Date: Thu Dec 06 2007 - 20:50:13 EST
I don't think GG is against the Big Bang. Therein lies the problem.
He accepts that same science on cosmological ID as mainstream science and
infers evidence of a Designer but Dawkins infers only an impression of a
Designer. One is legal thought and the other is not.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 7:11 PM
Cc: _American Sci Affil
Subject: RE: [asa] Secret Emails Reveal How ISU Faculty Plotted to Deny
Distinguished Astronomer Tenure
"The flagellum and mouse trap have nothing specifically to do with Gonzalez.
"
The flagellum motor is a major case for ID. Gonzalez is in the ID camp.
Therefore, he agrees with the flagellum argument, which is against evolution
(mainstream science).
As for "cosmological ID," I assume that means that he thinks God created the
cosmos without evolution without a big-bang. Poof- there it is. That is
against mainstream science also.
The most dishonest thing about ID is they really mean God (the intelligent
designer), but they will never say it (publicly or in court). I HATE it
when people aren't clear and blunt with their true stands. That said, I do
have some sympathies with ID arguments.
_____
From: David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 12:06 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: _American Sci Affil
Subject: Re: [asa] Secret Emails Reveal How ISU Faculty Plotted to Deny
Distinguished Astronomer Tenure
The flagellum and mouse trap have nothing specifically to do with Gonzalez.
Gonzalez's book was about cosmological ID. Behe could be wrong, but that
would say nothing about whether Gonzalez is or isn't right.
On Dec 6, 2007 2:51 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
Well, more specifically, Behe says that the flagellum motor is like a
mousetrap-takes 5 parts and has to be built all at once. Evolutionists says
this is not so, it can evolve. Either ID is right or wrong on that point. I
don't see a middle ground, do you? Either it can get there by evolution
(God-guided or not) or it can't.
_____
From: David Opderbeck [mailto: dopderbeck@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 9:10 AM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: _American Sci Affil
Subject: Re: [asa] Secret Emails Reveal How ISU Faculty Plotted to Deny
Distinguished Astronomer Tenure
Bernie said: It is either true or false regardless of the scandal.
Or, there might be an excluded middle here. Most of the "id" promoted by
Gonzalez, for example, is the sort of "cosmological id" that many TE's --
including Francis Collins in his book -- would accept. Is it really so
black-and-white?
On Dec 6, 2007 11:22 AM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
It is interesting news, but just remember the scandal has no bearing
what-so-ever on whether ID is true or not. It is either true or false
regardless of the scandal. I think the Discover Institute may try to assume
that the scandal someone implies that they are on to something truthful and
are being unfairly suppressed by the establishment. So even if the scandal
is true, ID may or may not. (Why is ID backed by DI. what's with the
initials I and D ???)
_____
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of John Walley
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 7:50 PM
To: '_American Sci Affil'
Subject: [asa] Secret Emails Reveal How ISU Faculty Plotted to Deny
Distinguished Astronomer Tenure
Evolution News & Views
News Analysis of Media Coverage of the Debate Over Evolution
<http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/12/intelligent_design_was_the_iss.html>
< Design Was the Issue After All: ISU's official explanation in Gonzalez
case exposed as a sham | Main <http://www.evolutionnews.org/> | Secret ISU
Faculty E-mails Express Vitriol Towards Intelligent
<http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/12/secret_isu_faculty_emails_expr.html>
Design, Disregard for Academic Freedom, and attempts to Hide a Plot to Oust
an Outstanding Scientist >
Secret Emails Reveal How ISU Faculty Plotted to Deny Distinguished
Astronomer Tenure
ISU's tenure process and official explanation in the Gonzalez case exposed
as a sham.
Des Moines , IA -- Iowa State University faculty plotted to deny tenure to a
distinguished astronomer, as revealed in private emails written by faculty
and administrators at ISU.
Discovery Institute is making public a record of secret emails exchanged
among faculty at Iowa State University about noted ISU astronomer Dr.
