With apologies to the Trix rabbit.
Back in May 2007, Iowa State University denied tenure to astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez. As it happens, Gonzalez is an advocate of Intelligent Design, which has been legally ruled to be not only religion, but actually just warmed-over creationism.
You can interpret that to mean that ID is wrong, wrong, wrong.
So when ISU denied Gonzalez tenure, I applauded them. Faculty members are de facto representatives of the University, and having one advocate for a provably wrong antiscientific load of crap… well, it seems counterproductive. Denying someone tenure on that basis alone is, in my opinion, perfectly valid, and in fact should be demanded.
Of course, the Discovery Institute, a creationist (un)think tank whose people distort science for a living, take an interesting view on this. They claim that ISU was biased, and that Gonzalez is a martyr.
Um. Scientists are, in general, biased against pseudoscience. It’s a strength of ours, in fact. So I find myself agreeing in part with DI. How about that?
On the other hand, the martyr bit is silly. It’s just maybe an eensy weensy bit possible that maybe Gonzalez simply didn’t qualify for tenure. That happens, even to good scientists. The halls of academia are filled with assistant professors who couldn’t quite make the cut. It’s too bad, in many if not most cases, but that’s the market.
Iowa State University President Gregory Geoffroy made a statement backing this idea up:
As part of this decision process, I appointed a member of my staff to conduct a careful and exhaustive review of the appeal request and the full tenure dossier, and that analysis was presented to me. In addition, I conducted my own examination of Dr. Gonzalez’s appeal with respect to the evidence of research and scholarship. I independently concluded that he simply did not show the trajectory of excellence that we expect in a candidate seeking tenure in physics and astronomy — one of our strongest academic programs.
This is vague enough to be open to interpretation. However, he goes on:
Because the issue of tenure is a personnel matter, I am not able to share the detailed rationale for the decision, although that has been provided to Dr. Gonzalez. But I can outline the areas of focus of my review where I gave special attention to his overall record of scientific accomplishment while an assistant professor at Iowa State, since that gives the best indication of future achievement. I specifically considered refereed publications, his level of success in attracting research funding and grants, the amount of telescope observing time he had been granted, the number of graduate students he had supervised, and most importantly, the overall evidence of future career promise in the field of astronomy.
In fact, to get tenure at most Universities, you need to show an outstanding record of research, publications, and grant-finding. We don’t know the details of Gonzalez’s record, but ISU seems to think it was enough to deny him tenure. I poked around looking at his publication record, and it looks OK. But that’s not terribly meaningful; what matters is how it stacks up against what ISU wants, and what other faculty candidates have done. I don’t know Dr. Gonzalez personally, so I can’t give much more of an opinion on him than that.
On the Discovery Institute, though, I have plenty of opinions. One is that they are too dumb to know when they have lost (or they simply claim victory when they lose). They went to ISU to hold a press conference about all this. I don’t know if Gonzalez is a dupe or a willing participant in all this, but I can guarantee this: his career as a professional and respected astronomer will be dead after this. Complaining about not getting tenure generally doesn’t help the situation any; there are channels through which a prospective faculty member can travel. And getting DI to shill for you is not the best way to win friends and influence people in real scientific arenas — DI is filled with buffoons, as has been shown repeatedly. If ISU didn’t want Gonzalez before, he’ll be radioactive to them now.
And it’s funny– after all the sturm and drang the Disco ‘tute has invoked about how Intelligent Design isn’t religion but science, isn’t it fascinating that they are claiming that Gonzalez was denied tenure due to his religious beliefs? They call this "a clear First Amendment case" in their press release (which I won’t directly link to due to it just being icky, but here’s the URL: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?
command=view&id=4343&program=DI%20Main%20Page%20-%20
News&callingPage=discoMainPage). Obviously, free speech isn’t a worry when it comes to tenure proceedings, so they must mean religious beliefs.
So which is it? If Intelligent Design is science, then they have no case with Gonzalez being denied tenure due to his religious beliefs. If it’s religion, then it shows (once again, ad nauseum ad infinitum) that the Disco ‘tute is lying about their very foundational core, that ID is science and not religion.
Either way, this was a stunt, pure and simple. DI craves publicity, they desperately need it, and they know that the public has a short memory and won’t remember their litany of humiliating defeats. And could it be a coincidence that the Presidential primaries are coming up soon in Iowa? By starting up a press machine now, they may be hoping to get some publicity on the Presidential front. Given how several of the Republican candidates admitted to being creationists, the DI may very well be right.
Huh. That’s a first!
December 4th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
I wonder if they’re also trying to distract attention from what’s going on down in Texas. . . .
Yessir, just another day of hard science work at the Discoverup Institute!
December 4th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
DI can’t possibly believe they have a case. I wish they would try to make one so they can be so thoroughly humiliated again. I live in Iowa so I may even get a chance to see it first hand.
