3 December 2007
Gonzalez tenure case: University admin’s credibility in shreds as truth emerges
O'Leary
UPDATED! Well, the jig is up now, re the Guillermo Gonzalez case. I’ve just seen the whack of documents Discovery Institute is releasing.
1. It appears that the decision had been made to turn Gonzalez down for tenure at Iowa State University before he had actually applied for it, and the reason was his advocacy of intelligent design.
Read this story in the Des Moines Register last week by Lisa Rossi
ISU President Gregory Geoffroy said in June that Gonzalez’s advocacy of the “intelligent design” concept was not a factor in the decision to turn down his request for tenure.
Geoffroy said he focused his review on Gonzalez’s overall record of scientific accomplishment as an assistant professor at ISU.
and then this one, after the Register got hold of the e-mails via a public records request:
The disclosure of the e-mails is contrary to what ISU officials emphasized after Gonzalez, an assistant professor in physics and astronomy, learned that his university colleagues had voted to deny his bid for tenure.
[ ... ]
In response to a question about why the influence of intelligent design in the physics and astronomy tenure decisions was not acknowledged publicly by the university earlier, McCarroll said, “I can’t speak for every one of those individuals” who voted on Gonzalez’s tenure.
(Clarification December 6, 2007: John West of the Discovery Institute (DI) has written to advise me that the Record did not make a public records request, but was shown the documents by ISU after DI had announced that it had obtained them and that they would be made public. It appears that, by ignoring the embargo, the Register scooped the other media, not DI. Still, to their credit, they know a story when they see one. - d.)
2. The alleged tenure review was in fact a fishing expedition whose purpose was to find any grounds at all for denying tenure to a man who emerges clearly an outstanding scientist (in flat contradiction to some of President Geoffroy’s other claims), and far more so than the colleagues who were doing the fishing. For example, the fact that some of his widely cited papers were cited less often than others was grounds for a focus on the less widely cited ones. The fact that he published a textbook was dinged as an unwise use of his time.
Much of the most damaging stuff won’t make it to Gonzalez’s Regents’ appeal on a technicality, but it’s now going to be out there for all to see.
Anyway, brava! to journalist Lisa Rossi for exposing the vast credibility gap between what President Geoffroy was claiming to the media and the facts of the case. When oh when will administrators learn, do NOT tell stretchers to the media. Even journalists who support you get mad if they think you are lying. As I said, more later.
- Actually, Rossi for the Register scooped Disco on the e-mails business, publishing on Saturday what they were going to reveal at a press conference the following Monday. Both groups had filed public records requests but the newspaper won. But the Disco package is pretty amazing anyway, and brings out a lot of stuff that’s not in the Register.
Here’s Disco’s press release
Faculty involved in the tenure decision were well aware of Gonzalez’s support for ID. More than one year before his tenure evaluation was scheduled, one ISU professor wrote an e-mail that left no doubt that Gonzalez’s tenure application would never receive a fair evaluation.
“He will be up for tenure next year,” wrote the professor. “And if he keeps up, it might be a hard sell to the department.”
Contrary to his public statements, and those of ISU President Gregory Geoffroy, the chairman of ISU’s Department of Physics and Astronomy, Dr. Eli Rosenberg, stated in Dr. Gonzalez’s tenure dossier that Dr. Gonzalez’s support for intelligent design “disqualifies him from serving as a science educator
And here is their longer report:
In a particularly damning e-mail, ISU Physicist John Hauptmann admitted to faculty member Hector Avalos that “principle [of freedom of inquiry] has been violated massively in the physics department”21 in its treatment of Dr. Gonzalez.
Other faculty members privately expressed qualms at the unethical and dishonest way they were plotting against Dr. Gonzalez behind his back. Dr. Harmon stated to Kawaler that, “I don’t think talking behind Guillermo’s back is quite ethical.”22 Paul Canfield had similar concerns, stating that they should issue the statement because otherwise it would appear that they were doing exactly what they were doing: secretly scheming about how to attack the viewpoint of a department member who was under consideration for tenure. Canfield wrote:
o “Do we do everything at secret meetings and the hope the Discovery Institute’s Lawyers don’t subpoena our records? If I were Gonzalez, I would prefer my colleagues were honest and forthright in their opinions, as he seems to be with his.”23
I bet Canfield wishes that even more now. There may or may not be a God but there certainly is a Nemesis.
And all this about a guy who was far more productive scientifically than any of them!
Here’s Discovery boss Bruce Chapman on the “iceberg” unearthed in Iowa:
Readers may suspect that I am overstating the problem at ISU, but they should look more closely. For openers, it might be asked how many of Gonzalez’ critics–the people quoted in the emails and the President and other Administration officials and Board at ISU who have ruled on this matter have ever bothered to read The Privileged Planet, the co-authored book that seems to have agitated Gonzalez’ enemies? Are they even aware of the internationally prominent scientists who praised Professor Gonzalez’ work? Is this failure of curiosity not then a clear indication of the faculty’s and University President’s prejudice–literally their “pre-judgment”?
What emerges is that the Iowa profs are a bunch of hicks, actually. Why would they have read the book they were dissing? Bad for their eyesight I am sure.
Questions:
- Shouldn’t Geoffroy resign and take his chief witch hunters with him?
- Shouldn’t Gonzalez sue these people?
- What about the fact that they were using public funds to conduct their nasty little war against a superior scientist?
But now here’s the really amazing thing: The Regents, to whom Gonzalez is appealing, are refusing, on a technicality, to examine the damning e-mails. (He should have known about the e-mails, you see … ) That way they can turn Gonzalez down despite what has happened.
No, I am not making this up. I couldn’t, honestly.
By the way, ISU tried to sue the Discos to get them to drop their public records request. As it happens, the Des Moines Register was making one anyway, so it would have been usesless. And THAT, by the way, is what newspapering is supposed to be about. Not a cushy lifestyle for the feeble sonsbergers of wealthy men.
