More on Gonzalez tenure denial

As far as I can tell this hardly undermines Rosenberg’s statement that “intelligent design was not a major or even a big factor in this decision.” “, especially if Gonzalez was pursuing the research track.

— PvM

While I am not persuaded that G's advocacy of intelligent design had much, if anything, to do with his failure to get tenure, the college would have been well within its rights to take it into account and come to the same decision. So what's the basis of any appeal?

Where is the logic in granting tenure to a teacher who does not accept the overwhelming universe of evidence in the very field he is to teach or research?

If he were truly concerned about tenure, he should have looked for a position where his magical thinking might have been appreciated;

Heddle, the problem with Gonzalez is that he uses a scientifically vacuous argument to combine the science of astronomy with his personal faith. Nothing wrong with that unless of course it is being 'sold' as scientific.

Do you believe that relying on a single data point to infer correlation is reasonable?

If he were truly concerned about tenure, he should have looked for a position where his magical thinking might have been appreciated

What overwhelming universe of evidence in Astronomy has Gonzalez denied? None that I’m aware of. Is there overwhelming Astronomical evidence that God does not exist? No. Is there overwhelming Astronomical evidence that our planet is not privileged? No. So please enlighten.

Is there overwhelming Astronomical evidence that our planet is not privileged? No. So please enlighten.

There was a lot more to magic, as Harry quickly found out, than waving your wand and saying a few funny words.

Maybe ISU wasn't as forthcoming as it should have been. I don't know. And I'm not sure I really care. I have no issue with them denying tenure on the basis of Gonzalez's ID beliefs alone.

After all, it would be the equivalent of a medical school denying tenure to a Doctor who denied the circulation of the blood, or still practiced leeching. Nobody would question a University's right to deny tenure for such a person who practices 'dead science', so what is the difference here?

I wonder if someone will ever slip up to the extent that they claim Gonzales was denied tenure because of religious persecution...

"Is there overwhelming Astronomical evidence that our planet is not privileged?"

Gonzalez would have had to disprove special relativity to show that there are any privileged locales in the universe. If he had succeeded in showing that Einstein and virtually all of modern astrophysics that depends on it are wrong, I doubt he'd have had much difficulty with tenure.

PvM,

That is a misdirection. I asked what about Astronomy has Gonzalez denied, re: the comment I addressed from EoRaptor013. You did not provide an answer.

Flint,

Your rather stupid comment also did not address my question--but then again you never actually make a cogent point, as far as I can tell.

raven,

Nor did you answer. Like flint and PvM, you either purposely or out of ignorance (like flint) interpreted my question as support for the PP or for Gonzalez's tenure. It was not. It was a direct question about what evidence from Astronomy Gonzalez denies? You did not answer that. An answer would probably involve one of these: 1) evidence that complex life has arisen on a number of non-earth-like planets and/or 2) evidence that planets like earth are fairly common. Astronomy has not provided any such evidence yet--perhaps it will. But in the meantime, Gonzalez had not denied overwhelming evidence in his own field. Or, if he has, nobody here has demonstrated the fact.

Someone could write a book called Unlucky Planet and be just as convincing as Gonzalez was.

But folks like Heddle would never "buy" it.

Apparently the DI believes that ID exhibits itself in all areas of life. Email chatter among faculty is a "conspiracy" to deny GG tenure. But true to form, they have yet to identify the "designer" behind this grand conspiracy.

Heddle seems unable to grasp the concept that the term "privileged" is devoid of scientific meaning.

"evidence that planets like earth are fairly common"

"Planets like earth." You mean planets on which earth-like bacteria could live? I think there must be quite a few of those. What's the problem?

He added later that 80 percent to 90 percent of the discussion on whether to grant Gonzalez tenure was based on his astronomy, but...

What up? Wasn't the whole point of Gonzalez's book and pro-ID activity a claim that astronomy supports ID? That ID is scientific? And now they want to find refuge in a claim that ID is non-scientific and separate from astronomy?

heddle 1: Is there overwhelming Astronomical evidence that our planet is not privileged? No. So please enlighten.

heddle 2: What overwhelming universe of evidence in Astronomy has Gonzalez denied? None that I’m aware of.

Like flint and PvM, you either purposely or out of ignorance (like flint) interpreted my question as support for the PP or for Gonzalez’s tenure. It was not. It was a direct question about what evidence from Astronomy Gonzalez denies?