I think you’re right, though. It’s a publicity stunt. Why else wait until we’re so close to the primary? This thing with Gonzales has been going on for months.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
The Discovery Institute would like us to believe university astronomy and physics professors are too biased to make decisions about what constitutes scientific research suitable for granting tenure. If that’s the case, who do they think should? The Art Department?
December 4th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Heh. “Disco ‘tute.”
No, I have nothing valuable to contribute. I just thought that was funny.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Hmm. Could you extend their argument to say that the First Amendment discriminates against people on the ground of their religion, and is thus unconstitutional, because it violates the First Amendment?
December 4th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Gonzalez was not a dupe. He co-authored his ID book The Privileged Planet with Jay Richards, who is a fellow at the Discovery Institute and is currently busy hawking the book on well respected radio science shows like The Bible Answer Man with Hank Hanegraaff. Seriously, he was on that show for two hours over Thanksgiving where the book was being touted as an “essential resource for all Christians”.
So don’t feel sorry for Gonzales. He’s making money on book sales and he obviously doesn’t care than it is being used as a tool for Christian apologetics. Perhaps we can be a little sad than a once promising career has gone off the rails. Whatever his future holds, it’s unlikely that he will ever fulfill any dreams he has of achieving front-line astronomy research success.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Discrimination against bad ideas. It’s a good thing.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Nuts, Steve beat me to it.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
On the first amendment claim — could they be claiming that he was denied tenure because he made public statements in favor of ID? Since his views on biology don’t directly affect his study of astronomy, it could be argued that his views on ID aren’t relevant to his academic career.
I also agree that a lot of people are denied tenure, and ISU didn’t say it’s related to ID at all.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
sorry, bad form to double post. My point was that the DI people might not be claiming ISU violated his First Amendment religious rights, but his First Amendment free speech rights. In this case, free speech might be relevant in tenure procedings.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
I have been following the comments on the ID-friendly web sites, and it’s obvious that they don’t have a case. It’s pretty clear cut that there were plenty of reasons why Gonzales did not make the cut, even if you ignore his predilection for junk science.
No graduate students have gained their PhD under his tutelage since 2001. The average amount of grant money professors in the department have brought in since 2001 is around $1.3 million. Gonzales has brought in less than $100,000, and his publication rate in refereed journals has dropped off precipitously in the past few years.
The DI and its acolytes are reduced to arguing that things like:
“Gonzalez should be praised for his high productivity while obviously requiring a lot less money than the other professors.”
“No other ISU professor has been on the front cover of Scientific American”
“A well known atheist was granted tenure at ISU with a much less impressive record” (not in a science dept, though!).
Really it’ll make your mind go numb just reading that stuff.
Probably the biggest weapon they have are a couple of charts that list Gonzalez’s citations in scientific journals. By their account, by that measure he is right at the top of all professors in the department since 2001 and in his career. They supposedly used a valid database of Astronomy journals to do the work but there are a couple of serious problems with their results:
1) The database has dozens of possible search parameters — they don’t explain how they used it.
2) Even in the results since 2001, they don’t appear to filter out citations from papers older than that. Nobody argues that Gonzalez wasn’t productive back in his earlier years — he obviously did enough to earn a job at ISU on the prized tenure track. But it’s what he has done since joining ISU that counts, not continued respect for work done prior to getting tangled with ID and the DI.
Bottom line is that Gonzales’ promising career in astronomy ground to a near halt once he started getting involved in ID. One popular science book and coverage of his notoriety in science magazines like SciAm does not make for a good candidate for tenure.
In this case, it seems highly likely that Intelligent Design was well and truly the dead end it always proves to be.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
“Disco ‘tute” is almost beats “cosmortology”. Almost.
I agree with the above that from my observation, people are denied tenure on a regular basis, and it’s something you have to work and fight hard to get. Everything I’ve ever heard in favour of Gonzalez has taken a tone that suggests tenure is just something he should have gotten automatically, but was tragically denied in a clear case of religious discrimination. Bull.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Perhaps Dr.Gonzalez can join with Dr.Behe of Lehigh University (Prof of Biology — testified at Dover , PA School Trial) and they can jointly author a book to convince all other scientists of their particular insights and understanding about science. How do these folks get thru the vetting process to join the faculties major universities? We ain’t talkin’ about Oral Roberts U. here.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Phil, you need to refer people to Livescience.com where in the “strange news” section there is an article about the religion whose god is the “flying spaghetti monster.” This god is used by scientists to deny creationists and ID supporters exclusive, and even shared, use of their “theory.” It’s a good article that draws the conclusion that only good science should be taught in schools. I found it to be an excellent addition to all you are writing about what’s going down in Texas.
Oh, maybe I just referred everyone!
December 4th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Oops — was this Prof of Astonomy or Astology?
December 4th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Hmmm. There’s a lot of kooks with tenure who also have wacky and unscientific ideas; as long as it doesn’t influence their research, that shouldn’t be an issue. If Gonzales was denied astronomy tenure [i]solely[/i] because of his unscientific creation views, well, that would rankle me a bit. However, if it’s a holistic decision and he just didn’t make the cut, that’s fine.
