Home » Intelligent Design » Gonzalez case – Prof, do you know what time it is?

Gonzalez case – Prof, do you know what time it is?

A friend writes to say, “Guillermo [Gonzalez] has three (not two) papers exceeding 100 citations each. An updated list is attached that includes a few more of his publications. This is really impressive.” (If you are just joining us today, Guilllermo Gonzalez is the gifted ID-friendly astronomer who was recently denied tenure under suspicious circumstances at Iowa State University.)

From the screen capture my correspondent attached, I assume he means, for example, papers like GONZALEZ G ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS, Title: Spectroscopic analyses of the parent stars of extrasolar planetary system candidates, cited 153 times.

He also draws my attention to the AA (Atheists and Agnostics) meeting posted on the ISU Web site, attacking Gonzalez by name.

Now, I am all for vigorous debate at a university and despise political correctness, but note that the university itself also has the spin machine whining 24/7 on the site, announcing that a poisoned environment was never an issue.

I guess one page doesn’t know what the other is doing. But so much for the claim that there was no underlying anti-ID component. I would love to see that tested in court, and maybe I will.

The major lesson from all this, I think, is that academics who are not materialists Do. Not. Know. What. Time. It. Is.

Why is it way later than these academics think?

A fine Christian in science said to me a couple of months ago, “I support what the intelligent design researchers are doing, but they have got to come up with more evidence.”

I wonder what he thinks now. Gonzalez did research and assembled evidence and has an ID-friendly “privileged planet” hypothesis to test, perhaps falsify. Indeed, that was precisely the problem, wasn’t it?

Consider: Materialism is an absolutist position that can be wrecked by a single, accepted contrary finding. Hence, non-materialists cannot be permitted tenure if they research anything sensitive for materialism.

Why do academics who are not materialists have difficulty facing up to the reality of their situation?

One political scientist commented to me that many Christian/theistic academics who contacted him about the Gonzalez case were in denial, blaming the victim. They were eager to give every benefit of the doubt to the institution. They very much wanted to hear and speculate that Gonzalez must have done “wrong” – and to spread the word.

I have covered controversies for decades and have seen that pattern repeat endlessly in groups subject to discrimination.*

It’s easy to understand how the pattern develops. Christians/theists/non-materialists daren’t grapple with the fact that the materialists in academia are now a ruling class which assumes that its power is the outworking of natural law. In reality, its power has come mostly from the compliance, complacency, or cowardice of the ruled. People suffer or disappear and everyone rushes to identify the “mistake” the disappeared allegedly made.

So they all feel safer. In the same way and for the same reasons, little girls avoid the cracks in the sidewalk.

What should these academics face up to?

Observation 1: It is NEVER possible to prove discrimination to those who do not wish to address it. For example, there are people out there slandering Rick Sternberg to this day. Convincing such people is not a goal.**

Observation 2: In a genuine case of discrimination, it is always possible to find another, incorrect explanation that – sort of – fits the facts. The mere fact that such an explanation can be dissembled demonstrates nothing except human ingenuity. (One is reminded of the lawyer who “proved” that a Native American’s horse was a bird, because it had been decorated with feathers.)

I flag possible discrimination as follows: a consistent pattern of denial that discrimination EVER occurred. Nope. Not in a single case. All those people are just deluded crybabies. As a matter of course I tune out the spin machines.

What does the future hold?

Well, suppose Christian/theist/non-materialist academics, alumni, and tuition payers choose to do nothing but fret and insist that G. must have done something wrong?

- Obviously, materialists will see to it that research that might provide support for intelligent design cannot be done and any accidental favorable findings must be obscured or spun.

- Darwinist materialists are beginning slowly down the path blazed by the Marxist, Freudian, and fascist materialists – to medicalize dissent and treat it as a social problem. For example, in a recent paper in Science, a team of psychologists defined belief that the universe shows evidence of purpose or design as arising from childish mistakes, and constitutes “adult resistance to science.” The opposite belief is, of course, assumed to be the “correct” one.

How do they know?

Because they are materialists, that’s how. And materialists rule.

Why does it matter?

Now, what these psychologists are doing is of much more significance than some readers may realize. If their view becomes generally accepted, non-materialism is not only career ending in the sciences but career limiting in the professions. It becomes an argument against parental competence in custody hearings and personal competence in mental health hearings. It can override the normal protections and defenses of an accused person when “protection of children” is allegedly an issue.

Also, by medicalizing dissent, such papers also lay the groundwork for proposals for explicit anti-meaning-and-purpose teaching at the elementary school level, much as Communists explicitly taught atheism in their school systems. So even if you escape, your children don’t, and you will pay to have them indoctrinated, on pain of seizure of your property.

