Gonzalez appointed assistant professor at Ball State University

Well, this is bad news for all BSU students and alumni.

Highly unlikely to be a coincidence. Someone with clout at Ball State is trying to sneak in creationism. This will end in an embarrassment for the university.

NOTE: There is no straightforward first amendment issue here. It's a question of judgment. I use the language "sneak in" creationism, not because it is necessarily illegal for BSU to teach sectarian science denial and call it "science", but because that is clearly what is happening. I will leave the question of legality for the legally trained.

This pattern of promoting politically motivated, religiously-tinged science denial will have a strong negative impact on morale, recruitment, and civility. Since ID/creationism is easily shown to be scientifically indefensible, this amounts to extreme favoritism - a potential faculty member with a record of teaching equivalently nonsensical science denial, but without supporting right wing religious propaganda, would not be considered for hire or given major courses to teach. Since these two faculty members are being shown implicit favoritism, faculty members who accept scientific consensus are, by logical extension, disfavored, by someone with hiring power.

I personally recommend that all current and potential strong students and faculty at BSU protest this as strongly as possible, including by moving elsewhere if indicated.

Remember, these aren't "maverick" professors trying to teach a bold new idea. These are shills who have dedicated themselves to pushing a well-known propaganda platform, using barely coded dog whistle language that is instantly recognized by political activists as signalling support for a major ideology. Either of them could walk into a highly paid job at a Bible college or right wing "think tank" right now, just based on their record to date. Their reason for being at BSU is to cooperate with an agenda of destabilizing mainstream research institutions. They are probably taking pay cuts, relative to what the wingnut welfare system would pay them. They are doing that because they know that BSU is a well-respected research center, with mainstream prestige that Bible colleges and propaganda mills can't match. Their goal is to falsely imply that their own science denial deserves the prestige won by hard-working real researchers.

Dembski failed at Baylor, but Dembksi isn't very slick, and these moves signal possible secret friends of anti-science at high administrative levels, something that does not seem to have been entrenched at Baylor. This looks like very bad news for BSU. It looks as there are a lot of creationist secret handshakes going on, at high levels. A highly controversial new faculty hire requires high level support.

My wife is an Associate Professor at BSU and I cannot tell you how angry she and her colleagues are at this appointment.

They are probably taking pay cuts, relative to what the wingnut welfare system would pay them. They are doing that because they know that BSU is a well-respected research center, with mainstream prestige that Bible colleges and propaganda mills can’t match.

I wonder what the faculty in the physics department thinks about this?

harold: Highly unlikely to be a coincidence. Someone with clout at Ball State is trying to sneak in creationism.

harold said: There is no straightforward first amendment issue here.

tomh said:

harold said: There is no straightforward first amendment issue here.

Sure there is. There is a good deal of evidence that a specific form of religion, disguised as science, is being pushed by a teacher, who is paid with taxpayer dollars, at a publicly-funded school. That's an issue.

A number of attorneys post comments here from time to time; I’ll be interested to hear what they say.

Bishop v. Aronov, 926 F.2d 1066 (11th Cir. 1991) An exercise physiology professor referred to his religious beliefs during instructional time. The university requested that he discontinue this practice, and he challenged the action as violating his freedoms of speech and religion. The court held that the university's actions of exercising editorial control over style and content of speech in school-sponsored expressive activities were permissible, so long as the university's "actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns." The court further ruled that academic freedom is not an independent First Amendment right, and refused to substitute its discretion for that of the university. The court rejected the free exercise of religion claim, holding that the professor "made no true suggestion, much less demonstration, that any proscribed conduct of his impedes the practice of religion." Edwards v. California University of Pennsylvania 156 F.3d 488 (3rd Cir. 1998) A professor who was suspended with pay for advancing his religious beliefs through his lectures sued the university for violating several of his constitutional rights. The court rejected his claim, relying on its conclusion that a public university professors' [sic] First Amendment rights do not extend to choosing their own curriculum or classroom management techniques in contravention of school policy or dictates. The court also reasoned that a university, as well as a professor, has certain academic freedoms, and therefore, a university can make content-based decisions when shaping its curriculum.

Matt Young said:

A number of attorneys post comments here from time to time; I’ll be interested to hear what they say.

While we are waiting, I followed up on the link from the Star-Press article and looked up Bishop vs. Aronov. The University of North Carolina has this to say regarding "Religious Freedom of Faculty Members":

Bishop v. Aronov, 926 F.2d 1066 (11th Cir. 1991) An exercise physiology professor referred to his religious beliefs during instructional time. The university requested that he discontinue this practice, and he challenged the action as violating his freedoms of speech and religion. The court held that the university's actions of exercising editorial control over style and content of speech in school-sponsored expressive activities were permissible, so long as the university's "actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns." The court further ruled that academic freedom is not an independent First Amendment right, and refused to substitute its discretion for that of the university. The court rejected the free exercise of religion claim, holding that the professor "made no true suggestion, much less demonstration, that any proscribed conduct of his impedes the practice of religion." Edwards v. California University of Pennsylvania 156 F.3d 488 (3rd Cir. 1998) A professor who was suspended with pay for advancing his religious beliefs through his lectures sued the university for violating several of his constitutional rights. The court rejected his claim, relying on its conclusion that a public university professors' [sic] First Amendment rights do not extend to choosing their own curriculum or classroom management techniques in contravention of school policy or dictates. The court also reasoned that a university, as well as a professor, has certain academic freedoms, and therefore, a university can make content-based decisions when shaping its curriculum.

