Re: [asa] Discovery Institute against harmonizing?

On Pandasthumb Wesley Elsberry explores in some more depth a recent
press release by the Ohio Citizens for science about the Gonzalez
tenure decision and comments

<quote?It isn't just that the DI wants IDC to be both science and
religion; they want to pick and choose which view is legitimate in
every available context. In the "Expelled" roadshow, the tour
presenters want everybody to know that IDC is religion. Anyplace that
they think may include skeptics, they want to claim IDC is all science
and has nothing to do with religion. In the Gonzalez case, they can't
seem to figure out exactly which thing to call it. If it is
"religion", then they can play the "religious discrimination!" and
"persecution!" cards (as Gonzalez is featured in the "Expelled"
roadshow). If it is "science", they can play the "Darwinists don't get
our paradigm shift" card. But each of those comes at a cost, and the
DI wants to welch on that. If they go the religion route, they can't
legitimately push for governmental imprimatur or special treatment. If
they go the science route, they can't legitimately claim that
criticism is out of bounds. The DI simply wants it all to go their
way, without any ill consequences. They want the deference that we in
the USA are used to giving a divergent and narrow religious view,
meaning no criticism involving the merit of the view, and the respect
that is due to a successful scientific research program. People need
to wake up to the fact that the DI should have no expectation that
others will allow them to play "privileged politics"; nor can they
expect that non-science will not be recognized as non-science and
given the level of respect due a sham aimed at evading the
constitution.</quote>

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/12/iowa-citizens-f-1.html

The press release itself raises an interesting point

<quote>The claim that his rights were violated seems odd to many
observers. "How can Gonzalez complain if his work on ID was
considered?" wonders Dr. Tara Smith, president of Iowa Citizens for
Science and assistant professor of epidemiology at the University of
Iowa. "If intelligent design is scientific, his department is entitled
judge his work in that field. If ID is not science, it's fair to
question why their faculty member is spending so much of his time and
resources on it. The claims of persecution issuing from the Discovery
Institute and Dr. Gonzalez require that intelligent design be both
science and religion. This isn't about science, it's about
politics."</quote>

It also seems that contrary to the DI's assertions that Gonzalez did
not want his viewpoints on ID to be part of the tenure decision, he
did enter his book for consideration.

<quote>
That's an important point. Gonzalez had control of what he would or
would not put on the table for evaluation in the tenure deliberations.
Gonzalez chose to put his IDC book, "Privileged Planet", in his tenure
dossier. The DI is trying to obscure this point or deny it outright,
as one finds in their press package:

    Yet Dr. Hira wrote that "[i]t is undeniable that his work in ID
was considered during the tenure review," intimating that Dr. Gonzalez
opposed having his ID work considered by his tenure evaluators.
</quote>

In this context the DI also seems to be confused about the statements
by some on the faculty for instance Casey Luskin "Cataloguing
Darwinist Denials and Flip-Flopping over the Role of Intelligent
Design in ISU's Tenuregate"

<quote>
John Hauptman, ISU Physicist:

Now: The ISU Daily reports, "Hauptman said his tenure decision was
'absolutely not' based on Gonzalez's research into intelligent
design."
Then: Last June, Hauptman explicitly admitted that he voted against
Gonzalez's tenure because of intelligent design (ID): "I participated
in the initial vote and voted no, based on this fundamental question:
What is science? … It is purely a question of what is science and what
is not, and a physics department is not obligated to support notions
that do not even begin to meet scientific standards."
</quote>

These two statements are not contradictory. In fact Hauptman
explicitly stated that the fundamental issue was what is science and
what is not and that it was not Gonzalez belief in ID but the fact
that he was spending signficant time and effort pursuing a concept
that is not scientifically fertile.

And the spin continues, what else can the DI do? And yet, the spin
seems to have become too much for much of the mainstream media as they
seem to have mostly ignored the press releases by the DI. In fact,
some of the outlets that did respond, clearly showed some annoyance
with the DI's spin.

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/astronomers-ten.html

<quote>As I learn more about the case, I'm inclined to believe the
University's side. Gonzalez's grant record was absolutely awful; the
Mid-Iowa News reported that over six years, he secured just $22,661 in
external research grants. His colleagues averaged $1.3 million over
the same time. The Discovery Institute says Gonzalez was persecuted,
but it seems they're just using his case to push intelligent design --
legally designated as religion -- as science.</quote>

And finally from one of Gonzalez's colleagues

<quote>
Today, the Iowa State Daily published a letter to the editor from
another of Gonzalez's colleagues, astronomy professor Joerg
Schmailian. He wrote,

    To deny tenure to a colleague is a very painful experience. It
literally causes sleepless nights to those who are forced to make a
responsible decision. Faculty candidates who are being hired in our
department always come with promising backgrounds and terrific
accomplishments. The decision to recommend or deny tenure is then
predominantly based on research performance while at Iowa State.

    As far as I can judge, this was no different in Gonzalez's case.
What I know with certainty is that Gonzalez's views on intelligent
design, with which I utterly disagree, had no bearing whatsoever on my
vote on his tenure case.</quote>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Dec 12 12:03:23 2007