How productive was Gonzalez? I can’t use sidebars in a blog, so this quote from Disco’s memo will just have to be long:
He has published more peer-reviewed journal articles than all but one of the faculty members granted tenure this year at ISU – across the university as a whole, not just his department. In fact, Gonzalez has more peer-reviewed journal articles to his credit than all but five faculty members granted tenure at ISU since 2003. In addition, he exceeded his department’s own tenure standards, which define “excellence” in terms of publications in refereed science journals, by more than 350%.
Yet ISU president Dr. Gregory Geoffroy has attributed his rejection of Gonzalez’s tenure appeal to matters having nothing to do with intelligent design. The astronomer simply “did not show the trajectory of excellence that we expect,” Geoffroy has said.
His department chairman, Dr. Eli Rosenberg, claims in Gonzalez’s tenure dossier that the astronomer failed to show an “overall positive trend” in his research record of late. Yet in 2006, the year he was up for tenure, Gonzalez published more total articles than all other tenured ISU astronomers. Moreover, Dr. Gonzalez has more per-capita citations in science journals and per-capita scientific publications than any other tenured astronomer at ISU since 2001, the year he joined ISU. In other words, Gonzalez outperformed the very astronomers that voted against his tenure, negating any basis for their complaining about the “trend” of his research while at ISU.
Meanwhile, his work has been featured in the world’s most prestigious science journals, Nature in 2002 and Science in 2004. He co-authored the cover story for Scientific American in 2001, and he is also co-author of a 2006 peer-reviewed Cambridge University Press textbook, Observational Astronomy. He is clearly impacting the next generation of scientists, as his ideas about the Galactic Habitable Zone have even been incorporated into two astronomy textbooks by other authors.
With all this going for him, and being well-liked personally by his colleagues, getting tenure at ISU should have been nearly automatic. The university has struggled to explain the reason for his rejection, offering explanations that fall far short of being convincing. The claim is advanced, for example, that Gonzalez failed to secure enough funding for his research. But observational astronomers are not heavily dependent on sumptuous grants to support their research. They only need an already existing telescope, enough money to fly or drive to the facility, and an inexpensive computer to analyze the observational data they obtain.
In any event, Gonzalez received more grant funding than 35 percent of faculty members who were granted tenure at ISU in 2007 and who listed their research grants on their curriculum vitae. Indeed, of the utmost importance is the fact that grants are not even listed in the tenure guidelines for his department. Of the nine review letters that gave recommendations regarding Dr. Gonzalez’s final tenure decision, six strongly supported his tenure promotion and gave glowing endorsements of his reputation and academic achievements. (Even Dr. Gonzalez’s tenure dossier admitted that “five of the external letter writers … including senior scientists at prestigious institutions recommend his promotion” and that only “[t]hree do not.”) One reviewer observed that ISU’s Department of Physics and Astronomy does not consider grants as a criterion for gaining tenure, and stated that “Dr. Gonzalez is eminently qualified for the promotion according to your guidelines of excellence in scholarship and exhibiting a potential for national distinction. In light of your criteria I would certainly recommend the promotion.” ISU chose to ignore the advice of these senior scientists at prestigious institutions.
As before, more later.
Print This Post
1
geoffrobinson
12/03/2007
10:22 am
Well, if he doesn’t get tenure, he can at least get enough money in punitive damages to fund his own research.
2
SeekAndFind
12/03/2007
10:42 am
And to think that in the previous thread related to Gonzalez, people were speculating that the REAL REASON was about his inability to generate enough research grant money…
3
bornagain77
12/03/2007
11:47 am
I just don’t get it, I just don’t get it at all.
Science was pointing to a purposeless existence. This was truly a very very sad state for us to accept for our fates, but was grudgingly accepted by many people, because it was apparently the truth of how things actually are for us. (And indeed that is how the truth appeared to be “scientifically” for many years, until the Big Bang gave us a small glimmer of hope of life that transcends this one!)
Yet here in astronomy, by work done by Guillermo Gonzalez and his colleagues (on his own time by the way), we have clarification of data pointing to the fact that the Earth is indeed a very “Privileged Planet” to live on in this universe.
http://www.illustramedia.com/tppinfo.htm
Why should this planet be so special? OF COURSE, it begs the obvious question,,Is the Earth designed?
As well it points to the possibility that humans may be special after all. Indeed this discovery should be cause for joy in our hearts since it points to something far greater for us!
Yet, for merely pointing out the obvious inference to Design, Guillermo Gonzalez is persecuted by ISU officials.
This response by them is beyond idiotic!!!
The response is not, WOW what a truly wonderful, wonderful discovery, Thank You so much Guillermo Gonzalez for giving us a little more solid hope for purpose in our lives, and by the way, here is your tenure, with ringing endorsement, for you to continue your wonderful, wonderful work.
It is instead, How dare you suggest that science may find purpose after all. Not to mention the backstabbing and name calling, instigated by, of all people, an atheistic religious professor (give me the logic behind that tenure), who can’t be troubled with any scientific evidence that there actually may be a more wonderful life after this one.
Indeed, these people have definitely got their priorities, and perspectives, severely twisted in a deluded knot.
4
bFast
12/03/2007
1:08 pm
My understanding of the case against Gonzalez is that while he was at ISU he has published near nothing in scientific journals, and has done little of recognized scientific note. The suggestion is that Gonzalez has become so focused on his “Privelaged Planet” work that he has ceased to function within the mainstream of science.
Is this case against him valid or not? If it is valid, does ISU have the right to deny his tenure?
We challenge the Darwinian community all of the time, and disrespect them when they do not respond with an evidenciary case. I would like to see us respond to the above challenge with an evidencuary case.
How many times has Gonzalez been published since he took his professorship? How much grant money has his name on it? Is there a valid case against him that the ID community chooses to ignore, or is he truly being railroaded?
5
poachy
12/03/2007
1:25 pm
I’m not sure I follow, Denyse. Part of the narrative that we have been telling about Gonzalez is that the department faculty did not limit their analysis to his tenure dossier, but used external (and irrelevant) information to justify turning him down. Shouldn’t we want the Board of Regents to solely evaluate his scientific and educational accomplishments, as laid out in his tenure application, to make a decision?
