Intelligent Design Need Not Apply

Posted: February 8, 2008 in atheism, Celebrating Diversity, Creationism, Evolution, Politics, Science

Intelligent design costs prof his job
Regents reject tenure request without evidence, testimony

The Discovery Institute said it also had reviewed the e-mail record regarding Gonzalez’ teaching, and found “an orchestrated campaign conducted against Dr. Gonzalez by his colleagues, with the intent to deny him tenure because of views he holds on the intelligent design of the universe.”

As WND reported earlier, Gonzales was one of three members of the ISU faculty denied promotion or tenure of the 66 considered at the time.

The rejection followed earlier opposition to his work because of his acknowledgment of intelligent design. In 2005, three ISU faculty members drafted a statement and petition against intelligent design in the science curriculum that collected 120 signatures.

“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 (my emphasis),” the statement said.

Soooo…get into an discussion with an evolutionist about ID, and they will invariably trot out the, “SHOW ME THE PROOF!  GIVE ME SOME EVIDENCE!”  And yet, time and again Universities engage in this kind of intellectual gatekeeping , effectively ensuring that you CAN’T build a case for ID, because the powers that be have made an arbitrary decision that it’s “not science.”

So, they require evidence, while preventing professors from presenting any.  They want scientific evidence, but won’t examine any evidence from an ID guy because it’s not science.  I believe that’s called a “catch-22.”

  1. Guillermo Gonzalez says:

    Absolutely. My denial of tenture had nothing to do with the fact I had failed to secure any grant money during my seven years at ISU (while peers in physics and astronomy seeking tenure pulled in an average of $1.3 million each), only one of my graduate students ever finished a dissertation, and I hadn’t published any research papers.

    Its a conspiracy, I tell you.

  2. Matt says:

    Gonzalez’s academic record was really rather poor. It is actually a surprise he wasn’t just fired straight out rather than just not getting tenure.

    It is remarkable how little actual research IDiots put into their stories sometimes.

  3. Steve B says:

    Hmm…well, the article I read and linked said quite the opposite of both of these comments. I guess perhaps I was in error in assuming that the referenced material was accurate. I should instead rely on comments from people calling people “IDiots.”

    Out of curiosity, how are you associated with Mr. Gonzalez?

  4. Guillermo Gonzalez says:

    Don’t worry about me, everybody, I’m being quite well looked after at the Discovery Institute’s ‘Center for Science and Culture’, where they’ve made me a senior fellow!

    I really like it here. Everyone is super nice to me. Unlike those logic and reasony-types back at ISU, they seem really happy when I answer a difficult question about science with “God did it?”. They say “well done” but remind me to make sure I say “intelligent designer” instead of “God” when I’m being listened to by normal people… just in case.

    I’ve written it on my arm to make sure I don’t forget.

  5. Steve B says:

    My aren’t we clever?

  6. Guillermo Gonzalez says:

    The university professors clearly didn’t think so! Thank [discoveryinstituteautotextreplace-start]INTELLIGENT DESIGNER[discoveryinstituteautotextreplace-end] that the guys at the Institute aren’t quite so picky when it comes to the ol’ IQ, huh?

    They’re not all sweetness and light, though. Tried to submit a grant request for some research into the healing power of unicorns and they got very angry! I might try again on Monday, but this time I think I’ll include more references to [discoveryinstituteautotextreplace-start]INTELLIGENT DESIGNER[discoveryinstituteautotextreplace-end] in the synopsis..

  7. Steve B says:

    I appreciate you lending credibility to the points I make in my post about the anti-ID crowd.

    Much appreciated.

  8. on-the-rocks says:

    How is macro-evolution testable? Yes the fossil record is fact, but how these changes took place is a valid place to have a discussion. How could we replicate a species-level change in the laboratory?

    ID doesn’t preclude evolution nor does it mandate a young Earth. And I don’t think the proponents of ID suggest that every morphological change was the result of a “designer”, but the concept “leaves the door open” to that possibility.

  9. Sarah says:

    ID IS unscientific. What if I told you I believe that cigarette smoke doesn’t cause cancer? Doesn’t cause any health problems at all in fact.
    Wouldn’t you say ‘Then why do so many studies show that if you take a random group of people and follow them and their health, the smokers develop cancer far more often than the non-smokers?’
    My answer: ‘Well I can’t explain that… but some stuff happens that I can’t explain. I don’t know everything. But still I think smoke doesn’t cause cancer.’ That’s unscientific.

    ID proponents claim that complexity can’t increase without an intelligence facilitating it. Living beings are too complex to occur without a designer. That designer is fairly complex. Who created the designer? After all someone who can create the life we see on Earth is pretty complex… that being couldn’t just occur by itself. So if the designer was designed by another designer… who created that designer? Etc. At some point there has to be something complex arising… without a designer.

  10. Sarah says:

    Ontherocks: Must add, being scientific means hypothetically testable (or falsifiable). The famous quote about what would disprove evolution – ‘Fossil rabbits in the PreCambrian’ – shows that is falsifiable. And hypothetically, humans could keep watching extant organisms and see macroevolution in action. Being hypothetically falsifiable is sufficient to make something scientific.
    So what evidence would convince a Creationist or IDer that the ID idea is wrong? Or that there is no God? I can’t imagine… so it’s not science.

    Ignoring unscientific theories is gatekeeping now?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s