The only reason I say this is that there were (and are still) plenty of decent Jesuit scientists (among others) and so the idea of tenured creationists doesn’t exactly bother me.
December 4th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
I’ve been waiting the better part of my life to see all this religious “belief” be processed in some scientific paradigm so that once and for all we’d be done with these wastrels of baffoonery. Not just the creationist/ID folks but all the other bits they claim as truth. Like Morals. Given the overall morality taught in the bible it’s no wonder that there are so many children molested or starving. That certain diseases run rampant throughout the world unchecked or ignored. That we in the US can’t provide medical care for a large part of our children. It’s funny to a point and can be pointed at with disdain but then becomes very very tragic. There was a comment somewhere else that “it’s not the majority of xtians that follow ID/creationism, yet I have heard no hue and cry from those who are disbelievers even if they also feel it is a foolish concept. To me silence is support.
December 4th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Centipede: I don’t think the Jesuit scientists would take very kindly to the implication that they are creationists!
“Believing that God created the universe in six days is a form of superstitious paganism, the Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno claimed yesterday.” (Scotsman.com, 5 May 2006)
It’s a mistake to conflate religious with creationist. I happen to know of at least one decent scientist who is a creationist, but the vast majority of religious scientists are not creationist.
December 4th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
So, does that mean I should also get rid of my Dr. Kent Hovind videos?
December 4th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Michael, No, keep the Hovind videos, they go well with Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Young Frankenstein, Airplane!, and reruns of Benny Hill; all funny, and not an IQ point in the bunch – well, maybe in MP&tHG, YF, Airplane, and BH, but…
And I’m told that they are all a good deal funnier the more stoned you get (I, of course have no experience with that, even before I got into manufacturing where I’m subject to ‘Project Golden Flow at any time).
December 4th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
typo: “… that ID is science and not religion.” should be “… that ID is religion and not science.”
December 4th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Too quick on the draw …
You could read is as “their very foundational core, namely that ID is science and not religion.” as well.
never mind … apologies for the interruption … I’ll crawl back under my rock now.
December 4th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Rob:
> Centipede: I don’t think the Jesuit scientists would take very kindly to the implication that they are creationists!
Depends. Some are, some aren’t. Most aren’t. Some hold truck with Benedict XVI’s current creationist slant, though. Why do I try to speak with the force of fact? Well… I knew quite a few, ‘s all.
> It’s a mistake to conflate religious with creationist.
Agreed, and to drop humility for a moment, I think I try harder than most here to avoid that conflation.
> I happen to know of at least one decent scientist who is a creationist, but the vast majority of religious scientists are not creationist.
Also agreed. Nevertheless, being a creationist does not necessarily preclude one from being a perfectly good chemist, nuclear physicist, mathematician, etc, which was essentially my point. They wouldn’t make very good evolutionary biologists, obviously, unless they’re of the Last Thursdayism variety who can happily study the Loki trick of the false fossil record.
David:
> I’ve been waiting the better part of my life to see all this religious “belief†be processed in some scientific paradigm so that once and for all we’d be done with these wastrels of baffoonery.
As that appears to be a simple solution to a complex problem, I’m afraid you’re probably going to have to wait a little while longer.
> Not just the creationist/ID folks but all the other bits they claim as truth. Like Morals.
Careful, there; sounding like a stereotypical Amoral Atheist (TM) only plays into the hands of the superstitious.
> Given the overall morality taught in the bible it’s no wonder that there are so many children molested or starving.
I think I missed the part where child molestation was called in as religiously obligatory. Incest, a bit, incest-by-marriage, a lot (Onan comes to mind), murder, pillage, and whatnot, but not child molestation. Seeing how the source material has so much to pick from in the grim and dirty departments, I don’t see the point in stretching for a negative.
> That certain diseases run rampant throughout the world unchecked or ignored.
Part of that is just general human sloth, too. It’s easier to imagine that it’s the fault of the West or Israel than actually bother to get our own acts together and take responsibility for our own actions. AIDS and the Catholic Church saying “no condoms!” I’ll happily give you.
> That we in the US can’t provide medical care for a large part of our children.
It’s not that we can’t, it’s that we don’t. This is a grim delusion we play on ourselves to make it seem more out of our control than it really is.
> There was a comment somewhere else that “it’s not the majority of xtians that follow ID/creationism, yet I have heard no hue and cry from those who are disbelievers [in ID/creationism --T.C.] even if they also feel it is a foolish concept.
Huh. Could’ve sworn I’ve heard quite a bit from the theistic evolutionists on this blog, as few as are willing to come out of the closet due to generalized hostility.
> To me silence is support.
Even assuming all those darn dirty Eckstians are all closet Cretinists, this sounds a lot like the “for us or against us” rhetoric beloved of demagogues throughout time. Science is generally more indicative of either “undecided” or “can’t be bothered.”
