Privileged Planet was Re: [asa] Global Warming, Ethics, and the Precautionary Principle

Let's be clear about my reasons for thinking that what happened to Gonzalez
was the intellectual equivalent of a witch hunt.

So the petition didn't address the book or professor by name--so what? Was
anyone at all in doubt about which professor and which book was being
referred to? Was anyone at all in doubt about why this took place at Iowa
State rather than (say) the U of Iowa or Grinnell College or somewhere else?
 One could read transparently between the lines.

It's outrageous, simply outrageous, for Prof Avalos -- the faculty advisor
to a campus atheist organization -- to organize a petition drive against
what *everyone knows* were Prof Gonzalez' responsibly voiced dissents from
scientific orthodoxy in his field. Simply outrageous. Let's propose the
analogous situation, Pim. Suppose that the faculty advisor to InterVarsity
Christian Fellowship at (say) Oxford organized a faculty petition, without
naming names or book titles, that publicly disowned Richard Dawkins' book(s)
-- you pick which one, it doesn't matter. Wouldn't nearly everyone on
pandasthumb raise a hue and cry about the religious motivation of such an
attack on Dawkins' academic freedom? Wouldn't they say that people were
creating a hostile work environment for Dawkins? Would this not be esp
true, if he were a recently hired professor without tenure? What do you say
to this, Pim? I would like to hear your view.

Pim writes:
<The problem is that ID proponents argue that ID is a scientific theory
or at least have scientific relevance.>

We partly agree, Pim, we partly agree. My own view is that design
inferences go outside of science itself, into philosophy and theology; most
IDs I know reject my view. However, the demarcation here culturally is
unclear in both directions. In recent years, e.g., Scientific American has
pretty much become an anti-religious screed in the name of "science," at
least IMO. How many readers (including many scientists) have the
philosophical sophistication to see that? Michael Shermer's addition to the
editorial staff has undoubtely contributed to this, and he entirely lacks
objectivity on issues of this sort, IMO. I suspect, Pim, that many readers
(these days) of Scientific American, and many who post on pandasthumb,
believe that *absence of design* is either a scientific theory or, more
importantly has profound relevance to science. Would you agree with this
view? I obviously do, and I think that for Gonzalez to do his design thing
while Dawkins, Pinker, and others do their atheism thing is just fair play
and intellectual freedom.

As for Prof Avalos, if he ever wants to debate the proposition,
"Christianity has Done more than Atheism to Advance the Progress of
Science," he knows where he can find a willing opponent. But I won't start
a petition aimed at not-so-subtle intimidation of his academic freedom.

And that is all I have to say about this.

Ted

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jan 26 11:45:16 2007