here is that Gonzales is being singled out. Maybe not in the statement, but look at the way the statement is being used by Hector Avalos, an author of the statement. Avalos repeatedly references Gonzales in the news report.
Gonzales is now in the crosshairs at Iowa State. He's singled out. He now an untouchable. Associate with him or support him and face your own demise (that is if you are a professor at Iowa State).
Comment by bipod — August 26, 2005 @ 4:22 pm
August 26th, 2005 at 4:24 pm
Wow. Did you see all those astrophysicist colleagues on the list! Guillermo Gonzalez, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Comment by bipod — August 26, 2005 @ 4:24 pm
August 26th, 2005 at 4:51 pm
Hi Bipod,
From the CHE article:
From the statement:
I wonder how this 'exchange of ideas' will pan out:
Gonzalez: "Hi everyone. I've done this research on the galactic habitable zone, which, in my opinion, supports…"
Faculty opponents: "Schh!"
G: "But…"
F: "Schh!"
G: "I …"
F: "Schhh! Knock, knock."
G: "Who's there?"
F: "Schh!"
(With apologies to Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery.)
Bottom line: What's the point of having scientists discuss something that they, from the get-go, believe falls outside the very definition of science? Are they going to invite a literature professor next week?
Comment by Krauze — August 26, 2005 @ 4:51 pm
August 26th, 2005 at 4:53 pm
The reason this is an attack on Gonzalez, and not just on ID in general, is that Gonzalez is the only public supporter of ID at ISU.
From this article:
He's being targeted. And it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Gonzales was coming up for tenure in the near future.
Comment by bipod — August 26, 2005 @ 4:53 pm
August 26th, 2005 at 4:59 pm
Krauze,
Yeah, it doesn't make sense in the least that Avalos wants Gonzales to take part in a public forum where the purpose and conclusion of the discourse has already been mapped out:
"We want to make sure the public and the university start to voice their opposition to intelligent design," Avalos said.
Comment by bipod — August 26, 2005 @ 4:59 pm
August 26th, 2005 at 5:54 pm
Mark:
I disagree with this opinion. The statement clearly singles out Gonzalez. It pronounces judgment on his arguments as follows:
I'll explore these argument shortly, but now pay close attention to the concluding sentence:
Since Gonzalez is among "all faculty," he is being urged to abandon his position. Given this statement, we can raise the question of whether it would be proper to allow any of these signatories to discuss and vote (behind closed doors) on Gonzalez's upcoming promotion and tenure.
Comment by MikeGene — August 26, 2005 @ 5:54 pm
August 26th, 2005 at 5:55 pm
This is absolutely ridiculous, they actually want Gonzalez to take on 120 of his own colleagues? If he gets overwhelmed with questions (most of them totally irrelevant, in classic Darwinist fashion) and loses the debate (or whatever you call it) then his opponents will make sure this gets on every paper, magazine, radio and TV show in the country. If he wins then he'll be further ostracized and they'll look for other ways to discredit him.
Comment by jasonng — August 26, 2005 @ 5:55 pm
August 26th, 2005 at 6:02 pm
Ed:
The 400 signers are not in a position of power to put any person's career in the cross-hairs. The 120 profs at Iowa State are.
Comment by MikeGene — August 26, 2005 @ 6:02 pm
August 26th, 2005 at 6:34 pm
[...] is Scientific McCarthyism in a cheap tuxedo, as other wise men have declared elsewhere: http://telicthoughts.com/?p=237 http://www.uncommondesc [...]
Pingback by Teleological » Don Let Evil Avalos’ Bashings Against Gonzalez — August 26, 2005 @ 6:34 pm
August 26th, 2005 at 11:28 pm
bipod wrote:
I think you should go back and review McCarthyism. McCarthy was the one who saw conspiracies everywhere and who took the public testimonies of others and argued that they were evidence of ulterior motives and hidden, evil agendas.
Avalos and 119 other faculty members object to ID (rightly or wrongly) on the grounds that they feel ID represents an improper approach to the scientific method, and have issued a public statement saying so. You concede that this statement does not in fact raise any charges against Gonzalez personally, yet you persist in portraying it as an attempt to personally harass Gonzalez rather than as an attempt to public state their objections to ID, even though the latter is both the stated purpose and the actual content of the statement. And you accuse Avalos of McCarthyism?
What's the remedy you seek? Single out Avalos? Silence him? Fire him? Are Gonzalez' views on ID the only views that should be allowed public expression? If not, how and under what restrictions should Hector Avalos and the other 119 like-minded faculty be permitted to give their opinions the same kind of public expression that Gonzalez' opinions have been given?
Comment by Mark Nutter — August 26, 2005 @ 11:28 pm
August 27th, 2005 at 2:20 pm
Ed, Mark Nutter: I can't believe you can't see the difference between 400 people being prepared dissent from a group of hundreds of thousands, and 120 out of 1600 being prepared to deny the validity of the actions of one person in that group of 1600.
If 400 people (dissenters) signed a letter reacting against something I was doing as part of a group of hundreds of thousands (scientists who support evolution), I would be puzzled. But if 120 of my colleagues signed a letter reacting against my activities as an individual, I would be terrified. Use your imaginations, why don't you? If it is beyond you, ask your wives, if you have them – women are generally better at understanding the human impact of things that happen.
