Updated 03:46 pm.EST, Mon November 23, 2009

Education|Fri, Feb. 08 2008 05:21 PM EST

Intelligent Design Professor Loses Appeal for Tenure

By Katherine T. Phan|Christian Post Reporter

The Iowa Board of Regents rejected on Thursday an appeal by a professor who said he was wrongfully denied tenure by Iowa State University because of his views supporting intelligent design.

While ISU officials have maintained that their decision last spring on Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez 's bid for tenure had nothing to do with intelligent design, e-mails exchanged by ISU faculty – who voted against his tenure and statements in Gonzalez’s tenure file – suggest otherwise.

Gonzalez, assistant professor of astronomy and physics, has written papers on intelligent design and has asserted his views in a book which was published in 2004. He is also a senior fellow at Discovery Institute, the nation's leading think tank on intelligent design.

The e-mails and documents obtained last summer by Discovery Institute through an open records request were not allowed as evidence by the Regents during their consideration of the case. The board also denied Gonzalez's request to give an oral argument at the closed session but did allow him to be present when the votes were cast. Regents rejected his appeal in a 7-1 vote.

“We are extremely disappointed that the Board of Regents refused to give Dr. Gonzalez a fair hearing in his appeal,” said Gonzalez’s attorney, Chuck Hurley. “They say in Iowa that academic freedom is supposed to be the ‘foundation of the university.’ That foundation is cracked.”

Iowa State denied Gonzalez tenure last spring, a decision upheld by university president Greg Geoffroy. Thursday's vote was the last chance for Gonzalez to appeal within the regents system.

Craig Lang was the sole regent who voted in the professor's favor.

"Dr. Gonzalez is so sure that he has done the things necessary for tenure," Lang told the Des Moines Register. "Let's just reconsider."

Gonzalez claims he met the criteria for promotion.

Casey Luskin, program officer in Public Policy and Legal Affairs at Discovery Institute, believes the outcome would have been different if e-mail records were allowed as evidence in the case or Gonzalez was given a chance to address the board.

“The Board of Regents would not allow into the record extensive e-mail documentation showing that Dr. Gonzalez was denied tenure not due to his academic record, but because he supports intelligent design," said Luskin.

"Then the Board refused to grant Dr. Gonzalez the right to be heard through oral arguments. Does it come as any surprise that now they denied his appeal?”

In 2004, Gonzalez authored the book "The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery," a pro-intelligent design book.

The following year in August, three ISU faculty members circulated a petition with a statement denouncing the use of intelligent design, which disputes parts of the theory of evolution, in the science curriculum.

"We … urge all faculty members to uphold the integrity of our university of 'science and technology,' convey to students and the general public the importance of methodological naturalism in science, and reject efforts to portray intelligent design as science," read the petition's statement, which received 120 signatures.

Gonzalez said he thought the incident contributed to his denial for tenure.

Although disappointed by board’s decision, Gonzalez said it was expected, reported The Daily Iowan.

"If academic freedom doesn't defend a professor with minority viewpoints, what good is it?" Gonzalez told reporters following the decision.

He was unsure if he would pursue legal action when he spoke with reporters Thursday but said he had already started searching for similar positions elsewhere.

"I'm going to consult with my friends and lawyers what my options are, and I'll decide with my wife what the best course of action will be," the professor told The Des Moines Register.

“The Board of Regents had an opportunity to give justice to an outstanding scientist who is a leader in his field,” added Luskin. “Instead, they caved in to political pressure and threw academic freedom to the wind.”

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3
  • Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    hawk,

    No comment or plead the 5th I guess for you? And what is your take on Human Chromosome 2 fusion and at least 7 identical ERV's we and Chimps share? the DI had nothing to say about these in Dover.

    There is ample data out there on these isntances, but I will post links if needed.

  • Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:19 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    agentorange;
    I'll leave that to the experts, given enough time, to expose many of them as hoaxes (or truth) as well.

  • Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Hawk,

    fine leave Afarensis out of it, what about the other hominids we have fossils of. they are neither ape nor just like us, please explain them.

  • Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:35 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    agentorange;
    Sorry to disappoint you, but I cannot determine which one of the current evolutionists truth claims will turn out to be tomorrow's hoax. I'll leave that up to the experts much as they did for piltdown, nebraska, bronto, neanderthal, lucy, etc.
    The tree is still hollow from its base to the nodes and I know you don't have a completed version, or even one that approaches complete.

    So what was Lucy? Oxnard’s multivariate analysis showed that Lucy could not possibly be an intermediate ‘missing link’ between humans and knuckle-walking ape-like ancestors. He found that the australopithecine fossils ‘clearly differ more from both humans and African apes, than do these two living groups from each other. The australopithecines are unique.’

    The latest evidence not only confirms this, but it also indicates that Lucy was a knuckle-walker, like today’s great apes.