December 4th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Hm. Last sentence: “Silence,” not “science.” Sorry, Freudian slip. Hee.
December 4th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
In a recent report in the Des moines Register, members of the ISU faculty came right out and said that Gonzales’s support for intelligent design was part of the tenure discussions, and was a factor in denying him tenure.
As the head of the Physics and Astronomy Department said, “Would you have somebody in a French department who said Spanish was French?”
Read more in the thread entitled “Does the Bad Astronomer Support Creationism?” at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94760.
December 4th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
“provably wrong antiscientific”…
Your “proof” here seems to be that intelligent design “has been legally ruled to be not only religion, but actually just warmed-over creationism.”
Since when is a court ruling considered “proof”?
If a different judge had been sitting on the bench and ruled the opposite, would you be advocating that intelligent design was “provably right”? Probably not.
“You can interpret that to mean that ID is wrong, wrong, wrong.”
I recall learning (probably from Discovery Channel or Nova or similar media) that evolution was not initially warm to catch on, and there were legal rulings preventing schools from teaching “men from monkeys”. Could these legal rulings be interpreted to mean that ID is right, right, right? No! A court ruling is not proof of anything.
I’ve heard of the court ruling you’re describing. Original manuscripts were introduced where it was shown that the authors simply took religous texts and changed “God” to “designer” or something like that. But although the court found a connection between those advocating intelligent design and those with a religous agenda, I still wouldn’t consider intelligent design and religion inseperable.
Can the fish in my aquarium comprehend that they are swimming in an intelligently-designed habitat? Does my dog realize that his breed was created by humans intelligently manipulating evolution? Probably not.
How do we know that Earth is not some alien species’ fish bowl? We could be the product of some young alien’s science fair project, comparable to an ant farm? In this case, the intelligent designer would not be God, but some alien science student. Provable? No. Silly? Arguably yes. Disprovable? No. And a court ruling would not change that.
I’m not trying to advocate ID here. I’m only trying to point out that ID and religion are seperable, despite the fact that most advocates for ID are religous, and that a court decision is not “proof”.
—–
“Given how several of the Republican candidates admitted to being creationists…”
What’s the point in singling out Republicans? All the major Democratic Candidates are creationists by association:
Hillary Clinton is a member of the United Methodist Church, a Christian denomonation.
Barak Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ, a Christian denomonation.
Joe Biden is a Roman Catholic, a Christian denomination.
Christopher Dodd is a Roman Catholic.
John Edwards is a member of the United Methodist Church.
Bill Richardson is a Roman Catholic.
Dennis Kucinich is a Roman Catholic.
Mike Gravel is a Unitarian (Jesus is a prophet of God).
If you don’t believe in God (and hence creationism), you’ve got no business belonging to these institutions. So they’re either creationists too, or very insincere people who would join an organization whose beliefs they do not share, presumably because they realize that an athiest is not electable in this political climate.
December 4th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Tacitus, thanks for wading through the sewage that is the ID blogosphere; that was insightful.
“Some hold truck with Benedict XVI’s current creationist slant, though.”
Centipede, can you elaborate on this? I’m pretty sure the vast majority of Jesuits working in education and research are fully on board with the latest thinking in evolution and cosmology.
December 4th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Oh me oh my, where to begin…
> Gonzales’s support for intelligent design was part of the tenure discussions, and was a factor in denying him tenure.
Key phrase: “a factor,” not “the factor.” If he was borderline, I could see how an unpopular antiscientific viewpoint would tip it over. If he were a stellar (pardon the pun) astronomer, but happened to be an IDist as well, I’m certain his sins could have been forgiven as the grant money would’ve certainly made up for it.
> But although the court found a connection between those advocating intelligent design and those with a religous agenda, I still wouldn’t consider intelligent design and religion inseperable.
So it’s either God or a space alien with Godlike powers. Either way, a non-naturalistic cause and thus a cause disallowed in a naturalistic by definition, materialistic by definition, methodology of science.
> Can the fish in my aquarium comprehend that they are swimming in an intelligently-designed habitat? Does my dog realize that his breed was created by humans intelligently manipulating evolution? Probably not.
How do we know that Earth is not some alien species’ fish bowl? We could be the product of some young alien’s science fair project, comparable to an ant farm? In this case, the intelligent designer would not be God, but some alien science student. Provable? No. Silly? Arguably yes. Disprovable? No.
And you’ve just argued, and proven, why it’s not science and anyone who thinks it is is wrong, wrong, wrong. Thank you.
> I’m only trying to point out that ID and religion are seperable
So is Christianity the religion, Christianity the moral structure, Christianity the philosophy, and Christianity the series of rituals. However, it would be disingenuous to say that because the ritual of the Eucharist can be separated from Christianity, that ritual is somehow a truly intellectually separate entity. Intelligent design is admitted by its own creators, no less, in court and under oath, to be creationism in disguise.
More later.