This is Smithsonian mark II. Guillermo has my deepest sympathy. It doesn't take much imagination to conclude that it won't be long before another good scientist moves out of mainstream science institutions and into more sympathetic organisations.
Comment by Exile From Groggs — August 27, 2005 @ 2:20 pm
August 27th, 2005 at 2:24 pm
Oh, by the way: how should they respond? Easy. Write a paper that refutes the arguments in Privileged Planet. That's what academics are supposed to do, isn't it? Not intimidate by getting signatures on pieces of paper.
Comment by Exile From Groggs — August 27, 2005 @ 2:24 pm
August 27th, 2005 at 2:48 pm
Exile makes a good point. For years, ID critics have been saying that such debate should take place in the peer-reviewed literature. Gonzalez has already had his research published in the literature, so why does his critics want to goad him into an oral debate in front of a hostile audience? Wasn't that what YECs were doing to evolutionists?
Comment by Krauze — August 27, 2005 @ 2:48 pm
August 27th, 2005 at 4:39 pm
To Exile I would recommend going back and re-reading MikeGene's excellent series of posts on labelling. What he said is true, no matter who does the labelling. We're not just talking about 400 scientists signing a petition and we're not just talking about 120 faculty members publishing a letter in the campus newspaper. We're talking about a concerted drive nationwide and around the globe to label scientists as literally evil "Darwinists" who are deliberately distorting science in order to advance a subversive and atheistic agenda. I see people writing anti-Darwinist letters in my hometown newspaper, I read about them in school boards and legislatures and at all levels of the government, up to and maybe even including the White House. We're not talking about mere hundreds of people here, we're talking thousands, maybe tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, well-funded, enthusiastic, and not too particular about who they accuse. And a lot of these so-called "evil Darwinists" who are supposedly pushing this "atheistic agenda" are honest, God-fearing Christian folk — not that anyone cares. How do you think the non-ID faculty feel, knowing how many "conspirators" there are arrayed against them?
What's the persecution here? That Sternberg and Gonzalez are having some people treat them the way many on the ID side treat "Darwinists" By what standard shall we judge whether this is right or wrong? For my part I would dearly like to see an end to the propaganda war against "the Darwinists," and let the ID side make the ID case by building up scientific evidence for ID. Trying to make the opposition look evil is no way to build a scientific case that ID is valid.
Comment by Mark Nutter — August 27, 2005 @ 4:39 pm
August 27th, 2005 at 4:51 pm
Hi Mark,
"I see people writing anti-Darwinist letters in my hometown newspaper, I read about them in school boards and legislatures and at all levels of the government, up to and maybe even including the White House."
Do any of those people have the power to influence the tenure-granting process?
Comment by Krauze — August 27, 2005 @ 4:51 pm
August 27th, 2005 at 6:10 pm
Indeed. Also, to what extent are these people influencing public opinion? I have seen ad hominem, political, and philosophical arguments against ID in New Scientist, heard them on Radio 4 (the best serious radio station in the UK), and seen them in daily newspapers – both highbrow (Independent, Times) and lowbrow (Mail). At the extreme end, the argument is along the Dawkins line – that anybody who teaches their children that religion is important is a child abuser. So – just to make sure that the implications of that in terms of individuals are absolutely clear – Oxford Professor Richard Dawkins considers me a child abuser. This is in mainstream media, and people are coming to conclusions not only about science but about religion as a consequence.
Are you telling me that I should accept this as part of the normal ebb and flow of intellectual debate? Are you telling me that people using a democratic process (which is what school boards are presumably a part of) to seek to make clear that neo-darwinism doesn't have all the answers (contra most biology textbooks) are a) more intimidating than this and b) more threatening to intellectual discourse than this and c) less rational than this?
Comment by Exile From Groggs — August 27, 2005 @ 6:10 pm
August 27th, 2005 at 6:56 pm
You worry about the tenure-granting process. Ok, fine: other people have worries too. They worry about budgets, laws, science education standards, appointments to state and federal courts (not excluding the Supreme Court) that could rule on cases relating to church/state issues and the mingling of religious doctrines in public science education. They worry about state standards of political correctness based on not being an "evil Darwinist" — maybe not today, but kids grow up fast. Is Gonzalez the only one who has a right to be concerned when no actual threat has actually materialized? Nobody at ISU has threatened Gonzalez' tenure, as far as I've heard. They've criticized his argument, period. They're allowed to do that in a free society. Aren't they?
Comment by Mark Nutter — August 27, 2005 @ 6:56 pm
August 29th, 2005 at 7:00 am
The case contrary to "Privileged Planet" has been published in several papers. Why are you guys not reporting on them?
Comment by edarrell — August 29, 2005 @ 7:00 am
August 29th, 2005 at 7:21 am
Because it is irrelevant.
Comment by MikeGene — August 29, 2005 @ 7:21 am
August 29th, 2005 at 8:46 am
ed, the case contrary to "privileged planet" has been published in several papers. ok. the case against various literary theories have been published in several papers. the case against various theories in theoretical physics have been published in several papers.
what's the point?
Comment by bipod — August 29, 2005 @ 8:46 am
May 12th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
The proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the eating.
An unfortunately prophetic statement.
Comment by Mung — May 12, 2007 @ 8:01 pm