    Sadly, in this regard the public are often misled by inaccurately reconstructed statues and images of Lucy displayed at museums and in textbooks, etc., as her feet (and hands, for that matter) are often portrayed as startlingly human-like. Many evolutionists themselves concede such errors, acknowledging that australopithecine hands and feet were ‘not at all like human hands and feet; rather, they have long curved fingers and toes’—even more so than apes today that live mostly in the trees.

  • Thu Feb 14, 2008 3:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    “The majority of paleoanthropologists believe that Australopithecus afarensis is on the main evolutionary line (or very close to it) heading toward modern”

    Fine, since Afarensis doesn’t’ work for you, look at any of the hominids (Habilis, Erectus, Ergaster, rhodesiensis, Heidelbergensis Neanderthalensis, Florensis) fossils (refer to links I gave below) and tell me none of those are transitional of vouch for evolution or common ancestry.



    “I was having some fun about brontosaurus. This is the hoax I was taught was fact in govt school.”

    I’m surprised you take the work of such things in a govt. class as it relates to biology, quite funny.
    Brontosaurus (Apatosaurus) was never indicated to be a missing link (like you said) to anything, it was only defined as a saurapod dinosaur and it’s certainly not a hoax. The reason why Marsh put the wrong head on was what matched up and no other contradictory evidence was around. Since we found more apatasaurauses we know that it was initially the wrong skull.

    But since you like Jonathan Wells so much, here’s him in a vid making a wrong scientific claim.
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=Sui4CadfhDM

  • Thu Feb 14, 2008 2:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hawk,

    If the fossil record is so bare as you claim, explain these.

    Whales
    www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
    www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_1.html
    www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/02/pr0235.htm
    www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/11/2/e_s_3.html
    www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
    www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/cetacea/cetacean.html
    www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm
    http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001/11/01/html/ft_20011101.4.html
    www.tolweb.org/Cetacea/15977

    Hominids
    www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
    www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
    www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html
    http://darwiniana.org/hominid.htm
    www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html


    “Three Israeli scientists”

    There is some question IF ‘lucy’ an Australopithecus Afarensis is on our direct lineage as an acenstor, and it’s not b/c only those fossils, it’s b/c we have other early australopithicenes which were also bi-pedal and had flatter faces already like we and the more recent hominids had and this is why they think these other ancestoral apes might be the direct link as opposed to Afarensis.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis

    “Donald Johanson, the discoverer of the first Au. afarensis “Lucy,””

    Had you looked into it, Afarensis is a primitive ape, so naturally many of her traits are going to be quite close to extant (living) ape relatives. Afarensis is unique b/c of how her anatomy and skeleton structure allowed for upright bipedal motion, something found exclusively only today in humans, birds and those hominid fossils I mentioned above.

  • Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agentorange:
    The myth of Lucy being a transition fossil has pretty well run its course. There is much more evidence than I presented that shows Lucy is just another primate. But here is a glimpse into how this type of science and the myths begin:
    However, this strawman contrast of the unbiased truth seeker that ‘knows’ the ‘true’ evolutionary story with the biased, ignorant creationist who rejects it comes unstuck when one reads the words of archaeologist Donald Johanson, the discoverer of Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis—the subject of chapter 1). Johanson is not aware of these mythical ‘unbiased truth seekers’:

    ‘There is no such thing as a total lack of bias. I have it; everybody has it. The fossil hunter in the field has it. … In everybody who is looking for hominids, there is a strong urge to learn more about where the human line started. If you are working back at around three million, as I was, that is very seductive, because you begin to get an idea that that is where Homo did start. You begin straining your eyes to find Homo traits in fossils of that age. … Logical, maybe, but also biased. I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain [emphasis added].’2

    Johanson went on to confess: ‘It is hard for me now to admit how tangled in that thicket I was. But the insidious thing about bias is that it does make one deaf to the cries of other evidence.’3

  • Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    seedplanter;
    you're right on. There is an excellent book out now that is peer reviewed and does just as you say:
    The debate over how best to teach evolution has devolved into an either-or argument that threatens science education in our schools. Both views reflect poor science, and if either side wins, students will lose.

    But there is another approach - teach the controversy. Instead of pretending there is no debate over Darwin's theory we should use it to further educate students about the scientific debate over evolutionary theory.

    One book shows how that can be done. "Darwinism, Design and Public Education," the new peer-reviewed science book from Michigan State University Press, goes beyond these extremes and explores the controversy amongst scientists about the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution, and the emerging challenge from the scientific theory of intelligent design. The book presents a road map for how the debate can be used to advance science education, teach critical thinking, and help students better understand this complex issue.

    Read the article that started it all: Teach the Controversy, by Stephen C. Meyer

    Read the press release: New Book Examines the Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design and Darwinism and Advocates Teaching Both to Improve Science Education

  • Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Agent, I appreciate the spirit in which you entertained my questions and your courteous response. You strike me as the kind of person that would have enjoyed spending hours in the pub with C. S. Lewis.