Anyone know if the "tenure dossier" cited by Luskin is available? I'd be interested in seeing who the 5 positive outside reviewers were, and what it was that they actually said.

raven,

You provided no such evidence. The ultimate destruction of the planet by some form or another is not disputed. The PP position was that our planet is extremely rare in its ability to support complex life (and observation.) I agree this is not scientific, however (for the Nth time) my original comment was aimed at EoRaptor013's assertion that Gonzalez "does not accept the overwhelming universe of evidence in the very field he is to teach or research." There is, at the moment, no overwhelming evidence (in fact little or no evidence at all) that our planet is not privileged, if privileged means "extremely rare in its habitability for complex life." Such evidence might be forthcoming, but at the moment, Gonzalez's PP position, while not science, nevertheless does not deny overwhelming scientific evidence from his own field, as EoRaptor013 claimed.

Flint,

No, I never said the science supported Gonzalez's claim. I said the Gonzalez's claim does not contradict existing evidence. Until much more extra-solar planetary research is done this is an open question. Again you are arguing as if I am supporting Gonzalez's tenure case, which I am not. I am only disputing EoRaptor013's comment--get it?

Gonzalez was denied tenure because he ceased doing research, getting grants, and producing graduate students.

He has also made it clear that he does not understand what a scientific theory is, and this can only have a negative effect on his methodology (if he did, in fact, decide to do some research).

This fact is only highlighted by his support of ID, which has been described as unscientific by every major scientific organization (that has released a statement on the matter), as well as in a court of law.

PS Heddle is a troll. Besides the fact that it verges on the unbelievable that anyone would claim to believe in biblical Inerrancy in this day and age, anyone who does make such a claim has very little business calling anyone else's opinions stupid (especially when they still have not drank their poison like a True Christian, Mark 16:18).

PPS IDs fans are ID's own worst enemies. Invariably in school board meetings and other public venues, ID supporters bemoan "godlessness" in schools, threaten hellfire, pray to Jesus, and use "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" interchangeably. They know what ID is: A way to get God back into schools. To try to trick science teachers, parents, the public, and now University Administrations that ID is anything else is, and stop me if you've heard this one, "Breathtaking inanity".

Please think.

the problem with Gonzalez is that he uses a scientifically vacuous argument to combine the science of astronomy with his personal faith.

At the time that Gonzalez worked with Ward and Brownlee he was also a frequent contributor to the newsletter Connections and other pamphlets published by Hugh Ross's evangelical organization Reasons to Believe. In these writings Gonzalez presented many of the arguments for cosmic design later published in The Privileged Planet.

Some say we won’t be around 2 billion years from now.

The privileged planet is just a version of the Anthropic principle.

Once again, Professor Guillermo Gonzalez of Iowa State University is in the news. This time as victim, run roughshod by his colleagues, who, as narrow-minded defenders of the scientific status quo, brook no apostasy in the ranks. Now he is suing, claiming political if not religious prosecution for his work in intelligent design. The charge: Unfairness.

The basic position of those that favor ID is that the books are unfairly rigged. The unfairness they allege is that science rejects the supernatural.

Professor Gonzalez, as an ID proponent, is opposed to science. He believes science should be something other than what it is, specifically, a big tent that accepts religious revelation as truth. By intent, the purpose of ID is to replace science, not advance science -- revolution, not evolution. ID is the Trojan horse he is riding in this pursuit.

The State of Iowa is offering, through tenure, to give the Professor Gonzalez a job for life as a scientist and science educator, not a prophet. Denying tenure is a fair way of assessing that Professor Gonzalez’s professed goal of replacing science with revelation does not mesh with the educational goals of Iowa State University. In particular, they do not want Professor Gonzalez to exploit the university’s reputation to advance his pseudo-science beliefs. The undertone of religious victimization in his lawsuit reinforces the idea that Professor Gonzalez knows his court date is more about securing a forum to promote religion than advancing science.

PS Heddle is a troll. Besides the fact that it verges on the unbelievable that anyone would claim to believe in biblical inerrancy in this day and age, anyone who does make such a claim has very little business calling anyone else’s opinions stupid (especially when they still have not drank their poison like a True Christian, Mark 16:18)

PS Heddle is a troll.