It seems that the employer has certain rights too.

The court rejected the free exercise of religion claim, holding that the professor “made no true suggestion, much less demonstration, that any proscribed conduct of his impedes the practice of religion.

Matt Young said: While we are waiting, I followed up on the link from the Star-Press article and looked up Bishop vs. Aronov.

Does anyone know if state universities can have religion departments? Not just comparative religion, but the straight stuff. If they can have such, that pretty well takes care of the First Amendment issue at the university level. All that remains is whether someone hired to teach science is violating the terms of his contract by teaching nonsense instead of science.

SensuousCurmudgeon said: Does anyone know if state universities can have religion departments? Not just comparative religion, but the straight stuff. If they can have such, that pretty well takes care of the First Amendment issue at the university level. All that remains is whether someone hired to teach science is violating the terms of his contract by teaching nonsense instead of science.

I've answered my own question about teaching religion at state universities. At the University of Florida you can major in Religion. That pretty much answers the First Amendment question.

SensuousCurmudgeon said: I've answered my own question about teaching religion at state universities. At the University of Florida you can major in Religion. That pretty much answers the First Amendment question.

harold said: ... in the US, favoring any religion in public schools - that's "schools", not "universities" - is illegal.

More information and comment on Thomas Robertson's involvement here.

tomh said:

harold said: ... in the US, favoring any religion in public schools - that's "schools", not "universities" - is illegal.

There is nothing special about schools. It would be illegal at any government agency.

You honestly believe that government agencies are allowed to favor one religion over another? No law degree needed to figure that one out.

Agreed. Any American can read the Constitution.

tomh said: You honestly believe that government agencies are allowed to favor one religion over another? No law degree needed to figure that one out.

No law degree needed to figure that one out.

(Update on related topic) According to the Muncie Star Press, on the class syllabus of controversial professor Eric Hedin is a Stephen C. Meyer article disavowed by The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington shortly after being published in 2004.

If the allegation is true that the article is referenced for its scientific merits rather than as a bad example of how-to-do good science, this seriously discredits Hedin's qualifications as a science teacher, regardless of any First Amendment issues.

harold said: However, as I have noted here, and as Sensuous Curmudgeon has also noted, perhaps in a less patient and more terse way, advocacy of religion (or atheism) by professors at state universities seems to have been found to be within the bounds of the first amendment. This reflects the different status of universities, which are subsidized by governments but not "government agencies".

TomS said:

harold said: However, as I have noted here, and as Sensuous Curmudgeon has also noted, perhaps in a less patient and more terse way, advocacy of religion (or atheism) by professors at state universities seems to have been found to be within the bounds of the first amendment. This reflects the different status of universities, which are subsidized by governments but not "government agencies".

Also, I believe (and IANAL), the courts consider that the students at universities are adults, and thus are more able to understand that what the professor says does not carry the official endorsement of the state. Children have to be more protected than adults.

I'm on the faculty of a state university. I consider myself to be an agent of the state, so I consider my religious and political positions to be off-limits in the classroom and in course-related discussions with students. (If relevant, I will discuss government policies, but there is never a partisan element to that.) If a student asks me, outside the context of the classroom, about my positions regarding politics or religion, I'll discuss them to the extent that the student is interested; in the last seven years, that's only happened a couple of times.

If there is an issue, it is whether the professor at a state university in his capacity as instructor is considered to be a state actor or not (and I don’t know enough to say).

harold said: No, that is not what I said.

Comments on the case from someone who should know something about the legal aspects. According to her, the establishment clause is unlikely to be relevant (and yes, the age of the students can matter in First Amendment cases).

tomh said:

harold said: No, that is not what I said.

You said, "in the US, favoring any religion in public schools - that’s “schools”, not “universities” - is illegal." You make this claim, that favoring religion is illegal in schools but not universities, without citing any evidence or legal precedents, without citing any "law degrees you possess, bar exams you have passed, etc", that you are demanding of others.

SensuousCurmudgeon said: Does anyone know if state universities can have religion departments? Not just comparative religion, but the straight stuff. If they can have such, that pretty well takes care of the First Amendment issue at the university level. All that remains is whether someone hired to teach science is violating the terms of his contract by teaching nonsense instead of science. and later added: I've answered my own question about teaching religion at state universities. At the University of Florida you can major in Religion. That pretty much answers the First Amendment question.

Dave Lovell said: But if you read what he wrote Tomh, he is not making the claim you attribute to him. His claim is that the situation for a school is clear, but for higher education it is not clear

He, unlike you, was prepared to defer opinion on its legality to somebody who understood the finer points of the Law.

tomh said: If you read the exchange you would see that I merely pointed out there is nothing special about schools, all government agencies are barred from favoring a religion, at which point he demanded precedents and credentials. Silly.

Oh, please. He began the very first comment with the pronouncement, "There is no straightforward first amendment issue here." Certainly an opinion on the legality of the situation. He just doesn't like it when others voice a different opinion.

The Hedin case has been extensively argued over at Jerry Coyne's web page, with both TomH and Jerry taking fairly black-and-white stances on it being unconstitutional. If you want a more in-depth information on why they think that way, I suggest you go there and see what they wrote.

Full disclosure, I generally disagree with them on the constitutionality question but really don't feel like getting into (yet another) rehash of it here.

Oh, please. He began the very first comment with the pronouncement, “There is no straightforward first amendment issue here.” Certainly an opinion on the legality of the situation. He just doesn’t like it when others voice a different opinion.