December 4th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
“If you don’t believe in God (and hence creationism), you’ve got no business belonging to these institutions. ”
I am not a member of any religion…but I wonder a bit who elected you Pope?
December 4th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
tony, whatever ID is, it is not science, because it excludes an important part of the picture from scientific investigation, namely the nature of the “designer”. If you’re serious about investigating Nature, there are no limits to what you are allowed to ask.
As for the second part of your post, I think it’s sad that I have to point out to you that not all believers are creationists. There may be denominations that are mostly or even exclusively creationist. Certainly the RC church is not one of them, and I’m sure neither is the UMC. I don’t know about the others.
December 4th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Is seems to me that this publicity could be intended to drum up support for the forthcoming propaganda flick “Expelled,” which some have said that there is no doubt Gonzales has a part in. Collaterally, it might also be intended to fan the “teach the controversy” embers for those wishing to point out that there is controversy about ID, therefore there must be some controversy about evilution — guilt by association.
December 4th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
I would have once agreed with you. It is certainly possible that aliens had a hand in seeding life on this planet. But given what we know, it would seem to be very unlikely, and unless they dropped in to say hello or we found some unmistakable form of trademark or signature, then such an event is likely to remain beyond the bounds of scientific inquiry.
But it’s clear from everything the “mainstream” IDists do and say, that they have no interest in exploring ID as a purely scientific endeavor. Despite the billions of dollars in the hands of ID-friendly parties (wealthy right-wing Christians) and the dozens of ID-friendly Christian colleges and schools who could host them, there isn’t even a sniff of a serious ID research program. The DI fellows, the names of the ID movement couldn’t care less. Popular books, PR, politics, and legal maneuverings are the only things they put out.
This is William Dembski’s introduction to his blog, Uncommon Descent:
It’s clear that the IDists themselves don’t regard ID as a purely scientific endeavor to discover our origins. They see it as a battle between worldviews — materialistic science and some form of theistic belief system. If aliens had a hand in our origins, why would that have *any* cultural significance whatsoever? Indeed, if there was some intelligent designer involved in the creation of the Universe, there is no reason to automatically assume that it would have any cultural significance in our daily lives, none at all. Anything beyond that (like believing the designer is a God who requires obedience and worship) is a matter for religion and faith, not science.
So Dembski and his cohorts betray themselves over and over again. This is not about the science. It’s about religion and it always has been. ID is merely another weapon in the ongoing culture wars, just like creationism before it.
December 4th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
tony, your comment is wrong on multiple points:
ID is provably wrong on its own suppositions. For example, the bacterium flagellum or the eye cannot evolve on their own because they are irreducibly complex. That is a basic claim of ID, and is provably wrong. There are hundreds more examples.
It has nothing to do with a court case. However, the court case did prove that the proponents of ID are just creationists; they literally changed the word “creationism” to “intelligent design” in their book “Of Pandas and People”.
That negates the first half of your comments.
The second half is just as wrong. Not all Christians are creationists; they don’t all believe in the literal act of a six day creation 6000 years ago. That negates the second half of your comment.
December 4th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Centipede> And you’ve just argued, and proven, why it’s not science and anyone who thinks it is is wrong, wrong, wrong. Thank you.
Yes, I know. But the tone of your reply gives me the impression you feel I was trying to argue creationism is science. I made no such claim.
—-
Centipede> So it’s either God or a space alien with Godlike powers. Either way, a non-naturalistic cause and thus a cause disallowed in a naturalistic by definition, materialistic by definition, methodology of science.
Again, your reply seems to imply that you think I’m advocating that creationism is science. I am not.
—-
Daffy> I am not a member of any religion…but I wonder a bit who elected you Pope?
Then let me clarify. I never was elected Pope. I’m not sure what I said that made you think I was Pope?? The quote of mine you used said nothing about being Pope. It referred to whether people who don’t believe in God should join churches anyway. Where did you get Pope out of that??
—-
PK> tony, whatever ID is, it is not science.
I never advocated that is was. What gave you the impression I felt it was science? I agree with you that it isn’t.
—-
PK>As for the second part of your post, I think it’s sad that I have to point out to you that not all believers are creationists.
Why does that make you sad? I wasn’t making a connection between believers and creationists. I was making a connection between members of the churches that the Democratic Candidates belong to, and creationists. They’re all Christian except Mike Gravel. Christian implies that you believe that Jesus Christ is the savior and the son of God, creator of heaven and Earth. “Believer” is too general of a word. It could mean anything. But if by “believer” you mean “believer in God”, there are pleanty of believers who do not discount evolution and do not see it as a threat to their belief in God, but rather as a tool God uses to shape the universe he created.
—-
Centipede> Intelligent design is admitted by its own creators, no less, in court and under oath, to be creationism in disguise.
Even without their admission it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that thosed that coined the phrase “Intelligent Design” are simply repackaging creationism. But they don’t speak for everybody. It’s still possible for some to think that some external intelligence had a hand in our creation without elevating that intelligence to God, and building religions around worshiping him.