“extremely rare in its habitability for complex life.”

You missed the boat too (in adressing my comments). You also failed to explain what overwhelming evidence from Astronomy that Gonzalez denies.

"or arc"

Oops. Ark.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=450467&in_page_id=1965
There is evidence of other earth-like planets. Hence earth is not privileged. The problem is that earth-like planets are small (astronomically) and hard to find in the universe with our limited telescopes. But I don't see why a tenure candidate who supported a magical theory was surprised to be denied tenure. I'd be laughed out of my program if I were to do the same thing with a different theory. Say I denied that bacteria cause disease and it was instead "God's Will". That would be a pretty good cause for rejection.

Oops. Ark.

Ark, isn't that the story of god killing all those innocent children and pregnant (unborns) women by the flood that god forgot to tell the Chinese, Sumerians or Egyptians about, that Ark? That's a true story? kinda like the talking snake story?

Stop bickering people. Assuming someone is trolling is just as likely to derail a thread as trolling itself does.

The Dishonesty Institute says "...thousands of pages of incriminating internal documents..." - "incriminating" means "accusing of or presenting proof of a crime."

If they feel they have proof of a crime, they very well may initiate a lawsuit. If we're lucky, they may even scam the Thomas More Law Center into trying to defend intelligent design creationism one more time.

heddle: EoRaptor013, I don't dispute that ISU has a right to deny tenure to Gonzalez, and that the way the system works includes the understanding that for every controversial extracurricular activity, you had better compensate by additional unimpeachable published research. However, I don't get your claim:

Where is the logic in granting tenure to a teacher who does not accept the overwhelming universe of evidence in the very field he is to teach or research?

What overwhelming universe of evidence in Astronomy has Gonzalez denied? None that I'm aware of. Is there overwhelming Astronomical evidence that God does not exist? No. Is there overwhelming Astronomical evidence that our planet is not privileged? No. So please enlighten.

tacitus: Stop bickering people. Assuming someone is trolling is just as likely to derail a thread as trolling itself does.

We’re all born atheists

Perhaps EoRaptor should've phrased his statement more to the effect of "Gonzales cherry picks evidence from his field to distort the larger picture in favor of a preconceived belief system." And that he, furthermore, claims that this belief system is scientific and publicly advocates for it. That phrasing would likely deflate heddle's objection.

The DI is touting this issue in terms "academic freedom," a concept which they clearly do not understand. Academic Freedom does NOT give you the right to undermine the educational mission of your institution; instead, academic freedom presupposes academic responsibility. It is also naive to hide behind "academic freedom" when Dr. Gonzalez knew he was up for tenure in a SCIENCE department at a reputable institution.

Heddle

You are right that no one has actually answered your question to EoRaptor013. But you are right only in the narrowest sense; no one has given an explicit example of Gonzalez's failure to accept "the overwhelming universe of evidence in the very field he is to teach or research?"

I think though that you are trying to be too clever here. Many people HAVE pointed out the more basic and tenure-deniable failures of Gonzalez, including embracing as science that which clearly isn't. This doesn't specifically refer to Astronomy, Gonzalez's "very field", but I am sure you will agree that although it certainly would be unjust if he was denied tenure on the sole basis of his adherence to non-scientific ideas rather than the totality of his academic efforts, the fact remains that he has aligned himself and has published ideas that are in direct opposition of the basic constraints of science. And THAT does include Astronomy.

Tyler DiPietro,

You are correct. If it had been put that way, I may not have agreed, but I could not have objected.

Flint: It's his responsibility to show the planet IS privileged - and he failed to do so.

Heddle's right, he's bat**** crazy/delusional, not a troll.

Moses: We're all born atheists Mr. Puddle and are indoctrinated, to greater or lesser extent, into superstitious beliefs, such as your great sky fairy, by our parents, family, friends and/or society. Since this belief is not empirical and I, and no-one alive, has ever seen the great sky fairy, it falls to you and your kind prove the extraordinary claims that God exists and the Universe is specially designed/privileged for humans.

Bill Gastropod:

tacitus: Stop bickering people. Assuming someone is trolling is just as likely to derail a thread as trolling itself does.

If Heddle were posting for the first time, it would be an assumption. As it is, it is a conclusion based on long history.