Dave Lovell said:

tomh said:

harold said: No, that is not what I said.

You said, "in the US, favoring any religion in public schools - that’s “schools”, not “universities” - is illegal." You make this claim, that favoring religion is illegal in schools but not universities, without citing any evidence or legal precedents, without citing any "law degrees you possess, bar exams you have passed, etc", that you are demanding of others.

But if you read what he wrote Tomh, he is not making the claim you attribute to him. His claim is that the situation for a school is clear, but for higher education it is not clear (which is not the same as "it is not illegal"). He, unlike you, was prepared to defer opinion on its legality to somebody who understood the finer points of the Law.

He just doesn’t like it when others voice a different opinion.

eric said: The Hedin case has been extensively argued over at Jerry Coyne's web page, with both TomH and Jerry taking fairly black-and-white stances on it being unconstitutional. If you want a more in-depth information on why they think that way, I suggest you go there and see what they wrote. Full disclosure, I generally disagree with them on the constitutionality question but really don't feel like getting into (yet another) rehash of it here.

For an informed opinion that teaching ID in a state university science class probably is unconstitutional, see here: http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=wmborj

Legal or no, it is chilling that Thomas Robertson
(who appears to be the one responsible for hiring Gonzalez) is also involved the in the program that trains potential high school science teachers!

-Jason Mitchell

MaskedQuoll said:

harold: Highly unlikely to be a coincidence. Someone with clout at Ball State is trying to sneak in creationism.

The prime suspect would be the chair of physics and astronomy, Thomas Robertson

Jason Mitchell said: Legal or no, it is chilling that Thomas Robertson (who appears to be the one responsible for hiring Gonzalez) is also involved the in the program that trains potential high school science teachers!

Joe Felsenstein said:

Jason Mitchell said: Legal or no, it is chilling that Thomas Robertson (who appears to be the one responsible for hiring Gonzalez) is also involved the in the program that trains potential high school science teachers!

I have no idea whether he is responsible for the hiring decision, but here are some perspectives on his teaching. Either this is a negatively-biased sample of his students, or he should tell the high-school science teachers not to emulate him.

Maybe Ball State wants to compete against Lehigh and they need a Behe.

I assume the existing faculty, at least the tenured people, participated in the hiring review process. Possibilities: they had no problem with his background, were sympathetic to it, didn't know about it (or didn't care), or perhaps GG was such a robust candidate that they thought he'd enrich (gulp) the existing faculty, or finally, that any negative reviews were ignored by Thomas Robertson and the Dean of Science and GG was hired anyway. Typically, an assistant professor position is for a max of 6 years, after that tenure is either granted or not, depending on performance. But who knows what Ball State requires for performance. None-the-less we can expect to see the dishonesty institute toot its horn at this successful slick wedge maneuver.

DavidK said: None-the-less we can expect to see the dishonesty institute toot its horn at this successful slick wedge maneuver.

For an informed opinion that teaching ID in a state university science class probably is unconstitutional, see here.

In Part I, this Article suggests that universities may determine that ID is not science and thus preclude professors from teaching it in university science departments. Such a determination has significant doctrinal and philosophical implications. Science departments may also consider research by ID theorists under their general tenure policies, which usually require a tenure candidate to have been published in peer reviewed journals and the evaluation of a tenure candidate's scholarship by outside evaluators in the relevant scientific field (i.e., biology, chemistry, geology, astronomy, etc.). If the scholarship is deemed inadequate by such experts, the department, college, and/or university may take whatever action is normally taken where evaluators find scholarship lacking in quality or depth. This does not preclude the possibility that such work might be appropriate in a religion or philosophy department. In Part II, this Article suggests that teaching ID in a public university science department may pose Establishment Clause problems depending on the specific facts involved. Questions of academic freedom and free speech generally are highly relevant in addressing these issues.

The ability of public universities to preclude the teaching of ID in science classes might seem clear to some. Similarly, the ability of a science department at a public university to deny research support for, or deny tenure to, those whose research is primarily focused on ID might seem equally clear. Yet, the questions raised by these scenarios are not as easy to answer as they may appear to be at first glance. In order to answer these questions we must determine whether ID is science. If so, it might be hard to exclude ID from the curriculum, at least in upper level electives, although the courts do give significant deference to university curricular decisions. If ID is not determined to be science, the deference given by courts to departmental and university curricular decisions would enable university officials to keep ID out of science courses.

This [the question whether ID creationism is science] still leaves open the question of public university support for research on ID. Here, the courts tend to suggest more deference to the academic freedom of the faculty member. Of course, even this academic freedom is not boundless. For example, one would not expect that a geology department would have to credit, fund, or otherwise support research arguing that the earth is flat.

Joe Felsenstein said:

Jason Mitchell said: Legal or no, it is chilling that Thomas Robertson (who appears to be the one responsible for hiring Gonzalez) is also involved the in the program that trains potential high school science teachers!

I have no idea whether he is responsible for the hiring decision, but here are some perspectives on his teaching. Either this is a negatively-biased sample of his students, or he should tell the high-school science teachers not to emulate him.

Wow! Had to take a couple days off or so (family and sick), so just now seeing this particular thread.

This is surely some long-overdue good news. I am happy for the courageous Prof. Gonzalez, author of the ground-breaking "The Privileged Planet", and wish him well in his new position.

And also congrats to Prof. Hedin for his courageous teaching work as well in the class "Boundaries of Science."

