Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom, part 2
I will not be continuing my Creationism posts today. I do plan to return to them soon.
Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. I am sorry for the change in plans. Plans, in reality, often are altered for one reason or another. “The best laid plans … often go astray.” Thank you for your understanding and patience.
How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish, barbaric decisions of the United States Supreme Court?
Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers
“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)
http://www.kansasmeadowlark.com/2006/ShameOfKansas
http://www.childpredators.com/
http://www.lifedynamics.com/
http://www.libertylegal.org/
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/
http://www.searchtv.org/
Last night I posted material originally posted on May 24th of this year. The last three paragraphs said: What do you think? Of course, based upon the information given, we can not draw a definitive conclusion. But, what do you think? Do you believe he was denied tenure in balance because of his work on Intelligent Design and his publication of The Privileged Planet? (I thought I recognized this title. Lee Strobel in his book The Case for a Creator lists the book The Privileged Planet in his section at the end of Chapter Seven entitled “FOR FURTHER EVIDENCE: More Resources on This Topic”)
Could it be when other scientists, as broadcast by the mass media, claim that no reputable scientist believes in Intelligent Design it is because they have intimidated such scientists into silence and/or they simply refuse to mention those who do because it contradicts their own view point on the subject. Is this another case of the liars shouting down those who disagree? Is this another case of intimidating those who disagree?
Where is the academic freedom that academics claim is so important for learning? If there was real academic freedom, wouldn’t academics push for a plethora of views, rather than only one, attempting to stimulate discussion and honest intellectual debate? What are they afraid of? THE TRUTH!!!
Tonight I am posting an article from World magazine, December 15, 2007, page 30 that seems to confirm that Dr. Gonzalez was indeed denied tenure because of his support for Intelligent Design even though it was fervently denied at the time.
“Smoking Gun
Iowa State denied tenure to an ID-supporting scientist and then tried to cover up why
by Mark Bergin
The message from Iowa State University remains unchanged—namely that last spring’s denial of tenure to astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez stemmed from inadequate scholarly credentials, not his favorable view of Intelligent Design.
BUT (my capitalization—my addition) internal university documents and emails (One would think that university personnel would be smart enough not to include any incriminating comments in internal emails—my addition.), recently released in compliance with public records requests, tell a different story. Messages circulated among ISU faculty and administrators reveal hostility toward ID and consequent opposition to Gonzalez. What’s more, these private communications betray an effort to conceal the true reason for denying tenure to an acclaimed scientist.
‘All these emails clearly show that faculty had prejudged my case based entirely on my ID views about a year before the tenure case came down,’ said Gonzalez, whose pioneering work in astronomy has appeared in such prominent journals as Nature, Science, and Scientific American.
With a publishing record that includes 68 peer-reviewed articles and co-authorship of one of his department’s textbooks, Gonzalez was bewildered at his denial of tenure earlier this year. His confusion turned to pain when colleagues and university officials began impugning his academic record to justify their decisions.
Suspecting foul play, the ID-advancing Discovery Institute, of which Gonzalez is a senior fellow, filed public records requests for ISU documents and email pertaining to the case. Initially, the university resisted (Of course—my addition.) complying only after the parties engaged in a game of litigation chicken. Upon receiving the documents, the Seattle-based institute hoped to submit them to the Iowa Board of Regents as part of an appeal in the tenure case. BUT (my capitalization—my addition) the Board of Regents refused to consider them (Of course—my addition.), driving Gonzalez to go public ‘to repair my professional academic reputation.’ (Do they care who they vilify to protect the unscientific concepts they fight so hard to continually cram down the throats of the American people?—my addition.)
An independent source, the Des Moines Register, also filed a public records request and went public with the documents two days before the Discovery Institute press conference on Dec. 3. The newspaper reached a similar conclusion to Gonzalez, calling the material in the emails ‘contrary to what ISU officials emphasized’ last spring.
Indeed, one 2005 email from physics and astronomy professor Bruce Harmon states that Gonzalez ‘is claiming ID is a proper branch of science, and so I think he opens it up in his tenure consideration. I would have thought an intelligent person would have at least kept quiet until after tenure.’ (Is that because tenure is more important than the truth to this professor?—my addition)
Dozens of other messages mock Gonzalez and his ID work, lumping him with ‘idiots’ and ‘religious nutcases.’ (And yet some University gave him a Ph.D. degree—isn’t it amazing the name calling these “intellectuals” resort to—my addition.) Others reveal a plan within the department to release an anti-ID petition meant to ‘discredit’ Gonzalez. That petition fizzled after astronomy professor Steve Kawaler warned ‘it could be used to justify a legal claim of a hostile work environment’ (Duh!!! Do you think so?—my addition) and it ‘work directly against our need to ensure and display a fair tenure review.’ (In my opinion based on what I have read and know about those who oppose the belief that GOD created the universe, what he really means is ‘it works directly against our need to ensure and display a(n) (APPEARANCE of a—my addition and capitalization) fair tenure review.’)