Science Avenger: Heddle's right, he's bat**** crazy/delusional, not a troll.

I continue to be astounded by the self-importance and arrogance of the ISU Physics & Astronomy department. This is not UCSB we are talking about; ISU, a university situated in the flatest of flatland, is not known for its physics or astronomy (unlike, say, its applied statistics) and the department seriously needs to get over itself. If anything, Dr. Gonzalez was doing them a favor by taking a position there.

I guess if ISU gave tenure to incompetents there would still be hope for you.

If anything, Dr. Gonzalez was doing them a favor by taking a position there.

I suspect this is much like the Leonard situation at Ohio State - an attempt to sleaze a creationist into a position of respect (a PhD for Leonard, tenure for Gonzalez)

Maybe ISU wasn’t as forthcoming as it should have been.

Need I remind everyone on this thread that this thread is about Gonzalez's denial of tenure, and the big stink that the Discovery is making over the fact that Gonzalez's association with Intelligent Design?

I find it astounding that an astronomy professor who was denied tenure because he had, for all intents and purposes, stopped doing science altogether, including research, instructing students, requesting grants, or even requesting the use of a telescope, in order to continue with his hobby of using what he's learned in science to engage in useless religious apologetics would have supporters who are arguing that not doing science in order to do religious apologetics is not a valid reason to be denied tenure over.

As far as I've heard, Gonzalez became a scientifically useless and immobile lump when he began associating himself with the Intelligent Design Movement in the exact same way Michael Behe became a scientifically useless and immobile lump when he started writing those lousy books.

Really, I can not wrap my head around why the Discovery Institute is crying bloody murder over the fact that people discussed him being an ID proponent while deciding his request for tenure. I mean, what with the fact that Gonzalez has done absolutely nothing of scientific merit within recent memory, there wasn't anything else literally worth mentioning.

And the fact that he's also friends with the Discovery Institute, an institute that has the stated and unstated holy mission of wrecking the entire educational system of the US in the name of Christ, isn't so much as another nail in Gonzalez's coffin, it's a friggin stake in his heart.

But I digress...

Can someone please explain to me why expressing a disinterest in doing science in order to engage in science-sounding religious apologetics not a valid reason to be denied tenure?

It's my impression that candidates for tenure undergo a periodic review of their tenure files so that along the way, the candidates are made aware of potential problems with an eye toward remediation/course correction.

Has GG been forthcoming with his copies of his tenure reviews through the years at all committee levels - departmental, college & university?

If so, where can these be found? If GG hasn't made these available . . . why not?

The fact that I believe in biblical inerrancy is irrelevant

News flash: it's never irrelevant. You might as well begin a sentence with, "The fact that I believe that molesting children makes me immortal is irrelevant to [insert boring subject at issue here]"

The point is that reasonable people stop paying attention to folks who say such things because time is money and who wants to waste valuable time discussing anything with a creep who brags about his ignorance?

The DI's position reminds me of a child throwing a tamtrum:

parent: ID is not science, the Antropic principle is not science, creationism is not science...

DI: is too

parent: no its not - and let me explain to you what science IS and why ID etc. isn't (insert logical explaination appropriate for a 3 year old)

DI: is too

parent: saying it is does not make it so, you can't always get what you want.

DI: I hate you

According to the DI:

1. ID is science, not politics

2. Gonzales's tenure decision should have been based on science, not politics.

3. ISU should not have considered Gonzales's ID activities when making its decision.

One of these things does not belong.

I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world.

— Phil Johnson

“Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.”

— Johnson

“This isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science. It’s about religion and philosophy.”

— Johnson

By the way, isn't viewpoint discrimination what education is all about?

In fact, the freedom of people to learn how to discriminate among viewpoints is exactly what is at stake. Forcing public school teachers to tell people that there is no reason to discard evidence-free nonsense is the antithesis of both freedom, and of education.

Then again, there's no reason to invent such misleading terms as "viewpoint discrimination" other than to mis-educate legislators and the public.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Yes, good point. In fact, the DI seems to be arguing that the viewpoint of those on the tenure committee should have no relevance as to the tenure decision.
Speaking of viewpoint discrimination.

Thank goodness, the DI cannot invoke the violation of religious beliefs without significant loss of credibility.

What an interesting conundrum... hence the very weak viewpoint discrimination...