December 4th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
But when you rule out the DI and the others with the same agenda, who’s left? Certainly nobody with any clout in the scientific world.
December 4th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
BA> tony, your comment is wrong on multiple points:
ID is provably wrong on its own suppositions. For example, the bacterium flagellum or the eye cannot evolve on their own because they are irreducibly complex. That is a basic claim of ID, and is provably wrong. There are hundreds more examples.
I don’t disagree with you on this. But reading your blog gave me the impression that the court case was your proof, and that’s what I disagreed with. If I misinterpreted that, I apologize. I agree with you that there are pleanty of examples of things that proponents of ID claim which are baseless. The ID crowd was handing out booklets at the DMV one day. I laughed at a picture of a guy stabbing a radio with a screwdriver, with a caption “You can not create a better radio by doing this”. The point was that stabbing the radio was analgous to a mutation. It just made me think that if you stabbed a trillion radios with a screwdriver, whose to say one of them might not be improved in the process. I droped a broken flashlight on the floor once and it magically started working again. To me their argument actually favored evolution. The claim by the ID book was silly.
But the proponents of ID who think the eye can’t evolve without an intelligence do not speak for all people who believe that intelligence played some role in our creation. Some feel that evolution is simply a tool used by God to shape the universe he created. I’m not telling you this is what I believe. I’m simply pointing out that I’ve heard Christians justify their belief in both God and evolution with similar statements. And I don’t know how you would disprove that view since it incorporates science and evolution.
BA> The second half is just as wrong. Not all Christians are creationists; they don’t all believe in the literal act of a six day creation 6000 years ago. That negates the second half of your comment.
I have to disagree with you. I agree not all Christians take the bible literally, and hence do not hold the belief of 6-day creation, or a 6000 year old Earth, or Noah’s Arc, or the parting of the Red Sea, etc. But they do all believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God. That’s what [i]defines[/i] them as Christians. This of course implies that they believe in God.
December 4th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
tacitus> But when you rule out the DI and the others with the same agenda, who’s left? Certainly nobody with any clout in the scientific world.
I don’t disagree with that.
December 4th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
I may be mistaken, but most Christians are creationists (of varying stripes) in this country. Also- the more fervent the belief in Christianity- the less likely the person is to accept evolution.
Democrats, who increasingly use religious symbolism should not be immune to questions of what exactly they believe with regards to these topics.
Having said that- It’s clear that virtually all of the undermining of teaching evolution in this country comes from right wing Republican Christian sources. In fact, I’m not aware of a single Democrat candidate who suggests we should be teaching anything except evolutionary theory.
December 4th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
ID-DI-ots
December 4th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
[...] The Bad Astronomer created an interesting post today on Silly creationists, Universities are for scientists [...]
December 4th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
@tony: “I have to disagree with you. I agree not all Christians take the bible literally, and hence do not hold the belief of 6-day creation, or a 6000 year old Earth, or Noah’s Arc, or the parting of the Red Sea, etc. But they do all believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God. That’s what [i]defines[/i] them as Christians. This of course implies that they believe in God.”
Which says nothing about whether or not they are creationists.
A Jesuit who believes that evolution is the method by which God got stuff done is not a creationist. Even though there is a creator in their theology, by the definitions everyone in these discussions use, they are not creationists.
An atheist who thinks that all life on Earth was created by aliens and evolution is a dodge to cover up their work may well be a creationist.
December 4th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Tony wrote: “I droped a broken flashlight on the floor once and it magically started working again.”
Should the flashlight now be worshipped, or is magic an everyday occurence?
Belief in Christ does not require a literal interpretation of the Bible. Not even all Protestants feel that way.
Tacitus is on the right track. We do so much pointless writing here. Can someone graph the tenure-worthy attributes (grants, papers, cited papers, PhDs counselled, etc.) of all the professors granted tenure in the last year, and see where Gonzales fits on those charts? Is he an outlier at any end of the scales? Without hard data, it’s hard to determine if “discrimination” is the last refuge of a mediocre scholar.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
If a creationist is someone who not only believes in a creator, but someone who also discounts evolution, then I am wrong. The Urban Dictionary seems to agree with this. Other online dictionaries and sources also give this as one of several definitions, but also contain an alternate definition to be anybody that believes the universe was created by a higher power, which is how I intrepret the word.
So I guess we’re not arguing over whether or not the Democratic candidates believe in a creator. Rather, whether their belief in a creator makes them a creationist.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
If you take creationist, as it’s used in this blog and in american political discourse in general, to mean nothing more than “believes there’s a creator somewhere in the mix”, then it tends to become a little meaningless.
When Phil uses the term, I’d bet good money that he’s not using it simply as a synonym for “theist”.
