Dan Peterson’s discussion, here, on how the very definition of “science” has been subverted, why, and how that has happened in the teeth of relevant historical and philosophical considerations and issues, is very illuminating.

This is an example of an agenda-serving, question-begging, historically unwarranted attempted redefinition of science to suit the agenda of evolutionary materialists.

In effect the professor Hauptmann has admitted to cutting out an otherwise objectively highly qualified applicant who simply did not toe the party line. (And, surprise, he did not do his homework first before making easily overturned adverse fact claims against Assist. Prof Gonzalez. That’s what you get for relying on NCSE and its sister agit-prop groups for your understanding of the situation . . .)

I think Assist. Prof Gonzalez has probably got a serious legal case, and certainly a sobering moral case. (Of course, the problem wihtthe latter is that the secularist progressive media are probably gearing up their smear factory right now . . .) So, were I Prof Hauptmann, Mr McCarroll, President Geoffroy et al, I would be looking to my likely legal defense costs right now . . .

But, more broadly, the public and voters of Iowa and the wider USA should sit up and take serious notice on how tenure has been turned into a self-selecting nobility awarding to its anointed acolytes lifetime meal tickets at public expense.

This is yet another sign of how broken the Academy is, that it is incapable of policing itself, and that it is high time to fix it.

$0.02

GEM of TKI

Has anyone ever said why ID isn’t science (scientific)?

Or did the definition of science evolve to pidgeon-hole all inquiry- IOW look for the keys under the street light even though you dropped them a few blocks down the dark road?

The essay about the denial of tenure to astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez by ISU physicist John Hauptman (June 2, 2007) displays almost total ignorance of the argument that Gonzalez and I make in the book The Privileged Planet.

Most, if not all, anti-ID arguments are arguments from ignorance.

The only way around ignorance is education (ID) and death (NS).

What does “liberal” mean again?

Vote to grant tenure to someone who is proposing to pursue an idea that is not science (even it’s more forthright advocates agree with this), with the hope that someday, something might pan out?

Most of us explore ideas in our minds. So bring out the acedemic thought police. Someone needs to set out those ides we are not allowed to pursue.

Does anyone really believe that if Gonzales had been exploring anti-ID arguments that he would have been denied tenure? What’s the difference?

Embrace ID and go to accademic hell!

Believe anything you like except that ID may be scientific.

The essay about the denial of tenure to astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez by ISU physicist John Hauptman (June 2, 2007) displays almost total ignorance of the argument that Gonzalez and I make in the book The Privileged Planet.

For instance, after listing the conditions needed to build a habitable planet like Earth, Hauptman says: “Why are these conditions so ‘perfect’ for us, allowing humans to exist and, above all, to ask these questions? Intelligent design is the notion that a supreme being arranged it for us.” No it’s not. We never argue for design based on the rarity of habitable planets. In fact, we spend a great deal of time arguing that that’s a bad argument. Rather, we argue that the overlap of conditions for life and for scientific discovery suggests design, because you would expect such an overlap if the universe were designed for discovery, but not otherwise. Hauptman doesn’t even know our basic argument (which a number of prominent scientists have found persuasive), even though it’s in the subtitle of the book.

Hauptman then tells readers: “Intelligent design is not even a theory. It has not made its first prediction, nor suffered its first test by measurement. Its proponents can call it anything they like, but it is not science.” But in The Privileged Planet, we make predictions and list ways our argument can be tested. Find native animal life in a radically different kind of astronomical setting than ours, or based on chemistry other than carbon, or in an environment hostile to scientific discovery, and you’ve falsified our argument. Find a place that is hostile to life but more congenial to science than the Earth, and our argument collapses. So, on Hauptman’s own definition of science, The Privileged Planet qualifies.

Hauptman was involved in denying tenure to Gonzalez. So we now know that decision was based not only on ill-informed prejudice against intelligent design, but on ignorance of Gonzalez’s views. What does that say about the integrity of the tenure process at ISU?

Jay W. Richards is co-author with ISU astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez of The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery.

First, Theory – “A scientific theory is an established and experimentally verified fact or collection of facts about the world. Unlike the everyday use of the word theory, it is not an unproved idea, or just some theoretical speculation. The latter meaning of a ‘theory’ in science is called a hypothesis.” – http://www.whatislife.com/glossary/t.htm

“a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; ” – http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=theory
————————–

Compare that to this:

“The history of organic life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else.” Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007

Now according to the definition of a scientific theory & the Schwartz statement – Darwinism is not a theory! Just a hypothesis.

Second, ID HAS made predictions – clear and precise which have thus far proven successful.

Conclusion? John Hauptman is not a very smart bright light and ought to be fired for acknowledged discrimination and stupidity.

How about just sending a copy to every college student in Iowa’s public university system?

…or to every household with a child in high school, within a few years of college.