Are you really advocating that the Regents should engage in affirmative action because Gonzalez is being oppressed? Doesn’t that undermine our contention that his scientific accomplishments are impeccable and more than sufficient for a positive tenure decision?
6
O'Leary
12/03/2007
1:57 pm
I think the Regents should hear the whole story because the decision was apparently not made on the basis of his record and that is, in itself, of the greatest interest.
In fact, I think they should launch an inquiry, if possible.
7
poachy
12/03/2007
2:05 pm
Okay, I guess I am on the wrong page. I thought the point was justice for Guillermo, which would be served by an unbiased review of his tenure application. Reviewing the emails, and performing an inquiry, seems to be more about retribution than justice.
8
Maya
12/03/2007
2:12 pm
bFast wrote:
“My understanding of the case against Gonzalez is that while he was at ISU he has published near nothing in scientific journals, and has done little of recognized scientific note. The suggestion is that Gonzalez has become so focused on his ‘Privelaged Planet’ work that he has ceased to function within the mainstream of science.
Based on some quick research, Gonzalez published few articles while at ISU:
2002: 7
2003: 10
2004: 2
2005: 2
2006: 3
Prior to joining ISU, Gonzalez published 44 articles.
As far as generating grant revenue, the Des Moines Register reports that “Iowa State has sponsored $22,661 in outside grant money for Gonzalez since July 2001, records show. In that same time period, Gonzalez’s peers in physics and astronomy secured an average of $1.3 million by the time they were granted tenure.”
From a teaching perspective, none of the graduate students Gonzalez is advising have completed their doctoral work, although he has been at ISU since 2001.
Back to bFast:
“Is this case against him valid or not?”
To be granted tenure, you must demonstrate how you will be an asset to the department. Compared to his peers, Gonzalez has not performed well.
“If it is valid, does ISU have the right to deny his tenure?”
Tenure is not automatic. 25% of the applicants for tenure at ISU this year were denied.
9
TTauri
12/03/2007
2:21 pm
I posted on the tail end of the previous Gonzalez thread, but part of it applies to comments here as well:
.
.
.
It seems we can agree that universities attempt to draw researchers who will increase the respectability of their institutions. A way this happens is through development of productive concepts that expand scientific research. One can judge how productive a concept has been by its use in the field by other researchers as well as it’s ability augment or refine current methodologies and production of new ones. Judging from journal citations and appearance in popular scientific journals and newspaper articles, G. Gonzalez’s lead author article on GHZ in Icarus has been a productive and novel one. So in this respect, aside from his many other scientific contributions, it’s hard to see how he could not meet even a high bar set for tenure.
.
.
.
It seems to me Gonzalez has contributed a subsantial amount towards advancement in many areas of astronomy with the work on GHZ alone. I’m not sure how someone could say otherwise.
10
Maya
12/03/2007
2:29 pm
TTauri wrote:
“It seems to me Gonzalez has contributed a subsantial amount towards advancement in many areas of astronomy with the work on GHZ alone.”
That work wasn’t done at ISU and his productivity at ISU has been very low, as has his ability to bring in grant money. Regardless of political or religious views, any other tenure applicant with a similar publication and grant history would be denied.
11
JPCollado
12/03/2007
4:13 pm
Maya wrote:
“his productivity at ISU has been very low, as has his ability to bring in grant money”
Mr. Maya, where does the school list the ability to generate money as a requirement for tenure? Considering that Gonzalez’s case has the potential of soon passing through the rigors of a court proceeding, the school will be hard pressed to have the evidence readily available.
12
Maya
12/03/2007
5:01 pm
That’s _Miss_ Maya, thank you very much!
The ability to generate grant revenue is always part of tenure decisions at research universities. I’m a grad student and grants are how my faculty advisor pays for his research, including my little stipend.
13
SeekAndFind
12/03/2007
5:07 pm
——————–
RE: where does the school list the ability to generate money as a requirement for tenure?
——————–
I think the answer is from the administrators themselves ( i.e. those who are evaluating his tenure application ).
Here are the OFFICIAL reasons cited for denying Gonzalez tenure ( none of them related to his work on ID) :
Geoffroy said he focused his review on Gonzalez’s overall record of scientific accomplishment as an assistant professor at ISU.
He also said he:
1) Considered peer review publications,
2) Gonzalez’s level of success in attracting research funding and grants,
3) The amount of telescope observing time he had been granted,
4) The number of graduate students he had supervised and
5) The overall evidence of his future career promise in the field of astronomy.
It seems to be the main issues are #2, #3, and #4 above.
If what Maya said regarding Gonzalez’s ability to generate outside grant money vs. the average of $1.3 Million of those who were tenured is true ( see post #8 above ), then Gonzalez’s appeal will probably be denied ( but then that is *IF* Maya’s claims can be verified ).
14
angryoldfatman
12/03/2007
5:11 pm
Maya @ 10 wrote:
Which is exactly why the people who denied GG tenure rightfully talked amongst themselves about his productivity and graciously ignored his politics and religious views.
Oh wait, they didn’t do that. Silly me.
15
Maya
12/03/2007
5:24 pm
angryoldfatman wrote:
“Which is exactly why the people who denied GG tenure rightfully talked amongst themselves about his productivity and graciously ignored his politics and religious views.
Oh wait, they didn’t do that.”
You may be being misled by part of the summary above. Ms. O’Leary wrote:
“Contrary to his public statements, and those of ISU President Gregory Geoffroy, the chairman of ISU’s Department of Physics and Astronomy, Dr. Eli Rosenberg, stated in Dr. Gonzalez’s tenure dossier that Dr. Gonzalez’s support for intelligent design ‘disqualifies him from serving as a science educator.’”
The full context of that quotation is:
“on numerous occasions, Dr. Gonzalez has stated that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory and someday would be taught in science classrooms. This is confirmed by his numerous postings on the Discovery Institute Web site. The problem here is that Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. Its premise is beyond the realm of science. … But it is incumbent on a science educator to clearly understand and be able to articulate what science is and what it is not. The fact that Dr. Gonzalez does not understand what constitutes both science and a scientific theory disqualifies him from serving as a science educator.”