In response to Kawaler, physics professor John Clem wrote that he agreed with not publishing the petition for fear that it might help Gonzalez get tenure: ‘As for the unfortunate publicity we are receiving and the embarrassment we feel as a department, I think the best policy is to just grin and bear it for the next couple of years.’
Physics and Astronomy Department chair Eli Rosenberg, who was included on several pejorative emails regarding Gonzalez and ID, appealed to such departmental bias in his recommendation to faculty that they vote against tenure: ‘The fact that Dr. Gonzalez does not understand what constitutes both science and a scientific theory disqualifies him from serving as a science educator.’
With such clear anti-ID motivation still secret this past May, Rosenberg insisted in an interview with World that ID ‘was not an overriding factor in the decision that was made at the departmental level.’ (This is a quote from the original May 26, 2007 World article: “But Eli Rosenberg, chair of the Physics and Astronomy Department, told WORLD the central issue was not ID: ‘That was not an overriding factor in the decision that was made at the departmental level. You take a look at somebody’s research record over the six-year probationary period and you get a sense whether this is a strong case. Clearly, this was a case that looked like it might be in trouble.’”—my addition)
University spokesman John McCarroll, who was present during Rosenberg’s explanation to World, says he cannot add to those comments. McCarroll also stands by the statement last spring from ISU president Gregory Geoffroy, who did not cite ID among the several performance-based factors he considered in deny Gonzalez’s initial appeal. (Who are they trying to kid? Themselves? Deny it to the end even when you are caught with your hand in the cookie jar! Isn’t that what you learned as a child? I can’t possibly have done wrong! I’m always the good guy! And these people are responsible for educating our future leaders!!! Of course, many still deny that murdering unborn babies is evil. What can one expect from people who deny the existence of and CREATIVE POWER of GOD???—my addition)
The Iowa Board of Regents has yet to rule on Gonzalez’s final appeal and will not convene again until February. (I would not count on them to reverse the previous decision—my addition.) ‘My chances of staying here now are pretty slim,’ the soft-spoken astronomer conceded. ‘But I need to clear my name.’”
Our academia at work!!! No wonder more and more people do not trust public education at any level.
I will not be continuing my Creationism posts today. I do plan to return to them soon.
Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. I am sorry for the change in plans. Plans, in reality, often are altered for one reason or another. “The best laid plans … often go astray.” Thank you for your understanding and patience.
How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish, barbaric decisions of the United States Supreme Court?
Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers
“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)
http://www.kansasmeadowlark.com/2006/ShameOfKansas
http://www.childpredators.com/
http://www.lifedynamics.com/
http://www.libertylegal.org/
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/
http://www.searchtv.org/
Last night I posted material originally posted on May 24th of this year. The last three paragraphs said: What do you think? Of course, based upon the information given, we can not draw a definitive conclusion. But, what do you think? Do you believe he was denied tenure in balance because of his work on Intelligent Design and his publication of The Privileged Planet? (I thought I recognized this title. Lee Strobel in his book The Case for a Creator lists the book The Privileged Planet in his section at the end of Chapter Seven entitled “FOR FURTHER EVIDENCE: More Resources on This Topic”)
Could it be when other scientists, as broadcast by the mass media, claim that no reputable scientist believes in Intelligent Design it is because they have intimidated such scientists into silence and/or they simply refuse to mention those who do because it contradicts their own view point on the subject. Is this another case of the liars shouting down those who disagree? Is this another case of intimidating those who disagree?
Where is the academic freedom that academics claim is so important for learning? If there was real academic freedom, wouldn’t academics push for a plethora of views, rather than only one, attempting to stimulate discussion and honest intellectual debate? What are they afraid of? THE TRUTH!!!
Tonight I am posting an article from World magazine, December 15, 2007, page 30 that seems to confirm that Dr. Gonzalez was indeed denied tenure because of his support for Intelligent Design even though it was fervently denied at the time.
“Smoking Gun
Iowa State denied tenure to an ID-supporting scientist and then tried to cover up why
by Mark Bergin
The message from Iowa State University remains unchanged—namely that last spring’s denial of tenure to astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez stemmed from inadequate scholarly credentials, not his favorable view of Intelligent Design.
BUT (my capitalization—my addition) internal university documents and emails (One would think that university personnel would be smart enough not to include any incriminating comments in internal emails—my addition.), recently released in compliance with public records requests, tell a different story. Messages circulated among ISU faculty and administrators reveal hostility toward ID and consequent opposition to Gonzalez. What’s more, these private communications betray an effort to conceal the true reason for denying tenure to an acclaimed scientist.
