Home » Intelligent Design » Iowa State University and the Tenure Case of Guillermo Gonzalez: An Interview with Professor Conway Moore

Iowa State University and the Tenure Case of Guillermo Gonzalez: An Interview with Professor Conway Moore

What are the issues surrounding the Gonzalez tenure case? Dr. Moore discusses stategies for removing top researchers from research univeristies because they are openly Christian. The key, as Dr. Moore explains, is clever application of policies dealing with diversity, tolerance and academic freedom. Read More.
TheBRITES.org

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

9 Responses to Iowa State University and the Tenure Case of Guillermo Gonzalez: An Interview with Professor Conway Moore

  1. Whoever this Finch dude/dudess is, he or she is one clever and incisive satirist. Academics celebrate tolerance as the highest virtue, but only tolerate those with whom they agree. Academia is an arena in which diversity is championed, but only diversity that is restricted to its groupthink. This is the definition of hypocrisy.

  2. CM: …Look. Religious whackos who believe in Intelligent Design believe the earth is only 5000 years old because it says so in the Bible in the book of Guinness. By any standard…

    ED: Do you mean Genesis ?

    CM: Whatever.

    I’m laughing out loud! This interview is clever and enjoyable. This enigmatic Finch is indeed inspired (and apparently a fan of Photoshop).

  3. Gotta love that outfit he’s wearing!

  4. CM: We have worked hard to build an environment that celebrates tolerance and diversity, and we will not tolerate dissent to diversity….He dares to question the only allowable definition of science….All scientists must have faith in methodological naturalism. Over one hundred ISU faculty have signed the petition have said so and, in the twenty first century, consensus defines truth.

    How oxymoronic can he get? How does that foot taste there buddy?

  5. Long live Iowa State!

  6. It’s official.

    Intelligent Design torpedoes tenure
    Profs say beliefs played role in Iowa State decision

  7. From the WND article linked to by jaredl

    “Whether one believes in a creator or not, views regarding a supernatural creator are, by their very nature, claims of religious faith, and so not within the scope or abilities of science.

    I think that could be a gotcha quote. If “views regarding a supernatural creator are, by their very nature, claims of religious faith” then all views regarding a supernatural creator must be included. That means the view that no such supernatural creator exists is also not within the scope or abilities of science.

    Therefore scientists who are not trying to discover indefinitely repeating natural laws but are only trying to explain particular past events should properly be agnostic about the existence or otherwise of a supernatural creator. They should be open to making an inference to whatever the best explanation is even if it seems to be that naturally occurring processes cannot account for the event. That they insist that natural processes can account for everything that has ever happened is an expression of their religious faith. And, frankly, I’m very tired of these people imposing their religion on me and of that imposition being sanctioned by the state and enforced through schools and universities.

    I really think that one of the most important jobs to be done is to ensure that the broader community understands that not everyone who claims the name “scientist” is actually doing the sort of research that they think of as being “science”, i.e., investigating how the natural world naturally works. People need to understand that there is a deep divide between the aims and methodologies of nomothetic sciences and those of the historical meta-sciences. They need to understand that the former group does the experiments and the latter group only speculates, or philosophises, about the results of the former group’s work.

    That these are sometimes the same people doesn’t matter. Lots of us have two hats or more and change them as required. The fact that I earn money writing code doesn’t mean that when I’m washing dishes I’m being a programmer. In the same way, the fact that somebody might do experiments on, say, ballistics doesn’t mean that when they’re speculating about the cause of particular crater-shaped features on the moon they’re doing ‘science’ as it’s generally understood. They’re not doing science. They’re reasoning from the basis of their limited knowledge. They are philosophising. And there is nothing about doing philosophy that precludes consideration of a supernatural creator.

  8. Apart from all that the US 7th Circuit Cout of Appleas has ruled that atheism is a religion. See here
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/n.....E_ID=45874

Leave a Reply