Darwinists in real time – a reflection
|December 5, 2007||Posted by O'Leary under The Design of Life|
Since the revelations from Monday’s press conference in Iowa regarding the true reason for Guillermo Gonzalez’s tenure denial, I have been studying the comments of Darwinists, to this and this post. The comments intrigue me for a reason I will explain in a moment.
Some commenters are no longer with us, but they were not the ones that intrigued me.*
I’ve already covered Maya at 8, 10, and 12 here, arguing a case against Gonzalez, even though the substance of the story is that we now KNOW that her assertions have nothing to do with the real reason he was denied tenure.
Oh, and at 15, she asserts, “The concern is not about Gonzalez’s politics or religion but about his ability to serve as a science educator.”
So … a man can write a textbook in astronomy, as Gonzalez has done, but cannot serve as a science educator? What definition of “science” is being used here, and what is its relevance to reality?
And getawitness, at 18, then compares astronomy to Near East Studies, of all things. NES is notorious for suspicion of severe compromise due to financing from Middle Eastern interests! I won’t permit a long, useless combox thread on whether or not those accusations are true; it’s the comparison itself that raises an eyebrow.
Just when I thought I had heard everything, at 35, Ellazimm asks, apparently in all seriousness, “Having been involved in a contentious tenure decision myself I can’t see why the faculty are not allowed to make a decision based on their understanding of the scientific standard in their discipline.”
She must have come in after the break, when the discussion started, because she seems to have missed the presentation. Briefly, Ellazimm the facts are these: They decided to get rid of him because of his sympathies with intelligent design BEFORE the tenure process even began, then cited a variety of other explanations that taken as a whole lacked merit (though there are people attempting to build a case to this day – see Maya above). THEN the truth came out when e-mails were subpoenaed through a public records request. That was AFTER President Geoffroy had represented a facts-challenged story to the public media. In other words, the entire tenure process sounds like a sham and the participants may have engaged in deliberate deception to cover up the fact that it was a sham.
Now, tell me, is that how your faculty makes decisions? Then I hope they have a top law firm and super PR guys.
I see here where Maya tries again at 38: “You may be right that some of his colleagues voted solely due to his ID leanings, but based on my experience with academia I doubt it. ”
What has Maya’s “experience” to do with anything whatever? We now have PUBLIC RECORDS of what happened in the Guillermo Gonzalez tenure case. I could tell you about hiring and promotion decisions I’ve been involved with too, but it wouldn’t be relevant.
Oh, and Maya again at 40: “Produce a predictive, falsifiable theory that explains the available evidence. If Gonzalez, or any other ID proponent, did this, universities would be falling over themselves to offer tenure.”
As a matter of fact, Gonzalez’s theory of the galactic habitable zone – a direct contradiction of Carl Sagan’s interpretation of the Copernican Principle – is eminently testable and falsifiable, and it was passing the tests and not being falsified – as The Privileged Planet sets out in detail, in a form accessible to an educated layperson.
At 59, displaying complete ignorance of legal standards regarding discrimination, tyke writes, “As others have said, even if there was some discriminatory language against GG for his pursuit of ID, there are clearly still enough grounds for ISU to deny him tenure.”
Tyke: If I fire someone because I discover that he doubts the hype about global warming, and he then sues me, I CANNOT say afterward, “Well, I was justified in firing him anyway because he was a crappy employee.” The actual reason I fired him is the one that must be litigated because it is a fact, not a variety of suppositions after the fact. To the extent that the faculty had decided to deny GG tenure on account of his sympathy for intelligent design, and the tenure process itself was an elaborate sham, they cannot now say that they were justified by it. Whether they should have made the decision based on the process is neither here nor there. That was not how they made the decision.
Not a whole lot new here except that MacT sniffs, “Judging by the comments on this and other threads regarding GG’s tenure case, it seems clear that there is very little understanding or familiarity with the tenure process.”
On the contrary, MacT, there is way more understanding and familiarity now than there was before the Register and Disco started publishing the real story.
I studied the comments in depth for a reason, as I said: It was a golden opportunity to see how Darwinists and materialists generally would address known facts in real time when all the participants are alive. After all, I must take their word for the trilobite and the tyrannosaur. But this time the relevant data are easy to understand.
What’s become quite clear is their difficulty in accepting the facts of the case. Intelligent design WAS the reason Gonzalez was denied tenure. We now know that from the records. Again and again they try to move into an alternate reality where that wasn’t what really happened or if it did, itwasn’t viewpoint discrimination.
At this point, I must assume that that is their normal way of handling data from the past as well. Except that I won’t know what they have done with it.
I think I do know why they do it, however. To them, science is materialism, and any other position is unacceptable even if the facts support it. I’d had good reason to believe that from other stories I have worked on, but it is intriguing and instructive to watch the “alternate reality” thing actually happening in real time.
Meanwhile, last and best of all, over at the Post-Darwinist, I received a comment to this post**, to which I replied:
Anonymous, how kind of you to write …
You said, “Opponents of ID complain about the lack of empirical research and evidence to back up ID – and, to be honest, they have a point. There isn’t a lot to show yet.”
With respect, you seem to have missed the point. Gonzalez WAS doing research that furthered ID. His research on galactic habitable zones – an area in which he is considered expert – was turning up inconvenient facts about the favourable position of Earth and its moon for life and exploration.
In other words, when Carl Sagan said that Earth is a pale blue dot lost somewhere in the cosmos, he was simply incorrect. But he represents “science”, right?
Gonzalez is correct – but he represents “religion”, supposedly.
So an incorrect account of Earth’s position is science and a correct account is religion?
Oh, but wait a minute – the next move will be the claim that whatever Gonzalez demonstrated doesn’t prove anything after all, and even talking about it is “religion”, which is not allowed – so bye bye career.
We may reach the point in my own lifetime when one really must turn to religion (“religion?”) in order to get a correct account of basic facts about our planet and to science (“science”?) for propaganda and witch hunts.
Oh, by the way, if you work at a corporation where I “would be astonished at what kinds of things get passed through email”, I must assume that you are prudent enough to make sure that your name isn’t in the hedder.
*Uncommon Descent is not the Thumb, let alone the Pharyngulite’s cave, so if you would be happier there, don’t try to change things here, just go before you get booted.
**I have cleaned up the typos.