    While you may have your own sort of systematic theory of the evolution of theism, I don’t think that it can be summed up quite as neat and tidy as you presented. Although a lot of thought obviously went into your response, there are some things that are beyond the scope of science. “The heart hath its reasons that reason knows not of” (Blaise Pascal, defender of the scientific method). Hypothetically I suppose it could be discovered that we are truly nothing more than material persons inside and out. However, I think that the mere presence of faith itself demonstrates something far beyond what genetics could ever contrive. There is something inside of humans that is quite unique. It not only informs us to believe something, anything (theism, pantheism, atheism, polytheism, deism, science, naturalism, etc.), but it is integral to life. Christian theism particularly has been shown to cultivate a positive, happy and healthy life. You can explain it away as mere human evolution and dismiss it as irrelevant or you can recognize it as reality. When I say reality, I mean to say a legitimate faith that is not mere conjecture or reaching for the unbelievable. There have always been two kinds of people, one that sees the glass as half empty and the one that sees it as half full. Why is it that we were made for faith as much as a perfect fit as Cinderella and the glass slipper? Why do atheists and agnostics have such a hard time with belief, not just for themselves but for others?

    http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_oh_to_be.html

    citsonga, I hope this further illuminates your comprehension as to what I was saying.

    (I flagged myself)

  • Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hawk, you are right in commenting on mistakes of philosophical naturalists that do not only impose their beliefs on science, but actually falsify the evidence. This really does not give credibility to the science community for skeptics. Natural evolutionists do not understand that this contributes to the free-thinkers.

    The main point of contention between Neo-Darwinism and creationists (and ID proponents) is the Cambrian Explosion (sudden appearance) vs. seemingly genetic evidence for common decent. The ID school suggests that while evolution is right on the money in regard to natural selection, it does not explain how new information is acquired. I think these contentions need to be addressed, if for no other purpose to inform students of the honest gaps in Neo-Darwinism and to be able to understand the different schools of thought. Origins are a major issue in America and needs to at least be explained to further scientific progress, at least until it is locked air-tight case.

  • Wed Feb 13, 2008 7:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agentorange:
    I was having some fun about brontosaurus. This is the hoax I was taught was fact in govt school. The Wikipedia article leaves out one very embarrassing fact. Brontosaurus was the creation of science as the wrong skull was fixed to the rest of the skeleton and voila, we have a new specie.
    “Why has it taken 100 years to learn that one of the largest of all dinosaurs Apatosaurus (Brontosaurus of the school book) has been wearing the wrong head? That seems rather basic. How did this mix-up occur; and where has the old fellow’s head been all of this time? The answer to the last question is, of course, that its true head has been in the museum’s research collection for all these many years, patiently waiting for research to catch up to reality.”

    – Taken from the display notebook at Dinosaur National Park Museum, Vernal, Utah.

  • Wed Feb 13, 2008 7:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agentorange:
    The field of paleoanthropology and the evolution of man is more fraught with controversy among its proponents than probably any other field of evolutionary studies. The majority of paleoanthropologists believe that Australopithecus afarensis is on the main evolutionary line (or very close to it) heading toward modern humans.

    Three Israeli scientists have reported in the most recent issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science1 that Au. afarensis may not be our ancestor at all. It all hinges on the jaw of these creatures (pardon the pun). Alas, Au. afarensis has a lower jaw bone (mandible) that closely resembles that of a gorilla—not that of a human or even a chimp. The scientists conclude that this “cast[s] doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor.”

    This should not come as a huge surprise, since even Donald Johanson, the discoverer of the first Au. afarensis “Lucy,” conceded that its V-shaped mandible was very ape-like, and certainly nothing like that of a human.2

    The part of the mandible that sweeps up from the angle of the jaw and hinges with the skull is known as the “ramus.” In all primates, the superior end of the ramus ends in two processes: the more anterior coronoid process (which attaches to the temporalis, a chewing muscle), and the posterior condylar process (which articulates with a shallow socket in the base of the skull). The two processes are separated by an indentation of the ramus known as the “mandibular notch.”

  • Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agentorange:
    Evolutionists David Raup, "the record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time." from Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology. Paleontologists Stephen J Gould, George Gaylord, David Raup, Walter Brown and other paleontologists agree.......the fossil record is wanting to support evolution.

    The tree has nodes and nothing from the base to those nodes.......the Darwinian tree is hollow. In fact, isn't the Darwinian tree now looking more like a forest of trees with many unrelated ancestors rather than just one ancestor?

    This is an argument between evolutionary biologists and paleontologists; you need to take it up with them. It's rather amusing just being a spectator with this issue. I'll believe the paleontologists regarding their own science in this case because it fits reality better.