The concern is not about Gonzalez’s politics or religion but about his ability to serve as a science educator.
16
Maya
12/03/2007
5:30 pm
SeekAndFind wrote:
“If what Maya said regarding Gonzalez’s ability to generate outside grant money vs. the average of $1.3 Million of those who were tenured is true ( see post #8 above ), then Gonzalez’s appeal will probably be denied ( but then that is *IF* Maya’s claims can be verified ).”
I gave the source of that cite as the Des Moines Register. It’s pretty easy to verify yourself.
I have a question for you: If you check my facts and determine that they are correct, in particular that Gonzalez produced only seven refereed articles in the past three years, generated a miniscule amount of grant revenue, and did not have any graduate students who completed their doctoral work, will you agree that ISU is justified in not offering tenure?
17
pwieland
12/03/2007
5:39 pm
Maya -
How does the number of referred articles, grant revenue and number of graduate students compare with others within ISU who did get tenure?
From what I understand, grant revenue is a spurious statistic since astronomy requires a bit less revenue than other fields.
But I would grant you the other points, if you can provide me with some comparisons within the university. That is, does Gonzalez have a comparable record of referred material within his department and university?
18
getawitness
12/03/2007
5:59 pm
Does anybody seriously expect that professors whose work is highly controversial will be considered for tenure without that controversy entering into discussion? It happens all the time in, say, Near East studies. Think Norman Finkelstein, Nadia Abu El-Haj, or Joseph Massad. Whatever you think about the disposition of these cases, none of these people are stupid enough to think that controversial work will not be, well, controversial.
19
Larry Fafarman
12/03/2007
6:13 pm
I can’t figure out why people send and save these incriminating emails.
Also, grantsmanship has little or nothing to do with quality of research.
20
Maya
12/03/2007
6:37 pm
pwieland wrote:
“How does the number of referred articles, grant revenue and number of graduate students compare with others within ISU who did get tenure?”
That’s a good question that requires some research. I can tell you that seven refereed articles in three years is exceptionally low by my department’s standard. I’ll try to find the numbers for anyone recently granted tenure by ISU — if you find them before I do, please post them here.
“From what I understand, grant revenue is a spurious statistic since astronomy requires a bit less revenue than other fields.”
The comparison was between Gonzalez and the average for his department. His twenty-something thousand doesn’t stand up to the $1.3 million average.
21
Reflections on today’s amazing revelations in the Guillermo Gonzalez case | Uncommon Descent
12/03/2007
8:02 pm
[...] centuries, naturalism has worked very well in explaining the natural world. There’s no reason… Maya: pwieland wrote: “How does the number of referred articles, grant revenue and number of [...]
22
DLH
12/03/2007
8:26 pm
Maya
For the relative importance of Gonzalez’s work, we have to compare Gonzalez’s citations against all others within his own department (not other departments). See:
Guillermo Gonzalez Has Highest Normalized Citation Count among ISU Astronomers for Publications Since 2001
Normalized citation count for ALL ISU Astronomers since 2001
Gonzales also had the second highest life time citation record.
Lifetime Citation Count for ALL ISU Astronomers
This also appears to support the argument for academic jealousy, just as with Galileo and the Aristotelean academics.
See GUILLERMO GONZALEZ
REFEREED PUBLICATIONS IN PRINT
2001 6
2002 4
2003 6
2004 2
2005 3
2006 4
2007 2
I would expect that writing a text book and another publication on his findings justifies the lower references in 2004 and 2005.
23
angryoldfatman
12/03/2007
8:51 pm
Maya @ 15 wrote:
I didn’t read Ms. O’Leary’s summary. I went to the Discovery Institute link I posted, so I could read the e-mails myself.
I don’t like people to filter things for me; whenever possible, I prefer to assess things directly myself.
Hopefully you’ve done the same, though if you have, I see it hasn’t stopped your post-hoc apologetics for the appalling behavior of supposedly enlightened members of the scientific community.
Let’s see if I have a grasp on your thinking here (or the rationale you’re defending):
ID is not science because there is no research being done on ID, and those who research ID are not researching science because ID is not science because no research is being done on ID, and those who research ID are not researching science because…
24
angryoldfatman
12/03/2007
8:55 pm
“If it’s unscientific, then we don’t agree with it. And if we don’t agree with it, it’s not scientific.”
Me.
25
Larry Fafarman
12/03/2007
8:55 pm
Also, elite research universities’ overemphasis on research at the expense of teaching is a reason why these universities are not good places to get undergraduate educations despite these universities’ highly competitive admissions and high tuitions.
26
geoffrobinson
12/03/2007
9:52 pm
“But it is incumbent on a science educator to clearly understand and be able to articulate what science is and what it is not. The fact that Dr. Gonzalez does not understand what constitutes both science and a scientific theory disqualifies him from serving as a science educator.”
Based on this, I would have to say that anyone who believes this about ID shouldn’t be teaching science. Because they can’t separate science and their underlying philosophical beliefs they confuse with being essential to science.
27
bornagain77
12/03/2007
10:25 pm
Since Maya thinks he knows what science is (materialism) let’s put his materialistic philosophy in the light and see how it stacks up.:
There are two prevailing philosophies vying for the right to be called the truth in man’s perception of reality. These two prevailing philosophies are Theism and Materialism. Materialism is sometimes called philosophical naturalism and, to a lesser degree, is often even conflated with methodological naturalism. Materialism is the current hypothesis entrenched over science as the nt hypothesis guiding scientists. Materialism asserts that everything that exists arose from chance acting on an material basis which has always existed. Whereas, Theism asserts everything that exists arose from the purposeful will of the spirit of Almighty God who has always existed in a timeless eternity. A hypothesis in science is suppose to give proper guidance to scientists and make, somewhat, accurate predictions. In this primary endeavor, for a hypothesis, Materialism has failed miserably.
1. Materialism did not predict the big bang. Yet Theism always said the universe was created.
2. Materialism did not predict a sub-atomic (quantum) world that blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. Yet Theism always said the universe is the craftsmanship of God who is not limited by time or space.