PVM said: "As far as I can tell this hardly undermines Rosenberg’s statement that “intelligent design was not a major or even a big factor in this decision.” “, especially if Gonzalez was pursuing the research track."

Of course it almost wholly and totally undermines Rosenberg's statement, but that's what happens when you lie and leave a paper trail. Rosenberg was afraid to speak the truth because he most likely feared the political and/or legal ramifications. Indeed, the fact he mentions the phrase "factor in this decision" reveals that he'd already been coached by lawyers. The importance of the existence (or not) of "motivating factors" in hiring and tenure decisions is well-established in Supreme Court jurisprudence.

Robert O'Brien said:

"This is not UCSB we are talking about; ISU, a university situated in the flatest of flatland, is not known for its physics or astronomy (unlike, say, its applied statistics) and the department seriously needs to get over itself."

Perhaps, Robert meant flat earthers, or rustics since "flatest of flatland" doesn't have a connotation of insult around here. But, to his point, how flat is flat?

Determine for yourself at:

http://ortho.gis.iastate.edu/client.cgi?zoom=10&x0=448703&y0=4653604&layer=doqqs

Select the 24K/100K topos or the 10/30 meter hillshade at whatever scale is interesting.

And why?

http://www.igsb.uiowa.edu/Browse/glatrail/glatrail.htm

I think it fundamentally comes down to something very simple.

No-one has the right to academic tenure.

Academic tenure must be earned. It can only be earned by showing that one's scientific career promises to be a productive and successful one. This is usually done by, inter alia, acquiring grants, publishing research papers and acting as mentor to students.

Tenure is (IIUC) granted or not by the faculty to which one applies. It is their decision to make.

If you have an interest in what might charitably be called dodgy science, then your colleagues are going to doubt your ability to reason objectively and critically, and they will not therefore consider you to be a good candidate for tenure.

ISU was rated one of the top 30 research institutes for Physics & Astronomy in 2001. ISU regards, the department as one of their top academic departments, and even maintains its own observatory (Fick). Plus the faculty have a number of prestigious positions in the international astronomy community.

W. Kevin Vicklund: ISU was rated one of the top 30 research institutes for Physics & Astronomy in 2001.

Nigel D: Tenure is (IIUC) granted or not by the faculty to which one applies. It is their decision to make.

Since Iowa State is a public institution, the faculty must answer for their decision, if called upon to do so.

Robert O'Brien:

W. Kevin Vicklund: ISU was rated one of the top 30 research institutes for Physics & Astronomy in 2001.

According to whom? (Not the National Research Council, since their last comprehensive rankings were in 1995-96, as I recall.) And what does that mean, anyway? That it sat at 30 in 2001 but has slipped farther down since then? As I posted previously, ISU has just cause to take pride in its statistics department but their physics and astronomy department is as unremarkable as Ames.

Robert O'Brien said: I continue to be astounded by the self-importance and arrogance of the ISU Physics & Astronomy department. This is not UCSB we are talking about; ISU, a university situated in the flatest of flatland, is not known for its physics or astronomy (unlike, say, its applied statistics) and the department seriously needs to get over itself. If anything, Dr. Gonzalez was doing them a favor by taking a position there.

Robert O'Brien, could you please explain to me why expressing a disinterest in doing science in order to engage in science-sounding religious apologetics not a valid reason to be denied tenure?

GvlGeologist, FCD: So ROB thinks the way for ISU's physics and astronomy program to get ahead is to hire incompentent [sic] pseudoscientists.

PvM:

Since Iowa State is a public institution, the faculty must answer for their decision, if called upon to do so.

In what sense? The courts typically give a lot of leeway to the subjective process of tenure. Even if the faculty were wrong in their assessments, if they believed that something was troublesome, the courts tend to give them a lot of leeway in this. Through what logic have you reached your conclusion that the faculty must answer for their decision?

Robert O'Brien:

PvM:

Since Iowa State is a public institution, the faculty must answer for their decision, if called upon to do so.

In what sense? The courts typically give a lot of leeway to the subjective process of tenure. Even if the faculty were wrong in their assessments, if they believed that something was troublesome, the courts tend to give them a lot of leeway in this. Through what logic have you reached your conclusion that the faculty must answer for their decision?

They are state employees and must conduct themselves as such.