I know more than a few theists who would be quite offended to be told that they’re “creationist” (in the sense meant from the beginning of this particular discussion), especially the catholic evolutionary biologists.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:04 am
By the generally understood meaning of the word “creationist” you are correct in that you are wrong. (If that’s not too confusing
The term creationist is typically reserved for someone who denies that evolution is the scientific explanation of how the variety of life in the world today arose. They can be young-Earth creationists (instant humans), or progressive (old-Earth) creationists (new species are injected into the mix from time to time), or even IDists like Behe (species arise through common descent via some unknown tweaking mechanism of an unseen designer).
People who believe in God and evolution are usually called “Theistic Evolutionists”.
I guess it’s kind of true that anyone who is a theist of some sort, many agnostics, and even some atheists could be deemed to creationists in the loosest sense if they believe that some intelligence was responsible for kick-starting our Universe. But nobody really uses the word that loosely these days.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:09 am
[...] Gonzalez | The Grand Rapids Press wrote an interesting post today on Silly creationists, Universities are for scientistsHere’s a quick [...]
December 5th, 2007 at 3:17 am
@Mooney: You posted: “An atheist who thinks that all life on Earth was created by aliens and evolution is a dodge to cover up their work may well be a creationist.”
Reading that at 0500 I made the jump to Jeff Foxworthy-ism.
EG:
If your school has a chapel, but not a science department—–You might be a creationist.
If you are more closely related to your 2nd cousin than is allowed by law in some states—–You might be a creationist.
If your family reunion picture appears to demonstrate that evolution can indeed run backwards——You might be a creationist.
I’m sure we can come up with more..
December 5th, 2007 at 4:21 am
[...] best to talk about the Gonzalez tenure case? Since he’s an astronomer, how about another astronomer? Phil is unimpressed: So when ISU denied Gonzalez tenure, I applauded them. Faculty members are de [...]
December 5th, 2007 at 5:29 am
This discussion is missing the main reason why Prof. Gonzalez was denied tenure. In his career at ISU, he failed to bring in any significant funding to support a research program in astronomy. The only funding he obtained was the Templeton Foundation grant which resulted in no peer reviewed research findings. There is nothing mysterious in all of this. Rob Knop failed to get tenure at Vanderbilt for exactly the same reason. Period, end of story.
December 5th, 2007 at 8:09 am
“ID is provably wrong on its own suppositions. For example, the bacterium flagellum or the eye cannot evolve on their own because they are irreducibly complex. That is a basic claim of ID, and is provably wrong. There are hundreds more examples.”
It is telling that you lifted examples from “biological ID” when you know Guillermo Gonzalez advocates “cosmological ID.”
December 5th, 2007 at 8:19 am
> In his career at ISU, he failed to bring in any significant funding to support a research program in astronomy.
Thanks. I figured it was something like that (see well above).
> It is telling that you lifted examples from “biological ID†when you know Guillermo Gonzalez advocates “cosmological ID.â€
So what, stars and planets are irreducably complex? Or the universal monoblock needed a reason to asplode?
Dr. Gonzales has affiliated himself very closely with the Discovery Institute, which is very much one of the prime schillers of biological ID. This tends to indicate that he supports biological ID as well, or else he is extremely naive and being used by the Discovery Institute.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:17 am
Creationists are those individuals who follow the American Protestant fundamentalist tradition of biblical inerrancy. This had origins in the early 20th century in reaction to perceived threats that modernization posed to the American Revivalist religious movement. Among several other issues, most significantly, was the perception that the sciences were “damaging, if not destructive, to the claims of the Bible, and the truth of Christianity. Science and Christianity are pitted against each other(1).”
(1) SCIENCE AND CHRISTIAN FAITH, PROFESSOR JAMES ORR, D. D., in The Fundamentals A Testimony to the Truth, Ed. R.A.Torrey (1817)
Modern-day Jesuits, and more broadly Catholicism, are not even remotely within this tradition.
Today, roughly 40% of Americans self-identify as evangelical Christians and among these one will almost exclusively find those who are generally sympathetic to creationist thinking.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:18 am
oops, The Fundamentals were pretty much published in 1917, not 1817
December 5th, 2007 at 9:27 am
All this reminds of…
http://cectic.com/078.html
December 5th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Religion is generally associated with a community and embraces, or in some cases, sets community standards. This is generally OK because we tend to want to live within like-minded groups. The aberrant behavior of religious groups is certainly CREATIONISM — creating myths and stories that the leaders promulgate to the group as part of the requirement to belong. This may not be a problem when it involves behavior standards that are for the common good (say, some of the 10 commandments). At some point the “leaders” or “priests” or “rabbis” or “mullahs” start to layer on a more & more stuff and abracadabra we have religious standards becoming increasingly complex and ultimately starting to spill into government and finally beginning to masquerade as reality. Perrhaps this can be decribed as the “EVOLUTION of religion”.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Thanks, Me. Very few evangelicals seem to realize that their movement is of very recent origin. The typical assumption is just the opposite, that they are returning to a style of Christianity that was prevalent before the twentieth century. Jerry Falwell, for example, called his program “The Old Time Gospel Hour.”