Guillermo Gonzalez
<http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/biosketch_of_dr_guillermo_gonz.html> .
The emails demonstrate that a campaign was organized and conducted against
Gonzalez by his colleagues, with the intent to deny him tenure because of
views he holds on the intelligent design (ID) of the universe, expressed in
his 2004 book <http://www.privilegedplanet.com/> The Privileged Planet . In
spite of his distinguished publishing career, Gonzalez was denied tenure by
ISU in the spring of 2007.
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."
_____
Click to download
<http://www.evolutionnews.org/ID_was_the_Issue_Gonzalez_Tenure.pdf> ID Was
the Issue After All (including e-mail quotes)
Click <http://www.evolutionnews.org/gg-bckgrndr.final.pdf> to download
Backgrounder on Guillermo Gonzalez Story
Click <http://www.evolutionnews.org/GG-QA%20final.pdf> to download Q&A on
Guillermo Gonzalez Story
_____
"Dr. Rosenberg misled Dr. Gonzalez, the public, and the media when he said
that ID barely played a role in the decision," said Casey Luskin, Discovery
Institute's attorney for public policy and legal affairs. "In fact, a third
of his own statement in the tenure dossier focused on Gonzalez's views on
intelligent design, where he instructed faculty that support for ID as
science should be a litmus test for denying tenure to Dr. Gonzalez."
ISU faculty have claimed that ID was not discussed as often as other
subjects during the tenure deliberations, but that "is only because at
secret and inappropriate tenure deliberations held via e-mail a year before
the official process started, they decided that they wanted Gonzalez out of
ISU because he supported intelligent design," said Luskin.
Gonzalez's colleagues privately deliberated via e-mails about his tenure and
collaborated to express their intolerance toward him by asserting that ID is
"intellectually vacuous," and "more than just vacuous," and that "embalming
is more of a science" than ID.
They also wrote that Gonzalez should be lumped with "idiots" and "religious
nutcases." They mocked Gonzalez's ID work, saying they would study it
"[u]nder medication."
His own department members drafted-and nearly released-a petition against ID
with the avowed purpose "to discredit" Gonzalez and "give Gonzalez a clear
sign that his ID efforts will not be considered as science by the faculty."
Members of ISU's department of Physics and Astronomy wanted Gonzalez to know
"that this is not a friendly place for him to develop further his IDeas" and
thus hoped "he may look for a better place as a result."
"Faculty in the department knew they were treading on dangerous ground,"
explained Luskin. "They repeatedly expressed their fear that their e-mails
were, in effect, 'secret meetings' on Dr. Gonzalez's tenure."
One faculty member wrote in e-mails that "[i]n view of an upcoming tenure
decision, secrecy in the department may equally be interpreted as prejudging
the case as making a statement" because "[i]f it becomes clear that there
were efforts to write such a statement and that the statement was not made
only to avoid the impression of a hostile environment, isn't this strong
evidence for secrecy in the department[?]." Another stated, "I don't think
talking behind Guillermo's back is quite ethical."
"Their concerns ultimately centered around outward appearances of fairness
for legal purposes, not true protection of academic freedom," added Luskin.
"The emails prove that Dr. Gonzalez lost his job because of views on ID, not
because of his job performance," said Luskin, adding that this "is a clear
First Amendment case."
On December 4, the Iowa State Board of Regents has its next scheduled
meeting.
"Like the ISU administration, the Board has ignored the significance of such
a gross breach of academic freedom and professional misconduct by some
faculty," said Luskin.
"By denying requests to include these e-mails from the record in Gonzalez's
case, the Board has refused to acknowledge most of the evidence uncovered in
the open records request in an apparent attempt to keep it from the public,"
said Luskin. "It is extremely disconcerting that they are closing their eyes
to the fact that Gonzalez was a victim of academic persecution, since they
will ultimately issue a final administrative ruling on this case."
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