Exaggerating? Who, me? In the last seven decades, materialists east and west have done all these things in the name of their blind watchmaker. And, as evidence mounts against them, they are now working against the clock. There is little doubt they would do it again – if unopposed.

And, make no mistake, such tactics are very effective. They render many subjects undiscussable EVEN in private life (because you don’t know whether you can trust the other party. He always has something on you ever after). That’s their purpose.

Others have noticed the trend. Ronald Numbers, certainly no friend to intelligent design hypotheses, notes regarding key American Darwinist Daniel Dennett,

If Dawkins played the role of point man for late-twentieth-century naturalistic evolutionists, Tufts University philosopher Daniel C. Dennett gladly served as their hatchet man. [ ... ] Displaying a degree of intolerance more characteristic of a fundamentalist fanatic than an academic philosopher, he called for “caging” those who would deliberately misinform children about the natural world, just as one would cage a threatening animal. “The message is clear,” he wrote: “those who will not accommodate, who will not temper, who insist on keeping only the purest and wildest strain of their heritage alive, we will be obliged, reluctantly, to cage or disarm, and we will do our best to disable the memes [traditions] they fight for” Dennett 1995, 519-20). With the bravado of a man unmindful that only 11 percent of the public shared his enthusiasm for naturalistic evolution, he warned parents that if they insisted on teaching their children “falsehoods — that the earth is flat that ‘Man’ is not a product of evolution by natural selection — then you must expect, at the very least, that those of us who have freedom of speech will feel free to describe your teachings as the spreading of falsehoods, and will attempt to demonstrate this to your children at our earliest opportunity” (Dennett 1997). Those who resisted conversion to Dennett’s scientific fundamentalism would be subject to “quarantine.”

(Numbers R.L., “Darwinism Comes to America,” Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1998, p.13) This was put up here by Stephen E. Jones.

Dennett is hardly the only one; on the contrary, his views are a logical outworking of the establishment of materialist atheism.

How successful can the Darwinists/materialists be?

That depends. Treat the Gonzalez case as a gauge. If the response among non-Darwinists/non-materialists is to identify reasons why G. should have been dumped and go holler aimlessly for Jesus in a tabernacle somewhere, the Darwinists/materialists will smell the weakness.

By contrast, whatever slows them down until they are crushed by the weight of contrary evidence is worth doing, whether or not a given case is won. So my advice has been: Try to win every battle but assess progress by the extent that each encroachment is strongly resisted.

What can be done right now that would make a difference?

Dissenting scientists should use the opportunity of Gonzalez’ battle to put together resources and coalitions to defend the next person/situation. I’ve seen good legal opinions in this area, for example.

Non-scientists can:

1. Quit giving money to universities that do things like this and reevaluate sending your kids there. You are not as dumb as they think.

2. Get tough with religious authorities, pop religion authors, and poster boys for “Gawd-and-science” who burble happily about the “compatibility of faith and science.”

When science is being redefined, for all practical purposes, as applied atheism and when an atheistic religion prof is permitted to launch a genuine persecution against a working scientist like Gonzalez – with almost NO sense of scandal in the academic community – tell those people to go burble somewhere else. It’s late, but it’s not too late.

By the way, the search string “Guillermo Gonzalez” + tenure that turned up 34 500 mentions on May 19 has hit 40 000 last night. Now (9:15 EST), it is 72, 600. And just think, only around 600 a week ago … ) Another “silent scream” heard round the world?

- – - Notes – - -

*What I told the poli sci prof in reply was this,

It is – at first – disconcerting to see how many people with everything to lose will actually support the establishment in such cases. Their behaviour helps explain how completely rotten establishments manage to survive as long as they do. ..

I am NOT saying that the establishment is always wrong either. If even a stopped clock is right twice a day, even a crummy establishment must sometimes be right too, though less reliably, in my experience.

[ ... ]

Essentially, what I learned over the years is that most groups that are subject to discrimination need a revolution in thinking patterns, after which they no longer accept discrimination as normal. Instead of finding a reason why the targeted person deserves his fate, they identify with him. Then you see less of this easy accommodation and adoption of the viewpoint of the establishment, and more creative resistance. Only creative resistance is worthwhile.

**Indeed, I have started to get comments over at the Post-Darwinist announcing that there is no discrimination in the Gonzalez case. None whatever. Just like there was no discrimination in the Sternberg case (the government thought otherwise), and Frank Beckwith was alleged to have misrepresented himself (he didn’t), and Richard Weikart, author of From Darwin to Hitler misrepresented the Nazis in his careful study of their admiration for Darwin’s theory (he didn’t). What is it about the air of academia that breeds such an explosion of jackals?