There is nothing “old time” about it in terms of Christian doctrinal history. Its doctrinal authorty is Orr’s Fundamentals, but its status as a mass movement is very largely a product of mass media, beginning with Billy Sunday in the twenties and continuing in an unbroken line to the “religious right” of today.
Even the connection to 19th century Revivalism is tenuous, since many of the Revivalists were modernists in doctrinal terms. The style and trappings of modern fundamentalism originated in that period but today’s fundamentalists are not of the same doctrinal tradition.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Oops, Torrey’s Fundamentalists.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Oops, Torrey’s Fundamentals.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:50 am
“Dr. Gonzales has affiliated himself very closely with the Discovery Institute, which is very much one of the prime schillers of biological ID. This tends to indicate that he supports biological ID as well, or else he is extremely naive and being used by the Discovery Institute.”
That may be, but it has nothing to do with his ID book, which is about astronomy and ID.
December 5th, 2007 at 10:09 am
@Robert O’Brien: “That may be, but it has nothing to do with his ID book, which is about astronomy and ID.”
Which, itself, has nothing to do with Phil’s original statement, which was about a basic tenet of ID in general, and not specifically Gonzales’ book.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
How lame. Professors get denied tenure for so many reasons — and it’s a university’s right to do so. Maybe he should try for tenure at Bob Jones University or similar.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
> Maybe he should try for tenure at Bob Jones University or similar.
Maybe… whatsitsbucket… Patriot University or whatever it is.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
One is that they are too dumb to know when they have lost (or they simply claim victory when they lose)
I think it’s mostly the second thing here– that never admitting loss is an intentional strategy for mitigating the poor PR of having lost. The thing is though, if the media lets them get away with it, was it really all that dumb?
December 5th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Looking at the Des Moines Register article you linked to, I noted the following quote:
“Gonzalez’s backers have insisted that he lost out on tenure, and will lose his job at the end of the school year, because of his religious beliefs and his advocacy for intelligent design.”
Not that I support Gonzalez or ID in the least, but the Disco Institute does not appear to be explicitly identified here as “Gonzalez’s backers,” as you seem to be indicating in your post. Perhaps I may have missed it elsewhere in the article. I certainly don’t doubt the connection myself, but it doesn’t look like we can use this particular Register article as rock-solid proof of that it exists in the Gonzalez case.
Keith said that free speech “might be relevant in tenure proceedings,” and I tend to agree. It’s not enough to say that “obviously” free speech isn’t what’s being targeted; we need the Institute to state in no uncertain terms that Gonzalez’s religious freedom is being trampled. Experience tells me that they are quite capable of putting this foot in their mouths with grand efficiency…
As for Kent Hovind and the flying spaghetti monster, I’d just like to point out that the ID assault on science is no game. Let’s put the toys away and get serious here.
December 6th, 2007 at 5:26 am
>That may be, but it has nothing to do with his ID book, which is about astronomy and ID.
And since cosmological ID is about as provable as biological ID, it still means it’s a load of old baloney, right Bob? ID is bunk whichever way you look at it.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
[...] Intelligent Design, but are in fact just trying to impose their religious views on everyone else. This has been so well-documented — kinda like evolution and the fact that the Earth is billions of years old — that it [...]
March 31st, 2009 at 11:17 am
“which has been legally ruled to be not only religion, but actually just warmed-over creationism…You can interpret that to mean that ID is wrong, wrong, wrong.” Just because something is legally ruled doesn’t mean that is the way the universe runs. And thank goodness. Such dogmatic thinking (you see what I did? I called science essentially another religion that requires just as much faith as any other religion) is ultimately harmful to true truth seekers. If you think logically, you know a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of what there is to know in the universe, so an absolute statement that this is not science or it did not happen this way, etc…, is quite ridiculous because in fact you do not know. I’m a big enough man to admit I don’t know how things happened, but I can tell you what I believe happened and am open to other theories. It sounds as though you are closed to any theories that involve God, gods, etc… And closing yourself off to theories without absolute proof that refutes said theories is antithetical to scientific reasoning. Until God is disproved scientifically (which realistlically will never happen) or non-intelligent design macro evolution (i.e. random chance and laws of physics) is absolutely proved, a rational person would leave open the possibility that it could be either and that maybe, just maybe, he or she is wrong about certain beliefs. I leave that possibility open. Do you?
January 4th, 2010 at 10:56 pm
[...] Excuse me? Since when have biologists induced mutations in each of the 165 million different bases of the Drosophila genome? How about all varieties of combinations of these mutations? Insertions? Deletions? The scientific community is FAR from having generated all possible developmental mutations in fruit flies and to say otherwise is a downright lie. I would normally say that it’s surprising for an organization trying to counter the scientific community to make a mistake as big, yet simple, as this, but then again the Discovery Institute tends to do a lot of things wrong. [...]