ISU has now replied to my letter of protest, with “plausible dianiability.”

I have responded, citing a key excerpt from Mr McC in it.

I reproduce my reply below.

GEM of TKI

Onward response May 15, to a representative of the President ISU:

Mr McCarroll

Your response in the name of the President of ISU, which strongly suggests that Mr Gonzalez failed to be a productive and promising academic, ADDS to my concern, as the highlighted portions in the below will tell, by sharpest contrast with the well-known record of Mr Gonzalez in the public domain.

I excerpt one particular point, which is utterly unbelievable:

“. . . evaluation was based on an assessment of the excellence of his teaching, service, scholarly research publications and research funding in astronomy, using standards and expectations set by the faculty in the department. The consensus of the tenured department faculty, the department chair, the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the dean of Liberal Arts and Sciences and the executive vice president and provost was that tenure should not be granted.”

One would not know from your remarks just cited, that Mr Gonzalez has more than trebled the published research outputs of those typically granted tenure at ISU, as one may easily see from other information easily accessible in the public domain. His pioneering role in several key points of emerging astronomical studies is also highly promising — at least, to any unbiased observer.

Even his “strong minority” position on cosmological fine-tuning is well within the range of credible academic opinion; and I — correct me if I am wrong here — understand that he has not in any wise attempted to improperly present such disputed matters in the student classroom. [I note here that one of the first to notice and comment on the existence and evident significance of cosmological finetuning was the late, great Sir Fred Hoyle, one of my personal academic heroes.]

Indeed, I must say that, given the clear fact — “plausible deniability” notwithstanding — of a campaign against Mr Gonzalez led by a prominent member of a different department, and the associated petition signed by a large number of faculty, on the strength of your response, this action by ISU’s tenured elites takes on more and more of the tone of academic McCarthyism.

Please, stop the shameful madness before it is too late!

GEM of TKI

To read Avalos’ take on the Bible and astronomy, this link takes you to the ISU Atheist Agnostic society page. BTW, you can also download the audio of a debate between Avalos and Wm. Lane Craig about evidence for the resurrection (IMO Craig wins, no contest).

“I’ll bet dollars to donuts that Hector wouldn’t stand a chance against Guillermo in a hard-science test (like basic mathematics and physics).” – Gil

For those who are not aware, he’s not a scientist at all, but a professor of religion.

Very interesting. Paul Mirecki, the Kansas University professor who wrote in a semi-public online forum that his new course that labeled intelligent design and creationism as “mythologies” would be a “nice slap in the big fat face of the fundies,” is also a professor of religion. It looks like these religious folks are bending over backwards to show that they are not anti-science — another example is the “Clergy Letter Project” — see http://www.clergyletterproject.net/index.php

This is like the intolerance that some faculty members of Southern Methodist University showed towards the Darwin v. Design conference that was held on their campus. See http://www.uncommondescent.com.....y-over-id/

It is ironic that after making such a fetish over “peer review” in falsely claiming that there are no peer-reviewed papers about intelligent design, the hypocritical Darwinists would urge the denial of tenure to a pro-ID professor whose number of peer-reviewed papers — 68 — vastly exceeds his university’s benchmark of 15 peer-reviewed papers normally expected of candidates for tenure. It looks like the old academic principle of “publish or perish” has become “publish and perish anyway” for Guillermo Gonzalez.

Interesting similarities here…

It will be interesting to see which media outlets consider this news.

Dear Sir,

I am writing to express my displeasure at the treatment of a fine astronomer whose work is featured in the astrobiology section of Nasa’s website, made the cover of Scientific American, and can be found in many other fine peer reviewed and popular scientific publications. Some of the most enjoyable and intriguing reading on the question of life in the universe has been about “The Galactic Habitable Zone”, a phrase Prof. Gonzalez coined which is now common in the astrobiology and astrophysics community.

Everyone who knows anything about this case realizes Gonzalez is being denied tenure because his work “The Privileged Planet” has become a popular banner for creationists and intelligent design proponents. What was Gonzalez supposed to do, suppress his research and opinions because the “wrong people” might use it for an “unscientific” agenda? One goes where the evidence leads and that’s all Professor Gonzalez has done.

Of course Professor Avalos’ crusade has played a large role in this as well. I’m here to tell you sir when the good people of Iowa find out their children are going to a state university where atheists are made professors of religious studies, while a Christian astronomer is being shown the door for having the temerity to publish good science that reasonably suggests the earth is a rare and special planet, heads are going to roll. The people of Iowa will find out. Letters to the editor of Iowa newspapers detailing this sordid affair will make sure of that. Here’s a list of where you might be seeing your name and this story in the future: http://www.usnpl.com/ianews.php

I suggest you rethink your decision and do the right thing before the parents of Iowa students get wind of it. It’s not too late… yet.

Sincerely,

David Springer
Austin, TX