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

9 Responses to Gonzalez case – Prof, do you know what time it is?

  1. Though I feel bad for the pressure Dr. Gonzalez is enduring right now, I’m glad the general public will get a first hand look at how hostile and bigoted most universities are to anything that doesn’t toe the materialistic (atheistic) party line. Orwell’s thought police may have their day of reckoning yet!

  2. Great writing as usual Denyse!

    “Have patience awhile; slanders are not long-lived. Truth is the child of time; erelong she shall appear to vindicate thee.” – Immanuel Kant

    “Being Politically Correct means always having to say you’re sorry.” – Charles Osgood

    Darwinism’s days are counted. It will be the greatest scientific joke and embarrassment of the next centuries.

    Allow me to rephrase Winston Churchill’s famous statement concerning the Battle of Britain,
    “Never has so much been swallowed by so many, on so few [evidences]“.

  3. Here are some inspiring words from ISU’s website regarding academic freedom…

    “Professional Policies and Procedures

    Academic Freedom

    Academic freedom is the foundation of a university because it encourages the unfettered inquiry, debate and learning that characterize an active community of scholars and students. Consequently, Iowa State University grants academic freedom to all members of the faculty, whether tenured or not. This means that the university supports full freedom, within the law, of expressions in teaching, investigation in research, and dissemination of results through presentation, performance, and publication. As a consequence, no faculty member shall be judged on any basis not demonstrably related to professional performance, so long as the exercise of this right does not result in situations that are illegal, that violate faculty-approved university policies, or that interfere with the faculty member’s ability to perform his/her duties at the university.

    With freedom comes responsibility. In the exercise of academic freedom, faculty members may discuss without limitation any topic related to their professional area of expertise in the classroom, at professional meetings, or through publication. They may not, however, claim the right to discuss persistently in the classroom subject matter that has no relation to a course, nor may faculty members represent themselves in extramural utterances, publications, or activities as speaking for the university, unless they have been specifically empowered to do so. When acting as citizens, faculty members are free from any institutional limitations imposed by this policy.”

  4. Would they all had your spunk!

    “What is it about the air of academia that breeds such an explosion of jackals?”

    Maybe it’s that the totalitarian temptation tends to be strong among academics, maybe thinking they know so much they feel qualified to dictate to others—they want to be priests to power.

    When you say it’s later than we think I think you’re right. We tend to believe that the worst horrors can only happen in places like “Old Europe”—it can’t happen here. That’s my hope, but then when I look around I see it happening here. The Sixties idiots were smart in one sense—they aimed for the universities and the schools—just as the wise men of “the greatest generation” were stupid in so far as they didn’t fight back.

    The postmodernists have given up on the idea of progress, but we shouldn’t. There are terrible setbacks—Darwinism, Nazism, Communism, Islamic terror, state established Atheism/Materialism—but in the end they perish and good emerges.

    But never without a fight!

  5. It is the education theatre of the absurd, sad, comatose Camuites, spreading a viral infection of small mindeded wretchedness.

    But Gonzales must persevere as time is on his side. The clock is running faster on the “study by chance crowd…”

    Iowa State would be fools to lose him. Especially seeing as the discrimnatory actions are being led by an “atheist on record” in charge not of science, but of “religious studies” stating his intentions to go after Gonzales.

    I am curious. How many university religious departments are now run by atheist? And what would be their point of doing so except to be tares in the fields?

    The following is OT, but related to time running out on chance science.

    hattip:
    Alternate Reading Frames….
    http://creationsafaris.com/cre.....#20070520a

    PLoS article:
    http://compbiol.plosjournals.o.....bi.0030091

    “Here we show that although dual coding is nearly impossible by chance, a number of human transcripts contain overlapping coding regions. Using newly developed statistical techniques, we identified 40 candidate genes with evolutionarily conserved overlapping coding regions. Because our approach is conservative, we expect mammals to possess more dual-coding genes. Our results emphasize that the skepticism surrounding eukaryotic dual coding is unwarranted: rather than being artifacts, overlapping reading frames are often hallmarks of fascinating biology.”

    Fractal compression algorithm?

    Please note subtitle:
    Dual Coding Is Virtually Impossible by Chance

  6. I know, I know, the lion is beautiful but dangerous; if you let the lion roam free, it would kill me; safety demands that it be put in a cage. Safety demands that religions be put in cages, too — when absolutely necessary…Save the Baptists! Yes, of course, but not by all means. Not if it means tolerating the deliberate misinforming of children about the natural world. According to a recent poll, 48 percent of the people in the United States today believe that the book of Genesis is literally true. And 70 percent believe that “creation science” should be taught in school alongside evolution. Some recent writers recommend a policy in which parents would be able to “opt out” of materials they didn’t want their children taught. Should evolution be taught in the schools? Should arithmetic be taught? Should history? Misinforming a child is a terrible offense…The message is clear: those who will not accommodate, who will not temper, who insist on keeping only the purest and wildest strain of their heritage alive, we will be obliged, reluctantly, to cage or disarm, and we will do our best to disable the memes they fight for. ~ Daniel Dennett