PvM: So what would a 'top researcher' like Gonzalez do at such a 'third rate' school? Perhaps ISU is doing him a favor? Whaddayathink Robert... This is a two edged sword.

PvM:

Robert O'Brien:

PvM:

Since Iowa State is a public institution, the faculty must answer for their decision, if called upon to do so.

In what sense? The courts typically give a lot of leeway to the subjective process of tenure. Even if the faculty were wrong in their assessments, if they believed that something was troublesome, the courts tend to give them a lot of leeway in this. Through what logic have you reached your conclusion that the faculty must answer for their decision?

They are state employees and must conduct themselves as such.

Do you have any supporting evidence as to what this means? What compels these people to 'conduct themselves as such'? I understand your reluctancy in discussing the details as a vague statement is much easier to defend than a well reasoned argument.

Since Iowa State is a public institution, the faculty must answer for their decision, if called upon to do so.

— Robert O'Brien

GvlGeologist, FCD:

So ROB thinks the way for ISU’s physics and astronomy program to get ahead is to hire incompentent [sic] pseudoscientists.

— Robert OBrien

That is, of course, a mischaracterization of Guillermo Gonzalez.

They are state employees and must conduct themselves as such.

— Robert OBrien

ISU faculty are state employees. What makes you think they get to conduct themselves in any other manner?

— Robert OBrien

To clarify my above comment, ROB appears to be implying that the faculty are not comporting themselves as befits employees of Iowa State (assuming, for the time being, that we accept, for the sake of argument, their status as employees of the state).

Nigel D: To clarify my above comment, ROB appears to be implying that the faculty are not comporting themselves as befits employees of Iowa State (assuming, for the time being, that we accept, for the sake of argument, their status as employees of the state).

Actually, I am not sure that they are guilty of any malfeasance. However, I do think they should have to answer for their decision (in court, if it comes to that).

— Robert OBrien

Robert O'Brien:

GvlGeologist, FCD: So ROB thinks the way for ISU's physics and astronomy program to get ahead is to hire incompentent [sic] pseudoscientists.

That is, of course, a mischaracterization of Guillermo Gonzalez.

Nigel D:

Actually, I am not sure that they are guilty of any malfeasance. However, I do think they should have to answer for their decision (in court, if it comes to that).

— Robert OBrien

This exactly misses my point. It was their decision to make. Why should they have to answer for it, and to whom do you think they should answer? Who else is qualified to judge the correctness or otherwise of that decision?

The Discovery Institute, apparently.

Nigel D:

Actually, I am not sure that they are guilty of any malfeasance. However, I do think they should have to answer for their decision (in court, if it comes to that).

— Robert OBrien

This exactly misses my point. It was their decision to make. Why should they have to answer for it, and to whom do you think they should answer? Who else is qualified to judge the correctness or otherwise of that decision?

Stanton:

Robert O'Brien:

GvlGeologist, FCD: So ROB thinks the way for ISU's physics and astronomy program to get ahead is to hire incompentent [sic] pseudoscientists.

That is, of course, a mischaracterization of Guillermo Gonzalez.

Gonzalez is no longer scientifically active. Please explain why ISU should give tenure to a scientist who has given up doing science, please.

Since PT participants like to tout Judge Jones’ decision against ID, they should have no problem with a tenure decision being brought before a judge. (If it comes to that.)

Even if Guillermo Gonzalez never published another scientific paper again, he still would be good enough for ISU physics & astronomy.

Robert O'Brien:

GvlGeologist, FCD: So ROB thinks the way for ISU's physics and astronomy program to get ahead is to hire incompentent [sic] pseudoscientists.

That is, of course, a mischaracterization of Guillermo Gonzalez.

From Heddle:

"The fact that I believe in biblical inerrancy is irrelevant when it comes to my claim that EoRaptor013’s assertion that Gonzalez “does not accept the overwhelming universe of evidence in the very field he is to teach or research.” You didn’t even try to address that claim."

First of all, I saw no reason to address your claim posed as a classic ID rhetorical shift-the-burden-of-proof god-of-the gaps question. If you wanted to, you could have just done the research yourself instead of lazily asking others to do it. (I could just as easily claim that you did not address my claim that G's scholarly output has been in decline for several years, or anyone for that matter could make that claim of anyone else here who did not address their own comment specifically. You are not the centre of the debate, Heddle.)

