Wired News
12-10-07
Astronomers Tenure Battle Part of Intelligent Design's 'Wedge Strategy, Says
Scientist
By Brandon Keim
Was Iowa State University astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez denied tenure
because of his belief in intelligent design, which denies evolution and insists that
science points to a divine creator of life's building blocks?
Gonzalez says he was. The pro-ID Discovery Institute, at which Gonzalez is a
fellow, portray him as the victim of a religious witchhunt. The University insists
that his tenure process was fair and intelligent design, or ID, was not a factor. At
least one colleague considers the controversy to be a cynical attempt to promote
ID as science.
As I learn more about the case, I'm inclined to believe the University's side.
Gonzalez's grant record was absolutely awful; the Mid-Iowa News reported that
over six years, he secured just $22,661 in external research grants. His
colleagues averaged $1.3 million over the same time. The Discovery Institute
says Gonzalez was persecuted, but it seems they're just using his case to push
intelligent design -- legally designated as religion -- as science.
After reading emails written by Iowa State scientists considering a public
denunciation of intelligent design, I emailed some of Gonzalez's colleagues. "As I
learn more about the Discovery Institute's apparent end-run into the high school
science textbook industry, I become more sympathetic to the position that
association with the DI ought to be grounds for academy disqualification," I wrote.
"But I'm also aware that many fine scientists have held crackpot beliefs -- Francis
Crick and galactic panspermia, for example -- so perhaps some tolerance is
necessary. Was Gonzalez treated fairly? If ID was a factor in the review process,
was that appropriate? And do you see ID as dangerous to science, and its
proponents (especially members of the Discovery Institute) as working, however
well-meaningly, against science?"
Bruce Harmon, director of Iowa State's Center for Physical and Computational
Mathematics -- physics and astronomy share a department at the school -- wrote
back. Attached to his email was a quote from Discovery Institute senior fellow
William Dembski:
This may seem unfair and mean-spirited, but let’s admit that our aim, as
proponents of intelligent design, is to beat naturalistic evolution, and the scientific
materialism that undergirds it, back to the Stone Age. Our opponents, therefore,
are merely returning the favor.
How, then, do we effectively handle the attacks and abuse that increasingly
are being sent our way? A sports analogy, for me, captures the essential insight.
Consider an athletic contest between two teams. For definiteness, let’s say
soccer. The other team is abusing your team, especially your star players.
They’re constantly talking trash, constantly trying to trip you up. When the referee
isn’t looking, expect a knee in the groin or an elbow in the eye. In response,
you’ve got three options: (1) respond in kind; (2) complain to the referee; (3)
score. The first two options are dead-ends. The third is supremely satisfying and
moves the ID program forward. Some recent notable “scores” for the ID
movement have been the PBS broadcast of Unlocking the Mystery of Life, the
decision by the Ohio board of education to permit weaknesses and criticisms of
evolutionary theory to be taught, and the publication of The Privileged Planet by
Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards.
Said Harmon,
The Gonzalez case will likely go to court because the Discovery Institute has
such a stake in it. [...] There are a number of references and lots of background
material available on the "Intelligent Design" and "Discovery Institute" entries in
Wikipedia on line. The attached quote can be traced from there. Also, if you have
not yet read "The Wedge" document on the strategy of the Discovery Institute for
replacing the current scientific culture with Intelligent Design, then you might find
it sobering. You can find reference to it and download it from the Wikipedia site. I
do wonder after you read the attached quote from Dembski and hopefully follow
up on some of the information on Wikipedia, if you will still continue to use the
words "however well-meaningly."
In spite of all this, it is of course possible that Guillermo Gonzalez is, as you
say, maybe a 'crackpot' or at least "crazy" enough to be doing great science or
coming up with great ideas, even if the package is coated with questionable ID
lingo. I sincerely believe that most of my colleagues could, and would, have
overlooked the ID if there was great, really good, or even really promising
science involved. The consensus you know. You ask if ID was a factor. I suspect
it was to the extent that Dr. Gonzalez has said in at least one seminar that he
believes ID is science and that he uses it to do his science. I don't believe it was
the dominant factor among most of my colleagues. Dr. Gonzalez has said that he
does not teach it in his classrooms because it is controversial. Indeed,
considering the Dover case with the Discovery Institutes involvement and also
other national news, it would be strange if the topic did not come up.
Today, the Iowa State Daily published a letter to the editor from another of
Gonzalez's colleagues, astronomy professor Joerg Schmailian. He wrote,
To deny tenure to a colleague is a very painful experience. It literally causes
sleepless nights to those who are forced to make a responsible decision. Faculty
candidates who are being hired in our department always come with promising
backgrounds and terrific accomplishments. The decision to recommend or deny
tenure is then predominantly based on research performance while at Iowa
State.
As far as I can judge, this was no different in Gonzalez's case. What I know
with certainty is that Gonzalez's views on intelligent design, with which I utterly
disagree, had no bearing whatsoever on my vote on his tenure case.