FL

FL said: I am happy for the courageous Prof. Gonzalez, author of the ground-breaking "The Privileged Planet"

FL said: Wow! Had to take a couple days off or so (family and sick), so just now seeing this particular thread. This is surely some long-overdue good news. I am happy for the courageous Prof. Gonzalez, author of the ground-breaking "The Privileged Planet", and wish him well in his new position. And also congrats to Prof. Hedin for his courageous teaching work as well in the class "Boundaries of Science." FL

SensuousCurmudgeon said:

DavidK said: None-the-less we can expect to see the dishonesty institute toot its horn at this successful slick wedge maneuver.

The Discoveroids haven't said a word about it all day. Maybe they figured out that their active support would hurt him more than help him.

FL said: I am happy for the courageous Prof. Gonzalez, author of the ground-breaking "The Privileged Planet", and wish him well in his new position.

From such a viewpoint, to understand something is to express it in terms of human agency. What matters is its purpose, and that is whatever we use it for. In this worldview, rain exists in order to make crops grow and to provide fresh water for us to drink. The Sun is there because it warms our bodies. The universe was designed with us in mind, constructed so that we could live in it, and it would have no meaning if we were not present. It is a short and natural step to see human beings as the pinnacle of creation, rulers of the planet, masters of the universe. Moreover, you can do all of that without any conscious recognition of how narrowly human-centred your worldview is, and maintain that you are acting out of humility, not arrogance, because of course we are subservient to the universe’s creator. Which is basically a superhuman version of us – a king, an emperor, a pharaoh, a lord – whose powers are expanded to the limits of our imagination. [Emphasis original]

The alternative view is that human beings are just one tiny feature of a vast cosmos, most of which does not function on a human scale or take any notice of what we want. Crops grow because rain exists, but rain exists for reasons that have virtually nothing to do with crops. Rain has been in existence for billions of years, crops for about ten thousand. In the cosmic scheme of things, human beings are just one tiny incidental detail on an insignificant ball of rock, most of whose history happened before we turned up to wonder what was going on. We may be the most important thing in the universe as far as we are concerned, but nothing that happens outside our tiny planet depends on our existence, with a few obvious exceptions like various small but complicated bits of metal and plastic now littering the surface of the Moon and Mars, in orbit around Mercury, Jupiter and Saturn, or wandering through the outer edges of our solar system. We might say that the universe is indifferent to us, but even that statement is too self-conscious; it endows the universe with the human attribute of indifference. There is no ‘it’ to be indifferent. The system of the world does not function in human terms.

hrafn.startssl.com said:

FL said: I am happy for the courageous Prof. Gonzalez, author of the ground-breaking "The Privileged Planet", and wish him well in his new position.

Yes, Gonzalez had the "ground-breaking" idea of parroting millenia-old human-centric religious thinking (the universe was created the way it is so that life-as-we-know-it could exist) in a "courageous" ("Brave Sir Robin", anybody?) act of pandering to the prejudices of religious conservatives. The latest 'Science of Diskworld' book, Judgement Day, summarises this viewpoint rather well:

From such a viewpoint, to understand something is to express it in terms of human agency. What matters is its purpose, and that is whatever we use it for. In this worldview, rain exists in order to make crops grow and to provide fresh water for us to drink. The Sun is there because it warms our bodies. The universe was designed with us in mind, constructed so that we could live in it, and it would have no meaning if we were not present. It is a short and natural step to see human beings as the pinnacle of creation, rulers of the planet, masters of the universe. Moreover, you can do all of that without any conscious recognition of how narrowly human-centred your worldview is, and maintain that you are acting out of humility, not arrogance, because of course we are subservient to the universe’s creator. Which is basically a superhuman version of us – a king, an emperor, a pharaoh, a lord – whose powers are expanded to the limits of our imagination. [Emphasis original]

It then goes on to describe the alternate, universe-centred, view -- which seems to me to be the view most frequently taken by modern science:

The alternative view is that human beings are just one tiny feature of a vast cosmos, most of which does not function on a human scale or take any notice of what we want. Crops grow because rain exists, but rain exists for reasons that have virtually nothing to do with crops. Rain has been in existence for billions of years, crops for about ten thousand. In the cosmic scheme of things, human beings are just one tiny incidental detail on an insignificant ball of rock, most of whose history happened before we turned up to wonder what was going on. We may be the most important thing in the universe as far as we are concerned, but nothing that happens outside our tiny planet depends on our existence, with a few obvious exceptions like various small but complicated bits of metal and plastic now littering the surface of the Moon and Mars, in orbit around Mercury, Jupiter and Saturn, or wandering through the outer edges of our solar system. We might say that the universe is indifferent to us, but even that statement is too self-conscious; it endows the universe with the human attribute of indifference. There is no ‘it’ to be indifferent. The system of the world does not function in human terms.

(It attributes this formulation to physicist and science fiction author Gregory Benford, particularly 'a creature of double vision', in Science Fiction and the Two Cultures: Essays on Bridging the Gap between the Sciences and the Humanities, edited by Gary Westfahl and George Slusser, McFarland Publishers 2009. Anybody know if this essay is available online?)

For full disclosure I have no personal interest whatsoever in spiritual, religious, or supernatural topics.

I just want to emphasize that there are reasonably honest approaches to those topics. As little interest as I have in these topics, it is important to note that right wing billionaire-funded anti-science ID/creationism propaganda does NOT represent an honest, academically acceptable approach.