But since you asked and asked and asked and asked....

Here's what only ten minutes on only popsci sites revealed:

Amino acids and other organic molecules form naturally in deep space and under deep-space-like conditions:
http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news108.html
http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/news/expandnews.cfm?id=1319
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1142840.stm
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2002/02_93AR.html

These amino acids are not only likely to survive impact, but can also combine to form peptides in the process:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/comet_life_010405.html

Self-replicating Membrane-like chemistry seems fairly easy (regardless of whether this was a result of pollution or a cometary delivery):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_rain_in_Kerala

And, of course, there's a lot more where that came from. Extremophile research is particularly interesting. So is recent work in protein folding that puts a lie to cdesign proponentists' we-pulled-numbers-from-our-rears probability analyses. But don't take my word for it (or these secondary sources), research it for yourself.

Also from Heddle:
"That’s a real ad hominem (and very, very stupid)."

Yes it is an Ad Hominem, but is an Ad Hominem always inappropriate?
If we were having a debate on the age on consent and the only person who wanted it lowered was a registered child sex offender, would your dedication to logic prevent you from making others aware of this fact?
Similarly, if we're having a debate about a scientific issue and the most loudly dissenting voice believes demonstratively conterfactual myths over the very facts that discredit it, latin logic fouls will not prevent me from pointing this fact out.
The usual problem with Ad Hominem is that it is usually a nonsequitor. "He's black, we shouldn't listen to him", erroneously implies that we can judge the quality of someone's beliefs based on their race. However, Biblical literalism is not like race or gender. It is a belief, presumably chosen. I'm just saying that we can judge the quality of someone's beliefs based on their beliefs, which doesn't seem like much of a stretch.

I will apologize to you for one thing though: I guess you aren't a troll. I just assumed that the claim to believe in biblical literalism was just a front, an excuse to be needlessly contrarian and confrontational, and evoke emotional reactions form people who otherwise would be engaged in a productive debate. However, given the testimony of many here, I guess you really do believe in biblical inerrancy somehow and really do work in science. However, I am not impressed by your ability to keep your work and your religion in separate logic-tight compartments, nor your aggresive manner, nor your repetitive and "very, very stupid" comments.

"Excellent! That’s a real ad hominem (and very, very stupid). (Not the incorrect use of that term, as a synonym for insult, but an honest to goodness ad hominem) The fact that I believe in biblical inerrancy is irrelevant when it comes to my claim that EoRaptor013’s assertion that Gonzalez “does not accept the overwhelming universe of evidence in the very field he is to teach or research.” You didn’t even try to address that claim. Go back to Rhetoric 101. Or tell me what overwhelming evidence from Astronomy that Gonzalez denies.

A judge. Since PT participants like to tout Judge Jones’ decision against ID, they should have no problem with a tenure decision being brought before a judge. (If it comes to that.)

— Robert OBrien

A judge. Since PT participants like to tout Judge Jones’ decision against ID, they should have no problem with a tenure decision being brought before a judge. (If it comes to that.)

— Robert OBrien

Besides, what makes you think that a judge is better placed to judge the merits of an academic tenure case than that person's actual colleagues?

Face it, Robert: Gonzalez got a fair hearing and was found wanting. His scientific output since joining ISU was not what the ISU faculty hoped it would be. It was not indicative of the early stages of a successful science career. This is mostly due to the fact that he wasn't doing enough actual science, but it was also partly due to the fact that his interest in ID raised genuine concerns among his colleagues about his ability to distinguish good science from pseudoscience garbage.

“Contrary to his public statements, and those of ISU President Gregory Geoffroy, the chairman of ISU’s Department of Physics and Astronomy, Dr. Eli Rosenberg, stated in Dr. Gonzalez’s tenure dossier that Dr. Gonzalez’s support for intelligent design ‘disqualifies him from serving as a science educator.’”

“on numerous occasions, Dr. Gonzalez has stated that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory and someday would be taught in science classrooms. This is confirmed by his numerous postings on the Discovery Institute Web site. The problem here is that Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. Its premise is beyond the realm of science. … But it is incumbent on a science educator to clearly understand and be able to articulate what science is and what it is not. The fact that Dr. Gonzalez does not understand what constitutes both science and a scientific theory disqualifies him from serving as a science educator.”