3. Materialism did not predict the fact that time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light, as revealed by Einstein’s special theory of relativity. Yet Theism always said that God exists in a timeless eternity.
4. Materialism did not predict the stunning precision for the underlying universal constants for the universe, found in the Anthropic Principle, which allows life as we know it to be possible. Yet Theism always said God laid the foundation of the universe, so the stunning, unchanging, clockwork precision found for the various universal constants is not at all unexpected for Theism.
5. Materialism predicted that complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Yet statistical analysis of the many required parameters that enable complex life to be possible on earth reveals that the earth is extremely unique in its ability to support complex life in this universe. Theism would have expected the earth to be extremely unique in this universe in its ability to support complex life.
6. Materialism did not predict the fact that the DNA code is, according to Bill Gates, far, far more advanced than any computer code ever written by man. Yet Theism would have naturally expected this level of complexity in the DNA code.
7. Materialism presumed a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA, which is not the case at all. Yet Theism would have naturally presumed such a high if not, what most likely is, complete negative mutation rate to an organism’s DNA.
8. Materialism presumed a very simple first life form. Yet the simplest life ever found on Earth is, according to Geneticist Michael Denton PhD., far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. Yet Theism would have naturally expected this level of complexity for the “simplest” life on earth.
9. Materialism predicted that it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Yet we find evidence for “complex” photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth (Minik T. Rosing and Robert Frei, “U-Rich Archaean Sea-Floor Sediments from Greenland—Indications of >3700 Ma Oxygenic Photosynthesis”, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6907 (2003): 1-8) Theism would have naturally expected this sudden appearance of life on earth.
10. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record. The Cambrian Explosion, by itself, destroys this myth. Yet Theism would have naturally expected such sudden appearance of the many different and completely unique fossils in the Cambrian explosion.
11. Materialism predicted that there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record. Yet fossils are characterized by sudden appearance in the fossil record and overall stability as long as they stay in the fossil record. There is not one clear example of unambiguous transition between major species out of millions of collected fossils. Theism would have naturally expected fossils to suddenly appear in the fossil record with stability afterwards as well as no evidence of transmutation into radically new forms.
12. Materialism predicts animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Yet man himself is the last scientifically accepted fossil to suddenly appear in the fossil record. Theism would have predicted that man himself was the last fossil to suddenly appear in the fossil record.
I could probably go a lot further for the evidence is extensive and crushing against the Materialistic philosophy. As stated before, an overriding hypothesis in science, such as Materialism currently is, is suppose to give correct guidance to scientists. Materialism has failed miserably in its predictive power for science. The hypothesis with the strongest predictive power in science is “suppose” to be the prevailing philosophy of science. That philosophy should be Theism. Why this shift in science has not yet occurred is a mystery that needs to be remedied to enable new, and potentially wonderful, breakthroughs in science.
Now I ask you Maya, why should materialism be anything other than a subservient hypothesis to the nt hypothesis of Theism?
28
DLH
12/03/2007
11:12 pm
PS a reminder of Maya’s sensibilities:
“That’s _Miss_ Maya, thank you very much!”
29
JPCollado
12/03/2007
11:14 pm
Ms Maya wrote:
“The ability to generate grant revenue is always part of tenure decisions at research universities.”
So the evidence the court will be asking for should not be hard to come by. Where is the written SOP with regard to this criteria?
Hearsay or unrecorded formulas/methods simply will not count, especially when dealing with personnel issues at a publicly funded institution.
30
aardpig
12/04/2007
12:06 am
In reply to pwieland (17): this isn’t correct. Although equipment costs of astronomy tend to be less than in other fields of experimental physics (because these costs are covered by national-level expenditure on observatories and space missions), there is still a significant cost incurred for salaries.
A typical grad student costs $40k per year. A typical post-doc costs $80k per year. Compare that against the amount of grant income brought in by GG.
To place this in context, have a look through the current AAS job register:
http://members.aas.org/JobReg/JobRegister.cfm
Many, if not all, of the advertised faculty jobs at research universities stipulate that the successful candidate must be able to bring in external grant income. This is a pretty standard requirement.
31
JPCollado
12/04/2007
12:08 am
SeekAndFind wrote:
“——————–
RE: where does the school list the ability to generate money as a requirement for tenure?
——————–
I think the answer is from the administrators themselves ( i.e. those who are evaluating his tenure application )”.
Hello Seek,
The problem is that in order to avoid misunderstandings, and/or the appearance of favoritism and discrimination, personnel decisions involving sensitive issues like promotions must be set in writing with clearly delineated guidance standards. Otherwise, how could we be sure that Joe Moe didn’t get the position because of his amorous escapades with the President?
Notice that money is not even mentioned as a factor in the recent news articles. I mean, is there even a benchmark for what would be considered acceptable fund-raising?
32
aardpig
12/04/2007
12:40 am
Bornagain77: why is this discussion of theism relevant on a blog devoted to a discussion of ID and related issues? I thought that ID was unrelated to religion?
33
pwieland
12/04/2007
12:44 am
I disagree with the fact that grant money should be a factor at any university rewarding tenure to its professors (if indeed it is the case). It leads to ‘flavor-of-the-month’ type research instead of what may actually be interesting or rewarding or beneficial.
If I were a conspiracy theorist, I could say that all the pharmaceutical companies might be suppressing research into a cure for cancer, because it wold eat into its drug profits….(heh - btw, this is not an attempt to hijack this thread)
34
aardpig
12/04/2007
1:21 am
pwieland — research universities could not survive without grant income. A significant fraction (33% at my own institution) of the money from grants goes on overhead, paying for the upkeep of buildings, administrative staff, computer facilities etc.
That’s why universities want their tenured faculty to bring in nice fat grants — it’s the overhead they’re after.
35
kairosfocus
12/04/2007
2:28 am
H’mm:
Three things leap out at me:
Is this where we want our Civilisation to go?
Or will we keep on blaming victim after victim until it is too late to take a stand to stop the tide of patent oppression and injustice?