    The trumpet of this gigantic spiritual warfare marks the dawn of a new day and the end of the long darkness of the Middle Ages. For modern civilization, in spite of the progress of culture, lies bound in the fetters of the hierarchy of the Middle Ages; and social and civil life is ruled, not by the science of truth, but by the faith of the church. We need but mention the mighty influence which irrational dogmas still exercise on the elementary education of our youth, we need but mention that the state yet permits the existence of cloisters and of celibacy, the most immoral and baneful ordinance of the “only-saving” church; we need but mention that the civilized state yet divides the most important parts of the civil year in accordance with church festivals; that in many countries it allows the public order to be disturbed by church processions, and so on. We do indeed now enjoy the unusual pleasure of seeing “most Christian bishops” and Jesuits exiled and imprisoned for there disobedience to the laws of the state. But this same state, till very recently, harboured and cherished these most dangerous enemies of reason.

    In this mighty “war of culture,” affecting as it does the whole history of the World, and in which we may well deem it an honour to take part, no better ally that Anthopogeny can, it seems to me, be brought to the assistance of struggling truth. The history of evolution is the heavy artillery in the struggle for truth. ~ Ernst Haeckel

  7. Thanks for these quotations, Bevets. Note how – true to the tradition of twentieth century totomat (totalitarian materialism) – both of these people presume that they can raise other people’s children better than their parents.

    And how can they perform this astounding feat? Because they are in possession of THE TRUTH!

    Indeed, the materialist’s whole understanding of religion comes from erroneously projecting his OWN world view onto the lives of people of faith.

    He literally believes that it is all about earthly power, just as everything HE does is about earthly power.

  8. Darwinist materialists are beginning slowly down the path blazed by the Marxist, Freudian, and fascist materialists – to medicalize dissent and treat it as a social problem. For example, in a recent paper in Science, a team of psychologists defined belief that the universe shows evidence of purpose or design as arising from childish mistakes, and constitutes “adult resistance to science.” The opposite belief is, of course, assumed to be the “correct” one.

    Denyse, I have disagreed with some of your views in the past but on this you are spot on – I think could be a very significant development in the ID debate. Reading the Panda’s Thumb yesterday, I see they didn’t waste time highlight this paper. It plays nicely into their agenda.

  9. Most people in positions of intellectual power at universities have done nothing but go to school all their lives. Their standard of success is passing exams and at that they’ve been successful for so long that (I think) they view themselves as exceedingly clever indeed; well qualified to discern between truth and falsehood and between right and wrong.

    And yet outside their specialisation (and sometimes even within it) they can be exceedingly dumb. Take, for example, a fellow I knew who had a PhD in political science and a special interest in women’s issues. The latter is important in what follows.

    After a reorganisation of his (our) employer institution he found himself not lecturing anymore but, instead, was put in charge of the access and equity section. He wrote the content for an interactive online course in critical thinking and that is how I met him. I was one of the drones who turned his text into html documents and wrote the code for his interactive quizzes.

    One of the questions he wrote was, I presume, designed to illustrate how important it is to read an exam question carefully. “What was the name of the Prime Minister 25 years ago?” It was designed to catch those who would start racking their memories for the name of whomever was the Prime Minister all those years ago. The answer he wanted was, “The same as it is now”.

    I pointed out to him that had a woman been the current Prime Minister her name now would not necessarily be the same as it was 25 years earlier. And whatever her name was 25 years ago that might not have been the name she was born with. Despite his interest in women’s issues and the papers he had written on that subject he had such a minimal understanding of women’s lives that this common aspect of them had entirely escaped him.

    In the same way those who have never passed through some sort of an encounter with God such that they are enabled, now, to see whereas once they were blind have no real understanding of why it is that the rest of us are so attached to the idea that there is more to this universe than mere matter. Therefore they assume that we are either neurotic or insane. They are pitifully ignorant.

    The most difficult patients to look after in a hospital setting are those who have reached a ripe age without ever having been seriously ill before. They have never learned how to endure suffering with courage or grace and so, being miserable, they make everyone else miserable with their moaning and whining and self-pity.

    The most difficult people to talk to about the things of God are those who have achieved worldly success by the standard routes in the usual time. They have never learned that worldly success can be a trap that can make them spiritual paupers. They think they’re doing all right. Like dogs they tramp in circles in their beds and then they lie down having no recognition of that fact that, unlike dogs, they will be called to account for their spiritual dilettantism and their intellectual laziness. I try not to worry to much about the noise they make. God is in charge and he will make sure that everything will work out for the best in the long (or short) run.

Leave a Reply