    So, if your biologist references do have a completed Darwinian tree in which they have a watertight case for the continous transitions from the base of the tree to the tips then please show me. But then, this mystical tree is just one of those Evolution Icons that is a fabrication according to Jonathan Wells.

  • Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:02 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    seedplanter,

    “why are we made in such a way as to worry about it in the first place?”

    I can always expect deep questions from you Seedplanter, thanks. I do agree that some of us and from looking back at humanities only written history we are fascinated with explaining everything possible, even if it involves interjected god into the equation. Why does the ocean work the way it does, why do clouds work in such radical ways? Today we know why, but to early people relying on agriculture that needed answers, even a bad answer is better than no answer at all. At least with a bad answer some people will accept it and move on.

    From humanities infancy we asked such questions and had no accurate answers, we had no way or proving what dictates either., and just as importantly those in tribal groups had no way of disproving such claims. In social groups and this has been verified in group studies, even a wrong answer that seemingly answers otherwise perplexing questions will be naturally sought and adopted over continually asking the same question endlessly, this is the principle reason why ‘god did it’ is used so many times over in all coulters to explain that which confounded agricultural and tribal societies.

    Such confounding questions can be easily answered by interjected ‘god did it’ as in cases with using Poseidon and Thor to explain away the ocean currents and clouds. To some this bad explanation is better than none, and generally that's all they need so long as they don't have to think too critcally about something they are content with the answer they get. But are such claims grounded by evidence? No, they aren’t. It’s not a coincidence that most of the first gods were symbolic elemental gods that controlled the sun, stars, clouds, rain, and everything elemental that in times of early tribal societies were extremely important in knowing when to plant crops.

    This is why such tribal socities would draw a corelation with good weather as being some sign, why when weather was less than ideal they'd resort to animal sacrifices like in the OT so as to appease the gods. In humanities infancy we manifested agents, personified by gods to explain away that which confounds us.

  • Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:43 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Christians, we must follow Jesus in this issue. Let the dead bury the dead. We cannot get bogged down in this issue. Remember the harvest is great. and the laborers are few. God will send others to contend with this battle, but if you feel the need continue to the fight. These men follow their own doctrine. A doctrine created by men and as men are flawed and known to fail so will their efforts on this matter.

  • Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:26 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    slacker: "Why don't scientist try to use there great amount of knowledge to disprove the bible instead of just calling people names and forcing evolution down everyone's throat..."

    for the same reason they dont spend time disproving the existence of unicorns and peter pan.........

  • Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:34 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Slacker -

    Which questions do you think I didn't answer? He asked some very outdated metaphysical questions which I pointed out the problem with.

    The trouble is that truthbytheword is coming to the table not knowing anything. He clearly hasn't studied even junior high-school science properly, hasn't bothered to look up information online and hasn't bothered to think through the arguments at all, let along properly. He's a bit like a three year-old who can't understand why he can't have cake for dinner. And like that three year-old he just needs to be told "because I said so" to some degree because he seems a priori incapable of understanding even the most basic arguments.

    Here is an analogy: How would you like to discuss computers with someone who thinks that little elves live in the machine and do the user's bidding? There'd be nowhere to even begin. This is the situation that I'm in here with truthbytheword.

  • Tue Feb 12, 2008 11:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    To Torus:

    Absolutly amazing, you never anwsered any of the questions posed and then called Truthbytheword Uneducated, why don't you ANSWER, the questions with honesty and integrity.

    I find it greatly disturbing anyone that trys to question evolution and the responses to those questions. Why don't scientist try to use there great amount of knowledge to disprove the bible instead of just calling people names and forcing evolution down everyone's throat...

  • Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:58 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    seedpalnter: "Why would a person seek identity as an atheist or agnostic?"

    I dont seek identity as an agnostic, its simply what I am. I have no control over that. Faith comes to some naturally, to others not at all. To me deciding to be of faith is like deciding what my IQ or sex is. Just as I have no control over my IQ or my sex- I have what I was born with, I have no control over believing in a religious faith, I guess I don't have the religiosity genes. I tried religion it, doesn't do anything for me, I have no feeling for it. Religion does not interest me, it doesn't seem real, rather its more like myth, at least to me. I am a skeptic. If there is a creator, its very hard for me to believe I will be sent to a "torture camp" for eternity because I dont "believe"- total absurdity. People of strong faith I guess just cant understand this.

  • Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    seedplanter "Why should anyone believe anything at all?"

    Citsonga: “Indeed, thats why I am an agnostic.”

    The simple fact that you call yourself an agnostic expresses the inescapable sense of inert spirituality and need of meaning, call it context if you like. Even though you are relegating your belief to a system of non-belief, it is an inherent trait that we all must recon with. You have merely decided to relinquish your faith to a form of belief which is epistemically tied to your feelings and desires by which you negate the God above. But why should any of it matter to you at all? Why bother with any of it? Why worry about politics or even science? Why should it matter what other people think and believe? What difference does it make? Why would a person seek identity as an atheist or agnostic? This is why James Sire asked: Why should anyone believe anything at all? Seems redundant if there is no God. The question does not imply whether or not anything is worth believing, but rather why are we made in such a way as to worry about it in the first place?

  • Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:25 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hawk,

    “Evolutionists David Raup's observation makes perfect sense when you take a look such fossil 'evidence' as Lucy, piltdown man, nebraska man, brontosaurus, etc. What were originally thought to be transition forms turn out not to be”

    Where did David Raup ever go on record say such things to begin with?

    Both Piltdown man and Nebraska man were found to be fakes as other fossils were found and modern testing were down to rule them out (funny you won’t mention any of the new fossils though), and a ‘Brontosaurus’ is not even the correct name of the dinosaur anymore, it’s Apatosaurus, but that would be nitpicking. =)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brontosaurus

    How is ‘Lucy’, which is an Australopithecus Afarensis species (which we have numerous specimens of) not a transitional fossil?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis

    Hawk, you’d should look up some of the evidence from the links I gave and tell me no hominid transitionals exist.

  • Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:10 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Faith,

    Since you claim there are no transitional fossils, what do you make of these? and this is only hominids and whales mind you. =)


    Hominids
    www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
    www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
    www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html
    http://darwiniana.org/hominid.htm
    www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html
    www.becominghuman.org/

    Whales
    www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
    www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_1.html
    www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/02/pr0235.htm
    www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/11/2/e_s_3.html
    www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
    www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/cetacea/cetacean.html
    www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm
    http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001/11/01/html/ft_20011101.4.html
    www.tolweb.org/Cetacea/15977

  • Tue Feb 12, 2008 8:47 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    faithbytheword -

    "Evolution is a theory just like that of the cat and puppies. There is no evidence for it."

    False. There is a wealth of evidence in many fields of science.

    "It is full of huge gaps."

    False.

    "There are no transitional fossils "

    False.

    "The Bible says God created the Heavens and Earth. Do you have any evidence that this is not true?"

    Not relevant. There are many different religious accounts of the origin of the universe. Not all of them are true and so some are false. It logically follows that inability to disprove is not proof.

    "The Bible was written by a great number of men (snip) and it has been 100% accurate."

    False. It is logically incoherent and factually incorrect.

    "Do you have any evidence that anything in the Bible is not true?"

    Do you, as a person, believe anything unless you disprove it? How many gods do you worship since you can't disprove them all?

    Get an education.

  • Tue Feb 12, 2008 7:51 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    HAWK49,

    way to go you quoted directly from the Discovery Institute, the hub of the ID movement. had you read into Gonzalez's background you'd find he hasn't brought in any grant money b/c he hasn't produced or advanced science at all. his career early on looked promising but has since stalled, this is why he doesn't deserve tenure and this is why he was denied 3 times in a row.

  • Tue Feb 12, 2008 6:58 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Perhaps the discussion should refocus on the original article regarding the bigotry of the ISU regents adhereing to the dogma of their religious worldview and denying tenure of a highly qualified scientist; though one who is skeptical of the evolutionary dogma.
    Internal e-mails and other documents obtained under the Iowa Open Records Act completely contradict public claims by Iowa State University (ISU) that the denial of tenure to astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez was unrelated to his support for the theory of intelligent design. According to these documents: Dr. Gonzalez was subjected to a secret campaign of vilification and ridicule by colleagues in the Department of Physics and Astronomy who explicitly wanted to get rid of him because of his pro-intelligent design views, not his scholarship.
    Dr. Gonzalez’s work and views on intelligent design were repeatedly attacked during department tenure deliberations.
    Dr. Gonzalez’s colleagues secretly plotted to evade the law by suppressing evidence that could be used against them in court to supply proof of a hostile work environment.
    One of Dr. Gonzalez’s colleagues admitted to another faculty member that the Department of Physics and Astronomy had violated the principle of academic freedom “massively” when it came to Gonzalez, while other colleagues expressed qualms that their secret plotting against Gonzalez was unethical or dishonest.
    Dr. Gonzalez’s department chair misled the public after the fact by insisting that “intelligent design was not a major or even a big factor in this decision”—even though he had privately told colleagues that Gonzalez’s support for intelligent design alone “disqualifies him from serving as a science educator.”
    In voting to reject tenure for Dr. Gonzalez, members of the Department of Physics and Astronomy all but ignored recommendations made by the majority of their own outside scientific reviewers, who thought Gonzalez clearly deserved tenure.
    Discovery Institute

