The Scientist : NewsBlog Print: ID a factor in tenure denial?
The Scientist: NewsBlog:
ID a factor in tenure denial?
Posted by Edyta Zielinska
[Entry posted at 3rd December 2007 05:56 PM GMT]

Iowa State University has denied tenure to Guillermo Gonzalez, an astronomer who has publicly supported intelligent design. One of his colleagues told the Des Moines Register that he thought the decision was based partly on Gonzalez's statements on the subject.

When the school announced the decision last spring, officials said it was based on his publication record. But the Des Moines Register reported Saturday that they had obtained e-mails from the school in which several faculty members discussed Gonzalez's involvement in ID prior to the decision.

Gonzalez wrote a letter to The Scientist in 2004 in which he defended his position on intelligent design. In his book, The Privileged Planet he argues that the laws of physics appear to be "finely tuned" for the existence of life. In a 2005 statement, 120 Iowa State faculty members denounced intelligent design, partially in response to Gonzalez's book, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education.

In response to the Register's questions, school officials said they had talked about the astronomer's involvement in the intelligent design movement during the review process, but said that the discussion was secondary to the evaluation of Gonzalez's science.


 

Rate this article

Rating: 3.33/5 (12 votes )


Comment on this blog


ID a factor in tenure denial?
by Mark

[Comment posted 2007-12-04 10:47:26]
I know Prof. Gonzalez's papers which where peer reviewed in journals of astronomy that pretend the highest scientific standards. I have no doubt that he has scientific knowledge and capacities. Unfortunately, for whatever reason I can't explain myself, he choose to adhere to the Discovery Institute which points of view and works do not meet those standards. Possibly he is (mis-)guided by some philosophic ideological background. However, while personally disagreeing with his ID stance which wants to introduce metaphysical claims in science (claims that BTW he never teaches at his college and proposes only in his extra-curricular activity), I wonder why the attempt to introduce the opposite metaphysical claims does not raise any discontent. Why are die hard atheists as R. Dawkins allowed to envisage biological sciences as showing "God delusions", while to others as Gonzalez tenure is denied for the opposite statements in astronomy? While it is correct to turn down as unscientific the idea that the universe's fine tuning might indicate any purpose, why is it correct to state that evolution has no purpose? Evolution is "unpredictable", any claim about "purpose" is not science but metaphysics. So, I think that these strictly personal claims should be considered as such for both sides, and not be a reason of discrimination for anyone.


US Citizen
by Paul Burnett

[Comment posted 2007-12-03 20:49:15]
Are you aware of Lehigh University?s Biology department?s resident intelligent design creationist, Michael Behe?

Take a look at LINK

Maybe Iowa State?s astronomers didn?t want to have to go through the same thing. And can you blame them?


Comment on this blog