GEM of TKI
PS: Lakatos taught us that, at the core of scientific research programmes, protected by a belt of theories and associated concepts and constructs, lies a worldview dominated core. So, philosophical and ideological issues cannot be so easily separated from discussions of the situation with the design inference in today’s intellectual climate. And, as the above shows, what is being revealed is sobering.
PPS: A comparison with this parallel thread will reveal the same blame-the-victim pattern [sometimes, from the same commenters], especially with the Sternberg case.
36
StephenB
12/04/2007
4:58 am
——kairosfocus: We see here what will increasingly happen when radical secularists, driven by evolutionary materialism, its ethics [might makes “right”] and in pursuit of its agendas gain power in the culture. Especially, what they will do to those who stand in their way when there is no effective countervailing force. That is, Gonzalez is the canary in the mine, and he is fluttering and panting. For, it is utterly clear that Gonzalez’s tenure denial has little or nothing to do with his competence as a researcher or educator, or even grantmaker.”
Exactly right. Most major universities, in concert with the government, support the elitist goal of creating heavily credentialed worker bees who cannot think for themselves and who will take up arms against those who resist the establishment. They have institutionalized the three big lies that keep people in bondage: 1) Freedom is license, 2) Truth is relative, and 3) Matter is everything. As anyone who cares knows, these three propositions enslave the mind and the body. Both the university and the government have become a clearing house for slave traders, and the students and citizens have become the slaves.
Naturally, neither the university nor the government wants the slaves to understand their plight., Much less do they want those in bondage to learn the one key principle and its corollary that would free them from their abject condition and lead them in the path of self-actualization. These are the two liberating ideas that must be withheld at all costs: 1) -Intellectual freedom is the key to both personal and political freedom. 2)- Intellectual freedom is inseparable from truth.
People like professor Gonzalaz are dangerous, because he advances a dangerous idea. To promote, support, and defend intelligent design is to undermine the intellectual slave traders and reintroduce the concept of a purpose driven, self directed life style. It is the antidote to the three big lies. To acknowledge design in nature is to become awakened to meaning. What follows is liberation from the slave traders and honorary citizenship in a new world—the world of reason, purpose, and destiny. Once the slaves have become liberated from the slave traders, they cannot help but hold them in contempt for having cheating them out of legitimate education and the privilege of choosing to follow the way of truth.
The battle about intelligent design, then is not just about intellectual freedom, it is about freedom, period.If I am not permitted to say that the design that appears in nature is real, neither am I permitted to say that there is any real design or purpose to my existence. That means that there cannot be any such thing as a personal destiny or any moral or political right to pursue it. In other words, if there is no design, there is no freedom.—either from the promptings of my lower nature or from the whims of the slave traders.
37
Maya
12/04/2007
8:17 am
kairosfocus wrote:
“For, it is utterly clear that Gonzalez’s tenure denial has little or nothing to do with his competence as a researcher or educator, or even grantmaker.”
The bottom line is that Gonzalez has managed to get only a few articles published in refereed journals in recent years (Publish or Perish!), he has not generated grant revenue for his department, and none of the graduate students he has been advising have completed their doctoral work, despite his having been at ISU since 2001 (the usual time to complete such work is around three years).
“Privileged Planet” or not, this is not the level of performance that warrants tenure.
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. Tenure is very like a marriage — the other members of the department have to live with tenured faculty for the rest of their careers. People vote against tenure for many reasons, but will overlook many flaws if a candidate shows that he or she will improve the department.
If Gonzalez had published at least an average number of papers, brought in at least an average amount of funding, and seen at least an average number of his grad students get their doctorates, “Privileged Planet” would not be an issue.
Gonzalez didn’t produce, so he wasn’t offered tenure. It really is as simple as that.
38
Joseph
12/04/2007
8:40 am
The number of published articles is a distant second to the quality of those articles. And to those who published more than Gonzalez I would bet the quality is low.
Also, as has been explained, astronomy doesn’t require a lot of money.
IOW if Gonzalez requested say 1 million dollars someone would ask what the money is going to be used for. And if he could only account for say 20,000 then the full amount would not ne given.
As far as science goes- the anti-ID materialistic positioin is nothing more than sheer dumb luck. As the authors of “Rare Earth” state (two non-ID scientists) we won the cosmic lottery. IOW “mainstream” science is totally bogus.
And anyone who thinks that is “science” should never be allowed to teach science.
As far as being an asset is concerned- it is obvious that the ability to find habitable planets is an asset. And guess what? That is what Gonzalez has done- that is he has shown us what to look for.
39
Maya
12/04/2007
8:44 am
“But it is incumbent on a science educator to clearly understand and be able to articulate what science is and what it is not. The fact that Dr. Gonzalez does not understand what constitutes both science and a scientific theory disqualifies him from serving as a science educator.”
geoffrobinson wrote:
“Based on this, I would have to say that anyone who believes this about ID shouldn’t be teaching science. Because they can’t separate science and their underlying philosophical beliefs they confuse with being essential to science.”
Science is a well-defined process. A scientific theory must explain the available objective evidence, it must have predictive power, and it must be falsifiable. When contrary evidence is found, a scientific theory must be modified or abandoned. The view of the ISU faculty, among many other science organizations, is that Intelligent Design does not meet these criteria.
Refuting this view is straightforward: 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.
40
Maya
12/04/2007
8:51 am
joseph wrote:
“The number of published articles is a distant second to the quality of those articles. And to those who published more than Gonzalez I would bet the quality is low.”
You don’t need to make baseless bets, you can check to see how many times those articles are referenced by other refereed articles. That is the standard measure of the impact of a paper.
“Also, as has been explained, astronomy doesn’t require a lot of money.”
Grad students cost money. Compute labs cost money. Telescope time costs money. The fact is that Gonzalez raised only around 2% (two percent) of the average amount of grant money raised by others in his department (also astronomers).
“As far as being an asset is concerned- it is obvious that the ability to find habitable planets is an asset. And guess what? That is what Gonzalez has done- that is he has shown us what to look for.”
Not while at ISU. His productivity has dropped significantly since joining there. The record speaks for itself.
No articles, no money, and no successful grad students means no tenure.