‘All these emails clearly show that faculty had prejudged my case based entirely on my ID views about a year before the tenure case came down,’ said Gonzalez, whose pioneering work in astronomy has appeared in such prominent journals as Nature, Science, and Scientific American.
With a publishing record that includes 68 peer-reviewed articles and co-authorship of one of his department’s textbooks, Gonzalez was bewildered at his denial of tenure earlier this year. His confusion turned to pain when colleagues and university officials began impugning his academic record to justify their decisions.
Suspecting foul play, the ID-advancing Discovery Institute, of which Gonzalez is a senior fellow, filed public records requests for ISU documents and email pertaining to the case. Initially, the university resisted (Of course—my addition.) complying only after the parties engaged in a game of litigation chicken. Upon receiving the documents, the Seattle-based institute hoped to submit them to the Iowa Board of Regents as part of an appeal in the tenure case. BUT (my capitalization—my addition) the Board of Regents refused to consider them (Of course—my addition.), driving Gonzalez to go public ‘to repair my professional academic reputation.’ (Do they care who they vilify to protect the unscientific concepts they fight so hard to continually cram down the throats of the American people?—my addition.)
An independent source, the Des Moines Register, also filed a public records request and went public with the documents two days before the Discovery Institute press conference on Dec. 3. The newspaper reached a similar conclusion to Gonzalez, calling the material in the emails ‘contrary to what ISU officials emphasized’ last spring.
Indeed, one 2005 email from physics and astronomy professor Bruce Harmon states that Gonzalez ‘is claiming ID is a proper branch of science, and so I think he opens it up in his tenure consideration. I would have thought an intelligent person would have at least kept quiet until after tenure.’ (Is that because tenure is more important than the truth to this professor?—my addition)
Dozens of other messages mock Gonzalez and his ID work, lumping him with ‘idiots’ and ‘religious nutcases.’ (And yet some University gave him a Ph.D. degree—isn’t it amazing the name calling these “intellectuals” resort to—my addition.) Others reveal a plan within the department to release an anti-ID petition meant to ‘discredit’ Gonzalez. That petition fizzled after astronomy professor Steve Kawaler warned ‘it could be used to justify a legal claim of a hostile work environment’ (Duh!!! Do you think so?—my addition) and it ‘work directly against our need to ensure and display a fair tenure review.’ (In my opinion based on what I have read and know about those who oppose the belief that GOD created the universe, what he really means is ‘it works directly against our need to ensure and display a(n) (APPEARANCE of a—my addition and capitalization) fair tenure review.’)
In response to Kawaler, physics professor John Clem wrote that he agreed with not publishing the petition for fear that it might help Gonzalez get tenure: ‘As for the unfortunate publicity we are receiving and the embarrassment we feel as a department, I think the best policy is to just grin and bear it for the next couple of years.’
Physics and Astronomy Department chair Eli Rosenberg, who was included on several pejorative emails regarding Gonzalez and ID, appealed to such departmental bias in his recommendation to faculty that they vote against tenure: ‘The fact that Dr. Gonzalez does not understand what constitutes both science and a scientific theory disqualifies him from serving as a science educator.’
With such clear anti-ID motivation still secret this past May, Rosenberg insisted in an interview with World that ID ‘was not an overriding factor in the decision that was made at the departmental level.’ (This is a quote from the original May 26, 2007 World article: “But Eli Rosenberg, chair of the Physics and Astronomy Department, told WORLD the central issue was not ID: ‘That was not an overriding factor in the decision that was made at the departmental level. You take a look at somebody’s research record over the six-year probationary period and you get a sense whether this is a strong case. Clearly, this was a case that looked like it might be in trouble.’”—my addition)
University spokesman John McCarroll, who was present during Rosenberg’s explanation to World, says he cannot add to those comments. McCarroll also stands by the statement last spring from ISU president Gregory Geoffroy, who did not cite ID among the several performance-based factors he considered in deny Gonzalez’s initial appeal. (Who are they trying to kid? Themselves? Deny it to the end even when you are caught with your hand in the cookie jar! Isn’t that what you learned as a child? I can’t possibly have done wrong! I’m always the good guy! And these people are responsible for educating our future leaders!!! Of course, many still deny that murdering unborn babies is evil. What can one expect from people who deny the existence of and CREATIVE POWER of GOD???—my addition)
The Iowa Board of Regents has yet to rule on Gonzalez’s final appeal and will not convene again until February. (I would not count on them to reverse the previous decision—my addition.) ‘My chances of staying here now are pretty slim,’ the soft-spoken astronomer conceded. ‘But I need to clear my name.’”
Our academia at work!!! No wonder more and more people do not trust public education at any level.
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 10:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home