Men's News Daily, CA
12-20-07
Cataloguing Darwinist Denials and Flip-Flopping over the Role of Intelligent
Design in ISU’s Tenuregate
December 20, 2007 at 2:07 pm ·
The controversy over why Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure has resulted
in much flip-flopping and denials from Darwinists at Iowa State University (ISU):
* John Hauptman, ISU Physicist:
Now: The ISU Daily reports, "Hauptman said his tenure decision was
'absolutely not' based on Gonzalez's research into intelligent design."
Then: Last June, Hauptman explicitly admitted that he voted against Gonzalez's
tenure because of intelligent design (ID): "I participated in the initial vote and
voted no, based on this fundamental question: What is science? … It is purely a
question of what is science and what is not, and a physics department is not
obligated to support notions that do not even begin to meet scientific standards."
* Eli Rosenberg, Chair of ISU's Department of Physics and Astronomy:
Now: Rosenberg tells the Des Moines Register that tenure documents
included "a few words about intelligent design at the end, and that's it," and
previously told Nature that "intelligent design was not a major or even a big factor
in this decision."
Then: During actual tenure deliberations in November, 2006, Rosenberg
devotes a full 1/3 of his Chair's statement in Gonzalez's tenure file to discussing
intelligent design, instructing voting members of ISU's Department of Physics
and Astronomy to make ID a litmus test where Gonzalez's support for ID as
science "disqualifies him from serving as a science educator."
* Hector Avalos, outspoken atheist Professor of Religion at ISU:
Then: In the summer of 2005, Avalos e-mails ISU faculty, inviting them to
sign a statement calling on "all faculty members to … reject efforts to portray
Intelligent Design as science" because of the "negative impact" due to the fact
that "Intelligent Design … has now established a presence … at Iowa State
University." Guillermo Gonzalez, being the only well-known ID proponent who
has "established a presence" at ISU, is the undeniable target of such a
statement. Later: Avalos asserts publicly in the ISU Daily , "The statement we
wrote was in no way targeted specifically at Gonzalez."
* John Clem, ISU physicist:
Then: Apparently Clem prejudges Gonzalez's tenure case because of ID,
stating: "Many of us here at Iowa State are embarrassed by the work of
Guillermo Gonzalez, who with Jay Richards published the book 'The Privileged
Planet.' … I now feel that publication of such a statement might become the most
important piece of evidence in a successful court case to guarantee tenure to the
person whose scientific credibility we would be attempting to discredit. … 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." Now: The ISU Daily reports, "Clem said the decision to deny tenure to
Gonzalez was 'absolutely not' based on ID."
* Joerg Schmalian, ISU physicist:
Now: Schmalian publicly asserts in the ISU Daily , "We wanted to take
advantage of our freedom to express our opinion on this matter and inform the
public about the fact that intelligent design is not generally accepted within our
department," and asserts, "Guillermo Gonzalez's views on Intelligent Design, with
which I utterly disagree, had no bearing whatsoever on my vote on his tenure
case."
Then: Schmalian expresses a very different motive for releasing the
statement in an e-mail, intending to send a message to Gonzalez: "If we go on
record, we give Gonzalez a clear sign that his ID efforts will not be considered as
science by the faculty." Other faculty (see below) endorse such statements from
Schmalian with an intent to directly target Gonzalez.
Even Wired Magazine is joining in the flip-flopping. Last week, they wrote,
"Though out-of-context email excerpts can be misleading, statements like 'this is
not a friendly place for him to develop further his IDeas' make it sound like
Gonzalez was not, as the university insisted, judged solely on the content of his
astronomical scholarship." But this week Wired 's Brandon Keim says that after
reading the e-mails we released to the Iowa State Daily , he's "inclined to believe
the University's side," which asserts that "intelligent design … was not a factor" in
the denial of tenure.
Yet even one of the faculty that Keim contacted for his story contradicts Keim's
denial that ID played a role. As Bruce Harmon stated in a recent e-mail to Keim,
"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." Thus, according to Harmon, because "most" of his colleagues
thought ID was bad science, they could not "overlook" it and considered it
negatively during the tenure evaluation.
At least Harmon isn't flip-flopping, as he previously wrote in the secret e-mail
correspondence that ISU faculty would count ID as a negative during tenure
deliberations:
As Joerg [Schmalian] says, I think Gonzalez should know that some faculty in his
department are not going to count his ID work as a plus for tenure. Quite the
opposite.