41
DLH
12/04/2007
9:09 am
“Science is a well-defined process. A scientific theory must explain the available objective evidence, it must have predictive power, and it must be falsifiable. When contrary evidence is found, a scientific theory must be modified or abandoned.”
Stephen Meyer observes: “. . .most contemporary philosophers of science regard the question ‘what distinguishes science from non-science’ as both intractable and uninteresting. Instead, philosophers of science have increasingly realized that the real issue is not whether a theory is scientific, but whether a theory is true, or warranted by the evidence.”
If science makes the absolute presumption of natural materialism it has no explanation for the laws of the universe, nor for the anthropogenic principle - the numerous fine tuning parameters etc. Gonzalez is positing a basic for these. Until there is another better theory, Gonzalez’s is the best (and only) one published.
42
DLH
12/04/2007
9:12 am
Maya
For the relative importance of Gonzalez’s work, compare Gonzalez’s citations against all others within his own department (not other departments). See:
Guillermo Gonzalez Has Highest Normalized Citation Count among ISU Astronomers for Publications Since 2001
43
DLH
12/04/2007
9:13 am
Gonzales also had the second highest life time citation record in his department.
Lifetime Citation Count for ALL ISU Astronomers
This appears to support the argument for academic jealousy, just as with Galileo and the Aristotelean academics.
44
DLH
12/04/2007
9:15 am
See GUILLERMO GONZALEZ
REFEREED PUBLICATIONS IN PRINT
45
Joseph
12/04/2007
9:21 am
So if one useless article refers to another useless article- you are grasping.
To get a grant you have to account for the money. Perhaps Gonzalez isn’t as good of a liar as some others are.
And yes, anyone and everyone should be interested in what to look for to find a habitable planet. IOW his past performance is VERY important.
As for grad students- why not blame the student? IOW why can’t it be the students were not up to the task? Or perhaps the students realized, as I did, that being a scientist really stinks because of all the extraneous nonsensical BS that comes with the job.
Do you have a link that shows what each astronomer brought in?
Do you have anything to say about the floowing?:
Yet in 2006, the year he was up for tenure, Gonzalez published more total articles than all other tenured ISU astronomers. Moreover, Dr. Gonzalez has more per-capita citations in science journals and per-capita scientific publications than any other tenured astronomer at ISU since 2001, the year he joined ISU. In other words, Gonzalez outperformed the very astronomers that voted against his tenure, negating any basis for their complaining about the “trend” of his research while at ISU.
Then you demonstrate you don’t know anything about ID nor the anti-ID position:
Tell us what predictions the anti-ID materialistic position makes. I know the only way to falsify the anti-ID materialistic position, in the minds of the anti-IDists, is to have a sit-down meeting with the designer(s). IOW they are not interested in science. And they are most likely clueless to the fact that their position is nothing more than sheer dumb luck.
I know that Gonzalez has made several predictions based on the design inference. IOW the view of anti-IDists is blocked because their heads are up their butts.
And you seem to think that arguing from ignorance is a good thing.
Intelligent Design: The Design Hypothesis
46
DaveScot
12/04/2007
10:11 am
MacT
Have you ever heard the phrase “conflict of interest”? The company you set up, as you admitted, is closely related to the research you do at the university. This is a clear conflict of interest. It puts you in the position of considering your vested interest in the company against the interests of the university.
Say you make some amazing discovery that has commercial potential in it and that potential is greater if the company can protect it through intellectual property law (copyright, patent) or trade secret. Do you write up your discovery and give it to the university (who rightly deserves it since they pay your salary and provide you the resources to conduct the research) or do you keep it from the university so your company can exploit it for commercial gain?
I’d not only not vote for your tenure I’d terminate your employment at the university for engaging in such an egregious conflict of interest.
47
DaveScot
12/04/2007
10:19 am
Maya
Gonzalez’ publication record since he joined ISU exceeds any other ISU astronomer, tenured or not, and he accomplished that feat with just a tiny fraction of the financial resources consumed by his peers. He deserves a medal for producing more with fewer resources and should be held up as a model of efficiency for his peers to emulate. Perhaps the problem is he is so good at what he does that it makes others look bad. Making others look bad is never a good thing when those others are in a position to stop it.
48
DaveScot
12/04/2007
10:35 am
Maya
ID predicts that no evolution of complex structures will occur by chance & necessity within the temporal and geographical constraints imposed by the earth due to the statistical improbabilities involved. This prediction appears to have been confirmed by the observation of P.falciparum over the last 50 years during which time it replicated billions of trillions of times, which represents more opportunities for mutation than the entire sequence of reptile-to-mammal evolution, and nothing beyond trivial changes were observed. Indeed what was observed was exactly what ID predicted - nothing new that goes beyond a few chained interdependent nucleotides.
Given that observation we are expected to believe that the same evolutionary mechanisms operating in reptiles with orders of magnitude fewer opportunies for heritable change to occur resulted in a plethora of extremely complex structures that differentiate reptiles from mammals. Non sequitur.
ID can be falsified by the observation of a single complex structure built by mechanisms of chance & necessity. The observation of P.falciparum was an opportunity for the falsification of ID yet all it did was confirm an ID prediction. I understand that evolutinary theory based on chance & necessity does not require evolution to occur in any given instance. A theory that explains both progressive evolution and no progressive evolution without any method of predicting which it will be in any given case has no predictive power at all. Chance & necessity can’t predict anything. A theory that explains everything explains nothing.
49
specs
12/04/2007
10:53 am
Conflict of interest? I presume, Dave, that you don’t work in academia. It depends, of course, on the university, but quite often spinoffs, with university employees, based on university research is encouraged. For two examples, google up Southwest Nanotechnology or RTek Medical Systems. Closer to home, you might consider
http://www.uthscsa.edu/hscnews.....newID=2091
50
Patrick
12/04/2007
11:42 am
Then there’s the confirmed predictions related to junk DNA, the predictions about designer drugs, the predictions specific to ID-compatible hypotheses such as front-loading…but, yes, as Dave says the predictions related to the observed capabilities of Darwinian mechanisms is the most important factor.