  • Tue Feb 12, 2008 6:51 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Now, although Behe supports the idea that some features of living things are best explained by intelligent design, he is not a “creationist” as that word is normally used. Behe is a molecular biologist whose scientific work has convinced him that Darwinian theory doesn’t conform to observation and experimental evidence. Why does Gould, who knows Haeckel’s drawings were faked, dismiss Behe as a creationist for criticizing them?
    I suspect that there’s an agenda other than pure science at work here. My evidence is the more or less explicit materialist message woven into many textbook accounts. Futuyma’s Evolutionary Biology is characteristic of this,
    informing students that “it was Darwin’s theory of evolution,” together with Marx’s theory of history and Freud’s theory of human nature, “that provided a crucial plank to the platform of mechanism and materialism” that has since
    been “the stage of most Western thought.” One textbook quotes Gould, who openly declares that humans are not created, but are merely fortuitous twigs on a “contingent” (i.e. accidental) tree of life. Oxford Darwinist Richard Dawkins,
    though not writing in a textbook, puts it even more bluntly: “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
    These are obviously philosophical rather than scientific views. Futuyma, Gould, and Dawkins have a right to their philosophy. But they do not have the right to teach it as though it were science. In science, all theories – including Darwinian evolution – must be tested against the evidence. Since Gould knows that the real embryological evidence contradicts the faked drawings in biology textbooks, why doesn’t he take a more active role in cleaning up science
    education? The misrepresentations and omissions I’ve examined here are just a small sampling. There are many more. For too long the debate about evolution has assumed “facts” that aren’t true. It’s time to clear away the lies that obstruct popular discussion of evolution, and insist that theories
    conform to the evidence. In other words, it’s time to do science as it’s supposed to be done.
    Permission is granted to copy this article for noncommercial
    purposes provided credit is given to Discovery
    Institute

  • Tue Feb 12, 2008 6:43 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agentorange: Evolutionists David Raup's observation makes perfect sense when you take a look such fossil 'evidence' as Lucy, piltdown man, nebraska man, brontosaurus, etc. What were originally thought to be transition forms turn out not to be.

  • Tue Feb 12, 2008 6:03 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    AGENTORANGE & TORRUS
    I am sorry if this has been too complicated. It was a sarcastic version of a theory. My point is this. Evolution is a theory just like that of the cat and puppies. There is no evidence for it. It is full of huge gaps. There are no transitional fossils and what you point as being so are species that may be extinct. The Bible says God created the Heavens and Earth. Do you have any evidence that this is not true? It also says He did it in 7 days. Man was the highlight of His creation and He made him from the dust of the ground. (It was not discovered by man until recent times that man is made up of the same essential elements as the soil yet the Bible said so 4000 years ago} Do you have any evidence that this is not true? The Bible was written by a great number of men from different continents and time periods under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and they all wrote in agreement in how we got here , why we are here, and what was yet to come and it has been 100% accurate. What is the statistical probability that could happen? The four guys on the NFL pregame show can't even tell exactly what is going to happen in the game. Do you have any evidence that anything in the Bible is not true?
    Evolution Theory is contradictory to the Bible. It is full of gaps and holes.
    We allow evolution to be taught in the schools, as though it is fact .
    It takes more faith to believe the theory of evolution than it does the Bible because of its 100 percent accuracy. My advice....throw the science books in the trash get you a copy of the Bible. There you will find out that your creator God loves you and created you for relationship with him. Sin has seperated you from Him, but He sent a remedy out of His love for you, and that remedy is the Son..Jesus Christ. He took the punishment for your sin and made a way for you to be reconciled to God the Father through faith. That faith includes to fully believe the Bible. Jesus is the Word. (John 1). I will be gone the rest of the day and can not respond but will tonight if you have any questions.

  • Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:11 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agentorange -

    Keep in mind that faithbytheword is doing one of two things. Either is is playing stupid to be difficult because he doesn't want to understand or he is really as stupid as he seems. Either way it is not worth your time as he has made it clear he will not engage in rational discussion.

  • Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Our cat gave birth to puppies. And we can use this to prove there is no God. Then we can do what ever we want and us dominant ones can crush the weaker ones. '

    Whaaat? that or evolution wouldn't prove there is no god and in no way does evolution suggest that it's ethical or moral to dominant other species of popluations in your species. If you read anything in biology class you'd recall that organisms operate mostly in an altruistic and symbiotic nature just to survive. so in this respect many organisms survive b/c they are the most moral and most ehtical in all things considered.

    evolution only deals with organisms changing, it doesn't suggest how we should run our laws or adjudicate or sanction laws, that is up for us as a concensus to decide what laws we sanction and what we uphold.

  • Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Well I know its not what you are used to. I think it has something to do with global warming around my house. Our cat gave birth to puppies. And we can use this to prove there is no God. Then we can do what ever we want and us dominant ones can crush the weaker ones. I always knew this difference between right and wrong that went on inside of us was a fake. There is no wrong. Whatever we feel is right is right. Let all the prisoners out because there is no wrong ,therefore no law.

  • Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    FAITHBYTHEWORD,

    you totally lost me. but your earlier examples of evolution don't conform do how biologists suggest life adapts and changes. you'll never see a cat give birth to an entirely differnt species in single genertaion, its somewhat a common misconception.

  • Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:11 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Agentorange & torrus
    Sorry it took me so long to get back. I had to go see a lawyer. You had me a little worried with this evidence thing. But the lawyer said we are fine because they let the schools teach evolution and it has far less evidence than the cat & puppies.

  • Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hawk, seems like you’re fond of quote mining too. Hilarious. Darwins theory isn’t on its deathbed, get real. Some of things Darwin sites were wrong and no longer used while many of them are and continually hold true to the theory of evolution.

    “Evolutionist David Raup even admits that 120 years after Darwin and with many more fossils that now we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than before.”

    Does this statement even make logical sense, that over time we’d have FEWER examples of transitional fossils? No, it doesn’t, what nonsense. If you want transitionals here are some, just whales and hominids this time.

    Hominids
    www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
    www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html
    www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html

    Whales
    www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
    www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_1.html
    www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/02/pr0235.htm
    www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/11/2/e_s_3.html
    www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
    www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/cetacea/cetacean.html
    www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm
    http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001/11/01/html/ft_20011101.4.html
    www.tolweb.org/Cetacea/15977

  • Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    FAITHBYTHEWORDMon Feb 11, 2008 12:39 pm : 0 : 1 Flag
    torrus
    Since you didn't offer any evidence against my cat having puppies I take it you are with me. We found them in the laundry room. My theory is that there was some kind of electrical spark that produced the cat because we didn't have one before and since dogs are more dominant than cats, it had puppies instead of kittens. I know that there are some gaps, like how did the cat get pregnant and of course I wasn't actually there when she gave birth but we have all the evidence we need with the cat and the puppies. I am going to load them up and head for the courts. The only thing they can come against us with is common sense (which we need to figure out where that came from...on our next project). With the evidence of the cat and puppies we will win in court and be able to teach it to the little children in the schools. If anyone comes against us with any other explanation of how the cat and puppies got here we will discredit them with our evidence.{never mind the gaps) And if other sceintist or biologist try to prove it wrong by probeing into other areas besides ours we will deny them tenure and have them fired. I knew I could rely on you because you already hold to the beleif that a life form can turn into another.

    Your new 6th grade freind.

    Faith,

    “Since you didn't offer any evidence against my cat having puppies I take it you are with me.”

    Pay attention holito8, this is an example of a complete misunderstanding of biology and genetics at work.

    Firstly, cats can’t in a single generation give birth to an entirely different species, like a dog. This is isn’t at all what evolution predicts or suggests we should find in the fossil record at all. Rather is suggests that we should find (if evolution is true) intermediates between very similar groups of species according to their taxonomy, genetics and so on.

    ‘With the evidence of the cat and puppies we will win in court and be able to teach it to the little children in the schools.”

    No, you won’t. Both the Cat and the puppies have genes which shows heredity and will show if such a thing happened, the genes can be observed and tested to know how close their relationship is (think big paternity test).

    I am guessing Faith that you also asert evolutoin is just a 'theory' and with out the foggiest idea of what a theory means in the context of science, am I right?

  • Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Seed, I don't think it's split down the middle with christian scientists regarding common descent. the latest polls showed that across all realms of science, barely 40% believed in a personal deity (christian) god. at the higher ranked levels in science the figure droped to 7% that believe.

    Even within science not even .05% of those in evolutionary realms of science, christian or not, doubt evolution. I think the split down the middle you're reffering to is the USA populace, and that is basically split, while with catholics being the most likely to accept evolution.

    evolutoin was never meant to explain such philosophical questions, it's just a theory about life changing.

  • Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    seedplanter "Why should anyone believe anything at all? "

    Indeed, thats why I am an agnostic.

  • Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    The fact that everyone must recon with is that even if nature has laws of random selection built in to the genetic sequence of living cells, where did it come from and why are we here? While Christian scientists are split down the middle in regards to common decent, it alone cannot answer the important questions that we for some strange reason inherently ask.

    James Sire penned it like this, Why should anyone believe anything at all?

  • Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:55 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    "A persistent debate in evolutionary biology is one over the continuity of
    microevolution and macroevolution -- whether macroevolutionary trends are
    governed by the principles of microevolution."
    It should be noted that all of the scientists quoted above are believers in Darwinian evolution, and that all of them think the controversy will eventually be resolved within the framework of that theory. Stern, for example, believes that new developmental studies of gene function will provide "the current missing link." (p. 1079) The important point here is that the controversy has not yet been resolved, precisely because the evidence needed to resolve it is still lacking. It is important for students to know what the evidence does or does not show -- not just what some scientists hope the evidence will eventually show.
    Since the controversy over microevolution and macroevolution is at the heart of Darwin's theory, and since evolutionary theory is so influential in modern biology, it is a disservice to students for biology curricula to ignore the controversy entirely. Furthermore, since the scientific evidence needed to settle the controversy is still lacking, it is inaccurate to give students the impression that the controversy has been resolved and that all scientists
    have reached a consensus on the issue.

  • Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:38 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    The speculations of The Origins of Species turned out to be wrong....it is ironic that the scientific facts throw Darwin out, but leave William Paley, a figure of fun to the scientific world for more than a century, still in the tournament with a chance of being the ultimate winner. atheists Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe.

    I will lay it on the line -- there is not one such transition fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. atheist Colin Patterson

    The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of peleontology. The evolutionary tree that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches, the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils. atheist Stephen Jay Gould

    Evolutionist David Raup even admits that 120 years after Darwin and with many more fossils that now we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than before.

    In the famous words of evolutionist Francis Crick, "Yo've got to keep in mind that all of this was not designed." Why must his students keep this in mind?

    Darwins's theory is on its deathbed.

  • Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Agent,
    I am not confused at all. I am using definition in biology and idea of evolution to show evolution contradicts itself logically.
    torus,
    if your "breed" simply means mate, there is no problem. But if you meant "reproduce", I would like to see an example that A and B can reproduce, B and C can reproduce, but not A and C. Do you have one?

  • Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:20 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Antony Flew is old and senile...great fabrication for an atheist on damage control. Where is your medical proof about his senility?

    Mr. Flew asked for titles of books on Intelligent Design. He wrote Mr. Habermas that he was finding William Dembski's mathematics in The Design Inference over his head but that Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box is an "incredible book." That title argues that the minimal cellular and biochemical requirements for life display an "irreducible complexity" that cannot be random but must have been designed. In January 2004, Mr. Flew told Mr. Habermas that he had definitely become a theist.

    Mr. Habermas says the impact on the atheist movement is similar to what would happen in the evangelical world if Billy Graham or J.I. Packer renounced Christianity. Atheists have gone into damage-control mode, insisting that Mr. Flew is just proposing a hypothesis or that he is accepting only a very minimal God so that the change is no big deal. But, as Mr. Habermas told WORLD, for a leading atheist spokesman to believe in a Creator whom he calls God is a very big deal indeed.

    For the 81-year-old Mr. Flew, renouncing his life's work and the reason for his fame is a matter of intellectual honesty. "My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates," he says. "Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."

  • Mon Feb 11, 2008 6:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ProfessorX,

    is that all you can do. cite a link and leave? ya, like a BLOG site is a place for science accuracy and has authority in the matter. nice try. people, if you want science use sites like PBS, National geopgrahic, national history museum, etc. Don't go to nonsense like a blog site where someone can purposely mislead.

  • Mon Feb 11, 2008 6:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    It's worth noting that the site evoluionfacts.blogspot.com is so full of ignorance and stupidity that anyone would be a fool to rely on it for either facts or reason. There are blatant lies, leaps of poor logic, hilarious videos, and so on. Every single argument there has since been discredited by basic reason.

  • Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:50 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    DARWINISM AND ATHEISM REMAINS UNSCIENTIFIC AND MYTHICAL

    http://www.evolutionfacts.blogspot.com

  • Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    DARWISM AND ATHEISM REMAINS UNSCIENTIFIC AND MYTHICAL

    http://www.evolutionfacts.blogspot.com

  • Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    truthstands,

    the way it should be look at is that population groups evolve, not individuals. true individuals in themselves do evolve but they are still part of the same genetic sequence shared amongst the species group and thus are the same species and can interbreed.

    I think that's why you were getting confused.

  • Mon Feb 11, 2008 2:48 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    truthstands - you're being dense, things are not so cut and dried. It's possible for A to breed with B and B with C but not A with C. In this case having clear-cut species separation is difficult and your question is moot. The answer to your 1...n-1 question is that the species are groupings, not individuals.

    holito8 - I'm sorry you have trouble understanding agentorange's explanations. They're clear to me. Don't feel bad if you can't follow the science, grab a good book on evolution and join the 21st century. Happy to have you here with us.

    annieforjesus - it's not a question of "different views", it's a question of fact. You can hold a different view on gravity if you like but I'd suggest you not jump out a building and depend upon it.

  • Mon Feb 11, 2008 2:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Agent,

    Please just answer my question. Suppose a group of individuals (name them A1) in species A at generation 0 evolved to species B at generation n. Suppose no other species come from A. The question is, WHICH SPECIES do A1's DESCEDANTS at 1~n-1 belong to?

  • Mon Feb 11, 2008 2:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    holito8,

    well if it wasn’t evolution but quantum mechanics it would quasi hocus pocus to me as well =), so don’t worry we're all ignorant of things to some degree.

    truth,

    Well with population A1 being now B and not other species diverging from A, it’s basically a 1 to 1 whole sale change from an ancestral species to a new one. If no other species diverge from that A branch, then the only ancestor could be A to begin with. Perhaps I am not following your example. perhaps articulate your question.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a