The rate my professors web site certainly should not be taken as the last word on a professor's performance as a lecturer but a very low score certainly indicates a level of dissatisfaction. On the other hand, a high score indicates some level of satisfaction. For instance, Michael Behe gets an average of 3.6.

http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=215407

Does Gonzalez's CV (which BSU is referring us to) show any significant amount of new publications since he moved to Grove? (I.e. has his CV become significantly stronger than it was when he was denied tenure by ISU?)

Incidentally, I find it odd (though I cannot, for the life of me, find a conceivable conspiracy behind it) that he'll be taking over Hedin's 'The Solar System' course.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Although, if Gonzalez were to keep his religious tripe out of instructional environment, I don't really have a problem with his being hired.

hrafn.startssl.com said: Does Gonzalez's CV (which BSU is referring us to) show any significant amount of new publications since he moved to Grove? (I.e. has his CV become significantly stronger than it was when he was denied tenure by ISU?) Incidentally, I find it odd (though I cannot, for the life of me, find a conceivable conspiracy behind it) that he'll be taking over Hedin's 'The Solar System' course.

harold said:This is a declaration by the chair and probably others that “We have to power to run BSU any way we want, and the way we’re going to run it is by literally hiring in-your-face Bible college creationists to teach key science classes, up yours if you don’t like it”. That's what it is, whether you call it a "conspiracy" or not is up to you.

harold said: I would call a deliberate plan to react to criticism of a science denial course with a raised middle finger, by immediately hiring a candidate who is clearly inferior to other available candidates for the position, but who is a known creationist, to teach the same course, at least a "non-coincidence". This is a declaration by the chair and probably others that "We have to power to run BSU any way we want, and the way we're going to run it is by literally hiring in-your-face Bible college creationists to teach key science classes, up yours if you don't like it". That's what it is, whether you call it a "conspiracy" or not is up to you.

hrafn.startssl.com said: Does Gonzalez's CV (which BSU is referring us to) show any significant amount of new publications since he moved to Grove? (I.e. has his CV become significantly stronger than it was when he was denied tenure by ISU?) Incidentally, I find it odd (though I cannot, for the life of me, find a conceivable conspiracy behind it) that he'll be taking over Hedin's 'The Solar System' course.

Five Year Objectives [as of 2003] A major public debate between design theorists and Darwinists (by 2003) Thirty published books on design and its cultural implications (sex, gender issues, medicine, law, and religion) One hundred scientific, academic and technical articles by our fellows Significant coverage in national media … Spiritual & Cultural renewal Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate language from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s) Darwin Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God Ten States Begin to Rectify Ideological Imbalance in Their Science Curricula & Include Design Theory Scientific achievements An active design movement in Israel, the UK and other influential countries outside the US Ten CRSC fellows teaching at major universities Two universities where design theory has become the dominant view Design becomes a key concept in the social sciences Legal reform movements base legislative proposals on design theory [Wedge Document (1998)]

Looks like the chair of the Physics and Astronomy Department, Dr Thomas Robertson, is retiring after 35 years. At least they held a retirement reception for him in May.

tomh said: Looks like the chair of the Physics and Astronomy Department, Dr Thomas Robertson, is retiring after 35 years. At least they held a retirement reception for him in May.

harold said: That could mean that someone else took advantage of a period during which the department had a disengaged chair.

Remember that IDiot Sternberg published IDiot Meyer's 2004 hopeless monster immediately before his term as Editor of PBSW was due to end. If Robertson were an IDer (big if) they could be leaving us another parting dropping.

What angers me is blatant ID religious discrimination. Many candidates are more qualified than 'Mo but 'Mo gets the job based on his religious beliefs alone.

diogeneslamp0 said: Remember that IDiot Sternberg published IDiot Meyer's 2004 hopeless monster immediately before his term as Editor of PBSW was due to end. If Robertson were an IDer (big if) they could be leaving us another parting dropping. What angers me is blatant ID religious discrimination. Many candidates are more qualified than 'Mo but 'Mo gets the job based on his religious beliefs alone.

Do we know for sure that this is a tenure-track position? Last time I looked at the newspaper reports with this in mind, they said he was being hired as "an assistant professor." That could mean he was hired as teaching faculty on a fixed-term contract with the possibility of reappointment in a few years based on his performance.

SWT said: Do we know for sure that this is a tenure-track position? Last time I looked at the newspaper reports with this in mind, they said he was being hired as "an assistant professor." That could mean he was hired as teaching faculty on a fixed-term contract with the possibility of reappointment in a few years based on his performance.

harold said:

SWT said: Do we know for sure that this is a tenure-track position? Last time I looked at the newspaper reports with this in mind, they said he was being hired as "an assistant professor." That could mean he was hired as teaching faculty on a fixed-term contract with the possibility of reappointment in a few years based on his performance.