People who don’t understand ID also fail to comprehend that the core of ID is limited in scope. The majority of predictions would be made by ID-compatible hypotheses, and they may conflict, although there are some predictions that will be the same with the core of ID and all ID-compatible hypotheses. As evidence is gathered some of these ID-compatible hypotheses will be falsified. But so far there is no positive evidence that falsifies the core of ID.
If you object to this distinction consider that “Darwinism” (and I use that term instead of “evolutionary biology” since aspects of the scientific field may be correct, and are often regarded as correct by ID proponents) at its core is about unguided, unintelligent mechanisms being capable of producing life as we know it. There are multiple hypotheses compatible with this core. The originals hypothesized by Lamarck, Darwin, and others have been falsified. And many would agree that the modern synthesis of the 1930s has been falsified as well. The question is, what hypothesis will be the replacement.
51
MacT
12/04/2007
11:59 am
DaveScot,
“Have you ever heard the phrase “conflict of interest”? The company you set up, as you admitted, is closely related to the research you do at the university. This is a clear conflict of interest.”
No, it most assuredly is not conflict of interest.
I assume you have never worked in academia and simply don’t know what you are talking about.
It’s part of my job description to identify innovations that have commercial potential, and to take steps to exploit them if I can. The university has an entire department of business development and IP experts (and a few lawyers) who are there to help me, and others who have the chance to deliver some of their research into useful applications with commercial value. It would be a conflict of interest only if I attempted to hide the work from the university.
This is very common in universities.
Anything I invent/write/market while I’m employed by the university belongs nearly 100% to the university (I have a small, no, miniscule financial interest, but the university wants to keep inventors incentivized). If my company succeeds, I get an enormous amount of satisfaction, and a little money. The university will get an enormous amount of money.
Universities are full of potentially useful inventions. To make an invention available to help people with medical problems, we must go into commercial development, which takes money, quality control, and rigorous regulatory compliance that a university isn’t equipped to do.
In light of your comments to me, I think I see how you could get the wrong end of the academic stick regarding GG’s publication record. You repeat the DI claim about GG having more publications than other academics. It’s not about quantity. On any measure, his output while at ISU was meager. His grant history was, if anything, even worse. He would have had a tough time getting tenure with that record almost anywhere.
52
allanius
12/04/2007
2:24 pm
The relevance of grant money to tenure is debatable. What is not debatable is the bias against ID and intolerance of academic freedom on display in the emails. This information may be of interest to the taxpayers who support the university.
53
MacT
12/04/2007
3:28 pm
Allanius,
If the Astronomy Department at ISU stopped bringing in grant money tomorrow, it would be shut down by next week. The funding model that has evolved to support our universities depends heavily on grant funding. If I get a $500,000 grant to do new research on the causes of, say, Alzheimer’s disease, about half of that grant goes to pay overhead costs (administration, cleaning, utilities, etc). State legislatures have cottoned on to this, and have gradually withdrawn core funding, leaving institutions no choice but to succeed in obtaining grant funding or starve.
The relevance of grant money to tenure is NOT debatable. It is not the only factor, but it is profound.
54
pwieland
12/04/2007
3:31 pm
I am taken aback that a professor such as Maya would resort to name calling in defense of this controversy. I asked whether Mr. Gonzalez had comparable referred print publications, grant revenue, and doctoral graduates within ISU. From what I have seen on this blog, he has not only met the comparison but exceeded those within his department. Then Maya blasts away stating that since he is a proponent of ID and since ID is not science then he should not be given tenure. Isnt this the same kind of name calling and mud slinging that Mr. Gonzalez is accusing his boss and peers of?
Where is the proof first that ID is not science and second, why being a proponent of ID should be the sole factor of whether a man gets tenure?
Further, should any non-fashionable belief or theory be the sole arbitor of whether someone is ‘doing science?’ Would we throw Isaac Newton out the door since he was obsessed with Alchemy and Theology while, hey, by the way, discovering modern physics and mathematics? Admittedly a huge leap for an analogy, but I am trying to make a point.
55
SailorMon
12/04/2007
4:15 pm
I think the opposite is actually true; he doesn’t appear to generated sufficient grant revenue, it’s reported that only one grad student he was responsible for has actually graduated, and the cite numbers cited by Evolution News are highly suspect. If you peruse the NASA ADS database, you’ll quickly see that many of the papers they credit him for while at ISU actually list his affiliation with the University of Washington.
Regardless of our sympathy for his current fate, it does appear that ISU has every reason to deny him tenure. We should be very careful in blindly supporting his case and the references to his normalized cite count should reflect his work at ISU. ISU expected the same (better, really) level of work from him that he exhibited at his previous positions and it’s clear that this was not the case.
56
getawitness
12/04/2007
4:52 pm
kairosfocus [36],
That is, bar none, the funniest thing you’ve ever written. Mountains out of molehills, anyone?
Is there anything that won’t point toward our impending doom?
Guess not.
57
SeekAndFind
12/04/2007
5:03 pm
pwieland,
Don’t get me wrong, I am just as upset as a lot of people in this thread on seeing Prof. Gonzalez treated this way.
However, I have come to the following conclusion based on the exchanges I’ve read here thus far :
1) Insofar as QUALITY OF RESEARCH is concerned, ISU does NOT have a good case against Gonzalez.
The quantity and quality of his work, plus peered reviewed citations EXCEED those of his colleagues.
Hence, if the tenure decision were based solely on this criteria, ISU’s case is weak and Gonzalez’s is strong.
Having said that, I believe this other factor comes into play :
2) ABILITY TO GENERATE RESEARCH GRANT MONEY.
Here is where Maya (assuming her facts are right ) has a point.
If the average ISU Physics faculty are able to generate $1.3 M in research grant money and Gonzalez generates what looks like less then 5% of that amount, then ISU has grounds to NOT grant him tenure if this criteria is important for tenure.
Hence the issue of ability to generate grant money is Gonzalez’s weakest point.
Had some rich patron of ID supported Gonzalez with say, a million dollars in grant, Gonzalez’s case would have been stronger. Unfortunately, such is not the case.
58
tyke
12/05/2007
1:08 am