Harmon's e-mail to Wired tries to deflect the issue by talking about the Wedge
document and poisoning the well by encouraging readers not to listen to anything
that Discovery Institute says. What Harmon isn't discussing is how he mocked
Gonzalez's ID work, saying he had to study it "under medication," and how he
called Gonzalez's work in The Privileged Planet "how primitive humans explained
things, and then rejoiced." Harmon sees the failure of Guillermo Gonzalez to
attain tenure as linked to the demise of ID as a whole, and he seems more than
willing to help participate in that demise: "I still suspect the [Discovery Institute]
views Guillermo's case as their best chance for establishing ID as a science.
Let's hope some more self destruction occurs in the next year." While Harmon is
of course entitled to his opinion, even he at one point admitted, "I don't think
talking behind Guillermo's back is quite ethical." Thus, the very ISU faculty that
form the centerpiece of Wired 's denial that ID played a role in the tenure
decision contradict Wired 's position that Gonzalez did not face unfair treatment
and prejudice due to his views on ID.
Why did Wired change its mind? Their flip-flopping occurred immediately after I
praised them last weekend on Evolution News and Views , stating, " Wired
Magazine Acknowledges Discrimination against Guillermo Gonzalez and
Understands What the Ames Tribune Ignored." This probably resulted in some
kind of a memo being sent to Wired's blogger, Brandon Keim, to the effect of,
“Don't praise Discovery Institute because then you're helping their evil Wedge
strategy,” so it is no surprise that by Monday, Keim's changed his tune. To justify
the 180, Keim cites the usual fallacious pretexts, vastly understating Gonzalez's
funding by over 800%, adopting an Ames-Tribune-like hear-no-evil, see-no-evil
approach to ISU's behavior, and forgetting the following points:
* Dr. Gonzalez's funding level, high or otherwise, does NOTHING to negate
the undeniable evidence of bias and prejudice against him in the department
because he supports ID.
* Dr. Gonzalez's department does not even consider grants as a criterion for
gaining tenure. Yet he has a $50,000 grant from Discovery Institute that allows
him to collect more than enough observational astronomy data each year for the
next 5 years. In short, Dr. Gonzalez has precisely the money he needs to have a
successful research program at ISU. As one external reviewer observed, "Dr.
Gonzalez is eminently qualified for the promotion according to your guidelines of
excellence in scholarship and exhibiting a potential for national distinction. In light
of your criteria I would certainly recommend the promotion." Indeed, 2/3 of the
external reviewers who gave an opinion about whether Dr. Gonzalez deserves
tenure said he should receive tenure.
* Dr. Gonzalez has more per-capita publications and more per-capita scientific
citations since 2001, the year he joined ISU, than all ISU tenured astronomers
who voted against his tenure, and he has over 350% more peer-reviewed
science articles than what his department ordinarily requires for indicating the
type of reputation that demonstrates research excellence. Moreover, he coauthored a peer-reviewed astronomy textbook with Cambridge University Press
that some ISU astronomy classes are now using. These seem like distinct
accomplishments that make a tenure denial difficult to justify.
In the end, Wired 's article is almost comical. It states, "Iowa State researchers,
justifiably frightened by the rise of creationist pseudoscience masquerading as
legitimate science, wanted to take a stand; but they were unsure how to do so
without attacking Gonzalez himself, or creating the lynch mob perception now
being stoked by the Discovery Institute." So because ISU faculty believe that
intelligent design is "creationist pseudoscience masquerading as science," I
guess Wired believes they were a "justifiably frightened" lynch mob.
Wired ignores the fact that Gonzalez's ID work was not "creationist
pseudoscience masquerading as science." Gonzalez's ID book, The Privileged
Planet , was written by a grant funded by the prestigious Templeton Foundation (
money that was accepted by ISU to help pay Gonzalez's salary ) and the book
was praised by eminent scientists such as Cambridge's Simon Conway Morris,
Harvard's Owen Gingerich, and National Academy of Sciences member Philip
Skell. To my knowledge, groups and people like this don't praise "creationist
pseudoscience masquerading as science" as having the high level of academic
legitimacy of Gonzalez's ID work in The Privileged Planet .
But keep in mind that one ISU faculty member even admitted that "freedom of
inquiry … has been violated massively in the physics department." Perhaps
Wired should e-mail John Hauptman and ask him why he said that. (If they do,
expect more flip-flopping in response from Hauptman.)
Although Brandon Keim at Wired apparently now believes otherwise, even ID
proponents deserve academic freedom and the courtesy to be free from a hostile
work environment.