In my experience, in US research universities, Assistant Professor implies either the first phase of tenure track, or, if there is a medical school with clinical faculty, the first phase of clinical track (some medical schools have tenure track for mainly clinical faculty but most now have a "clinical" track). In either case, full time employment and a track for advancement is implied. Faculty who are hired temporarily, or part time, are usually referred to as "adjunct" faculty. Depending on the institution or specific job they can be "adjunct professor", "adjunct lecturer", or whatever, but the common feature is the term "adjunct". Therefore, either BSU uses some atypical nomenclature for faculty positions, which is unlikely, or the position is a junior level full time faculty position with implied track for advancement, probably tenure track. Gonzalez has chosen to dedicate himself to writing and pushing religious/political propaganda rather than concentrating on research and/or teaching in astronomy. He has been successful in that endeavor, is a DI fellow, and was a Bible college professor. There is no valid reason for him to want a mainstream science faculty job at a research institution, let alone a junior faculty position that should go to someone embarking on a real science career. This is clearly just a move to associate his propaganda with a more prestigious, secular institution.

harold said: There is no valid reason for him to want a mainstream science faculty job at a research institution, let alone a junior faculty position that should go to someone embarking on a real science career. This is clearly just a move to associate his propaganda with a more prestigious, secular institution.

diogeneslamp0 said:

harold said: There is no valid reason for him to want a mainstream science faculty job at a research institution, let alone a junior faculty position that should go to someone embarking on a real science career. This is clearly just a move to associate his propaganda with a more prestigious, secular institution.

Agreed. The point is to conceal the religious motivation behind his beliefs, and increase the prestige of ID by associating it with secular institutions, in this case, a taxpayer funded university.

The reappointment and promotion criteria for people in Professor - Educator positions focus principally on teaching and service.

SWT said: Do we know for sure that this is a tenure-track position? Last time I looked at the newspaper reports with this in mind, they said he was being hired as "an assistant professor." That could mean he was hired as teaching faculty on a fixed-term contract with the possibility of reappointment in a few years based on his performance.

Astro-nonomous said:

SWT said: Do we know for sure that this is a tenure-track position? Last time I looked at the newspaper reports with this in mind, they said he was being hired as "an assistant professor." That could mean he was hired as teaching faculty on a fixed-term contract with the possibility of reappointment in a few years based on his performance.

Presuming he was hired as a result of this search, then yes, it is a tenure-track position.

Perhaps someone can find the actual description of the position that GG answered to? It had to be published somewhere.

hrafn.startssl.com said:

FL said: I am happy for the courageous Prof. Gonzalez, author of the ground-breaking "The Privileged Planet", and wish him well in his new position.

Yes, Gonzalez had the "ground-breaking" idea of parroting millenia-old human-centric religious thinking (the universe was created the way it is so that life-as-we-know-it could exist) in a "courageous" ("Brave Sir Robin", anybody?) act of pandering to the prejudices of religious conservatives. The latest 'Science of Diskworld' book, Judgement Day, summarises this viewpoint rather well:

From such a viewpoint, to understand something is to express it in terms of human agency. What matters is its purpose, and that is whatever we use it for. In this worldview, rain exists in order to make crops grow and to provide fresh water for us to drink. The Sun is there because it warms our bodies. The universe was designed with us in mind, constructed so that we could live in it, and it would have no meaning if we were not present. It is a short and natural step to see human beings as the pinnacle of creation, rulers of the planet, masters of the universe. Moreover, you can do all of that without any conscious recognition of how narrowly human-centred your worldview is, and maintain that you are acting out of humility, not arrogance, because of course we are subservient to the universe’s creator. Which is basically a superhuman version of us – a king, an emperor, a pharaoh, a lord – whose powers are expanded to the limits of our imagination. [Emphasis original]

It then goes on to describe the alternate, universe-centred, view -- which seems to me to be the view most frequently taken by modern science:

The alternative view is that human beings are just one tiny feature of a vast cosmos, most of which does not function on a human scale or take any notice of what we want. Crops grow because rain exists, but rain exists for reasons that have virtually nothing to do with crops. Rain has been in existence for billions of years, crops for about ten thousand. In the cosmic scheme of things, human beings are just one tiny incidental detail on an insignificant ball of rock, most of whose history happened before we turned up to wonder what was going on. We may be the most important thing in the universe as far as we are concerned, but nothing that happens outside our tiny planet depends on our existence, with a few obvious exceptions like various small but complicated bits of metal and plastic now littering the surface of the Moon and Mars, in orbit around Mercury, Jupiter and Saturn, or wandering through the outer edges of our solar system. We might say that the universe is indifferent to us, but even that statement is too self-conscious; it endows the universe with the human attribute of indifference. There is no ‘it’ to be indifferent. The system of the world does not function in human terms.

(It attributes this formulation to physicist and science fiction author Gregory Benford, particularly 'a creature of double vision', in Science Fiction and the Two Cultures: Essays on Bridging the Gap between the Sciences and the Humanities, edited by Gary Westfahl and George Slusser, McFarland Publishers 2009. Anybody know if this essay is available online?)

Perhaps this might quell the speculation. It's the only listing I could find regarding the BSU position, a contract faculty position.

http://web.archive.org/liveweb/http://jobregister.aas.org/job_view?JobID=42248

And the Chronicle of Higher Education had this to say:

http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/ball-state-u-hires-astronomer-who-advocates-intelligent-design/62709

DavidK said: Perhaps this might quell the speculation. It's the only listing I could find regarding the BSU position, a contract faculty position. http://web.archive.org/liveweb/http://jobregister.aas.org/job_view?JobID=42248

I have an idea that can solve this quickly, without any debate on whether the hiring was illegal, or more importantly, a bad idea. Get his students to ask, repeatedly, whether his "research" challenges 150 years of "convergence, neither sought nor fabricated" of evidence that has convinced 99+% of evolutionary biologists, and even many prominent evolution-deniers, that life on earth has existed for billions of years and that humans share common ancestors with many other species. GG's "research" is in astronomy, not biology, so he can't say yes. But his association with "big tent" scam artists will force him to try to weasel out of the question. At which point the student interjects with "I'll take that as a no." Soon the message catches on that ID offers no hope to those wanting evidence of a literal Genesis, and concedes the part of evolution that's most offensive to most deniers.