Robert O'Brien:

Stanton: Gonzalez is no longer scientifically active. Please explain why ISU should give tenure to a scientist who has given up doing science, please.

Even if Guillermo Gonzalez never published another scientific paper again, he still would be good enough for ISU physics & astronomy.

Robert has a good point though in that Gonzalez's track record is quite impressive, however, reading the ISU statements, the committee believed that Gonzalez did not show the progress expected or hoped for. This includes his position on ID being science, his publication record, his funding record and more. While I find it hard to believe that the denial of tenure did not involve ANY consideration of his position on ID, I also do not believe it was the leading reason for the decision of the tenure committee to deny him tenure.
The problem is that we have to second guess as to what motivated the committee members to vote the way they did, and while the DI attempts to conclude that based on their pre-tenure emails, the committee and the faculty had created a workplace environment hostile to Gonzalez, such a position seems tenuous at best, given the lack of context in which many of these emails were written.Yes, there were (legitimate(?)) concerns from faculty and the tenure committee as to Gonzalez's focus or lack thereof. Does this amount to discrimination or viewpoint discrimination or hostile workplace or what? While Gonzalez is free to pursue his own research, the tenure committee is also free to reject his choices and they did.

Tenure is all about a certain level of viewpoint discrimination and restrictions on subject matter, the question is, what extent of such 'censorship' is academically allowable. While there is surely some freedom as to what research to pursue, there is also the inevitable fact that the faculty gets to decide if they are convinced by the directions chosen.

As such, this is a complex matter.

On a personal note, any time someone is denied tenure, it comes at great cost to the person(s) involved and that is regrettable.

Robert O'Brien:

Stanton:

Robert O'Brien:

Gonzalez is no longer scientifically active. Please explain why ISU should give tenure to a scientist who has given up doing science, please.

Even if Guillermo Gonzalez never published another scientific paper again, he still would be good enough for ISU physics & astronomy.

Stanton:

Robert O'Brien: Even if Guillermo Gonzalez never published another scientific paper again, he still would be good enough for ISU physics & astronomy.

I do not see the logic in that. Yes, his past accomplishments are impressive, but, he is no longer writing papers, he has no intention of mentoring any graduate students, and he does not even have any intention of requesting time with the telescope. In otherwords, he's rotting on his own laurels. Giving an inactive scientist turned religious apologist tenure is like trying to raise a line of thoroughbreds by buying the stuffed and mounted carcass of Sea Bisquit.

PvM: You are right, Gonzalez is hardly a pseudoscientist although I and others have found much wrong in his claims expressed in Privileged Planet. His earlier work however is without any doubt quite novel.

Just the other day I was watching an episode in the series “The Universe” and one of the scientists they interviewed said his career was over (having exhausted his previous research) but he plugged along anyway and ended up being one of the first handful of scientists to discover planets orbiting distant suns. Some scientists/scholars publish in spurts, you know.

— Robert OBrien

Even if Guillermo Gonzalez never published another scientific paper again, he still would be good enough for ISU physics & astronomy.

— Robert OBrien

Since PT participants like to tout Judge Jones' decision against ID, they should have no problem with a tenure decision being brought before a judge. (If it comes to that.)

Just the other day I was watching an episode in the series “The Universe” and one of the scientists they interviewed said his career was over (having exhausted his previous research) but he plugged along anyway and ended up being one of the first handful of scientists to discover planets orbiting distant suns. Some scientists/scholars publish in spurts, you know.

What really makes his position funny is that a lot of us are expressing hope that it *will* go to court, so that the DI Fellows can once again choose between remaining silent in court and being thought fools, or testifying and leaving no doubt.

— Bobby

Nigel:

"I just thought the whole thing might end up being more hassle and palaver than they want to deal with. After all, the principal component of their job is to do science."

My experience has been that any outsider's attempt to interfere with the already-tenured's right to sit in judgement of their tenure-track peers yields a result not unlike a rabid wolverine. Most days they'd slit each other's throats for funding-but this will bring them together in new and interesting ways.

Just think of the poor sod that had to look through all the emails that mentioned Gonzalez since at least 2004 and that is all they came up with.

Ron - yes, if it was done by hand, that would have been a dull job. Maybe they had a search algorithm to do it . . . ?