Science and Culture Today | Page 1409 | Discovering Design in Nature

Following his May 16 piece, Lawrence Selden has more incisive commentary on the Guillermo Gonzalez denial of tenure scandal at Iowa State University:

Is the faculty at Iowa State University intellectually insecure? The statement of two years ago signed by 120 members of the faculty perhaps suggests that, especially when compared with the actions of other schools and faculties. I wonder if they are afraid that others will think they are backward country bumpkins for allowing someone who is interested in exploring intelligent design on the faculty.
Harvard University is not ashamed of Owen Gingerich, who had this to say about Gonzalez’ book The Privileged Planet:

All too predictably, during the past week various Darwinists have been trying to divert attention away from the Guillermo Gonzalez tenure case through a campaign of misinformation about both Dr. Gonzalez and intelligent design. Whether they do so knowingly — as a calculated attempt to defame Gonzalez and smear his professional record — or through ignorance isn’t always clear. Either way, the truth about Dr. Gonzalez’s work and achievements is readily available. (A great place to start is the Biosketch of Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, Astronomer and Asst. Professor at Iowa State University.) Let’s take a look at some of the false facts being tossed around. False Fact #1: Dr. Gonzalez’s Work is about Intelligent Design in Biology. One commenter on Read More ›

With the Guillermo Gonzalez controversy as the background, blogger Lawrence Selden at Darwinian Fundamentalism has written an insightful comparison of Iowa State University and Arizona State University. He concludes: While Iowa State is trying to shut down creative thinking, Arizona State is reveling in it. Where would you rather go to school? An excellent question.

There has been much unfounded speculation this week about the specific standards governing astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez’s application for tenure at Iowa State University. Some have claimed, for example, that outside research grants must be a primary criterion for tenure at ISU. Unfortunately, the specific tenure and promotion standards adopted by the Department of Physics and Astronomy at ISU have not been available online. So we have decided to make them available for download here so that people can read the standards for themselves. These standards make clear that the key criterion for research excellence in Dr. Gonzalez’s department is the number of refereed papers, not the level of outside funding:

Evaluation of research ability is based primarily upon published papers in refereed journals…. (p. 4)

According to a story to be published in the May 26 edition of World Magazine (already available online here), two faculty members of the department that denied tenure to Guillermo Gonzales at Iowa State University have admitted that his work on ID played a role in the denial. While Prof. Eli Rosenberg, Chair of the Department of Physics and Astronomy, insisted to the magazine that intelligent design “was not an overriding factor” (emphasis added), he then conceded according to the magazine that Gonzalez’s pro-ID book The Privileged Planet “played into the decision-making process. He also explained that the reputation of a professor among others in his field is a significant factor.” Of course, if “reputation” is used as a code word for whether one’s views are popular among fellow scientists, then this is another way anti-ID bias entered into the decision.

But Rosenberg is not the only department member who admitted that intelligent design played a role in the tenure decision.

It seems like just yesterday that University of Minnesota biologist P.Z. Myers, who runs what Nature declared to be the #1 science blog, admitted, “I get to vote on tenure decisions at my university, and I can assure you that if someone comes up who claims that ID ‘theory’ is science, I will vote against them.” As Iowa State University (ISU) has denied tenure to Guillermo Gonzalez, possibly due to his views on intelligent design, pro-ID biologist Mike Gene has provided insightful commentary on the situation: “[T]his issue has become larger than Guillermo Gonzalez’s situation, so it won’t matter when the official reasons for denial are eventually supplied. What matters is that the academics have gone on record and given Read More ›

My friend and colleague John West wrote an essay recently commenting on my post about the link between Darwinism and eugenics. He raised some very important points, with which I agree, and I’d like to clarify my view and clarify our fundamental agreement.

A distinguished science professor at a major American university has weighed in on Iowa State University’s denial of tenure to pro-ID astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, expressing astonishment at the result. According to Dr. Robert J. Marks, Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor University: I went to the Web of Science citation index which is the authority on citations. Only journal papers, not conference papers, are indexed. There are lots of Prof. Gonzalez’s papers listed. My jaw dropped when I saw one of his papers has 153 citations and 139 on another. I have sat on oodles of tenure committees at both a large private university and a state research university, chaired the university tenure committee, and have seen Read More ›

Two of the five active tenured astronomy professors in the department that denied tenure to Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State University are connected to a widely-publicized statement that denounces intelligent design as “creationist pseudoscience.” Professor Steven Kawaler, the Program Coordinator for astronomy in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at ISU, actually signed the statement, and he provides a link to both the statement and an article about it on his website. University Professor Lee Anne Willson, meanwhile, is married to ISU mathematics professor Stephen J. Willson, who also signed the anti-ID statement.Known as “Project Steve,” the anti-ID statement was the brainchild of the pro-Darwin National Center for Science Education. The statement declares that “it is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically Read More ›