That could have happened 17 years ago with Behe, but unfortunately everyone was too busy helping the big tent scam by branding them all as "creationists."

Frank J said: I have an idea that can solve this quickly, without any debate on whether the hiring was illegal, or more importantly, a bad idea. Get his students to ask, repeatedly, whether his "research" challenges 150 years of "convergence, neither sought nor fabricated" of evidence that has convinced 99+% of evolutionary biologists, and even many prominent evolution-deniers, that life on earth has existed for billions of years and that humans share common ancestors with many other species. GG's "research" is in astronomy, not biology, so he can't say yes. But his association with "big tent" scam artists will force him to try to weasel out of the question. At which point the student interjects with "I'll take that as a no." Soon the message catches on that ID offers no hope to those wanting evidence of a literal Genesis, and concedes the part of evolution that's most offensive to most deniers. That could have happened 17 years ago with Behe, but unfortunately everyone was too busy helping the big tent scam by branding them all as "creationists."

Once you hire one of these shakedown artists, you can't fire them or deny tenure no matter how poorly they perform. They fail, they don't perform, then they scream I'm a martyr.

'Mo falsely accused his previous university of religious discrimination.

The IDiots do not perform, they do not produce, they fail. Many real scientists who WORK their asses off, who DO produce, still don't get tenure. But the IDiot who discovered nothing, produced nothing, tears his hair, scourges himself and cries "I have suffered the torments of Christ!" Why would any public university hire such a person?

Why would any public university hire such a person?

Although I agree that students should ask that question, as well as my standard list, I would not see any reason to deny the relationship between ID/creationism and “creation science” creationism.

— harold

Students can besiege GG with many questions, but given the mental state and the general IQ level of Indiana (and Ohio, Kansas, Louisiana, etc.), there will always be his supporters in the classroom as well to defend the creationist point of view. They might come out of the closet more readily now.

In regards to the job listing, the AAS (American Astronomical Society) is a well respected organization (I'm a past member), and it would be shameful if BSU put out a false ad. And again, that's the only listing on the web that I could find regarding an astronomy position at BSU, so the assumption made is that it is the job in question. Were there better candidates, yes, highly likely. What the circumstances involved are we can only presume/speculate.

Who applied foe the BSU position and got turned down? Given the market, possibly hundreds of applicants.

And how many of those were more qualified than 'Mo?

Possibly many dozens, all of them Expelled on the basis of religious discrimination.

Perhaps we should place an ad to find everyone who applied for the BSU job and had a better resume than 'Mo. Class action suit. Religious discrimination.

Frank J said:

Although I agree that students should ask that question, as well as my standard list, I would not see any reason to deny the relationship between ID/creationism and “creation science” creationism.

— harold

Where do I even remotely suggest denying the relationship between ID/creationism and “creation science” creationism??? I even used the phrase "big tent scam" twice in that comment alone. For 10+ years I have been trying to make a point, and am misunderstood 100% of the time. As one of the more reasonable ones, feel free to quote me on this as much as you want, so I don't have to clarify it every time: ID peddlers encourage and promote the belief in all the mutually-contradictory literal interpretations of Genesis. And they do so more forcefully, slickly and efficiently that those who peddle "scientific" YEC or OEC directly. Occasionally an ID peddler lets it slip that he knows that YEC and OEC ("kinds" and all) are nonsense, but he would never dare challenge a peddler of those scams, and discourages YEC-OEC debates that might expose their weaknesses and contradictions. ID is a big tent scam, and its peddlers' only goal is to unite anyone inclined to have unreasonable doubts of evolution under a big tent. They can afford to be sloppy with their wording and occasional concessions, because their audience is either hopelessly compartmentalized or doesn't give 5 minutes thought beyond their catchy, misleading sound bites.

harold said:

Frank J said: I have an idea that can solve this quickly, without any debate on whether the hiring was illegal, or more importantly, a bad idea. Get his students to ask, repeatedly, whether his "research" challenges 150 years of "convergence, neither sought nor fabricated" of evidence that has convinced 99+% of evolutionary biologists, and even many prominent evolution-deniers, that life on earth has existed for billions of years and that humans share common ancestors with many other species. GG's "research" is in astronomy, not biology, so he can't say yes. But his association with "big tent" scam artists will force him to try to weasel out of the question. At which point the student interjects with "I'll take that as a no." Soon the message catches on that ID offers no hope to those wanting evidence of a literal Genesis, and concedes the part of evolution that's most offensive to most deniers. That could have happened 17 years ago with Behe, but unfortunately everyone was too busy helping the big tent scam by branding them all as "creationists."

For clarification - I am not a lawyer and have not argued that the hiring was illegal. I am able to note that it is a very poor idea. I would not be surprised if it is illegal in some way, as there may have been a bogus job created, a bogus search, whatever. Whether or not it is actually in violation of law, it is a very poor policy decision, and BSU should do some damage control, beginning by accepting the resignation of those involved in the hiring, followed by either reversing it, or if that is not possible, putting sensible restrictions on Gonzalez. I wasn't aware of Behe 17 years ago. Actually, prior to this hiring, there was one major difference between Gonzalez and Behe. Behe was sneakier. He wormed himself more deeply into mainstream academia before openly advocating ID/creationism. My understanding, which could be wrong, is that Behe had tenure already in 1996, when his first big ID book came out. Gonzalez was denied tenure. Behe's colleagues wish Behe had been denied tenure. Although I agree that students should ask that question, as well as my standard list, I would not see any reason to deny the relationship between ID/creationism and "creation science" creationism. Behe wrote a chapter for Of Pandas and People in the nineties! ID is just creationism with vaguer, more weaselly language. There is no reason to deny that.

[Denton's]book convinced him that there was something wrong with the Theory of Evolution and led to his own ID book. Denton has since claimed that many of the issues he raised have been resolved by subsequent research and that Natural Selection is, at least in part, the driving force. His current position is that it isn’t the whole story, which isn’t too far removed from the position of Larry Moran.

— SLC

...there will always be his supporters in the classroom as well to defend the creationist point of view. They might come out of the closet more readily now.

— DavidK

diogeneslamp0 said: Who applied foe the BSU position and got turned down? Given the market, possibly hundreds of applicants. And how many of those were more qualified than 'Mo? Possibly many dozens, all of them Expelled on the basis of religious discrimination. Perhaps we should place an ad to find everyone who applied for the BSU job and had a better resume than 'Mo. Class action suit. Religious discrimination.

Yeah, if there were a large number of applicants, only the one who would have got the job otherwise would be hurt by what was done, and there's no way to tell which applicant that would be.

Henry J said: Yeah, if there were a large number of applicants, only the one who would have got the job otherwise would be hurt by what was done, and there's no way to tell which applicant that would be.

the IDiots, who scream “I have suffered the torments of Christ” when their department is down-sized and the bosses let the least productive employees go [see the Coppedge case].

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

the IDiots, who scream “I have suffered the torments of Christ” when their department is down-sized and the bosses let the least productive employees go [see the Coppedge case].

Well, what reason other than persecution could there be that they never get any creation science done? I guess there is one other possibility... But if you don't want the other possibility to be considered, you have to scream bloody persecution for your lack of productive science. Glen Davidson

Dr. Danny R. Faulkner has a B.S. (Math), M.S. (Physics), M.A. and PhD (Astronomy, Indiana University). For over 25 years he was on the faculty of the University of South Carolina Lancaster, where he taught physics and astronomy. He was Chair of its Division of Math, Science, Nursing, and Public Health (2009–2012). Dr. Faulkner retired as a full professor and now holds the title of Distinguished Professor Emeritus. In January, 2013 he joined Answers in Genesis and its Creation Museum full time. He has published more than a hundred papers in various astronomy and astrophysics journals. So far, Dr. Faulkner has published one book, Universe by Design

Professor Stuart Burgess BSc(Eng), PhD, CEng, FIMechE, FRAeS has taught engineering design at Cambridge University and Bristol University in the UK. He has won many national awards for engineering design including the Turners Gold Medal and a Mollins Design Prize. He has published over 130 scientific articles on design in engineering and design in nature. He has seven patents and carried out design projects for industry including designing parts of rockets and spacecraft for the European Space Agency. He is author of the books Hallmarks of Design, He Made the Stars Also, and The Origin of Man. He has lectured in many countries including the USA and Japan. He is married to Jocelyn and they have five children

Ian Derthal said: There are already young Earth creationists teaching science at major universities in the US: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_faulkner.asp

Dr. Danny R. Faulkner has a B.S. (Math), M.S. (Physics), M.A. and PhD (Astronomy, Indiana University). For over 25 years he was on the faculty of the University of South Carolina Lancaster, where he taught physics and astronomy. He was Chair of its Division of Math, Science, Nursing, and Public Health (2009–2012). Dr. Faulkner retired as a full professor and now holds the title of Distinguished Professor Emeritus. In January, 2013 he joined Answers in Genesis and its Creation Museum full time. He has published more than a hundred papers in various astronomy and astrophysics journals. So far, Dr. Faulkner has published one book, Universe by Design

and in the UK: http://www.answersingenesis.org/outreach/speakers/associate/#stuart-burgess

Professor Stuart Burgess BSc(Eng), PhD, CEng, FIMechE, FRAeS has taught engineering design at Cambridge University and Bristol University in the UK. He has won many national awards for engineering design including the Turners Gold Medal and a Mollins Design Prize. He has published over 130 scientific articles on design in engineering and design in nature. He has seven patents and carried out design projects for industry including designing parts of rockets and spacecraft for the European Space Agency. He is author of the books Hallmarks of Design, He Made the Stars Also, and The Origin of Man. He has lectured in many countries including the USA and Japan. He is married to Jocelyn and they have five children

So this isn't really anything new, is it ?

BSU is hiring a known science denier to teach science, and hiring him out of a Bible college, where he was because the institution he originally tricked was insightful enough to deny him tenure. It can’t be defended.

Some apparent good news, here's a link.

The president of Ball State University has spoken out and she stands with the mainstream scientific consensus that "intelligent design" is pseudoscience. Although faculty members involved with ID will have no change in their job status, steps are being taken at Ball State to insure that science classes teach only science.

Pro-science organizations and individuals have applauded Ball State's move. Not surprising that the Disco Tute disapproved.

But FWIW, anybody know how David Letterman feels about how his alma mater has handled this situation?

"Extremely nice guy and an easy class. However, the class had an extremely Christian bias and he does not believe in evolution. Many of his views do not quite jive with those of mainstream science. Class consisted of weekly journals, short article review, and a 6 page paper

Perhaps Gonzalez will see the light and leave ID.